20211018 Ver 1_PA 18-09-0104 REVISED APE I-5972 No NRHP Archaeological Sites Present Form I-95 US 70B Johnston (1)_20210621

Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 12
18-09-0104

NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
PRESENT FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project No: I-5972 County: JOHNSTON
WBS No: 44989.1.1 Document: PCE
F.A. No: NHP-0095(045) Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: TBD

Project Description: REVISED
NCDOT proposes improvements to the I-95 interchange with US 70 Business near Smithfield in Johnston
County. The work would include replacing Bridge No. 66, reworking the interchange ramps and a portion
of new location roadway to the southeast. The project length along I-95 is about 5280 ft (1 mile). The
width varies at the interchange though 1500 feet (0.28 miles) provides a good reference point for scale. For
purposes of this investigation, the archaeological Area of Potential Effects is the entire construction area of
the undertaking, including easements and new ROW (see Figures 1 and 2).
This is a federally funded and permitted project, therefore, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act applies for this archaeological review.
Please note that this is a revised form which covers and extended portion of APE towards the south of the
project to study a shift in alignment for a new location road. The original form was dated 11-09-18.

SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
Designed to locate, identify and evaluate National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) archaeological
resources within the APE, an archaeological survey was conducted on November 7th, 2018 by NCDOT
Archaeologists, Brian Overton and Paul Mohler. A return to examine an expanded APE for a proposed
alignment of a new location roadway was completed on November 27, 2018. The project area contains
mostly massively altered landscape due to the construction of the modern highway and interchange ramps.
Otherwise, the terrain is flat to gently sloping with a few low, wet soils not suitable for habitation or
agricultural pursuits.
A residence and farm complex along US 70 Business at the proposed new road has been demolished in the
past decade. Scarce evidence of the former occupation is on the surface except for driveways and graded
soils which also appear on later aerials. The newly added study area crosses over much of the demolished
farm buildings, work areas and drives. Due to the disturbances of the farm and the mechanized removal,
no subsurface testing was done at that location.
No previously recorded archaeological sites are located inside or immediately adjacent to the APE. Field
investigations which included a reconnaissance visual survey of the APE and systematic subsurface testing
at the relatively undisturbed new location roadway proposed southeast of the interchange. Surface visibility
in the soybean fields was low, less than ten percent of the ground surface. Note the western soy field had
been partially harvested since the original visit and offered good surface visibility. The intensive testing
utilized screened shovel test pits excavated at 30-meter intervals with 15-meter radial test dug as required
for site delineation. Areas of low probability, such as sloped, wet or obviously disturbed areas were not
subsurface tested. Most of the APE falls into this latter category. At the time of the second visit large
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 12
18-09-0104
portions of the eastern field had standing water. Lower elevation soils that are poorly drained are
unattractive for past human occupation. Further, subsurface testing was problematic where water is at the
surface or otherwise quickly fills the shovel test pit. These locations were not excavated.
Shovel test pits were evenly spaced along a single transect and were spaced approximately 30 meters apart.
A total of 12 shovel test pits were excavated during the first field effort, called Transect 1 for purposes of
reporting. Profiles were typical of the agricultural field that was tested, with a loamy plowzone to a depth
of about 30-40 cm followed by an interface into a clayey loam or loam subsoil. Near a transition to low,
poorly drained soils, a dark horizon (10YR3/3 loam ~ 10 cm) followed by a mottled or mixed soil which
had an appearance similar to fill dirt. Here, Shovel Test Pit 4 yielded one whiteware or ironstone fragment.
Two radial STPs were dug south and east of STP 4 but returned no artifacts. The single ceramic, being an
isolated artifact associated with soil suggestive of a fill episode in a low, wet area, was not documented as
an archaeological site. Except for small brick fragments, no other cultural materials were identified during
the visual inspection or shovel test pit screening for the remainder of Transect 1.
Transect 2 was examined in detail during the second field effort to cover a possible road alignment south
of the previous subsurface testing. No subsurface testing was done close to US 70 Bus due to overlapping
disturbances associated with a farm that was removed in the past decade or two. Three shovel test pits, like
those described above, were excavated and yielded no cultural materials. The remaining STPs on this
eastern side of Transect 2 (STP 4-9) were only recorded using GPS since water was on the surface and soils
found to be saturated when flipped over.
Across the roughly north to south drainage which passes through the wooded portion of the southern APE,
closer to SR 2507, another seven shovel test pits were excavated and screened (STP 10-16) following
Transect 2 from west to east (see Figure 3). Soil profiles were similar to those nearby dug during the first
visit for Transect 1. An isolated whiteware sherd was identified at STP 11, though the nearly ideal surface
visibility of freshly cut soy suggested radial testing would be unproductive. There was some standing water
toward the middle of the field where it collected in ruts near STP 14 which yielded late historic artifacts.
An additional ten STPs were excavated and screened to define a new historic archaeological site which has
been recorded with the Office of State Archaeology as 31Jt554. In total, ten positive STPs, each with 1- ~
30 artifacts, and surface collecting established the site boundaries. The historic residence or possibly barn
was located on the higher elevation of this field near a possible previous road or driveway seen on early
twentieth century maps. The boundary extends northward towards Transect 1 – STP 8 where brick
fragments had been noted. The artifacts include assorted bottle, table and other glass fragments, window
glass, brick and tile fragments, whiteware, glass (colorless and milk glass) canning lids, and nails. A few
examples of solarized glass were observed in the collection, dating from 1880s to perhaps around 1930.
No plastic was found. The artifacts tend to represent a first to second half of the twentieth century.
Historic maps and aerials were examined to better understand the nature of archaeological site 31Jt554.
Early twentieth century maps show the roadway then curved east of current Mallard Road (SR 2507), more
closely following high ground close to the drainage (Soil Map, Johnston County Sheet 1911,
MC.056.1911h; and Rural Delivery Routes, Johnston County 1918, CM912.51). Both these maps show
the shifted roadway but no structures are mapped at the site location on the first quarter century maps.
Historic aerials dated 1937, 1949, 1965 and 1971 show a building at the location of 31Jt554, suggesting it
was built prior to the mid 1930s. Note, by this time, Mallard Road was in its current alignment. The building
was apparently demolished and removed or otherwise the remains incorporated into the agricultural field.
By the August 16, 1979, aerial mapping (NCDOT m1513-7562) shows the structures to longer be standing
and the field turned over.

Deed research was conducted focusing on the parcels related to the archaeological remains. Please see
attached documentation, prepared by NCDOT archaeologist Paul J. Mohler.

One new archaeological site, 31Jt554, was documented as a result of the investigation and survey. The
historic site dates to near the second quarter of the twentieth century based on historic maps, aerials, artifacts
and deed research. This common archaeological site type is not recommended eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. A finding of no National Register of Historic Places listed or eligible
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 12
18-09-0104
sites is appropriate. No further archaeological investigation is warranted unless the design changes
significantly.

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Archaeology Group reviewed the subject
project and determined:
There are no National Register listed or eligible ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES present
within the project’s area of potential effects. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
No subsurface archaeological investigations were required for this project.
Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources.
Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources
considered eligible for the National Register.
All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and all
compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Signed:

01/02/2019

NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date
Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT” form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 4 of 12 18-09-0104 Figure 1. USGS mapping (Selma and Four Oaks) showing the general project location for the proposed new interchange, bridge and new location roadway. The approximate APE is shown in yellow, with expansion outlined in white.SelmaFour Oaks NE500064500524500523500522500521500520500519500411500105500066500042500040500017US-301US-70-BUSUS-70SR-2398S R -25 0 7
S R -1 0 0 7 SR-2508SR-2301SR-2509SR-1003SR-2548SR-2549SR-2560S R -2 4 0 3
SR-1921SR-2546SR-2510SR-1923SR-2553SR-2375SR-2563I-95I-95Buffalo CreekPolecat BranchMill BranchNEUSE RIVERSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, Copyright:© 2013 NationalGeographic Society, i-cubed, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS usercommunity0 5,000 10,0002,500 Feete
Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT” form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 5 of 12 18-09-0104 Figure 2. Aerial photography of TIP # I-5972/PA 18-09-0104 in Johnston Co. at I-95 at US 70 showing the APE in yellow. The new location roadway impacts site 31Jt554; shovel test pit locations and approximate proposed route shown. !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.31Jt554SelmaFour Oaks NE500066US-70-BUSSR-2398S R -2 5 0 7
SR-2560I-95I-95Polecat BranchSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community0 1,500 3,000750 Feete
Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT” form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 6 of 12 18-09-0104 Figure 3. Boundary of archaeological site 31Jt554 with expanded APE and preliminary proposed roadway marked.!(!(!(!(!(!(!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.31Jt5541011121316151414 S14 N15 N14 NW14 NE14 NWW14 NNE14 NNN14 NNE987121110S R -2 5 0 7 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community0 200 400100 FeeteTRANSECT 1TRANSECT 2
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
7 of 12
18-09-0104
Parcel Research (i.e. Deed Trace)

In June 2018, representatives for the Old Brogden Farms, LLC, acquired over 500 acres from
members of the Smith Family (Deed Book 5178, Page 843; Plat Book 71, Page 295), all of
whom had inherited an interest in the lands acquired by their father William Whitfield Smith, Sr.
(1928-2011), after their mother Jane (nee Parker) passed away (1931-2016). For nearly 80 years,
the property had been in the Smith Family until a decision was finally made to sell.

Married in 1957, William and Jane Smith acquired numerous parcels in this region of Johnston
County. However, the property that was recently sold to the Old Brogden Farms was once a
portion of the property bequeathed to William under the will of Roger A. Smith (1894-1971),
William’s father (Deed Book 1408, Page 800; Plat Book 43, Page 163).

In 1953, the lands of Roger Alexander Smith, Jr., were inventoried (Deed Book 509, Page 213),
enabling one to focus specifically on a 45-acre parcel on which Site 31JT554 was discovered.
This particular tract of land extended across Mallard Road and was purchased by Roger Smith in
October 1940 from V. R. Mallard and his wife Rena for $10 (Deed Book 419, Page 524). Based
on the 1940 Federal Census, the Mallards resided at 207 North 3rd Street in the Town of
Smithfield, their same place of residence as in 1935. Vass Mallard was also not a farmer for he’s
listed as a State patrolman in the census. In comparison, Roger Smith moved to Smithfield by
1930, living in a house on 3rd Street with his wife Alice and sons Roger and William. According
to the 1930 Federal Census, there is no indication that Roger ran a farm (i.e. no corresponding
number on the farm schedule). Moreover, he’s listed as an insurance salesman. Ten years later
in 1940, Roger appears by himself on South 5th Street in Smithfield, now working in both the
insurance and farming industries. Based on this cursory review, there is no documentary
evidence that the Mallards nor the Smiths lived on this particular parcel of land.

Interestingly enough, V. R. and Rena Mallard owned the 45-acre parcel for only six months,
having acquired the tract themselves in April 1940 from Hubert S. and Elizabeth H. Daughtry for
$10 and “other valuable consideration” (Deed Book 419, Page 306). In 1930, Hubert Daughtry
(born in 1912 and single) is shown as living with his parents, Walter and Nora, and five siblings.
Hubert Daughtry and Elizabeth Hill were married in January 1932. In 1934 and 1936, they
acquired two adjacent parcels, which when combined make up the 45-acre parcel later sold to the
Mallards (see Deed Book 240, Page 373 [40 acres from the Holding Family] and Deed Book
351, Page 314 [5 acres from the Hill Family]). Based on the description of the two tracts, it was
determined that the Holding Parcel encompassed the archaeological site location and was
referred to as “being the northern portion of the Sam Penny tract of land conveyed to Maggie B.
Holding by R. P. Holding, Mortgagee.” That conveyance occurred in April 1932 (Deed Book
318, Page 6). By 1940, the Daughtrys are shown as living along Route 2 in Smithfield in the
same house as in 1935 presumably on the same land they had purchased in 1934 and 1936. The
1940 Federal Census also indicates the Daughtrys and Sam Penny (87 years old at the time) were
neighbors, having been enumerated next to each other. Whether that’s down the road or across
the road can’t be determined; however, the difference in the monetary value ascribed to each
family’s home is quite shocking. The value of the Daughtry home is listed as $500 (equivalent
to over $9,000 today) whereas the value of the Penny home is listed as $3 (equivalent to about
$54 today). As a visual, the 1938 Johnston County Highway Map depicts five houses in the
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
8 of 12
18-09-0104
general vicinity, three on the west side of Mallard Road and two on the east side, which also
coincides with the 1937 aerial of the location.

In February 1930, Sam and Laura Penny took out a mortgage in the amount of $1,250 for 106
acres (Deed Book 245, Page 448). Later that same month, the holder of the mortgage changed
hands to R. P. Holding for an additional $332.90 and two mules named Kit and Queen (Deed
Book 263, Page 57). Unfortunately, the Pennys defaulted on their mortgage to R. P. Holding,
who then put the property up for auction on March 26, 1932. Oddly enough, R. P. Holding’s
wife Maggie was the highest bidder, paying $700 for the property and $1,000 for what remained
on the mortgage (Deed Book 318, Page 6). The Holdings held onto the property for two years
before selling it off in 1934, the northern 40-acre portion to the Daughtrys and the southern 66-
acre portion to the Hill Family (Deed Book 240, Page 374). Since the Hills lived in Boon Hill
Township (i.e. to the east), it is not clear whether they actually lived on the 66 acres they bought.
It is quite possible that Sam Penny remained on the 66 acres, since he is listed as renter in the
1940 Federal Census.

Take note that the timing for the Penny mortgage coincides with the Great Depression, the severe
economic downturn that began with the Stock Market crash of October 1929 and lasted until the
late-1930s. After the crash, when some farm owners could no longer pay their mortgages or
repay loans, banks foreclosed on them. When owners lost their farms, tenant farmers, who had
rented land and living quarters from the owners, and sharecroppers, who had worked the land for
a share of the crop, lost their homes and livelihoods too. Although the number of farms in the
state dwindled in the 1930s, the average farm size grew as some bankrupt small farmers sold
their lands to larger, more prosperous farmers. It is very probable that the Pennys were hit just as
hard as everyone else during the Depression, causing them to default on their mortgage.

The property that Sam Penny took out a mortgage on was acquired by him from his father Buck
Penny (and his wife Charity nee Tomlinson) between 1899 and 1902 (Deed Book H7, Page 79;
Deed Book J9, Page 523). Early maps of Johnston County (1911 Soil Map, the 1910-1919 Rural
Delivery Routes Map, and the 1900 Soil Map [Princeton Sheet]) do not depict any structures in
the immediate area of Site 31JT554; however, two to three structures are shown farther to the
south, one of which may have been the house for either Sam Penny or his father Buck. The
wording of the 1899 transaction follows as such:

“Beginning at a black gum A W Smith’s corner in the B B Hamilton line and runs
westwardly with A W Smith’s line to his corner to the line of the Raiford
Edwards tract of land thence with the line of said Edwards land to Seth Woodall
line thence eastwardly to the B B Hamilton line Bay Branch thence with the
Hamilton line to the beginning containing forty five acres (45) and is known as
the tract whereon the said Sam Penny now lives” (emphasis added).

Bay Branch is the name of the drainage along the east edge of the smaller parcel being
researched, and as of 1899, Sam Penny was living on that parcel, which could suggest that Buck
Penny was living somewhere else on the tract, perhaps in one of the structures depicted farther to
the south.

Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
9 of 12
18-09-0104
Although the 1902 transaction conveyed 135 acres, it really conveyed only 28 acres because
there were several exceptions to the conveyance: 1) -50 acres that were previously deeded to
Henderson Penny (another son, brother to Sam), 2) -45 acres that were previously deeded to Sam
Penny (see above), and 3) -12 acres previously deeded to W. H. Penny who then sold his portion
to Sam Penny. The remaining 28 acres “lying around my (Buck’s) house” were to be reserved as
a life estate albeit owned by his son Sam. In general terms, it can be determined where Sam and
Buck Penny were living; however, where exactly on the landscape their houses were is difficult
to ascertain; however, Sam and Buck are shown as neighbors in both the 1880 and 1900 Federal
Censuses. Given the domestic residential nature of the artifact assemblage for Site 31JT554, it is
possible that the site represents the home for either Sam or Buck Penny.

With that said, the Penny Family was of African-American descent. Based on the various
Federal Censuses (1870, 1880, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940), Sam Penny was born in
North Carolina sometime between 1852 and 1856, a son of Buck Penny and Charity Tomlinson
who were said to be married around 1849. Both Buck and Charity may have been born prior to
1820 (per the 1870 Federal Census). The only record that could be found for Buck and Charity
Penny prior to the 1870 Federal Census was a cohabitation record dated August 24, 1866,
stating:

“Before me, P. T. MASSY, Clerk of the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions for
said [Johnston] County, personally appeared Buck Penny and Charity Tomlinson
residents of said County, lately slaves, but now emancipated, and acknowledged
that they do cohabit together as man and wife, and that said cohabitation
commenced about the year 1849.”

After Emancipation (i.e. 1863), many former slaves adopted new names and surnames. They did
so either to take on a surname for the first time, or to replace a name or surname given to them
by a former master. The common thought is that slaves simply took the names of their masters,
at least upon attaining their freedom; however, some research has shown that only 15% of slaves
kept the name of their slave master, post-Civil War, as cited by the Freedman’s Bureau (African
American Freedmen’s Bureau Records). And as an aside, slaves would often take the name of a
nearby family of enslavers who they believed provided better treatment for their slaves.

Therefore, the Slave Schedule for 1850 was reviewed for the surnames Penny and Tomlinson.
Within District 1 of Johnston County, Caleb Penny, Sr., and Caleb Penny, Jr., both owned slaves.
A James Tomlinson within District 2 of Johnston County owned slaves as well as a B. N.
Tomlinson whose district was not stated. The Slave Schedule for 1860 was also reviewed.
Within the District West of the Neuse River, Wm. H. Tomlinson, Joseph Penney, Seth Penney,
Daniel Penney, Caleb Penney, B. N. Tomlinson, and Edith Tomlinson all owned slaves.

Although slaves were enumerated separately during the 1850 and 1860 schedules, in most cases
individuals were not named but were simply numbered and distinguished only by age, sex, and
color, with only the names of the owners recorded. Based on their respective ages as recorded in
the 1870 and 1880 Federal Censuses, Buck and Charity Penny may have been born sometime
between 1816 and 1820, which would put their ages between 30 and 34 in 1850 and 40 and 44 in
1860. In 1850, both Pennys and James Tomlinson owned slaves that could potentially be Buck
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
10 of 12
18-09-0104
and Charity Penny based on their ages. In 1860, only Caleb Penney owned slaves that could
potentially be Buck and Charity. Relative to the location of Site 31JT554, the Penny Plantation
appears to have been situated about 15 miles to the Northwest between Swift Creek and White
Oak Creek. Bear in mind, all of this is circumstantial and that a distinct connection to a specific
slave owner cannot be fully determined.

Finally, the 135-acre transaction in 1902 references a deed from March 1870 when Buck Penny
acquired the tract from E. S. Parker (and wife) for $250 (Deed Book D3, Page 545 [equivalent to
over $8,000 today]). This last conveyance refers to the property as “being the same formerly
owned by Perry Renfrew.” Seven years removed from emancipation and five years after the
Civil War, it is intriguing to wonder how a former slave could have amassed such a figure in
such a short period of time to purchase what may conceivably have been his very first home.
Despite the earlier mentions of the Parkers and Renfrews owning the property prior to 1870, the
artifact assemblage for Site 31JT554 chronologically points to the early decades of the 20th
century. Any additional research, if one is so inclined, should probably focus on the Penny
Family (Buck, his son Sam, and Sam’s wife Laura) in order to determine whether the Penny
Family lived at this specific location or somewhere else on the larger tract.

Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
11 of 12
18-09-0104
Archaeological Site 31Jt554 
Transect 2 ST 14 
1 whiteware fragment (glaze) 
3 colorless glass fragments 
1 unidentified terracotta/brick/tile 
Transect 2 ST 14, radial ‐ north 15 m 
1 whiteware fragment, flow blue decorated 
1 porcelain fragment 
2 aqua glass fragments 
12 colorless glass fragments 
4 window glass fragments 
1 nail fragment 
2 unidentified terracotta/brick/tile 
Transect 2 ST 14, radial – northwest 
1 amber safety glass fragment 
1 brick fragment 
Transect 2 ST 14, radial – northeast 
1 whiteware fragment 
9 clear glass fragments 
1 window glass fragment 
1 brown bottle glass 
2 brick fragments 
2 unidentified terracotta/brick/tile 
Transect 2 ST 14, radial – north 30 m 
3 glass fragments 
1 window glass 
1 nail fragment 
2 brick fragments 
1 unidentified terracotta/brick/tile 
Transect 2 ST 13, radial – north 15 m [14 NWW] 
1 green bottle glass 
Transect 2 ST 14, radial – north, northwest 
1 whiteware fragment, annular (two narrow green stripes) 
1 amber glass fragment 
1 colorless bottle glass base fragment, “rough,” and “mfg” or “reg” 
1 window glass fragment 
1 brick fragment 
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
12 of 12
18-09-0104
Archaeological Site 31Jt554 (continued) 
Transect 2 ST 14, radial – north 45 m 
1 clear bottle glass, enameled lettering ([A] M [O]), textured stippling 
1 brown bottle glass (like Clorox ?) 
1 aqua glass 
3 colorless glass fragments 
5 window glass 
 brick fragments (crumbles 
Transect 2 ST 14, radial – north, northeast 
2 whiteware fragments 
1 colorless glass canning lid fragment, solarized 
1 milk glass fragment (opaque white, thin) 
1 amber glass fragment 
1 brown bottle glass fragment (thick) 
22 colorless glass fragments 
2 window glass fragments 
4 nail fragments 
2 brick fragments 
Transect 2 ST 15, radial ‐north 15 m (ST 14 NEE) 
1 whiteware fragment (plate) 
2 colorless glass fragment, solarized 
Surface 
1 stoneware, buffer exterior, brown interior 
1 stoneware, white 
1 ironstone fragment 
1 milk glass canning lid fragment (nuine zinc) 
1 milk glass fragment 
1 colorless glass fragment 
 brick fragments