A National Register of Historic Places Evaluation of a Portion of the Bridge Site (Site 15LV98), Livingston County, Kentucky
Creators: name: Herndon, Richard
name: DelCastello, Brian
Publisher: name: Cultural Resource Analysts Inc.
Year: 2016
Subjects: Livingston County, Kentucky
Early Archaic
Milling Feature
Archaeological Feature
Pit
Chipped Stone
Macrobotanical
Macrobotanical Remains
Environment Research
Archaeological Overview
Consultation
Data Recovery / Excavation
Heritage Management
Site Evaluation / Testing

description: The National Register of Historic Places evaluation of a portion of the Bridge Site (15Lv98) in Livingston County, Kentucky, was carried out by Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., personnel between mid-December 2015 and late March 2016. Investigations were conducted at the request of Tony Hunley of Stantec on behalf of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (Item Number 1-1142.00). The portion investigated was situated within the proposed boundary for the U.S. 60 bridge replacement project and encompassed approximately 2.1 ha (5.3 acres). The remainder of the site was located outside the proposed project boundary to the west and will not be impacted. The site is located on an upper terrace of the Cumberland River and has been under cultivation for many decades. Another disturbance to the site was an extant late-nineteenth- to mid-twentiethcentury farmstead. A pond associated with the farmstead was filled-in by the mid-1960s in order to create more land for agriculture. The construction of the original U.S. 60 bridge during the 1930s does not appear to have impacted the site outside the existing right-of-way. Prior to excavation a geophysical survey of approximately 1.8 ha (4.4 acres) of the site was completed. A total of 27 potential prehistoric targets were identified during the survey and found to be concentrated mainly along the southern edge of the site. Five 1-x-2 m test units and 508 sq m of mechanical stripping divided into five separate blocks were then excavated. The purpose of the placement for some of these units and blocks was to investigate the potential targets identified during the geophysical survey; whereas, the remaining units and blocks were used to sample other areas of the site. The filled-in pond, which was located in the center of the site, was avoided since it was highly disturbed. The fieldwork conducted at the Bridge Site identified an intact Early Archaic deposit located in the southeastern corner of the site on a small rise and encompassed approximately 2,500 sq m of area, although the eastern-most 400 sq m may be disturbed to some extent by the later historic occupation at the site. This rise was also the location of most of the potential prehistoric targets noted above. The intact deposits were approximately 30–40 cm in depth and situated just below the Ap horizon. This zone contained a large amount of debitage and fire-cracked rock. Within this zone was a shallow basin of indeterminate function containing a large amount of fire-cracked rock and debitage. This pit corresponded to one of the geophysical targets. Also originating from this zone were two hafted bifaces: Early Side-Notched (8000–6000 B.C.) and Kirk Corner-Notched (7000–6000 B.C.). Numerous cores, scrapers, adze-like bifaces, and retouched flakes were also present. Given the results of the fieldwork, it is recommended that approximately 2,500 sq m of area in the southeastern portion of the site containing the intact Early Archaic deposits be avoided by the proposed construction. Numerous other features are likely to be present in this area based on the geophysical survey. If this area cannot be avoided by the proposed construction then additional investigations in the form of a data recovery is recommended to mitigate the adverse impacts the project would have on this portion of the site. The remainder of the site within the project area either has no integrity or a very low potential to have intact prehistoric deposits. No further work is recommended for these latter areas. Lastly, the wooded areas on terraces on either side of the Cumberland River were tested with bucket augers to assess the potential for buried deposits on these landforms. It was determined that little to no potential was present, and no further work is recommended for those areas either.