20170067 Ver 4_8 - SHPO Consultation_Overby Tract_and Johnson Tract 2016_20220318

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susan Kluttz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
December 12, 2016
Dawn Reid
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
121 East First Street
Clayton, NC 27520
[e-mail]
Re: Johnston Extension and Overby Tracts Report, Rockingham County, ER 16-0645
Dear Ms. Reid:
This letter is to follow up our telephone conversation of December 9, 2016, regarding the status of the
archaeological report you submitted on October 14, 2016 and that we have determined is associated with
the proposed natural gas -fueled merchant power plant proposed by NTE Carolina II, LLC in Rockingham
County.
Attached for your use are copies of our review comments offered to the State Clearinghouse on October 8
and 12, 2016 for the project, which was reviewed under state and federal regulations. As you will note, we
had no comment on the project as no significant cultural resources, including archaeological sites and
buildings, would be affected. These signed and dated forms constitute our final comment on the project as
currently proposed and should satisfy any questions concerning the status of our review of the project.
We understand that you may have questions about the environmental review process that we follow and
will continue to follow with regard to the review of archaeological and architectural survey reports. Thus,
we provide the following guidance, which we will be reiterating at a workshop for cultural resources
consultants in the early months of 2017 and on the associated websites. (Notification to be provided in
early 2017.)
• We do reviews as part of and pursuant to federal and state laws and regulations. Per those
regulations, we review undertakings that have the potential to affect significant cultural resources,
meaning that we have to have a specific project to review.
• Requests for our review must include a name and description of the project and a map clearly
identifying the project area. The description should include enough information for us to understand
how it could affect cultural resources, if they are present in the project area.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

• Having reviewed the project, we will make recommendations about the type and level of cultural
resources investigations needed.
• Reports about archaeological and architectural resources should be treated separately and follow the
guidelines set by the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) and the State Historic Preservation Office
(HPO).
• All reports are to be submitted through the Environmental Review Branch of the HPO in the format
and with the number of copies outlined in the guidelines. All accompanying documentation must be
provided at the time of submittal.
• Once we receive a report associated with a project, we will log it in, provide it to the reviewers and
provide comments, per the applicable state or federal regulations, and within the established
deadlines.
• We do not do "courtesy" or "due diligence" reviews minus the information outlined above so that
we know what is proposed at a site we are asked to review.
We are here to serve the citizens and businesses of North Carolina and ensure that they are not asked to
undertake cultural resources work that may not be necessary to their development efforts. That is why we
urge early planning and coordination, as we do not want the presence or absence of significant cultural
resources to be a cause for concern or delay. To this end, we recommend that you continue to work with
your clients so that they understand that requesting our comments on a specific project early in planning is
to their advantage. In so doing they will have a better sense of whether cultural resources may be of
concern and, if so, what they will need to do to address them.
Should you have questions concerning any of the above, please contact me at 919-807-6579 or
Renee.Gledhill-Earley@,ncdcr.gov. I also welcome the opportunity to meet with you in the new year to
discuss these matters with members of OSA and HPO, involved in the review process.
Sincerely,
ka-aatt
Renee Gledhill -Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator
Enclosures — 2 SCH forms
cc: Ramona Bartos, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Steve Claggett, State Archaeologist
John Mintz, Deputy State Archaeologist

COUNTY: ROCKINGHAM
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
H11:ENERGY RELATED
FACILITIES/ACTIVITIES
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCE
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
MSC 4617 - ARCHIVES BUILDING
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DEPT OF NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCE
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNCR - DIV OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DPS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGIONAL COUNCIL
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: North Carolina Department of Commerce
State Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Review
TYPE:
DESC:
Application of NTE
45100
STATE NUMBER:
DATE RECEIVED:
AGENCY RESPONSE:
REVIEW CLOSED:
17-E-4600-0119
08/30/2016
09/21/2016
09/26/2016
Carolinas II, LLC for Certificate to construct a 500 MW
Natural Gas -Fueled Merchant Power Plant in Rockingham Co. Docket
- View document at
http://starwl.ncuc.net/NCtJC/portallncuclpagelDocketslportal.aspx,
0 in the Docket Number search line.
Located approximately 90 acre tract located at 4781 NC Highway 65
NC Highway 65 to the east and New Lebanon Church Road to the west
# EMP-92, Sub 0.
Type EMP-92 Sub
and bounded by
, Reidsville, NC
The attached project has been submitted Lo the N. C. State Clearinghouse
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301.
for
above
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING I5 SUBMITTED:
SIGNED BY:
NO COMMENT I I COMMENTS ATTACHED
DATE: I,C3 . ' ' / '
SEP 0 6 inib

COUNTY: ROCKINGHAM
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
H11:ENERGY RELATED
FACILITIES/ACTIVITIES
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCE
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
MSC 4617 - ARCHIVES BUILDING
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
S©gnigl
°CI a 3 2016
HISTORIC PRESERVPQN OFFICE
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DEPT OF NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCE
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNCR - DIV OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DPS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGIONAL COUNCIL
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: North Carolina Department of Commerce
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Review
STATE NUMBER:
DATE RECEIVED:
AGENCY RESPONSE:
REVIEW CLOSED:
17-E-4600-0208
09/28/2016
10/24/2016
10/28/2016
DESC: Application of NTE Carolina II, LLC for Certificate to construct a 500 MW Natural
Gas Fueled Merchant Power Plant in Rockingham Co. Docket # EMP-92 Sub 0. - View
document at http://starwl.ncuc.net/NCUC/portallncuclpage/Docketslportal.aspx,
Type EMP-92 Sub 0 in the Docket Number search line.
Located approximately 170 acre tract located at 4781 NC Highway 65, bounded on
the west by New Lebanon Church Road, with the facility being located on the west
side of NC Highway 65, and a small portion of the site on the east side of NC
Highway 65, near Reidsville, NC
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
SIGNED BY:
NO COMMENT I l COMMENTS ATTACHED
DATE:
OCT 0 4 2fl1

Archaeological Survey of the
Johnson Extension and Overby Tracts
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
2016

Archaeological Survey of the
Johnson Extension and Overby Tracts
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Prepared for
Environmental Consulting and Technology of North Carolina, PLLC
and
NTE Carolinas 11, LLC
Prepared by
Christopher Parker
Archaeological Technician
and
Dawn Reid
Principal Investigator
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
2016

Management Summary
In September 2016, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted an
archaeological investigation of the proposed Johnson Extension and Overby Tract project tracts in
Rockingham County, North Carolina. This investigation was conducted on behalf of Environmental
Consulting and Technology of North Carolina, PLLC (ECT) and NTE Carolinas II, LLC, and was undertaken
pursuant to state and federal regulations pertaining to the management of significant cultural resources. The
goals of this investigation were to identify all archaeological resources located within the project's Area of
Potential Effect (APE), assess those resources for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP), and make management recommendations, as appropriate.
The Johnson Extension project tract extends east from the southeast corner of the Johnson tract,
which had been previously surveyed by ACC (Carter and Reid 2016). The eastern boundary of this extension
is approximately 80 meters (262 ft) northwest of the intersection of Ernest Drive and North Carolina (NC)
Highway 65. The 10 acre tract extension encompasses a variety of settings including woods, a transmission
line corridor, and an open field. Much of the tract is comprised of moderate slope with slopes as severe as
15 percent.
The Overby Tract project area is located north of the Johnson Extension area and is bordered by NC
Highway 65 for much of its eastern boundary and by property lines on all remaining sides. A small portion
of the southeastern tract corner extends across NC Highway 65. The tract measures 74 acres in size and
contains woods, overgrown fields, an unnamed tributary of Little Jacobs Creek, and utility corridors. The
tract is largely comprised of moderate to steep slopes with grades as severe as 30 percent.
Background research was conducted at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA),
located in Raleigh, to identify any previously recorded archaeological sites in the project area. No previously
recorded archaeological resources are present within either project tract. Two previously recorded
archaeological sites, 31RK159** and 31RK212, are within a 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mi) radius APE. Neither site
will be directly impacted by development within the project tracts.
The archaeological survey consisted of shovel tests excavated at judgmental intervals along parallel
transects spaced 30 meters apart. These transects were oriented with landforms determined to have high
potential for archaeological remains. Low potential areas within each tract were evaluated using pedestrian
walkover. Surface examination was employed where ground exposure was greater than 75 percent.
No archaeological resources were identified within either project tract during this investigation. As
no archaeological resources will be impacted, clearance to proceed with the development is recommended.
Johnson Extension and Overby Inc? Johnson Tracts
N Rockingham County, North Carolina
11

Table of Contents
Management Summary. ii
List of Figures . iv
List of Tables. iv
Chapter 1. Introduction and Methods. 1
Project Area. 1
Methods of Investigation 2
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview. 7
Environmental Overview 7
Cultural Overview. 8
Chapter 3. Results of Investigation. 16
Background Research Results 16
Field Investigation Results. 17
Conclusion and Recommendations. 19
References Cited. 20
Appendix A. Resume of Principal Investigator
Johnson Extension and Overb
• :AEC Incr; Y Tracts
N Rockingham County, North Carolina
111

List of Figures
Page
Figure 1.1 Map of Rockingham County showing location of project area 1
Figure 1.2 Aerial showing the location of the Johnson Extension and Overby project tracts. 2
Figure 1.3. View of field setting with steep slope in Johnston Extension tract, looking south 3
Figure 1.4. View of steep side slopes in the Overby tract, looking east-southeast 3
Figure 1.5. View along pipeline corridor in the Overby tract, looking southwest 4
Figure 1.6. LiDAR map showing areas determined to have high potential for archaeological deposits
in the projects tracks. 5
Figure 2.1 Physiographic provinces of North Carolina with the project vicinity highlighted. 7
Figure 2.2. Map showing soil types present in the Johnson Extension and Overby tracts 9
Figure 3.1. Map showing the survey areas and locations of previously recorded archaeological
resources in the project vicinity 16
Figure 3.2. 1910 Rural Delivery Map of Rockingham County showing buildings within and in
proximity to the Overby tract 17
Figure 3.3. 1926 soil map of Rockingham County showing buildings within and in proximity
to the Overby tract . 18
Figure 3.4. View of Craftsman -style house in southeastern portion of Overby tract, looking west... 18
Figure 3.5. View of typical shovel tests excavated in the Overby tract. 19
List of Tables
Page
Table 2.1. Soils Types Present in the Johnston Extension Survey Area. 8
Table 2.2. Soil Types Present in the Overby Tract . 8
Johnson Extension and Overby Inc? Johnson Tracts
N Rockingham County, North Carolina
iv

Chapter 1. Introduction and Methods
In September 2016, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted an
archaeological survey of the proposed Johnson Extension and Overby Tract development areas in
Rockingham County, North Carolina. The goals of this investigation were to identify all archaeological
resources located within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE), assess those resources for eligibility
to the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP), and make
management recommendations, as
appropriate.
Project Area
The proposed Johnson
Extension and Overby project tracts
are located approximately 15.6 km
(9.7 miles) west of the city of
Reidsville, in the south-central
portion of Rockingham County,
North Carolina (Figure 1.1). The
overall project area includes the 74
acre Overby tract and the 10 acre
extension of the Johnson tract, which
was surveyed earlier this year by
ACC, Inc. (Carter and Reid 2016;
Figure 1.2).
The Johnson Extension is
defined by property boundaries on
the north and east, and by Emest
Drive, a private road belonging to the adjacent Duke Energy facility, to the south. The western boundary of
the extension aligns with the eastern boundary of the previously surveyed Johnson Tract, and extends north
into a transmission line corridor. The Johnson Extension contains a variety of settings, including woods, a
transmission line corridor, and an open field (Figure 1.3). Much of this tract is comprised of moderate slope
with slopes as severe as 15 percent.
MADISON
MADISO
PRICE
SrON EVILLE
MAYO R
MAYODAN
'LEAKS-.�_,
VIDE;
EDEN
CK1N
,0v
WENTWORTH 3; `3 '
4ig1-' I
HUNTSVILLF NFW 817`THEL
Project W ea
MEW
REI-
pLE
(pt.)
SIMPSONVILLE
c
RUFFIN
AM
REIDSVILLE (pt.)
ca'
,REJDSVILLE
I (pt.)
=m
WILLIAMS-
BURG
to 2 4 h 8 10 Kjlomctcrs
0 _ - 6 a iu Mhos
A
Figure 1.1.
Map of Rockingham County showing approximate
location of project area.
The eastern boundary of the Overby Tract is largely defined by North Carolina (NC) Highway 65,
with property lines defining the remainder of the tract's eastern, northern, southern, and western extent
(Figure 1.2). A small portion of the southeastern corner of this tract extends east across NC Highway 65.
The majority of the project area is wooded with mixed pines and hardwoods. The project area contains
several narrow ridge lines and a number of associated steep side slopes (Figure 1.4). ATV trails cross many
of the ridges. Little Jacobs Creek runs north -south roughly a quarter mile west of the project area. Unnamed
tributaries branching off of Little Jacobs Creek run east and southeast, bisecting both project areas. Two
natural gas pipelines (Plantation and Transcontinental) bisect the Overby Tract (Figure 1.5), as does a Duke
Energy 230kV transmission line that runs east beyond NC Highway 65. The transmission line also crosses
the northwest comer of the Johnson Extension tract.
Johnson Extension and Overby Inc? Johnson Tracts
N Rockingham County, North Carolina
1

•
Ams
T_.1
Survey Boundaries
nJohnson Tract (Carter and Reid 2015)
nJohnson Extension
Overby Tract
0 80 160 240 320 m'
Meters
v
Figure 1.2.
Aerial showing the location of the Johnson Extension and Overby project tracts.
Methods of Investigation
This investigation consisted of four separate tasks: Background Research, Field Investigation,
Laboratory Analysis, and Report Production. Each of these tasks is discussed in detail below.
Background Research
Background research began with a review of archaeological site forms, maps, and reports on file at
the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh, North Carolina. This review served to identify previously
recorded resources in the project vicinity and provided data on the prehistoric and historic context of the
project tracts. The Division of Historical Resources (DER), Survey and Planning Branch online database was
reviewed to determine if any previously recorded architectural resources were located in the project vicinity.
Background research also included a review of available historic maps including the Rockingham County
1910 Rural Delivery Map, 1926 Soil Survey Map, and 1938 Highway Map.
Johnson Extension and Overby Inc? Johnson Tracts
N Rockingham County, North Carolina
2

Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.4.
View of field setting with steep slope in Johnson
Extension tract, looking south.
View of steep side slopes in the Overby tract, looking
east-southeast.
Johnson Extension and Overby Inc? Johnson Tracts
N Rockingham County, North Carolina
3

Figure 1.5.
Field Investigation
View along pipeline corridor in the Overby tract,
looking southwest.
Following a review of landforms and soil types present, the project tract and extension were divided
into areas of high and low potential for the presence of archaeological remains. High potential areas were
defined by the presence of well- to excessively well drained soils on relatively level landforms or within 90
meters of a wetland on moderately well drained soils. Approximately 15 percent of the project area was
initially identified as having high potential for archaeological sites based on these criteria (Figure 1.6). The
majority of these high potential areas were ridge noses and toes overlooking or grading down to tributaries
associated with Little Jacobs Creek. Low potential areas were defined by the presence of moderately eroded
soils or slopes greater than 15 percent.
Both tracts were inspected using a combination of pedestrian walkover and surface inspection.
Whenever possible, shovel tests were excavated at 30 meter (98.2 ft) intervals along transects oriented with
the landforms. Due to the severity of disturbance (i.e., logging debris) and erosion present in several areas
and the degree of slope, systematic intervals could not be maintained but shovel tests were excavated at
locations determined to have the least disturbance.
Excavated shovel tests measured approximately 30 centimeters (12 in) in diameter. Shovel test fill
was screened through 0.6 centimeter (0.25 in) wire mesh. Details of artifacts and soils for each shovel test
were recorded in field notebooks. Artifacts were collected and placed in plastic bags labeled with the date,
field site number, grid point locations (i.e., shovel test/transect or north/east coordinate), depth of artifacts,
and initials of the excavator. To delineate archaeological resources, shovel tests were excavated at 15 meter
intervals in cardinal directions from the original positive artifact location until two consecutive negative
shovel tests were encountered.
Johnson Extension and Overby Inc? Johnson Tracts
N Rockingham County, North Carolina
4

Survey Boundaries
nJohnson Extension
! t Overby Tract
— 2 Foot Interval Contour
0 70 140 210 280
Meters
Figure 1.6.
LiDAR map showing areas determined to have high potential for archaeological deposits in
the project tracts.
A site is defined as an area containing more than two artifacts of a possible single occupation in a 30-
meter or less diameter of surface exposure; or where at least two shovel tests within a 30 meter radius were
positive (even if only two artifacts were recovered); or where surface or subsurface cultural features are
present. Artifacts and/or features less than 50 years in age would not be considered a site without a specific
research or management reason. Locations with fewer than three artifacts and no features are classified as
isolated finds or isolates. Although isolates are rarely considered to meet NRHP eligibility criteria, their
locations and settings are documented.
Site settings were photographed with a digital camera. Sketch maps were produced in the field
showing the locations of shovel tests and surface finds. The locations of each site were recorded using a
Trimble Pathfinder Global Positioning System (GPS) unit, and the locations were relayed onto project maps.
Site significance is based on the site's ability to contribute to our understanding of past lifeways, and
its subsequent eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Department of Interior regulations (36 CFR Part 60)
established criteria which must be met for an archaeological site or historic resource to be considered
significant, or eligible for the NRHP (Townsend et al. 1993). Under these criteria, a site can be defined as
significant if it retains integrity of "location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association"
:AEC Inc?_: Johnson Extension and Overby Tracts
Rockingham County, North Carolina
5

and if it A) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of history;
B) is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; C) embodies distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, or method of construction, or represents work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or
represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D)
has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Archaeological sites are most
frequently evaluated pursuant to Criterion D. However, both historic and prehistoric period archaeological
sites can be considered under the other criteria.
The primary goals of this field investigation were to identify archaeological resources and evaluate
their potential research value or significance. Sites that exhibit little or no further research potential are
recommended not eligible for the NRHP and no further investigation is proposed. Sites for which insufficient
data could be obtained at the survey level are considered unassessed and preservation or more in-depth
investigation is advocated. It is rare for ample data to be recovered at the survey level of investigation to
definitively determine that a site meets NRHP eligibility criteria. However, when this occurs, the site is
recommended eligible for the NRHP. Again, preservation of the resource is advocated. If preservation is not
possible, mitigation options (e.g., data recovery) would need to be considered.
Laboratory Analysis
Laboratory work began with washing all recovered artifacts. A provenience number, based on the
context of the artifact (i.e., surface or subsurface), was assigned to each positive shovel test location or surface
collection area. Within each provenience, each individual artifact or artifact class was then assigned a
number. Artifacts were cataloged based on specific morphological characteristics such as material in the case
of lithics, and decoration and temper type in the case of prehistoric ceramics. When possible, prehistoric
artifacts were identified to type using published sources (Cambron and Hulse 1990; Egloff 1967; Ward and
Davis 1999). Historic artifacts were identified by color, material of manufacture (e.g., ceramics), type (e.g.,
slipware), form (e.g., bowl, plate), method of manufacture (e.g., molded), period of manufacture (e.g., 1780-
1820), and intended function (e.g., tableware). Historic artifacts with established manufacture date ranges
were categorized using Aultman et al. (2003), Florida Museum of Natural History (2009), Majewski and
O'Brien (1987), Noel Hume (1969), and South (1977, 2004). Artifact descriptions, counts, and weights were
recorded. All diagnostic and cross -mended artifacts were labeled with a solution of Acryloid B-72 and acid -
free permanent ink.
At the conclusion of this project, all project related material, including field notes, artifacts, and
project maps, will be prepared for curation based on standards set forth in 36 CFR 79 (Curation of Federally
Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections: Final Rule). These standards and guidelines require
that all project -related material be placed in archivally stable storage bags and boxes. Upon acceptance of
the final project report by the SHPO, the project material will be submitted to OSA for permanent curation.
Report Preparation
Report preparation involved the compilation of all data gathered during the previous tasks. The
following chapter provides environmental and cultural overviews for the project area. Next, the results of
the field investigation are discussed. Had any been identified, each identified resource would have been
described, shown on project maps, and NRHP eligibility recommendations would have been advanced.
Johnson Extension and Overb
• :AEC Incr; Y Tracts
Rockingham County, North Carolina
6

Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview
In our attempt to evaluate cultural resources, we must understand the larger context within which they
occur. Landscapes, technological development, and ideological values shape the way people live. This
chapter discusses the local environment and cultural development of Rockingham County to provide a context
for assessment of archaeological resources.
Environmental Overview
Rockingham County is located in central North Carolina and encompasses 1,480 square km (572
miles2). It is bounded by Guilford County to the south, Caswell County to the east, Stokes County on the
west, and the Virginia state border to the north. Rockingham County lies in the Piedmont physiographic
province (Figure 2.1). Gently rolling to hilly landscapes generally characterize this province, with elevations
ranging from 312 meters (1,024 ft) in the northwestern portion of the county to a low of 146 meters (479 ft)
along the Dan River in the northeastern portion of the county (Butler 1982). Elevations in the project areas
range between 183 and 232 meters
(600-760 ft) amsl.
Physiographic Provinces of North Carolina
Drainages
The Dan River bisects
Rockingham County. This river
system flows north into Virginia
where it joins the Staunton River to
from the Roanoke River. The
majority of the county is drained by
the Dan River and numerous
associated creeks, streams, and
tributaries are present in the county.
One such waterway is Little Jacobs
Creek, which runs through the
project tract. Little Jacobs Creek
joins Jacobs Creek northeast of the
Overby tract. The confluence of
Jacobs Creek and the Dan River is approximately 6.4 km (4 miles) northeast of the Overby tract. Other major
bodies of water located in Rockingham County include Lake Hunt, Hester Lake, Troublesome Creek Lake
(all near Reidsville), and Belews Lake in the southwestern corner of the county.
Climate
Figure 2.1.
Physiographic provinces of North Carolina with the
project vicinity highlighted.
Like most of central North Carolina, the climate of Rockingham County is generally temperate,
characterized by relatively mild winters and warm summers. Average temperatures range from the lower 40s
in the winter to the mid 80s in the summer. Normal annual precipitation averages 111 cm (43.7 in) and winter
snow is common (Butler 1982).
Johnson Extension and Overby Inc- Johnson Tracts
Rockingham County, North Carolina
7

Soils
Three soil types are present in the Johnson Extension survey area (Table 2.1; Figure 2.2). The
predominant soil type present in over 50 percent of the extension is Fairview -Poplar Forest complex with
slopes ranging from 8 to 15 percent. Soils in this complex are deep and well drained sandy clay loams that
form on summits and slopes from the residuum of the underlying felsic metamorphic and igneous rock.
Clifford sandy clay loam is present in 38.7 percent of the project tract. This soil type is well drained with a
slope range of 2 to 8 percent and is defined as moderately eroded. The third soil type present in the project
tract is Siloam sandy loam, accounting for 1.9 percent of the extension's area. Siloam soil is moderately deep
and well drained with a slope range of 4 to 10 percent. The access easement traverses two soils types:
moderately eroded Clifford sandy clay loam and Fairview -Poplar Forest complex (USDA 2016).
Table 2.1.
Soils Types Present in the Johnson Extension Survey Area.
Soil Type
Characteristics
% of Tract
Fairview -Poplar Forest complex (FpD)
well drained, 8-15% slope
59.4
Clifford sandy clay loam (CgB2)
well drained, 2-8% slope, moderately eroded
38.7
Siloam sandy loam (SmC)
well drained, 4-10% slope
1.9
The Overby Tract also contains three soil types (Table 2.2; Figure 2.2), including Clifford sandy clay
loam and Fairview -Poplar Forest complex which are also present in the Johnson Extension area. The third
soil type in the Overby tract is Rhodhiss sandy loam, which makes up approximately 16.9 percent of the tract.
This soil type is deep well drained and forms on hills and ridges in the Piedmont from residuum of the
underlying felsic crystalline rock.
Table 2.2.
Soils Types Present in the Overby Tract.
Soil Type
Characteristics
% of Tract
Clifford sandy clay loam (CgB2)
well drained, 2-8% slope, moderately eroded
36.4
Fairview -Poplar Forest complex (FpD)
well drained, 8-15% slope
40.6
Fairview -Poplar Forest complex (FpE)
well drained, 15-25% slope
2.0
Fairview -Poplar Forest complex (FpD2)
well drained, 8-15% slope, moderately eroded
4.1
Rhodhiss sandy loam (RnD)
well drained, 8-15% slope
1.6
Rhodhiss sandy loam (RnE)
well drained, 15-30% slope
8.2
Rhodhiss sandy loam (Rn)
well drained, 4-10% slope
7.1
Cultural Overview
The cultural history of North America can be divided into two general eras: Prehistoric and Historic.
The Prehistoric era is extensive. It includes at least 12,000 years of Native American groups and cultures
present prior to the arrival of Europeans. The Historic Era, in comparison, is relatively brief. This era refers
ACC, Enc.- Johnson Extension and Overby Tracts
Rockingham County, North Carolina
8

Survey Boundaries
Johnson Extension
Overby Tract
Figure 2.2.
Map showing soil types present in the Johnson Extension and Overby tracts.
to a time of exploration and initial European settlement on the continent through the colonization,
industrialization and emergence of the modern era. Fine-grained chronological and cultural subdivisions are
defined within these eras to permit discussions of particular events and the lifeways of North America's
prehistoric inhabitants. The following discussion summarizes the various periods of prehistoric and historic
occupation in the project vicinity.
Prehistoric Period
Paleoindian Period (12,000 - 8,000 BC). The Paleoindian Period refers to the earliest human
occupations of the New World, the origins and age of which remain a subject of debate. The most accepted
theory dates the influx of migrant bands of hunter -gatherers to approximately 12,000 years ago. This time
period corresponds to the exposure of a land bridge connecting Siberia to the North American continent
during the last ice age (Driver 1998; Jackson et al. 1997). Research conducted over the past few decades has
begun to cast doubt on this theory.
In the past two decades, investigations at Paleoindian sites have produced radiocarbon dates predating
12,000 years. The Monte Verde site in South America has been dated to 10,500 BC (Dillehay 1997; Meltzer
Johnson Extension and Overby Inc- Johnson Y Tracts
Rockingham County, North Carolina
9

et al. 1997). In North America, the Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania had deposits dating to 9,500
BC. Current research conducted at the Topper Site indicates occupations dating between 15,000 and 19,000
(or more) years ago (Goodyear 2006). Two sites, 44SM37 and Cactus Hill, in Virginia have yielded similar
dates. One contentious point about these early sites is that the occupations predate what has been recognized
as the earliest New World culture, Clovis. Artifacts identified at pre -Clovis sites include flake tools and
blades, prismatic blades, bifaces, and lanceolate -like points (Adovasio et al. 1998; Goodyear 2006; Johnson
1997; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997; and McDonald 2000).
The major artifact marker for the Clovis period is the Clovis lanceolate -fluted point (Gardner 1974,
1989; Griffin 1967). First identified in New Mexico, Clovis fluted points have been recovered throughout
the United States. However, most of the identified Clovis points have been found in the eastern United States
(Ward and Davis 1999). Most Clovis points have been recovered from surface contexts, although some sites
(e.g., Cactus Hill and Topper sites) have contained well-defined subsurface Clovis contexts.
The identification of pre -Clovis sites, higher frequencies of Clovis points on the east coast of the
United States (the opposing side of the continent where the land bridge was exposed during the last
glaciation), and the lack of predecessors to the Clovis point type has led some researchers to hypothesize
other avenues of New World migration (see Bonnichsen et al. 2006). These alternative migration theories
contend that the influx of people to the Americas occurred prior to the ice -free corridor 12,000 years ago and
that multiple migration episodes took place. These theories include overland migrations similar to the one
presumed to have occurred over the Bering land bridge and water migrations over both the Atlantic Ocean
and the Pacific rim (see Stanford 2006). Coastal migration theories envision seafaring people using boats to
make the journey, evidence for which has not been identified (Adovasio and Page 2002).
In the southeastern United States, Clovis was followed by smaller fluted and nonfluted lanceolate
spear points, such as Dalton and Hardaway point types, that are characteristic of the later Paleoindian Period
(Goodyear 1982). The Hardaway point, first described by Coe (1964), is seen as a regional variant of Dalton
(Oliver 1985; Ward 1983).
Most Paleoindian materials occur as isolated surface finds in the eastern United States (Ward and
Davis 1999); this indicates that population density was extremely low during this period and that groups were
small and highly mobile (Meltzer 1988). It has been noted that group movements were probably well -
scheduled and that some semblance of territories was maintained to ensure adequate arrangements for
procuring mates and maintaining population levels (Anderson and Hanson 1988).
O'Steen (1996) analyzed Paleoindian settlement patterns in the Oconee River valley in northeastern
Georgia and noted a pattern of decreasing mobility throughout the Paleoindian period. Sites of the earliest
portion of the period seem to be restricted to the floodplains, while later sites were distributed widely in the
uplands, showing an exploitation of a wider range of environmental resources. If this pattern holds true for
the Southeast in general, it may be a result of changing environments trending toward increased deciduous
forest and decreasing availability of Pleistocene megafauna and the consequent increased reliance on smaller
mammals for subsistence; population growth may have also been a factor.
Archaic Period (8000 - 1000 BC). The Archaic period has been the focus of considerable research
in the Southeast. Sites dating to this period are ubiquitous in the North Carolina Piedmont (Coe and
McCormick 1970). Two major areas of research have dominated: (1) the development of chronological
subdivisions for the period based on diagnostic artifacts, and (2) the understanding of settlement/subsistence
trends for successive cultures.
Johnson Extension and Overby :AEC Inc?-, Tracts
Rockingham County, North Carolina
10

Coe's excavations at several sites in the North Carolina Piedmont established a chronological
sequence for the period based on diagnostic projectile points. The Archaic period has been divided into three
subperiods: Early (8000 - 6000 BC), Middle (6000 - 3500 BC), and Late (3500 - 1000 BC) (Coe 1964). Coe
defined the Early Archaic subperiod based on the presence in site assemblages of Palmer and Kirk Corner
Notched projectile points. More recent studies have defined other Early Archaic corner notched points, such
as Taylor, Big Sandy, and Bolen types. Generally similar projectile points (e.g., LeCroy points), but with
commonly serrated edges and characteristic bifurcated bases, have also been identified as representative of
the Early Archaic subperiod (Broyles 1971; Chapman 1985). The Early Archaic points of the North Carolina
Piedmont are typically produced with metavolcanic material, although occasional chert, quartz, or quartzite
examples have been recovered.
Claggett and Cable (1982) use a settlement/subsistence typology developed by Binford (1980), to
classify late Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations as "logistical" (Claggett and Cable 1982). Logistical
task groups, in this definition, target a particular resource or set of subsistence or technological resources for
collection and use at a residential base camp. Their analysis identifies an increase in residential mobility
beginning in the Early Archaic and extending into the Middle Archaic (Claggett et al. 1982). Early Archaic
peoples transitioned from logistical orientation to foraging. Foraging refers to a generalized resource
procurement strategy enacted in closer proximity to a base camp. Subsistence remains recovered from Early
Archaic sites in southern Virginia include fish, turtle, turkey, small mammals, and deer, as well as a wide
variety of nuts (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997).
Sassaman (1983) hypothesizes that actual group residential mobility increased during the Middle
Archaic although it occurred within a more restricted range. Range restriction is generally a result of
increased population in the Southeast and crowding with group territories (Sassaman 1983); this increase in
population led to increasing social fluidity during the Middle Archaic and a lower need for scheduled
aggregation for mate exchange. In Sassaman's view, technology during the Middle Archaic is highly
expedient; this is reflected in an almost exclusive use of local resources, especially lithic material.
The appearance/introduction of Stanly points, a broad -bladed stemmed form defines the transition
to the Middle Archaic subperiod. These were followed by Morrow Mountain points, which are
characteristically manufactured from quartz, and have been recovered from numerous small sites throughout
Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Guilford points, also often made of quartz, follow Morrow Mountain
in the Middle Archaic sequence. Morrow Mountain and Guilford points were the most frequently recovered
projectile point types in the Jordan Lake survey area (Coe and McCormick1970). The latter were typically
found on low knolls or ridge toes overlooking perennial streams (Autry 1976).
The hallmark of the Late Archaic subperiod is the Savannah River Stemmed point (Coe 1964). This
large, broad -bladed and stemmed point type is found widely over the eastern United States and in nearly
every setting during the Jordan Lake survey (Autry 1976). It is associated with Late Archaic occupations in
the mountains and uplands as well as at coastal midden sites of the period. Also, the earliest ceramics
produced in North America are associated with the Late Archaic subperiod and date to around 2000 BC.
These ceramics are Stallings Island Fiber Tempered and are primarily a coastal phenomenon, stretching from
northern Florida to southern North Carolina.
Sites of the later phases of the Archaic are generally larger and more complex than earlier sites
(Caldwell 1952; Coe 1952; Griffin 1952; Lewis and Kneberg 1959). These sites are typically in riverine
settings within the Piedmont and are hypothesized to reflect greatly increased sedentism during the Late
Archaic, with a focus on fish, shellfish, and floodplain resources. Small Late Archaic sites in the uplands of
the Piedmont are interpreted as logistical collection and hunting camps (Anderson and Joseph 1988). Abbott
Johnson Extension and Overb
• :AEC Inc? Johnson Y Tracts
N Rockingham County, North Carolina
11

et al. (1986) have speculated that an increase in population during the Late Archaic led to a restriction in
resource ranges and an increase in trade networks.
More recent work on lithic sourcing has shed light on potential Late Archaic resource rounds.
Steponaitis et al. (2006) conducted chemical analysis on Late Archaic artifacts recovered from archaeological
sites on Fort Bragg and samples recovered from prehistoric quarries in the Uwharrie Mountains and in
Orange, Chatham, and Person counties. Several of the artifacts generally matched the chemical signatures
from the Uwharrie quarries and others were similar to the Tillery Formation material present in Orange and
Chatham counties. Their conclusions suggested that, despite the trend towards increased sedentism, Late
Archaic peoples were traveling long distances to obtain good quality stone and crossing drainages rather than
confining their travels to along drainages.
Woodland Period (1000 BC -1450 AD). A transition between the preceramic Archaic cultures and
the Woodland cultures has been identified by Oliver (1985). Stemmed point types, like the Gypsy triangular
point, continue in the Early Woodland subperiod (1000 BC - 300 AD). Other cultural expressions of the
Early Woodland are the ceramics and projectile points of the Badin culture. These points are generally crude
triangulars while the ceramics are heavily tempered and undecorated. Unlike Oliver, Miller (1962) notes little
change in the cultural makeup of groups at the Archaic/Woodland transition other than the addition of pottery.
Coe (1964), although noting a stratigraphic break between Archaic and Woodland occupations, also describes
little technological or subsistence change other than ceramics.
Ceramic technology evolved from Badin styles into the Yadkin Phase wares during the Middle
Woodland subperiod (300 BC - 1000 AD). Yadkin ceramics have crushed quartz temper and are either cord
marked or fabric impressed. Occasionally, Yadkin ceramics contain grog (i.e., crushed fired clay) temper,
suggesting the influence of coastal populations who more commonly utilized grog temper in their ceramics
(Coe 1964). Yadkin phase projectile points differ from the Badin styles in that they reflect significantly better
workmanship (Coe 1964) and are more suited to the newly adopted bow and arrow technology. The
introduction of the bow and arrow necessitated significant changes in hunting strategies, allowing for more
independent procurement of animals rather than the group hunts generally associated with spear hunting.
Horticulture was still in its infancy during this period so subsistence strategies remained focused on hunting
animals and gathering wild plants.
The Late Woodland subperiod (1000 — 1450 AD) in the study area is represented by the Uwharrie
Phase. The Uwharrie Phase projectile points have small triangular forms. Uwharrie ceramics are heavily
tempered with crushed quartz and predominantly net impressed with scraped interiors (Eastman 1996).
Although they continued to hunt and gather wild plants, agriculture began to supplement, and later dominate,
Native American subsistence strategies. Corn, beans, squash, and fruit were cultivated with the aid of stone
hoes and wooden implements, and settlement patterns indicate conditions favorable to agriculture were
significant to decision -making (Hantman and Klein 1992; Ward 1983).
Historic Indian / Protohistoric Period
Spain initiated the exploration of the southeastern United States in the hopes of preserving their
claims to American lands west of the Treaty of Tordesillas line of demarcation. Hernando de Soto (1539-
1543) and Juan Pardo (1566-1568) led military expeditions into the western Piedmont and mountains of
North Carolina during the mid -sixteenth century (Hudson 1990, 1994). These parties visited Indian villages
near the present-day towns of Charlotte, Lincolnton, Hickory, and Maiden (Hargrove 1998). The Spanish
also built garrisons in the vicinity of Marion and Salisbury (Hargrove 1998). Recent work at the Berry site
Johnson Extension and Overby :AEC Inc? Johnson Tracts
N Rockingham County, North Carolina
12

in Burke County identified the remains of the Spanish garrison of Xualla (also called Joara) visited by de Soto
in the 1540s and Juan Pardo in the 1560s. Spanish presence in the Carolinas could not be sustained despite
their best attempts to establish a permanent presence with interior outposts and coastal settlements. Mounting
pressure from hostile Native Americans and English privateers also contributed to their withdrawal to St.
Augustine in 1587 (South 1980). Diseases introduced by these explorers wrought disastrous effects on
contemporary Native American peoples. Populations collapsed and entire communities disappeared.
Sir Walter Raleigh heavily promoted England's interest in the New World. In 1585, Raleigh used
his position in the court of Queen Elizabeth I to secure backing to outfit an English attempt at colonizing the
Atlantic coast (Powell 1989). Although this effort failed, Raleigh's single-minded ambition led to the
establishment of a colony on the James River in 1607 (Noel Hume 1994).
The first years of settlement at Jamestown were hampered by disastrous mismanagement resulting
in starvation, loss of life, and hostilities with neighbouring Powhatan. In 1624 the Crown revoked the
Virginia Company's charter and established a royal government (Noel Hume 1994). Preoccupied with the
civil war between Royalist and Parliamentarian forces in the 1640s, these authorities showed little interest
in the area that was to become North Carolina until the 1650s. During this period traders, hunters, trappers,
rogues, and tax evaders began living in the area around the Albemarle Sound in northeastern North Carolina
(Powell 1989). Even then, North Carolina was becoming notorious as a refuge for the independent and self-
reliant.
Historic Period
Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 and distributed rewards to loyal Royalist supporters
(Powell 1989). Seven supporters were awarded the charter to establish a proprietary colony south of Virginia.
The boundaries of this deed were set to include the Albemarle Sound settlement of Charles Town south to
the frontier of Spanish -held La Florida. Proprietors maintained control over a single Carolina until 1712,
when the colonies were separated. After the Yamasee War, the colonists pleaded with the crown to take over
the settlement of the colony. The proprietors subsequently forfeited control to the Crown. That divestment
forced the Proprietors' sale of their North Carolina charter to King George II in 1729.
John Lederer, a German doctor, was the first recorded European explorer to visit the project area.
In 1669, Lederer was commissioned by the governor of Virginia to find a westward route to the Pacific Ocean
(Cumming 1958). Lederer traveled through Virginia south to present day Camden, South Carolina. During
this trip, he visited with several Native American tribes, including the Catawba and Waxhaw. The Catawba
Indians are historically linked to the Catawba River Valley in North and South Carolina. Inspired by Lederer,
John Lawson traveled from Charleston, South Carolina through the North Carolina Piedmont to Pamlico
Sound. Lawson's 1700-1701 excursion followed a well -established Native American trading path that passed
near present day Charlotte, Concord, and Salisbury (Lawson 1967). Lawson's journey took him through
Esaw, Sugaree, Catawba, and Waxhaw territory, four tribes who would soon come into close contact with
European colonists.
The principle economic focus of the Carolinas during the early colonial era was the Indian trade.
This trade revolved around the exchange of European manufactured goods and alcohol for skins and slaves.
It drew Native American groups into an Atlantic economy and had the added effect of increasing intertribal
hostilities. Itinerant traders based in Charleston (South Carolina), and Virginia vied for clients among the
North Carolina Piedmont settlements.
Johnson Extension and OverbyTracts
:AEC Inc? Johnson
N Rockingham County, North Carolina
13

Severe fighting between North Carolinian settlers and Tuscarora Indians broke out in 1711 after the
death of the colony's Surveyor General (John Lawson) at the hands of the Tuscarora (Powell 1989). The war
ended in 1712, leaving the Carolina colonies in dire financial straits. These conditions persisted until the
Lords Proprietors were forced to sell their holdings in the Carolinas to the Crown in 1729 (Powell 1989).
As the number of settlers began to multiply in the Northeast, many began to look to the wilderness
of the South and the West to build new lives. German and Scotch -Irish settlers first walked the Indian
footpaths connecting present-day Pennsylvania and Georgia (Rouse 2001). In 1744, a series of treaties
allowed the colonies to formally take over the trail, then known as the Warrior Path, from the Five Nations
of the Iroquois (NCOAH 2004; Rouse 2001). Dubbed the Great Wagon Road settlers from northern colonies
used the route to populate the farmlands and new towns of the Carolinas and Georgia well into the 1800's.
The Regulator movement began in the late 1760s due to backcountry farmers' frustrations with
county government's administration. The majority of the county's population were engaged in agriculture
and resented the rapid ascension of lawyers and "Scotch" merchants to positions of influence over the
county's court. General dissatisfaction with newcomers' meddling coalesced into a backcountry crusade
against a corrupt appointee of Governor Dobbs and frequent office holder, Edward Fanning (Whittenburg
1977). Backcountry "Regulators" obstructed sheriffs from tax collection and prevented courts from
operating. Tensions between the Regulators and the colonial administration began to boil, bordering on
conflict. The increased prominence of Baptist movement, which had popular appeal with the Regulators
because of its democratic religious policies, provided a divisive threat to the traditional Anglican beliefs held
by many British Tories, paralleling the mounting political discontent (Powell 1989). This ultimately
culminated in the start of the War of Regulation, in which the Regulators mounted a rebellion against the
North Carolina colonial government in an effort to rid the colony of British oppression .
Hillsborough riots in October 1770 resulted in an escalation of the dispute. Led by Governor William
Tryon, an armed expedition of an eastern county militia routed the Regulators on May 16, 1771 at Alamance.
The skirmish took place along Alamance Creek, just a few short miles south of the city of Burlington in
Randolph County. The North Carolina provincial militia put down the rebellion, leading to the end of the
War of Regulation. However, these hostilities between the Regulators and British rule are considered an early
step down the road to the American Revolution (Powell 1989).
Less than four years after the battle of Alamance, the Atlantic colonies allied themselves against King
George's government. North Carolinians were divided between the Tory and Whig causes. Tories supported
royal prerogatives and many former Regulators suspicious of local authority were assumed to be sympathetic
to the Tory cause. Alexander Martin had settled in the area in 1761, establishing the Danbury Plantation on
the Dan River near the mouth of Jacobs Creek. Martin became active in the Revolutionary movement and
his regiment fought with George Washington's army in Pennsylvania. His brother, James Martin,
commanded a local militia and fought in numerous campaigns including the Battle of Guilford Courthouse
in 1781. At this time, the project area was in northern Guilford County and served as a staging area and the
location of the Troublesome Creek Ironworks. The ironworks became one of the base camps for Marin's
militia prior to the Guilford Courthouse battle, which would result in a resounding American victory (Butler
1982).
Following the Revolutionary War, settlement in the backcountry increased dramatically prompting
the formation of several new counties. In 1785, Rockingham County was formed from the northern portion
of Guilford County. It was named after Charles Watson -Wentworth, the second Marquess of Rockingham.
Wentworth was prime minister of Britain from 1765 to 1766 and repealed the Stamp Act in 1766, as well as
initiating negotiations to end the Revolutionary War thus making him very popular in America (Butler 1982).
Johnson Extension and OverbyTracts
:AEC Inc? Johnson
N Rockingham County, North Carolina
14

It wasn't until 1796 that a commission authorized construction of a county courthouse at the town
of Wentworth. The majority of the Rockingham settlers were small farmers who focused on corn, wheat, and
cattle, although by 1840 the leading product was tobacco. The larger plantations utilized slave labor but only
about one quarter of the families in the county owned slaves and those that did owned fewer than five. In the
early nineteenth century, small industrial complexes appeared near water sources that provided power. These
included grist mills, textile mills, tanneries, and furniture factories (Butler 1982).
North Carolina was slow to join the newly minted states in ratifying the Constitution. Political
leaders were opposed to joining a federated union of states and the first vote on ratification was
overwhelmingly defeated. This reluctance delayed a second ratifying convention until November of 1789,
when the vote was carried in the affirmative (Moorehead 1953). North Carolina was second to last in joining
the Union.
If North Carolina resisted joining the United States, it was equally reluctant to secede. The Southern
Loyalist, or Unionist, cause was strong in North Carolina and state leaders resisted joining the Confederate
cause. Regardless, following secession local communities rallied forces. Rockingham County supplied over
1,700 men to the Confederate Army. The majority of these men belonged to the Thirteenth and Forty-fifth
regiments and saw action at Antietam, Gettysburg, the Wilderness, and Petersburg. Although no battles were
fought in Rockingham County, it became an important transportation hub for soldiers and supplies. The
Piedmont Railroad Company was chartered in 1862 to build a railroad bridge over the Dan River, which
connected Virginia to the Deep South. The Richmond & Danville Railroad Company acquired interest in the
Piedmont Railroad Company and completed the railline between Danville and Greensboro in 1864. This
railroad would subsequently become part of the Southern Railway System (Butler 1982).
Reconstruction in Rockingham County was fueled by tobacco production. John Marion Gallaway
of Madison was one of the largest growers of tobacco with over 15,000 acres in production and 300 tenant
farmers cultivating it. Other agricultural staples, including corn, oats, wheat, and hay, also contributed
significantly to the growing economy. Following the Civil War, large tobacco warehouses were built near
Reidsville to take advantage of the commercial opportunities created by the railroad that ran through the town.
The extension of the railroad into Leaksville and Madison during the 1880s increased these opportunities
(Butler 1982).
The population of Rockingham County continued to grow during the twentieth century, although the
county remained largely rural with a focus on agricultural products. Wentworth underwent a population
declined and the newly incorporated city of Eden, which was fomled from a consolidation of the communities
of Leaksville, Spray, and Draper, became the largest city in the county. The tobacco industry was severely
affected when the American Tobacco Trust (ATT), formed by James Duke, absorbed most of the small
tobacco manufactures. The ATT purchased the Reidsville firm of F.R. Penn and Company in 1911 and
Charles Penn became a director with the ATT. Penn had the Lucky Strike cigarette factory built in Reidsville.
Large textile mills were also established in Rockingham County during the early twentieth century.
Today, Rockingham County is nearly equally divided between rural agricultural settings and urban
development. Tobacco and textiles remain the predominant economic contributors and the Miller Brewery,
constructed in 1981, is one of the largest employers in the area. Recreational activities along the waterways
and lakes are also a draw for tourists to the area.
Johnson Extension and Overby :AEC Inc?-, Tracts
Rockingham County, North Carolina
15

Chapter 3. Results of Investigation
Background Research Results
Background research conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh confirmed that
no previously recorded archaeological resources are present in either the Johnson Extension or Overby tracts.
Two previously recorded sites, 31RK159** and 31RK212, were identified within the 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mi)
Area of Potential Effects (APE; Figure 3.1). The Suits Cemetery (31RK159**) is located approximately 0.4
km (0.25 mile) southwest of the southern boundary of the Johnson Extension (Figure 3.1), but will not be
affected by any development activities within the extension itself. This cemetery was recorded during a
survey of the parcel immediately south of the Johnson tract conducted by Reid and Sweeney (1999), prior
to the construction of the now extant turbine generation plant.
Figure 3.
Survey Boundaries
nJohnson Extension
1-1 Overby Tract
• Previously Recorded Site
110 220 330 440
Meters
1 Y trZ . E i
Map showing the survey areas and locations of previously recorded archaeological resources
in the project vicinity (1971 Bethany, NC USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle).
Site 31RK212** is a prehistoric isolated find that was located by Carter and Reid (2016) in the
adjacent Johnson Tract. This isolate consists of a single prehistoric ceramic sherd that was identified in the
creek bed of Little Jacobs Creek. The sherd was identified as belonging to the general Woodland Period, but
.AEC Inc?_: Johnson Extension and Overby Tracts
Rockingham County, North Carolina
16

due to a lack of additional artifacts or evidence of intact deposits, it was recommended not eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Historic maps of the project area reviewed for this investigation included the Rockingham County
1910 Rural Delivery Map, 1926 Soil Map, and 1938 Highway Map. Both the 1910 Rural Delivery Map and
the 1926 soil map show a house in the southeastern corner of the Overby tract (Figures 3.2 and 3.3). This
complex consists of an early twentieth century Craftsman -style house (Figure 3.4) and several outbuildings.
This house is not currently occupied.
Figure 3.2.
1910 Rural Delivery Map of Rockingham County showing buildings within and in
proximity to the Overby tract.
The Rural Delivery map and 1926 soil map also reflect a school located south of the southern
boundary of the Overby tract. A farm complex occupied by Mr. Mark Johnson is present in this location
today. Mr. Johnson's house may be contemporaneous with the school, although it is difficult to discern its
age due to a myriad of modifications that have been made to the building over the years. No school building
is present and Mr. Johnson was not aware of its original location. This complex will not be directly impacted
by the proposed development.
M.C:C:. Ir ic. Johnson Extension and Overby Tracts
Rockingham County, North Carolina
17

Figure 3.3.
1926 soil map of Rockingham County showing buildings within and in proximity to
the Overby tract.
Neither of these complexes were
documented during architectural surveys
of Rockingham County (Phillips 1998;
Woodard 2003). Based on their lack of
inclusion during these investigations, it is
assumed that either they did not retain
sufficient structural integrity or were not
considered to be sufficiently unique in
terms of construction styles to warrant
documentation.
Field Investigation Results
As discussed in Chapter 1, the
project area was initially divided into Figure 3.4.
areas deemed to have high and low
potential for the presence of
View of Craftsman -style house in southeastern
portion of the Overby tract, looking west.
Johnson Extension and Overb
• :AEC Inc? Johnson Y Tracts
N Rockingham County, North Carolina
18

archaeological deposits (see Figure 1.6). However, based on conditions encountered in the field, these
determinations had to be modified. Disturbance throughout the tract, due to erosion, pipeline and
transmission line construction, and use of off -road vehicles, was severe. Based on these factors, as well as
the prevalence of moderate to steep slope, survey methods were modified to include systematic shovel testing
on upland knoll tops and small ridge toes in the Overby tract and in the eastern portion of the Johnson
extension tract and pedestrian reconnaissance in the remainder of each tract.
Fifteen shovel tests were
excavated in the Overby tract. These
tests consistently exposed no more than 5
cm (2 in) of rocky silt loam overlying
strong brown loamy clay subsoil (Figure
3.5). No artifacts were recovered.
Eighteen shovel tests were
excavated in the Johnson Extension tract.
A few of these tests exposed up to 15 cm
(5.9 in) of dark brown loam grading to
yellowish brown and orange clay loam
and clay. However, the majority of the
tests had orange clay subsoil exposed at
the ground surface. The majority of
shovel tests excavated in the project tract
contained dense gravel. No artifacts were
recovered from shovel tests.
Figure 3.5.
View of typical shovel test excavated in the
Overby tract.
Conclusions and Recommendations
This investigation of the Johnson Extension and Overby project tracts did not identify any
archaeological resources. Overall disturbance throughout the two project areas is severe. The area has been
adversely impacted by the construction of multiple utility lines (pipelines and transmission line) and by off -
road vehicle use, as well as by extreme erosion resulting in either shallow A horizon soil or its complete loss.
No significant archaeological resources will be impacted by the proposed development in these tracts and no
further work is advocated.
Johnson Extension and Overby :AEC Inc?-, Tracts
Rockingham County, North Carolina
19

References Cited
Adovasio, J. M., Pedler J. Donahue, and R. Struckenrath
1998 Two Decades of Debate on Meadowcroft Rockshelter. North American Archaeologist 19:
317-41.
Adovasio, J. M., and Jake Page
2002 The First Americans: In Pursuit of Archaeology's Greatest Mystery. Random House, New
York.
Anderson, David G., and J. W. Joseph
1988 Prehistory and History Along the Upper Savannah River: Technical Synthesis of Cultural
Resource Investigations, Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area. National Park Service,
Interagency Archaeological Services, Atlanta, GA.
Anderson, David G., and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the
Savannah River Basin. American Antiquity 53(2):262-286.
Aultman, Jennifer, Kate Grillo, and Nick Bon -Harper
2003 Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) Cataloging Manual:
Ceramics. Electronic document. www.daacs.org/aboutDatabase/pdf/cataloging/Ceramics.pdf.
Autry, William O.
1976 An Archaeological Assessment of the Relocation of State Roads 1008 and 1715 in the B.
Everett Jordan Reservoir, North Carolina. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District, Wilmington, NC.
Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dog's Tails: Hunter -Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological
Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-20.
Bonnichsen, Robson, Michael Waters, Dennis Stanford, and Bradley T. Lepper, eds.
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Broyles, Bettye J
1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. West
Virginia Geological Survey, Morgantown.
Butler, Lindley S.
1982 Rockingham County: A Brief History. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources,
Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
1952 The Archaeology of Eastern Georgia and South Carolina. In Archaeology of the Eastern
United States, James B. Griffin, ed., pp. 312-321. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Johnson Extension and Overby Inc? Johnson Tracts
N Rockingham County, North Carolina
20

Cambron, James W. and David C. Hulse
1990 Handbook of Alabama Archaeology: Part I Point Types. Alabama Archaeological Society,
Huntsville.
Carter, Katherine and Dawn Reid
2016 Archaeological Investigations in the Proposed Johnson Tract Development Area,
Rockingham County, North Carolina. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.,
Clayton, NC.
Chapman, Jefferson
1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge -and -Valley Province. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, Roy S. Dickens and H. Trawick Ward, eds.,
pp. 137-153. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Claggett, Stephen R, John S. Cable, and Curtis E. Larsen
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North
Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Jackson, MI.
Coe, Joffre L.
1952 The Cultural Sequence of the Carolina Piedmont. In Archaeology of the Eastern United
States, James B. Griffin, ed., pp. 301-311. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 54(5).
Coe, Joffre Lanning, and Olin F. McCormick
1970 Archaeological Resources of the New Hope Reservoir Area, North Carolina. University of
North Carolina, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, Chapel Hill.
Cumming, William
1958 The Discoveries of John Lederer. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.
Dillehay, Tom D.
1989 Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.
Driver, J. C.
1998 Human Adaptation at the Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary in Western Canada. Quaternary
International 49:141-150.
Egloff, Brian J.
1967 An Analysis of Ceramics from Cherokee Towns. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department
of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Florida Museum of Natural History (FMNH)
2009 Digital Type Collection. Electronic document. www.flmnh.ufl.edu/histarch/gallery_ types.
Johnson Extension and Overby :AEC Inc?-, Tracts
Rockingham County, North Carolina
21

Gardner, William H.
1974 The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971 through 1973 Seasons.
Catholic University of America, Archaeology Laboratory Occasional Paper 1.
1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (ca. 9200
to 6800 B.C.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark Wittkofski
and Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 5-52. Archaeological Society of Virginia.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American
Antiquity 42(3):382-395.
2006 Evidence for Pre -Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States. In Paleoamerican Origins:
Beyond Clovis. Robson Bonnichsen and Bradley T Lepper, eds., pp. 103-112. Texas A & M
University Press, College Station.
Griffin, James B.
1952 Culture Periods in Eastern United States. In Archaeology of the Eastern United States,
James B Griffin, ed., pp. 352-364. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156(3772):175-191.
Hantman, J. L., and M. J. Klein
1992 Middle and Late Woodland Archaeology in Piedmont Virginia. In Middle and Late
Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, pp. 137-164. Archaeological Society of Virginia
Special Publication, 29. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Cortland.
Hargrove, Thomas
1998 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Cold Water Creek and Back Creek Interceptor
Project, Concord, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. Robert J. Goldstein and Associates.
Hudson, Charles M
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Explorations of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-1568.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1994 The Hernando De Soto Expedition, 1539-1543. In The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and
Europeans in the American South, 1521-1704, Charles M Hudson and Carmen Chaves Tesser,
eds., pp. 74-103. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Jackson, L. E., F. M. Philips, K. Shimamura, and E. C. Little
1997 Cosmogenic 36C1 Dating of the Foothills Erratics Train, Alberta, Canada. Geology 125:
73-94.
Johnson, M. F.
1997 Additional Research at Cactus Hill: Preliminary Description of Northern Virginia
Chapter —ASV' s 1993 and 1995 Excavation. In Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202,
Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia, J. M. McAvoy and L. D. McAvoy, eds. Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, DHR Research Report 8.
=
Johnson Extension and Overby Inc? Johnson Y Tracts
N Rockingham County, North Carolina
22

Lawson, John
1967 A New Voyage to Carolina. Hugh Talmage Lefler, ed. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.
Lewis, Thomas M. N., and Madeline Kneberg
1959 The Archaic Culture in the Middle South. American Antiquity 25(2):161-183.
Majewski, Teresita and Michael J. O'Brien
1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth -Century English and American Ceramics in
Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by
Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 257-314. Academic Press, New York.
McAvoy, J. M., and L. D. McAvoy, eds.
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No 8.
McDonald, J. N.
2000 An Outline of the Pre -Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia with Special Attention
to a Bone Tool. Jeffersonia 9:1-59.
Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World Prehistory
2:1-53.
Meltzer, D. J., D. K. Grayson, G. Ardila, et al.
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 44(1):
172-179.
Miller, Carl F
1962 Archeology of the John H. Kerr Reservoir Basin, Roanoke River Virginia -North Carolina.
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, 182. River Basin Surveys Papers. Government Printing
Office, Washington D.C.
Morehead, John Motley
1953 Orange County in the Era of the American Revolution. In Orange County 1752-1952, Hugh
Talmage Lefler and Paul Wager, eds., pp. 41-67. The Orange Printshop, Chapel Hill, NC.
Noel Hume, Ivor
1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
1994 Here Lies Virginia: An Archaeologist's View of Colonial Life and History, with a New
Afterward. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
North Carolina Office of Archives and History (NCOAH)
2004 Natives and Newcomers: North Carolina Before 1770.
http://www.waywelivednc.com/before-1770/wagon-road.htm.
Johnson Extension and Overb
• :AEC Incr; Y Tracts
Rockingham County, North Carolina
23

O1;teen, Lisa D.
1996 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement along the Oconee Drainage. In The Paleoindian
and Early Archaic Southeast. David G Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, eds., pp. 92-106.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Oliver, Billy L.
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, Roy S. Dickens and H. Trawick Ward,
eds., pp. 195-211. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Phillips, Laura A.W.
1998 Report on Rockingham County Reconnaissance Survey. Unpublished report, North Carolina
Historic Preservation Office.
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press, Raleigh.
Reid, Dawn and Alex Y. Sweeney
1999 Cultural Resource Survey of a Proposed Combustion Turbine Generating Site, Rockingham
County, North Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Atlanta, GA.
Rouse, Parke, Jr.
2001 The Great Wagon Road: From Philadelphia to the South. The Dietz Press, Richmond, VA.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1983 Middle and Late Archaic Settlement in the South Carolina Piedmont. Master's Thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
South, Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
1980 The Discovery of Santa Elena. Research Manuscript Series, 165. South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
2004 John Bartlam: Staffordshire in Carolina. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series 231, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Stanford, Dennis
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Models, Evidence, and Future Directions. In Paleoamerican Origins:
Beyond Clovis. Robson Bonnichsen, Betty Meggers, D. Gentry Steele, and Bradley T Lepper,
eds., pp. 313-353. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Steponaitis, Vincas P., Jeffrey D. Irwin, Theresa E. McReynolds, and Christopher R. Moore, eds
2006 Stone Quarries and Sourcing in the Carolina Slate Belt. Research Report No. 25, Research
Laboratory of Archaeology. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Johnson Extension and Overby Inc? Johnson Tracts
N Rockingham County, North Carolina
24

Townsend, Jan, Jr. John H. Sprinkle, and John Knoerl
1993 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts.
National Register Bulletin, 36. National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington
D.C.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2016 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document, http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov.
United States Geological Service (USGS)
1971 Bethany, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle.
Ward, H. Trawick
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The
Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeology Symposium. Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J.
Crow, eds., pp. 53-81. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Ward, H. Trawick, and R. P. Stephen Davis
1993 Indian Communities on the North Carolina Piedmont A.D. 1000 to 1700. Monograph, 2.
University of North Carolina Research Laboratories of Anthropology, Chapel Hill.
1999 Time before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Whittenburg, James P.
1977 Planters, Merchants, and Lawyers: Social Change and the Origins of the North Carolina
Regulation. The William and Mary Quarterly 34(2):215-238.
Woodard, Sarah A.
2003 Historic and Architectural Resources of Rockingham County, North Carolina. Edwards -
Pitman Environmental, Inc., Durham, NC.
Johnson Extension and Overby :AEC Inc?-, Tracts
Rockingham County, North Carolina
25

Appendix A. Resume of Principal Investigator
Johnson Extension and Overby Inc? Johnson Tracts
N:, Rockingham County, North Carolina

DAWN M. REID
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
121 E. First Street
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
[phone] Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS
President, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. - July 2008 to present
Vice President, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. - 2003 to July 2008
President, Heritage Partners, LLC. - 2007 to present
Senior Archaeologist/Principal Investigator, Brockington and Associates, Inc. - 1993 to 2003
EDUCATION
B.S. in Anthropology, University of California, Riverside, 1992
M.A. in Geography, University of Georgia, Athens, 1999
AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION
Client and Agency Consultations for Planning and Development
Vertebrate Faunal Analysis
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA) Society for American Archaeology
Southeastern Archaeological Conference
Archaeological Society of South Carolina
North Carolina Archaeological Society
Mid -Atlantic Archaeology Conference
Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists
North Carolina Council of Professional Archaeologists
Cultural Resource Surveys (Phase I) and Archaeological Site Testing (Phase II) - Representative Examples
• Greenways for Appomattox County, Virginia (Appomattox Heritage Trail), Isle of Wight County (Fort
Huger)
Utility Corridors for Duke Energy (Charlotte), FPS (Charlotte), BREMCO (Asheville), SCE&G
(Columbia), Georgia Power Company (Atlanta), Transco Pipeline (Houston), ANR Pipeline (Detroit), and
others
• Transportation Corridors for Georgia Department of Transportation (Atlanta), South Carolina
Department of Transportation (Columbia)
•
Development Tracts for numerous independent developers, engineering firms, and local and county
governments throughout Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, and federal agencies
including the USFS (South Carolina) and the USACE (Mobile and Wilmington Districts)
.AEC. Eric. Johnson Extension and Overby Tracts
Rockingham County, North Carolina

Archaeological Data Recovery (Phase III) - Representative Examples
• Civil War encampment (44IW0204) for Isle of Wight County, Isle of Wight, VA
• Prehistoric village (31ON1578) and late 18th/early 19th century plantation (310N1582) for R.A.
Management, Charlotte, NC
• 18th century residence (38BU1650) for Meggett, LLC, Bluffton, SC
• Prehistoric camps/villages (38HR243, 38HR254, and 38HR258) for Tidewater Plantation and Golf Club,
Myrtle Beach, SC
EXPERIENCE AT MILITARY FACILITIES
Fort Benning, Columbus, Georgia; Townsend Bombing Range, McIntosh County, Georgia; Fort Bragg,
Fayetteville, North Carolina; Camp Lejeune, Jacksonville, North Carolina; Fort Jackson, Columbia, South
Carolina; Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico; Milan Army Ammunition Plant, TN
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION RELATED INVESTIGATIONS
Georgia Power Company -Flint River Hydroelectric Project
Duke Energy - Lake James and Lake Norman, North Carolina; Fishing Creek, South Carolina
*A detailed listing of individual projects and publications is available upon request
ACC, Inc._ Johnson Extension and Overby Tracts
Rockingham County, North Carolina

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Banos. Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
May 16, 2016
Katherine Carter
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC)
121 East First Street
Clayton, NC 27520
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Final Report, Phase I Archaeological Survey Report, Proposed Johnson Tract Development Area,
Rockingham County, ER 16-0645
Dear Ms. Carter:
Thank you for your letter of April 27, 2016 transmitting the two copies of the final archaeological survey
report by ACC, Inc.
ACC conducted a Phase I intensive archaeological survey of the proposed Johnson Tract Development
Area in Rockingham County, North Carolina. A single prehistoric isolated find, 31 RK212, was recorded as
a result of this effort. This site was recommended as ineligible for inclusion on the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP). No further work was recommended for 31RK212. We concur with these
recommendations.
No additional archaeological sites were recorded as a result of this effort. Based on the survey, it was
recommended that no sites deemed eligible for the NRHP would be impacted by the proposed undertaking.
No further archaeological work was recommended for the project tract. We concur with these
recommendations.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. We are accepting this
version of the document as the final report.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
t22_,L0Ji 'ato,LIJ
bat`Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susan Klutz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
April 21, 2016
Katherine Carter
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
121 East First Street
Clayton, NC 27520
Re: Phase I Archaeological Survey Report, Proposed Johnson Tract Development Area,
Rockingham County, ER 16-0645
Dear Ms. Carter:
Thank you for your letter of April 8, 2016 transmitting the archaeological survey report by ACC, Inc. We
have reviewed this report and offer the following comments:
ACC conducted a Phase I intensive archaeological survey of the proposed Johnson Tract Development
Area in Rockingham County, North Carolina. A single prehistoric isolated 'find, 31 RK212, was recorded as
a result of this effort. This site was recommended as ineligible for inclusion on the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP). No further work was recommended for 31 RK212. We concur with these
recommendations.
No additional archaeological sites were recorded as a result of this effort. Based on the survey, it was
recommended that no sites deemed eligible for the NRHP would be impacted by the proposed undertaking.
No further archaeological work was recommended for the project tract. We concur with these
recommendations.
The report meets our offce's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. One very minor edit was
noted on Page iii, first sentence. "Union County" should read "Rockingham County." No additional edits
are noted. We recommend that two copies of the final report be submitted to our office.
Location: 109 Fast Jones Street. Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: (919) S07-6570/807-6599

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.reviewra7,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
(22_,Lcuz,
(ifiRamona M. Banos

Archaeological Investigations in the Proposed
Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
March 2016

Archaeological Investigations in the Proposed
Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Prepared for
Environmental Consulting and Technology of North Carolina, PLLC
and
NTE Carolinas II, LLC
Prepared by
Katherine Carter
Archaeologist
and
Dawn Reid
Principal Investigator
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
March 2016

Management Summary
In February 2016, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted an
archaeological investigation of the proposed Johnson Tract project area in Union County, North Carolina.
This investigation was conducted on behalf of Environmental Consulting and Technology of North Carolina,
PLLC (ECT) and NTE Carolinas II, LLC, and was undertaken pursuant to state and federal regulations
pertaining to the management of significant cultural resources. The goals of this investigation were to
identify all archaeological resources located within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE), assess those
resources for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and make management
recommendations, as appropriate.
The Johnson Tract project area is situated immediately east of New Lebanon Church Road,
approximately 1.0 km (0.6 miles) north of its intersection with Huffines Mill Road. The 78 acre project tract
encompasses a variety of settings including woods, atransmission corridor, and two pipeline corridors. Much
of the tract is comprised of steep slopes with grades as severe as 30 percent. The associated access easement
is 18 meters (60 ft) in width and parallels Ernest Drive for most of its route. The easement is approximately
600 meters (1,768.6 ft) in total length.
Background research was conducted at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA),
located in Raleigh, to identify any previously recorded archaeological sites in the project area. No previously
recorded archaeological resources are present within the project tract, but site 31RK159** is located
immediately outside the southern tract boundary. This site is recorded as the Suits Cemetery and it will not
be impacted by development within the tract itself.
The archaeological survey consisted of shovel tests excavated at judgmental intervals along landforms
determined to have high potential for archaeological remains. The remaining areas within the tract were
evaluated using pedestrian walkover. Surface examination was employed were ground exposure was greater
than 75 percent. A single isolated find, 31RK212, was identified during this investigation. This isolate
consists of a prehistoric ceramic sherd located on the surface of a creek bed. This resource is not considered
to meet NRHP eligibility criteria. As no significant archaeological resources will be impacted, clearance to
proceed with the development is recommended.
ACCr InC ' Johnson Tract Development Area
y Rockingham County, North Carolina
111

Table of Contents
Management Summary. ii
List of Figures. vi
List of Tables vii
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
Project Area 1
Methods of Investigation 1
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview. 6
Environmental Overview 6
Cultural Overview. 7
Chapter 3. Results of Investigation 15
Background Research. 15
Field Investigation 15
Conclusion and Recommendations. 16
References Cited. 17
Appendix A. Artifact Catalog
Appendix B. Resume of Principal Investigator
ACCr InC ' Johnson Tract Development Area
y Rockingham County, North Carolina
iv

List of Figures
Page
Figure 1.1 Map of Rockingham County showing location of project area. 1
Figure 1.2 Map showing the location of the project tract. 2
Figure 1.3. General view of wooded slope, looking north. 3
Figure 1.4. Intersection of Transcontinental gas pipeline and Duke Energy 230kV transmission
line corridors, looking northeast. 3
Figure 1.5. View along access easement, looking west. 4
Figure 2.1 Physiographic provinces of North Carolina with the project vicinity highlighted 6
Figure 2.2. Map showing soil types in the project tract. 8
Figure 3.1 Aerial map showing survey coverage in the project tract. 15
List of Tables
Page
Table 2.1 Soils Types Present in the Project Tract. 7
ACCr InC ' Johnson Tract Development Area
y Rockingham County, North Carolina
v

Chapter 1. Introduction and Methods
In February 2016, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted an
archaeological survey of the proposed Johnson Tract development area in Rockingham County, North
Carolina. The goals of this project were the identification and assessment of archaeological resources in
accordance with National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) guidelines. This was a multi -phase project
beginning with background research and field reconnaissance. The data gathered during the initial phase
were used to develop a Scope of Work for the field survey of portions of the project tract determined to have
high potential for intact archaeological deposits.
Project Area
The proposed Johnson Tract project
area is located approximately 16.1 km (10
miles) west of the city of Reidsville, in the
south-central portion of Rockingham
County, North Carolina (Figure 1.1). The
overall project area includes a 78 acre tract
and an access easement that extends from the
southeast corner ofthe tract to U.S. Highway
65 (Figure 1.2). The tract is bounded by
New Lebanon Church Road to the west and
by property boundaries on all remaining
sides. The majority of the project tract is
wooded with mixed pines and hardwoods.
The project tract contains several narrow
ridge lines and a number of associated steep
side slopes (Figure 1.3). ATV trails cross
many of the ridges. Little Jacob's Creek
bisects the tract north -south. An unnamed
tributary branches off of Little Jacob's Creek
in the central portion of the tract and continues southeastward through the tract. Two natural gas pipelines
(Plantation and Transcontinental) bisect the tract, as does a Duke Energy 230kV transmission line that runs
east toward U.S. Highway 65 through the southern portion of the tract (Figure 1.4). Severe erosion is evident
throughout the tract. The access easement is 18 meters (60 ft) in width and parallels Ernest Drive for most
of its route. The easement is approximately 600 meters (1,768.6 ft) in total length. It traverses steep slope
and a moderately eroded pasture (Figure 1.5).
MADISON
MADISO
PRICE
sCONEVILLE
MAYO R
MAYODAN
LEAKS-,�
VILLE F
EDEN
CI(IN
WENTWORTH :! 1".1
c.
HUNTSVfLl, NFW'BtTHEL REEDS-
FroJeotivea VILLE
SIMPSONVILLE
E
fi 2 4 6 R 10 Kilometer
0 2 4 8 R 10 Miley
RUFFIN
AM
REIDSVILL (pt.)
WILLlAMS-
BURG
Methods of Investigation
Figure 1.1.
Map of Rockingham County showing
approximate location of project area.
This investigation consisted of four separate tasks: Background Research, Field Investigation,
Laboratory Analysis, and Report Production. Each of these tasks is discussed in detail below.
Background Research
Background research began with a review of archaeological site forms, maps, and reports on file at
the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh, North Carolina. This review served to identify previously
AEC, Inc: Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina
1

-�—
I.
]
i
/
a
s
ff
110411
II I
mil
PI
Mil
Oil
ill
g
31 RK212
�+ ' •
•
rf
11.
f
K Ut F 11
-
4"
e
rl — AL
N.
rl
■
II
(5
Project Tract • Isolated Find
^.,-}. Access Easement ,. Recorced Site
0 100 200 330 ,00
Meters ..
I
Figure 1.2.
Map showing the location of the project tract (1971 Bethany, NC USGS 7.5 minute
topographic quadrangle).
recorded resources in the project vicinity and provided data on the prehistoric and historic context of the
project tracts. The Division of Historical Resources (DHR), Survey and Planning Branch online database was
reviewed to determine if any previously recorded architectural resources were located in the project vicinity.
Background research also included a review of available historic maps including the 1938 Rockingham
County Highway Map.
Field Investigation
Following a review of landforms and soil types present, the project tract was divided into areas of
high and low potential for the presence of archaeological remains. High potential areas were defined by the
presence of excessively drained or well drained soils on relatively level landforms or within 90 meters of a
wetland on moderately well drained soils. Approximately 39 percent of the project tract was initially
identified as having high potential for archaeological sites based on these criteria. The majority of these high
potential areas were ridge noses and toes overlooking or grading down to Little Jacob's Creek and its
associated tributary. Whenever possible, shovel tests were excavated at 30 meter intervals in these areas.
Due to the severity of disturbance and erosion present in several areas, however, systematic intervals were
not maintained and shovel tests were excavated at locations determined to have the least disturbance. Low
potential areas were defined by the presence of moderately eroded soils or slopes greater than 15 percent.
'ACC,Inc.: Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina
2

Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.4.
General view of wooded slope, looking north.
Intersection of Transcontinental gas pipeline and Duke
Energy 23 OkV transmission line corridors, looking
northeast.
CrAInC ' Johnson Tract Development Area
y Rockingham County, North Carolina
3

Figure 1.5.
View along access easement, looking west.
These portions of the tract were surveyed using pedestrian walkover. Exposed ground surface in both high
and low potential areas was also inspected for archaeological remains. Areas along both waterways were
inspected using a combination of pedestrian walkover and surface inspection.
Excavated shovel tests measured approximately 30 cm in diameter. Shovel test fill was screened
through 0.25 inch wire mesh. Details of artifacts and soils for each shovel test were recorded in field
notebooks. Artifacts were collected and placed in plastic bags labeled with the date, field site number, grid
point locations (i.e., shovel test/transect or north/east coordinate), depth of artifacts, and initials of the
excavator. To delineate archaeological resources, shovel tests were excavated at 15 meter intervals in cardinal
directions from the original positive artifact location until two consecutive negative shovel tests were
encountered.
A site is defined as an area containing more than two artifacts of a possible single occupation in a 30-
meter or less diameter of surface exposure; or where at least two shovel tests within a 30 meter radius were
positive (even if only two artifacts were recovered); or where surface or subsurface cultural features are
present. Artifacts and/or features less than 50 years in age would not be considered a site without a specific
research or management reason. Locations with fewer than three artifacts and no features are classified as
isolated finds or isolates. Although isolates are rarely considered to meet NRHP eligibility criteria, their
locations and settings are documented.
Site settings were photographed with a digital camera. Sketch maps were produced in the field
showing the locations of shovel tests and surface finds. The locations of each site were recorded using a
Trimble Pathfinder Global Positioning System (GPS) unit, and the locations were relayed onto project maps.
ACCr InC ' Johnson Tract Development Area
y Rockingham County, North Carolina
4

Site significance is based on the site's ability to contribute to our understanding of past lifeways, and
its subsequent eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Department of Interior regulations (36 CFR Part 60)
established criteria which must be met for an archaeological site or historic resource to be considered
significant, or eligible for the NRHP (Townsend et al. 1993). Under these criteria, a site can be defined as
significant if it retains integrity of"location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association"
and if it A) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of history;
B) is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; C) embodies distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, or method of construction, or represents work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or
represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D)
has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Archaeological sites are most
frequently evaluated pursuant to Criterion D. However, both historic and prehistoric period archaeological
sites can be considered under the other criteria.
The primary goals of this field investigation were to identify archaeological resources and evaluate
their potential research value or significance. Sites that exhibit little or no further research potential are
recommended not eligible for the NRHP and no further investigation is proposed. Sites for which insufficient
data could be obtained at the survey level are considered unassessed and preservation or more in-depth
investigation is advocated. It is rare for ample data to be recovered at the survey level of investigation to
definitively determine that a site meets NRHP eligibility criteria. However, when this occurs, the site is
recommended eligible for the NRHP. Again, preservation ofthe resource is advocated. If preservation is not
possible, mitigation options (e.g., data recovery) would need to be considered.
Laboratory Analysis
Laboratory work began with washing all recovered artifacts. A provenience number, based on the
context ofthe artifact (i.e., surface or subsurface), was assigned to each positive shovel test location or surface
collection area. Within each provenience, each individual artifact or artifact class was then assigned a
number. Artifacts were cataloged based on specific morphological characteristics such as material in the case
oflithics, and decoration and temper type in the case of prehistoric ceramics. Historic artifacts were identified
by color, material of manufacture (e.g., ceramics), type (e.g., slipware), form (e.g., bowl, plate), method of
manufacture (e.g., molded), period of manufacture (e.g., 1780-1820), and intended function (e.g., tableware).
Historic artifacts with established manufacture date ranges were categorized using Aultman et al. (2003),
Florida Museum of Natural History (2009), Majewski and O'Brien (1987), Noel Hume (1969), and South
(1977, 2004). Artifact descriptions, counts, and weights were recorded. All diagnostic and cross -mended
artifacts were labeled with a solution of Acryloid B-72 and acid -free permanent ink.
At the conclusion of this project, all project related material, including field notes, artifacts, and
project maps, will be prepared for curation based on standards set forth in 36 CFR 79 (Curation of Federally
Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections: Final Rule). These standards and guidelines require
that all project -related material be placed in archivally stable storage bags and boxes. Upon acceptance of
the final project report by the SHPO, the project material will be submitted to OSA for permanent curation.
Report Preparation
Report preparation involved the compilation of all data gathered during the previous tasks. The
following chapter provides environmental and cultural overviews for the project area. Next, the results of
the field investigation are discussed. Each identified resource is described, shown on project maps, and
NRHP eligibility recommendations are advanced. The data obtained through laboratory analysis are included
in site descriptions. Finally, a summary of the overall project is presented.
ACCr InC ' Johnson Tract Development Area
y Rockingham County, North Carolina
5

Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview
In our attempt to evaluate cultural resources, we must understand the larger context within which they
occur. Landscapes, technological development, and ideological values shape the way people live. This
chapter discusses the local environment and cultural development of Rockingham County to provide a context
for assessment of archaeological resources.
Environmental Overview
Rockingham County is located in central North Carolina and encompasses 1,480 square km (572
miles2). It is bounded by Guilford County to the south, Caswell County to the east, Stokes County on the
west, and the Virginia state border to the north. Rockingham County lies in the Piedmont physiographic
province (Figure 2.1). Gently rolling to hilly landscapes generally characterize this province, with elevations
ranging from 312 meters (1,024 ft) in the northwestern portion of the county to a low of 146 meters (479 ft)
along the Dan River in the northeastern portion of the county (Butler 1982). Elevations in the project area
range between 183 and 232 meters (600-760 ft) amsl.
Drainages
The Dan River bisects
Rockingham County. This river
system flows north into Virginia
where it joins the Staunton River to
from the Roanoke River. The
majority of the county is drained by
the Dan River and numerous
associated creeks, streams, and
tributaries are present in the county.
One such waterway is Little Jacob's
Creek, which runs through the
project tract. Little Jacob's Creek
joins Jacob's Creek northeast of the
project area. The confluence of
Jacob's Creek and the Dan River is
approximately 6.4 km (4 miles)
northeast of the Johnson tract. Other
major bodies of water located in Rockingham County include Lake Hunt, Hester Lake, Troublesome Creek
Lake (all near Reidsville), and Belews Lake in the southwestern corner of the county.
Climate
Figure 2.1.
Physiographic Provinces of North Carolina
Physiographic provinces of North Carolina with the
project vicinity highlighted.
Like most of central North Carolina, the climate of Rockingham County is generally temperate,
characterized by relatively mild winters and warm summers. Average temperatures range from the lower 40s
in the winter to the mid 80s in the summer. Normal annual precipitation averages 111 cm (43.7 in) and winter
snow is common (Butler 1982).
r,ABC,. Inc, Johnson Tract Development Area
`:. Rockingham County, North Carolina
6

Soils
Four soil types are present in the Johnson tract (Table 2.1; Figure 2.2). The predominant soil type
present in over 50 percent of the project tract is Rhodhiss sandy loam with slopes ranging from 8 to 30
percent. Rhodhiss soil is deep and well drained and forms on hills and ridges in the Piedmont from residuum
of the underlying felsic crystalline rock. Soils belonging to the Fairview -Poplar Forest complex are present
in 27 percent of the tract. For this soil type, slopes range from 8 to 25 percent and portions are noted as being
moderately eroded. Soils in this complex are sandy clay loams that form on summits and slopes from the
residuum of the underlying felsic metamorphic and igneous rock. They are also deep and well drained.
Clifford sandy clay loam is present in 14 percent of the project tract. This soil type is well drained with a
slope range of 2 to 8 percent and is defined as moderately eroded. The fourth soil type present in the project
tract is Siloam sandy loam, accounting for 6.7 percent of the tract area. Siloam soil is moderately deep and
well drained with a slope range of 4 to 10 percent. The access easement traverses two soils types: moderately
eroded Clifford sandy clay loam and Fairview -Poplar Forest complex (USDA 2016).
Table 2.1.
Soils Types Present in the Proiect Tract.
Soil Type
Characteristics
% of Tract
Rhodhiss sandy loam
well drained, 8-15% slope and 15-
30% slope
52.1
Fairview -Poplar Forest complex
well drained, 8-15% and 15-25%
slope, moderately eroded
27.1
Clifford sandy clay loam
well drained, 2-8% slope,
moderately eroded
14.0
Siloam sandy loam
well drained, 4-10% slope
6.7
Cultural Overview
The cultural history of North America can be divided into two general eras: Prehistoric and Historic.
The Prehistoric era is extensive. It includes at least 12,000 years of Native American groups and cultures
present prior to the arrival of Europeans. The Historic Era, in comparison, is relatively brief. This era refers
to a time of exploration and initial European settlement on the continent through the colonization,
industrialization and emergence of the modern era. Fine-grained chronological and cultural subdivisions are
defined within these eras to permit discussions of particular events and the lifeways of North America's
prehistoric inhabitants. The following discussion summarizes the various periods of prehistoric and historic
occupation in the project vicinity.
Prehistoric Period
Paleoindian Period (12,000 - 8,000 BC). The Paleoindian Period refers to the earliest human
occupations of the New World, the origins and age of which remain a subject of debate. The most accepted
theory dates the influx of migrant bands of hunter -gatherers to approximately 12,000 years ago. This time
period corresponds to the exposure of a land bridge connecting Siberia to the North American continent
during the last ice age (Driver 1998; Jackson et al. 1997). Research conducted over the past few decades has
begun to cast doubt on this theory.
ABC, Inc, Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina
7

Soil Type
Gifford -anay clay loam ,Cg52:1
Faiivig•H-�clai =ores: Ccinplex (Fp D. FpE• Fi D21
trT1J Rhor hiss sandy Icam:RnD RnEI
• - r =3Ibam sandy loam !Br!Brn D]
Johnson Tract
I ract boundary 4 It Contour
— Access Easement — Roads
d fS 150 225 2JO l,L�
Meters
Figure 2.2.
Map showing soil types in the project tract (1997 Bethany, NC USGS 7.5 minute
topographic quadrangle).
In the past two decades, investigations at Paleoindian sites have produced radiocarbon dates predating
12,000 years. The Monte Verde site in South America has been dated to 10,500 BC (Dillehay 1997; Meltzer
et al. 1997). In North America, the Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania had deposits dating to 9,500
BC. Current research conducted at the Topper Site indicates occupations dating between 15,000 and 19,000
(or more) years ago (Goodyear 2006). Two sites, 44SM37 and Cactus Hill, in Virginia have yielded similar
dates. One contentious point about these early sites is that the occupations predate what has been recognized
as the earliest New World culture, Clovis. Artifacts identified at pre -Clovis sites include flake tools and
blades, prismatic blades, bifaces, and lanceolate -like points (Adovasio et al. 1998; Goodyear 2006; Johnson
1997; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997; and McDonald 2000).
The major artifact marker for the Clovis period is the Clovis lanceolate -fluted point (Gardner 1974,
1989; Griffin 1967). First identified in New Mexico, Clovis fluted points have been recovered throughout
the United States. However, most of the identified Clovis points have been found in the eastern United States
(Ward and Davis 1999). Most Clovis points have been recovered from surface contexts, although some sites
(e.g., Cactus Hill and Topper sites) have contained well-defined subsurface Clovis contexts.
EEC, Inc, Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina
8

The identification of pre -Clovis sites, higher frequencies of Clovis points on the east coast of the
United States (the opposing side of the continent where the land bridge was exposed during the last
glaciation), and the lack of predecessors to the Clovis point type has led some researchers to hypothesize
other avenues of New World migration (see Bonnichsen et al. 2006). These alternative migration theories
contend that the influx of people to the Americas occurred prior to the ice -free corridor 12,000 years ago and
that multiple migration episodes took place. These theories include overland migrations similar to the one
presumed to have occurred over the Bering land bridge and water migrations over both the Atlantic Ocean
and the Pacific rim (see Stanford 2006). Coastal migration theories envision seafaring people using boats to
make the journey, evidence for which has not been identified (Adovasio and Page 2002).
In the southeastern United States, Clovis was followed by smaller fluted and nonfluted lanceolate
spear points, such as Dalton and Hardaway point types, that are characteristic of the later Paleoindian Period
(Goodyear 1982). The Hardaway point, first described by Coe (1964), is seen as a regional variant of Dalton
(Oliver 1985; Ward 1983).
Most Paleoindian materials occur as isolated surface finds in the eastern United States (Ward and
Davis 1999); this indicates that population density was extremely low during this period and that groups were
small and highly mobile (Meltzer 1988). It has been noted that group movements were probably well -
scheduled and that some semblance of territories was maintained to ensure adequate arrangements for
procuring mates and maintaining population levels (Anderson and Hanson 1988).
O'Steen (1996) analyzed Paleoindian settlement patterns in the Oconee River valley in northeastern
Georgia and noted a pattern of decreasing mobility throughout the Paleoindian period. Sites of the earliest
portion of the period seem to be restricted to the floodplains, while later sites were distributed widely in the
uplands, showing an exploitation of a wider range of environmental resources. If this pattern holds true for
the Southeast in general, it may be a result of changing environments trending toward increased deciduous
forest and decreasing availability of Pleistocene megafauna and the consequent increased reliance on smaller
mammals for subsistence; population growth may have also been a factor.
Archaic Period (8000 - 1000 BC). The Archaic period has been the focus of considerable research
in the Southeast. Sites dating to this period are ubiquitous in the North Carolina Piedmont (Coe and
McCormick 1970). Two major areas of research have dominated: (1) the development of chronological
subdivisions for the period based on diagnostic artifacts, and (2) the understanding of settlement/subsistence
trends for successive cultures.
Coe's excavations at several sites in the North Carolina Piedmont established a chronological
sequence for the period based on diagnostic projectile points. The Archaic period has been divided into three
subperiods: Early (8000 - 6000 BC), Middle (6000 - 3500 BC), and Late (3500 - 1000 BC) (Coe 1964). Coe
defined the Early Archaic subperiod based on the presence in site assemblages of Palmer and Kirk Corner
Notched projectile points. More recent studies have defined other Early Archaic corner notched points, such
as Taylor, Big Sandy, and Bolen types. Generally similar projectile points (e.g., LeCroy points), but with
commonly serrated edges and characteristic bifurcated bases, have also been identified as representative of
the Early Archaic subperiod (Broyles 1981; Chapman 1985). The Early Archaic points of the North Carolina
Piedmont are typically produced with metavolcanic material, although occasional chert, quartz, or quartzite
examples have been recovered.
Claggett and Cable (1982) use a settlement/subsistence typology developed by Binford (1980), to
classify late Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations as "logistical" (Claggett and Cable 1982). Logistical
AEC, Inc, Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina
9

task groups, in this definition, target a particular resource or set of subsistence or technological resources for
collection and use at a residential base camp. Their analysis identifies an increase in residential mobility
beginning in the Early Archaic and extending into the Middle Archaic (Claggett et al . 1982). Early Archaic
peoples transitioned from logistical orientation to foraging. Foraging refers to a generalized resource
procurement strategy enacted in closer proximity to a base camp. Subsistence remains recovered from Early
Archaic sites in southern Virginia include fish, turtle, turkey, small mammals, and deer, as well as a wide
variety of nuts (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997).
Sassaman (1983) hypothesizes that actual group residential mobility increased during the Middle
Archaic although it occurred within a more restricted range. Range restriction is generally a result of
increased population in the Southeast and crowding with group territories (Sassaman 1983); this increase in
population led to increasing social fluidity during the Middle Archaic and a lower need for scheduled
aggregation for mate exchange. In Sassaman's view, technology during the Middle Archaic is highly
expedient; this is reflected in an almost exclusive use of local resources, especially lithic material.
The appearance/introduction of Stanly points, a broad -bladed stemmed form defines the transition
to the Middle Archaic subperiod. These were followed by Morrow Mountain points, which are
characteristically manufactured from quartz, and have been recovered from numerous small sites throughout
Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Guilford points, also often made of quartz, follow Morrow Mountain
in the Middle Archaic sequence. Morrow Mountain and Guilford points were the most frequently recovered
projectile point types in the Jordan Lake survey area (Coe and McCormick1970). The latter were typically
found on low knolls or ridge toes overlooking perennial streams (Autry 1976).
The hallmark of the Late Archaic subperiod is the Savannah River Stemmed point (Coe 1964). This
large, broad -bladed and stemmed point type is found widely over the eastern United States and in nearly
every setting during the Jordan Lake survey (Autry 1976). It is associated with Late Archaic occupations in
the mountains and uplands as well as at coastal midden sites of the period. Also, the earliest ceramics
produced in North America are associated with the Late Archaic subperiod and date to around 2000 BC.
These ceramics are Stallings Island Fiber Tempered and are primarily a coastal phenomenon, stretching from
northern Florida to southern North Carolina.
Sites of the later phases of the Archaic are generally larger and more complex than earlier sites
(Caldwell 1952; Coe 1952; Griffin 1952; Lewis and Kneberg 1959). These sites are typically in riverine
settings within the Piedmont and are hypothesized to reflect greatly increased sedentism during the Late
Archaic, with a focus on fish, shellfish, and floodplain resources. Small Late Archaic sites in the uplands of
the Piedmont are interpreted as logistical collection and hunting camps (Anderson and Joseph 1988). Abbott
et al. (1986) have speculated that an increase in population during the Late Archaic led to a restriction in
resource ranges and an increase in trade networks.
More recent work on lithic sourcing has shed light on potential Late Archaic resource rounds.
Steponaitis et al. (2006) conducted chemical analysis on Late Archaic artifacts recovered from archaeological
sites on Fort Bragg and samples recovered from prehistoric quarries in the Uwharrie Mountains and in
Orange, Chatham, and Person counties. Several of the artifacts generally matched the chemical signatures
from the Uwharrie quarries and others were similar to the Tillery Formation material present in Orange and
Chatham counties. Their conclusions suggested that, despite the trend towards increased sedentism, Late
Archaic peoples were traveling long distances to obtain good quality stone and crossing drainages rather than
confining their travels to along drainages.
!Lee,Inc, Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina
10

Woodland Period (1000 BC -1450 AD). A transition between the preceramic Archaic cultures and
the Woodland cultures has been identified by Oliver (1985). Stemmed point types, like the Gypsy triangular
point, continue in the Early Woodland subperiod (1000 BC - 300 AD). Other cultural expressions of the
Early Woodland are the ceramics and projectile points of the Badin culture. These points are generally crude
triangulars while the ceramics are heavily tempered and undecorated. Unlike Oliver, Miller (1962) notes little
change in the cultural makeup of groups at the Archaic/Woodland transition other than the addition of pottery.
Coe (1964), although noting a stratigraphic break between Archaic and Woodland occupations, also describes
little technological or subsistence change other than ceramics.
Ceramic technology evolved from Badin styles into the Yadkin Phase wares during the Middle
Woodland subperiod (300 BC - 1000 AD). Yadkin ceramics have crushed quartz temper and are either cord
marked or fabric impressed. Occasionally, Yadkin ceramics contain grog (i.e., crushed fired clay) temper,
suggesting the influence of coastal populations who more commonly utilized grog temper in their ceramics
(Coe 1964). Yadkin phase projectile points differ from the Badin styles in that they reflect significantly better
workmanship (Coe 1964) and are more suited to the newly adopted bow and arrow technology. The
introduction of the bow and arrow necessitated significant changes in hunting strategies, allowing for more
independent procurement of animals rather than the group hunts generally associated with spear hunting.
Horticulture was still in its infancy during this period so subsistence strategies remained focused on hunting
animals and gathering wild plants.
The Late Woodland subperiod (1000 — 1450 AD) in the study area is represented by the Uwharrie
Phase. The Uwharrie Phase projectile points have small triangular forms. Uwharrie ceramics are heavily
tempered with crushed quartz and predominantly net impressed with scraped interiors (Eastman 1996).
Although they continued to hunt and gather wild plants, agriculture began to supplement, and later dominate,
Native American subsistence strategies. Corn, beans, squash, and fruit were cultivated with the aid of stone
hoes and wooden implements, and settlement patterns indicate conditions favorable to agriculture were
significant to decision -making (Hantman and Klein 1992; Ward 1983).
Historic Indian / Protohistoric Period
Spain initiated the exploration of the southeastern United States in the hopes of preserving their
claims to American lands west of the Treaty of Tordesillas line of demarcation. Hernando de Soto (1539-
1543) and Juan Pardo (1566-1568) led military expeditions into the western Piedmont and mountains of
North Carolina during the mid -sixteenth century (Hudson 1990, 1994). These parties visited Indian villages
near the present-day towns of Charlotte, Lincolnton, Hickory, and Maiden (Hargrove 1998). The Spanish
also built garrisons in the vicinity of Marion and Salisbury (Hargrove 1998). Recent work at the Berry site
in Burke County identified the remains of the Spanish garrison of Xualla (also called Joara) visited by de Soto
in the 1540s and Juan Pardo in the 1560s. Spanish presence in the Carolinas could not be sustained despite
their best attempts to establish a permanent presence with interior outposts and coastal settlements. Mounting
pressure from hostile Native Americans and English privateers also contributed to their withdrawal to St.
Augustine in 1587 (South 1980). Diseases introduced by these explorers wrought disastrous effects on
contemporary Native American peoples. Populations collapsed and entire communities disappeared.
Sir Walter Raleigh heavily promoted England's interest in the New World. In 1585, Raleigh used
his position in the court of Queen Elizabeth I to secure backing to outfit an English attempt at colonizing the
Atlantic coast (Powell 1989). Although this effort failed, Raleigh's single-minded ambition led to the
establishment of a colony on the James River in 1607 (Noel Hume 1994).
(.-,_ABC, Ine, Johnson Tract Development Area
• `:. Rockingham County, North Carolina
11

The first years of settlement at Jamestown were hampered by disastrous mismanagement resulting
in starvation, loss of life, and hostilities with neighbouring Powhatan. In 1624 the Crown revoked the
Virginia Company's charter and established a royal government (Noel Hume 1994). Preoccupied with the
civil war between Royalist and Parliamentarian forces in the 1640s, these authorities showed little interest
in the area that was to become North Carolina until the 1650s. During this period traders, hunters, trappers,
rogues, and tax evaders began living in the area around the Albemarle Sound in northeastern North Carolina
(Powell 1989). Even then, North Carolina was becoming notorious as a refuge for the independent and self-
reliant.
Historic Period
Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 and distributed rewards to loyal Royalist supporters
(Powell 1989). Seven supporters were awarded the charter to establish a proprietary colony south of Virginia.
The boundaries of this deed were set to include the Albemarle Sound settlement of Charles Town south to
the frontier of Spanish -held La Florida. Proprietors maintained control over a single Carolina until 1712,
when the colonies were separated. After the Yamasee War, the colonists pleaded with the crown to take over
the settlement of the colony. The proprietors subsequently forfeited control to the Crown. That divestment
forced the Proprietors' sale of their North Carolina charter to King George II in 1729.
John Lederer, a German doctor, was the first recorded European explorer to visit the project area.
In 1669, Lederer was commissioned by the governor of Virginia to find a westward route to the Pacific Ocean
(Cumming 1958). Lederer traveled through Virginia south to present day Camden, South Carolina. During
this trip, he visited with several Native American tribes, including the Catawba and Waxhaw. The Catawba
Indians are historically linked to the Catawba River Valley in North and South Carolina. Inspired by Lederer,
John Lawson traveled from Charleston, South Carolina through the North Carolina Piedmont to Pamlico
Sound. Lawson's 1700-1701 excursion followed a well -established Native American trading path that passed
near present day Charlotte, Concord, and Salisbury (Lawson 1967). Lawson's journey took him through
Esaw, Sugaree, Catawba, and Waxhaw territory, four tribes who would soon come into close contact with
European colonists.
The principle economic focus of the Carolinas during the early colonial era was the Indian trade.
This trade revolved around the exchange of European manufactured goods and alcohol for skins and slaves.
It drew Native American groups into an Atlantic economy and had the added effect of increasing intertribal
hostilities. Itinerant traders based in Charleston (South Carolina), and Virginia vied for clients among the
North Carolina Piedmont settlements.
Severe fighting between North Carolinian settlers and Tuscarora Indians broke out in 1711 after the
death of the colony's Surveyor General (John Lawson) at the hands ofthe Tuscarora (Powell 1989). The war
ended in 1712, leaving the Carolina colonies in dire financial straits. These conditions persisted until the
Lords Proprietors were forced to sell their holdings in the Carolinas to the Crown in 1729 (Powell 1989).
As the number of settlers began to multiply in the Northeast, many began to look to the wilderness
of the South and the West to build new lives. German and Scotch -Irish settlers first walked the Indian
footpaths connecting present-day Pennsylvania and Georgia (Rouse 2001). In 1744, a series of treaties
allowed the colonies to formally take over the trail, then known as the Warrior Path, from the Five Nations
ofthe Iroquois (NCOAH 2004; Rouse 2001). Dubbed the Great Wagon Road settlers from northern colonies
used the route to populate the farmlands and new towns of the Carolinas and Georgia well into the 1800's.
Ate,. Inc, Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina
12

The Regulator movement began in the late 1760s due to backcountry farmers' frustrations with
county government's administration. The majority of the county's population were engaged in agriculture
and resented the rapid ascension of lawyers and "Scotch" merchants to positions of influence over the
county's court. General dissatisfaction with newcomers' meddling coalesced into a backcountry crusade
against a corrupt appointee of Governor Dobbs and frequent office holder, Edward Fanning (Whittenburg
1977). Backcountry "Regulators" obstructed sheriffs from tax collection and prevented courts from
operating. Tensions between the Regulators and the colonial administration began to boil, bordering on
conflict. The increased prominence of Baptist movement, which had popular appeal with the Regulators
because of its democratic religious policies, provided a divisive threat to the traditional Anglican beliefs held
by many British Tories, paralleling the mounting political discontent (Powell 1989). This ultimately
culminated in the start of the War of Regulation, in which the Regulators mounted a rebellion against the
North Carolina colonial government in an effort to rid the colony of British oppression .
Hillsborough riots in October 1770 resulted in an escalation of the dispute. Led by Governor William
Tryon, an armed expedition of an eastern county militia routed the Regulators on May 16, 1771 at Alamance.
The skirmish took place along Alamance Creek, just a few short miles south of the city of Burlington in
Randolph County. The North Carolina provincial militia put down the rebellion, leading to the end of the
War of Regulation. However, these hostilities between the Regulators and British rule are considered an early
step down the road to the American Revolution (Powell 1989).
Less than four years after the battle of Alamance, the Atlantic colonies allied themselves against King
George's government. North Carolinians were divided between the Tory and Whig causes. Tories supported
royal prerogatives and many former Regulators suspicious of local authority were assumed to be sympathetic
to the Tory cause. Alexander Martin had settled in the area in 1761, establishing the Danbury Plantation on
the Dan River near the mouth of Jacob' s Creek. Martin became active in the Revolutionary movement and
his regiment fought with George Washington's army in Pennsylvania. His brother, James Martin,
commanded a local militia and fought in numerous campaigns including the Battle of Guilford Courthouse
in 1781. At this time, the project area was in northern Guilford County and served as a staging area and the
location of the Troublesome Creek Ironworks. The ironworks became one of the base camps for Marin' s
militia prior to the Guilford Courthouse battle, which would result in a resounding American victory (Butler
1982).
Following the Revolutionary War, settlement in the backcountry increased dramatically prompting
the formation of several new counties. In 1785, Rockingham County was formed from the northern portion
of Guilford County. It was named after Charles Watson -Wentworth, the second Marquess of Rockingham.
Wentworth was prime minister of Britain from 1765 to 1766 and repealed the Stamp Act in 1766, as well as
initiating negotiations to end the Revolutionary War thus making him very popular in America (Butler 1982).
It wasn't until 1796 that a commission authorized construction of a county courthouse at the town
of Wentworth. The majority of the Rockingham settlers were small farmers who focused on corn, wheat, and
cattle, although by 1840 the leading product was tobacco. The larger plantations utilized slave labor but only
about one quarter of the families in the county owned slaves and those that did owned fewer than five. In the
early nineteenth century, small industrial complexes appeared near water sources that provided power. These
included grist mills, textile mills, tanneries, and furniture factories (Butler 1982).
North Carolina was slow to join the newly minted states in ratifying the Constitution. Political
leaders were opposed to joining a federated union of states and the first vote on ratification was
overwhelmingly defeated. This reluctance delayed a second ratifying convention until November of 1789,
Aee, Inc, Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina
13

when the vote was carried in the affirmative (Moorehead 1953). North Carolina was second to last in joining
the Union.
If North Carolina resisted joining the United States, it was equally reluctant to secede. The Southern
Loyalist, or Unionist, cause was strong in North Carolina and state leaders resisted joining the Confederate
cause. Regardless, following secession local communities rallied forces. Rockingham County supplied over
1,700 men to the Confederate Army. The majority of these men belonged to the Thirteenth and Forty-fifth
regiments and saw action at Antietam, Gettysburg, the Wilderness, and Petersburg. Although no battles were
fought in Rockingham County, it became an important transportation hub for soldiers and supplies. The
Piedmont Railroad Company was chartered in 1862 to build a railroad bridge over the Dan River, which
connected Virginia to the Deep South. The Richmond & Danville Railroad Company acquired interest in the
Piedmont Railroad Company and completed the railline between Danville and Greensboro in 1864. This
railroad would subsequently become part of the Southern Railway System (Butler 1982).
Reconstruction in Rockingham County was fueled by tobacco production. John Marion Gallaway
of Madison was one of the largest growers of tobacco with over 15,000 acres in production and 300 tenant
farmers cultivating it. Other agricultural staples, including corn, oats, wheat, and hay, also contributed
significantly to the growing economy. Following the Civil War, large tobacco warehouses were built near
Reidsville to take advantage ofthe commercial opportunities created by the railroad that ran through the town.
The extension of the railroad into Leaksville and Madison during the 1880s increased these opportunities
(Butler 1982).
The population of Rockingham County continued to grow during the twentieth century, although the
county remained largely rural with a focus on agricultural products. Wentworth underwent a population
declined and the newly incorporated city of Eden, which was formed from a consolidation of the communities
of Leaksville, Spray, and Draper, became the largest city in the county. The tobacco industry was severely
affected when the American Tobacco Trust (ATT), formed by James Duke, absorbed most of the small
tobacco manufactures. The ATT purchased the Reidsville firm of F.R. Penn and Company in 1911 and
Charles Penn became a director with the ATT. Penn had the Lucky Strike cigarette factory built in Reidsville.
Large textile mills were also established in Rockingham County during the early twentieth century.
Today, Rockingham County is nearly equally divided between rural agricultural settings and urban
development. Tobacco and textiles remain the predominant economic contributors and the Miller Brewery,
constructed in 1981, is one of the largest employers in the area. Recreational activities along the waterways
and lakes are also a draw for tourists to the area.
!Lee,Inc, Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina
14

Chapter 3. Results of Investigation
Background Research
Our research at OSA confirmed that no previously recorded archaeological resources are present in
the Johnson tract. The Suits Cemetery (site 31RK159**) is located immediately outside the tract's southern
boundary (Figure 1) but will not be affected by any development activities within the tract itself. This
cemetery was recorded during a survey of the parcel immediately south of the Johnson tract conducted by
Reid and Sweeney (1999) prior to the construction of the now extant turbine generation plant. Historic maps
of the project area reviewed for this investigation, including the 1938 Rockingham County highway map and
the 1928 Rockingham County Soil Survey map, did not show any standing structures within the Johnson
tract.
Field Investigation
As discussed in Chapter 2, the project tract was initially divided into areas deemed to have high and
low potential for the presence of archaeological deposits. However, based on conditions encountered in the
field, these determinations had to be modified. Disturbance throughout the tract, due to erosion, pipeline and
transmission line construction, and use of off -road vehicles, was severe. It was determined that standardized
transect survey would not be productive. The survey approach was modified to include pedestrian
reconnaissance across the entire tract and landform-based linear transects along uplands with sufficient width
to allow for shovel testing Judgementally placed shovel tests were excavated in select areas where transects
could not be conducted. Figure 3.1 presents an overview of the field methods employed across the tract.
Johnson Tract
f )!].!(Illy Jix tiumril,l S..r•.e:.
- R..-as Easement Roads
- SI. mil:. i Sii•rc _:
Transc:[s
4f C vi'xri:
Meters
Figure 3.1.
Aerial map showing survey coverage in the project tract.
Air Inc, Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina
15

A total of 33 shovel tests were excavated in the project tract. A few of these tests exposed up to 15
cm (5.9 in) of dark brown loam grading to yellowish brown and orange clay loam and clay. However, the
majority of the tests had orange clay subsoil exposed at the ground surface. All shovel tests excavated in the
project tract contained dense gravel. Shovel tests were excavated along the access easement at approximate
60 meter (197 ft) intervals; however, steep slope limited shovel test location. These tests also contained clay
subsoil and gravel immediately beneath the humus. No artifacts were recovered from shovel tests.
Pedestrian walkover of the tract focused most intensively along Little Jacob's Creek and the
landforms bordering it. One prehistoric ceramic was recovered from the creek bed in the northern portion
of the tract (see Figure 1.2). This sherd is cordmarked and has a coarse sand temper. It cannot be identified
to a specific type but dates to the general Woodland Period. Comprehensive examination of the creek bed
in the vicinity of this artifact failed to identify additional artifacts. In order to ascertain if this sherd had
washed down into the creek, an examination of the adjacent slope was conducted. No other artifacts or
potentially associated deposits were identified. This isolated find extreme been designated as 31RK212 (see
Figure 1.2).
Conclusions and Recommendations
This investigation of the Johnson project tract and associated access easement has resulted in the
identification of a single archaeological resources, 31RK212. This isolated find consists of one Woodland
Period ceramic sherd that was recovered from the bed of Little Jacob's Creek. This resource has no further
research potential and does not meet NRHP eligibility criteria. Overall disturbance throughout the tract is
severe. The project area has been adversely impacted by the construction of multiple utility lines (pipelines
and transmission line) and by off -road vehicle use, as well as by extreme erosion resulting in either shallow
A horizon soil or its complete loss. No significant archaeological resources will be impacted by development
of the Johnson tract and no further work is advocated.
Ate,. Inc, Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina
16

References Cited
Adovasio, J. M., Pedler J. Donahue, and R. Struckenrath
1998 Two Decades of Debate on Meadowcroft Rockshelter. North American Archaeologist 19:
317-41.
Adovasio, J. M., and Jake Page
2002 The First Americans: In Pursuit of Archaeology's Greatest Mystery. Random House, New
York.
Anderson, David G., and J. W. Joseph
1988 Prehistory and History Along the Upper Savannah River: Technical Synthesis of Cultural
Resource Investigations, Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area. National Park Service,
Interagency Archaeological Services, Atlanta, GA.
Anderson, David G., and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the
Savannah River Basin. American Antiquity 53(2):262-286.
Aultman, Jennifer, Kate Grillo, and Nick Bon -Harper
2003 Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) Cataloging Manual:
C e ram i c s. Electronic document.
www.daacs.org/aboutDatabase/pdf/cataloging/Ceramics.pdf, accessed April2015.
Autry, William O.
1976 An Archaeological Assessment of the Relocation of State Roads 1008 and 1715 in the B.
Everett Jordan Reservoir, North Carolina. United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, Wilmington, NC.
Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dog's Tails: Hunter -Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological
Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-20.
Bonnichsen, Robson, Michael Waters, Dennis Stanford, and Bradley T. Lepper, eds.
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Broyles, Bettye J
1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. West
Virginia Geological Survey, Morgantown, WV.
Butler, Lindley S.
1982 Rockingham County: A Brief History. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources,
Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
AEC, Inc, Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina
17

Caldwell, Joseph R.
1952 The Archaeology of Eastern Georgia and South Carolina. In Archaeology of the Eastern
United States, James B. Griffin, ed., pp. 312-321. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Chapman, Jefferson
1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge -and -Valley Province. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, Roy S. Dickens and H. Trawick Ward,
eds., pp. 137-153. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Claggett, Stephen R, John S. Cable, and Curtis E. Larsen
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North
Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Jackson, MI.
Coe, Joffre L.
1952 The Cultural Sequence of the Carolina Piedmont. In Archaeology of the Eastern United
States, James B. Griffin, ed., pp. 301-311. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 54(5).
Coe, Joffre Lanning, and Olin F. McCormick
1970 Archaeological Resources of the New Hope Reservoir Area, North Carolina. University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, Chapel Hill, NC.
Cumming, William
1958 The Discoveries of John Lederer. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.
Dillehay, Tom D.
1989 Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.
Driver, J. C.
1998 Human Adaptation at the Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary in Western Canada. Quaternary
International 49:141-150.
Florida Museum of Natural History (FMNH)
2009 Digital Type Collection. Electronic document. www.flmnh.ufl.edu/histarch/gallery_ types,
accessed February 2016.
Gardner, William H.
1974 The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971 through 1973 Seasons.
Catholic University of America, Archaeology Laboratory Occasional Paper 1.
1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (ca. 9200
to 6800 B.C.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark Wittkofski
and Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 5-52. Archaeological Society of Virginia.
AEC, Inc, Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina
18

Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American
Antiquity 42(3):382-395.
2006 Evidence for Pre -Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States. In Paleoamerican Origins:
Beyond Clovis. Robson Bonnichsen and Bradley T Lepper, eds., pp. 103-112. Texas A &
M University Press, College Station
Griffin, James B.
1952 Culture Periods in Eastern United States. In Archaeology of the Eastern United States,
James B Griffin, ed., pp. 352-364. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156(3772):175-191.
Hantman, J. L., and M. J. Klein
1992 Middle and Late Woodland Archaeology in Piedmont Virginia. In Middle and Late
Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, pp. 137-164. Archaeological Society of
Virginia Special Publication, 29. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Cortland, VA.
Hargrove, Thomas
1998 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Cold Water Creek and Back Creek Interceptor
Project, Concord, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. Robert J. Goldstein and Associates.
Hudson, Charles M
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Explorations of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-1568.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.
1994 The Hernando De Soto Expedition, 1539-1543. In The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and
Europeans in the American South, 1521-1704, Charles M Hudson and Carmen Chaves
Tesser, eds., pp. 74-103. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.
Jackson, L. E.,
1997
Johnson, M. F.
1997
F. M. Philips, K. Shimamura, and E. C. Little
Cosmogenic 36C1 Dating of the Foothills Erratics Train, Alberta, Canada. Geology 125:
73-94.
Additional Research at Cactus Hill: Preliminary Description of Northern Virginia
Chapter —ASV' s 1993 and 1995 Excavation. In Archaeological Investigations of Site
44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia, J. M. McAvoy and L. D. McAvoy, eds.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, DHR Research Report, 8, Richmond, VA.
Lawson, John
1967 A New Voyage to Carolina. Hugh Talmage Lefler, ed. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC.
Lewis, Thomas M. N., and Madeline Kneberg
1959 The Archaic Culture in the Middle South. American Antiquity 25(2):161-183.
AEC, Inc, Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina
19

Majewski, Teresita and Michael J. O'Brien
1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth -Century English and American Ceramics in
Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by
Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 257-314. Academic Press, New York.
McAvoy, J. M., and L. D. McAvoy, eds.
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No 8.
McDonald, J. N.
2000 An Outline of the Pre -Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia with Special Attention
to a Bone Tool. Jeffersonia 9:1-59.
Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World Prehistory
2:1-53.
Meltzer, D. J., D. K. Grayson, G. Ardila, et al.
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 44(1):
172-179.
Miller, Carl F
1962 Archeology of the John H. Kerr Reservoir Basin, Roanoke River Virginia -North Carolina.
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, 182. River Basin Surveys Papers. Government Printing
Office, Washington D.C.
Morehead, John Motley
1953 Orange County in the Era of the American Revolution. In Orange County 1752-1952, Hugh
Talmage Lefler and Paul Wager, eds., pp. 41-67. The Orange Printshop, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Noel Hume, Ivor
1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
1994 Here Lies Virginia: An Archaeologist's View of Colonial Life and History, with a New
Afterward. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
North Carolina Office of Archives and History (NCOAH)
2004 Natives and Newcomers: North Carolina Before 1770.
http://www.waywelivednc.com/before-1770/wagon-road.htm. (accessed May 2015).
OSteen, Lisa D.
1996 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement along the Oconee Drainage. In The Paleoindian
and Early Archaic Southeast. David G Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, eds., pp. 92-106.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
AEC, Inc, Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina
20

Oliver, Billy L.
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, Roy S. Dickens and H. Trawick Ward,
eds., pp. 195-211. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press, Raleigh, NC.
Reid, Dawn and Alex Y. Sweeney
1999 Cultural Resource Survey of a Proposed Combustion Turbine Generating Site, Rockingham
County, North Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Atlanta, GA.
Rouse, Parke, Jr.
2001 The Great Wagon Road: From Philadelphia to the South. The Dietz Press, Richmond, VA.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1983 Middle and Late Archaic Settlement in the South Carolina Piedmont. Master's Thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
South, Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
1980 The Discovery of Santa Elena. Research Manuscript Series, 165. South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
2004 John Bartlam: Staffordshire in Carolina. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series 231, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Stanford, Dennis
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Models, Evidence, and Future Directions. In Paleoamerican Origins:
Beyond Clovis. Robson Bonnichsen, Betty Meggers, D. Gentry Steele, and Bradley T Lepper,
eds., pp. 313-353. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Steponaitis, Vincas P., Jeffrey D. Irwin, Theresa E. McReynolds, and Christopher R. Moore, eds
2006 Stone Quarries and Sourcing in the Carolina Slate Belt. Research Report No. 25, Research
Laboratory of Archaeology. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Townsend, Jan, Jr. John H. Sprinkle, and John Knoerl
1993 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts.
National Register Bulletin, 36. Washington D.C.: National Park Service, Department of the
Interior.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2016 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov, accessed
February 2016.
United States Geological Service (USGS)
1971 Bethany, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle.
AEC, Inc, Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina
21

Ward, H. Trawick
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The
Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeology Symposium. Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J.
Crow, eds., pp. 53-81. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Ward, H. Trawick, and R. P. Stephen Davis
1993 Indian Communities on the North Carolina Piedmont A.D. 1000 to 1700. Monograph, 2.
University of North Carolina Research Laboratories of Anthropology, Chapel Hill.
1999 Time before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Whittenburg, James P.
1977 Planters, Merchants, and Lawyers: Social Change and the Origins of the North Carolina
Regulation. The William and Mary Quarterly 34(2):215-238.
AEC, Inc, Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina
22

Appendix A. Artifact Catalog
Ate,. InC, Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina

Artifact Catalog
Johnson Tract
Site Number 31RK212
Accession Number: 2016.0059
Provenience Number: 1.0 Isolate, N500 E500, creek bed surface
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity Weight (g) Description Comments
1 p1 2 6.4 Coarse Sand Temper Cord Marked Body Sherd Woodland
Page 1 of 1

Appendix B. Resume of Principal Investigator
Inc',. Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina

DAWN M. REID
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
121 E. First Street
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
[phone] Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS
President, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. - July 2008 to present
Vice President, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. - 2003 to July 2008
President, Heritage Partners, LLC. - 2007 to present
Senior Archaeologist/Principal Investigator, Brockington and Associates, Inc. - 1993 to 2003
EDUCATION
B.S. in Anthropology, University of California, Riverside, 1992
M.A. in Geography, University of Georgia, Athens, 1999
AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION
Client and Agency Consultations for Planning and Development
Vertebrate Faunal Analysis
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA)
Southeastern Archaeological Conference
Archaeological Society of South Carolina
North Carolina Archaeological Society
Society for American Archaeology
Mid -Atlantic Archaeology Conference
Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists
North Carolina Council of Professional Archaeologists
Cultural Resource Surveys (Phase I) and Archaeological Site Testing (Phase II) - Representative Examples
• Greenways for Appomattox County, Virginia (Appomattox Heritage Trail), Isle of Wight County (Fort Huger)
• Utility Corridors for Duke Energy (Charlotte), FPS (Charlotte), BREMCO (Asheville), SCE&G (Columbia),
Georgia Power Company (Atlanta), Transco Pipeline (Houston), ANR Pipeline (Detroit), and others
• Transportation Corridors for Georgia Department of Transportation (Atlanta), South Carolina Department of
Transportation (Columbia)
•
Development Tracts for numerous independent developers, engineering firms, and local and county
governments throughout Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, and federal agencies including
the USFS (South Carolina) and the USACE (Mobile and Wilmington Districts)
Archaeological Data Recovery (Phase III) - Representative Examples
•
Civil War encampment (44IW0204) for Isle of Wight County, Isle of Wight, VA
Prehistoric village (310N1578) and late 18th/early 19th century plantation (310N1582) for R.A. Management,
Charlotte, NC
F CrtiInc, Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina

• 18th century residence (38BU1650) for Meggett, LLC, Bluffton, SC
• Prehistoric camps/villages (38HR243, 38HR254, and 38HR258) for Tidewater Plantation and Golf Club, Myrtle
Beach, SC
EXPERIENCE AT MILITARY FACILITIES
Fort Benning, Columbus, Georgia; Townsend Bombing Range, McIntosh County, Georgia; Fort Bragg, Fayetteville,
North Carolina; Camp Lejeune, Jacksonville, North Carolina; Fort Jackson, Columbia, South Carolina; Fort Buchanan,
Puerto Rico; Milan Army Ammunition Plant, TN
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION RELATED INVESTIGATIONS
Georgia Power Company -Flint River Hydroelectric Project
Duke Energy - Lake James and Lake Norman, North Carolina; Fishing Creek, South Carolina
*A detailed listing of individual projects and publications is available upon request
F CrtiInc, Johnson Tract Development Area
Rockingham County, North Carolina