Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

Home , Cistern, Gerard Fowke, Nolichucky River

TTEENNNNEESSSSEEEE AARRCCHHAAEEOOLLOOGGYY

Volume 2 Fall 2006 Number 2

EDITORIAL COORDINATORS Michael C. Moore TTEENNNNEESSSSEEEE AARRCCHHAAEEOOLLOOGGYY Tennessee Division of Archaeology

Kevin E. Smith Middle Tennessee State University VOLUME 2 Fall 2006 NUMBER 2

EDITORIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE David Anderson 62 EDITORS CORNER University of T ennessee ARTICLES Patrick Cummins Alliance for Native American Indian Rights 63 The Archaeology of Linville Cave (40SL24),

Boyce Driskell Sullivan County, Tennessee University of T ennessee JAY D. FRANKLIN AND S.D. DEAN

Jay Franklin 83 Archaeological Investigations on Ropers East Tennessee State University Knob: A Fortified Civil War Site in Williamson County, Tennessee Patrick Garrow BENJAMIN C. NANCE Dandridge, Tennessee

Zada Law 107 Deep Testing Methods in Alluvial Ashland City, Tennessee Environments: Coring vs. Trenching on the Nolichucky River Larry McKee SARAH C. SHERWOOD AND JAMES J. KOCIS TRC, Inc.

Tanya Peres RESEARCH REPORTS Middle Tennessee State University 120 A Preliminary Analysis of Clovis through Sarah Sherwood Early Archaic Components at the Widemeier University of Tennessee Site (40DV9), Davidson County, Tennessee Samuel D. Smith JOHN BROSTER, MARK NORTON, BOBBY HULAN, Tennessee Division of Archaeology AND ELLIS DURHAM

Guy Weaver Weaver and Associates LLC

Tennessee Archaeology is published semi-annually in electronic print format by the Tennessee Council for Professional Archaeology.

Correspondence about manuscripts for the journal should be addressed to Michael C. Moore, Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Cole Building #3, 1216 Foster Avenue, Nashville TN 37210.

The Tennessee Council for Professional Archaeology disclaims responsibility for statements, whether fact or of opinion, made by contributors.

On the Cover: Ceramics from Linville Cave, Courtesy, Jay Franklin and S.D. Dean EDITORS CORNER

Welcome to the fourth issue of Tennessee Archaeology. Since posting of the first issue electronically (August 13, 2004), over 2100 visitors have tapped that issue. The second issue (June 16, 2005) received almost 900 “hits” and the third issue has been visited over 350 times since posting on February 13, 2006. We hope this means that the articles are being tapped as useful resources by the interested public and scholars alike. The editors are pursuing avenues to expand the visibility of the journal, including an application for an ISSN (International Standard Serial Number) from the Library of Con- gress. We are also evaluating the best fashion to have the journal indexed electronically for access in academic and other libraries. By the publication of the first issue of Volume 3, we will hope to see expanded awareness and use of the journal. We take this opportunity to extend our thanks to the many scholars who have provided professional assistance with timely and thorough reviews of submitted articles. As always, our greatest thanks go to the contributing authors. We look forward to working with other colleagues over the next few months as we begin putting together Volume 3.

ERRATA On page 2 of Volume 2, Issue 1, an incorrect citation was included in the references for the Editors Cor- ner. Incorrect Citation: Smith, Kevin E. and Emily L. Beahm 2005 Castalian Springs (40SU14): A Mississippian Chiefdom Center in the Nashville Basin of Tennes- see. Paper presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Nashville. Correct Citation: Smith, Kevin E. and Emily L. Beahm 2005 Castalian Springs (40SU14): A Mississippian Chiefdom Center in the Nashville Basin of Tennes- see. Paper presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Columbia.

62 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF LINVILLE CAVE (40SL24), SULLIVAN COUNTY, TENNESSEE

Jay D. Franklin and S.D. Dean

Linville Cave is more popularly known in upper East Tennessee as Appalachian Caverns. Sal- vage excavations were conducted at Linville Cave from late winter 1990 through spring 1991 by S. D. Dean as part of a commercial venture. This article presents a detailed overview of the archaeological record of Linville Cave and a new radiocarbon date. Prehistoric Native Americans intermittently used the cave vestibule as a late fall hunting and retooling camp during the early Middle Woodland into the Late Woodland period.

Appalachian Caverns (historically 1978). Extensive excavations by S.D. known as Linville Cave) is a large, exten- Dean at the Eastman Rockshelter yielded sive karst system near Blountville in Sulli- several reports (Faulkner 1982; Faulkner van County, Tennessee. Confusion some- and Dean 1982; Manzano 1986). There times arises because there is a Linville are no other reported investigations of Na- Caverns across the state border in North tive American use of sheltered sites in Carolina, as well as an Appalachian Cav- Sullivan County. The archaeology of Lin- erns in Virginia. The historic name is used ville Cave therefore offers a unique oppor- because the site is listed as Linville Cave tunity to examine aboriginal cave use in on the Blountville USGS topographic the Holston Valley. This article describes quadrangle, and on the site form submit- the results of archaeological excavations ted to the Tennessee Division of Archae- in Linville Cave undertaken by S. D. Dean ology (Figure 1). from December 1990 through April 1991. Excavations in Linville Cave were conducted in response to construction ef- Background forts to develop the site as a commercial cave. The excavations revealed buried, Linville Cave was named for two intact cultural deposits spanning the brothers who were among the first to take Woodland period. Ephemeral historic de- up residence during the early historic set- posits were encountered above the tling of Sullivan County. The Linville Woodland levels. Pleistocene faunal ma- brothers were long hunters who often terial was also recovered from the cave made extended journeys away from but is beyond the scope of this article.1 home, and these journeys apparently While Pleistocene fauna caves are brought them into contact with Native very common in Sullivan County (see Americans. Legend holds that one day the Corgan and Breitburg 1996 for an inven- two encountered a “band of Indians” very tory), archaeological caves are not. In near the cave mouth. During an ensuing fact, very little archaeology in Sullivan skirmish, John Linville was mortally County has been reported or published. wounded, whereupon his brother carried Doug Jordan (1956) reported the find of a him into the cave where he died upon a Clovis point not far from Linville Cave. large rock (for some time it was said that There were several Early Archaic artifacts he was buried in the cave). The name recovered from paleontological excava- Linville Cave remained in use until 1988 tions at Baker Bluff Cave (Guilday et al. when the cave became commercially

63 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

FIGURE 1. Location of Linville Cave (USGS Blountville TN/VA 7.5’ Quadrangle, 197SE) known as Appalachian Caverns. This well Apparently it is of great extent, for known cave has been the subject of sev- large sink holes connected with it are eral colorful legends (Holt 1967; Taylor scattered over an area of several hun- 1909), including the presence of Icelandic dred acres. There are three principal inscriptions on the cave walls (Roger openings. The largest is near the top of a knoll or low hill, and is due to falling in of Hartley, personal communication, 2005). the roof. The sunken part has an area of The authors examined the “inscriptions” about 30 by 60 feet. Both ends of the and found them to be natural erosional cavern may be entered from the fallen features in the limestone. rocks and earth. At one side the descent Linville Cave was first systematically is precipitous and winding, over and investigated by Gerard Fowke of the Bu- among large fallen rocks. No level place reau of American Ethnology in the early is reached in daylight. At the other side 1920s. Fowke (1922:124) describes the the descent follows the natural dip of the cave in great detail: strata and no level space can be found

64 Linville Cave

FIGURE 2. Sinkhole vestibule entrance.

from which the entrance is visible. This ters wide, and bordered by the Unaka part, also, is filled with rocks, large and Mountains to the southeast and the Cum- small, from the roof and sides, and was berland Plateau to the northwest. never habitable. The Ridge and Valley consists of rocks formed through sedimentary deposition In the end, Fowke (1922:125) con- during the Paleozoic Era. The deposits cluded that “excavations would be difficult were laid down in a large geosyncline re- and useless.” sulting in formations thousands of meters in thickness (Luther 1977). The sediments Physiographic and Geologic Setting deposited in this trough, which later became the bedrock for Linville Cave, oc- Linville Cave is situated in the Ridge curred during the Lower Ordovician, ca. and Valley physiographic province of 490-477 million years ago. Today this Tennessee (Figure 1). Often called the geologic horizon is recognized as the Great Valley of East Tennessee, the Kingsport Formation of the Knox Group Ridge and Valley is an intermontane belt (Barry Miller, personal communication of parallel ridges and intervening valleys 2004). trending in a northeast-southwest direc- Geographically, Linville Cave is lo- tion for more than 320 kilometers (Amick cated approximately 433 meters AMSL. and Rollins 1937). In Sullivan County, the The cave entrance is about 3.7 kilometers Great Valley is approximately 64 kilome- southeast of the Blountville Courthouse at

65 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

an elongated sink along Linville Branch southwest grid was established, and 38 1- (Barr 1961). The South Fork of the Hol- m by 1-m squares were laid out to be ex- ston River, now inundated by Boone cavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels Lake, lies 1.6 kilometers to the south. Lin- (Figure 3). All sediments were dry ville Branch, which flows through the screened through ¼” hardware mesh. An lower part of the cave, flows southeast estimated nine tons of sediments were into Beaver Creek 1.4 kilometers from the excavated and screened on site. An addi- lower back entrance of the cave. tional 1.5 tons of sediment and debris Linville Cave has three entrances, one were water screened and processed away on the upper level which trends southeast from the cave site. into the cave (91.4 meters in length) and The deepest excavation units reached two on the lower level (304.8 meters in 60 centimeters below surface, although total length). Linville Branch flows in and archaeological remains were recovered out of the cave by the lower two entrances only in the top 40 centimeters. Three fea- (Barr 1961:436). All excavation at the site tures were recorded during the investiga- was limited to the sinkhole vestibule lo- tions. The feature fill was excavated by cated on the upper level of the cave (Fig- trowel and water screened. Bulk sediment ure 2). This entrance faces southwest. samples from each feature were also Maximum dimensions are approximately taken for future analysis. Feature 3 con- 10 meters wide by 5.5 meters high. tained a substantial amount of wood charcoal that was collected for potential radio- Excavations carbon dating.

S. D. Dean first visited the cave in Stratigraphy February 1967 and scraped some sediment from a large rock area just inside the The sedimentary deposits in the sink- cave entrance. He recovered three cord- hole vestibule of Linville Cave are almost marked ceramic sherds with limestone exclusively the result of colluvial deposi- temper and tentatively assigned them to a tion from both inside (autochthonous) and Middle or Late Woodland cultural affilia- outside (allochthonous) the cave. Atop the tion. Five faunal elements were sent to northeastern corner of Unit A8 is an over- the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh and head fissure (see Figure 3). Water from identified as modern bovine molar and the ground surface outside the cave mov- four turtle carapace fragments (John Guil- ing through the more ancient deposits in day, personal communication 1969). the overhead fissure is responsible for the Dean’s interest in the archaeology of Pleistocene deposits in the vestibule. Linville Cave was renewed in November Therefore, all of the recovered Pleisto- 1990 after learning the cave was being cene fauna was recovered in secondary commercially developed. Contact with the position in the excavation block. The north cave’s owners led to an agreement for wall of the vestibule contained colluvial Dean to excavate a portion of the cave’s material more than one meter thick. This vestibule in order to examine the nature material washed in from outside the cave and extent of the archaeological deposits. but covered only a portion of the vestibule Archaeological excavations at Linville area to be excavated (ca. 30 centimeters). Cave began in December 1990 and con- Erosion and tree root disturbance from the tinued through April 1991. A northeast- top of the overhang, six meters southwest

66 Linville Cave

FIGURE 3. Plan-view of sinkhole vestibule showing excavation units. of the excavation block, also released col- the cave’s vestibule. These strata were luvium into the vestibule. These colluvial further differentiated into eight substrata processes formed the two major strata in (Figure 4). Allochthonous colluvial de-

67 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

FIGURE 4. Profile of substrata in cave vestibule.

FIGURE 5. Features 1 and 2. posits from outside the cave are repre- posits from within the cave are represented by substrata 1, 4, 6, and 8. These sented by substrata 2 and 5. These sub- typically brown-colored strata were in no strata were visually easily distinguishable place more than 15 centimeters deep. from the allochthonous substrata. Further, The archaeological materials were recov- all of the Pleistocene faunal remains were ered from allochthonous colluvial sub- recovered from Substrata 2 or 5. strata. The autochthonous colluvial de- Two substrata, 3 and 7, were gray-

68 Linville Cave

colored sediments that resulted from solu- the site. Late Pleistocene faunal remains tion of the dolomite in the cave ceiling and were recovered from autochthonous de- walls precipitating into the cave floor posits in Units A8, D6, and D8. Shovel sediments. Underneath the deposits re- testing in the overhead fissure above Unit moved by the archaeological excavations A8 confirms this location as the source of were two more ancient carbonate depos- the Pleistocene fauna recovered in the its. A section of the cave floor also under- excavation block. Finally, with the excep- neath the excavation block revealed a tion of the ephemeral Features 1 and 2, laminar structure. Finally, beneath Units there was evidence of stratified historic A8–D8 were rimstone dams that once deposits in the cave. held intermittent pools of water. Archaeological materials from the cave Archaeological Features vestibule (discussed below) were recovered from the top 30 centimeters of de- Features 1 and 2 appear to be the re- posits. Deposition is therefore likely no sult of modern historic activities (Figure older than about 3,000 years ago. Al- 5). Local inhabitants have indicated that though no diagnostic artifacts were recov- they are likely the remnants of small fires ered from Level 4 anywhere in the cave’s associated with the production of moon- vestibule, sediment deposition in Level 4 shine. These two features are consistent is identical to that of Level 3. Therefore, it with numerous rock shelter moonshine was probably not deposited much earlier still sites recorded on the Upper Cumber- than 3,000 years ago. With the exception land Plateau in southeastern Kentucky of Feature 3, prehistoric Native American (Tim Smith, personal communication, activities in the cave vestibule had little to 2006). no impact on the natural stratigraphy of Feature 3 was identified in Unit C3,

FIGURE 6. Feature 3 plan view and profile.

69 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

FIGURE 7. Faunal elements bearing cut marks.

Level 2 (see Figure 3). This roughly circu- Radiocarbon Date lar feature measured 45 centimeters in diameter and 13 centimeters deep (Figure A single piece of wood charcoal from 6). Feature 3 contained an abundance of Feature 3 was submitted to the NSF- wood charcoal, burned hickory nutshell Arizona AMS laboratory for radiocarbon fragments (n=8), burned mammal bones dating. The resulting age assay was 1349 (n=17), burned limestone fragments +/- 36 B.P. (AA-65705). At the 1-sigma (n=3), flaking debris (n=1), a biface (n=1), level, the calibrated mean date is cal A.D. and prehistoric pottery sherds (n=25). Al- 675. The associated ceramics are consis- though most of the faunal material was tent with the radiocarbon determination unidentifiable, four specimens comprised and will be discussed below. white-tailed deer antler tine fragments. Two unidentified elements from nearby Botanical Remains excavation units at the same level as Fea- ture 3 exhibited stone tool cut marks (Fig- Charred hickory nutshells were the ure 7). most numerous botanical remains recovered in Linville Cave. Hickory was found

70 Linville Cave in archaeological levels 1, 2, and 4 (Table mains. All faunal remains were examined 1.) Several hackberry seeds were also by the late Paul Parmalee simply to com- recovered. Their distribution in the ar- pile a list of species represented at the chaeological levels is the same as for site. No quantitative analyses were con- hickory (Levels 1, 2, and 4). Two walnut ducted. Neither the Number of Identified fragments were recovered from the (Early Specimens (NISP) nor the Minimum Woodland and early Middle Woodland) Number of Individuals (MNI) methods level 3. Numerous walnut remains were were employed in the identification proc- also recovered from levels dating to the ess. While a detailed level by level analy- same time at the Eastman Rockshelter sis and comparison of the faunal remains (see Faulkner 1982; Faulkner and Dean is therefore beyond the scope of this arti- 1982; Manzano 1986). Walnut may have cle, it is possible to discuss the species been more important to early Woodland represented at the site. White-tailed deer, peoples, with later Woodland populations wild turkey, and black bear were the most focused more on hickory and hackberry. typical game animals exploited by both However, as the botanical sample from prehistoric and historic Native Americans. Linville Cave was very small, much more It is no surprise then that these species data will be needed to assess this idea. are represented in all of the archaeologi- Finally, one squash seed was recovered cal levels at Linville Cave (Table 2). from Unit D2, Level 2 (Middle Woodland Mammal remains represent the most nu- level). merous class of vertebrates at the site ac- counting for 64.3% of the identified TABLE 1. Botanical Remains. specimens. Birds and reptiles account for Species Provenience: Unit-Level 11.9% each. Fish remains make up 9.5% Hickory (Carya sp.) C1-1, C2-2, Feature 3 (C3- of the total, while amphibians represent 2), D2-2, D3-4 the least numerous at 2.4%. In short, Walnut (Juglans sp.) D2-3, D3-3 Hackberry (Celtis sp.) C2-2, C4-4, D2-1, D2-2 whether Early, Middle, or Late Woodland, Squash (Cucurbita sp.) D2-2 the prehistoric inhabitants of Linville Cave exploited a wide array of the same types In sum, the paleobotanical remains of species utilized by their contemporaries suggest use of the cave’s vestibule during elsewhere in the Southeast (Table 2). the fall of the year. Hickory nuts are avail- In addition to the Holocene species able from about late July through Sep- identified, Parmalee also identified seven tember. Walnuts typically fall somewhat mammal species characteristic of the later from about September well into Oc- Pleistocene in this region. Four of these tober. Hackberry is normally available mammalian taxa are now extinct, includ- from about late September into Novem- ing the giant armadillo (Dasypus cf. bel- ber. Based on the botanical remains, it lus), mastodon (Mammut americanum), appears that Linville Cave was occupied muskrat (Ondatra annectens), and dire in the fall intermittently throughout the wolf (Canis dirus). The three remaining Woodland period. mammalian taxa are only found far north or west of the site today. These include Faunal Remains caribou (Rangifer tarandus), prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster), and porcupine Of the 68 total levels excavated at Lin- (Erethizon dorsatum). As previously men- ville Cave, 63 levels contained faunal re- tioned, the Pleistocene faunal remains

71 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

TABLE 2. Faunal Remains. Species Provenience (if identified) MAMMALS: Unit-Level White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) A8-2, C2-1, C8-1, D8-2, D8-4, overhead fissure Cervid indeterminate C8-1, D8-5, G6-3, G8-2 Black bear (Ursus americanus) A8-2, C8-1, D2-2, G6-3, overhead fissure Opossum (Didelphis virginianus) C1-1, C2-1, C3-1 Raccoon (Procyon lotor) B8-1, D2-3, D8-5 River otter (Lutra Canadensis) D8-5 Beaver (Castor canadensis) A8-1, A8-2, C8-1, D2-3, D3-1, G8-2, overhead fissure Bobcat (Lynx cf. rufus) overhead fissure Gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) C4-3 Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) D2-3 Woodchuck (Marmota monax) A8-2, C4-1, C5-2, D8-3, D8-6 Eastern wood rat/pack rat (Neotoma floridana) C8-1, D2-1 Eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus) D2-3 Hairytail mole (Parascalops breweri) Big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) Bat (Myotis sp.) overhead fissure Short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) overhead fissure Shrew (Sorex sp.) Pine vole (Microtus pinetorum) Red-backed vole (Clethrionomys cf. gapperi) Meadow vole (Microtus pennslyvanicus) Southern bog lemming (Synaptomys cooperi) Muskrat (Ondatra zibethica) Deer mouse/White-footed mouse (Peromyscus sp.) Chipmunk (Tamias striatus) Rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) overhead fissure Horse (Equus sp.) overhead fissure Cow (Bovidae sp.) BIRDS: Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopovo) Duck (Anas sp.) C2-1 Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) overhead fissure Chicken (Gallus gallus) D2-1 Bird spp. REPTILES: Rattlesnake (Crotalus sp.) C2-2 Snake spp. Box turtle (Terrapene sp.) D2-3 Map turtle (Graptemys geographica) C4-1 Musk turtle (Sternotherus sp.) FISH: Sucker (Catostomus sp.) C8-1 Bass (Micropterus sp.) Redhorse (Moxostoma sp.) C4-1 Minnow sp. (Family Cyprinidae) D5-1 OTHER: Toad (Bufo sp.) Gastropod (Mesodon profunda) Pleistocene fauna: Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) D8-5, D8-6 American mastodon (Mammut americanum) D8-5 Dire wolf (Canis dirus) overhead fissure Giant armadillo (Dasypus cf. bellus) A8-2 Muskrat (Ondatra annectens Irvingtonian) D6-1 Prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster) overhead fissure Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) overhead fissure were recovered from autochthonous col- well as in the sediments in the overhead luvial deposits in the excavation block as fissure above Unit A8 (see Table 2).

72 Linville Cave

although perhaps there is a comparable Radford type.” In point of fact, it is very difficult to make out the weave on these sherds, and Evans (1955:66) states, “Since the treatment in no way resem- bles impressions made by any of the fabrics normally distinguished under the fabric-impressed types, it is classified as a knotted fabric more closely related to net- ting than any other woven material.” Fabric-impressed pottery typically characteristic of the Early Woodland (Long Branch), apparently persisted into the Middle Woodland in upper East Tennessee. Feature 11 at the Eastman Rockshelter contained Long Branch Fab- ric Marked pottery and yielded a calibrated early Middle Woodland radiocarbon date of A.D. 140 (Faulk- ner 1982:3). Additional radiocarbon dates from the FIGURE 8. Limestone-tempered ceramics: a) Cord-marked Eastman Rockshelter will rimsherd; b) Cord-marked body sherds; c) Smoothed-over, hopefully provide greater knot-roughened sherds. chronological resolution for fabric-marked pottery in up- Ceramic Assemblage per East Tennessee in the near future. In Most of the ceramics recovered from any case, the sherds from Feature 3 at Feature 3 (n=25) are fine cord-marked Linville Cave are consistent with a Middle with limestone temper (n=17) comparable and/or Late Woodland presence in Linville to Candy Creek Cord Marked. An alterna- Cave. tive interpretation is these ceramics may All sherds recovered from excavation be part of the Radford Series. There are units and levels at Linville Cave are lime- also smoothed over knot-roughened or stone tempered (n = 415). Of this particu- fabric-marked sherds (n=2) from Feature lar sample, nine sherds have limestone 3 (Figures 8 and 9). Faulkner (personal and grit temper (Table 3). In terms of sur- communication 1991) stated, “the fabric- face treatment, cord marking of some marked/knot-roughened sherds are ques- variation dominates the assemblage. Fine tionable and do not fit any named type…, cord marking dominates in all levels. The

73 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

FIGURE 9. Ceramic surface treatments represented in Feature 3.

TABLE 3. Ceramics. Pottery type by count Level 1 Level 2 Feature 3 Level 3 Level 4 Totals Limestone tempered: Residual 47 48 6 17 0 118 Plain 2 3 0 0 0 5 fine cord-marked 35 66 17 45 3 166 wide cord-marked 5 7 0 2 0 14 Smoothed-over cord-marked 4 4 0 1 0 9 knot-roughened/fabric 17 16 0 9 2 44 Smoothed-over knot-roughened/fabric 11 2 2 0 0 15 wide cord/fabric-marked 14 19 0 2 0 35

Limestone and grit tempered: wide cord/fabric-marked 9 0 0 0 0 9

Totals 144 165 25 76 5 415 knot-roughened/fabric-marked and wide Feature 3). If the number of recovered cord/fabric-marked varieties, however, in- sherds can be taken as a proxy of occu- crease in frequency through time (Figure pation intensity, it would appear that the 10). late Middle Woodland was the time of the In short, Faulkner’s preliminary as- most intensive use of the cave’s vestibule sessment of the ceramic assemblage ap- (e. g., closer to A.D. 700). The calibrated pears to be appropriate (personal com- radiocarbon date of cal A.D. 675 from munication 1991). The assemblage is Feature 3 would seem to bear this out. fairly homogeneous with the earliest Wright Checked Stamped pottery is ab- sherds (e. g., those from the lowest lev- sent at Linville Cave. This absence is cu- els) being the thickest and later ones thin- rious given that Wright Check Stamped ner. The ceramic assemblage likely spans wares dominate other Middle Woodland a time range from A.D. 300 - 700. More sites in the region (e. g., Eastman Rock- than 80% of the ceramic assemblage was shelter and the Nelson site). recovered in Levels 1 and 2 (including

74 Linville Cave

FIGURE 10. Ceramic surface treatments by excavation level.

recorded in the flaking debris. All prehistoric stone tools were made from Knox cherts. A complete list of the lithic artifacts from Linville Cave is tallied in Table 4. Of interest, but unrelated to the prehistoric archaeology of Linville Cave, was the recovery of two gun flints just below the surface of two different excavation units (Figure 11). One specimen is an English gun flint from the Brandon Quarries made using a snapped blade technique. This item, likely used for a rifle, is heavily FIGURE 11. Gunflints. English (left) and French (right). spent. The second gun flint, made from French Cretaceous flint using a spall Lithic Analysis method, was likely used for a trade gun (perhaps a musket). This gun flint is also The lithic assemblage from Linville nearly spent. Cave is homogeneous in terms of raw Temporally sensitive prehistoric lithic material. More than 96% of the assem- artifacts span the Woodland period, and blage is made up of ubiquitous and locally like the ceramic assemblage, there is very available Knox cherts. Very minor good stratigraphic sequencing. Two Early amounts of quartz and chalcedony were Woodland projectile point types

75 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

TABLE 4. Lithics. Lithics by count Level 1 Level 2 Feature 3 Level 3 Level 4 Totals Flaking debris: 1” (Size 5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¾” (Size 4) 0 0 0 1 1 2 ½” (Size 3) 7 7 0 6 4 24 ¼” (Size 2) 77 94 1 49 19 240 ⅛” (Size 1) 15 36 0 23 18 92 Totals 99 137 1 79 42 358

Cores/core fragments 3 1 0 1 0 5

Bifaces/biface fragments 1 3 1 0 0 5 Pieces esquilles/wedges 1 1 0 0 0 2 Historic gun flints 2 0 0 0 0 2 Madison ppks 4 3 0 0 0 7 Swan Lake ppks 0 3 0 0 0 3 Nolichucky ppks 0 0 0 1 0 1 Ebenezer ppks 0 0 0 1 0 1 recovered from Level 3 during the excavations (Figure 12c, d). Triangular types, such as the Nolichucky, persisted into the Middle Woodland period as represented at the Possum Creek site in nearby Greene County (Franklin 1998:73-74). In Level 2 across the excavations, three Middle Woodland Swan Lake points/knives were recovered (Figure 12b). These same types were recovered in Middle Woodland contexts at the Nel- son site (40Wg7) in nearby Washington County on the Nolichucky River. Mac Mcilhany (personal communication, 2006) suggests that these may have been hafted using a socket method whereby the tool is fitted into the hollow end of a shaft made of river cane. This assumption is based in part on their often thick, unfinished bases. No use wear analysis has so far been conducted on our specimens to test this idea. Several Madison points were recovered from levels 1 and 2 across the excavation units indicating the Late Woodland FIGURE 12. Projectile points: (a) Madison; (Figure 12a). Again, the projectile points (b) Swan Lake; (c) Nolichucky; and (d) Ebenezer. and the ceramics are consistent indicating use from the early Middle Woodland (Nolichucky triangular point and an Ebe- through the Late Woodland periods. nezer contracting stemmed point) were The lithic flaking debris was analyzed

76 Linville Cave

FIGURE 13. Mass-analysis discriminant function plot. using two independent methods: Mass Magne (1985:120) initially found that Analysis, as defined by Ahler (1989), and the number of platform facet scars on in- the Flake Debris Stage following Magne dividual flakes was the most robust indica- (1985). The material was sorted by level tor of reduction stage. Subsequent ex- and analyzed first employing the mass perimental reductions by Bradbury and analysis. In short, size grading of the lithic Carr (1995:108) have also shown that this debris, consisting primarily of the distribu- is the case for early stage reduction, e. g., tion of counts and weights, suggested core reduction. However, their experi- homogeneity of the flaking debris across ments suggest that the number of dorsal all levels. Therefore, the flaking debris as- scars is the best indicator of late stage semblage (n=266; Size 1 data was not reductions, e.g., tool production. Given included) was pooled and subjected to a that the mass analysis strongly indicated discriminant analysis to determine the na- that the Linville Cave assemblage is the ture of lithic reduction at Linville Cave. result of soft hammer tool production, fol- The archaeological debris was compared lowing Bradbury and Carr (1995), we to an experimentally generated assem- used dorsal scar counts to further inter- blage. The Linville Cave lithic debris is pret the nature of the assemblage. The categorized as representing soft hammer results indicate an emphasis on late stage tool production (Figure 13). reduction consistent with the mass analy-

77 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

FIGURE 14. Flake debris stages.

sis (Figure 14). There is a significant Cord Marked and Wright Check Stamped amount of blocky shatter, but we believe ceramics, and Swan Lake points as previ- this is largely due to the nature of the ously noted. Knox cherts used (typically very small, Two Middle Woodland components rounded nodules) as the experimental as- were recorded at the Possum Creek site semblage also produced much blocky (40GN52) on the Nolichucky River in shatter Greene County (Kim 1998). The earlier . component was associated with Greene- Discussion ville Cluster points, limestone tempered (Mulberry Creek Plain and Wright Check The primary components represented Stamped) ceramics, and quartz tempered at Linville Cave are the Middle and Late (Pigeon Plain and Check Stamped) ce- Woodland periods. Unfortunately, pre- ramics (Kim 1998:100). Associated cali- cious little is known regarding these peri- brated radiocarbon determinations were ods in upper East Tennessee. McIlhany cal A.D. 20 and cal 80 B.C. (Franklin (1978) recorded a significant Middle 1998:73-74). New Market points, lime- Woodland component at the Nelson site stone tempered Mulberry Creek Plain ce- (40WG7) on the Nolichucky River in adja- ramics, and sand tempered Connestee cent Washington County. Middle Wood- Plain ceramics characterized the later land artifacts recorded from 40WG7 in- Woodland component. One associated clude limestone tempered Candy Creek calibrated radiocarbon determination

78 Linville Cave

came out to be cal A.D. 725 (Franklin (as previously discussed). 1998:73; Kim 1998:102). The radiocarbon Finally, at Wagner Island in the Wa- determination from the later component is tauga Reservoir (Johnson County, Ten- statistically indistinguishable from the date nessee), two features from two sites are from Linville Cave (cal A.D. 675). How- contemporaneous with the archaeological ever, while both sites are likely contempo- deposits at Linville Cave (Boyd 1986). raneous, the ceramic assemblages are Radford Series ceramics and Hamilton different. The projectile points are also dif- points were recovered from Feature 2 at ferent, but the New Market points often site 40JN89 (Riggs 1985:176). Charcoal possess a thick unfinished base suggest- and nutshell from this feature was radio- ing they may have functioned similarly to carbon dated to cal A.D. 755 (Riggs the Swan Lake points. 1985:171). Feature 1 at site 40JN90 con- The Middle Woodland levels at tained a Hamilton point and limestone Daugherty’s Cave (44RU14) in south- tempered Candy Creek Cord Marked pot- western Virginia are characterized by tery (Riggs 1985:176). Alternatively, the Mulberry Creek Plain, Wright Check ceramics could be Radford Cord Marked Stamped, and Bluff Creek Simple (Evans 1955:67). Wood charcoal from this Stamped, all limestone tempered wares. hearth feature yielded a calibrated radio- These types are much more typical farther carbon age assay of cal A.D. 685 (Riggs south in the Great Valley of East Tennes- 1985:175) making it roughly contempora- see. An associated calibrated radiocarbon neous with Feature 3 at Linville Cave. determination is cal A.D. 322 (Benthall Middle Woodland ceramics were also 1990:26). Radford Series ceramics also recovered at Eastman Rockshelter (e. g., occur in great frequency at Daugherty’s Wright Check Stamped), although analy- Cave. The Radford Series is typically as- ses of the shelter artifacts are ongoing. signed a Late Woodland affiliation. How- The archaeological record of Linville Cave ever, Radford Series ceramics have been fits well with what we currently know of dated from good contexts at a number of the Middle to Later Woodland in upper sites in southwestern Virginia ranging East Tennessee. We caution that much from the late Middle Woodland through work and analysis remains to be done be- the late prehistoric/protohistoric periods fore a clear picture of this time period and (Benthall 1990:28). In this respect, they the attendant cultural interactions can be are much like Hamilton points in that they discerned. are not very sensitive chronological mark- ers (e. g., Schroedl et al. 1985). At Conclusions Daugherty’s Cave, Radford ceramics occur stratigraphically with the above- In sum, the archaeological assem- mentioned Middle Woodland types (e. g., blage from Linville Cave is rather small. limestone tempered wares more typical of The vestibule appears to have been used East Tennessee), and Benthall (1990:28) intermittently as a short term camping lo- has postulated that the Radford Series cation. Based on the botanical remains, may have its origins in the Middle Wood- site occupation was likely during the fall of land period. While the predominant lime- the year. Activities at the cave included stone tempered ware at Linville Cave is the butchering of mammal remains as (Candy Creek) cord marked, this ware evidenced by stone tool cut marks on may be associated with Radford ceramics several bones. The lithic analysis indi-

79 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

cates that technology at Linville Cave References consisted of gearing up activities such as tool manufacture and resharpening. Diag- Ahler, Stanley A. nostic ceramic and lithic artifacts, along 1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: with one calibrated AMS determination of Studying the Forest Rather Than the cal A.D. 675, indicate that these activities Tree. In Alternative Approaches to took place during the early Middle Wood- Lithic Analysis, edited by D. O. Henry and George H. Odell, pp. 85-118. Ar- land and into the Late Woodland (ca. A.D. chaeological Papers of the American 300-700). In our continuing efforts to de- Anthropological Association Number fine cultural interactions and ultimately the 1. culture history of upper East Tennessee, we believe that the archaeological investi- Amick, H. C. and L. H. Rollins gations at Linville Cave have made a sub- 1937 The Geology of Tennessee. Ginn stantive contribution. Press, New York.

Notes. 1We recognize the faunal analysis is to Barr, Thomas C., Jr. date somewhat incomplete. Dr. Paul Parmalee 1961 Caves of Tennessee. Tennessee Divi- was working with the faunal remains from Linville sion of Geology Bulletin 64. Nashville. Cave shortly before he passed away. In the time since, Blaine Schubert, vertebrate paleontologist Benthall, Joseph L. at ETSU, has taken up the task of analyzing and 1990 Daugherty’s Cave: A Stratified Site in interpreting all of the faunal remains. This is a Russell County, Virginia. Archeological work in progress and the subject of a forthcoming paper by Schubert and S. D. Dean. Therefore, Society of Virginia, Special Publication there are clear and valid reasons for the cursory Number 18. Richmond. faunal examination included in this paper. Boyd, C. Clifford, Jr. Acknowledgments: Funding for the radiocarbon 1986 Archaeological Investigations in the determination was provided for by a grant from the Watauga Reservoir, Carter and John- East Tennessee State University Office of the Vice son Counties, Tennessee. Tennessee Provost for Research and Sponsored Programs Valley Authority, Publications in An- Research Development Committee. The National thropology, No. 46, University of Ten- Science Foundation University of Arizona AMS nessee, Department of Anthropology Facility provided the age determination. We would like to thank Roger Hartley and Tammy Hartley, Report of Investigations No. 44, Knox- the proprietors of Appalachian Caverns for their ville. interest and support. Charles Faulkner conducted the ceramic analysis some years ago. We are Bradbury, Andrew P. and Philip J. Carr grateful for his interest and expertise. Alan Long- 1995 Flake Typologies and Alternate Ap- mire was kind enough to look at the gun flints and proaches: An Experimental Assess- offer some interpretation. Mac McIlhany has been ment. Lithic Technology 20(2):100- very supportive and informative. We are very 115. grateful to him for many productive conversations on the culture history of upper East Tennessee. Corgan, James X. and Emanuel Breitburg We would also like to gratefully and respectfully acknowledge the late Paul Parmalee who identi- 1996 Tennessee’s Prehistoric Vertebrates. fied nearly all of the faunal remains from the site. Tennessee Division of Geology Bulle- We alone are responsible for any errors or omis- tin 84. Nashville. sions in this paper. Evans, Clifford 1955 A Ceramic Study of Virginia Archeol- ogy. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 160.

80 Linville Cave

Washington, D. C. pared by C. Bentz and Y. Kim, pp. 87- 103. Transportation Center, University Faulkner, Charles H. of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1982 Radiocarbon Dates from the Eastman Rockshelter: A Preliminary Report. Luther, Edward T. Tennessee Anthropological Associa- 1977 Our Restless Earth: The Geologic Re- tion Newsletter 7(6):1-3. gions of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Faulkner, Charles H. and S. D. Dean 1982 The Eastman Rockshelter: A Deeply Magne, Martin P. R. Stratified Site in Upper East Tennes- 1985 Lithics and Livelihood: Stone Tool see. Tennessee Anthropological As- Technologies of Central and Southern sociation Newsletter 7(1):2-7. Interior British Columbia. Archaeology Survey of Canada, Mercury Series No. Fowke, Gerard 133, Ottawa. 1922 Archeological Investigations. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 76. Manzano, Bruce L. Washington, D. C. 1986 Faunal Resources, Butchering Pat- terns, and Seasonality at the Eastman Franklin, Jay D. Rockshelter (40SL34): An Interpreta- 1998 Lithic Analysis. In Phase III Archaeo- tion of Function. Unpublished Master’s logical Data Recovery of Sites Thesis, Department of Anthropology, 40GN52 and 40GN63 in the Proposed University of Tennessee, Knoxville. State Route 350 Corridor, Greene County, Tennessee, edited and pre- McIlhany, Calvert W. pared by C. Bentz and Y. Kim, pp. 66- 1978 An Archaeological Survey of the Mid- 86. Transportation Center, University dle Nolichucky River Basin. Unpub- of Tennessee, Knoxville. lished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, the University of Ten- Guilday, John E., Harold W. Hamilton, Elaine nessee, Knoxville. Anderson, and Paul W. Parmalee 1978 The Baker Bluff Cave Deposit, Ten- Riggs, Brett H. nessee and the Late Pleistocene Fau- 1985 Dated Contexts from Watauga Reser- nal Gradient. Bulletin of the Carnegie voir: Cultural Chronology Building for Museum of Natural History No. 11. Northeast Tennessee. In Exploring Pittsburgh. Tennessee Prehistory: A Dedication to Alfred K. Guthe, edited by T. R. Holt, Alana Whyte, C. Boyd, Jr., and B. H. Riggs, 1967 Linville Cave Legends Live. Kingsport pp. 169-184. The University of Ten- Times. Kingsport, Tennessee. nessee, Department of Anthropology Report of Investigations, No. 42. Jordan, Douglas F. Knoxville. 1956 A Clovis Point From Sullivan County. Tennessee Archaeologist 12(1):15-16. Schroedl, Gerald F., R. P. Stephen Davis, and C. Clifford Boyd, Jr. Kim, Yong W. 1985 Archaeological Contexts and Assem- 1998 Prehistoric Ceramics. In Phase III Ar- blages at Martin Farm. Report of In- chaeological Data Recovery of Sites vestigations No. 39, Department of 40GN52 and 40GN63 in the Proposed Anthropology, University of Tennes- State Route 350 Corridor, Greene see, Knoxville. County, Tennessee, edited and pre-

81 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

Taylor, Oliver 1909 Historic Sullivan: A History of Sullivan County, Tennessee with Brief Biogra- phies of the Makers of History. The King Printing Co., Bristol, Tennessee.

Jay D. Franklin Department of Sociology and Anthropology East Tennessee State University Box 70644 Johnson City, Tennessee 37614-1702

S.D. Dean Kingsport, Tennessee

82 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ON ROPER’S KNOB: A FORTIFIED CIVIL WAR SITE IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE

Benjamin C. Nance

Test excavations on top of Roper’s Knob in northern Williamson County exposed Civil War period fortifications and features. The fortifications included a redoubt as well as the rare example of an excavated blockhouse. The investigations also uncovered evidence of a mid-1800s domestic structure likely occupied by the Roper family.

In the fall of 2000, staff of the Tennes- cluding the knob, to Thomas Hardeman, see Division of Archaeology conducted County Clerk of Williamson County, in test excavations on the state-owned por- trust for Nicholas P. Perkins (Williamson tion of Roper's Knob (40WM101) in Frank- County, Chancery Court Minute Book, lin, Tennessee. The site area includes the 1857-1867, Vol. I, p. 435). The deed from archaeological remains of an ante-bellum McEwen to Hardeman failed to mention house and a Civil War period Union forti- the trust, which would later result in a fied signal station. The Heritage Founda- court battle over ownership of the land tion of Franklin and Williamson County (Williamson County Deeds, Book K, p. purchased the Roper's Knob tract in 1994. 208). Partnering with the State of Tennessee, Nicholas P. Perkins, a Franklin attor- the Heritage Foundation purchased ney, paid taxes in 1829 for one free per- 22.147 acres, and the state later acquired son (himself) and three slaves (William- twelve acres of this tract. The state-owned son County Tax Records, 1829), and in portion is located at the top of the knob the following year he paid taxes for five where most of the archaeological features slaves and the 37-acre tract of land that are known or believed to exist. he had purchased from McEwen (William- son County Tax Records, 1830). Perkins Early History of Roper's Knob died in 1833 and his heirs, James Per- kins, John Perkins, and Ann Elizabeth The hill that would become known as Knox, began paying the taxes on the 37- Roper's Knob (this name first appears in acre tract, though none of them lived an 1859 court document) was part of a there (Williamson County Tax Records, 2,660-acre land grant that James Robert- 1837-1856). It is shortly after Nicholas son, known by most as one of the foun- Perkins's death that the Roper family ders of Nashville, Tennessee, received for shows up in local records. service in the American Revolution Historian Park Marshall wrote that (Davidson County Deeds, Book D, p. 97). Roper's Knob was named for a man Subsequent land sales broke up the large named Roper who "lived a great many tract, and in May 1823 John and Cyrus years on Roper's Knob, but he does not McEwen evenly divided a 310-acre tract seemed to have owned the land" (Mar- that they had inherited from their father shall 1970). George W. Roper paid a poll David McEwen (Williamson County tax in Williamson County in 1833 (Wil- Deeds, Book G, pp. 378-379). John McE- liamson County Tax Records, 1833), and wen's portion of this tract included Roper's he appears on the 1840 Federal Census Knob, and in 1829 he sold 37 acres, in- in the Eighth District (where Roper's Knob

83 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

is located) with his wife, two sons, and Alabama and ordered General William one daughter (Federal Census, 1840, Wil- Negley at Columbia to begin fortifying the liamson County, District 8). Roper's wife, Tennessee-Alabama railroad running from Agnes, hanged herself in May 1840 Nashville, through Franklin, Columbia, (Lynch 1977:34). and Pulaski, to Alabama (Connelly The 1850 Federal Census lists George 1979:14-32; War of the Rebellion, Official W. Roper and his sons George Jr. and Records of the Union and Confederate Moody as farmers without real estate. A Armies [hereinafter referred to as OR], daughter, Mary Roper, is also listed (Fed- Series I, Volume XVI, Part 2, pp. 177- eral Census, 1850, Williamson County, 178). While work on the railroad contin- District 8, No. 831). George and Moody ued, two companies of the Seventy- also paid poll taxes in 1846, 1849, and Fourth Ohio Regiment established a 1850, but the Ropers disappear from the guard at the Harpeth River bridges in local records after 1850. They do not ap- Franklin (OR, Series I, Vol. XVI, Part 2, p. pear in the 1860 census records for Ten- 261). nessee, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Vir- Confederate General Braxton Bragg ginia, North Carolina, Mississippi, Ala- led his army from Chattanooga on August bama, Georgia, Arkansas, or Texas. 28, 1862 and marched toward Kentucky. The heirs of Nicholas P. Perkins and General Buell began withdrawing the Un- Thomas Hardeman went to court in 1859 ion Army from its garrisons throughout to settle a dispute over ownership of the Middle Tennessee and moving his troops 37-acre tract of land. The Perkins heirs to intercept Bragg. The two armies met at won the dispute, and the land was subse- Perryville, Kentucky on October 8, 1862, quently surveyed and sold (Williamson and after a day of fighting, the Confeder- County Chancery Court Minute Book, ates withdrew. Bragg took up a new posi- 1857-1867, Vol. I, p. 435). These court tion near Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and records provide the first documented use General William Rosecrans, now com- of the name "Roper's Knob." W.H.S. Hill manding the Union Army, returned his purchased the Roper's Knob tract in April troops to Nashville. Confederate forces 1860 having bought the adjoining tract to once again controlled Franklin (Connelly the south in the previous year (Williamson 1979:55-60; Foote 1986:735-739). County Chancery Court Minute Book, Vol. Union General David Stanley, com- I, pp. 450, 524; Williamson County Deeds, manding the cavalry of the 14th Corps, Book Z, p. 58-59). Hill, a farmer and sur- moved southward from Nashville on De- veyor, lived in the East Subdivision of Wil- cember 12, 1862, skirmishing with Con- liamson County in 1860, and owned federates at Brentwood. Stanley's cavalry Roper's Knob throughout the Civil War. proceeded to Franklin where it swept aside 400 Confederates under Colonel Franklin and Roper's Knob Baxter Smith. The Union forces destroyed During the Civil War the machinery in a flour mill, captured four wagons full of flour, and destroyed a After the Union victory in the Battle of wagon-load of whiskey and brandy before Shiloh in April 1862, Union troops occu- returning to Nashville (OR, Series I, Vol. pied much of Middle Tennessee including XX, Part 1, pp. 76-78). Franklin. Major-General Don Carlos Buell General Rosecrans moved against established his headquarters in Huntsville, Bragg in December 1862. The two armies

84 Roper’s Knob

fought along the Stones River in Mur- nessee became relatively secure, with the freesboro from December 31, 1862 to exception of minor skirmishes and guer- January 2, 1863, and though the fight rilla activity (Connelly 1979:61-73). ended in a draw, the Confederates with- Major fighting returned in November drew. In February 1863, Union Forces 1864 when General John Bell Hood led under Brigadier-General Charles Gilbert the Confederate Army of Tennessee in an occupied Franklin. Union Brigadier- attempt to retake the state and draw Un- General Jefferson C. Davis's forces rein- ion forces out of Georgia. Fierce fighting forced Gilbert (OR, Series I, Vol. XXIII, at Franklin resulted in heavy Confederate Part 1, pp. 28, 63). casualties. Heavy artillery fired from Fort Union forces began reinforcing their Granger during the battle, but it is unlikely positions in Murfreesboro, Triune, and that Roper's Knob was garrisoned at the Franklin, and Confederate victories in time (Sword 1992:185-271). skirmishes at Thompson's Station and Brentwood gave a sense of urgency to the Historical Information Concerning the construction of fortifications. Captain Wil- Roper's Knob Fortifications liam Merrill, Chief Engineer of the Army of the Cumberland, designed the defenses On February 15, 1863 General William of Franklin, and the Pioneer Corps over- Rosecrans ordered that Brigadier-General saw the construction. The main fortifica- Charles Gilbert, whose force had just ar- tion was Fort Granger, located on a bluff rived in Franklin three days earlier, "in- of the Harpeth River overlooking Franklin. trench [sic] himself strongly" (OR, Series I, Roper's Knob and several small artillery Vol. XXIII, Part 2, p. 71). Captain William positions supported the main fort. Roper's Merrill, Chief Engineer for the Army of the Knob served as part of a chain of signal Cumberland, arrived in Franklin on March stations that provided a communications 7 to supervise the construction of fortifica- link from Franklin to Murfreesboro. Addi- tions. It is not clear what, if any, steps Gil- tionally the knob had a large redoubt ca- bert had taken to fortify his position prior pable of holding four large artillery pieces, to Merrill's arrival. Gilbert's superior, Gen- a blockhouse, cisterns, and a magazine eral Gordon Granger, reported to head- (Dilliplane 1974:1-43; Dilliplane 1975:10- quarters that the fortifications would be 21). completed in about one week (OR, Series Several skirmishes took place in the I, Vol. XXIII, Part 2, p. 113). On March 9 Franklin vicinity during the first half of General James Garfield, Chief of Staff for 1863, most involving Confederate cavalry General Rosecrans, told Granger to "push that was raiding Union positions. By June, forward the fortifications" (OR, Series I, General Gordon Granger had moved his Vol. XXIII, Part 2, p. 123). headquarters to Triune, and Colonel John On April 7, 1863 General Rosecrans Baird commanded the Franklin garrison. notified General Granger that if he should On June 24, 1863 General William Rose- want to move against the Confederates, crans launched an offensive against Brax- he could leave his baggage in the fort un- ton Bragg, and succeeded in flanking the der construction under a small guard (OR, Confederates out of their positions in War- Series I, Vol. XXIII, Part 2, p. 219). This trace, Shelbyville, and Tullahoma. The message indicates that Fort Granger was Confederate Army retreated southward, making progress but was not finished. and Franklin and the rest of Middle Ten- Granger told Rosecrans on April 19 that

85 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

FIGURE 1. William Merrill's 1863 sketch of Roper's Knob.

"when our forts are done and the guns in zine. 50 men could hold it against 5000. It position, 2,000 men can hold them is the signal station, being visible in all di- against five times their numbers" (OR, Se- rections from the range of hills surround- ries I, Vol. XXIII, Part 2, p. 254). He stated ing the large valley in which Franklin lies. in this same report, "The fortifications will It sees all the country within a radius of six be hurried to the utmost." miles. It is about 250 ft. above the level of Captain William Merrill's May 29, 1863 the plain, with steep sides and with no hill report provides the best description of the higher than 30 ft. above the plain, in its Franklin defenses. He says that he had vicinity – excepting the one next, which is been ordered to design fortifications that a in easy musketry range and is lower and small garrison could hold, and that the inaccessible to artillery (Merrill 1863). main defense was Fort Granger on the Merrill's report implies that the works bluff of the Harpeth River overlooking the were complete. During the construction of town. This fort also had supporting works the works, there were 5,000 infantry work- that guarded the railroad bridge. He says ing in 600-man shifts, with two eight-hour of Roper's Knob: shifts per day. The 4th battalion of the Roper’s Knob, which has the remark- Pioneer Brigade, which Merrill had raised able cross-section shown in the sketch himself, oversaw the construction (Merrill [Figure 1], has a rifle pit just above the ter- 1863). race which surrounds it – a redoubt for In October 1864, when Confederates four heavy guns – and a blockhouse for were raiding in the Franklin vicinity, Lieu- 60 men inside the redoubt. On the crest of tenant-Colonel Josiah Park, who was then the terrace surrounding the crown of the commanding the garrison at Franklin, re- hill is a strong line of abattis. It has like- ported that he could not get artillery on wise two cisterns capable of holding 4500 Roper's Knob without machinery, and he gallons of water, and a good size maga- asked if he should do it (OR, Series I, Vol.

86 Roper’s Knob

FIGURE 2. William Merrill's sketches of blockhouses, including an example of an octagonal blockhouse. XXXIX, Part 2, p. 21). It is not clear from would have been artillery placed there for written documentation if artillery was ever added defense. It is clear that there was placed on Roper’s Knob. It seems likely no artillery there in October 1864, and it that since the redoubt on Roper’s Knob would seem likely that it was removed was designed to hold four heavy pieces of during the second half of 1863 when the artillery and the military situation at Frank- front lines had shifted southward. One lin in 1863 was somewhat uncertain, there piece of archaeological evidence recov-

87 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

ered inside the redoubt that seems to in- an open stockade, they were turned into dicate the presence of artillery on Roper’s what William Merrill described as "slaugh- Knob is part of a friction primer used in ter pens" (Merrill 1875:441-443). the firing of artillery. William Merrill decided that an en- The artillery would have been inside closed blockhouse would be more effec- the redoubt (an enclosed earthen fortifica- tive than stockades, and after experiment- tion). Redoubts often had formal shapes ing by using artillery to blast apart an un- such as a square, circle, or other polygo- used stockade in Lavergne, Tennessee, nal shape, but those built on hills usually he also recommended that blockhouses conformed to the topography of the hill on be double cased (built with two layers of which they were constructed. This is not timbers) to make a wall about 40 inches the case with the Roper’s Knob redoubt, thick. Blockhouses were given heavy tim- which appears to be a rectangle with the ber roofs that often had earth piled on corners removed. H. L Scott (1864:498- them to absorb the impact of artillery pro- 499) states that when artillery is placed in jectiles. A board and batten roof kept the a redoubt, each gun will require 324 earth from washing away. More dirt was square feet. The remaining area in square piled against the sides of the blockhouse feet divided by 10 gives the number of up to the level of the loopholes (firing men that a redoubt can hold. It is possible ports for guns) for added protection. The that heavy artillery, such as that for which army furnished the blockhouses with Roper’s Knob was designed, would re- stoves, ventilators, water tanks, and quire greater space, and this redoubt con- bunks so that the garrison could remain tained a blockhouse in its interior thus af- inside the blockhouse (Merrill 1875:439). fecting the minimum number of men re- Merrill favored octagonal blockhouses, quired for its defense. but these were too expensive to build be- The blockhouse was an important de- cause special skills were needed to cut fensive structure that evolved throughout the mortises and tenons required at the the Civil War (Smith and Nance 2003:144- odd-angled joints. He later found a way to 158). Earlier blockhouses were often two- build octagonal blockhouses by using story structures with overhanging second simple joints connected by spikes instead stories, and early settlers depended on of complex joinery, but in the mean time, them for defense against Indians. Early most blockhouses were built in a square use of open stockades for defense of vul- or rectangular plan. There were 54 Union nerable railroad lines proved inadequate. blockhouses protecting the Tennessee- In the first half of 1863, seven railroad Alabama Railroad in 1864, and during Na- bridges on the Nashville-Chattanooga than Bedford Forrest's October 1864 raid Railroad were protected by open stock- and Hood's Middle Tennessee campaign, ades in the shape of a cross with arms of the Confederates burned all but three. By equal length (Merrill 1875:439). the end of the war, Union engineers had General Don Carlos Buell had similarly rebuilt most of the blockhouses using constructed stockades on the Tennessee- Merrill's simplified octagonal plan as Alabama Railroad in 1862. To be an ef- shown in Figure 2 (Merrill 1875:444-446, fective defense the stockade had to be 452-453). close to the bridge that it was protecting. There is little archival evidence de- This proved effective against infantry, but scribing the Roper's Knob blockhouse. if artillery could be placed so as to fire into Merrill (1863) says that the blockhouse

88 Roper’s Knob

was designed to hold 60 men, but he normal conditions and up to 15 miles un- does not give any other description of the der ideal conditions (Brown 1896:93; structure. Park Marshall, who was born in Sayers 1863). Franklin in 1855, later wrote, "A fort was Signal flags were used in conjunction built on [Roper's Knob] and was roofed with a system of telegraphs because each over" (Marshall 1970). He was probably had its limitations. During an attack on the referring to the blockhouse. Archaeologi- Union forces at Franklin (either General cal investigations found that the block- Van Dorn's raid of April 10, 1863 or Gen- house was in the form of a square (43 feet eral Forrest's attack on June 4, 1863), the across) with the corners cut off. The Confederates cut the telegraph wires be- blockhouse was eight-sided but not a true tween Franklin and Murfreesboro. The octagon. Union commanders in each town were able to communicate throughout the skir- Signal Stations During the Civil War mish by using the signal stations (OR Supplement, Part I, Volume 10, p. 541). One of the important functions of Signal stations took many forms, and Roper's Knob during the war was its use there is no specific information on what as a signal station. Major Albert Meyer, the Roper's Knob station looked like. organizer of the United States Signal Many stations were wooden platforms Corps, developed a simplified system of built in trees from which the upper signaling using flags (torches at night). branches had been cut. Some were built Meyer based his new system on his ob- onto existing buildings. Park Marshall servations of Comanche signaling while wrote that a pear tree had been left stand- he served with the U.S. Army in the New ing half way up the upper part of Roper's Mexico Territory. Meyer later tested his Knob while all the other trees had been system during a campaign against the cleared. Marshall said that this tree had a Navaho. At the outbreak of the Civil War, limb that extended over a tramway, and a Albert Meyer reported to Washington rope was placed over the limb to haul ar- where he established an instruction camp tillery up the knob. Marshall observed Civil for the Signal Corps (Brown 1896: 19-20; War events in Franklin when he was a 24-39). young boy and wrote about them later in The Union Army established a signal life. It is possible that he may be remem- camp of instruction in Nashville in Febru- bering a tree that was left standing for use ary 1862. Lieutenant Jesse Merrill com- as a signal station. He also mentioned in manded the camp until its disbandment his writing that in Fort Granger "the trunks on May 16, 1863 (Brown 1896: 459-460). of two trees used as 'spy trees' were left At this time there were several signal sta- standing within the fort" (Marshall 1970). tions in operation in Tennessee, including a chain of stations between Franklin and Post-War History of Roper's Knob Murfreesboro. Confederate Captain Ed- ward B. Sayers drew a sketch map show- W.H.S. Hill owned Roper's Knob until ing five of these signal stations including 1875 when he sold it, as part of a 180- Roper's Knob. Most of the stations shown acre tract, to A. W. Moss. The deed de- on the map are about five miles apart. Al- scribes part of the property as the bert Meyers stated that signals could be "Roper's Knob or Perkins Tract" (William- read at a distance of eight miles under son County Deeds, Book 5, p. 327). Own-

89 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

FIGURE 3. Base map of Roper's Knob archaeological site showing location of excavation units.

ership of the property changed several line could be run straight up the ramp into times over the years until the 1994 acqui- the redoubt. The site was divided into sition by the State of Tennessee and the specific areas for testing, including the Heritage Foundation. Throughout its post- Redoubt, Outer Entrenchments, Ramp, war history, Roper's Knob seems to have Terrace (subdivided into three parts), a been a popular place to visit, probably be- Platform near the base of the upper knob, cause of the Civil War earthworks and the a Berm on the edge of the terrace, and view afforded by the prominence. Recent the House and Yard areas (identified from activity on the knob has included relic col- a large pile of brick and stone rubble). lecting and camping. These areas are shown on the base map in Figure 3. Excavation units (most of Archaeological Investigations them 4-ft. by 4-ft. squares) were placed based on the presence of surface re- State surveyors established grid points mains, in areas thought to be likely en- on Roper's Knob prior to archaeological campments, and in areas where a metal testing. The grid was oriented 37.5 de- detector scan indicated the presence of grees west of magnetic north so that a large amounts of metal.

90 Roper’s Knob

In the area of the House and Yard and redoubt revealed the siltstone bedrock the feature referred to as the Platform, just inches below the surface. Units culturally related levels were grouped into placed in the northern portion of the re- zones. In the House area, Zone I is de- doubt showed a deeper soil, probably a fined as the zone of heavy rubble associ- result of leveling the top of the knob. A ated with the destruction of the building. series of excavation units, each 3-ft. by 4- Zone II is what lies beneath the rubble, ft., was placed across a depression that theoretically dating prior to the destruction was believed to be one of the two cisterns of the house. The horizontal extent of the mentioned by Merrill (1863). rubble was used to define the area of the Within a fortification, artillery was usu- “House”: and the “Yard” was defined as ally mounted on a terreplein which is a the area outside the heavy rubble. The level space on the interior of the works. excavation levels for the Platform were The terreplein was raised above the inte- also grouped into two zones. Specific ar- rior surface of the fortification and often chaeological features were assigned fea- covered with wooden planks to make it ture numbers (Table 1). easier for gun crews to maneuver the artillery piece. The artillery would either fire TABLE 1. Archaeological Features. over the top of the parapet wall (en bar- Number Type bette), or it would fire through an opening 1 Wall (Parapet) of Redoubt 2 Outer Entrenchments called an embrasure. As shown in Figure 3 Ramp 4, there is at least one raised area inside 4 Possible Cistern (East) the Roper’s Knob redoubt that was 5 Possible Cistern (West) probably a terreplein. This probable terre- 6 Berm on outer edge of terrace 7 Historic Posthole in 1062N1116E plein is in the southwest corner of the re- 8 House Foundation doubt facing downtown Franklin. In the 9 Historic Posthole in 1066N1116E southeast corner of the redoubt, there is a 10 Builder’s Trench outside house foundation remnant of a possible platform against the 11 Builder’s Trench inside house foundation inner parapet wall, but this is an area 12 Blockhouse Wall Trench damaged by a bulldozer cut through the 13 Probable Posthole wall. There are several openings in the 14 Probable Posthole 15 Probable Posthole parapet wall of the Roper’s Knob redoubt, 16 Probable Posthole but all seem to be worn down from years of foot traffic and are not large enough to Redoubt be embrasure openings. Merrill (1863) reported that the four irregularly shaped bat- A redoubt is an enclosed earthen forti- tery positions in the vicinity of Roper’s fication that often has a regular form, such Knob were first designed as barbette bat- as a square or pentagon, or an irregular teries but were later changed to embra- form following the contours of the land sure batteries. (Scott 1864:497-498). The Roper's Knob Cut limestone blocks were observed in redoubt has a regular eight-sided shape some of the worn portions of the redoubt as shown in Figure 4. It appears that the wall, and it is possible that these were knob was leveled off during construction taken from the remains of the house lo- of the fortifications, and the dirt was used cated on the terrace below the redoubt. to build the redoubt walls. There is weathered and thinly layered Excavation units in the center of the limestone or siltstone in other parts of the

91 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

FIGURE 4. Map of Roper’s Knob redoubt. wall, and this is possibly the remains of redoubt showed no signs of earthen the knob's natural stratigraphy. mounds, and such added protection may have been deemed unnecessary in such Blockhouse an application where the blockhouse was inside a redoubt on a high, steep hill. William Merrill's sketches of typical Excavation of unit 1256N952E re- blockhouses (see Figure 2) show that a vealed a trench cut into the bedrock ap- footing trench was dug and heavy timbers proximately 18 inches wide and 24 inches were placed vertically into the trench deep (Figure 5). As more brush was (Merrill 1864, Map V). Earth was often cleared from the redoubt during the exca- piled against the sides of the blockhouse, vation, it became evident that there was a and this earth is what often remains to- shallow depression marking the line of the day. The area inside the Roper’s Knob wall trench in some parts of the redoubt,

92 Roper’s Knob

FIGURE 5. Photograph of section of blockhouse wall trench. particularly on the east and west sides. By in unit 1273N981E, the northern most por- following this depression, several excavation of the trench indicated on Figure 4. If tion units were placed to reveal the wall this is indeed the outer wall of the re- trench. Only three portions of the block- doubt, then the overall configuration is house wall trench were fully excavated. slightly irregular, this wall being farther To save time, the remaining units were north than would be predicted. One pos- excavated only to the top of the block- sibility is that this trench represents part of house wall trench (which was then an offset wall that protected the entrance mapped). to the redoubt. Blockhouses usually had The blockhouse wall trench is indi- such an L-shaped wall in front of the en- cated on the map in Figure 4 as well as trance to prevent an enemy from firing di- conjectural lines showing the probable rectly at the door. configuration of the blockhouse. The con- Merrill suggests in his blockhouse figuration of the blockhouse appears to be sketches that the logs used to construct basically square with the corners cut off, blockhouse walls should be about 18 making it eight-sided but not a regular oc- inches in diameter. This is the average tagon. The plan of the blockhouse be- diameter of the wall trench on Roper’s comes somewhat unclear on the north Knob, so obviously the logs used in the side. Here the soil was deeper than in the Roper’s Knob blockhouse were smaller rest of the redoubt. What appears to be than 18 inches. There was probably no the blockhouse wall trench was detected need for the Roper’s Knob blockhouse to

93 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

be double-cased (i.e. two layers of logs), Feature 2) surrounds the upper knob out- and no earthen embankment seems to side the redoubt. The entrenchments are have been added to the structure. irregularly shaped and follow the contour The Roper's Knob blockhouse is sig- of the knob. These entrenchments are nificant, being a rare example of an exca- very pronounced and well preserved vated blockhouse in Tennessee. It is un- around the north, west, and east portions usual because the wall trench is dug into of the knob. They are shallower and more solid stone, which readily reveals the eroded on the south side. A bulldozer overall shape and size of the structure. road cuts through the entrenchments on the southeast side. One excavation unit Cisterns was placed in the outer entrenchments on the north side of the knob. The bedrock in William Merrill stated in his 1863 report this area slopes steeply to the north. Ap- that Roper’s Knob had two cisterns with a parently a large amount of fill dirt was capacity of 4,500 gallons of water (Merrill used in the construction of the parapet 1863). He does not state precisely where wall of the outer entrenchments on the these cisterns were located, but two large north side of the knob. Merrill mentions depressions inside the redoubt near the that a rifle pit just above the terrace sur- northern slope were suspected to be the rounded the knob. remains of these cisterns. The eastern- most of these two depressions was tested Ramp by excavating a series of 3-ft. wide by 4-ft. long units along the 1000E line to cross- Roper’s Knob has an earthen ramp section the depression. One additional 4- that extends from the terrace to the upper ft. by 4-ft. unit was excavated at part of the knob where it blends into the 1282N1004E. The soil in these units was natural slope. The ramp provides a uni- disturbed, showing little variation in color form slope up to the level of the redoubt. or consistency. Several large stones were The Union troops used the ramp to haul present in these units. These stones may artillery up to the redoubt. A previous sec- have once been part of a cistern structure, tion of this article mentioned that Lieuten- but now occur in disturbed context. ant Colonel Josiah Park reported he could Artifactual evidence from the sus- not get artillery on Roper’s Knob without pected cistern indicates that the area has machinery (OR, Series I, Vol. XXXIX, Part been highly disturbed, probably through 2, p. 21). Park Marshall wrote that “there relic collector activity. Civil War period was a tramway up the steep part of the items such as Minie Balls, percussion knob, up which were hauled the guns by caps, one musket band spring, and a fric- means of block and tackle.” He also tion primer wire were recovered from the stated that this tramway had heavy cross- cistern units along with much modern ma- ties and heavy square wooden beams for terial. In addition, several pieces of (prob- the rails, and “an engine and derrick were able roofing) tin were removed from these installed with ropes and drum to draw up units. heavy artillery” (Marshall 1970). Getting heavy artillery into the redoubt on Roper’s Outer Entrenchments Knob was no easy task. One 4-ft. by 4-ft. unit was excavated A line of entrenchments (designated on the ramp at 1050N1100E. It is evident

94 Roper’s Knob that the ramp was constructed by digging paucity of domestic artifacts. a ditch on both sides of the ramp and piling the dirt in the middle. The natural Berm stratigraphy of the soil is overlain by the inverted stratigraphy resulting from the The berm (Feature 6) is a slight rise soil having been removed from the ditch located on the crest of the terrace sur- on either side and shoveled into the cen- rounding the hill. Merrill states in his May ter to form the ramp. 29, 1863 report that “on the crest of the terrace surrounding the crown of the hill is Platform a strong line of abattis (sic).” An abatis is a barricade of felled trees that have had This feature is a level area at the base their smaller branches removed and the of the upper knob on the southeast side. remaining branches sharpened (Scott The platform appears to be man-made. At 1864:19). The visible rise or berm on the the time of the excavation, several lime- crest of the terrace (or crown of the hill as stone blocks were visible on the surface Merrill describes it) may be related to the as were several recent holes left by relic abatis, perhaps being the remnant of a collectors. One 4-ft. by 4-ft. excavation shallow trench behind the abatis. unit (1050N1100E) was dug near the western edge of the feature. Seven ad- Terrace joining 3-ft. by 4-ft. units were excavated along the 1116E line to cross-section the The flat terrace of Roper’s Knob is lo- feature. cated about 80 ft. below the summit of the The platform appears to have been hill. It is relatively flat on the west, south, constructed by piling dirt behind some sort and east and somewhat more sloping on of retaining wall. Several large stones that the north side of the hill (which is gener- may have been part of such a wall were ally steeper overall). A series of excava- found in the excavated trench, though tion units was placed on the west, south, they appear to have been disturbed. The and east sides of the knob as the terrace bottom portions of six possible postholes seemed like a logical place for troops to were found in the units excavated on the have camped. Relatively few artifacts platform. were recovered from the terrace test Artifacts recovered from the platform units, but this area has been intensely suggest the presence of a structure used searched by relic collectors who have re- for military purposes. Over 700 (n=712) ported finding numerous Minie Balls, but- nails were recovered from Zone I of the tons, at least one bayonet, and other Civil platform. These artifacts, along with the War military artifacts. previously mentioned postholes, point to the existence of some sort of structure. A House more complete excavation would be needed to determine the configuration of An area of limestone and brick rubble, this structure. A purely military use of the clearly visible on the ground surface, indi- platform and its related structure is sug- cated the presence of a structure. This gested by the presence of Civil War arti- rubble was located on the south terrace facts including Minie Balls, percussion against the upper knob. For the purposes caps, and military buttons, as well as the of this project, the area around the rubble

95 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

zone was divided into two areas, the vided vertically into two zones. Zone I de- house and the yard. The in-situ portions of fined the vertical extent of the rubble, and the building and the fallen rubble defined included the excavation unit levels within the house. Most of the rubble appeared to the rubble area. Zone II included those be the result of a chimney fall at the east levels below the horizontal extent of the end of the building. The house was di- heavy brick and limestone rubble (thought

FIGURE 6. Map of excavation units in the house and yard area.

96 Roper’s Knob

FIGURE 7. House remains including north foundation wall, cross wall, and portion of brick floor.

to represent the time period before the postdates the original house as it was house destruction). The yard was defined built on top of a brick floor. The purpose of as the area outside of the horizontal ex- this wall is unknown, but it may indicate tent of the heavy rubble, but still in the some attempt at house repair. Also, the general vicinity of the house. west side of the house had no foundation Figure 6 shows the placement of ex- wall. This unusual attribute was confirmed cavation units in the house and yard area by the absence of a builder’s trench. The as well as the portions of the house foun- overall dimensions of the house were 18 dations uncovered during the investiga- feet by 30 feet. The massive foundation tions. Initial excavation in the house/yard wall suggests the entire house was made area was a series of 4-ft. by 4-ft. units of stone, or at least had a lower floor (or along the 800E line. Subsequent excava- above-ground basement) of stone with a tion units revealed portions of the house wooden structure over it. There appears foundation (designated Feature 8). The to have been a stone chimney with a brick foundation, made from limestone blocks, firebox on the east end of the structure. was 24 inches thick and extended well Most of the historic artifacts from below the ground surface. 40WM101 came from the house and yard The excavations also uncovered the area. The documentary and archaeologi- remnants of a stone cross-wall in the cal evidence suggest the house was oc- house (Figures 6 and 7). This wall likely cupied for a relatively short period of time

97 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

FIGURE 8. Stone carvings found on Roper’s Knob.

(no earlier than 1829 and no later than the surrounding countryside. In addition, 1863). The house was probably destroyed the earthworks themselves were a likely in 1863, with the materials used in the attraction. construction of the Civil War fortifications. Analysis of Historic Period Artifacts Stone Carvings A total of 5,445 historic period artifacts Several carvings in the stone outcrop- were recovered during the Roper’s Knob pings on Roper’s Knob include names, excavations (Table 2). Also found were initials, and dates (Figure 8). Carvings ob- 340 artifacts classified as “Miscellaneous served during the test excavation project Modern,” 642 pieces of faunal material, appear on the upper knob near the earth- and 866 prehistoric artifacts. Historic arti- works, with the exception of one loose facts were analyzed and tabulated using a stone found near the house. The carved system modified from South (1977:95-96) dates range from 1870 to 1935. However, in which artifacts are divided into func- some undated carvings seem to be re- tional groups and then subdivided into cent. This early form of graffiti is evidence classes. This modified system has been of the popularity of Roper’s Knob as a used for prior Division of Archaeology pro- spot to visit following the war. The Union jects including Fort Southwest Point and army had cleared the trees off of the Fort Blount (Smith 1993; Smith and knob, providing an unobstructed view of Nance 2000). This article also includes a

98 Roper’s Knob

TABLE 2. Distribution of Historic Period Artifacts.

“Civil War Military Artifact Group” previ- creamware, pearlware, whiteware, coarse ously used to classify Civil War material earthenware, and stoneware. These recovered from the Carter House in sherds represented a variety of decorative Franklin (Smith 1994:70). types and vessel forms. Identified individ- The “Civil War Military Artifact Group” ual vessels (minimum of 45) include shows those items associated with the plates, cups, bowls, pitchers, jars, and primary historical event that affected vessel lids. Roper’s Knob. Relatively few military arti- A mean ceramic date was calculated facts were recovered from the site area, a for the house/yard area of Roper’s Knob fact that reflects the extensive collecting using the formula developed by South of such artifacts on this and most other (1977:217-218, 236). As expected, the Civil War sites. Several collectors that had sherds from Zone II of the house yielded searched the site (with permission of the an earlier date that those of Zone I. Taken landowner when it was privately owned) together, the ceramics from the house shared information on their finds with the and yard yielded a mean ceramic date of author. Artifacts mentioned as found in- 1848.1. cluded such items as Minie Balls, Burn- Two hundred ninety-one fragments of side’s Cartridges, bayonets, military but- dark olive wine bottles were recovered, tons, one silver-plated Union belt buckle, with the majority of these items coming and a scabbard tip. from the house and yard area. One characteristic observed on these bottles is an Kitchen Group applied lip. This bead of glass, added after the bottle was sheared from the blow- The Kitchen group includes ceramics, pipe, is characteristic of bottles manufac- glassware, tableware, kitchenware, and tured between 1840 and 1870. Some of bottle glass. The 2,287 artifacts recovered the fragments denoted a bottle that was from Roper's Knob make up 42.1% of the blown into a mold but the neck hand- total number of historic period artifacts. finished, suggesting a manufacture date The largest single class within the Kitchen between 1845 and 1885 (Newman group is ceramics. 1970:72-75). A pontil scar, caused by the The 874 ceramic sherds recovered use of a tool attached to the base of a bot- from Roper's Knob consist of porcelain, tle during finishing, was evident on a base

99 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

fragment found in the yard area. Pontils Nails and spikes recovered from were used in bottle manufacture before Roper's Knob total 1,812 specimens. 1870 (Jones 1971:68-72). These sug- Nails comprise the largest single class gested dates fit well with the occupation represented in both the redoubt (n=255) period of the house. and platform (n=712). A total of 672 nails Other Kitchen Group artifacts include were recovered from the house/yard. Thir- one fragment of a square-sided case bot- teen of the fourteen spikes came from the tle, two fragments of tumbler glass, 39 redoubt and associated features. Most of pieces of pharmaceutical bottles, 365 the identifiable whole nails were machine- pieces of general bottle glass, and 73 made with an approximate date range of pieces of glassware that were pieces of 1830-1885 (Edwards and Wells 1993:56, two decorative serving dishes. Six pieces 61-62). of tableware were recovered as well as Thirty-eight artifacts classified as Con- 636 fragments of kitchenware (most of struction Hardware include construction which was miscellaneous tinware). staples, roofing tin, a pintle, iron hinge, and iron escutcheon. Architectural Group Furniture Group This group, comprised of artifacts related to the construction of buildings, is Eight of the nine artifacts assigned to the largest single group from the Roper's the Furniture Group came from the house Knob site with 52.8% of the total historic area. Items in this group include lantern artifacts. Window glass totaled 1,016 wick adjustors, a hasp, brass escutcheon, pieces, of which roughly 94% came from iron wing nut, and upholstery tacks. the house/yard. Two formulae were used to calculate a manufacture date for the Arms Group glass based on the thickness. Window glass thickness increased through the The Arms Group consists of artifacts nineteenth century, and each formula as- associated with firearms, but does not in- sumes a straight-line progression of this clude the Civil War period artifacts. Six trend. Ball (1982:13) developed a formula artifacts were recovered, five of which based on samples from several sites came from the house. One .65 caliber (primarily in Kentucky). Moir's (1987) for- musket ball, thought to be pre-Civil War, mula, as quoted in Meyers (2001:69), is was found in Feature 12 (the blockhouse slightly different. Applying each formula to trench). Additional specimens were three the glass found in the house/yard area of gunflints and two lead shot. Roper's Knob produced the results shown in Table 3. Meyers (2001:69) states that Clothing Group Moir's formula seems to be accurate to within 15 years for sites in Tennessee. Thirty-nine artifacts belonging to the clothing group were recovered during the TABLE 3. Dates Based on Window Glass Thick- investigations. These items include buck- ness. les, buttons, straight pins, hook and eye Formula House House Yard fasteners, shoe parts, and a strap slider. Zone I Zone II Ball 1806.9 1806.2 1807.9 Although this category does not include Moir 1812.5 1812.1 1814.6 military buttons, it is possible that military

100 Roper’s Knob

TABLE 4. Distribution of Civil War Military Artifacts.

personnel used some of the civilian type Tobacco Pipes clothing items. Sixteen clothing items came from the house/yard area, and one The Tobacco Pipe Group is a modified derived from the west terrace. Seven category for all smoking paraphernalia clothing artifacts (including five buttons) (Smith and Nance 2000:139, 251). Eight came from the platform, a feature that fragments were found in the house/yard seems to have had a military function. area, and two were recovered from the Twelve shoe tacks were recovered from redoubt. The ten pipe fragments recov- the outer entrenchments (Feature 2) and ered from 40WM101 consisted of eight one bone button came from the block- pieces of stoneware stub-stemmed pipes house wall trench (Feature 12). and two kaolin pipe sections.

Personal Group Activities Group

The Personal Group includes items The Activities Group contains several presumably owned and used by individu- classes of artifacts that pertain to a variety als. Eight personal items recovered from of activities. The group as proposed by Roper's Knob consist of two pencil frag- South (1977:96) includes such classes as ments, three comb pieces, one specimen construction tools, farm tools, toys, fishing thought to be a piece of jewelry, and two gear, storage items, stable and barn, mis- finials from canes or umbrellas. cellaneous hardware, and military objects. Not all of these classes are represented in

101 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

FIGURE 9. Civil War Military Artifacts: A. .54 cal. Sharp's carbine bullet, B. .58 cal. minie ball, C. .54 cal. William's Cleaner bullet, D. .45 cal. bullet, E. .58 cal. minie ball, F. Carved minie ball, G. .32 cal. shell casing, H. Friction primer wire, I. Musket band spring, J. Percussion caps, K. Fed- eral uniform cuff buttons. the Roper’s Knob collection. The 148 arti- Civil War Military Artifact Group facts classified as belonging to the Activi- ties Group comprise just 2.7% of the total The Civil War Military Artifact Group is number of historic artifacts. not part of South's (1977:95) original clas- Among the Activities Group artifacts sification scheme, but has been used recovered from Roper's Knob are 42 elsewhere to account for these particular items classified as Stable and Barn arti- artifacts (Smith 1994). Table 4 lists the 56 facts. Thirty-two of these artifacts are Civil War artifacts recovered from Roper's horseshoe nails, with the largest concen- Knob. Many of these artifacts were situ- tration (n=16) coming from the platform. ated among larger rocks that would have Sixty-seven artifacts concentrated in the shielded them from detection by relic col- house, platform, and redoubt areas fall lectors. Collectors interviewed during the under the Miscellaneous Hardware cate- project reported finding military buckles, gory. One interesting item found at the bayonets, bullets, and Burnside type cas- house was a button mold used for casting ings. The cavalry used Burnside carbines, metal buttons. and the presence of Burnside casings (assuming the reports are accurate) may indicate the use of Roper’s Knob as a cavalry outpost and observation point.

102 Roper’s Knob

Representative samples of the Civil War band spring was recovered from the re- artifacts are shown in Figure 9. doubt. The band spring holds the musket Minié Balls. Minié Balls, named for band in place when it is slid onto the Claude Etienne Minié, were improve- stock. This example is made of iron. ments over the standard round ball. The Friction Primer. The brass wire portion conical shape and hollow base meant that of a friction primer was recovered from the projectile would expand when fired Feature 4 (the suspected cistern). A fric- and grip the spiral rifling of the weapon’s tion primer is a hollow brass tube filled barrel (Lord 1965:15) for greater range with gunpowder, with a piece of wire and accuracy. Of the 18 Minie Balls re- pushed into and perpendicular to the tube. covered from the site, 13 are .58 caliber The tube is placed into the touchhole of a and three .54 caliber. One partially melted cannon, and a lanyard is attached to the example could not be measured. The re- wire. When the lanyard is pulled, the fric- maining bullet is a type called a William’s tion ignites the powder, thus firing the Cleaner. This particular bullet has a cannon. plunger at the base and a small flange that was compressed when fired so that Other Artifacts the flange scraped the barrel, cleaning residue left from burning gunpowder. Additional artifacts recovered from Four other bullets were retrieved dur- Roper's Knob (but not included in Table 2) ing the investigations. Two are .45 caliber, include 642 pieces of animal bone and but no further information could be deter- shell; materials such as brick, mortar, mined about them. Two .54 caliber charcoal, and coal; and 340 artifacts clas- Sharp’s type bullets were also found. All sified as Miscellaneous Modern Material. specimens were found in Zone I of the house. Conclusions Two .32 caliber shell casings were recovered from the site, one rimfire casing One of the goals of the test excava- and one centerfire. Neither item was tions conducted on Roper’s Knob was to marked with headstamps. assess the extent of archaeological re- Percussion Caps. Percussion caps are mains on the site for the purpose of their small brass caps that contained mercury long-term preservation. Roper’s Knob fulminate. This crystalline compound went through two phases that left distinct (made from a blend of mercury, alcohol, archaeological remains. These phases and nitric acid) exploded when forcibly are: (1) the domestic occupation during struck. The mercury fulminate in the brass which a house was constructed on the ter- cap sent a spark into the barrel of a mus- race of the knob and inhabited probably ket, thus igniting the powder and firing the no more than 30 years, possibly by the weapon. Twenty-six specimens (25 whole Roper family; and (2) the military occupa- and one partial) were found during the ex- tion of the site during the Civil War when cavation. Twenty-two of these derived fortifications were constructed on the from Zone I of the platform. One of the knob. Historical documentation provided caps recovered is small, indicating that it insights into both of these phases and was used for a pistol rather than a mus- helped predict the types of archaeological ket. remains that might be present. Musket Band Spring. One musket By piecing together the available

103 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

documentary and artifactual evidence, it is of cooperation will be required between possible to infer a general history of the the State of Tennessee, the Heritage house. The house was likely built, or at Foundation, the City of Franklin, and local least begun, by Nicholas P Perkins some- landowners. time between 1829 and 1833. Following his death in 1833, Perkins heirs retained Notes. Unpublished reference sources used for possession of the land but didn't actually this work include bound transcriptions and microfilm copies of Davidson and Williams County re- live there. The Roper family appears to cords at the Tennessee State Library and Archives have lived on the site (possibly) as early in Nashville (originals in the Davidson County as 1836 and (at least) as late as 1850, but Courthouse in Nashville, and Williamson County were clearly gone by 1859. Courthouse in Franklin). Also used were microfilm Construction of the fortifications on copies of 1830-1880 United States Census Re- ports for Tennessee Counties at the Tennessee Roper's Knob began in February 1863, State Library and Archives in Nashville. and were probably completed by May of that same year. The house was likely Acknowledgments: This project was funded dismantled and the material used in the through a Federal survey and planning grant ad- construction of the fortifications. ministered through the Tennessee Historical Commission and a grant from the Tennessee The visible (above ground) and ar- Wars Commission. In addition to six employees chaeological features of Roper's Knob hired for the project, 78 volunteers, working in comprise an important historical resource shifts of two or three per day, helped with the ex- that is well worth preservation and further cavation. study. This resource includes the archaeological remains of a house dating References from the first half of the nineteenth century, and, more importantly, examples of Ball, Donald B. blockhouse construction, earthen fortifica- 1982 Chronological Implications of Window tions, a signal station, and troop en- Glass Thickness and Coloration at the Linville Site (15BK12), Bracken campments. The wall trench of the block- County, Kentucky. U.S. Army Corps of house, cut into solid bedrock, is an un- Engineers, Louisville, Kentucky. Copy usual Civil War military feature that de- on file, Tennessee Division of Archae- serves more archaeological attention. ology, Nashville. There is also the potential for locating the remains of the two cisterns and the Brown, J. Willard, A. M. magazine. 1896 The Signal Corps, U. S. A. in the War The State of Tennessee and the Heri- of the Rebellion. U. S. Veteran Signal tage Foundation of Franklin and William- Corps Association, Boston. son County took the initial step in the long-term preservation and interpretation Connelly, Thomas L. 1994 Civil War Tennessee, Battles and of Roper’s Knob by purchasing the prop- Leaders. The University of Tennessee erty. At this time, the site area continues Press, Knoxville. to suffer from extensive relic collecting, camping, hiking, and dirt bike riding. Dilliplane, Ty L. However, a long-term goal is to open 1974 Fort Granger (Franklin, TN): A Study Roper’s Knob to the public with hiking of Its Past and Proposal for Its Future. trails access and interpretive signage. To Report prepared for the National Park successfully accomplish this goal, a spirit Service. Copy on file, Tennessee Divi- sion of Archaeology, Nashville.

104 Roper’s Knob

Archives, Nashville. 1975 Exploratory Excavations at Fort Granger. Report prepared for Franklin 1875 Development of the Blockhouse in the Jaycees, Franklin, Tennessee and the Civil War. In Van Horne, A History of National Park Service. Copy on file, the Army of the Cumberland. Volume Tennessee Division of Archaeology, 2. Nashville. Meyers, Danielle F. Edwards, Jay D. and Tom Wells 2001 Phase III Archaeological Testing of 1993 Historic Louisiana Nails, Aids to Dating Site 40KN150 in the Proposed State of Old Buildings. The Fred B. Kniffen Route 131 (Emory Road) Corridor Cultural Resources Laboratory Mono- from Near Gill Road to Near Bishop graph Series No. 2. Department of Road, Knox County, Tennessee. Cen- Geography and Anthropology, Louisi- ter for Transportation Research, The ana State University, Baton Rouge. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Copy on file, Tennessee Division of Foote, Shelby Archaeology, Nashville. 1986 The Civil War: A Narrative; Volume I, Fort Sumter to Perryville. Vintage Moir, Randall W. Books, New York. 1987 Socioeconomic and Chronometric Pat- terning of Window Glass. In Historic Jones, Olive Buildings, Material Culture, and Peo- 1971 Glass Bottle Push-Ups and Pontil ple of the Prairie Margin: Architecture, Marks. Historical Archaeology. Volume Artifacts, and Synthesis of Historic Ar- V, The Society for Historical Archae- chaeology, edited by David H. Jurney ology, Mackinac Island State Park and Randall W. Moir, pp. 73-81. Rich- Commission, Lansing, Michigan. land Creek Technical Series. Archae- ology Research Program, Southern Lord, Francis A. Methodist University, Dallas, Texas. 1965 Civil War Collector's Encyclopedia. Castle Books, New York. Newman, T. Stell 1970 A Dating Key For Post-Eighteenth Lynch, Louise Gillespie Century Bottles. Historical Archae- 1977 Miscellaneous Records of Williamson ology. Volume IV, The Society for His- County, Volume 1. Published by the torical Archaeology, Moravian College, author. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Marshall, Park OR (1880-1901) 1970 Collection of Writings by Park Mar- The War of the Rebellion: A Compila- shall. Tennessee State Library and tion of the Official Records of the Un- Archives, Nashville. ion and Confederate Armies. Govern- ment Printing Office, Washington, D. Merrill, William E., C. 1863 Report of William Merrill on Defenses at Franklin, National Archives, Record Sayers, Edward B., Group 77, Records of the Office of the 1863 Untitled map of Signal Stations be- Chief Engineer, Letters Received, Mi- tween Franklin and Murfreesboro. Map crofilm 4321. No. 71, McGaw Collection, Vanderbilt 1864 “Block House Sketches,” Manuscript University Library, Special Collections. Accession Number 267. Buell-Brien Sketch copy on file, Tennessee Divi- Papers, Tennessee State Library and sion of Archaeology, Nashville.

105 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

Scott, H. L., Colonel 1864 Military Dictionary. D. Van Nostrand, New York.

Smith, Samuel D. 1994 Excavation Data for Civil War Era Mili- tary Sites in Middle Tennessee. Look To The Earth, edited by Clarence R. Geier, Jr. and Susan E. Winter. The University of Tennessee Press, Knox- ville.

Smith, Samuel D. and Benjamin C. Nance 2000 An Archaeological Interpretation of the Site of Fort Blount, A 1790s Territorial Militia and Federal Military Post, Jack- son County, Tennessee. Research Series Number 12, Tennessee Divi- sion of Archaeology, Nashville.

2003 A Survey of Civil War Era Military Sites in Tennessee. Research Series Number 14, Tennessee Division of Ar- chaeology, Nashville.

South, Stanley 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Ar- chaeology. Studies in Archaeology, Academic Press. New York.

Sword, Wiley 1992 Embrace an Angry Wind, The Confed- eracy's Last Hurrah: Spring Hill, Frank- lin, and Nashville. Harper Collins Pub- lishers, Inc., New York.

Benjamin C. Nance Tennessee Division of Archaeology Cole Building #3 1216 Foster Avenue Nashville TN 37210

106 DEEP TESTING METHODS IN ALLUVIAL ENVIRONMENTS: CORING VS. TRENCHING ON THE NOLICHUCKY RIVER

Sarah C. Sherwood and James J. Kocis

Deep testing by trenching is a standard field method used to investigate the potential for deeply buried surfaces or archaeological deposits in alluvial environments in the eastern US. This technique, however, can be both destructive and dangerous. We review the use of hydraulic coring in combination with microartifact analysis as an alternative to deep testing. A Phase II study on the Nolichucky River is used to directly compare trenching vs. coring and their effec- tiveness in providing data needed to identify buried sites in a floodplain and terrace environ- ment. When combined with microartifact analysis and detailed description, the hydraulic coring protocols provided a qualitative and quantitative measure for the presence of buried surfaces that extend significantly deeper than trenches can efficiently reach..

Deep testing by trenching is a stan- pounded by soil type, vibrations from con- dard field method used to look for deeply struction equipment, groundwater fluctua- buried archaeological deposits in alluvial tions, and prolonged exposure of the pro- environments. In the southeastern United file. Shoring or shield systems can protect States, mechanical trenching by backhoe against collapse, but typical survey has become the preferred method for the trenches are open for only a brief time, identification and examination of such making the time required to install these sites, as is evidenced in various state protective measures expensive and unre- guidelines (e.g. Simms 2001; West Vir- alistic. ginia Division of Culture and History A second disadvantage of trenching 1991). However, there are significant and arises from the amount of excavation re- often overlooked disadvantages to trench- quired to safely investigate deeply buried ing that can be mitigated through the use deposits. For example, to excavate a of hydraulic coring, combined with mi- trench three meters deep, one meter croartifact analysis, as an alternate deep wide, and ten meters long, approximately testing method. Although mechanized cor- 110 cubic meters of soil would need to be ing has been advocated by archaeologists removed to create “benches” that remain in numerous contexts to identify deeply within safety guidelines for trenching and buried surfaces (e.g. Canti and Meddens excavation established by the Occupa- 1998; McManamon 1984; Schuldenrein tional Safety and Health Administration 1991; Stein 1986), it remains an underuti- (OSHA).1 This amount of soil/sediment lized tool to explore the potential and na- equals approximately 30 loads for a typi- ture of buried archaeological sites in allu- cal single-axle dump truck. This volume of vial and colluvial contexts of the South- material is rarely systematically examined. east. From a cultural resources perspective, The first disadvantage of deep testing coring is a safer, more efficient, and cost by trenching is a concern for worker effective method that can be used to iden- safety. When a trench is excavated, the tify deeply buried strata, and results in structural balance of a soil or deposit is minimal disturbance to a project area and always disrupted – creating the potential potentially significant buried archaeologi- for collapse. This potential is com- cal deposits. In this article we briefly ex-

107 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

plore the benefits of coring (relative to Today, hydraulic-powered direct-push trenching) as a method in deep archaeo- devices can be used in various contexts. logical survey. We use a case study on The equipment and skilled operators can the Nolichucky River in Greene County, be subcontracted through drilling compa- Tennessee, to examine the results of both nies and the abundant environmental and methods. geotechnical companies currently operat- ing across the country. The direct-push Coring machines use hydraulic pressure in conjunction with a rotary hammer to push a In archaeology, coring evolved along sampler below the ground surface to a with the development of new questions desired depth. The devices are self con- and technological advancements in field tained and either mounted to four-wheel- methods. The earliest equipment typically drive truck beds or track-mounted for consisted of hand augers with extensions rough terrain.2 Hydraulic rigs such as the (still routinely used) and, less often, com- Giddings® and Geoprobe® are ideal in mercial drilling rigs. Stein (1986) offers a alluvial, colluvial, and urban environments detailed look at the history of coring in ar- where deposits are often greater than two chaeology and a description of the types meters in depth. In urban settings coring of techniques available. She distinguishes can be especially important when thick two periods, beginning with the late 1930s modern fill layers overlay potentially sig- to 1950s, when coring was used prior to nificant earlier historic layers or soil sur- radiometric techniques to build relative faces (Schuldenrein 1991). chronologies in the Mississippi Delta re- In compliance situations, where a pro- gion. During the latter period of the mid- ject area may have very strict boundaries 1960s, cores and augers began to play a or limitations, these machines can be key role in the exploration of subsurface highly maneuverable and compact. In ar- deposits for site reconstruction and the eas sensitive because of ecological collection of controlled samples for and/or viewscape concerns, hydraulic cor- chemical, biological and 14C analyses ing is preferred over trenching because it (Stein 1986:509). At this time truck- has minimal surface impact and creates mounted hydraulic soil sampling rigs also almost no visual disturbance to the land- began to appear in archaeological re- scape (e.g. mounded dirt, damaged vege- search programs. By the early 1980s, tation). For example, in our experience cores and augers were used to assess coring in the Great Smoky Mountains Na- site structure or the depth and nature of tional Park, the method articulated well cultural deposits in a growing number of with wider resource management con- intersite applications (e.g. Hoffman 1993; cerns such as biological conservation and Polhemus 1982; Stein 1982; Whittacker consideration of the visitor experience and Stein 1992). Further, Canti and Med- (Sherwood and Kocis 2005). dens (1998:100) propose several ways in In large-scale surveys, coring can tar- which coring can assist archaeologists, get areas for additional testing by identify- including delineating a site, mapping pa- ing paleosols or deeply buried cultural de- leotopography, confirming geophysical posits. Even landscapes once thought in- results, and the systematic collection of accessible, such as those inundated by paleoenvironmental samples on- and off- water, can be cored using auger rigs site. placed on floating barges. This is particu-

108 Coring vs. Trenching

larly important in the Southeastern United the often-cited cost of the equipment (e.g. States where large floodplain landscapes Canti and Meddens 1998; Stein 1986).3 have been inundated due to reservoir Nonetheless, the ability to extract cores construction. Using more traditional ar- methodically in acetate liners significantly chaeological techniques, we have only increases efficiency while decreasing limited access to deposits that neverthe- cost. Another limitation of coring is com- less can contain valuable proxy data for paction due to friction caused by the push paleoenvironmental reconstruction as well of the tube into the ground. Careful re- as significant archaeological deposits. cording of depths in the field and lab, Coring provides a tool to access these along with the disposal of mixed sections hidden landscapes. For example, in a re- can mitigate this limitation. Experienced cent study where an inundated portion of geoarchaeologists and pedologists can the Tennessee River floodplain was easily identify this disturbance and factor slated for destruction by bridge construc- it into the protocol for core description and tion, Kocis (2005) was able to examine sampling. Canti and Meddens (1998:104) buried soils with intact morphology and also offer calculations that can be used to archaeological deposits using cores. correct for displacement due to compac- Core diameters typically available for tion. These caveats in mind, the beneficial hydraulic rigs vary between one to six aspects of hydraulic coring for exploring inches (ca. 2.5-15 cm). Several factors deep stratigraphy theoretically outweigh affect the size of the sampling tube, in- the limitations. In an effort to test this ar- cluding the density of the material, related gument, we compare the results of coring friction, and the weight of the coring rig. versus trenching in the following case Texture is also important since most nar- study. row tubes (less than two inches/five centimeters) will not be able to extract sam- The Nolichucky River Study ples in dense, gravelly sediments. Sampling tubes range from “split Systematic comparison of trenching spoon tubes” that come apart producing a and coring was carried out as part of section of soil to “solid sampling tubes” Phase II testing at the Birdwell site that extrude a solid core. If the project re- (40GN228), a multi-component site on the quires real-time results and there is time Nolichucky River in Greene County, Ten- to describe the sample in the field, then nessee (Figure 1). While previously identi- the split spoon or direct extrusions are fied during Phase I testing, the vertical ex- appropriate. If time is an issue and the tent of archaeological deposits at the site equipment is available for only a limited were unknown. The proposed construc- period, then the use of acetate sleeves or tion of a new bridge and approaches by liners in solid tubes is more desirable. the Tennessee Department of Transporta- Sleeves and liners can be quickly re- tion (TDOT) was determined to have the moved, labeled and oriented in the field, potential for impacts on the site. Phase II and then taken to the lab to be opened, investigations sponsored by TDOT were described, sampled, and/or stored. If they conducted by MACTEC Engineering and are sealed well in the field and stored in a Consulting, Inc. with Carey Oakley as cool dark place, they can be curated for Principal Investigator, Bradley Creswell as many years. Field Director, and Sarah C. Sherwood Coring does have limitations, including directing the geoarchaeological field and

109 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

FIGURE 1. Location of the Birdwell Site (USGS Cedar Creek 7.5’ Quadrangle, 181SW, 1966). laboratory analyses. nearly level to gently sloping floodplains Greene County is situated in northeast (Edwards 1958; USDA-NRCS 2002). In Tennessee adjacent to the Unaka Moun- the project area, these soils continue tains and the North Carolina border, within across the floodplain and up the low first the Valley and Ridge physiographic prov- terrace to the east. The presence of enti- ince. With a narrow and irregular flood- sols adjacent to the river indicated a high plain, the Nolichucky River feeds into the probability for deeply buried soils. Both French Broad River as part of the larger coring and trenching were planned for the Tennessee River Valley. Underlying geo- project, providing an opportunity to com- logic formations are part of the Cambrian pare the two deep testing methods. In ad- and Ordovician Conasauga and Knox dition to examining the presence and na- Groups, composed of dolomite with minor ture of buried deposits, we had two sup- shale and chert components (Hardemann plementary methodological objectives. 1966). The soils mapped throughout the The first objective was to explore the area are Holocene age Entisols (young use of microartifact analysis in concert soils, developed in unconsolidated parent with core descriptions to identify buried material). In general these soils are deep, archaeological deposits. As the most well-drained micaceous sandy loams on abundant kind of artifact in the archaeo-

110 Coring vs. Trenching

FIGURE 2. MACTEC operation of Geoprobe 5400® during the project. logical record, microartifacts provide large 5400® owned and operated by MACTEC sample sizes for strengthened quantitative Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (Figure analyses even in the sparsest of sites, 2). Two types of coring devices were and are more reliable indicators of ar- used: a) four-inch (ten-cm) diameter split- chaeological sites in survey contexts rela- spoon sampler (60-cm in length), and b) a tive to macroartifacts (Dunnell and Stein two-inch (five-cm) diameter macrosampler 1989, Fladmark 1982; Sherwood 2001). with an acetate liner (115-cm in length). Microartifacts have also proven to be reli- When the ten-centimeter diameter cores able for identifying buried deposits (Staf- were extracted in the field they were ford 1995) and delineating activity areas placed on a specially designed calibrated and intrasite spatial structure (Metcalf and table for viewing the articulated sections Heath 1990; Rosen 1993; Sherwood et al. by depth and to facilitate sample collec- 1995; Simms and Heath 1990). A second tion (Figure 3). All profiles and cores were methodological objective was to compare described using standardized soil descrip- profiles and descriptions of cores to those tions including Munsell color, texture, from comparable trenches placed across structure, lower boundary (when discern- the project area.4 able), and pedogenic or cultural features (Soil Survey Division Staff 1993). Coring Methods began on the eastern edge of 40GN228 adjacent to the Nolichucky River and con- Cores were collected using a four- tinued at 20-m intervals perpendicular to wheel drive, truck-mounted Geoprobe the river. A total of three four-inch (ten

111 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

FIGURE 3. Four-inch core removed from split spoon and placed into the ARL table designed to facilitate the field description, photo-documentation, and sampling of core sections. cm) cores and one two-inch (five cm) core der to maximize the soil profile relative to was extracted (Figure 4). Bulk samples for the landscape variation. Location of the microartifact analysis (bagged and labeled trenches was determined based on the by core depth) were collected in 20-cm landform and restrictions of the right-of- increments unless a lithological change or way. Seven trenches designated as G disturbance was noted. Laboratory proto- through M were excavated (Figure 4). cols used to process these samples were When they intersected cultural features (in based on designs by Sherwood (2001) the western portion of the project area), and Stafford (1995) and are detailed in they were terminated. Although trenches the technical report (Oakley et al. and cores were not consistently adjacent 2003:56-58). to one another, they represent the same Trenching was completed using a section of the landform and are matched backhoe equipped with a one-meter wide accordingly. straight-edge bucket. Trenches were The Phase II study also included the stepped or “benched” away from the excavation of one-by-two meter test units working profile when depths exceeded 1.5 as extensions of profiles for Trenches J, meters. An egress ramp was excavated at H, and G (Figure 4). Results from these one end of the trench. All trenches were excavation units were used to confirm the excavated perpendicular to the river in or- interpretations drawn from the trench pro-

112 Coring vs. Trenching

FIGURE 4. Project area limits showing test units, backhoe trenches, and core locations. files and to provide data on artifact density artifacts (see Oakley et al. 2003). and chronological control from diagnostic

113 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

descriptions of Cores 20, 21 and 22, the microartifact distributions, and the trench profiles all reveal the location of four buried A horizons. The cores identify at least two additional buried soils that the trenches were unable to explore due to depth restrictions. On the first terrace, above the floodplain, it was difficult to find a place to excavate a deep trench that did not intersect cultural features immediately beneath the plow zone. Core 23 and Trench M were placed adjacent to one another, offering an excellent opportunity to directly compare their results (Figure 6). Both exhibit several buried A horizons with only slight variations in the profile measurements that may be due to the variable surface instead of variable depths, or to slight compression in the core (Core 23 was collected using a two-inch diameter sampling tube). Wherever variation appeared it typically measured less than ten cm. Hori- zon 3Ab (Trench M) was a faint incipient A that that was not observed in Core 23 (Figure 6). The microartifact data spikes at 175-200 centimeters below surface FIGURE 5. West profile of Trench M showing sequence of alluvial deposits with minimal soil (cmbs), correlate with a fifth buried A development (scale in photograph = 2 m). (5Ab) identified in both the trench and the core. In the trench, macro-debitage was Results observed in the profile at this depth as well. Towards the base of this horizon The subsurface testing methods indi- (about 225 cmbs), horizon 5Ab contained cate deeply buried sequences on both the charcoal, debitage and a flake tool. No floodplain and the first terrace. This se- micro- or macro-ceramics appear greater quence generally consists of variable allu- than 200 cmbs in the core or the trench vial deposits with minimal soil develop- (Oakley et al. 2003). The presence of ment evidenced in numerous AC horizons debitage and the absence of ceramics (Figure 5). While coring and deep trench- suggest a possible Archaic component ing both reveal buried deposits at the older than the sequence observed in the Birdwell site, only the coring was able to floodplain data (the earliest deposits in the identify the deepest deposits. floodplain trenches were dated to the The floodplain in the project area is Woodland Period). Core 23 was able to approximately 40 m wide from the river- extend beyond the depth of Trench M, bank to the gentle slope up to the first ter- and identified one more buried soil at 400 race. On the floodplain, the results from cmbs. Probable microdebitage was

114 Coring vs. Trenching

FIGURE 6. Diagrammatic comparison of Trench M and Core 23. recovered just above and below this Discussion and Conclusions depth, but very little charcoal was observed (Figure 6). Core 23 also provides In the Nolichucky case study, the deep an apparent base of the terrace soils, with trenches and cores yielded comparable the presence of sand and gravel begin- descriptions. As indicated by Stafford ning at 540 cmbs. While we cannot con- (1995), the microartifacts also proved to firm another buried cultural component at be reliable indicators of buried surfaces, 400 cmbs, there is a buried surface pre- and in most cases, archaeological depos- sent based on the soil description, and its. there remains the potential for buried ar- Based on the coring and trenching re- chaeological deposits to this depth. The sults it is clear that there are deeply bur- Trench M profile was only excavated to ied deposits in both the floodplain and the 300 cmbs where artifacts continued to first terrace. Figure 7 summarizes the pro- appear in the profile. ject coring and trenching data in addition to the general temporal information ob-

115 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

FIGURE 7. Schematic cross-section through the project Area with the cultural periods (based on test unit data) overlying core results. tained in the test units (see Oakley 2003). sampler. Compression was minimal and Note that the buried surfaces revealed in the larger diameter allowed for incorpora- the cores continue below the limits of the tion (and therefore description) of coarse temporal data, suggesting earlier deposits materials. However, with increased size, may be located within the site. In the case greater resistance occurred with depth so of Core 23, the microartifacts provide evi- the ten-cm diameter sampler could rarely dence for human activity, and the core be used past two to four meters. At data indicates the base of the terrace de- greater depths, the two-inch (5-cm) sam- posits. This information was not available pler was required.5 Due to the length of from the trench because of the extreme the sampler (60 cm), collection time may depth. To remain within OSHA guidelines, also become an issue as it necessitates trenching to this depth would have re- more core sections to reach the same quired stepped benches opening up depth. The two-inch (5-cm) diameter mac- nearly the entire width of the proposed rosampler with acetate liner reached right-of-way, destroying the significant up- much greater depths (e.g. Core 23 = 5.5 per archaeological components. m) and used a longer sampler. Subse- During this project, the four-inch (ten- quent to the methodological study on the cm) diameter split-spoon sampler pro- Nolichucky River we have refined our cor- vided for better description of pedogenic ing approach in the river valleys and col- features and horizon boundaries com- luvial slopes of the Midsouth using a pared to the two-inch (5-cm) diameter three-inch (7.6 cm) macro-sample tube

116 Coring vs. Trenching that produces a 115-cm section within an (Standards - 29 CFR) for Sloping and Benching - acetate sleeve. This diameter can be 1926 Subpart P App B excavation guidelines. www.osha.gov. pushed to great depths in typical alluvium, provides an adequate sample amount for 2 Track mounts are ideal for tight spots such as various analyses, and the integrity of pe- wooded areas and for soft, wet soils. dogenic features it affords facilitates com- 3 prehensive soil morphology descriptions. We do not explore the option of purchasing a hydraulic coring device here, as most CRM compa- The direct correlation between the nies are unable to dedicate these kinds of funds sources of soil data that are demonstrated and maintenance to equipment that will not be here suggests that coring provides com- used on a regular basis. parable results to backhoe trenching with 4 substantially less destruction to potentially While soil characterization data from samples collected in trench profiles and from cores should significant deposits and less danger to the be directly comparable, it is often the case in field analyst. Coring is far safer, and can Phase I and Phase II surveys where the costs of efficiently reach greater depths than physical and chemical soil analyses are too pro- trenching. The main benefit to trenching is hibitive to be included in the budget. The results the wider exposure it creates, providing from deep survey methods therefore tend to derive from description and experienced field observation for more detailed examination of strati- alone. Therefore, in this study we focused on the graphic boundaries, as well as the chance results of qualitative and semi-quantitative descrip- for identification of features or macroarti- tion. fact concentrations to provide specific in- 5 sights into the age of the deposits. This It is important to note that diameters of 7.6 and ten cm (three and four in) cannot push to such potential temporal benefit could be incor- depths with smaller machines (typically trailer, cart porated in the coring protocol through or ATV mounted). These lighter machines do not budget allocations for radiocarbon dating have the weight or push to handle the resistance of charred material extracted from core. typically associated with this diameter at the Closer spacing between cores can also depths expected in the regions alluvial soils. provide more refined spatial data. Acknowledgments: We gratefully acknowledge At the initial survey or Phase I level, TDOT for funding this project and MACTEC Engi- where the primary goal of deep testing is neering and Consulting, Inc. for allowing us to re- to identify the potential for buried depos- port our geoarchaeological results from the Phase its, coring is an efficient and cost effective II at the Birdwell Site. We appreciate Paul Avery and Will Hager who operated the Geoprobe and technique. This efficiency extends to its Carey Oakley and Brad Creswell, who directed the ability to identify buried surfaces/soils and, archaeological fieldwork. Thanks to Mike Angst, at a closer interval, the ability to isolate Boyce Driskell, Alan Longmire, and Hector Qirko, the limits of horizons or buried surfaces. who offered helpful comments and editorial sug- We believe the most effective methodol- gestions on earlier versions of this manuscript. We thank Kevin Smith, Mike Moore, and an anony- ogy in such circumstances would be to mous reviewer for their thoughtful critique of the use coring data to target areas for con- final paper. servative and specific trenching at the Phase I or Phase II level. This would References maximize data recovery and the majority of the site would remain preserved or Canti, M. G. and F. M. Meddens available for more detailed investigation. 1998 Mechanical Coring as an Aid to Ar- chaeological Projects. Journal of Field Notes. 1 See U.S. Department of Labor, Occupa- Archaeology 25:97-106. tion Safety & Health Administration Regulations

117 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

Dunnell, Robert C., and Stein, Julie K. Klippel, Suanne Zwilling 1989 Theoretical Issues in the Interpretation 2003 Report of Phase II Archaeological of Microartifacts. Geoarchaeology 4 Testing Sites 40GN228 and 40GN229 (1):31-42. Greene County, Tennessee. Prepared for Tennessee Department of Trans- Edwards, Max J. portation, Nashville, TN. 1958 Soil Survey of Greene County, Ten- nessee. US Government Printing Of- Polhemus, Richard R. fice, Washington, DC. 1982 Small Diameter Cores: A Versatile In- vestigative Technique for the Field Ar- Fladmark, Knut R. chaeologist. Paper presented at the 1982 Microdebitage Analysis: Initial Consid- Conference of Historic Site Archae- erations. Journal of Archaeological ology, Asheville, North Carolina. Science 9:205-220. Rosen, Arlene Hardemann, William, D. 1993 Microartifacts as a Reflection of Cul- 1966 Geologic Map of Tennessee. State of tural Factors in Site Formation. In Tennessee, Division of Geology, Formation Processes in Archaeologi- Nashville, TN. cal Context. edited by Paul Goldberg and David T. Nash and Michael D. Hoffman, Curtis Petraglia, pp. 141-148. Prehistory 1993 Close-interval Core Sampling: Tests of Press, Madison, WI. a Method for Predicting Internal Site Structure. Journal of Field Archae- Schuldenrein, Joseph ology 20:461-473. 1991 Coring and the Identity of Cultural Re- source Environments. American An- Kocis, James J. tiquity 56:131-137. 2005 Geoarchaeological Examination of Site 1JA77, An Inundated Site in Gun- Sherwood, Sarah C. tersville Reservoir, Scottsboro, Jack- 2001 Microartifacts. In Earth Science and son County, Alabama. Report submit- Archaeology, edited by Paul Goldberg, ted to Office of Archaeological Re- Vance T. Holliday and C. Reid Ferring. search, The University of Alabama, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers Moundville, Alabama New York.

McManamon, Francis Patrick Sherwood, Sarah C. and James J. Kocis 1984 Discovering Sites Unseen. In Ad- 2005 “The Geoarchaeological Phase I vances in Archaeological Method and Evaluation of the proposed Cades Theory, Vol. 7, edited by Michael Cove Opportunities Project, Great Schiffer, pp. 223-292. Academic Smoky Mountains National Park, Ten- Press, New York. nessee. Report submitted to Mactec Engineering, Knoxville, TN. Metcalfe, Duncan, and Heath, Kathleen M. 1990 Microrefuse and Site Structure: The Sherwood, Sarah C., Jan F. Simek, and Rich- Hearths and Floors of the Heartbreak ard R. Polhemus Hotel. American Antiquity 55 (4):781- 1995 Artifact Size and Spatial Process: 796. Macro-and Microartifacts in a Missis- sippian house. Geoarchaeology 10 Oakley, Carey B., Steven Meredith, Sarah (6):429-455. Sherwood, Brad Creswell, Paul Avery, Robert E. Perry, James Kocis, Dan Weinand, Walter

118 Coring vs. Trenching

Simms, D.C. Julie K. Stein, pp. 25-42, Academic 2001 Guidelines for Archaeological Investi- Press, San Diego, California. gations and Reports in Mississippi, http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/hpres/ar Sarah C. Sherwood chguidelines.pdf. Mississippi Depart- Archaeological Research Laboratory ment of Archives and History. Ac- The University of Tennessee cessed August 13, 2006. Knoxville, Tennessee 37921

James J. Kocis Simms, Steven. R., and Heath, Kathleen. M. Archaeological Research Laboratory 1990 Site Structure of the Orbit Inn: An Ap- The University of Tennessee plication of Ethnoarchaeology. Ameri- Knoxville, Tennessee 37921 can Antiquity 55:797-813.

Soil Survey Division Staff 1993 Soil Survey Manual – U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18, Washing- ton, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office.

Stafford, C. Russell 1995 Geoarchaeological Perspectives on Paleolandscapes and Regional Sub- surface Archaeology. Journal of Ar- chaeological Method and Theory 2 (1):69-104.

Stein, Julie K. 1982 Geological Analysis of the Green River Shell Midden. Southeastern Archae- ology 1:22-39. 1986 Coring Archaeological Sites. American Antiquity 51(3):505-527.

USDA-NRCS 2002 “Official Soil Series Descriptions”. http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/cgi- bin/osd/osdnamequery.cgi. United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Ser- vice.

West Virginia Division of Culture and History 1991 Guidelines for Phase I Surveys, Phase II Testing, Phase III Mitigation and Cultural Resources Reports. http://1991_WVSHPA_Guidelines.rtf.

Whittacker, Fran H., and Julie K. Stein 1992 Shell Midden Boundaries in Relation to Past and Present Shorelines. In Deciphering a Shell Midden. edited by

119 A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF CLOVIS THROUGH EARLY ARCHAIC COMPONENTS AT THE WIDEMEIER SITE (40DV9), DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE

John Broster, Mark Norton, Bobby Hulan, and Ellis Durham

Recent archaeological work by the Tennessee Division of Archaeology at the Widemeier site (40DV9) has uncovered an extensive amount of evidence for Paleoindian and Early Archaic occupations. Paleoindian specimens recovered from the site area include Clovis and Cumberland projectile points along with blade tools, blades, and blade cores. Early Archaic projectile points include Harpeth River, Big Sandy I, Kirk Corner-Notched, and Lost Lake. These artifacts likely derived from a series of small extractive camps placed around small streams and springs overlooking an earlier oxbow of the Cumberland River.

The Cumberland Research Group, Inc. tional excavation units were excavated to undertook archaeological investigations at sterile clay. A total of 13 square meters the Widemeier site (40DV9) in August of was examined to a maximum depth of 90 2005 to determine if human burials would centimeters below surface. A high con- be impacted by the construction of two centration of Paleoindian and Early Ar- large ponds adjacent to the Cumberland chaic artifacts were encountered. The River and SR-12/Ashland City Highway Early Archaic levels yielded a consider- (Figure 1). A Mississippian component able amount of charcoal. A very small was known to exist within the proposed amount of charcoal was removed from the Pond #2 boundary. A series of 30-meter less dense Clovis occupation level. trenches were excavated to examine po- Clovis, Cumberland, Beaver Lake, tential burial areas. Two possible Missis- Dalton, and Greenbrier projectile points sippian period stone-box graves were were found in both the previously exca- found along the margins of the larger pro- vated trenches and the new excavations posed pond, but both could be avoided (Figures 2 and 3). Additionally, Paleoin- during pond construction. A scatter of dian projectile points and tools were col- lithic debitage and a few late Paleoindian lected during the commercial dirt removal and Early Archaic artifacts were recov- from both pond areas. Early Archaic pro- ered from the trenches in the proposed jectile points were even more numerous, Pond #1 area. However, no intact ar- and contained the following types: Har- chaeological features were noted, and in- peth River, Big Sandy I, Kirk Corner- vestigations were terminated as the condi- Notched, Pine Tree Corner-Notched, De- tions of the contract had been met (Allen catur, Lost Lake, Plevna, and Hardin 2005). Barbed (Tables 1 and 2; Figures 4 and 5). Personnel from the Tennessee Divi- Blade tools, blades, and blade cores, sion of Archaeology felt that additional probably associated with the Clovis and work at the site would be rewarding. The Cumberland occupations, were extremely Division was permitted to conduct a con- numerous (Table 3). The blade tools, tinuous archaeological evaluation of the found throughout both pond areas, con- property during the construction activities. sisted of spurred end scrapers, side Accordingly, backdirt from several of the scrapers made on blades, and blade trenches was sifted for artifacts, and addi- knives (Figures 6 and 7).

120 Widemeier Site

FIGURE 1. Location of 40DV9 (USGS Scottsboro 7.5’ Quadrangle, 308 NW).

FIGURE 2. Paleoindian projectile points: (A) Clovis; (B) Unfluted Clovis; (C-E) Beaver Lake; (F) Un- fluted Cumberland; (G) Dalton.

121 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

FIGURE 3. Clovis Preforms.

FIGURE 4. Early Archaic projectile points: (A) Greenbrier; (B) Kirk Corner-Notched; (C) Lost Lake; (D) Plevna; (E) Big Sandy; (F) Lecroy.

122 Widemeier Site

FIGURE 5. Cobbs Knives.

FIGURE 6. End scrapers.

123 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

FIGURE 7. Uniface blade tools: (A-C) Knives; (D) Side scraper; (E) Side scraper/End scraper.

FIGURE 8. 40DV9 Artifact concentration areas.

124 Widemeier Site

TABLE 1. Paleoindian Projectile Points/Knives. A B C D E F G H J Totals Clovis 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 Unfluted Clovis 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Clovis Knives 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 Channel Flake 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Clovis Preform 0 4 0 17 4 2 3 0 1 31 Cumberland 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 Unfluted Cumberland 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 4 Beaver Lake 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 6 Dalton 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Dalton Preform 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Totals 0 5 1 27 6 10 3 0 1 53

TABLE 2. Early Archaic Projectile Points/Knives.

A B C D E F G H J Totals Greenbrier 0 0 1 18 0 1 0 0 0 20 Harpeth River 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Big Sandy 1 1 1 1 10 2 8 0 0 0 23 Kirk Corner-Notch 0 3 7 40 13 4 0 1 2 70 Lost Lake 0 3 5 8 0 0 0 0 1 17 Plevna 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Decatur 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Lecroy 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Cobbs Knife 0 1 2 9 2 1 1 0 0 16 Totals 1 11 18 88 17 14 1 1 3 154

TABLE 3. Uniface Blade Tools, Biface Preforms, and Projectile Point Fragments.

A B C D E F G H J Totals Endscraper 0 14 18 46 5 13 4 0 2 104 Spurred Endscraper 1 1 4 8 3 9 0 0 0 26 Teardrop Endscraper 0 0 1 4 2 1 0 1 0 9 Sidescraper 0 5 22 57 3 16 1 1 4 109 Blade Knife 0 4 7 52 1 9 0 1 2 76 Graver 0 3 6 24 0 8 1 1 5 48 Spokeshave 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 8 Denticulate 0 1 2 4 1 2 0 0 0 10 Outre passe flake 0 2 0 14 0 1 0 0 0 17 Blade 3 11 13 206 4 22 1 3 3 266 Core Tablet flake 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Blade core 0 1 0 19 2 4 0 1 1 28 PPK fragment 0 4 11 43 3 21 0 0 9 91 Biface/ Preform 5 52 95 244 14 80 4 1 12 507 Totals 9 98 181 727 39 186 11 9 38 1298

125 Tennessee Archaeology 2(2) Fall 2006

Paleoindian and Early Archaic strati- investigated in the Central Basin. The fied levels were recorded in the Pond #2 Johnson site (40DV400), tested by the excavations. A high density of these ma- Division of Archaeology in the mid-1990s, terials were observed in the Pond #1 produced artifacts very similar to the area, but appear to be mixed within a 40 Widemeier site assemblage (Barker and centimeter deposit (with Clovis, Dalton, Broster 1996). Intact Clovis and Early Ar- Greenbrier, and Early Archaic projectile chaic components were examined, with points found together). dates obtained from both occupations. To date, a total of eight concentrations The Clovis dates are very interesting, in of early materials (Areas A through H, and that they date prior to 11,500 radiocarbon Area J) have been investigated (Figure 8). years before present and are considered These concentrations appear to be small by some Paleoindian experts to be 200 to extractive camps placed around small 500 years too old for Clovis in the Ameri- streams and springs overlooking an ear- cas. In contrast, the Early Archaic dates lier oxbow of the Cumberland River. The fell between 8,800 and 9,200 radiocarbon manufacture of bifaces and other hunting years before present, and are quite within equipment can be postulated, based on the range for Kirk/Pine Tree occupations the large numbers of broken performs and in Tennessee (Broster et al. 1991; Broster discarded projectile points. Additionally, and Barker 1992; Barker and Broster spurred end scrapers and gravers denote 1996). the manufacture of spearshafts and fore- shafts. Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank Mr. Lithic raw materials in the form of Ft. Chad Meadows and Mr. Tony Tant of CJRT, Inc. for allowing us to continue research on this very Payne chert cobbles are present in sev- important site. We would also like to thank heavy eral buried streambeds on the property. equipment operators Larry Duncan and Joey These cobbles provided a ready resource Smith for their considerable help in uncovering of toolstone material. Almost all lithic debi- sensitive occupation levels with a minimal amount tage from the site comes from the Ft. of damage. Payne chert or locally available Bigby- Cannon and Brassfield cherts. Discarded References projectile points from the Early Archaic period are also manufactured from these Allen, Dan S. IV. 2005 Due-Diligence Archaeological Investi- materials. In contrast, used and broken gation of Proposed Areas on the Deb- Paleoindian projectile points (especially orah C. Hicks Property, Davidson Clovis) are derived from Dover and St. County, Tennessee. Manuscript pre- Louis cherts that originate north and pared for CJRT, Inc. Cumberland Re- northwest of the site. This fact may repre- search Group. Nashville. Copy on file, sent greater group mobility during the Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Early Paleoindian than the later Transi- Nashville. tional Paleoindian and Early Archaic times. Barker, Gary, and John B. Broster. Site 40DV9 should prove extremely 1996 The Johnson Site (40Dv400): A Dated important in understanding the Paleoin- Paleoindian and Early Archaic Occu- pation in Tennessee’s Central Basin. dian and Early Archaic utilization of the Journal of Alabama Archaeology Central Basin of Tennessee. Only one 42(2): 97-153. other early site has been professionally

126 Widemeier Site

Broster, John B., and Gary Barker. 1992 Second Report of Investigations at the Johnson Site (40Dv400): The 1991 Field Season. Tennessee Anthropolo- gist 17(2): 120-130.

Broster, John B., David P. Johnson, and Mark R. Norton. 1991 The Johnson Site: A Dated Clovis- Cumberland Occupation in Tennes- see. Current Research in the Pleisto- cene 8: 8-10.

John B. Broster Tennessee Division of Archaeology Cole Building #3 1216 Foster Avenue Nashville TN 37210

Mark R. Norton Tennessee Division of Archaeology Cole Building #3 1216 Foster Avenue Nashville TN 37210

Bobby Hulan Ashland City, Tennessee

Ellis Durham Madison, Tennessee

127