PHASE II NRHP ELIGIBLITY ASSESSMENT OF A PORTION OF 15CH684 IN CHRISTIAN COUNTY, KENTUCKY

UK-PAR PROJECT No. 15-1

KENTUCKY OFFICE OF STATE ARCHAEOLOGY PROJECT REGISTRATION NUMBER FY14-9782

University of Kentucky Program for Archaeological Research Department of Anthropology

Technical Report No. 761

6 February 2015

Revised 29 October 2015 PHASE II NRHP ELIGIBLITY ASSESSMENT OF A PORTION OF 15CH684 IN CHRISTIAN COUNTY, KENTUCKY

UK-PAR PROJECT No. 15-1

KENTUCKY OFFICE OF STATE ARCHAEOLOGY PROJECT REGISTRATION NUMBER FY14-9782

Authors: Caitlin Rogers and Steven Ahler

Report Submitted to: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Division of Environmental Analysis 200 Mero Street Fifth Floor Frankfort, KY 40622

Report Submitted by: University of Kentucky Research Foundation for the Program for Archaeological Research Department of Anthropology University of Kentucky 1020A Export Street Lexington, Kentucky 40506-9854 Phone: (859) 275-1944 Fax: (859) 323-1968 www.uky.edu/as/anthropology/par

Technical Report No. 761

______Steven R. Ahler Principal Investigator

Lead Agency: Federal Highway Administration

6 February 2015

Revised 29 October 2015 ABSTRACT

At the request of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC), archaeologists from the University of Kentucky Program for Archaeological Research (UK-PAR) performed Phase II National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility assessment of a portion of 15CH684 in Christian County, Kentucky that will be impacted by construction within new right-of-way (ROW) corridors. Because the site was found from Phase I work to be potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP, and because impact to the site could not be avoided, a formal Phase II NRHP eligibility assessment was conducted

The Phase I artifact assemblage from 15CH684 was interpreted as representing the remains of a general residential habitation of Paleoindian age. Phase II field investigations were conducted in multiple stages, including placing backhoe trenches within the site and a sinkhole adjacent to the artifact scatter, close- interval shovel testing, controlled surface collection, and hand-excavation of six test units. The lithic modified items from the site include intentionally retouched flakes, formal unifacial tools (scrapers, cutting tools, spokeshaves, and tools with multiple working edges), generally reduced cores, and bifaces in early, middle, and late stages of reduction. No Paleoindian age points were found, but many of the bifaces fit into earlier stages of Clovis point production sequences, and overshot flakes characteristic of Paleoindian biface manufacture were also recovered. All cultural material was confined to plow zone contexts, and all debitage was derived exclusively from nonlocal Ste. Genevieve and Fort Payne chert.

Unfortunately, test unit excavations produced a Late Woodland projectile point as well as morphologically Paleoindian tools, indicating that 15CH684 was multicomponent. A Paleoindian analytical component was identified for additional analyses by extracting the patinated chert artifacts presumably deriving from the Paleoindian occupation of 15CH684 and supplementing these with nonpatinated modified items of Paleoindian manufacture based on morphological and technological attributes (e.g., bifaces in the Clovis production sequence, tools made on large prismatic blade segments, combination unifacial/bifacial tools, and retouched blade-like flakes). All chert artifacts are made from nonlocal high-quality chert, either Ste. Genevieve or Fort Payne. Debitage analysis showed higher proportions of secondary flakes and late- stage flakes, though all reduction stages were represented. Initial cobble testing and removal of cortex likely tool place off-site, but materials were brought to the site in a partially reduced state (cores, flake blanks, blades, rough bifaces) and were further reduced on-site. This debitage profile is consistent with general domestic habitation activities. The modified items in the Paleoindian analytical assemblage are morphologically highly varied and represent all stages of manufacture. There is high morphological diversity of the modified items, and low-magnification use-wear analysis showed moderate to high diversity in kinetic motions and working of both hard and soft objective materials. Highly diverse tool assemblages indicate generalized residential occupation, probably of moderate duration. The Paleoindian component at 15CH684 apparently is the remains of a generalized residential occupation. There is no evidence of quarry/workshop or other specialized activities at the site. This interpretation suggests that Paleoindian groups were moving as residential units, consistent with a forager model of settlement organization. However, these residential groups were strongly anchored to sources of high-quality lithic raw materials, such as the Ste. Genevieve chert outcrops near the Paleoindian sites that comprise the nearby Little River Complex.

Documentation of a relatively short-term general residential location of Paleoindian age at 15CH684 would ordinarily make this site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D (scientific significance). The Paleoindian component at the site is particularly interesting because other Paleoindian sites in the locality are all dominated by quarry/workshop debris or have evidence of multiple temporal components. The assemblage from 15CH684 apparently represents the remains of residential activities that are not overshadowed and mixed with the more abundant debris derived from quarry and workshop reduction activities. This provides a clearer picture of general domestic habitation activities that took place during the Paleoindian period. However, 15CH684 includes a Late Woodland component that has created a temporally mixed artifact assemblage. Though we have isolated and analyzed a probable Paleoindian artifact subassemblage based on patination and morphological criteria, the assemblage is still mixed and therefore has limited additional research potential. In addition, the absence of intact subplow zone i deposits or features further reduces the overall research potential of the site and its associated artifact assemblage. On the positive side, analysis of the Paleoindian assemblage has contributed incrementally to a better understanding of local Paleoindian settlement systems by establishing that the site represents the remains of a residential habitation, not that of a specialized resource extraction site.

Considering all of these factors, we find that the research potential has been exhausted for the portion of 15CH684 that will be impacted by proposed construction. Consequently, this part of the site is not considered to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. No additional archaeological work is recommended for the portions of 15CH684 that lie within the currently proposed new rights-of-way. However, this finding applies only to those portions of the site that have been investigated within the proposed new rights-of-way and construction easements. The site extends north and south of the proposed new rights-of-way, and these parts of 15CH684 have not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. Consequently, these areas are still considered to have research potential and to be potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. If other portions of 15CH684 will be impacted by future construction activities, additional archaeological investigations should be conducted to fully evaluate the research potential and NRHP eligibility status of these areas.

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Abstract ...... i

List of Figures ...... iv

List of Tables ...... iv

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 2: Environmental Setting ...... 9

Chapter 3: Background Research and Survey Predictions ...... 11

Chapter 4: Research Design and Investigation Methods ...... 25

Chapter 5: Description and Analysis of Materials Recovered ...... 39

Chapter 6: Results of Investigations ...... 61

Chapter 7: Research Summary and Recommendations ...... 79

References Cited ...... 89

iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1.1. Location of Christian County, Kentucky ...... 1 1.2. Project Area Shown on the USGS 7.5’ Oak Grove, KY (1979, photorevised 1982) Topographic Quadrangle Map ...... 2 1.3. Site 15CH684 Landform Context ...... 3 1.4. Sketch Map of 15CH684 from Phase I Survey ...... 3 3.1. Site 15CH684 Landform Context ...... 21 3.2. Detailed Sketch Map of 15CH684 ...... 21 3.3. Soil Profile for Shovel Test B at 15CH684 ...... 22 3.4. Soil Profile for Deep Shovel Test C ...... 22 3.5. Probable Paleoindian-Age Combination Scraper/Unifacial Cutting Tools from 15CH684 ...... 24 5.1. Selected Unifacial Tools from 15CH684 ...... 43 5.2. Exhausted Blade Core from 15CH684 ...... 44 5.3. Rough Bifaces from 15CH684 ...... 45 5.4. Thick Bifaces from 15CH684 ...... 45 5.5. Thin Biface Fragments from 15CH684 ...... 46 5.6. Late Woodland Bakers Creek Point from Test Unit 2/Level 1 ...... 46 5.7. Early and Middle Phase Clovis Bifaces from 15CH684 ...... 47 5.8. Distribution of Modified Items from Phase II Investigations at 15CH684 by Identified Raw Material Type and Aspect of Modification ...... 49 6.1. Topography of 15CH684 and Locations of Mechanical Trenches ...... 62 6.2. Profile Drawing and Soil Horizon Interpretations for Trench 1 at 15CH684 ...... 63 6.3. Representative Section (2-3 m from west end) of North Profile of Trench 1 at 15CH684 ...... 63 6.4. Profile Drawing and Soil Interpretations of 15CH684 Trench 2, North Profile...... 64 6.5. Representative Section (2-3 m from west end) of North Profile of Trench 2 at 15CH684 ...... 64 6.6. View of Trench 3 at 15CH684, Looking West from the Middle of the Sideslope ...... 66 6.7. 15CH684 Showing Locations of Shovel Tests and Controlled Surface Collection Grid ...... 66 6.8. Typical Shovel Test Soil Profile at 15CH684 (ST 115) ...... 67 6.9. Soil Profile for ST111 Showing Possible Intact A horizon (Stratum II) ...... 67 6.10. Eastern Half of Controlled Surface Collection Grid ...... 68 6.11. Artifact Density and Formal Tool Distributions for Controlled Surface Collections at 15CH684 ...... 69 6.12. Locations of Test Units at 15CH684 in Relation to Other Phase 2 Investigations and Results ..... 71 6.13. Base of Plow Zone in Test Unit 1 at 15CH684 ...... 72 6.14. Test Unit 1 North Profile Image (upper) and Drawing (lower) ...... 73 6.15. Bottom of Level 1 in Test Unit 2 at 15CH684 ...... 74 6.16. Test Unit 2 West Profile Drawing (left) and Image (right) ...... 75 6.17 Chisel Plow Scar Filled with Dark Stratum 2 Sediment at the Base of Test Unit 2/Level 2 ...... 75 6.18. North Profile of Test Unit 3 at 15CH684 ...... 76 6.19. North Profile of Test Unit 4 at 15CH684 ...... 76 6.20. North Profile of Test Unit 5 at 15CH684 ...... 77 6.21. North Profile of Test Unit 6 at 15CH684 ...... 77 7.1. Distributions of Known Clovis-age Sites near 15CH684 ...... 85

iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1. Prehistoric Artifacts Recovered from 15CH684 ...... 23 5.1. Historic Artifacts Recovered from Phase II Investigations at 15CH684 ...... 40 5.2. Debitage by Flake Type and Material Type Recovered from Phase II Investigations at 15CH684 ...... 41

5.3. Modified Item Categories Recovered from Phase II Investigations at 15CH684 ...... 43 5.4. Phase II Paleoindian Assemblage from 15CH684, by Material Type ...... 50 5.5. Phase II Late Woodland Assemblage from 15CH684, by Material Type ...... 51 5.6. Modified Item Categories in the Paleoindian Analytical Assemblage from 15CH684 ...... 53 5.7. Number of Used Edges per Item by Raw Material Type in the Paleoindian Analytical Assemblage from 15CH684 ...... 57 5.8. Distribution of Inferred Kinetic Motions by Morphological Category for the Paleoindian Assemblage from 15CH684 ...... 57 5.9. Distribution of Inferred Kinetic Motions by Hardness of Objective Materials for the Paleoindian Assemblage from 15CH684 ...... 58 6.1. Artifacts Recovered from Phase II Surface Collection at 15CH684 ...... 69 6.2. Strata Descriptions for Test Units at 15CH684 ...... 74 6.3. Artifacts Recovered from Phase II Hand-excavated Test Units at 15CH684 ...... 78 6.4. Artifact Density Data (items per excavated liter) for Test Units and Levels at 15CH684 ...... 78

v

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.1. Location of Christian County, Kentucky.

The investigations were conducted in compliance with the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), the National Environmental Poliicy Act of 1969, Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Executive Order 11593 (Prrotection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment), and the Kentucky Heritage Council’s Specificattion for Conducting Fieldwork and Preparing Cultural Resource Assessment Reports (Sanders 2006). The project was carried out under the supervision of UK-PAR director Dr. Steven Ahler. Field work was directed by Steven Ahler, assisted by Justin Carlson, Jonathan Keith, Tiffany Little, Cara Mosier, and Caitlin Rogers. Field work was conducted on 15-16 July, 17-18 October, and 5-8 November 2013 and required about 224 person-hours to complete. Artifacts were analyzed by Caitlin Rogers and Steven Ahler, and these persons were the co-authors of all chapters. Hayward Wilkirson produced figures for the report.

PROJECT AREA/SITE DESCRIPTION

The project area is located in the Western Pennyroyal physiographic region, a subdivision of the Mississippi Plateau in southwestern Kentucky. This region is characterized by well-developed karst topography with numerous sinkholes, springs, and streams prooviding relief. Figure 1.2 shows the project area

1 Figure 1.2. Project Area Shown on the USGS 7.5’ Y (1979, photorevised 1982) Topographic Quadrangle Map.

2 Figure 1.3. Site 15CH684 Landform Context (looking north-northeast). Note low rise of upland ridge near center of image. The small sinkhole with vegetation is visible near the right edge of the image.

Figure 1.4. Sketch Map of 15CH684 from Phase I Survey (Ahler and Istok 2012:38).

3 As currently defined, the area of artifact scatter for 15CH684 measures at least 95 meters north-south and about 80 meters east-west (site area of about 0.5 ha). The site may continue farther north, but surface collection and shovel testing was not conducted outside the construction easement corridor. The other site boundaries are better defined, based on observed limits of artifact scatter.

In the initial Phase I work (Ahler and Istok 2012), shovel tests revealed only plow zone and Bt horizon subsoil with no indication of preserved midden or features. Excavation of a single deep shovel test at the margin of the sinkhole (Shovel Test C on Figure 1.4) documented a possible intact A horizon between 81 and 112(+) cm below surface. Though no artifacts were recovered from this shovel test, the sample is small, and the buried A horizon yet may contain artifacts associated with occupation of 15CH684, about 100 meters west of the sinkhole. Surface collection and shovel testing yielded an assemblage of 160 lithic debitage (three of which are utilized flakes), one generally reduced core, 10 biface fragments in various stages of reduction, and four unifacial tools. All of the lithic artifacts were identified in the Phase I report as being made from locally available Ste. Genevieve or St. Louis chert, with St. Louis chert apparently preferred as a raw material, though it outcrops farther away than Ste. Genevieve. The debitage profile includes all stages of biface reduction, with increasing numbers of flakes represented through the reduction sequence, indicating a full range of lithic reduction activities with emphasis on late-stage reduction. This debitage profile is consistent with generalized residential habitation activities. The modified items include both expedient tools (three utilized flakes) and a wide variety of formally modified tools, including unifaces, cores, and bifaces. This variety of tools is consistent with a generalized domestic habitation and performance of a range of activities. Though no hafted bifaces were recovered, combination scraper/unifacial cutting implements were manufactured on segments of large prismatic blades that are diagnostic of the Paleoindian period. Supporting a Paleoindian component was patina on 54 of the 175 artifacts.

The artifact assemblage from 15CH684 was interpreted as representing the remains of a general domestic habitation that took place in the Paleoindian period. There was no evidence of any other temporal component in the Phase I assemblage. There also was no evidence of intact subplow zone midden deposits or features, but there may be small areas within the site where an original A horizon is preserved below plow zone. A buried A horizon documented at the margin of the nearby sinkhole may also contain artifacts contemporary with the 15CH684 assemblage. Based on the moderate artifact density, likely occupation of the site during the Paleoindian period, documentation of only a single temporal component, high diversity of tools and debitage, and potential preservation of intact A horizon deposits, the research potential for 15CH684 was considered to be high. The research potential was enhanced because this site location is consistent with models of Paleoindian site location and landscape use developed for the region (Anderson 1990; Sanders 1988, 1990; Sanders and Maynard 1979; Tankersley 1990, 1996). These models may be tested or refined through additional research conducted at 15CH684. Because 15CH684 is apparently a residential site and not a lithic workshop, the site could also contribute to Paleoindian technological studies, settlement patterns, and exchange patterns (see Maggard and Stackelbeck 2008:160-161). Based on this initial assessment, UK-PAR recommended that 15CH684 be considered potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D. The State Historic Preservation Office (Kentucky Heritage Council) and KYTC staff concurred with this recommendation, and formal NRHP eligibility assessment was conducted, results of which are reported here.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Phase II investigations at 15CH684 took place in multiple stages, with results from one stage providing guidance for subsequent stages of work. The first stage was excavation of three backhoe trenches. Two trenches (each about 10 meters long and 1.3 m deep) were placed perpendicular to the edge of the small sinkhole east of the artifact scatter to determine if an intact A horizon paleosol was preserved in this local depositional environment. These trenches revealed the presence of a shallowly buried A horizon, overlaid by up to 80 cm of historically redeposited sediment. However, cleaning and documentation of the exposed profiles revealed no artifacts or charcoal within the A horizon, and processing of flotation samples taken from the buried A horizon strata produced no artifacts. An A horizon paleosol is preserved within the sinkhole, but

4 it apparently contains no artifacts that link it to the nearby Paleoindian-age occupation at 15CH684.

A third backhoe trench was excavated across the sideslope and eastern shoulder of the low rise that contains 15CH684. This trench was about 42 meters long and removed only the upper 30 cm of deposits. Examination of the trench profile revealed only a plow zone underlain by Bt horizon subsoil, with no intact A horizon preserved on this upland landform. No pit features were observed in the trench floor, and only a few root casts were evident. Results from the third trench indicated that there was little potential for preserved A horizon remnants on the upland landform that contained the site. Only a few artifacts were observed during trench excavation, and all were apparently derived from plow zone contexts.

The second stage of field work consisted of systematic surface collection and close-interval shovel testing. Surface collection was possible in the wider ROW corridor on the south side of NA, where a harrow attachment on a road grader was used to remove surface vegetation. An area measuring about 145 meters east-west and 15 meters wide was gridded into 87 5-x-5-meter collection units, and complete surface collection was performed on each unit after adequate rain had fallen and artifacts were exposed. Individual collection units produced between 0 and 19 items, and a total of 468 debitage fragments and 25 intentionally modified chipped stone tools were recovered. The tools from surface collection include a wide variety of morphological categories, including intentionally retouched flakes, formal unifacial tools (scrapers, cutting tools, spokeshaves, and tools with multiple working edges), generally reduced cores, and bifaces in early, middle, and late stages of reduction. No finished, hafted bifaces (i.e., Clovis or other Paleoindian-age points) were found, but many of the bifaces fit into one of several earlier stages of Clovis point production sequences described in the literature (see Bradley et al. 2010; Sanders 1990). Recovery of biface fragments that are part of a Clovis point production sequence supports the inference drawn from the Phase I assemblage that there is a Paleoindian component at 15CH684. This inference is also supported by recovery of primarily unifacial formal tools, some of which are made on large prismatic blade sections—another characteristic of Paleoindian lithic technology. Other biface fragments appear to be more generalized and do not fit into the Clovis production sequence; however, their presence suggests a fairly generalized suite of activities was carried out at the site. There was no evidence in the surface collection of any later temporal component, and it was concluded that 15CH684 apparently was only occupied during the Paleoindian period, and most likely during the early part of that period. Considerable age for the assemblage was supported by the presence of distinct patination on the chert artifacts. Of the debitage, 203 flakes (41.2 percent) were patinated, and 13 of 25 formal tools (52.0 percent) were patinated.

However, the road grader could not fit into the narrow northern ROW corridor without causing crop damage outside the ROW. In this corridor, shovel tests were placed at 5-meter intervals along the ROW corridor. Only six of 21 shovel tests were positive, and these produced only 9 debitage fragments. However, two adjacent shovel tests showed a possible A horizon remnant preserved below plow zone These shovel tests were located within a very shallow depression (~10 cm difference compared to surrounding elevations) on the crest of the rise. This location became a target for subsequent test unit excavation.

On the strength of the surface collection assemblage, which indicated presence of a Paleoindian (probably Clovis-age) component, and the shovel tests, which indicated a possible preserved A horizon north a third stage of field work was initiated after crops were harvested. This stage involved hand excavation of six 1-x-2-meter test units within the site area. Test Unit 2 was placed north where shovel test profiles had indicated a possible intact A horizon remnant. A thin (2-5 cm) and discontinuous layer of darker sediment underlay the plow zone, and a flotation sample extracted from it produced a small amount of charcoal, plus a few carbonized seeds. One unidentified seed was sent for AMS radiocarbon assay, and it produced a date of 115±20 RCYBP (ISGS-A2948)—an essentially modern date. This lower zone contained only seven artifacts, and the charcoal within it apparently did not derive from the Paleoindian occupation of the site. It may represent an older plow zone remnant. Artifact density was relatively low in Test Unit 2, with only 85 debitage and 3 formally modified items recovered from both levels. Of these, 36 show patination, indicating probable Paleoindian age. However, one of the modified items is an unpatinated Late Woodland Bakers Creek point, recovered from a flotation sample extracted from the Level 1 plow zone.

5 This is the only hafted biface recovered from the site. There is apparently a minor Late Woodland component at 15CH684, which may account for the unpatinated lithic artifacts. This component may be confined to the part of the site that lies north of NA, but this is not certain.

The other five test units were placed south within or near surface collection units that produced higher numbers of artifacts or higher numbers of modified items than surrounding collection units. All of these test units revealed only plow zone deposits underlain by culturally sterile Bt horizon clay loam subsoil. The assemblage from these five test units includes 717 debitage and three formally modified items. Of this, 199 debitage and 2 formally modified items are patinated. Again, no hafted bifaces were recovered, but the presence of blade-like flakes, patinated artifacts, and overshot flakes are all consistent with the presence of a Paleoindian age component at 15CH684.

Because the test unit excavations produced a Late Woodland projectile point, as well as additional tools assignable to a Paleoindian/Clovis-age occupation, 15CH684 was obviously multicomponent. This posed difficulties for analyses, as all materials were confined to plow zone contexts and could not be separated stratigraphically. The single Late Woodland diagnostic artifact was recovered from the north part of the site, and this suggested that the Late Woodland component might be distinguished by spatially differentiating assemblages from north (Late Woodland component) from those south (Paleoindian component). However, patinated artifacts and morphologically Paleoindian tools had also been recovered north, and there was no guarantee that debitage derived from the Late Woodland occupation did not extend south. Presence of patina allowed an alternative approach to analyses, with patinated materials— presumably deriving from the Paleoindian occupation of 15CH684—analyzed separately from nonpatinated artifacts. The patinated assemblage was supplemented with nonpatinated modified items that were most likely of Paleoindian manufacture, such as bifaces in the Clovis production sequence, tools made on large prismatic blade segments, combination tools, and retouched blade-like flakes. However, the Paleoindian analytical assemblage is under-represented because the raw material types identified in the Phase 2 assemblage exhibit differential patination. Ste. Genevieve chert exhibits variable patina, while patina is more robustly and consistently expressed on Fort Payne chert. Some chert that had been identified as St. Louis in the Phase I analysis proved to be Fort Payne chert upon re-analysis as part of the Phase 2 investigations. Even so, the Paleoindian component apparently accounts for a large proportion of the tools and debitage recovered from the site and the materials were subjected to additional analyses to help interpret the role of the Paleoindian component in a local settlement system.

The probable Paleoindian subassemblage includes artifacts made from three high-quality raw material types—Ste. Genevieve, St. Louis, and Fort Payne. Both the high-quality version of Ste. Genevieve chert and Fort Payne chert outcrop some distance from the site location, and the locally available low-quality chert (though mapped as deriving from Ste. Genevieve limestone) apparently was not used for production of stone tools. St. Louis chert is relatively high quality and is available about 5 km of the project area. These observations indicate that all lithic resources recovered at 15CH684 were transported to the site by its occupants. These were probably transported in finished or partially reduced forms, and this inference is supported by the low proportions of primary flakes. Partially finished tools include bifaces in almost all stages of reduction, Early and Middle Phase Clovis bifaces, cores, prismatic blades, and formal unifacial tools. In composite, this array of tools and debitage indicates that a relatively broad range of activities took place on site. This is consistent with use of the site as a generalized domestic habitation site. Unlike most other Paleoindian sites in the area that have been subjected to professional investigations and analyzed, 15CH684 does not show evidence of quarry/workshop activities as part of the site function. It appears to be a less complicated assemblage that derived from generalized domestic habitation activities. Artifact density is relatively low, but tool diversity is high, which suggests that the site was occupied one or more times for a relatively short duration.

Modified items in the Paleoindian subassemblage were subjected to low-magnification use-wear analysis. The results indicate relatively intensive use of tools, with most showing evidence of retouch, resharpening, or formal shaping. In addition, there is a high ratio (nearly 2:1) of used edges to modified

6 items, especially for the unifacial tools. This indicates that many modified items were used more than once, or were used for multiple (perhaps related) tasks. There is also a high ratio of kinetic motions to modified items. Though six distinct kinetic motions were identified, the large majority of edges were used for either cutting, whittling, or scraping motions. Chiseling, splitting, and chopping motions were represented in low numbers. Still, the relatively wide variety of kinetic motions is consistent with use of the site as a generalized residential camp rather than as a special-function locus such as a butchering site. Most used tool edges were employed on hard objective material, but hard objective material creates more microflake and attrition damage than soft material, so soft material is generally under-represented in use-wear results. Even so, the mixture of hard and soft objective materials is also consistent with use of the site as a generalized domestic habitation.

Use-wear analysis, morphological classification of modified items, and debitage analysis all indicate that the Paleoindian component at 15CH684 represents the remains of one or more generalized domestic occupations. The relatively low artifact density suggests relatively short duration of site use (perhaps a few weeks) or a limited number of short-term occupations that now are expressed as a single palimpsest component due to agricultural mixing. What is particularly significant about the site and assemblage is the fact that general domestic habitation activities are not mixed with (and overshadowed by) quarry/workshop activities, as is the case at the Adams site (15CH90) and several others (Boyd [15CH236], Roeder [15CH482], and Ezell [15CH483]) in the nearby Little River Complex (see Sanders 1990). This situation increases the research potential of 15CH684. However, the site has been heavily impacted by historic agricultural activities, which reduces its research potential.

Documentation of a relatively short-term general residential location of Paleoindian age at 15CH684 would ordinarily make this site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D (scientific significance). However, 15CH684 includes a Late Woodland component that has created a temporally mixed artifact assemblage. Though we have isolated and analyzed a likely Paleoindian subassemblage of artifacts based on patination and morphological criteria, the assemblage is still mixed and therefore has limited research potential. In addition, the absence of intact subplow zone deposits or features further reduces the overall research potential of the site and its associated artifact assemblage. Considering all of these factors, we find that the research potential has been exhausted for the portion of 15CH684 that will be impacted by proposed construction. Consequently, this part of the site is not considered to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. No additional archaeological work is recommended for the portions of 15CH684 that lie within the currently proposed new rights-of-way (see Figure 1.4).

However, this finding applies only to those portions of the site that have been investigated within the proposed new rights-of-way and construction easements. The site extends north and south of the proposed new rights-of-way, and these parts of 15CH684 have not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility, and are still considered to be potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. If these portions of 15CH684 will be impacted by future construction activities, additional archaeological investigations should be conducted to fully evaluate the research potential of these areas.

7 8 CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

This chapter provides information about the physiography, geology, soils, climate, flora, and fauna within and near the project area. The effects of human habitation on the environmental setting of the project area are presented when possible.

PHYSIOGRAPHY

Christian County is characterized by two distinct terrains. The southern part of the county is gently rolling limestone plains with numerous sinkholes, springs, and creeks. The northern part is defined by high plateaus with sandstone-capped hills and ridges. Elevations within Christian County range between 390 feet AMSL to 750 feet AMSL (McGrain and Currens 1978). The project area is located in the southern half of the county, on the USGS 7.5’ Oak Grove, KY (1979) topographic quadrangle (see Figure 1.2).

GEOLOGY

The Ste. Genevieve Limestone formation of the Meramec Series of Mississippian-age rock underlies the project area. This formation contains chert in several forms and strata, but the chert weathered from bedrock surrounding the project area is described as “blocky vesicular fragments that are part chalky white and part reddish brown” (Klemic 1966a, 1966b); this weathered residual chert is coarse-grained and poorly suited to stone tool manufacture. These characteristics of locally weathered Ste. Genevieve chert hold for tens of kilometers east and west of the project area, and field observations of weathered chert in non-site contexts support this characterization of local the Ste. Genevieve chert. However, Ste. Genevieve chert that derives from the lower part of the formation is much more fine-grained, and occurs as both thick beds and subspherical nodules of fine-grained material that is light to dark grey in color. This version of Ste. Genevieve chert is not local to the project area and outcrops at its closest about 20 km northwest of the project area in the lower Little River valley (Ulrich and Klemic 1966).

The southwestern portion of the Oak Grove quadrangle, about 5 km from the project area, is underlain by the St. Louis Limestone formation, also of the Meramec Series of Mississippian age (Klemic 1966a). Chert from the St. Louis formation ranges from dark gray to bluish-gray to white, and it occurs in thin layers, nodules, and spheroidal masses 4 to 10 inches in diameter. St. Louis chert is considered a locally available high-quality chert, suitable for stone tool production. However, the local Ste. Genevieve chert is much more vesicular and of much lower quality than St. Louis chert, while the nonlocal variety of Ste. Genevieve chert is of high quality. St. Louis and high-qulity Ste. Genevieve cherts are overall similar in appearance and are differentiated by the presence of fossils within some of the Ste. Genevieve chert and the overall greater opacity of St. Louis chert when compared to Ste. Genevieve (which is more translucent).

SOILS

Soils in the project area belong to the Pembroke silt loam and Newark silt loam series. Pembroke silt loam is found on summits and shoulders of interfluves, and it is the soil for the artifact scatter at 15CH684. Pembroke soils are deep and moderately well-drained with slopes of 2 to 6 percent. A typical soil profile consists of a brown silt loam plow zone approximately 8 inches thick overlying a Bt horizon subsoil of silty clay loam and deeper residual deposits of silty clay (Web Soil Survey 2014).

Newark silt loams are found on closed depression landforms and along streams in the area. This soil series comprises the sinkhole area east of the artifact scatter and low ridge that contains 15CH684. A typical

9 Newark soil profile consists of a plow zone of brown silt loam approximately 9 inches thick overlying a weakly developed B horizon of brown silt loam to a depth of about 36 inches. This layer may also comprise historically redeposited sediment that has collected in the closed depressions. The basal layer to 76 inches depth is a reddish brown silty clay loam. Near the site, this lower zone contained residual chert and limestone (Web Soil Survey 2014).

CLIMATE

Christian County is a part of the humid mesothermal climatic region. This region particularly defines the climate of the southeastern United States. Climatic conditions have changed considerably since the arrival of the first people in the region more than 11,000 years ago. By this time, Pleistocene glaciers were retreating, and the cool, moist climate was shifting toward a more modern, warmer and dryer regime. Conditions that are warmer and dryer that modern climatic parameters prevailed during the Hypsithermal Interval, between about 8,500 and 5,000 years ago. A cooling trend with increased precipitation began about 5,000 years ago, with essentially modern conditions prevailing since that time (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981, 1985; Martin 1958).

Presently, the climate of Christian County is temperate and humid. Summers are warm and humid with an average temperature of 77° F (Froedge 1980). Winters are moderately cold with an average temperature of 37° F (Froedge 1980). The county receives fairly heavy rainfall and 47 percent falls between April and September. Rain falls regularly and accumulates, on average, 50 inches per year (Froedge 1980).

FLORA

Christian County lies within the Western Mesophytic Forest region (Braun 2001). Portions of the Pennyroyal/Mississippian plateau are occupied by oak forests, and hilltops above the plateau are dominated by oak-hickory forests. However, many other species are also represented, which is a characteristic of the Mixed Mesophytic Forest. The project area was composed almost entirely of cultivated agricultural fields or residential areas;. A few small portions were covered in secondary forest.

FAUNA

At the time of their initial arrival in the region, prehistoric hunters found many large mammals roaming Kentucky. These megafauna, as well as some smaller-bodied animals, became extinct at the end of the Pleistocene Epoch. Some of these animals, such as sloth, horse, deer, moose, musk-ox, bison, mastodon, mammoth, peccary, and tapir, may have been important sources of food for the earliest human inhabitants of the region.

Although species composition changed radically at the end of the Pleistocene, large populations of game continued to thrive in Christian County through succeeding millennia. Pioneer records most frequently mention animals that were important to humans as both sources of food and as sources of tools and clothing materials. These species include bear, white-tailed deer, raccoon, opossum, squirrel, turkey, quail, rabbit, skunk, woodchuck, and numerous species of fish, turtles, and various invertebrates. In addition to animals mentioned as food and raw material resources, several predator species are mentioned as threats to human and livestock. These species include bear, panther, rattlesnake, wolves, and foxes (Webb and Funkhouser 1928:300-303). The region supports many of those species that have been historically documented, though most of the large predator species have been extirpated through modern hunting practices.

10 CHAPTER 3 BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND SURVEY PREDICTIONS

This chapter summarizes regional prehistory for Kentucky and provides basic information on the history of Christian County. Previous archaeological research conducted within a 2-km buffer of the project area and the results of a historic map review are also presented. This background research is used to construct survey predictions for the current project. Because historic archaeological components and materials are very poorly represented, the attention here focuses on a prehistoric context for the project area. However, because only Paleoindian and Late Woodland components are represented in the assemblage, the prehistoric context is limited to these temporal periods.

PREHISTORIC CONTEXT

The prehistoric cultural chronology of the eastern United States is divided into a series of periods that broadly correspond to major shifts in subsistence and procurement strategies, social organization, and settlement patterns. These major periods, the Paleoindian (12,000 to 10,000 years ago), Archaic (10,000 to 3,000 years ago), Woodland (3,000 to 1,000 years ago), and Late Prehistoric (1,000 to 400 years ago), are linked to distinct material culture styles, especially in projectile point morphology and in later times, ceramic vessel form and decoration. Each major time period is also divided into early, middle, and late subperiods. Other major trends through time include increasing population, aggregation of populations in major stream valleys, increasing sedentism, and increasing use of cultivated plants, beginning in the Late Archaic period. The discussion presented here is limited to the Paleoindian and Woodland periods, because these are the only time periods represented in the assemblage. The discussion thus provides the basis for placing materials recovered during this project into a broader context of Kentucky’s past.

PALEOINDIAN PERIOD

The Paleoindian period is the earliest period for which there is undisputed evidence of human occupation in Kentucky, and dates to from approximately 9,500 to 7,800 B.C. Earlier (pre-Clovis) Paleoindian remains have been found in South and North America, including the Topper Site, Cactus Hill, Big Eddy, and Meadowcroft Rockshelter sites in South Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, respectively. The distribution of these known early sites suggests that pre-Clovis materials eventually may be found in Kentucky, but Clovis materials constitute the earliest documented archaeological culture in Kentucky to date (Maggard and Stackelbeck 2008:114). The characterization of Paleoindians as highly mobile, relatively homogenous big game hunters has become increasingly seen as too general, and much more regional diversity has been documented in Paleoindian assemblages (Maggard and Stackelbeck 2008:109- 113). Some of this diversity may be related to temporal variation, and serves as the basis to define Early, Middle, and Late periods within the general Paleoindian time span.

The Early Paleoindian period is associated with the Clovis archaeological culture, dating to roughly (9,500–9,000 B.C.). Long, bifacially worked, fluted points are perhaps the most diagnostic element of Clovis lithic assemblages, but large bifaces, blades produced from polyhedral and conical cores, gravers, and end scrapers made from either blades or flakes also constitute distinctive parts of the stone technology (Haag 2004; Maggard and Stackelbeck 2008:116; Sanders 1990). Evidence of bone and ivory components of Clovis technology also exists, but these are rare in the eastern United States (Dunbar and Webb 1996; Redmond and Tankersley 2005). Many Clovis assemblages contain lithic raw material types that are very remote from their known source areas. This has led many researchers to posit large territories for highly mobile groups during this period. It is also likely that Clovis cultural practices included long-distance exchange of distinctive chert types, as many of the artifacts are made from very high-quality raw materials that are exotic to their contexts of recovery. Although a few Clovis sites with dense artifact deposits have been identified in Kentucky, most

11 sites are small and contain subsets of the more general Clovis tool assemblages (Maggard and Stackelbeck 2008:118, 121). The relationship of these differences in site size and tool assemblages to Clovis adaptive and settlement strategies is not clear. While it is clear that Clovis people did hunt megafauna and other large game animals, their adaptation likely was generalized and included smaller game and other natural resources (Maggard and Stackelbeck 2008:121-122).

The Middle Paleoindian period (ca. 9,000–8,500 B.C.) is associated with the retreat of the Pleistocene glaciers, replacement of spruce and pine forest with hardwoods, and extinction of megafauna species in Kentucky (Anderson et al. 1996; Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). These profound environmental changes are paralleled by changes in the lithic technology towards increasing specialization and regional diversification in tool form (Maggard and Stackelbeck 2008:122). Cumberland and Gainey points, limaces, and spurred end scrapers appear during this period, and are accompanied by a variety of flake tools (Justice 1987; Maggard and Stackelbeck 2008:122-123). These tools were produced with more locally derived, and sometimes poorer quality, raw materials. Though these technological and environmental changes during the Middle Paleoindian period are likely related, only a general interpretation of increasing exploitation of smaller and more regionalized plant and animal resources is possible with the available evidence (Maggard and Stackelbeck 2008:123, 126).

The Late Paleoindian period (8,500–7,800 B.C.) represents the continued diversification and regionalization in artifact styles and forms, as well as continuation of climatic shifts that began in the Middle Paleoindian period. Projectile points generally fall into two stylistic clusters—Lanceolate Plano (Kentucky Lanceolate and Agate Basin types) and Dalton (Beaver Lake, Quad, and Dalton types). These points are increasingly made with lower quality materials that are locally available. Late Paleoindian lithic assemblages also include beveled and backed bifaces, unifacial scrapers produced on flakes, adzes, drills, and other retouched flake tools (Maggard and Stackelbeck 2008:126, 128). Likely, these shifts in tool technology reflect increasing detailed familiarity with particular areas that accompanied a “settling in” to specific local environments.

WOODLAND PERIOD

The Woodland period (1,000 B.C. to A.D. 1000) is recognized on one hand by continuity with many of the adaptations of the preceding Archaic period, but it also was a period of important technological and social change in the eastern United States. These innovations include the introduction of pottery in the early part of the period and the bow and arrow in the later part of this period, population increase throughout the time span, increased reliance on native and tropical plant domesticates for subsistence, and ritual construction and exchange activities associated with Early and Middle Woodland ceremonialism. Changes in these aspects of culture are used to define three general subperiods, Early Woodland (1,000 to 200 B.C.), Middle Woodland (200 B.C. to A D. 500), and Late Woodland (A.D. 500 to 1000).

One of the hallmarks of the Early Woodland period is the initial appearance of ceramics in archaeological assemblages. In Kentucky, pottery becomes widespread between 2,600 and 2,400 years ago, and early types have cordmarked, plain, or fabric-impressed surfaces (Anderson and Mainfort 2002:5; Applegate 2008:342-343). Other technological shifts during the Early Woodland period include the replacement of grooved stone axes with ground stone celts and a preference for bone beamers over chipped stone hafted end scrapers (Applegate 2008:343). Several straight-, expanding-, and contracting-stemmed projectile point types are diagnostic of this period (Applegate 2008:343), though several other point types are more appropriately assigned to the Late Archaic-Early Woodland transitional time span (ca. 3,500 to 2,500 years ago). Early Woodland subsistence remains also suggest continuity with the mixed horticultural and hunting-gathering strategies of the Late Archaic period. However, starchy seeds are exploited in higher proportions relative to nuts, signaling a trend towards increased reliance on domesticated plants that continued through the remainder of the Woodland period and into the Late Prehistoric period (Applegate 2008:344; Gremillion 2002). Early Woodland habitations are small and dispersed across the landscape in both upland

12 and flood plain settings. Although habitation sites were small, they were used long enough for middens to accumulate and for other features and artifact clusters to be created (Applegate 2008:344). Additionally, Early Woodland peoples made use of rock shelters and cave vestibules. Caves were of particular importance for mineral exploitation during the Early Woodland period, with Mammoth Cave and Salts Cave providing evidence for intensive Early Woodland gypsum, selenite, mirabilite, and epsomite mining activities (Crothers et al. 2002:511-513).

The Middle Woodland period (ca. 2,200 to 1,500 years ago) is generally recognized as having early and late subperiods. These divisions are based on chronological trends in ceramic vessel form and surface treatment as well as evidence for widespread exchange of copper, mica, shell, and exotic cherts in the early segment. These exchange networks are initially part of the Early Woodland Adena cultural expression and are more elaborately expressed as part of the Middle Woodland Hopewell Interaction Sphere (Applegate 2008:346; Caldwell 1964). These exchanged materials become scarce after about AD 350 in Kentucky (Applegate 2008:367). Early Middle Woodland ceramic forms include conoidal and barrel-shaped vessels with plain, cordmarked, fabric-impressed, and cord-wrapped dowel-impressed surfaces. Late Middle Woodland ceramic vessels are generally subconoidal or subglobular jars with fabric-impressed or plain exterior surfaces. Additionally, complicated stamped, rocker stamped, and brushed ceramics are diagnostic of the late Middle Woodland subperiod (Applegate 2008:245-346). Triangular and triangular-lanceolate projectile point forms, such as Copena, are diagnostic of the Middle Woodland period. Broad corner notching distinguishes early Middle Woodland points, while expanding stems and shallow side-notching are found in the late Middle Woodland period (Applegate 2008:346; Kline et al. 1982; Railey 1990:251). Additionally, nonutilitarian ground stone objects such as pipes, gorgets, and discoidals become more common during the Middle Woodland. Subsistence and settlement patterns shift during the Middle Woodland period to show a greater reliance on native starchy and oily domesticated seeds and an increased focus on flood plain site locations. By the late Middle Woodland, settlement hierarchies develop in western Kentucky, and nucleated settlements are evident in the eastern part of the state (Applegate 2008:346-347). Despite these shifts in subsistence and settlement, Middle Woodland social organization is typically interpreted as lacking hereditary transference of leadership (Anderson and Mainfort 2002:10).

During the Late Woodland period (1,500 to 1,000 years ago), regional patterns in the archaeological record indicate distinct cultural traditions east and west of the Falls of the Ohio River (Pollack and Henderson 2000:613). These cultural differences are associated with minor temporal differences in the onset and termination of Late Woodland cultural expressions in these parts of the state (Applegate 2008:347; Kreisa and Stout 1991). Perhaps of more interpretive significance are the cultural patterns that differentiate these geographic regions and also serve to divide the Late Woodland into early (1,500 to 1,200 years ago) and terminal (1,200 to 1,000 years ago) subperiods.

The material culture of the early Late Woodland exhibits technological continuity with the Middle Woodland, but without the Hopewell-related materials and artifact styles. Early Late Woodland pottery mainly takes the form of subconoidal and subglobular jars with cordmarked or plain surfaces. Projectile points characteristic of the early Late Woodland commonly are part of the Lowe cluster (Applegate 2008:348), which includes Steuben Expanded Stemmed, Lowe Flared Base, Chesser Notched, and Bakers Creek types (Justice 1987:208-214). Bakers Creek would be the local early Late Woodland point type for the Christian County project area. Terminal Late Woodland ceramic assemblages exhibit more diversity in rim and lip treatment, with and collared rims, simple castellations, and carinated rims found throughout the state. In western Kentucky, vessels become clearly differentiated into serving (plate and bowl), storage (large jar forms), and cooking (smaller jars) functional forms in the terminal Late Woodland period, and red-slipped surface treatments make an initial appearance. Terminal Late Woodland lithic assemblages are distinguished primarily by the presence of small triangular points that were used with the bow-and-arrow weapon system, and not as multifunctional projectile point/knife tools (Applegate 2008:348; Kreisa and Stout 1991:141; Pollack and Henderson 2000:622).

However dramatic, these changes in technology do not correspond directly with changes in settlement

13 patterns and subsistence practices. Sites west of the Falls of the Ohio are more dispersed in the early Late Woodland than they are in the Middle Woodland, and in this region there is more evidence for nut exploitation than corn cultivation (Kreisa and Stout 1991:143; Pollack and Henderson 2000:633). By the terminal Late Woodland, greater use of flood plains is apparent, and a settlement hierarchy emerges in western Kentucky, defined by site size and investment in public facilities. East of the Falls of the Ohio, a nearly reversed trajectory in settlement is apparent. Greater nucleation is observed in the early part of the Late Woodland period, while terminal Late Woodland sites are smaller and more dispersed. There is no evidence for a settlement hierarchy in the eastern part of the state at any time in the Late Woodland period (Pollack and Henderson 2000:633-634). Social conflict may have become more prevalent through the Late Woodland period in response to population pressure and competition for land. Although they are dispersed, the number of Late Woodland sites increases, which may signal a general filling of the habitable landscape. Pollack and Henderson (2000:634) suggest that these shifting settlement patterns would have created more contiguous territories in upland areas, and may have led to increased competition over hunting territories with the adoption of the bow-and-arrow.

HISTORIC CONTEXT

Kentucky’s historic settlement was achieved amidst conflicting Native American land claims and the tumultuous events of the Revolutionary War as the American colonies strove to become independent. Following early exploration by hunters from the east in the 1760s, active settlement of the Kentucky frontier began in the 1770s (McBride and McBride 2008). The beginning of the Revolutionary War created a dangerous climate for settlement in Kentucky because many Native American groups in the Ohio Valley allied with the British and viewed the settlers as interlopers. Kentucky settlers responded to dangers of warfare by building defensive residences called “stations” in which several families typically lived (O’Malley 1987). The men also were members of loosely organized militia units that were responsible for patrolling the frontier for evidence of impending Indian attacks, defending the settlements when attacks occurred, and participating in retaliatory raids against Indian villages north of the Ohio River.

Christian County was first settled by natives of Virginia, namely James Davis and John Montgomery, in the 1780s. Growth throughout the next two decades was slow and took place mainly in the northern part of the county. The southern portion of the county, and the location of the project area, was first settled primarily as large farms in the early 1800s (Froedge 1980). Christian County was established in 1797 and the town of Elizabeth was made the county seat. In 1804, the town’s name was changed to its present name of Hopkinsville (Turner 1974). The project area remained largely agricultural in nature through the 19th century, but in the early 20th century, with the creation of Camp Davidson and later the expansion of Fort Campbell, activities in the county shifted toward service and support industries. The current project area produced only a few historic artifacts, consistent with long-term rural agricultural use and the presence of a transport route (NA) through the site.

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND SURVEY PREDICTIONS

In order to assess the archaeological potential of the project area, a search of several databases was made to determine the extent of previous research conducted within and near the project area. The collection of archaeological reports for Christian County at the Office of the State Archaeology (OSA), the State Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan Reports No. 1 and No. 3 (Pollack 1990, 2008), and portions of the collections of microfiche, reports, and curated collections at the University of Kentucky were examined to locate references to previous archaeological work within and near the project area.

The project area lies within the Pennyroyal section of the Green River management area, as categorized in State Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan, Report No. 1 (Pollack 1990) and Report No. 3 (Pollack 2008). It also is within the Eastern Pennyrile Cultural Landscape (Pollack 1990, 2008). The revised

14 State Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan Report No. 3 (Pollack 2008) was consulted for a synopsis of previous archaeological research conducted in the area. The Pennyroyal section contains a large number of recorded sites (n=1,519), exceeded in number only by the Ohio River section (n=1,877) of the Green River management area (Stackelbeck and Mink 2008:48). Approximately 70 percent of the sites recorded in the Green River Management Area are open habitations without mounds, and 53 sites are classified as open habitations with mounds (Stackelbeck and Mink 2008:48). A total of 73 sites have been listed as National Register sites (Stackelbeck and Mink 2008:47).

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS

The GIS database at the Kentucky Office of State Archaeology was checked for information about previous surveys conducted and sites recorded within two kilometers of the current project area (OSA Project Registration No. FY14-7982, conducted on 24 February 2014). Within two kilometers of the project area, 8 previous formal surveys had been conducted, and10 sites had been documented as a result. Of these, eight sites are classified as open habitation without mounds, and two sites are classified as historic farm/residences.

Sites and Surveys within the 2-km Catchment

The earliest survey performed in the 2-km radius was done in April 1982 by Jack M. Schock of Arrow Enterprises (Schock 1982). Five previously unreported sites were documented during this survey.

Site 15CH428 has both prehistoric and historic components and is located on a hillside. The site measures 100 m east-west and 50 m north-south, and it produced 195 prehistoric artifacts. The historic component was defined by three shallow outhouse pit features and material that appeared to date between 1800 and 1855. Because the site only had three historic outhouse pit features and no other indication of features, it did not meet the minimal National Register Criteria. However, it was recommended that if construction revealed historic features, additional work will need to be done.

Site 15CH429 also has both prehistoric and historic components, and is also located on a hillside. The site measures 160 m east-west and 60 m north-south. The produced 168 historic artifacts and 32 prehistoric artifacts. The historic component apparently dates to 1800-1855, most likely the earlier part of this time span. No age could be established for the prehistoric component. The site did not meet the minimal criteria for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.

Site 15CH430 is a prehistoric site located on a hilltop. The site measures 100 m east-west by 40 m north-south. A total of 48 prehistoric artifacts were recovered at the site. Because of the low research potential of the site it does not meet the minimal National Register criteria.

Site 15CH431 is a prehistoric site located on a ridgetop. The approximate size of the site is 100 m northwest-southeast by 50 m northeast-southwest. A total of 132 prehistoric artifacts were recovered. Although four prehistoric projectile points or fragments were found, none were temporally diagnostic. This sites National Register status was not assessed, but more archaeology was recommended if the site was to be affected by the building plans.

Site 15CH432 is a prehistoric site located on a hilltop. The light lithic scatter measures 230 m east- west and 100 north-south, but only 22 prehistoric artifacts were recovered over this area. Because of the low artifact density the site is does not reach the minimal standard for the National Register. No further work was recommended for the site, even if it was to be impacted by a future project.

In April 1990, Jack M. Schock of Arrow Enterprises conducted an archaeological reconnaissance of a

15 proposed 10-acre borrow pit in Christian County. The investigation was conducted at the request of H and G Construction Company, Inc. of Kuttawa, Kentucky. No prehistoric or early historic sites were recorded or reported within the proposed project. No further archaeological work is recommended for this project area (Schock 1990).

In June 1992, Jack Schock of Arrow Enterprises conducted an archaeological reconnaissance of approximately ten acres. This project was funded by a Heritage Land and Conservation Grant from the Department of Local Government. During this reconnaissance survey no archaeological sites were recorded (Schock 1992).

In October 1995, Wilbur Smith Associates preformed an archaeological survey for the proposed widening of US 41A. A 7.08-km section of US 41A was surveyed, and 365 shovel tests were excavated at 10- and 20-meter intervals within the project right-of-way. As a result of this work, 5 previously unknown sites were located (Stetar and Zibart 1996), two of which are located within the 2-km radius of the current project area.

Site 15CH504 is a temporally unassigned prehistoric lithic scatter, located in level undissected uplands. The size is estimated at 4,500 m2. The total number of artifacts was 164, but no specific time period was represented. The site was not eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.

Site 15CH517 is an Early Archaic open habitation without mounds, located in nearly level and undissected uplands. Because of the high density of artifacts, unifacial tools, bifaces, and a temporally diagnostic point Early Archaic point, the site was interpreted as an Early Archaic camp at which may activities were conducted. Because of the high number of artifact, tools and the presence of a diagnostic point more work was recommended at this site to assess its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places.

Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. performed the Phase II investigation of 15CH517 in March 2002. As a result, 15CH517 was documented as a multicomponent, plow zone site. The material recovered represented Early to Late Archaic and Early Woodland time periods. The site area is very large, 450,000 m2 or 45 ha. A total of 2013 prehistoric artifacts were recovered during the Phase II investigation. After the completion of the Phase II work, the research potential of the site was considered to be exhausted. Site 15CH517 was considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (Allgood 2002).

In March 1996, Glyn D. DuVall of DuVall Associates, performed a Phase I survey for Fort Campbell, Kentucky. The project area was located in a depression with a large storm drain in the center; it was to be used as a playground. No cultural material or undisturbed soil was identified in any of the shovel tests. No additional work was recommended (DuVall 1996).

In April 1997, Vincent A. Versluis, a staff archaeologist at Murray State University’s Archaeological Survey Center, conducted a Phase I archaeological investigation of a 60-acre tract of land for a proposed tourism and convention center near Oak Grove, Kentucky. This survey was performed at the request of Tom Ingram of Barge, Waggoner, Sumner and Cannon, Inc., of Nashville, Tennessee. As a result of this survey four isolated finds and one archaeological site were recorded (Versluis 1997). All four of the isolated finds were prehistoric lithic artifacts and were associated with no other cultural materials. Isolated finds are not considered potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

Site 15CH504 was originally recorded by Thomas Stetar of Wilbur Smith Associates and was described as a temporally unassigned prehistoric lithic scatter. This site was redocumented by Versluis. No features were found during this survey, but the site exhibited high artifacts density and produced Early Archaic and Late Paleoindian period projectile points. These time periods are poorly documented in Kentucky. Because of the new information regarding time period of 15CH504, it now is considered

16 potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. More archaeological work was recommended prior to construction for this project (Versluis 1997).

In October 2003, University of Kentucky Program for Archaeological Research conducted a Phase I archaeological survey for the proposed realignment in Christian County. The project area was 0.83 acres, and 36 shovel tests were excavated. Most of the proposed right-of-way had been previously disturbed through roadway and residence construction. However, two previously unknown sites were reported (Bales-Becraft and Madsen 2004).

Site 15CH637 is a historic farm/residence that consists of a well with a late 19th to 20th century component. It is situated in a level portion of a terrace. The site measures approximately 10 m northwest- southeast by 30 m northeast-southwest, for an area of 300 m2. Only 10 historic artifacts were recovered. This site is considered not eligible for nomination to the NRHP, due to low artifact density, level of disturbance, and low potential for further research. No further work was recommended for 15CH637.

Site 15CH638 is a historic site with a post-1890 to late 20th century component. Situated on a level portion of a terrace, the site dimensions are 10 m northwest-southeast by 40 m northeast-southwest, or an area of 400 m2. A total of 29 artifacts were recovered. Site 15CH638 is not considered eligible for nomination to the NRPH, due to low artifact density, level of disturbance, and low potential for further research. No further work was recommended for Site 15CH638.

In February 2010, Jack M. Schock of Arrow Enterprises conducted an archaeological reconnaissance for Chris Wilcutt of McGhee Engineering in Guthrie, Kentucky. This project was for construction of 8 miles of 16-inch water lines. The methods used during the survey consisted of ground reconnaissance shovel tests at 20-m intervals. No cultural material was recovered during the survey, and no additional work was recommended (Schock 2010).

In 2012, the University of Kentucky Program for Archaeological Research conducted a Phase I archaeological survey for the proposed widening and minor realignment. The project area covered a total area of approximately 25.1 acres (10.15 hectares), distributed among residences, commercial areas, and agricultural fields. As a result of the survey three archaeological sites were identified—15CH683, 15CH684, and 15CH685 (Ahler and Istok 2012).

Site 15CH683 is a low-density lithic scatter that measures only 25 m east-west and 5 m north-south, defined by a minimal surface scatter of three lithic debitage. All artifacts are from locally available chert; a single shovel test revealed only plow zone and no evidence of midden or features. Due to the low number of artifacts, absence of midden or features, low diversity of material classes, and absence of temporally diagnostic artifacts, 15CH683 was not considered eligible for listing on the NRHP, and no additional archaeological work was recommended (Ahler and Istok 2012: i).

Site 15CH684 is a lithic scatter of moderate artifact density (one item per 20 m2), located on the crest upper shoulders of a low upland rise about 100 meters west of a small sinkhole. The site measures at least 95 meters north-south and about 80 meters east-west (ca. 0.5 ha). The site may continue farther north, but surface collection and shovel testing was confined to the proposed right-of-way corridor north of NA. The site is bisected by a road, which has removed a corridor about 20 meters wide; construction of a utility pole has also impacted a small part of the site. Shovel tests revealed only plow zone and underlying Bt horizon subsoil with no indication of preserved midden or features, but colors of surface soils vary, suggesting some areas may retain intact A horizon sediments below plow zone. A single deep shovel test at the margin of the nearby sinkhole documented a possible intact A horizon 81 to 112 cm below surface. The A horizon may contain artifacts associated with occupation of 15CH684, though none were recovered from this single shovel test. Surface collection and shovel testing produced 175 lithic artifacts—160 flakes (three of which are utilized), 1 core, 10 biface fragments, and 4 formal unifacial tools. All lithic artifacts were identified in this report as locally available Ste. Genevieve or St. Louis chert. The debitage profile includes

17 all stages of biface reduction, with increasing numbers of flakes represented through the reduction sequence, indicating a full range of lithic reduction activities with emphasis on late-stage reduction. The debitage profile and the wide range of modified items indicate 15CH684 served as a generalized domestic habitation site. Though no hafted bifaces were recovered, the combination scraper/unifacial cutting implements were manufactured on segments of large prismatic blades, indicating occupation most likely during the Paleoindian period. Based on the moderate artifact density, likely site occupation during the Paleoindian period, apparent presence of only a single temporal component, high diversity of tools and debitage, and potential preservation of intact A horizon deposits nearby, the research potential for 15CH684 appears to be high. The research potential is enhanced because this site location is consistent with regional models of Paleoindian site location and landscape use. Based on these site attributes, UK-PAR recommended that 15CH684 be considered potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP (Ahler and Istok 2012: i). The current report presents the formal NRHP eligibility assessment for the part of 15CH684 that will be impacted by proposed construction.

Site 15CH685 is a historic site consisting of a collapsed residential structure and associated outbuildings and features (cistern, coal pile, trash dump area). The site covers an area measuring about 45 meters northwest-southeast by 30 meters northeast-southwest (1100 m2). A standing chimney and brick fireplace are present, along with cinder block foundation piers at the perimeter of the collapsed structure. A cistern with concrete/cement lining is just southwest of the residential structure, and a trash dump containing mainly modern debris was observed about 25 m south of the residence, outside the proposed construction corridor. Five positive shovel tests produced a small (n=31) historic artifact assemblage, and shovel tests showed only a thin, eroded A horizon. The artifacts all are consistent with mid-20th century to late 20th century occupation. The artifact assemblage includes only wire nails and lacks any material indicative of late 19th to early 20th century occupation. Due to the recent age of the site, absence of a midden, lack of evidence for intact features, and low overall artifact diversity and density, UK-PAR considered 15CH685 to have low research potential. No additional archaeological work was recommended, and 15CH685 was not considered to be eligible for listing on the NRHP (Ahler and Istok 2012: ii).

One additional archaeological site was documented within the 2-kilometer buffer of the current project area that was not identified through systematic archaeological survey. In April of 1977, Thomas N. Sanders recorded 15CH319, a Paleoindian and Early Archaic open habitation without mounds, positioned on a long, low ridge crest located less than 200 m east of US 41A. This site produced a large and extensive surface collection, with Paleoindian artifacts confined to a small portion of the larger artifact scatter. This site was considered eligible for listing on the NRHP. A report was not on file with the Kentucky Office of State Archaeology, and site information was taken from the site form (Sanders 1977) and from Stetar and Zibart (1996).

Paleoindian Sites in the Vicinity of 15CH684

An additional request was made of the OSA for information about Paleoindian sites within a 10-km radius of the project area. This information helps to place 15CH684 in a local context of temporally related sites. Two sites with Paleoindian components are within the 2-kilometer radius of 15CH684, and have already been discussed. These are 15CH319, which is reported to have an early Paleoindian component (along with Early Archaic occupation), and 15CH504, which apparently contains a Late Paleoindian (Dalton) component.

Site 15CH234 was initially reported by Sanders and Yahnig in 1979. It is a large (ca. 600- x-300-meters) site positioned on the crest and shoulders of an upland remnant that is bordered by a bend in the West Fork of the Red River. This site is located northeast of 15CH684. The site form indicates that Yahnig, a local artifact collector, recovered Paleoindian and Early Archaic points from the site. However, the site was not visited by Sanders as part of his 1979 work for the Kentucky Heritage Council in Christian County (see Sanders and Maynard 1979).

Site 15CH306 was originally reported by Schock and Wyss (1976) as a location with two adjacent

18 artifact scatters, designated as Areas A and B. The site lies near Interstate 24 on a low upland rise, and several sinkholes are nearby. Area A was smaller than Area B, yet it had higher densities of artifacts. These include 39 scrapers, 12 drills, 44 blades, and more than 30 complete or fragmentary projectile points assigned to the Paleoindian, Archaic, and Woodland periods. The site was considered to be potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. Phase II investigation of part of the site (Stallings and Ross-Stallings 2002) resulted in excavation of three test units within Area A, one within Area B, and surface collection of both site areas. However, no temporally diagnostic artifacts were recovered, and the portion of the site that was investigated was not considered to be eligible for listing on the NRHP.

Site 15CH315 was listed in the OSA project registration as a rock shelter with a Paleoindian component. However, no site form was on file with the OSA, and no report is associated with the site. No additional information is available.

About 5-7 km northwest of 15CH684 are a series of sites with Clovis occupation that are grouped together as the Little River Complex (Freeman and Smith 1992; Freeman et al. 1996; Sanders 1988, 1990; Sanders and Maynard 1979). Four sites have been included in this complex; the best known of these is the Adams site (15CH90), which has been reported on extensively by Sanders (1988, 1990), Sanders and Maynard (1979), and Gramly and Yahnig (1991). The other sites are Boyd (15CH236), Roeder (15CH482), and Ezell (15CH483); information about these sites has been drawn from Freeman et al. (1996) and is summarized below.

Adams is an extensive lithic scatter around the circumference of a large sinkhole in the uplands southeast of the Little River. Extensive controlled surface collections were conducted, and analyses of these materials was supplemented by material collected from the site by amateur archaeologists over several years. The tool assemblage is diverse, with Clovis bifaces in various stages of manufacture, from initial blanks to finished points, along with a variety of unifacial tools and large blade cores. Sanders (1988, 1990) considers Adams to be a single-component Clovis site, but Gramly and Yahnig (1991) report a small minority of Early Archaic points as well. However, these are far outnumbered by Clovis points, Clovis preforms, and large prismatic blades diagnostic of the Paleoindian period. Adams has been interpreted as a quarry/workshop site by Gramly and Yahnig (1991), while Freeman et al. (1996) suggest it functioned as both a workshop and a periodically occupied short-term habitation site.

The Roeder site is an areally extensive site on the summit and sideslopes of uplands surrounding several sinkholes positioned northwest of the Little River. Surface collection, coring, and excavation of a single test unit produced an assemblage similar to, but less diverse and numerous than, that derived from Adams or Ezell (see below). The artifacts are apparently confined to the plow zone (Freeman et al. 1996:399).

The Ezell site is also in the uplands south of Little River, adjacent to a small sinkhole. Controlled surface collections, bucket auger cores, and test unit excavations have produced another large assemblage of Clovis bifaces, fluted points, blades, blade cores, and end scrapers, all similar to the Adams site assemblage. Early and Late Archaic points attest to occupation in later periods, producing an assemblage that is probably more mixed than that from Adams. Surface collections documented several Clovis-age artifact concentrations, suggesting repeated occupation/use of the site during this time span. A small area within the site exhibited intact subplow zone strata, though almost all artifacts were derived from plow zone deposits. An AMS date of 702±49 RCYBP was derived from charcoal recovered from the subplow zone deposits, indicating a late prehistoric age, rather than accumulation of Clovis artifacts in a relict A horizon (Freeman et al. 1996:398).

The Boyd site is positioned on a high terrace segment of the Little River, and Clovis materials are mixed with several other components. Coring and a stratigraphic trench provided information about the site geomorphology and stratigraphy. The Clovis material appears to be confined to the higher Pleistocene terrace portion of the site. Artifacts within the lower, Holocene terrace are interpreted as Archaic in age and appear

19 to be redeposited.

These data clearly show that the density of Paleoindian sites on the Christian County landscape is high, especially when compared to other areas of similar size. The availability of high-quality Ste. Genevieve chert (and other Mississippian cherts) is a factor that undoubtedly acted as a draw for early settlement in this region, and many of the sites with Clovis components are located near residual deposits of these cherts. However, 15CH684 is not one of these sites, and it stands somewhat in contrast to the larger Clovis occupations documented at the Little River Complex sites.

Previous Investigations at 15CH684

Phase I survey documented 15CH684, and the following discussion is extracted from that report (Ahler and Istok 2012). Site 15CH684 is an open habitation without mounds that comprises a medium- density lithic scatter. The site is positioned on the crest upper shoulders of a low upland rise (Figure 3.1), about 100 meters west of a small sinkhole (Figure 3.2). Site 15CH684 was initially identified in a recently plowed and well-washed open agricultural field that had more than 90 percent surface visibility, and the site extends north on this same landform (Figure 3.2), into areas with lower surface visibility. The area of artifact scatter has slopes less than 5 percent, though the slope is greater on the sideslope between the site area and the sinkhole.

The current roadway and adjacent shoulders bisect the site east-west, and high-tension power lines transect the site northeast-southwest. Road construction and installation of a power line support pole has disturbed an estimated 30 percent of the site area. The portion of the site south was defined through surface collection, along with excavation of a single shovel test (ST B on Figure 3.2). This shovel test showed only a silt loam plow zone underlain by culturally sterile clay loam Bt horizon (Figure 3.3). North, the site was surface collected when visibility was adequate, and shovel tested in areas where visibility was less than 50 percent. Shovel testing was not conducted north of the proposed new right-of-way. As currently defined, the site measures at least 95 meters north-south and about 80 meters east-west (site area of about 0.5 ha). The site may continue farther north, but investigations were confined to the right-of-way and construction easement corridor. Surface collection extended outside the proposed construction corridor south, and the southern, eastern, and western boundaries of the site were well-defined by the limits of the artifact scatter.

Shovel tests within the site revealed only plow zone and underlying Bt horizon subsoil with no indication of preserved midden or features. However, midden or features may be present, as the soil colors exposed at the surface vary from 7.5YR to 10YR in hue, suggesting some areas have greater organic content, or possibly less erosion from agriculture. Cultural material was confined to the plow zone, and shovel tests showed no evidence of features or midden preserved below the plow zone.

A single deep shovel test (ST C) was excavated just southwest of the sinkhole that lies east of 15CH684. The soil profile (Figure 3.4) revealed two superimposed plow zones that comprise the upper 25 cm of sediment. The upper plow zone is the active plow zone, while the lower one is lighter in color and contains small ferromanganese concretions indicative of poor drainage or periodic saturation. The next two strata, Zones III and IV, are interpreted as superimposed zones of redeposited sediment, extending to a depth of 81 cm below surface. The upper zone has no soil structure, indicating rapid sedimentation rate, while the lower exhibits mottled colors and small clasts of redeposited B horizon sediment. Again, these attributes are consistent with rapid deposition, probably of a mixture of A and Bt horizon sediment eroded from the adjacent sideslopes. Historic deposition was confirmed by recovery of a plastic fragment at about 80 cm below surface. The lowest stratum (Zone V) is a dark brown silt loam that lacks mottling and has a weakly developed structure. These characteristics suggest that Zone V is an original A horizon. Zone V extends from 81 to at least 112 cm below surface, where the shovel test terminated. No artifacts were recovered from Shovel Test C, but potentially intact, buried A horizon suggests that artifacts associated with 15CH684 may be present around the sinkhole.

20 Figure 3.1. Site 15CH684 Landform Context (looking north-northeast). Note low rise of upland ridge near center of image. Sinkhole with vegetation is visible near the right edge of the image.

Figure 3.2. Detailed Sketch Map of 15CH684.

21 Figure 3.3. Soil Profile for Shovel Test B at 15CH684. Figure 3.4. Soil Proffiile for Deep Shovel Test C, Shovel Test B is typical for 15CH684. Placed near the Sinkhole East of 15CH684.

A total of 175 prehistoric chipped stone artifacts was recovered from 15CH684 during Phase I survey. Of these, 171 were recovered from surface collection of various portions of the site, while 4 items were recovered from three positive shovel tests (Table 3.1 and Figure 3.2). All of tthe lithic artifacts were initially identified as being made from locally available chert types, either St. Louis (n=108; 61.7 percent) or Ste. Genevieve chert (n=67; 38.3 percent). St. Louis chert outcrops farther from the site, while tthe Ste. Genevieve formation underlies and surrounds the project area. This suggests that St. Louis chert was preferred as a raw material, and some greater effort was expended to obtain it. Presence of nodular cortex on 15 of 23 artifacts identified as St. Louis chert supports the interpretation that St. Louis chert was intentionally selected as a raw material type from primary or residual source locations. Only a single example showed water-worn cortex. This indicates that St. Louis chert was intentionally extracted from primary source areas.

We note that these data from the Phase I survey report are now modified after the Phase I assemblage was re-analyzed as part of the Phase II investigation. Fort Payne chert is now recognized as part of the Phase I assemblage, which is another nonlocal chert type. However, the overall patterns of raw material utilization—emphasis on higher-quality materials—still stands.

The debitage profile for 15CH684 includes all stages of biface reduction, with increasing numbers of flakes represented through the reduction sequence. The prevalence of broken flakes supports an emphasis on late-stage lithic reduction activities at 15CH684, but all stages of lithic reduction are represented. This debitage profile is consistent with generalized residential habitation at 15CH684, during which time a full range of lithic manufacturing took place. The low incidence of primary and secondary flakes relative to later reduction stages suggests that raw material testing and initial reduction took place off-site, probably at the source location for the raw material. The low proportions of these flake typess also indicates that lithic quarry and workshop activities were not conducted at 15CH684.

22 Table 3.1. Prehistoric Artifacts Recovered from 15CH684. Utilized flakes are listed in parentheses within the appropriate cell; for example 5(1) means that five flakes were recovered, one of which is utilized. Raw material types were identified as St. Louis (SL) or Ste. Genevieve (SG). Bag Number 2 3 4 5 11 12 Surface Surface within ROW, Surface outside ROW Provenience ST B North of NA South of NA South of NA ST 27 ST 28 Total Primary flake 1 SL 2 SL 3 1 SG 1 SG Secondary flake 2 SL 4 SL 10 SL 18 1 SG 2 SG 2 SG Interior flake 1 (1) SL 2 SL 11 SL 19 3 SG 6 SG 1 SG Biface thinning flake 3 SL 13 SL 26 18 (1) SG 23 SG 1 SG Broken flake 1 SL 2 SL 13 SL 27 (1) SL 1 SL 86 2 SG 1 SG Angular shatter 2 SL 2 SL 7 Unifacial side scraper 1 SG 1 Combination Unifacial Scraper and Unifacial Cutting Implement 1 SL 1 SL 1 SL 3 Rough biface 2 SL 1 SL 3 2 SG Thick biface 1 SL 3 1 SG Thin biface 1 SL 2 SL 4 General core 1 SL 1 Total 1 8 59 103 1 2 174

The modified items from the site include both expedient tools (three utilized flakes) and formally modified tools (n=15; Table 3.1). The formally shaped modified items include a wide variety of tools, which is consistent with a generalized domestic habitation and performance of a range of activities involving lithic tools. These include formally shaped unifacial tools, bifaces in various stages of manufacture, and one core. Recovery of rough, thick, and thin bifaces indicates that the complete range of biface manufacture was being carried out at 15CH684. Unfortunately, no hafted bifaces were recovered, though they were undoubtedly used by site inhabitants. Though no hafted bifaces were recovered, some of the unifacial tools were considered to be temporally diagnostic. Three combination scraper/unifacial cutting implements were manufactured on segments of large prismatic blades (Figure 3.5). Blades like these are considered to be diagnostic of the Paleoindian period. Supporting this assessment of Paleoindian period site occupation is the presence of patina on 54 of the 175 artifacts. All of the patinated materials were made from St. Louis or Fort Payne chert, which differentially shows patination compared to Ste. Genevieve and Salem/Warsaw cherts. Figure 3.5 (right) shows an example of well-developed patina in the cross-section of a more recent break.

The artifact assemblage from 15CH684 is interpreted as representing the remains of a general domestic habitation that took place in the early Paleoindian period. The full range of bifaces (except hafted bifaces) and bifacial flaking debris indicates that a wide range of activities was conducted during site occupation. Based on the Phase I assemblage, 15CH684 was interpreted as a single-component site. There is no evidence of intact subplow zone midden or features, but differences in soil color at the site surface suggest that some areas retain higher organic content and thus may overlie intact A horizon remnants. A buried A horizon soil was documented in a deep shovel test excavated at the margin of the sinkhole that lies about 100 meters east of 15CH684. If this is an original A horizon, it may contain artifacts related to occupation of 15CH684, though none were recovered from this single shovel test.

Based on the moderate artifact density (one artifact for every 20 square meters of site area), likely occupation of the site during the early Paleoindian period, apparent presence of only a single temporal component, high diversity of tools and debitage, and potential preservation of intact A horizon (either within the site boundaries or in the nearby sinkhole), the research potential for 15CH684 was considered to be high.

23 Figure 3.5. Probable Paleoindian-Age Combination Scraper/Unifacial Cutting Tools from 15CH684. All are made on prismatic blade sections. Left shows retouched scraping edge at the top and low-angled cutting edge on the right; middle and right show nodular cortex on dorsal surfaces. Cross-section views of middle and right (boxed) show steep scraping edges on left and acute cutting eedges on right side of tools.

Based on this initial assessment, UK-PAR recommended 15CH684 as potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D, scientific significance. Staff of the Kentucky Heritage Council and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet agreed with this recommendation, and because impact to the site could not be avoided, the current Phase II NRHP eligibility asssessment wass undertaken. The findings from the Phase I work, coupled with regional Paleoindian period settlement patterns, provide the basis for constructing a research design for the Phase II work. This research design, and the field and laboratory methods used to execute it, are discussed in Chapter 4.

24 CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH DESIGN AND INVESTIGATION METHODS

The purpose of this work was to identify any archaeological resources within the proposed project area and to assess their potential eligibility for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Natural and cultural indicators of archaeological resources include landform features, structural remains, particular species or patterns of vegetation, and concentrations of historic or prehistoric artifacts. The first section provides a description of field survey methods used to locate and assess the cultural resources within the project area. The second section presents a discussion of laboratory and analytical methods used to assess the materials recovered from each site located in the survey.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The artifact assemblage from 15CH684 is interpreted as representing the remains of a general residential habitation of Paleoindian age, or perhaps in the very early part of the Early Archaic period. In addition, 15CH684 appears to be a single-component site. There may be small areas within the site, especially on shoulders of the landform, where an original A horizon containing artifacts is preserved below plow zone. A buried A horizon documented at the margin of the nearby sinkhole may also contain artifacts contemporary with the 15CH684 assemblage. Based on these site attributes and the potential for some preservation of intact contexts, UK-PAR interpreted the research potential of 15CH684 to be high. The potential for additional research was enhanced because the site location is consistent with models of Paleoindian and Early Archaic settlement and landscape use developed for the region. These models may be tested or refined through additional research conducted at and near 15CH684. Because 15CH684 is apparently a residential site and not a lithic workshop, additional work would also afford an opportunity to address other research issues, most notably Paleoindian technological studies, settlement patterns, and exchange patterns.

The Paleoindian component at 15CH684 may potentially contribute to evaluation of various competing settlement models for the period, particularly because the component represents residential activities instead of quarry or combined quarry/workshop/residential activities. Anderson (1990, 1996) and others have proposed a diachronic colonization model for Paleoindian settlement in eastern North America. Briefly, Early Paleoindian settlement and colonization of the (presumably) unpopulated territory focused on areas that contained resources that were qualitatively and quantitatively preferred. Among these are high- quality lithic raw materials for stone tool manufacture (particularly Clovis points) and concentrations of targeted game and plant resources. The lower Tennessee and Cumberland river drainages (including the current project area) encompass one such colonization area, within which are found high-quality St. Louis, Ste. Genevieve, and Fort Payne (Dover) chert. Recovery of high numbers of Clovis points is evidence that supports this localities greater intensity of use. These initial colonization areas developed into staging areas for expanding populations during the Middle Paleoindian period, and development of regional projectile point styles made from more locally derived raw materials shows the effects of decreasing mobility, higher population densities, and less extensive exchange networks during this later time span.

Anderson’s colonization model is a generalized model that attempts to account for patterns of projectile point distributions over the entirety of eastern North America. A more local model of Paleoindian settlement patterns has been proposed for the suite of Clovis sites in Christian County and surrounding areas known as the Little River Complex. Gatus and Maynard (1978) posited that concentrations of plant and animal resources around sinkholes in karst landscapes were factors that attracted Paleoindians to establish sites on surrounding uplands. In addition, proximity to high-quality lithic resources—in particular Ste. Genevieve and St. Louis nodular cherts—exposed in and near these same sinkholes encouraged longer-term occupation, quarrying, and workshop activities. The draw of both lithic and subsistence resources provides a regional and more specific variant of Anderson’s general colonization and staging area model.

25 This settlement pattern for Paleoindian/Clovis sites is best-defined through the work conducted at the Little River Complex. The constituent sites in this complex—Adams, Ezell, Boyd, and Roeder—were briefly described in Chapter 3. From these descriptions, we can extract some commonalities that serve as a focus for comparison of these sites to 15CH684. Common themes evident among the Little River Complex sites include the position of Clovis occupations adjacent to sinkholes or other reliable water sources (the Little River), the intensive use and reduction of high-quality Ste. Genevieve chert, manufacture of large prismatic blades and tools fashioned on blade segments, and restriction of Clovis-age artifacts to plow zone contexts. All of these site assemblages appear to be a mixture of quarry, workshop, and general habitation activities, with workshop debris dominating each site assemblage. Freeman et al. (1996:401) interpret these sites as retooling locations where lithic tool kits were manufactured and replaced, with a strong emphasis on manufacturing activities, as opposed to activities relating to residential habitation. In addition, all of the site assemblages exhibit some degree of mixing with later components, though the Adams assemblage is arguably the least affected by later occupations. Finally, though there is a broad array of morphological tool categories present at these sites, no use-wear analysis has been done, primarily due to the present of plow damage. The range of activities conducted at these sites is therefore not well established.

The research potential for 15CH684 derives in large part from the ways in which this site contrasts with the sites in the Little River Complex. It also derives in part from the commonalities that it shares with the Little River Complex sites. The basic similarity among all of these sites is the location of the sites on the landscape, adjacent to karst sinkhole features that likely served to concentrate game, plant resources, and possibly lithic resources. As such, the assemblage from 15CH684 should share at least some commonalities with those from sites in the Little River Complex. Differences between 15CH684 and the other assemblages provide valuable information about variation in site function, resource exploitation, and settlement systems.

Based on the Phase I work, 15CH684 appears to be the remains of a single component Early Paleoindian (Clovis) occupation. This alone is an unusual situation, and it opens several potential avenues of research that are fully exploited in subsequent analyses. The Adams assemblage is arguably the least compromised of the Little River Complex sites, with only three possible Early Archaic points collected from the site, compared to several hundred Clovis-age preforms, points, and prismatic blades. The other sites in the Little River Complex are more heavily mixed with later components, which presents difficult challenges for analyses of temporally nondiagnostic artifacts, including debitage and generic tools. If the artifacts from 15CH684 represent only debris derived from Paleoindian occupation, a larger suite of research questions can be addressed. These include the following topics.

SITE FUNCTION

The current interpretation of 15CH684 is that it represents the remains of generalized residential habitation activities. The assemblage does not include debris from quarry and workshop activities, like many of the Little River Complex sites. Because of this, combined morphological and use-wear functional analyses may derive a better picture of the range of activities conducted at the site. However, like many of the Little River Complex sites, the artifacts from 15CH684 are heavily damaged by almost two centuries of agricultural activities. Extracting functional and kinetic motion information from these damaged tools will present its own set of challenges. Use-wear analysis was not attempted on any of the Little River Complex site assemblages due to the heavy plow damage. The assemblage from 15CH684 presents an opportunity to at least partially rectify this lack of information.

LITHIC PROCUREMENT AND CURATION STRATEGIES

The array of lithic raw materials and evidence for differential use of these materials may provide information on lithic procurement and curation strategies. Analysis of the Phase I assemblage from 15CH684 identified only two chert types, St. Louis and Ste. Genevieve, which appear to be differentially used for

26 manufacture of stone tools. The emphasis was apparently on the higher-quality St. Louis chert, though its probable source location was more distant than Ste. Genevieve chert. This pattern of differential chert use can be tested using the Phase II assemblage.

PALEOINDIAN SETTLEMENT SYSTEMS

In addition, identification of the types of chert exploited by Paleoindian site occupations can help define the territorial ranges of site residents (assuming that chert was directly extracted from source locations instead of being obtained through exchange networks). These patterns of territorial exploitation can in turn help to better characterize Paleoindian settlement systems in the region. It has been suggested that that the larger and more extensive quarry/workshop/residence sites in the Little River Complex were retooling locations, where nodules of high-quality Ste. Genevieve chert were extracted and partially (or fully) reduced to refurbish depleted tool kits. With 15CH684 located only about 15-17 kilometers from the Little River Complex, it is likely that occupants of 15CH684 were also able to access the high-quality chert resources of the Little River Complex. Identification of specific raw material types present at 15CH684 can test this possibility.

The field and laboratory methods discussed below were developed to help address these research questions. In some situations, standard field or laboratory methods were modified to collect information pertinent to specific research questions, and to verify specific conditions.

FIELD METHODS

Phase II field work was initiated after the site was determined to be potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. However, this work could not begin until crops were harvested from the agricultural fields that comprise the site area, and arrangements were made with landowners to not plant a later crop within the site area. The proposed Phase II investigations were contingent upon demonstrating that 15CH684 was a single component Paleoindian-age site, not contaminated with artifacts derived from later occupations. A staged approach was taken to the field work, with later stages of work executed when it could be inferred that only a Paleoindian component was present. Once this fact was established, additional stages of field work and subsequent laboratory analyses were conducted to address the research issues outlined above.

A staged approach was used for the NRHP eligibility assessment of 15CH684. Specific field work tasks were accomplished in sequential order, with the results of each stage determining whether additional stages of field work would be pursued. The stages are discussed below, along with the criteria that resulted in the execution or abandonment of subsequent stages.

MECHANICAL EXCAVATIONS

A backhoe with a flat-bladed bucket was used for mechanical removal of sediments from selected locations within the site. The smooth edge provided a very clean surface at the base of plow zone or other targeted excavation level, which minimized the need for hand work to identify possible feature location on the mechanically stripped surface. Artifacts observed during mechanical excavations were collected opportunistically, with collection emphasis on lithic tools and temporally diagnostic artifacts. These materials were bagged by trench number.

Mechanical stripping was used for multiple purposes, all of which served to help evaluate the research potential of the site. Locations of mechanically excavated trenches are shown in Figure 4.1. The locations of three trenches were based on the landscape of 15CH684. Trenches 1 and 2 were placed at the edges of the small sinkhole east of the area of scatter to determine if a buried A horizon was present. Both of

27 these trenches were about six feet (1.8 m) wide; Trench 1 was about 9.5 meters long and Trench 2 was about 5.5 meters long. Buried A horizons were identified in both Trench 1 and Trench 2, but a slightly different depths. No cultural materials except for small charcoal fragments were observed in the buried A horizon of Trench 1. No charcoal was visible in the buried A horizon in Trench 2.

A third backhoe trench extended from eastern footslope of the upland ridge, westward to the crest of the ridge, a distance of about 46.5 meters. This trench was only 3 feet (0.9 m) wide and was excavated into the upper part of the Bt horizon, between 18 and 35 cm depth. Trench 3 essentially removed plow zone to expose subplow zone sediments. Chisel plow scars were evident at the base of plow zone, but no intact subplow zone A horizon remnants, cultural features, or artifact concentrations were observed.

The location of each trench was mapped, each trench profile was cleaned and photographed, and the profiles of Trenches 1 and 2 were drawn, with soils were described using standard terminology. Soil descriptions included attributes of soil texture, structure, inclusions, and Munsell colors. Six micromorphology samples were taken from various soil zones identified in Trench 1. In addition, a flotation sample was taken from the buried A horizon in both Trench 1 and Trench 2 to determine if artifacts, even microdebitage, was present. All trenches were backfilled to approximate original contour after samples were extracted and profiles were documented.

If artifacts had been present in the buried A horizons, a subsequent stage of field work would have called for hand excavated test units to provide a controlled and screened sample from these deposits. As it developed, no artifacts were visible, and test units were not excavated within the sinkhole deposits. However, absence of artifacts in the sinkhole deposits did not preclude additional work within the artifact scatter of 15CH684, and the field work continued to investigate the site area proper in subsequent tasks.

SHOVEL TESTING AND CONTROLLED SURFACE COLLECTION

Supplemental shovel testing was conducted north at 5-meter intervals. The narrow right-of-way corridor north (ca. 25 feet, or 7.6 m) was originally targeted for disking followed by controlled surface collection. However, the persistent presence of crops, fence lines, trees, and the narrow right-of-way corridor combined to preclude access to this part of the site by farm machinery with a disk attachment. Instead, a series of screened shovel tests were placed within this corridor (see Figure 4.1). All shovel tests measured about 30 cm in diameter and were excavated to culturally sterile subsoil. The soils extracted from the shovel tests were screened through ¼-inch mesh to ensure standardized recovery of artifacts. Positive shovel tests were noted, and soil profiles were documented for all shovel tests. Possible intact subplow zone A horizon was identified in two adjacent shovel tests, which affected subsequent field work efforts (see below).

Controlled surface collection was conducted within the right-of-way on the south side. Here, the right-of-way is wider (ca. 65 feet , or 19.8 m), and access to the site area was not restricted by fence lines or tree lines. A road grader with a harrow attachment (supplied by the City of Oak Grove, thank you very much) was used to remove surface vegetation, including chaff from the recently harvested wheat. Rainfall sufficient to create a well-washed surface allowed artifacts to be seen.

An area measuring about 150 meters long and 15 meters wide was subjected to controlled surface collection. Three rows of 29 5-x-5-meter collection units provided complete coverage of the site area and its eastern and western perimeters. Collection units were demarcated with flags placed at the corners of 5-x-5- meter units, defined by parallel and perpendicular tapes. Anchor points and the collection grid were mapped on detailed site maps. All artifacts visible at the surface of each collection unit were collected, with material bagged by 5-x-5-meter collection unit. Locations of bifacial and unifacial tools and cores were mapped individually (Figure 4.1). Locations with high artifact densities or higher numbers of tools were the target of subsequent test unit excavations.

28 HAND-EXCAVATED TEST UNITS

Artifacts collected from the surface were first analyzed to determine if additional field work was warranted. While no Clovis points were recovered from the surface, bifaces that were in earlier stages of Clovis point manufacture were identified, including possible blanks and preforms. In addition, unifacial tools and large prismatic blade sections were also recovered from the surface. More importantly, there was no evidence of any later period of site occupation, which indicated that 15CH684 could still be considered a single component Paleoindian site. The surface collection assemblage was examined by the authors, along with staff of the Kentucky Heritage Council, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, and other UK staff archaeologists, all of whom were familiar with Clovis assemblages. All concurred that the assemblage from 15CH684 was Early Paleoindian in age, and that no other components appeared to be present. Based on this interpretation, the final stage of field work was initiated.

Six hand-excavated test units were placed within the site boundaries (Figure 4.1). Five test units were placed south near or within areas with high artifact density or diffuse concentrations of tools. One unit (Test Unit 2) was placed north between two shovel tests that showed possible intact A horizon remnants below plow zone.

All test units were 1-x-2 meters in size. Test unit excavations followed standard procedures, but there was some variation in excavation methods. All excavation depths were measured from the surface of each unit corner. Excavation removed plow zone as a single natural level, with excavation continuing in arbitrary 10-cm levels below plow zone in Test Unit 2, providing a sample of the subplow zone sediments. All sediment was screened through a ¼-inch mesh to ensure standardized recovery of artifacts, except for a 10- liter bulk sediment sample extracted from each level for recovery of botanical remains and microdebitage. All artifacts were placed into bags according to provenience (test unit and level) context. Bulk soil samples extracted for flotation were given their separate bag numbers. No cultural features were encountered during excavation. Excavation continued until culturally sterile Bt horizon sediment was exposed, which was usually at the base of plow zone.

Initial plan view digital photographs were taken of each test unit, before excavation began. After excavations reached the Bt horizon, final plan view photographs were taken and plan maps were drawn to illustrate plow scars, rood casts, or other disturbance at the base of plow zone. Two adjacent walls were cleaned, digitally photographed, and drawn and 1:10 scale. Soil profiles were described using standard terminology as above for the backhoe trenches. All test units were backfilled to approximate original surface contour after excavation and documentation were completed.

LABORATORY METHODS

Artifacts were washed, catalogued, and analyzed at the laboratory facilities of UK-PAR in Lexington, Kentucky after completion of the field work. Following washing, artifacts were separated into major material classes (e.g., chipped stone debitage, modified chipped stone) for more detailed description, identification and analysis. Following analysis, an inventory was assembled using a standard descriptive typology for prehistoric artifacts. Both prehistoric and historic artifacts were recovered during field work, so the following discussion of analytical methods includes sections on both artifact classes.

PREHISTORIC ARTIFACTS

The great majority of prehistoric artifacts from 15CH684 are classified as chipped stone, both debitage and modified items (tools) are present in the assemblage. One ground stone tool was also recovered during the Phase II investigations. Analysis of prehistoric lithic artifacts revealed that the debitage recovered could be assigned to a bifacial reduction trajectory (Andrefsky 1998; Collins 1975; Odell 2003). Because of

29 the assemblage from 15CH684 was related to manufacture of Clovis or other fluted points, the category of biface thinning flakes was further divided using flake types derived from chaine operatoire (Grace 1989, 1993, 1997; Tixier and Roche 1980) styles of analysis. The biface thinning flakes category was thus divided into two categories—biface thinning and shaping flakes, and biface finishing/trimming flakes—which we believe more accurately reflect the debitage derived from the later stages of Clovis biface production. Definitions for all flake types are provided below.

Each piece of chipped stone debitage was assigned to a specific typological category based on morphological features. Modified items were also identified in the assemblage and classified separately. In addition to morphological classification and assignment to reduction stages, the raw material type was identified for all chipped stone artifacts. Caitlin Rogers and Steven Ahler analyzed the prehistoric lithic artifacts recovered from 15CH684. Chert raw material types were identified by Caitlin Rogers, and verified by Steven Ahler and Eric Schlarb (Kentucky Archaeological Survey).

Debitage Categories

Each piece of chipped stone debitage was identified to a specific typological category based on a set of morphological features (see definitions below). Analysis of debitage includes classification by reduction stage using definition criteria developed by, among others, Crabtree (1982), Flenniken (1987), and Collins (1975), and subsequently modified for use in local contexts in Kentucky. As noted above, the classification system was modified by dividing biface thinning flakes into two sequential categories derived from the chaine operatoire lithic analysis system. In addition to flake type, the amount and type of cortex present on the dorsal surface of each flake was also recorded. Definitions for debitage flake types are provided below.

Primary Flakes Also called decortication flakes, primary flakes represent the initial stage of lithic reduction. An obtuse platform with no lipping, a pronounced bulb of percussion, and a significant amount of cortex on the dorsal surface (more than 50 percent) typically characterize this flake type.

Secondary Flakes Also called partial decortication flakes, secondary flakes are also considered to represent the initial stages of reduction that involve removal of cortex from cores and tool blanks and preparation of cores and blanks for subsequent thinning and shaping. Attributes of secondary flakes include an obtuse-angled or right- angled platform that shows no lipping on the ventral surface, a noticeable bulb of percussion, and presence of cortex on less than 50 percent of the dorsal surface (including the platform as part of the dorsal surface).

Interior Flakes Interior flakes, sometimes referred to as tertiary flakes, exhibit 1) an identifiable platform that lacks evidence of flake scars, 2) a bulb of force on the ventral surface, and 3) no cortex on the dorsal surface and/or platform. These flakes are produced in intermediate stages of core or biface reduction. Large interior flakes may serve as blanks for production of tools, including small dart points, scrapers, or cutting tools.

Biface Thinning Flakes (BTF) Biface thinning flakes are flakes that have: 1) an identifiable platform, often with two or more distinct facets or flake scars, 2) a diffuse bulb of force on the ventral surface, 3) no cortex on the dorsal surface or platform, 4) a platform that forms an acute angle (ca. 45 to 60) between the platform and the dorsal surface, and 5) a lip, or hook-like protrusion at the ventral edge of the platform. Biface thinning flakes are produced in the later stages of biface production. This category was subdivided to better accommodate the stages of Clovis point manufacture represented by the Paleoindian debitage from 15CH684.

Biface Thinning and Shaping Flakes (BTS) These flakes result from shaping the biface while its thickness is reduced. They generally lack cortex; are relatively thin; and have narrow, faceted platforms. Other attributes include multidirectional dorsal scars

30 and curved longitudinal profiles. Bifacial thinning and shaping flakes are typically produced by soft hammer percussion flaking.

Biface Finishing/Trimming Flakes (BFT) These flakes are produced during the preparation of the edge of the tool. These flakes are similar in some respects to biface thinning and shaping flakes, but are generally smaller and thinner and can be indistinguishable from tiny flakes resulting from other processes, such as platform preparation. Biface finishing/trimming flakes may be detached by either percussion or pressure flaking.

In addition to the flake categories described above that are part of a Paleoindian/Clovis biface reduction sequence. Three other debitage categories were employed in the analyses. These are broken flakes without cortex, angular shatter, and overshot flakes.

Broken Flakes without Cortex Broken flakes or flake fragments are pieces of flakes that lack either an identifiable platform or a bulb of force. However, the specimen is still identifiable as a flake by its relative thinness, the presence of dorsal flake scars, and a smooth ventral surface. Broken flakes also lack cortex, and this indicates that many were produced later in the manufacturing process, in intermediate or late stages. Flake fragments that have cortex on the dorsal surface were placed into primary or secondary flake categories based on the amount of cortex visible, and were not included in the broken flake category.

Angular Shatter Shatter is a fragment of chert that has been culturally modified but lacks attributes that would allow it to be classified into any other debitage category. Angular shatter can be produced at any stage of reduction but is more likely a by-product of early stages.

Overshot Flakes Overshot flakes (Bradley et al. 2010) are flakes that travel from one margin across the plane of a biface (or any form) and detach part of the opposite margin. In order for a flake to be considered an overshot flake the removed portion must be a margin, not simply the other end of a core or a piece of raw material. Intentional use of overshot flaking is for removal of a square edge or to significantly thin a biface. However, unintentional overshot flakes may result from excess force during thinning, with the force traveling through the entire width of the biface and removing part of the opposing edge. In the current assemblage, examples of overshot flakes all are distal flake fragments that lack an identifiable platform or bulb of force and typically lack cortex. They are thus a special variety of broken flakes without cortex. However, they were identified by the presence of a thick, bifacially worked edge at the distal end. Intentional overshot flakes are characteristic of Paleoindian assemblages, though they may be accidentally produced during manufacture of any biface during any temporal period.

Modified Chipped Stone Tool Categories

Lithic chipped stone artifacts that show evidence of modification, either through use or by intentional shaping of the item, are considered tools. This general class of chipped stone tools can be further divided into a variety of specific categories based on the morphology of the artifact, presence or absence of intentional shaping, and the degree to which the artifact has been modified. These attributes also reflect the reduction stage of the tool, and the reduction stages represented in modified items can be compared to the range of reduction stages represented in debitage to more fully assess the types of activities conducted at sites. The chipped stone artifact categories that commonly occur on prehistoric sites include unifacial tools of various shapes and functions, cores, and bifacial tools. All of these tool classes are present in the current assemblage; definitions and attributes of specific tool types are provided below.

Unifaces Unifaces are modified chipped stone tools that show evidence of shape or edge modification by

31 removal of flakes from the margin of one aspect of the specimen (usually from the dorsal face, but not always). Shaping and edge modification may be intentional or a by-product of use. In the current assemblage several categories of unifaces were recognized, and they are differentiated in general by the degree of modification, overall shape of the item, and the shape and steepness of the working edge.

Utilized Flakes Utilized flakes are debitage categories (primary, secondary, interior, biface thinning, or broken flakes) that lack evidence of formal shaping or intentional retouch, but that have one or more edges that show evidence of damage resulting from use. Use may be intensive and result in a very worn working edge, but the overall shape of a utilized flake specimen has not been intentionally modified. Other unifacial tool categories that show overall shape modification are collectively referred to as retouched tools. Utilized flakes are counted as the appropriate category of debitage as well as being considered modified items.

Utilized Flake Modified for Prehension Some utilized flakes show evidence of modification that would aid in manual prehension and use of the tool. Most often, such prehension modification involves alteration of the edge opposite the utilized edge. Modification can take the form of steep retouch, grinding, snapping, or burination, any of which would dull the edge and make the hand-held tool easier to use. This type of modification is considered intentional, but does not result in a formally shaped tool.

Retouched Flakes This category includes tool fragments with an intentionally modified and shaped working edge. However, the entire plan of the tool is not shaped, and its function is not readily apparent. Retouching generally results in a series of overlapping flakes that are invasive into the matrix of the tool, and not just irregular damage on the edge due to use.

Blades and Blade-like Flakes Prismatic blades are targets of specialized lithic reduction in which a flake of particular shape (long, with parallel sides) has been intentionally produced. Prismatic blades have parallel margins and one or more raised arrises running parallel or subparallel to the long axis. Typically blades measure at least twice as long as they are wide, and the platform shows evidence of intentional preparation.

Scraper Scrapers are intentionally modified unifacial tools that have one or more steep working edges (angle between modified edge and ventral surface more than about 60º). Scraping edges may be placed on the distal ends of flakes or prismatic blade sections (end scrapers) or on one or both lateral sides of flakes or blade sections (side scrapers). In addition, scrapers may be intentionally modified to facilitate hafting (hafted scrapers); these are usually end scrapers that exhibit a contracting haft element that would fit into a socketed haft.

Unifacial Cutting Implement (UCI) This is a uniface with an acutely angled (edge angle between 35º and 60º), intentionally modified working edge. Such tools are usually used for cutting or whittling as opposed to scraping or shredding. The working edge may be at any location on the specimen.

Burin/Chisel Uniface with a short, steep, thick chisel-like point, usually formed by removal of one or two flakes along the length of a flake or tool margin. The resulting chisel-like point is used for cutting or engraving resistant material. Note that bifaces or other tool forms may be recycled into burins; such items are referred to as “burinated bifaces”, etc.

Spokeshave A uniface with a steeply angled, concave to deeply concave working edge. The working edge may be

32 oriented at any angle with respect to the long axis.

Bifacially Modified Uniface (BMU) In contrast to other unifacial tool categories, this category is recognized only in the current assemblage. These tools are large flakes or blade-like flakes (unifaces) that show intentional bifacial modification along one or both lateral edges. However, this bifacial modification is not deeply invasive, and large sections of the unmodified dorsal and ventral faces of the flake/blade are still visible. This tool category may be specific to Paleoindian assemblages.

Combination Tool Any uniface which exhibits two or more working edges that could be described by combinations of the above categories.

Bifaces Bifaces are modified chipped stone tools that show evidence of intentional shape or edge modification by removal of flakes from the margin of both aspects of the specimen. Production of bifaces is assumed to be the primary focus of most of the lithic reduction that took place at 15MR65. Assessment of the degree of modification allows bifacial tools to be placed into various stages of production that reflect the degree of refinement of the tool and its placement along a reduction stage continuum (Collins 1975, Odell 2003). Biface stages that are commonly recognized include rough, thick, thin, and finished (hafted) bifaces.

Rough Biface Rough bifaces show only minimal bifacial work; they are also known as Stage 1 bifaces. Only a few flakes may have been removed, but there is clear evidence of bifacial reduction. These tools often can be confused with partially reduced cores or even angular shatter, especially when fragmentary.

Thick Biface Thick or Stage 2 bifaces show complete removal of cortex and the beginning of regularized shaping of the artifact. However, the bifacial edge is still sinuous in both plan and profile, and the tool is comparatively thick.

Thin Biface Thin or Stage 3 bifaces are fully thinned but lack haft elements. Many are fragments that might have haft elements if they were complete. The edges of thin bifaces are straight and smooth in plan and profile, and the tools are thin relative to their width and length.

Hafted Biface Hafted or finished or Stage 4 bifaces exhibit evidence of a hafting element. These represent the final stage in bifacial reduction and are commonly known as projectile points. Finished bifaces are refined and regular in appearance, and are generally symmetrical in plan, profile, and cross-section. The shape and manufacturing attributes of the haft element can be used to further classify the hafted biface or fragment into temporally sensitive types.

In addition to these stages of general biface reduction, bifaces that are specifically part of a recognized Clovis biface reduction sequence were also recognized in the current assemblage. Various analysts have defined stages of Clovis point manufacture based on detailed analysis of a specific large assemblage. Sanders (1990) recognized seven reduction stages at the Adams site (15CH90), and Bradley et al. (2010) define five stages of reduction based largely on the large Gault Site assemblage. Their analyses also included materials from Adams and other Clovis sites. For the sake of simplicity, we have used the Bradley sequence to assign bifaces with requisite attributes to specific stages of Clovis point manufacture.

Early Phase Biface Early phase bifaces are the earliest phase defined for the Clovis reduction sequence. Though they are

33 quite variable, they have some shared characteristics, including most often, evidence of the original flake blank surface or unmodified nodule/block surface (subcortex). Flakes are broad and irregularly spaced; it is generally not possible to determine the sequence of flake removals from early phase bifaces. The width:thickness ratio varies from 2.2 to 6.5 (mean of 4.1; n=51 in the analyzed sample), indicating that thinning of the biface took place early in the manufacturing process. Overshot flakes are present but relatively uncommon. Middle phase Clovis bifaces are comparable to thick bifaces in a general biface reduction sequence.

Middle Phase Bifaces Farther into the Clovis biface production sequence are middle phase bifaces. Characteristics of these bifaces include broad and overlapping flake scars and less sinuous edges. Overshot flakes were observed on 63 percent of 57 complete middle phase bifaces that were analyzed. Width:thickess ratios vary between 1.9 and 9.3 (mean of 4.5; n=72 in the analyzed sample). Flakes removals can be partially sequenced, and spacing is well controlled. Most middle phase bifaces would be placed into either thick or thin biface categories in a general biface reduction sequence.

Two other categories of bifaces were recognized in this analysis. These are “catch-all” categories in that many small biface fragments that lack other attributes might be placed into one of these groups.

Biface Failed in Manufacture A biface that shows evidence of failure to thin or has faults within the raw material may be classified as a biface that failed during manufacture. The failed edge usually shows multiple step fractures representing failed attempts to bifacially thin the tool. Only relatively complete specimens can be determined to be manufacturing failures, and these tools may have been used for cutting or scraping even if the initial intent to create a thinned tool was not successful.

Undifferentiated Biface Fragment Biface fragments that are too small to classify into one of the above sequential reduction stages are categorized as undifferentiated biface fragments.

Cores Cores are chunks of chert raw material that show evidence of flake removal. Multiple types of cores are commonly recognized, with tested, general, and exhausted cores representing sequential stages of flake production. The current assemblage includes only a single example of a generally reduced core.

General Core Generally reduced cores or multidirectional cores show evidence of multiple flake removals and indicate more intensive use of the core. However, there is apparent attempt at systematic flake removal or intentional production of a specific size or shape or flake. Generally reduced cores may have been made into bifaces or they may have been used to produce flakes that were subsequently used or modified into unifacial tools.

Exhausted Core Exhausted cores show evidence of many flake removals, and also they show evidence of platform failure. No additional flakes could be removed because all platforms have either failed or have been reduced to minimally productive size. Exhausted cores show many step fractures below multiple flake platforms, and they are small in size.

Modified Ground Stone

Only one category of ground stone was recovered from the Phase II investigations at 15CH684. Hammerstones are items that show evidence of battering, crushing, and use on very hard objective materials. The battering may be in a central location or around the perimeter of the object.

34 Lithic Raw Material Types

Chipped stone raw material types were identified by comparison to the type collection at the William S. Webb Museum of Anthropology and by inspection of geological quadrangle maps of the project area and vicinity to provide information on local availability. Caitlin Rogers identified the raw materials, with verification and modification of the groups provided by Steven Ahler and Eric Schlarb. Based on an initial examination of the materials, comparisons to the type collection, and inspection of geological quadrangle maps, four chert types were initially identified—Ste. Genevieve, St. Louis, Salem/Warsaw, and Fort Payne— each of which is derived from Mississippian-age Meramec Series limestone formations of the same name.

This initial classification of chert types was modified after the authors and Eric Schlarb examined the Paleoindian artifact assemblage from the Adams site (15CH90) that was curated at the William S. Webb Museum of Anthropology. The Adams site is in the lower Little River valley, near outcrops of high-quality Ste. Genevieve chert mentioned above, some 20 km northwest of the current project area. Raw material types from Adams had been identified by Gatus (Sanders 1988), and Gatus compared the raw material types in the Adams site collection with raw material extracted directly from the Ste. Genevieve outcrops adjacent to the site. Gatus identified all of the flaked stone from Adams, except for one Clovis point base, as being manufactured from Ste. Genevieve chert. Based on comparison of the Adams site collection with the materials recovered from 15CH684, the authors concluded that there were only two types of identifiable chipped stone raw material present at 15CH684—Ste. Genevieve and Fort Payne. What had been identified as St. Louis chert, based primarily on greater opacity, was in fact a less translucent variety of Ste. Genevieve. The greater opacity was likely related to the proximity of the flakes to the cortex. In addition, what had been initially identified as Salem/Warsaw chert was well within the range of variation of Ste. Genevieve materials from Adams. The small vesicles and tiny vugs that were the primary attribute used to identify this chert were present to varying degrees in about one-quarter of the Adams materials examined. Our initial identifications had split Ste. Genevieve chert into three varieties. However, all of these varieties are part of the range of variation of Ste. Genevieve chert, and all were likely derived from the same high-quality source locations in the Little River valley. The high-quality Ste. Genevieve chert from 15CH684 is not considered to be immediately available on or near the site, but was likely obtained from sources closer to the Little River Complex, some 15-20 km distant, as the 15CH684 Ste. Genevieve material is almost identical to that from Adams.

Ste. Genevieve limestone also underlies the project area and chert weathered from this bedrock is available from outcrops, residuum, and secondary deposits within and near the project area. Ste. Genevieve chert overall is light to dark grey in color, occurs in both nodular and tabular forms, and occurs as discontinuous layers of a few inches to a foot thick. However, the locally available weathered Ste. Genevieve chert appears as blocky vesicular fragments, partly chalky white and partly reddish brown (Klemic 1966a, 1966b). In addition to the color differences, there are a variety of textural and inclusion differences possible within Ste. Genevieve chert (Klemic 1966a). Nodular Ste. Genevieve chert is smooth, commonly has faint concentric bands, and contains no fossil inclusions; bedded Ste. Genevieve chert may be grainy and contain fossils. The locally derived residual Ste. Genevieve chert observed on-site is of very poor quality, being highly vesicular and containing many fracture planes. In contrast, all of the flaking debris and lithic modified items made from Ste. Genevieve and recovered from 15CH684 are made from high-quality nodular and tabular Ste. Genevieve chert. These varieties of Ste. Genevieve chert are not local to 15CH684.

Fort Payne chert is a nonlocal chert variety for the current project area, with outcrops some 68 km to the west (USGS 7.5’ Canton, KY geologic quadrangle [Fox and Seeland 1963]). This chert type is described as being porcelaneous and medium dark gray in color. Weathered chert appears as porous medium light gray and is has small lenticular inclusions of somewhat darker material along with lighter fossiliferous inclusions. Fort Payne in this area occurs in thin beds and discontinuous lenses (Fox and Seeland 1963) and it is a high- quality chert for stone tool production. The Fort Payne chert that had been identified in the Phase I survey from 15CH684 was qualitatively outside the range of variation of the Ste. Genevieve chert from the Adams site. Fort Payne chert is a nonlocal chert resource relative to 15CH684.

35 In addition to these chert resources for which geological source could be identified, other artifacts were classified as unidentified chert. These artifacts were almost always burned or otherwise heat-altered, which has also altered the attributes that would permit them to be assigned to specific raw material type. However, they are almost certainly burned examples of one of the identifiable chert types.

Cortex

For all debitage types and tools that exhibit cortex, the type of cortex was also identified. Nodular cortex is identified by its thick, granular, and often chalky rind and is indicative of extraction of chert raw materials from a primary geologic source location. Water-worn cortex exhibits a thin, smooth, and often brown rind that has been smoothed by tumbling in streams. Water-worn cortex is indicative of extraction of chert raw material from secondary deposits such as gravel bars or ravines that are downstream from the primary source locations. A third type of cortex, designated subcortex, is very thin but is not water-worn. This type of cortex may be present along interior bedding planes and natural fracture zones of chert nodules or chunks. Its presence is not informative of exploitation of either primary or secondary chert sources.

HISTORIC ARTIFACTS

A low number of historic artifacts were recovered during the test unit excavations at 15CH684. These were saved because they were recovered from excavated contexts. Historic artifacts encountered during surface collection were not saved except in rare instances. The context of their recovery, adjacent to a long-established roadway, suggests that these few historic remains represent a combination of debris discarded by the roadside and occasional artifacts lost during agricultural work. They are neither numerous enough nor diverse enough to suggest an actual historic residential use of the site.

The historic artifact coding scheme used by UK-PAR includes both functional and temporal dimensions. At the most general level, material is classified according to functional group (following South 1977), which for the present project includes only Kitchen, Activities, and Architectural groups. Artifacts whose functions can be more precisely subdivided by artifact classes including, for example within the Kitchen group, ceramic preparation/storage, ceramic tableware, glass preparation/storage, and glass tableware. Other levels describe specific artifact forms such as flatware, jug, jar, or bowl. Temporally significant attributes (datable attributes) are also described (e.g., creamware, edge-decorated pearlware, whiteware, or flow blue decoration). An additional descriptive level is provided that includes artifact-specific information such as glass color, vessel part, or maker’s mark. Each artifact category is further recorded by count. The results of analysis are tabulated in a comprehensive inventory by context. The specific groups and classes recovered during the present survey are further described below in their order of frequency.

Kitchen Group

Artifacts assigned to the Kitchen Group reflect activities conducted in and around domestic kitchens, including preparation, consumption, and storage of foods. As such, a variety of materials and artifact types are represented in the group, including ceramics (bowls/plates for food consumption, bowls and crocks for food storage and preparation), and glass (tableware and container glass). The most commonly recovered classes of Kitchen Group artifacts are glass storage containers and ceramic tableware. The current produced only container glass and a single fragment of whiteware.

Whiteware, a refined earthenware, was manufactured initially in the 1830s and still continues to be manufactured, though its greatest popularity was during the mid-19th century. Whiteware as archaeologists typically define it is a refined earthenware with a glaze tint closer to true white than either the earlier creamware or pearlware. Its beginning production date is particularly difficult to establish, but in general it is taken to be on the American market by around 1830. Common decorative techniques for mid-19th century whiteware include various colors of transfer printing, sponge decoration, and edge washing. Later in the 19th

36 century and into the 20th century, the decorations included gilt edges, molding, and decalcomania transfers. Whiteware continues to be produced down to the current day.

Glass container body fragments, bases, and lips (finishes) are included in this category. These materials were sorted by functional subgroup (i.e., storage or table service), color, and manufacturing type when possible. Prior to 1903, most container glass was produced in molds or was hand-blown. Until the bottle manufacturing process was fully automated, the addition of lips (finishes) was completed by applied tools, with the body reheated to ensure proper bonding of the glass. Machine-manufactured bottles date after 1903 when the Owens automated glass process was introduced (Deiss 1981). Machine-made bottles can be recognized by lips that have seams or by bases that display suction scars. Earlier finish types lack seams. Standardized screw threads appeared after the introduction of machine-manufactured bottles and typically date after 1919 (Deiss 1981:95). Many colors found in container glass result from addition of chemicals to the glass flux, and some of these chemical formulas were used only for specific period of time and are therefore temporally diagnostic (see Fike 1987; Munsey 1970). However, the current project produced only clear or amber container glass, likely the remains of beverage containers discarded along the NA roadside.

Activities Group

Artifacts in the Activities group reflect common activities carried out at residences and on farms. For the current assemblage, only a single category of artifacts is represented in the Activities group—fence wire. Several fragments were recovered from a test unit placed near an existing fence line that demarcates the NA right-of-way.

Architecture Group

Artifacts in this category are materials commonly used to construct buildings, as well as relatively permanent materials placed in structures to enhance their use. The most commonly recovered items in the architecture group are nails, window glass, and brick. Most brick fragments are not temporally diagnostic because they typically lack surface attributes. On the other hand, nails and window glass can be useful tools in the dating of historic sites. The current Architecture group assemblage includes only two examples of wire nails.

Hand-wrought nails have been present in North America since initial European settlement (Nelson 1968). Hand-wrought nails are manufactured entirely by hand and do not include any elements of machine manufacture. Hand-wrought nails began to be replaced by machine-cut nails with hand-finished heads between 1790 and 1810. Machine-cut nails with machine-made heads first appeared in 1805 (Nelson 1968:6). Machine-cut were the principal type of nail used in architecture between 1810 and the 1880s. Machine-cut nails are still in use, but were widely replaced by wire nails in the 1880s (Mansberger 1981:91, Nelson 1968).

ARCHAEOBOTANICAL ANALYSIS

Flotation samples and bulk soil samples taken from plow zone contexts were processed at the laboratory of the University of Kentucky Program for Archaeological Research using the R. J. Dausman Technical Services, Inc. Flote-Tech system. Basic features of the system include a 50-gallon flotation tub with a 1-mm screened reservoir placed within the tub. The reservoir and tub are filled with water. An electric pump circulates a controllable mixture of water and air from the flotation tub upwards into the reservoir where the bulk sediment samples are placed. Air bubbles function as tiny “flotation devices,” aiding the extraction of small particulate matter—including botanical remains—through a weir and onto a fine nylon mesh screen (0.33 mm diameter). This overflow and floated material is collected as the light fraction. The materials that were too heavy to be extracted by the upward air/water flow constitute the heavy fraction. The current analysis reports on botanical materials recovered from the combined light and heavy fractions from

37 each sample following procedures used by Pearsall (2000).

Prior to processing with the Flote-Tech machine, volumes were recorded for each sample to the nearest 0.5 liter. After processing and drying, but prior to sorting, all light and heavy fraction samples were weighed. The light fraction was then sifted through a nested series of geological sieves with mesh sizes of 2 mm, 1 mm, and 0.5 mm. to produce three size grades— >2 mm, 1-2 mm, and <1 mm. The heavy fraction also was processed through geological sieves, but only the >2 mm and 1-2 mm geological sieves were employed to size-grade the heavy fractions.

All carbonized material in the >2mm size screen was sorted by count and weight into constituent material categories (e.g., nutshell, wood charcoal, seeds). Only three flotation samples were examined from 15CH684. Two were taken from the buried A horizons identified in backhoe Trench 1 and Trench 2. However, water processing of these samples produced no charcoal. The third sample, taken from Test Unit 2/Level 2, a subplow zone A horizon remnant, did contain a small amount of charcoal, including small amounts of carbonized wood, and a few seeds.

Only wood fragments greater than 2 mm were analyzed. The number and weight of the fragments greater than 2 mm was recorded. The wood fragments were snapped in two to obtain a clear cross section of the wood. The morphology of the cross section was examined to determine wood identification. The arrangement of earlywood and latewood pores, the number and size of multiseriate rays, and the presence or absence of parenchyma serve as the basis for the hardwood identifications. The textures of tracheids, transition from earlywood to latewood, presence or absence of resin canals, and the frequency of resin canals serve as the basis for the softwood identifications. Identification of plant remains is done by using an Olympus binocular microscope at magnifications of 10 to 20 x for materials. Identifications are substantiated with use of the reference collection in possession of the analyst. Secondary sources include various identification manuals (Core et al. 1979; Minnis 1987; Panshin and de Zeeuw 1980; Rossen 1991; Rossen and Olson 1985; Thompson 1994).

Nutshell and seeds were further quantified by genus/species. Carbonized plant materials retained in the 1mm and 500m mesh screens and catch basin were scanned using an Olympus binocular microscope at a magnification of 10x. Any seeds, fleshy fruits (e.g., Cucurbita rind), etc. were removed, counted, and weighted by taxon and type of material. Identification of plant remains was done by using an Olympus binocular microscope at magnifications of 7x for materials >2mm and at 10 to 20 x for materials <2mm. Identifications were substantiated with use of the reference collection in possession of the analyst. Secondary sources included various identification manuals (Martin and Barkley 2000; Montgomery 1977; Muenscher 1980; Panshin and de Zeeuw 1980; U.S.D.A. 1948; Young and Young 1992).

CURATION

All artifacts were prepared for curation according to the standards of the University of Kentucky’s William S. Webb Museum of Anthropology (see 36 CFR Part 79 Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections). ). This entailed washing all the artifacts and placing them in inert, labeled plastic bags then placed in acid-free boxes for storage. A copy of this report and all field notes, artifacts, and photographs pertaining to this study occurs at the Webb Museum, where they are available for inspection by qualified researchers upon request. An updated Kentucky Office of State Archaeology site form has been completed for 15CH684 that reflects the results of the Phase II investigations.

38 CHAPTER 5 DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF MATERIALS RECOVERED

This chapter provides detailed descriptions and analyses of cultural materials recovered during the Phase II archaeological investigations of 15CH684 in Christian County, Kentucky. The purpose of materials recovered chapters is to present an overview of the temporal and functional classification of the artifacts recovered from the project, using the classification scheme discussed in the previous chapter, and to present interpretations of these materials as they relate to the prehistoric occupation of site 15CH684. Prehistoric and historic materials were recovered in the course of the investigations. The follow sections describe the artifact classes recovered during the investigations.

HISTORIC ARTIFACTS

This section presents the analysis of the historic artifacts recovered during Phase II investigations of 15CH684. All 98 historic artifacts were assigned to three functional groups—Activities, Architecture, and Kitchen. The total assemblage recovered is small, and it is limited to materials recovered from test unit excavations. Additional historic artifacts were observed on the surface, but these were not collected. Inspection in the field of a sample of surface material indicated they were modern in manufacture and most likely derived from roadside discard of trash. It is also likely that many of the historic artifacts collected from excavated test units are also modern. As such, their research potential is low, but they are tabulated and discussed first, so the attention can be focused on the Paleoindian component at 15CH684.

Table 5.1 lists the historic artifacts recovered from 15CH684, along with the functional groups represented and general artifact descriptions. Few of the artifacts are temporally sensitive, and most are only indicative of generic 20th century roadside trash, rather than residential occupation. Architecture group artifacts (n=2; 2.0 percent of assemblage) are limited to wire nails (n=2). These are indicative of late 19th through modern use of the locality and are consistent with presence of fence lines and field gates in the area. Activity group artifacts (n-54; 55.1 percent of assemblage) consist entirely of fence wire fragments. These are not barbed, but are similar to the open-weave fence that exists along the present north right-of-way for NA. Most of these materials were recovered from Test Unit 2, which was placed about 3 meters north of this fence line. Recovery of fence wire is consistent with 20th century farm activities conducted on site. Kitchen group artifacts (n=42, 42.8 percent of assemblage) include both brown and clear container glass (n=41; 41.8 percent of assemblage). These materials are likely modern and derive from roadside discard of trash, particularly beer and soft drink containers. In addition, a single sherd of decorated whiteware was recovered. This artifact has a blue transfer print and was likely manufactured in the later 19th to early 20th century. It also likely represents discarded trash.

This historic artifact assemblage is interpreted as the remains of casual discard of roadside trash, along with discard of materials related to farm maintenance activities. The low numbers of Architecture group artifacts indicates that a historic structure was not located within the project area. Consequently, the historic component is incidental to the research potential of 15CH684 and its potential eligibility for listing on the NRHP. As a consequence, it will not be discussed further.

BOTANICAL ANALYSIS

Nine flotation samples were extracted in the field, two from backhoe trenches and seven from test units. All were processed, but only the float sample from Test Unit 2/Level 2 was analyzed for botanical remains. The two samples from backhoe trenches produced no carbonized remains, and the other sample are from plow zone contexts and only produced charcoal that is almost certainly historic in age. The analyzed sample produced two fragments (<0.1 g) of carbonized wood, a carbonized thorn, three carbonized seeds (one each of Vitis sp. [grape], Poaceae [grass family], cf. Rhus sp. [possible sumac], and an unidentified seed), and

39 Table 5.1. Historic Artifacts Recovered from Phase II Investigations at 15CH684. Functional Group Material Type Total Architecture Metal Wire Nails 2 Activities Metal Wire 54 Kitchen Ceramic Decorated Whiteware 1 Glass Brown container body fragments 8 Clear container body fragments 33 Total 98

82 uncarbonized seeds. The unidentified seed was sent for AMS radiocarbon assay (see Chapter 6).

PREHISTORIC ARTIFACTS

The prehistoric artifact assemblage from 15CH684 is the principal target of the Phase II investigations. The Phase II assemblage includes debitage (n=1240), modified chipped stone tools (n=59), and modified ground stone (n=1). These categories are described and interpreted below. Detailed use-wear analyses were conducted on selected material from the Phase I and Phase II assemblages, and these analyses are discussed in detail in a later section.

LITHIC DEBITAGE

Lithic debitage (n=1240) accounts for 97.7 percent of the prehistoric assemblage recovered from 15CH684. Chipped stone debitage was analyzed with respect to flake types that are part of a biface reduction trajectory (sensu Collins 1975) which was modified to include two types of biface thinning flakes that are ordinarily part of a chaine operatoire sequence (see Chapter 4 for definitions). Lithic debris provides the primary data set for assessing the range and types of activities conducted at the site and making inferences about site function, but such assessments are most appropriate for specific analytical units that can be assigned to more narrowly defined temporal periods. Investigations at 15CH684 recovered lithic artifacts from the plow zone (e.g., test units, shovel tests, surface and mechanical trench contexts). Inferences about the types of activities represented are thus dependent on an assumption that most of the debitage derives from a single temporal component, in this case Paleoindian period occupation of the site. While this assumption may hold in general, if more than one component is present (see below), methods must be devised to select materials that represent specific components. This situation will be discussed later in subsequent analyses; for now we will attempt to make general characterizations of the lithic debitage assemblage.

Table 5.2 presents summary data on the flake types and materials types represented in the Phase II assemblage recovered from 15CH684. By far the most common debitage category is broken flakes (n=755, or 60.88 percent of the debitage). To have broken flakes the most abundant debitage category is not uncommon in prehistoric assemblages, but the high proportion of broken flakes is likely compounded by agricultural damage plus 12 millennia of freeze/thaw cycles. Of the flake types that can be placed into a biface reduction trajectory (primary, secondary, interior, biface thinning and shaping [BTS], biface finishing or trimming [BFT]), there is a bimodal pattern, with higher proportions of secondary flakes and BTS, though all reduction stages are represented. This indicates that the entire range of bifacial tool reduction was being carried out on site. Initial cobble testing and removal of cortex was probably taking place off-site, as very low numbers of primary flakes or shatter were recovered. The high number of broken flakes indicates an emphasis on later stages of reduction, though specific stages cannot be identified from this category. Higher numbers of secondary and late-stage flakes suggest that some materials were being brought to the site in a partially reduced state, perhaps in the form of cores, flake blanks, or rough bifaces that retained some cortex. These were further reduced on-site, accounting for the higher numbers of both secondary flakes and BTS flakes. This debitage profile is expected for general habitation sites. Quarry/workshop activities would result in high numbers of primary flakes and shatter. The general interpretation of the site function derived from Phase I survey is supported by the proportions of flake types recovered in the Phase II investigations.

40 Table 5.2. Debitage by Flake Type and Material Type Recovered from Phase II Investigations at 15CH684. Utilized, retouched and blade like flakes are listed in parentheses within the appropriate cell; for example 5(1) means five flakes were recovered, one of which is utilized. Utilized, retouched and blade like flakes are counted as debitage. An asterisk (*) indicates the presence of overshot flakes. Primary Secondary Interior BTS BFT Broken Shatter TOTAL Ste. Genevieve 16 83(3) 47 70(1) 38 408(7)*** 25 687(11) Fort Payne 12 33(2) 17(4) 30(2) 12 171(11)* 7 282(19) Unidentified 16 25 12 7 23 176(1) 12 271(1) TOTAL 44 141(5) 76(4) 107(3) 73 755(19)**** 44 1240(31)****

Overshot flakes (denoted by asterisks in Table 5.2) were considered to be a special form of broken flakes without cortex, and therefore are considered to belong in the later stages of the reduction sequence. The presence of overshot flakes supports the concept that the debitage from 15CH684 is temporally Paleoindian.

The raw material was initially identified as St. Louis, Ste. Genevieve, Fort Payne and Salem/Warsaw. However, subsequent comparison with materials from the Adams site, definitively identified as exclusively Ste. Genevieve, showed that the assemblage from 15CH684 included only Ste. Genevieve and Fort Payne chert. What were initially thought to be St. Louis and Salem/Warsaw chert were instead subtle varieties of Ste. Genevieve, all of which could be derived from the same outcrop. A portion of the raw materials recovered could not be identified, due to heat-altering or discoloration. This unidentifiable chert is most certainly some variety of either Ste. Genevieve or Fort Payne chert, but these fragments lack distinguishing characteristics that allow it to be identified with any degree of confidence.

Ste. Genevieve chert artifacts from 15CH684 are interpreted as being made from nonlocal raw material in the context of this site. These high-quality Ste. Genevieve artifacts were likely derived from tabular and nodular source areas identified along the Little River, some 15-20 km northwest of 15CH684. The low-quality Ste. Genevieve chert that is found in weathered residuum in and around the site is highly vesicular, has many fracture planes, and is coarser than the Ste. Genevieve used for artifact manufacture. This immediately available variety of Ste. Genevieve was apparently not used by site occupants, even for expedient tool production. It is represented in the assemblage only by a few angular shatter fragments, and the cultural origin of these is questionable. Fort Payne chert also is a nonlocal raw material. This is a high- quality chert that outcrops about 68-70 km west-northwest of 15CH684 in the more deeply entrenched Cumberland River valley (Fox and Seeland 1963).

Differential use of the two identifiable raw materials was evaluated using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Two-Sample statistical test (Thomas 1976). Though Fort Payne chert has higher proportions of secondary flakes than are present in the Ste. Genevieve chert sequence, this difference was not statistically significant, even at the 0.10 level of probability. It appears that both chert raw material types are being used in similar types of lithic reduction and tool production activities. This is understandable in that all of these materials were apparently transported to the site from source locations that are some distance remote. High proportions of nonlocal chert are consistent with use of the site by transient groups, and focus on use on high-quality chert is a hallmark of Paleoindian lithic resource exploitation. Groups that occupied 15CH684 would likely have transported high-quality chert with them in the form of partially reduced cores, large bifaces, large flake or blade blanks, or finished tools. Many of these modified item categories could be further reduced on-on site, resulting in the debitage profile observed in the Phase II assemblage.

Of the 222 flakes that had cortex, 93 items showed thick nodular cortex, 41 had water-worn cortex and 88 items had subcortex. Many of the secondary flakes actually presented platforms characteristic of interior or biface thinning and shaping (BTS) flakes, but were classified as secondary flakes because cortex was present. Secondary flakes made of Fort Payne chert commonly have cortex on well-defined platforms; this suggests that tabular Fort Payne chert was procured more often than nodular. The higher proportion of thick nodular cortex indicates that chert was being extracted from primary sources. The high proportion of subcortex and low quantity of primary flakes together indicate that cobble testing probably took place off-site.

41 LITHIC MODIFIED ITEMS

Lithic modified items provide additional and more specific information about the range of activities conducted at 15CH684. Table 5.5 lists the morphological categories of modified items recovered from the Phase II investigations at 15CH684 (n=60). These comprise both chipped (n=59) and ground (n=1) stone tools. The former group includes 27 utilized, retouched, and blade like flakes that were also counted as debitage as indicated by numbers in parentheses on Table 5.2. The number of modified items is low, accounting for only 2.2 percent of the debitage. All debitage items that were initially identified as potentially modified through examination by the naked eye also were examined under 10x to 15x magnification to verify presence of modification. Unfortunately, many of the items having visible edge damage proved to be damaged through agricultural practices and were excluded from the modified item assemblage. Attributes of modern agricultural damage include an apparently fresh appearance to flake scars, metal or rust residue along the edges, V-shaped plan view of the damaged area, or removal of patina and exposure of the underlying unpatinated chert. In addition, several flakes may have once been utilized or modified prehistorically, but their edges were so damaged by recent plowing that the original use-related damage was obscured.

Unifaces

Unifaces include utilized flakes, retouched flakes, and various categories of more formally modified and shaped tools (see Chapter 4). The utilized flakes (n=3), utilized blade-like flakes (n=12), and flakes that exhibit retouch but are not classified as specific morphological categories with implied functions (n=12) are the most common modified item categories in the Phase II assemblage from 15CH684 (see Table 5.3). These categories account for 45.0 percent of the modified items. Figure 5.1a shows an example of a retouched flake. The right margin is prehistorically retouched, while more recent plow damage to the upper right in the image has obviously removed the surface patina, exposing the darker, unpatinated interior matrix.

Other unifacial tools are more formally shaped, with morphologies that have functional implications. Two items were recovered that are unusual in that they exhibit formal bifacial shaping and retouch on what is essentially a unifacial tool blank. Figure 5.1b shows both dorsal (left) and ventral (right) surfaces of one of these tools made from Fort Payne chert. It is manufactured from the distal end of a prismatic blade or blade- like-flake. Due to use of this type of blank, it is presumably Paleoindian in age. The ventral surface (Figure 5.1b, right) appears to have been thinned like a biface, with closely spaced overlapping flake scars that extend to the midline. The dorsal surface (Figure 5.1b, left) is very irregular with remnants of prior flake removals evident, along with step fractures along the midline. The left lateral margin in this image appears to have been bifacially modified; however, under magnification this edge shows only recent damage. Rust is present and patina has been removed. The right lateral margin shows steep retouch, indicating probable use as a scraper. A spokeshave (Figure 5.1c) made on a broken flake was also recovered; this is a tool commonly found in Paleoindian assemblages, and it is considered to be associated with this component, though is not patinated. A more formally shaped unifacial side scraper (Figure 5.1d) is made from patinated Ste. Genevieve chert. Two other unique unifaces are classified as combination tools that have multiple working edges. One (Figure 5.1e) appears to have been broken and subsequently used as a burin; the lateral margin below the burin point is also retouched. The other (Figure 5.1f) shows evidence of use or retouch on all margins, as well as being used as a burin. Burins are functionally specialized tools that are more common in Paleoindian assemblages than in later times. Both of these items are patinated and are considered to be a part of the Paleoindian component at 15CH684.

Cores

Cores were also recovered from 15CH684. These include generally reduced cores that have no particular evidence of systematic flake production (n=8) and one exhausted blade core (Figure 5.2). The latter specimen has been reduced to a minimal size, but subparallel flake scares are present. Five of the general cores are patinated; these and the exhausted blade core are considered part of the Paleoindian assemblage.

42 Table 5.3. Modified Item Categories Recovered from Phase II Investigaations at 15CH684. Modified items are separated based on raw material type. Patinated items are listed in parentheses within the appropriate cell; for example 2(1) means two cores were recovered, one of which is patinated. Modified Item Category Ste. Genevieve Fort Payne Unidentified Quartzite TOTAL Utilized Flake 1(1) 2(1) 3 Utilized Blade-like Flake 4(3) 7(6) 1 12 Retouched Flake 4(4) 8(8) 12 Retouched Flake, Modified for Prehension 1(1) 1 Unifacial Scraper 1(1) 1 Spokeshave 1 1 Combination tool/Burin 2 2 Bifacially Modified Uniface 2 2 Early Phase Biface 1(1) 2(1) 3 Middle Phase Biface 1(1) 1 Rough Biface 2(2) 2(1) 4 Thick Biface 1 1(1) 2 Thick Biface/Spokeshave 1(1) 1 Thin Biface 2(1) 2 Undifferentiated Biface Fragmentn 1 1 Biface failed in Manufacture 1 1 Bakers Creek hafted biface fragment 1 1 General Core 3(1) 4(4) 1 8 (5) Exhausted Blade Core 1 1 Hammerstone 1 1 Grand Total 23(6) 34(14) 2 1 60(20)

Figure 5.1. Unifacial Tools from 15CH684. a) Patinated retouched flake, TU6/Level 1; b) Ventral and dorsal views of bifacially retouched uniface, Surface Collection Unit 309; c) Spokeshave, Surface Collection Unit 315; d) Side scraper, Surface Collection Unit 202; e) Combination burin (arrow) and retouched flake, Surface Collection Unit 318; f) Combination burin/scraper, Surface Collection Unit 306.

43 Figure 5.2. Exhausted Blade Core from 15CH684 (Surface Collection Unit 219).

Bifaces

Because 15CH684 was interpreted as a Paleoindian site, there was great desire to recover bifacial tools, especially finished/hafted bifaces (Clovis points). None of these were found, but other bifaces in various stages of reduction were recovered, and these add to our interpretations of the site. Bifaces from 15CH684 are segregated into two groups. One group includes rough, thick, thin, and hafted bifaces that are assignable to a general core-biface reduction sequence (see Collins 1975; Callahan 1979; Andrefsky 1998). Bifaces in this sequence could be part of assemblages that range in age from Paleoindian through the Woodland period. As such, they are not temporally sensitive unless a stylistically distinct haft element is present, or in the case of the current assemblage, unless patination on the artifact suggests iit derived from the Paleoindian component at 15CH684.

Ordinarily, rough, thick, and thin bifaces that are not temporally sensitive are not illustrated, buut here we provide images of these biface categories to compare to bifaces that were considered part of a Clovis reduction sequence (discussed below). Figures 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 illustrate examples of rough, thick, and thin bifaces, respectively. Both rough bifaces in Figure 5.3 are heavily patinated and are considered part of the Paleoindian assemblage at 15CH684. Thick bifaces shown in Figure 5.4 are also heavily patinated and are part of the Paleoindian assemblage. Figure 5.4 (right) also has an intentionally produced concave scraping edge (spokeshave) on its left margin, also indicative of its derivation from Paleoindian occupation; the indentation on the right margin is from plow damage. Thin bifaces (Figure 5..5) were also recovered; both of those illustrated are patinated. The observation of patina on many of the rough, thick, and thin bifaces indicates that these are Paleoindian in age. It also shows that Paleoindian toolmakers produced other types of bifaces in addition to fluted points. These were likely manufactured for other uses, using a reduction sequence that was more generalized.

A single hafted biface was recovered from the Phase II investigations at 15CH684. This specimen (Figure 5.6) is typologically assigned to the Bakers Creek type, which Justice (1987:208-213) places within the Late Woodland Lowe Cluster. This specimen was recovered ffrom Test Unit 2/Level 1, in a bulk sediment sample extracted from the plow zone and not processed until return to the laboratory. The tip is bbroken making length incomplete, but maximum width (17.6 mm) and thickness (6.8 mm) could be measured. This point is made from Ste. Genevieve chert, but it is a reddish-hued variety that is not well represented in the overall site assemblage. In addition, this point has no patina on it. Presence of a Late Woodland point indicates that the site contains a Late Woodland component as well as the Paleoindian component documented in the Phase I work. This complicated subsequent annalyses, but methods were derived to isolate a probable Paleoindian assemblage for subsequent analyses (see below).

44 Figure 5.3. Rough Bifaces from 15CH684. Left is from Surface Collection Unit 218; right is from Surface Collection Unit 221. Both are patinated.

Figure 5.4. Thick Bifaces from 15CH684. Left is from Surface Collection Unit 320; right has a spokeshave edge on the left margin, from Surface Collection Unit 207.

45 Figure 5.5. Thin Biface Fragments from 15CH684. Left is from Surface Collection Unit 119; right is from Test Unit 2/Level 1. Both are patinated.

Figure 5.6. Late Woodland Bakers Creek Point from Test Unit 2/Level 1. Point is made from unpatinated Ste. Genevieve chert.

In addition to the generic rough, thick, and thin biface fragments that are part of a generalized core- biface reduction sequence, artifacts were also recovered that compare favorably to bifaces produced in various stages of a Clovis point production sequence. Sanders (1988, 1990) developed a Clovis point reduction sequence from analysis of the Adams site (15CH90) assemblage. This sequence incorporates several stages of reduction that were apparently unique to that site assemblage. Bradley et al. (2010) developed an alternate and somewhat more generalized Clovis point production sequence based on analysis of several sites, including materials from the Gault site in Texas, as well as re-examination of materials from Adams. We have opted to use the Bradley sequence because it is somewhat simplified, relative to Sanders’ sequencee. The definitions and examples of the various stages of reduction are also more consistent than those derived by Sanders, in our opinion.

Figure 5.7 shows examples of bifaces from 15CH684 that fit well into the Clovis point production stages defined by Bradley et al. (2010). The site assemblage includes three early phase bifaces, characterized

46 a b

c d

Figure 5.7. Early and Middle Phase Clovis Bifaces from 15CH684. a)Early Phase Clovis biface from Surface Collection Unit 113; b) Early Phase Clovis biface froom Surface Collection Unit 117; c) obverse and reverse sides of Early Phase Clovis biface from Surface Collection Unit 321; d) Middle Phase Clovis biface from Surface Collection Unit 112. Items a and b are madee from Ste. Genevieve chert; Items c and d are made from Fort Payne chert. by rectangular shapes; removal of a few broad, shallow flakes; paralllel to subparallel flake scars; and preparation of pronounced platforms for subsequent flake removals. Early phase Clovis bifaces generally have sinuous edges that incorporate prepared platforms. The specimens shown in Figure 5.7a and 5.7b exhibit these attributes. The specimen in Figure 5.7c is also an early phase biface fragment. The obverse side (to the left, without box) shows a distinctive overshot flake scar running the entire width of the biface from left to right. The early phase Clovis bifaces recovered from 15CH684 have widely spaced flake scars, some of which travel past the midline, but many left hinge fractures due to defects in the raw material.

The specimen in Figure 5.7d is classified as a midddle phase Clovvis biface fragment. Middle phase Clovis bifaces are also generally rectangular in shape; exhibit more flake parallel to subparallel scars, some of which can be sequenced; and have less sinuous, more regular edges. The bottom edge of this specimen shows

47 a possible platform that was in the process of being prepared for removal of a channel flake. However, the presence of a large crystal-filled vug at this edge apparently was the reason that the biface was discarded and not finished.

The rough bifaces from 15CH684 are possibly part of a Clovis reduction sequence, representing what Bradley et al. (2010) describes as being the first stage in the reduction sequence. However, they could not be definitively placed into the Clovis sequence. The thin biface fragment shown in Figure 5.5 (left) may be another middle phase Clovis biface, but it could not be classified as such with confidence, and remains a more generic thin biface fragment.

Other bifaces recovered from 15CH684 include one undifferentiated biface fragment that could not be classified into either a general core-reduction sequence or a phase in the Clovis reduction sequence. One biface was definitively considered to have failed in manufacture (not illustrated). However, given the vugs and fracture planes noted in several of the thick, thin, early phase, and middle phase bifaces, it is apparent that many more bifaces failed during the reduction process than were identified at first.

The recovery of one temporally diagnostic hafted biface (projectile point), along with rough, thick and thin bifaces indicates that generalized bifacial reduction was taking place at the site. In addition, early phase and middle phase Clovis bifaces indicate that a more specific and targeted production sequence was also being practiced, with the goal of producing Clovis points. Of interest is the fact that several of the rough, thick, and thin biface fragments are patinated, suggesting that they are associated with the Paleoindian component at 15CH684 and not the Late Woodland component. Paleoindian occupants of the site were thus engaged in both specialized Clovis point production and general biface production that apparently did not involve the shaping, thinning, and overshot flakes characteristic of the Clovis point production sequence. Not all patinated (Paleoindian) bifaces at 15CH684 fit into the Clovis reduction sequence. This suggests that Paleoindian flint snappers had many different skill sets, applied for different situations. It also suggests that the range of activities conducted by Paleoindian site occupants was relatively broad, involving more than production or use of Clovis points. Bifacial tools were produced in a variety of shapes, discarded at several different levels of completion, and were apparently used for several purposes.

Modified Item Raw Material Usage

In the modified item assemblage from the Phase II work, Fort Payne chert is the preferred material from which to manufacture tools, with 34 items modified out of 276 total items (12.31 percent). However, only 3.26 percent of the artifacts made from Ste. Genevieve chert are modified (23 of 705 items). Put another way, of the 60 modified items in the Phase II assemblage, 34 (56.7 percent) are made from Fort Payne chert, while 38.3 percent are made from Ste. Genevieve chert. Fort Payne chert is dominant in spite of the fact that it accounts for only about 22.3 percent of the lithic assemblage (see Table 5.2). This discrepancy in proportions suggests that Fort Payne chert was intentionally selected for use as modified items, perhaps because of its superior knapping quality. However, Ste. Genevieve chert is also of high quality, especially the varieties present in the site assemblage. Because Fort Payne chert is definitely nonlocal to the site, greater proportional use of this material for tools is consistent with greater investment made, in both time and energy, in the acquisition, transport, and curation of this material. Fort Payne was particularly used for unifacial tools (Figure 5.8), suggesting that it may have been brought to the site in the form of cores or prismatic blades.

Ground Stone

Coarse-grained igneous or metamorphic rocks, such as diorite, gneiss, quartzite, and granite were often used prehistorically as hammers and other percussive tools. One quartzite hammer stone was recovered from 15CH684. Under low magnification there is evidence of crushing around the edges and apex of the ovoid tool, making the edges rough in comparison the surrounding water-worn surface. The battered surface of this implement indicates that it may have been used for a variety of tasks, including flint knapping.

48 Figure 5.8. Distribution of Modified Items from Phase II Investigations at 15CH684 by Identified Raw Material Type and Aspect of Modification. Not included in the grraph are two unifaces made from unidentifiable chert and one quartzite hammer stone.

SEPARATION OF COMPONENTS

Additional analysis of the Paleoindian assemblage was warranted, but this task was complicated by the presence of a Late Woodland component at the site, along with the absence of any stratigraphic separation of these components. Because the Late Woodland point was recovered from Test Unit 2, north of NA1, it was thought at first that there might be spatial segregation of the later component north of the highway. However, Paleoindian artifacts were also recovered north offNA1, s o simple spatial separation was not feasible.

To separate Late Woodland and Paleoindian components for additional analysis, we selected materials that met either of two selection criteria. First, artiffaacts that were patinated were considered to have been derived from the Paleoindian occupation. A variety of factors affect formation of patina on chert, including age, exposure to sunlight, exposure to moisture, structure and porosity of the chert matrix, and chemical impurities. Thus some chert types do not produce patina at the same rate as others. However, within a given site, and with only two identifiable raw materrials, both of similar geological age, we assumed that patinated artifacts would be derived from the older component. Thiis assumption was supported by the observation that the single definitively Late Woodland artiifact—the Bakers Creek point shown in Figure 5.6—was completely lacking in patina. Any temporally nondiagnostic artifacts that completely lacked patina were inferred to have been derived from the Late Woodland component. To verify that Paleoindian artifacts from the region would exhibit patina, the artifacts from the Adams site (15CH90), a single-component Paleoindian site located about 17 km from 15CH684, were examined for patina, The Adams assemblage is composed almost exclusively of high-quality Ste. Genevieve chert, identical in the range of variatiion of the Ste. Genevieve recovered from 15CH684. The Adams assemblage included both patinated and unpatinated artifacts; patinated materials were dominant, but varying degrees of patination were evident. Presence of patina on debitage thus was taken as a good indicator of Paleoindian age for these otherwise temporally nondiagnostic artifacts at 15CH684.Unpatinated debitage items were assumed to be derived from the Late Woodland component. Absence of patina does not necessarily indicate a more recent age, due to the factors that affect formation of patina. Application of the patination criterion to the 15CH684 assemblage reesults in a minimum number of Paleoindian artifacts; there are likely some Paleoindian-age materials that are not patinated. However, there is high confidence that all patinated materials are in fact Paleoindian in age.

49 Table 5.4. Phase II Paleoindian Assemblage from 15CH684, by Material Type. The assemblage includes patinated debitage, patinated modified items, and morphologically Paleoindian tool cagetores. Artifact Category Ste. Genevieve Fort Payne Unidentified TOTAL Primary flake 6 4 2 12 Secondary flake 33 11 5 49 Interior flake 20 4 3 27 Biface thinning and shaping flake (BTS) 46 11 0 57 Biface finishing and thinning flake (BFT) 29 6 5 40 Broken flake without cortex 162 63 24 249 Angular Shatter 2 2 0 4 Debitage Total 298 101 39 438 Utilized Flake 1 1 2 Utilized Blade-like Flake 3 6 9 Retouched Flake 4 8 12 Retouched Flake, Modified for Prehension 1 1 Unifacial Scraper 1 1 Spokeshave 1 1 Combination tool/Burin 2 2 Bifacially Modified Uniface 2 2 Early Phase Biface 1 2 3 Middle Phase Biface 1 1 Rough Biface 2 1 3 Thick Biface 1 1 2 Thick Biface/Spokeshave 1 1 Thin Biface 1 1 General Core 1 4 5 Exhausted Blade Core 1 1 Overshot flake (unmodified) 3 1 4 Modified Item Total 20 31 0 51

Using this reasoning, debitage and modified items that have patina are considered to be associated with the Paleoindian component at 15CH684. Table 5.4 presents a summary of the debitage that has patina. The high proportion (n=438 of 1240, or 35.3 percent) of patina found on the lithic debitage suggests that the Paleoindian period component at 15CH684 is a major contributor to the overall site assemblage.

The second criterion for inclusion in the Paleoindian assemblage was if the artifacts were morphologically similar to other examples of artifact types of known Paleoindian-age in the region, regardless of patination. Artifacts that met this criterion were overshot flakes and various categories of modified items, including large prismatic blade segments, larger blade-like flakes, end scrapers, side scrapers, burins, unifacial tools with combination working edges, spokeshaves, combination biface/spokeshaves, early phase Clovis bifaces, middle phase Clovis bifaces, and blade cores (Table 5.4). All of these morphological tool categories are represented in other Paleoindian assemblage in the region, especially the Adams site, which has produced a very diverse tool assemblage. There are 51 artifacts included in the Phase II Paleoindian modified item assemblage.

Application of these selection criteria resulted in creation of a minimal Paleoindian component assemblage for 15CH684. It is likely that an unknown number of nonpatinated artifacts are actually Paleoindian in age, but these could not be identified with any degree of certainty and were conservatively excluded from the Paleoindian component.

The portion of the site assemblage that did not exhibit either of these two selection criteria was presumed to be associated with the Late Woodland component at the site, though other episodes of occupation that were not datable could have contributed to the total site assemblage. Table 5.5 presents the composite debitage and modified item assemblage attributed to the Late Woodland component.

50 Table 5.5. Phase II Late Woodland Assemblage from 15CH684, by Material Type. The assemblage includes unpatinated debitage and unpatinated modified items that are morphologically not Paleoindian tool categories. Artifact Category Ste. Genevieve Fort Payne Unidentified Quartzite TOTAL Primary flake 10 8 14 32 Secondary flake 50 22 20 92 Interior flake 27 13 9 49 Biface thinning and shaping flake (BTS) 24 19 7 50 Biface finishing and thinning flake (BFT) 9 6 18 33 Broken flake without cortex 246 108 152 506 Angular Shatter 23 5 12 40 Debitage Total 395 175 232 802 Utilized Flake 1 1 Utilized Blade-like Flake 1 1 1 3 Rough Biface 1 1 Thin Biface 1 1 Undifferentiated Biface Fragment 1 1 Biface failed in Manufacture 1 1 Bakers Creek hafted biface fragment 1 1 General Core 2 1 3 Hammerstone 1 1 Modified Item Total 6 4 2 1 13

Late Woodland Assemblage Analyses

As shown in Table 5.5, both Ste. Genevieve and Fort Payne cherts are represented in the Late Woodland assemblage from 15CH684. In addition, both appear to be used in a similar fashion, with comparatively high proportions of secondary flakes and higher proportions of biface thinning and shaping flakes compared to other debitage classes. A Kolmorogov-Smirnov Two-Sample test (Thomas 1976) applied to these data show no statistical difference in the use of Fort Payne versus Ste. Genevieve chert. This debitage profile is consistent with generalized habitation activities, with an emphasis on late-stage biface reduction. In addition, some materials were brought to the site in partially reduced forms based on the high proportion of secondary flakes. Secondary flakes would have been produced during subsequent reduction of cores or bifaces that retained some amount of cortex.

When the Late Woodland debitage profile (all material types combined, including unidentified chert) is compared to the Paleoindian debitage profile, there are statistically significant differences between the assemblages. Specifically, there are significantly greater numbers of secondary flakes in the Late Woodland assemblage compared to the Paleoindian assemblage. This observation suggests that a greater amount of early-stage reduction took place during the later occupational episode, which may be related to greater use of partially reduced materials that were brought to the site. This is consistent with short-term occupation and expedient use of raw materials. This implies in turn that the Paleoindian activities at 15CH684 involved greater emphasis on later stages of reduction, which would be consistent with tool maintenance and more generalized occupation. The fact that there are differences in the debitage profiles associated with the temporal components supports the separation of these components and the criteria used to do so. If there had been no differences in the two components, it would suggest that the selection criteria were no better at isolating components than using a random percentage.

In the Late Woodland component modified items, only 13 items were identified as unpatinated tools that were not morphologically congruent with Paleoindian tool forms. These are generic rough, thin, and undifferentiated bifaces; a few utilized flakes, and a hammerstone (Table 5.5). Of interest, none of the intentionally retouched flakes or more formally shaped unifaces are assigned to the Late Woodland component. These tools as a group are consistent with short-term habitation and a more limited suite of activities compared to the Paleoindian modified item assemblage, discussed below.

51 Paleoindian Assemblage Analyses

To further investigate the function of the site during the Paleoindian occupation, the Paleoindian assemblage (Table 5.3) was subjected to additional analyses. These included morphological classification of both the debitage and modified items, assessment of raw material usage, and low-magnification use-wear analysis of the modified items. To enhance the Paleoindian modified item assemblage, the two Paleoindian component selection criteria were also applied to the Phase I assemblage to provide additional items for analysis. Application of these selection criteria added 15 modified items for a total of 66.

Debitage Analysis As shown in Table 5.4 and discussed above, both Ste. Genevieve and Fort Payne cherts are represented in the patinated assemblage. In addition, both appear to be used in a similar fashion, with comparatively high proportions of secondary flakes and higher proportions of biface thinning and shaping flakes compared to other debitage classes. This debitage profile is consistent with generalized habitation activities, with an emphasis on late-stage biface reduction. Materials were apparently brought to the site in partially reduced forms based on the minor peak in secondary flakes. Secondary flakes would have been produced during subsequent reduction of cores, blades, or early stage bifaces that retained some amount of cortex.

Again, there are no statistical differences between the two identifiable raw materials in terms of the debitage profile of the patinated materials. The patinated items of both raw material types appear to be used for similar stages of tool production. This finding supports the interpretation of the entire debitage assemblage, that it derives from general domestic habitation activities and not from quarry and workshop activities.

Use of both chert types for similar sequences of lithic reduction is consistent with the fact that all of this chert was probably brought to the site from remote source locations. The immediately available Ste. Genevieve chert that underlies and surrounds the site is of very poor quality and is different in color, texture, and the density of inclusions compared to the Ste. Genevieve chert examined from the Adams site. The Ste. Genevieve chert from which unifaces and bifaces were made at 15CH684 is of comparable quality to that observed at Adams, and this material would almost certainly have been obtained from source areas near the Little River, some 15-20 km northwest of 15CH684. Fort Payne chert would have been obtained from source locations some 70 km west of the site, in the Cumberland River valley. Both chert types could have been obtained either through direct access by transient groups operating within relatively large territories, or through exchange with other groups that had more direct access. Given the low population density of the times and the proposed high mobility of Paleoindian groups, the former scenario is more likely.

Morphological Tool Categories Table 5.6 shows the morphological categories of modified items included in the Paleoindian analytical assemblage. This subset of modified items includes materials recovered from the Phase I investigations at 15CH684 (Ahler and Istok 2012) that were subsequently re-examined and included in the analytical assemblage. Comparing categories to those shown in Table 5.3, which includes all of the modified items recovered from the Phase II investigations, there are few categories that are excluded entirely from the Paleoindian assemblage. Most of these are either temporally diagnostic Late Woodland points, cores, or generic biface fragments that have no patina and do not compare well to bifaces in a Clovis reduction sequence, as defined by Bradley et al. (2010) and subsequently employed in the current analyses.

The modified items in the Paleoindian assemblage show some trends that are more strongly expressed than in the overall modified item assemblage and some systematic differences between the Late Woodland and Paleoindian modified item assemblages. First, though overshot flakes are included in Table 5.6, none exhibit any evidence of use or intentional modification. They are included because they are diagnostic of Paleoindian biface manufacturing techniques and are definite by-products of intentional biface manufacture. The actual number of modified items is 61, excluding the five overshot flakes.

52 Table 5.6. Modified Item Categories in the Paleoindian Analytical Assemblage from 15CH684. Modified items are separated based on raw material type and recovery during Phase I or Phase II investigations. Phase I Phase II Modified Item Category Ste. Genevieve Fort Payne Ste. Genevieve Fort Payne TOTAL Utilized flake 3 1 1 5 Utilized blade-like flake 3 6 9 Retouched flake 4 8 12 Retouched flake, modified for prehension 1 1 Unifacial scraper 2 1 3 Spokeshave 1 1 Combination scraper/cutting tool 1 1 Scraper/cutting tool on prismatic blade 1 1 Combination tool/Burin 2 2 Bifacially modified uniface 2 2 Early Phase biface 1 2 3 Middle Phase biface 1 1 Rough biface 2 2 1 5 Thick biface 1 1 2 Thick biface with spokeshave 1 1 Thin Biface 3 1 1 5 General core 1 1 4 6 Exhausted blade core 1 1 Overshot flake (unmodified; not analyzed) 1 3 1 5 Grand Total 11 4 20 31 66

Second, there are more modified items made from Fort Payne chert (35 of 66, or 53 percent of modified items) than made of Ste. Genevieve chert. This is in spite of the fact that Fort Payne chert comprises only 23.1 percent of the patinated (presumably Paleoindian) debitage (see Table 5.4).

Third, the most numerous artifact category in the assemblage is retouched flakes (n=12), accounting for 18.2 percent of Paleoindian modified items. Overall, the group of artifacts that includes all intentionally retouched unifaces is most frequently represented in the assemblage, accounting for 34.8 percent of the modified items (n=23). Utilized flakes and blade-like flakes that are not intentionally retouched account for 14 of 66 items (21.2 percent), cores (n=7) account for 10.6 percent of the assemblage, and bifaces (including overshot flakes) account for 22 of 66 items (33.3 percent). With more unifacial tools (56.0 percent) than bifacial tools (33.3 percent), the modified item assemblage as a whole suggests an emphasis on expedient manufacture of tools. However, with most of the unifaces showing evidence of formal shaping and intentional retouch, the initial impression of an expedient tool assemblage is not supported. The assemblage is consistent, however, with transport of curated cores, bifaces, and unifaces to the site in partially reduced states, and subsequent final shaping, use, and discard of tools on site.

A final difference in the assemblages is the low tool:debitage ratio in the Late Woodland component (0.0162, or one modified item for every 61.7 debitage). This compares to a relatively high ratio in the Paleoindian assemblage of 0.1164 (one modified item for every 8.5 debitage). These numbers may be somewhat misleading, as the selection criteria for the Paleoindian assemblage provided only the most conservative numbers for debitage. However, the disparity is great, and the numbers strongly suggest greater types or intensity of lithic tool use at 15CH684 during the Paleoindian component.

To more consistently evaluate the degree of tool modification and the effort put into creation, maintenance, and use of modified items, each modified item was scored on an ordinal scale (1 to 4) that reflects a continuum of expedient to formal tool production. Lower scores indicate more expedient tools, with less energy used to shape, reduce, or resharpen the item. Higher scores reflect greater effort expended in shaping, reduction, and sharpening of the item. Because both the high-grade Ste. Genevieve and Fort Payne cherts had to be transported to 15CH684, the raw material from which the tool was made is not a factor that

53 contributes to differential effort expended on tool manufacture. In composite, the 66 modified items in the Paleoindian assemblage had a mean expediency score of 2.09, which indicates that on average, a moderate effort was expended on shaping, sharpening, and maintaining the tool. Assemblages dominated by utilized flakes and early stages of reduction consistently average between 1 and 2 on this scale (see Ahler et al. 1997). Of some interest for the current assemblage is the absence of finished/hafted bifaces (they would score 4 on this ordinal scale), which lowers the potential average score for the assemblage. However, there are several finished and resharpened unifacial tools and an exhausted core in the assemblage, all of which were scored at 4 and which compensate for the absence of finished bifaces. The score of 2.09 for the Paleoindian assemblage indicates consistent expenditure of energy for creation of intentionally shaped or perhaps resharpened items that were likely used for specific tasks.

Use-Wear Analysis To determine more specifically the types of tasks conducted during the Paleoindian occupation of 15CH684, low-magnification use-wear analysis was performed on a portion of the Paleoindian modified item assemblage. A total of 61 modified items, including both formal and informal tools, was examined for possible use wear. Overshot flakes that were included in the Paleoindian assemblage were not included in the use-wear analysis sample, as there was no macroscopic evidence of use damage or retouch on any of these items. On the other hand, several rough and thick biface fragments that were not patinated were included in the use-wear sample to determine if there was evidence of use on these unfinished items.

All edges of each tool in the sample were examined at 10X, 20X, and 40X magnification using an Olympus SZ40 stereozoom microscope. Any edge that showed evidence of prehistoric utilization or retouch was analyzed separately. Each artifact was scanned by systemically observing all edges and surfaces in order to interpret microdebitage (flake initiation and flake termination) and attrition (crushing, grinding, rounding, and polish) features. Based on experimental studies, researchers have shown that working hides, bone, and plant materials can leave distinct signatures on tool surfaces (S. A. Ahler 1979; S. R. Ahler 1984; Lawrence 1979; Odell 1979; Tringham et al. 1974). Low-magnification use-wear analysis can help identify specific kinetic motions in which an edge was used, and the relative hardness of the objective material worked by each edge. However, the specific types of objective materials that were worked (e.g., hides, bone, meat) are not identifiable using low-magnification analysis. High-magnification use-wear analysis (see Keeley 1980) is required for that level of identification, but this technique was not employed in the current analyses. Definitions and attributes of the kinetic motions identified in this study are described below.

Because many of the artifacts recovered from 15CH684 exhibit evidence of modern agricultural damage, extra attention was required to determine if edge damage was historic or prehistoric in age. Almost all specimens showed some amount of rust or recent edge damage due to agricultural practices, but prehistoric use wear could still be identified and interpreted. The extensive amount of historic damage was one reason that high-magnification use-wear analysis was not attempted for this assemblage. In addition, while more detailed information might be obtained from high-magnification analysis, its employment is very time- consuming. With low-magnification use-wear analysis, the entire Paleoindian modified item assemblage from 15CH684 could be examined, along with selected biface fragments outside the Paleoindian sample.

Evidence for Tool Curation Use wear can help identify curated technologies. The total number of modified items in the proposed Paleoindian assemblage from 15CH684 is 61, including artifacts from both the Phase I and Phase II investigations (Table 5.6). Of these 61 modified items, seven are biface fragments that could not be assigned to a definitively Paleoindian biface production stage, but were still included in the use-wear analysis. The remaining 54 modified items met the criteria discussed above for inclusion in the Paleoindian assemblage.

There are three lines of evidence that support an interpretation of curated tool use in the Paleoindian modified item assemblage from 15CH684. First is the presence of usable blanks or preforms in the assemblage. Fourteen bifaces (most of which are in early and intermediate stages of reduction) show no evidence of actual use. The edges show only attrition and wear attributable to biface manufacturing, such as

54 edge grinding, light crushing, and step fractures. This pattern is consistent with the inference drawn from the debitage assemblage that usable lithic materials were transported to the site in partially finished forms, such as cores, bifaces, and flake blanks. Some of these were subsequently further reduced, shaped, and used on-site, but only one of the bifaces in intermediate to late stages of reduction apparently failed during the manufacturing process. Usable bifacial tools appear to have been curated and brought to the site from lithic resource procurement/workshop areas where they had been partially reduced to aid in transport. Sites in the locality such as Adams (15CH90) have been proposed as lithic reduction and retooling stations where these types of activities took place.

The second line of evidence indicating tool curation derives from the apparent intensity of tool use as indicated by the presence of multiple working edges on tools. Of the 47 modified items that showed evidence of use (not just manufacturing damage), there are 75 modified edges, with the number of used edges varying between one and three per item. This is a ratio of about 1.6 edges per used item. This is considered to be a relatively high ratio, indicating that tools were not simply used expediently and discarded. When an item was selected for use, it was apparently curated and used multiple times or for multiple, perhaps related, purposes. This behavior is consistent with a site to which all lithic material had been transported, most likely from a considerable distance.

The third line of evidence is microscopic or macroscopic observation of edge retouch or actual resharpening. Of the 75 edges that showed use wear, 43 (57.3 percent) showed evidence of retouch (intentional shaping of the edge) or resharpening that partially removed some earlier use-wear evidence from the edges. The high incidence of retouch and resharpening indicates that tools were not used on a casual basis, but were instead intentionally selected, and when selected were the focus of additional effort that shaped edges and created tools designed to be used in specific ways for specific tasks.

Kinetic Motion Several kinetic motions were identified in the course of the use-wear analysis. The kinetic motion identification is applicable to each edge that shows evidence of use wear. In some instances, there was damage from more than one kinetic motion evident on a single edge. In these instances, both motions were recorded. In cases where there was evidence of use wear, but the traces were so faint or so obscured by more recent damage that a specific kinetic motion could not be identified, edges were recorded as having indeterminate kinetic motion.

In addition to the kinetic motions listed and described below, some biface edges only showed evidence of damage relating to biface manufacture, especially grinding of edges to prepare for flake removal. In these situations, the modified item was listed as having no kinetic motion, even though it clearly is an intentionally modified item. The attributes of identified kinetic motions are discussed below; these are modified from Lawrence (1979) and follow interpretations of use-wear attributes employed by S. A. Ahler (1979) and S. R. Ahler (1984; see also Ahler et al. [1997]).

Cutting Unidirectional movement, with the flake held at a steep angle relative to the worked material. Flake scars are unevenly distributed along the working edge. Microflakes have point initiations and either feather or step terminations. Microflakes are present on both dorsal and ventral aspects of the edge.

Whittling Unidirectional movement, similar to cutting motion, but there is a low angle of attack relative to the objective material. Microflakes are thus present on only one aspect of the working edge (almost always dorsal, but sometimes ventral), and are unevenly distributed but may be clustered if contact with objective material is limited. Both point and bending initiations are often observed, and microflakes have either feather or step terminations.

55 Scraping Unidirectional or bidirectional movement, with generally steep angle of attack relative to objective material. The tool aspect in direct contact with objective material (usually ventral) may show attrition wear, while microflakes may be removed from the opposite aspect (usually dorsal) of the tool. Microflakes almost always have bending initiations, and hinge and step terminations are common. Grinding, rounding, or polish attrition (depending on hardness and coarseness of objective material) is common on the contact surface. Contact with the worked material is concentrated in a small area of the edge so that scars are continuous. A facet may develop along the working edge if use is extreme and the angle of contact with the objective material is highly consistent.

Chopping Unidirectional movement with high amount of force compared to cutting or whittling. The edge is medium to high angle relative to the worked material. Flake scars are perpendicular to the used edge. Use-related flake scars have point initiations and often have pronounced or overlapping hinge or step terminations. Flake scars are continuous and often overlap. Attrition may include crushing, or polish, depending on the hardness of objective material.

Chiseling Based largely on the morphology of the tool, a narrow, pointed, thick working edge shows very small microflakes or attrition wear. The angle of attack is high relative to the objective material, and flake scars are oriented perpendicular to the working edge. Very small microflakes are evident, and these can have either point or bending initiation and either feather, step or hinge terminations. Attrition is often present on the contact surface, as with scrapers, but facets are rarely observed.

Splitting Unidirectional movement, and high force is applied to an edge that is perpendicular to hard objective material. Flakes are removed from both dorsal and ventral surfaces. Flakes show point initiations and overlapping hinge or step terminations. Crushing of the working edge is common, and there is evidence of application of force on the side of the tool opposite the working edge. These tools are generally quadrilateral in overall shape and would be classified as splitting wedges or pieces esquilles.

The majority of items analyzed for use wear were made of Fort Payne chert (n=36, or 59.0 percent), with the remaining 25 items (41.0 percent) made from Ste. Genevieve chert. These items have patina or are morphologically characteristic of Paleoindian period tools. Of the 61 items in the use-wear assemblage, 14 showed no evidence of actual use damage. All of these are bifaces in various stage of reduction that show only damage related to manufacturing. Of the remaining items, 27 have a single used edge; 12 have two used edges; and 8 have three used edges. Table 5.7 summarizes the used edge data by raw material type. There is no statistical relationship between the number of used edges and raw material type, so raw materials types are not differentiated in subsequent tables or analyses.

Table 5.8 shows the inferred kinetic motions (n=86) derived from the analyses, broken down by morphological category. Cutting (n=34 or 39.5 percent) was most common, followed by scraping (n=23; 26.7 percent) and whittling (n=22; 25.6 percent). Chopping, chiseling, splitting, and indeterminate usage each account for less than 3.5 percent of the identified motions. However, even though these motions are represented in low proportions, their identification indicates that a relatively broad variety of tasks were performed during the Paleoindian occupation of 15CH684. However, the table also indicates that cutting, whittling, and scraping were more common kinetic motions, which likely reflects the actual higher proportion of tasks that required these types of tool usage.

56 Table 5.7. Number of Used Edges per Item by Raw Material Type in the Paleoindian Analytical Assemblage from 15CH684. Artifacts from Phase I and Phase II work have been combined. Raw Material No Used Edges One Used Edge Two Used Edges Three Used Edges Total Ste. Genevieve 6 9 5 5 25 Fort Payne 8 18 7 3 36 Total 14 27 12 8 61

Table 5.8. Distribution of Inferred Kinetic Motions by Morphological Category for the Paleoindian Assemblage from 15CH684. Phase I and Phase II artifacts are combined. The number of tools in each morphological category is in parentheses. Items with no use wear are omitted. Kinetic Motion Morphological Category (n) Cutting Whittling Scraping Chopping Chisel Splitting Indeterminate Total Utilized flake (7) 5 2 3 10 Utilized blade-like flake (4) 1 4 5 Retouched flake (14) 10 9 8 1 1 29 Retouched blade-like flake (3) 4 4 Unifacial scraper (2) 1 2 3 Burin (2) 1 2 1 2 6 Spokeshave (1) 1 2 3 Combination tool (2) 1 4 1 6 Bifacially modified uniface (3) 6 1 1 8 Early Phase biface (1) 1 1 Rough biface (2) 1 1 2 Thick biface (1) 1 1 Thick biface with spokeshave (1) 2 2 Thin biface (4) 5 1 6 Total 34 22 23 3 2 1 1 86

Table 5.8 also notes the number of kinetic motions identified in relation to number of items within each morphological category (in parentheses in the table). Utilized flakes, retouched flakes, combination tools, and bifacially modified unifaces all exhibit a ratio of kinetic motions to modified items near 2.0. This indicates that these items were likely curated tools that were intensively used, often for multiple (but perhaps related) tasks. This is consistent with the high incidence of resharpening and retouch noted above, and these findings are consistent with a transient group that transported all tools to a site that was relatively remote from high-quality Ste. Genevieve and Fort Payne raw material sources.

Low-magnification use-wear analysis can also identify the hardness of objective materials, based on the degree and types of attrition evident on used edges (Odell 2003; Tringham et al. 1974). For this analysis, we only differentiated relatively hard objective materials (e.g. bone, wood) from relatively soft materials (e.g. hide, meat, fibers). Table 5.9 shows the distribution of types of objective material identified for each used edge. Edge rounding and polish are the most definitive attributes for soft objective materials, while flake attrition, grinding, and crushing are most likely the result of working harder materials.

The large majority (n=54 of 73; 74.0 percent) of worked edges were used on hard materials. Soft material accounts for 19.2 percent of the observations (n=14), while edges that displayed evidence of being used on mixed hard and soft materials (n=3) or indeterminate materials (n=2) account for only 6.8 of the total observations. Hard objective materials are more abrasive to the working edge and cause more microflake detachments and attrition than soft material. Consequently, soft materials are likely to be under-represented in use-wear assemblages. The indeterminate category is also likely to be soft materials that produced few identifiable signatures. Groups inhabiting 15CH684 apparently engaged primarily in working relatively hard materials such as bone, wood, or antler.

All 17 bifaces recovered from 15CH684 were analyzed for use wear. However, only nine exhibited

57 Table 5.9. Distribution of Inferred Kinetic Motions by Hardness of Objective Materials for the Paleoindian Assemblage from 15CH684. Phase I and Phase II artifacts are combined. Hardness of Objective Material Kinetic Motion Hard Soft Mixed Indeterminate Total Cutting 17 5 2 1 25 Mixed cutting and other motion 8 1 9 Whittling 8 9 17 Scraping 16 16 Mixed scraping and other motion 2 2 Chopping 1 1 Chiseling 2 2 Indeterminate 1 1 Total 54 14 3 2 73

evidence of having a used edge; the remaining eight bifaces showed only damage related to tool manufacture. One rough biface showed attributes of being used as a chopper and was also retouched; another rough biface was used for cutting. These observations indicate that even bifaces in early stages of reduction were used; they were not just preforms awaiting further reduction into usable tool forms. However, bifaces in later stages of reduction are more likely to show evidence of use. Of the three thick bifaces in the assemblage, two show evidence of use; of five thin bifaces recovered, four show evidence of use. The four bifaces that could be placed into a Clovis reduction sequence as described by Bradley et al. (2010) were examined for use damage, but only one Early Phase biface was determined to have a used edge. Though the sample is small, it suggests that bifaces that were in early stages of the Clovis reduction sequence (and were thus intended to be made into Clovis points) were less likely to be used. General bifaces that were included in the assemblage but were not necessarily intended to be used as projectile points were more likely to be used for a variety of tasks. Microsoft Excel® calculated an approximate 20 percent probability that the observed distribution would be due to chance. While not statistically significant, the observations suggest differential use of bifaces based on their intended use (as Clovis points or as general bifacial tools).

Intentionally retouched flakes (n=17) outnumber expedient utilized flakes (n=11) in the use-wear assemblage (Table 5.8). In addition, to having evidence of intentional retouch, these items also showed higher intensities of use, with the 17 retouched flakes having evidence of 33 kinetic motions (ratio of 1:1.94 items to motions), while the 11 utilized flakes exhibit evidence of 15 kinetic motions (1:1.36 ratio). These observations are consistent with more intensive use of intentionally shaped tools, all of which are unifacial. Formal unifacial tools (n=10) in the assemblage include scrapers, burins, spokeshaves, bifacially modified unifaces, and combination tools made on prismatic blades (Table 5.8). These items collectively exhibit 26 different kinetic motions (1:2.6 ratio), indicating even more intensive use of tools that are formally shaped. This pattern is consistent with the interpretation that chipped stone artifacts were transported to the site in forms that were suitable for later use and/or reduction into more finished forms.

SUMMARY OF LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE

In composite, the debitage assemblage from the Phase II investigations at 15CH684 shows evidence of a broad range of lithic reduction activities. These include generalized bifacial reduction with all stages of reduction represented. However, intermediate and late stages of reduction are much more strongly represented than early stages. A generalized biface reduction sequence in the debitage assemblage is reinforced by recovery of bifaces in early, intermediate, and late stages of reduction. In addition, a Paleoindian component is indicated by recovery of heavily patinated artifacts, overshot flakes, unifacial tools made on blades and blade-like flakes, and bifaces representing both Early and Middle Phases of a Clovis point production sequence (after Bradley et al. 2010). These attributes were used to extract a minimum subset of artifacts that represent a Paleoindian component at 15CH684. A Late Woodland component is also present on the site, as indicated by recovery of a Baker’s Creek projectile point and presence of an array of

58 nonpatinated bifaces and debitage. Both components include artifacts made from only two types of raw materials—Ste. Genevieve and Fort Payne. Both of these raw materials outcrop some distance from the site location, and the locally available low-quality chert was not used for production of stone tools. This pattern indicates that all lithic resources recovered at 15CH684 were transported to the site by its occupants, regardless of time period. Using patination and tool morphology, a minimum assemblage representing a Paleoindian component was separated from the Late Woodland component for subsequent analyses.

The Late Woodland component shows no differential use of the two raw material types. However, the debitage profile shows an emphasis on secondary flakes and a minor peak in late-stage thinning flakes. This type of debitage profile is consistent with short-term occupation, expedient lithic reduction, and maintenance of curated bifaces.

The Paleoindian assemblage also shows no statistical differences in the use of the two primary raw material types. However, the debitage profile shows a minor peak in secondary flakes and a stronger emphasis on late-stage flakes. This debitage profile is consistent with on-site reduction of items that were transported to the site in finished or partially reduced forms, coupled with lage-stage tool maintenance and resharpening. These inferences are supported by the low proportions of primary flakes and shatter. Partially finished tools in the Paleoindian assemblage include bifaces in almost all stages of reduction, Early and Middle Phase Clovis bifaces, cores, prismatic blades, and formal unifacial tools. In composite, this array of tools and debitage indicates that a relatively broad range of activities took place on site. This is consistent with use of the site as a more generalized domestic habitation site. Unlike most other Paleoindian sites in the area that have been subjected to professional analysis, 15CH684 does not show evidence of quarry/workshop activities as part of the site function. It appears to be an assemblage that derived only from generalized domestic habitation activities. Artifact density is relatively low, but tool diversity is high, which suggests that the site was occupied either for a relatively short duration or for a few episodes of short duration.

Modified items in the Paleoindian subassemblage were subjected to low-magnification use-wear analysis. The results indicate relatively intensive use of tools, with most showing evidence of retouch, resharpening, or formal shaping. There is also a high ratio (nearly 2:1) of used edges to modified items, especially for the unifacial tools. This indicates that many modified items were used more than once, or were used for multiple (perhaps related) tasks. There is also a high ratio of kinetic motions to modified items. Though six distinct kinetic motions were identified, the large majority of edges were used for either cutting, whittling, or scraping motions. Chiseling, splitting, and chopping were identified but in low numbers. Still, the relatively wide variety of kinetic motions is consistent with use of the site as a generalized residential camp rather than as a special-function locus such as a butchering site. Most used tool edges were employed on hard objective material, but hard objective material creates more microflake and attrition damage than soft material, so soft material is generally under-represented in use-wear results. Even so, the mixture of hard and soft objective materials is also consistent with use of the site as a generalized domestic habitation.

Use-wear analysis, morphological classification of modified items, and debitage analysis all indicate that the Paleoindian component at 15CH684 represents the remains of one or more generalized domestic occupations. The relatively low artifact density suggests relatively short duration of site use (perhaps a few weeks) or a limited number of short-term occupations that now are expressed as a single palimpsest component due to agricultural mixing. What is particularly significant about the site and assemblage is the fact that general domestic habitation activities are not mixed with (and overshadowed by) quarry/workshop activities, as is the case at the Adams site (15CH90) and several others in the Little River Complex (see Sanders 1990). This situation increases the research potential of 15CH684. However, as will be shown in Chapter 6, the site has been heavily impacted by historic agricultural activities, which reduces its research potential.

59 60 CHAPTER 6 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS

Phase II investigations at 15CH684 were conducted in multiple stages, with results from one stage providing guidance for subsequent stages of work. These stages and associated results are discussed in detail in the following sections.

TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING

The first stage of field work was construction of a detailed topographic map of the project area using a total station (Figure 6.1), to which were added locations of subsequent stages of field work. The topographic map was extended to include the sideslope on the eastern side of the site, but it did not extend all the way to the sinkhole. There is an approximate three-meter difference in elevation between the center of the site area on the ridge crest (see also Figure 3.1) and the western edge of the sinkhole. This difference was likely greater in the past, but has been lessened by erosion of topsoil from the ridge crest and redeposition of sediment in the sinkhole depression. The highest elevation within the site is along the northeast edge of the right-of-way, but this is only about 20 cm higher than the general elevation of the ridge crest.

One interesting result of the contour mapping was the recognition of a very shallow upland depression on the south side of NA, on the ridge crest (Figure 6.1). This depression is not pronounced and there is less than 10 cm elevation difference compared to the surrounding area. Even so, there was higher potential for intact deposits in this area, and this potential was more fully assessed through test unit excavation.

MECHANICAL EXCAVATIONS

In the same field session in which the contour map was constructed, mechanical excavations were also conducted. A backhoe with a flat-bladed bucket was used for mechanical removal of sediments from selected locations within the site. The smooth edge provided a very clean surface at the base of plow zone or other targeted excavation level, which minimized the need for hand work to identify possible feature locations on the mechanically stripped surface. Artifacts observed during mechanical excavations were collected opportunistically, with collection emphasis on lithic tools and temporally diagnostic artifacts. These materials were bagged by trench number.

Mechanical excavation was crucial for evaluating the research potential of the site. The locations of three trenches were based on the landscape and topography of the site (Figure 6.1). Trenches 1 and 2 were placed at the western and northwestern edges of the small sinkhole east of the area of scatter (as determined by Phase I survey) to determine if an intact A horizon was present but buried below surface in this local depositional environment. Both of these trenches were about six feet (1.8 m) wide; Trench 1 was about 9.5 meters long and Trench 2 was about 5.5 meters long. After excavation, the north wall of each trench was cleaned, photographed in 1-meter sections, and drawn. Figure 6.2 shows the interpreted soil profile for Trench 1, and Figure 6.3 shows an image of a section of this trench. Figures 6.4 and 6.5 respectively show the profile drawing and a representative section of the north wall for Trench 2.

A buried A horizon was identified in both Trench 1 and Trench 2 (see Figure 6.2-6.5), but at slightly different depths. This is undoubtedly the same buried A horizon, based on texture and color similarities; the difference in depth below surface is due to variation in the topography of the local ground surface and possibly to greater sediment redepostion near Trench 2. No definitively cultural material was observed in the buried A horizon of Trench 1. Small fragments of wood charcoal were present (Figure 6.2), but these may be derived from a variety of processes, including natural fires and historic burning of field stubble. No artifacts

61 Figure 6.1. Topography of 15CH684 and Locations of Mechanical Trenches. or charcoal was visible in the buried A horizon in Trench 2. A representative 10-liter flotation sample was taken from the buried A horizon of both Trench 1 and Trench 2. However, processing of these samples yielded no artifacts, even microdebitage between 1.0 and 6.4 mm in size. Only very small fragments of wood charcoal were recovered, and these are not definitively prehistoric in age or even cultural in origin.

Both backhoe trenches show profiles that include an uppper, weakly ddeveloped A horizon and plow zone underlain by a zone of redeposited mixed A and B horizon sediments. In Trench 1 the buried A horizon is designated as Stratum 10, while in Trench 2 it is shown as Stratum 4. Soil strata in Trench 1 were defined much more finely than in Trench 2, but the overall sequence of soil horizons is similar in both trenches. Individual soil strata and horizons are described in Figures 6.2 and 6.4.

We interpret the stratigraphic sequence in Trench 1 to include a cuurrent plow zone in redeposited sediment (Strata 1a and 1b), which is underlain by a series of thiin strata reprresenting episodes of slopewash and redeposition of sediment originating on higher landforms to thhe west (Strata 2 through 9 and Stratum 19). Strata 2 through 7 and 19 are thin and discontinuous zone of reccently deposited sediment that has not been modified substantially through soil formation processes or agricultural mixing. Strata 8 and 9 are more continuous and may represent old plow zones. Glass fragments and other historic materials were observed in Strata 2 and 19. Stratum 10 is the buried A horizon in Trench 1, and Stratum 15 is the associated underlying AB horizon. Both Stratum 10 and Stratum 15 have been truncated on their eastern ends by the steep slope into the deeper sinkhole, creating local erosion. Strata 11 through 14 are local fill episodes in the eastern part of the trench that represent recently redeposited sediments within the sinkhole. These strata exhibit iron staining and reduction-oxidation attributes indicative of cycles of saturation and drainage. Stratum 16 is a well-developed Bt horizon underlying the buried A/AB horizons of Strata 10 and 15. It generally lacks rocks and, while the underlying Strata 17 and 18 represent a BC horizon that contains varying amounts of decomposing limestone bedrock (regolith). Excavation of the trench was halted when deteriorating limestone bedrock was encountered throughout the trench.

62 Figure 6.2. Profile Drawing and Soil Horizon Interpretations for Trench 1 at 15CH684.

Figure 6.3. Representative Section (2-3 m from west end) of North Profile of Trench 1 at 15CH684. Note buried A horizon ca. 40-55 cm below ground surface overlain by redeposited sediment.

63 Figure 6.4. Profile Drawing and Soil Interpretations of 15CH684 Trench 2, North Profile.

Figure 6.5. Representative Section (2-3 m from west end) of Noorth Profile of Trench 2 at 15CH684. Note buried A horizon ca. 60-80 cm below ground surface.

64 The strata and soil horizons in Trench 2 represent a similar sequence to that observed in Trench 1, but minor strata were often grouped together, resulting in fewer described strata, some of which exhibit greater amounts of internal variation than the individual minor strata described in Trench 1 (see Figures 6.4 and 6.5). For Trench 2, Stratum 1 is the current plow zone, formed in redeposited sediment. In the eastern end of the trench, this stratum is underlain by a series of thin zones of redeposited sediments (Strata 7, 8, and 9). Like Trench 1/Strata 2 through 9 and Stratum 19, these thin zones are recently deposited and have not been modified through soil formation processes or agricultural mixing. Stratum 3 is likely an older plow zone created in redeposited A and B horizon sediment derived from upslope; it primarily correlates with Trench 1/Stratum 8. This stratum contained the only wood charcoal fragments observed in Trench 2. Trench 2/Stratum 4 is the buried A horizon, corresponding to Trench 1/Stratum 10. Trench 2/Stratum 5 and Trench 2/Stratum 6 represent Bt and BC horizons, respectively, associated with the buried A horizon of Stratum 4.

Trenches 1 and 2 clearly documented the presence of a buried A horizon remnant at the western margin of the sinkhole. However, neither exposure of the buried A horizon showed any evidence of prehistoric artifacts in the form of flakes, bone, caclined bone, of carbonized nutshell. Only the redeposited strata above the buried A horizon contained charcoal, and it was all wood charcoal, presumably historic in age and of questionable cultural origin. As a consequence of these findings, subsequent investigations at 15CH684 were confined to the area of artifact scatter, and further restricted to the part of the site within the new right-of-way and easement corridors that would be impacted by proposed construction.

A third backhoe trench extended from eastern footslope of the upland ridge (about 20 meters west of Trench 1), westward to the crest of the ridge, a distance of about 46.5 meters (Figure 6.6). This trench was only 3 feet (0.9 m) wide and was excavated into the upper part of the Bt horizon, between 18 and 35 cm depth. Trench 3 essentially removed plow zone to expose subplow zone sediments in a search for artifacts or features below plow zone. Chisel plow scars were evident at the base of plow zone, but no intact subplow zone A horizon remnants, cultural features, or artifact concentrations were observed.

The location of each trench was mapped (see Figure 6.1). Before backfilling, six micromorphology samples were taken from various soil zones identified in Trench 1. In addition, a flotation sample was taken from the buried A horizon in both Trench 1 and Trench 2 to determine if artifacts, even microdebitage, were present. All trenches were backfilled to approximate original contour after samples were extracted and profiles were documented.

Processing of the flotation samples from the buried A horizons in Trenches 1 and 2 yielded no prehistoric artifacts. If artifacts had been recovered, a subsequent stage of field work would have called for hand-excavated test units adjacent to the trenches to provide a controlled and screened sample from these buried A horizon deposits. However, no artifacts were visible, and none were recovered from the flotation samples. Consequently, no test units were excavated within the sinkhole deposits. Subsequent field work focused on the ridge crest landform that contained the artifact scatter for 15CH684.

SHOVEL TESTING

Supplemental shovel testing was conducted north of NA at 5-meter intervals (Figure 6.7). The narrow right-of-way corridor north of NA (ca. 25 feet, or 7.6 m) was originally targeted for disking followed by controlled surface collection. However, the persistent presence of crops, the narrow right-of-way corridor, and obstruction by fence lines and trees combined to preclude access to this part of the site by farm machinery with a disk attachment. Instead, a series of 21 screened shovel tests were placed within this corridor (see Figure 6.7) to document areas with intact deposits and to obtain a supplemental artifact sample from this part of the site. Positive shovel tests (n=6) were noted, and soil profiles were documented for all shovel tests. Most showed only a plow zone underlain by subsoil (see Figure 6.8), but possible intact subplow zone A horizon was identified in ST 111 and ST 112 (Figures 6.7 and 6.9). The presence of this potential intact A horizon was a factor in later field work efforts.

65 Figure 6.6. View of Trench 3 at 15CH684, Looking West from the Middle of the Sideslope.

Figure 6.7. 15CH684 Showing Locations of Shovel Tests and Controlled Surface Collection Grid.

66 Figure 6.8. Typical Shovel Test Soil Profile North Figure 6.9. Soil Profile for ST111 Showing Possible of KY 911 at 15CH684 (ST 115). Intact A horizon (Stratum II).

The first three shovel tests excavated (ST 101-103) revealed dissturbed deposits below plow zone, interpreted as the result of placement of a utility line (probablly a water main) parallel to the existing right-of- way. Subsequent shovel tests (ST104-121) were shifted to the north to avoid intersecting the utility line disturbance.

Most shovel tests north o owed no evidence of pootentially intact A horizon remnant preserved below plow zone (Figure 6.8), regardless of whhether the shovel test was positive or negative. Shovel Tests 111 and 112, however, showed a typical plow zone (Stratum I in Figure 6.9) underlain by a thin zone that represented a potentially intact subplow zone A horrizon remnant (Stratum II) that was a darker silt loam than the overlying plow zone. This was underlain by what was interpreted as a transition zone to subsoil (Stratum III in Figure 6.9) and undisturbed Bt horizon subsoil (Stratum IV in Figure 6.9). These shovel tests were placed within the confines of a very shallow depression identified by moister sediments and ground cover made up of sedges and other moisture-tolerant plants. The depression was very shallow in comparison

CONTROLLED SURFACE COLLECTION

Controlled surface collection was conducted within the right-of-way on the south side off (Figure 6.7). Here, the new right-of-way is wider (ca. 65 feet [19.8 m]), and access to the site area was not restricted by fences or tree lines. A road grader with a harrow attachment (supplied by the City of Oak Grove) was used to remove surface vegetation, including chaff from the recently harvested wheat. Rainfall sufficient to create a well-washed surface exposed artifacts for collection.

67 Figure 6.10. Eastern Half of Controlled Surface Collection Grid (looking west). Pin flags mark corners of 5- x-5-meter collection units, laid out with tapes.

An area measuring about 150 meters long and 15 meters wide was subjected to controlled surface collection. Three rows of 29 5-x-5-meter collection units provideed complete coverage of the site area within the new right-of-way and its eastern and western perimeters. Collection units were demarcated with flags placed at the corners of 5-x-5-meter units, defined by parallel and perpendicular tapes (Figure 6.10). Anchor points and the collection grid were mapped on detailed site maps. All artifacts visible at the surface of each collection unit were collected, with material bagged by 5-x-5-meter collectionn unit. Locations of bifacial and unifacial tools and cores were mapped individually.

Table 6.1 provides an inventory of the artifacts collected from the surface during Phase II investigations, separated by collection unit and artifact class. Individual debittage flake types are included in the table, but modified items have been grouped into more general classes (unifacial tools, bifacial tools, combination tools, and cores). Raw materials are not identified in this table, as debitage analyses (see Chapter 5) showed no significant differences in the reduction trajectories of Fort Payne and Ste. Genevieve cherts. The number of patinated artifacts is shown in parentheses for each artifact category, and patinated artifacts account for the vast majority of the artifacts included in the Paleoindian analytical subassemblage (discussed in Chapter 5).

Figure 6.11 shows artifact densities by collection unit and the locations of individually mapped tools. The density data clearly show higher concentrations of artifacts on the ridge crest and upper shoulders. Interestingly, the shallow depression on the south side of correspp onds to slightly lower artifact densities (generally 6-10 artifacts per collection unit), though some collection units had high densities (11 to 15 artifacts per unit). The locations of individually mapped formal tools show a similar pattern, with most tools recovered from the east or west shoulders of the landform. The sideslopes to both east and west show low to moderate numbers of artifacts, and this likely reflects the ccombined effects of plowing and downslope colluvial redeposition of artifacts through slopewash processes. It appears that most prehistoric activity took place on the ridge crest and shoulders. The distributions of modified items and the artifact densities per collection unit shown in Figure 6.11 were the principal criteria used to select locations for subsequent hand- excavated test units. The other criterion applied to test unit location selection was the landform. Test units were restricted to the crest and shoulders of the low rise, with two units placed specifically within the shallow depressions on the ridge crest to evaluate the potential for intact prehistoric deposits.

68 Figure 6.11. Artifact Density and Formal Tool Distributions for Controlled Surface Collections at 15CH684.

Table 6.1. Artifacts Recovered from Phase II Surface Colllection at 15CH684. Numbers in parentheses indicate patinated artifacts in that category. Collection Unit Primary Secondary Interior BTS BFT Broken Shatter Unifacial Tool Bifacial Tool Combination Tool Core Total General site 1 3(1) 2(1) 2(1) 9(5) 1 18(8) 100 1 1 1 1(1) 4(1) 101 1 3 4 102 1 1 103 2(2) 1(1) 3(3) 104 0 105 2(2) 2(2) 106 0 107 1(1) 1 1(1) 3(2) 108 1 5(3) 1 7(3) 109 1 1 1(1) 6 3 12(1) 110 1(1) 3(3) 4(4) 111 2 1 1 4 112 1(1) 1(1) 4(4) 1(1) 7(7) 113 1(1) 1(1) 1 4(1) 1 1(1) 9(4) 114 1(1) 2 1 9(3) 2 15(4) 115 1(1) 5(1) 6(2) 116 3 1 1 5(1) 1 11(1) 117 1(1) 1(1) 4(1) 2 1(1) 9(4) 118 1(1) 1 1(1) 1(1) 4(3) 119 1 1(1) 6(4) 1(1) 9(6) 120 4 4 121 0 122 4(1) 4(1) 123 1 3(2) 4(2) 124 1(1) 3(2) 4(3) 125 1 2 3

69 Table 6.1 (concluded). Collection Unit Primary Secondary Interior BTS BFT Broken Shatter Unifacial Tool Bifacial Tool Combination Tool Core Total 126 1(1) 1(1) 127 0 128 1 1 129 0 201 1(1) 1 2(1) 202 2(1) 1 1(1) 4(2) 203 1(1) 1(1) 204 1(1) 1 2(1) 205 2(1) 2(1) 206 1 1 207 2 1(1) 2(1) 1(1) 6(3) 208 1(1) 3(1) 1 5(2) 209 1(1) 2 3(1) 210 2(1) 4 1 1 8(1) 211 1 3(1) 4(1) 212 2(1) 1 10(5) 13(6) 213 1 3(1) 1 2 7(6) 1 1(1) 16(8) 214 1(1) 1(1) 3(2) 5(2) 1 11(6) 215 1 4(3) 1(1) 3(3) 1(1) 6(5) 16(13) 216 1(1) 1(1) 4(3) 6(5) 217 1(1) 1(1) 2(2) 9(4) 13(8) 218 2(1) 1(1) 6(1) 1 1(1) 1(1) 12(5) 219 2(1) 1(1) 9(5) 1 13(7) 220 2 8(1) 10(1) 221 1(1) 1(1) 1(1) 1(1) 4(4) 222 1 2(1) 5(3) 8(4) 223 1 1(1) 4(1) 6(2) 224 1 2 3 225 1 1 1(1) 3(1) 226 1 1 1 3 227 1 2 3 228 1(1) 1(1) 229 1 1 301 0 302 1 1 2 303 1 1 304 1(1) 1 2(1) 4(2) 305 0 306 2(2) 1 1 4(2) 307 2 2 308 1 1(1) 2(2) 4(3) 309 1(1) 1 3(2) 1(1) 6(4) 310 3(2) 3(2) 311 1 4 5 312 1 1(1) 2(1) 313 1(1) 1(1) 5(3) 7(5) 314 2 2(1) 2 9(2) 15(3) 315 1 1 9(6) 2 1 14(6) 316 1(1) 7(1) 8(2) 317 2(1) 10(3) 2(1) 14(5) 318 1 1(1) 1(1) 7(5) 1 11(7) 319 1 2 5(3) 1 8(2) 1 1 19(5) 320 2(1) 1(1) 2(1) 2(2) 8(7) 1(1) 1(1) 17(14) 321 1 2(1) 2 1 1 7(1) 322 1 1(1) 1(1) 3(2) 323 1(1) 1(1) 324 1(1) 1(1) 1 3(2) 325 1(1) 1 2(1) 4(2) 326 1 1 2 327 1 1 2 328 0 329 1(1) 1(1) Total 17(5) 58(24) 23(11) 39(25) 27(14) 275(120) 29(4) 4(2) 11(7) 3(1) 8(4) 494(217)

70 Figure 6.12. Locations of Test Units at 15CH684 in Relation to Other Phase 2 Investigations and Results.

HAND-EXCAVATED TEST UNITS

Artifacts collected from the surface were analyzed with respecct to biface reduction trajectories, morphological categories, and raw material types to determine if additional field work was warranted. While no Clovis points were recovered from the surface, bifaces that were in earlier stages of Clovis point manufacture were identified, including possible blanks and preforms (Early and Middle Phase bifaces in the manufacturing sequence used by Bradley et al. [2010]). In addition, unifacial tools and large prismatic blade sections were also recovered from the surface. More importantly, there was no evidence of any later period of site occupation, which indicated that 15CH684 could still be considered a single component Paleoindian site. The surface collection assemblage was examined by the autthhors, along with staff of the Kentucky Heritage Council, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, and other UK staff archaeeologists, all of whom were familiar with Clovis assemblages. All concurred that the assemblage from 15CH684 was Early Paleoindian in age, and that no other components appeared to be present. Based on this interpretation, the final stage of field work was initiated.

Six hand-excavated test units were placed within thhe site boundaries (Figure 6.12). Five test units were placed south of or within areas with high artifact densitty or diffuse concentrations of tools. One unit (Test Unit 2) was placed north o n ST 111 and ST112, in which possible intact A horizon remnants had been documented below plow zone.

All test units were 1-x-2 meters in size. Test unit excavation generally followed standard procedures, but there was some variation in excavation methods. All excavation depths were measured from the surface of each unit corner. Excavation removed plow zone as a single natural level, with excavation continuing as an arbitrary 10-cm level below plow zone in Test Unit 2 to provide a sample of the subbplow zone sediments.

71 Figure 6.13. Base of Plow Zone in Test Unit 1 at 15CH684 (llooking west). Note deep plow scars intruding into subsoil and the absence of preserved intact subplow zone deposits.

All sediment was screened through ¼-inch mesh to ensure standardized recovery of artifacts, except for a 10- liter bulk sediment sample extracted from each level for recovery of botanical remains and microdebitage. All artifacts were placed into bags that were labeled with provenience information (test unit, level, and soil horizon). Bulk soil samples extracted for flotation were given separate bag numbers. Excavation was halted when culturally sterile Bt horizon sediment was exposed, which was at the base of plow zone except in Test Unit 2.

Initial plan view digital photographs were taken of each test unit before excavation began. After plow zone was removed, plan view photographs were taken and plan maps were drawn to illustrate plow scars, rood casts, or other disturbance at the base of plow zone. Two adjacent walls were cleaned, digitally photographed, and drawn at 1:10 scale. Soil profiles were described using standard terminology and Munsel colors for reference. All test units were backfilled to approximate original suurface contour after excavation and documentation were completed.

Test Unit 1 was placed within the shallow depression on the crest of the rise, souuth of (see Figure 6.12). Artifact density was moderate in the vicinity of this test unit. The unit was shifted to the west side of the center of the depression, but this location was visuaally determined to have the lowest elevation compared to the surrounding ground surface. Removal of plow zone as Level 1 revealed deep plow scars at the base of the unit (Figure 6.13), but there was no preserved A hhorizon remnant below plow zone. Instead, there was a transitional zone (Stratum 2 on Figure 6.14) that included small clasts of Bt horizon subsoil that

72 Figure 6.14. Test Unit 1 North Profile Image (upper) and Drawing (lower). Note transitional Stratum 2 that includes clasts of Bt horizon subsoil. had been incorporated into the lower half of the plow zone. These clasts likely derive from deep chisel plowing, and the presence of deep plow scars (see Figure 6.13) support thiis interpretation. The deep plowing had evidently impacted all formerly intact A horizon sediments in this part of the site, even within the shallow depression. This transitional zone was evident in some test units but not in others. Table 6.2 provides strata descriptions and interpretations for all test units.

Test Unit 2 was placed on the north sidee (see Figure 6.13), between ST 111 and ST 112, both of which had exhibited possible intact A horizon remnants below plow zone (see Figure 6.9). Test Unit 2 was viewed as the best opportunity within the site to obtain an excavated Paleoindian artifact sample from intact deposits. Level 1 removed the plow zone as a single unit. At the bottom of the plow zone a series of dark stripes was visible (Figure 6.15). The orientation and spacing of these zones stronggly suggested that they were plow scars, but it was possible that they represented thin zones of remnant intact A horizon, and that the intervening areas were the plow scars. Consequently, great care was taken in excavation of Level 2, which sampled these dark zones as a flotation sample. The dark areas were also cross-sectioned during reemoval to help interpret their origin and condition. The dark zones proved to be very shallow and intermittent, though the lower boundaries were smooth (see Figure 6.16). These small zones might represent possible A horizon remnants, though they are intermittent and very limited in theeir preservation. However, removal of one dark zone exposed a distinct chisel plow scar which was filled with darker sediment (Figure 6.17). This strongly suggests that the Stratum 2 dark zones are plow scars and not intact deposits. After the dark zones were removed, the rest of the unit was excavated as an arbitrary 10-cm level. Artifacts were very sparse within the level, and the underlying Bt horizon sediments produced only two or three very small flakes.

73 Table 6.2. Strata Descriptions for Test Units at 15CH684. Depth Test Unit Stratum Interpretation Range (cm) Color Soil Description 1 1 Plow zone 11-22 7.5YR4/4-4/6 Silt loam; abrupt and irregular boundary 2 Transition 4-18 7.5YR4/4-4/6 Silt loam with 7.5YR5/6 silty clay loam clasts 3 Bt horizon subsoil 2-7 + 5YR5/6 Silty clay loam 2 1 Plow zone 31-36 7.5YR3/4 Weak granular to subangular blocky silt loam to heavy silt loam; lower boundary abrupt, wavy 2 A horizon remnant? 0-4 7.5YR2.5/3 Weak granular silt loam; lower boundary clear, smooth Bt horizon subsoil 1-9 + 7.5YR4/4 Weak-moderate granular to subangular blocky heavy silt loam to silty clay loam; increasing clay with depth 3 1 Plow zone 34-39 7.5YR3/4 Weak-moderate granular to subangular blocky silt loam; lower boundary abrupt, wavy 2 Bt horizon subsoil 2-7 + 7.5YR4/6 Weak-moderate subangular blocky silty clay loam 4 1 Plow zone 7-11 7.5YR3/4 Compact weak-moderate granular to subangular blocky silt loam 2 Transition 8-14 7.5YR3/4 Same aas plow zone with small to large clasts of Bt horizon subsoil 3 Bt horizon subsoil 2-11 + 5YR4/4-4/6 Weak-moderate granular to subangular blocky silty clay loam to clay loam 5 1 Plow zone 16-23 7.5YR4/3 Weak-moderate granular to subangular blocky heavy silt loam; boundary abrupt and wavy 2 Bt horizon subsoil 2-3 + 5YR4/4 Weak-moderate subangular blocky silty clay loam to clay loam 6 1 Disturbed plow zone 9-19 7.5YR4/4-3/4 Compact, weak-moderate subangular blocky silt loam to silty clay loam with clasts of Bt2 subsoil (5YR4/6 clay loam). Clasts probably backdirt form nearby sewer line 2 Plow zone 10-20 7.5YR3/4 Weak-moderate granular to subangular blocky silt loam; not compact; boundary abrupt and smooth 3 Bt horizon subsoil 1-3 + 5YR4/4 Weak-moderate subangular blocky heavy silt loam to silty clay loam

Figure 6.15. Bottom of Level 1 in Test Unit 2 at 15CH684 (looking north). Note cark stripes of possible A horizon remnants.

74 Figure 6.16. Test Unit 2 West Profile Draawwing (left) and Image (right).

Figure 6.17. Chisel Plow Scar Filled with Dark Stratum 2 Sediment at the Base of Test Unit 2/Level 2.

Considering the very limited potential of the possible A horizon rremnants, and the probable historic plowing disturbance to these sediments as shown in Figure 6.17, additional test units were not planned for the north sid eof NA. However, we reserved final judgment of the archaeological potential of the shallow depression until charcoal from the Level 2 float sample could be dated. A single carbonized seed (unidentifiable as to species) was submitted to the Illinois State Geological Survey for AMS radiocarbon assay. The assay returned was for an age of 115±20 RCYBP (ISGS-A2946), which indicates a modern age for the deposits (ca. AD 1835). This result (obtained after Test Units 1-6 were exccavated) confirmed our interpretation of the low archaeological potential of the sediments within the shallow upland depressions at 15CH684. Consequently no further archaeological excavations were considered to be warranted.

Excavation of Test Units 1 and 2 documented the general stratigraphic sequences that would be evident in all test units. The plow zone (Stratum 1 in all test units) was a 7.5YR hue silt loam to heavy silt loam in all test unit exposures (Table 6.2). Some test units (TU 1 and TU 4) and exhibbited a transitional zone in the bottom part of the plow zone that included distinct large to small clasts of underlying Bt horizon subsoil. The Bt horizon in all test units was culturally sterile; it had silty clay loam to clay loam texture and typically a 5YR hue.

75 Figure 6.18. North Profile of Test Unit 3 at 15CH684.

Figure 6.19. North Profile of Test Unit 4 at 15CH684. Note transitional zone in lower 6-10 cm of plow zone.

Test Unit 3 was placed near the south side of the new right-of-way, on the eastern shoulder of the landform and near a combination tool (Collection Unit 318; see Figure 6.12) partly within Collection Unit 319, which produced the highest number of artifacts (see Table 6.1). We anticipated that Test Unit 3 would produce higher densities of artifacts. The plow zone was removed as Level 1, and exposing Bt horizon subsoil over the entire unit floor. There was no transitional zone as documented in Test Unit 1 (Table 6.2). Again, plow scars were evident in the Level 1 floor, but there was no evidencce for intact A horizon remnants below the plow zone (Figure 6.18). The Unit profiles were drawn, but the profile drawing is not shown due to the simplicity of the soil profile (see Figure 6.18). Test Unit 3 excavation was terminated after one level.

Test Unit 4 was placed near the existing righth -of-way on tthe western shoulder of the landform, within a diffuse cluster of formal unifacial and bifacial tools (Figure 6.12). Though several formal tools were recovered from the area, Collection Units 113 and 114 had relatively low numbers of artifacts (see Table 6.1). Level 1 removed the plow zone (Stratum 1 in Table 6.2) and the underlying transitional zone (Stratum 2) as a single natural level, exposing Bt horizon subsoil over the entire unit (Figure 6.19). Again, the profile drawing is not presented, but see Table 6.2 for soil descriptions. Plow scars again were distinct, but there were no indications of features or intact A horizon remnants. Test unit excavation was stopped after one level.

Test Unit 5 was placed on the crest of the low rise landform among a cluster of surface collection units with moderate to high numbers of artifacts (see Figure 6.12). It was anticipated that this unit would produce relatively high artifact densities. Level 1 removed the plow zone as a single natural level. There was no transition zone apparent in the profile, and the base of Level 1 exposed deep plow scars and culturally sterile Bt horizon subsoil over the unit. There was no evidence of intact A horizon or cultural features, and a soil profile drawing is not provided. Figure 6.20 shows an image of the north profile showing the relatively

76 Figure 6.20. North Profile of Test Unit 5 at 15CH684. Note relatively shallow plow zone and absence of transitional zone to subsoil.

Figure 6.21. North Profile of Test Unit 6 at 15CH684. Note the mixed backdirt and plow zone in the upper part of the deposits. shallow plow zone and underlying subsoil. Test unit excavations were stopped after one level.

Test Unit 6 was placed near the existing right-of-way on the easteern shoulder of the landform (Figure 6.12) near the location of a probable Early Phase biface fragment recovered from surface collection unit 119. When excavation began, mixed deposits were evident in the upper 10 cm or so of the unit. This zone (Stratum 1; see Table 6.2) includes mainly plow zone sediment but there are also small to large clasts of Bt2 horizon clay loam with a 5YR hue. This zone is interprreted as a mixture of recent plow zoned that incorporates backdirt from excavation of a nearby sewer line, which east-west about three meters north of the test unit, just outside the surface-collection area. Stratum 2 is the lower part of the plow zone, which does not contain the clasts of clay loam (see Figure 6.21 and Table 6.2). Level 1 removed both Stratum 1 and Stratum 2 as a natural level, exposing the underlying culturally sterile Bt horizon. There was no evidence of intact A horizon remnants or cultural features below the plow zone. Excavation was stopped after a single level.

DISCUSSION OF EXCAVATED CONTEXTS AND ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGE

Overall artifact density was low to moderate in all excavatedd test units. Table 6.3 shows the distribution of debitage categories and general modified item classes for the excavation sample. Table 6.4 shows summary artifact density data (items per excavated liter) for all test units.. As can be seen, overall density is relatively low, ranging from 0.123 to 0.555 items per liter for plow zone levels. Test Unit 3 showed

77 Table 6.3. Artifacts Recovered from Phase II Hand-excavated Test Units at 15CH684. Numbers in parentheses indicate patinated artifacts in that category. TU=Test Unit; L=Level. Only artifacts >¼-inch were analyzed from float samples. Asterisk (*) denotes Late Woodland Bakers Creek point (TU2/L1 float). Unit/Level Primary Secondary Interior BTS BFT Broken Shatter Unifacial Tool Bifacial Tool Combination Tool Core Total TU1/L1 6 10(2) 11(1) 12(3) 7(2) 68(14) 5 119(22) TU1/L1 float 1(1) 1 1 3(1) TU2/L1 1 11(5) 3(3) 5(1) 2(1) 53(24) 1 1(1) 77(35) TU2/L1 float 3(1) 1* 4(1) TU2/L2 5(1) 5(1) TU2/L2 float 1(1) 1(1) 2(2) TU3/L1 6(3) 18(6) 12(4) 20(11) 11(7) 139(23) 8 214(54) TU3/L1 float 1 2(1) 1(1) 4(1) 8(3) TU4/L1 1 13(2) 1(1) 5(2) 3(2) 26(5) 2 51(12) TU4/L1 float 1 3 4 TU5/L1 5(3) 14(4) 9(4) 9(7) 8(8) 54(30) 1 1(1) 101(57) TU5/L1 float 1(1) 1 2(1) TU6/L1 9(1) 19(6) 21(6) 17(8) 15(6) 133(26) 1 1 216(53) TU6/L1 float 1 1 2 Total 28(7) 86(26) 59(20) 73(34) 48(27) 491(126) 18 0 4(1) 0 1(1) 808(240)

Table 6.4. Artifact Density Data (items per excavated liter) for Test Units and Levels at 15CH684. TU=Test Unit; L=Level. Only artifacts >¼-inch are included from float samples. Float and screened materials are combined for each provenience. Unit/Level Artifacts (n) Liters Density (items/liter) TU1/L1 122 536 0.228 TU2/L1 81 660 0.123 TU2/L2 7 96 0.073 TU3/L1 222 400 0.555 TU4/L1 59 476 0.124 TU5/L1 104 372 0.280 TU6/L1 218 595 0.366 Total 808 3135 0.258 the highest artifact density for plow zone (Level 1) contexts, while Test Unit 2, north of NA, had the lowest density. In general, the artifact density from excavations corresponds fairly well with artifact densities recovered from surface collections (compare Figure 6.12 with data in Table 6.4). Test Unit 3 was placed partially within the surface collection unit that had the highest number of artifacts, and Test Unit 2 was placed between two negative shovel tests in the northern right-of-way corridor. However, Test Unit 6 has the second highest artifact density, but was placed in a portion of the site with relatively low number of artifacts from surface collections. Still, the trends are generally not in conflict. One disappointing result from the test unit excavation was that very few additional formal tools were recovered (n=5), in spite of the placement of several units in close proximity to locations where formal tools were recovered in the surface collection. In addition, no finished bifaces were found, except for the (undesired) Late Woodland Bakers Creek point recovered from the float sample taken from Test Unit 2/Level 1 (see Figure 5.6). Test unit excavations at 15CH684 sampled portions of the site on both north and south sides of NA that would be impacted by proposed construction along this highway corridor. In addition, test units were placed to provide excavated samples from areas within the site that produced either high artifact density, multiple formal tools, or had potential for intact cultural deposits. These excavations revealed no pit features, hearths, artifact concentrations, or intact remnants of artifact-bearing A horizon sediments. A single radiocarbon date obtained on a carbonized seed from a potentially intact A horizon remnant in Test Unit 2 proved to be modern in age. Based on the absence of any intact deposits that might be Paleoindian in age, no additional excavations were conducted. In addition, the generally low artifact density and deep plowing documented in most test units also indicated a very low probability that any cultural features would be preserved within the site area. Consequently, no additional archaeological investigations (additional test unit excavation or mechanical removal of plow zone) were considered to be warranted. Field work was concluded after test units were documented and backfilled.

78 CHAPTER 7 RESEARCH SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In Chapter 4, the research design for the Phase II investigations at 15CH684 defined three questions that could potentially be addressed through this NRHP eligibility assessment. The field results and laboratory analyses described above in Chapters 5 and 6 were specifically chosen to help compile data that would help address these research questions. Results of the Phase II NRHP eligibility investigations are summarized in the first section. This is followed by evaluation of each of these research questions, based on the summary data. The final section presents our findings regarding the eligibility of the site for listing on the NRHP, along with recommendations for additional archaeological work.

SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIONS AND RESULTS

The Phase I artifact assemblage from 15CH684 was interpreted as representing the remains of a general residential habitation of Paleoindian age. In addition, 15CH684 appeared to be a single-component site, with an artifact assemblage that was not mixed with materials deposited during post-Paleoindian occupations. Based on these site attributes and the potential for some preservation of intact contexts on shoulders or within the sinkhole adjacent to the site, UK-PAR evaluated 15CH684 as having high research potential. The research potential was enhanced because the site location is consistent with models of Paleoindian and Early Archaic settlement and landscape use developed for the region that might be tested through through additional research conducted at 15CH684. Because 15CH684 is apparently a residential site and not a lithic workshop, additional work would also afford an opportunity to address three specific research issues—site function, Paleoindian settlement patterns and systems, and Paleoindian lithic procurement and curation patterns. Results of the current work that are relevant to these research issues are summarized and evaluated below.

However, our ability to adequately address the research questions was predicated on the assumption that 15CH684 was a single-component site of Paleoindian age, as interpreted from the Phase I survey results. Phase II field investigations were conducted in multiple stages that provided opportunities to evaluate this assumption as the work progressed. The first stage was excavation of three backhoe trenches. Two trenches were placed at the edge of the small sinkhole east of the 15CH684 artifact scatter to determine if an intact A horizon paleosol was preserved in this local depositional environment. These trenches revealed the presence of a shallowly buried A horizon. Cleaning and documentation of the exposed profiles revealed no artifacts or charcoal within the A horizon, and processing of flotation samples from the buried A horizon produced no artifacts. An A horizon paleosol is preserved within the sinkhole environment, but it apparently contains no artifacts that link it to the nearby Paleoindian-age occupation at 15CH684. A third backhoe trench was excavated across the sideslope and eastern shoulder of the low rise that contains 15CH684, within the area of artifact scatter. This trench was about 42 meters long and removed only the upper 30 cm of deposits. Examination of the trench profile revealed only a plow zone underlain by Bt horizon subsoil, with no intact A horizon preserved on this upland landform. No pit features were observed in the trench floor, and only a few root casts were evident. Results from the third trench indicated that there was little potential for preserved A horizon remnants on the upland landform that contained the site. While the trench excavation produced few artifacts, the results did not contradict the working assumption that the site was a single-component Paleoindian occupation.

The second stage of field work consisted of systematic surface collection and close-interval shovel testing. Controlled surface collection was conducted in the proposed right-of-way corridor on the south side of NA in an area measuring about 145 meters long and 15 meters wide. Here, 87 5-x-5-meter collection units produced between 0 and 19 items, and a total of 468 debitage fragments and 26 formally shaped chipped stone tools were recovered. The tools from surface collection include a wide variety of morphological categories, including intentionally retouched flakes, formal unifacial tools (scrapers, cutting tools,

79 spokeshaves, and tools with multiple working edges), generally reduced cores, and bifaces in early, middle, and late stages of reduction. No finished, hafted bifaces (i.e., Clovis or other Paleoindian age points) were found, but many of the bifaces fit into earlier stages of Clovis point production sequences described in the literature (see Bradley et al. 2010; Sanders 1990). Recovery of biface fragments that are part of a Clovis point production sequence and unifacial tools made on prismatic blades supported the assumption that 15CH684 was a single-component Paleoindian-age site. Some biface fragments did not fit into the Clovis production sequence; however, their presence suggested that a fairly generalized suite of activities was carried out at the site. There was no evidence in the surface collection of any later temporal component. Considerable age for the assemblage was supported by the presence of distinct patination on many chert artifacts. Of the debitage, 203 flakes (41.2 percent) were patinated, and 13 of 26 formal tools (50.0 percent) were patinated.

In the narrow northern right-of-way corridor, shovel tests were placed at 5-meter intervals. Only six of 21 shovel tests were positive, and these produced only 9 debitage fragments. However, two adjacent shovel tests within a shallow depression on the crest of the landform showed a possible A horizon remnant preserved below plow zone, indicating potential for preserved Paleoindian-age deposits below plow zone.

On the strength of the surface collection assemblage, which indicated presence of a Paleoindian Clovis-age component, and the shovel tests, which indicated a possible preserved A horizon north of NA, six test units were excavated within the site area. Test Unit 2 was placed north of NA where shovel test profiles had indicated a possible intact A horizon remnant. A thin (2-5 cm) and discontinuous layer of darker sediment underlay the plow zone, and a flotation sample extracted from it produced a small amount of charcoal, plus a few carbonized seeds. One unidentified seed was sent for AMS radiocarbon assay, and it produced a date of 115±20 RCYBP (ISGS-A2948), an essentially modern date. This lower zone contained only seven artifacts, and the charcoal within it apparently did not derive from the Paleoindian occupation of the site. It is now interpreted as an older plow zone remnant. Artifact density was relatively low in Test Unit 2, with only 85 debitage and 3 formally modified items recovered from both levels. Of these, 36 show patination, indicating probable Paleoindian age. However, one of the modified items is an unpatinated Late Woodland Bakers Creek point, recovered from a flotation sample extracted from Level 1 plow zone. This is the only temporally diagnostic hafted biface recovered from the site. There is apparently a Late Woodland component at 15CH684 mixed in the plow zone with the Paleoindian age materials. Its presence complicated subsequent analyses, but protocols were established that allowed a minimum Paleoindian subassemblage to be isolated and the research questions to be addressed.

The other five test units were placed south of NA within or near surface collection units that produced higher numbers of artifacts or higher numbers of modified items than surrounding collection units. All of these test units revealed only plow zone deposits underlain by culturally sterile Bt horizon clay loam subsoil, similar to the soil profiles revealed in Trench 3. The assemblage from these five test units includes 717 debitage and three formally modified items. Of this, 199 debitage and 2 formally modified items are patinated. Again, no hafted bifaces were recovered, but the presence of blade-like flakes, patinated artifacts, and overshot flakes all indicate the presence of a Paleoindian/Clovis age component at 15CH684.

Because the test unit excavations produced a Late Woodland projectile point, as well as tools assignable to a Paleoindian/Clovis-age occupation, 15CH684 was obviously multicomponent. This posed difficulties for analyses, as all materials were confined to plow zone contexts and could not be separated stratigraphically. It was also not possible to separate the components based on spatial location within the site, as both the Late Woodland point and patinated prismatic blades had been recovered from the same areas within the site. An alternative approach was taken to isolate a Paleoindian assemblage for more detailed analyses. Patinated materials—presumably deriving from the Paleoindian occupation of 15CH684—were separated from nonpatinated artifacts (potentially assignable to either component). The patinated assemblage was supplemented with nonpatinated modified items that were most likely of Paleoindian manufacture based on morphological and technological attributes, such as bifaces in the Clovis production sequence, tools made on large prismatic blade segments, combination unifacial/bifacial tools, and retouched blade-like flakes. However, the Paleoindian assemblage is a almost certainly under-represented because Ste. Genevieve chert

80 exhibits variable patina, and patina is more robustly and consistently expressed on Fort Payne chert. Even so, this procedure provided for a conservative minimum Paleoindian assemblage that could be assigned to this component with high confidence. The remaining materials (unpatinated debitage and technologically non- Paleoindian modified items) were analyzed separately and presumably represent the Late Woodland component at 15CH684.

The Late Woodland assemblage is dominated by secondary flakes and late-stage debitage. This debitage profile is consistent with short-term use of the site that involved expedient reduction of partially reduced items that were brought to the site and tool maintenance. Tool diversity is low. The overall interpretation is of short-term occupation involving few activities. The site may have served as a hunting camp or other resource extraction location during the Late Woodland period.

This Paleoindian assemblage was subjected to additional analyses to help address the research questions. The Paleoindian subassemblage includes artifacts made from only two high-quality chert raw material types—Ste. Genevieve and Fort Payne—along with unidentified/burned chert. Debitage analysis showed that broken flakes were most common. Of the flake types that could be placed into a biface reduction trajectory, there is a bimodal pattern, with high proportions of late-stage biface thinning and shaping (BTS) flakes and a minor mode of secondary flakes. However, all reduction stages are represented, suggesting generalized lithic reduction activities. Initial cobble testing and removal of cortex was likely taking place off- site, as very low numbers of primary flakes or shatter were recovered. Modes of secondary and late-stage flakes suggest that some materials were being brought to the site in a partially reduced state that retained some cortex, perhaps in the form of cores, flake blanks, or rough bifaces. These were further reduced on-site into bifacial and unifacial tools, accounting for the higher numbers of both secondary flakes and BTS flakes. This debitage profile is consistent with general domestic habitation activities. Quarry/workshop activities would result in high numbers of primary flakes and shatter. Of interest was recovery of overshot flakes, which are generally produced during a Clovis reduction sequence.

The Ste. Genevieve chert recovered from 15CH684 is of high quality and is not locally available. The Ste. Genevieve recovered from 15CH684 was likely derived from high-quality tabular and nodular source areas along the Little River, some 15-20 km to the northwest. The Ste. Genevieve chert derived from residuum underlying and surrounding the site is of very low quality with abundant vesicles, fracture planes, and coarse texture. This local available variety of Ste. Genevieve was apparently not used by site occupants, even for expedient tool production. Fort Payne chert also is nonlocal to the project area, outcropping about 68-70 km west-northwest of 15CH684 in the more deeply entrenched Cumberland River valley (Fox and Seeland 1963). Differential use of the two identifiable raw materials was evaluated through statistical tests, which showed no differences in the use of these two raw materials in regards to the biface reduction sequence. Both chert raw material types were being used for similar types of reduction and tool production activities. This is inference is logical because both raw material types were apparently transported to the site from remote source locations.

The modified items in the Paleoindian assemblage are morphologically highly varied, with 18 separate morphological categories identified. These include bifaces in early, middle, and late stages of manufacture; formal unifacial tools made on prismatic blade segments; combination tools with both unifacial and bifacial edges; utilized flakes; and multiple retouched or resharpened items that show investment into edge shaping and maintenance. Based on tool categories, the modified item assemblage is diverse, with a calculated Brillouin Index of 0.949 and a Simpson Diversity Index of 0.915 (Brower and Zar 1977). While the Brillouin Index has no absolute maximum, values more than 1.0 are very rare. The Simpson Index has a maximum possible value of 1.0. Both indices indicate high morphological diversity in the Paleoindian modified item assemblage. Highly diverse tool assemblages are consistent with a variety of tasks being performed, which is a hallmark of generalized residential occupations. Lower diversity measures would suggest less types of activities, consistent with specialized or ephemeral occupations. The 13 tool categories in the Late Woodland assemblage from 15CH684 have a Brillouin Index of 0.634, indicating moderate tool diversity consistent with a less generalized set of activities.

81 Modified items in the Paleoindian subassemblage were subjected to low-magnification use-wear analysis. The results indicate relatively intensive use of tools, with most showing evidence of retouch, resharpening, or formal shaping. In addition, there is a high ratio (nearly 2:1) of used edges to modified items, especially for the unifacial tools. This indicates that many modified items were used more than once, or were used for multiple (perhaps related) tasks. There is also a high ratio of kinetic motions to modified items. Though six distinct kinetic motions were identified, the large majority of edges were used for either cutting, whittling, or scraping motions. Chiseling, splitting, and chopping were identified but in low numbers. Still, the relatively wide variety of kinetic motions (n=7, including used but unidentified motion) is consistent with use of the site as a generalized residential camp rather than as a special-function locus such as a butchering site. The Simpson Diversity Index for the kinetic motions is 0.713, while the Brillouin Index is 0.551. These are lower indices than those calculated for the morphological categories, but the number of possible motions is also lower than the number of possible tool morphologies. Most used tool edges were employed on hard objective material, but hard objective material creates more microflake and attrition damage than soft material, so soft material is generally under-represented in use-wear results. Even so, the mixture of hard and soft objective materials is also consistent with use of the site as a generalized domestic habitation.

EVALUATION OF RESEARCH TOPICS

Based on the results discussed above, we can address to a certain extent the research issues posed in Chapter 4. Conclusions are somewhat compromised by the fact that the artifact assemblage is potentially mixed, with both Late Woodland and Paleoindian components included in plow zone contexts. However, a presumably Paleoindian assemblage was extracted for more detailed analysis, and these results are pertinent to the research questions. These are addressed in below. What is particularly significant about the site and assemblage is the fact that general domestic habitation activities are not mixed with (and overshadowed by) quarry/workshop activities, as is the case at the Adams site (15CH90) and several others in the nearby Little River Complex (see Sanders 1990).

SITE FUNCTION

The initial interpretation of the Phase I assemblage from 15CH684 was that it represented the remains of generalized residential habitation activities of Paleoindian age. The assemblage does not include debris from quarry and workshop activities, like many Paleoindian sites in general vicinity. Use-wear analysis, morphological classification of modified items, and debitage analyses conducted for the Phase II investigations all indicate that the Paleoindian component at 15CH684 represents the remains of one or more generalized domestic occupations. The relatively low artifact density suggests relatively short duration of site use (perhaps a few weeks) or a limited number of short-term occupations that now are expressed as a single palimpsest component due to agricultural mixing.

The Paleoindian assemblage is morphologically and functionally diverse, which indicates that a relatively broad range of activities took place. This is consistent with use of the site as a generalized domestic habitation site. Unlike most other Paleoindian sites in the area that have been subjected to professional investigations and analyzed, 15CH684 does not show evidence of quarry/workshop activities as part of the site function. As such, the assemblage from 15CH684 represents one of the very few domestic/residential assemblages from the region. This makes the site in general of considerable interest to Paleoindian studies in the region, and hopefully the results described here can be of continued use in future research.

LITHIC PROCUREMENT AND CURATION STRATEGIES

A second research issue was evaluation of the strategies used by Paleoindian site inhabitants for lithic

82 resource procurement and curation. As discussed in Chapter 4, the types and uses of the chert raw material types may provide information on this research issue.

Though initial analysis of the Phase I assemblage from 15CH684 (Ahler and Istok 2012) identified St. Louis and Ste. Genevieve chert types, these identifications have been revised for the current project. Ste. Genevieve and Fort Payne chert are now the only two identifiable chert types recognized in the assemblage, along with burned unidentifiable chert. Re-examination of the Phase I assemblage confirmed that St. Louis chert was not present; what was formerly identified as St. Louis was in fact a variety of Ste. Genevieve chert.

Both Ste. Genevieve and Fort Payne chert outcrop some distance from the site location, and the locally available low-quality variety of Ste. Genevieve chert was not used for production of stone tools. These observation imply that all lithic resources recovered at 15CH684 were transported to the site by its occupants. These were probably transported in finished or partially reduced forms, and this inference is supported by the low proportions of primary flakes and shatter, both of which would be produced in large quantities if initial stages of lithic reduction were taking place on site. It is apparent that the Paleoindian inhabitants of 15CH684 had ready access to both Ste. Genevieve and Fort Payne chert sources, but it is also apparent that these sources are remote from the site location.

Debitage analysis using the biface reduction sequence developed here showed no statistically significant differences in the use of the two identifiable raw material types. Both chert types showed high proportions of secondary flakes and biface thinning and shaping flakes. The former flake type was likely produced from further reduction of partially reduced cores or bifaces, while the latter were most likely derived from late-stage bifacial shaping and retouch. This biface reduction trajectory is consistent with generalized residential activities that took place remote from raw material sources. These patterns are also consistent with use of the site by transient groups, and focus of use on high-quality chert is a hallmark of Paleoindian lithic resource exploitation.

With raw materials transported to a residential site that was occupied for some duration (not just an ephemeral occupation), evidence for tool curation would be expected, and that is the case at 15CH684. Several lines of evidence indicate consistent patterns of long-term tool curation. Three lines of evidence support an interpretation of curated tool use in the Paleoindian assemblage from 15CH684. First is the presence of usable blanks or preforms in the assemblage; fourteen bifaces (most of which are in early and intermediate stages of reduction) show no evidence of actual use. Usable bifacial tools appear to have been brought to the site, and undoubtedly some of these were further reduced on-site and converted to other tool forms. Secondly, there are multiple working edges on the modified items. There are 75 working edges documented on the 47 modified items that showed evidence of use, with the number of used edges varying between one and three per item. This is a ratio of about 1.6 used edges per item. This high ratio indicates that tools were not simply used expediently and discarded. When an item was selected for use, it was apparently curated and used multiple times or for multiple, perhaps related, purposes. Thirdly, there is abundant evidence of edge retouch or resharpening. Of 75 modified edges, 43 (57.3 percent) showed evidence of retouch (intentional shaping of the edge) or resharpening. In addition, of 61 modified items, only 14 (23.0 percent) are expedient utilized flakes. Tools generally were not selected for use on a casual basis, but were instead intentionally selected and were targeted for additional effort that shaped or resharpened edges.

These data and interpretations indicate that 15CH684 is a generalized residential habitation site that is embedded within and part of a larger settlement system. Occupants of 15CH684 brought tools and raw materials with them from other segments of the settlement system, and while on site, they curated and conserved these high-quality lithic artifacts. This information can help evaluate the broader settlement system.

PALEOINDIAN SETTLEMENT SYSTEMS

Use of 15CH684 as a generalized residential location in the Paleoindian period has been established

83 in the analyses and results discussed above. However, this interpretation raises other and related research questions. In particular, what was the reason this specific location was selected for occupation, and how does this site relate to others in the general settlement system?

It is apparent from the above discussions that Paleoindian occupants of 15CH684 had ready access to high-quality varieties of both Ste. Genevieve and Fort Payne chert, both of which are nonlocal to the site. This indicates that the source areas for these cherts were part of the regular settlement system of the time, either through direct access or through regular exchanges. Therefore the ordinary territorial range of site inhabitants would extend minimally to include both of these sources. Assuming that the quarry/workshop/ residence sites in the Little River Complex were the locations where high-quality Ste. Genevieve chert was obtained by occupants of 15CH684, the range covered for access to Ste. Genevieve chert measures at least 15- 17 kilometers northwest-southeast. Fort Payne outcrops about 68-70 km west of 15CH684. Assuming direct access to this raw material resource, there is a minimal raw material resource catchment area of about 1400 km2 for the Paleoindian inhabitants of 15CH684. This is not unreasonable, given that the 68 km to Fort Payne resources translates into about a 4-day journey on foot, at moderate pace of 17 km per day.

These calculations and the probable overall short duration of occupation of 15CH684 (as indicated by the low to moderate artifact density) suggest that 15CH684 is just one several of residential sites embedded within a relatively large territory. Perusal of Office of State Archaeology site forms provides some potential candidates for other short-term residential habitation sites in the general locality. These include 15CH319, located some 2 km southwest of 15CH684 (Sanders 1977); 15CH234, located about 7.5 km northeast of 15CH684; 15CH306, located about 7 km northwest of 15CH684; 15CH131, located about 8 km northeast of 15CH684; and 15CH117, located about 20 km northeast of 15CH684. Figure 7.1 shows the locations of these sites, along with sites in the Little River Complex. The Little River Complex includes Adams (15CH90 [Sanders 1988, 1990, Sanders and Maynard 1979, Gramly and Yahnig 1991]), Boyd (15CH236 [Freeman and Smith 1992; Freeman et al. 1996]), Roeder (15CH482; [Freeman and Smith 1992]), and Ezell (15CH483; [Freeman and Smith 1992; Freeman et al. 1996]). Two other sites along the Little River that are also listed in the OSA data base as having Clovis/Paleoindian components include 15CH217 and 15CH220). Unfortunately, little is known about these sites aside from what is on the site forms. Most of the Little River Complex sites are interpreted as quarry/workshop sites and retooling locations; any evidence of more general residential activities is overshadowed by the debris derived from early- and middle-stage lithic reduction. Consequently, these sites are generally not comparable to the range of activities and the site function inferred for 15CH684. More comparable assemblages are likely associated with 15CH306 or 15CH319, both of which are located on the interfluve and near the drainage divide between the Little River to the northwest and the Red River to the southeast (Figure 7.1). These sites are more remote from high-quality chert source areas, and their assemblages should reflect use of the site by transient residential groups.

Given that raw materials were transported to 15CH684, and the remoteness of this site from high- quality chert sources, it is apparent that exploitation of chert resources was not the reason that this location was selected for occupation by Paleoindian people. The 15CH684 site location may have been selected for occupation based its proximity to an extensive sinkhole, the southwestern edge of which is only about 100 meters from the site. Such sinkholes would have provided a combination of upland and wetland resources for site inhabitants. Of interest is the fact that 15CH319 and 15CH306 are also positioned close to sinkholes, as are several other sites in the general locality. One avenue for future research would be to core or trench the sinkholes adjacent to Paleoindian-age sites; this might provide direct evidence for exploitation of these microenvironments and may also yield pollen or macrobotanical data useful for reconstruction of the late Pleistocene environmental conditions.

Anderson (1990, 1996) and others have proposed a diachronic colonization model for Paleoindian settlement in eastern North America. Early Paleoindian settlement and colonization of the territory focused on areas that contained resources that were of high quality and quantity, including lithic raw materials for stone tool manufacture and concentrations of targeted game and plant resources. The lower Tennessee River and Cumberland River drainages (including the current project area) encompass one such colonization area,

84 Figure 7.1. Distributions of Known Clovis-age Sites near 15CH684. within which are found high-quality St. Louis, Ste. Geneviieve, and Fort Payne chert. Recovery of high numbers of Clovis points is evidence that supports this locality’s greater intensity of use. These initial colonization areas developed into staging areas for expandding populations during the Middle Paleoindian period.

This generalized colonization model attempts to account for patterns of projectile point distributions over the entirety of eastern North America and is not necessarily appropriate for any specific locality. A more local model of Paleoindian settlement patterns has been proposed for the Little River Complex. Gatus and Maynard (1978) posited that concentrations of plant and animal resources around sinkholes in karst landscapes were factors that attracted Paleoindians to establish sites on surrounding uplands. In addition, proximity to high-quality lithic resources—in particular Ste. Genevieve annd St. Louis nodular cherrts, but we can also add Fort Payne chert to this list—exposed near these same sinkholes encouraged longer-term occupation, quarrying, and workshop activities. The draw of both lithic annd subsistence resources provides a regional and more specific variant of Anderson’s general colonization and staging area model. These two models are not incompatible, but are simply focused on different scales of analysis and interpretation. In most respects, the data and interpretations for 15CH684 support the more specific locaal settlement model and also are consistent with the more generalized regional-scale model.

85 In particular, 15CH684 fits very well with the overall settlement pattern extracted from work at the Little River Complex sites of Adams, Ezell, Boyd, and Roeder. Common themes evident among the Little River Complex sites include the position of Clovis occupations adjacent to sinkholes and other wetland resources (Little River), the intensive use and reduction of high-quality Ste. Genevieve chert for manufacture of prismatic blades and tools fashioned on blade segments, and production of Clovis points using a distinctive reduction strategy. All of these site assemblages appear to be a mixture of quarry, workshop, and general habitation activities, with workshop debris dominating each assemblage. Freeman et al. (1996:401) interpret these sites as retooling locations where lithic tool kits were manufactured and replaced, with a strong emphasis on manufacturing activities, as opposed to activities relating to residential habitation. At 15CH684, the Paleoindian assemblage appears to reflect a more restricted range of activities, and is lacking the quarry and workshop activities that are so prominent in the Little River sites. However, the range of activities is still consistent with generalized residential habitation, both morphologically and in terms of kinetic motions interpreted from use-wear analyses. There does not appear to be a focus of specialized activities at 15CH684. The site does not appear to be a special-purpose occupation such as a hunting/butchering site or involved in other types of specialized resource extraction, such as plant or animal resources found specifically at sinkhole localities. This suggests that the settlement system for the locality involves movement of entire co-residential groups from one favorable location to another, coupled with longer-term residence at sites in close proximity to high-quality chert resources. This would be most similar to a forager type of settlement system as described by Carlson (1979) and Binford (1980), with repeated (or longer-term) residential occupation linked to the presence of predicable and abundant resources.

Based on the current investigations, 15CH684 has contributed to a better understanding of early Paleoindian settlement systems in the locality. The site interpretations have not contradicted either the more generalized colonization model of Anderson and his colleagues, or the more specific settlement model derived from work at the Little River Complex. It has added to the latter by establishing that 15CH684, remote from high-quality chert sources and not involved in quarry/workshop activities, represents a generalized residential occupation and not a specialized resource extraction location in the local settlement system. This finding in turn suggests that early Paleoindian settlement systems in the Christian County area were based on movement of entire residential groups, as would be expected in a generalized forager settlement model. There does not seem to be evidence for focused resource extraction activities that would indicate more of a collector-style settlement system with base camps and logistically organized resource extraction sites. While only incrementally contributing to these settlement models, it is still clear that the investigations conducted at 15CH684 have made contributions to regional research issues.

NRHP ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Phase II National Register eligibility assessment of 15CH684 involved several related stages of field and laboratory investigations. Excavation of backhoe trenches at the edge of the sinkhole adjacent to 15CH684 revealed a shallowly buried A horizon, but this soil was devoid of cultural material. Excavation of a long trench across the crest and eastern shoulder of the artifact scatter and site area revealed no A horizon remnants or cultural features preserved below plow zone. Controlled surface collection of the southern right- of-way corridor produced an suite of lithic debitage modified items that could be assigned to a Clovis Paleoindian component, and revealed no evidence of occupation during other time periods. Shovel testing along the northern right-of-way corridor revealed few additional artifacts but indicated possible intact subplow zone deposits in a shallow depression on the crest of the rise that contains the site. Test units placed in areas of high artifact density or within clusters of formal tools, as indicated in the controlled surface collection data, revealed no cultural features or intact artifact-bearing deposits below plow zone. A test unit placed in the shallow depression on the north side of NA revealed discontinuous sections of a possible A horizon remnant or perhaps an early plow zone. However, this zone had very low artifact density and produced no temporally diagnostic artifacts. In addition, a float sample from the plow zone in this test unit produced a single Late Woodland projectile point, indicating the presence of an additional temporal component at 15CH684.

86 Though the Late Woodland and Paleoindian components are not stratigraphically separable, the presence of heavy patina on a subset of the artifacts provided the means to identify a Paleoindian-age assemblage within the plow zone and surface collection debitage. To the patinated debitage was added modified items that were morphologically consistent with Paleoindian technology and manufacturing (e.g., overshot flakes, bifaces that fit within a Clovis production sequence, tools made on prismatic blades, and combination unifacial/bifacial tools), resulting in a Paleoindian analytical assemblage that was subjected to more detailed morphological and use-wear analyses. These analyses showed that Paleoindian materials were likely transported to the site in partially finished forms (such as bifaces in intermediate stages of manufacture, prismatic blades, and cores) that were further reduced and used on-site. All lithic material was identified as either Ste. Genevieve or Fort Payne chert, both of which are of high knapping quality, and both of which are nonlocal to the site area. The debitage profile for both chert types showed evidence for all stages of lithic reduction, but greater emphasis on later stages of manufacture. This is consistent with generalized lithic reduction activities and suggests generalized domestic habitation activities. Quarry/workshop activities are not indicated by the debitage profiles. A relatively wide range of morphological tool forms was identified, including bifaces in multiple stages of manufacture, formal and retouched unifacial tools, and combination unifacial and bifacial tools. This wide range of tool morphology also is indicative of generalized domestic habitation activities. Use-wear analysis of modified items indicates a relatively wide range of kinetic motions involved in the tool use (cutting, scraping, whittling, chopping, splitting, and chiseling), with cutting, whittling and scraping dominating the kinetic motions. Both hard and soft objective materials were worked. These observations again are consistent with generalized domestic habitation activities during the Paleoindian occupation of 15CH684. The relatively low artifact density at the site is consistent with short-term occupation, perhaps for a few continuous weeks or for a series of shorter episodes.

Documentation of a relatively short-term general residential location of Paleoindian age at 15CH684 would ordinarily make this site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D (scientific significance). The Paleoindian component at the site is particularly interesting because other Paleoindian sites in the locality that have been professionally investigated (sites in the Little River Complex such as Adams [15CH90], Boyd [15CH236], Roeder [15CH482], and Ezell [15CH483]) are all dominated by quarry/workshop debris or have evidence of multiple temporal components. The assemblage from 15CH684 apparently represents the remains of residential activities that are not overshadowed and mixed with the more abundant debris derived from quarry and workshop reduction activities. This provides a clearer picture of general domestic habitation activities that took place during the Paleoindian period. However, 15CH684 includes a Late Woodland component that has created a temporally mixed artifact assemblage. Though we have isolated and analyzed a probable Paleoindian subassemblage of artifacts based on patination and morphological criteria, the assemblage is still mixed and therefore has limited additional research potential. In addition, the absence of intact subplow zone deposits or features further reduces the overall research potential of the site and its associated artifact assemblage. On the positive side, analysis of the Paleoindian assemblage has contributed incrementally to a better understanding of local Paleoindian settlement systems by establishing that the site represents the remains of a residential habitation, not that of a specialized resource extraction site.

Considering all of these factors, we find that the research potential has been exhausted for the portion of 15CH684 that will be impacted by proposed construction. Consequently, this part of the site is not considered to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. No additional archaeological work is recommended for the portions of 15CH684 that lie within the currently proposed new rights-of-way (see Figure 1.4). However, this finding applies only to those portions of the site that have been investigated within the proposed new rights-of-way and construction easements. The site extends north and south of the proposed new rights-of-way, and these parts of 15CH684 have not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. Consequently, these areas are still considered to have research potential and to be potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. If other portions of 15CH684 will be impacted by future construction activities, additional archaeological investigations should be conducted to fully evaluate the research potential and NRHP eligibility status of these areas.

87 88 REFERENCES CITED

Allgood, Jessica L. 2002 Phase II National Register Evaluation of Archaeological Site 15Ch517 within the proposed U.S. 41A Reconstruction in Christian County, Kentucky (Item No. 2-308.20). Report No. K02P004. Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. Lexington, Kentucky.

Ahler, Stanley A. 1971 Projectile point form and function at Rodgers Shelter, Missouri. Missouri Archaeological Society Research Series 8. Columbia.

1979 Functional analysis of nonobisidian chipped stone artifacts: Terms, variables, and quantification. In Lithic Use Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 301-328. Academic Press, New York.

Ahler, Steven R. 1984 Archaic Settlement Strategies in the Modoc Locality, Southwest Illinois. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Ahler, Steven R., and Kimberley Istok 2012 Phase I Archaeological Survey between US 41A and KY 115, Christian County, Kentucky (KYTC Item No. 2-180.00). Report No. 722. University of Kentucky Program for Archeological Research, Lexington.

Ahler, Steven R., Dawn E. Harn, Margot Neverett, Marjorie B. Schroeder, Bonnie W. Styles, Robert E. Warren, Karli White, James L. Theler, and Robert A. Dunn 1997 Interdisciplinary Data Recovery and Analyses at Four Sites in the Ramsey Complex, Fort Leonard Wood, Pulaski County, Missouri. Report submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Contract No. DACA39-96-K-0036 (Neg). Illinois State Museum Society Quaternary Studies Program, Technical Report 97-1066-18. Springfield.

Anderson, David G. 1990 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America. In Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern North America, edited by K. B. Tankersley and B. L. Isaac, pp. 163-216. Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 5. JAI Press.

1996 Models of Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement. In The Paleo-Indian and Archaic Southeast, edited by David Anderson and Kenneth Sassaman, pp. 29-57. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Anderson, David G., and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr. 2002a Introduction to Woodland Archaeology in the Southeast. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 1-19. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Anderson, David G., Lisa D. O’Steen and Kenneth E. Sassaman 1996 Environmental and Chronological Considerations. In The Paleo-Indian and Archaic Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and K. E. Sassaman, pp. 3-15. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

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

89 Applegate, Darlene 2008 Archaeological Investigations at Hidden River Cave (15Ht69), Hart county, Kentucky: Report of 2001 Plateau Excavations. Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green.

Binford, Lewis R. 1980 Willow smoke and dogs' tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45(1): 4-20.

Bales-Becraft, Katie and Andrew Madsen 2004 A Phase I Archaeological Survey For The NA and Ky 511 Intersection Realignment Christian County, Kentucky. Report No. 514. University of Kentucky Program for Archaeological Research, Lexington, Kentucky.

Bradley, Bruce, Michael B. Collins, and Andrew Hemmings 2010 Clovis Technology. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Braun, E. Lucy 2001 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America (reprint). Hafner Press, New York. Originally published in 1950, Blackiston, Philadelphia.

Brower, James E. and Jerrold H. Zar 1977 Field and Laboratory Methods for General Ecology. Wm. C. Brown, Dubuque.

Caldwell, Joseph R. 1964 Interaction Spheres in Prehistory. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by Joseph R. Caldwell and Robert L. Hall, pp. 133-143. Scientific Papers No. 12. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

Callahan, Errett C. 1979 The basics of biface knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point tradition: A manual for flintknappers and lithic analysis. In Archaeology of Eastern North America, 7 (1): 1-180.

Carlson, David L. 1979 Hunter-gatherer Mobility Strategies: An Example from the Koster Site in the Lower Illinois Valley. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston.

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. 15-24. Mouton, The Hague.

Core, H.A., W. A. Cote, and A. C. Day 1979 Wood Structure and Identifications. Syracuse University Press.

Crabtree, D.E. 1982 An Introduction to Flintworking (Second Edition). Idaho State University Museum, Occasional Paper 28, Pocatello, Idaho.

Crothers, George, Charles Faulkner, Jan Simek, P. Willey, and Patty Jo Watson 2002 Woodland Cave Archaeology in Eastern North America. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 502-524. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

90 Deiss, Ronald William 1981 The Development and Application of a Chronology for American Glass. Manuscript on file at the Midwestern Archaeological Research Center, Illinois State University, Normal.

Delcourt, P. A., and H. R. Delcourt 1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 Years B.P. to the Present. Geobotany II, edited by P. Romans, pp. 123-165. Plenum Press, New York. 1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of the Southeastern United States. In Pollen Records of Late Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by V. Bryant and R. Holloway, pp. 1-28. American Association of Sedimentary Palynologists Foundation.

Dunbar, James S. and S. David Webb 1996 Bone and Ivory Tools from Submerged Paleoindian Sites in Florida. In The Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and K. E. Sassaman, pp. 331-353. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

DuVall, Glyn D. 1996 Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance of Proposed Area for Family Housing Improvements in Hammond Heights Fort Campbell, Kentucky-Tennessee. Report No. 024-137. DuVall & Associates, Inc. Franklin, Tennessee.

Fike, Richard E. 1987 Bottle Book: A Comprehensive Guide to Historic, Embossed, Medicine Bottles. Peregrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City.

Flenniken, J. J. 1987 The Lithic Technology of the East Lake Site, Newberry Crater, Oregon. Report prepared for the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Deshutes National Forest, Bend, Oregon.

Fox, K.F. and Seeland, D.A. 1963 Geology of the Canton quadrangle, Kentucky: U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-279

Freeman, Andrea K. L., and Edward E. Smith 1992 Geoarchaeological Investigations in the Vicinity of the Little River Paleoindian Sites Complex: 1991 Season. Current Research in the Pleistocene 9:121-122.

Freeman, Andrea K. L., Edward E. Smith, Jr., and Kenneth B. Tankersley 1996 A Stone’s Throw from Kimmswick: Clovis Period Research in Kentucky. In The Paleoindian and Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 385-403. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Froedge, Ronald D. 1980 Soil Survey of Christian County, Kentucky. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.

Gatus, Thomas W., and David R. Maynard 1978 Karst Topography: A Factor Associated with Paleo-Indian Settlement in Certain Areas of Kentucky. Tennessee Anthropologist

Grace, Roger 1989 Interpreting the Function of Stone Tools: The Quantification and Computerization of

91 Microwear Analysis. B.A.R. International Series No. 474. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

1993 The Use of Expert Systems in Lithic Analysis. Traces et Fonction: les Gestes. Retrouves’. Eraul 50 (Vol. 2):389-400, Leige.

1997 The Chaine Operatoire Approach to Lithic Analysis. Internet site address http://www.hf.uio.no/iakk/roger/lithic.opchainpaper

Gramly, Richard M., and Carl Yahnig 1991 The Adams Site (15Ch90) and the Little River, Christian County, Kentucky, Clovis Workshop Complex. Southeastern Archaeology 10:134-145

Gremillion, Kristen J. 2002 The Development and Dispersal of Agricultural Systems in the Woodland Period Southeast. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 483- 501. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Haag, Christa M 2004 An Analysis of Clovis Blade Reduction Sequences from the Adams Site (15CH90) and the Joe Priddy Site (15HD583): Implications for Early Paleoindian Mobility and Lithic Procurement in Kentucky. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky.

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

Keeley, Lawrence A. 1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Klemic, Harry 1966 Geologic map of the Oak Grove quadrangle, Kentucky-Tennessee. U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-565.

Kline, Gerald W., Gary D. Crites, and Charles H. Faulkner 1982 The McFarland Project: Early Middle Woodland Settlement and Subsistence in the Upper Duck River Valley in Tennessee. Miscellaneous Paper No. 8. Tennessee Anthropological Association, Knoxville.

Koldehoff, Brad 1985 Southern Illinois Cherts: A Guide to Silicious Materials Exploited by Prehistoric Populations in Southern Illinois. Center for Archaeological Investigations. Manuscript on file.

Kreisa, Paul P., and Charles Stout 1991 Trends and Trajectory in Western Kentucky Woodland Period Settlement Patterning. In The Human Landscape in Kentucky’s Past: Site Structure and Settlement Patterns, edited by Charles Stout and Christine K. Hensley, pp. 98-105. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

Lawerence, Robert A. 1979 Experimental Evidence for the Significance of Attributes Used in Edge-Damage Analysis. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 113-121, Academic Press, New York.

92 Maggard, Greg, and Kary Stackelbeck 2008 Paleoindian Period. In The Archaeology of Kentucky: An Update, edited by D. L. Pollack, pp. 109-192. State Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan Report No. 3. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

Mansberger, Floyd Ray 1981 An Ethnohistorical Analysis of Two Nineteenth Century Illinois Farmsteads. M.S. thesis, Illinois State University. Normal, Illinois.

Martin, Paul S. 1958 Pleistocene Ecology and Biogeography of North America. In Zoogeography, edited by C. L. Hubbs, pp. 375-420. Publication 51. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.

Martin, Alexander C. and William D. Barkley 2000 Seed Identification Manual. Second edition. The Blackburn Press, Caldwell, New Jersey.

McBride, W. Stephen, and Kim A. McBride 2008 Historic Period. In The Archaeology of Kentucky: An Update, edited by D. L. Pollack, pp. 903-1132. State Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan Report No. 3. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

McGrain, Preston, and James C. Currens 1978 Topography of Kentucky. Special Publication 25. University of Kentucky, Kentucky Geological Survey, Lexington.

Minnis, Paul 1987 Identification of Wood from Archaeological Sites in the American Southwest. I. Keys for Gymnosperms. Journal of Archaeological Science 14: 121-131.

Montgomery, Frederick H. 1977 Seeds and Fruits of Plants of Eastern Canada and Northeastern United States. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Muenscher, W. C. 1980 Weeds. 2nd edition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.

Munsey, C. 1970 The Illustrated Guide to Collecting Bottles. Hawthorn Books, New York.

Nelson, Lars H. 1968 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings. Technical Leaflet 48, American Association for State and Local History, Nashville, Tennessee.

Odell, George H. 1979 A New and Improved System for the Retrieval of Functional Information from Microscopic Observations of Chipped Stone Tools. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 329-344. Academic Press, New York.

2003 Lithic Analysis. Springer, New York.

O’Malley, Nancy 1987 “Stockading Up”: A Study of Pioneer Stations in the Inner Bluegrass Region of Kentucky.

93 Program for Cultural Resource Assessment, University of Kentucky, Archaeological Report No. 127, Lexington.

Panshin A. J., and C. de Zeeuw 1980 Textbook of Wood Technology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.

Pearsall, Deborah M. 2000 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. Second edition. Academic Press, New York.

Pollack, David (editor) 1990 The Archaeology of Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and Future Directions. State Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan Report No. 1, Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

2008 The Archaeology of Kentucky: An Update. State Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan Report No. 3. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

Pollack, David, and A. Gwynn Henderson 2000 Late Woodland Cultures in Kentucky. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation across the Midcontinent, edited by Thomas E. Emerson, Dale L. McElrath, and Andrew C. Fortier, pp. 613-641. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Railey, Jimmy A. 1990 Woodland Period. In The Archaeology of Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and Future Directions, edited by David Pollack, pp. 247-374. State Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan Report No. 1. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

Redmond, Brian G., and Kenneth B. Tankersley 2005 Evidence of Early Paleoindian Bone Modification and Use at the Sheriden Cave Site (33WY252), Wyandot County, Ohio. American Antiquity 70(3): 503-526.

Rossen, Jack 1991 Kentucky Landscapes: The Role of Environmental Reconstruction in Settlement Pattern Studies. In The Human Landscape in Kentucky’s Past: Site Structure and Settlement Patterns, edited by Charles Stout and Christine K. Hensley, pp. 1-7. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

Rossen, Jack, and James Olson 1985 The Controlled Carbonization and Archaeological Analysis of SE U.S. Wood Charcoals. Journal of Field Archaeology 12: 445-456.

Sanders, Thomas 1977 Site 15Ch319. Site form on file with the Office of State Archaeology, Lexington.

1988 The Adams Site: A Paleoindian Manufacturing and Habitation Site in Christian County, Kentucky. In Paleoindian and Archaic Research in Kentucky, edited by C. Hockensmith, D. Pollack, and T. Sanders, pp. 1-24. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

1990 Adams: The Manufacturing of Flaked Stone Tools at a Paleoindian Site in Western Kentucky. Persimmon Press Monographs in Archaeology. Persimmon Press, Buffalo, New York.

Sanders, Thomas N. (editor) 2006 Specifications for Conducting Fieldwork and Preparing Cultural Resource Assessment

94 Reports. Edition 6.1. Kentucky State Historic Preservation Office and Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

Sanders, Thomas N. and David R. Maynard 1979 A Reconnaissance and Evaluation of Archaeological Sites in Christian County, Kentucky. Archaeological Survey Reports, No. 12, Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort, Kentucky.

Schock, Jack M. 1982 An Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Proposed 8 Acre Kentucky Manor and 10 Acre Bluegrass Lodge Housing Projects near Oak, Grove Kentucky in Southern Christian County, Kentucky. OSA Report No. 024-028. Arrow Enterprises, Bowling Green, Kentucky.

1990 A Cultural Reconnaissance of Approximately Ten Acres for a Proposed Soil Borrow Pit for Pembroke-Oak Grove (KY115) Road Project in Christian County, Kentucky. OSA Report No. 024-064. Arrow Enterprises, Bowling Green, Kentucky.

1992 A Cultural Reconnaissance of Approximately 10 Acres for the Proposed Oak Grove Recreation Center at Oak Grove in Christian County, Kentucky. OSA Report No. 024-064. Arrow Enterprise, Bowling Green, Kentucky.

2010 An Archaeological Survey of Eight Miles for 16”Waterlines for Oak Grove in Christian County, Kentucky. OSA Report No. 024-155. Arrow Enterprises, Bowling Green, Kentucky.

Schock, Jack M., and James D. Wyss 1970 Archaeological Survey and Testing of Section 3, Interstate 24, KY. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Western Kentucky University. Occasional Papers in Anthropology, No. 1.

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

Stacklebeck, Kary and Philip B. Mink 2008 Overview of Prehistoric Archaeological Research in Kentucky. In The Archaeology of Kentucky: An Update, edited by D. Pollack, pp. 27-108. State Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan Report No. 3. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

Stallings, R., and N. Ross-Stallings 2002 A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Pennyrile Parkway Extension, Christian County, Kentucky. Report No. 00-16, Cultural Horizons, Inc., Harrodsburg, Kentucky.

Stetar, Thomas A. and Aaron D. Zibart 1996 Phase I Archaeological Survey of U.S. 41-A Hopkinsville/Clarksville Road Christian County, Kentucky. Report No. 2-308.00. Wilbur Smith Associates, Lexington.

Tankersley, Kenneth B. 1990 Paleoindian Period. In. The Archaeology of Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and Future Directions, edited by D. Pollack, pp. 73-142. State Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan Report No. 1. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

1996 Ice Age Hunters and Gatherers. In Kentucky Archaeology, edited by R. Barry Lewis, pp. 21- 38. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.

95 Thomas, David Hurst 1976 Figuring Anthropology. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., New York.

Thompson, G. B. 1994 Wood Charcoals from Tropical Sites: A Contribution to Methodology and Interpretation. In Tropical Archaeobotany: Applications and New Developments, edited by Jon G. Hather, pp. 9-33. Routledge, New York.

Tixier, J. Inizan, and H. Roche 1980 Prehistoire de la Pierre Taille, Vol. 1. Terminologie, Cercle de Reserches et Etude Prehistoriques, Antibes.

Tringham, Ruth, Glenn Cooper, George Odell, Barbara Voytek, and Anne Whitman 1974 Experimentation in the formation of damage: A new approach to lithic analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 1:171-196.

Turner, William T. (Compiler) 1974 Gateway from the Past: A Pictorial History Commemorating the 175th Anniversary of Hopkinsville and Christian County, Kentucky. Hopkinsville, Kentucky.

Versluis, Vincent 1997 A Phase I Archaeological Survey of a 60 Acre Proposed Tourism and Convention Center Location, Near Oak Grove, Christian County, Kentucky. Report No. 97-5. Archaeology Service Center, Murray, Kentucky.

Webb, W. S., and W. D. Funkhouser 1928 Ancient Life in Kentucky. The Kentucky Geological Survey, Frankfort.

Young, James A. and Cheryl G. Young 1992 Seeds of Woody Plants in North America. Dioscorides Press, Portland, Oregon.

96