archaeological assessment of the northern …...redacted archaeological assessment of the northern...

REDACTED

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE

NORTHERN PORTION OF THE CITY OF

VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA

by

Joseph R. Blondino,

Mike Klein, and Curtis McCoy

Prepared for

Commonwealth of Virginia

Department of Historic Resources

Prepared by

DOVETAIL CULTURAL RESOURCE GROUP

June 2018

REDACTED

Archaeological Assessment of the Northern Portion of the

City of Virginia Beach, Virginia

by

Joseph R. Blondino,

Mike Klein, and Curtis McCoy

Prepared for

Commonwealth of Virginia

Department of Historic Resources

2801 Kensington Avenue

Richmond, Virginia 23221

Prepared by

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group I, Inc. 11905 Bowman Drive, Suite 502

Fredericksburg, Virginia 22408

Dovetail Job #17-097

June 2018

June 13, 2018

D. Brad Hatch, Principal Investigator Date

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group

This page intentionally left blank

i

ABSTRACT

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group (Dovetail) conducted an archaeological assessment of the

northern part of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. The study area was bounded to the north

and east by the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean, to the west by the city limits of Virginia

Beach, and to the south by North Landing Road, Princess Anne Road, and a line extending due

east from the intersection of Princess Anne Road and General Booth Boulevard to the Atlantic

Ocean. The assessment was performed on behalf of the Virginia Department of Historic

Resources as part of the Cost Share Survey and Planning Program. This work was completed

in February of 2018. This report includes a discussion of previously identified and potential

archaeological resources located within the study area.

The assessment included a review of previously identified resources, previously surveyed

areas, settlement patterns characteristic of precontact and historic archaeological sites, historic

maps, as-built maps, aerial photos, United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic

maps, and vehicular and pedestrian survey. The field survey involved existing conditions

assessments of previously recorded sites and identification of areas where additional

archaeological deposits are likely to exist. A predictive model for archaeological site location

was also developed and used to inform the results of the assessment.

A total of 315 previously recorded sites were included as part of the survey. Of these, 203 were

surveyed. The remaining 112 sites were not surveyed because they were not visible from the

right-of-way or because other access problems, such as location on a military base, precluded

survey, or due to data on the sites having been compiled or updated within the last five years,

making existing conditions assessments unnecessary at this time. The Virginia Cultural

Resource Information System (VCRIS) database, maintained by the Virginia Department of

Historic Resources, was updated with regard to the surveyed sites to ensure that the information

on each site was current.

ii


iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... i

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 Archaeological Potential of the Study Area ........................................................................ 3

The Natural Environment ............................................................................................... 3 Geology ....................................................................................................................... 3 Soils ............................................................................................................................. 3

Topography and Hydrology of the Study Area ........................................................... 4 Existing Conditions within the Study Area .................................................................... 5 Previous Cultural Resource Surveys ............................................................................... 5

HISTORIC CONTEXT .................................................................................................... 13 Pre-Clovis Period (? to 14,950 B.P.)............................................................................. 13 Paleoindian Period (14,950 to 9950 B.P.)..................................................................... 14

Archaic Period (9950 to 3150 B.P.) .............................................................................. 15 Early Archaic Period (9950 to 8450 B.P.) ................................................................ 16 Middle Archaic Period (8450 to 4950 B.P.) ............................................................. 17

Late Archaic Period (4950 to 3150 B.P.) .................................................................. 17 Woodland Period (3150 to 350 B.P.) ............................................................................ 18

Early Woodland Period (3150 to 2450 B.P.) ............................................................ 18 Middle Woodland Period (2450 to 1050 B.P.) ......................................................... 19 Late Woodland Period (1050 to 350 B.P.) ................................................................ 22

Historic Period .............................................................................................................. 25 Settlement to Society (1607–1750) ........................................................................... 25

Colony to Nation (1750–1789) ................................................................................. 27 Early National Period (1789–1830) .......................................................................... 28

Antebellum Period and Civil War (1830–1865) ....................................................... 29 Reconstruction (1870–1916) ..................................................................................... 30

World War I to World War II (1917–1945) .............................................................. 30 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 33 SURVEY METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 35

Archival Research/Map Review ................................................................................... 35 Archaeological Survey .................................................................................................. 35

Predictive Model ........................................................................................................... 37 RESULTS OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................ 39

Predictive Model ........................................................................................................... 39

Archaeological Survey .................................................................................................. 41 Survey Results .......................................................................................................... 41

SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT .................................................................................. 77 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 79

APPENDIX: SITE DATA TABLE ................................................................................ 103

iv


v

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of Study Area within the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of

Virginia Beach ............................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2: Detail from John Smith’s Virginia Discovered and DiscribedDepicting the

Settlements near the Mouth of the James River........................................................ 26 Figure 3: Locations of Survey Areas within Overall Study Area ..................................... 36 Figure 4: Results of Predictive Modeling for Prehistoric Site Location ........................... 42

Figure 5: Results of Predictive Modeling for Historic Site Location ............................... 43 Figure 6: Area A, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites .......................... 44 Figure 7: Area B, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites ........................... 46 Figure 8: Area C, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites and Area Which

May Contain Undiscovered Sites.............................................................................. 49

Figure 9: Area D, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites. ......................... 51 Figure 10: Area E, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites. ........................ 54

Figure 11: Area F, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites and Location of

Bellamy Manor House Site ....................................................................................... 57

Figure 12: Area G, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites. ....................... 60 Figure 13: Area H, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites ........................ 62

Figure 14: Area I, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites. ......................... 64 Figure 15: Area J, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites .......................... 66 Figure 16: Area K, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites ........................ 68

Figure 17: Area L, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites. ........................ 71 Figure 18: Area M, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites. ....................... 73

List of Photos

Photo 1: Site 44VB0358 in Area A, Facing Northeast. .................................................... 45 Photo 2: Site 44VB0048 (Chesopean Site) in Area B. ..................................................... 47

Photo 3: Site 44VB0241, Showing Typical Neighborhood in Area C. ............................ 50 Photo 4: Field in Area C Which May Contain Undiscovered Archaeological Sites. ....... 50 Photo 5: Site 44VB0055, Facing Northeast. ..................................................................... 52

Photo 6: Facing North across Edge of Broad Bay in Area D. .......................................... 52 Photo 7: Site 44VB0044, Facing Southwest. .................................................................... 55 Photo 8: Site 44VB0305 (Deep Branch Ditch) in Area E, Facing Southeast. .................. 55 Photo 9: Brick Clamp Area within Site 44VB0283 in Area E, Facing North. ................. 56 Photo 10: Site 44VB0046 in Area F, Facing South. ......................................................... 58

Photo 11: Bellamy Manor House Site in Area F, Facing Northeast. ................................ 59 Photo 12: Site 44VB0352 in Area G, Facing South. ........................................................ 61

Photo 13: Typical Field in Area H, Facing Southwest. .................................................... 63 Photo 14: Typical Forested Portion of Area H, Facing South. ......................................... 63 Photo 15: Site 44VB0227, Facing Northeast. ................................................................... 65 Photo 16: Site 44VB0288 in Area J, Facing South. .......................................................... 67 Photo 17: Site 44VB0172, Facing South. ......................................................................... 69 Photo 18: Site 44VB0290, Facing Northwest ................................................................... 69 Photo 19: Site 44VB0121, Showing Typical Neighborhood in Area L. .......................... 72 Photo 20: Site 44VB0291, Showing Commercial Area in Area L. .................................. 72

vi

Photo 21: Site 44VB0118, Facing Northwest. .................................................................. 74

Photo 22: Industrial Complex in Central Portion of Area M, Facing South..................... 74

Photo 23: Agricultural Field in South-Central Portion of Area M, Facing East............... 75

List of Tables

Table 1: Soil Classes within the Study Area. ...................................................................... 4 Table 2: Previous Archaeological Surveys in the Study Area ............................................ 5 Table 3: Summary of Temporal Components ................................................................... 33

Table 4: Summary of Site Types. ..................................................................................... 34 Table 5: Comparison of the Site Area and Study Area by Soil Class. .............................. 39 Table 6: Comparison of the Site Area and Study Area by Distance to Water. ................. 40 Table 7: Proportion of Prehistoric High, Moderate, and Low Probability Areas ............. 41 Table 8: Site Condition Assessments by Survey Area...................................................... 78

1

INTRODUCTION

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group (Dovetail) conducted an archaeological assessment of the

northern part of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (Figure 1, p. 2). The assessment was

performed on behalf of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) as part of the

Cost Share Survey and Planning Program. This report includes a discussion of previously

identified and potential archaeological resources within the study area, including discussion of

existing conditions at previously recorded sites. The results of this study will aid the City of

Virginia Beach in better understanding their archaeological resources and planning for their

preservation.

As part of the assessment, a predictive model for archaeological site locations was also

developed. This model took several environmental factors into account to identify areas of low,

moderate, and high probability for containing as-yet unidentified archaeological resources.

Data collected during the field survey was used to update the VCRIS database with current

information on conditions within each of the surveyed sites.

The field survey was conducted by Dovetail field director Joseph Blondino and archaeological

field technician Ben Royster. Brad Hatch, Ph.D. served as Principal Investigator. Dr. Hatch

meets or exceeds the standards established for archaeologists by the Secretary of the Interior.

2

Figure 1: Location of Study Area within the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of

Virginia Beach (Esri 2018).

3

ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL OF THE STUDY AREA

The Natural Environment

Virginia Beach is located in the coastal region of far southeastern Virginia. This region was

one of the first to be colonized by English settlers in the Chesapeake region and has been

continuously occupied for the entirety of the historic period, as well as far into prehistory, due

in large part to the wealth of natural resources to be found there. As a result of its duration and

intensity of occupation since the seventeenth century, the area is now almost entirely

developed. However, rural and agricultural regions lie just to the west, farther inland.

Geology

Situated in extreme southeastern Virginia, Virginia Beach is bordered by Currituck County,

North Carolina to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, the Chesapeake Bay to the north,

and the City of Chesapeake to the west. The study area is located in the Tidewater area of the

Coastal Plain physiographic region of Virginia.

The Coastal Plain in Virginia is divided into several sub-provinces, which include the Upland

sub-province (CU), the Lowland sub-province (CL), and the Barrier Islands and Salt Marshes

sub-province (BM). CU has an elevation range of 60 feet to 250 feet (18.3 m to 76.2 m) above

mean sea level (AMSL) and is characterized by broad uplands with low slopes and gentle

drainage divides. Steep slopes develop where dissected by stream erosion. CL has an elevation

range of 0 feet to 60 feet (0 m to 18.3 m) AMSL and is characterized by flat, low-relief regions

along major rivers and near the Chesapeake Bay. BM has an elevation range of 0 feet to 15

feet (0 m to 4.6 m) AMSL and is characterized by low, open areas covered with sediment and

vegetation in direct proximity to the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean.

Deeply buried ancient igneous and metamorphic basement rocks underlie the more recent

marine and fluvial sediments of the Coastal Plain in Virginia. The surface of the basement dips

from the Piedmont to the subsided Coastal Plain. During the late Cretaceous, seawater invaded

and retreated across eastern Virginia. Maximum oceanic ingress reached the fall zone.

Subsidence and sedimentation continued through the Miocene Epoch. A sedimentary wedge

that thickens to the east was deposited during the Cretaceous and Miocene. Beach sands and

gravels deposited during the Pleistocene cap the Cretaceous and Miocene deposits (Dietrich

1990:175–177). As a consequence, unconsolidated and partly consolidated sediments

deposited along the coastline over eons underlie the Coastal Plain (Fichter and Baedke 2000).

A diverse fluvial-estuarine complex of cross-bedded medium to coarse sand, pebble gravel,

silty sand, and laminated silty clays underlies the upland terraces. Sandy fluvial deposits cover

the floodplains of the major drainages (McFarland and Bruce 2006:16–23; Thomas and Harper

2008). Gravel deposits are present in commercially exploitable levels.

Soils

Fertile, well-drained soils attracted both humans and game over millennia. Moreover, the wild

grasses, fruits, and seeds consumed by people both before and after the adoption of agriculture

4

flourished in such settings. As a consequence, numerous archaeologists have cited the

correlation between the distribution of level to gently sloping, well-drained, fertile soils and

archaeological sites (e.g., Lukezic 1990; Potter 1993; Turner 1976; Ward 1965). Soil scientists

classify soils according to natural and artificial fertility and the threat posed by erosion and

flooding, among other attributes. Soil classes 1 and 2 represent the most fertile soils, those best

suited for not only agriculture but for a wide range of uses. Of course, soil productivity must

be considered in relation to the productivity of the surrounding soils as well.

Numerous soil series are present within the study area. As a result, only soil class was

considered rather than the characteristics of each individual soil series (Table 1). Only 19

percent of the study area is underlain by Class 1 or 2 soils, which are most likely to contain

archaeological sites. Soil class 3 was the most common, comprising 47 percent of the study

area. Soil classes 4–8, which are generally unlikely to contain archaeological sites, account for

a total of 13 percent of the study area, while 20 percent of the study area contains soils which

have not been assigned to a class.

Table 1: Soil Classes within the Study Area (Soil Survey Staff 2018).

Class Percentage of Study Area

1 7

2 12

3 47

4 0

6 2

7 8

8 3

Null 20

Total 100

Topography and Hydrology of the Study Area

The entire study area drains to the nearby Atlantic Ocean and/or the mouth of the Chesapeake

Bay via several high order streams and bays. The northern portion of the study area is drained

by Little Creek and the Lynnhaven River and their tributaries. Little Creek and the Lynnhaven

River both flow north into the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. The western portion of the study

area is drained by the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River and its tributaries. The Elizabeth

River flows north and west to join the mouth of the James River just west of Norfolk. The

southern portion of the study area is drained by the North Landing River and its tributaries,

notably West Neck Creek. The North Landing River flows south into Currituck Sound, which

is separated from the Atlantic Ocean by barrier islands of the Outer Banks, in coastal North

Carolina. Currituck Sound ultimately joins with Albemarle Sound near Kitty Hawk, North

Carolina. The northeastern part of the study area drains to Linkhorn Bay and Little Neck Creek,

which join to form Broad Bay. Broad Bay feeds into the Lynnhaven River at Lynnhaven Inlet.

The southeastern portion of the study area drains into Lake Rudee and Lake Wesley, both of

which empty into the Atlantic Ocean at Rudee Inlet.

5

The topography of the study area is generally low lying, characterized by little topographic

relief, as is typical of the outer Coastal Plain. Ephemeral and seasonal drainages in the study

area coalesce into larger (second and third order) tributaries over relatively short distances

before emptying into the major streams draining the area. Poorly drained wetland areas,

swamps, and marshes are common, and large bays exist near the mouths of the major streams.

Stream gradients in the area are low due to the nature of the underlying sediments and the tidal

influence of the region.

Existing Conditions within the Study Area

Existing conditions vary greatly within the study area. Current land use in the northern portion

of Virginia Beach ranges from residential to commercial and industrial, with small rural and

agricultural areas and several parks preserving natural or nearly natural environments.

Conditions in various portions of the overall study area are discussed in greater detail in a

subsequent section of this report.

Previous Cultural Resource Surveys

A total of 84 previous Phase I archaeological surveys have been undertaken within the present

study area. The surveys date from as early as 1976, and range from general cultural resource

surveys to surveys of transportation improvement projects, utility installations, and wetland

mitigation site locations. They are summarized in Table 2, below.

Table 2: Previous Archaeological Surveys in the Study Area.

DHR

Report

Number

Report Title Author(s)/

Organization Year

CS-019

Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the

Proposed Build Alternatives for the

Southeastern Expressway in the Cities of

Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, Virginia

Jerome D. Traver,

Maryanna Ralph 1989

CS-034

Phase I Archeological Survey of

Approximately 2,000 Acres at Naval Air

Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and

Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Fentress,

Chesapeake City, Virginia

Michael B.

Hornum et al 1994

CS-044

Additional Phase I Cultural Resource Survey

of Revised Alignments for Proposed

Southeastern Expressway, Cities of

Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, Virginia

Thomas Higgins,

Anne Beckett,

Veronica Deitrick

1994

CS-045

Archaeological Survey Improvements to

Lynnhaven and Volvo Parkways, Cities of

Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, Virginia

Ellen Mayo,

Loretta

Lautzenheiser

1997

6

DHR

Report

Number


Organization Year

CS-078

Archaeological Survey, Proposed Southeastern

Parkway and Greenbelt, Cities of Chesapeake

and Virginia Beach, Virginia

Daniel Baicy,

Loretta

Lautzenheiser,

Michael Scholl

2005

NH-003

Appendix B (Nonpublic) of the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for

Alternative Location of a Landing Craft Air

Cushion (LCAC) Operational Base on the East

Coast of the United States

Martin F.

Dickinson, Lucy

B. Wayne

1983

NH-014

Marine Magnetometer Survey of The Parallel

Crossing of the Chesapeake Bay Project,

Virginia Beach-Northampton County, Virginia

Steven D. Hoyt et

al 1992

NH-016

Parallel Crossing of Chesapeake Bay, Phase I

Underwater Archaeology, Magnetic Anomaly

Ground Truthing

Steven D. Hoyt

and James S.

Schmidt

1993

NN-025

Phase I Archeological Survey for Fort Eustis

and Fort Story, Cities of Newport News and

Virginia Beach, Virginia

Antony F.

Opperman,

Harding Polk II

1989

NR-003

An Archaeological and Historical Survey of

the Cultural Resources at Newtown, Norfolk,

Virginia

J. Mark

Wittkofski,

Martha W.

McCartney,

Beverly Bogley

1979

NR-049

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the

Proposed Norfolk/Virginia Beach Light Rail,

Cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, Virginia

Bradley Bowden,

Ashley Neville,

Jerrell Blake

1998

NR-065

An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed I-

64/I-264 Interchange Project, Cities of Norfolk

and Virginia Beach, Virginia

Elizabeth Monroe 2008

NR-074

Supplemental Archaeological Survey of the

Proposed I-64/I-264 Interchange Project, Cities

of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, Virginia

Elizabeth Monroe 2009

VB-009 An Initial Archaeological Survey of Haygood

and Newtown Roads, City of Virginia Beach John Saunders 1976

VB-011

Draft Final Ecological Evaluation for the Fleet

Combat Training Center Atlantic, Dam Neck,

Virginia Beach, Virginia. Appendix A

EDAW, Inc. 1982

VB-012

Cultural Resources Survey of the Phase I

Wetlands Mitigation Site FCTC, Dam Neck,

Virginia

Water and Air

Research, Inc. 1984

VB-015

An Archaeological Survey of the Virginia

National Guard Camp Pendleton Training

Camp Site, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia

United States

Department of

Military Affairs

1987

7

DHR

Report

Number


Organization Year

VB-017

A Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance

Survey of the Proposed Improvements to the

Entrance to Oceana Naval Air Station, Virginia

Beach, Virginia

J. Mark

Wittkofski 1980

VB-018

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Highway

Improvements Along Dam Neck Road in the


Douglas C.

McLearen 1987

VB-024

Review and Compliance Phase I

Reconnaissance Summary: Barberton Drive

Apartment Complex

Keith Bott 1980

VB-025

Review and Compliance Phase I

Reconnaissance Summary: North Landing

River Bridge Replacement

Keith Bott 1980

VB-032

Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, Old

Landstown Road Tract, Virginia Beach,

Virginia

Jerome D. Traver 1991

VB-033 A Phase I Cultural Resource Evaluation of a

Section of Route 165, Virginia Beach, Virginia

Earl E. Proper,

Martha

McCartney

1987

VB-034

A Cultural Resources Assessment of Two

Areas, U. S. Navy, Fleet Combat Training

Center Atlantic, Dam Neck Virginia Beach,

Virginia

United States

Army Corps of

Engineers 1987

VB-035

An Archeological Survey of the Naval

Amphibious Base Annex, Camp Pendleton,


United States

Army Corps of

Engineers 1987

VB-036

A Cultural Resource Survey of a Proposed

Wetlands Mitigation Site, U. S. Navy Fleet

Combat Training Center Atlantic, Dam Neck


United States

Army Corps of

Engineers 1987

VB-037

Phase I Cultural Resource Survey Along

Proposed Improvements to Oceana Boulevard

in Virginia Beach, Virginia

Christopher

Egghart and Luke

Boyd

1991

VB-038

Phase I Archaeological Survey of a Proposed

U. S. Navy Construction Project at Owl Creek

in Virginia Beach, Virginia

Stanley B.

Bussey, Jerome

D. Traver

1992

VB-039

A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of Three

Proposed Alternate Routes for the Extension of

South Plaza Trail, Between Princess Anne and

Independence Roads, Virginia Beach, Virginia

Bruce A. Hunter 1989

8

DHR

Report

Number


Organization Year

VB-043

Cultural Resources Assessment for the

Proposed Aircraft Fuel Storage Site (P-412),

Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach,

Virginia

Marie G. Cottrell 1993

VB-044

Phase I Cultural Resource Survey and Visual

Impact Assessment of the Interstate 64 HOV

Lanes (Median Strip), Virginia Beach and

Chesapeake, Virginia

Jerome D. Traver 1993

VB-045

Phase I Archeological Investigations for

Proposed Vegetation Maintenance/

Management Areas and a Proposed Wetlands

Restoration Project, Naval Air Station,

Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia

R. Christopher

Goodwin 1993

VB-046

Phase I Cultural Resource Survey Route 190,

Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach,

Virginia

Virginia Busby

and Leslie

Bashman

1993

VB-047 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, Birdneck

Road, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia

Virginia Busby

and Leslie

Bashman

1993

VB-050

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Proposed

Improvements to London Bridge Road in


Robin L. Ryder et

al 1994

VB-051 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Bayville

Farms, Virginia Beach, Virginia Perry McSherry 1993

VB-054

Phase I Archaeological Survey of the

Corporate Woods Property, City of Virginia

Beach, Virginia

Bradley M.

McDonald and

Garrett R. Fesler

1994

VB-058

Phase I Archaeological Survey Improvements

to Laskin Road; Route 58, Virginia Beach,

Virginia

Mary Ann Holm

et. al 1995

VB-059

Phase I Archaeological Survey of Twelve

Acres and Phase II Archaeological

Significance Evaluation of 44VB240-241-242

at the Great Neck Point Disposal Area, City of


Bradley M.

McDonald and

Matthew R. Laird

1996

VB-064

Phase I Archaeological Identification Survey

in Support of 1995 Base Realignment and

Closure, Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia

Beach, Virginia

Leonid I.

Shmookler 1996

VB-066

An Addendum to Phase I Cultural Resource

Study of Proposed Improvements to Oceana

Boulevard and First Colonial Road in Virginia

Beach, Virginia

Mary Ellen

Hodges, Margaret

L. Stephenson

1997

9

DHR

Report

Number


Organization Year

VB-069

Phase I Archaeological Survey of Proposed

Landstown-West Landing, 230 KV

Transmission Line, Virginia Beach, Virginia

Kenneth E. Stuck,

Thomas F.

Higgins

1997

VB-071

A Supplemental Identification Survey of

Proposed Oceana Boulevard-First Colonial

Road Project, Virginia Beach, An Addendum

to Phase I Cultural Resource Survey Along

Proposed Improvements to Oceana Boulevard

In Virginia Beach, Virginia

Kenneth E. Stuck 1997

VB-079 Archaeological Survey along a Portion of

Holland Road (Route 410)

Robert Clarke,

Bradley Bowden 2000

VB-082

Archaeological Identification Survey, Princess

Anne Road and Ferrell Parkway, City of


Ellen M. Brady,

Loretta

Lautzenheiser

2000

VB-084

Phase I Archaeological Survey of Indian River

Road and Elbow Road, City of Virginia Beach,

Virginia

Carol D. Tyrer,

Martha

McCartney

1998

VB-086

Archaeological Survey Associated with the

Proposed Nimmo (Ferrell) Parkway Project,


Stevan C. Pullins 2002

VB-087

Phase I Archaeological Survey of

Approximately 583 Acres at Naval Air Station


Christopher R.

Ploglase 1996

VB-088

Archaeological Survey of Route 165 (Princess

Anne Road) Between Dam Neck Road and

Judicial Boulevard, Virginia Beach, Virginia

Lee Tippett 2002

VB-091


in Support of 1995 Base Closure and

Realignment, Naval Air Station Oceana,


Leonid I.

Shmookler 1996

VB-093

Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed

Realignment of the Current Intersection of

Route 165 (Princess Anne Road) and Route

190 (Kempsville/Witchduck Road), City of


Brad M.

Duplantis, Eric

Griffits

2003

VB-095

Archaeological Identification Survey and

Archaeological Evaluations of Nine Sites

Along the Proposed Landstown-West Landing

230 KV Transmission Line, City of Virginia

Beach, Virginia

Bradley

McDonald 2002

VB-097

Supplemental Archaeological Survey of Two

Canals within the Proposed Realignment of

Elbow Road, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia

Bruce R. Penner 2003

10

DHR

Report

Number


Organization Year

VB-098


of the Proposed 3-Module Hangar and Parking

Apron Expansion, Naval Air Station Oceana,


Leonid I.

Shmookler 1997

VB-099


of the Proposed Security Improvements (P-

445/P-509), NAS Oceana, Virginia Beach,

Virginia

Todd L. Jensen 2003

VB-100

Phase I Archaeological Survey of Portions of

the Highland Parish Tract, Virginia Beach,

Virginia

Clifton A.

Huston, Peter W.

O'Hara

2003

VB-102

Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Small

Arms Range (MILCON P-259), NAS Oceana

Annex Dam Neck, Virginia Beach, Virginia

Joe B. Jones,

Todd L. Jensen 2003

VB-104

Cultural Resources Survey, Proposed

Improvements, Sandbridge Road, City of


Ellen M. Brady,

Joanna Carter

Jones, Loretta

Lautzenheiser

1998

VB-106

Cultural Resources Identification Survey

Atlantic Wastewater Treatment Plant, Virginia

Beach, Virginia

Keith T. Heinrich,

Loretta

Lautzenheiser

2005

VB-108 Archaeological Identification Survey, City

Line Interchange, Virginia Beach, Virginia

Tom Bailey,

Susan Bamann 2005

VB-110

Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Five

Forks Training Area and Phase II Evaluation

of Site 44VB89, Fort Story, Virginia

Fort Eustis

Environmental

Division 2005

VB-112

Archaeological Identification Survey,

Proposed Improvements to Shore Drive,


Susan Bamann,

Bill Hall 2006

VB-118

Phase I Survey of the First Landing

Reenactment Site and a Brief Review of

Proposed Events, Fort Story, Virginia

Fort Eustis

Environmental

Division

2006

VB-122

Reconnaissance Archaeological Survey at

Various Navy Region Mid-Atlantic Family

Housing Complexes in Virginia

Bradley

McDonald 2003

VB-123

An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed I-

264/Lynnhaven and Great Neck Interchanges

Project, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia

Elizabeth

Monroe, Sean

Devlin

2007

VB-124

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the

Proposed Realignment of West Neck Road

Between North Landing Road and Indian

Ridge Road in the City of Virginia Beach,

Virginia

Garrett Fesler,

Matthew Laird 2006

11

DHR

Report

Number


Organization Year

VB-125

Phase I Archaeological Survey of the State

Military Reservation, 83.81 ha (207 Acres) at

Camp Pendleton, Virginia Beach, Virginia

Wayne C.J.

Boyko, Beverly

Boyko

2008

VB-126

Construction of Two New Buildings, a Parking

Lot, and the Rehabilitation of Bunker 309, Fort

Story, Virginia

Fort Eustis

Environmental

Division

2006

VB-127

Archaeological Survey of Regional Health

Professions Center, Phase I, Virginia

Community College System, Tidewater

Community College, Virginia Beach Campus,


Tracey Jones,

Blair Toombs,

Eric Voigt

2009

VB-128

Archaeological Survey of Learning Resource

Center, Phase I, Virginia Community College

System, Tidewater Community College,

Virginia Beach Campus, City of Virginia

Beach, Virginia

Tracey Jones,

Eric Voigt 2009

VB-129

Archaeological Characterization Study of Fleet

Training Center Dam Neck, Virginia Beach,

Virginia

Timothy Sara 2008

VB-130

Cultural Resources Survey Proposed Lesner

Bridge Replacement, City of Virginia Beach,

Virginia

Dennis Gosser,

Jennifer Stewart,

Bill Hall

2009

VB-132

Submerged Cultural Resource Remote-Sensing

Survey Lesner Bridge Replacement Corridor,

Lynnhaven Inlet, Virginia Beach, Virginia

Gordon Watts 2009

VB-133 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Stone

Breakwater/Revetment, Fort Story, Virginia Courtney Birkett 2009

VB-135 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Child

Development Center, Fort Story, Virginia Courtney Birkett 2009

VB-136

Cultural Resource Management of GMH

Military Housing RCI Undertakings at Fort

Story, Virginia

Fort Eustis

Environmental

Division

2006

VB-137

Archaeological Survey of South Parcel and

Evaluation of Archaeological Sites 44VB345

and 44VB346, Fleet Training Center Dam

Neck, Virginia Beach, Virginia

Debra Wells,

Bruce Nodine,

Robert Austin,

Nicholas Linville

2010

VB-143

Phase I Archaeological Investigation of



Christopher

Clement 2011

12

DHR

Report

Number


Organization Year

VB-145

Survey of the Architectural and Archaeological

Cultural Resources at the Virginia Air National

Guard Installations at the Richmond

International Airport, Henrico County and the

State Military Reservation, Camp Pendleton,


Ann Markell,

Katherine

Kuranda,

Katherine

Grandine, Nathan

Workman

2007

VB-146

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Marine

Animal Care Facility Tract, City of Virginia

Beach

Amy Humphries,

Dawn M. Frost,

Carol D. Tyrer

2011

VB-147

A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of 98.664

Acres at Marshview Park in the City of


Garrett Fesler,

Matthew Laird 2011

VB-149

Phase I Archaeological Investigation of



Christopher Ohm

Clement 2012

VB-150

Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the

Centerville Turnpike Improvement Area,


Kerri Barile, Earl

Proper, Danae

Peckler, Mike

Klein, Emily

Calhoun

2012

VB-151

A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of

Approximately 13 Acres at 4081 Elbow Road

in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia

Donald Sadler,

Sandra DeChard,

Aimee Leithoff,

Ellen Brady

2012

13

HISTORIC CONTEXT

Virginia’s Native American prehistory typically is divided into three main periods,

Paleoindian, Archaic, and Woodland, based on changes in material culture and settlement

systems. Recently, the possibility of a human presence in the region that pre-dates the

Paleoindian period has moved from remote to probable; for this reason, a Pre-Clovis discussion

precedes the traditional tripartite division of Virginia’s Native American history. All dates in

this section are presented as years before present (B.P.), with “present” defined by convention

as the year 1950. The seventeenth-through-twentieth-century historical overview follows the

Virginia Department of Historic Resources (2017) guidelines. The cultural context, as defined

by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and DHR’s 1992

How to Use Historic Contexts in Virginia: A Guide for Survey, Registration, Protection, and

Treatment Projects, provides the historic social and environmental information required for

evaluation of any archaeological and architectural resources present within the study area.

Pre-Clovis Period (? to 14,950 B.P.)

The 1927 discovery, at Folsom, New Mexico, of a fluted point in the ribs of an extinct species

of bison proved that ancient North Americans had immigrated during the Pleistocene. It did

not, however, establish the precise timing of the arrival of humans in the Americas, nor did it

adequately resolve questions about the lifestyle of those societies (Meltzer 1988:2–3). Both the

stratigraphic record and the radiocarbon assays from several sites, including the recently

excavated Cactus Hill site, suggest the possibility of human occupation of Virginia before the

fluted-point makers appeared on the scene (Boyd 2003; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997). Buried

strata at the Cactus Hill Site, in Sussex County, Virginia, have returned radiocarbon dates of

15,000 years ago from strata situated below levels containing fluted points (McAvoy and

McAvoy 1997:165).

McAvoy’s team encountered artifacts and charcoal separated from the Paleoindian period level

by 3.0 to 4.0 inches (7.6 to 10.2 cm) of sterile sands. Subsequent fieldwork confirmed the

presence of artifact-bearing strata located between 3.0 and 8.0 inches (7.6 and 20.3 cm) below

the fluted-point levels. The artifacts recovered from the pre-fluted-point levels present a

striking contrast with the tool kit typically used by Paleoindians. Rather than relying on

extensively finished chert knives, scraping tools, and spear points, the Pre-Clovis peoples used

a different but highly refined stone technology. Prismatic blade-like flakes of quartzite,

chipped from specially prepared cobbles and lightly worked along one side to produce a sharp

edge, constitute the majority of the stone cutting and scraping tools. Sandstone grinding and

abrading tools, possibly indicating production of wood and bone tools or ornaments, also

occurred in significant numbers in the deepest artifact-bearing strata (Boyd 2003; Carr 2018;

McAvoy and McAvoy 1997).

Because these tools do not possess unique characteristics which immediately identify them as

dating to the Pleistocene, archaeologists must recognize the possibility that Pre-Clovis period

sites have been overlooked for years. At present, only a handful of potential Pre-Clovis period

sites have been identified in North America (Boyd 2003; Carr 2018).

14

Paleoindian Period (14,950 to 9950 B.P.)

In the decades following the discovery at Folsom, New Mexico, the association of fluted points

with the bones of large, extinct mammals, in particular mastodons, on the western plains

coupled with the scarcity of other Paleoindian period sites, led to the inference that the

Paleoindian period subsistence strategy centered on the pursuit of big-game. This picture,

however, exaggerates the reliance of western Paleoindian groups on large game, and appears

to be of limited relevance to eastern Paleoindian life. The archaeological data from Virginia

compiled by Dr. Ben McCary records numerous discoveries of fluted points, but no

unambiguous association between extinct large game and fluted points (Boyd 1989:139). A

similar situation occurs throughout the eastern United States. For this reason, many

archaeologists now hold that eastern Paleoindians were generalized foragers (e.g., Gingerich

2011; Grayson and Meltzer 2003; but see Fiedel and Haynes 2004).

Most large Paleoindian period sites in the southeastern United States are quarry or quarry

related (Meltzer 1988:21), though multiple band aggregation sites also occur (McAvoy

1992:145). Recognizable sites most often result from long-term habitation or repeated use of

the same location. It follows from the presence of primarily quarry or quarry-related sites that

stone outcrops were regularly revisited. For example, the Thunderbird Site in the Shenandoah

Valley (Gardner 1974, 1977) and the Williamson Site in south-central Virginia (McCary 1951,

1975, 1983) rank among the most important Paleoindian period sites in Virginia, and in the

eastern U.S. as a whole. Both sites represent large camps associated with local sources of high-

grade cryptocrystalline lithic materials (Gardner 1981, 1989).

Though the full range of available lithic resources was used to manufacture fluted points (e.g.,

Phelps 1983), a number of studies have noted a focus on cryptocrystalline materials (e.g., chert,

jasper, chalcedony) (Gardner 1974, 1989; Goodyear 1979). The recovery of cryptocrystalline

materials at locations far removed from quarries indicates exchange, extensive group

movement, or both characterized the Paleoindian era. In addition, the very limited differences

between sites and within sites suggest that most people had access to all available resources,

while the small size of most Paleoindian period sites indicates group size generally was limited

to extended families.

In concert, the evidence suggests wide-ranging mobility and a social order involving low-level

inter- and intra-group exchange and limited, if any, status differences between and within

groups. Ethnographers have grouped such societies under the rubric of the “foraging mode of

production.” Such societies, notably the San of the Kalahari, are fiercely egalitarian, resisting

attempts to garner individual power through a combination of ridicule, sharing, and a fission-

fusion pattern of settlement. If all else fails, egalitarian hunter-gatherers “vote with their feet,”

moving away from the offending individuals (Lee 1979). The combination of high mobility,

the absence of domesticated crops, and an egalitarian ideology precludes construction of

elaborate housing, extensive storage facilities, and accumulation of non-portable goods.

Some researchers discuss the Paleoindian period as a single entity (Dent 1995) while others,

mostly in the Southeast, divide it into three sub-periods based on morphological differences in

projectile point manufacture and technology (e.g., Anderson 1990; Daniel 1998). Gardner

(1989:9) adopted an intermediate position, recognizing continuity within the stylistic changes

15

in Paleoindian point form that contrasts with “a definite break between unnotched lanceolate

and notched triangular form…at 8000 B.C.”

The DHR’s V-CRIS system lists Paleoindian period components for three archaeological sites

in Virginia Beach, and Turner (1989:80) reported no more than ten fluted points from any

Virginia Coastal Plain county near the James River, in his survey of Paleoindian Period

settlement in Virginia.

Archaic Period (9950 to 3150 B.P.)

The Archaic period began with the northward retreat of periglacial environments and the

appearance of archaeological assemblages lacking fluted points. In the Chesapeake Bay region,

a shift from moist, cool conditions to a warmer, drier climate accompanied the glacial retreat.

In response to changing climatic conditions, in particular the receding ice-sheets (Barber 2003;

Boyd 2003), Chesapeake Bay sea levels rose continuously from roughly 15,000 years ago to

the present. Simultaneously, local subsidence of the earth’s crust also may have contributed to

the formation of the Chesapeake Bay and Albemarle Sound. Between 15,000 and 14,000 years

ago, the waters of the Atlantic began to submerge portions of the continental shelf. For every

foot (30 cm) of sea level rise, approximately 1,675 feet (510 m) of the shelf were inundated.

Ten thousand years ago the sea began to flood the mouth of the ancestral Susquehanna River,

located near the present day mouth of Chesapeake Bay. Sea level rose at 0.1 inch (0.2 cm) per

year between 8,000 and 3,000 years ago. At 8,000 years ago, the head of the ancestral bay was

near Smith Island, at 5,000, near Annapolis, and by 3,000 years ago, it had reached the

Sassafras River (Brush 1986:149). Numerous archaeologists suggest that the stabilization of

water levels in the bay at this time provided the necessary conditions for the development of

extensive shellfish beds and habitats favorable for anadromous fish (e.g., Waselkov 1982).

After approximately 2950 B.P., sea level rise slowed to approximately 0.5 inch (0.12 cm) per

year, and the Chesapeake Bay approached its present contours (Brush 1986:149; Dent

1995:69–95). As sea levels stabilized, the region’s rivers also approximated the modern

configuration and, at a broad scale, essentially modern environments emerged (Barber 2003;

Blanton 2003; Tolley 2003).

In eastern Virginia, a more temperate climate characterized by greater seasonal variation in

temperatures emerged as the Chesapeake estuary formed (Dent 1995:147). Vegetation changed

from the patchy forest that lacked modern analogs to a mixed conifer-deciduous forest. An

essentially modern floral assemblage is inferred based on pollen data from contexts dating as

early as 6000–5000 B.P. (Brush 1986:151; Webb 1988:405), though relative abundances of

taxa fluctuated thereafter. During the Holocene, as paleoclimatologists term the post-

Pleistocene epoch, humans responded to emerging differences in the availability of resources

over the course of the year via increasing seasonal mobility.

In addition, in contrast with the broad similarity among Paleoindian period point forms, distinct

style zones developed during the Early and Middle Archaic periods (9950–5450 B.P.). The

Atlantic Coast/Southeastern stylistic sequence was not characteristic of the Midwest (Ford

1974:392). In addition, increased use of locally-available lithics occurred between 9,950–5,450

B.P. (Custer 1990:36; Sassaman et al. 1988:85–88). The reduction of the size of style zones

16

and the focus on local lithic materials implies contracting social networks and incipient

territories, possibly a reaction to population growth (Anderson and Hanson 1988:271).

Despite changes in patterns of mobility and point form, numerous archaeologists argue on

environmental (Custer 1990:2–8) and subsistence (Smith 1986) grounds for continuity in

social dynamics between 11,950 and 7950 B.P. From this point of view, Dalton through Lecroy

populations exhibit "general similarities and regional habitat-related variation in settlement-

subsistence patterns and material culture assemblages" (Smith 1986:10). Band-level social

organization involving seasonal movements corresponding to the seasonal availability of

resources and, in some instances, shorter-interval movement characterized Archaic period

societies.

Reliance on ground-stone technology increased during the Archaic period. New tool categories

associated with the Archaic period include celts, net sinkers, pestles, pecked stones, and axes.

Archaic period knappers produced chipped-stone versions of celts and axes and, near the end

of the Late Archaic period, labor-intensive vessels carved from soapstone quarried in the

Piedmont formed an important segment of assemblages (Geier 1990; McLearen 1991).

Underwood et al. (2003) and Gallivan et al. (2006) identified only low frequencies of Archaic

period material during large-scale surveys along the York River. Although a limited number

of Archaic sites occurred on the floodplain of the York River and near the mouth of the tidal

creeks, site density peaked in the interior of the Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown (NWSY).

Archaic period sites clustered on upland flats and ridges in two modes, 700–1,100 feet and

2,700–3,200 feet (231.3–335.3 m and 823.0–975.4 m) from the York River. Drowned and

reconfigured shorelines as a consequence of sea level rise throughout the Archaic period

undoubtedly explain at least part of the observed pattern. The data also imply that the

Chesapeake Region’s inhabitants lived in relatively small groups that ranged over broad

territories for most of the year (Underwood et al. 2003).

Early Archaic Period (9950 to 8450 B.P.)

Corner-and side-notched points with serrated blades predominate at the beginning of the Early

Archaic period, reflecting innovation in hafting technology and, possibly, the invention of the

atlatl. Notched point forms include Palmer and Kirk Corner-Notched and, in localized areas,

various side-notched types. Around 8,950 B.P., a variety of bifurcate base projectile point

forms appeared in the Middle Atlantic region. In eastern Virginia, Lecroy points constitute the

majority of bifurcate forms (Dent 1995; Justice 1995).

Some researchers portray the Early Archaic period as a continuation of the Paleoindian period,

characterized by reliance on cryptocrystalline lithic material and similar settlement and

subsistence patterns (Gardner 1989). Within the James River valley, there appears to have been

an increase in population that began during the Early Archaic period (Mouer 1990:24).

Elsewhere in the Middle Atlantic region, however, population growth perhaps began during

the Middle Archaic period (Dent 1995).

17

Middle Archaic Period (8450 to 4950 B.P.)

The appearance of stemmed projectile points and a shift towards more expedient use of stone

marks the beginning of the Middle Archaic period across much of the Atlantic Slope and

Southeast (Amick and Carr 1996:43–45; Justice 1995). In this area of Virginia, the most

common Middle Archaic period projectile point types are (from oldest to most recent) LeCroy,

Stanly, Morrow Mountain and Guilford, followed by the side-notched Halifax type sometime

after 5450 B.P. Informal modified flakes to some extent replaced formal unifacial tools, and

local materials constitute a greater percentage of Middle Archaic period assemblages than had

been true of earlier time periods. Sites occur throughout the landscape, including beneath the

now-inundated Chesapeake Bay (Blanton 1996; Dent 1995:173–178).

Late Archaic Period (4950 to 3150 B.P.)

Stemmed and notched knife and spear point forms, including various large, broad-bladed

stemmed knives and projectile points (e.g., Savannah River, Susquehanna, Perkiomen points),

rank among the most distinctive and securely dated Late Archaic period point forms (Coe

1964; Dent 1995; Justice 1995; Ritchie 1971). Marked increases in population, and, in some

areas, decreased mobility appear to characterize the Late Archaic period throughout eastern

North America. Locally, the increase in the number of Halifax and Savannah River

components and sites relative to the preceding periods suggests population rose in Virginia

between about 5450 B.P. and circa 3150 B.P.

Mouer (1991a:262) believes it likely that “at least intensive harvesting of wild seeds,” if not

the beginnings of domestication, characterized Transitional through Early Woodland period

times (circa 4000–2500 B.P.) in the Chesapeake Bay region, as it did in the Midwest. The

process, however, did not proceed at an even rate across the Eastern Woodlands or the Middle

Atlantic Region (Stewart 1995:184–185). Yarnell (1976:268), for example, states that

sunflower, sump weed, and possibly goosefoot may have been cultivated as early as 4000 B.P.

In the lower Little Tennessee River valley, the remains of squash have been found in Late

Archaic period Savannah River contexts (circa 4450 B.P.), with both squash and gourd

recovered from Iddins period contexts of slightly more recent date (Chapman and Shea

1981:70). Experiments with domestication in the Mid-Continent indicate the possibility, even

the likelihood, that the inhabitants of the Middle Atlantic cultivated small grains and other

plants (Hodges 1991:228–230; Mouer 1991b:259–263). “Scant” evidence for early cultivation

appears in the archaeological record from Virginia (Mouer 1991a:259; see also Blanton

2003:193; Gallivan and McKnight 2006).

Soapstone bowls are a well-known feature of Late Archaic period exchange systems

(McLearen 1991:107–108). In addition, Stewart (1989: 52) argues for broad-based exchange

of "artifacts made from jasper, argillite, rhyolite, ironstone, soapstone, midwestern lithics,

obsidian, marine shell and copper" throughout the Middle Atlantic region during the Late

Archaic period. Thus, Late Archaic period society clearly differed from that of earlier times.

The production and wide-spread exchange of utilitarian and ritually important, labor-intensive

goods does not fit the expected archaeological signature of highly egalitarian foragers. Rather,

a social order exhibiting some sort of status differences among individuals or groups (Mouer

1991a:265) and somewhat restricted group movement (Stewart 1989:57) likely existed.

18

Sites dating to the Late Archaic period occur frequently throughout Virginia and the Middle

Atlantic region. Late Archaic period sites occur in greater numbers and in a wider range of

environments than sites associated with the Early and Middle Archaic periods (Klein and

Klatka 1991). Blanton (2003) reports large numbers of Terminal Archaic period sites, many

including broadspears and soapstone bowl sherds in the assemblage, along the margins of the

Dismal Swamp.

Woodland Period (3150 to 350 B.P.)

Increasing use of ceramic technology, a growing dependence upon horticulture, and a shift

toward greater sedentism all characterize the Woodland period. Most researchers divide the

Woodland period into three sub-periods (the Early Woodland period, the Middle Woodland

period, and the Late Woodland period), based primarily on stylistic and technological changes

observed in ceramic wares and projectile points, as well as shifts in settlement patterning (e.g.,

Gardner 1982). Not all researchers agree with this tripartite subdivision, however (e.g., Custer

1989).

Early Woodland Period (3150 to 2450 B.P.)

The onset of the Woodland period traditionally correlates with the appearance of ceramics

(Willey and Phillips 1958:118). Early theorists linked ceramics with agriculture, though few

continue to support this position (cf. reviews in Egloff 1991; Hodges 1991). Rather, the

evolution of subsistence and technological systems (e.g., Gardner 1982) and various aspects

of pan-Eastern interaction (e.g., Egloff 1991; Klein 1997) currently are believed to underlie

the evolution of ceramic containers.

The steatite-tempered Marcey Creek type and variants containing other mineral inclusions

appear to date between 3200 and 2800 B.P. (Egloff 1991:244–5). However, though friable

sand-and-grit-tempered Accokeek Creek and Elk Island ceramics appear stratigraphically

subsequent to Marcey Creek, associated C-14 dates range from 3000 through 2500 B.P. Klein

and Stevens (1996) cite regional data to support the proposition that, while the thickness,

amount of temper, and size of temper in quartz/sand-tempered, cord-marked ceramics shifted

over time, similar pots continued in use into Middle Woodland times (Klein 2003).

Radiocarbon dates recommend placement of the Calvert and Fishtail points in the Early

Woodland (Inashima 2008). Ovoid to lozenge-shaped points, classified as Teardrop Points,

have been dated to 2900−2000 B.P. in the Northeast (Mounier and Martin 1994). However,

similar points have been recovered from Middle Archaic through Middle Woodland I contexts

in North Carolina and Virginia (Kirchen 2001:53–69). The Potts Corner-Notched point type,

the Vernon point type, and the Claggett point type have been dated only through stratigraphic

context and/or association with early ceramics (Inashima 2008; Stephenson 1963). Similarly,

a variety of small stemmed and side-notched forms of assumed association with the Early

Woodland period lack definitive temporal assignment (Dent 1995:227–228).

Small bifaces and expedient tools such as drills, perforators, scrapers and utilized flakes

regularly appear in Early Woodland period assemblages. Other lithic artifacts reported on Early

Woodland period sites in the Chesapeake region include bipolar flakes possibly used as knives

19

or scrapers, hammerstones, net sinkers, mortars, and pestles (McLearen 1991). Also noted on

sites in the region are tools of bone, and projectile points manufactured from antler, bone,

turkey spurs, and shark’s teeth (Painter 1988; Waselkov 1982).

The increased number of sites dating to the Early Woodland period, coupled with the

recognition of structures, features, and activity areas at some sites, suggests rising population

size in the Chesapeake region (e.g., Mouer 1991b:38–39; Stewart 1995:183). In contrast,

noting that the addition of pottery to stone adds temporally diagnostic artifacts to the

archaeological record, Fiedel (2001:106–107) observes that more sites are expected to appear

in the archaeological record during Woodland period times. Furthermore, the various

Broadspears, dating to the Terminal Archaic period (circa 3950–2950 B.P.), represent a curated

technology (Barber and Tolley 1984), while replication experiments suggest stemmed bifaces

similar to Early Woodland types rank among the easiest forms to produce using quartz

(Bourdeau 1981). Therefore, a shift from a curated, hence less commonly discarded biface

form, to points easily produced from a ubiquitous material accompanied the appearance of

ceramics. Thus, the absence of a dramatic swell in the number of sites, coupled with decreased

representation of diagnostic point forms, indicates a demographic trough or at best a flat

demographic curve characterized the Early Woodland period.

In general, sparse concentrations of artifacts characterize Early Woodland period sites (Mouer

1990:160–174; Stewart 1998a:2). At several sites in the central James River valley, however,

notably Scott # 2 (44GO0040), dense accumulations of artifacts and midden soils have been

described (Mouer 1990:160–164). The rare occurrence of similar sites, combined with the

extremely large, fragile pots recovered by Mouer (1990:162) and the diversity of points

identified (Mouer 1990:161), seemingly indexes multi-band aggregations near the falls of the

James River. Mouer (1990), however, interprets 44GO0040 as evidence for the appearance of

village life during Early Woodland period times. Regardless, the preservation of an extensive

accumulation of Early Woodland period artifacts suggests the existence of a unique

geomorphological, and probably social, setting. Overall, the data appears to indicate a return

to the mobile, egalitarian social organization characteristic of Early and Middle Archaic period

times (Klein 2003). Even at large Early Woodland period sites post-dating 1150 B.P., very

limited evidence of long-distance exchange or the manufacture of labor-intensive artifacts

comparable to the soapstone exchange of the Terminal Archaic period appears.

The use of subterranean features such as storage pits, refuse pits, and cooking hearths is also

associated with the Early Woodland period. At the White Oak Point site, in the Rappahannock

River Coastal Plain, remains of hickory nuts, and various species of shellfish, fish, and deer

were recovered (Waselkov 1982). During the preceding Late Archaic period, increased

exploitation of oysters as a food source began at White Oak Point (44WM0119). Surveys along

the York River found that Early Woodland period sites continued the Archaic period pattern

of low-density, interior settlement (Underwood et al. 2003:393).

Middle Woodland Period (2450 to 1050 B.P.)

Popes Creek net-impressed ceramics appear after roughly 2450 B.P., marking the beginning

of the Middle Woodland I period (2450–1750 B.P.) (Blanton 1992:72–73; Egloff and Potter

1982:99). However, cordmarked ceramics and stemmed points continued in use for some time

20

after 1450 B.P. (McLearen 1992:44–45). Custer (1989:141–146), for example, lumps the

period between 4950 and 950 B.P. under the rubric Woodland I based on the similarity in

adaptation and the presence of considerable variation in the form of contemporaneous stemmed

and notched points.

Net-impressed surface treatments occur on a variety of ceramic types manufactured during

Middle Woodland period times. Pope’s Creek ceramics first appear after 2,450 B.P., coinciding

with the start of the Middle Woodland (Blanton 1992:72–3; Egloff and Potter 1982:99). Early

Woodland period cord-marked ceramics and stemmed projectile points are found in Middle

Woodland period contexts, suggesting a continued use of Early Woodland period technologies

(McLearen 1992:44–5). The Prince George and Varina types appear to represent a continuum

of development in the technology used to produced Popes Creek sherds, rather than

dramatically different types (Mouer et al. 1986). After 1750 B.P., shell-tempered net-

impressed, cordmarked, and plain pottery classified as the Mockley type becomes predominant

in the outer Coastal Plain of Virginia and Maryland, though generally similar sherds tempered

with grit continued in production as well (Johnson 2001:100).

The appearance of assemblages containing significant amounts of durable ceramics after 2450

B.P. indicates a shift in the organization of production occurred during the Middle Woodland

periods (Brown 1986, 1989). In addition to the advantages of ceramic vessels as cooking pots,

ceramic production contrasts with the manufacture of baskets and wooden bowls in its embrace

of economies of scale. Rather than a start-and-stop process that fits well into odd bits of time,

ceramic production required greater scheduling and continued attention over an extended

period of time. Shifts in the scheduling of work, therefore, accompanied the transition from

Early to Middle Woodland period times.

Broad-spectrum hunting-fishing-gathering continued to characterize the region as a whole

throughout the Middle Woodland. Shellfish, anadromous and resident fishes, deer, waterfowl,

and turkey ranked high among the important fauna in the Middle Woodland diet. Various nuts,

amaranth, and chenopod seeds also appear to be important resources during this period. After

2300 B.P., large shell middens containing dense concentrations of artifacts become

increasingly common, indicating repeated use of at least one type of site. Middens and the

presence of houses at a number of sites indicate longer stays, though populations remained far

from sedentary (Gallivan 2003, 2016). People continued to reside for much of the year in

relatively small settlements, and interior storage features rarely occur on Middle Woodland

sites (Gallivan 2003:75–98). In short, small groups continued to live within relatively small

settlements for much of the year during the Middle Woodland. Periodic aggregations brought

together groups for feasting, gift exchange, and the opportunity for marriage ties with residents

of other communities (Gallivan 2016:94).

Nevertheless, Mouer (1991a:262) believes it likely that “at least intensive harvesting of wild

seeds,” if not the beginnings of domestication, characterized Transitional through Early

Woodland times (circa 4000–2500 B.P.) in the Chesapeake Region, as it did in the Midwest

(Smith 2007, 2011). For example, in eastern North America in general, changes in the relative

frequency of gray squirrels versus fox squirrels in Late Archaic assemblages have been cited

as evidence that Native Americans encouraged the growth of nut- and mast-bearing trees;

similarly, the increase in the range and frequency of undomesticated maygrass, knotweed, and

21

little barley in archaeological assemblages circa 3000–2000 B.P. indicates encouragement, and

perhaps incipient domestication, of these weedy invaders of disturbed ground (Smith

2007:192). This process, however, proceeded at an even rate across neither the Eastern

Woodlands nor the Middle Atlantic Region (Stewart 1995:184–185). Experiments with

domestication in the Midcontinent indicate the possibility, even the likelihood, that the

inhabitants of the Middle Atlantic at least encouraged the growth of small grains and other

plants (Hodges 1991:228–230; Mouer 1991:259–263). “Scant” evidence for early cultivation,

however, appears in the archaeological record from Virginia (Blanton 2003:193; Mouer

1991:259). Nevertheless, the possible presence of Late Archaic storage pits in western Virginia

perhaps indicates intensification of the type of environmental manipulation that eventually led

to the appearance of cultivars like chenopodium in the region (Blanton 2003:194–195).

Temporal shifts in cordage-twist direction over the course of the Woodland period, primarily

a reflection of learning networks (Carr and Maslowski 1995), indicate increasing regional

social distance. These data imply a reduction of regular movements between spatially discrete

groups and a consequent increasing localization of learning networks. To the extent that social

networks became bounded, differences between groups in the region would have been

amplified (Boehm 1997:S108–S109).

Throughout Virginia, the Middle Woodland period is marked by the presence of “interregional

interaction spheres, including the spread of religious and ritual behaviors which appear locally

in transformed ways; localized stylistic developments that sprang up independently alongside

interregional styles; increased sedentism; and evidence of ranked societies or incipient ranked

societies” (McLearen 1992:55). Around 2450 B.P., stone and earth burial cairns and cairn

clusters in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia mark the first appearance of elaborate burial

ceremonialism in Virginia, though not in the wider world of Eastern North America (McLearan

1992; Stewart 1992). The major upsurge in ceremonial activity occurred during the 850–1450

B.P. period. Sites containing elaborately decorated zoned-incised ceramics (Stewart 1998b)

and indications of extended mortuary ceremonies have been identified in the Chesapeake

region (e.g., Knepper et al. 2006:99–144).

The underlying tension between a cultural emphasis on community and equality and the

historical trajectory toward “inequality and competition inherent in big-man systems”

produced, according to Hantman and Gold (2002:288), cyclical fluctuations in exchange, ritual

activity, and sociopolitical complexity between 4950 and 300 B.P. Mortuary rituals and labor-

intensive or exotic artifacts at times created and reflected social distinctions in the Middle

Atlantic, but “the trajectory for individual markers of status continually appears to move in the

opposite direction toward more egalitarian or even access to goods and ritual status” (Hantman

and Gold 2002:290). Taken together, the data indicate that individuals and groups struggled to

maintain a balance between personal autonomy and equality as pressures on individuals and

groups increasingly highlighted the problems of highly egalitarian societies. The conflict

continued well beyond the appearance of horticultural villages, as demonstrated by the

emphasis on community and similarity in Late Woodland period secondary burials.

Blanton’s (1992:82–86) review of Middle Woodland period settlement patterns in the Coastal

Plain identified two major site types: the base camp and the procurement site. Base camps

range in size from those occupied by extended families to major aggregation sites. Aggregation

22

sites refer to large sites inhabited by multiple groups from throughout the region for varied

periods of time. Procurement sites, characterized by limited suites of artifacts, occur

throughout the landscape. Base camps occupied by extended families, in contrast, primarily

occupy productive settings along the larger rivers. Aggregation sites occur in an even more

restricted range of settings, primarily adjacent to productive oyster grounds or marshes in the

Coastal Plain (Stewart 1998b:171).

Floodplain stability increased after 1750 B.P. throughout the region, creating a greater

likelihood for the preservation of intact sites dating to the Middle Woodland II and Late

Woodland periods (Klein 2003). Previous studies on the James River and nearby parts of the

Chickahominy River demonstrate intensive use of small tributary streams as well as major

river floodplains throughout Middle Woodland period times. Typical Middle Woodland period

sites consist of the remnants of one or a few encampments occupied at various times during

the Middle Woodland period (e.g., Gallivan and Blouet 2001; Johnson et al. 1989). Studies

along the York River also demonstrate a striking increase in the frequency of sites dating to

the Middle Woodland period (Gallivan et al. 2006; Underwood et al. 2003).

Late Woodland Period (1050 to 350 B.P.)

Enormous changes transformed the social landscape of eastern North America in the centuries

after 900 B.P. Archaeological research in the Middle Atlantic indicates that population growth,

increased sedentism, a focus of settlement on the major rivers, heightened frequency of

regional exchange, more varied mortuary activities, the introduction of maize agriculture, and

increasingly focal exploitation of marine resources characterized the centuries between 900

and 350 B.P (Curry 2015; Gallivan 2003, 2006; Gold 2004; Hodges 2003; Klein and Magoon

2017; Mahoney 2009; Shephard 2015). Triangular projectile points, ubiquitous by 900 B.P.,

may decrease in size between 900 and 300 B.P., coincidental perhaps with heightened reliance

on the bow and arrow. Albemarle and other fabric-impressed sherds appear around 1300 B.P.

in central Virginia (Evans 1955). After roughly 500 B.P., Gaston and Roanoke Simple Stamped

sherds and thin, plain and cord-marked sherds classified as the Potomac Creek type appear in

the James River Valley (Gallivan 2003:138–143). Elaborately decorated and unelaborated

ceramic smoking pipes also appear during the Late Woodland period (e.g., Magoon 1999;

Stephenson 1963). Bone was used for utilitarian and other items, including pins, fishhooks,

and flutes.

Intensified use of cultivated plants, particularly maize, beans, and squash, distinguished the

Late Woodland period adaptation from that of earlier periods. European accounts describe a

heavy reliance on slash-and-burn agricultural methods (Turner 1992:106). However, despite

this supposed dependence on cultigens, only 21 sites document the use of cultigens in Coastal

Virginia (McKnight and Gallivan 2007). The abundance of aquatic resources in estuarine

environments may account for the apparently limited reliance on maize implied by the

archaeological data, though the relatively recent use of flotation by Virginia’s archaeologists

and the often limited size of flotation samples may have biased earlier work against the

recovery of botanical remains. In addition to cultigens and shellfish, Late Woodland period

peoples throughout the region continued to rely on various mammals, fish, and birds for

sustenance (Dent 1995:251). Perhaps as a consequence of the greater importance of cultigens

23

in the diet, access to expanses of arable land ranks among the most important factors

influencing site selection (Dent 1995; Potter 1993).

Heightened diversity characterizes ceramic assemblages recovered from Late Woodland

period sites in the Virginia Coastal Plain (Gallivan 2003:131–154). North of the James River,

the shell-tempered, fabric-impressed Townsend ware is common in the Late Woodland period.

Potomac Creek ware, a sand- or quartz-tempered, cord-marked and plain ceramic, occurs

widely in the Coastal Plain north of the Rappahannock River (Turner 1992). Along the North

Carolina-Virginia border, the sand or quartz-tempered, simple-stamped Gaston ware

commonly appears in archaeological assemblages. In the coastal area and along the lower

James River Valley, shell-tempered, simple-stamped ceramics referred to as Roanoke ware

regularly constitutes a significant percentage of late prehistoric assemblages (Turner 1992:102-

104).

Small, triangular arrow points, generally believed to reflect the widespread use of the bow-

and-arrow, form the overwhelming majority of Late Woodland period projectile points.

Triangular points include the Levanna, Madison, Roanoke, and Clarksville types, which vary

in size and base form. Point size may also decrease over time (Coe 1964; Potter 1993; Ritchie

1971).

Shell beads and copper beads became important ornaments and symbols during the Late

Woodland period, primarily in the last few centuries prior to the arrival of European colonists.

Powhatan’s Mantle, a deerskin cloak decorated with thousands of small marginella beads sewn

into various patterns, reflects the use of shell beads as symbols of identity and status. Pendants

and gorgets made of shell were also common. Of note, five engraved shell masks, decorated

with a traditional Southeastern “forked/weeping eye” motif were found in a seventeenth-

century burial in Stafford County. Three of the five masks exhibit similarities to masks

recovered from sites in the Southeastern U.S. (Smith and Smith 1989), possibly an indication

of long-distance trade. Bone also was used to manufacture beads, as well as utilitarian items

such as pins, fishhooks, and points.

Chiefdom-level societies, based on hereditary inequality, developed in coastal Virginia during

this time (Gallivan 2003, 2016; Potter 1993). Oft-cited causes of the emergence of status

differences in the Middle Atlantic, regardless of the precise interpretation involved, emphasize

the entwined effects of climatic change, population growth, and the incorporation of maize in

the Amerindian diet after 1150 B.P. Potter (1993:143), for example, argues that the “dry

climatic interval of 950–750 B.P. may have provided additional impetus for adopting plant

husbandry as a supplement to the intensive gathering and hunting economy of the previous late

Middle Woodland period.” More recently, Gallivan (2003) has pointed to the interplay of

various factors subsumed under cycling models to explain the emergence of inequality in the

James River valley. Roughly 300 years after the 1050 B.P. introduction of maize horticulture,

James River households first congregated in clusters of six or more, indicating that maize alone

did not cause the emergence of villages. Rather, regional social processes, including exchange

of ornamental shell and feasting, may have led to the emergence of status differences. Storage

pit features shifted from external locations to house interiors, signaling increased household

control of surplus production. Concurrently, a small percentage of unusually large structures,

either homes of leaders or the setting for community-wide institutions like council houses,

24

appeared throughout the Chesapeake region. Simultaneously, large roasting pit features

occurred in villages, an indication of communal feasting (Gallivan 2003:73–125). Beyond the

village, large-scale secondary burials also occurred (Curry 1999:68; Hantman 1990; Hantman

and Klein 1992). Exchange, of copper in particular, expanded after 450 B.P., while historical

documents indicate that more complex chiefdoms of five to seven villages existed during the

1500s. By the seventeenth century, the charismatic leader Powhatan controlled the James and

York Rivers within the Coastal Plain region; meanwhile, the Chickahominy, residing on the

river of the same name, were ruled by elders rather than chiefs (Rountree 1989; Rountree et al.

2007; Turner 2003).

The Powhatan Chiefdom reportedly coalesced and expanded during the 1500s (Gallivan 2003,

2005, 2016; Rountree 1989, 2005; Turner 1976, 1982, 1992). According to the early colonists,

the chiefdom Powhatan inherited consisted of six districts centered on six main settlements:

Powhatan, located east of the falls of the James River; Arrohateck, also in the inner Coastal

Plain of the James River; Appamattuck, east of the fall zone along the Appomattox River;

Pamunkey, located along the eastern, downstream meanders of the Pamunkey River;

Youghtanund, the upper Pamunkey River to at least the South Anna River; and Mattaponi,

which encompassed the length of the Mattaponi River. Rountree (2005:39) surmises that

Powhatan could have assumed the position of Paramount Chief of the six districts by the late

1560s. By 1607 Powhatan led a chiefdom that approached or exceeded the maximum size of

stable Mississippian chiefdoms (Hally 1996; Klein and Gallivan 2001).

In addition to palisaded villages, Native American settlements included nucleated villages

lacking palisades, dispersed hamlets, and temporary camps. Recent work by Potter (1993),

Hodges (1993), Hodges and Hodges (1994), and Opperman and Turner (1989, 1990), suggest

that dispersed villages were common throughout the Coastal Plain of Virginia. The difficulty

in identifying them archaeologically may have contributed to the low number of

archaeologically identified Powhatan settlements known from the 1612 map by John Smith

(Turner 1992:110). Housing varied throughout this region: some sites show evidence of

longhouses located adjacent to the palisade (Callahan 1985; Egloff and Turner 1984:37–39),

while elsewhere, short, oval structures have been unearthed (Dent 1995; Gallivan 2003;

Hodges and Hodges 1994; Mouer et al. 1992; Potter 1993).

Rountree (2004) identifies prime agricultural soils, proximity to swamps, and access to

resources found in deciduous forests as the major determinants of Late Woodland period and

Contact-period settlement location. Nucleated villages and dispersed hamlets, recognized

primarily by the presence of houses, various types of features, and dense concentrations of

artifacts, generally cluster on the floodplains of the major rivers. Smaller seasonal camps and

special-purpose sites supporting nearby villages and hamlets occur along smaller streams

within the interior of the Coastal Plain. Limited spatial distributions and sparse scatters of

lithics and ceramics typically characterize camps and special-purpose sites.

Late Woodland period materials have been identified during archaeological surveys

throughout the James River drainage basin (e.g., Gallivan 2003, 2016). In addition, early

seventeenth-century maps depict villages lining the rivers of Coastal Virginia. Components

identified at site 44VB0007, located in the northeast part of the study area, included a Middle

Woodland period shell midden and a Late Woodland period settlement (Hodges 1998).

25

Historic Period

Europeans increasingly affected the North American landscape after 450 B.P. British, French,

and Spanish expeditions visited the Chesapeake Bay and its tributary rivers beginning in the

mid-to-late sixteenth century (Quinn 1977). Captain Vincente Gonzalez and Juan Menendez

Marques likely visited the Chesapeake Bay in 1588. These Spaniards, searching for Sir Walter

Raleigh’s colonists, “sailed along the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay to its head and then

traced the western coast of the Eastern Shore” and most likely encountered the region’s

inhabitants (Lewis and Loomie 1953:186–202). In the late-sixteenth century (circa 1570), a

Spanish Jesuit mission was established, most likely along the York River’s southern bank. It

failed, meeting a violent fate at the hands of local Indians. In 1585–1586, a small party of

English explorers from Roanoke Island in present-day North Carolina arrived in the Hampton

Roads region. The party, which camped near the mouth of the James River, had amiable

relations with local peoples residing along the Lynnhaven River (Quinn 1977; Rountree et al.

2007). Sustained contact between Native Americans and Europeans, however, began with the

construction of the English fort at Jamestown in 1607.

Settlement to Society (1607–1750)

In April of 1607, three small English ships, the Susan Constant, the Godspeed, and the

Discovery, made landfall at Cape Henry in a second attempt to establish an English colony in

Virginia. After exploring the Lynnhaven Inlet and various waterways in the southern

Chesapeake Bay, and engaging in hostile encounters with the inhabitants, the English colonists

proceeded upstream. In May of 1607, the colony of Jamestown was established, and the

newcomers began to explore the circum-Chesapeake Bay region (Mansfield 1989).

Virginia Discovered and Discribed (Smith 1624), by the Jamestown Colonist John Smith,

depicts “kings howse” settlements in present-day Hampton and Norfolk. “Chesapeack,”

represented by a “kings howse,” which appears in the interior of the landform near the study

vicinity, represents an anomaly at the regional level (Figure 2). The settlements depicted on

Smith’s Map hug the shorelines of the region’s rivers, a pattern mirrored by the archaeological

record. The settlement was probably located near or on the Elizabeth River, perhaps moved by

Smith or the cartographer to include the “X” depicting the extent of exploration up the

Elizabeth River. Tindall’s (1608) map locates all Native American settlements in the region in

the expected near-shore settings along the James River and its major tributaries, including

Nattamonge on a branch of the Elizabeth River (Turner and Opperman nd:2–5). Powhatan

reportedly eliminated the Chesapeack in 1607, perhaps preventing Smith from ascertaining the

former location of the settlement (Rountree et al. 2007:144–145).

26

Figure 2: Detail from John Smith’s Virginia Discovered and Discribed (Smith 1624)

Depicting the Settlements near the Mouth of the James River.

In 1609, the Jamestown settlers attempted to expand downstream by ransacking a Nansemond

settlement; the Nansemond quickly retaliated, slaying the remaining colonists “with their

mowthes stopped full of Bread…” (Percy 1922:265, cited in Turner and Opperman nd:2-11–

2-12). That same year Fort Algernon was erected on Point Comfort (Turner and Opperman

nd:6-1l). English settlement in Norfolk and Virginia Beach, however, did not occur until the

1630s (Mansfield 1989).

The lower Tidewater area, including Virginia Beach, was originally part of New Norfolk

County, which was formed in 1636 when an influx of settlers to the banks of the Lynnhaven

and Elizabeth Rivers prompted the division of Elizabeth City County, one of the original

Virginia counties (Parramore et al. 1994). In 1637 Lower Norfolk County was formed from

New Norfolk County; the 1637 county comprised the Tidewater area south of the James River.

Princess Anne County, which was later to become Virginia Beach, was formed in 1691 out of

Lower Norfolk County. Thomas Keeling and Adam Thoroughgood were two of the first

permanent residents of this area, and were responsible for bringing additional English settlers

to reside in the region (Mansfield 1989).

In 1615, John Rolfe had sent a tobacco sample to England. The ensuing tobacco boom soon

fueled immigration and the expansion of colonial settlement. The Norfolk area’s soils,

27

however, were ill-suited for tobacco (Wertenbaker and Schlegel 1962:27; see also Lukezic

1990). Nevertheless, tobacco eventually flowed through the ports of Hampton Roads. Early

on, however, every important planter owned a wharf and ships docked at individual

plantations. Even in the early-eighteenth century, however, the Reverend Hugh Jones

observed: “No country is better watered, for the conveniency of which most houses are built

near some landing place; so tht (sic) anything may be delivered to a gentleman there from

London, Bristol, etc., with [very little] trouble and cost” (Jones 1722, cited in Wertenbaker and

Schlegel 1962:3).

During the early period, turpentine, tar, and pitch extracted from the surrounding pine forests

were brought to the wharves for shipment. Tar-burners sailed flat-bottomed boats or shallops

from the inlets and streams surrounding Norfolk to the wharves (Wertenbaker and Schlegel

1962:28). Thus, many early economic activities were concentrated along waterways

throughout the Tidewater region.

Charles II, nonetheless, persisted in his demand that the assembly create towns. The assembly

responded in 1680 by passing an act requiring the counties to purchase 50 acres (20.2 ha) for

planned towns. Lower Norfolk County selected land at the mouth of the Eastern Branch of the

Elizabeth River. Although the king vetoed the act in 1681, the plans proceeded, lots were

granted. In 1691, when the legislature created Princess Anne County, warehouses and

dwellings stood in Norfolk, and work began on a courthouse (Wertenbaker and Schlegel

1962:4–5).

At the time that Princess Anne County was formed, the county contained 2,000 residents within

326 square miles (844 sq km) (Mansfield 1989). Settlements included large parcels owned by

planters and worked by tenant farmers, overseers, indentured servants, and enslaved Africans

that grew cash crops, as well as smaller farmsteads. On the plantations, the overseers

administered the general workings of the plantations and the activities of the indentured and

enslaved workforce. Enslaved Africans and African-Americans became the most prominent

portion of the labor force near the middle of the eighteenth century, as the developments in the

world economy that disrupted the influx of indentured servitude led planters to shift to enslaved

laborers (Morgan 1975).

Colony to Nation (1750–1789)

As Norfolk grew, Kempsville, Newtown, and other inland ports in Princess Anne County list

trade to the larger port. Farming, primarily on small farms, represented the most common

employment in the county. Princess Anne County remained primarily rural into the twentieth

century. Residents also found work harvesting the resources of the Dismal Swamp and the

region’s rivers and streams (Mansfield 1989).

The population of the region continued to grow, marked by the establishment of the county

seat in Newtown and town of Portsmouth in 1752, as well as the town of Kempsville in 1781.

Kempsville served as the county seat from 1778–1823. Centered in Portsmouth and Norfolk,

shipping became an integral part of the regional economy. The Lower Tidewater region was a

major producer of goods exported through the major ports, and, as such, there was a great

interest in developing navigable canals into and through the Dismal Swamp. It was hoped that

28

these canals would not only facilitate the transportation of goods but also provide access to

forests that could be harvested and then used for agricultural purposes. To this end the

Adventurers for Draining the Dismal Swamp was established in 1763 (Simpson 1990). This

company oversaw the excavation of two canals and many ditches in the swamp, however the

Revolutionary War decimated the enterprise (Simpson 1990).

Amidst colonial unrest the royal governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, fled the capitol at

Williamsburg in 1775 and established the seat of the colony on board a frigate in the Elizabeth

River. In that same year militias from Princess Anne County assembled at Kemp’s Landing to

counter British troops under the direction of Lord Dunmore, in what was to be known as the

Battle of Kemp’s Landing or the Skirmish of Kempsville. Dunmore ambushed the militia

groups to claim victory at Kemp’s Landing (Virginia Beach Historical Society 2001). It was

during this skirmish that John Ackiss of the Princess Anne militia was killed by Lord

Dunmore’s forces, marking the first Virginia casualty of the American Revolution (Virginia

Beach Historical Society 2001). Dunmore and his troops burned Norfolk in 1776, but later that

year fled the colony. Princess Anne County was subjected to sporadic British raids in 1781

(Mansfield 1989).

Early National Period (1789–1830)

Following the Revolutionary War, the newly formed United States Congress authorized the

construction of federal lighthouses. In 1792 a lighthouse at Cape Henry was built, purportedly

in the same location of a cross erected by the colonists after their landing in 1607 (Virginia

Beach Historical Society 2001). After its construction and in particular during the War of 1812,

this lighthouse served as a vital marker at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. During the war

the region was once again subjected to raiding by British troops (Mansfield 1989). More direct

attacks followed the arrival of British forces commanded by Rear Admiral George Cockburn

in the Chesapeake Bay during March of 1813. Cockburn hoped to lure American invaders back

from Canada by threatening the capital and vital seaports at Baltimore and the Hampton Roads-

Norfolk area. The American militia, aided by gunboats in the Elizabeth River, repulsed assaults

on Norfolk, notably the attack on Craney Island on June 22, 1813, though Hampton was

occupied briefly (Echelman et al. 2010).

Following the wars, what was to become the Norfolk Naval Shipyard was established via the

confiscation of the Gosport Shipyard, which was originally established in 1767 by Andrew

Sprowle, a British Loyalist (U.S. Navy Sea Systems Command 2017). This naval yard is

situated near Portsmouth on the Elizabeth River and was an important driver of commerce in

the region.

Ventures in the Dismal Swamp continued as the Adventurers for Draining the Dismal Swamp

was reorganized into the Dismal Swamp Company. The Dismal Swamp Company constructed

a 22.2-mile (35.6-km) canal from Deep Creek, Virginia to Joyce Creek in North Carolina, dug

primarily by slave labor (Simpson 1990). This canal allowed ship traffic into and through the

swamp and also provided timber and resources to the shipyards, in particular the Naval

Shipyard. The canal was also an important organizing factor for road networks in the region.

In 1805, a road that would later become U.S. Route 17 was constructed parallel to the canal.

A stagecoach route along this road further facilitated the movement of goods in the region.

29

By the early nineteenth century, a community of free African-Americans was established at

Seatack, in what is now the Beach District. Seatack is reported to be among the oldest African-

American communities in Virginia, and possibly in the United States (City of Virginia Beach

2016).

In 1823 the Princess Anne County seat was moved for the fifth and final time to the village of

Princess Anne Courthouse. The Princess Anne Courthouse was completed in January 1823, in

anticipation of the county court session (Virginia Beach Historical Society 2001).

Antebellum Period and Civil War (1830–1865)

Life in the Virginia Beach area remained largely unchanged in the years leading up to the Civil

War. Transportation networks grew with the population and settlements began to coalesce and

more closely resemble towns and villages, but overall, the area in and around what is now the

City of Virginia Beach remained largely rural, with a maritime economy continuing to thrive

in coastal and estuarine areas.

Life for Virginia Beach residents began to change at the outbreak of the Civil War. When

Union forces surrendered Fort Sumter to the Confederates on April 14, 1861, the aging General

Winfield Scott commanded the Federal Army. Scott, who had served in the War of 1812 and

the Mexican War, formulated the strategy of blockading the Southern ports and slowly

strangling the Confederacy known as the Anaconda Plan. On April 19, Lincoln ordered a

blockade on all ports from the Rio Grande to southern North Carolina. The blockade was soon

extended to North Carolina and Virginia.

In response, Confederate troops in Virginia lined the shores of the Potomac River with

batteries, seized from existing fortifications throughout the south. Federal troops, however,

remained in control of Fort Monroe, located on Point Comfort, throughout the war.

Confederates constructed fortifications on nearby points to protect Southern warships and

blockade runners. To disrupt the ongoing construction of fortifications at Sewell’s Point in

Norfolk, the USS Monticello opened fire on the unfinished battery during the late afternoon of

May 18, 1861, returning again in the evening. The naval battle proved inconclusive (Salmon

2001:67–68).

Federal sailors abandoned Norfolk on April 20, 1861, burning the buildings, wharves, and

vessels at Gosport Navy Yard, the nation’s major shipyard. The hull and engines of the

Merrimack, which was not completely consumed, were salvaged by the Confederates. Two-

inch-thick (5.1 cm) plates cast at the Tredegar Iron Works clad the refurbished vessel, including

a sharply pointed prow that served as a ram, and a casemate with sloping sides engineered to

deflect shot capped the vessel. Re-named the Virginia when launched on February 17, 1862,

the first ironclad of the war sported ten heavy guns. The U.S. Navy’s ironclad, the Monitor,

had launched on January 30, 1862. On the morning of March 9th the Virginia sailed toward the

Union fleet anchored at Fort Monroe. The Monitor prepared for battle. Shortly after 8 A.M.,

as the Virginia opened fire on the USS Minnesota, the Monitor moved into position near the

Confederate ironclad, rotated its turret, and opened fire. Over the next four hours, the two ships

circled each other, firing at close range and attempting to ram the other vessel, before both

ships retired from the battle (Salmon 2001:72–76).

30

After the Confederate troops abandoned Hampton Roads in 1862, Union forces again seized

control of Norfolk and Princess Anne County. Guerilla activity, however, remained intense.

The guerillas demolished bridges to prevent supplies from reaching federal troops garrisoned

in Norfolk and Princess Anne County. Federal garrisons were posted at various stations

throughout the county, including Pungo Ferry, Kempsville, and Pleasure House Beach (White

1924). The war left Princess Anne County with no civil government, little infrastructure or

money, and farms and land in disrepair (Mansfield 1989).

Reconstruction (1870–1916)

While Virginia bore the brunt of the war, the center of the conflict after 1862 had moved west,

leaving the Tidewater landscape comparatively intact. Nevertheless, roads were damaged,

hindering transportation of Princess Anne County’s crops to the port of Norfolk. Many

freedmen remained agricultural laborers after the war, some migrating to the war-devastated

lands of the piedmont where opportunities for ownership of small farms existed. Skilled

blacksmiths and other craftsmen often migrated to cities where better-paying jobs were

available. Many whites also moved west or sought factory work in cities. Others found work

with the federal government that controlled Princess Anne County through 1870 (Heinemann

et al. 2007:242; Mansfield 1989). Several African-American communities, consisting largely

of former slaves, were also established during this period, including Beechwood, Burton

Station, Doyletown, Gracetown, great Neck, and Lake Smith (Hawkins-Hendrix and Lucas

2017).

Proximity to the port of Norfolk provided ready access to the markets of the cities surrounding

the Chesapeake Bay, as well as farther-flung commerce. Truck farming proved important to

the regions renewal. Local farmers grew roughly half of the potatoes and other vegetables and

fruits consumed in the cities of the East Coast (Heinemann et al. 2007:283). Completion of the

region’s first successful post-bellum railroad line in 1883, coupled with opening of the Virginia

Beach Hotel in 1884 and the establishment of the forerunner of Camp Pendleton, the State

Rifle Range, presaged the shift to an economy based on shipping, tourism, and the military and

associated industries that occurred during the twentieth century (Mansfield 1989).

Expectations for the region rose upon Norfolk’s selection as the site of 1907 Jamestown

Tercentennial Exposition. The exposition, backed by federal, state, and local governments, was

to mark a new era of progress and prosperity for Virginia. The inadequately financed facility,

however, attracted far fewer visitors than hoped (Heinemann et al. 2007:283). Nevertheless,

development continued, spurred by the wars of the twentieth century.

World War I to World War II (1917–1945)

Men connected with the 1907 Jamestown Tercentennial Exposition, as well as many naval

officers, believed the exposition site was ideal for a naval base, though congress rejected the

idea in 1908. When the United States entered the World War I, however, a bill to purchase the

474-acre (191.8-ha) plot passed both houses of Congress; President Woodrow Wilson signed

the bill on June 15, 1917. During World War II the base expanded further through the addition

31

of made-land near Craney Island, and numerous other military bases were constructed in

Hampton Roads (Wertenbaker and Schelegel 1962:344–361).

Construction began on a highway linking Norfolk to Virginia Beach in 1916, but ceased with

the onset of war. The highway, completed in 1921, led to further expansion of the tourist

industry in Virginia Beach during the 1920s. The construction of a new concrete boardwalk in

1926 and the Cavalier Hotel in 1927 attest to Virginia Beach’s increasing popularity as a tourist

and vacation destination (City of Virginia Beach 2016). The depression of the 1930s, however,

slowed construction, leaving Princess Anne County primarily rural throughout the decade

(Mansfield 1989).

Drought during the depression compounded the drop in demand for agricultural products that

followed the war’s end, leading to falling prices and a depressed agricultural economy. New

Deal programs, notably the Civilian Conservation Corps mosquito-eradication program and

the 1936 creation of Seashore State Park provided some work (Mansfield 1989).

Renewed warfare in Europe led to population growth in Norfolk and Portsmouth, particularly

after the U. S. entered the conflict. The military acquired new tracts of land throughout the

region, and numerous bases were constructed. Soldiers and civilian workers came to the region,

many of whom stayed after the end of the war. Greater population density, combined with the

prosperity during 1950s and 1960s and the post-war expansion of the national highway system

spurred considerable growth in Virginia Beach. Virginia Beach became an independent city in

1963, and so annexed the rest of Princess Anne County (Heinemann et al. 1962:344–361;

Mansfield 1989).

The Military in Virginia Beach

Virginia Beach’s proximity to Washington D.C., central location along the east coast of the

United States, and access to natural harbors leading to the Atlantic Ocean and Chesapeake Bay

make it an ideal location for military installations.

The first military installation in the Virginia Beach area actually predates the United States. In

1767, the Gosport Shipyard was established in nearby Portsmouth and served both merchant

and military needs. The Commonwealth of Virginia took over control of the shipyard in 1775,

when its Loyalist owner, Andrew Sprowle, fled the Colonies for England. The shipyard was

burned by the British in 1779, but was soon rebuilt and, in 1794, was leased from Virginia by

the Federal government. By 1799, the shipyard was constructing ships for the U.S. Navy. In

1861, during the Civil War, the shipyard was again burned, but was soon rebuilt and renamed

the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. It continues to operate today and is the largest shipyard on the

east coast (U.S. Navy Sea Systems Command 2017).

Construction of the Virginia State Rifle Range, today known as the Camp Pendleton State

Military reservation, began in 1912. Additional major construction episodes in 1919 and during

World War II led to the development of the base in its current configuration. Today, the facility

is used for training, primarily by the Virginia National Guard (United States Department of the

Interior 2005).

32

In 1913, President William Howard Taft authorized the purchase of land at Cape Henry for the

establishment of the U.S. Army installation to be known as Fort Story. During World War I,

the fort was the most heavily armed position along the Atlantic Coast of North America.

Additional lands were obtained until Fort Story attained its current size around 1940. The base

continues to be used, primarily as a training site (Taylor 2006). Not far offshore of Fort Story,

the U.S. military conducted training exercises off the Virginia capes in 1921, when several

former German ships were bombed by U.S. aircraft (Naval History and Heritage Command

2015).

In 1940, the U.S. Navy began construction on what would become Naval Air Station Oceana,

and by the end of the following year, three runways were in use, with two more under

construction (U.S. Navy 2015). BY 1950, four runways were extended to 8,000 feet (2438.4

m) in length, and the facility became a Master Jet Base. In 1952, it became a Naval Air Station

and was officially dedicated as NAS Oceana in 1957 (Taylor 2006). Today, NAS Oceana is a

very active base, housing training facilities, F/A-18 Hornet squadrons, and a Fleet Support

Logistics Squadron. It is the largest employer in the City of Virginia Beach (U.S. Navy 2015).

In 1941, the Navy established and anti-aircraft gunnery range at Dam Neck. The facility was

greatly expanded in the 1950s, and the Fleet Anti-Air Warfare Training Center was established

there in 1960. It continues to operate primarily as a training center for electronic warfare as the

NAS Oceana Dam Neck Annex (U.S. Navy 2015).

Also in 1941, the Navy acquired land along Little Creek Cove for an Amphibious Training

Base, which was officially commissioned in 1942. A Naval Section Base was also developed

at Little Creek at the same time, and in 1942, A Construction Battalion Training Center was

established there. The following year, the Naval Armed Guard Training Center was established

to train gun crews for merchant vessels. The base was used for the remainder of the twentieth

century and, in 2009, became part of Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, still

heavily focused on amphibious operation training and support (U.S. Navy 2015).

33

BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Background research included a review of historic documents and maps, a search of regional

literature, an evaluation of DHR site file maps and records, and an examination of data drawn

from systematic surveys previously conducted in Virginia Beach. Examination of these data

generated expectations about the probable location of archaeological resources within the

northern portion of Virginia Beach.

A total of 315 previously identified sites are located in the study area. These sites represent

537 temporal components, ranging from the Paleoindian period to the twentieth century, as

summarized in Table 3. Full site data is presented in the Appendix. Thirty-five of the sites

contain both historic and prehistoric components. At least 27 different site types are

represented, although site type data is absent for 87 of the sites (Table 4, p. 34). Seven of the

sites in the study area have been evaluated by the DHR as eligible for the National Register of

Historic Places (NRHP), 34 as potentially eligible, and 90 as not eligible, with the remaining

184 sites not having been evaluated for eligibility. None of the sites in the study area are

currently listed in the NRHP.

Table 3: Summary of Temporal Components Represented in Previously

Recorded Sites in Study Area.

Time Period Number of Components

Prehistoric (unknown period) 30

Paleoindian 5

Archaic (unknown sub-period) 7

Early Archaic 5

Middle Archaic 12

Late Archaic 10

Woodland (unknown sub-period) 32

Early Woodland 11

Middle Woodland 17

Late Woodland 9

Contact period 3

17th century 7

18th century 52

19th century 182

20th century 113

Historic (unknown period) 7

Sites containing both historic and prehistoric components

(any period/sub-period) 35

34

Table 4: Summary of Site Types Represented by Components in Previously

Recorded Sites in Study Area.

Site Type Number of Components

Artifact scatter 8

Base camp 5

Boundary ditch 2

Camp 44

Canal 3

Cemetery 15

Church 2

Courthouse 1

Drainage ditch 1

Dwelling, multiple 1

Dwelling, single 51

Earthworks 1

Farmstead 30

General Store 1

Grave/burial 1

Hamlet 1

Lithic scatter 6

Military base/facility 12

Outbuilding 3

Railroad 2

Shell midden 8

Shipwreck 1

Trash pit 4

Trash scatter 50

Village/town 3

Well 1

Other 15

No data 87

35

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

The goals of the survey were to identify any previously recorded archaeological sites within

the study area, assess their current conditions, and locate areas within in the study area with

the potential to contain unrecorded archaeological sites. The survey methodology employed to

meet these goals was chosen with regard to the study’s scope and local field conditions. Based

on the topographic and environmental setting of the study area, as well as the antiquity of the

surrounding road system and length of historic occupation, it was judged to have high potential

for archaeological sites over 50 years in age, although many potential site locations have been

significantly disturbed by twentieth-century and later development.

Archival Research/Map Review

To complete the historic map review, Dovetail examined records at several repositories in the

Virginia Beach area and on the World Wide Web. Agencies and repositories that were visited

during the work included the Virginiana Room at the Rappahannock Regional Library in

Fredericksburg and the Virginia Beach Public Library. Because a plethora of archival

documents are now available on-line, extensive travel was not required to complete much of

the research. Online resources included the Library of Congress in Washington D.C., the

Library of Virginia in Richmond, the DHR, and several other historical research web pages.

This map review was primarily used in the creation of a predictive model for the locations of

historic period archaeological sites in the study area.

Archaeological Survey

To facilitate organization of the survey and resulting data, the study area was divided into 13

survey areas (Figure 3, p. 36). These survey areas, lettered A–M, were generally bounded by

major roads throughout the study area.

The fieldwork consisted of two Dovetail archaeologists conducting a “windshield survey” to

inspect previously recorded archaeological sites and potential locations of as-yet unrecorded

sites. Only sites visible from the right-of-way (ROW) of surface streets were surveyed.

Excluded from the survey were sites having site forms completed or updated within the last

five years, as indicated by consultation with DHR. Once the fieldwork was accomplished,

Dovetail archaeologists used the data collected during the survey to determine existing

conditions for each surveyed site and to assess the potential for various portions of the study

area to contain intact archaeological deposits related to both previously recorded sites and as-

yet undiscovered sites.

36

Figure 3: Locations of Survey Areas within Overall Study Area (Esri 2018).

37

Predictive Model

The background review for the archaeological predictive model consisted of searching the

Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) site and survey file records, as well as

examining historic maps of the area to assess the potential of the study area to contain

significant cultural resources. This research included an investigation of records on previous

cultural resource investigations and previously recorded archaeological sites within all

subwatersheds in a 10-mile (16-km) radius of the study area within Virginia. This was done to

understand the previously recorded cultural context of the study area, specifically in relation

to environmental variables including soils, distance to water, and more. This research was

completed to aid in the creation of an archaeological predictive model for the study area.

Although the work did not include in-depth historical research on all of the parcels within the

study area, a historic map review provided information on historic land use and area occupation

prior to 1907. Maps from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were consulted. This

information provided data on the potential for unrecorded historic resources in the study area.

Data obtained during the background review, historic map review, available environmental

data, and field survey was then used to craft the predictive model. The archaeological

predictive model maps were developed based on this model to note areas of high, moderate,

and low potential to contain sites. A description of the variables and ensuing results can be

found in the results section below.

38


39

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

Predictive Model

The background review and field results were used to generate a Geographic Information

System (GIS)-based model to predict the probability for intact archaeological deposits within

the study area. Probability ranking for the survey areas was generated utilizing variables

deduced from the existing prehistoric site data within all subwatersheds in a 10-mile (16-km)

radius of the study area within Virginia. This area is defined as the model area for this analysis.

Primarily using data derived by Potter (1993; also see Klein et al. 2012), only two variables

were found to have a high correlation with prehistoric archaeological sites; soil class (Table 5)

and distance to water (Table 6, p. 40). Due to the common factors in human occupational

choices of an area, the factors influencing prehistoric peoples often mimic early historic

settlement patterns. These two variables were ultimately utilized; however, several other

variables were also analyzed for their significance in relation to known prehistoric

archaeological site locations within the proposed model area. These additional variables

reviewed included elevation, aspect, and slope. These additional variables did not appear to

demonstrate a notable impact on site identification within the proposed model area due to a

lack of variability and were not used in the model. The two variables utilized for generating

the probability ranking were overlain on each other utilizing a frequency scale in order to

generate a combined Gain value (Kvamme 1988). These combined gain values were further

used to generate a probability scale of high, moderate, and low for the location of prehistoric

archaeological sites within the proposed model area.

Table 5: Comparison of the Site Area and Model Area by Soil Class.

Soil Class

Model

Area

(Acres)

Site

Area

(Acres)

Study

Area

(Acres)

Percentage

of Study

Area

Gain

Value

1 16,178.3 423.0 6,642.3 7 5.71

2 43,733.8 673.3 11,574.3 12 3.36

3 89,014.2 262.9 43,656.0 47 0.64

4 130,694.5 402.2 13.5 0 0.67

6 4,186.6 51.8 2,250.6 2 2.70

7 45,178.6 14.2 7,481.8 8 0.07

8 39,536.4 59.7 2,946.3 3 0.33

Null 83,950.5 186.3 19,192.4 20 0.48

Total 452,472.9 2,073.4 93,757.2 100 -

Soil class association appeared to have the greatest weight toward identifying prehistoric sites.

Soil classes, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation

Service (NRCS), range from 1 to 8 and generally indicate the degree of fertility and suitability

for planting crops/vegetation growth and/or development. Class 1 indicates the best suitability

and class 8 has the least favorable characteristics. Null class values are generally associated

40

with water or other non-soil areas. Class 1, 2, and 6 soils show the highest gain values

associated with known site locations. Soil classes 1 and 2 are generally associated with well

drained sandy soils well suited for farming and generally account for 14 percent of all soils in

the model area but represent a combined 52 percent of all site area. Class 6 soils appear to only

be found along shorelines and are usually susceptible to erosion and seasonal flooding, but

generally occur in close proximity to Class 1 and 2 soils. This may account for the higher than

normal percentage of sites found in this soil class.

Table 6: Comparison of the Site Area and Model Area by Distance to Water.

Distance to

Water

(Meters)

Model

Area

(Acres)

Site

Area

(Acres)

Study

Area

(Acres)

Percentage

of Study

Area

Gain

Value

0 - 333 138,731.5 828.1 38,988.8 41 1.31

334 - 649 83,652.8 680.1 24,517.6 26 1.78

650 - 1,052 96,512.8 380.7 17,724.1 19 0.86

1,053 - 1,703 67,931.6 82.9 9,554.7 10 0.27

>1,704 66,620.4 101.6 3,682.2 4 0.33

Total 453,449.1 2,073.4 94,467.4 100 -

The distance to water variable appeared to have the second highest weight towards identifying

prehistoric sites. Over the study area, 40 percent of prehistoric site area was identified within

1,092 feet (333 m) of water and a 2,129-foot (649-m) distance captured 73 percent of the site

area. Distances beyond 2,129 feet (649 m) and up to 29,363 feet (8,950 m) captured the

remaining site area. These distances were identified with a subset of high, moderate, and low

ranking within this variable.

The historic probability model was generated based on the locations of historic structures noted

on maps dating prior to 1907 and locations of historic archaeological sites. Historic research

has shown a large majority of historic archaeological sites as well as known historic structures

lie within close proximity of historic roadways (Anderson and Smith 2003; Wehner and

Holmberg 2003). These historic roads were mapped and given a 500-foot (152-m) buffer

classifying these areas as high probability for historic sites. Additionally, all structures noted

on maps dating prior to 1907 were given a 200-foot (61-m) buffer classifying this area as high

probability for historic sites. Because these data are based on known locations of buildings and

building practices, no areas were classified as moderate probability for the Historic model. All

remaining area was classified as low probability for containing historic archaeological sites.

In sum, the prehistoric predictive model variables identified 20,151 acres (8,155 ha) as high

probability, with 25,348 acres (10,258 ha) as moderate, and 48,969 acres (19,817 ha) as low

(Table 7, p. 41). The portions of the study area with the highest probability for prehistoric sites

are located along the uplands surrounding Lynnhaven Bay and Broad Bay, as well as the

Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River (Figure 4, p. 42). These areas contain the highest

concentrations of soil Class 1 and 2 as well as having close proximity to multiple water sources.

Further study shows the four Paleoindian sites in the study area to be located in soil Classes 1,

2, and 3 and within 3,451 feet (1,052 m) of current water sources. Archaic period sites are

41

predominantly found in soil Classes 1, 2, 3, and 4 within 3,451 feet (1,052 m) of current water

sources. Combined Woodland period sites encompass 35 percent of all prehistoric site acreage

in the study area and are found primarily in soil Class 1 and 2 within 2,129 feet (649 m) of

current water sources. The historic predictive model focuses around the oldest roads in the

northern portion of Virginia Beach as well as several farms and plantations located at the backs

of long drives further from main roadways (Figure 5, p. 43).

Table 7: Proportion of Prehistoric High, Moderate, and Low Probability Areas within the

Study Area.

Probability High Moderate Low Total

Acreage 20,151 25,348 48,969 94,468

Percentage 21 27 52 100

Archaeological Survey

The Dovetail survey included a vehicular survey of previously recorded archaeological sites

in the Virginia Beach study area as well as of specific locations where the background review

indicated possible sites or areas having a high probability for containing archaeological sites.

Survey Results

The archaeological survey consisted of a vehicular reconnaissance of previously recorded

archaeological sites in the study area and other areas of interest identified during a background

review. While the survey did not involve 100 percent coverage of the land encompassed by the

study area, it included examination of large enough portions of the area to ascertain the

habitability of landscapes encompassed by the study area and their current conditions, and

therefore the probability that those landscapes could contain intact archaeological deposits.

In order to facilitate discussion, the study area was divided into 13 Survey Areas, lettered A–

M (see Figure 3, p. 36). The breaks between these sections are located along landmarks such

as major roads where possible.

At the request of United States Armed Forces personnel, mapping is not shown for sites located

on military bases. However, those sites are included in the total site counts presented in the

discussion.

Area A

Area A is located in the northwestern portion of the study area (see Figure 3, p. 36). It is

bounded to the north by the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, to the west by the Virginia Beach

city limits, to the south by I-264, and to the east by Independence Boulevard and U.S. 13.

(Figure 6, p. 44) Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek is located in the northwestern portion

of Area A.

42

Figure 4: Results of Predictive Modeling for Prehistoric Site Location (Esri 2018).

43

Figure 5: Results of Predictive Modeling for Historic Site Location (Esri 2018).

44

Figure 6: Area A, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018).

Archaeological site locations have been redacted.

45

In addition to the military base in the northern part of Area A, the northeastern part of the area

is largely commercial and industrial, and the southern portion contains a great deal of

commercial development along Route 58. The remainder of the area is primarily residential,

with most of the houses dating to the late-twentieth century (Photo 1). Newer housing

developments are also present and continue to be built on undeveloped tracts.

Photo 1: Site 44VB0358 in Area A, Facing Northeast and Showing Typical

Neighborhood in Area A.

Eight archaeological sites are mapped within Area A and a portion of the Kempsville Canal

(44VB0060) also passes through the area. Prior to development, much of the area had a high

potential for containing both historic and prehistoric sites. Although undisturbed portions of

large sites may exist among the development- for example, in the yards of homes- much of the

archaeological record of Area A is likely destroyed. However, site 44VB0002 appears to be

intact, as does site 44VB0067, although pin flags at the latter site at the time of the survey

suggest imminent construction.

Area B

Area B is located in the northern portion of the study area (see Figure 3, p. 36). It is bounded

to the north by the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, to the west by Independence Boulevard and

U.S. 13, to the south by I-264, and to the east by Little Neck Road, the northern part of West

Little Neck Road, and a line drawn from the northern terminus of West Little Neck Road to

the center of Lynnhaven Inlet (Figure 7, p. 46). The Western Branch of the Lynnhaven River

occupies much of Area B.

Photo Redacted

46

Figure 7: Area B, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018).


47

With the exception of the commercial development along Route 58 in the southern portion of

the area, Area B is almost entirely residential. As is the case with Area A, newer housing

developments continue to be built on undeveloped tracts. However, unlike Area A, where most

of the housing developments are fairly dense, relatively large yards are present in many

neighborhoods. As a result, minimal grading may have taken place during construction of these

homes except for in the immediate area of the buildings’ footprints, leaving some portions of

large archaeological sites potentially undisturbed.

Thirty-two archaeological sites are mapped within Area B, and a portion of the Kempsville

Canal (44VB0060) also passes through the area. Due in large part to the access to waterways

such as the Western Branch of the Lynnhaven River and its tributaries, and the resources

available in and near them, most of Area B had a high potential for containing both historic

and prehistoric sites prior to development. Although undisturbed portions of large sites may

exist in the yards of homes, much of the archaeological record of Area B is likely destroyed.

However, testing at the Chesopean Site (44VB0048) in 2005 (Luccketti et al. 2006) showed

that large portions of the site are intact and that subsurface disturbance related to residential

construction was limited primarily to house footprints (Photo 2). The naturally level

topography of Virginia Beach lends itself to construction with minimal grading necessary

outside of building footprints, utility installation trenches, and drainage features. Significant

portions of sites like 44VB0048 which are located in the yards of houses are likely preserved

in many of the older neighborhoods in which houses tended to be built one at a time rather than

as large development projects involving wholesale grading of areas.

Photo 2: Site 44VB0048 (Chesopean Site) in Area B, Facing Southwest and Showing Large

Yard Typical of the Neighborhood. Much of Site Survives in Rear Yards of This and

Neighboring Houses.

Photo Redacted

48

Area C

Area C is located in the northern portion of the study area (see Figure 3, p. 36). It is bounded

to the north by the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, to the west by the eastern boundary of Area

B, to the south by I-264, and to the east by Great Neck Road. The Eastern Branch of the

Lynnhaven River occupies much of Area C (Figure 8, p. 49).

Area C is largely residential and is mostly similar in character to Areas A and B (Photo 3, p.

50), but with several resorts and hotels located in the far northern portion of the area along the

Chesapeake shore. Commercial development is present in association with this tourist-focused

area, as well as in the southern portion of the area along Route 58. Many of the homes in Area

C feature large yards where minimal grading likely took place during construction. As a result,

intact archaeological deposits are likely present even in the residential neighborhoods.

A total of 22 archaeological sites are recorded within Area C, with one additional site

(44VB0009) spanning across both Areas C and D. The Eastern Branch of the Lynnhaven River,

which flows through Area C, and resources associated with it, result in most of Area C having

had a high potential for containing both historic and prehistoric sites prior to development. As

is the case in Area B, much of the archaeological record in Area C has likely been destroyed

by development. However, as in Area B, many of the homes located in Area C have large yards

which have likely not been subjected to extensive grading. Thus, portions of many sites may

be preserved.

This field is modeled as having a

high probability for containing archaeological sites and, being undeveloped, has presumably

been minimally disturbed except for plowing.

Area D

Area D is located in the northeastern portion of the study area (see Figure 3, p. 36). It is

bounded to the north by the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, to the west by Great Neck Road, to

the south by I-264, and to the east by the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 9, p. 51). Little Neck Creek

joins Linkhorn Bay in the southern portion of Area D, and these waters flow through The

Narrows to form Broad Bay in the northern part of the area. Fort Story is also located in the

northern part of Area D.

The western portion of Area D is largely residential and is similar in character to Areas A and

B (Photo 5, p. 52). The northeastern most portion of the area is occupied by Fort Story, with

Seashore State Park, a natural area with extensive wetlands, lying just to the south of it (Photo

6, p. 52). South and west of that lies Broad Bay and the streams feeding it. The eastern portion

of Area D is primarily residential in the northern part of the area along the Atlantic coast, but

transitions around 42nd Street to being dominated by hotels, resorts, and associated commercial

development.

49

Figure 8: Area C, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites and Area Which May

Contain Undiscovered Sites (Esri 2018). Archaeological site locations have been redacted.

50

Photo 3: Site 44VB0241, Showing Typical Neighborhood in Area C.

Photo 4: Field Southwest of Intersection of North Great Neck Road and Adam Keeling Road

in Area C Which May Contain Undiscovered Archaeological Sites, Facing South from Adam

Keeling Road.

Photo Redacted

Photo Redacted

51

Figure 9: Area D, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018).


52

Photo 5: Site 44VB0055, Facing Northeast and Showing Typical Neighborhood in Area D.

Photo 6: Facing North across Edge of Broad Bay in Area D toward Locations of Sites

44VB0359, 44VB0347, and 44VB0011.

Photo Redacted

Photo Redacted

53

Forty-six archaeological sites are located in Area D, as well as the site that spans across both

Areas C and D (44VB0009). The presence of large waterways such as Broad Bay and its

tributaries made Area D a resource-rich environment with a high probability for containing

sites, particularly those dating to the prehistoric period. The extensive wetlands in Seashore

State Park, while not necessarily suitable for habitation, would also have provided a trove of

resources for the area’s early inhabitants. The central and southern portions of Area D, though

primarily residential, contain houses with relatively large yards where some archaeological

deposits may remain intact. A golf course in this area may also contain intact deposits where

grading capped original surfaces rather than removing material. The southeastern portion of

Area D, where tourist-industry development thrives, has likely had most of its archaeological

sites destroyed. This is also likely true of the southern portion of the area along I-264 and Route

58 (Laskin Road), and the western portion of the area along First Colonial Road and Great

Neck Road.

Area E

Area E is located in the southwestern portion of the study area (see Figure 3, p. 36). It is

bounded to the north by I-264, to the west by the Virginia Beach city limits, and to the east by

Kempsville Road (Figure 10, p. 54). The Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River flows through

the northern portion of Area E.

With the exception of commercial and industrial areas along U.S. 13, Indian River Road, and

Kempsville Road, Area E is primarily residential (Photo 7, p. 55). Residential neighborhoods

in the area are fairly dense and most houses have relatively small yards. Much of the original

landscape of Area D has likely been disturbed by construction, mainly in the latter part of the

twentieth century.

Twelve archaeological sites are recorded in Area E, and one additional site– 44VB0305, the

Deep Branch Ditch (Photo 8, p. 55)– crosses into Area F as well. Area E also contains a portion

of site 44VB0060, the Kempsville Canal. The northern part of Area E, along the Elizabeth

River and its tributaries, has a high potential for prehistoric and historic sites, while other

portions of the area have only a moderate to low potential for containing prehistoric sites,

mainly due to distance from water sources. Because of the relatively dense nature of both

residential and commercial development, much of the archaeological record of Area E has

likely been disturbed or destroyed.

Site 44VB0283, located in the northern part of the area along the Elizabeth River, was

inspected via pedestrian reconnaissance following coordination with Virginia Beach Historic

Preservation Planner, Mark Reed, who arranged access. The site was reported to contain the

remains of a brick clamp or, perhaps more likely, a series of brick clamps. The pedestrian

survey identified numerous brick fragments on the surface and eroding out into the banks of

the river (Photo 9, p. 56). Several of the fragments appeared to be over-fired or under-fired,

suggesting a brick manufacture location. As the site appears relatively undisturbed, subsurface

deposits, including archaeological features, are likely to be present.

54

Figure 10: Area E, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018).


55

Photo 7: Site 44VB0044, Facing Southwest and Showing Typical Neighborhood in Area E.

Photo 8: Site 44VB0305 (Deep Branch Ditch) in Area E, Facing Southeast.

Photo Redacted

Photo Redacted

56

Photo 9: Brick Clamp Area within Site 44VB0283 in Area E, Facing North.

Area F

Area F lies to the east of Area E (see Figure 3, p. 36) and is bounded to the north by I-264, to

the west by Kempsville Road, to the south by Indian River Road and Lynnhaven Parkway, and

to the east by South Rosemont Road (Figure 11, p. 57).

Area F is heavily developed, having virtually no green space except for that found in a golf

course in the northwestern portion of the area. Most of Area F is dense residential

neighborhoods (Photo 10, p. 58), with some areas of commercial and industrial development.

Only four sites are recorded in Area F, as well as one site that passes through both Areas E and

F (44VB0305, the Deep Branch Ditch). Area F also contains a portion of site 44VB0060, the

Kempsville Canal. A cemetery in the area (44VB0036) seems to be intact, and Deep Branch

ditch is largely intact. The other sites in Area F have been partially or totally destroyed,

although portions of 44VB0046 may remain intact in areas of the golf course where landscape

modifications have resulted in deposits being capped rather than removed. Undiscovered sites

in Area F are likely mostly destroyed or heavily disturbed by development, although most of

the area is modeled as having only a low to moderate probability of containing archaeological

sites.

Any sites in that area have likely been at least somewhat disturbed by residential development,

although many of the homes in the high-probability zone feature large yards that may contain

undisturbed deposits.

Photo Redacted

57

Figure 11: Area F, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites and Location of

Bellamy Manor House Site (Esri 2018). Archaeological site locations have been redacted.

58

Photo 10: Site 44VB0046 in Area F, Facing South.

Area G

Area G lies to the east of Area F (see Figure 3, p. 36) and is bounded to the north by I-264, to

the west by South Rosemont Road, to the south by Dam Neck Road, and to the east by London

Bridge Road (Figure 12, p. 60). The majority of Area G is drained by London Bridge Creek, a

tributary to the Eastern Branch of the Lynnhaven River, although West Neck Creek drains the

southern portion of the area.

The western portion of Area G is primarily residential and, like Area F, most neighborhoods

are rather dense, with small yards. The eastern part of Area G is mostly commercial and

industrial, with a mall and other retail shopping centers and business parks located along

Lynnhaven Parkway, and a large industrial area located north of International Parkway and

west of London Bridge Road. Some forested areas remain along London Bridge Road and Dam

Neck Road in the southern and eastern portions of Area G.

Photo Redacted

59

Photo 11: Bellamy Manor House Site in Area F, Facing Northeast.

Only three archaeological sites are recorded in Area G. Of these, two (44VB0350 and

44VB0352) appear to have been destroyed by road construction (Photo 12, p. 61). The third, a

boundary ditch (44VB0238) appears to be intact. Most of the area is considered to have only a

low to moderate probability for containing archaeological sites.

Unrecorded

sites which may have once existed in Area G are likely mostly or totally destroyed by

development, particularly in the eastern portion of the area. However, some intact sites may

exist in the wooded areas along London Bridge Road and Dam Neck Road, although these are

modeled as low-probability areas.

Area H

Area H lies to the east of Area G (see Figure 3, p. 36) and is bounded to the north by I-264, to

the west by London Bridge Road, to the south by Dam Neck Road, and to the east by Oceana

Boulevard (Figure 13, p. 62). Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana occupies most of Area H.

Much of NAS Oceana is taken up by the air station’s four runways and the open fields lying at

each end of the runways. Most of the buildings at the facility are clustered near the center of

the base. The remainder of the air station is taken up mostly by open fields (Photo 13, p. 63),

forested areas (Photo 14, p. 63), and a golf course. Residential neighborhoods and an industrial

area lie north of NAS Oceana in Area H, and another industrial area lies outside of the air

station property in the southwest portion of Area H.

Photo Redacted

60

Figure 12: Area G, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018).


61

Photo 12: Site 44VB0352 in Area G, Facing South.

Sixty-three recorded sites are located in Area H and one additional site straddles the border

between Areas H and I. Many of the sites within the military base could not be evaluated

directly during the survey because of access issues; however, the general locations of many of

these sites could be observed from the roads around the base perimeter. The majority of Area

H has a low to moderate probability for containing archaeological sites, although a strip of

high-probability area is located along Oceana Boulevard on the eastern edge of the area. Many

of the previously recorded sites in Area H are likely mostly intact due to their location in

wooded areas or open fields that have been subjected to minimal disturbance. Due to the

naturally level nature of the landscape in Virginia Beach, unrecorded sites which may be

located beneath the airstrips at NAS Oceana may contain intact deposits due to minimal

grading being necessary during construction.

Area I

Area I is located in the eastern portion of the study area (see Figure 3, p. 36). It is bounded to

the north by I-264, to the west by Oceana Boulevard, to the south by Dam Neck Road, and to

the east by the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 14, p. 64). The NAS Oceana Dam Neck Annex and

Camp Pendleton State Military Reservation are located in Area I.

Photo Redacted

62

Figure 13: Area H, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018).


63

Photo 13: Typical Field in Area H, Facing Southwest.

Photo 14: Typical Forested Portion of Area H, Facing South.

64

Figure 14: Area I, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018).


65

Current land use varies within Area I. The northern portion of the area is mostly residential,

with many of the homes in the northwest part of the area having relatively large yards.

Residential housing becomes denser moving to the east, with commercial areas located along

I-264. The western portion of the area contains wooded tracts and a few agricultural fields

(Photo 15). The eastern part of the area, along the Atlantic Ocean, is characterized by hotels,

resorts, restaurants, and other commercial and tourism-centered development north of Rudee

Inlet, and residential neighborhoods south of Rudee Inlet. The NAS Oceana Dam Neck Annex

and Camp Pendleton State Military Reservation are located in the central and southern portions

of Area I. High-density residential neighborhoods, some of them military base housing, are

scattered through the central and southern portions of Area I, but much of the area is

undeveloped and wooded with the exception of a golf course north of Redwing Lake.

Photo 15: Site 44VB0227, Facing Northeast and Showing Typical Field and Forest in

Western Portion of Area I.

A total of 32 previously recorded sites are located entirely within Area I, as well as one site

(44VB0180) which lies partially in Area H. Many of the sites in Area I could not be surveyed

directly due to access issues related to the military bases. Much of Area I is modeled as having

only a low to moderate probability for containing archaeological sites; however, the network

of streams feeding Lake Rudee and other bodies of water near the coast creates significant

high-probability areas as well. Many of the sites which could be directly surveyed or indirectly

assessed through aerial imagery are likely to be largely intact due to locations in fields, forested

areas, or undeveloped portions of the military base. Although previously unrecorded sites in

the northern and eastern portions of Area I are probably heavily disturbed or destroyed, there

is potential for intact deposits throughout much of the central and southern parts of Area I.

Area J

Area J is located in the southwestern portion of the study area (see Figure 3, p. 36). It is

bounded to the north by Indian River Road and Lynnhaven Parkway, to the west by Kempsville

Road, to the south by the Virginia Beach city limits, and to the east by Elbow Road and Salem

Road (Figure 15, p. 66).

Photo Redacted

66

Figure 15: Area J, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018).


67

The western and eastern portions of Area J are characterized by fairly dense residential

neighborhoods, with four large school campuses and a golf course being present in the eastern

portion. Most houses in the area feature relatively small yards where any subsurface deposits

have likely been heavily impacted by construction. Stumpy Lake is located in the central part

of the area, and is bordered to the north and west by Stumpy Lake Park and Golf Course. The

park is primarily wooded and reflects a largely natural landscape.

Only one archaeological site is recorded in Area J. Site 44VB0288 is an archaic camp likely

completely destroyed by high-density residential development (Photo 16). The lack of other

recorded sites in the area is probably largely a function of lack of survey in this part of the City.

Area J is modeled as being mostly low to moderate probability for containing archaeological

sites, although small pockets of high-probability area exist, primarily along the margins of

Stumpy Lake and along Kempsville Road. As-yet undiscovered sites are likely to be located

in Stumpy Lake Park, where they may be mostly intact. Portions of the two golf courses in

Area J that have been relatively unmodified or filled rather than cut may also contain intact

deposits.

Photo 16: Site 44VB0288 in Area J, Facing South.

Area K

Area K is located in the southern portion of the study area (Figure 3, p. 36). It is bounded to

the north by Lynnhaven Parkway, South Rosemont Road, and Dam neck Road, to the west by

Elbow Road and Salem Road, to the south by the Virginia Beach city limits and North Landing

Road, and to the east by Holland Road (Figure 16, p. 68). The North Landing River flows

through Area K. A diverse range of land use is found within Area K. Much of the northern

portion of the area is characterized by dense residential neighborhoods (Photo 17, p. 69).

Commercial areas, a hospital complex, and the campus of Tidewater Community College are

also located in the northern part of the area. An amphitheater, athletic complex, and golf course

are located near the central portion of the area, while the southern part of the area remains

semi-rural in character with large wooded areas as well as agricultural fields (Photo 18, p. 69).

Photo Redacted

68

Figure 16: Area K, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018).


69

A total of 54 previously recorded archaeological sites are located in Area K. Most of Area K

is considered to have only a low to moderate probability for containing archaeological sites,

largely as a result of distance from streams and poorly-drained soils. Most of the sites that are

recorded in the area date to the historic period, when these obstacles to settlement could be

overcome. Unrecorded sites may exist in a relatively undisturbed state in the undeveloped

southern portion of the area, but sites dating to the historic period are more likely to occur in

this area than prehistoric sites.

Photo 17: Site 44VB0172, Facing South and Showing Typical Neighborhood in Area K.

Photo 18: Site 44VB0290, Facing Northwest and Showing Typical Wooded Area in Area K.

Photo Redacted

Photo Redacted

70

Area L

Area L is located in the southern portion of the study area (see Figure 3, p. 36). It is bounded

to the north by Dam Neck Road, to the west by Holland Road, to the south by Princess Anne

Road, and to the east by General Booth Boulevard (Figure 17, p. 71). West Neck Creek flows

through Area L.

The central portion of Area L and its western edge are mostly characterized by planned

neighborhoods with relatively dense housing and small yards. The eastern portion of the area

contains residential neighborhoods and commercial areas (Photo 19 and Photo 20, p. 72).

Agricultural fields are present in the northeast portion of the area. Much of the western part of

Area L comprises wetlands and poorly-drained areas along the margins of West Neck Creek

and one of its tributaries.

Only six archaeological sites are located in Area L, likely a result of lack of survey in this part

of the City. However, the low site density is not unexpected, as the area’s poor drainage results

in most of it being modeled as having a low probability for containing archaeological sites.

Area M

Area M is located in the southeastern portion of the study area (see Figure 3, p. 36). It is

bounded to the north by Dam Neck Road, to the west by General Booth Boulevard, to the south

by a line extending due east from near the intersection of General Booth Boulevard and

Princess Anne Road, and to the east by the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 18, p. 73).

The western portion of Area M is characterized by fairly dense residential neighborhoods with

small yards (Photo 21, p. 74). The south-central portion of the area contains a school campus,

industrial complex, and agricultural fields (Photo 22, p. 74; Photo 23, p. 75). The eastern part

of the area contains a portion of the NAS Oceana Dam Neck Annex, the northern part of Lake

Tecumseh, a wooded area characterized by poorly drained, swampy and wetland conditions,

and an undeveloped area of Atlantic shoreline.

Twenty-eight previously recorded archaeological sites are located in Area M. Most of Area K

is considered to have only a low probability for containing archaeological sites, largely as a

result of distance from streams and poorly-drained soils. All but three of the sites that are

recorded in the area date to the historic period, when these obstacles to settlement could be

overcome, and even those three sites contain only minor prehistoric components on other wise

historic-period sites. Unrecorded sites may exist in a relatively undisturbed state in the central

portion of the area where agricultural fields and wooded areas exist, but sites dating to the

historic period are more likely to occur in this area than prehistoric sites.

71

Figure 17: Area L, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018).


72

Photo 19: Site 44VB0121, Showing Typical Neighborhood in Area L.

Photo 20: Site 44VB0291, Showing Commercial Area in Area L.

Photo Redacted

Photo Redacted

73

Figure 18: Area M, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018).


74

Photo 21: Site 44VB0118, Facing Northwest and Showing Typical Neighborhood in Area M.

Photo 22: Industrial Complex in Central Portion of Area M, Facing South. This is the

location of sites 44VB0017 through 44VB0022 and 44VB330.

Photo Redacted

Photo Redacted

75

Photo 23: Agricultural Field in South-Central Portion of Area M, Facing East. This is the

location of sites 44VB0323, 44VB0328, and 44VB0329.

Photo Redacted

76


77

SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT

The review of previously identified resources, previously surveyed areas, and known site

locations of precontact and historic site location indicates that preserved archaeological

resources, or portions of them, potentially exist throughout the Virginia Beach study area. The

development of a predictive model for site locations further showcases the potential for as-yet

undiscovered sites to exist within the study area. However, due to the long historic occupation

of the northern part of Virginia Beach and the City’s large residential population, all or part of

many archaeological sites have been destroyed by residential, commercial, industrial, and

transportation-related development, among other sources of disturbance.

Of the 315 previously recorded sites considered during the study, only 57 (18 percent) were

assessed as having high potential to contain intact cultural deposits (see Appendix for site data).

A total of 146 sites (46 percent) were partially or totally destroyed. An additional 112 sites (36

percent) were not evaluated due to access issues (93 sites) or because their site data was

recorded or updated within the past five years, making assessment of current conditions

unnecessary (19 sites).

The potential for intact archaeological deposits to be preserved in various areas of the study

area is highly dependent on location within the City. Not only are different areas of the City

developed, and therefore disturbed, in different ways and to different extents, but the amount

of disturbance to the archaeological record of an area is also a function of how and when it was

developed. Older neighborhoods tend to have houses with larger yards, where portions of

archaeological sites may be preserved outside of construction footprints. This is especially true

given the house-by-house nature of construction for much of the twentieth century and the

relatively flat natural topography of the area, making extensive grading unnecessary prior to

construction. Newer neighborhoods, on the other hand, often have smaller yard areas and are

more likely to be constructed as part of development projects in which large areas are graded

wholesale prior to the near-simultaneous construction of multiple homes. Nonetheless, with

regard to developed areas of the City, residential neighborhoods have the greatest potential for

preserved portions of sites in comparison to areas impacted by roads or industrial or

commercial development. Golf courses may also preserve portions of sites in areas where

landscape modification was restricted to filling rather than cutting, but the extent to which this

is true requires subsurface testing. Parks and military bases located in the City may also contain

undisturbed resources or portions of resources due to minimal development and landscape

modification.

The percentage of sites with intact deposits versus those which are partially or totally destroyed

varies by survey area for reasons outlined above (Table 8, p. 78). The northern, western, and

central portions of the study area (Survey Areas A–G) are the most developed and therefore

contain the fewest sites with intact deposits and, accordingly, the largest percentages of sites

which have been partially or totally destroyed. The highest percentages of sites with intact

deposits are found in the southern and eastern portions of the study area, specifically, Areas H

and M. This is a function of these areas being relatively undeveloped, except by military bases

such as NAS Oceana, which contains a great deal of undeveloped or minimally developed land.

78

The predictive model developed during the present study also greatly informs potential for as-

yet undiscovered sites to be present in various parts of the City. The northern part of the study

area, along the margins of the Lynnhaven River, Lynnhaven Bay, and Broad Bay, has the

greatest potential for prehistoric settlement, along with the western part of the study area along

the Elizabeth River. Unfortunately, these areas are also among the most desirable for modern

habitation and development, and are among the most heavily-impacted areas in the City of

Virginia Beach. The southern part of the study area has significantly less potential for

prehistoric settlement due to distance from major streams and often poorly-drained or

wetland/marsh conditions. However, the possibility for historic period sites, particularly those

dating to the nineteenth century and later, is still moderate to high in parts of these areas due

to the technological ability to overcome such obstacles to settlement.

Table 8: Site Condition Assessments by Survey Area.

Survey Area

Total

Number of

Sites

Sites with

Intact

Deposits

Sites

Partially

or Totally

Destroyed

Sites with

Conditions

Unknown

A 9 2 (22%) 6 (67%) 1 (11%)

B 33 0 15 (45%) 18 (55%)

C 23 1 (4%) 19 (83%) 3 (13%)

D 47 1 (2%) 25 (53%) 21 (45%)

E 14 0 12 (86%) 2 (14%)

F 6 1 (17%) 5 (83%) 0

G 3 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 0

H 64 29 (45%) 19 (30%) 16 (25%)

I 33 2 (6%) 7 (21%) 24 (73%)

J 1 0 1 (100%) 0

K 54 13 (24%) 19 (35%) 22 (41%)

L 6 0 6 (100%) 0

M 28 7 (25%) 16 (57%) 5 (18%)

Total 315 57 (18%) 146 (46%) 112 (36%)

79

REFERENCES

Amick, Daniel S., and Phillip J. Carr

1996 Changing Strategies of Lithic Technological Organization. In Archaeology of the

Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by K. E. Sassaman and D. G. Anderson, pp. 41–

56. The University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Anderson, David G.

1990 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View from the

Southeastern United States. In Early Paleoindian Economics of Eastern North

America, edited by K. B. Tankersley and B. L. Isaac, pp. 163–216. Research in

Economic Anthropology, supplement 5. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.

Anderson, David G., and Glen T. Hanson

1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the

Savannah River Valley. American Antiquity 53:262–286.

Anderson, David G. and Steven D. Smith

2003 Archaeology, History, and Predictive Modeling Research at Fort Polk, 1972–2002.

The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Baicy, Daniel, Loretta Lautzenheiser, and Michael Scholl

2005 Archaeological Survey: Proposed Southeastern Parkway and Greenbelt: Cities of

Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc.,

Tarboro, North Carolina.

Bailey, Tom and Susan Bamann

2005 Archaeological Identification Survey: City Line Interchange: Virginia Beach,

Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., Tarboro, North Carolina.

Bamman, Susan and Bill Hall

2006 Archaeological Identification Survey, Proposed Improvements to Shore Drive,

Virginia Beach, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc. Tarboro, North

Carolina.

Barber, Michael B.

2003 A Review of Early Archaic Research in Virginia: A Re-Synthesis a Decade Later.

Quarterly Bulletin, Archaeological Society of Virginia 58 (3)):121–134.

Barber, Michael B., and George A. Tolley

1984 The Savannah River Broadspear: A View from the Blue Ridge. In Upland

Archaeology in the East: Symposium 2, edited by C. R. Geier, M. B. Barber, and

G. A. Tolley, pp. 25–43. USDA, Forest Service, Southern Region.

80

Barile, Kerri, Earl Proper, Danae Peckler, Mike Klein, and Emily Calhoun

2012 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Centerville Turnpike Improvement Area,

Virginia Beach, Virginia. Dovetail Cultural Resource Group. Fredericksburg,

Virginia.

Birkett, Courtney

2009a Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Stone Breakwater/Revetment, Fort Story,

Virginia. Fort Eustis Cultural Resources. Newport News, Virginia.

2009b Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Child Development Center, Fort Story,

Virginia. Fort Eustis Cultural Resources. Newport News, Virginia.

Blanton, Dennis B.

1992 Middle Woodland Settlement Systems in Virginia. In Middle and Late Woodland

Research in Virginia: A Synopsis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges,

pp. 65–96. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of

Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

1996 Accounting for Submerged Mid-Holocene Archaeological Sites in the Southeast:

A Case from the Chesapeake Bay Estuary, Virginia, pp. 200-221. In Archaeology

of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by K. E. Sassaman and D. G. Anderson, pp.

200–217. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2003 Late Archaic in Virginia: An Updated Overview. Quarterly Bulletin,

Archaeological Society of Virginia 58(4):177–206.

Boehm, Christopher

1997 Impact of Human Egalitarian Syndrome on Darwinian Selection Mechanics. The

American Naturalist 150 (Supplement):S100–S121.

Bott, Keith

1980a Review and Compliance Phase I Reconnaissance Summary: Barberton Drive

Apartment Complex. Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Williamsburg,

Virginia.

1980b Review and Compliance Phase I Reconnaissance Summary: North Landing River

Bridge Replacement. Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Williamsburg,

Virginia.

Bourdeau, J.

1981 Replicating Quartz Squibnocket Small Stemmed and Triangular Projectile Points.

Quartz Technology in Prehistoric New England, edited by R. Barber. Institute for

Conservation Archaeology, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,

Massachusetts.

81

Bowden, Bradley, Ashley Neville and Jerrell Blake

1998 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Norfolk/Virginia Beach Light

Rail, Cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Gray and Pape, Inc.

Richmond, Virginia.

Boyd, C. Clifford

1989 Paleoindian Paleoecology and Subsistence in Virginia. In Paleoindian Research In

Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. M. Wittkofski and T. R. Reinhart, Special

Publication 19 of the Archeological Society of Virginia, pp. 139–156. The Dietz

Press, Richmond, Virginia.

2003 Paleoindian Research in Virginia and Beyond. Quarterly Bulletin, Archaeological

Society of Virginia 58 (2):58–93.

Boyko, Wayne C.J. and Beverly Boyko

2008 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the State Military Reservation, 83.81 ha (207

Acres) at Camp Pendleton, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg,

Virginia.

Brady, Ellen M. and Loretta Lautzenheiser

2000 Archaeological Identification Survey, Princess Anne Road and Ferrell Parkway, City

of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc. Tarboro, North

Carolina.

Brady, Ellen M., Joanna Carter Jones, and Loretta Lautzenheiser

1998 Cultural Resources Survey, Proposed Improvements, Sandbridge Road, City of

Virginia Beach, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc. Tarboro, North

Carolina.

Brown, James A.

1986 Early Ceramics and Culture: A Review of Interpretations. In Early Woodland

Archaeology, edited by K. B. Farnsworth and T. E. Emerson, pp. 598–608. Center

for American Archaeology, Kampsville Seminars in Archaeology No. 2,

Kampsville, Illinois.

1989 The Origins of Pottery as an Economic Process. In What’s New: A Closer Look at

the Process of Innovation, edited by S. E. van der Leeuw and R. Torrence, pp. 203–

224. Unwin-Hyman, London, United Kingdom.

Brush, Grace

1986 Geology and Paleoecology of Chesapeake Estuaries. Journal of the Washington

Academy of Sciences 76(3):146–160.

Busby, Virginia, and Leslie Bashman

1993a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey: Route 190: Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia

Beach, Virginia. The Cultural Resource Group, Louis Berger and Associates, Inc,

Richmond, Virginia.

82

1993b Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, Birdneck Road, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia.

The Cultural Resource Group, Louis Berger and Associates, Inc, Richmond,

Virginia.

Bussey, Stanley B. and Jerome D. Traver

1992 Phase I Archaeological Survey of a Proposed U. S. Navy Construction Project at

Owl Creek in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Benham Group. Alexandria, Virginia.

Callahan, Errett

1985 The St. Mary’s Longhouse Experiment: The First Season. Quarterly Bulletin of the

Archaeological Society of Virginia 40:12–40.

Carr, Christopher, and Robert F. Maslowski

1995 Cordage and Fabrics: Relating Form, Technology, and Social Processes. In Style,

Society, and Person: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edited by C.

Carr and J. E. Neitzel, pp. 297–344. Plenum Press, New York.

Carr, Kurt

2018 Peopling of the Middle Atlantic: A Review of Paleoindian Research. In Middle

Atlantic Prehistory: Foundations and Practice, edited by Heather A. Wholey, and

Carole L. Nash, pp. 219–260. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.

Chapman, Jefferson, and Andria Brewer Shea

1981 The Archaeobotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to Contact in the Lower Little

Tennessee River Valley. Tennessee Anthropologist VI(1):61–84.

City of Virginia Beach

2016 It’s Our Future: A Choice City. City of Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan:

Technical Document. Adopted May 17, 2016.

Clark, Robert and Bradley Bowden

2000 Archaeological Survey along a Portion of Holland Road (Route 410). Gray and

Pape, Inc. Richmond, Virginia.

Clement, Christopher

2011 Phase I Archaeological Investigation of Approximately 170 Acres at Naval Air

Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Southeastern Archaeological Research.

Jacksonville, Florida.

2012 Phase I Archaeological Investigation of Approximately 174 Acres at Naval Air

Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Southeastern Archaeological Research.

Jacksonville, Florida.

Coe, Joffre S.

1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American

Philosophical Society, 54, No. 5 Philadelphia.

83

Cottrell, Marie G.

1993 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Proposed Aircraft Fuel Storage Site (P-

412), Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Atlantic Division, Naval

Facilities Command. Norfolk, Virginia.

Curry, Dennis

1999 Feast of the Dead: Aboriginal Ossuaries in Maryland. Maryland Historical Trust

Press, Cockysville, Maryland.

2015 Ossuary Burial in Middle Atlantic Landscapes. Archaeology of Eastern North

America 43:1–22.

Custer, Jay F.

1989 Prehistoric Cultures of the Delmarva Peninsula: An Archaeological Study.

University of Delaware Press, Newark.

1990 Early and Middle Archaic Cultures of Virginia: Culture Change and Continuity. In

Early and Middle Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R.

Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 1–60. The Dietz Press, Richmond, VA.

Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr.

1998 Hardaway Revisited: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. University of

Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Dent, Richard J., Jr.

1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press, New York.

Dickinson, Martin F. and Lucy B. Wayne

1983 Appendix B (Nonpublic) of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for

Alternative Location of a Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) Operational Base on

the East Coast of the United States. Water and Air Research. Gainesville, Florida.

Dietrich, Richard V.

1990 Geology and Virginia. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Duplantis, Brad M. and Eric Griffits

2003 Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Realignment of the Current Intersection

of Route 165 (Princess Anne Road) and Route 190 (Kempsville/Witchduck Road),

City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Louis Berger Group. Richmond, Virginia.

Echelman, Ralph E., Scott S. Sheads, and Donald Hickey

2010 The War of 1812 in the Chesapeake: A Reference Guide to Historic Sites in

Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Johns Hopkins University Press,

Baltimore, Maryland.

84

EDAW, Inc.

1982 Draft Final Ecological Evaluation for the Fleet Combat Training Center Atlantic,

Dam Neck, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Appendix A. EDAW, Inc. Virginia Beach,

Virginia.

Egghart, Christopher and Luke Boyd

1991 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey Along Proposed Improvements to Oceana

Boulevard in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth University

Archaeology Research Center, Richmond, Virginia.

Egloff, Keith

1991 Development and Impact of Ceramics in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early

Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T.R. Reinhart and M.E.N.

Hodges, pp. 243–252. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

Egloff, Keith T., and Stephen R. Potter

1982 Indian Ceramics from Coastal Plan Virginia. In Archaeology of Eastern North

America 10:95–117.

Egloff, Keith T., and E. Randolph Turner III

1984 The Chesapeake Indians and Their Predecessors: Recent Excavations at Great

Neck. Notes on Virginia 24:36–39.

Esri

2018 World Topo. Electronic document, http://services.arcgisonline.com/

arcgis/services, accessed April 2018.

Evans, Clifford

1955 A Ceramic Study of Virginia Archaeology. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of

American Ethnology, Bulletin No. 160.

Fesler, Garrett C. and Matthew Laird

2006 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Realignment of West Neck

Road Between North Landing Road and Indian Ridge Road in the City of Virginia

Beach, Virginia. James River Institute for Archaeology. Williamsburg, Virginia.

2011 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of 98.664 Acres at Marshview Park in the

City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. James River Institute for Archaeology.

Williamsburg, Virginia.

Fichter, Lynn S., and Steve J. Baedke

2000 The Geoarchaeological Evolution of Virginia and the Mid-Atlantic Region.

Electronic document, http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/vageo/vahist/, accessed July

2015.

Fiedel, Stuart J.

2001 What Happened in the Early Woodland? Archaeology of Eastern North America

29:101–142.

85

Fiedel, Stuart J., and Gary Haynes

2004 A Premature Burial: Comments on Grayson and Meltzer’s “Requiem for Overkill.”

Journal of Archaeological Science 31:121–131.

Ford, Richard I.

1974 Northeastern Archaeology: Past and Future Directions. Annual Reviews in

Anthropology 3:385–413.

Fort Eustis Environmental Division

2005 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Five Forks Training Area and Phase II

Evaluation of Site 44VB89, Fort Story, Virginia.

2006a Phase I Survey of the First Landing Reenactment Site and a Brief Review of

Proposed Events, Fort Story, Virginia.

2006b Cultural Resource Management of GMH Military Housing RCI Undertakings at

Fort Story, Virginia.

2006c Construction of Two New Buildings, a Parking Lot, and the Rehabilitation of

Bunker 309, Fort Story, Virginia.

Gallivan, Martin D.

2003 James River Chiefdoms: The Rise of Social Inequality in the Chesapeake.

University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.

2005 Overview of the Powhatan Chiefdom. In A Study of Virginia’s Indians and

Jamestown: The First Century, edited by D. Moretti-Langholtz. Report Prepared

for the Colonial National Historical Park, Williamsburg, Virginia

(www.cr.nps.gov/ history/online_books/jame1/moretti-langholtz), accessed March

2018.

2016 Powhatan Landscape: The Rise of Social Inequality in the Chesapeake. University

of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Gallivan, Martin D., and Helen Blouet

2001 Middle Woodland Settlement in the Interior Coastal Plain: Excavations at

44JC1052 and 44JC1053. Quarterly Bulletin, Archeological Society of Virginia

56(3):127–145.

Gallivan, Martin D., and Justine McKnight

2006 Archaeobotanical Assessment of Chesapeake Horticulture: The View from

Werowocomoco. Paper Presented at the Middle Atlantic Archaeological

Conference, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

86

Gallivan, Martin D., Thane Harpole, David A. Brown, Danielle Moretti-Langholtz, and E.

Randolph Turner III

2006 The Werowocomoco (44GL32) Research Project: Background and 2003 Field

Season Results. College of William and Mary, Department of Anthropology,

Williamsburg, Virginia. Archaeological Research Report Series No. 1.

Gardner, William M.

1977 Flint Run Paleoindian Complex, its Implication for Eastern North American

Prehistory. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironment in Northeastern North

America, edited by W. S. Mewman and B. Salwen, pp. 257–263. Annals of the New

York Academy of Sciences, 288.

1981 Paleoindian Settlement Pattern and Site Distribution in the Middle Atlantic.

Anthropological Careers, edited by R. H. Landman, L. A. Bennett, A. Brooks, and

P. P. Chock, pp. 51–73. Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, D.C.

1982 Early and Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: An Overview. In Practicing

Environmental Archaeology: Methods and Interpretations, edited by R. W.

Moeller, pp. 53–86. American Indian Archaeological Institute Occasional Paper

No. 3, Washington, Connecticut.

1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. In

Paleoindian Research in Virginia edited by J.M. Wittkofski and T.R. Reinhart, pp.

5–52. Special Publication No. 19 of the Archaeological Society of Virginia. Dietz

Press, Richmond.

Gardner, William M. (editor)

1974 The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: Preliminary Report 1971-73 Seasons.

Occasional Publication No. 1, Department of Anthropology, The Catholic

University of America, Washington, D.C.

Geier, Clarence R.

1990 A Middle Woodland Bipolar Pebble Technology in the Lower Chesapeake Area of

Tidewater Virginia. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 6:55–74.

Gingerich, Joseph A. M.

2011 Down to Seeds and Stones: A New Look at the Subsistence Remains from

Shawnee-Minisink. American Antiquity 76(1):127–144.

Gold, Debra L.

2004 The Bioarchaeology of Virginia Burial Mounds. University of Alabama Press:

Tuscaloosa.

Goodwin, R. Christopher

87

1993 Phase I Archeological Investigations for Proposed Vegetation Maintenance/

Management Areas and a Proposed Wetlands Restoration Project, Naval Air

Station, Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. R. Christopher Goodwin and

Associates, Frederick, Maryland.

Goodyear, Allen C.

1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials among Paleoindian

Groups of North America. Research Manuscript Series No. 156. South Carolina

Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina,

Columbia.

Gosser, Dennis, Jennifer Stewart, and Bill Hall

2009 Cultural Resources Survey Proposed Lesner Bridge Replacement, City of Virginia

Beach, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research. Tarboro, North Carolina.

Grayson, Donald K., and David J. Meltzer

2003 A Requiem for North American Overkill. Journal of Archaeological Science

30:585–593.

Hally, David J.

1996 Platform Mound Construction and the Instability of Mississippian Chiefdoms. In

Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States,

edited by J. F. Scarry, pp. 92–127. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Hantman, Jeffrey L.

1990 Between Powhatan and Quirank: Reconstructing Monacan Culture and History in

the Context of Jamestown. American Anthropologist 92:676–690.

Hantman, Jeffery. L., and Debra. L. Gold

2002 The Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: Ranking and Dynamic Political Stability. In

The Woodland Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and R. C. Mainfort, Jr., pp.

270–291. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Hantman, Jeff, and Michael Klein

1992 Middle and Late Woodland Archaeology in Piedmont Virginia. In Middle and Late


Hodges, pp. 137–164. Special Publication No. 29 of the Archaeological Society of

Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.

Hawkins-Hendrix, Edna and Joanne H. Lucas

2017 History of African-American Communities in Princes Anne County/Virginia Beach.

Virginia Beach Historic Preservation Commission Historical research Paper. On

File at Virginia Beach Public Library.

Heinemann, Ronald L., John G. Kolp, Anthony S. Parent, Jr., and William G. Shade

88

2007 Old Dominion, New Commonwealth: A History of Virginia, 1607–2007. University

of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Heinrich, Keith T. and Loretta Lautzenheiser

2005 Cultural Resources Identification Survey Atlantic Wastewater Treatment Plant,

Virginia Beach, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc. Tarboro, North Carolina.

Higgins, Thomas, Anne Beckett and Veronica Deitrick

1994 Additional Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of Revised Alignments for Proposed

Southeastern Expressway, Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, Virginia.

William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Hodges, Mary Ellen N.

1991 The Late Archaic and Early Woodland Periods in Virginia: Interpretation and

Explanation within an Eastern Context. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland

Research in Virginia, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 221–242.

The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.

1993 The Archaeology of Native American Life in Virginia in the Context of European

Contact: Review of Past Research. In The Archaeology of 17th-Century Virginia,

edited by T. R. Reinhart and Dennis J. Pogue, pp. 1–66. The Dietz Press, Richmond,

Virginia.

1998 Native American Settlement at Great Neck: report on VDHR Archaeological

Investigations of Woodland Components at Site 44VB0007, Virginia Beach,

Virginia. Research Report Series, No. 9, Richmond, Virginia.

2003 Late Woodland Research in Virginia: Recent Trends and Contributions. Quarterly

Bulletin, Archaeological Society of Virginia 59 (1):1–13.

Hodges, Mary Ellen N., and Charles T. Hodges (editors)

1994 Paspahegh Archaeology: Data Recovery Investigations of Site 44JC308 at the

Governor’s Land at Two Rivers, James City County, Virginia. Reported submitted

to Governor’s Land Associates, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia, by the James River

Institute for Archaeology, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia.

Hodges, Mary Ellen and Margaret L. Stephenson

1997 An Addendum to Phase I Cultural Resource Study of Proposed Improvements to

Oceana Boulevard and First Colonial Road in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Virginia

Department of Transportation. Richmond, Virginia.

Holm, Mary Ann, Loretta Lautzenheiser, and Jane McManus Eastman

1995 Phase I Archaeological Survey Improvements to Laskin Road; Route 58, Virginia

Beach, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc. Tarboro, North Carolina.

Hornum, Michael B.

1994 Phase I Archeological Survey of Approximately 2,000 Acres at Naval Air Station

Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Fentress,

89

Chesapeake City, Virginia. R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates Inc. Frederick,

Maryland.

Hoyt, Steven D., Robert L. Gearhart, and Clell L. Bond

1992 Marine Magnetometer Survey of The Parallel Crossing of the Chesapeake Bay

Project, Virginia Beach-Northampton County, Virginia. Espey, Huston and

Associates, Inc. Austin Texas.

Hoyt, Steven D. and James Schmidt

1993 Parallel Crossing of Chesapeake Bay, Phase I Underwater Archaeology, Magnetic

Anomaly Ground Truthing. Espey, Hunton, and Associates, Inc. Austin, Texas.

Humphries, Amy, Dawn M. Frost, and Carol D. Tyrer

2011 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Marine Animal Care Facility Tract, City of

Virginia Beach. Circa-Cultural Resource Management. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Hunter, Bruce A.

1989 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of Three Proposed Alternate Routes for the

Extension of South Plaza Trail, Between Princess Anne and Independence Roads,

Virginia Beach, Virginia. James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia.

Huston, Clifton A. and Peter W. O’Hara

2003 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Portions of the Highland Parish Tract, Virginia

Beach, Virginia. ECS Mid-Atlantic. Richmond, Virginia.

Inashima, Paul Y.

2008 Establishing a Radiocarbon Date Based Framework for Northeastern Virginia

Archaeology. Quarterly Bulletin, Archeological Society of Virginia 63 (4):187–

289.

Jensen, Todd L.

2003 Phase I Archaeological Identification Survey of the Proposed Security

Improvements (P-445/P-509), NAS Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. William and

Mary Center for Archaeological Research. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Johnson, Michael F.

2001 Gulf Branch (44AR5): Prehistoric Interaction at the Potomac Fall Line. Quarterly

Bulletin, Archeological Society of Virginia 56(3):77–114.

Johnson, William C., Jeffrey P. Blick, and D. Scott Speedy

1989 Preliminary Report on the 1984 Archaeological Investigations at the Irwin Site

(44PG4), Prince George County, Virginia. Report prepared for the Virginia

Department of Historic Resources by the Virginia Commonwealth University

Center for Archaeological Research, Richmond, Virginia.

Jones, Joe B. and Todd L. Jensen

90

2003 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Small Arms Range (MILCON P-259), NAS

Oceana Annex Dam Neck, Virginia Beach, Virginia. William and Mary Center for

Archaeological Research. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Jones, Tracey, Blair Toombs, and Eric Voigt

2009 Archaeological Survey of Regional Health Professions Center, Phase I, Virginia

Community College System, Tidewater Community College, Virginia Beach

Campus, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Louis Berger Group. Richmond,

Virginia.

Jones, Tracey, and Eric Voigt

2009 Archaeological Survey of Learning Resource Center, Phase I, Virginia Community

College System, Tidewater Community College, Virginia Beach Campus, City of

Virginia Beach, Virginia. Louis Berger Group. Richmond, Virginia.

Justice, Noel D.

1995 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United

States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.

Kirchen, Roger

2001 The E. Davis Site: Technological Change at the Archaic-Woodland Transition.

M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Wake Forest University, Winston-

Salem, North Carolina.

Klein, Michael J.

1997 The Transition from Soapstone Bowls to Marcey Creek Ceramics in the Middle

Atlantic Region: Vessel Technology, Ethnographic Data, and Regional Exchange.

Archaeology of Eastern North America 25:143–158.

2003 Early Woodland Archaeology. Quarterly Bulletin, Archaeological Society of

Virginia 58(4):207–231.

Klein, Michael J., and Martin D. Gallivan

2001 Regional Systems and Social Ranking: An Analysis of John Smith’s Map of

Virginia. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for American

Archaeology, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Klein, Mike, Marco A. Gonzalez, and Michael L. Carmody

2012 Archaeological Potential Assessment of the Interstate 64 Peninsula Study From

Interstate 664 in Hampton to Interstate 95 in Richmond, Virginia. Dovetail Cultural

Resource Group, Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Klein, Michael J., and Thomas Klatka

1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Demography and Settlement Patterns. In Late

Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R.

Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 139–184. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

Klein, Mike, and Dane Magoon

91

2017 Tsenacomoco Before and After the Tassantasses: Documentary, Bioarchaeological,

and Archaeological Evidence of Population Size and Distribution during the Late

Prehistoric and Contact Era in the western Chesapeake Region. Journal of Middle

Atlantic Archaeology 33:79–98.

Klein, Michael J. and J. Sanderson Stevens

1996 Ceramic Attributes and Accokeek Creek Chronology: An Analysis of Sherds from

the Falcon’s Landing (18PR131) and the Accotink Meander (44FX1908) Sites.

North American Archaeologist 17(2):113-142.

Knepper, Dennis, John M. Rutherford, Daniel R. Hayes, Carter Shields, and Christopher L.

Bowen

2006 The Archaeology of an Urban Landscape: The Whitehurst Freeway Archaeological

Project, Volume I: Prehistoric Sites. 51NW103 (Peter House), 51NW117 (Ramp

3), and 51NW117W (Whitehurst West), Washington, D.C. Report prepared by

Parsons, Washington, D.C., and Versar, Inc., Springfield, VA, for the District of

Columbia Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

Kvamme, Kenneth L.

1988 Development and Testing of Quantitative Models. In Quantifying the Present and

Predicting the Past: Theory, Method, and Application of Archaeological Predictive

Modeling, edited by W. James Judge and Lynne Sebastian, pp. 325 – 428. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center. Denver,

Co.

Lee, Richard B.

1979 The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Lewis, C. M., and A. J. Loomie

1953 The Spanish Jesuit Mission in Virginia, 1570-1571. University of North Carolina

Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Luccketti, Nicholas M., Robert Haas, and Matthew Laird

2006 Archaeological Assessment of the Chesopean Site, Virginia Beach, Virginia. James

River Institute for Archaeology, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia.

Lukezic, Craig

1990 Soils and Settlement Location in 18th Century Colonial Tidewater Virginia.

Historical Archaeology 24(1):1—17.

Magoon, Dane T.

1999 “Chesapeake” Pipes and Uncritical Assumptions: A View from Northeastern North

Carolina. North Carolina Archaeology 48:107–126.

92

Mahoney, Shannon S.

2009 Mortuary Practices of the Chickahominy: Late Woodland Ceremonial Processes in

Tidewater Virginia. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 25: 133—140.

Mansfield, S. S.

1989 Princess Anne County and Virginia Beach. The Donning Company, Virginia

Beach, Virginia.

Markell, Ann, Katherine Kuranda, Katherine Grandine, and Nathan Workman

2007 Survey of the Architectural and Archaeological Cultural Resources at the Virginia

Air National Guard Installations at the Richmond International Airport, Henrico

County and the State Military Reservation, Camp Pendleton, City of Virginia

Beach, Virginia. R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates. Frederick Maryland.

Mayo, Ellen and Loretta Lautzenheiser

1997 Archaeological Survey Improvements to Lynnhaven and Volvo Parkways, Cities of

Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research. Tarboro,

North Carolina.

McAvoy, Joseph M.

1992 Nottoway River Survey, Part I: Clovis Settlement Patterns. Archeological Society

of Virginia, Special Publication No. 28. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.

McAvoy, Joseph M., and Lynn D. McAvoy

1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County,

Virginia. Research Report Series No. 8. Virginia Department of Historic Resources,

Richmond, Virginia.

McCary, Ben C.

1951 A Workshop of Early Man in Dinwiddie County, Virginia. American Antiquity

17(1):9–17.

1975 The Williamson Paleoindian Site, Dinwiddie County, Virginia. The Chesopiean

13(3–4):48–131.

1983 The Paleoindian in Virginia. Archeological Society of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin

38(1):43–70.

McDonald, Bradley

2002 Archaeological Identification Survey and Archaeological Evaluations of Nine Sites

Along the Proposed Landstown-West Landing 230 KV Transmission Line, City of

Virginia Beach, Virginia. Gray and Pape, Inc. Richmond, Virginia.

2003 Reconnaissance Archaeological Survey at Various Navy Region Mid-Atlantic

Family Housing Complexes in Virginia. Cultural Resources Inc. Fredericksburg,

Virginia.

93

McDonald, Bradley M. and Garrett R. Fesler

1994 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Corporate Woods Property, City of Virginia

Beach, Virginia. James River Institute for Archaeology. Williamsburg, Virginia.

McDonald, Bradley M. and Matthew R. Laird

1996 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Twelve Acres and Phase II Archaeological

Significance Evaluation of 44VB240-241-242 at the Great Neck Point Disposal

Area, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. James River Institute for Archaeology,


McFarland, E. Randolph, and T. Scott Bruce

2006 The Virginia Coastal Plain Hydrogeological Framework. U.S. Dept. of the Interior,

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

McKnight, Justine W., and Martin Gallivan

2007 The Virginia Archaeobotanical Database Project: A Preliminary Synthesis of

Chesapeake Ethnobotany. Quarterly Bulletin, Archeological Society of Virginia 62

(4):181–190.

McLearen, D.C.

1987 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Highway Improvements Along Dam Neck

Road in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth University

Archaeological Research Center. Richmond, Virginia.

1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Material Culture in Virginia. In Late Archaic

and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T.R. Reinhart

and M.E.N. Hodges, pp. 89–138. Special Publication No. 23 of the Archaeological

Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.

1992 Virginia’s Middle Woodland Period: A Regional Perspective. In Middle and Late


Hodges, pp. 39–64. Special Publication No. 29 of the Archaeological Society of

Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.

McSherry, Perry

1993 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Bayville Farms, Virginia Beach, Virginia. James

River Institute For Archaeology. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Meltzer, David J.

1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World

Prehistory 2:1–52.

Monroe, Elizabeth

2008 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed I-64/I-264 Interchange Project, Cities

of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, Virginia. William and Mary Center for

Archaeological Research. Williamsburg, Virginia.

94

2009 Supplemental Archaeological Survey of the Proposed I-64/I-264 Interchange

Project, Cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, Virginia. William and Mary Center

for Archaeological Research. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Monroe, Elizabeth, and Sean Devlin

2007 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed I-264/Lynnhaven and Great Neck

Interchanges Project, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. William and Mary Center

for Archaeological Research.

Morgan, Edmund S.

1975 American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia. W. W.

Norton and Company, New York.

Mouer, Daniel L.

1990 The Archaic to Woodland Transition on the Piedmont and Coastal Plain Sections

of the James River Valley, Virginia. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

1991a Explaining the Formative Transition in Virginia: Concluding Remarks. In Late

Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia, edited by T. R. Reinhart and

M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 259-274. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

1991b The Formative Transition in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland

Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T.R. Reinhart and M.E.N. Hodges, pp.

89–138. Special Publication No. 23 of the Archaeological Society of Virginia.

Dietz Press, Richmond.

Mouer, L. D., D. C. McLearen, R. T. Kiser, C. P. Egghart, B. J. Binns, and D. T. Magoon

1992 Jordan’s Journey. Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research

Center, Richmond, Virginia.

Mouer, L. D., F. W. Gleach, and D. C. McLearen

1986 A Ceramics Temporal Typology in Progress for Central Virginia. In Archaeology

in Henrico, Volume 2: Introduction to Phase 2 and Phase 3 Archaeological

Investigations of the Henrico County Regional Wastewater System, edited by L. D.

Mouer, pp. 119–149. Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research

Center, Richmond. Submitted to Henrico County, Virginia. On file at the VDHR,

Richmond.

Mounier, R. Alan, and John W. Martin

1994 For Crying Out Loud!: News About Teardrops. Journal of Middle Atlantic

Archaeology 10:125–140.

Naval History and Heritage Command

2015 The Naval Bombing Experiments Off the Virginia Capes - June and July 1921. By

Vice Admiral Alfred W. Johnson. Electronic document,

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-

alphabetically/n/the-naval-bombing-experiments.html#intro, accessed June 2018.

95

Opperman, Antony F. and Harding Polk, III

1989 Phase I Archeological Survey for Fort Eustis and Fort Story, Cities of Newport

News and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Mid-Atlantic Archaeological Research

Associates, Inc. Newark, Delaware.

Opperman Anthony F., and E. Randolph Turner

1989 Shelly Archaeological District, Gloucester County, Virginia, National Register of

Historic Places Nomination. Document on file, Virginia Department of Historic

Resources, Richmond, Virginia.

1990 Archaeology at Shelly, Gloucester County. Notes on Virginia 34:24–27.

Painter, Floyd

1988 Two Terminal Archaic Cultures of S.E. Virginia and N.E. North Carolina. Journal

of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 4:25–38.

Parramore, Thomas C., Peter C. Stewart, and Tommy L. Bogger

1994 Norfolk: The First Four Centuries. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville,

Virginia.

Penner, Bruce R.

2003 Supplemental Archaeological Survey of Two Canals within the Proposed

Realignment of Elbow Road, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Virginia Department

of Transportation. Richmond, Virginia.

Phelps, David S.

1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and

Hypotheses. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium,

edited by M. A. Mathis and J. J. Crow, pp. 1–51. North Carolina Division of

Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh.

Ploglase, Christopher R.

1996 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Approximately 583 Acres at Naval Air Station

Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates,

Frederick, Maryland.

Potter, Stephen R.

1993 Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the

Potomac Valley. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Proper, Earl E. and Martha McCartney

1987 A Phase I Cultural Resource Evaluation of a Section of Route 165, Virginia Beach,

Virginia. James Madison University. Harrisonburg, Virginia.

96

Pullins, Stevan C.

2002 Archaeological Survey Associated with the Proposed Nimmo (Ferrell) Parkway

Project, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. William and Mary Center for

Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Quinn, David B.

1977 Set Fair for Roanoke: Voyages and Colonies, 1584–1606. University of North

Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Ritchie, William A.

1971 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. New York State

Museum and Science Service, Bulletin 384, Albany.

Rountree, Helen C.

1989 The Powhatan Indians of Virginia: Their Traditional Culture. University of

Oklahoma Press: Norman, Oklahoma.

2004 Again, More Closely: 18th Century Indian Settlements in Swamps. Journal of

Middle Atlantic Archaeology 20:7–12.

2005 Pocahontas, Powhatan, Opechancanough: Three Indian Lives Changed by

Jamestown. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Rountree, Helen C., Wayne E. Clark, and Kent Mountford

2007 John Smith’s Chesapeake Voyages, 1607–1609. University of Virginia Press,

Charlottesville, Virginia.

Ryder, Robin L., Luke Boyd and R. Taft Kiser.

1994 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Proposed Improvements to London Bridge

Road in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth University

Archaeological Resarch Center.

Sadler, Donald, Sandra DeChard, Aimee Leithoff, and Ellen Brady

2012 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Approximately 13 Acres at 4081 Elbow

Road in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Cultural Resources Inc. Richmond,

Virginia.

Salmon, John S.

2001 The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide. Stackpole Books,

Mechanicsville, Pennsylvania.

Sara, Timothy

2008 Archaeological Characterization Study of Fleet Training Center Dam Neck,

Virginia Beach, Virginia. Southeastern Archaeological Research Inc. Jacksonville,

Florida.

97

Sassaman, Kenneth. E., Glen T. Hanson and Tommy Charles

1988 Raw Material Procurement and the Reduction of Hunter-Gatherer Range in the

Savannah River Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 7(2):79–94.

Saunders, John

1976 An Initial Archaeological Survey of Haygood and Newtown Roads, City of Virginia

Beach. Virginia Research Center for Archaeology. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Shephard, Christopher

2015 The Materiality of Politics: Tracking the Production and Circulation of Shell

Artifacts in the Algonquian Chesapeake (A.D. 900––1680). Journal of Middle

Atlantic Archaeology 31:39–52.

Shmookler, Leonid I.

1996 Phase I Archaeological Identification Survey in Support of 1995 Base Realignment

and Closure, Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Ecology and

Environment, Inc. Lancaster, New York.

1996b Phase I Archaeological Identification Survey in Support of 1995 Base Closure and

Realignment, Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Ecology and

Environment, Inc. Lancaster, New York.

1997 Phase I Archaeological Identification Survey of the Proposed 3-Module Hangar

and Parking Apron Expansion, Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach,

Virginia. Ecology and Environment Inc. Lancaster, New York.

Simpson, B.

1990 The Great Dismal: A Carolinian’s Swamp Memoir. University of North Carolina

Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Smith, Bruce D.

1986 The Archaeology of Southeastern United States: From Dalton to de Soto, 10,500–

500 B.P. In Advances in World Archaeology, edited by F. Wendorf and A. Close,

pp. 1–91. Academic Press, New York.

2007 Niche Construction and the Behavioral Context of Plant and Animal

Domestication. Evolutionary Anthropology 16:188–199.

2011 General Patterns of Niche Construction and the Management of ‘Wild’ Plant and

Animal Resources by Small-Scale Pre-Industrial Societies. Philosophical

Transections of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences 366:836–848.

Smith, John

1624 Virginia discovered and described by Captayn John Smith, 1606. Library of

Congress. Geography and Maps Division. Washington, D.C. (g3880 ct000377).

Smith, Marvin. T., and Julia. B. Smith

1989 Engraved Shell Masks in North America. Southeastern Archaeology 8(1): 9-18.

98

National Resources and Conservation Services, United States Department of Agriculture (Soil

Survey Staff)

2018 Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed March, 2018.

Stephenson, Robert L.

1963 The Accokeek Creek Site: A Middle Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence.

Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No.

20, Ann Arbor.

Stewart, Jennifer, and Loretta Lautzenheiser

2005 Architectural Survey: Proposed Southeastern Parkway and Greenbelt: Cities of

Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc.,

Tarboro, North Carolina.

Stewart, R. Michael

1989 Trade and Exchange in Middle Atlantic Prehistory. Archaeology of Eastern North

America 17 47–78.

1992 Observations on the Middle Woodland Period of Virginia: A Middle Atlantic

Region Perspective. Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis,

edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 1–38. Council of Virginia

Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press,

Richmond.

1995 The Status of Woodland Prehistory in the Middle Atlantic Region. Archaeology of

Eastern North America 23:177–206.

1998a Thoughts on the Origin of Ceramic Use and Variation. Journal of Middle Atlantic


1998b Unraveling the Mystery of Zoned Decorated Pottery: Implications for Middle

Woodland Society in the Middle Atlantic Region. Journal of Middle Atlantic


Stuck, Kenneth E.

1997 A Supplemental Identification Survey of Proposed Oceana Boulevard-First

Colonial Road Project, Virginia Beach, An Addendum to Phase I Cultural

Resource Survey Along Proposed Improvements to Oceana Boulevard In Virginia

Beach, Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research.


Stuck, Kenneth E. and Thomas F. Higgins

1997 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Proposed Landstown-West Landing, 230 KV

Transmission Line, Virginia Beach, Virginia. William and Mary Center for

Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia.

99

Taylor, Martha Lewis

2006 The Military. In The Beach: A History of Virginia Beach, Virginia. The Virginia

Beach Public Library.

Thomas, Pamela, and John D. Harper

2008 Soil Survey of the Tidewater Cities Area, Virginia. United States Department of

Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

Tindall, Robert

1608 "The draught by Robert Tindall of Virginia Anno: 1608." The British Museum,

London.

Tippett, Lee

2002 Archaeological Survey of Route 165 (Princess Anne Road) Between Dam Neck

Road and Judicial Boulevard, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Louis Berger Group,

Richmond, Virginia.

Tolley, George A.

2003 A Review of the Middle Archaic Period in Virginia. Quarterly Bulletin,

Archaeological Society of Virginia 58 (3):135–147.

Traver, Jerome, D.

1991 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, Old Landstown Road Tract, Virginia Beach,

Virginia. Mid-Atlantic Archaeological Research Associates, Inc. Newark,

Delaware.

1993 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey and Visual Impact Assessment of the Interstate

64 HOV Lanes (Median Strip), Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, Virginia. Mid-

Atlantic Archaeological Research Associates, Inc. Newark, Delaware.

Traver, Jerome D. and Maryana Ralph

1989 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Build Alternatives for the

Southeastern Expressway in the Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Mid-Atlantic Archaeological Research (MAAR) Associates, Inc. Newark,

Delaware

Turner, E. Randolph

1976 An Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Study on the Evolution of Rank Societies in

the Virginia Coastal Plain. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology,

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.

1982 A Re-examination of Powhatan Territorial Boundaries and Population, ca A.D.

1607. Quarterly Bulletin, Archaeological Society of Virginia 37(2):45–64.

1989 Paleoindian Settlement Patterns and Population Distribution in Virginia. In

Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. M. Wittkofski and T.

R. Reinhart, pp. 71–94. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological

Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

100

1992 The Virginia Coastal Plain During the Late Woodland Period. In Middle and Late

Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N.

Hodges, pp. 97–136. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological

Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

2003 Virginia Native Americans During the Contact Period: A Summary of Research

Over the Past Decade. Quarterly Bulletin, Archaeological Society of Virginia 59

(1):14–24.

Turner, E. Randolph, and Anthony F. Opperman

nd Searching for Virginia Company Period Sites: An Assessment of Surviving

Archaeological Manifestations of Powhatan-English Interactions, A.D. 1607–

1624. Draft Report on File, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond,

Virginia.

Tyrer, Carol D. and Martha McCartney

1998 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Indian River Road and Elbow Road, City of

Virginia Beach, Virginia. Cultural Resources Inc. Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Underwood, J. R., D. B. Blanton, W. J. Cline, D. W. Lewes, and W. H. Moore

2003 Archaeological Survey of 6,000 Acres, Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown,

Virginia. Report Prepared by the William and Mary Center for Archaeological

Research for the Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,

Norfolk, Virginia.

United States Army Corps of Engineers

1987a A Cultural Resources Assessment of Two Areas, U. S. Navy, Fleet Combat Training

Center Atlantic, Dam Neck Virginia Beach, Virginia

1987b An Archeological Survey of the Naval Amphibious Base Annex, Camp Pendleton,

Virginia Beach, Virginia.

1987c A Cultural Resource Survey of a Proposed Wetlands Mitigation Site, U. S. Navy

Fleet Combat Training Center Atlantic, Dam Neck Virginia Beach, Virginia.

United States Department of Military Affairs

1987 An Archaeological Survey of the Virginia National Guard Camp Pendleton

Training Camp Site, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia.

United States Department of the Interior

2005 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: Camp Pendleton/State

Military Reservation Historic District. United States Department of the Interior,

National Park Service.

United States Navy

2015 Regional Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan for Naval Installations

in Hampton Roads, Virginia. Draft on file with U.S. Navy Cultural Resources

Program Manager.

101

United States Navy Sea Systems Command

2017 History. Electronic document, http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Shipyards

/Norfolk/About-Us/History/, accessed December 2017.

Virginia Beach Historical Society

2001 Web Site. http://virginiabeachhistory.org, accessed March 2012.

Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR)

2017 Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resource Surveys in Virginia. Virginia

Department of Historical Resources, Richmond.

Ward, H. Trawick

1965 Correlation of Mississippian Sites and Soil Types. Southeastern Archaeological

Conference Bulletin 3:42–48.

Waselkov, Gregory A.

1982 Shellfish Gathering and Shell-Midden Archaeology. Ph.D. Dissertation,

Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Water and Air Research, Inc.

1984 Cultural Resources Survey of the Phase I Wetlands Mitigation Site FCTC, Dam

Neck, Virginia. Gainesville, Florida.

Watts, Gordon

2009 Submerged Cultural Resource Remote-Sensing Survey Lesner Bridge Replacement

Corridor, Lynnhaven Inlet, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Tidewater Atlantic Research.

Washington, North Carolina.

Weathersbee, Chris

1966 “At 93, He’s Still Developing Tidewater,” Virginia Pilot, September 4, 1966.

Webb, T. III

1988 Eastern North America. In Vegetation History, edited by B. Huntley and T. Webb

III, pp. 385–414. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts.

Wehner, Karen B. and Karen G. Holmberg

2003 Analyzing the Settlement Pattern of the Burnt Hill Study Area. Northeast Historical


Wells, Debra, Bruce Nodine, Robert Austin, and Nicholas Linville

2010 Archaeological Survey of South Parcel and Evaluation of Archaeological Sites

44VB345 and 44VB346, Fleet Training Center Dam Neck, Virginia Beach,

Virginia. Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc. Jacksonville, Florida.

Wertenbaker, Thomas J., and Marvin W. Schlegel

1962 Norfolk: Historic Southern Port. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.

102

White, Benjamin D.

1924 Gleanings in the History of Princess Anne County. In An Economic and Social

Survey of Princess Anne County, edited by E. E. Ferebee and J. P. Wilson, Jr., pp.

5–16. University of Virginia Record Extension Services, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips

1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press,

Chicago, Illinois.

Wittkofski, J. Mark

1980 A Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Improvements

to the Entrance to Oceana Naval Air Station, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Virginia

Research Center for Archaeology. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Wittkofksi, J. Mark, Martha W. McCartney, Beverly Bogley

1979 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Cultural Resources at Newtown,

Norfolk, Virginia. Virginia Research Center for Archaeology. Williamsburg,

Virginia.

Yarnell, Richard A.

1976 Early Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America. In Cultural Change and

Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland,

Academic Press, New York.

103

APPENDIX: SITE DATA TABLE

104


105

DHR ID Area Site Name Site

Categories Site Types Time Periods

Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?

Y or N VCRIS Condition Entry

44NR0035 A

Lake

Whitehurst

East

DSS Legacy Camp

Late Archaic (3000 -

1201 B.C.), Early/

Middle Woodland (1200

B.C. - 999 A.D.)

underwater N Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0002 A Woodland (1200 B.C. -

1606 A.D.) appears intact Y Intact Cultural Level

44VB0066 A Domestic Dwelling,

single

18th Century: 1st half

(1700 - 1749)

appears intact, although pin

flags suggest imminent

construction

Y Intact Cultural Level

44VB0284 A DSS Legacy Camp

Middle Archaic (6500 -

3001 B.C.), Early/


B.C. - 999 A.D.)

apt. complex Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0355 A Ridgely

Manor DSS Legacy

Camp, Trash

scatter

Early Woodland (1200

B.C. - 299 A.D.), Middle

Woodland (300 - 999

A.D.), 17th Century

(1600 - 1699), 18th

Century (1700 - 1799)

developed, possibly some

intact at northern end, but it is

for sale and likely to be

developed soon

Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed

44VB0356 A SAJO Farm DSS Legacy Camp Early/ Middle Woodland

(1200 B.C. - 999 A.D.) developed, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0358 A

DSS Legacy,

Industry/

Processing/

Extraction

Camp, Lithic

scatter

Woodland (1200 B.C. -

1606 A.D.) neighborhood, some portions

may be intact in woods Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed

44VB0397 A Domestic Dwelling,

single

Reconstruction and

Growth (1866 - 1916),

World War I to World

War II (1917 - 1945), The

New Dominion (1946 -

1991)

recently completed/updated

form N

Recent data, survey not

necessary

44VB0060 A, B,

E, F

Kempsville

Canal DSS Legacy Canal

18th Century: 3rd quarter

(1750 - 1774)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible

intact at Princess Anne Road

crossing in Area E Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed

44VB0003 B DSS Legacy Grave/ burial Woodland (1200 B.C. -

1606 A.D.) possibly partially intact

behind building Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed

44VB0004 B Woodland (1200 B.C. -

1606 A.D.) under road/paths Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed

106



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?



1606 A.D.) not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown

44VB0048 B Chesopean

Site Domestic

Dwelling,

single


1606 A.D.), 17th Century

(1600 - 1699)

in neighborhood, but largely

intact in backyards (see JRIA

2006 report); site probably

somewhat larger than mapped

in VCRIS

Y Site Condition Unknown

44VB0062 B Lynnhaven

House Domestic

Dwelling,

single

Contact Period (1607 -

1750), Colony to Nation

(1751 - 1789), Early

National Period (1790 -

1829), Antebellum Period

(1830 - 1860), Civil War

(1861 - 1865),

Reconstruction and

Growth (1866 - 1916),


War II (1917 - 1945), The


1988)


form N


necessary

44VB0063 B Thoroughgoo

d House Domestic

Dwelling,

single,

Village/ Town

Middle Woodland (300 -

999 C.E), Late Woodland

(1000 - 1606), Contact

Period (1607 - 1750),

Colony to Nation (1751 -

1789), Early National

Period (1790 - 1829),

Antebellum Period (1830

- 1860), Civil War (1861

- 1865), Reconstruction

and Growth (1866 -

1916), World War I to

World War II (1917 -

1945), The New

Dominion (1946 - 1991)

DHR

Evaluation

Committee:

Eligible


form N


necessary

44VB0064 B Late Woodland (1000 -

1606) not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown


1606 A.D.) largely intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed

107



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?



1606 A.D.) house, road- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0069 B Historic/ Unknown,


1606 A.D.)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown


1606 A.D.)

DHR Staff:



1606 A.D.) house, road- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0072 B house, road- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0073 B Prehistoric/ Unknown

(15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) house, road- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0074 B DSS Legacy Other 17th Century (1600 -

1699)

DHR Staff:

Eligible not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown

44VB0075 B Prehistoric/ Unknown

(15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown


1606 A.D.)

DHR Staff:



1606 A.D.)

DHR Staff:


44VB0078 B 18th Century (1700 -


44VB0079 B Domestic

Camp,

temporary,

Dwelling,

single



(1700 - 1799), 19th

Century (1800 - 1899)

DHR Staff:



1606 A.D.)

DHR Staff:



1606 A.D.)

DHR Staff:


44VB0111 B 19th Century (1800 -

1899) under house, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0112 B 19th Century (1800 -


44VB0138 B Government/

Law/ Political

County

courthouse



(1700 - 1799), 19th

Century: 1st half (1800 -

1849)

dense residential, destroyed Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed

108



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0139 B DSS Legacy Trash scatter

Prehistoric/ Unknown

(15000 B.C. - 1606

A.D.), 18th Century: 2nd

half (1750 - 1799), 19th


1849)

some likely intact in backyard

of house Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed

44VB0140 B DSS Legacy Trash scatter 19th Century: 1st half

(1800 - 1849) some likely intact in backyard

of house Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed

44VB0202 B not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown

44VB0353 B Domestic,

DSS Legacy

Camp,

Dwelling,

single



(1800 - 1899), 20th


1949)

under building, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0354 B DSS Legacy Camp


B.C. - 299 A.D.), Early/


B.C. - 999 A.D.), Middle

Woodland (300 - 999

A.D.)

destroyed or slated for

construction, some may

survive in woods along

shoreline


44VB0362 B

Church Point

Parish

(Spring

House Trail)

Religion Church


(15000 B.C. - 1606

A.D.), 17th Century

(1600 - 1699), 19th

Century (1800 - 1899),

20th Century (1900 -

1999)

probably mostly intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed

109



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0373 B

Ferry

Plantation

House

Domestic Dwelling,

single

Contact Period (1607 -

1750), Colony to Nation

(1751 - 1789), Early



(1830 - 1860), Civil War

(1861 - 1865),

Reconstruction and

Growth (1866 - 1916),


War II (1917 - 1945), The


1988), Post Cold War

(1989 - Present)


form N


necessary

44VB0005 C Long Creek Domestic Camp, base Middle Woodland (300 -

999 A.D.)

mostly underwater, some may

survive in woods on island at

north end of site


44VB0012 C Woodland (1200 B.C. -

1606 A.D.)

under road and embankment-

partially destroyed, although

some may be sealed under

embankment fill


44VB0024 C Domestic Shell midden Woodland (1200 B.C. -

1606 A.D.) mostly destroyed, possibly

partially intact along shoreline Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed

44VB0042 C Great Neck

Park 19th Century (1800 -

1899) under building, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0043 C Sisson Domestic Shell midden Middle Woodland (300 -

999 A.D.) house, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0059 C Domestic Dwelling,

single

18th Century: 2nd/ 3rd

quarter (1725 - 1774) houses, some probably intact

in yards Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed


single


(1700 - 1749) not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown

44VB0092 C DSS Legacy Trash scatter Prehistoric/ Unknown

(15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) road, destroyed Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed

44VB0094 C Domestic Farmstead 18th Century (1700 -

1799) appears mostly intact, some

grading in driveway Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed

44VB0101 C 19th Century (1800 -

1899) mostly intact, esp. eastern

portion of site Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed

44VB0104 C 19th Century (1800 -

1899) some park facilities, but

mostly intact Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed

110



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0105 C 19th Century (1800 -

1899) road and yards, but probably

largely intact Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed

44VB0106 C houses and road, mostly

destroyed Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed

44VB0107 C 19th Century (1800 -


44VB0108 C 19th Century (1800 -


44VB0109 C 19th Century (1800 -

1899) house, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0132 C 19th Century (1800 -

1899) houses, small portions

possibly intact in yards Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed

44VB0137 C Funerary Cemetery


1899), 20th Century

(1900 - 1999)

intact Y Intact Cultural Level

44VB0240 C

Domestic,

DSS Legacy,

Subsistence/

Agriculture

Camp,

Dwelling,

single,

Hamlet,

Outbuilding,

Trash scatter


1699), 18th Century

(1700 - 1799)

houses, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0241 C Domestic

Dwelling,

single,

Farmstead


1699), 18th Century

(1700 - 1799)


44VB0242 C DSS Legacy Camp houses, cul-de-sac, mostly



single


1899), 20th Century: 1st

half (1900 - 1949)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible under I-264, destroyed N Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0009 C/ D Middle Woodland (300 -

999 A.D.)

central portion destroyed by

road, east and west ends

likely largely intact


44VB0011 D White Hill

Banks

Domestic,

Indeterminate

Artifact

scatter, Shell

midden

Pre-Contact, Woodland


44VB0013 D Waterfield Domestic,

Indeterminate

Artifact

scatter, Shell

midden

Pre-Contact, Woodland


111



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0014 D Domestic Shell midden Woodland (1200 B.C. -






44VB0025 D Little Neck

Creek DSS Legacy Camp

not visible from right-of-way,

but under house and probably

destroyed

N Site Condition Unknown

44VB0040 D DSS Legacy,

Indeterminate

Artifact

scatter, Camp


1606 A.D.), Middle

Woodland (300 - 999

A.D.), Late Woodland

(1000 - 1606)


44VB0041 D Domestic,

DSS Legacy

Other, Shell

midden


1606 A.D.) intact Y Intact Cultural Level

44VB0049 D Domestic Camp, base Late Archaic (3000 -

1201 B.C.) golf course and residential,

mostly destroyed Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed

44VB0050 D Domestic Dwelling,

multiple


1799), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899)

houses, mostly destroyed Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed

44VB0051 D Domestic Dwelling,

single

17th Century: 2nd quarter

(1625 - 1649), 18th

Century: 3rd quarter

(1750 - 1774)


but likely intact N Site Condition Unknown

44VB0052 D house, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0053 D Middle Archaic (6500 -

3001 B.C.) houses, mostly destroyed Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed

44VB0054 D Prehistoric/ Unknown

(15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.)

houses, some possibly intact

in western portion of site in

trees and gold course


44VB0055 D Domestic Camp, base


3001 B.C.), Woodland

(1200 B.C. - 1606 A.D.)


44VB0056 D 18th Century (1700 -

1799)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible

house, eastern portion in

backyard/golf course, may be

partially intact


112



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0057 D Prehistoric/ Unknown

(15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.)

house, eastern portion in

backyard/golf course, may be

partially intact


44VB0058 D 18th Century (1700 -

1799) not visible from right-of-way,

golf course N Site Condition Unknown

44VB0061 D Domestic Camp,

temporary



44VB0089 D DSS Legacy Other 19th Century: 4th quarter

(1875 - 1899)

DHR Staff:


44VB0090 D DSS Legacy Shipwreck Historic/ Unknown not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown

44VB0096 D 19th Century (1800 -

1899) houses, landscaping-

destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0097 D 19th Century (1800 -

1899)

houses, but large yards and

wooded portions, probably

partially intact


44VB0098 D 19th Century (1800 -


44VB0099 D 19th Century (1800 -

1899) houses, but portions of site

likely intact in backyards Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed

44VB0100 D 19th Century (1800 -

1899) appears to be largely intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed

44VB0102 D 19th Century (1800 -

1899)

northern part of site destroyed

by houses, southern part may

be largely intact


44VB0103 D 19th Century (1800 -

1899) houses, portions likely intact

in yards Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed

44VB0110 D 19th Century (1800 -

1899) large yard, mostly intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed

44VB0113 D 19th Century (1800 -

1899) large yard, mostly intact Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed

44VB0114 D houses, but front yards look

filled- small portions of site

may be intact/sealed


44VB0128 D 19th Century (1800 -

1899) houses with large yards- site

probably largely intact Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed

44VB0129 D 19th Century (1800 -

1899)

houses, but southern part of

site in open field and likely

largely intact


113



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0130 D probably destroyed by houses

south of road, intact in woods

north of road


44VB0131 D 19th Century (1800 -

1899) houses, portions of site

possibly intact in backyards` Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed

44VB0133 D 19th Century (1800 -

1899) dense residential, probably


44VB0134 D 19th Century (1800 -

1899) shopping center, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0332 D Gun Mount Military/

Defense

Military base/

facility



44VB0333 D railway DSS Legacy Railroad 20th Century: 1st half

(1900 - 1949)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible

not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown

44VB0334 D RCI Site 2 DSS Legacy Other Historic/ Unknown

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible


44VB0335 D Coal Shed Military/

Defense

Military

supply depot

20th Century: 1st quarter

(1900 - 1924)

DHR Staff:


44VB0336 D Emplacement Military/

Defense

Military base/

facility

20th Century: 2nd/ 3rd

quarter (1925 - 1974) not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown

44VB0337 D RCI Site 1 Domestic Dwelling,

single


1799), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899)

DHR Staff:


44VB0347 D Domestic,

DSS Legacy,

Indeterminate

Artifact

scatter, Camp,

Dwelling,

single


B.C. - 299 A.D.),


1606 A.D.), Middle

Woodland (300 - 999

A.D.), Late Woodland

(1000 - 1606), 19th

Century (1800 - 1899)


44VB0359 D

First Landing

State Park

Marsh Site

DSS Legacy,

Industry/

Processing/

Extraction

Lithic scatter,

Trash scatter


(15000 B.C. - 1606


half (1850 - 1899), 20th


1949)


114



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0371 D Cape Henry

Lighthouse DSS Legacy Other

18th Century: 4th quarter

(1775 - 1799), 19th

Century (1800 - 1899)


form N


necessary

44VB0008 E Quail Springs Domestic Camp, base

Paleo-Indian (15000 -

8501 B.C.), Early

Archaic (8500 - 6501

B.C.), Middle Archaic

(6500 - 3001 B.C.),


1606 A.D.)

mostly under high-density

housing, partially under pond Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed

44VB0044 E DSS Legacy Camp Archaic (8500 - 1201

B.C.) under residential

development, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0045 E DSS Legacy Village/ Town


1799), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899)

under residential


44VB0093 E Domestic Farmstead 18th Century (1700 -

1799) western portion probably


44VB0283 E DSS Legacy Other brick clamp, appears mostly

intact except for trails and

some erosion into river


44VB0285 E DSS Legacy Camp Woodland (1200 B.C. -

1606 A.D.)

houses, but southern portion

probably largely intact , esp.

on east end


44VB0286 E DSS Legacy Camp


1201 B.C.), Early


299 A.D.)

largely destroyed by housing,

eastern portion underwater Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed

44VB0287 E DSS Legacy Camp


1201 B.C.), Early


299 A.D.)


44VB0304 E

Norfolk

Southern

Railroad

Bypass Line

Grade and

Bridge

Foundations

DSS Legacy Railroad bed 19th Century: 1st half

(1800 - 1849) parking lot, roads, apt

buildings- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

115



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0367 E Colonial

Kempsville DSS Legacy Village/ Town

18th Century: 3rd quarter

(1750 - 1774), 19th


1849)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible

mapped boundaries entirely

under road and destroyed;

however, if site is a village/

town, portions may be intact

in empty lot to south or

recorded boundaries


44VB0375 E

Emmanuel

Episcopal

Church and

Rectory

Religion

Church,

Church-

related

residence



Period (1790 - 1829),


- 1860), Civil War (1861


and Growth (1866 -



1945), The New

Dominion (1946 - 1988),

Post-Cold War (1989 -

Present)


form N


necessary

44VB0378 E Domestic Artifact

scatter

Reconstruction and

Growth (1866 - 1916),


War II (1917 - 1945)


form N


necessary

44VB0036 F Funerary Cemetery


1899), 20th Century

(1900 - 1999)


44VB0037 F


(15000 B.C. - 1606

A.D.), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899)


44VB0038 F 20th Century (1900 -

1999) under road and commercial


44VB0046 F Archaic (8500 - 1201

B.C.)

golf course and residential,

partially destroyed, portions

may be intact under golf

course


116



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0305 F, E Deep Branch

Ditch

Technology/

Engineering

Ditch,

drainage


1799), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899), 20th

Century (1900 - 1999)


44VB0238 G Landscape Ditch,

boundary


1799), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899)


44VB0350 G Deary Site Domestic Dwelling,

single


1799), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899), 20th


1949)

under road- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0352 G Domestic Dwelling,

single



half (1900 - 1949)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible mostly under road- destroyed Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed

44VB0001 H Wolfshave 18th Century (1700 -

1799), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899)


but probably intact N Site Condition Unknown

44VB0125 H 19th Century (1800 -

1899) parking lot and trailer park,

mostly destroyed Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed

44VB0127 H 19th Century (1800 -

1899) in field, probably mostly

intact Y Site Condition Unknown

44VB0161 H 19th Century: 2nd/ 3rd

quarter (1825 - 1874)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible

in field, probably mostly

intact Y Site Condition Unknown

44VB0170 H Domestic Camp,

temporary


(15000 B.C. - 1606

A.D.), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible



44VB0171 H 19th Century (1800 -

1899), 20th Century

(1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible



44VB0173 H Domestic Camp,

temporary


3001 B.C.), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible

mostly under

building/destroyed, northeast

portion in field may be intact


44VB0174 H Domestic,

Funerary

Camp,

temporary,

Cemetery


3001 B.C.), 18th Century:

2nd half (1750 - 1799),


1899)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible

buildings, parking lot-


117



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0187 H 20th Century (1900 -

1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible in woods, probably intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed

44VB0188 H 19th Century: 2nd half

(1850 - 1899)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible in woods, probably intact Y Intact Cultural Level

44VB0203 H 20th Century (1900 -

1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible



44VB0204 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter 19th Century: 2nd half

(1850 - 1899)

DHR Staff:


44VB0205 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter

19th Century: 2nd half

(1850 - 1899), 20th

Century (1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:



(1850 - 1899)

DHR Staff:




(1850 - 1899), 20th

Century (1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:



DSS Legacy

Dwelling,

single, Trash

scatter


(1850 - 1899), 20th

Century (1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:




(1850 - 1899), 20th

Century (1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:



(1850 - 1899) field/woods- probably mostly




1899), 20th Century

(1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible solar farm, partially intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed



(1850 - 1899), 20th

Century (1900 - 1999)

road, solar farm, partially

intact Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed

44VB0213 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter 20th Century (1900 -

1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible







DSS Legacy

Camp,

Farmstead,

Trash scatter


(1850 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible



118



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?




(1775 - 1799), 19th

Century: 1st quarter

(1800 - 1825)



44VB0217 H DSS Legacy Camp, Trash

scatter


(15000 B.C. - 1606

A.D.), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899)





1899), 20th Century

(1900 - 1999)





(1850 - 1899), 20th

Century (1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible



44VB0220 H DSS Legacy Camp Prehistoric/ Unknown

(15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) in field, probably mostly


44VB0221 H DSS Legacy Camp, Trash

scatter


(15000 B.C. - 1606


half (1850 - 1899), 20th

Century (1900 - 1999)





1899), 20th Century

(1900 - 1999)



44VB0223 H DSS Legacy Camp Prehistoric/ Unknown



44VB0224 H DSS Legacy Other Prehistoric/ Unknown



44VB0225 H DSS Legacy Other Prehistoric/ Unknown



44VB0226 H Funerary Cemetery Historic/ Unknown in field, probably mostly




1899), 20th Century

(1900 - 1999)





(1850 - 1899), 20th

Century (1900 - 1999)



119



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?





44VB0232 H Domestic Dwelling,

single


1899), 20th Century

(1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible under roads, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0233 H Commerce/

Trade,

Domestic

Dwelling,

single,

General store


(1900 - 1949) under road, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0234 H 20th Century: 1st half

(1900 - 1949) road, utilities- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed


single


(1900 - 1949) road, utilities- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0236 H


1799), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899), 20th

Century (1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible

mostly destroyed by road-

southern portion may be

partially intact in open lot, but

appears graded


44VB0237 H Landscape Ditch,

boundary


1799), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible road, utilities- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0243 H Historic/ Unknown DHR Staff:


44VB0244 H Domestic Farmstead



quarter (1800 - 1825)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible


44VB0245 H Domestic Farmstead 20th Century: 1st half

(1900 - 1949)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible

mostly in woods and probably




(1875 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible




Subsistence/

Agriculture

Farmstead,

Outbuilding


(1900 - 1949)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible





(1875 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible



120



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?




(1875 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:



Subsistence/

Agriculture

Farmstead,

Outbuilding


(1900 - 1949)

DHR Staff:




(1875 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:




(1875 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:




(1875 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:




(1875 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:




(1750 - 1799), 19th


1849)

DHR Staff:


44VB0300 H Oceana Fence

1

Industry/

Processing/

Extraction

Lithic scatter Prehistoric/ Unknown

(15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible




2 Domestic Farmstead


1799), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899), 20th

Century (1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible




3 Domestic Farmstead


1899), 20th Century

(1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible in woods, probably intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed

121



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0303 H Potter's

corner Domestic

Dwelling,

single


1899), 20th Century

(1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:



single


(1800 - 1849)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible



44VB0361 H Domestic Farmstead 20th Century: 1st half

(1900 - 1949)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible


intact- maybe some utility

disturbance


44VB0379 H Domestic Farmstead World War I to World

War II (1917 - 1945) recently completed/updated

form N


necessary

44VB0082 I Domestic Trash pit 20th Century (1900 -


44VB0085 I Military/

Defense Earthworks Historic/ Unknown not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown

44VB0087 I DSS Legacy Other 19th Century (1800 -


44VB0088 I Domestic Trash pit


(1875 - 1899), 20th


(1900 - 1924)


44VB0091 I Domestic Farmstead 19th Century: 1st quarter


44VB0124 I Domestic Dwelling,

single


1899), 20th Century

(1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible


44VB0126 I 19th Century (1800 -

1899) mostly under houses, southern

portion may be partially intact Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed

44VB0178 I 19th Century (1800 -

1899)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible


44VB0179 I Domestic Camp,

temporary

Archaic (8500 - 1201

B.C.), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible

pond, utilities, grading-


44VB0196 I 20th Century: 1st half

(1900 - 1949) not visible from right-of-way,

but in woods and likely intact N Site Condition Unknown

44VB0200 I 19th Century (1800 -

1899)

partially destroyed by roads,

but mostly in woods and

probably intact


122



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0201 I 19th Century (1800 -

1899), 20th Century

(1900 - 1999)

road, utilities, grading, mostly


44VB0227 I Domestic,

DSS Legacy

Camp,

Farmstead,

Trash scatter


999 A.D.), 19th Century:

2nd half (1850 - 1899),


(1900 - 1949)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible



44VB0308 I Domestic Camp,

temporary

Late Woodland (1000 -

1606)

DHR Staff:



single


(1775 - 1799), 19th


(1800 - 1825)


44VB0310 I Funerary Cemetery 19th Century: 4th quarter

(1875 - 1899) intact Y Intact Cultural Level

44VB0343 I

Camp

Pendleton

ANG Site C-

1

DSS Legacy Trash scatter


1899), 20th Century

(1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:



single


(1775 - 1799), 19th


(1800 - 1825)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible


form N


necessary


single


(1850 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:



single


(1850 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible mostly in woods/intact Y Intact Cultural Level


Defense

Military base/

facility


War II (1917 - 1945), The


1991)


123



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?



Defense

Military base/

facility


War II (1917 - 1945), The


1991)



Defense

Military base/

facility


War II (1917 - 1945), The


1991)



Defense

Military base/

facility


War II (1917 - 1945), The


1991)


44VB0389 I

Industry/

Processing/

Extraction,

Military/

Defense

Lithic scatter,

Military base/

facility

Pre-Contact, World War I

to World War II (1917 -

1945), The New

Dominion (1946 - 1991)



Defense

Military base/

facility


War II (1917 - 1945), The


1991)



single

Reconstruction and

Growth (1866 - 1916) not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown


single


- 1860), Civil War (1861


and Growth (1866 -

1916)



single



Period (1790 - 1829),


- 1860), Civil War (1861


and Growth (1866 -



1945), The New

Dominion (1946 - 1991)


124



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0394 I

Industry/

Processing/

Extraction,

Military/

Defense

Lithic scatter,

Military base/

facility

Pre-Contact, Middle

Woodland (300 - 999

C.E), Late Woodland

(1000 - 1606), World

War I to World War II

(1917 - 1945), The New

Dominion (1946 - 1991)


44VB0395 I

Industry/

Processing/

Extraction,

Military/

Defense

Lithic scatter,

Military base/

facility

Pre-Contact, Antebellum

Period (1830 - 1860),

Civil War (1861 - 1865),

Reconstruction and

Growth (1866 - 1916),


War II (1917 - 1945), The


1991)



Defense

Military base/

facility


War II (1917 - 1945), The


1991)


44VB0180 I/ H DSS Legacy,

Funerary

Camp,

Cemetery,

Trash scatter


8501 B.C.), Archaic

(8500 - 1201 B.C.),



(1700 - 1799)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible

partially under road,

otherwise in fields- largely

intact


44VB0288 J DSS Legacy Camp Archaic (8500 - 1201

B.C.) dense residential- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0095 K largely in woods- probably

mostly intact 0-24% of Site Destroyed

125



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0162 K Domestic,

Funerary

Camp,

temporary,

Cemetery

Early Archaic Period

(8500 - 6501 B.C.E),

Middle Archaic Period

(6500 - 3001 B.C.E),

Late Archaic Period

(3000 - 1201 B.C.E),


B.C.E - 299 C.E), Middle

Woodland (300 - 999

C.E), Late Woodland

(1000 - 1606), Early



(1830 - 1860), Civil War

(1861 - 1865),

Reconstruction and

Growth (1866 - 1916),


War II (1917 - 1945), The


1991), Post-Cold War

(1992 - Present)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible


form N


necessary

44VB0163 K


(1850 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:


44VB0165 K DSS Legacy Camp


8501 B.C.), Middle

Archaic (6500 - 3001

B.C.)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible



Military/

Defense

Camp, Camp,

base,

Dwelling,

single

Middle Archaic Period

(6500 - 3001 B.C.E),

Early National Period

(1790 - 1829)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible

destroyed- construction in

progress Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0167 K Domestic Camp,

temporary


(15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible

house, western portion

possibly partially intact in

backyard


44VB0169 K Domestic Camp,

temporary


(15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.)

DHR Staff:


126



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0172 K Domestic

Camp,

temporary,

Dwelling,

single

Archaic (8500 - 1201

B.C.), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible

dense residential, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0175 K DSS Legacy Other


1799), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible


but in woods and likely intact N Site Condition Unknown

44VB0176 K Domestic

Camp,

temporary,

Farmstead


1201 B.C.), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible

in athletic field, possibly

largely intact if not heavily

graded



DSS Legacy

Camp,

temporary,

Other


(15000 B.C. - 1606


half (1850 - 1899), 20th

Century (1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible under building, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0181 K 19th Century: 2nd half

(1850 - 1899)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible


44VB0182 K Funerary Cemetery


1899), 20th Century

(1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible intact Y Intact Cultural Level

44VB0183 K Funerary Cemetery


1899), 20th Century

(1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:


44VB0184 K Funerary Cemetery Historic/ Unknown DHR Staff:

Not Eligible wooded, probably intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed

44VB0185 K Funerary Cemetery 20th Century (1900 -

1999)

DHR Staff:


44VB0189 K DSS Legacy,

Funerary

Cemetery,

Other


(1850 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible


44VB0190 K


(1750 - 1799), 19th


1849)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible



127



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0191 K DSS Legacy Camp

Archaic (8500 - 1201

B.C.), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899), 20th

Century (1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible



44VB0193 K Domestic Farmstead


(1825 - 1849), 20th

Century (1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible





1899), 20th Century

(1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible

mostly in woods, probably


44VB0197 K Domestic Farmstead 20th Century (1900 -

1999) under road, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0198 K


(1850 - 1899), 20th


1949)

stormwater retention pond-


44VB0199 K 19th Century (1800 -

1899), 20th Century

(1900 - 1999)

parking lot and grading-




(1750 - 1799), 19th


1849)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible

mostly in woods, probably




(1750 - 1799), 19th


1849)

DHR Staff:


44VB0263 K DSS Legacy Trash scatter


(1825 - 1849), 19th

Century: 2nd half (1850 -

1899)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible




(1850 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible


44VB0265 K DSS Legacy Trash scatter DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible


128



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?




(15000 B.C. - 1606


half (1850 - 1899)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible


44VB0269 K

Transportation

/

Communicatio

n

Trash scatter


(1790 - 1829),


- 1860)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible


form N


necessary

44VB0270 K Indeterminate Artifact

scatter


8501 B.C.E), Early

Archaic Period (8500 -

6501 B.C.E), Middle


3001 B.C.E), Late


1201 B.C.E), Early

Woodland (1200 B.C.E -

299 C.E), Middle

Woodland (300 - 999

C.E), Late Woodland

(1000 - 1606), Early



(1830 - 1860), Civil War

(1861 - 1865),

Reconstruction and

Growth (1866 - 1916)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible


form N


necessary

44VB0271 K

Transportation

/

Communicatio

n

Trash scatter


(1790 - 1829),


- 1860), Civil War (1861


and Growth (1866 -

1916)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible


form N


necessary

44VB0272 K

Transportation

/

Communicatio

n

Trash scatter


- 1860), Civil War (1861


and Growth (1866 -

1916)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible


form N


necessary

129



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0273 K

Transportation

/

Communicatio

n

Trash scatter Reconstruction and

Growth (1866 - 1916)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible


form N


necessary


Indeterminate

Artifact

scatter,

Farmstead


8501 B.C.E), Early


6501 B.C.E), Middle


3001 B.C.E), Late


1201 B.C.E), Early

Woodland (1200 B.C.E -

299 C.E), Middle

Woodland (300 - 999

C.E), Late Woodland

(1000 - 1606),


- 1860), Civil War (1861


and Growth (1866 -

1916)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible


form N


necessary

44VB0275 K

Transportation

/

Communicatio

n

Trash scatter


- 1860), Civil War (1861


and Growth (1866 -

1916)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible


form N


necessary

44VB0290 K DSS Legacy Camp Late Archaic (3000 -

1201 B.C.) mostly in woods, probably


44VB0293 K DHR Staff:


44VB0306 K

Salem Canal

(Channelized

Segment of

North

Landing

River)

DSS Legacy Canal


1899), 20th Century

(1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible

also VB172 (same

boundaries) Y Site Totally Destroyed

130



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0307 K Canal No. 4 DSS Legacy Canal


(1850 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible intact at Dam Neck crossing Y Intact Cultural Level

44VB0311 K Domestic Dwelling,

single


1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible

northwestern portion probably

largely intact, rest may be

partially destroyed by sheds

and other lightly-constructed

buildings



single


1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible

northern, wooded portion

likely intact

Y,

nowhere to

pull over

for photo

25-49% of Site Destroyed


single


1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible

southeastern, wooded portion

likely intact

Y,

nowhere to

pull over

for photo

25-49% of Site Destroyed


single


(1850 - 1899)

DHR Staff:



single


1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible

road cuts through, otherwise



single


1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible appears mostly intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed


single


1999)

roads cuts through, but mostly

in field, probably largely

intact



single


1899)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible




single


1899)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible




single


(1800 - 1849)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible

field/woods- probably mostly


44VB0342 K Murphy

Cemetery Funerary Cemetery


(1850 - 1899)

mapped as partially under

road, but probably intact in

clump of trees north and east

of road


131



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?



single


1799), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible


form N


necessary

44VB0374 K Domestic Artifact

scatter

Reconstruction and

Growth (1866 - 1916),


War II (1917 - 1945), The


1988)


form N


necessary

44VB0121 L 19th Century (1800 -

1899) dense residential, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0164 L Domestic,

DSS Legacy

Camp,

temporary,

Other


1201 B.C.), Woodland

(1200 B.C. - 1606 A.D.),


1799)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible

dense residential, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0168 L 20th c. house

site

Domestic,

DSS Legacy

Dwelling,

single, Other


1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible

southern portion under

houses, northern part in

woods and likely largely

intact


44VB0186 L Domestic Dwelling,

single


1799), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible

largely intact, far eastern 1/3

destroyed by modern house Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed

44VB0291 L DSS Legacy Camp

Early Archaic (8500 -

6501 B.C.), Middle

Archaic (6500 - 3001

B.C.), Late Archaic (3000

- 1201 B.C.), Early


299 A.D.)

under shopping center,


44VB0292 L DHR Staff:

Not Eligible under road, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0017 M Lake

Tecumseh Domestic

Dwelling,

single


1899) under industrial complex,


44VB0018 M Funerary Cemetery under industrial complex,


132



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0019 M DSS Legacy Trash scatter


(1750 - 1799), 19th


1849)

under industrial complex,


44VB0020 M Domestic Dwelling,

single


(1750 - 1799), 19th


1849)



44VB0021 M Domestic Trash pit 19th Century: 1st half

(1800 - 1849) under industrial complex,


44VB0022 M DSS Legacy Other


1799), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899)



44VB0083 M Domestic Farmstead 19th Century (1800 -


44VB0084 M Domestic Trash pit 20th Century (1900 -

1999)


but under parking lot,

destroyed

N Site Condition Unknown

44VB0086 M Funerary Cemetery 19th Century (1800 -


44VB0117 M 19th Century (1800 -

1899) wooded, probably intact Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed

44VB0118 M 19th Century (1800 -

1899) dense residential, mostly


44VB0119 M 19th Century (1800 -



44VB0120 M 19th Century (1800 -



44VB0122 M 19th Century (1800 -

1899) in church yard and woods,

probably largely intact Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed

44VB0123 M

Hickman House (ca. 1832),

appears intact except for

directly under house, where

construction taking place to

stabilize or move building


44VB0281 M Domestic Dwelling,

single


(15000 B.C. - 1606

A.D.), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899)

road, parking lot- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

133



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0322 M field scatter 1 DSS Legacy Trash scatter


(1850 - 1899), 20th


(1900 - 1924)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible





(1850 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible





(1850 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible





(15000 B.C. - 1606


half (1850 - 1899), 20th


(1900 - 1924)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible



44VB0326 M field scatter 7 Domestic,

DSS Legacy

Camp,

temporary,

Trash scatter


(15000 B.C. - 1606


half (1850 - 1899), 20th


(1900 - 1924)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible





(1850 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible





(1850 - 1899), 20th


1949)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible

southern portion in field,

probably mostly intact,

northern part may be

impacted by construction of

road and building


44VB0329 M field scatter

10 DSS Legacy Trash scatter



quarter (1900 - 1924)

DHR Staff:

Potentially

Eligible



134



Evaluation

Status Field Notes

Surveyed?


44VB0330 M field scatter

12 DSS Legacy Trash scatter


(1850 - 1899), 20th


(1900 - 1924)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible industrial complex, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed

44VB0344 M Subsistence/

Agriculture Well


(1900 - 1949)

DHR Staff:


44VB0345 M Domestic,

Subsistence/

Agriculture

Agricultural

field,

Dwelling,

single


(1750 - 1799), 20th


(1900 - 1924), 20th

Century: 2nd/ 3rd quarter

(1925 - 1974)

DHR Staff:


44VB0346 M Domestic,

Subsistence/

Agriculture

Agricultural

field,

Farmstead


1799), 19th Century

(1800 - 1899), 20th

Century (1900 - 1999)

DHR Staff:

Not Eligible appears intact Y Intact Cultural Level

archaeological assessment of the northern …...redacted archaeological assessment of the northern...

Documents