A New Assessment of the Archaeological Significance of the Ashworth Site (15Bu236)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository Electronic Theses and Dissertations 7-1981 A new assessment of the archaeological significance of the Ashworth site (15Bu236). Philip James DiBlasi 1954- University of Louisville Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd Recommended Citation DiBlasi, Philip James 1954-, "A new assessment of the archaeological significance of the Ashworth site (15Bu236)." (1981). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 342. https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/342 This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A NEW ASSESSMENT OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ASHWORTH SITE (15Bu236) A Study of the Dynamics of Archaeological Investigation in Cultural Resource Management By Philip James DiBlasi B.A., University of Louisville, 1976 A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Louisville in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Interdisciplinary Studies University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky July 1981 A NEW ASSESSMENT OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ASHWORTH SITE (15Bu236) A Study of the Dynamics of Archaeological Investigation in Cultural Resource Management By Philip James DiBlasi B.A., University of Louisville, 1976 A Thesis Approved on August 4, 1981 by the following Reading Committee: Thesis Director Stuart E. Neff ii ABSTRACT Reinvestigation of a National Register property, the Ashworth Rockshelter (15BU236), northeast of Shepardsville, Bullitt Co., Ken tucky, revealed stratified Early Archaic through Mississippian compo nents (ca. 7900 B.C.-1500 A.D.). Primary occupation occurred under the shelter and eight meters (horizontally) of talus were located. The depth of the deposit is two meters, the lowest third representing the Early Archaic period. Forty-five culturally-diagnostic projectile points delineated the strata. Seven well-preserved burials indicate early mortality, severe physical conditions, and a preference to bury under the shelter. Well preserved mollusks and vertebrate remains indicate a subsistence shift from aquatic to forest-edge communities from Early to Late Archaic periods. Federal legislation relevant to the significance statement must be observed if sites such as Ashworth are to be fully assessed and their priority determined in an archaeological planning design for the region. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author gratefully acknowledges the financial assistance of the University of Louisville's Archaeological Survey and the Dean's Office of the Graduate School. The author also wishes to express his thanks to the following persons whose assistance has made this work possible: Ronald C. Wilson, Paul W. Parmalee, and John E. Guilday for their identification of the vertebrate remains; William F. Clench, Stuart E. Neff, James L. Conkin, and Paul D. Barker for their identi fication of the mollusks recovered, Philip A. DiBlasi and Stuart E. Neff for their assistance with burial four; Joseph E. Granger for his overall guidance (and library) and finally the Ashworth family for allowing me to excavate on their property. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES..................................................... vi LIST OF MAPS AND FIGURES........................................... vi i INTRODUCTION. 1 NATURAL HISTORY OF SITE AREA....................................... 4 Geo 1ogy- Pedo logy. 4 Flora......................................................... 9 Fauna ......................................................... 11 Proximity and Availability of Salt.. .......................... 14 Summary. 14 EXCAVATIONS AND FINDS.............................................. 16 Excavations.. .. .. .. ... ... .... .. .... .. ... .. 16 Strati graphy. 20 Features...................................................... 22 Culturally-diagnostic Objects................................. 26 Diagnostic Projectiles........................... .............. 30 Non-diagnostic Projectiles and Fragments............... ....... 54 Ceramics and Fired Clay....................................... 57 Burials and Human Remains..................................... 66 Faunal Remains................................................ 80 Vertebrates. 80 Mo 11 us ca . 84 Radiocarbon Determinations.................................... 88 SUMMARY OF EXCAVATIONS............................................. 90 CUL TURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OVERV I EW .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 93 REFERENCES. 97 APPENDIX A: BURIAL DATA........................................... 102 APPENDIX B: FAUNAL REMAINS........................................ 109 VITA ............................... , ................... , . .... .. .. 116 v LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1. LateArchaicStenmed Projectiles.......................... 39 TABLE 2. Salt River Side Notched Projectiles...................... 43 TABLE 3. Ashworth Corner Notched Projectiles...... ......... ....... 52 TABLE 4. Nondiagnostic Material Culture........................... 63 TABLE 5. Nondiagnostic Material Culture - NOW2 (Profi 1e Control Unit)................................... 65 TABLE 6. The Ten r~ost Common Vertebrates from Occupied Strata.......................................... 82 TABLE 7. Percentages of Class of Animals from all Identi fi ed Bone.......................................... 82 TABLE 8. Molluscs Identified from NOWIO...... ............ ... ...... 85 vi LIST OF MAPS AND FIGURES Page MAP 1. Location of the Ashworth Site, Brooks and Shepardsville, Kentucky 7.5 1 U.S.G.S....................... 5 FIGURE 1. Plan of the Ashworth Site and excavated units.......... 6 FIGURE 2. South wall profile of excavation units........... ...... 8 FIGURE 3. The stratigraphy at the Ashworth Site ................ ,. 21 FIGURE 4. Feature locations at the Ashworth Site...... .... ....... 23 FIGURE 5. Woodland and Late Archaic features........ ....... ...... 24 FIGURE 6. Early Archaic features. ............ .............. ...... 27 FIGURE 7. Temporal and stratigraphic position of projectile points at the Ashworth Site............ ... ... ..... ..... 29 FIGURE 8. Woodland projectile points recovered from Stratum A....... 37 FIGURE 9. Late Archaic stemmed projectile points recovered from Stratum B......... ............... ....... 37 FIGURE 10. Salt River Side Notched projectile points recovered from Stratum B......................... ...... 41 FIGURE 11. Middle and late Early Archaic projectile points recovered from Stratum B........ .......... ...... 44 FIGURE 12. Ashworth Corner Notched projectile points recovered from Stratum C................. .............. 49 FIGURE 13. Ashworth Corner Notched projectile points recovered from Stratum C............................... 50 FIGURE 14. Non-diagnostic projectile points and fragments......... 55 FIGURE 15. Burial locations........... ............................ 67 vii INTRODUCTION The Ashworth site (15Bu236) located in Bullitt County, Kentucky, was first discovered in 1974 as part of an environmental assessment for the relocation and expansion of the Kentucky Turnpike (Interstate 65). This reconnaissance found eleven archaeological sites. In an effort to assess the significance of these resources, the principal investiga tor, Betty J. McGraw, tested five of the sites (McGraw 1977:88). These test excavations revealed that only the Ashworth site was possibly eli gible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The State Historic Preservation Officer certified that the site had been evaluated and forwarded the nomination on 14 July, 1975, and the site was entered in the National Register on 11 September, 1975. The draft environmental impact assessment, prepared by the Kentucky Department of Transportation (KYDOT), was circulated for com ment in 1977. Comments discussed in a number of public meetings were also considered. Both the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) and the University of Louisville Archaeological Survey (ULAS) raised questions concerning the thoroughness and the legality of the archaeology that B. J. McGraw had carried out. The OSA comments also commented on the archaeological impact assessment, stating that it did not: 1) provide adequate treatment of the resources, 2) comply with federal law and regulation, 3) made erroneous statements concerning impacts, 4) signi ficance of several of the sites had not yet been determined, and 5) a mitigation plan (for sites that might be determined significant) needed to be proposed. 1 2 The University of Louisville Archaeological Survey raised ques tions that dealt specifically with the Ashworth site. Collectively, the specific points addressed were concerned with the questionable sampling methods that led to an incomplete testing of the site and, as a result, an incomplete statement of its significance. Neither exist ing and possible impacts nor specific mitigation alternatives were dis cussed. The Kentucky Department of Transportation (KYDOT 1978) treated these reviewers· comments in a perfunctory manner in the final environ