Winchester East at Opequon Creek

Frederick County, Virginia

WSSI #32927.01

 

 

 

Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation

September 2024

 

Prepared for:

T VA Winchester II LLC

1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600, PMB 1154

Alexandria, VA 22314

 

 

Prepared by:

Jeremy Smith, MSc, RPA, and Brittany Vance

 

5300 Wellington Branch Drive, Suite 100

Gainesville, Virginia 20155

Tel: 703-679-5600 Email: [email protected] www.wetlands.com

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

A Phase I cultural resources investigation was conducted of the ±91.7-acre Winchester East at Opequon Creek project area, located at 2737 and 2747 Senseny Road (Route 657) in eastern Frederick County, Virginia near its boundary with Clarke County. Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc., of Gainesville, Virginia conducted the study described in this report for T VA Winchester II, LLC of Alexandria, Virginia. The fieldwork was carried out in August of 2024. Six new archeological sites (44FK1086-44FK1091) were recorded as a result of this investigation. Additionally, five previously recorded archeological sites (44FK0277-44FK0281) and one previously recorded architectural resource (034-1155) were revisited during the study; one of these sites (44FK0279) is recommended for Phase II or avoidance.

 

Sites 44FK1086, 44FK1087, 44FK1088, 44FK1090, and 44FK1091 were all interpreted as trash scatters dating to the 20^th century, likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20^th-century occupation and use of the property. Site 44FK1089 was interpreted as casually discarded refuse associated with the long-term occupation of the extant circa 1920 dwelling and farmstead at 2737 Senseny Road (DHR Resource 034-1155) and the associated use of the property into the modern era. In our opinion, these sites are not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.

 

Sites 44FK0277, 44FK0278, 44FK0279, 44FK0280, and 44FK0281 were previously recorded within the project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University; none of the sites have been evaluated for listing in the NRHP. Site 44FK0277 represents a trash scatter dating to the 20^th century, with a low-density (n=3) precontact component dating to an unknown period reportedly recovered from the vicinity by the landowner. Site 44FK0278 represents a modern domestic dump site dating to the 20^th century. Site 44FK0280 represents a possible waste disposal area dating to an unknown historic period, with a low-density precontact component (n=2) dating to an unknown period. Site 44FK0281 represents a low- density (n=3) lithic scatter dating to an unknown precontact period. In our opinion, these sites are not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.

 

Site 44FK0279 was previously recorded as a farmstead dating to the 19^th century that includes a low-density (n=1) precontact component dating to an unknown period. Additional artifacts recovered during the current investigation included architecture-, kitchen-, and tobacco-related artifacts; no definitively 20^th-century or modern artifacts were recovered. In our opinion the site has the potential to yield significant research data regarding the lifeways of the residents of Frederick County, Virginia in the 19^th century and may be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. Phase II archeological evaluation of Site 44FK0279 is recommended if the site cannot be avoided by the proposed development.

 

Finally, DHR Resource 034-1155 (House, 2737 Senseny Road) encompasses the majority of the project area and is a single dwelling constructed circa 1920 that has been determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP by DHR. No new data was obtained during the current study that would contradict the previous determination by the DHR that the resource is not eligible for listing in the NRHP. In our opinion, the resource is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A, B, or C. No further documentation is recommended.

 

 

 

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………………………… i

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………………………. iii

LIST OF EXHIBITS…………………………………………………………………………………………… v

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………………………. v

LIST OF PLATES……………………………………………………………………………………………… vi

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING………………………………………………………………………….. 1

PALEOENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND……………………………………………………. 3

CULTURAL HISTORICAL BACKGROUND…………………………………………………….. 6

Prehistoric Overview……………………………………………………………………………………….. 6

Paleoindian Period (9500/10000-8000 BCE)………………………………………………………………… 6

Early Archaic Period (8000-6500 BCE)………………………………………………………………………. 8

Middle Archaic Period (6500-3000 BCE)…………………………………………………………………… 10

Late Archaic Period (3000-1200 BCE)………………………………………………………………………. 11

Early Woodland Period (1200 BCE-300 CE)……………………………………………………………….. 13

Middle Woodland Period (300-1000 CE)……………………………………………………………………. 15

Late Woodland Period (1000-1606 CE/European Contact)………………………………………………. 17

Historic Overview………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21

PREVIOUS ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH…………………………………………………. 32

RESEARCH DESIGN……………………………………………………………………………………….. 38

Research Objectives……………………………………………………………………………………….. 38

Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation Methodology…………………………………… 40

Archeological Fieldwork Methodology………………………………………………………………………. 40

Architectural Reconnaissance Methodology………………………………………………………………… 41

Laboratory Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………. 41

Research Expectations……………………………………………………………………………………. 42

RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS………………………………………………………… 42

Site 44FK1086……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 48

Site 44FK1087……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 51

Site 44FK1088……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 54

Site 44FK1089……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 56

Site 44FK1090……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 62

Site 44FK1091……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 65

Site 44FK0277……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 68

Site 44FK0278……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 71

Site 44FK0279……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 72

Site 44FK0280……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 75

Site 44FK0281……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 77

DHR Resource 034-1155 (House, off Route 657)……………………………………………… 79

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………………….. 80

REFERENCES CITED……………………………………………………………………………………… 87

PLATES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 97

APPENDIX I…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 117

Artifact Inventory………………………………………………………………………………………… 117

APPENDIX II…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 129

Staff Qualifications………………………………………………………………………………………. 129

APPENDIX III………………………………………………………………………………………………… 133

Cultural Resource Forms……………………………………………………………………………… 133

 

Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map…………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

Exhibit 2: 2001 USGS Quadrangle, Stephenson, VA WV…………………………………………. 4

Exhibit 3: June 2024 Natural Color Imagery……………………………………………………………. 5

Exhibit 4: 1755 Fry-Jefferson Map of Virginia……………………………………………………….. 26

Exhibit 5: 1863 Macomb Map, Upper Potomac Region, MD & VA………………………….. 30

Exhibit 6: 1873 Battlefield of Winchester, Virgina (Opequon) – September 19, 1864….. 33

Exhibit 7: 1938 USGS Quadrangle, Winchester, VA-WV……………………………………….. 34

Exhibit 8: Overview of Phase I Testing (South)………………………………………………………. 43

Exhibit 9: Overview of Phase I Testing (Central)……………………………………………………. 44

Exhibit 10: Overview of Phase I Testing (North)……………………………………………………. 45

Exhibit 11: Representative Soil Profile from Project Area……………………………………….. 47

Exhibit 12: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1086…………………………………….. 49

Exhibit 13: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1086……………………………………. 50

Exhibit 14: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1087…………………………………….. 52

Exhibit 15: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1087……………………………………. 53

Exhibit 16: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1088…………………………………….. 55

Exhibit 17: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1088……………………………………. 57

Exhibit 18: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1089…………………………………….. 58

Exhibit 19: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1089……………………………………. 60

Exhibit 20: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1090…………………………………….. 63

Exhibit 21: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1090……………………………………. 64

Exhibit 22: Detail of Phase I Testing within Sites 44FK1091, 44FK0280, and 44FK0281

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 66

Exhibit 23: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1091……………………………………. 67

Exhibit 24: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK0277…………………………………….. 69

Exhibit 25: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK0277……………………………………. 70

Exhibit 26: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK0279…………………………………….. 73

Exhibit 27: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK0279……………………………………. 74

Exhibit 28: Representative Soil Profile at Site 44FK0280………………………………………… 76

Exhibit 29: Representative Soil Profile at Site 44FK0281………………………………………… 78

Exhibit 30: Locations of Cultural Resources Within the Project Area………………………… 81

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Previously Recorded Archeological Sites………………………………………………….. 36

Table 2: Previously Recorded Architectural Resources……………………………………………. 37

Table 3: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FX1086………………………………………………….. 51

Table 4: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK1087………………………………………………….. 54

Table 5: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FX1088………………………………………………….. 56

Table 6: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FX1089………………………………………………….. 61

Table 7: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK1090………………………………………………….. 62

Table 8: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK1091………………………………………………….. 65

Table 9: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK0277………………………………………………….. 71

Table 10: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK0279……………………………………………….. 72

 

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1: Senseny Road…………………………………………………………………………………………. 99

Plate 2: Opequon Creek – Northeast of Project Area……………………………………………….. 99

Plate 3: Example of Forested Vegetation……………………………………………………………… 100

Plate 4: Example of Pastureland/Overview of Site 44FK1089 (North)……………………… 100

Plate 5: Example of Manicured Lawn/Overview of Site 44FK1089 (South)……………… 101

Plate 6: Example of Steep Slope…………………………………………………………………………. 101

Plate 7: Example of Constructed Farm Pond………………………………………………………… 102

Plate 8: Example of Drainage Swale/Cut……………………………………………………………… 102

Plate 9: Example of Artificial Landform………………………………………………………………. 103

Plate 10: Example of Gravel Farm Roads…………………………………………………………….. 103

Plate 11: Example of 100-Year FEMA Floodplain of Opequon Creek…………………….. 104

Plate 12: Example of 100-Year FEMA Floodplain of Opequon Creek…………………….. 104

Plate 13: Oblique of Building 8 (Dwelling at 2747 Senseny Road)………………………….. 105

Plate 14: Oblique of Building 8 (Dwelling at 2747 Senseny Road)………………………….. 105

Plate 15: Building 9 (R) and Building 10 (L)………………………………………………………… 106

Plate 16: Overview of Site 44FK1086………………………………………………………………….. 106

Plate 17: Overview of Site 44FK1087………………………………………………………………….. 107

Plate 18: Vicinity of Site 44FK1088……………………………………………………………………. 107

Plate 19: Overview of Site 44FK1090………………………………………………………………….. 108

Plate 20: Overview of Site 44FK1091………………………………………………………………….. 108

Plate 21: Overview of Site 44FK0277………………………………………………………………….. 109

Plate 22: DHR Location of Site 44FK0278…………………………………………………………… 109

Plate 23: Example of Surface Trash at Site 44FK0278…………………………………………… 110

Plate 24: Overview of Site 44FK0279………………………………………………………………….. 110

Plate 25: DHR Location of Site 44FK0280…………………………………………………………… 111

Plate 26: DHR Location of Site 44FK0281…………………………………………………………… 111

Plate 27: Building 1, South and East Elevations (034-1155)…………………………………… 112

Plate 28: Building 1, North and West Elevations (034-1155)………………………………….. 112

Plate 29: Building 2, West and south Elevations (034-1155)…………………………………… 113

Plate 30: Building 3, North Elevation (034-1155)…………………………………………………. 113

Plate 31: Building 4, North Elevation (034-1155)…………………………………………………. 114

Plate 32: Building 5, South and East Elevations (034-1155)…………………………………… 114

Plate 33: Building 6, East Elevation (034-1155)……………………………………………………. 115

Plate 34: Building 7 (034-1155)………………………………………………………………………….. 115

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This report presents the results of a Phase I cultural resources investigation of the ±91.7- acre Winchester East at Opequon Creek project area, located at 2737 and 2747 Senseny Road (Route 657) in eastern Frederick County, Virginia near its boundary with Clarke County (Exhibit 1). Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc., of Gainesville, Virginia conducted the study described in this report for T VA Winchester II, LLC of Alexandria, Virginia. The fieldwork was carried out in August of 2024.

 

Jeremy Smith, MSc, RPA, served as Principal Investigator and supervised all aspects of the investigation. The fieldwork was completed by Brittany Vance, Scott McElroy, Amelia Puchino, Jennifer Carroll, Macey Stearns, Andrew Lewis, Megan Bull, Jennifer Cullison, and Rebekah Thimlar. Elizabeth Waters Johnson, M.A., served as Laboratory Supervisor and conducted the artifact analysis with Amber Nubgaard, M.A., RPA. All artifacts, research data, and field data resulting from this project are currently on repository at the Thunderbird offices in Gainesville, Virginia.

 

The fieldwork and report contents conformed to the guidelines set forth by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) for a Phase I identification level survey as outlined in their 2017 Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia (DHR 2017), as well as the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (DOI 1983). In general, at the time of the survey all aspects of the investigation were in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665) (as amended).

The purpose of the survey was to locate any cultural resources within the impact area and, insofar as possible at this level of investigation, to provide a preliminary assessment of their potential significance in terms of eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Place. If a particular resource was felt to possess the potential to contribute to the knowledge of local, regional, or national prehistory or history, then Phase II work was recommended.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Frederick and Clark Counties are encompassed by Valley and Ridge and Blue Ridge provinces. The Valley and Ridge province is characterized by a series of north-south trending ridges separated by river valleys and represents one portion of the Great Valley System of the Appalachian Mountains running from New York to Alabama. The Great Valley of Virginia, defined by limestone and dolostone (carbonate) bedrock, is bound by the Blue Ridge province to the east. The limestone in the area forms good agricultural lands with occasional karst formations. Sinkholes and caverns are common throughout the valley. Other dominant rock types in the region include sandstone, shale, and quartzite.

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.01_01_Vicinity.mxd

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Area: ±101.4 acres

 

 

 

Source: World Street Map – ESRI

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map

 

0                                2,000

 

®

Feet

Original Scale: 1 ” = 2,000 ‘

 

 

 

 

The Valley and Ridge province is divided into three sub-provinces: Ridge and Valley, Great Valley, and Massanutten Mountain (Exhibit 2). The project area lies in the Great Valley, where broad valleys with low to moderate slopes are underlain by carbonate rocks.

Elevations range from 1,200 to 2,300 feet above mean sea level (a.m.s.l.).

 

The project area is located on the eastern edge of a generally north-south-trending landform immediately above Opequon Creek (Exhibit 2). Drainage for the project area is to the east into Opequon Creek, which flows 26 miles to the north into the Potomac River. The vegetation of the project area consists of a mix of deciduous and evergreen forest, grassy pasture, and manicured lawns (Exhibit 3).

 

PALEOENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND

The basic environmental history of the area has been provided by Carbone (1976) (see also Gardner 1985, 1987; Johnson 1986). The following will present highlights from this history, focusing on those aspects pertinent to the project area.

 

At the time of the arrival of humans into the region, about 11,000 years ago, the area was beginning to recover rapidly from the effects of the last Wisconsin glacial maximum of circa 18,000 years ago. Vegetation was in transition from northern dominated species and included a mixture of conifers and hardwoods. The primary trend was toward a reduction in the openness which was characteristic of the parkland of 14-12,000 years ago. Animals were undergoing a rapid increase in numbers as deer, elk and, possibly, moose expanded into the niches and habitats made available as the result of wholesale extinctions of the various kinds of fauna that had occupied the area during the previous millennia. The current cycle of ponding and stream drowning began 18-16,000 years ago at the beginning of the final retreat of the last Wisconsin glaciation (Gardner 1985); sea level rise has been steady since then.

While the Shenandoah Valley was not subject to direct glaciation at this time the limestone formations provided a well-watered environment.

 

These trends continued to accelerate over the subsequent millennia of the Holocene. One important highlight was the appearance of marked seasonality circa 7000 BCE. This was accompanied by the spread of deciduous forests dominated by oaks and hickories. The modern forest characteristic of the area, the mixed oak-hickory-pine climax forest, prevailed after 3000-2500 BCE. Continued forest closure led to the reduction and greater territorial dispersal of the larger mammalian forms such as deer. Sea level continued to rise, resulting in the inundation of interior streams. This was quite rapid until circa 3000-2500 BCE, at which time the rise slowed, continuing at a rate estimated to be ten inches per century (Darmody and Foss 1978). At about this time the North Fork of the Shenandoah had reached its present bend forming the current floodplains of today.

 

Based on archeology (see Gardner and Rappleye 1979), it would appear that the mid-Atlantic migratory bird flyway was established circa 6500 BCE. Oysters had migrated to at least the Northern Neck by 1200 BCE (Potter 1982) and to their maximum upriver limits along the Potomac near Popes Creek, Maryland, by circa 750 BCE (Gardner and McNett 1971), with anadromous fish arriving in the Inner Coastal Plain in considerable numbers circa 1800 BCE (Gardner 1982).

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Area

 

 

 

Latitude: 39°9’54″N Longitude: 78°5’13″W

 

0                               2,000

®

Feet

Original Scale: 1 ” = 2,000 ‘

 

Exhibit 2: 2001 USGS Quadrangle, Stephenson, VA WV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Area

 

 

 

 

Source: Nearmap®

 

0                                600

®

Feet

Original Scale: 1 ” = 600 ‘

 

Exhibit 3: June 2024 Natural Color Imagery

 

A warming trend that lasted for several centuries stalled by a cooling event around 1300 CE known as the Little Ice Age. This climatic event brought about more late spring frosts and early autumn frosts accompanied by cool and rainy summers (Rice 2009:30).

 

During the historic period, circa 1700 CE, cultural landscape alteration becomes a new environmental factor (Walker and Gardner 1989). Around this time, Euro-American settlement extended into the Piedmont/Coastal Plain interface and later into the Shenandoah Valley. With these settlers came land clearing and deforestation for cultivation, as well as the harvesting of wood for use in a number of different products. At this time the stream tributaries to the Potomac, were broad expanses of open waters from their mouths well up their valleys to, at, or near their “falls” where they leave the Piedmont and enter the Coastal Plain. These streams were conducive to the establishment of ports and harbors, elements necessary to commerce and contact with the outside world and the seats of colonial power. Most of these early ports were eventually abandoned or reduced in importance, for the erosional cycle set up by the land clearing resulted in tons of silt being washed into the streams, ultimately impeding navigation. Widespread deforestation and cultivation led to erosion of topsoil within the Valley and siltation of streams while uplands suffered from deflation.

 

The historic vegetation would have consisted of a mixed oak-hickory-pine forest. Associated with this forest were deer and smaller mammals and turkey. The nearby open water environments would have provided habitats for waterfowl year round as well as seasonally for migratory species. Elevation is an important characteristic in the Shenandoah Valley especially when discussing agricultural practices. Changes within elevation in the Valley produce abrupt seasonal transitions and also dictate the amount of precipitation in certain areas making the Valley floor drier than other higher elevations.

CULTURAL HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

 

Prehistoric Overview

 

The following section provides a brief overview and context of the general prehistory of the region. A number of summaries of the archeology of the general area have been written (see Gardner 1987; Johnson 1986; Walker 1981); Gardner, Walker, and Johnson present essentially the same picture, with the major differences lying in the terminology utilized for the prehistoric time periods. The dates provided below for the three general prehistoric periods, and associated sub-periods, follow those outlined by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR 2017:107-108).

 

Paleoindian Period (9500/10000-8000 BCE)

 

The Paleoindian period corresponds to the end of the Late Pleistocene and beginning of the Early Holocene of the Late Glacial period, which was characterized by cooler and drier conditions with significantly less seasonal variation than is evident in the region today. The cooler conditions resulted in decreased evaporation and, in areas where

 

drainage was restricted by topography, could have resulted in the development of wetlands in further inland regions (Walker 1981; Johnson 1986:P1-8). Generally speaking, the nature of the vegetation was marked by open forests composed of a mix of coniferous and deciduous elements. The individual character of local floral communities would have depended on drainage, soils, and elevation, among other factors. The structure of the open environment would have been favorable for deer, bear, moose, and, to a lesser degree, elk, which would have expanded rapidly into the environmental niches left available by the extinction and extirpation of the large herd animals and megafauna characteristic of the Late Pleistocene.

 

The fluted projectile point is considered the hallmark of the Paleoindian lithic toolkit. Based on his work at the Flint Run Complex, Gardner identified three distinct sub-phases within the larger fluted point phase (Gardner 1974). The oldest of the Paleoindian sub- phases is identified by the now classic Clovis point, a large, bifacially flaked tool with a channel or flute removed from both sides of its base. Regionally, the widely accepted beginning date for Clovis type points is circa 9500 BCE; however, some data has suggested a pre-11,000 BCE beginning date for Clovis points (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997; Johnson 1997). The Clovis sub-phase is followed in time by the Middle Paleo sub- phase, defined by smaller fluted points. The Dalton-Hardaway sub-phase is the final one of the period and is characterized by the minimally fluted Dalton and Hardaway projectile points. This three-period subdivision is well supported by stratigraphy.

Associated with these projectile points are various other tools that usually cannot be taken by themselves as diagnostic Paleoindian indicators. Examples of such stone tools include end or side scrapers, bifaces, blades, and spokeshaves, which are all associated with the hunting and processing of game animals. While Clovis points have been found across North America, a significant concentration of them have been found in Virginia (Egloff and Woodward 2006:9).

Possible evidence for pre-Clovis colonization of the Americas has been found at the Cactus Hill site (44SX0202) in Virginia, where an ephemeral component dating from 15,000 to 13,000 BCE included prismatic blades manufactured from quartzite cores and metavolcanic or chert pentagonal bifaces (Haynes 2002: 43-44; Johnson 1997; McAvoy 1997; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997). Generally, lanceolate projectile points, prismatic blades, pentagonal bifaces, polyhedral blade cores, microflakes, and microlithic tools comprise possible pre-Clovis assemblages and a preference for cryptocrystalline lithic material such as chert and jasper is noted (Goodyear 2005). Cactus Hill and other reportedly pre-Clovis sites, including SV-2 (44SM0037) in Saltville, Virginia (McDonald 2000; McDonald and Kay 1999) and the Meadowcroft Rock Shelter in western Pennsylvania (Adovasio et al. 1990; Adovasio et al. 1998), have been the subject of much controversy and no undisputed pre-Clovis sites or sites representing substantial pre- Clovis occupations have been identified in the region.

 

Paleoindian archeological assemblages rarely contain stone tools specifically designed for processing plant material, such as manos, metates, or grinders. This general absence

 

or rarity of such tool categories does not mean that use of plant resources was unimportant; rather, it may suggest that a far greater emphasis was placed on hunting versus gathering, at least when viewed from the perspective of an assemblage of stone tools. For instance, carbonized plant materials have been found in Paleoindian contexts and plant remains have been recovered from some Paleoindian sites. The remains of acalypha, blackberry, hackberry, hawthorn plum, and grape were recovered from a hearth in the Paleoindian portion of the Shawnee-Minisink Site in eastern Pennsylvania (Dent 1991). The subsistence settlement base of Paleoindian groups in the immediate region likely focused on general foraging, drawing a comparison with the Shawnee-Minisink data, and certainly focused on hunting (Gardner 1989 and various).

 

The settlement pattern of Paleoindian peoples has been described as being quarry-centered, with larger base camps being situated in close proximity to localized sources of high quality cryptocrystalline lithic raw materials, such as chert, jasper, and chalcedony. Smaller exploitative or hunting and/or gathering sites are found at varying distance from these quarry-centered base camps (Gardner 1980). This model, developed from Gardner’s work at the Thunderbird site complex in the Shenandoah River Valley, has wide applicability throughout both the Middle Atlantic region and greater Eastern United States. The extreme curation (or conservation) and reworking of the blade element exhibited by many stray point finds recovered throughout the Middle Atlantic region, especially specimens from Coastal Plain localities, is a strong argument supporting the quarry-base camp settlement model.

Gardner has argued that once a tool kit has been curated to its usable limit, a return to the quarry-tied base camp would be made in order to replenish raw materials (Gardner 1974).

The Thunderbird Site in the Shenandoah Valley produced evidence of the Paleoindian tool kit, along with food and resource processing activities demonstrating large social cooperation. The complex of sites within the surrounding area forms one of the most significant sites in North America, stratigraphically linking the Paleoindian period with the Early Archaic (Egloff and Woodward 2006:12).

Early Archaic Period (8000-6500 BCE)

 

The Early Archaic period coincides with the early Holocene climatic period. The warming trend, which began during the terminal Late Pleistocene and Paleoindian period, continued during the Early Archaic period. Precipitation increased and seasonality became more marked, at least by 7500 BCE. This period encompasses the decline of the open grasslands of the previous era and the rise of closed boreal forests throughout the Middle Atlantic region; this change to arboreal vegetation was initially dominated by conifers, but soon gave way to a deciduous domination. Arguably, the reduction of these open grasslands led to the decline and extinction of the last of the Pleistocene megafauna, as evidence suggests that the last of these creatures (e.g., mastodons) would have been gone from the area around the beginning of the Early Archaic period. Sea level throughout the region rose with the retreat of glacial ice, a process that led to an increase in the number of poorly drained and swampy biomes; these water-rich areas became the gathering places of large modern mammals.

 

Similar to the Paleoindian period, the subsistence settlement strategy of Early Archaic peoples was one focused on seasonal migration and hunting and gathering. Early Archaic humans were drawn to the wet biomes resulting from sea level rise because the abundant concentration of game animal, such as white-tailed deer, elk, and bear, made for excellent hunting. As the arboreal vegetation became more abundant and deciduous forests spread, the exploitation of newly available and abundant plant resources, such as fruits, nuts, and acorns increased among Early Archaic populations (Egloff and Woodward 2006:13-14).

 

Although the manufacturing techniques of projectile points and the favored use of cryptocrystalline raw materials of the Paleoindian period remained unchanged throughout the Early Archaic period, stylistic changes in the lithic toolkit of Early Archaic peoples are evident. The switch from the fluting of projectile points to notching is generally considered to mark the end of the Paleoindian and the beginning of the Archaic period; examples of Early Archaic point types include Amos Corner Notched, Kirk and Palmer Corner Notched, Warren Side Notched and Kirk Stemmed varieties. Gardner has demonstrated that while corner notched and side notched points show a stylistic change from the earlier fluted varieties, they all occurred within a single cultural tradition (Gardner 1974). The transition from fluting to notching is not a radical change, but the gradual replacement of one attribute at a time. The fluting, which was nearly absent during the Dalton-Hardaway sub-phase, is replaced by corner notching, which is then gradually replaced by side notching in the Archaic sequence. The initial reason for the change in hafting and related modifications of the basal elements of Early Archaic points is likely related to the introduction of the atlatl or spear-thrower, which increased the accuracy and force with which spears could be thrown; the fluted forms may have been utilized mainly as thrusting tools, while the earlier notched forms may have been mounted onto a smaller lance with a detachable shaft and powered by the atlatl. As in the earlier Paleoindian period, stone tools designed for the processing of plant materials are rare in Early Archaic assemblages.

Toward the close of the Early Archaic period, trends away from a settlement model comparable to the earlier Paleoindian quarry-focused pattern are evident. A major shift is one to a reliance on a greater range of lithic raw materials for manufacture of stone tools rather than a narrow focus on high quality cryptocrystalline materials. Lithic use was a matter of propinquity; stone available was stone used. However, extensive curation of projectile points is still evident up until the bifurcate phases of the subsequent Middle Archaic period. It may be that while a reliance on high quality lithic materials continued, other kinds of raw material were used as needed.

 

This pattern is not readily documented during the earlier Paleoindian period. Johnson argues that the shift to a wider range of materials occurs in the gradual shift from the Palmer/Kirk Corner Notched phases of the Early Archaic to the later Kirk Side Notched/Stemmed or closing phases of the period (Johnson 1983; 1986:P2-6). Changes in lithic raw material selection are likely related to movement into a wider range of habitats coincident with the expansion of deciduous forest elements. Early Archaic period

 

sites begin to show up in areas previously not occupied to any great extent, if at all. Additionally, the greater number of sites can be taken as a rough indicator of a gradual population increase through time.

 

Middle Archaic Period (6500-3000 BCE)

 

The chronological period known as the Middle Archaic coincides with the appearance of full Holocene environments. Climatic trends in the Holocene at this time are marked by the further growth of deciduous forests, the continuing rise of sea levels, and warm and moist conditions. This change led to the spread of modern temperate floral assemblages (such as mesic hemlock and oak forests), modern faunal assemblages, and seasonal continental climates. The advent of such climates and related vegetation patterns allowed for the development of seasonally available subsistence resources, which led to base camps no longer being situated near specific lithic sources, but closer to these seasonal resources. This shift also led to an increase in the number of exploited environmental zones. The moist conditions favored the spread of swamps and bogs throughout poorly drained areas like floodplains, bays, or basins. Rising sea level and overall moist conditions helped form these swamps and basins; sea level had risen too rapidly to allow the growth of large, stable concentrations of shellfish. Estuarine resources were scarce, and the inhabitants relied on varied animal resources for sustenance. Essentially modern faunal species were spread throughout the various biomes, but their distributions would have been somewhat different than that known for today. The prevalent species included deer, turkey, and smaller mammals.

 

The initial technological shift in lithic projectile points between the Early and Middle Archaic periods is generally considered to be marked by the introduction of bifurcate base projectile points, such as St. Albans, LeCroy, and Kanawha types (Broyles 1971; Chapman 1975; Gardner 1982). Other researchers place the bifurcate phase within the Early Archaic period. The bifurcate points do not occur throughout the entire Middle Archaic period; however, they appear to be constrained to the earlier portion of the period and disappeared sometime before 5000 BCE (Chapman 1975, Dent 1995; Bergman et al. 1994). Several other marked changes occurred along with the onset of the bifurcate points. Ground stone tools, such as axes, gouges, grinding stones, and plant processing tools, were introduced along with bifurcate points (Chapman 1975, Walker 1981). These new tools are evidence for the implementation of a new technology designed to exploit vegetable/plant resources. Also, a shift to the use of locally available lithic raw material, which began during the closing phases of the Early Archaic, is manifest by the advent of the bifurcate phases.

The major stemmed varieties of projectile point that follow the earlier bifurcate forms and typify the middle portion of the Middle Archaic period include the Stanly, Morrow Mountain I and Morrow Mountain II varieties. Coe (1964) documented a Stanly-Morrow Mountain sequence at the Doerschuk Site in the North Carolina Piedmont, and similar results were recorded at the Neville Site in New Hampshire (Dincauze 1976) and the Slade Site in Virginia (Dent 1995). The projectile points marking the latter portion of the

 

Middle Archaic period are the lanceolate shaped Guilford type and various side notched varieties (Coe 1964; Dent 1995). Halifax style points return to side notched formed projectile points and Shenandoah Valley sequences parallel typology progressions similar to the North Carolina Piedmont and along the Kanawha River in western West Virginia (Gardner 1986:53). The Rudacil and Fifty sites located near the project area have established projectile point sequences for the Valley (Gardner 1986).

 

It is during the Middle Archaic period that prehistoric human presence becomes relatively widespread in a wide range of environmental settings (Gardner 1985, 1987; Johnson 1986; Weiss-Bromberg 1987). As far as the inhabitants of the Middle Archaic period are concerned, there is an increase in population, which can be seen in the sheer number of sites (as represented by the temporally diagnostic point types) throughout the Middle Atlantic region. With the increasing diversity in natural resources came a subsistence pattern that was predicated on the seasonal harvest of various nut species and other plant resources that characterized deciduous forest environments. Base camps were located in high biomass habitats or areas where a great variety of food resources could be found (Walker 1981). These base camp locations varied according to the season and were located on floodplains, interior fluvial swamp settings, and in some cases, within interior upland swamp settings. The size and duration of the base camps appear to have depended on the size, abundance, and diversity of the immediately local and nearby resource zones.

 

Late Archaic Period (3000-1200 BCE)

The rise in sea level continued during the Late Archaic period, eventually pushing the salinity cline further upstream and creating tidal environments; a corresponding movement of various riverine and estuarine species took place with the development of tidal conditions in the embayed section of the Potomac and its main tributary streams. Seasonal fish runs became increasingly reliable along the Shenandoah River as freshwater species travelled further upstream to spawn. Mussels were also prominent in the shallow rivers and streams. The development of brackish water estuaries occurred to the east of the Ridge and Valley including the Chesapeake Bay, Delaware, and Hudson River estuaries. In general, climatic events approached those similar to modern times during the Late Archaic period.

Throughout the Eastern United States, distinctive patterns of the Native-American landscape become evident by about 3000/2500 BCE, marking a significant shift with earlier Middle Archaic components. The Late Archaic period is characterized by an increase in population over that documented for the Early and Middle Archaic periods, based on an increase in both the number of identified sites dating to this period and in their size and widespread distribution. An increasingly sedentary lifestyle evolved, with a reduction in seasonal settlement shifts (Walker 1981; Johnson 1986:5-1). Food processing and food storage technologies were becoming more efficient, and trade networks began to be established. Settlement continued within the Ridge and Valley along high mountain meadows, in saddles, gaps, and hollows as people searched for game, useful plant species, and lithic materials (Egloff and Woodward 2006:25).

 

In parts of the Middle Atlantic region, the development of an adaptation based on the exploitation of riverine and estuarine resources is apparent. Settlement during the Late Archaic period shifted from the interior stream settings favored during earlier periods to the newly embayed stream mouths and similar settings (Gardner 1976). Although Late Archaic populations continued a foraging pattern linked to dense forests and their seasonally available plant resources, interior sites became minimally exploited, though not abandoned, sustaining smaller hunting camps and specialized exploitative stations; sites in these areas exhibit varying emphasis on procurement of locally available cobble or tabular lithic sources, such as chert, quartz, and quartzite, as well as a variety of plant species. In settlement-subsistence models presented by Gardner, this shift is linked with the development of large seasonal runs of anadromous fish. These sites tend to be concentrated along the shorelines near accessible fishing areas. The adjacent interior and upland zones become rather extensively utilized as adjuncts to these fishing base camps.

 

The Late Archaic technological assemblage continued an emphasis on ground stone tools first noted in the Middle Archaic period. Steatite net weights and carved steatite bowls with lug handles, which would not break when heated during cooking, first appeared during this period and are common throughout the Eastern United States from Maine to Florida. The use of steatite bowls is often seen as an indicator of increased sedentism among Late Archaic populations, as the vessels would have been heavy and difficult to transport (Egloff and Woodward 2006:26). In Virginia, outcrops of steatite have been identified in the eastern foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, though in limited numbers, from Fairfax County to Carroll County in southern Virginia. Archeologically, fragments of steatite bowls have been recovered in Late Archaic contexts in varying physiographic settings in the Middle Atlantic, often at great distances from steatite outcrops and quarry sites, which many have interpreted as evidence of widespread trading between Late Archaic peoples across the region. Kavanagh’s (1982) study of the Monocacy River watershed in Maryland suggests that dug-out canoes were being produced during the Late Archaic period, based on the greater occurrences of gouges and adzes recovered from Late Archaic contexts (Kavanagh 1982:97); canoes would have allowed for increased mobility and facilitated trading among Late Archaic groups via the various rivers and streams in the region.

The occurrence of steatite in the Piedmont meant that Late Archaic peoples within the Valley would have had to travel east to procure such material as trade networks increased during this time. While signs of increased sedentism occurred along the Atlantic coast and at the mouths of estuarine river and stream systems, the Shenandoah Valley was likely still inhabited more seasonally at this time for chestnut harvests (Gardner 1986:61). Excavations of these seasonal base camps have occurred in the Valley at the Corral site and the Peer site and have included projectile point typologies found below.

 

The most easily recognizable temporally diagnostic projectile point in the Middle Atlantic region is the parallel stemmed, broad-bladed Savannah River point, which has a number of related cognate types and descendant forms, such as the notched broadspears, Perkiomen and Susquehanna, Dry Brook and Orient, and more narrow bladed, stemmed

 

forms such as Holmes. Defined by Coe based on work in the Carolina Piedmont (Coe 1964), the Savannah River point represents what could be, arguably, a typological horizon throughout the Eastern United States east of the Appalachians, dating from about 2600 to perhaps as late as 1500 BCE. Gardner (1987) separates the Late Archaic into two phases: Late Archaic I (2500-1800 BCE) and Late Archaic II (1800-1000 BCE). The Late Archaic I corresponds to the spread and proliferation of Savannah River populations, while the Late Archaic II is defined by Holmes and Susquehanna points. The distribution of these two, Gardner (1982; 1987) suggests, shows the development of stylistic or territorial zones. The Susquehanna style was restricted to the Potomac above the Fall Line and through the Shenandoah Valley, while the Holmes and kindred points were restricted to the Tidewater and south of the Potomac through the Piedmont. Another aspect of the differences between the two groups is in their raw material preferences: Susquehanna and descendant forms such as Dry Brook and, less so, Orient Fishtail, tended to be made from rhyolite, while Holmes spear points were generally made of quartzite.

 

Early Woodland Period (1200 BCE-300 CE)

 

The Early Woodland period corresponds generally to the Sub-Atlantic episode, when relatively stable, milder, and moister conditions prevailed, although short-term climatic perturbations were present. By this point in time, generally, the climate had evolved to its present conditions (Walker 1981).

 

The major artifact hallmark and innovation of the Early Woodland period is the appearance of pottery (Dent 1995; Gardner and McNett 1971). Archeologists believe that ceramic technology was introduced to Virginia from people living on the coasts of Georgia and South Carolina, where pottery had been made by prehistoric populations since approximately 2500 BCE (Egloff and Woodward 2006:26). It is important to note that pottery underscores the sedentary nature of the local resident populations, as clay ceramics of the period would have been fragile and cumbersome to transport. Further evidence of this sedentism has been identified in the region in the form of subsurface storage pits (likely for foodstuffs), platform hearths, midden deposits, and evidence of substantial pole-constructed structures. This is not to imply that Early Woodland populations did not utilize the inner-riverine or inner-estuarine areas, but rather that this seems to have been done on a seasonal basis by people moving out from established bases; this settlement pattern is essentially a continuation of Late Archaic lifeways with an increasing orientation toward seed harvesting in floodplain locations (Walker 1981). Small group base camps would have been located along Fall Line streams during the spring and early summer in order to take advantage of the anadromous fish runs. In the Valley, semi-permanence or sedentism can be seen in storage pits located near hearths at the Corral site (Gardner 1986).

In the Shenandoah Valley, as well as most of the surrounding Middle Atlantic region, the earliest known ceramics begin with a ware known as Marcey Creek. In chronological

 

terms, Marcey Creek likely falls within the first 200 years of the final millennium BCE, or roughly 1000 to 800 BCE. This ware is a flat-bottomed vessel tempered with crushed steatite or, in the Eastern Shore region, other kinds of crushed rock temper (Manson 1948). Based on vessel shape, this distinctive ware is interpreted as a direct evolution or development from the flat-bottomed stone bowls of the Late Archaic period. Vessels of this ware frequently exhibit the same lugs on the side walls as seen on Late Archaic steatite bowls. As a ceramic ware group, Marcey Creek is short lived in terms of its position in the chronological record. The earliest dates for Marcey Creek are 1200 BCE in the Northern Neck (Waselkov 1982) and 950 BCE at the Monocacy site in the Potomac Piedmont (Gardner and McNett 1971). Marcey Creek Pottery has been documented in the Valley at the Corral site, overlying a Susquehannah Broadspear occupation, as well as the earliest occupation levels at the Cabin Run excavations near Front Royal (Gardner 1986:65).

 

Shortly after about 800 BCE, conoidal and somewhat barrel shaped vessels with cord marked surfaces enter the record in the Middle Atlantic region and greater Northeast; whether these evolved from the flat-bottomed Marcey Creek vessels or simply replaced them is unknown. In Maryland and Virginia such a ware has been designated Accokeek Cord Marked, first described from the Accokeek Creek Site in Prince George’s County, Maryland (Stephenson et al. 1963). Radiocarbon dates for Accokeek place it between approximately 750 BCE and 300/400 BCE, when it is superseded by net impressed varieties, including Popes Creek and related wares (Gardner and McNett 1971; Mouer et al. 1981; Mounier and Cresson 1988). Accokeek ware was tempered with both sand and crushed quartz, although any suitable stone may have been used for the grit source, including steatite. In many cases, temper selected for use by Accokeek potters appears to have been based on propinquity to specific resources. Crushed rock tempered ceramics (Albemarle) dominated in the successive Middle Woodland, with net marking and cord marking as the surface treatments; net marking was eventually replaced by fabric impression. Crushed rock tempering replaced the use of steatite in areas surrounding the Valley and nearby Pennsylvania known as Vinette. In the Coastal Plain settings of the Maryland and Virginia, Accokeek typically has a “sandier” paste and could be said to have sand as a tempering agent. However, when large enough sherds are analyzed, crushed quartz tempering is invariably found in this ware. Whether or not the paste of the vessel is sandy or more clayey in texture (or “feel”) depends on the clay source, either Piedmont or Coastal Plain. Clay sources from Coastal Plain settings usually contain greater amounts of sand.

 

Some chronological frameworks for the Middle Atlantic region, particularly in Maryland, suggest a transitional ware, such as Selden Island (Slattery 1946), between Marcey Creek and Accokeek and its cognate wares. While this concept of a transitional ware has logical merit, it cannot be demonstrated conclusively with the evidence currently available. In many cases, the excavated sites show depositional contexts from this period with little vertical separation between Late Archaic and Early Woodland deposits. A more refined chronology that clarifies such issues of ceramic change still needs to be developed. The appearance of Marcey Creek pottery in the Potomac Piedmont is associated with the

 

arrival of Susquehanna populations when correlated with projectile point typologies. The appearance of small side notched points and similar pottery in the Valley suggests strong interactions between Susquehanna peoples and Savannah River Late Archaic groups.

 

Generally, temporally diagnostic projectile points from the Early Woodland period include smaller side notched and stemmed variants such as Vernon and Calvert, and diagnostic spear points such as Rossville/Piscataway points. The lobate based Piscataway point has been associated archeologically with Accokeek pottery at a number of sites in the Middle Atlantic region; locally these points have been termed “Teardrop” points by Mounier and other investigators (Mounier and Cresson 1988). This point type has been found in association with Accokeek pottery at sites in New Jersey (Mounier and Cresson 1988; Barse 1991), in Maryland (Barse 1978), and in Virginia (Mouer et al. 1981; McClearen 1991). These points continue into the early phases of the Middle Woodland period and have been found in contexts containing Popes Creek, Albemarle, and early variants of Mockley ceramics along the Potomac River (Barse 2002).

 

Middle Woodland Period (300-1000 CE)

 

The Middle Woodland period is characterized by an increase in population size and increased sedentism. With the emergence of Middle Woodland societies, an apparent settlement shift occurred compared to those seen in the intensive hunter-gatherer-fisher groups of the Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods. In brief, it appears that a selection to broader floodplain localities and the development of larger storage facilities at base camp localities dominated settlement patterns at this time (Cross 1956). Some degree of seasonal occupation and migration centered on natural food resources still occurred; potentially the year was split between more permanent settlements located in the inner Coastal Plain region and the Piedmont uplands. In general, from 200 CE to approximately 900 CE, settlement in the Potomac Piedmont was sparse. Essentially all available food resources were now utilized, including freshwater aquatic species (i.e., mussels and fish), deer, turkey, and migratory waterfowl. People also began to intensively harvest and store a variety of locally available plants, seeds, and nuts, such as amaranth seeds, chenopod seeds, wild rice, hickory nuts, acorns, and walnuts.

According to Gardner (1986:71) the most striking societal change in the Middle Woodland in the Valley is the appearance of stone burial mounds. These burials were cut into the earth and interred one to several individuals before the graves were filled in with earth and cobbles, then piles of earth and stone covered them. The burials often formed clusters of mounds with concentrations along the South Fork of the Shenandoah and South Branch of the Potomac. These areas could have been marked as boundaries for confederations or centers of polity between hamlets (Gardner 1986:72). The mound culture was influenced by western cultures, including the Adena of the Ohio Valley region. The Stone Mound Burial culture in the northern Shenandoah Valley further demonstrates the diversity of peoples within the Valley at this time, with the burials placed on ancient blufflike river terraces overlooking floodplains (Egloff and Woodward 2006:28).

 

The earliest radiocarbon dates for the Shenandoah Valley mounds come from the Thunderbird Ranch site and places the beginning of the mound building at 420 BCE (Gardner 1986:72). Later accretional mound burial continued throughout the period into the Late Woodland period atop the original stone mound burials, as more recent excavated examples in the Valley demonstrate (Dunham et al. 2003). Grave goods included in these burials were less extravagant than western examples, but included Great Lakes copper, Ohio cherts, and Carolina slates (Gardner 1986:72).

 

Middle Woodland ceramics are typified by crushed rock temper as opposed to sand which dominated the Early Woodland period. One notable addition to ceramic technology, and one clearly widespread throughout the Middle Atlantic region, is the inception of vessels exhibiting net impressed surface treatments. A wider range of vessel forms and sizes also can be documented compared to earlier vessel assemblages. The net impressed surfaces and greater variation in vessel size and shape represent a significant change used for defining the Middle Woodland period in the Middle Atlantic region from areas south of the James River through the Chesapeake region and into the lower Susquehanna and Delaware River drainages. Accokeek and related wares of the Early Woodland period gradually developed into what has become known as the Albemarle ware group, commonly found in the Piedmont of Virginia and, perhaps, Pennsylvania and Maryland; it does not appear to be present in the Delaware Valley area.

 

Based on work in the lower Potomac River Valley and the upper Delaware River Valley, net impressed ceramics enter the chronological record around 500 BCE (Gardner and McNett 1971). More recently, AMS dating on carbon taken from a sherd of Popes Creek recovered in Charles County, Maryland returned a slightly younger date of 2235 ±100 B.P., or 285 ±100 BCE (Curry and Kavanagh 1994). In the upper Delaware River area, Broadhead net impressed ceramics, which have been considered as a northern Popes Creek cognate, have been dated to 480 ±80 BCE in New Jersey (Kinsey 1972:456). Other similar wares include the net impressed varieties of Wolf Neck and Colbourn ceramics from the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Delaware. Comparisons could also be extended to the Prince George Net Impressed ceramics from southern Virginia and the Culpepper ware in the Triassic Lowlands of the Piedmont; Culpepper ware is a sandstone tempered ceramic occasionally found in the Piedmont and is recognized by some archeologists working in Fairfax County but has not been clearly defined in the literature. These wares or ware groups are circum-Chesapeake Bay in their geographic distribution, pointing to close interrelationships between the societies making these wares. All of these groups were undoubtedly participating in a growing Middle Woodland interaction sphere widespread throughout the Shenandoah, James, Potomac, lower Susquehanna, Delaware, and even lower Hudson River Valleys.

Popes Creek ceramics developed into the shell tempered Mockley ceramics, a ware that has both net impressed and cord marked surfaces. Many, if not most, radiocarbon dates associated with Mockley ceramics bracket the ware between about 250/300 CE to approximately 800 CE, after which it develops into the Late Woodland Townsend Ware. Why the shift from sand to shell tempering occurred is unknown, although it was

 

widespread in the Middle Atlantic region. In the lower Potomac Valley, Mockley may have been tied to the intensive exploitation of oyster beds, a phenomenon first manifested in the earlier Popes Creek phase of the Middle Woodland period. Mockley ware exhibits relationships with the earlier Popes Creek ceramics and its cognate wares in basic attributes such as rim form, vessel shapes, and the range of vessel sizes (Barse 1990).

Further into the interior reaching the Ridge and Valley net marking on pottery halted along with the burial mound tradition around 200 CE and was replaced by fabric impression, which was brought from southwestern Virginia and Tennessee (Gardner 1986:75).

 

Popes Creek and Mockley ware ceramics are not as common in Piedmont settings as they are in Coastal Plain settings where they are prevalent. Albemarle ceramics, bearing mostly cord marked exterior surfaces that show continuity with the earlier Accokeek ware, are commonly found in Middle Woodland contexts in the Potomac Piedmont. This ware was found associated with Mockley ceramics at the Fletchers Boathouse site in pit contexts (Barse 2002) along with small quantities of Mockley and Popes Creek ceramics. Radiocarbon dates from several of the large pits at this site fall between 100 BCE and 100 CE, suggesting that Popes Creek was in the process of being replaced by the shell tempered Mockley ceramics. Albemarle is considered to be contemporary with both, though more commonly found in the Piedmont; as a ware it continued up to and perhaps into the Late Woodland period. Gardner and Walker (1993:4) suggested that fabric impressed wares become more common toward the end of the Middle Woodland period. This surface treatment is restricted to Albemarle wares though and does not really occur on Mockley ceramics. Fabric impressing on shell tempered ceramics by default is identified as Townsend ware.

Lithic artifacts associated with Middle Woodland occupations frequently include side notched and parallel stemmed points manufactured from rhyolite, argillite, and Pennsylvania jasper. Such points are known as Fox Creek in the Delaware Valley and Selby Bay in the Chesapeake region. The Middle Woodland people also manufactured and used a stone axe called a celt, used for woodworking. The celt differed from the earlier axes because it was not grooved; rather, it was hafted into a socketed wooden handle.

 

Late Woodland Period (1000-1606 CE/European Contact)

The Late Woodland period begins around 900 CE, the result of a culmination in trends concerning subsistence practices, settlement patterns, and ceramic technology. A trend toward sedentism, evident in earlier periods, and a subsistence system emphasizing horticulture eventually led to a settlement pattern of floodplain village communities and dispersed hamlets reliant on an economy of both hunting and the planting of native cultigens.

 

Migrations into the Middle Potomac and the major stream and river valleys feeding the Potomac, including the Shenandoah, around 1000 to 1300 CE has been defined by

 

northern groups entering the area bringing new ceramic traditions and settlement patterns. Excavated examples of Late Woodland Villages such as the Rostenstock Site on the Monocacy River have drawn parallels with Owasoco ware cultures from New York (Curry and Kavanagh 2004). These new groups expanded into the region corresponding with the introduction of corn into the region and climatic change. The Montgomery Complex had no precursor in the region, as there was likely a lack of a resident group in the Piedmont during the Middle Woodland period; however, a replacement culture following this influence is known as the Luray Complex beginning from 1300 to 1400 (Curry and Kavanagh 2004).

 

In the Potomac Piedmont, the crushed rock wares are replaced by a shell tempered ware that spread out of the Shenandoah Valley to at least the mouth of the Monocacy River at about 1350-1400 CE. Shell tempered Keyser ceramics, a downstream variant of the Late Woodland Monongahela ware common in the Upper Ohio River Valley, extend nearly to the Fall Line, although they are not found in Coastal Plain settings. Triangular projectile points indicating the use of the bow and arrow are often considered diagnostic of this period as well. However, triangular projectile points have also been recovered from well- defined and earlier contexts at regional sites such as the Abbot Farm site in central New Jersey, the Higgins site on the Inner Coastal Plain on Maryland’s Western Shore, and the Pig Point site in Anne Arundel County, Maryland (Stewart 1998; Ebright 1992; Luckenbach et al. 2010). Additionally, triangular points have been found in context with Savanah River points in Fairfax County, although the context appears to have been mixed (Christopher Sperling, personal communication 2015).

 

Other examples of the Montgomery Complex can be found at the Kerns Site along the Shenandoah River. The influence from the north from Iroquoian cultural groups seem to have influenced one migration, while influences from the west is evident in later occupations. The Biggs Ford Site is a good example of the replacement Luray Complex, containing smoothed ceramics, both tempered with crushed river mussel shell, related to Keyser-cord marked ceramics from the Upper Ohio River Valley (Bastian 1974:4). While occupation levels with the Keyser Ware at the Biggs Ford Site define the later occupations between 1300 and 1500 CE (Bastian 1974:6).

 

The Late Woodland period is also marked by an increase in ceramic decoration. Most of the motifs are triangular in shape and applied by incising with a blunt-tipped stylus. The marked increase of ceramic decoration and the various design motifs on Late Woodland pottery compared to earlier periods likely reflect the need to define ethnic boundaries and possibly smaller kin sets. Neighboring groups that may have been in low level competition for arable riverine floodplains may have used varied embellishments of basic design elements to set themselves apart from one another. Additionally, in a noncompetitive setting, ceramic designs simply may have served to distinguish between individual social groups, as the region now sustained the highest population level of the prehistoric sequence. As such, ceramic design elements functioned as a symbolic means of communication among groups, serving as badges of ethnic identity or, perhaps, smaller intra-group symbols of identity.

 

As noted above, Late Woodland societies were largely sedentary with an economy relying on the growth of a variety of native cultigens. Late Woodland settlement choice reflects this horticultural focus in the selection of broad floodplain areas for settlement. This pattern was characteristic of the Piedmont, as well as the Coastal Plain to the east and the Shenandoah Valley to the west (Gardner 1982; Kavanagh 1983). The uplands and other areas were also utilized, for it was here that wild resources would have been gathered. Smaller, non-ceramic yielding sites are found away from the major rivers (Hantman and Klein 1992; Stevens 1989).

 

Most of the functional categories of Late Woodland period sites away from major drainages are small base camps, transient, limited purpose camps, and quarries. Site frequency and size vary according to a number of factors, e.g., proximity to major rivers or streams, distribution of readily available surface water, and the presence of lithic raw material (Gardner 1987). Villages, hamlets, or any of the other more permanent categories of sites are rare to absent in the Piedmont inter-riverine uplands.

 

Perhaps after 1400 CE, with the effects of the Little Ice Age, an increased emphasis on hunting and gathering and either a decreased emphasis on horticulture or the need for additional arable land required a larger territory per group, and population pressures resulted in a greater occupation of the Outer Piedmont and Fall Line regions (Gardner 1991; Fiedel 1999; Miller and Walker n.d.). The 15^th and 16^th centuries were a time of population movement and disruption from the Ridge and Valley to the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. There appears to have been shifting socio-economic alliances over competition for resources and places in local exchange networks. Factors leading to competition for resources may have led to the development of more centralized forms of social organization characterized by incipiently ranked societies. Small chiefdoms appeared along major rivers at the Fall Line and in the Inner Coastal Plain at about this time. A Fall Line location was especially advantageous for controlling access to critical seasonal resources, as well as being points of topographic constriction that facilitated controlling trade arteries (Potter 1993; Jirikowic 1999; Miller and Walker n.d.).

 

Migrations into and out of the Shenandoah Valley are made through assumptions based on the geographic dispersal of different ceramic traditions and projectile point typologies. Ablemarle ceramics were developed in the Valley using crushed rock tempering. Radford or Page ceramics spread north from southwestern Virginia and used crushed limestone temper. Potomac Creek dominated the Potomac Piedmont. This shows greater trade networks and movement of peoples. Gardner describes four major documented population movements between 900 and 1400 CE that affected the Valley:

1) Groups from the southwestern Virginia Piedmont moved north and west through the New and Roanoke River Valleys, then north along the eastern side of the Great Valley to the James River valley; 2) Groups moved up the central and western parts of the Great Valley from southwestern Virginia; 3) Eastward from the southern Shenandoah and the northern James River drainage, groups travelled

 

through the James River corridor into the western Piedmont; and 4) An eastward dispersal of people from the Potomac Piedmont traveled into the northern Shenandoah Valley (Gardner 1986:79).

 

New migrations and influences entering the Valley from West Virginia into the branches of the Potomac included the New River series known as Keyser in the Shenandoah and Potomac Valleys. By 1500 CE the Keyser series dominated the Valley and is associated with palisaded villages, likely a sign of consolidation of power and warfare between rival groups (Gardner 1986:89). Further influences from the Ohio River Valley spread the Earthen Mound Burial culture, which began in the Shenandoah Valley around 950 CE and continued to contact with Europeans (Egloff and Woodward 2006:40). Studies on accretional burial mounds in Virginia identified a mound group composed of 13 accretional mounds dotting the Roanoke, James, Rivanna, Rapidan, and Shenandoah Rivers, all dating to the Late Woodland period (Dunham et al. 2003).

 

The 13 identified mounds are the remnants of what was a much larger complex that was found across central Virginia at the time of European contact but have essentially disappeared from the visual landscape due to agricultural practices and erosion of river terraces (Dunham et al. 2003:111). The mounds not only provide valuable bioarcheological information, but they represent burial practices outside of the eastern extent of Mississippian mound burial distributions and west of Coastal Plain ossuary burials. Mound burials of these types contained primary and secondary burials including massive collective burials of many individuals represented as large clusters of bone and sub-mound pit burials predating the later earthen mound burials. At Rapidan Mound an estimated 1,000-2,000 individuals were buried over the course of several centuries with as many as 28 to 32 individuals represented in collective burial features (Dunham et al. 2003:120).

The appearance of accretional mound burials on large floodplains and river terraces (on the best agricultural land) within the Ridge and Valley suggest that agriculture played an intense role during this period and counters early colonial perspectives of a region as an unused frontier (Dunham et al. 2003:124). The mounds were monuments to ancestors built in prominent places marking territory of different peoples who lived within the area.

 

The Monacans and Mannahoacs have been attributed with occupying the area between the James, Rivanna, Rappahannock, and Rapidan Rivers since first documented in 1607 by John Smith (Dunham et al. 2003:112). Other groups that would have occupied the area at the time of European contact in the eastern Valley have been described as Eastern Siouans and Algonquians associated with shell-tempered Keyser series ceramics (Gardner 1986:92).

 

In the early 1600s, Captain John Smith made contact with local populations in the Upper Potomac Coastal Plain and Henry Fleet lived among and traded with the Native Americans on the Chesapeake. Based on their comments, the upper Potomac may have served as a gateway location where Native Americans from diverse regions came to trade

 

(see Potter 1993). Native Americans along the Potomac appear to have adopted a range of social strategies during this period based on varying archeological evidence for European trade goods in aboriginal household assemblages and interpretations of how such goods were incorporated into traditional practices and social relations (Gallivan 2010).

 

Following his voyage up the Potomac in 1608, Captain John Smith described several substantial aboriginal occupations within the interior of Virginia along the major river systems including the Monacans, Mannahoacks, and Massowomecks. Hamlets and villages are noted throughout the Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions but at this time the Shenandoah Valley was unexplored by Europeans. The Valley was outside of the direct influence of the Powhatan Confederacy and other coastal Algonquian speaking peoples but would have been in contact with northern Iroquoian peoples and Algonquians in the nearby Piedmont. In 1706 a French Swiss traveler by the name of Louis Michel travelled up the Shenandoah River to present day Edinburg, southwest of the current project area, and reported that the Valley was sparsely populated with only Shawnee, Susquehannock, and Iroquois parties moving through (Egloff and Woodward 2006:63). The early history of the Valley would be characterized by constant settler conflicts with these peoples.

Initially early conflicts between the Susquehannock and Shawnee over the European fur trade were witnessed by settlers.

 

Historic Overview

In 1584, Sir Walter Raleigh obtained a license from Queen Elizabeth of England to search for “remote heathen lands” including a right to a deed to all the land within two hundred leagues of any settlement he made on these lands. After some unsuccessful attempts to settle a colony on Chesapeake Bay, Sir Raleigh granted Thomas Smith and others the liberty to trade to “his new country.” Sir Walter Raleigh was attained, or lost all his civil rights, in 1603. King James I of England thereafter granted to Sir Thomas Gates and others of “The Virginia Company of London “ the right to establish a new settlement in the Chesapeake Bay region of North America (Tucker 1969). The charter to the Virginia Company of London was reaffirmed by King James I by a second “Ancient Charter” dated 23 May 1609 (Hening 1823:88).

Three ships–the Susan Constant, the Godspeed, and the Discovery –under the command of Captains Newport, Gosnold, and John Smith sailed from England to the Chesapeake shortly after Christmas in 1606 (Kelso 1995:6), reaching Cape Henry in the lower Chesapeake Bay on 16 April 1607 (Weinert and Arthur 1989:1-3). The first settlement in Virginia in 1607 was made on Jamestown Island 60 miles up the James River (Kelso 1995:7).

 

Until 1692, all properties obtained by settlers in Virginia Colony were issued by the governor of the colony as Virginia Land Grants. In 1618, a provision of one hundred acres of land was made for “Ancient Planters,” or those adventurers and planters who arrived as permanent settlers prior to 1618. Thereafter, Virginia Land Grants were issued

 

by the “headright” system by which “any person who paid his own way to Virginia should be assigned 50 acres of land…and if he transported at his owne cost one or more persons he should…be awarded fifty acres of land” for each person (Nugent 1983:XXIV).

 

During the mid-17^th-century Civil Wars in England, King Charles I was beheaded in January 1648/9. His son, Prince Charles II, was crowned King of England by seven loyal supporters, including two Culpeper brothers, during his exile near France in September 1649. For their support, King Charles granted his loyal followers “The Northern Neck,” or all that land lying between the Rappahannock and Potomac Rivers in Virginia colony; the grant was to expire in 1690. King Charles II was restored to the English throne in 1660.

 

Early white traders and trappers were in the Shenandoah Valley by the 1670s, over a half century prior to serious early settlement along the Shenandoah River and its branches.

The earliest European to have seen the Shenandoah Valley was German explorer John Lederer, who sought a passage across the mountains based on his belief that “the Indian Ocean does stretch an Arm or Bay from California into the Continent as far as the Apalataean Mountains” (Lederer 1672:23). Lederer entered the Valley in the vicinity of Strasburg or Front Royal in late August of 1670 during his third expedition into the interior of Virginia. Lederer referred to the Valley as the “Savanae,” which he described as a vast open plain abounding in large herds of red deer (Lederer 1672:25). Seeing no possibility of ascending and passing through what we now know as the Allegheny front, Lederer journeyed no farther to the west and turned back “without making any further Difcovery” (Lederer 1672:23).

In 1677, Thomas, Second Lord Culpeper, became successor to Governor Berkeley in Virginia, and by 1681 he had purchased the Northern Neck interests of all the other proprietors. In petitioning for a renewal of the Northern Neck grant, which was to expire in 1690 according to the original grant by Charles I, the grant was reaffirmed in perpetuity to Lord Culpeper in 1688. Lord Culpeper died in 1689, and four-fifths of the Northern Neck interest passed to his daughter, Katherine Culpeper, who married Thomas, the fifth Lord Fairfax, in 1690. The Northern Neck thus became vested, and was affirmed to Thomas, Lord Fairfax, in 1692 (Kilmer and Sweig 1975:5-9).

 

Thomas, the fifth Lord Fairfax, leased his Northern Neck interests by appointing agents in the colony to manage and lease the properties and to collect the yearly quit rents.

However, the western extent and boundaries of the Northern Neck were not established until two separate surveys of the Northern Neck were carried out, beginning in 1736 and finalized in 1745-1747 (Kilmer and Sweig 1975:13-14). Northern Neck Land Grants escheated to the Commonwealth of Virginia during the War of the Revolution as the heirs of the Northern Neck were aliens residing in England. Persons in possession of Northern Neck lands at the time the Fairfax lands escheated were granted certificates following a “Northern Neck Survey” of their property, paying a small fee for a certificate, or deed in fee simple, to the coffers of the Virginia Commonwealth.

 

By 1705, the governing council of Virginia had offered incentives to explorers willing to cross the Blue Ridge mountains. A monopoly on trade was offered to individuals or companies who would “make discovery of any town or nation of Indians, situating or inhabiting to the westward of, or between, the Appalatian [sic] Mountains” (Wayland 1980:48). The explorer Louis Michelle and his company may have ventured into the vicinity of Mount Jackson in 1707. Having come out of Powell’s Fort in the Massanutten Mountains, they followed the North Fork of the Shenandoah River as far as present-day Woodstock or Edinburg (Wayland 1980). Settlement had only begun to be promoted in the early 1730s by large land speculators such as the Van Meter brothers, William Russell from New Jersey/Delaware, and Jost Hite from Pennsylvania (McKay 1951:1632; Magin 1991:8). At the time of the initial European settlement of the area, the Valley is described as having been:

 

…one vast prairie and…afforded the finest possible pasturage for wild animals. The country abounded in the larger kinds of game. The buffalo, elk, deer, bear, panther, wild cat, wolf, fox, beaver, otter, and all other kinds of animals, wild fowl, &c., common to forest countries, were abundantly plenty. (Kercheval 1986:69)

 

By an Act of the Virginia Legislature passed in November 1738 for strengthening the frontier of Virginia and inducing settlers to settle on the northwest side of the Blue Ridge Mountains, the county and parish of Frederick was created from the parent county of Orange (Hening 1819a:78-80). The Town of Frederick, later to be renamed Winchester, is located within a Northern Neck Land Grant of 1,116 acres granted to James Wood in 1735. The Northern Neck land grant to James Wood, discussed in the following text, was first surveyed in 1752 and recorded in 1753 (Northern Neck Land Grants H:307-308).

The establishment of Frederick Town (Winchester) was approved in 1744 by the Frederick County Justices and was to be laid out on 30 lots of land owned by James Wood. One frame or squared (hewn) log dwelling at least 20 x 16 feet was required to be built on the individual lots within two years of sale by the owners or occupants of each lot (Quarles 1986:1).

James Wood (1707-1759), born in England in 1707, was appointed surveyor of Orange County, Virginia on 1 January 1734/35 (Orange County, Virginia Court Minutes 1:2). In about 1735, he married Mary Rutherford. In 1742, James Wood was commissioned by the Orange County Court as “Colonel of Horse and Foot,” and in 1743 he was appointed the first clerk of Frederick County. The first court in Frederick County “met at his surveying office beside his home” on 11 November 1743. John Wood’s residence, named “Glen Burnie,” was located near the springhead of Town Run on Amherst Street (Frederick County Board of Supervisors 1989: Chapter 45; Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society 1980:6).

 

In 1749, the first year that a list of tithables are available for Frederick County, there were 1,586 white males above the age of 16 within the county. Dunmore County (current Shenandoah County) to the south and Berkeley and Hampshire Counties to the north and

 

west, now in West Virginia, were also a part of Frederick County at this time, and settlers in these counties are included in the 1749 tithe list. In 1755, there were 2,173 white males and 340 slaves in Frederick County. By 1783, when the first available tithable list specifically for Shenandoah County was published, the county had a total number of 7,908 white persons and 347 slaves (Greene 1932:150, 153).

 

Conflicts between northern Iroquoian tribes and tribes within the Valley prior to European settlement played a role in the Treaty of Lancaster in 1744. The first treaty affecting settlement is the region was the Treaty of Albany in 1722, opening the Loudoun Valley to German immigrants from Pennsylvania. When the Treaty of Lancaster took place, the tribes representing the Iroquois Confederation were acknowledged as those having rights over the Valley. The subsequent treaty led to an increased colonization of the Valley by white settlers coming from Pennsylvania, Maryland, and parts of Virginia.

 

By an Act of the Virginia Assembly passed in February 1752 (Chap. XXVI), an addition to Frederick Town, now to be called Winchester, consisting of 11 acres (18 lots) of the land of James Wood and 492 acres (116 lots), including “Common’s” or “outlots,” located on the lands of Lord Fairfax, were surveyed and laid out adjoining the southeast, north, and northeast sides of the original town of Frederick. Lord Fairfax (6th Baron of Cameron) was appointed by the Virginia Assembly at this time to lay out the town of Winchester in such a manner as he “shall think fit” (Hening 1819b:268). Thomas, the 6^th Lord Fairfax, 1693-1781, was the only Fairfax proprietor to reside in the colony of Virginia. Conditions set forth by Thomas, Lord Fairfax, were that the dwelling houses built on the lots “shall be no less than sixteen by twenty feet with a chimney of brick or stone.” The five-acre Commons Lots, which were separate lots to the north of Winchester, and not contiguous to the town lots, were required by Lord Fairfax to “remain a part of the parcel forever” (Northern Neck land Grants H:307-397).

In order to increase the trade of the fledgling town of Winchester, the Virginia Assembly decided that:

 

…two fairs shall and may be annually kept, and held, in the said town of Winchester, on the third Wednesday in June, and the third Wednesday in October, in every year, and to continue for the space of two days, for the sale and vending all manner of cattle, victuals, provisions, goods, wares, and merchandizes, whatsoever; on which fair days, and two days next before, and two days next after, the said fairs, all persons coming to, being at, or going from the same, together with their cattle, goods, wares and merchandizes, shall be exempted, and privileged, from all arrests, attachments, and executions, whatsoever, except for capital offences, breaches of the peace, or for any controversies, suits or quarrels, that may arise and happen during the said time.      (Hening 1819b:268-269)

 

Winchester, in the fall of 1753, had “about sixty houses rather badly built” (Abbott 1983:263). A recruited soldier of Braddock’s army in the early stages of the French and

 

Indian War, noted in 1755 that Winchester “is very Smalle…[consisting] of four cross streets and for its defence it have four pieces of cannon of twelve poundus [sic] Placed in the Center of the town” (Abbott 1983:263). The last remaining Indians living in the Shenandoah Valley are said to have disappeared around the year 1754, when an oral tradition has it that emissaries from western tribes came to invite the local Indians westward across the Alleghenies to escape the increasing European presence in the Valley (Kercheval 1986).

 

The Fry-Jefferson Map of Virginia of 1755 shows several roads in the vicinity of the project area, with two generally following the modern-day alignments of Berryville Pike (Route 7) and Millwood Pike (Route 50); no other cultural features are recorded within the immediate vicinity of the project area, though a grist mill is recorded to the north of the project area along modern-day Route 7 (Exhibit 4). This map also shows several other mills, ordinaries, ferries, and dwellings associated with European names farther afield from the project area; Frederick Town or Winchester is shown to the west.

 

In March of 1756, the Virginia General Assembly found that it was “… necessary that a fort should be Immediately erected in the town of Winchester, in the county of Frederick, for the protection of the adjacent inhabitants from the barbarities daily committed by the French and their Indian allies…” (Hening 1820:33). Fort Loudoun was subsequently built on the north fringes of the original town of Winchester, on a five-acre outlot (Commons Lot. No 49), conveyed to Isaac Parkins (Perkins) in 1753 (Ansel 1984:122; Northern Neck Land Grants H:349).

 

In May of 1756, Colonel George Washington, commander of the First Virginia Regiment, began directing the erection of Fort Loudoun which, in addition to providing defensive works, was to serve as his headquarters. Major Joseph Stevens of the Caroline County militia oversaw the construction of Fort Loudoun until 1 August 1756; however, the General Assembly lost interest in the fort, and it was never completed. A garrison was maintained at Fort Loudoun, and the fort served as a staging area for troops as well as being a depot for military supplies. Fort Loudoun never came under Indian attack during the French and Indian Wars.

 

At the end of December of 1758, George Washington resigned his command and married Martha Dandridge Custis on 6 January 1759 (Tinling 1977:607; Reese 1980:158, 159n2). Very few improvements were made to Fort Loudoun after 1758 and by 1775, “the outer walls of the old fort had begun to crumble.” However, prisoners captured during the Revolutionary War were housed in the barracks at Fort Loudoun during this time, and the fort was visible as late as 1838 (Ansel 1984:125-126). Portions of the fort are still visible today, although most of it has been destroyed.

 

By the middle of the 18^th century, tobacco was the major crop of the region and colony. At this time small industries like tanneries, lumber mills, and iron furnaces began to develop within the Valley, and trade by way of wagon and river barges began to be

 

L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.01_05_1755_FryJefferson.mxd

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

®

Vicinity of Project Area

 

 

Source: Fry, Joshua, Approximately, Peter Jefferson, and Thomas Jefferys. A map of the most inhabited part of Virginia containing the whole province of Maryland with part of Pensilvania, New Jersey and North Carolina. [London, Thos. Jefferys,1755] Map. https://www.loc.gov/item/74693166/.

 

Exhibit 4: 1755 Fry-Jefferson Map of Virginia

 

0                                  5

Miles

Original Scale: 1 ” = 5 miles

 

 

 

 

established to the major shipping ports to the north and east. The barge traffic utilized a series of dams to ease them down the river. Other marketable produce from the Valley included cattle, poultry, flour, cornmeal, and cured pork. Iron furnaces that supplied a major source of pig iron for iron forges in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia began operating in the region in the 1740s and lasted until the early 1900s (Magin 1991:8).

 

In the midst of the French and Indian Wars, an Act of the Virginia Assembly in September of 1758 authorized enlarging the town of Winchester, adding 106 acres (158 lots) of contiguous land owned by James Wood (Hening 1820:234-235). The following year, in 1759, 139 acres (203 lots) were added by Thomas, Lord Fairfax, to the town of Winchester (Quarles 1986:8).

 

One of the prisoners captured during the Revolutionary War and housed at the barracks of Fort Loudoun in 1777 was Lieutenant Andreas Weiderhold, of the Hesse-Cassel Regiment, who was captured at the Battle of Trenton on 26 December 1776. A map of the town of Winchester sketched by Lieutenant Andreas Weiderhold in 1777 shows the location of Fort Loudoun to the north of Winchester. An English translation of Lieutenant Weiderhold’s “Plan” in the lower right-hand corner of the map reads:

 

of the small town of Winchester, located in Friedrichs County in Virginia, which was founded only about 25 years ago, at a time when there was still war with the Indians. From that time can still be seen he remains of the fort where General Washington, then Colonel, commanded and himself defended. A. English Church. B. Court House. C. Market House. D. German Lutheran Church. E. German Reform Church. F. Public Jail.

By 1760, the town of Winchester is reported as having 800 residents compared to Williamsburg’s, the capital of Virginia during that period, 1,000 residents (Morton 1925:85).

 

Soon after the end of the French and Indian Wars, minds turned to thoughts of the Revolution, and the town of Winchester saw increased activity associated with movement of supplies and militia, first to Boston and then to the coast of Virginia (Morton 1925: 87- 89). During the Revolutionary War, no military battles occurred within the Shenandoah Valley. A committee of resolutions to prepare for military assistance and a committee of defense met in Woodstock on 16 June 1774, with the Reverend Peter Muhlenburg presiding as the moderator and chairman. As a result, the “German Regiment,” organized under Peter Muhlenburg, later Major-General Muhlenburg, was organized in 1776 at Woodstock. The German Regiment fought at the Battle of Brandywine Creek in Pennsylvania, northwest of Wilmington, Delaware, in 1776, and in the “successful defense of Charleston” then known as Charles Town, South Carolina in 1780 (Wayland 1976:145, 149; Smith 1976:949, 1083).

 

During the Revolution, Winchester was chosen to be the site of a prisoner-of-war camp. The town’s distance from the Virginia coast and its wilderness surroundings contributed

 

to its suitability as a station for British prisoners (Morton 1925:88). While numerous prisoners were housed and worked on local farms, others were housed in a sparse camp located four miles west of the town (Morton 1925:89).

 

Winchester prospered in the post-Revolution period; taverns and hotels were established, and roads were built, some of which were paved. Fairs where goods were traded, debts were paid, and games of chance were prevalent were held periodically in the town of Winchester (Morton 1925:111-112). An 1833 description of the town cites a total of “4000 residents, 30 to 40 retail stores, six or seven large warehouses…many lawyers and doctors, several taverns confectionaries, and merchant tailors…and every kind of business found in a seaport occurs here” (Morton 1925:112). In addition to paved roads, railroads made their appearance in the Winchester area during the early 1800s as well.

The Baltimore and Ohio (historically Winchester and Potomac) Railroad was in place by the middle of the 19^th century, originally terminating at Harpers Ferry in 1834, and later extending to the town of Winchester in 1836 (Morton 1925: 128-129).

 

The Valley Turnpike Company was incorporated on March 3, 1834, and authorized to build a pike from Winchester to Harrisonburg. This pike ran approximately the same course as the present Route 11. The charter instructed the company to make use of as much of the old stage road, which was believed to follow an older Indian trail, as they deemed fit. A sum of $250,000 was authorized for the construction of the pike, and shares in the company were sold for $25 each. When three-fifths of the $250,000 had been subscribed by private citizens, the remainder would be allotted on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia by the State Board of Public Works. On March 24, 1838, the Virginia General Assembly authorized the Valley Pike to be paved with macadam from Winchester, the Frederick County seat, south to the town of Staunton in Augusta County, Virginia (Commonwealth of Virginia 1838:129-130); Macadam, introduced by John Macadam in England in about 1815, consists of small stones and pebbles held together by dust and water (Rouse:1973:218). The Turnpike was completed as far as Staunton by 1840 (Magin 1991).

Martin’s Gazetteer of Virginia from 1836 describes the land in the Shenandoah Valley as:

…well adapted to the cultivation of wheat, rye, Indian corn and oats and is divided into small farms. Its staple articles are flour, bacon, beef, butter and iron [with] 34 manufacturing flour mills, 2 furnaces and 4 forges, for the manufacturing of pig metal into bar iron.           (Martin 1836:445)

In 1836, Clarke County was created from a portion of Frederick County and Warren County was derived from portions of Frederick and Shenandoah Counties (Hiden 1957:61, 62). Frederick County attained its current configuration at this point.

 

Following the occupation of Fort Sumter in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina, on 26 December 1860, the Commonwealth of Virginia joined other southern states in seceding from the United States on 17 April 1861 (Boatner 1991:729). The ordinance of

 

secession was ratified by the voters of Shenandoah County in a referendum held on May 23 of that year. The vote was 2,500 to 5 in favor of secession; however, it is believed that many of those opposed to secession may have refrained from voting for fear of reprisal.

 

Winchester, Stephenson, and their vicinities were focal points of the Civil War in Virginia. Winchester’s position along the Valley Turnpike (Route 11) at the northern end of the Shenandoah Valley, an area known as the “eastern breadbasket of the Confederacy,” made the already prosperous city a strategic location important to both the Confederate and Union Armies (Beck and Grunder 1988:v). The railroads were used to move large amounts of wheat produced within the Valley during the Civil War and the productivity of the region made it a focal point for numerous campaigns to dominate and secure supply lines. Additionally, Saltpeter Cave, north of Mount Jackson, was mined for saltpeter for the manufacture of gunpowder during the war (Wayland 1980).

 

A dwelling is recorded within the project area on the 1863 Macomb Map of the upper Potomac River region (Exhibit 5). An unnamed road following the general alignment of Senseny Road is shown to the south; other unnamed roads and dwellings are recorded in the greater vicinity.

 

Winchester served as a battleground, hospital, and staging area throughout the Civil War, with both Union and Confederate troops occupying the City of Winchester and the surrounding vicinity during the war. Several battles and conflicts occurred within the vicinity of Winchester during the Civil War, including but not limited to The First and Second Battles of Kernstown (respectively fought March 23, 1862 and July 24, 1864), the First, Second, and Third Battles of Winchester (respectively fought May 25, 1862, June 13-15, 1863, and September 19, 1864), the Battle of Rutherford’s Farm (fought July 20, 1864, and the Battle of Belle Grove/Cedar Creek (fought October 19, 1864. The Winchester East at Opequon Creek project area is not located within the limits of any Civil War-era battle; however, the easternmost portion of the Third Battle of Winchester battlefield is located approximately 3,000 feet to the north of the project area. A brief synopsis of the Third Battle of Winchester is presented below.

General Philip Sheridan’s arrival in the Shenandoah Valley following the Union loss at Kernstown in July brought a large number of Union troops to the region with the mission to end Confederate General Jubal Early’s control of the Valley. However, Sheridan began his campaign cautiously, aware that a major military setback could spell disaster for Lincoln, and therefore the war effort, in the upcoming presidential election (Noyalas 2020). Through August and early September, the armies clashed in several smaller battles, but the Union force did not commit to a concerted effort to take the fight to Early, who once again occupied Winchester while Sheridan headquartered in Berryville, about nine miles to the east.

 

On 16 September Sheridan received a critical piece of intelligence provided by two local Union sympathizers; an enslaved man from Millwood named Thomas Laws and a young

 

L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.01_06_1863_Macomb_Shenandoah.mxd

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

®

Vicinity of Project Area

 

 

Source: United States Army. Corps Of Engineers, J. N Macomb, and D. H Strother.

Upper Potomac from McCoy’s Ferry to Conrad’s Ferry and adjacent portions of Maryland

and Virginia. Washn., D.C., Lith. by J. F. Gedney, 1863. Map. https://www.loc.gov/item/99447368/.

 

Exhibit 5: 1863 Macomb Map, Upper Potomac Region, MD & VA

 

0                               3,000

Feet

Original Scale: 1 ” = 3,000 ‘

 

 

 

 

Quaker woman from Winchester, Rebecca Wright. Laws carried a message from Wright to Sheridan that an infantry division and a large amount of artillery had recently left Early’s army bound south for Richmond and Petersburg. Knowing that Early’s forces were reduced, Sheridan began to plan an attack on Winchester (Noyalas 2020; National Park Service 2020).

 

On 17 September, Sheridan’s scouts informed him that Early had split his diminished force further, sending three divisions under Generals John Gordon, Robert Rodes, and John Breckinridge north to Martinsuburg, West Virginia to attack the B&O Railroad, leaving only General Stephen Ramseur’s division for the defense of Winchester. Sheridan readied an attack, hoping to push west and crush Ramseur’s division and take Winchester before help could arrive from the scattered Confederate force. However, Early realized his vulnerability and called back the troops he had sent north (Beck 2015).

 

The morning of the 19^th, Sheridan’s main force pushed west, crossing Opequon Creek and along the Berryville Pike through the long ravine known as Berryville Canyon.

Meanwhile, two cavalry divisions under Generals Wesley Merritt and William Averell crossed the Opequon farther north, moving toward Stephenson’s Depot. Early managed to recombine his forces and the Union met a Confederate line of battle that stretched across the mouth of the Berryville Canyon from the Pike north to Red Bud Run (American Battlefield Trust 2020). Breckinridge’s division remained in the vicinity of Stephenson’s Depot but would be called to Winchester to reinforce the Confederate line before the Union cavalry arrived there that afternoon.

 

Both sides were resolute, and after an initial series of pushes the lines became static, although the intensity of the firing did not decrease. Sheridan’s superior numbers allowed him to send two divisions commanded by Colonels Joseph Thoburn and Isaac Duval down Red Bud Run to attack the Confederate left flank. The attack was a success, although the rebel forces contracted their lines, moving westward and reinforcing their left flank to protect from further attack from the north rather than breaking. Fort Collier, a small redoubt located just east of the Valley Pike, provided cover for the west end of the new north-facing flank (Beck 2015).

As evening approached, Sheridan sent orders to Averell and Merritt’s cavalry divisions at Stephenson’s Depot to attack the Confederate left flank. The two divisions formed a massive line of battle and advanced south along the Valley Pike, culminating in a charge that overran Fort Collier and the Confederate left flank. Sheridan called for the rest of his troops to attack and the rebel line disintegrated, with troops fleeing south through the streets of Winchester echoing the flight of the Union troops north through the city following the battle Kernstown two months prior. Early managed to prevent the Federals from pursuing his routed troops all the way to Strasburg by fighting delaying actions in Winchester (Beck 2015).

 

The Battle of Opequon/Third Battle of Winchester was the bloodiest battle fought in the Shenandoah Valley. Union losses approximated 700 killed, 4,000 wounded, and 350

 

missing or captured. The Confederates lost 225 killed, 1,500 wounded, and just under 2,000 missing or captured (Beck 2015). Although the Union lost more men, their greater numbers and ability to be reinforced made the losses easier to absorb. Early could expect little reinforcement or support from Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia, who were committed to the south around Richmond and Petersburg. Sheridan’s Shenandoah Valley Campaign would end a month later with the defeat of Early at Cedar Creek.

 

A map showing troop positions during the Third Battle of Winchester shows the 1^st and 2^nd Divisions of Union Brigadier General George Crook’s Army of West Virginia to the north of the project area along Berryville Pike (modern-day Route 7) (Exhibit 6). A dwelling associated with S. Robinson is shown within the northern project area and a dwelling associated with Lafayette Henry is shown in the vicinity; a ford is shown at the intersection of Senseny Road and Opequon Creek to the east.

 

The end of the Civil War brought freedom to enslaved African Americans, leaving plantations without sufficient labor to plant and harvest crops. Consequently, the economy of Clarke County went into a decline. A common practice during this period was for former slave owners to offer a tract of land for sale which could be purchased only by freed enslaved laborers.

 

One of the most tragic natural disasters to occur in the Shenandoah Valley was the great flood of 1870. On Wednesday, September 28, the rain began. It continued throughout the following day and by Friday the destruction had reached its maximum. As many as sixty people were killed throughout the Valley, and there were massive losses of houses, barns, livestock, and property (Couper 1952).

Frederick and Clarke Counties, including the vicinity of the project area, remained mostly rural throughout the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. During this period the cultivation of apples, and the associated production of vinegar, was an economic boom in the greater Valley, along with an increase in flour milling, dairying, and the quarrying of limestone and manufacture of lime (Magin 1991; Kalbian 1999:143-144). Farther south, the Shenandoah National Park opened in the 1930s. Expansion and development have greatly accelerated in cardinal directions around Winchester during the middle and late 20^th century.

 

A dwelling is recorded within the south-central portion of the project area on the 1938 United States Geological Survey (USGS) Winchester, VA-WV quadrangle (Exhibit 7). Development in the project area vicinity is generally sparse, with few dwellings recorded along the various roadways in the vicinity.

 

PREVIOUS ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH

 

The following inventory of previously recorded cultural resources within and near the project area was established by using the Virginia Department of Historic Resources’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vicinity of Project Area

 

 

 

 

Gillespie, G. L. Battle field of Winchester, Va. Opequon. [S.l, 1873] Map. https://www.loc.gov/item/99446372/.

 

0                               1,000

®

Feet

Original Scale: 1 ” = 1,000 ‘

 

Exhibit 6: 1873 Battlefield of Winchester, Virginia (Opequon) – September 19, 1864

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Area

 

 

 

Latitude: 39°9’54″N Longitude: 78°5’13″W

 

0                               2,000

®

Feet

Original Scale: 1 ” = 2,000 ‘

 

Exhibit 7: 1938 USGS Quadrangle, Winchester, VA-WV

 

(DHRs) online Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (V-CRIS), as well as examining cultural resource files and reports at the Thunderbird Archeology office in Gainesville, Virginia.

According to V-CRIS, two cultural resources investigations intersect the project area.

• The entire project area was previously included within the limits of a much larger cultural resources inventory study conducted in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University in association with a Survey and Planning Grant awarded by the DHR to the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia (Hofstra et al. 1992). A review of the report indicated that an unknown portion of the project area was subjected to subsurface testing, as mapping detailing subsurface testing occurred was not presented; rather, the report only defined areas where “surface conditions allowed evaluation of soil contents and/or [were] shovel test pitted,” while others were identified as being subjected to “careful visual reconnaissance only.” As such, the study does not comply with current DHR standards.
• A small portion of the project area was previously subjected to Phase I cultural resources investigation in 1997 by Gray & Pape, Inc. in association with the proposed Route 37 project in Frederick County, Virginia (Botwick et al. 1997). While this study appears to generally comply with current DHR standards, due to its age the area was subjected to Phase I testing during the current study.

Five archaeological sites (44FK0277, 44FK0278, 44FK0279, 44FK0280, and 44FK0281) and one architectural resource (034-1155) have been previously recorded within the project area. None of the previously recorded archeological sites have been evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) by DHR staff; however, the one architectural resource has been determined not eligible for listing.

• Site 44FK0277 is located in the southern project area and represents a trash scatter dating to the 20^th century, with a low-density (n=3) precontact component dating to an unknown period; no precontact artifacts were recovered from the site by the recording surveyor, but three projectile points were reportedly recovered from the vicinity by the landowner, according to the DHR site The site was identified through surface collection and shovel testing.
• Site 44FK0278 is located in the northeastern project area and is recorded as a modern domestic dump site dating to the 20^th The site was identified through surface collection only.
• Site 44FK0279 is located in the northwestern project area and is recorded as a farmstead dating to the 19^th century, with a low-density (n=1) precontact component dating to an unknown The site was identified through surface collection, historical map projection, and shovel testing.
• Site 44FK0280 is located in the northeastern project area and is recorded as a possible trash dump dating to an unknown historic period, with a low-density precontact component (n=2) dating to an unknown The site was identified through surface collection only.

 

• A portion of Site 44FK0281 extends into the northeastern project area and is recorded as a low-density (n=3) precontact site dating to an unknown The site was identified through surface collection only.
• DHR Resource 034-1155 (House, 2737 Senseny Road) encompasses the majority of the project area and is recorded as a single dwelling constructed circa 1920.

In addition to the resources discussed above, 31 archeological sites and 13 architectural resources have been previously recorded within an approximate one-mile radius of the project area (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1: Previously Recorded Archeological Sites within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area

 

DHR SITE NUMBER	SITE TYPE	TEMPORAL AFFILIATION	NRHP ELIGIBILITY
44FK0038	Temporary Camp; Trash Scatter	Prehistoric/Unknown; Historic/Unknown	Not Evaluated
44FK0039	Camp; Trash Scatter	Late Archaic, Early Woodland; Historic/Unknown	Not Evaluated
44FK0040	Temporary Camp; Trash Scatter	Prehistoric/Unknown; Historic/Unknown	Not Evaluated
44FK0274	Possible Confederate Fortification	19th Century: 3rd quarter	Not Evaluated
44FK0275	Earthwork	Historic/Unknown	Not Evaluated
44FK0276	Mill, Raceway	19th Century	Not Evaluated
44FK0277	Lithic Scatter; Trash Scatter	Prehistoric/Unknown; 20th Century	Not Evaluated
44FK0278	Trash Scatter	20th Century	Not Evaluated
44FK0279	Lithic Scatter; Farmstead	Prehistoric/Unknown; 19th Century	Not Evaluated
44FK0280	Lithic Scatter; Possible Trash Scatter	Prehistoric/Unknown; Historic/Unknown	Not Evaluated
44FK0281	Lithic Scatter	Prehistoric/Unknown	Not Evaluated
44FK0282	Artifact Scatter	19th Century	Not Evaluated
44FK0283	Lithic Scatter	Prehistoric/Unknown	Not Evaluated
44FK0284	Lithic Scatter	Prehistoric/Unknown	Not Evaluated
44FK0285	Camp; Artifact Scatter	Prehistoric/Unknown; 19th Century	Not Evaluated
44FK0286	Artifact Scatter	19th Century	Not Evaluated
44FK0287	Artifact Scatter	19th Century, 20th Century: 1st half	Not Evaluated
44FK0288	Mill, Raceway	19th Century	Not Evaluated
44FK0289	Camp; Artifact Scatter	Early Archaic; Historic/Unknown	Not Evaluated
44FK0291	Lithic Scatter; Historic Scatter	Prehistoric/Unknown; Historic Unknown	Not Evaluated
44FK0292	Lithic Scatter	Prehistoric/Unknown	Not Evaluated

 

Table 1 (continued)

 

DHR SITE NUMBER	SITE TYPE	TEMPORAL AFFILIATION	NRHP ELIGIBILITY
44FK0293	Single Dwelling	20th Century: 2nd quarter	Not Evaluated
44FK0294	Farmstead	19th Century: 1st half	Not Evaluated
44FK0297	Boundary Line	18th Century	Not Evaluated
44FK0299	Foundations	20th Century: 2nd Half	Not Evaluated
44FK0300	Farmstead	19th Century, 20th Century	Not Evaluated
44FK0301	Lithic Scatter; Camp	Prehistoric/Unknown; 19th Century: 3rd Quarter	Not Evaluated
44FK0308	Mill	19th Century	Not Evaluated
44FK0311	Mill	19th Century: 1st half	Not Evaluated
44FK0312	Depression	Historic/Unknown	Not Evaluated
44FK0313	Lithic Scatter	Prehistoric/Unknown	Not Evaluated
44FK0318	Single Dwelling	19th Century, 20th Century	Not Evaluated
44FK0325	Trash Scatter	20th Century: 3rd Quarter	Not Evaluated
44FK0327	Ford	18th Century	Not Evaluated
44FK0329	Ford	18th Century, 19th Century	Not Evaluated
44FK0378	Property Corner	18th Century: 2nd Half	Not Evaluated

*Sites in bold are within the project area

Table 2: Previously Recorded Architectural Resources within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area

 

DHR RESOURCE NUMBER	RESOURCE NAME	TYPE	TEMPORAL AFFILIATION	NRHP ELIGIBILITY
021-0041	Helmley	Single Dwelling	Ca 1732	Eligible
021-0467	Opequon View	Single Dwelling	Ca 1890	Not Evaluated
034-0108	Valley Mill Farm	Single Dwelling	Ca 1820	NRHP Listing, VLR Listing
034-0396	House, Route 659	Single Dwelling	Ca 1890	Not Eligible
034-0397	Adams Farm	Single Dwelling	Ca 1880	Not Eligible
034-0398	Haggerty House	Single Dwelling	Ca 1920	Not Eligible
034-0423	Brathwaite House	Single Dwelling	Ca 1920	Not Eligible
034-0456	Third Battle of Winchester	Battle Site	1864	Eligible
034-1150	Carter-Lee-Damron House	Single Dwelling	Ca 1890	Not Eligible
034-1152	Outbuildings, Route 657	Barn	Ca 1920	Not Eligible
034-1155	House, off Route 657	Single Dwelling	Ca 1920	Not Eligible
034-1562	Carper House	Single Dwelling	Post 1800	Not Evaluated
034-1563	Tick House	Single Dwelling	Ca 1910	Not Evaluated
034-5316	House, 233 Eddys Lane	Single Dwelling	Ca 1946	Not Evaluated

*Resources in bold within the project area

 

None of the previously recorded archeological sites within an approximate one-mile radius of the project area have been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. Two

 

of the architectural resources within an approximate one-mile radius have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff (021-0041 and 034-0456) and one is listed in the NRHP and the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR) (034-0108). DHR Resource 021-0041 (Helmley) is located about 3,300 feet to the southeast and is recorded as a single dwelling constructed circa 1732. DHR Resource 034-0456 (Third Battle of Winchester) is a large Civil War-era battlefield that is located to the north and west of the study area; the nearest portion of the battlefield to the study area is about 3,000 feet to the north. DHR Resource 034-0108 (Valley Mill Farm) is located about 2,500 feet to the north and is recorded as a single dwelling constructed circa 1820.

 

RESEARCH DESIGN

 

Research Objectives

 

The purpose of the survey was to locate and record any cultural resources within the impact area and to provide a preliminary assessment of their potential significance in terms of eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP, individually and as part of a district if possible. As codified in 36 CFR 60.4, the four criteria applied in the evaluation of significant cultural resources to the NRHP are:

 

1. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
2. Association with the lives of significant persons in or past; or
3. Representative of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master; or
4. Have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in history or

Seven types of properties are ordinarily not considered for listing; however, they may qualify if part of a district or if they meet one of the following criteria considerations:

 

1. a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or
2. a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or
3. a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or
4. a cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, from association with historic events; or
5. a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or

 

1. a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or,
2. a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.

 

In addition to demonstrating significance under National Register criteria, a property must also retain integrity in order to be listed in the NRHP, i.e., a property must possess the ability to convey its significance. According to the National Park Service (Andrus 1997:44- 45), there are seven aspects or qualities that define integrity:

 

• Location, e., “the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred;”
• Design, e., “the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property;”
• Setting, e., “the physical environment of a historic property;”
• Materials, e., “the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property;”
• Workmanship, e., “the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory;”
• Feeling, e., “a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time;”
• Association, e., “the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.”

Any architectural resources identified as result of this investigation were subjected to a Phase I reconnaissance-level architectural survey only, unless otherwise indicated; this includes preliminary assessments of the resource’s eligibility for the NRHP and of the potential direct and indirect adverse effects on the resource that may be caused by the proposed undertaking. Typically, architectural resources recorded at the Phase I reconnaissance-level are evaluated using Criterion C only; however, evaluation under Criteria A, B, and/or D was considered if necessitated by specific site conditions, characteristics, and/or contexts.

 

Archeological sites are commonly evaluated under Criterion D and must show enough integrity to be able to yield significant information and answer research hypotheses in history and/or prehistory. The evaluation of archeological sites under Criteria A, B, and C was considered if necessitated by specific site conditions, characteristics, and/or contexts.

 

Cemeteries and individual graves, if identified, were recorded as either archeological sites or architectural resources with the DHR, depending on specific field conditions. Burial places evaluated under Criterion D for the importance of the information they may impart do not need to meet the requirements for the Criteria Considerations but should have the potential to yield significant information through archeological excavation and analysis of the human remains (Potter and Boland 1992).

 

Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation Methodology

 

Archeological Fieldwork Methodology

 

The conventional Phase I field methodology included both the use of surface reconnaissance and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. The surface reconnaissance consisted of walking over the area and examining all exposed areas for the presence of artifacts. Exposed areas included cut banks, tree falls, machinery cuts, soils exposed by erosion, etc. The surface reconnaissance was also used to examine the topography of specific areas in order to determine the probability that they contain archeological sites. All high and moderate probability areas, i.e., areas that were well drained and possessed low relief, were tested at 50-foot intervals. High probability areas also included historic structure areas identified through surface reconnaissance or through archival review of historic maps. In accordance with DHR guidelines for conducting a Phase I identification level survey, an approximately 10% sample of areas considered low probability for the presence of archeological sites were also subjected to shovel testing at 50-foot intervals (DHR 2017:45); in general, the low probability areas were those that were significantly sloped, poorly drained, or that have been disturbed. Additional shovel tests were excavated at 25-foot intervals in a cruciform pattern around positive shovel tests, as necessary, to delineate artifact concentrations and to define archeological site boundaries.

 

Shovel test pits measured at least 15 inches in diameter and were excavated in natural or cultural soil horizons, depending upon the specific field conditions. Excavations ceased when gleyed soils, gravel, water, or well-developed B horizons too old for human occupation were reached. All excavated soils were screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens and were classified and recorded according to standard pedological designations (A, Ap, B, C, etc.); excepting the terms Fill and Fill horizon, which are used to describe culturally modified, disturbed, or transported sediments and soils. The use of these terms is consistent with use in standard geomorphological studies and recordation of geo-boring profiles in environmental studies. Soil colors were described using Munsell Soil Color Chart designations and soil textures were described using the United States Department of Agriculture soil texture triangle. Artifacts recovered during Phase I shovel testing were bagged and labeled by unit number and soil horizon.

No subsurface testing was conducted within the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequon Creek within the project area. However, the floodplain was subjected to pedestrian reconnaissance.

 

The location of each shovel test pit was mapped; unless otherwise noted, the graphic representation of the test pits and other features depicted in this report are not to scale and their field location is approximate.

 

Architectural Reconnaissance Methodology

 

Phase I reconnaissance-level architectural survey included recordation of resources that are 45 years of age or older, or are of exceptional merit regardless of age, to provide a preliminary assessment of their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. If a resource was previously recorded within the last five years, the survey form was not updated, per DHR guidelines; the survey form was updated if significant changes to the resource were observed. Phase I recordation included a site plan identifying primary and secondary resources and the location and limits of the property; a full description of the resource, including the historic and/or current name of the property, a classification of the resource type, exterior description of the primary resource, date or period of construction, alterations and dates or periods of alterations, physical condition; possible threats to the resource, etc.; photographs of the resource, including exterior photographs of the front, rear, and side elevations and oblique views of the resource, close-up photographs of architectural and/or construction details, etc.; and a preliminary summary statement of significance for the resource, including recommendations for additional work at the intensive level and recommendations concerning the potential NRHP eligibility of the resource, either individually or as part of a historic district.

 

Laboratory Methodology

 

All recovered artifacts were cleaned, inventoried, and curated. Historic artifacts were separated into four basic categories: glass, metal, ceramics, and miscellaneous. The ceramics were identified as to ware type, method of decoration, and separated into established types, following South (1977), Miller (1992) and Magid (1990). All glass was examined for color, method of manufacture, function, etc., and dated primarily on the basis of method of manufacture when the method could be determined (Hurst 1990).

Metal and miscellaneous artifacts were generally described; the determination of a beginning date is sometimes possible, as in the case of nails.

Any recovered prehistoric artifacts were classified by cultural historical and functional types and lithic material. In addition, the debitage was studied for the presence of striking platforms and cortex, wholeness, quantity of flaking scars, signs of thermal alteration, size, and presence or absence of use. Chunks are fragments of lithic debitage which, although they appear to be culturally modified, do not exhibit clear flake or core morphology.

Recovered artifacts were entered into a Structured Query Language (SQL) Server database in order to record all aspects of an artifact description. For each artifact, up to 48 different attributes are measured and recorded in the database. Several pre-existing report templates are available, or users can create custom queries and reports for complex and unique analyses. The use of a relational database system to store artifact data permits a huge variety of options when storing and analyzing data. A complete inventory of all the artifacts recovered can be found in Appendix I of this report.

 

Research Expectations

 

The following presents an assessment of the probability that archeological sites will occur within the project area based on topography, drainage, the presence of roads and historic map projection.

 

The probability for locating precontact sites generally depends on the variables of topography, proximity to water, and internal drainage. Sites are more likely on well- drained landforms of low relief in proximity to water. The project area is considered to have a moderate to high probability of containing precontact cultural resources due to several precontact sites previously recorded in the vicinity, the presence of low-relief topography and previously recorded precontact artifacts within the project area, and due to the immediate proximity of Opequon Creek to the study area.

 

The probability for the occurrence of historic period sites largely depends upon the historic map search, the history of settlement in the area, the topography, and the proximity of a particular property to historic roads. However, the absence of structures on historic maps does not eliminate the possibility of an archeological site being present within the property as it was common for tenant, slave, and African American properties to be excluded from these maps. The project area is considered to have a high probability of containing historic cultural resources due to dwellings recorded within the study area on examined 19^th– and 20^th-century maps and the presence of previously recorded historic period archeological sites and artifacts dating to the 19^th and 20^th centuries within the project area.

RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

 

The project area consists of approximately ±91.7 acres located directly to the north of Senseny Road (Route 657) (Plate 1) in eastern Frederick County, Virginia (Exhibits 8- 10). The project area included rolling topography and is located on the eastern edge of a generally north-south-trending landform immediately above Opequon Creek; topographic elevations within the project area range between about 638 feet a.m.s.l. in the uplands to 518 feet a.m.s.l. in the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequon Creek. Drainage for the project area is to the east into Opequon Creek (Plate 2), which flows 26 miles to the north into the Potomac River. The vegetation of the project area consists of a mix of deciduous and evergreen forest, grassy pasture, and manicured lawns (Plates 3-5).

 

Disturbances and limitations within the project area were moderate and included steep slopes in excess of 15%, drainage swales and cuts, low and wet areas, and disturbances associated with the active use of the property as a farmstead including constructed farm ponds, gravel farm roads, and livestock paddocks and pens (Plates 6-10). Additionally, no subsurface testing was conducted within the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequon Creek; the floodplain was subjected to pedestrian reconnaissance only (Plates 11and 12).

 

 

44FK1089

(see Exhibit 18)

2

1

Disturbed

 

 

352

Drainage Swale

Slope

 

 

 

Slope Low

 

Slope

 

 

Slope

 

Disturbed Pond

3

 

 

 

 

 

Slope

 

 

 

 

Slope

343

Slope

 

 

Slope

 

 

 

Matchline Exhibit 9

 

 

Slope

 

Slope

Slope

Slope

 

 

Slope

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drainage Swale

114

 

 

 

 

 

Slope

224

 

 

 

 

 

 

44FK0277

 

 

 

 

 

 

233

 

 

 

 

 

 

231

 

 

Slope

 

 

Slope

 

 

Slope

 

 

 

 

 

 

Slope

Opequon Creek

 

 

 

44FK1087

(see Exhibit 14)

93

 

Slope

 

 

 

 

 

64

See Exhibit 24

 

 

Slope

 

 

 

 

Slope

 

 

168

 

Drainage Swale

 

Slope

159

Slope

 

 

 

 

 

Slope

 

221

 

 

Slope

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Slope

 

 

8            Disturbed

10

9

 

Slope

Drainage Swale

44FK1088

(see Exhibit 16)

 

Disturbed

Slope

Slope

 

 

 

 

Gravel Driveway

Slope

 

Slope

 

 

Slope 44FK1086

(see Exhibit 12)

Slope

 

Slope Utility

Slope

 

 

 

 

 

Project Area Boundary

Previously Recorded Archeology Site

#

Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site Building — Field Verified

Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit

N

 

0                               250

W                          E

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 250′

S

 

Exhibit 8: Overview of Phase I Testing (South)

 

Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation

 

 

 

 

Slope

 

Slope

Slope

 

 

 

Slope

 

 

Slope

 

 

44FK0279

(see Exhibit 26)

 

 

Slope

 

 

 

Slope Drainage

Swale

 

 

Drainage Swale

 

Drainage Swale

Drainage

Swale                                  Drainage

Swale

 

 

 

 

44FK1090

(see Exhibit 20)

 

 

Pond

 

 

Drainage

 

Slope

Slope

Slope

 

Swale

Slope

Low

 

 

 

Drainage

Swale                      Low

 

Low

 

 

Pond

Drainage Swale

Slope

6

Drainage Swale

 

 

 

Slope

Slope

 

 

44FK0278

 

 

 

44FK1089

(see Exhibit 18)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disturbed

5

Disturbed 7

 

4              Slope

Disturbed

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drainage Swale

Slope

 

Slope

Slope

 

 

Slope Slope

Slope

 

 

Slope

 

 

 

 

Matchline Exhibit 10

 

 

 

 

 

 

Slope Low

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Slope

Disturbed 2

Disturbed 3

 

352

 

 

 

Drainage Swale

 

Slope

 

 

 

Slope

Opequon Creek

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matchline Exhibit 8

 

Pond

Slope

Slope

Slope

 

N

 

Project Area Boundary

Previously Recorded Archeology Site

#

Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site Building — Field Verified

Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit

 

0                               250

W                          E

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 250′

S

 

Exhibit 9: Overview of Phase I Testing (Central)

 

Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation

 

 

 

 

 

Slope

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drainage Swale

 

 

Drainage Swale

 

 

 

 

Slope

Slope

 

 

 

Slope

44FK0281

(see Exhibit 22)

 

 

 

 

44FK0280

(see Exhibit 22)

 

 

 

 

 

Slope

Slope

Slope

 

Slope                               Slope

 

 

Slope

Low

 

 

 

Slope

 

44FK0278

 

Opequon Creek

 

44FK1091

(see Exhibit 22)

 

 

 

 

Matchline Exhibit 9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Area Boundary

Previously Recorded Archeology Site

Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit

Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit

N

 

0                               250

W                          E

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 250′

S

 

Exhibit 10: Overview of Phase I Testing (North)

 

Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation

 

Ten buildings or structures (Buildings 1-10) are extant within the project area. Buildings 1-7 are associated with DHR Resource 034-1155, which was previously recorded encompassing the majority of the project area; the resource is discussed below under a separate heading. Buildings 8-10 are located in the southern project area and are all associated with the extant dwelling at 2747 Senseny Road (Building 8). Building 8 is a prefabricated house set on piers, with vinyl siding and a side-gable roof clad in asphalt shingles (Plates 13 and 14); according to Frederick County tax records, Building 8 was constructed in 1990 and is not historic. Buildings 9 and 10 are both sheds that are contemporaneous with the 1990 dwelling. Building 9 is a frame shed set on wooden piers clad with T1-11 siding, with a shed roof clad in ribbed metal sheeting (Plate 15).

Building 10 consists of two parts, with both portions being frame sheds clad with a mixture of T1-11 siding and plywood sheeting; the southern portion of the building has a shed roof clad with corrugated metal sheeting, while the northern portion has a collapsed shed roof clad with asphalt shingles (see Plate 15).

 

A total of 1,018 shovel test pits (STPs) were excavated at 25-/50-foot intervals. The majority of STPs excavated exhibited a plowed stratum (Ap), overlying subsoil (B horizon), similar to the profile of STP 343 (Exhibit 11). Numerous STPs exhibited shallower or truncated Ap strata.

STP 343

Ap: 0-0.7 feet below surface – [10YR 3/4] dark yellowish brown silt loam B horizon: 0.7-1.0 feet below surface – [10YR 5/6] yellowish brown

silty clay loam with approximately 5% saprolite

 

A total of 473 artifacts were recovered as a result of the Phase I shovel testing program (see Appendix I), resulting in six new archeological sites (44FK1086, 44FK1087, 44FK1088, 44FK1089, 44FK1090, and 44FK1091) being recorded with the DHR; these sites are discussed below under separate headings. Additionally, the locations of five previously recorded archeological sites (44FK0277, 44FK0278, 44FK0279, 44FK0280, and 44FK0281) were revisited, and the limits of one (44FK0277) were expanded; these sites are also discussed below under separate headings.

 

Nine STPs not included within the limits of the above sites also yielded artifacts (see Exhibits 8-10; see Appendix I). STP 64 was excavated in the southwestern portion of the project area and yielded one fragment of automatic bottle machine glass (1910-present). STP 93 was excavated in the southwestern project area and yielded an aluminum bottle cap. STP 114 was excavated in the southcentral project area and yielded one fragment of temporally non-diagnostic clear bottle glass. STP 159 was excavated in the southcentral project area one fragment of slag. STP 168 was excavated in the southcentral project area and yielded one fragment of temporally non-diagnostic light aqua glass. STP 221 was excavated in the southcentral project area and yielded the proximal ends of one quartz primary reduction flake and one rhyolite primary reduction flake. STP 231 was excavated in the southcentral project area and yielded one fragment of amber automatic bottle

 

 

 

 

 

46

 

L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STP 343

 

 

Ap: 10YR 3/4 dark yellowish brown silt loam

 

B horizon: 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown silty clay loam with approximately 5% saprolite

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0                                  1

 

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 1′

 

Exhibit 11: Representative Soil Profile from Project Area

 

machine glass (1907-present). STP 233 was excavated in the southcentral project area and yielded one fragment of clear automatic bottle machine glass (1907-present) and the medial portion of a chert biface thinning flake. STP 242 was excavated in the southcentral project area and yielded one fragment of light aqua bottle glass (1850s- 1930s). Finally, STP 352 was excavated in the northcentral project area and yielded one fragment of clear bottle automatic bottle machine (1938-1980). The artifacts from these STPs were not found in the requisite quantities, were not temporally or functionally related, and/or were not found in the request proximity to other finds to meet the definition of an archeological site, based on DHR guidelines. As such, these artifacts are interpreted as isolated finds that likely represent casual discard associated with the 20^th– century use of the properties. No further work is recommended for the artifacts in these STPs.

 

Site 44FK1086

 

The site is located within the southeastern portion of the project area and encompasses an area of approximately 19,217 feet²/0.44 acres (see Exhibit 8; Exhibit 12); the site limits shown on Exhibits 8 and 12 are approximate. The site is situated along an eastward- trending ridge of a larger north-south-trending landform, with topographic elevations ranging between approximately 618 feet a.m.s.l. in the eastern portion of the site to about 634 feet a.m.s.l. in the west. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek via an unnamed tributary to the north of the site. The vegetation within the site consists of mixed deciduous and evergreen forest within the northern portion of the site and grasses within the southern portion of the site, which is within a maintained utility corridor (Plate 16).

 

A total of 24 STPs were excavated at 25-/50-foot intervals within the site, nine of which yielded artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 34 (Exhibit 13).

 

STP 34

Ap: 0-0.5 feet below surface – [10YR 3/3] dark brown silt loam

B horizon: 0.5-0.8 feet below surface – [10YR 5/4] yellowish brown clay loam with approximately 25% saprolite

 

A total of 224 artifacts, consisting predominantly of fragments of post-1907 automatic bottle machine glass (n=210), were recovered from plowed contexts within the site (Table 3; see Appendix I); 186 of the artifacts were recovered from a single provenience (STP 21) in the western end of the site. Other finds included four fragments of temporally non-diagnostic bottle glass and one fragment unidentifiable glass, one ferrous metal bolt, two wire nails (post-1890), one piece each of unidentified brass and unidentified ferrous metal, three pieces of slag, and one slate pencil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48

 

 

 

Disturbed

Slope

 

 

 

10

 

Disturbed

Mobile Home

 

 

9

 

 

 

 

Gravel Driveway

Disturbed

 

Disturbed/ Push Pile

37                                                           Slope

 

 

 

 

 

21

21b

34d

34

 

 

34c

 

34b

 

 

 

 

Slope

 

 

 

 

 

Utility

Slope                                                                                                                                                                                                    33

33c

Slope

SENSENY ROAD

Slope

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Area Boundary

#

Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site Building — Field Verified

 

 

 

 

 

 

Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit

 

 

 

 

 

 

N

 

0                                 50

W                          E

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 50′

S

 

Exhibit 12: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1086

 

Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STP 34

 

 

Ap: 10YR 3/3 dark brown silt loam

B horizon: 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown clay loam with approximately 25% saprolite

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0                                  1

 

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 1′

 

Exhibit 13: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1086

 

Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation

 

Table 3: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FX1086

 

Artifact Description	Ap
Glass
bottle, bottle/jar, jar, (ABM)* (post-1907)	210
bottle/jar, tableware	4
unidentified glass	1
Metal
ferrous metal bolt	1
nail, wire (post-1890)	2
unidentified brass	1
unidentified ferrous metal	1
Miscellaneous
slag**	3
slate pencil	1
Total Site 44FK1086	224

* automatic bottle machine

** discarded

 

Based on the types of artifacts and lack of functional diversity in the recovered assemblage, the site does not appear to represent a significant locus of human activity or occupation; rather, the site presents as a trash scatter dating to the 20^th century, likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20^th-century occupation and use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.

 

Site 44FK1087

The site is located within the southwestern portion of the project area and encompasses an area of approximately 3,179 feet²/0.07 acres (see Exhibit 8; Exhibit 14); the site limits shown on Exhibits 8 and 14 are approximate. The site is situated along an eastward- trending ridge of a larger north-south-trending landform, at an elevation of approximately 640 feet a.m.s.l. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek via roadside drainage ditches to the south of the site. The vegetation within the site consists of mixed deciduous and evergreen forest (Plate 17).

 

A total of six STPs were excavated within the site at 25-/50-foot intervals, two of which yielded artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 52 (Exhibit 15).

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52

 

52b

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Area Boundary

Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit

Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit

N

 

0                                 30

W                          E

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 30′

S

 

Exhibit 14: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1087

 

Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STP 52

 

 

Ap: 10YR 3/3 dark brown silt loam

 

B horizon: 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown silty clay loam with approximately 5% saprolite

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0                                  1

 

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 1′

 

Exhibit 15: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1087

 

Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation

 

STP 52

Ap: 0-0.5 feet below surface – [10YR 3/3] dark brown silt loam

B horizon: 0.5-0.8 feet below surface – [10YR 5/4] yellowish brown silty clay loam with approximately 5% saprolite

 

A total of nine artifacts were recovered from the site (Table 4; see Appendix I). As seen, the recovered assemblage consists of five fragments of post-1907 glass, one fragment of temporally non-diagnostic glass, two pieces of slag, and the proximal end of a chert primary reduction flake dating to an unknown precontact period.

 

Table 4: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK1087

 

Artifact Description	Ap
Glass
tableware	1
bottle/jar, (ABM)* (post-1907)	5
Miscellaneous
slag**	2
Precontact
chert primary reduction flake	1
Total Site 44FK1087	9

* automatic bottle machine

** discarded

 

Based on the lack of functional diversity in the historic artifacts recovered, the site does not appear to represent a significant locus of human activity or occupation; rather, the site presents as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20^th century, likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20^th-century occupation and use of the property. Similarly, the single precontact artifact is likely associated with ephemeral use of the site location during an unknown precontact period, due to a lack of additional finds in the vicinity.

Considering this, and that the precontact artifact was recovered from plowed contexts, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.

 

Site 44FK1088

The site is located within the southeastern portion of the project area and encompasses an area of approximately 2,711 feet²/0.06 acres (see Exhibit 8; Exhibit 16); the site limits shown on Exhibits 8 and 16 are approximate. The site is situated along the eastern edge of a generally northwest-southeast-trending landform, sitting at an elevation between 632 and 628 feet a.m.s.l. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek. The vegetation within the site consists of mixed deciduous and evergreen forest (Plate 18).

 

 

 

 

54

 

L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

171

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

171c

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit

Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit

N

 

0                                 20

W                          E

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 20′

S

 

Exhibit 16: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1088

 

A total of six STPs were excavated within the site at 25-/50-foot intervals, two of which yielded artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a shallow plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 171c (Exhibit 17).

STP 171c

Ap: 0-0.4 feet below surface – [10YR 4/3] brown silt loam

B horizon: 0.4-0.7 feet below surface – [10YR 5/4] yellowish brown clay loam with approximately 20% saprolite

A total of seven artifacts were recovered from the site (Table 5; see Appendix I). As seen, the recovered assemblage consists of four fragments of post-1907 glass, one fragment of temporally non-diagnostic bottle glass, the proximal end of a chert biface thinning flake, and the medial portion of a chert biface thinning flake; the two pieces of chert debitage date to an unknown precontact period.

Table 5: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FX1088

 

Artifact Description	Ap
Glass
bottle/jar	1
bottle/jar, (ABM)* (post-1907)	4
Precontact
chert biface thinning flake	2
Total Site 44FK1088	7

* automatic bottle machine

 

Based on the lack of functional diversity in the historic artifacts recovered, the site does not appear to represent a significant locus of human activity or occupation; rather, the site presents as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20^th century, likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20^th-century occupation and use of the property. Similarly, the two precontact artifacts are likely associated with ephemeral use of the site location during an unknown precontact period, due to a lack of additional finds in the vicinity.

Considering this, and that the precontact artifact was recovered from plowed contexts, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.

Site 44FK1089

The site is located within the central portion of the project area, surrounding the extant farmstead complex at 2737 Senseny Road (DHR Resource 034-1155) (see Exhibit 9; Exhibit 18); the site limits shown on Exhibits 9 and 18 are approximate. The site encompasses an area of approximately 112,771 feet²/2.59 acres, situated along a generally north-south-trending landform; topographic elevations within the site range

 

 

 

 

56

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STP 171c

 

 

Ap: 10YR 4/3 brown silt loam

B horizon: 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown clay loam with approximately 20% saprolite

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0                                  1

 

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 1′

 

Exhibit 17: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1088

 

Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation

 

Drainage Swale

Low

Pond

 

 

 

 

 

849

 

5

411

Low

 

 

Disturbed

 

 

 

883

7 882

420

 

 

 

 

 

424

Drainage Swale

 

 

 

 

No Dig (Landowner Request)

 

 

 

 

314a

314

314b

314c

 

 

 

 

 

Utility

 

 

 

Gravel

 

 

 

2

4

Disturbed

 

 

Disturbed

 

 

 

 

370

 

 

 

 

 

369

Slope

 

 

Slope

 

 

Disturbed          Disturbed

1

368

 

 

352

 

 

 

 

302

 

301a

301301b

Disturbed

 

 

Disturbed

 

317d

 

 

3

317a

317

Drainage Swale

 

 

Slope

Slope

 

 

 

 

Slope

Slope

 

 

Slope

 

 

 

 

 

Project Area Boundary

#

Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site Building — Field Verified

Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit

N

 

0                               100

W                          E

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 100′

S

 

Exhibit 18: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1089

 

Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation

 

between 634 and 598 feet a.m.s.l. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek via drainages and unnamed tributaries located to the east. The vegetation within the site consists primarily of grassy lawn and pastureland (see Plates 4 and 5).

 

Five standing buildings are located within the site and are associated with previously recorded DHR Resource 034-1155, a circa 1920 farmstead; the farmstead and its buildings are discussed below under a separate heading. Disturbances within the site were moderate and were associated with the active use of the site location as a working farm.

 

A total of 73 STPs were excavated within the site at 25-/50-foot intervals, of which 20 yielded artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 314b (Exhibit 19). Several STPs within the site in the vicinity of extant buildings exhibited varying degrees of disturbance, including STPs containing a disturbed Fill overlying a B horizon, similar to STP 302, and others with one or more disturbed Fill layers overlying a buried Ap stratum (Apb) over a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 849.

 

STP 314b

Ap: 0-0.7 feet below surface – [10YR 4/4] dark yellowish brown silt loam

B horizon: 0.7 – 1.0 feet below surface – [10YR 5/6] yellowish brown silty clay loam

STP 302

Fill: 0-0.9 feet below surface – [10YR 4/3] dark yellowish brown loam with 5% saprolite

B horizon: 0.9 – 1.2 feet below surface – [10YR 6/4] light yellowish

brown silty clay with 30% saprolite

STP 849

Fill 1: 0-0.2 feet below surface – [10YR 4/3] brown silt loam

Fill 2: 0.2-0.4 feet below surface – [10YR 4/6] dark yellowish brown silty clay loam with about 5% gravel

Apb: 0.4-0.8 feet below surface – [10YR 4/3] brown silt loam

B horizon: 0.8-1.1 feet below surface – [10YR 5/6] yellowish brown silty clay loam

 

A total of 175 artifacts were recovered from the site (Table 6; see Appendix I). As seen below, about 50% (n=86) of the recovered assemblage consists of fragments of post-1907 glass and other temporally non-diagnostic glass; about 13% (n=23) consists of kitchen- related post-1820 ceramics and sherds dating to the late 19^th/early 20^th century; about 16% (n=28) consists of post-1890 wire nails, aluminum foil fragments and a pull tab dating to the second half of the 20^th century, and/or other temporally non-diagnostic metallic fragments, hardware, and fasteners; and about 21% (n=38) consists of miscellaneous finds including fragments of temporally non-diagnostic asphalt, bone, brick, coal, oyster shell, plastic, and slag and a bone button, a plastic toy, and a shoelace.

 

 

 

 

 

59

 

L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg

STP 314b     Ap: 10YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown silt loam     B horizon: 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown silty clay loam       STP 302       Ap: 10YR 4/3 dark yellowish brown loam with approximately 5% saprolite   B horizon: 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown silty clay loam       STP 849   Fill 1: 10YR 4/3 brown silt loam Fill 2: 10YR 4/6 dark yellowish brown silty clay loam with about 5% gravel Apb: 10YR 4/3 brown silt loam   B horizon: 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown silty clay loam
	0	Feet Original Scale: 1″ = 1′	1

Exhibit 19: Representative Soil Profiles from Site 44FK1089

 

Table 6: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FX1089

 

Artifact Description	Fill	Ap
Ceramics
hard paste porcelain		1
whiteware (1820-1900+)	3	17
redware		1
stoneware (late 19th-early 20th century)		1
Glass
bottle, bottle/jar, tableware	1	32
bottle, bottle/jar, jar (ABM)* (post-1907)	7	10
unidentified glass	4	32
Metal
aluminum foil** (post-1947)		2
aluminum pull tab** (post-1962)		1
brass 7mm cartridge casing		1
ferrous metal hinge		1
ferrous metal screw	1
ferrous metal screw cap		1
ferrous metal wire staple (post-1890)	2
nail, wire (post-1890)	1	13
unidentified ferrous metal		5
Miscellaneous
asphalt**		1
bone	1
bone button		1
brick**		1
coal**		6
oyster shell**		1
plastic**		19
plastic toy		1
shoelace		1
slag**	6
Total Site 44FK1089	26	149

* automatic bottle machine

** discarded

Considering the generally low quantities of 20^th-century domestic, architectural, and miscellaneous artifacts recovered from across the approximately 2.5-acre site, with no concentrations indicating any loci of significant activities associated with the occupation observable, the site presents as casually discarded refuse associated with the long-term occupation of the extant circa 1920 dwelling and farmstead at 2737 Senseny Road (DHR

 

Resource 034-1155) and the associated use of the property into the modern era. Based on the period of occupation and the long manufacturing and use dates for the bulk of the artifacts in the assemblage, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site.

Site 44FK1090

The site is located along a farm access road within the northcentral portion of the project area and encompasses an area of approximately 18,476 feet²/0.42 acres (see Exhibit 9; Exhibit 20); the site limits shown on Exhibits 9 and 20 are approximate. The site is situated along the eastern edge of a generally northwest-southeast-trending landform, sitting at an elevation between 604 and 584 feet a.m.s.l. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek via a drainage swale located to the southeast of the site. The vegetation within the site consists predominantly of grassy pasture, with a few evergreen trees adjacent to the farm road (Plate 19).

A total of 19 STPs were excavated within the site at 25-/50-foot intervals, seven of which yielded artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 801 (Exhibit 21).

STP 801

Ap: 0-0.5 feet below surface – [10YR 4/3] dark yellowish brown silty clay B horizon: 0.5 – 0.8 feet below surface – [10YR 5/4] yellowish brown

silty clay

A total of 12 artifacts were recovered from the site (Table 7; see Appendix I). As seen, the recovered assemblage consists of nine fragments of temporally non-diagnostic glass, one shard of post-1907 glass, one shard of post-1940 glass, and one fragment of ferrous metal wire.

Table 7: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK1090

 

Artifact Description	Ap
Glass
bottle, bottle/jar	9
bottle, (ABM)* (post-1907)	1
bottle, duraglas (post-1940)	1
Metal
ferrous metal wire	1
Total Site 44FK1090	12

* automatic bottle machine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drainage Swale

Disturbed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

760

Pond

Drainage Swale

 

 

Disturbed

 

 

 

785d       785

801

 

 

801c

 

805

 

 

 

805b

 

 

Drainage Swale

 

 

Slope

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drainage Swale

 

 

 

 

Pond

 

 

 

Disturbed

 

 

Drainage Swale

 

 

 

 

Drainage Swale

Slope

 

 

 

Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit

Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit

N

 

0                                 60

W                          E

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 60′

S

 

Exhibit 20: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1090

 

Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STP 801

 

 

Ap: 10YR 4/3 dark yellowish brown silty clay B horizon: 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown silty clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0                                  1

 

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 1′

 

Exhibit 21: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1090

 

Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation

 

Based on the lack of functional diversity in the recovered assemblage, the site does not appear to represent a significant locus of human activity or occupation; rather, the site presents as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20^th century, likely the result of casual discard along a farm road associated with the 20^th-century occupation and use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.

Site 44FK1091

The site is located within the northeastern portion of the project area and encompasses an area of approximately 7,530 feet²/0.17 acres (see Exhibit 10; Exhibit 22); the site limits shown on Exhibits 10 and 22 are approximate. The site is situated along the southern edge of a north-south-trending toe landform immediately above the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequeon Creek at an elevation of approximately 530 feet a.m.s.l. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek. The vegetation within the site consists of grassy pasture (Plate 20).

A total of ten STPs were excavated at 25-/50-foot intervals within the site, four of which yielded artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a shallow plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 446 (Exhibit 23).

 

STP 446

Ap: 0-0.6 feet below surface – [7.5YR 4/2] brown loam

B horizon: 0.6-1.0 feet below surface – [5YR 5/4] reddish brown clay loam with approximately 3% saprolite

A total of five artifacts were recovered from four STPs (Table 8; see Appendix I). As seen below, the recovered artifacts included two sherds of post-1820 whiteware ceramic, two shards of temporally non-diagnostic bottle glass, and one fragment of coal.

Table 8: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK1091

 

Artifact Description	Ap
Ceramics
whiteware (1820-1900+)	2
Glass
bottle/jar	2
Miscellaneous
coal*	1
Total Site 44FK1091	5

* discarded

 

 

 

 

 

65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

44FK0281

 

 

 

 

 

452

 

 

 

 

44FK0280

 

 

 

447

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

44FK1091

446d

446

 

446c

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

442

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Area Boundary

Previously Recorded Archeology Site

Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site

Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit

N

 

0                                 60

W                          E

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 60′

S

 

Exhibit 22: Detail of Phase I Testing within Sites 44FK1091, 44FK0280, and 44FK0281

 

Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STP 446

 

 

Ap: 7.5YR 4/2 brown loam

 

B horizon: 5YR 5/4 brown clay loam with approximately 3% saprolite

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0                                  1

 

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 1′

 

Exhibit 23: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1091

 

Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation

 

Based on the low density of artifacts recovered and the lack of functional diversity in the assemblage, the site does not appear to represent a significant locus of human activity or occupation; rather, the site presents as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20^th century, likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20^th-century occupation and use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.

Site 44FK0277

Site 44FK0277 was previously recorded in the southern project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Exhibit 8) (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site represents a trash scatter dating to the 20^th century, with a low-density (n=3) precontact component dating to an unknown period; no precontact artifacts were recovered from the site by the recording surveyor, but three projectile points were reportedly recovered from the vicinity by the landowner, according to the DHR site form. The site was originally identified through surface collection and shovel testing and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The site limits were subjected to Phase I testing during the current investigation; however, only two of the 14 STPs excavated at the DHR-recorded location of the site yielded artifacts. One of these STPs excavated on the northwestern boundary of the site resulted in the expansion of the site boundaries to include the recovered artifacts.

The site is situated along a generally east-west-trending landform at an elevation of approximately 638 feet a.m.s.l. The expanded limits of the site encompass an area of approximately 14,045 feet²/0.32 acres and include the previously recorded DHR location of the site as originally defined through surface collection and shovel testing (Exhibit 24); the site limits shown on Exhibits 8 and 24 are approximate and have not been survey located. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek. The vegetation within the site consists of scrub vegetation and evergreen trees, with grassy pasture in the southern portion of the site (Plate 21).

A total of 14 STPs were excavated at 25-/50-foot intervals within the site boundary, with only two yielding artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 236 (Exhibit 25).

STP 236

Ap: 0-0.6 feet below surface – [10YR 3/3] dark brown silt loam

B horizon: 0.6-0.9 feet below surface – [10YR 7/4] yellowish brown silty clay loam with approximately 5% saprolite

A total of two artifacts were recovered from two STPs (Table 9; see Appendix I). As seen, the recovered artifacts included one shard of temporally non-diagnostic bottle glass and the proximal end of one chert biface thinning flake.

 

 

 

68

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

114

 

242

 

 

 

 

 

245

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

236

 

 

 

 

 

233

 

 

 

Slope

 

 

 

 

 

 

159

168

 

 

 

Slope

 

 

Slope

Slope

 

 

 

 

Previously Recorded Archeology Site

Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site (Extension) Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit

Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit

N

 

0                                 60

W                          E

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 60′

S

 

Exhibit 24: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK0277

 

Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STP 236

 

 

Ap: 10YR 3/3 dark brown silt loam

 

B horizon: 10YR 7/4 yellowish brown silty clay loam with approximately 5% saprolite

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0                                  1

 

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 1′

 

Exhibit 25: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK0277

 

Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation

 

Table 9: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK0277

 

Artifact Description	Ap
Glass
bottle	1
Precontact
chert biface thinning flake	1
Total Site 44FK0277	2

 

The artifacts recovered from the site environs during the current study, though minimal, were similar to those reported in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992), consisting of both 20^th-century refuse and precontact materials; however, the absence of any significant quantities of historic or precontact artifacts recovered from the site location during this investigation suggests that the past use of the site was likely ephemeral. As such, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site.

 

Site 44FK0278

 

Site 44FK0278 was previously recorded in the northeastern project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Exhibits 9 and 10) (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site was recorded as a modern domestic dump site dating to the 20^th century and was identified through surface collection only. The site has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff.

 

The site location was revisited through pedestrian reconnaissance during the current investigation. However, as the site is recorded within a drainage swale surrounded by steep slopes it was not subjected to subsurface testing, in accordance with DHR guidelines; the site extends into the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequon Creek, which was excluded from subsurface testing during the current investigation. As recorded with the DHR, the site encompasses an area of about 20,107 feet²/0.46 acres at an elevation between 552 and 526 feet a.m.s.l. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek. The vegetation within the site consists of mixed deciduous forest (Plate 22).

 

As no shovel testing was conducted at the site during this study, no artifacts were recovered. However, dumped refuse was observed on the ground surface at the site location (Plate 23), similar to the 1991/1992 study that recorded it. Considering the site represents an area of secondarily deposited refuse dumping, within a drainage swale and low floodplain, in our opinion it lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site.

 

Site 44FK0279

Site 44FK0279 was previously recorded in the northwestern project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Exhibit 9) (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site was identified through surface collection, historical map projection, and shovel testing, and is recorded as a farmstead dating to the 19^th century that includes a low-density (n=1) precontact component dating to an unknown period; according to the DHR site form, the farmstead may be associated with S. Robinson, whose dwelling is recorded in the vicinity on a 19^th-century map of the Third Battle of Winchester (see Exhibit 6). The site has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff.

The DHR-recorded limits of the site were subjected to Phase I testing during the current investigation. A total of 38 STPs were excavated at 25-/50-foot intervals within the site boundary, of which six yielded artifacts within its limits (Exhibit 26); the site limits shown on Exhibits 9 and 26 are approximate. The site is situated along the top of a generally east-west-trending landform at an elevation between approximately 636 and 624 feet a.m.s.l. The site as recorded with the DHR encompasses an area of approximately 73,435 feet²/1.68 acres. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek. The vegetation within the site consists of grassy pastureland (Plate 24).

The STPs excavated within the site exhibited a profile consisting of a shallow plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 634 (Exhibit 27).

STP 634

Ap: 0-0.4 feet below surface – [10YR 4/4] dark brown silt loam

B horizon: 0.4-1.2 feet below surface – [10YR 7/6] yellowish brown clay loam with approximately 20% saprolite

A total of 27 artifacts were recovered from the site (Table 10; see Appendix I).

Table 10: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK0279

 

Artifact Description	Ap
Ceramics
kaolin pipe stem	3
whiteware (1820-1900+)	7
redware	1
Glass
bottle, bottle/jar	3
unidentified glass	2
Metal
nail, cut (post-1790)	3
Miscellaneous
brick*	8
Total Site 44FK0279	27

* discarded

 

 

 

 

Slope

Slope

 

Slope

Slope

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

631d                                         634a

631

 

 

 

631c

634

 

 

634c

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Area Boundary

Previously Recorded Archeology Site Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit

N

 

0                                 60

W                          E

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 60′

S

 

Exhibit 26: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK0279

 

Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STP 634

 

Ap: 10YR 4/4 dark brown silt loam

 

 

B horizon: 10YR 7/6 yellowish brown clay loam with approximately 20% saprolite

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0                                  1

 

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 1′

 

Exhibit 27: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK0279

 

Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation

 

As seen above, the recovered artifacts included architecture-related brick and nails, kitchen-related ceramics and glass, and tobacco-related kaolin pipe stem fragments. Temporally diagnostic artifacts in the recovered assemblage included post-1790 cut nails (n=3) and post-1820 whiteware sherds (n=7), indicating a 19^th-century date for the site; no definitively 20^th-century or modern artifacts were recovered. Based on the artifacts recovered from the site during this investigation, along with those recovered in 1991/1992, the site presents as the former location of a domestic dwelling and occupation dating to the 19^th century, likely that of S. Robinson whose dwelling is recorded in the vicinity on 19^th-century mapping (see Exhibit 6).

 

Considering the temporal affiliation of the site, the functional diversity in the recovered artifacts and those reported in 1991/1992, and the absence of any definitively 20^th– century/modern artifacts in the assemblage, in our opinion the site has the potential to yield significant research data regarding the lifeways of the residents of Frederick County, Virginia in the 19^th century and may be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. Phase II archeological evaluation of Site 44FK0279 is recommended if the site cannot be avoided by the proposed development.

 

Site 44FK0280

 

The site was previously recorded in the northeastern corner of the project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Exhibit 10) (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site was recorded as a possible waste disposal area dating to an unknown historic period, with a low-density precontact component (n=2) dating to an unknown period. The site was identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff.

The DHR-recorded limits of the site were subjected to Phase I testing during the current investigation. The site is situated along the eastern edge of a generally east-west-trending landform at an elevation of approximately 532 feet a.m.s.l. (see Exhibit 22); the site limits shown on Exhibits 10 and 22 are approximate. The site as recorded with the DHR encompasses an area of approximately 6,494 feet²/0.15 acres. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek. The vegetation within the site consists of grassy pastureland and forest edge (Plate 25).

 

A total of four STPs were excavated at 50-foot intervals within the site boundary. The STPs excavated within the site exhibited a profile consisting of a plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 447 (Exhibit 28).

STP 447

Ap: 0-0.4 feet below surface – [10YR 4/3] dark yellowish brown silty clay loam

B horizon: 0.4 – 0.7feet below surface – [10YR 5/4] yellowish brown clay loam

 

 

 

 

 

75

 

L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STP 447

 

Ap: 10YR 4/3 dark yellowish brown silty clay loam B horizon: 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown clay loam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0                                  1

 

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 1′

 

Exhibit 28: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK0280

 

None of the STPs excavated within the DHR-recorded limits of the site yielded artifacts. This suggests that either the site is inaccurately mapped within the project area or that its occupation was so ephemeral that it could not be identified with 50-foot shovel testing. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the DHR- mapped location of the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.

Site 44FK0281

 

The site was previously recorded in the northeastern corner of the project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Exhibit 10) (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site straddles the current project area boundary and represents a low-density (n=3) lithic scatter dating to an unknown precontact period. The site was identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff.

 

The DHR-recorded limits of the site within the project area were subjected to Phase I testing during the current investigation. The site is situated along a generally east-west- trending landform at an elevation of approximately 530 feet a.m.s.l. (see Exhibit 22); the site limits shown on Exhibits 10 and 22 are approximate. The site as recorded with the DHR encompasses an area of approximately 7,231 feet²/0.17 acres. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek via a drainage swale and unnamed tributary to the north and a drainage swale to the south. The vegetation within the site consists of dense hardwood saplings (Plate 26).

 

A total of two STPs were excavated at 50-foot intervals within the site boundary. The STPs excavated within the site exhibited a profile consisting of a shallow plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 452 (Exhibit 29).

 

STP 452

Ap: 0-0.3 feet below surface – [10YR 4/3] dark brown silt loam

B horizon: 0.3-0.7 feet below surface – [10YR 5/4] yellowish brown silty clay loam with approximately 10% saprolite

 

None of the STPs excavated within the DHR-recorded limits of the site yielded artifacts. This suggests that either the site is inaccurately mapped within the project area or that its occupation was so ephemeral that it could not be identified with 50-foot shovel testing. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations of the portion of the site within the current project area would yield any significant research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the DHR-mapped location of the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

77

 

L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STP 452

 

Ap: 10YR 4/3 dark brown silt loam

B horizon: 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown silty clay loam with approximately 10% saprolite

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0                                  1

 

Feet

Original Scale: 1″ = 1′

 

Exhibit 29: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK0281

 

DHR Resource 034-1155 (House, off Route 657)

DHR Resource 034-1155 (House, 2737 Senseny Road) was originally recorded in 1992 and encompasses the majority of the project area. The primary resource is recorded as a single dwelling constructed circa 1920 and was determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff in October of 1992. The resource was revisited during a Phase I architectural survey in 2020; however, it appears that the property was not accessed during the survey and observations were made from the public right-of-way. Seven buildings (Buildings 1-7; see Exhibits 8-10) associated with the resource were documented during this investigation; a description of the buildings is presented below. The DHR Architectural Survey Form for the resource was also updated as a result of this investigation.

Building 1 is the primary resource and is a two-and-a-half story, single dwelling built using the American Foursquare form (Plates 27 and 28). The house is covered by an asphalt shingle hipped roof with a gable dormer on the south elevation and a central, interior chimney. A full width shed roof extends from the south elevation and covers an entry porch. Two additions extend off the main body of the dwelling: a garage on the east elevation and an enclosed room on the west elevation. An asphalt shingle shed roof extends from the west elevation to cover the garage addition to the dwelling. An asphalt side-gable roof extends eastward to cover the enclosed room addition to the dwelling; the roof is cut by a stretcher bond brick chimney on the northern slope. The entire building is covered in white vinyl siding. One-over-one vinyl double hung windows are the primary window type for the dwelling. According to previous V-CRIS records, Building 1 was constructed circa 1920 and is historic.

Building 2 is a one-and-a-half story, concrete block and wood frame barn located northeast of Building 1 (Plate 29). The barn is covered with a metal gambrel roof; a metal broken-gable roof extends north from the gambrel roof. All elevations are constructed with concrete blocks, except for the upper half-story and west elevation which are constructed with a wood frame and vertical wood siding. Several sliding doors are located on the west and east elevations. Additionally, a sliding hay loft door is in the half- story on the east elevation. An examination of aerial imagery indicates that Building 2 replaced an older building sometime between 1958 and 1964 and is historic.

Building 3 is a single-story, wood frame chicken coop located southeast of Building 1 (Plate 30). The chicken coop appears to be a small shed which was adapted for animals. Building 3 is clad in white vinyl siding, similar to Building 1, and covered with a metal gable roof. The north elevation hosts a wood door and a one-over-one double hung vinyl window. An examination of aerial imagery indicates that Building 3 was constructed prior to 1958; however, a more exact construction date is difficult to determine due to lack of earlier imagery.

Building 4 is a two-bay, wood frame run-in animal shelter located northeast of Building 1 (Plate 31). Building 4 is clad is plywood siding an supported by vertical wood posts. A metal shed roof covers Building 4. A review of aerial imagery indicates that Building 4 was constructed circa 2000 and is not historic.

 

Building 5 is a two-story, concrete block and wood frame dwelling that has been converted into a workshop and is located northeast of Building 1 (Plate 32). The east and west elevations are constructed with a wood frame and horizontal wood siding, while the north and south elevations are constructed and clad with concrete block siding. A metal gable roof with open eaves covers Building 5 and is broken by a common bond brick chimney that rises from the interior of the roof’s northern slope. A metal shed roof extends north from the north elevation of the dwelling and covers a three-bay-wide machine shed addition that is clad with vertical metal sheets. Three-over-one, fixed wooden windows are the primary window type for Building 5 and can be found on both the main dwelling and the machine shed addition. Examination of aerial imagery indicates Building 5 was constructed prior to 1958; however, a more exact construction date is difficult to determine due to lack of earlier imagery. The machine shed addition to Building 5 appears to have been added sometime between 1964 and 1982 and likely marks when the dwelling was converted into a workshop.

 

Building 6 is a wood frame animal shelter located northeast of Building 1 (Plate 33). The animal shelter is clad in vertical wood siding and covered with a flat metal roof. The shelter is not historic and is currently being used as a pig pen.

Building 7 is a standing common bond brick chimney located northeast of Building 1 and southwest of Building 5 (Plate 34). Examination of aerial imagery indicates the chimney was once located on the west elevation of a dwelling constructed prior to 1958 and removed from the property, either intentionally or unintentionally, sometime between 1964 and 1982.

No new data was obtained during the current study that would contradict the previous determination by the DHR that the resource is not eligible for listing in the NRHP. In our opinion, the resource is a typical, unremarkable example of an American Foursquare dwelling dating to the first quarter of the 20^th century. None of the buildings are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns in history or with known individuals of transcendent historical importance. Therefore, in our opinion, DHR Resource 034-1155 is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A, B, or C. No further documentation is recommended.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A Phase I cultural resources investigation was conducted of the ±91.7-acre Winchester East at Opequon Creek project area, located at 2737 and 2747 Senseny Road (Route 657) in eastern Frederick County, Virginia near its boundary with Clarke County. Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc., of Gainesville, Virginia conducted the study described in this report for T VA Winchester II, LLC of Alexandria, Virginia. The fieldwork was carried out in August of 2024. Six new archeological sites (44FK1086-44FK1091) were recorded as a result of this investigation (Exhibit 30).

Additionally, five previously recorded archeological sites (44FK0277-44FK0281) and one previously recorded architectural resource (034-1155) were revisited during the study; one of these sites (44FK0279) is recommended for Phase II or avoidance.

 

L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.32_CulturalResourcesWithin.mxd

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

44FK0279

 

44FK0281

 

 

44FK1090

44FK1091

44FK0280

 

 

 

 

44FK1089

44FK0278

 

 

034-1155

 

 

 

44FK0277

 

 

 

 

44FK1087

 

44FK1088

 

 

44FK1086

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Area Archeological Resource Architectural Resource

Latitude: 39°9’54″N Longitude: 78°5’13″W

 

0                               1,000

®

Feet

Original Scale: 1 ” = 1,000 ‘

 

Exhibit 30: Cultural Resources Within the Project Area

 

 

Site 44FK1086 is interpreted as a trash scatter dating to the 20^th century, likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20^th-century occupation and use of the property.

Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.

 

Site 44FK1087 is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20^th century that is likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20^th-century occupation and use of the property; one precontact artifact was also recovered from plowed contexts that is likely associated with ephemeral use of the site location during an unknown precontact period, due to a lack of additional finds in the vicinity. Considering this, and that the precontact artifact was recovered from plowed contexts, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.

 

Site 44FK1088 is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20^th century and is likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20^th-century occupation and use of the property; two precontact artifacts were also recovered from plowed contexts that are likely associated with ephemeral use of the site location during an unknown precontact period, due to a lack of additional finds in the vicinity. Considering this, and that the precontact artifact was recovered from plowed contexts, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.

Site 44FK1089 is interpreted as casually discarded refuse associated with the long-term occupation of the extant circa 1920 dwelling and farmstead at 2737 Senseny Road (DHR Resource 034-1155) and the associated use of the property into the modern era. Based on the period of occupation and the long manufacturing and use dates for the bulk of the artifacts in the assemblage, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site.

 

Site 44FK1090 is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20^th century that is likely the result of casual discard along a farm road associated with the 20^th-century occupation and use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.

 

Site 44FK1091 is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20^th century that is likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20^th-century occupation and use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site

 

would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.

 

Site 44FK0277 was previously recorded in the southern project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site represents a trash scatter dating to the 20^th century, with a low-density (n=3) precontact component dating to an unknown period; no precontact artifacts were recovered from the site by the recording surveyor, but three projectile points were reportedly recovered from the vicinity by the landowner, according to the DHR site form. The site was originally identified through surface collection and shovel testing and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The site limits were subjected to Phase I testing during the current investigation; however, only two of the 14 STPs excavated at the DHR- recorded location of the site yielded artifacts. One of these STPs excavated on the northwestern boundary of the site resulted in the expansion of the site boundaries to include the recovered artifacts.

 

The artifacts recovered from the environs of Site 44FK0277 during the current study, though minimal, were similar to those reported in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University, consisting of both 20^th-century refuse and precontact materials; however, the absence of any significant quantities of historic or precontact artifacts recovered from the site location during this investigation suggests that the past use of the site was likely ephemeral. As such, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site.

Site 44FK0278 was previously recorded in the northeastern project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site was recorded as a modern domestic dump site dating to the 20^th century and was identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The site location was revisited through pedestrian reconnaissance during the current investigation. However, as the site is recorded within a drainage swale surrounded by steep slopes it was not subjected to subsurface testing, in accordance with DHR guidelines; the site extends into the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequon Creek, which was excluded from subsurface testing during the current investigation. As no shovel testing was conducted at the site during this study, no artifacts were recovered.

However, dumped refuse was observed on the ground surface at the site location, similar to the 1991/1992 study that recorded it. Considering the site represents an area of secondarily deposited refuse dumping, within a drainage swale and low floodplain, in our opinion it lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site.

 

Site 44FK0279 was previously recorded in the northwestern project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site

 

was identified through surface collection, historical map projection, and shovel testing, and is recorded as a farmstead dating to the 19^th century that includes a low-density (n=1) precontact component dating to an unknown period; according to the DHR site form, the farmstead may be associated with S. Robinson, whose dwelling is recorded in the vicinity on a 19^th-century map of the Third Battle of Winchester. The site has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff.

 

The artifacts recovered during the current investigation included architecture-related brick and nails, kitchen-related ceramics and glass, and tobacco-related kaolin pipe stem fragments. Temporally diagnostic artifacts in the recovered assemblage included post- 1790 cut nails (n=3) and post-1820 whiteware sherds (n=7), suggesting a 19^th-century date for the site; no definitively 20^th-century or modern artifacts were recovered.

Considering the temporal affiliation of the site, the functional diversity in the recovered artifacts and those reported in 1991/1992, and the absence of any definitively 20^th– century/modern artifacts in the assemblage, in our opinion the site has the potential to yield significant research data regarding the lifeways of the residents of Frederick County, Virginia in the 19^th century and may be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. Phase II archeological evaluation of Site 44FK0279 is recommended if the site cannot be avoided by the proposed development.

 

Site 44FK0280 was previously recorded in the northeastern corner of the project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site was recorded as a possible waste disposal area dating to an unknown historic period, with a low-density precontact component (n=2) dating to an unknown period. The site was identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The DHR-recorded limits of the site were subjected to Phase I testing during the current investigation; however, none of these STPs yielded artifacts. This suggests that either the site is inaccurately mapped within the project area or that its occupation was so ephemeral that it could not be identified with

50-foot shovel testing. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the DHR-mapped location of the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.

Site 44FK0281 was previously recorded in the northeastern corner of the project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site straddles the current project area boundary and represents a low-density (n=3) lithic scatter dating to an unknown precontact period. The site was identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The DHR-recorded limits of the site within the project area were subjected to Phase I testing during the current investigation; however, none of these STPs yielded artifacts. This suggests that either the site is inaccurately mapped within the project area or that its occupation was so ephemeral that it could not be identified with 50-foot shovel testing. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations of the portion of the site within the current project area would yield any significant research data above that

 

which is already known. In our opinion, the DHR-mapped location of the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.

 

Finally, DHR Resource 034-1155 (House, 2737 Senseny Road) was originally recorded in 1992 and encompasses the majority of the project area. The primary resource is recorded as a single dwelling constructed circa 1920 and was determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff in October of 1992. The DHR Architectural Survey Form for the resource was also updated as a result of this investigation. No new data was obtained during the current study that would contradict the previous determination by the DHR that the resource is not eligible for listing in the NRHP. In our opinion, the resource is a typical, unremarkable example of an American Foursquare dwelling dating to the first quarter of the 20^th century. None of the buildings are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns in history or with known individuals of transcendent historical importance. Therefore, in our opinion, DHR Resource 034-1155 is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A, B, or C. No further documentation is recommended.

 

 

 

REFERENCES CITED

 

Abbott, W. W. [editor]

1983    The Papers Of George Washington. Colonial Series. I. 1748-August 1855.

University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.

 

Adovasio, J.M., J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath

1990    The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology 1975-1990. American Antiquity (55):348-54.

 

Adovasio, J.M., D. Pedler, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath

1998    Two Decades of Debate on Meadowcroft Rockshelter. North American Archaeologist (19):317-41.

 

Ansel, William H.

1984    Frontier Forts Along The Potomac And Its Tributaries. McClain Printing Company, Parsons, West Virginia.

 

Barse, William P.

1978    Preliminary Notes on the West Shore Site, 18AN219. Archeological Society of Maryland Newsletter, January 1978.

1990    A Trial Formulation of Vessel Shapes for the Early and Middle Woodland Ceramic Assemblages. Paper presented at the 21^st Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference, Ocean City, Maryland.

1991    Phase III Data Recovery Excavations at 28GL209, Gloucester County, New Jersey. Report prepared for Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation by Louis Berger & Associates.

2002    An Archeological Survey, Inventory and Evaluation Study, and Data Recovery for the Fletchers Boathouse Site (51NW13) C&O Canal National Historical Park, Washington, D.C. Report submitted to the National Capital Region, National Park Service.

Bastian, Tyler

1974    Preliminary Notes on the Biggs Ford Site, Frederick County, Maryland.

Manuscript on file at the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory.

Beck, Brandon H.

2015    “The Third Battle of Winchester.” Electronic document, https://www.shenandoahatwar.org/the-third-battle-of-winchester/, accessed 11

November 2020.

 

Beck, Brandon H. and Charles S. Grunder

1988    Three Battles of Winchester: A History and Guided Tour. The Civil War Society, Special Edition. The Country Publishers, Inc. Berryville, Virginia.

 

Bergman, Christopher A., John F. Doershuk and Joseph Schuldenrein

1994    A Young Archaeologist’s Summary Guide to the Deeply Stratified Sandts Eddy Site, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. In Recent Research into the Prehistory of the Delaware Valley, edited by Christopher A. Bergman and John F. Doershuk, Journal of Middle Atlantic Archeology, Volume 10.

 

Boatner, Mark M. III

1991    The Civil War Dictionary. Vantage Books, New York, New York.

 

Botwick, Brad and Ashley M. Neville

1997    Phase I and II Cultural Resource Investigations Route 37 Frederick County, Virginia. Gray & Pape, Inc, Richmond, VA. Prepared for Michael Baker Jr., Inc.

 

Broyles, Bettye J.

1971    Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia.

West Virginia Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 3.

 

Carbone, Victor A.

1976    Environment and Prehistory in the Shenandoah Valley. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.

 

Chapman, Jefferson

1975    The Rose Island Site and the Bifurcate Point Tradition. Knoxville, University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology.

Coe, Joffre L.

1964    The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 54 (5), Philadelphia.

 

Commonwealth of Virginia

1850    Acts Of The General Assembly Of Virginia, Passed At The Extra And Regular Sessions In 1849 & 1850, And In The Seventy-Third And Seventy-Fourth Years Of The Commonwealth. William F. Ritchie, Richmond, Virginia.

Couper, William

1952    History of the Shenandoah Valley. Lewis Historical Publishing Company, Inc.

New York.

Cross, Dorothy

1956    Archeology of New Jersey, Volume 2: The Abbot Farm. Trenton: Archeological Society of New Jersey and the New Jersey State Museum.

 

Curry, Dennis and Maureen Kavanagh

1994    A New Radiocarbon Date for Popes Creek Ware. Maryland Archeology 30(1):29- 32.

 

Darmody, R.G. and J.E. Foss

1978    Tidal Marsh Soils of Maryland. Maryland Agricultural Experimental Station Publication 930:1-69.

 

Department of Historic Resources (DHR)

2017    Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia. Virginia State Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia.

 

Dent, Richard J.

1991    Deep Time in the Potomac Valley – Thoughts on Paleoindian lifeways and revisionist archeology. Archeology of Eastern North America 19:23-41.

1995    Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press, New York.

 

Dincauze, Dena

1976    The Neville Site: 8,000 Years at Amoskeag, Manchester, New Hampshire.

Peabody Museum Monographs Number 4, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

 

Dunham, Gary H., Debra L. Gold, and Jeffrey L. Hantman

2003    Collective Burial in Late Prehistoric Virginia: Excavation and Analysis of the Rapidan Mound. American Antiquity 68(1): 109-128.

 

Ebright, Carol A.

1992    Early Native American Prehistory on the Maryland Western Shore: Archeological Investigations at the Higgins Site. Maryland State Highway Administration Archeological Report Number 1. Report prepared for the Maryland State Railroad Administration.

Egloff, Keith and Deborah Woodward

1992    First People: The Early Indians of Virginia. Second Edition. Virginia Department of Historic Resources. University of Virginia Press. Charlottesville, Virginia.

 

Fiedel, Stuart J.

1999 Connecting Late Prehistoric Ceramic Lineages with Early Historic Ethnic- Linguistic Groups: Prospects and Problems. Paper presented at the Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Frederick County Board of Supervisors

1989    The Story of Frederick County. Frederick County Board of Supervisors, Winchester, Virginia.

 

Gallivan, Martin

2010    “The Archaeology of Native Societies in the Chesapeake: New Investigations and Interpretations.” Springer Science+Business Media. http://www.springerlink.com/content/54k17240122u2k5k/.

 

Gardner, William M.

1974    The Flint Run Paleo Indian Complex: Report on the 1971-1973 Seasons.

Occasional Publication 1, Department of Anthropology, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.

1976    Excavations at 18PR141, 18PR142 and 18PR143 Near Piscataway, Maryland.

Report submitted to the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission.

1980    The Archaic. Paper presented at the 11^th Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.

1982    Early and Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: An Overview. In Practicing Environmental Archeology: Methods and Interpretations, pp. 53-86, Roger W. Moeller, editor. Occasional Paper Number 3, American Indian Archeological Institute, Washington, Connecticut.

1985    Prehistoric Site Distribution in the Greater Washington, D.C. Area. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Society, Washington, D.C.

1986    Lost Arrowheads and Broken Pottery: Traces of Indians in the Shenandoah Valley. Thunderbird Museum Publication.

1987    Comparison of Ridge and Valley, Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain Archaic Period Site Distribution: An Idealized Transect. In Journal of Middle Atlantic Archeology, Vol. 3, pp. 49-80, Roger W. Moeller, editor. Archeological Services, Bethlehem, Connecticut.

1989    An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (circa 9200-6800 B.C.)   In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, pp. 5- 51, J. Mark Wittkofski and T.R. Rhinehart, editors. Archeological Society of Virginia Special Publication No. 19. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

1991    Notes for the Territory Presentation. Presented at the 1991 Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference.

Gardner, William M. and Charles W. McNett, Jr.

1971    Early Pottery in the Potomac. Proceedings of the Second Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference. Washington, D.C.

 

Gardner, William M. and Lauralee Rappleye

1979    A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance and Impact Assessment of the Proposed Additions to the Mount Jackson Wastewater Treatment Plant, Shenandoah County, Virginia. Thunderbird Research Corporation, Front Royal, Virginia.

Gardner, William M. and Joan M. Walker

1993    A Phase I Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed Mitchell Substation and Mitchell Transmission Line in Culpeper County, Virginia. Report prepared for Rappahannock Electric Cooperative, Fredericksburg, by the Thunderbird Archeological Associates, Inc., Woodstock, Virginia.

 

Goodyear, A.C

2005    “Evidence of Pre-Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States.”    Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis. R. Bonnichsen, B. Lepper, D. Stanford, M. Waters (eds.)

112. 103-112. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas.

 

Greene, Evarts B.

1932    American Population Before the Federal Census of 1790. Columbia University Press, New York, New York.

 

Hantman, Jeffrey L. and Michael J. Klein

1992    Middle and Late Woodland Archeology in Piedmont Virginia. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, pp. 137-164, Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, editors. Archeological Society of Virginia Special Publication No. 29. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.

 

Haynes, Gary

2002    The Early Settlement of North America: the Clovis Era. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York.

 

Hening, William Waller

1819a The Statutes at Large; Being A Collection Of All The Laws Of Virginia, From The First Session Of The Legislature, In The Year 1619. Volume V. Franklin Press, Richmond, Virginia.

1819b The Statutes at Large; Being A Collection Of All The Laws Of Virginia, From The First Session Of The Legislature, In The Year 1619. Volume VI. Franklin Press, Richmond, Virginia.

1820    The Statutes at Large; Being A Collection Of All The Laws Of Virginia, From The First Session Of The Legislature, In The Year 1619. Volume VII. Franklin Press, Richmond, Virginia.

Hiden, Martha W.

1957    How Justice Grew. Virginia Counties: An Abstract of Their Formation. Third printing 1980; Jamestown Booklet No. 2. The University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Hofstra, Warren R.

1986    A Separate Place, The Formation of Clarke County, Virginia. Clarke County Sesquicentennial Committee, White Post, Virginia.

 

Hofstra, Warren R., Clarence Geier, et. Al.

1992    The Abrams Cree-Redbud Run Project: A Cultural Resource Inventory Study of Archaeological Sites in the Shale Area of East Winchester, Virginia. Shenandoah University and James Madison University, Virginia

 

Hurst, Gwen J.

1990    U.S. Bottle Chronology. B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii.

 

Jirikowic, Christine

1999    Keyser Ware Ceramics at the Hughs Site and in the Potomac Basin. Paper presented at the Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

 

Johnson, Michael

1983    The Evolution of the Bifurcate Hunting System in the Interior Piedmont of Fairfax County, Virginia. In Piedmont Archeology, pp. 55-73, J. Mark Wittkofski and Lyle E. Browning, editors. Archeological Society of Virginia Special Publication No. 10. Richmond, Virginia.

1986    Fairfax County Archeological Overview. Heritage Resources Branch, Fairfax, Virginia.

1997 Additional Research at Cactus Hill: Preliminary Description of Northern Virginia Chapter—ASV’s 1993 and 1995 Excavations. In Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia, edited by J.M. McAvoy and

L.D. McAvoy, Appendix G. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No. 8, Richmond, Virginia.

 

Kalbian, Maral S.

1989    Clarke County Rural Reconnaissance Survey. Report prepared for Clarke County, Virginia.

1999    Frederick County, Virginia: History Through Architecture. Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society Rural Landmarks Publication Committee, Winchester Printers, Inc.

Kavanagh, Maureen

1982    Archaeological Resources of the Monocacy River Region. Maryland Geological Survey, Division of Archaeology, File Report #164.

1983    Prehistoric Occupation of the Monocacy River Region, Maryland. In Piedmont Archeology, pp. 40-54, J. Mark Wittkofski and Lyle E. Browning, editors.

Archeological Society of Virginia Special Publication No. 10. Richmond, Virginia.

Kercheval, Samuel

1986    A History of the Valley of Virginia. Seventh Edition. C.J. Carrier Company, Harrisonburg,  Virginia.

 

Kinsey, W.F. III

1972    Archeology in the Upper Delaware Valley. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Museum and Historical Commission, Anthropological Series 2.

 

Lederer, John

1672    The Discoveries of John Lederer, In three feveral Marches from Virginia, To the Weft of Carolina, And other parts of the Continent: Begun in March 1669, and ended in September 1670. Together with a General Map of the whole Territory which he traverfed. Printed by J.C. for Samuel Heyrick, at Grays-Inne-gate in Holborn. London, England.

 

Lindsey, Bill

2024    Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website. Society for Historical Archeology. Electronic document, https://www.sha.org/bottle, accessed September 11, 2024.

 

Luckenbach, Al, Jessie Grow, Shawn Sharpe

2010    Archaic Period Triangular Points From Pig Point, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. In Journal of Middle Atlantic Archeology, Volume 26, pp. 1-15, Roger

1. Moeller, editor. Archeological Services, Bethlehem, Connecticut.

 

Magid, Barbara H., editor

1990    Alexandria Archaeology Artifact Code Books. Alexandria Archaeology Publications Number 11. Alexandria Archaeology Office of Historic Alexandria, City of Alexandria, Virginia.

 

Magin, Irvin D.

1991    Shenandoah County Gazetteer & Historical Geography. Commercial Press, Stephens City, Virginia.

Manson, Carl

1948    Marcey Creek Site: An Early Manifestation in the Potomac Valley. American Antiquity 12(3):223-227.

 

Martin, Joseph

1836    A New And Comprehensive Gazetteer Of Virginia, And The District Of Columbia: Containing A Copious Collection Of Biographical, Statistical, Political, Commercial, Religious, Moral, And Miscellaneous Information, Collected And Compiled From The Most Respectable, And Chiefly From Original Sources.

Moseley & Tompkins, Charlottesville, Virginia.

McAvoy, J.M.

1997    Addendum: Excavation of the Cactus Hill Site, 44SX202, Areas A-B, Spring 1996: Summary Report of Activities and Findings. In Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia, edited by

J.M. McAvoy and L.D. McAvoy, Appendix G. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No. 8, Richmond, Virginia.

 

McAvoy, J.M. and L.D. McAvoy (editors)

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

McClearen, Douglas C.

1991    Phase III Archeological Investigations of the “522 Bridge Site” (44WR329) Warren County, Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth University, Archeological Research Center, Richmond, Virginia.

McDonald, J.N.

2000 An Outline of the Pre-Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia, with Special Attention to a Bone Tool Dated 14,510 yr BP. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, Virginia.

McDonald, J.N. and M. Kay

1999    Pre-Clovis Archaeology at SV-2, Saltville, Virginia. In Abstracts of the Society for American Archaeology 64^th Annual Meeting, p. 196. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.

McKay, Hunter Branson

1951    Fairfax Land Suit. Transcript Of Copy In The British Museum Being An Extract From. Privately Published, Belmont, Massachusetts.

Miller, George

1992 Refinement of South’s Types and Median Dates. Manuscript at University of Delaware Center for Archeological Research, Newark.

Miller, Glenda F. and Joan M. Walker

n.d.      Competing Agendas: The Fur Trade and Native Americans.

Morton, Frederic

1925    The Story of Winchester in Virginia: The Oldest Town in the Shenandoah Valley.

Shenandoah Publishing House, Strasburg, Virginia.

Mouer, Daniel, Robin L. Ryder and Elizabeth G. Johnson

1981    The Elk Island Tradition: An Early Woodland Society in the Virginia Piedmont.

Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 36:49-76.

Mounier, Alan and Jack Cresson

1988 A Case of Lachrymose Archeology in Southern New Jersey. Archeological Society of New Jersey Newsletter 146:5-8.

Norris, J.E.

1890    History of the Lower Shenandoah Valley, Counties of Frederick, Berkely, Jefferson, and Clarke. A. Warner and Col., Publishers, Chicago, Illinois and Virgnia Book Company, Berryville, Virginia.

 

Potter, Stephen R.

1982    An Analysis of Chicacoan Settlement Patterns. Dissertation on file, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

1993    Commoners, Tribute and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the Potomac Valley. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

 

Quarles, Garland R.

1986    The Streets of Winchester, Virginia: The Origin and Significance of Their Names.

Prepared for The Farmers and Merchants National Bank, Winchester, Virginia.

 

Reese, George

1980    The Official Papers of Francis Fauquier Lieutenant Governor of Virginia 1758- 1768. Volume I 1758-1760. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.

 

Rice, James D.

2009    Nature & History in the Potomac Country: From Hunter-Gatherers to the Age of Jefferson. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland.

 

Rouse, Parke Jr.

1973    From Philadelphia To The South. The Great Wagon Road. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York.

Slattery, Richard G.

1946    A Prehistoric Indian Site on Selden Island, Montgomery County, Maryland.

Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 36 (8):262-266.

Smith, Page

1976    A New Age Now Begins. A People’s History of the American Revolution. Volume Two. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, St. Louis and San Francisco.

South, Stanley

1977    Method and Theory in Historical Archeology. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

 

Stephenson, Robert L., Alice L. Ferguson and Henry G. Ferguson

1963    The Accokeek Site:  A Middle Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence.

Anthropological Papers (20) Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

 

Stevens, J. Sanderson

1989    Environmental Site Predictors and Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Central Piedmont of Virginia. Paper presented at the Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.

 

Stewart, R. Michael

1998    Archaic Triangles at the Abbott Farm National Landmark: Typological Implications for Prehistoric Studies in the Middle Atlantic Region. Paper accompanying Exhibit at the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Cape May, New Jersey.

 

Tinling, Marion [editor]

1977    The Correspondence of The Three William Byrds of Westover, Virginia 1684- 1776. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.

 

United States Department of Interior (DOI)

1983    Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Federal Register 48 (190):44716-44742.

 

Walker, Joan M.

1981    A Preliminary Report on the Prehistory of Prince William County, Virginia.

Report prepared for the County of Prince William by the Thunderbird Research Corporation, Woodstock, Virginia.

 

Walker, Joan M. and William M. Gardner

1989    Phase I Archeological Survey, Telegraph Woods Sanitary Sewer Line, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Report prepared by Thunderbird Archeological Associates, Inc. for Paciulli, Simmons and Associates, Ltd., Fairfax, Virginia.

Waselkov, Gregory A.

1982    Shellfish Gathering and Shell Midden Archeology. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Wayland, John W.

1976    Twenty-Five Chapters On The Shenandoah Valley To Which is Appended A Concise History Of The Civil War In The Valley. Second Edition. C. J. Carrier Company, Harrisonburg, Virginia.

1980 A History of Shenandoah County Virginia. Second (Augmented) Edition.

Regional Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland.

 

Weiss-Bromberg, Francine

1987    Site Distribution in the Coastal Plain and Fall Zone of the Potomac Valley from ca. 6500 B.C. to A.D. 1400. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology,

The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.

 

Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society

1980    Images Of The Past. A Photographic Review of Winchester and Frederick County, Virginia. Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society, Winchester, Virginia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLATES

 

 

 

 

Plate 1: Senseny Road View to Southwest

 

Plate 2: Opequon Creek – Northeast of Project Area View to Northeast

 

 

Plate 3: Example of Forested Vegetation View to East

 

Plate 4: Example of Pastureland/Overview of Site 44FK1089 (North) View to North

 

 

Plate 5: Example of Manicured Lawn/Overview of Site 44FK1089 (South) View to Northeast

 

Plate 6: Example of Steep Slope View to West

 

 

Plate 7: Example of Constructed Farm Pond View to North

 

Plate 8: Example of Drainage Swale/Cut View to West

 

 

Plate 9: Example of Artificial Landform View to North

 

Plate 10: Example of Gravel Farm Roads View to South

 

 

Plate 11: Example of 100-Year FEMA Floodplain of Opequon Creek View to South

 

Plate 12: Example of 100-Year FEMA Floodplain of Opequon Creek View to Southeast

 

 

Plate 13: Oblique of Building 8 (Dwelling at 2747 Senseny Road) View to North

 

Plate 14: Oblique of Building 8 (Dwelling at 2747 Senseny Road) View to Southeast

 

 

Plate 15: Building 9 (R) and Building 10 (L) View to North

 

Plate 16: Overview of Site 44FK1086 View to East

 

Plate 17: Overview of Site 44FK1087 View to Southeast

 

Plate 18: Vicinity of Site 44FK1088 View to South

 

Plate 19: Overview of Site 44FK1090 View to South

 

Plate 20: Overview of Site 44FK1091 View to Northeast

 

 

Plate 21: Overview of Site 44FK0277 View to Northeast

 

Plate 22: DHR Location of Site 44FK0278 View to South

 

 

Plate 23: Example of Surface Trash at Site 44FK0278 View to Northwest

 

Plate 24: Overview of Site 44FK0279 View to North

 

 

Plate 25: DHR Location of Site 44FK0280 View to West

 

Plate 26: DHR Location of Site 44FK0281 View to North

 

 

Plate 27: Building 1, South and East Elevations (034-1155) View to Northwest

 

Plate 28: Building 1, North and West Elevations (034-1155) View to Southeast

 

 

Plate 29: Building 2, West and south Elevations (034-1155) View to Northeast

 

Plate 30: Building 3, North Elevation (034-1155) View to South

 

 

Plate 31: Building 4, North Elevation (034-1155) View to South

 

Plate 32: Building 5, South and East Elevations (034-1155) View to Northwest

 

 

Plate 33: Building 6, East Elevation (034-1155) View to West

 

Plate 34: Building 7 (034-1155) View to Southeast

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX I

Artifact Inventory

 

 

 

WINCHESTER EAST PHASE I ARTIFACT INVENTORY

 

Isolated Finds STP 064, Ap

Glass

1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, automatic bottle machine (1910- present, Hurst 1996)

STP 093, Ap

Metal

1 aluminum bottle cap (discarded in field)

STP 114, Ap

Glass

1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated

STP 159, Ap

Miscellaneous

1  slag fragment, 1.5 grams

STP 168, Ap

Glass

1 unidentified light aqua sherd, flat, ribbed interior

STP 221, Ap

Precontact

1 quartz primary reduction flake, proximal

1 rhyolite primary reduction flake, proximal

STP 231, Ap

Glass

1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907- present, Hurst 1996)

STP 233, Ap

Glass

1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, automatic bottle machine (1910- present, Hurst 1996)

Precontact

1 chert biface thinning flake, medial

STP 242, Ap

Glass

1 light aqua cylindrical bottle sherd, club sauce lip finish (1850s- 1930s, Lindsey 2024)

STP 352, Ap

Glass

1 clear square/rectangular bottle sherd, base fragment, base embossed “9/9/…ADE IN USA”, Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation maker’s mark, automatic bottle machine (1938-1980, Lindsey 2024)

 

Site 44FK0277 STP 236, Ap

Glass

1 light green cylindrical bottle sherd, base fragment, base embossed “…XAN…/VA”, scratched

STP 245, Ap

Precontact

1 chert biface thinning flake, proximal

 

Site 44FK0279 STP 631, Ap

Ceramics

1 whiteware sherd, blue hand painted decoration interior, rim fragment, hollow vessel, indeterminate rim diameter (1820- 1900+, South 1977; 1830-1860+, Miller 1992)

 

Glass

 

 

Metal

1 light aqua cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated

1 unidentified light aqua sherd, flat, patinated

 

1 cut nail fragment (post-1790)

 

Miscellaneous

3 brick fragments (discarded in lab), 2.1 grams

STP 631c, Ap

Ceramics

1 redware sherd, dark brown glazed, indeterminate vessel shape

 

Glass Metal

1 unidentified light aqua sherd, flat, patinated

 

1 cut nail fragment (post-1790)

1 cut nail fragment, unidentified head (post-1790)

 

Miscellaneous

4 brick fragments (discarded in lab), 3.3 grams

STP 631d, Ap

Glass

1 olive amber cylindrical bottle sherd, molded, patinated

STP 634, Ap

Ceramics

3 kaolin pipe stem fragments (mend)

2 whiteware sherds, mulberry transfer printed decoration, indeterminate vessel shapes (1820-1900+, South; 1825-1875+,

Miller 1992)

3 whiteware sherds, undecorated, indeterminate vessel shapes (1820-1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992)

Miscellaneous

1 brick fragment (discarded in lab), 2.1 grams

 

STP 634a, Ap

Glass

1 olive green cylindrical bottle sherd, patinated

STP 634c, Ap

Ceramics

• whiteware sherd, mulberry spatter/sponge decoration interior, hollow vessel (1820-1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992)

 

Site 44FK1086 STP 021, Ap

Glass

• amber cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907- present, Hurst 1996)
• clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds (mend), base fragment, embossed “1269/…16”, Tygart Valley Glass Company maker’s mark, automatic bottle machine (1927-1959, Lindsey 2024)

170 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996)

4 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, base fragments, automatic bottle machine, scratched (1910-present, Hurst 1996)

4 clear cylindrical jar sherds, large mouth external thread lip finish, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996)

2 clear cylindrical tableware sherds (mend), patinated

Metal

1 ferrous metal bolt fragment

1 unidentified brass fragment, hollow

Miscellaneous

1  slate pencil fragment

STP 021b, Ap

Miscellaneous

1 slag fragment (discarded in lab), 5.0 grams

STP 033, Ap

Glass

1 unidentified clear sherd, flat, ribbed interior

STP 033c, Ap

Metal

1 wire 12d nail, pulled (1890-present)

STP 034, Ap

Glass

1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, molded

11 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996)

1 clear cylindrical jar sherd, large mouth external thread lip finish, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996)

 

STP 034b, Ap

Miscellaneous

1 slag fragment (discarded in lab), 3.6 grams

STP 034c, Ap

Glass

7 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996)

STP 034d, Ap

Glass

1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, small mouth external thread lip finish, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996)

3 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996)

Miscellaneous

1 slag fragment (discarded in lab), 4.9 grams

STP 037, Ap

Glass

 

 

 

 

Metal

1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated

6 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996)

 

1 unidentified ferrous metal fragment

1 wire nail fragment (1890-present)

 

Site 44FK1087 STP 052, Ap

Glass

2 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996)

Precontact

1 chert primary reduction flake, proximal

STP 052b, Ap

Glass

3 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996)

1 clear cylindrical tableware sherd, rim fragment, patinated Miscellaneous

2 slag fragments (discarded in lab), 8.7 grams

 

Site 44FK1088 STP 171, Ap

Precontact

1 chert biface thinning flake, medial

1 chert biface thinning flake, proximal

 

STP 171c, Ap

Glass

1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, base fragment, base embossed “1249/…0”

4 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996)

 

Site 44FK1089 STP 301, Ap

Glass

1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, molded, patinated

• cobalt cylindrical bottle sherd, patinated

STP 301a, Fill

Ceramics

• whiteware sherd, undecorated, base fragment, hollow vessel, indeterminate base diameter (1820-1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992)
• whiteware sherds, undecorated, hollow vessels (1820-1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992)

 

Glass

 

 

 

Metal

2 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996)

• unidentified light aqua sherd, heat melted
• ferrous metal screw fragment
• ferrous metal wire staples

 

Miscellaneous

1  bone fragment, 5.5 grams

STP 301b, Fill

Glass

1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907- present, Hurst 1996)

1 light aqua cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907-present, Hurst 1996)

STP 302, Fill

Glass

1 light aqua cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated

1 unidentified white milk glass sherd, heat melted

STP 314, Ap

Glass

1 light aqua cylindrical jar sherd, large mouth external thread lip finish, automatic bottle machine (1907-present, Hurst 1996)

STP 314a, Ap

Miscellaneous

1 plastic screw top (discarded in field)

 

STP 314b, Ap

Metal

1  wire 8d nail (1890-present)

1 wire nail fragment, clinched (1890-present)

STP 314c, Ap

Glass

1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, automatic bottle machine (1910- present, Hurst 1996)

1 clear cylindrical tableware sherd, molded, stained

1 unidentified light aqua sherd, flat, patinated Miscellaneous

1 asphalt fragment (discarded in lab), 23.1 grams

STP 317, Ap

Ceramics

1 redware sherd, unglazed, hollow vessel

Glass

1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated

10 unidentified light aqua sherds, flat, patinated

STP 317a, Ap

Glass

 

 

 

 

Metal

1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907- present, Hurst 1996)

1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, molded, patinated

1 brass 7mm cartridge casing, headstamp “IMI/7/20”, manufactured by Israel Military Industries

1  wire 6d nail (1890-present)

 

STP 317d, Fill

Glass

• amber cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907- present, Hurst 1996)
• clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996)

2 unidentified light aqua sherds, flat, patinated

STP 368, Ap

Glass

3 unidentified light aqua sherds, flat, patinated

STP 369, Ap

Ceramics

1 buff bodied coarse stoneware sherd, Bristol slipped interior and exterior, hollow vessel (late 19th/early 20th century)

STP 370, Ap

Glass

1 clear cylindrical tableware sherd, base fragment, molded

1 unidentified light aqua sherd, flat, patinated

 

STP 411, Ap

Glass

1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, automatic bottle machine (1910- present, Hurst 1996)

1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated

1 unidentified light aqua sherd, flat, patinated Miscellaneous

1  shoelace fragment

STP 420, Ap

Glass

1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, unidentified embossing, automatic bottle machine (1907-present, Hurst 1996)

STP 424, Ap

Glass

1 clear tableware sherd, rim fragment, patinated

STP 849, Fill

Metal

1 wire 12d nail, pulled (1890-present) Miscellaneous

6 slag fragments (discarded in lab), 5.8 grams

STP 882, Ap

Ceramics

3 hard paste porcelain sherds (Continental European) (mend), gilt- edge decoration exterior, rim fragment, hollow vessel, 2 inch rim diameter, stained (1880-1920, MACL 2018)

7 whiteware sherds (mend), molded rim decoration interior, scalloped rim fragment, hollow vessel, stained (1820-1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992)

7 whiteware sherds, molded decoration interior, hollow vessels, stained (1820-1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992)

Glass

1 7-up® green cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (post-1934, Hurst 1996)

1 clear cylindrical bottle sherd, small mouth external thread lip finish, automatic bottle machine, patinated (1910-present, Hurst 1996)

3 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, applied color labels, automatic bottle machine, patinated (post-1934)

23 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, heavily patinated

1 clear cylindrical tableware sherd, rim fragment, patinated

16 unidentified light aqua sherds, flat, heavily patinated

 

Metal

2 aluminum foil fragment (post-1947, Miller 2000) (discarded in field)

1 aluminum pull tab (post-1962, Miller 2000) (discarded in lab)

 

1 ferrous metal hinge fragment

1 ferrous metal screw cap fragment

5 unidentified ferrous metal fragments

3  wire 2d nails (1890-present)

3  wire 6d nails (1890-present)

4 wire nail fragments (1890-present) Miscellaneous

1 bone two- hole sew through button- 1.2 cm diameter

1 brick fragment (discarded in lab), 14.1 grams

6 coal fragments (discarded in lab), 41.1 grams

1 oyster shell fragment (discarded in lab), 3.2 grams

1 plastic toy fragment, porky pig head

18 unidentified plastic fragments (discarded in lab)

STP 883, Ap

Ceramics

1 hard paste porcelain sherd (Continental European), black transfer printed decoration interior, rim fragment, hollow vessel, indeterminate rim diameter

 

Site 44FK1090 STP 760, Ap

Glass

1 light aqua cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, molded, scratched

STP 785, Ap

Glass

1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, duraglas stippling, automatic bottle machine (1940-present)

2 amber cylindrical bottle sherds, patinated

2 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, patinated

STP 785d, Ap

Metal

1 ferrous metal wire fragment, insulated, curved

STP 801, Ap

Glass

1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, scratched

1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated

STP 801c, Ap

Glass

1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907- present, Hurst 1996)

STP 805, Ap

Glass

1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, patinated

 

STP 805b, Ap

Glass

1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated

 

Site 44FK1091 STP 442, Ap

Ceramics

1 whiteware sherd, undecorated, indeterminate vessel shape (1820- 1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992)

STP 446, Ap

Glass

1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, molded, patinated Miscellaneous

1 coal fragment (discarded in lab), 1.6 grams

STP 446c, Ap

Ceramics

1 whiteware sherd, undecorated, hollow vessel (1820-1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992)

STP 446d, Ap

Glass

1 light aqua cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, molded, patinated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX II

Staff Qualifications

 

 

 

Jeremy Smith, MSc, RPA

Principal Archeologist (Principal I)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firm Association Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. (WSSI)

Direct Phone Line

(703) 679-5648

 

Project Assignment

Principal Investigator

 

Years of Experience With this firm: 18 With other firms: 1.75

 

Education

MSc/European Archaeology/The University of Edinburgh

 

Registrations & Certifications 2024/Register of Professional Archaeologists

 

2014/HAZWOPER

Hazardous Materials Technician Training

 

2024/HAZWOPER 8-Hour

Review

Jeremy  Smith  has  over  19  years  of  professional  experience in archeological research and fieldwork in the Middle Atlantic Region with a specialization in cultural resource management. He has participated in archeological research on diverse prehistoric and historic period archeological sites, including lithic quarries and reduction stations, Archaic camps, Woodland Period villages, Civil War battlefields and campsites, historic cemeteries, and numerous late 18^th– through 20^th-century domestic sites. He is proficient in field and laboratory techniques, technical report writing, and AutoCAD mapping.

Mr. Smith’s current responsibilities as a Principal Archeologist include the management of projects from the proposal stage to the completion of final reports, client and agency interaction, the management and supervision of archeological field crews conducting Phase I, II, and III investigations, and the preparation and editing of technical reports associated with historic and archeological research and fieldwork. He has conducted all phases of archeological research for Section 106 and Section 110 compliance projects, as well as those required for county comprehensive plans or proffers and local ordinances.

Ramsey Homes, (44AX0160), City of Alexandria, VA

Mr. Smith served as Field Director during the Phase I/II investigations of Site 44AX0160 and as a Principal Investigator during the Phase III Data Recovery in the City of Alexandria, Virginia. Additionally, Mr. Smith was co-author of the data recovery treatment plan approved by DHR and all consulting parties and a primary author of the Phase III data recovery report. The work at Site 44AX0160 identified numerous cultural features that likely date to the 19th century; archeological evidence of the Civil War-era military occupation and pre-war domestic occupations of the site were also found.

 

Inova Center for Personalized Health (44FX2429), Fairfax County, VA

Mr. Smith served as Field Director during the Phase III Data Recovery of Site 44FX2429, in Fairfax County, Virginia, and as a primary author of the report. Intact historic features and artifact deposits indicated the locations of the stone-lined cellar of a dwelling, a detached kitchen or dependency, and a possible smokehouse associated with a circa 1766 to 1810 occupation.

 

Lyndam Hill II Property (44FX0223), Fairfax County, VA.

Mr. Smith served as Field Director during the Phase II evaluation and Phase III data recovery of Site 44FX0223, a circa 1720 to 1769 outlying farm quarter site in Fairfax County, Virginia, and served as a co-author for the Phase II and Phase III reports describing the results of the investigations. Intact historic features and artifact deposits indicated the locations of an overseer’s house and a dwelling for enslaved laborers of African descent, a unique and rarely identified site type in Virginia. Major research issues in the archeology of regional slavery including the lifeways and material culture of the enslaved and overseers, ethnicity, agency, and plantation provisioning were re-considered in view of findings at the site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX III

Cultural Resource Forms

 

 

 

Snapshot			Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:	No Data	Site Evaluation Status
Site Classification:	Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):	No Data	Not Evaluated
Site Type(s):	Artifact scatter
Other DHR ID:	No Data
Temporary Designation:	Site 44FKxxx1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRM Events   Event Type: Survey:Phase I   Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:                                                   No Data Sponsoring Organization:                                                        No Data Organization/Company:                                                           Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:                                                                               Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:                                                                              8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use                                            Date of Use                               Comments Forest                                                                 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM            No Data Threats to Resource:                                                                 Development Site Conditions:                                                                         0-24% of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:                                                                     Observation, Subsurface Testing Specimens Collected:                                                                Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected:                                       No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: Glass 210 bottle, bottle/jar, jar, automatic bottle machine (post-1907) 4 bottle/jar, tableware 1 unidentified glass Metal 2 nail, wire (post-1890) 1 ferrous metal bolt 1 unidentified brass 1 unidentified ferrous metal Miscellaneous 3 slag (discarded) 1 slate pencil Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:                                                 Thunderbird/WSSI Permanent Curation Repository:                                            Frederick County Repository Field Notes:                                                                                Yes Field Notes Repository:                                                            Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:                                                                Digital Survey Reports:                                                                         Yes Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:                                                       Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:                                          No Data Significance Statement:                                                            This site is interpreted as a trash scatter dating to the 20th century, likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Surveyor’s Eligibility Recommendations:                               Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor’s NR Criteria Recommendations, :                         No Data Surveyor’s NR Criteria Considerations:                                 No Data

 

Snapshot			Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:	No Data	Site Evaluation Status
Site Classification:	Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):	No Data	Not Evaluated
Site Type(s):	Artifact scatter
Other DHR ID:	No Data
Temporary Designation:	Site 44FKxxx2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRM Events   Event Type: Survey:Phase I   Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:                                                   No Data Sponsoring Organization:                                                        No Data Organization/Company:                                                           Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:                                                                               Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:                                                                              8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use                                            Date of Use                               Comments Forest                                                                 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM            No Data Threats to Resource:                                                                 Development Site Conditions:                                                                         0-24% of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:                                                                     Observation, Subsurface Testing Specimens Collected:                                                                Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected:                                       No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: Glass 6 bottle/jar, automatic bottle machine (post-1907) 1 tableware Miscellaneous 2 slag (discarded) Precontact 1 chert primary reduction flake Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:                                                 Thunderbird/WSSI Permanent Curation Repository:                                            Frederick County Repository Field Notes:                                                                                Yes Field Notes Repository:                                                            Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:                                                                Digital Survey Reports:                                                                         Yes Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:                                                       Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:                                          No Data Significance Statement:                                                            This site is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century that is likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property; one precontact artifact was also recovered from plowed contexts that is likely associated with ephemeral use of the site location during an unknown precontact period, due to a lack of additional finds in the vicinity. Considering this, and that the precontact artifact was recovered from plowed contexts, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Surveyor’s Eligibility Recommendations:                               Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor’s NR Criteria Recommendations, :                         No Data Surveyor’s NR Criteria Considerations:                                 No Data

 

	DHR Time Period: Start Year: End Year: Comments: Component 2 Category: Site Type: Cultural Affiliation:

Snapshot			Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:	No Data	Site Evaluation Status
Site Classification:	Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):	No Data	Not Evaluated
Site Type(s):	Artifact scatter, Artifact scatter
Other DHR ID:	No Data
Temporary Designation:	Site 44FKxxx3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRM Events   Event Type: Survey:Phase I   Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:                                                   No Data Sponsoring Organization:                                                        No Data Organization/Company:                                                           Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:                                                                               Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:                                                                              8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use                                            Date of Use                               Comments Forest                                                                 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM            No Data Threats to Resource:                                                                 Development Site Conditions:                                                                         0-24% of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:                                                                     Observation, Subsurface Testing Specimens Collected:                                                                Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected:                                       No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: Glass 4 bottle/jar, automatic bottle machine (post-1907) 1 bottle/jar Precontact 2 chert biface thinning flake Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:                                                 Thunderbird/WSSI Permanent Curation Repository:                                            Frederick County Repository Field Notes:                                                                                Yes Field Notes Repository:                                                            Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:                                                                Digital Survey Reports:                                                                         Yes Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:                                                       Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:                                          No Data Significance Statement:                                                            This site is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century and is likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property; two precontact artifacts were also recovered from plowed contexts that are likely associated with ephemeral use of the site location during an unknown precontact period, due to a lack of additional finds in the vicinity. Considering this, and that the precontact artifact was recovered from plowed contexts, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Surveyor’s Eligibility Recommendations:                               Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor’s NR Criteria Recommendations, :                         No Data Surveyor’s NR Criteria Considerations:                                 No Data

 

Snapshot			Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:	No Data	Site Evaluation Status
Site Classification:	Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):	No Data	Not Evaluated
Site Type(s):	Farmstead
Other DHR ID:	No Data
Temporary Designation:	Site 44FKxxx4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRM Events   Event Type: Survey:Phase I   Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:                                                   No Data Sponsoring Organization:                                                        No Data Organization/Company:                                                           Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:                                                                               Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:                                                                              8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use                                            Date of Use                               Comments Farmstead                                                           9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM            No Data Threats to Resource:                                                                 Development Site Conditions:                                                                         0-24% of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:                                                                     Observation, Subsurface Testing Specimens Collected:                                                                Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected:                                       No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: Ceramics 20 whiteware (1820-1900+) 1 hard paste porcelain 1 redware 1 stoneware Glass 36 unidentified glass 33 bottle, bottle/jar, tableware 18 bottle, bottle/jar, jar, automatic bottle machine (post-1907) Metal 14 nail, wire (post-1890) 5 unidentified ferrous metal 2 aluminum foil (post-1947) (discarded) 2 ferrous metal wire staple (post-1890) 1 aluminum pull tab (post-1957) (discarded) 1 brass 7mm cartridge casing 1 ferrous metal hinge 1 ferrous metal screw 1 ferrous metal screw cap Miscellaneous 18 plastic (discarded) 6 coal (discarded) 6 slag (discarded) 1 asphalt (discarded) 1 bone 1 bone button 1 brick (discarded) 1 oyster shell (discarded) 1 plastic screw top (discarded) 1 plastic toy 1 shoelace Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:                                                 Thunderbird/WSSI Permanent Curation Repository:                                            Frederick County Repository Field Notes:                                                                                Yes Field Notes Repository:                                                            Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:                                                                Digital Survey Reports:                                                                         Yes Survey Report Information:

 

 

 

 

Snapshot			Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:	No Data	Site Evaluation Status
Site Classification:	Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):	No Data	Not Evaluated
Site Type(s):	Artifact scatter
Other DHR ID:	No Data
Temporary Designation:	Site 44FKxxx5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRM Events   Event Type: Survey:Phase I   Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:                                                   No Data Sponsoring Organization:                                                        No Data Organization/Company:                                                           Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:                                                                               Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:                                                                              8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use                                            Date of Use                               Comments Road                                                                   9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM            No Data Threats to Resource:                                                                 Development Site Conditions:                                                                         0-24% of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:                                                                     Observation, Subsurface Testing Specimens Collected:                                                                Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected:                                       No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: Glass 9 bottle, bottle/jar 1 bottle, automatic bottle machine (post-1907) 1 bottle, duraglas (post-1940) Metal 1 ferrous metal wire Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:                                                 Thunderbird/WSSI Permanent Curation Repository:                                            Frederick County Repository Field Notes:                                                                                Yes Field Notes Repository:                                                            Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:                                                                Digital Survey Reports:                                                                         Yes Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:                                                       Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:                                          No Data Significance Statement:                                                            This site is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century that is likely the result of casual discard along a farm road associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Surveyor’s Eligibility Recommendations:                               Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor’s NR Criteria Recommendations, :                         No Data Surveyor’s NR Criteria Considerations:                                 No Data

 

Snapshot			Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:	No Data	Site Evaluation Status
Site Classification:	Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):	No Data	Not Evaluated
Site Type(s):	Artifact scatter
Other DHR ID:	No Data
Temporary Designation:	Site 44FKxxx6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRM Events   Event Type: Survey:Phase I   Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:                                                   No Data Sponsoring Organization:                                                        No Data Organization/Company:                                                           Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:                                                                               Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:                                                                              8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use                                            Date of Use                               Comments Agricultural field                                                9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM            No Data Threats to Resource:                                                                 Development Site Conditions:                                                                         0-24% of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:                                                                     Observation, Subsurface Testing Specimens Collected:                                                                Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected:                                       No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: Ceramics 2 whiteware (1820-1900+) Glass 2 bottle/jar Miscellaneous 1 coal (discarded) Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:                                                 Thunderbird/WSSI Permanent Curation Repository:                                            Frederick County Repository Field Notes:                                                                                Yes Field Notes Repository:                                                            Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:                                                                Digital Survey Reports:                                                                         Yes Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:                                                       Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:                                          No Data Significance Statement:                                                            This site is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century that is likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Surveyor’s Eligibility Recommendations:                               Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor’s NR Criteria Recommendations, :                         No Data Surveyor’s NR Criteria Considerations:                                 No Data

 

	DHR Time Period: Start Year: End Year: Comments: Component 2 Category: Site Type: Cultural Affiliation:

Snapshot			Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:	No Data	Site Evaluation Status
Site Classification:	Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):	15000 B.C.E – 1606 C.E, 1900 – 1999	Not Evaluated
Site Type(s):	Artifact scatter, Trash pit
Other DHR ID:	No Data
Temporary Designation:	No Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRM Events   Event Type: Survey:Phase I   Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:                                                   No Data Sponsoring Organization:                                                        No Data Organization/Company:                                                           Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:                                                                               Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:                                                                              8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use                                            Date of Use                               Comments Forest                                                                 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM            No Data Threats to Resource:                                                                 Development Site Conditions:                                                                         0-24% of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:                                                                     Observation, Subsurface Testing Specimens Collected:                                                                Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected:                                       No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: 2024 Glass 1 bottle Precontact 1 chert biface thinning flake Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:                                                 Thunderbird/WSSI Permanent Curation Repository:                                            Frederick County Repository Field Notes:                                                                                Yes Field Notes Repository:                                                            Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:                                                                Digital Survey Reports:                                                                         Yes Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:                                                       Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:                                          No Data Significance Statement:                                                             2024 The artifacts recovered from the environs of Site 44FK0277 during the current study, though minimal, were similar to those reported in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University, consisting of both 20th-century refuse and precontact materials; however, the absence of any significant quantities of historic or precontact artifacts recovered from the site location during this investigation suggests that the past use of the site was likely ephemeral. As such, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site. Surveyor’s Eligibility Recommendations:                               Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor’s NR Criteria Recommendations, :                         No Data Surveyor’s NR Criteria Considerations:                                 No Data

 

	Current Curation Repository: Permanent Curation Repository: Field Notes: Field Notes Repository: Photographic Media: Survey Reports: Survey Report Information: No Data Survey Report Repository: DHR Library Reference Number: Significance Statement: Surveyor’s Eligibility Recommendations: Surveyor’s NR Criteria Recommendations, : Surveyor’s NR Criteria Considerations:

 

 

 

 

Snapshot			Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:	No Data	Site Evaluation Status
Site Classification:	Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):	1900 – 1999	Not Evaluated
Site Type(s):	Trash pit
Other DHR ID:	No Data
Temporary Designation:	No Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRM Events   Event Type: Survey:Phase I   Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:                                                   No Data Sponsoring Organization:                                                        No Data Organization/Company:                                                           Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:                                                                               Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:                                                                              8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use                                            Date of Use                               Comments Forest                                                                 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM            No Data Threats to Resource:                                                                 Development Site Conditions:                                                                         Unknown Portion of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:                                                                     Observation, Subsurface Testing Specimens Collected:                                                                No Specimens Observed, Not Collected:                                       No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: No Data Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:                                                 No Data Permanent Curation Repository:                                            No Data Field Notes:                                                                                Yes Field Notes Repository:                                                            Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:                                                                Digital Survey Reports:                                                                         Yes Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:                                                       Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:                                          No Data Significance Statement:                                                             2024 Site 44FK0278 was previously recorded in the northeastern project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site was recorded as a modern domestic dump site dating to the 20th century and was identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The site location was revisited through pedestrian reconnaissance during the current investigation. However, as the site is recorded within a drainage swale surrounded by steep slopes it was not subjected to subsurface testing, in accordance with DHR guidelines; the site extends into the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequon Creek, which was excluded from subsurface testing during the current investigation. As no shovel testing was conducted at the site during this study, no artifacts were recovered. However, dumped refuse was observed on the ground surface at the site location, similar to the 1991/1992 study that recorded it. Considering the site represents an area of secondarily deposited refuse dumping, within a drainage swale and low floodplain, in our opinion it lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site. Surveyor’s Eligibility Recommendations:                               Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor’s NR Criteria Recommendations, :                         No Data Surveyor’s NR Criteria Considerations:                                 No Data

 

	Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository: Permanent Curation Repository: Field Notes: Field Notes Repository: Photographic Media: Survey Reports: Survey Report Information: No Data Survey Report Repository: DHR Library Reference Number: Significance Statement: Surveyor’s Eligibility Recommendations: Surveyor’s NR Criteria Recommendations, : Surveyor’s NR Criteria Considerations:

 

 

 

	DHR Time Period: Start Year: End Year: Comments: Component 2 Category: Site Type: Cultural Affiliation:

 

Snapshot			Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:	No Data	Site Evaluation Status
Site Classification:	Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):	15000 B.C.E – 1606 C.E	Not Evaluated
Site Type(s):	Farmstead, Other
Other DHR ID:	No Data
Temporary Designation:	No Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

Start Year:                               No Data End Year:                                No Data Comments:                               October 1991

 

	Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository: Permanent Curation Repository: Field Notes: Field Notes Repository: Photographic Media: Survey Reports: Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository: DHR Library Reference Number: Significance Statement:

 

 

 

 

	Current Curation Repository: Permanent Curation Repository: Field Notes: Field Notes Repository: Photographic Media: Survey Reports: Survey Report Information: No Data Survey Report Repository: DHR Library Reference Number: Significance Statement: Surveyor’s Eligibility Recommendations: Surveyor’s NR Criteria Recommendations, : Surveyor’s NR Criteria Considerations:

 

 

 

 

 

	DHR Time Period: Start Year: End Year: Comments: Component 2 Category: Site Type: Cultural Affiliation:

Snapshot			Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:	No Data	Site Evaluation Status
Site Classification:	Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):	15000 B.C.E – 1606 C.E	Not Evaluated
Site Type(s):	Artifact scatter, Trash pit
Other DHR ID:	No Data
Temporary Designation:	No Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRM Events   Event Type: Survey:Phase I   Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:                                                   No Data Sponsoring Organization:                                                        No Data Organization/Company:                                                           Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:                                                                               Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:                                                                              8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use                                            Date of Use                               Comments Agricultural field                                                9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM            No Data Threats to Resource:                                                                 Development Site Conditions:                                                                         25-49% of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:                                                                     Observation, Subsurface Testing Specimens Collected:                                                                No Specimens Observed, Not Collected:                                       No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: No Data Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:                                                 No Data Permanent Curation Repository:                                            No Data Field Notes:                                                                                Yes Field Notes Repository:                                                            Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:                                                                Digital Survey Reports:                                                                         Yes Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:                                                       Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:                                          No Data Significance Statement:                                                             2024 Site 44FK0280 was previously recorded in the northeastern corner of the project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site was recorded as a possible waste disposal area dating to an unknown historic period, with a low-density precontact component (n=2) dating to an unknown period. The site was identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The DHR-recorded limits of the site were subjected to Phase I testing during the current investigation; however, none of these STPs yielded artifacts. This suggests that either the site is inaccurately mapped within the project area or that its occupation was so ephemeral that it could not be identified with 50-foot shovel testing. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the DHR- mapped location of the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Surveyor’s Eligibility Recommendations:                               Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor’s NR Criteria Recommendations, :                         No Data Surveyor’s NR Criteria Considerations:                                 No Data

 

 

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance

 

Project Staff/Notes:

led by Frye

Project Review File Number:                                                   AC-11; RAF10/15B

Sponsoring Organization:                                                        No Data

Organization/Company:                                                           Unknown (DSS)

Investigator:                                                                               JMU- Abrams Creek Arch. Survey

Survey Date:                                                                              10/15/1991

Survey Description:

Site surveyed bu visual reconnaissance. Located on a dry weathered pasture with good ground surface visibility. No artifact concentration. The site is situated oh the face of a south trending first terrace lobe overlooking the flow of Opequon Creek.

 

Current Land Use	Date of Use	Comments
Pasture	No Data	No Data
Threats to Resource:		No Data
Site Conditions:		Site Condition Unknown
Survey Strategies:		Observation
Specimens Collected:		Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:		Yes
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:

2 gray chalcedony acortical flakes, 4 pieces of clear bottle glass, 5 pieces clear pane/flat glass, shell, 2 pieces creamware; 1 piece refined earthenware of uncertain type

Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:

No Data

Current Curation Repository:                                                 JMU-ARC

Permanent Curation Repository:                                            No Data

Field Notes:                                                                                Yes

Field Notes Repository:                                                            JMU-ARC

Photographic Media:                                                                No Data

Survey Reports:                                                                         No Data

Survey Report Information:

No Data

Survey Report Repository:                                                       No Data

DHR Library Reference Number:                                          No Data

Significance Statement:                                                            No Data

Surveyor’s Eligibility Recommendations:                               No Data

Surveyor’s NR Criteria Recommendations, :                         No Data

Surveyor’s NR Criteria Considerations:                                 No Data

 

 

Snapshot			Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:	No Data	Site Evaluation Status
Site Classification:	Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):	15000 B.C.E – 1606 C.E	Not Evaluated
Site Type(s):	Artifact scatter
Other DHR ID:	No Data
Temporary Designation:	No Data

 

 

 

 

CRM Events   Event Type: Survey:Phase I   Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:                                                   No Data Sponsoring Organization:                                                        No Data Organization/Company:                                                           Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:                                                                               Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:                                                                              8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use                                            Date of Use                               Comments Agricultural field                                                9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM            No Data Threats to Resource:                                                                 Development Site Conditions:                                                                         Unknown Portion of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:                                                                     Observation, Subsurface Testing Specimens Collected:                                                                No Specimens Observed, Not Collected:                                       No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: No Data Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:                                                 No Data Permanent Curation Repository:                                            No Data Field Notes:                                                                                Yes Field Notes Repository:                                                            Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:                                                                Digital Survey Reports:                                                                         Yes Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:                                                       Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:                                          No Data Significance Statement:                                                             2024 Site 44FK0281 was previously recorded in the northeastern corner of the project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site straddles the current project area boundary and represents a low-density (n=3) lithic scatter dating to an unknown precontact period. The site was identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The DHR-recorded limits of the site within the project area were subjected to Phase I testing during the current investigation; however, none of these STPs yielded artifacts. This suggests that either the site is inaccurately mapped within the project area or that its occupation was so ephemeral that it could not be identified with 50-foot shovel testing. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations of the portion of the site within the current project area would yield any significant research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the DHR-mapped location of the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Surveyor’s Eligibility Recommendations:                               Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor’s NR Criteria Recommendations, :                         No Data Surveyor’s NR Criteria Considerations:                                 No Data

 

 

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance

 

Project Staff/Notes:

led by Frye

Project Review File Number:                                                   AC-12; RAF10/15C

Sponsoring Organization:                                                        No Data

Organization/Company:                                                           Unknown (DSS)

Investigator:                                                                               JMU- Abrams Creek Arch. Survey

Survey Date:                                                                              10/15/1991

Survey Description:

Site surveyed by visual reconnaissance. Located in a weathered pasture with good ground visibility. The site is located on the center of a high east trending first terrace south of the point where an unnamed east trending stream joins Opequon Creek.

 

Current Land Use	Date of Use	Comments
Pasture	No Data	No Data
Threats to Resource:		No Data
Site Conditions:		Site Condition Unknown
Survey Strategies:		Observation
Specimens Collected:		Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:		Yes
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:

1 gray quartzite and one large red banded gray chert acortical flake; 1 large acortical gray chert flake scraper

Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:

No Data

Current Curation Repository:                                                 JMU-ARC

Permanent Curation Repository:                                            No Data

Field Notes:                                                                                Yes

Field Notes Repository:                                                            JMU-ARC

Photographic Media:                                                                No Data

Survey Reports:                                                                         No Data

Survey Report Information:

No Data

Survey Report Repository:                                                       No Data

DHR Library Reference Number:                                          No Data

Significance Statement:                                                            No Data

Surveyor’s Eligibility Recommendations:                               No Data

Surveyor’s NR Criteria Recommendations, :                         No Data

Surveyor’s NR Criteria Considerations:                                 No Data

 

 

 

 

 Additional Property Information                                                                                                                                     

Architecture Setting:                              Rural

Acreage:                                                  No Data

Site Description:

September 2020: The House at 2737 Senseny Road is located in a rural agricultural and residential area in Winchester in the eastern part of Frederick County. The property, located on the north side of Senseny Road, is bounded by the Senseny Glen residential subdivision on the west, Opequon Creek and Clarke County on the east, and other agricultural properties to the north and south. The resource, concentrated in the western portion of a 73.53-acre tract, is set among a concentration of buildings surrounded by agricultural fields. A wooded area is located along the eastern boundary which follows Opequon Creek and in the southeast corner of the property. A small pond, is situated north of the group of buildings. The property is accessed via a long gravel driveway that leads from Senseny Road along the west side of the tract and continues north through the grouping of buildings and terminates just north of the pond. The resource consists of a dwelling, a secondary dwelling, and at least three outbuildings according to current online aerials. This property was heavily marked with no trespassing signs and was not visible from the public right-of-way.

September 2024: The resource is located on a large parcel containing primarily agricultural and wooded vegetation. All but one of the six secondary resources on the property are associated with agriculture; one chimney feature remains from a no-longer extant structure.

Surveyor Assessment:

Example of American Four square style dwelling w/ several alterations.

September 2020: According to the previous record, the House at 2737 Senseny Road is a two-and-a-half-story, hip-roofed, single-family dwelling built around 1920 in the American Foursquare form. DHR staff determined the resource not eligible for the NRHP in 1992.

The resource was inaccessible during the time of survey; and therefore, could not be assessed for its NRHP eligibility.

September 2024: No new data was obtained during the current study that would contradict the previous determination by the DHR that the resource is not eligible for listing in the NRHP. In our opinion, the resource is a typical, unremarkable example of an American Foursquare dwelling dating to the first quarter of the 20th century. None of the buildings are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns in history or with known individuals of transcendent historical importance. Therefore, in our opinion, DHR Resource 034-1155 is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A, B, or C. No further documentation is recommended.

Surveyor Recommendation:                  Recommended Not Eligible

Ownership

Ownership Category                              Ownership Entity

Private                                                      No Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

September 2020: A barn located east of the dwelling and was observed on current online aerials. The building is covered by a metal-clad, gabled roof and a shed lean-to lines the north elevation.

September 2024: This is a one-and-a-half story, concrete block and wood frame barn located northeast of the primary resource. The barn is covered with a metal gambrel roof; a metal broken-gable roof extends north from the gambrel roof. All elevations are constructed with concrete blocks, except for the upper half-story and west elevation which are constructed with a wood frame and vertical wood siding. Several sliding doors are located on the west and east elevations. Additionally, a sliding hay loft door is in the half-story on the east elevation. An examination of aerial imagery indicates that the barn replaced an older building sometime between 1958 and 1964 and is historic.

Number of Stories:                                 1.5

Exterior Components

Component                               Component Type                     Material                                    Material Treatment

Roof                                           Gambrel                                     Metal                                         No Data

 

Structural System and Exterior Treatment Structural System and Exterior Treatment

Secondary Resource #2

Wood Frame                              No Data                                     Vertical Board

Masonry                                     Concrete                                    Block

 

Resource Category:                                Agriculture/Subsistence

Resource Type:                                       Outbuilding

Date of Construction:                             2000Ca

Date Source:                                            Map

Historic Time Period:                            Post Cold War (1992 – Present)

Historic Context(s):                                Subsistence/Agriculture

Architectural Style:                                No discernible style

Form:                                                       No Data

Condition:                                               Good

Threats to Resource:                              None Known

Cultural Affiliations:                              Indeterminate

Cultural Affiliation Details:

No Data

Architectural Description:

September 2020: An outbuilding located east of the dwelling and was observed on current online aerials. It is covered with a shed roof.

September 2024: This is a two-bay, wood frame run-in animal shelter located northeast of the primary resource. The animal shelter is clad is plywood siding an supported by vertical wood posts. A metal shed roof covers the shelter. A review of aerial imagery indicates that the shelter was constructed circa 2000 and is not historic.

Number of Stories:                                 1

Exterior Components

Component                               Component Type                     Material                                    Material Treatment

 

Structural System and Exterior Treatment

Wood Frame                             No Data                                     No Data

 

Roof                                           Shed                                           Metal                                         No Data

Secondary Resource #3

Resource Category:                                Agriculture/Subsistence

Resource Type:                                       Outbuilding

Date of Construction:                             1958Ca

Date Source:                                            Map

Historic Time Period:                            The New Dominion (1946 – 1991)

Historic Context(s):                                Subsistence/Agriculture

Architectural Style:                                No discernible style

Form:                                                       No Data

Condition:                                               Fair

Threats to Resource:                              None Known

Cultural Affiliations:                              Indeterminate

Cultural Affiliation Details:

No Data

Architectural Description:

September 2020: An outbuilding located east of the dwelling and was observed on current online aerials. It is surrounded by vegetation and

 

 

 

details were indiscernible from the aerials.

September 2024: This is a single-story, wood frame chicken coop located southeast of the primary resource. The chicken coop appears to be a small shed which was adapted for animals. The coop is clad in white vinyl siding, similar to the primary resource, and covered with a metal gable roof. The north elevation hosts a wood door and a one-over-one double hung vinyl window. An examination of aerial imagery indicates that the coop was constructed prior to 1958; however, a more exact construction date is difficult to determine due to lack of earlier imagery.

Number of Stories:                                 1

Exterior Components

Component                               Component Type                     Material                                    Material Treatment

 

Structural System and Exterior Treatment

Wood Frame                             Vinyl                                         Siding

 

Roof                                           Front Gable                               Metal                                         No Data

Secondary Resource #4

Resource Category:                                Agriculture/Subsistence

Resource Type:                                       Outbuilding

Date of Construction:                             1958Ca

Date Source:                                            Map

Historic Time Period:                            The New Dominion (1946 – 1991)

Historic Context(s):                                Subsistence/Agriculture

Architectural Style:                                No discernible style

Form:                                                       No Data

Condition:                                               Fair

Threats to Resource:                              None Known

Cultural Affiliations:                              Indeterminate

Cultural Affiliation Details:

No Data

Architectural Description:

September 2020: An outbuilding located north of the dwelling and south of the pond; it was observed on current online aerials. It covered by a metal-clad shed roof and a shed lean-to spans the east elevation. A small area to the south is fenced in, indicating this is some sort of animal shelter and pen.

September 2020

September 2024: This is a two-story, concrete block and wood frame dwelling that has been converted into a workshop and is located northeast of the primary resource. The east and west elevations are constructed with a wood frame and horizontal wood siding, while the north and south elevations are constructed and clad with concrete block siding. A metal gable roof with open eaves covers the structure and is broken by a common bond brick chimney that rises from the interior of the roof’s northern slope. A metal shed roof extends north from the north elevation of the dwelling and covers a three-bay-wide machine shed addition that is clad with vertical metal sheets. Three-over-one, fixed wooden windows are the primary window type for the structure and can be found on both the main dwelling and the machine shed addition. Examination of aerial imagery indicates the structure was constructed prior to 1958; however, a more exact construction date is difficult to determine due to lack of earlier imagery. The machine shed addition to the structure appears to have been added sometime between 1964 and 1982 and likely marks when the dwelling was converted into a workshop.

Number of Stories:                                 2

Exterior Components

Component                               Component Type                     Material                                    Material Treatment

 

Structural System and Exterior Treatment Structural System and Exterior Treatment

Masonry                                    Concrete                                    Block

Wood Frame                             No Data                                     No Data

 

Roof                                           Front Gable                               Metal                                         No Data

Chimneys                                   Interior Slope                             No Data                                     American/Common Bond

Secondary Resource #5

Resource Category:                                Agriculture/Subsistence

Resource Type:                                       Pen

Date of Construction:                             2000Ca

Date Source:                                            Site Visit

Historic Time Period:                            Post Cold War (1992 – Present)

Historic Context(s):                                Subsistence/Agriculture

Architectural Style:                                No discernible style

Form:                                                       No Data

Condition:                                               Fair