PHASE II NRHP ELIGIBLITY ASSESSMENT OF A PORTION OF 15CH684 IN CHRISTIAN COUNTY, KENTUCKY UK-PAR PROJECT No. 15-1 KENTUCKY OFFICE OF STATE ARCHAEOLOGY PROJECT REGISTRATION NUMBER FY14-9782 University of Kentucky Program for Archaeological Research Department of Anthropology Technical Report No. 761 6 February 2015 Revised 29 October 2015 PHASE II NRHP ELIGIBLITY ASSESSMENT OF A PORTION OF 15CH684 IN CHRISTIAN COUNTY, KENTUCKY UK-PAR PROJECT No. 15-1 KENTUCKY OFFICE OF STATE ARCHAEOLOGY PROJECT REGISTRATION NUMBER FY14-9782 Authors: Caitlin Rogers and Steven Ahler Report Submitted to: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Division of Environmental Analysis 200 Mero Street Fifth Floor Frankfort, KY 40622 Report Submitted by: University of Kentucky Research Foundation for the Program for Archaeological Research Department of Anthropology University of Kentucky 1020A Export Street Lexington, Kentucky 40506-9854 Phone: (859) 275-1944 Fax: (859) 323-1968 www.uky.edu/as/anthropology/par Technical Report No. 761 ________________________________ Steven R. Ahler Principal Investigator Lead Agency: Federal Highway Administration 6 February 2015 Revised 29 October 2015 ABSTRACT At the request of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC), archaeologists from the University of Kentucky Program for Archaeological Research (UK-PAR) performed Phase II National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility assessment of a portion of 15CH684 in Christian County, Kentucky that will be impacted by construction within new right-of-way (ROW) corridors. Because the site was found from Phase I work to be potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP, and because impact to the site could not be avoided, a formal Phase II NRHP eligibility assessment was conducted The Phase I artifact assemblage from 15CH684 was interpreted as representing the remains of a general residential habitation of Paleoindian age. Phase II field investigations were conducted in multiple stages, including placing backhoe trenches within the site and a sinkhole adjacent to the artifact scatter, close- interval shovel testing, controlled surface collection, and hand-excavation of six test units. The lithic modified items from the site include intentionally retouched flakes, formal unifacial tools (scrapers, cutting tools, spokeshaves, and tools with multiple working edges), generally reduced cores, and bifaces in early, middle, and late stages of reduction. No Paleoindian age points were found, but many of the bifaces fit into earlier stages of Clovis point production sequences, and overshot flakes characteristic of Paleoindian biface manufacture were also recovered. All cultural material was confined to plow zone contexts, and all debitage was derived exclusively from nonlocal Ste. Genevieve and Fort Payne chert. Unfortunately, test unit excavations produced a Late Woodland projectile point as well as morphologically Paleoindian tools, indicating that 15CH684 was multicomponent. A Paleoindian analytical component was identified for additional analyses by extracting the patinated chert artifacts presumably deriving from the Paleoindian occupation of 15CH684 and supplementing these with nonpatinated modified items of Paleoindian manufacture based on morphological and technological attributes (e.g., bifaces in the Clovis production sequence, tools made on large prismatic blade segments, combination unifacial/bifacial tools, and retouched blade-like flakes). All chert artifacts are made from nonlocal high-quality chert, either Ste. Genevieve or Fort Payne. Debitage analysis showed higher proportions of secondary flakes and late- stage flakes, though all reduction stages were represented. Initial cobble testing and removal of cortex likely tool place off-site, but materials were brought to the site in a partially reduced state (cores, flake blanks, blades, rough bifaces) and were further reduced on-site. This debitage profile is consistent with general domestic habitation activities. The modified items in the Paleoindian analytical assemblage are morphologically highly varied and represent all stages of manufacture. There is high morphological diversity of the modified items, and low-magnification use-wear analysis showed moderate to high diversity in kinetic motions and working of both hard and soft objective materials. Highly diverse tool assemblages indicate generalized residential occupation, probably of moderate duration. The Paleoindian component at 15CH684 apparently is the remains of a generalized residential occupation. There is no evidence of quarry/workshop or other specialized activities at the site. This interpretation suggests that Paleoindian groups were moving as residential units, consistent with a forager model of settlement organization. However, these residential groups were strongly anchored to sources of high-quality lithic raw materials, such as the Ste. Genevieve chert outcrops near the Paleoindian sites that comprise the nearby Little River Complex. Documentation of a relatively short-term general residential location of Paleoindian age at 15CH684 would ordinarily make this site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D (scientific significance). The Paleoindian component at the site is particularly interesting because other Paleoindian sites in the locality are all dominated by quarry/workshop debris or have evidence of multiple temporal components. The assemblage from 15CH684 apparently represents the remains of residential activities that are not overshadowed and mixed with the more abundant debris derived from quarry and workshop reduction activities. This provides a clearer picture of general domestic habitation activities that took place during the Paleoindian period. However, 15CH684 includes a Late Woodland component that has created a temporally mixed artifact assemblage. Though we have isolated and analyzed a probable Paleoindian artifact subassemblage based on patination and morphological criteria, the assemblage is still mixed and therefore has limited additional research potential. In addition, the absence of intact subplow zone i deposits or features further reduces the overall research potential of the site and its associated artifact assemblage. On the positive side, analysis of the Paleoindian assemblage has contributed incrementally to a better understanding of local Paleoindian settlement systems by establishing that the site represents the remains of a residential habitation, not that of a specialized resource extraction site. Considering all of these factors, we find that the research potential has been exhausted for the portion of 15CH684 that will be impacted by proposed construction. Consequently, this part of the site is not considered to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. No additional archaeological work is recommended for the portions of 15CH684 that lie within the currently proposed new rights-of-way. However, this finding applies only to those portions of the site that have been investigated within the proposed new rights-of-way and construction easements. The site extends north and south of the proposed new rights-of-way, and these parts of 15CH684 have not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. Consequently, these areas are still considered to have research potential and to be potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. If other portions of 15CH684 will be impacted by future construction activities, additional archaeological investigations should be conducted to fully evaluate the research potential and NRHP eligibility status of these areas. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. iv List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... iv Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 2: Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................. 9 Chapter 3: Background Research and Survey Predictions .......................................................................... 11 Chapter 4: Research Design and Investigation Methods ............................................................................ 25 Chapter 5: Description and Analysis of Materials Recovered .................................................................... 39 Chapter 6: Results of Investigations ........................................................................................................... 61 Chapter 7: Research Summary and Recommendations .............................................................................. 79 References Cited ......................................................................................................................................... 89 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1.1. Location of Christian County, Kentucky .......................................................................................... 1 1.2. Project Area Shown on the USGS 7.5’ Oak Grove, KY (1979, photorevised 1982) Topographic Quadrangle Map ..............................................................................................................................