20220241 Ver 1_CRS of the Expansion_Draft Report_20220816

Strickland, Bev
From: Thomas Brown <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 8:42 AM
To: Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc: Brian North; Phillip Pressley; Homewood, Sue
Subject: [External] Martin Marietta, Belgrade Quarry
Attachments: Brockington_CRS of the Belgrade Quarry Expansion_Draft Report.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Emily,
Please see the attached Cultural Resources Survey for our Belgrade Quarry Project. We are working with Brockington on
plans to move the grave to a local cemetery. They have reached out to SHPO in regards to this effort. Until the
cemetery is moved, we will provide a minimum 25ft buffer as recommended in the report.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information.
Thanks again,
Thomas Brown, PWS
Wetland Specialist I East Division
Martin Marietta
2235 Gateway Access Point
STE 400, Raleigh, NC 27607
m. (919) 268- 5297
e. [e-mail]
www.martinmarietta.com
1

Cultural Resources Survey for the
Belgrade Quarry Expansion
Jones County, North Carolina
i
� T
August 2022
Brockington°
CULTURAL RESOURCES CONSULTING

Cultural Resources Survey for the
Belgrade Quarry Expansion
Jones County, North Carolina
August 2022
Prepared for:
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Raleigh, NC
Prepared by:
Za'''"/ 6 .‘^`'.----
Larry James, RPA
Principal Investigator
and
Lisa Randle, Ph.D.
Historian
Brockington and Associates, Inc.
Atlanta • Charleston • Savannah

Brockington and Associates
ii

Abstract
In June 2022, Brockington and Associates (Brock-
ington) conducted a cultural resources survey of
the proposed Belgrade Quarry Expansion located
in Jones County approximately two miles south
of Maysville, North Carolina. This investigation
was conducted for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
(Martin Marietta) in compliance with state and
federal mining regulatory programs. Archaeologists
documented two archaeological sites (31JN521 and
31JN523) and one cemetery (31JN522). There were
no standing structures within the project tract. Site
31JN251 is a small surface scatter of nineteenth
century artifacts. Site 31JN253 is an isolated find
consisting of one lithic flake associated with an
unknown pre -contact occupation. Sites 31JN251
and 3 1JN253 are recommended not eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Site
31JN252 is a small family cemetery and iron fence
enclosure associated with a single burial for Rigdon
P. Hewitt, Jr. (1851 to 1894). Brockington recom-
mends 31JN521-31JN253 not eligible for the NRHP.
The proposed undertaking will have no effect on his-
toric properties; however, current plans for the mine
expansion would disturb the cemetery (3 1JN252).
Cemeteries are protected by state law (General Stat-
utes 14-148 and 14-149). Brockington recommends
that plans be revised to avoid impacts to the cemetery.
If the site cannot be avoided, Martin Marietta should
devise a plan to relocate the cemetery. All removal
plans should adhere to the North Carolina cemetery
removal guidelines outlined in General Statutes
65-106. Brockington recommends Martin Marietta
coordinate with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (NC SHPO), United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE), and all regulatory
agencies to ensure that an agency approved -removal
plan for the single burial is undertaken.
Brockington and Associates
iii

Brockington and Associates
iv

Table of Contents
Abstract iii
1.0 Introduction and Methods of Investigation 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Methods of Investigation 4
1.2.1 Project Objectives 4
1.2.2 Archival Research 4
1.2.3 Archaeological Field Investigations 4
1.2.4 Laboratory Analysis and Curation 6
1.3 NRHP Assessment of Cultural Resources 6
2.0 Natural and Cultural Settings 9
2.1 Environmental Setting 9
2.2 Cultural Setting 9
2.2.1 The Pre -Contact Era 9
2.2.2 The Contact and Post -Contact Era 14
2.3 History of the Project Tract 15
2.4 Previous Investigations 19
3.0 Results of the Field Investigation 23
3.1 Site 31JN521 23
3.2 Site 31JN522 25
3.3 Site 31JN523 28
3.4 Summary and Management Recommendations 31
References Cited 33
Appendix A- Artifact Catalog
Appendix B- Agency Correspondence
Brockington and Associates
v

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 The Belgrade Quarry Expansion and all cultural resources within a 1.0-mile radius
on the 1984 Stella, North Carolina USGS quadrangle map. 2
Figure 1.2 The Belgrade Quarry Expansion APE on a modern aerial. 3
Figure 1.3 A probability map of the APE showing low (orange) and high (green) potential areas
and shovel test transects on a modern aerial. 5
Figure 2.1 LiDAR view of the APE 10
Figure 2.2 Views of the upland (top) and low-lying (bottom) areas of the Belgrade Quarry
Expansion APE. 11
Figure 2.3 The project APE location on the 1936 Soil Map of Jones County. 20
Figure 3.1 Plan and view of 31JN521. 24
Figure 3.2 North profile of Test Unit 1 at 31JN521 25
Figure 3.3 Views of the Hewitt family cemetery. 26
Figure 3.4 View of the head and footstones for Rigdon P. Hewitt Jr. 27
Figure 3.5 Plan and view of 31JN523. 29
Figure 3.6 North profile of shovel test at 31JN523. 30
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Chain of title for the Belgrade Quarry Expansion property 16
Table 2.2 Previous cultural invesitgations and resources identified within 1.0 mile of the
project APE. 21
Brockington and Associates
vi

1.0 Introduction and Methods of Investigation
1.1 Introduction
In June 2022, Brockington and Associates (Brock-
ington) conducted a cultural resources survey of
the proposed Belgrade Quarry Expansion located
in southeast Jones County approximately two miles
south of Maysville, North Carolina. This investigation
was conducted for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
(Martin Marietta) in compliance with state and fed-
eral mining permit regulations. The purpose of the
survey is to identify and evaluate all historic proper-
ties within the proposed mining expansion area. Fig-
ure 1.1 presents the Belgrade Quarry Expansion area
and all cultural resources within a 1.0-mile radius on
the 1984 Stella, North Carolina United States Geologi-
cal Survey (USGS) quadrangle map.
The proposed project area includes the expansion
of Martin Marietta's existing Belgrade Quarry located
at 5678 Highway 58 South. The area of potential ef-
fect (APE) for the proposed expansion is defined as
approximately 92 acres of land selected from Jones
County Parcel IDs 543184272100 and 543171419300.
The project APE is undeveloped and consists of
cleared agricultural fields and mixed woods at the
confluence of the Black Swamp Creek and the White
Oak River. Surrounding properties consist of the
current mining operation to the west, wooded land,
fields, and single-family residences to the north, and
the White Oaks River and Black Swamp Creek flood -
plains to the south and east, respectively. Figure 1.2
presents the location of the APE on a modern aerial.
A comprehensive archaeological survey investi-
gation of the APE (ER 85-8058) was recommended
by the North Carolina Department of Natural and
Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Of-
fice (NC SHPO) in a letter dated March 21, 2022, be-
tween Renee Gledhill -Earley (NC SHPO) and Emily
Thompson (United States Army Corps of Engineers
[USAGE]) (Appendix B). In accordance with the
guidelines, Brockington initiated consultation with
the Office of Archaeological Review (OAR) prior to
conducting the field investigation. A scope of work
was reviewed and approved by Stephen Atkinson,
MA, RPA, Assistant State Archaeologist on May
5, 2022. Remaining tasks required to complete the
survey included archaeological field survey, lab
analysis, reporting, and curation. This investiga-
tion provides compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act and conforms to
the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology Ar-
chaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines
for a cultural resources survey (2017).
Brockington conducted the archaeological
fieldwork across the APE between June 13-17, 2022.
Archaeologists documented two new archaeological
sites (31JN521 and 31JN523) and one small family
cemetery (31JN522). No standing historic structures
were identified on or near the APE. Site 31JN251 is a
small surface scatter of nineteenth century artifacts
located in the open agricultural field. Sites 31JN253
is an isolated find consisting of one chalcedony bi-
facial reduction flake associated with an unknown
pre -contact occupation. Sites 31JN251 and 31JN253
are recommended not eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and require no
further management. Site 3 1JN252 is a small family
cemetery and iron fence enclosure associated with
single burial for Rigdon P. Hewitt, Jr. (1851 to 1894).
Brockington recommends 3 1JN522 not eligible for
listing in the NRHP. The proposed undertaking will
have no effect on historic properties.
As planned, the mine expansion will have a
direct impact on the cemetery (31JN252). Cem-
eteries are protected by state law (General Statutes
14-148 and 14-149). Brockington recommends that
Martin Marietta revise their plans to avoid impacts
to 31JN252, or if the site cannot be avoided, they
should implement a plan to remove the cemetery. All
removal plans should adhere to the North Carolina
cemetery removal guidelines outlined in General
Statutes 65-106. Brockington recommends Martin
Marietta coordinate with the NC SHPO, USAGE,
and all regulatory agencies to ensure that an agency
approved removal plan for the single burial is un-
dertaken. If the cemetery is to remain in place, we
recommend that a 25-foot buffer be incorporated to
prevent impacting potential unmarked burials.
The remainder of Chapter 1 describes the meth-
ods employed during this survey. Chapter 2 presents
the natural and cultural setting. Chapter 3 presents
field survey results and management recommenda-
tions. The artifact catalog is attached as Appendix A.
All agency correspondence is attached as Appendix B.
Brockington and Associates
1

0
Historic Structure
Surveyed Line
Newly Recorded Archaeology Site
Previously Recorded Archaeology Site
Surveyed Area
Figure 1.1 The Belgrade Quarry Expansion and all cultural resources within a 1.0-mile radius on the 1984 Stella, North Carolina USGS
quadrangle map.
Brockington and Associates
2

•
•
+4 x •., ”,•• s . lC �;-•asj �. :1Ni 1.. �i� +f ,. j
S r tayer'Credits: MUree. EsPi"IVIaxBr,'GedEye,Earthster•Geographics, 61581Airbus DS, USDA,
4eroG1 - ,;and the GIS User Community
Figure 1.2 The Belgrade Quarry Expansion APE on a modem aerial.
Brockington and Associates
3

1.2 Methods of Investigation
1.2.1 Project Objectives
The objective of the cultural resources survey is to
locate and assess the significance of all cultural re-
sources in the APE and to assess what affect, if any,
the proposed mining expansion may have on any
significant resources that are listed on or determined
eligible for the NRHP. Tasks performed to accom-
plish these objectives include background archival
research, archaeological survey, laboratory analyses,
and NRHP assessment. Methods employed for each
of these tasks are described below.
1.2.2 Archival Research
The project archaeologist reviewed soils maps, his-
toric aerial photographs, topographic maps, and
published historic maps such as agricultural maps
and highway maps for the Belgrade Quarry Expan-
sion. The project historian reviewed primary and
secondary sources located at Lenoir Community
College library and conducted research at county
offices in Jones County (e.g., the North Carolina Ar-
chives and History). Research on the Hewitt family
was obtained using FamilySearch.com, Findagrave.
com, and additional sources. Consultation with the
OAR helped determine the previously identified
cultural resources and investigations located within
1.0 mile of the project APE. The purposes of the
background research were to identify potential pre -
or post -contact archaeological sites and buildings
and to develop a historical context that would assist
in evaluating cultural resources.
1.2.3 Archaeological Field Investigations
Archaeological survey of the project APE followed
North Carolina Office of State Archaeology Archaeo-
logical Investigation Standards and Guidelines for a
cultural resources survey (2017). The field investi-
gations were focused on locating, identifying, and
documenting all archaeological sites within the
APE. Archaeological survey entailed the systematic
examination of all uplands in the APE. Brockington
conducted shovel testing across all upland portions
of the APE to verify the results of the property's po-
tential to yield historic resources.
According to maps provided by Martin Mari-
etta, the APE contains approximately 90 acres of
undeveloped land. A total of approximately 15 acres
is considered wet and/or marginal wetlands that are
located throughout the east -central and southwestern
portions of the APE that border the floodplain of the
Black Swamp Creek and the White Oak River. The
remaining 75 acres are identified as uplands primarily
located in the northern and far southwestern portions
of the APE. Investigators spaced transects and shovel
tests 30 meters (m) apart across all uplands. Low and
wetland areas were visually inspected by a pedestrian
walkover survey. Figure 1.3 presents the probability
map for the APE with low and high potential areas
and shovel test transects on a modern aerial.
Each shovel test measured approximately 30
centimeters (cm) in diameter and was excavated 10
cm into sterile subsoil, unless a restrictive feature,
saturated soils, or dense fill was encountered. Investi-
gators sifted the excavated soils through one -quarter -
inch mesh hardware cloth. Excavators recorded
provenience information —including transect, shovel
test, and surface collection numbers —on resealable
acid -free artifact collection bags. Information relat-
ing to shovel test locations were recorded using Sur-
vey123 software. This information included the loca-
tion, content (e.g., presence or absence of artifacts),
and context (e.g., soil color, texture, stratification) of
each test. Excavators flagged and labelled all positive
shovel tests for relocation and site delineation.
According to the OAR guidelines, an archaeo-
logical site is defined as a locale that produces at
least one artifact or feature greater than 50 years of
age. All archaeological sites receive a trinomial site
number and a completed Office of State Archaeol-
ogy (OSA) site form. Locales that produce artifacts
from shovel testing or surface inspection were sub-
jected to reduced -interval shovel testing. Investiga-
tors will define the boundaries of sites by excavating
additional shovel tests at 7.5- and 15-m intervals
around the positive tests until two consecutive
shovel tests in all cardinal directions fail to produce
artifacts or until reaching a natural or other bound-
aries (i.e., roads, buildings, structures, etc.). The ap-
proximate boundaries of each site will be prepared
in the field. A representative sample of shovel tests
was also documented with photographs and profile
drawings. We located all identified sites by taking
central and perimeter points using a Trimble RTK
submeter-accurate differential GPS.
Brockington and Associates
4

f, 9►�•ti.
4• '
jt
i o •. ,v j
S rBfc -'layer credits: S r b-. Es , Hllaxar;3eeEye, Earthstar•Geographics, 6NES)Asrbusb5 USI?
usgs, RerroG pz edt 4:%User Cpmmuntty� :i.+L �. "�_'_`. .. _ Y_. _ ' • _ . .
Figure 1.3 A probability map of the APE showing low (orange) and high (green) potential areas and shovel test transects on a modern
aerial.
Brockington and Associates
5

1.2.4 Laboratory Analysis and Curation
All recovered artifacts were transported to Brock-
ington's Mount Pleasant, South Carolina laboratory
facilities where they were cleaned according to their
material composition and fragility, sorted, and in-
ventoried. All artifacts were washed in warm water
with a soft -bristled toothbrush. Artifacts that were
fragile were not washed but left to air dry and, if
needed, lightly brushed. Each separate archaeologi-
cal context from within the site (surface collection
or shovel test) was assigned a specific provenience
number. The artifacts from each provenience were
separated by artifact type, using published artifact
type descriptions from sources pertinent to the
project area. Artifact types were assigned a sepa-
rate catalog number, artifacts were analyzed, and
quantity and weight were recorded. Certain artifacts
tend to decompose through time, resulting in the
recovery of fragments whose counts exaggerate the
original amount present; in this case, artifact weight
is a more reliable tool for reconstructing past artifact
density. All artifact analysis information was entered
into a Microsoft Access database.
Typological identification as manifested by
technological and/or stylistic attributes served
as the basis for the pre -contact and post -contact
artifact analysis. All artifacts were bagged in 4-mil-
thick archivally stable polyethylene bags. Artifact
types were bagged separately within each prove-
nience and labeled using acid -free paper labels.
Provenience bags were labeled with the site number,
provenience number, and provenience information.
Proveniences were placed into appropriately labeled
acid -free boxes. Artifacts are temporarily stored
at the Mount Pleasant office of Brockington, until
they are ready for final curation. Upon the comple-
tion and acceptance of the final report, the artifacts
and all associated materials (artifact catalog, field
notes, photographic materials, and maps) will be
transferred to the North Carolina Office of State
Archaeology Research Center.
1.3 NRHP Assessment of Cultural
Resources
Cultural resources identified in the Belgrade Quarry
Expansion project APE were evaluated for eligibil-
ity to the NRHP. As per 36 CFR 60.4, there are four
broad evaluative criteria for determining the signifi-
cance of a particular resource and its eligibility for
the NRHP. Any resource (building, structure, site,
object, or district) that:
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 the distinctive characteristics of
a type, period, or method of construction,
or represents the work of a master,
possesses high artistic value, or represents
a significant and distinguishable entity
whose components may lack individual
distinction; or
D. has yielded, or is likely to yield, information
important to history or prehistory may be
eligible for the NRHP.
A resource may be eligible under one or more of
these criteria. Criteria A, B, and C are most fre-
quently applied to historic buildings, structures,
objects, non -archaeological sites (such as battle-
fields, natural features, designed landscapes, or cem-
eteries), or districts. The eligibility of archaeological
sites is most frequently considered with respect to
Criterion D. Also, a general guide of 50 years of age
is employed to define "historic" in the NRHP evalu-
ation process. That is, all resources greater than 50
years of age may be considered. However, more
recent resources may be considered if they display
"exceptional" significance (Sherfy and Luce 1998).
Following National Register Bulletin: How to
Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation
(Savage and Pope 1998), evaluation of any resource
requires a twofold process. First, the resource must
be associated with an important historic context. If
this association is demonstrated, the integrity of the
resource must be evaluated to ensure that it conveys
the significance of its context. The applications of
both steps are discussed in more detail below.
Determining the association of a resource with
a historic context involves five steps (Savage and
Pope 1998). First, the resource must be associated
with a particular facet of local, regional (state), or
national history. Secondly, one must determine the
Brockington and Associates
6

significance of the identified historical facet/context
with respect to the resource under evaluation. As an
example, if the project contained no buildings that
were constructed during the early nineteenth cen-
tury, then an antebellum agricultural context would
not be significant for the development of the project
area or any of its internal resources. Similarly, a lack
of Native American archaeological sites within the
project would preclude the use of contexts associ-
ated with the prehistoric use of a region.
The third step is to demonstrate the ability of
a particular resource to illustrate the context. A
resource should be a component of the locales and
features created or used during the historical period
in question. For example, early nineteenth century
farmhouses, the ruins of African American slave
settlements from the 1820s, and/or field systems
associated with particular antebellum plantations
in the region would illustrate various aspects of the
agricultural development of the region prior to the
Civil War. Conversely, contemporary churches or
road networks may have been used during this time
period but do not reflect the agricultural practices
suggested by the other kinds of resources.
The fourth step involves determining the spe-
cific association of a resource with aspects of the
significant historic context. Savage and Pope (1998)
define how one should consider a resource under
each of the four criteria of significance. Under Cri-
terion A, a resource must have existed at the time
that a particular event or pattern of events occurred,
and activities associated with the event(s) must have
occurred at the site. In addition, this association
must be of a significant nature, not just a casual oc-
currence (Savage and Pope 1998). Under Criterion
B, the resource must be associated with historically
important individuals. Again, this association must
relate to the period or events that convey histori-
cal significance to the individual, not just that this
person was present at this locale (Savage and Pope
1998). Under Criterion C, a resource must possess
physical features or traits that reflect a style, type,
period, or method of construction; display high
artistic value; or represent the work of a master (an
individual whose work can be distinguished from
others and possesses recognizable greatness) (Sav-
age and Pope 1998). Under Criterion D, a resource
must possess sources of information that can ad-
dress specific important research questions (Savage
and Pope 1998). These questions must generate
information that is important in reconstructing or
interpreting the past (Butler 1987). For archaeologi-
cal sites, recoverable data must be able to address
specific research questions.
After a resource is specifically associated with
a significant historic context, one must determine
which physical features of the resource reflect its sig-
nificance. One should consider the types of resources
that may be associated with the context, how these
resources represent the theme, and which aspects of
integrity apply to the resource in question (Savage
and Pope 1998). As in the antebellum agriculture ex-
ample given above, a variety of resources may reflect
this context (farmhouses, ruins of slave settlements,
field systems, etc.). One must demonstrate how these
resources reflect the context. The farmhouses repre-
sent the residences of the principal landowners who
were responsible for implementing the agricultural
practices that drove the economy of the South Caro-
lina area during the Antebellum period. The slave
settlements housed the workers who conducted the
vast majority of the daily activities necessary to plant,
harvest, process, and market crops.
Once the above steps are completed and the
association with a historically significant context
is demonstrated, one must consider the aspects of
integrity applicable to a resource. Integrity is defined
in seven aspects of a resource; one or more may be
applicable depending on the nature of the resource
under evaluation. These aspects are location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and asso-
ciation (36 CFR 60.4; Savage and Pope 1998). If a
resource does not possess integrity with respect to
these aspects, it cannot adequately reflect or repre-
sent its associated historically significant context.
Therefore, it cannot be eligible for the NRHP. To
be considered eligible under Criteria A and B, a re-
source must retain its essential physical characteris-
tics that were present during the event(s) with which
it is associated. Under Criterion C, a resource must
retain enough of its physical characteristics to reflect
the style, type, etc., or work of the artisan that it rep-
resents. Under Criterion D, a resource must be able
to generate data that can address specific research
questions that are important in reconstructing or
interpreting the past.
Brockington and Associates
7

Graves and cemeteries may also qualify for the
NRHP under Criteria A, B, or C if they meet certain
conditions known as Criteria Considerations A-G
(Potter and Boland 1992:14-18). Under Criteria
Consideration A, a grave or cemetery is eligible for
the NRHP if it derives its significance from architec-
tural or artistic distinction or historic importance.
This Criteria Consideration applies primarily to
cemeteries associated with a church or synagogue,
or a crypt of significant artistic style or person of
outstanding importance. Criteria Consideration B
applies to graves or cemeteries that are relocated.
Criteria Consideration C applies to a grave of a
historical figure. Under Criteria Consideration D, a
cemetery may be eligible for the NRHP if it derives
its significance from age, distinctive design, associa-
tion with historic events, or from graves of persons
of transcendent importance. Criteria Consideration
E refers to cemeteries or graves that are constructed
in a manner that is appropriate and dignified and
as part of a master plan. Criteria Consideration F
refers to commemorative properties. Cemeteries are
commemorative in intent; however, the significance
of a cemetery under this Criteria Consideration in-
cludes a direct association with a specific site or with
a person buried there. Cemeteries that meet Criteria
Consideration F are usually National Cemeteries
such as Gettysburg National Cemetery or Arlington
National Cemetery. Criteria Consideration G refers
to cemeteries that have gained their significance in
the last 50 years because of exceptional importance.
With the exception of graves of historical figures,
burial places nominated under Criterion D are ex-
empt from the Criteria Considerations.
Brockington and Associates
8

2.0 Natural and Cultural Settings
2.1 Environmental Setting
The Belgrade Quarry Expansion APE is located
south of Highway 58 South situated outside the
town of Maysville in southeast Jones County, North
Carolina. This portion of Jones County is rural and
consists of residences and agricultural fields that
are surrounded by vast undeveloped pine forests
and wetland environments. This region is part of
the outer Coastal Plain ecoregion of eastern North
Carolina and falls within the White Oak River Basin.
The White Oak River Basin is characterized by
a series of landforms consisting of barrier islands,
marshes, riverine wetlands, longleaf pine savannas,
and other coastal ecosystems. The largest undevel-
oped ecosystem is the Croatan National Forest that
encompasses 160,000 acres of wilderness between the
White Oak River and the Neuse River. Select timber
stands and game lands associated with the Croatan
National Forest are located north of the project area.
The project area geomorphology consists ex-
pansive low-lying coastal savannahs that are defined
by below average sea level marine terraces and
river floodplains. The highest elevations (five m; 16
feet) are found along Highway 58 South with the
northern limits of APE boundary only extending to
(three m) 6.6 feet above sea level. The lowest eleva-
tions (3.3 m; one foot) are within the convergence
of the White Oak River and Black Swamp Creek
floodplains situated mainly in the southern half of
the APE. Oddly, the southwestern tip of the tract
consists of an eroded bluff that boasts some of the
tract's highest elevations (four m; 13 feet) situated
on White Oak River. Figure 2.1 presents the LiDAR
view of the APE.
According to United States Department of Ag-
riculture soil data (USDA 2022), three major soil
types have been mapped within the project APE.
Over 50 percent of the northern high elevations are
comprised of Pactolus loamy fine sand and Johns
fine sandy loam that occur on marine terraces and
are well drained. This portion of the APE encom-
passes the open agricultural fields and the clear-cut
elevated terrace that overlooks the Black Swamp
Creek and White Oak River floodplains. Forty per-
cent of the central and southern portion contains
low and wetland areas containing Muckalee loam
soils. These soils are described as poorly drained and
frequently flooded and define all low-lying areas of
the tract (USDA 2022). Figure 2.2 presents views of
the upland (top) and clear-cut portions of the low-
lying floodplain (bottom).
2.2 Cultural Setting
The cultural history of North America is divided into
three eras: Pre -Contact, Contact, and Post -Contact.
The Pre -Contact era refers primarily to the Native
American groups and cultures that were present for
at least 10,000 to 12,000 years prior to the arrival
of Europeans. The Contact era refers to the time of
exploration and initial European settlement on the
continent. The Post -Contact era refers to the time af-
ter the establishment of European settlements, when
Native American populations usually were in rapid
decline. Within these eras, finer temporal and cultural
subdivisions have been defined to permit discussions
of particular events and the lifeways of the peoples
who inhabited North America at that time.
2.2.1 The Pre -Contact Era
In North Carolina, the Pre -Contact era is divided
into four stages (after Willey and Phillips 1958).
These include the Lithic, Archaic, Woodland, and
Mississippian. Specific technologies and strategies
for procuring resources define each of these stages,
with approximate temporal limits also in place.
Within each stage, with the exception of the Lithic
stage, there are temporal periods that are defined
on technological bases as well. A brief description
of each stage follows, including discussions of the
temporal periods within each stage.
The Lithic Stage. The beginning of the human oc-
cupation of North America is unclear. For most of
the twentieth century, archaeologists believed that
humans arrived on the continent near the end of the
last Pleistocene glaciation, termed the Wisconsinan
in North America, a few centuries prior to 10000
BC. The distinctive fluted projectile points and blade
tool technology of the Paleoindians (described be-
low) occurs throughout North America by this time.
During the last few decades of the twentieth century,
Brockington and Associates
9

Figure 2.1 LiDAR view of the APE.
Brockington and Associates
10

Figure 2.2 Views of the upland (top) and low-lying (bottom) areas of the Belgrade Quarry Expansion APE.
BnocNngtonand Associates

researchers began to encounter artifacts and depos-
its that predate the Paleoindian period at a number
of sites in North and South America. To date, these
sites are few in number. The most notable are Mead-
owcroft Rock Shelter in Pennsylvania (Adovasio et
al. 1990; Carlisle and Adovasio 1982), Monte Verde
in Chile (Dillehay 1989, 1997; Meltzer et al. 1997),
Cactus Hill in Virginia (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997),
and most recently, the Topper/Big Pine Tree site in
Allendale County, South Carolina (Goodyear 1999).
All of these sites contain artifacts in stratigraphic
locales below Paleoindian deposits. Radiocarbon
dates indicate occupations at the Meadowcroft and
Topper/Big Pine Tree sites that are 10,000 to 20,000
years earlier than the earliest Paleoindian occupa-
tions. Cactus Hill produced evidence of a blade
technology that predates Paleoindian sites by 2,000
to 3,000 years. Monte Verde produced radiocar-
bon dates comparable to those at North and South
American Paleoindian sites but reflects a very differ-
ent lithic technology than that evidenced at Paleo-
indian sites. Similarly, the lithic artifacts associated
with the other pre-Paleoindian deposits discovered
to date do not display the blade technology so evi-
dent during the succeeding period. Unfortunately,
the numbers of artifacts recovered from these sites
are too small at present to determine if they reflect
a single technology or multiple approaches to lithic
tool manufacture. Additional research at these and
other sites will be necessary to determine how they
relate to the better-known sites of the succeeding
Paleoindian period and how these early sites reflect
the peopling of North America and the New World.
Paleoindian Period (10000 to 8000 BC)
An identifiable human presence in the Coastal Plain
began about 12,000 years ago with the movement of
Paleoindian hunter -gatherers into the region. Ini-
tially, the Paleoindian period is marked by the pres-
ence of distinctive fluted projectile points and other
tools manufactured on stone blades. Excavations at
sites throughout North America have produced dat-
able remains that indicate that these types of stone
tools were in use by about 10000 BC.
Based on the distribution of the distinctive flut-
ed spear points, researchers see the major sources
of highly workable lithic raw materials as the prin-
cipal determinant of Paleoindian site location, with
a concentration of sites between the Piedmont and
Coastal Plain (see Goodyear et al. 1989). Based on
data from many sites excavated in western North
America, Paleoindian groups generally were no-
madic, with subsistence focusing on the hunting of
large mammals, specifically the now -extinct mam-
moth, horse, camel, and giant bison. In the east, Pa-
leoindians apparently hunted smaller animals than
their western counterparts, although extinct species
(such as bison, caribou, and mastodon) were rou-
tinely exploited where present. Paleoindian groups
were probably small, kin -based bands of 50 or fewer
persons. As the environment changed at the end of
the Wisconsinan glaciation, Paleoindian groups had
to adapt to new forest conditions in the Southeast
and throughout North America.
The Archaic Stage. The Archaic stage represents
the adaptation of Southeastern Native Americans
to Holocene environments. By 8000 BC, the forests
had changed from sub -boreal types common during
the Paleoindian period to more modern types. The
Archaic stage is divided into three temporal periods:
Early, Middle, and Late. Distinctive projectile point
types serve as markers for each of these periods.
Hunting and gathering was the predominant sub-
sistence mode throughout the Archaic periods, al-
though incipient use of cultigens probably occurred
by the Late Archaic period. Also, the terminal Ar-
chaic witnessed the introduction of a new technol-
ogy, namely, the manufacture and use of pottery.
Early Archaic Period (8000 to 6000 BC)
The Early Archaic corresponds to the adaptation
of native groups to Holocene conditions. The en-
vironment in coastal North Carolina during this
period was still colder and moister than at present,
and an oak -hickory forest was establishing itself
on the Coastal Plain (Watts 1970, 1980; Whitehead
1965, 1973). The megafauna of the Pleistocene
became extinct early in this period, and more
typically modern woodland flora and fauna were
established. The Early Archaic adaptation in the
Coastal Plain is not clear, and very little is known
about Early Archaic site distribution; although,
there is some suggestion that sites tend to occur
along river terraces, with a decrease in occurrence
away from this zone.
Brockington and Associates
12

Archaic groups probably moved within a
regular territory on a seasonal basis; exploitation of
wild plant and animal resources was well planned
and scheduled. Models for the Early Archaic pe-
riod (8000 to 6000 BC) involve the movement of
relatively small groups (bands) on a seasonal basis
within major river drainages. Sites are found as base
camps at waterway confluences and/or procure-
ment encampment for lithic resource extraction and
maintenance (Ward and Davis 1999).
Middle and Preceramic Late Archaic Period (6000
to 2500 BC)
The trends initiated in the Early Archaic (i.e., in-
creased population and adaptation to local environ-
ments) continued through the Middle Archaic and
Preceramic Late Archaic. Climatically, the region was
still warming, and an oak -hickory forest dominated
the coast until after 3000 BC when pines became
more prevalent (Watts 1970, 1980). Stemmed pro-
jectile points and ground stone artifacts characterize
this period, and sites increased in size and density
throughout the period. Stanly Stemmed, Morrow
Mountain Stemmed, and Guilford Lanceolate are
diagnostic artifact typologies for spear points from
this era (O'Neal 2018).
Ceramic Late Archaic Period (2500 to 1000 BC)
By the end of the Late Archaic period, two devel-
opments occurred that changed human lifeways in
the Coastal Plain. Sea level rose to within one m of
present levels, and the extensive estuaries now pres-
ent were established (Colquhoun et al. 1981). These
estuaries were a reliable source of shellfish, and the
Ceramic Late Archaic period saw the first docu-
mented emphasis on shellfish exploitation. During
the Late Archaic, the first extensive evidence of
significant human occupations appears on the coast.
Late Archaic coastal sites vary from small camps
and minor middens to large shell middens. It was
also during this time that the first pottery appeared
in the Coastal Region with findings along the coast-
line as far as the Tar -Pamlico River Basin (Ward
and Davis 1999). In the project region, this pottery
is represented by the fiber -tempered Stallings series
and the sand -tempered or untempered Stallings and
Thom's Creek series. Decorations include puncta-
tion, incising, finger pinching, and simple stamping.
The Woodland Stage. The Woodland stage is marked
by the widespread use of pottery, with many new
and regionally diverse types appearing, and changes
in the strategies and approaches to hunting and
gathering. Native Americans appear to be living in
smaller groups than during the preceding Ceramic
Late Archaic period, but the overall population
likely increased. The Woodland is divided into three
temporal periods (Early, Middle, and Late), marked
by distinctive pottery types. Also, there is an interval
when Ceramic Late Archaic ceramic types and Early
Woodland ceramic types were being manufactured
at the same time, often on the same site. It is unclear
at present if these coeval types represent distinct
individual populations, some of whom continued to
practice Archaic lifeways, or technological concepts
that lingered in some areas longer than in others.
Early Woodland Period (1500 BC to AD 200)
In the Early Woodland period, the region was ap-
parently an area of interaction between widespread
ceramic decorative and manufacturing traditions.
The paddle -stamping tradition dominated the deco-
rative tradition to the south, and fabric impressing
and cord marking dominated to the north and west.
Two types are associated with this time period: the
New River and Hamps Landing. New River consists
of coarse sand tempering with net, fabric, and cord
marking and stamping decorations, while Hamps
Landing is characterized by limestone and marl
temper with either plain or similar stamping and
decorations (Ward and Davis 1999).
The subsistence and settlement patterns of the
Early Woodland period suggest population expansion
and the movement of groups into areas minimally used
in the earlier periods. Early and Middle Woodland
sites are the most common on the coast and generally
consist of shell middens near tidal marshes, along with
ceramic and lithic scatters in a variety of other envi-
ronmental zones. It appears that group organization
during this period was based on the semipermanent
occupation of shell midden sites, with the short-term
use of interior coastal strand sites.
Middle Woodland Period (200 BC to AD 500)
The extreme sea level fluctuations that marked the
Ceramic Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods
ceased during the Middle Woodland period. The
Brockington and Associates
13

Middle Woodland period began as sea level rose
from a significant low stand at 300 BC, and for the
majority of the period, the sea level remained within
one m of current levels (Brooks et al. 1989).
Survey and testing data from a number of sites
in the region clearly indicate that Middle Wood-
land period sites include small, single -house shell
middens, larger shell middens, and a wide variety
of shell -less sites of varying size and density in the
interior. The present data from the region suggest
seasonal mobility, with certain locations revisited
on a regular basis. Subsistence remains indicate that
oysters and estuarine fish were major faunal con-
tributors, while hickory nut and acorn have been re-
covered from ethnobotanical samples (Drucker and
Jackson 1984; Espenshade and Brockington 1989;
Trinkley 1976, 1980). Regional pottery includes
grog tempered Hanover and the sand tempered
Cape Fear types (Ward and Davis 1999)
Late Woodland Period (AD 500 to 1100)
The nature of Late Woodland adaptation in the re-
gion is unclear due to a general lack of excavations of
Late Woodland components, but Trinkley (1989:84)
offers this summary:
While outside the Carolinas there were major
cultural changes, such as the continued devel-
opment and elaboration of agriculture, the Car-
olina groups settled into a lifeway not apprecia-
bly different from that observed for the past 500
to 700 years.
The Late Woodland represents the most stable pre -
contact period in terms of sea level change, with
sea level for the entire period between 0.4 and 0.6
m below the present high marsh surface (Brooks
et al. 1989). It would be expected that this general
stability in climate and sea level would result in a
well -entrenched settlement pattern, but the data
are not available to address this expectation. In
fact, the interpretation of Late Woodland adapta-
tions in the region has been somewhat hindered by
past typological problems. The Late Woodland pe-
riod pottery in the Coastal Plain is most character-
ized by the White Oak/Oak Island phase that was
defined by Stanley South (1962; 1976), working in
Brunswick and New Hanover counties, and later
refined by Loftfield (1975) in Onslow and Carteret
counties. Both researchers were examining shell
tempered and limestone pottery that included cord
marked, net impressed, fabric impressed, and plain
surface treatments.
The Mississippian Stage. Approximately 1,000
years ago, Native American cultures in much of the
Southeast began a marked shift away from the set-
tlement and subsistence practices common during
the Woodland periods. Some settlements became
quite large, often incorporating temple mounds
or plazas. The use of tropical cultigens (e.g., corn
and beans) became more common. Hierarchical
societies developed, and technological, decorative,
and presumably religious ideas spread throughout
the Southeast, supplanting what had been distinct
regional traditions in many areas. From AD 1000 to
1500, the decorative techniques that characterize the
Early Mississippian period slowly evolved without
the appearance of distinctly new ceramic types until
the Late Mississippian.
2.2.2 The Contact and Post -Contact Era
Native groups encountered by the European explor-
ers and settlers probably were living in a manner
similar to the late pre -contact Mississippian groups
identified in archaeological sites throughout the
Southeast. North Carolina was inhabited by region-
ally separated groups. The Algonquian -speaking
groups dominated the coastal region, identified as
the Tuscarora, Meherrin, and Coree tribes (O'Neal
2018). The highly structured Native American so-
ciety of Cofitachequi, formerly located in central
South Carolina and visited by De Soto in 1540,
represents an excellent example of the Mississippian
social organizations present throughout southeast-
ern North America during the late Pre -Contact era
(Anderson 1985). However, initial European forays
into the Southeast contributed to the disintegration
and collapse of the aboriginal Mississippian social
structures; disease, warfare, and European slave
raids all contributed to the rapid decline of the
regional Indian populations during the sixteenth
century (Dobyns 1983; Ramenofsky 1982). By the
late seventeenth century, Native American groups
in the coastal region felt the pressures of European
settlement expansion and exploitation that resulted
Brockington and Associates
14

in the Chowanoc War of 1675, and later, the Tusca-
rora War of 1711. The Tuscarora War lasted three
and half years and decimated local populations. The
remaining tribes were relocated out of the region or
were moved onto a reservation at Lake Mattamus-
keet in eastern North Carolina (Hathaway 1901).
By the middle eighteenth century, very few Native
Americans remained in the region; all had been dis-
placed or annihilated by the ever-expanding English
colonial settlement of the Carolinas (Bull 1770, cited
in Anderson and Logan 1981:24-25).
In 1779, Jones County was formed from the
southwestern portion of Craven County and named
for Willie Jones. Jones was a Virginia native edu-
cated at Elon College, he resided in Halifax for 35
years, and he was a leading Revolutionary War pa-
triot (Henderson 1979). White Oak River forms the
boundary between Jones County to the north and
Onslow County to the south. The county seat was
named in Trenton by 1784. After the revolution,
Jones County remained rural with little infrastruc-
ture and primarily based upon a plantation economy.
Large estates such as the Foscue Plantation occupied
thousands of acres of land, with enslaved labor pro-
ducing agricultural staples and naval stores, includ-
ing tar, pitch, and turpentine (O'Neal 2018).
The Trent River was the most important trans-
portation system for the movement of produce and
supplies. Much of the regional growth was focused
on the ports in Beaufort and New Bern in neighbor-
ing Carteret and Craven counties. By 1860, Jones
County contained an abundance of slaves and fertile
farmland, boasting as one of the most prosperous in
the nation. During the Civil War, the county experi-
enced moderate hardships from the early Union oc-
cupation of New Bern and constant federal raiding
of nearby farms and plantations.
The onset of the twentieth century refocused
the county's economy of upon tobacco crops, naval
stores, and lumber. Tenant farming replaced the large
land holding of the former plantations, and land was
soon in the hands of many smaller farm operations.
Tobacco replaced cotton as the principal crop, and
more towns emerged with the development of the
rail line after the 1880s. In 1930s, the Croatan Nation
Forest was created during the New Deal program to
convert lands to timber production (O'Neal 2018).
In 1936, the national forest was comprised of 77,000
acres in Craven, Carteret, and Jones counties. By the
early 2000s, the size had grown to 159,000 acres. In
2004, the estimated population of Jones County was
around 10,000. The major economy of the county
was still based upon agriculture and timber. Farm-
ing staples consisted of tobacco, soybeans, cotton,
livestock, wheat, and grains (O'Neal 2018).
2.3 History of the Project Tract
The study tract was identified as Parcel No. 5431-
71-4193 in the Jones County property tax records
and was described by metes and bounds in the con-
veyance to the current owner, Penelope M. Bender
(Jones County Deed Book [JCDB] 343:829). The de-
scription of the tract was taken from a survey made
by R.A. Colvin on February 24, 1923. Research was
conducted at county offices in Jones County, the
North Carolina Archives and History, and various
online databases.
From the initial conveyance of this property
from the State of North Carolina, this property was
owned by several families. Since the property was
devised to several generations together or separately,
the chain of title was developed following the first
mentioned head of the family (Table 2.1).
The earliest records of land purchased on White
Oak River in Jones County were traced to the Noble
Family. In 1780, Samuel Noble (1746 to 1799) re-
quested his first patent for 100 acres (State Land
Patent Book [SLPB] 55:284, file #157), his second
patent for 50 acres (SLPB 69:277, file #229), and in
1787, his third patent for 150 acres (SLPB 81:373,
file #466). At his death, the tract passed to his Noble -
Jones -Barry heirs.
The first occurrence that involved Rigdon Hewitt
(1772 to 1842) in a land transaction was found in the
Records of Jones County. In 1798, a document from
Mary Watson Frazer (1745 to 1809), Moses Watson
(1748 to d.), Elizabeth Watson Mundine, Phebe Wat-
son Grant (1765 to 1825), Richard Jones (1756 to d.)
and his wife Salome Watson Jones (1767 to d.), and
Rigdon (1772 to 1842) & his second wife Nancy Pitts
Hewitt (1794 to 1841) appointed William Dennis Jr.
to act on their behalf as attorney to collect any and all
lands, including slaves, in North Carolina and Ten-
nessee belonging to them as heirs of either Jeremiah
Watson (1752 to d.) of Tennessee or Nikodemus
Brockington and Associates
15

Table 2.1 Chain of title for the Belgrade Quarry Expansion property.
Date
Owner
References
Description
6/10/2010
Penelope M. Bender, trustee
JCDB 343:829
Executor's Deed; 368 acres
2009
Penelope M. Bender, as executor
3/14/2009
James Virgil Bender Sr. died
SCJC
Estate No. 09-E-30
Findagrave.com
Pollocksville Cemetery
2/12/1964
James Virgil Bender Sr. (1921-2009)
JCDB 136:592
Executor's Deed
1962
James Humphrey Simmons died
Findagrave.com
Pollocksville Cemetery
4/2/1923
Edward Earl Bell, admin. of the Estate of
Joseph Hiram Bell
JCDB 79:671
368 acres
James Humphrey Simmons (1878-1962)
1922
J.K. Warren, Commissioner
FamilySearch.com
Foreclosure; Foy et al. v. Edward Earl Bell
et al., admin. of the estate of Joseph Hiram
Bell
1921
Joseph Hiram Bell died
Findagrave.com
Oakdale Cemetery
6/24/1920
Joseph Hiram Bell (1851-1921)
JCDB 79:668
350 acres
James Humphrey Simmons (1878-1962)
JCDB 75:436
J.S. Hudson
Unknown
Unknown
C.D. Foy
Unknown
Ernest Lynwood Mattocks (1877-1960)
Verbena Mattocks (1879-1931)
Burke L. Mattocks (1881-1971)
Ellen Mattocks (1882-1963)
12/2/1912
Ernest Lynwood Mattocks (1877-1960)
JCDB 60:486
350 acres
Anthony Francis Mattocks (1878-1918)
Burke L. Mattocks (1881-1971)
Unknown
Elizabeth Hewitt
Will of Rigdon
Pitts Hewitt Sr.
(grandfather)
L.C. Hewitt
Lisbon D. Hewitt (1881-1965)
Earl Rigdon Hewitt (1886-)
Josephine Hewitt
1905
Sarah F. Hewitt Gurganus died
Findagrave.com
Buried at Southwest Primitive Baptist
Church Cemetery
1896
Frances Ann Hewitt died
Findagrave.com
Trenton Municipal Cemetery
1894
Effie Hay Hewitt (1857-1894) died
Findagrave.com
Maides Family Cemetery
1893
Rigdon Pitts Hewitt Sr. died
NCEF
12/7/1885
Rigdon Pitts Hewitt Jr. (1851-)
JCDB 33:367
209 acres; probate
1/26/1867
JCDB 23:437
10/1866*
Rigdon Pitts Hewitt Sr. (1821-1893)
RJC 437:938
209 acres (Rigdon Hewitt)
1/1861*
Rigdon Pitts Hewitt Sr. (1821-1893)
RJC 336:928
40 acres east side White Oak River (Seth
Wa rters)
12/1860
Dr. John Shackleford
RJC 321:926
800 acres
Sheriff Northcutt
RJC 321:926
Order of sale 800 acres public auction
(Aaron & Desire Farnell and Willet
Hewitt v. Caleb Hewitt, Bryan Scott, and
Elijah Hewitt)
Unknown
8/1857*
Rigdon Pitts Hewitt Sr. (1821-1893)
RJC 304:924
640 acres Black Swamp (Christopher D.
Meadows)
12/1853
James H. Lovitt
RJC 431:881
732 acres east side of Mirey Branch
Brockington and Associates
16

Table 2.1 Chain of title for the Belgrade Quarry Expansion property (continued)
Date
Owner
References
Description
11/1853
Rigdon Pitts Hewitt Sr. (1821-1893)
RJC 367-368:871
Interest of Kesiah & Adam F. Farnell in 100
acres
11/1852
Rigdon Pitts Hewitt Sr. (1821-1893)
RJC 296:862
Interests of Timothy &Theresa Haskins 130
acres
7/1851
Rigdon Pitts Hewitt Sr. (1821-1893)
RJC 234:854
Interests of Willet Hewitt
1850
Desira Hewitt Farnell (1833-1850) died
Findagrave.com
Buried at Montford Point Federal Cemetery,
Onslow
3/1850
Willet Hewitt (a minor)
RJC 164:844
732 acres on east side of Mirey Branch &
both sides of Black Swamp
9/1846
Rigdon Pitts Hewitt Sr. (1821-1893)
RJC 421:815
12/1845
George H Hawkins
RJC 375:810
Black Swamp
3/1845
Caleb Hewitt
JCDB 21:264
interests in 150 acres and 100 acres
RJC 264:795
RJC ?:798
1844
Abraham M. Hewitt
RJC 170:72
Inherited interest of Elijah Hewitt and
Edward Hewitt
RJC 171:782-783
1842
John Hewitt (1798-1842)
Heirs of Rigdon
Hewitt (1842)
Elijah Hewitt (1803- d.)
Abraham Hewitt (1803-d.)
Edward Moore Hewitt (1813-1860)
Louisa Hewitt (1818-1860)
second wife
Emaline Hewitt (1820-1855) married
Caleb Smith Hewitt (1820-1890)
Rigdon Pitts Hewitt (1821-1893)
Theresa Hewitt (1826-) married Timothy
Haskins (1815-)
Willet Hewitt (1831-1918)
Desira M. Hewitt (1833-1850) married
Aaron Fox Farnell (1827-1898)
Nancy G. Hewitt (1840-1902) married
Bryan Hartsell (1836-1912)
1842
Rigdon Hewitt died
NCEF
10/1832
Jobe Smith
RJC 74-75:679
436 acres
10/1832
SheriffWilliam Huggins
Unknown
Public auction 436 acres; lands of Samuel
Noble inherited from his father
Robert Dickson v.
6/1823
Rigdon Pitts Hewitt
JCDB 16:41
539.5 acres
RJC 62:587
Unknown
Elizabeth Pettaway married Samuel H.
Mitchell
RJC 62:587
539.5 acres
(Payton Pettaway, minor)
Inherited
Unknown
Mabry Pettaway
JCDB 16:41
539.5 acres; devised by wife, Pheby
Pettaway
Unknown
Pheby Pettaway died
Unknown
539.5 acres; devised by father, Eli West
11/1807
Rigdon Hewitt
JCDB 4:169
100 acres on White Oak River; 15 acres
adjacent; 120 acres
RJC 64-66:294
Brockington and Associates
17

Table 2.1 Chain of title for the Belgrade Quarry Expansion property (continued)
Date
Owner
References
Description
1802
Jacob Meadows
JCDB 4:169
15 acres southeast Black Swamp; 120 acres
JCDB 4:23
JCDB 3:406
Noah or Noble (?)
JCDB 4:23
Rachel Noble (daughter?)
100 acres on White Oak River; by Will
1802
Samuel Noble (1780-1822)
JCDB 3:461
120 acres on White Oak River
1801
Edmund Hatch, Sheriff
JCDB 3:461
120 acres; Public auction property of
Samuel's father
1799
Job Meadows
JCDB 3:406
120 acres Black Swamp
1799
George John Noble (1778-1816)
JCDB 3:464
150 acres; inherited
Hetty &John Noble
Mark Noble
1799
George John Noble (1778-1816)
JCDB 4:169
100 acres on White Oak River
1799
Samuel Noble Jr. (1746-1799) died
FamilySearch.com
7/1798
William Dennis, Jr., attorney
RJC 130-131:297
1/3 of any & all properties in NC or TN as
heirs of brothers Jeremiah Watson (1752-
d.) or Nikodemus Watson (1775 1798),
including slaves
Mary Frazer (1740-1809)
Moses Watson (1748-d.)
Elizabeth Mundine
Phebe Grant (1765-1825)
Richard Jones (1756-d.) & wife, Salome
Watson (1767-d.)
Rigdon Hewitt (1772-1842) & 2nd wife,
Nancy Pitts (1794-1841)
1797
Jacob Noble
JCDB 4:169
100 acres on White Oak River
1797
Eli West died
FamilySearch.com
539.5 acres
1793
Samuel Noble Jr. (1746-1799)
SLPB 81:373
150 acres
1787
Bridger Jones (1759-1819)
JCDB 4:597
Illegible
Unknown
Bridger Jones (1759-1819) & Rachel
Jones (1762-1830)
JCDB 4:515
200 acres
1786
David Barry (1757 1797)
JCDB 4:515
75 acres Miry Branch (heir of Samuel Noble)
(Elice Barry (1760-1802) wife
1785
Samuel Noble Jr. (1746-1799)
SLPB 69:277
50 acres
1784
Samuel Noble Jr. (1746-1799)
SLPB 55:284
100 acres
1779
JONES COUNTY CREATED
Unknown
SW PORTION OF CRAVEN COUNTY
1778
Mark Barry (1730-1798)
JCDB 3:464
150 acres
177?
Samuel Noble (1746-1799)
JCDB 3:406
120 acres
1759
Joseph Noble
JCDB 4:169
100 acres on White Oak River; 120 acres
patent
JCDB 3:406
Unknown
Eli West
JCDB 4:515
200 acres
JCC Jones County Cemeteries
JCDB Jones County (NC) Deed Book
JCFF Jones County Facts & Folklore
MJC Minutes of the Jones County (NC) Court of Common Pleas
NCEF North Carolina Estate Files
RJC Records of Jones County
SLPB State Land Patent Book
CPRCB Confederate Papers Relating to Citizens or Businesses
Brockington and Associates
18

Watson (1775 to 1798), deceased. As payment for
services, William Dennis Jr. had the right to keep one
third of any land or property he collected in either
state (Records of Jones County [RJC] 130-131:297).
In 1843, the Court of Common Pleas appointed
Roscoe Barnes, William W. Franks, Daniel Yeates,
Daniel Dickson, and John Young to divide the lands
of Rigdon Hewitt (1772 to 1842) among his heirs
(North Carolina Estate Files [NCEF] ). Over the
years, the heirs conveyed their interests to Rigdon
Pitts Hewitt Sr. (1821 to 1893).
In 1893, Rigdon Pitts Hewitt Sr. (1821 to 1893)
died and devised his plantation to his second wife
with a life estate and upon her death in equal shares
to his son Rigdon Pitts Hewitt Jr. (1851) and his
daughter Sallie F. Gurganus. He devised his other
lands in equal one-half interests to his children
for their lives and then to their respective children
(NCEF). His will did not include a full description
of the property he owned at the time of his death.
In 1912, Elizabeth Hewitt (1879 to 1962), L.C.
Hewitt, Earl Rigdon Hewitt (1886 to d.), Lisbon D.
Hewitt (1881 to 1965), and Josephine Hewitt con-
veyed 350 acres to Ernest Lynwood Mattocks (1877 to
1960), Anthony Francis Mattocks (1878 to 1918), and
Burke L. Mattocks (1881 to 1971). These Hewitts were
the grandchildren of Rigdon Pitts Hewitt Sr. (1821 to
1893), and the conveyance was made according to the
will of Rigdon Pitts Hewitt Sr. (JCDB 60:486).
In 1920, C.D. Foy, Ernest Lynwood Mattocks
(1877 to 1960), Verbena Mattocks (1879 to 1931),
Buke L. Mattocks (1881 to 1971), and Ellen Mat-
tocks (1882 to 1963) conveyed 350 acres of adjoin-
ing lands of W.F. Mattocks et al. to Joseph Hiram
Bell (1851 to 1921), J.H. Simmons, and J.S. Hudson
(JCDB 75:436). When Joseph Hiram Bell (1851 to
1921) died, his son Edward Earl Bell (1889 to 1972)
served as administrator of his estate (FamilySearch.
com). C.D. Foy et al. filed a suit against Edward Earl
Bell as administrator et al. to sell the property at a
public auction. At this time, the tract was surveyed
by R.A. Colvin in 1923 and consisted of 368 acres.
After two failed public auctions, J.K. Warren, as
commissioner, sold the 368-acre tract to the high-
est bidders: Edward Earl Bell, as administrator, and
James Humphrey Simmons (1878 to 1962) (JCDB
79:671). Figure 2.3 shows the project location super-
imposed on the 1936 Soil Map of Jones County.
In 1962, James Humphrey Simmons died. In 1964,
an executor's deed conveyed the tract to James Virgil
Bender Sr. (1921 to 2009) (JCDB 136:592). When
Bender died in 2009, the property devised to his wife,
Penelope Morton Bender (1922 to d.). The next year,
Mrs. Bender executed an executor's deed and conveyed
the tract to herself as trustee (JCDB 343:829).
2.4 Previous Investigations
On April 8, 2022, Brockington received requested
site files information from Lindsay Flood Ferrante,
Deputy State Archaeologist. Our request included all
previously documented sites and cultural resources
surveys within a 1.0-mile radius of the APE. Records
show there are 10 sites within this buffer, and none
are eligible for or listed on the NRHP (Figure 1.1).
A total of five previous investigations and 10
archaeological sites (31JN4, 31JN18, 31JN96-98,
31JN101, 31ON185-187) were recorded in the
study area (Table 2.2). Previous investigations that
had no finds within our study area include an ar-
chaeological survey of three Carolina Power and
Light Company transmission lines in the Croatan
National Forest (Ham et al. 1976); the intensive ar-
chaeological survey of Catfish Lake Road, Croatan
National Forest (Loftfield 1986); the archaeologi-
cal/historical reconnaissance of Catfish Lake Road
(Loftfield and Martin 1986); and the archaeological
survey of the 20 Wildlife openings in the Croatan
National Forest (O'Neal 2018).
A total of five sites (31JN96-99, 31JN101) were
recorded during a survey of United States Forest
Service timber lands and adjacent lands to the east,
south, and north of the APE (Harmon et al 1995).
Investigators documented these sites as three small
pre -contact lithic scatters (31JN97-99), one small
pre -contact and post -contact eighteenth century
artifact scatter (31JN96), and one twentieth century
artifact scatter associated with a former house site
(31JN101). These site locations were found using
surface and sub -subsurface methods within open
fire line breaks or cleared ridgetop or toe -slope loca-
tions across the survey area.
The remaining five sites represent one cemetery
(31JN18) and four archaeological sites (31JN4,
31ON185, 31ON186, and 31ON187) identified by
amateur collectors. According to the site form, Site
Brockington and Associates
19

Figure 2.3 The project APE location on the 1936 Soil Map of Jones County.
Brockington and Associates
20

Table 2.2 Previous cultural invesitgations and resources identified within 1.0 mile of the project APE.
Previous Investigation
Sites
Authors /Year
Reference Number
Archaeological Survey of Three
Carolina Power and Light
Company Transmission Lines in
the Croatan National Forest
N/A
Ham, Eugene J, Dolores A. Hall, and
S. Gayle Russell; 1976
Bib 259
Preliminary field report on the
Croatan National Forest,
Catfish Lake Road/ intensive
archaeological survey
N/A
Loftfield,Thomas; 1986
Bib 2109
An archaeological/historical
reconnaissance of Catfish
Lake Road/ Croatan National
Forest/ North Carolina.
N/A
Loftfield,Thomas and Martin
Maestas; 1986
Bib 2110
Heritage Resources Survey for the
proposed Black Swamp
Timber Sale, Compartment 44,
Croatan Ranger District,
Croatan National Forest, Jones
County, North Carolina.
31JN96-98, 31JN101
Harmon, Michael A., Robert 0. Noel,
Rodney J. Snedeker, and Alain H.
Burchett; 1995
Bib 3696
Archaeological Survey of the
Twenty Wildlife Openings
Croatan National Forest
Carteret, Craven, and Jones
Counties, North Carolina
N/A
O'Neal, Michael Keith; 2018
Bib 7852
Resource
Description
Cultural Affiliation
NRHP Recommendation
31JN18*
Cemetery
Post -Contact
Unassessed
31JN47*
Artifact Scatter
Unknown Pre -Contact
Unassessed
31JN96
Artifact Scatter
Pre -Contact; eighteenth century
Not Eligible
31JN97
Artifact Scatter
Unknown Pre -Contact
Not Eligible
31JN98
Artifact Scatter
Unknown Pre -Contact
Not Eligible
31JN99
Artifact Scatter
Unknown Pre -Contact
Not Eligible
31JN101
Artifact Scatter
twentieth century
Not Eligible
31 ON185*
Artifact Scatter
Middle/Late Archaic; nineteenth
century
Unassessed
31 ON186*
Artifact Scatter
Middle/Late Archaic; nineteenth
century
Unassessed
31 ON187*
Artifact Scatter
Middle/Late Archaic; nineteenth
century
Unassessed
* note: Recorded by Private Individual
31JN18 is the Old Eubanks Cemetery and is located
north of Highway 58 South, approximately three
miles north of the APE. Site 3 1JN4 includes a scatter
of "sherds, chips, etc." located in a cultivated field
north of the project area. Sites 310N185-310N187
represent small scatters of pre -contact Middle/
Late Archaic lithic artifacts and pottery sherds and
post -contact nineteenth century domestic artifacts
collected on a ridgetop northwest of the APE. These
sites were not evaluated for NRHP eligibility.
Brockington and Associates
21

Brockington and Associates
22

3.0 Results of the Field Investigation
Brockington designed the intensive archaeological
survey to identify and assess all cultural resources
on the Belgrade Quarry Expansion APE. During the
archaeological survey, investigators documented
two archaeological sites (31JN521 and 31JN523)
and one small family cemetery (31JN522). Sites
31JN521, 3JN522, and 31JN523 are all recom-
mended not eligible for the NRHP. Below is a detail
description of each resource.
3.1 Site 31 JN521
Cultural Afiliation: Eighteenth through nineteenth
century
Site Type: Artifact scatter
Site Dimensions: 45 meter north -south by 135 meter
east -west
Soil Type: Pactolus loamy fine sand
Elevation: 2 meter amsl
Nearest Water Source: Black Swamp Creek
Present Vegetation: Agricultural field
NRHP Recommendation: Not eligible
Management Recommendations: No further
management
Site 31JN521 is a small surface scatter of post -contact
artifacts located in the middle of the project APE
(Figure 1.3). Site 31JN521 is located within an open
agricultural field and consist of a surface scatter of
domestic artifacts found between crop rows. The site
measures approximately 15-by-135 m and is bound
by negative shovel tests in all cardinal directions.
Figure 3.1 presents a plan and view of 31JN521.
Investigators excavated a total of 44 shovel tests
at 15-m intervals in and around the site. In addition,
one 50-by-50 unit was excavated in the center of
the site to document stratigraphy and evaluate the
potential for sub -surface features or discrete artifact
concentrations. Soil profiles revealed a 10YR 5/2
grayish brown sand plow zone Ap horizon (0-45
cm below surface [cmbs]) underlain by a 10YR 6/6
brownish yellow sand subsoil (45-60 cmbs) (Figure
3.2). No artifacts or features were recovered during
the shovel testing.
Investigators recovered a total of 16 post -
contact bottle glass and ceramic artifacts from the
surface of the agricultural field. Diagnostic ceramic
pottery includes four Creamware (1762 to 1820),
seven Pearlware (1779 to 1840), and two Whiteware
(1820) sherds. One salt -glazed stoneware sherd was
also recovered. Bottle glass includes one teal and
one green bottle base shard.
NRHP Eligibility and Management Recommendations.
Archaeologists assessed 31JN521 with respect to
Criteria D. We interpret 31JN521 as a broad surface
scatter of displaced artifacts likely associated with
the former eighteenth through nineteenth century
occupation of the property. Research shows Rigdon
Hewitt (1772 to 1842) owned and farmed the tract
during this period. Our investigation of 31JN521
included shovel testing and a 50-by-50 test unit
that yielded no artifacts, cultural features, or intact
cultural deposits, suggesting the items have been
displaced from another location on the tract. Our
investigation found no evidence of the Hewitt house
site or any residential structures. The house site is
likely located closer to the Highway 58 South situ-
ated north of the APE. Additional investigation of
31JN521 is unlikely to generate information beyond
that recovered to date. Therefore, we recommend
31JN521 not eligible for the NRHP. Site 38JN521
warrants no further management consideration.
Brockington and Associates
23

Figure 3.1 Plan and view of 31JN521.
Brockington and Associates
24

Figure 3.2 North profile ofTest Unit 1 at 31JN521.
3.2 Site 31JN522
Cultural Afiliation: Nineteenth century
Site Type: Family cemetery
Site Dimensions: 5 meter north -south by 5 meter
east -west
Soil Type — Pactolus loamy fine sand
Elevation: 2 meter amsl
Nearest Water Source: Black Swamp Creek
Present Vegetation: Clear-cut; secondary growth
NRHP Recommendation: Not eligible
Management Recommendations: Avoidance and
25-ft buffer or removal with approved plan
Site 3 1JN522 is a small family cemetery located in
the central portion of the project APE (Figure 1.3).
The site measures approximately 5-by-5 m and is
located along the southwestern limits of the agri-
cultural fields, approximately 45 m west of 31 JN521.
The site's boundary is defined by a dilapidated iron
fence that surrounds the cemetery (see Figure 3.1).
The cemetery consists of one headstone and one
foot stone enclosed within the fence. The headstone
is for Rigdon P. Hewitt Jr. who was born August 16,
1851 and died July 2, 1894. The Hewitt family of
Jones County was traced back to Thomas Hewitt III
(1685 to 1767) who was born in Stonington, Con-
necticut and died in Litchfield, Connecticut. Rigdon
Pitts Hewitt Sr. (1821 to 1893) owned the operated
a farm within the APE. In 1867, Rigdon P. Hewitt
Sr. (1821 to 1893) conveyed 209 acres to his son,
Rigdon P. Hewitt Jr. (JCDB 23:437) who continued
operation until his death in 1894.
The headstone is made of polished granite and
is inscribed with the name, birth, and death dates
and the words "Father;' "Rest;' and "Hewitt': A small
footstone is located five feet north of the headstone.
The footstone is also made of granite and inscribed
with the initials "H.P.W.' The iron fence enclosure
consists of what appears to be a gate entry, three
surviving corner stakes, a raised earthen berm, and
the disjointed fencing that is partially buried and
missing in sections. It appears that the fence was
badly damage during a recent logging. The cemetery
is currently overgrown in weeds and secondary
growth. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 present views of the
head and footstones and the damaged fence.
Brockington and Associates
25

-
_
•
�,. ,; ..
'' - • - ..
}
•
r • •maw., ..:le. .- '.
•
'�• v L
f , •.
-...tile* +" ems. e►'V
t.F;' yry
S-
-.► '�4ft.,. r•. k- s-y-•":+;^��{{\rk .--, •^ •.a,� -
iv,
��,, 1r+ ' --.�� 'FLt:imi �•r-'• -.0/4P�'fir '' . _Lv , ,.,. _
ir
r:Ir' . 1.14re• .-,:i-f ---.-- . 'q :1..'ir.- ;,' \• (.:-..•, 4 ' 1 ' ':. :•, ' .'''''• •
4
' ''','. "...;-'.- .i. ";.. riv...--'.....f....?",.:...---.,..------7'.. .A",,,i:,-"‘".,--" 1 / •--.....• •.=14.a.s: --.... ..14-47'"----41L-1..*i..
Figure 3.3 Views of the Hewitt family cemetery.
Brockington and Associates
26

r.
L
ti- i`" ,_ -.. -. _- el 7 . . fir.
ham. _•
"�• iti �+ { �. - . ' .
K1j w ,'s.. •4 pi.
1
. _ . : ,..,..!.__ . , . 414. ti tit I.L'kV'•'1-
.11
is A �. ,
...,...„ ,„.4,_,•
= . ,� .... „_ _
, ,..._
:_\.:
i. ._.: ,:t__ _r'-P=Ir. ' 1 ,,-
\, ,,, ._. . - _
4.44.4,1.....
--- s > .a mow . r; �4" •
j
_ -N-• - t :-
:::-
;*---:
•*, . 1 " ,_,* 4 • : ,,,ref II. r' __
4r;.--f-4' :: - .-,. .& ._ ,-' '..,&0';'4_ 'r A ' Ii If' 4.--' - `c. ror.,
- -4111-;7.7 'fillill :4iiipPe" -•-.1105.-' --4- 't .‘I' '- 'I:te 41.-: ' 't
". o 0: ° . �. ;4it.4.45 1,4W '`.N. ,„, '+ --
Jam .
p?, ,„,,,,
41
4L. .1 .',.. - igt.^•• • ' '':-.11Pallgyelog"- ..1411r-Apk‘ :oz.:-Alt4‘44\X-4 P. . ' ''. .
-.41, -I Ilv -T:_NOr ei -"'"b' " '- z-J'afri .:\A'-7.---- " qink;=„„:" ..'\`'0%,,,.'lel 0
iii)ilit. -A Ae(61,.. Aril ' -'''. L.-ii A L. -yie• ' .,.,' , ,,,,,,. .7.4.. ,,,
Figure 3.4 View of the head and footstones for Rigdon P.Hewitt Jr.
Brockington and Associates
27

NRHP Eligibility and Management Recommendations.
Burial sites and cemeteries are not ordinarily con-
sidered eligible for the NRHP due to difficulty in
objective evaluation. To qualify for listing under
NRHP Criterion A (events), Criterion B (people),
or Criterion C (design), a cemetery or grave must
meet not only the basic criteria, but also the special
requirements of NRHP Criteria Considerations
(typically Criteria Considerations A, C or D relating
to graves and cemeteries). Limited archival research
did reveal that Rigdon P. Hewitt Jr. was a local
farmer and landowner of the property but found
no evidence of a connection with an important
historical event or series of events; therefore, we do
not recommend it eligible for listing under Criterion
A (events). Additionally, limited archival research
did not identify the burial site to be associated
with significant persons from the past; therefore,
we do not recommend it eligible for listing under
Criterion B (people). Brockington recommends this
resource not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion
C (architecture) because it is not a representative
example of a type, period, or method of construc-
tion. Although the resource has the potential to
yield information under Criterion D (information
potential), Brockington recommends that this re-
source is not individually eligible under Criterion
D. Brockington recommends 31JN252 not eligible
for listing in the NRHP. Current plans for the mine
expansion will have a direct impact on 31JN252.
Since cemeteries are protected by state law (Gen-
eral Statutes 14-148 and 14-149), Brockington has
outlined specific recommendations for the future
treatment of 31JN252 in Section 3.3.
3.3 Site 31JN523
Cultural Affiliation: Unknown pre -contact
Site Type: Lithic scatter
Site Dimensions: 5 meter north -south by 5 meter
east -west
Soil Type: Muckalee loam
Elevation: 5 meter amsl
Nearest Water Source: White Oak River
Present Vegetation: Mixed woods; clear-cut
NRHP Recommendation: Not eligible
Management Recommendations: No further
management
Site 31JN523 is a single pre -contact artifact located
at the far southwest corner of the project APE (Fig-
ure 1.3). The site measures approximately 5-by-5 m
and is located along the eastern slope of an elevated
knoll or bluff that overlooks the White Oak River.
The site consists of one Chalcedony bifacial reduc-
tion 1/2-inch flake artifact and is bound by negative
shovel tests in all cardinal directions. Figure 3.5
presents a plan and view of 31JN523.
Investigators excavated a total of nine shovel
tests at 7.5- and 15-m intervals in and around the
site. Soil profiles revealed a 10YR 5/2 grayish brown
sand (0-45 cmbs) underlain by a 10YR 6/6 brownish
yellow sand (45-60 cmbs) (Figure 3.6). No artifacts
were recovered during shovel testing.
NRHP Eligibility and Management Recommendations.
Archaeologists assessed 31JN523 with respect to
Criteria D. We interpret 31JN523 as a single dis-
placed artifact. Our investigation of 31JN523 in-
cluded close -interval shovel testing that yielded no
artifacts, cultural features, or intact cultural deposits.
Additional investigation of 31JN523 is unlikely to
generate information beyond that recovered to date.
Therefore, we recommend 31JN523 not eligible for
the NRHP. Site 38JN523 warrants no further man-
agement consideration.
Brockington and Associates
28

N
0 25 50 1010 Feet
a 611)
0 15 30 Meters
• 0 Isolate 0 Negative Shovel Test
` x
0
31JN253
0
+ - ♦
♦ ♦
•
0 O ` p 1 0 0
♦ •
r
0
0
Figure 3.5 Plan and view of 31JN523.
Brockington and Associates
29

•
' ..... V -Jib
rVaw4�• i " , .,a
• A
It
4. , . ....... . , . .....,
..:„ . ,: ..
q 6 .s y t'irti l*•'a• ; 16i <•5 .'• .4--; i.. 1'. ,:.-. ,' • jv La:,f ,
k, •.+L1;co1 A.ilzr mod ' •
/
rL.-• 4''.
w�9` Jl i • !# .r , r
•
•
'M ilt/}JL •�. ".t, 1r
f:. - r
,IFL' � x
•
•
f 1 S
/
•
•
/ 1
�•�j 1, " .� '1 �- / t
rFP. ..•• ./1 "' 1
1,
w4 al•- . -
,1-e '�k a .S' 7 A r _ mil..‘
y • 4 ., ,�1' .•
Jr •.�^,' .. "` ' : i '< -K' +,.• .•.{ fi ,., y
•yy� # ',t ri. 7 fw * -%C
y y
Figure 3.6 North profile of shovel test at 31JN523.
Brockington and Associates
30

3.4 Summary and Management
Recommendations
The Belgrade Quarry Expansion APE encompasses
approximately 90-acres of agricultural fields and
undeveloped woods situated south of Highway
58 in Jones County, North Carolina. Brockington
conducted an intensive cultural resources survey
to identify and assess all cultural resources on the
Belgrade Quarry Expansion APE as compliance
with state and federal regulations. Archaeological
field survey resulted in the documentation of two
archaeological sites (31JN521 and 31JN523) and
one family cemetery (31JN522). Sites 31JN521-523
are all recommended not eligible for the NRHP.
Therefore, the proposed undertaking will have no
effect on historic properties.
As currently planned, the mine expansion will
have a direct impact on 31JN252. Cemeteries are
protected by state law (General Statutes 14-148 and
14-149). Brockington recommends that plans be re-
vised to avoid impacts to 31 JN252. If the cemetery is
to remain in place, we also recommend that a mini-
mal 25-foot buffer be incorporated in an avoidance
strategy to prevent impacting potential unmarked
or unknown burials. If the site cannot be avoided, a
plan to remove the cemetery should be devised and
implemented. All removal plans should adhere to
the state cemetery guidelines outlined in North Car-
olina General Statutes Chapter 65, Sections 65-106.
Brockington recommends Martin Marietta coordi-
nate with the NC SHPO, USAGE, and all regulatory
agencies to ensure that an agency approved removal
plan for the burial is undertaken.
Brockington and Associates
31

Brockington and Associates
32

References Cited
Adovasio, J. M., J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath
1990 The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology, 1975-1990. American Antiquity
55:348-354.
Anderson, David G.
1985 The Internal Organization and Operation of Chiefdom Level Societies on the Southeastern
Atlantic Slope: An Explanation of Ethnohistoric Sources. South Carolina Antiquities 17:35-69.
Anderson, David G., and Patricia A. Logan
1981 Francis Marion National Forest Cultural Resources Overview. US Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Columbia, South Carolina.
Brooks, Mark J., P. A. Stone, D. J. Colquhoun, and J. G. Brown
1989 Sea Level Change, Estuarine Development and Temporal Variability in Woodland Period
Subsistence -Settlement Patterning on the Lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina. In Studies in
South Carolina Archaeology, edited by Albert C. Goodyear III and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 91-100.
South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology Anthropological Studies 9. Columbia.
Butler, William B.
1987 Significance and Other Frustrations in the CRM Process. American Antiquity 53:820-829.
Carlisle, R. C., and J. M. Adovasio (editors)
1982 Meadowcroft: Collected Papers on the Archaeology of Meadowcroft Rockshelter and the Cross
Creek Drainage. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
Colquhoun, Donald R., Mark J. Brooks, James L. Michie, William B. Abbott, Frank W. Stapor, Walter H.
Newman, and Richard R. Pardi
1981 Location of Archaeological Sites with Respect to Sea Level in the Southeastern United States.
In Striae, Florilegiem Florinis Dedicatum 14, edited by L. K. Kenigsson and K. Paabo, pp. 144-150.
Dillehay, T. D.
1989 Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, DC.
1997 Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Volume II: The Archaeological Context and
Interpretation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Dobyns, Henry F.
1983 Their Number Become Thinned: Native American Population Dynamics in Eastern North
America. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Drucker, Lesley M., and Susan Jackson
1984 Shell in Motion: An Archaeological Study of Minim Island National Register Site, Georgetown
County, South Carolina. Carolina Archaeological Services Resources Studies Series 73. Columbia.
Brockington and Associates
33

Espenshade, Christopher T., and Paul E. Brockington Jr. (compilers)
1989 An Archaeological Study of the Minim Island Site: Early Woodland Dynamics in Coastal South
Carolina. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District, Charleston, South
Carolina, by Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta.
Goodyear, Albert C., III
1999 The Early Holocene Occupation of the Southeastern United States: A Geoarchaeological
Summary. In Ice Age People of North America: Environments, Origins, and Adaptations, edited by
R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire, pp. 432-481. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.
Goodyear, Albert C., III, James L. Michie, and Tommy Charles
1989 The Earliest South Carolinians In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology, edited by Albert
C. Goodyear III and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 19-52. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology Anthropological Studies 9. Columbia.
Ham, Eugene J, Dolores A. Hall, and S. Gayle Russel
1976 Archaeological Survey of Three Carolina Power and Light Company Transmission Lines in the
Croatan National Forest. Report prepared for Carolina Power and Light Company.
Harmon, Michael A., Robert 0. Noel, Rodney J. Snedeker, and Alain H. Burchett
1995 Heritage Resources Survey for the proposed Black Swamp, Timber Sale, Compartment 44,
Croatan Ranger District, Croatan National Forest, Jones County, North Carolina. Report prepared
by National Forest, Asheville, NC.
Hathaway, James R.B., (editor)
1901 War Declared against the Core & Nynee Indians, 1703. North Carolina Historical and
Genealogical Register 2:19-194.
Henderson, Surena B., compiled and edited.
1979 Jones County Fact and Folklore. Self -published.
Jones County Deed Books (JCDB)
1779-present Originals located in the Jones County NC Register of Deeds Office, Trenton.
Loftfield, Thomas
1975 A Brief and True Report: An Archaeological Interpretation of the Southern Coast of North
Carolina. Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1986 Preliminary Field Report on the Croatan National Forest, Catfish Lake Road/Intensive
Archaeological Survey. Report prepared for the Federal Highway Administration. Report by the
University of North Carolina/ Wilmington.
Loftfield, Thomas and Martin Maetas
1986 An Archaeological/Historical Reconnaissance for the Catfish Lake Road/ Croatan National
Forest, North Carolina. Report prepared for the Federal Highway Administration. Report by the
University of North Carolina/ Wilmington.
Brockington and Associates
34

McAvoy, J. M., and L. D. McAvoy
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Virginia
Department of Historic Resources Research Series No. 8. Richmond.
Meltzer, D., D. Grayson, G. Ardila, A. Barker, D. Dincauze, C. Haynes., F. Mena, L. Nunez, and D. Stanford
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 62:659-663.
North Carolina Estate Files (NCEF).
1663-1979 Database. FamilySearch. http://FamilySearch.org. Accessed July 2022.
North Carolina Office of State Archaeology
2017 Archaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines for Background Research, Field
Methodologies, Technical Reports, and Curation. North Carolina Department of Natural and
Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
O'Neal, Michael
2018 Archaeological Survey of the Twenty Wildlife Openings Croatan National Forest. Report
prepared by ACC, Inc.
Potter, Elisabeth Walton and Beth M. Bolan
1992 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places. U.S. Department of
the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, National Register of Historic
Places.
Ramenofsky, Anne P.
1982 The Archaeology of Population Collapse: Native American Response to the Introduction of
Infectious Disease. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington,
Seattle.
Savage, Beth L., and Sarah Dillard Pope
1998 National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. US
Department of Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Washington DC.
Sherfy, Marcella, and W. Ray Luce
n.d. National Register Bulletin 22: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties That Have
Achieved Significance in the Last Fifty Years. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Interagency Resources Division, Washington, DC.
South, Stanley A.
1962 An Archaeological Survey of Two Islands in the White Oak River near Swansboro, North
Carolina. Manuscript on file, North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
1976 An Archaeological Survey of Southeastern North Carolina.
Trinkley, Michael
1976 Archaeological Testing of SoCv282, Jenkins Island, South Carolina. Southern Indian Studies
28:3-24.
Brockington and Associates
35

Trinkley, Michael (continued)
1980 Investigations of the Woodland Period Along the South Carolina Coast. Unpublished PhD
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1989 An Archaeological Overview of the South Carolina Woodland Period: It's the Same Old
Riddle. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology, edited by Albert C. Goodyear III and Glen T.
Hanson, pp. 73-90. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology Anthropological
Studies 9. Columbia.
United States Geological Survey
1984 Stella, NC. Quadrangle map.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2022 https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm
Website accessed July 2022.
Ward, H. Trawick and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.
1999 Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.
Watts, W. A.
1970 The Full Glacial Vegetation of Northern Georgia. Ecology 51(1).
1980 Late Quaternary Vegetation History at White Pond on the Inner Coastal Plain of South
Carolina. Quaternary Research 10.
Whitehead, Donald R.
1965 Palynology and Pleistocene Phytogeography of Unglaciated Eastern North America. In The
Quaternary of the United States, edited by H. E. Wright Jr. and D. G. Frey. Princeton University
Press, Princeton.
1973 Late Wisconsin Vegetational Changes in Unglaciated Eastern North America. Quaternary
Research 3:621-631.
Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips
1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Brockington and Associates
36

Appendix A
Artifact Catalog
Brockington and Associates

Artifact Catalog -Belgrade Quarry Expansion
Brockington and Associates, Inc. uses the following proveniencing system. Provenience 1 designates general surface collections. Numbers after the decimal point designate subsequent surface collections, or
trenches. Proveniences 2 to 200 designate shovel tests. Controlled surface collections and 50 by 50 cm units are also designated by this provenience range. For all provenience numbers except 1, the numbers after
the decimal point designate levels. Provenience X.0 is a surface collection at a shovel test or unit. X .1 designates level one, and X.2 designates level two.
Site Number: 31JN251
OSA Accession # Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Poinf/PotteryType Temporal Range Comments
SITE NUMBER: 31JN251
Provenience Number: 2. 0 Shovel Test , N530, E440, Surface
2022.0197.0001 1 1 15.4 Teal Glass Bottle Base
Provenience Number:
2022.0197.0001 1
2022.0197.0002 2
2022.0197.0003 3
2022.0197.0004 4
3. 0 Shovel Test , N500, E455, Surface
1 2.8 Pearlware, Undecorated Body
1 0.8 Whiteware, Undecorated Body
1 0.1 Whiteware, Fragment
1 14.8 Stoneware, Undecorated Salt Glazed Buff -Paste Base
Provenience Number: 4. 0 Shovel Test , N485, E470, Surface
2022.0197.0001 1 1 5.8 Creamware, Undecorated Rim
Provenience Number: 5. 0 Shovel Test , N500, E470, Surface
2022.0197.0001 1 1 1.6 Creamware, Undecorated Body
2022.0197.0002 2 1 46.9 Olive Green Glass Bottle Base
Provenience Number: 6. 0 Shovel Test , N500, E485, Surface
2022.0197.0001 1 1 0.5 Pearlware, Fragment
Provenience Number: 7. 0 Shovel Test , N500, E500, Surface
2022.0197.0001 1 1 2.5 Pearlware, Blue Shell Edged Body
Page 1 of 2

Site Number: 31JN251
OSA Accession # Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Poinf/PotteryType Temporal Range Comments
Provenience Number:
2022.0197.0001 1
2022.0197.0002 2
8. 0 Shovel Test , N500, E515, Surface
1 2 Creamware, Undecorated Rim
1 0.2 Creamware, Fragment
Provenience Number: 9. 0 Shovel Test , N500, E560, Surface
2022.0197.0001 1 1 2.5 Pearlware, Green Shell Edged Rim
2022.0197.0002 2 1 2.5 Pearlware, Undecorated Base
2022.0197.0003 3 1 1.5 Pearlware, Undecorated Body
Neo-Classical
Provenience Number: 10. 0 Shovel Test , N500, E575, Surface
2022.0197.0001 1 1 1.4 Pearlware, Undecorated Base
SITE NUMBER: 31JN253
Provenience Number: 2. 1 Transect 3, Shovel Test 2, 0-60 cmbs
2022.0198.0001 1 1 1.4 Chalcedony Bifacial Reduction 1/2 inch Flake
Page 2 of 2

Appendix B
Agency Correspondence
Brockington and Associates

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary D. Reid Wilson Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
March 21, 2022
Emily Thompson
US Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, NC 27889
[e-mail]
RE: Belgrade Quarry Expansion, Onslow County, ER 85-8058
Dear Ms. Thompson:
Thank you for your February 28, 2022, submission concerning the above -referenced project. We have
reviewed the project and offer the following comments.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on historic structures.
While the northern expansion of the Belgrade Quarry falls within previously agriculturally disturbed land,
the Area of Potential Effect (APE) of the proposed Bender Pit is in proximity to a number existing
prehistoric and historic archaeological sites and contains geographical features that suggest site probability.
Due to this, along with the lack of any previous archaeological surveys in the proposed Bender Pit APE, we
recommend a comprehensive archaeological survey be undertaken prior to any ground disturbing activities
in the project area.
The purpose of this survey is to identify archaeological sites and make recommendations regarding their
eligibility status in terms of the NRHP. This work should be conducted by an experienced archaeologist
who meets the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications Standards. A list of archaeological
consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North Carolina is available at
https://archaeology.ncdcr.gov/archaeological-consultant-list. The archaeologists listed, or any other
experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey. Please note that our
office requests consultation with the Office of State Archaeology Review Archaeologist to discuss
appropriate field methodologies prior to the archaeological field investigation.
One paper copy and one digital copy (PDF) of all resulting archaeological reports, as well as a digital copy
(PDF) of the North Carolina Site Form for each site recorded, should be forwarded to the Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) through this office, for review and comment as soon as they are available and in
advance of any construction or ground disturbance activities. OSA's Archaeological Standards and
Guidelines for Background Research, Field Methodologies, Technical Reports, and Curation can be found
online at: https://files.nc.gov/dncr-arch/OSAGuidelinesDec2017.pdf.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

ER 85-8058, March 21, Page 2 of 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or [e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Lc( Ramona Bartos, Deputy
[] State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898