20200402 Ver 2_Line 99 Cultural Resource Report_20210401

Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520
PREPARED FOR:
Piedmont Natural Gas
4720 Piedmont Row Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210

PREPARED BY:
S&ME, Inc.
134 Suber Road
Columbia, SC 29210
November 2020

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina

Prepared for:

Piedmont Natural Gas
4720 Piedmont Row Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210

Prepared by:

S&ME, Inc.
134 Suber Road
Columbia, South Carolina 29210

S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

_______________________________
Kimberly Nagle, M.S., RPA
Principal Investigator

Authors: Kimberly Nagle and Heather Carpini, M.A.

November 2020

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 i
Management Summary
On behalf of Piedmont Natural Gas (PNG), S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) has completed an archaeological survey for the
proposed Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project in Brunswick County, North Carolina. The northern end of the
alignment is located at an existing pump station north of Interstate 140 and west of Mt. Misery Road NE, roughly
four miles northwest of the city center of Leland, North Carolina. The alignment travels generally south and
southeast, approximately 27 miles, to the southern end of the pipeline corridor, which is located at an existing
pump station east of E. Moore Street, roughly two mile northeast of city center of Southport, North Carolina
(Figures 1.1 through 1.8).

In response to a scoping letter submitted by S&ME to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO), the SHPO requested and archaeological survey of the project corridor and consultation over the field
methods used considering they did not expect the 27-mile length to be systematically surveyed; the project was
determined to have no effect on historic structures (Letter from SHPO to Kimberly Nagle, dated August 14, 2020,
Appendix A). In email correspondence between Ms. Nagle and Stephen Atkinson with SHPO, dated September 14,
2020, the proposed field methodology was accepted:

 Complete site file and historic map research to determine what has been previously recorded along
the proposed alignment or what was depicted on the maps in the vicinity of the corridor and
systematically shovel test those locations.
 Review the soil types recorded along the proposed corridor and systematically shovel test the well-
drained and moderately well-drained areas.
 Examine the landforms along the proposed corridor and shovel test the area’s leading up to
waterways, avoiding areas of hydric soil, delineated wetland, and standing water.
 Document disturbances and/or current conditions in the areas discussed above that prohibit shovel
tests from being excavated.
The following work was conducted in response to the SHPO letter and the presented field methods, and was
carried out in general accordance with the agreed-upon scope, terms, and conditions presented in S&ME
Proposal No. 73-2000094, dated June 4, 2020. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for direct effects for the
proposed undertaking consists of a 30 feet of easement adjacent to the existing pipeline easement; indirect
effects were not assessed, as the SHPO letter indicated there would be no effect on aboveground historic
resources. Based on the accepted approach to fieldwork outlined above 7.6 miles of proposed pipeline corridor
was not surveyed due to no new acquisition or no permission; 12.6 miles was not surveyed due to disturbances,
standing water, and/or poorly drained soils; 6.9 miles of pipeline corridor was systematically shovel tested.
Fieldwork for the project was conducted from October 5 through October 7, 2020; specifically, three people
worked for three days on the project. This work included investigating 13 noncontiguous areas and excavating
303 shovel tests.

As a result of the investigations, five new archaeological sites (31BW854 through 31BW858) were identified and an
attempt was made to re-locate previously recorded archaeological site 31BW529, Swain Cemetery (Figures 1.4, 1.5,
and 1.8; Table 1.1). Sites 31BW854 through 31BW858 are recommended not eligible for inclusion in the National
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 ii
Register of Historic Places (NRHP). S&ME was unable to re-locate site 31BW529 and feel the site might be mis
plotted based on the directions and distances given on the 1980 site form.

Previously recorded sites 31BW559 and 31BW755 are also located along the alignment. Archaeological site
31BW559 is a prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter that was identified in 1992; Phase I survey and Phase II testing
resulted in the determination of the site as not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. No additional work at the site is
recommended for the current investigations. Archaeological site 31BW755 is a prehistoric short-term habitation
site that was determined to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP in 2009. The archaeological site is located along a
portion of the alignment where no access was granted and no additional easement acquisition will occur. As long
as no ground disturbing activity occurs in and around the archaeological site, the area is not used for staging of
equipment, and the project plans do not change, no additional work is necessary at site 31BW755.

It is the opinion of S&ME that no significant resources will be affected by the alignment as it is currently proposed.
As such, S&ME recommends that no additional cultural resource investigations are necessary at this time.
However, if the alignment changes additional cultural resource investigations and consultation with the SHPO may
be necessary.

Table 1.1. Archaeological sites re-located or identified during the current investigations.
Site Number Description Eligibility Recommendations
31BW529 Swain Cemetery; 19th century family cemetery Not Assessed N/A
31BW559 Prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter Not Eligible No Further Work
31BW755 Prehistoric short-term habitation site Eligible Avoidance
31BW854 19th/20th century historic scatter Not Eligible No Further Work
31BW855 20th century historic scatter Not Eligible No Further Work
31BW856 20th century historic scatter Not Eligible No Further Work
31BW857 19th/20th century historic scatter Not Eligible No Further Work
31BW858 19th/20th century historic scatter Not Eligible No Further Work

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
³
7335-20-081
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAW N BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
0 2.51.25 MILES
Over view MapLine 99 Easement Acquisition Project 1.1
Legend Proposed Project CorridorESRI World Street Map.
KJN
11/6/2020Drawing Path: T:\Projects\2020\Energy\7335 - Charlotte\7335-20-081 Line 99\Cultural Resources\GIS\Figures\Figure 1-1 overview.mxd plotted by KNagle 11-06-2020Brunswick County, North Carolina
1:177,167
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
³
7335-20-081
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAW N BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
0 0.50.25 MILES
Top ogr ap hic MapLine 99 Easement Acquistion Project 1.2
Legend Proposed Project CorridorLeland and Winnabow 7.5' USGStopographic quadrangles.
KJN
11/6/2020Drawing Path: T:\Projects\2020\Energy\7335 - Charlotte\7335-20-081 Line 99\Cultural Resources\GIS\Figures\Figure 1-2 topo.mxd plotted by KNagle 11-06-2020Brunswick County, North Carolina
1:24,000
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
³
7335-20-081
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAW N BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
0 0.50.25 MILES
Top ogr ap hic MapLine 99 Easement Acquistion Project 1.3
Legend Proposed Project CorridorWinnabow 7.5' USGS topographicquadrangle.
KJN
11/6/2020Drawing Path: T:\Projects\2020\Energy\7335 - Charlotte\7335-20-081 Line 99\Cultural Resources\GIS\Figures\Figure 1-3 topo.mxd plotted by KNagle 11-06-2020Brunswick County, North Carolina
1:24,000
31BW854
31BW855
31BW755
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
³
7335-20-081
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAW N BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
0 0.50.25 MILES
Top ogr ap hic MapLine 99 Easement Acquistion Project 1.4
Legend Proposed Project CorridorPreviously Recorded Archaeological SiteNewly Recorded Archaeological SiteWinnabow 7.5' USGS topographicquadrangle.
KJN
11/6/2020Drawing Path: T:\Projects\2020\Energy\7335 - Charlotte\7335-20-081 Line 99\Cultural Resources\GIS\Figures\Figure 1-4 topo.mxd plotted by KNagle 11-06-2020Brunswick County, North Carolina
1:24,000
31BW856
31BW857
31BW858
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
³
7335-20-081
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAW N BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
0 0.50.25 MILES
Top ogr ap hic MapLine 99 Easement Acquistion Project 1.5
Legend Proposed Project CorridorNewly Recorded Archaeological SiteFunston and Winnabow 7.5' USGStopographic quadrangles.
KJN
11/6/2020Drawing Path: T:\Projects\2020\Energy\7335 - Charlotte\7335-20-081 Line 99\Cultural Resources\GIS\Figures\Figure 1-5 topo.mxd plotted by KNagle 11-06-2020Brunswick County, North Carolina
1:24,000
31BW559
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
³
7335-20-081
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAW N BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
0 0.50.25 MILES
Top ogr ap hic MapLine 99 Easement Acquistion Project 1.6
Legend Proposed Project CorridorPreviously Recorded Archaeological SiteFunston 7.5' USGS topographicquadrangle.
KJN
11/6/2020Drawing Path: T:\Projects\2020\Energy\7335 - Charlotte\7335-20-081 Line 99\Cultural Resources\GIS\Figures\Figure 1-6 topo.mxd plotted by KNagle 11-06-2020Brunswick County, North Carolina
1:24,000
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
³
7335-20-081
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAW N BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
0 0.50.25 MILES
Top ogr ap hic MapLine 99 Easement Acquistion Project 1.7
Legend Proposed Project CorridorFunston and Southport7.5' USGStopographic quadrangles.
KJN
11/6/2020Drawing Path: T:\Projects\2020\Energy\7335 - Charlotte\7335-20-081 Line 99\Cultural Resources\GIS\Figures\Figure 1-7 topo.mxd plotted by KNagle 11-06-2020Brunswick County, North Carolina
1:24,000
31BW529
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
³
7335-20-081
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAW N BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
0 0.650.325 MILES
Top ogr ap hic MapLine 99 Easement Acquistion Project 1.8
Legend Proposed Project CorridorPreviously Recorded Archaeological SiteKure Beach and Southport 7.5'USGS topographic quadrangles.
KJN
11/6/2020Drawing Path: T:\Projects\2020\Energy\7335 - Charlotte\7335-20-081 Line 99\Cultural Resources\GIS\Figures\Figure 1-8 topo.mxd plotted by KNagle 11-06-2020Brunswick County, North Carolina
1:30,000
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 xi
Table of Contents
Management Summary .............................................................................................................. i
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................ xi
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Location ........................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Geology and Topography ............................................................................................................. 2
2.3 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................................... 2
2.4 Climate and Vegetation ................................................................................................................. 2
2.5 Soils .................................................................................................................................................. 2
3.0 Cultural Context ................................................................................................................ 8
3.1 Prehistoric Context ......................................................................................................................... 8
3.1.1 Paleoindian Period (ca. 13,000–10,000 B.P.) ..................................................................................... 8
3.1.2 Archaic Period (ca. 10,000–3000 B.P.) .............................................................................................. 9
3.1.3 Woodland Period (ca. 3000–350 B.P.) ............................................................................................. 12
3.2 Historic Context ............................................................................................................................ 14
3.2.1 Exploration and Settlement ............................................................................................................. 15
3.2.2 Port Cities ....................................................................................................................................... 17
3.2.2.1 Brunswick Town ........................................................................................................................... 17
3.2.2.2 Wilmington ................................................................................................................................... 18
3.2.3 Antebellum Period........................................................................................................................... 20
3.2.4 Naval Stores Industry ..................................................................................................................... 21
3.2.5 Labor ................................................................................................................................................ 23
3.2.6 The Civil War and Post War Era .................................................................................................... 24
3.3 Previously Recorded Sites in the Vicinity of Project Area ...................................................... 25
4.0 Methods ............................................................................................................................ 51
4.1 Archaeological Field Methods .................................................................................................... 51
4.2 Laboratory Methods ..................................................................................................................... 51
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 xii
4.3 National Register Eligibility Assessment .................................................................................. 57
5.0 Results ............................................................................................................................... 58
5.1 Section 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 58
5.2 Section 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 58
5.2.1 Site 31BW854 ................................................................................................................................. 60
5.2.2 Site 31BW855 ................................................................................................................................. 63
5.3 Section 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 66
5.3.1 Site 31BW856 ................................................................................................................................. 66
5.3.2 Site 31BW857 ................................................................................................................................. 69
5.3.3 Site 31BW858 ................................................................................................................................. 69
5.4 Section 4 ......................................................................................................................................... 74
5.5 Section 5 ......................................................................................................................................... 74
6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 80
7.0 References Cited .............................................................................................................. 82
8.0 Appendix A – SHPO Correspondence ........................................................................ 91
9.0 Appendix B – Artifact Catalog ...................................................................................... 92

List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Overall view of the proposed pipeline route. .................................................................................. iii
Figures 1.2 through 1.8. Topographic maps showing proposed pipeline route. ........................................... iv
Figure 2.1. Vicinity of northern end of pipeline corridor, facing west. ............................................................. 3
Figure 2.2. Typical fallow field along pipeline corridor, facing south. ............................................................. 3
Figure 2.3. Typical wooded along pipeline corridor, facing north. ................................................................... 4
Figure 2.4. Typical pasture and roadway crossing along pipeline corridor, facing south. ............................ 4
Figure 2.5. Typical railroad, dirt roadway, and vegetation along project corridor, facing north. ................. 5
Figure 2.6. Area of standing water along project corridor, facing south. ......................................................... 5
Figure 2.7. Typical vegetation, transmission line, and pond along project corridor, facing southeast. ....... 6
Figure 2.8. Portion of pipeline corridor in developed area, facing northeast. .................................................. 6
Figure 3.1 through 3.4. Topographic maps showing the results of background research. ........................... 28
Figure 3.5. Collett map (1770) of North Carolina, showing approximate project area. ................................ 33
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 xiii
Figure 3.6. Price-Strother Map (1808) of North Carolina, showing approximate project area. ................... 34
Figure 3.7. MacRae-Brazier Map (1833) of North Carolina, showing approximate project area. ................ 35
Figure 3.8. Kerr-Cain Map (1882), showing vicinity of the project area. ......................................................... 36
Figure 3.9. Railroad map of North Carolina, showing Brunswick County (Brown 1900). ........................... 37
Figure 3.10. Smith Map (1910), showing vicinity of the project area. .............................................................. 38
Figure 3.11 . USDA soil survey map of Brunswick County (1937), showing vicinity of the project area. . 39
Figure 3.12. NCDOT highway map of Brunswick County (1938), showing vicinity of the project area. ... 40
Figure 3.13. NCDOT highway map of Brunswick County (1953), showing vicinity of the project area. ... 41
Figure 3.14. USGS Snow Marsh topographic map (1946), showing vicinity of the project area. ................ 41
Figure 3.15. USGS Southport topographic map (1946), showing vicinity of the project area. ....................... 42
Figure 3.16. USGS Acme topographic map (1954), showing vicinity of the project area............................... 43
Figure 3.17. Portion of the USGS Funston topographic map (1962), showing project area. ......................... 44
Figure 3.18. Portion of the USGS Funston topographic map (1962), showing project area. ......................... 45
Figure 3.19. Portion of the USGS Winnabow topographic map (1962), showing project area. ..................... 46
Figure 3.20. Portion of the USGS Winnabow topographic map (1962), showing project area. ..................... 47
Figure 3.21. NCDOT highway map of Brunswick County (1968), showing vicinity of the project area. ... 48
Figure 3.22. USGS 7.5-minute Kure Beach topographic quadrangle (1980), showing project area............... 48
Figure 3.23. USGS 7.5-minute Leland topographic quadrangle (1984), showing project area. ..................... 49
Figure 3.24. USGS 7.5-minute Southport topographic quadrangle (1990), showing project area. ................ 50
Figures 4.1 and 4.5. Aerial maps showing field survey methods used along the pipeline corridor. .......... 52
Figure 5.1. Typical soil profile with no intact soil horizon. ............................................................................... 59
Figure 5.2. Typical soil profile where subsoil was not encountered. ............................................................... 59
Figure 5.3. Typical soil profile where wet soils were encountered. ................................................................. 60
Figure 5.4. Site map for 31BW854. ........................................................................................................................ 61
Figure 5.5. Overview of site 31BW854, facing east. ............................................................................................ 62
Figure 5.6. Typical soil profile at site 31BW854. ................................................................................................. 62
Figure 5.7. Site map for 31BW855. ........................................................................................................................ 64
Figure 5.8. Overview of site 31BW855, facing north. ......................................................................................... 65
Figure 5.9. Typical soil profile at site 31BW855. ................................................................................................. 65
Figure 5.10. Site map for 31BW856. ...................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 5.11. Overview of site 31BW856, facing south. ....................................................................................... 68
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 xiv
Figure 5.12. Typical soil profile at site 31BW856. ............................................................................................... 68
Figure 5.13. Site map for 31BW857. ...................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 5.14. Overview of site 31BW857, facing east. .......................................................................................... 71
Figure 5.15. Typical soil profile at site 31BW857. ............................................................................................... 71
Figure 5.16. Portion of the 1962 Funston topographic map showing site and structure in the vicinity. ..... 72
Figure 5.17. Overview of site 31BW858, facing east. .......................................................................................... 72
Figure 5.18. Site map for 31BW858. ...................................................................................................................... 73
Figure 5.19. Typical soil profile at site 31BW858. ............................................................................................... 75
Figure 5.20. Portion of the 1962 Funston topographic map showing site and structure in the vicinity. ..... 75
Figure 5.21. Buried natural gas pipeline corridor, slope leading to railroad track to right, and
transmission line corridor straight ahead within the recorded boundaries of site 31BW529 ...................... 76
Figure 5.22. Delineated wetland within the recorded boundaries of site 31BW529, facing southwest. ..... 77
Figure 5.23. Topographic map showing recorded site 31BW529 and a likely location for the site. ............ 78
Figure 5.24. Aerial map showing recorded location site 31BW529 and a likely location for the site. ......... 79

List of Tables
Table 1.1. Archaeological sites re-located or identified during the current investigations. ........................... ii
Table 2.1. Soil types and characteristics found along the pipeline corridor. .................................................... 7
Table 3.1. Cultural Resources within a one-mile buffer of the proposed pipeline corridor. ........................ 26

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 1
1.0 Introduction
On behalf of PNG, S&ME has completed an archaeological survey for the proposed Line 99 Easement Acquisition
Project in Brunswick County, North Carolina. The northern end of the alignment is located at an existing pump
station north of Interstate 140 and west of Mt. Misery Road NE, roughly four miles northwest of the city center of
Leland, North Carolina. The alignment travels generally south and southeast, approximately 27 miles, to the
southern end of the pipeline corridor, which is located at an existing pump station east of E. Moore Street, roughly
two mile northeast of city center of Southport, North Carolina (Figures 1.1 through 1.8).

In response to a scoping letter submitted by S&ME to the SHPO, the SHPO requested and archaeological survey
of the project corridor and consultation over the field methods used considering they did not expect the 27-mile
length to be systematically surveyed; the project was determined to have no effect on historic structures (Letter
from SHPO to Kimberly Nagle, dated August 14, 2020, Appendix A). In email correspondence between Ms. Nagle
and Stephen Atkinson with SHPO, dated September 14, 2020, the proposed field methodology was accepted:

 Complete site file and historic map research to determine what has been previously recorded along
the proposed alignment or what was depicted on the maps in the vicinity of the corridor and
systematically shovel test those locations.
 Review the soil types recorded along the proposed corridor and systematically shovel test the well-
drained and moderately well-drained areas.
 Examine the landforms along the proposed corridor and shovel test the area’s leading up to
waterways, avoiding areas of hydric soil, delineated wetland, and standing water.
 Document disturbances and/or current conditions in the areas discussed above that prohibit shovel
tests from being excavated.
The following work was conducted in response to the SHPO letter and the presented field methods, and was
carried out in general accordance with the agreed-upon scope, terms, and conditions presented in S&ME
Proposal No. 73-2000094, dated June 4, 2020. The APE for direct effects for the proposed undertaking consists of
a 30 feet of easement adjacent to the existing pipeline easement; indirect effects were not assessed, as the SHPO
letter indicated there would be no effect on aboveground historic resources. Fieldwork for the project was
conducted from October 5 through October 7, 2020; specifically, three people worked for three days on the
project. This work included investigating 13 noncontiguous areas and excavating 303 shovel tests.

Kimberly Nagle, M.S., RPA, served as Principal Investigator and was assisted in the field by Crew Chiefs Paul
Connell, B.A. and Aileen Kelly, B.A. Graphics were created by Ms. Nagle and Senior Architectural Historian Heather
Carpini, M.A. This report has been prepared in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended; the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1979; procedures for the Protection of Historic
Properties (36 CFR Part 800); and 36 CFR Parts 60 through 79, as appropriate. Field investigations and the
technical report meet the qualifications specified in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for
Archaeology and Historic Preservation (Federal Register [FR] 48:44716-44742), and the Guidelines for Preparation
of Archaeological Survey Reports in North Carolina (North Carolina Office of State Archaeology 2018). Supervisory
personnel meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards set forth in 36 CFR Part 61.
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 2
2.0 Environmental Setting
2.1 Location
The northern end of the alignment is located at an existing pump station north of Interstate 140 and west of Mt.
Misery Road NE, roughly four miles northwest of the city center of Leland, North Carolina. The alignment travels
generally south and southeast, approximately 27 miles, to the southern end of the pipeline corridor, which is
located at an existing pump station east of E. Moore Street, roughly two mile northeast of city center of Southport,
North Carolina. The proposed ROW is located in wooded and fallow areas, pasture, and agricultural fields; the
alignment runs parallel an existing pipeline corridor, as well as adjacent to transmission line corridors and railroad
tracks, and crosses numerous roadways and streams (Figures 2.1–2.8).
2.2 Geology and Topography
The proposed pipeline is located entirely within the Lower Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The area was
once part of the Pleistocene sea floor (Coe et al. 1980) and soils were formed from Coastal Plain and stream
sediments. Along the project alignment, elevations range from approximately 5 ft above mean sea level (AMSL),
along the Cape Fear River at the southern end of the alignment, to 55 ft AMSL, near Pretty Pond in the southcentral
portion of the pipeline corridor (Figures 1.6 and 1.8).
2.3 Hydrology
The pipeline corridor is contained within the Cape Fear River drainage basin. The Cape Fear River is over 200 miles
in length and is formed from the confluence of the Deep and Haw Rivers, and later the Black River. The Cape Fear
empties into the Atlantic Ocean approximately 25 miles south of Wilmington.

The project corridor crosses many streams, creeks, and wetlands; the named waterways include Banton Branch,
Town Creek, Allen Creek, Orton Creek, and White Spring Creek. The remaining waterways are unnamed tributaries,
swamps, ponds, and manmade drainage ditches.
2.4 Climate and Vegetation
The climate in Brunswick County is subtropical. Summers are hot and humid, with cooling breezes coming in from
the coast. The average daily high is about 86° F in the summer. The growing season lasts approximately 202 days
from early April through late October, and approximately 60 percent of the yearly precipitation of 32 inches occurs
during this period. Winters tend to be short and moderately cold, with average daily lows around 37° F. Snowfall is
rare. Vegetation along the pipeline corridor varies and is a mix of wooded areas, fallow field, and agricultural field
(Figures 2.1 through 2.8).
2.5 Soils
There are 24 specific soil types found along the pipeline corridor; their descriptions can be found in Table 2.1
(United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] Web Soil Survey, Accessed October 1, 2020).

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 3
Figure 2.1. Vicinity of northern end of pipeline corridor, facing west.

Figure 2.2. Typical fallow field along pipeline corridor, facing south.
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 4
Figure 2.3. Typical wooded along pipeline corridor, facing north.

Figure 2.4. Typical pasture and roadway crossing along pipeline corridor, facing south.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 5
Figure 2.5. Typical railroad, dirt roadway, and vegetation along project corridor, facing north.

Figure 2.6. Area of standing water along project corridor, facing south.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 6
Figure 2.7. Typical vegetation, transmission line, and pond along project corridor, facing southeast.

Figure 2.8. Portion of pipeline corridor in developed area, facing northeast.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 7
Table 2.1. Soil types and characteristics found along the pipeline corridor.
Soil Name Type Drainage Location Slope
Baymeade Fine sand Well drained Ridges 1–6%
Baymeade and Marvyn Well drained Ridges 6–12%
Blanton Fine sand Moderately well drained Flats 0–5%
Bragg Fine sandy loam Well drained Ridges 2–6%
Dorovan Muck Very poorly drained Floodplains
Foreston Loamy fine sand Moderately well drained Interstream divides
Goldsboro Fine sandy loam Moderately well drained Interstream divides 0–2%
Grifton Fine sandy loam Poorly drained Depressions
Kureb Fine sand Excessively drained Rim of Carolina Bay 1–8%
Longshoal Muck Very poorly drained Tidal marsh
Leon Fine sand Poorly drained Flats
Lynchburg Fine sandy loam Somewhat poorly drained Marine terrace 0–2%
Mandarin Fine sand Somewhat poorly drained Flats
Muckalee Loam Poorly drained Floodplains
Murville Mucky fine sand Very poorly drained Depressions
Newhan Fine sand Excessively drained Dune slacks 2–30%
Norfolk Loamy sand Well drained Interstream divides 2–6%
Onslow Fine sandy loam Moderately well drained Interstream divides
Pantego Mucky loam Very poorly drained Flats
Rains Fine sandy loam Poorly drained Carolina Bays 0–2%
Torhunta Mucky fine sandy loam Very poorly drained Flats
Wando Fine sand Well drained Ridges 0–6%
Woodington Fine sandy loam Poorly drained Flats
Yaupon Silty clay loam Somewhat poorly drained Hills 0–3%

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 8
3.0 Cultural Context
S&ME conducted cultural background research in order to assess the potential for significant cultural resources
and to formulate our expectations regarding the nature and types of cultural resources we were likely to
encounter. While this text only provides a general prehistory and history of the region, we refer the reader to the
original sources for additional information.
3.1 Prehistoric Context
There has been much debate over when humans first arrived in the New World. The traditional interpretation is
that humans first arrived in North America via the Bering land bridge that connected Alaska to Siberia at the end
of the Pleistocene, approximately 13,500 years ago. From Alaska and northern Canada, these migrants may have
moved southward through an ice-free corridor separating the Cordilleran and Laurentide ice sheets to eventually
settle in North and South America.

This interpretation has been called into question, with several sites providing possible evidence for earlier (Pre-
Clovis) occupations. These sites include Monte Verde in southern Chile (Dillehay 1989; Meltzer et al. 1997),
Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania (Adovasio et al. 1979, 1980a, 1980b, 1990), the Cactus Hill (McAvoy and
McAvoy 1997) and Saltville (McDonald 2000) sites in Virginia, and the Topper site in Allendale County, South
Carolina (Goodyear 2005). Despite the growing number of sites attributed to pre-Clovis occupations, there are still
significant problems surrounding each site that preclude their widespread acceptance.
3.1.1 Paleoindian Period (ca. 13,000–10,000 B.P.)
The Paleoindian Period can be tentatively dated from about 13,000–10,000 B.P. At the beginning of this period,
most of the North Carolina Coastal Plain was cool and dry, with boreal tundra and spruce/pine forests covering
most of the state. By the end of this period, the climate ameliorated, rainfall was more frequent, and the state was
covered with deciduous forests that contained beech, elm, hickory, oak, and birch (Anderson et al. 1996; Anderson
and O’Steen 1992; Goodyear et al. 1989). It was also during this time that the large megafauna, including
mammoth, mastodon, and giant sloth became extinct. It is still not clear whether humans or the climate played a
more prevalent role in the extinction of these large animals, although it is likely that both contributed to their
extinction. Another hypothesis is that a meteor impact may have contributed to the extinction of the megafauna
and Clovis populations (Firestone et al. 2007); however, this idea is being hotly debated and there is mounting
evidence against it (Fiedel 2008).

Unfortunately, most of our knowledge about the Paleoindian Period in the Southeast is based on surface
collections and inference rather than controlled subsurface excavations. As a result of these limitations, settlement
models describing the Paleoindian Period of the North Carolina Coastal Plain rely on broad regional models that
more generally describe cultural patterns throughout the Southeast and the Mid-Atlantic regions. The limited
information we do have, however, suggests that the earliest Native Americans had a mixed subsistence strategy
based on the hunting (or scavenging) of the megafauna and smaller game combined with the foraging of wild
plant foods. Groups are thought to have consisted of small, highly mobile bands comprised of several nuclear
and/or extended families. Settlements appear to be concentrated along major rivers near the Fall Line and in the
Coastal Plain, although it is almost certain that many additional sites along the Coast have been inundated by the
rise of sea level that has occurred since that time (Anderson et al. 1992; Anderson and Sassaman 1996).
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 9
Paleoindian artifact assemblages typically consist of diagnostic lanceolate projectile points, scrapers, gravers,
unifacial and bifacial knives, and burins. Projectile point types include fluted and unfluted forms, such as Clovis,
Cumberland, Suwanee, Quad, Dalton, and Hardaway (Anderson et al. 1992; Justice 1987:17–43). Tools were
typically well-made and manufactured from high-grade, cryptocrystalline rock such as Coastal Plain and Ridge and
Valley chert, as well as Piedmont metavolcanics such as rhyolite (Goodyear 1979; Custer and Wallance 1982).
Paleoindians traveled long distances to acquire these desirable raw materials, and it is likely that particularly
favored quarries were included in seasonal rounds, allowing them to replenish their stock of raw material on an
annual basis.

The North Carolina Coastal Plain is largely missing the high-quality cryptocrystalline resources that were the
preferred choice of Paleoindians for making tools. The only sources for cryptocrystalline materials within the
Coastal Plain are cobbles contained within alluvial deposits originating from the Piedmont. Phelps (1983) reported
that Paleoindian artifacts within the Coastal Plain were most commonly produced from materials that were locally
available such as quartz, quartzite, and slate (Klein and Herbert 1994). These lesser-quality, locally available
materials differ from the high quality lithic materials that are typically associated with most Paleoindian sites.
3.1.2 Archaic Period (ca. 10,000–3000 B.P.)
Major environmental transformations at the end of the Pleistocene led to changes in human settlement patterns,
subsistence strategies, and technology. As the climate warmed and the megafauna became extinct, population
size increased; there was a simultaneous decrease in territory size and settlement range.

The Archaic Period is conventionally divided into three subperiods: Early Archaic (10,000–8000 B.P.), Middle
Archaic (8000–5000 B.P.), and Late Archaic (5000–3000 B.P.). Each of these subperiods is lengthy, and the
inhabitants were successful in adapting contemporary technology to prevailing climatic and environmental
conditions of the time. Settlement patterns reflected a fairly high degree of mobility, and the ability to make use
of seasonally available resources in the changing environment across different areas of the Southeast. People
relied on large animals and wild plant resources for food. Group size gradually increased during this period,
culminating in a fairly complex and populous society by the Late Archaic.
Early Archaic (ca. 10,000–8000 B.P.)
Diagnostic artifacts of the Early Archaic include a variety of side- and corner-notched projectile point types such as
Dalton, Hardaway, Palmer, Kirk, and Taylor. These are followed in time by bifurcated point types such as
MacCorkle, Kanawha, Lecroy, and St. Albans. In the North Carolina Coastal Plain, Palmer and Kirk corner-notched
points are well-represented (Ward and Davis 1999), whereas bifurcated points are not. Other tools of this
subperiod include hafted and non-hafted unifacial scrapers, perforators, drills, gravers, hammerstones, grinding
stones, and choppers (Coe 1964; Daniels 1992:74). There is also a greater reliance on local lithic sources than there
was during the preceding Paleoindian Period and tools are sometimes made of lesser quality materials (Goodyear
et al. 1989:38–39).

During the Early Archaic there appears to be a gradual but steady increase in population and a shift in settlement
patterns. In the Carolinas and Georgia, several models of Early Archaic social organization and settlement have
been proposed (Anderson et al. 1992; Anderson and Hanson 1988). In general, these models hypothesize that
Early Archaic societies were organized into small, band-sized communities of 50 to 150 people whose main
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 10
territory surrounded a portion of a major river, such as the Cape Fear (Anderson and Hanson 1988: Figure 3).
Campsites during this period are typically widely distributed and are found near water.

During the early spring, groups would forage in the lower Coastal Plain and then move inland to temporary camps
in the Piedmont and Mountains during the summer and early fall. In the late fall and winter, these bands would
aggregate into larger, logistically provisioned base camps in the upper Coastal Plain near the Fall Line. It is
believed that group movements would have been circumscribed within major river drainages, and that movement
across drainages into other band territories was limited. At a higher level of organization, bands were believed to
be organized into larger “macrobands” of 500 to 1500 people that periodically gathered at strategic locations near
the Fall Line for communal food harvesting, rituals, and the exchange of mates and information.

Daniels (1998, 2001) has argued that access to high quality lithic material has been an under-appreciated
component of Early Archaic settlement strategies. He presents compelling evidence that Archaic bands moved
between major drainages just as easily as they moved along them. In contrast to earlier models, Daniels suggests
that group movements were tethered to stone quarries rather than to specific drainages. Regardless of which
model is correct, settlement patterns generally reflected a relatively high degree of mobility, making use of a
wide-variety of resources including nuts, migratory water fowl, and white-tailed deer.
Middle Archaic (ca. 8000–5000 B.P.)
The Middle Archaic subperiod (ca. 8000–5000 B.P.) coincides with the start of the Altithermal (a.k.a. Hypsithermal),
a significant warming trend where pine forests replaced the oak-hickory dominated forests of the preceding
periods. By approximately 6000 B.P., extensive riverine and coastal swamps were formed by rising water tables as
the sea level approached modern elevations (Whitehead 1972). It was during this subperiod river and estuary
systems took their modern configurations. The relationship between climatic, environmental, and cultural changes
during this subperiod, however, is still poorly understood (Sassaman and Anderson 1995:5-14).

In contrast to both the Early and Late Archaic, there seems to be a wider geographic distribution and a higher
density of Middle Archaic sites in the region, suggesting that a mid-Holocene population increase may have taken
place. This population increase should be viewed with caution; however, as it is primarily based on the distribution
of Morrow Mountain points. Morphological correlates of Morrow Mountain points (e.g., Rossville, [Ritchie 1961]),
have been found in other regions dating to the Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods. Thus, Morrow
Mountain-like points could span a much longer period than is currently believed. Anderson (1996:164) also argues
against a substantial population increase, stating “site concentrations in Georgia and the Carolinas are…unlikely to
represent the presence of dense populations, but instead reflect the remains of small, organizationally
uncomplicated groups ranging widely over the landscape.” Regardless of whether there was a population increase,
small, mobile hunting and gathering bands probably still formed the core social and economic unit in North
Carolina.

Large Middle Archaic sites tend to occur along rivers, while numerous, small upland lithic scatters dot the
interriverine landscape. Subsistence was likely based on a wide variety of resources such as white-tailed deer,
squirrel, nuts, fish, and migratory birds, although direct evidence of Middle Archaic subsistence is generally
lacking. Unlike the subsequent Late Archaic, shellfish do not seem to have been an important part of the Middle
Archaic diet.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 11
Middle Archaic tools tend to be expediently manufactured and have a more rudimentary appearance than those
found during the preceding Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods. They are also made predominately of locally
available raw materials (Blanton and Sassaman 1989). Diagnostic projectile points of the Middle Archaic include
stemmed points such as Stanly and Morrow Mountain. There are also several transitional Middle Archaic-Late
Archaic forms such as Guilford, Brier Creek and Allendale/MALA (an acronym for Middle Archaic Late Archaic).
Ground stone tools such as axes, adzes, grinding stones, and atlatl weights also become more common during the
Middle Archaic.
Late Archaic (ca. 5000–3000 B.P.)
The Late Archaic subperiod, which lasted from about 5000–3000 B.P., saw a number of important developments in
the region, including increasing sedentism, the introduction of soapstone and ceramic vessel technology, the use
of pit storage, and possibly the beginnings of small-scale horticulture. In the Late Archaic subperiod site density
began decreasing along small tributary streams as Late Archaic groups began exploiting new site locations along
stabilized shorelines and major rivers (Klein and Herbert 1994; Ward and Davis 1999). Locally, Late Archaic sites
tend to be located on bluffs overlooking the Cape Fear River and on hills adjacent to swamps along the floodplain
(Klein and Herbert 1994).

On the coast, Late Archaic sites are found both with and without significant amounts of shell. Sites with shell occur
as middens or mounds, indicating the intensive exploitation of marine resources. Recent analyses of Late Archaic
settlement patterns in the Upper Coastal Plain and adjacent areas indicate that groups gathered in large numbers
at sites along major rivers in the spring and summer, and established base camps near large tributaries that were
occupied during the spring through early fall. These large gathering areas may have been used for ritual feasting
and other communal activities. At least one site, Stallings Island in the middle Savannah River Valley between
Georgia and South Carolina, seems to have functioned as a mortuary as well (Sassaman et al. 2006). In the late fall
and winter, populations dispersed into the uplands living in small, semiautonomous groups (Sassaman and
Anderson 1995; Sassaman et al. 1990).

In the spring and summer, Late Archaic people gathered large amounts of shellfish. It is not known why this
productive resource was not exploited earlier, but one explanation is that the environmental conditions conducive
to the formation of shellfish beds were not in place until the Late Archaic subperiod. Other resources that would
have been exploited in the spring and summer months include fish, white-tailed deer, small mammals, birds and
turtles (House and Ballenger 1976; Stoltman 1974). During the late fall and winter, populations likely subsisted on
white-tailed deer, turkey, and nuts such as hickory and acorn. It is also possible that plants such as cucurbita
(squash and gourds), sunflower, sumpweed, and chenopod, were being cultivated on a small-scale basis, but
direct evidence for these cultigens is lacking in the North Carolina Coastal Plain.

The most common diagnostic stone tool of the Late Archaic subperiod is the Savannah River point (Coe 1964), a
broad-bladed stemmed point found under a variety of names from Florida to Canada. There are also smaller
variants of Savannah River points, including Otarre Stemmed and Small Savannah River points that date to the
transitional Late Archaic/Early Woodland. Other Late Archaic artifacts include soapstone cooking discs, winged
bannerstones, cruciform drills, shell tools, worked bone, and, most importantly, fiber-tempered Stallings Island
and sand-tempered Thom’s Creek pottery. Locally, limestone tempered Hamp’s Landing pottery may also date to
the latter part of the Late Archaic subperiod.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 12
Both Stallings Island and Thom’s Creek pottery date from about 4500–3000 B.P. and have a wide variety of surface
treatments including plain, punctuated, and incised designs (Sassaman et al. 1990). For a long time it was believed
that fiber-tempered Stallings Island pottery was the oldest pottery in the region (perhaps in the New World), and
that sand-tempered Thom’s Creek wares appeared a few centuries later (Sassaman 1993). Recent work at several
shell ring sites on the coast, however, has demonstrated that the two types are contemporaneous, with Thom’s
Creek possibly even predating Stallings Island along the coast (Heide and Russo 2003; Russo and Heide 2003;
Saunders and Russo 2002). The distribution of Late Archaic period ceramics in North Carolina suggests that the
Coastal Plain was divided into a northern and a southern sub-region. The northern sub-region is more closely
identified with Mid-Atlantic cultures; whereas, the southern sub-region is more closely associated with
Southeastern cultures (Klein and Herbert 1994).
3.1.3 Woodland Period (ca. 3000–350 B.P.)
Like the preceding Archaic Period, the Woodland is conventionally divided into three subperiods—Early, Middle,
and Late—based on technological and social complexity and population increase. Among the changes that
occurred during this period was a widespread adoption of ceramic technology concomitant with an increased
reliance on native plant horticulture, as a result of a more sedentary lifestyle. Ceramics became more refined and
regionally differentiated, particularly with regard to temper. There was also an increase in sociopolitical and
religious interactions, as evidenced by an increased use of burial mounds, ceremonialism, and expanded trade
networks (Anderson and Mainfort 2002).
Early Woodland (ca. 3000–2500 B.P.)
By 3000 B.P., pottery was used throughout most of the Southeast and there is a proliferation of pottery styles in
the Carolinas and Georgia. In the Coastal Plain of South Carolina and Georgia, Refuge phase ceramics are
indicative of the Early Woodland period. This pottery is characterized by coarse sand-tempered wares with surface
treatments that include simple stamped, punctuate, plain, and dentate stamped (DePratter 1979; Sassaman 1993;
Williams 1968). In North Carolina, transitional Late Archaic/Early Woodland pottery is characterized by Hamp’s
Landing limestone-tempered wares, with surface treatments that include plain, cordmarked, and small amounts of
fabric-impressed pottery (Herbert 1999). Other Early Woodland ceramics from the North Carolina Coast include
coarse sand-tempered wares known as either Deep Creek or New River (Herbert 1999; Phelps 1983; Trinkley 1990;
Ward and Davis 1999). Both New River and Deep Creek types are very similar and include varieties containing
cordmarked, simple stamped, plain, and sometimes net-impressed surface treatments. Diagnostic bifaces of this
period include Otarre, Swannanoa, and Gary stemmed points, as well as Badin Crude Triangular points (Anderson
and Joseph 1988; Coe 1964:123–124; Sassaman et al. 1990).

Subsistence data indicate a continuation of Late Archaic diet during the Early Woodland, including the hunting of
white-tailed deer, bear, small mammals, reptiles, and fish (Hanson and DePratter 1985; Marrinan 1975). One major
difference, however, is that shellfish do not appear to have been an important part of the diet. Early Woodland
sites tend to be small, seasonal camps located away from the marshes where shellfish are found. This may be a
result of rising sea levels, which inundated the shellfish beds and possibly any sites located along the coast and
tidal marshes (Trinkley 1990:12).
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 13
Middle Woodland (ca. 2500–1500 B.P.)
In North Carolina, Middle Woodland grog-tempered Hanover series pottery has been identified in the Coastal
Plain (Herbert 1999; South 1976; Ward and David 1999). This pottery, which is similar to the Late Woodland
Wilmington series in South Carolina and Georgia, has a wide variety of surface treatments, including plain,
cordmarked, fabric-impressed and net-impressed. Some researchers have suggested subsuming Hanover pottery
into the Wilmington series as the two are almost indistinguishable (Anderson et al. 1996:75). However, this has not
been widely adopted and we use the term Hanover in this report.

Yadkin Large Triangular points are the most common diagnostic projectile points of the Middle Woodland
subperiod (Coe 1964), although Trinkley (1989:78) mentions a very small stemmed point he calls Deptford
Stemmed. Other artifacts found in Middle Woodland assemblages include clay platform pipes, ground and
polished stone ornaments, engraved shell and bone, bone tools, bifacial knives, and shark tooth pendants
(Sassaman et al. 1990:96, Waring and Holder 1968).

Despite the large number of Middle Woodland sites in the Coastal Plain of North and South Carolina, settlement
patterns are not well documented and models tend to follow Milanich’s “seasonal transhumance” model for the
Deptford period in Florida (Milanich 1971; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). This model posits that in the winter and
summer months, groups moved to the coast and lived in small, semipermanent villages adjacent to tidal creeks
and marshes. From these locations they would fish, gather shellfish, and exploit a variety of other marine and
estuarine resources. In the fall, small groups moved inland to terraces adjacent to swamps to gather nuts and hunt
white-tailed deer (Cantley and Cable 2002:29; Trinkley 1989:78-79). Excavations at the nearby Barnard’s Creek Site
(31NH747), which yielded evidence of repeated spring through fall occupations, seem to generally support this
model of seasonal mobility (Moser et al. 2009). In addition to hunting and gathering shellfish, horticulture is
thought to have played an important role during the Middle Woodland subperiod, with plants such as maygrass,
goosefoot, knotweed, and sunflower being harvested.

In contrast to Milanich’s model, evidence from the G.S. Lewis West site (38AK228) located in the sand hills of Aiken
County South Carolina (Sassaman et al 1990:96-98), suggests a year-round settlement occupied by a small
resident population. Over 500 features, including pits, posts, human burials, and dog burials, were found at the
site. White-tailed deer was the primary food source, with alligator, turtle, fish, turkey, freshwater mussels, hickory
nuts and acorns also being found (Sassaman et al. 1990:96). Based on the evidence at G.S. Lewis and surrounding
sites, Sassaman et al (1990:98) suggest a pattern where small villages were occupied on a year-round basis, with
smaller outlying sites representing seasonally occupied logistical camps.

Data recovery excavations at the Broad Reach site (31CR218) in nearby Carteret County have uncovered more
than 100 Middle and Late Woodland structures and over 2,500 features, including shell-filled pits, smudge pits,
human burials, dog burials, and lithic caches within an area encompassing 10 acres (Southeastern Archaeological
Conference Newsletter 2007:10–11). Human burials, including two ossuaries, one multiple interment (two
individuals), and nine single interments, also have been excavated from the site (Mathis 1993:44). Evidence from
both G.S. Lewis and the Broad Reach site would seem to indicate a much larger, more intensive, and more
sustained occupation than has been previously suggested for the Middle Woodland subperiod.
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 14
Late Woodland (ca. 1500–350 B.P.)
It is during the Late Woodland subperiod (1500–350 B.P.) in coastal North Carolina several different house types
can be found at Late Woodland sites on the coast, including small, rectangular structures and large, long house-
style structures (Ward and Davis 1999:218-222). Burial practices of the Late Woodland include single and multiple
inhumations, as well as large ossuaries. One of these ossuaries can be found at the Cold Morning site located on
the north side of Barnards Creek, just north of the New Hanover portion of the project area (Coe et al. 1980;
Mathis 1993).

The introduction of small triangular points such as Uwharrie, Clarksville, and Caraway during the Late Woodland
subperiod may represent the introduction of bow-and-arrow technology to the area. Uwharrie points, a triangular
point with a straight to slightly incurvate base, represent a continuation of the earlier Yadkin points and the two
types overlap considerably (Coe 1964; Davis and Daniel 1990:9). Other artifacts found in Late Woodland
assemblages include clay platform pipes, shell beads, ground and polished stone celts, copper adornments,
engraved shell and bone, bone tools, bifacial knives, and shark tooth pendants (Sassaman et al. 1990:96; Waring
and Holder 1968).

Temporally diagnostic ceramics in the Coastal Plain are usually identified as either shell-tempered Oak Island
(a.k.a, White Oak) or sand-tempered Cape Fear (South 1976). However, many other types, including Cashie,
Colington, Hanover/Wilmington, and Mount Pleasant have also been associated with sites of this subperiod along
the coast (Anderson et al. 1996; Ward and Davis 1999). These ceramics are tempered with shell, sand, or grog, and
typically contain cordmarked or fabric-impressed surface treatments. Wilmington cordmarked pottery is found
more frequently on the southern South Carolina and Georgia coasts, whereas Hanover fabric-impressed pottery is
found more often on the northern South Carolina and North Carolina coasts, although there is substantial overlap
between the two ranges (DePratter 1979; Herbert and Mathis 1996:149).
3.2 Historic Context
The Cape Fear River played an extremely important role of the area’s history. Fed by numerous tributary streams,
the Cape Fear system provides drainage for a large portion of North Carolina, draining over one quarter of its 100
counties (Lee 1965:4; Watson 1992:3). With its large expanses of land with easy water access, the Cape Fear River
region was an attractive area for European settlement. The entrance to the Cape Fear, however, offered multiple
challenges that served to discourage early settlement.

Cape Fear sits on the end of a thin peninsula that juts out into the Atlantic Ocean and separates the Cape Fear
River from the ocean for most of the 30 miles up to its fork. Extending southward from Cape Fear, a series of
sandbars known as Frying Pan Shoals forced ships seeking entrance into the inlet to navigate either through or
around the 18 mile stretch of shallows. Approximately two miles from the river mouth, another shoal, known as
“the Bar,” also complicated navigation. Further up the river, around 20 miles north of the mouth, a third shoal
called the “Flats” prevented the passage of ships with drafts deeper than 10 feet. Although a 1761 hurricane
opened a new channel eight miles north of the cape, known as New Inlet, this channel could only accommodate
the passage of small crafts drafting less than six feet of water. As a result, the Old Inlet remained the primary river
entrance during the eighteenth century (Lee 1951:8–10; Lee 1965:5, 163).
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 15
3.2.1 Exploration and Settlement
The availability of large amounts of fertile land and accessible water transportation routes along the Cape Fear
and its tributaries generated interest in the Lower Cape Fear from European powers. Both the Spanish and the
French explored the area along the Lower Cape Fear River during the sixteenth century, but neither established
permanent settlements (Meinig 1986). The first impetus for colonization of the region came in the 1660s, from two
prospective groups of settlers, both of English descent. The first group, comprised of colonists from overcrowded
townships in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, followed the recommendations of William Hilton and organized an
expedition to establish a settlement along the Cape Fear River in 1663. This venture, however, lasted only two
months before the colonists returned to New England (Lee 1965:33).

In 1664, John Vassel led approximately 800 colonists from Barbados to the Cape Fear region, which was under the
jurisdiction of the Lords Proprietors of the Carolina colony. In terms of government, the proprietors established a
system of colonies within their vast territory, with the Cape Fear region being part of Clarendon County (Lee
1965:41) (Figure 11). This new group of settlers spread out along the west bank of the Cape Fear and its
tributaries, engaging in a variety of agricultural activities to support themselves. Although the population was
dispersed within a large territory, a village named Charles Towne was established on the north side of Town Creek
with the goal of becoming an administrative and trading center for the colony’s residents (Lee 1965:42; Meinig
1986:173; Loftfield 2005:34). The Charles Town settlement, however, was plagued by conflicts among the white
settlers, lack of support from the Lords Proprietors, failure to secure supplies, and opposition from the local Indian
tribes. Some colonists began leaving the settlement not long after arriving, although most stayed until the
prospect of a new land distribution system threatened to remove them from their established homes and farms.
By the end of 1667, despite the attempts of John Vassel to maintain the settlement, Charles Town and the
surrounding farms were essentially abandoned (Lee 1965:52, 1978:18–19; Watson 1992:5).

From the abandonment of Charles Town through the early eighteenth century, European settlers showed little
interest in the Cape Fear area and permanent settlement did not occur until 1720 (Watson 1992:5). Following the
1712 division of the Carolina colony into North and South Carolina, the Cape Fear region’s affiliation remained
undefined, although it was generally claimed by South Carolina (Lee 1978:24). The lack of clear legal rights to the
land hindered the flow of colonists into the area, although there were sporadic attempts by South Carolinians to
claim land along the west side of the Cape Fear River. These are poorly documented in title and deed records and
many grantees never set foot on their land. Thomas Jones, however, reportedly settled on a 1,000 acre holding
around 1712, but a lone colonist in an unsettled area was a dangerous endeavor. A plantation destroyed by the
Cape Fear Indians during the Yamassee War of 1715 likely belonged to Jones (Lee 1978:25).

The earliest permanent settlers in the Cape Fear region came primarily from South Carolina. Many of these were
members of the prominent Moore family, including four sons and two daughters of James Moore, former
governor of South Carolina and a member of the Goose Creek faction (Wood 2004:86-87). Between 1725 and
1731, these settlers acquired numerous grants for large parcels of land, with Governor George Burrington claiming
over 50,000 acres, Maurice Moore acquiring over 25,000 acres, and others such as Roger Moore, Eleazer Allen, and
Edward Moseley also obtaining extensive holdings (Lee 1951:17). These early settlers established over 30 large
plantations along the Cape Fear River and several of the smaller creeks. The plantations located nearest to the
project area were Clarendon and Charles Town, while others such as Belville, Buchoi, The Forks, Pleasant Oaks,
Liliput, and Orton are still well known names to the local residents.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 16
The large landholdings hindered other settlers from coming to the area, as much of the productive land was
encompassed by these expansive claims. After 1731, both Governor Burrington and Governor Gabriel Johnson
took issue with the large property owners, since a significant amount of their land had been acquired through
illegal, unregistered, blank patents that were issued by Governor Richard Everard between 1729 and 1731 (Lee
1951:14-18).

By 1730, the population in the Lower Cape Fear area had increased to approximately 1,200, including many slaves.
Since a large number of its settlers migrated northward from South Carolina during the mid-eighteenth century,
the area developed a similar economic and social framework as the South Carolina Lowcountry (Loftfield and
Stoner 1997:91). Much of this early population lived on rice and timber plantations, which required a substantial
amount of slave labor to operate (Randall 1968:442).

During the mid-eighteenth century, the Cape Fear River Valley was “the fastest growing, most prosperous region
in North Carolina” (Randall 1968:443). The immigrants to the area came from diverse backgrounds, including a
large number who came from South Carolina looking to escape excessive taxation and a government they
believed was too controlling (Wood 2004:17). In addition to South Carolinians moving northward into the area,
settlers came from other areas such as the Albemarle region of North Carolina. These settlers moved southward to
the area for similar reasons as the South Carolinians, including political and economic reasons (Wood 2004:23).
Other immigrants to the area were of English and Scot-Irish descent, including Scottish Highlanders who came to
the area by entering the Cape Fear region through Wilmington and moving up the river into the North Carolina
backcountry (Randall 1968:443). In addition, many of the slaves who worked on Cape Fear plantations were either
imported directly from Africa or the West Indies, or they were brought to the area from other colonies by their
owners (Wood 2004:38-39).

Although the earliest settlers in the Cape Fear acquired large tracts of land and established large plantations,
during the second half of the eighteenth century an influx of new settlers resulted in a more diverse settlement
and economic pattern. Agriculture was the primary pursuit of the region, with a combination of small subsistence
farms interspersed among large riverfront plantations. The settlers in the Lower Cape Fear area were successful
because they “followed the economic pursuits dictated by the resources of nature that surrounded them,”
resources that were based primarily around the land and forest (Lee 1965:145).

Agricultural practices in the area were diverse and many of the crops grown on the Lower Cape Fear farms were
consumed locally. Corn was a particularly important crop because it was used for a variety of food products as
well as feed for poultry and livestock. Although rice was grown in some of the low, swampy areas along rivers and
streams, the amount of rice produced was miniscule compared to that produced in neighboring South Carolina,
particularly in Georgetown County. Other crops grown locally included peas, beans, and potatoes, and livestock
provided an additional source of food and income (Lee 1965:145-148).

Forest products were the biggest exports in the region, with the production of both timber and naval stores
becoming important industries. Mills were common in the Lower Cape Fear area, with the first saw mill on the river
built in 1727; at least 50 mills were in operation only half a century later (Lee 1965:149). The economic pattern of
the Lower Cape Fear developed into a diversified system that “combined forest industries, such as tar and pitch
burning, boxing for turpentine, and lumbering with cattle ranching and traditional agriculture” (Wood 2004:199).
This combination of pursuits led to a unique economic situation in the region.
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 17
3.2.2 Port Cities
As a part of the mercantile system that was prevalent in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, England’s
American colonies were viewed as commercial ventures and the trans-Atlantic trade of raw materials to the
mother country was an important function of these early settlements. Successful ports were an important part of
the trading process and the earliest cities in the colonies were established in areas that could easily be adapted to
serve as ports. “Ports became the chief focal point of colonial activity and attained urban status at an early date”
(Randall 1968:441).

With growing populations, changing transportation patterns, and fluctuating demands for particular goods, more
ports were established in new locations. Competition between local ports grew as each attempted to increase its
profitability by more effectively “tapping the productive hinterland” (Randall 1968:442). The result was that some
ports flourished while other nearby shipping hubs, unable to compete with their successful neighbors, floundered
and ultimately failed. The Lower Cape Fear area offers an example of such developments, and the history of the
region during the eighteenth century is dominated by two ports, Brunswick Town and Wilmington.
3.2.2.1 Brunswick Town
Brunswick Town was established on the west bank of the Cape Fear River, approximately 12 miles from the
Atlantic Ocean. The land was originally granted to Maurice Moore, who had come to the Cape Fear region from
the Goose Creek area of South Carolina. Moore purchased his first 1,500-acre tract from Governor George
Burrington in 1725 and shortly began planning for the town. He set aside 360 acres and envisioned the town as a
trading center (Gray 1997:72; Robinson 1997:57). Its position, sheltered along the riverbank yet still accessible by
large oceangoing vessels, made it a convenient port. To this end, Moore had chosen to locate Brunswick about
seven miles below the shoals of the “Flats” (Lee 1951:21-22).

On June 30, 1726, Maurice Moore sold the first two lots of Brunswick to Cornelius Harnett, Sr. for two pounds
each, with the stipulation that within eight months two houses measuring 16 feet by 20 feet had to be completed
on the property (Lee 1951:22, 1965:118; South n.d.). Harnett was evidently successful in fulfilling this condition as
he later registered the contract. By March 1727, Harnett had acquired a permit to operate a ferry from Brunswick
to the east side of the Cape Fear River, and also operated a “Publick House” or inn in Brunswick during the late
1720s (Lee 1965:118; South n.d.).

By the time of Harnett’s original land purchase, Moore had already had a map of the prospective town drawn and
filed with the secretary of the province. Front Street was laid out running parallel to the Cape Fear River, with the
other streets of the town running both perpendicular and parallel to it, creating an ordered grid plan. Not
including the areas reserved for town commons, Brunswick was divided into 24 square blocks, each containing 14
lots, seven wide by two deep. These 336 one-half acre lots were each 82.5 feet wide by 264 feet long (Lee
1965:118). Roger Moore, brother of Maurice Moore and owner of Orton Plantation, added another 20 lots at the
northern end of town, making a total of 356 lots in Brunswick; however, many of these lots were never sold (South
n.d.).

By 1729, the Lower Cape Fear area was populous enough to warrant the General Assembly’s creation of New
Hanover County, with Brunswick as its county seat and an allotment of two seats in the assembly (Lee 1965:109-
110; Watson 1992:6). Yet, even though it served as the center of government activity for most of the southern
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 18
portion of North Carolina, growth did not come quickly to Brunswick. In 1731, a visitor proclaimed Brunswick to be
“hardly worth the name of a village,” describing it as “a poor, hungry, unprovided Place, consisting of not about
ten or 12 scattering, mean Houses” (Lee 1965:119).

By 1740, Brunswick had lost its favored status and role as New Hanover County’s government seat. For 20 years it
“settled into the doldrums of political inactivity” (Lee 1951:32). In 1764, however, New Hanover County was
divided and Brunswick County was established on the west bank of the Cape Fear River, with Brunswick as its
capital. Also, for over a decade after Governor Arthur Dobbs established his residence in Brunswick in 1758, the
town served as the place of residence for North Carolina’s royal governors, allowing it to retain some political
importance (Lee 1951:140-141).

By mid-century the town had experienced little growth and had a population of only 20 families, or about 150
people (Watson 1992:6). Travelers in the 1760s continued to comment on the poor size and condition of
Brunswick, including Lord Adam Gordon who indicated that the town did not “seem very thriving” (Lee 1965:140).
By 1773, Brunswick still did not contain more than 50 or 60 houses, and in 1775, near the beginning of the
American Revolution, it only had a population of about 200 and “a few scattered houses on the edges of the
woods … inhabited by merchants” (Lee 1965:140). By 1776, the few remaining residents of Brunswick were in fear
of invasion by British forces and deserted the town; Brunswick was later razed by British soldiers (Lee 1951:44;
Wood 2004:246). In 1778, the Brunswick County seat was moved to Lockwood’s Ferry, effectively ending the
political clout of Brunswick (Lee 1951:45). The town, however, remained a trading post, allowing large ships to
load and unload cargo since they could not travel past the “Flats” to Wilmington (Lee 1951:54). When the Cape
Fear River was dredged in 1829 to deepen the channel, large ships could navigate upriver to Wilmington,
effectively making Brunswick obsolete (Randall 1968:442).
3.2.2.2 Wilmington
As the Lower Cape Fear region developed into a plantation economy, the landowners sought to increase their
profits. More land under cultivation led to an increase in the shipment of goods, including rice and lumber. This
increase in exports convinced many area residents that a more advantageous port than Brunswick was needed to
serve the area (Randall 1968:442).

Barely seven years after the founding of Brunswick Town, another village was established only 18 miles upriver.
This settlement, at different times referred to as New Carthage, New Liverpool, Newton, and Wilmington, was
located just below the confluence of the Cape Fear River and the Northeast Cape Fear River. In 1733, a plan of the
settlement was drawn and lots were sold. The following year, Governor Gabriel Johnston moved to the new town
and established his residence there (Randall 1968:442).

The increased development and wealth of the Lower Cape Fear area during the mid-1700s served to bolster
Wilmington’s position as an important urban center and its political standing. Beginning in 1735, at the insistence
of Governor Johnston, the state courts met in Wilmington instead of Brunswick. In 1740, the General Assembly
officially incorporated the settlement into a town, naming it Wilmington (Watson 1992:6-7). This act of
incorporation also served to establish Wilmington as an official port of North Carolina, with both port and custom
officials stationed there (Randall 1968:442-444; Watson 1992:6-7).

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 19
Wilmington was planned on 300 acres divided into 19 blocks, 14 along the river and five inland. These blocks were
each divided into one-half acre lots (Lee 1965:121). Although Wilmington was not even a decade old in 1739, by
December of that year its residents had already contributed money toward, and nearly finished constructing, a
courthouse. This forward-thinking action proved to Wilmington’s advantage, because in February 1740, the
General Assembly made Wilmington the county seat of New Hanover County and the site of the circuit court for
the southern district of the state (Lee 1965:124-125).

During the middle decades of the eighteenth century, both Brunswick and Wilmington continued to operate as
successful ports, each serving its own particular purpose. Brunswick, because of its position below the “Flats,”
could cater to larger, deeper-drafting vessels that could not travel up the Cape Fear to Wilmington. Wilmington,
on the other hand, handled most of the smaller boats that entered and exited the river (Randall 1968:442-444).
Because of this, “prior to the Revolution, Brunswick handled the major portion of the shipping tonnage that
entered the river, while Wilmington received the greater number of vessels” (Randall 1968:444).

During the Colonial Period, Wilmington was essentially a small, rustic village that only occupied a small portion of
its allotted 300 acres. In addition to housing court sessions, the courthouse, located near the town’s center, served
multiple purposes for Wilmington’s small population, including town hall, church, market, and meeting place (Lee
1965:132). The town, however, was somewhat disorganized, with unpaved streets and many uncleared and
undrained lots that were made worse by livestock that roamed freely in the town (Lee 1965:133). Although the
population of Wilmington was only 400 in 1757, by the beginning of the American Revolution, less than two
decades later, the number of residents had tripled to nearly 1,200 (Lee 1965:137).

By the time of the American Revolution, Wilmington had become North Carolina’s leading port (Watson 1992:3).
The Revolution, however, significantly disrupted the trade connections to Wilmington. This led to changing
patterns of import and export movement. Before the war, about 33 percent of the exports from Wilmington were
shipped to the British Isles. The West Indies also received around 33 percent, with the remaining exports split
between northern colonies and other countries. Following the war, import and export trade with the British Isles
fell off significantly, accounting for only 10 percent of North Carolina’s trade. The West Indies, on the other hand,
received about half of North Carolina’s trade and the northern states accounted for the remaining 40 percent
(Randall 1968:444).

Between 1789 and 1812, shipping into and out of Wilmington increased, and by the end of the War of 1812,
Wilmington’s port facilities had significantly outpaced all other North Carolina ports. Wilmington had better
market facilities, ocean access, and linkage to interior settlements than other North Carolina ports and, therefore,
handled four times the amount of exports than all other ports in the state combined. Compared to other states,
however, Wilmington was still lagging, with New York, the country’s largest port, handling exports with a value 18
times greater than Wilmington (Watson 1992:45).

The antebellum era was a prosperous one for Wilmington, with navigation improvements to the Cape Fear River,
and advances in transportation, especially the railroad, increasing its shipping potential. During this period,
Wilmington accounted for nearly all of North Carolina’s foreign trade and 80 percent of its domestic export
business (Watson 1992:65). Although naval stores and lumber, the traditional trade goods exported from the Cape
Fear area, remained important commodities traded through Wilmington, other products, including cotton, rice,
peanuts, corn, and flaxseed, increased in significance (Randall 1968:446).
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 20
During the first half of the nineteenth century, Wilmington also grew into North Carolina’s most populated urban
center, primarily because of its importance in trade. In 1820, the town had 2,633 residents; by 1840, this figure had
grown to 4,744, partly because of the advent of steamship travel up the Cape Fear and its increased economic
potential. The advent of railroads in the Lower Cape Fear area also stimulated growth in Wilmington, and helped
boost its population to 9,552 residents by 1860 (Watson 1992:45-47). With growth in trade and population, other
establishments such as hotels and banks also developed in Wilmington during the early 1800s (Watson 1992:47).

By 1860, at the beginning of the Civil War, Wilmington had developed into a thriving port, as well as a center of
culture that could boast such progressive urban amenities as brick sidewalks and gas streetlights (Watson
1992:70). During the Civil War, Wilmington remained a strategic location. With multiple Confederate forts
guarding the two entrances to the Cape Fear River, the Union found a complete blockade of the port nearly
impossible, making Wilmington an ideal center for blockade running (Watson 1992:92-97). With two major
railroad lines running into the city, Wilmington supplied the southern armies throughout the region and became
“the lifeline of the Confederacy,” until its invasion and occupation by Union troops in February 1865 (Watson
1992:72-83, 103).

If antebellum years brought growth and prominence for Wilmington, the second half of the nineteenth century
was completely different and Wilmington’s position as a major urban and trade center began to decline. As
industry, especially cotton mills, came to North Carolina in the interior Piedmont region, the eastern areas of the
state remained untouched by this development. Combined with a decline in lumber, naval stores, cotton
production, and exports, and the consolidation of small railroads into large networks, Wilmington lost its place as
the most important urban area in southern North Carolina (Randall 1968:446-447). Although Wilmington
remained North Carolina’s most populated city and most significant port in 1900, its reliance on cotton as its
primary export crop could not maintain the city’s economy. Wilmington was soon eclipsed in population and
importance by new industrial centers in the Piedmont (Watson 1992:105, 135).

The early twentieth century brought new growth to Wilmington through an improved highway system, channel
improvements done in 1917 that made the river 26 feet deep and 300 feet wide, and a shift in agricultural
production. Cotton production and exportation again increased, as did trade in other high value products such as
tobacco, fruits and vegetables, and flowers (Watson 1992:137; Randall 1968:447-448). World War II led to
additional growth through the establishment of a shipyard in 1941. This shipbuilding enterprise lasted until 1946
and employed a significant number of workers to build Liberty ships. Following the war, industry began to develop
in Wilmington, adding to the city’s economy (Randall 1968:448).
3.2.3 Antebellum Period
Between 1790 and 1860, the population of Brunswick County increased from 3,131 to 8,406 individuals. In 1860,
the population consisted of 4,515 whites, 3,631 slaves, and 260 free blacks. Rice cultivation was the dominant
agricultural and economic activity pursued by Brunswick County planters, and the majority of slaves in the county
labored on rice plantations. Prior to the American Revolution, rice cultivation was concentrated in inland swamps
and wetlands. Later, cultivation shifted to tidal marshes along waterways that were sufficiently distant from the
effects of saltwater, yet still influenced by tidal flows (Lee 1978:100).

Rice production required large amounts of manual labor. The tasks associated with operating a rice plantation
consisted of constructing embankments, ditches, and canals; clearing new fields of trees and other vegetation;
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 21
hoeing fields; planting; repeatedly flooding fields and managing water levels; cultivating the rice crop; and
threshing. After cultivation the rice grain was separated from the stalk, initially by hand, but later with the
mechanical assistance of a threshing mill. Typically, the larger a rice plantation, the greater the number of slaves
required to operate it. By 1860, the 10 largest landowners in Brunswick County owned 23 percent of the slaves
(Lee 1978:99). While the amount of rice that was produced by North Carolina was relatively small compared to
South Carolina, Brunswick County contributed substantially to that production. In 1860, Brunswick County
produced 90 percent of the rice (6,775,286 pounds) that was grown in the state (Lee 1978:103). Corn and sweet
potatoes were the other major crops, but were grown primarily as subsistence crops for the county’s inhabitants
and as livestock feed. These crops were supplemented with other types of vegetables and garden crops.
3.2.4 Naval Stores Industry
During the last half of the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century, North Carolina,
especially the Lower Cape Fear area, became a primary producer and exporter of naval stores. Although many
products have been characterized as naval stores throughout history, during this period the term generally
referred to the commodities that could be produced from pine trees (Robinson 1997:52). The two basic products
that constituted the naval stores industry were tar and raw turpentine—from these two materials, numerous other
products could be made.

Raw turpentine, also known as resin or gum, was gathered from living trees by cutting gashes, or chips, into the
tree trunk and letting the resin run into a collection container at the base of the tree. This raw turpentine could
then be distilled, which produced both spirits of turpentine and rosin (Outland 1996:38-40; Robinson 1997:55;
Perry 1968:511). The sticky by-product of turpentine distilling is rosin, which was water resistant and could be
utilized to waterproof seafaring vessels. The distilled turpentine spirits were often used as a cleaner, or as a
waterproofing agent for leather and cloth, and were also incorporated into some colonial medicines, including
laxatives and flea repellents (Outland 1996:31; Robinson 1997:57).

Tar was made by extracting the gum residue from dead pine wood in an earth covered kiln (Perry 1968:511). Kilns
were constructed in the ground utilizing a shallow pit, sometimes with a clay floor, surrounded by a ditch. The
floor of the kiln was sloped, in a saucer-like shape, toward the center where a gutter or pipe was inserted to
extend beyond the edge of the pit. Dead pine wood and branches were piled in a circle in the kiln and then
covered with earth and pine straw; here they would be slowly burned to extract tar. As the kiln was fired, tar
flowed down the sides of the floor into the gutter (or conduit), from which it could be collected (Outland 1996:41-
42; Robinson 1997:55). Since tar kilns were intended to be burned with a regulated amount of air, they could be
volatile and often exploded if not properly maintained. Therefore, kilns were usually built in the forest, not only
near the source of the wood, but also far from areas of habitation (Robinson 1997:56). Once the tar was extracted
from the pine wood, pitch could then be made by boiling the tar into a concentrate. Both products were
waterproof, with tar often being applied to sail riggings to keep them from decaying, while pitch was spread on
boat hulls to prevent leaks (Outland 1996:30-31).

Nearly all of the colonies engaged in some production of naval stores, often for local usage, but after 1705
England began offering bounties for these commodities. This led to an increase in production and the beginning
of a naval stores export trade, which centered around New England and South Carolina during the 1700s, with
Charleston exporting 50,000 barrels of naval stores in 1718 (Robinson 1997:58). When the bounties ended in 1725,
South Carolina found it more profitable to concentrate on staple crops such as rice. North Carolina, however, had
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 22
large expanses of land with soil that was unsuitable for heavy staple-based agriculture, especially in the
southeastern portion of the state. Therefore, the harvest and production of naval stores became an alternative way
for landowners to make profits (Perry 1968:511). This was especially true after the British reinstituted their naval
stores bounties in 1729, making the industry a profitable one. The residents of the lower Cape Fear area
responded and Brunswick Town began exporting increasing quantities of naval stores in the 1730s (Robinson
1997:58). By 1785, Brunswick County exported 56,000 barrels of naval stores (Lee 1978:105).

Although there are many species of pine grown in the American South, the longleaf pine would prove to be the
preferred species for the naval stores industry (Perry 1968:510-511). Because of an abundance of the dry, sandy
clay subsoils that the longleaf grows best in, the Lower Cape Fear region was blanketed with large forests of these
trees, allowing the area to become a leader in the naval stores industry (Outland 1996:32; Robinson 1997:52).
Additionally, the Cape Fear River made the movement of these products to the ports of Brunswick Town, and later
Wilmington, easy and convenient (Outland 1996:32). Production therefore became a profitable enterprise and
exports continued to flow from both Cape Fear ports during the eighteenth century. By the time the Revolutionary
War began, North Carolina was producing 60 percent of the naval stores, in value, exported from the American
colonies, and nearly 75 percent of those exports were from the Lower Cape Fear area (Perry 1968:512; Robinson
1997:59).

As North Carolinians realized that producing naval stores was a profitable enterprise, they began expanding the
industry into other regions of the state, slowly moving northward into the Albemarle Sound, Roanoke River, and
Tar River areas during the mid-1700s. Although the geographical center of the naval stores industry shifted during
the years surrounding the American Revolution, and these northern areas became more productive than the
southeastern portion of the state, naval stores maintained their status as a primary export commodity for North
Carolina (Perry 1968:512).

During the nineteenth century, the Cape Fear River valley again assumed its position as the leading producer of
naval stores and it retained that position during most of the antebellum period (Outland 1996:32). In the 1830s,
changes in demand began occurring as new uses were discovered for pine products. Tar and pitch declined in
importance, but the need for spirits of turpentine was growing. As the desire for rubber products increased in the
1830s, the rubber manufacturing industry needed more spirits of turpentine, which was used as a solvent for
crude rubber. Spirits of turpentine were also being developed as a lighting source, since a turpentine and alcohol
mixture, called camphene, was becoming an inexpensive and popular replacement for whale oil. Rosin, when
added to lye, proved to be an economical option for the soap making industry. The increased demand for these
products required an increase in their production, a situation to which North Carolina quickly adapted (Perry
1968:513-514; Outland 1996:31). Additionally, after 1834, it was no longer necessary to ship raw turpentine to
large distilling operations in port cities because the adoption of the lighter and more portable copper stills
facilitated distillation where the turpentine was harvested (Outland 1996:33). The transportation of spirits of
turpentine and rosin was much easier and more cost effective than the shipping of raw materials, therefore
allowing more profit to be reaped from the forest.

Despite the shift in demand from raw pine products to refined ones, naval stores continued to be the primary
export of southeastern North Carolina until the Civil War. In 1847, the state produced 800,000 barrels of
turpentine, worth approximately $2,000,000. By 1860, North Carolina was producing 96.7 percent of the country’s
naval stores and the value of its raw and distilled turpentine exceeded $5,000,000 (Outland 1996:31-32).
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 23

After the Civil War, the naval stores industry declined significantly. Without a workforce of slaves to work on large
plantations, production of naval stores was no longer a profitable enterprise. Additionally, many of the pine
forests had been exhausted by over a century of naval stores production. Some small farmers may have continued
to produce tar, pitch, and turpentine, but only in small quantities (Lee 1951:89-90; Wood 2004:230-231).
3.2.5 Labor
For the majority of the colonial period and part of the antebellum period, small farmers were the primary
producers of naval stores in North Carolina. Often these farmers utilized the labor of their families, and they
produced mostly tar and raw turpentine as they did not have the time or facilities to further refine these raw
materials or to transport the distilled products. “Regrettably, too little is known of the smaller producers. Often
unable to read or write, they lived, worked, and moved on, leaving only the exhausted faces of the pines as
temporary monuments of their activities” (Perry 1968:510). Although these small producers likely lived near their
supply forests, they may have only utilized particular tracts of land for short periods of time, until the trees were
exhausted, before moving on to new areas.

When the possibility for profits from the production of naval stores increased in the early 1800s, many plantation
owners saw an opportunity. Some planters from other areas in North Carolina came to the Lower Cape Fear
region, seeking its “extensive tracts of virgin timber” (Perry 1968:516). These wealthy planters would use slave
labor to produce naval stores on their large expanses of land (Outland 1996:42).

With this shift in the main producers of naval stores, land use patterns began to change as well. Although some
small farmers continued to collect turpentine and make tar, the majority of the work was carried out by slaves on
large tracts of land. Plantation owners expanded their holdings and slaves were sent out to the forests to perform
their tasks under the supervision of an overseer. The work was labor intensive, often messy, and required spending
large amounts of time isolated in the forests. “The camps were commonly so far away from agricultural
plantations that males in the labor force had no regular contact with their families and, for the most part, no
female companionship” (Outland 1996:46). At the same time, “laborers were placed at considerable distances from
one another and lacked social interaction to break the monotony of their work,” creating an unhappy and lonely
existence (Outland 1996:46). During most of the nineteenth century, slaves made up the majority of the work force
in the naval stores industry. Because of the nature of their work, these slaves lived mostly crude existences,
supplementing their subsistence-level rations with wild game and edible herbs. Poor housing, often “crude shed-
like lean-tos that could be easily dismantled, moved, and reconstructed” was usually their only refuge (Outland
1996:56).

Like the small farmers before them, the slaves who worked to gather and produce naval stores had little in the
way of material culture and left little physical evidence to document their existence. Even the copper stills used to
distill the raw turpentine could be dismantled and moved to the new area of harvest, leaving no trace that it had
been there. The one exception to this is the tar kilns, which would slowly burn and collapse upon themselves, only
to be abandoned when they had served their purpose. These kilns provide the most concrete physical evidence
for the production of naval stores in the area.
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 24
3.2.6 The Civil War and Post War Era
The Civil War in the Cape Fear Region was a time of great stress for the area’s residents. Wilmington was an
important city for the Confederacy, which brought a measure of prosperity but also significant fear of attack. The
entrance to the Cape Fear River was defended by multiple earthen forts and a single masonry fort, Fort Caswell.
Along with Fort Caswell, Fort Holmes provided protection to the inlet from Bald Head Island, Fort Campbell
protected the village of Smithville, and Fort Anderson, located at the site of Brunswick Town, could stop enemy
boats that managed to get past the other fortifications. The most formidable of these fortifications was the L-
shaped Fort Fisher, located at the southern tip of the peninsula to protect access to New Inlet (Gragg 1991:13-14).
This protection allowed Wilmington to remain a functioning port and a haven for blockade runners throughout
most of the war.

By 1864, half of the supplies received by the Confederate Army of Virginia were coming through Wilmington, and
the Union realized the importance of taking control of the port to force the final surrender of the Confederacy.
They also knew that to accomplish this goal Fort Fisher first had to be taken. On Christmas Eve of 1864, the Union
navy began its first offensive against Fort Fisher with bombardment from its blockade ships (Gragg 1991:62). This
bombardment was soon joined by land forces that landed three miles north of Fort Fisher and began moving
southward toward the fort’s earthen walls (Gragg 1991:83; Lee 1978:162). This original attack proved unsuccessful
as the walls of Fort Fisher withheld the bombardment and the marching soldiers retreated without engaging the
fort’s garrison (Gragg 1991:100).

On January 12, 1865, the second Union attack on Fort Fisher began, with the Union employing three lines of more
than 60 warships, including five ironside battleships (Gragg 1991:102, 112-113). The Union’s strategy to bombard
the fort with the extensive naval force, combined with an amphibious landing and a landward assault on the fort,
proved too much for the Confederates within (Gragg 1991:115). Although the Federal forces were repelled several
times, they finally succeeded in capturing Fort Fisher on January 16, 1865. This effectively ended the blockade
running into the Cape Fear region, closed the Confederacy’s last functioning port, and ended the supply lines
flowing out of Wilmington (Gragg 1991:228; Lee 1980:163). One month later, the town of Wilmington was invaded
and occupied by Union Forces (Gragg 1991:246-247).

The years after the end of the Civil War began a period of great economic and social upheaval, as well as a shifting
demographic pattern for the people of Brunswick County. The end of slave labor on the Lower Cape Fear River
meant the collapse of rice cultivation. Rice agriculture made a slow comeback, but never again achieved the levels
of production that it reached before the Civil War, reaching its post-war zenith in 1890 with the production of
1,250,000 pounds (Lee 1978:218). After 1890, rice production rapidly declined as the industry relocated to
Louisiana. The demise of rice agriculture left a void in the county’s economy that would eventually be replaced by
tobacco production and a large increase in corn production. After the war, the importance of naval stores also
began declining, however this decline was offset by the increased production of turpentine and rosin for the
“manufacture of paints, varnishes, paper, soap, lubricants, pharmaceutical supplies, and in the rubber industry”
(Lee 1978:218).

One of the new industries introduced in the county after the Civil War was the commercial seafood industry, which
grew dramatically during the end of the nineteenth and into the early twentieth century. In 1889, Brunswick
County’s fishing production, including shrimp, oysters, and clams, was valued at $6,453. By 1973, Brunswick
County commercial fishing had increased to over $2,500,000 in value. Another industry which greatly expanded
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 25
after the war was forestry, with thousands of acres being cut for timber. In contrast to the early importance of pine
in the area, cypress became a primary economic driver, with its wood being used to manufacture strong, rot-
resistant railroad cross-ties (Lee 1978:22). Increases in timber production led to widespread deforestation,
although there is no evidence that the county was ever completely denuded of trees. However, during the Great
Depression, one of the first funded priorities of the New Deal was a reforestation project that replanted large
areas of the county’s forests (Lee 1978:225).

In the early 1950s, the military became an important part of Brunswick County’s economy when the Department of
Defense began work on a large military facility called the Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point (MOTSU). This
8,502-acre facility was designed as a military port to handle munitions, hazardous materials, and other general
military cargo (Abbott et al. 2003). In addition to these main facilities, the MOTSU also encompasses 2,115 acres in
New Hanover County and 97.4 miles of railroad tracks, including an 18-mile line from Leland to Sunny Point.
MOTSU employs a work force of approximately 225 people during peace time (Abbott et al. 2003:52).

One of the biggest changes within the county since the Civil War has been the shift in demographics. In 1870, the
census recorded 7,754 residents in Brunswick County, including 4,448 whites (57%) and 3,306 blacks (43%) (Lee
1978:217). By the turn of the twentieth century, the population of the county had grown to 12,657 people, with
7,613 (60%) of the residents being white and 5,044 (40%) being black (Inter-University Consortium for Political
and Social Research 2007 [ICPSR]). This trend of a declining black population, despite the growth in total
population, would continue throughout the twentieth century.

In 1940, the total county population was 17,125, comprised of 5,792 black residents (34%) and 11,333 (66%) white
residents. By 1970, the 24,223 residents of Brunswick County were made up of 16,780 whites (69%) and 7,443
blacks (31%). By 2000, the population of Brunswick County had experienced a significant increase, nearly tripling
its 1970 level. The demographic trend had also continued, with African-Americans accounting for only 14.4
percent of the county’s population (Lee 1978:317; ICPSR). This demographic shift is most likely due to the
outmigration of African-Americans in search of better job opportunities and an influx of white population, as a
result of the growth in the tourism industry and an increase in the region’s retirement population (Lee 1978: 231).
3.3 Previously Recorded Sites in the Vicinity of Project Area
A background literature review and record search was conducted in September 2020, by the OSA staff in Raleigh
due to office closures to the public. The records examined by OSA and provided to S&ME staff included GIS files
and site forms for archaeological sites within a one-mile search radius of the project area, as well as copies of the
reports that cover portions of the current project corridor.

A review of the information provided by OSA indicated there are 51 archaeological sites within a one-mile radius
of the project corridor (Figures 3.1 through 3.4, Table 3.1). Two of the archaeological sites are within the survey
area for the proposed pipeline corridor; 31BW755 is an Archaic through Woodland short-term habitation site that
was determined to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP in 2009 (OSA Site Forms); site 31BE529, the Swain
Cemetery, is a nineteenth family cemetery with three known graves that was recorded in 1980 by H.A. and Dot
Schmidt and was not assessed for inclusion in the NRHP (OSA Site Form).

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 26
Table 3.1. Cultural Resources within a one-mile buffer of the proposed pipeline corridor.
Resource No. Description NRHP Eligibility Source
31BW131 Prehistoric ceramic scatter Unassessed OSA Site Form 1976
31BW136 Prehistoric ceramic scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 1978
31BW137 Prehistoric ceramic scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 1978
31BW194 Prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 2007
31BW195 Prehistoric ceramic scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 2007
31BW196 Prehistoric artifact scatter Unassessed OSA Site Form 1978
31BW283 Tar Kiln Unassessed OSA Site Form 1978
31BW284 Unidentified site type Unassessed OSA Site Form 1978
31BW384 Price Creek Lighthouse Unassessed OSA Site Form
31BW482 Willetts Cemetery Unassessed OSA Site Form 1981
31BW501 Benfield Family Cemetery Unassessed OSA Site Form 1980
31BW526 Wescott Cemetery Unassessed OSA Site Form 1980
31BW527 Brunswick County Home Potters Field #2 Unassessed OSA Site Form 1980
31BW528 Price Cemetery Unassessed OSA Site Form
31BW529 Swain Cemetery Unassessed OSA Site Form 1980
31BW531 Morse Cemetery Unassessed OSA Site Form 1980
31BW532 County Potters Field Unassessed OSA Site Form 1980
31BW546 Bethlehem Cemetery Unassessed OSA Site Form 1980
31BW559 Prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 1992
31BW563 19th/20th century artifact scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 1995
31BW564 Bowensville Village; Deep Water Point Unassessed OSA Site Form 1995
31BW565 Prehistoric ceramic scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 1995
31BW566 Prehistoric ceramic isolate Not Eligible OSA Site Form 1995
31BW567 Prehistoric artifact scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 1995
31BW568 Middle Woodland ceramic scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 1995
31BW569 Prehistoric ceramic scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 2001
31BW570 Woodland ceramic scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 1995
31BW571 Prehistoric artifact scatter Unassessed OSA Site Form 1995
31BW576 Prehistoric artifact scatter; 18th/19th century artifact
scatter Unassessed OSA Site Form 1996
31BW645 Late Archaic limited activity site Not Eligible OSA Site Form 2001
31BW647 Prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 2001
31BW648 Late Archaic limited activity site Not Eligible OSA Site Form 2001
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 27
Resource No. Description NRHP Eligibility Source
31BW702 Town Creek Boat Ramp Unassessed OSA Site Form 2003
31BW730 Prehistoric ceramic isolate Not Eligible OSA Site Form 2007
31BW731 Late Archaic ceramic isolate Not Eligible OSA Site Form 2007
31BW732 Prehistoric ceramic isolate Not Eligible OSA Site Form 2007
31BW733 Prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 2007
31BW734 Prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 2007
31BW735 Prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 2007
31BW736 Prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 2007
31BW737 Prehistoric ceramic scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 2007
31BW755 Prehistoric short-term habitation site Eligible OSA Site Form 2009
31BW758 Prehistoric artifact scatter Unassessed OSA Site Form 1979
31BW759 Prehistoric artifact scatter Unassessed OSA Site Form 1979
31BW760 Prehistoric artifact scatter Unassessed OSA Site Form 1979
31BW761 Prehistoric artifact scatter Unassessed OSA Site Form 1979
31BW762 Prehistoric artifact scatter Unassessed OSA Site Form 1979
31BW819 Prehistoric ceramic scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 2017
31BW820 Woodland ceramic scatter; 19th/20th century
artifact scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 2017
31BW822 Prehistoric lithic scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 2017
31BW823 19th/20th century artifact scatter Not Eligible OSA Site Form 2017
Bold means the resource is within the proposed pipeline corridor.

31BW501
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
³
7335-20-081
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAW N BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
0 10.5 MILES
Background ResearchLine 99 Easement Acquisition 3.1
Legend Proposed Project CorridorOne-mile S earch RadiusPreviously Recorded Archaeological SiteLeland and Winnabow 7.5' USGStopographic quadrangles.
KJN
11/9/2020Drawing Path: C:\Users\KNagle\Desktop\Line 99\GIS\Figures\Figure 3-1 background.mxd plotted by KNagle 11-09-2020Brunswick County, North Carolina
1:48,067
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
31BW755
31BW482
31BW819
31BW822
31BW761
31BW758
31BW823
31BW762
31BW760
31BW702
31BW759
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
³
7335-20-081
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAW N BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
0 10.5 MILES
Background ResearchLine 99 Easement Acquisition 3.2
Legend Proposed Project CorridorOne-mile S earch RadiusPreviously Recorded Archaeological SiteFunston and Winnabow 7.5' USGStopographic quadrangles.
KJN
11/9/2020Drawing Path: C:\Users\KNagle\Desktop\Line 99\GIS\Figures\Figure 3-2 background.mxd plotted by KNagle 11-09-2020Brunswick County, North Carolina
1:48,067
31BW820
31BW546
31BW576
!(
!(!(
!(
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
³
7335-20-081
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAW N BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
0 10.5 MILES
Background ResearchLine 99 Easement Acquisition 3.3
Legend Proposed Project CorridorOne-mile S earch RadiusPreviously Recorded Archaeological SiteFunston 7.5' USGS topographicquadrangle.
KJN
11/9/2020Drawing Path: C:\Users\KNagle\Desktop\Line 99\GIS\Figures\Figure 3-3 background.mxd plotted by KNagle 11-09-2020Brunswick County, North Carolina
1:48,067
31BW559
31BW137
31BW283
31BW284
31BW136
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
31BW529
31BW736
31BW734
31BW732
31BW131
31BW733
31BW730
31BW731
31BW384
31BW735
31BW196
31BW526
31BW565
31BW647
31BW737
31BW563
31BW568
31BW567
31BW648
31BW566
31BW527 31BW532
31BW195
31BW570
31BW571
31BW531
31BW564
31BW194
31BW528
31BW645
31BW569
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
³
7335-20-081
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAW N BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
0 10.5 MILES
Background ResearchLine 99 Easement Acquisition 3.4
Legend Proposed Project CorridorOne-mile S earch RadiusPreviously Recorded Archaeological SiteFunston, Kure Beach, andSouthport 7.5' USGS topographic
KJN
11/9/2020Drawing Path: C:\Users\KNagle\Desktop\Line 99\GIS\Figures\Figure 3-4 background.mxd plotted by KNagle 11-09-2020Brunswick County, North Carolina
1:48,067
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 32
As part of the background research, the Collett map (1770); the Price-Strother (1808) map; the McRae-Brazier map
(1833); the Kerr-Cain (1882) map; a 1900 railroad map; the Smith map (1910); a United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) soil survey map from 1937; North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) maps from
1938, 1953, and 1968, and United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles from
1946, 1954, 1962, 1969, 1976, 1980, 1984, and 1990 were examined. The Collett map shows Fort Johnston in the
vicinity of Southport, Brunswick to the east of the alignment and a few landowners, saw mail, and roadways in the
vicinity of the project corridor (Figure 3.5). The Price-Strother map and McRae-Braizer map each show Smithville in
vicinity of Southport, Brunswick to the east of the alignment, and a few roadways and landowners in the vicinity of
the project corridor (Figures 3.6 and 3.7). The Kerr-Cain map shows additional roads and new railroad corridors in
and around the project corridor (Figure 3.8). The 1900 railroad map shows that Southport and Leland had been
established; Leland was a stop along a railroad that lead to Wilmington (Figure 3.9).

The Smith map and 1937 soil map show an expanding network of roadways and railroads and a growth in
residential structures between Southport and Leland (Figures 3.10 and 3.11). The 1938 and 1953 NCDOT maps
show the area between Southport and Leland was largely rural residential (Figures 3.12 and 3.13). The USGS Snow
Marsh and Southport topographic maps from 1946 show the southern portion of the alignment as primarily
undeveloped, with one major roadway, numerous dirt roads, and structures along the roadways in the vicinity of
the project corridor (Figures 3.14 and 3.15). The 1954 Acme topographic map shows the northern portion of the
alignment just west of Leland in a more populated area with numerous roadways, railroads, and residences (Figure
3.16). The 1962 topographic maps of the central portion of the project corridor shows the alignment traveling
through rural areas undeveloped areas with few dirt roads and structures in the vicinity of the corridor (Figures
5.17 through 5.20). The 1968 NCDOT map shows the growing road network along the project corridor, with the
most noticeable growth at the northern and southern ends (Figure 5.21).

The 1980 Kure Beach topographic map of the southern end of the project corridor shows the wastewater
treatment plant the alignment ties into had been constructed (Figure 5.22). The 1984 Leland topographic map of
the northern end of the project corridor shows an increased development of the highways and a larger residential
population in the area (Figure 5.23). The 1990 Southport topographic map of the southern portion of the project
corridor shows substantial growth in the area with numerous utility corridors, the military base, roadways, and
buildings (Figure 5.24).

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 33
Figure 3.5. Collett map (1770) of North Carolina, showing approximate project area.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 34
Figure 3.6. Price-Strother Map (1808) of North Carolina, showing approximate project area.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 35
Figure 3.7. MacRae-Brazier Map (1833) of North Carolina, showing approximate project area.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 36
Figure 3.8. Kerr-Cain Map (1882), showing vicinity of the project area.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 37
Figure 3.9. Railroad map of North Carolina, showing Brunswick County (Brown 1900).

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 38
Figure 3.10. Smith Map (1910), showing vicinity of the project area.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 39
Figure 3.11 . USDA soil survey map of Brunswick County (1937), showing vicinity of the project
area.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 40
Figure 3.12. NCDOT highway map of Brunswick County (1938), showing vicinity of the project area.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 41
Figure 3.13. NCDOT highway map of Brunswick County (1953), showing vicinity of the project area.

Figure 3.14. USGS Snow Marsh topographic map (1946), showing vicinity of the project area.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 42
Figure 3.15. USGS Southport topographic map (1946), showing vicinity of the project area.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 43
Figure 3.16. USGS Acme topographic map (1954), showing vicinity of the project area.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 44
Figure 3.17. Portion of the USGS Funston topographic map (1962), showing project area.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 45
Figure 3.18. Portion of the USGS Funston topographic map (1962), showing project area.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 46
Figure 3.19. Portion of the USGS Winnabow topographic map (1962), showing project area.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 47
Figure 3.20. Portion of the USGS Winnabow topographic map (1962), showing project area.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 48
Figure 3.21. NCDOT highway map of Brunswick County (1968), showing vicinity of the project area.

Figure 3.22. USGS 7.5-minute Kure Beach topographic quadrangle (1980), showing project area.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 49
Figure 3.23. USGS 7.5-minute Leland topographic quadrangle (1984), showing vicinity of the project
area.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 50
Figure 3.24. USGS 7.5-minute Southport topographic quadrangle (1990), showing vicinity of the
project area.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 51
4.0 Methods
4.1 Archaeological Field Methods
Fieldwork for the project was conducted from was conducted from October 5 through October 7, 2020. This work
included a Phase I archaeological survey of approximately 6.9 miles of proposed easement acquisition;
approximately 7.6 miles of proposed project corridor had no access or no additional easement acquisition and
was not surveyed; and 12.6 miles of the project corridor was disturbed, had poorly drained soils, and/or standing
water (Figures 4.1 through 4.5).

The proposed undertaking consists of a 30 feet of easement adjacent to the existing pipeline easement. One line
of shovel tests was excavated at the approximate proposed centerline. Shovel tests were at least 30 cm in
diameter and excavated to sterile subsoil or at least 80 cm below surface (cmbs), whichever was encountered first.
Soil from shovel tests was screened though ¼-inch wire mesh and soil colors were determined through
comparison with Munsell Soil Color Charts. Sites were located using a GPS unit and plotted on USGS 7.5-minute
topographic maps. Artifacts recovered during the survey were organized and bagged by site and relative
provenience within each site.

Site boundaries were determined by excavating shovel tests at 15-m intervals radiating out in a cruciform pattern
from positive shovel tests or surface finds at the perimeter of each site. Sites were recorded in the field using field
journals and standard S&ME site forms and documented using digital photography and detailed site maps. State
site forms were completed for new and re-located archaeological sites and submitted to OSA once fieldwork was
complete.
4.2 Laboratory Methods
With fieldwork complete, recovered artifacts were cleaned, sorted, analyzed, and labeled, at the S&ME laboratory
in Columbia, South Carolina. Artifacts were analyzed by provenience unit and classified into raw material,
technological, and functional categories based on accepted southeastern typologies and artifact classifications
used in the project vicinity.

Lithic artifacts were initially identified as either debitage (flakes and shatter) or tools. Debitage was sorted by raw
material type and size graded using the mass analysis method advocated by Ahler (1989). When present, formal
tools were classified by type, and metric attributes (e.g., length, width, and thickness) were recorded for each
unbroken tool. Projectile point typology generally follows that outlined by Coe (1964) and Justice (1987).

Historic artifacts were separated by material type and then further sorted into functional groups. For example,
historic ceramics were sorted into coarse earthenware, refined earthenware, stoneware, porcelain, colonoware, or
pipe. Glaze, slip, maker’s marks, and/or decorations were noted to ascertain chronological attributes using
established references for historic materials, including Noel Hume (1969), South (1976), and Miller (1991). The
artifacts, field notes, maps, photographs, and other technical materials generated as a result of this project will be
temporarily curated at the S&ME office in Columbia.

Area 1
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/AirbusDS, U SDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
³
7335-20-081
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAW N BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
0 0.50.25 MILES
Aerial Map s how ing Section 1Line 99 Easement Acquistion Project 4.1
Legend No Access/No New AcquisitionArea Shovel TestedNot S urveyed (Poorly Drained or Disturbed)ESRI Aerial Imagery.
KJN
11/16/2020Drawing Path: C:\Users\KNagle\Desktop\Line 99\GIS\Figures\Figure 4-1 Section 1.mxd plotted by KNagle 11-16-2020Brunswick County, North Carolina
1:36,725
31BW755
31BW854
31BW855
Area 2
Area 3
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/AirbusDS, U SDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
³
7335-20-081
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAW N BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
0 0.50.25 MILES
Aerial Map s how ing Section 2Line 99 Easement Acquistion Project 4.2
Legend No Access/No New AcquisitionArea Shovel TestedNot S urveyed (Poorly Drained or Disturbed)Newly Recorded Archaeological SitePreviously Recorded Archaeological SiteESRI Aerial Imagery.
KJN
11/16/2020Drawing Path: C:\Users\KNagle\Desktop\Line 99\GIS\Figures\Figure 4-2 Section 2.mxd plotted by KNagle 11-16-2020Brunswick County, North Carolina
1:36,725
31BW856
31BW857
31BW858
Area 4
Area 5
Area 6
Area 7
Area 8
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/AirbusDS, U SDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
³
7335-20-081
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAW N BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
0 0.50.25 MILES
Aerial Map s how ing Section 3Line 99 Easement Acquistion Project 4.3
Legend No Access/No New AcquisitionArea Shovel TestedNot S urveyed (Poorly Drained or Disturbed)Newly Recorded Archaeological SiteESRI Aerial Imagery.
KJN
11/16/2020Drawing Path: C:\Users\KNagle\Desktop\Line 99\GIS\Figures\Figure 4-3 Section 3.mxd plotted by KNagle 11-16-2020Brunswick County, North Carolina
1:36,725
31BW559
Area 8
Area 10
Area 9
Area 11
Area 12
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/AirbusDS, U SDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
³
7335-20-081
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAW N BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
0 0.50.25 MILES
Aerial Map s how ing Section 4Line 99 Easement Acquistion Project 4.4
Legend No Access/No New AcquisitionArea Shovel TestedNot S urveyed (Poorly Drained or Disturbed)Previously Recorded Archaeological SiteESRI Aerial Imagery.
KJN
11/16/2020Drawing Path: C:\Users\KNagle\Desktop\Line 99\GIS\Figures\Figure 4-4 Section 4.mxd plotted by KNagle 11-16-2020Brunswick County, North Carolina
1:36,725
31BW529Swain Cemetery
Area 13
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/AirbusDS, U SDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
³
7335-20-081
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAW N BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
0 0.50.25 MILES
Aerial Map s how ing Section 5Line 99 Easement Acquistion Project 4.5
Legend No Access/No New AcquisitionArea Shovel TestedNot S urveyed (Poorly Drained or Disturbed)Previously Recorded Archaeological SiteESRI Aerial Imagery.
KJN
11/16/2020Drawing Path: C:\Users\KNagle\Desktop\Line 99\GIS\Figures\Figure 4-5 Section 5.mxd plotted by KNagle 11-16-2020Brunswick County, North Carolina
1:36,725
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 57
4.3 National Register Eligibility Assessment
For a property to be considered eligible for the NRHP it must retain integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association (National Register Bulletin 15:2). In addition, properties must meet one or
more of the criteria below:

A. are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history; or
B. are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent
the work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable
entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in history or prehistory.
The most frequently used criterion for assessing the significance of an archaeological site is Criterion D, although
other criteria were considered where appropriate. For an archaeological site to be considered significant, it must
have potential to add to the understanding of the area’s history or prehistory. A commonly used standard to
determine a site’s research potential is based on a number of physical characteristics including variety, quantity,
integrity, clarity, and environmental context (Glassow 1977). All of these factors were considered in assessing a
site’s potential for inclusion in the NRHP.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 58
5.0 Results
A total of 303 shovel tests were excavated along approximately 6.9 miles of pipeline corridor. The results of the
investigation are discussed by map section, beginning at the northern end of the project corridor and finishing at
the southern end of the project corridor. five new archaeological sites (31BW854 through 31BW858) were
identified and an attempt was made to re-locate previously recorded archaeological site 31BW529, Swain
Cemetery (Figures 1.4, 1.5, and 1.8; Table 1.1). Each map section and resource are discussed in further detail below.

Three different soil profiles were encountered during the investigations. A typical soil profile for plow zone leading
into subsoil consisted of approximately 20 cm of gray (10YR 6/1) sand, followed by 10+ cm (20–30+ cmbs) of
brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) sandy clay subsoil (Figure 5.1). A typical soil profile where subsoil was not encountered
consisted of approximately 25 cm of grayish brown (10YR 5/2) sand, followed by 25 cm (25–50 cmbs) of dark
yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sand, terminating with 30+ cm (50–80+ cmbs) of yellow (2.5Y 7/8) sand (Figure 5.2). A
typical soil profile where plow zone transitioned to wet hydric soils consisted of approximately 30 cm of grayish
brown (10YR 5/2) sand, followed by 25 cm (30–55 cmbs) of gray (10YR 6/1) sand, terminating with 10+ cm (55–
65+ cmbs) of black (10YR 2/1) wet sand (Figure 5.3).
5.1 Section 1
Section 1 begins west of Mt. Misery Road NE, crosses Rowel Branch and heads south and southwest
approximately 5.3 miles terminating west of Springstone Drive (Figure 4.1). One area along this section of the
project corridor was shovel tested (0.24-mile); roughly 1.9 miles was not surveyed due to no access or no new
acquisition, and the remaining 3.16 miles were not surveyed due to disturbances associated with urban
development, the soils were poorly drained, and/or areas containing standing water. Interstate 140, Industrial
Boulevard NE, Andrew Jackson Highway, and Old Fayetteville Road are crossed on this portion of the pipeline
corridor; Rowell Branch, Banton Branch, and Flat Bay are the named waterways crossed on this section of pipeline
corridor. No new archaeological sites were identified and no previously recorded sites are located along this
section of the project corridor.
5.2 Section 2
Section 2 begins west of Springstone Drive and ends north of Lee Buck Road SE. This section of alignment is
roughly 5.5 miles in length; two areas along this section of the project corridor were shovel tested (0.8-mile; Areas
2 and 3), roughly three miles were not surveyed due to no access or no new acquisition, and the remaining 1.7
miles were not surveyed due to disturbance associated with urban development, the soils being poorly drained,
and/or areas containing standing water (Figure 4.2). Clarendon Road SE, Brunswick Forest Parkway, Ocean
Highway E (US Highway 17), and Buckeye Road NE are the named roadways crossed on the portion of the pipeline
corridor; Town Creek is the only named waterway along this section of pipeline corridor.

Previously recorded archaeological site 31BW755 is recorded along this portion of the pipeline corridor and is
eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The site falls within a section of pipeline corridor where no new easement
acquisition will occur and no investigations were completed within that portion of the proposed alignment. Two
new archaeological sites (31BW854 and 31BW855) were recorded along this section of pipeline corridor and each
of the sites are discussed in greater detail below.
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 59
Figure 5.1. Typical soil profile with no intact soil horizon.

Figure 5.2. Typical soil profile where subsoil was not encountered.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 60
Figure 5.3. Typical soil profile where wet soils were encountered.
5.2.1 Site 31BW854
Site Number: 31BW854 NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Historic artifact scatter Elevation: 22 ft AMSL
Components: 19th/20th Century Landform: Bluff
UTM Coordinates: E220116, N3783791 (18N, NAD 83) Soil Type: Baymeade fine sand
Site Dimensions: 45 m N/S x 20 m E/W Vegetation: Mixed pine and hardwood
Artifact Depth: 0–20 cmbs No. of STPs/Positive STPs: 10/2
Site 31BW854 is a nineteenth/twentieth century artifact scatter located on a bluff overlooking Town Creek (Figure
1.3). The site is in a wooded area, measures approximately 45 m north/south by 20 m east/west, and is bounded
by two negative shovel tests to the north, south, and east and by an existing pipeline corridor and railroad to the
west (Figures 5.4 and 5.5).

Ten shovel tests were excavated at the site; a typical soil profile consisted of approximately 20 cm of grayish
brown (10YR 5/2) sand, followed by 60+ cm (20–80+ cmbs) of yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sand (Figure 5.6). Six
historic artifacts were recovered from between 0–20 cmbs in two shovel tests; the artifacts consist of one piece of
plain whiteware and five pieces of brick (Appendix B). No structures are shown at this location on the historic
maps.

STP 2-2
STP 2-3
STP 2-4
STP 2-1
0 15 30
Meters
LEGEND
Positive STP
Negative STP
Unexcavated STP
Site Datum
Site Boundary
Existing Pipeline
Railroad Tracks
Ditch
Contour (approximate)
Unnam
e
d
T
ri
b
ut
a
r
y
SCALE:
DATE:
PROJECT NUMBER
FIGURE NO.
N
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, South Carolina
5.4
7335-20-081
11/18/2020
As ShownSite Map - 31BW854
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 62
Figure 5.5. Overview of site 31BW854, facing east.

Figure 5.6. Typical soil profile at site 31BW854.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 63
Site 31BW854 is a nineteenth/twentieth century artifact scatter with no remaining integrity. Given the paucity of
artifacts recovered from the site, the lack of structural remains present, and the disturbances associated with the
existing pipeline corridor and railroad, it is S&ME’s opinion that the site is not associated with events that have
made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history (Criterion A); is not associated with the lives of
significant persons in the past (Criterion B); does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or
methods of construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (Criterion C); and is unlikely to yield
significant information on the history of the area (Criterion D). As such, site 31BW854 is recommended ineligible
for inclusion in the NRHP.
5.2.2 Site 31BW855
Site Number: Site 31BW855 NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Historic artifact scatter Elevation: 25 ft AMSL
Components: 20th Century Landform: Bluff
UTM Coordinates: E219993, N3782041 (18N, NAD 83) Soil Type: Lynchburg fine sandy loam
Site Dimensions: 20 m N/S x 20 m E/W Vegetation: Mixed pine and hardwood
Artifact Depth: Surface No. of STPs/Positive STPs: 7/0
Site 31BW855 is a twentieth century artifact scatter located on a bluff overlooking Town Creek (Figure 1.3). The
site is in a wooded area, measures approximately 20 m north/south by 20 m east/west, and is bounded by two
negative shovel tests to the north, south, and east and by an existing pipeline corridor and railroad to the west
(Figures 5.7 and 5.8).

Seven shovel tests were excavated at the site; a typical soil profile consisted of approximately 20 cm of gray (10YR
5/1) sand, followed by 20+ cm (20–40+ cmbs) of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sandy clay subsoil (Figure 5.9).
Two historic artifacts were recovered from the surface of the site, no artifacts were identified within the shovel
tests; the artifacts consist of one piece of glazed porcelain and one piece of brick (Appendix B). No structures are
shown at this location on the historic maps.

Site 31BW855 is a twentieth century artifact scatter with no remaining integrity. Given the paucity of artifacts
recovered from the site, the lack of structural remains present, and the disturbances associated with the existing
pipeline corridor and railroad, it is S&ME’s opinion that the site is not associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of history (Criterion A); is not associated with the lives of significant
persons in the past (Criterion B); does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or methods of
construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (Criterion C); and is unlikely to yield
significant information on the history of the area (Criterion D). As such, site 31BW855 is recommended ineligible
for inclusion in the NRHP.

STP 4-1
STP 4-4
0 15 30
Meters
LEGEND
Surface Scatter
Negative STP
Unexcavated STP
Site Datum
Site Boundary
Existing Pipeline
Railroad Tracks
Ditch
SCALE:
DATE:
PROJECT NUMBER
FIGURE NO.
N
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, South Carolina
5.7
7335-20-081
11/18/2020
As ShownSite Map - 31BW855
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 65
Figure 5.8. Overview of site 31BW855, facing north.

Figure 5.9. Typical soil profile at site 31BW855.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 66
5.3 Section 3
Section 3 begins north of Lee Buck Road SE and ends on the west side of Pretty Pond. This section of alignment is
roughly 5.9 miles in length; five areas along this section of the project corridor were shovel tested (2.1 miles; Areas
4 through 8), roughly 0.4-mile was not surveyed due to no access or no new acquisition, and the remaining 3.4
miles were not surveyed due to the soils being poorly drained and/or areas containing standing water (Figure 4.3).
Lee Buck Road SE, Governors Road SE, Funston Road SE, Siesta Road, and E Boiling Spring Road are the named
roadways crossed on the portion of the pipeline corridor; Swain Branch is the only named waterway along this
section of pipeline corridor.

Three new archaeological sites (31BW856 through 31BW858) were recorded along this section of pipeline corridor
and each of the sites are discussed in greater detail below.
5.3.1 Site 31BW856
Site Number: Site 31BW856 NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Historic ceramic isolate Elevation: 26 ft AMSL
Components: 20th Century Landform: Plain
UTM Coordinates: E219856, N3780333 (18N, NAD 83) Soil Type: Goldsboro fine sandy loam
Site Dimensions: 15 m N/S x 15 m E/W Vegetation: Secondary growth
Artifact Depth: Surface No. of STPs/Positive STPs: 6/0
Site 31BW856 is a twentieth century ceramic isolate located on a plain along a dirt road (Figure 1.4). The site is in
an area of secondary growth, measures approximately 15 m north/south by 15 m east/west, and is bounded by
two negative shovel tests to the north and east, by an existing pipeline corridor and railroad to the west, and by
Lee Buck Road SE to the south (Figures 5.10 and 5.11).

Six shovel tests were excavated at the site; a typical soil profile consisted of approximately 30 cm of grayish brown
(10YR 5/2) sand, followed by 10+ cm (30–40+ cmbs) of mottled yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) and strong brown
(7.5YR 5/8) sandy clay subsoil (Figure 5.12). One piece of blue annular decorated porcelain was recovered from the
surface of the site, no artifacts were identified within the shovel tests (Appendix B). No structures are shown at this
location on the historic maps.

Site 31BW856 is a twentieth century ceramic isolate with no remaining integrity. Given the paucity of artifacts
recovered from the site and the disturbances associated with the existing pipeline corridor and railroad, it is
S&ME’s opinion that the site is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of history (Criterion A); is not associated with the lives of significant persons in the past (Criterion B); does
not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or methods of construction, represent the work of a
master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may
lack individual distinction (Criterion C); and is unlikely to yield significant information on the history of the area
(Criterion D). As such, site 31BW856 is recommended ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

STP 5-1
STP 5-2
STP 5-3
L
e
e

B
u
c
k

R
o
a
d

S
E
0 15 30
Meters
LEGEND
Surface Scatter
Negative STP
Unexcavated STP
Site Datum
Site Boundary
Existing Pipeline
Railroad Tracks
Ditch
SCALE:
DATE:
PROJECT NUMBER
FIGURE NO.
N
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, South Carolina
5.10
7335-20-081
11/18/2020
As ShownSite Map - 31BW856
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 68
Figure 5.11. Overview of site 31BW856, facing south.

Figure 5.12. Typical soil profile at site 31BW856.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 69
5.3.2 Site 31BW857
Site Number: Site 31BW857 NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Historic artifact scatter Elevation: 35 ft AMSL
Components: 19th/20th Century Landform: Plain
UTM Coordinates: E219782, N3779150 (18N, NAD 83) Soil Type: Goldsboro fine sandy loam
Site Dimensions: 20 m N/S x 20 m E/W Vegetation: Pasture
Artifact Depth: Surface No. of STPs/Positive STPs: 7/0
Site 31BW857 is a nineteenth/twentieth century artifact scatter located on a plain along a dirt road (Figure 1.4).
The site is in a pasture, measures approximately 20 m north/south by 20 m east/west, and is bounded by two
negative shovel tests to the north, south, and east, and by an existing pipeline corridor and railroad to the west
(Figures 5.13 and 5.14).

Seven shovel tests were excavated at the site; a typical soil profile consisted of approximately 15 cm of grayish
brown (10YR 5/2) sand, followed by 15 cm (15–30 cmbs) of yellow (10YR 7/8) sand, terminating with 10+ cm (30–
40+ cmbs) of gray (10YR 6/1) sandy clay subsoil (Figure 5.15). Four historic artifacts were recovered from the
surface of the site, no artifacts were identified within the shovel tests. The artifacts consist of one piece of plain
whiteware and three pieces of glass (one cobalt blue, one jadite, and one clear) (Appendix B); a structure is shown
to the south of the site on the 1962 topographic map (Figure 5.16).

Site 31BW857 is a nineteenth/twentieth century artifact scatter with no remaining integrity. Given the paucity of
artifacts recovered from the site, the lack of structural material identified at the site, and the disturbances
associated with the existing pipeline corridor and railroad, it is S&ME’s opinion that the site is not associated with
events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history (Criterion A); is not associated
with the lives of significant persons in the past (Criterion B); does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, or methods of construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent
a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (Criterion C); and is
unlikely to yield significant information on the history of the area (Criterion D). As such, site 31BW857 is
recommended ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
5.3.3 Site 31BW858
Site Number: Site 31BW858 NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Historic artifact scatter Elevation: 42 ft AMSL
Components: 19th/20th Century Landform: Plain
UTM Coordinates: E219721, N3778443 (18N, NAD 83) Soil Type: Goldsboro fine sandy loam
Site Dimensions: 20 m N/S x 20 m E/W Vegetation: Pine
Artifact Depth: Surface No. of STPs/Positive STPs: 5/0
Site 31BW858 is a nineteenth/twentieth century artifact scatter located on a plain between two dirt roads (Figure
1.4). The site is in an area of pine trees, measures approximately 20 m north/south by 20 m east/west, and is
bounded by two negative shovel tests to the north, Funston Road SE to the east and south, and by an existing
pipeline corridor and railroad to the west (Figures 5.17 and 5.18).

STP 7-9
0 15 30
Meters
STP 7-11
STP 7-7
LEGEND
Surface Scatter
Negative STP
Unexcavated STP
Site Datum
Site Boundary
Existing Pipeline
Railroad Tracks
Ditch
SCALE:
DATE:
PROJECT NUMBER
FIGURE NO.
N
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, South Carolina
5.13
7335-20-081
11/18/2020
As ShownSite Map - 31BW857
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 71
Figure 5.14. Overview of site 31BW857, facing east.

Figure 5.15. Typical soil profile at site 31BW857.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 72
Figure 5.16. Portion of the 1962 Funston topographic map showing site and structure in the vicinity.

Figure 5.17. Overview of site 31BW858, facing east.

STP 8-1 Go
v
e
r
n
o
r
s
R
o
a
d
SE
0 15 30
Meters
LEGEND
Surface Scatter
Negative STP
Unexcavated STP
Site Datum
Site Boundary
Existing Pipeline
Railroad Tracks
Ditch
STP 8-4
Daws
Cr
e
e
k
R
o
a
d
S
E
Funston
Road
SE
SCALE:
DATE:
PROJECT NUMBER
FIGURE NO.
N
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, South Carolina
5.18
7335-20-081
11/18/2020
As ShownSite Map - 31BW858
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 74
Five shovel tests were excavated at the site; a typical soil profile consisted of approximately 20 cm of gray (10YR
6/1) sand, followed by 15 cm (20–35 cmbs) of light gray (10YR 7/1) sand, terminating with 10+ cm (35–45+ cmbs)
of wet dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sandy clay subsoil (Figure 5.19). Two historic artifacts were recovered from
the surface of the site, no artifacts were identified within the shovel tests. The artifacts consist of one piece of
polychrome hand painted whiteware and one piece of aqua glass (Appendix B); a structure is shown to the
northeast of the site on the 1962 topographic map (Figure 5.20).

Site 31BW858 is a nineteenth/twentieth century artifact scatter with no remaining integrity. Given the paucity of
artifacts recovered from the site, the lack of structural material identified at the site, and the disturbances
associated with the existing pipeline corridor, roadways, and railroad, it is S&ME’s opinion that the site is not
associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history (Criterion A); is
not associated with the lives of significant persons in the past (Criterion B); does not embody the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or methods of construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic
values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction
(Criterion C); and is unlikely to yield significant information on the history of the area (Criterion D). As such, site
31BW858 is recommended ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
5.4 Section 4
Section 4 begins on the west side of Pretty Pond and ends north of MOTSP Access Road. This section of alignment
is roughly 5.4 miles in length; five areas along this section of the project corridor were shovel tested (2.5 miles;
Areas 8 through 12) and the remaining 2.9 miles were not surveyed due to disturbances associated with Sunny
Point military base, the soils were poorly drained, and/or areas containing standing water (Figure 4.4). River Road
SE (NC Route 133) is the only named roadway crossed on the portion of the pipeline corridor; Allen Creek, Mirror
Lake, and Orton Creek are the named waterways along this section of pipeline corridor.

Previously recorded archaeological site 31BW559 is noted as being along this section of pipeline corridor. No
attempt was made to re-locate the site since the site had been determined to be not eligible for inclusion in the
NRHP in 1992 and the area had been previously surveyed.
5.5 Section 5
Section 5 begins north of MOTSP Access Road and ends at the ADM Southport Plant. This section of alignment is
roughly 5.1 miles in length; one area along this section of the project corridor was shovel tested (1.3 miles; Area
13), roughly 2.3 miles was not surveyed due to no access or no new acquisition, and the remaining 1.5 miles were
not surveyed due to disturbances associated with Sunny Point military base, the soils were poorly drained, and/or
areas containing standing water (Figure 4.5). MOTSP Access Road, Bethel Road SE, Cogentrix Drive, E Leoneard
Street, and E Moore Street are crossed on this portion of the pipeline corridor; White Spring Creek is the only
named waterway crossed on this section of pipeline corridor.

Previously recorded archaeological site 31BW529, Swain Cemetery, is noted as being along this section of pipeline
corridor. An attempt was made to re-locate the site during the current investigations. The location in which site

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 75
Figure 5.19. Typical soil profile at site 31BW858.

Figure 5.20. Portion of the 1962 Funston topographic map showing site and structure in the vicinity.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 76
31BW529 is recorded covers almost 2.5 acres and is described as containing three graves within a fenced area.
This is a large area of low lying terrain that either contains standing water or wet soil or has been disturbed by
pipeline, electric transmission line, or railroad installation/construction (Figures 5.21 and 5.22). S&ME was unable
to re-locate site 31BW529 and feels the site might be mis plotted based on the directions and distances given on
the 1980 site form and is more likely to be located in the area marked in Figures 5.23 and 5.24.

Figure 5.21. Buried natural gas pipeline corridor, slope leading to railroad track to right, and
transmission line corridor straight ahead within the recorded boundaries of site 31BW529, facing
north.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 77
Figure 5.22. Delineated wetland within the recorded boundaries of site 31BW529, facing southwest.

31BW529Swain Cemetery
Likely location of site 31BW 529
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed, Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AeroGR ID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
³
7335-20-081
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAW N BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
0 0.250.125 MILES
Topographic Map showing SIte 31BW529Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project 5.23
Legend Proposed Project CorridorPossible Site 31BW 529 LocationPreviously Recorded Archaeological SiteSouthport 7.5' USGS topographicquadrangle.
KJN
11/18/2020Drawing Path: C:\Users\KNagle\Desktop\Line 99\GIS\Figures\Figure 5-23 topo.mxd plotted by KNagle 11-18-2020Brunswick County, North Carolina
1:8,759
31BW529Swain Cemetery
Likely location of site 31BW 529
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/AirbusDS, U SDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
³
7335-20-081
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAW N BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
0 0.250.125 MILES
Aerial Map showing SIte 31BW529Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project 5.24
Legend Proposed Project CorridorPossible Site 31BW 529 LocationPreviously Recorded Archaeological SiteESRI Aerial Imagery.
KJN
11/18/2020Drawing Path: C:\Users\KNagle\Desktop\Line 99\GIS\Figures\Figure 5-24 aerial.mxd plotted by KNagle 11-18-2020Brunswick County, North Carolina
1:8,759
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 80
6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
On behalf of PNG, S&ME has completed an archaeological survey for the proposed Line 99 Easement Acquisition
Project in Brunswick County, North Carolina. The northern end of the alignment is located at an existing pump
station north of Interstate 140 and west of Mt. Misery Road NE, roughly four miles northwest of the city center of
Leland, North Carolina. The alignment travels generally south and southeast, approximately 27 miles, to the
southern end of the pipeline corridor, which is located at an existing pump station east of E. Moore Street, roughly
two mile northeast of city center of Southport, North Carolina (Figures 1.1 through 1.8).

In response to a scoping letter submitted by S&ME to the SHPO, the SHPO requested and archaeological survey
of the project corridor and consultation over the field methods used considering they did not expect the 27-mile
length to be systematically surveyed; the project was determined to have no effect on historic structures (Letter
from SHPO to Kimberly Nagle, dated August 14, 2020, Appendix A). In email correspondence between Ms. Nagle
and Stephen Atkinson with SHPO, dated September 14, 2020, the proposed field methodology was accepted:

 Complete site file and historic map research to determine what has been previously recorded along
the proposed alignment or what was depicted on the maps in the vicinity of the corridor and
systematically shovel test those locations.
 Review the soil types recorded along the proposed corridor and systematically shovel test the well-
drained and moderately well-drained areas.
 Examine the landforms along the proposed corridor and shovel test the area’s leading up to
waterways, avoiding areas of hydric soil, delineated wetland, and standing water.
 Document disturbances and/or current conditions in the areas discussed above that prohibit shovel
tests from being excavated.
The following work was conducted in response to the SHPO letter and the presented field methods, and was
carried out in general accordance with the agreed-upon scope, terms, and conditions presented in S&ME
Proposal No. 73-2000094, dated June 4, 2020. The APE for direct effects for the proposed undertaking consists of
a 30 feet of easement adjacent to the existing pipeline easement; indirect effects were not assessed, as the SHPO
letter indicated there would be no effect on aboveground historic resources. Based on the accepted approach to
fieldwork outlined above 7.6 miles of proposed pipeline corridor was not surveyed due to no new acquisition or
no permission; 12.6 miles was not surveyed due to disturbances, standing water, and/or poorly drained soils; 6.9
miles of pipeline corridor was systematically shovel tested. Fieldwork for the project was conducted from October
5 through October 7, 2020; specifically, three people worked for three days on the project. This work included
investigating 13 noncontiguous areas and excavating 303 shovel tests.

As a result of the investigations, five new archaeological sites (31BW854 through 31BW858) were identified and an
attempt was made to re-locate previously recorded archaeological site 31BW529, Swain Cemetery (Figures 1.4, 1.5,
and 1.8; Table 1.1). Sites 31BW854 through 31BW858 are recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
S&ME was unable to re-locate site 31BW529 and feel the site might be mis plotted based on the directions and
distances given on the 1980 site form.

Previously recorded sites 31BW559 and 31BW755 are also located along the alignment. Archaeological site
31BW559 is a prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter that was identified in 1992; Phase I survey and Phase II testing
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 81
resulted in the determination of the site as not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. No additional work at the site is
recommended for the current investigations. Archaeological site 31BW755 is a prehistoric short-term habitation
site that was determined to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP in 2009. The archaeological site is located along a
portion of the alignment where no access was granted and no additional easement acquisition will occur. As long
as no ground disturbing activity occurs in and around the archaeological site, the area is not used for staging of
equipment, and the project plans do not change, no additional work is necessary at site 31BW755.

It is the opinion of S&ME that no significant resources will be affected by the alignment as it is currently proposed.
As such, S&ME recommends that no additional cultural resource investigations are necessary at this time.
However, if the alignment changes additional cultural resource investigations and consultation with the SHPO may
be necessary.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 82
7.0 References Cited
Abbott, Lawrence E., Joel D. Gunn, Erica Sanborn, Jennifer Langdale, and Sean Norris
2003 Phase I Archaeological Survey of 1,344 Acres at Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point, Brunswick, North
Carolina. New South and Associates.

Abbott, Lawrence E., Erica Sanborn, Leslie Raymer, Lisa D. O’Steen, William J. Cleary, and G. Craig Turner
1999 Data Recovery at 31CB114, Columbus County, North Carolina: Prehistoric Settlement and Subsistence
Practices within the Lower Cape Fear River Valley. New South Associates Technical Report No. 618. Submitted
to International Paper Company, Inc., Reigelwood, North Carolina by New South Associates, Stone Mountain,
Georgia.

Adovasio, James M. and D.C. Hyland, R. L. Andrews, and T.S. Illingsworth
2002 Wooden Artifacts. In Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery, edited
by Glen H. Doran. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Adovasio, J.M., and D.R. Pedler
1996 Monte Verde and the Antiquity of Humankind in the America. Antiquity 71:573-580.

Adovasio, James M., J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath
1990 The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology, 1975–1990. American Antiquity 55(2):348–354.

Adovasio, James M., J.D. Gunn, J. Donahue, R. Stuckenrath, J.E. Guilday, and K. Lord
1979 Meadowcroft Rockshelter—Retrospective 1977: Part I. North American Archaeologist 1:3–44.
1980a Meadowcroft Rockshelter—Retrospective 1977: Part 2. North American Archaeologist 1(2):99–137.

Adovasio, James M., J.D. Gunn, J. Donahue, R. Stuckenrath, J.E. Guilday, and K. Volman
1980b Yes Virginia, It Really is that Old: A Reply to Haynes and Mead. American Antiquity 45:588–595.

Ahler, Stanley A.
1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather Than the Tree. In Alternative Approaches to
Lithic Analysis, edited by D.O. Henry and George H. Odell, pp.85–118. Archeological Papers of the American
Anthropological Association No. 1.

Anderson, David G.
1996 Approaches to Modeling and Regional Settlement in the Archaic Period Southeast. In Archaeology of the Mid-
Holocene Southeast. Edited by D.G. Anderson, and K.E. Sassaman, pp. 157–176. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.
1994 The Savannah River Chiefdoms: Political Change in the Late Prehistoric Southeast. University of Alabama
Press, Tuscaloosa.
1992 Models of Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement in the Lower Southeast. In
Paleoindian and Early Archaic Research in the Lower Southeast: A South Carolina Perspective, edited by D. G.
Anderson, K. E. Sassaman, and C. Judge, pp. 28–47. Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists,
Columbia.
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 83
Anderson, David G., and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah River Valley.
American Antiquity 53:262–286.

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. 2 vols. Gilbert/Commonwealth Associates, Inc.,
Jackson, Michigan. Submitted to Interagency Archeological Services, National Park Service, Atlanta.

Anderson, David G., Lisa O’Steen, and Kenneth E. Sassaman
1996 Environmental and Chronological Considerations. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast. Edited by
D.G. Anderson, and K.E. Sassaman, pp. 3–15. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Anderson, David G., Kenneth E. Sassaman, and Christopher Judge (editors)
1992 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Period Research in the Lower Southeast: A South Carolina Perspective. Council
of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists, Columbia.

Anderson, David G., and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr.
2002 An Introduction to Woodland Archaeology in the Southeast. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David
G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 1-19. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Anderson, David G., and Kenneth E. Sassaman
1996 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Research in the South Carolina Area. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic
Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 222-237. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.

Blanton, Dennis B., and Kenneth E. Sassaman
1989 Pattern and Process in the Middle Archaic Period of South Carolina. In Studies in South Carolina
Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson. Anthropological Studies 9. Occasional Papers of the
South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, pp. 53–72.

Brown, Henry C.
1900 Railroad Map of North Carolina. North Carolina Corporation Commission. Rand McNally and Company,
Engravers, Chicago. Available at: <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3901p.rr002740>

Cantley, Charles E., and John S. Cable
2002 Archaeological Data Recovery at Sites 38SU136/137 and 38SU141, Poinsett Electronic Combat Range, Sumter
County, South Carolina. Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, by New
South Associates, Inc., Stone Mountain, Georgia.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society
54(5):1–130. The American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.

Chapman, Jefferson, and James M. Adovasio
1977 Textile and Basketry Impressions from Icehouse Bottom, Tennessee. American Antiquity 42:620-625.
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 84
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 54(5).
Philadelphia.

Collet, John
1770 A Compleat Map of North Carolina From an Actual Survey. I Bayley. Copy from W. P. Cumming, 1966, North
Carolina in Maps, State Department of Archives and History, Raleigh, Plate VII. Available through North
Carolina Historical Publications Shop.

Corbitt, David Leroy
1950 The Formation of the North Carolina Counties, 1663-1943. North Carolina State Department of Archives
and History, Raleigh.

Daniel, I. Randolph. Jr.
1998 Hardaway Revisited: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2001 Stone Raw Material Availability and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States. American
Antiquity 66:237–265.

Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt
1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of the Southeastern United States. In Pollen Records of
Late-Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by V. M. Bryant Jr. and R. G. Holloway, pp. 1–37. American
Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation.

DePratter, Chester B.
1979 Ceramics. In The Anthropology of St. Catherines Island 2: The Refuge-Deptford Mortuary Complex, edited by
D. H. Thomas and C. S. Larson, pp. 109–132. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History
56(1).

Dillehay, T. C.
1989 Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Smithsonian Press, Washington, D.C.

Glassow, M. A.
1977 Issues in Evaluating the Significance of Archaeological Resources. American Antiquity 41(3):413–420.

Goodyear, Albert C., III
1974 The Brand Site: A Techno-Functional Study of a Dalton Site in Northeast Arkansas. Arkansas Archeological
Survey Research Series, No. 7. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.
1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials Among Paleo-Indian Groups of North America.
Research Manuscript Series No. 156. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of
South Carolina, Columbia.
2005 Evidence of Pre-Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States. In Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis, edited
by Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley Lepper, Dennis Standford, and Michael Waters. Center for the Study of the
First Americans, Department of Anthropology, Texas A/M University.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 85
Goodyear, Albert C., III., James L. Michie, and Tommy Charles
1989 The Earliest South Carolinians. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology, Essays in Honor of Robert L.
Stephenson, pp. 19–52, Anthropological Studies 9. Occasional Papers of the South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Hargrove, Thomas and Jane M. Eastman
1997 Limestone-or Marl-Tempered Ceramics from the Lower Cape Fear River Region, New Hanover County,
North Carolina. North Carolina Archaeology 46:91–108.

Hargrove, Thomas
1993 Archaeological Excavations at 31NH142, Hamp’s Landing, River Road Park, New Hanover County, North
Carolina. Report submitted by Archaeological research Consultants, Inc. to New Hanover County Department
of Parks and Recreation, Wilmington, North Carolina.

Heide, Gregory, and Michael Russo
2003 Investigation of the Coosaw Island Shell Ring Complex (38BU1866). Report prepared for the South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources Heritage Trust Program, by the Southeast Archaeological Center, National
Park Service, Tallahassee.
1999 Prehistoric Pottery Taxonomy and Sequence on the Southern Coast of North Carolina. North Carolina
Archaeology 48:37-58.

Herbert, Joseph M.
2003 Woodland Ceramics and Social Boundaries of Coastal North Carolina. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Herbert, Joseph M., and Mark A. Mathis
1996 An Appraisal and Re-evaluation of the Prehistoric Pottery Sequence of Southern Coastal North Carolina. In
Indian Pottery of the Carolinas: Observation from the March 1995 Ceramic Workshop at Hobcaw Barony, edited
by David G. Anderson, pp.136–189. Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists, Columbia.

House, John, and David Ballenger
1976 An Archaeological Survey of the Interstate 77 Route in the South Carolina Piedmont. South Carolina Institute
of Archaeology and Anthropology Research Manuscript Series 104, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Justice, Noel D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press,
Bloomington.

Kerr, Washington Caruthers and William Cain
1882 North Carolina. American Geographical Society Digital Map Collection. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Library. Available at: <http://collections.lib.uwm.edu/cdm/ref/collection/agdm/id/346>

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 86
Klein, Terry H., Joseph M. Herbert, and Susanne S. Pickens
1994 Phase I Archaeological survey Wilmington Bypass, New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina.
Greiner, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina.

Lee, Enoch Lawrence, Jr.
1951 The History of Brunswick, North Carolina: The Political and Economic Development of a Colonial Town. M.
A. Thesis. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
1965 The Lower Cape Fear in Colonial Days. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
1978 The History of Brunswick County, North Carolina. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

McAvoy, Joseph M., and Lynn McAvoy
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Research Report Series
No. 8. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.

McRae, John and Robert H. B. Brazier
1833 A New Map of the State of North Carolina, Constructed from Actual Surveys. North Carolina Maps.
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Available at:
<http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/181/rec/7>.

McDonald, Jerry N.
2000 An Outline of the Pre-Clovis Archeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia, with Special Attention to a bone Tool
Dated 14,510 yr B.P. Jeffersoniana 9:1-59.

Meinig, D.W.
1986 The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 years of History. Yale University Press, New
Haven.

Meltzer, David J., Donald K. Grayson, Gerardo Ardila, Alex W. Barker, Dena F. Dincauze, C. Vance Haynes, Franciso
Mena, Lautaro Nunez, and Dennis Stanford
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 62(4):659–663.

Miller, George L.
1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics from 1787 to
1880. Historical Archaeology 25:1-25.

Moser, Jason D., William Green, Heather Jones, and Rachel Roden
2007 Phase I and II Archaeological Investigations of the NNP IV Cape Fear Tract New Hanover County, North
Carolina. Report prepared for Newland Communities, Wilmington, North Carolina, by S&ME, Inc., Columbia,
South Carolina.

Moser, Jason D., William Green, and Kimberly Nagle
2009 Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at the Barnards Creek Site (31NH747) and Supplemental Phase II
Testing at the Marina Village Site (31NH456/456**) New Hanover County, North Carolina. Report prepared for
Newland Communities, Wilmington, North Carolina, by S&ME, Inc., Columbia, South Carolina.
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 87
Munsell
1994 Munsell Soil Color Charts. Munsell Color, Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation,
Baltimore, Maryland.

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

North Carolina Board of Agriculture
1903 Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of North Carolina. Edwards and Broughton, Raleigh,
North Carolina.

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
1938 Brunswick County. State Highway Map. North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh.
1953 Brunswick County. State Highway Map. North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh.
1968 Brunswick County. State Highway Map. North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh.

North Carolina Geological Survey
2004 North Carolina Geology [Online WWW]. Available URL:
<http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/geomap.htm.>
1985 “Geologic Map of North Carolina.” North Carolina Geological Survey, Raleigh.

Outland, Robert B., III
1996 Slavery, Work, and the Geography of the North Carolina Naval Stores Industry, 1835-1860. The Journal of
Southern History 62(1):27-56.

Perkinson, Phil H.
1971 North Carolina fluted Projectile Points—Survey Report Number One. Southern Indian Studies 23:3–40.

Perry, Percival
1968 The Naval-Stores Industry in the Old South: 1790-1860. The Journal of Southern History 34(4):509-526.

Phelps, David S.
1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and Hypotheses. In The Prehistory of
North Carolina, An Archaeological Symposium edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 1–51. Division
of Archives and History, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources.

Price, Jonathan and John Strother
1808 The First Actual Survey of the State of North Carolina. North Carolina Maps. University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill. Available at: < http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ncmaps/id/520>

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

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 88
Purrington, Burton L.
1983 Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of the Prehistoric Archaeology of North Carolina’s Western Mountain
Region. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and
Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 83-160. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History,
Raleigh.

Randall, Duncan P.
1968 Wilmington, North Carolina: The Historical Development of a Port City. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 58(3):441-451.

Richards, Horace G.
1950 Geology of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 40(1):1-
83.

Ritchie, William A.
1961 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. New York State Museum and Science Service,
Bulletin No. 384, Albany.

Robinson, Kenneth W.
1997 Port Brunswick and the Colonial Naval Stores Industry: Historical and Archaeological Observations.
North Carolina Archaeology 46:51-68.

Russo, Michael, and Gregory Heide
2003 Mapping the Sewee Shell Ring. Report prepared for the Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests, by the
Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

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

Sassaman, Kenneth E., and David G. Anderson
1995 Middle and Late Archaic Archaeological Records of South Carolina: A Synthesis for Research and Resource
Management. Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 6, 2nd edition. South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia.

Sassaman, Kenneth E., Meggan E. Blessing, and Asa R. Randall
2006 Stallings Island Revisited: New Evidence for Occupational History, Community Patterns, and Subsistence
Technology. American Antiquity 71:539-565.

Sassaman, Kenneth E., I Randolph Daniel Jr., and Christopher R. Moore
2002 G.S. Lewis-East: Early and Late Archaic Occupation along the Savannah River, Aiken County, South Carolina.
Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 12, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Columbia.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 89
Sassaman, Kenneth E., Mark J. Brooks, Glen T. Hanson, and David G. Anderson
1990 Native American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley: A Synthesis of Archaeological
Investigations on the Savannah River Site, Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina. Savannah River
Archaeological Research Papers 1, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia.

Saunders, Rebecca, and Michael Russo
2002 The Fig Island Ring Complex (38CH42): Coastal Adaptation and the Question of Ring Function in the Late
Archaic. Report prepared for the South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia.

South, Stanley
1976 An Archeological Survey of Southeastern Coastal North Carolina. In The Institute of Archeology and
Anthropology Notebook, edited by Robert L. Stephenson, pp.1–55. University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Strother, John, and Jonathan Price
1808 To David Stone and Peter Brown, Esqs: This First Actual Survey of the State of North Carolina. W. Harrison,
Philadelphia. Copy from W. P. Cumming, 1966, North Carolina in Maps, State Department of Archives and
History, Raleigh, Plate IX. Available through North Carolina Historical Publications Shop.

Trinkley, Michael B.
1980 A Typology of Thom’s Creek Pottery for the South Carolina Coast. South Carolina Antiquities 12:1-35.
1981 Studies of Three Woodland Period Sites in Beaufort County, South Carolina. South Carolina Department of
Transportation, Columbia.
1989 An Archaeological Overview of the South Carolina Woodland Period: It’s the Same Old Riddle. In Studies in
South Carolina Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson, edited by A.C. Goodyear and G.T.
Hanson. Anthropological Studies No. 9, Occasional Papers of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
1990 An Archaeological Context for the South Carolina Woodland Period. Chicora Foundation Research Series
No. 22. Chicora Foundation, Columbia.

Turner, L.C.
1863 Part 2: topographical map showing the fortifications and roads in the vicinity of the Cape Fear. Digital Map
Collection North Carolina Maps, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina State Archives.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1937 Soil Survey of Brunswick County, North Carolina. Eastern North Carolina Digital Library, East Carolina
University.

United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1946 Snow Marsh. 30-minute topographic quadrangle.
1946 Southport. 30-minute topographic quadrangle.
1954 Acme. 30-minute topographic quadrangle.
1962 Funston. 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
1962 Winnabow. 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
1980 Kure Beach. 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 90
1984 Leland. 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
1990 Southport. 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.

Ward, Trawick H.
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The
Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp.
53-80. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.

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

Watson, Alan D.
1992 Wilmington: Port of North Carolina. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Webb, Paul A., and David S. Leigh
1995 Geomorphological and Archaeological Investigations of a Buried Site on the Yadkin River Floodplain.
Southern Indian Studies 44:1-36.

Williams, Stephen B. (editor)
1968 Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology 58.

Wood, Bradford J.
2004 This Remote Part of the World: Regional Formation in Lower Cape Fear, North Carolina, 1725-1775.
University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 91
8.0 Appendix A – SHPO Correspondence

1
Kimberly Jean Nagle
From:Atkinson, Stephen B <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 2:21 PM
To:Kimberly Jean Nagle
Cc:Southerly, Chris; DePalma, Alicia
Subject:ER 20-1520 Line 99 Field Methods
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
This message originated outside of S&ME. Please report this as phishing if it implies it is from an S&ME employee.
Hello,
My name is Stephen Atkinson, the current reviewer for this project. Your approach for fieldwork on the Line 99 project
sounds perfectly reasonable, so feel free to proceed. Let me know if you have any other questions, or if there’s anything
else I can do for you.
Best,
Stephen Atkinson, MA, RPA
Assistant State Archaeologist
Underwater Archaeology Branch | Office of State Archaeology
1528 Fort Fisher Boulevard South | Kure Beach, NC 28449
910 251 7325 Office | 910 251 7320 Main
[e-mail]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube
1
Kimberly Jean Nagle
From:Kimberly Jean Nagle
Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 8:02 AM
To:[e-mail]
Cc:DePalma, Alicia
Subject:ER 20-1520 Line 99 Field Methods
Attachments:ER 20 1520.pdf
Good morning Chris,
We are preparing to begin fieldwork for the Line 99 project in Brunswick County and I wanted to reach out regarding
field methods for the project. The response letter, see attached, mentions working with us to create a feasible and
realistic survey plan. In regards to determining the areas of highest probability, we propose the following:
-Complete site file and historic map research to determine what has been previously recorded along the
proposed alignment or what was depicted on the maps in the vicinity of the corridor and systematically shovel
test those locations. I have submitted the alignment and search radius for site file research this morning.
-Review the soil types recorded along the proposed corridor and systematically shovel test the well-drained and
moderately well-drained areas.
-Examine the landforms along the proposed corridor and shovel test the areas leading up to waterways, avoiding
areas of hydric soil, delineated wetland, and standing water.
-We propose to document disturbances and/or current conditions in these areas that prohibit shovel tests from
being excavated.
Please let me know if this approach sounds reasonable.
Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you,
Kimberly
Kimberly Nagle, M.S., RPA
Senior Archaeologist/Project Manager
S&ME
134 Suber Road
Columbia, SC 29210 map
O: 803.561.9024
M: 814.599.0154
www.smeinc.com
LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook
This electronic message is subject to the terms of use set forth at www.smeinc.com/email. If you received this message in error please advise the sender
by reply and delete this electronic message and any attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

August 14, 2020

Kimberly Nagle, M.S., RPA [e-mail]
S&ME, Inc.
134 Suber Road
Columbia, SC 29210

Re: Acquire Line 99 Easement, Leland to Southport, Brunswick County, ER 20-1520

Dear Ms. Nagle:

Thank you for your July 6, 2020, submission concerning the above-referenced project. We have reviewed
the project and offer the following comments.

Due to the overall distance of the proposed 27-mile easement project, it has been determined that the
project has a high probability of uncovering and/or impacting archaeological sites located within the
vicinity of the desired 30 foot easement expansion and clearing. This office is willing to work with you to
determine the areas of highest probability where survey is most integral, and to create a feasible and
realistic survey plan.

The purpose of this survey is to identify archaeological sites and make recommendations regarding their
eligibility status in terms of the NRHP. This work should be conducted by an experienced archaeologist
that meets the Secretary of the Interior professional qualifications standards. A list of archaeological
consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North Carolina is available at
https://archaeology.ncdcr.gov/archaeological-consultant-list. The archaeologists listed, or any other
experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey. Please note that our
office requests consultation with the Office of State Archaeology Review Archaeologist to discuss
appropriate field methodologies prior to the archaeological field investigation.

One paper copy and one digital copy (PDF) of all resulting archaeological reports, as well as a digital copy
(PDF) of the North Carolina Site Form for each site recorded, should be forwarded to the Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) through this office, for review and comment as soon as they are available and in
advance of any construction or ground disturbance activities. OSA’s Archaeological Standards and
Guidelines for Background Research, Field Methodologies, Technical Reports, and Curation can be found
online at: https://files.nc.gov/dncr-arch/OSA_Guidelines_Dec2017.pdf.

We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures.

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.

Sincerely,

Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer

Archaeological Survey
Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-20-081
SHPO ER No. 20-1520

November 2020 92
9.0 Appendix B – Artifact Catalog
Appendix B - Line 99 Easement Acquisition Project Artifact Catalog
Site #Cat. #Provenience Depth (cmbs) Count
Weight
(g)Class Category Sub-Category Type/Description Material Portion Temper
Lithic Size
Grade Notes
31BW854 1.01 STP 2-2 0-5 5 16.2 Other Masonry Brick Machine Made
31BW854 2.01 STP 2-3 0-20 1 2.7 H. Ceramic Ref. Earthenware Whiteware Plain Body 1815- present
31BW855 1.01 STP 4-1 Surface 1 1.4 H. Ceramic Porcelain Soft Paste Brown/white glaze Rim
31BW855 1.02 STP 4-1 Surface 1 5.9 Other Masonry Brick Machine Made
31BW856 1.01 STP 5-1 Surface 1 2.5 H. Ceramic Porcelain Soft Paste Blue Annular Rim
31BW857 1.01 STP 7-9 Surface 1 1.2 H. Ceramic Ref. Earthenware Whiteware Plain Body 1815- present
31BW857 1.02 STP 7-9 Surface 1 3.5 Glass Machine Molded Dish Jadite Rim
31BW857 1.03 STP 7-9 Surface 1 0.8 Glass Machine Molded Unid. Vessel Cobalt blue Body
31BW857 1.04 STP 7-9 Surface 1 1.0 Glass Machine Molded Unid. Vessel Clear Body Frosted on one side, white paint on the other
31BW858 1.01 STP 8-1 Surface 1 3.7 Glass Machine Molded Unid. Vessel Aqua Body Melted
31BW858 1.02 STP 8-1 Surface 1 2.4 H. Ceramic Ref. Earthenware Whiteware Underglaze polychrome hand painted Body 1815- present. Blue and pink flowers
Artifact measurements in mm Page 1 of 1