Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18CH376 Area A-1, Site F
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
Site 18CH376 (Area A-1, Site F) is primarily a Late Archaic base camp located northeast of the town of Indian Head in Charles County, Maryland. The site occupies the northern edge of a west-trending finger ridge and overlooks a steep slope and the floodplain of an unnamed stream. Historic artifact scatters are also present at the site, dating to the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. The site measures approximately 70 X 120 m and is bounded on three sides by the slopes of the finger ridge. The site displays evidence of having been logged. Soils at the site are Beltsville silt loams.
The site was originally investigated as part of a large Phase I survey in 1994, prior to the onset of site preparation and construction for the Chapman’s Landing development. The development included the construction of extensive office and retail space, town houses, single-family houses, and a 200-acre golf course. In addition, roads, sewer lines, utilities, and other improvements would lead to significant impacts in the project area. Numerous archeological sites (both prehistoric and historic) were identified as a part of the 1994 study.
During the Phase I survey, a total of 6 shovel test pits (STPs) were initially excavated across the site at 20 meter intervals. These yielded 1 unidentified projectile point/knife, 2 cores, 121 flakes, and 3 fragments of lithic block/shatter. Nine additional Phase I STPs were excavated at 10 m intervals around the original positive shovel tests. Five of these additional STPs yielded a total of 31 flakes. Eight flakes were found on the surface within the boundaries of the site. Six of the 16 STPs excavated at 18CH376 during Phase I contained 10 or more lithic artifacts, one yielding 67 flakes alone. Large numbers of lithic flakes were present in both the first and second soil strata. These artifacts were composed of quartz, quartzite, silicified sandstone, and chalcedony. Quartzite was the dominant lithic material; the projectile point/knife, the cores, and nearly 72% of the flakes recovered were quartzite. Quartz accounted for almost 23% of the recovered flakes. Nearly 77% of the flakes recovered were non-cortical and none evidenced any definitive use or modification.
A piece of green non-machine made bottle glass and a sherd of gray stoneware also were recovered from one of the additional shovel tests. The bottle glass was recovered from the first soil stratum, while the stoneware sherd was recovered from the second. No artifacts (prehistoric or historic) were recoveredbelow a depth of 31 cmbs. The stratigraphic context of the majority of artifacts recovered during the Phase I survey (a single buried cultural stratum or A2) suggested the potential for integrity, and thus the site was recommended for Phase II testing.
Researchers returned to the site later that year to conduct Phase II testing. A determination of the degree of resource integrity, as well as chronological and functional differentiation of the deposits were viewed as crucial to the understanding of the site and the preparation of cultural resource management recommendations. The Phase II research was designed to characterize the site use and to place it in a regional framework.
Phase II evaluation included a systematic shovel testing of the site in order to more carefully define the horizontal and vertical distribution of different quantities and categories of artifacts. Shovel tests measured approximately 30 cm in diameter, and were excavated to a minimum depth of 40 cmbs or 10 cm into sterile subsoil, except where ground conditions prevented complete excavation. These were placed at 10 meter intervals. Soils were removed by natural strata and screened through hardware cloth. A total of 43 shovel tests were excavated. Thirty-six of the STPs produced prehistoric artifacts alone, and 3 produced both prehistoric and historic artifacts. A total of 376 prehistoric artifacts were recovered. The A1 horizon yielded a total of 148 artifacts, including 3 biface fragments, 1 core, 1 retouched flake, 3 utilized flakes, 115 unmodified flakes, 14 fragments of block/shatter, and 11 fire-cracked rocks. The A2 horizon produced 218 artifacts, including 3 biface fragments, 4 cores, 4 utilized flakes, 164 unmodified flakes, 24 pieces of block/shatter, and 19 fire-cracked rocks. The B horizon yielded 10 unmodified flakes.
Based upon the numerical concentrations and types of artifacts recovered during the Phase II intensive shovel testing, as well as data gathered from the Phase I investigation, eight locations were subjected to formal test unit investigations. The 8 test units measured 1 X 1 m, and were excavated to a minimum of 10 cm into sterile subsoil or to a minimum of 5 cm into fragipan in non-agrading soil deposits. Soils were removed by arbitrary 10 cm levels following natural stratigraphy and were screened through hardware cloth. Cultural material was recovered from each unit. A total of 4,524 prehistoric artifacts were recovered. Stratigraphically, the A1 horizon yielded 834 artifacts, the A2 horizon 3,028 artifacts, and the B horizon 662 artifacts. Five of the artifacts are diagnostic; these include 3 possible Bare Island points, a Savannah River-like point, and a Lamoka or Clagett type point/knife. Other prehistoric artifacts recovered from the formal test units were 21 bifaces or biface fragments, 80 utilized or retouched flakes, 35 cores, an end scraper, a side scraper, 5 unifaces, a utilized broken cobble, 3,837 unmodified flakes, 254 pieces of block/shatter, 8 hammerstones/possible hammerstones, and 275 fire-cracked rocks.
At 18CH376, where evidence of logging is clear, some erosion of the surface layer may have occurred, particularly in portions with greater than 2% slopes. Deflation is most evident nearest to the side slopes of the ridge, but less evident in the central portion of the site. The old surface horizon, the A2, generally remains near the expected thickness, and while some downward migration of this horizon is apparent, this appears less severe in the central portion of the site. Aeolian deposition may have provided the more recent, thin, A1 horizon. No clear evidence of plowing was detected at the site. Soil disturbance appears confined to bioturbation, particularly the activity of numerous roots in the A and upper portions of the B horizons.
Prehistoric artifacts were uniformly clustered at 3 to 31 cm below the surface, within the A2 horizon, suggesting a degree of vertical integrity. Although no intact features were identified, diagnostic artifacts indicate a chronological limitation of site utilization to the Late Archaic period. Discrete horizontal patterning of artifact types (bifaces vs. cores vs. flake tools) was also observed, permitting preliminary isolation of activity zones. A wide range of activities is evident in the artifact concentration of the north-central portion of the site, including reduction, final manufacture and maintenance, and lithic application tasks. In the very center of the north-central artifact concentration, lithic application activities appear to have been particularly prevalent. To the southwest of the artifact concentration, activities may have been more restricted to earlier stage lithic reduction. And at the northern edge of the concentration, there is evidence of final manufacturing or maintenance and lithic applications.
Two small scatters of historic artifacts were identified. The first measures approximately 10 X 20 m and is located in the northwestern portion of the site where historic material was encountered during Phase I work. It consists of 5 retained artifacts from 2 shovel tests, and 3 discarded artifacts from 2 shovel tests. Artifacts were split evenly between the A1 and A2 layers. The retained artifacts include 2 sherds of plain whiteware, 2 unidentified nails (one either cut or wrought), and a small piece of window glass. The discarded artifacts included one corroded nail fragment and 2 bottle glass shards. The second historic scatter was more widely dispersed. It consisted of 2 white salt-glazed stoneware sherds, and 3 non-machine made bottle glass fragments. The low level of historic debris at the site suggests very limited historic activity. The two historic scatters are spatially, chronologically, and functionally distinct. The northwestern historic material is datable to the mid 19th to 20th century and contains evidence of architectural as well as kitchen material, suggesting that a small structure, perhaps an outbuilding, may have once existed at this location. This portion of the site lies across a drainage from a late 19th century house (18CH378). The more diffuse scatter dates entirely to the 18th century and consists only of kitchen debris. It may reflect field scatter associated with early farming activity at the site. In the absence of clear plowing evidence, perhaps such activity involved pasturing livestock. Both loci are stratigraphically mixed with prehistoric material in the A1 and A2 horizons alongside the historic objects. Because of the small amount of historic material it is impossible to discern which of these strata is the occupational horizon of the historic period. However, it is probable that the few historic artifacts below the rootzone have been moved into the upper portion of the A2 by root activity.
Within the prehistoric component at 18CH376, there is sufficient horizontal integrity to differentiate distinct activity areas. The temporal confinement of the site to the Late Archaic period complements the present degree of vertical integrity, even in the presence of limited soil deflation. Such integrity is adequate for the study of Late Archaic reduction strategies and subsistence tasks within these discrete activity zones. Therefore, further work at the site can address substantive research questions in topics possessing a dearth of information; for example, concerning the reduction of quartz and quartzite, and the nature of Late Archaic upland habitation sites. The two historic occupations at the site retain horizontal integrity. However, their association with a particular natural stratum is uncertain. The low quantity of historic material at both loci indicates minimal potential to address meaningful research issues concerning the relationship between midden deposits or site structure.
|
