20181446 Ver 1_Archaeology Report_10/25/2018 3:50 PM

Archaeological Survey of the
Proposed North Fork Water Line Corridor
Buncombe County, North Carolina
(ER17-2476)
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
2018
Archaeological Survey of the
Proposed North Fork Water Line Corridor
Buncombe County, North Carolina
(ER17-2476)
Prepared for
McGill Associates
Boone, North Carolina
Prepared by
Dawn Reid
Senior Archaeologist
and
________________________________
Bobby Southerlin
Principal Investigator
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
2018
Management Summary
In August 2018, McGill Associates contracted Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
(ACC) to conduct an archaeological survey of the proposed North Fork Water Line in Buncombe County,
North Carolina. Due to the proximity of the project corridor to the North Fork Swannanoa River, the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended an archaeological survey of the water line corridor. The
project area is south of the North Fork Reservoir on the east side of North Fork Left Fork Road near the
community of Walkertown. The corridor is approximately 30 meters (98 feet) wide and 487 meters (1,600
feet) long.
Background research did not identify any archaeological resources in the immediate vicinity of the
project corridor. The nearest documented cultural resource is archaeological site 31BN34, located about 1.0
km (0.6 mile) east of the project area. Pedestrian survey along the entire length of the corridor using surface
observations and subsurface testing failed to identify any archaeological resources. A stone and concrete
structure was identified within the corridor. This is an abandoned gaging station, used to monitor details
about the water flow at this location. It was not documented as a cultural resource based on discussions held
with Ms. Linda Hall, SHPO Archaeologist. Based on the results of this investigation, no significant (or
otherwise) archaeological resources will be affected by the proposed construction of the water line corridor.
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
ii
Table of Contents
Page
Management Summary.................................................................ii
List of Figures........................................................................iv
List of Tables........................................................................iv
Chapter 1. Introduction................................................................1
The Project Area........................................................1
Investigation Methods....................................................2
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview...........................................6
Environmental Overview..................................................6
Cultural Overview.......................................................9
Chapter 4. Investigation Results........................................................17
Archival Research......................................................17
Archaeological Survey...................................................17
Conclusion............................................................20
References Cited....................................................................21
Appendix A.Documentation of USGS Gauging Station
Appendix B.Resume of Principal Investigator
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
iii
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1.1.Map showing the location of the project area in Buncombe County.................1
Figure 1.2.Map showing the project corridor...........................................2
Figure 1.3.View of the slope vegetation along corridor....................................3
Figure 1.4.Boulders along corridor route...............................................3
Figure 1.5.Vegetation in bottomland setting along the corridor.............................4
Figure 1.6.Cobble strewn channel crossing.............................................4
Figure 2.1.Physiographic map showing the project location................................6
Figure 2.2.Map of the French Broad River Basin showing the project location.................7
Figure 2.3.LiDAR map of the project area.............................................8
Figure 3.1.Map showing locations of recorded cultural resources within 0.6 kilometers (1.0 mile)
of the project area.......................................................17
Figure 3.2.Shovel Test 6 soil profile.................................................19
Figure 3.3.Gaging station, looking east...............................................19
Figure 3.4.Shovel Test 11 soil profile................................................20
List of Tables
Page
Table 2.1.Native American cultural sequence for the project vicinity.......................10
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
iv
Figure 1.1.Map showing the location of the project area in Buncombe County.
Chapter 1. Introduction
On 13 August 2018, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC), conducted an
archaeological survey of the proposed North Fork Water Line corridor in Buncombe County, North Carolina.
This investigation was undertaken on behalf of McGill Associates, at the request of the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The SHPO noted the proximity of the project area to the Swannanoa
River and the number of archaeological and cultural resources known in the general vicinity as an indicator
of the potential sensitivity of the project area (SHPO correspondence dated November 9, 2017). The goals
of this investigation were to identify all archaeological resources located along the project corridor, assess
those resources for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and advance management
recommendations, as appropriate.
The Project Area
The project area is located in the eastern portion of Buncombe County, North Carolina near the
community of Walkertown (Figure 1.1), immediately south of the Burnett Reservoir. The project corridor
begins at North Fork Left Fork Road and the entrance to the Community of the Cross church retreat owned
by the Presbyterian Reformed Ministries International. It continues east for approximately 250 meter (820
ft) then proceeds northeast for approximately 100 meters (328.1 ft). It then makes a sharp turn to the
northwest and continues for another 125 meters (410 ft), ending back at North Fork Left Fork Road. Its total
length is approximately 488 meters (1,600 ft). It is 30 meters (98 ft) wide.
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
1
Figure 1.2.Map showing the project corridor (1942 Montreat, NC USGS 7.5 minute topographic
quadrangle [photorevised 1969]).
The corridor itself is moderately densely vegetated with mountain laurel and mixed pines and
hardwoods on the side slopes (Figure 1.3). Large boulders are present (Figure 1.4). Along the channel
crossings, the corridor contains relatively dense scrub (Figure 1.5). The banks of waterways are covered by
large cobbles (Figure 1.6).
Investigation Methods
This investigation was comprised of four separate tasks: Archival Research, Field Investigation, and
Report Production. Each of these tasks is described below.
Archival Research began with a review of archaeological site forms, maps, and reports on file at the
North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh, as well as the Office of Survey and Planning’s
website (HPOWEB). This review served to identify previously recorded resources in the project vicinity and
provided data on the prehistoric and historic context of the project tract. The Buncombe County soil survey
(on-line version) was consulted to determine soil types and general environmental information of the project
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
2
Figure 1.3.View of slope vegetation along corridor.
Figure 1.4.Boulders along corridor route.
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
3
Figure 1.6.Cobble strewn channel crossing.
Figure 1.5.Vegetation in bottomland setting along corridor.
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
4
area. Historic maps of the county were examined to determine historic land use in the project vicinity,
including the 1938 highway map, the 1920 county soil map, and topographic maps dating back to 1935.
Finally, aerial images dating back to 1994 were reviewed to examine land use change over time.
Field Survey. A single transect was conducted along the centerline of the project corridor. Shovel
test locations were examined at 30-meter intervals along the entire project corridor. However, due to the
presence of standing water bordering the waterway crossings, the degree of slope, and the overall rocky
nature of the corridor, only a few of the tests were excavated. These shovel tests measured approximately
30 centimeters (12 in) in diameter, and were excavated into sterile subsoil. All soil fill was screened through
¼ inch hardware cloth. Shovel tests were backfilled upon completion. Records of each shovel test location
were kept in field notebooks, including information on content (e.g., presence or absence of artifacts, artifact
descriptions) and context (i.e., soil color and texture descriptions, depth of definable levels, observed
features).
Report Production. Report production involved the compilation of all data gathered during the
previous tasks. This document presents the results of the archival research and the field investigation. The
following chapters provide environmental and cultural overviews for the project area. A discussion of field
investigation results follows. Finally, a project summary is presented with management recommendations,
as appropriate.
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
5
Figure 2.1.Physiographic map showing the project location.
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview
Environmental Overview
The project area lies within the Blue Ridge Province of the Appalachian Mountains (Figure 2.1). The
Blue Ridge is approximately 885 km (550 miles) long, extending from south-central Pennsylvania to
northeastern Georgia, and contains the highest peaks in the Appalachian system. The Piedmont province
forms its eastern boundary, while the Ridge and Valley province of Tennessee forms the western boundary.
Mt. Mitchell, located in Buncombe County, North Carolina is the highest point in the Blue Ridge, with its
peak rising over 2,000 meters (6,562 ft) in elevation (Powell 1989).
The Blue Ridge is primarily underlain by metamorphic and intrusive igneous (plutonic) rocks.
Metamorphic crystalline schists and gneisses are dominant in the region. Mineral resources include small
scattered deposits of gold, silver, lead, mica, feldspar, asbestos, marble, and clay (Barry 1980). Also,
outcrops of quartz and quartzite occur in the region, both of which were utilized extensively as raw materials
for Native American tools. Other materials found on prehistoric archaeological sites, especially chert, are
not found in the region. The nearest sources of these materials are the Ridge and Valley region of eastern
Tennessee and perhaps the coastal plain of South Carolina.
The project area is located within the French Broad River basin (Figure 2.2). The Swannanoa River
rises in Black Mountain flows into the French Broad River in Asheville. There are a number of tributaries
of the Swannanoa in the vicinity of the project area, including Laurel Branch and Fall Branch. Burnett
Reservoir (also called the North Fork Reservoir) was formed from the damming of the Swannanoa River in
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
6
Figure 2.2.Map of the French Broad River basin showing the project location.
the 1950s. The area through which the project corridor traverses is classified as being in a FEMA AE zone,
an area at very high risk of flooding.
LiDAR imagery indicates that the project corridor traverses low-lying floodplain at its northern end
(Figure 2.3). The remainder of the corridor runs along steep side slope associated with Wallace Mountain.
The soil types present along North Fork Left Fork Road are all Udorthents-Urban land complex. These are
soils that have been affected by topographic modification and filling. These soils were likely modified during
the construction of the Burnett Reservoir dam. Along the base of the ridge, the soil is classified as Tatum-
Urdan land complex with a slope range of 15 to 30 percent (USDA 2018).
Paleoenvironment
Although general trends in Southeastern paleoclimatic change have been offered by several
researchers (Delcourt and Delcourt 1979; Watts 1971; Whitehead 1965, 1973; Wright 1971), the natures of
such changes in the project region are not well delineated. Reconstructions of the climates and environments
of the Appalachian Summit suggest that the region was quite cold during the late Pleistocene with periglacial
geomorphic processes occurring at higher elevations, and widespread boreal-like forests and possibly
extensions of tundra and park-tundra at higher elevations during the full glacial period. Between 15,000 and
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
7
Figure 2.3.LiDAR map of the project corridor.
14500 BC, spruce, pine, and fir forests declined in importance in the mid-latitudes of the Southeast, and
deciduous species began to migrate northward and into higher elevations such as the Appalachian Summit
(Purrington 1983:92). Given the topographic and altitudinal diversity of the region, it is likely that it was
characterized by a mosaic of plant communities, even during full glacial times. By the time of the earliest
known intrusions of man into the region, about 10,000-9,000 BC, the climates and biotic communities may
have been only slightly to moderately more northern than today (Purrington 1983:92). The record of
climatic-environmental stability and change in the region over the past 12,000 years is of major interest to
archaeologists but, unfortunately, it is not yet well understood.
Plant and Animal Wildlife
Plant communities in the Blue Ridge region are highly diverse in their species composition,
productivity, and availability as resources for human use. Significant variability in topography, elevation,
microclimates, soils, and lithology is responsible for this diversity (Purrington 1983).
Within historic times, the vegetation of the Blue Ridge was originally classified as an oak-chestnut
forest, and trees of these species dominated the native stands. During the first decade of the twentieth
century, a fungus called the Oriental Chestnut Blight reached the United States and ravaged the chestnut trees
in the eastern part of the country. As the chestnut disappeared, oaks (especially the chestnut oak) and the tulip
poplar competed to replace it as the dominant canopy species (Kovacik and Winberry 1987).
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
8
Various species of oak and pine tend to dominate ridge tops and uplands (Barry 1980). Most ridge
tops are dominated by scarlet oak, white oak, and hickory, although beech, hemlock, and tulip poplar may
be present. Understory species include dogwood, sourwood, persimmon, and serviceberry. Ground cover
shrubs are not dense, but blueberry, mountain laurel, and fringetree are common. The canopy is relatively
open. When combined with the moderate shrub layer, this provides opportunity for an abundance of
herbaceous plants. Ferns may be present, but they are not abundant. The pine/oak/hickory ridge tops would
have provided numerous types of nuts, berries, and wild fruits commonly utilized by the Cherokees (Simpkins
1986).
Some ridge tops and uplands are dominated by pines (Barry 1980). They are most often found on
the crest of knobs, the slope leading between two adjacent coves, and the main ridge separating two parallel
gorges. Pine stands commonly consist of pitch pine, although scarlet oak may also be present. A southern
exposure is preferred in regard to pine-dominated ridge tops and uplands. Understory species and shrubs
include sassafras, horse-sugar, and sparkleberry. Ground cover includes deerberry, huckleberry, spotted
wintergreen, and greenbrier. Although the pine ridges do not produce as much mast or fruit as ridges with
hardwoods, the pine ridges support economic items such as berries and greenbrier.
Prior to European settlement, the project area would have had faunal resources from both deep forest
and river and creek flood plains to rely upon. These animal resources would have included both large and
small mammals, a variety of birds, and various freshwater fish species. Many of these animals are still active
in the project vicinity, although the degree of development has limited their respective ranges.
Cultural Overview
The cultural history of North America can be divided into three general eras: Pre-Contact, Contact,
and Post-Contact. The Pre-Contact era includes primarily the Native American groups and cultures that were
present for at least 12,000 years prior to the arrival of Europeans. The Contact era is the time of exploration
and initial European settlement on the continent. The Post-Contact era is the time after the establishment of
European settlements, when Native American populations usually were in rapid decline. Within these eras,
finer temporal and cultural subdivisions have been defined to permit discussions of particular events and the
lifeways of the peoples who inhabited North America at that time. The following discussion first summarizes
the various periods of Native American occupation in the western half of North Carolina, emphasizing
cultural change, settlement, and site function throughout prehistory. Table 2.1 provides a summary of the
chronological sequence of Native American occupation of the region.
Pre-Contact Era
Paleoindian Period (12,000 - 8,000 BC). The actual dates applied to the Paleoindian period are
currently being debated. The accepted theory about the peopling of North America dates the influx of
migrant bands of hunter-gatherers to approximately 12,000 years ago. This date corresponds with the
exposure of a land bridge linking Siberia to the North American continent (Driver 1998; Jackson et al. 1997).
Recently, however, researchers have suggested that this migration occurred as much as 15,000 to 20,000 years
ago and was led by seagoing travelers (see Greene et al. 1998; Steele and Powell 1993, 1994). These recent
theories are supported by such discoveries as Kennewick Man, a skeleton recovered in Washington, and the
Gordon Creek Woman, who was recovered from a site in northern Colorado. The Kennewick Man skeleton
has been determined to be over 11,000 years old (Morell 1998; Preston 1997; and Slayman 1997). The
Gordon Creek Woman has been dated to 9700 BC or nearly 11,700 years old (Swedlund and Anderson 1999).
Other discoveries, such as the Monte Verde site in South America that has been dated to 12,500 years before
present (BP) (Dillehay 1997; Meltzer et al. 1997), continue to fuel this controversy.
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
9
Table 2.1.Native American Cultural Sequence for the Project Vicinity.
Period Characteristics
Paleoindian (12000 - 8000 BC)-Hunter-gatherers
-Flute projectile points: Clovis, Dalton, Hardaway
Early Archaic (8000-6000 BC)
Palmer Phase (8000-7000 BC)
Kirk Phase ( 7000-6000 BC)
-Hunter-gatherers, seasonal rounds
-Notched points: Palmer, Kirk
-Production of textiles
Middle Archaic (6000-3000 BC)
Stanly Phase (6000-5000 BC)
Morrow Mountain Phase (5000-4500 BC)
Guilford Phase (4500-4000 BC)
Halifax Phase (4000-3000 BC)
-Hunter-gatherers, seasonal rounds
-Temporary camps, no substantial dwellings
-Stemmed points: Stanly, Morrow Mountain, Guilford,
Halifax
Late Archaic (3000-1000 BC)-Increased site size, more permanence as evidenced by
burials, hearths, and other cultural features
-Stemmed projectile points: Otarre Stemmed, Savannah
River
-First incidence of ceramic production 2000 BC:
Stallings Island Fiber Tempered (in coastal areas)
Early Woodland (1000-300 BC)
Swannanoa Phase
-Regional differences more pronounced
-Swannanoa ceramics, Fabric Impressed or Cord Marked
-Large triangular projectile points
-Introduction of bow and arrow
Middle/Late Woodland (300 BC-1100 AD)
Pigeon Phase
Connestee Phase
-Yadkin Triangular projectile points
-Changes in ceramic temper from sand to crushed quartz
-Check Stamped pottery
-Hopewellian influence
-Swift Creek Complicated Stamp ceramics
Mississippian (1100-1600 AD)
McDowell Phase
Burke Phase
-Palisaded villages and ceremonial centers
-Mound construction
-Complicated stamped ceramics
-Small triangular projectile points
-Reliance on farming
The major artifact marker for this period is the Clovis lanceolate fluted spear point (Gardner 1974,
1989; Griffin 1967). Smaller fluted and nonfluted lanceolate spear points, such as Dalton and Hardaway
point types, are characteristic of the later portion of the period (Goodyear 1982). The Hardaway point, first
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
10
described by Coe (1964), is seen as a regional variant of Dalton (Oliver 1985; Ward 1983). Perkinson (1971
1973) recorded Paleoindian fluted points in North Carolina. Fluted Clovis points have been recovered from
surface contexts, but no intact Clovis sites have been reported in the Piedmont region of North Carolina
(Hargrove 1998). Intact Paleoindain deposits have not been encountered in the Blue Ridge Province of North
Carolina. However, diagnostic projectile points have been recovered from several locations, including Clovis
and Dalton-Hardwaway types. Clovis points are generally found as isolated finds (Perkinson 1971, 1973),
while the Dalton-Hardaway points are more common in the mountains (Purrington 1983:110). This indicates
to many scholars that population density was extremely low during this period, and that groups were small
and highly mobile (Meltzer 1988). It has been noted that group movements were probably well scheduled
and that some semblance of territories was maintained to ensure adequate arrangements for procuring mates
and maintaining population levels (Anderson and Hanson 1988).
O’Steen et al. (1986) analyzed Paleoindian settlement patterns in the Oconee River valley in
northeastern Georgia. O’Steen et al. (1986) noted a pattern of decreasing mobility throughout the Paleoindian
period. Sites of the earliest portion of the period seem to be restricted to the flood plains, while later sites were
distributed widely in the uplands, showing what O’Steen et al. (1986) interpreted as “settling in” and
exploitation of a wider range of environmental subsistence resources. If this pattern holds true for the
Southeast in general, it may be a result of changing environments trending toward increased deciduous forest
and small mammal resources, and decreasing availability of Pleistocene megafauna; population growth could
be another factor.
Archaic Period (8,000 - 1,000 BC). The Archaic period has been the focus of considerable research
in the Southeast. Two major areas of research have dominated: (1) the development of chronological
subdivisions for the period based on diagnostic artifacts, and (2) the understanding of settlement/subsistence
trends for successive cultures. Coe’s (1964) excavations at several sites in the North Carolina Piedmont
provided a chronological sequence for the period based on diagnostic projectile points. Coe’s (1964) sequence
for the Archaic period has been divided into three subperiods: Early (8,000-6,000 BC), Middle (6,000-3,500
BC), and Late (3,500-1,000 BC). Coe defined the Early Archaic subperiod based on the presence in site
assemblages of Palmer and Kirk Corner Notched projectile points. More recent studies have defined other
Early Archaic corner notched points, such as Taylor, Big Sandy, and Bolen types. Generally similar projectile
points (e.g., LeCroy points), but with commonly serrated edges and characteristic bifurcated bases, have also
been identified as being representative of the Early Archaic subperiod (Broyles 1981; Chapman 1985). The
Early Archaic points of the North Carolina Piedmont are typically produced with metavolcanic material,
although occasional chert, quartz, or quartzite examples have been recovered.
Claggett and Cable (1982), using a settlement/subsistence typology developed by Binford (1980),
described late Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations as “logistical.” Task groups were sent out to collect
and bring back resources to the residential base camp. Logistical task groups, in this definition, are seen as
specialized and focused on a particular resource or set of resources. Claggett and Cable (1982) have
presented a model that describes an increase in residential mobility beginning in the Early Archaic and
extending into the Middle Archaic. According to this model, the Early Archaic, and probably extending into
the Middle Archaic, human groups moved away from a logistical organization toward a “foraging”
organization. Foraging involved more generalized procurement of resources (e.g., animal and plant foods,
lithic resources) in closer proximity to a base camp. Sassaman (1983) hypothesizes that actual group
residential mobility increased during the Middle Archaic although it occurred within a more restricted range.
Range restriction is generally a result of increased population in the Southeast and crowding within group
territories (Sassaman 1983). This increase in population led to increased social fluidity during the Middle
Archaic and a lower need for scheduled aggregation for mate exchange. In Sassaman’s view, technology
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
11
during the Middle Archaic is highly expedient as reflected in their almost exclusive use of local resources
(especially lithic material).
The transition to the Middle Archaic subperiod is defined by the appearance/introduction of Stanly
points, a broad-bladed stemmed form. These were followed by Morrow Mountain points, which are
characteristically manufactured from quartz, and have been recovered from numerous small sites throughout
Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Guilford points, also often made of quartz, follow Morrow Mountain
in the Middle Archaic sequence. Coe dates Halifax Side Notched points to between 4,000 and 3,000 B.C.
In 1964, Coe saw Halifax points as occurring only in the northern North Carolina Piedmont and indicating
relationships of this area to the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. Halifax points are now seen to have a wider
distribution in the Southeast, and are thought to mark the transition between the Middle and Late Archaic
subperiods.
The Late Archaic subperiod can be divided into two phases (Savannah River and Terminal Archaic
[Otarre phase]) and are represented by a gradual change in diagnostic projectile points and a slight shift in
settlement focus. The Savannah River phase (3,000 to 1,000 BC) is recognized by large, broad-bladed,
straight-stemmed points made of quartzite commonly known as the Savannah River or Appalachian Stemmed
points (Coe 1964; Purrington 1983). Steatite bowls, groundstone axes and gorgets, and other flaked stone
tools can also be attributed to this phase. Purrington (1983:125) states that “the remains of this phase are
among the most abundant in the Appalachian Summit which may suggest increased population density as well
as increased visibility of archaeological remains.” In the Great Smoky Mountains, Bass (1977) found
evidence of three Savannah River site categories: base camps in the major valleys; seasonally dispersed
smaller camps
in coves and benches; and short term extractive sites on ridges and saddles, which were visited from a valley
base camp. In contrast, Purrington (1983:127-129) found that the Savannah River phase sites of the upper
Watauga Valley are less common in the flood plains than sites of the preceding phase.
The diagnostic artifact of the Otarre phase is the small to medium stemmed projectile point, the
Otarre Stemmed type. Keel (1976) identifies this type as exhibiting a wider range of variability than
Savannah River points, suggesting perhaps a greater localization of populations. The Savannah River phase
settlement and subsistence pattern continues in the Otarre phase (Purrington 1983:130-131). Evidence
suggests that the Otarre phase is a legitimate temporal division based on minor stylistic changes in projectile
points which occurred in the absence of major cultural shifts.
Woodland Period (1,000 BC – 1100 AD). The Woodland period of this area was a time of increasing
cultural diversity stimulated by ideas from outside the region (Ward and Davis 1999). The Woodland period
is characterized by the Swannanoa phase. The pottery series from this phase, as defined by Keel (1976), has
crushed quartz or coarse sand temper, and relatively thick walls. Small, stemmed projectile points called
Swannanoa Stemmed, Plott Stemmed, and Gypsy points are found in the mountains at this time. These points
are stratigraphically associated with a larger triangular point type called “Transylvania Triangular” that
appears to be in connection with the introduction of the bow and arrow during the Swannanoa phase.
Available settlement data also suggests a continuation of Archaic lifestyles (Ward and Davis 1999).
Two distinct phases of occupation are recognized for the Middle Woodland in the mountains of North
Carolina: the Pigeon phase (300 BC – 200 AD) and the Connestee phase (200 AD – 800 AD). Pigeon phase
pottery is identified by the use of fairly large amounts of crushed quartz temper, surface treatments of check
stamping (in addition to plain, simple stamped, brushed, and complicated stamped treatments), the use of
tetrapodal supports on the vessel base, and an “iridescent sheen” on the interior surface (Ward and Davis
1999). Vessel forms include simple bowls and necked jars. Small side-notched and triangular projectile
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
12
points, expanded-center bar gorgets, grooved axes, celts, flake scrapers, ceramic popes, and a variety of
hammerstones are also probably associated with the Pigeon phase (Ward and Davis 1999). There may have
been an increasing reliance on horticulture resulting in a shift toward greater use of fertile bottomlands
(Purrington 1983). Connestee series pottery consists of thin-walled vessels that are fine sand tempered with
an occasional crushed quartz fragment. Vessel forms include flat-bottomed jars that sometimes have small
tetrapodal supports, and bowls and jars without supports. The surface of these pots is usually plain, brushed
or simple stamped, but also include cordmarking, fabric marking, check stamping, and complicated stamping
(Ward and Davis 1999). Other artifacts from the Connestee phase include clay figurines, stone blades, and
copper sheets and beads.
Mississippian Period (1100 - 1600 AD). Overall, the Mississippian Period is characterized by
complicated stamped ceramics, small triangular projectile points, a reliance on farming, and elaborate
ceremonialism. Sites from this time frame include large village sites, often with at least one earthen mound,
and small, scattered farmsteads. Site locations tend to be located on flood plains and rises overlooking river
and stream valleys (Hargrove 1991; Keel 1976; May 1989; Oliver 1992; and Ward 1965).
The Pisgah phase shows all the characteristics of the South Appalachian Mississippian complex;
maize agriculture, platform mounds, earth lodges, and palisaded villages (Ferguson 1971; Moore 1986:74).
Early in the phase, settlement was apparently dispersed and minimally hierarchical. As the Pisgah phase
progressed, major ceremonial centers, large flood plain villages, and perimeter hamlets appeared in a more
hierarchical settlement system (Purrington 1983:147). The Pisgah phase in the study region is recognized
by its distinctive ceramic assemblage. Rectilinear complicated stamping dominates the grit tempered series,
and linear punctations on collared rims are additional decorative modes. Pisgah vessels commonly exhibit
lugs and loop handles, and elaborate rim treatments (i.e., collared rims with punctations, incisions, and
castellations (Dickens 1976; Ward and Davis 1999). The diagnostic projectile point of the phase is the Pisgah
triangular arrow point. A wide variety of ideo-technic items are encountered on Pisgah sites, including stone
and shell items of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (Purrington1983).
The Qualla phase encompasses the protohistoric and historic Cherokee manifestations of the Carolina
mountains. Generally, it is agreed that the Qualla phase represents a direct, in situ evolution of the preceding
Pisgah phase (Dickens 1976, 1979, 1986; Moore 1986). Aboriginal material culture of this phase includes
Madison equilateral triangular arrow points and a ceramic assemblage resembling the classic Lamar. The
Qualla ceramics are characterized by a gritty paste, and surface decorations including complicated stamping,
bold incising, check stamping, and brushing (Egloff 1967). Subsistence was dependent on corn, beans, and
squash agriculture supplemented by hunting and gathering of indigenous plants. Sites are generally clustered
in major river flood plains, with limited use of slope or ridge areas. A hierarchical settlement pattern was
apparently in place, with mound centers, major villages, and dispersed hamlets present.
Contact Era
In the decades following the expedition of Christopher Columbus, the coast and interior portions of
what would become North Carolina were explored. Much of this activity was initiated by Spain in the hope
of preserving its hegemony over North America. Hernando de Soto (1539-1543) and Juan Pardo (1566-1568)
led military expeditions into the western Piedmont and mountains of North Carolina during the mid-sixteenth
century (Hudson 1990, 1994). One interpretation of Spanish records claims soldiers visited Indian villages
near the present-day towns of Charlotte, Lincolnton, Hickory, and Maiden (Hargrove 1998). The Spanish
are also reported to have built garrisons near Marion and Salisbury (Hargrove 1998). Recent work at the
Berry site in Burke County may have identified the remains of the Spanish garrison of Xualla or Joara, visited
by de Soto in the 1540s and Juan Pardo in the 1560s (Moore 2005). Diseases introduced by these explorers
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
13
brought about dramatic changes in the population and culture of the Native Americans, causing entire villages
to disappear before 1700 (Fossett 1976).
Despite these military incursions and the establishment of minor outposts, the Spanish presence in
the Carolinas could not be sustained. Mounting pressure from hostile Native Americans and English
privateers resulted in the withdrawal of Spanish forces to St. Augustine in 1587 (South 1980). England’s
interest in the New World was heavily promoted by Walter Raleigh. A courtier in the court of Queen
Elizabeth I, Raleigh secured the financial and political support necessary to attempt the first permanent
settlement of the New World by English colonists in 1585 (Powell 1989). Although his efforts failed,
Raleigh’s single-minded ambition ultimately led to the establishment of the Jamestown colony in 1607 (Noël
Hume 1994).
The disastrous mismanagement and resulting loss of life in Virginia during the first two decades of
the colony’s existence resulted in the revocation of the Virginia Company’s charter in 1624 (Noël Hume
1994). Preoccupied with the civil war between Royalist and Parliamentarian forces in the 1640s, the
authorities in Virginia showed little interest in North Carolina until the 1650s. During this period the area
around the Albemarle Sound in northeastern North Carolina was inhabited by traders, hunters, trappers,
rogues, and tax evaders (Powell 1989). Even then, North Carolina was becoming notorious as a refuge for
the independent and self-reliant.
Post-Contact Era
The restoration of Charles II to the throne in 1660 resulted in the distribution of rewards to those who
had supported the Royalist cause during the upheaval (Powell 1989). This initiated the Proprietary colonial
period in the Carolinas, which lasted from 1663 until 1729. Years of turmoil brought about by an unstable
system of government culminated in war with the Tuscarora Indians. Severe fighting broke out in 1711,
triggered by the death of the colony’s Surveyor General (John Lawson) at the hands of the Tuscarora (Powell
1989). The war ended in 1712, leaving the Carolina colonies in dire financial straits. These conditions
persisted until the Lords Proprietors were forced to sell their holdings in the Carolinas to the Crown in 1729
(Powell 1989).
The acquisition of North Carolina by the Crown initiated a period of relatively stable government.
During this time, immigration into North Carolina was along three major routes (Powell 1989): western North
Carolina was settled by German and Scots-Irish immigrants arriving from Pennsylvania and Virginia via the
Great Wagon Road; new arrivals at the important towns of New Bern and Brunswick pushed west up the
Cape Fear and Neuse river valleys; and colonists from South Carolina advanced up the Pee Dee and Catawba
rivers in search of new land.
From the earliest contact, the Cherokee have been divided into three related subgroups: Upper (or
Overhill), Middle, and Lower Cherokee. These subgroups are often referred to as “Towns” and are
differentiated primarily by geographical areas and minor dialectal differences (Mooney 1982; Swanton 1979;
Williams 1930). Cherokee towns appeared in both dispersed and nucleated forms (Goodwin 1977).
Dispersed settlements sometimes consisted of dwellings stretched for miles along rivers and streams. These
settlements were generally attached to a “Mother” town or ceremonial center, while nucleated types were
comprised of houses and communal fields confined to a smaller area situated close to a shared public space.
The locations and spatial patterning of towns seem to have varied over time, especially during the historic
period, due to such factors as abandonment and resettlement, merging, and separation of adjoining towns
(Goodwin 1977). The project area falls within the purview of the Middle Towns but is somewhat removed
from the main settlements.
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
14
Continued and increasing contact between the Cherokee and the Europeans had varying effects on
Cherokee lifeways. Prior to contact, Cherokee settlement and economy reflected Mississippian patterns.
During the early eighteenth century, horses, cattle, and hogs were introduced to the Cherokee. By the second
decade of the eighteenth century, private British traders and companies had established themselves among
the Cherokee. The majority of these traders lived among the tribes, engineered trade agreements, interpreted
messages from both sides, and often took Cherokee wives. In 1776, English botanist William Bartram
traveled through the Southeast and visited the Cherokee Middle Towns that had been re-inhabited. James
Adair, an Irish trader, traveled through the area around the same time. Both men’s accounts emphasized the
extent of the fields and “plantations” along the river floodplains (Van Doren 1928).
Some American Revolution resources indicate that there were clashes between Loyalists and Patriots
in the Western regions (Hayes 1962) while other sources claim that the people of the Blue Ridge Mountains
were “loyal to a man” (Arthur 1914). At the outset of the Revolution, the Cherokees were allied with the
British making their towns targets for Patriot forces (Swanton 1979). When Cornwallis advanced north to
attempt to take Virginia, the men of western North Carolina and Eastern Tennessee banded together to meet
his troops and succeeded in defeating them at the pivotal Battle of Kings Mountain on October 7, 1780
(Arthur 1914). The Americans made their final triumph at the Battle of Yorktown the following year.
Buncombe County was created from portions of Burke and Rutherford counties in 1791. It was
named for Colonel Edward Buncombe, a Revolutionary War soldier (Corbitt 2000). Asheville was
incorporated as the county seat in 1797 (Powell 1989).
The Cherokee ceded lands to the United States in a treaty in 1798. This treaty called for the
surveying of the Meigs-Freeman Line which established a legal boundary between the Cherokee Nation and
the state of North Carolina. In 1819, a United States/Cherokee treaty acquired land for white settlers within
the Cherokee territory by offering individual Cherokee the opportunity to register for 640 acre reservations
within the boundary. All remaining land was transferred to the government for allotment to the constantly
arriving European settlers. Those Cherokee who did not register were forced to move. In 1835, the treaty
of New Echota was signed by a minority faction of the Cherokee. This treaty stated that, for a payment of
$15,000,000 the Cherokee would leave the Southeast and resettle in Oklahoma. Many Cherokee resisted but
in 1838 Federal troops removed the Cherokee from their homes in Alabama, North and South Carolina,
Georgia, and Tennessee to the newly formed Oklahoma Indian Territory (Finger 1984).
North Carolina separated from the Union on 20 May 1861, at approximately 5:30 in the afternoon
(Murray 1983). Minutes later, the Secession Convention ratified the provisional constitution of the
Confederate States of America. Within a few weeks, North Carolinians were arriving at regimental training
camps throughout the state (Barrett 1963). A training center and arsenal was established in Asheville and,
as Buncombe County became a concentration point for troops, fortifications were constructed (Arthur 1914;
Sondley 1922). While no major battles were fought in Buncombe County during the Civil War, there were
a variety of skirmishes. In April 1865, Union troops led by General Gillem headed for Asheville intending
to destroy the arsenal and supply center there. Confederate forces led by General Martin headed them off at
Swannanoa Gap and Gillem was forced to move further south to find a pass through the mountains. While
these maneuvers were underway, word that General Sherman had signed an armistice arrived. Generals
Martin and Gillem met and agreed that the Union forces would be allowed to go through Asheville into
Tennessee under a flag of truce. General Gillem and his troops moved through Asheville on April 25, 1865,
but several of his brigades returned to Asheville the next day, imprisoned General Martin and ransacked the
town (Barrett 1963).
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
15
Despite the fact that North Carolina was a Confederate state, loyalties in western North Carolina were
divided. Generally, farms in the area were small, and the local economy depended less on slave labor than
other areas of the South. In addition, the loss of head of household to military service placed a tremendous
strain on local farms, families, and communities. Disloyalty to the Confederacy grew in the area as the war
progressed. According to Barrett (1987:74), by 1864:
Disaffection and disloyalty in the [Western North Carolina] area had multiplied by leaps and
bounds. The mountains were so full of deserters that very little social stigma was attached
to desertion, and the warm welcome accorded many a deserter caused the area to fill up with
the disloyal from all the southern States. Formed into bands and heavily armed, these
deserters plundered, murdered, and carried out every sort of outrage.
After the Civil War, small subsistence farms dominated the landscape. Large uncultivated woodland
tracts on steep slopes and ridges provided grazing areas for livestock. Sheep were raised on rocky hillside
meadow lands, and hogs were allowed to graze in oak, chestnut, and hickory woodlands. The Southern
Appalachians became a major hog producing region (SAC 1979).
The textile industry also developed quickly after the Civil War. The industry had been established
during the war and during the 1870s, several new mills were built in the county. Textile production doubled
each decade, increasing even more substantially after 1880 (Zuber 1969).
The increases in industry were closely tied to the improvement of transportation throughout the state.
The Western North Carolina Railroad completed its rail line to Old Fort, just east of Asheville in 1869 (Zuber
1969). Financial hardships related to the complexities of crossing the mountains into Asheville forced the
company into bankruptcy in 1875. Following the bankruptcy of the Western North carolina Railroad, the
state bought out the company’s interests and, using convict labor, completed the rail line into Asheville in
1880 (Zuber 1969). The first train arrived at the Asheville station on October 3, 1880 (Bishir et al. 1999).
A great timber boom took place in the mountains from around 1890 to the 1920s during which time
large Northern lumber companies acquired large tracts of standing timber. By 1900, steam saw mills were
in operation in the Southern Highlands. The timber industry became a huge source of income for western
North Carolinans; however, the large scale logging operations resulted in severe erosion (Van Noppen and
Van Noppen 1973).
By the mid-1880s, tourism had also become a major industry in the area. Large resort hotels were
constructed in response to the influx of over 30,000 visitors annually. The town of Black Mountain was
founded in 1893. Originally known as Grey Eagle to the Cherokee and Catawba, the town became a major
stopover for westbound immigrants and trade goods. Industrial heir George Vanderbilt enjoyed the area,
Asheville in particular, so much that he decided to build a country retreat there. The Biltmore house was
constructed between 1888 and 1895 and is one of the premier tourist attractions in Asheville today (Bishir
et al. 1999). The Pisgah National Forest was established in 1916, beginning with a large purchase from
George Vanderbilt, and the Appalachian Trail runs through the northern part of the county bringing in more
visitors to Buncombe each year.
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
16
Figure 3.1.Map showing locations of recorded cultural resources within 0.6 kilometer (1.0
mile) of the project area (1942 Montreat, NC USGS 7,5 minute topographic
quadrangle [photorevised 1969]).
Chapter 3. Investigation Results
Archival Research
There are two cultural resources recorded within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the project corridor
(Figure 3.1). Archaeological site 31BN0034 is located approximately 0.55 kilometer (0.34 mile) east of the
project corridor. This site was recorded in 1940 by researchers associated with the University of North
Carolina. The site form describes the site as a ceramic and lithic artifact scatter dating to an unknown
prehistoric period. The site form noted that the site contained numerous “major” pot holes, possibly due to
looting. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of this site has never been assessed. The
second cultural resource in the vicinity of the project corridor is the Blaine Morris House (BN0552). There
is no additional information available on this house. It has Survey Only status, meaning that it was not
considered to be significant at the time of its documentation.
Archaeological Survey
Archaeological field survey, was conducted on 13 August 2018. The field survey consisted of a
pedestrian walkover of the entire length of the project corridor, with the intention of shovel testing at 20-
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
17
meter (66 ft) or 30-meter (98 ft) intervals, depending upon the setting. However, despite the corridor being
next to a significant waterway and encompassing part of a floodplain bottomland, no landforms with high
potential for the presence of archaeological sites were identified. The field survey revealed that the conditions
along the corridor consisted of either rocky steep slopes or bottomland which had been scoured by the release
of water from the Burnett Reservoir dam. Several sandy levee-like landforms along the corridor appear to
be artificially formed.
Based on changes in terrain, the corridor was divided into two segments and a total of 17 grid points
spaced 30 meters (98 ft) apart were examined. Segment 1 begins at the southern terminus of the project
corridor, at its intersection with North Fork Left Fork Road and the entrance to the Community of the Cross
church retreat owned by the Presbyterian Reformed Ministries International. This 250 meter (820 ft) segment
of the corridor traverses rocky side slope littered with boulders. Shovel test grid points 1 through 10 were
along this rocky slope.
The first two shovel test locations were within the developed area at the entrance to the church retreat
and were not excavated due to the presence of pavement or steep rocky slope. Shovel tests 3 through 5 were
on a rocky side slope. At Shovel Test 6, a narrow sand levee had formed adjacent to the river channel. No
vegetation covered the sandy land form, which was possibly created by modern flood waters and the release
of water from the North Fork Reservoir dam. This test exposed yellowish brown sand to a depth of 45
centimeters (17.7 in) overlying light yellowish brown micaceous sand to a depth of 75+ centimeters (29.5 in;
Figure 3.2). No artifacts were recovered.
A stone and concrete structure is present near the southern end of the corridor, between Shovel Tests
3 and 4. This structure is identified on the USGS topographic map as a Gaging Station, which, when in use
would monitor water flow and water quality (Figure 3.3). It has stone walls and a concrete roof. Several
metal doors are present on the northwest and southeast facades. A measuring gauge is near the base of the
structure on the northwest face (facing the river channel). Two small screened windows are on the upper part
of the structure. A number of photographs were taken of the structure and an adjacent USGS marker
embedded in a boulder. In addition, a sketch map was made of the structure plan and profile. This
documentation is presented in Appendix A. The North Fork Reservoir was constructed in 1955, and it is
likely the gaging station was built after this time. Per Ms. Linda Hall, NCSHPO Archaeologist, the
significance of this structure will be evaluated by SHPO staff.
Segment 2 of the corridor proceeds northeast for approximately 100 meters (328.1 ft) before making
a sharp turn to the northwest and continuing for another 125 meters (410 ft). Shovel test locations 11 through
17 are along this segment, which crosses an undulating rocky bottomland cut by numerous shallow erosion
gullies.
Shovel Test 11 fell in a sandy levee-like setting in this scoured bottomland. The upper soil zone was
approximately 15 centimeters (5.9 in) in depth and consisted of dark yellowish brown micaceous sand. The
second soil zone was reddish brown silt loam to a depth of 30 centimeters (11.8 in). The shovel test was
terminated at this depth due to a dense layer of cobbles that could not be penetrated. No artifacts were
recovered. The channel for the North Fork River was crossed between Shovel Tests 11 and 12. The shoreline
was covered with small boulders and large cobbles. Shovel tests 12 through 17 were all in the bottomland.
Shovel Test 13 was located within 15 meters (49 ft) of the river bank, on a sandy levee-like rise. The soil
profile exposed in this test consisted of three distinct soil zones. Dark yellowish brown silty sand extended
from the surface to 10 centimeters (3.9 in) in depth. Below this, to a depth of 35 centimeters (13.8 in) was
yellowish brown silty sand. Olive brown sandy micaceous silt was present from a depth of 35 centimeters
(13.8 in) to below 70 centimeters (27.6 in; Figure 3.3). Again, no artifacts were recovered.
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
18
Figure 3.2.Shovel Test 6 soil profile.
Figure 3.3.Gauging station, looking east.

North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
19
Figure 3.4.Shovel Test 11 soil profile.
Conclusion
This survey has resulted in the comprehensive examination of the proposed North Fork Water Line
corridor. The corridor traverses bottomland and steep side slopes. The entire corridor was examined and
shovel tests were excavated where possible. No archaeological deposits were identified. The gauging station
is not considered to be an archaeological resource and will be evaluated by SHPO personnel. Based on the
results of this investigation, no significant archaeological resources will be impacted by the proposed
construction. No further archaeological investigation in this project area is advocated.
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
20
References Cited
Anderson, David G., and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah
River Basin. American Antiquity 53(2): 262–286.
Arthur, J.P.
1914 A H i s t o r y o f W a t a u g a C o u n t y . E l e c t r o n i c d o c u m e n t ,
www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/8473/Arthur/cotents.html.
Barrett, John G.
1963 The Civil War in North Carolina. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
1987 North Carolina as a Civil War Battleground, 1861-1865. North Carolina Department of
Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological
Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1): 4–20.
Bishir, Catherine W., Michael T. Southern, and Jennifer F. Martin
1999 A Guide to the Historic Architecture of Western North Carolina. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Broyles, Bettye J
1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. West
Virginia Geological Survey, Morgantown.
Chapman, Jefferson
1985 Tellico Archaeology: 12,000 Years of Native American History. Tennessee Valley Authority
no. 41. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Claggett, Stephen R., and John S. Cable
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North
Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson, MI.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 54(5).
Corbitt, David Leroy
2000 The Formation of the North Carolina Counties, 1663-1943. North Carolina Department of
Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Dickens, Roy S. Jr.
1976 Cherokee Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region. The University
of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
21
Dillehay, T.D. (editor)
1997 Monte Verde - A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Volume 2, The Archaeological Context
and Interpretations. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Driver, J. C.
1998 Human Adaptation at the Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary in Western Canada. Quaternary
International 49:141–150.
Farlow, Betsy, Dan Lane, and Duane Oliver
1993 Haywood Homes and History. Farlow, Lane, and Oliver, Hazelwood, NC.
Ferguson, Leland G.
1971 South Appalachian Mississippian. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Finger, John R.
1984 The Eastern Band of Cherokees 1819-1900. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Fossett, Mildred B.
1976 History of McDowell County. McDowell County American Revolution Bicentennial
Commission, Marion, NC.
Gardner, William H.
1974 The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971 through 1973 Seasons.
Occasional Paper. Catholic University of America, Archaeology Laboratory.
1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (ca. 9200
to 6800 B.P.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark Wittkofski
and Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 5-52. Archaeological Society of Virginia.
Goodwin, Gary C.
1977 Cherokees in Transition: A Study of Changing Culture and Environment Prior to 1775.
University of Chicago, Department of Geography Research Paper No. 181.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American
Antiquity 42(3): 382–395.
Griffin, James B.
1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156(3772): 175–191.
Hargrove, Thomas
1991 An Archaeological Survey of Proposed Improvements on the Gastonia Sewer System, Gaston
County, North Carolina. Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc., Raleigh, NC.
1998 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Cold Water Creek and Back Creek Interceptor
Project, Concord, Cabarrus County. Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, NC.
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
22
Hudson, Charles M.
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Explorations of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-1568.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1994 The Hernando De Soto Expedition, 1539-1543. In The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and
Europeans in the American South, 1521-1704, edited by Charles M. Hudson and Carmen Chaves
Tesser, pp. 74–103. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Hudson, Mark
2009 Soil Survey of Buncombe County. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D.C.
Jackson, L. E., F. M. Philips, K. Shimamura, and E. C. Little
1997 Cosmogenic 36C1 Dating of the Foothills Erratics Train, Alberta, Canada. Geology 125:
73–94.
Keel, Bennie
1976 Cherokee Archaeology. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Kovacik, Charles F. and John J. Winberry
1987 South Carolina: A Geography. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
May, J. Alan
1989 Archaeological Excavations at the Crowders Creek Site (31GS55): a Late Woodland
Farmstead in the Catawba River Valley, Gaston County, North Carolina. Southern Indian
Studies 38.
Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World Prehistory
2: 1–53.
Meltzer, David J., D. K. Grayson, G. Ardila, A. W. Barker, D. F. Dincause, C. V. Haynes, F. Mena, L. Nunez,
and D. Stanford
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde. Southern Chile. American Antiquity 44(1):
172–179.
Mooney, James
1982 Myths of the Cherokee. Originally published 1900, Bureau of American Ethnology, 19th
Annual Report. Charles Elder, Nashville, TN.
Moore, David G.
1986 The Pisgah Phase: Cultural Continuity in the Appalachian Summit? In The Conference on
Cherokee Prehistory, pp. 73-80. Warren Wilson College, Swannanoa, NC.
2005 Foraging into the New World: Early Spanish and Native American Cultures in Contact at
the Berry Site. Paper presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Columbia, SC.
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
23
Noël Hume, Ivor
1994 Here Lies Virginia: An Archaeologist’s View of Colonial Life and History. University Press
of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Oliver, Billy L.
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens and H. Trawick
Ward, pp. 195–211. Uni versity of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1992 Settlements of the Pee Dee Culture. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
O’Steen, Lisa D.
1996 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement along the Oconee Drainage. In The Paleoindian
and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp.
92–106. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Patrick, Vanessa
2000 Historic Architectural Resources Final Identification and Evaluation: Leicester Highway
(NC 63). North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
Perkins, S.O., R.E. Deveraux, S.F. Davidson, and W.A. Davis
1920 Buncombe County Soil Map. U.S. Geological Survey.
Perkinson, Phil H.
1971 North Carolina Fluted Projectile Points - Survey Report Number One. Southern Indian
Studies 23:3-40.
1973 North Carolina Fluted Projectile Points - Survey Report Number Two. Southern Indian
Studies 25:3-60.
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press, Raleigh.
Purrington, Burton L.
1983 Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of the Prehistoric Archaeology of North Carolina’s
Western Mountain Region. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium,
edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 83-160. North Carolina Division of Archives
and History.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1983 Middle and Late Archaic Settlement in South Carolina Piedmont. Unpublished M.A.
Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Sondley, F.A.
1922 Asheville and Buncombe County. Asheville Citizen. D.H. Ramsey Library, Special
Collections, University of North Carolina, Asheville.
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
24
South, Stanley
1980 The Discovery of Santa Elena. Research Manuscript Series 165. South Carolina Institute
of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Southern Appalachian Center (SAC)
1979 A Socioeconomic Overview of Western North Carolina. Mars Hill College, Mars Hill, NC.
Swaim, Doug
1981 Cabins and Castles: History and Architecture of Buncombe County. Bright Mountain
Books, Fairview, NC.
Swanton, John R.
1979 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
D.C. Reprint of the 1946 edition.
Swedlund, A. and D. Anderson
1999 Gordon Creek Woman Meets Kennewick Man: New Interpretations and Protocols Regarding
the Peopling of the Americas. American Antiquity 64(4): 569-576.
Townsend, Jan, Jr. John H. Sprinkle, and John Knoerl
1993 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts.
National Register Bulletin. National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington D.C.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2018 Web Soil Survey, Electronic Document. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1940 Montreat, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle (photorevised 1969).
Van Doren, Mark
1928 Travels of William Bartram. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
Van Noppen, Ina Woestemeyer and John J. Van Noppen
1973 Western North Carolina Since the Civil War. Appalachian Consortium Press, Boone, NC.
Ward, H. Trawick
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The
Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeology Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and
Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 53–81. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Ward, H. Trawick, and R. P. Stephen Davis
1965 Correlation of Mississippian Sites and Soil Types. Southeastern Archaeological Conference
Bulletin 3.
1999 Time Before History: the Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Williams Samuel Cole
1930 Early Travels in the Tennessee Country. Williams Publishing, Nashville, TN.
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
25
Woodward, Grace Steele
1963 The Cherokees. University of Oklahoma, Norman.
Zuber, Richard L.
1969 North Carolina During Reconstruction. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources,
Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
26
Appendix A.
Documentation of USGS Gauging Station
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Appendix B.
Resume of Principal Investigator
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
BOBBY GERALD SOUTHERLIN
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
121 East First Street
Clayton, NC 27520
Office [phone] Fax [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
EDUCATION
M.A. in Anthropology, University of Georgia, 1993.
B.A. in Anthropology, University of South Carolina, 1988.
AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION
Archaeological Field Investigation Methods
Material Culture Replication (lithics and ceramics)
Vertebrate Faunal Analysis
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
Society for American Archaeology Southeastern Archaeological Conference
North Carolina Archaeological Society (Life Member)North Carolina Archaeological Council
Society for Georgia Archaeology (Life Member)Georgia Council of Professional Archaeologists
Archaeological Society of South Carolina (Life Member)
PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS
CEO, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
Senior Archaeologist, Principal Investigator, Field Director, Zooarchaeologist
Cultural Resource Surveys (Phase I) and Archaeological Site Testing (Phase II)
•Utility Corridors for ANR Pipeline Company (Detroit), Georgia Power Company (Atlanta), Duke Power
Company (Charlotte), Oglethorpe Power Corporation, and Transco Pipeline Company (Houston).
C Transportation Corridors for Georgia Department of Transportation (Atlanta), South Carolina Department
of Transportation (Columbia)
C Development Tracts for Consolidated Government of the City of Columbus/Muscogee County (Georgia),
Macon County (North Carolina), U.S. Corps of Engineers (Savannah and Mobile Districts), U.S. Forest Service
(South Carolina), South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (Columbia), and various private developers
(Georgia and South Carolina)
Archaeological Data Recovery (Phase III) – Representative Examples
C Yemasee Indian occupations at the Chechessee Old Field sites (38BU1605 and 38BU1609) for the Chechessee
Creek Club
•Three prehistoric sites (38HR243, 38HR254, and 38HR258) in Horry County, South Carolina for Tidewater
Plantation and Golf Club (Myrtle Beach, S.C.)
C Two Prehistoric sites (38LX50 and 38LX141) in Lexington County, South Carolina for the South Carolina
Department of Transportation
C The Callawassie Burial Mound and Village site (38BU19) in Beaufort County, South Carolina
C Two prehistoric sites (9FL203 and 9FL206) in Floyd County, Georgia for the Georgia Department of
Transportation
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Experience at Military Facilities
•Fort Jackson, SC; Camp Lejeune, NC; Robbins Air Force Base, GA; Fort Benning, GA; Hurlbert Field, FL;
Coastal Systems Station Panama City, FL; Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL; Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico; Milan
Army Ammunition Plant, TN
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Related Investigations
•Georgia Power Company: Flint River Hydroelectric Project
•Duke Energy: Shoreline Surveys at Lake James and Lake Norman North Carolina and Fishing Creek Lake,
South Carolina
•Crisp County Power Commission: Lake Blackshear, Georgia
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS AND PAPERS PRESENTED*
Reid, Dawn and Bobby Southerlin
2015 Archaeological Survey of the Tubbs Solar Farm Tract, Lenoir County, North Carolina. Archaeological
Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC.
Southerlin, Bobby
2014 An Archaeological Assessment of the Piedmont Natural Gas Vulcan Quarry Relocation Lines, Mecklenberg
County, North Carolina. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC.
Southerlin, Bobby, Dawn Reid, Brooke Brilliant, and George Price
2013 Cultural Resources Survey of the Locust Stake Timber Sale, Habersom and Stevens Counties, Georgia
Chattahoochee- Oconee National Forests. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC.
Southerlin, Bobby
2013 Faunal Analysis of Remains from the Simkins House, Columbia, South Carolina. Archaeological Consultants
of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC.
Tibbetts, Rachel, Brooke Brilliant, Dawn Reid, and Bobby Southerlin
2012 Archaeological Survey of Part One of the Macedonia II Analysis Area, Francis Marion National Forest
(prepared for USFS). Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC.
Southerlin, Bobby
2011 Archaeological Evaluation of the Original Site of the Rebecca Vaughan House, Southampton County, Virginia
(prepared for Southampton County Historical Society). Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton,
NC.
Reid, Dawn, Michael K. O’Neal, Rachel Tibbetts, and Bobby Southerlin
2010 Phase II Archaeological Testing of Six Sites at the Northwest Regional Water Reclamation Facility Tract,
Onslow County, North Carolina (prepared for ARCADIS). Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas,
Clayton, NC.
Reid, Dawn, April Montgomery, Michael K. O'Neal, Rachel Tibbetts, and Bobby Southerlin
2009 Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed William States Lee III Nuclear Station 230 kV and 525 kV
Transmission Lines, Cherokee and Union Counties, South Carolina (prepared for Devine Tarbell Engineers,
Inc.). Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC.
* A full listing of individual projects and publications is available upon request
North Fork Water Line
Buncombe County, North Carolina