Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18PR1079 TRC MQ-8
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
Site 18PR1079 is a prehistoric site situated near the Millville Quarry site in Prince George’s County. Millville Quarry is located in the western portion of the Coastal Plain physiographic province within an area consisting of broad and gently sloping upland surfaces and stream terrace settings. The project area encompasses a relatively level landform between an unnamed tributary of Mattawoman Creek and Burch Branch Creek. The entirety of 18PR1079 falls within the Grosstown soil series. These soils are well drained, broad inter-stream divides, and stream terraced landforms. The far western edge of 18PR1081 overlooking the Burch Branch Creek is mapped as Potobac-Issue complex; these soils are pooly drained, frequently flooded, silt loam, and not prime for farmland. Further from the creek terrace on the upland overlooking Burch Branch Creek to the west, soils are mapped as a combination of Downer-Hammontown complex, Grosstown-Hoghole complex, and Grosstown-Woodstown-Beltsville complex. These soils are well drained, fertile, loamy sands typically located on a 2 to 5 percent slope of fluviomarine terraces, broad inter-stream divides, and stream terraced landforms.
Since there are still some gaps in our understanding of the cultural sequences in this area, the prehistory of this region is partially reconstructed from the data derived from the surrounding region. General sequence for the region begins with the Paleoindian period (ca. 11,000-9500 BC), followed by the Archaic period (ca. 9500-1250 BC) and ends with the Woodland period (ca. 1250 BC-AD 1600). Known site types for the Paleoindian period in the Middle Atlantic region include base camps located near high-quality lithic sources and smaller transient hunting camps near the game-attractive areas. During the Archaic period in the Middle Atlantic coastal plain, settlements became increasingly sedentary and a broader range of food resources were gradually incorporated into Archaic subsistence economies. Early Archaic sites with intact components are quite uncommon in Prince George’s County. The Middle Archaic occupations are small and limited primarily in tool manufacturing for tool kit replenishment; these sites are likely located in drowned valleys and estuaries along the margins of the Chesapeake Bay and such sites are difficult to identify. Settlement patterns in the western coastal plain during the Late Archaic show an increased riverine focus and an increase in size. This suggests that procurement strategies were intensively focused on locally abundant resources such as shellfish and fish prawns. Overall, Late Archaic subsistence economies remained diffuse in character, with the exploitation in the uplands of a broad range of resources such as acorns, hickory nuts, and butternuts as well as large and small seasonally abundant game. The Early Woodland period is marked by the introduction of ceramics and an intensification of burial ceremonialism. It is assumed that Early Woodland populations subsisted mainly by hunting, gathering, and fishing, not unlike the manner of their Late Archaic predecessors. The Middle Woodland period is characterized by intensification of trade networks, horticultural practices, and possible season aggregation and dispersal of large settlements. During the Late Woodland period, there still seems to have been a focus on intensive hunting and gathering, with large estuarine camps and villages surrounded by micro-band camps. Maize agriculture and evidence of settlement fortification is present in the coastal plain.
A Phase I investigation was conducted by TRC and identified sites 18PR1079 and 18PR1081 in September 2014. The survey work was conducted across 322 acres of the Limits of Disturbance for the quarry extension activities. Field investigations consisted of a combination of systematic surface collection of the plowed fields (160 acres) and excavation of shovel test pits at 20 meter and 25 meter intervals (90 acres unplowed) of moderate to high probability identified during the Phase IA study. In addition, 70 acres were surveyed with a combination of pedestrian survey and judgmental shovel test pits. A total of 1,270 STPs were excavated and 998 25x25 meter cells were surface collected. As a result, 12 newly recorded archaeological sites were documented (18PR1072, 18PR1073, 18PR1074, 18PR1075, 18PR1076, 18PR1077, 18PR1078, 18PR1079, 18PR1080, 18PR1081, 18PR1082, 18PR1083) and 1,534 artifacts were collected. Of these twelve sites, 18PR1079 and 18PR1081 were high density prehistoric artifact concentrations recorded in both plowzone and sub-plowzone contexts in the wooded area and open field surrounding the central drainage on the property. Artifacts recovered from these sites include quartz, quartzite, jasper, and chert debitage, and formal stone tools include biface fragments and projectile points, cores, and related cobble reduction debris and fire-cracked rock. A consistent presence of debitage in deeper sub-plowzone contexts indicates that cultural deposits may remain undisturbed. As such it was recommended that further investigations of these sites could contain information considered important to the understanding of the prehistory of the area. Both sites were recommended for avoidance or additional field studies.
Phase II investigations at 18PR1079 consisted of hand-excavation of 30 additional short-interval shovel test pits (STPs) and 10 1x1-meter test units (TUs). In total, 2,523 artifacts were recovered from the Phase II investigation, including 2,323 prehistoric artifacts, 15 historic artifacts, nine modern items, and 176 organic items. No prehistoric ceramics were recovered. The Phase II STPs within site 18PR1079 yielded cultural material from both plowzone and subsoil strata. Typical STP profiles consisted of a dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) or very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam A horizon over a brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) or very pale brown (10YR 8/3) sandy loam subsoil. A majority of STPs excavated within 18PR1079 also encountered a third soil layer (Stratum III), a brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) sand or pale yellow (2.5Y 7/4) sand. This third layer was universally culturally sterile across the entire site (see Figure 5-2). Overall, 317 prehistoric artifacts were recovered from STPs excavated within site 18PR1079. This includes 115 flake fragments (36.3 percent), 100 fragments of lithic shatter (31.5 percent), 74 fire-cracked rocks (23.3 percent), 17 flakes (6.9 percent), five bifaces, two projectile points, and one hammerstone.
The majority of TUs excavated revealed an Ap horizon (Stratum I) overlying a weathered Bw horizon (Stratum II) and terminating in a sterile sand subsoil horizon. Stratum I yielded primarily prehistoric cultural material, including a high volume of quartz, quartzite, chert, jasper, chalcedony, and sandstone lithic debitage. The placement of TUs were guided by artifact concentrations identified during STP excavation.
Phase II excavation established the identification of two distinct loci of higher artifact concentration within the site. Locus 1 was identified in the southeastern corner of the site near a tree line that separates the agricultural field from the wooded wetland area surrounding Burch Branch. It is approximately 20x20-meters and TUs 4, 5, and 7 were excavated in Locus 1. A total of 880 artifacts were recovered from Locus 1, representing 34.9% of the total artifacts from site 18PR1079; prehistoric (n=763: fire cracked rock, debitage, and tools), organic (n=108: bone fragment, charcoal, and seeds), and historic (n=9: barbed wire and container glass). Two complete bifaces and one basal fragment were located in Locus 1: a Kirk variant made of quartz, a small fishtail point made from quartzite, and the base fragment of a possible Otter Creek type. The presence of primarily Archaic period diagnostic cultural material and the lack or prehistoric ceramic or preserved bone and shell suggests that this area represents a lithic procurement and production activity area dating to the Archaic period. Stratigraphically, the bulk of the artifacts found in Locus 1 were split evenly between Stratum I and II.
Locus 2 was identified in the northern central portion of the site atop a slight rise in the landform overlooking Burch Branch and is approximately 50x30-meters. TUs 2, 3, and 6 were excavated in Locus 2. A total of 780 artifacts were recovered, representing 31% of the total artifacts from 18PR1079. Artifacts within Locus 2 include prehistoric (n=741: fire cracked rock, debitage, and tools), organic (n=38: charcoal, seeds, fossil fragments), and modern (n=1) types. Two complete projectile points were recovered, though they lack any distinguishing features that would aid in identification. Although Locus 2 lacks any diagnostic artifacts, the overall assemblage of tools suggests the function of this possible activity area is similar to Locus 1, that of a lithic procurement and processing area dating primarily to the Archaic period. Stratigraphically, the bulk of the artifacts found at Locus 2 were found in Stratum I, with only 18% found within Stratum II.
Analysis of recovered cultural material from both 18PR1079 and nearby 18PR1081 indicates the sites represent Early Archaic through Early Woodland lithic procurement and processing areas. Analysis of raw materials represented in the site sample shows a strong preference for locally available quartz and quartzite cobbles which are in abundance in both the Burch Branch and ephemeral stream channels in the immediate vicinity. More exotic raw materials are present on both sites, but in much smaller quantities and not concentrated in any identified activity areas. This suggests the site occupants engaged in limited nonlocal trade in the region, possibly from what is now Southern Pennsylvania or northern Maryland. In contrast, the abundance of locally available lithic raw material (quartz, quartize, and jasper) indicates that the lithic assemblage was produced from locally available material occurring in pebble forms resulting in smaller biface reduction debitage and small finished tools.
No subsurface features or evidence of deeply buried cultural deposits were recorded. The absence of features restricts analysis in terms of research questions and themes. Although the analysis of the recovered lithic debitage and tools provides some insight on tool technology, interpretations are limited due to the few diagnostic tools recovered. The absence of dateable features limits research into environmental adaption over time. Due to this absence, and poor site integrity, both 18PR1079 and 18PR1081 are considered to have limited research value and are not recommended eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places or for further study. The project moved forward and the sites was likely destroyed due to modern quarrying activities, limited further research potential.
|
