Excavation of the INDIAN CREEK V SITE An Archaic Gathering Camp in the Maryland Coastal Plain

318 Pages·2006·32.07 MB·English

Excavation of the
INDIAN CREEK V SITE
An Archaic Gathering Camp
in the Maryland Coastal Plain
The Cultural Resource Group
LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Prepared for
WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD
and
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA
TRANSIT AUTHORITY
1991
Excavation of the
INDIAN CREEK V SITE
An Archaic Gathering Camp
in the Maryland Coastal Plain
The Cultural Resource Group
LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Prepared for
WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD
and
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA
TRANSIT AUTHORITY
1991
EXCAVATION OF THE
INDIAN CREEK V SITE (18PR94)
PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY, MARYLAND
FINAL REPORT
PREPARED BY:
Charles H. LeeDecker
Brad Koldchoff
Louis Bergcr & Associates, Inc.
Washington, D.C.
with
Cheryl A. Holt
Analytical Services for Archaeologists
Alexandria, Virginia
Daniel P. Wagner
Gco-Sci Consultants, Inc.
College Park, Maryland
Grace S. Brush
Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering
The Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland
Margaret Newman
Paleo Research Laboratories
Golden, Colorado
PREPARED FOR:
Wallace Roberts & Todd
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
and
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Washington, D.C.
December 1991
ABSTRACT
Anticipating a 1993 construction date for the Greenbelt Storage Yard METRO railcar storage and
maintenance facility, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) began
planning activities in 1986 to consider the effects of construction on archaeological resources.
After the initial archaeological survey indicated extensive prehistoric use of the 70-acre project area,
WMATA sponsored a second study to evaluate the significance of the archaeological properties.
This second investigation determined that one portion of the Indian Creek V Site contained well-
preserved remains of a campsite occupied by aboriginal hunter-gatherer groups during the Archaic
period of prehistory. The present document reports WMATA's program of archaeological data
recovery at the Indian Creek Site, designed to mitigate unavoidable adverse effects to the site that
will occur when construction begins.
WMATA's survey, testing and data recovery programs have provided much important new
information pertaining to Archaic lifeways in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain region. The Indian
Creek Site has been interpreted as a gathering camp/processing site that was repeatedly visited for
short periods to exploit seasonally available plant resources. As a seasonally occupied gathering
camp, the site was part of an annual settlement round that also included visits to the South
Mountain area of Maryland and Pennsylvania as well as other loci in the Coastal Plain. The
excavations focused on the recordation of features and activity areas and yielded an assemblage of
some 60,000 items, a botanical assemblage of seeds and macrospores that includes 63 taxa, and a
pollen core that contains a vegetation record for the terminal Pleistocene and Holocene epochs.
Data analysis has focused on information needs identified in Maryland's Historic Preservation
Plan, including prehistoric chronology, subsistence, settlement patterns, intrasite patterning of
activities, environmental adaptation, and technology.
li
ACKNOWLK DG M ENTS
A large number of individuals participated in this study, from its inception in mid-1986. Without
their knowledge, support, and interest, the project could not have been completed successfully.
The sponsor of the project, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), was
supportive throughout the study and provided important technical information in a timely fashion.
John Patteson of the Engineering and Architecture Branch facilitated the program by providing
internal coordination and liaison for WMATA. The study was conducted under the overall
supervision of Wallace Roberts & Todd (WRT), WMATA's prime contractor for environmental
planning. Diana Mendes of the WRT staff provided oversight and served as liaison with
WMATA.
The Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) and the Division of Archeology, Maryland Geological
Survey (M.GS) also provided important oversight roles and responded in a timely fashion to all
requests for consultation and guidance. Beth Cole and Richard Hughes represented the MHT.
Under the supervision of Tyler Bastian, Dennis Curry, Lois Brown, and Maureen Kavanaugh
provided important support from the MCJS.
Mr. Dennis Webb, a resident of College Park, also provided invaluable assistance. As a result of
his familiarity with the area's archaeological resources, he provided the first official archaeological
site reports for the project area and donated a collection of artifacts to the Maryland Geological
Survey. While this study was in progress, he generously shared his field notes and visited the site
to provide additional information.
The Cultural Resource Group of Ixniis Berger & Associates, Inc. (LBA), had responsibility for the
technical execution of the study. The LBA staff was under the overall supervision of John A.
Hotopp, Group Vice President, and Charles LeeDecker, Principal Investigator for the project.
John Martin served as Field Supervisor for the excavations, assisted by David Susice, Crew Chief,
and Charles Dunton, Logistics Coordinator. The field crew members included Carrie Campbell,
Keith Easley, Lisa Klsinger, Tim Gardner, Jennifer Germer, Kevin Kooistra, Yvonne McCann, Ed
Miller, Robert Perales, Tom Sloss, and Mark Whitby.
Suzanne Kahn and Sharla Azizi, Laboratory Supervisors, and Marian Craig, Assistant Laboratory
Supervisor, supervised the processing and cataloging of artifacts and contextual samples. They
were assisted by Christine Alhstrom, Aaron Astor, Anthony Azizi, Joseph Balummal, Martha
Dawson, Charles Fiaschetti, Ellis Freed, Sigrit Gabler, Rob Jacoby, Brad Koldehoff, Gary
McGowan, Arthur Mason, Jill Mayo, Piuil Muto, Alex Ortiz, Jim Truncer, Grigorio Sangalang,
Roman Shevehuk, Byron Simmons, Ritchwell Suayan, Stacie Szcwczyk, Srin Tangirala, Jim
Truncer, Richard Veit, and David Wolfe. Brad Koldehoff, Lithic Material Specialist, joined the
LBA staff midway through the project, and he had primary responsibility for analysis of the stone
tools; with the goal of providing a consistent, error-free database, he reexamined Kx>ls and debitage
from all phases of fieldwork at (he site, and this effort has been of major benefit to the outcome of
the study. A number of LBA's archaeologists provided helpful advice and informal assistance
during the course of the project. These individuals include William Barse, John Cavallo, Jonathan
Lothrop, R. Michael Stewart and Robert Wall.
Editing and production of the report was carried out by Lee Nicolctti, Production Manager, and
Suzanne Szanto, Technical Editor. Linda Lipka executed the graphic production, and Rob Tucher
and Tony Masso deserve much credit for the field and laboratory photography.
Some specialized studies were undertaken by consultants. Cheryl Holt of Analytical Services for
Archaeologists was responsible for the flotation analysis, and Grace Brush of the Department of
in
Geography and Environmental Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, completed the pollen
analysis. 1 he University of Delaware Center for Archaeological Research and Paleo Research
Laboratories of Golden, Colorado, conducted tests for residues on the stone tools and debitage.
Daniel Wagner of Geo-Sci Consultants, Inc., conducted a study of the Indian Creek floodplain
geomorphology and local pedological conditions. Other subcontractors that participated in the
program include Advanced Management, Inc. (computer data entry), Construction Control
Services Corp. (field crew), and Casillas Press, Inc. (printing).
i v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH 6
A. Regional Prehistory 6
B. Previous Archaeological Studies 9
III. ENVIRONMENTAL SE'lTING 13
A. Physiography and Geology 13
B. Hydrology 15
C. Soils 16
D. Flora and Fauna 21
E. Paleoenvironment 24
IV. RESEARCH DESIGN 35
A. Introduction 35
B. Problem Orientation and Research Context 36
1. Subsistence 36
2. Settlement Patterns 38
3. Activity Area Reconstruction 42
4. Technology 44
5. Environmental Adaptation 45
C. Methodology 45
1. Sampling Strategy and Field Methods 45
2. Artifact Processing and Analytical Methods 47
V. SOILS, STRATIGRAPHY, AND SITE FORMATION PROCESSES 49
VI. ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES 58
VII. LITHIC ANALYSIS 72
A. Introduction 72
B. Theoretical Orientation and Research Questions 72
1. Technology and Function 73
2. Style 75
3. Raw Material Selection 75
C. Analytical Methods 75
1. Raw Material Analysis 75
a) Quartz 76
b) Quartzite 76
c) Ironstone 76
d) Rhyolite 76
e) Sandy Chert 77
0 Chert 77
g) Chalcedony 77
h) Jasper 78
i) Argillitc 78
j) Siltstone 78
k) Sandstone 78
1) Granite and Gabbro 78
m) Basalt 78
n) Schist and Gneiss 78
o) Serpentine .' 78
p) Steatite 79
q) Hematite and Limonite 79
r) Petrified Wood 79
2. Technological and Functional Analysis 79
a) Chipped-Stone Tools and Debris 80
b) Groundstone Tools and Debris 81
3. Stylistic Analysis 81
D. Cultural Components 83
1. Palmer/Kirk Cluster 83
2. Bifurcated Base Cluster 84
3. Morrow Mountain II 84
4. Brewcrton/Otter Creek Cluster 84
5. Vernon/Halifax 84
6. Clagett 86
7. Savannah River, Large 86
8. Savannah River, Small 86
9. Holmes 86
10. Lackawaxen 87
11. Calvert 87
12. Untyped 87
13. Discussion 87
E. Lithic Procurement 89
1. Resource Availability 91
2. Procurement Strategies 93
F. Lithic Industries and Site Activities 96
G . Residue Analysis 105
H. Conclusions 107
1. Technology and Function 108
2. Style 108
3. Raw Material Selection 109
VIII. INTRASITE PATTERN!NG OF LITHIC REMAINS 136
A. Introduction 136
B. Results 137
1. Biases and Limitations in the Database 137
2. Internal Site Structure 139
a) Cultural Components 139
b) Raw Materials 142
C. Summary 148
VI
IX. FLORA.L AND FAUNAL ANALYSIS 230
A. Introduction 230
B. Methodology 230
1. Sampling and Specimen Identification 230
2. Delineation of Prehistoric Specimens 231
3. Sources of Prehistoric Seeds 232
C. Flora! Analysis 233
1. Non-Native Species 233
a) Carpetweed 233
b) Purslane 233
c) Goosegrass 238
d) Chess 238
e) Mayweed 238
0 Crabgrass 238
g) Pondweed 238
h) Chickweed 238
i) Bird Rape 239
j) Buttercup 239
k) Thistle 239
1) Clover 239
m) Bedstraw 239
2. Uncharred Specimens 239
a) Chenopodium 240
b) Goldenrod 240
c) Greenbriar 240
d) Honeysuckle 240
c) Jcwelweed 240
t) Jointweed 241
g) Oak 241
h) Partridge Pea 241
i) Pin Cherry 241
j) Pine 241
k) Sedge 241
1) Spruce 241
m) Pokeweed 241
n) Panic Grass 242
0) Pigweed 242
p) Mullein 242
q) Waterhyssop 242
r) Evening Primrose 242
3. Potentially Utilized Charred Specimens 242
a) Burrccd 243
b) Bulrush 243
c) Chufa/Scleria/Flatscdgc 243
d) Watershield 246
e) Waterlilly 246
0 Thistle 247
g) Fern 247
h) Geranium 248
1) Pennyroyal 248
j) Clover 248
k) Wood Sorrel 249
1) Sumac 249
vu
m) Hercule's Club 250
n) Spurge 251
o) Solomon's Seal 251
p) Catchfly 251
q) Copperleaf 251
r) Ragweed 252
s) Pickerelweed 252
t) Dodder 259
u) Poison Ivy 253
v) Sweetgum 253
w) Pennywort 253
x) Smartweed/Knotweed 254
y) Water-Milfoil 254
z) Blackberry 254
aa) Blue-Eyed-Grass 255
bb) Choke Cherry 255
cc) Spike rush 255
dd) Ground Cherry 255
4. No Evidence for Use 256
a) Eelgrass 256
b) Waterhemp 256
5. Nutshell 256
6. Charcoal 257
D. Faunal Analysis 258
1. Variables Affecting Bone Survival 258
2. Recovered Specimens 258
E. Floral Exploitation Strategies 259
F. Faunal Resource Exploitation 261
G . Data Assessment 262
H. Conclusion 267
X. SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION 269
A. Chronology 269
B. Subsistence 271
C. Environmental Adaptation 274
I). Settlement Pattern 276
E. Technology 278
F. Intra-Site Activity Organization 280
G . Resource Treatment Considerations 282
REFERENCES CITED 284
APPENDICES (separately bound)
A. Staff Resumes A-l
B. Maryland Research Units B-1
C. Site Survey Forms C-l
D. Feature Descriptions D-l
E. Computer Cataloging and Database Design E-l
F. Summary Catalog Listing of Prehistoric Artifacts F-l
G. Projectile Point Descriptions and Notes G-l
H. Catalog Listing, Projectile Points H-l
I. Catalog Listing, Miscellaneous Bifaces 1-1
viu