Archaeological Assessment of Sites 44PY7, 44PY43, 44PY152 At
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SITES 44PY7, 44PY43, AND 44PY152 AT LEESVILLE LAKE PITTSYLVANIA COUN1Y, VIRGINIA ~ OTHER PALEOINDIAN CLUSTERS LEESVILLE LAKE SITES Prepared for Virginia Department of Historic Resources December 1994 ~ The College Of . .• :<( WILLIAM&MARY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SITES 44PY7, 44PY43, AND 44PY152 AT LEESVILLE LAKE PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VIRGINIA Submitted to: Virginia Department of Historic Resources 221 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Submitted by: William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research Department of Anthropology The College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia 23187 Project Directors Dennis B. Blanton .)onald W. Linebaugh Authors Dennis B. Blanton William Childress Jonathan Danz Leslie Mitchell Joseph Schuldenrein Jesse Zinn December 16, 1994 ABSTRACT Sites 44PY7, 44PY43, and 44PY152 on the southern shore of Leesville Lake in Pittsylvania County were subjected to archaeological evaluation. Sites 44PY7 and 44PY152 were confirmed to contain Early ArchaicIPaleoindian horizons buried beneath 1.5 to 1.8 m of alluvium. Geoarchaeological analyses and a series of radiocarbon dates make the 44PY152 deposits among the best-documented early Holocene contexts in the region. Portions of these components have been lost to erosion, but each retains significant research potential. Site 44PY43 is a remnant of a Late Woodland village. Trenching failed to locate a palisade line, but numerous post features and possible pits were identified. This site also retains potential for recovering significant information on Late Woodland settlement in this section of the Roanoke River valley. Project results are discussed in the context of prevailing settlementlsubsistencemodels fbr the region. REPORT CONTRIBUTORS Authors: Dennis B. Blanton William Childress Jonathan Danz Leslie Mitchell Joseph Schuldenrein Jesse Zinn Graphics and Report Production Editors: Donald W. Linebaugh David W. Lewes Graphics Contributor: John D. Roberts Artifact Inventory and Analysis: Veronica Deitrick Jesse Zinn Copy Editor: David W. Lewes iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Challenging projects are never completed without strong commitments from many people, and this one is no exception. Cooperation among agents of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the Roanoke Chapter of the Archeological Society of Virginia, and the William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research was vital. David Hazzard of the DHR fueled the project with his unflagging support and optimism, even as few of our calls brought him exciting news. Members of the ASV chapter contributed their own vacation and leave time just to force heavy clay through fine screens, and also to motivate the crew with their accounts of work at these and other area sites. Dan Vogt's visits were particularly welcome as his dry wit and practical outlook kept it all in reasonable perspective. The devotion of Bill Childress and Jeanette Cole to the early components at these sites is, essentially, amazing. From the first meeting they hosted in their home, it was clear that they were completely committed to producing quality results. The aid of Mary Louise Arend and Joey Moldenhouer in planning and in the field was also very important. Appalachian Power Company is due thanks for tolerating this work and arranging for low water in the early going. Mr. Mike Thacker of APCO was patient with our requests and helpful in many ways. The Chatham residency of VDOT graciously supplied a backhoe and skillfully negotiated an equipment-eating bog. Special recognition goes to a group of volunteers from the Fairfax Chapter of the ASV, organized by Mike Johnson. These folks donated a full week to the project, which happened to coincide with a period of very hot weather and some of the toughest water screening. We were all impressed at their willingness to stick it out, with only good-natured commentary about the rigors of the project. The William and Mary field crew of Jonathan Dam, Jeff Irwin, and Jesse Zinn deserve a wealth of credit. They worked as a team with minimal daily supervision and persevered in spite of several floods, fluctuating water levels, unfriendly soil, low artifact density, and many hours on the road. Dr. Rick Berkquist of William and Mary was most helpfbl with Leslie Mitchell's study of geology and also in contacting Dr. Bill Henika of Virginia Tech, who had mapped the vicinity and later contributed a fax of his results. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ........................... ......................... 11 * 0 * Report Contributors ....................................................~;ia Acknowledgments .......................................... i~ Table of Contents .................................................... v List of Figures ......................................... vi List of Tables .................................................... viii Chapter 1: Introducti~n(D. Blanton) ............................................ 1 Chapter 2: Archaeological and Environmental C~ntext.(Do Blanton) ......................... B 1 Chapter 3: Methods (D.Blanton) .............................................. 231 Chapter 4: Site 44PY4 Results (D. Blanton) ........................................2'1 Chapter 5: Site 44PY43 Results (J. Danz) .........,...a*.... ......................3 f Chapter 6: Site 44PY152 Results (J. Zinn) ......................................... 34 Chapter 7: Description of Surface-collected Artifacts from 44PY7 and 44PY152 (W Childress) ........ 51 Chapter 9: Assessment of Lithic Raw Material Procurement and Use at 44PY152 (L. Mitchell) ......... 84 I Chapter 9: Geoarchaeological Observations at 44PY 152 (J. Schuldenrein) ......................99 Chapter 10: Summary and Conclusions (D. Bhnton) .................................. 109 References Cited ................................................... Appendix A: Artifact Inventory LIST OF HGIJIWS Page Project area location .................................................. 1 Site 44PY152. flood conditions (site area indicated by backdirt pile and sparse trees) .......... 2 Beach at 44PY 152 exposed by low lake levels .................................. 2 Project area and environs (U .S . Geological Survey [USGS] 7.5-minute Smith kf ountain Dam topographic quadrangle 1967tphotorevised 1984) ................... 3 Project area (USGS Moneta 15-minute topographic quadrangle 195 1) .................... 4 Aerial photograph showing 44PY7 and 44PY152 before impoundment (USDA 1956) .......... 5 Aerial photograph showing 44PY43 before impoundment (USDA 1956) .................. 6 Smith Mountain Gap. looking northwest from 44PY152 ............................ 7 Composite plan showing river channel within Leesville Lake basin ...................... 8 Locations of regional sites mentioned in text ................................... 13 Comparison of stratigraphic profiles from comparable sites ...........................14 Site 44PY7. plan .................................................... 28 Site 44PY7. representative auger test profiles ...................................29 Site 44PY43. plan ................................................... 32 Site 44PY43. shovel test anse sect results ...................................... 33 Site 44PY43. plan of features in Trench 1 ..................................... 35 Site 44PY 152. plan ...................................................38 Formal tools recovered from 44PY 152 ....................................... 39 Quartz corelscraper plane recovered from 44PY 152 ............................... 39 Site 44PY 152. auger test profiles .......................................... 40 Site 44PY 152. cross-section ............................................. 41 Site 44PY 152. Test Unit 1. south profile ..................................... 42 Site 44PY 152. Test Unit 1. east profile ......................................43 Site 44PY152. Test Unit 1. east profile view. showing remnant of cobble deposit at south end ..... 43 Site 44PY152. Test Unit 1. Level 2 plan ...................................... 44 Site 44PY152. Test Unit 1. Level 2. distal biface fragment (Piece Plot 1) ................. '45 Site 44PY152. Test Unit 2. west profile view ................................... 46 Site 44FY152. Test Unit 2. Level 2 plan showing fragipan "cracks" ..................... 47 Site 44PY152. Test Unit 2. debitage by level ................................... 48 Site 44PY152. summary of artifact classes ..................................... 48 Site 44PY152. Test Unit 2. local vs . nonlocal raw materials by level .................... 49 Unifaces from 44PY 152 and 44PY7 surface collection ............................. 60 Projectile points and unifacial tools from 44PY 152 and 44PY7 surface collection ............. 62 Tools of local quartz and quartzite from 44PY152 surface collection ....................78 Cyclical lithic procurement model (from Turner 1989) .............................89 General distributions of lithic raw materials in Virginia ............................. 90 Proportions of materials from different areas represented at 44PY152 .................... 92 Site 44PY152. local vs . nonlocal materials among forxnal tools ........................ 93 Site 44PY152. local vs . nonlocal materials among informal tools ....................... 93 Site 44PY 152. formal vs . informal tools by raw material type ......................... 95 Site 44PY152. Test Unit 2. west profile ..................................... 100 Site 44PY 152. Test Unit 2. summary particle size ardysis ........................