Phase III archaeological data recovery mitigation of 9GO297, volume 1: report of investigations, Gordon County, Georgia, 2015 May 5

Phase III Archaeological Data Recovery Mitigation of 9GO297

D

D

D

D D
D

D D

Volume I: Report of Investigations Gordon County, Georgia

Master Contract TOOELARC080051, Task Order #13
Project #BHF00-0151-01(006) PI #631570
HP# 0400607-001

D

D

D

D

D

D D

26

D

27

D

D

D

D D

29 28

D

D

D D

30

D

2 5

22 24

23

39

38

35

33 4 37 12

14

31

20 13

1 3
36

D D

D

D

11 16

D

D
D D

D

15

25

21

D D
D D

34

10 8

BoaPtaRrkainmgp /

D D D

D

D

32

19 18

D

D

7

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D D

D

6 17

D

D D

D

D

Block Security

Fence

D

D

D

D

D
D D

D

9
NSeurwfacSeo1E1u8l19e9t90v.h14a.3.8t3i9A5o193n2s129(s41A6o1M1-2c31S3i-9a-L10-1)t9.1e9319s29.33..92.11I1224n469107c6168.1012123

D

Phase III Archaeological Data Recovery Mitigation of 9GO297
Gordon County, Georgia Georgia Department of Transportation Master Contract TOOELARC080051, Task Order #13
Project #BHF00-0151-01(006) PI #631570
HP# 0400607-001
Report submitted to: Atkins Global Inc. 1600 River Edge Parkway NW Suite 600 Atlanta, Georgia 30328
Phone 770.933.0691 and
Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Environmental Services 600 West Peachtree Street NW Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Phone 404.631.1990
Report prepared by: New South Associates 6150 East Ponce de Leon Avenue Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083
Phone 770.498.4155
Scot J. Keith Principal Investigator
Scot J. Keith Principal Investigator and Co-Author Leslie Raymer Archaeobotanist and Co-Author Valerie Davis Archaeologist and Co-Author Patrick Severts Ceramic Analyst and Co-Author Keith Seramur Geomorphologist and Co-Author
May 5, 2015 Final Report New South Associates Technical Report 2326

ABSTRACT

i PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) plans to realign State Road (SR) 225 in conjunction with the replacement of structurally deficient bridges located on SR 225 over New Town Creek and the Coosawattee River in Gordon County, Georgia. In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and GDOT funded an archaeological survey to determine if any archaeological properties would be impacted by the proposed road construction and bridge replacement activities. Conducted in 2006-2007 by URS Corporation (Barse and Gill 2007), the Phase I survey identified four archaeological sites including 9GO297 (named the "Boat Ramp Site"), a multicomponent precontact site. Based on limited Phase II testing of 9GO297 conducted under the same contract, 9GO297 was determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) based on the presence of stratified and intact archaeological deposits and the potential for the site to yield data important to understanding prehistory. In consultation with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), GDOT determined that the proposed transportation improvement activities will adversely effect site 9GO297, a prehistoric site eligible for listing in the NRHP.
The project and site 9GO297 are located within the boundaries of the New Echota National Historic Landmark and the New Echota Traditional Cultural Property, although 9GO297 is not a contributing resource of these properties. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that details mitigation measures for 9GO297 was developed and ratified on April 16, 2009 by the FHWA, GDOT, the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, the State Parks and Historic Sites Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the Historic Preservation Division of the DNR. As a member of Atkins Global's team for the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with GDOT, New South Associates were tasked to carry out the mitigation measures for 9GO297. The project was conducted under GDOT Master Contract TOOELARC080051 as Task Order #13, Project #BHF00-0151-01(006), PI #631570, and was assigned HP# 0400607-001 by the Georgia Historic Preservation Division.
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for this data recovery consists of the area of 9GO297 located between the northern edge of the proposed right of way (ROW) and the existing SR 225 alignment on the south and between New Town Creek on the west and the Coosawattee River on the east, excluding the area of the boat ramp, parking lot, and power line corridor. For the purposes of this project, the area of land not formally contained within the site boundary but between the south edge of the required right of way and the power line adjacent to SR 225 was

ii

also included within the data recovery excavations as any related but unidentified remains were likely to be destroyed as a result of proposed project activities. This area investigated measures approximately 16,835 square meters (approximately 4.2 acres). The scope of work (SOW) for mitigating the adverse effects to 9GO297 called for data recovery excavations. This included conducting pre-field research, fieldwork, laboratory and data analysis, artifact curation tasks, and the preparation of a technical report detailing the findings of the investigation. In addition, members of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation visited the site during the excavation. In compliance with Official Code of Georgia (OCGA) statute 12-3-52, a permit was obtained from the Historic Preservation Division of the DNR to conduct the excavation on the state-owned property (see Appendix H)

The data recovery excavation of 9GO297 involved both machine and hand excavation of approximately 702 square meters. Excavation involved shovel testing, machine excavation of blocks using a smooth-blade backhoe, and hand excavation of test units arranged in blocks. The investigation revealed that the site has been heavily impacted by post-depositional activities, including deforestation/clearing, agricultural plowing, the construction of a road running southeast-northwest through the site, the removal of soils from the southern portion for usage in the construction of the existing bridges and route of SR 225, the construction of the boat ramp, and the placement of fill atop parts of the site. Diagnostic artifacts from the site evidence Early Archaic, possible Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, Late Archaic-Early Woodland, Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, Late Woodland, and Late Mississippian artifacts. In addition, radiocarbon dates also indicate possible usage of the landform during the Early-Middle Mississippian time frame. North of the project APE and on the west side of New Town Creek, an area of the Calhoun Elks Club Golf Course was also surveyed and tested as an addendum, due to the need to relocate a portion of the golf course that falls within the road realignment corridor (Keith et al. 2012). The data is also included in this report and site analysis.

Report Summary Table

EPM Date/Version USGS 7'5 Quads Project Acreage No. of Previously Recorded Sites No. of New Sites Isolates No. of Eligible Sites Date of Plans Man-Hours

Chapter V.3, revised 2/13/12 Calhoun North 4.2 acres 1 0 0 1 2011 Phase III 8,965

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

iii PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

The field crew for this project from New South consisted of Josh Blackmon, Scott Morris, Pam Hansford Enlow, Michael McCaffery, Lain Graham, and Justin Byrnes, while archaeologists Gretchen Eggiman, Carl Ethridge, Dan Aylward, Kate Hoy, Wes Mattox, Laura Lund, Katie Sutton, Cory Fox Green, and Melissa McKay signed on for this project for a few months. We sincerely appreciate all of their hard work and enthusiasm, as well as the after-work socializing on the balcony and in the plaza of the Days Inn of Calhoun. Archaeologist Matt Wood of Southern Research, Historic Preservation Consultants, Inc. performed backhoe work. The project geoarchaeologist Keith Seramur served as the geomorphologist, and as usual, was very detailed in his approach and also excellent at explaining the soils and geological processes involved in the site's formation. David Gomez of New Echota Park was very helpful during the project by watching over the site and stopping by now and then to see if we needed anything.
In the office, Laboratory Director Amy Irons oversaw the analysis of the artifacts, with able help from Michael McCaffery, Justin Byrnes, and Sadhana Singh. Patrick Severts conducted the vessel analysis. David Diener produced the graphics, while Jennifer Wilson and Rebecca Brown conducted the production of the report. Heather Mustonen, the Project Archaeologist for GDOT, was very helpful throughout the course of these investigations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

v PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ v LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xiii
I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 1 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT AND SCOPE OF WORK ................................................... 3 REPORT FORMAT .................................................................................................................... 5
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT............................................................................................. 7 PHYSIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................... 7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................ 7 LITHIC RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 10 HYDROLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 11 ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................................................... 11 CLIMATE ................................................................................................................................. 11 FACTORS AFFECTING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD OF 9GO297 ..................... 13
III. CULTURAL CONTEXT........................................................................................................ 15 9GO297 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 15 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND RELEVANT SITES .................................................. 20 CULTURAL CONTEXT .......................................................................................................... 26 Early Archaic.......................................................................................................................... 26 Middle Archaic....................................................................................................................... 29 Late Archaic ........................................................................................................................... 31 Early Woodland...................................................................................................................... 33 Middle Woodland................................................................................................................... 37 Late Woodland ....................................................................................................................... 41 Mississippian .......................................................................................................................... 46
IV. RESEARCH DESIGN............................................................................................................ 61 RESEARCH ISSUES FOR ALL COMPONENTS .................................................................. 61 Site Formation Processes ....................................................................................................... 61 Site Function and Layout ....................................................................................................... 62 Settlement Patterns ................................................................................................................. 63 Chronology............................................................................................................................. 64 Subsistence ............................................................................................................................. 64 Lithic Technology .................................................................................................................. 64

vi
EARLY-MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIOD RESEARCH ISSUES .............................................. 65 SETTLEMENT ...................................................................................................................... 65 CHRONOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 66
WOODLAND PERIOD RESEARCH ISSUES ........................................................................ 66 Settlement and Site Function.................................................................................................. 66 Woodland Structures .............................................................................................................. 66 The Nature of Swift Creek Culture ........................................................................................ 67 Woodland Ceramic Technologies .......................................................................................... 68 Subsistence ............................................................................................................................. 70 Woodland Traits ..................................................................................................................... 71
MISSISSIPPIAN AND HISTORIC INDIAN PERIOD RESEARCH ISSUES ....................... 71 Settlement............................................................................................................................... 72 Subsistence ............................................................................................................................. 73 Material Culture ..................................................................................................................... 73 Cultural Change...................................................................................................................... 73
V. METHODS .............................................................................................................................. 75 FIELD METHODS.................................................................................................................... 75 Scope of Field Effort .............................................................................................................. 75 Site Preparation ...................................................................................................................... 75 Geophysics ............................................................................................................................. 77 Geomorphology...................................................................................................................... 80 Data Recovery ........................................................................................................................ 82
VI. RESULTS OF EXCAVATIONS ........................................................................................... 89 SITE LANDSCAPE .................................................................................................................. 89 SHOVEL TESTING.................................................................................................................. 89 BLOCK EXCAVATION ........................................................................................................ 103 Blocks Without Test Units ................................................................................................... 104 Blocks With Test Units ........................................................................................................ 148 SUMMARY OF BLOCK EXCAVATIONS .......................................................................... 308
VII. LITHIC ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 309 DEBITAGE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 309 STONE TOOL ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 312 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 329
VIII. CERAMIC ANALYSIS..................................................................................................... 331 SAMPLE VESSEL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 331 Exterior and Interior Surface Treatments............................................................................. 334 Aplastic Type, Shape, and Size ............................................................................................ 334 Rim Diameter, Form, and Production Steps ........................................................................ 335 Thickness.............................................................................................................................. 335 Percentage of Core Retention............................................................................................... 335 Paste Type Description......................................................................................................... 335

vii PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Vessel Description................................................................................................................ 336 Vessel Attribute Comparison ............................................................................................... 348 Summary.................................................................................................................................. 350
IX. INTERPRETATIONS ......................................................................................................... 353 DATA POTENTIAL ............................................................................................................... 353 CHRONOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 353 Early Archaic Component .................................................................................................... 356 Late Archaic-Early Woodland Component.......................................................................... 356 Early Woodland Component ................................................................................................ 356 Middle Woodland Component ............................................................................................. 357 Late Woodland Component ................................................................................................. 358 Early-Middle Mississippian Component.............................................................................. 358 Late Mississippian Component ............................................................................................ 358 SITE FORMATION PROCESSES ......................................................................................... 358 SITE FUNCTION, LAYOUT, AND SETTLEMENT............................................................ 359 SUBSISTENCE....................................................................................................................... 361 SETTLEMENT PATTERNS .................................................................................................. 364 LITHIC TECHNOLOGY........................................................................................................ 371 STRUCTURES........................................................................................................................ 374
X. SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 375
REFERENCES CITED............................................................................................................... 377
APPENDIX A: SPECIMEN CATALOG APPENDIX B: GEOMORPHOLOGY STUDY APPENDIX C: ARCHAEOBOTANICAL STUDY APPENDIX D: RADIOCARBON ANALYSIS RESULTS APPENDIX E: REVISED GEORGIA STATE SITE FORM APPENDIX F: MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT APPENDIX G: RESUME OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR APPENDIX H: GDNR HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION PERMIT

LIST OF FIGURES

ix PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Figure 1. Map Showing Location of GDOT PI 631570 .............................................................. 2 Figure 2. Map Showing the APE ................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3. Physiographic and Geologic Setting of 9GO297 ......................................................... 8 Figure 4. Mapped Soils within 9GO297 ...................................................................................... 9 Figure 5. Hydrological Network ................................................................................................ 12 Figure 6. Borrow Pit and Old Road in 9GO297 Area................................................................ 14 Figure 7. Survey and Testing Map of 9GO297 (Barse and Gill 2007:4.18, 4.9)...................... 16 Figure 8. Map Showing Current Data Recovery APE and Addendum APE............................. 17 Figure 9. Bifaces Found and Typed in Barse and Gill (2007:4.34, Plate 4.6). .......................... 19 Figure 10. Archaeological Sites in Vicinity of 9GO297.............................................................. 21 Figure 11. Swift Creek, Swift Creek B Complex, Napier, and Woodstock Pottery Designs ...... 42 Figure 12. Clearing Site Vegetation............................................................................................. 76 Figure 13. Site Grid and Layout of Excavation Units at 9GO297............................................... 78 Figure 14. GDOT Magnetometer Survey Location ..................................................................... 79 Figure 15. Contour Map Created via Total Station Survey of Site Area ..................................... 90 Figure 16. Block Excavations Overlain on 1958 Aerial Photograph of Site Area ...................... 91 Figure 17. Results of Shovel Testing ........................................................................................... 92 Figure 18. Artifact Density in Shovel Tests................................................................................. 97 Figure 19. Photographs of Blocks 6 and 7 ................................................................................. 105 Figure 20. Photographs of Blocks 8 and 9 ................................................................................. 107 Figure 21. Photograph of the Northern Profile of Block 10, Facing North-Northeast .............. 109 Figure 22. Photographs of Block 11 .......................................................................................... 110 Figure 23. Photographs of Block 12 .......................................................................................... 112 Figure 24. Photographs of Block 13 .......................................................................................... 114 Figure 25. Photograph of South Profile of Block 15 ................................................................. 116 Figure 26. Photographs of Block 16 .......................................................................................... 118 Figure 27. Plan View and Photograph of Features 16 and 29-36 .............................................. 119 Figure 28. Profiles of Feature 16 and Feature 29....................................................................... 120 Figure 29. Plan View and Photograph of Block 17 ................................................................... 123 Figure 30. Plan View and Photograph of Block 18 ................................................................... 125 Figure 31. Photographs of Feature 17........................................................................................ 127 Figure 32. Plan View and Photograph of Block 21 ................................................................... 128 Figure 33. Photographs of Block 22 .......................................................................................... 130 Figure 34. Plan View and Photograph of Block 25 ................................................................... 131 Figure 35. Plan View and Photograph of Block 26 ................................................................... 132 Figure 36. Plan View and Photograph of Block 29 ................................................................... 134 Figure 37. Plan View and Photograph of Block 30 ................................................................... 135 Figure 38. Plan View and Photograph of Block 31 ................................................................... 137 Figure 39. Plan View and Photograph of Block 32 ................................................................... 138 Figure 40. Plan View and Photograph of Block 33 ................................................................... 140 Figure 41. Plan View and Photograph of Block 34 ................................................................... 141

x
Figure 42. Plan View and Photograph of Block 35 ................................................................... 142 Figure 43. Plan View and Photograph of Block 36 ................................................................... 144 Figure 44. Photographs of Block 38 .......................................................................................... 145 Figure 45. Profiles of Blocks 38 and 39 .................................................................................... 146 Figure 46. Plan Map of Block 1 with Beginning Datum Elevations ......................................... 149 Figure 47. Block 1 South Profile ............................................................................................... 150 Figure 48. Photographs of Feature 8.......................................................................................... 156 Figure 49. Plan Map of Block 2 with Beginning Datum Elevations ......................................... 158 Figure 50. East Profile of Block 2 ............................................................................................. 159 Figure 51. Photograph of Feature 5, Found in Block 2, Unit 14 at the Base of Level 5 ........... 162 Figure 52. Plan Map of Block 3 with Beginning Datum Elevations ......................................... 164 Figure 53. East Profile of Block 3 ............................................................................................. 165 Figure 54. Photographs of Excavation of Block 3 ..................................................................... 166 Figure 55. Plan Map of Block 4 with Beginning Datum Elevations ......................................... 172 Figure 56. North and East Soil Profiles of Block 4 .................................................................... 175 Figure 57. Plan View and Photograph of Feature 18................................................................. 185 Figure 58. Plan Map of Block 5 with Beginning Datum Elevations ......................................... 187 Figure 59. Magnetometer Results for Block 5........................................................................... 188 Figure 60. Photographs of Features 6 and 7 .............................................................................. 196 Figure 61. Photographs of Feature 9.......................................................................................... 197 Figure 62. Photographs of Features 10, 11, 12, and 15 ............................................................. 198 Figure 63. Plan Views of Block 5 Soil Profiles ......................................................................... 201 Figure 64. Plan Map of Block 19 with Beginning Datum Elevations ....................................... 202 Figure 65. Plan View and Photograph of South Profile of Block 19......................................... 203 Figure 66. Plan View of Base of Level 2 Showing Soil Disturbances ....................................... 204 Figure 67. Plan View, Photograph, and Profile of Feature 19 ................................................... 210 Figure 68. Plan View and Photograph of Feature 20................................................................. 212 Figure 69. Plan Map of Block 20 with Beginning Datum Elevations ....................................... 213 Figure 70. Photographs of Block 20 Excavation ....................................................................... 214 Figure 71. Plan View and Photograph of South Profile of Block 20......................................... 217 Figure 72. Plan Map of Block 23 with Beginning Datum Elevations ....................................... 231 Figure 73. Photographs of Block 23 Excavation ....................................................................... 232 Figure 74. Plan View and Photograph of North Profile of Block 23......................................... 233 Figure 75. Plan View and Photograph of Feature 26................................................................. 244 Figure 76. Plan View and Photograph of Feature 27................................................................. 246 Figure 77. Plan View and Photographs of Feature 40 ............................................................... 248 Figure 78. Plan View and Photograph of Feature 40b............................................................... 250 Figure 79. Photograph of Feature 41, Facing North .................................................................. 251 Figure 80. Plan Map of Block 24 with Beginning Datum Elevations ....................................... 256 Figure 81. Plan View and Photograph of West Profile of Block 24.......................................... 257 Figure 82. Photographs of Block 24 Excavation ....................................................................... 259 Figure 83. Photograph of Feature 21, Facing North. ................................................................. 262 Figure 84. Plan Map of Block 27 with Beginning Datum Elevations ....................................... 263 Figure 85. Photographs of Excavation of Block 27 ................................................................... 264 Figure 86. Plan View and Photograph of North Profile of Block 27......................................... 267 Figure 87. Linear Features in Block 27, Facing East................................................................. 276

xi PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 88. Photographs of Feature 37...................................................................................... 278 Figure 89. Plan Map of Block 28 with Beginning Datum Elevations ..................................... 280 Figure 90. Photographs of Block 28 Excavation ..................................................................... 282 Figure 91. North Profile of Block 28 ....................................................................................... 283 Figure 92. Plan View and Photographs of Features 22, 23, and 24 ......................................... 287 Figure 93. Photograph of Feature 28, Facing North ................................................................ 289 Figure 94. Plan Map of Block 37 with Beginning Datum Elevations ..................................... 292 Figure 95. Photographs of Excavation of Block 37 ................................................................. 293 Figure 96. Plan View and Photograph of South Profile of Block 37....................................... 294 Figure 97. Photograph of Feature 39 Facing North ................................................................. 300 Figure 98. Photographs of Feature 38...................................................................................... 302 Figure 99. Map Showing Location and Photographs of Feature 44 ........................................ 305 Figure 100. Flowchart for Debitage Analysis............................................................................ 310 Figure 101. Almondine Garnet from TU 80, Block 20.............................................................. 313 Figure 102. Projectile Point/Knife from 9GO297, 1 of 2 .......................................................... 314 Figure 103. Projectile Point/Knife from 9GO297, 1 of 2 .......................................................... 315 Figure 104. Bifaces from 9GO297, 1 of 2 ................................................................................. 324 Figure 105. Bifaces from 9GO297, 2 of 2 ................................................................................. 325 Figure 106. Selected Lithic Artifacts from 9GO297, 1 of 2 ...................................................... 326 Figure 107. Selected Lithic Artifacts from 9GO297, 2 of 2 ...................................................... 327 Figure 108. Minimum Vessels 1 and 2 ...................................................................................... 338 Figure 109. Minimum Vessels 3 Through 9 .............................................................................. 340 Figure 110. Minimum Vessels 10 Through 15 .......................................................................... 343 Figure 111. Minimum Vessels 16 Through 20 .......................................................................... 345 Figure 112. Minimum Vessels 21 Through 23 .......................................................................... 347 Figure 113. Early Archaic and Late Archaic Sites in the Project Vicinity. ............................... 365 Figure 114. Early Woodland Sites in the Project Vicinity......................................................... 367 Figure 115. Middle Woodland Sites in the Project Vicinity...................................................... 368 Figure 116. Late Woodland Sites in the Project Vicinity .......................................................... 370 Figure 117. Early and Middle Mississippian Sites in the Project Vicinity ................................ 372 Figure 118. Late Mississippian Sites in the Project Vicinity..................................................... 373

LIST OF TABLES

xiii PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Report Summary Table ................................................................................................................... ii Table 1. Summary of Block Excavations ................................................................................. 83 Table 2. Elevations of Laser Levels Used During Excavation .................................................. 85 Table 3. Summary of Shovel Tests ........................................................................................... 93 Table 4. Lithic Artifacts Recovered from Shovel Tests ............................................................ 98 Table 5. Artifact Count by Shovel Test Level ........................................................................ 101 Table 6. Features Identified During Data Recovery of 9GO297 ............................................ 103 Table 7. Summary of Block 16 Shovel Test Results .............................................................. 122 Table 8. Block 1 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs) .................................................................... 151 Table 9. Block 1 Artifact Summary ........................................................................................ 152 Table 10. FCR By Weight in Grams Within Block 1 ................................................................ 153 Table 11. Modern Artifacts found in Block 1............................................................................ 154 Table 12. Block 2 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs) .................................................................... 157 Table 13. Block 2 Artifact Summary ......................................................................................... 160 Table 14. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 2................................................................. 161 Table 15. Block 3 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs) .................................................................... 167 Table 16. Block 3 Artifact Summary ......................................................................................... 168 Table 17. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 3................................................................. 170 Table 18. Distribution of Typed Ceramics in Block 3............................................................... 170 Table 19. Block 4 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs) .................................................................... 173 Table 20. Block 4 Artifact Summary ......................................................................................... 176 Table 21. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 4................................................................. 181 Table 22. Diagnostic Artifacts from Block 4 ............................................................................ 182 Table 23. Block 5 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs) .................................................................... 189 Table 24. Block 5 Artifact Summary ......................................................................................... 190 Table 25. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 5................................................................. 193 Table 26. Modern Artifacts from Block 5 ................................................................................. 195 Table 27. Block 19 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs) .................................................................. 205 Table 28. Block 19 Artifact Summary ....................................................................................... 207 Table 29. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 19............................................................... 209 Table 30. Block 20 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs) .................................................................. 215 Table 31. Block 20 Artifact Summary ....................................................................................... 218 Table 32. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 20............................................................... 226 Table 33. Modern Artifacts within Block 20 ............................................................................. 227 Table 34. Block 23 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs) .................................................................. 229 Table 35. Block 23 Artifact Summary ....................................................................................... 235 Table 36. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 23............................................................... 241 Table 37. Pottery Type Vertical Distribution within Block 23.................................................. 242 Table 38. Modern Artifacts within Block 23 ............................................................................. 242 Table 39. Radiocarbon Assays from Block 23 .......................................................................... 252 Table 40. Block 24 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs) .................................................................. 258

xiv
Table 41. Block 24 Artifact Summary ....................................................................................... 260 Table 42. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 24............................................................... 261 Table 43. Block 27 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs) .................................................................. 265 Table 44. Block 27 Artifact Summary ....................................................................................... 268 Table 45. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 27............................................................... 274 Table 46. Pottery Types within Block 27 .................................................................................. 275 Table 47. Block 28 Artifact Summary ....................................................................................... 284 Table 48. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 28............................................................... 286 Table 49. Block 37 Test Unit Level Depths .............................................................................. 295 Table 50. Block 37 Artifact Summary ....................................................................................... 296 Table 51. Modern Artifacts from Block 37 ............................................................................... 299 Table 52. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 37............................................................... 301 Table 53. Feature 44 Artifact Summary .................................................................................... 306 Table 54. Debitage Types by Material....................................................................................... 311 Table 55. Debitage Types by Block and Material Type ............................................................ 316 Table 56. Diagnostic PP/K Summary ........................................................................................ 320 Table 57. Summary of Non-PP/K Chipped Stone Tools ........................................................... 322 Table 58. Biface Stages at 9GO297 ........................................................................................... 328 Table 59. Groundstones and Heavy Duty Tools from 9GO297 ................................................ 328 Table 60. Ceramic Sherds Recovered from 9GO297 ................................................................ 332 Table 61. Wentworth Scale........................................................................................................ 334 Table 62. Vessel Summary Information ................................................................................... 336 Table 63. Vessels by Aplastic Type........................................................................................... 348 Table 64. Vessel Thickness........................................................................................................ 349 Table 65. Carbon Retention by Pottery Type ............................................................................ 350 Table 66. Radiocarbon Dates from 9GO297 ............................................................................ 353 Table 67. Summary of Temporal Components by Excavation Block ...................................... 354

I. INTRODUCTION

1 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) PI 631570 includes the realignment of State Road (SR) 225 in conjunction with the replacement of structurally deficient bridges located on SR 225 over New Town Creek (MP 2.40) and the Coosawattee River (MP 2.57) in Gordon County, Georgia (Figure 1). The project begins by tying into the existing pavement of SR 225, approximately 0.8 miles east of the Interstate 75 exit ramp. The project then continues east along SR 225 for approximately 460 feet before proceeding northeast to a new location with new bridge structures over New Town Creek and the Coosawattee River. Approximately 0.4 miles after the proposed Coosawattee River Bridge, the project ties back in to the existing pavement of SR 225 at the intersection of McDaniel Road and SR 225. The proposed project ends approximately 560 feet east of McDaniel Road. The project length is approximately one mile, while the width of the required right of way (ROW) varies from 165 to 250 feet
In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and GDOT funded an archaeological survey to determine if any archaeological properties would be impacted by the proposed road construction and bridge replacement activities. Conducted in 2006-2007 by URS Corporation (Barse and Gill 2007), the Phase I survey identified four archaeological sites including 9GO297 (named the "Boat Ramp Site"), a multicomponent precontact site. Based on limited Phase II testing of 9GO297 conducted under the same contract, 9GO297 was determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) based on the presence of stratified and intact archaeological deposits and the potential for the site to yield data important to understanding prehistory. Specifically, Barse and Gill (2007:1.3) suggested that the site could provide data "bearing on chronology, settlement, lithic use related to local resources, and, perhaps, many additional issues", as well as regarding the "depositional history as related to climatic events and its impact on human use of the landscape". In consultation with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), GDOT determined that the proposed transportation improvement activities will adversely effect site 9GO297, a prehistoric site eligible for listing in the NRHP.
The project and site 9GO297 are located within the boundaries of the New Echota National Historic Landmark (NHL) and the New Echota Traditional Cultural Property (TCP), although 9GO297 is not a contributing resource of these properties. The archaeological remains at 9GO297 have not yielded materials associated with the Historic Cherokee occupation of New

2
Figure 1. Map Showing Location of GDOT PI 631570
^

Conasauga River

Oostanaula River SR 225

Coosa

w T

Ne own C

watte e River

reek

PI 631570 Project Area

Boat Ramp Easement

New Echota NHL Boundary

New Echota TCP Boundary

0

0.25

0.5 km

p

0

0.1

0.2

0.3 m

Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle, Calhoun North, GA

3 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Echota, and thus the site is not considered culturally affiliated with New Echota. This data recovery excavation is part of a larger mitigation project that includes the creation and placement of interpretive panels at the New Echota State Historic Site, the nomination of the New Echota TCP to the NRHP, the creation of a guidebook and website detailing selected American Indian sites in Georgia, a landscape plan to minimize visual impacts of the roadway on the surrounding viewshed, and the incorporation of Cherokee Indian design elements in context sensitive design of the bridges themselves. Members of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation visited the site during the excavation.
A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that details mitigation measures for 9GO297 was developed and ratified on April 16, 2009 by the FHWA, GDOT, the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, the State Parks and Historic Sites Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR), and the Historic Preservation Division of the GDNR. As a member of Atkins Global's team for the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with GDOT, New South Associates were tasked to carry out the mitigation measures for 9GO297. The project was conducted under GDOT Master Contract TOOELARC080051 as Task Order #13, Project #BHF00-0151-01(006), PI #631570, and was assigned HP# 0400607-001 by the Georgia Historic Preservation Division (HPD).
AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT AND SCOPE OF WORK
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for this data recovery consists of the area of 9GO297 located between the northern edge of the proposed right of way (ROW) and the existing SR 225 alignment on the south and between New Town Creek on the west and the Coosawattee River on the east, excluding the area of the boat ramp, parking lot, and power line corridor (Figure 2). The area of land between the south edge of the required ROW and the power line adjacent to SR 225 was also included in the data recovery excavations, even though it is not formally contained within the project APE. To avoid leaving a small remnant of the site south of the new roadway, the decision was made to include this in the data recovery excavations. This area investigated measures approximately 16,835 square meters (approximately 4.2 ac.). The scope of work (SOW) for mitigating the adverse effects to 9GO297 called for data recovery excavations including conducting pre-field research, fieldwork, laboratory and data analysis, artifact curation tasks, and the preparation of a technical report detailing the findings of the investigation. In compliance with Official Code of Georgia (OCGA) statute 12-3-52, a permit was obtained from the Historic Preservation Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to conduct the excavation on the state-owned property (see Appendix H).

4
Figure 2. Map Showing the APE

Conasauga River

Oostanaula River

SR 225

Coo

sawattee Riv

er

Project ROW SR 225 APE Golf Course APE Boat Ramp Easement Boat Ramp

Boat Ramp Entrance/Exit Parking Lot

$

9GO297 Boundary

0 250 500 750 Feet

9GO297 Portion To Be Impacted

0

100

200 Meters

Source: Aerial Photograph, ESRI ArcGIS Online

5 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
REPORT FORMAT
This report separated into two different volumes; the report is found in Volume I, while the appendices are located in Volume II. After this introduction, Volume I is organized in the following manner: the environmental and cultural context of the project area is presented in Chapters II and III. The research design is provided in Chapter IV, followed by the methods used in Chapter V. The results of the excavations are provided in Chapter VI, followed by the lithic analysis results in Chapter VII, and the results of the ceramic analysis in Chapter VIII. The interpretations of the data in Chapter IX, and a summary of the project in Chapter X.
There are multiple appendices to this report. Appendix A contains the specimen catalog. The geomorphological study is located in Appendix B, while the archaeobotanical report and data are presented in Appendix C. Radiocarbon results are provided in Appendix D. The revised Georgia site form can be found in Appendix E, copies of the MOA are in Appendix F, the resume of the Principal Investigator is provided in Appendix G, and Appendix H contains the excavation permit from the DNR.

7 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Site 9GO297 is located in northwestern Georgia in the Great Valley district of the Ridge and Valley physiographic province (Figure 3A). Running roughly parallel to the Atlantic Coast from northeastern Alabama into Canada, the topography of the Great Valley is influenced by its karstic nature, being generally broad and open with scattered ridges and hills often containing caves. The Cartersville Fault to the south and east, and the Armuchee Ridges section to the north and west bind the Great Valley in Georgia. Ridges are generally linear, narrow, and aligned northeast-southwest, so that the topography of the Great Valley provides a natural travel corridor from the Cartersville area north into the Tennessee Valley in the area of Chattanooga and beyond (Chowns 2006; Clark and Zisa 1976; Railsback n.d.; Wharton 1978).
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
During the Paleozoic Era, a shallow sea covered the Great Valley, and the underlying sedimentary geology of the Great Valley dates to the Cambrian and Ordovician divisions of this era. In general, much of the flatter terrain of the Great Valley is underlain by limestone and dolomites of the Knox Group, while shales, sandstones, and limestones of the Conasauga Group occur among the hillier areas (Wharton 1978). The geology of the site area is mapped as part of the upper unit of the Conasauga Group (Lawton 1977) (Figure 3B). The primary rock type of this unit is shale, while the secondary rock type is limestone. Mapped soils in the site area include Shellbluff silt loam, 0-3 percent slopes (ShA), Montevallo very channery loam, 30-70 percent slopes (MoF), and gravelly Ultic Udarents (Ug) (Soil Survey Staff 2012) (Figure 4).
A bedrock outcrop is exposed at the base of a bluff along New Town Creek at the New Echota Historic Site. The outcrop consisted of a grey microcrystalline rock. Closer examination and testing with a dilute hydrogen chloride (HCl) solution determined that the bedrock along New Town Creek is limestone.
A mudstone, or weathered shale, was recorded in the base of several block excavations. Bedding in the weathered shale trends southwest-northeast. The Coosawattee River trends northwestsoutheast as it flows past the site and into the Oostanaula River. This orientation is perpendicular to the orientation of bedding in the bedrock and indicates that the river is flowing along a set of bedrock fractures. These fractures essentially lock the river in place and prevent it from meandering across the valley. There has been limited changed in the location of the river channel during the Holocene.

8
Figure 3. Physiographic and Geologic Setting of 9GO297

^ 9GO297

0 20 40

80 km

^ 9GO297

00 1220.5 4205

8500 kmmi

pp

0 12.5 25

50 mi

A. Physiographic Setting of 9GO297

CAhricmktuaVcamhllaeeueygMaRtindV.CLagAlhlrioeDiceosmskkyturaoiccumtthaeuegMaRtindV.LaglloeDieosskytroicutt

McCaysville Basin

Cherokee UplaCnhderokCeMtoenhsuU.ttplaand CMtonhsu.tta

McCBaayssinBvliulleeRidge Mtns.

^

^ The Grea

tower-Jasper Ridges

HigthValley

ThCeenGtrarel Uaplandstower-Jasper Ridges

High

Dahlo

Dahlo

Gainesv

Gainesv

nneeggBaalUUueppllRaaillnneidddRgiedgMestns. ille Ridges

Central UplandGsreenville Slope

Greenville Slope

Winder Slope

Winder

Slope Washington

Slope

Washington Slope

Fall line HVUiidllpasllaiands

Fall line HVUiidllpasllaiands
Source: ESRI Resource Data

^ ^
B. Geologic Setting of 9GO297

^ 9GO297

Conasauga Group Upper Unit

^
0 00 0

C9GonOa2s9a7uga Group (Cambrian) CKnoonxasGaruoguapG(OrorudpovUicpiapne-rCUanmitbrian) CRoonmaesaFuogrma aGtrioonup(C(Camambrbiarina)n)

FKlnooyxd GSrhoaulep ((MOirsdsoisvsicipiapnia-Cna) mbrian)

CRhoimckeaFmoarumgaatioGnro(uCpam(Obrrdiaonv)ician)

RFleodydMSohuanlteai(nMFisosrimssaitpiopnia(nS) ilurian) WChaitcekra(mHaoulogcaenGer)oup (Ordovician) Devonian-Missisippian R(DeedvMonoiuannt-aMinisFsiosrsmipaptiiaonn)(Silurian)

Water (Holocene)

Devonian-Missisippian (Devonian-Mississippian)

5

10 Miles

5 5 10

1510 Mil2e0s Kilometers

pp

Source: ESRI Resource Data

5

10 15 20 Kilometers

9 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Figure 4.

W

Mapped Soils within 9GO297

W Coosa

wattee River

ShA

#

SR 225

Ug

9GO297

##* N500.5 E500.5 (Datum)

ShA = Shellbluff Silt Loam

MoF = Montevallo Very Channery Loam

Ug = Ultic Udarents

W = Water

0

60

120 m

$

0

210

Source: ESRI Resource Data

420 ft

W MoF

10
Soil on the ridge between the Coosawattee River and New Town Creek is mapped as the Shellbluff Silt Loam (ShA). This unit is described as silt loam down to 29 inches, silty clay loam from 29-50 inches, and a fine sandy loam from 50-60 inches.
Soil units mapped along State Road 225 include the Montevallo very channery loam (MoF) on the eastern corner of the site and an Ultic Udarent (Ug) to the southwest. A channery loam is described as a loam with thin, level gravel soil; occurring on the crest and side slopes of ridges, this soil is derived from the weathered residuum of shale. An ultic udarent is a disturbed soil with pieces of subsoil or argillic horizon mixed into the profile.
LITHIC RESOURCES
Lithic materials within the Great Valley include shale, sandstone, dolomite, and limestone, as well as chert, which was of primary importance to the prehistoric peoples who inhabited and frequented the vicinity of 9GO297. The chert found within the Ridge and Valley province may be derived from a number of different geologic formations, including the Knox, Newala, Conasauga, Armuchee, Chickamauga, and Fort Payne (Goad 1979). Although several archaeologists have attempted to sort archaeological specimens based on macroscopically visible characteristics particularly color in the hopes of tying them to their specific geological source formations (thereby facilitating settlement/mobility and lithic organization studies), such attempts have generally failed (Gloer et al. 2011; Goad 1979; Windham et al. 2008). Thus, archaeologists working in the region often use the broad term "Ridge and Valley chert" to refer to the chert from this area of the state. Ridge and Valley chert is typically gray in color, from light to very dark, although it can also be black. It may also be variegated with white, red, and/or bluish-gray areas; from the Principal Investigator's experience, variegation tends to occur within the very dark gray to black specimens, and is most often white in color. Heat treatment of Ridge and Valley cherts tends to produce a glossy luster and deepen the existing colors (Ledbetter et al. 2009). In addition, an oolitic variety of Ridge and Valley chert is known, numerous pieces of which were recovered during this project. Via Spalvins (1969), Goad (1979) indicated that an oolitic variety can occur within the Conasauga formation, in which 9GO297 lies. The project geomorphologist analyzed one oolitic specimen from 9GO297 and determined it to be silicified oolitic limestone. In a review of road building materials in Georgia, (McCallie 1901) indicated that both Knox and Fort Payne chert is present in Gordon County. He stated that a siliceous variety (i.e., knappable) of the former is present along the base of a ridge one mile south of the Sugar Valley Station, which is located approximately 10 kilometers (6.3 mi.) west of 9GO297. He also stated that Fort Payne chert can typically be distinguished from Knox chert via its fossiliferous nature.

11 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
HYDROLOGY
Site 9GO297 is located on the landform immediately south and east of the confluence of the Coosawattee River, Conasauga River, and New Town Creek. (Figure 5). The Coosawattee River flows from the east out of the Blue Ridge Mountains, while the Conasauga River flows through the Great Valley from the north, and their confluence forms the Oostanaula River. New Town Creek originates south of 9GO297, forms the western boundary of the site, and empties into the Oostanaula River approximately 50 meters west of the river's beginning. The Oostanaula River flows to the southwest where it joins the Etowah River in the town of Rome, converging to form the Coosa River, which in turn joins with the Tallapoosa River in Alabama forming the Alabama River. The Alabama River meets with the Tombigbee River to form the Mobile River, which then empties into Mobile Bay in the Gulf of Mexico.
ENVIRONMENT
The natural environment of the Great Valley in northwest Georgia is in part influenced by the sedimentary soils remaining from its history as a shallow inland sea. Thus, some of the biota are also typical of the Coastal Plain (Wharton 1978:60, 108). The floor of the Great Valley was originally dominated by an oak-hickory forest, but "since 1832, logging, mining, and agriculture have so modified the Great Valley that existing samples of near-original forest are extremely rare" (Wharton 1978).
Such extensive modification has certainly occurred to the landform on which the site is located. The current environment at the time of this investigation consisted of a mixture of mature hardwoods and pines shading an extremely dense understory of privet and hardwood and pine saplings. A review of aerial photographs from 1942 to the early 1960s show the site area as open fields (which presumably served in an agricultural function), after which time the aerial photographs show it to have become wooded.
CLIMATE
The project area falls within the northern boundary of the Warm Temperate Subtropical Zone, which is characterized by moderately warm, humid summers with cool to cold, short winters (Hodler and Schretter 1986). Based on the current excavation, 9GO297 was occupied during the Holocene, an interglacial geological epoch which continues to the present time. The Holocene is characterized by warm and wet climatic conditions. However, a significantly drier interval between approximately 9,000-5000 years B.P., known as the Hypsithermal, represents a brief exception to the warm and wet Holocene pattern.

12 Oostanaula River

Conasauga River

Coo

Figure 5. Hydrological Network

Tennessee

^ Coosa ChattaEhtooowchaehe
Flint

Alabama

Gulf of Mexico sawattee River

^
New Town Creek

Oothkalooga Creek

Source: ESRI Resource Data

p ^ 9GO297

0

1

2 km

0 0.6 1.2 mi

13 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
According to climate records from 1953 through 1997 for the Calhoun Experiment Station (located approximately six miles southwest of the project area), this area has an average maximum temperate of 72 F and average minimum temperature of 46.8 F. The lowest maximum temperatures occur in January and average 50.4 F, while the maximum temperatures average 90 F in July (Southeastern Regional Climate Center 2012).
FACTORS AFFECTING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD OF 9GO297
Numerous historic period activities have affected the prehistoric archaeological context of 9GO297. The most obvious activity was the extensive removal of soil strata from the southern portion of the site that almost certainly would have contained archaeological deposits. This portion of the site served as a borrow pit for soil fill when the existing route of SR 225 was constructed during the 1950s; an even more extensive area south of the current highway also was used as a borrow pit. The borrow pit, including erosional gullies within it, is clearly observable on a 1958 aerial photograph and it is demarcated as a "gravel pit" in the 1965 Gordon County soil survey (Soil Survey Staff 1965) (Figure 6). It is likely that both of these borrow pits were functionally a single borrow pit used as a source of fill for the road embankment, yet simply separated as the SR 225 embankment was constructed through it; the 1958 aerial clearly shows an access/construction road that connects the two borrow areas under the New Town Creek bridge. Note that the soil map (Figure 6b) shows two soils within the project area; Whitwell silt loam, 0-2 percent slopes (WdA), and Stendal-Philo silt loams (Spl).
In addition to the borrow pit, the old road, which was replaced by the existing SR 225, ran northwest-southeast directly through the site. This road connected the Fork Ferry bridge over the Coosawattee River (at the location of the current bridge) with a bridge over New Town Creek just south of its mouth in the Oostanaula River, and from there headed due west (Keith et al. 2012). It appears to have been in use from circa 1930 until the road was relocated to the current SR 225 route. Nearly all of the length of this old road is clearly visible on the ground in the area of 9GO297 via an embankment along its southwestern edge, as well as by a chain link fence that tied into the boat ramp parking lot fence and extended along its entirety through the site.
Historic aerial photographs show the site area as open, with the exception of a wooded buffer along New Town Creek and the Coosawattee River. The area was most likely farmed. In the 1958 aerial photograph, a field road is observable that runs along the edge of the woods line along the Coosawattee River on the east side of the site. This may have been part of a road that was identified during testing of the portion of 9GO297 near the river confluence north of the current APE (Keith et al. 2012).

14
Former Ferry Landing

SR 225

0

9GO297 Boundary

75

150 m

p

0

250

500 ft

Source: 1958 Aerial Photograph

Figure 6. Borrow Pit and Old Road in 9GO297 Area

Coosawattee River

Old Road
Borrow Pit Borrow Pit

Fork Ferry Bridge

Coosawattee River

SR 225

0

p 9GO297 Boundary

75

150 m

0

250

500 ft

Source: 1965 GordonCounty Soil Map

Fork Ferry Bridge

III. CULTURAL CONTEXT

15 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

9GO297 BACKGROUND
Under contract with GDOT, URS Corporation conducted the Phase I survey and Phase II testing for the current SR 225 road widening and bridge replacement project during which they identified 9GO297 (Barse and Gill 2007). As shown in their map of the site (Figure 7), at the time of its identification the northern boundary of the site followed the northern edge of that study's APE, which followed the east-west property line between state-owned land on the south and private land (Elks Club) on the north. After the current data recovery fieldwork and prior to the report completion, the site's northern boundary was extended to the north essentially to the edge of the landform based on the identification of archaeological deposits during survey and testing of that area under an Addendum to the original survey project (Keith et al. 2012) (Figure 8).
According to the original survey and testing report (Barse and Gill 2007), the site was identified and delineated through the excavation of 34 survey shovel tests spaced at 30-meter intervals and 14 additional shovel tests (presumably in between selected survey shovel tests at 15-meter intervals). Three test units were also excavated in order to assess the cultural remains in relation to soil stratigraphy. Test Unit 1 measured 1.5x1 meters in size, while Test Units 2 and 3 were each 1x1 meters in size. Test Unit 1 extended to 145 centimeters below surface (cmbs), Test Unit 2 was excavated to 172 cmbs, and Test Unit 3 extended to 100 cmbs. All of the test units were north of the current APE (Figure 7).
Data from the survey and testing report revealed that the site contains stratified prehistoric cultural remains. Two cultural features were documented, including a fire-cracked rock (FCR) cluster (Feature 1) in Test Unit 1 and an FCR cluster (Feature 2) in Test Unit 2. Barse and Gill (2007) identified occupations dating to the early Middle Archaic period, the Late Archaic period, the Middle Woodland period, and the Mississippian or Historic Indian period based on several artifacts recovered from the site and the stratigraphic conditions of the site. This evidence includes a biface typed as a St. Albans or LeCroy bifurcated point and dating to the early Middle Archaic, and a stemmed biface typed as an Early-Middle Woodland period Copena or Nolichucky point. In addition to these stone tools, two complicated stamped ceramic sherds were recovered; one of these is a rim sherd with a design suggestive to Barse and Gill (2007) of a Late Swift Creek type, while the other is a body sherd with a similar design that they also felt

16
Figure 7. Survey and Testing Map of 9GO297

25 26 27 2 8 29 30 31

N

TU 1

Area 4

Coosawattee River

Z A B
TU 2 C
D
E
F

New Town Creek

Push Piles Location

TU 3

Parking Lot

SBloopaSet lRopaemp

Power Line Cut

SR 225

0 20 40 Scale: Meters

KEY STP Positive for Prehistoric STP Negative for Prehistoric Site Boundary Test Unit A Transect
Note: Site Extends North of Z Transect Beyond Project Area

Source: Barse and Gill 2007:4.18, Figure 4.9
Figure 4.9 Area 3, Site 9GO297, Shovel Test and Test Unit Locations. 4.18

17 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Figure 8. Map of Current Data Recovery APE and Addendum APE

/ //
/ ! / //

Coosawattee River

/!!!// /
/ / / ! ! ! ! //

New Town Creek

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D D
D

D

D

D D D D D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

Data Recovery APE Boat Ramp Easement

D

D

Security Fence (Area of Data Recovery)

D

D

Test Unit

$

Addendum APE

! Positive Shovel Test

!

!

!

9GO59 Updated Boundary / Negative Shovel Test

0 50 100 Feet

!

!

!

9GO297 Updated Boundary

0 10 20 30 Meters

!

18
was likely Swift Creek. In addition, single plain shell tempered sherd from the site suggests that there was a Mississippian or Historic Indian occupation present, as shell tempered pottery was produced throughout the period and into the Historic Indian period (Lewis and Kneberg 1946:95; Morrell 1965:28; Sears 1958:194).
However, on further review of the diagnostic bifaces depicted in Barse and Gill's (2007) Figure 4.6, (Figure 9), there is a possibility that the St. Albans/LeCroy specimen could represent a Woodland form and that the Copena/Nolichucky type may be a Baker's Creek point. The St. Alban/LeCroy point is similar morphologically to the stemmed and side-notched styles common to northwestern Georgia during the Early/Middle Woodland period, specifically Baker's Creek, Swan Lake, and Coosa Notched types (Keith 2010a; Pluckhahn 1998; Whatley 2002; Windham et al. 2008). It was also weakly bifurcated and serrated when compared to the typical St. Albans and LeCroy points, presumably leading Barse and Gill (2007:4.33) to state that it is clearly a "crude example of the [LeCroy] type". The level in which the point was found also makes it suspect, as it was found in the same stratum that a single sand tempered ceramic and the point that Barse and Gill (2007) identified as the Woodland period Copena/Nolichucky were found.
Data from eastern Tennessee and Virginia indicate St. Albans or LeCroy were produced during the transitional time between the Early and Middle Archaic periods, from around 65005800 B.C. (Broyles 1971; Chapman 1975, 1977, 1985; Stanyard 2003). Because this point was found at the base of a soil stratum that is situated atop another stratum that contains [non-diagnostic] FCR, they argued that an earlier component might also be present at the site. Further, the report authors suggested that an even deeper, and earlier, cultural component may be present based on the site stratigraphy (Barse and Gill 2007:4.21).
As for the Copena/Nolichucky point, its form is more similar to the Baker's Creek type than it is to either the Copena or Nolichucky type. The Bakers Creek type is commonly found in northwest Georgia and is often associated with sand tempered pottery of the Cartersville and Swift Creek pottery series. These items date to the Early to Middle Woodland time frame.
Barse and Gill (2007) identified two primary geologic formations at the site: an area of residual soils and an area of alluvial soils. Barse and Gill (2007:4.17) described the situation as follows:
"In the south half of the parcel closer to SR 225, shovel tests revealed shallow profiles consisting of a silty loam plow zone or Ap horizon capping a silty clay loam B horizon that, in turn, rested on bedrock. These are residual soils weathered from the underlying bedrock formation; archaeological context in these soils is limited to the plow zone horizon.

19 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 9. Comparison of Bifaces Found and Typed Alternatives for Point Type

Identified by Barse and Gill as LeCroy
or St. Albans*

Swan Lake/ Coosa Notched

Swan Lake/ Coosa Notched

Alternatives for Point Type
Nolichucky/ Copena

Swan Lake/ Coosa Notched
Nolichucky/ Copena||

Identified by Barse and Gill as
Nolichucky*
Greeneville/Copena
* Source: Barse and Gill 2007:4.6, Figure 4.34 Source: Keith 2010a:397, Fig. 434 Source: Keith 2010a:397, Fig. 433 Source: Wood and Ledbetter 1986:100, Fig. 38c || Source: Wood and Ledbetter 1986:100, Fig. 38d

Baker's Creek

20
Bedrock was encountered between depths of about 80 to 110 centimeters below surface. Moving north perpendicular to the SR 225 corridor, the package of residual soils gave way to alluvial deposits of variable age. On the western side of the Area 3 parcel, overlooking New Town Creek, soils were deeper and alluvial in origin. Cleaning the high bank cut overlooking the creek revealed two buried surfaces."
They also noted that the southern-most shovel tests revealed bedrock at a shallow depth:
"The final depositional context present with the Boat Ramp Site was represented in the shovel tests excavated in the southern portion of the ROW corridor. Here, soils developed on shale bedrock and are shallow with little to no potential for buried archaeological materials" (Barse and Gill 2007:4.28).
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND RELEVANT SITES
Numerous archaeological investigations (Baker 1970; Barse and Gill 2007; de Baillou 1955; Elliott et al. 2003; Wood 1994) have been conducted in and around 9GO297, many of them related to New Echota (which is recorded as state site 9GO42). As a result of these investigations, many sites are located in the vicinity of 9GO297 (Figure 10). Although the state site form for New Echota lacks a sketch map, the boundaries essentially follow the open area of the state park on the west and south, SR 225 and 9GO59 (also known as the Lum Moss site) on the north, and 9GO223 on the east.
The earliest known archaeological investigation in the vicinity of 9GO297 relates to New Echota. As detailed in Elliott et al.'s (2003) overview of the archaeology of New Echota, the Georgia Historical Commission (the precursor to the current Georgia Historic Preservation Division) funded excavations at New Echota over a number of years in the 1950s and 1960s. However, much of this work was poorly reported and the materials (notes, artifacts) were not kept in a single repository but found their way to numerous facilities. For this reason, and because the Elliott et al. (2003) study was designed to synthesize this information, we rely heavily on that report in this discussion and direct the reader to that report for a more detailed discussion than that herein.
The initial and former State Archaeologist Lewis Larson began excavations at New Echota in 1954, but left after a short time to excavate at Etowah Mounds. Joseph Caldwell, who in turn was replaced by Belgian archaeologist Clemens de Baillou shortly thereafter, replaced him. As discussed by Elliott et al. (2003), there is no overall map of de Baillou's excavations

21 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 10. Archaeological Sites in Vicinity of 9GO297

Conasauga River SR 225

Oostanaula River 9GO59

9GO34 9GO296 9GO297

9GO250 9GO251

9GO258

9GO42 9GO223
9GO234 9GO221

9GO218 9GO220
9GO217 9GO222 9GO219

9GO232

9GO216

9GO233

9GO135

Coosawa

9GO259

ttee River

9GO252

9GO260 9GO253
9GO307

9GO255 9GO254 9GO256

9GO64 9GO61

New Echota NHL Boundary

New Echota TCP Boundary

0

Previously Recorded Site

300

600 m

p

0

1,000

2,000 ft

Source: 7.5'Topographic Quadrangle North Calhoun

9GO63 9GO60

22
and thus the location of some of his units remain unknown. However, he excavated not only in the 9GO42 area but also within 9GO59 located directly north of the park (i.e., on the north side of SR 225) and on the west side of New Town Creek from 9GO297. At least one of these unknown units includes an excavation at or near the "ferry site" (almost certainly the New Town Ferry), located at the confluence of New Town Creek and the Oostanaula River (de Baillou 1955, 1957; Keith et al. 2012). According to de Baillou's interpretation of the excavation, a prehistoric structure and a historic structure were present in this location (Elliott et al. 2003:51). A small amount of Woodland period Cartersville Check Stamped pottery was recovered from this excavation.
In 1969, Steven Baker (1970:197, 1971), on behalf of the Georgia Historical Commission, conducted salvage excavations at 9GO59 when the Calhoun Elks Club proposed to expand their golf course into the site area. While the state site form for 9GO59 does not provide a boundary for this site, Baker's (1970:197, 1971) field report indicated that it extended east-west from New Town Creek to an unnamed branch and north-south from the current location of SR 225 to the Oostanaula River, an area approximately 34 acres in size. Baker identified numerous features, both prehistoric and historic Cherokee, and recovered Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, Late Woodland-Early Mississippian, and Historic Cherokee materials. The Principal Investigator spoke with Jim Langford, an archaeologist from the nearby town of Calhoun who worked with Baker on this project when he was a teenager. Langford (personal communication 2012) stated that the site yielded artifacts that evidenced a continuous occupation from the Early Archaic period through the Historic Cherokee period, although he stated there was no pre-contact Mississippian component. Specific artifact types he mentioned include Swift Creek (Middle Woodland) and Hamilton Plain (Late Woodland) pottery (Jim Langford, personal communication 2012). According to Baker's (1970:197, 1971) report, the site was largely destroyed through extensive mechanical earth moving associated with golf course construction, although an approximately 100-foot wide portion along the river from the creek to the unnamed branch was supposed to have been spared for preservation and future research.
While the precise whereabouts of the field files from this project are unknown, Jim Langford told the lead author that he had some of them (Jim Langford, personal communication 2012). Langford provided the lead author a scaled map showing the location of the cultural features that Baker recorded. However, the author was unable to georeference this map as there are no landscape features on the map that correspond with extant landscape features. It does appear that the features on this map roughly correspond with those shown on the "General Site Plan" map of Figure 2 of Baker's 1969 season report (Baker 1970:197), thereby allowing a very rough georeferencing of the feature map. The key to georeferencing the feature map at a much more useful scale may lie in the files created during the topographic mapping of the site that Baker had

23 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
commissioned as part of the excavation; according to Baker's (1970:11) report, a Mr. Phillip Craft of the University of Kansas began the mapping of the "entire site (approximately 300 acres)" and was replaced by Mr. Tom Burgess of the University of Missouri. A "base line" is shown on the feature map and likely corresponds with the topographic mapping grid created by Craft and/or Burgess.
In 2012, New South Associates conducted survey and limited testing of the northern portion of 9GO59 and the area of land to the east across New Town Creek, an area that abutted the known northern boundary of 9GO297 and extended north to the confluence of the river and New Town Creek (Keith et al. 2012). Investigated as part of the current task order contract under which this data recovery was conducted, the study identified prehistoric and historic period remains on both sides of New Town Creek. As a result of the investigation on the east side of the creek, prehistoric deposits were identified that resulted in the expansion of the boundary of 9GO297 to the north to include the northern end of the landform. Specifically, Early Woodland period deposits were found, including a large pit feature containing limestone tempered Long Branch fabric impressed pottery; data from this study will be included in the current data recovery due to its data potential in relation to the understanding of the occupation of 9GO297.
Within the area of 9GO42, in 1983, Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc. conducted a shovel test survey at locations where trees were to be planted, in the area between the reconstructed Print Shop, the museum, and a dirt road. A few small and heavily eroded artifacts were recovered, while no cultural features were identified (Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc. 1983).
In 1990, the Office of the State Archaeologist conducted a series of shovel tests within a 20x8meter area where the Council House was to be reconstructed. No artifacts or cultural features were identified (Simpkins 1990).
In 1993, Southern Research Historic Preservation Consultants, Inc., excavated 33 1x1-meter test units behind the New Echota Museum in advance of the construction of new restrooms (Wood 1994). This work revealed that the soils had been heavily disturbed in the area of the museum, presumably from its construction, while further away from the museum the soils were shallow and eroded. No cultural features were found and the artifact assemblage consisted of prehistoric through modern twentieth-century items.
Outside (south) of the formal boundary of 9GO42 during that same year, Dave Davis of the Office of the State Archaeologist, which at that time was headquartered at West Georgia College, conducted a survey of approximately 36 acres in an attempt to locate the remains of a stockade that was built in 1839 as part of the removal efforts. While the report does not call it such, this

24
stockade equates to Fort Wool. The project area was located within an open field approximately 250 meters south of the Worcester House, the former home of missionary Samuel Worcester that was built in 1828 and is still standing. Of approximately 250 shovel tests excavated, 78 were positive. In addition, a metal detector survey of the area was conducted. Artifacts recovered from the survey include alkaline glazed stoneware, a green-edged sherd, green bottle glass, nails, horseshoe fragments, and various metal items, as well as an Early to Middle Archaic projectile point/knife (Larson 1994). The archaeological site identified at this location is 9GO135. The historic artifacts suggest that this site may represent a portion of Fort Wool, but more definitive evidence is needed for this determination.
In 1996, the Office of the State Archaeologist examined the locations where 100 trees were to be planted adjacent to the service road and around the Worchester House. The dirt from each tree hole was gone through with a trowel and not screened; artifacts were found in only two of the holes. All of the artifacts are historic and include clear glass, wire nails, a metal button and a metal bolt (Larson 1996).
In 2000, as part of the Elliott et al. (2003) project synthesizing the archaeology of New Echota, Scot Keith of Southern Research conducted a reconnaissance level archaeological survey focused on areas of the state property that had not received previous attention. This involved a pedestrian shovel test and landscape/surface survey of approximately 96 acres located primarily in wooded areas in the southern and eastern portion of the park. Eight previously unrecorded sites were identified as a result of this survey (9GO216-9GO223).
In 2002, the Office of the State Archaeologist of the Historic Preservation Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources conducted a survey of areas to be logged due to the presence of the Southern Pine Beetle (Crass 2002). This survey resulted in the recordation of three new archaeological sites (9GO232-9GO234) and the identification of two isolated artifact occurrences. Site 9GO233 overlaps with 9GO216, also a lithic scatter of unknown age recorded two years previous. Based on the location and description of 9GO324, it represents the same historic structural remains as those recorded two years prior as 9GO221 (cf. Crass 2002; Elliott et al. 2003). It is unknown why the Office of the State Archaeologist and the Georgia Archaeological Site Files chose to record 9GO233 and 9GO234 as new sites rather than as revisits of previously recorded sites 9GO216 and 9GO221 respectively given that they almost certainly represent the same sites.
In 2006, as part of the current GDOT project, URS conducted the archaeological survey for the SR 225 road widening and bridge replacement (Barse and Gill 2007), resulting in the identification of previously unrecorded sites 9GO296, 9GO297, 9GO298, and known site 9GO59. They conducted shovel testing and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) within 9GO59. Despite the existence of previously recorded sites 9GO42 and 9GO223 that abut the south side of

25 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
SR 225 and that lay side by side, they defined those archaeological deposits and the remains they recorded from along this narrow strip as part of 9GO59. Barse and Gill (2007:i) stated that their Phase I investigation within 9GO59 demonstrated that scattered lithic debris and ceramics were present in disturbed or plow zone contexts on both the north and south side of SR 225, and that these artifacts represent the southernmost boundary or area of the Lum Moss site. No archaeological features or cultural materials, with the exception of a single sherd of pearlware, were documented that could be associated with the Cherokee Capitol of New Echota. The GPR results of the URS study indicated extensive disturbance within the area of 9GO59 from grading and golf course construction and maintenance (Barse and Gill 2007). Details of their work at 9GO297 are presented separately in the following section.
Also under the current GDOT project, additional work was conducted within the area of the Calhoun Elks Club Golf Course. GDOT personnel Matthew Kear and Heather Mustonen (2012) conducted an addendum for history survey within the area of site 9GO59 in order to identify a remnant of an historic earthen road that was not recorded during the 1990 DNR Gordon County Survey. Designated Resource 1, this is likely a remnant of McCoy's Ferry Road, which was a north-south road that ran through New Echota and may have served as one of the roads associated with the removal of the Cherokee during the Trail of Tears. With the realignment of SR 225 in the middle 1950s, the road was severed and fell out of use. Based on its lack of integrity in the areas of design, setting, feeling, and association, Kear and Mustonen (2012) considered Resource 1 not eligible for the NRHP.
Following the addendum history investigation, an addendum archaeological survey and testing was conducted under the existing GDOT project within the Calhoun Elks Club Golf Course property because the Golf Course plans to offset a portion of the course that will be lost to the impending road relocation (Keith et al. 2012). Because this area was not included in the original survey APE (Barse and Gill 2007) and because there are archaeological NRHP-listed and eligible resources located in the area under consideration, GDOT wished to determine the nature and the integrity of the archaeological resources in order to assess potential adverse impacts to these resources during golf course new hole construction. The addendum APE included an approximately nine-acre parcel immediately south of and adjacent to the confluence of the Coosawattee and Conasauga rivers (forming the Oostanaula River) and the mouth of New Town Creek, including the portion of the landform north of the 9GO297 data recovery APE and a 60meter wide area paralleling the Oostanaula riverbank downstream to the mouth of an unnamed spring-fed branch. As a result of the survey and testing, archaeological deposits associated with site 9GO59 on the west side of New Town Creek and with 9GO297 on the east side of the creek were identified. Within 9GO59, remnants of a historic ferry were identified in the wooded area near the mouth of New Town Creek, while bridge abutments from a former road that was in use in the early 1900s were documented along the banks of the creek; in addition, Early Woodland

26
(Dunlap Fabric Marked pottery) and Late Archaic (McIntire PPK) diagnostic artifacts were recovered from 9GO59. On landform east of New Town Creek and north of the data recovery APE, both historic and precontact period archaeological deposits were identified, and the northern boundary of 9GO297 was revised to include these remains. While the historic deposits were related to the usage of the road and were considered not significant, an intact pit feature was identified that yielded Early Woodland period fabric marked pottery. Data from this portion of 9GO297 was included within the current data recovery analysis and reporting as it contributes information regarding precontact occupation of this landform. After the fieldwork and reporting, the portion of the APE east of New Town Creek (i.e., 9GO297) was removed from consideration as the Elks Club Golf Course decided not to include this area in construction plans.
CULTURAL CONTEXT
This cultural background will focus on the span of time from the Early Archaic period through the Late Woodland Woodstock phase and on the Late Mississippian subperiod in order to provide a context for the materials recovered at 9GO297. For the examination of site frequencies and distributions, the data used was downloaded from the GNAHRGIS website on January 3, 2013. It should also be acknowledged that sites are only recorded in areas that have been surveyed for such, and that only a very small percentage of the area in northwestern Georgia has been archaeologically surveyed. Thus, known sites represent only a tiny fraction of the number of archaeological sites that are certainly in existence. Further, the number of sites from which temporally diagnostic artifacts have been recovered is low in comparison to those from which diagnostic artifacts have not (yet) been found, almost certainly due in large part to the low percentage of total site area that is sampled archaeologically, such as through shovel testing.
Thus, the number of sites present in the database for each chronological period is most certainly some amount lower than the actual number of sites in existence for the same period. That is, the reader should be aware of the limitations of the site frequency and settlement pattern data.
EARLY ARCHAIC
The Early Archaic period in northwest Georgia dates from approximately 8000-6000 B.C. The Early Archaic period is often regarded as an adaptation to post-Pleistocene environmental warming (Griffin 1967; Smith 1986). Using environmental data, Anderson et al. (1996) stated that after a period of major climatic and vegetational change circa 10,000-8000 B.C., vegetation in the South Appalachian area north of 33 N consisted of a homogenous deciduous hardwood canopy by approximately 7000 B.C. Such conditions were conducive to a residentially mobile foraging adaptation, in which peoples moved their residential bases upon exhausting the resources of their foraging areas.

27 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Side and corner notched projectile point forms identify Early Archaic archaeological sites. Side notched forms appear to have evolved from preceding Paleoindian lanceolate forms (in particular, the Dalton type) and were produced during the initial centuries of this period circa 8000-7500 B.C, while corner notched forms were produced in the rest of the period in the latter portion of the period. Side notched types include Taylor, Big Sandy, and Bolen; these are often serrated and may be beveled (Anderson et al. 1996; Cambron and Hulse 1975; Ledbetter et al. 1996; Stanyard 2003). Two point typological names Kirk and Palmer assigned by Coe (1964) based on work at the Hardaway site in the Piedmont of North Carolina are often used to categorize Early Archaic corner-notched points, suggesting that these point types were the products of two different cultural groups. Palmer points are small while Kirk points have a similar shape but are larger. However, because of the high degree of overlap of morphological attributes between these two "types", it has been argued that they actually represent the same point style made with the differences simply due to different use-life stages. Thus, the name Kirk-Palmer is now typically used for small to medium sized corner notched points from the Early Archaic period (Sassaman 1996:6364; Stanyard 2003).
Numerous models detailing settlement, subsistence, and resource strategies have been developed to account for the Early Archaic archaeological record (Anderson 1996a). Based on research conducted at two sites in North Carolina's Haw River Valley, Claggett et al. (1975, 1977, 1978) proposed that changes in technology from the Paleoindian to the Early Archaic reflect changes in settlement organization in response to post-Pleistocene warming. They argued that the resource structure would have become increasingly homogeneous throughout the Early Archaic. The settlement strategy emphasized residential mobility rather than logistic mobility, which would be manifested in an increase in expedient tools or situational technology. Support for this model was subsequently provided by an examination of Early Archaic assemblages from various areas of the South Atlantic Slope (Anderson and Schuldenrein 1985).
Closer to the study area, O'Steen (1983, 1996) used data from the Wallace Reservoir of Piedmont Georgia to build a contrasting model of relatively sedentary settlement organization. Instead of finding major Early Archaic sites at the Fall Line along this drainage, she found Early Archaic sites were concentrated upstream in the area around river shoals, and that site density was higher in the uplands than in the floodplain. She argued a fairly large local population of several hundred people lived in the Oconee River Basin, possible due to the ecologically diverse resources capable of supporting residential base camps. In addition, she argued that territorial boundaries might have existed along with mechanisms for lithic exchange. Applicable to the current study area, she found that sites in the northern portion of the Oconee River Valley were linked with the Ridge and Valley province through the presence of chert from that area, while sites in the southern portion of her study area showed a stronger connection to the Coastal Plain via the presence of chert from that area within the lithic assemblages.

28
Anderson and Hanson (1988) have provided perhaps the most comprehensive settlement model, which combines elements of these previous models with considerations of interregional integration and population dynamics. They pointed to four factors important in the distribution of sites: seasonal and spatial structure of food resources; mating requirements; information exchange; and demographic structure. These factors are postulated to produce a settlement system in which small bands engaged in a mixed forager-collector strategy of watershed-wide seasonal mobility. In brief, the hypothesized settlement organization was characterized by the use of a logistically provisioned seasonal base camp or camps during the winter, and a series of short-term foraging camps throughout the rest of the year. Annual movement is inferred to have been towards the coast during the early spring, back into the Upper Coastal Plain and Piedmont during the later spring, summer, and early fall, with a return to the winter base camp in late fall. The return to the winter base camp may have incorporated side trips to other drainages, for aggregation events by groups from two or more different drainage. Fall Line river terraces were posited as aggregation loci since the dramatic visual character and ecological richness of this macro-ecotone would facilitate population rendezvous. It was in these locations that rocks and shoals first appeared in the river channels proceeding inland from the coast, and where the resources of both the Coastal Plain and Piedmont were readily available. The occurrence of major Early Archaic assemblages in Fall Line sites has long suggested to local archaeologists that these areas saw use in special activities of some kind (Anderson and Hanson 1988).
Perhaps most applicable to the current study area, Jefferson Chapman (1975, 1977, 1978) developed what is known as the Little Tennessee River Model to explain Early Archaic systems in the Ridge and Valley area of eastern Tennessee. Referred to as the "central-based transhumance system (Chapman 1975), this model holds that during the fall Early Archaic peoples occupied base camps located on the first terrace of the floodplains of major drainages where resource diversity was greatest. During other times of the year, they broke into smaller groups and moved onto the second terraces and into the adjoining uplands. In addition to base camps, short term "transient activity loci" were also found in the floodplain (Anderson and Sassaman 1996).
Following up with Early Archaic sites in eastern Tennessee, Kimball (1996) documented changing material culture and settlement strategies in the Tellico Reservoir area at the interface of the Ridge and Valley and the Blue Ridge Mountains. Through a study of point styles, he divided point forms into two major clusters: the Kirk Corner-Notched cluster that dates from 8000-7000 B.C. and the Bifurcate Cluster dating from 7000-6100 B.C. For the earlier cluster, he found that Kirk style points changed from those with large ground excurvate bases (similar in form to Lost Lake, Plevna, and Charleston Corner-notched types) to small and large cornernotched forms with either ground or unground haft elements and similar to Palmer, Kirk, Pine

29 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Tree, Autagu, Ecusta, and Cocke Serrated types. In general, there was a trend for the Kirk forms to increase in size over time. Following this sequence, bifurcate forms appear, with a continuum of St. Albans to LeCroy to Kanawha. In terms of settlement, he found a difference between Kirk and Bifurcate sites, in that the former are more widely distributed across different landforms than are the latter. A greater proportion of bifurcate sites were found on the first terrace, suggesting either a lower resident population for these peoples (in comparison to Kirk), or a shift from the logistical strategies of Kirk people to a more residential one. Similar to O'Steen (1983, 1996), he also found a greater concentration of sites in the more environmentally diverse areas (Kimball 1996).
While numerous Early Archaic sites exist within Georgia, the vast majority of these are known only from survey and relatively few have been excavated (Ledbetter et al. 1996). In the 2003 volume on the Archaic period in north Georgia, Stanyard (2003:99) reported 77 Early Archaic sites in the Ridge and Valley.
The only formal excavation of an Early Archaic site in the Ridge and Valley province of Georgia was conducted by Ledbetter (1992a) at 9BR775 in the uplands of the Etowah River Valley south of the current project area. This site occupied an area less than 20 meters in diameter and relates to a Kirk Stemmed occupation at the Early Archaic-Middle Archaic transition. Finding a rock hearth, several small "smudge" pits, several large rocks he identified as site furniture, and a concentration of debitage in one area, he argued for the presence of a light tent-like shelter and concluded that this was a residential location occupied only once during warm weather (Ledbetter 1992a).
MIDDLE ARCHAIC
The Middle Archaic period dates from 60003000 B.C. in northern Georgia (Shah and Whitley 2009; Stanyard 2003). As discussed previously, the bifurcate point form was the diagnostic style at the end of the Early Archaic-Middle Archaic transition. In particular, the LeCroy type, similar to the earlier St. Albans type but smaller, is a diagnostic marker for this period in northern Georgia; the Stanly type slightly post-dates LeCroy, yet is similar in form but somewhat larger. The bifurcate form eventually gave way to the Morrow Mountain I type defined by Coe (1964), a somewhat diamond-shaped form with a tapered stem that was either pointed or rounded. In the northern Georgia area, these are often made of quartz but may also be of Ridge and Valley chert. This form appears to have changed over time, with the stem becoming longer and the blade narrower, defining the Morrow Mountain II type (Whatley 2002). During this same time period, a short pentagonal point form known as White Springs was produced by peoples occupying northern Georgia (DeJarnette et al. 1962; Webb 1998). Towards the end of the period, a lanceolate form with a long blade and tapering haft element known as Guilford appears, coinciding with the transition to the Late Archaic period (Shah and Whitley 2009).

30
As has been pointed out in numerous studies (Blanton and Sassaman 1989; Shah and Whitley 2009; Walthall 1980), our understanding of Middle Archaic culture including settlement organization, subsistence, and interaction is low when compared with other prehistoric periods. Shah and Whitley (2009:36) made the important point that a dearth of excavations of Middle Archaic sites compared to sites of other periods underlies this problem. For the Piedmont, Middle Archaic sites tend to be small and diffuse, offer little evidence for intensive long-term occupation, and contain assemblages with little diversity in tool types, suggestive of a generalized foraging strategy with frequent residential moves (Blanton and Sassaman 1989; Goodyear et al. 1979; Shah and Whitley 2009; Sassaman 1991, 2005). In the Ridge and Valley, Anderson (1996b) found that Middle Archaic sites are concentrated along the major drainages such as the Tennessee River Valley, as well as the Coosa River Valley. At least in the former, sites that contain extensive remains of riverine shellfish consumption appear during the Middle Archaic. It appears that cultural groups were becoming more territorial during this period (Walthall 1980).
According to Stanyard's (2003:70) study of the Archaic period in north Georgia, there was a slight decrease in the number of sites from the preceding Early Archaic period, opposite of the situation in both the Piedmont and the Blue Ridge provinces where sites nearly doubled in frequency. He proposed two possible explanations for this trend (Stanyard 2003:111). One, the Ridge and Valley may have served as a frontier or buffer zone between the Morrow Mountain peoples in the Piedmont to the east and south and the Sykes/White Springs and Benton phase peoples to the north and west. Alternatively, he hypothesized that the climatic conditions within the Ridge and Valley may have resulted in less biotic productivity in the Ridge and Valley when compared to areas to the south and east.
Five Middle Archaic sites are recorded within the GNAHRGIS database for Gordon County, the nearest of which is 9GO42, which equates to the former town of New Echota. Barse and Gill (2007) dated one of the bifaces they recovered during the Phase II testing of 9GO297 as a Middle Archaic bifurcated form, typing it as either a St. Albans or Lecroy point. Similar to Early Archaic sites in the Ridge and Valley province, relatively few Middle Archaic sites have been excavated. One site that did undergo excavation is Sixtoe Field (9MU100), a multicomponent site located upstream of 9GO297 along the Coosawattee near the dam that creates Carter's Lake. The Middle Archaic component at this multicomponent stratified site was situated several feet below surface and was identified by the presence of quartz and quartzite Morrow Mountain points, along with several rock features and concentrations of tools and lithic debitage. In an analysis of the lithic assemblage from this one Middle Archaic area, Beasley (1972) identified several small circular and semi-circular concentrations of late stage debitage indicative of debris fields from knapping activities. In another zone, he also found a concentration of debitage, as

31 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
well as tools that exhibited greater diversity than those in the other zone. He concluded that the remains in both zones were indicative of small bands of mobile foragers that occupied this location for short periods (Beasley 1972; Shah and Whitley 2009).
LATE ARCHAIC
The Late Archaic period dates from approximately 30001000 B.C. (Stanyard 2003). As pointed out by Stanyard (2003:51), the archaeological record remaining from this period is much more substantial than that of preceding periods. This is almost certainly due to the interrelated factors of increased sedentism and advancements in storage and cooking technologies, factors resulting in larger and more densely occupied residential sites, as well as the shorter amount of time such sites have been subject to deterioration in comparison to sites of the preceding periods (Stanyard 2003:51). There is also evidence that related cultural groups occupied smaller areas and controlled important economic resources within their territories (Sassaman 1993), while social alliances developed among these groups. The residential base camps were often located in floodplain settings, while smaller special-activity sites (e.g., hunting, resource extraction, and collecting stations) were typically located in the uplands surrounding these base camps. The exploitation of shellfish first observed during the Middle Archaic period increases drastically, in conjunction with an increased use of riverine settings.
Materially, stemmed bifaces were the most common point form, with the relatively large and broad-bladed type Savannah River Stemmed a common diagnostic form for this period. Other point types dating to this time frame found in northern Georgia include Paris Island, Ledbetter, McIntire, Otarre, and Kiokee Creek (Stanyard 2003; Whatley 2002).
The development of new forms of cooking and storage containers was an important hallmark of the Late Archaic period. Ceramic containers, the earliest being fiber-tempered Stallings Island wares, had implications for cooking efficiency and long-term storage. Its dispersal from a core area along the Savannah River was spotty, however, possibly because Late Archaic cultures in the Southeast relied on carved steatite containers, both for cooking and as a component in exchange and alliance networks. Pottery, which could be manufactured anywhere, threatened to undermine long-standing political relationships. Pottery technology became more widely disseminated after about 3,500 years ago (Sassaman 1993). Within the Piedmont of western Georgia, fiber-tempered pottery is generally placed under the Wheeler type name, which is felt to date later than Stallings and St. Simons fiber-tempered wares from the Savannah River Valley and lower Atlantic Coast.
While this was the case to the east of the Ridge and Valley, Stanyard (2003:59) found Late Archaic period ceramic or soapstone usage in the Ridge and Valley was minimal; in addition, soapstone cooking technology was limited to bowls, while the slabs common in the Savannah River Valley were not used.

32
In a recent and thorough investigation of the Late Archaic to Early Woodland transition in northwest Georgia, deemed the Terminal Archaic period, (Ledbetter et al. 2009) also found that fiber tempered pottery is rare, "if not absent", and stated that the Terminal Archaic period (1100600 B.C.) in this area of the state is essentially aceramic. Based on a review of numerous sites, they found that assemblages of barbed and expanded stemmed points and soapstone vessels occurred during this time frame not only in northwest Georgia, but in middle and eastern Tennessee, Kentucky, and even the American Bottom in Illinois. They postulated that there was a high degree of cultural and ethnic diversity in northwest Georgia at this time, with a close connection to groups in the Cumberland Plateau and areas to the north and west. Shell middens dating to this period are rare in northwest Georgia, although two sites in Bartow County along the Etowah River may represent such (Ledbetter et al. 2009:14, 25, 8391); these are Garfield (9BR57) and Wooly's Bend (9BR59) excavated by Jerald Milanich in the early 1970s (Milanich 1975a, 1975b). While it does not appear that the intensive exploitation of riverine shellfish occurred within northwest Georgia, plant husbandry became an important component of subsistence. The increasing reliance on horticulture contributed to an increasing sedentism.
Recent excavation of Site 9GO231, or the Lick Creek site (Benson et al. 2008), upstream along the Coosawattee River from 9GO297 has yielded important information about the Terminal Archaic period in northwest Georgia, as has Ledbetter et al.'s (2009) review of period assemblages from the area. Point forms produced during the Terminal Archaic period are similar to those in the Terminal Archaic Barbed Cluster defined by Justice (1995), and include Wade, Motley, McIntire, Delhi, Little Bear Creek, and Flint Creek types (Ledbetter et al. 2009). Data from Lick Creek indicated that there may have been a greater reliance on local lithic sources, and that points were typically made from flakes rather than from the large bifacial cores used during the early portion of the Late Archaic period. As seen at Lick Creek and other contemporaneous sites, FCR is common, often occurring in very high densities and concentrations. For those few sites in northwest Georgia with excavation data, they are typically found in floodplains and often have few features other than FCR concentrations and shallow pits, although this pattern may simply be due to the small number of investigated sites (Ledbetter et al. 2009). Another important finding of the Lick Creek project is the transitional Terminal Archaic-Early Woodland usage of steatite/soapstone vessel usage; a radiocarbon date of 760 B.C. was obtained from the soot on a soapstone vessel fragment from this site (Benson et al. 2008).
Although rarely used as a cultural phase any longer (Ledbetter et al. 2009), Joseph Caldwell (n.d., 1957:280) defined the Stamp Creek Focus, named after the Stamp Creek site in Bartow County (9BR60). He defined this cultural "focus" partly on the basis of the lack of artifact types that were commonly found in Late Archaic sites in the Savannah River valley, such as soapstone cooking/heating slabs, axes, atlatl weights, and bone and shell items, and in particular fiber tempered pottery. Further, he emphasized the "culturally discontinuous" nature of this period in

33 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
comparison to the Early Woodland period Kellog Focus, when fabric impressed pottery appeared in northwest Georgia (Caldwell 1957). Some (Bowen 1989; Crook 1984) have suggested that this cultural discontinuity is not supported by the data, yet Ledbetter et al.'s (2009) recent investigation of the Late Archaic-Early Woodland transition backs up such a discontinuity.
EARLY WOODLAND
While a date of 1000 B.C. is often used as the beginning of Early Woodland period in the Southeast based on the widespread adoption and usage of ceramics (Anderson and Joseph 1988; Anderson and Mainfort 2002; Bense 1994; Garrow 1975), studies in northwest Georgia (Bowen 1982, 1989; Espenshade 2008a; Ledbetter et al. 2009; Wood and Bowen 1995) have shown that this occurred circa 700 B.C. As stated by Ledbetter et al. (2009), "traditional Early Woodland pottery types do not appear until relatively late in the region (ca. 700-600 B.C.)". The end of the Early Woodland period is generally believed to be circa 200 B.C. (Anderson and Mainfort 2002; Espenshade 2008a; Ledbetter et al. 2009).
The pottery that appears at this time typically bears fabric impressions upon the exterior vessel walls. This decoration was common, and it crosscuts the different temper types used for Early Woodland wares in northwest Georgia. Specifically, it is found on sand tempered vessels (Dunlap Fabric Marked), limestone tempered vessels (Long Branch Fabric Marked), and crushed rock/grit vessels (Watts Bar Fabric Marked) (Bowen 1989; Espenshade 2008a; Ledbetter et al. 2009; Milanich 1973, 1975a).
Caldwell (1957, 1958) defined the Kellog Focus as the appearance of fabric impressed pottery in northwest Georgia, marking the beginning of the Early Woodland period. Based on work at two sites that were to be inundated by the Allatoona Reservoir Kellog (9CK62) and Boston Creek (Caldwell's 9BR73 but state site number 9BR141) he found sites of this period to be characterized by concentrations of pit, post, and rock clusters, often with middens, and to contain medium triangular points and Dunlap Fabric Marked pottery.
At the Boston Creek site, he excavated a six-foot deep unit to examine the stratigraphy and documented a midden approximately four feet in thickness. The upper levels (combined one and a half feet in thickness) contained a pottery sequence, from top to bottom, of Woodstock and late Swift Creek pottery with lesser amounts of Cartersville Simple Stamped, Cartersville Check Stamped, Dunlap Fabric Marked, and plain. Below these upper levels, between 18 and 48 inches, were check stamped, fabric impressed, and plain wares, which Caldwell (1957) assigned to the Post-Kellog period. At the bottom of the cultural deposit was exclusively Dunlap Fabric Marked and plain, markers of his Kellog Focus.

34
At the Kellog site, Caldwell (1957) identified numerous Early and Middle Woodland features, including storage and cooking pits, a cremation pit, and posts. He documented a circular structure, measuring approximately 3.3 meters in diameter and with a rock-lined hearth in the center; a "raised" area of disturbed tan and brown sand was located immediately outside of the structure, and he suggested it may have been functionally related to the building. He found "Cartersville period" (Middle Woodland) sherds in association, suggesting that Cartersville Simple Stamped and Cartersville Check Stamped were the most frequent, with lesser amounts of Dunlap Fabric Marked pottery; he noted that Swift Creek pottery was absent. He also identified a circular pit containing cremated human bones at the base, with wild grape seeds and a couple of Dunlap Fabric Marked pottery, suggesting it dated to the Kellog period. Several large rectangular slate tools from the site were interpreted as hoes due to "earth polish" on one end, and he felt these likely remained from the Cartersville period occupation of the site. At the Middle Woodland Leake site in the same county, similar slate tools, many of which were broken, were found in the Cartersville phase component, along with a fair amount of slate debitage that likely remained from the shattering of such digging tools (Keith 2010a).
Based on in large part on data from the Allatoona Reservoir, Caldwell (1958) developed the idea of Primary Forest Efficiency, which postulated that Woodland peoples were able to rely heavily on the resources obtainable throughout much of the year from the abundant forest ecosystem of the Eastern U.S. Woodlands. Technological innovations such as the durable ceramics and storage pits, as well as efficient hunting and gathering techniques, in conjunction with the diverse and nutritious foods of the forest (nuts, starchy seeds, game) allowed people to live in sedentary villages without having to adopt agriculture; indeed, he (Caldwell 1965:6768) felt that there may have even been some resistance to intensive food production. Caldwell believed that this pattern began towards the end of the Late Archaic period and continued, with increasing efficiency, through the Woodland period. This economic basis was sufficient to support activities such as mound and earthwork construction and the disposal of surplus wealth in burials, as well as increased stylistic elaboration (Caldwell 1962:289).
Years after Caldwell's work at Kellog, Bowen (1989) undertook a study of Kellog period archaeology of northwest Georgia. In a re-analysis of feature contents from Kellog, he found that a minority amount of the fabric tempered pottery was Watts Bar (tempered with crushed rock/grit) rather than being entirely Dunlap Fabric Marked (sand tempered), although limestone tempered Long Branch Fabric Marked wares were absent. He acquired radiocarbon dates for five samples from features, four of which he deemed acceptable with uncorrected dates extending from 455-200 B.C. (Bowen 1989:44).

35 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Closer to 9GO297, work at several Woodland sites in northwest Georgia was conducted under the auspices of the Georgia Historical Commission in the late 1950s and early 1960s as part of the Interstate Highway Archaeological Salvage Program for the area along Interstate 75 (Ledbetter et al. 2009; Morse and Morse 2004). Work was conducted by archaeologist Dan Morse, with help from his wife Phyllis, and only a few short reports were written for these excavations (Morse 1960a, 1960b, 1960c), while they also wrote a journal article detailing their memories approximately 45 years after the fact (Morse and Morse 2004). Among a few others, they conducted work at the Williams site (9GO31), the Little Chickamauga site (9CT2), and the Lingerfelt site (9WD1).
One of the sites excavated during the Interstate 75 salvage program was the Williams site (9GO31), located along the Oostanaula River between Resaca and Calhoun approximately five kilometers as the crow flies northwest from 9GO297. Based on his excavations at this site and data from other sites in the area, Morse defined several "foci" (or phases) of the Early Woodland period, which he equated with the Deptford "aspect". The earliest of these was referred to as the Mayham (Mahan) Focus, dated to 550 B.C., the subsequent Williams Focus dated to 400 B.C., and the terminal Early Woodland focus in this scheme was the Murry (Murphy) Focus, dated to 150 B.C. (Morse 1960b:4). Ledbetter et al. (2009) stated that these foci were never quite adopted by Georgia archaeologists. Further, they argued that the pottery assemblage from the Williams site likely primarily dates to the Middle Woodland period rather than the late Early Woodland period as suggested by Morse (1960b).
According to Morse and Morse (2004:211), amateur archaeologist John Wear recorded a large number of sites (apparently hundreds) in the area of northwest Georgia with the Georgia Historical Commission, but apparently little of this site information was transferred into the Georgia State Site Files. His collections and field notes were apparently sold to collectors rather than transferred to the professional community due to a dispute with A.R. Kelly, thus most of the information he gathered is effectively lost. One of the sites Wear excavated was the Mahan site (9GO22), located approximately 23 kilometers from 9GO297 in the southeast corner of the county along Salacoa Creek, and he shared the materials and data from this work with Morse. This site yielded fabric impressed pottery equating to the three different types based on tempering (Dunlap, Long Branch, and Watts Bar). As part of his research, Bowen (1989) examined the data from Mahan and concluded that the presence of these wares was due to the site's location at the northern periphery of the Kellog territory, essentially at a cultural interface.
Immediately west of 9GO297 across New Town Creek and within the area of the Elks Club Golf Course lies the Lum Moss site (9GO59), which was recorded with the state by Steve Baker in 1971. The subject of several archaeological investigations (de Baillou 1955; Baker 1970, 1971;

36
Barse and Gill 2007), including a recent one by this report author (Keith et al. 2012), the site contains several prehistoric components. One of these, ascribed to the late Early Woodland period by Baker (1970, 1971), consisted of a ceramic assemblage dominated by simple stamped pottery (which he referred to as Deptford), with lesser amounts of check stamped, fabric impressed, and plain pottery. Baker (1970:29) recorded numerous features, including a "partial house pattern" from the "Upper Early Woodland period" with an associated pit that contained "partially restorable or possibly completely restorable" simple stamped pots, in addition to cut mica sheets. Unfortunately, only a summary progress report (Baker 1970) and a paper from a Southeastern Archaeological Conference presentation (Baker 1971) were completed for this work, and the maps contained in the latter leave much to be desired in terms of specific feature locations. However, archaeologist Jim Langford, who worked at the site with Baker, told the author that he has some of Baker's files from this work, so maps may be located in these files. Baker (1971:115) obtained radiocarbon dates of 55 and 100 B.C. from features with the "Deptford" simple stamped pottery these features appear to be a burned post from the partial house pattern and the associated pit containing the reconstructed vessels. Baker (1971:116, 118) stated that the site contains "Adena-like" elements, as evidenced by the presence of mica, hematite, green slate, "unusually pure" quartz flakes, kaolin lumps, and pyrite crystals. As suggested by Ledbetter et al. (2009:82), this type of assemblage is now considered Middle Woodland.
Based on excavations at the Garfield site (9BR57) along the Etowah River supported by funding from the Smithsonian Institution, Jerald Milanich (1972, 1973, 1975a, 1975b) developed a model of Kellog period culture that includes a gradually increasing usage of maize, an idea later discounted by Bowen (1989:183). Milanich (1973, 1975a) felt that Kellog cultures were part of a similar regional tradition that included Long Branch groups along the Tennessee River and Watts Bar peoples in eastern Tennessee, with these groups distinguished primarily by the pottery temper they used in their production of fabric tempered potteries. Kellog cultural traits included circular structures, storage pits, flat-bottomed fire pits with hot-rock cooking, flexed burials in circular pits, cremations, slate hoes, gorgets, boatstones, and cranial deformation (Milanich 1973, 1975a).
In synthesizing the Early Woodland archaeological record of northwest Georgia, Ledbetter et al. (2009) suggested that the diversity of pottery types during this time frame may indicate a high degree of cultural diversity, as opposed to Caldwell's (1958) idea of a relatively homogenous Kellog culture throughout northern Georgia. Large pits are common at these semi-sedentary residential Early Woodland sites. Plant remains such as maygrass, sunflower, chenopodium, and knotweed have been identified in Early Woodland deposits at a few sites in northwest Georgia.

37 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
MIDDLE WOODLAND
During the Middle Woodland period (200 B.C.-650 A.D.), overall climate stability, predictable food resources, and food storage practices encouraged sedentism, while increasing socio-political complexity is evident throughout most of the Southeast. Increases in social complexity are marked by the adoption of Hopewellian influences into north Georgia, but it is recognized that "not every group in every part of north Georgia eagerly participated in Hopewellian exchange and ritual" (Espenshade 2008a:128).
While Caldwell (1957) developed the original chronological phase sequence for the Woodland period in the Etowah Valley, Pluckhahn (1998) refined the sequence based on work at the Leake site in Bartow County. Pluckhahn (1998) used Caldwell's Post-Kellog name for the earliest Middle Woodland phase (300-100 B.C.), which is marked archaeologically by a predominance of Cartersville Check Stamped pottery, small frequencies of Dunlap Fabric Impressed and limestone tempered types, and a very small proportion of Cartersville Simple Stamped pottery. During the Leake I phase, from 100 B.C-100 A.D., check stamped wares are still predominant, but Dunlap Fabric Marked becomes rare and Cartersville Simple Stamped pottery increases. In the following Lewis Sams phase, 100-200 A.D., simple stamped and check stamped wares of the Cartersville series occur in approximately equal frequencies, and Swift Creek Complicated Stamped pottery makes an appearance. During Leake II, the final Middle Woodland phase of Pluckhahn's (1998) sequence dating from 200-400 A.D., complicated stamped and simple stamped wares are the major types while check stamped, fabric impressed, and limestone tempered wares are present but rare. Upon additional work at Leake, Keith (2010a) defined the Leake III phase, a terminal Middle Woodland phase dating from 400650 A.D.; the proportional levels of simple stamped and complicated stamped wares continue from the preceding phase, while there is an increase in Gulf Coastal Weeden Island styles.
Cartersville check stamped and simple stamped wares are often, but not always, found with Swift Creek pottery, and all three share ceramic technologies, indicating that there was coeval production of these various pottery styles (Espenshade 2008a:131). The Early Swift Creek ceramic tradition may have begun in south-central Georgia to northwest Florida (Chase 1998), and the tradition then spread through the Southeast and even Midwest and increased in popularity into the Late Woodland period.
Espenshade et al. (1998:164) presented a seriation of the transition from the Cartersville to the Swift Creek ceramic type in the northern Piedmont region based on six radiocarbon dates from 9HY98 in Henry County. According to this chronology, Cartersville Check Stamped was produced with the earlier Dunlap types from 700-150 B.C. The disappearance of the Dunlap

38
types and co-dominance of the Cartersville Check Stamped and Simple Stamped varieties occurred from 150 B.C.-A.D. 300. This period is also marked by large podal supports and simple rim forms for ceramic wares, large triangular hafted bifaces, and stemmed hafted bifaces. Later in this date range, the Early Swift Creek (complicated stamped) emerges as a minority ceramic type. From 300-700 A.D., the Cartersville Simple Stamped type is the most dominant surface decoration observed.
In the Piedmont and Ridge and Valley (Espenshade 2008a), and interior Coastal Plain provinces (Steinen 1995; Stephenson et al. 2002), Middle Woodland villages with large, long-term occupations are common. These settlements suggest congregation along major river floodplains for significant parts of the year, if not year-round. Espenshade (2008a:135) argued that "there seems to have been a central base camp, which may have been as small as a single household, ringed by a series of sites for various seasonal extraction activities." Rock piles and mounds also are evidenced during this time frame, with some such sites possibly representing Swift Creek shrines (Williams and Harris 1998). Mound and earthwork sites were built and used as ceremonial centers by Middle Woodland peoples throughout most of Georgia, with two major centers in northwest Georgia, Tunacunnhee (Jefferies 1976, 2006) in the extreme northwest corner of the state and Leake in the Etowah River Valley near Cartersville (Keith 2010a, 2011). Most of the mound sites contain platform mounds and contain Swift Creek artifact assemblages; Swift Creek activities appear to have been part of a regional religious expression tied to the overarching Hopewellian religion. Architectural evidence is paired with increases in ceremonial activities including artifacts and burial practices that are similar to Hopewell and Copena manifestations (Jefferies 1976, 2006; Jefferies and Fish 1978; Keith 2010a; Kellar et al. 1962; Smith 1979; Walthall 1980, 1985; Waring 1945:194). Burials were placed in spiritually significant locations such as within a (stone) mound or cave (Adams 2007; Keith 2010a), and prestige items were included in some of these burials. Grave goods including copper and mica adornments (ear spools, gorgets, breast plates), marine items (shell and shark teeth), and groundstone implements are known from such contexts.
In terms of structures, evidence suggests some continuity in structure type from the preceding period although more clearly defined or "complete" post patterns are more common. Circular structures were typically constructed from single set posts, while both ground level and semisubterranean structures have been documented. Associated features include fire pits and hearths. Storage pits become less frequent as the period progressed and were possibly replaced by storage vessels. At the Six Flags site (9FU14) along the Chattahoochee River southwest of Atlanta, domestic structures were oval to circular and roughly 4-7 meters in diameter, while several structures were significantly larger and interpreted as communal/ceremonial in function (Anderson 1985:38); largely unreported, this site yielded materials indicative of participation in

39 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
the Hopewellian sphere (e.g., prismatic blades, rocker stamped pottery, mica plates, quartz crystals). A large structure was identified at the Leake site, square with rounded corners oriented to the cardinal directions, and regularly spaced (average spacing equaled 1.19 meters) single posts. Radiocarbon dated circa A.D. 470, this structure may have served in a communal and/or ceremonial capacity (as opposed to domestic) based on its large size and similarity in form to structures from Hopewellian earthworks throughout the Eastern Woodlands (Keith 2010a:258 262).
The distribution of Swift Creek Hopewellian earthworks and the associated assemblages suggest that the Hopewellian system was not a monolithic cultural package, but rather one that exhibits local differences in acceptance and interpretation (Espenshade 2008a). It appears that the Swift Creek tradition was a regional manifestation of the vast Hopewellian Interaction Sphere, which extended from the Great Lakes to the Gulf Coast. This extensive sphere was locally manifested at specific sites that have a Swift Creek component, but it was not fully adopted by all Woodland communities. The archaeological evidence suggests that a large interaction network was in place that consisted of local cultures sharing ceramic and lithic technologies and (at least some) Hopewellian ideologies. However, it is apparent that there was differential participation in this network on the part of local societies, with some borrowing or adopting selected attributes, while others did not participate at all. Similar to an argument made regarding the social organization of Ohio Hopewell peoples (Byers 2004, 2011), Keith (2012:201) has recently argued for the possibility that the people making and using Swift Creek pottery were part of traditional kinship communities that made and used the check and simple stamped wares known as Cartersville and Deptford, were also members of religious sodalities or cult groups that interacted with each other, including congregating at and constructing the ceremonial centers. Swift Creek pottery is found not only with Cartersville and Deptford wares at domestic sites, but it is often found in large frequencies at earthwork sites in Georgia as well as in the Midwest at major Hopewell ceremonial centers such as Pinson in Tennessee, Mann in Indiana, and Seip in Ohio. The Leake site in Cartersville appears to have been a gateway community that linked the Southeast and the Midwest, a place where Swift Creek and other Hopewellian participants visited, congregated at, and actively built via their religious expression.
The subsistence base of the Middle Woodland included a broad spectrum of gathered, hunted, trapped, and fished resources. In addition, the sub-period is marked by the nascent development of horticulture within the Eastern Agricultural Complex. Recent archaeobotanical investigations have shed light on the importance of plant foods such as nuts, pot herbs, wild fruits, and starchy seeded cultigens to the diet of Middle Woodland peoples in northwest Georgia (Windham et al. 2008; Branch-Raymer and Bonhage-Freund 2011; Bonhage-Freund et al. 2012). Intensive plant gathering and hunting dependence, from seasonal and permanent base camps, was common

40
within a more sedentary and less mobile logistical strategy. Nut masts were an important subsistence staple, and are often recorded in large quantities at Woodland sites. These large quantities are in part due to preservation bias, and may shadow the (potential) importance of other plant resources. The decreasing evidence of storage pits, which were widely observed in earlier Woodland contexts, illustrates a shift in technology that possibly used storage vessels and/or aboveground storage facilities.
The botanical evidence of domesticates and cultigens is a primary characteristic of the Middle Woodland, and shows intensification in horticulture of at least squash, despite continued reliance on native species such as marsh elder and maygrass (Cantley and Joseph 1991; Wood 1981). Looking at the Hickory Log (Webb 1988) and the Hardin Bridge (Raymer and Windham 2008) sites as examples, there is evidence that maygrass, not a native north Georgia species, was heavily exploited in addition to arboreal nuts (Paul Webb, personal communication May 2007). This evidence for cultigens and native species suggests that "gardening" and gathering were practiced (Windham et al. 2008). In addition, at the Hickory Log site there is limited evidence (ubiquity 3.7-7.4%) for maize during the Middle Woodland time frame (Espenshade 2008a:19) suggesting occupants had knowledge of this crop but had not integrated it as a dietary staple. This evidence shows that while horticulture, at least on a small scale, was practiced, large-scale agriculture or adoption of foreign crops was not a part of the Middle Woodland subsistence pattern. Furthermore, this subsistence pattern is mirrored in (Pacheco and Dancey 2006) research of the Hopewell heartland where "certain oily native domesticates were utilized, but not depended upon" (Espenshade 2008a:133).
Exploitation of faunal resources is more vague due to taphonomic issues of the region, primarily acidic soils (Jackson and Scott 2001). However, faunal material has been recovered from the Middle Woodland components of Leake, Hickory Log, Swift Creek, Hartford, and Kolomoki. Species distribution illustrates the importance of the local catchment area by the ubiquity and wide distribution of white-tailed deer elements and the minor recovery (attributed to poor preservation) of turkey and drum fish (Kennedy et al. 2007).
During the late Middle Woodland sub-period, small triangular hafted bifaces are common. Hafted bifaces of the Middle Woodland period are generally large and triangular, but less broad than Late Archaic forms. These specimens are often stemmed or "waisted". Types such as Yadkin, Coosa, Swan Lake and Bakers Creek are found with Middle Woodland remains.
On the basis of their research, Ledbetter et al. (2009:82) suggested that many of the sites the aforementioned amateur archaeologist Wear coded as Early Woodland in northwest Georgia might actually have been Middle Woodland in age. One such site is Lum Moss (9GO59) located across New Town Creek from 9GO297. Excavated in advance of golf course construction in 1969, Baker (1970, 1971) found simple stamped pottery (with tetrapods) in association with

41 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
small amounts of check stamped and plain pottery; also found with these remains were "hematite, green slate, unusually pure quartz flakes, kaolin lumps, and pyrite crystals" (Baker 1971:116). He acquired two radiocarbon dates from this component. Sample I4868, consisting of charcoal from a charred post in a house pattern associated with simple stamped pottery, returned a date circa 100 B.C. 95, and Sample I-4869, charcoal from a trash pit containing plain pottery, returned a date of 55 B.C. 95. These remains he assigned to a Deptford component that he placed in the "Upper Early Woodland" time frame; using the current chronological divisions, these remains would be considered Middle Woodland. Jim Langford, who worked at the site as a teenager during Baker's excavation, stated that he remembers Swift Creek pottery being found at the site as well. Most recently, Keith et al. (2012) investigated the site and recovered Middle Woodland artifacts, including a Coosa projectile point/knife (PP/K) and a Swan Lake PP/K, as well as Early Woodland period Dunlap Fabric Marked pottery.
LATE WOODLAND
The beginning of the Late Woodland period at 650 A.D. reflects the appearance of the fine-lined Swift Creek B Complex and Napier pottery decorations, an increase in the ubiquity of maize, and the abandonment of the Middle Woodland period Leake site (Espenshade 2008a:129). The latter reflects a noticeable decline of Hopewellian manifestations throughout the Southeast, and in the area of northern Georgia, this date also coincides with the emergence of a complicated stamping tradition known as Napier. Napier pottery is clearly derived from the Swift Creek tradition, but the designs motifs are much more limited in diversity, have a greater usage of rectilinear motifs, and the average width of the lands and grooves is much smaller than classic Swift Creek. Napier pottery was recognized and formally named at the same time as Swift Creek pottery (Jennings and Fairbanks 1940:8). Kelly (1938:8) recovered it in the uppermost levels of the Swift Creek village (above classic Swift Creek) in the late 1930s and referred to this pottery as "Delta" ware. Kelly (1938) differentiated it from Swift Creek pottery by virtue of its "exceedingly small" designs and rectilinearity (Figure 11).
However, despite nearly 75 years since it was first defined, the temporal and cultural relationships between Swift Creek and Napier potteries are still poorly understood. Based on his investigations of the Allatoona Reservoir on the Etowah River in northwest Georgia (Caldwell 1957) and the Buford Reservoir 40 miles to the east along the Chattahoochee River (Caldwell n.d.; 1953), Caldwell indicated that the exact position of Napier is unknown but that it is commonly found on sites with Swift Creek pottery. At the Buford Reservoir, he found that all sites having Swift Creek and Napier pottery also contained Woodstock pottery. Further, "those with a combination of Woodstock, Napier, and Swift Creek (Middle variety) sherds certainly had the earliest initial occupation, but the problem is to decide whether they carry a single pottery

42 Figure 11.
Swift Creek, Swift Creek B Complex, Napier, and Woodstock Pottery Designs
Swift Creek
Source: Snow 2007
Swift Creek B Complex
Source: Rudolph 1985: Figure 6
Napier
Source: Rudolph 1985: Figure 7
Woodstock
Source: Wauchope 1966: Figure 18

43 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
complex or if they were occupied more than once. Since there were no pure Napier sites found in the area, one suspects that the Napier and Swift Creek styles were made together" (Caldwell 1957). Presumably in response to the uncertainty surrounding the chronologies of these three wares in relation to one another, Caldwell (n.d.) defined the "B-Complex" as northern Georgia assemblages that contained this mix of wares. The name B Complex Swift Creek has since come to refer to pottery that exhibits classic Swift Creek designs using fine lands and grooves.
Another complicated stamped pottery type produced during the Late Woodland period was Woodstock, first defined by Caldwell (1957) based on work in the area of the Allatoona Reservoir near Cartersville. This type appears to have emerged circa 800 A.D. out of the Swift Creek/Napier design tradition, and it consisted of arrangements of concentric angular diamonds, concentric rounded diamonds/ovals, or line block and herringbone motifs. While complicated stamping is the predominant surface treatment, the Woodstock pottery complex also
contains very low percentages of check stamped, incised, and plain wares, as well as a minor amount of Etowah Complicated Stamped pottery. Hally and Langford (1988) characterized Woodstock pottery as having a fine-textured micaceous paste with fine sand as temper, typically made into "elongated jars with rounded bottoms, slightly constricted necks, and outflaring plain rims". They (Hally and Langford 1988) argued that the Woodstock pottery tradition descended from the Napier tradition, and that Early Mississippian Etowah pottery evolved from Woodstock.
The uncertainty surrounding the relationships among these wares is at the heart of the "Late Woodland problem" that is the subject of various discussions (Garrow 1975, 2009; Rudolph 1991). As Garrow (1975) stated nearly 40 years ago, "The real problem with Late Woodland in northern Georgia is that an insufficient amount of work has been done to allow a meaningful interpretation of the stage or the cultures". This relative paucity of data has not only lead to a poor understanding of when Swift Creek pottery first appeared in northern Georgia, but also to a poor understanding of the decorative differences (and similarities) between Swift Creek and Napier potteries. Even 35 years after Caldwell's Buford investigations, the relationships among these ceramic "types" is still murky, prompting Hally and Langford (1988) to ask, "what does the pre-Woodstock Swift Creek/Napier ceramic complex look like?"
In order to address this Late Woodland problem, Terri Rudolph (1985, 1986, 1988, 1991) undertook a study of these various complicated stamped wares. In terms of line width, Rudolph (1988) found that Early Swift Creek pottery mean line width is approximately 2.0 millimeters, late Swift Creek is 1.8 millimeters, and B Complex and Napier average line width both are 1.0 millimeters. She argued that Swift Creek B Complex pottery does not appear to be a transitional ware between late Swift Creek and Napier, but whether or not this type existed contemporaneously with Swift Creek and/or Napier was not determined. If it was

44
contemporaneous with late Swift Creek, then it indicates that regional differences in designs occurred circa 600 A.D.; if it was contemporaneous with Napier, then it suggests the existence of two regional ceramic styles by approximately 700 A.D. Rudolph also stated that the relationship between B Complex, Napier, and Woodstock pottery is unclear. She saw clear similarities between Napier and Woodstock designs, but differences in that Woodstock lines are much wider (similar to classic Swift Creek) and the diamonds are separated rather than abutting as they are in the Napier style (Rudolph 1988).
In a study of Woodstock pottery and settlement, Markin (2007) divided the Woodstock phase (800-1000 A.D.) into early (800-900 A.D.) and late (900-1000 A.D.) subdivisions. The Woodstock phase is discussed here as a terminal Late Woodland culture, but it is recognized that many consider it Emergent Mississippian (Cobb and Garrow 1996; Espenshade 2008a; Hally and Langford 1988; Hally and Rudolph 1986; Markin 2007; Stanyard and Baker 1992). It appears that villages were constructed on broad floodplains of the northern Piedmont, while small sites have also been documented. Some of these villages have earthen mounds with summit structures. At the Summerour Mound (9FO16), Caldwell (1958) discovered a rectangular wall trench structure tentatively suggesting a shift from the circular structures documented during previous sub-periods; Pluckhahn's (1996) reanalysis of the Summerour data suggests that people making B Complex and Napier pottery were responsible for this structure. At the Rivermoore site (9GW70), wall-trench structures and a large semi-subterranean structure were discovered. Although rectangular structures may have been utilized in some instances, single-post aboveground structures also were present at the Hobgood site (9CK131). As seen at the Woodstock Fort site (9CK85) (Stanyard and Baker 1992) and Brasstown Valley (Cable et al. 1997), palisade construction may be more closely tied to the Woodstock phase suggesting increased social and political stress during the Terminal Woodland. Architecture remained similar to the preceding period in form and construction. Ground-level and semi-subterranean single-post structures, typically of circular form, were constructed. Square or rectangular forms are rare and typically associated with Terminal Woodland occupations, as are wall trenches. At Potts' Tract (9BU103) in the area of Carter's Lake to the east of 9GO297 along the Coosawattee River, Hally (1970) documented a Woodstock component but was largely unable to isolate its components from a later Barnett phase occupation.
Large pit features distinctive of Early and Middle Woodland contexts are rare or absent, suggesting a shift in food-storage technology during the Late Woodland period. However, subsistence data is somewhat ambiguous due to the paucity of remains. At the Potts' Tract site on the Coosawattee River in Murray County, a variety of resources were represented including gastropods, bivalves, fish, turtle, bird, deer, acorns, walnuts, hickory nuts, and seeds (Hally 1970). The pattern represented by limited remains appears similar to that seen at other Woodland sites and represents a similar strategy of the exploitation of a broad spectrum of resources.

45 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
The starchy and oily seeded cultigens that comprise the Eastern Agricultural Complex continued to be grown and consumed throughout much of the Southeast during the Late Woodland (Johannessen 1993). Horticultural dependence increased significantly with time and intensity varied by region (Chapman and Crites 1987). Botanical evidence in north Georgia suggests that cultivated plants included squash and sunflower while evidence for maize cultivation is rare and debatable (Markin 2007). Recently, Markin (2007) suggested that maize was an important part of the diet based on the high ubiquity of this species (compared to Early and Middle Woodland contexts). These results are supported by maize ubiquity measures from the Brasstown Valley sites (Raymer and Bonhage-Freud 2000). Furthermore, the diversity of vessel forms recovered from north Georgia Woodstock contexts suggests the adoption of new technology to incorporate maize as a dietary staple.
At a broad level, increasing cultivation eventually gave way to intensive corn agriculture, larger villages in floodplains, and a broader sociopolitical hierarchy associated with subsequent Terminal Woodland and Mississippian manifestations (Sassaman et al. 1990). Faunal remains from regional sites indicate that white-tailed deer, turkey, and fish were major components of the diet (Carder et al. 2004; Compton and Pluckhahn 2002; Jackson and Scott 2002) while other animal resources played a lesser role. In addition, feasting (small and large scale) played a role in the community (Carder et al. 2004; Jackson and Scott 2002).
Late Woodland hafted bifaces are small, triangular, and with a straight to slightly incurvate base, indicating the adoption of the bow and arrow circa A.D. 700 (Blitz 1988). According to Whatley (2002:6465), Late Woodland Triangular hafted bifaces are typical of the sub-period, and are similar to later Mississippian Madison and Hamilton types. Size variations of this type can be found from Middle Woodland through historic time frames though specimens generally become smaller over time. Other lithic specimens present in Late Woodland contexts include microdrills (potentially related to craft specialization Cable et al. 1997) hoes, celts, adzes, plummet stones, nutting stones, and others.
Two large Woodstock sites located upstream from 9GO297 on the Coosawattee River, 9GO4 (Thompson site) and 9MU103 (Potts' Tract), are argued to be Late Woodstock occupations (Markin 2007). Closer to 9GO297, a Late Woodland component was identified by Baker (1970, 1971) at 9GO59 on the basis of the presence of Woodstock pottery in four pit features; these sherds exhibited diamond and line block stamping. In addition to Woodstock, plain limestone tempered pottery known as Hamilton was found in these features. A radiocarbon assay of A.D. 960 95 was obtained from charcoal in a pit feature; while no diagnostic artifacts were found within this feature, corn was present and the feature was suspected of being part of the Woodstock component. A Woodstock component was identified at 9GO297 during the current data recovery.

46
MISSISSIPPIAN
In general, the Mississippian period in northwestern Georgia (A.D. 1000-1550) and throughout much of the Southeast was characterized by a multi-tiered and sedentary settlement system, a socially stratified society based on kinship, and a heavy reliance on agriculture for subsistence. Settlements were relatively sedentary and located along the floodplains of major rivers and larger streams; sites varied in size and function, and included small hamlets at which a small number of people lived (e.g., individual family), residential villages without earthworks, and earthwork sites at which either one or more earthen mounds were constructed. Many villages had ditches and associated fortifications, presumably for protection from attack. The general consensus among archaeologists is that a defining characteristic of Mississippian society was their organization into chiefdoms (Anderson 1990; Hally 1975; Pauketat 1994; Peebles 1978; Smith 2000; Schroedl 2009), although a few have recently argued that the chiefdoms were not as rigidly organized as has been portrayed but rather were more fluid (Byers 2009, 2013; Pauketat 2007).
The Late Mississippian subperiod begins approximately A.D. 1350 with the advent of Lamar culture ceramics and ends with the arrival of the Spanish explorers circa A.D. 1550 (Hally and Langford 1988). The term "Lamar" comes from the name of the owner of a parcel of land on which an important mound site was present (Williams 1990a); this site is the Lamar Mounds (9BI2) located in middle Georgia near the Macon Plateau at the Fall Line. Coined by James Ford and Arthur Kelly during the 1930s during their excavations at Lamar Mounds and Macon Plateau (Williams 1990b), respectively, the name may be used to refer to a pottery type, an archaeological phase and/or period, and/or a culture (Hally 1994). As Williams (1990a) pointed out, it is "pottery that defines the Lamar area and the Lamar period for archaeologists." The Lamar area is essentially all of Georgia and the bordering areas of surrounding states (Williams 1990a).
That the northwestern portion of Georgia was highly populated with large villages and mound sites at the time of contact is suggested via the narratives of the Spanish explorations of Hernando de Soto (1540) and Tristan de Luna (1560). In a letter to the Viceroy of New Spain Don Luis de Velasco detailing their findings, several members of the de Luna expedition characterized the province of Coosa as such (Priestley 2010):
They all live together in little towns, for so far we have seen none which contains as many as one hundred and fifty houses, and very few which number above forty or fifty. The have winter and summer houses. The winter houses are all covered with earth, and they sow whatever they like over them. All the towns have a good-sized plaza outside the town, in

47 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
which there is a pole like the rollo of Spain; they are vey tall, and they have them for their sports. There are some towns inclosed (sic) by a pair of walls as high as a man's stature, and although there must be something between them yet it is of no value (for defense). There are temples in some of the towns, but they are as rudely constructed and as little frequented as is uncouth the religion which they practice in them...This province of Coosa is somewhat better as regards the land and the forest, and much more densely populated than any we have left behind. There is a mountain range to the north of the town, which runs east and west. It is fairly high and well-wooded, but up to this time we do not know where it begins or ends. This town is stated on the banks of two small rivers, which unite within it. Around the town there are some good savannas, and a valley well peopled with Indians where they plant all that they raise to eat. After one leaves here all the rest is forest.
According to one of de Luna's exhibition members, as cited in Swanton (1922), there were "seven little hamlets in its district, five of them smaller and two larger than Coza itself, which name prevailed for the fame it had enjoyed in its antiquity. It looked so much worse to the Spaniards for having been depicted so grandly, and they had thought it to be so much better."
As Hally (1994) stated, "there has been heavy occupation and mound-building activity along the Etowah and Coosawattee rivers immediately west of the Great Smoky Fault since at least A.D. 1200". Using the information from de Soto's and de Luna's expeditions in conjunction with archaeological evidence, Hudson et al. (1985) argued that the area along the Coosawattee River was part of the Coosa (sp. Coza) chiefdom, a large sociopolitical province that stretched from east-central Alabama to northeastern Tennessee. According to the de Luna narratives, the main town of Coosa consists of eight villages within 11 kilometers of the main village. Hudson et al. (1985) interpreted the Little Egypt site (9MU102), located at the junction of Talking Rock Creek and the Coosawattee River and now under Carter's Lake, as this main village and suggested it served as the administrative and political capitol of the Coosa chiefdom. They also feel the Thompson site may have served as a secondary administrative center as part of a two-tiered complex chiefdom (Hudson et al. 1985; Hally 1994). A comparison of the descriptions from the Soto and the Luna expeditions indicate that there was a dramatic depopulation of the area during the 20 year interlude, a result thought to relate to the effect of European disease(s) upon the native population (Hally 1994; Hudson et al. 1985; Langford and Smith 1990). Smith (1987) argued that the Coosa chiefdom essentially fell apart after the Spanish expeditions, as the sites along the Coosawattee River were abandoned by 1600 in favor of sites further south and west along the Coosa River.

48
Hally and Langford (1988), Hally (1980, 1994), and Langford and Smith (1990) have examined the archaeological evidence for Lamar settlement in the Coosawattee River and Coosa River watersheds. Based on excavations at the Little Egypt site (9MU102) and the Potts' Tract site (9MU103) that lay in the former floodplain of the Coosawattee River and are now under the waters of Carter's Lake approximately 22 kilometers (13.5 mi.) east-northeast of 9GO297, Hally (1970, 1980) defined the Little Egypt and the Barnett phase for the Late Mississippian subperiod. The Little Egypt phase dates from A.D. 1400-1500, while the Barnett phase dates from 15001600. Hally and Langford identified the Little Egypt site (9MU102) and 9MU7 as belonging to the Little Egypt phase, and documented 11 sites for the Barnett phase. For the Barnett phase, eight of the sites lie along the Coosawattee River and the remaining three lay downstream along the Oostanaula River in Floyd County (Hally and Langford 1988; Langford and Smith 1990). Langford and Smith (1990:115) felt that the eight sites along the Coosawattee likely correspond with the eight villages mentioned in the de Luna chronicles.
Hally (1994) argued that with the possible exception of the Potts' Tract site upstream along the Coosawattee River from 9GO297, settlement during the Middle Lamar period was characterized by relatively large nucleated villages, and that there is no evidence of these people residing in small dispersed settlements. Hally felt that Potts' Tract may have represented a hamlet rather than a major site, as it appears to have lacked mounds. In addition to the Late Woodland Woodstock component, Potts' Tract contains substantial remains of a Lamar culture village that includes three structures. Due to the limited area of excavation and the consequent inability to define the spatial limits of this Late Mississippian occupation, Hally (1970) was unable to determine if these structures "represent portions of a single compact and bounded village or a series of isolated and probably non-contemporaneous hamlets."
In their study of Barnett phase sites along the Coosawattee River between Carter's Lake and the its junction with the Conasauga River at 9GO297, Langford and Smith (1990) examined the Brown Farm site (9GO67), the Baxter site (9GO8), the Thompson site (9GO4), the Poarch site (9GO1), and the Swancy site (9GO70) and briefly mention the Little Egypt site (9MU102), Potts' Tract (9MU105), and Sixtoe (9MU100). (Langford and Smith 1990) stated that "only two hamlet-sized sites" are known "between the larger sites" and indicate that one of these is associated with Brown Farm, located one kilometer downriver from the larger site; several burials at this hamlet were exposed in the 1970s as a result of river flooding, while only a small amount of ceramics and stone have been found in association via surface surveys (Langford and Smith 1990). They stated that Poarch (9GO1), Thompson (9GO4), and Baxter (9GO8) represented "the three central sites", but it is not clear if they were referring to their geographical positioning in relation to the other Barnett phase sites or to their place in the sociopolitical hierarchy; presumably it is the former. Langford and Smith (1990:110) also mentioned a possible

49 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
"farmstead" in relation to Barnett phase settlements, but they do not elaborate on what characteristics define a farmstead; this farmstead is said to be approximately 800 meters downstream of the Poarch site (9GO1). One of the sites, Brown Farm (9GO67), located only 2.5 kilometers (1.6 mi.) east as the crow flies from 9GO297, is very large (approximately 5.5 hectares). In their looting of the site, pothunters have indicated that at least 200-300 burials are present. Burial goods include Citico-style rattlesnake gorgets, shell beads, spatulate celts, mask gorgets, large chert blades, effigy pipes, and a partial Spanish horseshoe (Langford and Smith 1990). Langford and Smith (1990:113) believed that occupation during the Little Egypt phase and subsequent Barnett phase at the Thompson site was continuous and the transition between the two was fluid.
In terms of Late Mississippian pottery, Lamar wares are characterized by a grit-tempered paste, oftentimes with relatively large pieces of grit extruding from the surface of the vessel. In addition to plain wares, several decorative traditions were employed in the production of this pottery, including complicated stamping, incising, punctating, burnishing/smoothing, and roughening. The complicated stamping was often carelessly applied and smoothed over, so that designs are hard to discern. Rims were often either folded over upon themselves or applique strips were applied to thicken the rim; rims were then often treated with punctations, nodes, or pinches. Although Lamar pottery necessarily shares common traits that causes it to be defined as such, there was still a large amount of regional variation in the tradition (Williams 1990a). Hally (1994) made the case that Lamar pottery crosscut cultural differences as it was made "by people speaking a variety of languages belonging to three different linguistic families and stocks."
In addition to the grit tempered Lamar pottery types, fine shell tempered pottery is often present in Late Mississippian assemblages in the vicinity of the site. Shell tempered pottery from this time frame and area belongs to the Dallas series, a series that becomes more prevalent north of the site and in eastern Tennessee (Lewis and Kneberg 1946). Decorative treatments of Dallas series pottery include incising, punctations, and negative painting, while there are a variety of rim treatments, including filleted, notched, effigy adornos, and nodes. Through analysis of the assemblages of sites from the vicinity of 9GO297, Langford and Smith (1990) found a decrease in the amount of shell-tempered pottery and a corresponding increase in the frequency of grit tempered pottery over time, with this trend becoming most pronounced during the Barnett phase. Further, the ceramic assemblages from the Barnett phase sites they analyzed were relatively homogenous, which they interpreted as resulting from day-to-day interaction among these villages (Langford and Smith 1990). Hally (1980) stated that the Little Egypt phase is defined by the absence of Lamar Bold Incised pottery, early varieties of Lamar Complicated Stamped and Lamar Plain wares, and an abundance of shell-tempered pottery. The ceramic assemblage from Potts' Tract (Barnett phase) consisted of the types Dallas Incised, Dallas Plain, Lamar

50
Coarse Plain, Lamar Bold Incised, Lamar Complicated Stamped, and Lamar Plain, along with minor frequencies of shell tempered cordmarked, grit tempered cordmarked, and Dallas Filleted and/or Dallas Modeled (Hally 1970).
PROTOHISTORIC AND HISTORIC INDIAN
The Mississippian period ended with the arrival of Spanish armies under the command of Hernando De Soto (1539-1542) and Tristan De Luna (1559-1561). The period of time between Spanish contact and the formal creation of Georgia in 1730 is often referred to as the Protohistoric period, which is subsumed under the Historic Indian period for the purposes of this discussion. The Protohistoric period refers to the era during which European societies began exploring the Southeast and interacting with Native American societies. In Georgia, this period encompasses sixteenth-century expeditions of three Spaniards, de Soto, de Luna, and Pardo (Smith 1992). During this time frame, many of the eastern Mississippian chiefdoms declined or dissolved. Following the dissolution of many of the Mississippian period chiefdoms, Native American groups relocated frequently during this period and left little evidence of their presence.
Archaeological and historical evidence suggests that de Soto might have visited several recorded archaeological sites in northern Georgia before he crossed the Savannah River into present-day South Carolina. He returned to Georgia and visited the town of Coosa, possibly the Little Egypt Site located approximately 21 kilometers east of 9GO297 as the crow flies, along the Coosawattee River at the interface of the Ridge and Valley and the Blue Ridge mountains. He moved on to Itaba, which possibly represents the Etowah site, and visited the province of Ulibahali near Rome, west of 9GO297, before moving further west. Tristan de Luna entered the Southeast in 1559, bringing Mexican farmers to colonize. Most of the colonist's food supplies were lost in a storm, so approximately 100 of de Luna's men, including some veterans of the de Soto campaign, traveled north into Georgia, looking for Coosa to trade European materials for food. Eight towns of Coosa are mentioned in the de Luna narratives, as well as Ulibahali and Apica. Juan Pardo entered Georgia from Santa Elena (near present-day Beaufort, South Carolina) intending to find a route to the Zacatecas, Mexico silver mines. One soldier of Pardo's expedition reached Coosa, while the rest never entered Georgia (Smith 1987, 1992).
According to historical documentation, the next Europeans to enter the interior were Gaspar de Salas and two Franciscan monks, Pedro Fernandez de Chosas and Francisco de Veras. These men visited Ocute and Tama, which Smith (1992) believed is the Altamaha Site of the de Soto narratives. However, he noted that Sam Lawson mapped Tama and Ocute in the Coastal Plain. Spanish anxiety over English encroachments led to expeditions by Juan de Lara in 1602, and by Pedro de Torres in 1624 and 1628 (Smith 1992).

51 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Eighteenth-century observers grouped the Cherokees in four regions, which roughly coincided with differences in dialects (Hudson 1976; Mooney 1900). The Lower Towns were located in the foothills of northeastern Georgia and western South Carolina, mainly along the Tugaloo River. The Middle Towns were in the Great Smoky Mountains area of western North Carolina on the headwaters of the Tuckasegee River and the Little Tennessee River. The Overhill Towns were in eastern Tennessee on the Tellico River and the lower course of the Little Tennessee River. The Valley Towns were located south of the Overhill Towns, in the vicinity of the Hiawassee River, an area that includes New Echota on its western side. Hudson (1976) thinks that the inter-regional dialectical differences among these settlements were great enough to make it difficult for a speaker of one dialect to understand a speaker of another, although linguists with the EBCI disagree. To some observers the distinctive Cherokee dialects suggest that the different groups have been geographically separated for some time (e.g., Ellison 1992).
Apart from Cherokee clans crosscutting the different regions, little else kept the small historic period chiefdoms from the different regions together (Hudson 1976). Like Iroquois-speaking societies farther north, kinship and membership in seven matrilineal Cherokee clans were determined through the mother, although the women's role never achieved the importance that it enjoyed among the Iroquois League in New York. In most ways, Cherokee culture more closely resembled the Creek and other neighboring groups in the southeastern United States, particularly the celebration of the Busk, or Green Corn, festival. Agriculture relied heavily on the "three sisters" - corn, beans, and squash - supplemented by hunting and the gathering of wild plants. Cherokee villages were largely independent in daily matters, with the whole tribe only coming together for ceremonies or times of war. Leadership was divided according the circumstances; "red" chiefs during war and "white" chiefs in times of peace.
Based on early explorer accounts and archaeological excavations, we know that the make-up of Southeast Indian polities in the mid-sixteenth century differed from that of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Mid-sixteenth-century eyewitness Spanish accounts mention stratified, centralized, and extensive chiefdoms centered on prominent towns. In contrast, mid-to-late eighteenth-century accounts mention decentralized, largely autonomous towns governed by local councils.
Archaeologists (Dickens 1986; Schroedl et al. 1986) and ethnographers (e.g., Hudson 1986) have ascribed this collapse in the centralized political system to a number of factors, including disease, increased warfare, slave trade, and population movements. Interestingly, certain Cherokee oral traditions mention that a priest class, or Ani-Kutani, once governed the Cherokee until it was overthrown by the general population (Haywood 1959; Klinck and Talman 1970; Mooney 1900). These traditions could possibly refer to the collapse of extensive sixteenth-century Mississippian polities associated with prominent mound centers (Perdue 1986).

52
By the eighteenth century, each Cherokee polity had at least one town containing a ceremonial center where political issues were discussed, rituals were held, and games were played. Just as during the height of Mississippian mound building, the later towns were located along rivers, usually placed on elevated landforms. Only some people lived in the capitol town. The majority of the population lived in small hamlets and homesteads, probably containing matrilineages or segments of those lineages that were scattered up and down the river and its tributaries for several miles. However, the degree of centralization and settlement size varied from one region to the next, depending at least in part, on topography and the availability of rich bottomlands for agricultural pursuits (Dickens 1986).
Typically, the broad bottomlands in the Ridge and Valley and Piedmont regions facilitated complex and firmly established settlement hierarchies compared to the dispersed and ephemeral settlements within the narrow valleys of the southern Appalachian Highlands, or Blue Ridge Mountains. Bearing in mind the concentration of supplies and wealth in the bigger valleys, it is perhaps not surprising that the mid-sixteenth-century de Soto expedition traveled through the Great Valley in which 9GO297 is located instead of the narrower valleys to the east (Smith 1992). The Great Valley is a northeast-southwest trending natural gap between the Blue Ridge Mountains to the east and the linear mountains of the Ridge and Valley region. This gap comprises gently undulating terrain that provides relatively easy passage from southern Tennessee through northwest Georgia to northeast Alabama.
Settlement patterns associated with sixteenth through seventeenth-century Southeast chiefdoms were vastly different from those of the decentralized towns that characterized mid-eighteenth through early nineteenth-century Cherokee habitations in the Carolinas, Tennessee, and northern Georgia. According to Pillsbury (1983), the "evolution of the dispersed community during the sixty years prior to removal was the most striking change in the Cherokee settlement landscape" in the southeastern United States. Archaeological and historical evidence indicates that these dispersed communities typified late eighteenth through early nineteenth-century (circa 1830) Cherokee settlement in the Oostanaula and Coosawattee river valleys. Most Cherokees lived in palisaded villages consisting of from 350-600 individuals at the beginning of the eighteenth century. However, by the 1830s, Cherokee settlement patterns had transformed into narrow, loosely organized communities of individual farmsteads that were scattered for miles up and down major rivers and large creek floodplains. These communities often centered on a Council House and were frequently located in close proximity to each other along major rivers.
Prior to 1825, the decentralized settlement pattern in the vicinity of New Town, re-named New Echota in 1825, reflected that of characteristic Cherokee towns in the region. However, when New Echota became established as the first official capitol of the Cherokee Nation in 1825, the

53 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
100 one-acre lots laid out by surveyors imposed an atypical grid pattern onto the pre-existing settlement. Late eighteenth- through nineteenth-century Cherokee settlement of the Oostanaula and Coosawattee river valleys, on both sides of New Echota, consisted of a series of five contiguous, narrowly separated towns. These towns stretched from Carters Dam on the east (on the Coosawattee River) to the confluence of the Oostanaula River and Oothalooga Creek on the west. Each of these towns was separated by narrow gaps in settlement that corresponded to landform constrictions of the floodplains. Four towns including Coosawattee town, Rabbit Trap town, Ostanali town, and New Echota each contained a Council House. It is not clear whether or not the fifth community, identified as Oogeloga Valley on the 1832 Land Lot valuations, contained a Council House or not. Oogeloga Valley centered on a mission located on the creek downstream from the Oostanaula and was located to the west of New Echota at the confluence of the Oostanaula and Oothalooga Creek, according to personal communication between archaeologists Johannes Loubser and John Worth in 2001 in relation to the New Echota Traditional Cultural Property study.
Another example of the dispersed nature of eighteenth and nineteenth-century Cherokee settlement is provided by the late seventeenth and early nineteenth-century Cherokee house remains excavated in Brasstown Valley in Towns County (Cable et al. 1997). According to Cable et al. (1997), Cherokees occupied Brasstown Valley during at least two separate occasions in historic times. The earliest documented historic period occupation dates to around the seventeenth century, whereas the second occupation dates to the late eighteenth through early nineteenth century. European trade goods and domestic animal bones were absent in the earlier settlements, whereas European glass beads, nails, pearlware, and pig and chicken bones were found in the later settlements (Cable et al. 1997). Within the earlier occupation, each household complex, probably representing an extended family, consisted of a square "winter" house, a nearby rectangular "summer" house, and one or more small circular storage bins. Along with the bins, an arc of roasting, storage, and ceramic kiln pits typically occur in front of the paired houses. The basic layout of this household unit closely resembles eighteenth-century households identified at the Overhill village of Chota-Tanasee (Schroedl et al. 1986). The later occupation at Brasstown Valley, probably dating to the early nineteenth century, was associated with a longer, segmented "summer" house.
These findings reflect historical accounts that during the twilight years of Cherokee independence in the region a transition in vernacular architecture occurred that more closely resembled Euro-American buildings. Eventually most Cherokees constructed Euro-American style cabins with horizontal rail walls (Bartram 1791; Coe and Keel 1965). Roughly at the same time the overall layout of settlements changed from nucleated villages to loosely grouped houses, so that by the early nineteenth century, widely scattered, individual homesteads were ubiquitous

54
(Pillsbury 1983; Wilms 1974). Nevertheless, at the bigger towns, ceremonial and public structures seem to have been used until nearly the end of the historic contact period (e.g., de Baillou 1967; The Calhoun Times 1972; Timberlake 1765). Even within the atypically planned center of New Echota vestiges of such public structures might still have been present. According to various missionary diaries, the three open buildings and Council House seen at New Town in 1819 could have represented such structures. In 1826, a Moravian diary described a "new" twostory structure and five small houses "built in a square" where chiefs and judges met. Such an apparent continuation of a traditional "square ground" layout suggests that not every single traditional Cherokee practice was abandoned overnight; at least some became syncretized with Euro-American tradition.
Historic Overview of New Echota
As the first Cherokee national capitol, New Echota stood at the heart of monumental events in Cherokee history. New Echota served as the center of the Cherokee Nation from 1825-1838. The Cherokee adopted their first Constitution in 1827 at New Echota. With the publications of the Cherokee Phoenix from 1828-1834, New Echota became the birthplace of the first Cherokee newspaper, and importantly, the place of origin for the Native American press. Another significant event associated with New Echota concerned the Supreme Court case of Worcester versus Georgia in 1832. The imprisonment of New Echota missionary Samuel Worcester by the state of Georgia resulted in an historic U.S. Supreme Court case involving the overriding authority of the Federal government. The conclusive major event to occur at New Echota began with the signing of the Treaty of New Echota in 1835. Because of this treaty, which ceded all Cherokee lands east of the Mississippi to the U.S., the U.S. Army forced several hundred Cherokee into the Fort Wool stockade at New Echota in 1838 before driving approximately 15,000 Cherokee westward on the "Trail of Tears."
Cherokee settlers to the New Town area, later renamed New Echota, arrived in the late eighteenth century. The destruction on the Lower Towns from the Revolutionary War brought many Cherokee refugees to north Georgia, but a general southward population shift due to disappearing northern Cherokee lands probably best accounts for the settlers at New Town by the 1780s and 1790s.
Plans for the establishment of New Echota took place at the annual fall meeting at New Town on November 12, 1825. The Cherokee National Council proposed to build a new Cherokee capitol at that spot and rename it New Echota, in honor of the town Chota in Tennessee. The Council used this geographic center in the Nation by laying out the first Cherokee capitol. In addition, the members knew the advantage of the nearby confluence of three major rivers, a location that assured communication and transportation of people and goods to and from New Echota (de Baillou 1954).

55 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
According to the Laws of the Cherokee Nation (The Cherokee Nation 1852), the Council resolved that 100 one-acre lots were to be purchased by Cherokee citizens whose right "shall merely be occupancy." The money from the lot sales was to be appropriated for the construction of public buildings. At the town center, a public square would encompass two acres. A main street 60 feet wide and side streets 50 feet wide would be completed. Furthermore, the Council decided to create circular bounds for the town:
...beginning at the mouth of the creek, opposite the mouth of Caunausauga, and up said creek to the mouth of the dry branch, on which George Hicks lives, up said branch to the point of the ridges, and thence in a circle round along said ridges, by the place occupied by Crying Wolf, thence to the river (The Cherokee Nation 1852:63).
Following the 1826 survey of New Echota by John Martin, George Sanders, and Walter S. Adair, Cherokee began to purchase lots and build farms and businesses. The Council House, built in 1819-1820, stood as one of the few known buildings at New Town before it became New Echota. According to various missionary diaries, the Council House in 1819 consisted of three open buildings, each with roofs about 30 feet in length and supported by crotches. While the Cherokee Laws made no mention of the construction of a new Council House between 1819 and 1838, several references allude to a two-story structure in 1825-1826. In 1826, a Moravian diary described a "new" two-story structure and five small houses "built in a square" where chiefs and judges met. Clemens de Baillou (1954) found evidence from a Mr. Wheeler, the grandson of Cherokee Phoenix printer John Wheeler, of a wood etching of the Council House that hung in his family home. In the etching, this two-story building featured vertical siding; high windows; a circular, octagonal, or heptagonal plan; and a conical roof shape with a smoke hole. This description suggests a traditional Council House in the style of a Cherokee winter house, infused with Euro-American elements.
A retrospective account of the 1830s recalled an unusual type of Council House building, "a big barn-like affair, two stories high and no chimneys" (The Calhoun Times 1972). A barn-like building without a chimney supports the idea of a circular (more likely octagonal or heptagonal) structure. In 1836, the valuation of the Council House described a plan measuring 30x21 feet, that is, a rectangular plan. The building consisted of hewn timber and featured a brick chimney, plank floors, stairs, and two fireplaces (Shadburn 1989). The discrepancies in eyewitness accounts depicting both a rounded structure and rectangular plan indicates that perhaps two buildings served as Council Houses at New Echota. The circular structure may have provided a place for large meetings while the rectangular building was used for smaller tribal conferences. Bartram's travels in 1789 illustrated a governmental and ceremonial configuration consisting of

56
both a rectangular and round meeting place among the Creek Indians. Since Cherokee Council Houses were known to be similar to Creek Council Houses, the potential for two or more meeting places within a "Council House" at New Echota is not remote (de Baillou 1954).
The Cherokee at New Echota quickly acquired several residences and public buildings. The Elijah Hicks farm featured an impressive painted two-story house, a smokehouse, a kitchen, housing for his seven slaves, a stable, fruit trees, and 20 acres of farmland. Alexander McCoy's two-story double log house stood as one of the largest and earliest structures in town. By 1827, prominent citizen Elias Boudinot had moved to New Echota to build his respectable two-story house and nearby a small one-story printing office. With the Council's recent approval of Sequoyah's (also known as George Guess) Cherokee alphabet, Boudinot established the Cherokee Phoenix newspaper, printed in both Cherokee and English, at New Echota in 1828. Also arriving to town in 1827, Samuel Worcester founded a two-story missionary station. At the Worcester house, the missionary set up a school, boarding house, and New Echota's post office (Reed 1991). A two-story Supreme Court building, which contained a judge's platform and several long benches, was constructed in 1828-1829.
By 1830, New Echota had an estimated 14 establishments consisting of one or more buildings. The Cherokee attempted to open a National Academy at New Echota in 1828, but the plan failed to come to fruition due to lack of enrollment. A Miss Sophia Sawyer taught classes in the Council House, which she described as cold, dark, and badly in need of repair in 1833. Sources also indicate that Miss Sawyer taught "Sabbath school" at the Supreme Court building in 1834 until "a fortunate drawer" from the Cherokee Land and Gold Lottery of 1832-1833 took possession of the building. In addition, she kept a school at a small house in town in 1835 (de Baillou 1954). Several Euro-Americans received permits from the Cherokee to set up businesses in the New Echota area. One house builder from New York City, J. S. W. White, advertised his "superior" and yet cheap services in the Cherokee Phoenix (1828). With the exception of the few frame public buildings and residences of the wealthy town residents, most structures at New Echota probably consisted of round or hewn log construction. Many "unprogressive" Cherokee found the new buildings at New Echota to be ugly and depressing (Rogers 1986). The public frame buildings were most likely built with "great attention to economy" (de Baillou 1954).
A few historic accounts characterize the appearance of and activity at New Echota. These descriptions are found in journals, letters, and diaries but unfortunately not through drawings like the Wheeler etching of the Council House. Boudinot's father-in-law, Colonel Benjamin Gold from Connecticut, wrote in a letter in 1828 that New Echota resembled a quaint New England town and contained a Council House, Supreme Court building, four stores, and half a dozen dwellings. Gold mentioned a large spring in the center of town (Malone 1955). During his 1954

57 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
excavations, de Baillou identified this spring just south of the Boudinot house. Colonel Gold also noted a system of fine roads through Cherokee country and observed the manufacturing of woolen and cotton goods at almost every house he visited at New Echota. In an article originally published in The New York American (1830), Gold remarked about the regularity and order with which the members conducted the National Council meetings at New Echota (reprinted in (Journal of Cherokee Studies 1979). In another letter from 1828, William Chamberlain wrote that very few families and children resided at New Echota, a town that demonstrated "nothing of particular importance" and did not warrant a school. The land, he continued, "is generally not worth cultivating--barren upland" (Harvard University manuscripts, New Echota museum files n. d.). A Cherokee named White Horse remembered New Echota like a tourist, recounting a series of attractive buildings and landscape features while following the Old New Town Road, which led to McCoy's Ferry and Trading Post, from north to south (Malone 1955:124). Albert Tarvin, the son of Georgian William Tarvin, owner of a shoe and boot shop at New Echota, recalled a "rambling, scattered town" (The Calhoun Times 1972). When New Echota annual National Council meetings were in session each fall, the otherwise unimposing crossroads town sprung to life with "cheerful bustle," often exceeding 300 people (Malone 1955; Starkey 1946).
While much of the daily life at New Echota appeared to travelers and missionaries to revolve around an agrarian economy, with the Cherokee' social and political systems in transition, several Cherokee customs lingered during the years at New Echota. These "inherited, borrowed, and invented" practices seemed peculiar to the non-Native observer. Marriage, burial customs, medicinal cures, and diet exhibited Cherokee traditions infused with certain Euro-American cultural traits. Complex Cherokee routines and rituals consequently lead Euro-Americans to describe them as confused and strange. The popular Cherokee game, the Ball Play, was similar to lacrosse and required alacrity and athleticism. The event involved excessive drinking and gambling, which missionaries witnessed while attending two games at New Echota in 1825 and 1834. Much to the dismay of the missionaries, Cherokee leaders joined in on the action by placing bets (Malone 1955). Consumption of alcohol and crime at New Echota caused great concern between Euro-American and Cherokee Christians and signified the turbulent, transitional history of New Echota.
Four significant milestones in the history of the Cherokee took place at New Echota. The Constitutional Convention of 1827, held at New Echota, produced the first Cherokee Constitution. Two-thirds of the delegates, of mixed ancestry, composed six articles mainly detailing the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of the Cherokee government. This Constitution formed a three-member Supreme Court and legislature where each district could elect three members to the National Council and two members to the National Committee. At the 1827 meeting, the Council additionally issued resolutions for the founding of a printing press

58
at New Echota, the second important accomplishment at New Echota. Elias Boudinot was to act as the editor of the Cherokee Phoenix and Isaac Harris was named the "Official Printer for the Cherokee Nation." Missionary Samuel Worcester became instrumental in the press establishment by procuring the type of Cherokee characters, cast in Boston, and hiring assistant printer John F. Wheeler. The first copy of the newspaper was issued on February 21, 1828. Historian Henry T. Malone (1955:158) wrote that this day marked "the greatest expression of their nationalism." The articles of the Cherokee Phoenix focused primarily on encouraging education, morality, and temperance in the Cherokee Nation, but it also featured political news, practical farming advice, and other miscellaneous information of interest to the Cherokee. Through the newspaper, Boudinot sought to update non-Cherokee subscribers on the progress of the Cherokee Nation, thereby dispelling the negative image of an unruly, "savage" people. The last issue of the Cherokee Phoenix was published at New Echota on May 31, 1834, and the Georgia Guard confiscated the building in 1835.
The last Cherokee National Council meetings at New Echota occurred in July and later in October 1830. The Council met to demand reparations from the U.S. government for previous land cessions in spite of the presence of the Georgia Guard. Two months before this last meeting at New Echota, the state of Georgia banned the Cherokee from meeting within the state unless for the purpose of land cessions (Reed 1991). However, the Council later met at Red Clay, just inside the Georgia border, to debate the issue of Cherokee removal in August of 1834 (Mooney 1900). Considering the Cherokee Nation as part of the state of Georgia, the Georgia legislature passed a law in 1831 requiring that "white" citizens take an oath of allegiance to the state and acquire a license to enter Indian territory. As a result, 11 missionaries were arrested for not complying, Samuel Worcester of New Echota being one of them. In the case of Worcester versus Georgia (1832), the third major event associated with New Echota, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Worcester and the Cherokee stating that jurisdiction over the Cherokee Nation did not reside with the state (Barlow 1975). This trial represented an important victory.
Land hungry Georgians still moved onto Cherokee land despite of the release of Worcester. In 1831-1832, an extensive survey was performed of the Cherokee Nation in preparation for the Cherokee Land and Gold Lottery. The Cherokee land was parceled into sections, districts, and individual land or gold lots. The 1828 discovery of gold in Cherokee country had heightened the desire of Georgians to acquire Cherokee land. The lottery was held to disperse land and gold lots to Georgians via draws in 1832-1833.
The Cherokee leaders realized that their land was uncontrollably "passing into the hands of the Georgians." Chief John Ross and most Cherokee opposed ceding any more eastern Cherokee land. However, several of the upper class Cherokee in positions of power favored removal to western lands as the best possible solution to the problem of the confiscation of Cherokee properties. Therefore, the fourth significant event at New Echota, a monumental turning point in

59 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Cherokee history, occurred on December 29, 1835 when an estimated 300 Cherokee met at New Echota. Twenty-two Cherokee, including Elias Boudinot, Major Ridge, John Ridge, and Stand Watie, signed the Treaty of New Echota, which ceded all land east of the Mississippi River for $5 million. In return, the U.S. government offered to compensate the Cherokee for one year's subsistence in the Arkansas territory and allowed them two years to move. Most Cherokee considered the treaty to be fraudulent, and Chief John Ross petitioned Washington about the illegal negotiation and signing of the treaty by 22 unofficial representatives. Despite his efforts, the Senate ratified the Treaty of New Echota on May 17, 1836 by a one-vote margin. The wealthy citizens of New Echota, including the treaty signers mentioned above, reestablished themselves in the west the following year (Malone 1955; Reed 1991).
In December 1836, appraisers came through the Cherokee Nation to place dollar values on Cherokee properties. On these Land Valuations, as they were known, the appraisers labeled eight "Improvements" as existing at "New Echota," "New Town" or "near New Echota." Other valuations read "Oostanaula River," but the precise location of these farms along the river is uncertain.
Georgians moved into the buildings at New Echota, which were dilapidated by 1836. Still, many Cherokee remained in the New Echota area and continued farming, building houses, and carrying out their business. Adiel Sherwood in A Gazetteer of the State of Georgia (1837) described New Echota as the "seat of Government" for the Cherokee Nation that contained the two-story hewn log Council House, seven houses, and Academy, and printing office. The author added that New Echota, formerly in Murray County but now in Cass County, "was as described above, but most of the Cherokee have now removed West."
Chief John Ross' vehement resistance to land cessions and the Treaty of New Echota gave rise to a strong following of Cherokee supporters who planned never to leave their land. In order to both prevent any uprisings in the Cherokee Nation after the Treaty of New Echota and prepare for the Cherokee removal, the U.S. Army constructed 13 military forts in Georgia. In 1837, New Echota became a major military headquarters for numerous troops and military supplies, and Fort Wool was built on a 20-acre tract, adjacent to the southern boundary of the present state parkland and approximately 200 yards from the Worcester house. On May 26, 1838, the troops began to round up the Cherokee at the Fort Wool stockade for removal. Forced out of their homes and fields without their belongings, the Cherokee at Fort Wool were imprisoned with little clothing to protect them from the elements. This exposure, malnutrition, and cholera caused many to perish at the stockade. Several hundred Cherokee left Fort Wool on June 18 to be marched up to the Tennessee River for the remainder of the removal to the west (Reed 1991). It is quite possible that the removal from Fort Wool proceeded via McCoy's Ferry.

60
After the Cherokee left New Echota, the community continued to operate as a town with a stagecoach service, visiting circuses, and businesses. New Echota changed its name to New Town once again even though "New Echota" was still shown on maps up until 1852. When the railroad ran through to the west of New Town in 1846, Calhoun soon became the newly established Gordon County seat, rendering New Town a rural community. The public buildings and taverns at New Echota were moved, collapsed or demolished to make room for cotton fields. During the Civil War in 1864, Union troops described the area as a place devoid of buildings from which they could fashion rafts to cross the river (Reed 1991). Over time, the Worcester house stood as the last structure at New Echota, with much of the history of the "lost village" forgotten until the publication of archaeological excavations and historical research in the 1950s.

IV. RESEARCH DESIGN

61 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

The following is the research design, which was developed prior to the excavation and approved on November 8, 2011. Some of these issues are not addressable as the recovered data are not present or sufficient; see Chapter IX for a discussion of the research topics in relation to the data recovered.
The research issues pertaining to 9GO297 have been developed from existing literature pertaining to Archaic, Woodland, Mississippian, and Historic Indian period archaeology in Georgia and the larger Southeastern and Midwestern regions. The range of topics and theoretical perspectives on the these periods is too extensive to fully review each, but the primary research areas, current perspectives, and suggestions for future research are outlined below.
The research issues are organized into those that apply to all components, such as site layout and structural form, and those that are specific to the temporal and cultural components known to be present at the site. Based on the existing information, the Woodland component of 9GO297 is known to be the most intensive while the Archaic, Mississippian, and Historic Indian components are more ephemeral, so the discussion below is most heavily weighted towards the Woodland period. Because only a small percentage of the site area has been excavated prior to this investigation, it is entirely possible that other temporal and cultural components besides those known will be identified during data recovery. If deposits and materials from any other components not addressed in this research design are recovered and these data are of sufficient type and size to address research questions relevant to those periods, we will draw from the pertinent literature to address those issues.
RESEARCH ISSUES FOR ALL COMPONENTS
SITE FORMATION PROCESSES
Understanding the formation of the archaeological record of any site is critical to interpreting the deposits correctly. Sites 9GO297 occupies a depositional landform bordered on three sides by waterways (Coosawattee River, Conasauga River, and New Town Creek) and at the confluence of these drainages. The Phase I and II investigation revealed that archaeological deposits extend up to at least 109 cmbs. In order to investigate and understand how the archaeological record developed over time in relation to geological and cultural processes, geomorphologist Keith Seramur was an integral part of this study. The geomorphological study examined both soil chemistry, as a signature of human land use, and soil stratigraphy as an indicator of site formation.

62
Site formation processes are affected not only by geological processes, but also by the human occupation of the landform. Soil chemistry analysis and magnetic susceptibility methods can be used to investigate areas of cultural activity. Though rarely used in the United States, such studies have been successfully used at archaeological sites in Canada, Europe, Central America, and South America (Sarris et al. 2004).
Human induced elevated magnetic susceptibility is typically associated with hearths and the conversion of pedogenic hematite into maghemite at the bases of hearths under high temperatures and anoxic conditions. Human occupation of a landform can enrich the soil in many different elements. Sources of anthropogenic elements in soil include human waste, organic refuse (derived from bone, meat, fish, and plants), burials, and ash from fires. Common elements introduced "by human activity are carbon, nitrogen, sodium, phosphorous, and calcium with lesser amounts of potassium, magnesium" and some metals (Holiday and Gartner 2007). Elevated concentrations of these elements across an archaeological site can be used as an indicator of past human activity. Further, percent organics can be enriched along occupational surfaces. Decomposition of organic matter will increase the concentration of all of these elements.
SITE FUNCTION AND LAYOUT
One of the goals of the data recovery was to understand the layout of the site in regards to the particular occupational episodes that combine to make up the archaeological record. The site is known to have a long history of occupation by temporally and culturally disparate groups, and these different occupations will necessarily have left their specific imprints in the archaeological record. Ideally, by isolating and defining specific occupational episodes within the site, one can then examine them individually. This effort depends in large part on how intensive the various occupations were and how they overlap spatially, which influences the level of segregation or mixing of materials from disparate occupations. It also depends in part on the ability to reconstruct site formation processes.
Being able to isolate the remains of individual occupations is also critical to interpreting the function(s) of the individual occupations. A basic issue for each occupational episode regards what the types and frequencies of the artifacts, in conjunction with any features, reveal about the type of activities carried out at the site. For instance, do the remains from a particular occupation represent a hunting camp occupied by a small number of people for a short period of time? Is there evidence that the site served as a village for a particular period of time? Alternatively, was it a hamlet? Are individual structures and/or households identifiable?

63 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
House Form and Size
A primary research question of this investigation relates to house form and size for the different occupations. Are houses identifiable through postmold patterns? If so, what are the characteristics of each according to temporal and cultural component? What are the differences and similarities within and between components? How did they change over time? If different structural forms and sizes are found for a single occupation, how do the forms relate to function? Can we determine the seasonality of occupation from structural form? How long were structures occupied? Are there rebuilding episodes? What types of building materials are present? Were certain woods preferred over others? Is daub a common structural material?
SETTLEMENT PATTERNS
Integrally related to the issue of site function, is what do the various components at 9GO297 tell us regarding the settlement pattern of the groups who occupied the site? Numerous avenues of investigation can provide information to address this issue, such as rates of structure-rotting, artifact distributions within and between site contexts, floor space calculations, artifact life modeling, and mortuary populations (Espenshade 2008a). In addition, a review of site distribution and site type for the relevant components in the vicinity of 9GO297 will provide some information regarding how the site fits into the settlement system. Were the various components at 9GO297 each part of an area cultural landscape?
Related to this, modeling population size and density can aid in reconstructing the settlement pattern. Espenshade (2008a) listed several avenues for modeling population size: relating house floor area to ethnographic data on spatial needs of an individual (Chamberlain 2006); relating vessel loss to number of family units, assuming length of site use can be controlled (Espenshade 2000); and reverse engineering from mortuary populations to live populations, again assuming that the use span of the site/cemetery can be determined (Chamberlain 2006). By reconstructing population density over time, the reasons underlying changes and variation within the settlement systems can be addressed.
The seasonality of site occupation is also an important clue to reconstructing a settlement system. Subsistence remains are often used to address issues regarding site seasonality, as are the types of structures documented at a site. For instance, an enclosed structure is often argued to represent a winter dwelling while a light and open-sided structure is commonly interpreted as a warm weather structure.

64
CHRONOLOGY
Of basic importance to the interpretation of any archaeological site and the activities that resulted in its creation is the chronology of the occupation. While many absolute dates exist and relative chronological sequences have been constructed for northern Georgia, it is critical to know when a site was occupied. Further, as Espenshade (2008a) pointed out that the fine-tuned chronology for one area may not apply to another nearby area due to differences and variation among the groups occupying those areas, and the existence of numerous prehistoric manifestations in the region calls for additional absolute dating. Because of this variation, acquiring radiocarbon dates are a key component of determining site chronology.
At a multicomponent site like 9GO297, reconstructing the site chronology is critical to being able to address the research issues for the specific temporal and cultural components. However, this can be difficult due to potential problems of cross-contamination and the mixing of artifacts and deposits from disparate occupations. Due to this possibility, strata that have been determined to be geomorphologically isolated are better suited for dating, and the thick deposits of the depositional environment at 9GO297 will hopefully contain such strata. Further, samples from closed-context features and from ethnobotanical samples (e.g., corn kernel) are preferred over standard dating on loose charcoal from a general excavation level context. In addition to the importance of using absolute dates, relative measures such as diagnostic artifacts and stratigraphic data will aid in refining our understanding of the chronology of the site and the area.
SUBSISTENCE
Plant and animal food remains can yield data on the seasons of site use, the intensity of site occupations, and site functions. There are several research questions related to subsistence. What types of plants and animals were being consumed in the different time periods? If there is a difference in subsistence, what does this say about the local environment and/or subsistence focus? It is often assumed that the preservation of subsistence remains is poor in northern Georgia due to high soil acidity. How is the preservation at 9GO297 compared to other sites in the vicinity and the region? Is there a correlation between food remains found in flotation samples and in peaks in certain chemicals in the soil?
LITHIC TECHNOLOGY
The analysis of lithic debitage has been shown to provide robust and versatile data that can be used to answer a variety of research questions (Blades 2003; Dunnell and Simek 1995; Gregory and Tippett 2007; Patterson 1990; Shott 1989; Sullivan and Rozen 1985, 1989). By examining

65 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
lithic raw material types, questions related to raw material procurement strategies can be addressed, as well as changing or differing preferences between time periods or phases. The frequencies and diversity of lithic tools can provide information on the number and types of prehistoric activities that occurred at the site. Because lithic tool types change through time, the tool assemblage can also provide chronological references. The stage of the use life of tools (degree of tool exhaustion) can provide information on prehistoric settlement patterns. Comparisons of the raw material frequencies between the lithic tools and the debitage can highlight procurement strategies.
Specific research questions for lithic artifacts related to these issues include: What types of tools and other lithic artifacts are present? What types of lithic reduction activities are represented? Are certain activities confined to discrete areas of the site or associated with certain feature types? How do lithic reduction activities change through time? What raw material types are present at the site? Where are the nearest sources of the raw material types found at the site? Are there any non-local or exotic types? What raw material procurement strategies were employed and how do they change through time? Do the lithic assemblages from each component indicate a curated or expedient technological organization? What are the likely causes for the identified technological organizations? Is there evidence for tool maintenance? Is microdebitage present? How do the frequencies of raw material types compare between the debitage groups and lithic tool types? What is the degree of core exhaustion in the lithic assemblage? What is the degree of tool exhaustion in the lithic assemblage? Addressing such questions will assist in understanding technological, social, and economic change.
EARLY-MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIOD RESEARCH ISSUES
SETTLEMENT
Stanyard (2003) argued that all classes of site types e.g, village, base camp, hunting camp, work station are known for the Archaic period in northern Georgia. For river floodplains and terrace settings such as 9GO297, he stated that a variety of site types may be present, including larger and more permanent occupations, aggregation episodes, seasonal encampments, base camps, and short-term specialized occupations. For the identified Archaic components at 9GO297, how did the site function and how did it fit into the settlement pattern of the area? Is there any evidence to indicate that the site was part of an Early Archaic "homeland" (Stanyard 2003)?
Stanyard (2003) also explained the doubling in site frequency from the Early Archaic to the Middle Archaic by an increase in population and even more so to shifts in settlement and subsistence practices. Does this explanation fit the data from 9GO297? Further, the Middle

66
Archaic period in north Georgia is dominated by the Morrow Mountain biface tradition, and Stanyard (2003) wondered if these groups resisted the intrusion of contemporaneous Sykes/White Springs and Benton groups from the Midsouth. In addition, he argued that the Guilford point type is rare in northern Georgia and is more of a Carolina Piedmont occurrence. Is there any evidence of Guilford, Sykes/White Springs, or Benton occupations at 9GO297?
Along these lines, Stanyard (2003) discussed the concept of "adaptive flexibility" of Middle Archaic groups in relation to settlement based on a model put forth by Blanton et al. (1989). In this system, Middle Archaic groups were small, highly mobile, and relied primarily on local lithic and other materials. Such groups ranged from their temporary residences to acquire the surrounding resources; once an area's resources were depleted, they moved to a new location. If Middle Archaic remains are found at 9GO297, do they fit this model?
CHRONOLOGY
In a discussion of the archaeological phases for the Archaic period in northern Georgia, Stanyard (2003) stated that "there are insufficient data to identify specific phases and cultures." Only two radiocarbon dates from Early Archaic contexts are known from northern Georgia, and a relatively small number of Early Archaic sites were recorded in the Lake Allatoona area survey (Ledbetter et al. 1987). There is also a relatively low number of radiocarbon dates for Middle Archaic components in northern Georgia, none of which are located in the northwestern Georgia area where 9GO297 is located (Stanyard 2003). Thus, if materials from either component are found at 9GO297, attempts would be made to recover associated datable samples.
WOODLAND PERIOD RESEARCH ISSUES
SETTLEMENT AND SITE FUNCTION
How does the site fit into the larger Woodland period settlement system? How does this site relate to the destroyed but contemporaneous Lum Moss site that was located on the other side of New Town Creek? How long was 9GO297 occupied during the Woodland period? What functions did it serve? Espenshade (2008a) has more recently suggested that hamlets may have played an important intermediary role in the development of Late Woodland, village-based settlement. Did 9GO297 serve as a hamlet or was it a village? Was it occupied year round or periodically during the year?
WOODLAND STRUCTURES
With the exception of the Hickory Log site (Webb 2008), few Woodland sites in northern Georgia have yielded clear structural patterns (Markin 2007; Wood and Bowen 1995). Thus relatively little is known concerning Woodland period structures and the range of variability

67 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
within the structural rules. With the possible exception of the appearance of wall-trench, wattleand-daub houses in the terminal Woodland-Early Mississippian, there is no clear trajectory of Woodland house forms. Structural patterns are often relatively well preserved in alluvial settings such as that at 9GO297, so there is a good chance that structures will be identified.
A particular research issue revolves around "pit houses" that have been identified at a handful of Middle Woodland sites in Georgia. Steve Webb at 9WH123 (R.S. Webb, personal communication 2008) and Espenshade et al. (1998) at 9HY98 found remnants of apparent pit houses, while Pluckhahn (2003) has also found an apparent pit house at Kolomoki. (Jefferies 2006) documented a possible pit house and a small sweat lodge in the domestic area at Tunacunnhee. There may also be a similar structure in the Swift Creek midden at Leake (Keith 2010a). There are currently two interpretations: pit houses represent winter residences and pit houses were sweat lodges. However, as the assemblages from these pit houses are commonly full of items that may remain from ritual activities, might such houses rather represent structures at which ritual/ceremonial activities were carried out? If such is found at 9GO297, how does is compare to these examples? What is the evidence for and against these various interpretations?
THE NATURE OF SWIFT CREEK CULTURE
Two sherds recovered during the Phase I/II investigation of 9GO297 may represent the Swift Creek ceramic type, a complicated stamped ware produced over several hundred years in Georgia and parts of surrounding states. This diagnostic ceramic type is often found in association with more common Cartersville ceramics, particularly simple stamped and check stamped wares, but alternatively it may not be present on sites with these more common ceramics. Further, Swift Creek pottery is made within the same ceramic technological tradition as Cartersville wares (Espenshade 2008a).
Swift Creek wares are commonly found in contexts with features and materials that are suggestive of ritual and ceremonial activities. Swift Creek pottery has been found at Hopewellian ceremonial centers throughout the Eastern Woodlands, providing a definitive link to the Hopewellian Interaction Sphere. Although no one is certain of the exact mechanisms of Hopewell influence on inhabitants of Georgia, it is becoming increasingly clear that there was not a single trajectory. There were apparent hot beds of Hopewellian influence, with nearby areas showing little or no influence. Goods of the Hopewellian trade system undoubtedly moved through northern Georgia, particularly at large ceremonial centers such as the Leake site (Keith 2010a) approximately 30 miles south of 9GO297.

68
Despite years of research and documentation of Swift Creek archaeological remains in Georgia, the precise relationship between people who produced Swift Creek wares and those who produced Cartersville wares is very murky. Many questions surround this relationship, such as: What accounts for the presence/absence of Swift Creek wares on sites having Cartersville ceramics? How was Swift Creek pottery used? Was Swift Creek pottery used in everyday utilitarian heating/cooking activities or restricted to ceremonial contexts? Who made Swift Creek pottery?
Recent research of the Leake site (Keith 2010a) by the lead author has lead to the hypothesis that Swift Creek remains essentially represent the manifestation of religion, and that Swift Creek pottery was made and used by the subset of the population who subscribed to and participated in this religion. This subset of the population may have been organized as cults, independent of kin-based social groups. Specific Swift Creek pottery designs may have been produced by specific cults for use in particular ceremonies and rituals. Sites such as the Leake site may have been locations where these Swift Creek cults congregated, made alliances, and conducted public ceremonies. Thus, it was these cult groups that may have been primarily responsible for Swift Creek ceremonial sites, which are physical manifestations of religious/ritual practices. Related to the formation and existence of Swift Creek group alliances, matches may be present in the specific complicated stamped designs from different sites (Stoltman and Snow 1998).
WOODLAND CERAMIC TECHNOLOGIES
Hunter-Gather Pottery Use
Espenshade (Espenshade 2008b; Patch et al.) has recently suggested that we need to reconsider how pottery was used and discarded by mobile hunter-gatherers. Espenshade has argued that the common ethno-archaeological models for vessel use lives and disposal patterns are generally based on sedentary horticulturalists. Likewise, models relating vessel form to primary intended function are based on horticulturalists with relatively stable settlements, and function-related morphology becomes less evident as one moves back in time from the Mississippian to the Woodland. Espenshade suggested that Early and Middle Woodland pots were often generalized tools (Arnold 1999; Binford 1979), made to adequately serve a variety of functions rather than perfectly serve just one function. He argued that the change to function-specific forms should mark a decrease in residential mobility and an increase in resource predictability. Espenshade's hypothesis that Early and Middle Woodland pots were generalized tools has received support from ceramic residue studies. Eleanora Reber recently completed residue analysis of 37 vessels from the Sand Hills of North Carolina, and she concluded that these were general-use vessels rather than activity-specific pots (Reber 2008).

69 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
As a corollary of the generalized tool hypothesis, Espenshade (2008b) also suggested that pots acted differently in the settlement round of mobile hunter-gatherers than in that of sedentary groups. This corollary was based on the observation that at many small, short-term Woodland sites, there may be a number of vessels, but each is generally represented by one percent or less of their parent vessel. Espenshade argued that only the damage refuse (i.e., the sherd or sherds broken from a vessel) is left behind at these short-term sites, and that the still-functional vessel(s) move along through the settlement round (because of this, we should also be careful applying use-life models derived from sedentary groups to mobile groups). Espenshade further suggested that the ratio of rim to body sherds should change based on the time and distance from the location where pots were made. Sites close to the refurbishing location/time should have an over-representation of rim sherds, because rims break off first. These issues will be addressed given the recovery of sufficient data.
Changes and Continuity in Ceramic Technology, Style, and Form
In the last several years, researchers have begun to address ceramic technology, style, and form rather than simply sorting sherds into published types (Williams and Elliott 1998). In doing so, archaeologists have increasingly seen that the classic types often fall apart when patterns of ceramic technology and style are considered. We have also seen that the patterns of local adoption (or lack thereof) of new decorative techniques may be instructive in reconstructing patterns of cultural interactions. This is a research issue that calls out for multi-scalar approaches to cultural interaction and stylistic expression. In an extreme example, Keith (2010a, 2010b) documented at least one Swift Creek vessel at the Leake site that appears to have originated at the Mann site in Indiana. Williams (2005) has examined broad trends in surface decorations, and has asked that archaeologists consider what those patterns mean. Espenshade (1998; 2008a) has argued that there are clear stylistic, formal, and technological links between Swift Creek Complicated Stamped, Cartersville Simple Stamped, Cartersville Check Stamped, Panola Check Stamped, and plain types, and this was also the interpretation of the ceramic data from the Leake site (Keith 2010a).
Sacred and Secular Pottery in the Middle Woodland Period
The recent work at the Leake site on the apparent ritual importance of complicated stamped and simple stamped pottery (Keith 2010a) underlines the possibility that as seen in other areas of the United States there may be different ceramic mixes for different site contexts in the Middle Woodland. That is, there may be an everyday, secular assemblage of pots seen in utilitarian contexts, and a different, sacred, assemblage used where ceremony was important. There may have been a preference for certain decorations for certain uses or by certain interest groups (see the section on the nature of Swift Creek culture above). At 9HY98, there is an apparent

70
preference for simple stamped pottery (over check stamped pottery) in the two "pit houses" that also had a high frequency of Hopewellian items (Espenshade et al. 1998). However, at Leake and several other Middle Woodland ceremonial centers (e.g., Tunacunnhee, Mann), there is often no clear separation between materials traditionally considered "domestic" or "ritual" in the eyes of archaeologists (Keith 2013). It may be that the usage of an item within a ritual context transforms that item into a sacred or ceremonial artifact, such that a projectile point that is commonly considered utilitarian (by archaeologists) is transformed into a sacred item by virtue of its use in a ceremonial context. As Gibson (1998:21) puts it: how secular can sacred be?
Recent work in the Hopewell areas of Ohio and Illinois are also relevant here. Through consideration of decorative types or modes and technological traits of pottery, archaeologists have begun to recognize diverse mechanisms that accounted for the movement of people and pottery through the Hopewell sphere (Fie 2006; Ruby and Shriner 2006). Instead of simple, long-distance trade among elites, (Byers 2006; Carr 2006; Lepper 2006; Stoltman and Snow 1998) have inferred many diverse means by which people and pots moved about the Middle Woodland landscape. For instance, one possibility is that specific Swift Creek groups made specific designs, and the design distribution across the landscape relates to movement and ritual interaction of these groups.
If there are different pottery preferences for sacred and secular contexts, we need to be careful about assigning temporal ranges based predominately on the relative frequencies of pottery types. What if particular types were disproportionately over-represented in burial contexts, due to their information content and their roles in ceremonial contexts? However, it should also be remembered that northern Georgia Middle Woodland check stamped, complicated stamped, and simple stamped pottery is being made within a single technological tradition (Espenshade et al. 1998; Espenshade 2008a). As a research issue, the question becomes what evidence is there for a sacred and secular material culture dichotomy? Or is the sacred/secular dichotomy a false one?
SUBSISTENCE
One of the early hallmarks of the Woodland period was the adoption of cultivated plant foods as an element of diet. Since the early definitions, we have learned that certain domesticates date back into the Archaic period. More importantly, Georgia archaeologists have recognized that there was no single trajectory for the acceptance of horticulture. Different groups in different settings in northern Georgia appear to have adapted starchy seed horticulture at different times. Outside of Georgia, in the Ohio Hopewell heartland, new research suggests that Middle Woodland groups were not heavily reliant on cultigens. It remains a major research issue to further delineate and begin to explicate temporal-spatial patterns of adoption of various native

71 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
cultigens (including the Eastern Agricultural Complex). Environmental potential (ability to thrive on wild resources) and horticultural potential (ability of a location to support productive horticulture) likely played key roles in determining the patterns of adoption. As well, the degree of interaction between a local group and participants in a regional trade/information exchange network also may have affected the acceptance of horticulture.
Given the data acquired from the excavation, what evidence is there for horticultural or agricultural practices? Evidence is increasingly suggesting that the growing of maize arrived before the other traits generally considered Mississippian. Furthermore, maize was not consistently adopted at the same time across northern Georgia. Is there any evidence for the production of maize at 9GO297?
WOODLAND TRAITS
Historically, the onset of the Woodland period was defined by horticulturalism, village settlement, and the development and stylistic evolution of ceramics. Likewise, the Mississippian period has been argued to have begun when temple mounds, intensive maize agriculture, and shell-tempered pottery appeared as a suite of traits. It is now clear that certain of the traits in the Woodland suite significantly pre-date the Woodland period, and that not all traits of the Woodland suite were adopted at the same time by all groups. Likewise, we see at the terminal Woodland that Woodstock pottery forms are reflecting a switch to heavy maize utilization, while Woodstock settlement remains essentially Woodland (Markin 2007). As a result, the elements of the Woodland Suite are less certain, while the spatial and temporal distribution of culture change offers potential insights to the formation of Woodland culture. We can leave to those enjoying the challenges of typologies and semantics to determine exactly when a specific group became Woodland or became Mississippian, while recognizing that cultural-historical units are somewhat arbitrary and tend to focus on patterns of pottery decoration (which may not always be the best indicator of cultural change) (Adams 1979; Tschopik 1950). The more interesting issue is to consider the spatial and temporal patterns not of the suites but of traits within the suites. Research on the appearance of Woodland traits offers the potential to expand our understanding of the development of the Woodland period in north Georgia as well as the geographic factors in its spread.
MISSISSIPPIAN AND HISTORIC INDIAN PERIOD RESEARCH ISSUES
A single plain shell tempered ceramic sherd was recovered during the Phase I/II survey and testing of 9GO297 (Barse and Gill 2007). Given that shell tempering was used throughout the Mississippian period and well into the Historic Indian period in northern Georgia (Hally and Langford 1988; Hally and Rudolph 1986; Wynn 1990), this artifact may remain from an

72
occupation during either of these periods. Given the ephemeral nature of this occupation based on the current data, the research issues for both periods are presented together. For the Mississippian period, the research questions are largely derived from Hally and Langford's (1988) research document, while for the Historic Indian period, the issues are distilled from (Smith 1992) research document. If there are occupations from both the Mississippian and the Historic Indian period, this offers an excellent opportunity to compare/contrast and examine changes in the culture of these groups, particularly if there is evidence for continual occupation between the time of European contact and Euroamerican settlement of northern Georgia.
SETTLEMENT
Hally and Langford's (1988) argued that during the Mississippian period in the Ridge and Valley province, residential settlements were concentrated along the floodplains of the larger rivers, such as the Coosawattee, near the agricultural fields that provided maize, beans, and squash. The surrounding areas, including the uplands, were part of the hunting and gathering catchment area. Settlements were generally permanent and occupied year-round, and were organized into large villages (two or more hectares) with a central plaza and one or more communal buildings.
Households generally had both summer and winter dwellings and a granary for the storage of foodstuffs. Villages along a 10-20 kilometer stretch of river were collectively part of a polity that was governed via a centrally-located capital town. Individual polities tended to be separated by buffers of approximately 20-kilometer spaces that were not occupied but were part of subsistence catchments.
In relation to 9GO297, is there any evidence for a Mississippian period village occupation at 9GO297? If so, how did this site fit into the larger settlement system and interface with a polity? How many households are present? How are households organized? Alternatively, did the site function as a farmstead removed from a village?
During the Historic Indian period, the immediate area surrounding 9GO297, and possibly the site area itself, served as the capital of the Cherokee Nation. Officially designated capital in 1824, New Echota was modeled after Euroamerican towns, with a main street, stores, a tavern, school, houses, outbuildings, a newspaper office, and a ferry across the river. Prior to its designation, the site was occupied during the Historic Indian period. The place was permanently occupied year round, as the town swelled with people when the courts and legislature were in session, as well as during meetings. However, the Federal Indian Policy resulting in removal directly affected the town and people associated with New Echota, so that the National Council met for the last time at the town in 1830. By 1834, the mission school was closed, and in 1838, the remaining people were forced to leave the town and were taken to fort stockades in the area to begin the trek west that is known as the Trail of Tears (Elliott et al. 2003; Loubser et al. 2003).

73 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
The primary research question concerning settlement for the Historic Indian period regards how the site area was used during the occupation of New Echota. The ferry is shown on some historic maps in the very area of the 9GO297 (Elliott et al. 2003). Are there any remains at 9GO297 related to the ferry operation? Are there any structures or facilities in the site area that were part of the town?
SUBSISTENCE
For both the Mississippian and Historic Indian periods, was agriculture practiced on site and/or in the area surrounding the site? If so, what specific plants were cultivated? How important were agricultural products to the subsistence economy? How important were hunted and gathered species in the diet? What animal species were part of the subsistence economy? Were aquatic species from the waters adjacent the site an important food resource? If both components are present, how did subsistence practices change over time? What type of food processing tools were used? What type of food storage facilities were used?
MATERIAL CULTURE
What is the material culture of the Mississippian and Historic Indian period occupations? How did material culture change over time? How do the ceramics fit into the existing typologies for each period? What is the level of change in material culture over time and what are the driving forces behind such change? Do stone tools continue to be an important technology in the face of Euroamerican metal tools? Are chipped glass tools present? Is their evidence of trade? What is the evidence for the production of goods from local materials?
CULTURAL CHANGE
Given that the appropriate data is recovered from 9GO297, how did Indian culture change over time? Is there evidence for the rejection and adoption of specific Euroamerican lifeways and technologies? How did Indian cultural and ethnic identity change over time? What were the specific relationships of site occupants to Euroamerican politics, society, and economy? How did population and settlement at the site and in the area change over time?

V. METHODS

75 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

FIELD METHODS
SCOPE OF FIELD EFFORT
The data recovery strategy was developed based on the previous investigation of the site (Barse and Gill 2007), consideration of the present site conditions, extant research issues, and the availability of techniques designed to recover as much data as possible from the site. Based on the location of the required right-of-way (ROW) through the site, the area of the site to be impacted measures 10,059 square meters (2.49 acres or approximately 1 hectare). New South Associates excavated approximately seven percent of the site, or 702 square meters.
Because a relatively small percentage of the site was sampled during the Phase I and Phase II investigations of the site (48 shovel tests, 3 test units), New South Associates employed a phased fieldwork strategy. Essentially, the initial effort (Stage I) was designed to provide highresolution data (similar to standard Phase II testing) to be used to identify areas of the site to be intensively excavated (Stage II). Further, we employed an "organic" or flexible approach in selecting areas for excavation during Stage II so that we could chase features and significant deposits by expanding unit blocks as necessary.
SITE PREPARATION
Prior to fieldwork, the Principal Investigator visited the project area to obtain an understanding of the site conditions. As the vegetation across the site consisted of a mixture of mature hardwoods and pines shading an extremely dense understory of privet and hardwood and pine saplings, the initial fieldwork for this project involved clearing the very dense understory of vegetation so that people and equipment could move about the site area freely. Initially, we used chainsaws, machetes, and loppers to cut north-south lanes spaced 10 meters apart for the shovel testing (Figure 12a), but the vegetation was so dense there was little room for the cut debris. We then decided the best solution would be to clear as much of the understory as possible from the site, and thus we rented a Bobcat with the Forestry Cutter attachment, which cuts down and grinds the vegetation into mulch (Figure 12b). This made movement and communication throughout the site area much easier.

76 A. Hand-Cleared Lane

Figure 12. Clearing Site Vegetation

B. Clearing with Bobcat Forestry Cutter

77 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Upon clearing the vegetation, we had a security fence placed around the perimeter of the site area in order to deter artifact hunters from accessing the site, since the site was visible and accessible from the Coosawattee River boat ramp and parking area. This was a six-foot high chain link fence with barbed wire along the top; we put a vehicle gate at the edge of the boat ramp parking lot for access to the site. We placed signs along the fence that read:
Environmentally Sensitive Area
No Unauthorized Entry Permitted
Unauthorized persons will be prosecuted under all applicable laws including Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) 12-3-10
After clearing the vegetation, a Cartesian grid system with N500.5 E500.5 as the site datum was established as the site grid (Figure 13); the site grid was oriented to the cardinal directions (magnetic), the grid was based in meters, and the datum height was set at 100. This grid was then inputted into a Total Station that was used to collect the precise horizontal and vertical location of the excavations, archaeological features, and other relevant points. A Global Positioning Satellite unit capable of sub-meter accuracy was used to collect the geographic coordinates of the site data and other points we established, as well as some of the points established by the land surveyors as part of the road design layout. The GPS data was collected in order to correlate the arbitrary Cartesian site grid with the real world geographic coordinates. We obtained the real-world elevation of the site area from a digital elevation model (DEM) downloaded from USGS National Elevation dataset, correlated this with the Cartesian grid points taken via the Total Station, and determined the real-world elevation for all TS points. The projected geographic coordinates of N500.5 E500.5 in Georgia State Plane West (FIPS 1002), which is based on the NAD 1983 datum, are N503784.8 E632459.6 with a height above mean sea level of 192 meters.
GEOPHYSICS
GDOT personnel, lead by Archaeologist Heather Mustonen, conducted a magnetometer survey of portions of the site after the dense vegetation was cleared and prior to the beginning of actual excavations. Three 30x30-meter blocks were surveyed using the magnetometer (Figure 14). A scatter of non-historic metal across the surface of the western portion of the site in the area of Grid 3 interfered with the data collection and results of this block, while GDOT archaeologists felt that the data collection and results were more reliable for Grids 1 and 2. Several of the anomalies identified by GDOT personnel were examined through block and test unit excavation; specifically, Blocks 5, 20, and 37 covered some portion of the magnetometer survey area.

78
Coosawattee River
[ [ [ [ [ [
[

E500.5

[

30

[

!

29 ! !

!

!

[

27

! ! !

28

!

!

!
!2

26

!

!

!
23

22

24

! ! !
39

! 37

!
!4

! !
! 12

! ! !

!

!

!

[

!

!

![

33 [

[!

!

!

[

! 13 !
!

! ! !

!
14
!
20
[!

!

!

!

31

! !

[

!

!

!

[

[

5 ! !
! !

!

!

! 38

11

!1

! !
35

!

!

3!

!

!

36

!

!

! ! !

16

!

[!

34

#!

!

!

!

[ 25

! ! !

[ !

!

21

15

!

!

!

10

!

!

!

!

!

19

8
! !

!

!

32

!

!

!

!

! !

18

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

7

!

!

6

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

17

!

!

9

Figure 13. Site Grid and Layout of Excavation Units at 9GO297

D

N500.5

! Shovel Test
# N500.5 E500.5

Test Unit

D Security Fence

D

D

Parking Lot

Stripped Block

Old Road

[ [ Old Fence Line

Boat Ramp

Boat Ramp

Entrance/Exit

0

River
10

20 m

p

0

75 ft

79 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 14. GDOT Magnetometer Survey Location
Source: GDOT

80
GEOMORPHOLOGY
Research Design
Keith Seramur of Seramur & Associates, PC conducted the geomorphological investigation of the site. The geoarchaeology investigation included three site visits during different phases of the data recovery fieldwork. These visits were scheduled to describe and sample block excavations at different times during the project. Block excavations were recorded along four transects, A-A' through D-D', across the terraces (see Appendix B, Figure 5). The block profiles are used to map out areas with shallow bedrock, buried soils, and older remnant Pleistocene soils. Sediment samples of representative profiles were analyzed in the laboratory for particle size distribution, soil chemistry, and magnetic susceptibility.
Soil profiles were described at representative locations within each excavation. Soil samples were collected from vertical profiles for potential laboratory analysis. Particle size distribution is used to interpret subtle stratigraphic changes within the soil profile that is not typically visible in the field. These changes delineate stratigraphic boundaries that represent separate depositional events that can bury occupation surfaces. Vertical changes in soil chemistry and magnetic susceptibility are used to identify buried surfaces and possible chemical and magnetic signatures associated with buried cultural horizons. Magnetic susceptibility can also be used to evaluate pedogenic development and correlate stratigraphy between block excavations. Soil chemistry was also used to evaluate the effect of prehistoric occupation on elemental concentrations within the soil profile.
Methods
The percent sand/fines (silt and clay) and the distribution of the sand fraction were measured using the particle size analysis. Laboratory procedures included drying, splitting, and weighing each sample using a digital torsion balance. Samples were then placed in a sodium metaphosphate solution and dispersed using a sonic dismembrator. The dispersed sample is wet sieved through a 63-micron sieve to separate the silt and clays from the sand fraction. Sample dispersion and wet sieving is an important step in the process. It removes silt and clay that would otherwise be grouped into the sand fraction. This process adds to the cost of the analysis, but ensures accurate particle size distribution data for interpreting processes of site burial and preservation.
The sand fraction was dry sieved and each 1/2-phi size fraction was weighed and recorded. The phi grade scale ( = log2 (d), where d is grain diameter in mm) is used for grain size measurements. This scale facilitates the calculation of mean grain size, standard deviation and skewness using the sedimentology data (Folk 1980). Sedimentology logs were drafted showing the particle size data for each profile analyzed.

81 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Cumulative frequency curves were prepared from the particle-size data for four of the block profiles and statistical measures were calculated for each sediment sample. These included mean grain size, standard deviation, and skewness (Folk 1980). Bivariate graphs of mean grain size verses standard deviation and skewness were plotted for each block profile.
Stratigraphic boundaries and sedimentary processes active on the landform can be interpreted from the particle size distribution of a deposit. Populations or groups of samples that delineate distinct stratum are identified on the statistical plots. Samples from the same strata plot together on the graphs because similar processes deposit them. Sediment deposited during a wetter climate (higher magnitude flood events) can be distinguished from deposits formed during dryer climatic periods. The mean grain size of a sample is an indication of the strength or velocity of currents. Skewness and sorting (standard deviation) can assist in interpreting changes in the medium (air or water) that deposited the sand.
A&L Eastern Laboratories, Inc. was contracted to complete the soil chemistry analyses. Soil was analyzed using their S1 package to determine concentrations of phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, calcium, and percent organic matter using the Mehlich III extraction method. This extraction process is commonly used to determine the plant available nutrients for agricultural purposes. This extraction is not as aggressive as an analysis for total elemental concentration, but it is less expensive and useful for the purpose of investigating changes in soil chemistry within a profile and across the site. The concentration of phosphorous was also analyzed using the Bray extraction method. This is a more aggressive extraction technique that includes detection of phosphorous that is partially occluded onto soil particles.
Magnetic susceptibility (MS) was measured for soil samples collected from block profiles and adjacent to select features. Each sample was dried, disaggregated, and packed into plastic cubes. Each cube was tarred and the sample weight determined using a digital torsion balance. Volume magnetic susceptibility was measured using a Bartington MS-3 magnetic susceptibility meter and a MS2-B sensor. Magnetic susceptibility measured on a basis of dry mass is useful to identify buried soils and occupation surfaces (Dearing 1994). Volume magnetic susceptibility values () are converted into mass specific susceptibility () to account for samples with different densities. This conversion consists of dividing the volume magnetic susceptibility values () by the bulk density of the sample (Dearing 1994). The bulk density of a sample is calculated by dividing mass by volume. Mass specific susceptibility is expressed in units of meters cubed per kilogram (m3/kg).
High and low frequency magnetic susceptibility is measured for each soil sample. The frequency dependent MS is based on the difference between high and low frequency MS values and is calculated following Dearing (1994): (low frequency MS high frequency MS) / low frequency MS x 100. If the magnetic signature of a sediment sample has a similar high and low

82
frequency MS (low frequency dependence) then the source of the magnetism is likely mineralogy of the sample (Dearing 1994). When the high and low frequency MS are different (high frequency dependence), it is likely that pedogenic or anthropogenic processes have enhanced the magnetism of the sediment.
DATA RECOVERY
Shovel Testing
Shovel testing was conducted at 10-meter intervals, with 134 shovel tests excavated. The area of the site along the southern security fence line was not shovel tested due to the lack of topsoil and obvious subsoil at the surface, while the area bordering the boat ramp parking lot was also not shovel tested due to extensive disturbance and modification. Shovel tests were excavated in 10centimeter levels, and were square in shape, measuring approximately 30 centimeters on a side. Shovel tests were excavated until either subsoil or 110 cmbs was reached. All soil from the shovel tests was screened using 0.25-inch hardware cloth. Standardized forms were used to record shovel test data by level, including soil information and the presence/absence of artifacts by level.
Bucket Augering
In the effort to search for archaeological deposits that may have been present in areas below the effective reach of shovel testing and in areas where stripping was not possible or warranted, an auger was employed. The auger had a bucket diameter of three inches and depth of 6.5 inches; the maximum depth the auger could reach below the augering surface was 310 centimeters. Augering was typically conducted through the base of a test unit block or a shovel test.
Block Excavation
Thirty-nine blocks of varying size were excavated at the site, and each was assigned a unique identifying number based on the order in which they were established. These include blocks that were solely machine excavated with a smooth-bucketed backhoe (n=27), blocks that were only hand excavated via test unit excavation (n=5), and those that were a combination of the two (n=7). Machine-excavated blocks were stripped under the direct supervision of Principal Investigator Scot Keith, Project Geoarchaeologist Keith Seramur, and/or Project Archaeologist Carl Etheridge, all of who are experienced in monitoring excavation with heavy machinery. Table 1 provides a summary of the blocks.

83 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Table 1. Summary of Block Excavations

Block Stripped?

1

N

2

N

3

Y

4

N

5

N

6

Y

7

Y

8

Y

9

Y

10

Y

11

Y

12

Y

13

Y

14

Y

15

Y

16

Y

17

Y

18

Y

19

Y

20

Y

21

Y

22

Y

23

Y

24

Y

25

Y

26

Y

27

Y

28

Y

29

Y

30

Y

31

Y

32

Y

TU in Block?
Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N N N

TUs
1-9 10-18 55-58 19-34, 99-104 35-54

TU coverage (sq. m.) 9 9 4 22 20

59-74

16

75-98

24

105-122

18

123-140

18

141-149, 173-177

14

150-160

11

Stripped coverage (sq. m) 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 15.3 17.0 15.3 18.0 7.4 16.1 11.4 16.7 4.9 6.6 37.3 12.8 13.4 35.8 72.2 9.8 3.3 32.0 29.0 4.1 5.9 18.4 22.5 7.9 9.2 8.2 3.9

Total Area (sq. m)
9.0 9.0 20.7 22.0 20.0 15.3 17.0 15.3 18.0 7.4 16.1 11.4 16.7 4.9 6.6 37.3 12.8 13.4 51.8 96.2 9.8 3.3 50.0 47.0 4.1 5.9 32.4 33.5 7.9 9.2 8.2 3.9

84

Table 1. Summary of Block Excavations (Continued)

Block Stripped?

33

Y

34

Y

35

Y

36

Y

37

N

38

Y

39

Y

TU in Block?
N N N N Y N N

TUs

TU coverage

(sq. m.)

161 -172

12

177

177

Total Area Excavated

Stripped coverage (sq. m) 7.4 6.5 7.9 10.1 0.0 17.1 4.0 524.1

Total Area (sq. m)
7.4 6.5 7.9 10.1 12.0 17.1 4.0 701.2 701.2

Prior to fieldwork, no specific amount, location, orientation, or shape of excavation blocks were defined. This was to allow the locations, sizes, orientations, and shapes of the excavation blocks to grow organically in response to the data obtained in the field in order to acquire as much important data as possible. As only shovel test data from the Phase I survey existed for the project area (the three test units excavated during Phase II were located just north of the project area), some of the stripping was used to determine the nature of the archaeological deposits throughout the site. Further, because the Phase III shovel tests revealed that soils across the site were highly heterogeneous and provided no clear picture of the subsurface conditions, the use of the backhoe for exploratory work in assessing the nature of archaeological deposits within the project area was critical. During backhoe stripping, care was taken to use relatively thin backhoe swipes (~3-4 cm in thickness) within clear and potential archeological soils and to maintain as horizontally level and smooth swipes as possible; when unambiguously non-cultural soil strata were encountered, the thickness of individual bucket swipes was increased.
Based in part on the exploratory stripping and in part on the results of the shovel testing, we identified locations where test units would be excavated. Test unit excavations were contiguous and based on 1x1-meter units with all sediments screened through 0.25-inch mesh hardware cloth. Each individual test unit was assigned a unique number for identification. Notes were recorded on individual standardized level forms for each unit. The base of each level was troweled and any features present mapped and documented. Selected profiles were drawn and photographed to document general site conditions and unique settings. All soils were described using standard USDA-NRCS terms (e.g., sand), with colors referenced to Munsell soil charts.

85 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Laser line levels were used for vertical control of test unit and feature excavation. Each test unit block used a laser line level datum established at the same vertical and horizontal location each day. The locations of these individual block data were collected with the Total Station. While in the field, excavators recorded measurements based on centimeters below [block] datum, and these measurements were converted to cmbs for usage in this report. Table 2 provides the elevations of the laser levels used.

Table 2. Elevations of Laser Levels Used During Excavation

Laser Level No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11

Centimeter Above Ground Surface 100 76 55 54 106 57 57 58 110 60

Used in Blocks 1, 2, 5 3 4 19 20 24 23 28 27 37

It should be noted that in some of the test unit blocks, there was often a fair difference in the surface elevation of each corner at the beginning of their excavation. That is, the beginning surfaces were undulating and generally not consistently level. In order to establish a horizontally level excavation surface in those instances when there was an uneven ground surface, "partial" or "air" levels were used where the deeper corner(s) was not excavated until one reached the proper excavation depth below datum. Thus, the unit level elevations, when expressed in depth below surface, express these elevation ranges, as one cannot know precisely how deep below surface any non-piece-plotted artifact within a given level an artifact was recovered. The elevation of the surface of the test units in relation to the laser levels and the ground surface for each excavation block can be found in the Results section.
Soil anomalies, or features, were examined on a case-by-case basis to determine their origins. Beginning with the number 3 since Features 1 and 2 were designated during the testing (Barse and Gill 2007), each feature was given a unique number for identification. Standardized forms were completed for each feature, while scaled maps and photographs were collected. Features were excavated as necessary to expose profiles depending on type and content. Excavation of features was designed to yield data on its origin (cultural or natural) and function (e.g., post,

86
hearth, tree). Soil samples were collected from the features, adjacent to the features, and below the features to aid in recovery of materials that could be submitted for radiocarbon dating and provide data on possible floral and faunal remains. When it was determined that a feature originated from a natural (non-cultural) process (e.g., burning or rotting of a tree), feature excavation was discontinued.
In terms of artifact recovery, artifacts uncovered while stripping non-test unit blocks were recorded in the field notes and collected if they were judged by the Principal Investigator to be potentially informative beyond noting their type and presence. For test units, all artifacts were collected, with the exception of fire cracked rock, which was weighed and discarded in the field.
Laboratory
Laboratory methods involved processing and cleaning the artifacts using standard procedures. Processing included artifact check in, washing, cataloguing and identification, and curation. Once received from the field, artifact bags were crosschecked against the field bag list generated in the field to ensure that the correct provenience information was recorded. All submitted samples were then cleaned. Durable artifacts were washed in tap water using a soft brush. Nondurable pottery sherds were cleaned using a combination of dry and wet methods, with special care being taken not to allow sherds to disintegrate from excessive moisture exposure. All artifacts were allowed to thoroughly dry before analysis.
All artifacts were sorted by provenience, material type, and by object identification when possible. Objects were counted and individual object forms were then bagged separately. All of this information was entered into a relational database that tied provenience, artifact, and known temporo-cultural data about given artifact forms into a common data set. Artifact data were input directly into the database at the time of analysis, thereby reducing the opportunity for clerical errors.
A variety of published resources were used in artifact identification, with an emphasis placed on scholarly works. Prehistoric artifacts were organized and identified by material resource (e.g., stone, pottery, bone, etc.). The basic attributes for each material resource or artifact type were then described. When possible, tool forms were identified and classified according to characteristics emphasized in standardized published typologies that were applicable to the study region.
For debris remaining from chipped stone tool production and maintenance, artifacts were classified into one of three categories: flake (i.e., debris with a recognizable striking platform), flake fragment (debris lacking a recognizable striking platform), and angular debris (blocky and without a recognizable striking platform or dorsal or ventral surface). This debitage

87 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
classification was used since a single flake may break into any number of fragments at any point during the reduction sequence, as well as post-depositionally; thus, grouping non-platform flake fragments with platform flakes provides a false count of "flakes" (Andrefsky 1998). Debitage were examined for evidence of use-wear and retouch, and if found, were classified appropriately. Lithic items that exhibited no apparent modification but that may remain from site occupation were classified as "unmodified stone".
Attributes recorded for all ceramic artifacts include vessel portion (e.g., body, rim), surface condition (e.g., eroded), temper type, temper size, surface treatment, and type if identifiable. A design analysis was conducted of sherds with decorative surface treatments that were macroscopically visible and identifiable. An analysis was then conducted to identify individual ceramic vessels. Individual sherds were weighed and sorted into groups based on exterior and interior surface treatment, aplastics, thickness, and color. Not all sherds could be sorted into discrete sample vessels due to the lack of identifiable surface treatments. Cross-mending sherds were identified and glued together. After mending, the vessels were assigned unique sample vessel numbers. All sample vessels were weighed and the percent of vessel present was estimated.
Because neither an appreciable faunal collection nor individual faunal items of size and condition sufficient for species identification were recovered, no specialized faunal analysis was conducted. Faunal remains were simply identified as such.
Archaeobotanical remains were sent to Paleobot Consulting, LLC for analysis (see Appendix C). Archaeobotanical analysis is based upon macroplant remains derived from flotation of 890.5 liters of sediment (979.29 g of light fractions) from 98 flotation samples (Appendix B). Prior to archaeobotanical analysis, each sample was subjected to machine-assisted water separation in a 30-gallon Shell Mound Archeological Project (SMAP)-type flotation machine by New South Associates personnel (Pearsall 1989; Watson 1976). This system is utilized because SMAP-style flotation systems consistently exhibit excellent retrieval rates (Pearsall 1989:91-94). The heavy fraction trap was lined with 0.80-millimeter mesh.
In the laboratory, each flotation light fraction was first weighed, and then passed through nested geologic sieves (4.0 mm, 2.36 mm, 2.0 mm, 1.18 mm, 1.0 mm, 0.85 mm, 0.71 mm, 0.5 mm). The resulting sample fractions were fully sorted under a binocular microscope (10-25x). All charred plant remains that were greater than 2.36 millimeters (mm) were pulled from the sample matrices and quantified by material type, by weight, and by count. Light fraction material that was smaller than 2.36 mm was sorted, but only charred nutshell and seeds were removed. A sample of each flotation heavy fraction was also scanned to assess the success of the flotation

88
process. Minute quantities of carbon were noted during the heavy fraction scans. The extremely low proportion of carbonized macrofloral remains in the heavy fractions indicated that the flotation process was highly successful. Heavy fraction carbonized remains are tabulated with the light fraction material.
In this analysis, the macroplant data were quantified by individual feature or unit column sample, excavation block, and site. Several different comparison ratios (density, ubiquity) were utilized to study the macroplant remains. Weight densities of wood charcoal and nutshell were calculated for each feature/unit sample, block, and the site as a whole. This measure enables comparison of the relative densities of different plant taxa and is useful for standardizing raw count/weight data. This is done in order to smooth out disproportionate quantities of plant remains due to the different volumes of fill that were floated from different contexts.
Species ubiquity describes the occurrence of the macroplant remains expressed as a percentage of the total number of proveniences in which a particular taxon was present. This measure ascribes equal weight to the physical presence of a given taxon, regardless of the abundance of that plant type in a particular sample. Therefore, a sample that contains one seed of a given taxon is equivalent to a sample containing several hundred examples of the same seed. This analysis offers a way to assess the relative distributional importance of various plant species and gives an indication of how common each plant type is at the site. The ubiquity of all identified seed taxa and nutshell remains was also calculated.
Radiocarbon samples were submitted to Beta Analytic, Inc. for analysis. Their resulting materials are provided in Appendix D.
Once all analysis was completed, artifacts were placed in clean, separate polyethylene bags by artifact form. Acid-free identification tags were generated and the artifact bags were labeled with the appropriate catalog number, artifact identification, and number of artifacts present. Artifact bags were then placed in pre-labeled and tagged bags containing all other materials recovered from the same provenience. All provenience bags were then sorted by provenience number and placed in a larger container with all other materials from the site.
Following completion of this project, artifacts, field notes, and other materials generated during this project will be prepared and packaged for curation at the University of West Georgia's Antonia J. Waring, Jr. Archaeological Laboratory.

89 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
VI. RESULTS OF EXCAVATIONS
SITE LANDSCAPE
A relatively large portion of the terrain of 9GO297 has been altered fairly extensively since the prehistoric peoples of this river valley occupied this area. As detailed at the end of the Chapter II - Environmental Context, the southern portion of the site has been heavily disturbed, as evidenced by the presence of siltstone subsoil just under the humus layer in the areas of Blocks 6-9. This is almost certainly due to the removal of soil from this area for use in the construction of SR 225 in the 1950s. This borrow area appears to have extended to the north to the base of the embankment of an old road (the one replaced by the current route of SR 225 in the 1950s). It is unknown precisely how far to the west and northwest the borrow area extended, but based on the excavation of Blocks 18, 19, and 32, it appears to have extended to the area of those blocks. Block 17 may be located at the southwestern edge of the borrow area as indicated by a narrow linear berm or ridge running roughly parallel to New Town Creek to its west. Figure 15 provides a view of topography of the landform showing the surface elevations of each block, while Figure 16 shows the excavations atop a 1958 aerial photograph, in which one can see the area of the borrow pit, the old road through the site, and the formerly deforested condition of the site area.
In the area of Blocks 15, 16, and 21 and adjacent the boat ramp, the landform has obvious pushpiles and heavy undulations that may relate to the construction of the boat ramp and/or SR 225 and the bridge over the river. This area is elevated above that to the north, with Block 3 situated at the edge of this disturbance.
To the north of Block 3 in the northeastern portion of the site in the vicinity of Blocks 11, 35, 38, 39, 22, 23 24, 26, 27, 28 and 29, the disturbance appears not to have been as extensive. However, in Block 24, there appears to have been some historic period disturbance in the upper 20-30 centimeters of soil, possibly related to historic agriculture.
SHOVEL TESTING
Of the 134 shovel tests excavated, 72 of them yielded artifacts (Table 3; Figure 17). While artifacts were recovered from the surface to a maximum depth of 110 cmbs within shovel tests, the depths of artifacts in individual shovel tests across the site was highly variable. Further, shovel testing revealed that soil stratigraphy was not consistent across the site and that a relatively high level of ground disturbance has occurred over much of the site. In the most extreme example of disturbance, modern clear bottle glass was found between 80 and 90 cmbs in Shovel Test N500.5 E580.5.

90

D D

D

D

D D
D

D D
D

Figure 15. Contour Map Created via Total Station Survey of Site Area

D D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

29 28

D

D

27 26

30

22

23

24

D

D

39

2

38

37 4

33

12

14
31 20 13

5 11

1

35

3

36

D

D

D

D

D

D D

34
32 19 18

25
21 10 8

D D

D D

16 15
Boat Ramp / Parking

D

D

D D

D

D

7
6 17
9

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

SR 225

D

D D

D

D

D

D

D D D

D

D

D D

D

D

Block Security Fence Old Road Contour (0.5 meter)

0

10

20

p30 m

0

50

100 ft

Source: ESRI Resource Data

Surface Elevation (AMSL) 189.485321 - 190.3991411 190.3991412 - 191.3129612 191.3129613 - 192.2267812 192.2267813 - 193.1406013 193.1406014 - 194.0544213 194.0544214 - 194.9682414 194.9682415 - 195.8820614 195.8820615 - 196.7958815 196.7958816 - 197.7097015

91 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Figure 16. Block Excavations Overlain on 1958 Aerial Photograph of Site Area

D D

D

D

D

D

4 37
12

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

29 28 30

33 14
31 20 13

D

D

D

27

2 5

D D

D D D D
26 22

23

24

39 38

D

11

1

35

3 36

D

D

D

D

D D
D

D

D D
D

D

D

34

D

D

32

19

18

D

D D D

Block

D D

Security

D

p0

D

D

Fence
10 20 m

D D

D

17

0 25 50 ft

D

D

D

D

25 21 10 8
7 6
9

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D D

D

16 15
Boat Ramp / Parking
SR 225

D

D D

D

D

92

D D D D D D D

D

D D D D D D D D D D D

E580.5

E560.5

E570.5
D

D

D

D

D D

D

D

D

D

E460.5

D

D

E470.5 D

E480.5

D

D

[

[

E490.5

D

D

E500.5 D

E510.5

D

D

!

!(

!

E520.5 D

D

E530.5 D

E540.5 D

D

E550.5
D

D

!

!

!

!

#* !
!(

!!(!(!(!!!!(!!(!(!!!(!!!!!(!!!!!!(!!!(!!!!![!!(![!!!(!!(!([!(!(!![ !!(!(!!([!(!!![!!(!(!([!(!(!!!(!(!(!(!([!(!!(!(!([ !(!(!(!([!(!(!(!![!!!(!([ !(!(!!([!(!!!!!(!(!(!(!!(!!!!

[

[

[

[

[

D

D

!( !

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

[

D

D D
D
[

D
!( ! !(
! ! !

D

D

D

D

Coosawattee River

D D

!(

!

N550.5

D

!(

!

N540.5

D

!(

!(

D

N530.5

D

!

!

D

N520.5

!

!

D

N510.5

D

!

!(

D

N500.5

D

D D D
D

D

! Positive Shovel Test

!( Negative Shovel Test
#* N500.5 E500.5

Contour (0.5 meter)

D D

D

Security Fence

D

River

[ [ Old Fence Line

0

Old Road

10

20

30 m

p

D

D

D

D

0

50

100 ft

Figure 17. Results of Shovel Testing

Table 3. Summary of Shovel Tests

Shovel Test
N440.5 E470.5 N440.5 E490.5 N450.5 E450.5 N450.5 E460.5 N450.5 E470.5 N450.5 E480.5 N450.5 E490.5 N450.5 E500.5 N450.5 E510.5 N450.5 E520.5 N450.5 E530.5 N450.5 E540.5 N460.5 E450.5 N460.5 E460.5 N460.5 E470.5 N460.5 E480.5 N460.5 E490.5 N460.5 E500.5 N460.5 E510.5 N460.5 E520.5 N460.5 E530.5 N460.5 E540.5 N470.5 E450.5 N470.5 E460.5 N470.5 E470.5 N470.5 E490.5 N470.5 E500.5 N470.5 E510.5 N470.5 E520.5 N470.5 E530.5 N470.5 E540.5 N472.5 E480.5 N480.5 E450.5 N480.5 E460.5 N480.5 E470.5 N480.5 E480.5 N480.5 E490.5

Total Depth (cmbs) 110 50 110 110 60 110 40 10 5 30 30 10 110 110 110 110 15 15 5 20 20 30 110 110 110 90 20 15 10 10 20 110 100 110 105 110 110

Artifact Depth (cmbs) 40-50 50-60 20-40
0-90
10-30 10-40
20-60 30-40 20-30 10-40 0-60 10-40

Result
Positive Negative Negative Positive Positive Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Positive Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Positive Positive Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

93 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Artifact Count
1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 22 19 5

FCR (wt. in grams) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 260.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.1 641.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.6 0.0 5.4 0.0 104.6 52.0

94

Table 3. Summary of Shovel Tests (Continued)

Shovel Test
N480.5 E500.5 N480.5 E510.5 N480.5 E520.5 N480.5 E530.5 N480.5 E540.5 N490.5 E450.5 N490.5 E460.5 N490.5 E470.5 N490.5 E480.5 N490.5 E490.5 N490.5 E500.5 N490.5 E510.5 N490.5 E520.5 N490.5 E530.5 N490.5 E540.5 N500.5 E450.5 N500.5 E460.5 N500.5 E470.5 N500.5 E480.5 N500.5 E490.5 N500.5 E500.5 N500.5 E510.5 N500.5 E520.5 N500.5 E530.5 N500.5 E540.5 N500.5 E550.5 N500.5 E560.5 N500.5 E570.5 N500.5 E580.5 N510.5 E450.5 N510.5 E460.5 N510.5 E470.5 N510.5 E480.5 N510.5 E490.5 N510.5 E500.5 N510.5 E510.5 N510.5 E520.5

Total Depth (cmbs) 80 25 2 20 30 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 2 50 15 100 110 100 110 110 110 85 25 10 60 95 100 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 10

Artifact Depth (cmbs)
20-30 0-50 10-20 60-70 30-70
20-60 0-40
20-40 50-90 10-20 30-90
0-20 30-40 60-70 20-50

Result
Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Positive Positive Negative Negative Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Negative Positive Positive Positive Negative Positive Negative Negative

Artifact Count
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 6 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 3 6 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0

FCR (wt. in grams) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 149.8 83.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.6 2.8 0.0 48.5 0.0 0.0 46.0 41.4 35.4 0.0 50.9 0.0 0.0

Table 3. Summary of Shovel Tests (Continued)

Shovel Test
N510.5 E530.5 N510.5 E540.5 N510.5 E550.5 N510.5 E560.5 N510.5 E570.5 N510.5 E580.5 N520.5 E450.5 N520.5 E460.5 N520.5 E470.5 N520.5 E480.5 N520.5 E490.5 N520.5 E500.5 N520.5 E510.5 N520.5 E520.5 N520.5 E530.5 N520.5 E540.5 N520.5 E550.5 N520.5 E560.5 N520.5 E570.5 N520.5 E580.5 N530.5 E450.5 N530.5 E460.5 N530.5 E470.5 N530.5 E480.5 N530.5 E490.5 N530.5 E500.5 N530.5 E510.5 N530.5 E520.5 N530.5 E530.5 N530.5 E540.5 N530.5 E550.5 N530.5 E560.5 N530.5 E570.5 N530.5 E580.5 N540.5 E450.5 N540.5 E460.5 N540.5 E470.5

Total Depth (cmbs) 30 66 90 105 100 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 40 30 60 90 110 110 110 110 110 90 60 100 100 30 110 7 105 110 110 110 110 110 100 110 110

Artifact Depth (cmbs) 10-20 0-40 0-30 50-80 10-80 10-90 30-50 20-40 20-40 40-50
10-110 30-40
0-40 0-30 0-40 20-100 30-40 30-70
30-40 50-70
50-60
0-80 0-20 0-20
10-70 10-30 0-50

Result
Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Positive Positive Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Negative Positive Positive Negative Negative Positive Negative Positive Positive Positive Negative Negative Negative Positive Positive Positive

95 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Artifact Count
1 3 9 1 4 5 4 9 4 1 0 15 0 0 4 7 8 2 1 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 4 10 1 0 0 0 3 7 14

FCR (wt. in grams) 3.0 197.0 52.8 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.2 2.8 0.0 52.6 40.5 0.0 0.0 232.7 250.4 22.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 82.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 24.0 332.2 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1006.9 103.3 0.0

96

Table 3. Summary of Shovel Tests (Continued)

Shovel Test
N540.5 E480.5 N540.5 E490.5 N540.5 E500.5 N540.5 E510.5 N540.5 E520.5 N540.5 E530.5 N540.5 E540.5 N540.5 E550.5 N540.5 E560.5 N540.5 E570.5 N540.5 E580.5 N550.5 E460.5 N550.5 E470.5 N550.5 E490.5 N550.5 E500.5 N550.5 E510.5 N550.5 E520.5 N550.5 E530.5 N550.5 E540.5 N550.5 E550.5 N550.5 E560.5 N550.5 E570.5 N550.5 E580.5

Total Depth (cmbs) 110 100 110 25 50 110 110 80 110 110 110 96 110 110 70 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110

Artifact Depth (cmbs) 40-70 20-70 10-80
0-10 20-50 10-70 30-80 20-100
10-20 0-80 0-30 0-100
0-50 0-40 40-80 70-100 60-100
20-30

Result
Positive Positive Positive Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Negative Positive

Artifact Count
2 4 6 0 1 6 6 2 1 0 2 8 5 12 0 11 13 7 3 4 0 0 1

FCR (wt. in grams) 93.1 0.0 326.8 0.0 11.0 27.8 312.0 17.5 388.7 0.0 0.0 37.0 0.0 136.9 0.0 699.5 450.6 22.2 0.0 87.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

There were 332 artifacts recovered from the positive shovel tests, excluding FCR (Figure 18). The highest frequency of artifacts (n=22) occurred in ST N480.5 E470.5, while the second highest frequency (n=19) occurs in the neighboring shovel test to the east (Figure 18). All but six of the artifacts from shovel testing are lithic items (Table 4), with debitage (n=286; consisting of subcategories angular debris, flakes, and flake fragments) constituting approximately 86 percent of the total. The six non-lithic items consist of a single piece of unidentified bone, three sand tempered plain sherds (of unidentified type), a sand tempered rim sherd (unidentified type), and a residual prehistoric sherd. In three cases (Shovel Tests N510.5 E480.5, N520.5 E510.5, and N530.5 E470.5), FCR was the only artifact type recovered from a shovel test. An analysis of the vertical distribution of artifacts within the shovel tests reveals that the highest frequency of artifacts occurred in Level 3 (n=88), which was from 20-30 cmbs, followed by Level 2 (n=65) and Level 4 (n=52) (Table 5).

D
D D

D

D

D

D D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

! !(

D

D

D

!

!

D

D

D

!!

D
!

!(

!!

! !!

!!

!( !(

! !

D D

D

D

D D D

#* !
!(

!!(!(!(!!!(!!(!(!!!(!!!!(!!!!!!(!!!(!!!!!!!(!!!!(!!(!(!(!(!!!!(!(!!(!(!!!!!(!(!(!(!(!!!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!!!!(!(!(!(!(!(!!!!!(!(!(!(!(!!!!

D

!( ! !
!

D

D

D

D

D

!( ! !
!

D

!( ! !
!(

D

D

D

!

!(

D

D

D

D

D D

D

D

D D D D D
D

D

! Positive Shovel Test

D

!( Negative Shovel Test
#* N500.5 E500.5

D

D D

D

Security Fence

D

D

ST Artifact Density

D

0

D

1 - 2

D

2 - 4

D

4 - 6

6 - 8

8 - 10

10 - 12

12 - 14

14 - 16

16 - 18

18 - 20

20 - 22

0

10

20

30 m

p

0

50

100 ft

D

D

D

D

D

PHASE III 97 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

D

D

D

Figure 18. Artifact Density in Shovel Tests

98

Table 4. Lithic Artifacts Recovered from Shovel Tests

Shovel Test

Angular Biface Core Hammerstone Debris

PPK Retouched Flake

ToolUID

Unmodified Utilized Flake Flake

Stone

Flake

Fragment

Total

N440.5 E470.5

1

1

N450.5 E460.5

1

1

N450.5 E470.5

1

1

2

N460.5 E470.5

2

1

1

4

N470.5 E450.5

1

1

2

N470.5 E460.5

2

2

4

N472.5 E480.5

1

1

N480.5 E450.5

1

1

N480.5 E460.5

2

3

5

N480.5 E470.5

6

8

8

22

N480.5 E480.5

4

5

10

19

N480.5 E490.5

2

2

1

5

N490.5 E460.5

2

2

N490.5 E470.5

1

5

1

7

N490.5 E480.5

3

1

1

1

6

N490.5 E490.5

1

1

4

6

N490.5 E500.5

1

1

N500.5 E490.5

1

3

4

N500.5 E500.5

2

1

3

N500.5 E540.5

3

3

N500.5 E550.5

1

1

1

3

6

N500.5 E560.6

1

1

2

N500.5 E570.5

1

1

N510.5 E460.5

2

2

Table 4. Lithic Artifacts Recovered from Shovel Tests (Continued)

Shovel Test
N510.5 E470.5 N510.5 E500.5 N510.5 E530.5 N510.5 E540.5 N510.5 E550.5 N510.5 E560.5 N510.5 E570.5 N510.5 E580.5 N520.5 E450.5 N520.5 E460.5 N520.5 E470.5 N520.5 E480.5 N520.5 E500.5 N520.5 E530.5 N520.5 E540.5 N520.5 E550.5 N520.5 E560.5 N520.5 E570.5 N520.5 E580.5 N520.5 E580.8 N530.5 E480.5 N530.5 E510.5 N530.5 E530.5 N530.5 E540.5 N530.5 E550.5

Angular Debris
1

Biface

Core

1 1

4 1
3
1 2
1 1

1

1

Hammerstone 1

PPK Retouched Flake
1

ToolUID

Unmodified Stone 4
1
1

Utilized Flake Flake
1

1

3

2

2

1

2

3

1

3

4

1

2 2
5 1

Flake Fragment
1 1 3 1 1 4 1 3 1
6 3 3 2
1 2 1 1 4

Total
1 1 1 3 8 1 2 4 4 9 4 1 15 4 7 8 2 1 1 1 4 3 4 9 1

PHASE III 99 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

100

Table 4. Lithic Artifacts Recovered from Shovel Tests (Continued)

Shovel Test
N540.5 E450.5 N540.5 E460.5 N540.5 E470.5 N540.5 E480.5 N540.5 E490.5 N540.5 E500.5 N540.5 E520.5 N540.5 E530.5 N540.5 E540.5 N540.5 E550.5 N540.5 E560.5 N540.5 E580.5 N550.5 E460.5 N550.5 E470.5 N550.5 E490.5 N550.5 E510.5 N550.5 E520.5 N550.5 E530.5 N550.5 E540.5 N550.5 E550.5 N550.5 E580.5 Total

Angular Debris
2 1 1
2
1 1 1 2 6 2
1 1 1
63

Biface Core

1

1

3

3

Hammerstone 1 2

PPK Retouched Flake
0

1

0

ToolUID

Unmodified Stone

1

1

2 1 1

3

2

18

Utilized Flake
1

Flake
3 7 1 3 3 1 4 4

2

2

4

2

4

2

1

1 8 106

Flake Fragment
2 2 5
1 3
2 1
1 2 2 4 3 5 1 1
117

Total
3 7 13 2 4 6 1 6 6 2 1 2 8 4 12 11 12 6 3 4 1 323

101 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Table 5. Artifact Count by Shovel Test Level

Shovel Test
N440.5 E470.5 N450.5 E460.5 N450.5 E470.5 N460.5 E470.5 N470.5 E450.5 N470.5 E460.5 N472.5 E480.5 N480.5 E450.5 N480.5 E460.5 N480.5 E470.5 N480.5 E480.5 N480.5 E490.5 N490.5 E460.5 N490.5 E470.5 N490.5 E480.5 N490.5 E490.5 N490.5 E500.5 N500.5 E490.5 N500.5 E500.5 N500.5 E540.5 N500.5 E550.5 N500.5 E560.6 N500.5 E570.5 N510.5 E460.5 N510.5 E470.5 N510.5 E500.5 N510.5 E530.5 N510.5 E540.5 N510.5 E550.5 N510.5 E560.5 N510.5 E570.5 N510.5 E580.5 N520.5 E450.5 N520.5 E460.5 N520.5 E470.5 N520.5 E480.5

Level

Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

4

1

1

2

1

3

4

1

1

1

1

5

5

7

7

8

22

3

6

4

2

3

1

19

4

1

5

2

2

3

1

2

1

7

6

6

1

4

1

6

1

1

2

1

1

4

1

2

3

3

3

2

2

1

1

6

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

3

6

9

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

1

1

2

5

3

1

4

6

3

9

3

1

4

1

1

102

Table 5. Artifact Count by Shovel Test Level (Continued)

Shovel Test
N520.5 E500.5 N520.5 E530.5 N520.5 E540.5 N520.5 E550.5 N520.5 E560.5 N520.5 E570.5 N520.5 E580.5 N520.5 E580.8 N530.5 E480.5 N530.5 E510.5 N530.5 E530.5 N530.5 E540.5 N530.5 E550.5 N540.5 E450.5 N540.5 E460.5 N540.5 E470.5 N540.5 E480.5 N540.5 E490.5 N540.5 E500.5 N540.5 E520.5 N540.5 E530.5 N540.5 E540.5 N540.5 E550.5 N540.5 E560.5 N540.5 E580.5 N550.5 E460.5 N550.5 E470.5 N550.5 E490.5 N550.5 E510.5 N550.5 E520.5 N550.5 E530.5 N550.5 E540.5 N550.5 E550.5 N550.5 E580.5
Total

Level

Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11

1

1

3

2

1

3

1

2

1

15

1

1

2

4

2

3

2

7

2

4

1

1

8

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

4

3

3

2

2

4

4

5

1

10

1

1

1

2

3

5

2

7

1

3

3

5

2

14

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

4

1

1

2

2

6

1

1

2

1

3

6

2

2

1

1

6

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

6

2

8

2

1

2

5

1

4

6

1

12

1

8

2

11

2

1

6

4

13

5

2

7

1

1

1

3

1

3

4

1

1

33 65 88 52 26 26 20

9

6

7 0 332

103 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

As a result of shovel testing, several areas of the site were identified as having the potential for deeply buried and/or intact archaeological deposits, while other areas were indicated to be highly disturbed. The former included the northeastern portion of the site where the soils appeared to represent deep alluvial soils with the potential for deeply buried remains, the northwest corner of the site, and the N480 E470-480 area of the site. Conversely, the southern portion of the site south of the old road embankment and east of the E500 line was found to essentially lack archaeological deposits (see Figure 17).

BLOCK EXCAVATION
Blocks, numbered in the order they were established at the site, were distributed on the basis of the shovel test results and some were placed in order to explore the archaeological record across the site (see Figure 13). A total of 39 blocks were excavated, and included those that were solely machine excavated with a smooth-bucketed backhoe (n=27), blocks that were only hand excavated via test unit excavation (n=5), and those that were a combination of the two (n=7). Blocks in areas deemed to have a high potential for cultural features and deposits were excavated manually through a series of test units while other blocks were excavated without test units and instead were mechanically stripped. Blocks without test units are discussed first and are followed by a discussion of the test unit blocks.

Features identified during the excavation are presented in this chapter within the relevant block discussion. A total of 39 features were documented (Table 6), with 21 of these of likely cultural origin, 17 of probable natural origin, and one of indeterminate origin.

Table 6. Features Identified During Data Recovery of 9GO297

Feature Block

3

1

4

1

5

2

6

5

7

5

TU
2 3, 6 14, 17 46 46

Feature Expression Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly Large Rocks (2) FCR Cluster Soil Anomaly

8

1

5

Large Rock

9

5

36, 37, 40, 41

FCR Cluster

10

5

51

Soil Anomaly

11

5

51

Soil Anomaly

12

5

53

Soil Anomaly

13

5

36

Soil Anomaly

Feature Interpretation
Tree Tree Hammerstone & anvil FCR Cluster Tree Groundstone (?abrader/anvil?) FCR Cluster Tree Tree Tree Tree

Probable Origin
Natural Natural Cultural Cultural Natural
Cultural Cultural Natural Natural Natural Natural

104

Table 6. Features Identified During Data Recovery of 9GO297 (Continued)

Feature Block

14

5

15

5

16

16

17

18

18

4

19

19

20

19

21

24

22

28

23

28

24

28

25

28

26

26

27

23

28

28

29

16

30

16

31

16

32

16

33

16

34

16

35

16

36

16

37

27

38

37

39

37

40a

23

40b

23

41

23

TU
36 42 NA NA 19
59 67 133 153 153 153 151 109, 110 116 155 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 144, 145 165 162, 164, 165 105-110, 112, 113 112, 113 108

Feature Expression Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly FCR Cluster Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly & FCR Cluster Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly FCR Cluster Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly FCR Cluster Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly FCR Cluster Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly Soil Anomaly

Feature Interpretation
Tree Tree Post (historic) FCR Cluster Tree or pit
Tree and redeposited FCR Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree
FCR Cluster Post Tree
FCR Cluster Post (historic) Post (historic) Post (historic) Post (historic) Post (historic) Post (historic) Post (historic) Post (historic)
Tree Post FCR Cluster Pit Post Flood-deposited sediments?

Probable Origin
Natural Natural Cultural Cultural Unknown
Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Cultural Cultural Natural Cultural Cultural Cultural Cultural Cultural Cultural Cultural Cultural Cultural Natural Cultural Cultural Cultural Cultural Natural

BLOCKS WITHOUT TEST UNITS
Block 6
Block 6 was located in the south central portion of the project area, west of Block 7 (Figure 19a). It was oriented east/west and measured approximately 3x5 meters, for a total stripped area of 15.3 square meters. Excavations were extremely shallow (less than 5 cm) with dark yellowish

105 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 19. Photographs of Blocks 6 and 7
A. Block 6 After Excavation, Facing East
B. Block 7 After Excavation, Facing South

106
brown (10YR 4/4) clay subsoil present just below the leaf litter. A change in subsoil was observed in the northwest corner, which exhibited dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) clay mottled with the primary strong brown (7.5YR 4/8) clay. The southern portion of the project area was used as a borrow pit in the early 1950s for the construction of Highway 225, and as a result, no intact soils remain. No cultural features or artifacts were observed during excavation of this block.
Block 7
Block 7 was located in the south central portion of the project area, east of Block 6 (Figure 19b). The block was oriented north/south and measured roughly 3x5 meters, of a total area of 17 square meters. The soil profile was extremely shallow (less than 5 cm) with strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) clay mottled with reddish brown (7.5YR 4/4) clay subsoil present just below the leaf litter. Eroded siltstone was also observed in the block. As this portion of the project area was used as a borrow pit in the early 1950s for the construction of Highway 225, no intact soils or archaeological deposits remain in this location. No cultural features or artifacts were observed during excavation of this block.
Block 8
Block 8 was located near the center of the project area, just west of Block 10 (Figure 20a). The block was oriented north/south and measured approximately 3x5 meters, for a total area of 15.3 square meters. The soil profile was extremely shallow (less than 3 cm) with strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) clay mottled with dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) clay subsoil present just below the leaf litter. Eroded siltstone was also observed throughout the block. Several tree root stains were observed at the base of the unit. The southern portion of the project area was used as a borrow pit in the early 1950s for the construction of Highway 225, and as a result, no archaeological deposits remain. No cultural features or artifacts were observed during excavation of this block.
Block 9
Block 9 was located in the southern most portion of the project area along the powerline corridor (Figure 20b). The block was oriented east/west and measured roughly 3.5x5 meters, for a total area of 18 square meters. The soil profile was extremely shallow (less than 5 cm) with yellowish red (5YR 5/6) clay mottled with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) and yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) clay subsoil present just below the leaf litter. Eroded siltstone was also observed throughout the block. The southern portion of the project area was used as a borrow pit in the early 1950s for the construction of Highway 225, and as a result, no intact soils remain. No cultural features or artifacts were observed during excavations.

107 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 20. Photographs of Block 8 and 9
A. Block 8 After Excavation, Facing North
B. Block 9 After Excavation, Facing East

108
Block 10
Block 10 was located near the center of the project area to the east of Block 8 at the top of the slope along the western edge of the T2 terrace. This block was a trench was placed perpendicular to and on the south side of the road embankment in a northeast/southwest alignment. It measured roughly 1.5x5 meters (7.4 m2) and was excavated to a depth of approximately 300 centimeters. The block was excavated to this depth in order to determine how deep the siltstone might extend and if any other soil zones were present underneath this zone. The soil profile showed strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) clay mottled with dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) clay subsoil just below the leaf litter (Figure 21). Eroded siltstone was immediately under the leaf litter and recent humus layer, and extended to the base of the block. The T1 terrace southwest of Block 10 is disturbed and appears to be a borrow area, possibly related to construction of State Road 225. The soil survey mapped this area as disturbed soils. No archaeological strata were identified within this block, and no cultural features or artifacts were identified during excavation of this block.
Block 11
Block 11 was located along the eastern edge of the project area on the east side of the T2 terrace along the Coosawattee River (Figure 22a). The block was oriented east/west and measured roughly 3x5 meters (16.1 m2) in size (Figure 22b). The majority of the trench-shaped block was excavated to a maximum depth of 170 centimeters, while testing in the eastern end reached a maximum depth of 235 centimeters. The soil profile of Block 11 revealed 20 centimeters of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) loam over approximately 25 centimeters of yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy loam atop approximately 60 centimeters of yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) silty loam; below this to the base of the excavation, the soil profile revealed brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) silty loam. According to the geomorphological study, the soil profile at Block 11 included an Ahorizon over a transitional A/B-horizon down to a depth of 45 centimeters. Cultural deposits and a soil anomaly were recorded in the top of the A/B-horizon at a depth of 20-25 centimeters. The lower profile includes a Bw-horizon above an older Bt-horizon. Soil in the base of the profile consisted of a transitional B/C-Horizon (143-177 cm). Polygonal cracking was recorded in the silty alluvium below a depth of 150 centimeters. The trench was excavated to a total depth of 2.35 meters after the profile was described. The purpose of over-excavating the trench was to assess the thickness of alluvial deposits in this area of the terrace and look for buried soils. The B/C-horizon appeared to continue to 2.35 meters with the percent sand increasing with depth. The A/B-horizon was the land surface at the time that the cultural horizon formed in Block 11. The cambic B-horizon over the illuvial Bt-horizon indicates an aggrading landform. Polygonal cracking similar to that recorded in the lower Bt-horizon have been dated to the late Pleistocene. These remnant soil structures are interpreted to have formed by desiccation and thermal contraction during the cold dry climate in the southeast between 16,000 and 20,000 year ago (Seramur and Cowan 2007).

109 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 21. Photograph of Northern Profile of Block 10, Facing North-Northeast

110
Figure 22. Plan View and Photograph of Block 11
A. Oblique View of Block 11, Facing South

4.5m

2.8m

.6m
.6m
1m

2.3m
at deepest
.6m

9GO297 Block 11 Trench, Oblique
B. Eastern Portion of Block 11, Facing East

111 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
At approximately 20 cmbs, a soil anomaly was noted that consisted of an amorphous area of reddish brown clayey sand mottled with the surrounding matrix soil and with a hardened compactness that may have been a result of burning or heating. However, no charcoal was identified in association with this anomaly. This anomaly extended to approximately 25 cmbs. Investigation of this anomaly revealed a low frequency of lithic debitage (n=5), a chunk of oolitic Ridge and Valley chert, and scattered FCR (n=3) in rough association, as well as modern trash. Four sediment samples were collected in and around this feature for measurement of magnetic susceptibility. The MS values of these samples were all below 1x10-6 m3/kg, which is relatively low. The sample from the feature matrix and the sample 30 centimeters to the east had the highest MS values. This anomaly may have represented a cultural feature that was disturbed by historic land clearing and plowing, as well as more modern activities, although it was also postulated that it might be the result of historic or recent activity. Due to the obvious disturbance to this potential cultural feature, it was not investigated further and mechanical stripping continued.
Below this soil anomaly, from 25-45 cmbs, two widely separated and non-associated FCR were observed while stripping at approximately 40 cmbs. At approximately 45 cmbs, three FCR were found in relatively close proximity to each other within a 40-centimeter radius. At this same level, the soil changed from the A/B-horizon that contained these artifacts to a Bw horizon that yielded no artifacts. Continued stripping below the Bw horizon to the final depth of the block failed to identify any artifacts or other archaeological deposits.
One of the artifacts identified within this block was collected, consisting of a large chunk of oolitic Ridge and Valley chert, while the other artifacts noted above were examined in the field and not collected.
Block 12
Block 12 was placed in the northwest portion of the project area at the edge of the slope down towards the New Town Creek (Figure 23). The block was oriented roughly east/west and was approximately 2.5x4.5 meters (11.4 m2) in size. It was excavated to a maximum depth of 125 cmbs. The soil profile revealed approximately 15 centimeters of dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) clay loam over approximately 20 centimeters of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) clay loam, atop approximately 15 centimeters of yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) loamy clay atop brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) clay. The project geomorphologist identified alluvium in the block as clayey silt. An A-horizon and E-horizon were recorded in the upper 52 centimeters of the Block 12 profile. A buried A-horizon (Ab) was recorded at a depth of 52-70 centimeters. Transitional 2E/B- and 2Bt-horizons were recorded in the base of the profile. The 2Bt-horizon showed good ped development and was very stiff. No artifacts were observed during stripping until 60 cmbs, when a Ridge and Valley chert biface fragment, an unmodified quartz cobble, and

112 Figure 23.
Photographs of Block 12 A. Excavation of Block 12, Facing West-Southwest
B. Schist Groundstone Artifact In Situ in Block 12, Facing South

113 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
a schist groundstone artifact were observed; the quartz cobble was discarded while the other two items were collected (Figure 23b). Upon continuation of stripping, an unmodified Ridge and Valley chert cobble and two pieces of FCR were observed from between 60 and 85 cmbs; these items were discarded in the field. No other artifacts were identified below 85 cmbs. The soil became extremely compact at approximately 90 cmbs and became even more so with depth until excavation with the backhoe ceased at 125 cmbs. Upon halting backhoe excavation, a bucket augur was used to probe the base of the block to determine whether deeper cultural deposits might be present. Augering extended 90 centimeters to a total depth of 215 centimeters below the original ground surface, where it was discontinued when a siltstone lens was encountered; weathered rock was encountered at a depth of about 180 centimeters. No archaeological deposits were encountered as a result of this augering.
Block 13
Block 13, located in the north central portion of the project area, was placed in the area of the highest artifact density as found during shovel testing and to investigate the potential and nature of the deposits in relation to the old roadbed embankment (Figure 24a). It was oriented northeast/southwest and was roughly 2.7x6.3 meters (16.7 m2) in size. The block was placed perpendicular to the road embankment and extended from the base of it on the southwestern end of the block to the top of it on the northeastern end of the block, a difference of 117 centimeters. The block was excavated to a maximum depth of approximately 250 centimeters below the highest elevation.
The soil profile showed that unlike in Block 10 (see Figure 21), this portion of the road was built using fill, which overlies a possible colluvium that may represent a mixture of A-horizon material and small fragments of siltstone that eroded down slope (towards the southwest) when the area was actively plowed prior to the road (Figure 24b). Seventy centimeters of a gravelly, strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) fill material was recorded in the top of the profile. A bed of colluvium or older fill of a yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) material extended from a depth of 65-135 centimeters. A buried A-horizon of dark brown (10YR 3/3) loam containing charcoal and possible lithic debitage was recorded below the colluvium at a depth of 135-150 centimeters. Transitional A/E and E/B-horizons of a dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) color separated the buried A-horizon from the Bt-horizon in the base of the profile. The geomorphologist agreed with the Principal Investigator that the dark color (10YR 3/3 dark brown) of this buried Ahorizon was indicative of a midden or cultural occupation surface.
Two Ridge and Valley chert cores, a core/spokeshave, along with a piece of quartzite FCR were recovered from the stripped sediments at this level, and stripping was ceased in order to place a shovel test at this level; of these artifacts, all but the FCR were collected. The shovel test yielded

114 A. Block 13, Facing Northeast

Figure 24. Photographs of Block 13

<

Base of Embankment

B. Block 13 West Profile, Facing West-Northwest

115 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
three pieces of Ridge and Valley chert debitage in the first 10-centimeter level, and a single piece of the same from between 10 and 20 centimeters below this stripped surface; all of these artifacts were collected. The 20-30-centimeter and 30-40-centimeter shovel test levels were sterile for artifacts, and this sterility corresponded with a lightening in the soil color (10YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown) and an increase in the clay content. Due to the possible midden exposed in this block and Block 14 (see below), Block 20 (see below) was later excavated on the north and east side of this block.
Block 14
Block 14 was placed approximately three meters northeast of Block 13 on top of the old roadbed in an attempt to follow the buried A-horizon/possible midden uncovered in Block 13. The trench was oriented northeast/southwest and was approximately 1x6 meters (4.9 m2) in size. Excavations reached a maximum depth of 157 cmbs. Trenching showed a soil profile similar to Block 13. The strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) road fill overlay a level of yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) colluvium, which overlay a dark brown (10YR 3/3) buried A-horizon. According to the geomorphology study, the profile is capped with two layers of fill material that extend to a depth of 89 centimeters. The buried A-horizon was recorded from the base of the fill material to a depth of 105 cmbs. Below this is a transitional A/B-horizon over a Bw-horizon of a dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) color. Cultural material was recorded in the Ab- and A/E-horizons between depths of 90 and 130 centimeters.
Two artifacts were observed and collected from this block. At the interface of the road fill with the buried A-horizon, a Ridge and Valley chert biface was recovered, while a check stamped sherd was recovered from the dark brown (10YR 3/3) A-horizon. The presence of the sherd and the potentially intact deposits identified in this block and nearby Block 13 suggested this area had the potential for the presence of significant archaeological deposits, and thus this area was chosen for test unit excavation; please see the discussion of Block 20 below for information on the test units excavated in this area of the site.
Block 15
Block 15 was located in the southeast corner of the project area just north of the boat ramp. The block was oriented northwest/southeast and measured approximately 1.5x4.5 meters (6.6 m2) in size, and was excavated to a maximum depth of 150 centimeters (Figure 25). The soil profile showed roughly 70 centimeters of modern fill over a thin (10 cm) dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) silty clay buried A-horizon. Below the A-horizon was a 20-centimeter level of strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) coarse sandy clay over yellowish red (5YR 4/6) bedrock. No artifacts or features were observed in the block. This block revealed that this location of the site has been very heavily disturbed, most likely relating to the construction of the boat ramp. The fill that overlay the older horizons had non-historic modern trash within it.

116
Figure 25. Photograph of South Profile of Block 15

117 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Block 16
Block 16 was placed perpendicular to Block 15 in an attempt to follow the bedrock and to determine whether it formed a natural platform for a precontact living surface (Figures 26a and 26b). The block was oriented northeast/southwest and its finished dimensions measured a maximum of 4.3x11.6 meters (37.3 m2) in size. Excavations reached a maximum depth of 210 centimeters below the ground surface. The stripping and the soil profile revealed that the location had been heavily disturbed through historic and more modern activities (Figure 26c). The upper 80 centimeters of soil were composed of modern fill and refuse in a yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) loam matrix. Below this was a disturbed buried A-horizon of a dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) color, below which was a zone of bedrock colluvium strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) in color, which in turn overlay another buried A-horizon of the same color as the one above it. This upper A-horizon extended from a depth of 80-105 centimeters and included some fill material and gravels; the thickness of the A-horizon did not vary across the trench but it sloped to the northeast. A bed of strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) colluvium separates the upper A-horizon from a buried dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) A-horizon recorded at a depth of 142-163 centimeters. The colluvium lacked gravels but contained abundant coarse sand to granule sized clasts. The colluvium has a sloping upper surface, but the lower contact with the buried soil is horizontal. Siltstone gravels were present in the buried A-horizon. A strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) Bt-horizon was recorded between depths of 163 and 200 centimeters.
During the mechanical excavation of the block, non-historic modern items were found mixed with a small number of precontact artifacts within the heavily disturbed zones extending from the surface down to at least 105 cmbs. While none of the modern items were collected, three precontact items were recovered during stripping activities and investigation of the block. A single Ridge and Valley chert projectile point fragment (non-typable) was collected from 75 cmbs, within a zone of modern fill and refuse. A Ridge and Valley chert biface and a nondiagnostic weathered sand tempered sherd were recovered approximately 100 cmbs while stripping the block.
Feature 16, along with Features 29 through 36, were all identified within Block 16 (Figure 27). Each of these features was similar to the others in shape and fill, and almost certainly function. Features 29-36 were all located relatively close to each other, while Feature 16 is offset approximately a meter to the west from the others. Feature 16 was identified during the stripping of Block 16 as a roughly circular yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) clay with sparse bits of charcoal among the dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) clay loam matrix of the block. The feature was identified approximately 185 centimeters below the surface. When it was identified, a couple of Ridge and Valley chert flakes were observed near the feature. Upon investigation, the plan of the feature resolved into a square shape. The feature was bisected with the northeastern half excavated; the feature extended 30 cmbs where it was identified (Figure 28a). The excavator

118
A. Block 16 Excavation Showing Modern Trash and Fill, Facing North

Figure 26. Photographs of Block 16

B. Block 16 Excavation, Facing Southeast

C. Southeast Soil Profile of Block 16

119 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 27. Plan View and Photograph of Features 16 and 29-36
A. Plan View of Features 16 and 29 through 36

34

32

16

31

33

29

30 36

Block

Feature

Base of Block Wall

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

pShovel Test 1m

35

B. Photograph of Features 29-36, Facing North

120

I

I

II

Figure 28. Profiles of Feature 16 and Feature 29
A. Feature 16

Block 16, Feature 16

I = 7.5YR 4/4 (Brown) Silty Clay with Frequent Siltstone Inclusions II = 7.5YR 3/3 (Dark Brown) Silty Clay with Frequent Siltstone Inclusions

Charcoal Rocks

0

10 Centimeters

I

II

III

B. Feature 29

Block 16, Feature 29, North Pro le
I = 10YR 5/8 (Brown) Tamping Clay II = Plow Zone 10YR 3/2 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay Loam with Smal Pieces of Siltstone III = Rotting Post/Wood

0

8 Centimeters

121 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
noted that the profile and the plan views after excavation revealed well-defined boundaries with right angles. Six flakes and six flake fragments of Ridge and Valley chert were recovered in association with Feature 16.
Located approximately 205 cmbs in the base of the stripped block, Features 29 through 36 were also somewhat amorphous in plan view. However, several of these (Features 29, 31, 32, and 36) contained rotting wood in or near the center of the feature fill. As observable in Figure 28b, Feature 29 was bisected during stripping, thereby providing a profile view of this rotting wood within one of these features. No artifacts were recovered from Features 29 through 36.
Two flotation samples totaling 18 liters were collected from within the fill of Feature 16. The abundant macrofloral assemblage consisted of 102.36 grams of wood charcoal with a very high weight density of 5.687 grams of wood per liter of floated soil. Juglandaceae shell, acorn shell, and seeds were completely absent from this soil column (Appendix C, Tables 13-14). The high density of wood charcoal found within the feature fill may represent cultural material from prehistoric burning activities. It is also possible that this extremely dense carbon deposit represents an ancient burned tree root stain.
Based on the nature of the fill of Features 16 and 29-36, it appears that all of these were related to the same construction event. The uppermost depth of one of the features, Feature 16, was recognized at 185 cmbs, while the remaining features were identified in the base of the stripped block approximately 20 centimeters below the top of Feature 16. These features represent the remains of wooden posts that were inserted into excavated holes in the ground and subsequently surrounded by clay that was tamped down to hold them in place. While no test units were excavated in this block due to the very high degree of disturbance, the presence of modern and near-historic trash within the buried A horizon overlying these features, the squared shape of the posts, and the rotting wood within several of them indicate that these posts were historic in origin. Their precise function is unknown, as no structures are observable on 1942, 1950, or 1958 historic aerial photographs of this location. However, their spacing and the lack of other similar features in the block suggest they were not part of a formal structure. They may have been related to access to the river, as the boat ramp is located approximately 20 meters south, but this is conjectural as there is no supporting evidence.
A shovel test was excavated beginning at the surface where Features 29 through 36 were identified. The shovel test was excavated in 10-centimeter levels for a total of seven levels, after which the base of the shovel test (at approximately 275 cmbs) was augered using a bucket auger to a total depth of 385 cmbs. All artifacts from this shovel test were debitage of Ridge and Valley chert, with the exception of two pieces of unidentified chert in Level 2 and a single piece of Fort Payne chert in Level 3 (Table 7). The sediments removed during augering did not yield any artifacts and revealed them as subsoil.

122

Table 7. Summary of Block 16 Shovel Test Results

Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Total

Angular Debris 2 1
3

Flake 2 1 7 3 1 1
15

Flake fragment 1 6 5 1 1 3 3
20

Total 3 9
13 4 2 4 3
38

Based on the overall high level of disturbance evident within Block 16, it was decided that test unit excavation would not be worthwhile. While several modern or young historic post features were documented within the block, these historic posts provide additional evidence that the buried A horizon and Bt strata that contain precontact deposits in this location have been impacted by young historic and modern activities. After the excavation of these features, no additional excavations were conducted within this block because we felt we had spent considerable time and effort within this block in an attempt to identify intact and significant precontact deposits without positive results.
Block 17
Block 17 was located in the southwestern corner of the project area, southwest of Block 6 (Figure 29). It was placed perpendicular to the assumed edge of the 1950s-era borrow pit. The block was oriented northeast/southwest and was roughly 1.5x8 meters (12.8 m2) in size. Excavations reached a maximum depth of 175 centimeters below ground surface. The soil profile showed 35 centimeters of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty loam (A-horizon) over strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) clay silt, over yellowish red (5YR 5/6) clay silt subsoil. No cultural features or artifacts were observed during excavations.
According to the geomorphological study (Appendix B), Block 17 was excavated into the southwestern edge of the T1 terrace. The excavation block extended to the edge of the slope down to the T0 terrace. Thick soils were recorded in this block profile. The A-horizon extended to a depth of 35 cmbs. A stratified Bt-horizon was recorded directly below the A-horizon between depths of 35 and 125 cmbs. Dispersed gravels were observed in the Bt1- and Bt2horizons. A gravel bed separated the younger soil from an older 2Bt-horizon at a depth of 137 cmbs. Several boulders up 40 centimeters in diameter came out of the excavation at different depths.

A. Southeast Profile of Block 17
Stripped Surface

123 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 29. Plan View and Photograph of Block 17

North Pro le, Block 28
I = A, 10YR 4/4 (Weak Red) Silty Loam II = Bt Horizon Granular Reds with Dispersed Peddles and Cobbles,
7.5YR 4/6 (Strong Brown) Clay Silt III = Bt2, Dispersed Pebbles and Cobbles, 5YR5/6 ( Yellowish Red) Clay Silt IV = C Horizon Gravel Bed Matrix Supported by Gravel sized 5YR 5/6
(Yellowish Red) V = 2Bt Horizon Gravelly, with some Cobbles and Boulders Weathered
Siltstone, 5YR 5/6 (Yellowish Red) mottled with 10YR 7/4 (Very Pale Brown)

0

20 Centimeters

B. Photograph of Block 17, Facing East Northeast

124
The buried soil (2Bt-horizon) in Block 17 is interpreted to be a Pleistocene soil. The gravel bed above this soil could have been deposited during the Last Glacial Maximum when the climate in the southeastern U.S. was cold and dry. The Bt2-horizon in the upper soil profile could date to the terminal Pleistocene or early Holocene.
As the T1 terrace aggraded the zone of illuviation shifted up through the profile and the Bt1horizon developed, possibly as a mid-Holocene soil. The boulders found in these terrace deposits could be related to tree rafting. Trees ripped up during high magnitude flood events can transport cobbles and boulders in their tree roots. These trees could have been transported up New Town Creek and been deposited along the edge of the T1 terrace at the location of Block 17.
Block 18
Block 18 was placed in the southwestern quadrant of the site north of a small gully (Figure 30). Shovel testing in the immediate vicinity indicated the presence of unusual soil stratigraphy. Block 18 was used to explore these soils. The block was oriented roughly east/west and was approximately 2x18 meters (13.4 m2) in size. Excavations reached a maximum depth of 145 centimeters below ground surface. The soil profile showed approximately 40 centimeters of strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) clay fill with a high concentration of siltstone over a buried A-horizon (dark yellowish brown 10YR 3/6 clay loam), over strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) loamy clay, over brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) clay subsoil. The geomorphological analysis (see Appendix B) suggests that the upper surface of the A-horizon has been disturbed. Block 18 was excavated into the T1 terrace north of Block 17. A buried soil was recorded below 45 centimeters of fill material. This soil includes an A-horizon and transitional A/E-horizon over two B-horizons. Cultural material was recorded in the A-horizon. The B-horizons include a cambic Bw-horizon between depths of 100 and 132 centimeters and a gleyed Btg-horizon in the base of the profile. The gleyed Btg-horizon is evidence of saturated soils and a high water table in the T1 terrace.
As suggested by the analysis of the stratigraphy of adjoining Block 19 in which test units were excavated (see below), this A-horizon may have been very highly disturbed throughout. In that block, there were numerous branched/dendritic linear features at the interface between the Ahorizon and the underlying B horizon, all of which lead southward toward the erosional gully located approximately eight meters south of the block. Also, the southern profile of Block 19 revealed a distinct break between the A-horizon and the underlying B horizon, although such a break was not apparent in the profile of Block 18. Regardless, evidence suggests that the Ahorizon at this location has been disturbed to some extent, and the linear stains indicate that the A-horizon at this location lacks archaeological integrity. Two Ridge and Valley chert bifaces were recovered from the block during stripping, one within the fill zone at 10 cmbs and the other at the interface of the fill and the buried A-horizon.

A. South Profile of Block 18
Stripped Surface

125 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 30. Plan View and Photograph of Block 18

Block 18, South Pro le
I = Fill- 7.5YR 5/6 (Brown) Clay with High Concentration of Siltstone II = 10YR 3/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay Loam III = 7.5YR4/6 (Strong Brown) Loamy Clay IV = 10YR6/6 (Brownish Yellow) Clay

B. Photograph of Block 18, Facing West

0

20 Centimeters

126
Feature 17 was identified within Block 18 and represents a loose clustering of FCR (Figure 31). This feature was identified during stripping at approximately 50 cmbs. The FCR spans an area of approximately one meter within the long axis of the block, while it appears to extend to the north and south outside of the 60-centimeter wide block. The feature lay at the interface of the subsoil and an A-horizon that was buried by fill sediments, which appear to be related to the 1950s, borrow pit activity. Two linear north-south oriented soil anomalies appear in the subsoil below these FCR, the width of which are suggestive of either vehicle tires or erosional gullies rather than a plow scar; given the proximity of the erosional gully immediately south of the block and the evidence for gullying as observable in a 1958 aerial photograph (see Figure 6), it is likely that these are erosional gullies. Thus, it appears that this FCR cluster has been heavily disturbed by historic period activities (plowing, borrow pit activity), and that these FCR are almost certainly not in situ. There were 14 FCR collectively weighing 1,886 grams were recovered from the feature. A single, 1-liter soil sample was collected for flotation from Feature 17. Flotation yielded 0.01 grams of wood charcoal with a low weight density of 0.010 grams per liter. Juglandaceae shell, acorn shell, and seeds were completely absent from this soil column (Appendix C, Tables 13-14). Given the highly disturbed nature of this feature context, it is quite likely the small quantity of wood charcoal originated from historic burning and not prehistoric activities. While no other artifacts were found in direct association with this feature, a Ridge and Valley chert biface (Piece Plot 9) was recovered from this block approximately 90 centimeters west of the western edge of this feature and 10 cmbs within the fill that overlay the disturbed buried A-horizon.
Block 21
Block 21 was placed east of the central portion of the project area within the old roadbed in order to determine if any archaeological deposits underlay the road (Figure 32). The block was oriented northeast/southwest and measured roughly 1.7x5.6 meters (9.8 m2) in size. Excavations reached a maximum depth of 102 centimeters below ground surface. The soil profile showed dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) silty loam over strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) silty clay over yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) clay subsoil. The project geomorphologist noted that the silty loam A-horizon on top of the silty clay B horizon indicates that the A-horizon eroded or deflated and then regenerated (see Appendix B). The top of the profile at Block 21 consisted of fill material over an A-horizon of clayey silt with gravel. A cambic Bw-horizon was recorded from a depth of 33-59 centimeters. An alluvial sandy silt or C-horizon extended from 55 centimeters to the base of the profile at 100 centimeters. The top of the Bw-horizon in Block 21 is interpreted as an erosional surface. The gravelly A-horizon appears disturbed and is likely formed in sediment much younger than the Bw-horizon. Gravel in the A-horizon is probably from construction of the present State Road 225. No artifacts or cultural features were identified during excavation.

A. Feature 17, Facing South

127 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 31. Photographs of Feature 17

B. Feature 17, Facing West

128
B. Southeast Profile of Block 21

Figure 32. Plan View and Photograph of Block 21
I II III

Block 21, Southeast Pro le

I = 10YR 3/4 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay Loam II = 7.5YR 5/6 (Strong Brown) Clay Loam III = 10YR 5/8 (Yellowish Brown) FeMg Concentrations

0

20 Centimeters

A. Photograph of Southeast Profile

129 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Block 22
Block 22 was placed in the northeast corner of the project area (Figure 33). The block was oriented north/south and measured approximately 0.6x5 meters (3.3 m2) in size. Excavation reached a maximum depth of 290 centimeters, and the block was excavated to this depth in order to search for deeply buried archaeological deposits; specifically, the Principal Investigator and the project geomorphologist wanted to explore the possibility of very deeply buried deposits in this location due to the alluvial deposition context of this location. The soil profile showed a 020 centimeter dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) silty loam plow zone over a very deep dark brown (10YR 3/3) sandy silty loam horizon that had the dark color of an archaeological lens. (A measured full profile of this block was not done due to the safety risks of such a deep and narrow trench). Specifically, the color and texture of the dark brown lens suggested its potential as a midden, even though no artifacts or cultural features were identified during stripping. Because of this potential, Blocks 23 and 24, both of which were test unit blocks, were placed immediately to the west and east of Block 22 respectively to explore the archaeological deposits of this area of the site.
Block 25
Block 25 was placed just west of Block 21 to determine if archaeological deposits were present under the old roadbed (Figure 34). The block was oriented northeast/southwest, perpendicular to the roadbed. It measured approximately 1x4.5 meters (4.1 m2) in size and reached a maximum depth of 45 centimeters. The soil profile showed a thin layer of black (10YR 2/1) organic humus over highly mottled strong brown (7.5YR 5/8), reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/8), and yellowish red (5YR 5/8) clay subsoil. The geomorphological analysis of Block 21 located three meters to the west that was also in the roadbed revealed that this location has been heavily disturbed; this block exhibited a similar disturbance. No archaeological deposits, features, or artifacts were observed in the block.
Block 26
Block 26 was located in the northeast corner of the project area along the northern fence line (Figure 35). It was oriented roughly north/south and measured approximately 1.5x3.8 meters (5.9 m2) in size. Excavations reached a maximum depth of 170 centimeters. The soil profile showed a very thin root mat over dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) fine sandy silty loam, over dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) fine sandy silty loam, over dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty clay loam, over dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty clay loam mottled with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) silty clay loam, over dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) silty clay loam. Geomorphologist Keith Seramur noted very distinct breaks between the upper stratigraphic layers (A-B and B-C)

130 A. Photograph of Block 22, Facing South

Figure 33. Photographs of Block 22

B. Photograph Across Block 23 Showing Block 22 in Center and Block 24 in Background, Facing East

A. South Profile of Block 25 I

131 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 34. Plan View and Photograph of Block 25

II II
B. Photograph of Block 25 During Excavation, Facing Northeast

Block 25, Southwest Pro le
I = Black Organic Mat, C Horizon II = Mixed and Mottled Pink, Yellow, and Cream
Colored Clays with a Few Pebbles

0

20 Centimeters

132 A. North Profile of Block 26
I

Figure 35. Plan View and Photograph of Block 26

II
III
B. Photograph of Block 26, Facing North

IV

V

Block 26, North Pro le
I = 10YR 3/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Fine Sandy Silty Loam II = 10YR 3/4 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Fine Sandy Silty Loam and Clay III = 10YR 3/3 (Dark Brown) Silty Clay Loam IV = 10YR 3/3 (Dark Brown) Silty Clay with Large Mottles of
10YR 4/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Silty Clay Loam V = 10YR 3/6 Silty (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay
Loam (Less Clay Content Than IV)

0

20 Centimeters

133 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
but a gradual change between levels C and D. Stratum C (dark brown, 10YR 3/3, silty clay loam) was thought to have the greatest potential for archaeological materials, however no artifacts or features were found during stripping and investigation of the profile.
Block 29
Block 29 was located towards the center of the T2 terrace in the north central portion of the project area a few meters south of the security fence (Figure 36). The block was oriented roughly north/south and measured approximately 1.5x5.7 meters (7.9 m2) in size. Excavations reached a maximum depth of 166 centimeters. The soil profile showed four stratigraphic levels. The upper 12 centimeters was a dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) organic loam over dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) silty clay loam, over dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) clay loam, over dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) loamy clay subsoil. The project geomorphologist recorded a transitional E/B-horizon separating the plow zone from an illuvial Bt-horizon. This Bt-horizon has well-developed soil peds and extends across two alluvial strata (Bt1 and Bt2). A transitional B/C-horizon was recorded in the base of the profile. No evidence of a buried Ahorizon was noted. A few scattered fragments of FCR and a single Ridge and Valley chert flake were observed (but not collected) during stripping in the upper 40 centimeters, while no archaeological features were identified.
Block 30
Block 30 was placed in the northwestern corner of the project area along the northern boundary (Figure 37). The block was oriented east/west and measured approximately 1.5x6 meters (9.2 m2) in size. Excavations reached a maximum depth of 152 centimeters. The soil profile showed five relatively distinct stratigraphic layers. The upper 18 centimeters was a dark brown (10YR 3/3) organic loamy clay, over dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) fine sandy silt loam, over dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) silty loam, over dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) clay loam mottled with large pieces of yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) silty clay loam, over yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) loamy clay, over yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) loamy clay with small pieces of siltstone bedrock. Block 30 was excavated into the western side of the T2 terrace. Alluvium in this area of the T2 terrace is fine sandy silt. A thick, relatively undisturbed soil was record in this profile. The A-horizon is separated from the B-horizons by a transitional A/B-horizon. Two Bhorizons were recorded in Block 30. A cambic Bw-horizon extends from 48-83 centimeters and an illuvial Bt-horizon was recorded from 83-115 centimeters. A transitional B/C-horizon occurs in the base of the profile. This excavation block was terminated on weathered siltstone bedrock at a depth of 140 centimeters. The project geomorphologist noted that the soil profile was relatively undisturbed (see Appendix B). Despite being relatively undisturbed, only a single Ridge and Valley chert flake was found, but not collected, at approximately 30 cmbs while troweling the west profile wall. No other artifacts or archaeological features were noted during excavation.

134 B. North Profile of Block 29

Figure 36. Plan View and Photograph of Block 29
A. Photograph of Block 29, Facing North

I II

III

IV

Block 29, North Pro le

I = Root Mat/Organic: 10YR 3/6 (Brown) Loam II = 10YR 4/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Silty Clay Loam III = 10YR 4/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay Loam IV = 10YR 4/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Loamy Clay

0

20 Centimeters

A. West Profile of Block 30
I II III
IV

135 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 37. Plan View and Photograph of Block 30
B. Photograph of Block 30, Facing West

V VI

Block 30, West Pro le

I = 10YR 3/3 (Dark Brown) Loamy Clay (Root Mat/Organic) II = 10YR 3/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Fine Sandy Silt Loam III = 10YR3/4 ( Dark Yellowish Brown) Silty Loam IV = 10YR4/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay Loam with Large
Mottles of 10YR5/8 (Yellowish Brown) Silty Clay Loam V = 10YR5/6 (Yellowish Brown Loamy Clay VI = 10YR5/6 (Yellowish Brown) Loamy Clay with Sparse
Small Pieces of Siltstone

0

20 Centimeters

136
Block 31
Block 31 was located in the northeastern quadrant of the project area to the east of Blocks 13 and 14 (Figure 38). It was oriented northwest/southeast and measured roughly 1.5x5.9 meters (8.2 m2) in size. Excavations reached a maximum depth of 90 centimeters below surface. This excavation encountered a thin soil profile (30 cm) with an A-horizon over a Bt-horizon. A transitional B/C-horizon was recorded in the base of the block from a depth of 30-85 centimeters. This B/C-horizon is clayey silt with weathered siltstone gravel. Weathered siltstone bedrock was encountered at a depth of 85 centimeters. The upper 20 centimeters was dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) organic loamy clay over strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) loamy clay over dense strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) clay with siltstone bedrock gravel throughout the profile. A few fragments of FCR were observed in the upper 30-40 centimeters, but the archaeological deposits did not extend further; no archaeological features were observed during excavations.
Block 32
Block 32 was placed on the edge of the terrace overlooking New Town Creek in the western portion of the project area (Figure 39). The block was oriented northeast/southwest and measured 0.5x6.5 meters (3.9 m2) in size. Excavations reached a maximum depth of 148 centimeters. The soil profile revealed a relatively simple stratigraphy. The dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) organic clay loam humus layer overlay dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) clay loam, over strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) loamy clay, which gradually increased in clay content and then to a discrete zone of small to mid-sized water-worn cobbles (non-cultural) of varying parent material as depth increased. Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) clay was encountered at the base of the unit. According to the geomorphology study, Block 32 was excavated into a slight rise or knoll on the T1 terrace, west of Block 18 (see Appendix B, Figure 5). An older Bt-horizon was recorded directly below the A-horizon in this profile. This is in contrast to the thick A-horizon in adjacent Block 18. Cultural material was recorded in the 17-centimeter thick A-horizon at Block 32. A transitional B/C-horizon was recorded between depths of 65-93 centimeters and the lower 40 centimeters of the profile is a sandy silt alluvial parent material (C-horizon).
A single Ridge and Valley chert biface was collected from 27 cmbs, while several fragments of FCR and four Ridge and Valley chert flakes were observed (but not collected) in the upper 25-30 centimeters during excavation. No archaeological remains were encountered below 30 cmbs and no evidence of intact deposits was identified.

A. East Profile of Block 31
I II

137 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 38. Plan View and Photograph of Block 31

III

Block 31, East Pro le
I = Root Mat- 10YR 3/4 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Loamy Clay II = 7.5YR 4/6 (Strong Brown) Loamy Clay (Increasing Clay with Depth) III = Dense Siltstone Bedrock/Deposit in 7.5YR 5/6 (Strong Brown) Clay

0

20 Centimeters

A. Photograph of Block 31, Facing East

138
A. North Profile of Block 32
I II
Chert Flake
VI IV V VI

Figure 39. Plan View and Photograph of Block 32
B. Photograph of Block 32, Facing North

Block 32, South Pro le
I = Root Mat/Humus 10YR 3/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay Loam
II = 10YR 4/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay Loam III = 7.5YR 4/6 (Strong Brown) Loamy Clay IV = 7.5YR 4/6 (Strong Brown) Loamy Clay with Higher
Clay Content V = Discrete Zone of Small to Medium-sized Cobbles of
Different Rock Types in the Same Matrix as IV VI = 10YR 5/8 (Yellowish Brown) Clay with Mottles of
10YR 5/6 Clay

0

20 Centimeters

139 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Block 33
Block 33 was placed in the northwest corner of the project area along the southern side of the old roadbed in order to explore the embankment and flat area below the road (Figure 40). The block was aligned perpendicular to the roadbed in a northeast/southwest orientation and measured roughly 1.6x5.2 meters (7.4 m2) in size. Excavations reached a maximum depth of 209 centimeters. Four stratigraphic levels were observed. A thick layer (70 cm) of road fill was found over dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) silty clay loam, over very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silty loam, over strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) loamy clay. Three small pieces of FCR were recovered from the interface of the very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silty loam layer and the clay subsoil at approximately 100 cmbs. No archaeological features were noted during excavation and based on the lack of artifacts identified during stripping and the few encountered while investigating the block, it was determined that this location had a low potential for archaeological deposits.
Block 34
Block 34 was located on the western edge of the project area near New Town Creek on the slope from the ridge to the creek (Figure 41). The block was oriented east/west and measured roughly 1x5 meters (6.5 m2) in size. Excavations reached a maximum depth of 102 cmbs. The soil stratigraphy was relatively simple. The dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) organic clay loam rootmat was over dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) clay loam, over dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) clay loam, over yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) loamy clay, which increased in small fluvial gravel content as depth increased. One fragment of FCR was observed at approximately 30 cmbs and a second around 40 cmbs. No cultural features were noted during excavation and the area appeared to have low potential for intact archaeological deposits.
Block 35
Block 35 was placed along the eastern edge of the project area to the west of Block 11 (Figure 42). It was oriented east/west and measured approximately 1x6 meters (7.9 m2) in size. Excavations reached a maximum depth of 180 centimeters. The upper A-horizon was a dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silty clay loam, over brown (7.5YR 4/3) clayey silt, over brown (7.5YR 4/4) clayey silt mottled with strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) silt, over with strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) silt. A single fragment of FCR was recovered from approximately 100 cmbs. No other artifacts or archaeological deposits were observed during excavation, and the area appeared to have low potential for archaeological deposits.

140
I II III IV

Figure 40. Plan View and Photograph of Block 33 A. North Profile of Block 33
B. Photograph of Block 33, Facing North

Block 33, North Pro le

I = Road Fill, Mixed Soils, Siltstone II = 10YR 3/4 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Silty Clay Loam III = 10YR 3/4 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Silty Loam IV = 7.5YR 4/6 (Strong Brown) Loamy Clay

0

40 Centimeters

A. West Profile of Block 34

141 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 41. Plan View and Photograph of Block 34

I II III

Gravel

IV
Gravel V

Block 34, West Pro le

I = Root Mat,10YR 3/4 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay Loam II = 10YR 4/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay Loam III = 10YR 3/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay Loam IV = 10YR 5/6 (Yellowish Brown) Loamy Clay V = 10YR 5/6 (Yellowish Brown) Loam Clay with Pockets of Small Fluvial Gravel/Pebbles

0

20 Centimeters

B. Photograph of Block 34, Facing West

142
Figure 42. Plan View and Photograph of Block 35

I

II

III
Root Stains

IV

Block 35, South Pro le

I = Root Mat and 10YR 4/2 (Brown) Slightly Loamy II = 7.5YR 4/3 (Brown) Clayey Silt III = 7.5YR 4/4 (Brown) Clayer Silt, Increasingly Mottled with 10YR 4/6 IV = 10YR 4/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Silt

0

20 Centimeters

A. South Profile of Block 35

B. Photograph of Excavation
of Block 35, Facing East

143 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Block 36
Block 36 was located in the northeastern portion of the project area to the southwest of Block 35 (Figure 43). It was oriented north/south and measured approximately 1.3x7.5 meters (10.1 m2) in size. The block spanned an area of fill and heavy disturbance in the southern portion to what appeared to be an area of less surficial disturbance in the north. Excavations reached 172 cmbs. The soil profile showed an extremely deep level of modern fill (80 cm) over dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) clay loam, over a dark brown (10YR 3/3) buried A-horizon clay loam, over strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) clay mottled with yellow (10YR 7/8) siltstone bedrock/subsoil. Below these layers was a level of yellowish red (5YR 5/6) clay mottled with very pale brown (10YR 8/2) siltstone, which increased in frequency with depth. A few fragments of FCR and one Ridge and Valley chert flake were observed during stripping in the southern portion of the block within the disturbed upper stratum. No other artifacts or archaeological features were observed during excavation, and the area appeared to have low potential for archaeological deposits.
Blocks 38 and 39
Block 38 was placed in the northeastern portion of the site to examine the transition from the alluvial soils in the eastern portion of the site (as found in Blocks 22, 23, 24) to the more clayey soils characteristic of the central portion of the site (as found within Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 5) (Figure 44). It was oriented roughly northeast/southwest and measured approximately 1x16.2 meters (17.1 m2) in size. Block 39 was placed perpendicular to and intersected with Block 38 in order to provide a view of the contact between these soil strata (Figure 44b). Excavations reached a maximum depth of 140 centimeters. A piece of FCR was found approximately 20 cmbs at the intersection of the two blocks.
Close observation of the profile of the intersection of Blocks 38 and 39 revealed that the yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) micaceous silt plunges from approximately 45 cmbs to 120 cmbs (Figure 45). The profile was similar to Block 36 in the two upper levels. However, below the dark brown (10YR 3/3) micaceous fine silt was a layer of dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) micaceous clayey silt, over brown (10YR 4/3) micaceous clayey silt. The two clayey silt layers represent alluvial deposits over the base of the terrace present in the western portion of Block 38. Apart from the single piece of FCR found 20 cmbs at the intersection of the blocks, no artifacts or cultural features were observed during excavation.
Blocks 38 and 39 were excavated into the northeast T2 terrace (see Appendix B, Figure 5). New South archaeologists provided descriptions of the soil and stratigraphic units in the profiles of these blocks. Block 39 was located across the contact between the older Pleistocene soil logged in Blocks 5 and 11 and the younger Holocene buried A-horizons logged in Blocks 23, 26, and 27. Soils in these blocks were described as silts ranging from coarser sandy silt to clayey silt.

144 A. West Profile of Block 36
I

Figure 43. Plan View and Photograph of Block 36

II III

IV

Trench

Shoulder

(Unexcavated)

V

VI

Block 36, South Pro le

I = Non-Historic/Modern Fill: Various Soils with Trash II = 10YR 3/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay Loam with Very Small
Pieces of Siltstone at Low Frequency III = Buried A Horizon/Old Plow Zone- 10YR 3/3 (Dark Brown) Clay Loam IV = Siltstone Bedrock/Subsoil 10YR 7/8 (Yellow) Heavy Siltstone in
7.5YR 5/8 (Strong Brown) Clay Matrix V = Subsoil: 5YR 5/6 (Yellowish Red) Clay with Low to Moderate
Density of 10YR 8/2 Siltstone VI = Subsoil: Same as V with Heavy Amount of Siltstone

0

20 Centimeters

B. Photograph of Block 36, Facing South

145 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 44. Photographs of Block 38 A. Photograph of Block 38, Facing East
B. Photograph of Block 38 (on Left) and Block 39 (on Right), Facing Southwest

146

Figure 45. Plan View and Photograph of Block 38 and Block 39
A. North Profile of Block 38 at Intersection

I

II

III

Block 38, North Pro le

I = 10YR 3/4 (Brown) Micaceous Coarse Silt II = 10YR 3/3 (Dark Brown) Micaceous Fine Silt II = 10YR 5/4 (Yellowish Brown) Micaceous Silt

0

40 Centimeters

B. Photograph of Profile at Northwestern Intersection of Blocks 38 and 39

147 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Samples from the Block 39 profile were analyzed for particle size analysis to interpret the depositional environmental for these Holocene deposits.
Alluvium in Block 39 has a higher percent fines (68-73%) than Blocks 23 and 27 (see Appendix B, Figures 19, 24, and 33). The sand fraction is dominated by very fine sand. This block is located downstream of a ridge of Pleistocene soil that extends from Block 5 to Block 11 (see Appendix B, Figure 35). This ridge of older soil would deflect high velocity currents producing a depositional environment at Block 39 where finer grain alluvium is deposited.
The older Pleistocene soil was logged in the west side of Block 38 and below a depth of 110 centimeters in the block profile. The top of the Pleistocene soil slopes steeply to the east, toward the river. At Block 39, the Holocene soil extends to the base of the profile (188 cm).
The magnetic susceptibility of soil samples from both Blocks 38 and 39 were measured to compare the stratigraphy between these profiles. The MS log for the Block 38 profile shows high values between 20 and 70 centimeters (see Appendix B, Figure 34). The MS values decline from 1.2x10-6 to 6.4x10-7 at a depth of 105 centimeters. There is a contact between 110-110 centimeters in the block profile separating Holocene and Pleistocene soils.
The MS log for the Block 39 profile shows relatively high MS values between 30 and 180 centimeters at the base of the profile (see Figure 36). These values are similar to the A-horizon in Block 38. The higher MS values extend down the entire profile of Block 39 in contrast to the lower MS values in the Pleistocene soils in the base of the Block 38 profile (see Appendix B, Figure 34).
The sloping Pleistocene surface recorded in Block 38 is an erosional surface formed about 16,000 years ago when the climate warmed and precipitation increased (Leigh et al. 2004). Magnetic susceptibility data delineates the contact between the Holocene and Pleistocene soils in the Block 38 profile.
Summary of Stripped Blocks
Twenty-seven blocks were excavated using heavy machinery. These blocks were distributed in order to obtain information regarding the distribution and nature of archaeological deposits throughout the site area, as well as to examine the geology of the landform within the site area. Overall, the stripped blocks revealed varying degrees of disturbance to the site area. Blocks in the southern half of the site (specifically Blocks 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 21, and 25) yielded no evidence for the presence of archaeological strata. The data from these blocks reveal that whatever archaeological deposits may have existed in these locations are no longer present. Blocks 15 and 16 in the southeastern corner of the site just north of the boat ramp exhibit a thick

148
layer of modern fill and refuse, while the strata that contains precontact archaeological deposits have been heavily disturbed from historic period activity at the site. However, several historic square post features were documented in Block 16, although these could not be tied to any former structures that are observable on historic maps and imagery. Approximately 20 meters west of this location, Block 36 also revealed heavy disturbance from historic period activities and a lack of intact precontact archaeological deposits. The stripped blocks in the northeastern portion of the site (specifically Blocks 11, 22, 26, 35, 38, and 39) revealed deep alluvial silty soils in this area of the landform. In Block 38, the contact between these soils and the older residual clayey soils that characterize the central portion of the landform was identified. Few artifacts were present within these blocks, and several yielded no evidence of archaeological deposits. To the east of this area, Blocks 29 and 30 along the northern edge of the data recovery area each contained a very low number of artifacts no deeper than 40 cmbs and exhibited little potential for significant and/or intact archaeological deposits. A very small number of artifacts were present in the upper portion of Blocks 32 and 34; these were contained in the upper 30 centimeters of the former and down to 40 cmbs in the latter.
BLOCKS WITH TEST UNITS
Block 1
Block 1 was located in the eastern portion of the site (Figure 46). The location was chosen based on excavation results from STP N520.5 E560.5, which indicated the potential for a deeply buried Early Archaic component due to the recovery of a Palmer PPK from between 90 and 100 cmbs. The block consisted of nine test units arranged in a 3x3-meter configuration centered on the shovel test, which was located in TU5. Units were excavated in 10-centimeter arbitrary levels, for a total of 11 levels and a maximum depth of 113 cmbs (202 cmbd). Three features (Features 3, 4, and 8) were found during the excavation (see Table 6).
The stratigraphy of Block 1 appears to reflect its location near the interface of the older soils characteristic of the central portion of the project area and the deeper alluvial soils along the eastern side of the site. The south wall profile showed three distinct soils including brown (7.5YR 3/4) clay loam over brown (7.5YR 4/4) clay loam to the north and yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) clay loam to the south (Figure 47). This shift in soil color may represent the geological shift from flood plain to terrace as seen in Blocks 38 and 39.
The test units were begun at the modern ground surface (Table 8). With the highest elevation in the southwestern portion of the block, the surface of the block sloped downward towards the north-northeast, so that there was a difference of approximately 30 centimeters from the highest

149 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 46. Plan Map of Block 1 with Beginning Datum Elevations

E559 106

E560 111

2 1

E561 116
3

95 4
91

110 103
N520.5 8 E560.5
5
105 96

8 7
89 94 90

E562N522 121 3 4
115 N521
6 110 N520
9 103 N519

Feature Column Soil Sample

Shovel Test

Test Unit

p

0 0.2 0.4 m

150
Figure 47. Block 1 South Profile

Root

I

II II
I = 10YR 3/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Clay Loam II = 10YR 4/6 Dark Yellowish Brown Clay Loam

151 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

point of the block in the southeastern corner to the lowest surface point in the northeastern corner of the block. Thus, air levels were "excavated" for TUs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 in Level 1 and for a portion of the same units in Level 2. Laser Level 1, situated 100 centimeters above ground surface, was used as a datum. Figure 46 also provides the beginning elevations of the test units as measured from the datum.

Table 8. Block 1 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs)

Level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 air 0-8 8-15 15-25 25-35 35-45 45-55 55-65 65-75 75-85 85-95

2 air 0-6 6-9 9-19 19-29 29-39 39-49 49-59 59-69 69-79 79-89

3 air air 0-3 3-13 13-23 23-33 33-43 43-53 53-63 63-73 73-83

4 0-2 2-12 12-22 22-32 32-42 42-52 52-62 62-72 72-82 82-92 92-102

Test Unit 5 air 0-5
5-15 15-25 25-35 35-45 45-55 55-65 65-75 75-85 85-95

6 air 0-2 2-8 8-18 18-28 28-38 38-48 48-58 58-68 68-78 78-88

7 0-6 6-16 16-26 26-36 36-46 46-56 56-66 66-76 76-86 86-96 96-106

8 0-2 2-12 12-22 22-32 32-42 42-52 52-62 62-72 72-82 82-92 92-102

9 0-3 3-6 6-16 16-26 26-36 36-46 46-56 56-66 66-76 76-86 86-96

The artifact frequency from the test units within Block 1 is low, with a total of 229 artifacts recovered (Table 9). The highest frequency of artifacts occurred in the three western-most test units (Test Units 1, 4, and 7), and the upper three levels of these units. Approximately 86 percent of the artifacts from the block represent debitage from stone tool production and maintenance activities. A small number of tools were recovered, including cores (n=3), bifaces (n=3), and utilized flakes (n=1). FCR was also present throughout the block, with the densest amount found in Level 4 (Table 10). Artifact frequency is highest in the three test units on the western side of the block (Test Units 1, 4, and 7) for the most common artifact type, debitage. For FCR, the greatest amounts were found in Test Units 1, 3, 7, and 9.
Pottery was present but at a very low frequency. Of the four ceramics from the block, two are residual, one is a plain grog tempered sherd, and the other is a sand tempered check stamped sherd. The type of the plain grog tempered sherd is unknown. However, the sand tempered check stamped sherd almost certainly represents the type Cartersville Check Stamped sherd, a type that was produced during the Early-Middle Woodland time frame. Three of the four sherds were recovered from the three western-most test units (Test Units 1, 4, and 7), while the remaining sherd was found in Test Unit 9.

152 Table 9. Block 1 Artifact Summary

Artifacts

Test Unit Level Biface
Bone, Animal Core
Debitage Pestle/Grinding
Stone Sherd, Grog Tempered, Plain Sherd, Residual Sherd, Sand Tempered, Check Stamped Stone, Possibly
Cultural Utilized Flake
Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

9

6

6

16

1

17

23

23

7

7

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

3

11

11

5

4

4

3

3

6

4

10

4

2

2

5

1

1

6

1

2

3

4

1

2

2

2

1

15

1

2

19

3

1

10

11

4

7

7

5

1

1

6

2

2

5

2

5

3

3

4

2

1

6

3

2

5

1

1

2

6

1

1

6

2

1

1

3

1

2

3

4

1

6

7

5

3

3

7

1

8

1

9

2

12

3

15

3

1

1

2

4

4

3

3

5

2

2

Table 9. Block 1 Artifact Summary (Continued)
Artifacts

153 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Test Unit Level Biface
Bone, Animal Core
Debitage Pestle/Grinding
Stone Sherd, Grog Tempered, Plain Sherd, Residual Sherd, Sand Tempered, Check Stamped Stone, Possibly
Cultural Utilized Flake
Total

7

6

9

10

8

1

2

4

5

6

7

9

1

2

3

4

5

8

Total

2

1

1

2

5

2

3

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

5

5

1

3

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

4

4

2

6

3

3

2

2

1

1

3

9

3 197

1

1

2

1

11

1 229

Table 10. FCR By Weight in Grams Within Block 1

Level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total

1 163 1382.9 129.7 343.6
2019.2

2 398.2 154.3 552.5

3
128.5 813.6
65.4 344.2 253.2
1604.9

Test Unit

4

5

123.2

362.1 177.8

16.6 199.7

333

88.6

301.2 328.6

12.3 271.3

0

6
88.6 421.6 631.4
43.5 0

1148.4 1066 1185.1

7 441.6 512.3 184.9 266.8
1.5 70.6 148.8
20 1646.5

8
87.8
211.6 102.5
24.5 35.6 20.9
482.9

9 330.3 766.2
30 114.4 385.8
25.8
58
1710.5

FCR Total
895.1 2069.2 1942.6 2444.5 1541.2 1599.2
572.1 332.1
20 11,416

154

The archaeological integrity of the block is suspect due to the recovery of several modern artifacts from a few of the test units (Table 11). Recovered from Test Units 1, 4, 5, and 7 in Levels 1, 3, and 4, these include a 22-caliber bullet and clear, green, and amber bottle glass fragments. The few prehistoric pottery sherds were also recovered from the upper three levels of the block, indicating that artifacts from the precontact occupation and historic/modern activities have become mixed in the upper levels of the block.

Table 11. Modern Artifacts found in Block 1

Test Unit
1 4 5 7 Total

Bullet, .22 cal
1 1

Container Glass, Amber 1
1

Container Glass, Clear
2 2

Container Glass, Green 1
1

Total
1 1 1 2 5

Three features were defined within Block 1. Feature 3 was a circular-shaped soil stain in TU2 first identified in Level 5 at approximately 25 cmbs. The stain consisted of dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty loam with charcoal flecking, surrounded by the strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) clay loam test unit matrix. Upon identification during test unit excavation, it appeared as a roughly rectangular shape in plan view; it was then monitored for several centimeters of the excavation to the base of Level 5. At the base of Level 5, it had changed into a smaller and more circular shape, with a linear extension extending from the northwestern portion. The feature was then investigated via a soil core in an attempt to determine its nature. The soil core was extended down through the center of the stain, revealing a relatively unconsolidated soil matrix that extended approximately 35 centimeters below this surface. Based on the characteristics of this soil anomaly, it represents a burned or rotted tree stain. No artifacts were recovered from this feature.
Feature 4 was an amorphous soil stain first identified in Level 5 of TUs 3 and 6 in Block 1 at the same depth as Feature 3. The feature soil consisted of dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) silty loam in a matrix of strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) clay loam. Because the stain had the characteristics of a tree stain when it appeared, it was monitored during test unit excavation. During excavation, the stain continued to be amorphous in plan view and changed shape with depth. By the base of Level 8, or approximately 35 centimeters below where it was first identified, the stain disappeared. This feature was determined to be a tree stain, and no artifacts were recovered from this feature.

155 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Feature 8 consisted of a large rock identified in TU5 of Block 1 just to the east of Shovel Test N520.5 E560.5 (Figure 48). The upper surface of the rock appeared near the top of Level 4 at approximately 13 cmbs; the base of the rock was approximately 20 centimeters below its upper surface near the base of Level 5. The rock was broken in eight pieces; it appears that the breakage was via natural processes as they were articulated rather than disarticulated. Upon analysis, the rock was determined to be a groundstone artifact of an unidentified metavolcanic material. The artifact weighs nearly 5,600 grams. A piece of Ridge and Valley chert angular debris (28 g) was recovered in close association with this large groundstone. The groundstone may have been used as an abrader for chipped stone tool production, or it may have been used to process other materials. Its cultural affiliation is unknown. It should be reiterated that Block 1 was centered on Shovel Test N520.5 E560.5 due to the recovery of an Early Archaic PP/K from between 90 and 100 cmbs. But, given the discrepancy in depth between this PP/K and this large groundstone, they do not appear to be associated. With a range between one and seven artifacts per test unit, relatively few artifacts were recovered from Level 5. Along with the single piece of debitage in association with this groundstone, no other artifacts were recovered from this level.
Despite placing the test units of Block 1 around a shovel test that yielded an Early Archaic PP/K from 90-100 cmbs, no deposits were found at that depth in the test units that provide any clues as to this occupation. A total of four artifacts all debitage were recovered from the deepest three levels of the block, Levels 8, 9, and 10. This suggests that the Early Archaic component at this location was very short term. An occupation dating to some point during the ceramic era is present as indicated by a couple of sherds, but the precise date of this component is unknown due to the inability to type the sherds from the block.
Eighty liters of floated sediment from eight Block 1 unit column samples located between 35 and 110 cmbs were analyzed in this study (Appendix C, Table 1). The Block 1 macroplant assemblage had of 1.96 grams of wood charcoal, four fragments of Juglandaceae (walnut family) shell (2 hickory, 2 indeterminate hickory/walnut) weighing 0.04 grams, and one pine seed. Small quantities of wood charcoal were recovered from 88 percent of the Block 1 unit column samples, with the exception of the 85-90 cmbs depth sample. The ubiquity of nutshell was a more modest 38 percent. The pine seed (13% ubiquity) came from the 55-60 cmbs flotation sample (Appendix C, Table 14). The nutshell remains were recovered from samples collected between 35 and 70 cmbs. Plant food remains were absent in 75-110 cmbs unit column samples. The overall weight density of wood byproducts was a low 0.040 grams per liter of floated soil. The overall weight density of Juglandaceae shell was only 0.001 grams per liter. By weight, 69 percent (1.35 g) of the wood charcoal fragments were recovered between 35 and 50 cmbs. The Block 1 carbonized seed assemblage consisted of a single pine seed that was found in the 55-60 cmbs unit column sample. The identification of pine and small quantities of Juglandaceae shell, both of which ripen in the fall, offered tentative evidence of a low density fall occupation (Appendix C, Table 13).

156 A. Feature 8, Facing East

Figure 48. Photographs of Feature 8

B. Feature 8 Close-Up, Facing East

157 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

These statistics highlight the relative scarcity of both wood charcoal and plant food remains in this unit column sample. The low density may be an artifact of the high degree of historic disturbance in this area of the APE, or it may be culturally derived. If cultural, the low wood charcoal density, in the opinion of the archaeobotanist, may derive from either of two possibilities. First, the lack of wood may be due to low density occupation of this area of the site or use of this area for activities that did not require heating/cooking fires. Alternatively, the low density may be suggestive of warm season occupations where heating fires were not heavily emphasized. Wood densities would presumably have been more substantial if this area of Site 9GO297 included substantial cold season encampments.

Block 2

Block 2 was located in the northeastern portion of the site (Figure 49). The location was chosen based on excavations results from STP N540.5 E550.5, which held the potential for intact and deeply buried cultural deposits due to the presence of a large piece of stone from between 70 and 80 cmbs. The block was configured in a series of nine 1x1 meter units (Units 10-18) laid out in a 3x3-meter pattern. The original shovel test was included in Units 14 and 17 near the center of the block. Units were excavated in 10-centimeter arbitrary levels for a total of 10 levels and a maximum depth of 100 cmbs (259 cmbd) (Table 12). One feature (Feature 5) was found during excavation (see Table 6). Figure 49 also provides the beginning elevations of the test units as measured from the datum.

The eastern wall profile shows five distinct soils (Figure 50). A thin dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty clay loam root mat overlay brown (10YR 3/4) silty clay loam, over dark brown (10YR 3/3) clay silt, over brown (7.5YR 4/4) silty loam over dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty loam. A buried A-horizon was observed at approximately 50-65 cmbs in the northern portion of the block, and is observable as Strata III and IV in Figure 50.

Table 12. Block 2 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs)

Level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10 0-10 10-14 14-24 24-34 34-44 44-54 54-64 64-74 74-84 84-94

11 0-8 8-13 13-23 23-33 33-43 43-53 53-63 63-73 73-83 83-93

12 0-7 8-12 12-22 22-32 32-42 42-52 52-62 62-72 72-82 82-92

13 0-6 6-11 11-21 21-31 31-41 41-51 51-61 61-71 71-81 81-91

Test Unit 14 0-6 6-11
11-21 21-31 31-41 41-51 51-61 61-71 71-81 81-91

15 0-8 8-12 12-22 22-32 32-42 42-52 52-62 62-72 72-82 82-92

16 0-5 5-8 8-18 18-28 28-38 38-48 48-58 58-68 68-78 78-88

17 0-2 2-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90

18 0-4 4-11 11-21 21-31 31-41 41-51 51-61 61-71 71-81 81-91

158
Figure 49. Plan Map of Block 2 with Beginning Datum Elevations

169 171
16

166
17

166
18

166 167
15

5 166 5
N540.5 E550.5
14

164
13

162 164
10
161 159

166
11
163

166
12
164

Feature

Column Soil Sample

Shovel Test Test Unit

p

0

0.25

0.5 m

A. Sketch Map of East Profile

I II
III IV
V

Block 2, East Pro le
I = Root Mat 10YR 3/3 Dark Brown Silty Clay Loam II = 10YR 3/4 Brown Silty Clay Loam III = 10YR 3/3 Dark Brown Clay Silt IV = 7.5YR 4/4 Brown Silty Loam V = 10YR 4/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Silty Loam

0

40 Centimeters

B. Photograph of East Profile

159 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 50. East Profile of Block 2

160

Artifact frequency (n=105) within Block 2 was very low (Table 13). As is typical for the majority of multicomponent precontact sites, the vast majority (93 percent) of the assemblage is comprised of debitage. All but one of the artifacts from the block is of stone, the exception being a single residual pottery sherd of unknown cultural and temporal affiliation. An abrading stone, two bifaces, and two utilized flakes were also recovered from the block. FCR was present in all test units, with the highest concentrations in TUs 13 and 17, units that border Feature 5 (Table 14).

Table 13. Block 2 Artifact Summary

Test Unit 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18
Total

Level
1 2 3 5 2 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 9 2 3 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 7

Abrader
1 1

Biface Debitage

1

1

6

1

2

7

1

10

1

1

2

2

3

2

4

1

5

4

2

4

1

1

1

4

10

2

1

4

12

3

Nutting Sherd, Stone Residual
1
1

Stone, Possibly Cultural
1

Utilized Flake
1 1

2

97

1

1

1

2

Total
1 1 6 1 2 8 1 11 1 1 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 4 3 4 1 1 5 10 2 1 4 12 4 1 105

161 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Table 14. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 2

Level
2 3 4 5 6 8 Total

10 184
179.6

11 319.8
12.1

12 105.6 117.2
121

Test Unit

13

14

520.6

26.9

768.4 271.1

1.8

54.6

79.6

501.6

15 62.3 363.3 12.4

363.6 331.9 343.8 1872 352.6

438

16 4.1
150.8 31
185.9

17 289.2
26.4 131.8
386
833.4

18 8
333.8 255.8
44 641.6

FCR Total
1520.5 2222.7
608.4 465.6 501.6
44 5362.8

Feature 5 represents two large rocks that occurred at approximately 73 cmbs in Level 9 of Block 2 (Figure 51). The feature was actually identified during the excavation of ST N540.5 E550.5 when these two large rocks were encountered, and Block 2 was centered on this shovel test in order to expose this feature during test unit excavation. The smaller of the rocks was removed during shovel testing, and is a water-worn quartz cobble that displays no apparent modification; the larger rock was left within the shovel test.. This second rock was encountered in Level 9 of the block excavation, and it straddled the line between TUs 14 and 17. This rock was approximately twice the size as the smaller one recovered during shovel testing, and it represents a nutting stone due to the pitting. There were no soil differences associated with this rock, nor concentration of artifacts in its vicinity. Apart from a single piece of debitage from this level of TU 14, no other artifacts were recovered from this level in any of the other test units. The lack of diagnostics in association with this feature or at this level in this block hinders a determination of the temporal affiliation of this feature, but its depth suggest that it may be Early or Middle Archaic in age.
The chronostratigraphy of Block 2 is difficult to evaluate due to the lack of diagnostic artifacts. A single piece of clear bottle glass was found (but not collected) in Level 6 of TU 11, indicating some level of disturbance to the archaeological integrity due to modern/historic period activities. Tree and root stains were noted throughout the various levels.
Sixty-one liters of floated sediment from seven Block 2 unit column samples located between 35 and 90 cmbs and one cultural (Feature 5) feature were analyzed in this study (Appendix C, Table 2). Feature 5 consisted of two large quartz river cobbles that were identified in TU 14 in Level 9. No soil stain was associated with this feature, and no artifacts were recovered in the vicinity of the cobbles. Carbonized macroplant remains were completely absent from the Feature 5 sample.

162 Figure 51.
Photograph of Feature 5 Found in Block 2, Unit 14 at the Base of Level 15
Feature 5

163 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
The Block 2 macroplant assemblage consisted of 0.52 grams of wood charcoal and 13 fragments of Juglandaceae shell (4 hickory, 9 indeterminate hickory/walnut) weighing 0.11 grams. Small quantities of wood charcoal were recovered from 67 percent of the Block 2 unit column samples. Nutshell was highly ubiquitous in the Block 2 samples; 83 percent of the unit column samples contained small quantities of nutshell. Wood charcoal specimens were present in the 35-50 cmbs samples and the 85-90 cmbs sample. Nutshell remains were recovered from 35-40 and 55-90 cmbs. The overall weight density of both wood byproducts and nutshell was low in the unit columns; the respective weight densities of wood and nutshell were 0.009 and 0.002 grams per liter of floated soil. By weight, 98 percent (0.51 g) of the wood charcoal fragments were recovered between 35 and 50 cmbs. These statistics highlight the relative scarcity of both wood charcoal and plant food remains in this unit column sample. Like Block 1, the low density may be an artifact of the high degree of historic disturbance in this area of the APE, or it may be culturally derived.
Block 3
Block 3 was placed near the eastern margin of the project area adjacent to STP N510.5 E570.5 (Figure 52). This shovel test revealed a layer of construction fill over a potential cultural lens, as indicated by the recovery of two sand tempered plain sherds from between 60 and 80 cmbs. Thus, a smooth-bucket backhoe was used to strip off the fill to search for features and a potential buried A-horizon at which to begin test unit excavation. The stripped area was roughly square in shape and measured 20.7 square meters in size. As the ground surface area of Block 3 increased in elevation towards the south due to fill, the depth of the soil stripped from this location varied from approximately 30 centimeters in the northern portion to 55 centimeters in the southern area. Subsequently, four one-meter test units (Units 55-58) were excavated in the center of the stripped area approximately 1.5 meters east of the positive shovel test (Figure 52). Vertical measurements were taken using Laser Level 2 that was situated at 76 centimeters above the stripped ground surface, which was approximately 40 centimeters thick at the location of the laser level (Table 15). Termination of excavation in the test units varied in depth, with excavation ceasing in TU 56 after Level 11, in TUs 55 and 58 after Level 12, and in TU 57 after Level 15. Figure 52 also provides the beginning elevations of the test units as measured from the datum.
The eastern wall profile showed a 30-centimeter thick layer of construction fill over 30 centimeters of very dark gray brown (10YR 3/2) silty loam plow zone (Figures 53 and 54). Beneath the plow zone was a dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) clayey silty loam buried Ahorizon. Brown (7.5YR 4/4) silty clay loam was identified at the base of the unit. Artifacts were recovered from levels 1-13 with the majority recovered from the A-horizon (Levels 1-5). No features were encountered during excavation.

164
Figure 52. Plan Map of Block 3 with Beginning Datum Elevations

N510.5 E570.5

Block 3

99
58
97

102 101
57
95 96

55
91

56
89 91

Column Soil Sample

Shovel Test

Test Unit Stripped Block

p

0 0.2 0.4 m

Stripped Surface

165 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 53. East Profile of Block 3

I

II

III
Root IV

Root

Block 3, East Pro le

I = 10YR 3/3 Dark Brown Silty Loamy Sand with Frequent Pebble Inclusion II = 10YR 3/2 Very Dark Gray Brown Silty Loam Frequent Smal Charcoal Flecks with Occasional Pebble (A Horizon) III = 10YR 3/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Clayey Silty Loam Frequent Small Carcoal Flecks Occasional Pebbles IV = 7.5YR 4/4 Brown Silty Clayey Loam Frequent Small Charcoal Flecks Occasional Pebbles

0

20 Centimeters

166
B. Level 1 of Test Unit Excavation of Block
3, Facing South

Figure 54. Photographs of Excavation of Block 3
A. Mechanical Removal of Fill in Block 3, Facing South
C. Base of Excavation of Block 3, Facing North

167 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Table 15. Block 3 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs)

Level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

55 30-36 36-46 46-56 56-66 66-76 76-86 86-96 96-106 106-116 116-126 126-136 136-146 not exc not exc not exc

56 30-36 36-46 46-56 56-66 66-76 76-86 86-96 96-106 106-116 116-126 126-136 not exc not exc not exc not exc

Test Unit

57 28-32 32-42 42-52 52-62 62-72 72-82 82-92 92-102 102-112 112-122 122-132 132-142 142-152 152-162 162-172

58 28-32 32-42 42-52 52-62 62-72 72-82 82-92 92-102 102-112 112-122 122-132 132-142 not exc not exc not exc

The artifact assemblage from Block 3 is of low to moderate density (Table 16). Unlike Blocks 1 and 2, there were many more ceramic sherds present. Sherds (n=74) account for over 56 percent of the artifacts in the assemblage, although 62 percent of these are residual unidentifiable sherds. Debitage comprises 35 percent of the assemblage, with five pieces constituting the highest density of any of the individual levels of the block. FCR was present throughout the block in all test units at roughly the same density, while the greatest amount occurred in Level 2 (Table 17).
The distribution of temporally diagnostic pottery within Block 3 suggests that the chronostratigraphy of the block is relatively intact (Table 18). Numerous sherds were recovered from the block, nine of which were assignable to a particular pottery type. The pottery within Block 3 appears to originate from two temporally discrete occupations, one dating to the Middle Woodland period (Cartersville Check Stamped, Cartersville Simple Stamped, and Cartersville Plain) and the other to the Late Mississippian period (Dallas Plain, Lamar Complicated Stamped). At least six individual ceramic vessels (Vessels 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 21; see the Ceramic Analysis section for information on these particular vessels) were present within the block. Definite Middle Woodland period ceramics were recovered from Levels 5 and 6, underneath the levels from which the Late Mississippian period wares were recovered (Levels 3

1

2

3

5

3

1

2

1

1

2

5

3

5

2

3

1 1

6

1 9

2

1

1

1

6

2

1

1 1 1

1

1 2

1

Artifacts

168
Total
Utilized Flake
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain, Rim
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated, Rim
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Simple Stamped
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered,
Check Stamped Sherd, Residual Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Plain Sherd, Grog Tempered,
Plain Debitage
Daub/Fired Clay
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

1

1 1

1

1

2

5

1 4

2

1

3

3

1

2

1

1

3

2

4

1

2

4

3 3

1

1

Table 16. Block 3 Artifact Summary

1

1

7

6

4

3

2

9

7

6

5

4

2

1

8

6

5

4

3

2

1

5 7

5 6

5 5

Table 16. Block 3 Artifact Summary (Continued)

Artifacts

Total
Utilized Flake
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain, Rim
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated, Rim
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Simple Stamped
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered,
Check Stamped
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Plain Sherd, Grog Tempered,
Plain Debitage
Daub/Fired Clay
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

5 7

8

4

9

1

4 1 1

1 1

1

1 3

1

1

5 8 Total

1

1

1

2

5

3

8

3

1

2

6

1

1 1

1

1 2

4

7

8

5

13 1

1 4

6

1

1

2

7

1

1

8

1

1

2

2

3 47

2

1 46

3

1

2

5

1

1

3

1

8

3 131

169 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

170

and 4). However, several plain and eroded sand tempered wares that may or may not be Middle Woodland wares were also recovered from Level 4. The pottery (n=66), including residual sherds, is not equally distributed horizontally across the test units. The highest frequency of sherds in a given test unit occurred in TU 58 (n=37), followed by 21 sherds in TU 55, seven in TU 57, and three in TU 56. Vertically, distribution follows a bell curve normal distribution, with artifacts increasing in frequency from Level 1 (n=2), peaking in Level 4 (n=21), and decreasing to four in Level 6; no sherds were found below this level in this block. The bulk of the pottery (n=50) was found in Levels 3, 4, and 5, levels which roughly equated with the buried A-horizon.

Table 17. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 3

Level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

55 152 366 184 124 14 22 246 103
242 1453

Test Unit 56
199.6 670.1
266 172
38 216 151.5
1713.2

57
84.1 144.1 105.8
159 392.2 266.2
311 16 94
1572.4

58 17.9
328.6 89.8
453.8 481.9
5 100
46 1523

FCR Total
369.5 1448.8
683.9 855.6 654.9 452.2 733.2 665.5
16 382 6261.6

Table 18. Distribution of Typed Ceramics in Block 3

Level
3 4
5 6 Total

Test Cartersville Cartersville Cartersville Dallas Plain Lamar

Unit

Check

Plain

Simple

Complicated

Stamped

Stamped

Stamped

55

1

56

1

57

2

58

1

55

1

1

58

1

58

1

3

1

1

3

1

Total
1 1 2 1 2 1 1 9

Seventy liters of floated sediment from seven Block 3 unit column samples located between five and 60 cmbs were analyzed in this study (Appendix A, Table 3). No Block 3 features were sampled for macrofloral remains.

171 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
The Block 3 macroplant assemblage consisted of 3.25 grams of wood charcoal, 11 fragments of Juglandaceae shell (1 hickory, 10 indeterminate hickory/walnut) weighing 0.07 grams, one acorn shell fragment, and six seeds. The seed assemblage included three possible indigenous cultigens (1 goosefoot, 1 knotweed, 1 maygrass), one tuliptree seed, and two unidentifiable seed coat fragments (Appendix C, Table 14). Maygrass grains are an early season food source; the edible grains are available for harvest from April to early June. Two potential cultigens (goosefoot, knotweed) are mature between June and October, while tuliptree seeds ripen in October (Appendix C, Table 14).
The identification of small quantities of fall ripening nut taxa and tuliptree in combination with spring/summer and summer/fall ripening indigenous cultigens, offered tentative evidence of spring through fall occupations.
Small quantities of wood charcoal were recovered from 100 percent of the Block 3 unit column samples. The ubiquity of nutshell was a more modest 43 percent. The acorn shell and all of the seeds came from the 35-40 cmbs flotation sample (14% ubiquity of each of these taxa). This sample also contained the greatest weight density of wood charcoal (0.110 g/L) and 55 percent of the Juglandaceae shell. The nutshell remains were recovered from samples collected between five and 40 cmbs. Plant food remains were absent in the 45-60 cmbs unit column samples. The overall weight density of wood byproducts was a low 0.046 grams per liter of floated soil. The overall weight density of Juglandaceae shell was only 0.001 grams per liter.
By weight, 75 percent (2.44 g) of the wood charcoal fragments were recovered between 25 and 50 cmbs. Seventy-three percent of the hickory and hickory/walnut shell and all of the seeds and nutshell were also found in these same levels. The concentration of wood charcoal, nutshell, and seeds in between 20 and 50 cmbs suggests the most intensive occupation in this area of the site is represented in these layers. The recovery of three possible indigenous cultigen taxa in the 35-40 cmbs sample suggests this component may date to the Woodland period and that the Woodland period inhabitants may have maintained garden plots, or at a minimum, open areas around their habitations where these herbaceous pioneering plants would have flourished.
Block 4
Block 4 was placed in the northwestern corner of the project area immediately to the east of STP N540.5 E460.5, which yielded several pieces of debitage (Figure 55). The block was originally laid out as a 4x4 meter square of Test Units 19-34, but was later expanded to the west and south with Test Units 99-104 to follow a higher density of artifacts in this area. The final block consisted of 21 test units, and reached a maximum depth of 147 cmbd or 70 cmbs. The beginning elevations of the test unit are provided in Figure 55, while Table 19 provides the depths of the levels for each test unit. One feature (Feature 18) was identified in the block.

172
Figure 55. Plan Map of Block 4 with Beginning Datum Elevations

80
18 19

78
20
81

78
21
81

67 71
22

77

72

74
104

82
23

85 73
27 99

85 77
31 100

88 79

24
84
28
87
32
86

25
85
29
86
33
87

26
78 81
30
81 85
34
90 87

N540.5 E460.5

101
80

102
86

103
80 87

Feature

Column Soil Sample

Shovel Test Test Unit

p

0 0.2 0.4 m

Table 19. Block 4 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs)

Level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

19 air 0-5 5-15 15-25 25-35 35-45 45-55 55-65 not exc. 30
air 0-4 4-13 13-23 23-33 33-43 43-53 53-63 not exc.

20 air 0-6 6-16 16-26 26-36 36-46 46-56 56-66 not exc. 31
air 0-3 3-8 8-18 18-28 28-38 38-48 48-58 58-68

21 air 0-9 9-19 19-29 29-39 39-49 49-59 not exc. not exc. 32
air 0-1 1-8 8-18 18-28 28-38 38-48 48-58 not exc.

22 air 0-11 11-21 21-31 31-41 41-51 51-61 not exc. not exc. 33
air 0-2 2-9 9-19 19-29 29-39 39-49 not exc. not exc.

23 air 0-3 3-13 13-23 23-33 33-43 43-53 53-63 not exc. 34
air 0-2 2-11 11-21 21-31 31-41 41-51 not exc. not exc.

Test Unit 24 air 0-2 2-12
12-22 22-32 32-42 42-52 52-62 not exc.
99
air 0-2 2-12 12-22 22-32 32-42 42-52 not exc. not exc.

25 air 0-3 3-13 13-23 23-33 33-43 43-53 not exc. not exc. 100
air 0-2 2-9 9-19 19-29 29-39 39-49 49-59 not exc.

26 air 0-8 8-18 18-28 28-38 38-48 48-58 not exc. not exc. 101
air 0-2 2-9 9-19 19-29 29-39 39-49 49-59 59-69

27 air 0-3 3-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 102
air 0-2 2-9 9-19 19-29 29-39 39-49 49-59 59-69

28 air 0-3 3-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 not exc. not exc. 103
air 0-1 1-8 8-18 18-28 28-38 38-48 48-58 not exc.

29 air 0-3 3-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 not exc. not exc. 104
air 0-4 4-14 14-24 24-34 34-44 44-54 not exc. not exc.

PHASE III 173 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

174
The soil stratigraphy of the block revealed that the upper 20 centimeters consisted of dark brown (10YR 2/3) silt loam, over 20 centimeters of dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) silt loam, over 15 centimeters of mottled dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) and strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) loam clay, over strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) loamy clay sterile subsoil (Figure 56). The bulk of the artifacts were recovered from the second soil stratum.
Artifact density within Block 4 was relatively high (Table 20), second to that of Block 20. Artifacts were recovered from Levels 2-8 with the highest density occurring in Levels 5 (97-107 cmbd) and 6 (107-117 cmbd). The majority (n=2109) of the artifacts (n=2208), approximately 96 percent, consist of debitage. In addition, there were several bifaces (n=10), cores (n=7), and utilized flakes (n=7) that were recovered. FCR was present in all test units, with a notable concentration in Levels 5 through 7 (approximately 30-50 cmbs) for the four test units (Test Units 29, 30, 33, and 34) in the southeastern corner of the block (Table 21).
One meter to the west of the FCR concentration, there is a concentration of debitage within Test Units 27, 31, and 100 in Level 5, as well as in Level 6 of Test Units 31, 32, 100, and 101; this equates to approximately 20-40 cmbs. This concentration is likely part of an individual episode of knapping activity or the location of related episodes. An examination of potentially diagnostic artifacts in the area of these concentrations reveals that sand tempered, shell, and limestone tempered sherds of unknown decoration and type were present in small amounts. The shelltempered sherd is most likely from a Late Mississippian presence, while the limestone and sand tempered sherds may relate to an Early/Middle Woodland occupation; however, this is equivocal due to the inability to type the sherds.
This inability to type the sherds due to their physical condition extends to the rest of the assemblage. Forty-four sherds were recovered from Block 4. Of these, 17 are residual sherds and many of the remainder were very small. Further, of the 27 non-residual sherds, all but two have eroded exterior surfaces that hinder determination of the decoration and thus the type; the two exceptions have a plain surface treatment. For the non-residual sherds, 17 are sand tempered, seven are shell tempered, and three are limestone tempered. While specific types cannot be determined, given the point types found in this block, it is likely that many of the sand tempered and the limestone tempered sherds date to the Early and/or Middle Woodland period. Further, the presence of Dallas Plain shell tempered pottery in other blocks on the site suggests that the shell tempered pottery from this block may be contemporaneous and remain from Late Mississippian Barnett Phase (A.D. 1500-1600) activity at this location.
Projectile point forms from this block are indicative of Late Archaic and Early-Middle Woodland types (see Lithic Analysis section). Specifically, a Small Savannah River PP/K recovered indicates a Late Archaic component; two Swan Lake PP/Ks are reflective of a Middle Woodland component; and a Wade PP/K was recovered that suggests a terminal Late Archaic to

175 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 56. North and East Soil Profiles of Block 4

I II III
IV

Block 4, North Profile
I = 10YR 2/3 Dark Brown Silt Loam II =10YR 3/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Silt Loam III = Mottled 10YR 3/4 Dark Yellowish Brown and 7.5YR 4/6 Strong Brown Loam Clay IV = 7.5YR 4/6 Strong Brown Loam Clay

0

40 Centimeters

A. North Profile

I II
III IV

Block 4, East Profile
I = 10YR 2/3 Dark Brown Silt Loam II =10YR 3/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Silt Loam III = Mottled 10YR 3/4 Dark Yellowish Brown and 7.5YR 4/6 Strong Brown Loam Clay IV = 7.5YR 4/6 Strong Brown Loam Clay

0

40 Centimeters

B. East Profile

3 2

8

3

1 3

9

8

4

1

4

1 19

6

1

6

9

2 4

1

1

1 5

6

2 6

1 2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Artifact

176
Total
Utilized Flake Stone, Possibly
Cultural Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded,
Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Residual Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Eroded
Shell
Scraper
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Hammerstone
Debitage
Core
Clay, Unfired
Biface
Level
Test Unit

1 1
1

1 1 2 6
5 1 5
1 1 2 3 9 1 3 6 1 6 4 1 4 7 9 1 2 1 2 8 3 0

1

1

Table 20. Block 4 Artifact Summary

4

3

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

7

5

4

3

2

7

6

5

4

3

2 3

2 2

2 1

2 0

1 9

Table 20. Block 4 Artifact Summary (Continued)

Artifact

Total
Utilized Flake
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID
Decorated Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded,
Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Eroded
Shell
Scraper
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Hammerstone
Debitage
Core
Clay, Unfired
Biface
Level
Test Unit

2 3

5

2 6

6

2

2 4

4

3 4

5

1 29

6

6

7

1

2 5

3

1 3

4

1

1 6

5

1 9

1 1 1

2 7

2

1

1 36

1

3 1

1

7

1

1 3

1

1

1 9

2 0

6

6

6

2 6

2

5

5

3

1 5

1

1 6

4

2 8

2 8

5

1

7

8

6

1

1

2 7

3

1

2

3

4

1 2

1 2

177 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

5

132

1

1

135

6

2 0

2 0

7

2

2

8

2

2

3 2

5

1

3

5 5

100

2 3

1

2

2 6

3 1

1 1

1

8

1 5

3 0

6

2 3

6 4

2 2

8

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1 1

1

3

1

Artifact

178
Total
Utilized Flake Stone, Possibly
Cultural Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded,
Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Residual Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Eroded
Shell
Scraper
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Hammerstone
Debitage
Core
Clay, Unfired
Biface
Level
Test Unit

4

1

1

1

2 8

1

3

5 5

9 7

2 0

1

2

2 4

2 8

1 1

1

6

1 4

2 9

6

2 2

6 3

2 1

7

1

Table 20. Block 4 Artifact Summary (Continued)

1

4

3

8

7

6

5

4

7

6

5

4

3

2

6

5

4

3

6

5

4

3

3 2

3 1

3 0

2 9

2 8

Table 20. Block 4 Artifact Summary (Continued)

Artifact

Total
Utilized Flake
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID
Decorated Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded,
Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Eroded
Shell
Scraper
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Hammerstone
Debitage
Core
Clay, Unfired
Biface
Level
Test Unit

3 2

5

1

6

7

3 3

3

4

5

6

3 4

3

4

5

8 7 1 49
7 3 2 9 2 8 9 1 6 2 0 3 5 4 1 4 1 8 0 4 1 1 20 143 6 9 4

8 8

5 0

1 1

8

1

1

5

1

3 0

2 8

9

6

9 9

3

4

1

1 1
1 1

1 7

1

2 1

3 5

1

5

1

1

1 46

5

8 0

6

4

100 3

2

4

2 1

179 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

5

1

145

6

6 9

7

4

7 2208

7

3 6

4 1

8

1 7

4 0

1 75

8

2

6

4 1

3 7

8

1

5

8 3

4 4

1 2

1

1

1 1 1 7 14

2 2 2

3 17 12

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

2

Artifact

180
Total
Utilized Flake Stone, Possibly
Cultural Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded,
Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Residual Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Eroded
Shell
Scraper
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Hammerstone
Debitage
Core
Clay, Unfired
Biface
Level
Test Unit

4

1

5

1

5

1

7 2109

7

3 6

4 1

6

1 6

3 7

7 0

6

1

5

4 0

3 7

7

1

5

8 2

4 1

1 1

1

1

Table 20. Block 4 Artifact Summary (Continued)

1 0

1

1

101 4 5 6 7 8
102 4 5 6 7 8
103 4 5 6 7
104 3 4 5 6
Total

Table 21. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 4

Level

Test Unit

FCR

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 99 100 101 102 103 104 Total

2

24

115.9

139.9

3

6 16

16 218

34

12

3

34

12

351

4

126

52 97 49 136 8 36 39

6

8 67

11 17 37 117

10 440 1256

5

12 493 263 256 128 251 466 63 320

20 534 193 50 298 252 59 40 2 41 10 50 3801

6

240 495.8

9

292 65 62 19 174 44 33 303 99

4 272 89 38

2238.8

7

28

7 7

54 610.1 1174 520 176

282 578.4

111 232 51

3830.5

8

85 290

375

Total 144 777 810.8 393 411 394 474 540.9 478 678.1 1221 1307 413 83 897 946.4 96 195 385 447 399 502 11992.2

PHASE III 181 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

182

Early Woodland component. All but the Small Savannah River PPK, made from quartz, were made from Ridge and Valley chert. The Wade point was piece plotted, and it was recovered in Level 8 of TU 31 from approximately 54 cmbs. One of the Swan Lake points was recovered from Level 7 of TU 32, or between 34 and 44 cmbs. The other Swan Lake PPK was recovered from Level 4 of TU 31, which equates to between 6 and 16 cmbs. Finally the Small Savannah River PPK was found in Level 5 of TU 19, somewhere between 24 and 34 cmbs.

A radiocarbon date was returned for a charcoal sample (Beta-356537) collected from the matrix of Level 6 of TU 101; this level in this unit equates to approximately 29-39 cmbs. The sample returned a conventional age of 880 +/- 30 BP, with a 2 sigma calibrated calendric date set of A.D. 1040-1100, A.D. 1120-1140, and A.D. 1150-1220. No temporal or cultural diagnostic artifacts were recovered from this level of this test unit, or from the same level of the adjacent test units, although a residual sherd was recovered from this level. The radiocarbon date falls within the Early/Middle Mississippian period, a time frame for which no artifacts have been found at 9GO297. The lack of associated diagnostics from this period of time suggests that this charcoal sample remains either from natural burning processes unrelated to cultural occupation of the site or to usage of the site that did not result in artifact discard/deposition. The latter possibility is bolstered somewhat by a contemporaneous radiocarbon date from a maize cupule recovered from Feature 26 in Block 23.

However, the integrity of the archaeological chronostratigraphy of this block is questionable given the presence of several historic/modern items found in association with the precontact materials (Table 22). Specifically, bottle glass was recovered from Levels 3, 4, and 6, while a pair of pliers was recovered from Level 4. Each of the four historic/modern items was found in a different test unit; these items were found in Levels 3, 4, and 6, the latter of which ranged from approximately 35-45 cmbs. While none of the precontact sherds can be definitively associated with a temporal component due to their condition, an examination of the vertical distribution of the diagnostic PP/Ks reveals that one of the Middle Woodland period Swan Lake PP/Ks was recovered below a Late Archaic period Small Savannah River PP/K, which was in turn found above the Late Archaic-Early Woodland era Wade PP/K. In conjunction with the vertical distributions of the pottery and the diagnostic PPKs, the presence of these items up to a potential depth of 45 cmbs indicates that the archaeological integrity of this particular block is low.
Table 22. Diagnostic Artifacts from Block 4

Artifact Type
Container Glass, Clear Sherd, residual

Level 3

Total
1 3

Table 22. Diagnostic Artifacts from Block 4 (Continued)

Artifact Type Sherd, sand tempered, eroded Sherd, sand tempered, eroded, rim Sherd, shell tempered, eroded
Level Total
Container Glass, Olive Green Pliers
PP/K, Swan Lake Sherd, limestone tempered, eroded
Sherd, residual Sherd, sand tempered, eroded Sherd, sand tempered, eroded, rim Sherd, sand tempered, plain Sherd, sand tempered, uid decorated Sherd, shell tempered, eroded
Level Total
PP/K, Small Savannah River Sherd, limestone tempered, eroded
Sherd, residual Sherd, sand tempered, eroded Sherd, shell tempered, eroded
Level Total
Container Glass, Green Sherd, residual
Sherd, sand tempered, eroded Level Total
PP/K, Swan Lake Sherd, residual Level Total
PP/K, Wade Level Total Artifact Total

Level 4
Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8

183 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Total 1 1 2 8
1 1 1 2 5 7 1 2 1 3 24
1 1 6 3 2 13
1 2 1 4
1 1 2
1 1 52

184
A single feature was identified within Block 4 (Figures 55 and 57). First identified within Level 6 of TU 19 at approximately 43 cmbs, Feature 18 consisted of a roughly circular area of dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) clay loam adjoining a slightly lighter and somewhat linear area of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) clay loam; this anomaly appeared within the strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) clay loam matrix of the block. The anomaly extended to the west outside of the block. The central portion of the feature was sectioned in an east-west orientation, providing two profile views, one to the north and one to the south. The northern profile shows the anomaly to extend deeper towards the west (outside of the block) while the southern profile shows this portion of the anomaly to be somewhat basin-shaped. The origin of this feature is equivocal, as it may relate to natural soil activity (tree/root stains) or it may be from the occupation of the site. The excavator felt that it represented a tree/root stain. Two flakes and six flake fragments of Ridge and Valley chert were recovered from this feature, an assemblage similar to the individual test unit and block assemblages.
Forty-eight liters of floated sediment from five Block 4 unit column samples located from 8-58 cmbs (TU 32, Levels 4-8) were analyzed in this study (Appendix A, Table 4). The sparse Block 4 macroplant assemblage consisted of 0.13 grams of wood charcoal and six fragments of Juglandaceae shell (all indeterminate hickory/walnut) weighing 0.05 grams. Small quantities of wood charcoal were recovered from 100 percent of the Block 4 unit column samples. The ubiquity of nutshell was a more modest 40 percent. Acorn shell and seeds were completely absent in this block.
The nutshell remains were recovered from the 18-28 cmbs (Level 5) and 38-48 cmbs (Level 7) flotation samples. Plant food remains were absent from the other three unit column samples in this excavation block. The overall weight density of both wood byproducts and nutshell was low in the unit columns; the respective weight densities of wood and nutshell were 0.003 and 0.001 grams per liter of floated soil. Wood charcoal densities were equally low throughout the Block 4 column (0.001 to 0005 g/L). These statistics highlight the relative scarcity of both wood charcoal and plant food remains in this unit column sample.
Like Blocks 1 and 2, the low density may be an artifact of the high degree of historic disturbance in this area of the APE, or it may be culturally derived. If cultural, the low wood charcoal density, in the opinion of the archaeobotanist, may derive from either of two possibilities. First, the lack of wood may be due to low density occupation of this area of the site or use of this area for activities that did not require heating/cooking fires. Alternatively, the low density may be suggestive of warm season occupations where heating fires were not heavily emphasized. Wood densities would presumably have been more substantial if this area of Site 9GO297 included substantial cold season encampments.

A. Plan View and Profiles of Feature 18

A

A

II

B

B

III

I

185 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 57. Plan View and Photograph of Feature 18

A II

A North Pro le

I

Feature 18

B II

B South Pro le
I Feature 18

Block 4, Test Unit 9, Plan Base of Level 6
I = 7.5YR 4/6 (Strong Brown) Clay Loam II = 10YR 4/4 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay Loam III = 10YR 3/4 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay Loam

0
N

20 Centimeters

B. Photograph of North Profile of Feature 18 (~43 cmbs)

186
Block 5
Block 5 was located in the northeast quadrant of the project area to the southwest of Block 2 (Figure 58). Data from the magnetometer survey conducted by GDOT Archaeologists indicates the presence of numerous anomalies in this within the 30x30-meter magnetometer survey grid (Grid 2), and GDOT Archaeologists interpreted the possible presence of the remains of a square structure (Figure 59). Block 5 was placed in the center of the anomaly as a 4x4-meter unit (Units 35-50), and an additional four test units (Units 51-54) were placed in a 2x2-meter configuration off of the southeastern corner of the main block of test units, bringing the block to a total of 20 square meters. The configuration of the block was designed to slightly overlap the edge of the postulated structure on two of its sides, with the bulk of the units located within the area of the postulated structure. Excavations reached a maximum depth of 160 cmbd or 40 cmbs in the small 2x2 block and 170 cmbd (50 cmbs) in the area of the 4x4 block (Table 23). Nine features were documented within this block (Features 6, 7, 9-15), two of which represent disturbed FCR clusters and seven of which are soil anomalies of natural origins.
Artifact density within Block 5 was relatively high for the site (Table 24). Similar to the other blocks, debitage was by far the most abundant artifact, comprising approximately 93 percent of the block assemblage. There are also a number (n=15) of flakes that had been utilized as tools, while bifaces (n=9) were not uncommon. FCR was present throughout the block, with concentrations in TUs 38, 40, and 48 (Table 25). The beginning elevations of the test unit are provided in Figure 58.
A Bakers Creek PPK was found in Level 3 (approximately 10-20 cmbs) of TU50, indicating a Middle Woodland period occupation of this location of the site. While no typed ceramics were recovered from the block, there were a handful (n=4) of sand tempered eroded sherds and a single eroded shell tempered sherd was present. It is probable that the sand tempered sherds from the block are coeval with the Bakers Creek PPK, while the shell tempered sherd may remain from the Late Mississippian Barnett Phase (A.D. 1500-1600) component at the site. In addition, a single vessel sherd of steatite/soapstone was recovered from the Level 3 of TU40, which also yielded two residual ceramic sherds; this particular level in this test unit equates to approximately 5-15 cmbs. The steatite vessel sherd likely remains from the terminal Late Archaic-Early Woodland component.
No evidence of a precontact structure as suggested by the magnetometer or of any other intact precontact features was observed. No features were identified in the location of the anomalies defined in the magnetometer data. Rather, there were many tree features, both relatively recent wood-filled features and soil stains representative of decomposed trees and roots. Plow scars were also visible within the block. However, two cultural features were recorded (FCR clusters Features 6 and 9), although they appear to have been heavily disturbed as they were located

187 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 58. Plan Map of Block 5 with Beginning Datum Elevations

14

13 137.5
35

140
36

131

134.5

39

141.5
1314 37
9 136
41 40

133 129 123

44 43
126 123.5 123

48 47

120

123.5

121

141

140

38

139 140

42

15
135.5

15 135.5

7

45

46

6

127 123

50 49

123.5

127

51

10

10 11

11

123

123.5

128.5
52
124

Feature

Column Soil Sample

Test Unit Block 5 Trench

p

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 m

12

12

54

53

122

121

119

188
31

Figure 59. Magnetometer Results for Block 5
2
Block 5 5
1

36

!

!

Magnetometer Grid

GDOT-Defined Linear Anomaly

Block

!

!

!

!

GDOT-Defined Anomaly Area

0 3 6 9 12 15 Feet

$

No Data

Features

0 1 2 3 4 5 Meters

Table 23. Block 5 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs)

Level
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

35 air 0-4 4-11 11-21 21-31 45 0-3 3-8 8-18 18-28 28-38

36 air 0-4 4-11 11-21 21-31 46 0-3 3-8 8-18 18-28 28-38

37 air air 0-6 6-16 16-26 47 0-5 5-13 13-23 23-33 33-43

38 air air 0-6 6-16 16-26 48 0-5 5-14 14-24 24-34 34-44

39 0-1 1-6 6-16 16-26 26-36 49 0-5 5-13 13-23 23-33 33-43

Test Unit 40 0-1 1-4 4-14
14-24 24-34
50 0-5 5-13 13-23 23-33 not exc.

41 air 1-4 4-14 14-24 24-34 51 0-5 5-14 14-24 24-34 not exc.

42 air 1-3 3-13 13-23 23-33 52 0-5 5-13 13-23 23-33 33-43

43 0-2 2-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 53 0-5 5-15 15-25 25-35 not exc.

44 0-4 4-9 9-19 19-29 29-39 54 0-3 3-12 12-22 22-32 not exc.

PHASE III 189 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

2 9

2 9

1

2 1

4 7

2

2 0

6 8

8

3

4 5

1 2

5 9

2 9

6 0

5 2

3 1

5 4

2 3

6 6

6

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

2

1

2

1

1

8

1

1

1

Artifacts

190
Total
Utilized Flake
Tool, Chipped, UID
Tool, Chipped, Expedient
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Steatite Vessel Sherd
Sherd, UID Sherd, Shell Tempered,
Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered,
Eroded Sherd, Residual
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Debitage
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

2 7

2 4

1

2 1

4 3

2

2 0

6 4

6

3

4 4

1 1

5 7

2 7

4 7

5 0

2 9

5 0

2 2

6 6

5

1

1

1

1

1

Table 24. Block 5 Artifact Summary

4

3

2

4

3

2

4

3

1

4

3

2

4

1

4

3

4

3

4

3

1

4 2

4 1

4 0

3 9

3 8

3 7

3 6

3 5

Table 24. Block 5 Artifact Summary (Continued)

Artifacts

Total
Utilized Flake
Tool, Chipped, UID
Tool, Chipped, Expedient
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Steatite Vessel Sherd
Sherd, UID Sherd, Shell Tempered,
Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered,
Eroded Sherd, Residual
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Debitage
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

4 3

1

7

7

2

1

5 1

1

4

1

5 8

3

3 0

1

3 1

4

1

1

4 4

2

2 3

2 3

3

4 3

4 3

4

7

7

4 5

2

1

1 5

1

1 7

3

1

4 4

1

4 6

4

9

9

4 6

1

1

1

2

5

1

1

7

3

8 5

5

1

9 1

4

2

2

4 7

1

1

2

3

2

4 5

1

4 6

4 8

1

1

1

2

4 5

1

3

4 9

191 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

3

5 5

1

4

6 0

4 9

2

3 0

1

3 1

3

1

3 2

3 3

15 1415

2

2 6

4

5

3 3

7

9

1 8

2

1 0

2 1

1

7

3 3

3

3

1

2

1

3 6

2

1

1

1

4

1

1

1

1

Artifacts

192
Total
Utilized Flake
Tool, Chipped, UID
Tool, Chipped, Expedient
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Steatite Vessel Sherd
Sherd, UID Sherd, Shell Tempered,
Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered,
Eroded Sherd, Residual
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Debitage
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

4

1

1

1 2

1 1

1

1

1

1

1 1320

2

2 3

4

5

3 1

6

9

1 6

2

8

2 1

1

6

2 9

2

3

Table 24. Block 5 Artifact Summary (Continued)

9

3

2

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

4

Total

5 4

5 3

5 2

5 1

5 0

4 9

Table 25. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 5

Level
1 2 3 4 Total

35
27 1004 290.4 1321.4

36
1358 662.3 2020.3

37
1681 1311.7 2992.7

38

39

40

41

1111 2436.2 3547.2

118 1044 65.8 1227.8

370 1246 1910.9 3526.9

414.3 414.3

Test Unit

42 43 44

45

177 46 1500 1016 474 1300.2 2362.2 2151

535 847 20.4 1402.4

238 1137 37.5 1412.5

46 47 48

3

7

293 1182 2540

761 94 1920

40

1094 1279 4467

49
29.7 627 499
1155.7

50 51 52 53 54 364041

612 1700 344 269
956 1969

687 1196 1724

155 101 45

89.7

3050

931.7 1297 1769 3050

FCR Total
216.7 13395 15106 11629.4 40347.1

PHASE III 193 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

194
within the plow zone. Further evidence of the disturbance to the prehistoric archaeological context within Block 5 is the presence of numerous modern artifacts (Table 26). Modern items were found in nine of the 20 test units to a maximum depth of 37 cmbs.
As noted above, Feature 6 represents a loose clustering of FCR in TU46 (Figure 60a). The cluster was identified during the excavation of Level 2 at the top of the level, approximately five cmbs. The cluster was pedestalled and defined by troweling, revealing four pieces of FCR that collectively weighed 918 grams. The base of the rocks extended 15 centimeters below the uppermost elevation of the rocks to the base of Level 3. Given that this feature is situated very near the ground surface and within the historic plow zone, it is believed that the configuration does not represent the in situ arrangement of these FCR, but rather is a result of historic period disturbances, including plowing and tree activity (see Feature 7 below). While not found in direct association with this feature, an eroded sand tempered sherd of unknown type was recovered from this unit in Level 2.
Feature 7 represents a soil stain identified in TU46 immediately northeast of Feature 6 in Block 5 (Figure 60b). Identified at the same depth as the base of Feature 6 (approximately 15 cmbs), this soil anomaly consisted of brown (10YR 4/3) silty clay that was lightly flecked with charcoal; the stain was irregular in shape and extended to the east outside of the test unit and block. The soil within the feature was uncompacted compared to the test unit matrix. The stain was bisected with the southern half excavated. This feature excavation revealed that the base was highly irregular and undulating, while a cavity extended from one portion diagonally downward outside of the block. Based on these characteristics, the stain was determined to be non-cultural and the result of tree activity. No artifacts were recovered from this feature.
Feature 9 consisted of a scattering of FCR within the upper levels of Block 5 (Figure 61). The rocks were arranged in a scattered linear pattern extending across TUs 36, 40, and 41. While it was first identified in Level 3, the upper surface of the uppermost rocks within this feature were located approximately nine cmbs and the basal elevation of the rocks was approximately 20 cmbs. A linear yet irregular soil stain was associated with the cluster. This stain almost certainly represented a plow scar, and it appears that these rocks may have been separated and spread by the plow based on their arrangement along this plow scar. Nine FCR collectively weighing 3,050 grams were recovered from this feature, while no other artifacts were identified in association.
Features 10, 11, and 12 (see Figure 58) were all identified towards the base of Level 3 of Block 5 approximately 25 cmbs, with Features 10 and 11 located in TU51 (Figure 62a) and Feature 12 to the south in TU53 (Figure 62b). Each of these small soil anomalies contained loose uncompacted brown (10YR 4/3) clay loam ringed by a "halo" of lighter colored soil and were

Table 26. Modern Artifacts from Block 5

Test Unit
36 37 38 41 44 45 48 49 50 Total

Level (Depth cmbs) 3 (4-14) 3 (0-10) 1 (0-10) 3 (7-17) 2 (5-15) 2 (7-17) 2 (10-20) 2 (10-20) 4 (27-37)

Aluminum Brass or Copper Cartridge
2

1

2

1

Container Glass, Clear
1 1

Container Glass, Green
2 1
1 4

Container Glass, Machine
Made, Green
1 1

Nail, Cut Common, Unmeasured
1
1

Plastic, UID
1 1

Pull Tab 2 2

Tin Can, Modern
1 1
2

Total
1 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 15

PHASE III 195 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

196 Figure 60.
Photographs of Features 6 and 7 A. Photograph of Feature 6, Facing East (~5 cmbs)
Feature 6
B. Photograph of Feature 7, Facing East (~15 cmbs)
Feature 7

A. Plan View of Feature 9, Facing South

197 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 61. Photographs of Feature 9

B. Oblique View of Feature 9,
Facing Northwest

198
Figure 62. Photographs of Features 10, 11, 12, and 15

Features 10 & 11

A. Plan View of Features 10 and 11, Facing West

B. Plan View of Feature 12,
Facing West
B. Plan View of Feature 12,
Facing West

Feature 12

Features 13 & 14

C. Plan View of Features 13 and 14, Facing North

D. Feature 15, Facing North

Feature 15

199 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
circular to oval in shape. Feature 10 measured 9x7 centimeters, Feature 11 was 11x10 centimeters, and Feature 12 was 14x11 centimeters in length and width. Each feature was cored with a soil corer in order to determine the depth of the fill within each. Feature 10 extended 26 centimeters below the cored surface, Feature 11 extended five centimeters below the cored surface, and Feature 12 extended 38 centimeters below the cored surface. Based on the high amount of tree disturbances within this block, the loose fill of these features, the small size of these stains, and the irregular depths of each in comparison to the others, each of these features was determined to remain from tree activities.
Features 13, 14, and 15 were also identified within Block 5 and displayed the exact same characteristics as Features 10-12 in the same block. Features 13 and 14 were identified in TU36 at the base of Level 4 at approximately 20 cmbs, while Feature 15 was recorded a couple of meters to the southeast in TU 42 at an approximate depth of 22 cmbs. Each of these features were cored to determine the nature and depth of fill. Feature 13 extended 15 centimeters below the cored surface, Feature 14 extended 33 centimeters below the cored surface, and Feature 15 extended 32 centimeters below the cored surface. Similar to Features 10-12, the characteristics of each of these soil anomalies indicate that they originated as a result of tree activity within this block.
Forty-five liters of floated sediment from five Block 5 unit column samples located between 5 and 50 cmbs were analyzed in this study (Appendix C, Table 5). The Block 5 macroplant assemblage consisted of 1.25 grams of wood charcoal and two fragments of Juglandaceae shell (all indeterminate hickory/walnut) weighing 0.02 grams. Wood charcoal was recovered from 100 percent of the Block 5 unit column samples. The ubiquity of nutshell was a more modest 40 percent. Acorn shell and seeds were completely absent in this block.
The overall weight density of wood byproducts was a low 0.028 grams per liter of floated soil. The overall weight density of Juglandaceae shell was an extremely low 0.0004 grams per liter. By weight, 93 percent (1.35 g) of the wood charcoal fragments were recovered between five and 10 cmbs. The nutshell remains were recovered between 25 and 40 cmbs. Plant food remains were absent from the other three unit column samples in this excavation block. These statistics highlight the relative scarcity of both wood charcoal and plant food remains in this unit column sample below 10 cmbs. Given the high degree of historic disturbance in this area of the site, carbonized wood charcoal found in the upper levels of this excavation block may have resulted from both historic and prehistoric burning activities.
Upon the completion of test unit excavation in Block 5, a deep trench was excavated via backhoe into the 4x4-meter block area to ensure that no buried archaeological deposits lay beneath the sterile base of the block. Aligned roughly north to south, trenching reached a maximum depth of approximately 220 cmbs and showed a continuous silty clay lens ending in bedrock. No archaeological deposits, artifacts, or features were observed within this trench. The north wall of

200
the hand excavated block revealed a stratigraphic profile with only two natural levels (Figure 63). The upper layer consisted of brown (10YR 4/3) clay loam that overlay a dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) clay loam lens. The bulk of the artifacts recovered from Block 5 were contained within the first two strata, with the third stratum representing the artifactually-sterile subsoil. Plowing has impacted the first two strata, so that the artifact assemblage has been mixed and the two FCR cluster features were disturbed.
According to the geomorphology study, Block 5 was excavated into a slight rise in the center of the T2 terrace. The profile of Block 5 included two soils of different ages. The younger profile included a plow zone over a stratified Bt-horizon. The two strata (Bt1 and Bt2) are evidence of an aggrading landform. Cobbles were recorded along the contact between the younger and older (lower) soils at a depth of 118 centimeters. The older soil consists of a 2Bt-horizon (119-162 cm) over a transitional B/C horizon (see Figure 15). Truncated root casts and mottling were recorded in the 2Bt-horizon. The B/C-horizon terminates on weathered rock at a depth of 2 meters.
Block 19
Block 19 was located in the southwestern portion of the site and was connected to the western end of Block 18 (Figure 64). During excavation of Block 18, the soil profile showed approximately 40 centimeters clay fill over a buried A-horizon. Several Ridge and Valley chert flakes were recovered from the upper 40 centimeters, while a few FCR and lithic flakes were found in the buried A-horizon. Block 19 was thus opened to further explore this buried Ahorizon. A smooth-bladed backhoe was used to strip off the 40 centimeters of fill, and a 4x4meter test unit block (Test Units 59-74) was then placed in the center of the stripped area. The block and stripped area covered 51.8 square meters and reached a maximum depth of 100 cmbd, or 70 centimeters below the modern ground surface; within the test unit excavation, the units extended to a maximum depth of 45 centimeters below the mechanically stripped surface (Table 27). The beginning elevations of the test unit are also provided in Figure 64. Two soil anomaly features were identified during test unit excavation.
The south wall revealed a very simple stratigraphic profile with a dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty loam buried A-horizon over dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sterile clay subsoil. Seramur noted that the buried A-horizon in this block appeared disturbed (see Appendix B). The contact between these two horizons revealed a distinct break between them, suggesting that the A-horizon material was likely transported to the area rather than developing naturally over time (Figure 65). Several large linear features were observed during excavation in Blocks 18 and 19, which appeared too large to be plow scars (Figure 66). These features may have been erosional gullies associated with the borrow pit to the south. Analysis of a 1958 aerial photograph shows the open borrow pit as well as erosional gullies within and surrounding it that lead to the existing gully immediately south of this block.

Unit 53
Root FCR
Root

201 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 63. Plan Views of Block 5 Soil Profiles
Unit 51
I II III

Block 5, West Pro le
I = 10YR 4/3 (Brown) Clay Loam II = Transition; 10YR 4/3 (Brown), 10YR 4/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay Loam III = 10YR 4/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay

0

20 Centimeters

A. West Profile of Test Units 51 and 53

I

datum line

II

III

I Block 5 Trench, South Pro le

I = AP 10YR 3/4 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Silty Loam

II = Bt1 10YR 3/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay Silt

III = Bt2 10YR 4/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay Silt

IV = 2Bt 7.5YR 5/4 (Brown) Silty Clay

IV

V = PC 7.5YR 5/4 (Brown) Silty Clay with Pebbles and Rock Mottles

VI= R 7.5YR 5/6 (Brown) Clay with Rocks and Pebbles- Saprolite

}V 0

20 Centimeters

VI

B. South Profile of Block 5 Trench

202
Figure 64. Plan Map of Block 19 with Beginning Datum Elevations

Block 19

51

52

54

55

51

62

19

61 60

59

51

52

54

56

54

66 65

64

63

56

54

53

48

51

70

69

20

20

68

67

51

51

51

55

54

74

73

72 71

53

51

53

53

52

Block 18

Feature

Shovel Test

Column Soil Sample

Test Unit Stripped Block

p

0 0.3 0.6 m

203 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 65. Plan View and Photograph of South Profile of Block 19

A. Sketch of South Profile
Unit 74

Unit 73

Unit 72
III
I II

Unit 71
mottled

Block 19, South Pro le
I = 10YR 4/4 (Brown) Clay Loam II = 10YR 4/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay Loam III = 5YR 5/3 (Yellowish Red) Clay

0

40 Centimeters

B. Photograph of South Profile

204
N 483 E 467.5
c
B
N 482 E 467.5

Figure 66. Plan View of Base of Level 2 Showing Soil Disturbance

Decomposed Root

N 483 E 471.5

B

D D
Unit 59 Unit 60 Unit 63 Unit 64

D B
Silty Loam

Unit 61 Unit 62 Unit 65 Unit 66

A
N 481 E 467.5

D B
B

Heavily Mottled

B

Feature 20

TDS Pt. 1951

A
STP 480/470

N 481 E 471.5

B
Unit 67 Unit 68 Unit 71 Unit 72

PP #13 TDS Pt. 1952

Unit 69 Unit 73

Unit 70 Unit 74

A N 479 E 467.5

B N 479
E 471.5

Nail Biface Fragment Fire Cracked Rock Shale Rock Root Hole Root Root Stain Faint Boundary

A = 10 YR 4/6 Dark Yellowish Brown, Silty Clay. Unit matrix below linear formations; non-cultural.
B = 10 YR 4/4 Dark Yellowish Brown, Loamy Clay. Linear erosional patterns non-cultural; possibly associated wtih gully/borrow pit to South.
C = 10 YR 3/3 Dark Brown, Silty Loam D = 10 YR 5/6 Yellowish Brown, Loamy Clay

^

0

25

50 cm

N

Table 27. Block 19 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs)

Level
1 2 3 4 5

59 36-44 44-50 50-60 60-70
70-80

60 38-44 44-50 50-60
not exc. not exc.

61 40-44 44-50 50-60
60-70
not exc.

62 40-44 44-50 50-60
60-70
not exc.

63 36-44 44-50 50-60
60-70
not exc.

64 37-44 44-50 50-60
60-70
not exc.

65 40-44 44-50 50-60
60-70
not exc.

Test Unit

66 40-44 44-50 50-60

67 36-44 44-50 50-60

60-70 60-70

not not exc. exc.

68 37-44 44-50 50-60
60-70
not exc.

69 38-44 44-50 50-60
60-70
not exc.

70 38-44 44-50 50-60
60-70
not exc.

71 38-44 44-50 50-60
60-70
not exc.

72 37-44 44-50 50-60
60-70
not exc.

73 38-44 44-50 50-60
60-70
not exc.

74 38-44 44-50 50-60
60-70
not exc.

PHASE III 205 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

206
The artifact assemblage from Block 19 was low in density (Table 28). Again, debitage (n=235) constitutes the vast majority of artifacts, comprising approximately 92 percent of the artifacts in the assemblage (n=267). The next most common artifacts were bifaces, although only five were recovered. There is a concentration of debitage in Levels 1 and 2 of adjoining TUs 63 and 64, as well as in Level 1 of non-adjoining TUs 70 and 72. There are also concentrations of FCR in TUs 63, 70, and 72, as well as in TU 74 (Table 29).
Two triangular PPKs were recovered from the block, both of which are made of Ridge and Valley chert (see Lithic Analysis section). One of these, recovered from Level 1 of TU 74, is a relatively large triangular PP/K, indicative of the Late Woodland triangular forms. The other, also recovered from TU 74 but in Level 2, is also a triangular form but is much smaller, suggesting a post-Woodland origin. However, it is entirely possible that either were made at any point during the Late Woodland-Late Mississippian time frame.
Relatively few ceramics were recovered from this block, all of which are sand tempered. Of the nine sherds recovered, four are residual, while the remaining five are body sherds. Of the body sherds, four have an eroded exterior surface that hinders determination of the pottery type. One of the body sherds is incised with a very thin incision. This sherd comprises Vessel 12 (see Ceramic chapter). The cultural and temporal affiliation of this vessel is unknown.
Thirty-six liters of floated sediment from four Block 19 unit column samples was analyzed in this study (Appendix A, Table 6). The four Block 19 unit column samples were located between 51 and 90 cmbd (TU 64, Levels 1- 4). The Block 19 unit column sample macroplant assemblage was limited to 0.30 grams of wood charcoal with a very low weight density of 0.008 grams of wood per liter of floated soil. Juglandaceae shell, acorn shell, and seeds were completely absent from the Block 19 analyzed samples (Appendix A, Tables 13-14). Small quantities of wood charcoal were recovered from 75 percent of the Block 19 samples. These statistics highlight the scarcity of all carbonized macrofloral material in this unit column sample.
Feature 19 was a clustering of FCR and a soil anomaly located within TU 59 of Block 19 (Figure 67). The feature was first identified within Level 2 at approximately 50 cmbs. The soil stain was roughly oval in plan, and consisted of dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty clay within the test unit matrix of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty clay. The stain was surrounded on the north and west sides by several pieces of FCR and shale; these items were weighed and discarded. A concentration of charcoal was found adjacent to one of the FCR and the shale. A sample of the charcoal was collected. The stain was bisected from north to south, with the east half removed. The western profile of the stain showed it to have a rounded bottom that extended approximately 18 centimeters below the base of Level 2. A total of 3,400 grams of FCR and shale were present within this feature, while no other artifacts were found in association.

Table 28. Block 19 Artifact Summary

Test Unit Level

59

1

2

4

60

1

2

61

1

2

3

62

1

2

3

63

1

2

3

64

1

2

4

65

1

2

3

66

1

3

Biface

Debitage PP/K
6 2 1 2 12 2 2 1 5 2 1 14 7 1 15 13 2 5 7 3 4 1

Retouched Flake

Sherd, Residual

Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded

1

1 1

Sherd, Sand Tempered
Incised

Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated
1

Sherd, Sand/Grit Tempered
Eroded

1

Stone, Possibly Cultural

Utilized Flake

Total

8

2

1

2

12

2

3

1

6

2

1

14

7

1

15

13

2

5

7

1

4

5

1

PHASE III 207 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

208

Table 28. Block 19 Artifact Summary (Continued)

Test Unit Level

67

1

2

68

1

2

69

1

2

70

1

2

3

71

1

2

72

1

2

73

1

2

74

1

2

3

Total

Biface
2
1 1 1 5

Debitage

PP/K

Retouched Flake

Sherd, Residual

Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded

2

5

1

7

1

14

2

5

19

2

3

6

2

6

19

7

2

4

16

1

5

1

4

235

2

2

4

2

Sherd, Sand Tempered
Incised

Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated

1

1

Sherd, Sand/Grit Tempered
Eroded

Stone, Possibly Cultural

Utilized Flake

Total

2

6

9

1

1

17

5

21

3

6

2

7

19

1

8

2

5

17

7

4

1

1

1 255

Table 29. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 19

Level
1 2 3 Total

Test Unites

FCR Total

59

60

61

62

63

64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

73 74

389 139 157 115 479

5 31 92 131 146

34 4 169

47

28 119

2085

198

33

16

80 257 566 61 145 390 288

51 620 552 633 143 471

4504

77

33 182 44.1 12 212

17.7 277

294.4 155.8 216

1521

587 172 250 228 918 615.1 104 449 521 434 102.7 901 721 974.4 326.8 806

8110

PHASE III 209 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

210
Figure 67. Plan View, Photograph, and Profile of Feature 19

TU 59
A. Plan View of Feature 19

Block

Test Unit

Feature 19

Stain

FCR

Charcoal

Shale

p

0

5

10 cm

B. Photograph of Feature 19, Facing East

II

FCR

I

Block 19, West Pro le

I = 10YR 4/4 (Brown) Clay Loam II = 10YR 3/3 (Dark Brown) Clay Loam

0

20 Centimeters

C. West Profile of Stain

211 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Two flotation samples were collected from Feature 19. A five-liter sample was taken within the FCR cluster and 1.5 liters of soil was collected directly beneath the feature. The sample collected within the feature fill contained 4.47 grams of wood charcoal with a high weight density of 0.894 grams per liter of soil. The small flotation sample taken below the FCR cluster yielded 0.04 grams of wood charcoal with a much lower density of 0.027 grams per liter. The high density of wood charcoal found within the FCR cluster may represent spent fuel remains from prehistoric burning activities. However, given the disturbed nature of this feature context, wood specimens resulting from historic burning may also be contained within the feature fill.
Similar to the stratigraphic situation of Block 18, the artifact-bearing soils within this block appear to have been heavily impacted by historic period activities, including plowing and possibly borrow pit excavation. Given this, and the amount of apparent tree/root activity within Block 19, it is unknown if Feature 19 represents a cultural or natural feature. It is highly likely that the FCR and shale within this feature were not in situ, but rather have been moved from their original location via post-depositional disturbance.
Feature 20 represents a soil anomaly within TU67 of Block 19 (Figure 68). First identified near the base of Level 2 at the same depth as Feature 19 at approximately 50 cmbs, this stain consisted of brown (10YR 4/3) sandy clay within the test unit matrix of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) clay. The feature was bisected along a north-south axis with the east half removed to expose the western profile, revealing that the stain extended approximately 10 centimeters below the bisected surface in a basin shape. The west half was subsequently removed as a soil sample. Subsequently, upon reaching the base of Level 3, within the test unit, an area of feature fill was still present. This area was cored, revealing a loose and soft continuation of the fill to at least 27 centimeters below the base of Level 3. The excavator thus determined this to be a tree/root stain and non-cultural. No artifacts were recovered from this feature.
Block 20
Block 20 was placed northeast of Block 13 and southeast of Block 14 in order to more fully explore the dark soil lens (buried A-horizon) identified within those two blocks (Figure 69). Approximately 120 centimeters of overburden, including the fill comprising the old road in this area of the site, was stripped from the surface using a smooth-blade backhoe to expose the buried A-horizon. The surface of the A-horizon was found to slope southwestward, and an attempt was made to preserve this slope for test unit excavation rather than level the area of the test unit block (Figure 69). Thus, the excavation essentially steps down towards the southwest with the units in the southern portion of the block extending to greater datum-based depths than those in the northern portion of the block (Figures 70). Table 30 shows the beginning datum elevations of each test unit, and at the same time provides a visual clue of the way the excavation levels

212 B. West Profile of Feature 20 I

Figure 68. Plan View and Photograph of Feature 20
II

Block 19, West Pro le Test Unit 67, Feature 20

I = 10YR 4/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Clay II = 10YR 4/3 (Brown) Sandy Clay

0

10 Centimeters

A. Photograph of Feature 20, Facing East

213 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 69. Plan Map of Block 20 with Beginning Datum Elevations

N530.5 E510.5 76

Block 14

88

75

74

82
102
83

83
76
74

104

90

111

103

91

113

105

92

81

79

77

77

84

88

80

80

78

75

118

98

109

89

95

85

87

79

81

92

99

115

88

94

86

87

Block 20

97

108

93

101

87

92

114

96

108

101

94

110

95

106

Block 13

115
Column Soil Sample

Shovel Test

Test Unit Stripped Block

p

0

0.5

1m

214 Figure 70.
Photographs of Block 20 Excavation A. Photograph of Block 20 Test Units Before Excavation, Facing North
B. Photograph of Block 20 Test Units After Excavation, Facing Northeast

Table 30. Block 20 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs)

Level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

75 71-77 77-87 87-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc.
87 air 85-87 87-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 not exc. not exc. not exc.

76 68-77 77-87 87-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc.
88 air air 89-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 not exc. not exc. not exc.

77 68-77 77-87 87-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc.
89 air air 92-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 not exc. not exc. not exc.

78 68-77 77-87 87-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc.
90 air air air 98-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 not exc. not exc. not exc.

79 76-77 77-87 87-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc.
91 air air air 102-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167 167-177 177-187

Test Units

80 75-77 77-87 87-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc.
92 air air 95-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167 167-177 177-187

81 75-77 77-87 87-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc.
93 air air 96-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167 167-177 177-187

82 75-77 77-87 87-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc.
94 air air 95-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167 167-177 177-187

83 air 92-94 94-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 not exc. not exc. not exc. 95 air air air 102-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167 167-177 177-187

84 air 83-87 87-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 not exc. not exc. not exc. 96 air air air 103-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167 167-177 177-187

85 air 82-87 87-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 not exc. not exc. not exc. 97 air air air 105-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167 167-177 177-187

86 air 83-87 87-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 not exc. not exc. not exc. 98 air air air 106-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167 167-177 177-187

PHASE III 215 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

216
worked out in terms of the slope. A 4x6-meter block (Test Units 75-98) was positioned in the center of the stripped area oriented perpendicular to the old roadbed. The stripped area and 4x6meter block covered 96.2 square meters and reached a maximum depth of 194 cmbd. The excavation of the test units extended approximately 290 centimeters below the modern ground surface, while from the upper surface of the test units, excavation extended up to 90 centimeters in depth. The northern portion of the stripped area of Block 20 was located within one of the magnetometer survey grids (Grid 1), and included the area of anomaly detected by GDOT personnel; however, no subsurface anomaly was identified in this location while stripping. No features were encountered within the block.
The south wall revealed five stratigraphic levels. Stratum I was a thin layer of dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty loam, which was likely the vestiges of a buried A-horizon (Figure 71). Under the plow zone was dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) clay loam, over a transitional layer of dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) clay loam mottled with brown (7.5YR 4/3) silty clay loam, over dark yellowish brown (7.5YR 4/4) clay loam subsoil.
Block 20 test units had the highest artifact density of any of the blocks, yielding 3,000 artifacts (Table 31). Similar to the pattern for the other test unit blocks, debitage (n=2,734) comprises the majority (91 percent) of the artifact assemblage. A concentration of debitage is present in Level 2 of TUs 80 and 81 (approximately 86-96 cmbs) and Level 3 of adjoining TU 84 and 85 (approximately 89-99 cmbs). There is another concentration in Level 5 of TU 92 (approximately 105-115 cmbs) and Level 6 of adjoining TU 96 (approximately 116-126 cmbs). Flakes that have been utilized (n=15) and bifaces (n=19) were not uncommon. FCR was found throughout the block (Table 32), with concentrations present in Level 2 of TU 77 (approximately 80-90 cmbs) and Levels 3, 4, and 5 of adjacent TU 79 (approximately 96-106, 106-116, and 116-126 cmbs, respectively); Level 5 of TU 86 (approximately 109-119 cmbs); Level 7 of TU 90 (approximately 120-130 cmbs) and Levels 8 and 9 of adjoining TU 89 (approximately 130-140 and 140-150 cmbs, respectively); and Level 10 of TU 96 (approximately 156-166 cmbs).
Of the 188 prehistoric ceramics from the block, over 85 percent (n=160) are either eroded sand tempered or residual. In addition to the sand tempered wares, a single grog tempered sherd, two grit tempered sherds, five sand/grit tempered, and five shell tempered sherds were recovered. Three different pottery types were identified within the block on the basis of the ceramic assemblage. These include the Middle Woodland type Cartersville Simple Stamped (see Vessel 5 below), the Late Woodland type Napier Complicated Stamped, and the Late Mississippian type Dallas Plain (see Vessel 23). The Cartersville Simple Stamped sherd was recovered in Level 5 (approximately 100-110 cmbs) of TU 90; the Napier sherd was recovered from Level 6 (approximately 116-126 cmbs) of TU 97; and the Dallas Plain sherd from Level 6 (approximately 116-126 cmbs) of TU 96. Also, a lead musket ball (.48 caliber) was recovered from the same level of the same test unit from which the Dallas Plain sherd was recovered (Table 33).

217 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 71. Plan View and Photograph of South Profile of Block 20
A. Sketch Map of South Profile of Block 20

I

I

I

II

III

Block 20, South Pro le

I = 10YR 3/3 (Dark Brown) Silty Loam with Siltstone Gravel II = 10YR 3/4 (Brown) Silty Clay Loam III = 7.5YR 4/4 ( Brown) Silty Clay Loam Mottled with 7.5YR 4/3, (Brown) Silty Clay Loam

0

50 Centimeters

B. Photograph of South Profile of Block 20

1 0

2 2

2 0

1

1

2

1 4

3 5

2 6

4

1

1

1 3

2 1

1 34

2

5

6

1 5

1 8

1 4

1

1

3

2

218
Total
Utilized Flake Uniface
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain, Rim
Lug Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand/Grit Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated Sherd, Sand Tempered, Simple
Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded,
Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Grog Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Grit Tempered,
Eroded
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Mano
Groundstone/Abrader
Debitage
Daub/Fired Clay
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

1

1

8

2 0

2 0

1

1

2

1 3

3 5

2 6

4

1

1

1 3

2 1

3 0

2

5

6

1 4

1 5

1 4

1

Table 31. Block 20 Artifact Summary

3 1

2 1

1

6

5

4

3

2

1

6

5

4

3

2

1

6

5

4

3

2

1

7 8

7 7

7 6

7 5

Table 31. Block 20 Artifact Summary (Continued)

Total
Utilized Flake Uniface
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain, Rim
Lug Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand/Grit Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated Sherd, Sand Tempered, Simple
Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded,
Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Grog Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Grit Tempered,
Eroded
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Mano
Groundstone/Abrader
Debitage
Daub/Fired Clay
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

7 8

4

3

3

5

1

1

7 9

1

7

1

8

2

3 2

3 2

3

2 4

3

2 7

4

1 9

1 20

5

4

1

5

6

2

2

7

1

1

8 0

1

1 4

1

1 5

2

4 8

2

2

5 2

3

2 5

1

2 6

4

1 5

1 5

5

4

4

6

1

1

7

3

1

4

8 1

1

9

9

2 1

3 9

2

1

4 3

3 1

2 0

1

2 2

4

8

8

219 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

5

6

6

5

1 4

1 1

2 9

4 9

9

3

3

6

8

2 0

2 9

1

1 4

1 1

1 2

1 7

2 8

1

1

4

1

1

6

1

1 0

1

1 2

1 1

1

2

220
Total
Utilized Flake Uniface
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain, Rim
Lug Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand/Grit Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated Sherd, Sand Tempered, Simple
Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded,
Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Grog Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Grit Tempered,
Eroded
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Mano
Groundstone/Abrader
Debitage
Daub/Fired Clay
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

1

1

2

4

8

1 1

2 6

4 8

8

3

3

5

8

1 9

2 7

4

1 1

1 2

1 7

2 2

1

4

Table 31. Block 20 Artifact Summary (Continued)

4 1

7 1

7

6

5

4

3

2

8

7

6

5

3

6

5

4

3

2

1

7

6

8 4

8 3

8 2

8 1

Table 31. Block 20 Artifact Summary (Continued)

Total
Utilized Flake Uniface
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain, Rim
Lug Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand/Grit Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated Sherd, Sand Tempered, Simple
Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded,
Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Grog Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Grit Tempered,
Eroded
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Mano
Groundstone/Abrader
Debitage
Daub/Fired Clay
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

8 5

2

1 0

1 3

1 1

3

4 4

1

4 8

4

3 3

3 3

5 1

1 7

1 8

6

1 1

1 1

7

3

1

4

8 6

2

1 9

1

2 0

3

2 9

1

3 0

6

3 5

3 5

7

1

1

8

2

2

9

1

1

8 7

2

1

1

3

2 5

4

5 2

1 1 6
2

2 7

5 8

5

4 4

4 6

6

1 4

1 4

7

1 3

1 14

8

4

4

8 8

3

1 55

1

5

6 2

221 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

4

4 4

1

5

5 0

2 3

5 3

4 0

9

3

3

1

9

2 4

5 0

7

1 9

1 3

2 9

3 9

2 3

5

7

1 3

3 2

3 8

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

222
Total
Utilized Flake Uniface
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain, Rim
Lug Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand/Grit Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated Sherd, Sand Tempered, Simple
Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded,
Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Grog Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Grit Tempered,
Eroded
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Mano
Groundstone/Abrader
Debitage
Daub/Fired Clay
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

1

1

4

3

2

1

3

1

1

1

1

19 1

4 6

3 6

9

3

2

8

2 1

4 6

7

1 5

1 2

2 7

3 5

2 2

5

6

1 3

3 1

3 5

Table 31. Block 20 Artifact Summary (Continued)

7 1

7 1 1

8 1

5 1

7

6

5

4

9

8

6

5

4

8

6

5

4

3

9

7

6

9 1

9 0

8 9

8 8

Table 31. Block 20 Artifact Summary (Continued)

Total
Utilized Flake Uniface
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain, Rim
Lug Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand/Grit Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated Sherd, Sand Tempered, Simple
Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded,
Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Grog Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Grit Tempered,
Eroded
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Mano
Groundstone/Abrader
Debitage
Daub/Fired Clay
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

9 1

8

8

8

9

2

2

1 0

2

2

9 2

3

3

3

4

2 6

1

2 7

5

6 9

6

5

1

1

8 2

6 1

3 9

4

2

4 6

7 1

1 8

1

1

6

2 7

8

7

7

9

3

3

1 0

1

1

1 1

1

1

9 3

3

3

1

4

4

3 1

3 1

5

4 0

4

4

4 8

6 1

3 2

3

1

3 7

7

2 6

1

2 7

8 1

1 0

1 1

9

5

1

6

1 0

2

2

223 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

1 2

1

1

2 3

3 4

8 7

1 1

3

1 4

2 3

2 4

4 3

4 0

2 0

2 3

1

1

1

2 5

1 5

3 1

3 3

1 7

2

1

1

2

1 1

1

1

4

4

1 4

3 1

1

3

224
Total
Utilized Flake Uniface
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain, Rim
Lug Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand/Grit Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated Sherd, Sand Tempered, Simple
Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded,
Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Grog Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Grit Tempered,
Eroded
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Mano
Groundstone/Abrader
Debitage
Daub/Fired Clay
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

4

1

1

1

1 8

2 9

7 6

1 1

3

1 4

2 2

2 2

4 2

3 5

1 8

2 3

1

1

1

2 5

1 4

3 0

2 9

1 5

2

Table 31. Block 20 Artifact Summary (Continued)

8 1

9 1

6 2

7

6

4

1 1

1 0

8

7

5

4

1 2

1 1

1 0

8

7

6

5

4

3

9 6

9 5

9 4

Table 31. Block 20 Artifact Summary (Continued)

Total
Utilized Flake Uniface
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain, Rim
Lug Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand/Grit Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated Sherd, Sand Tempered, Simple
Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded,
Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Grog Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Grit Tempered,
Eroded
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Mano
Groundstone/Abrader
Debitage
Daub/Fired Clay
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

9 6

9

1 8

1 0

1 0

1 1

1

1 2

1

9 7

4

2 2

6

4 7

1 6

1

7

5 4

3

3

1

8

3 1

9

9

1 0

3

1

1 1

3

1 8 1 0
1 1 2 2 5 5 1 62 3 1 9 4 3 3 3 1 5 5 5 0 1 6 3 1 1 3 1 29 1 15 3000

9 8

4

3

5

3 0

1

6

4 2

5

6

2

7

4 3

4

3

8

1 6

9

3

1 0

1

1 2

1

105

1

3

225 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Total

19 2 1 2734 1 1 5 4 2 1 68

4 92

2 3

2

4 5 4

226

Table 32. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 20

Level

Test Units

FCR

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Total

1

3 693 297 319

78

44

1434

2

261 218 951 454 144 578

62 189

70 55 116

3098

3

84 735 548 85 865 292 465 527 263 109 182 330 214 201 118

61

5079

4

155 565 40 24 1078 642 514 884 311 108 548 488

116 213 72 222 64

298 59 128

6529

5

69 182 44

837 397 246 276 462 402 557 870 415 109 280 611 101 166 201 145 222 182 310 16 7100

6

122

8

2 49 131 11 283 91 232 412 498 121 14 193 549 98 110 82 136 176 181 79 3578

7

32

93 213 610 83 542 506 240 1000 204 237 72 533 259 126 553 176 5479

8

54 85 95 442 656 363 508 420 161 524 500 275 458 127 4668

9

34 200 56 1200 54 212 205 648 250 116 240 280 289 3784

10

4 44 850 97 430 1171 349 607 3552

11

14 454 17 258 223 103 340 1409

12

15 26

183 64

288

Total 694 2401 1880 882 2926 2068 1462 1887 1412 993 2238 2418 1964 1551 2721 2293 1800 1309 2511 1972 1980 2704 2298 1634 45999

227 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Table 33. Modern Artifacts within Block 20

Test Unit 75 96 Total

Level 4 6

Container Glass, Clear 1
1

Lead Ball
1 1

Total 1 1 2

Four diagnostic PP/Ks were recovered from Block 20 (see Lithic Analysis section). These include two Flint Creek points that are Late Archaic-Early Woodland in age, a Gary point that was also produced during that time frame, and a Bakers Creek point, a style that was produced during the Middle Woodland period. The Bakers Creek point was piece plotted (Piece Plot 19) within TU 95 within Level 7 at approximately 132 cmbs. One of the Flint Creek points (Piece Plot 25) was recovered from Level 8 of TU 90 at approximately 146 cmbs. The other Flint Creek point was recovered from Level 10 of TU 97, which equates to approximately 156-166 cmbs. Finally, the Gary point was recovered from Level 1 of TU 80, which was a partial air level with a maximum of four centimeters of soil removed; this excavation level equates to approximately 82-86 cmbs. The Gary point is contemporaneous with the Flint Creek points.
Thirty-nine liters of floated sediment from four Block 20 unit column samples collected from 8994 cmbs (Level 3), 107-112 (Level 5), 137-142 (Level 8), and 147-152 cmbs (Level 9) of TU 88, were analyzed in this study (Appendix C, Table 7). The sparse Block 20 macroplant assemblage consisted of 0.60 grams of wood charcoal, 0.12 grams of resin, and five fragments of Juglandaceae shell (all indeterminate hickory/walnut) weighing 0.04 grams. Small quantities of wood charcoal were recovered from 100 percent and nutshell from 75 percent of the Block 20 unit column samples. Acorn shell and seeds were completely absent in this block.
The overall weight density of wood byproducts was a low 0.018 grams per liter of floated soil. Juglandaceae shell, while highly ubiquitous, was sparsely represented, with an overall weight density of only 0.001 grams per liter. By weight, 77 percent (0.46 g) of the wood charcoal fragments were recovered between 89 and 94 cmbs (Level 3). Nutshell remains were found in Levels 3, 8, and 9. These statistics suggest that low levels of both wood byproducts and nutshell are relatively evenly distributed between 89 and 157 cmbs within the portion of the site investigated via Block 20.
If these low-density macrofloral remains are artifacts of cultural activity, the plant remains, in the opinion of the archaeobotanist, are suggestive of two possibilities. First, the low density of wood may be due to low-density occupation of this area of the site or use of this area for activities that did not require heating/cooking fires. The high ubiquity, but low density of nutshell is suggestive of collection and processing of mast for immediate consumption rather than a concentrated harvest for storage during seasons of scarcity. Nutshell densities would presumably increase if mast was collected in bulk and processed for long term storage.

228
While it was hoped that the buried A-horizon explored by this test unit block would have intact archaeological deposits that escaped disturbance from historic activities such as plowing and road construction, the distribution of the diagnostic artifacts, the presence of the lead ball at depth, and the disturbance of this location of the site via the old road appears to have negatively impacted the archaeological chronostratigraphy. Specifically, Late Archaic-Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, Late Woodland, and Late Mississippian components were identified within the block, yet the depths below surface of these diagnostics in relation to one another do not follow the law of superposition. The Late Archaic-Early Woodland artifacts (Gary and Flint Creek PP/Ks), which should have been found underneath the other diagnostic artifacts as they are the oldest of the diagnostics from this block, were found at depths of 82-86 cmbs, 146 cmbs, and 156-166 cmbs. The Middle Woodland check stamped pottery was found at 100-110 cmbs, while the Middle Woodland PP/K was recovered at 132 cmbs. Both the Late Woodland and the Late Mississippian diagnostics were recovered from between 116 and 126 cmbs, which is also the depth at which the historic period lead musket ball was found. This data suggests the artifact assemblage from this block has been temporally mixed.
Block 23
Block 23 was excavated to the west of the deep trench Block 22 in the northeastern quadrant of the project area in order to more fully explore deep midden-like soil observed during trenching of Block 22 (Figure 72). Using a smooth-bucket backhoe, 32 square meters of plow zone were removed to expose the possible cultural layer; the thickness of the stripped plow zone soil was approximately 35 centimeters, ending at the top of this potential cultural layer. A 3x6-meter test unit block (Test Units 105-122) was then oriented east/west in the center of the stripped area. The block and stripped area covered a total of 50 square meters and reached a maximum depth of 220 cmbd, or approximately 230 centimeters below the original ground surface; the test unit excavation extended approximately 150 centimeters below the beginning surface of the test units (Table 34). The beginning elevations of the test units are also provided in Figure 72; these elevations were measured from Laser Level 7, which was located upon the stripped surface at which the test unit excavation was begun and which was 57 centimeters above this stripped surface. The depth to which individual test units were excavated varied due to varying sterile levels, so that the resulting excavation was stepped (Figure 73).
The north wall exhibited five stratigraphic levels (Figure 74b). Below the fill layer was dark yellow brown (10YR 3/4) sandy loam, over dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty loam, over brown (10YR 4/3) silty loam, over dark yellow brown (10YR 3/4) silt mottled with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sandy clay, over dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) silty mottled with yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sandy clay. According to the geomorphology study, Block 23 was excavated along the eastern edge of the T2 terrace Alluvium in this area of the T2 terrace is very fine sandy silt. The sedimentology log shows distinct alluvial strata in the top of the profile

Table 34. Block 23 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs)

Level

105

106

107

1

38-40

37-40

37-40

2

40-50

40-50

40-50

3

50-60

50-60

50-60

4

60-70

60-70

60-70

5

70-80

70-80

70-80

6

80-90

80-90

80-90

7

90-100

90-100

90-100

8

100-110

100-110

100-110

9

110-120

110-120

110-120

10

120-130

120-130

120-130

11

130-140

130-140

130-140

12

140-150

140-150

140-150

13

150-160

150-160

150-160

14

160-170

160-170

160-170

15

170-180

170-180

170-180

16

180-190

180-190

180-190

17

190-200

190-200

190-200

108 37-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 110-120 120-130 130-140 140-150 150-160 160-170 170-180 180-190 190-200

Test Unit 109 36-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90
90-100 100-110 110-120 120-130 130-140 140-150 150-160 160-170 170-180 180-190 190-200

110 39-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 110-120 120-130 130-140 140-150 150-160 160-170 170-180 180-190 190-200

111 38-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 110-120 120-130 130-140 140-150 150-160 160-170 170-180 180-190 190-200

112 38-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 110-120 120-130 130-140 140-150 150-160 160-170 170-180 180-190 190-200

113 39-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 110-120 120-130 130-140 140-150 150-160 160-170 170-180 180-190 190-200

PHASE III 229 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Table 34. Block 23 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs) (Continued)

Level

114

115

116

117

1

36-40

37-40

39-40

35-40

2

40-50

40-50

40-50

40-50

3

50-60

50-60

50-60

50-60

4

60-70

60-70

60-70

60-70

5

70-80

70-80

70-80

70-80

6

80-90

80-90

80-90

80-90

7

90-100

90-100

90-100

90-100

8

100-110

100-110

100-110

100-110

9

110-120

110-120

110-120

not exc.

10

120-130

120-130

120-130

not exc.

11

130-140

130-140

130-140

not exc.

12

140-150

140-150

140-150

not exc.

13

150-160

150-160

150-160

not exc.

14

160-170

160-170

160-170

not exc.

15

not exc.

not exc.

not exc.

not exc.

16

not exc.

not exc.

not exc.

not exc.

17

not exc.

not exc.

not exc.

not exc.

Test Unit
118 35-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 130-140 not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc.

119 36-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc.

120 31-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc.

121 33-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc.

122 34-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc.

230

231 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 72. Plan Map of Block 23 with Beginning Datum Elevations
N550.5 E570.5

56
107

57
110

54 Block 23
106

61 26

40a

109

58

60

105
65

108
60

61
113

62 27
116

6040b

58
115

56 112 57

61
119
57
118
55

64

61

122

55

58

121

55

53

111
53

114
54

117
56

120

49

48

41

N540.5 E570.5

Feature

Column Soil Sample

Shovel Test

Test Unit Stripped Block

p

0

0.75

1.5 m

232 Figure 73.
Photographs of Block 23 Excavation A. Block 23 During Excavation, Facing West-Northwest
B. Block 23 Near End of Excavation, Facing East. Note the dark stain in the deepest portion of the block,
which represents Feature 40.

233 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 74. Plan View and Photograph of North Profile of Block 23

A. Sketch of North Profile of Block 23

Stripped Surface
I II
III IV

V

Block 23, North Pro le

I = 10YR 3/4 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Silty Loam II = 10YR 3/3 (Dark Brown) Silty Loam III = 10YR 3/4 Silt with 10YR 5/6 (Yellowish Brown) Silty Clay Mottles IV = 10YR 3/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Silt with 10YR 5/6 Silty Clay Mottles

0

30 Centimeters

B. Photograph of North Profile of Block 23

234
above the 60 centimeter sample. The soil in Block 23 includes a 130-centimeter thick cumulative A-horizon. Cumulative A-horizons can form through the deposition of organic-rich sediment or the consistent addition of organic detritus to an aggrading landform. A plow zone was logged to a depth of 35 centimeters. The A-horizon extended to a depth of 90 centimeters. A thin transitional A/C-horizon was logged between 85 and 90 centimeters. The lower part of this cumulative soil horizon is the Ab-horizon recorded from 90-130 centimeters. A sandy silt alluvium or a C-horizon was recorded in the base of the profile. Cultural material was recorded in the A-horizon above 85 centimeters.
In general, the east side of the block yielded less artifacts and sterile levels were encountered at a shallower depth than in the western portion, where artifacts extended to a much greater depth. Five features were identified within the block.
Artifacts were recovered from Levels 1 through 16 (47-210 cmbd or approximately 30-190 cmbs) (Table 35). Artifact density (n=263) was moderate in this block. Similar to the other test unit blocks, debitage is the most frequent artifact within the assemblage; however, in comparison to the other test unit blocks, the proportion of debitage in relation to other artifact types is much lower, as this artifact type comprises approximately 56 percent. There are not any particular concentrations of debitage within the block; the highest number of debitage for any given level of any test unit within the block was six (TU 106, Level 10, approximately 120-130 cmbs), which incidentally was of slate. Two cores and two bifaces were recovered from the block as well, while there was also an expedient chipped stone tool and a hammerstone. FCR was recovered from all test units except for TUs 120 and 121 on the eastern edge of the block (Table 36). It generally occurs at a low to moderate frequency and is spread among the various levels within the test units in which it occurs; however, there is a notable concentration of FCR within TU 108, with a relatively large amount located in Levels 2 and 3 (approximately 40-60 cmbs), and a smaller concentration within Level 15 (approximately 170-180 cmbs), which is at the same level as Feature 40 (see below). Across the block, the highest concentration was in Level 3, followed closely by Level 4.
While no diagnostic projectile points were recovered from this block, several different pottery types were present, albeit in very low frequencies (Table 37). This includes the limestone tempered Wright Check Stamped (Early-Middle Woodland), limestone tempered Long Branch Fabric Marked (Early Woodland), sand tempered Dunlap Fabric Marked (Early Woodland), sand tempered Cartersville Check Stamped (Early-Middle Woodland), sand tempered Napier Complicated Stamped (Late Woodland), limestone tempered Hamilton Plain (Late Woodland), and shell tempered Dallas Plain (Late Mississippian). Based on the vertical distribution of these diagnostic wares, the chronostratigraphy of this block appears to be relatively intact.

Table 35. Block 23 Artifact Summary

Total
Tool, Chipped, Expedient
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain, Rim
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Linear Check Stamped
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Fabric Impressed
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered, Check
Stamped
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Plain, Rim
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Fabric Impressed
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Check Stamped
Sherd, Grit Tempered, UID Decorated
Hammerstone
Debitage
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

105

3

1

1

4 1

4

5

7

6

2

1 1
1

1

7

7

2

7

1

8

1

1

3

9

2

2

1 0

5

5

11 1

8

9

1 2

2

2

106

2

1

1

3

2

1

3

4

2

1 1 1

4

5

1

8

1

1

1 0

4

1

5

235 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

1 3

2

1

1

4

1 4

1

1

2

2

3

2

1

2

7

2

1

2

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

236
Total
Tool, Chipped, Expedient
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain, Rim
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Linear Check Stamped
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Fabric Impressed
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered, Check
Stamped
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Plain, Rim
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Fabric Impressed
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Check Stamped
Sherd, Grit Tempered, UID Decorated
Hammerstone
Debitage
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

2

1

Table 35. Block 23 Artifact Summary (Continued)

2

2

2

7

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1 3

1 2

1 1

1 0

8

6

5

4

1 3

1 2

1 1

1 0

9

7

6

4

3

1

108

107

Table 35. Block 23 Artifact Summary (Continued)

Total
Tool, Chipped, Expedient
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain, Rim
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Linear Check Stamped
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Fabric Impressed
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered, Check
Stamped
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Plain, Rim
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Fabric Impressed
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Check Stamped
Sherd, Grit Tempered, UID Decorated
Hammerstone
Debitage
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

109

2

3

5

6

9

1 0

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 2 3 1 1 1 2 5 4 2 1 2 2

1

1 1

1 2 1 3

1 1 1 1 1

4

4

1

1

3

3

5

1 4

4

110

3

2

6

1

9

1

2

1 0

1

1 1

1

1

1 2

3

4

1 3

2

237 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

1 4

4

4

8

1 6

2

1

1

1

0

9

3

1

1

2

1

1

7

3

1

2

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

238
Total
Tool, Chipped, Expedient
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain, Rim
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Linear Check Stamped
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Fabric Impressed
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered, Check
Stamped
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Plain, Rim
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Fabric Impressed
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Check Stamped
Sherd, Grit Tempered, UID Decorated
Hammerstone
Debitage
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

1

6

1

3

1

2

1

Table 35. Block 23 Artifact Summary (Continued)

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

2

2

1

1 3

5

2

1 4

1 3

1 2

1 0

8

6

3

1 3

1 2

1 1

8

5

4

3

2

113

112

111

Table 35. Block 23 Artifact Summary (Continued)

Total
Tool, Chipped, Expedient
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain, Rim
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Linear Check Stamped
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Fabric Impressed
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered, Check
Stamped
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Plain, Rim
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Fabric Impressed
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Check Stamped
Sherd, Grit Tempered, UID Decorated
Hammerstone
Debitage
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

114

2

1

1

1

3

4

1

1

5

1

1

7

1

1

1 0

2

2

1 1

2

2

1 2

1

3

4

1 3

2

2

115

2

2

2

3

1

1

4

1

1

5

2

1

3

6

6

6

8

1

1

9

2

1

1

4

1 0

1

1

1 1

1 2

3

239 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

1 2

1

1

2 2 146 1 1 1 4 1 5 1 54 3 6 6 1 3 2 1 3 2 3 14 1 263

1

1

1 2

1

2

4

1

1

1

3

1

8

1

1

1

2

1

240
Total
Tool, Chipped, Expedient
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain, Rim
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Linear Check Stamped
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Fabric Impressed
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered, Check
Stamped
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Plain, Rim
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Fabric Impressed
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Check Stamped
Sherd, Grit Tempered, UID Decorated
Hammerstone
Debitage
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

5 2

1

1

1

Table 35. Block 23 Artifact Summary (Continued)

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

8

5

2

6

5

4

1 2

8

Total

122

121

120

118

117

116

Table 36. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 23

Level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total

Test Unit

105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 122

56

117.7

255.9

14

24

31.9

9

13

31

225.3

3 3

56

11.5 138.1

14.4 51.6 37.4 147.5 39.7

20

40 43.7

78 152 184.2

13

6

39 72.1

19 19.1

63

15

30

48 22

14 51.9

7

6

366.1

26 225

21 72.3

197 207

8.6

15

303.5 3.6

19.9

28.2

11.9

0.6

36

11

13.7

17.9

62.1 112.4

2

247

72.6

4

108

24 31.6

4

1

8 40.1

6 82.3

23 6.3

3

31

39

71

74

4

38

147

1 19 232

9

24

39

50

149.7

11

96 98.1

17.5

184 338.1 113.7 1352.8 411.9 45 528.7 242.8 327.9 486.2 389.5 558.3 116.6 461.2 179.5 58.8

FCR Total
173.7 347.8 758.5 686.1
874 828
60 61.3 192.4 433.6 197 251.3 446
63 210.7 194.1
17.5 5795

PHASE III 241 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

242
Specifically, the Early-Middle Woodland wares were situated in the deepest levels, Late Woodland wares lay above these in the middle levels, and the Late Mississippian pottery was recovered from the upper levels. Further supporting the contention that the archaeological sequence of this block is relatively intact, the most recent of the items found in the block two cut nail fragments - were found only in Level 3, which equates to approximately between 50 and 60 cmbs (Table 38). The single Long Branch sherd and the single Dunlap sherd both Early Woodland were both found Level 10 of TU 109 between approximately 120 and 130 cmbs. For the Late Woodland wares, all but one were found in adjoining test units (TUs 114, 115, 117, and 118), the exception being found two meters to the west of this concentration within TU 106. The three Late Mississippian Dallas Plain sherds, all of which appear to be from the same vessel (Vessel 22, see Ceramic Analysis section below), were each found in different test units (TUs 105, 111, and 120) that are non-adjoining but that all lie along the southern edge of the test unit block.
Table 37. Pottery Type Vertical Distribution within Block 23

Level Cartersville
Check Stamped Cartersville Linear Check Stamped Dallas Plain Dunlap Fabric Marked Hamilton
Plain Long Branch
Fabric Marked Napier Complicated Stamped Wright Check Stamped
Total

2 (40-50 cmbs) 4 (60-70 cmbs) 5 (70-80 cmbs) 7 (90-100 cmbs) 8 (100-110 cmbs) 9 (110-120 cmbs) 10 (120-130 cmbs) 14 (160-170 cmbs)
Total

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

4

6

1

2

2

1

3

1 1

1

5

1 18

Table 38. Modern Artifacts within Block 23

Test Unit
105 107 Total

Level
3 3

Nail, Cut Fragment
1 1 2

Total
1 1 2

243 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Five soil stain features were identified during excavation of the block, Features 26, 27, 40a, 40b, and 41. Feature 26 was a faint circular stain that appeared at approximately 110 at the base of Level 8 of TU109 and 110 in Block 23 (Figure 75). The feature measure approximately 29 centimeters in diameter and consisted of very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silty loam with small flecks of charcoal. The feature was bisected along the line between the two test units, with the north half removed and screened. The stain extended in a somewhat conical fashion and at a diagonal angle to a tapering point approximately 35 centimeters below the excavated surface. The excavator cored the feature and found a possible root to extend to an unknown depth, and also noted several root stains around and within the feature. The excavator felt that this feature represented a probable post that had been intruded upon by roots. No artifacts were recovered from this feature.
The soil from the south half was taken as a soil sample and was processed via flotation. A maize cupule was identified within this fill and submitted for radiocarbon analysis. This sample (Beta 362487) returned a 2 Sigma calibrated date of A.D. 1160-1260, placing it in the late Early to early Middle Mississippian time frame. No artifacts from this time period have been recovered from 9GO297. Several possible explanations may account for this discrepancy. One, the radiocarbon date may simply be erroneous. Two, there was Early-Middle Mississippian period usage of this particular location as an agricultural/horticultural field wherein gardening and food debris was burned, but otherwise there was no habitation of the location that resulted in the discard/deposition of durable diagnostic artifacts. Three, similar to the second possibility, this feature may represent food remains left from period usage of the landform that otherwise did not result in the deposition of other artifacts. Perhaps not coincidentally, a somewhat similar (but slightly later) radiocarbon date was obtained from charcoal in Block 4 on the other side of the site, and no definitive diagnostic artifacts from this time frame were recovered from that block either.
There is a discrepancy between the depth at which Feature 26 was located and the radiocarbonbased Early-Middle Mississippian age of the feature. The feature was first identified at the base of Level 8 (110 cmbs), a level below where the Early-Middle Woodland Cartersville wares began to occur. As the artifact distribution appears to be in correct chronological sequence based on the distribution of diagnostic pottery, this is problematic because a Mississippian period immovable feature should not be present at this depth. Because maize is known to have been an important component of the subsistence system by the Early Mississippian period, this radiocarbon date on a corn cupule is certainly plausible and thus the date may not simply be explained away as being erroneous. However, if the date is accurate, then what process accounts for this piece of corn at this depth? If the soil stratigraphy is relatively intact, then it must have been transported from above downward to the level of the feature via either natural or cultural

244

Figure 75. Plan View and Photograph of Feature 26

A. View and West Profile of Feature 26

Block 23, Plan Test Units 109 and 110, Feature 26

Block 23, West Pro le Test Units 109 and 110, Feature 26

Test Unit 110

Test Unit 109

TDS Nail
x #3232
I

Root

I

Base of Level 9

N

I = Feature Fill10YR 3/2 (Very Dark Grayish Brown) Sandy Loam

0

5 Centimeters

B. Photograph of Feature 26, Facing South

245 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
processes. It may be that this feature was a rotted or burned tree stain having the upper portion located at the Mississippian period ground surface, and the corn entered the ground this way. Alternatively, perhaps this represents the base of a Mississippian period excavation in which food remains or gardening debris were deposited, and the portion of the feature that necessarily would have been present in the intervening levels has been leached away or was not recognized during the test unit excavation; this possibility could account for a Mississippian period post that was implanted from above down to this level.
An 11-liter flotation collected from the fill of Feature 26 yielded 0.80 grams of wood charcoal, 2 fragments of Juglandaceae shell (all black walnut) weighing 0.05 grams, and four seeds (Appendix C, Table 8). The overall weight density of wood charcoal was a relatively low 0.073 grams per liter of floated soil. J uglandaceae shell was sparse, with an overall weight density of only 0.005 grams per liter.
The identified seed assemblage from Feature 26 included one domesticate (maize cupule), one possible indigenous cultigen (maygrass), and two persimmon seeds (Appendix A, Table 14). The maize cupule was submitted to Beta Analytic for AMS dating, which yielded an Early to Middle Mississippian date (Beta-362487, A.D. 1160-1260). The recovery of maize in Level 8 indicates post-depositional intrusion of an Early/Middle Mississippian domesticate into the Block 23 Early Woodland deposits. Persimmon is available for harvest in the fall and maygrass grains mature between April and June. The identification of fall ripening nut and seed taxa in combination with a spring/early summer ripening indigenous cultigen (maygrass) indicates this feature was open and in use during a spring through fall occupation.
Feature 27 was identified within TU116 of Block 23 in Level 8 at approximately 110 cmbs (Figure 76). This feature consisted of a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silty loam stain with charcoal flecking within the lighter test unit matrix. The stain was somewhat rectangular with rounded corners, and measured 32x23 centimeters in length and width. The feature was bisected along a north-south axis, with the east half removed to expose the west profile. The profile revealed a `V'-shaped feature with a rounded bottom. Charcoal increased with depth in the feature. The excavator felt that this was a tree/root stain due to lighter colored halos around small circular stains at the edges of the feature. No artifacts were recovered from this feature, although a few sand tempered ceramics were recovered from Level 8 of this test unit, one of which is check stamped.
One three-liter flotation collected from the fill of Feature 27 yielded 0.15 grams of wood charcoal, three fragments of Juglandaceae shell (all indeterminate hickory/walnut) weighing 0.02 grams, and one unidentifiable nutlet (Appendix A, Table 8). The overall weight density of wood charcoal was a relatively low 0.050 grams per liter of floated soil. Juglandaceae shell was also sparse, with an overall weight density of only 0.007 grams per liter.

246

Figure 76. Plan View and Photograph of Feature 27

A. Plan View and West Profile of Feature 27

Total Station Nail I
II

II

I

II

I

Ground Surface at 130 cmbd

Excavated Not Excavated
I

N

Unit 116, Feature 27, West Pro le

I = 10YR 3/3 Dark Brown Loamy Sand, Soil Matrix II = 10YR 3/2 Very Dark Gray Brown Loamy Sand, Feature Fill

0

10 Centimeters

Unit 116, Feature 27, Plan View

B. Photograph of West Profile

247 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Feature 40 was a large soil stain in Block 23 that was broken into sub-features Feature 40a and 40b (Figure 77). A large soil anomaly was first identified at approximately 170 cmbs below ground surface at the top of Level 15, and consisted of very dark grayish brown silty loam within the test unit matrix of dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) silty loam; this anomaly was designated as Feature 40. Upon troweling the feature in order to define its boundaries, a related but smaller stain appeared just to the northeast of the central dark area. Thus, Feature 40 was divided into Feature 40a and 40b, with the larger stain the former and the smaller the latter. It was also observed during feature definition that Feature 40a also had an area of dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty loam that surrounded the darker central area of the feature. Feature 40a was oval in shape and approximately 150 centimeters by 100 centimeters, covering portions of TUs 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, and 112. Feature 40a was excavated in 10 centimeters levels corresponding to the test unit excavation levels during Levels 15, 16, and 17 with the fill screened separately from the non-feature test unit matrix. The north profile of Feature 40a as revealed by the bisection revealed that the base of the feature was relatively flat to basin-shaped, and a maximum of 54 centimeters in depth. At the top of Level 18, Feature 40a was bisected with the south half removed and screened; two separate charcoal samples were collected from the north half of the feature in TU 110. One of these was submitted for radiocarbon dating (Beta 356563) and returned a conventional age of 2510 30 B.P., placing it in the Early Woodland period. This date accords with the presence of Early Woodland period pottery in the lower levels of this block. While the excavator felt that this stain represented a burned tree feature, the Principal Investigator (who supervised the excavation of this feature) felt that it might represent a pit feature of cultural origin based on its shape, the general agreement of the radiocarbon date with surrounding artifacts, and the presence of an associated probable post feature (Feature 40b, see following paragraph). One piece of Ridge and Valley chert angular debris was recovered from this feature.
Three flotation samples totaling 28 liters from Feature 40a yielded 8.03 grams of wood charcoal, three fragments of Juglandaceae shell (all indeterminate hickory/walnut) weighing 0.02 grams, and 13 seeds (Appendix C, Tables 8, 14). The overall weight density of wood charcoal was a high 0.287 grams per liter of floated soil. Juglandaceae shell was sparse, with an overall weight density of only 0.002 grams per liter.
The identified seed assemblage included seven indigenous cultigen (maygrass) seeds, one spurge seed, and five unidentifiable seed fragments (Appendix A, Table 14). Persimmon is available for harvest from June through October and maygrass grains mature between April and June. The identification of spring/early summer, summer/fall, and fall ripening plant foods in this ancient burned tree offers additional evidence for spring through fall occupations in the Early Woodland component represented in Block 23.

248

Test Unit 107

Test Unit 110

Test Unit 110

Test Unit 106

Feature 40a
Test Unit 109 III

Feature 40b
III

Test Unit 112

II

Block 23, Plan

N

Feature 40a and 40b

Figure 77. Plan View and Photographs of Feature 40
A. Plan View and Profile, Feature 40a and 40b

III

I

I

Block 23, North Pro le Feature 40a
I = Matrix10YR 3/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) II = 10YR 3/3 (Dark Yellowish Brown) III = Feature Fill 10YR 3/2 (Very Dark Grayish Brown)
Charcoal

0

40 Centimeters

B. Photograph of Features 40a and 40b, Facing West

Feature 40a Feature 40b

C. Photograph of North Profile of Feature 40a

249 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Feature 40b (Figure 78), with its upper surface becoming clearer approximately 10 centimeters deeper than Feature 40a, was a smaller circular stain just outside of the northeast boundary of 40a and within TUs 112 and 113, measuring 34x31 centimeters in length and width. This feature was bisected along the TU112/113 divide, with the portion within TU112 removed to expose the south profile; this portion was screened and no artifacts were recovered. The southern portion of the feature was removed in its entirety as a soil sample to the base of Level 16, where the feature fill began to grade into Feature 40a soils immediately to the west. One four-liter flotation collected from the feature fill yielded 0.28 grams of wood charcoal with a relatively low overall weight density of 0.070 grams per liter. Neither nutshell nor seeds were recovered from the feature fill. The south profile of the feature reveals an irregular globular or rounded shape to the feature. The excavator felt that this represented a small post or small basin pit. No artifacts were recovered from Feature 40b.
Feature 41 was a dark yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) silty loam soil anomaly within TU108 of Block 23 (Figure 79). Identified at approximately 190 cmbs at the top of Level 17, the feature was kidney-shaped and measured 30x16 centimeters in length and width. This type of soil anomaly was extremely common throughout the levels of this block, as well as Block 24 to the east. Because these soil anomalies, or mottles, were common, it was decided to excavate one in an attempt to discern its origin. The feature was excavated in its entirety with all of the fill collected as a soil sample. The feature fill extended five centimeters below its upper surface. No artifacts were recovered from this feature. The origin of the feature remains unknown, but the ubiquity of these mottles in all levels of this block and Block 24 strongly indicate that they represent natural features rather than being of cultural origin. They may relate to the natural process of fluvial deposition, perhaps originating as soils that settled into small natural depressions during flooding and or rain events.
Radiocarbon samples were collected from this block and submitted for analysis (Table 39). The earliest date, which falls at the end of the Late Archaic period, was collected from Level 14 between approximately 160-170 cmbs. The next oldest date was collected from within Level 16 of Feature 40a from between approximately 180-190 cmbs; this date ranges from falls within the Early Woodland period, although the error extends into the last century of the Late Archaic period. Another Early Woodland date, slightly younger than the other, was collected from Level 13 between approximately 150-160 cmbs. Lastly, the youngest age of the bunch dates from the late Early - early Middle Mississippian period; this sample was recovered from Feature 26 somewhere between approximately 110 and 145 cmbs. While the Terminal Archaic and Early Woodland dates are congruent with the presence of Early Woodland pottery, there are no diagnostic artifacts from the Early Middle Mississippian time frame.

250 A. Plan View and Profile of Feature 40b

Figure 78. Plan View and Photograph of Feature 40b

II III

I I

Test Unit 113 Test Unit 112

Block 23, Plan Feature 40b
I II

N I

Block 23, South Pro le Feature 40b

I = Matrix 10YR 3/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Mottled with 10YR 5/4, (Yellowish Brown) Silty Clay II = Feature 40b Fill10YR 3/3 (Dark Yellowish Brown) III = Feature 40a Fill 10YR 3/2 (Very Dark Grayish Brown) Silty Sandy Clay

0

20 Centimeters

B. Photograph of Feature 40b
After Excavation

251 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 79. Photograph of Feature 41, Facing North

252

Table 39. Radiocarbon Assays from Block 23

Beta # 362487 356538
356536 356539

Provenience
Feature 26
TU109, Lv. 13
TU110, Feature 40a,
Lv. 16 TU114, Lv. 14

Measured Age (B.P.) 570 +/- 30 2370 +/- 30
2520 +/- 30
2710 +/- 30

Conventional Age (B.P.) 830 +/- 30 2300 +/- 30
2510 +/- 30
2700 +/- 30

2 Sigma Calibrated Age
Cal AD 1160-1260 (Cal B.P. 790-690) Cal B.C. 400-360 (Cal B.P. 2350-2310)/ Cal B.C. 270-260 (Cal B.P. 2220-2210) Cal B.C. 790-700 (Cal B.P. 2740-2650)/ Cal B.C. 700-540 (Cal B.P. 2650-2490)/ Cal B.C. 530-520 (Cal B.P. 2480-2470) Cal B.C. 900-800 (Cal B.P. 2850-2750)

Temporal Period
E-M Miss. E. Wood
E. Wood.
L. Archaic

The chronological stratigraphy of the archaeological record in Block 23 extended for approximately 1.5 meters through alluvial sediments and appears to be chronostratigraphically intact based on the vertical distribution of diagnostic ceramics and four radiocarbon dates. Diagnostic wares from the Early Woodland, Early-Middle Woodland, Late Woodland, and Late Mississippian periods were recovered from the block, while radiocarbon dates were returned that indicate the presence of terminal Late Archaic, Early Woodland, and Early Middle Mississippian components. While no Late Archaic diagnostics were recovered from this block, the Late Archaic date is not unreasonable given the presence of Early Woodland pottery found at the same depth as the radiocarbon sample, as well as the presence of Late Archaic diagnostic artifacts from blocks in the western portion of the site. Current data from northwest Georgia indicate that Early Woodland pottery appeared in the area circa 700 B.C., consisting of fabric marked wares that were made with any of three different tempers. Fabric marked wares of differing tempers have been found together in association at other sites in northwest Georgia, as well as in the test units excavated at the north end of 9GO297 during the Addendum work (Keith et al. 2012).
One hundred and sixty-one liters of floated sediment from 17 Block 23 unit column samples (TU112, Levels 1-17) located between 58 and 218 cmbd was analyzed in this study (Appendix C, Table 9). Forty-six liters of flotation samples were also collected from four feature contexts (Features 26, 27, 40A, 40B). On the basis of C-14 dates, artifact distributions, and vertical distribution of the recovered macrofloral assemblage, the Block 23 Late Woodland to Mississippian components appear to extend from 58-60 cmbd (TU112, Levels 1-6) in the Block 23 unit column sample. The Early Woodland component appears to be encapsulated within the 112-218 cmbd levels (TU112, Levels 7-16). Four Block 23 features (Features 26, 27, 40a, 40b) also appear to date to the Early Woodland period.

253 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Three percent of the wood charcoal/resin, nine percent of the Juglandaceae shell by weight (7% by count), 13 percent of the acorn shell, and 69 percent of the carbonized seeds recovered from flotation samples collected in the Site 9GO297 main excavation area were recovered in Block 23. These proportions exclude the Unit 173, Feature 44 flotation sample collected during Phase I/II Addendum investigations conducted at the Calhoun Elks Club Golf Course (Appendix C, Table 8)(Keith et al. 2012).
The Block 23 unit column macroplant assemblage (161 liters of floated material) consisted of 4.28 grams of wood charcoal (0.027 g/L density), 16 fragments of Juglandaceae shell (1 black walnut, 10 hickory, 5 hickory/walnut) weighing 0.23 grams (0.001 g/L weight density), one acorn shell fragment, and 19 seeds (2 maize, 8 indigenous cultigens, 3 fruit, 1 tree, 1 herb, 1 rose family, 3 unidentifiable). Macroplant remains recovered from the Early Woodland features (46 liters of floated material) consisted of 9.26 grams of wood charcoal (0.201 g/L density), eight fragments of Juglandaceae shell (2 black walnut, 6 hickory/walnut) weighing 0.09 grams (0.002 g/L weight density), and 18 seeds (1 maize, 8 indigenous cultigens, 2 fruit, 1 herb, 6 unidentifiable).
Late Woodland to Late Mississippian Macroplant Remains
The Late Woodland/Mississippian macroplant assemblage found in the Level 1 through 6 column samples (60 L of flotation) included 2.70 grams of wood charcoal (0.045 g/L), 0.09 grams of Juglandaceae (4 hickory, 2 hickory/walnut) shell (0.002 g/L), one acorn shell fragment, two maize cupules, and five seeds (1 blackberry/raspberry, 1 tuliptree, 1 rose family, 2 unidentifiable). As has already been discussed, the Feature 26 (Levels 9-12) Early/Middle Mississippian maize cupule was almost certainly intrusive into the Early Woodland levels. Wood charcoal specimens were recovered from 100 percent of the Late Woodland/Mississippian unit column samples; Juglandaceae nutshell was found in 50 percent of the samples. The respective ubiquities of acorn,maize cupules, and seeds were 17, 33, and 67 percent in the Late Woodland/Mississippian levels.
The Late Woodland/Mississippian seed and nutshell assemblages offered evidence of summer through fall plant food collection. Blackberry/raspberry seeds are available for harvest from June to July, while tuliptree fruits mature between September and October (Appendix A, Table 13). Maize crops were harvested from the mid-summer to mid-fall. Hickory nuts and acorns were collected in the fall. The identification of small quantities of fall ripening nut (acorn, hickory) and seed bearing tree (tuliptree) taxa in combination with a spring/summer fruit-bearing shrub (blackberry/raspberry) offers evidence of spring through fall occupations.

254
The Late Woodland/Mississippian macroplant assemblage offers evidence of maize gardening and collection of nutshell, fruits, and tree taxa by the Late Woodland/Mississippian inhabitants. On the basis of direct dating of the Feature 26 maize cupule (Beta-362487, A.D. 1160-1260), the maize cupules date to the Early/Middle Mississippian. Interestingly, neither Early/Middle Mississippian diagnostics nor features were identified during the current data recovery excavations. The small maize assemblage offers evidence of maize cultivation in the site locality in the Early/Middle Mississippian period. We speculate that the cupules may document use of the site area in this period for a garden plot that was spatially distant from Early/Middle Mississippian habitations. Under this scenario, the maize cupules may have been carbonized when garden plots were burned.
Early Woodland Macroplant Remains
The Early Woodland macroplant assemblage found in the Level 7 through 17 column samples (101 L of flotation) included 1.58 grams of wood charcoal (0.016g/L), 0.11 grams of Juglandaceae (1 black walnut, 6 hickory, 3 hickory/walnut) shell (0.001 g/L), and 12 seeds (1 knotweed, 7 maygrass, 1 blackberry/raspberry, 1 cherry/plum, 1 violet, 1 unidentifiable). Macroplant remains recovered from the Early Woodland features (46 L of floatation) consisted of 9.26 grams of wood charcoal (0.201 g/L density), 0.09 grams of Juglandaceae shell (0.002 g/L), and 17 seeds (8 maygrass, 2 persimmon, 1 spurge, 6 unidentifiable). Wood charcoal specimens were recovered from 82 percent of the Early Woodland unit column samples; Juglandaceae nutshell was found in 45 percent of the samples. Seeds were identified in 45 percent in the Early Woodland levels.
The Early Woodland seed and nutshell assemblages offered evidence of spring through fall plant food collection. Seeds of maygrass and violet were available for harvest from April to June. Blackberry/raspberry, cherry/plum, knotweed, and spurge seeds mature in the summer and early fall months. Finally, black walnuts, hickory nuts, and persimmon fruits ripen in September and October (Appendix A, Table 13). The identification of small quantities of fall ripening nut (black walnut, hickory) and fruit (persimmon) taxa in combination with spring/summer (maygrass, violet) and summer/fall ripening herbaceous plants (black/raspberry, cherry/plum, knotweed, spurge) offers evidence of spring through fall occupations.
The Early Woodland macroplant assemblage offers evidence of indigenous-cultigen gardening and collection of nutshell, fruits, and tree taxa by the Early Woodland inhabitants. The recovery of 16 probable indigenous cultigen seeds from two taxa in the Level 7 through 17 samples suggests the Woodland period inhabitants maintained garden plots, or at a minimum, open areas around their habitations where these herbaceous pioneering plants would have flourished.

255 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Macroplant Analysis Conclusions
In conclusion, the diverse and well-preserved carbonized macroplant assemblage identified in Block 23 indicates that macrofloral preservation is excellent in this portion of the 9GO297 APE. The identification of spring/early summer, summer/fall, and fall ripening plant foods in both the Late Woodland/Mississippian and Early Woodland levels offers evidence of spring through late fall occupations. The identification of 28 percent of indigenous cultigen seeds recovered from the Site 9GO297 archaeobotanical study suggests the Early Woodland period inhabitants in this area of the site maintained garden plots. Recovery of there Early/Middle Mississippian maize cupules offers tentative evidence of an isolated maize field dating to this period.
Block 24
Block 24 was positioned to the east of Blocks 22 and 23 in order to continue explorations of the dark midden-like soil zone identified during the excavation of Block 22 (Figure 80). As with Block 23, a smooth-bucket backhoe was used to strip off approximately 30 centimeters of plow zone overburden to expose the possible cultural layer. Just under the ground surface, approximately three cmbs, in the western portion of the block, there were numerous large unmodified water-worn cobbles within a highly mottled soil layer characterized by oxidized spots within a grayish/olive clayey lens. In the eastern portion, it appeared that the area had been filled in with soils. Investigation of this anomaly revealed bits of rusting wire, and that the oxidized orange mottles were representative of rusted metal items. The geomorphologist agreed that this was a historic period disturbance to the soil, and that it was all likely part of the same event of disturbance (see Appendix B). Given the location of this block along the edge of the historic period field where a field road is observable on historic aerial photographs (see Figure 16), it is not unreasonable to attribute this disturbance to an agriculturally-related historic event.
The west wall profile illustrates the disturbed context of the block and the numerous lightcolored mottles that were common (Figure 81). At least four stratigraphic levels were identified. The upper 20 centimeters of the unit consisted of dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4 and 10YR 3/6) sandy silty loam mottled with large pieces of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sandy loam. The next 30-centimeter lens consisted of dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty sandy loam highly mottled with the same dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sandy loam seen in the upper levels. At the base of excavations was a dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sandy loam with no evidence for mottling.
Regardless, a 3x6-meter block of test units (Test Units 123-140), oriented north/south, was placed in the center of the stripped area (Table 40; Figure 80). The excavated area covered a total of 47 square meters and reached a maximum depth of 190 cmbd or 160 centimeters below the ground surface. From the top of the test unit block, excavation extended to an approximate depth of 90 centimeters in the deepest units (Figure 82). However, during excavation, artifact

256
Figure 80. Plan Map of Block 24 with Beginning Datum Elevations

104

101

101

102

125

123

124

103

102

98

110

128 127 126

100

100

102

104

Block 24

129
96
132

130
102 21
133

131

104

101

134

96

100

102

98

137 136 135

99

102

100

97

138
99

139
98

140

100

95

N540.5 E580.5

Feature

Shovel Test

Column Soil Sample

Test Unit Stripped Block

p

0

0.5

1m

257 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 81. Plan View and Photograph of West Profile of Block 24
A. Sketch Map of West Profile of Block 24
Stripped Surface

VI

Charcoal

II

VI

Charcoal

III

VI VI

VI

IV

VI

V

Block 23, West Pro le
I = 10YR 3/4 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Sandy Loam II = 10YR 3/3 (Dark Brown) Sandy Loam III = 10YR4/3 (Brown) Silty Loam IV = 10YR 3/4 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Silty Loam with 10YR 5/6 (Yellowish Brown) Sandy Clay Mottles V = 10YR 3/6 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Silty Loam with 10YR 5/6 (Yellowish Brown) Sandy Clay Mottles VI = 10YR 3/3 (Dark Brown) Silty Loam
Roots

0

40 Centimeters

VI VI

B. Photograph of West Profile of Block 24

Table 40. Block 24 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs)

Level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

123 34-44 44-54 54-64 64-74 74-84 84-94 94-104 104-114 114-124 132 32-44 44-54 54-64 64-74 74-84 84-94 not exc. not exc. not exc.

124 34-44 44-54 54-64 64-74 74-84 84-94 94-104 104-114 not exc. 133 34-44 44-54 54-64 64-74 74-84 84-94 not exc. not exc. not exc.

125 34-44 44-54 54-64 64-74 74-84 84-94 not exc. not exc. not exc. 134 34-44 44-54 54-64 64-74 74-84 84-94 not exc. not exc. not exc.

126 33-44 44-54 54-64 64-74 74-84 84-94 94-104 104-114 114-124 135 32-44 44-54 54-64 64-74 74-84 84-94 not exc. not exc. not exc.

Test Unit
127 34-44 44-54 54-64 64-74 74-84 84-94 94-104 104-114 114-124 136 33-44 44-54 54-64 64-74 74-84 84-94 94-104 104-114 114-124

128 34-44 44-54 54-64 64-74 74-84 84-94 not exc. not exc. not exc. 137 33-44 44-54 54-64 64-74 74-84 84-94 94-104 104-114 114-124

129 34-44 44-54 54-64 64-74 74-84 84-94 not exc. not exc. not exc. 138 33-44 44-54 54-64 64-74 74-84 84-94 not exc. not exc. not exc.

130 34-44 44-54 54-64 64-74 74-84 84-94 not exc. not exc. not exc. 139 33-44 44-54 54-64 64-74 74-84 84-94 94-104 104-114 114-124

131 34-44 44-54 54-64 64-74 74-84 84-94 not exc. not exc. not exc. 140 33-44 44-54 54-64 64-74 74-84 84-94 94-104 104-114 114-124

258

A. Block 24 Prior to Excavation, Facing Southwest

259 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 82. Photographs of Block 24 Excavation

B. Block 24 After Excavation,
Facing North

260

occurrence reduced dramatically in the block so excavations were limited to two areas of the block, one in the northeast corner (TUs 126 and 127) and the other in the southeast corner of the block (TUs 136, 137, 139 and 140). When at least two levels were sterile for cultural material in the 2x2-meter units, two 50x50-centimeter shovel tests were excavated in the base of TUs 126 and 138-100 centimeters below the base of the test unit excavation, which equates to 290 cmbd. Finally, a bucket auger was used to test the soils underlying the southern 50x50-centimeter shovel test to determine if deeply buried archaeological materials or potentially cultural soils were present; the auger extended for a depth of 100 centimeters below the base of the shovel test to 390 cmbd. Thus, the maximum depth excavated in Block 24 was 360 centimeters below the ground surface. In each case, the tests were negative for cultural material. This block contained a very small amount of archaeological material, and a single non-cultural feature was identified within the block.

Only 22 artifacts were recovered from this block (Table 41). Approximately 68 percent (n= 15) of the artifacts are debitage. In addition to debitage, a single core was recovered, as well as an unidentified grit tempered sherd, four residual sherds, and a single, possibly cultural, stone. The highest frequency of artifacts in any of the levels was four, represented by the four residual sherds that were found in Level 2 of TU137. None of the artifacts are temporally or culturally diagnostic. FCR also was present at a low level in several of the units (Table 42).

Table 41. Block 24 Artifact Summary

Test Unit
123 124 125 126
127
130 132 133 134 137
138 Total

Level
1 1 1 2 6 3 4 5 1 2 4 1 2 8 4

Core
1 1

Debitage
1 2 2

Sherd, Grit Tempered,
UID Decorated

Sherd, Residual

1 2 1 1 1

Stone, Possibly Cultural
1

1

1

1

4

1

1

15

1

4

1

Total
1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 22

261 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Table 42. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 24

Level 123

1

2

3

4

32.3

Total 32.3

124 126 127

120

11

10

10.1 120 21.1 10

Test Unit

FCR

135

136

137

138

139

140 Total

77.6

40.3

40 288.9

113.5 25.7 149.2

1.8

51

1.1

53.9

76.3

118.7

1.8 77.6 76.3 91.3 114.6 65.7 610.7

Similar to Block 23, Block 24 had numerous light-colored soil mottles throughout, and these were treated as natural soil inclusions. A single stain that was darker than the test unit matrix was identified however. Feature 21 was a soil anomaly identified within TU133 of Block 24 (Figure 83). The stain was discovered during excavation of Level 1 at approximately seven cmbs, and presented itself as a dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty loam anomaly within the dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) silty loam test unit matrix. Because the soil within the feature was very loose and not well-developed, it was suspected to be a tree/root stain. The feature was cored, revealing that it extended at least 40 centimeters below its upper surface and was characterized by loose fill throughout. The characteristics of this feature indicate that it did not have a cultural origin and that it almost certainly represents a rotted tree feature. No artifacts were recovered from this feature.
Block 27
Block 27 was placed along the northern border of the project area in the northeastern corner (Figure 84). The block was placed to chase the dark and potentially archaeologically-rich alluvial soils observed in Blocks 22 and 23 to the east. Approximately 50-60 centimeters of soil was stripped from an area 18.4 meters in size, stopping at a darker soil horizon similar to the blocks to the east. At this point, a 2x3-meter test unit block was laid in, while the geomorphologist conducted MS readings in a trenched area on the northwest side of the stripped block and noted a significant amount of FCR and charcoal flecking and thus suggested expanding the block excavations. The block was expanded to a 3x3-meter test unit block (Test Units 141-149) and excavation was begun (Figures 84 and 85; Table 43). Upon completion of these test units, an additional five test units (TUs 173-177) were placed on the west and south of the original block in order to acquire more data from this location. The soils from the upper

262 Figure 83.
Photograph of Feature 21, Facing North
Feature 21

263 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 84. Plan Map of Block 27 with Beginning Datum Elevations

163123 163
141 173

163

163 122

121
142
120 37

113 116
143
112 117
146

Block 27

144

174

163

163118

175
163

147
113 163

145
118 118
148
117 163

117 118
149
116 116

176
163

177
163 163

N550.5 E550.5

Column Soil Sample

Shovel Test

Feature

Test Unit

Stripped Block

p

0 0.3 0.6 m

264
A. Initial Layout of Block 27
Prior to Excavation, Facing North

Figure 85. Photographs of Excavation of Block 27

B. Layout of Additional Test Units (173177) Prior to Their Excavation, Facing South

C. Block 27 After Excavation,
Facing West

Table 43. Block 27 Test Unit Level Depths (cmbs)

Level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

141 55-57 57-67 67-77 77-87 87-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167

142 50-57 57-67 67-77 77-87 87-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167

143 55-57 57-67 67-77 77-87 87-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167

144 54-57 57-67 67-77 77-87 87-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167

145 50-57 57-67 67-77 77-87 87-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167

146 47-57 57-67 67-77 77-87 87-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167

Test Unit

147

148

47-57 53-57

57-67 57-67

67-77 67-77

77-87 77-87

87-97 87-97

97-107 97-107

107-117 107-117

117-127 117-127

127-137 127-137

137-147 137-147

147-157 147-157

157-167 157-167

149 51-57 57-67 67-77 77-87 87-97 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167

173 not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167

174 not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167

175 not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167

176 not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167

177 not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. not exc. 97-107 107-117 117-127 127-137 137-147 147-157 157-167

PHASE III 265 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

266
surface of these additional units were shovel shaved and not screened down to the top of Level 6 where identifiable pottery had appeared in the initial test units; the remaining levels of these additional units were screened. Thus, a total of 14 test units comprised Block 27.
The stratigraphy of Block 27 reflects its location within the alluvial portion of this landform (Figure 86). Three strata were identified. The uppermost stratum consisted of a dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) silty loam that extended approximately 45-60 centimeters below the top of the test units. Underlying this was a slightly darker dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty loam horizon that extended to approximately 110 cmbs of the test units. Underneath this stratum was a brown (10YR 4/3) silty clay that appeared to represent subsoil. According to the geomorphological study, the profile of Block 27 included two soils of different ages. The younger soil profile includes an A-, E-, and Bw-horizon extending to a depth of 97 centimeters. A thick buried Ahorizon was recorded from 97 cmbs to the base of the Block 27 profile at a depth of 160 cmbs. The particle size distribution on the sedimentology log shows that the depositional processes were relatively uniform over time. Fine sandy silt was deposited in this area of the T2 terrace. The buried A-horizon in Block 27 is a well-preserved prehistoric land surface. It was deposited by suspension settling, which does not disturb the context of cultural deposits on the landform. The statistical data distinguishes the buried A-horizon from the young soil above. The buried Ahorizon has higher MS values and slightly elevated calcium, magnesium, phosphorus concentrations as well as a higher percent organics. This could be associated with prehistoric occupation of this buried surface.
Artifact density within Block 27 was low (Table 44). Of the 450 artifacts recovered, approximately 84 percent are debitage, a high proportion similar to many of the other test unit blocks. Several bifaces (n=5) and utilized flakes (n=7) were also recovered, as were a single core and a single hammerstone. There is a concentration of debitage in the southwest corner of the block, with high frequencies in Level 8 of TU147, Level 9 in TU175, Levels 7 and 8 in TU176, and Level 7 in TU177. FCR was found in all test units, and a concentration is present in Level 8 of TU149 (Table 45). A single non-cultural feature was identified within the block.
Three pottery types were recovered from Block 27 (Table 46). These include the Middle Woodland type Swift Creek Complicated Stamped, the Late Woodland type Woodstock Complicated Stamped, and the Late Mississippian type Dallas Plain. The most numerous sherds were Woodstock, all of which appear to be part of a single vessel (Vessel 1, see Ceramic Analysis section below). These were distributed within Levels 9 and 10 in six of the test units within the block. The single Swift Creek sherd was recovered from Level 8 in TU 145; this artifact comprises Vessel 6 (see Ceramic Analysis section below). The five sherds of Dallas Plain pottery, all of which appear to be from a single vessel (Vessel 20, see Ceramic Analysis

267 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 86. Plan View and Photograph of North Profile of Block 27
A. Sketch Map of Block 27 North Profile

Stripped Surface

Rodent Hole

FCR

I

IV

II

IV

IV

III

Block 27, North Pro le
I = 7.5YR 3/4 (Dark Brown) Silty Loam II = 10YR 3/3 (Dark Brown) Silty Loam III = 10YR 4/3 (Brown) Silty Clay IV = 7.5YR 4/3 (Brown) Silty Clay

0

40 Centimeters

B. Photograph of Block 27 North Profile

1

3

1

1

3

5

3

5

7

5

1

2

6

3

2

1

2

1

1

1 2 1

268
Total
Utilized Flake
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Steatite Vessel Sherd Sherd, Shell Tempered,
Plain Sherd, Shell Tempered,
Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered,
UID Decorated Sherd, Sand Tempered,
Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered,
Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped, Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped
Sherd, Residual Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Eroded
Shell
Hammerstone
Debitage
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

1

2

1

3

5

2

3

7

5

1

2

6

3

1

1

2

1

Table 44. Block 27 Artifact Summary

1

8

7

3

1

9

8

7

6

5

3

1 0

9

8

7

6

5

4

1

143

142

141

Table 44. Block 27 Artifact Summary (Continued)

Total
Utilized Flake
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Steatite Vessel Sherd
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped, Rim
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Eroded
Shell
Hammerstone
Debitage
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

143

9

3

3

1 0

1

1

2

1 1

1

1

144

1

1

1

2

1

1

5

2

2

6

3

3

7

1

2

3

8

5

5

9

4

4

1 0

5

5

1 1

1

1

145

2

5

5

3

1

1

4

8

8

5

2

2

269 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

6

3

3

7

3

3

8

6

0

1

7

1

4

3

3

1 8

8

9

4

4

2

4

5

1

3

1

1

4

4

1

1

1 1 1
1 1

270
Total
Utilized Flake
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Steatite Vessel Sherd Sherd, Shell Tempered,
Plain Sherd, Shell Tempered,
Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered,
UID Decorated Sherd, Sand Tempered,
Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered,
Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped, Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped
Sherd, Residual Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Eroded
Shell
Hammerstone
Debitage
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

1

4

2

1

4

2

3

1 7

7

9

4

3

2

3

5

1

3

1

1

1

Table 44. Block 27 Artifact Summary (Continued)

2

1

1 1

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

8

6

5

4

2

1

1 1

1 0

9

148

147

146

145

Table 44. Block 27 Artifact Summary (Continued)

Total
Utilized Flake
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Steatite Vessel Sherd
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped, Rim
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Eroded
Shell
Hammerstone
Debitage
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

148

3

1

1

4

6

6

5

5

5

6

1

5

1

7

7

4

1

5

8

2

1

3

9

1

1

2

1 0

2

2

4

1 1

1

1

2

1 2

1

2

3

149

1

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

1

5

2

2

6

2

2

7

6

1

7

271 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

8

7

1

8

9

1

1

1 0

3

2

1

2

8

1 14

1 0

2

2

2

1 5

8

6

1 6

1

2

4

1

6

6

1

3

3

4

1

1

1

2

1

272
Total
Utilized Flake
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Steatite Vessel Sherd Sherd, Shell Tempered,
Plain Sherd, Shell Tempered,
Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered,
UID Decorated Sherd, Sand Tempered,
Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered,
Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped, Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped
Sherd, Residual Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Eroded
Shell
Hammerstone
Debitage
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 3

1 0

1

2

2

1 3

8

5

1 4

1

4

1

5

6

3

2

2

Table 44. Block 27 Artifact Summary (Continued)

1

7

6

1 2

1 1

1 0

9

8

7

6

1 2

1 0

9

8

7

6

1 0

9

7

6

176

175

174

173

Table 44. Block 27 Artifact Summary (Continued)

Total
Utilized Flake
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Steatite Vessel Sherd
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped, Rim
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped
Sherd, Residual
Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Eroded
Shell
Hammerstone
Debitage
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

176

8

1 6

4

2

2 2

9

4

1

5

1 0

1

1

1 1

3

3

1 2

2

1

3

177

6

4

4

7

1 6

1 6

8

6

1

1

8

9

7

1

8

1 1

7

7

1 2

4

2

6

Total

5

1 377

1

0

1 26

7

1

1 12

3

1

5

1

1

7 450

273 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

274

Table 45. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 27

Level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total

141
318 171
50 40 579

142
3.9 5
41.6
7 1 185 81 38.1
362.6

143
11
114.1 149 82 52
408.1

144 21
49.9
22
19 80 102
90.1 384

145
61.6 49
10 15
112 165
16
428.6

146
20 66 9.5 86 36 159.8
44.3 421.6

Test Unit

147 148

41.8

121.8

9

13

46

135

17

30

47

9

30

41

56

38

396.1

10

9

14 275

827.7 511

149
139 2
3.5
10 93 378 78
33.7
737.2

173
6 16 33 118 173

174
7 22 21 26
6 4 86

175
22 13 52 25 16 11 139

176
97 72 43 21 69
1 16 319

177
137 179 202
89 2
24 633

FCR Total
62.8 335.3
126 247 378 528.1 602.5 1353 805 1016 77.7 478.4 6009.8

275 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

section below), were recovered from five different test units from four different levels (6-9). The depths at which these wares were recovered in relation to one another suggests that the stratigraphic sequence has been compromised, as the Late Mississippian pottery is spread vertically across four levels, with two of the sherds at the same level or lower than the Woodland pottery. However, the location of the Swift Creek sherd in relation to the Woodstock pottery is not problematic as these types may co-occur.

Table 46. Pottery Types within Block 27

Test Unit
144 145
147 148
149
173 175 176
Grand Total

Level
10 8 10 7 6 10 9 10 10 9 8 9

Dallas Plain
1 1
1 2 5

Swift Creek Complicated
Stamped 1
1

Woodstock Complicated
Stamped 1
1
2 3 1 1
1 10

Total
1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 16

One possible explanation for the apparent chronological mixing is provided by the presence of narrow linear features that occurred throughout the block beginning in Level 4 at approximately 85 cmbs. These linear features consisted of approximately 1-2 centimeters wide lines filled with a light-colored soil (Figure 87). Similar in appearance to a worm burrow, they wound about the block and came together to form large irregular polygons. The excavators observed that they seemed to occur in the same general place with depth, indicating a vertical dimension. Consultation with the geomorphologist as to the origin and nature of these linear soil anomalies indicated that they may represent "polygonal cracking", which is due to freeze-thaw events wherein the soil contracts during freezes and different soils filter into the interstices. These lines generally faded away by the base of Level 9 (approximately 140 cmbs). If these lines are the signatures of freeze-thaw events, then it may be that artifacts were transported from their original depositional contexts. Alternatively, mixing may have occurred as a result of the actual occupations and/or other natural processes of bioturbation.

276
Figure 87. Linear Features in Block 27, Facing East

277 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Regardless, a more typical soil stain feature was also recorded within the block. Feature 37 was a soil anomaly identified during the excavation of Level 9 (approximately 140 cmbs) of TU145, where it was expressed as an amorphous stain felt by the excavators to represent a burned tree (Figure 88). The feature was excavated during the test unit excavation with the fill screened separately from the surrounding matrix during Level 9 and 10. By Level 11, the stain consisted of dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty clay loam with moderate charcoal flecking surrounding a darker area of very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silty clay loam with large pieces of charcoal, situated within the brown (7.5YR 4/2) silty clay loam of the test unit matrix. During Level 11, the charcoal concentration increased and a charcoal sample was collected. At the base of Level 11 at approximately 156 cmbs, the feature was excavated in quadrants and found to end midway through the level. The excavator and Principal Investigator both felt that this feature represented a burned tree due to the charcoal and the nature of the stain. No artifacts were recovered from this feature.
Eighty-nine liters of floated sediment from ten unit column samples recovered from between 57 and 167 cmbs (Levels 2- 12) in TU 145 were analyzed in this study (Appendix C, Table 9). No Block 27 features were sampled for macrofloral remains.
The Block 27 macroplant assemblage consisted of 8.06 grams of wood charcoal, three fragments of Juglandaceae shell (all indeterminate hickory/walnut) weighing 0.02 grams, and five seeds. Six percent of the wood charcoal, one percent of the carbonized Juglandaceae shell by weight (1% by count), and nine percent of the carbonized seeds recovered from flotation samples collected in the Site 9GO297 main excavation area were found in Block 27 column sample These proportions exclude the Unit 173, Feature 44 flotation sample collected during Phase I/II Addendum investigations conducted at the Calhoun Elks Club Golf Course (Appendix C, Table 8) (Keith et al. 2012).
The identified seed assemblage included three possible indigenous cultigens (2 knotweed, 1 maygrass), one chickweed seed, and one unidentifiable seed coat fragment (Appendix C, Table 14). Knotweed is available for harvest from June to October, while chickweed and maygrass seeds mature between April and June (Appendix C, Table 13). The identification of small quantities of fall ripening nut taxa in combination with spring/summer ripening herbaceous plants (chickweed, maygrass) offers evidence of spring/summer and fall occupations.
Wood charcoal specimens were recovered from 100 percent of the Block 27 unit column samples. The respective ubiquities of nutshell and seeds were 10 and 20 percent. The small nutshell assemblage came from the 137-142 cmbs (Level 10) flotation sample. This sample also contained the second highest weight density of wood charcoal (0.113 g/L) found in the Block 27

278 Figure 88.
Photographs of Feature 37 A. Photograph of Feature 37 within the Context of Block 27, Facing North
B. Photograph of Feature 37, Facing North

279 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
samples. One carbonized knotweed seed and one carbonized chickweed seed were recovered from the 77-82 cmbs (Level 4) sample, while one carbonized knotweed seed, one carbonized maygrass seed, and one unidentifiable carbonized seed were recovered from the 127-132 cmbs (Level 9) sample. Neither a high density of wood charcoal nor nutshell was associated with these potential indigenous cultigens and other seed taxa. Plant food remains were absent seven unit column samples. The overall weight density of wood byproducts was a moderately high 0.081 grams per liter of floated soil. The overall weight density of Juglandaceae shell was an extremely low 0.0002 grams per liter.
Wood charcoal densities were variable in the Block 27 column sample. By weight, 67 percent (5.44 g) of the wood charcoal fragments were recovered between 87 and 117 cmbs (Levels 5-7). Wood weight densities ranged from 0.080-0.463 (Level 7) in these levels. Eighteen percent of the recovered wood specimens (1.59 g) were found in the 137-157 cmbs (Levels 10-11) column samples. The respective wood densities in these samples were 0.113 grams per liter and 0.086 grams per liter. The relatively high concentration of wood charcoal at these depths suggests the most intensive occupation in this area of the site is encapsulated in these layers and/or that heating and cooking activities were more common. The recovery of three possible indigenous cultigen seeds from two taxa in the Level 4 and 9 samples suggests this component may date to the Woodland period and that the Woodland period inhabitants may have maintained garden plots, or at a minimum, open areas around their habitations where these herbaceous pioneering plants would have flourished.
Block 28
Block 28 was situated at the interface between the alluvial strata of the east side of 9GO297 and the remnant ridge (Figure 89, see Appendix B). The block was begun via stripping in order to examine this location for its archaeological potential. The overburden/plow zone was removed at various depths to expose the dark soil horizon; this varied from approximately 35-50 centimeters in thickness. The dark soil horizon was exposed via stripping on the east side, while stripping on the west side was purposely shallower so that the dark soil zone could be encountered via hand excavation. Thus, the area on the west side of the block was left approximately 20 centimeters higher than the east side; also, the upper surface of the test unit block area was generally horizontally unlevel due to stripping to the base of the plow zone stratum (Figure 89). It was noted during stripping that this block contained a fair deal more FCR than the other stripped blocks. Five features (Features 22-25, and 28) were identified during the excavation of this block.

280
Figure 89. Plan Map of Block 28 with Beginning Datum Elevations

108

Backhoe Cut

84

80

150

159

23

81

86 105

104
152 151

25 80 101

104
155

77

153

22

154
104

Block 28

160
71

24 72 91 73
156

157
85

100
28 92
158
89

N550.5 E520.5

65 85 81

Feature

Column Soil Sample

Shovel Test

Test Unit Stripped Block

p

0

0.5

1m

281 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
After sitting open to the rain for several days prior to hand excavation, there was a noticeable difference in the soil color within the block. Specifically, the soil in the east and north was much darker than the soil in the south and west of the block. Test unit excavation began with the test units on the west side that were approximately 20 centimeters higher than those on the east side of the block. Rather than excavate horizontally-level arbitrary 10 centimeters levels, it was decided to follow the natural slope of the dark soil lens in 10 centimeters increments where possible. The dark soil, consisting of dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty clay loam, increased in thickness towards the northeast, while the brown (7.5YR 4/4) clay subsoil was closer to the ground surface towards the southwest. Thus, the hand excavation followed the dark silty clay loam, with excavation ceasing in the individual test units that exposed the subsoil clay. As a result, the excavation exposed the contact between the clayey subsoil of the bedrock ridge and the deep alluvial soils at this location of the site. In terms of depths, the test unit excavation extended approximately 50 cmbs in the southwest corner of the block (in TU 160, which was only excavated for two levels before subsoil was reached) and approximately 180 centimeters in the northeastern corner of the test unit block (in TU 152, which was excavated in 14 levels) (Figure 90). The soil stratigraphy of Block 28 reflected its location at the contact between the older eroded bedrock ridge underlying the central portion of the site and the deep alluvial soils that are present on the eastern side of the site (Figure 91). The north and east profiles reveal the increasing thickness of the alluvial sediments as one moves towards the northeast within the block. The deep alluvial soil consisted of dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty clay loam (Stratum I). This was underlain by a brown (7.5YR 4/4) clay that represents the subsoil (Stratum II).
Artifact density within Block 28 (n=507) was moderate (Table 47). Similar to most of the other blocks, the assemblage is dominated by debitage (n=483), which comprises over 95 percent of the artifacts. Chipped stone tools from the block include bifaces (n=6), cores (n=2), retouched flakes (n=3), and utilized flakes (n=4). FCR was relatively common within the block (Table 48). While the majority of it was recovered from the deepest test unit (TU152), the greatest concentration of it was found in Level 3 (approximately 65-75 cmbs) of TU155 as part of an FCR cluster (Feature 28, see below); large amounts of FCR were also found in this same unit in the three levels that underlay Level 3. It is unknown if this FCR concentration remains from a single episode or multiple episodes of heating/cooking activity.
One diagnostic artifact was recovered from the test unit block, while a single diagnostic PP/K was recovered during stripping of the block area. A Swannanoa PP/K, which dates to the Early Woodland period, was recovered east of the test unit block from the stripped wall profile three centimeters below the ground surface (see the Lithic Analysis section). Two PP/K fragments were recovered from TU152, but these are non-diagnostic due to their fragmented condition. A Late Mississippian period Dallas Plain sherd was recovered from Level 1 in TU150, which

282 A. Block 28 Prior to Excavation, Facing West

Figure 90. Photographs of Block 28 Excavation

B. Block 28 After Excavation, Facing North

283 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 91. North Profile of Block 28

Stripped Surface
Root
I

Block 28, North Pro le
I = 7.5YR 4/4 Brown Clay Loam II = 10YR 3/3 Dark Brown Silty Clay Loam III = 7.5YR 4/4 Brown Clay

0

20 Centimeters

I Stripped Surface

II
Root
I III

FCR
II

FCR

III

3 0

6

3 2

1 9

2 3

2 4

3

6

2 9

1

1

2

7

1 7

4

1

1

2

5

4

9

3 2

2

1

1

1

1

1

284
Total
Utilized Flake
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain,
Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered,
Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated
Stamped Sherd, Residual
Shell
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Debitage
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

0

1

1

1

3 0

6

3 2

1 8

2 3

2 3

3

5

2 5

1

1

2

6

1 5

3

1

1

2

5

4

9

3 0

1

1

1

Table 47. Block 28 Artifact Summary

1 1

1 0

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

152

151

150

Table 47. Block 28 Artifact Summary (Continued)

Total
Utilized Flake
Stone, Possibly Cultural
Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain,
Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered,
Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated
Stamped Sherd, Residual
Shell
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Debitage
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

152 12

3 0

3 0

1 3

2 3

2 3

1 4

4 8

4 8

153

1

2 3

1

2 4

2

1 6

1 6

3

1

1

154

1

1

1

3

2

2

5

1

1

155

3

4

4

4

1 0

1

1 1

5

1

3

4

7

1

1

156

1

2

1

4 1

1

1

4 6

157

3

2

2

158

3

1

1

159

1

1

1 4

1

1

1 7

2

2

2

160

1

1 4

1 4

285 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

2

1

1

Total

6

2 483

2

3

0 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4 507

286

equates to approximately 40-50 cmbs. An unidentified sand tempered curvilinear complicated stamped sherd was recovered from Level 3 of TU152, which equates to approximately 60-70 cmbs; due to its condition, the type of this sherd is unknown.

Table 48. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 28

Level

150

1

2

184

3

9

4

60

5

25

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Total 278

Test Unit

151 152 153 154 155 156 157

100

268

604

1168.3

117

299 474

2 2637.9

32

231 718

459 1715

296 1208

1569

11 928

2102

230

270

22

359

99

66

61

179

88

937 4680 1436.3 461 8045.9 721 32

158 159 160

FCR Total

363 307 1642

68 183 1720.3

61

3514.9

3183

3098

3041

230

292

359

99

66

61

179

88

61 431 490 17573.2

Features 22, 23, and 24 were all identified within TU 153 in Block 28 in Level 1 at approximately 48 cmbs (Figure 92). All were soil anomalies composed of dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty loam within a test unit matrix of dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) clay loam. Feature 22, which lay to the northwest of Feature 23, was somewhat amorphous in shape, while Feature 23 was roughly circular in plan view. Feature 24 was linear in shape. Feature 22 was bisected, with the eastern portion removed to expose the west profile. The profile revealed stains in the bottom of the feature that were believed by the excavator to represent roots. Feature 23 was also bisected,

A. West Profile of Feature 23

I

B

I

II

A
Block 28, Plan View Test Unit 153, Feature 23

A II

B I

287 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 92. Plan View and Photographs of Features 22, 23 and 24

Block 28, West Pro le Test Unit 153, Feature 23

I = Feature Fill 10YR 3/4 (Dark Yellowish Brown) Sandy Loam II = Matrix 7.5YR 3/4 (Dark Brown) Sandy Clay Loam

0

10 Centimeters

B. West Profile of Feature 22

C. Photograph of Feature 22 (Center-Left), Feature 23 (Center-Bottom), and Feature 24 (Center-Right)

288
with the eastern half also removed to expose the west profile. This profile revealed a tapering shape that extended 57 centimeters below the excavated surface. The excavator found evidence in the base of Feature 23 that indicated a soil fill/root connection with Feature 22. Thus, these two features were determined to be trees. Given the proximity of Feature 24 to tree Features 22 and 23, the identical fill, and the linear pattern of Feature 24, it was also believed to represent a tree/root stain. Two Ridge and Valley chert flake fragments were recovered from Feature 22, eight Ridge and Valley chert flake fragments were recovered from Feature 23, and four flake fragments, three of Ridge and Valley chert and one of quartz, were recovered from Feature 24.
Feature 25 was located within TU 151 of Block 28. This feature was first exposed during stripping, and was left in place for investigation during test unit excavation. It consisted of three pieces of FCR loosely concentrated in Level 3 at approximately 65 cmbs, along with a small fragment of slate. No soil stain was associated with these FCR. The fragment of slate was recovered from this feature while the FCR were weighed (206.6 grams) and discarded.
Feature 28 was a cluster of FCR within TU 155 of Block 28 (Figure 93). The FCR were first observed at the upper surface of Level 3 at approximately 59 cmbs, and they extended approximately 10 centimeters below this elevation. No soil stain or difference was observed in association with the features. Thirteen pieces of FCR collectively weighing 2026 grams were recovered from this feature, while no others artifacts were found in association. It is unknown if this cluster of FCR is from a single or multiple episodes of heating/cooking activity.
One hundred and thirty-seven liters of floated sediment from 14 unit column samples collected from between approximately 40 and 191 cmbs (Levels 1-14) of TUs 151, 152, 153, and 154 were analyzed in this study (Appendix A, Table 10). No Block 28 features were sampled for macrofloral remains.
The Block 28 macroplant assemblage consisted of 1.12 grams of wood charcoal, 0.09 grams of resin, 161 fragments of Juglandaceae shell (2 black walnut, 123 hickory, 36 indeterminate hickory/walnut) weighing 1.83 grams, six fragments of acorn shell, and four seeds. One percent of the wood charcoal/resin, 73 percent of the carbonized Juglandaceae shell by weight (70% by count), 75 percent of the acorn shell, and seven percent of the carbonized seeds recovered from flotation samples collected in the Site 9GO297 main excavation area were found in the Block 28 column sample. These proportions exclude the Unit 173, Feature 44 flotation sample collected during Phase I/II Addendum investigations conducted at the Calhoun Elks Club Golf Course (Appendix C, Table 8)(Keith et al. 2012).
With the exception of the Unit 173, Feature 44 flotation sample, which contained 89 percent of the Juglandaceae shell by weight (64% by count) that was recovered at 9GO297, Block 28 contained the vast majority of the nutshell identified at 9GO297 during the present archaeological investigations.

289 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 93. Photograph of Feature 28, Facing North

290
Juglandaceae shell fragments were recovered from 93 percent of the Block 28 unit column samples. Small quantities of wood charcoal were recovered from 86 percent of the samples. The respective ubiquities of acorn shell and seeds were 14 and 21 percent. The overall weight density of wood byproducts was a very low 0.009 grams per liter of floated soil. In contrast, the overall Juglandaceae shell weight density of 0.013 grams per liter was the greatest in the 9GO297 main excavation area (excluding Unit 173, Feature 44). The high density and ubiquity of Juglandaceae shell and high ubiquity of acorn shell within the Block 28 samples is suggestive of a concentrated harvest for storage and lean season consumption.
The identified seed assemblage included one maize cupule, one bayberry seed, one bedstraw seed, and one unidentifiable seed fragment (Appendix A, Table 14). It is probable that the maize cupule from between 145 and 155 cmbs of TU152 in Block 28 represents a Late Woodland to Late Mississippian domesticate that was post-depositionally inserted into the Early/Middle Woodland deposits identified in Block 28. Three maize cupules recovered from Block 23 date to the Mississippian period component (see Block 23 discussion and Appendix C, Table 14).
Bayberry is available for harvest from August through October, while bedstraw seeds mature between May and August (Appendix A, Table 13). The identification of the late summer/fall ripening seed taxa in combination with a high density and ubiquity of fall-ripening nut taxa (acorn, black walnut, hickory, hickory/walnut) offers evidence of late summer through fall occupations.
Sixty-six percent (1.21 g) of the Block 28 Juglandaceae shell came from the 135-175 cmbs (Levels 10-13) flotation samples (Appendix A, Table 10). These levels also contained 72 percent of the small wood charcoal (0.81 g) assemblage found in Block 28. The majority of the wood charcoal was concentrated in the 155-175 cmbs (Levels 12 and 13) samples. Eight-three percent of the acorn shell and 50 percent of the carbonized seeds were associated with these levels as well. All of the carbonized seeds and acorn shell were collected in samples below 125 cmbs (Level 9-14).
Block 28 Macroplant Analysis Conclusions
In conclusion, the concentration of Juglandaceae shell, acorn shell, seeds, and wood charcoal between Levels 9 and 14 (125-185 cmbs) suggests the most intensive Woodland period occupation in this area of the site is encapsulated in these layers. The high density and ubiquity of nutshell is suggestive of a concentrated mast harvest. The recovery of maize in the 145-155 cmbs (Level 11) sample indicates post-depositional intrusion of a Late Woodland/Mississippian domesticate into the Early/Middle Woodland deposits identified in Block 28. The identification of the late summer/fall ripening seed taxa in combination with a high density and ubiquity of

291 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
fall-ripening nut taxa (acorn, black walnut, hickory, hickory/walnut) offers evidence of late summer through fall occupations. The identification storable nut crops offers evidence of lean season, overwinter occupation.
Block 37
Block 37 was located just to the west-southwest of Block 4, placed in this location in an attempt to recover data regarding the transitional Late Archaic-Early Woodland period component identified within Block 4 (Figure 94). The block consisted of 12 test units (TU 161-172) arranged in a 3x4 configuration with the long axis aligned north-south. The test units began at the ground surface without any mechanical removal of soils. The ground surface sloped downward from the north end of the block towards the south end; the northwest corner of the block was 40 centimeters higher in elevation than the southeastern corner, 31 centimeters higher than the southwest corner, and 18 centimeters higher than the northeast corner (Figure 94). Thus, there were several air levels in the southern test units before excavation began, and the cessation of excavation of individual test units varied, resulting in a stepped excavation (Figure 95). The maximum depth excavated within the block was 70 cmbs (Table 49). The southern half of the block extended into one of the magnetometer survey grids (Grid 3), and included a large portion of an anomaly identified by GDOT personnel. This magnetometer anomaly was not identified during the test unit excavation, although two features (Features 38 and 39) were identified within this block, one of which was located immediately adjacent this magnetometer anomaly.
The soil stratigraphy of Block 37 consisted of three strata (Figure 96). The uppermost stratum was thin and consisted of the dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty loam humus. Underlying this was a zone of brown (10YR 3/4) silty loam, underneath which was a dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) silty loam.
Artifact density within Block 37 was moderate to high (Table 50). As with the other blocks, debitage comprises the majority of the assemblage, constituting approximately 91 percent. Stone tools from the block include bifaces (n=4), a single core, hammerstone (n=3), a single chipped stone tool of unidentifiable function, and utilized flakes (n=3); two PP/Ks were also recovered, one of which is diagnostic and the other is a non-diagnostic fragment.
Diagnostic artifacts include a Cotaco Creek PP/K, which was produced during the transitional Late Archaic-Early Woodland time frame and a steatite vessel sherd, which may date to the same transitional time frame as the Cotaco Creek PP/K. The Cotaco Creek point was recovered in Level 8 of TU171, which equates to approximately 35-45 cmbs. A steatite vessel sherd (Piece Plot 35) was recovered from approximately 35 cmbs in TU 161. In the subsequent level of the same test unit, a small slate gorget (Piece Plot 38; see the Lithic Analysis section) was recovered

292

Figure 94. Plan Map of Block 37 with Beginning Datum Elevations

62 63

71

80

161

162

163

68 164
72

69
38
165
39
80

79 166
89

84 95

167

85

89

170

93

96

168

169

93

99

171

172

101

101

Test Unit
Feature
Shovel Test
p Column Soil Sample
0 0.25 0.5 m

293 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 95. Photographs of Excavation of Block 37
A. Block 37 Prior to
Excavation, Facing North
B. Block 37 After Excavation, Facing North

294

Figure 96. Plan View and Photograph of South Profile of Block 37

A. Sketch Map of South Profile of Block 37
0 cm

20 cm

40 cm 60 cm 80 cm

Root

I II

III

FCR

I = 10YR 3/3 Dark Brown Silty Loam II = 10YR 3/4 Brown Silty Loam III = 10YR 3/6 Dark Yellowish Brown Silty Loam

0

40 Centimeters

B. Photograph of South Profile of Block 37

Table 49. Block 37 Test Unit Level Depths

Level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

161 0-6 6-16 16-26 26-36 36-46 46-56 56-66 not exc. not exc.

162 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 not exc. not exc.

163 air 0-2 2-12 12-22 22-32 32-42 42-52 not exc. not exc.

164 0-6 6-8 8-18 18-28 28-38 38-48 48-58 not exc. not exc.

165 air 0-2 2-12 12-22 22-32 32-42 42-52 not exc. not exc.

Test Unit

166

167

air

air

air

0-3

0-4

3-9

4-14

9-19

14-24

19-29

24-34

29-39

34-44

39-49

not exc. 49-59

not exc. not exc.

168 air air 0-3 3-13 13-23 23-33 33-43 43-53 not exc.

169 air air air 0-7 7-17 17-27 27-37 37-47 not exc.

170 air air 0-3 3-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60

171 air air air 0-6 6-16 16-26 26-36 36-46 46-56

172 air air air 0-2 2-12 12-22 22-32 32-42 42-52

PHASE III 295 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

3 6

1 1

1 6

2

7

2

1 2

1 1

3

1 1

2 2

1 5

1 6

9

9

1 3

3 4

1 0

1 2

1 3

1

1

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2 1 1

2

1

1 1

296
Total
Utilized Flake Tool, Chipped,
UID Stone, Possibly
Cultural Steatite Vessel
Sherd Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain,
Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Residual
Shell
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Hammerstone
Gorget
Debitage
Daub/fired clay
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

1

1

1

3 0

1 0

1 4

2

7

2

1 0

1 1

3

1 1

2 2

1 4

1 1

9

9

1 0

3 0

9

1 1

1 2

1

1 1

Table 50. Block 37 Artifact Summary

6

5

4

3

2

7

6

5

3

7

6

5

4

3

2

7

5

4

3

2

1

164

163

162

161

Table 50. Block 37 Artifact Summary (Continued)

Total
Utilized Flake Tool, Chipped,
UID Stone, Possibly
Cultural Steatite Vessel
Sherd Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain,
Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Residual
Shell
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Hammerstone
Gorget
Debitage
Daub/fired clay
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

165

2

1

1

3

4

5

6

7

166

4

5

6

7

167

3

4

5

6 3 1 2 2 3 37 1 1 1 0 1 3 1 2
5 2 6 5 1 8 3 6 8 1 2 8 1 3 2 2 2 5 2

6

0

1

3 2

2

2 4

4 0

1 1

1 0

1

1 4

1 2

5

2

6

1

6

6

1

1 9

7

1

6

1

4 4

8

8

168

3

1

4

2

5

8

6

1

1

1 5

297 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

7

1 23

8

1

2 6

169

4

2

3 798

5

2 4

2 1

4

2

2 4

1 8

1 6

8

4

2

1 0

4

9

1 3

7

7

1 7

1 6

5

1

1

1 17

1

2

5

1

2

1

3

2 23

1

1

3

298
Total
Utilized Flake Tool, Chipped,
UID Stone, Possibly
Cultural Steatite Vessel
Sherd Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain,
Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Residual
Shell
Retouched Flake
PP/K
Hammerstone
Gorget
Debitage
Daub/fired clay
Core
Biface
Level
Test Unit

1

2

1

3

1

1

1

1

3 730

4

2 3

2 1

4

2

2 4

1 5

1 6

6

4

2

9

3

9

8

7

7

1 7

1 1

5

Table 50. Block 37 Artifact Summary (Continued)

1

4

9

8

7

6

5

9

8

7

6

5

4

9

8

7

5

4

8

7

169 5
6

Total

172

171

170

299 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

at approximately 52 cmbs. Charcoal was recovered from the matrix of this test unit in an attempt to receive an absolute date in possible association with the gorget. This sample (Beta-356540) returned a conventional age date of 60 +/- 30 B.P., indicating that the sample represents modern vegetal material. A disturbed stratigraphy of this block is also indicated by the presence of several historic and modern items in several different test units, although they were distributed in the upper levels (Levels 2, 3, and 4) of these units (Table 51).

Ceramics (n=29) were recovered from the block, although due to their condition none of them are temporally diagnostic. The majority of the sherds (n=23) are residual, while the others are sand tempered. The sand tempered sherds may remain from an Early Woodland component given the presence of the steatite and Cotaco Creek point, as well as Early Woodland pottery in nearby Block 4, but this association is speculative.

FCR was abundant within this block (Table 52). The bulk of the FCR was recovered from TUs 170 and 171 in Levels 7 and 8, and there is a general trend of greater amounts in the south half of the block when compared to the north half. A FCR cluster feature, Feature 39, was recorded in Level 6 across several of the test units in the central portion of the block (Figure 97). Potentially associated with a possible post feature (Feature 38) identified at the same depth in Level 6 (approximately 52 cmbs), there was no discernible pattern of concentration or clustering within this feature. The entire block contained a relatively high amount of FCR throughout, indicating that this feature may not represent the remains of an individual discrete episode, but rather the remnants of numerous heating/cooking activities. A total of 2,525 grams of FCR were found within this feature, and no artifacts were recovered from this feature.

Table 51. Modern Artifacts from Block 37

Test Unit
163 164 165 167 168
169 170 Total

Level
2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4

Container Glass, Clear

Nail, Wire Common Fragment
1

Nail, Wire Common, Unmeasured
1

Plastic Shotgun
Shell

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

Tin Can, Modern
1 1 1
3

Total
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

300
Figure 97. Photograph of Feature 39, Facing North

301 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Table 52. FCR by Weight in Grams Within Block 37

Level 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Total

Test Unit

161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169

39 9

57 326 26 5 152

28

56 409

183 72 189

7

5 6

19 209

526

57 193 573 124 285 73 59

190

8 13 27

255 164 459 5475

2241 244 154

217 955 632 312 783 635 2787 6252 344

170

171

20 48 3884 12643 1993 18,588

22 25 10176
352 10,575

172
117 68
1215 293 210
1903

FCR Total
48 594 916 924 1695 21676 15575 2555 43,983

One other feature was recorded within the block. Feature 38 was a soil anomaly recognized at approximately 52 cmbs in Level 6 of TU165 (Figure 98). The stain consisted of dark brown silty loam with charcoal inclusions situated in a test unit matrix of dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) silty loam; two pieces of FCR were situated adjacent the stain to the north. The feature was cored through the middle of the stain to a depth of 35 centimeters below the level at which the stain was identified. Coring revealed a distinct change from the feature fill to the underlying non-feature matrix 19 centimeters below the upper surface of the feature (or approximately 71 cmbs). Because it appeared to be cultural in origin specifically, the remains of a post it was subsequently completely excavated. Five Ridge and Valley chert flake fragments were recovered from this feature. A seven-liter flotation collected from the feature fill yielded one knotweed seed and 0.55 grams of wood charcoal with a weight density of 0.079 grams of wood charcoal per liter of floated soil. This feature may have been associated with Feature 39, an FCR cluster in the same block.
Excavation of Block 37 revealed similar deposits and context as nearby Block 4. A Late Archaic Early Woodland component is indicated by the presence of a Cotaco Creek PP/K, while nondiagnostic sand tempered pottery may remain from an Early Woodland period occupation. There is some evidence for disturbance of the stratigraphic integrity of the deposits, as several modern items were found in the block and a modern date was returned for a radiocarbon sample collected from approximately 50 cmbs. A high amount of FCR was recovered from the block, and this is believed to be related to the Late Archaic Early Woodland occupation.

302 Figure 98.
Photographs of Feature 38 A. Photograph of Plan View of Feature 38, Facing North
B. Photograph of Excavated Feature 38, Facing North

303 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Thirty-three liters of floated sediment from three Block 37 unit column samples (26 L) and one feature (Feature 38) (7 L) was analyzed in this study (Appendix C, Table 11). The three Block 37 unit column samples were collected from between 36 and 59 cmbs (Levels 5, 6, and 8). Feature 38, which will be discussed in detail below, was identified as a post mold.
The Block 37 column sample assemblage was limited to 0.29 grams of wood charcoal and 0.03 grams of resin with a low weight density of 0.012 grams of wood per liter of floated soil. Juglandaceae shell, acorn shell, and seeds were completely absent from this soil column (Appendix C, Tables 13-14). Small quantities of wood charcoal were recovered 100 percent of the samples. These statistics highlight the scarcity of all carbonized macrofloral material in this unit column sample.
Addendum Investigation of 9GO297
Discussion of this excavation is included here to provide context for the inclusion of data relevant to the Early Woodland period occupation of 9GO297. Full details of this addendum work can be found in Keith et al. (2012).
Excavation of 24 shovel tests and two 1x2-meter test units was conducted in the portion of 9GO297 near the point of the landform at the confluence of the rivers and New Town Creek, located approximately 90 meters north of the data recovery excavation area. Eight of the shovel tests were positive. One of these shovel tests, MM 15, yielded artifacts to a depth of 95 cmbs, including a single Dunlap Fabric Marked sherd that is included in the ceramic vessel analysis chapter of this report (see Chapter VIII). Test Unit 173 was located along the southern boundary of the addendum APE and was excavated in nine 10-centimeter levels, at which point an auger was used to excavate to a depth of 317 cmbs. Test Unit 174 was excavated to a depth of 80 cmbs, at which point an auger test was done to a depth of 230 cmbs (Keith et al. 2012). Early Woodland fabric marked pottery, both limestone tempered and sand tempered, were found in these test units, and were included in the ceramic vessel analysis.
Feature 44 was a pit feature identified within TU173 (Figure 99) (Keith et al. 2012). This feature represents the most unambiguously cultural soil feature identified during the investigation of 9GO297. This feature represents the most unambiguously cultural soil feature identified during the investigation of 9GO297. The feature was first identified in Level 5 (35-45 cmbs), yet due to its amorphous shape and mottled soils at its upper surface, it was initially believed to represent a tree stain or other disturbance related to a historic road (Feature 43) that ran through this location. However, because artifacts within the test unit seemed to originate almost solely from this stain when screening the level, beginning with Level 6 the soil from the feature was screened

304 Figure 99.
Map Showing Location and Photographs of Feature 44
Feature 44

Coosawattee River

[

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

[

!

!

!

!

[

!

!

!

!

!

!

! [

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

[

!

[!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

[

!

!

!

!

!

[

#!

!

!

! [

!

!

!

!

!

![ !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

[ [ [

! ! !
! ! !

! ! !
! ! !

! ! !
! ! !

! !

A. Map Showing Location of Feature 44

D

! Shovel Test
# N500.5 E500.5

Test Unit

D Security Fence

D

D

Parking Lot

Stripped Block

Old Road

[ [ Old Fence Line

Boat Ramp

Boat Ramp

Entrance/Exit

0

River
10

20 m

p

0

75 ft

B. View East of Feature 44 at Base of Level 7 (~65 cmbs)

C. View Northwest of Base of Feature 44 (~89 cmbs)

305 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

separately from the surrounding unit matrix, following the 10-centimeter levels of the unit. By the base of Level 6 (50 cmbs), Feature 44 had resolved into a roughly circular shape, and by the base of Level 7 (60 cmbs), the feature was uniformly circular in plan; the feature continued in this circular form to a depth of 84 cmbs in Level 10, where a flat base of the feature was documented. At 80 cmbs, the feature was bisected and the eastern half was collected for flotation, totaling approximately 10 liters. The soil matrix of Feature 44 consisted of very dark grayish brown (10RY3/2) silty loam with charcoal flecking, while the surrounding non-feature matrix consisted of dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) silt (which was largely sterile). Charcoal was collected for radiocarbon dating from Level 9 (70-80 cmbs); this sample returned a date of B.C. 400-380 (Cal B.P. 2360 to 2330).
A high number (n=30) of limestone-tempered fabric impressed pottery sherds were recovered from the fill of Feature 44 (Table 53). Based on analysis of these sherds, many appear to be from the same pottery vessel, a Long Branch Fabric Marked vessel (Vessel 15, see Ceramic Analysis section below). A small number (n=3) of sand-tempered fabric impressed pottery were also found, in the level above the surface of Feature 44; these wares could be assigned to the Dunlap Fabric Marked type. Both Long Branch and Dunlap fabric tempered wares were produced during the Early Woodland period. Also within the fill of Feature 44 were a stemmed PP/K that resembles the terminal Late Archaic McIntire type, and a Woodland Spike that was commonly used during the Early-Middle Woodland time frame. A number of other nondiagnostic artifacts were also present within the feature fill, actually comprising approximately 57 percent of the total artifacts from the test unit.

Table 53. Feature 44 Artifact Summary
Artifact Biface, RV Chert Charcoal Debitage, Quartz Debitage, Quartzite Debitage, Rhyolite Debitage, RV Chert Debitage, Slate Debitage, Unidentified Chert Debitage, Unidentified Silicate Fired Clay PP/K Fragment, RV Chert PP/K, RV Chert, McIntire type PP/K, RV Chert, Swan Lake type

Total 1 42 2 4 2
348 13 11 21 1 1 1 1

306
Table 53. Feature 44 Artifact Summary Continued
Artifact Sherd, limestone tempered, eroded Sherd, limestone tempered, fabric impressed Sherd, limestone tempered, rim, eroded Sherd, residual Utilized Flake, RV Chert Grand Total

Total 6 31 1 48 2
536

Ten liters of soil from this feature were collected as a flotation sample. This sample yielded a 142.09-gram light fraction that represented 15 percent of the light fraction material recovered during the current archaeobotanical study (Appendix B). The carbonized macrofloral assemblage consisted of 34.42 grams of wood charcoal, 3.88 grams of resin, 246 fragments of Juglandaceae shell (all hickory) weighing 13.56 grams, 17 fragments of acorn shell, and 38 seeds (Appendix A, Table 12). The plant remains found in this single 10-liter sample accounted for 20 percent of the wood charcoal, 93 percent of the resin, 84 percent of the carbonized Juglandaceae shell by weight (52% by count), 68 percent of the acorn shell, and 41 percent of the carbonized seeds recovered from Site 9GO297.
The overall weight density of both wood byproducts and Juglandaceae nutshell was high in this pit feature. The respective weight densities of wood and Juglandaceae shell were 3.830 and 1.356 grams per liter. With two exceptions (Block 19, Feature 19; Block 16, Feature 16), the Feature 44 pit contained the greatest density of wood charcoal in the 9GO297 macroplant assemblage. The 1.356 g/L Juglandaceae shell weight density was the highest in the macrofloral remains. The high density of Juglandaceae shell and count of acorn shell within this pit is suggestive of largescale collection and processing of mast for storage and lean season consumption during a fall occupation. Largescale storage of nut crops offers tentative evidence of winter occupation.
The identified seed assemblage included 30 possible indigenous cultigens (5 goosefoot, 25 maygrass), one persimmon seed, and seven unidentifiable seed fragments (Appendix C, Table 14). Goosefoot is available for harvest from June to first frost and maygrass grains mature between April and June. Goosefoot greens can be collected throughout the summer months, and the nutritious seeds are gathered in the late summer and fall. Hickory nuts, acorns, and persimmon fruits all ripen in the fall (Appendix C, Table 13).

307 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
TU 173, Feature 44 Macroplant Analysis Conclusions
In conclusion, the dense and well-preserved carbonized macroplant assemblage identified in Feature 44 indicates that macrofloral preservation is excellent in this portion of Site 9GO297 that is situated on Calhoun Elks Club Golf Course property. The identification of fall, spring/early summer, and summer/fall plant foods in the same pit feature offers evidence of a spring through late fall occupation. The identification of 57 percent of cultigen seeds recovered from Site 9GO297 archaeobotanical study suggests the Early Woodland period inhabitants in this area of the site maintained garden plots. Finally, the high density and proportion of Juglandaceae and acorn shell within Feature 44 is suggestive of large-scale collection and processing of mast for storage and lean season consumption during a fall occupation. Large-scale storage of nut crops offers tentative evidence of winter occupation.
SUMMARY OF BLOCK EXCAVATIONS
Block excavations included a combination of machine-excavated and hand-excavated blocks. These were located in order to provide data on the archaeological deposits across the site, as well as on the geomorphology of the landform. A total of 39 blocks were excavated, covering an area of approximately 702 square meters. Block excavation revealed that archaeological deposits in the southern portion of the site are non-existent due to the usage of that area as a borrow pit, and that the site as a whole has been heavily impacted with the exception of some deeply buried deposits, such as in Blocks 23, 27, and 28. These excavations have yielded diagnostic artifacts and radiocarbon-dated samples from the Late Archaic, Late Archaic-Early Woodland, Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, Late Woodland, Early-Middle Mississippian, and Late Mississippian periods.

VII. LITHIC ANALYSIS

309 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

DEBITAGE ANALYSIS
Debitage, or the debris from the production and maintenance of stone tools, is the most common artifact type in the archaeological record. Flakes contain a wide variety of lithic attributes. The most effective way to study lithic technology is to use debitage attributes that are a direct result of the employment of the technology itself (Root 2004). Only one attribute, the platform remnant, is shared by all flakes regardless of fracture method or reduction stage. The platform remnant has been repeatedly shown to be one of the most informative and statistically stable of lithic attributes (Andrefsky 1998; Cotterell and Kamminga 1987; Dukeman 2002; Hall and Larson 2004; Odell 2003). Attributes like size, completeness, and the amount of dorsal cortex are only indirectly related to lithic reduction/production sequences. The platform remnant, however, is a direct result of a single technological action with a single intention. These actions and intentions are strung together to produce sequences of core reduction and tool production that follow fairly predictable trajectories (Andrefsky 2007:394).
The platform remnant was therefore chosen to be the discriminant technological lithic attribute used for the general analysis of debitage. Though many different types of platform remnants have been defined, only three basic types will be used. These include cortical, flat, and faceted platform types. This is both an attempt to make the analysis results more accurate and to simplify the analysis from sorting through to curation. The platform remnant type will be used to define the flake categories.
Three debitage categories are defined for our general analysis. This is a modified version of the Sullivan-Rozen Technique (SRT), which uses flake completeness and the presence of the point of applied force to define flake categories (Sullivan and Rozen 1985). The SRT was found to be overly simplistic in its interpretations, collapsing multiple sources of debitage variation in a measure of flake completeness. These sources of variation were found to be somewhat dependent on flake size, leading to the Modified Sullivan-Rozen Technique (MSRT) (Prentiss 1993, 1998). The general framework of the SRT is still commonly used, though different lithic attributes are sometimes substituted for completeness or flake size, or in our case, platform remnant type. The breakdown of the debitage into the three respective categories flake, flake fragment, and angular debris is shown in Figure 100.

310
Figure 100. Flowchart for Debitage Analysis
Debitage

Single Interior Surface

Discernable

Not Discernable

Platform Remnant

Present

Absent

Debitage Category

Flake Flake Fragment Angular Debris

311 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Debitage was divided into one of three forms, flake (complete), flake fragment, and angular debris (Table 54). Of these, angular debris constitutes 16 percent, complete flakes 44 percent, and the remaining 40 percent consists of all flake fragments (n=10,295). These proportions roughly hold for most of the materials, with the exception of quartz, metavolcanic, silicate, and slate.

Table 54. Debitage Types by Material

Material Chalcedony Chert-Unidentified Coastal Plain Chert Crystal Quartz Diorite Dover Chert Fort Payne Chert Garnet Horneblende Jasper Limestone Lithic-Unidentified Metavolcanic-Unidentified Milky Quartz Phyllite Quartz Quartzite Rhyolite Ridge and Valley Chert Ridge and Valley Chert, Oolitic Schist Silicate-Unidentified Siltstone Slate Smoky Quartz Grand Total

Angular Debris
145 1
1 1 11 1
4 1
2
8 124
23 4
1581 17
19 1
23 1
1968

Flake 12
207 3
6 5 41

Flake Fragment 7
134 4 1 7 3
41

1 1 1 12
12 12 20 4158 31
3

1 2 1
23 1 2
30 43 14 3429 25
1 20

13

4525

3802

Grand Total 19
486 8 1
14 9
93 1 1 7 3 1
37 1
10 166
78 38 9168 73
1 42
1 36
1 10295

In terms of material types, numerous materials were present at the site. Ridge and Valley chert is overwhelmingly the predominant material, comprising 89 percent of the raw materials (n=7,572). The predominance of this material is expected due to the location of the site within the area of its availability and the distance to sources of non-Ridge and Valley chert knappable materials. The next most common identifiable material is quartz (n=155). One material type was recovered that

312
is quite unusual. This artifact appears to be a piece of almondine garnet found in TU 80 of Block 20 (Figure 101). This material is a translucent violet/purplish color. The authors are unaware of any other archaeological examples of this material in Georgia (or the Southeast). The source of this material is unknown, but garnets are not uncommon in northern Georgia (Ralph 2013). While this almondine garnet is unusual, because the material source is unknown and no other specimens of this type were found, little information can be ascertained with regards to this artifact.
Another minority material recovered from the site in small frequencies is an oolitic variety of Ridge and Valley chert. This material is known to occur within Ridge and Valley chert sources in the eastern part of the Great Valley (Ledbetter et al. 2009), and prehistoric lithic specialist Scott Jones identified this material within a source approximately 7.5 kilometers south of 9GO297 and at a source approximately 7.1 kilometers west northwest of 9GO297 (Benson et al. 2008). According to Benson et al. (2008), oolitic varieties of chert can be found in several of the chert formations of northwestern Georgia, although they most likely are derived from the Knox Group chert formation.
A total of 8,466 pieces of debitage were recovered from the block excavations (Table 55). Over 30 percent of the debitage from the block excavations was recovered from Block 20, followed by Block 4 with 25 percent, and Block 5 with 16 percent. Unfortunately, due to the fact that remains from different temporal components have been mixed together as a result of postdepositional disturbances, and there are small sample sizes for most blocks, component-specific analysis is not possible.
STONE TOOL ANALYSIS
Fifteen PP/Ks were recovered during the excavation that are temporally diagnostic (Figures 102 and 103). These ranged in age from the Early Archaic period through the Mississippian period, with types dating to the Late Archaic-Early Woodland and the Middle Woodland time frames being the most abundant. A single Palmer PP/K represents the Early Archaic period. The Late Archaic Early Woodland types include Gary, Wade, Flint Creek, and Cotaco Creek, while the Swannanoa type was made during the Early Woodland period. According to Ledbetter et al. (2009), the various stemmed Late Archaic-Early Woodland types found in northwest Georgia suggest connections with cultural groups to the north and the west of the area. A single Small Savannah River indicates a Late Archaic component, but given its presence in Block 4 among transitional Late Archaic-Early Woodland materials, it may date to that component. There were several Middle Woodland points recovered, consisting of forms that were typed as Bakers Creek and Swan Lake. Two triangular points were recovered; on the basis of size, one of these was likely produced during the Late Woodland period and the other during the Mississippian time

313 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 101. Almondine Garnet from TU 80, Block 20

314
A

Figure 102. Projectile Point/Knife from 9GO297, 1 of 2

B

C

D

E

F

G

A. Palmer, RV Chert (Bag 195, STP 84 N520.5 E560.5, L10) B. Bakers Creek, RV Chert (Bag 273, B5, TU50, L3) C. Gary, RV Chert (Bag 393, B16, 75cmbs) D. Swan Lake, RV Chert (Bag 445, B4, TU31 L4) E. Late Woodland Triangular, RV Chert (Bag 463, B19, TU74 L1, Piece Plot 6) F. Gary, Unidentified Chert (Bag 467, B20, TU80 L1) G. Small Savannah River, Quartz (Bag 505, B4, TU19 L5)

315 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 103. Projectile Point/Knife from 9GO297, 2 of 2

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A. Swan Lake, RV Chert (Bag 526, B4, TU32, L7) B. Wade, RV Chert (Bag 527, B5, TU31, L8, Piece Plot 14) C. Mississippian Triangular, RV Chert (Bag 573, B19, TU74, L2) D. Bakers Creek, RV Chert (Bag 589, B20, TU95, L7, Piece Plot 19) E. Flint Creek, Coastal Plain Chert (Bag 604, B20, TU90, L8, Piece Plot 25) F. Swannanoa, RV Chert (Bag 751, B28, Piece Plot 29) G. Flint Creek, Unidentified Chert (Bag 773, B20, TU97, L10) H. Cotaco Creek, Unidentified Chert (Bag 889, B37, TU171, L8)

Table 55. Debitage Types by Block and Material Type

Debitage Type/Material Angular Debris Chert-Unidentified Diorite Dover Chert Fort Payne Chert Garnet Jasper Limestone Metavolcanic-Unidentified Phyllite Quartz Quartzite Rhyolite Ridge and Valley Chert Ridge and Valley Chert, Oolitic Silicate-Unidentified Siltstone Slate Smoky Quartz Flake Chalcedony Chert-Unidentified Coastal Plain Chert Diorite Dover Chert Fort Payne Chert

1

2

3

4

5 13 16 19 20 23 24 27 28 37 38

22 19 14 285 269

2

3 73 476 19

4 63 43 82

8

2 14 68

4

9

7

1

1

2

8

1

1

3

1

1

1

6

2

3

2 10 15

5 62

5

9

3

1

2

4

10

1

3

2

2

1

1

19 19 12 253 247

2

1 49 306

8

4 43 25 77

6

2

4

1

2

1

3

1

2

1

4

1

98 45 15 1167 604

1 21 85 1165 37

4 160 158 348

2

1

1

3

1

2

1

28

4

4 100

2

15 25

2

1

1

1

3

3

2

2

8

1

29

1

2

Total 1374 112 1 1 11 1 4 1 1 8 115 22 4 1065 15 4 1 7 1 3908 11 180 3 6 4 41

316

Table 55. Debitage Types by Block and Material Type (Continued)

Debitage Type/Material Jasper Limestone Lithic-Unidentified Metavolcanic-Unidentified Quartz Quartzite Rhyolite Ridge and Valley Chert Ridge and Valley Chert, Oolitic Silicate-Unidentified Flake Fragment Chalcedony Chert-Unidentified Coastal Plain Chert Crystal Quartz Diorite Dover Chert Fort Payne Chert Horneblende Jasper Limestone Metavolcanic-Unidentified Phyllite Quartz Quartzite Rhyolite

1

2

3

4

5 13 16 19 20 23 24 27 28 37 38 Total

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

7

1

4

1

1

1

1

2

11

2

1

6

1

1

1

12

1

1

4

2

1

1

2

2

14

95 43 14 1116 593

1 16 78 1006 29

3 129 123 344

3590

1

1

1 15

4

1

23

2

1

3

90 51 33 654 440

1 26 85 995 39

8 164 282 315

1

3184

1

1

2

1

5

22

2 60

2

10 24

3

123

1

2

1

4

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

7

1

1

1

3

1

39

1

41

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

7

2

6

17

2

2

2

3

1

1

1

5

3

3

9

1

29

6

2

1 14

3

1

5

4

1

37

1

2

2

4

2

2

1

14

PHASE III 317 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

318

Table 55. Debitage Types by Block and Material Type (Continued)

Debitage Type/Material Ridge and Valley Chert Ridge and Valley Chert, Oolitic Silicate-Unidentified Slate Grand Total

1

2

86 47

1

210 115

3

4

5 13 16 19 20 23 24 27 28 37 38

32 617 433

1 26 75 846 16

4 130 239 307

1

2

1 13

2

2

3

6

1

3

3

62 2106 1313

4 50 243 2636 95 16 387 483 745

1

Total 2860 19 5 13 8466

319 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
frame. It has been found that triangular points began during the Late Woodland period and continued to be produced through the Mississippian period. However, the size of this style decreases over time, such that larger examples are thought to likely date earlier than the smaller examples. Specifically, points having a basal width of 18 millimeters or greater were produced during the Late Woodland period, while those produced during the Mississippian period tend to have basal widths less than 18 millimeters (Sassaman and Brooks 1990). Table 56 provides the morphological measurements of the PP/Ks recovered from the site.
Other chipped stone tools from 9GO297 include bifaces, cores, a single hoe, retouched flakes, utilized flakes, expedient chipped stone tools, a single uniface, a single spokeshave, and a single uniface (Table 57; Figures 104 and 105). Ridge and Valley chert is the most common material type for chipped stone tools at the site, with this material used for over 87 percent of the nonPP/K tools. The majority of non-PP/K chipped stone tools at 9GO297 are bifaces (n=87), comprising nearly 40 percent of this assemblage. Utilized flakes are the second-most common of the non-PP/K tools, accounting for approximately 30 percent of such. Block 20 yielded the highest concentration of the non-PP/K tools, followed closely by Block 5.
In an analysis of biface production, bifaces were categorized according to their location in the production continuum (Table 58). Stage 1 bifaces have cortex remaining on their surface. A Stage 2 biface is characterized by the removal of primary flakes and has little to no cortex present, and the working edges are roughly defined. A Stage 3 biface exhibits a thin crosssection with defined distal and proximal ends and uniformly spaced flakes removed to improve edge definitions. The proportion of bifaces within each category was roughly equal. As is expected given the predominance of the material for chipped stone tools at 9GO297, Ridge and Valley chert is the most common material used for biface production. The greatest number of bifaces was recovered from Block 4, a test unit block in which there was a transitional Late Archaic-Early Woodland and Middle Woodland components; within this block, bifaces of both Ridge and Valley chert and quartz are present.
A handful of groundstone and heavy-duty tools were recovered from several of the excavation blocks at 9GO297 (Table 59; Figures 106 and 107). These included an abrader, a groundstone/abrader, several hammerstones, a chipped stone hoe, a mano, a nutting stone, and pestle/grinding stones. The hammerstones are of quartzite or quartz, the abrader is also of quartzite, the hoe is of sandstone, the mano is of an unidentified metamorphic material, the nutting stone is of quartz, and the pestle/grinding stones are made from schist and an unidentified metavolcanic material. Artifacts of these types suggest some degree of sedentism and such tools were used for a variety of every day tasks including digging, grinding, and materials processing.

Table 56. Diagnostic PP/K Summary

Bag# Provenience

Material

Type

195

N520.5 E 560.5

RV Chert

273

B5, TU 50, L10

RV Chert

393 B16, 75 cmbs RV Chert

Palmer Bakers Creek
Gary

445 B4, TU31, L4 RV Chert

Swan Lake

463

B19, TU74, L1, PP6

RV Chert

Late Woodland Triangular

467 B20, TU80, L1 Chert, uid

Gary

505 B4, TU19, L5

Quartz

Small Savannah River

526 B4, TU32, L7 RV Chert

Swan Lake

527

B4, TU31, L8, PP14

RV Chert

573 B19, TU74, L2 RV Chert

589

B20, TU95, L7, PP19

RV Chert

604

B20, TU90, L8, PP25

Coastal Plain Chert

751

B28, 3cmbs, PP29

RV Chert

773

B20, TU97,

Chert,

L10

Unidentified

889

B37, TU171,

Chert,

L8

Unidentified

Wade Mississippian
Triangular Bakers Creek
Flint Creek
Swannanoa
Flint Creek
Cotaco Creek

Temporal Association

Wt. (grams)

Early Archaic

6.4

Middle Woodland 10.4

Late Archaic Early Woodland

18.6

Middle Woodland

3

Late Woodland

Late Archaic Early Woodland

12.5

Late Archaic

6.1

Middle Woodland 9.4

Late Archaic Early Woodland

18

Mississippian

1

Middle Woodland 6.2

Late Archaic Early Woodland

15.4

Early Woodland

17.3

Late Archaic Early Woodland

5.7

Late Archaic Early Woodland

11.6

Basal Concavity
Depth
0.9 1.5

Blade Length
57 30.4 38

Blade Width

Haft Length

22.3

9.8

28.3

11.8

20.5

7.7

19.6

25

12.5

18.3

8.5

19.1

10

32.4

8.2

15.5

12.1

22

11

31.6

12.6

8.2

29.1

13.3

320

Table 56. Diagnostic PP/K Summary (Continued)

Bag# Provenience

Material

195

N520.5 E 560.5

RV Chert

273

B5, TU 50, L10

RV Chert

393 B16, 75 cmbs RV Chert

445 B4, TU31, L4 RV Chert

463

B19, TU74, L1, PP6

RV Chert

467 B20, TU80, L1 Chert, uid

505 B4, TU19, L5

Quartz

526 B4, TU32, L7 RV Chert

527

B4, TU31, L8, PP14

RV Chert

573 B19, TU74, L2 RV Chert

589

B20, TU95, L7, PP19

RV Chert

604

B20, TU90, L8, PP25

Coastal Plain Chert

751

B28, 3cmbs, PP29

RV Chert

773

B20, TU97,

Chert,

L10

Unidentified

889

B37, TU171,

Chert,

L8

Unidentified

Haft Width
14.3 12.3 17.5 14.9 18.4
14.3

Haft Width Distal

Haft Width Proximal

Shoulder Width

Thickness

Total Length

16.2

11.8

11.2

15.2

12.5

14.8

13.4

12.5

19

7.5

22.1

7.0

30.9

19.2

16.6

25.4

9.0

23.8

7.1

34.7

170

16.1

10.8

43.8

20.7

18.4

10.1

52.6

13.1

3.8

24

15.2

15.3

43.5

16.1

16.7

30.6

10

68

21.3

18.2

32.9

11.6

45.5

14.2

14.3

29.6

9.1

19.6

15.2

9.3

51

PHASE III 321 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

322

Table 57. Summary of Non-PP/K Chipped Stone Tools

Material/Artifact Form 1 2 3 4 5 12 13 14 16 18 19 20 23 24 27 28 32 37 STs & Grand Surface Total

Chert-Unidentified

1 3 1

1

6

Biface

1 3 1

1

6

Coastal Plain Chert

1

1

Tool, Chipped, UID

1

1

Diorite

1

1

Biface

1

1

Fort Payne Chert

1

1 4

1

7

Biface

1 3

4

Core

1

1

Utilized Flake

1

1

2

Phyllite

1

1

Biface

1

1

Quartz

2

1 2

5

Biface

2

1 2

5

Quartzite

1

1

2

Biface

1

1

Utilized Flake

1

1

Ridge And Valley Chert 8 3 7 28 36 1 3 1 1 2 8 35 2 1 9 15 1 10

22

193

Biface

3 2 2 9 9 1

1 1 2 5 14 1

1 6 1 3

5

66

Core

4

2 6 1

2

3

1 2 2

1

4

28

Retouched Flake

5 11

2 4

3

1

2

28

Scraper

1

1

Table 57. Summary of Non-PP/K Chipped Stone Tools (Continued)

Material/Artifact Form 1 2 3 4 5 12 13 14 16 18 19 20 23 24 27 28 32 37 STs & Surface

Spokeshave

1

Tool, Chipped, Expedient

1

Tool, chipped, UID Uniface

2

2

1

Utilized Flake

1 1 3 7 15

1 13

6 4

3

9

Ridge and Valley Chert, Oolitic

1 1

1

1

Biface

1 1

1

Utilized Flake

1

Sandstone

1

Hoe-Chipped

1

Grand Total

8 6 8 31 36 1 3 1 1 2 11 42 3 2 14 15 1 11

25

Grand Total
1
1
4 1 63
4
3 1 1 1 221

PHASE III 323 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

324
C A
B

Figure 104. Bifaces from 9GO297, 1 of 2
D

E

F

G

A. Biface (Stage 2), RV Chert (Bag 268, B5, TU39, L3) B. Biface (Stage 3), Quartz (Bag 392, B4, TU28, L3) C. Biface (Stage 1), Phyllite (Bag 406, B2, PP5) D. Biface (Stage 3), RV Chert (Bag 811, B4, TU102, L8) E. Biface (Stage 2), Quartz (Bag 480, B19, TU68, L1, PP8) F. Biface (Stage 2), Quartz (Bag 431, B4, TU20, L5) G. Biface (Stage 1), Diorite (Bag 955, B37, TU168, L6)

325 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 105. Bifaces from 9GO297, 2 of 2

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A. Biface, RV Chert, Oolitic (Bag 212, B1, TU3, L6) B. Biface (Stage 2), RV Chert (Bag 271, B5, TU41, L3) C. Biface (Stage 2), Unidentified Chert (Bag 481, B19, TU68, L1) D. Biface (Stage 2), RV Chert (Bag 479, B18, PP9) E. Biface (Stage 3), Quartz (Bag 882, B24) F. Biface (Stage 2), RV Chert, oolitic (Bag 27, TU173, L7) G. Biface (Stage 2), RV Chert (Bag 981, B28, TU156, L1) H. Biface, RV Chert (Bag 1168, B28, TU151, L4)

326

A

B

Figure 106. Selected Lithic Artifacts from 9GO297, 1 of 2
C

A. Steatite Vessel Sherd (Bag 269, B5, TU40, L3)
B. Steatite Vessel Sherd (Bag 1196, B37, TU161, L4, PP35)
C. Gorget, Slate (Bag 1197, B37, TU161, L5, PP38)

D

E

G

F H

D. Core (Bi-directional), RV Chert (Bag 356, B3, TU55, L3) E. Core (Bi-directional), RV Chert (Bag 252, B13, Buried A horizon) F. Core (Bi-directional), RV Chert (Bag 252, B13, Buried A horizon) G. Core (Bi-directional), RV Chert (Bag 866, B27, TU173, L4, PP39) H. Core, RV Chert (Bag 661, B20, TU89, L7)

327 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 107. Selected Lithic Artifacts from 9GO297, 2 of 2
A

B

C

A. Hammerstone, Opposing Views (Bag 476, B4, TU29, L6) B. Abrader, Opposing Views (Bag 304, B2, TU18, L7) C. Nutting Stone (Bag 379, B2, TU14, L9)

328

Table 58. Biface Stages at 9GO297

Material
Diorite Phyllite Ridge and Valley Chert Stage 1 Total
Chert-Unidentified Quartz Quartzite Ridge and Valley Chert Ridge and Valley Chert, Oolitic Stage 2 Total
Quartz Ridge and Valley Chert Stage 3 Total Grand Total

2 3 4 5 16 18 19 20 23 24 27 28 32 37 STs & Total Surface

Biface-Stage 1

1

1

1

1

5 3

2 2

1

1

14

16

Biface-Stage 2

1 1

2

1

1

2

1

1

22 1 1

1

2

1 10

1

Biface-Stage 3

1

1

1 21

1 3

1

1

1

1 1 11 6 1 2 7 4 1 1 3 3 1 2

1 16
2 1 12
14 2 46

Table 59. Groundstones and Heavy Duty Tools from 9GO297

Artifact Abrader Groundstone/Abrader Hammerstone Hoe-Chipped Mano Nutting Stone Pestle/Grinding Stone Grand Total

1 2 1
1 1 1 2

4 12 20 27 37 STs & Surface

1

1

1

3

2

1

1

1

1 1

2

1

3

3

Grand Total 1 1 7 1 1 1 2
14

In addition to the tools, a single non-utilitarian stone item was recovered. This is a gorget made of slate, recovered from Block 4 (see Figure 105c). Such items are known from transitional Late Archaic-Early Woodland sites and are typically made of either soapstone or slate (Ledbetter et al. 2009). There are numerous shapes of gorgets, and the specimen from 9GO297 is of the

329 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
expanding center type and lacks holes. While there is also a Middle Woodland component within this block, the gorget is likely from the transitional Late Archaic-Early Woodland component. The exact manner in which gorgets were used is unknown, but they are generally believed to be more ornamental than functional.
SUMMARY
Analysis of lithic artifacts from 9GO297 included debitage, tools, and a slate gorget. Point types found at the site include forms made during the Early Archaic, Late Archaic, Late Archaic Early Woodland, Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, Late Woodland, and Mississippian periods. Due to artifact mixing within the excavation blocks, the lithic assemblages associated with these specific components cannot be segregated. Regardless, as expected prior to the excavation, the dominant material used for chipped stone tools at 9GO297 is Ridge and Valley chert. This is most certainly due to its local availability in the area and region around the site. Also not unexpectedly, quartz was the next most frequent material type at the site, and there was a very small amount of chert that appears to have originated in the Coastal Plain. The most unusual lithic material found at 9GO297 is a translucent violet glass-like almondine garnet, the source of which is unknown. Also present at the site was a single fragment of a soapstone vessel sherd, associated with the Late Archaic or Late Archaic Early Woodland component on the west side of the site.

VIII. CERAMIC ANALYSIS

331 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Attributes recorded for all ceramic artifacts include vessel portion (e.g., body, rim), surface condition (e.g., eroded), temper type, temper size, surface treatment, and type, if identifiable. A design analysis was conducted of sherds with decorative surface treatments that were macroscopically visible and identifiable. An analysis was then conducted to identify individual ceramic vessels. Individual sherds were weighed and sorted into groups based on exterior and interior surface treatment, aplastics, thickness, and color. Not all sherds could be sorted into discrete sample vessels due to the lack of identifiable surface treatments. Cross-mending sherds were identified, and then vessels were assigned unique sample vessel numbers. All sample vessels were weighed and the percent of vessel present was estimated.
Ceramic analysis began with identification of exterior surface treatment, and temper for each rim, body, and base sherd larger than 0.25 inch. Sherds smaller than 0.25 inch were considered residual and no further attributes were recorded. A total of 565 sherds (including residuals) with a total weight of 1,574 grams was recovered from 9GO297 (Table 60); of these, approximately 18 percent were recovered from 9GO297 during the addendum investigation (Keith et al. 2012). Nearly half (49 percent) of the ceramics are residual, while an additional 19 percent are eroded sand tempered unidentifiable sherds. Sand was the most common tempering agent at the site, followed by limestone, shell, sand/grit, grit, and grog tempers.
SAMPLE VESSEL ANALYSIS
Sherds were sorted into vessels based on surface decoration, aplastic similarities, paste, and to some extent, color. Sample vessel analysis was conducted on this assemblage to answer these questions:
What stylistic and technological variation is present among ceramic types identified at 9GO297?
What do sample vessel form and use data suggest about site function?
What do vessel distributions suggest about temporal relations of the features and site function?
The following attributes were discussed below for each sample vessel.

332

Table 60. Ceramic Sherds Recovered from 9GO297

Ceramic
Sherd, Grit Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Grit Tempered, UID Decorated Sherd, Grog Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Grog Tempered, Plain Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Fabric Impressed Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Fabric Impressed, Rim Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Plain Sherd, Limestone Tempered, Plain, Rim Sherd, Limestone Tempered, UID Decorated, Rim Sherd, Residual Sherd, Sand Tempered, Check Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered, Complicated Stamped, Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Sand Tempered, Eroded, Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Fabric Impressed Sherd, Sand Tempered, Incised Sherd, Sand Tempered, Linear Check Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain

1 2 3 4 5 14 16 19 20 23 24 27 28

1

2

3

2 1 1
1

1

1

1

1 1

2 1 46 17 11

1

4

1

4 56 19 4 26 1 3

3 6

10 1

2 12 4 1 1 2 73 6

2

2

1

1

3

5 2

2 1

1 1 2
12 1

37 Addendum STS & (9GO297) Surface

6 30
1

1

23

61

5

1

3

1

1

4

1

3

3

Grand Total
2 2 1 3 11 31
1 1 1 1 276 8 22
1 108
5 6 1 3 29

Table 60. Ceramic Sherds Recovered from 9GO297 (Continued)

Ceramic
Sherd, Sand Tempered, Plain, Rim Sherd, Sand Tempered, Simple Stamped Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated Sherd, Sand Tempered, UID Decorated, Rim Sherd, Sand/Grit Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Shell Tempered, Eroded Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain, Rim Sherd, Shell Tempered, Plain, Rim Lug Sherd, UID Grand Total

1 2 3 4 5 14 16 19 20 23 24 27 28

1 1

1 2 1 13

1 3

1

1 5

7 1

4 2

1

3

3

5 1

1

1

1

4 1 67 44 17 1 1 9 152 52 5 60 7

37 Addendum (9GO297)
1

30

104

STS & Surface
11

Grand Total
3 3 9
1
6 15 12
1 1 1 565

PHASE III 333 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

334

EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR SURFACE TREATMENTS
Treatments identified during the course of this investigation are plain, simple stamped, check stamped, complicated stamped, incised, and fabric impressed. Surface decoration, in conjunction with primary aplastic, was the main consideration in determining a traditional type for the sample vessel. In this analysis, typology was used primarily to organize groups of sherds and to make comparisons between types.

APLASTIC TYPE, SHAPE, AND SIZE
Aplastic content can be related to the selected clay source and the tempering practice. Aplastic type was identified on a fresh break under 40x magnification, and was based on standards set by the Wentworth scale (Wentworth 1922) as shown in Table 61. Aplastic types encountered during this sample vessel analysis were limited to quartz and shell (see Table 63).

Table 61. Wentworth Scale
Sand Type Fine-Medium
Coarse Very Coarse
Granule

Sand Size (mm) 0.125-0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-2.0 2.0-4.0

Aplastic shape was recorded for this analysis as rounded, sub-angular, angular, or irregular. Subangular, angular, or irregular aplastic shape can indicate intentionally added temper. For instance, crushed quartz added to the paste is expected to be angular, and naturally, occurring inclusions in the clay are expected to exhibit rounding due to weathering. Angular aplastic shapes typically have sharp corners and sub-angular have slightly less sharp corners. Round aplastic shapes generally are spherical to ovoid and have no corners.
Density of primary aplastic type was recorded as low, moderate, or high based on the prevalence of aplastic material in the paste. This was a generalized descriptor; point counting of aplastics was not performed.
Secondary aplastic, sometimes referred to as inclusions, are typically naturally occurring in clay (Rice 1987). The presence or absence of inclusions can indicate different clay compositions and sources. In this investigation, secondary aplastic type, shape, and size were used to associate shreds together into vessels (e.g. mica inclusions in the paste indicated the same or similar clay source for a vessel).

335 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
RIM DIAMETER, FORM, AND PRODUCTION STEPS
Rim diameter indicates the size of the complete vessels. When a sufficient rim arc angle was present, a rim diameter measurement was taken with a metric diameter chart. Rim arc angle is a measurement of how much of the rim is present. For example, a rim arc angle measurement of 45 degrees indicates that one-eighth of the original rim is present. A higher rim arc measurement provides a more accurate rim diameter measurement.
THICKNESS
This measurement was taken three centimeters below the rim when present to provide a consistent point of measurement for all vessels. The placement insures that vessel rim or base does not influence the thickness measurement. Thickness can be an indication of vessel size, strength, production methods, and resistance to thermal shock (Rice 1987).
PERCENTAGE OF CORE RETENTION
The percentage of core retention was estimated on a scale from 0-100 percent. The percentage of core retention provides information on the firing atmosphere, intensity of heat, and length of fire time.
PASTE TYPE DESCRIPTION
Paste Type 1: This clay is derived as secondary clay found in low energy waterways such as slow streams or pond areas in flood prone zones. These are typical of clays found at cut banks or small stream channels that are prevalent in north Georgia. They may contain varied amounts of rounded sand grains of various sizes as well as mica as natural inclusions. Clays normally oxidize to a yellowish red exterior depending on firing atmospheres. Ceramic types noted with Paste Type 1 from 9GO297 are Woodstock Complicated Stamped, Napier Complicated Stamped, Cartersville Check and Simple Stamped, and Swift Creek Complicated Stamped.
Paste Type 2: Clay derived from a primary source normally comprised of pure clay with very few inclusions. This clay may be from areas where there is direct weathering from parent rock, although the type of weathered parent rock cannot be determined. Tempering agents must be added to increase the workability of the clay for the purpose of pottery making. Clays from this collection have a lower than normal carbon core retention (10-20%) and oxidize to a buff or light gray. Ceramic types noted with Paste Type 2 from 9GO297 are Unidentified and Dunlap Fabric Marked.

336

Paste Type 3: As with Paste Type 2, this is also derived from a primary source, and it contains very few natural inclusions making tempering necessary. Since limestone and shell are the primary-tempering agents, it is believed that the clay may be derived from the shale clays found within the Ridge and Valley province. Clays from this source are very chalky in appearance and normally have higher firing temperatures; thus, adding tempers such as shell and limestone that are pre-fired can act as a flux to reduce the overall firing temperature, but this typically means that firing temperature does not get high enough to oxidize which results in a higher than normal carbon core retention. Ceramic types of this Paste Type from 9GO297 are Long Branch Fabric Marked, Hamilton Plain, and Dallas Plain.

VESSEL DESCRIPTION
Twenty-three vessels were defined from the sherd assemblage at 9GO297 (Table 62). By weight, the sherds assigned to the 23 vessels comprise 35 percent of the total sherd weight from the site. Vessels types identified at 9GO297 are: Woodstock (n=1), Napier/Woodstock (n=1), Napier (n=1), Cartersville Simple Stamped (n=2), Cartersville Check Stamped (n=4), Dunlap Fabric Impressed (n=3), Long Branch Fabric Marked (n=2), and Swift Creek Complicated Stamped (n=1). One unidentified vessel with fine incised lines was also identified.

Table 62. Vessel Summary Information

Vessel Number
1
2

Pottery Type Woodstock Napier/Woodstock

Temporal Association
Late Woodland Early Mississippian Late Woodland

3

Napier

Late Woodland

4

Cartersville Check Stamped

Early Middle Woodland

5

Cartersville Simple Stamped

Middle Woodland

6

Swift Creek

Middle Woodland

7

Cartersville Check Stamped

8

Cartersville Check Stamped

9

Cartersville Check Stamped

10

Plain (Cartersville)

Early Middle Woodland
Early Middle Woodland
Early Middle Woodland
Early Middle Woodland

Sherd Count
11 4 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1

Weight (grams)
204
39.1 8.1 39.5

Provenience
Block 27; Unit 149,147,145,37, 28 Block 23, 4; Unit
95, 99,119 Block 23; Unit 114
Block 23; Unit 107,108

Vessel Form
UID
Globular Jar UID
Conical jar

13

Block 20; Unit 90

UID

11

Block 27; Unit 144

Restricted Jar

4.7

Block 3; Unit 55

UID

19

Block 23, Unit 115 Conical Jar

14.8 Block3; Unit 57,58

UID

19

Block 3; Unit 56

Podal for jar/bowl

337 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Table 62. Vessel Summary Information (Continued)

Vessel Number
11 12
13
14 15 16 17 18 19

Pottery Type
Cartersville Simple Stamped Unidentified fine
incised Lamar Complicated Stamped Long Brach Fabric Marked
Long Brach Fabric Marked
Dunlap Fabric Marked
Dunlap Fabric Marked
Dunlap Fabric Marked
Hamilton Plain

20

Dallas Plain

Temporal Association Middle Woodland unknown Late Mississippian
Early Woodland Early Woodland Early Woodland Early Woodland Early Woodland Late Woodland Late Mississippian

21

Dallas Plain

Late Mississippian

22

Dallas Plain

Late Mississippian

23

Dallas Molded

Late Mississippian

Sherd Count
1 1
1
1 8 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 1

Weight (grams)
6.8

Provenience Block 3; Unit 55

19.1 Block 19; Unit 66

3.4

Block 3; Unit 55

10.5

Unit 174 (Addendum)

72.2

Unit 173, Feature 44 (Addendum)

4.7

Unit 174 (Addendum)

9.7

STP MM 15 (Addendum)

5.4

Unit 173 (Addendum)

11.7 Block 23; Unit 114

6.

Block 27; Unit 175,176

27 Block 3; Unit 57, 58

10.9

Block 23; Unit 105,111,120

9.7

Block 20; Unit 96

Vessel Form UID UID
Jar
Bowl Bowl UID UID UID Bowl UID Bowl UID Bowl

Vessel 1
Recovered from Block 27, Vessel 1 is represented by 11 sherds from a Woodstock Complicated Stamped vessel (Figure 108a). The sherds present represent an estimated 10 percent of the vessel. The complicated stamping pattern is for the most part rectilinear, consisting of ladderfilled diamond with rounded corners. The stamped lands measure 0.9 millimeter in width while the grooves measure one millimeter in width. Vessel 1 is made of Paste Type 1, characterized by a fine/medium sand tempering with a minor temper of mica. The carbon core retention is 100 percent indicating that the vessel was fired using reduction firing and/or it was used in open fire cooking.

338 Figure 108.
Minimum Vessels 1 and 2
A
B
A. Vessel 1 Woodstock Complicated Stamped B. Vessel 2 Napier/Woodstock Complicated Stamped

339 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Vessel 2
Vessel 2 consists of four sherds representing an unknown percentage of a complicated stamped vessel recovered from Block 23 (Figure 108b). Of the four sherds, three mend; these sherds indicate a globular jar vessel form. The stamped design consists of a ladder-filled diamond; both framing lines (n=1) and fill lines (n=18) are present. The width of the lands is 0.8 millimeters while the grooves are 1.9 millimeters in width. The exact type of this vessel is unknown, for the design has characteristics of both Napier and Woodstock designs. Specifically, the design is a ladder-filled design. While the diamond appears to adjoin surrounding diamonds in a manner similar to the Napier type, the width of the grooves is similar to Woodstock. Thus, this vessel was given a Napier/Woodstock designation. Vessel 2 was made using Paste Type 1, with fine sand tempering along with a minor temper of fine mica. The carbon core retention is 100 percent, indicating reduction firing of the vessel or its use in open fire cooking.
Vessel 3
Vessel 3 consists of a single body sherd belonging to a Napier Complicated Stamped vessel that was recovered from Block 23 (Figure 109a). The stamping consists of lands 0.9 millimeters in width and grooves of 1.2 millimeters width. The degree of burnishing on the interior of the vessel indicates that this represents a bowl or open jar vessel form. Vessel 3 has a Paste Type 1, with fine sand tempering along with a minor temper of fine mica. The carbon core retention is 100 percent indicating reduction firing or use in open fire cooking.
Vessel 4
Vessel 4 consists of three sherds with a linear check stamped design recovered from Block 23 (Figure 109b). Two of the three sherds mend. The checks within the stamp average 2x3.7 millimeters, while the checks are arranged in linear form similar to Deptford Linear Check Stamped. The type is assigned as Cartersville Linear Check Stamped. The form of this vessel appears to be a conical jar. Vessel 4 is made from the Paste Type 1, with medium sub-angular sand tempering and a minor temper of fine/medium mica. The carbon core retention is 100 percent indicating reduction firing or use in open fire cooking.
Vessel 5
Vessel 5 consists of one sherd of an unidentifiable vessel form recovered from Block 20 (Figure 109c). The simple stamping has an average land width of .8mm and an average groove width of 1.6 millimeters. The decoration and tempering indicate that this vessel is of the Cartersville Simple Stamped type. Vessel 5 has a Paste Type 1, with medium sub-angular sand tempering along with a minor temper of fine/medium mica. The carbon core retention of Vessel 5 is 50 percent.

340
A

Figure 109. Minimum Vessels 3 Through 9
B

C

D

E

F

G

A. Vessel 3 Napier Complicated Stamped B. Vessel 4 Cartersville Check Stamped C. Vessel 5 Cartersville Simple Stamped D. Vessel 6 Swift Creek Complicated Stamped E. Vessel 7 Cartersville Check Stamped F. Vessel 8 Cartersville Check Stamped G. Vessel 9 Cartersville Check Stamped

341 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Vessel 6
Vessel 6 consists of a single complicated stamped sherd recovered from Block 27 (Figure 109d). The design consists of a dot surrounded by concentric circles. The design has an average land width of 1.4 millimeters and a groove width of 3.2 millimeters. Based on the paste and the decoration, this design is almost certainly representative of the Swift Creek Complicated Stamped type. Based on the curvature, the sherd appears to be from a restricted jar. Vessel 6 is made from Paste Type 1, with medium sub-angular sand tempering and no minor temper. The carbon core retention is 10 percent.
Vessel 7
Vessel 7 is represented by a single check stamped sherd recovered from Block 3 (Figure 109e). Due to it only being represented by a single sherd with no defining shape characteristics, the vessel is of unidentifiable vessel form. The checks in the stamp, which are rectangular in form, measure an average of 3.6 millimeters in width and 5.2 millimeters in length. Vessel 7 is made from Paste Type 1, with fine/medium sub-rounded sand tempering. Based on the paste and the design, this is a Cartersville Check Stamped vessel. The carbon core retention of this vessel is 20 percent.
Vessel 8
Vessel 8 consists of a single check stamped sherd recovered from Block 23 (Figure 109f). The shape of this sherd indicates that it is from a conical shaped vessel. The checks within the stamped design are square in shape and are an average of 1.4 millimeters in width and length. Vessel 8 is made from Paste Type 1, with medium sub-angular sand tempering. Based on the paste and the decoration, this vessel is of the Cartersville Check Stamped type. The carbon core retention is 40 percent.
Vessel 9
Vessel 9 consists of two sherds of a check stamp vessel recovered from Block 3 (Figure 109g). The sherds indicated that the vessel was of a conical shape. The checks within the stamped design are square in nature and average 2.3x2.3 millimeters in length and width. Vessel 9 is made from Paste Type 1, with fine/medium sub-angular sand tempering. Based on the paste and the decoration, this vessel represents the Cartersville Check Stamped type. The carbon core retention of this vessel is 100 percent, indicating that is was fired using reduction fire or it was used over open fire.

342
Vessel 10
Vessel 10 consists of a single podal support sherd recovered from Block 3 (Figure 110a). Podal supports such as this were common in Early and Middle Woodland Cartersville series vessels. While the surface is somewhat eroded, it appears to be have been plain. Vessel 10 is made from Paste Type 1, with coarse sub-round sand tempering with a density of 24 in the viewable field under the microscope. The carbon core retention is 40 percent.
Vessel 11
Vessel 11 is a single simple stamped sherd recovered from Block 3 (Figure 110b). The stamped lands average 1.6 millimeters in width and the grooves 1.8 millimeters in width. This single sherd provides no clue as to the vessel form. Vessel 11 is made of Paste Type 1, with coarse sub-round sand tempering. Based on the paste and the decoration, this is a Cartersville Simple Stamped vessel. The carbon core retention of this vessel is 10 percent.
Vessel 12
Vessel 12 consists of a single sherd having two very fine incised lines recovered from Block 19 (Figure 110c). The fine incising appears random with no apparent patterning; not enough of the decoration is present to determine the design. Vessel form could not be determined nor could the pottery type. Vessel has a Paste Type 2, with very coarse sub-angular sand tempering. The carbon core retention of this vessel is 80 percent.
Vessel 13
Vessel 13 consists of a single complicated stamped sherd recovered from Block 3 (Figure 110d). The sherd appears to be from the neck portion of a restricted jar. The decoration is rectilinear but is incomplete. The stamped lands measure 2.5 millimeters in width while the grooves measure 1.5 millimeters in width. Based on the decoration and the paste, this appears to represent the Lamar Complicated Stamped type. Vessel 13 is made of Paste Type 1, with very coarse sub-angular sand tempering. The carbon core retention of Vessel 13 is 90 percent.
Vessel 14
Vessel 14 consists of five sherds of a fabric impressed vessel recovered from Test Unit 174 excavated during the addendum testing (Keith et al. 2012) (Figure 110e). The sherds comprise the rim of the vessel. The rim shape is rounded and has a thickness of 6.9 millimeters at one centimeters below the rim; the rim diameter is 25 centimeters. Vessel 14 is made of Paste Type 3, with granular angular limestone tempering. Based on the limestone tempering and the decoration, this vessel represents a Long Branch Fabric Impressed vessel. The carbon core retention of Vessel 14 is 100 percent.

A

B

343 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 110. Minimum Vessels 10 Through 15
C

D
MNV 6 E

F
A. Vessel 10 Cartersville Plain (Podal Suppport) B. Vessel 11 Cartersville Simple Stamped C. Vessel 12 Unidentifed Incised D. Vessel 13 Lamar Complicated Stamped E. Vessel 14 Long Branch Fabric Marked F. Vessel 15 Long Branch Fabric Marked

344
Vessel 15
Vessel 15 consists of eight limestone tempered fabric impressed sherds from the rim area of a vessel recovered from Feature 44 during the addendum investigation of 9GO297 (Figure 110f) (Keith et al. 2012). The rim shape is rounded and has a thickness of 5.0 millimeters at one centimeters below the rim; the rim diameter is 19 centimeters. Vessel 15 is made of Paste Type 3, with granular angular limestone tempering and a minor tempering of very coarse quartz sand. Based on the tempering and the decoration, these sherds represent a Long Branch Fabric Impressed vessel. The carbon core retention of Vessel 15 is 100 percent. A radiocarbon sample from the feature from which this vessel was recovered returned a date of B.C. 400-380 (Beta 356541), which fits well with the known Early Woodland time frame for the production of this type of pottery.
Vessel 16
Vessel 16 is comprised of a single sherd from a sand tempered fabric impressed vessel recovered from Test Unit 174 excavated during the addendum testing (Keith et al. 2012) (Figure 111a). The single sherd provides no clue as to the form of this vessel. Vessel 16 is made from Paste Type 2, with very coarse sub-round sand tempering. Based on the tempering and the decoration, this is a portion of a Dunlap Fabric Impressed vessel. The carbon core retention of Vessel 16 is 20 percent.
Vessel 17
Vessel 17 is comprised of a single sherd from a sand tempered fabric impressed vessel recovered from a shovel test conducted during the investigation of 9GO297 during the addendum investigation (Keith et al. 2012) (Figure 111b). The single sherd prevents determination of the vessel form. Vessel 17 is made of Paste Type 2, with very coarse angular sand tempering. Based on the tempering and the decoration, this represents a Dunlap Fabric Impressed vessel. The carbon core retention of Vessel 17 is 20 percent.
Vessel 18
Vessel 18 is comprised of a single sherd from a sand tempered fabric impressed vessel recovered from Test Unit 173 excavated during the investigation of 9GO297 during the addendum investigation (Keith et al. 2012) (Figure 111c). The single sherd provides no clues as to the form of the vessel. Vessel 18 is made of Paste Type 2, with very coarse sub round sand tempering. Based on the decoration and the tempering, this is a Dunlap Fabric Impressed vessel. The carbon core retention is 20 percent.

345 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 111. Minimum Vessels 16 Through 20

A

B

C

D

A. Vessel 16 Dunlap Fabric Marked

E

B. Vessel 17 Dunlap Fabric Marked

C. Vessel 18 Dunlap Fabric Marked

D. Vessel 19 Hamilton Plain (Opposing Views)

E. Vessel 20 Dallas Plain

346
Vessel 19
Vessel 19 consists of a single sherd of a limestone tempered plain vessel recovered from Block 23 (Figure 111d). This is a rim sherd having a thickness of eight millimeter at one centimeter below the rim. The sherd has a flattened rim shape, but it is too small to accurately determine the diameter of the vessel. Vessel 19 is made of Paste Type of 3, with very coarse angular limestone tempering. The temper and the decoration indicate that this represents the Hamilton Plain pottery type. The carbon core retention of this vessel is 100 percent.
Vessel 20
Vessel 20 is represented by two shell-tempered sherds having a burnished exterior recovered from Block 27 (Figure 111e). The shape of the sherds indicates that they may have derived from a jar. Vessel 20 was made using Paste Type 3 with coarse angular shell tempering. The burnished/plain exterior and the shell tempering indicate that this represents the Dallas Plain pottery type. Carbon core retention of Vessel 20 is 100 percent.
Vessel 21
Vessel 21 is represented by three sherds from a plain shell tempered vessel recovered from Block 3 (Figure 112a). The sherds are from the rim area, and exhibit a rounded rim shape that is 8.1 millimeters thick at one centimeter from top of the rim and has a diameter of 16 centimeters; this appears to be a bowl. Vessel 21 is made of Paste Type 3 with very coarse angular shell tempering. The paste and the plain decoration indicate that this is a Dallas Plain vessel. The carbon core retention of Vessel 21 is 90 percent.
Vessel 22
Vessel 22 is represented by three sherds from a plain shell tempered vessel recovered from Block 23 (Figure 112b). The sherds do not allow the form of the vessel to be determined. Vessel 22 has a Paste Type of 2 with coarse angular shell tempering. Based on the tempering and the decoration, these sherds are from a Dallas Plain vessel. The carbon core retention of Vessel 22 is 20 percent.
Vessel 23
Vessel 23 consists of a single sherd from the rim area of a shell-tempered vessel recovered from Block 20 (Figure 112c). The sherd appears to represent a small lug handle portion of a plain bowl vessel. The rim shape is rounded with a diameter of 16 centimeters; no rim thickness measurement was taken because of distortion from the lug handle. Vessel 23 is made from Paste Type 3 and tempered with coarse angular shell. Based on the lug and the tempering, this represents a Dallas Molded vessel. The carbon core retention of Vessel 23 is 100 percent.

347 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 112. Minimum Vessels 21 Through 23
A
B

A. Vessel 21 Dallas Plain

B. Vessel 22 Dallas Plain

C

C. Vessel 23 Dallas Molded (Rim Lug

Handle)

348

VESSEL ATTRIBUTE COMPARISON
In this analysis, traditional type designations were used as logical divisions in the assemblage by which types could be compared using several stylistic and technological attributes. The following attributes were described for each type to determine similarities and differences among types.

Primary Aplastic Type, Size Shape and Density

Quartz is the major aplastic for 16 of the 23 vessels defined (Table 63). Vessels 20, 21, 22, and 23 deviated from this pattern with shell temper, while vessels 14, 15, and 19 had limestone tempering. There is little variation between types with fine-medium (n=9) and coarse quartz (n=2) being the primary aplastic types for the entire assemblage. Very coarse quartz was identified in five of the vessels. Sub-angular and angular were the primary aplastic shape. Subangular primary aplastic (n=8) and angular (n=8) were the most common shapes.

Table 63. Vessels by Aplastic Type

Type Woodstock Complicated Stamped
Woodstock/Napier Complicated Stamped
Napier
Cartersville Check Stamp
Cartersville Simple Stamped

Aplastic Type Sand 1 Sand 1 Sand 1 Sand4 Sand 2

Size Fine-Medium 1

Shape Sub-Angular 1

Fine-Medium 1
Fine-Medium Fine-Medium 4 Fine-Medium 1
Coarse 1

Angular 1 Angular 1 Sub-Angular 4 Sub-Angular 1

Sub-Aplastic Mica 1 Mica 1 Mica 1 Mica 4 Mica 1

Swift Creek
Incised Dunlap Fabric
Impressed Long Branch Fabric
Marked
Dallas Plain
Hamilton Plain Lamar Complicated
Stamped

Sand 1 Sand 1 Sand 3 Limestone 2 Shell 3 Limestone 1 Sand 1

Fine-Medium 1
Very Coarse 1
Very Coarse 3
Very Coarse1 Granular 1 Coarse 2
Very Coarse 1 Very Coarse 1
Very Coarse 1

Sub-Round 1 Sub-Angular 1 Sub-Round 2
Angular 1 Angular 2
Angular 3 Angular 1 Sub-Angular 1

349 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Vessel Rim Diameter

Three vessels provided sufficient rim arc for accurate rim diameters measurements. Because of the low number of sample vessels, the rim diameter data is limited. All recordable rim diameters were from bowls. The rims of two Long Branch Fabric Impressed vessels were measured, with Vessel 14 having a diameter of 25 centimeters and Vessel 15 having a diameter of 19 centimeters. The rim of a Dallas Plain bowl (Vessel 21) had a diameter of 16 centimeters.

Rim Form and Production Steps

Six of the vessels are represented by rims; of these, the most common rim form in this assemblage is the smoothed rounded rim, as seen with Vessels 14,15, 21, and 23. This form was observed in all but one of the vessels throughout the sample vessel assemblage. One vessel, a Hamilton Plain bowl (Vessel 19), has a flattened rim form.

Vessel Form

Eleven vessels provided information on vessel form. Vessels 14, 15, 19, 21, and 23 were identified as bowls. While vessels 2, 4, 6, 8, and 13 are noted as being jars, Vessel 2 represents a globular jar, Vessels 4 and 8 are conical jars, and Vessel 6 has a restricted jar form. Vessel 13, a Lamar complicated stamped vessel, is of an unidentifiable jar form. One vessel, Vessel 10, (Cartersville Plain) is a podal support for a jar/bowl, although podal supports are typically associated with deep cylindrical bowls.

Vessel Thickness

In order for a consistent point on each vessel to provide a thickness measurement, measurements were taken three centimeters below the rim. Only five vessels provided sufficient rim sherds for this measurement. All measured types range from 5.0 to 8.1 millimeters in thickness (Table 64). The Long Branch Fabric Impressed rims provided a thickness range of 5.0-6.9 millimeters with an average of 5.95 for both vessels. Two plain vessels have very similar measurements, with a Dallas Plain vessel being 8.1 millimeters and the Hamilton Plain vessel being 8.0 millimeters. The remaining measurable vessel is a Woodstock Complicated Stamped vessel and has a measurement of 5.0 millimeters.

Table 64. Vessel Thickness

Type Long Branch Fabric Marked
Dallas Plain Hamilton Plain Woodstock complicated stamped

Count 2 1 1 1

Range (mm) 5.0-6.9 8.1 8 5

Mean (mm) 5.95 8.1 8 5

350

Percentage of Core Retention
The level of carbon core retention among the vessels was generally high, with the exception of the Dunlap Fabric Impressed vessels (Table 65). The vessels exhibiting the highest level of core retention, or those above 50 percent, likely did not have the firing time, intensity, and/or environment sufficient to burn off the carbon present in the clay.

Table 65. Carbon Retention by Pottery Type

Type Lamar Complicated Stamped (1)
Dallas Plain and Molded (4) Woodstock Complicated Stamped (1) Woodstock/Napier Complicated Stamped (1)
Napier Complicated Stamped Cartersville Plain (1)
Cartersville Simple Stamped (2) Cartersville Check Stamped (4)
Dunlap Fabric Marked (3) Long Branch Fabric Marked (2)
Hamilton Plain (1) Unidentified fine incised (1)

Percent Retention Range 90
20-100 100 100 100 40
50-100 20-100
20 100 100 80

Percent Retention Average 90 77.5 100 100 100 40 75 65 20 100 100 80

SUMMARY
Although typable ceramics were relatively few at the site, the material represents several clear and distinct time periods. Diagnostic ceramics includes types that date to the Early Woodland, the Early-Middle Woodland, the Middle Woodland, the Late Woodland, and the Late Mississippian periods. The various paste types associated with the ceramics indicate the occupants of the site had access to some clay resources that were not locally available, specifically Paste Types 2 and 3. Although ceramics of these paste types are not uncommon in the area, the resources needed to produce them may be located further to the west. However, further research and clay sourcing in the area is needed to confirm this supposition. The ceramics made using Paste Type 1 could have been made anywhere within the local drainages.
The earliest ceramics from the site consist of fabric marked wares made of either limestone temper (Long Branch Fabric Marked) or sand temper (Dunlap Fabric Marked). Eight individual sherds typed as Dunlap Fabric Marked were recovered from 9GO297, with all but one of these recovered from Feature 44 and the units in the Addendum area of the site, the exception being

351 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
from Block 23. The limestone tempered fabric marked wares, typed within the Long Branch series, were more numerous (n=32), and in a similar situation to the Dunlap wares, all but one was found during the Addendum investigation at the north end of 9GO297. Interestingly, the exception, a single Long Branch Fabric Marked sherd, was also found in Block 23 in the same level of adjoining test units as a Dunlap Fabric Marked sherd. The association of fabric marked wares of different tempers is relatively common (Bowen 1989; Ledbetter et al. 2009).
Cartersville Check Stamped pottery, which was made and used from the end of the Early Woodland period into the Middle Woodland period, was recovered from Blocks 1, 3, and 23. The single limestone tempered sherd, typed as Wright Check Stamped and contemporaneous with Cartersville Check Stamped, was found in Block 23. Two separate sherds of the closelyrelated type Cartersville Simple Stamped, a ware that enters the archaeological record in the Middle Woodland period, were found in Blocks 3 and 20. There was a single sherd of the Late Woodland type Hamilton Plain recovered from Block 23, while several sherds of the contemporaneous Napier Complicated Stamped type were also recovered from this block. All but one of the definitive Late Woodland period Woodstock Complicated Stamped sherds were recovered from Block 27, the exception recovered from a shovel test in the Addendum area of 9GO297. A Swift Creek Complicated Stamped sherd was recovered from Block 27 in a level (Level 8) above the two levels (Level 9 and 10) where all of the Woodstock wares were recovered; this vertical positioning fits with the expected distribution of these wares given their ages. Late Mississippian wares consist of Lamar Complicated Stamped and Dallas Plain. The latter, a shell tempered ware, were more numerous (n=13) than the sand tempered Lamar type (n=1). Dallas wares were recovered from Blocks 3, 20, 23, 27, and 28, while the single Lamar sherd was recovered from Block 3.

IX. INTERPRETATIONS

353 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

DATA POTENTIAL
The data recovery of 9GO297 revealed that much of the archaeological deposits at the site have been heavily impacted by historic and modern activities. For the majority of the excavation blocks, the archaeological contexts have been destroyed or heavily mixed, while a few of the blocks appear to contain somewhat intact stratified deposits. As a result, many of the research issues laid out in the Research Design section in Chapter IV that were developed prior to the data recovery either no longer apply or are simply unanswerable due to a lack of applicable data. Conversely, some data were recovered that can be used to address issues not laid out in the Research Design; specifically, this includes information on the transitional Late Archaic-Early Woodland period and the Early/Middle Mississippian time frame. We address the research issues in the order laid out above, although we begin with a summary of the temporal components and chronology of the site.

CHRONOLOGY
Investigation of 9GO297 has revealed several precontact American Indian components at the site. These components are evidenced through diagnostic artifacts and/or radiocarbon dates (Table 66). Temporal components at 9GO297 include Early Archaic, Late Archaic, Late Archaic-Early Woodland transition, Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, Late Woodland, EarlyMiddle Mississippian, and Late Mississippian. Diagnostic artifacts were present for all of these components, with the exception of the Early-Middle Mississippian component which is indicated by two of the seven radiocarbon dates (Beta 356537 and Beta 362487); no Early-Middle Mississippian artifacts were found at the site. One of the radiocarbon dates (Beta 356540) was very recent (less than one hundred years old) and likely reflects the dating of recent vegetal matter. The distribution of components at the site as found in the excavation blocks at 9GO297 is summarized in Table 67.

Table 66. Radiocarbon Dates from 9GO297

Beta Sample
#
356536

Provenience
Block 23, Unit 110, Feature 40a, Level 16, 200-210 cmbd

Measured Age
2520 +/- 30 B.P.

Conventional Age
2510 +/- 30 B.P.

2 Sigma Calibration
Cal B.C. 790-700 (Cal B.P. 2740-2650)/Cal B.C. 700-540 (Cal B.P. 2650-2490)/Cal B.C. 530-520 (Cal B.P. 2480-2470)

Temporal Association

354

Table 66. Radiocarbon Dates from 9GO297 (Continued)

Beta Sample
#

Provenience

Measured Conventional

Age

Age

2 Sigma Calibration

356537

Block 4, Unit 101, Level 6
(107-117 cmbd)

890 +/- 30 B.P.

880 +/- 30 B.P.

Cal AD 1040-1100 (Cal B.P. 910-850)/Cal AD 1120-1140 (Cal B.P. 830-810)/Cal AD 1150-1220 (Cal B.P. 800-730)

356538

Block 23, Unit 109, Level 13, 170-180 cmbd

2370 +/- 30 B.P.

2300 +/- 30 B.P.

Cal B.C. 400-360 (Cal B.P. 2350-2310)/Cal B.C. 270-260
(Cal B.P. 2220-2210)

356539

Block 23, Unit 114, Level 14, 180-190 cmbd

2710 +/- 30 B.P.

2700 +/- 30 B.P.

Cal B.C. 900-800 (Cal B.P. 2850-2750)

356540 356541

Block 37, Unit 161, Level 5, 112-122 cmbd
Addendum Test Unit 173,
Feature 44, Level 9, 80-90
cmbd

80 +/- 30 B.P.
2350 +/- 30 B.P.

60 +/- 30 B.P.
2320 +/- 30 B.P.

Cal AD 1690-1730 (Cal B.P. 260-220)/Cal AD 1810-1840 (Cal B.P. 140-110)/Cal AD
1840-1850 (Cal B.P. 110100)/Cal AD 1860-1860 (Cal
B.P. 90-90)/Cal AD 18701920 (Cal B.P. 80-30)/Cal AD
Post 1950
Cal B.C. 400-380 (Cal B.P. 2360-2330)

362487

Block 23, Feature 26

570 +/- 30 B.P.

830 +/- 30 B.P.

Cal AD 1160-1260 (Cal B.P. 790-690)

Temporal Association Early-Middle Mississippian Early Woodland Late Archaic
Modern
Early Woodland Early-Middle Mississippian

Table 67. Summary of Temporal Components by Excavation Block

Block 1
2 3
4
5
6 7 8

Temporal Components
Early Archaic; Early-Middle Woodland
Unknown Precontact Ceramic
Middle Woodland; Late Mississippian
Late Archaic Early Woodland; Middle Woodland
Late Archaic-Early Woodland; Middle Woodland; Probable Late Mississippian
None
None
None

Comments Isolated deeply buried Early Archaic point; modern/historic items mixed with Precontact materials in upper levels Very low artifact density
Appears to be intact chronostratigraphy
Disturbed chronostratigraphy; Early-Middle Mississippian date on charcoal from block
Disturbed context
Borrow pit area - no archaeological deposits present Borrow pit area - no archaeological deposits present Borrow pit area - no archaeological deposits present

355 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Table 67. Summary of Temporal Components by Excavation Block (Continued)

Block 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22
23
24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 32 33

Temporal Components None
None
Unknown Precontact Unknown Precontact
Unknown Precontact
Probable Early-Middle Woodland
None
Unidentified Precontact Ceramic
None
Unidentified Precontact
Late Woodland; General Mississippian Late Archaic Early Woodland; Middle Woodland; Late Woodland; Late Mississippian None
None
Early Woodland; Middle Woodland; Late Woodland; EarlyMiddle Mississippian; Late Mississippian Unknown Precontact Ceramic None None Late Archaic-Early Woodland; Middle Woodland; Late Woodland; Late Mississippian Early Woodland; Late Mississippian Unknown Precontact Unknown Precontact Unknown Precontact Unknown Precontact Unknown Precontact

Comments Borrow pit area - no archaeological deposits present Edge of borrow pit and old road no archaeological deposits present Upper portion disturbed; deposits found to 40 cmbs Artifacts present 60-85 cmbs Excavated through old road; identified deeply buried A-horizon with prehistoric artifacts Excavated through old road; identified deeply buried A-horizon with prehistoric artifacts, including check stamped sherd Heavily disturbed area with fill, adjacent boat ramp. No archaeological deposits identified in block Heavily disturbed deeply buried A-horizon with mixed modern and Precontact artifacts; modern/recent historic post features Near edge of borrow pit; no archaeological deposits present Near edge of borrow pit; heavily disturbed, no intact archaeological deposits
Near/at edge of borrow pit, heavily disturbed
Disturbed chronostratigraphy
Within area of old road; no archaeological deposits present Deep trench that revealed buried possible dark midden-like alluvial soils in northeastern area of site, although no artifacts observed
Deep alluvial deposits; discrepancies between diagnostic artifact distribution and absolute dates; maize cupule radiocarbon dated to Early-Middle Mississippian time frame
Alluvial deposits; nearly archaeologically sterile Within area of old road; no archaeological deposits present No archaeological deposits present
Deep alluvial deposits; mixed chronostratigraphy
Located at contact between deep alluvial soils of east side of site and bedrock ridge in central portion of site Archaeological deposits within plow zone from 0-40 cmbs Single artifact observed 30 cmbs while recording soil profile Low frequency of FCR from 0-40 cmbs within plow zone Low frequency of artifacts from 0-30 cmbs within plow zone Low frequency of FCR at interface of buried A-horizon and

356

Table 67. Summary of Temporal Components by Excavation Block (Continued)

Block

Temporal Components

34 Unknown Precontact 35 Unknown Precontact 36 Unknown Precontact 37 Late Archaic-Early Woodland 38 Unknown Prehistoric
39 Unknown Prehistoric

Comments subsoil approximately 100 cmbs Low frequency of FCR at 30-40 cmbs Single piece of FCR at 100 cmbs Two artifacts within plow zone Disturbed chronostratigraphy Long trench in which contact between deep alluvial soils and shallow bedrock ridge exposed Intersection with Block 38 exposed contact between deep alluvial soils and shallow bedrock ridge

EARLY ARCHAIC COMPONENT
An Early Archaic component at the site is indicated by the recovery of a single Palmer PP/K from a shovel test. The depth of the point between 90 and 100 cmbs suggested that the context was intact. While the deposits at this depth may have been intact, test units placed around the shovel test (as part of Block 1) failed to yield any identifiable associated remains.
LATE ARCHAIC-EARLY WOODLAND COMPONENT
A Late Archaic and/or a Late Archaic-Early Woodland component is present at 9GO297. Because several of the artifacts from the site may have been produced in either of these periods, it is difficult to determine if both a Late Archaic and a transitional Late Archaic-Early Woodland component are present without absolute dates in association with these artifacts. Specifically, the PP/K types Flint Creek, Cotaco Creek, Gary, and Wade may date to either time frame, which the steatite vessels may as well. It is also possible that the Small Savannah River type dates to the transitional period. Regardless, these materials were recovered from Blocks 4, 5, 20, 27, and 37.
EARLY WOODLAND COMPONENT
An Early Woodland component is evidenced at the site by the recovery of fabric marked wares, a Swannanoa PP/K, and by radiocarbon dates. Both the limestone tempered Long Branch type and the sand tempered Dunlap type are present. During the addendum investigation of the northern end of 9GO297, a McIntire PP/K was recovered from the pit feature (Feature 44) in association with numerous Long Branch Fabric Marked wares. This suggests that this particular example dates to the Early Woodland period rather than to the Late Archaic period. It is possible that all or some of the Cartersville Check Stamped pottery dates to the latest portion of this component, but these wares are generally considered Middle Woodland. Early Woodland materials were found in Blocks 23 and 28.

357 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Ledbetter et al. (2009:146147) discusses how these two similarly-decorated wares defined on the basis of tempering often co-occur on Early Woodland period sites, such as at Pumpkin Pile in Floyd County to the west of 9GO297 (Ledbetter 1992b). As Franklin et al. (2008) discussed, pottery of mixed temper is not classified in the formal ceramic typologies for middle and eastern Tennessee (Faulkner 1968; Haag 1939; Heimlich 1952; Kneberg 1961; Lewis and Kneberg 1946, 1957), and this is also the case for northwest Georgia. In his review of the fabric-marked pottery from the Mahan site, Bowen (1989:168) noted that six features produced all three different temper types (grit, limestone, and sand), while grit-and limestone tempered sherds were found in one pit, and grit-tempered sherds alone in two pits. That assessment was based on pottery counts provided by Wear in the paper prepared by Morse and Morse (1960) on the Williams site. In that study, they divided the Mahan site features into two components. Features associated with Component A at the Mahan site produced between 75 and 95 percent grittempered fabric-impressed sherds (Watts Bar) "with other-tempered Fabric-Impressed sherds being less than or about the same percentage as the Simple Stamped representation, which is about 8 to 15% of the total collection. Cord-Marked sherds are very minor and constitute about the same frequency in each component" (Morse and Morse 1960:95). Component B was defined as having 50-60 percent grit-tempered fabric-impressed sherds, "and a very low percentage of Simple Stamped sherds, varying around 2 to 14% of the total. The bulk of the other sherds are limestone-tempered and sand-tempered Fabric-Impressed specimens" (Morse and Morse 1960).
During the current project, a single Dunlap Fabric Marked and a single Long Branch Fabric Marked sherd were found in the same level of the same test unit in Block 23. These types were also found together in the test units excavated at the north end of 9GO297 as part of the addendum investigation (Keith et al. 2012). Vessel 15, a Long Branch Fabric Impressed vessel recovered from Feature 44 during the addendum testing of 9GO297, was also of mixed temper, with limestone as the dominant temper and grit as a minority temper. As indicated above, fabric marked vessels having both limestone and grit as a temper package are known in north Georgia (Bowen 1989), although detailed study into the potential cultural significance of Early Woodland ceramic tempering technology and traditions has not been conducted.
MIDDLE WOODLAND COMPONENT
Middle Woodland period materials at 9GO297 include Cartersville series pottery, Swift Creek Complicated Stamped pottery, and the Bakers Creek and Swan Lake PP/Ks. Nearly all of the wares classified as of the Cartersville series (n=10) are check stamped, while there is single piece of simple stamped and one probable Cartersville Plain sherd. Only a single Swift Creek sherd was identified at the site during the data recovery, although a couple of possible sherds of this type were found during the Phase II testing (Barse and Gill 2007). Middle Woodland components were found in Blocks 3, 4, 5, 20, 23, and 27.

358
LATE WOODLAND COMPONENT
The Late Woodland component is evidenced by Woodstock Complicated Stamped, Napier Complicated Stamped, and Hamilton Plain pottery, as well as by a single triangular PP/K. These materials were found in Blocks 19, 20, 23, and 27. There was a single sherd of the Late Woodland type Hamilton Plain recovered from Block 23 from between 70 and 80 cmbs, while several sherds of the contemporaneous Napier Complicated Stamped type were also recovered from this block in excavation levels approximately 60-90 cmbs. All but one of the definitive Late Woodland period Woodstock Complicated Stamped sherds were recovered from Levels 9 and 10 of Block 27, which equates to approximately 125-145 cmbs. It is unknown if these different pottery types are a result of disparate occupations or if the different types were simply components of a general Late Woodland period ceramic assemblage.
EARLY-MIDDLE MISSISSIPPIAN COMPONENT
No artifacts from this time frame were recovered from 9GO297. However, two radiocarbon dates (Beta 356537 and Beta 362487) were returned that fall within this time frame. It is unknown if these radiocarbon dates are spurious, date naturally-burned materials unrelated to human usage of this landform and site, or represent the remains of human usage of the landform that did not result in the deposition of artifacts. It is possible that these two dates, obtained from two different areas of the site, come from burned vegetal material remaining from period usage of this landform as an agricultural field. However, this is speculative without additional data for testing.
LATE MISSISSIPPIAN COMPONENT
A Late Mississippian component is represented by plain shell tempered wares believed to be part of the Dallas pottery tradition, and a single Lamar Complicated Stamped sherd. These wares are likely the remains of a Barnett phase occupation (A.D. 1500-1600), although it is possible that they predate this phase and remain from an occupation during the preceding Little Egypt phase. Late Mississippian period materials were recovered from Blocks 3, 20, 23, 27, and 28, and possibly Block 5 as well.
SITE FORMATION PROCESSES
As a result of the Phase I and II investigation, (Barse and Gill 2007) recognized that site 9GO297 lay on a landform characterized by two primary geological areas. The geomorphologist confirmed their basic understanding of the geological underpinning of the site. Specifically, the geomorphological investigation found that deep alluvial soils are present in the eastern portion of the site adjacent the Coosawattee River, while a bedrock/residual clay ridge runs through the

359 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
central to western portion of the project area. Archaeological deposits in the alluvial soils extended to much greater depths under the modern ground surface, while those in the bedrock portion of the site were much shallower and compressed. Those within the bedrock area, such as within Block 5, were contained within the plow zone and thus have been mixed by plowing and other historic modifications to the landform. The deposits in the alluvial soils are much deeper and appear to have been less disturbed. However, these vary in their degree of integrity. As mentioned, much of the archaeological record of the site has been heavily affected by historic and modern activities. These include deforestation, agriculture/plowing, removal of soils, construction of the old road through the site, construction of the current course of SR 225, and construction of the boat ramp.
SITE FUNCTION, LAYOUT, AND SETTLEMENT
The ability to examine the function and the layout of the site for the various components is limited by the nature of the archaeological record of 9GO297. Specifically, the disturbed and mixed nature of much of the site's contexts hinders analysis of the various components at the site.
For the Early Archaic period, one artifact a projectile point was recovered. An Early Archaic component at the site is evidenced by a Palmer PP/K recovered from between 90 and 100 cmbs within a shovel test. Despite placing a block of test units (Block 1) around this shovel test in order to investigate this component, no additional remains that could be definitively associated with this occupation were identified. The lack of additional Early Archaic artifacts from this block and the numerous other blocks suggests that the project area was used sparingly during the Early Archaic period. It may have been the location of a hunting camp or a hunting locus.
The transitional Late Archaic-Early Woodland remains at the site are similar to those sites discussed by Ledbetter et al. (2009). This component is located on the west side of the site adjacent New Town Creek. Specifically, in Blocks 4 and 37 where there seems to be the heaviest concentration of these materials, there is a high amount of FCR throughout. Steatite is present, while fiber tempered pottery is absent. The projectile point assemblage is similar to what Ledbetter et al. (2009) described and the assemblage recovered from the contemporaneous Lick Creek site to the east of 9GO297 (Benson et al. 2008), with Gary, Wade, McIntire, and Flint Creek point types present at 9GO297. A single possible post is present within Block 37 among a high frequency of FCR, but little can be determined regarding structures from this feature.
For the Early Woodland component, again the mixed nature of the site assemblage and the nearabsence of definitive period features hinder a clear understanding of the function of the site. A single feature dating to the Early Woodland period was identified at 9GO297, although it lay at

360
the north end of the site outside of the data recovery project area. Feature 44, recorded during the addendum investigation of the site (Keith et al. 2012), was the most unambiguous cultural feature identified at 9GO297. This was a circular pit feature with abundant fabric marked sherds that intruded into the sterile silt subsoil. This feature is similar to the Early Woodland pit features that are commonly found at period sites in northwest Georgia. The archaeobotanical analysis reveals the collection and storage of nut masts at the site (e.g., Feature 44), suggesting a multi-season occupation, at least during the fall and winter. The presence of spring to early summer cultigens (specifically goosefoot and maygrass) in Feature 44 further suggests a spring and summer occupation, and that these people maintained gardens at the site. Along with the number of fabric marked sherds within the data recovery area of the site, this suggests that the site served as a sedentary residential location.
Artifacts from the Middle Woodland component were also found within several of the blocks at the site. However, no discrete unmixed Middle Woodland components were identified, and no features from this period were found. The component is represented by a handful of Cartersville series pottery sherds, a few projectile points, and a single Swift Creek pottery sherd. Other than the fact that the artifacts are spread across most of the site, the layout and function of the Middle Woodland component is difficult to discern. Middle Woodland peoples were certainly living at this location, but the duration and intensity of this occupation is simply unknown. We do know that just across New Town Creek to the west was an intensively occupied Middle Woodland period occupation (Lum Moss site), with numerous post and pit features (Baker 1970, 1971). Based on the assemblage from Lum Moss, (Baker 1971:117) characterized it as "Adena-like". No similar materials were found at 9GO297, although Swift Creek pottery does have connections with the Hopewellian Interaction Sphere (Espenshade 2008a; Keith 2011; Williams and Elliott 1998). Perhaps 9GO297 was an extension of the Lum Moss occupation at this time, yet a functionally different and less intensive occupation.
The Late Woodland period remains from 9GO297 also indicate that period peoples were living in this location, although the duration and intensity of this occupation is difficult to discern. Both Napier and Woodstock pottery was recovered in very small numbers, as was a complicated stamped vessel that essentially could be defined as either of those types; in addition a single Hamilton Plain sherd was recovered from the site. The deposits in Blocks 23 and 27, which were located near the northern edge of the data recovery area, provide the best evidence for Late Woodland occupation of the site, although these remains are low in frequency. It is tempting to argue that this occupation represents a farmstead at which only a small number of people were living due to the low artifact density. Further, the relatively low density of these materials begs the question if related deposits are present in the area of the landform laying between the northern edge of the data recovery area and the southern edge of the Addendum area.

361 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Regardless, no features remaining from this occupation were recorded during this investigation, so the data is severely limited as to precisely how this site functioned at that time. Similar to the case for the Middle Woodland component, the Lum Moss site is known to have been occupied by peoples using Woodstock and Hamilton Plain pottery (Baker 1970; 1971), so perhaps 9GO297 was an extension of that occupation.
Two of the radiocarbon dates (Beta-356537 and Beta-362487) from the site fall within the Early to Middle Mississippian periods, a time range for which no diagnostic artifacts were recovered from the site. One of these (Beta-362487) was returned on a charred maize cupule recovered from a small soil stain feature in Block 23 on the east side of the site, while the other was from Block 4 on the west side of the site. Given that there are no artifacts from this period of time from 9GO297, might these burned plant materials be from usage of this landform as an agricultural/horticultural field? Might this charcoal remain from burning of the field as part of a swidden agricultural system? This is certainly a plausible possibility given that fire is known to have been used for landscape management by historic Southeastern Indians, and is believed to have been used during precontact times as well. More data is necessary to address this possibility, but this is possibly a key finding of this investigation.
Like most of the other components, the low density of the Late Mississippian remains at the site make it difficult to determine the function and layout of this component. A handful of shell tempered Dallas Plain pottery and a Lamar Complicated Stamped sherd were found in three blocks (3, 23, and 27), all of which are located on the east side of the site. No features from this component were identified, further limiting the interpretation of the function and layout of the site at this time. It may be that related Late Mississippian deposits are located in the area of the deep alluvial soils due to their preferred usage for agriculture. Based on the remains found from this period within the project area, it was a low intensity and/or short-term occupation by a small number of people.
SUBSISTENCE
Archaeobotanical analysis was conducted on 98 samples from 9GO297, consisting of 15 feature samples and 83 test unit column samples (see Appendix C). There were relatively few intact and unambiguously cultural features, and only one that could be confidently assigned to a single component (Feature 44); further, due to the disturbance and component mixing at the site, most of the unit column samples can not be definitively associated with a particular temporal component. This situation hinders the ability to confidently associate the archaeobotanical remains identified during this analysis with the specific components at the site, and thus limits the results of the study. Nevertheless, information regarding the Early Woodland and EarlyMiddle Mississippian subsistence practices was generated through this analysis.

362
The Early Woodland remains consist of hickory, maygrass, goosefoot, and persimmon. All of these remains were found together in the circular pit Feature 44 at the northern end of 9GO297 and outside of the area of data recovery, in direct association with Long Branch Fabric Marked and Dunlap Fabric Marked pottery, as well as a McIntire PP/K and a Woodland Spike. The archaeobotanical remains from this feature suggest that the occupants collected, processed, and stored nut mast in this feature, a pattern that is well documented for northwest Georgia (Bowen 1989; Caldwell 1957). Further, the presence of the cultigens suggests that these occupants were also maintaining gardens on site.
Four charred maize cupules were identified in the archaeobotanical samples, three from Block 23 and one from Block 28, both of which contained Early Woodland through Late Mississippian components as determined through diagnostic artifacts. One of the maize cupules from Block 23 was found in a soil stain feature at the level where Early-Middle Woodland pottery began to appear, but this feature (Feature 26) contained no diagnostics and may be natural rather than cultural in origin. This cupule was submitted for radiocarbon dating and returned a date indicating a late Early or early Middle Mississippian period origin. The two other maize cupules were recovered from levels much higher in this block, levels which yielded Late Woodland (Napier Complicated Stamped and Hamilton Plain pottery) and Late Mississippian (Dallas Plain pottery) diagnostics. No Early or Middle Mississippian period diagnostics were recovered from 9GO297. The single maize cupule found in Block 28 was recovered from a column sample from deep (Level 11) within the test unit block, which was at the contact between the deep alluvial soils that characterize the east-northeast portion of 9GO297 and the shallower clay soils of the bedrock ridge that runs through the site.
A single Late Mississippian diagnostic artifact (Dallas Plain pottery) was found within Block 28, although in Level 1 in a different test unit. Apart from the single maize fragment that was radiocarbon dated, the temporal affiliation of the other maize fragments is unknown. Regardless of this, another Early-Middle Mississippian radiocarbon date obtained from charcoal from the test unit matrix of Block 4 was returned. The return of two dates from this time period and the lack of associated artifacts beg the question of whether this site may have served as an agricultural field at this time, as evidenced by the burned remains of vegetal materials that could indicate burning of previous year's gardening detritus in preparation for new crops. Fire is known to have been used for landscape management during the Mississippian period (Gremillion 1993; Nance 1990) and the practice may have been used during the Early and Middle Woodland period in the Georgia Piedmont as well (Raymer and Windham 2008; Raymer and BonhageFreud 2000).

363 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
In terms of the nutshell recovered from the site, Swanton (1931) reports that the Choctaw roasted hickory nuts until they cracked and then pounded them into a meal. Another preparation technique also involved the cracking of the nuts into small fragments (Lawson 1960:100110). The mixed shells and nutmeats were then served as a dry meal, where the nutmeats were eaten and the shell fragments were expectorated. Talalay et al. (1984) and Hilliard (1980) suggest that this technique would result in the ingestion of considerable quantities of nutshell fragments. They cite the evidence of paleofecal samples analyzed from Salts Cave, Kentucky, where 17 percent of the paleofeces were composed of hickory shell. All of these processing techniques would allow ample opportunities for small fragments of hickory shell to become charred.
The suite of plant food remains associated with the Woodland and Mississippian period occupation of Site 9GO297 is consistent with multi-season occupations that included nut harvesting and gardening among major subsistence activities. The identification of three indigenous cultigens in securely dated Early Woodland contexts indicates some Early Woodland inhabitants maintained gardens at 9GO297. Four Early/Middle Mississippian maize cupules offer very tentative evidence of an isolated maize field in the excavated portion of the site in this period. The practice of horticulture and identification of maygrass imply residency in early spring, as crops would be planted as soon as the ground warmed sufficiently, and maygrass is one of the earliest fruiting edible grains in the Southeast. The recovery of relatively low quantities of Juglandaceae nutshell and acorn shell suggested a fall occupation that included some mast processing, since these tree fruits ripen in October and November. Finally, the fruit and herb assemblages represented taxa whose reproductive structures ripen from the early spring through late fall.
In summary, these data revealed the following characteristics of the Woodland and Mississippian period components. First, it is evident from subsistence remains that Woodland and Mississippian inhabitants practiced a mixed economy consisting of gardening, mast collection, and collection of summer/fall ripening, naturally occurring plants. Evidence of Early/Middle Mississippian gardening is provided by the recovery of four maize cupules from Block 23 and 28 samples. Recovery and identification of 53 potential indigenous cultigen seeds from 16 percent of the flotation samples (including 38 examples from securely dated Early Woodland contexts) offers evidence of Early Woodland horticulture at 9GO297.
Second, overall low numbers and ubiquity of nutshell (with the significant exception of the Block 28 and Feature 44 macroplant assemblages) suggested that the collection and processing of nut crops was not a major subsistence focus in the excavated portion of this site. The lack of large-scale nut processing for winter consumption, combined with overall low wood charcoal densities, and a lack of substantial dwellings and storage facilities, suggested that many of the site occupations represented short-term, summer/fall encampments.

364
Third, the Block 28 and TU 17/Feature 44 macrofloral assemblages provide evidence that some Early Woodland occupations emphasized the large-scale collection of mast for storage and lean season consumption. The high density and proportion of Juglandaceae and acorn shell within TU 28 and Feature 44 samples is suggestive of large-scale collection and processing of mast for storage. The identification of storable nut crops offers evidence of lean season, overwinter occupation.
SETTLEMENT PATTERNS
A single Early Archaic PP/K was discovered at 9GO297 deeply buried in a shovel test during the data recovery. Despite placing a test unit block around this artifact, no additional artifacts or features were documented at this location, or anywhere else on the site. This suggests that, at least in the project area on the landform, Early Archaic activity and occupation was ephemeral and not of the type to result in the accumulation of non-degradable debris.
Regardless, citing several investigations within Tallapoosa River Valley in the Ridge and Valley province south of the project area (Gresham 1990; Stanyard 1991; Stanyard and Pietak 1997; Stanyard et al. 1997), Stanyard (2003) stated that Early Archaic settlement organization is similar to the pattern documented by O'Steen in the Oconee Valley. Within the GHAHRGIS database, eight Early Archaic sites are present in Gordon County, one of which (9GO36) is located along the Coosawattee River approximately one mile upstream from 9GO297. Although it is not presently recorded as a component for the site in the GNAHRGIS database, Jim Langford told the lead author that there was an Early Archaic component at 9GO59 (Lum Moss site) across New Town Creek west of 9GO297, based on his participation in Baker's excavation of the (Keith et al. 2012). Additionally, such a component is indicated by the recovery of a Kirk Corner Notched point from Area 6 of the site (Barse and Gill 2007), an area south of SR 225 (pre-realignment) that could have been recorded under previously existing site 9GO42 given that it falls within that site's boundaries (Elliott et al. 2003). A review of the distribution of Early Archaic sites in the project vicinity reveals that there are several along the Coosawattee River east of 9GO297, while a few lay downstream along the Oostanaula River. However, there is a concentration of Early Archaic sites to the west along the narrow mountain ridges, as well as a concentration to the east in the mountainous area of Jasper.
There is no formally defined transitional Late Archaic-Early Woodland transitional site category in the GNAHRGIS database, so a plotting of such sites in the project vicinity is not possible. However, Late Archaic sites are coded in the database, and Figure 113 shows their distribution in the vicinity of 9GO297. Stanyard (2003) found that site frequency in the Ridge and Valley increased compared to the preceding period, contrary to the pattern observed in the neighboring Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces. According to the NAHRGIS database, 15 sites with Late

365 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

!!
! !! !

! !
!

!!

!

! !

!!!! ! !
! !

! !
! !

!

!

!

!

Source!:!

!
ESRI

Resource

Data!

!!

!

! !!

Figure 113. Early Archaic and Late Archaic Sites in the Project Vicinity

^_

!

!

! !
!
! !

^_ 9GO297

! Early Archaic Site

!

Gordon County

0

4.5

9 13.5 18 km

!

p

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 mi

! !

! !!!

!

!

!!!!!!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !!

!

!!

!!

!

^_!

!

!!

!

!

^_ 9GO2!97

! Late Arch!a!ic Site !

!
Gordon County

0

4.5

9 13.5 18 km

!

p

0

3! 6

9

12 mi

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!!
Source!:!!!!!E!SRI

!
Resource

!
Data

!

!!! !! !!

!!!

! ! !!!! !
!

!

! !!!!!

!

! !!!

!!

! !

! !

!! ! !
! !!!!!

366
Archaic components are recorded within Gordon County, the nearest of which is 9GO223 that was recorded by the lead author (Elliott et al. 2003). A review of the distribution of Late Archaic sites in the project vicinity reveals that a few have been found along the Oostanaula. Similar to the Early Archaic period, there are two primary concentrations of sites from this period, one in the narrow mountain ridges west of 9GO297 and one to the east of 9GO297 in the mountainous area just west of Jasper. Based on the recent study of the transitional period sites (Ledbetter et al. 2009), there are numerous such sites within the project vicinity.
For the Early Woodland period, sites tend to be found along the floodplains of waterways rather than in the uplands (Figure 114). There is a total of 17 sites within Gordon County coded as having an Early Woodland component. In their review of Early Woodland settlement, Ledbetter et al. (2009) found that sites were often located within floodplains, and that semi-circular and circular permanent and/or semi-permanent structures were built at such sites. It is not uncommon for archaeologists to find only a semi-circular "partial" arrangement of irregularly-spaced posts (as opposed to a complete circle or oval pattern), and Ledbetter et al. (2009:339) suggested that such patterns may represent bent pole structures that were covered with cane or cattail mats, grass thatch, or bark. Alternatively, they propose (Ledbetter et al. 2009:340) that such post patterns may relate to other structural types such as box frames and free-standing double-conical shelters. One Early Woodland feature a circular pit was recorded at 9GO297, although it was located in the addendum area of the site rather than the data recovery area. However, its presence suggests that this site served as a domestic residential area to some degree.
Middle Woodland period settlement in the project vicinity is similar to the previous Early Woodland period, in that sites tend to be located along the primary waterways rather than in the uplands (Figure 115). Within Gordon County, 13 sites (including 9GO297) are recorded as having a Middle Woodland component. None of these are mound sites, which are known from further south in the Ridge and Valley province (such as the Leake site in Bartow County). Significant Middle Woodland deposits were identified at Lum Moss on the other side of New Town Creek from 9GO297 during (Baker 1970; 1971) work at that site. This included features with "Adena-like" artifacts, such as mica, hematite, green slate, clear/crystal quartz flakes, kaolin lumps, and pyrite crystals (Baker 1971:117). Such items were found at the Leake site in association with Cartersville and Swift Creek pottery, and they are not uncommon at other sites in the Ridge and Valley that contain these pottery types. There is indication that these items are particularly associated with Swift Creek pottery more than with Cartersville pottery, but no definitive studies have been conducted to address this question. Further, there is little understanding as to the relationship between Swift Creek and Cartersville potteries in terms of the people making and using them (Espenshade 2008a; Keith 2012). Where it occurs in north Georgia, Swift Creek pottery is almost always found with Cartersville pottery, but there are many sites with Cartersville pottery that lack Swift Creek pottery. Further, it is clear that the

367 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Figure 114. Early Woodland Sites in the Project Vicinity
!

! !

^_ 9GO297 !

!

! Early Woodland Site

!

Gordon Coun!ty

! !!

!

0

5

10

15

20 km

p

!

!

^_!

!

0

3

6

9

12 mi

!

!

!

!! ! !
! !
Source: ESRI Resource Data ! !! !

! !! !
!!!

!!!!! !!!!
!
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

! !

^_ 9GO297

! Dunlap Site

Gordon County

!

0

5

10

15

p20 km

^_

0

3

6

9

12 mi

Source: ESRI Resource Data
^_

!

! ! !

^_ 9GO297

! Kellog Site

Gordon County

0

5

10

15

p20 km

0

3

6

9

12 mi

!
Source: ESRI Resource Data

! !

368

!

!

^_
!

9GO297

! Middle Woodland Site

Gordon County
0 4.5 9 13.5 18 km

p!

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 mi

!
!
Source: ESRI Resource Data !

! !
!
!

^_ 9GO297

! Cartersville Site

Gordon County

0 4.5 9 13.5 18 km

p

0

3

6

9

12 mi

!

Source: ESRI Resource Data

!
^_ 9GO297

! Swift Creek Site

Gordon County

0 4.5 9 13.5 18 km

p

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 mi

!

Source: ESRI Resource Data

Figure 115. Middle Woodland Sites in the Project Vicinity
!

!

! !
!

!

^_!!!

! !!

!!

! !

!

! !

!! !

! ! !!!!!
!!!
! !

!

!! !

!

! !!

!

! !

^_

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

! !

! !
!
^_
!! !
! !

369 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
people making and using Cartersville pottery also made and used Swift Creek pottery, for they share a common pottery technology (Espenshade 2008a); however, Swift Creek pottery was also made and used by peoples well outside of north Georgia who were not part of the Cartersville pottery tradition, from the Gulf Coast north into eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina, and even into southern Indiana. In the opinion of the lead author, Swift Creek pottery was made for usage in ceremonial and religious contexts, while Cartersville pottery was a utilitarian ware, and these two potteries are not the products of two different groups or cultures. Regardless, until the nature of the relationship between these two pottery types is elucidated, an understanding of Middle Woodland period settlement will be murky (Keith 2012).
For the Late Woodland period, there are eleven sites recorded within the GASF as having a Late Woodland component within Gordon County (Figure 116). There are very few Napier sites near 9GO297, all of which are located to the east. There are several Woodstock sites in the project vicinity, also to the east of 9GO297. Two large Woodstock sites are known upstream from 9GO297 on the Coosawattee River, 9GO4 (Thompson site) and 9MU103 (Potts' Tract). A Late Woodland component was identified by Baker (1970:197; 1971) at the Lum Moss site across the creek to the west of 9GO297 on the basis of the presence of Woodstock and Hamilton Plain pottery. Similar to the other components, there are only a small number of diagnostic Late Woodland artifacts from 9GO297, while no Late Woodland features were identified. This situation makes it difficult to infer precisely how this site was used and fits into the settlement system. Nevertheless, the site may have served as a residential location for a relatively small number of people. With the exception of a single Hamilton Plain sherd found on the west side of 9GO297 where the shallower clayey soils are present, the Woodstock and the Napier wares were found in the area of the site where the deep alluvial soils are located. This may be due to their usage as agricultural soils, but additional data would be needed to test this possibility.
While there were no Early Mississippian or Middle Mississippian artifacts recovered from 9GO297, two radiocarbon dates on vegetal material from the site fall within this time range. One of these (Beta 356537) dates charcoal recovered from the test unit matrix of a block on the west side of the site adjacent New Town Creek; the other (Beta 362487) was returned on a charred maize cupule from a feature in the deep alluvial sediments on the east side of the site. The lack of occupational debris coupled with the presence of burned vegetal material in particular, remains of an agricultural staple at this time leads to the question of how this landform was used during this period of time. Specifically, might these charred vegetal remains be evidence of usage of this landform as a horticultural/agricultural plot, as part of a system in which fields away from settlements were used and in which the fields were intentionally burned? Might there be artifactual remains of Early and/or Middle Mississippian site to the north of the area of data

370

^_ 9GO297
!
! Late Woodland Site

Gordon County

0 4.5 9 13.5 18 km

p

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 mi

! !
!
Source: ESRI Resource Data !

^_ 9GO297

! Napier Site

Gordon County

0 4.5 9 13.5 18 km

p

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 mi

Figure 116. Late Woodland Sites in the Project Vicinity

!

!
^_!!

!
! !

!

!

!! !!!

! !!

!

!

! !
!

! !
!!

!
^_
!

Source: ESRI Resource Data

^_ 9GO297

! Woodstock Site

Gordon County

0 4.5 9 13.5 18 km

p

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 mi

Source: ESRI Resource Data

! !

! !
!
^_

!

!

!
! ! ! !

371 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
recovery? May there have been such on the south end of the site that was used as a borrow pit? Known Early and Middle Mississippian sites in the vicinity of the project area are shown in Figure 117. The majority of the sites of either period lay to the east of 9GO297 along the floodplains of the Coosawattee and its primary tributaries. However, there is simply not enough data to evaluate the nature of Early and/or Middle Mississippian period usage of the landform on which 9GO297 is located or its place in the larger settlement system.
Late Mississippian usage of the site was also relatively light as indicated by the low frequency of artifacts from this time period. Similar to the case for the Late Woodland materials, they are found on the east side of the site in or near the deep alluvial sediments. As discussed in the cultural context, the Coosawattee River east of 9GO297 appears to have been part of a chiefdom (Coosa) that was characterized by a hierarchical settlement system. This system consisted of a multi-mound capital/administrative center (9MU102, the Little Egypt site), a secondary administrative center with a single mound (9GO4, the Thompson site), non-mound villages, and farmsteads (see Hally and Langford 1988, and Langford and Smith 1990). Late Mississippian period settlement in the project vicinity is shown in Figure 118. According to the Spanish chronicler Don Luis de Velasco (Priestley 2010:239241), at the time of contact the Indians were planting crops in the valleys, yet he did not specify how the fields related to actual settlements. The remains at 9GO297 may relate to usage of the site as a farmstead, one at which people lived and farmed. However, it is unknown whether the small number of artifacts from this occupation is reflective of a low intensity and ephemeral usage of this location at that time or if it relates more to the post-depositional disturbance of the archaeological record, in that we do not have the full archaeological picture. Again, it is entirely possible that additional, and more intensive, remains from a Late Mississippian period occupation are present just north of the data recovery project area where there appears to have been less disturbance, and/or that there were such remains in the area of the site used as a borrow pit.
LITHIC TECHNOLOGY
Analysis of the lithic assemblage from 9GO297 is hindered by the fact that the assemblage represents mixed components, due to disturbance and/or mixing as a result of occupation. Thus, the lithic technologies and traditions for the specific components found at the site cannot be determined and many of the questions pertaining to this research issue are unanswerable with the data. Rather, the assemblage as a whole can be used to answer some of the broader questions.
Lithic items at 9GO297 are typical of those found in precontact assemblages throughout northwest Georgia and beyond. Chipped stone tools make up the bulk of the artifact assemblage from 9GO297, and the overwhelming majority of the assemblage consists of the debris from stone tool production and maintenance. As was expected based on the location of 9GO297,

372

^_ 9GO297 ! Early Mississippian Site
Gordon County

0

5

10 15

20 km

0

3

6

9

12 mi

Source: ESRI Resource Data

Figure 117. Early and Middle Mississippian Sites in the Project Vicinity
!
!

^_
!

! ! !!
!!
! !!!

!

! !

!
! ! ! ! !!

^_ 9GO297

! Middle Mississippian Site

Gordon County

0

6

12

18

p24 km

0

4

8

12

16 mi

^_ !

!!!

!

! !

!!

!!

!!

Source: ESRI Resource Data

!

! !

! !

!!

!

^_ 9GO297

! Late Mississippian Site

! Gordon County

0 4.5 9 13.5 18 km

p

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 mi

!! !
!
Source: ESRI Resource Data

^_ 9GO297

! Little Egypt Phase Site

Gordon County

0

5.5

11 16.5 22 km

p

0

3.5

7

10.5 14 mi

373 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Figure 118. Late Mississippian Sites in the Project Vicinity

! !

^_ !

! !!

!!!

!

!

!!

! !

!

! !

!

!
! ! !!

Source: ESRI Resource Data

^_ 9GO297

! Barnett Phase Site

Gordon County

0 4.5 9 13.5 18 km

p

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 mi

!
^_

^_ !

!! !!
! !

! !

! !

Source: ESRI Resource Data

374
Ridge and Valley chert was by far the most commonly used material for chipped stone tools. According to McCallie (1901), both Knox and Fort Payne chert is present in Gordon County; he stated that a siliceous variety (i.e., knappable) of the former is present along the base of a ridge one mile south of the Sugar Valley Station, which is located approximately 10 kilometers (6.3 miles) west of 9GO297. He also stated that Fort Payne chert could typically be distinguished from Knox chert via its fossiliferous nature. Benson et al. (2008) located several sources of Ridge and Valley chert in the county as well, both several kilometers distant from 9GO297. The lead author has observed sources in the Johns Creek valley approximately 20 kilometers west of the site, both terrestrial sources and stream gravel sources. Numerous other materials are present in the assemblage as well, all of which are minority materials. This includes quartz, quartzite, rhyolite, metavolcanic, Coastal Plain chert, slate and unidentified cherts. While these particular minority materials are common in the site vicinity, there is one piece of debitage from a translucent violet/purple glass-like stone that is rare for the area; this is believed to be almandine garnet, but further study would be required to determine this conclusively.
In addition to chipped stone tools, several other lithic tool types were identified. These include hammerstones, which were typically created through the usage of an unmodified water-worn cobble. Water-worn cobbles were also commonly used for heating and cooking at the site, thereby creating FCR through the breakdown caused by repeated heating/cooling episodes. Several very large stones that appear to have functioned as grinding stones and/or anvils were also found.
Both steatite and slate were found in low frequencies. The steatite came in the form of broken stone vessel fragments, and almost certainly remains from the Late Archaic and/or transitional Late Archaic-Early Woodland period occupation. There is a handful of slate debitage that may remain from this time period as well, and/or the Early-Middle Woodland time frame (Keith 2010a). A ground and polished gorget made of slate was recovered from a block with a transitional Late Archaic-Early Woodland component.
STRUCTURES
Very little evidence for structures was found at 9GO297. A single possible post feature was recorded in Block 37, possibly remaining from the transitional Late Archaic-Early Woodland time frame. The lack of other post features from this context, and from the other excavation blocks, does not allow insight into any structures that may have been built at 9GO297.

X. SUMMARY

375 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Data recovery of site 9GO297 involved both machine and hand excavation of approximately 702 square meters. Excavation involved shovel testing, machine excavation of blocks using a smooth-blade backhoe, and hand excavation of test units arranged in blocks. The investigation revealed that the site has been heavily impacted by post-depositional activities, including deforestation/clearing, agricultural plowing, the construction of a road running southeastnorthwest through the site, the removal of soils from the southern portion for usage in the construction of the current (soon to be old) route of SR 225, the construction of the boat ramp, and the placement of fill atop parts of the site. Diagnostic artifacts from the site evidence Early Archaic, possible Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, Late Archaic-Early Woodland, Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, Late Woodland, and Late Mississippian components. In addition, radiocarbon dates also indicate possible usage of the landform during the Early-Middle Mississippian time frame. Due to the level of disturbance to the site, the artifact assemblage was mixed and could not be reliably separated according to the various temporal components responsible for their presence; also, few definitive cultural features were documented. The geomorphological study of the site aided the understanding of the archaeological record of the site by documenting the evolution of the landform, in particular by identifying the two primary geologic zones of the site. While much of the area of the site investigated during the data recovery has been heavily disturbed, the area of 9GO297 lying between the current data recovery area and the southern edge of the Addendum area has potential for related deposits that may have better contextual integrity, particularly where there may be deep alluvial deposits.

REFERENCES CITED

377 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Adams, Natalie 2007 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the New South Carolina State Farmers' Market Site and Associated Sewer Line, Richland County, South Carolina. Report Submitted to Wilber Smith Associates. New South Associates, Inc., Stone Mountain, Georgia.
Adams, William Y. 1979 On the Argument from Ceramics to History: A Challenge Based on the Evidence from Medieval Nubia. Current Anthropology 20:727744.
Anderson, David G. 1985 Middle Woodland Societies in the Lower South Atlantic Slope: A View from Georgia and South Carolina. Early Georgia 13(1-2):2966.
1990 Political Change in Chiefdom Societies: Cycling in the Late Prehistoric Southeastern United States. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
1996a Models of Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 2957. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
1996b Approaches to Modeling Regional Settlement in the Archaic Period. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 157177. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Anderson, David G. and Glen T. Hanson 1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah River Valley. American Antiquity 53(2):262286.
Anderson, David G. and J.W. Joseph 1988 Prehistory and History Along the Upper Savannah River: Technical Synthesis of Cultural Resource Investigations, Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area.

378
Report Submitted to the National Park Service. Russell Papers. Garrow and Associates, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia.
Anderson, David G. and Robert C. Mainfort 2002 An Introduction to Woodland Archaeology in the Southeast. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, pp. 120. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Anderson, David G., Lisa D. O'Steen, and Kenneth E. Sassaman 1996 Environmental and Chronological Considerations. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 3 15. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Anderson, David G. and Kenneth E. Sassaman 1996 Modeling Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast: A Historical Perspective. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 1628. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Anderson, David G. and Joseph Schuldenrein 1985 Prehistoric Human Ecology Along the Upper Savannah River: Excavations at the Rucker's Bottom, Abbeville, and Bullard Site Groups. Russell Papers. Archaeological Services Division, National Park Service, Atlanta.
Andrefsky, William 1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches To Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, United Kingdom.
2007 The Application and Misapplication of Mass Analysis in Lithic Debitage Studies. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:392402.
Arnold, Philip J., III 1999 Tecomates, Residential Mobility, and Early Formative Occupation in Coastal Lowland Mesoamerica. In Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction, edited by J.M. Skibo and G.M. Feinman, pp. 159170. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Baker, Steven G. 1970 New Echota Archaeology 1969: A Progress Report. Georgia Historical Commission.

379 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

1971 Observations from the Lum Moss Site: An Interpretive Field Report. Paper presented at the Twenty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference. Columbia, South Carolina.

Barlow, James Leonard 1975 Andrew Jackson and the Worcester v. Georgia Decision: State Rights and National Politics. Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.

Barse, William P. and John G. Gill 2007 Phase I and II Investigations along State Route 225, Adjacent to New Echota, Gordon County, Georgia. URS Corporation. Submitted to the Georgia Department of Transportation. Copies available at URS Corporation, Atlanta.

Bartram, William 1791 Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee Country, the Extensive Territories of the Muscogulges, or Creek Confederacy, and the Country of the Chactaws. Electronic Edition. Documenting the American South. James & Johnson, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Beasley, William Dana 1972 MU100, XU K: A Stratified Old Quartz Site, Murray County, Northern Georgia. Master's Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

Bense, Judith A. 1994 Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: Paleoindian to World War I. Academic Press, San Diego, California.

Benson, Robert W., Scott Jones, and Andrew H. Ivester

2008

Data Recovery at 9GO231, Salacoa and Lick Creek Confluence, State Route 156 Bridge Replacement Project, Gordon County, Georgia. Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc. Submitted to the Georgia Department of Transportation. Copies available at Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia.

Binford, Lewis R. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35:255273.

380

Blades, Brooke S. 2003 End Scraper Reduction and Hunter-Gatherer Mobility. American Antiquity 68(1):141156.

Blanton, Dennis B. and Kenneth E. Sassaman

1989

Pattern and Process in the Middle Archaic Period of South Carolina. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson, edited by Albert C. Goodyear and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 5372. Anthropological Studies 9. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.

Blitz, John H. 1988 The Adoption of the Bow in Prehistoric North America. North American Archaeologist 9(2):123145.

Bonhage-Freund, Mary Theresa, Leslie Branch-Raymer, and Scot J. Keith 2012 From Indiana to Georgia: Evidence of Significant Pre-Maize Gardening in the Lower Southeast. Paper presented at the Society of American Archaeology, Memphis, Tennessee.

Bowen, William R. 1982 Archaeological Investigations at 9CK(DOT)7, Cherokee County, Georgia. Occasional Papers in Cultural Resource Management. Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, Georgia.

1989 An Examination of Subsistence, Settlement, and Chronology During the Early Woodland Kellogg Phase in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of the Southeastern United States. Dissertation, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Branch-Raymer, Leslie and Mary Theresa Bonhage-Freund 2011 Middle Woodland Gardening in the Etowah River Valley, Northwest Georgia: The Hardin Bridge Site (9BR34). Early Georgia 39(2):119136.

Broyles, Bettye J.
1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Alban's Site, Kanawha Valley, West Virginia. West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Report of Archaeological Investigations 3. Geological and Environmental Survey, Charleston, West Virginia.

381 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Byers, A. Martin 2004 The Ohio Hopewell Episode: Paradigm Lost, Paradigm Gained. The University of Akron Press.

2006 The Earthwork/Habitation Dichotomy: A Central Problem of Ohio Hopewell. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by Douglas K. Charles and Jane E. Buikstra, pp. 362373. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

2009 Cahokia: A World Renewal Cult Heterarchy. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

2011 Sacred Games, Death, and Renewal in the Ancient Eastern Woodlands: The Ohio Hopewell System of Cult Sodality Heterarchies. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

2013 From Cahokia to Larson to Moundville: Death, World Renewal, and the Sacred in the Mississippian Social World of the Late Prehistoric Eastern Woodlands. Newfound Press, University of Tennessee Libraries, Knoxville, Tennessee.

Cable, John S., Lisa O'Steen, Leslie E. Raymer, Johannes H.N. Loubser, David S. Leigh, J.W. Joseph, Mary Beth Reed, Lotta Danialsson-Murphy, Undine McEvoy, Thaddeus Murphy, Mary Theresa Bonhage-Freud, and Deborah Wallsmith

1997

"A Picture Unsurpassed": Prehistoric and Historic Indian Settlement and Landscape Brasstown Valley, Town County, Georgia. Report Submitted to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. New South Associates, Inc., Stone Mountain, Georgia.

Caldwell, Joseph R. n.d. The Stamp Creek Culture: A Prepottery Occupation in the Etowah Area, Georgia. Laboratory of Archaeology Manuscript No. 811. University of Georgia, Athens.

1953 Appraisal of the Archaeological Resources, Buford Reservoir in Hall, Forsyth, Dawson, and Gwinnett Counties, Northern Georgia. River Basin Surveys, Smithsonian Institution.

1957 Survey and Excavations in the Allatoona Reservoir, Northern Georgia. Manuscript No. 151. Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.

1958 Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 88. Menasha, Wisconsin.

382

1962

Eastern North America. In Courses Toward Urban Life: Archaeological Considerations of Some Cultural Alternates, edited by Robert J. Braidwood and Gordon R. Willey, pp. 288308. Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology No. 32. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois.

1965 Primary Forest Efficiency. Edited by. Stephen Williams. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 3. Proceedings of the Twenty-First Southeastern Archaeological Conference. pp. 6669.

n.d. Field Notes and Draft Manuscripts Relating to the Summerour Mound Excavations and the Buford Reservoir Survey. On File with Report Author.

Cambron, James W. and David C. Hulse 1975 Handbook of Alabama Archaeology: Part I: Point Types. Archaeological Research Association of Alabama, Inc., Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Cantley, Charles E. and J.W. Joseph 1991 Prehistory of the Middle Chattahoochee River Valley: Findings of the 1989-1990 West Point Lake Archaeological Survey and Site Testing Project. Report Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. New South Associates, Inc., Stone Mountain, Georgia.

Carder, Nanny, Elizabeth J. Reitz, and Matthew Compton 2004 Animal Use in the Georgia Pine Barrens: An Example from the Hartford Site (9PU1). Southeastern Archaeology 23(1):2540.

Carr, Christopher 2006 The Gathering of Hopewell. In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction, edited by Christopher Carr and D. Troy Case, pp. 1950. Springer, New York.

Chamberlain, Andrew T. 2006 Demography in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Chapman, Jefferson 1975 The Rose Island Site and the Bifurcate Point Tradition.. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.

383 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

1977

Archaic Period Research in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley, 1975: Icehouse Bottom, Harrison Branch, Thirty Acre Island, Calloway Island. Report of Investigations. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.

1978 The Bacon Farm Site and A Buried Site Reconnaissance. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

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 H. Trawick Ward, pp. 137153. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Chapman, Jefferson and Gary D. Crites 1987 Evidence for Early Maize (zea maize) from the Icehouse Bottom Site, Tennessee. American Antiquity 52:352354.

Chase, David W. 1998 Swift Creek: Lineage and Diffusion. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, pp. 4860. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Chowns, Timothy 2006 Valley and Ridge Geologic Province. The New Georgia Encyclopedia. Electronic document, http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/science-medicine/valleyand-ridge-geologic-province, accessed October 2013.

Claggett, Stephen R., John S. Cable, Curtis E. Larsen, and Wilmington District United States Army Corps of Engineers
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Pennsylvania State University.

Clark, W.Z. and A.C. Zisa 1976 Physiographic Map of Georgia. Physiographic Map. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta.

Cobb, Charles R. and Patrick H. Garrow 1996 Woodstock Culture and the Question of Mississippian Emergence. American Antiquity 61(1):2137.

384
Coe, Joffre L. 1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. New Series 54(5):1130.
Coe, Joffre and Bennie Keel 1965 Two Cherokee Houses in Western North Carolina. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Urbana, Illinois.
Compton, Matthew and Thomas J. Pluckhahn 2002 Interpretation of an Unusual Faunal Assemblage at Kolomoki. Paper presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Biloxi, Mississippi.
Cotterell, Brian and Johan Kamminga 1987 The Formation of Flakes. American Antiquity 52(4):675708.
Crass, David 2002 Archaeological Survey: Access Road and Pine Beetle Harvest Area. Submitted to Office of the State Archaeologist, Historic Preservation Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, Georgia.
Crook, Morgan R., Jr. 1984 Cagle Site Report: Archaic and Early Woodland Period Manifestations in the North Georgia Piedmont. Occasional Papers in Cultural Resource Management No. 2. West Georgia College, Carrollton, Georgia.
De Baillou, Clemens 1955 Excavations at New Echota in 1954. Early Georgia 1(4):1829.
1957 The Excavations at New Echota, Spring 1957. Unpublished Manuscript on file at Antonio J. Waring, Jr., Archaeological Laboratory, University of West Georgia. Georgia Historical Commission, Carrollton, Georgia.
Dearing, John Alfred 1994 Environmental Magnetic Susceptibility: Using the Bartington MS2 System. Chi Publishing, Kenilworth, Illinois.
DeJarnette, David J., Edward Kurjack, and James W. Cambron 1962 Stanfield-Worley Bluff Shelter Excavations. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 8(1, 2).

385 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Dickens, Roy S. 1986 An Evolutionary-Ecological Interpretation of Cherokee Cultural Development. In The Conference of Cherokee Prehistory, edited by David G. Moore, pp. 8194. Warren Wilson College, Swannanoa, North Carolina.

Dukeman, Casey 2002 An Analysis of Analysts: A Critical Assessment of the Replicability of Debitage Attributes. University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

Dunnell, Robert C and Jan F. Simek 1995 Artifact Size and Plowzone Processes. Journal of Field Archaeology 22(3):304 319.

Elliott, Daniel T., Karen G. Wood, Grace F. Keith, and Scot J. Keith

2003

The Archaeology of the New Echota State Historic Site, Gordon County, Georgia. Submitted to the Georgia Historic Preservation Division, Office of the State Archaeologist, Atlanta. Southern Research, Historic Preservation Consultants, Inc., Ellerslie, Georgia.

Ellison, George 1992 James Mooney and the Cherokees: Bibliographical Introduction. In James Mooney's History, Myths, and Sacred Formulas of the Cherokees. Historical Images, Asheville, North Carolina.

Espenshade, Christopher T. 2000 Reconstructing household vessel assemblages and site duration at an Early Ostionoid Site from South-Central Puerto Rico. Journal of Caribbean Archaeology(1):122.

2008a Woodland Period Archaeology of Northern Georgia: Update 2008. Report Submitted to Greenhorne and O'Mara. New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia.

2008b The Role of Pottery for Hunter-Gatherers: If Only Binford Had Liked Ceramics. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Ocean City, Maryland.

Espenshade, Christopher T., Linda Kennedy, William F. Stanyard, and David S. Leigh 1998 The Middle to Late Woodland at the Flint River Headwaters: Data Recovery at 9HY95, 9HY98, and 9HY104, Shoal Creek Reservoir, Henry County, Georgia.

386

Report Submitted to Clayton County Water Authority. TRC Cultural Resource Group, Atlanta, Georgia.

Faulkner, Charles H. 1968 The Mason Site. In Archaeological Investigations in the Tims Ford Reservoir, Tennessee, 1966. Report of Investigation No. 6. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.

Fie, Shannon M. 2006 Visiting in the Interaction Sphere: Ceramic Exchange and Interaction in the Lower Illinois Valley. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by Douglas K. Charles and Jane E. Buikstra, pp. 427445. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Folk, Robert L. 1980 Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill Publishing Co., Austin, Texas.

Franklin, Jay D., Michelle L. Hammett, and Renee B. Walker 2008 The Nelson Site: Late Middle Woodland Habitation on the Nolichucky River, Washington County, Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology 3(2):181200.

Garrow, Patrick H. 1975 The Woodland Period North of the Fall Line. Early Georgia 3(1):1726.

2009 The Woodland Period North of the Fall Line: A Summary of Investigations from 1975-2000. Early Georgia 37(1):2552.

Gibson, Jon L.

1998

Broken Circles, Owl Monsters, and Black Earth Midden. In Ancient Earthen Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Robert C. Mainfort and Lynne P. Sullivan, pp. 1730. The Ripley P. Bullen Series. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.

Gloer, Vicki Ina F., Jonathon B. Bruce, and Terry G. Power 2011 Chert Hunting: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations of Chert Sourcing for the Interpretation of Prehistoric Northwest Georgia Archaeological Sites. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

387 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Goad, Sharon 1979 Chert Resources in Georgia: Archaeological and Geological Perspectives. Research Series. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology. University of Georgia, Athens.
Goodyear, Albert C., John H. House, and Neil W. Ackerly 1979 Laurens-Anderson: An Archaeological Study of the Interriverine Piedmont. Anthropological Studies 4. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina.
Gregory, Danny and J. Lee Tippett 2007 Archaeological Survey of Two Sites, Archaeological Evaluation of Eight Sites, Investigation of Possible Historic Burial at Site 40OV96, Proposed State Route 52 from Campground Road to West of Pickett County Line Near Bolestown Road, Overton County, Tennessee. Submitted to the Tennessee Department of Transportation. Nashville, Tennessee.
Gremillion, Kristen J. 1993 Plant Husbandry at the Archaic/Woodland Transition: Evidence from the Cold Oak Shelter, Kentucky. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 18(2):161189.
Gresham, Thomas H. 1990 Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed West Georgia Reservoir, Haralson County, Georgia. Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia.
Griffin, James B. 1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156(3772):175 191.
Haag, William G. 1939 Pottery Type Descriptions. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 1(1).
Hall, Christopher and Mary Lou Larson 2004 Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.

388

Hally, David J. 1970 Archaeological Investigations of the Potts' Tract Site (9Mu103), Carters Dam, Murray County, Georgia. Laboratory of Archaeology Series. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

1975 The Mississippian Period. Early Georgia 3(1):3752.

1980

Archaeological Investigations of the Little Egypt Site (9MU102), Murray County, Georgia, 1970-1972 Seasons. Submitted to Heritage Conservation and Recreational Services, United States Department of the Interior. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

1994 An Overview of Lamar Culture. In Ocmulgee Archaeology, 1936-1986, edited by David J. Hally, pp. 144174. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.

Hally, David J. and James B. Langford 1988 Mississippi Period Archaeology of the Georgia Valley and Ridge Province. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report No. 25. Athens, Georgia.

Hally, David J. and James L. Rudolph

1986

Mississippi Period Archaeology of the Georgia Piedmont. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report No. 24; Georgia Archaeological Research Design Paper No. 2. University of Georgia, Department of Anthropology, Laboratory of Archaeology, Athens, Georgia.

Haywood, John 1959 The Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee, up to the First Settlements Therein by the White People, in the Year 1768. McCowat-Mercer Press, Jackson, Tennessee.

Heimlich, Marion Dunlevy 1952 Guntersville Basin Pottery. Museum Paper 32, Geological Survey of Alabama, University of Alabama.

Hilliard, Jerry E. 1980 Prehistoric Ozark Settlement-Subsistence and Nut Research. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

389 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297
Hodler, Thomas W. and Howard A. Schretter 1986 The Atlas of Georgia. Institute of Community and Area Development, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Holiday, Vance T. and W.G. Gartner 2007 Methods of Soil P Analysis in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 34(2):301333.
Hudson, Charles 1976 The Southeastern Indians. First Edition. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Hudson, Charles M., Marvin T. Smith, David J. Hally, Richard Polhemus, and Chester B. DePratter
1985 Coosa: A Chiefdom in the Sixteenth Century United States. American Antiquity 50:72337.
Jackson, Edwin H. and Susan L. Scott 2001 Archaic Faunal Utilization in the Louisiana Bottomlands. Southeastern Archaeology 20(2):187196.
2002 Woodland Faunal Exploitation in the Midsouth. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, pp. 461482. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Jefferies, Richard W. 1976 The Tunnacunnhee Site: Evidence of Hopewellian Interaction in Northwest Georiga. University of Georgia Anthropological Papers 1.
2006 Death Rituals at the Tunacunnhee Site: Middle Woodland Mortuary Practices in Northwestern Georgia. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by Douglas K. Charles and Jane E. Buikstra, pp. 161177. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Jefferies, Richard W. and Paul R. Fish 1978 Investigation of Two Stone Mound Localities, Monroe County, Georgia. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology. University of Georgia.
Jennings, Jesse D. and Charles H. Fairbanks 1940 Pottery Type Description. Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference 1(1).

390

Johannessen, Sissel J. 1993 Farmers of the Late Woodland. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C.M. Scarry, pp. 3956. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Justice, Noel D. 1995 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States: A Modern Survey and Reference. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.

Kear, Matthew and Heather Mustonen 2012 Survey Report Addendum: GDOT Project BHF00-0151-01(006), Gordon County; P.I. #631570 and HP #0400607-001. CRM, History. Interdepartment Correspondence. Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, Georgia.

Keith, Scot 2010a Archaeological Data Recovery at the Leake Site, Bartow County, Georgia (Volume 1). Report Submitted to the Georgia Department of Transportation. Southern Research, Historic Preservation Consultants, Inc., Ellerslie, Georgia.

2010b Archaeological Data Recovery at the Leake Site, Bartow County, Georgia, (Volume 2 Appendices). Southern Research, Historic Preservation Consultants, Inc., Ellerslie, Georgia.

2011 The Leake Complex: A Middle Woodland Hopewellian Ceremonial Center and Gateway Community. Early Georgia 39(2):173200.

2012 Reconceptualizing Swift Creek. In Ceremonial Spheres of the Eastern Woodlands. Memphis, Tennessee.

2013

The Woodland Period Cultural Landscape of the Leake Site. In Early and Middle Woodland Landscapes of the Southeast, edited by Alice P. Wright and Edward R. Henry. Florida Museum of Natural History: Ripley P. Bullen Series. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Keith, Scot J., Julie J. Coco, Jackie Tyson, and J. W. Joseph

2012

Addendum to Phase I and II Investigations along State Route 255: Archaeological and Historical Investigations for the Proposed Elks Club Golf Course Cost-toCure Alterations. Submitted to the Georgia Department of Transportation. New South Associates, Inc., Stone Mountain, Georgia.

391 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Kellar, James, Arthur R. Kelly, and Edward V. McMichael 1962 Final Report on Archaeological Excavations at Mandeville Site, 9CLA1, Clay County, Georgia. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

Kelly, Arthur R. 1938 Preliminary Report on Archaeological Explorations at Macon, Georgia. Anthropological Papers, No. 1. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C.

Kennedy, Linda, R. Jeannine Windham, Valerie Davis, and Hugh B. Matternes 2007 Zooarchaeology and Physical Anthropology from the Leake Sites (9BR663 and 9BR664). Submitted to Southern Research. New South Associates, Inc., Stone Mountain, Georgia.

Kimball, Larry R. 1996 Early Archaic Settlement and Technology: Lessons From Tellico. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 149186. University of Alabama Press,, Tuscaloosa:

Klinck, C. F., and J. J. Talman (editors). 1970 The Journal of Major John Norton, 1816. The Champlain Society, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Kneberg, Madeline 1961 Four Southeastern Limestone Tempered Pottery Complexes. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 7(2):315.

Langford, James B. and Marvin T. Smith 1990 Recent Investigations in the Core of the Coosa Province. In Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in the Deep South, edited by Mark Williams and Gary Shapiro, pp. 104116. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Larson, Lewis H.

1994

Phase I Archaeological Survey of Possible Location of 1839 Stockade near New Echota State Historic Site, Gordon County, Georgia. Memorandum to David S. Baird, Principal Landscape Architect, routed through Dr. Elizabeth Lyon, Chief Historic Preservation Officer, May 13 and May 25, 1994. Office of the State Archaeologist, Carrollton, Georgia.

392
1996 Memorandum to Frankie Mewborn, April 15, 1996. Office of the State Archaeologist.
Lawson, John 1960 History of North Carolina. Garrett and Massie, Richmond, Virginia.
Lawton, David E. 1977 Geologic Map of Georgia. Map. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, Georgia.
Ledbetter, R. Jerald 1992a Archaeological Investigations at the Pumpkin Pile Site (9PO27), Polk County, Georgia. Submitted to Soil Conservation Service. Southeastern Archaeological Services, Inc., Athens.
1992b Archaeological Investigations of the Vulcan Tract, Bartow County, Georgia. Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia.
Ledbetter, R. Jerald, W. Dean Wood, Karen G. Wood, Robbie F. Ethridge, and Chad O. Braley 1987 Cultural Resources Survey of Allatoona Lake Area, Georgia: Volume I Final Report. Submitted to the U.S. Army Engineer District, Mobile. Contract No. DACW01-85-C-0183. Southeastern Archaeological Services, Inc.
Ledbetter, R. Jerald, David G. Anderson, Lisa D. O'Steen, and Daniel T. Elliot 1996 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Research in Georgia. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 270287. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Ledbetter, R. Jerald, Lisa D. O'Steen, and Scott Jones 2009 The Late Archaic to Early Woodland Transition in Northwest Georgia: Evidence for Terminal Archaic (ca. 1100-600 B.C.) Period Occupation in the Region. Context. Occasional Papers in Cultural Resource Management. Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, Georgia.
Leigh, David S., Pradeep Srivastava, and George A. Brook 2004 Late Pleistocene Braided Rivers of the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Quaternary Science Reviews 23(1):6584.

393 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Lepper, Bradley T. 2006 The Great Hopewell Road and the Role of Pilgrimage in the Hopewell Interaction Sphere. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by Douglas K. Charles and Jane E. Buikstra, pp. 122133. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Lewis, Thomas and Madeline Kneberg 1946 Hiwassee Island: An Archaeological Account of Four Tennessee Indian Peoples. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.

1957 The Camp Creek Site. Tennessee Archaeologist 13(1):148.

Loubser, Johannes H. N., Leslie E. Raymer, J. Faith Meader, and J. W Joseph

2003

A Traditional Cultural Property Study of New Echota, the First Cherokee National Capitol from 1825-1838, Gordon County, Georgia. Submitted to the Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta. New South Associates, Inc., Stone Mountain, Georgia.

Malone, Henry T. 1955 New Echota - Capitol of the Cherokee Nation. Early Georgia 1(4):611.

Markin, Julie G. 2007 Woodstock: The Rise of Political Complexity in North Georgia. Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

McCallie, Samuel W. 1901 A Preliminary Report on the Roads and Road-building Materials of Georgia. Geological Survey of Georgia, Bulletin No. 8. Franklin Printing and Publishing Co., Atlanta, Georgia.

Milanich, Jerald T. 1972 The Specific Evolution of the Coastal and Middle Eastern Traditions in Georgia: A Preliminary Statemetn. Paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology Annual Meeting, Miami, Florida.

1973 Current Research in the Southeast. American Antiquity 38:504.

1975a Fabric-Impressed Pottery Site, Bartow County, Georgia. Early Georgia Newsletter 11(April).

394
1975b The Garfield Site. Nomination from the Etowah Archaeological District. National Register of Historic Place Inventory.
Mooney, James 1900 Myths of the Cherokee. Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Morrell, L. Ross 1965 The Woods Island Site in Southeastern Acculturation, 1625-1800. Notes in Anthropology 11, Department of Anthropology. Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.
Morse, Dan F. 1960a On Recent Excavations at the Lingerfelt Site; Otherwise Known as "Highway Salvage Archaeology, Georgia Project I-75-3 (10), Whitfield County, Georgia". Memo report prepared for the Georgia Historical Commission. Georgia Historical Commission, Athens, Georgia.
1960b On Recent Excavations at the Williams Site (9-Go-507) as Highway Salvage Archaeology, Georgia Project I-75-3 (11) 332, Gordon County, Georgia. Memo report prepared for the Georgia Historical Commission. Georgia Historical Commission, Athens, Georgia.
1960c On Recent Excavations Near Ringgold, Georgia, as Highway Salvage Archaeology, Georgia Project I-75-3 (8). Memo report prepared for the Georgia Historical Commission. Georgia Historical Commission, Athens, Georgia.
Morse, Dan F. and Phyllis A. Morse 1960 A Preliminary Report on 9GO507: The Williams Site, Gordon County, Georgia. Florida Anthropologist 13(4):8199.
2004 Digging Through Georgia: 1958-1960. Southeastern Archaeology 23(2):208213.
Nance, Roger C. 1990 A Study of Lamar Ecology on the Western Edge of the Southern Piedmont. In Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in the Deep South, edited by Mark Williams and Gary Shapiro, pp. 139146. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

395 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Odell, George H. 2003 Lithic Analysis. In Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory, and Technique. Springer Science and Business Media, New York, New York.

O'Steen, Lisa D. 1983 Early Archaic Settlement Patterns in the Wallace Reservoir: An Inner Piedmont Perspective. Wallace Reservoir Project Contribution 25. University of Georgia Department of Anthropology.

1996

Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement along the Oconee Drainage. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 92106. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Pacheco, Paul J. and William S. Dancey 2006 Integrating Mortuary and Settlement Data on Ohio Hopewell Society. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by Douglas K. Charles and Jane E. Buikstra, pp. 3 25. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Patch, Shawn, Christopher T. Espenshade, and Leslie E. Raymer n.d. Visualizing Hunter-Gatherer Behavior: Defining and Identifying Prehistoric Activity Areas in the North Carolina Sandhills: Phase III Excavations at 38CD64, 31CD65, and 31CD871. Submitted to the Department of the Army, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia.

Patterson, Leland W. 1990 Characteristics of Bifacial-Reduction Flake-Size Distribution. American Antiquity 55(3):550558.

Pauketat, Timothy R. 1994 The Ascent of Chiefs: Cahokia and Mississippian Politics in Native North America. University of Alabama Press.

2007 Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions. AltaMira Press, New York, New York.

Pearsall, Deborah M. 1989 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. Academic Press, New York.

396
Peebles, Christopher S. 1978 Determinants of Settlement Size and Location in the Moundville Phase. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 369416. Academic Press, New York, New York.
Perdue, Theda 1986 An Historian's Perspective. In The Conference on Cherokee Prehistory, edited by David G. Moore, pp. 154157. Warren Wilson College, Swannanoa, North Carolina.
Pillsbury, Richard 1983 The Europeanization of the Cherokee Settlement Landscape Prior to Removal: A Georgia Case Study. Geoscience and Man 1:5969.
Pluckhahn, Thomas J. 1996 Joseph Caldwell's Summerour Mound (9FO16) and Woodland Platform Mounds in the Southeastern United States. Southeastern Archaeology 15(2):191211.
1998 Highway 61 Revisited: Archeological Evaluation of Eight Sites in Bartow County, Georgia. Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc.
2003 Kolomoki Settlement, Ceremony, and Status in the Deep South, A.D. 350 to 750. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Prentiss, William 1993 Hunter-Gatherer Economics and the Formation of a Housepit Floor Lithic Assemblage. Ph.D. Dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.
1998 The Reliability and Validity of a Lithic Debitage Typology: Implications for Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 63(4):635650.
Priestley, Herbert Ingram 2010 The Luna Papers, 1559-1561: Volumes 1 & 2. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Railsback, Bruce n.d. The Geology of Georgia. Department of Geology, University of Georgia.

397 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Ralph, Joylon 2013 Mineral Location Search. Electronic document, http://www.mindat.org/minlocsearch.php?frm_id=mls&cform_is_valid=1&cf_ml s_page=1&minname=garnet&region=georgia, accessed November 17, 2013.

Raymer, Leslie E. and Mary Theresa Bonhage-Freud 2000 Archaeobotanical Analysis in Archaeological Excavations in the Brasstown Valley. Early Georgia 28(2):7492.

Raymer, Leslie E. and R. Jeannine Windham

2008

Subsistence Studies Interpretation. In A Middle Woodland Household on the Etowah River: Archaeological Investigation of the Hardin Bridge Site 9BR34, Bartow County, Georgia, edited by R. Jeannine Windham, Christopher T. Espenshade, and Julie Coco, pp. 10.110.27. New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia.

Reber, Eleanora A. 2008 Fishing for Residues: Absorbed Pottery Residue Analysis of Thirty-Seven Sherds from North Carolina. Papers of the UNCW Archaeological Residue Lab, No. 7. University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina.

Reed, Ed 1991 Site Booklet: New Echota Historic Site. New Echota Library, New Echota, Georgia.

Rice, Prudence 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Rogers, Mary Evelyn 1986 A Brief History of Cherokees: 1540-1906. Gateway Press Inc., Baltimore. Maryland.

Root, Matthew 2004 Technological Analysis of Flake Debris and the Limitations of Size-Grade Techniques. In Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, edited by Christopher Hall T. and Mary Lou Larson. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.

398
Ruby, Bret J. and Christine M. Shriner 2006 Ceramic Vessel Compositions and Styles as Evidence of the Local and Nonlocal Social Affiliations of Ritual Participants at the Mann Site, Indiana. In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction, pp. 553572. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.
Rudolph, Teresa P. 1985 Late Swift Creek and Napier Settlement in Northern Georgia. Paper Presented at the 42rd Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference. Birmingham, Alabama.
1986 Regional and Temporal Variability in Swift Creek and Napier Ceramics from North Georgia. Paper Presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference. Nashville, Tennessee.
1988 Swift Creek and Napier in North Georgia. Macon, Georgia.
1991 The Late Woodland "Problem" in North Georgia. In Stability, Transformation, and Variation: The Late Woodland Southeast, edited by M.S. Nassaney and C.R. Cobb, pp. 259283. Plenum Press, New York N.Y.
Sarris, Apostolos, Michael L. Galaty, Richard W. Yerkes, William A. Parkinson, Attila Gyucha, Doc M. Billingsley, and Robert Tate
2004 Geophysical Prospection and Soil Chemistry at the Early Copper Age Settlement of Veszto- Bikeri, Southeastern Hungary. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:927939.
Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1991 Adaptive Flexibility in the Morrow Mountain Phase of the Middle Archaic Period. South Carolina Antiquities 23:3141.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
1996 Early Archaic Settlement in the South Carolina Coastal Plain. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 5883. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
2005 The Archaic Southeast. In North American Archaeology, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and D. DiPaolo Loren. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.

399 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Sassaman, Kenneth E. and Mark J. Brooks
1990 Interpretive Synthesis of Native American Prehistory in the Middle Savannah River Valley. In Native American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley: A Synthesis of Archaeological Investigations on the Savannah River Site, Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman, Mark J. Brooks, Glen T. Hanson, and David G. Anderson, pp. 303334. Occasional Papers of the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Sassaman, Kenneth, Mark J Brooks, Glen T. Hanson, and David Anderson
1990 Native American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley: A Synthesis of Archaeological Investigations on the Savannah River Site, Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 1.

Schroedl, Gerald F. 2009 Mississippian Culture. The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture. Electronic document, http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entry.php?rec=928, accessed July 25, 2013.

Schroedl, Gerald F., James F. Bates, Arthur E. Bogan, Emmanuel Breitburg, Lori LaValley, Robert D. Newman, Wayne D. Roberts, Kurt C. Russ, and Andrea B. Shea
1986 Overhill Cherokee Archaeology at Chota-Tanasee. University of Tennessee Department of Anthropology Report of Investigations No. 38. Tennessee Valley Authority Publications in Anthropology 42. Tennessee Valley Authority.

Sears, William H. 1958 The Wilbanks Site (9CK5), Georgia. Bulletin 169. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C.

Seramur, Keith C. and Ellen A. Cowan

2007

Polygonal Cracking on Late Pleistocene Terraces within the Tennessee River Valley, a Stratigraphic Marker Horizon and its Potential Paleoclimatic Significance presented at the 56th Annual Meeting Southeastern Section Geological Society of America, Savannah, Georgia.

400

Shadburn, Don L. 1989 Cherokee Planters in Georgia 1832-1838. WH Wolfe Associates, Roswell, Georgia.

Shah, Sudha A. and Thomas G. Whitley 2009 An Overview and Analysis of the Middle Archaic in Georgia. Georgia Department of Transportation Occasional Papers in Cultural Resource Management #16. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia.

Sherwood, Adiel 1837 A Gazetteer of the State of Georgia, Third Edition. P. Force, Washington, Georgia.

Shott, Michael J. 1989 On Tool-Class Use Lives and the Formation of Archaeological Assemblages. American Antiquity 54(1):930.

Simpkins, Daniel L. 1990 Letter Report on Survey of Proposed Council House Construction. New Echota correspondence file, Office of State Archeologist, State University of West Georgia, Carrollton.

Smith, Betty A. 1979 The Hopewell Connection in Southwest Georgia. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by David S. Brose and N'omi Greber, pp. 181 187. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Smith, Bruce D. 1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: From Dalton to DeSoto (10,000 B.P.-500 B.P.). In Advances in World Archaeology, edited by Fred Wendorf and Angela E. Close, 5: pp. 192. Academic Press, New York.

Smith, Marvin T.

1987

Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in the Interior Southeast Depopulation During the Early Historic Period. Ripley P. Bullen Monographs in Anthropology and History 6. University of Florida Press, The Florida State Museum, Gainesville, Florida.

401 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

1992 Historic Period Indian Archaeology of Northern Georgia. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

2000 Coosa: The Rise and Fall of a Southeastern Mississippian Chiefdom. University Press of Florida.

Soil Survey Staff 1965 Soil Survey of Gordon County, Georgia. U.S. Department of Agriculture and the University of Georgia.

2012

Web Soil Survey. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Electronic document, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/homepage.htm, accessed November 28, 2012.

Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc.

1983

Archeological Testing at New Echota: Assessment of Proposed Tree Planting Locations. Submitted to the Department of Natural Resources, Parks, Recreation and Historic Sites Division, Atlanta. Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia.

Southeastern Regional Climate Center 2012 Calhoun Experiment Station, Georgia (091474) Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary.

Spalvins, Karlis

1969

Stratigraphy of the Conasauga Group in the Vicinity of Adairsville, Georgia. In Precambrian-Paleozoic Appalachian Problems, Georgia, pp. 3755. Georgia Geological Survey, Bulletin 80. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, Georgia.

Stanyard, William F. 1991 A Phase II Survey of the Northern Section of the Proposed West Georgia Reservoir, Haralson County, Georgia: Management Summary. Submitted to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Atlanta, Georgia.

2003 Archaic Period Archaeology of North Georgia. Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report No. 38. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

402
Stanyard, William F. and Thomas R. Baker 1992 Two Hundred Years of Woodstock Occupation in Northwest Georgia: The View from Whitehead Farm I. Early Georgia 20(2):3237.
Stanyard, William F., Christopher Espenshade, Emanuel Breitburg, Andrea Shea, and David S. Leigh
1997 The Big Haynes Reservoir Archaeological Project: A Perspective on the Native American History of North-Central Georgia Between 8,000 B.C. and A.D. 1838. Garrow and Associates, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia.
Stanyard, William F. and Lynn Marie Pietak 1997 Phase II Cultural Resource Investigations in the Proposed Beach Creek and Tallapoosa Water Supply Systems, Haralson County, Georgia. TRC Garrow Associates, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia.
Starkey, Marion 1946 The Cherokee Nation. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York.
Steinen, Karl T. 1995 Woodland Period Archaeology of the Georgia Coastal Plain. Georgia Archaeological Research Design Paper No. 12. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report No. 12, Athens, Georgia.
Stephenson, Keith, Judith A. Bense, and Frankie Snow 2002 Aspects of Deptford and Swift Creek of the South Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. In The Woodland in Eastern North America, edited by David G. Anderson, pp. 318351. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Stoltman, James B. and Frankie Snow 1998 Cultural Interaction within Swift Creek Society. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliot, pp. 130153. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Sullivan, Alan P. and Kenneth C. Rozen 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50(4):755779.
1989 The Nature of Lithic Reduction and Lithic Analysis: Stage Typologies Revisited. American Antiquity 54(1):179184.

403 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Swanton, John R. 1922 Early History of the Creek Indians and their Neighbors. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 73.

1931 Source Material for the Social and Ceremonial Life of the Choctaw Indians. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington D. C.

Talalay, L., D. R. Keller, and Patrick J. Munson

1984

Hickory Nuts, Walnuts, Butternuts, and Hazelnuts: Observations and Experiments Relevant to Their Aboriginal Exploitation in Eastern North America. In Experiments and Observation on Aboriginal Wild Plant Utilization in Eastern North America, edited by Patrick J. Munson. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis, Indiana.

The Calhoun Times 1972 Rambling, Scattering Wooden Town. The Calhoun Times. Calhoun, Georgia.

The Cherokee Nation 1852 Laws of the Cherokee Nation Adopted by the Council at Various Periods [18081835]. Printed for the Benefit of the Nation, Cherokee Nation.

Timberlake, Henry 1765 Lieutenant Henry Timberlake's Memoirs: 1927 Reissue. Ed. S. C. Williams. Watauga Press, Johnson City, Tennessee.

Tschopik, Harry, Jr. 1950 An Andean Ceramic Tradition in Historical Perspective. American Antiquity 15:196218.

Walthall, John A. 1980 Prehistoric Indians of the Southeast: Archaeology of Alabama and the Middle South. University of Alabama Press.

1985 Early Hopewellian Encampments in the South Appalachian Highlands. In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens Jr. and H. Trawick Ward, pp. 243262. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Waring, Antonio J., Jr. 1945 Hopewellian Elements in Northern Georgia. American Antiquity 11(2):2142.

404
Watson, Patty Jo 1976 In Pursuit of Prehistoric Subsistence: A Comparative Account of Some Contemporary Flotation Techniques. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 1(1):77100.
Webb, Paul A. 2008 Middle Woodland Components at the Hickory Log Site (9CK9), Cherokee County, Georgia. Submitted to JDN Development Corporation. TRC Garrow Associates, Atlanta.
Webb, Robert S. 1998 Archaeological Excavations at Three Prehistoric Sites (9DW64, 9DW77 and 9DWCK713), Cherokee and Dawson Counties, Georgia, Cherokee County Raw Water Supply Reservoir. Submitted to the Cherokee County Water and Sewerage Authority, Canton, Georgia. R.S. Webb & Associates, Holly Springs, Georgia.
Webb, T., III 1988 Eastern North America. In Vegetation History, edited by B. Huntley and T. Webb III, pp. 383414. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wharton, Charles H. 1978 The Natural Environments of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 114. Atlanta, Georgia.
Whatley, John S. 2002 An Overview of Georgia Projectile Points and Selected Cutting Tools. Early Georgia 30(1):7133.
Williams, Mark 1990a Introduction. In Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in the Deep South, edited by Mark Williams and Gary Shapiro, pp. 39. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
1990b Lamar Archaeology: 1987. In Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in the Deep South, edited by Mark Williams and Gary Shapiro, pp. 1024. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
2005 The Swift Creek Site 70 Years After. Paper presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Columbia, South Carolina.

405 PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION OF 9GO297

Williams, Mark, and Daniel T Elliott, eds. 1998 A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Williams, Mark and Jennifer Freer Harris

1998

Shrines of the Prehistoric South: Patterning in Middle Woodland Mound Distribution. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliot, pp. 3647. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Wilms, Douglas C. 1974 Cherokee Land Use in Georgia, 1800-1838. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.

Windham, R. Jeannine, Christopher Espenshade, Shawn M. Patch, Leslie Branch-Raymer, Stefan Brannan, Keith C. Seramur, and Julie Coco
2008 A Middle Woodland Household: Archaeological Investigations of the Hardin Bridge Site (9BR34), Bartow County, North Carolina. Report Submitted to Greenhorne and O'Mara, Contract No. 671225. Copies available at New South Associates, Inc., Stone Mountain, Georgia.

Wood, Karen G. 1994 Archeological Testing at the New Echota State Historic Site, Gordon County, Georgia. Submitted to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, Georgia. Copies available at Southern Research, Historic Preservation Consultants, Inc., Ellerslie, Georgia.

Wood, W. Dean 1981 An Analysis of Two Early Woodland Households from the Cane Island Site, 9PM209. Wallace Reservoir Project Contribution 4.

Wood, W. Dean and William R. Bowen 1995 Woodland Period Archaeology of Northern Georgia. Archaeological Research Design Paper No. 9. University of Georgia, Athens.

Wynn, Jack T. 1990 Mississippi Period Archaeology of the Georgia Blue Ridge Mountains. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.