TVAR Report On Hidden Springs Site

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE ASSESSMENT OF THE HIDDEN
SPRINGS SITE (1MA608) IN BIG COVE, MADISON COUNTY,

ALABAMA
2 - Project Title
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE ASSESSMENT OF THE HIDDEN SPRINGS SITE (1MA608)

IN BIG COVE, MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA
by
Jamie Dickeson and Hunter B. Johnson
Prepared for:
Margaret Anne Goldsmith
231 Eastside Square
Huntsville, AL 35801
Prepared by:
Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research
2211 Seminole Drive
Suite 302
Huntsville, AL 35805
Hunter B. Johnson
Principal Investigator
April 2010
Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research - 3
Introduction
On April 12, 2010, Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research (TVAR), under contract with Ms.
Margaret Anne Goldsmith of Huntsville, Alabama, conducted a Phase I cultural resource assessment of the
Hidden Springs site (1MA608). This assessment was conducted to determine the boundaries of the site so
that it could be incorporated into the Goldsmith-Schiffman Wildlife Sanctuary which is owned by the City
of Huntsville. Through shovel testing and site delineation, the site was determined to be potentially eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places. The site is located in the southern portion of Madison County,
Alabama, within the community of Big Cove at the southern end of Taylor Road. The site is located in the
NW1/4, of the SW1/4, of the SW1/4 on the 1974 Moontown, AL, USGS 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle, Sec-
tion 1, Township 5 South, Range 1 East (Figure 1).
Fieldwork was performed by Jamie Dickeson, Mary Lee Glass, David Reimer, and Brian Wilson.
Jamie Dickeson conducted document and cartographic research of the area. All work for this project was
conducted under the direction of the Principal Investigator, Hunter Johnson. The investigation consisted
of shovel testing and surface collecting to determine site boundaries, better understand the cultural com-
ponents, provide a National Register of Historic Places recommendation, and identify the most archaeo-
logically sensitive areas to be set aside and preserved for educational purposes.
Literature and Document Search

Document and cartographic research was conducted as part of the archaeological survey. Nu-
merous cartographic and ethnographic databases were referenced including the Alabama State Site File
(ASSF), University of Alabama Historic Map Archive (UAHMA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
General Land Office (GLO) Land Patent database, National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), Madison
County, Alabama Soil Survey (1958), National Park Service, and the Alabama Register of Landmarks and
Heritage (ARLH).
Research of historic cemeteries in the area was conducted through queries of the Alabama His-
torical Commission (AHC), USGenWeb Project, and the Alabama Cemetery Preservation Alliance (ACPA)
online databases. These resources reveal no cemeteries present within the site boundaries or within the
surrounding half-mile radius; the Vann Cemetery sits just 1.6 km (1 mi) southwest of the site, and the
Hayes Cemetery sits just 1.2 km (.75 mi) north of the site. While the background research should not be
considered exhaustive, numerous sources were referenced for land use data within and immediately sur-
rounding the project area.
The ASSF lists ten previously recorded sites lying within a half mile of the Hidden Springs site.
The previously recorded archaeological sites are summarized in Table 1, many of which were recorded by
2 - The Hidden Springs site (1MA608)
HAYES CEM
FLEMING CEM
GRAYSON CEM
VANN CEM
«
Project Location Map
1MA608 Site Limits

TVAR
Contour Interval: 10ft.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
KILOMETERS
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
MILES
Figure 1. Project location map.

archaeologist Jeff Thomson. Recent investigations by TVAR at 1MA341 identified several features and a
buried midden deposit. According to the ASSF, human remains were reportedly found at Site 1MA330,
and Dr. John Cottier of Auburn University was asked to examine the remains, which he found to be frag-
mentary adult human remains. Dr. Cottier reports the remains were brought to him for identification, and
he did not visit the site (J. Cottier, 2009 personal communication).
Table 1. Previously recorded archaeological sites within half mile of Site 1MA608
Site Component Description
artifact scatter,
1Ma330 Late Archaic midden
1Ma332 Late Archaic artifact scatter
1Ma333 Late Archaic artifact scatter
1Ma334 Early Archaic artifact scatter
1Ma339 Early Archaic artifact scatter
1Ma340 Middle Archaic artifact scatter
artifact scatter/
1Ma341 Late Paleoindian-Middle Woodland features
1Ma342 unknown aboriginal artifact scatter
1Ma756 unknown aboriginal artifact scatter
1Ma1378 Early and Late Archaic, Woodland artifact scatter
Jacksonville State University (JSU) conducted a survey in this area associated with a wastewater
system and associated pumping stations running through Big Cove (Holstien and Hill 1996). Curiously no
new sites were recorded during the survey; however, three previously recorded sites (1MA330, 1Ma339,
and 1MA340) were evaluated. Investigations at 1MA339 and 1Ma340 by JSU determined them to be in-
eligible for the NRHP, but 1Ma330 warranted further investigation. Eight 1-x-1-m test units and a grader
strip were excavated, no features or intact deposits were identified. Investigations at 1MA330 did identify
limestone and grit-tempered pottery, hafted bifaces and other stone tools, arrow points, greenstone, bone
fragments, fresh water gastropods and bivalves, and historic ceramics, ferrous metal, and glass. The major-
ity of pottery from the site, 96 percent, was identified as limestone tempered. The presence of freshwater
shellfish and bone fragments likely indicate the presence of cultural features even though none were re-
ported (Holstein and Hill 1996). Archaeological investigations at sites that have been exposed to years of
cultivation, such as 1MA330, would likely be better served by large scale mechanical stripping to identify
features rather than limited stratigraphic test unit excavations.
Other cultural resource management projects near the project area are also associated with con-
struction to build infrastructure as Big Cove’s population rapidly grows (Holstein and Higginbotham 2002;
Richardson 2001; Shelby 2002; Wilkins 1997). These projects were limited in scope and the portions of
those sites recorded or revisited had previously been heavily disturbed from construction, agriculture, and
erosion.
More recently, Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research conducted a high probabilty survey of
the Goldsmith-Schiffman Wildlife Sanctuary. While the survey was limited in scope, Site 1MA1629 was re-
corded. In addition, one recommendation of the project was to incorporate the Hidden Springs (1MA608)
site into the sanctuary (Morrow and Marshall 2009).
Aerial photography and USGS topographic quadrangles of the project area obtained from the Uni-
versity of Alabama Historic Map Archive (2010) were referenced for evidence of previous and existing
impacts to the site. The 1936, 1948, and 1974 Moontown, AL, USGS 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangles all show
a structure located in the northern portion of 1MA608. The structure was not present on the 1911 Madison
County Soil Map. One structure was present on the soil map approximately 200 m northwest of the site
and was likely the structure discussed in the 1MA330 site report (Holstien and Hill 1996). A surface scat-
ter of historic artifacts and a small depression confirmed that a structure was present at one time within
the boundaries of 1MA608. A dirt road is located north of the site boundaries and is depicted on the 1936
Moontown, AL, USGS 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle.
A search was performed of the online database for the National Register of Historic Places, which
lists 74 properties and seven districts within Madison County, Alabama (National Park Service 2010). In
addition, the Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage was referenced (Alabama Historical Commis-
sion 2010). Neither database listed any historic properties within a half-mile radius surrounding the site.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land Office (GLO) records listed three land
patents for Section 1, Township 5 South, Range 1 East: Accession/Serial #AL1170_.027 issued 12/3/1822
to George Grayson the W ½ of the SE ¼ (80.3 acres); Accession/Serial #AL3600_.185 issued 3/1/1858
to Jerome Grayson the E ½ of the SE ¼ (80.3 acres); and Accession/Serial #982600 issued 7/22/1926 to
State of Alabama (Muscle Shoals Grant) the NE ¼ (part of 390,308.86 acres) (BLM 2010). None of these
patents was issued within the site boundaries.
Environmental Setting
Currently, the Hidden Springs site is located in an agricultural field. An unnamed swamp with
numerous spring heads is located along the northeastern boundary of the site and flows southeast 600 m
into the Flint River.
F LH
P H Y S IO G R A P H IC R E G IO N S H IG H L A N D R IM
TV Tennes s ee Valley
JC M L IM L ittle M o unta in
TV
F LH
JC M MOV M oulton Valley
F LH C U M B E R L A N D P L AT E A U
L IM
WB W arrior B as in
MOV
F LH SM LO M JC M Ja cks on C o unty M ountains
S OV AR
SM S and M ounta in
WB
S QV S equa tchie Va lley
WV BM B lo unt M ounta in
COV
MV MV M urphrees Valley
BM
WV W ills Va lley
LO M L ooko ut M o untain
WR
A C OR
A L A B A M A V A L L E Y A N D R ID G E
WB BBC
COV
F LH C OV C oo s a Valley
COV NP C OR C oo s a R idg es
C AR C AV WR W eis ner R idg es
BP A C AV C ahaba Va lley
P IE D M O N T UP LA N D
C AR C ahaba R idg es
F LH
NP SP BBC B irming ha m-B ig C ano e Valley
BP BP
F LH
AR A rmuchee R idg es
A
CH
BP A P IE D M O N T U P L A N D
F
A F LH
SRH NP N o rthern P iedmont U pland
CH BP
A SP S outhern P iedmont U pland
F BP CH
BH S RH BP
E A S T G U L F C O A S TA L P L A IN
LH BH CH
A CH
A F LH F all L ine H ills
LH
HD BP B la ck P ra irie
BH
SRH CH C hunnenug g ee H ills
HD
LH SRH S outhern R ed H ills
S RH
F F la twoods S ubdis trict
S PH
DP BH B uhrs tone H ills S ubdis trict
LH L ime H ills
DP
A S PH HD H a tchetig bee D ome S ubdis trict
DP
S PH
S PH S outhern P ine H ills
DP D o ug herty P la in
Ad
CL C o as ta l L owla nds
S PH
Project Location A, Ad A lluvial-delta ic P la in
Produced by the Dept. of Geography D is trict bo undary

College of Arts and Sciences
CL The University of Alabama R eg io n bo undary
Figure 2. Physiographic Regions of Alabama (University of Alabama. http://ala-

bamamaps.ua.edu).
Site 1MA608 is situated in the Jackson County Mountains physiographic region which is part of
the Cumberland Plateau (Figure 2). The Cumberland Plateau spans Western Virginia and Eastern Ken-
tucky through North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Northern Georgia, and a large portion of Northern
Alabama. The Jackson County Mountains region consists of isolated, flat-topped remnants of former pla-
teaus cut by steep-sided valleys (Johnston 1930).
According to Thomas (1973), predominant forest cover for this area is cedar glades associated with
limestone outcroppings (Figure 3). Red cedars, oaks, hickories, yellow poplars, and chestnuts were once
predominant in the area. Presently, deciduous trees can be found, such as black, post, red, white, laurel,
Spanish, chestnut, and willow oaks, shag bark, pignut, black hickories, sweetgum, blackgum, and Tupelo
gum, red and white elm, beech, cherry, maple, ash, and walnut. Other trees consist of persimmon, sas-
Alabama Forest Covers
Oak-Hickory Forest
Oak-Hickory-Pine Forest
Cedar Glades
Mixed Mesophytic Forest
Black Belt
Southern Mixed Forest
Southern Floodplain Forest
Project Area
mi.
0 25 50 75 100
km
0 40 80 120 160
Figure 3. Map showing distrubutions of Alabama forest cover (Thomas 1973).
safras, ironwood, dogwood, sourwood, blackjack oak, willow, birch, sycamore, redbud, plum, hackberry,
buckeye, and honey locust and black locust. Pines growing in the area consist of loblolly, yellow, and short-
leaf, and they often grow in abandoned fields (USDA 1958). Currently, the site is barren of trees.
Three soil types are found within the site boundaries (NRCS 2010). These soils are Sequatchie
fine sandy loam, eroded (Sf), Abernathy silt loam (Ad), and Decatur and Cumberland silty clays, severely
eroded, rolling (Dd). Long-term agricultural use has disturbed natural soil layers, heavily impacting the
site and the surrounding area.
Sequatchie fine sandy loam, eroded (Sf) is normally found on the toeslope of stream terrace land-
forms with slopes ranging from 2 to 6 percent. The parent material of Sequatchie fine sandy loam, eroded
is loamy alluvium deposits that are derived from sedimentary rock. This soil is a well drained soil with no
tendency of flooding or ponding. This soil makes up the majority of the site.
Abernathy silt loam (Ad) is normally found in depressions with slopes ranging from 0 to 2 percent.
The parent material of Abernathy silt loam is silty alluvium deposits that are derived from sedimentary
rock. Abernathy silt loam is a well drained soil with little tendency of flooding but a high frequency of pond-
ing. This soil makes up a very small portion of the western boundary of the site.
Decatur and Cumberland silty clays, severely eroded, rolling (Dd) is normally found on the side
slopes of hills with slopes ranging from 6 to 12 percent. The parent material of Decatur and Cumberland
silty clays, severely eroded, rolling is weathered residuum deposits that are derived from limestone. This
soil is a well drained soil with no tendency of flooding or ponding. This soil covers the sloped eastern and
southern portion of the site.
Field Methods
The archaeological survey was conducted in accordance with Guidelines for Archaeological Sur-
vey and Testing established by the Alabama Historical Commission (2006). The survey methods included
visual inspection and shovel testing to define site boundaries. A site datum was established and three
transects were placed across the site (Figure 4). Transect directions were chosen in order to best evaluate
the site. Transect 1 was placed at 170 degrees off of datum, Transect 2 was placed at 160 degrees off of
datum, and Transect 3 was placed at 260 degrees off of datum. Shovel test locations were placed every 30
m along each transect. A visual inspection was conducted 10 m around each shovel test location. If more
than five artifacts were observed at any locale, it was deemed a positive shovel test and the test was not
excavated. If less than five artifacts were observed, the shovel test was dug to determine if the edge of the
site could be located. This methodology was continued until two consecutive negative shovel tests were en-
countered. Shovel tests consisted of 30 cm (11.8 inches) diameter cylindrical holes excavated to the depth
of the underlying, sterile subsoil. Test soils were then passed through ¼-inch hardware mesh to recover
any cultural materials present. In the field, all artifact collections were labeled by provenience.
Laboratory Methods
Following the fieldwork portion of this project, all collected materials, field notes, and photograph
logs were transported to Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research laboratory facilities in Huntsville, Ala-
bama. Artifacts were washed, analyzed, and catalogued. All documentation, including field notes, maps,
drawings, any other pertinent survey information, and artifacts will be curated at the Erskine Ramsay
Archaeological Repository located at Moundville Archaeological Park. This facility meets U.S. Department
of Interior 36 CFR Part 79 guidelines.
1MA608 Site Location Map
T3St2
Positive Shovel Test
T2St2
Negative Shovel Test
T3St3 T1St2 T2St3
T3St4 T1St3
Old Site Boundary T3St5 T2St4 unn
a me
dstrea
Midden T1St4 T2St5 m
T2St5/10S
Datum T2St5/20S
T1St5
T2St5/30S
Depression T2St5/40S
T1St6
Sinkhole T2St6
T1St7 T2St7
Pavilion
T2St7/15S
Updated Site Boundary
T1St8
1974 Structure
T1St9
T1St10/10N
Sensitive Area
Wetland
«
T1St12
TVAR T1St12/12S
T1St13
0 25 50 75 100
METERS T1St14
0 75 150 225 300
FEET
Figure 4. Site Location Map of 1MA608.
Survey Results
The delineation of the Hidden
Springs site included a pedestrian walkover
with visual inspection, shovel testing, and site
mapping (Figure 4). A total of 36 shovel tests
locations was placed across the site (Appendix
A). Of these 36 shovel test locations, 29 shovel
tests were excavated and seven locations were
deemed shovel tests because of the presence
of surface artifacts. Eight of these shovel test
locations were negative of artifacts, and 21
shovel test locations yielded artifacts (Ap-
pendix B). All shovel tests except T1ST5/10S
Feature discovered in Shovel Test T1ST5/10S at 1MA608
«
were excavated to sterile subsoil. Shovel Test 0 10 20
TVAR
CENTIMETERS
0 4 8
T1ST5/10S was stopped at 25 cmbs because a INCHES
feature was located in the bottom of the test

Figure 5. Photo of Feature uncovered in Shovel Test
(Figure 5). Shovel testing along Transect 1 T1ST5/10S.
produced moderate concentrations of artifacts in T1ST7 and T1ST12/12S. Moderately heavy concentra-
tions of surface artifacts were visible between T1ST4 to T1ST6 and between T1ST12 and T1ST13.
Shovel testing along Transect 2 produceded heavy concentrations of artifacts in every positive
shovel test on the transect, and the heaviest concentrations of surface artifacts on 1MA608 were visible
on Transect 2. The heaviest concentrations of artifacts were between T2ST4 to T2ST5/20S. Shovel Tests
T2ST5, T2ST5/10S, and T2ST5/20S all showed signs of midden with T2ST5/10S containing a feature.
Shovel testing along Transect 3 produced moderate concentrations of artifacts in all the positive shovel
tests. Concentrations of surface artifacts were not visible on Transect 3. Based on shovel testing at the Hid-
den Springs site, the site boundaries were significantly increased and two areas considered archaeologi-
cally highly sensitive were identified (Appendix C).
Interpretation and Recommendations

The Hidden Springs site (1MA608) is a large multicomponent site with intact archaeological de-
posits. Delineation of 1MA608 resulted in the expansion of the site boundaries and the identification of
two highly sensitive areas (see Figure 4). Identified intact deposits include a large sheet midden and at
least one cultural feature. The feature was identified in a shovel test, which only revealed a portion of a
larger stain (see Figure 5). It is clear that this site is ex-
tensive and certain locales within the site reflect intense
American Indian occupation. To date, components identi-
fied at the site can best be described as early 20th century
historic and Late Woodland and Early Archaic American
Indian occupations; however, this is based on very limited
diagnostic artifact data (Appendix B). Artifacts associated
with the early 20th century house site are visible across the
northern portion of the site. In addition, a depression just
west of the structure is visible and possibly indicates the
location of a well associated with the house. Historic arti-
facts from 1MA608 include blue-edged pearlware, refined
earthenware, amethyst glass, ferrous cut and wire nails,
and a ferrous metal button (Figure 6).
One area in particular was very dense in cultural
material visible on the surface. Artifacts in this area include
Figure 6. Historic arifacts from 1MA608: a,
blue-edged pearlware; b, earthenware; c, cut calcined bone, freshwater bivalve and gastropod shellfish, a
nail; d, ferrous metal button.
greenstone fragment, fire-cracked rock, and a high density
of lithic material and pottery (Figures 7, 8, and 9). Pottery identified by TVAR was all limestone-tempered
(Mulberry Creek Plain) except for one shell-tempered (Mississippi Plain) sherd (Figure 10). A total of 30
sherds was excavated and surface collected from the site by TVAR. The artifact assemblage from the Hid-
den Springs site indicates that a primary occupation of the site occurred during the Late Woodland, ap-
proximately A.D. 500 to 900.
The Hidden Springs site is 14.5 km from the
Flint River site (1MA48), which is the type site for
the Flint River culture. Flint River culture is a Late
Woodland manifestation defined on the pottery as-
semblage made up almost entirely of limestone tem-
pered pottery (Knight 1990:80; Walthall 1980:131).
The majority of pottery at Flint River culture sites
is characterized by plain, scraped/smoothed, and
brushed limestone tempered vessels, which are pri-
Figure 7. Faunal material from 1MA608: top row
marily bowls and straight-sided jars. Brushed pottery calcined bone; bottom row freshwater gastropods.
is the primary surface treatment found in Flint River assem-

blages, with minority types consisting of incised, punctated
and cord-marked types (Walthall 1980:131). Green Moun-
tain was described as the boundary between McKelvey and
Flint River settlements (Walthall 1980:132). This boundary
was later shifted downriver to near present day Decatur by
Knight (1990:80), who recognized that more work needed to
be done to refine the boundary. Perhaps environmental con-
ditions played a role in this boundary, which is at the contact
between the Highland Rim and Cumberland Plateau. This
Figure 8. Other stone from 1MA608: a,
contact is marked to the west by flatter alluvial plains and to
greenstone fragment; b, quartzite fire
the east by a series of mountains on both sides of the Ten- cracked rock.
nessee River up to present day Guntersville. The Hidden Springs site does show that large Late Woodland
Flint River settlements existed well up the Flint River drainage, and the site itself offers research potential
for comparing assemblages from the Flint River site (1MA48) and Hidden Springs. As the site is being
set aside for preservation and teaching purposes, future investigations at the Hidden Springs site should
adhere to specific research goals. It is recommended that the site be planted in grass and used as a green
space. If the site remains in agriculture, it is the recommendation of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Re-
search that no till farming be practiced at the site.
Figure 9. Stone tools from 1MA608: a, Pine Tree; b,

stemmed hafted biface fragment; c, Bradley Spike;
d-f, biface fragments.
Figure 10. Pottery from 1MA608: a, b, d, Mulberry

Creek Plain; c, Mississippi Plain.
References
Alabama Cemetery Preservation Alliance

2009 Alabama Cemetery Register. Electronic document, http://www.alabama-cemetery-preservation.
com/reg_search.lasso, accessed April 14, 2010. Montgomery, AL.
Alabama Historical Commission

2006 Alabama Historical Commission Policy for Archaeological Survey and Testing in Alabama. Elec-
tronic document, http://www.preserveala.org/106program.html, accessed April 14, 2010. Ala-
bama State Historic Preservation Office (ALSHPO), Montgomery, AL.
2010 The Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage. Electronic Document,

http://www.preserveala.org/alabamaregister.html, accessed April 14, 2010. Alabama Historical Com-
mission, Montgomery, AL.
Alabama State Site File

2010 Alabama State Site File (ASSF). Electronic Document, accessed April 14, . Office of Archaeologi-
cal Research, University of Alabama, Moundville, AL.
Bureau of Land Management

2010 General Land Office Website. Electronic document, http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/
PatentSearch/, accessed April 14, 2009. U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C.
Holstein, Harry O. and Gena Higginbotham

2002 A Cultural Resource Survey of a Proposed Bridge Replacement Corridor over Green Mountain
Branch in Madison County, Alabama. Prepared by Jacksonville State University. Prepared for
Chynoweth/Somers Consulting Engineers, Huntsville, Alabama.
Holstein, Harry O. and Gena Higginbotham

2002 A Cultural Resource Survey of a Proposed Bridge Replacement Corridor over Green Mountain
Branch in Madison County, Alabama. Prepared by Jacksonville State University. Prepared for
Chynoweth/Somers Consulting Engineers, Huntsville, Alabama.
Johnston, William Drumm, Jr.

1930 Physical Divisions of Northern Alabama. Bulletin No. 38. Geological Survey of Alabama. Univer-
sity of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Knight, Vernon J., Jr.

1990 Excavation of the Truncated Mound at the Walling Site: Middle Woodland Culture and Copena in
the Tennessee Valley. Report submitted to the City of Huntsville, Alabama by the Office of Archaeo-
logical Research, Alabama State Museum of Natural History, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Report of Investigations 56. Division of Archaeology, Alabama State Museum of Natural History,
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Morrow, Jamie and Ann Marshall

2009 A Cultural Reconnaissance Survey of a Proposed Wetland Bank In Goldsmith-Schiffman Wildlife
Sanctuary in the Community of Big Cove, Madison County, Alabama. Prepared by Tennessee Valley
Archaeological Research. Prepared for OMI, Inc., Huntsville, AL.
National Park Service

2010 National Register of Historic Places, National Register Information Service Spatial Database.
Electronic document, http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrdown1.htm, accessed April 14, 2010.
Natural Resources Conservation Service

2010 Madison County, AL (AL089) Soil Maps, Version 3, December 12, 2006. Electronic document,
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed April 14, 2010.
Osborne, W. Edward, Michael W. Szabo, Thornton L. Neathery, and Charles W. Copeland Jr.
1988 Geologic Map of Alabama, Northeast Sheet. Special Map 220, Geologic Survey of Alabama, Uni-
versity of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Richardson, Jennifer L
2001 A Phase I Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed Taylor Road Expansion Corridor
from Sutton Road to Terry Drake, Madison County, Alabama. Prepared by University of Alabama
Office of Archaeological Research, Moundville. Prepared for Civil Solutions, LLP, Huntsville, Ala-
bama.
Sapp, Daniel, and Jacques Emplaincourt

1975 Physiographic Regions of Alabama. Geological Survey of Alabama, Map 168. University of Ala-
bama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Soil Conservation Service

1958 Soil Survey of Madison County, Alabama. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.
Shelby, Thomas M.
2002 A Phase I Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of a Proposed Widening of Sutton Road from Taylor
Road to U.S. Highway 431, Madison County, Alabama. Prepared by University of Alabama Office of
Archaeological Research, Moundville. Prepared for Civil Solutions, LLP, Huntsville, Alabama.
Thomas, Joab
1973 Vegetation. In Atlas of Alabama, edited by Neal G. Lineback, pp. 15-17. University of Alabama
Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
University of Alabama
1911 Madison County Soil Survey Map (1911). University of Alabama Historic Map Archive (AMI).
Electronic document, http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/historicalmaps/, accessed April 14, 2010.
1936 Moontown,Al USGS 7.5 Topographic Quadrangle. University of Alabama Historic Map Archive
(AMI). Electronic document, http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/historicalmaps/, accessed April 14,
2010.
2010.
2010.
Walthall, John A.
1980 Prehistoric Indians of the Southeast: Archaeology of Alabama and the Middle South. The Univer-
sity of Alabama Press, University.
Wilkins, James C.
1997 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Big Cove Basin Wastewater System, Task 1.7, near
Huntsville, Madison County, Alabama. Prepared by University of Alabama Office of Archaeological
Research, Moundville. Prepared for PDR Engineers, Inc. Huntsville, Alabama.
Appendix A:
Shovel Test Roster
Shovel Test Depth of UTM UTM

Destination Results Recovery Easting Northing
T1ST2 positive 0-15 547354 3831756
T1ST3 positive/surface surface 547378 3831729
T1ST7 positive 0-50 547392 3831597
T1ST9 positive 0-20 547396 3831528
T1ST10/10N positive 0-13 547398 3831510
T1ST10 negative 547397 3831500
T1ST10/10S negative 547400 3831483
T1ST11 negative 547402 3831450
T1ST12 positive 0-20 547409 3831423
T1ST12/12S positive 0-15 547408 3831409
T1ST14 positive 10-15 547414 3831354
T1ST15 negative 547418 3831327
T1ST16 negative 547419 3831301
T2ST3 positive 0-30 547402 3831721
T2ST4 positive 0-55 547412 3831699
T2ST5 positive 0-30 547426 3831673
T2ST5/10S positive 0-25 547431 3831666
T2ST5/20S positive 0-20 547437 3831654
T2ST5/30S positive 0-15 547446 3831644
T2ST5/40S positive 0-15 547448 3831636
T2ST6 positive 0-28 547462 3831610
T2ST7 positive 0-50 547475 3831586
T2ST7/15S positive 0-25 547480 3831575
T2ST8 negative 547486 3831563
T3ST2 positive 0-5 547348 3831769
T3ST3 positive 0-5 547323 3831755
T3ST4 positive 0-5 547299 3831743
T3ST5 positive 0-10 547267 3831737
T3ST6 negative 547246 3831727
T3ST7 negative 547220 3831720
Appendix B:
Material Recovered
General Surface Collection

1 4.19 g Mississippi Plain
2 9.74 g limestone tempered eroded
1 2.32 g limestone/grog tempered eroded
1 1.26 g limestone tempered, sherdlet
1 3.89 g stemmed hafted biface, chert (Bangor)
1 4.59 g Biface II, chert (Bangor)
1 0.56 g biface fragment, chert (undifferentiated)
2 4.89 g biface medial, chert (undifferentiated)
1 1.73 g 1/4-inch debitage with bifacial retouch, chert
(undifferentiated)
1 1.19 g 1/4-inch debitage with steep unifacial retouch, chert
1 1.44 g 1/4-inch debitage, chert (Bangor), cortex
1 33.09 g 1-inch debitage, chert (undifferentiated), cortex
1 1.69 g white undifferentiated refined earthenware
1 0.6 g blue-edged pearlware
1 0.22 g blue undifferentiated refined earthenware
1 2 g amethyst container glass
2 0.3 g undifferentiated bone
1 1.5 g gastropod shell
1 23.85 g unmodified limestone
Shovel Test-T1ST10/10N
1 0.12 g <1/4-inch debitage, chert (Bangor)
1 0.19 g 1/4-inch debitage, chert (undifferentiated), cortex
Shovel Test-T1ST12
1 1.95 g 1/2-inch debitage, chert (undifferentiated)
Shovel Test-T1ST12/12S
1 0.74 g biface distal, chert (undifferentiated)
1 0.11 g <1/4-inch debitage, chert (undifferentiated)

Shovel Test-T1ST14
1 9.16 g 1/2-inch debitage with unifacial retouch, chert
(undifferentiated)
Shovel Test-T1ST2
1 0.12 g <1/4-inch debitage, chert (undifferentiated), cortex
1 0.28 g 1/4-inch debitage, chert (Bangor)
Shovel Test-T1ST2
Shovel Test-T1ST7
1 0.29 g <1/4 inch debitage with unifacial retouch, chert
(undifferentiated)
1 0.16 g <1/4-inch debitage, chert (Bangor), cortex
2 2.14 g amethyst container glass
1 2.18 g ferrous metal fragment
Shovel Test-T1ST9
Shovel Test-T2ST3
1 5.37 g 1/2-inch debitage with steep angled unifacial retouch, chert
1 0.63 g light green container glass w/curvilinear, partial embossing
3 2.75 g clear container glass

1 18.78 g ferrous metal wire nail
1 1.4 g coke
1 0.7 g coal
Shovel Test-T2ST4
1 4.22 g biface fragment, chert (Bangor)
1 2.53 g 1/2-inch debitage with unifacial retouch, chert (Fort Payne)
(undifferentiated)
Shovel Test-T2ST4
2 1.87 g 1/4-inch debitage, chert (Fort Payne), cortex
11.77 g gastropod shell
2 1.06 g mammal bone
1 0.07 g terrestrial gastropod shell
1 0.51 g unmodified limestone
Shovel Test-T2ST5
2 22.64 g core, chert (undifferentiated)
1 16.83 g core, chert (Bangor)

1 5.09 g 1/2-inch debitage with steep angled bifacial retouch, chert
(Bangor)
1 5.81 g 1/2-inch debitage with unifacial retouch, chert (Bangor)
1 8.78 g 1/2-inch debitage with unifacial retouch, chert (Fort Payne)
(undifferentiated)
1 3.18 g ferrous metal button
Shovel Test-T2ST5
1 2.9 g ferrous metal cut nail
1 2.04 g ferrous metal wire nail
1 2.18 g Mulberry Creek Plain
(undifferentiated)

1 0.85 g 1/4-inch debitage, chalcedony
1 0.96 g mammal bone
1 0.22 g biface distal, chert (undifferentiated)
1 1.97 g 1/2-inch debitage, chert (Fort Payne)
1 27.61 g ferrous metal, possible chain link

1 16.78 g unmodified sandstone
1 0.81 g sherdlet
1 1.13 g 1/4-inch debitage, chert (Tuscumbia)
1.23 g gastropod shell
3 32.3 g unmodified undifferentiated chert
4 2.74 g sherdlet
1 2.52 g biface edge, chert (undifferentiated)
1 0.37 g 1/4-inch debitage, chert (Fort Payne)
0.55 g mussel shell
2 11.8 g umodified undifferentiated chert
Shovel Test-T2ST6
1 1.86 g sherdlet
1 0.41 g biface proximal, chert (undifferentiated)
Shovel Test-T2ST7
1 0.12 g 1/4-inch debitage, chalcedony

Shovel Test-T3ST2
1 0.13 g plastic fragment
Shovel Test-T3ST3
1 3.16 g white with blue parallel lines/ undifferentiated refined
earthenware
Shovel Test-T3ST4
Shovel Test-T3ST5
Surface Collection-T1ST12/12S
1 6.44 g Pine Tree hafted biface, chert (Bangor)
Surface Collection-T1ST13
1 2.13 g limestone/grog tempered plain
Appendix C:
Updated 1MA608 Site Form
Site: 1MA608 Retrieve Site
Site Name: Hidden Springs
Location and Size

Easting 547347 Northing: 3831653 Elevation: 590
Township: 05S Range: 01E Section: 1
SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 of SW
Major Axis: 450 Minor Axis: 175 Max Depth: 75 cm
Location and Size

Preservation State: Cultivation
Immediate Destruction
N Looting/Vandalism: N % Destroyed: 15
Pending:
National Register Status: Yes?
Archaeological Information
Level of Investigation: Intensive
Excavation Status: Surface and Shovel Tests
Topographic Association: Terrace

Physiographic District: Jackson
Physiographic Association: Cumberland
Nearest Water Source: Spring
Direction To: NE Distance To: 100 m At Confluence: N
Drainage Basin: Tennessee
Ground Cover: Cultivation
Soil Type: SEQUATCHIE
Soil Texture Class: FINE SANDY LOAM
County Soil Survey: 1958
Degree of Disturbance: Upper

Characteristics
Human Remains Stone Mound(s)

x Features Weir
Petroglyph/Pictrograph Quarry
Rockshelter Standing Historic Structure
Cave X Historic Structure Site
x Artifact Scatter Historic Cemetary
X Midden Still
Shell Midden Mill
Single Earthen Mound Engineering
Multiple Earthen Mound Other
Components
Early Archaic Pine Tree, Late Woodland Flint River, early 20th century
Comments
The Hidden Springs site (1MA608) is a large multicomponent site with intact archaeological
deposits. Delineation of 1MA608 resulted in the expansion of the site boundaries and the identification of
two highly sensitive areas. Identified intact deposits include a large sheet midden and at least one cultural
feature. It is clear that this site is extensive, and certain locales within the site reflect intense American
Indian occupation. To date, components identified at the site can best be described as early 20th century
historic, and Late Woodland and Early Archaic American Indian occupations, however this is based on very
limited diagnostic artifact data. Artifacts associated with the early 20th century house site are visible across
the northern portion of the site. In addition, a depression just west of the structure is visible and possibly
indicates the location of a well associated with the house. Historic artifacts from 1MA608 include blue
edged pearlware, refined earthenware, amethyst glass, ferrous cut and wire nails, a ferrous metal button.
One area in particular was very dense in cultural material visible on the surface. Artifacts in this
area include calcined bone, freshwater bivalve and gastropod shellfish, and a high density of lithic material
and pottery. The artifact assemblage from the Hidden Springs site indicates that a primary occupation of
the site occurred during the Late Woodland, approximately AD 500 to 900.
HAYES CEM
FLEMING CEM
GRAYSON CEM
VANN CEM
«
Project Location Map
1MA608 Site Limits

TVAR
Contour Interval: 10ft.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
KILOMETERS
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
MILES
USGS 7.5' Topographic Map: Moontown
Form Status: Final Verified New
Recorded By: Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research
Site Form Authored By: Hunter Johnson
Top of Page

TVAR Report On Hidden Springs Site

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

TVAR Report On Hidden Springs Site

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE ASSESSMENT OF THE HIDDEN

SPRINGS SITE (1MA608) IN BIG COVE, MADISON COUNTY,

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE ASSESSMENT OF THE HIDDEN SPRINGS SITE (1MA608)

Literature and Document Search

1MA608 Site Limits

Figure 1. Project location map.

Produced by the Dept. of Geography D is trict bo undary

Figure 2. Physiographic Regions of Alabama (University of Alabama. http://ala-

Alabama Forest Covers

Mixed Mesophytic Forest

Southern Mixed Forest

Southern Floodplain Forest

Figure 3. Map showing distrubutions of Alabama forest cover (Thomas 1973).

feature was located in the bottom of the test

Interpretation and Recommendations

is the primary surface treatment found in Flint River assem-

Figure 9. Stone tools from 1MA608: a, Pine Tree; b,

Figure 10. Pottery from 1MA608: a, b, d, Mulberry

Alabama Cemetery Preservation Alliance

Alabama Historical Commission

2010 The Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage. Electronic Document,

Alabama State Site File

Bureau of Land Management

Holstein, Harry O. and Gena Higginbotham

Holstein, Harry O. and Gena Higginbotham

Johnston, William Drumm, Jr.

Knight, Vernon J., Jr.

Morrow, Jamie and Ann Marshall

National Park Service

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Sapp, Daniel, and Jacques Emplaincourt

Soil Conservation Service

Shovel Test Depth of UTM UTM

General Surface Collection

1 0.48 g white undifferentiated refined earthenware

3 2.75 g clear container glass

1 16.83 g core, chert (Bangor)

2 0.63 g <1/4-inch debitage, chert (Bangor), cortex

1 4.52 g gastropod shell

16 2.92 g <1/4-inch debitage, chert (Bangor)

Site: 1MA608 Retrieve Site

Site Name: Hidden Springs

Location and Size

Major Axis: 450 Minor Axis: 175 Max Depth: 75 cm

Location and Size

Excavation Status: Surface and Shovel Tests

Topographic Association: Terrace

Drainage Basin: Tennessee

Ground Cover: Cultivation

Soil Type: SEQUATCHIE

Soil Texture Class: FINE SANDY LOAM

County Soil Survey: 1958

Degree of Disturbance: Upper

Human Remains Stone Mound(s)

1MA608 Site Limits

USGS 7.5' Topographic Map: Moontown

Form Status: Final Verified New

Recorded By: Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research

Site Form Authored By: Hunter Johnson

Вам также может понравиться