20190956 Ver 1_TRC - draft report 1-18-2019_20190717

Results you can rely on

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR THE PROPOSED
CATHEYS CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
PISGAH RANGER DISTRICT, PISGAH NATIONAL FOREST<
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAFT REPORT 

TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION

January 2019

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR THE PROPOSED
CATHEYS CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
PISGAH RANGER DISTRICT, PISGAH NATIONAL FOREST,
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

DRAFT REPORT

Submitted to:

THE RESOURCE INSTITUTE
2631 Reynolda Road, Suite A
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106

By:
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
5 Dogwood Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28806

Authored by:
Michael Nelson, Paul Webb, and David Price

January 2019

i
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) has completed an archaeological survey for the proposed Catheys
Creek Stream Restoration Project in Pisgah Ranger District of Pisgah National Forest in Transylvania
County, North Carolina. The work was conducted on behalf of The Resource Institute. The study area
includes approximately three acres situated on Pisgah National Forest and located between Catheys Creek
and Catheys Creek Road (SR 1338 and FS 471), starting just upstream from the City of Brevard’s Catheys
Creek Water Treatment Facility and extending west past the confluence of Kuykendall Creek and Catheys
Creek, as well as limited areas to the north situated between Kuykendall Creek and Kuykendall Creek Road
and extending 50 feet east of Kuykendall Creek. In addition to the archaeological survey, the existing dam
at the Water Treatment Facility was documented and evaluated. No survey was conducted on the limited
portion of the project located south of Catheys Creek outside Pisgah National Forest.

This study was conducted to produce information on the presence and location of any significant cultural
resources within the project area to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and
so that the information could be considered for planning purposes. The survey satisfies the survey
requirements of the National Forests in North Carolina (NFsNC), as well as those specified in the North
Carolina Office of State Archaeology’s (OSA) Archaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines
(December 2017).
Background research included review of site files and reports and historic structure files at the OSA offices
in Raleigh and Asheville, and examination of 19th to 20th century maps and aerial photographs; due to an
ongoing partial government shutdown, land records at the National Forests in North Carolina office in
Asheville could not be accessed. The research revealed that there have been no previous archaeological
surveys and there are no previously recorded archaeological sites within or adjacent to the project area.
There are 10 previously recorded sites within a one-mile radius of the project area, however, and the vicinity
is generally considered to have a moderate potential for containing archaeological resources.
The archaeological fieldwork was conducted on December 31, 2018 and January 2, 2019 and was directed
by Michael Nelson. The survey included a walkover of the project area, along with systematic subsurface
shovel testing at 10-m intervals across the higher terraces and at 15-m intervals across the lower terraces.
Areas exhibiting extreme surface disturbances and/or standing water or hydric soils were not shovel tested.
Following NFsNC guidelines, a minimum of three shovel tests were excavated on each habitable landform.
A total of 37 shovel tests were excavated (including site delineation tests excavated at 5-m intervals).

Two archaeological sites, 31TV1101 and 31TV1102, were recorded. Site 31TV1101 is located on the small
terrace between Catheys Creek Road and Catheys Creek, just west of the confluence with Kuykendall
Creek, and site 31TV1102 is located on the west bank of Kuykendall Creek, between the creek and
Kuykendall Road.

Site 31TV1101 is represented by one precontact lithic artifact and one mid-19th to mid-20th century historic
period artifact recovered from a single shovel test. The site lacks the potential to provide substantial
additional information concerning the prehistory or history of the area and is recommended not eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D; the site also appears to lack the
characteristics necessary for eligibility under NRHP Criteria A–C.

Site 31TV1102 is a small Late Woodland to possible Qualla lithic and ceramic scatter located on a small
terrace. Given the limited landform, it is unlikely that the site boundaries extend outside the study area. Site
31TV1102 appears to be confined to the current project area and would require additional testing to
conclusively determine its NRHP eligibility. This site is considered unassessed and should be avoided by

ii
the project activities; TRC recommends that a 10- to 15-m buffer be established around the site boundary
to protect it from inadvertent disturbances.

The dam at the City of Brevard’s Catheys Creek Water Treatment Facility was constructed in the 1980s, a
few years after construction of the Water Treatment Facility. As a structure that is less than 50 years old
and lacking exceptional importance (NRHP Criteria Consideration G), this structure is not eligible for the
NRHP and requires no further consideration for the Catheys Creek project.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
TRC would like to thank Charles Anderson and Debbie Dodson of the Resource Institute, Greg Jennings
of Jennings Environmental, and Scott Ashcraft of NFsNC for their assistance in facilitating the fieldwork.
Dennis Richardson, Operator in Principal Charge at the Catheys Creek Water Treatment Facility, is thanked
for providing information on the dam.

For TRC, Hannah Smith conducted the background research. Michael Nelson, John Kesler, and Rachael
Denton conducted the field survey. Brenda Magouirk-Nelson processed the artifacts, Michael Nelson
conducted the lithic and historic artifact analyses, and Tasha Benyshek conducted the precontact ceramic
analysis. David Price conducted the evaluation of the dam. Graphics were prepared by Belinda Cox, John
Kesler, and Hannah Smith, and the report was copyedited by Heather Millis.

iv
This page intentionally left blank.

v
CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... i 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................................... iii 
FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................... vii 
TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... ix 

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .............................................................................................................. 5 
PROJECT SETTING ................................................................................................................................ 5 
GEOLOGY, PHYSIOGRAPHY, SOILS, AND HYDROLOGY ............................................................ 5 
MODERN CLIMATE .............................................................................................................................. 5 
FLORA AND FAUNA ............................................................................................................................. 8 

3. CULTURAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 11 
PRECONTACT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................ 11 
Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,500–8000 B.C.) ....................................................................................... 11 
Archaic Period (ca. 8000–1000 B.C.) ................................................................................................ 12 
Woodland Period (ca. 1000 B.C.–A.D. 1000) .................................................................................... 15 
Mississippian Period (ca. A.D. 1000–1540)....................................................................................... 18 
HISTORIC CHEROKEE OCCUPATIONS ........................................................................................... 18 
Pre-Removal Cherokee Occupations ................................................................................................ 19 
Eighteenth through Twentieth Century Cherokee Settlements ......................................................... 20 
POST-CONTACT PERIOD OVERVIEW ............................................................................................. 22 
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ................................................................................. 23 

4. RESEARCH GOALS AND METHODS ............................................................................................... 25 
RESEARCH GOALS ............................................................................................................................. 25 
RESEARCH METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 25 
Background Research ........................................................................................................................ 25 
Field Methods.................................................................................................................................... 25 
Laboratory Methods and Curation .................................................................................................... 25 
NRHP Eligibility Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 26 

5. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................... 29 
BACKGROUND RESEARCH ............................................................................................................... 29 
Previously Identified Resources ........................................................................................................ 29 
Historic Map and Land Records Review .......................................................................................... 29 
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY .............................................................................................. 34
31TV1101 ......................................................................................................................................... 34
31TV1102 ......................................................................................................................................... 39
BREVARD WATER TREATMENT FACILITY DAM ........................................................................ 42

6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 45

REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................................... 47 

APPENDIX 1: ARTIFACT CATALOG

vi
This page intentionally left blank.

vii
FIGURES
1.1. Location of the Catheys Creek Project in Transylvania County, North Carolina ............................... 2
1.2. Location of the Catheys Creek Project study area .............................................................................. 3
2.1. Wooded but relatively open terrace along west side of Kuykendall Creek, facing west .................... 6
2.2. Low lying but level terrace at southeastern edge of study area, facing west ..................................... 6
2.3. Upper terrace in background above the confluence of Catheys and Kuykendall creeks,
facing northwest .................................................................................................................................. 7
2.4. Heavily scoured area along Catheys Creek at the western edge of study area, facing southwest ...... 7
2.5. Small, marked ephemeral drainage cutting across center of study area, facing north with Catheys
Creek Road in background .................................................................................................................. 8
5.1. The approximate project location as shown on the 1808 Price and Strother map of
North Carolina ................................................................................................................................... 30
5.2. The approximate project location as shown on the 1905 USGS Pisgah quadrangle ......................... 31
5.3. The approximate project location as shown on the 1906 Transylvania County soils map ............... 31
5.4. The approximate project location as shown on the 1935 USGS Rosman quadrangle ...................... 32
5.5. The approximate project location as shown on the 1946 USGS Rosman quadrangle ...................... 32
5.6. The approximate project location as shown on the 1945/71 USGS Rosman quadrangle ................ 33
5.7. The approximate project location as shown on the 1997 USGS Rosman quadrangle ...................... 33
5.8. The Catheys Creek project area and sites 31TV1101 and 31TV1102 .............................................. 35
5.9. Shovel tests excavated and sites recorded in the Catheys Creek study area ..................................... 36
5.10. Map of sites 31TV1101 and 31TV1102 ............................................................................................ 37
5.11. Overview of Shovel Test 3 at site 31TV1101, facing west .............................................................. 38
5.12. Shovel Test 3 at site 31TV1101 profile photograph ......................................................................... 38
5.13. Shovel Test 3 at site 31TV1101 profile drawing ............................................................................. 39
5.14. Overview of 31TV1102, four positive shovel tests flagged, facing northeast ................................. 40
5.15. Shovel Test 14 at site 31TV1102 profile photograph ...................................................................... 41
5.16. Shovel Test 14 at site 31TV1102 profile drawing ............................................................................ 41
5.17. Selected artifacts from 31TV1102 .................................................................................................... 42
5.18. Dam at the Brevard Water Treatment Facility, facing southwest ..................................................... 43
5.19. Dam at the Brevard Water Treatment Facility, facing south ............................................................ 43
5.20. Dam at the Brevard Water Treatment Facility, facing south ........................................................... 44
5.21. 1982 sketch of dam at the Brevard Water Treatment Facility .......................................................... 44

viii
This page intentionally left blank.

ix
TABLES
3.1. Generalized Cultural Chronology for Western North Carolina through 1838 .................................... 11
5.1. Previously Recorded Sites within One Mile of the Catheys Creek Study Area ................................. 29
5.2. Archaeological Resources Identified during the Survey ..................................................................... 34

x
This page intentionally left blank.

1
1. INTRODUCTION
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) has completed an archaeological survey for the proposed Catheys
Creek Stream Restoration Project in Pisgah Ranger District of Pisgah National Forest in Transylvania
County, North Carolina (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). The work was conducted on behalf of The Resource Institute.

The study area includes approximately three acres situated on Pisgah National Forest and located between
Catheys Creek and Catheys Creek Road (SR 1338 and FS 471), starting just upstream from the City of
Brevard’s Catheys Creek Water Treatment Facility and extending west past the confluence of Kuykendall
Creek and Catheys Creek, as well as limited areas to the north situated between Kuykendall Creek and
Kuykendall Creek Road and extending 50 feet east of Kuykendall Creek. In addition to the archaeological
survey, the existing dam at the Water Treatment Facility was documented and evaluated. No survey was
conducted on the limited part of the project area located south of Catheys Creek outside Pisgah National
Forest.
This study was conducted to produce information on the presence and location of any significant cultural
resources within the project corridors to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and so that the information could be considered for planning purposes. The survey satisfies the survey
requirements of the National Forests in North Carolina (NFsNC), as well as those specified in the North
Carolina Office of State Archaeology’s (OSA) Archaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines
(December 2017). The fieldwork was conducted on December 31, 2018 and January 2, 2019 under the
direction of Michael Nelson and required approximately 4.5 person-days.

The remainder of this report documents the results of the research and is organized as follows. Chapter 2
provides information on the natural environment, and Chapter 3 presents a summary of the regional culture
history. Chapter 4 specifies the research goals and methods, and the results of the background research and
the field survey are presented in Chapter 5. The conclusions and recommendations are provided in Chapter
6, which is followed by a list of references cited in the text. Appendix 1 contains the artifact catalog.

2

Figure 1.1. Location of the Catheys Creek Project in Transylvania County, North Carolina.

3

Figure 1.2. Location of the Catheys Creek Project Area.

4
This page intentionally left blank.

5
2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PROJECT SETTING
The Catheys Creek project area is in the Pisgah Ranger District of Pisgah National Forest in Transylvania
County, North Carolina. The project is situated approximately halfway between Brevard (7.0 miles to the
east) and Rosman (6.5 miles to the west) off Forest Service Road 471 (Catheys Creek Road) near the
Kuykendall Group Campground trailhead. The project area includes approximately three acres along
Catheys and Kuykendall creeks. The survey area is located on densely wooded upper and lower terraces
with moderate to thick understory. Much of the lower terraces along the southern end of Catheys Creek and
the east side of Kuykendall Creek are marked by low lying hydric areas, small drainages, and berms, while
the northern end along Catheys Creek, south of the confluence with Kuykendall Creek, is heavily scoured.
Small upper terraces are located along the west side of Kuykendall Creek and along Catheys Creek,
northwest of the confluence with Kuykendall Creek (Figures 2.1–2.5).
GEOLOGY, PHYSIOGRAPHY, SOILS, AND HYDROLOGY
The Catheys Creek project area is located within the eastern edge of the southern section of the Blue Ridge
Physiographic Province, within the Blue Ridge geologic belts, which are separated by the Brevard Fault
(NCGS 1985). The project area is underlain by sedimentary and metamorphic rocks of the Ashe
Metamorphic Suite and Tallulah Falls Formation, which are described as locally sulfidic, interlayered and
gradational, with mica schist, minor amphibolite, and hornblende gneiss.
Elevations in Transylvania County range from 6,043 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at Chestnut Bald in
the north to as low as 1,265 feet AMSL where the Toxaway River enters South Carolina (Sharpe 1965:2094).
The portion of the project area along Catheys Creek is relatively flat and ranges from 2,243–2,257 feet
AMSL in elevation.
Soils over most of the project area are mapped as Dellwood-Reddies complex, 0–3 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded; these soils are described as moderately well-drained sandy and gravelly alluvium.
The rest of the project area, a small area on the east side of Kuykendall Creek at the northern end of the
study area, is mapped as Chestnut-Edneyville complex 30–50 percent slopes, stony (USDA NRCS 2019).
The drainage patterns of Transylvania County are counterintuitive. Streams in the eastern part of the county
drain into the Gulf of Mexico, and those in the western part drain east into the Atlantic Ocean. Like most
of Transylvania County, the proposed project area lies within the French Broad River Basin (King et al.
1974). The project area drains to Catheys Creek, which flows southeast for approximately two miles to its
confluence with the French Broad River. The French Broad then follows a northerly route through the
eastern portion of Transylvania County and flows north past Asheville before turning west into Tennessee
and joining the Holston River to form the Tennessee River. The Tennessee River continues westward to its
confluence with the Mississippi River and eventually drains into the Gulf of Mexico.
MODERN CLIMATE
The variable modern climate of Transylvania County reflects the wide range in elevation and differential
exposure to prevailing winds (King et al. 1974:67–69). The climate generally is characterized by cool,
relatively short summers and wet, occasionally cold winters. The county averages 159 frost-free days each
year (Sharpe 1965:2120). As recorded in Brevard and the Pisgah National Forest (at elevations between
2,100 and 2,200 feet), average maximum summer temperature is about 82° F, with winter temperatures
averaging a maximum of 54° F. Thermal belts on intermediate mountain sides may escape many freezing

6

Figure 2.1. Wooded but relatively open terrace along west side of Kuykendall Creek, facing west.

Figure 2.2. Low lying but level terrace at southeastern edge of study area, facing west.

7

Figure 2.3. Upper terrace in background above the confluence of Catheys and Kuykendall creeks,
facing northwest.

Figure 2.4. Heavily scoured area along Catheys Creek at the western edge of study area, facing
southwest.

8

Figure 2.5. Small, marked ephemeral drainage cutting across center of study area, facing north with
Catheys Creek Road in background.

episodes that impact other areas at similar elevations. Most precipitation occurs in the form of rainfall (July
is the wettest on average), and summer thunderstorms can be quite severe. Yearly precipitation averages
60–80 inches; because of the collision of the flow of air from the Gulf of Mexico with the Blue Ridge
escarpment, rainfall totals for Transylvania County are the highest in the United States east of the Pacific
Northwest (Tinsley 1988).
FLORA AND FAUNA

The study area is situated in the Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains subdivision of the Blue Ridge
ecoregion as defined by Griffith et al. (2002). This subdivision is dominated by mountains with gently
rounded to steep slopes and narrow valleys covered in a mixed deciduous and evergreen forest. The project
area also falls in Braun’s (1950) Southern Appalachians section of the Oak-Chestnut Forest region. Prior
to the 1920s and the chestnut blight, chestnut (Castanea dentata) dominated the region, although such
species as tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), ash (Fraxinus spp.), hemlock (Tsuga spp.), white
basswood (Tilia spp.), buckeye (Aesculus spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), red maple (Acer rubrum), walnut
(Juglans nigra), wild cherry (Prunus serotina), birch (Betula spp.), and beech (Fagus grandifolia) could be
found in the valleys, coves, and along sheltered mountain slopes (Holmes 1911:38). Little or no primary
forest vegetation remains in this section of the region due to the blight, logging, and other human activity
(see Braun 1950:199). Presently, oak and pine (Pinus spp.) are the most common species, with red maple,
locust (Gleditsia spp.), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and dogwood
(Cornus spp.) also common on the intermountain plateau (Orr and Stuart 2000:36–37).
In addition to arboreal species, the regional forests supported a variety of undergrowth species. The latter
included several varieties of edible berries, such as blackberries and raspberries (Rubus spp.) and
huckleberries (Gaylussacia spp.), as well as rivercane and numerous other species used for tools, food, and

9
medicinal purposes by both the Cherokee and later Euro-American settlers (Cozzo 2004; Mooney and
Olbrechts 1932; Oliver 1989:29).

The varied forests in the area would have supported a substantial and diverse fauna during and prior to
Euro-American settlement. Potential game species include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),
black bear (Ursus americanus), elk (Cervus elaphus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis
marsupialis), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and fox squirrel (Sciurus niger). Other species present
included beaver (Castor canadensis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), otter (Lutra canadensis),
muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), mink (Mustela vison), wolf (Canis sp.), panther or mountain lion (Felis
concolor), and bobcat (Lynx rufus) (Shelford 1963). Avian species of possible economic importance
included turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) and smaller species; other species may have been valuable non-food
resources as well. The local rivers would have provided a variety of fish, including catfish (Ictaluridae),
sunfish (Centrarchidae), largemouth (Micropterus salmoides) and smallmouth (Micropterus dolomieui)
bass, and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) (Altman 2006:Appendix 4).

10
This page intentionally left blank.

11
3. CULTURAL BACKGROUND
PRECONTACT OVERVIEW
This chapter presents an overview of the precontact occupations of Transylvania County and western North
Carolina. Much of the earlier part of the cultural sequence for the region is based on Coe’s (1964)
investigations of the precontact cultures of North Carolina, coupled with later research elsewhere in North
Carolina (e.g., Daniel 1998) and across the mountains in Tennessee (e.g., Davis 1990; Kimball 1985).
Information on the later precontact and contact period Cherokee occupations of western North Carolina is
derived from a variety of sources, including Dickens (1976), Keel (1976), Purrington (1983), Riggs (1988,
1996, 1999); Riggs and Rodning (2002), Rodning (2004), Steere (2013), Ward and Davis (1999), and
Wetmore (2002). Other data come from recent Cultural Resource Management (CRM) reports for projects
in western North Carolina (e.g., Benyshek and Webb 2008, 2009b; Bissett et al. 2009; Idol 2016, 2017;
Shumate and Kimball 2016).
The precontact history of western North Carolina can be divided into four basic time and cultural periods—
Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian—that relate to both social and technological factors.
Several authors (e.g., Dickens 1976:10; Keel 1976:18; Riggs and Rodning 2002; Ward and Davis 1999;
Wetmore 2002) divide these periods into phases, some of which overlap in time and name, but vary in
precise definition (Table 3.1).
Table 3.1. Generalized Cultural Chronology for Western North Carolina through 1838.
Period Phase Chronology
Historic Cherokee Late Qualla A.D. 1700–1838
Protohistoric Middle Qualla A.D. 1500–1700
Mississippian Early Qualla A.D. 1400–1500
Late Pisgah* A.D. 1200–1400
Early Pisgah* A.D. 1000–1200
Late Woodland Undefined (Napier/Woodstock?) A.D. 800–1000
Undefined (Late Swift Creek/Cane Creek) A.D. 600–800
Middle Woodland Connestee A.D. 200–600 
Pigeon 200 B.C. – A.D. 200
Early Woodland Swannanoa 1000?–200 B.C.
Late Archaic Otarre 1500–1000 B.C.
Savannah River 3000–1500 B.C.
Middle Archaic Guilford 4000–3000 B.C.
Morrow Mountain 6000–4000 B.C.
Stanly 6000–5500 B.C.
Early Archaic LeCroy 7000–6000 B.C.
Kirk/Palmer 7500–7000 B.C. 
Big Sandy 8000–7500 B.C.
Paleoindian Undefined (Hardaway-Dalton?) 9000–8000 B.C.
Clovis 10,500–9000 B.C.
Pre-Paleoindian Undifferentiated Unknown
 represents overlap into a later period. *The Hiwassee and upper Little Tennessee valleys contain Early and Middle Mississippian ceramic types
that are more closely related to the Woodstock, Etowah, and Savannah cultural sequence of northern Georgia (see Benyshek and Webb 2009b;
Riggs and Kimball 1996).
Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,500–8000 B.C.)
The earliest broadly acknowledged human presence in the continental United States dates to approximately
12,500 B.P. during the Paleoindian period. The most well-known cultural manifestation of this occupation
is called Clovis, which is represented by distinctive, fluted projectile points that have been found over a
wide geographic area in the United States. There is also an increasing number of sites that indicate (if not
conclusively demonstrate) a pre-Clovis occupation in the Americas, however; these include Meadowcroft

12
Rockshelter in Pennsylvania (Adovasio et al. 1990, 1999); Saltville in Virginia (McDonald 2000; Weisner
1996); Cactus Hill in Virginia (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997); Topper in South Carolina (Goodyear and
Steffy 2003); and the Sloth Hole and Page-Ladson sites in Jefferson County, Florida (Dunbar 2002, 2006;
Hemmings 1999, 2004). Although none of those sites is without controversy, those and other sites (e.g.,
Monte Verde in Chile [Meltzer et al. 1997]) have forced archaeologists to revisit their models for how and
when people first arrived in the Americas (e.g., Anderson and Gillam 2000).
Most researchers accept that the human occupation of North America began with a migration of people
from Asia across the Bering land bridge, which would have been exposed from 20,000 B.P. to perhaps as
late as 10,000 B.P. due to lower sea levels associated with the Last Glacial Maximum (Anderson and Gillam
2000; Dixon 1999, 2001; Fladmark 1979; Hoffecker et al. 1993:48; Meltzer 1988, 2004; Smith 1986). Once
in North America, the method and timing of migration south into the Americas remain issues of debate.
Some researchers have argued that an ice-free corridor allowed for movement into the interior of the
continent sometime after 11,000 B.P. (e.g., Haynes 1966, 1969, 1971), while others have suggested that
early settlers, once having occupied Beringia, followed a coastal route to colonize the Americas (e.g., Dixon
1999; Faught 2008; Fiedel 2000; Fladmark 1979).
Based on a study of Paleoindian settlement patterns, Anderson and Gillam (2000:43) have developed a
comprehensive model concerning the colonization of the Western Hemisphere. The study analyzed paths
at a continental scale, to determine which routes would have afforded the least cost to traveling hunter-
gatherers. Factors in the model included topographic relief, locations of ice sheets and pluvial lakes, and
the location of known Paleoindian archaeological sites. The findings suggest that initial dispersal occurred
in coastal and riverine settings and on plains, and that founding populations probably spread and diversified
rapidly. The model also implies that now-submerged portions of the continental shelf may have been
important for early dispersal, whether by foot or by boat. In eastern North America, this is reflected in the
distribution of sites along the Atlantic Coastal Plain and the paucity of sites in the Appalachian Mountains,
which were a barrier to mobility.
Diagnostic Paleoindian artifacts include fluted and unfluted lanceolate projectile points (such as Clovis and
Cumberland points); flake tools such as endscrapers, gravers, retouched blades, and burins are also found.
Almost all the Paleoindian materials found in the Southeast have come from surface contexts, and as a
result few data are available concerning regional subsistence or social organization (Anderson 1990).
Hunting of late Pleistocene megafauna is inferred based on evidence from other areas, although direct
evidence for use of animals of any kind is rare in the region. Most, if not all, Paleoindian populations
probably relied extensively on other animal and plant foods as well (Meltzer and Smith 1986). Paleoindian
populations were generally highly mobile, and settlements are thought to have included small temporary
camps and less common base camps that were occupied by loosely organized bands. Paleoindians selected
high-quality lithic materials for tools, and many sites are linked to important source areas.
Paleoindian projectile points are relatively rare in the North Carolina mountains, reflecting their scarcity in
the Appalachians as a whole, although a compilation of data on known fluted points from North Carolina
revealed several examples from the region (Daniel 2005). The later Paleoindian phase appears to include
Dalton (Goodyear 1982) and perhaps Hardaway (Ward 1983) points and related cultures, although both
types of artifacts are very rare in the region (Purrington 1983).
Archaic Period (ca. 8000–1000 B.C.)
The Archaic period began with the onset of Holocene, post-glacial climatic conditions in the East and has
been subdivided into Early, Middle, and Late subperiods. Diagnostic projectile points are the primary
criteria used to identify and date Archaic manifestations. The Archaic may be seen as a relatively long and
successful foraging adaptation, with subsistence based on hunting, fishing, and the collection of wild plant

13
resources. The period is also marked by a general increase in the density and dispersal of archaeological
remains, more regionally-distinct tool forms, and the increased use of locally available lithic raw materials.
Group size gradually increased during this period, culminating in larger populations by the end of the
period. While Archaic groups no doubt used a variety of materials to fashion utilitarian and other items,
lithic artifacts are all that remain on most sites in the Southeast due to the lack of preservation in acidic
soils. Architectural evidence is rare, suggesting that most structures were not substantial constructions. An
increasing number of Archaic sites have been the focus of intensive excavation in the North Carolina
mountains (Benyshek and Webb, i.p.; Bissett et al. 2009; Idol 2016; Jorgenson et al. 2017; Purrington 1981;
Shumate and Kimball 2016), and others have been investigated in the Tellico area of eastern Tennessee
(e.g. Chapman 1981) and in the North Carolina Piedmont (Claggett and Cable 1982; Coe 1964).
Early Archaic (ca. 8000–6000 B.C.). During the Early Archaic period, the mixed coniferous forests present
in much of the Southeast were replaced by mixed hardwood communities dominated by oak, hemlock,
beech, and maple (Claggett and Cable 1982:212), and a modern faunal assemblage was in place following
the extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna. Diagnostic markers of the Early Archaic period in western
North Carolina and eastern Tennessee include side-notched Big Sandy projectile points and later Palmer-
Kirk projectile points (ca. 8000–6800 B.C.). Palmer-Kirk projectile points are fairly common and
widespread occurrences in the area, but are sparse compared to Middle and Late Archaic types. Bifurcate-
based points such as the St. Albans, LeCroy, and Kanawha types (ca. 6900–5800 B.C.) are also found
(Kimball 1985). Although these appear to occur more rarely in the mountains than Kirk forms (Kimball
1996; Stanyard 2003), a long-term survey of sites near Asheville (Henry 1992) documented more bifurcate-
based points than Kirks, perhaps a reflection of the intensive survey coverage up a smaller tributary
(Kimball 1996). Other tools that occur on Early Archaic sites include knives, adzes, end and side scrapers,
drills, perforators, and expedient tools (Stanyard 2003).
Low regional population densities and a continued high degree of group mobility are inferred for this
subperiod in the mountains, where most known sites are located in high upland areas, and over 90 percent
of projectile points found are of non-local chert (Bass 1975); it is also possible, however, that site burial in
the floodplains could be largely masking Early Archaic period use of these landforms (see Benyshek and
Webb 2004; Kimball 1991). The nature of more general land use patterns and strategies for technological
organization remain the subjects of discussion. To the west in Tennessee, Kimball (1996) has proposed an
ongoing change from logistical (relatively more permanent base camps from which a variety of other
satellite camps and specialized use sites were accessed) to residential (wholesale moving frequently within
zones to map onto resources) mobility patterns during the later Early Archaic period, perhaps as a result of
the first signs of warming climatic conditions. Kimball (1996:173) notes that settlement patterns (and thus
perhaps foraging strategies) for bifurcate and Kirk groups were different, with more bifurcate sites found
on T1 terraces and islands compared to Kirk sites, which are more dispersed on various landforms,
suggesting a change in foraging strategy in the later Early Archaic.
Middle Archaic (ca. 6000–4000 B.C.). During the Middle Archaic, the cool, moist conditions of the early
Holocene are generally considered to have given way to the warmer, drier climate of the Mid-Holocene
Hypsithermal interval, although there is increasing evidence that the Mountains may have seen increased
rainfall during this period (e.g., Leigh 2002; Leigh and Webb 2006). Extensive estuarine marshes and
riverine swamps began to emerge in coastal regions as sea levels ceased their post-Pleistocene rise by 3000
B.C. The northern hardwoods vegetation matrix in those regions was replaced by an oak-hickory forest,
which was in turn replaced by a southern hardwoods-pine forest characterized by the species occupying the
region today (Claggett and Cable 1982:212–216; Delcourt and Delcourt 1983, 1985). Subsistence
economies became increasingly diversified, particularly evident in the Mid-South and lower Midwest
during the Shell Mound Archaic, where riverine settings were chosen more often for occupation (Sassaman
1996).

14
The Middle Archaic witnessed the first substantial occupation of the Smoky Mountains (Bass 1975:109)
and presumably of western North Carolina in general. Site file data indicate a marked increase in site
numbers from the Early to the Middle Archaic in the Carolinas and Georgia (Anderson 1996), and Morrow
Mountain projectile points increase markedly in frequency when compared to earlier types in western North
Carolina (Leftwich 1999). Three subperiods recognized in most of North Carolina are identified by the
presence of Stanly (ca. 6000–5000 B.C.), Morrow Mountain (ca. 5000–4200 B.C.), and Guilford (ca. 4200–
3500 B.C.) projectile points, following the classic Archaic sequence first identified by Coe (1964), although
more recent research demonstrates that additional projectile point forms were used as well (Shumate and
Kimball 2016). Archaeologically, the transition from the Early Archaic to the Middle Archaic is
characterized by the appearance of stemmed rather than notched projectile points and an increased
incidence of groundstone tools. Reliance on locally available quartz and quartzite rather than higher quality
non-local chert for stone tools increased in the Appalachian Summit as well as other parts of North Carolina,
northern Georgia, and South Carolina. A state-wide distribution study shows that over 77 percent of Middle
Archaic projectile points from Mountain counties are made of quartz (McReynolds 2005:23). Atlatl weights
make their first appearance in the archaeological record during the Middle Archaic, as do stone net sinkers.
The use of a more expedient stone tool technology (see Binford 1977, 1979) predominates during the
Middle Archaic (Stanyard 2003).
Based on studies in South Carolina, researchers have suggested that Morrow Mountain peoples were
foragers who resided at a location until local resources were depleted (Blanton and Sassaman 1989;
Sassaman 1983). This idea is consistent with an archaeological pattern characterized by local raw material
utilization, the wide distribution of sites in various landscape settings and their small size, the lack of
evidence for long-term occupations, and the absence of discernible substantial trade networks (Stanyard
2003:48–49). Morrow Mountain sites are frequently encountered in the uplands of western North Carolina
(e.g., Purrington 1981), on smaller drainages (Yu 2001), and in floodplains of major rivers, and are
sometimes buried (e.g., Benyshek and Webb 2004). Bass (1975) found that half of the Middle Archaic sites
he analyzed were in the uplands, with the others in valleys and coves.
Late Archaic (ca. 4000–1000 B.C.). Late Archaic sites are common in western North Carolina as elsewhere
in the lower Southeast, suggesting region-wide population increase from the Middle Archaic (Anderson
1996). Late Archaic sites in a wide range of environmental zones, although most major settlements were in
riverine or estuarine settings (Bass 1975; Ward 1983). The existence of formal base camps occupied
seasonally or longer is inferred, together with a range of smaller resource-exploitation sites, such as hunting,
fishing, or plant collecting stations (Claggett and Cable 1982; Ward 1983). Many Late Archaic sites in the
Smoky Mountains appear to be situated near quartzite sources (Bass 1975:77; Shumate and Kimball 2016).
Grinding implements, polished stone tools, and carved soapstone bowls became fairly common, suggesting
increased use of plant resources, and possibly changes in subsistence strategies and cooking technologies.
Although regional evidence is minimal, the first experiments with horticulture probably occurred at this
time, with the cultivation of plants such as squash (Cucurbita pepo), sunflower (Helianthus sp.), and
Chenopodium (Cowan 1985; Ford 1981; Smith 1989).
Soapstone vessels appear to have been most widely used in the eastern United States between 1800 to 1000
B.C. (associated dates range from ca. 4000 B.C. to ca. A.D. 0) (Truncer 2004:505–506). The scarcity of
earlier dates and wide gaps in geographical distribution suggest that soapstone bowl manufacture occurred
continuously at “low levels of production,” or was adopted and then discontinued in some areas (Truncer
2004:497). Although soapstone vessel use appears to have preceded ceramic vessel use in some areas, in
the central Savannah River valley, South Carolina, and northeastern Florida, use of soapstone slabs and
pottery precedes soapstone vessel use by up to 1000 years (Elliott et al. 1994; Sassaman 1997; Stanyard
2003:54). Soapstone vessels were apparently used for cooking certain plant or animal foods over a direct
heat source (e.g., Kroeber 1925:527) and may not have afforded any advantage over alternative cooking
methods.

15
Another innovation in Late Archaic cooking technology was the use of drilled or perforated soapstone slabs,
presumably for use in stone boiling (Anderson et al. 1979; Dagenhardt 1972; Elliott 1981; Trinkley 1974;
Wood et al. 1986). These artifacts are abundant at some Late Archaic sites in the Savannah River and
Oconee valleys in the Georgia and South Carolina Piedmont to the Fall Zone (Claflin 1931:32; Elliott 1981;
Wood et al. 1986), but appear rarely in North Carolina (e.g., Bissett et al. 2009; Idol 2016).
Late Archaic occupations in the Appalachian Summit region are marked by a variety of large- to small-
stemmed points. The most prominent and recognizable of these is the Savannah River stemmed, a large,
broad-bladed, square stemmed point that appeared ca. 3000 B.C. and lasted to ca. 1500 B.C. Subsequent
Late Archaic sites frequently contain slightly smaller stemmed points of the Iddins Undifferentiated
stemmed or, perhaps, the Otarre stemmed type (Ward and Davis 1999:71), although these general forms
were produced during the Middle Archaic and Early Woodland periods as well and may not be exclusive
to the Late Archaic period (Larry Kimball, personal communication 2010). Size reduction of stemmed
forms is indicated over the course of the Late Archaic to Early Woodland periods in the region, however
(Oliver 1981, 1985). The most common feature type during the Late Archaic is a shallow, rock-filled pit
(Chapman 1981; Keel 1976). Toward the end of the Late Archaic, fiber tempered pottery appeared in the
coastal regions (Sassaman 1993); although such pottery was found at the Ravensford site in Swain County
(Benyshek and Webb 2017), it is a rare occurrence in the Appalachian Summit. There is increased evidence
for trade during the Late Archaic period, as indicated by the presence of soapstone, slate, and other materials
outside their source areas (Chapman 1985).
Woodland Period (ca. 1000 B.C.–A.D. 1000)
The Woodland period began as early as 1000 B.C. and continued until the appearance of the Mississippian
adaptation around A.D. 1000. Across the eastern Woodlands, the period is marked by the appearance of
widespread pottery use, a greatly increased role for horticulture in subsistence economies, and an
elaboration of mortuary ceremonialism, including the appearance of burial mounds.
Early Woodland (ca. 1000–200 B.C.). Initial Woodland occupations are generally thought to reflect a largely
unchanged continuation of Late Archaic lifeways coupled with the first widespread introduction of
ceramics. The earliest Early Woodland manifestation in the project area is the Swannanoa phase, which
dates ca. 1000–200 B.C. Regional radiocarbon dates for Swannanoa materials include a corrected,
uncalibrated date of 2130±40 B.P. (representing a 2-sigma range of 260–100 B.C.) (Benyshek and Webb
2006) and a corrected, uncalibrated date of 2435±25 B.P. (representing a 2-sigma range of 535–435 B.C.)
(Benyshek and Webb 2009a).
The hallmark of the Early Woodland is distinctive thick, crushed quartz or coarse sand tempered fabric
impressed ceramics; cordmarked, plain, check stamped, and simple stamped wares are also thought to date
to late in the Early Woodland period (Keel 1976:260–266; Ward and Davis 1999:140–143; Wetmore
2002:254–257). Vessel forms consist of unrestricted conical pots and simple bowls. Eastern Tennessee’s
Watts Bar and northern Georgia’s Kellogg phases are similar stylistically to Swannanoa materials, as are
Vinette ceramics from as far away as eastern New York (Ward and Davis 1999:142).
Early Woodland projectile points consist of smaller stemmed points, the terminal expressions of the large
stemmed point tradition, along with large triangular varieties. The latter include the Transylvania and
Garden Creek types, which are morphologically equivalent to Badin and Yadkin Piedmont types (Keel
1976; Oliver 1985). Although Swannanoa phase site distributions have not been thoroughly documented,
it is apparent that the settlement pattern included large floodplain sites along with numerous small upland
extractive camps. Direct evidence is lacking at present, but it seems likely that the Early Woodland
inhabitants of the region were engaged in at least some degree of horticulture (Ward and Davis 1999:145).
Based on evidence at Phipps Bend in eastern Tennessee, deer, elk, and turkey were the animals primarily

16
hunted (Lafferty 1981). To date, no well-defined Early Woodland structure patterns have been identified in
the region.
Middle Woodland (ca. 200 B.C.–A.D. 600). The Middle Woodland period in western North Carolina is
divided into an earlier Pigeon phase (ca. 200 B.C.–A.D. 200) and a later Connestee phase (ca. A.D. 200–
600), each associated with distinct ceramic styles. Because it has proved difficult to isolate Pigeon phase
components for study, relatively little is known about the cultural developments that occurred during this
period (Ward and Davis 1999:146). Much more is known about the lifeways, architecture, and subsistence
practices of the subsequent Connestee phase. The Connestee phase is characterized by mound construction
and intensified long-distance trade, and it is apparent that some western North Carolina groups participated
in the Hopewell exchange network (Chapman and Keel 1979; Keel 1976:157; Wetmore 2002:263; Wright
2013) in which raw materials and finished artifacts were traded over vast areas of eastern North America
(Brose and Greber 1979; Seeman 1979). Regional sites with Middle Woodland components that have been
the focus of intensive investigations include Garden Creek in Haywood County (Keel 1976; Wright 2013),
Biltmore Mound in Buncombe County (Kimball and Shumate 2003; Kimball et al. 2004), Ela in Swain
County (Wetmore 1989), Harshaw Bottom in Cherokee County (Robinson 1989), Tuckasegee in Jackson
County (Keel 1976), the Tyler-Loughridge site in McDowell County (Robinson 1996), the Cherokee EMS
site in Swain County (Benyshek 2007), the Bent Creek site in Buncombe County (Shumate and Kimball
2006), the Macon County Airport site (Benyshek and Webb 2009a), and the Icehouse Bottom site in
Monroe County in eastern Tennessee (Chapman 1973; Cridlebaugh 1981).
Bass (1975:81) reports that while over 50 percent of Middle Woodland sites in his sample occurred on the
floodplain, 40 percent were located above the valley in coves and on benches. Numerous large and small
sites dating to this period have been found, suggesting periodic aggregation and dispersion or some kind of
settlement dichotomy. By Connestee times, however, sites have been demonstrated to occur most often in
the floodplains, and a higher percentage are present on the first rise above the river than in the preceding
Pigeon or Swannanoa phases (Wetmore et al. 2000).
Horticulture is believed to have become increasingly important during this period, although mast resources
remain the most visible dietary contributor. Possible late Middle Woodland cultigens in the region include
maygrass, little barley, sumpweed, maize (Zea mays), squash, and perhaps Chenopodium (Benyshek 2007;
Chapman and Crites 1987; Crites 2004; Robinson 1989). Evidence for the use of animal resources is scarce
from Middle Woodland sites in the area, save Biltmore Mound where preservation is excellent. Faunal
information from the Connestee phase mound area may not be representative of overall diet and utilization
due to the probable ceremonial activities including feasting that took place there, but no information is
available from the associated village to date. The assemblage is dominated by terrestrial species (white-
tailed deer, turkey, box turtle, raccoon, squirrel), with aquatic resources (fish, mussels) used much less
frequently (Whyte 2004).
Diagnostic early Middle Woodland ceramics in western North Carolina include the Pigeon series, which
Keel (1976:256–260) defines as including check stamped, simple stamped, plain, brushed, and complicated
stamped varieties with crushed quartz temper. Vessel forms include conical jars, hemispherical bowls, and
tetrapodal and shouldered jars with flaring/everted rims. Pigeon ceramics are relatively common in the
region but are generally found in mixed contexts (Ward and Davis 1999:146), perhaps indicative of stable
populations inhabiting the same areas for long periods of time.
Subsequent Middle Woodland ceramics consist of the Connestee series, which are generally thinner, sand
tempered wares most often plain or decorated with simple stamped, cordmarked, or brushed surfaces.
Crushed quartz temper was added in small amounts. Fabric impressed and check stamped sherds are also
included in the series. Plain necks are characteristic, with punctated shoulders rarely occurring (Keel
1976:247–255). Swift Creek ceramics are sometimes found as a minority ware on Middle Woodland sites

17
in the area (Keel 1976:71; Kimball and Shumate 2003; Robinson 1989). Also found, but extremely rare,
are Ohio Hopewellian ceramics (both non-local manufacture and locally made copies) and figurines (Keel
1976:118–119; 120–123; Kimball and Shumate 2003). Lithic artifacts characteristic of the late Middle
Woodland include large triangular and side-notched projectile points (Garden Creek and Connestee
triangulars, Pigeon side notched), bar gorgets, and a prismatic blade and polyhedral core technology that
was probably ultimately derived from the Hopewellian Midwest (Chapman and Keel 1979:157). Copper is
also found on Middle Woodland sites in the area but is rare (Chapman and Keel 1979; Setzler and Jennings
1941).
Connestee phase populations engaged in mound building, evidenced by such substructure mounds as
Garden Creek No. 2 and the Biltmore Mound, and interacted with Hopewellian populations in the Midwest
and elsewhere (Keel 1976; Kimball and Shumate 2003; Ward and Davis 1999:151–153; Wright 2013).
Connestee series sherds are present on some Hopewellian sites, and small numbers of Hopewellian ceramics
and bladelets made of chalcedony from Flint Ridge in Ohio are present at the Garden Creek site, at the
Biltmore Mound site, and at Icehouse Bottom (Chapman 1973; Chapman and Keel 1979; Kimball and
Shumate 2003; Moore 1984). Marine shell was also traded (Kimball et al. 2004). It has been hypothesized
that western North Carolina was one source of the mica that was traded and used widely across the East
during this period. Recent investigations at the Garden Creek site have recorded two subrectangular
enclosures similar to those found in Midwestern Adena and Hopewell contexts; these appear to result from
earlier ritual use of the site and further illustrate the extent of the socio-economic ties developed between
local and non-local populations during the Middle Woodland period (Wright 2013).
Architectural information has been limited, but at Garden Creek Mound No. 2, at the base of the premound
layer, a square structure measuring approximately 6 m across was identified and was attributed to the
Connestee occupation (Keel 1976:95, 99). At Ela, eight circular structures 7–8 m in diameter were
identified as representative of Connestee phase constructions (Wetmore 1989, 1996, 2002). More recent
excavations at the Macon County Airport and Old Elementary School sites have also uncovered Connestee
structures, both circular and square to rectangular (Benyshek 2016; Benyshek and Webb 2009a, 2009b;
Steere 2017).
Late Woodland (ca. A.D. 600–1000). The Late Woodland subperiod in much of the Southeast saw the
emergence of sedentary village life and intensive maize horticulture and the development of complex tribal
and chiefdom-level political structures. Certainly, by A.D. 1000, many interior Southeastern groups were
producing substantial amounts of corn, which continued into the Mississippian period when wild food
resources were supplemental to cultivated ones (Scarry 2003:88–89).
The Late Woodland in the Appalachian Summit has been described as largely invisible (Wetmore 2002),
and a similar lack of recognition of distinctive Late Woodland components has been described in northern
Georgia (Rudolph 1991). Part of the problem may be the lack of specific diagnostic artifacts useful for
unequivocally identifying sites of this period (as plain sherds and small triangular projectile points can be
difficult to qualify), but it is also possible that the Appalachian Summit region was more lightly populated
during this time and small, dispersed sites were more typical (Rudolph 1991). Robinson et al. (1994, 1996)
indicate that the Connestee phase lasted into the Late Woodland period based on work at several sites. One
Late Woodland manifestation was identified by Keel and Egloff (1984) at the Cane Creek site in Mitchell
County; the distinctive, largely plain-surfaced assemblage from that site is similar to Connestee wares and
associated with a single radiocarbon date of 1340±90 B.P. (uncorrected). Similarly, an AMS date from a
Buncombe County site (31BN943) produced multiple 2-sigma ranges of Cal A.D. 690 to 900 and A.D. 920
to 950 associated with sand tempered plain ceramics (Idol 2010).
Scattered Napier and Late Swift Creek ceramics and sites (such as Cullowhee Valley School [31JK32]
[Ashcraft 1996; Greene 1996:120–121; Moore 1992], Biltmore II [31BN175] [Hall and Baker 1993],

18
Ravensford [31SW78/136] [Benyshek personal communication 2016; Webb 2002; Wild 1994], Hominy
Creek [31BN828] [Paré et al. 2007], Sneed [31JK466] [Benyshek 2008], and Boundary Tree [31SW494]
[Idol 2011]) also occur in the region and reflect influences from the south during this period. A radiocarbon
date obtained from Cullowhee Valley School compares those obtained from the Sneed site, which are
calibrated at the 2-sigma level to A.D. 660–860 (Benyshek 2008) and to the one date from Boundary Tree
(A.D. 654 to 769) (Idol 2011). Mid- to late 8th century dates obtained from 31SW136 in association with
Napier and/or Late Swift Creek ceramics are also comparative (Benyshek and Webb 2017; Wild 1994).
Rudolph (1991) suggests that increased regionalization of ceramic styles and site dispersal occurred during
this period in northern Georgia, and this appears be the case for western North Carolina as well.
Mississippian Period (ca. A.D. 1000–1540)
The Mississippian period in the Southeast is marked by the increasing intensification of maize horticulture,
the establishment of increasingly hierarchical social structures and settlement systems, and an increase in
ceremonialism expressed architecturally in the construction of flat-topped substructure mounds. Increasing
evidence exists that territorial boundaries between chiefdoms were closely maintained during the
Mississippian period, although individual chiefdoms rose and fell in cyclical patterns. Studies of relations
between native chiefdoms and Spanish expeditions suggest that some type of supra-chiefdom level
organization was maintained through a system in which paramount chiefs traveled from fief to fief,
displaying royal powers and prerogative and receiving gifts and tribute from subservient chiefdoms (Smith
and Hally 1992).
The Pisgah phase (ca. A.D. 1000–1400) corresponds with the early centuries of the Mississippian period in
at least parts of western North Carolina (Dickens 1976:13–14); sites with Etowah phase (ca. A.D. 1100–
1300) components also are present in the Hiwassee River valley (Riggs and Kimball 1996) and in the upper
Little Tennessee River valley (Benyshek and Webb 2009a, 2009b). Sites with high percentages of Pisgah
pottery are found primarily in the eastern and central parts of the Appalachian Summit region and range
from small sites such as Brunk (Moore 1981) to nucleated villages with substructure mounds such as
Garden Creek (Ward and Davis 1999:160–161). Pisgah pottery is also found in the western part of the
summit region as well, however, and into northern South Carolina, southwestern Virginia, and northeastern
Tennessee (Dickens 1976). Diagnostic Pisgah artifacts include small triangular projectile points and
distinctive rectilinear complicated stamped vessels with collared, punctated rims. Dickens (1976) suggests
that finer-lined complicated stamping and lack of rim elaboration characterize the earlier portion of the
phase, and such materials have been documented from the Brunk, Ravensford, and other sites (Benyshek
and Webb 2017, Moore 1981; Jane Eastman, personal communication 2017). Corn and other crops were
important sources of food, but floral and faunal remains document the persistence of wild resources as
major components of the diet (Ward and Davis 1999:171). Warren Wilson is the most extensively explored
Pisgah village to date, and work there over several field seasons documented at least seven palisade lines
and 17 structures (Dickens 1976; Moore 2002; Ward 1986). Garden Creek Mound and Village also contains
a Pisgah component, and the main mound (Mound No. 1) there was constructed during the Pisgah phase
(Dickens 1976).
HISTORIC CHEROKEE OCCUPATIONS

The Qualla phase represents the final centuries of Native American autonomy in the region and reflects the
close association between the Cherokees and the Appalachian Summit region. Although elements of the
material culture, belief systems, place names, and social structure of Mississippian society lingered in the
region well into the 19th century (and in some cases to the present day), the Qualla phase is largely one of
social change due to increasing Euro-American intrusion and settlement.

19
The French Broad drainage lies east of the core area of known 17th and 18th century Cherokee settlement,
which was located in the Blue Ridge Mountains to the west and southwest. The area was likely frequented
by Cherokee hunters, however, and may have contained small settlements at various times as well.
According to Mooney (1900:380–381), the French Broad lies west of a neutral area between the Cherokees
and the Catawbas, which was bounded by the Catawba River on the east and the Broad River on the west
(Mooney 1900:380–381).
Pre-Removal Cherokee Occupations
The first Euro-American intrusion into western North Carolina took place in 1540, when Hernando de
Soto’s expedition passed through the area. Several different reconstructions of de Soto’s route have been
proposed, with some early scholars (e.g., Swanton 1985:201–202) suggesting that he crossed Cherokee
country by way of the Hiwassee valley. A later reconstruction (Hudson et al. 1984) proposed that de Soto
crossed the Blue Ridge farther to the north at Swannanoa Gap and then continued along the French Broad
River into Tennessee; more recently, Beck (1997) and Hudson (1997:193) agreed that the expedition
probably followed a more northerly route along the Toe River. The route through the Swannanoa Gap may
have been taken by Juan Pardo, however, who was a Spanish explorer who traversed much of the same area
from 1567–1568 (Beck 1997:167; Hudson 1990:27–46, 1997:193).
Whatever the precise routes of these explorers, it is clear that the ancestral Cherokees’ first encounter with
Europeans occurred in the mid-16th century (and that the Spanish were unlikely to have traversed the present
project area). These encounters were to have dramatic effects. The introduction of European diseases to
which the native populations had little resistance caused a major reduction in Native American population
levels and extensive changes in political organization. Elsewhere in the Southeast, the fragmentation and
reformation of political groups resulted in a general decrease in social complexity and the total
disappearance of some precontact societies (Smith 1987). But although substantial disruption occurred, the
Cherokees managed to retain control of portions of their homeland.
The historic-period Cherokee occupation of western North Carolina is known archaeologically as the Qualla
phase (ca. A.D. 1450–1838). Although early formulations of the phase (Dickens 1976) divided it into two
segments (Early Qualla, ca. A.D. 1450–1650; and Late Qualla, ca. A.D. 1650–1838), more recent analysts
(Riggs and Rodning 2002; Rodning 2004, 2008; Ward and Davis 1999) suggest a tripartite division.
Following this latter scheme, the early Qualla phase predates A.D. 1500, and thus was likely
contemporaneous with at least the later part of the Pisgah occupations in the region. These authors suggest
that Qualla represents an in situ development in the Upper Little Tennessee and Hiwassee basins and likely
is not a direct derivative of the Pisgah phase. Early Qualla phase ceramics show affinities to the more
southern Savannah and Wilbanks styles, and samples from Coweta Creek and 31SW291 are characterized
by grit tempered, primarily rectilinear complicated stamped wares (Riggs and Rodning 2002:39),
sometimes with “sawtooth” rims. Red filming also occurs (Rodning 2004). Pisgah collared and punctated
rims are not an uncommon occurrence with these Early Qualla wares, however, and Early and Late Pisgah
ceramics have been identified at Ravensford (Webb and Benyshek 2005). Domestic structure forms during
the Early Qualla are the same as Late Pisgah forms (Benyshek and Webb 2008).
Subsequent Middle Qualla phase (ca. A.D. 1500–1700) ceramics are characterized by jar forms with notched
appliqué, or more often, folded and notched everted to flared rims, and also by the presence of carinated or
cazuela bowls with incised designs. Curvilinear complicated stamping predominates, although rectilinear
designs are also present (Rodning 2004). By the Late Qualla phase (post-A.D. 1700), some variations
occurred; incised ceramics became much less common, while rectilinear stamped designs, rims with
notched appliqué strips or fillets, and check stamping are more common in later, pre-Removal (pre-1838)
assemblages.

20
The Qualla phase subsistence base was mixed, and included cultivation of corn, beans, and other foods as
well as wild plant gathering, hunting, and fishing (Dickens 1976:14). The Late Qualla phase is marked by
the increasing appearance of European goods at Cherokee sites. Although small triangular projectile points
are found in Early and Middle Qualla phase assemblages, their manufacture (and most other stone tools)
decreased rapidly with the increasing prevalence of European firearms after A.D. 1700 and widespread
access to iron tools (Riggs 1999:52). During this time, Cherokee settlements became increasingly less
nucleated, often appearing as a linear array of dispersed houses along streams, and agricultural fields were
maintained closer to residential areas. European domesticated animals (especially pigs and chickens) and
garden crops (notably sweet potatoes) were adopted by the mid-18th century. By this time and in the years
after, traditional Cherokee life was increasingly disrupted by depopulation and demographic changes, and
alterations to the traditional economies (Hatley 2006).
Structure forms varied throughout the Qualla phase. Early Qualla phase structures documented at
Ravensford include winter-type structures, rounded squares of rigid post construction typically constructed
in basins with central support posts and wall trench entryways. These were accompanied by (but not closely
paired with) square to rectangular houses of less regular construction that lacked central support posts and
entryway trenches. These domestic structures generally mimic the patterns documented at a number of late
precontact and contact period sites in the southern Appalachians (e.g., Hally 1988, 1994, 2008; Moore
2002; Polhemus 1987; Rodning 2009a; Steere 2017). A few rounder 15th-century domestic structures were
encountered at Coweeta Creek (Rodning 2009a:13). Larger, rectangular structures of more substantial
construction appear to represent contemporaneous public buildings at Ravensford (Benyshek and Webb
2009b).
Middle Qualla phase architecture, known from the Coweeta Creek, Macon County Airport (MCA), and
McCoy Bridge sites among others, was also similar to late Mississippian (and Early Qualla phase).
Domestic structures are typically square with rounded corners and exhibit side or corner entrances and
central hearths flanked by four central support posts (e.g., structures 3, 4, and 6 at Coweeta Creek)
(Benyshek and Webb 2009b; Idol 2017; Rodning 2009a:11). At MCA these were associated with
rectangular summer houses and storage facilities (Benyshek and Webb 2009b). Smaller auxiliary buildings
that likely functioned as storehouses are present by the late 17th and early 18th centuries (Benyshek and
Webb 2009b; Idol 2016; Shumate et al. 2005). By the end of the Middle Qualla phase (if not before),
mounds associated with the cyclical demolishment and reconstruction of public townhouses were a
prominent feature of many Cherokee villages and towns (Rodning 2002, 2009b). Contemporary domestic
structures in part appear to have been modelled after the designs of the much larger townhouses (Rodning
2009a).
By the end of the 17th century into the 18th century, rectangular summer houses were closely paired with
and often connected to winter houses, which were typically octagonal (e.g., Benyshek and Webb 2008;
Cable et al. 1997; Marcoux 2010; Shumate et al. 2005; Webb and Benyshek 2008). The late 18th century
witnessed a shift toward more European-style architecture (Dickens 1976:15); a final shift from traditional
post-in-ground architecture to horizontal cribbed log cabin construction occurred in the 1790s (Riggs
1999:515).
Eighteenth through Twentieth Century Cherokee Settlements

During most of the 18th century, the Cherokees were concentrated in towns and villages throughout much
of present-day western North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, and portions of Georgia and South Carolina.
The towns in western North Carolina were known as the Middle Towns, the Out Towns, and the Valley
Towns; the Lower Towns were situated some distance to the south in upper South Carolina. The Middle
and Valley Towns were located northwest of the project area, and the Overhill Towns lay to the west, across
the mountains in Tennessee (Greene 1996; Smith 1979). The late 18th century was marked by a general

21
shift to a more dispersed settlement pattern (Dickens 1976:15), but some nucleated settlements remained in
the region into the 19th century.
The 18th century also brought the continuous arrival of Europeans and the resulting loss of Cherokee lands.
Early interaction between the two parties consisted mostly of trade. By the mid-18th century, increased
Euro-American settlement began to lead to hostility, and expeditions under Archibald Montgomery and
James Grant burned many Cherokee towns in 1760 and 1761. Many Cherokees sided with the British during
the American Revolution out of fear of colonial expansion and the loss of more territory. In 1776, after
several Cherokee raids, General Griffith Rutherford led a force from Old Fort through present-day
Buncombe, Haywood, Jackson, and Macon counties to counter the Cherokee threat. Like the de Soto and
Pardo expeditions, the route Rutherford took is open to interpretation. It is believed that his army took a
known Native American Indian trail through Swannanoa Gap, down the Swannanoa River and then a short
distance up the east bank of the French Broad River, before crossing at Warrior’s Ford (Dykeman 1965:34).
Rutherford’s path continued on to present-day Waynesville and then to the southwest to the Middle and
Valley towns (Dean 2012).
With the signing of the Treaty of Hopewell in 1785, the Cherokees lost their remaining lands east of the
Blue Ridge, leading to widespread Euro-American settlements east of Asheville (Mooney 1900:61–62). A
subsequent treaty in 1791, the Treaty of Holston, resulted in additional cessions by the Cherokees in the
west (Mooney 1900:68–77), and a treaty in 1798 ceded additional lands in present-day Buncombe,
Henderson, Transylvania, and Haywood counties (Royce 1887:660–661). A third treaty, signed in 1798,
ceded additional lands in North Carolina (Riggs 1988:171).
The early 19th century witnessed the increasing acculturation of many Cherokees, largely as a result of
increasing contact and intermarriage with white traders and settlers. Other Cherokees resisted changes to
their traditional lifestyles, especially those residing in western North Carolina (Riggs 1988:10–11).
Accounts by contemporary observers indicate that the population of that area was strongly traditionalist,
and contained the highest proportion of fullbloods to be found in the Cherokee Nation (McLoughlin and
Cosner 1984:224–225). The late 18th century was marked by a general shift to a more dispersed settlement
pattern (Dickens 1976:15), but some nucleated settlements remained in the region into the 19th century.
Many remaining Cherokee land claims in North Carolina, including those in the Transylvania County area,
were ceded to the U.S. government by the Calhoun Treaty of February 1819 (Royce 1884, 1887). Within
two decades, the signing of the Treaty of New Echota set in motion the forced removal of many of the
remaining Cherokees to lands in the Arkansas Territory (Mooney 1900:123–133). The cruelty of this march,
known as the Trail of Tears, has been well documented.

Some Cherokees remained in their former lands despite the Treaty of New Echota and the Trail of Tears,
however. A sizeable population living along the Oconaluftee and nearby was allowed to remain as a result
of their assistance in the Tsali affair. Other Cherokees remained in the vicinity of Cheoah (along Buffalo
Creek in present-day Graham County), primarily due to the difficulty in removing them along poor roads
(Duggan 1998); in the Valley River area (Greene 2009); and along Cartoogechaye Creek in Macon County
(Alexis 1852). Finally, still other Cherokees managed to evade the Army, escaped during the Removal, or,
like Junaluska, returned from the Arkansas territory soon afterward. These groups became the nucleus of
the Eastern Band of Cherokee (King 1979). After the death of Chief Yonagusta in 1839, they were
increasingly assisted by William H. Thomas, a white merchant who was Yonagusta’s adopted son. Thomas
worked on the Cherokees’ behalf for the next 40 years, acquiring land for both individual Cherokees and
the tribe. Thomas eventually acquired some 73,000 acres for these communities, mostly within the present-
day Qualla Boundary.

22
POST-CONTACT PERIOD OVERVIEW
Euro-American settlement of the Transylvania County region began in the late 18th century, even before
the Cherokees relinquished title to the area. One early settler was William Porter, who received a grant on
Catheys Creek; other early land entries were made along the French Broad and its tributaries, including
Cherryfield Creek and the Davidson and Little rivers areas. Many early settlers of the area that would
become Transylvania County had been soldiers during the American Revolution and were given land in
return for military service (Sharpe 1965:2098; Wetmore 1993:18).
The early economy was dominated by small farms and tenant farms primarily raising livestock (Blethen
and Wood 1987:79, 82). Early industries in the region included the Davidson River Iron Works, which
closed before the Civil War, and a hattery operated by Jimmie Neill that produced hats from animal hides
(Sharpe 1965:2099). Gillespie Gun Works located on the East Fork of the French Broad was another early
industry, probably in operation until 1803 (Wetmore 1993:18). Several grist mills and likely saw mills were
in operation along major streams.
Counties in the southwestern portion of North Carolina have undergone numerous transformations prior to
their present-day configuration. In 1791, Buncombe County was formed from Burke and Rutherford
counties. In 1808, Haywood County was formed from Buncombe. In 1828, Macon County was formed
from Haywood County. In 1838, Henderson County was formed from Buncombe. In 1851, Jackson County
was formed from Haywood and Macon. Finally, in 1861, Transylvania County was formed from Jackson
and Henderson Counties (Corbitt 1950).
Euro-American settlement in the area increased in the years before the Civil War. In the first census that
included Transylvania County in 1870, the recorded population of the county was 3,536. This figure nearly
doubled by 1900 to 6,620. By 1960 the population had climbed to 16,372 persons, and in 2000 29,334
individuals were residing in Transylvania County.
The Transylvania Railroad (originally the Henderson & Brevard Railroad) was established in 1894, linking
Brevard and Hendersonville. The line was extended to Rosman in 1900 after being purchased by J.F. Hayes
who placed it under the control of the Toxaway Company (Poole 1995:68–69). The extension of the railroad
to the area increased access to previously inaccessible markets in the eastern part of the state and spurred
the development of logging and other industry in the area (Poole 1995:68). The line eventually extended to
the Toxaway resort area in 1903, providing access for wealthy vacationers.
The years of the early 20th century were relatively good ones for Transylvania and surrounding counties, as
the booming lumber industry provided many jobs and directed money to the area. Major logging operations
developed during this period, including the Gloucester Lumber Company, the Louis Carr Lumber
Company, and the Moltz Lumber Company near Toxaway Mountain. The railroad line that supported the
Louis Carr Company ran through the present-day Pisgah National Forest; in 1912 Carr purchased 70,000
acres from George Vanderbilt (Poole 1995:71).
Around 1900, Joseph Silversteen established operations at Rosman (formerly Toxaway, and later,
Eastatoe). Silversteen founded the Gloucester Lumber Company, which logged the French Broad watershed
at its headwaters south of the Vanderbilt holdings, in addition to operating a number of tanneries. The
operation expanded in 1910 when Silversteen acquired 30,000 additional acres from Vanderbilt (Ayers and
Ashe 1905:19; Van Noppen and Van Noppen 1973:262). J.F. Haynes founded the Brevard Tanning
Company to manufacture tannic acid from chestnut bark (Van Noppen and Van Noppen 1973:262). The
prosperity brought by the lumber companies was relatively short-lived. The local decline in prosperity was
exacerbated by the onset of the Great Depression, and by the 1940s, most of these companies had left the
area (Wetmore 1993).

23
The tourism industry in Transylvania County began ca. 1860 when a hotel was opened at Rockbrook. The
industry boomed after 1890, when J. Frances Hayes founded the Toxaway Company and began building
resorts in the area, including the Franklin Hotel in Brevard and the Toxaway Inn Resort with its associated
lake. The Toxaway Inn was completed in 1901, the 540-acre lake was completed in 1903, and the resort
was a popular destination for the wealthy (promoted as the “Switzerland of America”) (Powell and Hill
2010). The resort flourished until the Lake Toxaway dam was destroyed during the floods of 1916. The
flooding impacted roads, railroads, homes and crops, but infrastructure improvements, TVA assistance, and
the establishment of national forest lands helped the area recover (Wetmore 1993).
The Ecusta Paper Plant was established prior to World War II and employed a number of Transylvania
County citizens. Other companies, including NASA, American Thread, and DuPont were drawn to the area
by the region’s clean air and water. Despite this small amount of industrial development, much of the county
remains rural. Retail and manufacturing play roles in the current economy, but tourism remains a driving
force. The national and state parks draw people to the area in awe of the beauty of the waterfalls, wildlife,
and mountain views (Wetmore 1993).
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Western North Carolina has been the subject of archaeological research for over a century, and most trends
in the history of North American archaeology are reflected in the region. As early as the 1880s, workers
from the Valentine Museum in Richmond investigated several mound sites in the region (Dickens 1976:7),
and other early investigations were carried out by the Osbornes (Keel 1976). The museum’s work was
primarily oriented toward recovering artifacts, although in some cases the resulting data have been useful
in addressing present-day research questions (e.g., Dickens 1976:91). Also in the 1880s, researchers from
the Smithsonian Institution’s Bureau of Ethnology excavated sites in Buncombe and Henderson counties
as part of their investigations into the origin of the “Mound Builders” (Thomas 1894). That research was
instrumental in demonstrating that the mounds in western North Carolina and elsewhere had in fact been
built by American Indians and were not the products of a mysterious, vanished race.
Early 20th century work in western North Carolina continued to focus on mound explorations. Captain R.D.
Wainwright examined several mounds in the region in 1913 (Steere et al. 2012), including the now-
destroyed Cullowhee mound (31JK2), and between 1915 and 1919, George Heye and associates excavated
at the Garden Creek site in Haywood County and other nearby sites (Harrington 1922; Heye 1919; Heye et
al. 1918). Although that work was designed to gather artifacts for Heye’s Museum of the American Indian
in New York, it did provide some data on the antiquity of the Cherokees in the region (Dickens 1976:7–8).
Subsequent work in 1933 and 1934 by the Smithsonian Institution at the Peachtree Mound and Village in
Cherokee County was also designed to investigate the relationship between the Cherokees and precontact
cultures in the area (Setzler and Jennings 1941). Also in the 1930s, George MacPherson (1936a, 1936b)
and Hiram Wilburn conducted surveys of numerous sites in Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Although many of their data were to be incorporated into later research (Bass 1975), at the time their work
had little impact on the understanding of precontact occupations of the region.
Intensive, systematic work in the Appalachian Summit region did not begin until 1964, when the University
of North Carolina instituted the Cherokee Archaeological Project. This project, which lasted until 1971,
included large-scale surveys and salvage excavations, as well as intensive investigations of late precontact
and historic Cherokee sites (Purrington 1983:98–99; Ward 1979; Ward and Davis 1999:17–18). Data from
this project have been reported in several theses, dissertations, and other publications (e.g., Dickens 1976;
Egloff 1967; Keel 1976), and provide much of the background information on the Appalachian Summit
region. As part of that project, substantial work was conducted at the Warren Wilson site, documenting a
Mississippian period Pisgah phase village as well as earlier Woodland period occupations (Keel 1976).

24
Other substantial work was accomplished at Coweta Creek (Rodning 2004), Garden Creek (Keel 1976),
Townson (Ward and Davis 1999:268–271), and at the Tuckasegee site (Dickens 1976).
A 1964 survey conducted as part of the Cherokee Project identified 150 sites (31TV1–31TV150) in
Transylvania County (Holden 1966). Almost three decades later, a comprehensive archaeological survey
was sponsored by the Transylvania County Historic Properties Commission and the National Park Service
(Wetmore 1993). This survey included location of 159 sites throughout the county, revisits to 16 sites, and
testing of 10 sites with potentially significant precontact and historic deposits. Most sites were located
during the survey using systematic surface collection. Backhoe trenching was also conducted along the
French Broad River to determine if buried archaeological sites were present.
Much of the more recent archaeological work in Transylvania County has been conducted by U.S. Forest
Service archaeologists working in the Pisgah National Forest, usually in response to proposed timber sales
(e.g., Baker and Hall 1988; Noel and Snedeker 1994; Snedeker and Ruesch 1986). Several projects have
been conducted by or on behalf of NCDOT as part of road improvement projects (e.g., Benyshek and
Jackson 2006; Carter 2016; Glover 1994; Joy et al. 2002; Legacy Research Associates 2008, 2010; Nelson
2014). Other environmental compliance surveys have been conducted in advance of infrastructure
development and public amenities.

25
4. RESEARCH GOALS AND METHODS
RESEARCH GOALS
The goal of the survey was to systematically gather data on any archaeological resources present within the
project area. If significant resources were encountered, the archaeological field data were to be combined
with information obtained in the background research to address the nature of the precontact, contact, and/or
post-contact period occupations of the area.
RESEARCH METHODS
Specific research methods were utilized for the background studies, field research, analysis, and reporting
stages of the project, as outlined below.
Background Research
Background research was conducted to gather information on any known cultural resources on or adjacent
to the project area and included examination of the following materials:
 Archaeological site files, reports, and data on file at the OSA in Raleigh and Asheville;
 Historic structures data available on HPOweb;
 Published and on-line information regarding cemeteries in the project vicinity; and
 Historical maps and other data available on-line and in TRC’s collection.
Field Methods
The archaeological survey complied with all pertinent state and federal regulations, including the OSA’s
Archaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines (OSA 2017) and the NFsNC guidelines. The survey
consisted of a walkover of the entire study area with shovel tests excavated at 10- to 15-m (ca. 33- to 49-ft)
intervals across the non-hydric and undisturbed portions of the project area along Catheys and Kuykendall
creeks. Additional 5-m interval shovel tests were subsequently excavated at the western end of Catheys
Creek and the west side of Kuykendall Creek at sites 31TV1101 and 31TV1102. In addition, exposed
ground surfaces, including existing trails, roads, and tree throws, were visually inspected for surface
artifacts and any evidence of above-ground cultural resources (i.e., chimney falls, spring houses, cemeteries,
etc.).
Each shovel test measured 30 to 35 cm in diameter and was excavated to sterile subsoil. All removed soil
was screened through ¼-inch mesh for uniform artifact recovery. Each shovel test was described in terms
of depth, soil texture, Munsell soil color, and artifact recovery. All shovel test locations were recorded using
a handheld Trimble Geo7X Global Positioning System (GPS) in NAD 27 coordinates and drawn on the
project map.
Laboratory Methods and Curation
All artifacts were returned to the TRC Asheville office for processing and analysis. The artifacts were
washed and then sorted into categories according to established regional types or styles. All artifact data
were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

26
Lithic Artifact Analysis. Lithic artifacts were first sorted into general flaked tool and debitage categories
and non-flaked stone categories. The following categories were to be considered in the more detailed
analysis, although not all are represented in the assemblage.
Debitage. Debitage fragments are the byproduct of lithic tool manufacture. Counts, weight, raw material,
and size category were recorded for debitage. Most debitage was classified only by size (i.e., true flakes
with platforms present and shatter lacking discernible platforms were not differentiated, mainly due to the
amount of time required to accurately orient the flake and ambiguity encountered in platform
characteristics). Similarly, the presence or absence of cortex was generally not noted, in part because of
ambiguity on small flakes.
Raw Material Identification. Chipped stone raw materials were identified based on macroscopic
characteristics. The only category recognized in the lithic assemblage is chert.
Ceramic Artifacts. All sherds greater than 2 cm were classified by surface decoration and aplastic content;
the smaller sherds were counted and received no further analysis. The aplastic (inclusion) content was
documented as the type (or raw material) of the major material present (e.g., crushed quartz, shell, or sand).
Sand temper was identified using fine (< 0.25 mm), medium (0.25–0.5 mm), or coarse (>0.5 mm)
categories. The coarse sand category may represent the “grit” tempered designation used by some
researchers in the area. In sherds that appear to have both crushed quartz/other rock and sand temper within
the same vessel, temper was recorded as such. This category was also used when a determination could not
be made whether crushed material (mainly quartz/quartzite) was used; the angular nature of the natural
gravel and sand deposits in local streams and rivers often makes that determination difficult within a single
sherd.
Historic Artifact Analysis. Historic artifacts were classified according to published artifact descriptions.
The single historic ceramic artifact recovered was classified according to type (i.e. porcelain, whiteware,
ironstone), and any decoration present was described.
Curation. The project materials are being prepared for curation in accordance with OSA standards and are
currently stored in the TRC Asheville office. The artifacts will ultimately be curated with other NFsNC
collections at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee.
NRHP Eligibility Evaluation
The identified archaeological resources were evaluated as far as possible following the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP) Eligibility Criteria as outlined in 36 CFR 60.4 (USDOI 1991). The NRHP
Eligibility Criteria state:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture
is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that possess integrity of location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association.
(a). That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of our history; or
(b). That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(c). That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values; or that represent a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

27
(d). That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Several factors were considered in assessing site significance and research potential under Criterion D,
including artifact variety and quantity, site clarity and integrity, and environmental context (Glassow
1977).

28
This page intentionally left blank.

29
5. RESULTS
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Previously Identified Resources
Archaeological Surveys and Sites. A review of files and records at the OSA determined that there have
been no previous archaeological surveys within or adjacent to the Catheys Creek project area. There are 10
previously recorded archaeological sites within a one-mile radius of the study area (Table 5.1). Four of the
sites (31TV7 and 31TV51–53) were recorded in the 1960s as part of UNC’s Cherokee Project; all four
contained both precontact lithic and ceramic artifacts, but have not been assessed for NRHP eligibility. Two
sites (31TV544 and 31TV620) were recorded during Ruth Wetmore’s (1993) survey of Transylvania
County. One (31TV544) contained a low density of precontact lithic artifacts and was determined not
eligible for the NRHP, while the other (31TV620) contained a Woodland component and was recommended
for additional work or avoidance. Wetmore also recorded site 31TV658, which contains both Archaic and
Woodland components. Three sites (31TV386, 31TV849, and 31TV966) were recorded during surveys of
proposed timber sales conducted by the NFsNC and were determined not eligible for the NRHP. None of
the 10 recorded sites has the potential to extend into the study area.
Table 5.1. Previously Recorded Sites within One Mile of the Catheys Creek Study Area.
Site Component(s) NRHP Status Reference*
31TV7 Precontact lithic and ceramic; Unknown Unassessed Smith/Holden 1964
31TV51 Precontact lithic and ceramic; Woodland Unassessed Holden 1964
31TV52 Precontact lithic and ceramic; Woodland Unassessed Holden 1964
31TV53 Precontact lithic and ceramic; Woodland Unassessed Holden 1964
31TV386 Precontact lithic; Unknown Not Eligible Noel and Snedeker 1991
31TV544 Precontact lithic; Unknown Not Eligible Wetmore 1993
31TV620 Precontact lithic and ceramic; Woodland Avoidance Wetmore 1993
31TV658 Precontact lithic; Archaic, Woodland Additional Work Wetmore 1994
31TV849 Precontact lithic; Unknown: Historic; 20th century Not Eligible Best 2006
31TV966 Precontact lithic; Unknown: Historic; 19th-20th century Not Eligible Ashcraft 2010
* References in italics are site forms.
Structures. According to the Historic Preservation Office database (HPOweb 2019) there are no recorded
historic structural resources within one mile of the project area. Other than the Brevard Water Treatment
Facility, no structures were noted within or adjacent to the study area.
Cemeteries. No cemeteries were observed within or adjacent to the project area, nor were any listed on
available on-line databases for Transylvania County (http://www.ncgenweb.us/transylvania/Cemetery-
Survey.html; http://www.usgwtombstones.org/northcarolina/transylvania.html; http://www.findagrave.
com; http://cemeterycensus.com/nc/tran/index.htm).
Historic Map and Land Records Review
NFsNC land records for the Catheys Creek area were not available for examination due to the ongoing
partial government shutdown, but late 19th through mid-20th century maps were examined to gather
information on historic period land use and assess the potential for unrecorded historic period sites in the
vicinity.
Catheys Creek is a major drainage of central Transylvania County and is depicted on a number of early
historic maps of the region. The earliest map examined that shows the approximate project area is an 1808
survey of North Carolina (Price and Strother 1808). While this map does not show extensive detail of the

30
project area, it does depict Catheys Creek, located in what was then southwestern Buncombe County
(Figure 5.1). An 1868 map of the newly formed Transylvania County shows Catheys Creek, but depicts
little detail and no structures or other improvements in the area. The earliest identified map showing any
detail in the area is the 1905 USGS 1:125,000-scale Pisgah quadrangle (Figure 5.2) (USGS 1905), which
is imprecise by modern standards, but shows Catheys Creek Road, Kuykendall Creek and Kuykendall
Creek Road. No structures are depicted in the project area. The 1906 Transylvania County soils map (Hearn
and MacNider 1906) provides a similar view of conditions, and also shows no structures in the project area
(Figure 5.3).
Both the 1935 Rosman planimetric quadrangle (Figure 5.4) (USGS 1935), and the 1946 topographic
quadrangle (Figure 5.5) (USGS 1946) depict the current Catheys Creek and Kuykendall Creek road and
creek configurations; no structures are shown within the project location on either map. The first map to
depict any evidence of improvements at the Brevard Water Treatment Facility site is the 1945 (photorevised
1971) topographic quadrangle (Figure 5.6) (USGS 1945/71), which shows a gaging station in the
approximate location as the existing dam. The Water Treatment Facility and dam were constructed between
1980 and 1985 and appear on the 1997 USGS map (Figure 5.7) (USGS 1997).
Summary. In summary, there are no previously recorded archaeological sites in the immediate project area,
although there is potential for precontact sites, especially on relatively level and well drained landforms
along the streams. Apart from the roads, there is no documentary evidence of historic period activities prior
to construction of a gaging station sometime between 1946 and 1971 and of the Brevard Water Treatment
Facility itself in 1980 (see below)

Figure 5.1. The approximate project location as shown on the 1808 Price and Strother map of North
Carolina.

Approx. Project Location

31
Figure 5.2. The approximate project location as shown on the 1905 USGS Pisgah quadrangle.

Figure 5.3. The approximate project location as shown on the 1906 Transylvania County soils map
(Hearn and MacNider 1906).
Approx. Project Location
Approx. Project Location

32
Figure 5.4. The approximate project location as shown on the 1935 USGS Rosman quadrangle.

Figure 5.5. The approximate project location as shown on the 1946 USGS Rosman quadrangle.

Approx. Project Location
Approx. Project Location

33

Figure 5.6. The approximate project location as shown on the 1945/71 USGS Rosman quadrangle.

Figure 5.7. The approximate project location as shown on the 1997 USGS Rosman quadrangle.
Approx. Project Location
Approx. Project Location

34
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY

The archaeological survey for the Catheys Creek project began with a systematic pedestrian walkover of
the project area to search for any potential surface features (i.e., chimney falls, rock shelters, spring houses
etc.). Systematic shovel testing was then conducted at 10- to 15-m intervals in all areas exhibiting less than
20 percent slope and lacking impervious surfaces, standing water, hydric soils, or severe disturbances. The
higher terraces along the west side of Kuykendall Creek and the western end of Catheys Creek were shovel
tested at 10-m intervals, while the lower more disturbed terraces were tested at 15-m intervals. Per NFsNC
standards, at least three shovel tests were placed on each micro-landform. Additional shovel tests were
excavated at 5-m intervals to delineate the two archaeological sites discovered (see below). A total of 37
shovel tests were excavated.

The shovel tests across the project were varied in both soil composition and depth. Three shovel tests
excavated along the east side Kuykendall Creek, north of Catheys Creek Road, all encountered cobbles
within 30 cm below surface (cmbs), and soil in those shovel tests consisted of dark grayish brown (10YR
4/2) sandy loam. The area between Catheys Creek and Catheys Creek Road was heavily disturbed, with a
number of small intermittent drainages (natural and artificial), push piles and berms, and heavy scouring
along the creek bank. Soils encountered in shovel tests in this area generally consisted of an A horizon of
either dark brown (10YR 3/3) or dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sandy loam that extended to between 27
and 65 cm below surface (cmbs), overlying a dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) sand B horizon extending
up to 75 cmbs or more and overlying stream cobbles. A few shovel tests encountered cobbles or roots at
shallower depths preventing further excavation.

The survey identified two archaeological sites, 31TV1101 and 31TV1102, in the Catheys Creek stream
restoration area (Table 5.2; Figures 5.8–5.10).

Table 5.2. Archaeological Resources Identified during the Survey.
Site No. Components Recommendation
31TV1101 Precontact: Unknown lithic; Historic: late 19th to mid-20th century Not eligible  
31TV1102 Precontact: Late Woodland to Early/Middle Mississippian; possible Qualla Unassessed; avoidance
31TV1101
Component: Precontact: Unknown lithic: Historic: late 19th to mid-20th century
Site dimensions: 5 (N-S)  5 m (E-W)
UTMs (NAD 27): E337445 N3897981
Landform: Terrace
Elevation: ca. 2,306 ft AMSL
Soil Type: Dellwood-Reddies complex
Recommendation: Not Eligible
Description. Site 31TV1101 is identified by a single positive shovel test that produced two artifacts from
the Ap (plowzone) horizon. It is located at the western edge of the study area between Catheys Creek and
Catheys Creek Road, just west of the confluence with Kuykendall Creek (Figures 5.9–5.11). The site is
located in a relatively open area on a terrace that is subject to a high amount of localized foot traffic and
has a moderate amount of modern debris on the surface.
Soils encountered consisted of a 35 cm thick A horizon of very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy clay loam.
Beneath the plowzone is a 15 cm thick yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sand with cobbles (Figures 5.12 and
5.13).

35

Figure 5.8. The Catheys Creek project area and sites 31TV1101 and 31TV1102.

36

Figure 5.9. Shovel tests excavated and sites recorded in the Catheys Creek study area.

37

Figure 5.10. Map of sites 31TV1101 and 31TV1102.

38

Figure 5.11. Overview of Shovel Test 3 at site 31TV1101, facing west.

Figure 5.12. Shovel Test 3 at site 31TV1101 profile photograph.

39

Figure 5.13. Shovel Test 3 at site 31TV1101 profile drawing.
Four delineation shovel tests were excavated at 5-m intervals in a cruciform pattern around the initial
positive shovel test within the project area, and two additional shovel tests were excavated at 10-m intervals
across the same landform. None of the additional shovel tests contained artifacts. The site boundaries are
defined by two consecutive negative shovel tests to the east and west, Catheys Creek bank to the south, and
the road berm and Catheys Creek Road define the northern boundary.
The precontact artifact is a small chert flake that is not temporally diagnostic, while the historic artifact is
a small fragment of whiteware that could date from the mid-19th century to the present.
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31TV1101 consists of single precontact and historic period artifacts
recovered from one shovel test. Due to the small size, limited landform, low artifact density, and lack of
temporally diagnostic artifacts, site 31TV1101 lacks the potential to yield further information about the
prehistory or history of the area and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D; the site
also appears to lack the characteristics that would make it eligible under Criteria A, B, or C. No additional
work is recommended at this site.

31TV1102
Component: Precontact: Late Woodland to Qualla phase
Site dimensions: 15 m (N-S)  15 m (E-W)
UTMs (NAD 27): E337455 N3898017
Landform: Terrace
Elevation: ca. 2,309 ft. AMSL
Soil Type: Dellwood-Reddies complex
Recommendation: Unassessed—Avoid site disturbance; provide buffer

40
Description. Site 31TV1102 is a low density, but possibly multi-component, precontact site located along
a lightly wooded terrace on the west bank of Kuykendall Creek, north of Catheys Creek Road and east of
Kuykendall Road (Figure 5.14; see Figures 5.8–5.10). A total of 14 shovel tests were excavated across the
landform at 5- and 10-m intervals, four of which contained a total of nine precontact artifacts. The site
measures approximately 15 m north-south by 15 m east-west and is limited to the existing landform. It is
bounded to the north by consecutive negative shovel tests, to the south by a negative shovel test and a large
berm along a parking area adjacent to Catheys Creek Road, to the east by the bank of Kuykendall Creek,
and to the west by large rocks and Kuykendall Road. West of Kuykendall Road is a cut mountainside.
Soils at the site are mapped as Dellwood-Reddies complex, 0–3 percent slopes, a sandy and gravelly
alluvium that is occasionally flooded and found along drainages in valleys and on floodplains (USDA
NRCS 2019). Soils encountered in shovel testing consisted of a very dark gray (10YR 3/1) silty or very
fine sandy loam A horizon to depths of 40 to 80 cmbs atop a yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sand B horizon
that extended to depths of 60 to 90 cmbs, at which point cobbles were encountered (Figures 5.15 and 5.16).
All artifacts came from the upper stratum to depths up to 80 cmbs. A few shovel tests at the northern end
of the site contained bands of alluvial sand prior to encountering cobbles.
The artifact assemblage includes a complicated stamped ceramic sherd (Figure 5.17a), a plain sherd, and
three residual (less than 2 cm in size) precontact ceramic sherds. The curvilinear stamped sherd (Figure
5.17a) is a fragment of the neck portion of a vessel with wide lands and grooves and possibly dates to the
Qualla phase (ca. A.D. 1400–1838), while one of the residual sherds (Figure 5.17b) has a fine line rectilinear
complicated stamped design and may date to the Late Woodland to Early/Middle Mississippian periods (ca.
A.D. 600–1400). Four chert flakes also were recovered and are not temporally diagnostic, but based on
regional raw material use patterns, likely date to the Early Archaic period (ca. 8000–6000 B.C.) or the
Middle Woodland through Contact periods (ca. 200 B.C.–A.D. 1750). No evidence of cultural features was
observed in any of the shovel tests at 31TV1102.

Figure 5.14. Overview of 31TV1102, four positive shovel tests flagged, facing northeast.

41

Figure 5.15. Shovel Test 14 at site 31TV1102 profile photograph.

Figure 5.16. Shovel Test 14 at site 31TV1102 profile drawing.

42

Figure 5.17. Selected artifacts from 31TV1102. a: possible Qualla curvilinear complicated stamped
sherd; b: Late Woodland to Early/Middle Mississippian fine line rectilinear complicated stamped sherd
Discussion and Recommendation. Site 31TV1102 is a small precontact site that likely dates from the Late
Woodland period to the Qualla phase and is represented by a low-density scatter of precontact lithic and
ceramic artifacts. As defined by the shovel testing within the project area, the precontact artifacts are
contained within the A horizon to depths of 80 cmbs. Given the size and orientation of the existing landform,
the site is unlikely to extend outside the current project boundaries due to the proximity of Kuykendall
Creek, Kuykendall Creek Road, and Catheys Creek Road.
While no evidence of cultural features (e.g., pits or structural remains) was encountered during the survey,
the presence of multiple ceramic artifacts (which are often associated with semi-permanent occupations)
suggests that they might be present. Given this possibility, site 31TV1102 may have the potential to provide
substantial information concerning the prehistory of the region (NRHP Criterion D), although it appears to
lack the characteristics necessary for NRHP eligibility under Criteria A–C. In the absence of more intensive
excavations, the site is considered unassessed for NRHP eligibility. TRC recommends that a 10- to 15-m
buffer zone be established around the positive shovel tests to protect the site from any potential disturbances
during the Catheys Creek project.
BREVARD WATER TREATMENT FACILITY DAM
The project also included an assessment of the potential NRHP eligibility of the dam at the Brevard Water
Treatment facility.
The dam is a concrete structure that extends northeast-southwest across Catheys Creek and connects to a
concrete sluice gate and the water treatment facility on the southwest (Figures 5.18–5.20). The Brevard
Water Treatment Facility was constructed in 1980 (Asheville Citizen-Times, February 15, 1980), and the
dam itself was designed by Maguire/Beebe engineers in 1982 (Figure 5.21) (Dennis Richardson, personal
communication January 14, 2019). As a structure that is less than 50 years old and lacking exceptional
importance (NRHP Criteria Consideration G), this structure is not eligible for the NRHP and requires no
further consideration for the Catheys Creek project.
b

a

43

Figure 5.18. Dam at the Brevard Water Treatment Facility, facing southwest.

Figure 5.19. Dam at the Brevard Water Treatment Facility, facing south.

44

Figure 5.20. Dam at the Brevard Water Treatment Facility, facing south.

Figure 5.21. 1982 sketch of dam at the Brevard Water Treatment Facility.

45
6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) has completed an archaeological survey for the proposed Catheys
Creek Stream Restoration Project in Pisgah Ranger District of Pisgah National Forest in Transylvania
County, North Carolina. The work was conducted on behalf of The Resource Institute. The study area
includes approximately three acres situated on Pisgah National Forest and located between Catheys Creek
and Catheys Creek Road (SR 1338 and FS 471), starting just upstream from the City of Brevard’s Catheys
Creek Water Treatment Facility and extending west past the confluence of Kuykendall Creek and Catheys
Creek, as well as limited areas to the north situated between Kuykendall Creek and Kuykendall Creek Road
and extending 50 feet east of Kuykendall Creek. In addition to the archaeological survey, the existing dam
at the Water Treatment Facility was documented and evaluated. No survey was conducted on the limited
portion of the project area located south of Catheys Creek outside Pisgah National Forest.
Background research included review of site files and reports and historic structure files at the OSA offices
in Raleigh and Asheville, and examination of 19th to 20th century maps and aerial photographs; due to an
ongoing partial government shutdown, land records at the National Forests in North Carolina office in
Asheville could not be accessed. The research revealed that there have been no previous archaeological
surveys and there are no previously recorded archaeological sites within or adjacent to the project area.
There are 10 previously recorded sites within a one-mile radius of the project corridors, however, and the
vicinity is generally considered to have a moderate potential for containing archaeological resources.
The archaeological fieldwork was conducted on December 31, 2018 and January 2, 2019 and was directed
by Michael Nelson. The survey included a walkover of the project area, along with systematic subsurface
shovel testing at 10-m intervals across the higher terraces and at 15-m intervals across the lower terraces.
Areas exhibiting extreme surface disturbances and/or standing water or hydric soils were not shovel tested.
Following NFsNC guidelines, a minimum of three shovel tests were excavated on each habitable landform.
A total of 37 shovel tests were excavated (including site delineation tests excavated at 5-m intervals).

Two archaeological sites, 31TV1101 and 31TV1102, were recorded. Site 31TV1101 is located on the small
terrace between Catheys Creek Road and Catheys Creek, just west of the confluence with Kuykendall
Creek, and site 31TV1102 is located on the west bank of Kuykendall Creek, between the creek and
Kuykendall Road.

Site 31TV1101 is represented by one precontact lithic artifact and one mid-19th to mid-20th century historic
period artifact recovered from a single shovel test. That site lacks the potential to provide substantial
additional information concerning the prehistory or history of the area and is recommended not eligible for
the NRHP under Criterion D; the site also appears to lack the characteristics necessary for eligibility under
NRHP Criteria A–C.

Site 31TV1102 is a small Late Woodland to possible Qualla lithic and ceramic scatter located on a small
terrace. Given the limited landform, it is unlikely that the site boundaries extend outside the study area. Site
31TV1102 appears to be confined to the current project area and would require additional testing to
conclusively determine its NRHP eligibility. This site is considered unassessed and should be avoided by
the project activities; TRC recommends that a 10- to 15-m buffer be established around the site boundary
to protect it from inadvertent disturbances.

The dam at the City of Brevard’s Catheys Creek Water Treatment Facility was constructed in the 1980s, a
few years after construction of the Water Treatment Facility. As a structure that is less than 50 years old
and lacking exceptional importance (NRHP Criteria Consideration G), this structure is not eligible for the
NRHP and requires no further consideration for the Catheys Creek project.

46
This page intentionally left blank.

47
REFERENCES CITED
Adovasio, James M., Jack Donahue, and Robert Stuckenrath
1990 The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology 1975–1990. American Antiquity 55:348–354.
Adovasio, James M., David Pedler, Jack Donahue, and Robert Stuckenrath
1999 No Vestige of a Beginning nor Prospect for an End: Two Decades of Debate on Meadowcroft
Rockshelter. In Ice Age Peoples of North America: Environments, Origins, and Adaptations of the First
Americans, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K.L. Turmire, pp. 416–431. Oregon State University Press,
Corvallis.
Alexis (L.T. Siler)
1852 A Visit to the Cartoogechaye Indians. The North Carolina University Magazine 1:116–118.
Altman, Heidi
2006 Eastern Cherokee Fishing. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Anderson, David G.
1990 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: a View from the Southeastern United States.
In Research in Economic Anthropology, edited by JAI Press Inc., pp. 163–216, Supplement 5. Greenwich.
1996 Approaches to Modeling Regional Settlement in the Archaic Period Southeast. In Archaeology of the
Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Ken Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 157–176. University Press of
Florida.
Anderson, David G., and Christopher Gillam
2000 Paleoindian Colonization of the Americas: Implications from an Examination of Physiography,
Demography, and Artifact Distribution. American Antiquity 65:43–66.
Anderson, David G., Sammy T. Lee, and A. Robert Parler
1979 Cal Smoak: Archaeological Investigations along the Edisto River in the Coastal Plain of South
Carolina. Occasional Papers 1, Archaeological Society of South Carolina.
Ashcraft, A. Scott
1996 Pisgah Phase Palisades: Observations on the Spatial Evolution of Village Perimeters. In Upland
Archaeology in the East: Symposium Number Six. Archaeological Society of Virginia Special Publication
38(6):46–72.
2010 Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Walnut Cove Passage Improvement Project, INFRA Event
#R2010081107010, Compartment 101, Pisgah National Forest, Transylvania County, North Carolina.
National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
Ayers, H.B., and W.W. Ashe
1905 The Southern Appalachian Forests. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey
Professional Paper No. 37, Series H, Forestry, 12. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Baker, C. Michael, and Linda G. Hall
1988 Cultural Resources Survey of the Wolf Ford Timber Sale, Transylvania County, North Carolina. Hall &
Baker Archaeological Consultants, Weaverville, North Carolina. On file, Office of State Archaeology,
Raleigh.
Bass, Quentin R., III
1975 Prehistoric Settlement and Subsistence Patterns in the Great Smoky Mountains. Submitted to the
National Park Service, Knoxville.
Beck, Robin A., Jr
1997 From Joara to Chiaha: Spanish Exploration of the Appalachian Summit Area, 1540–1568. Southeastern
Archaeology 16:162–169.
Benyshek, Tasha
2007 Archaeological Data Recovery Investigations at 31SW311 at the EBCI EMS Building Site, Swain
County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill. Submitted to Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, North Carolina.
2008 Archaeological Investigations at the Sneed Site (31JK466) at the Former Papoose Motel for the EBCI
Housing and Development Division, Jackson County, Qualla Boundary, North Carolina. TRC, Chapel Hill.
Submitted to Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, North Carolina.
2016 Management Summary for Archaeological Data Recovery at 31SW395 and 31SW396 at the Old
Elementary School, Cherokee, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill. Submitted to
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherokee.

48
Benyshek, Tasha, and Bryan Jackson
2006 Archaeological Survey for Three Alternates for Improvements to US 64, Transylvania County, North
Carolina. TRC Garrow Associates, Inc., Durham. Submitted to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Office of Human Environment, Raleigh.
Benyshek, Tasha, and Paul A. Webb
2004 Intensive Archaeological Survey of Three Alternatives for the Replacement of Bridges No. 99 and 100
on SR 1100 across the Nantahala River, Swain County, North Carolina. TRC Garrow and Associates,
Durham, North Carolina. Submitted to NCDOT, Raleigh.
2006 Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Smokemont Water and Sewer Project, Great Smoky Mountains
National Park, Swain County, North Carolina. TRC Garrow Associates, Chapel Hill. Submitted to Science
Applications International Corporation, Oak Ridge.
2008 Mississippian and Historic Cherokee Structure Types and Settlement Plans at Ravensford. Paper
presented at Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina.
2009a Management Summary for the Archaeological Data Recovery Fieldwork for the Macon County Airport
Extension Project, Site 31MA77. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill. Submitted to the Macon
County Airport Authority, Franklin, North Carolina.
2009b The Ravensford and Macon County Airport Sites. Presented at North Carolina Appalachian Summit
Archaeology: New Visions of Ancient Times Symposium, Boone, North Carolina.
2017 Ceramics from Ravensford, Qualla Boundary, North Carolina. Presented at Uplands Archaeology in the
East Symposium XII, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina.
i.p. Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at the Ravensford Site (31SW78 and 31SW136), Swain
County, North Carolina, Volume 1: Archaic, Woodland, Mississippian, and Historic Cherokee
Components. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill.
Best, Megan S.
2006 Cultural Resource Inventory of Bee Tree NFSR #3058, Cathey’s Creek Dispersed Recreation area, and
Avery Creek Dispersed Recreation Area for the North Carolina Storm Recovery: 2004–2005. National
Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
Blethen, H. Tyler, and Curtis W. Wood Jr.
1987 The Pioneer Experience to 1851. In The History of Jackson County, edited by Max R. Williams, pp. 67–
100. Jackson County Historical Association, Sylva.
Binford, Lewis R.
1977 Forty-seven Trips: A Case Study in the Character of Archaeological Formation Processes. In Stone
Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution, and Complexity, edited by R.V.S. Wright, pp. 24–36.
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.
1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological
Research 35:255–273.
Bissett, Thaddeus G., LaDonna Rogers Stroupe, Patrick H. Garrow, and Judith A. Sichler
2009 Phase II Archaeological Testing and Phase III Data Recovery, WCU Millennial Campus –
Neighborhood #1, Cullowhee, Jackson County, North Carolina. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting,
Knoxville.
Blanton, Dennis B., and Kenneth E. Sassaman
1989 Pattern and Process in the Middle Archaic of South Carolina. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology
in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson, edited by Albert C. Goodyear, pp. 53–72. South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia.
Braun, E. Lucy
1950 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. The Blakiston Company, Philadelphia.
Brose, David S., and N’omi Greber
1979 Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Cable, John, and Lisa O’Steen, Leslie E. Raymer, Dr. Johannes H.N. Loubser, Dr. David S. Leigh, Dr. J.W. Joseph,
Mary Beth Reed, Lotta Danielsson-Murphy, Undine McEvoy, Thaddeus Murphy, Mary Teresa Bonage-Freund,
and Dr. Deborah Wallsmith
1997 A Picture Unsurpassed: Prehistoric and Historic Indian Settlement and Landscape Brasstown Valley,
Towns County, Georgia. Report submitted to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources by New South
Associates, Inc.

49
Carter, Katherine G.
2016 Archaeological Survey of the Rosman Borrow Site #1, Transylvania County, North Carolina.
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
Chapman, Jefferson
1973 The Icehouse Bottom Site, 40MR23. University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Report of
Investigations 13.
1981 The Bacon Bend and Iddins Sites: the Late Archaic Period in the Little Tennessee River Valley.
University of Tennessee Department of Anthropology, Report of Investigations No. 31.
1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge-and-Valley Province. In Structure and
Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens and Trawick Ward, pp. 195–211.
University of Alabama Press, Birmingham.
Chapman, Jefferson, and Gary Crites
1987 Evidence for Early Maize (Zea mays) from the Icehouse Bottom Site, Tennessee. American Antiquity
52:352–354.
Chapman, Jefferson, and Bennie C. Keel
1979 Candy Creek-Connestee Components in Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina and Their
Relationship with Adena-Hopewell. In Hopewell Archaeology: the Chillicothe Conference, edited by David
S. Brose and N’omi Greber, pp.157–161. Kent State University Press.
Claflin, William H., Jr.
1931 The Stallings Island Mound, Columbia County, Georgia. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American
Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 14, No. 41, Harvard University, Cambridge.
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, Michigan. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington, North Carolina.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society
54(5).
Corbitt, David Leroy
1950 The Formation of the North Carolina Counties, 1663 to 1943. North Carolina Department of Archives
and History, Raleigh.
Cowan, C. Wesley
1985 Understanding the Evolution of Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America: Lessons from Botany,
Ethnography, and Archaeology. In Prehistoric Food Production in North America, edited by Richard I. Ford,
pp. 205–243. Anthropological Papers No. 75. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
Cozzo, David N.
2004 Ethnobotanical Classification System and Medical Ethnobotany of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee
Indians. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
Cridlebaugh, Patricia A.
1981 The Icehouse Bottom Site 1977 Excavations. Tennessee Valley Authority Publications in Anthropology
No. 34, and University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Report of Investigations 35.
Crites, Gary D.
2004 Biltmore Mound Plant Remains. In Hopewell Subsistence and Ceremonialism at Biltmore Mound,
Biltmore Estate, North Carolina. Research Report submitted by ASU Laboratories of Archaeological
Science, Department of Anthropology, Boone, North Carolina to Committee for Research and Exploration
National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
Dagenhardt, Johnny R.
1972 Perforated Soapstone Discs: A Functional Test. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Notebook 4:65–68.
Daniel, I. Randolph Jr.
1998 Hardaway Revisited. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2005 The North Carolina Fluted Point Survey. Electronic document, http://pidba.utk.edu/northcarolina.htm.
Accessed September 2018.

50
Davis, R.P. Stephen, Jr.
1990 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Little Tennessee River Valley. Report of Investigations No. 50,
University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Knoxville, and Publications in Anthropology No. 54,
Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga.
Dean, Nadia
2012 A Demand of Blood: The Cherokee War of 1776. Valley River Press, Cherokee, North Carolina.
Delcourt, Hazel R., and Paul A. Delcourt
1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of the Southeastern United States. In Pollen Records
of Late-Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by V.M. Bryant and R.G. Holloway, pp. 1–37.
American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation.
Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt
1983 Late Quaternary Vegetational Dynamics and Community Stability Reconsidered. Quaternary Research
19:265–271.
Dickens, Roy S.
1976 Cherokee Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region. University of Tennessee,
Knoxville.
Dixon, E. James
1999 Boats, Bones, and Bison: Archeology and the First Colonization of Western North America. University
of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
2001 Human Colonization of the American: Timing, Technology and Process. Quaternary Science Reviews
20:277–299.
Duggan, Betty J.
1998 Being Cherokee in a White World: The Ethnic Persistence of a Post-Removal American Indian Enclave.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Dunbar, J.S.
2002 Chronostratigraphy and Paleoclimate of Late Pleistocene Florida and the Implications of Changing
Paleoindian Land Use. M.S. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
2006 Paleoindian Archaeology. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the Aucilla
River, edited by S.D. Webb, pp. 403–435. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Dykeman, Wilma
1965 The French Broad. Wakestone Books, Newport, Tennessee.
Egloff, Brian J.
1967 An Analysis of Ceramics from Historic Cherokee Towns. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Elliott, Daniel T.
1981 Soapstone Use in the Wallace Reservoir. Wallace Reservoir Project Contribution 5. Department of
Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.
Elliott, Daniel T., R. Jerald Ledbetter, and Elizabeth A. Gordon
1994 Data Recovery at Lover’s Lane, Phinzy Swamp, and the Old Dike Sites, Bobby Jones Expressway
Extension Corridor, Augusta, Georgia. Southeastern Archaeological Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia.
Faught, Michael K.
2008 Archaeological Roots of Human Diversity in the New World: A Compilation of Accurate and Precise
Radiocarbon Ages from Earliest Sites. American Antiquity 73:670–698.
Fiedel, Stuart
2000 The Peopling of the New World: Present Evidence, New Theories, and Future Directions. Journal of
Archaeological Research 8:39–103.
Fladmark, Knut
1979 Routes: Alternate Migration Corridors for Early Man in North America. American Antiquity 44:55–69.
Ford, Richard I.
1981 Gathering and Farming before A.D. 1000: Patterns of Prehistoric Cultivation North of Mexico. Journal
of Ethnobiology 1:6–27.
Glassow, Michael
1977 Issues in Evaluating the Significance of Archaeological Resources. American Antiquity 43:413–420.

51
Glover, Gerold
1994 Archaeological Study: New Location NC 215 from US 64 in Cherryville to SR 1379 South of Balsam
Grove, TIP R-2594. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, Planning and
Environmental Branch, Raleigh.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American
Antiquity 47:382–395.
Goodyear, Albert C., and K. Steffy
2003 Evidence for a Clovis Occupation at the Topper Site, 38AL23, Allendale County, South Carolina.
Current Research in the Pleistocene 20:23–25.
Greene, Lance K.
1996 The Archaeology and History of the Cherokee Out Towns. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
2009 A Struggle for Cherokee Community: Excavating Identity in Post-Removal North Carolina.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation in Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Griffith, Glenn E., James M. Omernik, Jeffrey A. Comstock, Michael P. Schafale, W. Henry McNab, David R.
Lenat, Trish F. MacPherson, James B. Glover, and Victor B. Shelburne. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston.
2002 Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston.
Hall, Linda, and Charles M. Baker
1993 Data Recovery at 31BN875, the Biltmore Estate, Buncombe County, North Carolina. On file, Office of
State Archaeology, Raleigh.
Hally, David J.
1988 Archaeology and Settlement Plan of the King Site. In The King Site: Continuity and Contact in
Sixteenth-Century Georgia, edited by Robert L. Blakely, pp. 3–16. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
1994 An Overview of Lamar Archaeology. In Ocmulgee Archaeology, 1936–1986, edited by David J. Hally,
pp. 144–174. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
2008 King: the Social Archaeology of a Late Mississippian Town in Northwest Georgia. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Harrington, M.R.
1922 Cherokee and Earlier Remains on Upper Tennessee River. Indian Notes and Monographs. Museum of
the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.
Hatley, M. Thomas
2006 Cherokee Women Farmers Hold their Ground. In Powhatan’s Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast,
Revised and Expanded Edition, edited by Gregory A. Waselkov, Peter H. Wood, and M. Thomas Hatley, pp.
305–338. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Haynes, C. Vance, Jr.
1966 Elephant Hunting in North America. Scientific American 214:104–112.
1969 The Earliest Americans. Science 166:709–715.
1971 Time, Environment and Early Man. Arctic Anthropology 8(2):3–14.
Hearn, Edward W., and G.M. MacNider
1906 Soil Survey of Transylvania County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Hemmings, C.A.
1999 The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Tools of Sloth Hole (8JE121: An Inundated Site in the Lower
Aucilla River, Jefferson County, Florida. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
2004 The Organic Clovis: A Single Continent-Wide Cultural Adaptation. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Henry, Gary
1992 A Longterm Site Survey of Sandymush and Newfound Creeks, Buncombe and Madison Counties.
Upland Archaeology in the East: Symposium Number 5. Archaeology Society of Virginia Special
Publication 38(5):145–186.
Heye, George G.
1919 Certain Mounds in Haywood County, North Carolina. Contributions from the Museum of the American
Indian, Heye Foundation 5(3):35–43.

52
Heye, George G., F.W. Hodge, and G.H. Pepper
1918 The Nacoochee Mound in Georgia. Contributions from the Museum of the American Indian, Heye
Foundation 2, No. 1.
Hoffecker, John F., W. Roger Powers, and Ted Goebel
1993 The Colonization of Beringia and the Peopling of the New World. Science 259:46–53.
Holden, Patricia Padgett
1966 An Archaeological Survey of Transylvania County, North Carolina. Unpublished M.A. Thesis in
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Holmes, John S.
1911 Forest Conditions in Western North Carolina. North Carolina Geological and Economic Survey
Bulletin No. 23, Raleigh.
Hudson, Charles M.
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Exploration of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566–1568. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
1997 Knights of Spain, Warriors of the Sun. University of Georgia, Athens.
Hudson, Charles M., Marvin T. Smith, and Chester B. DePratter
1984 The Hernando De Soto Expedition: from Apalachee to Chiaha. Southeastern Archaeology 3(1):45–65.
Idol, Bruce S.
2010 Archaeological Test Excavations at 31BN943, Buncombe County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental
Corporation, Chapel Hill. Report submitted to Civil Design Concepts, P.A., Waynesville, North Carolina.
2011 Archeological Assessment for Proposed Sewer Line Construction on the Boundary Tree Tract, Swain
County, Qualla Boundary, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill.
2016 Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation at Sites 31JK443 and 31JK553 for the Replacement of
Bridge 80 on SR 1737 over Caney Fork Creek, Jackson County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental
Corporation, Chapel Hill. Submitted to Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway
Division.
2017 Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at Sites 31JK164 and 31JK487 for the NC 107 Improvement
Project, Jackson County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill. Submitted to North
Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
Jorgenson, Matthew, Peter Sittig, and Daniel Cassedy
2017 The Savannah River Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region: Excavations at 31YC31 in Yancey
County, North Carolina. Presented at Upland Archaeology in the East conference, Boone, North Carolina,
February 2017.
Joy, Deborah, Warren M. Carruth, and Amy S. Carruth
2002 Archaeological Survey for Proposed Improvements of NC 215 from US 64 to SR 1326 South of Balsam
Grove, Transylvania County, North Carolina. Legacy Research Associates, Inc., Durham. Submitted to the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Office of Human Environment, Raleigh.
Keel, Bennie C.
1976 Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of the Appalachian Summit. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Keel, Bennie C., and Brian J. Egloff
1984 The Cane Creek Site, Mitchell County, North Carolina. Southern Indian Studies 33:3–44.
Kimball, Larry R.
1985 The 1977 Archaeological Survey: an Overall Assessment of the Archaeological Resources of Tellico
Reservoir. Publications in Anthropology 39. Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris.
1991 Swannanoa River Buried Archaeological Site Survey, Buncombe County, North Carolina. Submitted to
the North Carolina Division of Archives and History and the Historic Resources Commission of Asheville
and Buncombe County.
1996 Early Archaic Settlement and Technology: Lessons from Tellico. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic
Southeast, edited by D.G. Anderson and K.E. Sassaman, pp. 149–186. The University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Kimball, Larry R., and M. Scott Shumate
2003 Investigations at the Hopewellian Biltmore Mound in the Southern Appalachians. Paper presented at the
Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina.

53
Kimball, Larry, M. Scott Shumate, Thomas R. Whyte, and Gary D. Crites
2004 Hopewellian Subsistence and Ceremonialism at Biltmore Mound, Biltmore Estate, North Carolina.
Research Report submitted by Appalachian State University Laboratories of Archaeological Science,
Department of Anthropology, Boone, North Carolina to Committee for Research and Exploration, National
Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
King, Duane H.
1979 The Origin of the Eastern Cherokees as a Social and Political Entity. In The Cherokee Nation: A
Troubled History, edited by Duane H. King, pp. 164–180. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
King, John M., John W. Turpin, and Daniel D. Bacon
1974 Soil Survey of Transylvania County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin
78.
Lafferty, Robert H., III.
1981 The Phipps Bend Archaeological Project. OAR Research Series No. 4, University of Alabama. TVA
Publications in Anthropology No. 26.
Leftwich, Brent M.
1999 Projectile Points as Clues to the Influence of Topography of Western North Carolina on Cultural
History. Senior Honors Thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Legacy Research Associates
2008 Additional Mapping and Integrity Evaluation of 31TV860 (Gloucester Gap Road) in Transylvania
County, North Carolina. NCDOT TIP R-2594, State Project No. 8.1000601. Legacy Research Associates,
Inc., Durham. Submitted to the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch, Office of the Human Environment, Raleigh.
2010 Final Addendum Report, Intensive Archaeological Survey and Evaluation for Improvements to NC 215:
2010 4(f) Avoidance Alternatives in Transylvania County, North Carolina. NCDOT TIP R-2594, State
Project No. 8.1000601, Federal Aid No. STP 215(1), WBS No. 34475.1.1. Legacy Research Associates,
Inc., Durham. Submitted to the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis, Raleigh.
Leigh, David S.
2002 Geomorphology of the Ravensford Tract. In Cultural and Historical Resource Investigations of the
Ravensford Land Exchange Tract, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Swain County, North Carolina,
by Paul A. Webb, pp. 135–156. TRC Garrow Associates, Inc., Durham. Submitted to the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, North Carolina.
Leigh, David S., and Paul A. Webb
2006 Holocene Erosion, Sedimentation, and Stratigraphy at Raven Fork, Southern Blue Ridge Mountains,
USA. Geomorphology 78:161–177.
MacAvoy, J.M., and L.D. McAvoy (editors)
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series 8, Richmond.
McDonald, J.M.
2000 An Outline of the Pre-Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia, with Special Attention to a Bone
Tool Dated 14,510 yr B.P. Jeffersoniana 9:1–59. Contributions from the Virginia Museum of Natural
History, Martinsville.
McLoughlin, William G., and Walter H. Cosner Jr.
1984 The Cherokee Censuses of 1809, 1825, and 1835. In The Cherokee Ghost Dance: Essays on the
Southeastern Indians 1789–1861, by William G. McLoughlin with Walter H. Cosner Jr., and Virginia Duffy
McLoughlin, pp. 215–250. Mercer University Press.
MacPherson, George A.
1936a Record of Initial Investigations for Archaeological Sites in Certain Sections of the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park [Swain and Haywood Counties]. Ms. on file, Great Smoky Mountain National Park.
1936b Letter Report of George A. MacPherson to Dr. H.C. Bryant. May 29. On file, Great Smoky Mountains
National Park Archives, Sugarlands, Tennessee.

54
McReynolds, Theresa E.
2005 Spatial and Temporal Patterning in the Distribution of North Carolina Projectile Points. North
Carolina Archaeology 54:1–33.
Marcoux, Jon Bernard
2010 Pox, Empire, Shackles, and Hides: The Townsend Site, 1670–1715. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Meltzer, David
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North-America. Journal of World Prehistory 2(1):1–52.
2004 Peopling of North America. In The Quaternary Period in the United States, Volume 1, edited by Alan
R. Gillespie, Stephen C. Porter, and Brian F. Atwater, pp. 539–563. Elsevier Science, New York.
Meltzer, David J., Donald K. Grayson, Gerardo Ardila, Alex W. Barker, Dena F. Dincauze, C. Vance Haynes,
Francisco Mena, Lautaro Nunez, and Dennis J. Stanford
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 62:559–563.
Meltzer, David J., and Bruce D. Smith
1986 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Subsistence Strategies in Eastern North America. In Foraging,
Collecting, and Harvesting: Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by
Sarah W. Neusius, pp. 3–31. Occasional Paper No. 6. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern
Illinois University at Carbondale.
Mooney, James
1900 Myths of the Cherokee. Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1897–1898,
Pt. 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Mooney, James, and Frans M. Olbrechts
1932 The Swimmer Manuscript: Cherokee Sacred Formulas and Medicinal Prescriptions. Bureau of
American Ethnology Bulletin 99. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Moore, David G.
1981 A Comparison of Two Pisgah Ceramic Assemblages. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
1984 Biltmore Estate Archaeological Survey Final Report. Western Office of the North Carolina Division of
Archives and History. Submitted to the Biltmore Estate, Asheville.
1992 Salvage Archaeology at the Cullowhee Valley School, Cullowhee, Jackson County, North Carolina.
Newsletter North Carolina Archaeological Society Vol. 2 (2).
2002 Pisgah Village Evolution at the Warren Wilson Site. In The Archaeology of Native North Carolina:
Papers in Honor of H. Trawick Ward, edited by J.M. Eastman, C.B. Rodning, and E.A. Boudreaux III, pp.
76–83. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Special Publication 7.
Nelson, Michael
2014 Intensive Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Three Borrow/Waste Areas, Improvements to NC
215, TIP R-2594, State Project No. 8.1000601, Federal Aid No. STP-215(1), Transylvania County, North
Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill. Submitted to North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Raleigh.
Noel, Robert O., and Rodney J. Snedeker
1991 Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed Kuykendall Timber Sale, Compartments 100 and 101,
Pisgah Ranger District, Pisgah National Forest, Transylvania County, North Carolina. Submitted to the
National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
1994 Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed Pisgah Borrow Pits, Compartments 77 and 129, Pisgah
Ranger District, Pisgah National Forest, Transylvania County, North Carolina. Submitted to the National
Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS)
1985 Geological Map of North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, Raleigh.
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO)
2019 HPOweb. Electronic document, http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/. Accessed January 2019.
Office of State Archaeology (OSA)
2017 Archaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines for Background Research, Field Methodologies,
Technical Reports, and Curation. North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.

55
Oliver, Billy
1981 The Piedmont Tradition: Refinement of the Savannah River Stemmed Point Type. Unpublished M.A.
thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
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 Trawick Ward, pp. 195–211. University
of Alabama at Birmingham.
Oliver, Duane
1989 Hazel Creek from Then till Now. Privately published.
Orr, Douglas M., and Alfred W. Stuart (editors)
2000 The North Carolina Atlas: Portrait for a New Century. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill.
Paré, Matthew, Tasha Benyshek, Paul A. Webb, and Damon Jones
2007 Archaeological Survey and Evaluation for the I-26 Asheville Connector, Buncombe County, North
Carolina. TRC Garrow Associates, Chapel Hill. Submitted to NCDOT, Raleigh.
Polhemus, Richard R.
1987 The Toqua Site: a Late Mississippian Dallas Phase Town. University of Tennessee Department of
Anthropology Report of Investigations No. 41; Tennessee Valley Authority Publications in Anthropology
No. 44.
Poole, Cary Franklin
1995 A History of Railroading in Western North Carolina. Overmountain Press, Johnson City.
Powell, William S., and Michael Hill
2010 The North Carolina Gazetteer. Second Edition. Electronic document,
https://www.ncpedia.org/gazetteer. Accessed January 3, 2019.
Price, Jonathan, and John Strother
1808 First Actual Survey of the State of North Carolina.
https://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/1214/rec/4.
Purrington, Burton L.
1981 Archaeological Investigations at the Slipoff Branch Site, A Morrow Mountain Culture Campsite in
Swain County, North Carolina. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication 5, Raleigh.
1983 Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of Prehistoric Archaeology of North Carolina’s Western Mountain
Range. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and
Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 83–160. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and
History, Raleigh.
Riggs, Brett H.
1988 An Historical and Archaeological Reconnaissance of Citizen Cherokee Reservations in Macon, Swain,
and Jackson Counties, North Carolina. Submitted to the North Carolina Division of Archives and History,
Raleigh.
1996 Removal Period Cherokee Households and Communities in Southwestern North Carolina (1835–1838).
Submitted to North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Raleigh.
1999 Removal Period Cherokee Households in Southwestern North Carolina: Material Perspectives on
Ethnicity and Cultural Differentiation. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation in Anthropology, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville.
Riggs, Brett H., and Larry R. Kimball
1996 An Archaeological Survey of Hiwassee Reservoir, Cherokee County, North Carolina. Appalachian State
University, Boone, North Carolina. Draft report submitted to the TVA, Norris, Tennessee.
Riggs, Brett H., and Chris Rodning
2002 Cherokee Ceramic Traditions of Southwestern North Carolina, ca. A.D. 1400–2002: A Preface to The
Last of the Iroquois Potters. North Carolina Archaeology 51:34–54.
Robinson, Kenneth W.
1989 Archaeological Excavations within the Alternate Pipeline Corridor Passing through the Harshaw
Bottom Site (31CE41) Cherokee County, North Carolina. Prepared for the Cherokee County
Commissioners, Murphy, North Carolina. On file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
1996 Archaeological Investigations in McDowell County, North Carolina. Manuscript on file, North Carolina
Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.

56
Robinson, Kenneth W., David G. Moore, and Ruth Y. Wetmore
1994 Woodland Period Radiocarbon Dates from Western North Carolina. Paper presented at the 6th Uplands
Archaeological Conference, Harrisonburg, Virginia.
1996 Woodland Period Radiocarbon Dates from Western North Carolina. In Upland Archeology in the East:
Symposium Number Six, edited by Eugene B. Barfield and Michael B. Barber, pp. 2–19. Special Publication
Number 38-Part 6, Archaeological Society of Virginia, Richmond.
Rodning, Christopher B.
2002 William Bartram and the Archaeology of the Appalachian Summit. In Between Contacts and Colonies:
Archaeological Perspectives on the Protohistoric Southeast, edited by Cameron B. Wesson and Mark A.
Rees, pp. 67–89. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2004 The Cherokee Town at Coweeta Creek. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
2008 Temporal Variation in Qualla Pottery. North Carolina Archaeology 57:1–49.
2009a Domestic Houses at Coweeta Creek. Southeastern Archaeology 28:1–26.
2009b Mounds, Myths, and Cherokee Townhouses in Southwestern North Carolina. American Antiquity
74:627–663.
Royce, C.C.
1884 Map of the Former Territorial Limits of the Cherokee “Nation of” Indians. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
1887 The Cherokee Nation of Indians. In Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Rudolph, Teresa P.
1991 The Late Woodland “Problem” in North Georgia. In Stability, Transformation, and Variation: The Late
Woodland Southeast, edited by Michael S. Nassaney and Charles R. Cobb, pp. 259–283. Plenum Press, New
York.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1983 Middle and Late Archaic Settlement in the South Carolina Piedmont. M.A. thesis, Dept. of
Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1996 Technological Innovations in Economic and Social Contexts. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene
Southeast, edited by K. Sassaman and D. Anderson. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
1997 Refining Soapstone Vessel Chronology in the Southeast. Early Georgia 25:1–20.
Scarry, C. Margaret
2003 Patterns of Wild Plant Utilization in the Prehistoric Eastern Woodlands. In People and Plants in Ancient
Eastern North America, edited by Paul McInnis, pp. 50–104. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C.
Seeman, M.F.
1979 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere: the Evidence for Interregional Trade and Structural Complexity.
Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.
Setzler, Frank M., and Jesse D. Jennings
1941 Peachtree Mound and Village Site, Cherokee County, North Carolina. Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin 131. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Sharpe, Bill
1965 A New Geography of North Carolina, Volume IV. Sharpe Publishing Company, Raleigh.
Shelford, Victor E.
1963 The Ecology of North America. University of Illinois, Urbana.
Shumate, M. Scott, and Larry R. Kimball
2006 Emergency Salvage at the Bent Creek Archaeological Site (31BN335), Buncombe County, North
Carolina. Appalachian State University Laboratories of Archaeological Science, Department of
Anthropology, Boone, North Carolina. Submitted to the National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
2016 Archaeological Investigations at the Cold Canyon Site (31SW265), Swain County, North Carolina.
Appalachian State University Laboratories of Archaeological Science, Department of Anthropology, Boone,
North Carolina. Submitted to the National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.

57
Shumate, M. Scott, Brett H. Riggs, and Larry R. Kimball
2005 The Alarka Farmstead Site: Archaeological Investigations at a Mid-Seventeenth-Century Cherokee
Winter House/Summer House Complex, Swain County, North Carolina. Appalachian State University,
Boone and Research Laboratories of Archaeology, Chapel Hill. Report on file, National Forests in North
Carolina, Asheville.
Smith, Betty Anderson
1979 Distribution of Eighteenth-Century Cherokee Settlements. In The Cherokee Indian Nation: A Troubled
History, edited by Duane H. King, pp. 46–60. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Smith, Bruce D.
1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: from Dalton to deSoto 10,500–500 B.P. Advances
in World Archaeology Vol. 5 Academic Press, Inc., New York.
1989 Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America. Science 246:1566–1571.
Smith, Marvin T.
1987 Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in the Interior Southeast. University of Florida, Gainesville.
Smith, Marvin T., and David J. Hally
1992 Chiefly Behavior: Evidence from Sixteenth Century Spanish Accounts. In Lords of the Southeast:
Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North America, edited by A. Barker and T. Pauketat,
pp. 99–109. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 3.
Snedeker, Rodney J. and Brad A. Ruesch
1986 Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Turkey Creek Timber Sale, Compartments 63, 64, 65, 66;
Pisgah Ranger District, Pisgah National Forest, Transylvania County, North Carolina. National Forests in
North Carolina, Asheville. On file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
Stanyard, William F.
2003 Archaic Period Archaeology of Northern Georgia. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology
Series Report No. 38 and Georgia Archaeological Research Design Paper No. 13.
Steere, Benjamin A.
2013 The Western North Carolina Mounds and Towns Project: Results of 2011–2012 Archival Research and
Field Investigations in Buncombe, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon,
Madison, Swain, and Transylvania Counties, North Carolina. Submitted to Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Cherokee, North Carolina.
2017 The Archaeology of Houses and Households in the Native Southeast. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Steere, Benjamin A., Paul A. Webb, and Bruce S. Idol
2012 A “New” Account of Mound and Village Sites in Western North Carolina: The Travels of Captain R.D.
Wainwright. North Carolina Archaeology 61:1–37.
Swanton, John R.
1985 Final Report of the United States De Soto Expedition Commission. Originally published in 1939.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Thomas, Cyrus
1894 Reports on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Twelfth Annual Report of the
Bureau of Ethnology, 1890–1891. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Tinsley, Jim Bob
1988 Land of Waterfalls, Transylvania County, North Carolina. Privately Published.
Trinkley, Michael B.
1974 Report of Archaeological Testing at the Love Site (SoC240), South Carolina. Southern Indian Studies
26:3–18.
Truncer, James
2004 Steatite Vessel Age and Occurrence in Temperate Eastern North America. American Antiquity
69(3):487–513.
United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS)
2019 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm,
accessed January 2019.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
1905 Pisgah, N.C., 1:125,000-scale topographic map.
1935 Rosman, N.C., 1:24,000-scale planimetric map.
1945/1971 Rosman, N.C, 1:24,000-scale topographic map.

58
1946 Rosman, N.C., 1:24,000-scale topographic map.
1967 Rosman, N.C., 1:24,000-scale topographic map.
1997 Rosman, N.C., 1:24,000-scale topographic map.
Van Noppen, Ina Woestemeyer, and John J. Van Noppen
1973 Western North Carolina since the Civil War. Appalachian Consortium Press, Boone, North Carolina.
Ward, H. Trawick
1979 A Report on Recent “Salvage” Archaeology at Nununyi, 31SW3. Research Laboratories of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The Prehistory of
North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by M. Mathis and J. Crow, pp. 53–81. North
Carolina Division of Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
1986 Inter-Site Spatial Patterns at the Warren Wilson Site. In The Conference on Cherokee Prehistory,
assembled by David Moore. Warren Wilson College, Swannanoa, North Carolina.
Ward, H. Trawick, and R.P. Stephen Davis Jr.
1999 Time before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Webb, Paul A.
2002 Cultural and Historical Resource Investigations of the Ravensford Land Exchange Tract, Great Smoky
Mountains National Park, Swain County, North Carolina. TRC Garrow Associates, Inc., Durham. Submitted
to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, North Carolina.
Webb, Paul, and Tasha Benyshek
2005 Qualla Ceramics from the Ravensford Locality. Paper presented at the Qualla Ceramic Workshop,
Cherokee, North Carolina.
2008 Historic Cherokee Homesteads at the Ravensford Site, Cherokee North Carolina. Paper presented at the
2008 Conference on Social Archaeology of Southeastern Colonial Frontiers. University of South Carolina,
Columbia.
Weisner, G.
1996 Saltville Site Has Evidence of 14,000-Year-Old Fields. The Mammoth Trumpet 1 (4):1, 18–20. Center
for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, Oregon.
Wetmore, Ruth Y.
1989 The Ela Site (31SW5): Archaeological Data Recovery of Connestee and Qualla Phase Occupations at
the East Elementary School Site, Swain County, North Carolina. (CH-89-C-0000-0424). On file, Office of
State Archaeology, Raleigh.
1993 An Archaeological Survey of Transylvania County, North Carolina. Submitted to the Transylvania
County Historic Properties Commission and the North Carolina Department of Archives and History,
Raleigh.
1996 The Connestee Component from the Ela Site, 31SW5, Swain County, North Carolina. In Upland
Archaeology in the East: Symposium Number Five, Archaeological Society of Virginia Special Publication
38(5):220–237.
2002 The Woodland Period in the Appalachian Summit of Western North Carolina and the Ridge and Valley
Province of Tennessee. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort
Jr., pp. 249–269. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Wetmore, Ruth Y., Kenneth W. Robinson, and David G. Moore
2000 Woodland Adaptations in the Appalachian Summit of Western North Carolina: Exploring the Influence
of Climate Change. In The Years without Summer: Tracing A.D. 536 and its Aftermath, edited by Joel D.
Gunn, pp. 139–149. BAR International Series 872.
Whyte, Thomas R.
2004 Biltmore Mound Archaeofaunal Remains. In Hopewell Subsistence and Ceremonialism at Biltmore
Mound, Biltmore Estate, North Carolina. Research Report submitted by ASU Laboratories of
Archaeological Science, Department of Anthropology, Boone, North Carolina to Committee for Research
and Exploration National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
Wild, Kenneth S., Jr.
1994 Archaeological Investigations Conducted at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Swain County,
North Carolina. Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida. Report on file,
Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina.

59
Wood, W. Dean, Dan T. Elliott, Teresa P. Rudolph, and Dennis B. Blanton
1986 Prehistory in the Richard B. Russell Reservoir: the Archaic and Woodland Periods of the Upper
Savannah River. Southeastern Wildlife Services, Athens, Georgia. Russell Papers, National Park Service.
Wright, Alice P.
2013 Persistent Place, Shifting Practice: The Premound Landscape at the Garden Creek Site, North Carolina.
In Early and Middle Woodland Landscapes of the South, edited by Alice P. Wright and Edward R. Henry,
pp. 108–121. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Yu, Pei-Lin
2001 The Middle Archaic of the Great Smoky Mountains: Upland Adaptation in a Regional Perspective.
Presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.

60
This page intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX 1: ARTIFACT CATALOG