Contract No. DACW29-97-D-0018

Delivery Order 0023

PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY AND

ARCHEOLOGICAL INVENTORY OF THE BAYOU

SORREL LOCK REPLACEMENT PROJECT,

IBERVILLE PARISH, LOUISIANA

FINAL REPORT

APRIL 2001

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A

Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited

PREPARED FOR:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

New Orleans District

P.O. Box 60267

New Orleans, Louisiana 70160-0267

UNCLASSIFIED': DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED

R. CHRISTOPHER GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

5824 PLAUCHE STREET NEW ORLEANS, LA 70123
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,

including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204 Arlington,

VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188). Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

April 2001

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Final Report September - October 1999

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and Archeological Inventory of the Bayou Sorrel Lock

Replacement Project, Iberville Parish, Louisiana

6. AUTHORS

Kari Krause, Roger Saucier, Colleen Hanratty, Jeremy Pincoske, William P. Athens, and

Patrick P. Robblee

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

5824 Plauche Street

New Orleans, LA 70123

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District

P.O. Box 60267

New Orleans, LA 70160-0267

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT

NUMBER

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY

REPORT NUMBER

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVALIABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified/Unlimited

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

This document presents the results of the Phase I cultural resources survey and archeological inventory of the proposed Bayou Sorrel

Lock Replacement Project (Contract No. DACW29-97-D-0018) in Iberville Parish, Louisiana. This investigation was completed on

behalf of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., in September and

October of 1999. As part of the cultural resources component associated with this undertaking, an archeological inventory was authorized

to assess three separate tracts within the Area of Potential Effect; these totaled 144.4 ha (356.8 ac) in size. Each ofthe three project items

was assessed as having a high probability for containing intact cultural deposits by archeologists on staff with the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, New Orleans District.

Fieldwork for this project consisted of pedestrian survey augmented by systematic shovel testing throughout the Area of Potential

Effect. This investigation resulted in the identification and subsequent assessment of four standing structures (24-896, 24-897, 24-898,

and 24-899). In addition, previously recorded Site 16IV23 fell within the limits of the overall Area of Potential Effect and it was revisited

as part of this investigation. The site, which had been situated on a natural levee between an unnamed creek and the Lower Grand River, has

been destroyed by prior borrow activities associated with the construction ofthe East Atchafalaya Basin Protection Levee.

On the basis ofthis intensive cultural resources investigation, four standing structures and one previously recorded archeological site were

identified. None ofthe cultural resources identified within the Area ofPotential Effect associated with the Bayou Sorrel Lock Replacement

Project possess the qualities ofsignificance as defined by the National Register ofHistoric Places criteria for evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]).

No additional testing ofthese three project items is recommended.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

USAGE Bayou Sorrel Iberville Parish

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

Unclassified

NSN 7540-O1-280-55Q0

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

18. SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION OF

ABSTRACT

Unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

125

PRICE CODE

19. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

SAR

20010809 083

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18

298-102
PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY AND

ARCHEOLOGICAL INVENTORY OF THE BAYOU

SORREL LOCK REPLACEMENT PROJECT,

IBERVILLE PARISH, LOUISIANA

Final Report

William P. Athens, M.A., A.B.D.

Principal Investigator

By

Kari Krause, Roger Saucier, Colleen Hanratty,

Jeremy Pincoske, William P. Athens, and Patrick P. Robblee

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

5824 Plauche Street

New Orleans, LA 70123

April 2001

For

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

New Orleans District

P.O. Box 60267

New Orleans, LA 70160-0267
TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE i

TITLE PAGE ii

LIST OF FIGURES vi

LIST OF TABLES viii

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Project Description 1

Area 1 1

Area 2 6

Area 3 6

Project Design and Field Methods 7

Results and Recommendations 7

Project Personnel 8

Organization ofthe Report 8

II. NATURAL SETTING 9

Geographic Setting 9

Physiographic Setting /. 11

Geologic Framework 11

Landforms and Depositional Environments 12

Natural Levee (NL) 13

Point Bar (PB) 14

Distributary Natural Levee (DNL) 14

Abandoned Course (ACo) 15

Backswamp (Bs) 15

Geomorphic History and Development 15

Geoarcheological Considerations 17

Flora in the Vicinity ofthe Proposed Project Reach 18

Fauna in the Vicinity ofthe Proposed Project Reach 19

Climate in the Vicinity ofthe Proposed Project Reach 24

III. PREHISTORIC SETTING 26

Introduction 26

Paleo-Indian Stage (10,000 - 6000 B.C.) 26

Archaic Stage (6000 - 1000 B.C.) 28

Early Archaic Period 29

in

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
-3A

Middle Archaic Period JU

T 1

Late Archaic Period J1

Poverty Point Culture (2000 - 500 B.C.) 32

Woodland Stage (1000 B.C. - A.D. 1100) 33

Tchefuncte Culture (500 B.C. - A.D. 0) 33

Marksville Culture (100 B.C. - A.D. 400) 34

Troyville-Coles Creek Period (ca. A.D. 400 -1200) 55

Mississippian Stage (A.D. 1200 -1700) 37

Emergent Mississippian Period (A.D. 1200 -1450) 37

Late Mississippian Period (A.D. 1450 - 1700) 37

Protohistoric and Early Historic Period (ca. 411 -220 B.P. [A.D. 1539-1730]) 38

IV. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 39

39 Introduction

The French Colonial Period 39

The Spanish Colonial Period 40

The Louisiana Purchase and Antebellum Development 42

Civil War and Aftermath 43

1 44 Reconstruction Period

The Twentieth Century 46

Conclusion

V. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 48

48 Introduction

Previously Cultural Resources Surveys Completed within 8 km (5 mi) ofthe

Currently Proposed Bayou Sorrel Project Area 48

Iberville Parish 50

Multiple Parishes ^

Previously Recorded Archeological Sites Located within 1.6 km (l mi) ofthe

Currently Proposed Bayou Sorrel Project Area 52

Previously Recorded Standing Structures Located within l .6 km (l mi) ofthe

Currently Proposed Bayou Sorrel Project Area 53

Previously Recorded Shipwrecks Located within l .6 km (l mi) ofthe Currently

Proposed Bayou Sorrel Project Area 53

VI. RESEARCH DESIGN AND FIELD METHODOLOGY 54

54 Introduction

• 54 Project Description J

Predictive Modeling 54

Research Design 55

Field Methodology 55

Additional Survey Area 56

iv

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.
Architectural Review and Standing Structures Recordation 56

Curation 56

VII. RESULTS OF THE FIELD INVESTIGATIONS 57

Area 1 58

Standing Structures 59

Standing Structure 24-896 (BS1-2) 60

Standing Structure 24-897 (BS1-3) 61

Standing Structure 24-898 (BS1-4) 62

Standing Structure 24-899 (BS 1-5) 63

Area 2 64

Area2A 64

Area2B 65

Area 3 66

Area 3A 66

Area3B 68

Archeological Site Relocated within rberville Parish 70

Sitel6IV23 70

Summary 71

VIII. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 72

BIBLIOGRAPHY 73

State of Louisiana Standing Structures Forms APPENDIX I

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map ofthe State of Louisiana depicting the location ofthe Bayou Sorrel

Lock Replacement Project within Iberville Parish, Louisiana 2

Figure 2. Excerpt from the Digital 7.5' series topographic quadrangles, Bayou

Sheet 1 Sorrel, LA and Pigeon, LA, depicting the entire study area, the survey

areas, previously recorded archeological sites and standing structures,

and all cultural resources identified during survey 3

Figure 2. Excerpt from the Digital 7.5' series topographic quadrangles, Bayou

Sheet 2 Sorrel, LA and Pigeon, LA, depicting the entire study area, the survey

areas, previously recorded archeological sites and standing structures,

and all cultural resources identified during survey 4

Figure 2. Excerpt from the Digital 7.5' series topographic quadrangles, Bayou

Sheet 3 Sorrel, LA and Pigeon, LA, depicting the entire study area, the survey

areas, previously recorded archeological sites and standing structures,

and all cultural resources identified during survey 5

Figure 3. Physiography ofthe Atchafalaya Basin. From Krinitzsky and Smith (1969) 10

Figure 4. Drainage ofthe Atchafalaya Basin as of 1885, before significant

changes caused by heavy sedimentation during the past century.

From Mississippi River Commission (1885) 13

Figure 5. Geomorphic setting ofthe Bayou Sorrel project area. ACo=abandoned

course; Bs=backswamp; DNL=distributary natural levee; NL=natural

levee; PB=point bar. Note that the Intracoastal Waterway and other

artificial channels are not shown 14

Illustration ofthe Atchafalaya Basin 40

Areas of Acadian Settlement, 1785 41

The Louisiana Purchase, 1803 --42

The project area in 1861 (including the Bayou Sorrel Saw

Mill on the Grand River) 44

An overview of Area 1 facing east 58

Two typical shovel test profiles for Area 1 59

A plan view depicting Standing Structure 24-896 60

An overview of Standing Structure 24-896 facing north 60

VI

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Figure 13.
Figure 14. A plan view depicting Standing Structure 24-897 61

Figure 15. An overview of Standing Structure 24-897 facing east 61

Figure 16. A plan view depicting Standing Structure 24-898 62

Figure 17. An overview of Standing Structure 24-898 facing north 62

Figure 18. A plan view depicting Standing Structure 24-899 63

Figure 19. An overview of Standing Structure 24-899 facing west 63

Figure 20. An overview of Area 2A facing east 64

Figure 21. Atypical shovel test profile for Area 2A 64

Figure 22. An overview of Area 2B facing west 65

Figure 23. Two typical shovel test profiles for Area 2B 66

Figure 24. An overview of Area 3A facing north 67

Figure 25. Two typical shovel test profiles for Area 3A 67

Figure 26. Atypical shovel test profile for the judgmental auger tests 68

Figure 27. An overview of Area 3B facing west 69

Figure 28. Two typical shovel test profiles for Area 3B 69

Figure 29. A plan view of Site 16rV23, indicating recent impacts to site area 70

Figure 30. An overview of Site 16fV23 facing southeast 71

vn

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
LIST OF TABLES

1 Q

Table 1. Trees in the vicinity ofthe project reach lö

Table 2. Mammals in the vicinity ofthe project reach 19

Table 3. Reptiles and amphibians in the vicinity ofthe project reach 20

Table 4. Freshwater fishes in the vicinity ofthe project reach 21

11 Table 5. Birds in the vicinity ofthe project reach zz

Table 6. Previously completed cultural resources surveys conducted within

1.6 km (1 mi) ofthe currently proposed project area 49

Table 7. Previously recorded sites located within 1.6 km (1 mi) ofthe

currently proposed project area

Table 8. Areas examined during survey ofthe proposed Bayou

Sorrel Lock Replacement project 57

Table 9. Standing structure older than 50 years in age identified during survey 58

vin

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.
CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This document presents the results of Phase

I cultural resources survey and archeological inventory of the proposed Bayou Sorrel Lock Replacement Project (Contract No.

DACW29-97-D-0018) in Iberville Parish, Louisiana (Figure 1). This investigation was completed

on behalf of U.S. Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., in September and October of 1999.

All fieldwork was conducted in accordance with

the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards and

Guidelines" (48 CFR 44716-42), with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's handbook

entitled Treatment of Archeological Properties,

Louisiana's Comprehensive Archaeological Plan

(Smith et. al. 1983) for conducting archaeological surveys in Louisiana and with 36 CFR Part

800.

Project Description

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New

Orleans District, plans to replace the extant

Bayou Sorrel Lock with a new lock. In addition,

modifications may be made to the existing East

and West Calumet Flood Gates, the Charenton

Floodgate, and the Berwick and Bayou Boeuf

Locks. As part of the cultural resources component analyzed for this undertaking, an archeological inventory was authorized to assess three

separate tracts; these totaled 144.4 ha (356.8 ac)

in size. Each of the three project items was assessed as having a high probability for containing intact cultural deposits by archeologists on

staff with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

New Orleans District.

The overall project area is located in the

Atchafalaya River Basin, a landform characterized by fairly level topography that varies in elevation from only 1.5 to 3.0 m (5 to 10 ft) NGVD.

The three survey items, which are situated to either side of Bayou Sorrel and west of the East

Intracoastal Waterway, can be characterized as

narrow, natural levee and floodplain deposits associated with the Holocene. Geological data indicate that natural levee deposits are underlain by

backswamp deposits and that these deposits date

from late in the Holocene epoch.

Area 1

Area 1 was located approximately 1.8 km

(1.13 mi) southeast of the Town of Bayou Sorrel, Louisiana; bordered by the Intracoastal Waterway to the east and the East Atchafalaya Basin Protection Levee to the west (Figure 2). The

project item was located in the E Vi, of the NE

lA, of the NE % and the NE 'A, of the SE lA, of

the NE 'A of Section 3, of Township 1 IS, Range

1 IE and in the center of the SE XA, of the SE !/4

of Section 34, of Township 10S, Range HE.

This rectangular tract of land encompassed an

area that measured approximately 29 ha (72 ac)

in size. Area 1 was located within a fairly level

floodplain that can be characterized as a wooded

lot with a small, rural settlement situated at its

southern end. Fieldwork at this locale consisted

of pedestrian reconnaissance augmented by systematic subsurface testing throughout this portion

of the Area of Potential Effect. Furthermore, visual examination of Area 1 identified four standing structures, older than 50 years in age; each

was positioned at the southern end of the project

area (24-896, 24-897, 24-898, and 24-899). These

four standing structures did not possess the qualities of significance as defined by the National

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Chapter I: Introduction

Fi;„7eT Map of the State of Louisiana depicting the location of the Bayou Sorrel Lock Replacement Project within Iberville Parish, Louisiana.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Chapter I: Introduction

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Chapter I: Introduction

n

* 1

1

UJ

o

i UJ

CM

10

Hi

IK z

f? 31

Hi

5

o: < a:

(0

3z

OCD

1

1

3 _J 111 Si

i\ «* 5S ^

^

"^ m

<m

CO<I

o 0. K IU

3 1 4 0-

X

o

o

z

cj K

HJ !> 3 I

1 :J a. x

"H,K==P=

I u a. to

0> SB

•5 u

» ©

w> es

t> a

"O S3

„ es

„ es

3 eS

es ■♦-»

Ä. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Chapter I: Introduction

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Chapter I: Introduction

Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d])

criteria for evaluation. No additional testing of

Area 1 is recommended.

Area 2

Area 2 was located directly south of the

Bayou Sorrel Lock and was positioned on either

side of the Intracoastal Waterway (Figure 2). In

total, this area covered 9.7 ha (24 ac) of land that

has been impacted by construction, dredging and

spoil activities. To facilitate survey, this project

item was subdivided into two small, more manageable areas (Area 2A and Area 2B), which are

discussed below. No cultural resources or standing structures were identified during survey ofthe

Area 2 project item. No additional testing of Area

2 is recommended.

Area 2A was located directly south of the

Bayou Sorrel Lock, and it was situated on the

peninsula between the Intracoastal Waterway

and the Bayou Sorrel Lock. This project item

was located in the NW VA, of the NW VA of Section 11, of Township IIS, Range HE. This triangular tract of land measured approximately

4.9 ha (12.2 ac) in size. The topography of the

area was fairly level and the parcel itself was

wooded. A variety of cypress, maple, pine and

sycamore trees were noted during survey. Fieldwork at this locale consisted of both pedestrian

reconnaissance and systematic subsurface testing.

Area 2B was located directly south of the

Bayou Sorrel Lock; it was situated on narrow

strip of land bounded on the west by the entrance to the Bayou Sorrel Lock, and to the east

by the East Atchafalaya Basin Protection Levee.

The area was located in the W 'A, of the E Vz, of

the NW % and the NE VA, of the NW VA, of the

NE VA, of the SW VA of Section 11, of Township

US, Range HE. This rectangular tract of land

encompassed an area that measured approximately 4.8 ha (11.9 ac) in size. This portion of

the Area 2 project item consisted primarily of an

open, grassy lot situated on the batture side of

the levee; the remaining portions of the project

item were sparsely wooded. Fieldwork consisted

of pedestrian reconnaissance augmented by systematic subsurface shovel testing.

Area 3

The Area 3 project item was located within

the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, approximately

1.7 km (1.05 mi) southeast of the Town of

Bayou Sorrel, Louisiana (Figure 2). In total, this

area covered 106 ha (261 ac) of land that has

been impacted by construction, dredging and

spoil disposal. To facilitate survey, this project

item also was subdivided into two smaller and

more manageable areas (Area 3A and Area 3B).

No cultural resources or standing structures were

identified during survey of the Area 3 project

item. No additional testing of Area 3 is recommended.

Area 3A was located within the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, approximately 1.7 km

(1.05 mi) southeast of the Town of Bayou Sorrel, Louisiana. The area was located in the E

lA,

of the E Vi, of the NW VA, and the W Vi, of the

NE VA, and the W '/2, of the SE VA, and the E Vi,

of the NE VA, of the SW VA, and the W Vi, of the

SE VA, of the SE VA of Section 3, of Township

US, Range HE. It was bounded by the Intracoastal Waterway to the east and an extant pipeline canal to the north. This rectangular tract of

land encompassed an area that measured approximately 80 ha (198 ac) in size. Area 3A was

described as seasonal floodplain and it was characterized by wetland vegetation, which included

cypress, live oak, willow and palmettos. Fieldwork at this locale consisted ofsystematic shovel

testing augmented by pedestrian reconnaissance.

In addition, judgmental auger testing was conducted adjacent to a dry drainage bed that crossed

along the southern edge ofthe project area.

Area 3B was located immediately opposite

the Bayou Sorrel Lock, and west of the Intracoastal Waterway. The area was located in the

W '/i, ofthe NE VA, and the NW VA, ofthe NW VA,

of the SE VA of Section 10, of Township IIS,

Range HE. This project item adjoined the

southern boundary of Area 3A, abutted a portion

of an abandoned levee near its southeastern edge

and it was bisected by a seasonally dry drainage

bed. This triangular tract of land encompassed

an area that measured approximately 25.5 ha (63

ac) in size. This seasonal floodplain was charR. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Chapter I: Introduction

acterized by a variety of wetland vegetation that

included cypress, scrub brush and palmetto.

Fieldwork conducted at this locale included both

systematic shovel testing augmented by pedestrian reconnaissance.

Project Design and Field Methods

The Phase I cultural resource survey and

archeological inventory of three individual areas

was designed to identify, record, and assess the

distribution of all cultural resources located

within the Areas of Potential Effect. As a result,

the entire length and width of each proposed project item was surveyed for cultural resources.

Fieldwork included intensive pedestrian reconnaissance augmented by systematic subsurface

testing throughout the Areas of Potential Effect.

Finally, an architectural review was completed in

an effort to identify and record all standing structures 50 years in age or older within or adjacent to

the proposed project corridors.

A three-step approach was utilized to complete this survey and inventory ofthe various project items. The approach consisted of (1) cartographic, archival, and archeological review of

data relevant to the proposed undertaking; (2)

pedestrian survey and systematic shovel testing

throughout the Areas of Potential Effect; and (3)

recordation and preliminary assessment of all

newly discovered cultural resources. Subsequent

to the cartographic, archival, and archeological

review process, each proposed project item was

stratified into areas deemed to possess a high

probability for containing intact cultural deposits.

In these high probability areas, the proposed project items were subjected to intensive pedestrian

survey and shovel testing at 20 m (65.6 ft) intervals along parallel survey transects and spaced 20

m (65.6 ft) apart. In addition, a series ofjudgmentally placed auger tests were excavated adjacent

to a dry drainage bed situated within Area 3 project item.

In addition, each survey crew was instructed

to record all historic period standing structures

encountered during the cultural resources survey

and archeological inventory of each proposed

project item. Since the proposed construction project has the potential to disturb or destroy historic

properties, the purpose of architectural recordation was: (1) to collect reconnaissance-level

architectural survey data for each building 50

years in age or older located within the Area of

Potential Effect; (2) to apply the National Register of Historic Places criteria for evaluation (36

CFR 60.4 [a-d]) to each recorded resource; and,

(3) to apply the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation's Criteria of Effect to each historic

property to anticipate the effects of each undertaking. Architectural investigations were undertaken in accordance with guidelines established in

National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelinesfor Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning

(National Park Service 1995).

Results and Recommendations

Between September and October of 1999, a

Phase I cultural resources survey and archeological inventory of the three Areas of Potential Effect associated with the proposed Bayou Sorrel

Lock Replacement Project in Iberville Parish,

Louisiana was completed. This investigation

was conducted on behalf of U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, New Orleans District, by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. This investigation resulted in the examination of 144.4 ha

(356.8 ac) of three proposed project items within

the Area of Potential Effect along Bayou Sorrel

and the Intracoastal Waterway. Fieldwork included pedestrian survey augmented by systematic subsurface testing throughout the examined

portions ofthe Area of Potential Effect.

This investigation resulted in the identification of four standing structures older than 50

years in age. Standing Structures 24-896, 24-897,

24-898, and 24-899 each were classified as typical examples of early to mid-twentieth century

vernacular or shotgun dwellings. Each of these

buildings was identified within the currently proposed Area of Potential Effect and each may be

impacted by the proposed construction activities.

The four structures, however, do not possess the

qualities of significance as defined by the National Register of Historic Places criteria for

evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]). No additional

architectural recordation of the four standing

structures is recommended.

In addition, Site 16rV23 was identified previously within the Area of Potential Effect and it

was revisited as of this investigation. The site,

which had been situated on a natural levee be

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Chapter I: Introduction

tween an unnamed creek and the Lower Grand

River, was destroyed by borrow activities associated with the construction ofthe East Atchafalaya

Basin Protection Levee. This site does not possess the qualities ofsignificance as defined by the

National Register of Historic Places criteria for

evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]). No additional

testing is recommended.

Project Personnel

Mr. William P. Athens, M.A., served as

Principal Investigator for this project and he supervised all aspects of the research. Mr. Patrick

Robblee, M.A., acted as Project Manager. Ms.

Kari Krause, M.S. and Ms. Angele Montana,

M.A., directed the fieldwork; they were assisted

by Mr. Luis Williams, B.A., Ms. Colleen Hanratty, B.A., Mr. David Crowley, B.A., Mr. Jeff

Roberson, B.A., Ms. Mara Kaminowitz, B.A.,

Mr. James Clark, B.A., Mr. Rodger Soden, B.A.,

Mr. Ben Hoksbergen, B.A., Ms. Hedy Justus,

B.A., Ms. Ellen Wilmer, B.A., and Ms. Heather

Bowdin, B.A.

Organization of the Report

An overview of the natural setting of the

proposed project corridors is presented in Chapter

JJ, and it includes a brief description of the geology and geomorphology of the region, the floral

and faunal communities characteristic ofthe area,

and a short description of the climate of the

southeastern Louisiana area. The prehistoric cultural development of the area is explored in

Chapter JH. The history ofthe area encompassing

the proposed project items is chronicled in Chapter TV. A review of all previous archeological

research completed in the vicinity ofthe proposed

project items is presented in Chapter V. A review

of the research design and field methods used to

conduct the archeological inventory of the Area

of Potential Effect is contained in Chapter VI.

Chapter VJJ documents the results of the survey,

while management recommendations for the

identified cultural resources are presented in

Chapter VJJI. The State of Mississippi standing

structure forms are presented in Appendix I.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
CHAPTER II

NATURAL SETTING

This chapter presents a general overview of

the physical landscape, a description of

the landforms, and a discussion of the

geomorphic processes that have affected the currently proposed Bayou Sorrel project area. Since

this area is located in a dynamic deltaic plain

setting, it is essential to understand the origin

and evolution of the natural landscape in order

to predict the location of and interpret the significance of the cultural remains identified during survey. Throughout the prehistoric and historic periods, the landscape has provided humans with ample opportunities, but it also has

limited and constrained habitation, subsistence,

and movement throughout the region. Moreover,

natural processes across the landscape have been

a major factor in determining if cultural remains

are preserved and, if so, the likelihood that they

may be detected utilizing standard archeological

methods.

Despite the huge number of geological investigations completed throughout the deltaic

plain over the past five to six decades, the immediate project area has been all but ignored. In

his monumental investigation of the Lower Mississippi Valley, Fisk (1944) paid little attention

to the features and events of the area, and in his

classical discussion of the Atchafalaya River

diversion (Fisk 1952), he focused to a large extent on the floodway area and not the lands adjacent to it. Several decades later, large-scale, systematic, geologic mapping of the deltaic plain

largely avoided the project vicinity (May et al.

1984; Smith et al. 1986). Only basic subsurface

geological data for the project area have been

developed as a result of levee foundation investigations by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(Coleman 1966; Krinitzsky and Smith 1969).

Similarly, those regional syntheses detailing the

geology and chronology of the deltaic plain do

not discuss the project vicinity in any detail

(Autin et al. 1991; Frazier 1967; Saucier 1994).

Nonetheless, a variety of sources were utilized to describe and interpret the geomorphological setting of the project area. The information below was obtained from a review

and a subsequent analysis ofthe available literature, including topographic maps, soils surveys,

historic period maps, aerial photos, and engineering and geological surveys; no detailed

geomorphological field investigations were conducted for this project.

Geographic Setting

The Bayou Sorrel project area is located in

the Atchafalaya Basin of central coastal Louisiana and about 48 km (30 mi) south of Baton

Rouge (Figure 3). It lies in south-central Iberville Parish both east and west (inside and outside) of the East Atchafalaya Basin Protection

Levee. The project vicinity lies between the

communities of Bayou Sorrel to the north, Pigeon to the south, and Choctaw to the east. The

Bayou Sorrel Lock, constructed by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, is located on the Gulf

Intracoastal Waterway and it serves to allow the

passage of vessels from Lower Grand River into

and out of that portion of the Intracoastal Waterway located in the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway.

When the Bayou Sorrel Lock was constructed, a segment of the Lower Grand River

was isolated by an artificial cutoff channel. The

current project includes the lands lying adjacent

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Chapter II: Natural Setting

E3

TERRACE BOUNDARY

LIMITS OF ATCHAFALAYA BASIN

TECHE-MISSISStPPI MEANDER BEUT

LAFOURCKE-MISSISSlPPI MEANDER BELT

MODERN MISSISSIPPI MEANDER BELT

MODERN MISSISSlPPl-t-AFOURCHE

MEANDER BELT

ATCnAFALAYA BASIN PROTECTION LEVEE

OTHER LEVEES

Figure 3. Physiography of the Atchafalaya Basin. From Krinitzsky and Smith (1969).

10

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.
Chapter II: Natural Setting

to both portions of the artificial channel and the

cutoffsegment.

Physiographic Setting

Physiographically, the Atchafalaya Basin

lies within the Gulfsegment of the Coastal Plain

Province of North America. More specifically, it

is a major subdivision of the Mississippi deltaic

plain in the area that is transitional between the

Mississippi alluvial valley to the north and the

deltaic plain to the south. The basin is a broad,

flat, sparsely populated, heavily forested tract

measuring approximately 9,850 sq km (3,800 sq

mi) in extent. It consists of a complex mosaic of

backswamp, highly turbid and sluggish streams

bounded by alluvial ridges (natural levees), and

shallow freshwater lakes. The basin is a topographic depression flanked by the Teche meander

belt ridge of the Mississippi River to the west,

the modern Mississippi meander belt ridge to the

northeast, and the Lafourche meander belt ridge

to the southeast (Figure 3). The Atchafalaya

River, currently a major distributary of the Mississippi River, is the principal stream within the

basin and it flows southward through the approximate center of the basin, eventually draining into the Gulf of Mexico.

At one time or another, virtually all of the

many streams within the basin originated or

functioned as distributaries of the Mississippi

River. Many are largely abandoned and filled

while others have experienced multiple episodes

of activity, sometimes with reversals in flow

direction. Since near the beginning of this century, the basin has been subjected to extensive

levee construction, dredging, channelization, and

the formation of cutoffs in an attempt to reconcile the often conflicting goals of flood control,

navigation, and environmental management.

Excluding stream banks at low water

stages, local relief in the Atchafalaya Basin seldom exceeds 2 m (6.5 ft). Maximum natural elevations approximating 3 m (9.8 ft) above mean

sea level (NGVD) occur along natural levee

crests while elevations in the backswamp areas

average only about 2.0 to 2.5 m (6.5 to 8.2 ft)

above that datum.

Surface runoff from the Atchafalaya Basin

has varied widely over the last several centuries;

it includes not only local precipitation but also

contributions from both the Mississippi and Red

Rivers. Since the 1970s and the construction of

the water-control structures at Old River, the

runoff has included the entire discharge of the

Red River plus approximately 20 percent of the

annual discharge of the Mississippi River. In

earlier historic times, the Mississippi River contribution was smaller and the Red River discharge fluctuated between the Atchafalaya and

Mississippi Rivers. Overbank flooding occurs

mainly during the spring and early summer

months and its magnitude has been influenced

by the confinement of flood waters within the

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway.

Geologic Framework

The Mississippi alluvial valley and deltaic

plain have been affected for millions ofyears by

downwarping within the broad, north-south

trending Mississippi Embayment and the eastwest trending Gulf Coast Syncline with which it

merges (Saucier 1994). This resulted in the

deposition during the Tertiary and Quaternary

periods of tens ofthousands of feet ofsediments

in alternating fluvial, deltaic, estuarine, and shallow marine environments. Accompanying the

downwarping and sedimentation were the formation of zones of east-west trending growth

faults and the intrusion of diapiric salt domes

(Murray 1961). Both geologic processes' largely

determined the nature and extent of the petroleum resources which are so abundant in south

Louisiana. Producing oil and gas wells occur in

the project vicinity, but none apparently are present in the immediate project area.

Within this structural geologic framework,

events relevant to this undertaking are those that

occurred during the Pleistocene and Holocene

epochs of the Quaternary period. Constituting

the last 2.5 million years of geologic time, these

epochs were dominated by the cyclical advance

and retreat of continental glaciers and the rise

and fall of sea level. Glaciers did not directly

affect the Lower Mississippi Valley area, but on

several occasions the alluvial valley served as a

giant sluiceway for the transport of vast volumes

of meltwater and glacial outwash to the Gulf of

Mexico. These glacial stages were episodes

marked by a Mississippi River braided stream

regime, the transport and deposition largely of

sands and gravels, during periods of relatively

low sea level stands (Autin et al. 1991). In conR. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

11
Chapter II: Natural Setting

trast, interglacial stages were times of stream

meandering and meander belt formation, predominantly associated with fine-grained sediment loads (silts and clays), and relatively high

sea level stands. Near the Gulf Coast, glacial

stages were characterized by stream entrenchment with shorelines established well south of

their present location. Interglacial stages represented times of entrenched valley filling, transgressing shorelines, and eventually deltaic plain

formation through delta lobe growth and decay.

The project area portions ofthe Mississippi

alluvial valley and the deltaic plain represent the

cumulative products of multiple episodes of entrenchment and planation during the Pleistocene

during which time Tertiary and early Quaternary

formations were scoured to depths of as much as

120 m (394 ft). At the surface, the floodplain of

the alluvial valley and the inland margin of the

deltaic plain are flanked by Pleistocene terraces

dating from the Sangamon and Mid-Wisconsin

Stages. All deposits to a depth of several tens of

meters in the project area, however, are of Holocene age.

The alluvial deposits that fill the entrenchment of the Atchafalaya Basin area consist of a

substratum of coarse-grained material capped by

a fine-grained topstratum (May et al. 1984).

Substratum deposits consist predominantly of

sands that grade downward into sands and gravels (glacial outwash) of Wisconsin-Stage age or

older that extend from the base of the entrenchment (30 to 100 m [98 to 328 ft]) to within 30 to

35 m (98 to 115 ft) ofthe surface. The age ofthe

basal portion ofthe substratum probably exceeds

20,000 years (Saucier 1994), while the uppermost deposits date from about 10,000 to 12,000

years B.P. (Krinitzsky and Smith 1969; Saucier

1994; Smith et al. 1986). At the time the deposits were being laid down, sea level was at least

30 m (98 ft) lower than at present.

Within the Atchafalaya Basin area, the 30

to 35 m (98 to 115 ft) thick fine-grained topstratum represents overbank deposition form the

Mississippi and Red Rivers while they have

flowed in meandering or anastomosing regimes

during the last 10,000 to 12,000 years. Several

discrete environments associated with this deposition are represented. Along the flanks of the

basin in the areas of the Teche and the modern

Mississippi River meander belts, the sediments

were laid down primarily in natural levee, point

bar, and abandoned channel environments.

Across the broad expanse of the central and

southern portions of the basin, however, some

natural levee and abandoned course environments are represented, but the vast majority of

the sediments were laid down in interdistributary

wetlands consisting of backswamp, lacustrine,

and lacustrine delta environments. Because of

shifts in the balance between base level changes

from the south and the input of fluvial sediments

from the north, landscapes ofthe basin have varied during the Holocene from shallow swamps

through deep swamps to shallow lakes (Coleman

1966; Krinitzsky and Smith 1969).

Since sea level reached to within a few meters of its present level by about 5,000 years ago

and it has been rising relatively slowly since,

base levels have been relatively stationary and

the overall trend in the basin has been toward the

formation of higher and drier swamps and low

alluvial ridges. The trend dramatically increased

during late prehistoric times and the historic period; increased rates of sediment input have

transformed extensive lacustrine areas such as

Chicot, Grand, and Six Mile Lakes (Figure 4)

into subaerial environments (Fisk 1952; Gagliano and van Beek 1975). Almost everywhere in

the basin, aggradation has prevailed over the

effects of regional subsidence and sediment

compaction. Within the last several decades, the

sediment storage capacity of the basin has declined because of continued filling, and the locus

of deposition has shifted from the basin into

Atchafalaya Bay where true delta building has

begun (Figure 3).

Landforms and Depositional Environments

A total of five depositional environments

(natural levee, point bar, distibutary natural

levee, abandoned course, and backswamp) are

present at the surface and in the shallow subsurface within a several kilometer radius of the

Bayou Sorrel project area, and their locations

and characteristics are important in understanding the history of the area (Figure 5). Each environment is represented by a distinctive sedimentary sequence and a characteristic landscape.

Each ofthese environments is discussed below.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.

12
ChapterII: Natural Setting

Figure 4. Drainage of the Atchafalaya Basin as of 1885, before significant changes caused by heavy sedimentation

during the past century. From Mississippi River Commission (1885).

Natural Levee (NL)

In a general sense, natural levees are low,

gently sloping alluvial ridges that flank the

streams that carry high suspended loads and periodically overtop their banks. The ridges are

highest near the stream channels and they slope

outward (distally) toward the adjacent floodbasins (backswamps). Natural levee sizes vary

as a function of the discharge of the parent

streams and as a function of age. Other factors

being equal, the largest natural levee ridges

flank streams that have been active the longest

periods oftime.

The largest natural levee ridges in the project vicinity are those that flank Lower Grand

River and, relatively speaking, they appear to be

poorly developed because the stream is geologically rather young. They measure less than 2 m

(6.5 ft) in height and generally less than 1 km

(0.62 mi) in width and they extend along each

side of the river channel (Figure 5). Nevertheless, these features provided corridors relatively

immune from flooding in which it has been possible to live and to build permanent roads and

structures of various types.

Despite their immaturity, the natural levee

deposits have the highest consistencies of any of

the deposits in the project area, consisting of

medium to stiff, well-oxidized, mottled brown

and gray clays and silty clays that were laid

down incrementally as overbank sediments during flood stages. Soils developed on the natural

13

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Chapter II: Natural Setting

Figure 5. Geomorphic setting of the Bayou Sorrel

project area. ACo=abandoned course;

Bs=backswamp; DNL=distributary natural levee; NL=naturaI levee; PB=point bar.

Note that the Intracoastal Waterway and

other artificial channels are not shown.

levees in the vicinity have been mapped mostly

as Sharkey clay and Convent and Fausse soils

(Spicer et al. 1977). Some areas of Sharkey silty

clay loam and Vacherie silt loam occur on

higher areas just to the north ofthe project area.

It is interpreted that the natural levees along

Lower Grand River are relatively thin and that

they overlie thick backswamp deposits

(Krinitzsky and Smith 1969) (Figure 5). The

Lower Grand River channel apparently formed

relatively late in the Holocene history of the

Atchafalaya Basin area, well after extensive

backswamp deposits had been laid down. The

history of the area is discussed more fully later

in this chapter.

Point Bar (PB)

This depositional environment includes the

zones in which the river channels, while active,

meander laterally, scour away older alluvial

and/or deltaic deposits, and lay down relatively

coarse-grained channel deposits. As river channels migrate laterally, they erode their outer

(cutbank) side while depositing mostly silts and

sands on point bars on their inner banks. These

silty and sandy deposits extend to the maximum

depth of the migrating channel (several tens of

meters).

As migrating channels move away from

given points, point bar deposits often become

progressively veneered with overbank sediments

that eventually form cappings of true natural

levee deposits. Newly formed point bar areas

typically exhibit an alternating ridge and swale

topography, but these features become progressively obscured as the natural levee veneer

grows, and may eventually lose most surface

expression. This is the case with the point bar

areas found along the Lower Grand River which

are present but difficult to delineate.

Distributary Natural Levee (DNL)

Natural levees accrete vertically by sediments laid down by sheet flow during periods of

overbank flooding, but also by the coalescence

of numerous small crevasse splays where overbank flow becomes temporarily concentrated

and it forms a fan-like deposit. Occasionally,

however, some crevasses will persist through

multiple flood events and they may form small

distributaries that trend for several kilometers

away from the parent channel and across the

natural levee. Where the crevasses are unusually

well developed, the channels become flanked

with small natural levee ridges that lower and

narrow outward toward the distal ends of the

crevasse systems.

There are two small distributaries present

along the right descending bank of Lower Grand

River in the vicinity of the proposed project corridor (Figure 5). The northernmost one is occupied by a small unnamed stream that flows

southwestward into a backswamp area while the

southernmost lacks a stream and it is visible

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.

14
ChapterII: Natural Setting

only on aerial photos due to only slight changes

in vegetation. Both provided narrow corridors of

relatively high ground that may have been important to prehistoric populations.

Abandoned Course (ACo)

Geomorphic evidence indicates that the

Lower Grand River once carried an appreciably

higher discharge than at present. Prominent relict banklines, immediately flanked by conspicuous natural levees, indicate a former stream

channel that measured up to 250 m (820 ft) in

width, whereas the present channel averages less

than 100 m (328 ft) in width. Between the two

are narrow zones of accretion, flanking one or

both sides of the river, at distinctly lower elevations. They are poorly drained and swampy belts

underlain probably by mostly soft to medium,

largely unoxidized, laminated clays and silts that

contain small amounts of sand. Based on evidence from analogous situations throughout

other parts of the basin area, the deposits should

become soft and watery with depth and they extend to a depth of several tens of meters (May et

al. 1984). In essence, a natural levee flanking the

present channel is absent as a thin veneer over

the abandoned course deposits. Because of their

lower elevations and weak soils, the abandoned

course deposits are poor locations for habitation

and they use and have remained largely uninhabited.

As will be explained later in this report, the

history of the project vicinity suggests that a reduction in the size of the channel took place in

two episodes, one due to natural causes and one

due to artificial channel modification during the

historic period. As such, the original channel has

not been abandoned completely since the Lower

Grand River survives as a remnant, underfit

stream.

Backswamp (Bs)

This environment involves the essentially

flat, broad, frequently flooded tracts that exist

between natural levee ridges. Drainage is poor

and by way of a tortuous network of winding

channels and narrow lakes that mostly display an

anastomosing pattern. Deposits consist of

mucks, organic clays, and clays ~ the inorganic

fractions being laid down in thin increments

during times of overbank flooding. Seasonal

drying and desiccation are so infrequent that the

strengths of the deposits remain extremely low.

Peat lenses, wood fragments, and evidences of

bioturbation are common.

Borings made along the East Atchafalaya

Levee at Bayou Sorrel and Pigeon indicate that

backswamp deposits extend to a depth of 27 to

30 m (90 to 100 ft) and they are immediately

underlain by coarse-grained substratum deposits

(Krinitzsky and Smith 1969). The thick sequence of overbank deposits indicates deposition

in environments ranging from lake to welldrained swamp. At the present ground surface,

soils have been mapped as Sharkey clay (frequently flooded) or ones belonging to the Fausse

association (Spicer et al. 1977). These support a

variety of species, including cypress/tupelo

gum/red gum, and where disturbed or cut over,

these areas may contain stands of pumpkin ash,

red maple, and buttonbush.

Traditionally, backswamps have been the

domain of recreational and commercial hunters,

trappers, and fishermen who have exploited the

extremely large populations of deer, turkey,

squirrels, waterfowl, birds, reptiles, freshwater

fishes, and fur bearing animals. Most area settlers and visitors sought these resources, seeking

access by way of natural channels. Within the

last several decades, however, these have been

augmented by a network of canals dug for oil

fields, pipelines, and flood control and navigation improvements. Despite these developments,

the backswamp areas remain essentially devoid

of permanent habitation while the banks of the

Lower Grand River are heavily populated by a

typical south Louisiana "string village."

Geomorphic History and Development

As indicated above, the Mississippi River

ceased carrying glacial meltwater and outwash

to the Gulf of Mexico about 10,000 to 12,000

years ago (Saucier 1994). This marked the end

of the deposition of the coarse-grained substratum by braided streams and the beginning of the

deposition of the finer-grained topstratum by

anastomosing or meandering streams. As a reflection of greatly diminished river discharge

and sea level rise, the landscape of the project

vicinity changed rapidly from a sandy plain to a

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

15
Chapter II: Natural Setting

shallow-water lake or estuary. The elevation of

the estuary was approximately 25 to 30 m (82 to

98 ft) lower than at present.

Very little is known about the character and

location of the Mississippi River channel in the

Atchafalaya Basin area from about 10,000 to

7,000 years ago, i.e., when the basal portion of

the topstratum was deposited. Recent investigations suggest that the river was flowing in an

anastomosing pattern and probably filling shallow lakes and backswamp areas as it has been

doing in modern times (Asian 1994). By about

7,000 years ago, however, the river had begun

constructing a meander belt ridge along the

western side of its alluvial valley in the vicinity

of the present Teche meander belt ridge (Figure

3) (Frazier 1967; Saucier 1994). Conditions in

the Atchafalaya Basin area probably did not

change significantly when this occurred.

By about 5,000 years ago, as a result of a

major upstream diversion, the Mississippi River

shifted to the eastern side ofits valley and began

constructing a meander belt close to its present

location (Figure 3). Coinciding with a reduction

in the rate of sea level rise and hence greater

base level stability, this event probably marked

the beginning of increased crevassing along the

Mississippi River and the extension of distributaries into the upper part of the basin area north

of the project area. Bayou Maringouin, shown

on Figure 4, may represent one ofthose distributaries according to Fisk (1944, 1952). The locations of the channels that conveyed the overflow

through the southern end of the basin are not

known, but it is possible that the Lower Grand

River may have been one ofthem.

From about 5,000 to about 3,000 years ago,

the backswamps of the lower end of the

Atchafalaya Basin merged imperceptibly with

the swamps and marshes of the upper part of the

deltaic plain although no direct marine influence

extended into the basin area. With the development of the early phase of the Lafourche delta

lobe about 3,500 years ago (Frazier 1967; Saucier 1994), a meander belt ridge built southward

and intersected the Teche ridge, forming a low

alluvial barrier across the southern end of the

basin (Figure 3). Shortly after the ridges intersected, the Atchafalaya River must have

breached the Teche ridge in the vicinity of Morgan City (Figure 3) and it provided an outlet for

basin drainage. Nevertheless, the relatively small

size of the outlet must have caused an increase

in the extent and/or magnitude of swamp conditions in the basin. Slow aggradation in

backswamp areas continued through the addition

of fine-grained overbank sediments.

Between about 3,500 and 2,000 years ago,

the central part of the Atchafalaya Basin apparently was not affected by any major Mississippi

River distributaries. The Atchafalaya River

served to gather and convey basin overflow and

it cannot be considered a major distributary during that interval. Its original route through the

basin was by way of the Upper Grand River, the

west fork of Bayou Pigeon, Bayou Sorrel, and

thence into the (Lower) Grand River (Figure 4).

It is not known when the Atchafalaya River

abandoned this route in favor of its present one

which trends along Bayou La Rompe and Bayou

Chene into Grand Lake (Figure 4). The present

route was definitely well established by the

1880s as documented by historic maps, but it

could have been as early as the 15th century A.D.

About that time, it is believed that the Atchafalaya River first began functioning as a major

Mississippi River distributary as a consequence

of channel changes in the vicinity of Old River,

i.e., at the upper end ofthe basin.

Abandonment ofthe Lower Grand River by

the Atchafalaya River probably was a factor

contributing to the decrease in the size of the

river channel and the deposition of some abandoned course deposits. This was overshadowed,

however, by an earlier event that had a similar

but larger effect. This event was the formation of

Bayou Plaquemine as a Mississippi River distributary of modest size. That distributary originated as a crevasse at the town of Plaquemine

with the flow following Bayous Plaquemine and

Jacob into the Lower Grand River north of the

project area (Figure 4). The Bayou Plaquemine

distributary functioned long enough for an appreciable natural levee ridge to form and may

well have been the source of most of the natural

levee in the project vicinity as well as most, if

not all, of the point bar accretion. Neither the

dates of the initiation of the distributary nor its

effective abandonment are known. Bayou

Plaquemine is known to have been open to the

river at least at high stages in 1699 when observed by d'Iberville and it was open to navigaR. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

16
Chapter II: Natural Setting

tion until 1961 when it was artificially closed,

but it apparently carried a relatively small sediment load. Based on geological evidence, the

distributary could have formed at any time from

about 3,500 to 1,700 years B.P. The Mississippi

River was well established in its present meander belt during that interval and it is known to

have experienced several major crevasse systems in the reach between Baton Rouge and

New Orleans (Britsch and Dunbar 1990). Bayou

Plaquemine may have been another one dating

from this period; the most likely time would

have been about 2,000 years ago.

In an absence of tangible evidence relating

to the age of the distributary, it is hypothesized

on the basis of geomorphic evidence that appreciable discharge and sediment movement

through the Lower Grand River channel due to

the Bayou Plaquemine distributary ended about

500 years ago. Since that time, the channel has

continued to narrow as progressive channel filling has taken place. It should be noted that construction of the Bayou Sorrel Lock, Intracoastal

Waterway, and East Atchafalaya Levee did not

have any significant influence on fluvial processes in Lower Grand River since no diversion

of flow resulted from these projects.

Geoarcheological Considerations

The mapping of depositional environments

throughout the project area and the development

of the chronological model described above allow for a reasonably confident prediction as to

where prehistoric archeological sites may have

occurred or still may exist. These models provide an understanding of channel and landform

changes as these may have affected settlements

and navigation and commerce routes during historic times. More specifically, because actual

site prediction involves many cultural and intangible factors in addition to aspects of the physical environment, the prediction is actually one

related to landscape habitability. It is possible to

estimate where prehistoric habitation could have

taken place, not necessarily where it did. Perhaps of greater importance, it is possible to estimate where habitation could not have occurred

or where cultural remains would have been destroyed by geomorphic processes. This prediction, therefore, is intended as an independent

assessment to be used to guide the field effort

within the project area.

Without question, no cultural remains dating from the Paleo-Indian or Early and Middle

Archaic periods will be encountered near the

surface in the project area. Any possible archeological sites dating from 12,000 and 5,000 years

ago would have been buried to depths greater

than 5 m (16 ft), but of greater importance, there

is no reason to suspect the presence in the subsurface of any landforms (e.g., natural levees)

that would have been favorable for habitation.

For a majority of the time prior to 5,000. years

ago, the project area was dominated by wetland

(backswamp or lake) environments unsuitable

for any activity other than temporary and occasional resource exploitation.

By possibly 5,000 years ago but more likely

3,500 years ago, the Atchafalaya River was

flowing in a channel along or near the present

Lower Grand River. It is therefore possible that

archeological sites dating from the Late Archaic

period or early Formative stage may be present.

It must also be considered that the fiver was not

carrying sufficient Mississippi River sediments

to build a substantial natural levee ridge and the

ground surface at that time will be buried by

more recent sediments to a depth of several meters.

The most likely time for significant natural

levee growth along the Lower Grand River, due

to the Bayou Plaquemine distributary, would

have been from about 2,000 to 1,000 years ago

with a slow decline thereafter. This also would

have been the time of formation ofthe two small

distributaries from the Lower Grand River in the

project area as described above. Consequently,

archeological sites dating from the middle and

late Formative stage likely would be present

since the environment and landscape would have

been favorable for permanent habitation, especially when flow in the distributary, began to decline. Sites of this vintage likely would be present near the natural levee crests, away from the

zones of lateral channel migration (point bar

areas), adjacent to the zone of abandoned course

filling, and either would be at or near the present

ground surface.

With regard to the historic period, most of

the extensive population growth in the project

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

17
Chapter II: Natural Setting

vicinity has taken place since construction ofthe

East Atchafalaya Levee and the Bayou Sorrel

Lock. There is, however, a high probability that

some structures built to withstand extensive seasonal basin flooding, dating from the nineteenth

century, were located along or near the banks of

the Lower Grand River. These would have included the temporary or permanent residences of

both sport and commercial fishermen, hunters,

and trappers as well as those employed in the

lumbering industry. In the same regard, the river

served as a major corridor of movement for waterborne vessels throughout the historic period.

Navigation to and from the Mississippi River

into the system of interior waterways of the basin via the Lower Grand River was a major activity for many years prior to 1961. Since the

river channel has been slowly shallowing and

narrowing, conditions may be favorable for the

preservation of sunken vessels. Buried shipwrecks could be present just about anywhere in

the zone of abandoned course filling shown in

Figure 5.

Flora in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project

Reach

The floral community within southeastern

Louisiana project item consists of a complex

mosaic of tree species that form the bottomland

hardwood forests (Table 1). Forest vegetation

along the natural levees of the proposed project

reach includes a variety of mixed, deciduous,

hardwood species such as oak (Quercus sp.),

bitter pecan (Carya illinoensis), red maple {Acer

rubrum), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica).

Within the older, non-swampy portions of

the alluvial plain, forest types vary in composition. Tree species typical ofthis area include oak

(Quercus sp.), hackberry (Celtis laevigata), boxelder (Acer negundo), and American sycamore

(Platanus occidentalis). Where disturbed, the

bottomland hardwood forest ofthe alluvial plain

is dominated by ash (Fraxinus sp.) in addition to

boxelder, hackberry, and American sycamore,

and, less commonly, oak. In the backswamp areas situated away from the natural levees, forest

vegetation, where it has not been cleared, cypress (Taxodium distichum) and tupelo (Nyssa

aquatica).

Table 1. Trees in the Vicinity ofthe Project Reach

COMMON NAME | SCIENTIFIC NAME |

Florida Maple Acer barbatum

Chalk Maple Acer leucoderme

Ashleaf Maple (Box-Elder) Acer negundo

Red Maple Acer rubrum

Silver Maple Acer saccharinum

Red Buckeye Aesculus pavia

Downy Juneberry Amelanchier arborea

Hercules-Club Aralia spinosa

Common (Tall) Pawpaw Asimina triloba

Groundsel-Tree Baccharis halimifolia

River Birch Betula nigra

Gum (Woolly) Bumelia Bumelia lanuginosa

Buckthorn Bumelia Bumelia lycioides

Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana

Water Hickory (Bitter Pecan) Carya aquatica

Bittemut Hickory Carya cordiformis

Pignut Hickory Carya glabra

Pecan Carya illinoenis

Mockemut Hickory Carya tomentosa

Allegheny (Eastern) Chinkapin Castanea pumila

Southern (Lowland) Hackberry Celtis laevigata

Dwarf (Upland) Hackberry Celtis tenuifolia

Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis

Redbud Cercis canadensis

Fringetree Chionanthus virginicus

Roughleaf Dogwood Cornus drummondii

Flowering Dogwood Cornusflorida

Common Persimmon Diospyros virginiana

Southeastern Coralbean Erythrina herbacea

Beech Fagus grandifolia

Swamp Forestiera Forestiera acuminata

Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Pumpkin Ash Fraxinus profunda

Water Locust Gleditsia aquatica

Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos

Two-wing Silverbell Halesia parvijlora

Common Witch-Hazel Hamamelis virginiana

Carolina Holly Ilex ambigua

Possumhaw (Deciduous) Holly Ilex decidua

Largeleaf Holly Ilex montana

American Holly Ilex opaca

Common Winterberry Holly Ilex verticillala

Yaupon Holly Ilex vomitoria

Southern Redcedar Juniperus silicicola

Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua

Tuliptree Liriodendron tulipifera

Cucumber Magnolia Magnolia acuminata

Southern Magnolia Magnolia grandiflora

Pyramid Magnolia Magnolia pyramidata

Sweetbay Magnolia Magnolia virginiana

Red Mulberry Moms rubra

Southern Bayberry Al21 Myrica cerifera

Water Tupelo Nyssa aquatica

Sourgum Nyssa sylvatica

Devilwood Osmanthus americanus

Sourwood Oxydendrum arboreum

Hornbeam Oystrya virginiana

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.
Chapter II: Natural Setting

Table 1, continued

COMMON NAME | SCIENTIFIC NAME

Redbay Persea borbonia

Shortleaf Pine Pinus echinata

Spruce Pine Pinus glabra

Longleaf Pine Pinus paluslris

Lobolly Pine Pinus taeda

Water-Elm Planere aquatica

Eastern Sycamore Platamis occidentalis

Eastern (Common) Cottonwood Populus delloides

Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla

Chickasaw Plum Primus angustifolia

Carolina Laurelcherry Primus caroliniana

Mexican Plum Primus mexicana

Black Cherry Primus serotina

Flatwoods Plum Primus umbellata

Hoptree Ptelea trifoliata

White Oak Quercus alba

Southern Red (Spanish) Oak Quercusfalcata

Cherrybark Oak Quercusfalcata var. pagodaefolia

Laurel (Darlington) Oak Quercus laurifolia

Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata

Blackjack Oak Quercus marilandica

Basket Oak Quercus michauxii

Chinkapin Oak Quercus muehlenbergii

Water Oak Quercus nigra

Nuttall Oak Quercus nuttallii

Willow Oak Quercus phellos

Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra

Shumard Oak Quercus shumardii

Post Oak Quercus stellata

Black Oak Quercus velutina

Virginia Live Oak Quercus virginiana

Carolina Buckthorn Rhamnus caroliniana

Winged Sumac Rhus copallina

Smooth Sumac Rhus glabra

Dwarf Palmetto Sabal minor

Sandbar Willow Salix exigua

Black Willow Salix nigra

Common Elderberry Sambucus canadensis

Western Soapberry Sapindus drummondii

Sassafras Sassafras albidum

Virginia Stewartia (Silky Camellia) Stewarlia malachodendron

American Snowbell Styrax americanus

Bigleaf Snowbell Styrax grandifolius

Sweetleaf Symplocos linctoria

Baldcypress Taxodium dislichum

Pondcypress Taxodium distichum var mitans

Carolina Basswood Tilia caroliniana

Poison-Sumac Toxicodendron vernix

Winged Elm Jlmus alata

American Elm Jlmus americanus

Cedar Elm (Jlmus crassifolia

Sparkleberry (Farkleberry) /accinium arboreum

Rusty Blackhaw 1

/

iburnum rufidulum

Southern Prickly-Ash 2'anlhoxylum clava-herculis

Fauna in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project

Reach

During both the prehistoric and historic

periods, the vicinity of the proposed project

reach supported a large and varied faunal community; however, some of these species have

been eliminated by historic and modern development. The following discussion identifies

those species that probably were present during

late prehistoric and historic times.

Game animals common to the project area

included white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), swamp rabbit {Sylvilagus aquaticus),

eastern gray squirrel {Sciurus carolinensis),

eastern fox squirrel {Sciurus niger), swamp rabbit, eastern cottontail (Sylvilagusfloridanus) and

black bear (Ursus americanus) (Table 2). Predatory mammals found throughout the bottomland

hardwood environments also included the gray

fox (Urcyon cinereoargenteus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), mink (Mustela vison), and bobcat (Lynx

rufus), as well as the endangered and regionally

extinct Eastern panther (Felis concolor) and red

wolf (Canis niger), respectively. In addition, the

mink, raccoon, beaver (Castor canadensis), and

opossum (Didelphis virginiana) all were important fur bearers that lived in the bottomland

hardwood environments. These animals not only

served as important sources of food, but the furs

served as the raw materials used in the production of clothing (Lowery 1974a).

Table 2. Mammals in the Vicinity ofthe Project Reach.

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Shorttail Shrew Blarina brevicauda

Coyote Canis latrans

Beaver Castor canadensis

Least Shrew Cryptotis parva

Armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus

Opossum Didelphis virginiana

Big Brown Bat Eptesicusfuscus

Mountain Lion (Puma) Felis concolor

Southern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys volans

Red Bat Lasiurus borealis

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus

Eastern Yellow Bat Lasiurus intermedius

Seminole Bat Lasiurus seminolus

River Otter Lutra canadensis

Bobcat Lynx rufus

19

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.
Chapter II: Natural Setting

Table 2, continued

Table 3. Reptiles and Amphibians in the Vicinity of the

Project Reach.

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis

House Mouse (Introduced) Mus musculus

Longtail Weasel Mustela frenata

Mink Mustela vison

Nutria (Introduced) Myocastor coypus

Mississippi Myotis Myotis aastroriparius

Eastern Woodrat Neotomafloridana

Shrew-Mole Neurotrichus gibbsi

Evening Bat Nycticeius humeratis

Whitetail Deer Odocoileus virginianus

Muskrat Ondatra zibethica

Rice Rat Oryzomys palustris

Cotton Mouse Peromyscus gossypinus

White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus

Golden Mouse Peromyscus mtttalli

Eastern Pipistrel Pipistrellus subflavus

Pine Vole Pitymys pinelorum

Eastern Big-eared Bat Plecotus refinesquei

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Norway Rat (Introduced) Rattus norvegicus

Black Rat (Introduced) Rattus rattus

Fulvous Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomysfulvescens

Eastern Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys humulis

Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus

Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis

Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger

Hispid Cotton Rat Sigmodon hispidus

Southeastern Shrew Sorex longirostris

Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius

Swamp Rabbit Sylvilagus aquaticus

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagusfloridanus

Mexican Freetail Bat Tadarida brasiliensis

Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Black Bear Ursus americanus

Red Fox Vulpesfulva

Bottomland hardwood forests and swamps

are home to a variety of amphibians, including

salamanders, toads, tree frogs, and true frogs

(Table 3). These amphibians typically require

very moist soils, temporary pools, or permanent

ponds. The numerous reptiles found within the

bottomland hardwood forests include not only

the American alligator {Alligator mississippiensis), but also of a number of iguanids, skinks,

lizards, snakes, pit vipers, and turtles. Like the

amphibians, most of the reptiles prefer either

moist or aquatic habitats (Conant and Collins

1991).

The project region also was home to a

number of fresh water fish species; these included the shovelnose sturgeon {Scaphirhynchus

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Northern Cricket Frog Acris crepitans crepitans

Southern Cricket Frog Acris gryllus gryllus

Southern Copperhead Agkistrodon contorthx contortrix

Western Cottonmouth

Agkistrodon piscivorus

leucostoma

American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis

Spotted Salamander Ambystoma maculatum

Marbled Salamander Ambystoma opactim

Mole Salamander Ambystoma talpoideum

Smallmouth Salamander Ambystoma texanum

Three-toed Amphiuma Amphiuma tridactylum

Green Anole Anolis carolinensis

Midland Smooth Softshell

Turtle

Apalone mutica mutica

Gulf Coast Spiny Softshell

Turtle

Apalone spinifera aspera

Eastern Spiny Softshell Turtle Apalone spinifera spinifera

Eastern American Toad Bufo americanus americanus

Southern Toad Bufo terrestris

Gulf Coast Toad Bufo valliceps valliceps

Fowler's Toad Bufo woodhousiifowleri

Woodhouse's Toad Bufo woodhousii woodhousii

Eastern Worm Snake Carphophis amoenus amoenus

Common Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina

Southern Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta dorsalis

Bronze Frog Rana clamitans clamitans

Blackmask Racer Coluber constrictor latrunculus

Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus

Eastern Chicken Turtle Deirochely reticularia reticularia

Western Chicken Turtle Deirochelysreticularia miaria

Southern Dusky Salamander Desmognathus auriculatus

Spotted Dusky Salamander Desmognathusfuscus conanti

Mississippi Ringneck Snake Diadophis punctatus stictogenys

Corn Snake Elaphe guttata guttata

Texas Rat Snake Elaphe obsoleta lindheimerii

Gray Rat Snake Elaphe obsoleta spiloides

Five-lined Skink Eumecesfasciatus

Southeastern Five-lined Skink Eumeces inexpectatus

Broadhead Skink Eumeces laticeps

Southern Two-lined

Salamander

Eurycea cirrigera

Three-lined Salamander Eurycea longicauda gutlolineata

Dwarf Salamander Eurycea quadridigitata

Western Mud Snake Farancia abacura reinwardtii

Rainbow Snake Farancia erytrogramma

Eastern Narrowmouth Toad Gastrophryne carolinensis

Mississippi Map Turtle Graptemys kohnii

Ouachita Map Turtle

Graptemys pseudogeographica

ouachitensis

Four-toed Salamander Hemidactylium scutatum

Mediterranean Gecko

(Introduced)

Hemidactylus turcicus

Eastern Hognose Snake Heterodon platirhinos

Bird-voiced Treefrog Hyla avivoca

Green Treefrog Hyla cinerea

Pine Woods Treefrog Hylafemoralis

Barking Treefrog Hyla gratiosa

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

20
ChapterII: Natural Setting

Table 3, continued

COMMON NAME

Squirrel Treefrog

Gray Treefrogs

Mississippi Mud Turtle

Speckled Kingsnake

Louisiana Milk Snake

SCIENTIFIC NAME

Hyla squirella

Hyla versicolor and Hyla

chiysoscelis

Kinoslernon subrubrum

hippocrepis

Lampropeltis getula holbrooki

Scarlet Kingsnake

Alligator Snapping Turtle

Mississippi Green Water

Snake

Yellowbelly Water Snake

Broad-banded Water Snake

Diamondback Water Snake

Lampropeltis triangulum amnura

Lampropeltis triangulum

elapsoides

Macroclemys temminckii

Nerodia cyclopion

Neroiiia erythrogasterflavigaster

Nerodiafasciata confluens

Midland Water Snake

Central Newt

Eastern Slender Glass Lizard

Eastern Glass Lizard

Mississippi Slimy Salamander

Webster's Salamander

Nerodia rhombifer

Nerodia sipedon pleuralis

Notophthalmus viridescens

louisianensis

Ophisaurus attenuatus

longicaudus

Ophisaurus ventralis

Plethodon mississippi

Plethodon websteri

Northern Spring Peeper

River Cooter

Bullfrog

Pig Frog

Pickerel Frog

Southern Leopard Frog

Graham's Crayfish Snake

Pseudacris crucifer cmcifer

Pseudemys concinna

Rana catesbeiana

Rana grylio

Rana palustris

Rana utricularia

Delta Crayfish Snake

Gulf Crayfish Snake

Queen Snake

Southern Redback

Eastern Spadefoot

Southern Fence Lizard

Ground Skink

Regina grahamii

Regina rigida deltae

Regina rigida sinicola

Regina septevittata

Salamander Plethodon serratus

Scaphiopus holbrookii holbrookii

Sceloporus undulatus undulatus

Scincella lateralis

Western Lesser

Western Pigmy Rattlesnake

Rough Green

Razorback Musk Turtle

Common Musk Turtle

Marsh Brown Snake

Midland Brown Snake

Siren Siren intermedia nettingi

Sistrurus miliarius strecken

Snake Opheodrys aestivus

Sternotherus carinatus

Sternotherus odoratus

Storeria dekayi limnetes

Storeria dekayi wrightorum

Florida Redbelly Snake

Three-toed Box Turtle ;'

Gulf Coast Ribbon Snake

Western Ribbon Snake

Eastern Garter Snake

Red-eared Slider

Rough Earth Snake

Storeria occipitomaculata

obscura

Terrapene Carolina baur

Thamnophis proximus orarius

Thamnophis proximus proximus

Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis

Trachemys scripta elegans

Western Earth Snake

Virginia striatula

Virginia valeriae elegans

platorynchus), alligator gar {Attactosteus spatula) large mouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)

and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). In addition,carp {Cyprinus carpio), blue catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), channel catfish (Ictalurusfurcatus), white crappie {Poxomis annularis), freshwater drum {Aplodinotus grunniens), garfish

(Lepisosteus sp.), shad (Dorosoma sp.), and

various suckers (Catostomidae) also were common (Conner 1977) (Table 4).

Table 4. Freshwater Fishes in the Vicinity of the Project

Reach.

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Lake Sturgeon Acipenserfulvescens

Alabama Shad Alosa alabamae

Skipjack Herring Alosa chiysochloris

Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas

Yellow Bullhead Ameriurus natalis

Bowfin Amia calva

American Eel Anuilla rostrata

Pirate Perch Aphredoderus sayanus

Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens

Alligator Gar Attactosteus spatula

Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum

River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio

Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus

Highfin Carpsucker Carpiodes velifer

Flier Centrarchus macropierus

Bluntface Shiner Cyprinella camura

Red Shiner Cyprinella lutrensis

Blacktail Shiner Cyprinella venusta

Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum

Threadfin Shad Dorosoma petenense

Banded Pygmy Sunfish Elassoma zonatum

Creek Chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus

Lake Chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta

Grass or Redfin Pickerel Esox americanus

Chain Pickerel Esox niger

Mud Darter Etheostoma asprigene

Naked Sand Darter Etheostoma beani

Rainbow Darter Etheostoma caeruleum

Bluntnose Darter Etheostoma chlorosomum

Swamp Darter Etheostoma gracile

Slough Darter Etheostoma gracile

Harlequin Darter Etheostoma hisirio

Brighteye Darter Etheostoma lynceum

Goldstripe Darter Etheostoma parvipinne

Cypress Darter Etheostoma proeliare

Scaley Sand Darter Etheostoma vivax

Redfin Darter Etheostoma whipplei

Speckled Chub Extrarius aestivalis

Western Starhead Minnow Fundulus blairae

Golden Topminnow Fundulus chrysotus

Blackstripe Topminnow Fundulus notatus

Blackspotted Topminnow Fundulus olivaceus

Mosquito Fish Gambusia affinis

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

21
Chapter II: Natural Setting

Table 4, continued

COMMON NAME | SCIENTIFIC NAME |

Goldeye Hiodon alosoides

Mooneye Hiodon tergisus

Cypress Minnow Hybognathus hayi

Mississippi Silvery Minnow Hybognathas nuchalis

Pallid Shiner Hybopsis amnis

Clear Chub Hybopsis winchelli

Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans

Chestnut Lampray Ichthyomyzon castaneus

Southern Brook Lampray Ichtyomyzon gagei

Blue Catfish Ictalurusfurcatus

Channel Catfish ktalurus punctatus

Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus

Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus

Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger

Spotted Gar Lepisosteus oculatus

Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus

Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus

Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomia humilis

Dollar Sunfish lepomia marginatus

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanelhts

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis

Redear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus

Spotted Sunfish Lepomis punctatus

Bantam Sunfish Lepomis symmetricus

Rainwater Killfish Lucania parva

Striped Shiner Luxilus chrysocephnlus

Ribbon Shiner Lythrurusfemeus

Redfin Shiner Lythrurus umbratilis

Sturgeon Chub Macrhybopsis gelida

Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storerinna

Inland Silverside Menidia beryllina

Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides

Spotted Sucker Minytrema melanops

White Bass Morone chrysops

Yellow Bass Morone mississippiensis

Bluehead Chub Nocomis leptocephalus

Ironcolor Shiner Nostropis chalybaeus

Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas

Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides

River Shiner Notropis blennius

Ghost Shiner Notropis buchanani

Longnose Shiner Notropis longirostris

Chub Shiner Notropis potteri

Silverband Shiner Notropis shumnrdi

Weed Shiner Notropis texanus

Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus

Tadpole Madtom Noturus gyrinus

Speckled Madtom Nolurus leptncanthus

Brindled Madtom Noturus miurus

Freckled Madtom Noturus nocturnus

Brown Madtom Noturus phaeus

Pugnose Minnow Opsopoeodus emiliae

Logperch Percina caprodes

Blackside Darter Percina metadata

Saddleback Darter Percina ouachitae

Table 4, continued

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME |

Dusky Darter Percina sciera

Southern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus erythrogaster

Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus

Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax

Flathead Chub Platygobio gracilis

Sailfin Molly Poecilia latipinna

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula

White Crappie Pomoxis annularis

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris

Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus

Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus

Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus

Sauger Stizostedion canadense

Finally, over 100 species of birds were either permanent or seasonal residents of the bottomland hardwood forests (Table 5). These included major game species such as the wood

duck (Aix sponsa) and wild turkey (Meleagris

gallopavo) (Gulf States Utilities Company

1974a, 1974b; Lowery 1974a, 1974b). Yearround species found throughout the vicinity of

the project reach included the red-winged blackbird (Agelaitus phoeniceus), red-tailed hawk

(Buteo platypterus), great egret {Bubulcu ibis),

great blue heron (Ardea herodias) and great

horned owl {Bubo virginianus). Numerous bird

species, however, were spring, summer, and

winter inhabitants ofthe vicinity ofthe proposed

project reach. Species inhabiting the area during

the spring and summer seasons included the bam

swallow (Hirundo rustica) Mississippi kite (Ictinia mississippiensis), ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) and the reddish egret

{Egretta rufescens). Species common throughout

the winter included the sparrow (Ammodramus

sp.), sandpipers (Calidris sp.), American bittern

(Botaurus lentiginosus), and the common loon

(Gavia immer).

Table 5. Birds in the Vicinity ofthe Project Reach.

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Winter Season

Sharp-skinned Hawk

Spotted Sandpiper

Western Grebe

Henslow's Sparrow

Le Conte's Sparrow

Grasshopper sparrow

Northern Pintail

Northern Shoveler

American Wegeon

Accipiter striatus

Actitis macularia

Aechmophorus occidentalis

Ammodramus henslowii

Ammodramus leconteii

Ammodramus savannarum

Anas acuta

Anas clypeata

Anas penelope

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

22
Chapter II: Natural Setting

Table 5, continued Table 5, continued

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

Gadwall Anas strepera

American Pipit Anthus rubescens

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres

Short-eared Owl Asioflammeus

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinia

Redhead Aythya americana

Ringed-neck Duck Aythya collaris

Canvasback Aythya valisineria

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum

American Bittern Botaitnts lentiginosus

Canada Goose Branta canadensis

Buffelhead Bucephala albeola

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula

Sanderling Calidris alba

Dunlin Calidris alpina

Red Knot Calidris canutus

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla

Pine Sisken Carduelis pinus

American Goldenfinch Carduelis tristis

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus

Hermit Thrush Cathams guttatus

Brown Creeper Certhia americana

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus

Snow Goose Chen caertdescens

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus

Marsh Wren Cistothoms palustris

Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis

Double Crested Cormorant

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronala

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus Carolinas

Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus

Merlin Falco columbarius

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago

Common Loon Gavia immer

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hvemalis

Herring Gull Larus argentatus

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus

Swamp Sparrow i Vlelospiza georgiana

Lincoln's Sparrow I Aelospiza lincolnii

Song Sparrow 1Vtelospiza melodia

Common Merganser / 4ergus merganser

Black-and-white Warbler / dniotilta varia

Whimbrel /^umenius phaeopus

Ruddy Duck (.Ixyurajamaicensis

Savannah Sparrow /^asserculus sandwichensis

Fox Sparrow /'asserella iliaca

American White Pelican F'elecanus erythrorhynchos

Eared Grebe F odiceps nigricollis

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus

Sora Porzana Carolina

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta

Green Winged Teal Anas crecca

Bewick's Wren Thryomanes bewickii

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringaflavipes

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

House Wren Troglodytes troglodytes

Oranged-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata

Solitary Vireo Vireo solitarius

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys

Summer and Spring Seasons

Purple Martin Progne subis

Roseate Spoonbill Ajaia ajaia

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus

Green-backed Heron Butorides striatus

Chuck-will 's-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica

Wilson's Plover Charadrius wilsonia

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor

Yellow-billed Cookoo Coccyzus americanus

Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens

Yellow-throated Warbler Dendroica dominica

Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens

American Swallow-tailed Kite Elanoidesforficatus

Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens

Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea

Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina

Yellow-breated Chat Icteria virens

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius

Mississippi Kite Ictinia mississippiensis

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis

Swainson's Warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii

Wood Stork Mycteria americana

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus

Kentucky Warbler Oporornisformosus

Northern Parula Parula americana

Painted Bunting Passerina ciris

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea

Summer Tanager Piranga rubra

Glossy Ibis Plegadisfalcinellus

White-faced Ibis Plegadis

chihi Plegadisfalcinellus

Purple Gallinule Porphyruta martinica

Prothonotary Warbler Proronotaria citrea

Dickcissel Spiza americana

Northern Rough-winged

1 Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

23
Chapter II: Natural Setting

Table 5, continued Table 5, continued

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME |

Least Tern Sterna antillarum

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus

Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus

Hooded Warbler Wiisonia citrina

Year Round Presence

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga

Coopers Hawk Accipiter cooperii

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoenicens

Bachman's Sparrow Aimophila aestivalis

Wood Duck Aix sponsa

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis

Red-tailed Hawk Buteojamaicensis

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo platypterus

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis

Great Egret Casmerodius albus

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus

Belted Kingfisher Ceiyle alcyon

Killdeer Charadrias vociferus

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus

Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus

Rock Dove Columbia livia

Common Ground-Dove Columbina passerina

Black Vulture Coragyps atratus

Amerian Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

Fish Crow Corvus ossifragus

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata

Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea

Snowey Egret Egretta Thula

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris

White Ibis Eudocimus albus

American Kestrel Falco sparverius

American Coot Fulica americana

Common Morehen Gallinula chloropus

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus

Laughing Gull Larus atricilla

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polygloltos

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron Nyctanassa violacea

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax

Eastern Screech-Owl Otus asio

Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor

Carolina Chickadee Parus carolinensis

House Sparrow Passer domesticus

Red-cocaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus

Rufous-sided Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus

COMMON NAME | SCIENTIFIC NAME |

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caendea

Great-tailed Grackle Quiscalus mexicanus

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula

King Rail Rallus elegans

Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris

American Woodcock Scolopax minor

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis

Brown-headed Nuthatch Sitla pusilla

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla

Forster's Tern Sternaforsten

Gull-billed Tern Sterna nilotica

Eastern Medowlark Sturnella magna

European Starling

(Introduced)

Sturnus vidgaris

Carolina Wren Thtyothorus ludovicianus

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum

American Robin Turdus migratorius

Bam Owl Tyto alba

White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura

Climate in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project Reach

Iberville Parish, Louisiana, enjoys a humid

subtropical climate. The mean annual temperature for the area attains a high of 78° F (26° C)

and a low of 58° F (14° C). July and August are

the hottest months, with average daily temperatures reaching 91° F (33° C). During winter, the

mean daily minimum temperature declines to a

low of 42° F (5.5° C) in January. Approximately

14 days of the year experience temperatures below 32° F (0° C). The winter is characterized by

alternating cool and warm periods, as cold air

fronts from Canada displace warmer air masses

derived from the Gulf of Mexico.

Precipitation in Iberville Parish, Louisiana,

averages 145.2 cm (57.2 in) annually and it is

relatively evenly distributed throughout the year.

During the cooler months, precipitation typically

occurs as a result of movement along the periphery of cool and warm fronts and also as a result

of cyclonic storms that originate over the Gulf of

Mexico. In contrast, precipitation during the

summer months occurs usually as a result of afternoon thunderstorms. October and November

are the driest months of the year, with average

precipitation rates measuring less than 10 cm

(3.9 in) per month; July typically is the wettest

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.

24
Chapter II: Natural Setting

month, with an average of 8.6 cm (3.4 in) of spring months, however, humidity may drop to

rainfall. The average relative humidity through- as low as 25 per cent, as cold air masses from

out the parish measures approximately 75 per- Canada displace warm, moist air from the Gulf

cent. During the late fall, winter, and early of Mexico.

25

ft. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
CHAPTER III

PREHISTORIC SETTING

Introduction

This chapter briefly describes the prehistoric

cultural setting of the proposed Bayou Sorrel

Lock replacement project area in Iberville Parish,

Louisiana. Iberville Parish is located within Management Unit V as defined by Louisiana's Comprehensive Archaeological Plan (Smith et al.

1983).

While the prehistory of Management Unit V

extends from ca. 10,000 B.C. to European Contact, i.e., from the Paleo-Indian to Protohistoric

stages, the near surface landforms and deposits

present within the project reach date from no earlier than 5,000 to 3,500 years ago. Consequently,

and as outlined previously in Chapter II, only

sites dating from the Late Archaic period or later

are anticipated within the project area. Nonetheless, this chapter includes a discussion of the entire prehistoric period in order to provide the

reader with a comprehensive account of the prehistoric cultural setting ofManagement Unit V; in

addition, while it is unlikely that permanent habitation of the project region took place during the

Paleo-Indian and Early to Middle Archaic periods, it is possible that the project area may have

been used for occasional and/or temporary resource exploitation during those time periods.

A total of eight major cultural units are

used to characterize the prehistoric cultural sequence of Management Unit V. These include:

the Paleo-Indian (10,000 - 6000 B.C.), Archaic

(6000 -1000 B.C.), Poverty Point (2000 - 500

B.C.), Tchefuncte (500 B.C. - A.D. 0), Marksville (100 B.C. - A.D. 400), Troyville-Coles

Creek (A.D. 400 - 1200), Plaquemine (A.D.

1000 - 1200), and Mississippian (A.D. 1200 -

1700) units. Each cultural unit is described in

turn below. Both the quantity and quality of the

information currently known about each ofthese

units are reflected in this discussion. Since some

of these units are only poorly understood, pertinent data collected from throughout the South-

. east have been utilized to supplement this discussion.

Paleo-Indian Stage (10.000 - 6000 B.C.)

The initial human occupation of the southeastern United States generally is believed to

have occurred sometime between 10,000 and

12,000 years ago (8000 - 10,000 B.C.). The earliest inhabitants to occupy this region have been

termed the Paleo-lndians. Archeological sites

dating from this time period are characterized by

a distinctive assemblage of lithic tools that include fluted and unfluted lanceolate projectile

points/knives, unifacial end- and side-scrapers,

gravers, and spokeshaves. In Louisiana, evidence

of human occupation dating from this time period

largely has been confined to the upland areas (tertiary uplands or floodplain bluffs) in the northwestern part of the state. Furthermore, it is

unlikely that Paleo-lndians occupied the project

area since habitable landforms did not exist in the

project reach during this time. As a result, the

probability of identifying evidence of PaleoIndian occupation within the confines of the current project items is extremely low.

The earliest Paleo-Indian culture identified

in North America has been named "Clovis," after

the type-site in New Mexico. In the western

United States, Clovis sites date from a relatively

narrow period, i.e., between 8900 and 9500 B.C.

(Haynes 1991; Story et al. 1990:178). The lithic

tool assemblage of the Clovis Culture, and the

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.

26
ChapterIII: Prehistoric Setting

similar Folsom Culture of the Great Plains and

Southern Plains, generally is referred to as the

Llano complex. While the Folsom Culture initially was believed to postdate the Clovis Culture,

radiocarbon dates from Folsom component sites

in Texas have produced dates ranging from ca.

8000 to 9000 B.C. (Largent et al. 1991:323-332;

Story et al. 1990:189). These dates suggest that

the Folsom Culture may be partially contemporaneous with Clovis Culture.

Paleo-Indian peoples are considered by

some researchers to have been mobile huntergatherers organized in small bands or extended

family groups. Many models suggest that PaleoIndian peoples were specialized big game

(megafauna) hunters. This interpretation, however, has been modified as additional data have

been recovered from excavations at newly identified Paleo-Indian sites. While sufficient evidence

exists to document the exploitation of large

mammals (e.g., mammoth, mastodon, bison, caribou, and elk) at sites in the western and northern

United States, kill sites in the Southeast are rare.

One exception is the Coats-Hines Site

(40WM31), located in the Central Basin of Tennessee. Recent excavations at Coats-Hines

(Breitburg and Broster 1995) produced 34 lithic

tools, including 10 formal tools and tool fragments along with resharpening flakes, recovered

in direct association with the articulated remains

of an adult mastodon (Mammut americanum). All

of this lithic material originated from within the

thoracic cavity of the mastodon or in its immediate vicinity. The association of these tools with

the skeletal material, along with the presence of

distinct butchering marks on a number of the

mastodon bones, indicates that Paleo-Indian peoples were butchering the mastodon at the site.

The co-occurrence of Pleistocene megafauna

and several Paleo-Indian projectile points (see

Brush and Smith 1994; Clausen et al. 1979;

Webb et al. 1984) has led most researchers to

accept the interpretation that southeastern PaleoIndian peoples fulfilled at least a portion of their

subsistence requirements by hunting and/or scavenging megafauna, including bison, mammoth

and mastodon, that were present on the North

American continent at the end of the Pleistocene

(Anderson et al. 1996). Data such as those derived from the Coats-Hines Site provide unequivocal evidence that Paleo-Indian groups in

the Southeast consumed certain Pleistocene

megafauna. Current discussions among archeologists, however, have focused on the relative

amount offood that these animals provided to the

Paleo-Indian groups.

Some researchers (e.g., Meltzer and Smith

1986; Smith 1986) suggest that Pleistocene megafauna comprised only a small portion of the

subsistence regime for Paleo-Indian peoples; others argue that megafauna provided a substantial

portion of the Paleo-Indian diet (Anderson 1995;

Anderson et al. 1996). Anderson (1995:151), for

example, stated that "modern fauna (i.e., deer and

smaller mammalian species like rabbits, raccoons,

opossums, etc.) were taken only when megafauna

were not readily available, and comprised secondline resources." It is likely that until more associations of Pleistocene megafauna and PaleoIndian cultural materials and features are identified, that the role these megafauna played in the

Paleo-Indian diet will not be understood clearly.

Although there is little data upon which to base a

firm dietary model, Paleo-Indian subsistence

throughout the Southeast is believed to have encompassed a broad spectrum ofresources, including fish, fowl, deer, small mammals, nuts, and

gathered plants, as well as megafauna (Smith

1986:9-10; Steponaitis 1986:369; Walthall

1980:36).

Most of the archeological evidence associated with the Paleo-Indian occupation of the

southeastern region is limited to surface finds of

diagnostic projectile points/knives (Mason 1962).

In the Lower Mississippi Valley, Paleo-Indian

projectile points/knives have been recovered

along valley margins but rarely in the alluvial

valley or along the coastal plain. Distributional

studies indicate that Paleo-Indian sites in the eastern United States tend to be located on eroded

terrace and plateau surfaces (Walthall 1980).

The presence of Paleo-Indian peoples in the

Lower Mississippi Valley is best documented

from Macon Ridge in northeast Louisiana. Hillman (1985) provided a prehistoric overview of

the Paleo-Indian stage at Macon Ridge that suggested that continuous human occupation of the

ridge began sometime around 8000 B.C.

Diagnostic projectile points/knives identified at

Macon Ridge date from the Early Paleo-Indian

period (Clovis, Sandia II, and unfluted lanceolate

points), the Middle Paleo-Indian period (PlainR. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

27
Chapter III: Prehistoric Setting

view, Scottsbluff, Quad, Hell Gap, and Pelican),

and the later, transitional, "Epipaleoindian" period (Dalton, Hardin, and San Patrice projectile

points). The latter period, i.e., the Epipaleoindian,

originally was used by Gibson (1982) to discuss

the transitional period between the Late PaleoIndian and Early Archaic periods.

The distribution of recorded sites on Macon

Ridge suggests that this area was occupied more

intensively during the Late Paleo-Indian period.

Sites dating from the Late Paleo-Indian period,

like hunting camps and base camps, typically occur very close to streams, ponds, or sloughs, and

on landforms that generally are no more than 1 m

(3.3 ft) above the water source. This pattern may

indicate a preference for the wooded fringes

along the waterways rather than open grasslands.

In contrast, Early Archaic period sites usually

occur on higher elevations; this shift may reflect a

transformation in the natural setting of Macon

Ridge from an open grassland to an open woodland (Hillman 1990).

Brain (1983) states that Paleo-Indian projectile points/knives have been recovered along

some of the relict channels of the Mississippi

River and from remnant Pleistocene surfaces in

the floodplain that pre-date ca. 7000 B.C. In Louisiana, Paleo-Indian sites generally are found

along Tertiary upland ridges and uplands/

floodplain bluffs (Guy and Gunn 1983). Projectile

points/knives such as Clovis, Folsom, Scottsbluff,

and Plainview have been recovered from these

sites. Although the majority of these projectile

points/knives have been found in northern Louisiana, a few have been found on late Pleistocene

age Prairie Terrace deposits in southern Louisiana.

Louisiana's Comprehensive Archaeological

Plan (1983) indicates that no Paleo-Indian sites

thus far have been recorded in Iberville Parish.

This is not surprising given the erratic nature of

Mississippi River meandering. Paleo-Indian sites

may once have existed within this parish, but they

probably have been destroyed by river scouring

or deeply buried by alluvial deposition.

Archaic Stage (6000 - 1000 B.C.)

The term "Archaic" first was coined as a

descriptor for the pre-ceramic cultures that succeeded the Paleo-Indian stage. A new combination of technological and social developments is

associated with the beginning ofthis stage. These

developments are believed to have resulted from

a warming trend, a drier climate, and a rise in sea

level that occurred at the end of the Pleistocene

Epoch (Willey and Phillips 1958). These changes

have been correlated with the development of

highly diverse and localized resource and food

procurement strategies (Haag 1971). Caldwell

(1958), for example, described the new hunting

and gathering specializations ofthe Archaic stage

as "maximum forest efficiency." Brain (1971)

modified this phrase to "maximum riverine efficiency" in reference to the exploitation of southeastern riverine and coastal environments during

this time period.

Current data suggest that Archaic stage peoples moved on a seasonal basis within more restricted ranges to exploit nuts, fruits, fish, game,

shellfish, and other natural resources (Müller

1978). Muller suggested that Archaic societies

were characterized by a macro/micro band system

of organization in order to maximize the exploitation of these resources. Under the macro/micro

band model, macrobands coalesced during the

spring and summer months, while microbands

splintered off and exploited the upland ranges

during winter (Müller 1978). Archeological data

also indicate that Archaic stage populations exploited a greater variety of terrestrial and marine

species than their Paleo-Indian predecessors. Archeological evidence also suggests that Archaic

stage peoples developed the first semi-permanent

settlements yet identified in the archeological

record (Neitzel and Perry 1977). Finally, the increased number of sites dating from the Archaic

stage indicates a probable increase in population

throughout the Southeast.

The Paleo-Indian to Archaic stage transition

was accompanied by a change in projectile

point/knife morphology. These changes included

the emergence of a wide variety of notched and

stemmed projectile point/knife forms and the disappearance of the fluted projectile point/knife

type. Nevertheless, archeological evidence suggests that there was some continuity between the

adaptations of the Paleo-Indian and the later Archaic peoples who occupied the Southeast (Smith

1986). Archaic stage projectile point/knife sequences follow a general trend in haft morphology that progresses from side notched to corner

notched to stemmed basal forms. Other Archaic

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.

28
Chapter III: Prehistoric Setting

stage flaked stone artifact types included adzes,

scrapers, and choppers. During the latter half of

this time period, granitic rock, chert, jasper, sandstone, slate, steatite, and scoria were ground and

polished into a variety of stone ornaments and

tools, which included beads, gorgets, bowls, and

celts/axes.

The Archaic stage generally is divided into

three subdivisions or periods: Early Archaic,

Middle Archaic, and Late Archaic. Each of these

periods is discussed below.

Early Archaic Period

In the Southeast, the Early Archaic period

generally begins ca. 6000 - 8000 B.C. Because of

regional cultural variation and the temporal overlapping ofstages, however, a number ofresearchers view cultural developments in the early portion of this period as transitional in nature between the Late Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic

cultures. As mentioned above, Gibson (1982)

used the term "Epipaleoindian" to describe this

transition. Hillman (1985) included the Dalton,

Hardin, and San Patrice projectile point/knife

types in his review of the transitional period at

Macon Ridge. Dalton projectile points/knives

temporally succeeded Clovis projectile points/

knives and they have been dated between 8550 -

7950 B.C. from contexts in both Arkansas and

Missouri (Goodyear 1982:328). At the StanfieldWorley Bluff Shelter (1CT125) in northwestern

Alabama, the Dalton component dated from ca.

7750 - 7050 B.C. (DeJarnette et al. 1962; Griffin

1974). Dalton projectile points/knives dating

from 6700 to 6450 B.C. also have been recovered

in association with Kirk Notched, LeCroy, Rice

Stemmed, and Graham Cave projectile points/

knives in Horizon 11 at the Koster Site (11GE4)

in southern Illinois. This date range suggests that

Dalton projectile points/knives may extend later

in time than initially was assumed.

Dalton projectile points/knives also have

been recovered in association with bifacially

chipped stone adzes that may have been used as

woodworking tools. Chipped and ground stone

celts, probably the functional equivalent of Dalton adzes, have been recovered from the Kirk

Horizon in Zone 16 at the St. Albans Site

(46WV27) in West Virginia and from Early Archaic sites in the Little Tennessee River Valley

(Smith 1986:14). In Louisiana, artifacts associated with the Dalton Culture usually are restricted

to the northern portion ofthe state.

Some of the earliest recognized Terminal

Paleo-Indian/Early Archaic projectile point/knife

types identified in Louisiana are the San Patrice,

Keithville, and Pelican forms (Webb et al. 1971).

San Patrice projectile points/knives originally

were ascribed to an area encompassing northwest

Louisiana, northeast Texas, and southern Arkansas. More recently, however, San Patrice projectile points/knives have been recovered from sites

ranging from central Texas to southwest Alabama, and from southern Louisiana to central

Arkansas (Brain 1983:32; Cantley et al. 1984).

The San Patrice Culture is believed to represent a regional adaptation of hunter-gatherers to

the natural resources of the area. A hallmark of

San Patrice is the almost exclusive use of local

lithic materials for tool production. Tool assemblages include San Patrice var. Hope and St. John

projectile points/knives, hafted scrapers, Albany

side-scrapers, unifacial scrapers, burins, and engravers (Webb et al. 1971). Recently, Keithville

var. A and B, San Patrice var. Geneill, and New

River projectile point/knife types also have been

recognized in this assemblage (Brain 1983). Unfortunately, reliable radiocarbon dates for these

types virtually are non-existent. Estimates based

on tool morphology and stratigraphic position,

however, range from ca. 8050 to 6050 B.C.

(Brain 1983:25; Story et al. 1990:202; Turner and

Hester 1985:147; Webb 1981). While Ensor

(1986) suggested that the San Patrice projectile

point/knife type, and related forms in the Southeast, may have developed from the earlier Dalton

projectile point/knife forms, Story et al.

(1990:197) argued that both Dalton and San

Patrice types evolved from the earlier fluted point

traditions.

Subsistence strategies associated with the

Early Archaic period probably resembled those of

the preceding Paleo-Indian stage. Early Archaic

peoples probably traveled seasonally in small

groups between a series of base camps and extractive sites, hunting game and collecting seasonally available edible plants (Chapman and

Shea 1981; Lentz 1986; Parmalee 1962; Parmalee

et al. 1976). The earliest examples of tools associated with food processing, including manos,

milling stones, and nutting stones, have been recovered from Early Archaic period sites. ComR. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

29
Chapter III: Prehistoric Setting

monly utilized plant foods, such as walnuts, hickory nuts, and white oak acorns, could be hulled

and eaten without cooking or additional processing (Larson 1980). Herbaceous seeds, which became an important food source later in the Archaic stage, generally were not utilized during the

early Archaic period (Chapman 1977; Lentz

1986). While living floors associated with

hearths, shallow pit features, and milling tools are

known from the Early and Middle Archaic periods, there is little evidence of subterranean food

storage or of substantial dwelling structures (Steponaitis 1986:371).

Much of our knowledge regarding early prehistoric lifeways is limited by deficiencies related

to preservation. Lithic tools often are the only

surviving artifacts, and they provide only limited

information about a narrow range of activities

(e.g., manufacture and maintenance of tools, the

processing of meat and hides, and the working of

wood and bone). Although rarely preserved in the

archeological record, clothing, baskets, and other

artifacts made from perishable materials such as

bone, wood, antler, shell, hair, hide, plant fiber, or

feathers undoubtedly were an important part of

the Archaic cultural tradition. Impressions of

woven mats and net bags preserved in fired clay

hearths from Kirk strata at the Icehouse Bottom

Site (40MR23) in Tennessee provide a rare insight into the richness ofthe Early Archaic period

material culture (Chapman and Adavasio 1977).

The Early Archaic cultures immediately preceding San Patrice are understood only poorly in

Louisiana. To date, diagnostic projectile points/

knives dating from the Early Archaic period, including Cache River, Calf Creek, Kirk, and

Palmer, have been recovered largely from questionable contexts, and only in limited numbers. In

the larger region, however, several Early Archaic

period sites have been identified. One such site,

the Claiborne Site (22HA501) located in Hancock

County, Mississippi, has produced Early Archaic

projectile points/knives including Morrow Mountain and Kirk types (Bruseth 1991). Although Site

22HA501 primarily is known for its Poverty

Point affiliation, Greenwell (1984:133) reportedly

recovered "a large variety of 'unspecified' PaleoIndian - Archaic transition and Archaic points . .

." from a singe stratum located beneath cultural

features dating from the later Poverty Point occupation. Additional work at this site by Bruseth

(1991) also produced Kirk and Morrow Mountain

projectile points/knives. Finally, work by Gagliano (1963:12) at "preceramic" sites in southern

Louisiana and Mississippi found that Kirk Serrated projectile points/knives were not uncommon in the southeastern portion ofthe state.

Middle Archaic Period

During the Middle Archaic period, new social developments, possibly resulting from widespread environmental changes, affected the trajectory of prehistoric cultures. First, the effects of

continental glaciation subsided, resulting in a

warmer and drier climate with modern climatic

and environmental conditions prevailing. Second,

technological improvements, including the use of

groundstone, bone, and antler implements, may

have been related to adaptations to the changing

environment. And finally, in some areas, there is

evidence of an increased number ofranked societies.

The Middle Archaic period in the Southeast

is marked by several technological advances and

by changes in subsistence patterns. Temporally

diagnostic Middle Archaic projectile points tend

to be stemmed rather than notched. In Louisiana,

they include Morrow Mountain, Johnson, Edgewood, and possibly Calcasieu types (Campbell et

al. 1990:96; Green 1991; Perino 1985:195). Excavations at Site 16VN791 in Vernon Parish, in

western Louisiana, produced evidence of a long

tradition of corner notched projectile points/

knives beginning in the late Middle Archaic period. It has been suggested that these points, and

others in the region, were derived from types indigenous to central Louisiana (Campbell et al.

1990). Other technological innovations include

the appearance of ground, pecked, and polished

stone tools, as well as the use of celts and

grooved axes for heavy woodworking, such as

dugout canoe manufacture. The ail ail, or spear

thrower, also first appeared during the Middle

Archaic period.

The widespread occurrence ofplant processing tools such as milling slabs, manos, and nutting stones, suggests an increase in the utilization

of plant foods. Comparisons of floral and faunal

assemblages recovered from Early and Middle

Archaic period sites, however, indicate little

change in the diversity or relative importance of

the species utilized. The Middle Archaic period

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.

30
Chapter III: Prehistoric Setting

rough milling tools used in plant processing all

have Early Archaic antecedents (Smith 1986:21).

Acorns and hickory nuts continued to be the

dominant plant foods consumed during the Middle Archaic period. The remains of Cucurbita

pepo (squash) and bottle gourds (Lagenaria

siceraria), however, appear for the first time during the Middle Archaic. The earliest occurrence

of the bottle gourd was reported from the

Windover Site (8BR246) in Florida and it dated

from 5340 ± 120 B.C. (Doran et al. 1990).

"Squash" rinds dating from 5050 B.C. were recovered from the Napoleon Hollow and Koster

sites in west-central Illinois. Although initially

identified as the cultivar C. pepo, these remains

are now thought to consist of the Texas wild

gourd, C. texana, rather than cultivated squash.

Although the seeds of these plants are edible, it

appears that their rinds were thin, woody, and

inedible; the gourds probably were collected primarily for use as containers rather than as sources

of protein. Stronger evidence for the domestication of squash gourds occurs after 2350 B.C.

(Smith 1987).

A significant increase in the utilization of

fish and shellfish also occurred in many areas

during the Middle Archaic period. The increasing

importance of aquatic resources can be seen in

the development of extensive shell middens

found along many southeastern rivers. Shell middens first appeared between 4550 and 4050 B.C.

during the Hypsithermal climatic episode. At that

time, rivers entered a phase of aggradation and

low flow that promoted the development of oxbow lakes and shallow water shoals. These habitats were favorable for mollusk growth and shellfish collection (Stein 1982). Although the food

value of mollusks is low, they can be collected

efficiently in bulk and they appear to have formed

the foundation of the subsistence base for many

semi-sedentary Archaic stage groups that resided

in the southeastern United States (Russo et al.

1992).

Extensive, deep shell midden sites presumably represent locations that seasonally were reoccupied by small social groups with band-type

sociopolitical organization. Excavation at other

site types likewise suggests the seasonal reoccupation of areas by Middle Archaic period

peoples. Large cemeteries at some Middle Archaic period sites, such as Carleston Annis

(15BT5) in Kentucky, as well as Windover

(8BR246) and Little Salt Spring (8S018) in Florida, included interments established over long

periods of time by groups seasonally returning to

those locations (Clausen et al. 1979; Milanich

1994). These patterns may have resulted from

increasing population levels during the Middle

Archaic that may have led to more circumscribed

territories. This is indicated by the repeated occupation of favored locations, the development of

thick shell middens, and the increased emphasis

on locally available raw materials utilized in

stone tool production.

Evidence for social stratification during the

Middle Archaic was recovered at the Indian

Knoll Site (150H2) in Kentucky (Webb 1946), in

the form of grave goods being recovered in association with a child's burial. Because status in

egalitarian societies usually was acquired rather

than inherited, and because buried children

probably did not live long enough to acquire

much status, exotic grave objects associated with

child burials are seen as one ofthe earliest indications ofinherited social rank.

Late Archaic Period

The Late Archaic represents a time of population growth as demonstrated by an increased

number of sites dating from this time period in

the eastern United States. Hallmarks of the Late

Archaic period include the introduction ofsteatite

stone vessels, fiber-tempered pottery, and

groundstone artifacts. Each of these artifact

classes has been recovered from Late Archaic

period sites throughout the Southeast. In Louisiana, projectile point/knife types dating from this

time period include both corner notched and

stemmed forms.

Throughout the eastern United States, Late

Archaic subsistence strategies focused on a few

wild resources, including deer, mussels, fish, and

nuts. Jenkins (1979) recognized a seasonal procurement strategy in Middle Tennessee dating

from the Late Archaic period. In the spring, macrobands formed to exploit forested riverine areas.

In late fall and winter, however, the Late Archaic

groups fissioned into microbands and subsisted

on harvested and stored nut foods and on faunal

species commonly found in the upland areas. A

similar seasonal procurement strategy may have

existed in Louisiana.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

31
Chapter III: Prehistoric Setting

Late Archaic period projectile point/knife

types are commonly found throughout Louisiana.

Very few discrete and intact archeological deposits dating from this time period, however, have

been excavated systematically, analyzed, and

comprehensively reported (Neuman 1984). Late

Archaic sites in the west-central and northern

parts of the state that have been studied systematically have produced projectile point/knife types

that include Bulverde, Carrollton, Delhi, Ellis,

Ensor, Epps, Gary, Kent, Macon, Marcos, Palmillas, Pontchartrain, Sinner, and Yarbrough types.

Groundstone objects recovered from these sites

include celts/axes, plummets, and steatite bowl

fragments (Campbell et al. 1990; Smith 1975;

Jeter et al. 1989). In addition, there is evidence

for widespread trade in shell, copper, slate, greenstone, and jasper ornaments, including carved

stone' zoomorphic locust beads, during Late Archaic times (Blitz 1993; Brose 1979; Smith

1986:31; Steponaitis 1986:374).

Mounds appear for the first time in the Late

Archaic some time before 2000 B.C. (Gibson and

Shenkel 1988:9-10). Saunders et al. (1992) believe that mounds constructed during this time

period are datable based on the age of the landforms, the eluviation of fill clays from the A and

E horizons to the Bt Horizon, and a lack of post

Archaic stage artifacts. Currently, only four possibly Late Archaic mounds or mound complexes

have been identified in northern Louisiana (Saunders et al. 1992). These include the Hedgepeth

Mounds (Site 16LI7), the Watson Brake Mounds

(Site 160U175), the Frenchman's Bend Mounds

(Site 160U259), and Hillman's Mound (Site

16MA201).

More recently, Saunders (1994, 1996) hypothesized that mound building began as early as

the Middle Archaic period. The Watson Brake

Mound Site (160U175), located near Monroe,

Louisiana was identified by Northeast Louisiana

University student Reca Jones in the 1970s. The

site was described as circular in configuration

with a diameter of approximately 275 m (900 ft);

it encompassed 11 separate mounds, with each

mound measuring between 1 and 6 m (3 and 20

ft) in height. Well preserved food remains recovered from the site, indicate that the Watson Brake

mound group was occupied seasonally for fishing

purposes. Recent research by Saunders strongly

suggests that the earthworks on the Watson Brake

Site are older than previously suspected, and that

the mounds were constructed approximately

5,400 years ago. If this date is accurate, the

mounds at the Watson Brake Site would represent

the earliest example of a prehistoric earthwork in

North America. This recent discovery contradicts

the assumption that Middle Archaic hunting and

gathering societies could not achieve the level of

social organization necessary for the construction

ofthe earthen mounds.

Poverty Point Culture (2000 - 500 B.C.)

Poverty Point represents a transitional culture that originated as early as ca. 2000 B.C., but

it did not exert its full influence until much later

(Neuman 1984). It is best known for exhibiting

several fundamental and distinguishing characteristics of a complex society, including massive

public architecture and long distance trade, while

still maintaining a hunting and foraging economy.

The Poverty Point type site (16WC5) is located

adjacent to Bayou Macon and near several major

rivers, including the Mississippi, Tensas,

Ouachita, and Boeuf, in West Carroll Parish,

Louisiana. This riverine location was ideal for

exploiting the flow of trade goods from other regions (Jeter and Jackson 1990:142; Müller 1978;

Neitzel and Perry 1977). Evidence for long distance trade recovered at Poverty Point includes

ceramics similar to those collected from the St.

Johns River region of Florida, and lithic materials

from deposits in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee (Connaway et al. 1977:106-119; Gibson 1974:26,

1979, 1994; Jeter and Jackson 1990; Lehmann

1982:11-18; Webb 1982:13-14). These data suggest that Poverty Point Culture may represent the

first chiefdom-level society to develop in the

eastern United States (Gibson 1985a; Müller

1978).

The Poverty Point type site (16WC5) is distinguished primarily by its large earthworks and

its complex microlithic industry. The earthwork

includes six, 15 to 46 m (50 to 150 ft) wide, segmented ridges that formed five sides of an octagon, and several other mounds scattered throughout the site area. The largest mound, Mound A,

resembles a bird, and this mound may represent a

large-scale earthen effigy (Webb 1982). At the

time of its construction, Poverty Point was the

largest mound site in the Americas.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

32
Chapter III: Prehistoric Setting

The material culture associated with the

Poverty Point Culture is quite distinctive. Typical

Poverty Point Culture projectile points include

Carrollton, Delhi, Epps, Gary, Kent, Motley, and

Pontchartrain types (Smith et al. 1983:152; Webb

1982:22, 47). Although these point types were in

use during the Archaic stage, they also were

manufactured during Poverty Point times (Gibson

1994). Other artifacts associated with the Poverty

Point Culture include atl atl weights, plummets,

two hole gorgets, red jasper beads and owl pendants, Jaketown perforators, finger-impressed

baked clay cooking balls, clay figurines and fetishes, thin micro flints/blades, and food storage

and preparation containers (Webb 1982). Container types included sandstone and steatite vessels, basketry, and ceramic vessels. Most ceramic

vessels were sand tempered, although a minority

contained grit, clay, or fiber temper or no temper

at all. Webb (1982) also reported the recovery of

seed processing implements, stone hoes, nutting

stones, and milling stones from Poverty Point

sites.

While Brain (1971) argued that Poverty

Point sites tended to be located in the bottomlands, Webb (1982) suggested that they occurred

across four different landform types. These included: (1) Quaternary terraces or older land

forms that overlook major stream courses; (2)

major river levees of active or relict river channels; (3) river-lake confluences; and (4) coastal

estuaries or older land form located within a

coastal marsh area. These areas were ideal for

exploiting forest-edge resources and for transporting exotic materials. Sites on these landforms

ranged in size from large ceremonial centers to

small hamlets or foraging stations. According to

Smith et al. (1983:96), only four Poverty Point

Culture sites have been recorded in Management

Unit V; two oftheses sites have been identified in

Iberville Parish.

Woodland Stage (1000 B.C. - A.D. 1100)

The emergence of the Woodland stage in

Louisiana prehistory was characterized by a combination of the introduction of horticulture, the

initial use of the bow and arrow, and the widespread adoption of ceramic containers. The

Woodland stage includes three divisions or periods: Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, and

Late Woodland. In Louisiana, the Early Woodland period (ca. 500 B.C - A.D. 0) is represented

by the Tchefuncte Culture, the Middle Woodland

period (ca. 100 B.C. - A.D. 400) is associated

with the Marksville Culture and to a lessor extent

with the Troyville Culture, and the Late Woodland period (ca. A.D. 400 - 1200) originated with

the Troyville Culture, but later was dominated by

the Coles Creek Culture. A discussion of each of

these cultures is presented below.

Tchefuncte Culture (500 B.C. - A.D. 0)

While the Tchefuncte Culture is characterized by the first widespread use of pottery, its tool

inventory otherwise resembled that of a Late Archaic period hunter-gatherer tradition (Byrd 1994;

Neuman 1984; Shenkel 1981:23). The Tchefuncte Culture first was identified at the type site

(16ST1) located on the north shore of Lake

Pontchartrain in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana

(Ford and Quimby 1945; Weinstein and Rivet

1978). Later, the Tchefuncte Culture was defined

by Ford and Quimby (1945) based on Works

Progress Administration (WPA) excavations at

Big Oak Island (160R6) and the Little Woods

Site (160R15) in Orleans Parish during the 1930s

and 1940s. While the Tchefuncte Culture initially

was thought to represent a local adaptation by an

indigenous population in the southern Louisiana

coastal region (Ford and Quimby 1945), Tchefuncte or Tchefuncte-like ceramics have been

recovered from southeast Missouri, northwest

Mississippi, the Yazoo Basin, coastal Alabama,

and east Texas (Brookes and Taylor 1986:23-27;

Mainfort 1986:54; Neuman 1984; Webb et al.

1969:32-35; Weinstein 1986:102).

A date range from ca. 500 B.C. - A.D. 100

generally has been accepted for the Tchefuncte

Culture; however, recent research indicates that

dates for the Tchefuncte Culture differ widely

from region to region and occasionally even

within the same area (Byrd 1994; Gibson 1976a,

1976b: 13; Webb et al. 1969:96; Weinstein 1986).

Most archeologists agree that the Tchefuncte Culture dates from as early as 700 B.C. in the south,

that it diffused to the north where it is known as

the Tchula Culture, and that it terminated around

A.D. 100 (Gibson and Shenkel 1988:14; Perrault

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

33
Chapter III: Prehistoric Setting

and Weinstein 1994:48-49; Shenkel 1974:47;

Toth 1988:19). Recent evidence suggests that

coastal Tchefuncte sites may have survived until

ca. A.D. 300 (Byrd 1994:23; Neuman 1984:135).

These dates suggest that the last remaining

coastal Tchefuncte communities were coeval with

sites associated with the late Marksville Culture

(Toth 1988:27-28).

Tchefuncte/Tchula ceramics usually are

characterized by a soft, chalky paste, and a laminated appearance in cross-section. They were

fired at low temperatures and they were tempered

either with sand or clay (Phillips 1970). Vessel

forms consisted of bowls, cylindrical and shouldered jars, and globular pots that sometimes exhibited podal supports. While many vessels were

plain, some were decorated with punctations, incisions, simple stamping, drag and jab, and rocker

stamping. Punctated types usually were more

numerous than the stamped types, but parallel and

zoned banding, stippled triangles, chevrons, and

nested diamonds also occur. During the later part

of this period, red filming also was used to decorate some vessels (Perrault and Weinstein

1994:46-47; Phillips 1970; Speaker et al.

1986:38). Tchefuncte/Tchula ceramic types included Alexander Incised, Wheeler Simple

Stamped, Wheeler Punctated, Jaketown Simple

Stamped, three Tchefuncte types (Plain, Stamped,

and Incised), and Lake Borgne Incised (Ford et

al. 1955). In addition, Ford et al. (1955) identified

a variety of fiber-tempered and fiber impressed

ceramic types.

For the most part, the stone and bone tool

assemblages characteristic ofthe Tchefuncte Culture remained nearly unchanged from the preceding Poverty Point times. Stone tools included boat

stones, grooved plummets, chipped celts, and

sandstone saws; bone tools included awls, fish

hooks, socketed antler points, and ornaments. In

addition, containers, punches, ornamental artifacts, and some tools such as chisels, were manufactured from shell. Projectile point/knife types

characteristic of Tchefuncte Culture include

Gary, Ellis, Delhi, Motley, Pontchartrain, Macon,

and Epps types (Ford and Quimby 1945; Smith et

al. 1983:163). Bone and antler artifacts, such as

points, hooks, awls, and handles, also became

increasingly common during this period.

Interior Tchefuncte/Tchula sites generally

are classified as villages or hamlets, although

shell middens also have been identified. Settlement usually occurred along the slack water environments of slow, secondary streams that drained

bottomlands and floodplain lakes (Neuman 1984;

Toth 1988:21-23). Both burials and artifacts recovered at Tchefuncte period sites suggest an

egalitarian social organization. Tchefuncte/

Tchula peoples probably were organized at the

band level, with as many as 25 to 50 individuals

per band. The widespread distribution of similar

ceramic types and motifs may imply a patrilocal

residence pattern with exogamous band marriage

arrangements (Speaker et al. 1986:39). Social

organization probably remained focused within

macrobands, and hunting, collecting, and fishing

remained integral to the Tchefuncte/Tchula way

oflife.

Data recovered from Tchefuncte sites document the wide variety of food resources utilized

during the period. Faunal remains recovered from

these sites include deer, opossum, muskrat, raccoon, otter, bear, fox, dog, ocelot, wildcat, alligator, bird, fish, shellfish, and turtle (both aquatic

and terrestrial). Recovered plant remains (all nondomesticated) include squash, gourds, plums,

nuts, grapes, and persimmons (Neuman 1984;

Smith et al. 1983). Neuman (1984) noted that the

remains of crustaceans such as crabs, shrimp, and

crawfish do not appear within Tchefuncte/Tchula

middens.

According to Smith et al. (1983:96), only 22

Tchefuncte Culture sites have been documented

in Management Unit V. Ofthese 22 sites, the majority of them (n=17 [77 percent]) are located in

Jefferson and Orleans Parishes. Only one Tchefuncte Culture site has been recorded in Iberville

Parish, Louisiana.

Marksville Culture 000 B.C. - A.D. 400)

The Marksville Culture, named for the

Marksville Site (16AV1) in Avoyelles Parish,

Louisiana, often is viewed as a local manifestation of the midwestem Hopewellian Culture,

which extended down the Mississippi River from

Illinois (Toth 1988:29-73). Complex geometric

earthworks, conical burial mounds for elites, and

unique mortuary ritual systems indicate a highly

organized social structure during Marksville

times. Some items, such as elaborately decorated

ceramics, were manufactured primarily as mortuary objects. Burial items included pearl beads,

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

34
Chapter III: Prehistoric Setting

carved stone effigy pipes, copper ear spools, copper tubes, galena beads, and carved coal objects.

Hopewellian influences declined and mortuary

practices became less complex, however, toward

the end of the Marksville period (Smith et al.

1983; Speaker et al. 1986).

Ceramic decorative motifs such as crosshatching, U-shaped incised lines, zoned dentate

rocker stamping, cord-wrapped stick impressions,

stylized birds, and bisected circles were shared by

potters in the Marksville and Hopewell Cultures

(Toth 1988:45-50). Other Marksville traits include a stone tool assemblage of knives, scrapers,

celts, drills, ground stone at! atl weights, plummets, medium to large stemmed projectile points,

bone awls and fishhooks, and baked clay balls. In

addition, a variety of non-local artifacts commonly found at Marksville sites suggests the existence of extensive trade networks and possibly a

ranked, non-egalitarian society. Some commonly

recovered items include imported copper earspools, panpipes, platform pipes, figurines, and

beads (Neuman 1984; Toth 1988:50-73).

Little currently is known about Marksville

subsistence. Presumably, Marksville peoples employed a hunting, fishing, and gathering subsistence strategy much like those associated with

earlier periods. Oily seeds, such as marshelder

(Iva annua), sunflower {Helianthus annus), and

squash {Cucurbita pepö), and starchy seeds, such

as goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.), maygrass

{Phalaris caroliniana), knotweed (Polygonum

sp.), and little barley {Horduem pusillum), also

were consumed (Fritz and Kidder 1993:7; Smith

1986:51). At the Reno Brake Site (16TE93) in

Tensas Parish, Kidder and Fritz (1993) recovered

the remains of deer, squirrel, rabbit, bird, and

fish, as well as acorns, persimmon, palmetto,

grapes, blackberries, and very minor amounts of

Chenopodium and marshelder. Although maize

has been identified and dated from Middle Woodland contexts at sites in Tennessee and Ohio

(Ford 1987), it probably was not important in

Louisiana until Mississippian times (Fritz and

Kidder 1993:7, 294; Smith 1986:50-51).

A total of 23 Marksville Culture sites have

been recorded in Management Unit V. Only two

ofthose sites, however, have been documented in

Iberville Parish (Smith et al. 1983:46).

Troyville-Coles Creek Period (ca. A.D. 400 -

1200)

Troyville Culture, elsewhere described as

Baytown, was named after the Troyville mound

group (16CT7) in Jonesville, Catahoula Parish,

Louisiana. It represents a transition from the

Middle to Late Woodland period that culminated

in the Coles Creek Culture (Gibson 1984).

Though distinct, Troyville and Coles Creek cultures are sufficiently similar that many researchers interpret them as a single prehistoric cultural

unit. According to Neuman (1984:169), 23 C

14

dates from 14 Troyville sites in Louisiana place

the beginning ofthe period at approximately A.D.

395. Continuing developments in agriculture and

the technological refinement of the bow and arrow during this time period (reflected by the appearance of Alba, Catahoula, Friley, Hayes, and

Livermore projectile point types), radically altered prehistoric life. During the Troyville cultural period, bean {Phaseolus vulgaris) and

squash agriculture may have became widespread.

This shift in subsistence practices probably initiated the development ofmore complex settlement

patterns and social organization.

The Late Woodland Coles Creek Culture

emerged from the Troyville Culture around A.D.

750, and it represented an era of considerable

economic and social change in the Lower Mississippi Valley. By the end of the Coles Creek period, communities were larger and more socially

and politically complex. Large-scale mound construction occurred and there is evidence for the

resumption of long-distance trade on a scale not

seen since Poverty Point times. These changes

imply chiefdoms were reemerging in the Lower

Mississippi Valley (Müller 1978). The possible

diffusion of material and sociopolitical concepts

from the Midwest may be indicated by the fact

that Coles Creek ceramics have been recovered

from early Cahokian contexts dating from ca.

A.D. 900 in southeastern Missouri (Kelly

1990:136). These changes probably initiated the

transformation of Coles Creek cultural traits into

what now is recognized as the Plaquemine Culture sometime before A.D. 1200 (Jeter et al.

1989; Williams and Brain 1983).

Coles Creek ceramic vessels are distinguished by their grog and grog/sand tempering.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

35
Chapter III: Prehistoric Setting

Decorative motifs include cord marking, red filming, and simplified zoned rocker-stamping, as

well as decorations with incised lines and curvilinear lines. Coles Creek peoples continued to use

Troyville wares, with some elaborations

(Mclntire 1958). For instance, the Churupa Punctated and the Mazique Incised designs, both of

which are characteristic of the Troyville Culture,

were used by Coles Creek and later Plaquemine

pottery makers (Mclntire 1958). Similarly,

French Fork Incised, which formed the basis for

many Troyville classifications, continued to be

used well into the Coles Creek period (Phillips

1970).

Coles Creek peoples also developed a new

ceramic complex that included larger vessels and

a wider range of decorative motifs, usually positioned on the upper portion of the vessel (Neuman 1984). Coles Creek Incised, Beldeau Incised,

and Pontchartrain Check Stamped are typical examples of these wares (Phillips 1970; Weinstein

et al. 1979). One distinctive decorative type, Coles Creek Incised, contains a series of parallel

incised lines placed perpendicular to the rim of

the vessel, often accompanied underneath by a

row of triangular impressions (Phillips 1970:70;

Phillips et al. 1951:96-97). Several ofthe ceramic

motifs reflect external cultural influences. French

Fork Incised motifs and decorative techniques,

for example, mimic almost exactly Weeden Island Incised and Weeden Island Punctated types

from the GulfCoast ofnorthwest Florida (Phillips

1970:84; Phillips et al. 1951:101; Willey

1949:411-422). Pontchartrain Check Stamped

ceramics also appear at the same time as the resurgence of the check stamped ceramic tradition

during Weeden Island m in northwest Florida

(Brown 1982:31).

Sites from the Coles Creek cultural period

primarily were situated along stream systems

where soil composition and fertility were favorable for agriculture. Natural levees, particularly

those situated along old cutoffs and inactive

channels, appear to have been the most desired

locations (Neuman 1984). Most large Coles

Creek sites contain one or more pyramidal

mounds. Coles Creek mounds typically are larger

and they exhibit more building episodes than the

earlier Marksville burial mounds. While burials

occasionally are recovered, the primary function

of the Coles Creek mounds appears to have been

ceremonial. At some Coles Creek sites, mounds

are connected by low, narrow causeways; plazas

occasionally are associated with these multiple

mound sites (Gibson 1985b). According to Williams and Brain (1983), these traits reflect Mesoamerican influences.

The complexity of the Coles Creek mound

system suggests a social structure capable of supporting a centralized authority with a sizable labor force to construct and maintain the mounds.

The non-elite population probably occupied the

region surrounding the large ceremonial centers

(Gibson 1985b; Neuman 1984; Smith et al.

1983). In general, small Coles Creek sites consist

mostly of hamlets and shell middens, and they

normally do not contain mounds.

Recent work has dispelled the theory that an

intensification of agriculture, particularly maize

and squash cultivation, comprised the subsistence

base of the Coles Creek Culture. Although Coles

Creek populations exhibit tooth decay rates consistent with a diet based on starchy foods such as

maize, the limited archeobotanical evidence for

maize in Coles Creek midden deposits suggests

that consumption of some other starchy foods

may have been the cause (Kidder 1992; Steponaitis 1986). While researchers speculate that cultigens, especially squash species, were harvested

by Coles Creek peoples, evidence of dependence

on domesticated plants has been lacking at early

Coles Creek sites (Kidder and Fritz 1993; Kidder

1992). The preponderance of evidence now available indicates that the cultivation and consumption of maize was not widespread in the lower

Mississippi Valley until after the Coles Creek

period, ca. A.D. 1200 (Kidder 1992:26; Kidder

and Fritz 1993).

Earlier assumptions about the nature and

extent of social and political differentiation during Coles Creek also must be re-examined.

Square-sided, flat-topped mounds that are believed to have served as platform bases for elite

structures first appeared during the Coles Creek

period. Evidence for elite residential or mortuary

structures often said to be associated with these

mounds, however, remains elusive prior to A.D.

1000 (Kidder and Fritz 1993; Smith 1986; Steponaitis 1986). Nevertheless, both the form of

the platform mounds and their arrangement

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.

36
Chapter III: Prehistoric Setting

around plazas may be indicative of Mesoamerican influence (Willey and Phillips 1958;

Williams and Brain 1983).

A total of 112 Troyville/Coles Creek sites

have been recorded in Management Unit V, more

than any other prehistoric period. Significant

numbers ofthese sites are located in almost every

parish within the Management Unit. In Iberville

Parish, only seven Coles Creek period sites have

been identified (Smith et al. 1983:96).

Mississippian Stage (A.D. 1200 - 1700)

The Mississippian stage represents a cultural

climax both in population growth and social and

political organization for those cultures occupying the southeastern United States (Dye and Cox

1990; Phillips 1970; Williams and Brain 1983).

The advent of the Mississippian stage is represented at sites throughout the lower Mississippi

Valley and along the northern GulfCoast. Mississippian period sites are recognized by a distinctive complex of traits that include shell tempered

ceramics, triangular arrow points, coppersheathed wooden earspools, and maize/beans/

squash agriculture (Williams and Brain 1983).

Mississippian sites containing large "temple

mounds" and plazas have been recorded throughout the Southeast at such places as Winterville,

Transylvania, Natchez, Moundville, Bottle Creek,

and Etowah (Hudson 1978; Knight 1984;

Walthall 1980; Williams and Brain 1983).

In the lower Mississippi Valley, the Mississippian stage includes the Plaquemine or Emergent Mississippian period (ca. A.D. 1200 - 1450)

and the Late Mississippian period (ca. A.D. 1450

- 1700). Each of these periods are described below.

Emergent Mississippian Period (A.D. 1200 -

1450)

The Emergent Mississippian period -

Plaquemine Culture appears to represent a transitional phase from the Coles Creek Culture to a

pure Mississippian Culture (Kidder 1988). The

emerging Mississippian Cultures of the Middle

Mississippi Valley probably exerted enough influence during the latter part of the Coles Creek

period to initiate the cultural changes that eventually defined the Plaquemine Culture. Plaquemine

Culture peoples continued the settlement patterns,

economic organization, and religious practices

established during the Coles Creek period; sociopolitical structure and religious ceremonialism,

however, were intensified. This suggests, among

other things, a complex social hierarchy. Large

ceremonial sites, which typically contained multiple mounds surrounding a central plaza, were

constructed. Smaller dispersed villages and hamlets also formed part of the settlement hierarchy

(Neuman 1984).

Although Plaquemine Culture ceramics are

derived from the Coles Creek tradition, they display distinctive features that mark the emergence

of a new cultural tradition. In addition to incising

and punctating pottery, Plaquemine Culture

craftsmen also brushed and engraved their vessels

(Phillips 1970). Plaquemine Culture ceramic

types include Plaquemine Brushed, Leland Incised, Hardy Incised, L'Eau Noire Incised, Anna

Burnished Plain, and Addis Plain. Plaquemine

Brushed appears to have been the most common

ware type (Kidder 1988:75).

Gregory (1969) reports that Plaquemine Culture sites in the Catahoula basin demonstrate a

propensity toward settlement in lowland areas,

including swamps and marshes. This position is

supported by both Jeter (1982) and Schambach

(1981) in reference to southeast Arkansas and the

Felsenthal region of that state. In contrast, Neuman (1984) cites Hall's observation that Plaquemine Culture sites in the upper Tensas Basin were

located most frequently on well-drained natural

levees characterized by sandy soils. In the Boeuf

Basin, Kidder and Williams (1984) note that

Plaquemine Culture components frequently overlie earlier Coles Creek period occupations.

A total of 57 Plaquemine period sites have

been recorded in Management Unit V. Only

seven Plaquemine Culture sites have been documented in Iberville Parish (Smith et al. 1983:96).

Late Mississippian Period ("A.D. 1450 -1700)

As early as A.D. 1450, several traits that

now are definitive of the Mississippian period

were wide-spread across most of the Southeast.

These diagnostic traits include well-planned

mound groups, a wide distribution of sites and

trade networks, a revival in ceremonial burial of

the dead, and production of shell tempered ceramics (Griffin 1990:7-9), an innovation that enabled potters to create larger vessels (Brain 1971;

Steponaitis 1983). Ceramic vessel forms include

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

37
Chapter III: Prehistoric Setting

globular jars, plates, bottles, pots, and salt pans.

Additionally, the loop handle appeared on many

Mississippian vessels. Although utilitarian plainware was common, decorative techniques included engraving, negative painting, and incising;

modeled animal heads and anthropomorphic images also adorned these ceramic vessels. Other

Mississippian artifacts included chipped and

groundstone tools; shell items such as hairpins,

beads, and gorgets; mica and copper items; and

projectile point types such as Alba and Bassett.

Mississippian subsistence was based on the

cultivation of maize, beans, squash, and pumpkins, the collection of local plants, nuts, and

seeds, and fishing and hunting of local species.

Major Mississippian sites were located on fertile

bottomlands of major river valleys, in terrain

characterized by sandy and light loam soils. A

typical Mississippian settlement consisted of an

orderly arrangement of village houses surrounding a truncated pyramidal mound. These mounds

served as platforms for temples or as houses for

the elite. A highly organized and complex social

system undoubtedly existed to plan these intricate

communities.

A total of 50 Mississippian period sites have

been identified in Management Unit V. Only five

Mississippian period sites have been identified in

Iberville Parish (Smith et al. 1983:96.)

Protohistoric and Early Historic Period (ca.

411 - 220 B.P. [A.D. 1539 - 1730])

An understanding of protohistoric and historic Native American cultures of the southeastern United States is limited by our frequent

inability to recognize the prehistoric cultures from

which these historic groups were derived. This is

due partially to the waning influence of Mississippian and, to a lesser degree, Plaquemine Culture, but primarily it is a result of the social disruption initiated by the legacy ofthe Hernando de

Soto entrada of 1539 - 1543, and the subsequent

French and Spanish exploration and colonization

of the Southeast. Native American population

upheavals and depletions were related to warfare,

disruptive migrations, and epidemics introduced

by European contact (Davis 1984; Smith 1987).

Villages apparently remained similar to

those observed previously at Plaquemine and

Mississippian sites. The larger villages generally

featured one or more truncated pyramidal

mounds surmounted by chiefs' houses and temples; the remainder ofthe population lived in the

area surrounding the mounds and in satellite

hamlets. Houses were rectangular in shape and

were constructed of poles placed in the ground,

with wattle and daub walls and thatched roofs

(Swanton 1946).

According to Louisiana's Comprehensive

Archaeological Plan (Smith et al. 1983), the major Native American languages spoken in the

northwestern portion of Management Unit V at

the time of European contact belonged to the

Muskhogean family. These linguistic groups were

comprised of the Houma, Bayougoula, Acolapissa, Mugulasha, Tangipahoa, Okelousa,

Washa, and Chawasha. While many of these

groups lived in the southern portion of the Management Unit, the Bayougoula were associated

most closely with the parishes that contain the

proposed project reach.

According to Kniffen et al. (1987:50), the

Bayougoula (the Bayou or River People) resided

on the west bank of the Mississippi River. They

established a small community housing some 400

to 500 people near the Town of Plaquemine in

Iberville Parish, Louisiana. On his expedition up

the Mississippi River, Iberville visited a Bayougoula village located approximately one quarter of a mile from the right descending bank of

the river and situated adjacent to a small creek

utilized as a source of fresh water (Kniffen et al.

1987:50). Soon after the arrival ofthe French, the

Bayougoula and the other Muskogean-speaking

groups of the area, including the Acolapissa,

Quinapisa, Mugulasha, and Tangipahoa, lost their

separate identities as tribes. These groups simply

became referred to as the Colapissas by French

settlers. By the nineteenth century, there was no

longer any mention of the Bayougoula tribe in

Iberville Parish. Some scholars have suggested

that tribe merged with the Houma (Kniffen et al.

1987:90), but evidence demonstrating this hypothesis is lacking.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

38
CHAPTERIV

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

Introduction

The history of the project region is directly

related to the unique and changing environment of the Eastern Atchafalaya Basin (Figure 6). Cultural activities conducted throughout

the basin during this period primarily involved

the exploitation ofnatural resources. The following overview outlines the cultural processes that

contributed to the historical development of the

project region and it includes comparisons ofthe

French, Spanish, and American patterns of colonization, and discussions pertaining to the various ethnic groups that migrated to and scattered

throughout the region.

The French Colonial Period

The first historical account describing the

Iberville Parish region was recorded in 1699 by

the French explorer Pierre le Moyne, Sieur d'

Iberville. Iberville descended the Mississippi

River in an attempt to counter British expansion

within the Gulf Coast region and to justify

French hegemony in the Mississippi River Valley. After a six week journey, Iberville arrived in

the vicinity of what would later be called Iberville Parish, in his honor. On March 14, 1699 he

recorded in his journal that there was a creek

used by the Outymascha (Chitimachas) positioned along the left side of the Mississippi

River. This creek, called Bayou Plaquemine,

was named because of the persimmon trees that

lined its banks (Postell 1942). In addition, Iberville encountered the villages of the Bayougoula

and the Houma Indians (McWilliams 1981).

To lessen the economic burden of managing the Louisiana colony, the French government decided to entrust the administration and

development ofthe colony to private hands (Riffel et al. 1985:4). The first such concession was

granted to the Company of Louisiana, established by Antoine Crozat in 1712, and it soon

was followed by the Mississippi Company directed by John Law and Bienville's Company of

the West in 1718. The Company of Louisiana

was given a full monopoly over production and

export from the colony, as well as mineral rights

to the land. Unfortunately, the desire for gold led

Crozat on a fruitless search, and agriculture and

trade remained underdeveloped. After the fifth

year of his fifteen year concession, Crozat's

losses seemed insurmountable, and he surrendered his charter in 1717. Later that same year,

the Company of the West was granted the charter for Louisiana. Law understood that profits

could not be realized from a colony with such a

small population. Consequently, in order to attract new settlers to the territory, Law offered

tracts of land to all men who would establish

agricultural settlements within the struggling

colony. One of these grants, known as the Paris

Duvernay Concession, "was located at the ancient village of the Bayogoula [sic] Indians on

the west bank ofthe river," i.e., near modern day

Bayou Goula (Riffel et al. 1985:4). An inventory

conducted in 1726 (Pritchard 1938:979-994)

depicted the settlement as "four square leagues

containing about seventy arpents cleared and

which are at present planted in rice, potatoes,

etc." Although it was beset by administrative

problems, the Paris Duvernay Concession represented a successful early attempt at upriver settlement. Despite the early success of the Paris

concession, the eastern Atchafalaya Basin region

had no real permanent settlement until the arriR. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.

39
Chapter IV: Historical Overview

ATCHAFALAYA

BASIN

Approximate Location

Figure 6. Illustration of the Atchafalaya Basin.

val ofthe Acadians at St. Gabriel in 1776 (Riffel

etal. 1985).

Because the first French colonization efforts in the Lower Mississippi Valley were concentrated on agricultural lands positioned along

the Mississippi River above and below New Orleans, inundated, low-lying back swamp areas,

like the Atchafalaya Basin, remained unsettled.

In addition, the study area during the historic

contact period contained numerous warring Native American tribes, e.g., the Chitimacha, the

Bayogoula, the Mougoulachas, and the Ouma.

As a result of these factors, there is no documented evidence of extensive European settlement in the study region during the French colonial period.

The European wars of the mid-eighteenth

century, which culminated in the Seven Years'

War (1756-63), proved disastrous for France.

Financially and militarily unable to support the

colony any longer, France ceded Louisiana to

Spain in 1762 by the Treaty of Fontainebleau. It

was not until 1766, however, that the Spanish

governor, Don Antonio Ulloa, arrived in Louisiana to begin Spanish administration of the territory (Riffel et al. 1985).

The Spanish Colonial Period

St. Gabriel was established by Spanish

colonists dispatched to the Mississippi River

area above New Orleans after

France ceded Louisiana to

Spain in 1762. In response to

the British settlements at Fort

Bute, Manchac, and Fort New

Richmond (Baton Rouge),

Spain encouraged Acadian

refugees exiled from Nova

Scotia to settle outposts in

Louisiana (Figure 7). Under

the command of Joseph de

Onieta, Fort St. Gabriel was

constructed south of Bayou

Manchac, i.e., 24.1 km (15.0

mi) from the current project

area. According to reports

provided by Onieta to the

Spanish Governor Ulloa, the

St. Gabriel outpost constantly

was threatened by Native

Americans and disease (Riffel

et al. 1985). Although the Spanish initiated

colonization in the Mississippi River region near

Bayou Manchac for military reasons, they stimulated the creation of frontier settlements by welcoming Acadians to Louisiana by the hundreds,

even after the English had abandoned their East

Florida territories outpost in 1768.

It became apparent during latter decades of

the French colonial era that the economic future

of Louisiana lay in the development of commercial agriculture on the productive floodplains.

When the Spanish took over the administration

of the colony, they continued the practice of

granting land to new settlers. The Acadians

originally settled along the Mississippi River in

what are now St. James, Ascension, and Iberville Parishes, an area known as the "Acadian

Coast." Unlike the wealthier French European

planters who bought large concessions and used

large contingents of slaves to work their plantation fields, most of the immigrating Acadians

were "petite habitants," or small farmers. Like

the German Rhinelanders who settled the "Des

Allemands," the German Coast (in the present

day parishes of St. Charles and St. John the Baptist), the Acadians worked their own fields

(Kniffen 1974).

Along the Acadian Coast, the pattern of

Spanish ". . . land grants firmly established an

enduring pattern of small independent farms

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

40
Chapter IV: Historical Overview

Figure 7. Areas of Acadian Settlement, 1785.

which effectively retarded the wholesale development of large plantation^]," as well as the

institution of slavery (Conrad 1979:76). This

does not mean that Acadians opposed slavery,

but, rather, they could not afford them. Over 70

percent of Louisiana families owned no slaves,

and in the South as a whole, membership in the

"planter class" (requiring the ownership of 20 or

more slaves) was rare (Conrad 1979). Those

who were not in the "planter class" were not

counted in the census, therefore population data

for the area is inaccurate. The resourceful Acadians found Louisiana the perfect locale for their

autonomous communities. Successful Acadian

settlements spread from the confines of the Mississippi River to the outlying bayous. Soon the

French speaking Acadians were

the dominate ethnic group in

Louisiana (Rushton 1979).

As the Acadians arrived in

larger numbers, Spain granted

patents, or concessions, at increasing distances from New

Orleans along the Mississippi

River. Eventually, only the less

desirable bayou lands remained.

Immigrants who were too poor

to afford property became tenant

farmers or squatters. Although

tenant farms and squatters were

not historically accountable,

they were crucial to the establishment ofthe back country and

they were the first to establish

permanent outlying settlements

in the Atchafalaya basin interior.

Many of the descendants of

these poor settlers later acquired

property through "Squatter's

Rights," and they played an important role in the development

of bayou country culture

(Comeaux 1972). Already

accustomed to living in the New

World at colonial establishments

in Nova Scotia, the French Acadians who settled the outlying

bayou frontier learned from the

indigenous inhabitants and

quickly adapted to their environment. For example, the new

settlers learned how to build log canoes called

"peroques" (pirogues). This adaptation was crucial because the first boats used regularly by the

French in the lower valley were "chaloupes" and

"canots." These deep rafted and wind powered

boats vessels sat low in the water, making

movement upstream arduous (Walker 1965).

The largest pirogues, on the other hand, could

hold 30 passengers or 40 to 50 tons of cargo, and

because they were hewn from cypress, they were

remarkably buoyant (Walker 1965).

The Spaniards were mostly military administrators and they failed in developing strong

Spanish communities. Unlike the Spanish colonies in Peru and Mexico, where gold was plentiful, the Louisiana territory was strategic, but not

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

41
Chapter IV: Historical Overview

necessarily profitable. Considering these facts,

the Spanish lacked the motivation to transport

their culture to Louisiana. This contributed to

early assimilation and a concomitant lack of persistent Spanish traditions, language, and customs. The early Spanish speaking settlers in the

region were called "Islenos," because they came

from the Canary Islands. They were not as successful, however, as the Acadians in adapting to

pioneer life in Louisiana. The Islenos lived under a paternalistic government and they were

unaccustomed to self reliance. The commandant

of Galveztown, one of the first settlements in

Iberville Parish (founded by Governor Galvez in

1778), reported that he had to tell the settlers

what to do all the time: "besides farming [and

cattle raising], they had no talents or trades"

(Riffeletal. 1985:7).

Because the Spanish were traditionally

ranchers instead of farmers, they were not responsible for any of the major agricultural

changes in Louisiana. Cattle raising was more

important than field agriculture in the grassy

prairies of the mostly Acadian Attakapas and

Opelousas regions of the great Atchafalaya

swamp (Conrad 1979). While the French arpent

system was convenient for planting crops, it was

not well suited for the pasture land requirements

of the cattle industry (Kniffen 1974). For that

reason the Spanish repartitioned the arpent divisions into larger squares and rectangles of as

many as 1,822 ha (4,500 ac) for the vacheries, or

ranches.

The study area during the

late eighteenth century was

preeminently part of a water

transportation network that

traversed the Atchafalaya Basin to the Attakapas and Opelousas regions. A northern

route that proceeded west from

the Mississippi River followed

Bayou Plaquemine to Bayou

Grosse Tete and then along the

Grand River, Atchafalaya

River, and Bayou Courtableau

to Bayou Teche at Port Barre.

The southern route followed

Bayou Plaquemine, Grand

River, and Bayou Sorrel into

Grand Lake (Comeaux 1972).

Trappers and traders traversed the bayous and

cypress swamps ofthe region throughout the late

eighteenth century.

By the end of the eighteenth century, Spain

no longer could afford the struggling colony and

ceded Louisiana back to France in 1800 by the

Treaty of San Ildefonso. France then sold Louisiana to the United States in 1803.

The Louisiana Purchase and Antebellum Development

The U.S. Congress created a territorial government in Louisiana in 1804, and William C.C.

Claiborne, the first American governor, arrived

in New Orleans in 1805 (Figure 8). In 1807, after an unsuccessful experiment in forming counties as administrative units, the legislature divided the state into 19 parishes, to serve as the

basis for local government (Lowrie and Franklin

1834).

The Eastern Atchafalaya Basin region was

still developing slowly at the time the United

States government acquired Louisiana in 1803.

Henry Marie Brackenridge, who traveled down

the Mississippi River in 1811, wrote that "the

greater part of the tract of the Atchafalaya,

Bayou Plaquemine, and the Mississippi, is low

and uninhabitable land of which no use can be

made in its present state" (Riffel et al. 1985).

Shortly after the acquisition of Louisiana,

the United States government recognized the

need for territorial surveys and legal ratification

Figure 8. The Louisiana Purchase, 1803.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.

42
Chapter IV: Historical Overview

of land ownership in the region. Local landowners were required to register formal claims; legal

ownership was based on proof of French or

Spanish grants, patents, concessions, or orders of

survey. Ifrecords were not available, proof of 10

years of habitation and cultivation of the plot

prior to 1803 was acceptable (Lowrie and Franklin 1834). Most of the grants in Iberville Parish

were located along the Mississippi River. Darby

(1817) states that Galveztown on Bayou Manchac was the only village in the parish.

Economic success in Louisiana, absent under the French and Spanish governments, finally

was achieved under the jurisdiction of the

United States. In 1795, Etienne de Bore successfully granulated sugar from sugar cane and this

sparked the growth of what would become Louisiana's major industry. Because of this development, along with the invention of the cotton

gin, sugar cane and cotton cultivation emerged

as profitable enterprises throughout the state

(Sitterson 1953). With the acquisition of Louisiana by the United States, Americans from the

north began trekking southward to try their luck

as planters: "Rich and poor, slaveholder and

nonslaveholder, large planter and small farmer . . .

all poured into this rapidly developing region.

Among the newcomers were planters with the

capital necessary to undertake sugar culture and

the initiative and imagination to foresee the possibilities of the development of the new industry" (Sitterson 1953:23).

Change in land use and distribution occurred very quickly. Substantial capital was required for sugar mills, protective levees, and

slaves. Small farmers and landowners increasingly sold their holdings to large plantation

owners and wealthy speculators (White

1944:352). When a small farm was offered for

sale on the owner's death, the high valuation of

the land kept prices above the reach of the small

farmers (Sitterson 1953: 48). Under the United

States administration, backlands were offered

for sale, enabling landowners to add an additional forty arpents of land to the rear of their

holdings. Furthermore, cane cultivation was only

profitable on a large scale, requiring large land

holdings and investments that could exceed

$200,000.00 (Taylor 1976:65). These factors all

led to a pattern where small farms were consolidated into larger plantations.

Cotton also was an important crop for

southern Louisiana farmers, but the introduction

of the heartier "Ribbon Cane" sugar in 1817,

together with a drop in cotton prices and several

disastrous cotton seasons, caused a widespread

shift to sugar production in the 1830s and 1840s.

In the River Parishes below Baton Rouge, including "Sweet Iberville", sugar planting became the dominant, almost universal, industry

during the antebellum period {South Louisiana

Salute 1949: 1).

By the 1830s, small villages such as Grosse

Tete, Grand River, and later Bayou Sorrel began

to develop along the natural levees of the various bayous of the Atchafalaya region (Postell

1942). Agriculture began along Bayous Pigeon

and Sorrel and Grand River by 1845 {Planter's

Banner 1847). This area was developed primarily by absentee landlords, and it was dependant

heavily on slave labor (Comeaux 1972). Between 1850 and 1860, however, floods ruined

crop after crop in the interior basin. Perhaps to

compensate economically for such losses, in

1853 there was a saw mill located just west of

Bayou Sorrel at Grand River (G.W.R. Bayley

map) (Figure 9).

Civil War and Aftermath

Most hostilities during the Civil War in the

Atchafalaya Basin were centered at the Confederate strongholds along Bayou Teche and in the

Opelousas Prairie. Under the command of General Benjamin Butler, and later of General Nathaniel P. Banks, the Union Army captured New

Orleans and tried to break Confederate positions

throughout the basin. The recent completion of

the New Orleans, Opelousas, and Great Western

Railroad between Algiers and Brashear City

(Morgan City) enabled the Union Army to access the strategic Teche region to carry out their

invasion plans. Confederate forces along the

Teche were under the command of General

Richard Taylor, a Louisiana native familiar with

the bayou terrain. Taylor successfully thwarted

Union efforts to capture the Teche region and

Fort Bisland near Calumet. Eventually, Taylor's

forces were surrounded by General Weitzel and

his troops who were stationed at Brashear City,

along with the men of General Groves who

marched from Bayou Beouf and General Emory,

whose men were positioned along Bayou Ramos.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

43
Chapter IV: Historical Overview

Figure 9. The project area in 1861 (including the Bayou Sorrel Saw Mill

on the Grand River).

Lieutenant John Watson, the naval commander

of the Emory expedition, found that driftwood

rafts blocked Bayou Sorrel and Lake Chicot,

making it impossible to transport his troops

through Upper Grand River via this route

(Raphael 1975). The Confederate army, after

numerous battles and strategic troop movements,

was forced to retreat out of the basin, fleeing to

Alexandria and then to Shreveport.

' Meanwhile along the eastern side of the

basin, the principal obstacle for the Union forces

was Port Hudson on the Mississippi River north of Baton

Rouge. General Banks prepared

to bring Union forces through

Bayou Plaquemine, then north

through the recently cleared

Atchafalaya River to the Red

River, and finally east to the Mississippi River above Port Hudson. By advancing through the

Red River, the main supply route

to Port Hudson would be severed. The costly siege of Port

Hudson, however, allowed for

the retreating Taylor to muster a

counterattack in the Teche country by advancing two Confederate armies on Brashear City. Taylor, with the help of the Texas

Calvary, successfully routed the

Union forces at Brashear City

and reestablished their strategic

advantage through the Basin. The

Atchafalaya Basin remained an

unconquerable battleground until

the end of the war in 1865 (Gibson 1982).

Reconstruction Period

Agriculture in the Atchafalaya Basin virtually ceased during the Civil War (Comeaux

1972). The swamps of lower

Louisiana became a refuge for

Southerners avoiding the rigid

Confederate conscription policy

(Shugg 1939). Many of these

English speaking draft dodgers

and Yankee deserters settled in

Bayou Chene, i.e., approximately

16.1 km (10.0 mi) to the west ofthe current project area (near the outlet of the Bayou Sorrel

channel). This area developed a reputation for

being a particularly rough place (Comeaux

1972; Gibson 1982).

The Civil War devastated Iberville Parish.

The value of property in the Parish on the eve of

Civil War was assessed at approximately

$14,000,000.00. At that time, 13,355 ha (33,000

ac) were planted in cane, 8,903 ha (22,000 ac)

were planted in corn, and 607 ha (1,500 ac) were

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.

44
ChapterIV: Historical Overview

planted in cotton. The white population of the

parish numbered 5,600; the slave population was

estimated at 10,000. Only 200 free persons of

color resided in the parish (Pritchard

1938:1129).

The slave-based sugar industry was thrown

into turmoil by the Civil War. Prices fell, credit

was ruined, and it was nearly impossible to keep

slaves on the plantations (Begnaud 1980:38-39;

Goodwin and Yakubik 1982). As a result of

these financial difficulties, many planters lost

their estates. After the war, the industry was

slow to recover from the disruption it had suffered. A pervasive lack of capital impeeded the

revitalization of the industry. Planters could not

afford to rebuild their sugar houses, nor could

they repair the levees that had been neglected

during the war years. Without proper levees,

many former sugar plantations were inundated

during high water. In addition, the loss of slave

labor further encumbered the economic recovery. Many former slaves migrated north, and

those who stayed were regarded as unreliable;

they were perceived by the white population as a

political threat. Bouchereau and Bouchereau

(1868-1869:vii) noted that "not more than two

out of every twenty sugar planters have a full

compliment of laborers".

These fundamental obstacles necessitated

great changes in the sugar industry. Since most

planters lacked both the capital and the laborers

to manufacture sugar, a new method was proposed by Bouchereau in 1874. He urged that the

agricultural and industrial aspects of sugar production be separated. His proposal, the "Central

Factory System," included centralized mills to

serve the needs of many planters: "Let the sugar

factories be established in different neighborhoods and let the producers of the cane sell it to

the factory" (Bouchereau and Bouchereau

1874:xii-xiii).

In this way, the increased labor costs could

be absorbed by the savings on mill processing

and manufacturing. The system also allowed

smaller farmers to participate in cultivating

sugar; impoverished farmers were able to grow

sugar cane on their smaller tracts and then sell it

to the factory. Under the antebellum plantation

system, small scale production had been unfeasible.

Rice cultivation became a viable alternative

to the high cost of sugar cane production for

many planters. In 1877, Bouchereau wrote:

"Many of the sugar plantations are planted in

rice for want of the necessary means to rebuild

or repair sugar houses, etc., while others are only

partially cultivated owing to the encroachment

of water from crevasses, and many are completely abandoned on account of overflow"

(Bouchereau and Bouchereau 1877-78:XX).

Rice was a more appropriate crop for the neglected postbellum plantations since inundation,

although harmful to the growth of sugar cane,

was necessary for rice cultivation. Rice agriculture was also much less labor intensive than

sugar cane cultivation, an added incentive to

landowners facing a labor shortage (Goodwin et

al. 1988).

By the end of the nineteenth century, sugar

had regained its prominence as an agricultural

staple, particularly in the River Parishes. The

Centra] Factory System caught on and it was

quite successful; in 1893 Bouchereau remarked:

Gradually the cultivation of cane and the

manufacture of sugar from it are becoming

separate and distinct industries. Men of

means invest their capital in equipping first

class factories furnished with all the modern

improvements that the genius of the inventor has produced; small planters pursue the

cultivation on the general lines...More sugar

is now produced per acre than ever before"

(Bouchereau and Bouchereau 1874:xii-xiii).

Cash crop agriculture in the Atchafalaya

Basin was destroyed by the Civil War, and then

by flooding (Swanson 1983). At the head of the

Atchafalaya River, the channel was 0.6 m (2.0

ft) deep during low water in 1845. In 1831, Captain Henry Shreve shortened the Mississippi

River by cutting through a sharp bend in the

river above Pointe Coupee Parish. Shreve's cut

off and the removal of the Atchafalaya rafts

prior to the Civil War, contributed to increased

water levels in the Atchafalaya Basin. Thus, by

the time of the 1874 flood, most of the remaining agricultural holdings in the basin were abandoned. Only small farmers who occupied the

higher ground remained (Comeaux 1972). By

1883, the Atchafalaya River channel at its head

was 37.2 m (122 ft) deep (Davidson 1883).

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.

45
Chapter IV: Historical Overview

Hunting, trapping, and fishing increased

throughout the basin at the expense of agriculture (Comeaux 1972). Settlers within the Atchafalaya Basin learned to exploit this unique

environment and they developed a life style suitable for the region (Gibson 1978). These hardy

trappers and fishermen relied on a nomadic settlement pattern with either isolated dwellings or

floating camps consisting of several families

(Knipmeyer 1956). Entire families could be located near the source of the economic activities

without the attendant problems caused by flooding (Gibson 1982).

Lumbering became the most important industry in the Atchafalaya Basin during the latter

half of the nineteenth century. The Timber Act

of 1879 opened the cypress swamps of the

Atchafalaya Basin for sale (Norgress 1947). The

Timber Act allowed for the sale ofthe remaining

unclaimed cypress stands for as little as 12.5

cents per acre (Norgress 1947). Innovations in

the cypress lumber industry during the late

1800s, such as the "overhead skidder", the "pull

boat", the rotary saw, and the band saw, increased lumbering throughout the region. The

clearing of cypress stands in the basin between

1880 and 1920 progressed at a phenomenal rate

(Gibson 1982). Lumber settlements, or mill

towns, grew up near saw mill processing centers.

These "portables," or communities established

near harvest sites, also were referred to as "skidder towns" (Roberts 1974). "Swampers" were

the seasonal laborers who worked the temporary

lumber camps of south Louisiana. The cypress

industry, however, declined as rapidly as it developed. By the middle of the 1920s, the great

cypress stands in the Atchafalaya Basin were

being exhausted and the mills began to close

down (Roberts 1974). The cultural and ecological changes caused by the deforesting of the basin are still being felt. According to Comeaux

(1978), the innovative swamper culture degenerated with the passage ofthe great lumbering era.

The Twentieth Century

During the First World War, the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers began construction of a new

levee system that contained the Atchafalaya River

and prevented it from overflowing its banks. Instead of periodically spreading silt throughout the

bottom lands, the river deposited silt across the

Basin floor. As a result, the water table rose. Beginning in 1923, floods presented serious problems; the rising water had a rather adverse effect

on the human population ofthe Basin. Floods also

hampered the operation of the Southern Pacific

Railroad, which had built its tracks across the Basin early in the century (Delcambre 1987:14).

The Great Mississippi River Flood of 1927

seriously impacted the economy of the Atchafalaya Basin. High water badly flooded all the

communities in the Basin and it swept away the

railroad bridge over the Atchafalaya River. After

the deluge, the Southern Pacific Railroad refused

to repair the bridge. Until 1932, trains from Baton

Rouge to Lafayette stopped at the Atchafalaya

River; passengers then used a ferry to reach the

other side. After 1932, the trains ceased operation

altogether and Southern Pacific abandoned the

tracks. Constructed ca. 1970, Interstate 10 follows

the approximate route ofthe abandoned tracks of

the Southern Pacific Railroad through the Atchafalaya Basin (Delcambre 1987:1-14).

As stated above, the great flood of 1927

dramatically changed the agricultural activities

and settlement patterns ofthe Atchafalaya Basin.

More than 323,760 ha (800,000 ac) of farm land

were inundated in Southern Louisiana (Conrad

1979). "Overnight, the people of the bayous saw

their lands covered with gray, swirling water,

creeping up, at an alarming rate, from the broken

levees along the Mississippi River." (Chase

1973). After the Henderson levee broke 32 km

(20 mi) east of Bayou Chene, this interior basin

community was abandoned. Most of the people

who left Bayou Chene resettled in the western

Teche region or along the bayous of Plaquemine

Parish (Chase 1973). Many ofthe twentieth century settlers in Bayou Sorrel bear the surnames

of the families who lived in Bayou Chene: Allen, Theriot, Verret, Landry, Seneca, Freyous,

Diamond, Delord, and Texada. Accoring to Mr.

Allen, who arrived in Bayou Sorrel in the 1940s,

"they had [only] five families living here. When

we moved here it was [the families] Esther, and

Douglas, Dudeaux, Dupre, and Mr. Coupellia"

(Walter Allen, personal communication, 1987).

Because high water made agriculture

throughout the study region virtually impossible

during the first decades ofthe twentieth century,

most of the people who remained within area

probably were squatters involved in subsistence

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

46
Chapter IV: Historical Overview

pursuits. Mr. Allen noted: "they just tote their

flat around where fishing was good. They just tie

up to a place, you know, they weren't claiming

any land" (Walter Allen, personal communication, 1987). The local inhabitants of the basin

survived through the extractive subsistence activities that began during the nineteenth century.

Nelson McQuiston stated, "every month of the

year we fished. When prices dropped we cut and

floated timber or picked moss. We make a day

fishin', selling Buffalo (fish) for three or five

cents each and Catfish for two to four cents

each. When we catch turtles, they had to be sixteen inches wide to get fifty cents for 'em"

(Iberville Parish Library).

The current project area, like most of the

inundated backswamps of the Atchafalaya Basin, remained practically uninhabited and economically marginal until oil and gas was discovered in the region in the late 1930s. By 1940,

widespread seismographic and drilling activities

were being conducted throughout the basin

(Morgan City Historical Society 1960). Like the

previous lumber industry, the shift to petroleum

related activities brought considerable change to

the basin. Population increase, the altering ofthe

natural landscape, and shifting patterns in land

use, especially along waterfront properties, were

prominent results of the petroleum industry.

Since most of the basin was inundated, the easiest access to the wells was by barge through a

dredged bayou or canal. Today the basin is honeycombed with access canals and dotted with

rigs and pipeline. The digging of industrial waterways has opened more routes for recreational

fishing, crabbing, and trapping (Gibson 1982).

Plans for the Intracoastal Waterway were

made as early as 1875, but the waterway was not

opened until 1934, during the New Deal era (Terrebonne Parish Planning Board [1953]:9). The

Intracoastal Waterway Alternate Route connects

Morgan City in St. Mary Parish with the Mississippi River at Port Allen in West Baton Rouge

Parish. The alternate route provides barges and

other vessels with a particularly attractive substitute for travel on the Mississippi River.

The Bayou Sorrel Lock, which was opened

to navigation in 1951, is located a few miles west

of the Bayou Sorrel community. It is located

along the Morgan City-Port Allen route of the

Gulf Intercoastal Waterway in the area protected

by the East Atchafalaya Basin Protection Levee.

The Bayou Sorrel Lock permits uninterrupted

navigation between the Mississippi River and the

Intercoastal Waterway. The lock also prevents

flood waters from the Atchafalaya River from

flooding the protected areas (Perkins 1985).

Conclusion

During the historic period, the eastern

Atchafalaya Basin witnessed a variety of dramatic changes. The people who settled throughout the project area, from the eighteenth century

Acadians to the oil rig roustabouts and barge

operators of the twentieth century, developed

their communities in accordance with the changing environment. This unique landscape provided a setting for the development of distinct

cultural trends and adaptive local economies.

Nonetheless, settlement in the project area has

been sparse; no significant historic period sites

are expected within the Area of Potential Effect.

47

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
CHAPTER V

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

Introduction

This chapter provides background contextual

information about previous archeological and

architectural investigations completed within the

general vicinity of the currently proposed Bayou

Sorrel lock replacement project items. This information was obtained in order to ensure that all

previously recorded cultural resources situated

within the current study area were relocated during fieldwork. In addition, this information was

used to provide data on the nature and distribution of previously recorded cultural resources

situated in the vicinity of the proposed project

right-of-way. The chapter is divided into four

sections. The first section contains a review of all

previously recorded cultural resources surveys

completed within 8 km (5 mi) of the proposed

Bayou Sorrel project item. The second section

presents a review of previously recorded archeological sites located within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the

study area. A description of all previously recorded standing structures located within 1.6 km

(1 mi) of the project parcel is presented next. Finally, the last section contains a review of previously recorded shipwrecks positioned within 1.6

km (1 mi) of the survey area and listed in A Database of Louisiana Shipwrecks (Clune and

Wheeler 1991). The information contained in this

review was based on a background research conducted at the Louisiana Department of Culture,

Recreation and Tourism, Office of Cultural Development, Divisions of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, in Baton Rouge.

The relatively broad 8 km (5 mi) and 1.6 km

(1 mi) ranges for studying cultural resources surveys and archeological sites and standing structures were chosen to maximize the understanding

of the quantity and quality of data previously

gathered on known cultural resources in the region encompassing the project area. A 1.6 km (1

mi) range was selected for previously recorded

standing structures and shipwrecks in order to

limit this search to the area immediately surrounding the project item. A narrower range was

chosen for standing structures because assessments of individual buildings typically focus on

relatively specific criteria related to immediate

local conditions and events. The 1.6 km (1 mi)

range for shipwrecks was selected because these

types of cultural resources resulted from specific

historical events.

Previously Cultural Resources Surveys Completed within 8 km (5 mi) of the Currently

Proposed Bayou Sorrel Project Area

A total of eight previously completed

cultural resources surveys and archeological

inventories were identified within 8 km (5 mi) of

the currently proposed Bayou Sorrel project area

(Table 6). These investigations resulted in the

identification of 206 archeological sites. Only

three previously recorded sites (16IV3, 16IV23,

and 16IV25) were identified within 1.6 km (1 mi)

of the currently proposed project area (Table 7);

while Site 16F/23 is positioned within the

currently proposed study area, it lies outside of

the examined project items (Figure 2). An

additional survey (22-619) also was identified as

having been conducted previously within 8 km (5

mi) of the proposed Bayou Sorrel project area;

however, Survey 22-619 had been checked out of

the Louisiana Division of Archaeology survey

report library and it was not available for

examination by researchers from R. Christopher

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.

48
Chapter V: Previous Investigations

Table 6. Previously Completed Cultural Resources Surveys Conducted within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the

Currently Proposed Project Area

FIELD

DATE

REPORT

NUMBER TITLE/AUTHOR INVESTIGATIONMETHODS RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

IBERVILLE PARISH

1980 22-752 Cultural Resource Surveyfor Planning Area Number 2, Iberville Parish, Louisiana (Mclntire 1980a)

Records review, pedestrian

survey, and limited shovel

testing

No cultural resources were identified; however, it

was recommended that an intensive field survey

be completed prior to proposed construction.

1980 22-639 Cultural Resource Surveyfor Planning Area Number 3. Iberville Parish, Louisiana (Mclntire 1980b)

Records review, pedestrian

survey, and limited

shovel/auger testing

No cultural resources were identified; however, it

was recommended that an intensive field survey

be completed prior to proposed construction.

1985 22-1007 Cultural Resource Survey ofProposed Dredgingfor Canal Bayou

Pigeon Field, Iberville Parish, Louisiana (Frank 1985)

Records review, pedestrian

survey, and auger testing

No cultural resources were identified; no additional testing was recommended.

1987 22-1192 Cultural Resources Survey ofthe

East Atchafalaya Basin Protection

Levee, Item E-44, Iberville Parish,

Louisiana (Manning et al. 1987)

Records review, pedestrian

survey, and shovel testing

Relocated two previously recorded sites (16IV4

and 16IV13) outside the proposed project area. No

cultural resources were identified within the proposed project area and no additional testing was

recommended.

MULTIPLE PARISHES

Not reported22-106 Archeological Investigations Along

the GulfIntracoastal Waterway:

Coastal Louisiana Area (Gagliano et

al. 1975)

Records review, boat survey, and pedestrian survey

Identified 158 prehistoric sites and 42 historic

sites. Of these, 136 sites were assessed as significant while the significance of the remaining sites

was unknown. Various types of additional testing

was recommended for all the identified sites.

1978 22-366 The Texas-Louisiana Ethylene (TLP)

Project: Archeology (Mclntire n.d.)

Helicopter survey, windshield survey, boat survey,

pedestrian survey, shovel

testing, and auger testing

Identified two sites (the O'Brien Site located in

Texas and Site 16AC21). Neither site was assessed; however, additional testing or avoidance of

these sites was recommended.

1979-

1980

22-619 Archeology and Ethnology on the

Edges ofthe Atchafalaya Basin,

South Central Louisiana: A Cultural

Resources Survey ofthe Atchafalaya

Basin Protection Levees (Gibson

1982)

Records review, pedestrian

survey, probing, shovel

testing, and auger testing.

Identified 33 sites of which 12 (16AV68, 16AV69,

16IV4, I6SM45, 16SM50, 16SM51, 16SMY2,

16SMY52, 16SMY104, 16SMY107, 16SMY130,

and 16SMY166) were assessed as potentially

significant. Additional testing ofthese 12 sites was

recommended. The remaining 21 sites were assessed as not significant and no additional testing

was recommended.

1993-

1994

22-1797

i

i

Cultural Resources Survey ofEABPL

Off-Site Borrow Areas, Levee Items

E-64, E-76, and E-84a, Iberville.

'beria, and Assumption Parishes,

Louisiana (McMakin et al. 1994)

Records review, pedestrian

survey, shovel testing, and

imited unit excavation

Identified historic period Site 16IV23. The site

was assessed as not significant and no additional

testing was recommended.

1995 22-1926 /i Cultural Resources Surveyfrom

Sorrento, Louisiana to Mont Belvieu, s

rexas (Skinner et al. 1995) |t

Records review, pedestrian

urvey, and limited shovel

esting

No cultural resources were identified; no addiional testing was recommended.

Table 7. Previously Recorded Sites Located within

Area.

1.6 km (1 mi) of the Currently Proposed Project

1 SITE

1 NUMBER

USGS 7.5'

QUADRANGLE SITE DESCRIPTION CULTURAL

AFFILIATION

FIELD

METHODOLOGY

NRHP

ELIGIBILITY RECORDED BY

16IV3 Pigeon, LA Prehistoric mound

(destroyed by highway

construction)

Possible Mississippian periodUnspecified type of

collection and windshield survey

Not significant Kniffen et al. 1987;

Atchafalaya Basin Crew

1976; Frank 1985; Jones

and Shuman 1987

16IV23 Pigeon, LA Historic period materials scatter

ca. 1890+ Pedestrian survey,

shovel testing, and

unit excavation

Not significant McMakin etal. 1994

16IV25 Pigeon, LA Prehistoric shell midden overlain by historic

period artifact scatter

Undetermined prehistoric period; mid 19"1

century historic period

Pedestrian survey Not assessed Bianchietal. 1975

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

49
Chapter V: Previous Investigations

Goodwin & Associates, Inc. The eight surveys

which were examined are presented here in

chronological order by the parish in which they

were conducted. Those surveys that extend

through more than one parish are discussed at the

end ofthe section.

Iberville Parish

During 1980, William Mclntire conducted a

Phase I cultural resources survey and inventory

of a proposed sewer line right-of-way at the request of an unspecified party prior to construction of a sanitary sewer system within portions

of Iberville Parish, Louisiana (Mclntire 1980a).

While the length of the proposed corridor was

not reported, Mclntire (1980a) stated that the

proposed project right-of-way measured 7.6 m

(25 ft) in width. Pedestrian reconnaissance augmented by limited shovel testing failed to identify any cultural resources within the project corridor; however, Mclntire (1980a) recommended

additional testing pedestrian survey and shovel

testing ofthe proposed sanitary sewer line corridor prior to project construction.

Later that year, Mclntire conducted a second Phase I cultural resources survey and archeological inventory of a proposed sanitary

sewer system corridor located adjacent to Lower

Grand River; the project corridor extended from

northeast ofthe town ofBayou Sorrel to south of

the community of Pigeon in Iberville Parish,

Louisiana (Mclntire 1980b). The survey was

completed at the request of Simons J. Barry and

Associates of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The proposed right-of-way reportedly measured 7.6 m

(25 ft) in width but the overall length ofthe proposed project corridor was not reported. Pedestrian survey augmented by limited shovel and

auger testing failed to identify any cultural resources; however, Mclntire (1980b) recommended that additional Phase I cultural resources survey, i.e., additional pedestrian survey

and subsurface testing of the proposed sewer

system right-of-way, be conducted prior to the

proposed construction.

On March 23, 1985, Joseph Frank conducted a Phase I cultural resources survey and

archeological inventory of a parcel located adjacent to the left descending bank of Lower Grand

River within Section 25 of Township US,

Range 1 IE, in Iberville Parish, Louisiana, at the

request of C. L. Jack Stelly and Associates, Inc.,

of Lafayette, Louisiana. This investigation was

performed prior to the proposed dredging of Canal Bayou Pigeon Field for use as a boat slip

(Frank 1985). The overall size of the area subjected to survey was not reported, however, both

pedestrian and the excavation of five auger tests

failed to identify any cultural resources within

the limits of the proposed project area. Frank

(1985) noted that previously recorded Site

16IV3 reportedly was located immediately to the

south of the proposed project area but it was not

relocated as a result of that study. Following an

interview with a local informant, Frank (1985)

concluded that Site 16IV3 had been destroyed

previously by the construction of Highway 75.

No additional testing of the proposed project

area or of Site 16rV3 was recommended. Site

16IV3 is located within 1.6 km (1 mi) ofthe currently proposed project area and it is discussed

in greater detail below.

During 1987, R. Christopher Goodwin &

Associates, Inc., conducted a Phase I cultural

resources survey and archeological inventory of

13 project items associated with the proposed

East Atchafalaya Basin Protection Levee Item E44 in Iberville Parish, Louisiana (Manning et al.

1987); the overall project area was situated

approximately 4.8 km (3 mi) north ofthe town of

Bayou Sorrel. This investigation was conducted

on behalf of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

New Orleans District, and it consisted of the

detailed examination of 13 proposed borrow pits.

Together, the project items measured 500 ac

(202.4 ha) in area. Pedestrian survey augmented

by shovel testing throughout the Areas of

Potential Effect failed to identify any cultural

resources within the 13 proposed borrow areas

No additional testing of the 13 proposed borrow

pits was recommended.

Manning et al. (1987) reported that in addition to the cultural resources survey of the 13

proposed borrow areas, fieldwork also resulted

in an examination of two previously recorded

sites (16F/4 and 16IV13) which were located

outside, but within the vicinity, of the then proposed project items. In addition, an unsuccessful

attempt was made to relocate previously recorded Site 16rV15. Cultural resources survey of

Sites 16FV4 and 16IV13 consisted of pedestrian

survey as well as the preparation of a sketch map

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

50
Chapter V: Previous Investigations

of each of the sites. Neither of these sites are

located within 1.6 mi (1 mi) of the currently

proposed Bayou Sorrel project area.

Multiple Parishes

In June 1975, Coastal Environments, Inc.,

performed an archeological investigation along

the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway of Coastal Louisiana for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

New Orleans District (Gagliano et al. 1975). The

survey consisted of a pedestrian walkover of an

approximately 60 m (200 ft) wide corridor that

extended for 504 km (315 mi) along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) and selected spurs

located at various bayou crossings. During survey, 158 prehistoric and 42 historic sites were

identified. Of the 158 prehistoric sites recorded,

78 were found as exposures along banks or in

spoil piles. Since the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway

(GIWW) already had been constructed at the time

of survey, Gagliano et al. (1975) provided management recommendations for the exposed sites.

Treatment plans for five categories of sites were

established based on the relative degree of damage expected at each cultural resource locus. Only

five of the sites (16CM20, 16JE36, 16JE56,

160R57, and 160R58) were determined to be

"very important" with immediate salvage excavation recommended. An additional nine sites

(16CU19, 16IB112, 16IV4, 16LF36, 16LF78,

16SM6, 16SM14, 16SMY19, and 16SMY132)

were determined to be "important" with additional shovel testing recommended should the

Intracoastal Waterway be expanded. A majority

of the sites (16AS19, 16AS20, 16CU15,

16CU125, 16CU126, 16CM58, 16CM75,

16CM77, 16CM78, 16IB110, 16JJ3111, 16JE53 -

16JE55, 16LF75 - 16LF77, 16LF79 - 16LF81,

160R41, 160R53, 160R55, 16SMY44,

16SMY125 - 16SMY130, 16SMY134, 16TR62,

16TR84, 16TR87, 16VM33, and 16VM35 -

16VM37) identified by Gagliano et al. (1975)

were determined to be "moderately important,"

with limited testing recommended if the waterway ever is expanded. None ofthe sites identified

by Gagliano et al. (1975) are located within 1.6

km (1 mi) ofthe currently proposed project area.

Between January and February, 1978, William Mclntire completed a Phase I cultural resources survey and archeological inventory of

the proposed Texas-Louisiana Ethylene (TLP)

Project pipeline corridor beginning near the

town of Mont Belvieu, Texas and extending approximately 239.8 km (149 mi) in an easterly

direction before terminating at the Napoleonville

and Bayou Choctaw salt domes in an unspecified Louisiana parish (Mclntire n.d.). Mclntire

(n.d.) did not report the width of the proposed

pipeline corridor, nor did he state for whom the

survey was conducted. It was reported that the

entire length of the proposed pipeline corridor

was examined during a helicopter fly over. Helicopter survey was augmented by limited pedestrian survey, windshield survey, boat survey,

shovel testing, and auger testing of portions of

the proposed right-of-way. Mclntire (n.d) reported that two sites (the O'Brien Site located

within Texas and Site 16AC21) were identified

within the proposed right-of-way. Although additional testing of these sites was recommended,

neither was assessed. Both of these sites are

situated well beyond the vicinity ofthe currently

proposed project area.

During 1993 and 1994, Earth Search, Inc.,

conducted a Phase I cultural resources survey

and archeological inventory of three proposed

borrow pits (Items E-64, E-75, and E-84a) located in the vicinity of the East Atchafalaya Basin Protection Levee at the request of the U. S.

Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District

(McMakin et al. 1994). Item E-64 was situated

adjacent to the right descending bank of Lower

Grand River in Iberville Parish, Louisiana, while

Item E-75 was located in Iberia Parish, Louisiana, along the right descending bank of Little

Goddel Bayou. The final project item (Item E84a) reportedly was situated in Assumption Parish just south ofthe town of Pierre Part. Overall,

a total of 195 ac (78.9 ha) were subjected to cultural resources survey.

Pedestrian reconnaissance augmented by

systematic shovel testing resulted in the identification of Site 16IV23 within the proposed Item

E-64 project area. McMakin et al. (1994) reported that no additional cultural resources were

identified within the two remaining project

items. Cultural material recovered from shovel

tests excavated at Site 16rV23 included 107 oyster shell fragments, 1 glass shard, 1 piece of

slag, 1 brick fragment, 3 historic period ceramic

sherds, and 15 coal fragments. In addition, a single unit measuring 0.5 x 0.5 m (1.6 x 1.6 ft) in

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

51
Chapter V: Previous Investigations

size was excavated at Site 16IV23 and it resulted

in the collection of 3 historic period ceramic

sherds, 6 glass shards, 12 brick fragments, 2

pieces of metal, 1 animal tooth, 76 oyster shell

fragments, 3 Rangia shell, and 2 fragments of

coal. Most of this cultural material was recovered from depths ranging from 0 - 30 cmbs (0 -

11.8 inbs). McMakin et al. (1994) suggested that

Site 16IV23 dated from the late nineteenth century. Site 16IV23 was assessed as not significant

and no additional testing of the site was recommended. Site 16IV23 is located within the current Area of Potential Effect and it is discussed

in greater detail below.

During September and October of 1995,

AR Consultants of Dallas, Texas, conducted a

Phase I cultural resources survey and archeological inventory of a proposed pipeline right-ofway that extended from Sorrento, Louisiana, to

Mont Belvieu, Texas. This archeological investigation was conducted on behalf of the Concha

Chemical Pipeline Company (Skinner et al.

1995). Within the Louisiana portion ofthe study

area, the proposed project route passed through

portions of Ascension, Iberville, St. Martin, Lafayette, Acadia, Jefferson Davis, and Calcasieu

Parishes, which the majority of was collocated

within existing rights-of-way. Skinner et al.

(1995) did report, however, that an additional

18.3 m (60 ft) of new right-of-way was required

to construct the proposed pipeline. Pedestrian

survey augmented by shovel testing failed to

identify any cultural resources within the thenproposed project corridor. No additional testing

of the proposed pipeline right-of-way was recommended.

Previously Recorded Archeological Sites Located within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the Currently

Proposed Bayou Sorrel Project Area

A total ofthree previously recorded archeological sites (16F/3, 16IV23, and 16F/25) were

identified within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the currently

proposed Bayou Sorrel project area (Table 7).

Site 16PV3 was described as a prehistoric period

mound, while Site 16F/25 reportedly contained

a prehistoric period shell midden overlain by an

historic period artifact scatter. The final site

(16IV23) was described as an historic period

artifact scatter. Each site is discussed in site

number order below.

Site 16IV3 was identified adjacent to the

east bank of the Grand River approximately 1.3

km (0.8 mi) north of its intersection with Little

Bayou Pigeon and in Section 25 of Township

US, Range HE. The site originally was recorded by Kniffin, Beecher, Rüssel and Hunter

in 1937. Subsequently, site record update forms

were completed by The Atchafalaya Basin Crew

in 1976 as well as by D. C. Jones and M. K.

Shuman in 1987. Site 16IV3 was described as a

prehistoric, square shaped temple mound which

reportedly measured 7.6 m (25 ft) square by 1.2

m (4 ft) in height. It also was noted that an unspecified type of field survey carried out in 1937

resulted in the collection of cultural material;

however, the types and quantities ofthe artifacts

collected was not reported. Later examinations

of Site 16IV3 found that the mound had been

destroyed by the construction of Highway 75

during the mid 1960s. It was suggested that Site

16IV3 represented a Mississippian - Plaquemine

period cultural affiliation. Due to the disturbance

caused by highway construction, Site 16IV3 was

assessed as not significant and no additional testing ofthe site was recommended.

Site 16F/23 was recorded in 1994 by Todd

McMakin (McMakin et al. 1994). The site was

identified within Section 24 of Township US,

Range HE, and it was described as scatter of

historic period cultural material. Site 16rV23

reportedly measured 15 x 20 m (49.2 x 65.6 ft)

in area and it was ovoid in configuration. Pedestrian survey augmented by shovel testing and the

excavation of a single 0.5 x 0.5 m (1.6 x 1.6 ft)

test unit resulted in the recovery of historic period ceramic sherds, metal, machine parts, brick,

glass shards, coal, slag, an animal tooth, and

oyster and Rangia shell. It was noted that cultural materials were recovered to a depth of 30

cmbs (11.8 inbs). McMakin suggested that Site

16IV23 represented an Industrial - Modern (ca.

1890+) era occupation but the presumed function of the site was not determined. Site 16F/23

was assessed as not significant and no additional

testing of the site was recommended. Site

16IV23 is situated within the currently proposed

Area of Potential Effect.

Site 16IV25 was identified adjacent to the

right bank of Bayou Teche at its intersection

with Little Bayou Pigeon within Section 26 of

Township 1 IS, Range HE. The site was reR. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.

52
Chapter V: Previous Investigations

corded by Bianchi, Collins, and Servello in 1975

and it was described as a shell midden overlain

by an historic period materials scatter. Site

16IV25 reportedly measured 20 x 20 m (65.6 x

65.6 ft) in size. Pedestrian survey resulted in the

collection of unspecified types of shell and faunal material as well as prehistoric ceramic

sherds, brick, glass bottles, historic period ceramic sherds, and metal. It also was reported that

an examination of the cut bank revealed that the

shell midden measured 10 cm (3.9 in) in thickness and that it was covered by 10 - 15 cm (3.9 -

5.9 in) of recent alluvium. While the cultural

affiliation of the prehistoric period component

was undetermined, it was suggested that the historic period component represented a mid nineteenth century occupation. Site 16IV25 was not

assessed but additional testing to determine the

extent ofthe site was recommended.

Previously Recorded Standing Structures Located within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the Currently

Proposed Bayou Sorrel Project Area

A review of the standing structure files

housed at the Louisiana Department of Culture,

Recreation and Tourism, Office of Cultural Development, Division of Historic Preservation,

resulted in the identification of a single previously recorded building within 1.6 km (1 mi) of

the currently proposed Bayou Sorrel project

area. Standing Structure 23-267 was recorded by

Chris Airriess in 1983 and it was situated within

Section 22 of Township 10S, Range HE near

the community of Bayou Sorrel. While the style

of the structure was undetermined, it was reported that the structure originally was utilized

as a trapper's cabin.

Standing Structure 23-267 was described as

a single story, frame building with a tin covered

ridge roof. The floor supports were fashioned

from cut cypress logs. The residence may have

been constructed ca. 1930, and Airriess also

noted that the ruins of a small saw mill and two

cisterns were associated with the structure. The

building and associated activity areas were not

assessed and no recommendations concerning

additional recordation of the structure were reported. It should be noted that Standing Structure 23-267 does not appear on the current version of the Bayou Sorrel (1992) 7.5' U.S. Geological Survey topographical quadrangle. This

suggests that the structure may have been removed sometime between its initial recordation

in 1983 and 1992.

Previously Recorded Shipwrecks Located

within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the Currently Proposed Bayou Sorrel Project Area

As a part of the current review, a search of

A Database ofLouisiana Shipwrecks (Clune and

Wheeler 1991) also was conducted. This examination identified four vessels believed to have

sunk within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the currently proposed Bayou Sorrel project area. While the

name of one of these boats was unknown, the

remainder was listed as the Panola, the Gray

Eagle, and the G. W. Anderson. The Panola reportedly was lost in 1842 due to a snag. The

Gray Eagle also was snagged and lost in 1850.

While the date the G. W. Anderson sank and the

cause of its demise was unknown, it was reported that the vessel was removed from the area

in 1894. The named vessel reportedly was lost in

1982 due to an unspecified cause. No information regarding the possible significance of any of

the vessels was noted in A Database ofLouisiana Shipwrecks (Clune and Wheeler 1991).

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

53
CHAPTER VI

RESEARCH DESIGN AND

FIELD METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter describes the research design

and field methodologies used to complete

the Phase I cultural resources survey and archeological inventory of the proposed Bayou Sorrel

project item. It also includes information pertaining to the curation of all records, photographs, and field notes generated as a result of

this investigation.

Project Description

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New

Orleans District, plans to replace the extant

Bayou Sorrel Lock with a new lock. In addition,

modifications may be made to the existing East

and West Calumet Flood Gates, the Charenton

Floodgate, and the Berwick and Bayou Boeuf

Locks. As part of the cultural resources component of this undertaking, a Phase I cultural resources survey and archeological inventory was

authorized to assess three separate tracts; these

totaled 356.8 ac (144.4 ha) in size. Each of the

three project items was assessed as having a

high probability for containing cultural resources

by archeologists on staff with the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District.

The overall project area is located in the

Atchafalaya Basin, a region characterized by

fairly level topography that varies in elevation

from only 1.5 to 3.0 m (5 to 10 ft) NGVD. The

three survey items, which are situated to either

side of Bayou Sorrel and west of the East Intracoastal Waterway, can be characterized as narrow, natural levee and floodplain deposits. Geological data indicate that the natural levee deposits are underlain by backswamp deposits and that

these deposits date from late in the Holocene

epoch.

Predictive Modeling

As outlined previously in Chapter II, information pertaining to the geomorphology of

the project items, especially data pertaining to

the age and the type of landform, can serve as a

model for predicting the likelihood of encountering cultural resources during survey. Throughout

prehistory and history, habitation in the Atchafalaya Basin region largely has been determined

by the availability of elevated, dry landforms,

i.e., natural levees. Since geomorphological data

indicates that no natural levees were present in

the project area between 12,000 and 5,000 years

ago, sites dating from the Paleo-Indian stage and

the Early and Middle Archaic periods are not

anticipated. Between 5,000 and 3,500 years ago,

natural levees may have developed along Lower

Grand River, but data indicates that the river was

not carrying sufficient quantities suspended

sediments to facilitate large scale natural levee

growth. As a result, sites dating from the Late

Archaic period or from the Early Formative

stages are possible but unlikely. Substantial

natural levee growth along Lower Grande River

probably did not occur until the period from

about 2,000 to 1,000 years ago. This suggests

that sites dating from the later Formative stages,

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

54
Chapter VI: Research Design and Field Methodology

i.e., from the Troyville/Coles Creek, Marksville,

Mississippian/Plaquemine periods, may be present in the project reach.

The distribution of historic period resources

also is influenced by the natural setting of the

project area. Since the Atchafalaya Basin contains a variety of exploitable natural resources,

especially faunal and timber resources, historic

period sites associated with various resource

exploitation industries, such as hunting, fishing,

trapping, and lumbering, are possible in each of

the project items. Historic habitation sites are

not expected, however, because most of the development in the immediate project vicinity has

taken place since the construction of the East

Atchafalaya Levee and the Bayou Sorrel Lock,

i.e., during the twentieth century. Lastly, since

Lower Grande River served as an important corridor for waterborne vessels, shipwrecks are

likely to be present in the project vicinity. A Database of Louisiana Shipwrecks (Clune and

Wheeler 1991) lists four known wrecks (the Panola, the Gray Eagle, the G. W. Anderson, and

an unknown ship) within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the

project reach.

Research Design

The current investigation incorporated background research across a broadly defined study

area as well as Phase I cultural resources survey

and archeological inventory of three discrete

tracts that totaled 356.8 ac (144.4 ha) in size.

Background research was undertaken to collect

data on the natural, prehistoric, and historic settings of the project area as well as to identify all

previously recorded cultural resources located in

the immediate vicinity. Following the completion

ofthe background research, a comprehensive cultural resources survey of each project item was

undertaken. This investigation was designed to

identify and to evaluate all cultural resources (archeological sites, cultural resources loci, standing

structures, cemeteries, and traditional cultural

properties) situated within the Areas of Potential

Effect. Fieldwork consisted of pedestrian survey

augmented with systematic shovel and judgmental auger testing throughout the limits of each

project item.

Field Methodology

Prior to survey, a review of the published

soil survey data for Iberville Parish, Louisiana,

was conducted (Spicer et al. 1976). This review

indicated that the majority of the acreage associated with each of the three project items (approximately 87 percent) contains soils identified

as Convent or Fausse. These are loam and clay

soils that typically occur on nearly level land.

Convent soils are flooded from December

through July; during the remainder of the year,

the water table in these areas fluctuates from the

ground surface to approximately 0.6 m (2 ft) below surface. Similarly, Fausse soils are inundated

from December through June; once the floodwaters recede, the water table fluctuates from 0.2 to

0.6 m (0.5 to 2.0 ft) below surface. Other portions

ofthe project area (approximately 13 percent) are

underlain by soils described as Sharkey clay, frequently flooded. These soils occur along the

lower portions of the natural levees and they are

composed predominantly of clay. Like Convent

soils, Sharkey clay soils are inundated from December through July; the water table in these areas fluctuates from the ground surface to approximately 0.6 m (2 ft) below surface during the

remainder ofthe year.

A review of the soil survey data suggested

that the water table in each survey tract lies at

depths no greater than 0.6 m (2 ft) below surface.

As a result, fieldwork within each project item

consisted of pedestrian survey augmented with

systematic shovel testing; systematic auger testing was not conducted. Shovel tests were excavated at 20 m (65.6 ft) intervals throughout the

length and width of each project item along survey transects spaced 20 m (65.6 ft) apart. Shovel

tests excavated along adjacent transects were offset to maximize coverage throughout each survey

tract. Of the 3,427 shovel tests planned during

survey, 3,377 (98.5 percent) were excavated as

part of this investigation. In addition, judgmental

auger testing was conducted within the limits of

each project item; 20 auger tests were excavated

as a result of this undertaking. No cultural resources were identified during the Phase I survey.

Each shovel test measured approximately 30

cm (11.8 in) in diameter, and each was excavated

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

55
Chapter VI: Research Design and Field Methodology

to a depth of 70 cm (19.7 in), to sterile clay or to

clay-like subsoil, or until excessive amounts of

ground water hindered the excavation process.

Each auger test measured approximately 6 cm

(2.4 in) in diameter, and was excavated to a

maximum depth of 2 mbs (meters below surface)

(6.6 ftbs [feet below surface]). All shovel/auger

test fill was screened through 0.64 cm (0.25 in)

hardware cloth; extremely wet soils and clays

were hand-sifted, trowelled, and examined visually for cultural material. Each shovel/auger test

was excavated in 10 cm (3.9 in) artificial levels

within natural strata, and the fill from each level

was screened separately. Typically, water was

encountered 2 mbs (6.6 ftbs). Munsell Soil Color

Charts were used to record soil color; soil texture

and other identifiable characteristics also were

recorded using standard soils nomenclature. Each

shovel/auger test was backfilled immediately

upon completion of the archeological recordation

process.

Additional Survey Area

As part of the current investigation, personnel from R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates,

Inc., attempted to relocate previously recorded

Site 16IV23. This site is located within the overall study area, but it lies outside of the three project items currently under discussion. Site 16IV23

originally was identified by Todd McMakin in

December 1993 and the site was described as a

scatter of historic period cultural material

(McMakin et al. 1994). Site 16IV23 was assessed

as not significant applying the National Register

of Historic Places criteria for evaluation (36 CFR

60.4 [a-d]). Goodwin & Associates, Inc., attempted to relocate Site 16IV23 to collect additional information pertaining to this resource.

While shovel testing in the site vicinity was

planned to assess the stratigraphic placement,

density, and research potential of this site, visual

inspection of the area revealed that Site 16IV23

has been destroyed by borrowing activities associated with the construction of the extant East

Atchafalaya Basin Protection Levee. Consequently no additional shovel testing was conducted at the site. A Louisiana Site Update form

for Site 16IV23 was prepared and it is included as

Appendix II ofthis report.

Architectural Review and Standing Structures Recordation

As a part of this Phase I cultural resources

assessment, an attempt was made to record all

historic period standing structures lying within or

immediately adjacent to the project items. Since

the currently proposed lock modification project

has the potential to disturb or destroy historic

properties, the purpose of the architectural recordation process was to: (1) collect reconnaissancelevel architectural survey data for each building

older than 50 years of age located within the Area

of Potential Effect; (2) apply the National Register of Historic Places criteria for evaluation (36

CFR 60.4 [a-d]) to each recorded resource; and,

(3) apply the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Criteria of Effect to each historic property to anticipate the effects of this undertaking

on each identified structure. In addition, the survey considered impacts to any significant

viewsheds. All architectural investigations were

undertaken in accordance with guidelines established in National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelinesfor Local Surveys: A Basisfor Preservation

Planning (National Park Service 1995).

The architectural survey was accomplished

by inspecting each building identified along or

within each ofthe three project items. Four standing structures were identified and recorded within

Area 1. Black and white and/or color photographs

(35mm) were taken of all identified built resources 50 years in age or older within or adjacent to the proposed Areas of Potential Effect.

Architectural data collected included building

form, building material(s), and decorative features. Field notes recorded the character of the

surrounding area, including vegetation present,

overall landscape, and the presence of man-made

obstructions.

Curation

Following acceptance of the final cultural

resources inventory report, all records, photographs, and field notes will be curated with the:

State of Louisiana

Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism

Division of Archaeology

P.O.Box 44247

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-4247

(225)342-8170

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

56
CHAPTER VII

RESULTS OF THE FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New

Orleans District, plans to replace the existing Bayou Sorrel Lock with a new lock. In

addition, modifications may be made to the existing East and West Calumet Flood Gates, the

Charenton Floodgate, the Berwick Lock and the

Bayou Boeuf Lock. As part of the cultural resources component of this project, a Phase I cultural resource survey and archeological inventory

was conducted within three separate tracts totaling 144.4 ha (356.8 ac) in size (Figure 2). Fieldwork included pedestrian reconnaissance augmented by stratified, systematic, subsurface testing throughout each project item. In addition, one

previously recorded cultural resource (Site

16IV23), located within the study area but outside

of the areas under examination, was revisited and

assessed.

Fieldwork was conducted along a series of

linear transects spaced approximately 20 m (65.6

ft) apart. To facilitate control during the survey

process, two of the three project items (Areas 2

and 3) were subdivided into smaller, more manageable areas (Table 8). As a result of this investigation, 3,377 of 3,427 (98.5 percent) planned

survey shovel tests were excavated successfully

throughout the three project items. As discussed

in Chapter VI, a preliminary review of the published soil survey data for Iberville Parish, Louisiana, indicated that a majority of the high probability portions ofthe project area (approximately

87 percent) are associated with soils identified as

Convent and Fausse. The water table in these areas fluctuates from the ground surface to approximately 0.6 m (2 ft) below surface. Since it

was likely that the water table in each survey tract

would be encountered at depths no greater than

0.6 m (2 ft) below surface, shovel testing was

performed to a depth of 0.7 m (2.3 ft) or until water was encountered. In addition, 20 judgmentally

placed auger tests were excavated adjacent to a

dry drainage bed identified within Area 3A.

This Phase I investigation resulted in the

identification of four standing structures older

than 50 years in age (see Figure 2, Sheet 1; Table 9). Standing Structure forms were prepared

and subsequently submitted to the Louisiana

Division ofHistoric Preservation, Department of

Culture, Recreation and Tourism, Office of Cultural Development. Copies of these site forms

appear in Appendix I. None of the four standing

structures identified during survey posTable 8. Areas Examined during Survey ofthe Proposed Bayou Sorrel Lock Replacement Project.

AREA NUMBER HECTARE/

ACREAGE

SHOVEL TESTS

(EXCAVATED/ PLANNED)

STANDING STRUCTURES

IDENTIFIED

1 29ha/72ac 318/331 BS1-2, 3,4, 5

2A 4.9ha/12.2ac 139/146 None

2B 4.8ha/11.9ac 130/133 None

3A 80ha/198ac 2087/2094 None

3B 25.5ha/63ac 703/723 None

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

57
Chapter VII: Results ofthe Field Investigations

Table 9. Standing Structures Older than 50 Years in Ag<2 Identified during Survey.

STRUCTURE

NUMBER

ADDRESS DATE BUILDING

FUNCTION STYLE SUBTYPE/

DESCRIPTION

NHRP

ELIGIBILITY

24-896 34075 Bayou Sorrel Rd. Early to Mid-20th

Century

Domestic Vernacular Front-gable Not Eligible

24-897 34105 Bayou Sorrel Rd. Early to Mid-20th

Century

Domestic Shotgun Front-gable Not Eligible

24-898 34105B East Ave. Early to Mid-20th

Century

Domestic Vernacular Front-gable Not Eligible

24-899 34105A East Ave. Early to Mid-20th

Century

Domestic Vernacular Front-gable Not Eligible

sessed the qualities of significance as defined by

the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR

60.4 [a-d]) criteria for evaluation.

The following discussion describes the results from the Bayou Sorrel Lock Replacement

Project area. The proposed project items are described first, followed by a discussion of the four

historic period standing structures identified as a

result of this undertaking. In addition, new data

concerning the National Register significance of

previously recorded Site 16IV23 appears near the

end ofthis chapter.

Area 1

Area 1 is located approximately 1.8 km

(1.13 mi) southeast of the Town of Bayou Sorrel, Louisiana. The project item is bordered to

the east by the Intracoastal Waterway and the

East Atchafalaya Basin Protection Levee to the

west (Figure 2, Sheet 1 and

Figure 10). The project item

extends into the E Vi, of the

NE VA, of the NE VA and the

NE VA, ofthe SE VA, ofthe NE

VA of Section 3, of Township

US, Range HE and in the

center of the SE VA, ofthe SE

VA of Section 34, ofTownship

10S, Range HE. This rectangular tract of land encompasses an area that measures

approximately 29 ha (72 ac)

in size. Area 1 is located

within a fairly level floodplain that can be characterized as a wooded lot with a

small, rural settlement positioned near its southern end. Figure 10.

Fieldwork at this locale consisted of pedestrian reconnaissance augmented by systematic

subsurface testing throughout this portion of the

Area of Potential Effect. A total of, 318 of 331

(96 percent) planned shovel tests were excavated

successfully throughout the Area 1 project item.

A typical survey shovel test extended to a depth

of 70 cmbs (27.6 inbs) and it exhibited two strata

in profile (Figure 11). Stratum I was characterized as a layer of (10 YR 3/1 to 10 YR 4/1) very

dark to dark gray clay that extended from 0 to 15

cmbs (0 to 5.9 inbs). Stratum I was underlain by

Stratum n, a layer of (10 YR 5/6) light brown

silty loam to (7.5 YR 5/6) strong brown silty clay.

Differences in soil profiles can be attributed to the

heavy impaction ofthe area by dredging and spoil

activity.

Area 1 has been impacted heavily by prior

dredging activities associated with the clearing

i overview of Area 1 facing east.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

58
Chapter VII: Results ofthe Field Investigations

"YPICAL SOIL PROFILES OF AREA

A

10-

00

CD

20-

30-

40-

50-

60-

70-

30

CENTIMETERS

STRATUM \- 10YR 4/1 DARK GRAY LOAMY CLAY.

STRATUM II: 10YR 5/6 LIGHT BROWN SILTY LOAM.

in

CD

10-

20-

30-

40-

50-

60-

70-

30

CENTIMETERS

STRATUM I: 10YR 3/1 VERY DARK GRAY CLAY.

STRATUM IM 7.5YR 5/6 STRONG BROWN SILTY CLAY

Figure 11. Two typical shovel test profiles for Area 1.

of Bayou Sorrel and/or the Intracoastal Waterway. Dredge material has been deposited

throughout the entire project parcel. During surface reconnaissance of the Area 1 project item,

several scatters of modern debris, including bottles and cans, were noted across the surface of

this project item. Furthermore, visual examination of Area 1 identified four standing structures,

older than 50 years in age; each was positioned at

the southern end of the project area (24-896, 24-

897, 24-898, and 24-899) and each is discussed

below. These four standing structures did not

possess the qualities ofsignificance as defined by

the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR

60.4 [a-d]) criteria for evaluation. No additional

testing ofArea 1 is recommended.

Standing Structures

As a result of this Phase I cultural resources

investigation, four newly recorded (24-896, 24-

897, 24-898, and 24-899) standing structures

older than 50 years in age were identified within

Area 1 (see Figure 2, Sheet 1; see Table 9). These

included two structures identified along Bayou

Sorrel Road and two structures identified along

East Road, in Bayou Sorrel, Louisiana. These

dwellings have the potential to be impacted

physically as a result of this undertaking, furthermore, they may suffer limited but temporary

visual impacts associated with the proposed construction. Each of the standing structures is described in turn below.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.

59
Chapter VII: Results ofthe Field Investigations

0

| AREA OF MODERN

DEBRIS SCATTER

TREE

| STRUCTURE

WINDOW

DOOR

DIRT DRIVEWAY

~7^\

SHED

Figure 12. A plan view depicting Standing Structure 24-896.

Standing Structure 24-896 (BS1-2)

Standing Structure 24-896 is positioned at

34075 Bayou Sorrel Road in Section 2, ofTownship

1 IS, Range 1 IE (Figure 12). The building is situated

in the southern end of Area 1 and it consists of an

early to mid-twentieth century front-gable, vernacular

dwelling (Figure 13). Standing

Structure 24-896 contains a

concrete block pier foundation,

vertical board siding, doublehung 6/6 windows and one

addition. This addition extends

along the entire length of the

southern side of the structure

and it provides a screened, entrance verandah and an enclosed area desired to provide

additional living space.

Standing Structure 24-

896 represents a typical example of a locally common vernacular house type; it possesses no known historical

associations of transcending

importance and it is not architecturally unique. On the basis

of its externally visible architecture, Standing Structure 24-896 does not possess the qualities ofsignificance as defined by the National Register of Historic Places criteria for evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [ad]). No additional architectural recordation of this

structure isrecommended.

Figure 13. An overview of Standing Structure 24-896, facing north.

60

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Chapter VII: Results ofthe Field Investigations

~-~~~. TREE LINE

0 TREE

-x FENCELINE

• • POWER LINE

I STRUCTURE

-H WINDOW

_u OOORWAY

Figure 14. A plan view depicting Standing Structure 24-897.

Standing Structure 24-897 (BS1-3)

Standing Structure 24-897 is positioned at

34105 Bayou Sorrel Road in Section 2, of Township 1 IS, Range 1 IE (Figure 14). The building is

situated in the southern

end of Area 1 and it can

be characterized as an

early to mid-twentieth

century front gable shotgun dwelling (Figure

15). Standing Structure

24-897 contains a concrete block pier foundation, vertical board siding, double-hung 6/6

windows and two

porches with flat roofs

situated to either end of

the structure.

Standing Structure

24-897 represents a typical example of a shotgun

house type. It possesses

no known historical associations of transcending importance and it is not architecturally

unique. On the basis of its externally visible architecture, Standing Structure 24-897 does not

possess the qualities ofsignificance as defined by

Figure 15. An overview of Standing Structure 24-897 facing east.

61

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Chapter VII: Results ofthe Field Investigations

^-~—- TREE LINE

© TREE

:::: TWO-TRACK ROAD

—x— FENCELINE

.if POWER LINE AND POLE

I STRUCTURE

—H WINDOW

y i DOORWAY

Figure 16. A plan view depicting Standing Structure 24-898.

the National Register of Historic Places criteria

for evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]). No additional

architectural recordation of this structure is recommended.

Standing Structure 24-898

res 1-4)

Standing Structure 24-

898 (BS1-4) is located at

34105B East Avenue in Section 2, of Township US,

Range HE (Figure 16). The

building is situated in the

southern end of Area 1 and it

consists of an early to midtwentieth century front-gable,

vernacular dwelling (Figure

17) block pier foundation,

vertical board and asphalt

shingle siding, double-hung

6/6 windows, and two open

porches and one addition. The

enclosed addition was added

to the western side and it extends approximately half the

entire length ofthe structure; it has a flat roof and

vertical board siding.

Standing Structure 24-898 represents a typical

example of a locally common vernacular house type.

It possesses no known historical associations oftranFigure 17. An overview of Standing Structure 24-898 facing north.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

62
Chapter VII: Results ofthe Field Investigations

Figure 18. A plan view depicting Standing Structure 24-899.

scending importance and it is not architecturally

unique. On the basis ofits externally visible architecture, Standing Structure 24-898 does not possess the

qualities of significance as defined by the National

Register ofHistoric Places criteria for evaluation (36

CFR 60.4 [a-d]). No additional architectural recordation of this structure is recommended.

Standing Structure 24-899

CBS 1-5)

Standing Structure 24-899

(BS1-5) is positioned at

34105A East Avenue in Section 2, of Township US,

Range 1 IE (Figure 18). The

building is located at the southem end of Area 1 and it can be

characterized as an early to

mid-twentieth century front

gable vernacular dwelling

(Figure 19). Standing Structure

24-899 contains a concrete

block pier foundation, vertical

board and asphalt shingle siding, double-hung 6/6 windows,

an enclosed porch, a carport and it has had one addition made to the rear of the structure. The addition

covers the width of the structure, and it has weatherboard siding and a flat roof.

Standing Structure 24-899 represents a typical example of a locally common vernacular

Figure 19. An overview of Standing Structure 24-899 facing west.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

63
Chapter VII: Results ofthe Field Investigations

Figure 20. An overview of Area 2A facing east.

house type. It possesses no known historical associations of transcending importance and it is

not architecturally unique. On the basis of its externally visible architecture, Standing Structure

24-899 does not possess the qualities of significance as defined by the National Register of Historic Places criteria for evaluation (36 CFR 60.4

[a-d]). No additional architectural recordation of

"this structure is recommended.

Area 2

Area 2 was located directly south of the

Bayou Sorrel Lock and it was divided by the constructed entrance for the Intracoastal Waterway.

In total, this area covered 9.7 ha (24 ac) of land

that has been impacted by construction, dredging

and spoil disposal activities. To facilitate control

during this survey, Area 2 was subdivided into

two smaller, more manageable areas (Area 2A

and Area 2B). These project items are discussed

below. No cultural resources were identified during survey of Area 2. No additional testing ofthe

Area 2 project item is recommended.

Area2A

Area 2A was located directly south of the

Bayou Sorrel Lock, and it was situated on the

peninsula between the Intracoastal Waterway

and the Bayou Sorrel Lock. This project item

was located in the NW '/>, of the NW % of Section 11, of Township IIS,

Range HE (Figure 2, Sheet 2

and Figure 20). This triangular tract of land measured approximately 4.9 ha (12.2 ac)

in size. The overall project

area was fairly level and

heavily wooded. A variety of

cypress, maple, pine and

sycamore trees were noted

during survey. Fieldwork at

this locale consisted of both

pedestrian reconnaissance and

systematic subsurface testing.

During survey, 139 of

146 (95.2 percent) planned

shovel tests were excavated

successfully throughout the

Area 2A project item. A typical survey shovel test extended to a depth of 70 cmbs

(27.6 inbs) and it exhibited two strata in profile

(Figure 21). Stratum I was characterized as a

layer of 10 YR 4/2 dark gray brown silty clay that

typically extended to a depth of 30 cmbs (11.8

inbs). It was underlain by Stratum II, which conTYPICAL SOIL PROFILE OF AREA 2A

CENTIMETERS

STRATUM |: 10YR 4/2 DARK GRAY BROWN SILTY CLAY.

STRATUM l|: 10YR 5/2 GRAY BROWN CLAY MOTTLED WITH

7.SYR 5/6 STRONG BROWN CLAY.

Figure 21. A typical shovel test profile for Area 2A.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

64
Chapter VII: Results ofthe Field Investigations

sisted of a layer of 10 YR 5/2 gray brown clay

mottled with 7.5 YR 5/6 strong brown clay. This

area also has been impacted heavily by prior

dredging and the disposal of dredge spoil.

Visual examination of Area 2A identified

several locations where previous levee construction and the construction of the Bayou Sorrel

Lock had impacted heavily the Area 2 project

item. In addition, spoil has been placed across

the entire project area. No cultural resources loci

were identified during survey ofthe Area 2A project item. No additional testing of Area 2A is

recommended.

Area 2B

Area 2B was located directly south of the

Bayou Sorrel Lock; it was situated on narrow

strip of land bounded on the west by the entrance to the Bayou Sorrel Lock, and to the east

by the East Atchafalaya Basin Protection Levee.

The area was located in the W '/2, of the E Vi, of

the NW % and the NE %, of the NW !/4, of the

NE '/4, of the SW % of Section 11, of Township

1 IS, Range 1 IE (Figures 2, Sheet 2 and Figure

22). This rectangular tract of land encompassed

an area that measured approximately 4.8 ha

(11.9 ac) in size. This portion of the Area 2 project item consisted primarily of an open, grassy

lot situated on the batture side of the levee; the

remaining portions of the project item were

sparsely wooded. Fieldwork consisted of pedestrian reconnaissance augmented by systematic

subsurface shovel testing.

During survey, 130 of 133 (97.7 percent)

planned shovel tests were excavated successfully

throughout the Area 2B project item. A typical

survey shovel test extended to a depth of 70 cmbs

(27.6 inbs); two typical soil profiles were defined

and they exhibited one to two strata in profile

(Figure 23). The first profile exhibited only a single stratum and it consisted of a layer of 10 YR

4/3 brown clay that extended from the surface to

a depth of 70 cmbs (0 to 27.6 inbs). This profile

type was located in a portion of the project area

where stripping of the ground surface was evident. The second profile contained two strata.

Stratum I was characterized as a layer of 10 YR

4/3 brown silty clay that extended from the surFigure 22. An overview of Area 2B facing west.

65

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Chapter VII: Results ofthe Field Investigations

TYPICAL SOIL PROFILES OF AREA 2B

CD

2

o

10 -

20-

30 -

40

50-

60-

70

0 30

CENTIMETERS

STRATUM I-' 10YR 4/3 BROWN CLAY.

Figure 23. Two typical shovel test profiles for Area 2B.

c/i

10 -

20

30

40

50

60

70

30

CENTIMETERS

STRATUM I: 10YR 4/3 BROWN SILTY CLAY.

STRATUM II: 10YR 5/2 GRAYISH BROWN CLAY.

face to 50 cmbs (0 to 19.7 inbs). It was underlain

by Stratum II, 50 to 70 cmbs (19.7 to 27.6 inbs), a

layer of 10 YR 5/2 grayish brown clay. Large

portions of the project item have been impacted

heavily by prior dredging and by the disposal of

spoil. No cultural resources loci were identified

within the Area 2B project item. No additional

testing of Area 2B is recommended.

Area 3

The Area 3 project item was located within

the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, approximately

1.7 km (1.05 mi) southeast of the Town of

Bayou Sorrel, Louisiana. In total, this area covered 106 ha (261 ac) of land that has been impacted by construction, dredging and spoil disposal activities. To facilitate control during the

survey process, the proposed project item was

subdivided into two smaller and more manageR. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.

able areas (Area 3A and Area 3B); these are discussed below. No cultural resources were identified during survey of the Area 3 project item. No

additional testing of Area 3 is recommended.

Area3A

Area 3A was located within the Atchafalaya

Basin Floodway, approximately 1.7 km (1.05 mi)

southeast of the Town of Bayou Sorrel, Louisiana.

The area was located in the E !/2, ofthe E Vi, of the

NW lA, and the W Vz, ofthe NE %, and the W XA, of

the SE %, and the E V2, ofthe NE %, of the SW lA,

and the W V2, ofthe SE 'A ofthe SE % of Section 3,

of Township US, Range HE. It was bounded by

the Intracoastal Waterway to the east and an extant

pipeline canal to the north (Figure 2, Sheets 1 and 2

and Figure 24). This rectangular tract of land encompassed an area that measured approximately 80

ha (198 ac) in size. Area 3A was described as

66
Chapter VII: Results ofthe Field Investigations

Figure 24. An overview of Area 3A facing north.

a seasonal floodplain and it was covered with wetland vegetation, which

included cypress, live oak, willow

and palmettos. Fieldwork at this locale consisted of systematic shovel

testing augmented by pedestrian reconnaissance. In addition, judgmental

auger testing was conducted along a

dry drainage bed that crossed along

the southern edge ofthe project area.

Fieldwork resulted in the excavation of 2,087 of 2,094 (99.6 percent) planned shovel tests. A typical

shovel test excavated within Area 3A

extended to a depth of 70 cmbs (27.6

inbs); two typical soil profiles were

defined within the project item (Figure 25). The first soil profile exhibTYPICAL SOIL PROFILES OF AREA 3A

m

O

10

20

30

40-

50-

60

70

30

CENTIMETERS

in

m

10

20-

30 -

40

50 -

60-

70

30

CENTIMETERS

STRATUM I: 10YR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISH

BROWN SILT.

STRATUM I: 10YR 4/1 DARK GRAY LOAMY CLAY.

STRATUM II: 10YR 5/1 GRAY CLAY.

Figure 25. Two typical shovel test profiles for Area 3A.

67

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Chapter VII: Results ofthe Field Investigations

ited only a single stratum; it consisted of a layer

of 10 YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown silt that extended from the surface to a depth of 70 cmbs (0

to 27.6 inbs). This profile was typical of shovel

tests excavated in the northern portion of the

project item, i.e., on slightly higher ground with

better drained soils. The second profile contained a layer of 10 YR 4/1 dark gray loamy clay

that extended from 0-40 cmbs (0 to 15.7 inbs).

Stratum I was underlain by Stratum II, a layer of

10 YR 5/1 gray clay that extended to from 40-70

cmbs (15.7 to 27.6 inbs). This second profile

was typical of the poorly drained areas where

the water table was higher and the area was inundated seasonally.

An additional 20 judgmentally placed auger

tests were excavated along the bankline of a

drainage or tributary that crossed through the

southern portion of Area 3A. This intermittent

stream acted as a natural drainage outlet for

Bayou Sorrel. A typical auger test excavated

along the drainage extended to a depth of 200

cmbs (78.7 inbs); and it exhibited three strata in

profile (Figure 26). Stratum I consisted of a

layer of dark grayish brown (10 YR 4/2) loamy

TYPICAL AUGER TEST PROFILE

AREA3A

0 -

10 -

20 ~

30 -

40 -

50 -

60 -

70 -

80 -

90 - II

100-

110 -

120-

130-

140-

150-

160-

170-

1B0-

Mi

190-

700-1

10YR 4/2

0ARK GRAYISH 6ROWN

LOAMY CLAY

10YR 6/2

LICHT BRCWUISH CRAY

CLAY

RANGED BETWEEN

10YR 5/1

GPAY CLAY MOTTLED WITH

7.5YR 4/D

STRONG BROWN CLAY

AMD

7.5YR 7/1

LIGHT GRAY CLAY MOTTLED WltH

I0YR 5/6

YELLOWISH BROWN CLAY

Figure 26. A typical shovel test profile for the

judgmental auger tests.

clay that typically extended from 0 to 30 cmbs

(0 to 11.8 inbs). Stratum II was characterized as

a layer of light brownish gray (10 YR 6/2) clay

that extended from 30 to 150 cmbs (11.8 to 59.1

inbs). It was underlain by Stratum III, which

ranged from a layer of gray (10 YR 5/1) clay

mottled with strong brown (7.5 YR 4/6) clay to a

light gray (7.5 YR 7/1) clay with yellowish

brown (10 YR 5/6) clay mottles.

During surface reconnaissance of the area,

several scatters of modern debris including crawfish traps, fishing boats and beverage cans were

noted across the surface ofthe project parcel. Pedestrian reconnaissance ofthe area confirmed that

Area 3A has been disturbed heavily by seasonal

flooding as evidenced by the high water marks

visible on trees scattered throughout the project

area. No cultural resources loci were identified

within Area 3A. No additional testing ofthis portion ofthe project area is recommended.

Area3B

Area 3B was located immediately opposite

the Bayou Sorrel Lock, and west of the Intracoastal Waterway. The area was located in the

W I/2, ofthe NE '/4, and the NW '/4, ofthe NW '/4,

of the SE VA of Section 10, of Township US,

Range HE. This project item adjoined the

southern boundary of Area 3A, abutted a portion

of an abandoned levee near the southeast edge

and was bisected by a seasonally dry drainage

bed (Figures 2, Sheet 2 and Figure 27). This triangular tract of land encompassed an area that

measured approximately 25.5 ha (63 ac) in size.

This seasonal floodplain was characterized by

wetland vegetation that included cypress, scrub

brush and palmetto. Fieldwork conducted at this

locale included both systematic shovel testing

augmented by pedestrian reconnaissance.

Of the 723 shovel tests planned, 703 (97.2

percent) were excavated during survey. A typical

survey shovel test extended to a depth of 70 cmbs

(27.6 inbs). During survey, two typical soil profiles were defined during the survey within Area

3B (Figure 28). The first profile described Stratum I as a layer of 10 YR 5/2 grayish brown clay

that extended to a depth of 30 cmbs (0 to 11.8

inbs). It was underlain by Stratum II, a layer of

(5B 6/1) bluish gray gley. This soil profile was

typical of areas located in the northern portion of

the project area, i.e., in a recently dried swamp

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

68
Chapter VII: Results ofthe Field Investigations

Figure 27. An overview of Area 3B facing west.

"YPICAL SOIL PROFILES OF AREA 3B

A

10 -

20

10 -

30

(/i

m

40-

50

60-

c/i

m

20-

30

40

50

60-

70 70

30 30

CENTIMETERS CENTIMETERS

STRATUM h 10YR 5/2 GRAYISH BROWN CLAY. STRATUM |: 10YR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN CLAY.

STRATUM II- 2B 6/5 BLUISH GRAY GLEY. STRATUM II: 10YR 5/1 GRAY CLAY MOTTLED WITH

7.5YR 4/6 STRONG BROWN CLAY.

Figure 28. Two typical shovel test profiles for Area 3B.

69

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Chapter VII: Results ofthe Field Investigations

area with extremely poorly drained soils. The

second soil profile contained a layer of 10 YR 4/2

dark grayish brown clay (Stratum I) that typically

extended from 0-15 cmbs (0 to 5.9 inbs). This

stratum was underlain by Stratum II, which consisted of a layer of (10 YR 5/1) gray clay mottled

with 7.5 YR 4/6 strong brown clay. This soil profile was typical of profiles found throughout the

poorly drained areas, where the water table was

high and the area was seasonally inundated.

During pedestrian reconnaissance of the

area, several scatters of modern debris including

crawfish traps, fishing boats and beverage cans

were noted across the surface of the project parcel. Survey throughout the area confirmed that

the area has been impacted by seasonal flooding

as evidenced by the high water marks visible on

trees throughout the project area. No cultural

resources loci were identified as a result of this

investigation. No additional testing of Area 3B is

recommended.

Archeological Site Relocated within Iberville

Parish

During survey, one previously recorded

archeological site (Site 16IV23) was revisited

and delineated during the current survey. This

site was recorded by Todd McMakin in December 1993 during a cultural resources survey of

the then-proposed East Atchafalaya Basin Protection Levee borrow pits (McMakin et al. 1994).

The result ofthis survey is described below.

Site 16IV23

Site 16F/23 was identified by in December

1993 (McMakin et al. 1994) (see Figure 2, Sheet

3). The site was described as a scatter of historic

period artifacts located in Section 24, of

Township US, Range HE (Figure 29). Site

16IV23 reportedly measured approximately 15 x

20 m (49.2 x 65.6 ft) in size. Pedestrian survey,

shovel testing and unit excavations were

completed throughout the site area. This work

resulted in the recovery of a variety of historic

period ceramics, metal, brick, glass fragments,

one gear part, and oyster shell. All of the

recovered material dated from the late nineteenth

to the twentieth century. As a result of the 1993

survey, McMakin et al. (1996) determined that

RECDROEO

»IE BOUM31BT

tUcMAKIN. £1, AL. 1W*I

wArs RUNE

BANK LWE

tREELf«

»PROVED ftOAD

Figure 29. A plan view of Site 16IV23, indicating recent

impacts to site area.

Site 16rV23 did not possess research potential or

the qualities of significance as defined by the

National Register of Historic Places criteria for

evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]). No additional

testing of Site 16rV23 was recommended at that

time.

Site 16IV23 was revisited in August 1999.

The site, which had been situated on a natural

levee between an unnamed creek and the Lower

Grand River, was destroyed by borrow activities

associated with the construction of the East

Atchafalaya Basin Protection Levee (McMakin et

al. 1994). This activity resulted in the removal of

the fill that contained the cultural deposits and the

subsequent inundation of the overall site area

(Figure 30). No additional testing or recordation

of this destroyed cultural resources is recommended.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

70
Chapter VII: Results ofthe Field Investigations

Figure 30. An overview of Site 16IV23 facing southeast.

Summary

A total of four standing structures (24-896,

24-897, 24-898, and 24-899) older than 50 years

in age were identified and one previously recorded historic site was revisited as a result of

the Phase I cultural resources survey and archeological inventory of the proposed Bayou Sorrel

Lock Replacement Project area. Despite intensive testing, no evidence of intact cultural

deposits or research potential was identified in

connection with the standing structures or the

previously recorded archeological site. None of

these standing structures, or the archeological

site, possesses the qualities of significance as

defined by the National Register of Historic

Places criteria for evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [ad]). No additional testing of these cultural resources is recommended.

71

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.
CHAPTER VIII

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Between September and October of 1999, a

Phase I cultural resources survey and archeological inventory was completed

within portions of the Areas of Potential Effect

associated with the proposed Bayou Sorrel Lock

Replacement Project area in Iberville Parish,

Louisiana. This investigation was conducted on

behalf of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New

Orleans District, by R. Christopher Goodwin &

Associates, Inc. This investigation resulted in the

examination of 144.4 ha (356.8 ac) of the proposed Area of Potential Effect situated along

Bayou Sorrel and the Intracoastal Waterway.

Fieldwork included pedestrian survey augmented by systematic subsurface testing

throughout the examined portions of the Area of

Potential Effect.

This investigation resulted in the identification of four standing structures older than 50

years in age. Standing Structures 24-896, 24-897,

24-898, and 24-899 each were classified as typical examples of early to mid-twentieth century

vernacular or shotgun dwellings. Each of these

buildings was identified within the currently proposed Area of Potential Effect and each may be

impacted by the proposed construction activities.

The four structures, however, do not possess the

qualities of significance as defined by the National Register of Historic Places criteria for

evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]). No additional

architectural recordation of the four standing

structures is recommended.

In addition, previously recorded Site

16rV23 fell within the limits of the Area of Potential Effect and it was revisited as part of this

investigation. The site, which had been situated

on a natural levee between an unnamed creek and

the Lower Grand River, has been destroyed by

prior borrow activities associated with the construction ofthe East Atchafalaya Basin Protection

Levee. This site does not possess the qualities of

significance as defined by the National Register

of Historic Places criteria for evaluation (36 CFR

60.4 [a-d]). No additional testing of Site 16IV23

is recommended.

In summary, no significant or potentially

significant cultural resources were identified during survey of the Bayou Sorrel Lock Replacement Project. No additional testing ofthese three

project items is recommended.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

72
BIBLIOGRAPHY

References Cited

Anderson, David G.

1995 Recent Advances in Paleoindian and Archaic Period Research in the Southeastern

United States. Archaeology ofEastern North America 23:145-176.

Anderson, David G., Lisa D. O'Steen and Kenneth E. Sassaman

1996 Environmental and Chronological Considerations. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 3-15.

University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Asian, A.

1994 Holocene Sedimentation, Soil Formation, and Floodplain Evolution of the Mississippi River Floodplain, Ferriday, Louisiana. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Autin, W.J., S.F. Burns, BJ. Miller, R.T. Saucier, and J.I. Snead

1991 Quaternary Geology of the Lower Mississippi Valley. In The Geology of North

America, Vol. K-2, Quaternary Nonglacial Geology: Conterminous U.S. Geological

Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.

Begnaud, Allen

1980 The Louisiana Sugar Cane Industry: An Overview. In Green Fields: Two Hundred

Years ofLouisiana Sugar, pp. 29-50. Prepared under the Auspices ofthe Centerfor

Louisiana Studies. University of Southwestern Louisiana. University of Southwestern

Louisiana, Lafayette.

Blitz, John H.

1993 Locust Beads and Archaic Mounds. Mississippi Archaeology 28(l):20-43.

Bouchereau, Louis and Alcee Bouchereau

1868 - Statement on the Sugar and Rice Crops Made in Louisiana. Pelican Steam Book and

1917 Job Printing, New Orleans.

Brain, Jeffrey P.

1971 The Lower Mississippi Valley in North American Prehistory. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville.

1983 Paleo-Indian in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Proceedings of the 33rd Southeastern

Archaeological Conference, Bulletins 20 and 21.

Breitburg, Emanuel, and John B. Broster

1995 A Hunt for Big Game: Does the Coats-Hines Site Confirm Human/Mastodon Contact? The Tennessee Conservationist 61(4): 18-26.

73

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.
Bibliography

Britsch, L.D., and J.B. Dunbar „,,.,« _ ^T ^T on

1990 Geomorphic Investigation ofDavid Pond, Louisiana. Technical Report No. (jL-yu12, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Brookes, S. O., and C. Taylor . .

1986 Tchula Period Ceramics in the Upper Sunflower Region. In The Tchula Period in the

Mid-South and Lower Mississippi Valley. Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-South Archaeological Conference. Archaeological Report No. 17, Mississippi Department of

Archives and History, Jackson.

Brose, David S.

1979 A Speculative Model ofthe Role ofExchange in the Prehistory ofthe Eastern Woodlands. In Hopewell Archaeology, edited by D. Brose and N. Greber, pp. 3-8. Kent

State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Brown, Ian . .

1982 The Southeastern Check Stamped Pottery Tradition: A View from Louisiana. Midcontinental Journal ofArchaeology, Special Papers No. 4, The Kent State University

Press.

1991 Poverty Point Development as Seen at the Cedarland and Claiborne Sites, Southern

Mississippi. In The Poverty Point Culture: Local Manifestations, Subsistence Practices, and Trade Networks, p.7-25, Edited by Kathleen M. Byrd, Geoscience & Man

29, Louisiana State University.

Brush, Nigel, and Forrest Smith

1994 The Martins Creek Mastodon: A Paleoindian Butchery Site in Holmes County, Ohio.

Current Research in the Pleistocene 11:14-16.

Byrd, Kathleen M. . .

1994 Tchefuncte Subsistence Practices at the Morton Shell Mound, Iberia Parish, Louisiana. Louisiana Archaeology 16:1-128. (For 1989).

Caldwell, Joseph R.

1958 Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. American Anthropological Association Memoir 88, American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C.

Cantley, Charles E., John Kern, Edwin Jackson, Joseph Schuldenrein, and Nancy Bernstein

1984 Cultural Resources Evaluations at Fort Polk, Louisiana. Gilbert/Commonwealth,

Inc. Submitted to Interagency Archeological Services-Atlanta National Park Service,

Contract No. CX5000-3-1094.

Chapman, J.

1977 Archaic Period Research in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley -1975: Icehouse

Bottom, Harrison Branch, Thirty Acre Island, Calloway Island. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee Report ofInvestigations 18.

74

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.
Bibliography

Chapman, J., and A. B. Shea

1981 The Archaeobotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to Contact in the Lower Little

Tennessee River Valley. Tennessee Anthropologist 6(l):61-84.

Chapman, J., and J. Adavasio

1977 Textile and Basketry Impressions from Icehouse Bottom, Tennessee. American Antiquity 42:620-25.

Chase, Gladys Calhoun

1973 The Bayou Chene Story: A History of the Atchafalaya Basin and its People. Harlo

Press, Detroit.

Clausen, Carl J., A. D. Cohen, Cesare Emiliani, J. A. Holman, and J. S. Stipp

1979 Little Salt Spring, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site. Science 203:609-614.

Clune, John and Karla W. Wheeler

1991 A Database ofLouisiana Shipwrecks. Database on file at the Louisiana Department

of Culture, Recreation and Tourism, Office of Cultural Development, Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Coleman, J.M.

1966 Ecological Changes in a Massive Fresh-Water Clay Sequence. Transactions of the

GulfCoast Association ofGeological Societies 16:159-174.

Comeaux, Malcolm L.

1972 Atchafalaya Swamp Life, Settlement and Folk Occupations, Geoscience and Man 2.

1978 The Acadians: Myths and Realities. In The Cajuns: Essay on their History and Culture, edited by Glenn R. Close, pp.142-160. University of Southwestern Louisiana,

Lafayette, Louisiana.

Conant, Roger and Joseph T. Collins

1991 A Field Guide to Reptile andAmphibians: Eastern and Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

Connaway, J. M., S. O. McGahey, C. H. Webb, and R. T. Saucier

1977 Teoc Creek: A Poverty Point Site in Carroll County, Mississippi. Archaeological Report No. 3, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

Conner, John Van

1977 Zoogeography ofFreshwater Fishes in Western GulfSlope Drainages between Mississippi and Rio Grande Rivers. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tulane University, New

Orleans. Louisiana.

Conrad, Glenn E.

1979 The Cajuns: Essays on Their History and Culture.University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana.

Darby, William

1817 A Geographical Description ofthe State ofLouisiana, the Southern Part ofthe State

ofMississippi, and the Territory ofAlabama. James Olmstead, New York.

75

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Bibliography

Davidson, J.O.

1883 On the Atchafalaya. Harper's Weekly 27(1373):255,237.

Davis, Dave D.

1984 Protohistoric Cultural Interaction Along the Northern Gulf Coast. In Perspectives on

Gulf Coast Prehistory, edited by Dave D. Davis, pp. 216-231. University Presses of

Florida, Gainesville.

DeJarnette, D. L., E. B. Kurjack, and J. W. Cambron

1962 Stanfield-Worley Bluff Shelter Excavations. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 8

(1,2):1-124.

Delcambre, Kenneth P.

1987 "Lords of the Basin": History of the lost village . . . Atchafalaya, Lousiana. Gull

South Printing.

Doran, Glen, David Dickel, and Lee Newsom

X 990 A 7,290-Year-Old Bottle Gourd from the Windover Site, Florida. American Antiquity

55(2):354-360.

Dye, David H., and Cheryl Anne Cox (editors)

1990 Towns and Temples Along the Mississippi. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Ensor, H. Blaine

1986 San Patrice and Dalton Affinities on the Central and Western GulfCoastal Plain. Bulletin ofthe Texas Archeological Society 57:69-81.

Fisk H.N.

1944 Geological Investigation ofthe Alluvial Valley ofthe Lower Mississippi River. U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Mississippi River Commission, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

1952 Geological Investigation of the Atchafalaya Basin and the Problem of Mississippi

River Diversion. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mississippi River Commission,

Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Ford, James A., Philip Phillips, and William G. Haag

1955 The Jaketown Site in West-Central Mississippi. Anthropological Papers of the

American Museum ofNatural History 45 (1).

Ford, James A., and G. I. Quimby, Jr.

1945 The Tchefuncte Culture, an Early Occupation ofthe Lower Mississippi Valley. Memoirs ofthe Society for American Archaeology, No. 2. Menasha, Wisconsin.

Ford, Richard I.

1987 Dating Early Maize in the Eastern United States. Paper presented at the 10th Ethnobiology Conference, Gainesville, Florida.

Frank, Joseph V., Ill

1985 Cultural Resource Survey of Proposed Dredging for Canal Bayou Pigeon tield,

Iberville Parish, Louisiana. Submitted to C. L. Jack Stelly and Associates, Inc., Lafayette, Louisiana.

76

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.
Bibliography

Frazier, D.E.

1966 Recent Deltaic Deposits of the Mississippi River: Their Development and Chronology. Transactions ofthe GulfCoast Association ofGeological Societies 17:287-315.

Fritz, Gayle J., and Tristram R. Kidder

1993 Recent Investigations into Prehistoric Agriculture in the Lower Mississippi Valley.

Southeastern Archaeology 12(1): 1-14.

Gagliano, Sherwood M.

1963 A Survey of Preceramic Occupations in Portions of South Louisiana and South Mississippi. Florida Anthropologist 16(4):105-132.

Gagliano, Sherwood M., Richard A. Weinstein, and Eileen K. Burden

1975 Archeological Investigations Along the GulfIntracoastal Waterway: Coastal Louisiana Area. Submitted to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District,

New Orleans, Louisiana.

Gagliano, Sherwood M., and J.L. van Beek

1975 Environmental Base and Management Study, Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana. Report

EPA-600/5-75-006, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington.

Gibson, Jon L.

1974 The Rise and Decline of Poverty Point. Louisiana Archaeology, No. 1:8-36.

1976a Archaeological Survey ofMermentau River and Bayous Nezpique and Des Cannes.

Center for Archaeological Studies Report 1, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette.

1976b Archaeological Survey of Bayou Teche, Vermillion River, and Freshwater Bayou,

South Central Louisiana. University of Southwestern Louisiana Center for Archaeological Studies Report No. 2. Lafayette, Louisiana.

1978 Archeological Survey of the Lower Atchafalaya Region, South Central Louisiana.

University of Southwestern Louisiana, Center for Archaeological Studies, Report #5.

1982 Archeology and Ethnology on the Edges of the Atchafalaya Basin, South Central

Louisiana. Submitted by the author to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District.

1984 The Troyville-Baytown Issue. The Troyville-Baytown Period in Lower Mississippi

Valley Prehistory: A Memorial to Robert Stuart Neitzel. Louisiana Archaeology

9:31-64.

1985a Ouachita Prehistory. Prehistory of the Ouachita River Valley, Louisiana and Arkansas. Louisiana Archaeology 10:319-335.

1985b Mounds on the Ouachita. Prehistory ofthe Ouachita River Valley, Louisiana and Arkansas. Louisiana Archaeology 10:171 -270.

77

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Bibliography

1994 Lower Mississippi Valley Exchange at 1100 B.C., Exchange in the Lower Mississippi Valley and Contiguous Areas in 1100 B.C., Louisiana Archaeology 17:1-11.

Gibson, Jon L., and J. Richard Shenkel

1988 Louisiana Earthworks: Middle Woodland and Predecessors. In Middle Woodland

Ceremonialism in the Mid-South and Lower Mississippi Valley. Proceedings of the

1984 Mid-South Archaeological Conference, pp. 7-18. Mississippi Department of

Archives and History, Jackson.

Goodwin R. Christopher, Peter A. Gendel, and Jill Karen Yakubik

1988 Archaeological Testing of Two Sites Near White Castle, Iberville Parish, Louisian:

16IV147 and 16IV149. Submitted by R.C. Goodwin and Associates, Inc. to the US

Arcmy Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District.

Goodwin, R. Christopher and Jill-Karen Yakubik

1982 Report on the Level II Archaeological Survey of the Magnolia Plantation, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. R. C. Goodwin and Associates, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana. Submitted by R.C. Goodwin and Associates, Inc. to the Louisiana Division of

Archaeology, Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, Baton Rouge.

Goodyear, Albert C. .

1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States.

American Antiquity 47:382-395.

Green, James A., Jr. .

1991 Calcasieu Point: A Formal Description. Central States Archaeological Journal. Central States Archaeological Societies, Inc., Kirkwood, Missouri.

Greenwell, Dale

1984 The Mississippi Gulf Coast. In Perspectives on Gulf Coast Prehistory, University

Presses of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Gregory, Hiram F., Jr. .

1969 Plaquemine Period Sites in the Catahoula Basin: A Microcosm m East Central

Louisiana. In Louisiana Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 111-34. Natchitoches, Louisiana.

' 1990 Comments on the Late Prehistoric Societies in the Southeast. In Towns and Temples

Along the Mississippi, pp. 5-15, D. H. Dye and C. A. Cox editors, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Griffin, John W.

1974 Investigations in Russell Cave. Publications in Archaeology 13. National Park Service, Department ofthe Interior, Washington, D.C.

Gulf States Utilities Company

1974a Final Environmental Statement Related to the Construction of River Bend Nuclear

Power Station Units 1 and 2, Dockets No. 50-458 and 50-459, Gulf States Utilities

Company, St. Francisville, Louisiana.

78

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Bibliography

1974b River Bend Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Environmental Report, Dockets

Nos. 50-458 and 50-459, September 1973; Supplement 1, February 1974; Supplement

2, April 1974; Supplement 3, June 1974; Supplement 4, August 1974, Gulf States

Utilities Company, St. Francisville, Louisiana.

Guy, John and J. Gunn

1983 Settlement Pattern Hypothesis for West Central Louisiana. Manuscript on file.

Haag, William G.

1971 Louisiana in North American Prehistory. Melanges 1. Louisiana State University,

Baton Rouge.

Haynes, C. V., Jr.

1991 Geoarchaeological and Paleohydrological Evidence for a Clovis Age Drought in

North America and its Bearing on Extinction. Quaternary Research 35:438-450.

Hillman, M.

1985 Paleoindian Settlement on the Macon Ridge, Northeastern Louisiana. Louisiana Archaeology 12:203-218.

1990 Paleoindian Settlement on the Macon Ridge, Northeastern Louisiana. Louisiana Archaeology 12:203-218.

Hudson, Charles

1978 The Southeastern Indians. The University ofTennessee Press.

Iberia Parish Library

n.d. Unidentified excerpt from text on Louisiana wildlife refuges. Excerpt on file, La. -

Marsh Island Vertical File, Iberia Parish Library, New Iberia, Louisiana.

Jenkins, Ned J.

1979 Miller Hopewell of the Tombigbee Drainage. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by David S. Brose and N'omi Greber, pp. 171-180. Kent

State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Jeter, Marvin D.

1982 The Archeology of Southeast Arkansas: An Overview for the 1980s. In Arkansas

Archeology in Review, edited by Neal L. Trubowitz and Marvin D. Jeter, pp. 76-131.

Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 21.

Jeter, Marvin D., and H. E. Jackson

1990 Poverty Point Extraction and Exchange: The Arkansas Lithic Connections. Exchange

in the Lower Mississippi Valley and Contiguous Areas in 1100 B.C., Louisiana Archaeology 17:133-206.

Jeter, Marvin D., Jerome C. Rose, G. Ishmael Williams, Jr., and Anna M. Harmon

1989 Archeology and Bioarcheology of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Trans Mississippi South in Arkansas and Louisiana. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 37. Final Report Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division Study Unit 6 of the Southwestern Division of Archeological Overview. Contract No. DACW63-84-C-0149.

79

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Bibliography

Jones, Dennis and Malcom Shuman

1987 Atlas and Report on Prehistoric Aboriginal Mounds in Livingston, St. Helena, St.

Tammany, Tangipahoa, and Washington Parishes, Louisiana. Report on file at the

Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, Office of Cultural Development, Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge.

Kelly, J. E.

1990 The Emergence ofthe Mississippian Culture in the American Bottom Region. In 1 he

Mississippian Emergence, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 113-152. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Kidder, Tristram R.

1988 Protohistoric and Early Historic Cultural Dynamics in Southeast Arkansas and

Northeast Louisiana, A.D. 1542-1730. Print in 1995 by U.M.I. Dissertation Information Service, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

1992 Timing and Consequences of the Introduction of Maize Agriculture in the Lower

Mississippi Valley. North American Archaeology 13(1):15-41.

Kidder, Tristram R., and Gayle J. Fritz

1993 Investigating Subsistence and Social Change in the Lower Mississippi Valley: The

1989 and 1990 Excavations at the Reno Brake and Osceola Sites. Journal ofField

Archaeology 20(3):281-297.

Kidder, Tristam R., and Stephen Williams

1984 Archaeological Survey of the Northern BoeufBasin, Louisiana: A Preliminary Report. Paper Presented at the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Louisiana Archaeological

Society, Lafayette.

Kniffen, Fred B.

1974 Louisiana: Its Land and People. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge,

Louisiana.

Kniffen, Fred B., Hiram F. Gregory, and George A. Stokes

1987 The Historic Indian Tribes ofLouisiana, from 1542 to the Present. Louisiana State

University Press, Baton Rouge.

Knight, Vernon J., Jr.

1984 Late Prehistoric Adaptation in the Mobile Bay Region. Perspectives on Gult Coast

Prehistory, University Presses of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Knipmeyer, William B.

1956 Settlement Succession in Eastern French Louisiana. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Krinitzsky, E.L., and F.L. Smith

1969 Geology ofBackswamp Deposits in the Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana. Technical Report No. S-69-8, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,

Mississippi.

80

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Bibliography

Largent, F. B., M. R. Waters, and D. L. Carlson

1991 The Spatiotemporal Distribution and Characteristics of Folsom Projectile Points in

Texas. Plains Anthropologist 36(137):323-341. Plains Anthropological Society.

Larson, Lewis H., Jr.

1980 Aboriginal Subsistence Technology on the Southeastern Coastal Plain during the

Late Prehistoric Period. The University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Lehmann, G. R.

1982 The Jaketown Site Surface Collectionsfrom a Poverty Point Regional Center in the

Yazoo Basin, Mississippi. Archaeological Report No. 9, Mississippi Department of

Archives and History, Jackson.

Lentz, David L.

1986 Archaeobotanical Remains from the Hester Site: The Late Paleo-Indian and Early

Archaic Horizons. MidcontinentalJournal ofArchaeology 11(2):269-279.

Lowery, G. H.

1974a The Mammals ofLouisiana and Its Adjacent Waters. Louisiana State University Press,

Baton Rouge.

1974b Louisiana Birds. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.

Lowrie, Walter and Walter S. Franklin (editors)

1834 American State Papers, Class VIII, Public Lands. Gales and Seaton, Washington,

D.C.

Mainfort, Robert C.

1986 Pre- and Early Marksville Ceramics and Chronology in the Mid-South: A Perspective

from Pinson Mounds. In The Tchula Period in the Mid-South and Lower Mississippi

Valley. Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-South Archaeological Conference, Archaeological Report No. 17:52-62, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

Manning, Kathy, Paul C. Armstrong, Eric C. Poplin, and R. Christopher Goodwin

1987 Cultural Resources Survey of the East Atchafalaya Basin Protection Levee Item E44, Iberville Parish, Louisiana. R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Mason, Ronald J.

1962 The Paleo-Indian Tradition in Eastern North America. Current Anthropology 3:227-

278.

May, J.R., L.D. Britsch, J.B. Dunbar, J.P. Rodriguez, and L.B. Wlosinski

1984 Geological Investigation ofthe Mississippi River Deltaic Plain. Technical Report No.

GL-84-15, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Bibliography

Mclntire, William G. . .

n.d. The Texas-Louisiana Ethylene (TIP) Project. Report on file at the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism, Office of Cultural Development, Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

1958 Prehistoric Indian Settlements of the Changing Mississippi River Delta. Coastal

Studies Series No. 1, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.

1980a Cultural Resource Survey for Planning Area Number 2, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.

Report on file at the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism, Office of Cultural Development, Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

1980b Cultural Resource Survey for Planning Area Number 3, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.

Submitted to J. Barry and Associates, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

McMakin, Todd, Benjamin Maygarden, and Paul V. Heinrich

1994 Cultural Resources Survey ofEABPL OffSite Borrow Areas, Levee Items E-64, E76, and E-84a, Iberville, Iberia and Assumption Parishes, Louisiana. Earth Search,

Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana. Submitted to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New

Orleans District, New Orleans, Louisiana.

McWilliams, Richebourg Gaillard (translator and editor)

1981 Iberville's GulfJournals. University of Alabama Press, Baton Rouge.

Meltzer, David J., and Bruce D. Smith

1986 Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic Subsistence Strategies in Eastern North America. In

Foraging, Collecting and Harvesting: Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in

the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Sarah Neusius, pp. 1-30. Center or Archaeological

Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Milanich, Jerald T.

1994 Archaeology ofPrecolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Mississippi River Commission

1885 Map ofthe Lower Mississippi Riverfrom the Mouth ofthe Ohio River to the Head of

the Passes. 32 sheets. Scale 1:63,360. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Muller, Jon

1978 The Southeast. In Ancient North Americans, edited by J. D. Jennings, pp. 373-420.

W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.

Murray, G.E.

1961 Geology of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Province of North America. Harper &

Brothers, New York.

National Park Service

1995 National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation

Planning.

82

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.
Bibliography

Neitzel, Robert S., and J. Stephen Perry

1977 A Prehistory of Central and North Louisiana. Submitted to The Research Institute,

Northeast Louisiana University.

Neuman, Robert W.

1984 An Introduction to Louisiana Archaeology. Louisiana State University Press, Baton

Rouge.

Norgress, Rachel Edna

1947 The History of the Cypress Lumber Industry in Louisiana. The Louisiana Historical

Quarterly 30(3): 979-1059.

Parmalee, P. W.

1962 Faunal Remains from the Stanfield-Worley Bluff Shelter. Journal ofAlabama Archaeology 8:112-114.

Parmalee, P. W., R. B. McMillian, and F. B. King

1976 Changing Subsistence Patterns at the Rogers Shelter. In Prehistoric Man and His

Environments: A Case Study in the Ozark Highlands, edited by W. R. Wood and R.B.

McMillian, pp. 141-62. Academic Press, New York.

Perino, Gregory

1985 Selected Preforms, Points and Knives of the North American Indians. Volume 1.

Points and Barbs Press, Idabel, Oklahoma.

Perkins, Arthur Jr.

1985 The Iberville Parish History. Le Comite' des Archives de la Louisiane, Baton Rouge,

Louisiana.

Perrault, S. L., and R. A. Weinstein

1994 National Register Eligibility Testing at the Sarah Peralta Site, East Baton Rouge

Parish, Louisiana. Prepared for the Division of Archaeology, Office of Cultural Development, Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism, Coastal Environments, Inc., Baton Rouge.

Phillips, Philip

1970 Archaeological Survey ofthe Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, 1949-1955. Papers of

the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 60. Harvard University,

Cambridge.

Phillips, Philip, James A. Ford, and James B. Griffin

1951 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940-1947. Papers

ofthe Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 25. Harvard University,

Cambridge.

Planter's Banner

1847 Visit to Attakapas. Planters Banner 4/17/1847:1. Franklin, Louisiana.

Postell, Paul Everett

1942 John Hamden Randolph, A Louisiana Planner Louisiana Historical Quarterly 25 (1)

149-223

83

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.
Bibliography

Pritchard, Walter (editor)

1938 A Tourist's Description of Louisiana in 1860. Louisiana Historical Quarterly 21(4).

Raphael, Morris

1976 The Battle ofthe Bayou Country. Harlo Press, Detroit.

Riffel, Judy, Arthur Perkins Jr., Damon Veach and Ann DeViller Riffel

1985 Iberville Parish History. Lecomite' des Archives de la Louisiane, Baton Rouge,

Louisiana.

Roberts, Omer Lounie, Jr.

1974 Cypress Land and Floodway: Environmental Change and the Development oj the

Land Utilization in the Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, University ofTennessee, Knoxville.

Rushton, William Foulkner

1979 The Cajuns:from Acadia to Louisiana. Farrar Straus Giroux, New York.

Russo, Michael, Barbara A. Purdy, Lea A. Newsom, and Ray M. McGee

1992 A Reinterpretation of Late Archaic Adaptations in Central-East Florida: Groves' Orange Midden (8-VO-2601). Southeastern Archaeology 11(2):95-108.

Saucier, R.T. . . .

1994 Geomorphology and Quaternary Geologic History of the Lower Mississippi Valley.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mississippi River Commission, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Saunders, Joe

1994 1994 Annual Report for Management Unit 2. Regional Archaeology Program, Department of Geosciences, Northeast Louisiana University, Monroe. Submitted to the

National Park Service, Department of the Interior, and the Department of Culture,

Recreation, and Tourism, Office of Cultural Development, Division of Archaeology,

Baton Rouge.

1996 1996 Annual Report for Management Unit 2. Regional Archaeology Program, Department of Geosciences, Northeast Louisiana University, Monroe. Submitted to the

National Park Service, Department of the Interior, and the Department of Culture,

Recreation, and Tourism, Office of Cultural Development, Division of Archaeology,

Baton Rouge.

Saunders, Joe, Thurman Allen, and Roger T. Saucier

1992 Preceramic? Mound Complexes in Northeast Louisiana (A Very Rough Draft). An

Unpublished Manuscript on file, R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., New

Orleans, Louisiana.

Schambach, Frank F.

1981 A Description and Analysis of the Ceramics. In The Shallow Lake Site (3UN9/52J

and Its Place in Regional Prehistory, by Martha Ann Rolingson and Frank F.

Schambach, pp. 101-176. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series, No. 15.

84

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Bibliography

Shenkel, Richard J.

1974 Big Oak and Little Oak Islands: Excavations and Interpretations. Louisiana Archaeology 1:37-65.

1981 Pontchartrain Tchefuncte Site Differentiation. Louisiana Archaeology 8:21-35.

Shugg, Robert W.

1938 Origins of Class Struggle in Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press, Baton

Rouge.

Sitterson, J. Carlyle

1953 Sugar County: The Cane Sugar Industry in the South, 1753-1950. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington.

Skinner, Alan S., Brenda B. Whorton, and Lance K. Trask

1995 A Cultural Resources Survey from Sorrento, Louisiana to Mont Belvieu, Texas. AR

Consultants, Dallas, Texas. Submitted to Global Environments, Inc., Houston, Texas.

Smith, B. D.

1986 Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: From Dalton to de Soto, 10,500 B.P.

- 500 B.P. In Advances in World Archaeology 5:1-92, edited by F. Wendorf and A.

Close. Academic Press, New York.

1987 The Independent Domestication of Indigenous Seed-Bearing Plants in Eastern North

America. In Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by William

Keegan, pp. 3-48. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper 7.

Smith, Brent W.

1975 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns of the Young's Bayou Drainage, Natchitoches Parish,

Louisiana. In Louisiana Archaeology 2:163-200.

Smith, L.M., J.B. Dunbar, and L.D. Britsch

1986 Geomorphological Investigation of the Atchafalaya Basin, Area West, Atchafalaya

Delta, and Terrebonne Marsh. Technical Report GL-86-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Smith, Steven D., Philip G. Rivet, Kathleen M. Byrd, and Nancy C. Hawkins

1983 Louisiana's Comprehensive Archaeological Plan. State of Louisiana, Department of

Culture, Recreation and Tourism, Office of Cultural Development, Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge.

South Louisiana Salute

1949 Salute to Iberville Parish. South Louisiana Salute. May.

Speaker, John Stuart, Joanna Chase, Carol Poplin, Herschel Franks, and R. Christopher Goodwin

1986 Archeological Assessment of the Barataria Unit, Jean Lafitte National Historical

Park. Submitted by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., to the National Park

Service, Southwest Region, Santa Fe.

85

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Bibliography

Spicer, Bradley E., Ray E. Dance, and Terry G. Hargroder

1976 Soil Survey ofAscension Parish. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Alexandria, Louisiana.

Spicer, Bradley E., S.D. Matthews, R.E. Dance, K.R. Milton, and W.H. Boyd

1975 Soil Survey oflberville Parish, Louisiana. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

Stein, Julie K.

1982 Geologic Analysis of the Green River Shell Middens. Southeastern Archaeology

1:22-39.

Steponaitis, Vincas P.

1983 Ceramics, Chronology, and Community Patterns: An Archaeological Study at

Moundville. Studies in Archaeology. Stuart Struever, consulting editor. Academic

Press, New York.

1986 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern United States, 1970 - 1985. Annual Review ofAnthropology 15:363-404.

Story, Dee Ann, Janice Guy, Barbara Burnett, Martha Doty Freeman, Jerome Rose, Gentry Steele, Ben

Olive, and Karl Reinhard

1990 The Archeology and Bioarcheology of the Gulf Coastal Plain: Volume 1. Arkansas

Archeological Survey Research Series No. 38.

Swanson, Mark T.

1983 Historical Development ofPlaquemine Lock and the Bayou Plaquemine Area. Report

of Investigations No. 82-30. New World Research, Inc.

Swanton, J. R.

1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of

American Ethnology Bulletin 137.

Taylor, Joe Gray

1974 Louisiana. W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., New York.

Terrebonne Parish Planning Board

1953 Terrebonne Parish Resources and Facilities. Louisiana Department of Public Works.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

The Morgan City Historical Society

1960 A History ofMorgan City, Louisiana. Morgan City.

Toth, Edwin Alan

1988 Early Marksville Phases in the Lower Mississippi Valley: A Study ofCulture Contact

Dynamics. Archaeological Report No. 21. Mississippi Department of Archives and

History, Jackson, Mississippi in cooperation with The Lower Mississippi Survey.

Harvard University, Cambridge.

Turner, Ellen Sue and Thomas R. Hester

1985 A Field Guide to Stone Artifacts ofTexas Indians. Texas Monthly Press, Austin.

86

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.
Bibliography

Walker, David Allen

1965 A History ofcommerce and navigation on the Lower Mississippi, 1803-1840. Thesis,

Louisiana State University, Department of History.

Walthall, John A.

1980 Prehistoric Indians ofthe Southeast: Archaeology ofAlabama and the Middle South.

The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Webb, Clarence H.

1946 Two Unusual Types of Chipped Stone Artifacts from Northwest Louisiana. Bulletin

ofthe Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society 17:9-17.

1981 Stone Points and Tools ofNorthwestern Louisiana. Special publication ofthe Louisiana Archaeological Society, No. 1.

1982 The Poverty Point Culture. Geoscience and Man Vol. XVII, Revised second printing,

School of Geoscience, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Webb, S. David, Jerald T. Milanich, Roger Alexon, and James S. Dunbar

1984 A Bison Antiquus Kill Site, Wacissa River, Jefferson County, Florida. American Antiquity 49:384-392.

Webb, Clarence H., F. E. Murphy, W. E. Ellis, and H. R. Green

1969 The Resch Site 41 HS 16, Harrison County, Texas. Bulletin ofthe Texas Archeological

Society, Vol. 40:3-106.

Webb, Clarence H., Joel L. Shiner, and E. Wayne Roberts

1971 The John Pearce Site (16CD56), Caddo Parish, Louisiana. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 42:1-49. Texas Archeological Society, Austin.

Weinstein, Richard A.

1986 Tchefuncte Occupation in the Lower Mississippi Delta and Adjacent Coastal Zone.

In The Tchula Period in the Mid-South and Lower Mississippi Valley. Proceedings of

the 1982 Mid-South Archaeological Conference, Archaeological Report No. 17:102-

127, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

Weinstein, Richard A., Wayne Glander, Sherwood Gagliano, Eileen Burdena, and Kathleen McCloskey

1979 Cultural Resources Survey of the Upper Steele Bayou Basin, West-Central Mississippi. Coastal Environments, Baton Rouge. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District. Copies available from the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

Weinstein, Richard A., and Philip G. Rivet

1978 Beau Mire: A Late Tchula Period Site of the Tchefuncte Culture, Ascension Parish,

Louisiana. Anthropological Report 1. State of Louisiana, Department of Culture,

Recreation and Tourism, Baton Rouge.

White, Alice Pemble

1944 The Plantation Experience ofJoseph and Lavinia Erwin, 1807-1836. Louisiana Historical Quarterly 27:343-478.

87

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.
Bibliography

Willey, Gordon R.

1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Vol.

113, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.

Willey, Gordon R., and Phillip Phillips

1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Williams, Stephen, and Jeffrey P. Brain

1983 Excavations at the Lake George Site, Yazoo County, Mississippi, 1958-1960. Papers

ofthe Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 74. Harvard University,

Cambridge.

Maps Cited

Bayley, G. W. R.

1853 New and Improved Map ofLouisiana. Map on file, Cartographies Branch, Library of

Congress, Washington, D.C.

Personal Communication

Walter Allen, 1987

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates. Inc.
APPENDIX I

STATE OF LOUISIANA STANDING

STRUCTURE FORMS
Louisiana Historic Resource

Louisiana Division of Historic Preservation

Office of Cultural Development

Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism

.;»^iTi^;i!Möl»E

Addendum Attached

Location and Geographic Information

Name of Property: ."fchn. ~* WWtjli n ffonup.

Address: gMlt^ fl £as\ ftiX* Parish: \Vu u^diJ

Locality: D City D Community D Vicinity Ö Rural

City/CommunityA/icinityof...: foouyxx -Socre-l. Lfr

Topographic Quad: ^,, n,, V ^J., \-K \ <m~ Quad Size: 137.5 D 15

UTM: 00-000000-00000B0

Owner Name:

easting northing

RUE

range

T we

township

-2.

section

Owner Address: Tax Parcel:.

Property Information

Type: D Site D Structure 0 Building D Object

Level of Recognition: D NHL D NR individual D NR district/element D DOE D Local 0 None

Previously Surveyed: DYes El No When, Located Where?:

Government Preservation Activity: El Section 106 D Grant D Tax Credit D Local Ord. D Other

HABS/HAER: D Yes 0 No NR eligibility: D Potential individual D Potential district H Ineligible

Condition: Excellent DGood El Fair D Poor D Ruin

Remark: . _ —

Integrity: Unaltered D Altered (Historic) El Altered (Non-Historic)

Remark: .

Threats: Abandonment D Neglect D Alteration D Development El Government Action D None

Remark: rvploflfITO n* Qxwcm SnruC \jQCb'

form HP-SVY96.1
Date of # Circa ^ ,

Construction: a Exact U Orr^'

Moved: ,0 Yes

O No When?

Function and Use

_ domestic

_ single dwelling

secondary structure

servant quarter

_ multiple dwelling

" hotel

_ institutional housing

camp

_ commerce/trade

_ business

_ professional

_ organizational

_ financial institution

_ specialty store

_ department store

_ restaurant

warehouse

T" for Present, "H" for Historic

_ social

_ meeting hall

_ clubhouse

_ civic

_ government

_ capitol

_ city hall

. correctional facility

_ fire station

_ government office

_ custom house

_ post office

_ public works

_ courthouse

_ education

_ school

_ college

library

research facility

religion

religious facility

church school

recreation/culture

theater

auditorium

museum -

_ sports facility

outdoor recreation

fair

monument/marker

work of art

agriculture/subsistence

_ processing

storage

animal facility fortification

fishing facility military facility

horticultural facility coast guard facility

im'gation facility battle site

industry landscape

manufacturing park

extractive facility plaza

waterworks garden

communication facility transportation

processing site rail-related

energy production air-related

health care water-related

hospital road-related

clinic pedestrian-related

sanitarium unknown

medical office • vacant

resort other

defense

arms storage

Form and Dimensions

single pen

shotgun

double-shotgun

camelback

double pen

hall-parlor

saddlebag

Creole cottage

dog trot

central-hall

gable-ell

bungalow

_ pyramidal cottage

Queen Anne cottage

_ central-hall, 2 pile cottage

_ bluffland cottage

_ central-hall l-house

double-pen l-house

hall-parlor l-house

Creole house

central hall, 2 pile house

Queen Anne house

_ four square

minimal tradition cottage

_ split level

skyscraper

commercial row bldg.

freestanding commercial

single-crib bam

, transverse-crib bam

pother

T

_ cruciform

*y 'symetricah

if)--:, gsymetrica!

I vertical

'4horizontal

ranch

row house

warehouse

_ depot

Height: J_1

Width: _

1

Depth: _J

. ---

h-l&I.... ;2, 2.5

- BUS»—

_3_4_5-10.

3 3+

v1Ö?2Ö 20+

D High Style D Elements of... $ No Style

Creole/ French Colonial

Federal

Greek Revival

Gothic Revival

Italian Villa

Exotic Revival

Victorian Gothic

Italianate

Second Empire

Queen Anne

Eastlake/Stick

Shingle Style

Romanesque

Renaissance

Beaux Arts

Colonial Revival

Classical Revival

Tudor Revival

Late Gothic Revival

Mission

Italian Renaissance

French Renaissance

Prairie

Commercial Style

Chicago

Skyscraper

Craftsman

Moderne

Art Deco

International

Other

Foundation

post in ground

_ sill on ground

wooden pier

brick pier

X concrete block pier

concrete pylon pier

continuous brick

continuous stone

continuous concrete block

concrete slab

unknown _ w/stone infill -

_ w/brick infill

. w/ concrete block infill

Construction

post in ground

post on sill

log (note notch)

hewn log

french timber frame

eastern brace frame

A balloon frame

unknown wood frame

load bearing brick

load bearing stone

load bearing concrete block

reinforced concrete

steel frame/curtain wall

unknown construction

rw/boüsillage'infill

w/ brick infill

w/stöhö infill

Exterior Materials y( vertical board stone (note dressing)

board and batten concrete block

log (note dressing) wood shingle decorative concrete block

clapboard/weatherboard exposed bousillage poured concrete wall

drop/novelty siding stucco pigmented glass

flush horizontal board brick (note bond) glass block

terra cotta X"asphalt

glazed brick/tile/block reconstituted wood siding

sheet metal permastone

enamelled steel other (see narrative)

asbestos unknown

aluminum/virtyl siding

Roof

J\ front gable

side gable

parapet gable

stepped gable

clipped gable

cross gable

gambrel

hip

double pitch hip

gable on hip

pyramidal

mansard

complex

round

conical unknown

.flat

shed

other (see narrative)

X low pitch '

__ moderate pitch

steep pitch

__ w/;parapetwall

Roof Materials

wood shingle

slate

asphalt shingle

asbestos

X_ metal

ceramic/terra cotta tile

built up

other

unknown

Chimney(s)

gable end exterior

gable end interior/flush

ridge center

ridge off-center

slope center

slope off center

lateral exterior

removed

other

unknown
Windows

batten

fixed single

fixed divided

X single-hung

X double-hung

__ triple-hung

bay

oriel

Palladian

casement

. sliding

replacement

unknown

other

_J/1

2/2

4/4

^.6/6

_9/9

]12/12

_2/1

~3/1

_4/1

~6/1

_9/1

12/1

_9/6

multistained

_ diamond

unknown

other

Doors/Surrounds

number

batten flush fanlight screened

french glazed sidelights replacement

panel partially glazed transom ^unknown

Federal

Greek Revival

Queen Anne

other

Porch gallery porte-cochere

portico j^full width

stoop balcony partial width

verandah __ loggia j£ attached

integrated _2_ enclosed

wrap unknown

peripteral other

Vscreened

Secondary

stoop

verandah

gallery porte-cochere_

portico >L full width

balcony partial width

loggia _*_ attached

integrated ^enclosed

wrap unknown

peripteral other

screened

Additions and Alterations

date description

(Vm pnrk. , intM- <^Ai e\ ^IAI^M* —

impact

I «ft S

a M S

T M S

I M S

I M S

Context

Plantation Agriculture (1750-1945)

Creole Architecture (1750 -1900)

Upland South Culture (1820 -1945)

New Orleans as Seaport (1718 -1945)

Transportation Systems (1812 -1845)

Historic Lumber Industry (1880-1920)

Rice Boom (1880-1945)

Oil and Gas Industry (1903-1945)

"v^_ Anglo-American Architecture (1800-1945)

agriculture religion

X architecture science

archeology social history

art transportation

commerce

communications

community planning and development

conservation

economics

education

engineering

entertainment/recreation

ethnic heritage

exploration/settlement

health/medicine

industry

invention

landscape architecture

law

literature

maritime history

military

performing arts

philosophy

politics/government
Narrative

T^To Rn.^V Sarr«» L*c^ ü r Y

K

' * ° ^ *

0t^r

^

ni

^ nVri^^^lL,

^VNJ, s^>i<AaJ

sy^,*., foM-O rJMdfVrt PO-^A ^

Outbuildings 1 - single crib barn

2 - double crib barn

3 - transverse-crib barn

\l #1

type:

date: e /(cW'rt 10^

com/rienf:_

^ H-f.r\uÜ

4 - storage/misc. shed

5 -smoke house

6 -spring/well house

#3_

type:

7 - corn crib

8 - coop

9 - quarters

10 -garcconier

11 -pigeonnier

12-kitchen

13-office 16-privey

14 - machine shed 17-stable

15-garage 18-other

Site Plan

L. _ _4_ ..;—._...,.

-L

i

i

T" .- ]..- ...;....._ —

v- .....

Louisiana Historic Resource Inventory

Louisiana Division of Historic Preservation

Office of Cultural Development

Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism

Addendum Attached

Location and Geographic Information

Name of Property: Bovcl

3

Address:. M fo*5 Jbjus>öu Scirr-c-l >\d Parish: 1YUA mXJLt

Locality: D City D Community D Vicinity 13 Rural

City/Community/Vicinity of...: PTJ^AU Sncrei .

L

^

Topographic Quad:. &^u .Vyrf-eJ ,U BL

UTM: a-Q000Q0"[IlLaL3i0000

Quad Size: (ZJ 7.5 D 15

R// g T IIS c3

easting

Owner Name: Unknown

northing range township section

Owner Address: Tax Parcel:

Property Information

Type: D Site D Structure 0 Building D Object

Level of Recognition: D NHL D NR individual D NR district/element D DOE D Local SNone

Previously Surveyed: Yes S No When, Located Where?:

Government Preservation Activity: 0 Section 106 D Grant D Tax Credit D Local Ord. D Other

HABS/HAER: D Yes S No NR eligibility: D Potential individual D Potential district ^ Ineligible

Condition: D Excellent D Good S Fair D Poor D Ruin

Remark: __ — — ———

Integrity: D Unaltered D Altered (Historic) H Altered (Non-Historic)

Remark: __ __

Threats: Abandonment D Neglect D Alteration D Development El Government Action D None

Remark: ReDlafe mo <vi Pra /rv / for/ 01 IncV _

Com HP-SVY9B.1
•«»« Colfstmction: Exact IQ* ctr±.

Moved: Yes "vVo __.__«.

D No When?

Function and Use

domestic

single dwellingsecondary structure

servant quarter

multiple dwelling

hotel

institutional housing

camp

commerce/trade

business

professional

organizational

financial institution

specialty store

department store

restaurant

warehouse

"P" for Present, "H" for Historic

. social

meeting hall

. clubhouse

.civic

government

. capitol

. city hall

. correctional facility

fire station

government office

custom house

. post office

public works

courthouse

education

. school

. college

library

research facility

religion

_ religious facility

church school

recreation/culture

theater

auditorium

museum

sports facility

outdoor recreation

fair

monument/marker

work of art

agriculture/subsistence

processing

storage

animal facility fortification

fishing facility military facility

horticultural facility coast guard facility

irrigation facility battle site

industry landscape

manufacturing park

extractive facility plaza

waterworks garden

communication facility transportation

processing site ____ rail-related

energy production „ air-related

health care water-related

hospital road-related

clinic pedestrian-related

sanitarium unknown

medical office vacant

ce resort other

arms storage

Form and Dimensions

single pen

y( shotgun

double-shotgun

camelback

double pen

hall-parlor

saddlebag

Creole cottage

dog trot

central-hall

gable-ell

bungalow

pyramidal cottage

Queen Anne cottage

central-hall, 2 pile cottage

bluffland cottage

central-hall l-house

double-pen l-house

hall-parlor l-house

Creole house

central hall, 2 pile house

Queen Anne house

four square

minimal tradition cottage

split level

ranch

row house

warehouse

depot

skyscraper

commercial row bldg.

freestanding commercial

single-crib barn

transverse-crib barn

other

j( symetricai _vertical

> -: asymetcical horizontal

Height: __1 _1 -5_2_2.5_3__4 _.

Width: _1 _^5_2_2,5w^c_,3+

Depth: _1 _1-5_2__2.5__3_3+

5-10 - 10-20, i 20+

O High Style D Elements of... EJ No Style

Creole/ French Colonial Exotic Revival Eastlake/Stick __

Federal Victorian Gothic Shingle Style

Greek Revival Italianate Romanesque

Gothic Revival Second Empire Renaissance

Italian Villa Queen Anne Beaux Arts

Colonial Revival

Classical Revival

Tudor Revival

Late Gothic Revival

Mission

Italian Renaissance

French Renaissance

Prairie International

__ Commercial Style Other

Chicago .

Skyscraper

Craftsman

__ Moderne

Art Deco

Foundation

post in ground

sill on ground

wooden pier'

brick pier

Y. concrete block pier

concrete pylon pier

continuous brick

continuous stone

continuous concrete block

concrete slab

unknown _ w/stone infill

_w/brick infill

w/concrete block infill

Construction

post in ground

post on sill

log (note notch)

hewn log

french timber frame

eastern brace frame

/ balloon frame

unknown wood frame

load bearing brick

load bearing stone

load bearing concrete block

reinforced concrete

steel frame/curtain wall

unknown construction

:__ w/bousillage infill

' • ■■" w/ brick infill

; w/ stone infill ■■ -, .

Exterior Materials Xvertical board

_ board and batten

_ wood shingle

_ exposed bousillage

log (note dressing)

clapboard/weatherboard

drop/novelty siding stucco

flush horizontal board brick (note bond)

stone (note dressing)

concrete block

decorative concrete block

poured concrete wall

pigmented glass

glass block

terra cotta

glazed brick/tile/block

sheet metal

enamelled steel

asbestos

aluminum/vinyl siding

asphalt

reconstituted wood siding

permastone

__ other (see narrative)

unknown

Roof

X front gable

side gable

parapet gable

stepped gable

clipped gable

cross gable

gambrel

hip

double pitch hip

gable on hip

pyramidal

mansard

complex

round

conical unknown

flat

shed

other (see narrative)

; low pitch

X moderate pitch

steep pitch

w/parapet wall

Roof Materials

wood shingle

slate

asphalt shingle built up

asbestos other

Xmetal unknown

ceramic/terra cotta tile

Ghimney(s)

_gable end exterior

gable end interior/flush

ridge center

ridge off-center

slope center

slope off center

lateral exterior

removed

other

unknown
Windows fixed divided

single-hung

batten A. double-hung

fixed single triple-hung

bay

oriel

Palladian

casement

sliding

replacement

unknown

other

J

/1

2/2

4/4

6/6

9/9

_ 12/ 12

2/1

3/1

4/1

X-6/1

_9/1

12/1

_9/6

multistained

diamond

unknown

other

Doors/Surrounds

~? number

batten

french

panel

flush

glazed

partially glazed

fanlight screened Federal

sidelights replacement Greek Revival

transom &_ unknown Queen Anne

other

Porch gallery porte-cochere integrated enclosed

portico X-fu"

width wrap unknown

stoop balcony partial width peripteral other

verandah loggia _£ attached _X screened

Secondary

stoop

verandah

gallery porte-cochere integrated enclosed

portico Ji_ full width wrap unknown

balcony partial width peripteral other

loggia j( attached Xscreened

Additions and Alterations

date description impact

I M S

I M S

T M s

I M s

I M s

Context

Plantation Agriculture (1750-1945)

Creole Architecture (1750 - 1900)

Upland South Culture (1820 -1945)

New Orleans as Seaport (1718 -1945)

Transportation Systems (1812 -1845)

Historic Lumber Industry (1880-1920)

Rice Boom (1880-1945)

Oil and Gas Industry (1903-1945)

^ Anglo-American Architecture (1800-1945)

Significance

agriculture __ religion

X architecture science

archeology social history

art transportation

commerce

communications

community planning and development

conservation

economics

education

engineering

entertainment/recreation

ethnic heritage

exploration/settlement

health/medicine

industry

invention

landscape architecture

law

literature

maritime history

military

performing arts

philosophy

politics/government
Narrative A3

Oft^nns-Ar^M^/fl^ T rfloP. TV» )^MI ^UlliJA W, U^A^'M I I* WTC* ^cU.

Pi rrt -l{\ I ) . rv-Tp ', J x i.nJ (X > ) > .W^^AA-^

XQ.

^mcV^n" rnssit-ilu rmurrX Wo prpse/v-i—I, 0Tfl,>-V<3>-,

1—1—5 1JU ' ' 'i, ' »—" ■■ " " ^<-^ ' "*'* O . .

hisori '^> ^i HR'^P Md ofidUlM.-rm.P QAfrtu -W<^;,,\A 1

tr

History

Sources

1 - single crib barn

2 - double crib barn

3 - transverse-crib barn

4 - storage/misc. shed

5 - smoke house

6 - spring/well house

7 - corn crib

8 - coop

9 - quarters

10 -garcconier

11 -pigeonnier

12 -kitchen

13 -office

14 -machine shed

15-garage

16 - privey

17-stable

18 -other
*y -$\
Louisiana Historie Resource Inventory

Louisiana Division of Historie Preservation

Office of Cultural Development

Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism

^J^äÄKi@PÄ^^%.

Addendum Attached

Location and Geographic Information

Name of Property:. Ur^T/nO

Address: ^0^5 Bo-^ou 3>or re.) Rri* Parish: ik££ÜI-ll:

Locality: D City D Community D Vicinity 0 Rural

City/Community/Vicinity of...: RayrnA Sorrel , Lt\ , Topographic Quad:. rVix^u ,SOTC^ , U<N WLQuadSize: 0 7.5 D 15

UTM: ÜJ5Izone

Owner Name:

easting northing range township

A.

section

Un^rv%or>

Owner Address: Tax Parcel:.

Property Information Type: D Site D Structure 0 Building D Object

Level of Recognition: D NHL D NR individual D NR district/element D DOE D Local D None

Previously Surveyed: D Yes M No When, Located Where?: —

Government Preservation Activity: El Section 106 D Grant D Tax Credit D Local Ord. D Other

HABS/HAER: D Yes H No NR eligibility: D Potential individual D Potential district 0 Ineligible

Condition: D Excellent DGood 0Fair D Poor D Ruin

Remark: — —

Integrity: D Unaltered D Altered (Historic) H Altered (Non-Historic)

Remark: . — "

Threats: D Abandonment D Neglect D Alteration D Development El Government Action D None

Remark: PppWrmrfil o( BTWMI &>Ttf\ Lor ^ —

form HP-SVY98.1
Date of fcfCirca .<&_„ ,

Construction: ö Exact 12—LS2L:

Moved: fiJYes

D No

FR.o£P>£,Lt

When?

Function and Use

domestic

single dwelling

secondary structure

servant quarter

multiple dwelling

hotel

institutional housing

"P" for Present, "H" for.Historic

camp

commerce/trade

business

professional

organizational

_ financial institution

_ specialty store

department store

_ restaurant

warehouse

_ social

meeting hall

_ clubhouse

_ civic

government

_ capital

_ city hall

_ correctional facility

_ fire station

_ government office

_ custom house

_ post office

_ public works

_ courthouse

education

_ school

_ college

. library

research facility

religion

_ religious facility

church school

recreation/culture

_ theater

_ auditorium

museum

_ sports facility

_ outdoor recreation

_ fair

_ monument/marker

_ work of art

agriculture/subsistence

_ processing

_ storage

animal facility

fishing facility

horticultural facility

irrigation facility

industry

_ manufacturing

_ extractive facility

_ waterworks

_ communication facility

_ processing site

_ energy production

_ health care

_ hospital

_ clinic

_ sanitarium

_ medical office

_ resort

_ defense

arms storage

_ fortification

_ military facility

_ coast guard facility

_ battle site

_ landscape

park

_ plaza

_ garden

_ transportation

_ rail-related

_ air-related

_ water-related

_ road-related

_ pedestrian-related

_ unknown

_ vacant

other

Form and Dimensions

single pen

shotgun

double-shotgun

camelback

double pen

_ hall-parlor

_ saddlebag

Creole cottage

_ dog trot

central-hall

gable-ell

bungalow

pyramidal cottage

Queen Anne cottage

central-hall, 2 pile cottage

bluffland cottage

central-hall l-house

double-pen l-house

hall-parlor l-house

Creole house

_central hall, 2 pile house

Queen Anne house

four square

minimal tradition cottage

split level

ranch

row house

warehouse

depot

skyscraper

commercial row bldg.

freestanding commercial

single-crib barn

transverse-crib barn

2C other

_H XL

. U, -i_ cruciform,

: T : T

symetrical vertical

£_ asymetrical )L horizontal

Height: *J _J -5_2 _2.5 _3 _4 _

Width: _I_J.5_2_2.5_3_3+-

Depth: *j_1 _1-5_2 _2.5 _3_3+

5-10? :lÖ-20_^20+

High Style D Elements of... (zTNo Style

Creole/ French Colonial -

Federal

Greek Revival

Gothic Revival

Italian Villa

Exotic Revival

Victorian Gothic

Italianate

_ Second Empire

Queen Anne

__ Eastlake/Stick

Shingle Style

Romanesque

Renaissance

Beaux Arts

_ Colonial Revival

Classical Revival

Tudor Revival

_ Late Gothic Revival

_ Mission

_ Italian Renaissance

French Renaissance

Prairie International

Commercial Style Other

Chicago .

Skyscraper

Craftsman

Moderne .

Art Deco

Foundation

post in ground

_ sill on ground

_ wooden pier

brick pier

X concrete block pier

concrete pylon pier

continuous brick

continuous stone

continuous concrete block

concrete slab

unknown ¥wMone infill ,'* .,,

_-w/,brick"infill

w) concrete block infill

Construction

post in ground

_ post on sill

log (note notch)

hewn log

french timber frame

eastern brace frame

X. balloon frame

unknown wood frame

load bearing brick

load bearing stone

load bearing concrete block .-w/bousillage"infill

reinforced concrete >w/ brick infill

steel frame/curtain wall w/stone infill

unknown construction

Exterior Materials X_ vertical board stone (note dressing) — terra cotta

_ board and batten _concrete block _glazed brick/tile/block

log (note dressing) wood shingle decorative concrete block — sheet metal

clapboard/weatherboard exposed bousillage poured concrete wall — enamelled steel

drop/novelty siding stucco pigmented glass — asbestos

""flush horizontal board _ brick (note bond) _glass block _aluminum/vinyl stdrng

asphalt

reconstituted wood siding

permastone

other (see narrative)

unknown

Roof

% front gable

side gable

parapet gable

_ stepped gable

_ clipped gable

cross gable

gambrel

hip

double pitch hip

gable on hip

pyramidal

_ mansard

_ complex

round

_ conical unknown

flat

shed

_ other (see narrative)

low pitch

X" moderate pitch

steep pitch

. w/parapet wall

Roof Materials

_ wood shingle

slate

asphalt shingle

asbestos

2i_ metal

ceramic/terra cotta tile

built up

other

unknown

Chimney(s)

_gable end exterior

gable end interior/flush

ridge center

ridge off-center

slope center

slope off center

_ lateral exterior

_ removed

_ other

unknown
Windows fixed divided bay

single-hung oriel

batten 2~ double-hung Palladian

"fixed single _triple-hung _casement

sliding

_ replacement

_ unknown

other

2/2

4/4

J£>/6

_9/9

12/12

_2/1

3/1

_47.1

_6/1

_9/1

12/1

_9/6

multi-

_ stained

diamond

_ unknown

other

Doors/Surrounds

v2> number

_batten _flush _fanlight

_french _glazed _sidelights

_panel _partially glazed _transom

screened Federal

_replacement _ Greek Revival

Y_ unknown __ Queen Anne

other

Porch gallery _ porte-cochere _integrated^ enclosed

_portico _full width _wrap _unknown

stoop _balcony _partial width _peripteral _other

2verandah _loggia X>ttacned AL screened __

Secondary

stoop

verandah

gaUery porte-cochere__ integrated ^enclosed

~portico _full width _wrap _unknown

balcony partial width peripteral other

loggia __ attached screened

Additions and Alterations

date description

impact

I M

Plantation Agriculture (1750-1945)

Creole Architecture (1750 - 1900)

_ Upland South Culture (1820 -1945)

New Orleans as Seaport (1718 -1945)

Transportation Systems (1812 -1845)

Historic Lumber Industry (1880-1920)

Rice Boom (1880-1945)

Oil and Gas Industry (1903-1945)

J{ Anglo-American Architecture (1800-1945)

I M(^

T M s

I M S

T M s

agriculture religion

_j£_ architecture science

archeology social history

art transportation

commerce

communications

community planning and development

conservation

economics

education

engineering

entertainment/recreation

ethnic heritage

exploration/settlement

health/medicine

industry

invention

landscape architecture

law

literature

maritime history

military

performing arts

philosophy

politics/government
Narrative

_a

Outbuildings 1 - single crib barn

2 - double crib barn

3 - transverse-crib barn

4 - storage/misc. shed 7 - corn crib

5-smoke house

6 - spring/well house

IC^garcconier 13 - office 16 - privey

8-coop 11-pigeonnier 14 - machine shed "-stable

9 -quarters 12-kitchen 15-garage^ 18-other

#4~
*y $;
Louisiana Historic Resource Inventory

Louisiana Division of Historic Preservation

Office of Cultural Development

Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism

Addendum Attached

Location and Geographic Information

Name of Property: lA.^Vowion

Address: ^\C^ ß F *M ^e Parish: 1 bar In 11-*

Locality: D City D Community D Vicinity 0 Rural

City/CommunityAficinityof...: ?v*\jfti;i Sorrel ^^

Topographic Quad:. <^p W<-^ i L-h W ieasting northing

12. n _r

range

Quad Size: 0 7.5 D 15

township section

Owner Name:

Owner Address:

l J riV-AOfjQn

Tax Parr.Pl: Us> kriri/JM-o

Property Information Type: D Site D Structure _ Building D Object

Level of Recognition: D NHL D NR individual D NR district/element D DOE D Local L^None

Previously Surveyed: D Yes __ No When, Located Where?: .

Government Preservation Activity: 0 Section 106 D Grant D Tax Credit D Local Ord. G Other

HABS/HAER: DYesSNo NR eligibility: D Potential individual D Potential district _f Ineligible

Condition: D Excellent D Good (STFair D Poor D Ruin

Remark: _____ —

Integrity: Q Unaltered D Altered (Historic) 0 Altered (Non-Historic)

Remark: . —

Threats: D Abandonment D Neglect D Alteration D Development 0 Government Action G None

Remark: VrJare^rA Say*» 93rr-e(—/___ . . —

form HP-SVY98.1
Date of

Construction: D Exact ?J^ OrrL.

Moved: 0Yes

D No When?Ur>fcfrc>oor>

Function and Use "P" for Present, "H" for Historic

domestic

single dwelling

secondary structure

servant quarter

multiple dwelling

hotel

institutional housing

camp

commerce/trade

business

professional

organizational

financial institution

specialty store

department store

restaurant

warehouse

social

meeting hall

. clubhouse

civic

government

capital

city hall

correctional facility

fire station

government office

custom house

post office

public works

courthouse

education

school

college

_ library

research facility

religion

__ religious facility

_ church school

recreation/culture

theater

_ auditorium

_ museum

_ sports facility

outdoor recreation

fair

monument/marker

work of art

agriculture/subsistence

_ processing

_ storage

animal facility fortification

fishing facility military facility

horticultural facility coast guard facility

irriqation facility battle site

industry landscape

manufacturing park

extractive facility plaza

waterworks garden

communication facility transportation

processing site rail-related

energy production air-related

health care water-related

hospital road-related

clinic pedestrian-related

sanitarium unknown

medical office vacant

resort other

defense

arms storage

Form and Dimensions

_ single pen —

shotgun —

double-shotgun —

camelback —

double pen —

_ hall-parlor —

_ saddlebag —

Creole cottage —

_ dog trot —

central-hall

gable-ell

bungalow

pyramidal cottage

Queen Anne cottage

central-hall, 2 pile cottage

bluffland cottage

central-hall l-house

double-pen l-house

hall-parlor l-house

Creole house

central hall, 2 pile house

Queen Anne house

four square

minimal tradition cottage

_ split level

skyscraper

commercial row bldg.

freestanding commercial

single-crib barn

transverse-crib barn

..H

_U

T

cruciform

T

\ other

^symetricai vertical

_ asymetrical horizontal

ranch

row house

warehouse

depot

Height: 2^1 _l-5_2_2.5.

Width: _J-_1-

5—2

_

2

-

5

-

Depth: _1 _1-5_2 _2.5.

_3.

_3_

3

_4_

_3+

3+

5-10 10-20 20+

D High Style D Elements of... QNo Style,

_ Creole/ French Coloni;

Federal

Greek Revival

Gothic Revival

Italian Villa

Exotic Revival

Victorian Gothic

Italianate

Second Empire

Queen Anne

Eastlake/Stick

Shingle Style

Romanesque

Renaissance

Beaux Arts

Colonial Revival

Classical Revival

Tudor Revival

Late Gothic Revival

Mission

Italian Renaissance

French Renaissance

Prairie

Commercial Style

Chicago

Skyscraper

Craftsman

Moderne

Art Deco

International

Other

Foundation

post in ground

sill on ground 2\ concrete block pier

wooden pier concrete pylon pier

brick pier continuous brick

continuous stone

continuous concrete block

concrete slab

unknown w/sforie infill

_ w/ brick infill

w/ concrete block infill

Construction

post in ground

post on sill

log (note notch)

hewn log

french timber frame

eastern brace frame

y( balloon frame

unknown wood frame

load bearing brick

load bearing stone

load bearing concrete block

reinforced concrete

steel frame/curtain wall

unknown construction

w/bousillage infill

w/ brick infill

w/ stone infill

Exterior Materials .^vertical board

board and batten

log (note dressing) wood shingle

clapboard/weatherboard exposed bousillage

drop/novelty siding stucco

flush horizontal board brick (note bond)

stone (note dressing)

concrete block

decorative concrete block

poured concrete wall

pigmented glass

glass block

terra cotta

glazed brick/tile/block

sheet metal

enamelled steel

asbestos

aluminum/vinyl siding

X, asphalt

_ reconstituted wood siding

permastone

other (see narrative)

unknown

y, front gable

side gable

parapet gable

stepped gable

clipped gable

cross gable

gambrel

hip

double pitch hip

gable on hip

pyramidal

mansard

complex

round

conical unknown

flat

shed

other (see narrative)

low pitch

X moderate pitch

steep pitch

w/ parapet wall

Roof Materials

wood shingle

slate

_Xasphalt shingle . built up

asbestos other

metal unknown

ceramic/terra cotta tile

Chimney(s)

gable end exterior

_gable end interior/flush

ridge center lateral exterior

ridge off-center removed

slope center other

slope off center unknown
Windows fixed divided bay sliding

' single-hung oriel replacement

batten A double-hung Palladian unknown

fixed single triple-hung casement other

1 /1

_2/2

4/4

£6/6

9/9

12/12

_2/1

3/1

4/ 1

6/1

_9/1

12/1

_9/6

multistained

diamond

unknown

other

Doors/Surrounds

number

batten flush fanlight screened

french glazed sidelights replacement

panel partially glazed transom £_ unknown

Federal

Greek Revival

Queen Anne

other

Porch gallery porte-cochere

portico >(\u\\ width

stoop balcony partial width

verandah loggia X_ attached

integrated enclosed

wrap unknown

peripteral other

screened

Secondary

stoop

verandah

gallery porte-cochere_

portico J^L fu"

widtn

balcony partial width

loggia A. attached

integrated >£ enclosed

wrap unknown

peripteral other

screened

Additions and Alterations

impact date description

IMS

Jv!_SL

_L_M_S-

_JLM_S_

Context

Plantation Agriculture (1750-1945)

Creole Architecture (1750 - 1900)

Upland South Culture (1820 -1945)

New Orleans as Seaport (1718 -1945)

Transportation Systems (1812 -1845)

Historic Lumber Industry (1880-1920)

Rice Boom (1880-1945)

Oil and Gas Industry (1903-1945)

y Anglo-American Architecture (1800-1945)

Significance

agriculture

^architecture

archeology

art

religion

science

social history

transportation

commerce

communications

community planning and development

conservation

economics

education

engineering

entertainment/recreation

ethnic heritage

exploration/settlement

health/medicine

industry

invention

landscape architecture

law

literature

maritime history

military

performing arts

philosophy

politics/government
i. 1 ^nf^t fx-wirr/i ^niHfi'-n , , . ,

ftn^ an npen porch'

p(nnt>r<\ rnsif,'**—-fk/ St,

»rJfJ o,*(X r r.j)-k r)A/.hl^?X^Jk

4

Cf A; x,-/// rar^o

A ln rief »l-ra^*J a,,*, lit /**ft rV CcrTeU^QO

0^7 i?^/ Idlrft P r0f?>rt\r^Pr, ideal..

History

Outbuildings 1 -single crib bam

2 - double crib barn

3 - transverse-crib barn

4 - storage/misc. shed 7 - corn crib

5 - smoke house 8 - coop

6 - spring/well house 9 - quarters

10 -garcconier

11 -pigeonnier

12-kitchen

13-office 16-privey

14 - machine shed 17 - stable

15-garage 18-other
at %y ^P;

I