20200518 Ver 1_Archaeological_Addendum 5-1-19_20200415

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADDENDUM SURVEY
PROPOSED ALBEMARLE BEACH SOLAR FARM
WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(CH 15-2391)

PREPARED FOR:
SUN ENERGY 1
& ALBEMARLE BEACH SOLAR LLC
192 RACEWAY DRIVE
MOORESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28117

PREPARED BY:
COMMONWEALTH HERITAGE GROUP, INC.
P.O. BOX 1198
201 WEST WILSON STREET
TARBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 27886

Amy Krull, M.A., RPA
Amanda Stamper, M.A.
D. Allen Poyner
and
Susan E. Bamann, Ph.D., RPA
Principal Investigator

NCR-0804

MAY 2019

i

ABSTRACT
In February and March 2019, Commonwealth Heritage Group, Inc. (Commonwealth), completed
an archaeological survey addendum for the proposed Albemarle Beach Solar Farm in
Washington County, North Carolina. The addendum survey was conducted for Sun Energy 1
and Albemarle Beach Solar LLC. The current report is an addendum to Ferrante et al. (2016)
and Stair et al. (2016), and meets the guidelines issued by the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office and the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology. All work was
completed in a manner consistent with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s
regulations for compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Therefore, the survey
work was conducted according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for
Historic Preservation Projects (Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 190, September 1983, P. 44716-
44742, et seq.).

The purpose of the survey was to determine if archaeological sites that are eligible for or
potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are located within the
project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE) for direct effects on archaeological resources. The
current additions to the project, based on maps provided by Sun Energy 1 on August 31, 2018,
include approximately 696.5 acres hereafter defined as the project area. The project is located in
rural northern Washington County, between the communities of Roper and Mackeys, North
Carolina. Currently, the project area is mostly used for agriculture.

The project area was given full consideration during the archaeological survey through visual
reconnaissance and intensive survey as appropriate, and detailed mapping is provided to show
conditions as well as the survey strategies that were employed. As a result of the survey, 12 new
archaeological resources were recorded (31WH70 through 31WH81), one of which is a
cemetery. The cemetery (31WH70, the late nineteenth- to mid-twentieth-century Davis Family
Cemetery) is a small family cemetery lacking significant associations, exceptional design or
artistic merit, and a substantial burial population that could yield significant information per
physical anthropological studies. It is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP but should be
treated under North Carolina statutes regarding cemeteries, as appropriate, if it cannot be
avoided. The remaining sites include a Native American isolated artifact, three sites with a
Native American artifact scatter and a historic artifact scatter, five historic artifact scatters, and
historic structure ruins. The Native American components appear to date to the Early and/or
Middle Woodland periods and feature low-density deposits suggesting minimal potential for
significant information. Three of the four components occur within 100 m of a waterway, while
the fourth, an isolated find, was encountered in an interstream area. Some of the historic
components relate to structures shown in historic mapping, and all date the nineteenth- and/or
twentieth centuries. Many of these sites feature low-density deposits, and most occur in plow-
zone contexts and lack evidence suggesting intact sub-plow-zone deposits. None of the
archaeological resources recorded during the survey are recommended as eligible for the NRHP.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... i

ILLUSTRATIONS ............................................................................................................ iv

TABLES ..............................................................................................................................v

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND COMPLIANCE ...................................... 1-1
1.2 PROJECT TIMELINE, STAFF, AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......... 1-1
1.3 REPORT CONTENTS ............................................................................ 1-6

2.0 NATURAL SETTING ............................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 PHYSIOGRPAHY ................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................ 2-1
2.3 HYDOLOGY AND VEGETATION ....................................................... 2-2

3.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3-1
3.1 METHODS .............................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.1 General Methods and Background Research ............................... 3-1
3.1.2 Field Methods .............................................................................. 3-1
3.1.3 Mapping/GIS................................................................................ 3-7
3.1.4 Laboratory Methods and Documentation .................................... 3-7
3.2 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND SURVEYS IN AND
NEAR THE PROJECT AREA ................................................................ 3-8
3.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 3-8
3.3.1 Overview of Survey and Results .................................................. 3-8
3.3.2 Newly Recorded Sites ................................................................ 3-12

4.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 4-1

5.0 REFERENCES CITED ........................................................................................... 5-1

APPENDIX A: MANUFACTURING DATE RANGES FOR ARTIFACT TYPES
RECOVERED FROM HISTORIC SITES

APPENDIX B: ARTIFACT INVENTORY

iii

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1.1-1 General Location of Project ..................................................................... 1-2

Figure 1.1-2 Previously Surveyed Areas and Current Project Area ............................. 1-3

Figure 1.1-3 1938 State Highway and Publics Works Commission Map with Overlay of
the Current Project Area (NCSHPWC 1938) .......................................... 1-4

Figure 1.1-4 1943 USGS 15-Minute Plymouth, North Carolina, Quadrangle (USGS
2019) Showing with Overlay of the Current Project Area ...................... 1-5

Figure 3.1-1 Conditions and Survey Strategies Shown on USGS 7.5-Minute Westover
(1954) and Roper (1954) Quadrangles .................................................... 3-3

Figure 3.1-2 Conditions and Survey Strategies Based on Orthoimagery. .................... 3-4

Figure 3.1-3 Typical Conditions Encountered in the Project Area During the
Survey ...................................................................................................... 3-5

Figure 3.1-4 An Example of Conditions Encountered During the Survey ................... 3-5

Figure 3.1-5 One of Several Areas in the Project Area Mapped Well-Drained with Soils
that also Contained Areas of Standing Water .......................................... 3-6

Figure 3.1-6 An Example of Conditions in Wooded Portions of the Project Area ...... 3-6

Figure 3.3-1 Locations of Newly Recorded Sites in the Current Project Area .......... 3-11

Figure 3.3-2 Map of 31WH70, Davis Family Cemetery ............................................ 3-13

Figure 3.3-3 Gravemarker for Claudie E Davis and Mack Stewart Davis
at 31WH70 ............................................................................................. 3-14

Figure 3.3-4 Gravemarker for Rosa Williams Davis at 31WH70 .............................. 3-14

Figure 3.3-5 View of Cemetery (31WH70) With Mature Cedar and Broken Limbs that
have Damaged Gravemarkers ................................................................ 3-16

Figure 3.3-6 Map of 31WH71 .................................................................................... 3-18

Figure 3.3-7 Soil Profile of Shovel Test 4, Excavated on a Stream Terrace at
31WH71 ................................................................................................. 3-20

Figure 3.3-8 Map of 31WH72 .................................................................................... 3-22

iv

Figure 3.3-9 Selected Historic Artifacts from 31WH72 ............................................. 3-24

Figure 3.3-10 Soil Profile of Shovel Test 3, Excavated Along the Stream Terrace in the
Southeast Corner of 31WH72 ................................................................ 3-26

Figure 3.3-11 Example of a Typical Soil Profile of a Shovel Tests Excavated Along the
Stream Terrace in the Southeast Corner of 31WH72 ............................ 3-26

Figure 3.3-12 View of Collapsed Structure Located at 31WH72 ................................ 3-27

Figure 3.3-13 Map of 31WH73 .................................................................................... 3-29

Figure 3.3-14 Map of 31WH74 .................................................................................... 3-31

Figure 3.3-15 View of 31WH74 ................................................................................... 3-32

Figure 3.3-16 Typical Soil Profile Encountered at 31WH74 ....................................... 3-32

Figure 3.3-17 Map of 31WH75 .................................................................................... 3-34

Figure 3.3-18 Quartzite Potts Point from 31WH75 ...................................................... 3-35

Figure 3.3-19 Soil Profile Encountered at 31WH75 .................................................... 3-36

Figure 3.3-20 Map of 31WH76 .................................................................................... 3-37

Figure 3.3-21 Map of 31WH77 .................................................................................... 3-39

Figure 3.3-22 Quartzite Rossville Stemmed Point Recovered from 31WH77 ............. 3-41

Figure 3.3-23 A Sample of Historic Artifacts Recovered from 31WH77 .................... 3-41

Figure 3.3-24 Map of 31WH78 .................................................................................... 3-42

Figure 3.3-25 Map of 31WH79 .................................................................................... 3-44

Figure 3.3-26 Map of 31WH80 .................................................................................... 3-47

Figure 3.3-27 View of Chimney at 31WH80 ............................................................... 3-48

Figure 3.3-28 Soil Profile Encountered at 31WH80 .................................................... 3-49

Figure 3.3-29 Map of 31WH81 .................................................................................... 3-50

v

TABLES

Table 2.2-1 Detailed List of Soils for the Current Project Area .................................. 2-1

Table 2.3-1 Approximate Percentage of Land Use Within the Current
Project Area ............................................................................................. 2-2

Table 3.3-1 Overview of Survey Strategies for the Current Project Area .................. 3-9

Table 3.2-2 Summary of Archaeological Resources Documented in the
Current APE ............................................................................................. 3-9

Table 3.3-3 List of Markers and Known Individuals Buried at the Davis Family
Cemetery ............................................................................................... 3-12

Table 3.3-4 Summary of Artifacts Recovered from 31WH71 .................................. 3-17

Table 3.3-5 Summary of Artifacts Recovered from 31WH72 .................................. 3-21

Table 3.3-6 Concentration 1 Artifacts Recovered from 31WH72 ............................ 3-23

Table 3.3-7 Concentration 2 Artifacts Recovered from 31WH72 ............................ 3-25

Table 3.3-8 Summary of Artifacts Recovered from 31WH76 .................................. 3-33

Table 3.3-9 Summary of Artifacts Recovered from 31WH77 .................................. 3-38

Table 3.3-10 Summary of Artifacts Recovered from 31WH78 .................................. 3-43

Table 3.3-11 Summary of Artifacts Recovered from 31WH79 .................................. 3-45

Table 3.3-12 Summary of Artifacts Recovered from 31WH81 .................................. 3-51

1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND COMPLIANCE

Commonwealth Heritage Group, Inc. (Commonwealth), has completed an archaeological survey
addendum for the proposed Albemarle Beach Solar Farm located near the town of Roper in
Washington County, North Carolina (Figure 1.1-1). The addendum survey was conducted for
Sun Energy 1 and Albemarle Beach Solar, LLC. The current report is an addendum to Ferrante
et al. (2016) and Stair et al. (2016). All work was completed in a manner consistent with the
requirements Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations for compliance with Section 106,
codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Therefore, the survey work was conducted according to the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects (Federal
Register, Vol. 48, No. 190, September 1983, P. 44716-44742, et seq.) and meets the guidelines
issued by the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) and the OSA.

The purpose of the survey was to determine if archaeological sites that are listed on, eligible for,
or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are located within the
project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE) for direct effects on archaeological resources. The
current additions to the project, based on maps provided by Sun Energy 1 on August 31, 2018,
include approximately 696.46 acres hereafter defined as the project area. This area is shown in
Figure 1.1-2 along with previously surveyed portions of the overall area currently planned for the
solar project. The project is located in rural northern Washington County, between the
communities of Roper and Mackeys, North Carolina. Currently, the project area is mostly used
for agriculture. Figures 1.1-3 and 1.1-4 are maps from the first half of the twentieth century with
overlay of the project area. These show structures within and adjacent to the project area and
indicate that most of the project area was minimally inhabited at the time. Earlier historic maps
with less detail appear in Ferrante et al. (2016).

1.2 PROJECT TIMELINE, STAFF, AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Fieldwork was conducted between February 18 and March 13, 2019, and required 66 person
days. Susan E. Bamann, Ph.D., RPA, was the project manager and principal investigator. Amy
Krull, M.A., RPA, conducted the background research and served as the project archaeologist.
Jeff Pulvermacher served as field director. B. Scott Rose M.A., RPA, and Joseph Stair M.A.,
RPA also briefly field directed. The field technicians included Mary Kate Roberts, MSc,
Andrew Holloway, M.A., Robert Kotlarek, Emery Bencini, and Kirstyn Leque. Amanda
Stamper, M.A., and Susan Bamann completed the laboratory analysis. Amy Krull and B. Scott
Rose prepared the OSA site forms, and D. Allen Poyner was the graphic data coordinator.

1-2
Figure 1.1-1: General Location of the Project Showing Previously Surveyed Areas and the Current
Additions to the Project (Project Area). Note that mapping in the previous survey report (Ferrante et
al. 2016) shows additional surveyed areas north of Route 308 that are no longer part of the solar
project.
1-3

Figure 1.1-2: Previously Surveyed Areas and the Current Project Area. Base Imagery from USGS (2019).
1-4
Figure 1.1-3: 1938 State Highway and Public Works Commission Map with Overlay of the Current
Project Area (NCSHPWC 1938).

1-5
Figure 1.1-4: 1943 USGS 1:125,000 Plymouth, North Carolina, Quadrangle (USGS 2019) Showing
with Overlay of the Current Project Area.

1-6

1.3 REPORT CONTENTS

This technical report contains the results of the field survey for the Phase I survey of
archaeological resources in the addendum project area. Section 2 reviews the specific soils and
natural setting features for the addendum area. Section 3 presents the archaeological results and
recommendations based on the survey, and Section 4 presents a summary of the survey results,
with works cited appearing in Section 5. Appendix A contains a table with manufacturing date
ranges for artifact types recovered from historic sites and Appendix B contains the inventory of
artifacts recovered during the survey. The results of general background research, as well as the
historic contexts for the project, are provided in the report compiled for the initial project area
entitled Archaeological Survey, Proposed 80-MW Albemarle Beach Solar Farm, Washington
County, North Carolina (Ferrante et al. 2016). For cultural resources recorded as part of the
current survey efforts, specific context is included with the resource narrative and significance
statement.

2-1

2.0 NATURAL SETTING

2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY

The project area is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic region of North Carolina and
within the Pamlico Terrace as described by Fenneman (1938:31). In general, the Coastal Plain,
which comprises almost one-half of the state, is described as an area of low elevation consisting
of relatively unconsolidated beds of terrestrially and marine-deposited sand, gravel, and clay
sediments (Fenneman 1938:25; Thornbury 1965:31). Overall, it can be characterized as a flat to
gently undulating topographic province. Elevations within the current project area range from 0
to 16 ft amsl.

The project area is located on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula, and the Albemarle Sound flanks
the northern boundary of the project area. The current project area consists predominantly of
agricultural fields, but also wooded areas between fields and along drainages and roadsides.

2.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Coastal Plain sediments underlay the project area and are classified as Quaternary surficial
deposits, undivided. These deposits consist of sand, clay, gravel, and peat resulting from marine,
fluvial, aeolian, and lacustrine environments (NCGS 1985, 1988:129-130). The soils of the
project area are within the Conetoe-Wickham-Tarboro association. This association is typically
found on uplands and features nearly level to gently sloping terrain with soils that are well
drained, moderately well drained, and somewhat excessively drained. These soils are typically
characterized as consisting of sandy surface layers with dominantly loamy subsoils or sandy
underlying material (Tant 1981). A detailed list of the soils mapped for the project area is
presented in Table 2.2-1, according to the Washington County soil survey (Tant 1981) and the
USDA Web Soil Survey online (USDA/NRCS 2019).

Table 2.2-1: Detailed List of Soils for the Current Project Area
Soil Name Drainage Class Approximate Acres
in Project Area
Approximate Percent
of Project Area
Altavista fine sandy loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes
Moderately well
drained
120.6 17.3%
Augusta fine sandy loam Somewhat poorly
drained
29.5 4.2%
Bojac loamy fine sand,
0 to 3 percent slopes
Well drained 25.6 3.7%
Cone loamy fine sand,
0 to 3 percent slopes
Well drained 29.9 4.3%
Dogue fine sandy loam, 0 to
3 percent slopes
Moderately well
drained
25.2 3.6%
Dorovan muck, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, frequently floods
Very poorly drained 0.1 0.1%
Dorovan mucky silt loam,
overwash (Chowan)
Very poorly drained 54.9 7.9%
Dragston loamy fine sand Somewhat poorly
drained
11.9 1.7%
Muckalee loam Poorly drained 2.2 0.3%
2-2

Roanoke loam Poorly drained 148.5 21.3%
Tomotley fine sandy loam Poorly drained 15.9 2.3%
Wahee fine sandy loam Somewhat poorly
drained
16.9 2.4%
Wickham loamy sand, 0 to 4
percent sloes
Well drained 215.3 30.9%
Approximate Totals 696.5 100%

Based on the mapping of these soils, roughly 417 acres of the approximately 696.5-acre project
area is characterized by well-drained or moderately well-drained soils.

2.3 HYDROLOGY AND VEGETATION

The project area is within the Pasquotank River Basin along the Albemarle Sound, to the east of
Swan Bay, between the Roanoke River to the west, and Kendrick Creek/Mackeys Creek to the
east. Beaver Dam Branch is located just beyond the southern boundary of the project area. This
area is within the Southeastern Evergreen Forest Region (Braun 1950). This region, essentially
coextensive with the Coastal Plain, is typified by its preponderance of coniferous trees. During
the survey, much of the project area contained plowed fields which lacked crops, many of which
contained chaff of previous crops such as soy, cotton, and clary sage. Table 2.3-1 details the
current land use within the project area.

Table 2.3-1: Approximate Percentage of Land Use Within the Current Project Area.
Land Use Approximate Acres
of Project Area
Approximate Percent
of Project Area
Agricultural Field 455.65 65.42%
Wooded 227.71 32.69%
Developed/Disturbed (Residential/Farmyard/Utility) 13.14 1.89%
Total 696.5 100.0%

3-1

3.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 METHODS

3.1.1 General Methods and Background Research

The purpose of the survey was to determine if archaeological sites that are on or eligible for the
NRHP are located within the project area and would be affected by the proposed undertaking.
Archaeological sites are assessed against the NRHP criteria for integrity and significance to
determine eligibility. However, isolated artifact locations, in most cases, are not considered
eligible for the NRHP. The NRHP criteria require that the quality of significance in American
history, architecture, culture, and archaeology should be present in buildings, structures, objects,
sites, or districts that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association, and that the buildings, structures, objects, sites, or districts:

A. are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of our history;
B. are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;
D. or have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
(National Park Service 2019).

In general, archaeological sites that lack sub-plow zone artifact-bearing deposits, have low-
density artifact distributions, contain evidence of deep plowing, lack spatial integrity, lack
artifact concentrations, or exhibit signs of earth-disturbing activities do not appear to be good
candidates for inclusion in the NRHP. Sites that contain concentrations of artifacts, intact
surface features, or intact subsurface remains may be recommended for additional evaluation to
determine if they are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

As part of the previous survey reported in Ferrante et al. (2016), background research was
conducted at the OSA in Raleigh, at the library of Commonwealth including extensive sources
from previous work in Washington County, and using online resources from agency sites and
historic archives. The purpose of the background research was to provide historic context and
natural setting information and to review the results of previous research near the project area.
An updated records check was conducted at the OSA prior to the addendum survey. No
previously recorded sites or previous surveys are located within the current project area.
Additional historic map review and site specific research was conducted as necessary for the
current addendum.

3.1.2 Field Methods

The project area/APE for archaeology was given full consideration through visual
reconnaissance and through intensive survey of areas without standing water, obvious saturation
or disturbance, and excessive slope. Commonwealth also identified a sample of well-drained
3-2

stream terrace locations for supplemental shovel testing to investigate the potential for deeply
buried deposits. The supplemental testing focused on areas where pedestrian survey was the
primary survey method but was considered inadequate to determine the potential for sub-plow-
zone sites.

Figures 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 show the project area conditions and survey strategies. Figures 3.1-3 and
3.1-4 show the typical conditions encountered in the agricultural fields of the project area during
the survey. Figures 3.1-5 and 3.1-6 show examples of conditions in the wooded portions of the
project area.

The APE consists of nine separate parcels that total an overall area of approximately 696.46
acres, an area which is comprised mostly of agricultural fields and the wooded margins around
these fields. Most fields had variable surface visibility that ranged between 50 and 80 percent
during the survey, while a few contained less than 50 percent surface visibility due to weeds and
crop residues. The remnants of harvested soybeans and cotton were observed in several of the
fields. The acreage of the overall project area consists of approximately 280 acres of poorly
drained, very poorly drained, or somewhat poorly drained soils (representing a low probability
for sites of historic human habitation). Approximately 417 acres are classified as well-drained or
moderately well-drained soils.

Portions of the project area that were not low and/or wet and contained surface visibility of 50
percent or greater were investigated with systematic pedestrian survey at 10-m (33-ft) intervals,
along with judgmental shovel tests. Fields with well-drained and moderately well drained soils
and surface visibility of less than 50 percent were shovel tested with 30-m interval transects.
Wooded areas with well-drained and moderately well drained soils were also shovel tested with
30-m interval transects. Fields with good surface visibility (50 percent or greater) but containing
soils that are somewhat poorly drained were investigated with systematic pedestrian survey at an
expanded interval of 15 m (49 ft), along with judgmental shovel tests. There were some areas
with generally well-drained soils that had lower surface visibility which were investigated with a
combination of systematic pedestrian survey and systematic subsurface survey with shovel tests
placed at 45-m intervals. Areas found to be low and wet, which were classified as having poorly
drained or very poorly drained soils, were typically inspected but not intensively surveyed.
Some areas that were classified as poorly drained were intensively surveyed with systematic
pedestrian survey and judgmental shovel tests, particularly if projections from historic map
review suggested a high probability of historic sites.

Additionally, specified non-systematically shovel-tested areas along stream terraces were
selected for judgmental shovels test to examine the potentially for deeply buried deposits. These
test were set-up along single transects, with each transect containing up to six shovel tests.

Shovel tests were 30 x 30 cm and were excavated into the subsoil or sterile soil. Fill from the
tests was screened through 6.35-mm mesh screen. Shovel test records were recorded on standard
forms, and digital photography was used to document site setting and the project area conditions.
Per new requirements from OSA, a small number of representative site and non-site shovel test
profiles were photographed for inclusion in the report.

3-3
Figure 3.1-1: Conditions and Survey Strategies Shown on the USGS 7.5-Minute
Westover (1954) and Roper North (1954) Quadrangles. Base Imagery from USGS
(2019).

3-4
Figure 3.1-2: Conditions and Survey Strategies on Orthoimagery. Base Mapping from
ArcGIS Image Service (2019).

3-5

Figure 3-1.3: Typical Conditions Encountered in the Project Area During the
Survey, Looking South-Southwest.

Figure 3.1-4: An Example of Conditions Encountered During the Survey,
Looking West-Northwest.

3-6

Figure 3-1.5: One of Several Areas in the Project Area Mapped Well-Drained
with Soils that also Contained Areas of Standing Water, Looking Northeast.

Figure 3.1-6: An Example of Conditions in Wooded Portions of the Project Area,
Looking West-Northwest.

3-7

An archaeological site is defined as a location having at least one artifact or cultural feature
(hearth, refuse pit, articulated brick, ruinous structure, etc.). When an archaeological site was
encountered, a temporary site field numbers was assigned. Permanent state site numbers were
obtained from OSA per guidelines for archaeological survey reports.

3.1.3 Mapping/GIS

To record survey transects, positive shovel tests, and site features in the field, Commonwealth
employed Trimble GeoXH and Geo7X data collectors, which provided sub-meter accuracy when
corrected or post-processed using reference data. The reference data used during the current
project was acquired from the nearest Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS)
operated and maintained by the National Geodetic Survey of the National Oceanic and the
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The GPS data was corrected using Trimble proprietary
software. Georeferenced digital USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery maps were
acquired through ESRI’s ArcGIS online services.

3.1.4 Laboratory Methods and Documentation

Upon completion of fieldwork, the artifacts recovered during the survey were processed and
analyzed by Commonwealth staff members. All artifacts were cleaned, labeled, and prepared for
curation according to the standards and guidelines issued by OSA. These cultural materials will
be submitted to the OSA curation facility or another appropriate depository in consultation with
Sun Energy 1 unless requested for return by the property owner. The materials have been
packaged for curation according to the Archaeological Curation Standards and Guidelines
issued by OSA. Artifacts are currently being stored temporarily at Commonwealth’s laboratory
until a permanent curation is determined, whether at the OSA curation facility or returned to the
property owner.

Analysis included classification and quantification of the recovered artifacts. In general, lithic
artifacts are defined in terms of raw material, morphology, and manufacturing stage. Bulk
materials such as brick, fire-cracked rock, and unmodified cobbles representing potential raw
materials for tool production, were noted if present, but generally not retained. Native American
ceramics was defined as to type and temporal placement using the appropriate typologies.
Historic artifacts were identified by material and functional types or forms, ceramic ware types,
glass types based on manufacturing techniques and color, and decoration among other
characteristics. The manufacturing date ranges for most of historic artifact types recovered
during the survey are summarized in the table found in Appendix A. The sources for those date
ranges are provided in the table and are not necessarily repeated in the site descriptions where the
temporal ranges supporting the dating of sites are discussed. In some instances, specific sources
are cited in text to support discussions of less frequently occurring artifact types not covered in
the table. Other historic materials such as metal fasteners and personal items (buttons, buckles,
etc.), if recovered, were classified in terms of type and temporal placement using the appropriate
typologies. Modern items within sites were generally noted but not collected or analyzed in
detail. There are no materials requiring stabilization or further treatment. The assemblages
resulting from the survey reflect various levels of sampling of historic sites, as discussed for each
case, although all materials from Native American sites were collected.
3-8

Information on archaeological sites was entered into OSA site forms to create a permanent site
record. Mapping was submitted in the form of GIS shapefiles, derived for post-processed field
GPS data (with sub-meter accuracy).

3.2 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND SURVEYS IN AND NEAR THE
PROJECT AREA

In addition to the newly recorded sites located within the project area, 19 archaeological sites and
five isolated finds were recorded during the previous archaeological survey conducted by
Commonwealth (Ferrante et al. 2016). These previously recorded sites include 31WH40**
through 31WHN63 and represent Native American and historic sites, as well as sites containing
both Native American and historic occupations (Ferrante et al. 2016). None of these sites are
recommended as eligible for the NRHP; however, 31WH48&48** was recommended for further
investigation during the initial survey (Ferrante et al. 2016). This site represents both a Native
American Woodland-period occupation and a historic occupation. After the initial survey had
concluded, the Native American component of the 31WH48&48** was evaluated through a
Phase II investigation, which included test units and additional shovel testing (Stair et al. 2016).
The site evaluation revealed evidence of disturbed deposited for the context of the Woodland-
period artifacts; therefore the site was recommended not eligible for the NRHP (Stair et al.
2016).

According to documentation available at the OSA, no previously recorded archaeological sites
are located within the addendum project area, and no previous surveys have been conducted
within this area. Previously recorded archaeological sites within a mile of the project area are
discussed in detail in the initial project report (see Ferrante et al. 2016).

3.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.3.1 Overview of Survey and Results

The current project area is made up of agricultural fields, wooded areas between fields and along
the roadside, and low-lying areas along stream terraces and drainages. During the survey the
fields mainly contained the remnants of harvested crops. Wooded areas consist of planted pines
and secondary growth. The effects of successive crop cultivation and the inundation of water are
apparent in the soil profiles found throughout the project area, which reveal extensive erosion
and wet or hydric soils in many places. Subsoil was observed on the surface in parts of the
project area as well, and in some areas was encountered just below the humic layer.
Additionally, many sections of the project area contain modern refuse and signs of relatively
recent demolition (e.g., push piles containing sheet metal). None of the sites recorded during the
survey were encountered in areas fully mapped as containing poorly drained soils.

Table 3.3-1 shows the acreages of the project area covered by various survey strategies. More
than 55 percent of the project area was considered higher in potential for intact archaeological
sites per well- and moderately well-drained soils as indicted by the soil survey of the area. Less
than half of the area considered as high probability had good surface visibility (above 50 percent)
and could be examined through pedestrian transects. Judgmental shovel testing was considered
in areas mapped with lower potential soils that were map-projected for historic sites. Portions of
3-9

the current project area include areas disturbed by previous and recent farming, and also
demolition.

Table 3.3-1: Overview of Survey Strategies for the Current Project Area.
Survey Strategy Acres Percent
Shovel Testing (30-m Interval) 217.80 31.27%
Pedestrian Surface Survey 174.30 25.03%
Pedestrian Surface Survey and Shovel Testing at Expanded Interval (Limited Visibility) 32.23 4.63%
Judgmental Shovel Testing 0.53 0.08%
Visual Reconnaissance Only (Low and/or Wet) 258.46 37.11%
Disturbed, Limited Visual Reconnaissance Only 13.14 1.89%
TOTAL (Project Area) 696.46 100.00%

The survey strategies and conditions are illustrated in Figures 3.1-1 and 3.1-2. A total of 1,070
shovel tests was excavated during the survey. It should be noted that modern refuse was extreme
in several parts of the project area and may reflect informal dumping. Where shovel testing was
conducted in areas of heavy refuse, it should be understood that in some areas visual assessment
beyond the shovel test transect itself was somewhat limited. Given the overall results of the
previous and current surveys, it appears unlikely that significant sites would be found in these
areas given disturbances such as push piles and the presence of water.

Supplemental shovel tests (n=47) that were excavated along specified stream terrace transects
did not reveal deeply buried archaeological deposits. Some of the soil profiles of these tests
contained deep sandy zones that were excavated to 100 cm below the surface, while others were
much more shallow and clayey. For example, in an area where several of these stream terrace
shovel tests were excavated the soil profile revealed only two zones, with Zone 1 consisting of
yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy clay loam or sandy loam approximately 40 cm in thickness
and Zone consisting of strong (7.5YR 5/8) sandy clay loam or clay loam excavated to a depth of
60 cm below the surface.

Several types of archaeological resources were documented during the current survey. Twelve
total sites were recorded including a Native American isolated artifact, a Native American and
historic artifact scatter, a historic cemetery, and historic structure ruins. These sites and the
cemetery are summarized in Table 3.3-2. The table also contains NRHP recommendations for
each of the resources. Figure 3.3-1 shows the locations of the sites and the cemetery on
topographic mapping.

Table 3.3-2: Summary of Archaeological Resources Documented in the Current APE.
Site
Number #
Site Type Recommendation
(NRHP Eligibility)
31WH70 Davis Family Cemetery (ca. 1899-1949) Recommended Not Eligible;
Avoidance Recommended
31WH71 Native American Ceramic Scatter (possible Early Woodland period);
Historic Domestic Scatter (20th century)
Recommended Not Eligible
31WH72 Native American (Woodland period); Historic Structure Ruin and
Domestic Scatter (19th and 20th century)
Recommended Not Eligible
31WH73 Historic Domestic Scatter (20th century) Recommended Not Eligible
31WH74 Historic Structure Ruins and Historic Artifact Scatter
(19th and 20th century)
Recommended Not Eligible
3-10

31WH75 Native American Lithic (Middle Woodland period) Recommended Not Eligible
31WH76 Historic Domestic Scatter (19th and 20th century) Recommended Not Eligible
31WH77 Native American Lithic Scatter (Early to Middle Woodland periods);
Historic Scatter (19th and 20th century)
Recommended Not Eligible
31WH78 Historic Domestic Scatter (19th and 20th century) Recommended Not Eligible
31WH79 Historic Domestic Scatter and Possible Structure Ruin
(19th and 20th century)
Recommended Not Eligible
31WH80 Structure Ruin (possible 20th century) Recommended Not Eligible
31WH81 Historic Domestic Scatter (20th century) Recommended Not Eligible

3-11

Figure 3.3-1: Locations of Newly Recorded Sites in the Current Project Area. Base Imagery from USGS (2019).
3-12

3.3.2 Newly Recorded Sites and Recommendations

SITE NUMBER: 31WH70
COMPONENT TYPE(S): Davis Family Cemetery: ca. 1899-1949
LANDFORM/VEGETATION: low rise on floodplain/stream terrace; wooded/mixed secondary
growth
SOIL TYPE: Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
SITE SIZE: 55 x 37 m (182 x 122 ft)
DESCRIPTION: This historic cemetery was encountered in a hedgerow between two large
fields situated to the north of Woodlawn Road, within the area of Lee’s Mill approximately two
miles northwest of the community of Roper (Figure 3.3-2). The field to the north partially
surrounds part of the cemetery. Within the same field is 31WH72, which is north of the
cemetery and yielded a widespread historic artifact scatter. A farm lane/driveway leads to the
cemetery through 31WH72. Additionally, two other historic sites (31WH71 and 31WH73) are
located in the same field and were also recorded during the survey.

The cemetery was likely established in the 1890s, as the earliest death record on a gravemarker
in the cemetery is that of Claudie E. Davis in 1899 (Figure 3.3-3). The last recorded death is
Rosa Williams Davis in 1949 (Figure 3.3-4). Gravemarker inscriptions record the names of six
individuals buried in the cemetery, but additional unmarked interments are likely. The
interments are oriented to face southeast. All but one of the inscriptions contains the surname
Davis. The road from which the site is accessed is also called Davis Road. A summary of the
gravemarker inscriptions is included in Table 3.3-3.

Table 3.3-3: List of Markers and Known Individuals Buried at the Davis Family Cemetery
Marker Material Type Faces Individual/Inscription
1 Marble Head SE
Elizabeth Marrow [(November 18, 1916 – April
25, 1917) “Our Little Darling”; Daughter of D.I.
& Myrtle E. Marrow “Our loved one”]
2 Granite
Head
(Double w/ Urn and Arch
w/ Masonic symbol)
SE
Claudie E. Davis [“wife of M.S. Davis”
(October 10, 1866 – January 6, 1899) “A
precious one from us has gone, a voice we loved
is still, a place is vacant in our home which
never can be filled”]
2 Granite
Head
(Double w/ Urn and Arch
w/ Masonic Symbol)
SE Mack Stewart Davis [(October 7, 1864 – July 6,
1916) “Gone home”]
3 Indeterminate
Stone Head SE Anna L. Davis [(August 2, 1885 – June 1, 1918)
“Gone but not forgotten”]
4 Marble Head SE Rosa Williams Davis [(November 26, 1906 –
March 5, 1949) “Rest in peace”]
5 Indeterminate
Stone
Head
(w/ Masonic Symbol) SE Roy H. Davis (October 1, 1857 –November 9,
1908)
6 Indeterminate
Stone Foot N/A Blank (Roy H. Davis footstone?)
7 Granite Foot N/A Blank (Mack Stewart Davis footstone?)

3-13
Figure 3.3-2: Map of 31WH70, Davis Family Cemetery. The boundary of the site was determined by
the landform and vegetation. Base Mapping from ArcGIS Image Service (2019).

3-14

Figure 3.3-3: Gravemarker for Claudie E. Davis and Mack Stewart Davis at
31WH70, Looking West-Northwest.

Figure 3.3-4: Gravemarker for Rosa Davis Williams at 31WH70, Looking
West-Northwest.

3-15

In addition to the interments indicated by inscribed gravemarkers, the central portion of the
cemetery also contains four pieces of metal protruding from the surface. These may be
gravemarkers as well, as they appear to be oriented in two rows. Two of these items are flat
posts that resemble a type of metal gravemarker observed at other cemeteries in the region that
contains a frame/name plate at the top of a post. It appears that the name plates have broken off
the flat posts found at the site. The other metal possible makers include a pipe and a steel rod.

The cemetery has no surviving boundary fence or wall. Nevertheless, the boundary of this
resource is fairly well defined by vegetation, as the surface of the site is blanketed in periwinkle.
The cemetery also appears to be situated on a low rise, slightly above the level of the northern
field. In addition to periwinkle, other vegetation observed within the site includes cedar, devil’s
walking stick, oak, pine, and sweet gum.

The inscribed gravemarkers and the metal possible markers are located in the northwestern and
west-central portions of the area defined for the cemetery boundary. The site is largely
overgrown making it difficult to delineate the boundary of the area containing burials. It seems
likely that other interments may be obscured by within the thick undergrowth that covers the site.
For example, two of the inscribed gravemarkers were covered in vegetation during the survey,
but were located beneath the periwinkle due during systematic walkover. Additionally, a mature
cedar standing near the inscribed markers has partially collapsed, damaging many of the
headstones (Figure 3.3-5).

As part of the Works Progress Administration of the 1930s and 1940s, a Washington County
cemetery survey was conducted in 1937. However, this small family cemetery was not included
during the survey and likely remains unevaluated (Washington County Cemetery Survey
Records 1937).

RECOMMENDATION: This cemetery does not appear to be a significant representation of an
event or person important in the past and does not appear eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A
and B. The cemetery also does not appear eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C due to the
lack of distinct design features. Therefore, it does not meet the requirements of Criteria
Considerations C and D, as it contains no graves of important persons, is not of great age,
contains no special design elements, and is not an important representation of significant events.
Finally, this cemetery does not lend itself to comparative archaeological or physical
anthropological studies. Therefore, this cemetery is also recommended as not eligible for the
NRHP under Criterion D. However, relevant local and state statues regarding the protection and
relocation of cemeteries must be followed if the cemetery is to be impacted by land-altering
activities.

3-16

Figure 3.3-5: View of Cemetery (31WH70), With Mature Cedar and Large Broken Limbs that
have Damaged Gravemarkers, Looking Southwest.

3-17

SITE NUMBER: 31WH71
COMPONENT TYPE(S): Native American, possible Early Woodland period; historic
domestic scatter, twentieth century
LANDFORM/VEGETATION: side slope/low rise on floodplain/stream terrace; plowed
field/harvested soybeans
SOIL TYPE: Conetoe loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes; Roanoke loam; Wickham loamy
sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes
SITE SIZE: 77 x 70 m (253 x 229 ft)
DESCRIPTION: This site was encountered during pedestrian survey of a harvested soybean
field, which is partially situated on a stream terrace (Figure 3.3-6). Surface visibility within the
field ranged between 50-75 percent during the survey. The site is located adjacent to Davis Road
(north of Woodlawn Road) and also a private residence. The site consists of a few Native
American ceramic sherds and a moderate-density historic domestic scatter. Most of the artifacts
recovered came from the surface. Shovel tests were excavated within the surface scatter to
examine the soil profile and to investigate the possibility of subsurface deposits. The site assemblage
(n=93) is summarized in Table 3.3-4.

Table 3.3-4: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from 31WH71.
Artifact Type Count %
Native American Ceramic Sherd 3 3.23%
Porcelain (Tableware) 8 8.60%
Whiteware 21 22.58%
White Granite (Ironstone) 1 1.08%
Stoneware (North American) 15 16.13%
‘Milk Glass’ Canning Jar Lid Insert 2 2.15%
Table Glass 2 2.15%
Container Glass 31 33.33%
Flat/Window Glass 1 1.08%
Copper/ Copper Alloy Button 1 1.08%
Brick 8 8.60%
Total 93 100.00%

The Native American occupation of the site is represented only through a few small ceramics
sherd. These artifacts were recovered from the surface in the northeast portion of the site. Two
of these artifacts are quite small and indeterminate, but the largest of the three sherds has a plain
exterior and interior, medium to coarse sand temper, and it has a sandy texture. This sherd may
be related to the Mount Pleasant series or Early Woodland Deep Creek series (Ward and Davis
1999). The Mount Pleasant series dates to the Middle Woodland period (300 B.C.- A.D. 800),
while the Deep Creek phase dates to the during the Early Woodland period (1000-300 B.C.).

Most of the whiteware fragments recovered from the site are undecorated, but one piece in the
assemblage is hand painted and two others are transfer printed. A few types of stoneware were
recovered including a fragment of McCoy, which is molded with a blue-glazed exterior and
white-glazed interior; fragments with Albany-slipped interior and Bristol-glazed exterior; a piece
with Albany-slipped interior and an exterior; a piece with Albany-slipped interior; a piece with
Bristol-glazed interior and exterior; a piece with gray salt-glazed interior and brown-slipped
interior; and a piece with gray salt-glazed exterior and no slip or glaze on the interior.

3-18
Figure 3.3-6: Map of 31WH71. Base Mapping from ArcGIS Image Service (2019).

3-19

One of the pieces of table glass recovered from the site is solarized/manganese dioxide
decolorized (amethyst), while the other colorless. Several of the pieces of container glass are
solarized/manganese dioxide decolorized (amethyst), while the others in the assemblage include
cobalt blue, aqua, colorless, and opaque white "milk glass". The window glass recovered from
the site is light aqua in color. Taken together, the historic artifacts in the assemblage appear to
represent a twentieth-century occupation of the site.

Ten of the historic artifacts in the assemblage were recovered from six of the eight shovel tests
excavated at the site. Most of these artifacts came from the plow zone; however, Shovel Test 4
yielded artifacts from both Zones 1 and 2. A piece of solarized/manganese dioxide decolorized
(amethyst) container glass and a piece of colorless container glass came from Zone 1 of the test,
and two pieces of colorless container glass came from Zone 2. The soil profile for this test
consists of four zones: Zone 1, a brown (10YR 5/3) sandy loam plow zone 36 cm in thickness;
Zone 2, a dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sandy loam possible E horizon 20 cm in thickness;
Zone 3, a pale yellow (2.5Y 8/4) sandy loam upper subsoil 24 cm in thickness; and Zone 4, a
olive yellow (2.5Y 6/6) sandy loam lower subsoil terminated at a depth of 100 cm below the
surface (Figure 3.3-7).

This test was excavated on a stream terrace and the soil profile encountered reflects the
expectation of deep sandy zones. Roanoke loam is mapped for this area, as it is typical for
stream terraces settings in this region. This soil is described as poorly drained soil and as
typically clayey. The range of characteristics described for Roanoke are not consistent with the
profile encountered in Shovel Test 4, as the zones of this test did not contain clay. The Conetoe
and the Wickham soils series are each mapped nearby. Both Conetoe and Wickham are
described as well-to-moderately well drained soils. The range of characteristics described for the
Conetoe series encompasses soils that have hues of 2.5Y and values within the range
encountered for Zones 3 and 4 of Shovel Test 4. The soil profile for the other shovel test
excavated on the terrace contained only two zones, with Zone 1 consisting of a light yellowish
brown (10YR 6/4) sandy loam plow zone 30 cm in thickness and Zone 2 consisting of a very
pale brown (10YR 7/4) sand excavated to a depth of 100 cm below surface. This profile also
does not correspond with the Roanoke series, but is relatively consistent with the range of
characteristic described for the Conetoe series. Despite encountering deep and well drained soils,
however, no evidence for more deeply buried cultural deposits was encountered.

Shovel excavated in other parts of the site generally share a similar three-zone soil profile, with
Zone 1 consisting of a brown (10YR 5/3) sandy loam plow zone approximately 25 cm in
thickness, Zone 2 consisting of a very pale brown (10YR 7/3) sand possible E horizon
approximately 20 cm in thickness, and Zone 3 consisting of a brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) sandy
clay loam subsoil.

RECOMMENDATION: This moderate-density artifact scatter has been spread by plowing.
Given the absence of evidence suggesting intact subsurface deposits, and disturbances resulting
from cultivation and erosion, this site lacks the potential to provide additional information on
Woodland period or historic lifeways in the Coastal Plain region. Therefore, the site is
recommended as not eligible for the NRHP under any criteria.

3-20

Figure 3.3-7: Soil Profile of Shovel Test 4, Excavated Along a Stream Terrace at
31WH71, Looing South.

3-21

SITE NUMBER: 31WH72
COMPONENT TYPE(S): Native American, Woodland period; historic structure ruin and
domestic artifact scatter, late nineteenth and twentieth century
LANDFORM/VEGETATION: low rise on floodplain/stream terrace; plowed field/harvested
soybeans
SOIL TYPE: Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes; Muckalee loam; Roanoke loam;
Wickham loamy sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes
SITE SIZE: 300 x 245 m (984 x 803 ft)
DESCRIPTION: The site consists of a few Native American artifacts, a relatively low-density
historic domestic and architectural artifact scatter, and the remnants of a collapsed structure. The
site was encountered during shovel testing and pedestrian survey in a field shown as having a
structure on topographic mapping (see Figure 3.3-1). The site is within the field and an adjacent
wooded fencerow (Figure 3.3-8). The center of the site is bisected by a drainage, and the
southeast corner contains the collapsed structure. This area also contains bricks, debris
containing large pieces of corroded metal, and mature oak and hickory trees. The site is less than
50 m north of the Davis Family Cemetery (31WH70) that was also recorded during the survey.

Surface visibility in the field was from 50 to 75 percent during the survey. The site assemblage
(n=166) consists of a few Native American ceramic sherds and historic artifacts. This material is
summarized in Table 3.3-5.

Table 3.3-5: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from 31WH72.
Artifact Type Count %
Native American Ceramic Sherd 2 1.20%
Porcelain (Tableware) 4 2.41%
Whiteware 47 28.31%
White Granite (Ironstone) 7 4.22%
Stoneware (North American) 16 9.64%
Yellowware 2 1.20%
‘Milk Glass’ Canning Jar Lid Insert 3 1.81%
Terra Cotta 1 0.60%
Table Glass 6 3.61%
Container Glass 44 26.51%
Flat/Window Glass 3 1.81%
Porcelain Doll Appendage 1 0.60%
Door Knob 1 0.60%
Iron Nail 5 3.01%
Brick 18 10.84%
Bullet Cartridge Case 1 0.60%
Indeterminate Iron 5 3.01%
Total 166 100.00%

The Native American ceramic sherds recovered are possibly of the Mount Pleasant series, which
dates to the Middle Woodland period (300 B.C. –A.D. 800) (Ward and Davis 1999; Phelps
1983). One of sherds recovered is quite small, while the other reveals sand temper and contains
a simple, flattened rim and a plain interior. Green (1986) includes some sand-tempered sherds
without larger inclusions or with few larger in inclusions in Mount Pleasant series description.

3-22
Figure 3.3-8: Map of 31WH72. Areas dotted in green represent two historic artifact concentrations.
Base Mapping from ArcGIS Image Service (2019).

Concentration 2
Concentration 1
Brick

Disarticulated Metal

Dilapidated Structure

3-23

Regarding the historic assemblage, porcelain doorknobs were manufactured from the mid-
nineteenth century through the early twentieth century (Oldhouseonline Website 2019). Most of
the whiteware fragments are undecorated; a few pieces of Fiestaware were also recovered. This
brightly colored ware came into production during the early twentieth century (Fiesta Website
2019). The stoneware fragments recovered include Albany-slipped interior and Bristol-glazed
exterior; molded with Albany-slipped interior and unglazed exterior; gray salt glazed; salt-glazed
interior and black-slipped interior; buff and brown piece with Albany-slipped interior; molded,
buff and blue; molded with brown-glazed interior and exterior.

A few types of table glass were recovered, including solarized/manganese dioxide decolorized
(amethyst), cobalt blue, blue, colorless, and opaque white "milk glass". Several types of
container glass were recovered including solarized/manganese dioxide decolorized (amethyst),
cobalt blue, aqua, and colorless. The window glass recovered is light aqua in color. Taken
together, the historic assemblage from the site appears to indicate a late nineteenth- and
twentieth- century occupation of the site. A sample of the historic artifacts from the site is
shown in Figure 3.3-9.

The majority of the artifacts recovered came from two artifact concentrations encountered at the
site, which are referred to as Concentrations 1 and 2. Although surface visibility was suitable for
visual inspection, the area within the two concentrations was systematically shovel tested at a 30-
m interval. Concentration 1 is situated near the center of the site in an area that contains a small
grouping of mature oak and hickory trees. The artifacts recovered from Concentration 1 are
summarized in Table 3.3-6.

Table 3.3-6: Concentration 1 Artifacts Recovered from 31WH72.
Artifact Type Count %
Porcelain (Tableware) 2 2.63%
Whiteware 22 28.95%
White Granite (Ironstone) 2 2.63%
Stoneware (North American) 8 10.53%
Table Glass 4 5.26%
Container Glass 29 38.16%
Flat/Window Glass 1 1.32%
Door Knob 1 1.32%
Iron Nail 2 2.63%
Brick 3 3.95%
Indeterminate Iron 2 2.63%
Total 76 100.00%

The artifacts recovered from Concentration 1 represent over 45 percent of the site assemblage.
These items were recovered from the surface and also the plow zone of Shovel Tests 16 and 17.
These artifacts appear to reflect domestic activities and architectural remnants. In addition to the
artifacts collected within the concentration, Shovel Tests 12, 13, and 14 also contained a few
small fragments of brick, an indeterminate ferrous metal fragment, and a few small pieces of
colorless glass. These items are not reflected in the site assemblage counts summarized in Table
3.3-5 or the Concentration 1 overview presented in Table 3.3-6.

3-24

Figure 3.3-9: Selected Historic Artifacts from 31WH72.
0 2 cm
0 1 in
3-25

Concentration 2 is located on a slight rise in the northwest corner of the site. The artifacts
recovered from this concentration are similar to those of Concentration 1, as they reflect
domestic activities and architectural remnants. The artifacts recovered from Concentration 2 are
summarized in Table 3.3-7. Concentration 2 yielded one of the Native American ceramic sherds,
while the other in the site assemblage was recovered just outside of Concentration 1.

Table 3.3-7: Concentration 2 Artifacts Recovered from 31WH72.
Artifact Type Count %
Native American Ceramic Sherd 1 1.30%
Porcelain (Tableware) 2 2.60%
Whiteware 25 32.47%
White Granite (Ironstone) 5 6.49%
Stoneware (North American) 8 10.39%
Yellowware 2 2.60%
‘Milk Glass’ Canning Jar Lid Insert 3 3.90%
Terra Cotta 1 1.30%
Table Glass 2 2.60%
Container Glass 15 19.48%
Flat/Window Glass 2 2.60%
Porcelain Doll Appendage 1 1.30%
Iron Nail 1 1.30%
Brick 7 9.09%
Indeterminate Iron 2 2.60%
Total 77 100.00%

The artifacts recovered in this concentration represent slightly over 46 percent of the total site
assemblage. These artifacts were recovered from the surface and from the plow zone of Shovel
Tests 20 and 22.

Nine of the shovels tests excavated at the site contained historic artifacts in the plow zone and
one test (Shovel Test 3) yielded a piece of charred ferrous metal in Zone 2. The soil profile of
Shovel Test 3 contains four zones, with Zone 1 consisting of a very dark grayish brown (2.5Y
3/2) fine sandy loam plow zone 16 cm in thickness, Zones 2 consisting of a grayish brown (2.5Y
5/2) sandy loam older plow zone 10 cm in thickness, Zone 3 consisting of a light yellowish
brown (2.5Y 6/4) sandy loam upper subsoil 64 cm in thickness, and Zone 4 consisting of a light
brown (7.5YR 6/4) sandy loam lower subsoil excavated to a depth of 100 cm below the surface
(Figure 3.3-10). The area of this test is mapped to contain Altavista fine sandy loam. The
profile of Shovel Test 3 is consistent with the range of characteristics described for this soil
series. The other shovel tests excavated in this portion of the site revealed soil profiles relatively
similar Shovel Test 3 (Figure 3.3-11). However, Shovel Test 4 contained hydric soils. These
tests were excavated near the collapsed structure (Figure 3.3-12).

The profiles of shovel tests excavated in other parts of the site vary from two to four soil zones,
as the site area is represented by four separate soil series. Six of the tests excavated at the site
revealed hydric soils, while six others were categorized as containing wet soil. Modern debris
was observed in the wooded portion of the site, in some instances within the same context as
historic artifacts. For example, Zone 1 of Shovel Test 13 contained a piece of modern plastic
from the same context as two small pieces of colorless glass.

3-26

Figure 3.3-10: Profile of Shovel Test 3, Excavated Along the Stream Terrace in
the Southeast Corner of 31WH72, Looking Southwest.

Figure 3.3-11: Example of a Typical Soil Profile of a Shovel Test Excavated
Along Stream Terrace in the Southeast Corner of 31WH72, Looking North.

3-27

Figure 3.3-12: View of Collapsed Structure Located at 31WH72, Looking Southwest.

3-28

The collapsed structure in the southeastern portion the site is overgrown with vegetation and
roughly measures 7 x 12 m (see Figure 3.3-12). This feature contains a possible partial brick
chimney or oven, which somewhat resembles a brick pier, as it is located at one of the corners of
the collapsed structure. However, it appears to be a singular item rather than part of a pair or one
of four.

Based on the large size of the site, the density of the artifacts collected (and observed but not
collected) is relatively low. In addition to the nearby Davis Family Cemetery (31WH70), the site
is also located in same field as 31WH71 and 31WH73, which also contained historic material.

RECOMMENDATION: Although this site contains two historic artifact concentrations, the site
has been adversely impacted by successive plowing, as the small size and fragmentation of
artifacts from the site reflects these farming activities. The few Native American artifacts
recovered are unlikely to reveal information on Native American lifeways and settlement
patterns. The site it lacks the potential to provide additional information on Woodland period and
historic lifeways in the Coastal Plain region. The site is recommended as not eligible for the
NRHP under any criteria.

SITE NUMBER: 31WH73
COMPONENT TYPE(S): historic domestic scatter, twentieth century
LANDFORM/VEGETATION: low rise on upland; plowed field/harvested soybeans
SOIL TYPE: Wickham loamy sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes
SITE SIZE: 63 x 16 m (207 x 52 ft)
DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a very low-density historic artifact scatter that was
encountered during pedestrian survey in a plowed soybean field. It is located within the area of
Lee’s Mill approximately two miles northwest of the community of Roper (Figure 3.3-13). The
surface visibility of the site was 50-70 percent during the survey. The site assemblage (n=8) was
recovered from the surface and includes five pieces of whiteware, two pieces of container glass,
and a brick fragment. Most of the whiteware fragments are undecorated, but one piece contains
a partial dark green transfer-printed maker’s mark. One of the pieces of container glass is aqua
in color, while the other is colorless. These artifacts likely represent material from the twentieth
century.

The boundary of the site was defined by the extent of the artifacts on the surface. Two shovel
tests were excavated within the area of the surface scatter. These tests did not yield cultural
material, but revealed a three-zone soil profile. Zone 1 of the tests consists of a brown (10YR
5/3) sandy loam plow zone 14 cm in thickness, Zone 2 consists of a light brown (10YR 6/4) sand
possible E horizon 22 cm in thickness, and Zone 3 consists of a yellowish red (7.5YR 5/6) sandy
clay loam subsoil.

RECOMMENDATION: Given the low density of artifacts and disturbances from plowing, this
site lacks the potential to provide additional information on historic lifeways in the Coastal Plain
region of North Carolina. The site is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP under any
criteria.

3-29
Figure 3.3-13: Map of 31WH73. The site boundary was determined by the extent of artifacts present
of the surface. Base Mapping from ArcGIS Image Service (2019).

3-30

SITE NUMBER: 31WH74
COMPONENT TYPE(S): historic, late nineteenth and twentieth century
LANDFORM/VEGETATION: upland; copse in field
SOIL TYPE: Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes; Wickham loamy sand, 0 to 4
percent slopes
SITE SIZE: 77 x 58 m (253 x 190 ft)
DESCRIPTION: This site historic was encountered during shovel testing in an area where a
structure appears on topographic mapping (see Figure 3.3-1). The site is situated in a copse of
trees at the end of a driveway. It consists of a collapsed barn and a very low-density historic
artifact scatter (Figure 3.3-14). This area is surrounded by a field of harvested cotton and high
dried grass with low visibility (Figure 3.3-15). The area around the site contains modern farming
equipment, a large mature oak, and other trees. The artifact assemblage (n=14) was recovered
from three positive shovel tests and includes four pieces of whiteware, six pieces of colorless
container glass, a piece of amber container glass, a piece of colorless flat window glass, an
indeterminate iron fragment, and a brick fragment. Taken together, this material appears to
represent a late nineteenth- and twentieth-century occupation of the site.

Most of this material came from the plow zone, but Shovel Test 1 also yielded a piece of
colorless container glass from Zone 2. The presence of this material in Zone 2 at the site is likely
the result of bioturbation. The soil profile of this test revealed three zones: Zone 1, a dark
brown (10YR 3/3) fine sandy loam plow zone 18 cm in thickness; Zone 2, a pale brown (10YR
6/3) fine sand possible E horizon 10 cm in thickness; and Zone 3, a very pale brown (10YR 7/4)
fine sandy clay loam subsoil. Altavista soils are mapped for this area, and the soil profile of
Shovel Test 1 is consistent with the range of characteristics described for this series. Some of the
other shovel tests excavated at the site share this soil profile, while others reveal disturbed soils.
For example, Shovel Test 10 revealed a very pale brown (10YR 7/4) fine sandy clay loam
subsoil just below the humic layer. Other tests at the site contained just two zones, with Zone 2
consisting of a very pale brown (10YR 7/4) fine sandy clay loam that is mottled with yellow
(10YR 8/8) clay (Figure 3.3-16). Water was observed on the surface nearby the site, and subsoil
is present on the surface near the farming equipment.

This site is located a few hundred meters west-southwest of 31WH76, 31WH77, and 31WH78,
which also yielded historic artifacts and are located in the neighboring field found to the east.

RECOMMENDATION: Given the low density of artifacts and disturbances from farming, this
site lacks the potential to provide additional information on historic lifeways in the Coastal Plain
region of North Carolina. The site is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP under any
criteria.

3-31
Figure 3.3-14: Map of 31WH74. Base Mapping from ArcGIS Image Service (2019).

Water

3-32

Figure 3.3-15: View of 31WH74, Looking West.

Figure 3.3-16: Typical Soil Profile Encountered at 31WH74, Looking North.

3-33

SITE NUMBER: 31WH75
COMPONENT TYPE(S): Native American lithic, Middle Woodland
LANDFORM/VEGETATION: upland; plowed field/harvested soybeans
SOIL TYPE: Wickham loamy sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes
SITE SIZE: 10 x 10 m (39 x 39 ft)
DESCRIPTION: A quartzite Potts point was recovered from the surface during pedestrian
survey in a harvested soybean field with 50-70 surface visibility during the survey (Figure 3.3-
17). This point type dates to the second half of the Middle Woodland period (AD 300-800)
(VDHR 2019). This artifact is shown in Figure 3.3-18. A shovel test, excavated where the tool
was recovered, did not yield additional material but did reveal a three-zone soil profile: Zone 1,
a brown (10YR 5/3) sandy loam plow zone 30 cm in thickness; Zone 2, a pale brown (2.5Y 7/4)
sand possible E horizon 30 cm in thickness; and Zone 3, a very pale brown (10YR 7/4) sandy
clay loam subsoil excavated to a depth of 68 cm below the surface (Figure 3.3-19).
RECOMMENDATION: This isolated artifact lacks sufficient context for further interpretation
and is unlikely to yield significant information on Middle Woodland lifeways in the region.
Therefore, it is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP.

SITE NUMBER: 31WH76
COMPONENT TYPE(S): historic artifact scatter, late nineteenth and twentieth century
LANDFORM/VEGETATION: upland edge/stream terrace; harvested soybeans
SOIL TYPE: Wickham loamy sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes
SITE SIZE: 45 x 21 m (148 x 64 ft)
DESCRIPTION: This low-density historic scatter was encountered during pedestrian survey in
an area showing a structure on topographic mapping (see Figure 3.3-1). It is located directly
across the road from a modern residence, in a harvested soybean field that contained 50-75
percent surface visibility during the survey (Figure 3.3-20). The site consists of a low-density
historic artifact scatter that was encountered within a very slightly sloping area that leads to the
upper portion of the stream terrace. The area just below the stream terrace is wet, and modern
refuse was observed on the surface. The artifacts recovered (n=26) came from the surface and
also from two shovel tests (Table 3.3-8). This cultural material appears to date to the late
nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Table 3.3-8: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from 31WH76.
Artifact Type Count %
Pearlware 1 3.85%
Whiteware 9 34.62%
White Granite (Ironstone) 1 3.85%
Stoneware (North American) 1 3.85%
‘Milk Glass’ Canning Jar Lid Insert 1 3.85%
Container Glass 8 30.77%
Flat/Window Glass 3 11.54%
Brick 1 3.85%
Indeterminate 1 3.85%
Total 26 100.00%

3-34
Figure 3.3-17: Map of Location of 31WH75. Base Mapping from ArcGIS Image Service (2019).

3-35

Figure 3.3-18: Quartzite Potts Point from 31WH75.
0 2 cm
0 1 in

3-36

Figure 3.3-19: Soil Profile Encountered at 31WH75, Looking North.

3-37
Figure 3.3-20: Map of 31WH76. Base Mapping from ArcGIS Image Service (2019).

3-38

The plow zone of Shovel Test 1 yielded a piece of whiteware, three pieces of light aqua window
glass, and three pieces of colorless container glass. The plow zone of Shovel Test 2 yielded a
piece of whiteware. These two shovel tests revealed a similar two-zone soil profile, despite the
fact that Shovel Test 1 was excavated within the stream terrace portion of the site. Zone 1 (plow
zone) of these tests consists of a dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sandy clay loam upper subsoil
approximately 15 cm in thickness and Zone 2 consists of a strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) clay loam
subsoil. This profile is relatively consistent with the range of characteristics described for the
Wickham series, which is mapped for this area.

RECOMMENDATION: Given the low density of artifacts and disturbances from farming, this
site lacks the potential to provide additional information on historic lifeways in the Coastal Plain
region of North Carolina. The site is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP under any
criteria.

SITE NUMBER: 31WH77
COMPONENT TYPE(S): Native American lithic scatter, Early to Middle Woodland periods;
historic artifact scatter, late nineteenth and twentieth century
LANDFORM/VEGETATION: low rise on stream terrace; plowed field/harvested soybeans
SOIL TYPE: Bojac loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes; Wickham loamy sand, 0 to 4 percent
slopes
SITE SIZE: 110 x 56 m (363 x 185 ft)
DESCRIPTION: This site was encountered during pedestrian survey in a harvested soy field
with 50-80 percent surface visibility (Figure 3.3-21). It is situated just south of the swampy
margin of a drainage, and consists of a Native American lithic scatter and a historic artifact
scatter. The site assemblage (n=90) was recovered from the surface and the plow zone of a
positive shovel test excavated at the site. This material is summarized in Table 3.3-9.

Table 3.3-9: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from 31WH77.
Artifact Type Count %
Quartzite Rossville Stemmed Point 1 1.11%
Indeterminate Metavolcanic Late Stage Biface 1 1.11%
Quartz Early Stage Biface 1 1.11%
Aphyric Rhyolite Bifacial Thinning flake 2 2.22%
Quartzite Decortication Flake 1 1.11%
Aphyric Rhyolite Interior Flake 5 5.56%
Plagioclase-Quartz Porphyritic Rhyolite Interior Flake 1 1.11%
Indeterminate Metavolcanic Interior Flake 5 5.56%
Quartz Interior Flake 2 2.22%
Porcelain (Tableware) 2 2.22%
Whiteware 14 15.56%
Stoneware (North American) 5 5.56%
‘Milk Glass’ Canning Jar Lid Insert 3 3.33%
Table Glass 1 1.11%
Container Glass 36 40.00%
Glass Bead 1 1.11%
Flat/Window Glass 3 3.33%
Iron Nail 2 2.22%
Brick 4 4.44%
Total 90 100.00%

3-39
Figure 3.3-21: Map of 31WH77. The site boundary was determined by the presence of artifacts on
the surface. Base Mapping from ArcGIS Image Service (2019).

Lithic Concentration
3-40

The only diagnostic Native American artifact recovered from the site is a Rossville Stemmed
point (Figure 3.3-22). This artifact dates from the Early to Middle Woodland (ca. 1200 BC-AD
1000) (Hranicky and Painter 1991). The Native American occupation of the site appears to
reflect more than one stage of tool production. For example, an earlier stage of lithic processing
is reflected in the quartzite decortication flake, and a finished stage is represented in the
Rossville point.

The historic artifacts of note include decal-decorated (decalcomania) porcelain, brown transfer-
printed whiteware, stoneware with an Albany-slipped interior and salt-glazed exterior, molded
solarized/manganese dioxide decolorized (amethyst) table glass, solarized/manganese dioxide
decolorized (amethyst) container glass, cobalt blue container glass, sapphire blue container glass,
aqua container glass, embossed amber container glass, Ball blue canning jar glass, light aqua
window glass, and a blue molded glass bead. One of the pieces of amber container glass is
stippled and embossed, and contains a maker’s mark for the Owens-Illinois Glass Co. This type
of glass was manufacture by the company from 1931-1966 (Lockhart and Hoenig 2015).

Taken together, the historic artifacts recovered appear to represent a late nineteenth- and
twentieth-century occupation of the site. A sample of these artifacts is presented in Figure 3.3-
23.

The shovel tests excavated at the site generally revealed a three-zone soil profile: Zone 1, a dark
yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) loamy sand plow zone approximately 30 cm in thickness; Zone 2, a
brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) fine sandy loam possible E horizon approximately 10 cm in
thickness; and Zone 3, a yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) sandy clay loam subsoil. This soil profile
is relatively consistent with the range of characteristics described for the Bojac soil series, which
is mapped for much of the site.

In addition to the artifacts collected from the site, an abundance of modern refuse was observed
on the surface in the wooded area immediately adjacent to the site.

RECOMMENDATION: The area has been disturbed by plowing and the site does not retain
integrity. The artifacts recovered do not have context; therefore, the site lacks the potential to
provide additional information on Native American or historic lifeways in the Coastal Plain
region of North Carolina. The site is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP under any
criteria.

SITE NUMBER: 31WH78
COMPONENT TYPE(S): historic artifact scatter, late nineteenth and twentieth centuries
LANDFORM/VEGETATION: upland; plowed field/harvested soybeans
SOIL TYPE: Bojac loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes; Wickham loamy sand, 0 to 4 percent
slopes
SITE SIZE: 213 x 110 m (698 x 361 ft)
DESCRIPTION: This low-density historic scatter was encountered during shovel testing in an
area mapped where a structure and a driveway appear on topographic mapping (see Figure 3.3-
1). The site is situated within a harvested soybean field with 50-80 percent surface visibility
during the survey (Figure 3.3-24).

3-41

Figure 3.3-22: Quartzite Rossville Stemmed Point from 31WH77.
0 2 cm
0 1 in
0 2 cm
0 1 in
Figure 3.3-23: Sample of Historic Artifacts Recovered from 31WH77.

3-42
Figure 3.3-24: Map of 31WH78. The boundary of the site was determined by the extent of artifacts
present on the surface. Base Mapping from ArcGIS Image Service (2019).

Modern
Refuse
3-43

The site assemblage (n=38) was recovered from the surface and is summarized in Table 3.3-10.
In addition to the artifacts collected, two positive shovel tests also contained two small brick
fragments and a ferrous metal fragment from the plow zone. These items were noted but not
collected, and are not represented in the assemblage count presented in Table 3.3-10.

Table 3.3-10: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from 31WH78.
Artifact Type Count %
Porcelain 3 7.89%
Whiteware 13 34.21%
Container Glass 17 44.74%
Porcelain Electrical Insulator 1 2.63%
Brick 3 7.89%
Indeterminate Iron 1 2.63%
Total 38 100.00%

Porcelain electrical insulators were manufactured from the late nineteen to early twentieth
century (Myers 2010). The other artifacts recovered are consistent with this date range. The site
was shovel tested within the area of the surface scatter to examine the soil profile and to
investigate the possibility of sub-plow-zone deposits. No artifacts besides the uncollected brick
and metal fragments were recovered during shovel testing and no intact subsurface features were
encountered.

The soil profile revealed in most of the shovel tests contains three zones, but Shovel Test 1
revealed four zones: Zone 1, a yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy clay loam plow zone 13 cm
in thickness; Zone 2, a yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy clay loam older plow zone 14 cm in
thickness; Zone 3, a brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) sandy clay loam upper subsoil 10 cm in
thickness; and Zone 4, a brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) sandy clay subsoil. This soil profile is
relatively consistent with the range of characteristics described for the Wickham soil series,
which is mapped for this part of the site.

The site is located within the same field as 31WH76 and 31WH77. Modern refuse was observed
immediately adjacent the site in the wooded area to the west.
RECOMMENDATION: Given the lack of context of the artifacts recovered, as well as
disturbances from farming, this site lacks the potential to provide additional information on
historic lifeways in the Coastal Plain region of North Carolina. The site is recommended as not
eligible for the NRHP under any criteria.

SITE NUMBER: 31WH79
COMPONENT TYPE(S): historic artifact scatter, late nineteenth and twentieth centuries
LANDFORM/VEGETATION: floodplain; fallow field
SOIL TYPE: Wickham loamy sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes
SITE SIZE: 91 x 61 m (299 x 201 ft)
DESCRIPTION: This moderate-density historic artifact scatter was encountered during shovel
testing in an area where a structure is marked on topographic mapping (see Figure 3.3-1). The
site is located to the south of the community of Mackeys, to the west of the marshy margin of
Kendrick Creek/Mackeys Creek (Figure 3.3-25).

3-44
Figure 3.3-25: Map of 31WH79. The area marked near the center of the site contains agricultural
refuse. Base Mapping from ArcGIS Image Service (2019).

3-45

The site may represent the location of a former structure, but the center of the site contains a
push pile that contains modern agricultural refuse. A wooded area northeast of the site contains
modern refuse. The site assemblage (n=138) was recovered from 12 positive shovel tests. The
artifacts recovered appear to reflect a late nineteenth- and twentieth-century occupation of the
site. This material is recovered are summarized in Table 3.3-11.

Table 3.3-11: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from 31WH79.
Artifact Type Count %
Whiteware 11 7.97%
White Granite (Ironstone) 1 0.72%
Stoneware (North American) 1 0.72%
Indeterminate Refined Earthenware 1 0.72%
‘Milk Glass’ Canning Jar Lid Insert 1 0.72%
Table Glass 2 1.45%
Container Glass 83 60.14%
Flat/Window Glass 10 7.25%
Indeterminate Glass 2 1.45%
Iron Nail 9 6.52%
Iron Bolt 1 0.72%
Brick 8 5.80%
Indeterminate Iron 5 3.62%
Indeterminate Aluminum 1 0.72%
Indeterminate Metal 1 0.72%
Coal 1 0.72%
Total 138 100.00%

The most noteworthy artifacts in the assemblage includes decal-decorated/"decalcomania"
whiteware, stoneware with Albany-slipped interior and Bristol-glazed exterior,
solarized/manganese dioxide decolorized (amethyst) container glass, and olive green glass.
Taken together, the assemblage appears to represent a late nineteenth- and early twentieth-
century occupation of the site.

A total of 47 shovel tests was excavated during the delineation of the site. Most artifacts were
recovered from the plow zone, although Shovel Tests 9, 21, and 34 yielded artifacts from Zones
1 and 2. The typical shovel test profile encountered at the site contains three zones: Zone 1, a
yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy loam plow zone approximately 25 cm in thickness; Zone 2,
a light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) sand possible E horizon approximately 40 cm in thickness;
and Zone 3, a yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) sandy clay subsoil. This soil profile is consistent
with the range of characteristics described for the Wickham series, which is mapped for this area.

RECOMMENDATION: Given the disturbances from possible demolition and plowing, which
is reflected in the small size of many of the artifacts, this site lacks the potential to provide
additional information historic lifeways in the Coastal Plain region of North Carolina. The site is
recommended as not eligible for the NRHP under any criteria.

3-46

SITE NUMBER: 31WH80
COMPONENT TYPE(S): structure ruin, possible twentieth century
LANDFORM/VEGETATION: upland; field edge/hedgerow
SOIL TYPE: Conetoe loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes
SITE SIZE: 45 x 43 m (147 x 140 ft)
DESCRIPTION: This site was encountered during shovel testing in an area just east of Bear
Pond Lane and just south of the Albemarle Sound (Figure 3.3-26). It is between two marshy
areas located to the west of the community of Mackeys. The site is overgrown with vines and
other vegetation. This site consists of a brick chimney, a partial foundation ruin, and an
associated surface scatter of refuse (e.g., tires, buckets, modern paint cans). A sample of cultural
material such as a pair of eyeglasses, a ceramic dolphin, a bisque angle, and a glass votive holder
were collected for the site; however, upon analysis of the specimens it was confirmed that they
are modern (ca. 1970s and 80s). The chimney is located near fallen brick piers, which are spaced
roughly five m apart (Figure 3.3-27). These architectural elements appear to have been part of a
structure that burned, as remnants of charred structural materials are found throughout the site.

Three shovel tests were excavated to examine the soil profile, and to investigate the potential for
subsurface deposits. These tests revealed a three-zone soil profile: Zone 1, a brown (10YR 5/3)
loamy sand plow zone approximately 35 cm in thickness; Zone 2, a yellow (10YR 7/6) sand
approximately 45 cm in thickness possible E horizon; and Zone 3, a brownish yellow (10YR 6/6)
sandy clay subsoil excavated to a depth of 100 cm below the surface (Figure 3.3-28) This profile
is somewhat consistent with the range of characteristics described for the Conetoe soil series,
which is mapped for this area, but features a more clayey subsoil.

RECOMMENDATION: This site appears to represent the remnants of burned structure, which
may not have been historic. Although the site contains an extant chimney, the material culture
collected from the site is modern. Therefore, this site appears to lack the potential to provide
additional information on historic lifeways in the Coastal Plain region of North Carolina. The
site is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP under any criteria.

SITE NUMBER: 31WH81
COMPONENT TYPE(S): historic structures and domestic scatter, twentieth century
LANDFORM/VEGETATION: stream terrace; wooded/mixed secondary growth
SOIL TYPE: Wickham loamy sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes
SITE SIZE: 194 x 66 m (636 x 216 ft)
DESCRIPTION: This historic site was encountered during shovel testing in an area marked
with a structure on topographic mapping (see Figure 3.3-1). The site is located just north of
Mackeys Road, and is immediately adjacent to two residences, some farming structures, and an
abandoned trailer (Figure 3.3-29). This site contains a few dilapidated structures and refuse
(much of which appears to be modern), some of which is contained in an area that appears to be
an informal dump.

3-47
Figure 3.3-26: Map of 31WH80. The site boundary is based on the presence of a brick chimney and
the disarticulated and burned structural remains that surround it. Base Mapping from ArcGIS Image
Service (2019).

Brick Chimney and Piers
Modern Refuse, Sheet Metal, Burned Boards
3-48

Figure 3.3-27: View of Chimney at 31WH80, Looking East.

3-49

Figure 3.3-28: Soil Profile Encountered at 31WH80, Looking East.

3-50
Figure 3.3-29: Map of 31WH81. Base Mapping from ArcGIS Image Service (2019).

Modern Refuse
3-51

Only a small artifact assemblage (n=17) was recovered from the site. This material is
summarized in Table 3.3-12.

Table 3.3-12: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from 31WH81.
Artifact Type Count %
Whiteware 1 5.88%
Container Glass 2 11.76%
Flat/Window Glass 9 52.94%
Nail 2 11.76%
Brick 1 5.88%
String Light/Light Bulb 1 5.88%
Farm Machinery Metal Fragment 1 5.88%
Total 17 100.00%

Of the artifacts recovered, one of the pieces of container glass is a Listerine mouthwash bottle
with a black plastic lid. This type of bottle was manufactured from 1881 through the twentieth
century (Listerine Website 2019). The plastic cap indicates that this item dates to the twentieth
century. A piece of amber container glass is part of a Whitehall medicinal bottle. Bottles of this
type, made by the Owens-Illinois Glass Co., came into production in 1954 and were
manufactured throughout the twentieth century (Lockhart and Hoenig 2015). The other artifacts
collected also appear to date to the twentieth century as well.

Despite disturbances in this area, seven judgmental shovel tests were excavated to investigate the
possibility of an archaeological component corresponding to the dilapidated structures. Two of
these tests yielded cultural material in the plow zone. A few of the shovel tests excavated at the
site reveal hydric soils, while other tests contained wet soils.

The two shovel tests that yielded artifacts revealed a three-zone soil profile, with Zone 1
consisting of a yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy loam plow zone approximately 30 cm in
thickness, Zone 2 consisting of a pale brown (2.5Y 7/4) sand possible E horizon approximately
10 cm in thickness, and Zone 3 consisting of a strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) sandy clay sand subsoil
that is mottled with pale brown (2.5Y 7.4) sand. This profile is relatively consistent with the
range of characteristics described for the Wickham soil series, which is mapped for this area.

Two dwellings that were constructed during the first half of the twentieth century are located on
Route 308 (Mackeys Road) immediately south site of the site. It is likely that the site is related
to these structures.

RECOMMENDATION: Given the low density of artifacts and disturbances, this site lacks the
potential to provide additional information on historic lifeways in the Coastal Plain region of
North Carolina. The site is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP under any criteria.

4-1

4.0 SUMMARY

As a result of the survey, 12 new archaeological resources were recorded (31WH70 through
31WH81), one of which is a cemetery. The cemetery (31WH70, the late nineteenth- to mid-
twentieth-century Davis Family Cemetery) is a small family cemetery lacking significant
associations, exceptional design or artistic merit, and a substantial burial population that could
yield significant information per physical anthropological studies. It is recommended as not
eligible for the NRHP but should be treated under North Carolina statutes regarding cemeteries,
as appropriate, if it cannot be avoided. The remaining sites include a Native American isolated
artifact, three sites with a Native American artifact scatter and a historic artifact scatter, five
historic artifact scatters, and historic structure ruins. The Native American components appear to
date to the Early and/or Middle Woodland periods and feature low-density deposits suggesting
minimal potential for significant information. Three of the four components occur within 100 m
of a waterway, while the fourth, an isolated find, was encountered in an interstream area. Some
of the historic components relate to structures shown in historic mapping, and all date the
nineteenth- and/or twentieth centuries. Many of these sites feature low-density deposits, and
most occur in plow-zone contexts and lack evidence suggesting intact sub-plow-zone deposits.
None of the archaeological resources recorded during the survey are recommended as eligible for
the NRHP.

5-1

5.0 REFERENCES CITED

Braun, E. Lucy
1950 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. Blakiston, Philadelphia.

Fiesta Website
2019 Our History. Fiestaware Website. Electronic document,
https://www.fiestafactorydirect.com/t-aboutfiesta.aspx, accessed March 2019

Fenneman, Nevin
1938 Physiography of Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Ferrante, Lindsay Flood, Taryn P. Ricciardelli, and Susan E. Bamann
2015 Archaeological Survey Proposed, 80-MW Albemarle Beach Solar Farm,
Washington County, North Carolina. Commonwealth Heritage Group, Inc.
Prepared for Sun Energy 1 and Albemarle Beach Solar LLC. Copies available
from North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.

Green, Paul R.
1986 The Archaeology of “Chowanoke”: Results of the 1983-1984 Investigations at
Mount Pleasant and Liberty Hill, Hertford County, North Carolina. North
Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.

Hranicky, W. J., and Floyd Painter
1991 A Guide to the Identification of Virginia Projectile Points. Special Publication
17, Archaeological Society of Virginia. Virginia Academic Press, Alexandria.

Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum (JPPM)
2019 Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory’s Diagnostic Artifacts in
Maryland. Electronic document, http://www.jefpat.org/diagnostic/Index.htm,
accessed February 2019.

Lehner, Lois
1988 Lehner’s Encyclopedia of U.S. Marks on Pottery, Porcelain and Clay. Collector
Books, Paducah.

Lindsey, Bill
2019 Historic Glass Bottle Identification and Information Website. Electronic
document, http://www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm, accessed March 10, 2019.

Listerine Website
2019 History of LISTERINE®: From Surgery Antiseptic to Modern Mouthwash.
Listerine Website. Electronic document, https://www.listerine.com/about,
accessed March 2019

5-2

Lockhart, Bill and Russ Hoenig
2015 The Bewildering Array of Owen-Illinois Glass Co. Logos and Codes. Historic
Glass Bottle Identification and Information Website. Electronic document,
https://sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/OwensIll_BLockhart.pdf, accessed March 1, 2019

Mansberger, Floyd
1986 Changing Patterns in Nineteenth Century Ceramics. In Nineteenth Century
Historic Archaeology in Illinois, edited by Thomas E. Emerson and Charles L.
Rohrbaugh, pp. 131-179. Illinois Cultural Resource Study No. 2, Illinois Historic
Preservation Agency, Springfield.

Miller, George L., Patricia Samford, Ellen Shlasko, and Andrew Madsen
2000 Telling Time for Archaeologists. Northeast Historical Archaeology 29:1-22.

Myers, Adrian
2010 Telling Time for the Electrified: An Introduction to Porcelain Insulator and
Electrification of the American Home. In, Technical Briefs in Historical
Archaeology 5: pp. 31-42

National Park Service
2019 National Register of Historic Places Criteria for Evaluation. United States
Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Electronic document,
http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_2.htm, accessed
February 1, 2019.

Noël Hume, Ivor
1970 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS)
1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development, Raleigh.

1988 Preliminary Explanatory Text for the 1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina.
Contractual Report 88-1. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Raleigh.

North Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission (NCSHPWC)
1938 Washington County, North Carolina. Electronic document,
http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/1705/rec/9, accessed
April 2019.

Old House Online (OHO)
2019 6 Classic Doorknobs for Old Houses. Electronic document,
https://www.oldhouseonline.com/interiors-and-decor/6-classic-doorknobs-for-old-
houses, accessed March 2019.

5-3

Phelps, David S.
1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and
Hypotheses. In The Prehistory of North Carolina, edited by M. A. Mathis and J.
J. Crow, pp. 1-52. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.

Stair, Joseph S., Taryn P. Ricciardelli, and Susan Bamann
2016 Archaeological Evaluation of Site 31WH48&48**, Proposed 80-MW Albemarle
Beach Solar Farm, Washington County, North Carolina. Commonwealth
Heritage Group, Inc. Prepared for Sun Energy 1 and Albemarle Beach Solar
LLC. Copies available from North Carolina Office of State Archaeology,
Raleigh.

Stelle, Lenville J.
2001 An Archaeological Guide to Historic Artifacts of the Upper Sangamon Basin.
Center for Social Research, Parkland College, Chapaign, Illinois. Electronic
document, http://virtual.parkland.edu/lstelle1/len/archguide/documents/arcguide.
htm, accessed August 3, 2015.

Tant, Phillip L.
1981 Soil Survey of Washington County, North Carolina. United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

Thornbury, William
1965 Regional Geomorphology of the United States. John Wiley, New York.

United States Geological Survey (USGS)
2019 TopoView Digital Maps from the USGS Historical Topographic Map Collection,
1884-2006 (GeoTIFF). Electronic acess, http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/,
accessed January 2019.

USDA/NRCS
2019 Web Soil Survey (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] and Natural
Resource Conservation Service [NRCS] Soil Mapping and Official Soil Series
Descriptions). Electronic document, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/,
accessed January 2019.

Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR)
2019 Lithics Flash Version Web Module with Points and Timeline. Electronic
document, https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/arch_DHR/LPCFlash.html, accessed
February 2019.

Visser, Thomas
2019 Nails: Clues to a Building’s History. Electronic document,
http://www.uvm.edu/histpres/203/nails.html, accessed March, 2019.

Ward, H. Trawick, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.
5-4

1999 Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Washington County Cemetery Survey Records
1937 North Carolina Digital Collections, State Library of North Carolina, http://
http://digital.ncdcr.gov/cdm/ref/collection/p15012coll1/id/23815, accessed April
8, 2019.

APPENDIX A

DATE RANGES FOR HISTORIC ARTIFACTS

Appendix A: Manufacturing Date Ranges for Many Artifact Types Recovered from Historic
Sites.
Artifact Type Date Range Reference
Porcelain, Japanese ca.1868-present Miller et al. (2000)
Pearlware, Undecorated 1780-1840 Noël Hume (1970)
White Granite (Ironstone) 1842-1930 Miller et al. (2000)
Whiteware, Blue Willow 1830-present Miller et al. (2000)
Whiteware, Hand Painted Linear 1830-present (whiteware)
1830-1850 (hand painted linear)
Miller et al. (2000)
Mansberger (1986)
Whiteware, Hand Painted 1830-present (whiteware)
1830-1860 (hand painted)
Miller et al. (2000)
Mansberger (1986)
Whiteware, Hand Painted Broad Polychrome 1830-present (whiteware)
1830-1860 (hand painted broad
polychrome)
Miller et al. (2000)
Mansberger (1986)
Whiteware, Transfer Printed 1830-present Miller et al. (2000)
Whiteware, Unscalloped Impressed Shell-Edge 1840s-1860s Miller et al. (2000)
Whiteware, Flow Blue 1845-present Miller et al. (2000)
Whiteware, Decalcomania 1890-present JPPM (2019)
Whiteware, Undecorated (General Range) 1820-present Miller et al. (2000)
Yellow Ware early-19th century-1930s JPPM (2019)
Stoneware (North American) Buff Body, No Slip or
Glaze Interior/Gray Salt Glaze Exterior
primarily pre-1860 JPPM (2019)
Stoneware (North American) Gray Body, Brown
Slip/Gray Salt Glaze
primarily 19th century JPPM (2019)
Stoneware (North American) Albany Slip/Salt Glaze primarily 19th century JPPM (2019)
Stoneware (North American) Albany Slip/Bristol Glaze 1890s - 20th century Stelle (2001)
Stoneware (North American) Albany Slip early 19th century - 1940 JPPM (2019)/
Stelle (2001)
Stoneware (North American) Bristol Glazed Interior and
Exterior
1890s - 20th century Stelle (2001)
Stoneware (North American) Gray Body, Gray Salt Glaze primarily 19th century JPPM (2019)
Stoneware (North American) Gray Body, Black Slip/Salt
Glaze
19th century - c. 1930 JPPM (2019)
Earthenware, McCoy-Type Kitchenware 1900-1950 Lehner (1988)
Table Glass, solarized/manganese dioxide decolorized 1820s-1930s
(most common 1890s -1920)
Lindsey (2019)
Table Glass, Cobalt Blue 1840s - mid-20th century Lindsey (2019)
Table Glass, Opaque White (“Milk Glass”) primarily, 1870s -
mid-20th century
Lindsey (2019)
Canning Jar Lid Insert, Opaque White (“Milk Glass”) post-1869 Miller et al. (2000)
Container Glass, Amber mid-1890s -present Lindsey (2019)
Container Glass, Olive Green pre-1910 Lindsey (2019)
Container Glass, Cobalt Blue 1840 – mid-20th century Lindsey (2019)
Container Glass, Opaque White (“Milk Glass”) primarily 1870s -
mid-20th century
Lindsey (2019)
Container Glass, Colorless/Finish circa 1850 - mid-20th century Lindsey (2019)
Artifact Type Date Range Reference
Container Glass, Amber/Stippled 1905-present Lindsey (2019)
Container Glass, Cobalt Blue 1840s - mid-20th century Lindsey (2019)
Container Glass, Sapphire Blue 1840s - mid-20th century Lindsey (2019)
Container Glass, “Ball Blue” 1909-1930s Lindsey (2019)
Container Glass, Solarized/Manganese Dioxide
Decolorized
1820s - 1930s
(most common 1890 - 1920)
Lindsey (2019)
Terracotta Drain Tile 1835-present Miller et al. (2000)
Nail, Hand-Wrought before circa 1800 Visser (2019)
Nail, Wire circa 1890s-present Visser (2019)

APPENDIX B

ARTIFACT INVENTORY

Appendix B - Artifact InventorySite ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH71 ST 02 1 Glass2019.0147.02 1 container glass body fragment solarized/manganese dioxide decolorizedamethyst 1820s - 1930s (most common 1890 - 1920)Lindsey 201931WH71 ST 02 1 H Ceram2019.0147.02 1 stoneware (North American)body fragment Albany-slipped interior and exterior, moldedbuff bodiedbuff and black early-19th century - 1940JPPM 2019/Stelle 200131WH71 ST 03 1 H Ceram2019.0147.03 1 whiteware rim fragment white 1830 - present Miller et al. 200031WH71 ST 04 1 Glass2019.0147.04 1 container glass body fragment solarized/manganese dioxide decolorizedamethyst 1820s - 1930s (most common 1890 - 1920)Lindsey 201931WH71 ST 04 1 Glass2019.0147.04 1 container glass body fragment colorless31WH71 ST 04 2 Glass2019.0147.05 1 container glass finish colorlessbead finish31WH71 ST 05 1 Glass2019.0147.06 1 container glass body fragment colorless31WH71 ST 05 1 H Ceram2019.0147.06 1 whiteware rim fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH71 ST 06 1 Glass2019.0147.07 1 container glass body fragment aqua31WH71 ST 07 1 H Ceram2019.0147.08 1 whiteware body fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH71 Surface surfaceBrick2019.0147.01 8 brick fragment242.9Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH71 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0147.01 2 canning jar lid insertlid insert fragment opaque white "milk glass"post-1869Miller et al. 200031WH71 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0147.01 1 container glass body fragment painted blue and white31WH71 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0147.01 2 container glass body fragment colorless31WH71 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0147.01 1 container glass finish fragment colorless 1858 - present large mouth external thread finishLindsey 201931WH71 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0147.01 5 container glass body fragment aqua31WH71 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0147.01 1 container glass finish aqua circa 1850 - mid-20th centurypatent/extract/flat finishLindsey 201931WH71 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0147.01 6 container glass body fragment solarized/manganese dioxide decolorizedamethyst 1820s - 1930s (most common 1890 - 1920)Lindsey 201931WH71 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0147.01 2 container glass body fragment cobalt blue 1840s - mid-20th centuryLindsey 201931WH71 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0147.01 3 container glass body fragment embossed solarized/manganese dioxide decolorizedamethyst 1820s - 1930s (most common 1890 - 1920)Lindsey 201931WH71 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0147.01 2 container glass base fragment solarized/manganese dioxide decolorizedamethyst 1820s - 1930s (most common 1890 - 1920)Lindsey 201931WH71 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0147.01 2 container glass body fragment opaque white "milk glass"primarily 1870s - mid-20th centuryLindsey 201931WH71 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0147.01 1 flat/window glassfragment light aquaPoint measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH71 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0147.01 1 table glass body fragment molded colorless31WH71 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0147.01 1 table glass body fragment molded solarized/manganese dioxide decolorizedamethyst 1820s - 1930s (most common 1890 - 1920)Lindsey 201931WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 1 porcelain base/footring fragment molded white31WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 1 porcelain base fragment white31WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 2 porcelain body fragment white31WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 1 porcelain rim fragment green, orange, brown, and blue transfer printedwhite, green, orange, brown, and blue31WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 1 porcelain rim fragment blue transfer printedwhite and blue31WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 2 porcelain base/footring fragment white31WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 1 stoneware (North American)body fragment gray salt-glazed exterior, brown-slipped interiorgray bodiedgray primarily 19th centuryJPPM 201931WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 1 stoneware (North American)body fragment gray salt-glazed exterior, no slip or glaze on interiorbuff bodiedbuff and gray primarily pre-1860JPPM 201931WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 8 stoneware (North American)body fragment Albany-slipped interior, Bristol-glazed exteriorAlbany Bristolblack/dark brown and white1890s - 20th centuryStelle 200131WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 1 stoneware (North American)base fragment Albany-slipped interior, Bristol-glazed exteriorAlbany Bristolblack and white1890s - 20th centuryStelle 2001Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 1 stoneware (North American)body fragment Bristol-glazed interior and exteriorbuff bodiedwhite and buff 1890s - 20th centuryStelle 200131WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 1 stoneware (North American)body fragment blue-glazed exterior, white-glazed interior, moldedMcCoy typebuff, blue, and white31WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 1 stoneware (North American)base/footring fragment Albany-slipped interiorbuff bodiedblack and buff early-19th century - 1940JPPM 2019/Stelle 200131WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 1 white granite (ironstone)base fragment partial black transfer-printed British Royal Coat of Arms maker's markwhite and black1842 - 1930Miller et al. 200031WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 3 whiteware base/footring fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 1 whiteware rim fragment molded white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 8 whiteware body fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 1 whiteware base fragment partial black transfer-printed maker's markwhite and black1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 1 whiteware body fragment molded white 1830 - present Miller et al. 200031WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 2 whiteware rim fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 1 whiteware rim fragment black hand painted lineshand paintedwhite and black1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH71 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0147.01 1 whiteware body fragment blue transfer printedtransfer printedwhite and blue 1830 - presentMiller et al. 2000Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH71 Surface surfaceH Pers2019.0147.01 1 button copper/copper alloyfragment corroded31WH71 Surface surfaceNA Ceram2019.0147.01 1 body sherd medium to coarse sand temper, sandy textureplain exterior and interiorindt may be related to Mount Pleasant series or Early Woodland Deep Creek series (Ward and Davis 1999)31WH71 Surface surfaceNA Ceram2019.0147.01 2 sherd with maximum dimension under 2 cmindt too small to comment on temper/surfaces31WH72 ST 03 2 H Misc2019.0148.04 1 indeterminate iron fragment corroded31WH72 ST 05 1 H Arms2019.0148.05 1 bullet cartridge casebrass fragment headstamp "SUPER".22 calibercorroded31WH72 ST 05 1 H Fasten/Tool2019.0148.05 2 nail iron fragment indeterminatecorroded31WH72 ST 06 1 Brick2019.0148.06 1 brick fragment7.631WH72 ST 16 1 Glass2019.0148.07 1 container glass body fragment colorless31WH72 ST 16 1 Glass2019.0148.07 2 container glass body fragment aqua31WH72 ST 16 1 Glass2019.0148.07 3 container glass body fragment solarized/manganese dioxide decolorizedlight amethyst 1820s - 1930s (most common 1890 - 1920)Lindsey 201931WH72 ST 16 1 H Ceram2019.0148.07 1 whiteware base/footring fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH72 ST 16 1 H Fasten/Tool2019.0148.07 1 nail iron complete indeterminatecorrodedPoint measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH72 ST 17 1 Glass2019.0148.08 1 flat/window glassfragment light aqua31WH72 ST 20 1 H Ceram2019.0148.09 1 stoneware (North American)body fragment Albany-slipped interior, Bristol-glazed exteriorAlbany Bristolblack and white1890s - 20th centuryStelle 200131WH72 ST 22 1 Glass2019.0148.10 1 container glass body fragment colorless31WH72 Surface surfaceBrick2019.0148.01 1 brick fragment4.731WH72 Surface surfaceBrick2019.0148.01 1 brick fragment7.231WH72 Surface surfaceBrick2019.0148.01 1 brick fragment3.631WH72 Surface surfaceBrick2019.0148.01 1 brick fragment31WH72 Surface surfaceBrick2019.0148.01 1 brick fragment31WH72 Surface surfaceNA Ceram2019.0148.01 1 rim sherd medium sand temper, sandy texturesimple/direct rim, flattened lipindt exterior (single oblique incised line), plain interiorpossible Mount Pleasant seriesMiddle Woodland (300 BC- AD 800)Green (1986) includes some sand-tempered sherds without larger inclusions or with few larger in inclusions in Mount Pleasant series Ward and Davis 1999; Phelps 198331WH72 Surface surfaceNA Ceram2019.0148.01 1 sherd with maximum dimension under 2 cmindt too small to comment on temper/surfaces31WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceBrick2019.0148.02 3 brick fragment6.231WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceGlass2019.0148.02 4 container glass body fragment solarized/manganese dioxide decolorizedamethyst 1820s - 1930s (most common 1890 - 1920)Lindsey 2019Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceGlass2019.0148.02 4 container glass body fragment aqua heat altered/melted31WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceGlass2019.0148.02 5 container glass body fragment aqua31WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceGlass2019.0148.02 1 container glass finish fragment aqua 1858 - 1920s wide mouth external thread finishLindsey 201931WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceGlass2019.0148.02 1 container glass finish fragment canning jar"Ball blue" c. 1909 - 1930swide mouth external thread finishLindsey 201931WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceGlass2019.0148.02 1 container glass base fragment canning jar"Ball blue" c. 1909 - 1930sLindsey 201931WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceGlass2019.0148.02 1 container glass finish fragment aqua circa 1850 - mid-20th centurypatent/extract/flat finishLindsey 201931WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceGlass2019.0148.02 1 container glass finish fragment colorless circa 1850 - mid-20th centurypatent/extract/flat finishLindsey 201931WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceGlass2019.0148.02 1 container glass finish fragment colorless 20th century - presentsmall mouth external thread finishLindsey 201931WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceGlass2019.0148.02 1 container glass body fragment colorless31WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceGlass2019.0148.02 1 container glass body fragment opaque white "milk glass"primarily 1870s - mid-20th centuryLindsey 201931WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceGlass2019.0148.02 1 container glass body fragment embossed solarized/manganese dioxide decolorizedamethyst 1820s - 1930s (most common 1890 - 1920)Lindsey 201931WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceGlass2019.0148.02 1 container glass body fragment cobalt blue 1840s - mid-20th centuryLindsey 2019Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceGlass2019.0148.02 1 table glass body fragment molded cobalt blue 1840s - mid-20th centuryLindsey 201931WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceGlass2019.0148.02 1 table glass base/body fragment molded solarized/manganese dioxide decolorizedamethyst 1820s - 1930s (most common 1890 - 1920)Lindsey 201931WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceGlass2019.0148.02 2 table glass body fragment molded opaque white "milk glass"primarily 1870s - mid-20th centuryLindsey 201931WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.02 1 porcelain base/footring fragment white31WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.02 1 porcelain body fragment white31WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.02 1 stoneware (North American)base fragment Albany-slipped interior, Bristol-glazed exteriorAlbany Bristolbuff, black, and white1890s - 20th centuryStelle 200131WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.02 1 stoneware (North American)base/footring/body fragmentbrown-glazed interior and exterior, moldedMcCoy typebuff and brown31WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.02 3 stoneware (North American)body fragment gray salt glazed gray bodiedgray primarily 19th centuryJPPM 201931WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.02 2 stoneware (North American)body fragment Albany-slipped interior, Bristol-glazed exteriorAlbany Bristolbuff, black, and white1890s - 20th centuryStelle 200131WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.02 1 stoneware (North American)rim fragment Albany-slipped interior, unglazed exterior, moldedbuff bodiedbuff and black early-19th century - 1940JPPM 2019/Stelle 200131WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.02 1 white granite (ironstone)rim fragment white 1842 - 1930Miller et al. 200031WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.02 1 white granite (ironstone)body fragment white 1842 - 1930Miller et al. 2000Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.02 1 whiteware base fragment partial green transfer-printed dragon and crown maker's markwhite and green1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.02 2 whiteware rim fragment brown transfer-printed horizontal linetranfer printedwhite and brown1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.02 7 whiteware rim fragment white one heat altered 1830 - present Miller et al. 200031WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.02 1 whiteware base/footring fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.02 9 whiteware body fragment white two heat altered 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.02 1 whiteware rim fragment black transfer-printed horizontal linewhite and black1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceH Fasten/Tool2019.0148.02 1 nail iron fragment indeterminatecorroded31WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceH Misc2019.0148.02 1 door knob porcelain fragment glazed white mid-19th century - early-20th centuryhttps://www.oldhouseonline.com/interiors-and-decor/6-classic-doorknobs-for-old-houses31WH72 Surface Concentration 1surfaceH Misc2019.0148.02 2 indeterminate iron fragment corroded31WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceBrick2019.0148.03 7 brick fragment207.031WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceGlass2019.0148.03 3 canning jar lid insertlid insert fragment opaque white "milk glass"post-1869Miller et al. 200031WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceGlass2019.0148.03 2 container glass body fragment colorlessPoint measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceGlass2019.0148.03 6 container glass body fragment aqua one heat altered/meltedone heat altered/melted31WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceGlass2019.0148.03 3 container glass body fragment cobalt blue 1840s - mid-20th centuryLindsey 201931WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceGlass2019.0148.03 1 container glass base fragment aqua31WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceGlass2019.0148.03 1 container glass finish fragment aqua circa 1850 - mid-20th centurypatent/extract/flat finishLindsey 201931WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceGlass2019.0148.03 1 container glass base/body/finish fragmentmolded opaque white "milk glass"primarily 1870s - mid-20th centuryLindsey 201931WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceGlass2019.0148.03 2 flat/window glassfragment light aqua31WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceGlass2019.0148.03 1 table glass body fragment molded colorless31WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceGlass2019.0148.03 1 table glass body fragment molded blue31WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.03 1 doll appendage porcelain foot/leg fragment white31WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.03 1 porcelain body fragment white31WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.03 1 porcelain rim fragment white31WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.03 1 stoneware (North American)base fragment Albany-slipped interiorbuff bodiedbuff and dark brownearly-19th century - 1940JPPM 2019/Stelle 2001Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.03 2 stoneware (North American)body fragment Albany-slipped interior, Bristol-glazed exteriorAlbany Bristolbuff, black, and white1890s - 20th centuryStelle 200131WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.03 1 stoneware (North American)rim fragment molded McCoy typebuff and blue31WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.03 3 stoneware (North American)body fragment salt-glazed exterior, black-slipped interiorgray bodiedgray and black 19th century - c. 1930JPPM 201931WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.03 1 terra cotta body fragment red31WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.03 1 white granite (ironstone)base/footring fragment white 1842 - 1930Miller et al. 200031WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.03 3 white granite (ironstone)body fragment white 1842 - 1930Miller et al. 200031WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.03 1 white granite (ironstone)rim fragment white 1842 - 1930Miller et al. 200031WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.03 10 whiteware body fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.03 1 whiteware body fragment blue-glazed interior and exterior, moldedfiestaware typeblue 20th century https://www.fiestafactorydirect.com/t-aboutfiesta.aspx31WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.03 6 whiteware rim fragment white two heat altered/melted1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.03 5 whiteware base/footring fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.03 2 whiteware body fragment blue transfer printedtransfer printedwhite and blue 1830 - presentMiller et al. 2000Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.03 1 whiteware body fragment turquoise-glazed interior and exterior, moldedfiestaware typeturquoise 20th centuryhttps://www.fiestafactorydirect.com/t-aboutfiesta.aspx31WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Ceram2019.0148.03 2 yellow ware body fragmentearly-19th century - 1930sJPPM 201931WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Fasten/Tool2019.0148.03 1 nail iron complete indeterminatecorroded31WH72 Surface Concentration 2surfaceH Misc2019.0148.03 2 indeterminate iron fragment corroded31WH73 General SurfacesurfaceBrick2019.0149.01 1 brick fragment101.031WH73 General SurfacesurfaceGlass2019.0149.01 1 container glass body fragment aqua31WH73 General SurfacesurfaceGlass2019.0149.01 1 container glass body fragment colorless31WH73 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0149.01 3 whiteware body fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH73 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0149.01 1 whiteware base/footring fragment white 1830 - present Miller et al. 200031WH73 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0149.01 1 whiteware base fragment partial dark green transfer-printed maker's markwhite and dark green1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH74 ST 01 1 Brick2019.0150.01 1 brick fragment0.4131WH74 ST 01 1 Glass2019.0150.01 2 container glass body fragment colorlessPoint measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH74 ST 01 1 H Ceram2019.0150.01 1 whiteware body fragment pink and green decaldecal-decorated/"decalcomania"white, pink, and green1890s - 1950sJPPM 201931WH74 ST 01 1 H Ceram2019.0150.01 1 whiteware body fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH74 ST 01 2 Glass2019.0150.02 1 container glass body fragment colorless31WH74 ST 06 1 Glass2019.0150.03 1 container glass body fragment colorless31WH74 ST 06 1 Glass2019.0150.03 1 container glass body fragment embossed colorless31WH74 ST 06 1 H Ceram2019.0150.03 1 whiteware rim fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH74 ST 11 1 Glass2019.0150.04 1 container glass body fragment colorless31WH74 ST 11 1 Glass2019.0150.04 1 container glass body fragment amber31WH74 ST 11 1 Glass2019.0150.04 1 flat/window glassfragment colorless31WH74 ST 11 1 H Ceram2019.0150.04 1 whiteware body fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH74 ST 11 1 H Misc2019.0150.04 1 indeterminate iron fragment corroded bolt?31WH75 SF 01 SurfaceLithic Biface2019.0151.01 1 point quartzite complete/nearly completePotts second half Middle Woodland (AD 300-800)ML(40mm), SL8mm, SW24mm, BW16mm, MT6mm; tip has impact burinationVDHR 2019Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH76 General SurfacesurfaceBrick2019.0152.01 1 brick fragment73.631WH76 General SurfacesurfaceGlass2019.0152.01 1 canning jar lid insertlid insert fragment opaque white "milk glass"post-1869Miller et al. 200031WH76 General SurfacesurfaceGlass2019.0152.01 1 container glass body fragment colorless31WH76 General SurfacesurfaceGlass2019.0152.01 1 container glass body fragment aqua31WH76 General SurfacesurfaceGlass2019.0152.01 1 container glass rim fragment opaque blue31WH76 General SurfacesurfaceGlass2019.0152.01 1 container glass finish fragment canning jar"Ball blue" c. 1909 - 1930swide mouth external thread finishLindsey 201931WH76 General SurfacesurfaceGlass2019.0152.01 1 container glass body fragment solarized/manganese dioxide decolorizedamethyst 1820s - 1930s (most common 1890 - 1920)Lindsey 201931WH76 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0152.01 1 pearlware base/footring fragment bluish white 1780 - 1840 blue glaze pooling along footringNoel Hume 197031WH76 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0152.01 1 stoneware (North American)body fragment Albany-slipped interior, Bristol-glazed exteriorAlbany Bristolblack and white1890s - 20th centuryStelle 200131WH76 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0152.01 1 white granite (ironstone)rim fragment white 1842 - 1930Miller et al. 200031WH76 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0152.01 1 whiteware rim fragment molded, green decaldecal-decorated/"decalcomania"white and green1890s - 1950sJPPM 201931WH76 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0152.01 2 whiteware rim fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 2000Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH76 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0152.01 1 whiteware rim fragment molded white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH76 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0152.01 2 whiteware base/footring fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH76 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0152.01 1 whiteware body fragment green-glazed exteriorwhite and green1830 - present Miller et al. 200031WH76 General SurfacesurfaceH Misc2019.0152.01 1 indeterminate lead fragment corroded31WH76 ST 01 1 Glass2019.0152.02 3 container glass body fragment colorless31WH76 ST 01 1 Glass2019.0152.02 3 flat/window glassfragment light aqua31WH76 ST 01 1 H Ceram2019.0152.02 1 whiteware base/footring fragment yellow glazed yellow 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH76 ST 02 1 H Ceram2019.0152.03 1 whiteware body fragment mulberry/purple transfer printedtransfer printedwhite and mulberry/purple1829 - 1867JPPM 201931WH77 Lithic ConcentrationsurfaceLithic Biface2019.0153.02 1 early stage biface with possible utilized edgequartzfew flake removals and one steep unifacial edge with appearance of wear31WH77 Lithic ConcentrationsurfaceLithic Deb2019.0153.02 2 bifacial thinning flakeaphyric rhyolite31WH77 Lithic ConcentrationsurfaceLithic Deb2019.0153.02 1 decortication flakequartzite31WH77 Lithic ConcentrationsurfaceLithic Deb2019.0153.02 2 interior flake quartzPoint measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH77 Lithic ConcentrationsurfaceLithic Deb2019.0153.02 5 interior flake aphyric rhyolite31WH77 Lithic ConcentrationsurfaceLithic Deb2019.0153.02 1 interior flake plagioclase-quartz porphyritic rhyolite31WH77 Lithic ConcentrationsurfaceLithic Deb2019.0153.02 5 interior flake indeterminate metavolcanic31WH77 SF 01 surfaceLithic Biface2019.0153.03 1 late stage biface indeterminate metavolcanicwell-shaped ovate form31WH77 SF 02 surfaceLithic Biface2019.0153.04 1 point quartzite complete/nearly completeRossville StemmedEarly to Middle Woodland (ca. 1200 BC-AD 1000)ML29mm, SL10mm, SW19mm, MT9mm; heavily resharpenedHranicky and Painter 1991)31WH77 ST 01 1 Brick2019.0153.05 2 brick fragment26.531WH77 ST 01 1 Glass2019.0153.05 11 container glass body fragment colorless31WH77 ST 01 1 Glass2019.0153.05 2 container glass body fragment aqua31WH77 ST 01 1 Glass2019.0153.05 2 flat/window glassfragment light aqua31WH77 ST 01 1 H Ceram2019.0153.05 1 porcelain body fragment white31WH77 ST 01 1 H Ceram2019.0153.05 3 whiteware body fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH77 ST 01 1 H Ceram2019.0153.05 1 whiteware rim fragment molded white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 2000Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH77 ST 01 1 H Fasten/Tool2019.0153.05 1 nail iron complete indeterminatecorroded31WH77 Surface surfaceBrick2019.0153.01 2 brick fragment73.631WH77 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0153.01 3 canning jar lid insertlid insert fragment opaque white "milk glass"post-1869 Miller et al. 200031WH77 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0153.01 1 container glass body fragment embossed colorless31WH77 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0153.01 1 container glass base fragment solarized/manganese dioxide decolorizedamethyst 1820s - 1930s (most common 1890 - 1920)Lindsey 201931WH77 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0153.01 1 container glass base fragment embossed, stippling, maker's markOwens-Illinois Glass Co. bottleamber 1931 - 1966 original Owens-Illinois maker's mark with I, oval, and diamondLockhart and Hoenig 2015 (https://sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/OwensIll_BLockhart.pdf)31WH77 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0153.01 4 container glass body fragment cobalt blue 1840s - mid-20th centuryLindsey 201931WH77 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0153.01 1 container glass finish fragment cobalt blue 1840s - mid-20th centuryLindsey 201931WH77 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0153.01 1 container glass finish fragment saphire blue 1840s - mid-20th centuryLindsey 201931WH77 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0153.01 1 container glass finish fragment amber mid-1890s - presentcrown finishLindsey 201931WH77 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0153.01 2 container glass body fragment solarized/manganese dioxide decolorizedamethyst 1820s - 1930s (most common 1890 - 1920)Lindsey 201931WH77 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0153.01 1 container glass body fragment amberPoint measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH77 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0153.01 1 container glass base fragment canning jar"Ball blue" c. 1909 - 1930sLindsey 201931WH77 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0153.01 1 container glass body fragment canning jar"Ball blue" c. 1909 - 1930sLindsey 201931WH77 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0153.01 1 container glass finish machine-made bottleaqua 1905 - mid-20th centurypatent/extract/flat finishLindsey 201931WH77 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0153.01 7 container glass body fragment aqua31WH77 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0153.01 1 flat/window glassfragment light aqua31WH77 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0153.01 1 table glass body fragment molded solarized/manganese dioxide decolorizedamethyst 1820s - 1930s (most common 1890 - 1920)Lindsey 201931WH77 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0153.01 1 porcelain base/footring fragment red floral decal decal-decorated/"decalcomania"white and red 1890s - 1950sJPPM 201931WH77 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0153.01 1 stoneware (North American)body fragment Bristol-glazed interior and exteriorbuff bodiedwhite and buff 1890s - 20th centuryStelle 200131WH77 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0153.01 3 stoneware (North American)body fragment Albany-slipped interior, salt-glazed exteriorbuff bodiedgray, brown, and buffprimarily 19th centuryJPPM 201931WH77 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0153.01 1 stoneware (North American)body fragment Albany-slipped interior, Bristol-glazed exteriorAlbany Bristolwhite and black1890s - 20th centuryStelle 200131WH77 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0153.01 1 whiteware body fragment black transfer printedtransfer printedwhite and black1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH77 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0153.01 1 whiteware base/footring fragment brown transfer printedtransfer printedwhite and brown1830 - 1869JPPM 2019Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH77 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0153.01 1 whiteware base/footring fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH77 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0153.01 2 whiteware body fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH77 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0153.01 4 whiteware rim fragment white 1830 - present Miller et al. 200031WH77 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0153.01 1 whiteware rim fragment blue transfer printedtransfer printedwhite and blue 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH77 Surface surfaceH Fasten/Tool2019.0153.01 1 nail iron complete indeterminatecorroded31WH77 Surface surfaceH Pers2019.0153.01 1 bead glass complete molded blue31WH78 General SurfacesurfaceBrick2019.0154.01 3 brick fragment38.031WH78 General SurfacesurfaceGlass2019.0154.01 8 container glass body fragment aqua31WH78 General SurfacesurfaceGlass2019.0154.01 3 container glass base fragment aqua31WH78 General SurfacesurfaceGlass2019.0154.01 1 container glass body fragment amber31WH78 General SurfacesurfaceGlass2019.0154.01 1 container glass body fragment colorless heat altered/melted31WH78 General SurfacesurfaceGlass2019.0154.01 1 container glass body fragment olive green pre-1910Lindsey 2019Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH78 General SurfacesurfaceGlass2019.0154.01 1 container glass body fragment cobalt blue 1840s - mid-20th centuryLindsey 201931WH78 General SurfacesurfaceGlass2019.0154.01 1 container glass body fragment colorless31WH78 General SurfacesurfaceGlass2019.0154.01 1 container glass base fragment colorless31WH78 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0154.01 1 porcelain body fragment blue hand painted white and blue31WH78 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0154.01 1 porcelain rim fragment white31WH78 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0154.01 1 porcelain body fragment white31WH78 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0154.01 1 whiteware rim fragment blue edged, impressed curved lines, unscalloped rimedgedwhite and blue 1840s - 1860sJPPM 201931WH78 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0154.01 1 whiteware body fragment blue and yellow hand paintedhand paintedwhite, yellow, and blue1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH78 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0154.01 8 whiteware body fragment white 1830 - present Miller et al. 200031WH78 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0154.01 1 whiteware base/footring fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH78 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0154.01 1 whiteware rim fragment pink and blue hand paintedhand paintedwhite, pink, and blue1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH78 General SurfacesurfaceH Ceram2019.0154.01 1 whiteware handle fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 2000Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH78 General SurfacesurfaceH Misc2019.0154.01 1 electrical insulatorporcelain fragment USA and WP on endwhite late 19th - early-20th centuryMyers 201031WH78 General SurfacesurfaceH Misc2019.0154.01 1 indeterminate iron fragment corroded31WH79 ST 08 1 Glass2019.0155.01 2 container glass body fragment colorless31WH79 ST 08 1 Glass2019.0155.01 1 container glass body fragment amber31WH79 ST 08 1 Mineral2019.0155.01 1 coal black2.031WH79 ST 09 1 Brick2019.0155.02 1 brick fragment<1.031WH79 ST 09 1 Glass2019.0155.02 1 container glass body fragment embossed colorless31WH79 ST 09 1 Glass2019.0155.02 1 container glass body fragment solarized/manganese dioxide decolorizedamethyst 1820s - 1930s (most common 1890 - 1920)Lindsey 201931WH79 ST 09 2 Glass2019.0155.03 1 container glass body fragment colorless31WH79 ST 14 1 Glass2019.0155.04 2 container glass body fragment amber31WH79 ST 14 1 Glass2019.0155.04 1 container glass body fragment solarized/manganese dioxide decolorizedamethyst 1820s - 1930s (most common 1890 - 1920)Lindsey 201931WH79 ST 14 1 Glass2019.0155.04 7 container glass body fragment colorlessPoint measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH79 ST 14 1 Glass2019.0155.04 1 container glass body fragment olive green pre-1910Lindsey 201931WH79 ST 14 1 Glass2019.0155.04 1 container glass body fragment embossed colorless31WH79 ST 14 1 Glass2019.0155.04 1 flat/window glassfragment colorless31WH79 ST 14 1 H Ceram2019.0155.04 1 stoneware (North American)body fragment Albany-slipped interior, Bristol-glazed exteriorAlbany Bristolblack and white1890s - 20th centuryStelle 200131WH79 ST 16 1 Brick2019.0155.05 4 brick fragment14.031WH79 ST 16 1 Glass2019.0155.05 1 canning jar lid insertlid insert fragment opaque white "milk glass"post-1869Miller et al. 200031WH79 ST 16 1 Glass2019.0155.05 4 container glass body fragment colorless31WH79 ST 16 1 H Misc2019.0155.05 1 indeterminate iron fragment corroded31WH79 ST 21 1 Glass2019.0155.06 1 container glass body fragment amber31WH79 ST 21 1 Glass2019.0155.06 13 container glass body fragment colorless31WH79 ST 21 1 Glass2019.0155.06 4 container glass body fragment aqua31WH79 ST 21 1 H Fasten/Tool2019.0155.06 5 nail iron complete (3) / fragment (2)indeterminatecorrodedPoint measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH79 ST 21 1 H Misc2019.0155.06 3 indeterminate iron fragment corroded31WH79 ST 21 2 Glass2019.0155.07 1 container glass base fragment colorless31WH79 ST 21 2 Glass2019.0155.07 1 container glass body fragment colorless31WH79 ST 21 2 Glass2019.0155.07 1 table glass rim fragment molded colorless31WH79 ST 21 2 H Fasten/Tool2019.0155.07 1 nail iron complete indeterminatecorroded31WH79 ST 22 1 Brick2019.0155.08 2 brick fragment48.031WH79 ST 22 1 Glass2019.0155.08 1 container glass body fragment amber31WH79 ST 22 1 Glass2019.0155.08 3 container glass body fragment colorless31WH79 ST 22 1 Glass2019.0155.08 1 flat/window glassfragment colorless31WH79 ST 22 1 H Ceram2019.0155.08 1 whiteware rim fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH79 ST 22 1 H Misc2019.0155.08 1 indeterminate iron fragment corroded31WH79 ST 27 1 Glass2019.0155.09 2 container glass body fragment colorlessPoint measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH79 ST 27 1 Glass2019.0155.09 1 container glass body fragment amber31WH79 ST 27 1 Glass2019.0155.09 1 container glass body fragment opaque white "milk glass"primarily 1870s - mid-20th centuryLindsey 201931WH79 ST 27 1 Glass2019.0155.09 1 container glass body fragment opaque white "milk glass" and opaque orangeprimarily 1870s - mid-20th centuryLindsey 201931WH79 ST 27 1 Glass2019.0155.09 2 flat/window glassfragment light aqua31WH79 ST 27 1 Glass2019.0155.09 1 table glass body fragment molded colorless31WH79 ST 27 1 H Ceram2019.0155.09 1 whiteware rim fragment green decal decal decorated/"decalcomania"white and green1890s - 1950sJPPM 201931WH79 ST 27 1 H Ceram2019.0155.09 1 whiteware base/footring fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH79 ST 28 1 Glass2019.0155.10 1 container glass body fragment colorless31WH79 ST 28 1 Glass2019.0155.10 1 container glass body fragment aqua31WH79 ST 28 1 H Ceram2019.0155.10 2 whiteware base/footring fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH79 ST 28 1 H Ceram2019.0155.10 1 whiteware body fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH79 ST 28 1 H Misc2019.0155.10 1 indeterminate aluminum fragment corrodedPoint measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH79 ST 33 1 H Fasten/Tool2019.0155.11 1 nail iron complete indeterminatecorroded31WH79 ST 34 1 Brick2019.0155.12 1 brick fragment small/erroded31WH79 ST 34 1 Glass2019.0155.12 1 container glass fragment aquaflat, 10mm thick31WH79 ST 34 1 Glass2019.0155.12 3 container glass rim fragment molded threaded closurecolorless31WH79 ST 34 1 Glass2019.0155.12 3 container glass body fragment amber31WH79 ST 34 1 Glass2019.0155.12 1 container glass rim fragment molded light green31WH79 ST 34 1 Glass2019.0155.12 1 container glass body/base fragment cosmetic jar opaque white "milk glass"primarily 1870s - mid-20th centuryLindsey 201931WH79 ST 34 1 Glass2019.0155.12 2 container glass body fragment solarized/manganese dioxide decolorizedlight amethyst 1820s - 1930s (most common 1890 - 1920)Lindsey 201931WH79 ST 34 1 Glass2019.0155.12 3 flat/window glassfragment very light aqua31WH79 ST 34 1 Glass2019.0155.12 1 flat/window glassfragment colorless31WH79 ST 34 1 H Ceram2019.0155.12 2 whiteware body fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH79 ST 34 1 H Ceram2019.0155.12 1 whiteware rim fragment white 1830 - presentMiller et al. 2000Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH79 ST 34 1 H Ceram2019.0155.12 1 whiteware rim fragment white heat altered? 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH79 ST 34 1 H Ceram2019.0155.12 1 whiteware body fragment white heat altered? 1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH79 ST 34 1 H Fasten/Tool2019.0155.12 1 bolt? iron fragment indeterminatecorroded31WH79 ST 34 1 H Fasten/Tool2019.0155.12 2 nail iron fragment indeterminatecorroded31WH79 ST 34 2 Glass2019.0155.13 1 container glass body fragment amber31WH79 ST 34 2 Glass2019.0155.13 1 container glass body fragment stippling machine madeamber 1905 - presentLindsey 201931WH79 ST 34 2 Glass2019.0155.13 2 container glass body fragment aqua31WH79 ST 34 2 Glass2019.0155.13 7 container glass body fragment colorless31WH79 ST 34 2 Glass2019.0155.13 1 container glass handle fragment colorless31WH79 ST 34 2 Glass2019.0155.13 1 container glass base fragment embossed amber31WH79 ST 34 2 Glass2019.0155.13 1 flat/window glassfragment light aqua31WH79 ST 34 2 H Misc2019.0155.13 1 indeterminate metal fragment corrodedPoint measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH79 ST 35 1 Glass2019.0155.14 2 container glass body fragment colorless31WH79 ST 35 1 Glass2019.0155.14 1 container glass body fragment molded aqua blue31WH79 ST 35 1 H Ceram2019.0155.14 1 indeterminate refined earthenwarebody fragment white31WH79 ST 35 1 H Ceram2019.0155.14 1 white granite (Ironstone)body fragment white-glazed interiof, white- and gray-glazed exteriorheat altered?31WH79 ST 36 1 Glass2019.0155.15 1 container glass body fragment molded colorless31WH79 ST 36 1 Glass2019.0155.15 1 container glass body fragment cobalt blue31WH79 ST 36 1 Glass2019.0155.15 1 flat/window glassfragment colorless31WH79 ST 36 1 Glass2019.0155.15 2 indeterminate glassglass fragment colorlessvery small fragments31WH79 ST 41 1 Glass2019.0155.16 1 container glass body fragment opaque white "milk glass"primarily 1870s - mid-20th centuryLindsey 201931WH81 ST 02 1 Glass2019.0156.02 9 flat/window glassfragment light aqua31WH81 ST 06 1 Brick2019.0156.03 1 brick fragment5.031WH81 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0156.01 1 glass complete embossed Lambert Pharmacal Co. Listerine bottlecolorless 1881 - 20th centurysmall mouth external thread finish, black plastic lidhttps://www.listerine.com/aboutPoint measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness
Site ST/Unit or Fea.Zone Analytic ClassAccession # Count Object/ MaterialBase MaterialForm/ PortionDecoration/ TreatmentColor Condition Type Production Date RangeCommentWeight (g)Production Date Range ReferenceLevel Other Prov.31WH81 Surface surfaceGlass2019.0156.01 1 glass complete embossed, stippling, Owens-Illinois Glass Co. maker's markWhitehall medicinal bottleamber 1954 - 20th centurysmall mouth external thread finish, I-in-an-Oval Owens-Illinois maker's markLockhart and Hoenig 2015 (https://sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/OwensIll_BLockhart.pdf)31WH81 Surface surfaceH Ceram2019.0156.01 1 whiteware rim fragment pink, green, and black transfer printedtransfer printedwhite, pink, green, and black1830 - presentMiller et al. 200031WH81 Surface surfaceH Fasten/Tool2019.0156.01 1 nail iron complete wroughtcorroded before circa 1800Visser 201931WH81 Surface surfaceH Fasten/Tool2019.0156.01 1 nail iron complete wirecorroded circa 1890s - presentVisser 201931WH81 Surface surfaceH Misc2019.0156.01 1 farm machinery fragmentiron corroded31WH81 Surface surfaceH Misc2019.0156.01 1 string light/light bulbmetal and glass complete light bulb, partial stringred corrodedPoint measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness