Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Borrow Pit Site West of Brownstown, Jackson County, Indiana for a Bridge Replacement on U.S. Route SO, Over the East Fork of the White River

Abstract

At the request of Halverson Construction Co., Inc., the Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, perlonned a cultural resources survey at the proposed location for a borrow pit west of Brownstown, Jackson County, Indiana. Approximately 8.0 acres were surveyed by means of a shovel probe survey; small portions of the survey area (totalling approximately 0.04 acres) were examined visually. The purposes of the archaeological reconnaissance were to: 1) identify and document cultural resources in the proposed project area; 2) if cultural materials were discovered, assess their potential for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the Indiana Register of Historic Sites and Structures (IRHSS); and 3) make recommendations pertaining to the significance and future treatment of cultural resources within the project area Fieldwork was performed on July 1 and 3, 1998 by GBL archaeologists Wendy L. Natt and Mary E. Pirkl. During the survey, two sites, 12 J 389 and 390, were discovered within the originally proposed project area. However, subsequent to the survey, a representative of Halverson Construction Co., Inc. stated that both of these sites would be completely avoided during the borrow project because they fell with a large portion of the project area (4.0 acres) that had recently been removed from the borrow project plan. Because no cultural resources were found within the newly defined, 4-acre project area, archaeological clearance is recommended for the excavation of a borrow pit at that location. Sites 12 J 389 and 390 are both located outside of the (revised) project area; neither of these sites will be impacted by the proposed borrow pit. On the basis of the small quantity and low diversity of artifacts recovered from both sites as well as their location in heavily eroded areas that are unlikely to contain intact, buried deposits, both sites are recommended to be non-significant and ineligible for inclusion on either the NRHP or the IRHSS.