20201259 Ver 1_Fayetteville Rd Draft Archaeological Report_20201023

Archaeological Survey of the
Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina

ER 20-0096

Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
April 2020

Archaeological Survey of the
Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina

ER 20-0096

Prepared for

Pulte Group
Raleigh, North Carolina

Prepared by

_______________________________________
Michael Keith O’Neal
Principal Investigator

Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
April 2020

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
ii
Management Summary

In March 2020, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., conducted an archaeological
survey of the Fayetteville Road Development tract located in Wake County, North Carolina. This
investigation was conducted on behalf of the Pulte Group. This survey was requested by the North Carolinas
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in a letter dated 6 February 2020. The goals of this investigation
were to identify all archaeological resources located within the project tract, assess those resources for
eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and advance management recommendations,
as appropriate.

The project tract is approximately 256.5 acres (103.8 ha) in size and is located south west of the
town of Garner. The tract is bounded by US Highway 401 and property lines on the west, and the remainder
of the tract is bounded by property lines. The tract contains pasture, planted pine forest, mixed pine and
hardwood forest, and areas of young pines and secondary growth. Several small unnamed drainages traverse
the tract.

Background research was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) located in Raleigh
and included a review of archaeological site forms, cultural resource reports, and historic maps of the project
area. No previously recorded archaeological sites are located in the project tract. A review of the Office of
Survey and Planning’s website (HPOWEB) was also consulted to determine the presence of any recorded
architectural resources within the project tract. One significant historic resource, WA4811, the Dr. L. J.
Faulhaber Farm is located in the southwestern portion of the project tract.

Prior to beginning field work, factors such as soil drainage and topography were used to define
portions of the project tract that had high potential for the presence of archaeological deposits. These areas
total approximately 112 acres (45.3 ha) and include ridge tops, knolls, and ridge toes. Shovel tests were
excavated at 30-meter intervals along parallel transects spaced 30 meters apart in high potential areas. The
remaining 144.5 acres (58.9 ha) were considered to have low archaeological potential. Low potential areas
were surveyed by pedestrian walkover and judgmentally placed shovel tests. All areas of exposed ground
surface were inspected for cultural remains.

Five archaeological sites (31WA2294-31WA2298) were identified during this investigation (Table
i.1). These sites include one prehistoric site, two historic sites, and two sites with both prehistoric and
historic components. The prehistoric components are of an unknown age. The historic components date to
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. These resources have been severely disturbed and are unlikely to
yield significant data pertaining to the prehistory or history of the area. All identified archaeological sites
are recommended not eligible for the NRHP. No archaeological remains associated with historic resource
WA4811 were identified. As no significant archaeological sites will be impacted by the proposed
development, clearance to proceed is recommended.

Table i.1. Summary of Identified Archaeological Sites in the Project Tract.
Site
Number Description
NRHP
Recommendation
31WA2294 19th Century Artifact Scatter Not Eligible
31WA2295 20th Century House Site Not Eligible
31WA2296 Unknown Prehistoric Lithic Scatter, Late 19th – 20th Century House Site Not Eligible
31WA2297 Unknown Prehistoric Lithic Scatter, Late 19th – 20th Century House Site Not Eligible
31WA2298 Unknown Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Not Eligible

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
iii
Table of Contents

Management Summary ................................................................................................................................ ii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. iv
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. iv

Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
Project Tract .................................................................................................................................... 1
Methods of Investigation ................................................................................................................ 1
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview ................................................................................ 7
Environmental Overview ................................................................................................................ 7
Cultural Overview ......................................................................................................................... 10
Chapter 3. Investigation Results .......................................................................................................... 18
Background Research Results ....................................................................................................... 18
Field Survey Results ..................................................................................................................... 24
Summary and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 36
References Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 38

Appendix A. Artifact Catalog
Appendix B. Resume of Principal Investigator

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
iv

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1.1. Map showing the location of the project area. ................................................................... 1
Figure 1.2. Topographic map showing the project tract. ...................................................................... 2
Figure 1.3. Views of the different settings in the project tract. ............................................................ 3
Figure 1.4. Aerial view of the project tract. ......................................................................................... 4
Figure 1.5. LiDAR map showing areas considered to have high archaeological potential. ................. 5
Figure 2.1. Physiographic map of North Carolina showing the location of the project area. .............. 7
Figure 2.2. Map of the Neuse River Basin showing the location of the project area. .......................... 8
Figure 2.3. Map showing the soils present in the project tract. ............................................................ 9
Figure 2.4. Aerial photographs of the project tract between 1993 and 2016. .................................... 10
Figure 3.1. Map showing the previously recorded sites in the project vicinity. ................................. 18
Figure 3.2. Map showing the historic resources recorded in the project vicinity. .............................. 19
Figure 3.3. 1914 soil map of Wake County showing structures present in the project tract. ............. 22
Figure 3.4. 1938 highway map of Wake County showing structures present in the project tract. ..... 22
Figure 3.5. Topographic maps showing structures present in the project tract. ................................. 23
Figure 3.6. 1971 aerial photograph showing the project tract. ........................................................... 24
Figure 3.7. LiDAR map showing the 30-meter interval survey areas and archaeological sites. ........ 25
Figure 3.8. Map showing the identified archaeological sites in the project tract. .............................. 26
Figure 3.9. Plan map of site 31WA2294. ........................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.10. Plan map of site 31WA2295. ........................................................................................... 29
Figure 3.11. Plan map of site 31WA2296. ........................................................................................... 31
Figure 3.12. Plan map of site 31WA2297. ........................................................................................... 33
Figure 3.13. 1971 aerial photograph showing site 31WA2297. ........................................................... 35
Figure 3.14. Plan map of site 31WA2298. ........................................................................................... 36

List of Tables

Page

Table i.1. Summary of Identified Archaeological Sites in the Project Tract. ......................................... ii
Table 2.1. Summary of Soils Present in the Project Tract. ..................................................................... 8
Table 3.1. Summary of Previously Recorded Site in the Project Vicinity. ........................................... 19
Table 3.2. Summary of Historic Resources in the Project Vicinity. ..................................................... 20
Table 3.3. Summary of Identified Archaeological Sites in the Project Tract. ....................................... 26
Table 3.4. Summary of Artifacts Recovered from Site 31WA2295. .................................................... 29
Table 3.5. Summary of Historic Artifacts Recovered from Site 31WA2296. ...................................... 32
Table 3.6. Summary of Historic Artifacts Recovered from Site 31WA2297. ...................................... 34

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
1
Chapter 1. Introduction

Between 16 and 24 March 2020, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., (ACC)
conducted an archaeological survey of the Fayetteville Road Development tract (ER20 -0096) in Wake
County, North Carolina. This investigation was undertaken on behalf of the Pulte Group, at the request of
the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). In a letter dated 6 February 2020, the SHPO
noted the potential for archaeological sites based on the presence of upland landforms and the possibility
of remains associated with previously recorded historic resource WA4811, the Dr. L. J. Faulhaber Farm.
Impacts to this National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible resource will be addressed in a separate
document. The goals of this investigation were to identify all archaeological resources located within the
project tract, assess those resources for eligibility to the NRHP, and advance management
recommendations, as appropriate. Mr. Michael O’Neal served as Principal Investigator and Field Director.
He was assisted by Ms. Abigail McCoy and Mr. Michael McCoy. The project was conducted over 26 person
days.

Project Tract

The Fayetteville Road Development
tract is located along US Highway 401
(Fayetteville Road) southwest of the town of
Garner in Wake County (Figure 1.1). The tract
encompasses approximately 256.5 acres (103.8
ha; Figure 1.2). The tract boundaries are largely
formed by property lines. A portion of the
western boundary is bounded by US Highway
401. The tract is primarily characterized by
woods, including areas of planted pines, mixed
pines and hardwoods, or young pines and
secondary growth. A cow pasture is present in
the southwestern portion of the project tract.
Small drainages, unnamed tributaries of Swift
Creek, and ponds are present in the project area.
Figure 1.3 presents views of the different
settings in the project tract. Old roads traverse
the central and northern portions of the tract.
Figure 1.4 presents an aerial view of the survey
tract.

Methods of Investigation

This investigation consisted of four
separate tasks: Background Research, Field
Investigations, Laboratory Analysis, and Report Production. Each of these tasks is described below.

Background Research. Background research began with a review of archaeological site forms,
maps, and reports on file at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh, North Carolina, as well as
the Office of Survey and Planning’s website (HPOWEB). This review served to identify previously

Figure 1.1. Map showing the location of the project
area.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
2

recorded resources in the project tract and its vicinity, in addition to providing data on the prehistoric and
historical context of the project tract. Background research also included a review of available historic
aerials, historic maps including the1914 Wake County soil map and 1938 Wake County highway map, and
USGS topographic maps dating between 1964 and 2002.

Field Investigations. Close-interval contour topographic maps, Light Detecting and Ranging
(LiDAR) images, and soil data of the survey area were consulted prior to initiation of fieldwork. These data
were used to identify portions of the tract with high potential for the presence of archaeological remains
prior to commencement of fieldwork. Approximately 147 acres (59.5 ha) within the project tract were
defined as having high potential. These areas were comprised of uplands and ridge toes adjacent to
drainages and wetlands. Figure 1.6 presents a map showing the defined high potential areas.

The field survey strategy included the excavation of shovel tests at 30-meter intervals along
transects spaced 30 meters apart in areas determined to have high potential for archaeological deposits.
High potential areas encompassed approximately 112 acres (45.3 ha; Figure 1.5) The remaining 144.6 acres
(58.5 ha) were considered to have low archaeological potential. These areas were investigated through
pedestrian walkover and judgmentally placed shovel tests. Shovel testing and pedestrian walkover were
supplemented by inspection of all exposed ground surface. This survey strategy was approved by Ms. Mary
Beth Fitts, Assistant State Archaeologist.

Figure 1.2. Topographic map showing the project tract (2002 Lake Wheeler, NC USGS 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangle).

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
3

Figure 1.3. Views of the different settings in the project tract.
left to right; top to bottom: planted pine forest, pine and hardwood forest, secondary growth, pasture, drainage, pond.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
4

Excavated shovel tests measured approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and were excavated to
10 centimeters into subsoil or to the water table. Shovel test fill was screened through 0.25-inch wire mesh.
Details of artifacts and soils for each shovel test were recorded in field notebooks. Artifacts were collected
and placed in plastic bags labeled with the date, field site number, grid point locations (i.e., shovel
test/transect or north/east coordinate), depth of artifacts, and initials of the excavator. To delineate
archaeological resources, a combination of surface inspection and short interval (15-meter) shovel testing
was used.

A site is defined as an area containing one or more artifacts within a 30-meter (98 ft) or less diameter
of surface exposure or where surface or subsurface cultural features are present. Artifacts and/or features
less than 50 years in age would not be considered a site without a specific research or management reason.
Site settings were photographed with a digital camera. Sketch maps were produced in the field showing the
locations of shovel tests and surface finds. The location of each site was recorded using a Trimble Pathfinder
Global Positioning System (GPS) unit and relayed onto project maps.

Site significance is based on the site’s ability to contribute to our understanding of past lifeways,
and its subsequent eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Department of Interior regulations (36 CFR Part 60)
established criteria that must be met for an archaeological site or historic resource to be considered
significant, or eligible for the NRHP (Townsend et al. 1993). Under these criteria, a site can be defined as

Figure 1.4. Aerial view of the project tract.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
5

significant if it retains integrity of “location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association” and if it A) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
pattern of history; The primary goals of this field investigation were to identify archaeological resources
and evaluate their potential research value or significance. Although the determination of the site
significance is made by the SHPO, whenever possible, sufficient data is gathered to allow us to make a
significance recommendation. Sites that exhibit little or no further research potential are recommended not
eligible for the NRHP, and no further investigation is proposed. Sites for which insufficient data could be
obtained at the survey level are considered unassessed and preservation or more in-depth investigation is
advocated. It is rare for ample data to be recovered at the survey level of investigation to definitively
determine that a site meets NRHP eligibility criteria. However, when this occurs, the site is recommended
eligible for the NRHP. Again, preservation of the resource is advocated. If preservation is not possible,
mitigation options (e.g., data recovery) would need to be considered.

Laboratory Analysis. All recovered cultural material was processed in the Clayton laboratory
facilities of ACC. All artifacts were washed and allowed to thoroughly air dry. A provenience number,
based on artifact contexts (i.e., grid coordinate, depth, etc.), was assigned to each positive excavation
location. Within each provenience, individual artifacts or artifact classes were then assigned a catalog
number. Artifacts were cataloged based on specific morphological characteristics such as material in the
case of lithics, and decoration and temper type in the case of prehistoric ceramics.

Figure 1.5. LiDAR map showing areas considered to have high archaeological potential.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
6
Diagnostic prehistoric artifacts were compared to published type descriptions (e.g., Charles and
Moore 2018; Coe 1964; Herbert 2009; Oliver 1999; Peck 1982; Sassaman 1993; Ward and Davis 1999;
and Whatley 2002;) and cataloged by type when possible. Lithics artifacts were examined in detail and
classified by artifact type and raw material.
Historic artifacts were identified by color, material of manufacture (e.g., ceramics), type (e.g.,
slipware), form (e.g., bowl, plate), method of manufacture (e.g., molded), period of manufacture (e.g., 1780-
1820), and intended function (e.g., tableware). Historic artifacts with established manufacture date ranges
were categorized using Aultman et al. (2018), Brown (1982), Feldhues (1995), Florida Museum of Natural
History (FLMNH; 2009), Majewski and O’Brien (1987), Noël Hume (1969), and South (1977, 2004).
Artifact descriptions, counts, and weights were recorded, and all diagnostic and cross-mended artifacts were
labeled with a solution of Acryloid B-72 and acid-free permanent ink.
All artifacts were placed in acid-free resealable plastic bags with acid-free labels listing the
provenience and field identification information. Upon acceptance of the final project report, all analysis
sheets, field notes, photographs, maps, and artifacts will be prepared according to federal guidelines. As
part of due diligence, ACC will contact the landowner to obtain a Deed of Gift for the purpose of donating
the recovered artifacts to the OSA for final curation. If a Deed of Gift cannot be obtained, the artifacts will
be returned to the landowner.

Report Production. Report production involved the compilation of all data gathered during the
previous tasks. This report includes a discussion of the investigation methods, background findings, field
survey results, and management recommendations. Each individual site is discussed and shown on a variety
of project maps. The data obtained from laboratory analyses, background research, and field investigations
is included in the site discussions. Finally, the report includes an assessment of the NRHP eligibility of each
archaeological site recorded during this investigation.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
7
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview

Environmental Overview

Wake County is located in central North Carolina and encompasses 864 square miles (2,238 square
km; Cawthorn 1970). The county is bounded by Chatham, Durham, Franklin, Granville, Harnett, and
Johnston counties. The majority of Wake County falls within the Piedmont physiographic province (Figure
2.1). The southeastern portion of the county, where the project area is located, lies on the Fall Line
separating the Piedmont from the Coastal Plain. Rolling hills dissected by intermittent and perennial streams
are the most frequent landforms within this transitional area. The average elevation of the county is 140.8
meters above mean sea level (amsl; Cawthorn 1970). Elevations in the project tract range from 82.9 to
120.7 meters amsl.

Drainages

The project area falls within the Neuse River watershed (Figure 2.2). The Neuse River flows from
the Falls Lake Reservoir through the Piedmont and Coastal Plain, emptying into Pamlico Sound. Numerous
small streams and creeks extend through Wake County and the project vicinity. The project tract is drained
by unnamed tributaries of Swift Creek. Swift Creek flows east to its confluence with the Neuse River near
Smithfield, North Carolina.

Figure 2.1. Physiographic map of North Carolina showing the location of the project area.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
8

Soils

There are seven soil types present in the project tract (Table 2.1;Figure 2.3). Well-drained soils
account for 76.8 percent of the project tract with Cecil sandy loam and Pacolet sandy loam being the most
prevalent soil types. Moderately well drained soils account for 7.2 percent of the tract and include Gritney
and Helena soils. Well-drained and moderately well drained soils on slopes less than 15 percent are
generally considered to have high potential for the presence of archaeological remains. Chewacla and
Wehadkee soils are somewhat poorly drained and are present in 16 percent of the tract (USDA 2020). This
soil type was viewed as having low archaeological potential.

Table 2.1. Summary of Soils Present in the Project Tract (USDA 2020).
Soil Type Description Percent
Coverage
Cecil sandy loam (CeB, CeC) Well-drained, 2-10% slope, forms on interfluves 51.2
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils (ChA) Somewhat poorly drained, 0-2% slope, forms on flood plains 16.0
Dothan loamy sand (DoB) Well-drained, 2-6% slope, forms on interfluves 1.6
Gritney sandy loam (GrC) Moderately well drained, 6-10% slope, forms on interfluves 2.5
Helena sandy loam (PaD, PaE) Moderately well drained, 2-6% slope, forms on interfluves 4.7
Pacolet sandy loam (PaD, PaE) Well-drained, 10-25% slope, forms on interfluves 20.4
Wedowee sandy loam (WeD) Well-drained, 10-15% slope forms on interfluves 3.6

Figure 2.2. Map of the Neuse River Basin showing the location of the project area.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
9

Climate

Like most of central North Carolina, the climate of Wake County is temperate, characterized by
relatively mild winters and warm summers. Average temperatures range from the upper 40s Fahrenheit (F)
in the winter to the mid-70s F in the summer.

Geology

The Piedmont was formed by volcanic activity and is composed of sedimentary, igneous, and
metamorphic rock irregularly distributed through the region (Ward 1983). The major geologic formation
within the project region is the Raleigh Belt. The Raleigh Belt consists of metamorphosed igneous rock. In
the immediate site vicinity rocks include biotite gneiss and schist, intrusive amphibolite rocks, and masses
of granitic rock, metadiorite and metagabbro (North Carolina Geological Survey 1985).

Current Environmental Conditions

The Fayetteville Road tract is currently characterized primarily by wooded areas, secondary
growth, and pasture. However, the land-use of the tract has varied over the past few decades. Aerial images
obtained from Google Earth show a significant portion of the project tract as farmland as late as 1993 with

Figure 2.3. Map showing the soils present in the project tract.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
10
areas of woods and pasture (Figure 2.3). By 2002, farm fields in the northern portion of the tract had been
left fallow and become overgrown or were planted in pines. Nearly all of what had been agricultural fields
were in woods in 2013, although a few areas along the eastern tract boundary remained open. A wooded
area in the northwest corner of the tract was clear cut after 2013. Throughout this timeframe, the pasture
in the southwest corner of the tract remained relatively unchanged.

Cultural Overview

The cultural history of North America can be divided into two general eras: Prehistoric and Historic.
The Prehistoric Era is extensive. It includes at least 12,000 years of Native American groups and cultures
present prior to the arrival of Europeans. The Historic Era, in comparison, is relatively brief. This era refers
to a time of exploration and initial European settlement on the continent through the colonization,
industrialization and emergence of the modern era. Fine-grained chronological and cultural subdivisions
are defined within these eras to permit discussions of particular events and the lifeways of North America’s
prehistoric inhabitants. The following discussion summarizes the various periods of prehistoric and historic
occupation in the project vicinity.

Figure 2.4. Aerial photographs of the project tract between 1993 and 2016.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
11
Prehistoric Overview

Paleoindian Period (12,000 - 8,000 BC). The Paleoindian Period refers to the earliest human
occupations of the New World, the origins and age of which remain a subject of debate. The most accepted
theory dates the influx of migrant bands of hunter-gatherers to approximately 12,000 years ago. This time
period corresponds to the exposure of a land bridge connecting Siberia to the North American continent
during the last ice age (Driver 1998; Jackson et al. 1997). Research conducted over the past few decades
has begun to cast doubt on this theory.

In the past two decades, investigations at Paleoindian sites have produced radiocarbon dates
predating 12,000 years. The Monte Verde site in South America has been dated to 10,500 BC (Dillehay
1997; Meltzer et al. 1997). In North America, the Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania had deposits
dating to 9,500 BC. Current research conducted at the Topper Site indicates occupations dating between
15,000 and 19,000 (or more) years ago (Goodyear 2006). Two sites, 44SM37 and Cactus Hill, in Virginia
have yielded similar dates. One contentious point about these early sites is that the occupations predate
what has been recognized as the earliest New World culture, Clovis. Artifacts identified at pre-Clovis sites
include flake tools and blades, prismatic blades, bifaces, and lanceolate-like points (Adovasio et al. 1998;
Goodyear 2006; Johnson 1997; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997; McDonald 2000).

The major artifact marker for the Clovis period is the Clovis lanceolate-fluted point (Gardner 1974,
1989; Griffin 1967). First identified in New Mexico, Clovis fluted points have been recovered throughout
the United States. However, most of the identified Clovis points have been found in the eastern United
States (Ward and Davis 1999). Most Clovis points have been recovered from surface contexts, although
some sites (e.g., Cactus Hill and Topper sites) have contained well-defined subsurface Clovis contexts.

The identification of pre-Clovis sites, higher frequencies of Clovis points on the east coast of the
United States (the opposing side of the continent where the land bridge was exposed during the last
glaciation), and the lack of predecessors to the Clovis point type has led some researchers to hypothesize
other avenues of New World migration (see Bonnichsen et al. 2006). These alternative migration theories
contend that the influx of people to the Americas occurred prior to the ice-free corridor 12,000 years ago
and that multiple migration episodes took place. These theories include overland migrations similar to the
one presumed to have occurred over the Bering land bridge and water migrations over both the Atlantic
Ocean and the Pacific rim (see Stanford 2006). Coastal migration theories envision seafaring people using
boats to make the journey, evidence for which has not been identified (Adovasio and Page 2002).

In the southeastern United States, Clovis was followed by smaller fluted and nonfluted lanceolate
spear points, such as Dalton and Hardaway point types, that are characteristic of the later Paleoindian Period
(Goodyear 1982). The Hardaway point, first described by Coe (1964), is seen as a regional variant of Dalton
(Oliver 1985; Ward 1983).

Most Paleoindian materials occur as isolated surface finds in the eastern United States (Ward and
Davis 1999); this indicates that population density was extremely low during this period and that groups
were small and highly mobile (Meltzer 1988). It has been noted that group movements were probably well-
scheduled, and that some semblance of territories was maintained to ensure adequate arrangements for
procuring mates and maintaining population levels (Anderson and Hanson 1988).

O’Steen (1996) analyzed Paleoindian settlement patterns in the Oconee River valley in northeastern
Georgia and noted a pattern of decreasing mobility throughout the Paleoindian period. Sites of the earliest
portion of the period seem to be restricted to the floodplains, while later sites were distributed widely in the
uplands, showing an exploitation of a wider range of environmental resources. If this pattern holds true for

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
12
the Southeast in general, it may be a result of changing environments trending toward increased deciduous
forest and decreasing availability of Pleistocene megafauna and the consequent increased reliance on
smaller mammals for subsistence; population growth may have also been a factor.

Archaic Period (8000 - 1000 BC). The Archaic period has been the focus of considerable research
in the Southeast. Sites dating to this period are ubiquitous in the North Carolina Piedmont (Coe and
McCormick 1970). Two major areas of research have dominated: (1) the development of chronological
subdivisions for the period based on diagnostic artifacts, and (2) the understanding of settlement/subsistence
trends for successive cultures.

Coe’s excavations at several sites in the North Carolina Piedmont established a chronological
sequence for the period based on diagnostic projectile points. The Archaic period has been divided into
three subperiods: Early (8000 - 6000 BC), Middle (6000 - 3500 BC), and Late (3500 - 1000 BC) (Coe
1964). Coe defined the Early Archaic subperiod based on the presence in site assemblages of Palmer and
Kirk Corner Notched projectile points. More recent studies have defined other Early Archaic corner notched
points, such as Taylor, Big Sandy, and Bolen types. Generally similar projectile points (e.g., LeCroy points),
but with commonly serrated edges and characteristic bifurcated bases, have also been identified as
representative of the Early Archaic subperiod (Broyles 1981; Chapman 1985). The Early Archaic points of
the North Carolina Piedmont are typically produced with metavolcanic material, although occasional chert,
quartz, or quartzite examples have been recovered.

Claggett et al. (1982) use a settlement/subsistence typology developed by Binford (1980), to
classify late Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations as “logistical.” Logistical task groups, in this
definition, target a particular resource or set of subsistence or technological resources for collection and use
at a residential base camp. Their analysis identifies an increase in residential mobility beginning in the Early
Archaic and extending into the Middle Archaic (Claggett et al. 1982). Early Archaic peoples transitioned
from logistical orientation to foraging. Foraging refers to a generalized resource procurement strategy
enacted in closer proximity to a base camp. Subsistence remains recovered from Early Archaic sites in
southern Virginia include fish, turtle, turkey, small mammals, and deer, as well as a wide variety of nuts
(McAvoy and McAvoy 1997).

Sassaman (1983) hypothesizes that actual group residential mobility increased during the Middle
Archaic although it occurred within a more restricted range. Range restriction is generally a result of
increased population in the Southeast and crowding with group territories (Sassaman 1983); this increase
in population led to increasing social fluidity during the Middle Archaic and a lower need for scheduled
aggregation for mate exchange. In Sassaman’s view, technology during the Middle Archaic is highly
expedient; this is reflected in an almost exclusive use of local resources, especially lithic material.

The appearance/introduction of Stanly points, a broad-bladed stemmed form defines the transition
to the Middle Archaic subperiod. These were followed by Morrow Mountain points, which are
characteristically manufactured from quartz, and have been recovered from numerous small sites
throughout Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Guilford points, also often made of quartz, follow Morrow
Mountain in the Middle Archaic sequence. Morrow Mountain and Guilford points were the most frequently
recovered projectile point types in the Jordan Lake survey area (Coe and McCormick1970). The latter were
typically found on low knolls or ridge toes overlooking perennial streams (Autry 1976).

The hallmark of the Late Archaic subperiod is the Savannah River Stemmed point (Coe 1964). This
large, broad-bladed and stemmed point type is found widely over the eastern United States and in nearly
every setting during the Jordan Lake survey (Autry 1976). It is associated with Late Archaic occupations
in the mountains and uplands as well as at coastal midden sites of the period. Also, the earliest ceramics

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
13
produced in North America are associated with the Late Archaic subperiod and date to around 2000 BC.
These ceramics are Stallings Island Fiber Tempered and are primarily a coastal phenomenon, stretching
from northern Florida to southern North Carolina.

Sites of the later phases of the Archaic are generally larger and more complex than earlier sites
(Caldwell 1952; Coe 1952; Griffin 1952; Lewis and Kneberg 1959). These sites are typically in riverine
settings within the Piedmont and are hypothesized to reflect greatly increased sedentism during the Late
Archaic, with a focus on fish, shellfish, and floodplain resources. Small Late Archaic sites in the uplands
of the Piedmont are interpreted as logistical collection and hunting camps (Anderson and Joseph 1988).
Abbott et al. (1986) have speculated that an increase in population during the Late Archaic led to a
restriction in resource ranges and an increase in trade networks.

Woodland Period (1000 BC - 1450 AD). A transition between the preceramic Archaic cultures and
the Woodland cultures has been identified by Oliver (1985). Stemmed point types, like the Gypsy triangular
point, continue in the Early Woodland subperiod (1000 BC - 300 AD). Other cultural expressions of the
Early Woodland are the ceramics and projectile points of the Badin culture. These points are generally
crude triangulars while the ceramics are heavily tempered and undecorated. Unlike Oliver, Miller (1962)
noted little change in the cultural makeup of groups at the Archaic/Woodland transition other than the
addition of pottery. Coe (1964), although noting a stratigraphic break between Archaic and Woodland
occupations, also describes little technological or subsistence change other than ceramics.

Ceramic technology evolved from Badin styles into the Yadkin Phase wares during the Middle
Woodland subperiod (300 BC - 1000 AD). Yadkin ceramics have crushed quartz temper and are either cord
marked or fabric impressed. Occasionally, Yadkin ceramics contain grog (i.e., crushed fired clay) temper,
suggesting the influence of coastal populations who more commonly utilized grog temper in their ceramics
(Coe 1964). Yadkin phase projectile points differ from the Badin styles in that they reflect significantly
better workmanship (Coe 1964) and are more suited to the newly adopted bow and arrow technology. The
introduction of the bow and arrow necessitated significant changes in hunting strategies, allowing for more
independent procurement of animals rather than the group hunts generally associated with spear hunting.
Horticulture was still in its infancy during this period, so subsistence strategies remained focused on hunting
animals and gathering wild plants.

The Late Woodland subperiod (1000 – 1450 AD) in the study area is represented by the Uwharrie
Phase. The Uwharrie Phase projectile points have small triangular forms. Uwharrie ceramics are heavily
tempered with crushed quartz and are predominantly net impressed with scraped interiors (Eastman 1996).
Although they continued to hunt and gather wild plants, agriculture began to supplement, and later
dominate, Native American subsistence strategies. Corn, beans, squash, and fruit were cultivated with the
aid of stone hoes and wooden implements, and settlement patterns indicate conditions favorable to
agriculture were significant to decision-making (Hantman and Klein 1992; Ward 1983).

Historic Indian / Protohistoric Period

Spain initiated the exploration of the southeastern United States in the hopes of preserving their
claims to American lands west of the Treaty of Tordesillas line of demarcation. Hernando de Soto (1539-
1543) and Juan Pardo (1566-1568) led military expeditions into the western Piedmont and mountains of
North Carolina during the mid-sixteenth century (Hudson 1990, 1994). These parties visited Indian villages
near the present-day towns of Charlotte, Lincolnton, Hickory, and Maiden (Hargrove 1998). The Spanish
also built garrisons in the vicinity of Marion and Salisbury (Hargrove 1998). Recent work at the Berry site
in Burke County identified the remains of the Spanish garrison of Xualla (also called Joara) visited by de
Soto in the 1540s and Juan Pardo in the 1560s. Spanish presence in the Carolinas could not be sustained

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
14
despite their best attempts to establish a permanent presence with interior outposts and coastal settlements.
Mounting pressure from hostile Native Americans and English privateers also contributed to their
withdrawal to St. Augustine in 1587 (South 1980). Diseases introduced by these explorers wrought
disastrous effects on contemporary Native American peoples. Populations collapsed and entire
communities disappeared (Fossett 1976).

Sir Walter Raleigh heavily promoted England’s interest in the New World. In 1585 Raleigh used
his position in the court of Queen Elizabeth I to secure backing to outfit an English attempt at colonizing
the Atlantic coast (Powell 1989). Although this effort failed, Raleigh’s single-minded ambition led to
establishment of a colony on the James River in 1607 (Noël Hume 1994).

The first years of settlement at Jamestown were hampered by disastrous mismanagement resulting
in starvation, loss of life, and hostilities with neighbouring Powhatan. In 1624 the Crown revoked the
Virginia Company’s charter and established a royal government (Noël Hume 1994). Preoccupied with the
civil war between Royalist and Parliamentarian forces in the 1640s, these authorities showed little interest
in North Carolina until the 1650s. During this period traders, hunters, trappers, rogues, and tax evaders
began living in the area around the Albemarle Sound in northeastern North Carolina (Powell 1989). Even
then, North Carolina was becoming notorious as a refuge for the independent and self-reliant.

Historic Overview

Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 and distributed rewards to loyal Royalist supporters
(Powell 1989). Seven supporters were awarded the charter to establish a proprietary colony south of
Virginia. The boundaries of this deed were set to include the Albemarle Sound settlement of Charles Town
south to the frontier of Spanish-held La Florida. Proprietors maintained control over a single Carolina until
1712, when the colonies were separated. After a popular South Carolina uprising in 1719, the proprietors
forfeited control of that colony to the Crown. That divestment forced the Proprietors’ sale of their North
Carolina charter to King George II in 1729.

John Lederer, a German doctor, was the first recorded European explorer to visit the project area.
In 1669, Lederer was commissioned by the governor of Virginia to find a westward route to the Pacific
Ocean (Cumming 1958). Lederer traveled through Virginia south to present day Camden, South Carolina.
During this trip, he visited with several Native American tribes, including the Catawba and Waxhaw. The
Catawba Indians are historically linked to the Catawba River Valley in North and South Carolina. Inspired
by Lederer, John Lawson traveled from Charleston, South Carolina through the North Carolina Piedmont
to Pamlico Sound. Lawson’s 1700-1701 excursion followed a well-established Native American trading
path that passed near present day Charlotte, Concord, and Salisbury (Lawson 1967). Lawson’s journey took
him through Esaw, Sugaree, Catawba, and Waxhaw territory, four tribes who would soon come into close
contact with European colonists.

The principle economic focus of the Carolinas during the early colonial era was the Indian trade.
This trade revolved around the exchange of European manufactured goods and alcohol for skins and
captives. It drew Native American groups into an Atlantic economy and had the added effect of increasing
intertribal hostilities. Itinerant traders based in Charleston (South Carolina), and Virginia vied for clients
among the North Carolina Piedmont settlements.

Severe fighting between North Carolinian settlers and Tuscarora Indians broke out in 1711 after
the death of the colony’s Surveyor General (John Lawson) at the hands of the Tuscarora (Powell 1989).
The war ended in 1712, leaving the Carolina colonies in dire financial straits. These conditions persisted

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
15
until the Lords Proprietors were forced to sell their holdings in the Carolinas to the Crown in 1729 (Powell
1989).
As the number of settlers began to multiply in the Northeast, many began to look to the wilderness
of the South and the West to build new lives. German and Scotch-Irish settlers first walked the Indian
footpaths connecting present-day Pennsylvania and Georgia (Rouse 2001). In 1744, a series of treaties
allowed the colonies to formally take over the trail, then known as the Warrior Path, from the Five Nations
of the Iroquois (NCOAH 2004; Rouse 2001). Dubbed the Great Wagon Road settlers from northern
colonies used the route to populate the farmlands and new towns of the Carolinas and Georgia well into the
1800's.

Few settlers resided in the central Piedmont prior to 1748. In just a few years, this population
dramatically increased and in 1752 it was determined that a new county government was needed. Land
grants were issued to new settlers arriving via the Great Wagon Road. Predominantly Scots-Irish and
German, these settlers established farms along the major streams and engaged in cultivation of staples and
cash crops. For most of the eighteenth century, land grants and farm sizes were modest. The first English
and Scotch-Irish settlers in Wake County received land grants ranging from 100 to 640 acres (40.5-259 ha;
Murray 1983). Land holdings were typically small yeoman farmsteads interspersed with a few large
plantations (Powell 1989). By mid-century, farmsteads, grist mills, churches, court houses, and taverns
dotted the landscape. Joel Lane, a well-known and politically active plantation owner, operated a tavern in
what was then western Johnston County. Lane’s tavern would become the site of Wake County’s first
courthouse (Murray 1983).

Wake County was formed in 1771 from portions of Cumberland, Johnston, and Orange counties.
It was named for Margaret Wake, the wife of William Tryon who was the Royal Governor of North Carolina
at the time. This same period was the height of the Regulator Movement, a period of antagonism between
the affluent settled east and the frontier west. North Carolina’s citizens were unable to have their grievances
effectively addressed by a centralized government dominated by wealthy merchants and plantation
aristocrats. By 1768, much of the back country was in open revolt against increased taxes and oppressive
local officials. The creation of Wake County was one of the reforms carried out by Governor Tryon in the
wake of the rebellion (Murray 1983).

At the beginning of the Revolutionary War, a local Committee of Safety was raised from the
citizens of Wake County. The Committee of Safety was supported by the Wake militia which maintained
a muster ground near Woodward’s Mill on Middle Creek (Murray 1983). An army camp operated at Wake
Courthouse throughout the war. The recruitment and training of soldiers, provisioning the army, and raids
against local Tory enclaves were the focus of the county’s war effort. Tory troops led by Colonel David
Fanning continued small scale military operations in the Cumberland-Orange-Wake County area until the
surrender of the British Army at Yorktown in 1781 (Fanning 1861; Rankin 1959).

New Bern continued to be the capital of the state for several years after the British defeat. As early
as 1779, Wake County was being considered as a potential site for a new state capital. In 1792, after several
years of political wrangling, the General Assembly ratified its decision to locate the state capital in Wake
County (Murray 1983). The city was named Raleigh after Sir Walter Raleigh, the colony’s sixteenth century
benefactor. Soon after, it was decided that the plantation of Joel Lane would make a suitable site for the
new capital. The first town lots were sold in June of 1792. Revenues from the real estate sale were used to
construct the first statehouse, which opened on December 30, 1794 (Murray 1983).

The formation of the capital city did little to alter the rural character of Wake County. The slow
pace of urban development in the county is reflected in the fact that the next town did not incorporate until
1837 (Murray 1983). Local commerce was dominated by the exchange of farm produce for manufactured

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
16
goods. Important food and cash crops during this period included corn, sweet potatoes, wheat, peas, beans,
cotton, and tobacco. Subsistence farming dominated the economic landscape (Lally 1994). This
arrangement ensured a steady flow of country people into Raleigh for both business and pleasure. A county
market house was constructed in Raleigh before the end of the century to facilitate trade between city
dwellers and the rural community (Murray 1983).

The first three decades of the nineteenth century saw a concerted effort to develop the county’s
infrastructure. However, poor maintenance of existing roads was a problem well into the twentieth century
and was made worse by the frequent flooding of Crabtree and Walnut creeks. Road improvement projects
were limited to the significant highways which carried mail service and passenger stages (Murray 1983).

Dependable access to regional markets was not achieved until the coming of the railroads during
the middle nineteenth century. The 86-mile long Raleigh and Gaston Railroad was completed in 1840. This
line, together with the Wilmington and Weldon Railroad, opened up northern marke ts to planters and
commercial farmers. Access to the Petersburg market encouraged the expansion of cotton and tobacco
production by slave holders, who attained a measure of prosperity during this period. Nevertheless, most
of the county’s farm families continued the subsistence farming traditions of their pioneer ancestors (Lally
1994).

The poor quality of the transportation system in the Wake County area resulted in the sporadic
development of the area’s industrial potential prior to 1850. Throughout much of antebellum period
manufacturing was limited to “looms, leather, and liquor” (Murray 1983:136). Grist mills and cotton gins
were common. These small-scale commercial enterprises produced commodities for local consumption.
Limited iron manufacturing and a few paper mills were operating in the county by the end of the 1850s.

On the eve of the Civil War, the county’s population of 20,370 people resided in Raleigh, on 1,410
farms in the surrounding countryside, and in the developing communities of Wake Forest, Rolesville,
Wakefield, Eagle Rock, Holly Springs, Cary, and Morrisville (Murray 1983).

North Carolina separated from the Union in May 1861 and ratified the constitution of the
Confederate States of America. Camps, hospitals, and supply depots were soon in operation at several
locations in Wake County. By the end of 1861, Wake County had the facilities to manufacture bayonets,
uniforms, and ammunition. The capital city of Raleigh was fully enclosed by light earthworks with cannon
emplacements by 1863. Military operations by the residents of Wake County were largely confined to guard
duty and occasional forays into the countryside to round up deserters. This changed in April 1865, when
General William T. Sherman’s Union forces advanced on the county, meeting Confederate troops under
the command of General Joseph Johnston. The city of Raleigh was evacuated, and skirmishing continued
along roads and railroad lines west of Raleigh for several weeks. It is estimated that more than 100,000
Union troops camped in and around Raleigh during that period. On April 29, 1865, several corps of
Sherman’s army departed Raleigh for Virginia, bringing a close to the military operations in Wake County
(Murray 1983).

The post-Civil War period was a time of distress for many of the farmers in rural Wake County.
The end of slavery resulted in the collapse of the plantation economic system. It was replaced by a new
labor system based on share cropping and cash rents (Powell 1989). Under the sharecropping system, the
landowner retained ownership of the crop while the sharecropper provided the labor to work the land. The
tools, seeds, housing, fuel, draft animals, and other essentials were supplied by the landowner. Typically,
the crop was split between both parties, although most small farmers preferred the rent system as it allowed
them to retain control of the crop.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
17
This new agricultural system resulted in the intensification of cash cropping (Powell 1989). The
tenant was encouraged to squeeze production out of marginal lands leading to erosion and soil depletion
across the state. The act of “settling up” at the end of the harvest season often left the tenant cash poor
leading to a cycle of debt peonage, which was difficult to escape. During the postwar decades, farms became
smaller and more dispersed (Murray 1983; Powell 1989).

Significant advances in the development of North Carolina’s industrial base occurred after 1870.
For example, by 1880 49 textile mills were operating in the state (Powell 1989). This represents a substantial
increase in industrial capacity over that which existed in 1860. By the 1890s, furniture and tobacco factories
dotted the Piedmont landscape. In Wake County, the Falls of the Neuse Manufacturing Company continued
to produce paper until near the end of the century, when it was converted to textile production (Lally 1994).
Although small scale manufacturing entities, such as sawmills, grist mills, and distilleries, flourished, Wake
County remained largely rural well into the twentieth century.

The collapse of the cotton market in the 1920s and the Depression of the 1930s resulted in rapid
pre-World War II urbanization (Murray 1983). The economic importance of the county has grown since
the middle twentieth century. Much of this growth has occurred in the public sector, which provides
statewide government services, and as a result of the success of th e Research Triangle Park, a regionally
important center for technology-based industries (Powell 1989).

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
18
Chapter 3. Investigation Results

Background Research Results

Background research was conducted at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in
Raleigh. No archaeological sites have been recorded in the project tract. Five previously recorded sites are
located within 1.6 kilometers of the tract (Figure 3.1; Table 3.1). Sites 31WA1203 through 31WA1205
were recorded by an amateur archaeologist in 1995. Sites 31WA1203 and 31WA1204 are both classified
as prehistoric lithic scatters dating between the Late Paleoindian through Late Archaic Periods. The amateur
archaeological site form lists artifacts at these sites as Hardaway (Paleoindian) through Savannah River
(Late Archaic) points, but no data is provided on artifacts dating to the Early or Middle Archaic periods.
Site 31WA1205 was recorded as an unknown prehistoric lithic scatter. No artifact types are listed on the
amateur archaeological site form, but the area is described as a former field that is now a housing
development. None of these sites have been assessed for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
eligibility.

Figure 3.1. Map showing the previously recorded sites in the project vicinity (2002 Lake Wheeler, NC
USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle).

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
19
Table 3.1. Summary of Previously Recorded Site in the Project Vicinity.
Site Number Description NRHP Status
31WA1203 Late Paleoindian-Late Archaic Lithic Scatter Unassessed
31WA1204 Late Paleoindian-Late Archaic Lithic Scatter Unassessed
31WA1205 Unknown Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Unassessed
31WA1863 Unknown Prehistoric Site Unassessed
31WA2106 Late 19th – 20th Century Cemetery (Morgan-Weathers) Unassessed

No site forms were identified for sites 31WA1863 and 31WA2106. The GIS data from OSA lists
site 31WA1863 as a prehistoric site associated with artifacts from a local collector. Site 31WA2106 is the
Morgan-Weathers Cemetery but is noted as the Morgan Cemetery on the 2002 Lake Wheeler, NC USGS
topographic map (see Figure 3.1). Burials at this cemetery date between 1898 and 1962. Neither of these
sites has been assessed for NRHP eligibility.

There are 47 recorded historic resources within a 1.6-kilometer radius of the project tract (Figure
3.2, Table 3.2). These resources consist primarily of individual houses and stores, but also include a church,
farms, and crossroads. One historic District, McCuller’s Pines (WA7794), is in the project vicinity. Thirty-
two of the resources are classified as Survey Only and were not considered

Figure 3.2. Map showing the historic resources recorded in the project vicinity.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
20
Table 3.2. Summary of Historic Resources in the Project Vicinity.
Resource Description NRHP Status
WA1217 Holcutt House SO
WA1218 House SO
WA1219 McCullers SA
WA1220 Wentworth Christian Church SO
WA1221 McCullers School (Gone) SD
WA1222 McCullers, Site 2 SA
WA1223 House SO
WA1237 McCullers Crossroads (Gone) SD
WA1238 Milton Banks House (Gone) SD
WA1256 Hobby House SO
WA1258 Edenwood NR
WA1271 Col. L. D. Stephenson House (David and Sarah Stephenson House) SL
WA1272 House SO
WA1273 Grady Stephens House SO
WA1274 Matthews Store (Gone) SD
WA3823 Bridge #462 SO
WA4806 Percy and Mynette Strother House SO
WA4808 William and Lillie Willis House and Store SLDOE
WA4811 Dr. L.J. Faulhaber Farm SLDOE
WA5710 House SO
WA5711 House SO
WA5713 Farm SO
WA6298 McCullers Site SO
WA6300 House SO
WA6301 House (Gone) SD
WA6302 House SO
WA6303 House (Gone) SD
WA6304 House SO
WA6305 (former) McCullers Branch Experimental Farm BF
WA6306 House SO
WA6307 House SO
WA6308 House SO
WA6309 House SO
WA6310 House SO
WA6311 House SO
WA6312 Store SO
WA6313 House SO
WA6314 House SO

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
21
WA6315 House SO
WA6387 House SO
WA7105 House SO
WA7106 House SO
WA7107 Gerald Cochran House DOE
WA7108 House SO
WA7109 House SO
WA7794 McCuller's Pines SLHD
WA-R155 House SO
BF-Blockface; DOE-Determined Eligible, NR-National Register; SA-Survey Area; SD-Destroyed; SL-Study List; SLDOE-Study List/Determined
Eligible; SO-Survey Only

eligible for the NRHP when recorded. An additional six resources have been destroyed. One resource,
WA1258 (Edenwood, The Smith-Williams House), is listed on the NRHP. The original house was built in
the early nineteenth century by Sihon Williams, a Methodist circuit rider. In the mid-nineteenth century, a
Greek Revival-style front was added to the house. In the early 1930s, a Colonial Revival-style front porch
was added. This house was considered significant based on its architecture (Criterion C) and listed on the
NRHP in 1993.

Six resources, WA1258, WA1271, WA4808, WA4811, WA7107, and WA7794 have been placed
on the Study List and/or have been determined eligible for the NRHP. The Colonel L. D. Stephenson House
(WA1271) and McCuller’s Pine Historic District (WA7794) were later determined not eligible for the
NRHP in 2014 and 2018, respectively. Resource WA4808 (William and Lillie Willis House and Store) is
a 1947 cross gable Minimal Traditional concrete block house and a 1951 concrete block grocery store. It
was determined eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C. Resource WA7107, the Ger ald Cochran
House, is a 1960 side gable concrete block Ranch-style house. This house was determined eligible for the
NRHP under Criterion C.

One historic resource, WA4811 (the Dr. L. J. Faulhaber Farm), is located in the southwest corner
of the project tract (see Figure 3.2). This resource is a 1930s dairy farm complex. It consists of a 2-story
brick Colonial Revival house and multiple outbuildings. This resource was determined to be eligible for the
NRHP under Criterion A as an example of a middling dairy farm reflecting the period between World War
I and World War II when the combination of the boll weevil descimation of the cotton crops and population
growth led to the encouragement of dairy farming.

A review of historic maps shows several houses located within the project tract. The 1914 Wake
County soil map shows seven structures in the project tract (Figure 3.3). Remains of four of the structures
were identified at archaeological sites 31WA2295-31WA31WA2977. Two structures were not identified.
The house in the southwest corner of the tract is associated with Resource WA4811, the Dr. L. J. Faulhaber
Farm. The 1938 Wake County highway map shows three houses in the project tract, including the house at
Resource WA4811 (Figure 3.4). The other two structures on this map are located in an area of dense
secondary growth. No remains of these structures were identified. It should be noted that these two
structures do not appear on any of the other historic maps reviewed for this project.

Several versions of the Lake Wheeler, NC USGS 7.5-minute topographic map dating between 1964
and 2002 were also reviewed (Figure 3.5). The 1964 version of the map shows seven buildings in the tract.
Four of the buildings are associated with the Dr. Faulhaber Farm (WA4811). The remaining three buildings
are associated with sites 31WA2295 and 31WA2297. These same seven structures also appear on the 1987

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
22

Figure 3.3. 1914 soil map of Wake County showing structures present in the
project tract.

Figure 3.4. 1938 highway map of Wake County showing structures present in
the project tract.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
23

Figure 3.5. Topographic maps showing structures present in the project tract.

and 1993 versions of the map. The 2002 version of the topographic map shows four structures; all associated
with the Dr. Faulhaber Farm (WA4811).

The earliest aerial photograph identified for the project tract dates to 1971. The photograph shows
the southern portion of the tract, near the Dr. Faulhaber Farm, as pasture much as it is today. However, a
significant portion of the northern half of the project tract, as well as an area in the east-central portion of
the tract, is characterized by agricultural fields. Structures associated with the Dr. Faulhaber Farm
(WA4811) and sites 31WA2295 and 31wA2297 are also visible in the aerial photograph. An outbuilding

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
24
is visible along a road west of Site 31WA2297. No structural remains or artifacts associated with this
outbuilding were identified. By the mid-2000s, the agricultural fields were abandoned and are now
overgrown by mixed pine and hardwood forest or secondary growth.

Field Survey Results

This archaeological survey resulted in the comprehensive examination of the 256.5-acre (103.8-ha)
Fayetteville Road Development tract. The survey methods consisted of excavating shovel tests at 30-meter
intervals along parallel transects spaced 30 meters apart in areas deemed to have high archaeological
potential (Figure 3.7). Low potential areas were surveyed through pedestrian walkover and judgmentally
placed shovel tests. All areas of exposed ground surface were examined for cultural remains. Severe erosion
is prevalent throughout the project tract. The ridge tops in the project tract had been terraced to help with
erosion control. The terraces are visible in some of the aerial photographs, particularly in the southwest
corner of the project tract (see Figure 3.6). In addition to disturbance from erosion and agriculture, modern
dumping was also observed in various portions of the tract, particularly in the central portion of the tract.
Dumped materials include tires, appliances, bottles, jars, miscellaneous metal and plastic items, as well as
structural debris (e.g., cinderblocks).

In total, 676 shovel tests were excavated in the project tract. Shovel tests soil profiles confirmed
the eroded nature of the soils, with subsoil encountered at or just below the ground surface in most areas.

Figure 3.6. 1971 aerial photograph showing the project tract.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
25

Figure 3.7. LiDAR map showing the 30-meter interval survey areas and archaeological sites.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
26
Topsoil rarely exceeded depths of 20 to 30 centimeters. Soil profiles generally conformed to the range of
characteristics defined for the soil types present in the tract. Individual soil profiles are provided with the
site descriptions below.

Five archaeological sites, 31WA2294 through 31WA2298, were identified during this survey
(Figure 3.8, Table 3.3). These sites include one prehistoric site, two historic sites, and two sites with both
prehistoric and historic components. Prehistoric remains date to unknown periods, and historic components
date between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Due to the severe disturbance to these sites, they are
not likely to contribute significantly to our understanding of the prehistory and history of the region. They
are all recommended not eligible for the NRHP. The sites are described individually below.

Table 3.3. Summary of Identified Archaeological Sites in the Project Tract.
Site
Number Description
NRHP
Recommendation
31WA2294 19th Century Artifact Scatter Not Eligible
31WA2295 20th Century House Site Not Eligible
31WA2296 Unknown Prehistoric Lithic Scatter, Late 19th – 20th Century House Site Not Eligible
31WA2297 Unknown Prehistoric Lithic Scatter, Late 19th – 20th Century House Site Not Eligible
31WA2298 Unknown Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Not Eligible

Figure 3.8. Map showing the identified archaeological sites in the project tract (2002 Lake Wheeler, NC
USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle).

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
27
Site 31WA2294
Site Type: Historic Artifact Scatter
Component: 19th Century
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
UTM Coord (NAD83): 3949560 N 709635 E
Landform: Ridge Nose
Soil Type: Cecil sandy loam

Site 31WA2294 is a historic artifact scatter located in the southeast corner of the project tract (see
Figure 3.8). This site is situated on a ridge nose with a northeast facing slope. The site area is characterized
by a mixed pine and hardwood forest with relatively light underbrush. The tract boundary borders the site
on the south. Although the site area is currently wooded, it was once an agricultural field (see Figure 3.6).

Ten shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter intervals to define the site dimensions within the tract
boundary. No shovel tests were excavated outside of the project tract. Two positive shovel tests formed site
boundaries of 15 by 30 meters. Shovel test soil profiles consisted of 20 centimeters of dark yellowish brown
(10YR4/4) sandy loam overlaying yellowish red (5YR5/6) clay. Figure 3.9 presents the plan map, soil
profile, and general view of this site.

Figure 3.9. Plan map of site 31WA2294.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
28
Three artifacts were recovered from this site. The artifacts include one piece of clear tableware
glass, one piece of shell edged whiteware and one piece of undecorated whiteware. Whiteware has a broad
manufacturing range beginning in 1820 and extending through the present. The shell edged whiteware has
a more discrete manufacturing range dating between the 1840s and 1860s, dating the site to the nineteenth
century (JEFPAT 2020). No aboveground features were identified in the site vicinity, and no structures
show in the area on any of the historic maps reviewed for this project.

Site 31WA2294 is a nineteenth century artifact scatter. The site yielded few artifacts, and the
landform has been disturbed by agricultural activities and is severely eroded, leaving little potential f or
intact deposits. The site could not be fully delineated due to the constraints of the tract boundaries. However,
no structural remains were observed on the surface of the adjacent property. Site 31WA2294 is not likely
to yield new or significant data pertaining to the history of the region and is recommended not eligible for
the NRHP.

Site 31WA2295
Site Type: Historic House Site
Component: 20th Century
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
UTM Coord (NAD83): 3950061 N 710057 E
Landform: Ridge Top
Soil Type: Cecil sandy loam

Site 31WA2295 is a historic house site located in the central portion of the project tract (see Figure
3.8). The site is situated on a ridge top that slopes down to the east. The area has been clear cut, and the
surrounding vegetation consisted of weeds, briars, and other secondary growth. Surface visibility was
generally poor. An old road that traverses the ridge top is present south of the site.

Thirteen shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter intervals at this site. One positive shovel test and
structural remains formed site boundaries measuring 20 by 30 meters. Shovel test soil profiles consisted of
10 centimeters of dark grayish brown (10YR4/2) fine sandy loam overlaying light yellowish brown
(2.5Y6/4) fine sandy clay loam to a depth of 35 centimeters. Strong brown (7.5YR5/8) sandy clay was
present below that depth. The site plan map, soil profile, and general view of the site setting are presented
in Figure 3.10.

Six artifacts and a small amount of brick were collected from this site (Table 3.4). Artifact types
include bottle glass, nails, and other metal items. The presence of the both wire and cut nails at the site
suggest the house was built and occupied between the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The
artifacts were recovered from between 0 and 30 centimeters below the ground surface.

The remains of one structure are present in the western portion of the site. Eight stone footers were
identified forming approximate house dimensions of 22 by 33 feet (6.7 by 10.1 m), although it is possible
that some of the footers are displaced. Two burned beams are present on the east and west sides of the
house. A brick pile, presumably the chimney base, is centrally located and measures 20 by 10 feet (6.1 by
3.0 m) and has a height of 1 foot (30 cm). Metal roofing from the house has been deposited in a partial ring
to the west, north, and east of the house remains. This house appears on the 1914 soil map (see Figure 3.3)
and the 1964 and 2002 topographic maps (see Figure 3.5). This structure also appears on the 1971 aerial
photograph (see Figure 3.6). The house was destroyed between 2011 and 2013. Based on the map data, this
site dates to the twentieth century.

Site 31WA2295 is a twentieth century house site. This site yielded few artifacts and has been
severely disturbed by the razing of the structure. The paucity of artifacts leaves the site with no further
research potential. Site 31WA2295 is recommended not eligible for the NRHP.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
29

Figure 3.10. Plan map of site 31WA2295.

Table 3.4. Summary of Artifacts Recovered from Site 31WA2295.
Artifact Count/Weight Comment
Glass:
Clear bottle glass

1

Metal:
Iron file

1

Cut Nail 1 1810-18901
Wire Nail 1 Post 18901
Unidentified nail fragment 1
Unidentified iron form 1 Oval loop, similar to sardine can opener
Other:
Brick

8.7 g

1. Miller et al. 2000

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
30
Site 31WA2296
Site Type: Prehistoric Lithic Scatter, Historic House Site
Component: Unknown Prehistoric, 19th – 20th Century
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
UTM Coord (NAD83): 3950030 N 709956 E
Landform: Ridge Top
Soil Type: Cecil sandy loam

Site 31WA2296 is a historic house site located west of site 31WA2295 (see Figure 3.8). This site
is situated on a ridge top that slopes down to the west. Steep slope is present north of the site boundary.
Vegetation in this portion of the tract consists of a mixed pine and hardwood forest with light to moderately
dense underbrush. Secondary growth is present east of the site. An old road borders the site on the south
beyond which is a planted pine forest and secondary growth. Partial fences are present in the western portion
of the site and along the northern edge of the site.

A 15-meter grid of 36 shovel tests was excavated at this site. Eight positive shovel tests, structural
remains, and other features formed site boundaries measuring 90 by 45 meters. Shovel test soil profiles
typically exhibited 10 centimeters of very dark brown (10YR3/2) sandy loam overlaying yellowish brown
(10YR5/4) sandy loam to a depth of 25 centimeters. Light yellowish brown (10YR6/4) sandy clay loam
was present between depths of 25 and 35 centimeters. Strong brown (7.5YR5/6) sandy clay subsoil was
present below that depth. Figure 3.11 presents the site plan map and views of the soil profile and site setting.

Two prehistoric artifacts were recovered from this site. They include one metavolcanic flake/flake
fragment and one quartz flake/flake fragment. Neither artifact is culturally diagnostic. Prehistoric remains
were recovered between 0 and 20 centimeters below the ground surface from Proveniences 6.1 and 8.1.

A total of 37 historic artifacts were also recovered (Table 3.5). Artifact types include bottle glass,
flat glass, ceramics, nails, and coal. Several of the artifacts have established manufacturing ranges and
indicate a site occupation dating between the middle nineteenth century through the twentieth century.

The remains of two structures were identified at this site. Structure 1 is located at the east end of
the site. The structure foundation is outlined by brick piers and stone footers. Only the two eastern most
piers were still intact, the remainder consisted of small piles of brick. The dimensions of Structure 1
measured 22 by 37 feet (6.7 by 11.3 m). It is unclear if this structure served as an outbuilding or a residence.
The presence of ceramics from the shovel test excavated within the foundation suggests it served a domestic
purpose. No chimney base was identified, but the building may have been heated by a wood or coal burning
stove.

Structure 2 is the remains of a house located at the western end of the site. The foundation outline
was partially marked by stone footers and small brick piles. Metal roofing and remains of the wooden
framing and walls partially obscured portions of the structure foundation. Based on the identified foundation
elements and structural debris, the house dimensions are estimated to measure 25 by 46 feet (7.6 by 14.0
m). The chimney base consists of a large pile of brick that is centrally located. Dimensions of the chimney
base measure 11 by 9 feet (3.4 by 2.7 m) and is 41 inches (1.0 m) high. The 1914 Wake County soil map
(see Figure 3.3) shows one house that appears to correspond to Structure 2 at this site. None of the other
historic maps reviewed for this project shows a house in the vicinity of Site 31WA2296.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
31

Figure 3.11. Plan map of site 31WA2296.

Site 31WA2296 is a historic house site dating to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The site
yielded a moderate number of artifacts and contains the remains of two buildings. Both structures have
been razed and the surrounding area has been disturbed by erosion an d some bull dozing, possibly
associated with the removal of the structural remains. This site is not likely to contribute new or significant
data pertaining to our understanding of regional history. Site 31WA2296 is recommended not eligible for
the NRHP.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
32
Table 3.5. Summary of Historic Artifacts Recovered from Site 31WA2296.
Artifact Count/Weight Comment
Glass:
Amethyst bottle glass

4

Mid 1870s – 1920s1
Brown bottle glass 1
Clear bottle glass 9
Clear flat glass 3
Light blue bottle glass 1
Light blue flat glass 3
Light green bottle glass 1
Light green flat glass 1 Window glass
Milkglass lid liner 2 Post 18692
Ceramics:
Bristol glazed/slipped stoneware

1

Decal porcelain 1 1880-present3
Transfer print whiteware 1 1820-present4
Undecorated whiteware 1 1820-present4
Undecorated ironstone 1 1840-present4
Metal:
Cut nail

2

1810-18902
Wire nail 1 Post 18902
Unidentified nail fragment 1
Unidentified nail 3
Other:
Coal

9.6 g

1. Lindsey 2020, 2. Miller et al. 2000, 3. Majewski and O’Brien 1987, 4. Aultman et al. 2018

Site 31WA2297
Site Type: Prehistoric Isolate, Historic House Site
Component: Unknown Prehistoric, Late 19th – 20th
Century
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
UTM Coord (NAD83): 3950302 N 710063 E
Landform: Ridge Top
Soil Type: Cecil sandy loam

Site 31WA2297 is a historic house site and prehistoric isolated find located in the northern half of
the project tract (see Figure 3.8). The site is situated on a west to east trending ridge top. The site area is
characterized by scattered hardwoods, although the greater landform exhibits a denser hardwood forest with
occasional pines. Underbrush was generally very light in the site area. An old road is present west of the
site deposits.

A 15-meter grid of 57 shovel tests was excavated across the site. Thirteen positive shovel tests,
structural remains, and other surface artifacts formed site boundaries of 135 by 105 meters. Soil profiles at
this site typically exhibited 10 centimeters of dark brown (7.5YR3/3) sandy loam overlaying yellowish red
(5YR5/6) sandy clay loam to a depth of 15 centimeters. Yellowish red (2.5YR4/8) clay subsoil was
encountered below that level. Figure 3.12 presents the site map and views of the site setting and soil profile.

The prehistoric component at this site consisted of a single metavolcanic flake/flake fragment. This
artifact is not culturally diagnostic. It was recovered between 0 and 25 centimeters in depth from
Provenience 2.1 at the southern end of the site. It was found in the same context as historic artifacts.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
33
Figure 3.12. Plan map of site 31WA2297.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
34
The historic remains include 42 artifacts as well as brick, plaster, and charcoal (Table 3.6).
Identified artifact types include bottle glass, flat glass, tableware glass, ceramics, nails, and other
miscellaneous items. Based on the manufacturing ranges of the some of the glass artifacts, nails, and
ceramics, the site was occupied from the late nineteenth century through the twentieth century. These
artifacts were recovered between 0 and 25 centimeters below the ground s urface. Some of the nails were
collected from the house beams in the central portion of the site.

Table 3.6. Summary of Historic Artifacts Recovered from Site 31WA2297.
Artifact Count/Weight Comment
Glass:
Clear bottle glass

11

1 with ACL-post 19341
Clear flat glass 1
Clear tableware 2
Light green bottle glass 3
Light green flat glass 1
Unidentified olive green glass 1
Ceramics:
Bristol glazed/Albany slipped stoneware

1

Common post 19202
Metal:
Cut nail

7

1810-18903
Square nail 1 Pre 18903
Wire nail 6 Post 18903
Wire nail fragment 1 Post 18903
Unidentified nail fragment 2
Unidentified nail fragment 1
Unidentified iron form 1
Metal spike 1
Other:
Spark plug

1

Post 18883
Carbon Rod for zinc-carbon battery 1 Post 18864
Brick 4.4 g
Plaster 0.3 g
Charcoal <0.1 g
1. Lindsey 2020, 2. JEFPAT 2020, 3. Miller et al. 2000, 4. The Columbia Dry Cell Battery 2018

Aerial photograph and map data indicate this site once included multiple buildings. The 1971 aerial
shows at least four buildings present at the site (Figure 3.13). Two of the buildings in the southwest portion
of the site have been destroyed. No intact remnants of these buildings were identified. Metal roofing and
other debris was identified in a push piles along an old fence line in the vicinity of these buildings. Intact
remains of the house include brick piers atop which are wood beams. The piers form an L-shaped outline
measuring approximately 44 by 38 feet (13.4 by 11.6 meters). A brick chimney base is present in the
northeastern portion of the house. An intact portion of the chimney base measures approximately 4 by 6
feet (1.2 by 1.8 m) with a larger pile of brick surrounding it. A large pile of wood, presumably remnants of
the house structure is present just northwest of the house foundation. The house was dismantled between
2014 and 2015.

Approximately 18 feet (5.5 meters) south of the house is a brick and concrete structure adjacent to
a poured concrete pit. The brick structure is partially intact measuring 7 by 9 feet (2.1 by 2.7 m). The pit
measures 16 by 16 feet (4.9 by 4.9 m) and is 31 inches (0.8 meters) deep with a pipe protruding from the
northwest wall. The southern wall is broken with a drainage ditch running downslope to the south. The

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
35
function of this structure is not known, but it may have served as a cistern. The 1971 aerial appears to show
a roof covering the entire structure, although no roofing was identified in this portion of the site. Other
features identified at this site include a concrete pad measuring 13 y 13 feet (4.0 by 4.0 m) just north of the
large structural debris pile and the possible remains of chicken coop at the eastern end of the site.

Site 31WA2297 is a late nineteenth through twentieth century house site with outbuildings and a
minor unknown prehistoric component. The prehistoric remains are minimal and have been disturbed by
land clearing and the subsequent historic occupation. The historic remains include a relatively recent
occupation of the house (less than 50 years of age). Distinguishing between the most recent and earliest
occupations will likely prove difficult particularly due to disturbances from the razing of the structures and
bulldozing. This site is not likely to yield significant data beyond that obtained during the survey level. Site
31WA2297 has no further research potential and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP.

Site 31WA2298
Site Type: Prehistoric Lithic Scatter
Component: Unknown Prehistoric
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
UTM Coord (NAD83): 3950321 N 710342 E
Landform: Ridge Top
Soil Type: Cecil sandy loam

Site 31WA2298 was identified along the eastern boundary of the project tract (see Figure 3.8). This
prehistoric lithic scatter is situated on a ridge top that is oriented east to west. There is little topographic

Figure 3.13. 1971 aerial photograph showing site 31WA2297.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
36
relief in the immediate site vicinity. The tract boundary borders the site on the east beyond which is a
housing development.

Seven shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter intervals in the site vicinity. None of the shovel tests
yielded artifacts. Surface artifacts formed site boundaries of 15 by 15 meters. Shovel test soil profiles
consisted of 20 centimeters of strong brown (7.5YR4/6) sandy clay loam overlaying red (2.5YR4/6) sandy
clay. Figure 3.14 presents the site plan map and views of the soil profile and site setting.

Figure 3.14. Plan map of site 31WA2298.

The artifact assemblage consists of four flakes/flake fragments. All are made of quartz, and none
are culturally diagnostic. These artifacts were collected from the ground surface.

Site 31WA2298 is a small prehistoric lithic scatter of unknown age. The site lacks diagnostic
artifacts, subsurface deposits, and cultural features. The site area has been disturbed by agriculture and
residential development and is very eroded. Site 31WA2298 is not likely to retain intact deposits and has
no further research potential. This site is recommended not eligible for the NRHP.

Summary and Recommendations

In March 2020, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., (ACC) c onducted an
archaeological survey of the 256.6-acre (103.8-ha) Fayetteville Road Tract in Wake County, North
Carolina. No previously recorded archaeological sites are located in the project tract. One historic resource,
the Dr. L. J. Faulhaber Farm (WA4811) is present in the southwestern corner of the tract. Ms. Ellen Turco,
Architectural Historian, is consulting with Ms. Renee Gledhill-Early regarding potential adverse effects to

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
37
this resource. This determination and any required mitigation will be documented in a separate report.
Archaeological survey in this area did not identify any subsurface remains associated with this resource.
Five archaeological sites (31WA2294-31WA2298) were recorded during this investigation. These sites
include unknown prehistoric and nineteenth to twentieth century components. None of these sites have the
potential to contribute significantly to our understanding of regional prehistory or history. All identified
sites are recommended not eligible for the NRHP. As no significant archaeological resources will be
impacted by the proposed development, clearance to proceed is recommended.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
38
References Cited

Abbott, L. E., Jr., R. J. Marshall, and E. H. Dull
1986 A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Silas Creek Parkway Extension Project
Area, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Wake Forest University, Archaeology Laboratories of
Anthropology, Winston-Salem, NC.

Adovasio, J. M., Pedler J. Donahue, and R. Struckenrath
1998 Two Decades of Debate on Meadowcroft Rockshelter. North American Archaeologist 19:
317–41.

Adovasio, J. M. and Jake Page
2002 The First Americans: In Pursuit of Archaeology’s Greatest Mystery. Random House, New
York.

Anderson, David G. and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the
Savannah River Basin. American Antiquity 53(2):262–286.

Anderson, David G. and J. W. Joseph
1988 Prehistory and History Along the Upper Savannah River: Technical Synthesis of Cultural
Resource Investigations, Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area. National Park Service,
Interagency Archaeological Services., Atlanta, GA.

Aultman, Jennifer, Kate Grillo, and Nick Bon-Harper
2016 Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) Cataloging Manual:
Ceramics. Electronic document. http://www.daacs.org/aboutDatabase/pdf/cataloging/
Ceramics.pdf.

Autry, William O.
1976 An Archaeological Assessment of the Relocation of State Roads 1008 and 1715 in the B.
Everett Jordan Reservoir, North Carolina. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District.

Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dog's Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological
Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1): 1-17.

Bonnichsen, Robson, Michael Waters, Dennis Stanford, and Bradley T. Lepper, eds.
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.

Brown, Ann R.
1982 Historic Ceramic Typology with Principle Dates of Manufacture and Descriptive
Characteristics for Identification. Delaware Department of Transportation Archaeology Series
15.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
39
Broyles, Bettye J.
1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. West
Virginia Geological Survey, Morgantown.

Caldwell, Joseph R.
1952 The Archaeology of Eastern Georgia and South Carolina. In Archaeology of the Eastern
United States. James B. Griffin, ed., pp. 312–321. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Cawthorn, Joel W.
1970 Soil Survey of Wake County. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.

Chapman, Jefferson
1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge-and-Valley Province. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology. Roy S. Dickens and H. Trawick Ward,
eds., pp. 137–153. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Charles, Tommy and Christopher R. Moore
2018 Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tools of South Carolina. Piedmont Archaeological Studies
Trust, Inc., Glendale, SC.

Claggett, Stephen R, John S. Cable, and Larsen, Curtis E Larsen
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North
Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Jackson, MI.

Coe, Joffre L.
1952 The Cultural Sequence of the Carolina Piedmont. In Archaeology of the Eastern United
States. James B. Griffin, ed., pp. 301–311. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 54(5).

Coe, Joffre Lanning and Olin F McCormick
1970 Archaeological Resources of the New Hope Reservoir Area, North Carolina. University of
North Carolina, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, Chapel Hill.

Collectors Weekly
2018 National Bottling Company, Part 1. Electronic Document.
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/215706-national-bottling-company-part-1.

Cumming, William
1958 The Discoveries of John Lederer. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.

Dillehay, T.D. (editor)
1997 Monte Verde - A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Volume 2, The Archaeological
Context and Interpretations. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Driver, J. C.
1998 Human Adaptation at the Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary in Western Canada. Quaternary
International 49:141–150.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
40
Eastman, Jane M.
1996 Searching for Ritual: A Contextual Study of Roasting Pits at Upper Saratown. Paper presented
at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Birmingham, AL.

Fanning, David, Thomas Hicks Wynne, John Hill Wheeler, and David Lowry Swain
1861 The Narrative of Colonel David Fanning, (a Tory in the Revolutionary War with Great
Britain;) Giving an Account of His Adventures in North Carolina, from 1775 to 1783, as
Written by Himself. Richmond, Va., Printed for private distribution only, in the first year of the
independence of the Confederate States of America. Electronic Document.
http://archive.org/details/narrativeofcolon00fann.

Feldhues, William J.
1995 Guide to Identifying and Dating Historic Glass and Ceramics. Manuscript on file,
Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie, IN.

Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH)
2009 Digital Type Collection. Electronic document. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/
histarch/gallery_types/.

Fossett, Mildred B.
1976 History of McDowell County. McDowell County American Revolution Bicentennial
Commission, Marion, NC.

Gardner, William H.
1974 The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971 through 1973 Seasons.
Occasional Paper, 1. Catholic University of America, Archaeology Laboratory, Washington
D.C.

1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (ca. 9200
to 6800 B.P.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark Wittkofski
and Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 5-52. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Courtland.

Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American
Antiquity 42(3):382–395.

2006 Evidence for Pre-Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States. In Paleoamerican Origins:
Beyond Clovis. Robson Bonnichsen and Bradley T. Lepper, eds., pp. 103–112. Texas A & M
University Press, College Station.

Griffin, James B.
1952 Culture Periods in Eastern United States. In Archaeology of the Eastern United States.
James B Griffin, ed., pp. 352–364. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156(3772):175–191.

Hantman, J. L. and M. J. Klein
1992 Middle and Late Woodland Archaeology in Piedmont Virginia. In Middle and Late
Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, pp. 137–164. Archaeological Society of Virginia
Special Publication, 29. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Courtland.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
41
Hargrove, Thomas
1998 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Cold Water Creek and Back Creek Interceptor
Project, Concord, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. Robert J. Goldstein and Associates,
Raleigh, NC.

Herbert, Joseph M.
2009 Woodland Potters and Archaeological Ceramics of the North Carolina Coast. University
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Hudson, Charles M
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Explorations of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-1568.
University of Alabama Press., Tuscaloosa.

1994 The Hernando De Soto Expedition, 1539-1543. In The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and
Europeans in the American South, 1521-1704. Charles M Hudson and Carmen Chaves Tesser,
eds., pp. 74–103. University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Jackson, L. E., F. M. Philips, K. Shimamura, and E. C. Little
1997 Cosmogenic 36C1 Dating of the Foothills Erratics Train, Alberta, Canada. Geology 125:
73–94.

Jefferson Patterson Parks and Museum (JEFPAT)
2020 Diagnostic artifacts in Maryland. Electronic document,
http://www.jefpat.org/diagnostic/Historic_Ceramic_Web_Page_Main htm.

Johnson, M. F.
1997 Additional Research at Cactus Hill: Preliminary Description of Northern Virginia Chapter–
ASV’s 1993 and 1995 Excavation. In Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus
Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. J. M. McAvoy and L. D. McAvoy, eds. DHR Research Report,
8. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.

Lally, Kelly A.
1994 The Historic Architecture of Wake County. Wake County Government, Raleigh, NC.

Lawson, John
1967 A New Voyage to Carolina. Hugh Talmage Lefler, ed. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.

Lewis, Thomas M. N. and Madeline Kneberg
1959 The Archaic Culture in the Middle South. American Antiquity 25(2):161–183.

Lindsey, Bill
2020 Bottle Glass Colors. Electronic document. www.sha.org/bottle/colors.htm.

Majewski, Teresita and Michael J. O’Brien
1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Century English and American Ceramics in
Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by
Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 257-314. Academic Press, New York.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
42
McAvoy, J. M., and L. D. McAvoy, eds.
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No 8.

McDonald, J. N.
2000 An Outline of the Pre-Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia with Special
Attention to a Bone Tool. Jeffersonia 9:1–59.

Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World
Prehistory 2:1–53.

Meltzer, D. J., D. K. Grayson, G. Ardila, et al.
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 44(1):
172–179.

Miller, Carl F.
1962 Archeology of the John H. Kerr Reservoir Basin, Roanoke River Virginia-North Carolina.
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, 182. River Basin Surveys Papers. Government
Printing Office, Washington D.C.

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

Murray, Elizabeth Reed
1983 Wake: Capital County of North Carolina: Prehistory through Centennial. Capital County
Publishing Company, Raleigh, NC.

Nöel Hume, Ivor
1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

1994 Here Lies Virginia: An Archaeologist’s View of Colonial Life and History, with a New
Afterward. University Press of Virginia, Richmond.

North Carolina Office of Archives and History (NCOAH)
2004 Natives and Newcomers: North Carolina Before 1770. Electronic Document.
http://www.waywelivednc.com/before-1770/wagon-road.htm.

North Carolina Geological Survey
1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina. Electronic document,
https://usgeologymorphology.com/NC-geologic-map-NCGS-1985.pdf.

Oliver, Billy L.
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology. Roy S. Dickens and H. Trawick Ward,
eds., pp. 195–211. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

1999 Uwharrie Lithics Conference Projectile Point Chronology Workbook. North Carolina
Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
43
O’Steen, Lisa D.
1996 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement along the Oconee Drainage. In The Paleoindian
and Early Archaic Southeast. David G Anderson

Peck, Rodney M.
1982 Indian Projectile Point Types from Virginia and the Carolinas. Privately printed.

Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Rankin, Hugh F.
1959 North Carolina in the American Revolutions. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill.

Rouse, Parke, Jr.
2001 The Great Wagon Road: From Philadelphia to the South. The Dietz Press, Richmond, VA.

Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1983 Middle and Late Archaic Settlement in the South Carolina Piedmont. Master’s Thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

South, Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

1980 The Discovery of Santa Elena. Research Manuscript Series, 165. South Carolina Institute
of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

2004 John Bartlam: Staffordshire in Carolina. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series 231. University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Stanford, Dennis
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Models, Evidence, and Future Directions. In Paleoamerican
Origins: Beyond Clovis. Robson Bonnichsen, Betty Meggers, D. Gentry Steele, and Bradley T
Lepper, eds., pp. 313–353. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.

The Columbia Dry Cell Battery
2018 Production of the Columbia Dry Cell Battery. Electronic document.
https;//www.acs.org/content/asc/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/drycellbattery.htm#
history-of-batteries.

Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., and John Knoerl
1993 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts.
National Register Bulletin 36. National Park Service. United States Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2020 Web Soil Survey. Electronic Document. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.

Fayetteville Road Development Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
44
United States Geological Survey (USGS).
1964 Lake Wheeler, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle.

2002 Lake Wheeler, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle.

Ward, H. Trawick
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The
Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeology Symposium. Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J.
Crow, eds., pp. 53–81. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.

Ward, H. Trawick, and R. P. Stephen Davis
1999 Time before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill

Whatley, John S.
2002 An Overview of Georgia Projectile Points and Selected Cutting Tools. In Early Georgia
30(1): 7-133.

Appendix A. Artifact Catalog
Artifact Catalog
Fayetteville Road Development
31WA2294Site Number
1.1 Site 1, N500 E485, 0-25 cmProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 0.5 slightly frostedClear Tablewarem1
2.1 Site 1, N500 E500, 0-20 cmProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 2.3 blue shell edged, embossed design, non-
scalloped rim (common 1840s-1860s
JEFPAT)
Shell Edged Whiteware Ceramicp2
2 1 19.8 base fragmentUndecorated Whiteware Ceramicp3
31WA2295Site Number
1.1 Site 2, N500 E515, 0-30 cmProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 1.5 bodyClear Bottle Glassm1
2 0 8.7 Brick Fragment m2
3 1 9.1 likely wire, but heavy rustNail Fragment Unidentified m3
4 1 9.3 Nail Wire (Post 1890) m4
5 1 1.2 Nail Cut (1810-1890) m5
6 1 7 oval loop with protrusion, similar
shape to sardine can opener
Metal Unidentified Form Ironm6
7 1 110.9 handle bentMetal File Ironm7
31WA2296Site Number
1.1 Site 3, N485 E455, 0-20 cmProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 2 1.6 Clear Bottle Glassm1
2 2 0.6 Clear Flat Glassm2
3 1 0.2 Light Green Flat Glassm3
2.0 Site 3, Nails from Structure 2 HouseProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 2 15.1 Nail Cut (1810-1890) m4
2 1 8.6 Nail Wire (Post 1890) m5
3.1 Site 3, N500 E425Provenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 2.1 Brown Bottle Glassm6
4.1 Site 3, N500 E440Provenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 3 20.7 window glassLight Green Flat Glassm7
2 3 3.9 "--M--" embossed on one fragmentClear Bottle Glassm8
3 1 1.2 Clear Flat Glassm9
4 1 5.5 Nail Fragment Wire (Post 1890) m10
5 9.6 Coal m11
Page 1 of 4
Artifact Catalog
5.1 Site 3, N500 E455Provenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 16.4 rim fragmentUndecorated Whiteware Ceramicp12
2 4 8.8 2 fragments have only a faint amethyst
tint
Amethyst Bottle Glassm13
3 1 2.1 Clear Bottle Glassm14
4 1 11.8 Nail Unidentified m15
6.1 Site 3, N500 E485Provenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 2.7 Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment m16
7.1 Site 3, N500 E500, 0-20 cmProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 20.1 rim fragmentDecal Porcelain Ceramicp17
2 1 1.1 Milkglass Lid Liner (Post 1869)m18
8.1 Site 3, N515 E425, 0-15 cmProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 2 Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment m19
2 2 4.7 Clear Bottle Glassm20
3 1 2.4 Milkglass Lid Liner (Post 1869)m21
9.1 Site 3, N515 E440, 0-25 cmProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 8 body fragmentBristol Glazed/Slipped Stoneware Ceramicp22
2 1 5.8 body fragmentTransfer Printed Whiteware Ceramicp23
3 1 8 Light Green Bottle Glassm24
4 1 11.9 Light Blue Bottle Glassm25
5 1 6.5 Clear Bottle Glassm26
6 2 33.6 Nail Unidentified m27
10.0 Site 3, General SurfaceProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 107.5 rim / body / base fragment, scalloped
rim with molded wavy line below lip
Mold Decorated Ironstone Ceramicp28
31WA2297Site Number
1.1 Site 4, N425 E485Provenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 0.7 Light Green Flat Glassm1
2 1 0.8 lime green, UID fragmentLight Green Bottle Glassm2
3 1 6.4 Nail Wire (Post 1890) m3
4 1 28.9 Metal Spike Ironm4
2.1 Site 4, N440 E485Provenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 0.7 bodyClear Bottle Glassm5
2 1 0.7 Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment m6
Page 2 of 4
Artifact Catalog
3.1 Site 4, N455 E485Provenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 0.7 bodyClear Bottle Glassm7
4.1 Site 4, N455 E500Provenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 0.2 body fragment with ACL (post 1934,
Lindsey 2020)
Clear Bottle Glassm8
5.1 Site 4, N470 E455Provenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 105.7 spark plug (post 1888, Miller et al.
2000)
Other Historic m9
2 1 7.7 body, blue sponge decoration (common
post 1920, JEFPAT 2020)
Bristol Glazed/Slipped Stoneware Ceramicp10
6.1 Site 4, N470 E500Provenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 0 4.4 Brick Fragment m11
2 1 1.1 bodyClear Bottle Glassm12
3 1 0.4 bodyLight Green Bottle Glassm13
4 1 3 carbon rod for zinc-carbon battery
(post 1886, The Columbia Dry Cell
Battery 2018)
Other Historic m14
7.1 Site 4, N470 E515Provenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 3 26.1 Nail Wire (Post 1890) m15
2 1 4.1 Nail Fragment Wire (Post 1890) m16
3 1 2.9 Nail Cut (1810-1890) m17
4 1 1.5 flat fragment, possible can fragmentMetal Unidentified Form Ironm18
5 1 0.3 white fragmentPlaster m19
6 3 6.1 2 body fragments, 1 UID fragmentClear Bottle Glassm20
7 1 2.4 Clear Flat Glassm21
8.1 Site 4, N485 E485, 0-25 cmProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 2 0.8 2 body fragmentsClear Bottle Glassm22
9.1 Site 4, N485 E515, 0-25 cmProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 0.9 1 body fragmentLight Green Bottle Glassm23
2 1 0.7 body fragmentClear Bottle Glassm24
3 1 0.5 scalloped rimClear Tablewarem25
10.0 Site 4, nails pulled from house beamsProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 15.8 Nail Wire (Post 1890) m26
2 3 15.3 Nail Cut (1810-1890) m27
11.1 Site 4, N500 E485, 0-25 cmProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
Page 3 of 4
Artifact Catalog
1 1 0.6 thin, dimpled surface, possible
tableware, body fragment
Clear Bottle Glassm28
12.1 Site 4, N500 E500, TR34 ST18, 0-15Provenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 0.6 fragmented, but appears facetedClear Tablewarem29
2 1 0.3 red, possile tableware?, very small
fragment
Olive Green Unidentified Glassm30
3 1 4.5 Nail Square (Common Pre 1890) m31
4 1 1.7 Nail Wire (Post 1890) m32
5 1 1.4 Nail Cut (1810-1890) m33
13.1 Site 4, N515 E500, 0-25 cmProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 2 2 Nail Fragment Unidentified m34
2 0 weighs less than 0.1gCharcoal eb35
14.1 Site 4, N530 E500, 0-20 cmProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 2 17.5 Nail Cut (1810-1890) m36
31WA2298Site Number
1.0 Site 5, N500 E500, surfaceProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 4 5.8 Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment m1
Page 4 of 4

Appendix B. Resume of Principal Investigator

Michael Keith O’Neal
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
121 East First Street
Clayton, NC 27520
Voice [phone]; Fax [phone]
[e-mail]

EDUCATION
M.A. in Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 2001.
B.A. in Anthropology, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, 1999.

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS

Register of Professional Archaeologists North Carolina Archaeological Council
Society for American Archaeology -Secretary/Treasurer 2013-2015
Southeastern Archaeological Council -Chair 2016-2018
Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists -Vice-Chair 2019-present

AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION
Ground Stone Technology
Lithic Technology
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
April 2006-Present Senior Archaeologist/Principal Investigator. Archaeological Consultants of the
Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC.

August 2004-March 2006 Archaeologist/Project Manager. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas,
Inc., Clayton, NC.

June 2002-August 2004 Archaeologist/Project Manager. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Raleigh, NC.

July 2001-May 2002 Archaeological Technician. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Raleigh, NC.

August 2000-May 2001 Archaeological Research Assistant, Department of Anthropology, University of
Arkansas, Fayetteville.

August 2000-September 2000 Archaeological Technician, Department of Anthropology, University of
Arkansas, Fayetteville.

July 2000 Archaeological Field Technician, SPEARS Inc., West Fork, Arkansas.

Cultural Resource Surveys (Phase I) and Archaeological Site Testing (Phase II)

• Utility Corridors for Duke Energy (Charlotte), FPS (Charlotte), SCE&G (Columbia), and others – serving
in all capacities including Principal Investigator

• Transportation Corridors for South Carolina Department of Transportation (Columbia) – serving as
archaeological technician

• Development Tracts for numerous independent developers, engineering firms, and local and county
governments throughout North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, and federal agencies including the
USFS (South Carolina) and the USACE (Wilmington District) – serving in all capacities including Principal
Investigator

Archaeological Data Recovery (Phase III) - Representative Examples

• Prehistoric Camp (38HR496) and 19th Century Sawmill (38HR490) in Horry County, South Carolina –
serving as Archaeological Technician

• Civil War encampment (44IW0204) for Isle of Wight County, Isle of Wight, VA – serving as Field Director

• Prehistoric village (31ON1578) and late 18 th/early 19th century plantation (31ON1582) for R.A.
Management, Charlotte, NC – serving as Field Director/Crew Chief

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Duke Energy - Lake James and Lake Norman, North Carolina- serving as Field Director/Crew Chief

PUBLICATIONS AND PAPERS PRESENTED
2008 Michael Keith O’Neal
Putting the Tar in Tar Heels: The Naval Stores Industry and Plantations in North Carolina . Paper presented at the
65th annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina.

2005 Michael K. O’Neal and Dawn Reid
Who Says There Aren’t Rocks in the Coastal Plain: Local Lithic Resources and Bipolar Reduction Strategies in Horry
County, South Carolina. Paper presented at the 62nd annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Columbia, South
Carolina.

1999 Cheryl Claassen, Michael O’Neal, Tamara Wilson, Elizabeth Arnold, and Brent Lansdell
Hearing and Reading Southeastern Archaeology: A Review of the Annual Meetings of SEAC from 1983 through 1995
and the Journal Southeastern Archaeology. Southeastern Archaeology 18(2): 85-97.

1998 Cheryl Claassen, Michael O’Neal, Tamara Wilson, Elizabeth Arnold, and Brent Lansdell
Hearing and Reading Southeastern Archaeology: A Review of the Annual Meetings of SEAC from 1983 through 1995
and the Journal Southeastern Archaeo logy. Paper presented at the 55th annual Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, Greenville, South Carolina.

** A full listing of projects and authored reports available upon request