DOCSLIB.ORG

The Algood SR-42 Project: Report on Phase II Excavations in Putnam County, Tennessee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Algood SR-42 Project: Report on Phase II Excavations in Putnam County, Tennessee The Algood SR-42 Project Report on Phase II Excavations in Putnam County, Tennessee Sarah A. Levithol, Michael C. Moore, and W. Steven Spears The Algood SR-42 Project: Report on Phase II Excavations in Putnam County, Tennessee Sarah A. Levithol, Michael C. Moore, and W. Steven Spears Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Archaeology Report of Investigations No. 18 2015 Pursuant to the State of Tennessee’s policy of non-discrimination, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, color, national or ethnic origin, age, disability, or military service in its policies, or in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in its programs, services or activities. Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action inquiries or complaints should be directed to the EEO/AA Coordinator, Office of General Counsel, 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 2nd floor, William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower, Nashville, TN 37243, 1-888-867- 7455. ADA inquiries or complaints should be directed to the ADA Coordinator, Human Resources Division, 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 22nd floor, William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower, Nashville, TN 37243, 1-866-253-5827. Hearing impaired callers may use the Tennessee Relay Service (1-800-848-0298). ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................... ix INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 I. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................................... 2 Physiography ..................................................................................................... 2 Climate .............................................................................................................. 6 Soils ................................................................................................................. 6 Natural Resources ............................................................................................ 7 II. ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 9 Previous Investigations .................................................................................. 11 William Edward Myer .................................................................................. 11 Modern Archaeological Investigations ........................................................ 12 Prehistoric Settlement of Putnam County ........................................................ 17 III. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND METHODS ........................................................ 23 Phase I Survey, 1976 ..................................................................................... 23 Phase II Testing, 1988 ................................................................................... 23 Excavation Methods ................................................................................... 23 Analysis Methods ...................................................................................... 25 Lithic Reanalysis, Early 1990s ........................................................................ 26 Chipped Stone ........................................................................................... 26 Ground and Pecked Stone ........................................................................ 27 Reanalysis and Completion, 2014-2015 ......................................................... 28 IV. SITES 40PM24 AND 40PM25 ............................................................................... 29 Site Descriptions ............................................................................................ 29 40PM24 .......................................................................................................... 29 40PM25 .......................................................................................................... 30 40PM24 and 40PM25 Summary .................................................................... 36 V. SITE 40PM27 ........................................................................................................ 38 Site Description .............................................................................................. 38 Methodology ................................................................................................... 39 Features ......................................................................................................... 46 Feature 1 .................................................................................................... 46 Feature 2 ................................................................................................... 46 Lithic Materials ............................................................................................... 46 Botanical Analysis .......................................................................................... 51 Summary ........................................................................................................ 53 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page VI. SITE 40PM31 ........................................................................................................ 54 Site Description .............................................................................................. 54 Methodology ................................................................................................... 54 Lithic Materials ............................................................................................... 54 Summary ........................................................................................................ 58 VII. SITE 40PM32 ........................................................................................................ 58 Site Description .............................................................................................. 58 Methodology ................................................................................................... 58 Features ......................................................................................................... 63 Feature 1 .................................................................................................... 63 Feature 3 ................................................................................................... 66 Feature 5 .................................................................................................... 66 Feature 6 ................................................................................................... 67 Feature 9 ................................................................................................... 67 Feature 10 ................................................................................................. 68 Lithic Materials ............................................................................................... 68 Botanical Analysis .......................................................................................... 75 Summary ........................................................................................................ 76 VIII. SITE 40PM33 ........................................................................................................ 77 Site Description .............................................................................................. 77 Methodology ................................................................................................... 77 Lithic Materials ................................................................................................ 77 Summary ......................................................................................................... 77 IX. SITE 40PM34 ........................................................................................................ 78 Site Description .............................................................................................. 78 Methodology ................................................................................................... 79 Features ......................................................................................................... 79 Feature 1 .................................................................................................... 79 Feature 2 .................................................................................................... 79 Feature 3 ................................................................................................... 79 Feature 4 ................................................................................................... 85 Feature 5 ................................................................................................... 85 Feature 6 .................................................................................................... 85 Lithic Materials ............................................................................................... 85 Botanical Analysis .......................................................................................... 86 Summary .......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Future of the Past: Science in Archaeology Illinois Antiquity Vol
    The Future of the Past: Science in Archaeology Illinois Antiquity Vol. 50, No. 3 September 2015 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS ARCHAEOLOGY AND ECOLOGY: BRIDGING THE SCIENCES THROUGH INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH By Carol E. Colaninno LiDAR ILLUMINATED By Michael Farkas IDENTIFYING BLACK DRINK CEREMONIALISM AT CAHOKIA: CHEMICAL RESIDUE ANALYSIS By Thomas E. Emerson and Timothy R. Pauketat SOURCING NATIVE AMERICAN CERAMICS FROM WESTERN ILLINOIS By Julie Zimmermann Holt, Andrew J. Upton, and Steven A. Hanlin Conrad, Lawrence A. 1989 The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex on the Northern Middle Mississippian Frontier: Late Prehistoric Politico-religious Systems in the Central Illinois River Valley. In The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, edited by P. Galloway, pp. 93-113. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1991 The Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Central Illinois Valley. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, edited by T. E. Emerson and R. B. Lewis, pp. 119-156. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Dye, David H. 2004 Art, Ritual, and Chiefly Warfare in the Mississippian World. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by R. F. Townsend, pp. 191-205. The Art Institute, Chicago. Fie, Shannon M. 2006 Visiting in the Interaction Sphere: Ceramic Exchange and Interaction in the Lower Illinois Valley. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by D. K. Charles and J. E. Buikstra, pp. 427-45. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2008 Middle Woodland Ceramic Exchange in the Lower Illinois Valley. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 33:5-40. Fowles, Severin M., Leah Minc, Samuel Duwe and David V.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT for Public Comment
    US Army Corps of Engineers Master Plan Revision Nashville District Center Hill Lake Center Hill Lake Master Plan Revision DRAFT for Public Comment April 2018 Draft for Stakeholder Review 1 US Army Corps of Engineers Master Plan Revision Nashville District Center Hill Lake This page is left intentionally blank Draft for Public Comment 2 US Army Corps of Engineers Master Plan Revision Nashville District Center Hill Lake U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Center Hill Lake Master Plan Revision Commonly Used Acronyms and Abbreviations AAR – After Action Review Sensitive Area AREC – Agriculture Research and Education FOIA – Freedom of Information Act Center FONSI - Finding of No Significant Impact ARPA – Archeological Resources Protection Act FRM – Flood Risk Management ASA(CW) – Assistant Secretary of the Army for FY – Fiscal Year Civil Works GIS - Geographic Information Systems ATR - Agency Technical Review GPS – Global Positioning System BMP - Best Management Practice GOES – Geostationary Operational CE-DASLER – Corps of Engineers Data Environmental Satellite Management & Analysis System for Lakes, H&H – Hydrology and Hydraulics Estuaries, and Rivers HABS – Harmful Algal Blooms cfs – Cubic Feet per Second HQUSACE – Headquarters, U. S. Army Corps of COL – Colonel Engineers CONUS – Continental United States IRRM – Interim Risk Reduction Measures COP – Community of Practice IWR – Institute for Water Resources CRM – Cumberland River Mile LEED – Leadership in Energy and Environmental CW – Civil Works Design CWA – Clean Water Act, 1977 LRN – Nashville
    [Show full text]
  • Old Stone Fort Archaeological Society March 2015
    Old Stone Fort Archaeological Society March 2015 The Old Stone Fort Archaeological Society will meet Thursday, March 12th at 6:00 pm at the Old Stone Fort Museum in Manchester, Tennessee. The purpose of this Society is to learn more about prehistoric Native American cultures and the early historic period of Tennessee. Our meetings are scheduled for the second Thursday of each month and are free and open to the public. Our program this month: Mark Norton who will present Big Bone Cave Big Bone Cave is located in Van Buren County, Tennessee and has a long history of habitation/exploitation by ice age animals, Native Americans, and saltpeter miners. Extinct Ground Sloth and Jaguar remains have been recovered from this large cave as well as a number of ancient birds. Cavers and archaeologists have also Big Bone Cave recovered numerous cane torches, moccasins, and other Managed by Rock Island State Park artifacts of prehistoric Native Americans. The historic http://tnstateparks.com/parks/about/rock-island period exploitation of this cave was in the quest to obtain saltpeter, first during the War of 1812 and later during the Civil War. This presentation will highlight each of these archaeologically significant periods discovered within Big Bone Cave. This cave is currently closed due to the white nose syndrome that has infected the native bat populations of our region. Rock Island State Park manages this natural area and hopes to reopen this fascinating cave for tours once the white nose problem has been solved. See you Thursday, Mark Information:
    [Show full text]
  • Table 4. Tennessee Radiocarbon Dates by County Site # Common
    Table 4. Tennessee Radiocarbon Dates by County Site # Common Name(s) Lab # B.P. S.D. Reference # TNDATE Protected 1 1st Unnamed Cave AA-15810 260 50 161:57 0001 Protected 1 1st Unnamed Cave Beta-103531 380 50 162:52 0002 Protected 1 2nd Unnamed Cave AA-15811 970 60 162:52 0003 Protected 1 3rd Unnamed Cave SI-5067 4350 60 162:52; 163:669 0004 Protected 1 3rd Unnamed Cave SI-5064 3115 65 162:52; 163:669 0005 Protected 1 3rd Unnamed Cave Beta-96624 3060 50 162:52; 163:669 0006 Protected 1 3rd Unnamed Cave Beta-114172 2970 40 162:52; 163:669 0007 Protected 1 3rd Unnamed Cave Beta-114173 2970 40 162:52; 163:669 0008 Protected 1 3rd Unnamed Cave SI-5066 2950 65 162:52; 163:669 0009 Protected 1 3rd Unnamed Cave Beta-96623 2950 110 162:52; 163:669 0010 Protected 1 3rd Unnamed Cave SI-5063 2805 75 162:52; 163:669 0011 Protected 1 3rd Unnamed Cave SI-5065 2745 75 162:52; 163:669 0012 Protected 1 5th Unnamed Cave Beta-106695 2030 50 162:52 0013 Protected 1 6th Unnamed Cave Beta-109675 1890 50 162:52 0014 Protected 1 6th Unnamed Cave Beta-106697 630 50 162:52 0015 Protected 1 7th Unnamed Cave Beta-106698 1320 40 162:52 0016 Protected 1 11th Unnamed Cave Beta-13937 1030 90 160:149 0017 Protected 1 11th Unnamed Cave Beta-13938 620 150 160:149 0018 Protected 1 11th Unnamed Cave Beta-126032 750 60 160:149 0019 Protected 1 11th Unnamed Cave Beta-126033 680 60 160:149 0020 Protected 1 11th Unnamed Cave Beta-131221 560 60 160:149 0021 Protected 1 11th Unnamed Cave Beta 134981 780 40 160:149 0022 Protected 1 11th Unnamed Cave Beta-134982 890 60 160:149 0023
    [Show full text]
  • Adventure Tourism Plan for Mcminnville - Warren County, Tennessee Adventure Tourism Plan for Mcminnville - Warren County
    Adventure Tourism Plan for McMinnville - Warren County, Tennessee Adventure Tourism Plan for McMinnville - Warren County March 13, 2018 PREPARED BY Ryan Maloney, P.E., LEED-AP Kevin Chastine, AICP PREPARED FOR McMinnville-Warren County Chamber of Commerce City of McMinnville, Tennessee Warren County, Tennessee Acknowledgments The authors of this Adventure Tourism Plan would CITY OF MCMINNVILLE like to thank the City of McMinnville, Warren County, Mayor - Jimmy Haley and the McMinnville-Warren County Chamber of Commerce for its foresight and support in the WARREN COUNTY development of this plan. Also, we would like to County Executive - Herschel Wells thank the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development for funding through MCMINNVILLE-WARREN COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE a2016 Tourism Enhancement Grant. Additionally, President - Mandy Eller we would like to thank the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Tennessee State Board of Directors Parks, and the Tennessee Department of Tourism Scott McCord - Chairman Development for their contributions to tourism Autumn Turner - Chair-Elect both regionally and statewide. Finally, we would like Leann Cordell - Secretary-Treasurer to thank City and County leaders, business owners, Shannon Gulick - Immediate Past Chair entrepreneurs, and residents who provided invaluable Craig Norris information through participating in the visioning Waymon Hale session. Rita Ramsey Dayron Deaton Sheri Denning John Chisam Jan Johnson Carlene Brown Anne Vance Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
    [Show full text]
  • Health Consultation
    Health Consultation BIG BONE CAVE STATE NATURAL AREA VAN BUREN COUNTY, TENNESSEE Prepared by: The Tennessee Department of Health Under a Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Atlanta, Georgia 30333 Health Consultation: A Note of Explanation An ATSDR health consultation is a verbal or written response from ATSDR to a specific request for information about health risks related to a specific site, a chemical release, or the presence of hazardous material. In order to prevent or mitigate exposures, a consultation may lead to specific actions, such as restricting use of or replacing water supplies; intensifying environmental sampling; restricting site access; or removing the contaminated material. In addition, consultations may recommend additional public health actions, such as conducting health surveillance activities to evaluate exposure or trends in adverse health outcomes; conducting biological indicators of exposure studies to assess exposure; and providing health education for health care providers and community members. This concludes the health consultation process for this site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR which, in the Agency’s opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued. You May Contact ATSDR TOLL FREE at 1-888-42ATSDR or Visit our Home Page at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov 1 Health Consultation: Big Bone Cave, Van Buren County, Tennessee Background and Statement of Issues The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Bureau of Conservation asked Environmental Epidemiology (EEP), Communicable and Environmental Disease Services Section, Tennessee Department of Health to look at historical radon data for Big Bone Cave and to determine if Rock Island State Park Rangers and Naturalists who work in the cave are at increased risk from occupational exposure to radon.
    [Show full text]
  • SECTION III HORTICULTURALISTS (WOODLAND) Chapter 9 Late
    SECTION III HORTICULTURALISTS (WOODLAND) Chapter 9 Late Woodland/Mississippian Transition: 400AD-900AD (1600BP-1100BP) Stephen J. Yerka, Heather E. Wellborn, Elizabeth A. DiGangi, Clay Barry, and Kandace R. Hollenbach The late Woodland in the Southeastern United States is marked by the dispersal of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere. Mound sites may have still been occupied in this time, but artifactual evidence is scarce (Blitz 1988). Overall, there is an apparent “collapse” of Middle Woodland interregional systems. There is a definite decrease in number of components identified with Late Woodland as compared to the other Woodland periods, and the trend continues into the Mississippian Period. Material Culture and Technology Point Types of the Late Woodland found at Tennessee Sites: Hamilton Incurvate – Late Woodland – Hamilton phase. Common type found throughout the literature of Tennessee (Faulkner and McCollough 1973; Lewis and Kneberg 1946; Schroedl 1978). This type was prevalent in mortuary offerings at Hiawassee Island, and likely were functional arrow points as well (Lewis and Kneberg 1946; Lewis et al. 1995). Jack’s Reef Pentagonal and Jack’s Reef Corner Notched – Late Woodland, present at Dunbar Cave. Justice (1987) assigned a wide range to these types. However, they are not commonly identified in Tennessee sites. Scallorn and Sequoyah – Justice (1987) included West Tennessee in the distribution map of these – have not found anything else on these types pertaining to Tennessee. May possibly be Terminal Woodland/Early Mississippian types. Community Organization/Site Structure/ Subsistence The apparent “collapse” of Middle Woodland interregional systems, and the threads of emerging chiefdoms explored. House structure. Location of sites. Tables of locations of sites compared to Early and Middle Woodland sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Context of Worked Crystalline Artifacts from the Middle Cumberland Region of Tennessee
    DISTRIBUTION AND CONTEXT OF WORKED CRYSTALLINE ARTIFACTS FROM THE MIDDLE CUMBERLAND REGION OF TENNESSEE Michael C. Moore,1 Kevin E. Smith,2 Aaron Deter-Wolf,3 and Emily L. Beahm4 DISTRIBUTION AND CONTEXT OF WORKED CRYSTALLINE ARTIFACTS FROM THE MIDDLE CUMBERLAND REGION OF TENNESSEE Michael C. Moore,1 Kevin E. Smith,2 Aaron Thruston 1972; Walling et al. 2000). Recent consider- Deter-Wolf,3 and Emily L. Beahm4 ation of these assorted investigations by means of creative insights and ever-developing technology has led to new avenues of interpretation regarding the settlement, subsistence, warfare, iconography, and cosmology of the Middle Cumberland Mississippian Antiquarian and modern explorations within the Middle populations (e.g., Beahm and Smith 2012; Clinton and Cumberland region of Tennessee have uncovered vast Peres 2011; Dye 2009; Hodge et al. 2010; Sharp et al. quantities of ceramic, stone, bone, and shell artifacts. Objects 2010; Sharp et al. 2011; Smith and Beahm 2011; Smith made from mineral resources represent a modest percentage and Miller 2009; Steponaitis et al. 2011; Worne 2011). of the overall artifact assemblage. Specimens manufactured Archaeological investigations of Mississippian sites from crystals comprise a very small portion of the mineral across the Middle Cumberland region have yielded a sample, as only six worked crystalline artifacts are substantial number of clay, stone, bone, and shell documented to date for the Middle Cumberland region. artifacts. Many of these items have been examined, These specimens of fluorite and calcite consist of four photographed, and reported upon in some form over earplugs, one bird effigy pendant, and one bead from four the past 140 years (e.g., Brain and Phillips 1996; Cox different Mississippian period sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Archaeology 3(2) Fall 2008
    TTEENNNNEESSSSEEEE AARRCCHHAAEEOOLLOOGGYY Volume 3 Fall 2008 Number 2 EDITORIAL COORDINATORS Michael C. Moore TTEENNNNEESSSSEEEE AARRCCHHAAEEOOLLOOGGYY Tennessee Division of Archaeology Kevin E. Smith Middle Tennessee State University VOLUME 3 Fall 2008 NUMBER 2 EDITORIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE David Anderson 101 EDITORS CORNER University of Tennessee ARTICLES Patrick Cummins Alliance for Native American Indian Rights 105 Brick Making as a Local Industry in Aaron Deter-Wolf Antebellum Kentucky and Tennessee Division of Archaeology TANYA M. PERES AND JESSICA B. CONNATSER Jay Franklin RESEARCH REPORTS East Tennessee State University 123 Obsidian Research in Tennessee and Phillip Hodge Department of Transportation Alabama MARK R. NORTON Zada Law Ashland City, Tennessee 131 An Analysis of Obsidian and Other Archaeological Materials from the Southeast Larry McKee TRC, Inc. Portion of Neelys Bend on the Cumberland River, Davidson County, Tennessee Katherine Mickelson BOBBY R. BRALY AND JEREMY L. SWEAT Rhodes College 139 Evidence of Prehistoric Violent Trauma from Sarah Sherwood a Cave in Middle Tennessee University of Tennessee SHANNON C. HODGE AND HUGH E. BERRYMAN Lynne Sullivan Frank H. McClung Museum 157 New Finds of Paleoindian and Early Archaic Sites along Sulphur Fork in Montgomery Guy Weaver County, Tennessee Weaver and Associates LLC AARON DETER-WOLF AND JOHN B. BROSTER Tennessee Archaeology is published semi-annually in electronic print format 163 The Cumberland Stone-Box Burials of Middle by the Tennessee Council for Tennessee. Professional Archaeology. JOHN T. DOWD Correspondence about manuscripts for 181 The Nelson Site: A Late Middle Woodland the journal should be addressed to Habitation Locale on the Nolichucky River, Michael C. Moore, Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Cole Building #3, 1216 Washington County, Tennessee Foster Avenue, Nashville TN 37243.
    [Show full text]
  • "Just Mention Electricity and the Most Humdrum Citizen Immediately
    "Just mention electricity and the most humdrum citizen immediately becomes a poet, and when we think of it, there is no other servamt of humanity that performs so many useful duties for us." Towards an understanding of the history and material culture of Pre-TVA Hydroelectric Development in Tennessee, 1900 - 1933. PART I. By James B. Jones, Jr. The technology and design of electrical systems and the institutions formed to administer them matured together. In his book Networks of Power, Thomas P. Hughes, perhaps the foremost historian of the field, reveals three stages in the development of light and power in the United States from roughly 1890 to 1930. Varying with small differences in detail, the evolution of Tennessee's electrical supply system before the advent of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) correspond to the delineations Hughes discerns. This is not to suggest, however, that the evolution of hydroelectric power generation occurred in a lock-step manner, o- ne phase leading inevitably, logically and instantaneously to the next in an orderly, chronological procession of pre-ordained events. Indeed, development was more spasmodic as circumscribed by the temporal limits of this narrative. The main characteristic of the first stage was the emergence of low voltage, small, direct current (d.c.) lighting companies. As the forerunner of the contemporary electrical utility industry, these centrally located hydroelectric plants supplied light and electricity only to nearby municipalities. Because such low-voltage d.c. systems as these could serve only the small geographic areas to which they were confined by want of future developments in long distance electrical transmission, the number, not the size, of hydroelectric plants grew.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological and Dendrochronological Investigations at Cagle Saltpetre Cave, Van Buren County, Tennessee Sarah Anne Blankenship University of Tennessee - Knoxville
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 5-2007 Archaeological and Dendrochronological Investigations at Cagle Saltpetre Cave, Van Buren County, Tennessee Sarah Anne Blankenship University of Tennessee - Knoxville Recommended Citation Blankenship, Sarah Anne, "Archaeological and Dendrochronological Investigations at Cagle Saltpetre Cave, Van Buren County, Tennessee. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2007. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/242 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Sarah Anne Blankenship entitled "Archaeological and Dendrochronological Investigations at Cagle Saltpetre Cave, Van Buren County, Tennessee." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, with a major in Anthropology. Charles H. Faulkner, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Joseph C. Douglas, Jan F. Simek Accepted for the Council: Dixie L. Thompson Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official student records.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Sarah Anne Blankenship entitled “Archaeological and Dendrochronological Investigations at Cagle Saltpetre Cave, Van Buren County, Tennessee.” I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of the Arts, with a major in Anthropology.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Chemical Examination of the Waters in Tennessee Streams
    FIELD CHEMICAL EXAMINATION OF THE WATERS IN TENNESSEE STREAMS CHARLES S. SHOUP Department of Biology, Vanderbilt University Nashville, Tennessee Reprinted from the JOURNAL OE THE TENNESSEE ACADEMY OE SCIENCE, Volume XXV, Number 1, January, 1950. FIELD CHEMICAL EXAMINATION OF THE WATERS IN TENNESSEE STREAMS' CHARLES S. SHOUP Department of Biology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee INTRODUCTION Fresh-water biology is a relatively new field of investigation in the southern United States, particularly in connection with fisheries re- sources and potential fish production. In the country as a whole such studies began only a little more than a half-century ago, and date from pioneer work on the Great Lakes and the important examina- tions made of the Illinois River system by S. A. Forbes (1877, 1893, 1911, 1928) with varied studies in other regions. The work of E. A. Birge and Chancy J uday (1904, 1907, 1910, 1914) on Wisconsin lakes beginning almost with the new century and of J. E. Reighard (1894) in Michigan and of C. A. Kofoid (1903) in Illinois initiated recognition of the importance of knowledge regarding biological bal- ance in fresh waters, the maintenance of which pays dividends in fishable streams and sometimes in marketable fish flesh. These studies of the general water chemistry from Tennessee streams were begun in 1938 as a part of the biological survey work which was at that time being conducted by the Tennessee Department of Conservation, Division of Game and Fish, and which ended as a state-supported enterprise in the summer of 1941. Since the war the additional supplemental and confirmatory information contained in this report has been obtained by the author, and is now offered as a contribution to support the previously-published papers which have resulted from the efforts of the first biological survey in Tennessee (Shoup, 1940; Shoup and Peyton, 1940; Shoup, Peyton, and Gen- try, 1941 ; Gentry, 1941 ; Hobbs and Shoup, 1942; Shoup, 1943; Wright and Shoup, 1945; Shoup, 1947).
    [Show full text]