Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18HO206 Beehive
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
The Beehive Site (18HO206) is a deeply stratified, multi-component, prehistoric lithic procurement and possible camp site. The site appears to date primarily to the Late Archaic period. The site is located in eastern Howard County, Maryland and is situated along the floodplain and associated terraces of an unnamed tributary of Shallow Run. Soils from the floodplain of the unnamed tributary belong to the Hatboro silt loam series, while the terrace areas are covered with soils belonging to the Woodstown sandy loam series.
The site was first identified during a 1992 Phase IB survey undertaken by the Maryland State Highway Administration for the (then) proposed extension of MD Route 100. As part of the road extension project, wetland mitigation was being conducted which would impact the site through subsurface grading, construction of access roads, and soil wasting. A total of 58 shovel tests were excavated at 10 and 20 m intervals. An intact buried A horizon (Ab) was encountered in the floodplain in 19 of the 21 shovel tests. Prehistoric artifacts were recovered from eight of these shovel tests. The horizon underlying the Ab yielded lithic debitage in three shovel tests. In addition, several tests revealed dense gravel deposits below the Ab horizon. In one of these shovel tests a concentration of lithic debitage was recovered from a gravel deposit to a depth of at least 130 cm below the surface. Lithic materials were also encountered in the plowzone in two concentrations on the terrace and scattered with historic materials along the floodplain.
Artifacts recovered during the Phase IB survey consist primarily of quartz debitage (259 decortication flakes, 155 non-cortex flakes, 11 shatter fragments, 1 chunk). A straight-stemmed quartz projectile point fragment, 1 quartz biface, 8 quartz cores, 6 quartzite flakes, 5 rhyolite flakes, 3 quartzite hammerstones, and 5 pieces of fire-cracked rock were also recovered. The projectile point fragment appears to be a Late Archaic Savannah River or Bare Island point. The high ratio of decortication flakes to non-decortication flakes and the low percentage of tools in the overall assemblage suggest a quarry/workshop focus at the site. Based on the evidence of deeply buried cultural deposits at the site, Phase II testing was recommended.
The Phase II testing was conducted in 1993. Data from the Phase I survey, including the distribution of plowzone and sub-plowzone artifacts and the geomorphological character of various areas, provided guidance to the organization of the Phase II research and to the placement of the Phase II excavation units. A total of 22 1 X 1 m test units were excavated within the boundaries of Site 18HO206 during the Phase II project (some are contiguous and are referred to below as 1 X 2s). Seven 1 X 1 m excavation units were placed on the terrace. The vast majority of the cultural material obtained from the terrace units was recovered from the plowzone. The assemblage included a low density of modern historic artifacts mixed with a low to moderate density of prehistoric lithic debitage. Only a little over 15% of the prehistoric artifacts were recovered from the underlying B1 horizon; these materials clearly reflect downward migration of the artifacts through the soil column. Historic materials remained confined to the plowzone. Rodent activity also had disturbed the sub-plowzone deposits extensively. No fire-cracked rock, prehistoric features, or groundstone artifacts were recovered from the terrace.
A total of five 1 X 1 m and two 1 X 2 m excavation units were placed on the floodplain, near the western base of the terrace, one unit was discontinued before reaching the cultural horizons because of time constraints. Evidence of historic flood episodes was noted within the unit profiles; thin alluvial deposits were present. The principal concentrations of prehistoric material in these mid-range floodplain units were found in the Ab horizon (about 87-96 cm below surface), and 2C horizons (about 102-125 cm below surface), with decreasing amounts recovered from underlying soils. Historic artifacts were only encountered in the plowzone. In one of these test units, an intact feature was encountered. Feature 1301 was a possible basin-shaped pit containing cobbles and lithic debitage. Medium sized fragments of bog iron or ironstone were evenly distributed within the feature. One possible fragment of fire-cracked rock was recovered from the lower 5 cm of the feature. No charcoal flecking or fire hardened soil was identified and flotation of two 1 liter soil samples revealed only trace amounts of wood charcoal and carbonized seeds. Therefore, a functional ascription as a hearth or earth oven is unclear. Regardless of its original function, Feature 1301 eventually appears to have served as a catchment or discard feature for lithic material in various stages of reduction. The mid-range floodplain area near the base of the terrace was a preferred locus for secondary reduction of raw material procured from streambed deposits during the Ab horizon occupation of the site. This is indicated by: 1) the distribution of primary, secondary, and non-cortex flakes; 2) by the presence of distinct concentrations of lithic debris that represent individual reduction episodes; and, 3) by the presence of a concentration of partially modified raw materials (Feature 1301), in a 20 cm-deep depression that probably originated from the Ab horizon. Hammerstones were found in this area and represent the expedient reduction of available resources. In general, the episodes of prehistoric activity represented by the assemblage from the mid-range floodplain probably were short-term repetitive events, similar in timeframe to activity on the terrace. A short-term use is suggested by the lack of fire-cracked rock, as well as by the absence of groundstone tools and additional features. The age of these components remains unclear. The Ab horizon may date from the same general Late Archaic deposits that produced the Savannah River/Bare Island point found in the terrace area. The chronological gap between this component and the underlying component in the 2C horizon could not be assessed with the data obtained during Phase II work.
Two 1 X 1 m and two 1 X 2 m excavation units were excavated in close proximity to the existing stream, on the active floodplain. Thick alluvial deposits consisting of sands and gleyed clayey silts dominated the stratigraphic profile. Overbanking, resulting in the deposition of thin lenses of moderately organic silty clays, had covered the Ab horizon. In addition, a recent deposit of clay overlay the modern plowzone. The water table was encountered at 100-110 cmbs, at a shallower depth than in units nearer the terrace. This limited the amount of deep testing to examine a possible deeply buried component. One test unit was excavated below the water table to 130 cmbs. Stratigraphic and artifactual evidence indicate that there are at least two occupations represented in this portion of the site; these were within the Ab (71-82 cmbs) and 2C2 (110-130 cmbs) horizons. Prehistoric and historic material within the plowzone and 1C (28-64 cmbs) horizons are at least partially the result of secondary deposition and potentially the result of a disturbed third occupation at the site. The presence of a biface and several flake tools in this area suggest that the material is not merely washed in, in contrast to the Ap/1C deposits in other portions of the site. A concentration of rhyolite secondary reduction flakes was identified in two adjacent units. Their distribution and similarity indicates that they probably originated within the Ab horizon. The sub-assemblage recovered from the Ab horizon contained a greater percentage of primary and secondary flakes than recovered in the Ab in the mid-range floodplain or in the Ap on the terrace. The quantity of cores, hammerstones, flake tools, and biface fragments is comparable across the site. This horizontal differentiation of cortex percentage is interpreted as a slightly greater emphasis on core preparation and early stage biface reduction in the stream-side portion of the site. The presence of several discarded hammerstones in association with minimally flaked cores suggests that hammerstones were used expediently in the stream bed. Once the primary reduction and testing of cobbles was completed, the hammerstones were discarded in favor of preferred hammerstones and reduction tools. A sub-assemblage recovered from the 2C1 horizon may be the result of lithic material filtering down into the underlying stratum through natural processes, rather than a distinct occupational horizon. However, the prehistoric artifacts from the 2C2 horizon clearly are the result of an early occupation that emphasized core preparation, early stage lithic reduction, and the use of expedient tools.
Prehistoric artifacts encountered during the Phase II excavation include 1 quartzite projectile point fragment, 4 other quartzite bifaces, 1 quartz biface, 46 quartzite cores, 2 quartzite scrapers, 4 possible quartzite burins or gravers, 6 utilized secondary quartzite flakes, 6 utilized non-cortex quartzite flakes, 8 other utilized quartzite flakes, 4 retouched quartzite flakes, 1 other quartzite flake tool, 1,595 pieces of quartz debitage fragments, 1 piece of jasper debitage, 3 pieces of sandstone debitage, 40 pieces of rhyolite debitage, 2 pieces of silicified sandstone debitage, 8 hammerstones, and a sandstone grinding stone.
Flotation processing of 12 liters of fill from 18HO206 yielded a total 4.88 grams of charcoal, or an average density of 0.4 grams of charcoal per liter of fill. Plant materials present within the site’s botanical assemblage include coniferous and deciduous woods, a variety of small, starchy seeds (including Polygonum and Amaranthus species), rind fragments, unidentifiable plant parts, and limited amorphous charcoal. Wood was the most abundant and frequently encountered class of material observed in the 18HO206 botanical assemblage. In addition, two hand-recovered botanical samples were taken during the Phase II excavations. A distinct concentration of woody tissue was sampled in one test unit and woody specimens also came from an auger test at the base of another unit. White oak wood and hickory nut were represented in the former sample and bald cypress wood came from the latter. No clear patterns were present in the distribution of botanical remains across the site and within individual stratigraphic horizons. Flotation samples from Feature 1301 contained trace amounts of wood, seeds, and amorphous carbon which provide little insight into the function of this feature.
At least two, well-defined stratified components were identified within the floodplain portions of the site during the Phase II evaluations. Data recovered from the site indicate that these components retain a very high degree of integrity; occupational horizons are contained within distinct stratigraphic units, these horizons are buried well beneath modern disturbances to the site, and the sub-assemblages recovered from different portions of the site exhibit functional variation. The site’s upper components, associated with a buried A (Ab) and Bw horizons, may date from the Late Archaic Period (based on the Bare Island/Savannah River point recovered from associated contexts on the Terrace), while lower components, associated with the 2C1 and 2C2 horizons are thought to be Middle Archaic in age. Thus, Phase III data recovery was recommended at 18HO206 should it be impossible to avoid impact to the site during construction of MD 100 and the associated wetlands mitigation facilities.
Researchers returned to the site in 1994 to conduct Phase III data recovery excavations. The primary objective was, again, mitigation of anticipated project impacts to cultural resources at the Beehive Site. A total of 64 m2 were excavated at Site 18HO206 during Phase III work. This work was conducted in three stages. 1) Sampling of the site began with the excavation of 16 m2 distributed within ten 1 X 1 m and three 1 X 2 m test units. Two of the 1 X 2 units were placed in an area that would eventually be within the “footprint” of an irregular, mechanically excavated trench designed to expose broad changes in stratigraphy across the site. The others were placed at regular intervals between the test units that were excavated during Phase II work. This was done to maximize testing coverage across the intact portion of the site. Descriptions of these preliminary Phase III excavations are only provided in the full site report when significant deposits were encountered which warranted the opening up of excavation blocks as described next. 2) Based on the results of the Phase II and initial Phase III excavations, an additional 48 m2 were distributed within four excavation blocks. These blocks (Blocks A-D) were placed to sample activity loci in different portions of the site and to investigate the sole feature encountered during Phase II investigations. And 3) the plowzone was also mechanically removed from a large area (Area A) on the terrace, and the exposure was shovel skimmed and toweled in an effort to identify features.
These excavations identified 6 activity areas within an undisturbed buried horizon throughout the site and a 7th distinct sub-assemblage (labeled Locus B-IV) comprised entirely of redeposited material at the base of it. This 50 to 70 cm thick horizon (the Bwb horizon) was emplaced at the beginning of the SubBoreal climatic Phase (ca. 4,200 BP) in response to warm-dry climatic conditions. The horizon is continuous across the T0 floodplain portion of the site, below the Ab horizon and above a C2 horizon, and nearly all of the prehistoric materials were recovered from the upper portion of this stratum. These loci are the remains of complex sets of activities, dominated by the production of large flakes and bifaces. The presence of sizable numbers of flake tools within all of these loci indicate that the prehistoric component represents a diverse set of resource procurement activities in addition to lithic procurement. In the absence of more extensive data on use-wear, it is difficult to accurately characterize the precise nature of these activities. However, blood residue, edge angle measurements, and low power use wear data indicate use in both cutting and scraping tasks. Use on hard materials appears to dominate the identifiable flake tool usage across the entire site. These clusters appear to represent comparable sets of activities and probably were relatively contemporary with one another.
Block A (not the same as stripped Area A) was situated on the central portion of the floodplain (T0), which gradually slopes toward the unnamed tributary, and comprised a 4 X 4 m block in the “footprint” of the stratigraphic trench (see above). The block consisted of one of the preliminary Phase III 1 X 2s and twelve 1 X 1 units placed adjacent to it to the north and west. This placement facilitated the exposure of a well-defined lithic reduction area identified on the northwestern margin of the preliminary 1 X 2 m unit. The Bwb horizon was quite thick in this area. Excavation proceeded in 0.5 m quadrants within the twelve 1 X 1s and artifacts were point provenienced where feasible. During Phase III fieldwork, excavations within Block A were halted for approximately 1.5 months due to a high water table that inundated most of the prehistoric occupation levels. Custom shoring was installed to maintain the integrity of the walls during this time and during excavation beneath the water table. A single well-defined prehistoric activity area was identified within Block A. This area was characterized by a well-defined concentration of lithic debris, including debitage, cores, hammerstones, bifaces, and flake tools. This area, designated Locus A-I, was located near a stratigraphic change from Bwb1 to Bwb2 horizons, which was characterized by an increase in the proportion of sand in the matrix.
A total of 2,930 prehistoric artifacts were recovered from Block A. These included 13 bifaces (none of which are diagnostic or projectile points), 68 flake tools, 1 abrader, 2 blade-like flakes, 37 core and core fragments, 1,646 unmodified flakes, 132 pieces of block/shatter, 12 hammerstones, and 12 pieces of fire-cracked rock. One piece of natural hematite, 6 wood/charcoal fragments, and 14 pieces of charcoal were recovered from flotation samples. Over half of these artifacts were recovered within Locus A-I, the residual fell on the margins of the locus and within the lower density test units within the Bwb horizons. Less than 3.3% of the assemblage was associated with the Ab horizon (identified during Phase II), and no materials were associated with splay or C2 horizons at the base of the profile.
Block B was located in the northern portion of the floodplain, surrounding a preliminary Phase III 1 X 1 unit. The block encompassed 20 1 X 1 m test units total. Block B originally was opened as a 4 X 4 m block expanding on three sides of the preliminary unit, to examine a probable lithic reduction locus within this initial Phase III test unit. The block was eventually expanded to a 4 X 5 m block on the eastern margin of the block in an effort to sample a larger proportion of a reduction locus identified in the northeastern portion of it. Portions of three reduction loci were identified within the Bwb horizon in Block B. These loci were located northeast (locus B-I) of the initial test unit and in the northwest (locus B-III) and southeast (locus B-II) corners of the block. Prehistoric lithic artifacts also were recovered from a series of thin gravel splay deposits in the northwestern portion of the block. Cultural material associated with the splay deposits was redeposited from upstream portions of the site (Locus B-IV).
A total of 9,619 prehistoric artifacts were recovered during Phase III excavations in Block B. This included 1 projectile point, 37 other bifaces and fragments, 5 blade-like flakes, 150 flake tools, 89 cores and core fragments, 9,307 pieces of debitage, 17 hammerstones, 1 groundstone tool, and 12 pieces of fire-cracked rock. The projectile point appears to be a weakly bifacial Piscataway point and the groundstone object appears to be a fragment from a celt or mano. Fragmentary charcoal was recovered from flotation of a total of 14 soil samples taken in column in Block B. Nearly all (89.10%) of this material was recovered from the Bwb horizon.
Block C was located on the floodplain (T0), immediately north and east of a preliminary Phase III 1 X 1. That preliminary unit encountered a very dense concentration of lithic artifacts stratified near the base of the Bwb horizon, near the top of the C2 horizon. The block encompassed 12 1 X 1 m test units total. Trenches 2 and 2a were excavated upslope from Block C to cut off the flow of groundwater into the block. These trenches provided excellent stratigraphic context for the controlled excavations within Block C. Overall, the block was excavated as a 3 X 4 m block, with the initial 1 X 1 in its southwestern corner. Units were excavated in 0.5 m quadrants within the 12 1 X 1 m units, and cores and bifaces were point provenienced where feasible. Excavations within Block C began at the top of the Ab horizon, upon which a large charcoal hearth feature was identified. Portions of this historic feature also were exposed in the adjacent trenches. Sediments from the feature and near it were excavated separately and identified as Feature 54-1. Portions of two lithic reduction loci were identified within the Bwb horizon in Block C. These loci were situated in the southern (Locus C-I) and northwestern (Locus C-II) portions of the block. Feature 54-1 was located in the northeastern portion of the block.
A total of 5,116 prehistoric artifacts were recovered during Phase III testing within Block C. The assemblage included 27 bifaces and biface fragments (none diagnostic or projectile points), 142 flake tools, and 2 flake blades, 91 cores and core fragments, 4,823 pieces of debitage, 14 hammerstones, and 17 pieces of fire-cracked rock. Over half (54.23%) of the prehistoric materials recovered in Block C were from the Bwb horizon. The shallow Bwb horizon in this area and the presence of historic disturbance account for a greater percentage of prehistoric materials (10.58%) incorporated into the Ab horizon than in Blocks A and B. Block C appears to have captured most of the material associated with Locus C-I, however, Locus C-II clearly extends beyond the northern edge of the block.
Feature 54-1 represents the remains of a historic charcoaling pit. The feature was first identified within the profiles of drainage Trenches 2 and 2a and consisted of a dense band of charcoal and charred wood overlying the Ab horizon. Situation of the feature above the prehistoric cultural deposits and at the base of the historic alluvium provides a generalized pre-modern historic context for the deposit. No historic artifacts were recovered from Feature 54-1, but the overall percentages of historic material recovered from the Ab horizon and overlying alluvium comprises less than 1.0% of the site’s artifact assemblage. A moderate amount of prehistoric artifacts were recovered from the charcoal deposit. These materials represent objects that had been incorporated into the feature matrix. The exception was several fragments of fire-cracked rock found along the western periphery of the feature. These were interpreted as being associated with the historic feature rather than part of the prehistoric component. Such charcoaling pits or hearths were used to provide a source of charcoal to fuel iron smelting furnaces during the mid-1700s through the late-1800s (eventually being replaced by coal as a fuel source). Iron forges and furnaces owned and actively harvested large tracts of land to provide the estimated 5,000 to 11,600 bushels of charcoal per month required to sustain a furnace. More details on charcoal pits and the process of charcoaling within the early American iron industry can be examined in the synopsis report for 18FR328.
A total of 276 prehistoric artifacts, not including 7 historic fire-cracked rocks, were recovered from Feature 54-1. This sub-assemblage included 5 bifaces, 7 cores, 3 flake tools, 260 flakes, and 1 fragment of block shatter. The bifaces were non-diagnostic. Analysis of charcoal and charred wood fragments indicated that the majority of the species represented within the feature were hardwoods (primarily oak and hickory). One small fragment of softwood was present but could not be identified.
Block D was located at the interface between the floodplain (T0) and terrace (T1) portions of the site. Phase II testing encountered Feature 1301 at approximately 108 cmbs in this area. Block D was a 2 X 3 m area comprised of four additional test units placed around the northern and western margins of the Phase II unit (a 1 X 2). Trench 2 passed approximately 5 m north of the block and provided important stratigraphic context for these excavations. Block D was excavated in 0.5 m quadrants within 1 X 1 m test units into the gravel C2 horizon. The artifacts recovered from the Feature 1301 matrix most likely were re-deposited from the terrace through natural processes.
A total of 646 prehistoric artifacts were recovered during Phase III excavations in Block D. This included 2 bifaces and fragments (non-diagnostic), 18 flake tools, 17 cores and fragments, 602 pieces of debitage, 4 hammerstones, and 3 pieces of fire-cracked rock. Approximately 73% of this material was recovered from the western portion of the block. Prehistoric materials from the Bwb and C2/C3 horizons each comprise slightly more than a third of the prehistoric assemblage from the block. The proportion of the assemblage from the Ab horizon (27.46%) was high, relative to Blocks A, B, and C.
And finally, the plowzone was stripped mechanically from a large area (Area A) on the (T1) terrace in a search for prehistoric features. The precise size of this area is uncertain as the full site report at one point states that the stripped area was 20 X 40 m, in another place states that it was 40 X 60 m, and on the site map shows a stripped area approximately 20 X 36 m based on the map scale (the report also states in one place that the stripped area is on the T1 terrace and elsewhere that it was on the T2, among many other issues). Whatever the size, Area A was located on the terrace and the mechanically stripped area was shovel scraped to the base of the plowzone and examined for features. Although several soil stains were identified, the cross-sectioning of these possible features revealed that they were tree root disturbance. The prehistoric artifacts recovered during the shovel scraping and in the backdirt were concentrated in the western portion of the stripped area. This assemblage includes nearly all of the rhyolite artifacts and a majority of the projectile points recovered at the site.
A total of 466 prehistoric artifacts were recovered from Area A (not Block A). The assemblage included 6 projectile points, 15 bifaces, 29 flake tools, 4 blade-like flakes, 31 core and core fragments, 305 unmodified flakes, 23 pieces of block/shatter, 3 hammerstones, 1 anvil/nutting stone, and 49 pieces of fire-cracked rock. The six finished projectile points (or knives) include 3 distinct morphological groupings. Three of the points are broadly similar to such Late Archaic/Transitional types as Bare Island and Wading River. One is morphologically similar to other broadspears and two are consistent with the Piscataway type. The remaining bifaces are amorphous and in various stages of completion. Nearly half (47.72%) of these artifacts were recovered from the base of the plowzone and Ap/Bw or Ap/C3 interface within the area stripped of the plowzone. The remaining 245 artifacts were recovered from backdirt piles of plowzone removed from Area A. No artifacts were recovered below the Ap horizon.
Historic artifacts were also encountered at the site, but are not discussed in detail in the full site report. With the possible exception of the historic charcoaling feature (described above), these historic deposits are not considered significant. The charcoaling feature itself did not yield historic artifacts, but does provide some basic information regarding the size and layout of such features. Full details are available in the complete site report.
Archeological testing and excavation identified the remains of six activity areas (loci) on the floodplain, large portions of five of these were exposed during block excavation. These were dominated by the remains of primary reduction activities; that is, the remains of core preparation, biface shaping and a limited degree of biface thinning. Prehistoric activities on the floodplain also included wood and/or bone-working. These auxiliary activities, using flakes produced from cores and as byproducts of biface production, were highly correlated with the debitage in most loci. Habitation-related activities are indicated in Area A on the terrace portion of the site, where finished tools were found in higher frequencies along with greater quantities of fire-cracked rock. However, all prehistoric cultural materials were incorporated into the plowzone in this portion of the site. Core reduction was a prominent activity within the prehistoric activity loci on the floodplain. Core reduction strategies differ only slightly between loci on the floodplain. All of this points to the site functioning primarily as a quarry-related extraction site. Additional resource procurement activities were combined with lithic reduction activities, probably resulting in a relatively short-term occupation of the site (again, a camp likely centered around Area A). Lithic reduction activities at the site focused on the production of cores, production of ovate and trianguloid bifaces from flakes and flattened cobbles, and the production of flakes for use as flake tools. The preponderance of large to medium-sized quartz and quartzite cobbles at the site provided an ample supply of lithic raw materials. The location of Site 18HO206 along a small stream at the base of the Piedmont escarpment, within the Fall Line zone, was within a region of high resource diversity. The resources in this region probably included a broad spectrum of faunal and botanical resources in addition to rich deposits of lithic resources.
Subsequent to the Phase III excavation at 18HO206, the site was largely destroyed by construction of wetlands mitigation facilities required to complete the highway construction project.
|
