4.0 Methods 4.1 Archaeological Background Literature and Records Search
combination of hardware and software provided real time data acquisition and visualization while furnishing important information to the field crews, including the locations of environmental features and survey boundaries. Detailed information, such as soil descriptions, survey area features, and pho- tographic information, was recorded at the time of observation and linked via geographic coordinates. Prior to Brockington’s investigation, S&ME was hired by TVA to perform geotechnical boring. In order to facilitate S&ME’s schedule while maintain- ing possible cultural integrity, TVA hired TVAR to perform a Phase I archaeological survey at the pro- posed boring locations (Figure 4.1). The TVAR crew recovered four isolated Fort Payne chert fragments, which are further discussed in the following chapter (de Gregory, personal communication 2020). 4.3 Site Definitions Archaeological Site- “ TDOA does not define a site by an arbitrary number of artifacts or other specific criteria…We generally leave it to the archaeologists in the field to determine what they feel constitutes sufficient evidence of an archaeological site, given the context and survey limitations” (TDOA 2018). In addition, “TDOA does not record historic sites that lack sufficient evidence of pre-1950 occupation” (TDOA 2018). With this in mind, Brockington has determined an archaeological site is characterized by any of the following: • A surface area yielding three or more artifacts from the same broad cultural period (i.e., pre-1950 historic or prehistoric) within a 30-m radius; • Two or more shovel tests yielding at least one artifact each within 30 m of each other; • A shovel test that produces three or more artifacts from the same broad cultural period, as long as the artifacts cannot be fitted together (i.e., they are not two pieces of the same artifact) Isolated Finds- An isolated find is defined as no more than two pre-1950 historic or prehistoric ar-
In April of 2020, Brockington contacted TDOA to conduct a background literature and records search to identify documented archaeological sites and previous cultural resource investigations within the background study area, a one-km radius sur- rounding the archaeological survey area (see Figure 1.1). To supplement the information obtained from TDOA, Brockington also reviewed numerous carto- graphic and ethnohistoric databases, including the NRHP and the USGS Earth Explorer data portal. Maps specifically referenced in Brockington’s re- search included the USGS 1957, 1957 [Photorevised 1983], and 1957 [Photoinspected 1987] Ashland City 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles and aerial images captured by the USGS in 1954 and 1981. A Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office Records (BLM, GLO) search was conducted for all land parcels within the project area, but no parcels appeared to have been originally deeded to a Na- tive American. A deed and land records search in Cheatham County was also performed to deter- mine the historic ownership and land use of the project tract. The Phase I investigation included pedestrian recon- naissance of the survey area with a combination of shovel testing and surface inspection as the basis for the identification and delineation of archaeological resources. Systematic shovel testing (herein referred to as planned shovel test locations) was conducted at 30-m intervals within the survey area. Shovel tests were 30-by-30 cm square units and excavated to a maximum depth of 70 cm below surface (cmbs), until impenetrable substrate or artifact sterile subsoil was encountered. All test soils were passed through 1/4- inch hardware mesh to recover cultural materials. All locations investigated during the survey were recorded using a field computer equipped with a global positioning system (GPS) receiver with sub-meter precision and specialized data-capturing software tailored to archaeological surveying. The 4.2 Archaeological Methods of Investigation
19
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker