Intensive Archaeological Phase I Survey of Approximately 67.22 Acres in Support of US 68 Reconstruction Between T

Intensive Archaeological Phase I Survey of Approximately 67.22 Acres in Support of US 68 Reconstruction Between T. Davis Drive and Clover Creek Road

Green County, Kentucky

OSA Project Registration No.: FY17-9206 KYTC Item No. 4-397.10

September 2017

Intensive Archaeological Phase I Survey of Approximately 67.22 Acres in Support of US 68 Reconstruction Between T. Davis Drive and Clover Creek Road Green County, Kentucky

OSA Project Registration No.: FY17-9206 KYTC Item No. 4-397.10

September 2017

Prepared for: Palmer Engineering 400 Shoppers Drive Winchester, KY 40392 Contact: Mr. Chris Blevins Phone: (859) 744-1218

Lead Agency: Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Prepared by:

E. Nicole Mills, RPA Principal Investigator

Brockington and Associates, Inc. 109B W Poplar Street Elizabethtown, KY 42701 Phone 270-735-1600 Fax 270-735-1679 www.brockington.org

Atlanta • Charleston • Elizabethtown • Jackson • Nashville • Savannah ii Abstract In April 2017, Palmer Engineering (Palmer) of Win- logical survey and reporting guidelines set forth by chester, Kentucky contracted Brockington and As- the Kentucky Heritage Council (Specifications for sociates, Inc. (Brockington) of Elizabethtown, Ken- Conducting Fieldwork and Preparing Cultural Re- tucky to conduct an intensive archaeological Phase source Assessment Reports). Key project personnel, I survey for the proposed realignment of US 68 be- namely E. Nicole Mills, RPA (Principal Investigator/ tween T. Davis Drive and Clover Creek Road, Green Field Director), meet or exceed the qualifications County, Kentucky (KYTC Item No. 4-397.10). This described in the Secretary of the Interior’s “Profes- proposed project will provide a safer and more ef- sional Qualifications Standards” (48 FR 44738-9). ficient route connecting the City of Greensburg and Messrs. David Baluha (RPA), Scott Kitchens, and the Cumberland Parkway and correct substandard Jimmy Lefebre assisted Ms. Mills in the field. geometrics along the corridor. Brockington com- No previously recorded archaeological sites or pleted fieldwork in a single mobilization, conducted previously conducted archaeological surveys are from May 17 to May 23, 2017. The Federal Highway located within the APE. Additionally, no National Administration (FHWA) is funding this investiga- Register of Historic Places (NRHP, 54 USC 302101- tion and serves as the lead agency and as part of the 3020108) listed properties are located within the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation APE. Brockington recorded 10 previously un- Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended through 2000) documented archaeological sites, 15GN56 through review compliance process, the Kentucky Heritage 15GN65, and three isolated finds (Isolates 1-3) dur- Council (KHC) also serves as consulting party. ing this investigation. These newly documented sites The Area of Potential Effect (APE), as defined represent both prehistoric and historic activities. for this Phase I investigation, encompasses approxi- Prehistoric components were documented at all 10 mately 67.22 acres (27.20 hectares) and includes the sites, the site types of which are all classified as Open proposed disturb limits for the realignment of an Habitations without Mounds. Historic artifacts were approximate 3.79-kilometer (km [2.36 mile]) sec- collected from three of the 10 newly documented tion of US 68, as well as the proposed reconstruction sites (15GN56, 15GN57, and 15GN61). The col- of approach roads (totaling 3.10 km [1.9 miles] in lected historic assemblages are sparse and lack as- length). The boundary of the archaeological Phase I sociated features, limiting our ability to definitively survey APE is based on the proposed disturb limits classify the historic activities represented. These of the final preferred alternate. Subsurface testing historic deposits, however, likely represent domestic (i.e., shovel testing) and pedestrian reconnaissance and architectural refuse discard. efforts compose the principal archaeological survey Brockington recommends all archaeological methods employed during this Phase I investiga- sites and isolated finds documented during this tion. Additionally, Brockington conducted supple- Phase I survey as Not Eligible for listing on the mentary testing in the form of bucket augering on NRHP. In all cases, the sites and isolated finds docu- the floodplain of an unnamed tributary of Russell mented during this investigation represent relatively Creek (approximately 1.02 km [0.63 miles] south of sparse archaeological deposits characteristic of Thurlow, Kentucky). ephemeral prehistoric and/or historic activity. Ad- The archaeological investigation described ditionally, little to no discrete spatial patterning of herein was conducted in compliance with both state cultural materials or cultural features exists within and federal guidelines; including Section 106 of the these sites/isolates. Furthermore, soils documented National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (54 USC throughout the APE exhibited some level of soil 30010, as amended through 2016), the Advisory disturbance. Brockington encountered shallow soil Council on Historic Preservation’s implementing profiles throughout the APE, the result of past land regulations (36 CFR Part 800), Secretary of the clearing/agricultural activities and subsequent ero- Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeol- sion. In the absence of diverse artifact assemblages, ogy and Historic Preservation (1983), and archaeo- discrete spatial patterning, cultural features, and

iii intact soils, these sites do not have the potential to contain significant information related to regional prehistoric occupation/utilization, nor do they have the potential to inform our understanding of relevant regional research questions.

iv Table of Contents

Abstract...... iii

List of Figures...... vii

List of Tables...... x

1.0 Introduction...... 1 1.1 Project Description...... 1 1.2 Phase I Survey Result Summary ...... 1 1.3 Report Organization...... 3 1.4 Acknowledgments...... 3

2.0 Environmental Setting...... 5 2.1 Introduction...... 5 2.2 Physiography and Geology...... 5 2.3 Climate...... 5 2.4 Soils...... 5 2.5 Flora...... 6 2.6 Fauna...... 6 2.7 Paleoenvironment...... 6

3.0 Regional Prehistoric and Historic Context...... 9 3.1 Prehistoric Context...... 9 3.1.1 Paleoindian Period, c. 10,000-8000 BC...... 9 3.1.2 Archaic Period, c. 8000-1000 BC ...... 10 3.1.3 Woodland Period, c. 1000 BC-AD 1000 ...... 11 3.1.4 Late Prehistoric Period, c. AD 900-1700 ...... 12 3.2 Contact Period, c. AD 1540-1795 ...... 13 3.3 Historic Context...... 15 3.3.1 Green County, Kentucky ...... 16

4.0 Methods of Investigation...... 17 4.1 Background Research...... 17 4.1.1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Data Summary...... 17 4.2 Pre-Field Planning...... 20 4.3 Survey Methods...... 20 4.4 GIS/Spatial Analysis...... 21 4.5 Survey Coverage...... 21 4.5.1 Area A...... 23 4.5.2 Area B...... 25 4.5.3 Area C...... 27 4.5.4 Area D...... 29 4.5.5 Area E...... 31 4.5.6 Area F...... 33

v Table of Contents (continued)

5.0 Materials Recovered...... 37 5.1 Prehistoric Artifact Analysis...... 37 5.1.1 Raw Material ...... 38 5.1.2 Flake Debris Analysis ...... 39 5.1.3 Flake Stone Tool Production and Morphology ...... 39 5.1.4 Formal and Informal Tools...... 39 5.1.5 Prehistoric Assemblage Summary...... 41 5.2 Historic Artifact Analysis...... 42 5.2.1 Typology and Chronology ...... 42 5.2.2 Chronological Reconstruction...... 42 5.2.3 Functional Analysis ...... 46 5.2.4 Historic Assemblage Summary...... 48 5.3 Materials Recovered by Site...... 48 5.3.1 Site 15GN56...... 48 5.3.2 Site 15GN57...... 48 5.3.3 Site 15GN58...... 50 5.3.4 Site 15GN59...... 50 5.3.5 Site 15GN60...... 50 5.3.6 Site 15GN61...... 50 5.3.7 Site 15GN62...... 52 5.3.8 Site 15GN63...... 52 5.3.9 Site 15GN64...... 53 5.3.10 Site 15GN65...... 54 5.3.11 Isolated Finds...... 54 5.4 Curation...... 54

6.0 Phase I Survey Findings...... 57 6.1 Research Themes, Questions, and Datasets...... 57 6.2 Phase I Results and Recommendations...... 61 6.2.1 Site 15GN56...... 65 6.2.2 Site 15GN57...... 71 6.2.3 Site 15GN58...... 77 6.2.4 Site 15GN59...... 82 6.2.5 Site 15GN60...... 85 6.2.6 Site 15GN61...... 90 6.2.7 Site 15GN62...... 95 6.2.8 Site 15GN63...... 100 6.2.9 Site 15GN64...... 107 6.2.10 Site 15GN65...... 110 6.2.11 Isolated Finds...... 116

7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations...... 117 7.1 NRHP Evaluation Criteria...... 117 7.2 NRHP Evaluations...... 119

References Cited...... 121

Appendix A - Artifact Catalog...... 129

vi List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Area of Potential Effect (APE), as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle...... 2

Figure 4.1 Previous archaeological investigations (labeled with SHPO ID) within a two-km buffer of the APE, as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle...... 18

Figure 4.2 The location of survey Areas A-F within the APE, as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle...... 22

Figure 4.3 Survey Area A, as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle...... 24

Figure 4.4 Survey Area B, as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle...... 26

Figure 4.5 Survey Area C, as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle...... 28

Figure 4.6 Survey Area D, as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle...... 30

Figure 4.7 Survey Area E, as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle...... 32

Figure 4.8 Survey Area F, as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle...... 34

Figure 5.1 Representative sample of prehistoric lithic tools recovered during the current investigation...... 43

Figure 5.2 Representative Architecture, Kitchen, and Tableware group artifacts...... 47

Figure 6.1 Area of Potential Effects (APE), as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle...... 58

Figure 6.2 The location of newly recorded archaeological sites and isolated finds illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY topographic quadrangle...... 63

Figure 6.3 Plan of 15GN56 (Shovel tests labeled with corresponding provenience numbers)...... 67

Figure 6.4 View of 15GN56, northcentral portion of site facing northeast (barn in background).....68

Figure 6.5 View of 15GN56, southern portion facing southwest...... 68

Figure 6.6 Site 15GN56, as illustrated on the 1953 USGS Exie, KY topographic quadrangle.....69

vii List of Figures (continued)

Figure 6.7 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN56...... 70

Figure 6.8 Plan of Site 15GN57 (Shovel tests labeled with corresponding provenience numbers)...... 73

Figure 6.9 View of 15GN57, eastern portion of site facing northwest showing buildings in background...... 74

Figure 6.10 View of 15GN57, investigators delineating site near house facing south...... 74

Figure 6.11 Site 15GN57, as illustrated on the 1961 USGS Exie, KY topographic quadrangle...... 75

Figure 6.12 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN57...... 76

Figure 6.13 Plan of 15GN58 and 15GN59 (Shovel tests labeled with corresponding provenience numbers)...... 79

Figure 6.14 View of 15GN58, facing east...... 80

Figure 6.15 View of 15GN58, facing north...... 80

Figure 6.16 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN58...... 81

Figure 6.17 View of 15GN59, facing south with investigators in background...... 83

Figure 6.18 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN59...... 84

Figure 6.19 Plan of 15GN60 (Shovel tests labeled with corresponding provenience numbers)...... 87

Figure 6.20 View of 15GN60, southern portion facing south and down slope...... 88

Figure 6.21 View of 15GN60, northern portion of site facing north...... 88

Figure 6.22 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN60...... 89

Figure 6.23 Plan of 15GN61 (Shovel tests labeled with corresponding provenience numbers)...... 92

Figure 6.24 Views of 15GN61, facing north...... 93

Figure 6.25 View of 15GN61, facing west...... 93

Figure 6.26 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN61...... 94

Figure 6.27 Plan of 15GN62 (Shovel tests labeled with corresponding provenience numbers)...... 97

viii List of Figures (continued)

Figure 6.28 View of 15GN62, facing south from site datum...... 98

Figure 6.29 View of 15GN62, facing west from site datum...... 98

Figure 6.30 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN62...... 99

Figure 6.31 Plan of 15GN63 and 15GN64 (Shovel tests labeled with corresponding provenience numbers)...... 103

Figure 6.32 View of 15GN63, facing west...... 105

Figure 6.33 View of 15GN63, facing southwest...... 105

Figure 6.34 View of 15GN63, facing north northeast from within tree line...... 106

Figure 6.35 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN63...... 106

Figure 6.36 View of 15GN64 facing south...... 109

Figure 6.37 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN64...... 109

Figure 6.38 Plan of 15GN65, including Isolates 2 and 3 (Shovel tests labeled with corresponding provenience numbers)...... 113

Figure 6.39 View of 15GN65, facing southeast...... 115

Figure 6.40 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN65...... 115

ix List of Tables

Table 4.1 Summary of USDA soil types encountered in Area A...... 25

Table 4.2 Summary of USDA soil types encountered in Area B...... 27

Table 4.3 Summary of USDA soil types encountered in Area C...... 29

Table 4.4 Summary of USDA soil types encountered in Area D...... 31

Table 4.5 Summary of USDA soil types encountered in Area E...... 33

Table 4.6 Summary of USDA soil types encountered in Area F...... 35

Table 5.1 Lithic tool metrics (X-if applicable)...... 40

Table 5.2 Manufacturing condition definitions for lithic tools...... 40

Table 5.3 Prehistoric assemblage by Material, Object Form, Object Form Subtype, and Description...... 41

Table 5.4 Historic assemblage by functional group, material, and artifact type...... 44

Table 5.5 Prehistoric and historic artifacts recovered from 15GN56...... 49

Table 5.6 Prehistoric and historic artifacts recovered from 15GN57...... 49

Table 5.7 Prehistoric artifacts recovered from 15GN58...... 50

Table 5.8 Prehistoric artifacts recovered from 15GN59...... 51

Table 5.9 Prehistoric artifacts recovered from 15GN60...... 51

Table 5.10 Prehistoric and historic artifacts recovered from 15GN61...... 52

Table 5.11 Prehistoric artifacts recovered from 15GN62...... 53

Table 5.12 Prehistoric and historic artifacts recovered from 15GN63...... 53

Table 5.13 Prehistoric artifacts recovered from 15GN64...... 54

Table 5.14 Prehistoric artifacts recovered from 15GN65...... 55

Table 5.15 Artifacts recovered from Isolated Finds 1, 2, and 3...... 55

Table 6.1 Prehistoric Research Themes, Questions, and Datasets...... 59

Table 6.2 Historic Research Themes, Questions, and Datasets...... 60

Table 6.3 Summary of Survey Results...... 62

x 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Project Description ogy and Historic Preservation (1983), and archaeo- n April 2017, Palmer Engineering (Palmer) of Win- logical survey and reporting guidelines set forth by chester, Kentucky contracted Brockington and As- the Kentucky Heritage Council (Specifications for sociates, Inc. (Brockington) of Elizabethtown, Ken- Conducting Fieldwork and Preparing Cultural Re- tucky to conduct an intensive archaeological Phase source Assessment Reports). Key project personnel, I survey for the proposed realignment of US 68 be- namely E. Nicole Mills, RPA (Principal Investigator/ tween T. Davis Drive and Clover Creek Road, Green Field Director), meet or exceed the qualifications County, Kentucky (KYTC Item No. 4-397.10). This described in the Secretary of the Interior’s “Profes- proposed project will provide a safer and more ef- sional Qualifications Standards” (48 FR 44738-9). ficient route connecting the City of Greensburg and Messrs. David Baluha (RPA), Scott Kitchens, and the Cumberland Parkway and correct substandard Jimmy Lefebre assisted Ms. Mills in the field. geometrics along the corridor. Brockington completed fieldwork in a single mobilization, conducted from May 17 to May 23, 2017. The Federal Highway 1.2 Phase I Survey Result Summary Administration (FHWA) is funding this investiga- No previously recorded archaeological sites or tion and serves as the lead agency and as part of the previously conducted archaeological surveys are Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation located within the APE. Additionally, no National Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended through 2000) Register of Historic Places (NRHP, 54 USC 302101- review compliance process, the Kentucky Heritage 3020108) listed properties are located within the Council (KHC) also serves as consulting party. APE. Brockington recorded 10 previously un- The Area of Potential Effect (APE), as defined documented archaeological sites, 15GN56 through for this Phase I investigation, encompasses approxi- 15GN65, and three isolated finds (Isolates 1-3) mately 67.22 acres (27.20 hectares) and includes the during this investigation. These newly documented proposed disturb limits for the realignment of an sites represent both prehistoric and historic activi- approximate 3.79-kilometer (km [2.36 mile]) sec- ties. Prehistoric components were documented at tion of US 68, as well as the proposed reconstruction all 10 sites, the site types of which are all classified of approach roads (totaling 3.10 km [1.9 miles] in as Open Habitations without Mounds. Historic length). The boundary of the archaeological Phase artifacts were collected from three of the 10 newly I survey APE is based on the proposed disturb documents sites (15GN56, 15GN57, and 15GN61). limits of the final preferred alternate (Figure 1.1). The collected historic assemblages are sparse and Subsurface testing (i.e., shovel testing) and pedes- lack associated features, limiting our ability to de- trian reconnaissance efforts compose the principal finitively classify the historic activities represented. archaeological survey methods employed during These historic deposits, however, likely represent this Phase I investigation. Additionally, Brockington domestic and architectural refuse discard. conducted supplementary testing in the form of Brockington recommends all archaeological bucket augering on the floodplain of an unnamed sites and isolated finds documented during this tributary of Russell Creek (approximately 1.02 km Phase I survey as Not Eligible for listing on the [0.63 miles] south of Thurlow, Kentucky). NRHP. In all cases, the sites and isolated finds docu- The archaeological investigation described mented during this investigation represent relatively herein was conducted in compliance with both state sparse archaeological deposits characteristic of and federal guidelines; including Section 106 of the ephemeral prehistoric and/or historic activity. Ad- National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (54 USC ditionally, little to no discrete spatial patterning of 30010, as amended through 2016), the Advisory cultural materials or cultural features exists within Council on Historic Preservation’s implementing these sites/isolates. Furthermore, soils documented regulations (36 CFR Part 800), Secretary of the throughout the APE exhibited some level of soil Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeol- disturbance. Brockington encountered shallow soil

1 Figure 1.1 Area of Potential Effect (APE), as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle.

2 profiles throughout the APE, the result of past land clearing/agricultural activities and subsequent erosion. In the absence of diverse artifact assemblages, discrete spatial patterning, cultural features, and intact soils, these sites do not have the potential to contain significant information related to regional prehistoric occupation/utilization, nor do they have the potential to inform our understanding of relevant regional research questions.

1.3 Report Organization This report is divided into seven numbered chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview and summary of the investigation as well as various administrative details. Chapters 2 and 3 provide a regional environmental and cultural context, respectively. Chapter 4 describes the methods employed during this archaeological investigation, includes a discussion of previous archaeological investigations within two km of the project area, and contains a summary of the deep testing results. Chapter 5 presents the typological approach used for artifact analysis and provides descriptions for the prehistoric artifacts recovered during this investigation. Chapter 6 dis- cusses the findings of this investigation and includes individual archaeological site/isolated find descriptions. Chapter 7 contains the NRHP evaluations for each site, management recommendations, and conclusions. Finally, the artifact catalog is presented in Appendix A.

1.4 Acknowledgments Brockington appreciates the opportunity to work with Palmer Engineering, Inc., the Office of State Archaeology (OSA), KHC, and the KYTC. Special thanks are extended to Christina Pappas of the OSA and Mr. Chris Blevins of Palmer. Gratitude is extended to the field staff, through whose hard work this survey was accomplished. Field archaeologists included E. Nicole Mills, Dave Baluha, Jimmy Lefebre, and Scott Kitchens. Finally, the authors would like to thank several additional members of Brockington’s staff for their assistance during this investigation, specifically Meagan Brady, Jeff Sherard, Bronwen Morgan, Michael Walsh, and Cristian LaRosa.

3 4 2.0 Environmental Setting 2.1 Introduction mum temperature is 88° F (Ross and Leathers 1982). Any study of human-land relationships requires an The average temperature during winter is 36° F, and understanding of the local climate, vegetation, soils, the average daily minimum temperature is 25° F and geomorphic actions which have combined in (Ross and Leathers 1982). different ways to provide economic source areas and Average annual precipitation is approximately habitable locations. The following summary outlines 50 inches (127 centimeters [cm]), while 54 percent the natural history of the general region, and focuses usually falls between April and September (Ross on Green County. and Leathers 1982). Average seasonal snowfall is approximately 13 inches. The average relative humidity in midafternoon is about 60 percent, with humidity 2.2 Physiography and Geology being higher at night (Ross and Leathers 1982). The Landforms determine environmental variability and sun shines 70 percent of all time possible in summer, often define the boundary between biomes. They and 60 percent in winter (Ross and Leathers 1982). also influence routes of travel and communication. The prevailing wind is from the south and the aver- Within broad physiographic zones, specific local age high wind speed is 11 miles per hour (Ross and topographic features were often purposely selected Leathers 1982). as settings for prehistoric and historic site locations. In broad terms, the project area is located in the Mississippian Plateau physiographic region of 2.4 Soils south-central Kentucky (McGrain and Currens Soil type appears to play a very important role in 1978). The Mississippian Plateau, as its name sug- determining the distribution of human groups and gests, is underlain primarily by Mississippian age the choice of settlement locations on both local and limestone (Newell 1986). Specifically, the St. Louis regional scales. Certain types of soils were preferred Limestone Formation underlays a majority of Green over others by early settlers and Native Americans County (Ross and Leathers 1982). As defined by alike. Quite often, vegetational indicators were sur- Newell (1986), this region borders all the other phys- veyed to determine soil fertility and moisture prior iographic regions of Kentucky except the Bluegrass to migration and frontier settlement. The soil map (separated by the The Knobs region). The topogra- unit descriptions in this report were taken from the phy of Green County ranges from gently sloping to soil database for Green County obtained from the moderately steep and very steep near stream valleys US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Geospa- (Ross and Leathers 1982). tial Data Gateway (https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/). Most of the Mississippian Plateau region (in- Soil map units specific to the project area include; cluding Green County) is drained by the Green Caneyville-Fredrick silt loams, very rocky, 20 to 30 River and its tributaries (Newell 1986). In particular, percent slopes (CaE), Frederick silt loam, 6 to 12 the APE is immediately drained by several unnamed percent slopes (FrC), Frederick silt loam, 12 to 20 tributaries of Russell Creek. In turn, Russell Creek percent slopes (FrD), Frederick silt loam, 20 to 30 joins the Green River approximately 1,400 meters percent slopes (FrE), Frederick silty clay loam, 12 to northeast of the northern terminus of the APE. 20 percent slopes, severely eroded (FsD3), Lowell- Caneyville silt loams, very rocky, 30 to 60 percent slopes (Lof), Mountview silt loam, 2 to 6 percent 2.3 Climate slopes (Mob), and Nolin silt loam (No). Soils types The modern climate of the region can be described specific to the APE and within documented site as moderate in character and temperate, and is char- locations are discussed further in Chapters 4 and 6. acterized by hot, humid summers and cool winters. The average daily temperature during the summer is 75° Fahrenheit (F), while the average daily maxi-

5 2.5 Flora Bird species that were important food resources in Green County is located within Braun’s (1950) prehistory include the eastern wild turkey (Melea- Western Mesophytic Forest Region. Vegetation pat- gris gallopavo) and numerous migratory waterfowl. terns present within the project area consist primarily of hardwood forests and agricultural lands. Oak and oak-hickory associations occur most frequently, 2.7 Paleoenvironment although more mesophytic floral communities oc- The structure of vegetation influences the structure cur on some slopes and ravines. Braun’s (1950) work and composition of animal species populations, and identified three major zones of the Western Meso- is therefore “fundamental to hunting communities phytic Forest Region that include plateau, limestone in determining their life style” (Evans 1978:4). For hills, and barrens. Such broad zones, however, early European American communities, vegeta- cannot document the micro-communities of floral tion patterns influenced, in large part, the choice of resources that influenced human habitation and settlement sites (Gordon 1969; Hulbert 1930; Jor- exploitation of the area. Micro-communities were dan 1979). For example, Gordon (1969:41) reports, influenced by several factors including elevation, “stands of mixed oak, walnut, basswood, and black topography, soils, water, and past human activity. (sugar) maple had a high priority among the Wood- Within the scheme, three types of communities exist land Indians and the early buyers of land for farm- and include upland hardwood forests, bottomland ing. They soon learned that the forest soils that sup- hardwood forests, and barrens. ported such magnificent forests were possessed of Upland hardwood forests constitute the extraordinary natural fertility.” Consequently, only a dominant community type within the general area, few stands of the mixed hardwood forests remain. although they vary considerably in composition de- The floral and related faunal reconstructions are pending on topography and soil. Some of the more based on two types of evidence: palynological (pol- common tree species found in the upland hardwood len) and early land survey records. The palynological forests are locust, sugar maple, hickory, black wal- evidence indicates the types and frequencies of flo- nut, ash, wild cherry, and white oak. In more roll- ral species present in an assemblage, while the land ing topography, beech, tulip tree, sugar maple, and survey records indicate the distribution of natural white and red oak were abundant (Braun 1950). forest types prior to European settlement. The earliest vegetation patterns of the post-glacial succession and subsequent shifts in climax forest constituents 2.6 Fauna are derived primarily from palynological evidence. Fauna resources within the project area mirror More recent forest types (post-Hypsithermal) are those of the surrounding region and include mam- assumed to have been quite like those present at the mals, birds, fish, shellfish, reptiles, and amphibians. time of contact (Zawacki and Hausfater 1969:62). Several large mammals that were important to Work done by Yarnell (1964:47) reveals that “the prehistoric subsistence patterns were subsequently climate probably remained much the same for the hunted to local extinction. These include elk or past 4,000 years...except for relatively minor fluctua- wapiti (Cervus elaphas), bison (Bison bison), cougar tions; and the general vegetational patterns have not (Felis concolor), black bear (Ursus americanus), and changed much during this period.” With a stable wolves (Canis sp.). Although elk were historically climate, vegetation patterns over the past 4,000 extirpated, the Kentucky Division of Fish and Wild- years in most of the eastern United States have also life (KDFW) began an elk restoration program in remained consistent. Therefore, historic reconstruc- 1997. The population within the state’s elk restoration can be based on vegetation patterns observed at tion zone (which lies immediately east of the project the time of the first European pioneers. area) is currently estimated at 10,000 animals. Other Knowledge of past climate is based predomi- large mammals that survived historic colonization nantly on palynological evidence that indicates include white tailed deer (Odocoileous virginianus), broad floral patterns sensitive to specific climatic beaver (Castor canadensis), and bobcat (Felis rufus). characteristics. Glaciers shaped Eastern United

6 States climatic trends in Late Pleistocene times. They penetrated the area well north of the project area from origin points in northern Canada. This sequence originated in the Late Pleistocene, when a moist, cool climate succeeded a drier, cooler period. Pollen records from the Anderson and Mongo Pond sites in the Eastern Highland Rim of Tennessee enabled Delcourt (1979) to formulate a vegetative history of the area over the last 20,000 years Before Present (BP). Based on the data, it appears that the project area was covered by a boreal like forest of conifers with areas of mixed mesic deciduous trees during the climax of the glacial period. The retreat of the Laurentide Ice sheet (16,500 BP to 12,500 BP) ushered in a mixed coniferous and deciduous forest between latitudes 34° N and 37° N. Species such as spruce, pine, and fur decreased in quantity in the region. Species such as oak, ash, ironwood, hickories, beech, and sugar maple increased. The Holocene (12,500 to 8000 BP) ushered in a warming trend and changed vegetation patterns. According to Delcourt (1979:277), local data from Anderson Pond indicates that the “taxonomically diverse deciduous-coniferous forest, indicative of the Midsouth, prevailed for nearly 5,000 years in the early Holocene.” The “Hypsithermal” or “Altithermal” interval dates from 8000 to 4000 BP in the area, and is indicative of a warming/drying trend which effected vegetation patterns. For example, Kusmer et al. (1987) suggest that data from Livingston County, Kentucky indicates that mast crops were likely diminished during the Hypsithermal, resulting in a shift in the exploitation of resources by native groups. Delcourt (1979:274) argues that prairies did not expand into the region during this period (see previous discussion regarding barrens development). Modern floral patterns were in place sometime after 4000 BP with the end of the Hypsithermal period. Warm air masses from the Gulf of Mexico influenced the vegetation and climactic patterns of the area. A major climatic change recorded during the late Holocene is the “Little Ice Age,” or the Neo-Boreal episode, which dates from 700 to 170 BP. Conditions during this period may have had a dramatic effect on local prehistoric populations of the region.

7 8 3.0 Regional Prehistoric and Historic Context This section outlines regional prehistory for the (1000 BC-AD 900) and the Mississippian or Late general region. Three distinct temporal-cultural Prehistoric period (AD 900-c. 1700). The Historic periods are distinguished within the Kentucky area: period began with the arrival of the first European Prehistoric, Protohistoric, and Historic. Prehistory explorers and colonists. (c. 10,000 BC to AD 1700) refers to that time before This section provides a discussion of regional the use of written records within a particular geo- prehistoric cultural/historical context. It commences graphical region. Protohistory (c. AD 1540 to 1795) with the first arrival of early Native Americans into is the period shared between two or more cultural the region and continues into the beginning of Euro- groups within the same area in that only one of the pean American colonization in the mid-eighteenth groups makes use of writing. All historic cultural century. This summary is a brief outline of Kentucky groups use writing as a form of communication and archaeological history and draws heavily from The record keeping. The transition from the Protohistor- Archaeology of Kentucky: An Update (Pollack 2008) ic period to the Historic period is generally gradual, as well as Kentucky Archaeology (Lewis 1996a). The consisting of the replacement of non-literate societ- reader is encouraged to refer to these references for ies by members of a literate society or the adoption more thorough discussions of Kentucky’s archaeo- of writing by a previously non-literate society. For logical history. Green County, the Historic period begins c. AD 1780s, when Europeans began to settle the lands in 3.1.1 Paleoindian Period, c. 10,000-8000 BC the general area. The earliest definitive archaeological remains of the first Americans in the region date to the Late Pleistocene glacial period, approximately 12,000 3.1 Prehistoric Context years ago. The Ohio River formed the approximate The history of human activity within the Common- southern extent of the glacial advance, and glacial wealth spans several thousand years. The earliest till deposits are found to the north in Indiana. This groups to leave a definitive material record of their earliest culture is referred to as the Clovis culture presence were early Paleoindians who entered the (Tankersley 1990, 1996). Sites associated with these region during the Late Pleistocene glacial epoch early groups are marked by the presence of well- more than 10,000 years ago. Their descendants and crafted lanceolate shaped projectile points or knives the descendants of other Native American groups with distinctive flake channels or “flutes” found on who migrated to the region lived here for the next one or both sides (Justice 1987:17-21). These points, 10 millennia. This long prehistoric era lasted until called Clovis points and first identified in Clovis, the arrival of the first European explorers and set- New Mexico, are found virtually throughout North tlers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, America north of Mexico and south of the Late the beginning of the historic period. While cultural Pleistocene glacial margin. Clovis sites are widely change is a slow and continual process, archaeolo- scattered with sparse artifact assemblages. gists and other researchers divide the human history Sites that predate the Clovis culture have been of a region into distinct cultural periods. identified elsewhere in the eastern US. The most Researchers define these periods by the obser- notable among these is Meadowcroft Rockshelter vation of critical changes in the material record of in southwest Pennsylvania (Adovasio and Carlisle these early groups. These material changes are often 1982; Adovasio et al. 1990). This site yielded materi- accompanied by environmental and climatic chang- als from cultural strata that predated Clovis occupa- es, as well as presumed demographic shifts. Ar - tions by as much as 1000 years. Meadowcroft and chaeologists and historians recognize four broadly other purported pre-Clovis sites remain controver- defined prehistoric periods in the lower Ohio River sial, and researchers have yet to find similar early valley. These include the Paleoindian (c. 10000-8000 sites in the lower Ohio River valley. BC), the Archaic (8000-1000 BC), the Woodland,

9 The Early Paleoindian Period (c. 10,000-9000 BC) 3.1.2 Archaic Period, c. 8000-1000 BC Tankersley defines the Early Paleoindian period The Paleoindian period ended with the onset of the as the period when Clovis groups first entered the Holocene geologic period and the final retreat of region (Tankersley 1996:22-30). These early colo- the Late Pleistocene glaciers far to the north of the nizing groups were very small, consisting of one Great Lakes. The Archaic encompasses a 7,000-year or two family groups. They were highly mobile period in which post-Pleistocene hunter-gatherer hunter-gatherers who primarily subsisted by hunt- groups of the Eastern Woodlands adapted to the ing Late Pleistocene fauna including bison, musk changing Holocene environment. The subsistence/ ox, caribou, and the now extinct megafauna such as settlement patterns of these Archaic populations ground sloth, moose-elk, mammoth, and mastodon changed dramatically. By the end of the Late Archa- (Tankersley 1996:26). Early Paleoindian sites in the ic, the highly mobile hunter-gatherer strategies that Ohio River valley are sparse and widely scattered. marked the outset of the Early Archaic had given Most Paleoindian sites are identified as simple iso- way to increased sedentism and the beginnings of lated finds with single Clovis point fragments. horticulture. The Archaic is divided into Early Ar- chaic (8000-6000 BC), Middle Archaic (6000-3000 The Middle Paleoindian Period (9000-8500 BC) BC), and Late Archaic (3000-1000 BC) periods. According to Tankersley, the Middle Paleoindian period is marked by increased diversity in fluted The Early Archaic Period (8000-6000 BC) point styles (Tankersley 1996:31) as well as a more In many respects, Native American adaptive diverse lithic tool kit, including spurred end scrap- strategies during the Early Archaic more closely ers and side scrapers, and an increased use of lower resembled those of their Paleoindian predecessors quality local cherts. Tankersley suggested these than those of the later Middle and Late Archaic pe- changes reflected an increased reliance on smaller riods. Like their Paleoindian counterparts, the early game and even plant resources. Distinctive regional Native American Groups of the Early Archaic were fluted point styles included the Gainey point north hunter-gatherers who incorporated a great deal of of the Ohio River and the Cumberland point found mobility into their subsistence/settlement systems. further south in Kentucky. However, the Early Archaic is generally seen as a transitional period when regional populations more The Late Paleoindian Period (8500-8000 BC) fully adapted to the changing environmental condi- By the Late Paleoindian period, fluted projectile tions that were taking shape during the Early Holo- points had disappeared and were replaced by points cene (Jefferies 1990, 1996). “Modern” game species, of the non-fluted Dalton cluster (Justice 1987:35- such as white-tail deer and turkey, and important 44; Tankersley 1996:33). The Dalton cluster points subsistence plant species, such as nut-bearing oak, display a much greater stylistic variety reflecting hickory, and chestnut trees of the spreading decidu- greater regional diversity. There was also a wider ous forest, replaced the Late Pleistocene fauna and range of tools associated with the Dalton tool kit as flora (Jefferies 1996:40). The lithic tool kits of the opposed to the earlier Paleoindian groups (Tank- Early Archaic were similar to those utilized during ersley 1996:33). The regional diversity in point the Paleoindian periods. However, there is evidence styles may indicate more restricted regional settle- for increased regionalization during the Early Ar- ment systems on the part of these later Paleoindian chaic and intensification of trends first observed groups, while the more diverse tool kit composition during the Late Paleoindian period. While these may indicate more intensive exploitation of a wider early groups continued to be highly mobile, their range of food resources. seasonal settlement systems were more regionalized, with different bands and macro-bands restricting the seasonal mobility to specific drainages (Ander- son and Sassaman 1996). Artifact type markers for the early portion of the Early Archaic include Kirk Corner Notched points

10 and Thebes Side Notched points (Jefferies 1996; Jus- region included large base campsites on the Ohio tice 1987). Later Early Archaic point types include River floodplains as well as the interior lowlands Kirk Stemmed points and bifurcate based LeCroy along the region’s major tributaries such as the Salt and Kanawha points (Jefferies 1996; Justice 1987). River. Many of these floodplain sites yielded thick shell middens indicating the intensive exploitation The Middle Archaic Period (6000-3000 BC) of river resources. The sites also yielded diverse ar- By the onset of the Middle Archaic period, early Na- tifact assemblages indicative of long-term residen- tive American populations had begun to settle down tial activities. Smaller resource extraction sites are into increasingly regionalized settlement ranges. scattered throughout the full range of geographic Middle Archaic sites along the Ohio River drainage settings in the region. Important local Late Archaic and elsewhere included large base camps used as sites include the Rosenberger and Villier sites in long-term, perhaps even year-round residential sites southwest Jefferson County. (Jefferies 1996:54; Nance 1987). These changes in These sites revealed large and intense base camp settlement strategy coincided with the long warm, occupations with numerous features including dry spell that climatologists call the Hypsithermal large and small circular pits, burned areas, midden Climatic Interval. Much of Kentucky became arid scatters, artifact caches, and more than 200 human grasslands, and the distribution of subsistence game burials (Collins and Driskell 1979:1030; Jefferies and plant resources was more restricted than in the 1996:64). Further west in Kentucky, along the Green previous period. Though the Middle Archaic period River drainage, large shell mounds appeared dur- is poorly understood in Kentucky, it is generally ing the Late Archaic, either built intentionally by recognized as a period of intensive regionalization Late Archaic groups, or built up over time through when groups began to exploit a wider range of local repeated utilization of the same location. Projectile subsistence resources. Middle Archaic artifact as- points indicative of Late Archaic occupation in the semblages include the appearance of ground stone region include McWhinney Stemmed, Meromtrim- tools and pecking stones generally attributed to ble cluster, and Brewerton points (Jefferies 1996:64). plant food processing. Regionally, the larger Middle Archaic sites tend to be found where the sites’ in- 3.1.3 Woodland Period, c. 1000 BC-AD 1000 habitants would have had easy access to more than There is no clear transition from the Late Archaic to one habitat (Janzen 1977:140-141; Jefferies 1996:53). the Early Woodland, but it is generally demarcated Middle Archaic groups accessed a variety of by the introduction of ceramic pottery sometime subsistence resources and therefore limited their around 1000 BC (Kellar 1973:35; Seeman 1986). residential mobility. A plethora of stylistically dis- The Woodland was a period of great early Native tinct projectile point types with limited distribution American cultural florescence. Many of the trends ranges appeared during this time including Morrow initiated in the Late Archaic, such as increased social Mountain, Matanzas, and Big Sandy II points (Jef- complexity and a greater reliance on native culti- feries 1996:47; Justice 1987). gens, continued into the Woodland period. Like the Archaic, researchers divided the Woodland period The Late Archaic Period (3000-1000 BC) into three distinct sub-periods. These include the During the Late Archaic period, the number of Early Woodland (1000-200 BC), The Middle Wood- prehistoric sites scattered across the Kentucky land (200 BC-AD 500), and the Late Woodland (AD landscape increased dramatically. The diversity of 500-1000). those sites present in the landscape increased as well. Late Archaic subsistence/settlement strategies The Early Woodland Period (1000-200 BC) emphasized generalized hunter/gatherer strategies The division of the Early Woodland from the pro- and these groups intensively exploited a range of ceeding Late Archaic is marked by the appearance subsistence resources in a variety of environmental of ceramic pottery around 1000 BC. Many Early settings (Anslinger 1986; Collins and Driskell 1979; Woodland projectile point types are indicative of Jefferies 1996:64-65). Late Archaic site types in the transitional Late Archaic/Early Woodland occupa-

11 tions including Kramer, Wade, Savannah River, logical record by the appearance and proliferation Saratoga Stemmed, and various other stemmed of small triangular points. Other chipped stone tools points (Justice 1987; Railey 1996). Early Woodland diagnostic of the Late Woodland include Jacks Reef sites are similar in type and distribution to those dur- Corner Notched, Commissary knives, and small tri- ing the Late Archaic. Large midden sites are in the angular Madison points believed to be arrow points alluvial valleys and smaller resource procurement (Justice 1987:217, 224; Railey 1990, 1996). Increas- sites are found scattered throughout the landscape. ing regional variability of stylistic motifs on ceramic However, the Early Woodland also has the first ap- pottery increased throughout the Late Woodland. pearance of distinct ceremonial sites. The most dra- Subsistence/settlement strategies continued the matic cultural development during Early Woodland trend toward increased sedentism. Small, nucle- groups was the emergence of the elaborate Adena ated circular villages with circular central plazas ceremonial complex that appeared along the Ohio appeared in some locations of the state by the Late River by the end of the Early Woodland period. Woodland (Railey 1996:111-112). The appearance Large burial mounds with log tombs, along with an of aggregated settlements may, in part, have resulted assortment of high status grave goods, characterized from an increased population density and shrinking this ceremonial complex. There is also evidence for settlement ranges. Along with aggregating into cen- widespread horticulture (Cowen 1985). tral village locations, Late Woodland populations lived in small, dispersed settlements and adopted in- The Middle Woodland Period (200 BC-AD 500) tensive horticulture of maize and domesticated plant Complex ceremonialism continued through the seed plants. Unlike the Early and Middle Woodland middle part of the Woodland period with the emer- periods, few ceremonial mounds or earthworks gence of the Hopewell tradition that replaced the were constructed. The few mounds that were built, Adena ceremonial tradition (Kellar 1973:36). The such as those associated with the Newtown complex Hopewell ceremonial complex was characterized of the central Ohio River valley in northern and by elaborate mound complexes and earthworks. central Kentucky, were generally small. Sophisticated mortuary practices suggest the appearance of hierarchical social organization and 3.1.4 Late Prehistoric Period, c. AD 900-1700 both the Hopewell and the preceding Adena tradi- Late Prehistoric period Native American populations involved long-range trade and ceremonial tions in Kentucky and elsewhere in the Eastern interaction (Railey 1996:88; Struever 1964). Though Woodlands had settled into large aggregated villag- hunting and gathering continued to be the major es. The intensive horticulture of the Late Woodland source of subsistence food, the use of horticulture had been replaced by intensive agriculture based intensified and permanent settlements were firmly on maize, beans, and squash. Two major cultures established along river bottoms (Prufer and McKen- emerged during the Late Prehistoric. The Mississip- zie 1967). Several plants were domesticated includ- pian cultural tradition first appeared in the central ing sunflower, maygrass, knotweed, little barley, and Mississippi Valley around AD 800-900 and spread goosefoot. Other plants used but domesticated else- throughout western Kentucky along the lower Ohio where included maize, squash, and gourds (Railey River valley, and through southern Kentucky along 1996:90). the Cumberland River Basin. Further up the Ohio River valley and in central and eastern Kentucky, The Late Woodland Period (AD 500-1000) a distinct cultural tradition, referred to as the Fort By the beginning of the Late Woodland period, Ancient tradition, emerged. the elaborate Hopewell complex that had replaced the Adena in the Middle Woodland had essentially Mississippian Culture collapsed. The major technological change in the Mississippian culture was overwhelmingly depen- Late Woodland was the introduction of the bow dent on maize agriculture and Mississippian social and arrow around AD 700-800 (Railey 1996:111; organization was generally planned around agricul- Seeman 1992). This was indicated in the archaeo- tural activities. Mississippian phases and traditions

12 are generally thought to have been chiefdom level Fort Ancient Culture societies, with powerful chiefly lineages that domi- The Fort Ancient culture bore many similarities to nated and directed the course of civil life. Mississip- its Mississippian counterpart further down river. pian populations lived in large towns with smaller Like their Mississippian cousins, the Fort Ancient associated villages, hamlets, and farmsteads (Lewis groups of northern Kentucky and southern Ohio 1996b:127; Lewis and Stout 1992). practiced intensive maize agriculture and utilized The rganizationo of these different settlements shell tempered ceramics (Henderson et al. 1992; was hierarchical and the political and ideologi- Sharp 1990). However, their subsistence strategies cal centers of Mississippian culture were the large still incorporated some level of horticulture and towns or villages where the chiefly clans resided. were augmented by hunting (Breitburg 1992; Ros- These towns were characterized by a central plaza sen 1992:208). Fort Ancient settlement structure surrounded by rectangular houses, and were often and social organization were also fundamentally enclosed by fortifications such as palisade walls and different from that of the Mississippian groups to defensive ditches. The central plazas were the sites of the west and south. There is little evidence to suggest social and ceremonial activity and usually contained that Fort Ancient societies were organized along large platform mounds where the chiefly lineages the lines of a chiefdom, or for that matter even sig- built their homes, and from where the daily life nificantly hierarchical (Henderson et al. 1992). Fort of Mississippian village activity was directed. The Ancient villages consisted of several houses laid out material culture of Mississippian culture includes around a central, circular plaza. Mississippian-style shell-tempered pottery and a variety of ceramic platform mounds are never present, suggesting there vessel forms including jars, bowls, bottles, plants, is no central “home” for a chiefly lineage. Investiga- and pans. Lithic artifact assemblages were typi- tions of Fort Ancient mortuary practices revealed cally limited to simple tools such as small triangular that most individuals were interred with little fan- Hamilton Incurvate and Madison triangular points fare and little in the way of prestige items. Although (Justice 1987). The presence of marine shell and some individuals were buried in mounds, reflecting copper artifacts at Mississippian towns points to the heightened importance of some individuals to participation in long-distance exchange networks the community, there was little evidence for a strict and interaction spheres (Lewis 1996b). hierarchy (Sharp 1996). Large Mississippian sites are best documented in western Kentucky and the lower Ohio River valley. The most notable Mississippian cultural phases 3.2 Contact Period, c. AD 1540-1795 of the Ohio River valley are the Early to Middle Mis- Henderson et al. (1986) define the Contact period as sissippian Angel phase (AD 900-1400) followed by beginning when the first indirect effects of the Euro- the Late Mississippian Caborn-Welborn phase (AD pean presence were felt by native cultures, roughly 1400-1700). Both cultural complexes were centered AD 1540. The beginning date was selected based along the lower Ohio River valley, along the north- on journals of the 1540s De Soto expedition, which ern fringe of Kentucky’s Western Coal Field and ad- observed that trade goods and European disease jacent areas in Illinois and western Indiana. It is not were in the area before their arrival. The signing of known how far upriver along the Ohio River Mis- the Greenville treaty in 1795 acts as the end of this sissippian culture extended (Lewis 1996b). Platform period, since by that document the Indians relin- mounds indicative of Mississippian culture have quished all claims to land in the region to the new been reported in the Louisville area, but none were government of the United States. The several tribes ever investigated and have since been destroyed by in various stages of acculturation were removed to urban development. It is generally thought that the small reservations to the north and west (Hender- Salt River served as the northeastern extent of direct son et al. 1986:1, 17). The Contact period can be Mississippian control along the Ohio River, though divided into two parts, the Protohistoric period and this notion is subject to debate (Griffin 1978:551; the Historic Indian period. Sharp 1990).

13 Protohistoric Period, c. AD 1540-1730 towards Terre Haute, Indiana (Sheppard 1995). In The term Protohistoric frequently refers to the na- 1673, it is recorded that Marquette and Joliet passed tive culture of North America during that span of by the mouth of the Ohio, in west Kentucky, during time following the first influence of European cul- their exploration of the Mississippi River (Alvord tures (principally through trade goods or disease), 1965:63-64). Other French, English, and Spanish and later, when the native cultures were recorded traders and explorers may have passed through the and described by the encroaching Euro-American territory in the late seventeenth century to mid- cultures. Typically, during this period, the native eighteenth century as well (McBride and McBride cultures underwent acculturation - a virtual break- 1990:583). down of their former way of life through replace- Disease increasingly reduced native populations ment by or approximation of the cultural norms all over the central and eastern parts of the conti- of the dominant culture. The Protohistoric period nent during this period. In this region, epidemics spans nearly two centuries, ending AD 1730. The in- are documented from the last decades of the 1500s habitants of the region during this period probably and into the mid-1600s. In addition, the so-called consisted of diverse groups speaking Algonquian or “Beaver Wars,” wars over fur trade competition, en- Iroquoian languages, and basing their economies veloped most inhabitants during the mid-1600s and on a combination of horticulture and fishing, hunt- the Iroquois Confederacy overwhelmed many lesser ing, and gathering. Small encampments at scattered groups. With the introduction of European diseases locations would coalesce into larger villages on and Iroquois pressures in the Ohio Valley, depopula- floodplains in the spring for the cultivation of corn, tion of the area appears to be evident. However, few beans, squash, and a few other selected plants like archaeological sites from this period have been in- tobacco (Henderson et al. 1986). vestigated, which makes this claim difficult to assess. During the Protohistoric period, access to the From historical accounts, small groups of Shawnee region by Europeans was almost exclusively from the were in the Ohio Valley in the Late Protohistoric south by the Spanish in Florida (that extended into period (Henderson et al. 1986). present-day Georgia and Alabama), and later from the north by the French, who wrote of the Shawnee Historic Indian Period, 1730-1795 living on the Ohio. The few surviving descriptions of The last 65-year segment of the Contact period, as inhabitants are indirect and sketchy. Much of what is proposed by Henderson et al. (1986), is called the specifically known centers on archaeological investi- Historic Indian period and spans the years from c. gations at late Fort Ancient sites on or near the Ohio 1730 to 1795. The division between the Protohistoric River. Archaeological studies of a late Fort Ancient period and the Historic Indian period is marked by site in Greenup County yielded classic prehistoric a resurgence of Native American populations, but artifacts in association with European trade goods, by peoples not originally from this area. The Miami beads, jewelry, and trinkets, dating from AD 1550 and Wyandot from the north established villages (+/- 50 years) to AD 1675 (+/- five years) (Hanson on the Ohio River. Some Shawnee and Delaware 1966:200; Henderson et al. 1986:11). were pushed in from English controlled areas to Early contact between Native Americans and the northeast and east, and small groups of Mingo, Europeans in what is now Kentucky may have probably a branch of the Seneca, mingled into es- been indirect, with European trade goods and tablished villages (Downes 1940; Henderson et al. information about Europeans spread through the 1986:14-15). In 1768 at the treaty of Fort Stanwix, existing exchange systems. The earliest European the Iroquois, who claimed Kentucky by conquest, exploration of Kentucky has not been established, signed over the land south of the Ohio River to the but some historians argue that Hernando de Soto British. This action forced the Shawnee and Mingo crossed western Kentucky traveling north from the to wage war on the British, and later Americans, for Clarksville, Tennessee area to Henderson, Kentucky the next 20 years. They claimed Kentucky as their in the early summer of 1541. De Soto then crossed hunting grounds and refused to recognize the treaty the Ohio River in June of 1541 and traveled north (Downes 1940).

14 Throughout the Historic period, the Native in Kentucky. After Walker returned, his employer’s American hold on their land proved untenable over chief rival, the powerful Ohio Company, sent a sur- time as they resisted white settlement first by sid- veying team headed by Christopher Gist down the ing with the French in the French and Indian War Ohio to lay out a 200,000-acre claim near the Falls of (1754-1763), and then siding with the English in the the Ohio. His mission was disrupted, however, when American Revolution. Attacks against settlers con- he was warned by friendly Shawnees that native tinued after the Revolution until the Battle of Fallen tribes aligned with the French were camped at the Timbers in 1794, when a confederation of tribes falls and that to continue would involve great risk. was defeated. The ensuing Greenville Treaty (1795) Gist returned to Virginia without completing his ceded all Native American lands north of the Ohio assignment. Eruption of the French and Indian War River and east of the Miami River to the US and in January 1754 squelched further exploration and displaced Native American populations to the north settlement efforts until after the signing of the Treaty and west (Downes 1940; Henderson et al. 1986:17). of Paris in 1763 passed control of the Ohio Valley to the British (Channing 1977:8; Clark 1960:23). Even after the treaty was signed, the British 3.3 Historic Context crown attempted to restrain land-hungry colonists Precisely when the first European explorers arrived from moving west. The primary motive for this pol- in the wider region is uncertain. It is possible that icy was a desire to avoid the cost of providing troops some French trappers, traders, and priests traversed to protect settlers from Indian attacks instigated by parts of the region during the late seventeenth and the French, who continued to maintain a presence in early eighteenth centuries, but the first successful the region. During the mid-1760s, General Thomas English expedition did not occur until 1742 when Gage, the British commander in North America, Virginians John Peter Salley and John Howard sailed sent a succession of military and diplomatic expedi- down the Ohio to the Mississippi, where they were tions down the Ohio River to treaty with tribes in captured by the French and imprisoned at New Or- the Wabash River region. In 1768, the English signed leans. They escaped in October 1744 and made their the Treaty of Fort Stanwix with the Iroquois and way back to Virginia the following May. By the time the Treaty of Hard Labor with the Cherokee, under they returned, the speculative drive for western land which both tribes relinquished their claims to Ken- had reached a fever pitch. Despite opposition from tucky (Clark 1960:28-29; Downes 1940). However, the British crown, the Virginia General Assembly Shawnee tribes were excluded from these treaties. granted more than 2.5 million acres of land to vari- The treaties were signed to create a buffer between ous speculators between the spring of 1745 and May colonists and native groups (Downes 1940). These 1754. Many of the grantees were closely associated documents were not necessarily intended to open with members of the Virginia General Assembly the way for settlement, but they stimulated colonists’ and the royal governors, whose personal interests appetites for western land and occasional private generally ran counter to those of the crown (Clark incursions into the Ohio Valley. 1960:20-22; Harrison 1992:203-14). Colonists’ desires for western land were height- One of the largest recipients of western lands ened during the early 1770s when Lord Dunmore, was the Loyal Company, which received 80,000 acres the governor of Virginia, supported land surveys in in Kentucky. In March 1750, it dispatched a survey- Kentucky. In 1773, George Washington expressed ing crew headed by Dr. Thomas Walker, a politically interest in having land surveyed near the Falls of well-connected Albemarle County physician, to the Ohio for himself. Therefore, in 1774, a survey survey its claim. The following month Walker led his expedition left Virginia to survey lands for not only party through Cave Gap, which he renamed for the George Washington, but for other notable men like Duke of Cumberland. Upon completing its mission, Patrick Henry, Dr. Hugh Mercer, Colonel William Walker’s party returned to Virginia with informa- Christian, Colonel William Preston, and Dr. John tion about the geography and potential riches of the Connolly. Even with the constant warnings from Cumberland Mountains that further excited interest Shawnee braves to stay out of Kentucky, John Floyd

15 led a survey party down the Ohio for the prominent Although the economy of Green County re- men of Virginia. These land surveys were the source mains largely based on agriculture, an oil boom of tension that forced the conflict, known as Dun- began in the late 1950s. By 1969, production peaked more’s War, between Shawnees and the white settlers. and over 20 million barrels of oil were produced Later in 1774, the Shawnee signed the treaty of Camp pre-year (Kleber 1992:388). Production sharply Charlotte, where they yielded their hunting rights in declined after the 1969 peak. Into the early twenty- Kentucky to the British (Downes 1940:152-177). first century, tobacco, corn, hay, and vegetables were among the leading cash crops produced in the 3.3.1 Green County, Kentucky county (Kleber 1992:387). Industrial manufacturing In order of formation, Green County was the six- within the county includes clothing, wood-based teenth added to the state of Kentucky. Green County products, and heavy machinery (Kleber 1992:387). was formed from portions of Lincoln and Nelson counties on December 20, 1792 (Kleber 1992:387). Greensburg is located on the Green River, an important feature to the county’s (and region’s) historic economic development. The county was named in honor of Major General Nathaniel Greene, a commander in the Revolutionary War who was considered by some to be second only to George Washington as a military leader (Kleber 1992:387 and Stahlgren 2003:4). The earliest recorded settlers in the lands that would eventually become Green County arrived from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland, and Pennsylvania (Kleber 1992). Among the early county settlers were Revolutionary War veterans who received land grants as payment for their service (Kleber 1992:387). Early pioneer sta- tions included Glover's Station (at the present site of Greensburg), Pittman's Station (near Greensburg on Pittman's Creek), Gray’s Station (near Greensburg on the Columbia Road), and Skagg's Station (at the present site of Somersville, Kentucky) (Kleber 1992:387). Glover's Station was built in 1780 by John Glover (Kleber 1992:387; Stahlgren 2003:4). Greensburg, the county seat, was established in December 1794 on the site of Glover’s Station. The county’s the first courthouse, built in 1796, was replaced in 1804. The second courthouse, which remains standing, was used until 1931 and is the oldest surviving courthouse in Kentucky and the oldest west of the Appalachian Mountains (Kleber 1992:387). During the Civil War, Kleber (1992:388) states that the city was occupied in October 1863 by Confederate Guerrillas “who looted and terrorized residents of the town”. Additionally, a Union recruit- ment station, known as Camp Ward, was established in Greensburg (Kleber 1992:388).

16 4.0 Methods of Investigation The research design presented below is intended for 4.1.1 Previously Recorded Archaeological use in intensive Phase I archaeological investiga- Data Summary tions. The primary purpose of such investigations Data obtained from OSA indicates that two previ- is to identify archaeological resources that may ously executed archaeological surveys (Ball 2000; be affected by the proposed activities. Following Schock and Alvey 1976) and three previously re- individual resource descriptions (as presented in corded archaeological sites (15GN8, 15GN55, and Chapter 6), an evaluation of all newly recorded ar- 15GN302) are located within a two-km buffer of the chaeological resources’ potential for historic signifi- APE. The two surveys and three archaeological sites cance was made based on the Criteria for Evaluation are located north and east of the APE. An overview of for the NRHP (36 CFR 60.4). These evaluations are the previous investigations is provided in Figure 4.1. provided in Chapters 6 and 7. The primary goals of the intensive Phase I in- Previous Surveys vestigation described herein were (1) to evaluate all As previously summarized by Kelley (2013), West- newly identified sites relative to their research po- ern Kentucky University (WKU) conducted an tential and NRHP eligibility; and (2) to recommend archaeological survey for a proposed realignment management options. All encountered archaeologi- of US 68 in 1974 (Schock and Alvey 1976; SHPO cal sites were evaluated for their demonstrated po- ID: 044-001). The proposed realignment survey area tential to contribute to local and regional research investigated by Schock and Alvey (1976) is located relative to current historic contexts. Descriptions of along US 68, roughly centered at its Green River these sites and resources, and their NRHP recom- crossing (Figure 4.1). The survey area measures mendations, are provided in Chapters 6 and 7. 2.3 km long by a maximum width of 98 meters and encompasses approximately 52.58 acres (21.28 hectares). Survey methodology employed by Schock and 4.1 Background Research Alvey (1976) included interviewing local residents, Before fieldwork, Brockington conducted archival pedestrian survey, targeted subsurface excavations, research via the submission of a Geographic Infor- and vehicular reconnaissance. A single archaeo- mation System (GIS) support request to the OSA. logical site, 15GN302, was documented during this The OSA request specific to this investigation was investigation and is discussed in detail below. submitted on May 2, 2017 and fulfilled on May 4, The second previously conducted archaeologi- 2017. Additionally, data collected during Brocking- cal survey within a two-km buffer of the APE was ton’s research in support of the preparation of an performed by the United States Army Corps of archaeological overview document for this project Engineers (USACE) (Ball 2000; SHPO ID: 044- was also referenced. Pertinent databases, maps, and 014). This survey was undertaken in support of a reports containing information regarding previ- proposed bank protection project along the north- ously recorded sites within a two-km buffer of the ern bank of the Green River, opposite its confluence APE were reviewed in detail prior to the initiation with Russell Creek. Survey methodology employed of fieldwork. Copies of relevant archaeological site during this investigation included visual inspection forms and archaeological reports were also obtained and shovel testing. No archaeological materials were from the OSA during a research visit conducted on encountered during this investigation and thus no May 10, 2017. additional archaeological work was recommended in advance of the proposed bank protection project.

Previously Recorded Sites As stated above, only three archaeological sites lie within a two-km buffer of the APE. These include two temporally undifferentiated prehistoric sites

17 Figure 4.1 Previous archaeological investigations (labeled with SHPO ID) within a two-km buffer of the APE, as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle.

18 (15GN8 and 15GN302) and a 1930s-era limestone subsurface features, middens, or other cultural de- quarry (15GN55). These sites are discussed in deposits are present within the site boundaries. Due to tail below. A border assessment of the types of sites the site’s limited archaeological research potential, previously documented within Green County, as DelCastello and McAlpine (2016) recommended originally presented by Kelley (2013), is presented at this site as not eligible for listing on the NRHP. the end of this section. Site 15GN302, the third and final previously The earliest recorded site located within two km recorded site located within two-km of the APE, of the APE, 15GN8, was volunteer reported (by an was documented during the survey conducted unknown source) in 1932. The only information cur- by Schock and Alvey (1976). The site lies on the rently available for this site is a 1971 retyped version floodplain of Dry Branch, approximately 480 me- of an original site card. The information recorded ters west of its confluence with the Russell Creek. indicates that this site is located within “a small rock Site 15GN302 was subjected to surface collection shelter” in which “ashes, charcoal, and flint spawls” methods and targeted subsurface testing. A total of were observed. No temporally distinguishing in- three “test squares” were excavated at this site, none formation is recorded on the form. Additionally, of which produced artifacts. No diagnostic materi- the site is described as lying three miles south of als were recovered during the survey of this site, nor the town of Greensburg in a bend of Russell Creek. were any intact archaeological deposits or features It is currently unknown if temporally diagnostic encountered. The site was recommended ineligible artifacts were observed, if the recorder collected ar- for inclusion in the NRHP and no additional work tifacts, or if excavations (professional or otherwise) was recommended in advance of the proposed re- were undertaken. The OSA GIS data records the alignment of US 68 (Schock and Alvey 1976). site location as “approximate” and as covering ap- County-wide data summarized by Kelley (2013) proximately 53 acres. The large size of the OSA GIS indicates that 49 archaeological sites had been re- polygon representing this site indicates that the site corded in Green County as of 2013. The majority of location has not been verified and, as noted above, is these sites are documents as open habitations without considered “approximate”. mounds and comprise 73.47 percent (n=36) of the to- Site 15GN55 was recorded in November 2016 as tal number of sites documented within Green County part of an investigation related to the reconstruction as of 2013 (Kelley 2013:20). Additional site types of a stretch of US 68 known as Vaughn Curve (KYTC documented within the county include historic farm/ Item No. 4-398.01). This investigation was conducted residences (n=4), rockshelters (n=2), open habitations by Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc.; however, the re- with mounds (n=2), cemeteries (n=1), caves (n=1), port was not available at the OSA when this research industrial sites (n=1), non-mound earthworks (n=1), was conducted (DelCastello and McAlpine 2016). and other/undetermined (n=1) (Kelley 2013:20). A preliminary site form was provided by the OSA The majority of prehistoric sites previously staff and its contents are summarized as follows (in- documented within Green County (n=37, or 74%) cluding information presented by Goddard 2016). are recorded as containing temporally indetermi- Site 15GN55 is described as a 1930s-era limestone nate prehistoric components (Kelley 2103:20). The quarry located on a wooded side slope east of US 68. remaining previously documented prehistoric sites Goddard (2016) states that the owner of the prop- include temporal components attributed to the Ar- erty on which this site is located (c. 1930s) leased chaic (n=2) and Woodland (n=1) periods (Kelley it to the Works Progress Administration (WPA) for 2013:20). These sites are predominately located on use as a quarry. Included within the site boundar- landforms classified as dissected uplands (n=18) and ies are three concrete features and the remaining undissected uplands (n=17). The remainder of pre- face of the limestone quarry. The concrete features viously recorded sites are reported as being located represent the remains of scales used to weigh the on terraces (n=8), hillsides (n=3), floodplains (n=2), quarried limestone. No archaeological deposits were or unspecified landforms (n=1) (Kelley 2013:20). encountered at this site and DelCastello and McAlp- ine (2016) state that there is no evidence that intact

19 4.2 Pre-Field Planning 4.3 Survey Methods Brockington received the location and boundary The archaeological survey methods employed during data related to the APE from Palmer in the form of this investigation primarily involved the excavation computer-aided design and drafting files (*.dgn). of shovel tests at 20-meter intervals within the APE. This data was overlaid on modern (and historic) If cultural materials or features were encountered, US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, survey intervals were reduced to 10 meters. Surface historic highway maps, and modern aerials relevant reconnaissance methods were also employed within to the APE. Additionally, GIS data provided by the areas of more than 50 percent surface visibility or OSA (as discussed above) was overlaid in order to on slopes in excess of 15 percent. The goal of this determine if any portion(s) of the APE had previ- reconnaissance was to identify cultural features or ously been subjected to an archaeological survey(s) concentrations of cultural material on the ground or if previously recorded archaeological sites lie surface within the overall proposed project limits. within. These maps and aerials were then examined Shovel tests located within areas of obvious soil dis- prior to the initiation of fieldwork. During this turbance (e.g., road or pipeline corridors, exposed examination, Brockington identified the potential or eroded surfaces, and bedrock outcrops) or on location(s) of archaeological sites based on the pres- slopes greater than 15 percent were not excavated. A ence of buildings located within or immediately visual inspection was conducted in these areas in or- adjacent to the APE. Based on this examination, a der to determine the presence or absence of cultural total of three buildings can be confidently identified materials/features. as located within the APE. Another five buildings As discussed above, the APE was divided are located adjacent to the APE. A list of maps ex- into six separate, arbitrary areas in order to sim- amined is provided below. plify fieldwork efforts. Within these areas, shovel test locations were pre-plotted and loaded onto • 1937 Highway and Transportation Map, a handheld sub-meter global positioning system Green County Kentucky (GPS) unit (Trimble GeoExplorer 3000 Series). To • 1953 Exie, Kentucky USGS Topographic establish a survey grid, the field crew navigated to Quadrangle individual survey areas through the aid of hardcopy • 1955 Rural Highway Series, Green County, maps (aerial and topographic) and with the Trimble Kentucky sub-meter GPS unit. During the survey, shovel test • 1961 Exie, Kentucky USGS Topographic locations were verified approximately every 100 Quadrangle meters with the GPS unit to ensure survey transects remained on course with their pre-plotted positions. Finally, the APE is divided into smaller por- Note that due to dense vegetation and topography tions for the purpose of simplifying field survey (in relation to GPS signal and general overland efforts. The extent of each area is defined primar- navigation efforts), some shovel test locations were ily by topography; however, vegetation cover (e.g., inadvertently excavated outside of the APE. Within tree lines) was also considered. Maps representing each survey area, individual shovel test locations the individual survey areas were created for the were labeled with alphanumeric designations. For purposes of planning and directing daily field tasks. example, a shovel test labeled ‘Area A B23’ indicates Each survey area is identified by an alphabetical that this shovel test locus lies within survey area designation, starting at the southern extent of the ‘Area A’, transect ‘B’, shovel test number ‘23’. APE with Area A. In total, the APE is divided into All pre-plotted shovel test locations were first six areas, designated Areas A through F. Each area is surficial examined. The ground surface of all shovel discussed individually below in Section 4.5. test locations (including the immediately surrounding area) was examined for the presence of artifacts or cultural features. If a specific shovel test is located within an area of obvious soil disturbance or on a slope greater than 15 percent, it was not excavated. If

20 a specific shovel test is located within an area of less 4.4 GIS/Spatial Analysis than 15 percent, its surface obscured by vegetation, All geographic data was created, processed, and ana- and does not contain obvious soil disturbances, it lyzed using ArcGIS 10.4.1. Site maps were digitized was excavated. from hand-drawn sketch maps and supplemented All excavated shovel tests measure between with natural and cultural features represented on 30 and 35 cm in diameter and were excavated to maps and modern aerial imagery. Aerial imagery a depth of at least 10 cm into sterile subsoil. Care and topographic maps were acquired through Arc- was taken to maintain a consistent diameter from GIS GIS Servers online (http://services.arcgisonline. top to bottom of each shovel test. Excavated soils com); specifically, the World Imagery and USA were screened through one-quarter-inch hardware Topo Maps. Historic maps illustrating the general cloth, and all identified or suspected cultural mate- area in which the APE is located acquired from the rials were collected. A record of each shovel test loci KYTC (http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/ was generated using shovel test forms that include Pages/Historical-Maps.aspx) and the USGS (https:// information on content (e.g., presence or absence of geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=262:1:0::NO:RP). Ad- artifacts, artifact descriptions) and context (e.g., soil ditional natural and cultural data (e.g., elevation, color and texture descriptions, depth of definable soil, geology, roads, and digital elevation models) soil levels, observed natural and cultural features). was acquired from the Kentucky Geography Net- Additionally, deep testing efforts were carried work (http://kygeonet.ky.gov). All data was created, out within the floodplains of an unnamed tributary edited, and analyzed using Universal Transverse of Russell Creek (located in the central portion of Mercator (UTM) coordinate system, North Ameri- the APE). Every other shovel test on each transect can Datum 1983 (NAD83), Zone 16 North (Z16N). was hand augered to investigate the potential for In accordance with KHC reporting standards, all encountering deeply buried cultural deposits. Au- coordinates presented herein are provided using gered shovel tests were first hand excavated to 50 cm UTM, NAD27, Z16N. below surface (cmbs) and then a bucket auger was employed in order to excavate the shovel test to a maximum depth of two meters (when possible). 4.5 Survey Coverage Crew members flagged and labeled all positive As discussed above in Section 4.2, for convenience shovel tests (i.e., tests where artifacts were recovered purposes the APE was divided into six separate, arbi- or features were identified) for relocation and map- trary survey areas (Areas A-F). Figure 4.2 illustrates ping purposes. Once cultural materials were identi- the locations of Areas A-F. In total, Brockington ex- fied and collected, they were packaged in re-sealable amined 896 individual shovel test loci. Of these, field acid-free artifact collection bags. Artifact bags were personnel excavated 484 individual shovel test loca- labeled with discrete provenience information in- tions. An additional 412 shovel test loci were surface cluding project name, field site number, and tran- inspected only (due to past disturbances or slope in sect/shovel test designation (or specific Cartesian excess of 15 percent). Of the excavated shovel tests, grid coordinates). All cultural material recovered 132 yielded artifacts (including five positive augered from positive shovel tests was collected with the ex- shovel tests) and 347 were negative (including seven ception of obviously recent objects such as beverage negative augered shovel test). Eleven shovel test cans, modern bottle glass, aluminum pull tabs, or locations were inadvertently excavated outside of modern munitions. the APE (due to GPS signal or simple navigation errors). Each survey area is discussed individually below, organized geographically, moving along the APE from south to north.

21 Figure 4.2 The location of survey Areas A-F within the APE, as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle.

22 4.5.1 Area A Area A covers 14 acres extending approximately 765 meters north from the southern terminus of the APE. Topography across Area A is characterized as dissected upland slopes, terraces, and floodplain along an unnamed intermittent stream, a tributary of Rus- sell Creek. The northern boundary of Area A abuts the southern boundary of Area B at the southern edge of a ridge and old field. The southern boundary of Area A is the southern terminus of the APE near the intersection of US 68 with Locust Grove Road. Most of Area A is open (95%) and either fallow, grassy, or located within residential yards. Investigators surveyed Area A on May 20 and 22, 2017. A total of 189 shovel test locations were examined within Area A, 122 of which were excavated (Figure 4.3). The remaining 67 shovel test locations were visually inspected but not excavated due to ground disturbance or steep slopes (greater than 15 percent). Investigators identified two sites (15GN57 and 15GN62) in Area A. Three USDA soil types extend across Area A. Table 4.1 summarizes each USDA soil type and the typical shovel test profile for each soil type. Disturbed soils are not mapped but account for approximately 21 percent of all shovel test locations.

23 Figure 4.3 Survey Area A, as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle.

24 Table 4.1 Summary of USDA soil types encountered in Area A. USDA Soil Typical Shovel Test Profile Acres brown (7.5YR 4/3) silt loam 0-30 cmbs, Frederick silt loam, 6-12% slopes underlain by strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) clay and 2.9 dense gravel brown (7.5YR 4/3) silt loam 0-20 cmbs, Frederick silt loam, 12-20% slopes underlain by strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) clay and 5.14 dense gravel yellowish red (5YR 5/6) silty clay 0-15 cmbs, Lowell-Caneyville silt loams, very rocky, 30-60% slopes 2.44 underlain by bedrock grayish brown (10YR 5/2) silty loam 0-30 cmbs, Mountview silt loam, 2-6% slopes underlain by strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) clay with 3.52 dense gravel 30+ cmbs

4.5.2 Area B Area B covers 8.8 acres of the southern APE, extending approximately 475 meters between two ridges. Topography across Area B is characterized as dissected upland slopes, terraces, and floodplain along an unnamed intermittent stream that drains east into Russell Creek. The southern boundary of Area B borders the northern boundary of Area A at the southern edge of a ridge and old field. The northern boundary of Area B abuts the southern boundary of Area C at the northern edge of a ridge and old field. Approximately half (52%) of Area B extends across old field covered in high grasses and briars, with some trees. The rest of Area B (48%) is covered in woods. Investigators surveyed Area B on May 19 and 20, 2017. A total of 142 shovel test locations were examined within Area B, 104 of which were excavated (Figure 4.4). The remaining 38 shovel test locations were visually inspected but not excavated due to steep slopes (greater than 15 percent). Investiga- tors identified three sites (15GN61, 15GN63, and 15GN64) and one isolated find (Isolate 1) in Area B. Four USDA soil types extend across Area B. Table 4.2 summarizes each USDA soil type and the typical shovel test profile for each soil type.

25 Figure 4.4 Survey Area B, as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle.

26 Table 4.2 Summary of USDA soil types encountered in Area B. USDA Soil Typical Shovel Test Profile Acres brown (7.5YR 4/3) silt loam 0-30 cmbs, Frederick silt loam, 6-12% slopes underlain by strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) clay and 1.53 dense gravel brown (7.5YR 4/3) silt loam 0-20 cmbs, Frederick silt loam, 12-20% slopes underlain by strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) clay and 2.09 dense gravel brown (7.5YR 4/3) silt loam 0-15 cmbs, Frederick silt loam, 20-30% slopes underlain by strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) clay and 1.2 dense gravel yellowish red (5YR 5/6) silty clay 0-10 cmbs, Lowell-Caneyville silt loams, very rocky, 30-60% slopes 1.97 underlain by bedrock grayish brown (10YR 5/2) silty loam 0-40 cmbs, Mountview silt loam, 2-6% slopes underlain by strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) clay with 1.98 dense gravel 30+ cmbs

4.5.3 Area C Area C covers 15.5 acres extending approximately 820 meters between the southern edge of a plowed field to the north and the northern edge of an old field to the south. Topography across Area C is characterized as dissected upland slopes, terraces, and floodplain along an unnamed intermittent stream that drains east into Russell Creek. The southern boundary of Area C borders the northern boundary of Area B at the northern edge of a ridge and old field. The northern boundary of Area C abuts the southern boundary of Area D at the southern edge of a plowed field. Most (89.7%) of Area C is wooded, except for approximately 1.6 acres of fallow field located in a floodplain adjacent to an intermittent stream. Investigators surveyed Area C on May 19 and 20, 2017. A total of 179 shovel test locations were examined within Area C, 64 of which were excavated (Figure 4.5). The remaining 115 shovel test locations were visually inspected but not excavated due to ground disturbance (e.g., creek or road bed locales) or steep slopes (greater than 15 percent). Investiga- tors identified one site (15GN65) and two isolated finds (Isolates 2 and 3) in Area C. Five USDA soil types extend across Area C. Table 4.3 summarizes each USDA soil type and the typical shovel test profile for each soil type.

27 Figure 4.5 Survey Area C, as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle.

28 Table 4.3 Summary of USDA soil types encountered in Area C. USDA Soil Typical Shovel Test Profile Acres brown (7.5YR 4/3) silt loam 0-5 cmbs, underlain Caneyville-Frederick silt loams, very rocky, 20-30% slopes 7.22 by bedrock (slope >15º) brown (7.5YR 4/3) silt loam 0-30 cmbs, Frederick silt loam, 6-12% slopes underlain by strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) clay and 1.17 dense gravel brown (7.5YR 4/3) silt loam 0-5 cmbs, underlain Frederick silty clay loam, 12-20% slopes, severely eroded 0.28 by bedrock (slope >15º) yellowish red (5YR5/6) silty clay 0-15 cm bs, Lowell-Caneyville silt loams, very rocky, 30-60% slopes 4.46 underlain by bedrock (slope >15º) brown (7.5YR4/3) silt loam 0-30 cm bs, brown Nolin silt loam (7.5YR5/2) sandy silt 30-70 cm bs, dense 3.23 gravel 75+ cm bs

4.5.4 Area D Area D covers 7.5 acres of the north-central APE, extending approximately 410 meters between the southern edge of a plowed field in the south to the northern edge of a fallow field to the north. Topography across Area D is characterized as dissected upland slopes, terraces, and floodplain along an unnamed intermittent stream that drains east into Russell Creek. The southern boundary of Area D borders the northern boundary of Area C at the southern edge of a plowed field. The northern boundary of Area D abuts the southern boundary of Area E at the northern edge of a fallow field. The majority (61.1%) of Area D is wooded, except for the plowed field near its southern terminus and fallow field near its northern terminus. Investigators surveyed Area D on May 17, 2017. A total of 105 shovel test locations were examined within Area D, 46 of which were excavated (Figure 4.6). The remaining 59 shovel test locations were visually inspected but not excavated due to steep slopes (greater than 15 percent). Investigators identified two sites (15GN58 and 15GN59) in Area D. Three USDA soil types extend across Area D. Table 4.4 summarizes each USDA soil type and the typical shovel test profile for each soil type.

29 Figure 4.6 Survey Area D, as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle.

30 Table 4.4 Summary of USDA soil types encountered in Area D. USDA Soil Typical Shovel Test Profile Acres Site(s) brown (7.5YR4/3) silt loam 0-30 cm bs, Sites 4 Frederick silt loam, 6-12% underlain by strong brown (7.5YR4/6) clay and 2.23 and 5 dense gravel Frederick silty clay loam, 12-20% slopes, brown (7.5YR4/3) silt loam 0-5 cm cm bs, 3.51 n/a severely eroded underlain by bedrock (slope >15º) brown (7.5YR4/3) silt loam 0-30 cm bs, brown Nolin silt loam (7.5YR5/2) sandy silt 30-70 cm bs, dense 1.76 n/a gravel 75+ cm bs

4.5.5 Area E Area E covers 10.2 acres of the northern APE, extending approximately 465 meters between the northern edge of a fallow field to the south and the northern edge of a plowed field to the north. Topog- raphy across Area E is characterized as dissected upland slopes, terraces, and floodplain along an unnamed intermittent stream, a tributary of Russell Creek. The southern boundary of Area E borders the northern boundary of Area D at the northern edge of a fallow field. The northern boundary of Area E abuts the southern boundary of Area F at the northern edge of plowed field. The majority of Area E is wooded (58.6 percent); the remainder extends across fallow field covered in high grass. Investigators surveyed Area E on May 18 and 19, 2017. A total of 137 test locations were examined within Area E, 66 of which were excavated (Figure 4.7). The remaining 71 shovel test locations were visually inspected but not excavated due to ground disturbance or steep slopes (greater than 15 percent). Investigators identified one site (15GN56) within Area E. Three USDA soil types extend across Area E. Table 4.5 summarizes each USDA soil type and the typical shovel test profile for each soil type.

31 Figure 4.7 Survey Area E, as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle.

32 Table 4.5 Summary of USDA soil types encountered in Area E. USDA Soil Typical Shovel Test Profile Acres Site(s) brown (7.5YR4/3) silt loam 0-30 cm bs, Frederick silt loam, 6-12% underlain by strong brown (7.5YR4/6) clay and 3.93 Site 1 dense gravel Frederick silty clay loam, 12 to 20% slopes, brown (7.5YR4/3) silt loam 0-5 cm cm bs, 4.76 n/a severely eroded underlain by bedrock (slope >15º) brown (7.5YR4/3) silt loam 0-10 cm bs, Frederick silt loam, 20-30% slopes underlain by strong brown (7.5YR4/6) clay and 1.49 n/a dense gravel

4.5.6 Area F Area F covers 11.4 acres of the northern APE, extending approximately 800 meters from the northern edge of a plowed field to the northern terminus of the project along US 68. Topography across Area F is characterized as dissected upland slopes, terraces, and floodplain along an unnamed intermittent stream that drains east into Russell Creek. The southern boundary of Area F borders the northern boundary of Area E at the northern edge of a plowed field. Except for part of a treeline that borders the eastern edge of US 68 and two treelines that define the edges of fields, Area F is open, covered mostly in high grass, and used primarily as pasture. Investigators surveyed Area F on May 17 and 19, 2017. A total of 144 shovel test locations were examined within Area F, 82 of which were excavated (Figure 4.8). The remaining 62 shovel test locations were visually inspected but not excavated due to disturbance or steep slopes (greater than 15 percent). Investigators identified one site (15GN60) in Area F. Three USDA soil types extend across Area F. Table 4.6 summarizes each USDA soil type and the typical shovel test profile for each soil type.

33 Figure 4.8 Survey Area F, as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle.

34 Table 4.6 Summary of USDA soil types encountered in Area F. USDA Soil Typical Shovel Test Profile Acres Site(s) brown (7.5YR4/3) silt loam 0-30 cm bs, Frederick silt loam, 6-12% underlain by strong brown (7.5YR4/6) clay and 1.21 Site 6 dense gravel Frederick silty clay loam, 12 to 20% slopes, brown (7.5YR4/3) silt loam 0-5 cm cm bs, 9.39 n/a severely eroded underlain by bedrock (slope >15º) brown (7.5YR4/3) silt loam 0-10 cm bs, Frederick silt loam, 12-20% slopes underlain by strong brown (7.5YR4/6) clay and 0.80 n/a dense gravel

35 36 5.0 Materials Recovered Brockington recovered a total of 438 artifacts from • Assigning formed hafted bifaces to 13 discrete locations (10 archaeological sites and established culturally or temporally three isolated finds) during this archaeological diagnostic types for relative dating purposes. investigation. Of the artifacts collected, 423 specimens are prehistoric and 15 specimens are historic The nalysisa of stone artifact morphology was artifacts. Brockington transported all recovered conducted in two stages. First, all artifacts were artifacts to our laboratory facility, where they were sorted into three broad groups according to their washed, cataloged, and analyzed. Laboratory staff method of production. Stone artifacts include assigned distinct provenience numbers to each flaked stone, ground stone, and miscellaneous stone shovel test/surface collection location. Artifacts artifacts. Flaked stone is defined as the products from each distinct provenience were subsequently and byproducts of the manufacture and mainte- divided by class/type and assigned catalog numbers. nance of stone tools produced by percussion and/ Photographs of diagnostic/representative artifacts or pressure-flaking techniques. Artifacts assigned to are provided per Specifications for Conducting Field- this class must exhibit at least one of the following work and Preparing Cultural Resource Assessment attributes: flake scars, striking platforms, or bulbs of Reports (Sanders 2006). A detailed account of the force. Second, artifacts were sorted into one of three entire assemblage (by provenience) is provided in general classes: cores (n=10), debitage (n=402), and the artifact catalog presented in Appendix A. tools (n=11). The final stage of analysis includes describing formed artifacts and assigning them to recognized stylistic types (e.g., Kirk) that are culturally 5.1 Prehistoric Artifact Analysis or temporally diagnostic. No prehistoric diagnostic The prehistoric sub-assemblage consists of 423 tools were collected during this investigation. artifacts, all of which are flaked stone. The prehis- Thissection describes the lithic artifacts recov- toric sub-assemblage comprises approximately ered during the Phase I archaeological survey. The 96.6 percent of the total archaeological assemblage purpose of this analysis is to provide an inventory (combined prehistoric and historic) recovered dur- and an analysis of the recovered materials. Analysis ing this investigation. Brockington recovered the of the recovered lithic artifacts included flake debris prehistoric sub-assemblage from all 10 documented analysis and technological analysis of the modified archaeological sites (15GN56 through 15GN65) and implements. The goals of this analysis were to (1) two of the isolated finds (Isolates 2 and 3). provide information concerning the lithic technol- Brockington laboratory staff subjected the ogy utilized by the site’s occupants, (2) explore site flaked stone assemblage to three types of analysis: use through the lithic artifacts recovered, and (3) morphological, technological, and functional. The explore the intensity of occupation for the compo- goals of analysis are: nents represented at the sites. Flaked stone tools and the associated debris (debitage) generated during • Delimiting the spatial patterning of tool- the production of such tools has always been a core manufacturing loci; element in the analysis and resulting understandings • Discerning patterns in the use of expedient of a site’s formation, occupation span, and usage. and formal tools; Brockington has developed a lithic analysis • Documenting differences and diachronic methodology based on a set of fundamental ques- changes in lithic production technologies tions that directly relate to archaeological investiga- among the cultural components represented tions conducted in the southeastern and mid-south at the site; portions of the United States. The methodology • Modeling raw material procurement and employed in lithic artifact analysis begins with the use; and classification of lithic cultural material into three

37 general categories based on specific morphology: non-local lithic resources. Furthermore, variability cores, debitage, and tools. For each artifact grouped and quality of the raw materials identified through into one of the three categories, count, weight, mate- archaeological survey or investigations, is instruc- rial type, thermal alteration if present, and the por- tive for understanding the duration and intensity of tion are all recorded variables. site occupation (Andrefsky 1998). Tool manufacturing is viewed as a set of analyti- Prehistoric archaeological sites located in the cal categories positioned along a technological con- southeastern United States often maintain a wide tinuum at the site and/or regional/survey area level. variety of raw material types within its lithic assem- When reduction and tool production are considered blage. Each material type identified during artifact in such a context, differences in the diachronic cataloging is recorded as its own data set. Com- change in lithic production strategies and tech- monly, prehistoric groups in the southeast utilized nologies among the identified cultural components two primary raw material types for flaked stone tool represented at the site(s) can be addressed. Along a production: chert and quartz. Chert is a silica resi- similar line, a paramount tradition in Southeastern due, compact cryptocrystalline or microcrystalline archaeology is the process for assigning formed variety of quartz originating from a sedimentary projectile points to established culturally or tempo- context. Found within limestone deposits, chert is rally diagnostic types for relative dating purposes. often a fine-grained material producing concoidal To address and achieve these goals, Brockington fractures (Andrefsky 1998; Goad 1979). Chert va- employs a lithic analysis program that focuses on rieties and appearances are quite varied across the four primary analytical objectives: raw material type southeast. Quartz is also defined as a macrocrystal- and procurement, lithic reduction through debitage line and cryptocrystalline silica however; quartz is mass analysis, tool production and morphology, and understood as a nearly pure form of the material ground stone artifact production. (Jones 2006). Each Brockington laboratory facility has devel- 5.1.1 Raw Material oped a standardized set of raw material categories The first consideration pertains to prehistoric developed from studying local and regional geo- procurement and utilization of lithic raw material. logical formations and processes. Physical proper- Based on categories of raw material, analysis at- ties maintained by all raw materials are evaluated tempts to delimit the spatial patterning of debitage through a set of analytical categories (color, translu- and tools, and their placement within a reduction cency, inclusions, texture, cortex, and flaking prop- sequence. In a broader perspective, a strong under- erties) as proposed by Luedtke (1992) and Randall standing of lithic raw material of the southeastern (2000). These categories are used during lithic analy- United States allows the analyst, as Odell states “to sis and to assess field collected raw material utilized derive a large amount of useable information for a as a laboratory type collection. This foundation in reasonable expenditure of effort. In addition, Odell sourcing major raw material types allows for a much argues, “the subject itself will force you to become stronger understanding of the geographic location intimately acquainted with your region” (2003:13). of chert bearing geologic formations, prevalence of The goal of studying prehistorically utilized raw usage, and preferred source locations of lithic mate- materials is twofold. First, the identification of raw rial by prehistoric groups. material utilized within a prehistoric site allows the Lithic raw material and artifacts, found within examination of a site’s relationship to the surround- an archaeological context, often maintain character- ing region by identifying usage patterns between istics that coincide with lithic material that has been local, intermediate, and non-local lithic resources. thermally altered. In the evaluation of possible heat- Additionally, with a strong understanding of the treated specimens, color change, thermal shock spatial relationship between an archaeological site alteration, and improved flaking characteristics and lithic raw material sources, GIS modeling is are all considered important diagnostic attributes utilized to increase understanding of native popula- (Domanski and Webb 2007). Visual inspection is tion’s behavior for acquiring and utilizing local and often augmented by experimental thermal altera-

38 tion studies conducted by Brockington on material insights into potential lithic production strategy(s) maintained within our raw material collection. utilized by inhabitants of the site. Two distinct raw material types were identified within the collected assemblage and include 5.1.3 Flake Stone Tool Production and St. Louis chert and an Unidentified chert. St. Louis Morphology chert, as identified within the collected assemblage, Flaked stone tool artifacts represent the results from is typically a light to dark gray, pale brown, or green a lithic continuum that symbolizes the reductive to green-blue in high-grade examples. This material nature of stone tool production (Andrefsky 1998). type is primarily homogeneous, yet examples with Because lithic technologies are reductive in nature, banding and/or fossiliferous inclusions occur. The it is possible to categorize all stone tools and their luster is medium to waxy and maintains medium to byproducts as part of a linear system encompassing fine graining. Finally, St. Louis chert possesses good raw material acquisition, tool fabrication, use, and to excellent flaking properties and has a moderate- discard (Bradley 1975; Collins 1975). Based on this to wide-spread prehistoric utilization. premise, this step in the analysis is directed toward The Unidentified chert type identified within further classification of morphological types within the collected assemblage is described as varying the constructs of a technological system. The pro- from pale brown, brown, to pale gray to medium duction stages are defined as follows: (I) raw mate- gray in color. The luster of the material(s) ranges rial, (II) initial reduction, (III) primary shaping, from very dull to waxy. Grain size is wide-ranging (IV) secondary shaping, and (V) reworking. from coarse- to medium-grained, and the chert(s) Artifacts assigned to the raw material stage are displays a wide range of inclusion frequency. viewed as stone masses suitable for reduction and may exhibit only simple breaks that suggest initial 5.1.2 Flake Debris Analysis testing of the material. Initial reduction specimens Flake debris (i.e., debitage) includes the by-products exhibit large, irregular scars, which tend to indicate from the manufacturing and maintenance of flaked attempts to produce flakes, cores, or early stage bi- stone tools and consists of all pieces of lithic mate- faces. Primary shaping involves deliberate change rial which exhibit evidence (e.g., platforms and bulb in overall shape of the artifact with thinning and of percussion) of intentional removal from a parent development of consistent size and form. Speci- mass (e.g., core or biface) and display no evidence of mens in the secondary stage are characterized by having been used or intentionally retouched. All re- edge sharpening, beveling, serration, and notching, covered debitage is size graded using a set of screens which are usually associated with projectile points, with graduated sizes of three-quarter-inch (25.4 hafted bifaces, and drills. Intensive basal modifica- millimeters [mm]), one-half-inch (12.7 mm), and tion occurs in the form of a haft element or other one-quarter-inch (6.4 mm) and analyzed using the basal preparatory work necessary for attachment mass analysis technique as outlined by Ahler (1989). is completed. The final stage is reworking, which In basic terms, once material is processed involves the rejuvenation of working edges or recy- through a set of nested screens, each size category cling of a tool into a new form. is sorted by raw material type. Next, these raw material groupings are further categorized by debitage 5.1.4 Formal and Informal Tools type (e.g., flakes, shatter). All identified debitage is Within this analytical scheme, all lithic tools are first then sorted in regard to primary, secondary, and divided into formal and informal analytical catego- tertiary flaking attributes. Brockington laboratories ries. For clarity, formal tools maintain a standard utilize mass analysis techniques for debitage stud- morphology that is a recognizable style, exhibited ies allowing for the identification of general trends across a clustering of often temporally/culturally as- in raw material reduction, lithic tool production, sociated hafted bifaces and projectile points. Formal and frequency of utilization throughout occupied tools exhibit intentional modification relating to a periods. Mass analysis is efficient in developing particular function or task, regulated by both style large data sets that address site type, site usage, and and technological considerations imparted by the

39 toolmaker during production. Tools composing this ments maintaining critical attributes are subjected artifact category may include hafted bifaces, pro- to a standardized set of measurements. Developing a jectile points, hafted and unhafted drills, blade and standardized set of recorded measurements can also knife-like tools, and curated ground stone objects. help define fragments of diagnostic artifacts when key Informal lithic tools are artifacts that, while attributes are present. These recorded measurements often fabricated for a specific function, are expedi- (i.e., metrics) help in establishing and contributing ent in nature, presumably utilized for a single task to ongoing data sets striving to investigate tool size or specific need, and are produced on an as-needed and variability within a group of temporally/cultur- basis. Additionally, a tool may start out informal ally associated tools. All flaked stone tools are first and eventually become a formal tool (e.g., a preform placed into a morphological class. This is achieved transitioning into a hafted biface). Specific artifacts by inspecting the tool for specific attributes inherent relegated to this grouping of lithic tools include to a tool. Each artifact is then described in terms of some bifaces, preforms, flake tools, and other lithic condition. This includes describing the completeness material maintaining intentional retouching attri- of a tool or, if fragmentary, describing the remaining butes and/or evidence of utilization. Often formal portion. Also considered at this point in the analysis and informal lithic tools represent two separate are certain artifact conditions that may denote aban- analytical and technological trajectories. donment of a tool during its production. This allows As such, these analytical designations func- all bifacially reduced tools to become linked with a tion to separate and classify, at an early stage in the specific stage of production (i.e., manufacturing, analysis, two different technological paths. These reworking, and discard). Table 5.1 presents metrics designations also, depending on the overall tool as- recorded for lithic tools, and Table 5.2 presents five semblage, allow for observations pertaining to the manufacturing conditions used in lithic analysis. transitioning of early stage bifaces into formal lithic Type names assigned to each tool from an as- tools when compared with tool production stage. semblage are not necessarily intended to imply Analysis of all lithic tools is conducted macro- function, but names common in the literature are scopically. All complete tool specimens and frag- utilized to facilitate communication and compara-

Table 5.1 Lithic tool metrics (X-if applicable).

Complete Tool Haft Element Base Shoulder Length Width Thickness Length Width Thickness Length Length Scraper XX X Biface XX X Preform XX X Knife XX X XX X X Drill XX X XX X X Hafted Biface X X X XX X X Projectile Point X X X XX X XX

Table 5.2 Manufacturing condition definitions for lithic tools. Manufacturing Class Description Condition Condition A All unbroken specimens appearing to be intact and absent of potentially debilitating errors or flaws. Condition B Artifacts which maintain inherent material flaws that appears to be the source of tool abandonment. Condition C Specimens with observable manufacturing errors suggestive of tool abandonment. Condition D Tool with attributes suggesting breakage as the result of use. Condition E Artifacts that are too fragmentary to maintain signs of breakage and/or abandonment

40 tive efforts. Brockington strives to produce analyti- (82% of the debitage sub-assemblage). Overall, cal data generated from intensive laboratory analy- one-quarter-inch specimens comprise the highest sis that is both systematically collected and forms a proportion of size-graded specimens (n=284, 86% comparable data set. of the size-graded debitage). The remaining 14 percent of the size-graded debitage is comprised 5.1.5 Prehistoric Assemblage Summary of one-half-inch (n=33), three-quarter-inch (n=8), Two lithic material types were identified within the and one-inch (n=4) specimens. prehistoric flaked stone assemblage. Artifacts manu- As analyzed by artifact type, the debitage sub- factured from St. Louis chert dominate the lithic as- assemblage (n=402) collected during this investi- semblage, representing 75 percent of the total lithic gation is dominated by flake fragments (n=277), sub-assemblage (n=317) (Table 5.3). The remainder comprising 69 percent of the overall prehistoric of the lithic sub-assemblage (25%) is manufactured assemblage (Table 5.3). The remaining debitage sub- from an unidentified chert type (n=106). assemblage consists of flakes (n=44), pressure flakes Size grading and stage reduction analysis was (n=7), shatter (n=71), tested cobbles (n=2), and a also completed per Brockington’s standard lithic thinning flake (n=1). Only complete flakes (minus methods, which is described in the previous sec- the tested cobbles, n=52 or 13% of the debitage sub- tions. Shatter, tested cobbles, and lithic tools were assemblage) were assigned to a specific stage of the not subjected to size grading analysis, leaving 329 lithic reduction sequence. Given the large proportion debitage specimens to be analyzed in this manner of the debitage specimens that could not be assigned

Table 5.3 Prehistoric assemblage by Material, Object Form, Object Form Subtype, and Description.

Material Object Form Object Subtype Size Grade Count Weight (g) Core 1 1.2 Flake 1/4 inch 4 3.3 1/2 inch 7 22.7 Flake Fragment 1/4 inch 62 30.2 Debitage 3/4 inch 4 27 Unidentified Chert Shatter 24 280.4 Thinning Flake 1/4 inch 1 0.2 Biface 1 110.3 Tool Scraper 1 149.4 Uniface 1 33.7 Core 9 321.8 1 inch 2 49.9 1/2 inch 9 34.2 Flake 1/4 inch 26 14.7 3/4 inch 3 34 1 inch 2 47 Debitage 1/2 inch 17 58.3 St. Louis Chert Flake Fragment 1/4 inch 184 87.1 3/4 inch 1 12.6 Pressure Flake 1/4 inch 7 0.9 Shatter 47 369.1 Tested Cobble 2 260.8 Biface 3 194.3 Tool Utilized Flake 5 108.1 Total 423 2251.2

41 to a specific stage of lithic reduction, little can be said of the nature of recovered materials. The identifica- of the activities represented by this lithic assemblage. tion and classification of ceramic and glass artifacts Those specimens that could be assigned to a specific are emphasized because of their utility in chrono- stage, however, suggest that the entire lithic reduction logical, economic, and behavioral reconstruction. sequence is represented in this assemblage. Nails also serve as chronological indicators. The core sub-assemblage consists of 10 specimens, nine of which are fragments. A total of 11 5.2.1 Typology and Chronology lithic tools were recovered during this investigation Standard typological methods were applied as a (Table 5.3). The flaked stone tools include biface prelude to chronological reconstruction. Artifacts tools (n=2), biface tool fragments (n=2), a scraper then were assigned dates through comparison of the (n=1), a uniface tool (n=1), and informal utilized identified artifacts with others having documented flakes (n=5). No prehistoric temporally diagnostic use-popularity patterns. Ceramics, glass, and nails tools were recovered during this investigation. A provided chronological information. The following representative sample of prehistoric lithic tools are discussion begins with a review of the chronological illustrated in Figure 5.1. A detailed account of the ramifications of the artifact assemblage. prehistoric assemblage (by provenience) is provided in the artifact catalog presented in Appendix A. 5.2.2 Chronological Reconstruction Brockington derived temporal information from the ceramic, nail, and glass sub-assemblages, ac- 5.2 Historic Artifact Analysis cording to the criteria described in the previous Fifteen artifacts comprise the historic assemblage section. Date ranges assigned to artifacts are based recovered during this investigation, comprising ap- on datable advancements in manufacturing tech- proximately 3.5 percent of the total archaeological nologies and, to some extent, the popularity of use. assemblage (combined prehistoric and historic). Date ranges for the ceramics, nails, and window These artifacts were collected from four document- and container glass sub-assemblage were derived ed archaeological sites (15GN56, 15GN57, 15GN61, from the presence of historic temporally diagnostic 15GN63) and one isolated find (Isolate 1). Table 5.4 manufacturing attributes (Miller 1980; Moir 1987; provides a breakdown of historic artifacts by func- Nelson 1963; Noël Hume 1969; Roenke 1978; and tional group and material class. South 1977), which are well documented in archival All historic artifacts were analyzed/catalogued records of the United States Patent Office, leading with consideration to form, material, function, manu- bottle manufacturers, and other sources (Jones et al. facturing technology, class, and diagnostic attributes. 1989; Toulouse 1971). The form category is designed for expedient retrieval of data on artifacts of the same form. Material classi- Nails. There are three basic chronological stages in fications are subdivided to afford more flexibility and nail technology: hand wrought nails, cut nails, and detail of inclusive data. For the purposes of this study, wire-drawn nails. Wrought nails still are still manu- the technomorphology or manufacturing technique factured today; however, they are primarily used has been expanded to allow for identification of mul- for restoration and reproduction purposes. Hand- tiple technologies identified for a single artifact. The forged wrought nails were the primary construction two-level functional classification is designed to allow fastener in the seventeenth and early eighteenth a detailed examination of site activities during func- centuries. Their use effectively ended with the intro- tional analysis. Finally, the inclusion of an attributes duction of machine-cut nails (Nelson 1963). category provides detailed information on individual Cut nails, introduced in the 1790s, initially had artifact size, condition, or completeness. a machine-cut body with a hand-made head. Not For ceramics, glass, and nails, descriptions until technological advancements around 1815 had presented here comprise formal archaeological clas- produced a totally machine-made version did they sification. Identification and classification of other begin to replace wrought nails as primary construc- classes of artifacts is limited to descriptive overviews tion fasteners (Nelson 1963). Cut nails were the

42 Figure 5.1 Representative sample of prehistoric lithic tools recovered during the current investigation, from left to right, top bottom: 15GN65/4.1:2) St. Louis investigation, from during the current lithic tools recovered sample of prehistoric 5.1 Representative Figure Tool; 15GN61/9.1:1) St. Louis Chert Utilized Tool; 15GN57/5.1:1) Unidentified Chert Uniface 15GN58/2.1:4) Unidentified Chert Scraper Chert Utilized Flake Tool; and 15GN57/14.0:2) St. Louis Chert Utilized 15GN60/3.1:3) St. Louis Chert Utilized Flake Tool; 15GN63/32.1:5) St. Louis Chert Utilized Flake Tool; Flake Tool; Flake Tool.

43 Table 5.4 Historic assemblage by functional group, material, and artifact type. Function Material Object Form Artifact Description Count Weight (g) Glass Window Glass Light Blue Window Glass Fragment 1 1.4 Architecture Cut Nail 2 7.6 Iron Nail Wire Nail 3 15.4 Amber Molded Glass Container Body 1 2.6 Galss Container Light Blue Glass Container Body 1 1.6 Kitchen Light Blue Molded Glass Container Body 1 0.4 Stoneware, Brown Salt Glazed Gray-Bodied Ceramic 2 9.4 Hollowware Body Whiteware, Blue Underglaze Hand Painted 1 2.1 Body Tableware Ceramic Whiteware, Undecorated Body 1 0.5 Whiteware, Undecorated Fragment 1 0.8 Flatware Whiteware, Undecorated Flatware Base 1 4.3 Total 15 46.1

primary nail type produced and utilized in build- Like previously derived formulas (Roenke 1978), ing construction until wire nails became popular Moir’s method applies a regression formula to win- in 1883 (Adams 2002:70). This change occurred dow glass thickness measurements to estimate the because wire nails were much more affordable, and initial construction dates for buildings. The method builders could purchase higher quantities for less has greater accuracy for structures built during the cost than cut nails (Adams 2002:69). nineteenth century than for earlier structures or Wire-drawn nails first were introduced into the those postdating 1915 (Moir 1987:80). Research United States from Europe c. 1850. These early wire demonstrates that Moir’s regression formula is ac- nails were used primarily for box construction and curate to ±7 years in 60 percent of the cases studied were not adapted for use in buildings until the 1870s (Moir 1987:78), provided that the following condi- (Nelson 1963; Adams 2002). Wire nails were not tions are met: sample sizes are reasonable; samples produced in significant quantities until 1883, and are collected from more than one or two points of virtually no structures were built in the United States a site; the length of occupation is less than 60 years; using wire nails prior to this time (Adams 2002:70). and structural additions are sampled separately Although cut nails are still preferred by some build- (Moir 1987). ers today, they were replaced almost universally by wire nails by the turn of the twentieth century Ceramic. Brockington classifies ceramic sherds into (Nelson 1963; Adams 2002). By 1897, 81 percent of three initial groups based on paste and manufactur- nails produced in the United States were wire nails ing technique: earthenware, stoneware, and porce- (Adams 2002:73). lain. Earthenwares, made from naturally occurring clays and fired at low temperatures, are further Flat Glass. Window glass has been shown to be use- subdivided into refined, coarse, and/or utilitarian ful for dating historical structures (e.g., Moir 1987; wares. Stoneware, a high-temperature fired clay, is Roenke 1978). In this investigation, the regression used primarily for utilitarian forms such as jugs, formula developed by Moir (1987), presented below, bottles, crocks, and bowls. However, eighteenth- was used to determine the year of manufacture for century white salt-glazed stonewares were shaped window glass. into dinnerwares and table service pieces. Porcelain, a highly vitrified ware composed of kaolin, silica, Glass Manufacture Date = 84.22 x and feldspar, was manufactured into fine tablewares, (Glass Thickness in mm) + 1712.7 vases, and miscellaneous ornamental pieces.

44 Chronological placement of ceramic artifacts were used, they are not useful for dating glass vessels was achieved primarily through the application of (Jones et al. 1989). A vessel produced with a snap- use-popularity patterns, which reflect times dur- case, as evidenced by the absence of a pontil mark ing which ceramic wares, types, and/or decorative together with the presence of hand tooling marks on designs reached their peak of popularity in the con- the upper part of the vessel, may be securely dated sumer market. Date ranges used in these patterns are after c. 1850 (Jones et al. 1989). established through documentation of merchants’ The last step in bottle production, the forma- and manufacturers’ records (Miller 1980, Worthy tion of the lip, is called the finish. During the 1800s, 1982). Temporal information for eighteenth- bottle lips were finished by various methods, includ- century ceramic types is drawn primarily from the ing cracked-off, burst-off, manipulation techniques work of Noël Hume (1969), based on the exclusive such as fold in and fold out, applied lip techniques, use of certain stylistic variables on distinct wares. and the use of a finishing tool. The finishing method Nineteenth-century ceramic technology is not as chosen for use was dependent on the intended bottle well defined, since changes in paste and glaze were function, closure method, and artisan preference. gradual in order to accommodate shifting trends in Although certain types of finishes are temporally the ceramic market during that time. However, the diagnostic, other types are less useful for dating his- simultaneous use of datable decorative designs on toric assemblages. For example, while the burst-off differing nineteenth-century ware types has helped finish dates from the 1850s to the early twentieth delineate a more concise ceramic chronology for century and finishing tools date from approximately this period. For the nineteenth century, the work of 1820 to 1920, manipulation techniques and applied South (1977) and Lofstrom et al. (1982) provides the lips are generally less temporally diagnostic (Jones et basis for the ceramic chronology. al. 1989). During the late nineteenth century, glass con- Bottle Glass. Brockington uses four basic catego- tainer manufacturing became progressively more ries of diagnostic attributes in the analysis of bottle mechanized, beginning with the development of glass: mold type, empontilling method, finishing semiautomatic machinery around 1880 and culmi- techniques, and color. Technology for mold pro- nating with the introduction of a fully automated duced bottles has existed for centuries. However, not version by Michael Owens in 1903; by the 1920s, his until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when machines had become the primary bottle manufac- hinged metal molds were developed, did mold-blown turing method in North America (Jones et al. 1989). bottles begin to replace free blown bottles (Munsey Lid liners are an indication of the wax seal 1970). Use of these molds did not become com- technology that developed by the mid-nineteenth mon until the early 1800s. At this time, the pace of century. Glass jars were covered with matching glass technological advancements increased dramatically or tin lids and a wax or grease element formed an in many areas of the glass manufacturing industry. airtight seal. John Landis Mason, a New York tin- Development of shoulder and full height molds, new smith, developed a process of pressing zinc lids for empontilling methods, and improved finishing tech- threaded canning jars. By 1868, the first glass inserts niques were primary areas of advancement. were developed by Salmon B. Rowley. They tended There are four common methods of holding bot- to be opaque milk glass. The screw lids with lid liners tles by the base and allowing the craftsman free access decreased the chances of spoilage and facilitated the to finish the bottle lip during the finishing stage of canning process (Munsey 1970:146). These items hand-blown glass. Two of these methods were glass indicate nineteenth-century canning practices, as tipped, using either a solid rod bar or blow pipe. Bar milk glass lid liners were replaced with rubber ones iron empontilling is a quicker process that developed in the early twentieth century. in the mid-1800s. This method was popular until the early 1870s, when it was replaced by the snap-case method as the primary empontilling method (Tou- louse 1968). Although different forms of snap-cases

45 5.2.3 Functional Analysis Related, Architecture, Arms, Clothing, Fishing/ To address questions of site function and intra-site Hunting, Funerary, Furniture, Kitchen, Lighting/ use patterns, historic artifacts were also classified Electrical, Military, Personal, Sewing, Tableware, into functional groups whenever possible. The Tools, and Toys. A seventeenth group, Miscella- historic assemblage includes artifacts classified and neous, was utilized to classify artifacts that could not grouped according to a scheme originally devel- be assigned to a specific functional group. Artifacts oped by Stanley South (1977). South believed that assigned to this group include items with more than his classification scheme would present patterns in one possible function, items with indeterminate historic site artifact assemblages that would provide form, or those lacking clear evidence of human al- cultural insights. Questions of historic site function, teration, such as unmodified natural resources (e.g., the cultural background of a site’s occupants, and re- coal, flora, and fauna). Although many items as- gional behavior patterns were topics to be addressed signed to the Miscellaneous Group likely represent using this system. domestic debris, their fragmentary nature prevented South used nine broad functional groups to char- assignment to a specific functional group. Plant and acterize historic artifact assemblages. These groups animal remains lacking clear evidence for use as are Activities, Architecture, Arms, Bone, Clothing, food or in food production activities (e.g., butcher- Kitchen, Furniture, Personal, and Tobacco. A tenth ing) were also assigned to the Miscellaneous group. group, Miscellaneous, was used for all artifacts that During this investigation, Brockington collected ar- could not be assigned to a specific functional group. tifacts representing the following functional groups: These artifacts include items with more than one Architecture, Kitchen, and Tableware. possible function, items with indeterminate form, or those lacking clear evidence of human alteration, Architecture Group. The Architecture group is such as unmodified natural resources (e.g., coal, comprised of artifacts associated with the built en- flora, and fauna). Although many items assigned to vironment. Not included in this group, however, are the Miscellaneous group likely represent domestic those elements used to enhance the built environ- debris, their fragmentary nature prevented assignment. Artifacts typically assigned to this functional ment to a specific functional group. Plant and animal group include brick, mortar, nails, window glass, remains lacking clear evidence for use as food or in building hardware, cementing agents, and shingles. food production activities (e.g., butchering) were also A total of six Architecture group artifacts were assigned to the Miscellaneous group. recovered during this investigation from three ar- South’s system was widely accepted and adopted chaeological sites (15GN56, 15GN61, and 15GN63). by historical archaeologists, however, some have This sub-assemblage includes glass (n=1) and metal criticized the classification scheme on theoretical (n=5) specimens. Specifically, two cut nails, three and organizational grounds (Orser 1988; Wesler wire nails, and one light blue window glass frag- 1984). One shortcoming of the scheme is that the ment comprise this group. A representative sample organization of artifacts is too simplistic. Swann of artifacts belonging to the Architectural group is (2002) commented that South’s groups provide illustrated in Figure 5.2. insufficient detail. She recommended the use of sub- groups to distinguish between, for example, candle- Kitchen Group. The Kitchen group is comprised of holders used for religious purposes and those used artifacts typically associated with food preparation for general lighting. Despite these criticisms, most and service. Members of this group include ceramic archaeologists recognize the usefulness of South’s food service and storage vessels; glass food contain- classification system as a means of presenting as- ers, serving vessels, and drinking vessels; metal semblage data. implements, cooking vessels, and utensils; and food For this investigation, a modified version of remains such as bones, cobs, nuts, seeds, pits and South’s classification scheme was used to analyze the shells (e.g., oyster shells). A total of five Kitchen group historic assemblage. The modified scheme includes artifacts were recovered during this investigation, all 16 specific functional groups; Agriculture, Animal- from a single archaeological site (15GN61). These ar-

46 Figure 5.2 Representative Architecture, Kitchen, and Tableware group artifacts, from left to right, top to bottom: 15GN61/5.1:2) Wire Nail; 15GN61/8.1:1) left to right, top bottom: 15GN61/5.1:2) Wire artifacts, from group Kitchen, and Tableware Architecture, 5.2 Representative Figure Salt Brown Base; 15GN61/5.1:1) Stoneware, Undecorated Flatware Nail; 15GN61/6.1:1) Whiteware, Light Blue Window Glass Fragment; 15GN56/2.1:1) Wire Hand Painted; 15GN61/6.1:4) Light Blue Molded Glass Container Body; Blue Underglazed Body; Isolate 1/2.1:1) Whiteware, Glazed Gray-Bodied Hollowware 15GN61/6.1:3) Amber Molded Glass Container Body; and 15GN61/6.1 :5) Light Blue Body.

47 tifacts include ceramics (n=2) and glass (n=3) speci- traits and therefore cannot be assigned to a specific mens. Specifically, two salt glazed stoneware body temporal period. The lithic specimens collected from sherds, two light blue molded glass container sherds, this site are manufactured from St Louis a (n=24) and and one amber glass container sherd were recovered. an unidentified chert type (n=7). A representative sample of artifacts belonging to the Finally, three historic nails were recovered from Kitchen group is illustrated in Figure 5.2. Site 15GN56. The nails were identified as wire (n=2) and cut (n=1). Cut nails did not become widely Tableware Group. The Tableware group is comprised available in the United States until the early part of of artifacts typically associated with the facilitation the nineteenth century (c. 1815) and were gener- of food consumption, including cups, cruets, bowls, ally replaced by wire nails in the 1880s. Although saucers, plates, and utensils (e.g., forks, knives, and an extant barn is located within the site boundar- spoons). A total of four Tableware group artifacts ies, the nails were collected from the southernmost were recovered during this investigation from two portion of the site. The recovery of these nails may archaeological sites (15GN57 and 15GN61) and one suggest a separate historic activity area/buildings, isolated find (Isolate 1). This sub-assemblage is com- however, the sample size is not sufficient to accu- prised entirely of whiteware ceramics sherds (n=4). rately infer the nature or age of the historic activities A representative sample of artifacts belonging to the the nails represent. Given the small sample size and Tableware group is illustrated in Figure 5.2. ubiquitous nature of the individual specimens, the 5.2.4 Historic Assemblage Summary temporal estimate for the collected historic artifacts As discussed above, 15 artifacts comprise the his- can only be narrowed to the mid-nineteenth to mid- toric assemblage. As analyzed by material class, twentieth century (1850-1950). the historic assemblage consists of ceramics (n=6), glass (n=4), and metal (n=5) (Table 5.4). The his- 5.3.2 Site 15GN57 toric assemblage is composed of Architecture group Brockington recovered 48 artifacts from Site artifacts (n=6), Kitchen group artifacts (n=5), and 15GN57, including 47 prehistoric lithic specimens Tableware group artifacts (n=4). As a whole, the his- (including three tools) and one historic (Table 5.6). toric assemblage is indicative primarily of domestic The historic artifact is classified as an undecorated refuse discard and architectural debris. In the case whiteware body sherd. The prehistoric lithic artifacts of domestic refuse, these items have not been recov- include one-quarter-inch flakes (n=2), one-quarter- ered from sealed cultural features and are not able to inch flake fragments (n=31), one-quarter-inch pres- be discretely linked to individual structures and/or sure flakes (n=3), a one-quarter-inch thinning flake site occupation phases. (n=1), one-half-inch core reduction flakes (n=2), one-half-inch flake fragments (n=3), a one-inch core deduction flake (n=1), and shatter (n=1). The 5.3 Materials Recovered by Site lithic tool sub-assemblage includes one biface fragment, one uniface, and one utilized flake. Material 5.3.1 Site 15GN56 types included in this assemblage are St. Louis chert Brockington recovered 31 prehistoric and three (n=38) and an unidentifiable chert type (n=9). historic artifacts from Site 15GN56 (Table 5.5). The A relatively high proportion of the debitage prehistoric assemblage consists of flaked stone deb- collected from this site are classified as flake frag- itage (n=30) and a tool (n=1). The debitage sub-as- ments and shatter (n=33 or 70% of the debitage sub- semblage includes one-quarter-inch flake fragments assemblage). The fragmentary nature of these speci- (n=16), one-quarter-inch flakes (n=3), one-half-inch mens makes it difficult to form an assessment of the flake fragments (n=5), one-half-inch flakes (n=3), a prehistoric activities they represent. The remainder one-inch flake (n=1), and two pieces of lithic shatter of the prehistoric assemblage represents all stages of (n=2). The tool collected from this site is a biface tool lithic reduction sequence, from early- to late-stage fragment in the initial stages of production. This bi- tool production (e.g., core reduction flakes, thin- face specimen does not exhibit temporally diagnostic ning flakes, and biface fragment).

48 Table 5.5 Prehistoric and historic artifacts recovered from 15GN56. Component Class Material Class Type Description Size Count Weight (g) 1/4 inch 5 2.9 Unidentified Flake Fragment Debitage 1/2 inch 1 2.5 Chert Shatter 1 27.8 1/4 inch 11 7.6 Flake Fragment 1/2 inch 4 17.6 1 inch 1 11.6 Cortical Core Prehistoric Lithic 1/2 inch 1 3.3 Reduction Debitage St. Louis Chert Non-Cortical 1/4 inch 2 1.9 Flake Bifacial Reduction 1/2 inch 1 1.5 Non-Cortical Core 1/4 inch 1 0.8 Reduction 1/2 inch 1 2.9 Shatter 1 0.9 Tool Biface Fragment 1 17.5 Cut 1 2.3 Historic Architecture Iron Nail Wire 2 12.5 Total 34 113.6

Table 5.6 Prehistoric and historic artifacts recovered from 15GN57. Component Class Material Class Type Description Size Count Weight (g) Flake Fragment 1/4 inch 6 1.6 Debitage Non-cortical Unidentified Flake 1/4 inch 1 0.2 Prehistoric Lithic Thinning Chert Biface Fragment 1 110.3 Tool Uniface 1 33.7 1/4 inch 25 12.5 Flake Fragment 1/2 inch 3 7.7 Cortical Core 1/2 inch 1 5.9 Reduction 1 inch 1 32.1 Non-Cortical 1/4 inch 1 0.2 Debitage Bifacial Reduction St. Louis Chert Flake Non-Cortical Core 1/4 inch 1 0.8 Reduction 1/2 inch 1 2.4 Non-Cortical 1/4 inch 3 0.5 Pressure Flake Shatter 1 3.9 Tool Utilized Flake 1 26.6 Historic Kitchen Ceramic Whiteware Body Undecorated 1 0.5 Total 48 238.9

49 5.3.3 Site 15GN58 difficult to form an assessment of the prehistoric ac- Brockington recovered 18 prehistoric artifacts from tivities represented. The remainder of the prehistoric Site 15GN58, including 16 debitage specimens and assemblage may represent both early and late stages two lithic tools (Table 5.7). The debitage includes of the lithic reduction sequence (e.g., core fragment, one-quarter-inch flake fragments (n=10), a one- core reduction flakes, and bifacial reduction flakes). half-inch flake fragment (n=1), a three-quarter-inch core reduction flake (n=1), and shatter (n=4). The 5.3.5 Site 15GN60 lithic tool sub-assemblage includes one biface and Brockington recovered 22 prehistoric artifacts from one scraper. Material types included in this assem- Site 15GN60, including 21 debitage specimens and blage are St. Louis chert (n=5) and an unidentifiable one utilized flake (Table 5.9). The debitage includes chert type (n=13). a one-quarter-inch core reduction flake (n=1), one- Given the general paucity of the lithic as- quarter-inch flake fragments (n=11), one-half-inch semblage and high proportion of flake fragments flake fragments (n=2), a three-quarter-inch bifacial and shatter (n=15 or 94% of the debitage sub- reduction flake (n=1), a three-quarter-inch flake assemblage), it difficult to form an assessment of the fragment (n=1), and shatter (n=5). The lithic sub- prehistoric activities represented. The remainder of assemblage also includes one utilized flake. Material the prehistoric assemblage may represent both early types included in this assemblage are St. Louis chert and late stages of the lithic reduction sequence (e.g., (n=15) and an unidentifiable chert type (n=7). core reduction flake and biface). Given the paucity of the lithic assemblage and high proportion of flake fragments and shatter 5.3.4 Site 15GN59 (n=19 or 90% of the debitage sub-assemblage), it Brockington recovered 19 prehistoric artifacts from difficult to form an assessment of the prehistoric ac- Site 15GN59, including 18 debitage specimens and tivities represented. The remainder of the prehistoric one core fragment (Table 5.8). The debitage includes assemblage may represent both early and late stages a one-quarter-inch core reduction flake (n=1), one- of the lithic reduction sequence (e.g., core reduction quarter-inch bifacial reduction flakes (n=2), one- flake and bifacial reduction flake). quarter-inch flake fragments (n=4), a one-half-inch flake fragment (n=1), three-quarter-inch flake frag- 5.3.6 Site 15GN61 ments (n=2), a one-inch core reduction flake (n=1), Brockington recovered 25 artifacts from 15GN61, and shatter (n=7). The lithic sub-assemblage also including prehistoric (n=16) and historic (n=9) includes one core fragment. Material types included (Table 5.10) specimens. The debitage includes one- in this assemblage are St. Louis chert (n=2) and an quarter-inch flake fragments (n=7), one-half-inch unidentifiable chert type (n=17). flake fragments (n=2), one-inch flake fragment Given the paucity of the lithic assemblage and (n=1), and shatter (n=4). The tools recovered from high proportion of flake fragments and shatter this site are a biface and a utilized flake. Two lithic (n=14 or 78% of the debitage sub-assemblage), it material types are present in the lithic assemblage:

Table 5.7 Prehistoric artifacts recovered from 15GN58. Material Class Type Description Size Count Weight (g) 1/4 inch 7 3.2 Flake Fragment Unidentified Debitage 1/2 inch 1 3.2 Chert Shatter 4 32.1 Tool Scraper 1 149.4 Flake Fragment 1/4 inch 3 2.1 Debitage St. Louis Chert Flake Cortical Core Reduction 3/4 inch 1 18.5 Tool Biface 1 85.3 Total 18 293.8

50 Table 5.8 Prehistoric artifacts recovered from 15GN59. Material Class Type Description Size Count Weight (g) Core Fragment 1 1.2 1/4 inch 4 1.0 Flake Fragment 1/2 inch 1 1.9 Unidentified Debitage 3/4 inch 2 14.9 Chert Cortical Core Reduction 1/4 inch 1 1.9 Flake Non-Cortical Bifacial Reduction 1/4 inch 1 0.2 Shatter 7 Cortical Core Reduction 1 inch 1 17.8 St. Louis Chert Debitage Flake Non-Cortical Bifacial Reduction 1/4 inch 1 0.3 Total 19 39.2

Table 5.9 Prehistoric artifacts recovered from 15GN60.

Material Class Type Description Size Count Weight (g) 1/4 inch 1 1.3 Unidentified Flake Fragment 1/2 inch 1 4.8 Debitage Chert 3/4 inch 1 6.0 Shatter 4 76.1 1/4 inch 10 7.8 Flake Fragment 1/2 inch 1 1.9 Debitage Cortical Core Reduction 1/4 inch 1 0.7 St. Louis Chert Flake Non-Cortical Bifacial Reduction 3/4 inch 1 7.6 Shatter 1 2.3 Tool Utilized Flake 1 7.7 Total 22 116.2

St. Louis (n=10) and an unidentifiable chert type nail and one light blue window glass sherd. As the (n=6). Given the general paucity of the lithic assem- only window glass specimen collected during this blage and its fragmentary nature (flake fragments investigation, an accurate assessment of construc- and shatter), it difficult to form an assessment of the tion dates (based on Moir 1987) cannot be estimat- prehistoric activities represented. ed. Ceramic sherds recovered from 15GN61 include A total of nine artifacts comprise the recovered salt glazed stoneware (n=2) and undecorated white- historic assemblage recovered from 15GN61 and ware (n=2). The glass container sub-assemblage re- are suggestive of domestic refuse discard and ar- covered from 15GN61 consists of amber (n=1) and chitectural debris. The recovered historic artifacts light blue (n=2) specimens. Given the small size and represent the Kitchen (n=5), Tableware (n=2), and ubiquitous nature of the individual specimens, the Architecture (n=2) functional groups. Together, temporal estimate for the collected historic artifacts the Tableware and Kitchen groups are represented can only be narrowed to the mid-nineteenth to mid- by ceramic (n=4) and glass (n=3) artifacts related twentieth century (1850-1950). to food preparation, storage, and service. Artifacts assigned to the Architecture group include one wire

51 Table 5.10 Prehistoric and historic artifacts recovered from 15GN61. Component Class Material Class Type Description Size Count Weight (g) 1/4 inch 2 1.9 Unidentified Flake Fragment Debitage 1/2 inch 2 6.1 Chert Shatter 2 50.2 1/4 inch 5 3.7 Prehistoric Lithic Flake Fragment Debitage 1 inch 1 35.4 St. Louis Chert Shatter 2 91.6 Biface 1 91.5 Tool Utilized Flake fragment 1 44.3 Iron Nail Wire 1 2.9 Architecture Glass Light Blue Window fragment 1 1.4 Brown Salt Stoneware Sherd 2 9.4 Glazed Historic Ceramic Base 1 4.3 Kitchen Whiteware Undecorated fragment 1 0.8 Amber 1 2.6 Glass Container Fragment Light blue 2 2.0 Total 25 348.1

5.3.7 Site 15GN62 itage (n=195), lithic cores or core fragments (n=6), Brockington recovered 15 prehistoric artifacts from a utilized flake (n=1), and a tested cobble (n=1). Site 15GN62, including 14 debitage specimens As analyzed by material type, the prehistoric as- and one core fragment (Table 5.11). The debitage semblage is composed of St. Louis (n=176 or 86.5% includes a one-quarter-inch core reduction flake of the prehistoric assemblage) and an unidentified (n=1), a one-quarter-inch bifacial reduction flake chert type (n=26 or 13.5%). (n=1), one-quarter-inch flake fragments (n=10), The debitage sub-assemblage consists of flake a one-half-inch bifacial reduction flake (n=1), and fragments (n=144), bifacial reduction flakes (n=5), shatter (n=1). The lithic sub-assemblage also in- core reduction flakes (n=11), pressure flakes (n=2), cludes one core fragment. Material types included and shatter (n=32). All debitage except shatter was in this assemblage are St. Louis chert (n=10) and an size-graded, leaving 162 specimens analyzed in this unidentifiable chert type (n=5). manner. We identified three-quarter-inch (n=2), Given the paucity of the lithic assemblage and one-half-inch (n=9), and one-quarter-inch (n=151) high proportion of flake fragments and shatter debitage specimens within this assemblage. One (n=11 or 78.5% of the debitage sub-assemblage), it lithic core, five lithic core fragments, and one uti- difficult to form an assessment of the prehistoric ac- lized flake were also recovered from this site. All of tivities represented. The remainder of the prehistoric these specimens are manufactured from St. Louis assemblage may represent both early and late stages chert. Brockington did not recover any prehistoric of the lithic reduction sequence (e.g., core reduction diagnostic materials from this site. flake and bifacial reduction flakes). Given the overall fragmentary nature of the debitage specimens (flake fragments and shatter 5.3.8 Site 15GN63 [n=176 or 96% of the debitage sub-assemblage]), Brockington recovered 203 artifacts from Site little can be said of the prehistoric activities repre- 15GN63, 202 of which are prehistoric specimens sented. However, the remaining debitage specimens (Table 5.12). One historic artifact, a cut nail, was also and core/core fragments suggest both early and late- recovered from this site. The prehistoric assemblage stage lithic production activities. consists of flaked stone artifacts in the form of deb-

52 Table 5.11 Prehistoric artifacts recovered from 15GN62. Material Class Type Description Size Count Weight (g) Unidentified Flake Fragment 1/4 inch 4 0.8 Debitage Chert Shatter 1 7.7 Core Fragment 1 12.9 Flake Fragment 1/4 inch 5 1.7 1/4 inch 1 1.2 St. Louis Chert Debitage Cortical Bifacial Reduction 1/2 inch 1 3.3 Flake Fragment Cortical Core Reduction 1/4 inch 1 0.8 Cortical Pressure Flake 1/4 inch 1 0.1 Total 15 28.5

Table 5.12 Prehistoric and historic artifacts recovered from 15GN63. Component Class Material Class Type Description Size Count Weight (g) 1/4 inch 23 13.4 Flake Fragment 1/2 inch 1 4.2 Unidentified Debitage Chert 3/4 inch 1 6.1 Non-Cortical Flake 1/4 inch 1 0.2 Core Reduction Core 1 84.4 Core Fragment 5 150.6 1/4 inch 113 41.9 Flake Fragment 1/2 inch 5 19.4 3/4 inch 1 12.6 Cortical Bifacial 1/4 inch 2 0.8 Prehistoric Lithic Reduction Cortical Core 1/4 inch 4 2.5 Debitage Reduction 1/2 inch 3 14.9 St. Louis Chert Non-Cortical Flake Bifacial 1/4 inch 3 0.4 Reduction Non-Cortical 1/4 inch 3 2.3 Core Reduction Non-Cortical 1/4 inch 2 0.2 Pressure Shatter 32 200.9 Cobble Tested 1 83.5 Tool Utilized Flake 1 18.0 Historic Architecture Iron Nail cut 1 5.3 Total 203 661.5

5.3.9 Site 15GN64 flakes (n=2), one-half-inch flake fragments (n=2), Brockington recovered 24 artifacts from 15GN64, all and shatter (n=9). Additionally, a core fragment was of which are prehistoric (Table 5.13). This assemblage also recovered from this site. As analyzed by material includes debitage specimens identified as one-quar- type, the prehistoric assemblage is composed of St. ter-inch pressure flake (n=1), one-quarter-inch flake Louis (n=17 or 71% of the prehistoric assemblage) fragments (n=9), one-quarter-inch core reduction and an unidentified chert type (n=7 or 29%).

53 Table 5.13 Prehistoric artifacts recovered from 15GN64. Material Class Type Description Size Count Weight (g) Flake Fragment 1/4 inch 2 0.5 Unidentified Debitage Flake Cortical Core Reduction 1/4 inch 1 1.0 Chert Shatter 4 25.5 Core Fragment 1 35.2 1/4 inch 7 5.0 Flake Fragment 1/2 inch 2 4.6 Non-Cortical Core St. Louis Chert Debitage 1/4 inch 1 0.2 Reduction Flake Non-Cortical Pressure 1/4 inch 1 0.2 Flake Shatter 5 17.6 Total 24 89.8

Given the fragmentary nature of the debitage 5.3.11 Isolated Finds specimens (flake fragments and shatter [n=20 or Brockington documented three isolated during this 87% of the debitage sub-assemblage]), little can be investigation. From these isolated loci, four artifacts said of the prehistoric activities represented. How- were recovered, including prehistoric (n=3) and his- ever, the remaining debitage specimens and core toric (n=1) materials. A summary of the materials fragments suggest both early and late-stage lithic recovered from these isolated finds is provided in production activities. Table 5.15.

5.3.10 Site 15GN65 Brockington recovered 26 artifacts from 15GN65, 5.4 Curation all of which are prehistoric lithics (Table 5.14). This Curation of the recovered archaeological materials assemblage includes debitage specimens (n=23), and the records generated (paper and digital) dur- a core fragment (n=1), a cobble hammerstone ing this investigation has been negotiated with Ms. (n=1), and a utilized flake (n=1). The debitage Nancy O’Malley of the William S. Webb Museum sub-assemblage includes a one-quarter-inch core at the University of Kentucky. However, as this reduction flake (n=1), one-quarter-inch bifacial investigation was carried out within private proper- reduction flakes (n=2), one-quarter-inch flake frag- ties, landowners have been contacted to determine ments (n=11), one-half-inch flake fragments (n=2), if they wish to retain the archaeological materials a three-quarter-inch bifacial reduction flake (n=1), recovered from their properties. Artifacts that are and shatter (n=6). As analyzed by material type, not claimed will be curated at the above-mentioned the prehistoric assemblage is composed of St. Louis facility. Curation of all project materials, data, and (n=19 or 73% of the prehistoric assemblage) and an artifacts will occur at their facilities in Lexington, unidentified chert type (n=7 or 27%). Kentucky. Artifacts will be cataloged according to Given the fragmentary nature of the debitage standards developed by the William S. Webb Mu- specimens (flake fragments and shatter [n=19 or seum. Data will be stored in a manner consistent 83 percent of the debitage sub-assemblage]), little with standards described in 36 CFR 79. can be said of the prehistoric activities represented. However, the remaining debitage specimens and core fragments suggest both early and late-stage lithic production activities.

54 Table 5.14 Prehistoric artifacts recovered from 15GN65. Material Class Type Description Size Count Weight Flake Fragment 1/4 inch 6 3.3 Unidentified Chert Debitage Shatter 1 28.6 Core Fragment 1 38.7 1/4 inch 5 4.8 Flake Fragment 1/2 inch 2 7.1 1/4 inch 1 0.3 Debitage Cortical Bifacial Reduction 3/4 inch 1 7.9 St. Louis Chert Flake Cortical Core Reduction 1/4 inch 1 1.2 Non-Cortical Bifacial Reduction 1/4 inch 1 0.1 Shatter 5 51.9 Cobble Hammerstone 1 177.3 Tool Utilized Flake 1 11.5 Total 26 332.7

Table 5.15 Artifacts recovered from Isolated Finds 1, 2, and 3. Isolate Description Count Weight (g) 1 Whiteware, Blue Underglaze Hand Painted Body 1 2.1 2 St. Louis Chert Non-Cortical Bifacial Reduction 1/4 inch Flake 1 0.2 3 Unidentified Chert 1/4 inch Flake Fragment 2 0.4

55 56 6.0 Phase I Survey Findings In April 2017, Palmer of Winchester, Kentucky contracted Brockington of Elizabethtown, Kentucky to conduct an intensive archaeological Phase I survey for the proposed realignment of US 68 between T. Davis Drive and Clover Creek Road, Green County, Kentucky (KYTC Item No. 4-397.10). The APE, as defined for this investigation, encompasses approximately 67.22 acres (27.20 hectares) and includes the proposed disturb limits for the realignment of an approximate 3.79-km (2.36 mile) section of US 68, as well as the proposed reconstruction of approach roads (totaling 3.10 km [1.9 miles] in length). The boundary of the archaeological Phase I survey APE is based on the proposed disturb limits of the final preferred alternate (Figure 6.1).

6.1 Research Themes, Questions, and Datasets Decisions concerning the significance, historic integrity, documentation, and treatment of historic properties can be made reliable only when the resource is evaluated within its historic context (Savage and Pope 1998). General research themes used to contribute to our knowledge of the past include cultural chronology, technology, settlement, subsistence, and site patterning. To promote consistency for projects in central Kentucky, Brockington adopted research themes, questions, and datasets developed by Pollack (2008). These research datasets derive from several middle-range theoretical and methodological studies conducted in Kentucky during the 1980s (and later refined and expanded over the past 20 years), and include artifact studies, chronological studies, pattern recognition studies, status studies, zooar- chaeological studies, and thematic site type studies. To further expand upon the general research themes outlined by Pollack (2008), Brockington has adopted and further expanded specific research questions developed and applied by Parsons, Inc. (Bupp et al. 2005:3-1 through 3-6) during their 2005 archaeological investigations at the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant in nearby Clark County, Indiana. These evaluation criteria for prehistoric and historic period sites are duplicated in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 (Bupp et al. 2005: Tables 3.1 and 3.2).

57 Figure 6.1 Area of Potential Effects (APE), as illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie, KY 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle.

58 Table 6.1 Prehistoric Research Themes, Questions, and Datasets. Theme Research Question Dataset Does the variability in projectile point styles Information needed to assess chronology includes reflect functional differences or chronological securely dated feature contexts or stratigraphic Chronology differences? contexts (with datable organic materials) with What types of projectile point types are associated projectile point types and ceramic consistently associated with ceramic types? types. Information needed to assess lithic procurement strategies and production technologies includes identification of local and non-local material What types of lithic material procurement types, distances to specific lithic source locations, strategies were used? presence or absence of cortex, type of flaking debris and cores and comparison of tool types with material types (e.g., curated tools of non-local materials or expedient tools of local cobbles). Lithic Were different types of lithic reduction used Technology based on raw material type (i.e. quarried material vs. cobble collection)? What types of tool kits were manufactured and Information needed to assess functionally discrete used during the site occupations? tool kits includes discrete tool types and tool kits Was lithic material selected based on tool type from different types of sites with single components. produced? Are functional distinct tool kits associated with different types of sites? Information needed to assess ceramic technology includes adequate samples of ceramic types What manufacturing variability occurs within containing information on temper, inclusions, ceramic types? manufacture (technique [modeling or coil], thickness, firing), surface treatments (both interior and exterior), and decoration. Ceramic What variability occurs in surface treatment Technology within ceramic types and does it reflect manufacture or social identifiers? Information needed to assess cordage variability includes adequate samples of ceramic types Does the variability of cordage twist within exhibiting cord marks or net impressions to and between ceramic types demonstrate examine cordage twist and net construction. ethnic group affiliations or regional interaction patterns? Information needed to assess household settlement Household Settlement Patterns- What types of patterns includes intact subsurface features with house forms exist? associated living floors. What kinds of variability may be expected in house forms? Intrasite Information needed to assess community Community Settlement Patterns- What types Patterning settlement patterns includes groups of associated of features are interrelated in consistent features such as intact living floors, postholes, patterning that may represent household thermally altered stone concentrations, and clusters? discrete activity areas. How are household clusters associated and patterned within the community? Information needed to assess regional settlement What types of sites occur on the landscape Settlement patterns includes site and resource location and what environmental zones are they Systems information; floral and/or faunal remains that are associated? seasonally discrete. Information needed to assess subsistence Subsistence What types of subsistence information can be practices includes preserved floral and faunal Systems derived from flotation data? remains and food processing tool kits.

59 Table 6.2 Historic Research Themes, Questions, and Datasets. Theme Research Question Dataset Does the variability in ceramic types reflect functional differences or chronological Information needed to assess chronology includes securely dated feature contexts or stratigraphic Chronology differences? contexts associated with datable ceramics types, Was the site occupied during the protohistoric glassware, and diagnostic artifacts. period by Native Americans? Data include securely dated feature contexts or stratigraphic contexts associated with food What did the occupants eat? How did they remains, domestic trash, and privy fill, and pattern make a living? analysis of the assemblage of artifacts; and spatial analysis of the artifact and feature distributions. Data includes evidence of manufacturing on site from datable features or contexts such as forges, Was the site producing any products for use workshops, and activity areas, with assemblages or sale? including tools, raw materials, finished products, refuse, and/or wasters from manufacturing activities. Trade evidence can be in the form of ceramic, glass, Did the occupants participate in local, regional, tools, or other artifact classes that are identifiable or extra-regional trade? Domestic to country/region of origin. Economy Consumer choice and social category are Do preferences for types of material culture addressed with a large assemblage of data, reflect consumer choice (a conditioned pattern including artifacts, often of ceramic and glass that of artifacts present?) are identifiable by artifact, type, cost, and origin. What markers of social groups including ethnicity, socio-economic class, religious group, race, gender, or other subculture are Large data sets of a range of artifact types and present? features such as ceramics, glass, personal items, Is there documentary evidence for slavery? storage pits, refuse disposal areas, structures, and If so, in which economic activities did they other features that may indicate membership in a participate? Is there archaeological evidence specific social identity. for slavery? What distinguishes slave vs. non- slave activity areas and artifact assemblages? Did the occupants participate in agriculture or raise stock? Do their techniques and structures reflect type of agricultural practices used? Were standard methods used or were novel, Data include reconstruction of cropping strategies, soil enrichment methods (soil chemical analysis) Agricultural unusual, or innovative methods employed? vegetation (paleobotanical data) and architectural Practices Are the practices affected by income, class, ethnicity, origin, or religion of the occupants? patterning and spatial analysis of buildings, features, and artifacts. Is there evidence for farming/agrarian life adaptations made in this marginal environment (Knobs Region)? Does the architecture present reflect the Architectural features providing data on form, Vernacular presence of master crafting and formal design use, construction methods, materials, layout, and Architecture or utilitarian functionality and local vernacular, function of structures. or a combination? Data includes evidence of manufacturing at the site in quantities beyond that needed for household Did occupants produce, distribute, or sell consumption from datable features or contexts Industrial goods, materials, or services for use beyond such as forges, workshops, and activity areas, Economy the household? Were they active in acquiring with assemblages including tools, raw materials, raw materials for manufacturing? finished products, refuse, and/or wasters from manufacturing activities.

60 Table 6.2 Historic Research Themes, Questions, and Datasets (continued).

Theme Research Question Dataset Data include spatial information on modification of How was the landscape altered or manipulated the physical environment of a site, reconstruction Landscape to demonstrate mastery over economic, of vegetation (paleobotanical data), map data and political, social, or natural circumstances? GIS- analysis of spatial patterning of features. Information on the initial post-contact settlement How did Euro-American and historical Native- Regional of the site, including temporally sensitive American settlement of the site, locality and Settlement assemblages of diagnostic artifacts and features region proceed? from a range of sites across the region. How does the household reflect the social and cultural mores and practices of the time period Large data sets of a range of artifact types and in the area, region, state, and country? features such as ceramics, glass, personal items, Social storage pits, refuse disposal areas, structures, and History Does slavery occur within the project area? If so, what types of archaeological and/or other features that may indicate membership in a documentary evidence is present? What can specific social identity. be determined regarding the lifeways of slaves?

6.2 Phase I Results and Recommendations Brockington encountered 10 previously undocumented archaeological sites (15GN56 through 15GN65) and three isolated find loci (Isolates 1-3) within the study area. The following sections present site descriptions and NRHP assessments for these cultural resources, organized sequentially based on assigned trinomial. Figure 6.2 illustrates the location of sites 15GN56 through 15GN65 and Isolates 1-3 within the APE, and Table 6.3 presents basic information about each site and isolated find.

61 Table 6.3 Summary of Survey Results. NRHP Eligibility Gross Survey Area Trinomial Field Site Number Easting* Northing* Recommendation Component (within APE) Archaeological Sites by Trinomial Prehistoric and 15GN56 5004-001 Not Eligible Historic Prehistoric and 15GN57 5004-002 & 5004-003 Not Eligible Historic Isolate 15GN58 5004-004 Prehistoric Not Eligible 15GN59 5004-005 Prehistoric Not Eligible 15GN60 5004-006 Prehistoric Not Eligible Prehistoric and 15GN61 5004-007 Not Eligible Historic 15GN62 5004-008 Prehistoric Not Eligible Prehistoric and 15GN63 5004-009 & 5004-010 Not Eligible Historic Isolate 15GN64 5004-011 Prehistoric Not Eligible 15GN65 5004-012 Prehistoric Not Eligible Isolated Finds by Survey Area (north to south) n/a Isolate 1 Historic Not Eligible n/a Isolate 2 Prehistoric Not Eligible n/a Isolate 3 Prehistoric Not Eligible * Site datum coordinates presented in Universal Transverse Mercator, North American Datum 1927, Zone 17 North

62 Figure 6.2 The location of newly recorded archaeological sites and isolated finds illustrated on the 1987 USGS Exie , KY topographic quadrangle. archaeological 6.2 The location of newly recorded Figure

63 64 6.2.1 Site 15GN56 fields. Surface visibility across the fallow fields was Locational Data poor (less than 10 percent) and good (greater than 50 County: Green percent) across the plowed fields. The site measures USGS Quad: Exie, KY (1987) 115-by-110 meters (oriented to true north), cover- Area: E ing 4,684 square meters. The landform, the edge of Elevation: 785-805 ft NAVD 88 the APE, and two consecutive negative shovel tests UTM Coordinates: Z16 (NAD27) (at 10 meter intervals) define the site boundaries. Figure 6.3 provides a plan of 15GN56. Figures 6.4 General Site Data and 6.5 presents views of 15GN56. Field Site Number: 5004-001 An extant barn (greater than 50 years old but not Gross Temporal Affiliation: Prehistoric recorded as a historic resource by Goddard 2016) is Prehistoric Temporal Range: Unspecified in the north-central portion of the site (Figure 6.3). Prehistoric Site Type: Open Habitation without Both the 1953 and 1961 iterations of the USGS Exie, Mounds KY quadrangle illustrate this building (Figure 6.6). Historic Temporal Range: Mid-Nineteenth Century As discussed below, although historic artifacts were to Mid-Twentieth Century recovered from this site (nails), they were recovered Historic Site Type: Architectural Refuse Scatter from an area located approximately 60 meters south- NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible (within APE) west of the extant barn. No historic archaeological Site Area: 4,684 m2 deposits directly associated with this building were Site Depth: 0-26 cmbs encountered during this investigation. Investigators excavated 50 shovel tests in and Environmental Data around 15GN56; 16 of these shovel tests produced Topography: Ridgetop artifacts. One of these shovel tests also produced Distance to Water: 900 meters artifacts from the ground surface. Artifacts were Direction to Water: Northeast recovered from an average depth of 0-26 cmbs. Past Land Use: Agriculture Approximately 0.491 square meter were excavated Current Land Use: Agriculture, Fallow at 15GN56. A typical soil profile encountered at Vegetation: Fallow field, grassy; plowed field 15GN56 consists of approximately 26 cm of brown Soil Type: Frederick silt loam, 6-12% slopes (7.5YR 5/4) silt loam underlain by red (2.5YR 4/6) Ground Surface Visibility: 26-50% silty clay subsoil with dense gravel. These soils are Disturbances: Agriculture; percent unknown typical for Frederick silt loam, which are the mapped USDA soil types in the surrounding area. Most soils Results Data encountered within the general area are relatively Features Identified: None shallow, which is likely a result of past land-clearing Materials Recovered: Prehistoric (n=31) and activities and subsequent erosion. Soils in the south- Historic (n=2) western portion of the site across the fallow field extended approximately 10 cm deeper than those Site 15GN56 is a multi-component, surface/subsur- across the rest of the site. Figure 6.7 presents a rep- face scatter of temporally unspecified prehistoric resentative soil profile for 15GN56. lithic artifacts and nineteenth/twentieth century his- Brockington recovered 34 artifacts from toric artifacts located in Area E in the northern por- 15GN56, including three historic artifacts and tion of the APE (Figure 6.2). Site 15GN56 extends 31 prehistoric artifacts (see Table 5.5). The three across the eastern face of a ridgetop that overlooks historic artifacts include one cut nail and two wire the headwaters of multiple intermittent tributaries nails. Investigators recovered all three of these arti- of Russell Creek to the east. Site 15GN56 extends facts from shovel tests excavated in the fallow field across two different fallow fields and two different in the southwestern portion of the site. No historic plowed fields and is bisected by a gravel farm road artifacts were encountered near the extant barn lo- and row of trees marking the boundary between cated within the site boundaries. Although the

65 1953 USGS Exie, KY quadrangle does not show any of 15GN56 identified within the APE is recommend- buildings in the southwest portion of the 15GN56, ed not eligible for listing on the NRHP. No additional aerial imagery from as recent as March 2014 (cour- archaeological documentation is recommended for tesy GoogleEarth’s historic aerial imagery timeline) this site. However, if the plans for this project are shows a barn approximately 50 meters west of the altered to include areas beyond the current APE, APE. This barn was not observed by investigators Brockington recommends additional investigation during the Phase I survey, suggesting it had recently of this site to fully delimit the site’s boundaries (as been razed (between 2014 and 2017). The historic they relate to a revised project APE), assess integrity, artifacts recovered from 15GN56 may be associated and refine NRHP recommendations. with activities in and around the former barn. Given the small sample size and ubiquitous nature of the individual specimens, the temporal estimate for the collected historic artifacts can only be narrowed to the mid-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century (1850-1950). The 31 prehistoric artifacts consist of flaked stone materials, including one tool and 30 pieces of debitage (see Table 5.5). None of these artifacts are temporally diagnostic. Two lithic material types are represented, including unidentified chert type (n=7) and St. Louis chert (n=24). The tool is a St. Louis chert hafted biface fragment (Figure 5.1). Flaked stone debitage includes six flakes, 22 flake fragments, and two pieces of shatter. Flakes and flake fragments include three different size grades: one-quarter inch (n=19), one-half inch (n=8), and one inch (n=1). The prehistoric component at 15GN56 likely represents an open habitation without mounds associated with lithic resource manufacturing (and possibly extraction). Based on artifact recovery and amount of soil excavated, Brockington estimates that this component contains 0.007 artifacts per square meter. Due to the low frequency and fragmentary nature of the prehistoric assemblage, little else can be said of prehistoric activities carried out at this site. Site 15GN56 is a multi-component scatter of temporally unspecified prehistoric lithic artifacts and nineteenth/twentieth century (1850-1950) Archi- tecture Group artifacts. No archaeological features/ deposits were encountered at this site, and given the shallow (and thus likely eroded) nature of soils within the site, it is unlikely that intact deposits are present. As such, this archaeological deposit does not have the potential to contain significant information related to regional historic or prehistoric occupation/ utilization, nor does it have the potential to inform our understanding of relevant regional research questions (Tables 6.1 and 6.2). Therefore, the portion

66 Figure 6.3 Plan of 15GN56 (Shovel tests labeled with corresponding provenience numbers).

67 Figure 6.4 View of 15GN56, northcentral portion of site facing northeast (barn in background).

Figure 6.5 View of 15GN56, southern portion facing southwest.

68 Figure 6.6 Site 15GN56, as illustrated on the 1953 USGS Exie, KY topographic quadrangle.

69 Figure 6.7 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN56.

70 6.2.2 Site 15GN57 Creek or Russell Creek. Investigators observed three Locational Data distinct vegetative zones across 15GN57, including County: Green grassy lawns, private garden plots, and plowed field. USGS Quad: Exie, KY (1987) While there is no surface visibility across the lawn, Area: A surface visibility encountered in the garden and Elevation: 830-840 ft NAVD 88 plowed field areas was greater than 50 percent. To- UTM Coordinates: Z16 (NAD27) gether, US 68, the eastern edge of the APE, and two consecutive negative shovel tests (at 10 meter inter- General Site Data vals) define the site boundaries. The site measures Field Site Number: 5004-002 & 5004-003 approximately 170-by-200 meters (oriented to true Gross Temporal Affiliation: Prehistoric north), covering 10,806 square meters (2.67 acres). Prehistoric Temporal Range: Unspecified The reaa encompassing 15GN57 is heavily de- Prehistoric Site Type: Open Habitation without veloped, containing at least eight extant buildings Mounds that are part of two distinct residential yards. One Historic Temporal Range: Unspecified of the buildings (located at 5027 Edmonton Road) Historic Site Type: Isolated Find is a Minimal Traditionalist house that Goddard NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible (within APE) (2016:V68, Site 15) documented as KHC Site GN Site Area: 10,806 m2 190. While the 1961 USGS Exie, KY quadrangle il- Site Depth: 0-26 cmbs lustrates this building, the earlier 1953 iteration does not (Figure 6.11). No archaeological deposits asso- Environmental Data ciated with this building were encountered during Topography: Toe slope this investigation. Of note, there is a second building Distance to Water: 480 meters illustrated on the 1961 USGS Exie, KY quadrangle, Direction to Water: Southwest located across US 68 from site 15GN57 (Figure Past Land Use: Unknown 6.11). Investigators did not observe this building Current Land Use: Residential Yard, garden plots, during the Phase I survey (which is assumed demol- and agricultural field ished) and no associated archaeological materials Vegetation: Manicured lawn and crops were encountered. Soil Type: Frederick silt loam, 6-12% and 12-20% Investigators excavated 66 shovel tests in and slopes; Mountview silt loam, 2-6% slopes around 15GN57; 24 of these shovel tests produced Ground Surface Visibility: 0-10% artifacts. Artifacts were recovered from an average Disturbances: residential development, agriculture; depth of 0-26 cmbs. A typical soil profile encoun- percent unknown tered at 15GN57 consists of approximately 18 cm of brown (10YR 5/3) silt loam and 18-26 cm of Results Data yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) silt loam, underlain Features Identified: None by strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) silty clay subsoil with Materials Recovered: Prehistoric (n=47); dense gravel. These soils are typical for Frederick silt Historic (n=1) loam and Mountview silt loam, which are the most prevalent mapped USDA soil types in the surround- Site 15GN57 is a temporally unspecified subsurface ing area. Figure 6.12 presents a representative soil scatter of prehistoric lithic artifacts and a historic profile for 15GN57. isolated find located in Area A in the southern por- Brockington recovered 48 artifacts from tion of the APE (Figure 6.2). Figure 6.8 provides a 15GN57, 47 prehistoric and one historic one undec- plan of 15GN57. Figures 6.9 and 6.10 present views orated whiteware body sherd (see Table 5.6). These of 15GN57. Site 15GN57 extends across the western include three tools and 44 pieces of debitage. None and southern side of a broad ridge that overlooks the of the prehistoric tools are temporally diagnostic. headwaters of several intermittent streams in all di- Two lithic material types are represented, including rections, which are tributaries of either Little Russell an unidentified chert type (n=9) and St. Louis chert

71 (n=38). The tools include one unidentified chert biface fragment, one unidentified chert uniface, and one St. Louis chert utilized flake. Flaked stone debitage includes nine flakes, 34 flake fragments, and one piece of shatter. Flakes and flake fragments include three different size grades: one-quarter inch (n=37), one-half inch (n=5), and one inch (n=1). The prehistoric component at 15GN57 likely represents an open habitation without mounds associated with lithic resource manufacturing (and possibly extraction). The wide range of lithic debitage size grades and presence of tools as well as cortical and non-cortical and bifacial and core reduction flakes indicates a full spectrum of lithic reduction activities even for such a small assemblage. Based on artifact recovery and amount of soil excavated, Brockington estimates that this site contains 0.005 artifacts per square meter. Due to the overall low frequency and fragmentary nature of the prehistoric assemblage, little else can be said of prehistoric activities carried out at this site. The archaeological deposit documented as 15GN57 represents low frequency activity loci representing prehistoric lithic reduction activities of unknown type and a temporally unspecified historic isolated find. No archaeological features/deposits were encountered at this site, and given the shallow (and thus likely disturbed/eroded) nature of soils within the site, it is unlikely that intact deposits are present. As such, this archaeological deposit does not have the potential to contain significant information related to regional prehistoric or historic occupation/ utilization, nor does it have the potential to inform our understanding of relevant regional research questions (Tables 6.1 and 6.2). Therefore, the portion of 15GN57 identified in the APE is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP. No additional archaeological documentation is recommended for this site. However, if the plans for this project are altered to include areas beyond the current APE, Brocking- ton recommends additional investigation of this site to fully delimit the site’s boundaries (as they relate to a revised project APE), assess integrity, and refine NRHP recommendations.

72 Figure 6.8 Plan of Site 15GN57 (Shovel tests labeled with corresponding provenience numbers). provenience 6.8 Plan of Site 15GN57 (Shovel tests labeled with corresponding Figure

73 Figure 6.9 View of 15GN57, eastern portion of site facing northwest showing buildings in background.

Figure 6.10 View of 15GN57, investigators delineating site near house facing south.

74 Figure 6.11 Site 15GN57, as illustrated on the 1961 USGS Exie, KY topographic quadrangle.

75 Figure 6.12 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN57.

76 6.2.3 Site 15GN58 Investigators excavated 24 shovel tests in and Locational Data around 15GN58; seven of these shovel tests pro- County: Green duced artifacts. Artifacts were recovered from an USGS Quad: Exie, KY (1987) average depth of 0-18 cmbs. Approximately 0.126 Area: D square meter was excavated at 15GN58. A typical Elevation: 775-795 ft NAVD 88 soil profile encountered at 15GN58 consists of ap- UTM Coordinates: Z16 (NAD27) proximately 18 cm of brown (7.5YR 5/4) silt loam underlain by red (2.5YR 4/6) silty clay subsoil with General Site Data dense gravel. These soils are typical for Frederick silt Field Site Number: 5004-004 loam, which are the mapped USDA soil types in the Gross Temporal Affiliation: Prehistoric surrounding area. Most soils encountered within the Prehistoric Temporal Range: Unspecified general area are relatively shallow, which is likely a Prehistoric Site Type: Open Habitation without result of past land-clearing activities and subsequent Mounds erosion. Figure 6.16 presents a representative soil NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible (within APE) profile for 15GN58. Site Area: 1,248 m2 Brockington recovered 18 prehistoric artifacts Site Depth: 0-18 cmbs from 15GN58, all of which consists of flaked stone materials (see Table 5.7). These include two tools Environmental Data and 16 pieces of debitage. None of these prehistoric Topography: Ridgetop artifacts are temporally diagnostic. Two lithic mate- Distance to Water: 1.2 km rial types are represented, including an unidentified Direction to Water: Northeast chert type (n=13) and St. Louis chert (n=5). The Past Land Use: Agriculture tools include an unidentified chert scraper and a St. Current Land Use: Agriculture Louis chert hafted biface. Flaked stone debitage in- Vegetation: Fallow field, grassy cludes one flake, 11 flake fragments, and four pieces Soil Type: Frederick silt loam, 6-12% slopes of shatter. Flakes and flake fragments include three Ground Surface Visibility: 0-10% different size grades: one-quarter inch (n=10), one- Disturbances: Agriculture; percent unknown half inch (n=1), and three-quarter inch (n=1). The rehistoricp component at 15GN58 likely Results Data represents an open habitation without mounds as- Features Identified: None sociated with lithic resource manufacturing (and Materials Recovered: Prehistoric (n=18) possibly extraction). The presence of only one cortical core reduction flake suggests limited lithic reduc- Site 15GN58 is a temporally unspecified subsurface tion activities occurred at the site. Based on artifact scatter of prehistoric lithic artifacts located in Area recovery and amount of soil excavated, Brockington D in the north-central portion of the APE (Figure estimates that this site contains 0.014 artifacts per 6.2). Site 15GN58 is located 110 meters to the south- square meter. Due to the low frequency and frag- southeast (Figure 6.13). Figures 6.14 and 6.15 present mentary nature of the prehistoric assemblage, little views of 15GN58. Site 15GN58 extends across the else can be said of prehistoric activities carried out at southern face of a ridgetop that overlooks a tributary this site. of Russell Creek to the southwest. Site 15GN58 is in a The archaeological deposit documented as fallow field covered in dense grasses that completely 15GN58 represents a low-frequency, non-diagnostic obscure the ground surface. The site measures 30-by- activity locus representing prehistoric lithic reduc- 62 meters (oriented to true north), covering 1,248 tion activities of unknown type. No archaeological square meters. The landform, the edge of the APE, features/deposits were encountered at this site and and two consecutive negative shovel tests (at 10 meter given the shallow (and thus likely eroded) nature of intervals) define the site boundaries. soils within the site, it is unlikely that intact depos-

77 its are present. As such, this archaeological deposit does not have the potential to contain significant information related to regional prehistoric occupation/utilization, nor does it have the potential to inform our understanding of relevant regional research questions (Table 6.1). Therefore, the portion of 15GN58 identified in the APE is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP. No additional archaeological documentation is recommended for this site. However, if the plans for this project are altered to include areas beyond the current APE, Brockington recommends additional investigation of this site to fully delimit the site’s boundaries (as they relate to a revised project APE), assess integrity, and refine NRHP recommendations.

78 Figure 6.13 Plan of 15GN58 and 15GN59 (Shovel tests labeled with corresponding provenience numbers).

79 Figure 6.14 View of 15GN58, facing east.

Figure 6.15 View of 15GN58, facing north.

80 Figure 6.16 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN58.

81 6.2.4 Site 15GN59 Investigators excavated 10 shovel tests in and Locational Data around 15GN59; four of these shovel tests produced County: Green artifacts. Artifacts were recovered from an average USGS Quad: Exie, KY (1987) depth of 0-16 cmbs. Approximately 0.046 square me- Area: D ters were excavated at 15GN59. A typical soil profile Elevation: 740-745 ft NAVD 88 encountered at 15GN59 consists of approximately 16 UTM Coordinates: Z16 (NAD27) cm of brown (7.5YR 5/4) silt loam underlain by red (2.5YR 4/6) silty clay subsoil with dense gravel. These General Site Data soils are typical for Frederick silt loams, which are the Field Site Number: 5004-005 mapped USDA soil types in the surrounding area. Gross Temporal Affiliation: Prehistoric Most soils encountered within the general area are Prehistoric Temporal Range: Unspecified relatively shallow, which is likely a result of past land- Prehistoric Site Type: Open Habitation without clearing activities and subsequent erosion. Figure Mounds 6.18 presents a representative soil profile for 15GN59. NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible (within APE) Brockington recovered 19 prehistoric artifacts Site Area: 320 m2 from 15GN59, including flaked stone debitage and Site Depth: 0-16 cmbs one core fragment (see Table 5.8). None of these artifacts are temporally diagnostic. Flaked stone deb- Environmental Data itage includes one core fragment, four flakes, seven Topography: Toe Slope flake fragments, and seven shatter specimens. Two Distance to Water: 200 meters lithic material types are represented, including an Direction to Water: Southwest unidentified chert type (n=17) and St. Louis chert Past Land Use: Agriculture (n=2). Flakes and flake fragments include four dif- Current Land Use: Agriculture ferent size grades: one-quarter inch (n=7), one-half Vegetation: Fallow field, grassy inch (n=1), three-quarter inch (n=2), and one inch Soil Type: Frederick silt loam, 6-12% slopes (n=1). Ground Surface Visibility: 0-10% The rehistoricp component at 15GN59 likely Disturbances: Agriculture, Erosion; percent unknown represents an open habitation without mounds associated with lithic resource manufacturing (and pos- Results Data sibly extraction). The wide range of lithic debitage Features Identified: None size grades and presence of cortical and non-cortical Materials Recovered: Prehistoric (n=19) and bifacial and core reduction flakes indicates a full spectrum of lithic reduction activities even for such Site 15GN59 is a temporally unspecified subsurface a small assemblage. Based on artifact recovery and scatter of prehistoric lithic artifacts located in Area amount of soil excavated, Brockington estimates D in the north-central portion of the APE (Figure that this site contains 0.034 artifacts per square 6.2). Site 15GN58 is located 110 meters to the north- meter. However, due to the low frequency and frag- northwest. Figure 6.13 provides a plan of 15GN58 mentary nature of the prehistoric assemblage, little and 15GN59. Figure 6.17 presents views of 15GN59. else can be said of prehistoric activities carried out at Site 15GN59 extends across the western side of a toe this site. slope that overlooks an intermittent tributary of Rus- The archaeological deposit documented as sell Creek to the southwest. Site 15GN59 is in a fal- 15GN59 represents a low-frequency, non-diagnostic low field covered in various grasses that completely activity locus representing prehistoric lithic reduc- obscure the ground surface. The site measures 23- tion activities of unknown type. No archaeological by-21 meters (oriented to true north), covering 320 features/deposits were encountered at this site and square meters. The landform, the edge of the APE, given the shallow (and thus likely eroded) nature of and two consecutive negative shovel tests (at 10 me- soils within the site, it is unlikely that intact depos- ter intervals) define the site boundaries. its are present. As such, this archaeological deposit

82 does not have the potential to contain significant information related to regional prehistoric occupation/utilization, nor does it have the potential to inform our understanding of relevant regional research questions (Table 6.1). Therefore, the portion of 15GN59 identified in the APE is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP. No additional archaeological documentation is recommended for this site. However, if the plans for this project are altered to include areas beyond the current APE, Brockington recommends additional investigation of this site to fully delimit the site’s boundaries (as they relate to a revised project APE), assess integrity, and refine NRHP recommendations.

Figure 6.17 View of 15GN59, facing south with investigators in background.

83 Figure 6.18 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN59.

84 6.2.5 Site 15GN60 Investigators excavated 31 shovel tests in and Locational Data around 15GN60; six of these shovel tests produced County: Green artifacts. Artifacts were recovered from an average USGS Quad: Exie, KY (1987) depth of 0-31 cmbs. Approximately 0.195 square Area: F meter was excavated at 15GN60. A typical soil profile Elevation: 620-625 ft NAVD 88 encountered at 15GN60 consists of approximately UTM Coordinates: Z16 (NAD27) 31 cm of brown (7.5YR 5/4) silt loam underlain by red (2.5YR 4/6) silty clay subsoil with dense gravel. General Site Data These soils are typical for Frederick silt loam, which Field Site Number: 5004-006 are the mapped USDA soil types in the surround- Gross Temporal Affiliation: Prehistoric ing area. Figure 6.22 presents a representative soil Prehistoric Temporal Range: Unspecified profile for 15GN60. Prehistoric Site Type: Open Habitation without Brockington recovered 22 prehistoric artifacts Mounds from 15GN60, all of which consists of flaked stone NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible (within APE) materials (see Table 5.9). These include one tool and Site Area: 853 m2 21 pieces of debitage. None of these artifacts are Site Depth: 0-31 cmbs temporally diagnostic. Two lithic material types are represented, including unidentified chert type (n=7) Environmental Data and St. Louis chert (n=15). The tool is St. Louis chert Topography: Toe Slope utilized flake (Figure 5.1). Flaked stone debitage in- Distance to Water: 725 meters cludes two flakes, 14 flake fragments, and five pieces Direction to Water: Northeast of shatter. Flakes and flake fragments include three Past Land Use: Agriculture different size grades: one-quarter inch (n=12), one- Current Land Use: Agriculture half inch (n=2), and three-quarter inch (n=2). Vegetation: Fallow field, grassy The rehistoricp component at 15GN60 likely Soil Type: Frederick silt loam, 6-12% slopes represents an open habitation without mounds Ground Surface Visibility: 0-10% associated with lithic resource manufacturing Disturbances: Agriculture; percent unknown (and possibly extraction). The wide range of lithic debitage size grades and presence of cortical and Results Data non-cortical and bifacial and core reduction flakes Features Identified: None suggests a full spectrum of lithic reduction activities Materials Recovered: Prehistoric (n=22) even for such a small assemblage. Based on artifact recovery and amount of soil excavated, Brockington Site 15GN60 is a temporally unspecified subsurface estimates that this site contains 0.026 artifacts per scatter of prehistoric lithic artifacts located in Area square meter. Due to the low frequency and frag- F in the northern portion of the APE (Figure 6.2). mentary nature of the prehistoric assemblage, little Site 15GN60 extends across the eastern face of a else can be said of prehistoric activities carried out at toe slope that overlooks an intermittent tributary of this site. Russell Creek to the southeast. Site 15GN60 extends The archaeological deposit documented as across two fallow fields and is bisected by a fence 15GN60 represents a low-frequency, non-diagnostic line and row of trees. Dense grasses across the site activity locus representing prehistoric lithic reduc- completely obscure the ground surface. The site tion activities of unknown type. No archaeological measures 62-by-43 meters (oriented to true north), features/deposits were encountered at this site and covering 853 square meters. The landform, the edge given the shallow (and thus likely eroded) nature of of the APE, and two consecutive negative shovel soils within the site, it is unlikely that intact depos- tests (at 10 meter intervals) define the site boundar- its are present. As such, this archaeological deposit ies. Figure 6.19 provides a plan of 15GN60. Figures does not have the potential to contain significant 6.20 and 6.21 present views of 15GN60. information related to regional prehistoric occupa-

85 tion/utilization, nor does it have the potential to inform our understanding of relevant regional research questions (Table 6.1). Therefore, the portion of 15GN60 identified in the APE is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP. No additional archaeological documentation is recommended for this site. However, if the plans for this project are altered to include areas beyond the current APE, Brockington recommends additional investigation of this site to fully delimit the site’s boundaries (as they relate to a revised project APE), assess integrity, and refine NRHP recommendations.

86 Figure 6.19 Plan of 15GN60 (Shovel tests labeled with corresponding provenience numbers).

87 Figure 6.20 View of 15GN60, southern portion facing south and down slope.

Figure 6.21 View of 15GN60, northern portion of site facing north.

88 Figure 6.22 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN60.

89 6.2.6 Site 15GN61 The site measures 58-by-45 meters (oriented to true Locational Data north), covering 1,400 square meters. The landform, County: Green the edge of the APE, and two consecutive negative USGS Quad: Exie, KY (1987) shovel tests (at 10 meter intervals) define the site Area: B boundaries. Figure 6.23 provides a plan of 15GN61. Elevation: 770-780 ft NAVD 88 Figures 6.24 and 6.25 present views of 15GN61. UTM Coordinates: Z16 (NAD27) Investigators excavated 22 shovel tests in and around 15GN61; eight of these shovel tests pro- General Site Data duced artifacts. Artifacts were recovered from an Field Site Number: 5004-007 average depth of 0-16 cmbs. Approximately 0.101 Gross Temporal Affiliation: Prehistoric square meter were excavated at 15GN61. A typical Prehistoric Temporal Range: Unspecified soil profile encountered at 15GN61 consists of ap- Prehistoric Site Type: Open Habitation without proximately 16 cm of brown (7.5YR 5/4) silt loam Mounds underlain by red (2.5YR 4/6) silty clay subsoil with Historic Temporal Range: Mid-Nineteenth Century dense gravel. These soils are typical for Frederick silt to Mid-Twentieth Century loam, which are the mapped USDA soil types in the Historic Site Type: Domestic Refuse Discard surrounding area. Most soils encountered within NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible (within APE) the general area are relatively shallow, which is likely Site Area: 1,400 m2 a result of past land-clearing activities and subse- Site Depth: 0-16 cmbs quent erosion. Some shovel tests produced charcoal and exhibited burned soils. Figure 6.26 presents a Environmental Data representative soil profile for 15GN61. Topography: Toe slope Brockington recovered 25 artifacts from Distance to Water: 1.3 km 15GN61, including nine historic artifacts and 16 pre- Direction to Water: Southwest historic artifacts (see Table 5.10). The nine historic Past Land Use: Unknown artifacts include two Architecture Group artifacts, Current Land Use: Agriculture five Kitchen Group artifacts, and two Tableware Vegetation: Fallow Field overgrown with primary Group artifacts. Architecture Group artifacts in- growth clude one wire nail and one light blue window glass Soil Type: Frederick silty loam, 6-12%, severely eroded fragment. Kitchen and Tableware Group artifacts Ground Surface Visibility: 0-10% include two brown salt glazed stoneware sherds, two Disturbances: Erosion; percent unknown undecorated whiteware sherds, one amber container glass fragment, and two light blue container glass Results Data fragments. The stoneware and whiteware sherds Features Identified: None and the wire nail indicate a mid-nineteenth to mid- Materials Recovered: Prehistoric (n=16); twentieth (1850-1950) occupation. No historic aeri- Historic (n=9) als or maps reviewed for this project show buildings near 15GN61. It is possible that 15GN61 represents Site 15GN61 is a multi-component subsurface scat- a mid-nineteenth century architectural and domes- ter of temporally unspecified prehistoric lithic arti- tic refuse discard. Given the small sample size and facts and nineteenth/twentieth century historic arti- ubiquitous nature of the individual specimens, the facts located in Area B in the south-central portion temporal estimate for the collected historic artifacts of the APE (Figure 6.2). Site 15GN61 extends across can only be narrowed to the mid-nineteenth to mid- the northern face of a toe slope that overlooks to the twentieth century (1850-1950). southeast an intermittent stream that drains into The 16 prehistoric artifacts consist of flaked Russell Creek. Site 15GN61 is in a fallow field cov- stone materials, including two tools and 14 pieces of ered in vegetation (e.g., grasses, briars, saplings, and debitage (see Table 5.10). None of these prehistoric vines) that completely obscures the ground surface. artifacts are temporally diagnostic. Two lithic mate-

90 rial types are represented, including an unidentified chert type (n=6) and St. Louis chert (n=10). The tools are both made from St. Louis chert and include a hafted biface and utilized flake (Figure 5.1). Flaked stone debitage includes 10 flake fragments and four pieces of shatter. Flakes and flake fragments include three different size grades: one-quarter inch (n=7), one-half inch (n=2), and one inch (n=1). The prehistoric component at 15GN61 likely represents an open habitation without mounds associated with lithic resource manufacturing (and possibly extraction). No prehistoric diagnostic artifacts were recovered, thus the prehistoric component at this site cannot be assigned to a specific temporal period. Based on artifact recovery and amount of soil excavated, Brockington estimates that this component contains 0.011 artifacts per square meter. Due to the low frequency and fragmentary nature of the prehistoric assemblage, little else can be said of prehistoric activities carried out at this site. Site 15GN61 is a multi-component scatter of temporally unspecified prehistoric lithic artifacts and nineteenth/twentieth century (1850-1950) architectural/domestic refuse discard. No archaeological features/deposits were encountered at this site and given the shallow (and thus likely eroded) nature of soils within the site, it is unlikely that intact deposits are present. As such, this archaeological deposit does not have the potential to contain significant information related to regional historic or prehistoric occupation/utilization, nor does it have the potential to inform our understanding of relevant regional research questions (Tables 6.1 and 6.2). Therefore, the portion of 15GN61 identified within the APE is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP. No additional archaeological documentation is recommended for this site. How- ever, if the plans for this project are altered to include areas beyond the current APE, Brockington recommends additional investigation of this site to fully delimit the site’s boundaries (as they relate to a revised project APE), assess integrity, and refine NRHP recommendations.

91 Figure 6.23 Plan of 15GN61 (Shovel tests labeled with corresponding provenience numbers).

92 Figure 6.24 Views of 15GN61, facing north.

Figure 6.25 View of 15GN61, facing west.

93 Figure 6.26 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN61.

94 6.2.7 Site 15GN62 a plan of 15GN62. Figures 6.28 and 6.29 presents Locational Data views of 15GN62. County: Green Investigators excavated 13 shovel tests in and USGS Quad: Exie, KY (1987) around 15GN62; five of these shovel tests produced Area: A artifacts. Artifacts were recovered from an average Elevation: 750-770 ft NAVD 88 depth of 0-22 cmbs. Approximately 0.098 square me- UTM Coordinates: Z16 (NAD27) ters were excavated at 15GN62. A typical soil profile encountered at 15GN62 consists of approximately General Site Data 22 cm of brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam underlain by Field Site Number: 5004-008 strong brown (10YR 5/6) silty clay subsoil and bed- Gross Temporal Affiliation: Prehistoric rock. These soils are typical for Lowell-Caneyville Prehistoric Temporal Range: Unspecified silt loams, which are the mapped USDA soil types Prehistoric Site Type: Open Habitation without in the surrounding area. Most soils encountered Mounds within the general area are relatively shallow, which NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible (within APE) is likely a result of past land-clearing activities and Site Area: 1,007 m2 subsequent erosion. Figure 6.30 presents a represen- Site Depth: 0-20 cmbs tative soil profile for 15GN62. Brockington recovered 15 prehistoric artifacts Environmental Data from 15GN62, all of which consist of flaked stone Topography: Toe slope debitage (see Table 5.11). None of these artifacts Distance to Water: 1.1 km are temporally diagnostic. Flaked stone debitage Direction to Water: Southwest includes one core fragment, four flakes, nine flake Past Land Use: Unknown fragments, and one piece of shatter. Two lithic mate- Current Land Use: Wooded rial types are represented, including an unidentified Vegetation: Secondary Growth Deciduous Forest chert type (n=5) and St. Louis chert (n=10). Flakes Mapped USDA Soil Type: Lowell-Caneyville silt and flake fragments include two different size grades: loams, very rocky, 30-60% slopes one-quarter inch (n= 12) and one-half inch (n=1). Ground Surface Visibility: 0-10% The rehistoricp component at 15GN62 likely Disturbances: Erosion, percent unknown represents an open habitation without mounds associated with lithic resource manufacturing. No Results Data diagnostic artifacts were recovered, thus the pre- Features Identified: None historic component at this site cannot be assigned Materials Recovered: Prehistoric (n=15) to a specific temporal period. Based on artifact recovery and amount of soil excavated, Brockington Site 15GN62 is a temporally unspecified subsurface estimates that this site contains 0.015 artifacts per scatter of prehistoric lithic artifacts located in Area A square meter. Due to the low frequency and frag- in the southern portion of the APE (Figure 6.2). Site mentary nature of the prehistoric assemblage, little 15GN62 extends across a toe slope that overlooks else can be said of prehistoric activities carried out at to the north an intermittent stream, a tributary of this site. Russell Creek. Vegetation across the site consists of The archaeological deposit documented as mixed secondary growth hardwoods and a dense 15GN62 represents a low-frequency, non-diagnostic understory of herbaceous and non-herbaceous activity locus representing prehistoric lithic reduc- plants. Ground surface visibility was poor (less than tion activities of unknown type. No archaeological 10 percent). The site measures 30-by-50 meters (ori- features/deposits were encountered at this site, and ented to true north), covering 1,007 square meters. given the shallow (and thus likely eroded) nature of The landform, the eastern edge of the APE, and two soils within the site, it is unlikely that intact depos- consecutive negative shovel tests (at 10 meter inter- its are present. As such, this archaeological deposit vals) define the site boundaries. Figure 6.27 provides does not have the potential to contain significant

95 information related to regional prehistoric occupation/utilization, nor does it have the potential to inform our understanding of relevant regional research questions (Table 6.1). Therefore, the portion of 15GN62 identified in the APE is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP. No additional archaeological documentation is recommended for this site. However, if the plans for this project are altered to include areas beyond the current APE, Brockington recommends additional investigation of this site to fully delimit the site’s boundaries (as they relate to a revised project APE), assess integrity, and refine NRHP recommendations.

96 Figure 6.27 Plan of 15GN62 (Shovel tests labeled with corresponding provenience numbers).

97 Figure 6.28 View of 15GN62, facing south from site datum.

Figure 6.29 View of 15GN62, facing west from site datum.

98 Figure 6.30 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN62.

99 6.2.8 Site 15GN63 north and south. Site 15GN63 is primarily within a Locational Data fallow field covered in a variety of grasses that com- County: Green pletely obscure the ground surface. The site measures USGS Quad: Exie, KY (1987) 190-by-140 meters (oriented to true north), covering Area: B 13,222 square meters. The landform and the edges of Elevation: 740-760 ft NAVD 88 the APE define the site boundaries. UTM Coordinates: Z16 (NAD27) Investigators excavated 68 shovel tests in and around 15GN63; 38 of these shovel tests produced General Site Data artifacts. Artifacts were recovered from an average Field Site Number: 5004-009 and 5004-010 depth of 0-25 cmbs. Approximately 0.889 square me- Gross Temporal Affiliation: Prehistoric and Historic ters were excavated at 15GN63. A typical soil profile Prehistoric Temporal Range: Unspecified encountered at 15GN63 consists of approximately Prehistoric Site Type: Open Habitation without 30 cm of brown (10YR 5/3) silt loam underlain by Mounds a strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) silty clay subsoil with Historic Temporal Range: Early Nineteenth Century dense gravel. These soils are typical for Mountview to present silt loam, which is the most prevalent mapped USDA Historic Site Type: Isolated Find soil type in the surrounding area. Figure 6.35 presents NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible (within APE) a representative soil profile for 15GN63. Site Area: 13,222 m2 Brockington recovered 203 artifacts from Site Depth: 0-25 cmbs 15GN63, including one historic artifact (cut nail) and 202 prehistoric artifacts. The prehistoric assem- Environmental Data blage consists of flaked stone artifacts in the form Topography: Upland ridge crest of debitage (n=195), lithic cores or core fragments Distance to Water: 20 meters (n=6), a utilized flake (n=1), and a tested cobble Direction to Water: Southwest (n=1) (see Table 5.12). None of these prehistoric Past Land Use: Unknown artifacts are temporally diagnostic. Two lithic mate- Current Land Use: Forest and Pasture rial types are represented, including an unidentifi- Vegetation: Various grasses and secondary growth able chert type (n=26) and St. Louis chert (n=176). deciduous forest The tools are both made from St. Louis chert and Soil Type: Frederick silt loam, 6-22% slopes; include one tested cobble and one utilized flake. Mountview silt loam, 2-6% slopes Flaked stone debitage includes one core, five core Ground Surface Visibility: 0-10% fragments, 18 flakes, 144 flake fragments, and 32 Disturbances: Erosion, percent unknown pieces of shatter. Flakes and flake fragments include three different size grades: one-quarter inch (n= Results Data 151), one-half inch (n=9), and three-quarter inch Features Identified: None (n=2). Cortical (n=8), non-cortical (n=9), bifacial Materials Recovered: Prehistoric (n=202); reduction (n=5), core reduction (n=11), and pres- Historic (n=1) sure (n=2) flakes are present. Site 15GN63 is a multi-component subsurface Site 15GN63 is a temporally unspecified subsurface scatter of prehistoric lithic artifacts and a historic scatter of prehistoric lithic artifacts and historic iso- isolated find. The historic artifact could be associ- lated find located in Area B in the south-central por- ated with any number of activities dating from tion of the APE (Figure 6.2). One other similar site is the early nineteenth century to the present. Inves- located to the south (15GN64) (Figures 6.2 and 6.31). tigators recovered 202 prehistoric artifacts from Figures 6.32, 6.33, and 6.34 present views of 15GN63. 15GN63, averaging approximately 264 artifacts Site 15GN63 extends across the central portion of a per square meter excavated. Based on artifact re- broad ridge (and portion of the toe slope) that over- covery and amount of soil excavated, Brockington looks intermittent tributaries of Russell Creek to the estimates that this site contains 0.015 artifacts per

100 square meter. The presence of artifacts indicative of both core- and bifacial-reduction stages along with various chipped stone debitage size grades (one-quarter, one-half, and three-quarter inch) suggests that both lithic production and maintenance activities occurred at the site. Therefore, it is possible that 15GN63 represents a palimpsest of prehistoric seasonal resource extraction camp sites occupied during indeterminate prehistoric time periods. Although 15GN63 contains relatively intact soils and a wide range of prehistoric lithic artifact types, this site produced a relatively low frequency assemblage (estimated at 0.015 artifacts per square meter). No archaeological features/deposits were encountered and given the overall fragmentary nature of the debitage specimens (flake fragments and shatter [n=171 or 96% of the debitage sub-assemblage]), little can be said of the prehistoric activities represented. As such, this archaeological deposit does not have the potential to contain significant information related to regional prehistoric occupation/utilization, nor does it have the potential to inform our understanding of relevant regional research questions (Table 6.1). Therefore, 15GN63 is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP. No additional archaeological documentation is recommended for this site. However, if the plans for this project are altered to include areas beyond the current APE, Brockington recommends additional investigation of this site to fully delimit the site’s boundaries (as they relate to a revised project APE), assess integrity, and refine NRHP recommendations.

101 102 Figure 6.31 Plan of 15GN63 and 15GN64 (Shovel tests labeled with corresponding provenience numbers). provenience 6.31 Plan of 15GN63 and 15GN64 (Shovel tests labeled with corresponding Figure

103 104 Figure 6.32 View of 15GN63, facing west.

Figure 6.33 View of 15GN63, facing southwest.

105 Figure 6.34 View of 15GN63, facing north northeast from within tree line.

Figure 6.35 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN63.

106 6.2.9 Site 15GN64 The landform and the western edge of the APE de- Locational Data fine the site boundaries. County: Green Investigators excavated 13 shovel tests in and USGS Quad: Exie, KY (1987) around 15GN64; nine of which produced artifacts. Area: B Artifacts were recovered from an average depth of Elevation: 725-755 ft NAVD 88 0-22 cmbs. Approximately 0.154 square meters were UTM Coordinates: Z16 (NAD27) excavated at 15GN64. A typical soil profile encountered at 15GN64 consists of approximately 22 cm of General Site Data brown (7.5YR 5/4) silt loam underlain by red (2.5YR Field Site Number: 5004-011 4/6) silty clay subsoil with dense gravel. These soils are Gross Temporal Affiliation: Prehistoric typical for Frederick silt loam, which is the mapped Prehistoric Temporal Range: Unspecified USDA soil type in the surrounding area. Most soils Prehistoric Site Type: Open Habitation without encountered within the general area are relatively Mounds shallow, which is likely a result of past land-clearing NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible (within APE) activities and subsequent erosion. Figure 6.37 pres- Site Area: 2,431 m2 ents a representative soil profile for 15GN64. Site Depth: 0-22 cmbs Brockington recovered 24 prehistoric artifacts from 15GN64, all of which consists of flaked stone Environmental Data debitage (see Table 5.13). None of these artifacts are Topography: Toe slope temporally diagnostic. Flaked stone debitage includes Distance to Water: 1.3 km one core fragment, three flakes, 11 flake fragments, Direction to Water: Southwest and nine pieces of shatter. Two lithic material types Past Land Use: Unknown are represented, including an unidentified chert type Current Land Use: Wooded (n=7) and St. Louis chert (n=17). Flakes and flake Vegetation: Secondary Growth Deciduous Forest fragments include two different size grades: one- Soil Type: Frederick silt loam, 12-20% slopes quarter inch (n=12) and one-half inch (n=2). Ground Surface Visibility: 0-10% The rehistoricp component at 15GN64 likely Disturbances: Erosion, percent unknown represents an open habitation without mounds associated with lithic resource manufacturing (and Results Data possibly extraction). The presence of both core frag- Features Identified: None ments and pressure flakes suggests the full spectrum Materials Recovered: Prehistoric (n=24) of lithic maintenance activities occurring at the site. No diagnostic artifacts were recovered, thus the pre- Site 15GN64 is a temporally unspecified subsurface historic component at this site cannot be assigned scatter of prehistoric lithic artifacts located in Area B to a specific temporal period. Based on artifact re- in the south-central portion of the APE (Figure 6.2). covery and amount of soil excavated, Brockington Two other similar sites, 15GN61 and 15GN63, are estimates that this site contains 0.010 artifacts per located to the south and north, respectively. Figure square meter. Due to the low frequency and frag- 6.31 provides a plan of 15GN64, including 15GN63. mentary nature of the prehistoric assemblage, little Figure 6.36 presents a view of 15GN64. Site 15GN64 else can be said of prehistoric activities carried out at extends across the eastern face of a toe slope that this site. overlooks to the east an intermittent tributary of The archaeological deposit documented as Russell Creek. Vegetation across the site consists of 15GN64 represents a low-frequency, non-diagnostic mixed secondary growth hardwoods and a dense activity locus representing prehistoric lithic reduc- understory of herbaceous and non-herbaceous tion activities of unknown type. No archaeological plants. Ground surface visibility was poor (less than features/deposits were encountered at this site and 10 percent). The site measures 63-by-75 meters (ori- given the shallow (and thus likely eroded) nature of ented to true north), covering 2,431 square meters. soils within the site, it is unlikely that intact depos-

107 its are present. As such, this archaeological deposit does not have the potential to contain significant information related to regional prehistoric occupation/utilization, nor does it have the potential to inform our understanding of relevant regional research questions (Table 6.1). Therefore, the portion of 15GN64 identified in the APE is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP. No additional archaeological documentation is recommended for this site. However, if the plans for this project are altered to include areas beyond the current APE, Brockington recommends additional investigation of this site to fully delimit the site’s boundaries (as they relate to a revised project APE), assess integrity, and refine NRHP recommendations.

108 Figure 6.36 View of 15GN64 facing south.

Figure 6.37 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN64.

109 6.2.10 Site 15GN65 the south, opposite the stream channel. Figure 6.38 Locational Data presents a plan of 15GN65. Figure 6.39 provides a County: Green view of 15GN65. USGS Quad: Exie, KY (1987) Brockington excavated 30 shovel tests in and Area: C around 15GN65, including both standard shovel Elevation: 620-625 ft NAVD 88 tests and augered shovel tests. A total of 12 excava- UTM Coordinates: Z16 (NAD27) tion loci produced artifacts. Artifacts were recovered from an average depth of 0-60 cmbs and a maximum General Site Data depth of 90 cmbs. Investigators used a three-inch Field Site Number: 5004-012 auger to excavate 12 of the 30 shovel tests to bedrock Gross Temporal Affiliation: Prehistoric or impenetrable gravel. For the augered tests, inves- Prehistoric Temporal Range: Unspecified tigators excavated these like a normal shovel test to Prehistoric Site Type: Open Habitation without approximately 60 cmbs, then the auger was used to Mounds continue excavations to at least 1.5 meters (where NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible (within APE) possible). Augering indicates that the soils are Site Area: 4,753 m2 considerably deeper in the northern portion of the Site Depth: 0-60 cmbs floodplain (within and just north of the site boundary), with a few auger tests extending to a maximum Environmental Data depth of 160 cmbs. However, investigators typically Topography: Floodplain encountered impenetrable gravels 60-80 cmbs. Distance to Water: 20 meters Approximately 0.630 square meter was exca- Direction to Water: South vated at 15GN65 (not including augering). A typical Past Land Use: Agriculture soil profile encountered at 15GN65 consists of ap- Current Land Use: Agriculture proximately 30 cm of a brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam Vegetation: Fallow field, grassy (Ap horizon), 30-60 cm of a brown (10YR 4/3) silt Soil Type: Nolin silt loam loam with gravel (Bw1 horizon), and 60-80 cm of Ground Surface Visibility: 0-10% a dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silt loam with Disturbances: Agriculture; percent unknown gravel (Bw2 horizon), underlain by a dense layer of gravel. These soils are typical for Nolin silt loam, Results Data which is the mapped USDA soil type in the sur- Features Identified: None rounding area. Figure 6.40 presents a representative Materials Recovered: Prehistoric (n=26) soil profile for 15GN65. Brockington recovered 26 prehistoric artifacts Site 15GN65 is a temporally unspecified subsurface from 15GN65, all of which consists of flaked stone scatter of prehistoric lithic artifacts located in Area materials (see Table 5.14). These include one core C in the central portion of the APE (Figure 6.2). Site fragment, two tools (a cobble hammerstone and 15GN65 extends north from the northern bank of an utilized flake), and 23 pieces of debitage. None of unnamed tributary of Russell Creek upslope across these artifacts are temporally diagnostic. Two lithic a secondary terrace. Site 15GN65 is in a fallow ag- material types are represented, including unidenti- ricultural field (possibly used for hay) with vegeta- fied chert type (n=7) and St. Louis chert (n=19). The tion standing about one meter high that completely tools are both made from St. Louis chert and include obscures the ground surface. The site measures one cobble hammerstone and one utilized flake. 90-by-105 meters (oriented to true north), covering Flaked stone debitage (excluding the two recovered 4,753 square meters. The landform, the edge of the tools) includes one core fragment, four flakes, 13 APE, and two consecutive negative shovel tests (at flake fragments, and six pieces of shatter. Flakes and 10 meter intervals) define the site boundaries. Site flake fragments include three different size grades: 15GN65 is associated with two isolated finds (Iso- one-quarter inch (n=14), one-half inch (n=2), and lates 2 and 3) located approximately 40 meters to three-quarter inch (n=1).

110 The prehistoric component at 15GN65 likely represents an open habitation without mounds associated with lithic resource manufacturing (and possibly extraction). No diagnostic artifacts were recovered, thus the prehistoric component at this site cannot be assigned to a specific temporal period. Based on artifact recovery and amount of soil excavated, Brockington estimates that this site contains 0.005 artifacts per square meter. Due to the low frequency and fragmentary nature of the prehistoric assemblage, little else can be said of prehistoric activities carried out at this site. The archaeological deposit documented as 15GN65 represents a low-frequency, non-diagnostic activity locus representing prehistoric lithic reduction activities of unknown type. No archaeological features/deposits were encountered at this site. Although artifacts were recovered 60-90 cmbs in one excavation loci, the remainder of artifacts were recovered from 0-60 cmbs. Additionally, excavation of shovel/auger tests (both positive and negative) were generally ceased between 60-80 cmbs due to the presence of impenetrable gravels. The likelihood that deeply buried archaeological deposits (more than 60 cmbs) are present at this site within the APE appears low. The portion of Site 15GN65 documented within the APE does not have the potential to contain significant information related to regional prehistoric occupation/utilization, nor does it have the potential to inform our understanding of relevant regional research questions (Table 6.1). Therefore, the portion of 15GN65 identified in the APE is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP. No additional archaeological documentation is recommended for this site. However, if the plans for this project are altered to include areas beyond the current APE, Brockington recommends additional investigation of this site to fully delimit the site’s boundaries (as they relate to a revised project APE), assess integrity, and refine NRHP recommendations.

111 112 Figure 6.38 Plan of 15GN65, including Isolates 2 and 3 (Shovel tests labeled with corresponding provenience numbers). provenience 6.38 Plan of 15GN65, including Isolates 2 and 3 (Shovel tests labeled with corresponding Figure

113 114 Figure 6.39 View of 15GN65, facing southeast.

Figure 6.40 Representative soil profile documented for 15GN65.

115 6.2.11 Isolated Finds As the term implies, artifacts documented as isolated finds were recovered from an isolated context (i.e., absence of archaeological deposits or features). During fieldwork, an isolated find was defined as such by the recovery of a single artifact (surface or subsurface) or the recovery of a limited number of artifacts from a single shovel test locus. The isolated context of these finds was determined through de- lineation efforts, which involved the excavation of a 10-meter supplemental shovel test grid (at least two negative shovel tests in each direction) and a systematic surface inspection of the general area. In addition to the 10 sites described and as- sessed above, the current investigation identified three isolated finds (Isolates 1-3, Figure 6.2). Isolate 1 consists of one hand painted whiteware sherd, recovered from a shovel test 0-20 cmbs. Isolate 1 may be associated with the historic component identified at 15GN61, located 50 meters to the south (Figure 6.2). Isolates 2 and 3 are located on a terrace over- looking a stream to the north, which is a tributary of Russell Creek. Both isolated finds are approximately 40 meters south of 15GN65, which is located north of the stream (Figure 6.23). Isolate 2 consists of one St. Louis Chert non-cortical bifacial reduction (one-quarter inch) flake, recovered from a shovel test 0-10 cmbs. Isolate 3 consists of two unidentified chert (one-quarter inch) flake fragments recovered from one shovel test 0-30 cmbs. Due to the lack of cultural deposits and features associated within these finds, all isolated finds documented during this investigation are characterized as a materially-sparse locus representing ephemeral activity of unknown type. As such, these isolated finds do not have the potential to contain significant information related to regional occupation/utilization, nor do they have the potential to inform our understanding of relevant regional research questions (see Tables 6.1 and 6.2). Therefore, Brocking- ton recommends Isolates 1-3 not eligible for listing on the NRHP.

116 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations In April 2017, Palmer of Winchester, Kentucky con- According to the guidance provided in 36 CFR Part tracted Brockington of Elizabethtown, Kentucky to 60.4 (Criteria for Evaluation), archaeological sites conduct an intensive archaeological Phase I survey (and other cultural properties) can be defined as for the proposed realignment of US 68 between T. significant (i.e., eligible for listing on the NRHP) if Davis Drive and Clover Creek Road, Green County, they “possess integrity of location, design, setting, Kentucky (KYTC Item No. 4-397.10). The APE, as materials, workmanship, feeling, and association” defined for this investigation, encompasses approxi- and if they: mately 67.22 acres (27.20 hectares) and includes the proposed disturb limits for the realignment of an • Criterion A. Are associated with events that approximate 3.79-km (2.36 mile) section of US 68, have made a significant contribution to the as well as the proposed reconstruction of approach broad pattern of history; or roads (totaling 3.10 km [1.9 miles] in length). The • Criterion B. Are associated with the lives of boundary of the archaeological Phase I survey APE persons significant in the past; or is based on the proposed disturb limits of the final • Criterion C. Embody distinctive preferred alternate. characteristics of a type, period, or method The rchaeologicala investigation described of construction, or represent the work of herein was conducted in compliance with both a master, possess high artistic values, or state and federal guidelines; including Section represent a significant and distinguishable 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of entity whose components may lack 1966 (54 USC 30010, as amended through 2016), individual distinction; or the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s • Criterion D. Have yielded, or may be implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800), Sec- likely to yield, information important in retary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for prehistory or history. Archaeology and Historic Preservation (1983), and archaeological survey and reporting guidelines set Technical information and guidelines for evalu- forth by the Kentucky Heritage Council (Specifica- ating NRHP eligibility are provided by the National tions for Conducting Fieldwork and Preparing Cul- Park Service in several published bulletins (e.g., Pot- tural Resource Assessment Reports [Sanders 2006]). ter and Boland 1992; Savage and Pope 1998; Sherfy Key project personnel, namely E. Nicole Mills, RPA and Luce 1998; Townsend et al. 1993). The process (Principal Investigator/Field Director), exceeds the for evaluating cultural properties for eligibility for qualifications described in the Secretary of the In- the NRHP includes categorizing the property as a terior’s “Professional Qualifications Standards” (48 district, an archaeological site, a building, a struc- FR 44738-9). Messrs. David Baluha (RPA), Scott ture, or an object; determining the appropriate Kitchens, and Jimmy Lefebre assisted Ms. Mills in context (prehistoric or historic) for the property; de- the field. termining whether the property is significant under the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation; and determining whether the property retains integrity (Savage and 7.1 NRHP Evaluation Criteria Pope 1998:3). The primary goal of this project is to provide suffi- After a property has been assigned to the ap- cient data to the KYTC and the KHC for determining propriate category, the historic context represented whether the archaeological sites documented dur- by the property must be identified. According to the ing this investigation meet the minimum criteria for National Park Service, “the significance of a historic inclusion on the NRHP (54 USC 302101-3020108). property can be judged and explained only when it The criteria upon which these sites were evaluated is is evaluated within its historic context” (Savage and specified in Department of Interior Regulations (36 Pope 1998:7). Evaluating a property within its his- CFR Part 60: National Register of Historic Places). torical context involves several steps. These include

117 identifying the themes, geographical limits, and contribute to current “theoretical and substantive chronological period that the property represents; knowledge” of archaeology in the site’s regional set- determining how these themes are significant in ting. In other words, under Criterion D, importance the history of the area, state, or nation; determining or significance can be defined as research potential. whether the particular property type is important The research potential of an archaeological site in illustrating these themes through historic as- (lacking architectural remains) can be determined sociations, architectural or engineering values, or by demonstrating that the site retains relatively information potential; and determining the features intact archaeological contexts, such as culturally that the property must have in order to reflect these or temporally diagnostic artifacts, intact features, themes (Savage and Pope 1998:7-8). discrete artifact clusters denoting activity areas, or Archaeological properties (or sites) are usually preserved organic material associated with the site evaluated relative to Criterion D. As locations of hu- occupation. To be considered eligible, these data man activities (represented by the physical remains should be capable of addressing important research of those activities), archaeological sites are potential questions by testing hypotheses, supporting current sources of important information. However, some scientific interpretations, or reconstructing cultural archaeological sites, particularly those representing chronologies through the use of appropriate analyti- historic period occupation or use, can be considered cal methods. Relevant regional research questions eligible under Criterion A (if they are associated for this project are presented in Tables 6.1 and 6.2. with specific important events or trends in Ameri- As indicated by Glassow (1977) aspects of in- can history), under Criterion B (if they are associ- tegrity are also important to determining NRHP ated with important people), or under Criterion eligibility of archaeological sites. These aspects are C (if important structural elements are preserved) location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, (Savage and Pope 1998; Townsend et al. 1993). feeling, and association (Savage and Pope 1998). In As indicated in 36 CFR Part 60.4(d), archaeo- general, archaeological integrity (Little et al. 2000) logical sites “that have yielded, or are likely to yield, may be demonstrated by the presence of: information important in prehistory or history” can be eligible for the NRHP. The National Park Service • Spatial patterning of surface artifacts or defines two requirements for archaeological sites to features that represent differential uses or be eligible under NRHP Criterion D (Savage and activities; Pope 1998:21). • Spatial patterning of subsurface artifacts or features; or 1. Thesite must have, or have had, information • Lack of serious disturbance to the property’s to contribute to our understanding of archaeological deposits. human history or prehistory, and 2. The information must be considered important. To be eligible for the NRHP, an archaeological site must possess artifacts in or near their original The National Park Service provides clarification for depositional location that can be employed to deter- the first requirement by stating that an archaeologi- mine the past use of the locale and the approximate cal site is eligible for the NRHP if that site “has been date of its past use. Integrity of location indicates used as a source of data and contains more, as yet occurrence of artifacts, artifact clusters, middens, unretrieved data” (Savage and Pope 1998:21). or features in sufficient numbers to permit quanti- Regarding the second requirement, Glassow tative assessments of their horizontal and vertical (1977) recommends careful consideration of specif- distributions across the site. These cultural deposits ic site attributes (integrity, clarity, artifact frequency, must occur within relatively intact soil deposits that and artifact diversity) in determining whether an represent specific human activities, suites of activi- archaeological site contains important information. ties, or natural events that occurred on the site. The Butler (1987:821) defines “important informa- relationships between cultural and natural remains tion” as the potential of an archaeological site to are critical to understanding how the site was cre-

118 ated (i.e., the kinds of human activities that occurred blages from the same time period (synchronic) or at the site to produce the artifacts and features) and from different time periods (diachronic) require how the site has changed since its initial occupation. that each assemblage is placed within a regional The presence of artifacts and features that can be culture chronology. If assemblages are mixed, the employed to make these interpretations is essential resulting distortion does not allow for reliable iden- to recommending a site eligible for the NRHP. tifications of individual assemblages or meaningful Integrity of association is interpreted somewhat interpretations of associated activity patterns. differently when referring to archaeological sites. It is important to note that the ability of an Townsend et al. (1993:21) state, “under Criterion D, archaeological site to generate information beyond integrity of association is measured in terms of the that already known (i.e., its research potential) must strength of the relationship between the site’s data or be evaluated. If artifacts and features encountered information and the important research questions.” at a newly discovered site occur at numerous previ- From a general perspective, archaeological sites ously recorded sites in a region, then the new site that can address topics such as cultural chronology, is not expected to generate new information. This artifact assemblage, and subsistence patterns have site could be recommended ineligible for the NRHP potential to contribute significant information. even though it may contain adequate numbers of Cultural chronology refers to the ability of a temporally and/or functionally sensitive artifacts site to contribute significant information about the within intact natural or cultural deposits. Alterna- sequence of human events in a region. This ability, tively, a site that produces extremely rare artifacts or when present at a prehistoric site, is usually based evidence of extremely rare activities may be consid- on the availability of direct (or chronometric) and/ ered eligible even if it lacks these associations. or relative dating materials. Direct dating methods in the Southeast are limited by available relevant samples (dendrochronology, potassium-argon) and 7.2 NRHP Evaluations cost (archaeomagnetism, thermoluminescence). No previously recorded archaeological sites or For a site to have significant cultural chronology previously conducted archaeological surveys are lo- research potential, it must minimally demonstrate: cated within the APE. Additionally, no NRHP-listed (1) preservation of organic remains from good con- properties are located within the APE. Brockington texts that would provide reliable radiocarbon dating recorded 10 previously undocumented archaeo- samples; or (2) horizontal or vertical separation of logical sites, 15GN56 through 15GN65, and three cultural components with associated temporally or isolated finds (Isolates 1-3) during this investiga- culturally diagnostic artifacts. tion. Brockington evaluated the NRHP status of all Artifact assemblage data are often used in archaeological sites/isolated finds described herein reconstruction of cultural history, based on the using Criterion D (information potential). classification of artifacts and artifact assemblages, Brockington recommends all archaeological or associations of artifacts that are thought to be sites and isolated finds documented during this contemporary (Fagan 1988). Artifact assemblages Phase I survey as Not Eligible for listing on the are composed of all items (including features) at a NRHP. In all cases, the sites and isolated finds docu- site that “exhibit physical attributes that can be as- mented during this investigation represent relatively sumed to be the result of human activity” (Dunnell sparse archaeological deposits characteristic of 1971). The patterning of these assemblages reflects ephemeral prehistoric and/or historic activity. Ad- behavior patterns or shared activities of a total ditionally, little to no discrete spatial patterning of community. It is this patterning of contemporary cultural materials or cultural features exists within collections of artifacts and features that is used to these sites/isolates. Furthermore, soils documented interpret the lifeways of a site’s occupants. The com- throughout the APE exhibited some level of soil position and distribution of artifact assemblages disturbance. Brockington encountered shallow soil provides valuable information about site structure, profiles throughout the APE, the result of past land activities, and function(s). Comparisons of assem- clearing/agricultural activities and subsequent ero-

119 sion. In the absence of diverse artifact assemblages, discrete spatial patterning, cultural features, and intact soils, these sites do not have the potential to contain significant information related to regional prehistoric occupation/utilization, nor do they have the potential to inform our understanding of relevant regional research questions. The NRHP recommendations offered above apply only to portions of these sites documented within the APE. If project plans are altered to include areas beyond the current APE, Brockington recommends additional archaeological investigations for the entirety of the newly added portions of the APE. Special attention should be focused on delimiting the boundaries of sites that likely extend beyond the current project APE (based on Phase I data presented herein), followed be a reassessment of their NRHP eligibility.

120 References Cited Adams, William Hampton 2002 Machine Cut Nails and Wire Nails: American Production and Use for Dating 19th-Century and Early-20th-Century Sites. Historical Archaeology 36(4): 66-88.

Adovasio, James M. and R.C. Carlisle (editors) 1982 Meadowcroft: Collected Papers on the Archaeology of Meadowcroft Rockshelter and Cross Creek Drainage. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Adovasio, James, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath 1990 The eadowcroftM Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology 1975-1990. American Antiquity 55(2):348-354.

Ahler, S.A. 1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather Than the Tree. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis. Edited by D.O. Henry and G.H. Odell, pp. 85-118. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association Number 1.

Alvord, Clarence Walworth 1965 The llinoisI Country, 1673-1818. Loyola University Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Anderson, David G. and Kenneth E. Sassaman 1996 The aleoindianP and Early Archaic Southeast. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Andrefsky, William, Jr. 1998 Lithics Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press, UK.

Anslinger, C. Michael 1986 The Riverton Culture: Lithic Systems and Settlement Parameters. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

Ball, Donald B. 2000 Phase I Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of a Proposed Bank Protection Area Along the Upper Green River, Green County, Kentucky. US Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville.

Bradley, B.A. 1975 Lithic Reduction Sequences: A Glossary and Discussion. In Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by E. Swanson, pp. 5-13. Mouton.

Braun, E. Lucy 1950 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. The Blakiston Company, Philadelphia.

Breitburg, Emmanuel 1992 Vertebrate Faunal Remains. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley, edited by A. Gwynn Henderson, pp. 209-242. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

121 Bupp, Susan L., Christopher L. Bowen, Laurie Paonessa, and Ruth Trocolli 2005 Phase II Investigations of Six Archaeological Sites, Indiana Army Ammunition Plant Charlestown, Clark County, Indiana. Report submitted to US Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Mobile, Alabama by Parsons, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia.

Butler, William B. 1987 Significance and Other Frustrations in the CRM Process. American Antiquity 53:820-829.

Channing, Steven A. 1977 Kentucky: A Bicentennial History. Norton, New York.

Clark, Thomas C. 1960 A History of Kentucky. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington

Collins, Michael B. 1975 Lithic Technology as a Means of Processual Inference. In Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by E. Swanson, pp.14-34. Mouton.

Collins, Michael B., and Boyce N. Driskell 1979 Summary and Conclusions. In Excavations at Four Archaic Sites in the Lower Ohio Valley, Jefferson County Kentucky, edited by Michael B. Collins. Occasional papers in Anthropology, No. 1

Code of Federal Regulations 36 CFR 60.4 National Register of Historic Places, Criteria for Evaluation

36 CFR 79: Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections: Final Rule.

36 CFR 800 Protection of Historic Properties.

Cowen, C. Wesley 1985 Understanding the Evolution of Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America: Lessons from Botany, Ethnography, and Archaeology. In Prehistoric Food Production in North America, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 205-243. Anthropological Papers No. 75. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

DelCastello, Brian G. and Thomas H. McAlpine 2016 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Reconstruction of the Vaughn Curve Along US 68 in Green County, Kentucky (Item No. 4-398. 01). Contract Publication Series 16-424. Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. Lexington, Kentucky.

Delcourt, Havel R. 1979 Late Quaternary Vegetational History of the Eastern Highland Rim and Adjacent Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee. Ecological Monographs 49(3):225-280.

Domanski, Marian, and John Webb 2007 A Review of Heat Treatment Research. Lithic Technology 32(2):153-194.

122 Downes, Randolph C. 1940 Council Fires on the Upper Ohio: A Narrative of Indian Affairs in the Upper Ohio Valley until 1795. The University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Dunnell, R.C. 1971 Systematics in Prehistory. Free Press: New York.

Evans, J.G. 1978 An Introduction to Environmental Archaeology. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Fagan, Brian 1988 Archaeology: A Brief Introduction. Harper Collins, New York.

Glassow, Michael 1977 Issues in Evaluating the Significance of Archaeological Resources. American Antiquity 42:413-420.

Goad, Sharon I. 1979 Chert Resources in Georgia. Report No. 21. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series, Athens.

Goddard, Jayne H. 2016 A Cultural Historic Eligibility Report of the US 68 Spot Improvements Sections 11, 12, & 13 in Green County, Kentucky, KYTC Item No. 4-397.1. Palmer Engineering, Winchester, Kentucky.

Gordon, R.B. 1969 TheNatural Vegetation of Ohio in Pioneer Days. Ohio Biological Survey, Vol. 3, No. 2. Columbus, Ohio.

Griffin, James B. 1978 Late Prehistory of the Ohio Valley. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 547-559. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Hanson, Lee 1966 The ardinH Village Site. Studies in Anthropology No. 4. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.

Harrison, Lowell Hayes 1992 Kentucky’s Road to Statehood. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.

Henderson, A. Gwynn, Cynthia E. Jobe, and Christopher A. Turnbow 1986 Indian Occupation and Use in Northern and Eastern Kentucky During the Contact Period (1540- 1795): An Initial Investigation. Museum of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington. Submitted to Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

Henderson, A. Gwynn, David Pollack, and Christopher A. Turnbow. 1992 Chronology and Cultural Patterns. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics. In The Middle Ohio Valley, ed. A. Gwynn Henderson, pp 253-79. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

123 Hulbert, A.B. 1930 Soil: Its Influence on the History of the United States; With Special Reference to Migration and the Scientific Study of Local History. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Janzen, Donald E. 1977 An Examination of Late Archaic Development in the Falls of the Ohio River Area. In For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by Charles E. Cleland. Anthropological Papers No. 61. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Jefferies, Richard W. 1990 Archaic Period. In The Archaeology of Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and Future Directions, Volume One, edited by David Pollack, pp. 143-246. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

1996 Hunters and Gatherers After the Ice Age. In Kentucky Archaeology, edited by R. Barry Lewis, pp. 39-77. University Press of Kentucky, Frankfort.

Jones, Olive, Catherine Sullivan, George L. Miller, E. Ann Smith, Jane E. Harris, Kevin Lunn 1989 The arksP Canada Glass Glossary. National Historic Parks and Sites Canadian Parks Service Environment, Ottawa, Canada.

Jones, Scott 2006 Quartz Tool Technology in the Northeast Georgia Piedmont. Early Georgia 34(1):27-88.

Jordan, N. 1979 Between the Forest and the Prairie. In Geographic Perspectives on America’s Past, edited by D. Ward. Oxford University Press, New York.

Justice, Noel D. 1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.

Kellar, James H. 1973 An Introduction to the Prehistory of Indiana. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.

Kelley, Lisa J. 2013 An Archaeological Overview Study for the U.S. 68 Corridor between the Louie B. Nunn Cumberland Parkway in Metcalfe County, and Greensburg, Green County, Kentucky (Item Number 3-203.00), CRA Project No.: K13S014. Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., Lexington, Kentucky.

Kleber, John E. 1992 The Kentucky Encyclopedia. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.

Kusmer, K.D., E.K. Leach, and M.J. Jackson 1987 Reconstruction of Precolonial Vegetation in Livingston County, Kentucky and Prehistoric Cultural Implications. Southeastern Archaeology 6(3):107-114.

Lewis, R. Barry 1996b Mississippi Period. In The Archaeology of Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and Future Directions, Volume Two, edited by David Pollack, pp. 375-466. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

124 Lewis, R. Barry (editor) 1996a Kentucky Archaeology. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.

Lewis, R. Barry and Charles B. Stout 1992 On the Nature of Mississippian Towns in Kentucky. Paper presented at the 49th Archaeological Conference Meetings, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Little, Barbara, Erika Martin Seibert, Jan Townsend, John H. Sprinkle, Jr. and John Knoerl 2000 National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Properties. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register, History and Education.

Lofstrom, E., J.P. Tordoff, and D. C. George 1982 Seriation of Historic Earthen wares in the Midwest, 1780-1870. The Minnesota Archaeologist 41(1):3-29.

Luedtke, Barbara E. 1992 An Archaeologist’s Guide to Chert and Flint. Archaeological Research Tools 7, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

McBride, Kim A., and W. Stephen McBride 1990 Chapter 9: Historic Period Culture History. In The Archaeology of Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and Future Directions, edited by David Pollack, Volume Two, pp. 583-747. Kentucky heritage Council, Frankfort.

McGrain, Preston and James C. Currens 1978 Topography of Kentucky. Kentucky Geological Survey, Lexington.

Miller, George L. 1980 “Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th Century Ceramics.” Historical Archaeology. 14:1-40.

Moir, Randall W. 1987 Farmstead Proxemics and Intrasite Pattering. In Historic Buildings, Material Culture, and People of the Prairie Margin, edited by David H. Jurney and Randall W. Moir, pp. 229-237. Richland Creek Technical Series, Volume V. Archaeology Research Program, Institute for the Study of Earth and Man, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.

Munsey, Cecil 1970 The llustratedI Guide to Collecting Bottles. Hawthorn Books, Inc., New York.

Nance, Jack D. 1987 The rchaicA Sequence in the Lower Tennessee-Cumberland-Ohio Region. Southeastern Archaeology 6:129-140.

Nelson, Lee H. 1963 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings. American Association of State and Local History. Technical Leaflet 15.

125 Newell, Wayne L. 1986 Physiography. In The Geology of Kentucky – A Text to Accompany the Geologic Map of Kentucky, US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1151-H., edited by Robert C. McDowell. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. (https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1151h/contents.html).

Noël Hume, Ivor 1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Vintage Books, New York.

Odell, George H. 2003 Lithic Analysis Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory, and Technique. Springer Publishing, New York.

Orser, C.E. Jr. 1988 The aterialM Basis of the Postbellum Tenant Plantation: Historical Archaeology in the South Carolina Piedmont. University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Pollack, David (editor) 2008 The rchaeologyA of Kentucky: An Update. Volume One. Kentucky Heritage Council State Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan Report No. 3.

Potter, Elisabeth Walton, and Beth M. Boland 1992 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places. National Register Bulletin 41. US Department of the Interior, Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Washington, DC.

Prufer, Olaf, and D.H. McKenzie, editors 1967 Studies in Ohio Archaeology. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Railey, Jimmy A. 1990 Woodland Period. In The Archaeology of Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and Future Directions, Volume One, edited by David Pollack, pp. 247-374. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

1996 Woodland Cultivators. In Kentucky Archaeology, edited by R.B. Lewis, pp. 79-125. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.

Randall, Asa R. 2000 Blue-Gray Ft. Payne and the Identification of Chert. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 46(1):58- 71.

Roenke, Karl G. 1978 Flat glass, Its Use as a Dating Tool for Nineteenth Century Archeological Sites in the Pacific Northwest and Elsewhere. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, Memoir No.4. Moscow, Idaho.

Ross, James C. and Thomas R. Leathers 1982 Soil Survey of Green and Taylor Counties, Kentucky. United Stated Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC.

126 Rossen, Jack 1992 Botanical Remains. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley, edited by A. Gwynn Henderson, pp. 189-208. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Sanders, Thomas n. (editor) 2006 Specifications for Conducting Fieldwork and Preparing Cultural Resource Assessment Reports. Revised Edition 2.4 Kentucky State Historic Preservation Office. Frankfort, Kentucky.

Savage, Beth L., and Sarah Dillard Pope 1998 National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. US Department of Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Washington, DC.

Secretary of the Interior 48 FR 44738-9 Professional Qualification Standards

1983 Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation

Schock, Jack M. and Richard Alvey 1976 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Realignment of U.S. 68, Green County, Kentucky. Submitted to Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Transportation by Western Kentucky University.

Seeman, Mark F. 1986 Adena “Houses” and Their Implications for Early Woodland Settlement Models in the Ohio Valley. In Early Woodland Archaeology, edited by Kenneth B. Farnsworth and Thomas E. Emerson, pp. 564-580. Kampsville Seminars in Archaeology No. 2. Center for American Archaeology, Kampsville, Illinois.

1992 The Bow and Arrow, the Intrusive Mound Complex, and a Late Woodland Jack’s Reef Horizon in the Mid-Ohio Valley. In Cultural Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley, edited by Mark F. Seeman, pp. 41-51. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Sharp, William E. 1990 Fort Ancient Period. In The Archaeology of Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and Future Directions, edited by David Pollack. Volume two, pp. 467-557. State Historic Preservation Plan Report No. 1. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

Sheppard, Donald E. 1995 De Soto’s Trail to Apalache. In The Florida Anthropologist, p. 174. Vol. 48, No. 3. Florida Anthropological Society, Inc., and www.floridahistory.com/alabama.html.

Sherfy, Marcella, and W. Ray Luce 1998 National Register Bulletin 22: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties That Have Achieved Significance in the Last Fifty Years. US Department of the Interior, Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Washington, DC.

127 South, Stanley 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Stahlgren, Lori C. 2003 Archaeological Investigations of the Abell Cabin, Greensburg, Green County, Kentucky. Kentucky Archaeological Survey, Lexington.

Struever, Stuart 1964 The opewellH Interaction Sphere in Riverine-Western Great Lakes Culture History. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by Joseph R. Caldwell and Robert L. Hall, pp. 85-106. Scientific Papers No. 12. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

Swann, Brenda N. 2002 Material Culture at Presidio Santa María De Galve (1698-1722): Combining the Historical and Archaeological Records. Southeastern Archaeology 21(1): 64-78.

Tankersley, Kenneth B. 1990 Paleoindian Period. In The Archaeology of Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and Future Directions, Volume One, edited by David Pollack, pp. 73-142. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

1996 Ice Age Hunters and Gatherers. In Kentucky Archaeology, edited by R.B. Lewis, pp.21-36, University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.

Toulouse, Julian H. 1968 Empontilling – A History (Conclusion). The Glass Industry (April), pp.204-5. New York.

1971 Bottle Makers and Their Marks. Thomas Nelson, Inc., New York.

Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle Jr., and John Knoerl 1993 National Register Bulletin 36: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Washington, DC.

Wesler, Kit W. 1984 A Spatial Perspective on Artifact Group Patterning within the Houselot. Proceedings of the Symposium on Ohio Valley Urban and Historic Archaeology 2:37-44.

Worthy, Linda H. 1982 Classification and Interpretation of Late 19th and Early 20th Century Ceramics. InArchaeology of Urban America: The Search for Pattern and Process, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., pp. 329.360. Academic Press, New York.

Yarnell, Richard A. 1964 Aboriginal Relationships Between Culture and Plant Life in the Upper Great Lakes Region. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan.

Zawacki, April Allison and Glenn Hausfater 1969 Early Vegetation of the Lower Illinois Valley. Illinois State Museum Society, Springfield.

128