19910022 Ver 3_Archaeological Survey draft_Final_20191009

1111PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT
Phase I Archaeological Survey of
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS
EXPANSION TRACT
Bladen County, North Carolina
New South Associates

Intentionally Left Blank
Phase I Archaeological Survey of the
Smithfield Foods Expansion Tract
Bladen County, North Carolina
Report submitted to:
Kimley-Horn • 421 Fayetteville Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Report prepared by:
New South Associates • 6150 East Ponce de Leon Avenue • Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083
Shawn Patch – Principal Investigator
James Stewart – Archaeologist and Author
Christopher T. Espenshade – Archaeologist and Author
September 19, 2017 • Final Report
New South Associates Technical Report 2759

Intentionally Left Blank
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT i

ABSTRACT
New South Associates, Inc. (New South) conducted a Phase I Archaeological Survey of the
Smithfield Foods Expansion Project Study Area (PSA) and two temporary staging areas.
Smithfield Foods plans to construct a cold-storage facility and international distribution center
approximately five miles northwest of Tar Heel, in Bladen County North Carolina. This survey
was conducted from July 17-20, 2017 at the request of Kimley-Horn.
This investigation sought to identify all archaeological resources within the project areas and
assess their National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility. The PSA and staging areas
incorporate 169.5 acres of ground. Most of this area, 102.2 acres (60%), is occupied by two
industrial plants and ancillary tractor-trailer parking lots. This area was heavily disturbed by the
construction of the plants and lots. The remaining 40 percent, including 49.5 acres of the PSA
and 15.5 acres in the temporary staging areas were the focus of Phase I intensive survey. In
total, 65 acres were surveyed with intensive survey techniques. The work performed by New
South complied with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as
amended, and the 2017 North Carolina Archaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines.
Three archaeological sites were identified in the project area. FS-1 and FS-2 are Woodland
artifact scatters. Site FS-3 is a disturbed segment of twentieth-century railroad track bed. All
three archaeological sites were recommended not eligible for the NRHP. No further work is
recommended for the project, as currently designed.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Beth Reed for coordinating our efforts
and access to the plant. We would also like to thank Will Britz and Pete Mayers for their efforts
during fieldwork.

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................. 5
PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND DRAINAGE ................................................................ 5
SOILS .......................................................................................................................................... 5
CLIMATE ................................................................................................................................... 8
FLORA AND FAUNAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 8
EXISTING CONDITIONS IN THE APE ................................................................................... 9

III. CULTURAL CONTEXT ........................................................................................................ 11
PRECONTACT PERIOD OVERVIEW ................................................................................... 11
PALEOINDIAN PERIOD (10,000–8000 B.C.) ........................................................................ 11
ARCHAIC PERIOD (8000–1000 B.C.) .................................................................................... 13
WOODLAND PERIOD (1000 B.C.–A.D. 1650) ..................................................................... 14
CONTACT/ PROTOHISTORIC PERIOD (A.D. 1500–1590) ................................................. 16
HISTORIC PERIOD OVERVIEW ........................................................................................... 17
ENGLISH COLONIZATION (1607–1783) ............................................................................. 17
ANTEBELLUM BLADEN COUNTY (1784–1861) ................................................................ 19
CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION (1865–1899) .......................................................... 20
TWENTIETH-CENTURY BLADEN COUNTY ..................................................................... 21
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND RESULTS ............................ 22

IV. METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 25
BACKGROUND RESEARCH METHODS ............................................................................. 25
FIELD METHODS .................................................................................................................... 25
LABORATORY METHODS ................................................................................................... 27
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES (NRHP) CRITERIA ............................... 27
CURATION ............................................................................................................................... 28

V. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 29
PROJECT STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................ 29
FS-1 ........................................................................................................................................ 31
FS-2 ........................................................................................................................................ 34
FS-3 ........................................................................................................................................ 36
TEMPORARY STAGING AREA 1 ......................................................................................... 39
iv
TEMPORARY STAGING AREA 2 ......................................................................................... 39
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 40
REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................................. 41
APPENDIX A: SPECIMEN CATALOG
APPENDIX B: SHOVEL TEST LOG
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT v

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location Map ................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. 2016 Aerial Photograph Showing the Project Area ..................................................... 3
Figure 3. 1951 Aerial Photograph of the Project Area ................................................................ 6
Figure 4. 1979 Aerial Photograph Showing the Soils Encountered in the Project Area ............. 7
Figure 5. Previously Recorded Sites and Surveys Within Two Miles of the Project Area ....... 23
Figure 6. Phase I Survey Results ............................................................................................... 30
Figure 7. FS-1 and FS-2 Site Map ............................................................................................. 32
Figure 8. Photographs Showing FS-1 and FS-2 ........................................................................ 33
Figure 9. FS-3 Overlain on Hillshade Data ............................................................................... 37
Figure 10. Two Views of the FS-3 Railroad Track Bed .............................................................. 38

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Soil Types Present in the Project Areas ...................................................... 8
Table 2. Summary of Archaeological Resources Identified during the Phase I
Investigation of the Smithfield Expansion Tract ........................................................... 40

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 1

I. INTRODUCTION
Under contract with Kimley-Horn, New South Associates, Inc. (New South) conducted a Phase I
Archaeological Survey of the proposed Smithfield Foods Expansion, located five miles
northwest of Tar Heel, in Bladen County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The work performed by
New South complied with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of
1966, as amended, and the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology’s (OSA) Archaeological
Investigation Standards and Guidelines (North Carolina Office of State Archaeology 2017).
This investigation sought to identify archaeological resources within these areas and assess their
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility. Smithfield Foods plans to build a cold-
storage facility and international distribution center at their Tar Heel, North Carolina, facility.
The proposed expansion area measures approximately 169.5 acres in size. Their construction
plans include the clearing of the building locations and associated temporary staging areas.
Potential construction activities include, but are not limited to, removal of all trees, grading, and
other heavy equipment work. The area of potential effects (APE) for archaeological resources
measured 169.5 acres in size. The APE was defined by Kimley-Horn to include the Project
Study Area (PSA), which totals, 154 acres and two temporary staging areas totaling 15.5 acres in
area (Figure 2).
This survey was conducted from July 17-20, 2017 at the request of Kimley-Horn. Shawn Patch
served as Principal Investigator. James Stewart directed field work. The remaining crew
included Field Technicians Will Britz and Peter Mayers.
This report contains five chapters, including this introduction. Chapters II and III describe the
environmental and cultural contexts for the project area. Chapter IV discusses the methods
applied for background research and the field survey. Background research results, field survey
results, and recommendations are provided in Chapter V, followed by references cited.
Appendix A includes an artifact catalog, while Appendix B includes a shovel test log.

2
Figure 1.
Project Location Map
Te mp orary
Staging Area 2
TarHeelFerryRdRi
ver
RdChickenfoot
R
d
Project Stu dy Area
Te mp orary
Staging Area 1
Hwy87Bladen
Columbus
Sampson
Cumberland
North Ca ro lina
So urce: USGS Topo graphic Q uadrangle Map, Du art and Tar Heel, NC
$0 0.3 0.6 Miles
Project Study Area
Tem porary Staging Area
Municipal Boundary
Quadrangle Boundary
0 0.5 1 Kilometers
1:24,000
1 9 8 6 Du a r t
1 9 8 6 Ta r H e e l
Source: 1986 Duart, NC and 1986 Tar Heel, NC USGS 1:24,000 Topographic Quadrangles
3PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT
Figure 2.
2016 Aerial Photograph Showing the Project Area
Source: Bing Hybrid Maps
$0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Project Study Area
Temporary Staging Area
Wetlands/Low Potential Area
0 250 500 Meters
4

Intentionally Left Blank
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 5

II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND DRAINAGE
This 169.5-acre APE lies in North Carolina’s Coastal Plain physiographic region, an area
characterized by sandy and loamy soils that developed in marine and alluvial sediments. Most of
Bladen County lies within two coastal terraces or geomorphic surfaces. To the southwest is the
Sunderland geomorphic surface, which lies at elevations between 30 and 47 meters (100 and 155
ft.) above mean sea level (amsl). The Wicomico geomorphic surface is to the southeast and lies
12-30 meters (42-100 ft.) amsl. The terrain in these regions is level or gently sloping (Conrad et
al. 1975:112; Leab 1990:1–2).
The project area is located in an upland setting approximately 1.3 kilometers east of the Cape
Fear River. Local topography consists of flat uplands interspersed with Carolina Bays of various
sizes. Carolina Bays are found throughout a wide area of both North and South Carolina in both
the Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont. These depressions often have a distinctive oval shape
and are identifiable in the project area (see Figure 3) (Thom 1970). Aerial photography and
historical maps indicate the eastern half of the project area was utilized for agricultural activity
before the construction of the Smithfield Foods expansion. The presence of drainage ditches
across the project area indicates that the natural water table lies close to the ground surface. A
1951 aerial photograph of the project vicinity indicates a regenerating wood covered the western
half of the project area (Figure 3). This area was cut over again in the 1980s or 1990s.
SOILS
The National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) identifies 10 soil types within the study
area and temporary staging areas (Table 1, Figure 4). Most soils (69.2%) are well drained or
moderately well drained. Well-drained soils are typically favorable for archaeological sites. The
remaining 30.8 percent of the survey area was identified as somewhat to very poorly drained.
Poorly drained soils typically do not contain archaeological sites, except those reflecting
transient or specialized activities.

6
Figure 3.
1951 Aerial Photograph of the Project Area
Te mp orary
Staging Area 2
Project Stu dy Area
Temp orary
Staging Area 1
Hwy87$0 600 1,200 Feet
Project Study Area
Tem porary Staging Area
Carolina Bay
0 150 300 Meters
7PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT
Figure 4.
1979 Aerial Photograph Showing the Soils Encountered in the Project Area
Oc
LnAGbA
GbA
LnA
WaB
Pe WaBUd
RaA
Wo
OcRaARaA
NoA
NoA
NoA
NoAWo
GbA
GbA
R a A
RaA
Ly
FS-1
FS-2
FS-3
Tempora ry
Staging Area 1
Tempora ry
Staging Area 2 Hwy87G
b
A
RaA
NoA WoLy
$0 390 780 Feet
Project Area
Tem porary Staging Area
GbA
LnA
Ly
NoA
Oc
Pe
RaA
Ud
WaB
Wo
0 110 220 Meters
8

Table 1. Summary of Soil Types Present in the Project Areas
Soil Type Drainage Classification Hydric Acres in
Project Areas
Percent of
Project Areas
Goldsboro sandy loam, (GbA)
0-3% slopes
Moderately well-drained No 9.0 5.4%
Lynchburg fine sandy loam (LnA),
0-2% slopes
Somewhat poorly drained No 3.7 2.2%
Lynn Haven and Torhunta soils (Ly) Very poorly drained Yes 3.0 1.8%
Norfolk loamy fine sand (NoA),
0-2% slopes
Well-drained No 52.6 31.5%
Ocilla loamy sand (Oc) Somewhat poorly drained No 1.6 0.9%
Pantego loam (Pe) Somewhat poorly drained Yes 2.0 1.2%
Rains fine sandy loam (RaA),
0-2% slopes
Poorly drained Yes 27.8 16.7%
Udorthents, loamy (Ud) Well-drained No 0.6 0.4%
Wagram fine sand (WaB), 0-6% slopes Well-drained No 51.5 30.9%
Woodington loamy sand (Wo) Poorly drained Yes 15.1 9.0%
Source: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service 2015
CLIMATE
Hot, humid summers and cool winters typify the modern climate in this part of Bladen County.
The Elizabethtown Lock 2 (312732) weather station has recorded climate data since December
1910. Since then, an annual average temperature range of 50.0-73.8 degrees Fahrenheit has been
registered. June, July, and August temperatures average above 85 degrees Fahrenheit,while
December, January, and February are the coldest months, with average lows of 33.6-31.7 degrees
Fahrenheit. Rainfall averages 46.8 inches per year (Southeastern Regional Climate Center
2015). Most rain (60%) falls between April and September (Leab 1990).
FLORA AND FAUNAL RESOURCES
Pollen cores indicate evolving floral communities in the Coastal Plain (Watts 1971; Watts 1980;
Whitehead 1965; Whitehead 1972). Boreal pine-spruce associations dominated prior to 10,000
years ago. Oak and hickory forests succeeded these, which gave way to pines around 5,000
years ago. Rising water tables may have helped the expansion of pine forests by creating
favorable habitats for species such as cypress, gum, and loblolly-shortleaf pine (Brooks 1980;
Colquhoun et al. 1980; Whitehead 1965). Modern conditions favored southern mixed pine-oak
forests (Kricher 1988; Quarterman and Keever 1962). In floodplains, swamps, and other hydric
areas cypress-gum associations were typical. Today, loblolly-shortleaf pine associations
dominate.
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 9

The region’s developing floral communities yielded not only resources for precontact and
historical human populations, but also provided habitats for a variety of animal species
significant to past human populations. Selected animal species formerly or currently present
include bear, white-tailed deer, fox, rabbit, squirrel, bobcat, raccoon, and opossum. Bird species
include turkey, grouse, quail, dove, and various waterfowl. Reptiles, amphibians, and fish were
also available for human use.
EXISTING CONDITIONS IN THE APE
The 169.5-acre APE includes the PSA, measuring 154 acres in area, and the two temporary
staging areas, totaling 15.5 acres (see Figure 2). The PSA was defined by woods and agricultural
field boundaries to the north, an arbitrary line to the east, an access road to the south, and a
power transmission line to the west. The active plant extended across more than two-thirds
(68%) of the PSA. This active plant area is heavily disturbed by grading and construction
activity. Parts of the active plant that are not covered by standing buildings, impenetrable
concrete, or asphalt (e.g. along the southeastern PSA boundary) were contoured into landscape
features. The remaining 44 percent of the survey area was wooded.
Temporary Staging Area 1 overlapped the northern boundary of the APE. The boundaries of the
area are defined by a road to the west, an agricultural field boundary to the north and northeast, a
tree line to the west, and a fence to the south. Young pine trees cover the southern half of
Temporary Staging Area 1. The northern half of the survey area was covered by an agricultural
field. Eight-foot-high corn stalks were growing in the field at the time of the archaeological
survey. Two small delineated wetlands were identified in the southern half of the survey area.
These areas with low potential for the presence of archaeological remains measured 2.1 acres in
size. The remaining 8.9 acres were designated as high potential for the presence of
archaeological remains.
Temporary Staging Area 2 measured 4.5 acres in size. This rectangular survey area was
bounded by a haul road on the east and arbitrary boundaries to the north, south, and west.
Delineated wetlands were identified across the northern and southern boundaries. In total, these
low potential areas accounted for 1.1 acres of Temporary Staging Area 2. The remaining 3.3
acres were determined to have a high potential for the presence of archaeological remains. Local
vegetation included a mix of mature pine and hardwood trees, with a sparse to moderate
understory.

10

Intentionally Left Blank

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 11

III. CULTURAL CONTEXT
PRECONTACT PERIOD OVERVIEW
The precontact period of southeastern North Carolina is typically divided into four primary
periods: Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Contact/Protohistoric. The Paleoindian period is
subdivided into Early and Late sub-periods. The Archaic and Woodland periods are divided into
Early, Middle, and Late sub-periods. The Contact/Protohistoric period refers to the era during
which the region’s indigenous peoples first began sustained interaction with European explorers
and colonists.
PALEOINDIAN PERIOD (10,000–8000 B.C.)
The earliest human occupation in the North Carolina Coastal Plain is known as the Paleoindian.
Although the date of the earliest occupation is still debated, archaeological evidence suggests the
period begins between 52,000 and 14,000 B.C. (Adovasio 1978; Goodyear 2005). The possible
existence of a pre-Paleoindian (or pre-Clovis) horizon in the Americas is a hotly debated topic.
Literature reviews of the archaeological evidence in both hemispheres provide some support for
the validity of such a horizon (Dincauze 1984; Haynes 1980; Lynch 1990; Meltzer 1989). The
uneasy consensus among North American archaeologists is that the initial human colonization of
the continent started not long before 15,000 B.C. and was accomplished by Paleoindian
populations that made Clovis style fluted projectile points (Anderson 1990; Haynes 1980; 1987;
Kelly and Todd 1988).
The Meadowcroft Rockshelter excavations present a significant challenge to the accepted model
of human migration into North America (Adovasio et al. 1990). Here, an Upper Paleolithic
assemblage seemingly without fluted projectile points has been conclusively dated to at least
16,000-16,500 B.C. Criticisms of these findings have primarily been directed toward possible
particulate contamination of the carbon used for dating the deposit (Dincauze 1984; Haynes
1980), but deposit mixing has also been raised as an issue (Kelly 1987). The original excavators
have met these criticisms with a detailed rebuttal and reanalysis, and the persuasive force of
these further analyses cannot be conveniently dismissed (Adovasio et al. 1990). There is a
genuine possibility that Paleoindian groups in North America developed in place out of an Upper
Paleolithic population similar to the one hypothesized to have inhabited Meadowcroft
Rockshelter. On the other hand, it is certainly possible that these remains represent an episode of
failed migration with little or no relation to a later Clovis “radiation” (Meltzer 1989).
12

Albert Goodyear (2005) has reported a pre-Clovis assemblage at the Topper site near Aiken,
South Carolina. Radiocarbon assays dating to more than 52,000 B.C. were obtained from a
possible hearth area. If the dates are correct, the site significantly alters the chronology for
human habitation in the American Southeast. The Topper excavations exposed white
Pleistocene alluvial sands, which are believed to be the pre-Clovis zone at Topper. Small flakes,
some with bend break fractures, were recovered in this soil zone. These are thought to be pre-
Clovis chert processing piles. In one area of the site, six chert artifacts (small blades, endscraper,
and sidescrapers) were found around a large boulder that had been used as an anvil (Goodyear
2000; Miller 2010).
The traditional view of Paleoindian settlement posits a highly mobile strategy centered upon the
exploitation of megafauna, a view that persists into current models of precontact settlement
patterning. However, Anderson (1989) has proposed that Paleoindian peoples found key areas
and used them as “staging areas” for subsequent population expansion. While evidence for the
exploitation of Pleistocene megafauna in South Carolina has been documented (Goodyear et al.
1989), it is unclear just how dependent Paleoindians were on these resources. Many researchers
believe that subsistence choices in the later Paleoindian Dalton phase, dating to the period
12,500-11,900 B.C., included a variety of plant and animal foods (Goodyear 1982). In fact,
some believe that the appearance of the Dalton point signifies a change from hunting Pleistocene
megafauna to Holocene species, primarily deer (Morse 1973; Goodyear 1982). While the
development certainly indicates a change in Paleoindian technology, a reliance on sophisticated
lithic technology persists into the Dalton phase. Throughout the Paleoindian period, the use of
high-quality cryptocrystalline raw material suggests mobility and specialized resource
scheduling (Goodyear 1979). The prevalence of this technology indicates that technological
solutions to resource procurement and processing were key adaptive strategies of Paleoindians
(Sassaman et al. 1990).
Most of the reported Paleoindian sites are limited to surface finds of projectile point/knives that
are lacking well-preserved contexts. Paleoindian settlement models are not well developed for
eastern North Carolina due to these poor contexts. However, camps probably lay along major
streams while specific activity loci, and possibly short-term camps, were in the uplands (Mathis
1979:vol. 11, p. ; Phelps 1983).
Paleoindian material culture includes fluted and unfluted lanceolate projectile point/knives, such
as Clovis, Suwannee/Simpson, and Dalton; side scrapers; end scrapers; and drills (Coe 1964;
Michie 1977; Goodyear 1982). A Clovis assemblage at the Pasquotank Site in Pasquotank
County is one of few such assemblages in the Southeast (Daniel and Moore 2011:3.4-3.5). The
Pasquotank assemblage is interpreted to represent a portable hunter-gatherer toolkit (Daniel and
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 13

Moore 2011:3.4). The Clovis occupation in the Southeast is believed to span 13,500-13,000
B.C. In the 500 years that followed, Clovis was replaced by smaller fluted points and unfluted
lanceolate, such as the Simpson and Suwanee types.
ARCHAIC PERIOD (8000–1000 B.C.)
Divided into Early, Middle, and Late, the Archaic period represents the gradual shift from an
economy based on big game hunting to one based on hunting and gathering that is better adapted
to the environmental and climatic changes of the Holocene. Following Coe’s (1964) Piedmont
sequence, the Archaic period in the Coastal Plain is divided into Early (8000-6000 B.C.), Middle
(6000-3000 B.C.), and Late (3000-1000 B.C.) sub-periods that are indicated by distinctive
projectile point styles and changing lifeways. Sites of the period most often lie near water
sources or the paleo-braidplain and fall into two types: base camps and small, briefly occupied,
limited-activity or procurement sites (Daniel and Moore 2011; Phelps 1983; Ward and Davis
1999).
Although little is definitively known about the Early Archaic, it is typically separated from the
Paleoindian period by the emergence of seasonal occupation sites. The projectile points are
similar in appearance to the previous period but exhibit an increased sophistication through
rejuvenation strategies. Similarities between Early Archaic and Paleoindian assemblages suggest
the persistence of certain settlement and subsistence strategies (Cleland 1976). Diagnostic
projectile points include Hardaway, Palmer, and Kirk varieties. Other elements of the Early
Archaic toolkit include end scrapers, adzes, gravers, drills, and perforators (Ward and Davis
1999). Hunting remained an essential part of subsistence, but plants were also consumed.
Valuable resources included white-tailed deer, squirrel, raccoon, turkey, turtle, and acorn and
hickory nuts (Chapman 1977; Goodyear et al. 1979). Settlement-subsistence has been postulated
to include annual migrations between the coast and interior areas in the Piedmont (Anderson and
Hanson 1988). Anderson (1996) noted that site frequency is relatively high in the Coastal Plain
during this period, with sites clustering in the vicinity of the main river systems. This pattern, as
suggested by Anderson and Hanson (1988), implies Early Archaic populations were orientated
toward particular river systems. Daniel (1998; 2001), a critic of this model, argued that the
presence of high-quality stone was a significant factor in Early Archaic settlement. Larger and
denser sites associated with this period are possible seasonal camps or aggregation (Anderson
1996).
The Middle Archaic saw lithic technologies change and new emphasis placed on local raw
materials (Cable 1982; Goodyear et al. 1979; Kimball and Chapman 1977). Diagnostic artifacts
include Stanley stemmed, Morrow Mountain, Guilford, and Halifax projectile points. Ground
14

stone atlatl weights, stone axes, mortars to process plant foods, and storage pits appear during the
Middle Archaic. Expedient tools used for cutting and scraping were common, and prepared
burials appear for the first time (Chapman 1977; Coe 1964; Griffin 1974; Ward and Davis 1999).
Anderson (1996) observed that Middle Archaic sites occur in large numbers across the Piedmont
region and adjoining Coastal Plain, with the Outer Coastal Plain being relatively unutilized.
Some researchers contend that residential mobility remained high, but was carried out within
smaller territories (Anderson and Hanson 1988; Anderson and Schuldenrein 1985; Blanton and
Sassaman 1989; Cable 1982; Cantley et al. 1984; Sassaman 1988). Larger populations and
smaller territories would have caused intensive use of available resources, leading to more
frequent relocation of residential sites (Cable 1982).
The Late Archaic appears to represent the beginning of a transition from adaptations based on
foraging to horticultural-based economies of the later Woodland period. Large shell middens
appear along the coast and interior rivers, suggesting the establishment of semi-permanent sites
supported by intensive use of marine and riverine resources (Claflin 1931; Stoltman 1974).
Typical Late Archaic artifacts include Savannah River stemmed projectile points, varieties of
scrapers, drills, groundstone axes, stone plant-processing equipment, and steatite containers (Coe
1964; South 1959; Stoltman 1972; Ward and Davis 1999). Fiber-tempered pottery also appears
within a similar distribution as steatite vessels (Phelps 1983; South 1976). Also, marl/limestone-
tempered Hamp’s Landing Series pottery has been associated with radiocarbon assays ranging
2125-1870 B.C., placing this ceramic type within the Late Archaic (Abbott et al. 1999; Hargrove
1993; Jones et al. 1997; Sandborn and Abbott 1999). Ceramics with sand and limestone temper
have been radiocarbon-dated to as early as 2125 B.C. at site 31CB114 in Columbus County
(Abbott et al. 1999; Sandborn and Abbott 1999). Storage pits are commonly found on sites of
this sub-period (Stoltman 1972). Settlement patterns exhibit preferences for major river mouths
and decreased use of upland tributaries, and a higher degree of sedentary settlement is apparent
(Phelps 1983; Ward and Davis 1999). Anderson (1996) pointed to similarities in the
distributions of Middle Archaic and Late Archaic sites and notes that the Outer Coastal Plain
shows limited use during these periods. Greater expertise in subsistence adaptation led to higher
population density, smaller territories, increased sedentism, and increased trade in non-utilitarian
materials. By the end of the sub-period, northern and southern cultural regions become
discernable in the Coastal Plain, with the Neuse River forming a boundary (Phelps 1983).
WOODLAND PERIOD (1000 B.C.–A.D. 1650)
Like the preceding era, the Woodland period is divided into Early (1000-300 B.C.), Middle (300
B.C.-A.D. 800), and Late (A.D. 800-1650) sub-periods. Where stylistic typologies of projectile
points are used to differentiate the Archaic sub-periods, variations in ceramic types are used to
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 15

define the divisions of the Woodland period (Herbert 2009). Herbert (2011) contended that these
types are notoriously difficult to classify and date, since they are based primarily on temper-type,
and that more accurate dates can be obtained through technologies that directly date ceramics. In
the southern Coastal Plain, the Early, Middle, and Late Woodland sub-periods are associated
with the New River, Cape Fear, and White Oak cultural phases, respectively.
Recognizable cultural differences between the northern and southern Coastal Plain, first noted
for the Late Archaic sub-period, persist into the Woodland period. Thoms Creek and Deptford
series ceramics and sand burial mounds distinguish the southern region during the first part of
the Early Woodland. With regard to Thoms Creek and Deptford ceramics, these types represent
pottery traditions that emerged in South Carolina and Georgia. The presence of these ceramic
types in southeastern North Carolina appears to indicate social/cultural ties to the south (Herbert
2011:4.1-4.2). The New River phase is poorly understood but is indicated by small Savannah
River stemmed, Gypsy, and triangular Roanoke projectile point types, as well as sand-tempered,
cord-marked New River series ceramics (Herbert 2011:4.5-4.6). While Early Woodland cultures
are not well understood, it is surmised that the Late Archaic focus on rich marine/estuarine
resources persisted into the Woodland period (Millis 2011; Ward and Davis 1999). Evidence
from the New River estuary and other sites in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina indicate that
Early Woodland groups preferred estuarine margins, stream channels, and tributaries (Millis
2011:5.24).
The Middle Woodland in the southern Coastal Plain is associated with the Cape Fear phase,
which encompasses both sand-tempered Cape Fear and grog/clay-tempered Hanover series
pottery (Herbert 2011:4.12-4.15). While sites of this sub-period occur throughout the Coastal
Plain, data associated with the Cape Fear phase do not permit the development of a well-
balanced picture of Middle Woodland life. However, it is clear that marine/estuarine resources
continued to be utilized, along with other wild animal and plant resources (Millis 2011).
Domesticated plants do not appear to have emerged yet (Ward and Davis 1999). Other
characteristics of this period include low sand burial mounds, secondary cremations, platform
pipes, larger ceramic vessels, and large triangular projectile points. With regard to burial mounds
and associated artifacts, recent evaluations of these site types by Irwin et al. (1999) suggested
that they may have originated at the end of the Middle Woodland at the earliest and that, in fact,
they represent a Late Woodland phenomenon. They noted, however, that chronology building
remains an ongoing issue in the region (Irwin et al. 1999). Phelps (1983) observed an increase in
sites along major trunk streams, estuaries, and sounds, which might reflect a shift from smaller
seasonal sites located along tributaries to larger interior sites.
16

Cultural traits include continued use of estuarine resources, construction of long houses, and use
of ossuaries to dispose of the dead (Ward and Davis 1999). Late Woodland peoples also
cultivated corn, squash, and beans. While there is evidence that corn was present in the region
by around A.D. 1000, cultivated foods probably did not become a significant part of the diet until
after A.D. 1200. This date appears to correspond to the emergence of ranked societies in the
region. Settlement patterns associated with social ranking exhibit hierarchical relationships
between sites (Ward and Davis 1999). Many Late Woodland sites are shell middens or contain
shell debris. The largest sites are adjacent to saltwater sounds and estuaries, which may
represent late spring to early summer occupations (Millis 2011). Pre-White Oak sites suggest a
settlement-subsistence system that was not focused on marine resources. Clusters of pre-White
Oak sites along interior tributaries suggest fall-winter migration away from the coast and an
emphasis on collecting terrestrial food sources (Daniel 1999).
The Late Woodland White Oak phase is typified by shell-tempered White Oak pottery (Ward
and Davis 1999). Recent work at Site 31CR53 on Bogue Sound suggests a temporal break
between sand- and shell-tempered White Oak pottery and purely shell-tempered wares occurring
circa A.D. 1200 (Davis and Child 2000). Recent analysis suggests that researchers consider the
presence of sand in White Oak sherds (Davis and Child 2000:200). The White Oak phase now
infers a spectrum of cultural and regional differences in the Late Woodland sub-period. Various
shell-tempered wares such as Sansboro, Cashie, and Colington, and the pebble-tempered Onslow
series (Herbert 2011:4.18-4.23; Mathis 1999; Sandborn and Abbott 1999) define the later Late
Woodland and early historical periods.
CONTACT/ PROTOHISTORIC PERIOD (A.D. 1500–1590)
The Contact/Protohistoric period (post A.D. 1500) refers to the first meeting and interaction
between local indigenous populations and European explorers and settlers. This interaction took
various forms, ranging from cordial and cooperative to hostile, and ultimately led to the change
and disruption of traditional indigenous lifeways. Early historical sources suggest the presence
of Siouan-speaking groups along the Tidewater section of the Coastal Plain. Phelps (1983) noted
that Siouan groups have occupied the region since as early as 1000 B.C. Three Native American
Siouan tribes lived in the southern Coastal Plain at the time of European Contact: the Cape Fear,
the Waccamaw, and the Woccon. Initial exploration by Europeans along the present North
Carolina coast included voyages by Verrazano during the 1520s on behalf of the French and
English expeditions during the 1580s and 1590s.
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 17

The English attempted to settle the Albemarle Sound region in the 1580s. Sir Walter Raleigh
sponsored the first colony in the region at Roanoke. Though this colony failed in a year, it
demonstrated the viability of English colonization in the region (Powell 1989).
HISTORIC PERIOD OVERVIEW
Since the earliest days of the Carolina Colony, agriculture and naval stores were consistent
forces of economic strength for the region. The area’s bucolic landscape has altered little since
the period of English Colonization. As the population of Antebellum Bladen County increased,
small farms and naval stores plantations took hold. The county maintained an agricultural focus
throughout the Civil War, Reconstruction period, and twentieth century.
ENGLISH COLONIZATION (1607–1783)
The Jamestown colony was founded on the James River in 1607 and operated under the Virginia
Company’s charter until 1624. The colony remained under Royal control until the English Civil
War began in the 1640s. By the 1650s, traders, hunters and trappers, and tax evaders from
Virginia were living in the Albemarle region (Powell 1989). After the Restoration in 1660, King
Charles II distributed rewards to his ardent supporters. Seven supporters were awarded a charter
to form the proprietary colony of Carolina. Captain William Hilton named the Cape Fear River
in 1662. The settlement of Charles Town was established on the river and abandoned by 1667
(Powell 1989). Settlers were motivated by the money-making potential of providing foodstuffs
and supplies to sugar-producing Caribbean islands, which produced little of their commodities.
The first settlers to the Cape Fear region consisted of a diverse group of planters, merchants,
artisans, small farmers, sailors, servants, and slaves (Dunn 1972; McCusker and Menard 1985).
European settlement of the region did not go unchallenged. After suffering depredations at the
hands of Carolina colonists, the Southern Tuscarora attacked settlements surrounding the town of
Bath, North Carolina in 1711. The conflict lasted until 1715 and resulted in the extirpation of the
Tuscarora from North Carolina. Located along the Cape Fear River, the Cape Fear Indians may
have been affiliated with the Waccamaw tribe. Following the 1715-1718 Yemassee War, the
Cape Fear Indians were relocated to Williamsburg, South Carolina, where they lived with the
Pee Dee. Many of the people in this group ultimately became part of the Catawba Tribe
(Messick et al. 2001). Tensions between the indigenous tribes and colonists also led to political
conflict with the proprietary administration. In 1729, the Crown assumed direct control over the
colony of North Carolina.

18

In 1725, colonists established ports at Brunswick, about 14 miles from the mouth of the river,
and at Wilmington, 16 miles further upriver, in 1733 (Lefler and Newsome 1973). These
settlements became transportation and distribution nodes connecting interior regions to the coast.
Further inland, the pine forests became a substantial economic resource as planters engaged in
the production of naval stores (Adams 2002).
Early settlers to the Cape Fear region included people of English, Scotch, German, and African
descent. As early as 1734, African slaves comprised one-sixth of North Carolina’s population,
and the proportion rose to one-quarter by 1790. The slave population appears to have been
concentrated in the tobacco-producing regions in northeastern North Carolina (Johnson 1937).
Englishmen, primarily from other North American colonies and mostly belonging to the yeoman
class, comprised the majority of the colonists in the Cape Fear region. Another group, Scottish
Highlanders, arrived directly from Europe and settled along the upper Cape Fear. They first took
up land in Bladen County, then obtained desirable land upstream and established an enclave at
Cross Creek (Fayetteville). Highland Scots, many of whom were political refugees, continued
arriving throughout the eighteenth century, leading to the middle and upper Cape Fear becoming
one of the premier settlement areas for the Highlanders (Meyer 1961; Powell 1989). During the
1730s, Scots-Irish migrants began settling the region, fleeing from religious bigotry, commercial
jealousy, and unfavorable tenancy situations (Lefler and Newsome 1973). German Lutheran,
Moravian, and Reformed groups also settled in the Piedmont and had a limited role in the
development of the Cape Fear region.
Naval stores production began nearly in concert with the earliest European settlement of the
Cape Fear region. It partly inspired the opening of the country, as South Carolina planters moved
north to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the pine forests (Adams 2002). By the
American Revolution, the production of tar, pitch, rosin, and turpentine was a significant feature
of the region’s economy. Tar and pitch were vital for sealing and preserving the rigging and
timbers of ships, while tar was used to grease wheels and bearings (Harmon and Snedeker 1997).
On a smaller scale, oil of tar was also used for medicinal purposes, such as a salve for wounds on
livestock (Bizzell 1983).
As the region developed, the original county of New Hanover (established in 1729) was divided
to form Bladen County in 1734. Originally covering a considerable portion of southeastern
North Carolina, Bladen County was subdivided several times before 1850 to form portions of
Cumberland, Sampson, Columbus, and Robeson Counties (Clay 1975). Elizabethtown, Bladen's
county seat, has its origins in a 1734 settlement at Courthouse Landing, located about three miles
west of the current town. In 1773, the Provincial General Assembly moved the county seat to its
present location on the northwest branch of the Cape Fear River and ordered the establishment of
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 19

a marketplace and other public buildings. The town became a node for export of local products
(via Wilmington) and distribution of imported goods (Lefler and Newsome 1973). Upstream,
the Cross Creek (Fayetteville) community grew into another trading center that later served as an
impetus for improving the navigation of the Cape Fear River.
By the late eighteenth century, the project region remained thinly settled. At the outset of the
Revolutionary War, Whig-minded men of the region formed Committees of Correspondence and
began training for battle with the British Army. The Bladen County militia was present at the
expulsion of Josiah Martin, the last royal governor of the colony, from Wilmington in 1775.
This band of Patriots participated in battles across North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.
During their absence, uncontested Tories raided the Cape Fear region. Their depredations were
ended in August 1781 at the Battle of Elizabethtown (Clay et al. 1975).
ANTEBELLUM BLADEN COUNTY (1784–1861)
Patterns of sparse settlement and low population persisted after the Revolutionary War. The
county population remained low, with 7,000 inhabitants recorded during the 1800 Census.
Inland from the tidewater, the region holds some of the poorest ground in the Carolinas,
consisting of long stretches of level, compact, sandy soil covered with pine. Most of the land was
claimed and divided into farms and plantations, but little of it was under cultivation. Larger areas
were utilized for forest products, pasture, and hunting (Meinig 1986). Within this setting, the
region’s inhabitants engaged in farming and naval stores production. The region’s character
remained agrarian through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Although the general
economic focus on cultivation persisted, commodities changed, as did the manner of organizing
and producing them.
The production of naval stores continued to dominate the region’s economy. After 1830, spirits
of turpentine were used as lamp fuel. Records show that North Carolina ultimately produced
seven-tenths of the tar output for the United States. The state also produced more than half of
the turpentine and one-fifth of the pitch exported from all the United States. Their market
dominance increased over time, and from 1720-1870, North Carolina ranked as the world’s
leading producer of naval stores (Lefler and Newsome 1973). The production of naval stores
became more lucrative once the appearance of railroads lowered transportation costs. In the
1840s, the first railroad company in the region, the Wilmington and Raleigh Railroad, connected
the interior Coastal Plain (as far north as Weldon) to the port city. The Wilmington, Charlotte &
Rutherford Railroad extended across southern Bladen County by the outbreak of the Civil War
(Poor 1868).

20

CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION (1865–1899)
The Federal Census of 1860 indicates the population of Bladen County expanded to almost
12,000. At the brink of the Civil War, most slaveholders in the region owned fewer than 10
slaves. When North Carolina reluctantly seceded from the Union, residents of Bladen County
enlisted to serve. Ten Confederate companies were formed in the county during the war. No
major actions or skirmishes of the war occurred in Bladen County. After the war, these soldiers
returned to a relatively unchanged land.
Volunteers aside, local Native Americans and free African Americans were conscripted into the
Confederate Army’s coastal defense construction projects. Viewed as a threat to the war effort,
non-White residents of Robeson and Bladen counties were subjected to arbitrary and capricious
acts of violence by the Home Guard. The murder of Allen and William Lowry by the Home
Guard in 1865 instigated seven years of guerilla attacks in Robeson and surrounding counties.
Led by members of the Lowry family, Native American and African Americans formed raiding
parties that engaged in series of reprisal killings of upper-class whites and conservative
Democrats (Sprunt 1916).
Despite the abolishment of slavery and reconstruction policies applied by the federal
government, the economic and social organization of the region continued to rest upon notions of
race and color. This tension is visible in the prevalence of formerly enslaved African Americans
toiling on sharecropper farms and in the turpentine woods (Johnson and McDaniel 2005).
The second half of the nineteenth century witnessed the culmination of the North Carolina
turpentine industry. The industry was relatively lucrative in Bladen County in 1860. That year,
among the counties in the southeastern part of the state, Bladen had the second-most crude
turpentine collection sites, after New Hanover County, and the most turpentine distilleries.
Disruption by the Civil War caused naval stores production to shift inland from tidewater areas.
In 1880, Bladen was third in turpentine and tar production, behind Sampson and Cumberland
counties (Cable and Reed 1990).
The production of naval stores exhausted the region’s slow-growing longleaf pine forests. By
1880, the industry was leaving the region for longleaf woods in South Carolina, Georgia, and the
Gulf. While known for its naval stores, the turpentine belt within the long leaf district also
produced food crops. Hogs and corn were raised throughout the region (Johnson 1937). A
review of the agricultural schedule published by the Federal Census Bureau indicates that the
Cape Fear region adhered to a pattern of small farming until 1870. The project region produced
an assortment of crops, with peas, beans, sweet potato, and Indian corn being most prominent.
Livestock production focused on swine, milk cows, cattle, and sheep (Cable and Reed 1990). In
the project region, small farms predominated over larger plantations.
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 21

In 1880, census enumerators recorded three types of farms: owner-operator, fixed-value renters,
and sharecroppers. In the project region, their owners operated over two-thirds of the farms,
while sharecroppers worked between about 20 and 30 percent, and only small numbers were
rented at a fixed rate. These patterns persisted through the early part of the twentieth century.
The 1910 Census records similar ratios of owner-operated to tenant-operated farms. Also, the
later census indicates a reduction in farm size. The same array of crops that had been important
before remained in production, although rice, which had been grown in areas with suitable
swampy conditions, was virtually abandoned while tobacco boomed. For instance, Bladen
produced 39,890 pounds of rice in 1890, but only 62 pounds in 1910. Conversely, the county’s
farmers generated 530 pounds of tobacco in 1890 and 129,000 pounds in 1910 (Cable and Reed
1990).
By the late nineteenth century, farmers and wholesalers were taking advantage of the market
integration provided by the railroad network. Small railroad communities developed across the
region. Towns like Abbotsburg, Bladenboro (formerly Bryants Camp), Dalton (formerly
Western Prong), Rosindale, and Yorkville functioned as aggregation centers for tobacco and
foodstuffs intended for export out of the region.
TWENTIETH-CENTURY BLADEN COUNTY
Agriculture has remained the principal economic activity in the project region from earliest
settlement by Europeans throughout the twentieth century. Change is most apparent in the size
and owner status of farms and their agricultural products. In 1911, the Virginia and Carolina
Railroad (V&CS RR) constructed a branch line between St. Paul’s and Elizabethtown. This line
passed through Tar Heel. The presence of extensive hardwood swamps and a common carrier
railroad line attracted the Greene Brothers Lumber Company to Elizabethtown in 1932.
Jobs in the logging industry were divided by race (Jones 2005). African Americans and Native
Americans could only obtain unskilled positions in the company’s woods, called Corrie Swamp,
or in the sawmill. White men carefully guarded skilled positions. In 1948, when the Congress of
International Organizations (CIO) and International Woodworkers of America (IWA) attempted
to unionize the Greene Brothers’ labor force, their opponents attacked with racialized epithets
and violence. When the effort succeeded in forming a local union, the company refused to
negotiate contracts, and the union members went on strike. Local business owners, county
police, and tax collectors coordinated a five-month campaign of arrests and violent attacks
against the strikers. Greene Brothers provided the union with a contract, and the strike ended in
December 1948. The mill continued to operate for another ten years. Though the union
dissolved when the mill closed, the black community of Elizabethtown put the experience
garnered in the strike towards the desegregation of local schools (Jones 2000).
22

Hog farming has also been an essential part of eastern North Carolina agriculture since the area
was first settled. This activity intensified in the early twentieth century with the advancement of
scientific methods in animal husbandry. The Swine Evaluation Station was opened in 1965 to
encourage the collection of data for the improvement of breeding stock. The number and size of
hog farms increased dramatically during the second half of the twentieth century. By 1980, the
state ranked first among all states for the number of large herds (Jones 2006). The Smithfield
Foods plant represents one of the largest investments of capital in Bladen County. Their facility
in Tar Heel was opened in 1992 and ranks among the world’s largest meat processing plants.
North Carolina hog production is now estimated to have a value of more than one billion dollars
(Duke University 2007).
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND RESULTS
Background research identified one precontact and historic artifact scatter within two miles of
the project area (Figure 5). Site 31BL117/117** was identified in an agricultural field 275
meters to the southwest of the project area during a survey for a proposed wastewater treatment
facility (Knick 1990). This cultural resource survey was the only investigation conducted within
two miles of the project area. Pedestrian survey and shovel testing determined the artifact
deposit measured approximately 1300x600 feet in area. Thirty-eight artifacts were collected
from the 31BL117/117**. This included 25 precontact ceramics, nine pieces of chert or quartz
debitage, one chert Palmer projectile point, and the base of a chert Savannah River projectile
point. Diagnostic precontact projectile points indicate the site was occupied during the Early
Archaic and Late Archaic through Woodland periods. Singular fragments of whiteware and salt-
glazed stoneware were the only historical artifacts collected from the site. The presence of these
sherds indicated the site was occupied during the late nineteenth to early twentieth century. The
sparse density of the artifact deposit and low overall artifact count led the author to recommend
this site as not eligible for the NRHP (Knick 1990). An overlay of the plotted site boundaries
indicates the construction of the wastewater treatment facility completely disturbed
31BL117/117**.
The presence of upland Carolina Bays in the project areas offers a good indication the survey
area contains archaeological resources. Bay rims are ecological-rich ecotonal boundaries that
were utilized by precontact peoples throughout the Paleoindian, Archaic, and Woodland periods
(Kreisa et al. 1996). Their presence and that of well-drained soils indicate the survey areas have
some potential for the presence of archaeological remains. Precontact sites would be expected on
dry ground, with well-drained soils near water sources. Historic sites, including dwellings, tar
kilns, and trash scatters would be expected to occur over broader areas.

23PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT
Figure 5.
Previously Recorded Sites and Surveys Within Two Miles of the Project Area
Source: 1986 Duart, NC and 1986 Tar Heel, NC USGS 1:24,000 Topographic Quadrangles
31BL117
Project Study Area
TarHeelFerryRdHwy87Ri
ver
RdTe mporary
Staging Area 2
Temporary
Staging Area 1
$0 1,200 2,400 Feet
Project Study Area
Previously Recorded Site
Two-Mile Radius
Temporary Staging Area
Quadrangle Boundary
0 400 800 Meters
19 86 Duar t
1 98 6 Tar H e el
24

Intentionally Left Blank
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 25

IV. METHODS
BACKGROUND RESEARCH METHODS
Prior to beginning fieldwork, research was conducted at the OSA Site Files in Raleigh to review
information on previously recorded sites and previous archaeological surveys located within two
miles of the project area (see Chapter III). Historical maps and aerial photographs of the area
were also consulted to identify any potential historic sites within the project area. These
resources were compiled from three websites: the USGS Topoview website (ngmdb.usgs.gov),
which contains a collection of historical topographic maps; the USGS Earth Explorer site
(earthexplorer.usgs.gov) that provides a searchable database of twentieth-century aerial
photographs; and the University of North Carolina Maps website (web.lib.unc.edu/nc-
maps/interactive/overlay.php), which contains historical maps of Bladen County. The following
maps were consulted before fieldwork:
• 1914 Bladen County Soil Map;
• 1938 Bladen County Highway Map;
• 1957 Bladenboro NC 1:62,500 Topographic Map; and
• 1968 Bladen County Highway Map.
Single-frame aerial photographs of the project areas from 1951, 1959, and 1979 were also
examined. The results of this research were used to develop expectations for the number and
types of sites within the project areas. Previously recorded site locations were incorporated into
a geographic information system (GIS) for the project.
FIELD METHODS
Fieldwork for the project consisted of an intensive survey to identify archaeological resources in
the survey areas. The field methods followed those outlined in the guidelines of the North
Carolina Archaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines (2017). Systematic shovel
testing at 30-meter intervals was conducted throughout the portions (72%) of the project areas
identified as having a high potential for the presence of archaeological remains. Additionally,
judgmental shovel tests were placed to confirm poor soil conditions in delineated wetlands.
Delineated wetlands were identified as having a low potential for the presence of archaeological
remains and were also surveyed by pedestrian walkover.
26

Shovel tests measured 30 centimeters in diameter and were excavated by hand to depths of at
least 30 centimeters or until sterile subsoil, water table, or a solid substrate was encountered. All
soils were screened through 0.25-inch mesh hardware cloth for systematic artifact recovery.
Soils encountered in shovel tests were described using standard terminology for color and texture
using a Munsell soil chart, and shovel test locations were plotted on project maps that also
showed the locations of roads, water sources, disturbed areas, and other pertinent information.
Shovel test locations were recorded as “not excavated” if it was impossible to dig or conditions
at its location suggested it would not produce useful information. Such locations included areas
of substantial disturbance or inundation. Areas excluded from shovel testing were documented
with field notes.
All field investigations were mapped using a Trimble Geo-XT GPS receiver, which has a sub-
meter accuracy following post-processing. In addition, shovel test grids were recorded using
New South’s provenience tracking system, which uses a pre-plotted shovel test grid built in
ArcGIS and uploaded to smartphones. Moto G smartphones were used to locate the approximate
location of each pre-plotted shovel test. All phones were augmented with QStar GPS receivers
that provided them with sub-meter accuracy. Excavators placed shovel tests as near as possible
to the pre-plotted point, offsetting as necessary to avoid obstacles or to test locations expected to
have a higher resource potential.
A custom database developed from Memento Database was used to record each shovel test on
the smartphones and, if necessary, take photographs. Soil descriptions, the presence of artifacts,
and notes on the surrounding area, where relevant, were also recorded for each shovel test. The
phone also updated the grid by recording the locations of offset shovel tests. Shovel test
positions were further refined using the sub-meter GPS data.
The GPS locations provided by the phones were used to supplement to the Trimble data, which
is more accurate. The sub-meter Trimble data were combined with the phone data to produce a
comprehensive spatial database that includes sub-meter locations and shovel test data.
All smart phones were synced daily to an online database maintained in Google Sheets.
Photographs were synced each day to Google Drive, and each photograph was hyperlinked
within the shovel test database. The shovel test data were also duplicated daily on each phone as
an additional backup. The online database was backed up daily and linked to an online GIS data
set housed in ArcGIS online.

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 27

LABORATORY METHODS
All artifacts were processed, cleaned, analyzed, and prepared for curation at New South’s
laboratory in Stone Mountain, Georgia. The analysis focused on the indentification of temporal
and functional attributes for all recovered artifacts.
Lithics were sorted by raw material, and technotype (completeness and platform remnant
morphology) and metrics were recorded for all diagnostic tools. All lithics were classified as
debitage, lithic tools, or ground stone.
Precontact ceramics were counted, weighed, and were examined for surface treatment, form, and
paste characteristics. Paste characteristics include identification of temper type, temper size, and
shape. Temper type was defined through examination of a new break under low magnification.
Temper size and shape were determined in comparison to the Wentworth scale. These attributes
were used to type diagnostic sherds (non-eroded or non-residual) according to published sorting
criteria (Claggett et al. 1986; Espenshade 1996; Griffin 1945; Trinkley 1990a; 1990b; Waring
1968; Waring and Holder 1968).
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES (NRHP) CRITERIA
Historic properties, defined as districts, sites, buildings, objects, or structures, are evaluated
based on criteria specified by the Department of Interior Regulations 36 CFR Part 60: National
Register of Historic Places. Historic properties can be defined as significant if they “possess
integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association,” and if
they are 50 years of age or older and:
A) Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history (history); or
B) Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past (person); or
C) Embody the distinctive characteristic of a type, period, or method of construction,
or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
components may lack individual distinction (architecture); or
D) Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history (archaeology).

28

CURATION
All artifacts collected during this archaeological investigation were prepared for curation in
accordance with OSA’s Archaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines (North Carolina
Office of State Archaeology 2017) and returned to the property owner.

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 29

V. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The fieldwork portion of this archaeological investigation was conducted July 17-20, 2017. The
field effort required nine person-days, three people over three days, to survey the project study
area and temporary staging areas.
PROJECT STUDY AREA
Twentieth-century aerial photography of the PSA shows this area was primarily used for
agricultural activity. A 1979 aerial photograph (see Figure 4) indicates more than half (56%) of
the study area was under cultivation. Five potential historic resources were also identified within
the PSA from this aerial photograph. These resource locations fall within the active industrial
site and are likely completely destroyed.
The archaeological investigation focused on a 49.5-acre area along the western side of the PSA
(see Figure 2). The delineated wetlands present within this area were considered to have low
potential for the presence of archaeological remains. The remaining areas were considered to
have high potential for the presence of archaeological remains. A haul road to the east, a tractor-
trailer parking lot to the south, the transmission line to the west, and a low-lying swamp to the
northwest defined this area. The northern boundary followed an arbitrary line to the eastern edge
of a small wood. Temporary Staging Area 1 overlaps the northernmost portion of this survey
area. The wooded area is covered by a canopy of approximately 20- to 30-year-old pines. A
moderate-to-light-density understory extended across the area. General ground surface visibility
was poor. Deep ruts, likely the result of logging activity, were identified across most of the
ground surface. A railroad track bed, running parallel to the transmission line corridor, was
identified along the western edge of the study area. This landscape feature was recorded as an
archaeological site (FS-3) and is discussed below. Most of the delineated wetlands within the
project area were Carolina Bays covered by moderate to very dense bay laurel and scrub
vegetation. In total, these low potential areas measured 15.2 acres in size and were located in the
northern half of the wooded area and near the southwestern corner. The remaining 34.3 acres
were determined to have high potential for the presence of archaeological remains
A total of 158 pre-plotted sample locations were planned for the wooded portion of the PSA
(Figure 6; Appendix B). Twenty-four tests were not excavated because of the presence of
wetlands or heavy disturbance (e.g. in tractor trailer parking lots). Shovel tests recorded between
10-25 centimeters of gray sandy loam overlying 30-60 centimeters of yellowish brown sand.
30
Figure 6.
Phase I Survey Results
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/!/
!/!/
!/!/
!/!/
!/!/!/!/
!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/
!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/
!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/
!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/
!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/
!/!/
!/!/!/!/!/!/
!/
!/!/!/!/!/
!/
!/!/!/!/
!/
!/!/!/!/
!/
!/!/!/!/!/!/!/
!/
!/
!/!/!/
!/
!/
!/!/
!/
!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/
!/
!/!/
!/
!/
!/!/
!/
!/
!/!/
!/
!/
!/
!/!/
!/
!/!/
!/
!/!/
!/
!/!/
!/!/
!/
!/
!/!/!/
!/
!/
!
!
!
!/J!/J!/J!/JFS-1
FS-2
FS-3
FS-3
Temporary
Staging
Area 1
Temporary
Staging
Area 2
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/!/
!/
!/
!
!
!
!/J!/J!/J!/JFS-2
FS-2
$0 300 600 Feet
!Positive Shovel Test
!/Negative Shovel Test
!/JNot Excavated
Site Boundary
Project Area
Temporary Staging Areas
0 80 160 Meters
Source: Hillshade Map
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 31

Yellowish clayey sand subsoil was identified between 40 and 80 cmbs. In addition to FS-3,
shovel testing identified two precontact archaeological sites (FS-1, FS-2) in the project study
area.
FS-1
Field Number: FS-1
Datum UTM Coordinates: 3847934 m N, 700782 m E (UTM, Zone 17N, NAD 1983)
Elevation: 130 ft. amsl
USGS Quadrangle (7.5’): Duart, NC
Property/Site Type: Artifact Scatter
Temporal Affiliations: Early/Middle Woodland
Setting: Mixed Pines and Hardwoods
Soil(s): Wagram Fine Sand
Site Size: 45 m N/S by 15 m E/W
Cultural Deposit Depth: 45 cmbs
Features: None
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Management Recommendation: No Further Work

Site FS-1 was a precontact artifact scatter located near the western edge of the project area (see
Figure 6). This site was identified between a tractor-trailer parking pad, on the east, and the rim
of a Carolina Bay wetland, on the west. During the survey, this area was covered by a canopy of
pines and hardwoods. The underbrush was light along the edge of the tractor-trailer parking pad
and thickened towards the Carolina Bay. Ground surface visibility was less than 15 percent of
the evaluated area.
Site boundaries of 15x45 meters were established from shovel testing results and the nearby
parking pad (Figure 7). A grid of 11, 15-meter interval shovel tests was excavated during site
FS-1’s evaluation. This grid extended to the north, west, and south of two positive shovel tests
(N500 E500 and N485 E500). The nine remaining tests were negative for artifacts. No shovel
tests were excavated to the east of the positives, as this area was heavily disturbed by the
construction of the tractor-trailer parking pads. Local soils were identified as Wagram fine sand
(WaB). The typical profile for this soil type includes a 20-centimeter-deep loamy sand A
horizon over a 41-centimeter band of loamy sand (E horizon). The USDA soil survey (2015)
identified a sandy clay loam Bt horizon generally extends to a depth of 190 cmbs. Shovel tests
excavated along the E500 and E485 gridlines typically encountered 15 centimeters of light gray
sand (10YR 7/1) overlying at least 60 centimeters of yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sand (Figure
8b). These profiles are consistent with NRCS Wagram fine sand soil descriptions. Twenty
centimeters of hydric, very dark gray, silty sand overlying bluish-gray silty clay was present
along the E470 gridline.
32
Figure 7.
FS-1 and FS-2 Site Map
Gate
H2O
Valve
Station
Parking LotYoung Pines and HardwoodsWoods RoadCarolina
Bay
Treeline
Contour Line0 15m Haul RoadN
Site Boundary
Datum
Negative Shovel Test
Positive Shovel Test
Not Excavated
FS-2
FS-1
33PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT
Figure 8.
Photographs Showing FS-1 and FS-2
B. Representative Shovel Test Profile for FS-1 and FS-2
A. View from the FS-1’s Datum, Facing East
34

Twenty-one artifacts were collected from depths of 10-45 cmbs. The shovel test at N485 E500
yielded 18 fragments of quartz debitage and a medial fragment of a Woodland triangular
projectile point. Two precontact, cordmarked ceramics were collected from N500 E500. Both
were body sherds with fine to medium sand temper. Herbert (2009:27, 118) identified sand-
tempered, cordmarked sherds as either New River (Early Woodland) or Cape Fear (Middle
Woodland) types. Though the quantity of debitage at N485 E500 suggests lithic tool production
occurred at FS-1, the overall site artifact density suggests the Woodland occupation was not
intensive. The small artifact assemblage suggests the site formed as a result of limited activities
that may have been part of a larger seasonal round.
Site FS-1 was a Woodland period artifact scatter located between a wetland and a disturbed
tractor-trailer parking area. No features were identified during the site evaluation. Considering
the small size of the artifact deposit and the overall site artifact density, this site represents an
ephemeral Woodland occupation of little research value. This site type does not contain any
elements that merit evaluation under NRHP Criterion A-C. The site is unlikely to provide any
significant contributions for local, regional, or statewide analyses of Woodland lifeways and is
recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended at
site FS-1.
FS-2
Field Number: FS-2
Datum UTM Coordinates: 3847993 m N, 700737 m E (UTM, Zone 17N, NAD 1983)
Elevation: 130 ft. amsl
USGS Quadrangle (7.5’): Duart, NC
Property/Site Type: Artifact Scatter
Temporal Affiliations: Early/Middle Woodland Period
Setting: Mixed Deciduous Forest
Soil(s): Wagram Fine Sand
Site Size: 15 m N/S by 15 m E/W
Cultural Deposit Depth: 50 cmbs
Features: None
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Management Recommendation: No Further Work

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 35

Site FS-2 was identified 60 meters north of FS-1 (see Figure 6). Shovel testing also located this
site along the western edge of the project area. The site was identified between the tractor-trailer
parking pad and the Carolina Bay. Like FS-1, this area was covered by a canopy of mixed
hardwoods and pines, and sparse to moderate underbrush. Aside from the part of the site that
overlapped with a dirt track, ground surface visibility was poor (less than 15%) across most of
the evaluated area. A pipeline gauge station was located approximately 30 meters north of the
site. A clearing surrounding this station was covered by grasses and a gravel pad.
Shovel testing results established site boundaries of 15x15 meters (see Figure 7). Twelve 15-
meter interval shovel tests were used to delineate FS-2. One shovel test, N560 E470, yielded
artifacts. The remaining 11 were negative for archaeological remains. Like FS-1, this site is
identified within a zone of Wagram fine sand (WaB) soil. Shovel tests on the E470, E485, and
E500 gridlines uncovered 10 centimeters of gray (10YR 6/1) sandy loam overlying 30
centimeters of pale brown (10YR 6/3) sandy loam. A dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sandy
clay subsoil was identified 40 cmbs (Figure 8b). This Bt horizon is 20 centimeters shallower
than the typical Wagram fine sand soil. This inconsistency may be explained by the location of
these shovel tests relative to the higher water table of the nearby Carolina Bay. The two shovel
tests excavated on the E455 and E440 gridlines encountered hydric soils. These soils were
described as very dark gray (10YR 3/1) silty sand overlying bluish gray (GLEY 2 6/1) silty clay.
Three precontact ceramics and a retouched metavolcanic flake were collected from N560 E470.
These artifacts were collected between 0-50 cmbs. The flake tool is not diagnostic to a specific
precontact period. All three ceramics were Plain with fine to medium sand temper. The
precontact ceramics were identified to the Early/Middle Woodland Deptford ceramic type.
Site FS-2 is a small Early/Middle Woodland period artifact scatter. The few artifacts collected
during the site evaluation indicate the occupation was ephemeral and the potential for the
presence of intact features is low. This site type does not contain any elements that merit
evaluation under NRHP Criterion A-C. This site is unlikely to contribute to archaeological
studies of Early/Middle Woodland archaeology on the local, regional, or national level does not
meet Criterion D. Site FS-2 is recommended not eligible for the NRHP. No further work is
recommended for this site.

36

FS-3
Field Number: FS-3
Datum UTM Coordinates: 3847624 m N, 700529 m E (UTM, Zone 17N, NAD 1983)
Elevation: 130 ft. amsl
USGS Quadrangle (7.5’): Duart, NC
Property/Site Type: Abandoned Railroad Track Bed
Temporal Affiliations: Early Twentieth Century
Setting: Mixed Pines and Hardwoods
Soil(s): Norfolk Loamy Sand; Pantego loam; Woodington Loamy Sand
Site Size: 840 m N/S by 32 m E/W
Cultural Deposit Depth: 0 cmbs
Features: Railroad Track Bed
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Management Recommendation: No Further Work

A defunct railroad track bed ran along most of the western project area boundary (see Figure 6;
Figure 9). This landscape feature is divided into two sections by ground disturbances and an
active haul road. Most of the track bed north of this road consists of excavations or raised track
foundations measuring one to two feet high. This area is covered by a mixed canopy of pines
and hardwoods. South of the road, the track bed rises approximately six feet above the surface
of the surrounding wetland. None of the rails or ties were identified during the examination of
this landscape feature. The section of track bed located within the project area is incomplete and
partially disturbed.
In 1911, a branch line between St. Paul’s and Elizabethtown was constructed through the project
area by contractors Wade and Clower (Interstate Commerce Commission 1928). The track bed
was owned by the V&CS RR. This company constructed and operated standard gauge lines
from 1907 to 1922. V&CS RR had four locomotives operating between Hope Mills and
Lumberton, North Carolina. After 1922, the company’s main line was leased by the Atlantic
Coast Line Railroad (Lewis 2007). The branch line to Elizabethtown was likely closed after
1922. Aerial photography indicates the track was pulled up before 1979.
Site FS-3 is an abandoned and disturbed section of twentieth-century railroad track bed (Figure
10). Very little of the railroad, aside from the general alignment, is preserved at this location.
There were no significant railroad sidings or crossings located within the site boundaries. The
lack of completeness for these track bed sections and the absence of local, state, or national
significance for the railroad preclude the inclusion of this site on the NRHP. Site FS-3 is
recommended not eligible for the NRHP under any of the four criteria, and no further work is
recommended for the site.
37PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT
Figure 9.
FS-3 Overlain on Hillshade Data
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/!/
!/!/
!/!/
!/!/!/!/
!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/
!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/
!/!/
!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/
!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/
!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/
!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/
!/
!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/
!/
!/!/!/!/
!/
!/!/!/
!/!/!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
!
!
!/J!/J!/J!/JFS-3
FS-3
$0 120 240 Feet
!Positive Shovel Test
!/Negative Shovel Test
!/JNot Excavated
Site Boundary
Project Area
0 40 80 Meters
So urce: Bing Hybrid Maps
38
Figure 10.
Two Views of the FS-3 Railroad Track Bed
A. Raised Section of the Track Bed, Facing South
B. Push Piles Along the Western Edge of the Track Bed, Facing Northwest
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 39

Three archaeological resources were identified in the PSA. Two Woodland period artifact
scatters (FS-1 and FS-2) were recorded near the eastern survey boundary. FS-3 was recorded
near the western edge of the study area. None of these sites were recommended eligible for the
NRHP. Historical aerial photography indicated the presence of five potential historic sites within
the project survey area. All five potential site locations are located beneath active areas of the
Smithfield Plant. Construction activity in these areas completely disturbed these potential site
locations.
TEMPORARY STAGING AREA 1
An examination of twentieth-century aerial photographs indicates that, prior to the construction
of the Smithfield Foods facility, a Carolina Bay extended across the eastern half of Temporary
Staging Area 1 (see Figure 3).
Fifty-one sample locations were pre-plotted within Temporary Staging Area 1. Forty-two of
these locations were shovel tested. The nine remaining locations were not excavated because of
the presence of heavy disturbance, wetlands, or greater than 75 percent surface visibility. Shovel
tests excavated in the wooded portion of the survey area typically revealed 0-20 centimeters of
dark gray sandy loam overlying 20 centimeters of dark gray sandy loam. Asphalt debris and
road gravel were frequently noted in these shovel tests. Their presence and the disturbed
condition of soils encountered through shovel testing suggest this area was filled and leveled
after 1979 (see Figure 4). Shovel tests in the corn field uncovered 20 centimeters of gray sandy
loam overlying a disturbed zone of pale brown and dark yellowish brown sandy clay. All shovel
tests excavated in Temporary Staging Area 1 were negative for archaeological remains.
No archaeological resources were identified in this survey area.
TEMPORARY STAGING AREA 2
Historical aerial imagery indicates this survey area was wooded and periodically logged during
the twentieth century (see Figure 4).
Thirty pre-plotted sample locations were planned for Temporary Staging Area 2. Twenty-four
were shovel tested. The six remaining sample locations were either hydric or disturbed by a
water-line excavation. Excavated shovel tests uncovered 15-20 centimeters of dark gray sandy
loam overlying 45 centimeters of pale brown sandy loam. All shovel tests excavated in
Temporary Staging Area 2 were negative for archaeological remains.
No archaeological resources were identified within this survey area.
40

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The archaeological survey of the Smithfield Expansion Tract intensively tested the wooded
portion of the Smithfield Expansion Tract APE. In total, 65 acres were examined with shovel
tests and pedestrian walkover. Three archaeological sites were identified as a result of shovel
testing and pedestrian walkover (Table 2). Sites FS-1 and FS-2 are precontact artifact scatters
dating from the Woodland Period. Site FS-3 contains the remnants of a twentieth-century
railroad track bed. All three sites were recommended not eligible for the NRHP. Given their
NRHP status, no further archaeological work is needed for the project, as currently designed.
Table 2. Summary of Archaeological Resources Identified during the Phase I Investigation of
the Smithfield Expansion Tract
Site Number Temporal Range Component NRHP Recommendation
FS-1 Woodland period Artifact scatter Not eligible
FS-2 Woodland period Artifact scatter Not eligible
FS-3 Twentieth-century Railroad track bed Not eligible
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 41

REFERENCES CITED
Abbott, Erica Sandborn, Leslie A. Raymer, Lisa D. O’Steen, William J. Cleary, and G. Craig
Turner
1999 Data Recovery at 31CB114, Columbus County, North Carolina: Prehistoric
Settlement and Subsistence Practices Within the Lower Cape Fear River Valley.
New South Associates, Inc., Stone Mountain, Georgia.
Adams, Natalie P.
2002 A Pattern of Living: A View of the African American Slave Experience. In the
Pine Forests of the Lower Cape Fear. In Another’s Country, edited by J.W.
Joseph and Martha Zierden, pp. 65–78. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa,
Alabama.
Adovasio, James M.
1978 Meadowcroft Rockshelter, 1977, An Overview. American Antiquity 43(4):632–
651.
Adovasio, James M., Joel D. Gunn, and Robert Stuckenrath
1990 The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology 1975-1990. American
Antiquity 55:348–354.
Anderson, David G.
1989 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View from the
Southeastern United States presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the
Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Tampa, Florida.
1990 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View from the
Southeastern United States. In Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern North
America, edited by Barry Isaac and Kenneth Tankersley, pp. 163–216. Journal of
Economic Anthropology Supplement 5. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.
1996 Modeling Regional Settlement in the Archaic Period Southeast. In The
Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and
David Anderson, pp. 157–176. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.
42

Anderson, David G. and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from
the Savannah River Valley. American Antiquity 53(2):262–286.
Anderson, David G. and Joseph Schuldenrein
1985 Prehistoric Human Ecology Along the Upper Savannah River: Excavations at the
Rucker’s Bottom, Abbeville, and Bullard Site Groups. Russell Papers.
Archaeological Services Division, National Park Service, Atlanta, Georgia.
Bizzell, Oscar M., ed.
1983 The Heritage of Sampson County, North Carolina. North Carolina Historical
Society and Hunter Publishing Company, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Blanton, Dennis B. and Kenneth E. Sassaman
1989 Pattern and Process in the Middle Archaic Period of South Carolina. In Studies in
South Carolina Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson, edited by
Albert C. Goodyear and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 53–72. Anthropological Studies 9.
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina,
Columbia, South Carolina.
Brooks, Mark J.
1980 Late Holocene Sea Level Variability and Prehistoric Human Adaptations in the
Lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Master’s Thesis, Department of
Anthropology Arizona State University, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Cable, John S.
1982 Difference in Lithic Assemblages of the Forager and Collector Strategies. In
Archaeological Survey and Reconnaissance Within the Ten-Year Floodpool at the
Harry S. Truman Dam and Reservoir. Edited by Richard Taylor.
Cable, John S. and Mary Beth Reed
1990 Cultural Resource Survey, R-2303, NC 24, I-95 to I-40, Cumberland, Duplin, and
Sampson Counties: Background Research Report. New South Associates, Inc.,
Stone Mountain, Georgia.

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 43

Cantley, Charles, John R. Kern, Gilbert/Commonwealth (Firm), and United States National
Register Programs Division--Atlanta Archeological Services Branch
1984 Cultural Resource Evaluations at Fort Polk, Louisiana. Gilbert/Commonwealth,
Jackson, Michigan.
Chapman, Jefferson
1977 Archaic Period Research in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley, 1975:
Icehouse Bottom, Harrison Branch, Thirty Acre Island, Calloway Island. Report
of Investigations. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, Tennessee.
Claflin, William H., Jr.
1931 The Stalling’s Island Mound, Columbia County, Georgia. Papers of the Peabody
Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 19(1).
Claggett, Stephen R., Cheryl Claassen, Debi Hacker, David Lawrence, Andrea Lee Novick, Billy
L. Oliver, Michael Trinkley, Homes H. Wilson, and Jack H. Wilson Jr.
1986 Indian and Freedmen Occupation at the Fish Haul Site (38BU805), Beaufort
County, South Carolina. Research Series 7. Chicora Foundation, Columbia, South
Carolina.
Clay, James W.
1975 North Carolina Atlas: Portrait of a Changing Southern State. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Clay, James W., Jr. Douglas M. Orr, and Alfred W. Stuart, eds.
1975 North Carolina Atlas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
Cleland, Charles Edward
1976 The Focal-Diffuse Model: An Evoluationary Perspective on the Prehistoric
cultural Adaptations of the Eastern United States. Midcontinental Journal of
Archaeology 1:59–76.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society. New Series 54(5):1–130.
44

Colquhoun, Donald J. Mark Brooks, W.H. Abbott, F.W. Stapor, W.S. Newman, and R. R. Pardi
1980 Principal and Problems in Establishing a Holocene Sea-Level Curve for South
Carolina. In Excursions in Southeastern Geology: Geological Society of America,
Guidebook 20:143–159.
Conrad, Stephen G., III P. Albert Carpenter, and William F. Wilson
1975 Physiography, Geology, and Mineral Resources. In North Carolina Atlas. Edited
by James W. Clay, Jr. Douglas M. Orr, and Alfred W. Stuart. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Daniel, I. Randolph Jr. and Christopher R. Moore
2011 Current Research into the Paleoindian and Archaic Periods in the North Carolina
Coastal Plain. In The Archaeology of North Carolina: Three Archaeological
Symposia, pp. 3.1-3.24. 30. North Carolina Archaeological Council.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr.
1998 Hardaway Revisited: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
1999 Archaeological Excavations at Hammocks Beach West ( 31)N665): A Woodland
Shell-Midden on the North Carolina Coast. Department of Anthropology and
Phelps Archaeology Laboratory, East Carolina University, Greenville, North
Carolina.
2001 Stone Raw Material Availability and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern
United States. American Antiquity 66:237–265.
Davis, Thomas W. and Kathleen M. Child
2000 Late Woodland Ceramics on the Coastal Plain: A Possible New Type from
Carteret County, North Carolina. North Carolina Archaeology 49:78–92.
Dincauze, Dena F.
1984 An Archaeological Evaluation of the Case for Pre-Clovis Occupations. In
Advances in World Archaeology. Academic Press, New York, New York.
Duke University
2007 Key Industries: Hog Farming. Learn NC. Electronic document,
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-recent/6257, accessed August 2, 2017.
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 45

Dunn, Richard S.
1972 Sugar and Slaves: The Rise of the Planter Class in the English West Indies, 1624-
1713. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, New York.
Espenshade, Christopher
1996 South Carolina Prehistoric Pottery: Reflections on the 1995 Conference at
Georgetown, S.C. In Indian Pottery of the Carolinas, edited by David G.
Anderson, pp. 42–62. Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists,
Columbia, South Carolina.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials Among Paleo-
Indian Groups of North America. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series Book 127.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United
States. American Antiquity 47:382–395.
2000 The Topper Site 2000: Results of the 2000 Allendale Paleoindian Expedition.
Legacy 5(2):18–25.
2005 Evidence of Pre-Clovis Sties in the Eastern United States. In Paleoamerican
Origins: Beyond Clovis, pp. 103–112. Texas A & M University Press, College
Station, Texas.
Goodyear, Albert C., John H. House, and Neil W. Ackerly
1979 Laurens-Anderson: An Archaeological Study of the Interriverine Piedmont.
Anthropological Studies 4. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology,
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
Goodyear, Albert C., James L. Michie III, and Tommy Charles
1989 The Earliest South Carolinians. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology, edited
by Albert C, pp. 19–52.
Griffin, James B.
1945 The Significance of the Fiber-tempered Pottery of the St. Johns Area in Florida.
Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 35(7):218–233.
46

Griffin, John W.
1974 Investigations in Russell Cave. National Park Service Publications in Archeology
13.
Hargrove, Thomas
1993 Archaeological Excavations at 31NH142, Hamp’s Landing, River Road Park,
New Hanover County, North Carolina. Archaeological Research Consultants,
Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina.
Harmon, Michael A. and Rodney J. Snedeker
1997 The Archaeological Record of Tar and Pitch Production in Coastal Carolina. In
Carolina’s Historical Landscapes, Archaeological Perspectives, edited by Linda
F. Stine, Martha Zierden, Lesley M. Drucker, and Christopher Judge. University
of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Haynes, C. Vance
1980 Paleo-Indian Charcoal from Meadowcroft Rockshelter: Is Contamination a
Problem? American Antiquity 45(3):582–587.
1987 Clovis Origin Update. The Kiva 52:83–93.
Herbert, Joseph M.
2009 Woodland Potters and Archaeological Ceramics of the North Carolina Coast.
The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
2011 Recent Woodland Archaeology of Coastal North Carolina. In The Archaeology of
North Carolina: Three Archaeological Symposia, p.4.1-4.58. 30. North Carolina
Archaeological Council, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Interstate Commerce Commission
1928 Interstate Commerce Commission Reports: Decisions of the Interstate Commerce
Commission of the United States. United States Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C.
Irwin, Jeffrey, Wayne C.J. Boyko D., Joseph M. Herbert, and Chad Braley
1999 Woodland Burial Mounds in the North Carolina Sandhills and Southern Coastal
Plain. North Carolina Archaeology 48:59–86.
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 47

Johnson, Cassandra and Josh McDaniel
2005 Turpentine Negro. In “To Love the Wind and the Rain”: African Americans and
Environmental History, edited by Diane D. Glave and Mark Stoll. University of
Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA.
Johnson, Guion Griffis
1937 Ante-Bellum North Carolina: A Social History. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Jones, David C., Christopher T. Espenshade, and Linda Kennedy
1997 Archaeological Investigation at 31ON190, Cape Island, Onslow County, North
Carolina. Garrow and Associates, Atlanta, Georgia.
Jones, John R.
2006 Hog Farming. NCPedia.org. Electronic document, http://www.ncpedia.org/hog-
farming, accessed August 2, 2017.
Jones, William Powell
2000 Black Workers and the CIO’s Turn Toward Racial Liberalism: Operation Dixie
and the North Carolina Lumber Industry, 1946-1953. Labor History 41(3):279–
306.
2005 The Tribe of Black Ulysses: African American Lumber Workers in the Jim Crow
South. The Working Class in American History Series. University of Illinois
Press, Urbana, Illinois.
Kelly, Robert L.
1987 A Comment on the Pre-Clovis Deposits at Meadowcroft Rockshelter. Quaternary
Research 27:332–334.
Kelly, Robert L. and Lawrence C. Todd
1988 Coming into the Country: Early Paleoindian Hunting and Mobility. American
Antiquity 53(2):231–244.
Kimball, Larry R. and Jefferson Chapman
1977 Other Chipped Stone Artifacts. In Archaic Period Research in the Lower Little
Tennessee River Valley 1975: Icehouse Bottom, Harrison Branch, Thirty Acre
Island, Calloway Island, pp. 54–90. Report of Investigations 18. University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.
48

Knick, Stanley
1990 Archaeological Survey of the proposed site of a wastewater treatment plant for
Smithfield Foods, Inc., Tar Heel Vicinity, Bladen County, North Carolina. Native
American Resource Center, Pembroke, North Carolina.
Kreisa, Paul P., Christopher Ohm Clement, Ramona M. Grunden, Jill S. Quattlebaum, Steven D.
Smith, Cynthia L. Balek, and Jaqueline McDowell
1996 Phase I Archaeological Survey of 7,500 Acres at Poinsett Weapons Range,
Sumter County, South Carolina. Public Service Archaeological Program,
University of Illinois, Urbanna-Champaign, and South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Kricher, John C.
1988 Ecology of Eastern Forests. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
Leab, Roger J.
1990 Soil Survey of Bladen County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Lefler, Hugh Talmadge and Albert Ray Newsome
1973 The History of a Southern State, North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Lewis, J.D.
2007 North Carolina Railroads - Virginia and Carolina Southern Railroad. Carolina.
Electronic document,
http://www.carolana.com/nc/transportation/railroads/nc_rrs_va_carolina_southern
.html, accessed September 1, 2017.
Lynch, Thomas F.
1990 Glacial-Age Man in South America?: A Critical Review. American Antiquity
55(1):12–36.
Mathis, Mark A.
1979 North Carolina Statewide Archaeological Survey: An Introduction and
Application to Three Highway Projects in Hertford, Wilkes, and Ashe Counties.
Raleigh, North Carolina.
1999 Oak Island: A Retiring Type. North Carolina Archaeology 48:18–36.
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 49

McCusker, John J. and Russell R. Menard
1985 The Economy of British North America, 1607-1789. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Meinig, D.W.
1986 The Shaping of America, Volume 1: Atlantic America, 1492-1800. Yale
University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
Meltzer, David J.
1989 Was Stone Exchanged Amove Eastern North American Paleoindians? In Eastern
Paleo-Indian Lithic Resource Procurement and Processing, edited by J. Lothrop
and Christopher Ellis, pp. 11–39. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Messick, Denise P., Caleb Smith, David Port, Erica E. Sanborn, and Lawrence E. Abbott
2001 Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan, Military Ocean Terminal
Sunny Point, Brunswick and New Hanover Counties, North Carolina, Volume I:
Installation Overview and Historic Context. New South Associates, Inc., Stone
Mountain, Georgia.
Meyer, Duane Gilbert
1961 The Highland Scots of North Carolina, 1732-1776. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Michie, James L.
1977 The Late Pleistocene Human Occupation of South Carolina. South Carolina
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina,
Columbia, South Carolina.
Miller, D. Shane
2010 Clovis Excavations at Topper 2005-2007: Examining Site Formation Processes at
an Upland Paleoindian Site along the Middle Savannah River. Southeastern
Paleoamerican Survey Occasional Papers No. 1. South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia, South Carolina.
Millis, Tracy L.
2011 Woodland Period Site Distribution and Landscape Use in the Coastal Plain of
Southeastern North Carolina. In The Archaeology of North Carolina: Three
Archaeological Symposia, pp. 5.1-5.32. 30. North Carolina Archaeological
Council.
50

Morse, Dan F.
1973 Dalton Culture in Northeast Arkansas. Florida Anthropologist(26):23–28.
North Carolina Office of State Archaeology
2017 Archaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines for Background
Research, Field Methodologies, Technical Reports, and Curation. North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Phelps, David S.
1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and
Hypotheses. In The Prehistory of North Carolina, an Archaeological Symposium,
edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey L. Crow, pp. 1–51. North Carolina Division
of Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Poor, Henry V.
1868 Manual of the Railroads of the United States for 1868-1869. H.V. and H.W. Poor,
57 Broadway, New York, New York.
Powell, William Stevens
1989 North Carolina through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Quarterman, Elsie and Catherine Keever
1962 Southern Mixed Hardwood Forest: Climax in the Southeastern Coastal Plain,
U.S.A. Ecological Monographs 32(2):167–185.
Sandborn, Erica and Lawrence E. Abbott
1999 Early Ceramic Traditions on the Southern Coastal Plain of North Carolina:
Radiocarbon Data from 31CB114. North Carolina Archaeology 48:3–17.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1988 The Mid-Holocene Archeological Record of the Middle Savannah River Valley.
In The Archaeological Synthesis of the Savannah River Plant. South Carolina
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina,
Columbia, South Carolina.
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE SMITHFIELD FOODS EXPANSION TRACT 51

Sassaman, Kenneth E., Mark J. Brooks, Glen T. Hanson, and David G. Anderson
1990 Native American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley: A Synthesis of
Archaeological Investigations on the Savannah River Site, Aiken and Barnwell
Counties, South Carolina. Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 1.
South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South
Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
South, Stanley
1959 A Study of the Prehistory of the Roanoke Basin. Department of Anthropology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
1976 Archaeological Survey of Southeastern Coastal North Carolina. SCIAA Notebook
8:1–55.
Southeastern Regional Climate Center
2015 Historic Climate Summaries. Southeastern Regional Climate Center. Electronic
document, http://www.sercc.com/climateinfo/historical/historical, accessed
August 2, 2017.
Sprunt, James
1916 Chronicles of the Cape Fear River, 1660-1916. Edward and Broughton Printing
Company, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Stoltman, James B.
1972 The Late Archaic in the Savannah River Region. Florida Anthropologist
25(2):37–62.
1974 Groton Plantation: An Archaeological Study of a South Carolina Locality.
Monographs of the Peabody Museum 1. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Thom, Bruce G.
1970 Carolina Bays in Horry and Marion Counties, South Carolina. Geological Society
of America Bulletin 81(3):783–813.
Trinkley, Michael
1990a An Archaeological Context for the South Carolina Woodland Period. Research
Series 22. Chicora Foundation, Columbia, South Carolina.
52

1990b The Second Phase of Archaeological Survey On Spring Island, Beaufort County,
South Carolina: Investigation of Prehistoric and Historic Settlement Patterns On
An Isolated Sea Island. Chicora Foundation, Inc., Columbia, South Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service
2015 Web Soil Survey. Web Soil Survey. Electronic document,
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/app/homepage.htm, accessed August 7,
2017.
Ward, H. Trawick and R.P. Stephen Davis
1999 Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Waring, Antonio J., Jr.
1968 The Refuge Site, Jasper County, South Carolina. In The Waring Papers: The
Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr., edited by Stephen Williams, pp. 198–
208. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 58. Peabody
Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Waring, Antonio J., Jr. and Preston Holder
1968 The Deptford Ceramic Complex. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Watts, William A.
1971 Postglacial and Interglacial Vegetation History of Southern Georgia and Central
Florida. Ecology 52:666–690.
1980 Late-Quaternary Vegetation History at White Pond on the Inner Coastal Plain of
South Carolina. Quaternary Research 13(2):187–199.
Whitehead, Donald R.
1965 Palynology and Pleistocene Phytogeography of Unglaciated Eastern North
America. In The Quaternary of the United States, edited by Jr. W.E. Wright and
David G. Fry. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
1972 Development and Environmental History of the Dismal Swamp. Ecological
Monographs 42:301–315.

APPENDIX A: SPECIMEN CATALOG

Intentionally Left Blank
County: Bladen County
State: North Carolina
Project: Smithfield Expansion (2017)
Specimen Catalog
New South Associates, Inc.
6150 E. Ponce de Leon Avenue
Stone Mountain, GA 30083 Page 1 of 1
Field
Site #
Field Bag
#
Excavation Unit Horizontal
Location
Vertical
Location
Count/
Weight
Artifact Description Field Date
FS2 1 Transect 26, STP 3 N560 E470
0-50 cmbs,
Stratum I 1 (0.27g)Ridge And Valley Chert, Utilized Flake 7/19/17
FS2 1 Transect 26, STP 3 N560 E470
0-50 cmbs,
Stratum I 3 (10.72g)
Body Sherd, Sand-Fine-Medium Temper, Plain
Exterior, Plain Interior 7/19/17
FS1 2 N485 E500
10-50 cmbs,
Stratum II 1 (1.03g)Quartz, Biface, Fragment-Medial, drill or PPK 7/19/17
FS1 2 N485 E500
10-50 cmbs,
Stratum II 18 (6.25g)Quartz, Flake-General 7/19/17
FS1 3 Transect 25, STP 2
15-45 cmbs,
Stratum II 2 (10.5g)
Body Sherd, Sand-Fine-Medium Temper, Cord
Marked Exterior, Eroded Interior 7/19/17

Intentionally Left Blank
APPENDIX B: SHOVEL TEST LOG
Intentionally Left Blank
Shovel Test Log
Page 1 of 9
Project Area Transect ST #Strat 1 Depth Strat 1 Description Strat 2 Depth Strat 2 Description Strat 3 Depth Strat 3 Description Notes Artifacts Artifact
Type
Artifact
Count
Northing Easting Exc.
PSA 1 1 0-30 dark gray sand 30-70 light gray sand with concretions no PM
PSA 1 2 0-25 gray sand 25-50 light gray sand with concretions no PM
PSA 1 3 0-25 gray sand 25-50 light gray sand with concretions no PM
PSA 1 4 0-15 yellow, gray, brown mottled sandy
and clay disturbed no PM
PSA 2 1 no dig, substation no PM
PSA 2 2 0-25 very dark gray sandy loam hydric no PM
PSA 2 3 0-20 orange/brown/red mottled sand and
clay disturbed no PM
PSA 2 4 0-20 orange/brown/red mottled sand and
clay disturbed no PM
PSA 3 1 0-25 gray sandy loam 25-40 mottled light gray, yellowish brown,
and black rock, fill disturbed no WKB
PSA 3 2 0-40 black hydric no WKB
PSA 3 3 0-10 grayish brown sandy loam 10-60 yellowish brown loamy sand 50-70 pale grayish brown loamy
sand on railroad berm no WKB
PSA 3 4 0-40 black hydric no WKB
PSA 4 1 0-40 mottled black, yellowish brown, gray
fill, rocky with trash disturbed no WKB
PSA 4 2 0-10 grayish brown sandy loam 10-50 yellowish brown loamy sand 50-60 pale grayish brown loamy
sand on railroad berm no WKB
PSA 4 3 0-40 black hydric no WKB
PSA 5 1 0-20 orange/brown/red mottled sand and
clay disturbed no PM
PSA 5 2 no dig, drainage no PM
PSA 5 3 no dig, wetland no PM
PSA 5 4 0-15 orange/brown/red mottled sand and
clay disturbed no PM
PSA 6 1 0-15 orange/brown/red mottled sand and
clay disturbed no PM
PSA 6 2 no dig, wetland no PM
PSA 6 3 no dig, wetland no PM
PSA 6 4 0-20 very dark gray/light gray/yellow
mottled sand disturbed no PM
PSA 7 1 0-40 hydric no WKB
PSA 7 2 0-40 hydric no WKB
PSA 7 3 0-40 hydric no WKB
PSA 8 1 0-40 mottled black, yellowish brown, gray
fill disturbed no WKB
Shovel Test Log
Page 2 of 9
Project Area Transect ST #Strat 1 Depth Strat 1 Description Strat 2 Depth Strat 2 Description Strat 3 Depth Strat 3 Description Notes Artifacts Artifact
Type
Artifact
Count
Northing Easting Exc.
PSA 8 2 0-10 grayish brown sandy loam 10-80 yellowish brown loamy sand skip 60 meters for delineated
wetland no WKB
PSA 8 3 no dig, parking area for
trailers no WKB
PSA 9 1 0-20 orange/brown/red mottled sand and
clay disturbed no PM
PSA 9 2 no dig, old rail road bed,
disturbed no PM
PSA 9 3 no dig, parking lot no PM
PSA 9 4 no dig, parking lot no PM
PSA 10 1 no dig, disturbed no PM
PSA 10 2 0-15 dark gray sand 15-70 light brown sand no PM
PSA 10 3 no dig, in road no WKB
PSA 10 4 0-15 dark gray sandy loam 15-30 light gray clay no PM
PSA 10 5 0-20 very dark gray sandy loam 20-30 gray silty clay wet no WKB
PSA 11 1 0-25 grayish brown sandy loam 25-40 pale yellowish brown sandy loam 40-50 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no WKB
PSA 11 2 0-20 orange/brown/red mottled sand and
clay disturbed no PM
PSA 11 3 hydric no WKB
PSA 11 4 0-20 dark gray clay hydric no PM
PSA 11 5 no dig, in orange fencing
around special tree no WKB
PSA 12 1 0-10 orange/brown/red mottled sand and
clay disturbed no PM
PSA 12 2 0-20 gray sand 20-60 yelllowish brown sand no PM
PSA 12 3 0-20 dark gray loamy sand 20--60 yellowish brown sand no PM
PSA 12 4 hydric no WKB
PSA 12 5 0-25 dark gray loamy sand 25-35 light gray loamy sand no PM
PSA 12 6 0-10 gray sandy loam 10-60 pale yellowish brown sandy loam 60-70 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no WKB
PSA 12 7 no dig, in truck parking area no WKB
PSA 13 1 no dig, water on surface no PM
PSA 13 2 0-20 light gray sand 20-30 yellowish gray sand 30-40 yellow clay no PM
PSA 13 3 0-20 very dark gray sandy loam 20-30 very dark gray clayey loam no PM
PSA 13 4 0-15 light gray sandy loam 15-60 yellowish brown sandy loam no PM
Shovel Test Log
Page 3 of 9
Project Area Transect ST #Strat 1 Depth Strat 1 Description Strat 2 Depth Strat 2 Description Strat 3 Depth Strat 3 Description Notes Artifacts Artifact
Type
Artifact
Count
Northing Easting Exc.
PSA 13 5 0-10 dark gray sandy loam 10-20 yellowish brown sandy loam 20-30 yellow clay no PM
PSA 14 1 0-15 dark gray sandy loam 15-30 yellowish brown sandy loam no PM
PSA 14 2 0-10 gray sand 10-20 yellowish brown sandy loam 20-30 yellowish brown clayey
sand no PM
PSA 14 3 0-15 dark gray sandy loam 15-30 yellowish orange compact clay no PM
PSA 14 4 0-5 light gray sandy loam 5-15 yellowish gray sandy loam disturbed no PM
PSA 14 5 no dig, water on surface no PM
PSA 15 1 0-20 mottled yellowish brown and road fill disturbed no WKB
PSA 15 2 0-30 gray sandy loam 30-45 pale yellowish brown sandy loam 45-50 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no WKB
PSA 15 3 0-15 gray sandy loam 15-40 pale yellowish brown sandy loam 40-50 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no WKB
PSA 15 4 0-15 gray sandy loam 15-40 pale yellowish brown sandy loam 40-50 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay 0 no WKB
PSA 15 5 0-15 gray sandy loam 15-40 pale yellowish brown sandy loam 40-50 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay 0 no WKB
PSA 15 6 0-15 gray sandy loam 15-40 pale yellowish brown sandy loam 40-50 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay 0 no WKB
PSA 16 1 0-30 mottled pale yellowish brown and
dark yellowish brown fill disturbed no WKB
PSA 16 2 0-10 gray sandy loam 10-30 pale yellowish brown sandy loam 30-40 pale yellowish brown
sandy loam no WKB
PSA 16 3 0-10 gray sandy loam 10-30 pale yellowish brown sandy loam 30-40 pale yellowish brown
sandy loam no WKB
PSA 16 4 0-10 gray sandy loam 10-45 pale yellowish brown sandy loam 45-55 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no WKB
PSA 16 5 0-10 gray sandy loam 10-45 pale yellowish brown sandy loam 45-55 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no WKB
PSA 16 6 0-25 yellowish brown sandy loam 25-40 mottled pale yellowish brown and
yellowish brown sandy loam 40-50 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no WKB
PSA 17 1 0-40 grayish brown loamy sand 40-60 light yellowish brown sand with
concretions 60-~strong yellowish brown
clayey sand no JAS
PSA 17 2 0-20 grayish brown loamy sand 20-*light yellowish brown sand with
concretions (compact)no JAS
PSA 17 3 0-20 grayish brown loamy sand 20-60 light yellowish brown clayey sand no JAS
PSA 17 4 0-30 light brown and tan clay sand
(disturbed)disturbed no JAS
PSA 17 5 0-30 light brown and tan clay sand
(disturbed)disturbed no JAS
PSA 17 6 0-30 light brown and tan clay sand
(disturbed)disturbed no JAS
PSA 17 7 0-20 grayish brown loamy sand 20-60 strong yellowish brown sand no JAS
PSA 17 8 0-40 very dark gray sandy loam 40-*very light gray sandy loam no JAS
PSA 17 9 0-40 very dark gray sandy loam 40-*very light gray sandy loam no JAS
Shovel Test Log
Page 4 of 9
Project Area Transect ST #Strat 1 Depth Strat 1 Description Strat 2 Depth Strat 2 Description Strat 3 Depth Strat 3 Description Notes Artifacts Artifact
Type
Artifact
Count
Northing Easting Exc.
PSA 17 10 0-50 gray loamy sand disturbed no JAS
PSA 18 1 -no dig, hydric no JAS
PSA 18 2 -no dig, hydric no JAS
PSA 18 3 -no dig, hydric no JAS
PSA 18 4 -no dig, hydric no JAS
PSA 18 5 0-50 very pale gray sand no JAS
PSA 18 6 0-40 gray silty loam 40-~very light gray sandy loam no JAS
PSA 18 7 0-20 strong yellowish brown sand 20-40 orange clay no JAS
PSA 18 8 0-30 gray sandy loam 30-60 yellowish brown sandy clay no JAS
PSA 18 9 0-30 gray sandy loam 30-60 yellowish brown sandy clay no JAS
PSA 18 10 0-10 yellowish brown sand 10-~yellowish brown sandy clay no JAS
PSA 19 1 0-15 dark gray sandy loam 15-60 light yellowish brown sandy loam no PM
PSA 19 2 0-15 dark gray sandy loam 15-60 light yellowish brown sandy loam no PM
PSA 19 3 0-15 dark gray sandy loam 15-20 reddish brown sand 20-30 orange yellow sandy
loam disturbed no PM
PSA 19 4 0-15 dark gray sand 15-60 yellowish brown sandy loam no PM
PSA 19 5 0-15 dark gray sand 15-55 yellowish brown sandy loam no PM
PSA 19 6 0-30 very dark gray sandy loam 30-60 yellowish brown sandy loam no PM
PSA 19 7 no dig, wetland no PM
PSA 20 1 0-5 dark gray sandy loam 5-15 light gray clayey loam wetland no PM
PSA 20 2 no dig, wetland no PM
PSA 20 3 0-20 dark gray sandy loam 20-30 pale gray clayey loam no PM
PSA 20 4 0-10 light gray sand 10-30 yellowish brown sandy loam no PM
PSA 20 5 0-5 light gray sand 5-45 yellowish brown sand no PM
PSA 20 6 no dig, disturbed no PM
PSA 21 1 0-20 black sandy loam hydric no WKB
PSA 21 2 0-20 gray sandy loam 20-50 pale yellowish brown sandy loam 50-60 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no WKB
PSA 21 3 0-5 gray sandy loam 5-30 pale yellowish brown sandy loam 30-40 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no WKB
Shovel Test Log
Page 5 of 9
Project Area Transect ST #Strat 1 Depth Strat 1 Description Strat 2 Depth Strat 2 Description Strat 3 Depth Strat 3 Description Notes Artifacts Artifact
Type
Artifact
Count
Northing Easting Exc.
PSA 21 4 0-20 gray sandy loam 20-40 pale brown sandy loam 40-50 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no WKB
PSA 21 5 hydric no WKB
PSA 21 6 0 hydric no WKB
PSA 22 1 0-15 mottled pale gray, gray, and
yellowish brown fill disturbed no WKB
PSA 22 2 0-15 gray sandy loam 15-40 pale brown sandy loam 40-50 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no WKB
PSA 22 3 0-15 gray sandy loam 15-40 pale brown sandy loam 40-50 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no WKB
PSA 22 4 0-30 mottled pale brown and dark
yellowish brown sandy clay disturbed no WKB
PSA 22 5 0 hydric no WKB
PSA 23 1 hydric and disturbed no JAS
PSA 23 2 0-30 light grayish brown loamy sand 30-50 strong yellowish brown sandy clay no JAS
PSA 23 3 hydric and disturbed no JAS
PSA 24 1 hydric and disturbed no JAS
PSA 24 2 hydric and disturbed no JAS
PSA 25 1 0-25 light gray sand 25-50 yellowish gray sand no PM
PSA 25 2 0-15 dark gray sand 15-45 yellowish brown sand yes prehistoric
sherds 2 N500 E500 PM
PSA 25 3 0-10 light gray sand 10-45 yellowish gray sand 45-55 yellowish orange clayey
loam disturbed no N530 E500 PM
PSA 25 4 no dig, disturbed no PM
PSA 25 5 0-25 dark gray sandy loam 25-35 yellowish brown sandy laom no PM
PSA 25 6 hydric no WKB
PSA 25 7 hydric no WKB
PSA 26 1 hydric no WKB
PSA 26 2 hydric no N530 E470 WKB
PSA 26 3 0-15 gray gray sandy loam 15-70 pale brown sandy loam 70-80 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay yes
prehistoric
sherds
metavolca
3
1 N560 E470 WKB
PSA 26 4 0-40 pale brown sandy loam 40-50 dark yellowish brown sandy clay no N590 E470 WKB
PSA 26 5 0-20 mottled dark yellowish brown and
strong brown sand fill rocky no WKB
PSA 26 6 hydric no WKB
PSA 26 7 hydric no WKB
Shovel Test Log
Page 6 of 9
Project Area Transect ST #Strat 1 Depth Strat 1 Description Strat 2 Depth Strat 2 Description Strat 3 Depth Strat 3 Description Notes Artifacts Artifact
Type
Artifact
Count
Northing Easting Exc.
PSA no dig - in road no N500 E515 WKB
PSA no dig - in road no N500 E530 WKB
PSA 0-20 hydric no N560 E455 WKB
PSA 0-20 hydric no N560 E440 WKB
PSA 0-15 gray sandy loam 15-30 dark yellowish brown sandy clay
mottled with black sandy loam 30-70 very pale brown compact
sand no N560 E500 WKB
PSA 0-30 dark gray sandy loam 30-40 light gray sandy loam no N485 E485 PM
PSA 0-30 dark gray sandy loam 30-40 light gray sandy loam no N485 E470 PM
PSA 0-10 gray sandy loam 10-50 pale brown sandy loam 50-60 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no N575 E470 WKB
PSA 0-10 gray sandy loam 10-40 pale brown sandy loam 40-50 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no N560 E485 WKB
PSA 0-8 dark gray sandy loam 8-40 pale brown sandy loam 40-50 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no N575 E485 WKB
PSA 0-10 gray sandy loam 10-40 pale brown sandy loam 40-50 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no N545 E485 WKB
PSA 0-10 gray sandy loam 10-80 pale grayish brown sandy loam 80-90 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no N500 E485 WKB
PSA 0-10 light gray sandy loam 10-50 yellowish brown sand 50-~yellowish orange clayey
loam yes
quartz
flakes
woodland
18
1 N485 E500 PM
PSA 0-10 dark gray sand 10-35 yellowish brown sand 35-45 yellowish orange clayey
loam no N515 E485 PM
PSA 0-10 dark gray sand 10-35 yellowish brown sand 35-45 yellowish orange clayey
loam no N530 E485 PM
PSA 0-10 gray sandy loam 10-60 yellowish brown sandy loam 60-70 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no N545 E470 WKB
PSA 0-15 dark gray sandy loam 15-25 yellowish brown sandy loam 25-35 yellowish orange clayey
loam no N515 E500 PM
TS-1 1 1 0-15 yellow/brown/orange with gravel no PM
TS-1 1 2 no dig, water on surface no PM
TS-1 1 3 0-15 orange/brown/yellow mottles clay
and sand disturbed no PM
TS-1 1 4 no dig, disturbed no PM
TS-1 1 5 0-25 dark gray sandy loam 25-50 light gray sandy loam no PM
TS-1 1 6 no dig, wetlands no PM
TS-1 1 7 0-20 dark gray sandy loam 20-35 light gray sandy loam no PM
TS-1 1 8 no dig, wetland no PM
TS-1 1 9 0-20 dark gray sandy loam 20-40 brown clayey loam no PM
TS-1 1 10 0-20 dark gray sandy loam 20-40 brown clayey loam heavily lumbered no PM
Shovel Test Log
Page 7 of 9
Project Area Transect ST #Strat 1 Depth Strat 1 Description Strat 2 Depth Strat 2 Description Strat 3 Depth Strat 3 Description Notes Artifacts Artifact
Type
Artifact
Count
Northing Easting Exc.
TS-1 2 1 surface visibility in cornfield no PM
TS-1 2 2 surface visibility in cornfield no PM
TS-1 2 3 surface visibility in cornfield no PM
TS-1 2 4 surface visibility in cornfield no PM
TS-1 2 5 0-20 dark gray clayey loam no PM
TS-1 2 6 0-20 dark gray clayey loam no PM
TS-1 2 7 0-20 dark gray clayey loam with gravel no PM
TS-1 2 8 0-15 dark gray clayey loam with gravel 15-25 yellowish brown sandy loam with
gravel no PM
TS-1 2 9 0-20 yellowish brown sandy loam with
gravel no PM
TS-1 2 10 0-15 light grayish brown sand 15-25 yellowish brown sandy loam with
gravel no PM
TS-1 3 1 0-5 gray sandy loam 5-15
compact rocky mottled pale grayish
brown and dark yellowish brown
sandy clay fill with red inclusions
disturbed no WKB
TS-1 3 2 0-5 gray sandy loam 5-15
compact rocky mottled pale grayish
brown and dark yellowish brown
sandy clay fill with red inclusions
disturbed no WKB
TS-1 3 3 0-5 gray sandy loam 5-15
compact rocky mottled pale grayish
brown and dark yellowish brown
sandy clay fill with red inclusions
disturbed no WKB
TS-1 3 4 0-5 gray sandy loam 5-15
compact rocky mottled pale grayish
brown and dark yellowish brown
sandy clay fill with red inclusions
disturbed no WKB
TS-1 3 5 0-5 gray sandy loam 5-15
compact rocky mottled pale grayish
brown and dark yellowish brown
sandy clay fill with red inclusions
disturbed no WKB
TS-1 3 6 0-25 dark gray sandy loam 25-35 mottled pale brown and dark
yellowish brown sandy clay in corn field no WKB
TS-1 3 7 0-30 dark gray sandy loam 30-40 mottled pale brown and dark
yellowish brown sandy clay in corn field no WKB
TS-1 3 8 0-10 dark yellowish brown sandy clay 10-30 dark gray sandy loam in corn field no WKB
TS-1 3 9 0-10 dark yellowish brown sandy clay 10-30 dark gray sandy loam in corn field no WKB
TS-1 3 10 0-10 dark yellowish brown sandy clay 10-30 dark gray sandy loam in corn field no WKB
TS-1 3 11 0-10 dark yellowish brown sandy clay 10-30 dark gray sandy loam in corn field no WKB
TS-1 4 1 0-25 dark gray sandy loam 25-35 mottled pale brown and dark
yellowish brown sandy clay in woods no WKB
TS-1 4 2 0-25 dark gray sandy loam 25-35 mottled pale brown and dark
yellowish brown sandy clay in woods no WKB
TS-1 4 3 in woods, no dig, carolina
bay no WKB
TS-1 4 4 in woods, no dig, carolina
bay no WKB
Shovel Test Log
Page 8 of 9
Project Area Transect ST #Strat 1 Depth Strat 1 Description Strat 2 Depth Strat 2 Description Strat 3 Depth Strat 3 Description Notes Artifacts Artifact
Type
Artifact
Count
Northing Easting Exc.
TS-1 4 5 0-5 dark gray sandy loam in woods no WKB
TS-1 4 6 0-20 dark gray sandy loam with asphalt in woods no WKB
TS-1 4 7 0-30 dark gray sandy loam 30-40 mottled pale brown and dark
yellowish brown sandy clay in corn field no WKB
TS-1 4 8 0-5 dark yellowish brown sandy clay 5-20 dark gray sandy loam 20-30
mottled pale brown and
yellowish brown sandy
clay
in corn field no WKB
TS-1 4 10 0-5 orange brown sand 5-~asphalt no PM
TS-1 5 1 no screen, hydric no JAS
TS-1 5 2 0-20 light gray sand with gravel 20-~compact bluish gray loamy clay asphalt on surface (filled
wetland?)no JAS
TS-1 5 3 0-20 light gray sand with gravel 20-~compact bluish gray loamy clay asphalt on surface (filled
wetland?)no JAS
TS-1 5 4 0-20 light gray sand with gravel 20-~compact bluish gray loamy clay asphalt on surface (filled
wetland?)no JAS
TS-1 5 5
no dig, drainage channel,
surface visibility, asphalt on
surface
no JAS
TS-1 6 1 no screen, hydric with
concretions no JAS
TS-1 6 2 no screen, hydric with
concretions no JAS
TS-1 6 3 no screen, hydric , asphalt on
surface no JAS
TS-1 6 4 no screen, hydric , asphalt on
surface no JAS
TS-1 7 1 no screen, hydric , asphalt on
surface no JAS
TS-1 judge PM 1 0-20 very dark gray sandy loam 20-35 pale gray sandy loam judgmental no PM
TS-2 1 1 no dig, disturbed no PM
TS-2 1 2 0-15 dark gray sandy loam 15-25 light gray clayey loam no PM
TS-2 1 3 0-15 dark gray sandy loam 15-25 light gray clayey loam no PM
TS-2 10 1 no screen, hydric JAS
TS-2 10 2 0-40 gray silty sand 40-~ very light gray clayey sand hydric no JAS
TS-2 10 3 no dig, disturbed no JAS
TS-2 2 1 0-5 dark gray sandy loam 5-15 yellowish brown sandy loam. 15-25 pale gray sandy loam no PM
TS-2 2 2 0-20 dark gray sandy loam 20-30 yellowish orangish brown sandy
loam no PM
TS-2 2 3 0-15 dark gray yellowish brown mottled
clay and sand disturbed no PM
TS-2 3 1 no dig, water on surface no PM
TS-2 3 2 no dig, wetland no PM
Shovel Test Log
Page 9 of 9
Project Area Transect ST #Strat 1 Depth Strat 1 Description Strat 2 Depth Strat 2 Description Strat 3 Depth Strat 3 Description Notes Artifacts Artifact
Type
Artifact
Count
Northing Easting Exc.
TS-2 3 3 0-15 pale gray sandy loam hydric no PM
TS-2 4 1 0-15 very dark gray sandy loam hydric, wetlands no PM
TS-2 4 2 0-15 very dark gray sandy loam hydric, wetlands no PM
TS-2 4 3 no dig, water on surface no PM
TS-2 5 1 0-30 grayish brown silty clay with orange
concretions
water line located along the
eastern edge of Temporary
Staging Area 2
no JAS
TS-2 5 2 0-20 grayish brown loamy sand 20-~very light brown clayey sand
(compact0 no JAS
TS-2 6 1 0-20 grayish brown loamy sand 20-60 lighty yellowish brown silty sand no JAS
TS-2 6 2 0-20 grayish brown loamy sand 20-60 lighty yellowish brown silty sand no JAS
TS-2 6 3 hydric no JAS
TS-2 6 3 0-30 gray-red sandy loam with concretions disturbed - likely by
waterline excavation no JAS
TS-2 7 1 0-30 gray sandy loam 30-40 dark yellowish brown sandy clay no WKB
TS-2 7 2 0-15 gray sandy loam 15-60 pale brown sandy loam 60-70 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no WKB
TS-2 7 3 0-15 gray sandy loam 15-60 pale brown sandy loam 60-70 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no WKB
TS-2 8 1 0-10 light brown sandy loam 10-35 dark gray sandy loam 35-40 yellowish brown sand no PM
TS-2 8 2 0-35 light gray sand 35-55 yellowish brown sand 55-65 orange/yellow clayey
loam no PM
TS-2 8 3 0-15 gray sandy loam 15-60 pale brown sandy loam 60-70 dark yellowish brown
sandy clay no WKB
TS-2 9 1 0-30 reddish gray loamy sand with
concretions disturbed no JAS
TS-2 9 2 0-40 grayish brown loamy sand 40-~very light yellowish brown sand no JAS
TS-2 9 3 0-40 grayish brown loamy sand 40-~very light yellowish brown sand no JAS

Intentionally Left Blank