North Carolina Archaeology Volume 65 2016 North Carolina Archaeology Volume 65 October 2016 CONTENTS Don’t Let Ethics Get in the Way of Doing What’s Right: Three Decades of Working with Collectors in North Carolina I. Randolph Daniel, Jr. ......................................................................................... 1 Mariners’ Maladies: Examining Medical Equipage from the Queen Anne’s Revenge Shipwreck Linda F. Carnes-McNaughton ........................................................................... 28 Archival Excavations from Dusty File Cabinets, Part I: Unpublished Artifact Pattern Data of Colonial Period Households, Dependency Buildings, and Public Structures from Colonial Brunswick Town Thomas E. Beaman, Jr. ...................................................................................... 53 Preface: Identifying and Defining North Carolina’s Archaeological Heritage through Remote Sensing and Geophysics John J. Mintz and Shawn M. Patch .................................................................... 90 The Role of GPR in Archaeology: A Beginning Not an End Charles R. Ewen ................................................................................................. 92 Three-dimensional Remote Sensing at House in the Horseshoe State Historic Site (31MR20), Moore County, North Carolina Stacy Curry and Doug Gallaway ..................................................................... 100 An Overview of Geophysical Surveys and Ground-truthing Excavations at House in the Horseshoe (31MR20), Moore County, North Carolina Jacob R. Turner and Ari Lukas ........................................................................ 108 Cemeteries and Geophysics: A Discussion Sara Lowry ....................................................................................................... 117 Metal Detecting: The Down-to-Earth Tool of Remote Sensing Linda France Stine ........................................................................................... 128 Geophysical Survey of Large Mississippian Villages in the South Appalachian Region Shawn M. Patch ............................................................................................... 140 Remote Sensing and Geophysics in North Carolina Archaeology: A Brief History, Discussion of the Papers, and Ideas about the Future Roy Stine .......................................................................................................... 153 About the Authors ........................................................................................ 162 North Carolina Archaeology (formerly Southern Indian Studies) Published jointly by The North Carolina Archaeological Society, Inc. and The Research Laboratories of Archaeology University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3120 R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Editor Officers of the North Carolina Archaeological Society President: Tom Beaman, 5210 Carr Road, Wilson, NC 27893. Vice President: Hannah Smith, 9 Kings Mount Ct., Durham, NC 27713. Secretary: Linda Carnes-McNaughton, Directorate of Public Works (IMBG-PWE-DR CARNES), 2175 Reilly Road Stop A, Fort Bragg, NC 28310-5000. Treasurer: E. William Conen, 804 Kingswood Dr., Cary, NC 27513. Editor: R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Research Laboratories of Archaeology, CB 3120, Alumni Building, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3120. Associate Editor (Newsletter): Lisa-Jean Michienzi, Research Laboratories of Archaeology, CB 3120, Alumni Building, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3120. At-Large Members: January Costa, 1323 Gaston Day School Road, Gastonia, NC 28056. David Cranford, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, CB #3115, Chapel Hill NC 27599-3115. Jim Daniel, 3037 Riverside Drive, Lexington, NC 27292. J. Eric Deetz, Research Laboratories of Archaeology, CB 3120, Alumni Building, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3120. Shane C. Peterson, Archaeology Group, Human Environment Section, North Carolina Department of Transportation, 1598 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27610-1598. Jon Schleier, 80 Sandy Bend Road, Rocky Point, NC 28457. Alice Wright, Department of Anthropology, Appalachian State University, 322 Anne Belk Hall, Boone, NC 28608. Information for Subscribers North Carolina Archaeology is published once a year in October. Subscription is by membership in the North Carolina Archaeological Society, Inc. Annual dues are $15.00 for regular members, $25.00 for sustaining members, $10.00 for students, $20.00 for families, $250.00 for life members, $250.00 for corporate members, and $25.00 for institutional subscribers. Members also receive two issues of the North Carolina Archaeological Society Newsletter. Membership requests, dues, subscriptions, changes of address, and back issue orders should be directed to: Lisa-Jean Michienzi, Research Laboratories of Archaeology, CB 3120, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3120. Information for Authors North Carolina Archaeology publishes articles on the archaeology of North Carolina and neighboring states. One copy of each manuscript, with accompanying tables, figures, and bibliography, should be submitted to the Editor. Manuscripts should be double spaced with ample margins throughout. Style should conform to guidelines American Antiquity (see http://www.saa.org/AbouttheSociety/Publications/ StyleGuide/tabid/984/Default.aspx). The Editor can assist those wishing to submit a manuscript but who are unfamiliar with American Antiquity style. DON’T LET ETHICS GET IN THE WAY OF DOING WHAT’S RIGHT: THREE DECADES OF WORKING WITH COLLECTORS IN NORTH CAROLINA by I. Randolph Daniel, Jr. Abstract In North Carolina, collaboration between professional and avocational archaeologists remains informal, particularly with respect to those that participate in artifact collecting. Given that some private collections do have scientific value, increased collaboration between both groups is warranted. Moreover, this work can engage collectors in a way that is consistent with our discipline’s ethical principles. But such work is not without its challenges. During three decades of working with collectors I’ve struggled with three concerns: verifying artifact proveniences, avoiding fakes, and commercialism. Nevertheless, these issues are not insurmountable, and I provide my perspective as a point of reference. “Sounds like you don’t want ethics to get in the way of doing what’s right.” My friend’s comment, some 25 years ago, aptly summarized our conversation as I expressed ambivalence regarding the nature of my interaction with artifact collectors. In particular, I was discussing the potential ethical dilemma I sometimes felt with respect to the statewide fluted point survey I had recently begun. While I had been looking at private collections for years, my examination was done informally to satisfy my curiosity regarding what these collections might hold. Based upon what I saw and my conversations with the collectors themselves, over time I became convinced that some collections were more than groups of curios—some collections held data of scientific value. Now I was attempting to demonstrate that value by explicitly recording and publishing information on fluted points. While there was some precedent around the region (e.g., Charles 1979; McCary 1984) for what I was doing, I still felt some uneasiness as to the nature of my collaboration. On the one hand, I was excited about potentially making a contribution to our understanding of the little-known Paleoindian period in North Carolina. On the other hand, virtually all of the points I needed to examine were in the hands of private collectors. Collaborating with artifact collectors was an activity that some colleagues viewed as troublesome if not unethical. In their minds such collaboration gave tacit 1 NORTH CAROLINA ARCHAEOLOGY [Vol. 65, 2016] approval to an activity that contributed to the destruction of the archaeological record. But many of the collections I saw were collections that were reasonably documented and the collector was willing to share that information with me. Was it preferable, then, to ignore all amateurs’ collections because they were not recovered by a professional archaeologist? Or was it possible to engage collectors on a case-by-case basis to determine if some middle ground could be reached such that some scientific information could be gleaned from their work? The latter instance, I thought, was acting akin to the “spirit of the law” rather than the “letter of the law” with regard to archaeological ethics— which at that time only existed informally in the profession—and thus I was doing what was right by the discipline. And so my recording of fluted point collections began. Today, I remain convinced that fruitful collaborations can exist between professionals and members of the artifact-collecting community. Even so, it is hard to deny that a certain stigma often clouds that association and affects professionals and collectors alike. Fortunately, there now appears to be a rapprochement of sorts that is beginning to emerge in the discipline with regard to collaborating with private collectors. Indeed, some in the profession argue that the Society for American Archaeology’s (SAA) Principles of Archaeological Ethics (discussed below) obligate professionals to collaborate with responsible collectors (Pitblado and Shott 2015; Shott and Pitblado 2015). This is not to imply there is a consensus on the issue, as a level of opposition to working with collectors still exists (e.g.,