In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

This appendix brie®y describes the results of ¤eldwork conducted at the McDowell site in 1977 (Ward 1977) and by the author in 1986 during the Upper Catawba Archaeological Project. The McDowell site (31MC41) is located on the ®oodplain of the Catawba River west of Marion in McDowell County (Figures 5 and 13). The alluvial bottoms surrounding the site encompass more than 200 acres, while the site itself is limited to an area of about 3 to 4 acres, 250 ft south of the river. Today, a narrow, ®ood-prone, abandoned channel separates the site from the river. The site is known locally as the location of a large ‘mound,’ which is actually a conical monadnock more than 60 ft high. The archaeological site is approximately 1,000 ft east of the monadnock. However, the site includes what has generally been interpreted as the remnant of an earthen substructure mound (Ward 1977:5). Years of cultivation have reduced the mound to a low rise about 100 ft in diameter and less than 4 ft high. Excavation Results: 1977 and 1986 The 1977 report (Ward 1977) on ¤eld investigations describes artifacts scattered over nearly a 2-acre area (about 250 × 300 ft). Within these boundaries higher concentrations of surface material were noted in the eastcentral and southeastern sections of the site, while very little material was found on or south of the mound (Ward 1977:4–5). The 1986 investigations recorded a surface scatter of artifacts that covered 3 to 4 acres. However, consistent with earlier observations, surface artifact density dropped rapidly south of the mound. In 1977, a permanent grid was established by placing iron pipes at the corners of a 200-×-200-ft block. Test excavations revealed a plow zone of brown silty loam .5 to .9 ft in depth overlying a tan silty-clay B horizon (Ward 1977:5). Plow zone was removed from about 750 ft2 of the site in 1977. This included four 5-×-5-ft units and a 10-×-50ft trench designated Block A (Figure 14). Twenty-eight postholes and 4 features were identi¤ed in Block A. The postholes included portions of a possible house structure (Structure 1) and a palisade running west to east across the trench (Ward 1977:6–8). Appendix A The McDowell Site Figure 13. Plan view of the 1977 and 1986 excavation area at the McDowell site (31MC41). Figure 14. Plan view of Excavation Block A at the McDowell site. Further investigations at the McDowell site were carried out as part of the Upper Catawba Archaeology Project from September 12 to October 12, 1986. Complete access to the site was not possible; our investigations were limited by crop cover to a narrow 80-ft transect that bisected the site and ran north-to-south through the site, crossing the mound. An attempt was made to locate the permanent datum rods placed along the woods just north of the site in 1977, so that recording could continue within the original grid system. Unfortunately, the edge of the wooded area had been graded to realign a dirt road and we were able to locate only one of the three original datum rods; though hit by the bulldozer blade and badly bent, it appeared to be in its original location. We were also unable to relocate the 1977 excavation units since they were located outside of our access area. Therefore, the relationship of the 1986 excavation grid to the 1977 grid is based on only this single point. It is likely that some error occurred in attempting to replicate the grid’s north-south orientation from the single point. The site map (Figure 13) is based on Ward’s 1977 topographic map. Without the accurate datum points or a new topographic map, I have placed the 1986 grid as accurately as possible relative to the 1977 grid. While this placement was made as carefully as possible with respect to the existing datum, the mound, and the farm road, the relationship of the 1977 units to the 1986 units is still subjective. Four areas (Blocks B–E) totaling 2,200 ft2 were excavated in 1986. Each block was shoveled to remove the plow zone, but because of time limitations the entire plow zone was screened for artifacts in Blocks C and D only. In Blocks B and E, those units in which the plow zone was not completely screened, a 100-liter soil sample of plow zone was water screened to obtain a...

Share