REDACTED

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA

by Joseph R. Blondino, Mike Klein, and Curtis McCoy

Prepared for

Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Historic Resources

Prepared by DOVETAIL CULTURAL RESOURCE GROUP

June 2018

REDACTED

Archaeological Assessment of the Northern Portion of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia

by Joseph R. Blondino, Mike Klein, and Curtis McCoy

Prepared for

Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, Virginia 23221

Prepared by

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group I, Inc. 11905 Bowman Drive, Suite 502 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22408

Dovetail Job #17-097 June 2018

June 13, 2018 D. Brad Hatch, Principal Investigator Date Dovetail Cultural Resource Group This page intentionally left blank

ABSTRACT

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group (Dovetail) conducted an archaeological assessment of the northern part of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. The study area was bounded to the north and east by the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean, to the west by the city limits of Virginia Beach, and to the south by North Landing Road, Princess Anne Road, and a line extending due east from the intersection of Princess Anne Road and General Booth Boulevard to the Atlantic Ocean. The assessment was performed on behalf of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources as part of the Cost Share Survey and Planning Program. This work was completed in February of 2018. This report includes a discussion of previously identified and potential archaeological resources located within the study area.

The assessment included a review of previously identified resources, previously surveyed areas, settlement patterns characteristic of precontact and historic archaeological sites, historic maps, as-built maps, aerial photos, United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, and vehicular and pedestrian survey. The field survey involved existing conditions assessments of previously recorded sites and identification of areas where additional archaeological deposits are likely to exist. A predictive model for archaeological site location was also developed and used to inform the results of the assessment.

A total of 315 previously recorded sites were included as part of the survey. Of these, 203 were surveyed. The remaining 112 sites were not surveyed because they were not visible from the right-of-way or because other access problems, such as location on a military base, precluded survey, or due to data on the sites having been compiled or updated within the last five years, making existing conditions assessments unnecessary at this time. The Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (VCRIS) database, maintained by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, was updated with regard to the surveyed sites to ensure that the information on each site was current.

i

This page intentionally left blank

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... i INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Archaeological Potential of the Study Area ...... 3 The Natural Environment ...... 3 Geology ...... 3 Soils ...... 3 Topography and Hydrology of the Study Area ...... 4 Existing Conditions within the Study Area ...... 5 Previous Cultural Resource Surveys ...... 5 HISTORIC CONTEXT ...... 13 Pre-Clovis Period (? to 14,950 B.P.)...... 13 Paleoindian Period (14,950 to 9950 B.P.)...... 14 Archaic Period (9950 to 3150 B.P.) ...... 15 Early Archaic Period (9950 to 8450 B.P.) ...... 16 Middle Archaic Period (8450 to 4950 B.P.) ...... 17 Late Archaic Period (4950 to 3150 B.P.) ...... 17 Woodland Period (3150 to 350 B.P.) ...... 18 Early Woodland Period (3150 to 2450 B.P.) ...... 18 Middle Woodland Period (2450 to 1050 B.P.) ...... 19 Late Woodland Period (1050 to 350 B.P.) ...... 22 Historic Period ...... 25 Settlement to Society (1607–1750) ...... 25 Colony to Nation (1750–1789) ...... 27 Early National Period (1789–1830) ...... 28 Antebellum Period and Civil War (1830–1865) ...... 29 Reconstruction (1870–1916) ...... 30 World War I to World War II (1917–1945) ...... 30 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ...... 33 SURVEY METHODOLOGY ...... 35 Archival Research/Map Review ...... 35 Archaeological Survey ...... 35 Predictive Model ...... 37 RESULTS OF THE STUDY ...... 39 Predictive Model ...... 39 Archaeological Survey ...... 41 Survey Results ...... 41 SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT ...... 77 REFERENCES ...... 79 APPENDIX: SITE DATA TABLE ...... 103

iii

This page intentionally left blank

iv

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of Study Area within the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach ...... 2 Figure 2: Detail from John Smith’s Virginia Discovered and DiscribedDepicting the Settlements near the Mouth of the James River...... 26 Figure 3: Locations of Survey Areas within Overall Study Area ...... 36 Figure 4: Results of Predictive Modeling for Prehistoric Site Location ...... 42 Figure 5: Results of Predictive Modeling for Historic Site Location ...... 43 Figure 6: Area A, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites ...... 44 Figure 7: Area B, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites ...... 46 Figure 8: Area C, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites and Area Which May Contain Undiscovered Sites...... 49 Figure 9: Area D, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites...... 51 Figure 10: Area E, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites...... 54 Figure 11: Area F, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites and Location of Bellamy Manor House Site ...... 57 Figure 12: Area G, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites...... 60 Figure 13: Area H, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites ...... 62 Figure 14: Area I, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites...... 64 Figure 15: Area J, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites ...... 66 Figure 16: Area K, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites ...... 68 Figure 17: Area L, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites...... 71 Figure 18: Area M, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites...... 73

List of Photos

Photo 1: Site 44VB0358 in Area A, Facing Northeast...... 45 Photo 2: Site 44VB0048 (Chesopean Site) in Area B...... 47 Photo 3: Site 44VB0241, Showing Typical Neighborhood in Area C...... 50 Photo 4: Field in Area C Which May Contain Undiscovered Archaeological Sites...... 50 Photo 5: Site 44VB0055, Facing Northeast...... 52 Photo 6: Facing North across Edge of Broad Bay in Area D...... 52 Photo 7: Site 44VB0044, Facing Southwest...... 55 Photo 8: Site 44VB0305 (Deep Branch Ditch) in Area E, Facing Southeast...... 55 Photo 9: Brick Clamp Area within Site 44VB0283 in Area E, Facing North...... 56 Photo 10: Site 44VB0046 in Area F, Facing South...... 58 Photo 11: Bellamy Manor House Site in Area F, Facing Northeast...... 59 Photo 12: Site 44VB0352 in Area G, Facing South...... 61 Photo 13: Typical Field in Area H, Facing Southwest...... 63 Photo 14: Typical Forested Portion of Area H, Facing South...... 63 Photo 15: Site 44VB0227, Facing Northeast...... 65 Photo 16: Site 44VB0288 in Area J, Facing South...... 67 Photo 17: Site 44VB0172, Facing South...... 69 Photo 18: Site 44VB0290, Facing Northwest ...... 69 Photo 19: Site 44VB0121, Showing Typical Neighborhood in Area L...... 72 Photo 20: Site 44VB0291, Showing Commercial Area in Area L...... 72 v

Photo 21: Site 44VB0118, Facing Northwest...... 74 Photo 22: Industrial Complex in Central Portion of Area M, Facing South...... 74 Photo 23: Agricultural Field in South-Central Portion of Area M, Facing East...... 75 List of Tables

Table 1: Soil Classes within the Study Area...... 4 Table 2: Previous Archaeological Surveys in the Study Area ...... 5 Table 3: Summary of Temporal Components ...... 33 Table 4: Summary of Site Types...... 34 Table 5: Comparison of the Site Area and Study Area by Soil Class...... 39 Table 6: Comparison of the Site Area and Study Area by Distance to Water...... 40 Table 7: Proportion of Prehistoric High, Moderate, and Low Probability Areas ...... 41 Table 8: Site Condition Assessments by Survey Area...... 78

vi

INTRODUCTION

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group (Dovetail) conducted an archaeological assessment of the northern part of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (Figure 1, p. 2). The assessment was performed on behalf of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) as part of the Cost Share Survey and Planning Program. This report includes a discussion of previously identified and potential archaeological resources within the study area, including discussion of existing conditions at previously recorded sites. The results of this study will aid the City of Virginia Beach in better understanding their archaeological resources and planning for their preservation.

As part of the assessment, a predictive model for archaeological site locations was also developed. This model took several environmental factors into account to identify areas of low, moderate, and high probability for containing as-yet unidentified archaeological resources.

Data collected during the field survey was used to update the VCRIS database with current information on conditions within each of the surveyed sites.

The field survey was conducted by Dovetail field director Joseph Blondino and archaeological field technician Ben Royster. Brad Hatch, Ph.D. served as Principal Investigator. Dr. Hatch meets or exceeds the standards established for archaeologists by the Secretary of the Interior.

1

Figure 1: Location of Study Area within the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach (Esri 2018).

2

ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL OF THE STUDY AREA

The Natural Environment

Virginia Beach is located in the coastal region of far southeastern Virginia. This region was one of the first to be colonized by English settlers in the Chesapeake region and has been continuously occupied for the entirety of the historic period, as well as far into prehistory, due in large part to the wealth of natural resources to be found there. As a result of its duration and intensity of occupation since the seventeenth century, the area is now almost entirely developed. However, rural and agricultural regions lie just to the west, farther inland.

Geology

Situated in extreme southeastern Virginia, Virginia Beach is bordered by Currituck County, North Carolina to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, the Chesapeake Bay to the north, and the City of Chesapeake to the west. The study area is located in the Tidewater area of the Coastal Plain physiographic region of Virginia.

The Coastal Plain in Virginia is divided into several sub-provinces, which include the Upland sub-province (CU), the Lowland sub-province (CL), and the Barrier Islands and Salt Marshes sub-province (BM). CU has an elevation range of 60 feet to 250 feet (18.3 m to 76.2 m) above mean sea level (AMSL) and is characterized by broad uplands with low slopes and gentle drainage divides. Steep slopes develop where dissected by stream erosion. CL has an elevation range of 0 feet to 60 feet (0 m to 18.3 m) AMSL and is characterized by flat, low-relief regions along major rivers and near the Chesapeake Bay. BM has an elevation range of 0 feet to 15 feet (0 m to 4.6 m) AMSL and is characterized by low, open areas covered with sediment and vegetation in direct proximity to the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean.

Deeply buried ancient igneous and metamorphic basement rocks underlie the more recent marine and fluvial sediments of the Coastal Plain in Virginia. The surface of the basement dips from the Piedmont to the subsided Coastal Plain. During the late Cretaceous, seawater invaded and retreated across eastern Virginia. Maximum oceanic ingress reached the fall zone. Subsidence and sedimentation continued through the Miocene Epoch. A sedimentary wedge that thickens to the east was deposited during the Cretaceous and Miocene. Beach sands and gravels deposited during the Pleistocene cap the Cretaceous and Miocene deposits (Dietrich 1990:175–177). As a consequence, unconsolidated and partly consolidated sediments deposited along the coastline over eons underlie the Coastal Plain (Fichter and Baedke 2000). A diverse fluvial-estuarine complex of cross-bedded medium to coarse sand, pebble gravel, silty sand, and laminated silty clays underlies the upland terraces. Sandy fluvial deposits cover the floodplains of the major drainages (McFarland and Bruce 2006:16–23; Thomas and Harper 2008). Gravel deposits are present in commercially exploitable levels.

Soils

Fertile, well-drained soils attracted both humans and game over millennia. Moreover, the wild grasses, fruits, and seeds consumed by people both before and after the adoption of agriculture

3

flourished in such settings. As a consequence, numerous archaeologists have cited the correlation between the distribution of level to gently sloping, well-drained, fertile soils and archaeological sites (e.g., Lukezic 1990; Potter 1993; Turner 1976; Ward 1965). Soil scientists classify soils according to natural and artificial fertility and the threat posed by erosion and flooding, among other attributes. Soil classes 1 and 2 represent the most fertile soils, those best suited for not only agriculture but for a wide range of uses. Of course, soil productivity must be considered in relation to the productivity of the surrounding soils as well.

Numerous soil series are present within the study area. As a result, only soil class was considered rather than the characteristics of each individual soil series (Table 1). Only 19 percent of the study area is underlain by Class 1 or 2 soils, which are most likely to contain archaeological sites. Soil class 3 was the most common, comprising 47 percent of the study area. Soil classes 4–8, which are generally unlikely to contain archaeological sites, account for a total of 13 percent of the study area, while 20 percent of the study area contains soils which have not been assigned to a class.

Table 1: Soil Classes within the Study Area (Soil Survey Staff 2018). Class Percentage of Study Area 1 7 2 12 3 47 4 0 6 2 7 8 8 3 Null 20 Total 100

Topography and Hydrology of the Study Area

The entire study area drains to the nearby Atlantic Ocean and/or the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay via several high order streams and bays. The northern portion of the study area is drained by Little Creek and the Lynnhaven River and their tributaries. Little Creek and the Lynnhaven River both flow north into the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. The western portion of the study area is drained by the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River and its tributaries. The Elizabeth River flows north and west to join the mouth of the James River just west of Norfolk. The southern portion of the study area is drained by the North Landing River and its tributaries, notably West Neck Creek. The North Landing River flows south into Currituck Sound, which is separated from the Atlantic Ocean by barrier islands of the Outer Banks, in coastal North Carolina. Currituck Sound ultimately joins with Albemarle Sound near Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. The northeastern part of the study area drains to Linkhorn Bay and Little Neck Creek, which join to form Broad Bay. Broad Bay feeds into the Lynnhaven River at Lynnhaven Inlet. The southeastern portion of the study area drains into Lake Rudee and Lake Wesley, both of which empty into the Atlantic Ocean at Rudee Inlet.

4

The topography of the study area is generally low lying, characterized by little topographic relief, as is typical of the outer Coastal Plain. Ephemeral and seasonal drainages in the study area coalesce into larger (second and third order) tributaries over relatively short distances before emptying into the major streams draining the area. Poorly drained wetland areas, swamps, and marshes are common, and large bays exist near the mouths of the major streams. Stream gradients in the area are low due to the nature of the underlying sediments and the tidal influence of the region.

Existing Conditions within the Study Area

Existing conditions vary greatly within the study area. Current land use in the northern portion of Virginia Beach ranges from residential to commercial and industrial, with small rural and agricultural areas and several parks preserving natural or nearly natural environments. Conditions in various portions of the overall study area are discussed in greater detail in a subsequent section of this report.

Previous Cultural Resource Surveys

A total of 84 previous Phase I archaeological surveys have been undertaken within the present study area. The surveys date from as early as 1976, and range from general cultural resource surveys to surveys of transportation improvement projects, utility installations, and wetland mitigation site locations. They are summarized in Table 2, below.

Table 2: Previous Archaeological Surveys in the Study Area. DHR Author(s)/ Report Report Title Year Organization Number Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Build Alternatives for the Jerome D. Traver, CS-019 1989 Southeastern Expressway in the Cities of Maryanna Ralph Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, Virginia Phase I Archeological Survey of Approximately 2,000 Acres at Naval Air Michael B. CS-034 Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and 1994 Hornum et al Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Fentress, Chesapeake City, Virginia Additional Phase I Cultural Resource Survey Thomas Higgins, of Revised Alignments for Proposed CS-044 Anne Beckett, 1994 Southeastern Expressway, Cities of Veronica Deitrick Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, Virginia Archaeological Survey Improvements to Ellen Mayo, CS-045 Lynnhaven and Volvo Parkways, Cities of Loretta 1997 Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, Virginia Lautzenheiser

5

DHR Author(s)/ Report Report Title Year Organization Number Daniel Baicy, Archaeological Survey, Proposed Southeastern Loretta CS-078 Parkway and Greenbelt, Cities of Chesapeake 2005 Lautzenheiser, and Virginia Beach, Virginia Michael Scholl Appendix B (Nonpublic) of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Martin F. NH-003 Alternative Location of a Landing Craft Air Dickinson, Lucy 1983 Cushion (LCAC) Operational Base on the East B. Wayne Coast of the United States Marine Magnetometer Survey of The Parallel Steven D. Hoyt et NH-014 Crossing of the Chesapeake Bay Project, 1992 al Virginia Beach-Northampton County, Virginia Parallel Crossing of Chesapeake Bay, Phase I Steven D. Hoyt NH-016 Underwater Archaeology, Magnetic Anomaly and James S. 1993 Ground Truthing Schmidt Phase I Archeological Survey for Fort Eustis Antony F. NN-025 and Fort Story, Cities of Newport News and Opperman, 1989 Virginia Beach, Virginia Harding Polk II J. Mark An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Wittkofski, NR-003 the Cultural Resources at Newtown, Norfolk, Martha W. 1979 Virginia McCartney, Beverly Bogley Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Bradley Bowden, NR-049 Proposed Norfolk/Virginia Beach Light Rail, Ashley Neville, 1998 Cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, Virginia Jerrell Blake An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed I- NR-065 64/I-264 Interchange Project, Cities of Norfolk Elizabeth Monroe 2008 and Virginia Beach, Virginia Supplemental Archaeological Survey of the NR-074 Proposed I-64/I-264 Interchange Project, Cities Elizabeth Monroe 2009 of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, Virginia An Initial Archaeological Survey of Haygood VB-009 John Saunders 1976 and Newtown Roads, City of Virginia Beach Draft Final Ecological Evaluation for the Fleet VB-011 Combat Training Center Atlantic, Dam Neck, EDAW, Inc. 1982 Virginia Beach, Virginia. Appendix A Cultural Resources Survey of the Phase I Water and Air VB-012 Wetlands Mitigation Site FCTC, Dam Neck, 1984 Research, Inc. Virginia An Archaeological Survey of the Virginia United States VB-015 National Guard Camp Pendleton Training Department of 1987 Camp Site, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Military Affairs

6

DHR Author(s)/ Report Report Title Year Organization Number A Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Improvements to the J. Mark VB-017 1980 Entrance to Oceana Naval Air Station, Virginia Wittkofski Beach, Virginia Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Highway Douglas C. VB-018 Improvements Along Dam Neck Road in the 1987 McLearen City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Review and Compliance Phase I VB-024 Reconnaissance Summary: Barberton Drive Keith Bott 1980 Apartment Complex Review and Compliance Phase I VB-025 Reconnaissance Summary: North Landing Keith Bott 1980 River Bridge Replacement Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, Old VB-032 Landstown Road Tract, Virginia Beach, Jerome D. Traver 1991 Virginia Earl E. Proper, A Phase I Cultural Resource Evaluation of a VB-033 Martha 1987 Section of Route 165, Virginia Beach, Virginia McCartney A Cultural Resources Assessment of Two United States Areas, U. S. Navy, Fleet Combat Training VB-034 Army Corps of Center Atlantic, Dam Neck Virginia Beach, 1987 Engineers Virginia An Archeological Survey of the Naval United States VB-035 Amphibious Base Annex, Camp Pendleton, Army Corps of 1987 Virginia Beach, Virginia Engineers A Cultural Resource Survey of a Proposed United States Wetlands Mitigation Site, U. S. Navy Fleet VB-036 Army Corps of Combat Training Center Atlantic, Dam Neck 1987 Engineers Virginia Beach, Virginia Phase I Cultural Resource Survey Along Christopher VB-037 Proposed Improvements to Oceana Boulevard Egghart and Luke 1991 in Virginia Beach, Virginia Boyd Phase I Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Stanley B. VB-038 U. S. Navy Construction Project at Owl Creek Bussey, Jerome 1992 in Virginia Beach, Virginia D. Traver A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of Three Proposed Alternate Routes for the Extension of VB-039 Bruce A. Hunter 1989 South Plaza Trail, Between Princess Anne and Independence Roads, Virginia Beach, Virginia

7

DHR Author(s)/ Report Report Title Year Organization Number Cultural Resources Assessment for the Proposed Aircraft Fuel Storage Site (P-412), VB-043 Marie G. Cottrell 1993 Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia Phase I Cultural Resource Survey and Visual Impact Assessment of the Interstate 64 HOV VB-044 Jerome D. Traver 1993 Lanes (Median Strip), Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, Virginia Phase I Archeological Investigations for Proposed Vegetation Maintenance/ R. Christopher VB-045 Management Areas and a Proposed Wetlands 1993 Goodwin Restoration Project, Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia Phase I Cultural Resource Survey Route 190, Virginia Busby VB-046 Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, and Leslie 1993 Virginia Bashman Virginia Busby Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, Birdneck VB-047 and Leslie 1993 Road, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Bashman Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Proposed Robin L. Ryder et VB-050 Improvements to London Bridge Road in 1994 al Virginia Beach, Virginia Phase I Archaeological Survey of Bayville VB-051 Perry McSherry 1993 Farms, Virginia Beach, Virginia Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Bradley M. VB-054 Corporate Woods Property, City of Virginia McDonald and 1994 Beach, Virginia Garrett R. Fesler Phase I Archaeological Survey Improvements Mary Ann Holm VB-058 to Laskin Road; Route 58, Virginia Beach, 1995 et. al Virginia Phase I Archaeological Survey of Twelve Acres and Phase II Archaeological Bradley M. VB-059 Significance Evaluation of 44VB240-241-242 McDonald and 1996 at the Great Neck Point Disposal Area, City of Matthew R. Laird Virginia Beach, Virginia Phase I Archaeological Identification Survey in Support of 1995 Base Realignment and Leonid I. VB-064 1996 Closure, Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Shmookler Beach, Virginia An Addendum to Phase I Cultural Resource Mary Ellen Study of Proposed Improvements to Oceana VB-066 Hodges, Margaret 1997 Boulevard and First Colonial Road in Virginia L. Stephenson Beach, Virginia

8

DHR Author(s)/ Report Report Title Year Organization Number Phase I Archaeological Survey of Proposed Kenneth E. Stuck, VB-069 Landstown-West Landing, 230 KV Thomas F. 1997 Transmission Line, Virginia Beach, Virginia Higgins A Supplemental Identification Survey of Proposed Oceana Boulevard-First Colonial Road Project, Virginia Beach, An Addendum VB-071 Kenneth E. Stuck 1997 to Phase I Cultural Resource Survey Along Proposed Improvements to Oceana Boulevard In Virginia Beach, Virginia Archaeological Survey along a Portion of Robert Clarke, VB-079 2000 Holland Road (Route 410) Bradley Bowden Archaeological Identification Survey, Princess Ellen M. Brady, VB-082 Anne Road and Ferrell Parkway, City of Loretta 2000 Virginia Beach, Virginia Lautzenheiser Phase I Archaeological Survey of Indian River Carol D. Tyrer, VB-084 Road and Elbow Road, City of Virginia Beach, Martha 1998 Virginia McCartney Archaeological Survey Associated with the VB-086 Proposed Nimmo (Ferrell) Parkway Project, Stevan C. Pullins 2002 City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Phase I Archaeological Survey of Christopher R. VB-087 Approximately 583 Acres at Naval Air Station 1996 Ploglase Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia Archaeological Survey of Route 165 (Princess VB-088 Anne Road) Between Dam Neck Road and Lee Tippett 2002 Judicial Boulevard, Virginia Beach, Virginia Phase I Archaeological Identification Survey in Support of 1995 Base Closure and Leonid I. VB-091 1996 Realignment, Naval Air Station Oceana, Shmookler Virginia Beach, Virginia Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Realignment of the Current Intersection of Brad M. VB-093 Route 165 (Princess Anne Road) and Route Duplantis, Eric 2003 190 (Kempsville/Witchduck Road), City of Griffits Virginia Beach, Virginia Archaeological Identification Survey and Archaeological Evaluations of Nine Sites Bradley VB-095 Along the Proposed Landstown-West Landing 2002 McDonald 230 KV Transmission Line, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Supplemental Archaeological Survey of Two VB-097 Canals within the Proposed Realignment of Bruce R. Penner 2003 Elbow Road, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia

9

DHR Author(s)/ Report Report Title Year Organization Number Phase I Archaeological Identification Survey of the Proposed 3-Module Hangar and Parking Leonid I. VB-098 1997 Apron Expansion, Naval Air Station Oceana, Shmookler Virginia Beach, Virginia Phase I Archaeological Identification Survey of the Proposed Security Improvements (P- VB-099 Todd L. Jensen 2003 445/P-509), NAS Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia Phase I Archaeological Survey of Portions of Clifton A. VB-100 the Highland Parish Tract, Virginia Beach, Huston, Peter W. 2003 Virginia O'Hara Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Small Joe B. Jones, VB-102 Arms Range (MILCON P-259), NAS Oceana 2003 Todd L. Jensen Annex Dam Neck, Virginia Beach, Virginia Ellen M. Brady, Cultural Resources Survey, Proposed Joanna Carter VB-104 Improvements, Sandbridge Road, City of 1998 Jones, Loretta Virginia Beach, Virginia Lautzenheiser Cultural Resources Identification Survey Keith T. Heinrich, VB-106 Atlantic Wastewater Treatment Plant, Virginia Loretta 2005 Beach, Virginia Lautzenheiser Archaeological Identification Survey, City Tom Bailey, VB-108 2005 Line Interchange, Virginia Beach, Virginia Susan Bamann Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Five Fort Eustis VB-110 Forks Training Area and Phase II Evaluation Environmental 2005 of Site 44VB89, Fort Story, Virginia Division Archaeological Identification Survey, Susan Bamann, VB-112 Proposed Improvements to Shore Drive, 2006 Bill Hall Virginia Beach, Virginia Phase I Survey of the First Landing Fort Eustis VB-118 Reenactment Site and a Brief Review of Environmental 2006 Proposed Events, Fort Story, Virginia Division Reconnaissance Archaeological Survey at Bradley VB-122 Various Navy Region Mid-Atlantic Family 2003 McDonald Housing Complexes in Virginia An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed I- Elizabeth VB-123 264/Lynnhaven and Great Neck Interchanges Monroe, Sean 2007 Project, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Devlin Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Realignment of West Neck Road Garrett Fesler, VB-124 Between North Landing Road and Indian 2006 Matthew Laird Ridge Road in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia

10

DHR Author(s)/ Report Report Title Year Organization Number Phase I Archaeological Survey of the State Wayne C.J. VB-125 Military Reservation, 83.81 ha (207 Acres) at Boyko, Beverly 2008 Camp Pendleton, Virginia Beach, Virginia Boyko Construction of Two New Buildings, a Parking Fort Eustis VB-126 Lot, and the Rehabilitation of Bunker 309, Fort Environmental 2006 Story, Virginia Division Archaeological Survey of Regional Health Professions Center, Phase I, Virginia Tracey Jones, VB-127 Community College System, Tidewater Blair Toombs, 2009 Community College, Virginia Beach Campus, Eric Voigt City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Archaeological Survey of Learning Resource Center, Phase I, Virginia Community College Tracey Jones, VB-128 System, Tidewater Community College, 2009 Eric Voigt Virginia Beach Campus, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Archaeological Characterization Study of Fleet VB-129 Training Center Dam Neck, Virginia Beach, Timothy Sara 2008 Virginia Cultural Resources Survey Proposed Lesner Dennis Gosser, VB-130 Bridge Replacement, City of Virginia Beach, Jennifer Stewart, 2009 Virginia Bill Hall Submerged Cultural Resource Remote-Sensing VB-132 Survey Lesner Bridge Replacement Corridor, Gordon Watts 2009 Lynnhaven Inlet, Virginia Beach, Virginia Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Stone VB-133 Courtney Birkett 2009 Breakwater/Revetment, Fort Story, Virginia Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Child VB-135 Courtney Birkett 2009 Development Center, Fort Story, Virginia Cultural Resource Management of GMH Fort Eustis VB-136 Military Housing RCI Undertakings at Fort Environmental 2006 Story, Virginia Division Archaeological Survey of South Parcel and Debra Wells, Evaluation of Archaeological Sites 44VB345 Bruce Nodine, VB-137 2010 and 44VB346, Fleet Training Center Dam Robert Austin, Neck, Virginia Beach, Virginia Nicholas Linville Phase I Archaeological Investigation of Christopher VB-143 Approximately 170 Acres at Naval Air Station 2011 Clement Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia

11

DHR Author(s)/ Report Report Title Year Organization Number Survey of the Architectural and Archaeological Ann Markell, Cultural Resources at the Virginia Air National Katherine Guard Installations at the Richmond Kuranda, VB-145 2007 International Airport, Henrico County and the Katherine State Military Reservation, Camp Pendleton, Grandine, Nathan City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Workman Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Marine Amy Humphries, VB-146 Animal Care Facility Tract, City of Virginia Dawn M. Frost, 2011 Beach Carol D. Tyrer A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of 98.664 Garrett Fesler, VB-147 Acres at Marshview Park in the City of 2011 Matthew Laird Virginia Beach, Virginia Phase I Archaeological Investigation of Christopher Ohm VB-149 Approximately 174 Acres at Naval Air Station 2012 Clement Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia Kerri Barile, Earl Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Proper, Danae VB-150 Centerville Turnpike Improvement Area, Peckler, Mike 2012 Virginia Beach, Virginia Klein, Emily Calhoun Donald Sadler, A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Sandra DeChard, VB-151 Approximately 13 Acres at 4081 Elbow Road 2012 Aimee Leithoff, in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Ellen Brady

12

HISTORIC CONTEXT

Virginia’s Native American prehistory typically is divided into three main periods, Paleoindian, Archaic, and Woodland, based on changes in material culture and settlement systems. Recently, the possibility of a human presence in the region that pre-dates the Paleoindian period has moved from remote to probable; for this reason, a Pre-Clovis discussion precedes the traditional tripartite division of Virginia’s Native American history. All dates in this section are presented as years before present (B.P.), with “present” defined by convention as the year 1950. The seventeenth-through-twentieth-century historical overview follows the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (2017) guidelines. The cultural context, as defined by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and DHR’s 1992 How to Use Historic Contexts in Virginia: A Guide for Survey, Registration, Protection, and Treatment Projects, provides the historic social and environmental information required for evaluation of any archaeological and architectural resources present within the study area.

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

The 1927 discovery, at Folsom, New Mexico, of a fluted point in the ribs of an extinct species of bison proved that ancient North Americans had immigrated during the Pleistocene. It did not, however, establish the precise timing of the arrival of humans in the Americas, nor did it adequately resolve questions about the lifestyle of those societies (Meltzer 1988:2–3). Both the stratigraphic record and the radiocarbon assays from several sites, including the recently excavated Cactus Hill site, suggest the possibility of human occupation of Virginia before the fluted-point makers appeared on the scene (Boyd 2003; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997). Buried strata at the Cactus Hill Site, in Sussex County, Virginia, have returned radiocarbon dates of 15,000 years ago from strata situated below levels containing fluted points (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997:165).

McAvoy’s team encountered artifacts and charcoal separated from the Paleoindian period level by 3.0 to 4.0 inches (7.6 to 10.2 cm) of sterile sands. Subsequent fieldwork confirmed the presence of artifact-bearing strata located between 3.0 and 8.0 inches (7.6 and 20.3 cm) below the fluted-point levels. The artifacts recovered from the pre-fluted-point levels present a striking contrast with the tool kit typically used by Paleoindians. Rather than relying on extensively finished chert knives, scraping tools, and spear points, the Pre-Clovis peoples used a different but highly refined stone technology. Prismatic blade-like flakes of quartzite, chipped from specially prepared cobbles and lightly worked along one side to produce a sharp edge, constitute the majority of the stone cutting and scraping tools. Sandstone grinding and abrading tools, possibly indicating production of wood and bone tools or ornaments, also occurred in significant numbers in the deepest artifact-bearing strata (Boyd 2003; Carr 2018; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997).

Because these tools do not possess unique characteristics which immediately identify them as dating to the Pleistocene, archaeologists must recognize the possibility that Pre-Clovis period sites have been overlooked for years. At present, only a handful of potential Pre-Clovis period sites have been identified in North America (Boyd 2003; Carr 2018).

13

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

In the decades following the discovery at Folsom, New Mexico, the association of fluted points with the bones of large, extinct mammals, in particular mastodons, on the western plains coupled with the scarcity of other Paleoindian period sites, led to the inference that the Paleoindian period subsistence strategy centered on the pursuit of big-game. This picture, however, exaggerates the reliance of western Paleoindian groups on large game, and appears to be of limited relevance to eastern Paleoindian life. The archaeological data from Virginia compiled by Dr. Ben McCary records numerous discoveries of fluted points, but no unambiguous association between extinct large game and fluted points (Boyd 1989:139). A similar situation occurs throughout the eastern United States. For this reason, many archaeologists now hold that eastern Paleoindians were generalized foragers (e.g., Gingerich 2011; Grayson and Meltzer 2003; but see Fiedel and Haynes 2004).

Most large Paleoindian period sites in the southeastern United States are quarry or quarry related (Meltzer 1988:21), though multiple band aggregation sites also occur (McAvoy 1992:145). Recognizable sites most often result from long-term habitation or repeated use of the same location. It follows from the presence of primarily quarry or quarry-related sites that stone outcrops were regularly revisited. For example, the Thunderbird Site in the Shenandoah Valley (Gardner 1974, 1977) and the Williamson Site in south-central Virginia (McCary 1951, 1975, 1983) rank among the most important Paleoindian period sites in Virginia, and in the eastern U.S. as a whole. Both sites represent large camps associated with local sources of high- grade cryptocrystalline lithic materials (Gardner 1981, 1989).

Though the full range of available lithic resources was used to manufacture fluted points (e.g., Phelps 1983), a number of studies have noted a focus on cryptocrystalline materials (e.g., chert, jasper, chalcedony) (Gardner 1974, 1989; Goodyear 1979). The recovery of cryptocrystalline materials at locations far removed from quarries indicates exchange, extensive group movement, or both characterized the Paleoindian era. In addition, the very limited differences between sites and within sites suggest that most people had access to all available resources, while the small size of most Paleoindian period sites indicates group size generally was limited to extended families.

In concert, the evidence suggests wide-ranging mobility and a social order involving low-level inter- and intra-group exchange and limited, if any, status differences between and within groups. Ethnographers have grouped such societies under the rubric of the “foraging mode of production.” Such societies, notably the San of the Kalahari, are fiercely egalitarian, resisting attempts to garner individual power through a combination of ridicule, sharing, and a fission- fusion pattern of settlement. If all else fails, egalitarian hunter-gatherers “vote with their feet,” moving away from the offending individuals (Lee 1979). The combination of high mobility, the absence of domesticated crops, and an egalitarian ideology precludes construction of elaborate housing, extensive storage facilities, and accumulation of non-portable goods.

Some researchers discuss the Paleoindian period as a single entity (Dent 1995) while others, mostly in the Southeast, divide it into three sub-periods based on morphological differences in projectile point manufacture and technology (e.g., Anderson 1990; Daniel 1998). Gardner (1989:9) adopted an intermediate position, recognizing continuity within the stylistic changes

14

in Paleoindian point form that contrasts with “a definite break between unnotched lanceolate and notched triangular form…at 8000 B.C.”

The DHR’s V-CRIS system lists Paleoindian period components for three archaeological sites in Virginia Beach, and Turner (1989:80) reported no more than ten fluted points from any Virginia Coastal Plain county near the James River, in his survey of Paleoindian Period settlement in Virginia.

Archaic Period (9950 to 3150 B.P.)

The Archaic period began with the northward retreat of periglacial environments and the appearance of archaeological assemblages lacking fluted points. In the Chesapeake Bay region, a shift from moist, cool conditions to a warmer, drier climate accompanied the glacial retreat. In response to changing climatic conditions, in particular the receding ice-sheets (Barber 2003; Boyd 2003), Chesapeake Bay sea levels rose continuously from roughly 15,000 years ago to the present. Simultaneously, local subsidence of the earth’s crust also may have contributed to the formation of the Chesapeake Bay and Albemarle Sound. Between 15,000 and 14,000 years ago, the waters of the Atlantic began to submerge portions of the continental shelf. For every foot (30 cm) of sea level rise, approximately 1,675 feet (510 m) of the shelf were inundated. Ten thousand years ago the sea began to flood the mouth of the ancestral Susquehanna River, located near the present day mouth of Chesapeake Bay. Sea level rose at 0.1 inch (0.2 cm) per year between 8,000 and 3,000 years ago. At 8,000 years ago, the head of the ancestral bay was near Smith Island, at 5,000, near Annapolis, and by 3,000 years ago, it had reached the Sassafras River (Brush 1986:149). Numerous archaeologists suggest that the stabilization of water levels in the bay at this time provided the necessary conditions for the development of extensive shellfish beds and habitats favorable for anadromous fish (e.g., Waselkov 1982). After approximately 2950 B.P., sea level rise slowed to approximately 0.5 inch (0.12 cm) per year, and the Chesapeake Bay approached its present contours (Brush 1986:149; Dent 1995:69–95). As sea levels stabilized, the region’s rivers also approximated the modern configuration and, at a broad scale, essentially modern environments emerged (Barber 2003; Blanton 2003; Tolley 2003).

In eastern Virginia, a more temperate climate characterized by greater seasonal variation in temperatures emerged as the Chesapeake estuary formed (Dent 1995:147). Vegetation changed from the patchy forest that lacked modern analogs to a mixed conifer-deciduous forest. An essentially modern floral assemblage is inferred based on pollen data from contexts dating as early as 6000–5000 B.P. (Brush 1986:151; Webb 1988:405), though relative abundances of taxa fluctuated thereafter. During the Holocene, as paleoclimatologists term the post- Pleistocene epoch, humans responded to emerging differences in the availability of resources over the course of the year via increasing seasonal mobility.

In addition, in contrast with the broad similarity among Paleoindian period point forms, distinct style zones developed during the Early and Middle Archaic periods (9950–5450 B.P.). The Atlantic Coast/Southeastern stylistic sequence was not characteristic of the Midwest (Ford 1974:392). In addition, increased use of locally-available lithics occurred between 9,950–5,450 B.P. (Custer 1990:36; Sassaman et al. 1988:85–88). The reduction of the size of style zones

15

and the focus on local lithic materials implies contracting social networks and incipient territories, possibly a reaction to population growth (Anderson and Hanson 1988:271).

Despite changes in patterns of mobility and point form, numerous archaeologists argue on environmental (Custer 1990:2–8) and subsistence (Smith 1986) grounds for continuity in social dynamics between 11,950 and 7950 B.P. From this point of view, Dalton through Lecroy populations exhibit "general similarities and regional habitat-related variation in settlement- subsistence patterns and material culture assemblages" (Smith 1986:10). Band-level social organization involving seasonal movements corresponding to the seasonal availability of resources and, in some instances, shorter-interval movement characterized Archaic period societies.

Reliance on ground-stone technology increased during the Archaic period. New tool categories associated with the Archaic period include celts, net sinkers, pestles, pecked stones, and axes. Archaic period knappers produced chipped-stone versions of celts and axes and, near the end of the Late Archaic period, labor-intensive vessels carved from soapstone quarried in the Piedmont formed an important segment of assemblages (Geier 1990; McLearen 1991).

Underwood et al. (2003) and Gallivan et al. (2006) identified only low frequencies of Archaic period material during large-scale surveys along the York River. Although a limited number of Archaic sites occurred on the floodplain of the York River and near the mouth of the tidal creeks, site density peaked in the interior of the Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown (NWSY). Archaic period sites clustered on upland flats and ridges in two modes, 700–1,100 feet and 2,700–3,200 feet (231.3–335.3 m and 823.0–975.4 m) from the York River. Drowned and reconfigured shorelines as a consequence of sea level rise throughout the Archaic period undoubtedly explain at least part of the observed pattern. The data also imply that the Chesapeake Region’s inhabitants lived in relatively small groups that ranged over broad territories for most of the year (Underwood et al. 2003).

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

Corner-and side-notched points with serrated blades predominate at the beginning of the Early Archaic period, reflecting innovation in hafting technology and, possibly, the invention of the atlatl. Notched point forms include Palmer and Kirk Corner-Notched and, in localized areas, various side-notched types. Around 8,950 B.P., a variety of bifurcate base projectile point forms appeared in the Middle Atlantic region. In eastern Virginia, Lecroy points constitute the majority of bifurcate forms (Dent 1995; Justice 1995).

Some researchers portray the Early Archaic period as a continuation of the Paleoindian period, characterized by reliance on cryptocrystalline lithic material and similar settlement and subsistence patterns (Gardner 1989). Within the James River valley, there appears to have been an increase in population that began during the Early Archaic period (Mouer 1990:24). Elsewhere in the Middle Atlantic region, however, population growth perhaps began during the Middle Archaic period (Dent 1995).

16

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

The appearance of stemmed projectile points and a shift towards more expedient use of stone marks the beginning of the Middle Archaic period across much of the Atlantic Slope and Southeast (Amick and Carr 1996:43–45; Justice 1995). In this area of Virginia, the most common Middle Archaic period projectile point types are (from oldest to most recent) LeCroy, Stanly, Morrow Mountain and Guilford, followed by the side-notched Halifax type sometime after 5450 B.P. Informal modified flakes to some extent replaced formal unifacial tools, and local materials constitute a greater percentage of Middle Archaic period assemblages than had been true of earlier time periods. Sites occur throughout the landscape, including beneath the now-inundated Chesapeake Bay (Blanton 1996; Dent 1995:173–178).

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

Stemmed and notched knife and spear point forms, including various large, broad-bladed stemmed knives and projectile points (e.g., Savannah River, Susquehanna, Perkiomen points), rank among the most distinctive and securely dated Late Archaic period point forms (Coe 1964; Dent 1995; Justice 1995; Ritchie 1971). Marked increases in population, and, in some areas, decreased mobility appear to characterize the Late Archaic period throughout eastern North America. Locally, the increase in the number of Halifax and Savannah River components and sites relative to the preceding periods suggests population rose in Virginia between about 5450 B.P. and circa 3150 B.P.

Mouer (1991a:262) believes it likely that “at least intensive harvesting of wild seeds,” if not the beginnings of domestication, characterized Transitional through Early Woodland period times (circa 4000–2500 B.P.) in the Chesapeake Bay region, as it did in the Midwest. The process, however, did not proceed at an even rate across the Eastern Woodlands or the Middle Atlantic Region (Stewart 1995:184–185). Yarnell (1976:268), for example, states that sunflower, sump weed, and possibly goosefoot may have been cultivated as early as 4000 B.P. In the lower Little Tennessee River valley, the remains of squash have been found in Late Archaic period Savannah River contexts (circa 4450 B.P.), with both squash and gourd recovered from Iddins period contexts of slightly more recent date (Chapman and Shea 1981:70). Experiments with domestication in the Mid-Continent indicate the possibility, even the likelihood, that the inhabitants of the Middle Atlantic cultivated small grains and other plants (Hodges 1991:228–230; Mouer 1991b:259–263). “Scant” evidence for early cultivation appears in the archaeological record from Virginia (Mouer 1991a:259; see also Blanton 2003:193; Gallivan and McKnight 2006).

Soapstone bowls are a well-known feature of Late Archaic period exchange systems (McLearen 1991:107–108). In addition, Stewart (1989: 52) argues for broad-based exchange of "artifacts made from jasper, argillite, rhyolite, ironstone, soapstone, midwestern lithics, obsidian, marine shell and copper" throughout the Middle Atlantic region during the Late Archaic period. Thus, Late Archaic period society clearly differed from that of earlier times. The production and wide-spread exchange of utilitarian and ritually important, labor-intensive goods does not fit the expected archaeological signature of highly egalitarian foragers. Rather, a social order exhibiting some sort of status differences among individuals or groups (Mouer 1991a:265) and somewhat restricted group movement (Stewart 1989:57) likely existed.

17

Sites dating to the Late Archaic period occur frequently throughout Virginia and the Middle Atlantic region. Late Archaic period sites occur in greater numbers and in a wider range of environments than sites associated with the Early and Middle Archaic periods (Klein and Klatka 1991). Blanton (2003) reports large numbers of Terminal Archaic period sites, many including broadspears and soapstone bowl sherds in the assemblage, along the margins of the Dismal Swamp.

Woodland Period (3150 to 350 B.P.)

Increasing use of ceramic technology, a growing dependence upon horticulture, and a shift toward greater sedentism all characterize the Woodland period. Most researchers divide the Woodland period into three sub-periods (the Early Woodland period, the Middle Woodland period, and the Late Woodland period), based primarily on stylistic and technological changes observed in ceramic wares and projectile points, as well as shifts in settlement patterning (e.g., Gardner 1982). Not all researchers agree with this tripartite subdivision, however (e.g., Custer 1989).

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

The onset of the Woodland period traditionally correlates with the appearance of ceramics (Willey and Phillips 1958:118). Early theorists linked ceramics with agriculture, though few continue to support this position (cf. reviews in Egloff 1991; Hodges 1991). Rather, the evolution of subsistence and technological systems (e.g., Gardner 1982) and various aspects of pan-Eastern interaction (e.g., Egloff 1991; Klein 1997) currently are believed to underlie the evolution of ceramic containers.

The steatite-tempered Marcey Creek type and variants containing other mineral inclusions appear to date between 3200 and 2800 B.P. (Egloff 1991:244–5). However, though friable sand-and-grit-tempered Accokeek Creek and Elk Island ceramics appear stratigraphically subsequent to Marcey Creek, associated C-14 dates range from 3000 through 2500 B.P. Klein and Stevens (1996) cite regional data to support the proposition that, while the thickness, amount of temper, and size of temper in quartz/sand-tempered, cord-marked ceramics shifted over time, similar pots continued in use into Middle Woodland times (Klein 2003). Radiocarbon dates recommend placement of the Calvert and Fishtail points in the Early Woodland (Inashima 2008). Ovoid to lozenge-shaped points, classified as Teardrop Points, have been dated to 2900−2000 B.P. in the Northeast (Mounier and Martin 1994). However, similar points have been recovered from Middle Archaic through Middle Woodland I contexts in North Carolina and Virginia (Kirchen 2001:53–69). The Potts Corner-Notched point type, the Vernon point type, and the Claggett point type have been dated only through stratigraphic context and/or association with early ceramics (Inashima 2008; Stephenson 1963). Similarly, a variety of small stemmed and side-notched forms of assumed association with the Early Woodland period lack definitive temporal assignment (Dent 1995:227–228). Small bifaces and expedient tools such as drills, perforators, scrapers and utilized flakes regularly appear in Early Woodland period assemblages. Other lithic artifacts reported on Early Woodland period sites in the Chesapeake region include bipolar flakes possibly used as knives

18

or scrapers, hammerstones, net sinkers, mortars, and pestles (McLearen 1991). Also noted on sites in the region are tools of bone, and projectile points manufactured from antler, bone, turkey spurs, and shark’s teeth (Painter 1988; Waselkov 1982).

The increased number of sites dating to the Early Woodland period, coupled with the recognition of structures, features, and activity areas at some sites, suggests rising population size in the Chesapeake region (e.g., Mouer 1991b:38–39; Stewart 1995:183). In contrast, noting that the addition of pottery to stone adds temporally diagnostic artifacts to the archaeological record, Fiedel (2001:106–107) observes that more sites are expected to appear in the archaeological record during Woodland period times. Furthermore, the various Broadspears, dating to the Terminal Archaic period (circa 3950–2950 B.P.), represent a curated technology (Barber and Tolley 1984), while replication experiments suggest stemmed bifaces similar to Early Woodland types rank among the easiest forms to produce using quartz (Bourdeau 1981). Therefore, a shift from a curated, hence less commonly discarded biface form, to points easily produced from a ubiquitous material accompanied the appearance of ceramics. Thus, the absence of a dramatic swell in the number of sites, coupled with decreased representation of diagnostic point forms, indicates a demographic trough or at best a flat demographic curve characterized the Early Woodland period.

In general, sparse concentrations of artifacts characterize Early Woodland period sites (Mouer 1990:160–174; Stewart 1998a:2). At several sites in the central James River valley, however, notably Scott # 2 (44GO0040), dense accumulations of artifacts and midden soils have been described (Mouer 1990:160–164). The rare occurrence of similar sites, combined with the extremely large, fragile pots recovered by Mouer (1990:162) and the diversity of points identified (Mouer 1990:161), seemingly indexes multi-band aggregations near the falls of the James River. Mouer (1990), however, interprets 44GO0040 as evidence for the appearance of village life during Early Woodland period times. Regardless, the preservation of an extensive accumulation of Early Woodland period artifacts suggests the existence of a unique geomorphological, and probably social, setting. Overall, the data appears to indicate a return to the mobile, egalitarian social organization characteristic of Early and Middle Archaic period times (Klein 2003). Even at large Early Woodland period sites post-dating 1150 B.P., very limited evidence of long-distance exchange or the manufacture of labor-intensive artifacts comparable to the soapstone exchange of the Terminal Archaic period appears.

The use of subterranean features such as storage pits, refuse pits, and cooking hearths is also associated with the Early Woodland period. At the White Oak Point site, in the Rappahannock River Coastal Plain, remains of hickory nuts, and various species of shellfish, fish, and deer were recovered (Waselkov 1982). During the preceding Late Archaic period, increased exploitation of oysters as a food source began at White Oak Point (44WM0119). Surveys along the York River found that Early Woodland period sites continued the Archaic period pattern of low-density, interior settlement (Underwood et al. 2003:393).

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

Popes Creek net-impressed ceramics appear after roughly 2450 B.P., marking the beginning of the Middle Woodland I period (2450–1750 B.P.) (Blanton 1992:72–73; Egloff and Potter 1982:99). However, cordmarked ceramics and stemmed points continued in use for some time

19

after 1450 B.P. (McLearen 1992:44–45). Custer (1989:141–146), for example, lumps the period between 4950 and 950 B.P. under the rubric Woodland I based on the similarity in adaptation and the presence of considerable variation in the form of contemporaneous stemmed and notched points.

Net-impressed surface treatments occur on a variety of ceramic types manufactured during Middle Woodland period times. Pope’s Creek ceramics first appear after 2,450 B.P., coinciding with the start of the Middle Woodland (Blanton 1992:72–3; Egloff and Potter 1982:99). Early Woodland period cord-marked ceramics and stemmed projectile points are found in Middle Woodland period contexts, suggesting a continued use of Early Woodland period technologies (McLearen 1992:44–5). The Prince George and Varina types appear to represent a continuum of development in the technology used to produced Popes Creek sherds, rather than dramatically different types (Mouer et al. 1986). After 1750 B.P., shell-tempered net- impressed, cordmarked, and plain pottery classified as the Mockley type becomes predominant in the outer Coastal Plain of Virginia and Maryland, though generally similar sherds tempered with grit continued in production as well (Johnson 2001:100).

The appearance of assemblages containing significant amounts of durable ceramics after 2450 B.P. indicates a shift in the organization of production occurred during the Middle Woodland periods (Brown 1986, 1989). In addition to the advantages of ceramic vessels as cooking pots, ceramic production contrasts with the manufacture of baskets and wooden bowls in its embrace of economies of scale. Rather than a start-and-stop process that fits well into odd bits of time, ceramic production required greater scheduling and continued attention over an extended period of time. Shifts in the scheduling of work, therefore, accompanied the transition from Early to Middle Woodland period times.

Broad-spectrum hunting-fishing-gathering continued to characterize the region as a whole throughout the Middle Woodland. Shellfish, anadromous and resident fishes, deer, waterfowl, and turkey ranked high among the important fauna in the Middle Woodland diet. Various nuts, amaranth, and chenopod seeds also appear to be important resources during this period. After 2300 B.P., large shell middens containing dense concentrations of artifacts become increasingly common, indicating repeated use of at least one type of site. Middens and the presence of houses at a number of sites indicate longer stays, though populations remained far from sedentary (Gallivan 2003, 2016). People continued to reside for much of the year in relatively small settlements, and interior storage features rarely occur on Middle Woodland sites (Gallivan 2003:75–98). In short, small groups continued to live within relatively small settlements for much of the year during the Middle Woodland. Periodic aggregations brought together groups for feasting, gift exchange, and the opportunity for marriage ties with residents of other communities (Gallivan 2016:94). Nevertheless, Mouer (1991a:262) believes it likely that “at least intensive harvesting of wild seeds,” if not the beginnings of domestication, characterized Transitional through Early Woodland times (circa 4000–2500 B.P.) in the Chesapeake Region, as it did in the Midwest (Smith 2007, 2011). For example, in eastern North America in general, changes in the relative frequency of gray squirrels versus fox squirrels in Late Archaic assemblages have been cited as evidence that Native Americans encouraged the growth of nut- and mast-bearing trees; similarly, the increase in the range and frequency of undomesticated maygrass, knotweed, and

20

little barley in archaeological assemblages circa 3000–2000 B.P. indicates encouragement, and perhaps incipient domestication, of these weedy invaders of disturbed ground (Smith 2007:192). This process, however, proceeded at an even rate across neither the Eastern Woodlands nor the Middle Atlantic Region (Stewart 1995:184–185). Experiments with domestication in the Midcontinent indicate the possibility, even the likelihood, that the inhabitants of the Middle Atlantic at least encouraged the growth of small grains and other plants (Hodges 1991:228–230; Mouer 1991:259–263). “Scant” evidence for early cultivation, however, appears in the archaeological record from Virginia (Blanton 2003:193; Mouer 1991:259). Nevertheless, the possible presence of Late Archaic storage pits in western Virginia perhaps indicates intensification of the type of environmental manipulation that eventually led to the appearance of cultivars like chenopodium in the region (Blanton 2003:194–195).

Temporal shifts in cordage-twist direction over the course of the Woodland period, primarily a reflection of learning networks (Carr and Maslowski 1995), indicate increasing regional social distance. These data imply a reduction of regular movements between spatially discrete groups and a consequent increasing localization of learning networks. To the extent that social networks became bounded, differences between groups in the region would have been amplified (Boehm 1997:S108–S109).

Throughout Virginia, the Middle Woodland period is marked by the presence of “interregional interaction spheres, including the spread of religious and ritual behaviors which appear locally in transformed ways; localized stylistic developments that sprang up independently alongside interregional styles; increased sedentism; and evidence of ranked societies or incipient ranked societies” (McLearen 1992:55). Around 2450 B.P., stone and earth burial cairns and cairn clusters in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia mark the first appearance of elaborate burial ceremonialism in Virginia, though not in the wider world of Eastern North America (McLearan 1992; Stewart 1992). The major upsurge in ceremonial activity occurred during the 850–1450 B.P. period. Sites containing elaborately decorated zoned-incised ceramics (Stewart 1998b) and indications of extended mortuary ceremonies have been identified in the Chesapeake region (e.g., Knepper et al. 2006:99–144).

The underlying tension between a cultural emphasis on community and equality and the historical trajectory toward “inequality and competition inherent in big-man systems” produced, according to Hantman and Gold (2002:288), cyclical fluctuations in exchange, ritual activity, and sociopolitical complexity between 4950 and 300 B.P. Mortuary rituals and labor- intensive or exotic artifacts at times created and reflected social distinctions in the Middle Atlantic, but “the trajectory for individual markers of status continually appears to move in the opposite direction toward more egalitarian or even access to goods and ritual status” (Hantman and Gold 2002:290). Taken together, the data indicate that individuals and groups struggled to maintain a balance between personal autonomy and equality as pressures on individuals and groups increasingly highlighted the problems of highly egalitarian societies. The conflict continued well beyond the appearance of horticultural villages, as demonstrated by the emphasis on community and similarity in Late Woodland period secondary burials.

Blanton’s (1992:82–86) review of Middle Woodland period settlement patterns in the Coastal Plain identified two major site types: the base camp and the procurement site. Base camps range in size from those occupied by extended families to major aggregation sites. Aggregation

21

sites refer to large sites inhabited by multiple groups from throughout the region for varied periods of time. Procurement sites, characterized by limited suites of artifacts, occur throughout the landscape. Base camps occupied by extended families, in contrast, primarily occupy productive settings along the larger rivers. Aggregation sites occur in an even more restricted range of settings, primarily adjacent to productive oyster grounds or marshes in the Coastal Plain (Stewart 1998b:171).

Floodplain stability increased after 1750 B.P. throughout the region, creating a greater likelihood for the preservation of intact sites dating to the Middle Woodland II and Late Woodland periods (Klein 2003). Previous studies on the James River and nearby parts of the Chickahominy River demonstrate intensive use of small tributary streams as well as major river floodplains throughout Middle Woodland period times. Typical Middle Woodland period sites consist of the remnants of one or a few encampments occupied at various times during the Middle Woodland period (e.g., Gallivan and Blouet 2001; Johnson et al. 1989). Studies along the York River also demonstrate a striking increase in the frequency of sites dating to the Middle Woodland period (Gallivan et al. 2006; Underwood et al. 2003).

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

Enormous changes transformed the social landscape of eastern North America in the centuries after 900 B.P. Archaeological research in the Middle Atlantic indicates that population growth, increased sedentism, a focus of settlement on the major rivers, heightened frequency of regional exchange, more varied mortuary activities, the introduction of maize agriculture, and increasingly focal exploitation of marine resources characterized the centuries between 900 and 350 B.P (Curry 2015; Gallivan 2003, 2006; Gold 2004; Hodges 2003; Klein and Magoon 2017; Mahoney 2009; Shephard 2015). Triangular projectile points, ubiquitous by 900 B.P., may decrease in size between 900 and 300 B.P., coincidental perhaps with heightened reliance on the bow and arrow. Albemarle and other fabric-impressed sherds appear around 1300 B.P. in central Virginia (Evans 1955). After roughly 500 B.P., Gaston and Roanoke Simple Stamped sherds and thin, plain and cord-marked sherds classified as the Potomac Creek type appear in the James River Valley (Gallivan 2003:138–143). Elaborately decorated and unelaborated ceramic smoking pipes also appear during the Late Woodland period (e.g., Magoon 1999; Stephenson 1963). Bone was used for utilitarian and other items, including pins, fishhooks, and flutes. Intensified use of cultivated plants, particularly maize, beans, and squash, distinguished the Late Woodland period adaptation from that of earlier periods. European accounts describe a heavy reliance on slash-and-burn agricultural methods (Turner 1992:106). However, despite this supposed dependence on cultigens, only 21 sites document the use of cultigens in Coastal Virginia (McKnight and Gallivan 2007). The abundance of aquatic resources in estuarine environments may account for the apparently limited reliance on maize implied by the archaeological data, though the relatively recent use of flotation by Virginia’s archaeologists and the often limited size of flotation samples may have biased earlier work against the recovery of botanical remains. In addition to cultigens and shellfish, Late Woodland period peoples throughout the region continued to rely on various mammals, fish, and birds for sustenance (Dent 1995:251). Perhaps as a consequence of the greater importance of cultigens

22

in the diet, access to expanses of arable land ranks among the most important factors influencing site selection (Dent 1995; Potter 1993).

Heightened diversity characterizes ceramic assemblages recovered from Late Woodland period sites in the Virginia Coastal Plain (Gallivan 2003:131–154). North of the James River, the shell-tempered, fabric-impressed Townsend ware is common in the Late Woodland period. Potomac Creek ware, a sand- or quartz-tempered, cord-marked and plain ceramic, occurs widely in the Coastal Plain north of the Rappahannock River (Turner 1992). Along the North Carolina-Virginia border, the sand or quartz-tempered, simple-stamped Gaston ware commonly appears in archaeological assemblages. In the coastal area and along the lower James River Valley, shell-tempered, simple-stamped ceramics referred to as Roanoke ware regularly constitutes a significant percentage of late prehistoric assemblages (Turner 1992:102- 104).

Small, triangular arrow points, generally believed to reflect the widespread use of the bow- and-arrow, form the overwhelming majority of Late Woodland period projectile points. Triangular points include the Levanna, Madison, Roanoke, and Clarksville types, which vary in size and base form. Point size may also decrease over time (Coe 1964; Potter 1993; Ritchie 1971).

Shell beads and copper beads became important ornaments and symbols during the Late Woodland period, primarily in the last few centuries prior to the arrival of European colonists. Powhatan’s Mantle, a deerskin cloak decorated with thousands of small marginella beads sewn into various patterns, reflects the use of shell beads as symbols of identity and status. Pendants and gorgets made of shell were also common. Of note, five engraved shell masks, decorated with a traditional Southeastern “forked/weeping eye” motif were found in a seventeenth- century burial in Stafford County. Three of the five masks exhibit similarities to masks recovered from sites in the Southeastern U.S. (Smith and Smith 1989), possibly an indication of long-distance trade. Bone also was used to manufacture beads, as well as utilitarian items such as pins, fishhooks, and points.

Chiefdom-level societies, based on hereditary inequality, developed in coastal Virginia during this time (Gallivan 2003, 2016; Potter 1993). Oft-cited causes of the emergence of status differences in the Middle Atlantic, regardless of the precise interpretation involved, emphasize the entwined effects of climatic change, population growth, and the incorporation of maize in the Amerindian diet after 1150 B.P. Potter (1993:143), for example, argues that the “dry climatic interval of 950–750 B.P. may have provided additional impetus for adopting plant husbandry as a supplement to the intensive gathering and hunting economy of the previous late Middle Woodland period.” More recently, Gallivan (2003) has pointed to the interplay of various factors subsumed under cycling models to explain the emergence of inequality in the James River valley. Roughly 300 years after the 1050 B.P. introduction of maize horticulture, James River households first congregated in clusters of six or more, indicating that maize alone did not cause the emergence of villages. Rather, regional social processes, including exchange of ornamental shell and feasting, may have led to the emergence of status differences. Storage pit features shifted from external locations to house interiors, signaling increased household control of surplus production. Concurrently, a small percentage of unusually large structures, either homes of leaders or the setting for community-wide institutions like council houses,

23

appeared throughout the Chesapeake region. Simultaneously, large roasting pit features occurred in villages, an indication of communal feasting (Gallivan 2003:73–125). Beyond the village, large-scale secondary burials also occurred (Curry 1999:68; Hantman 1990; Hantman and Klein 1992). Exchange, of copper in particular, expanded after 450 B.P., while historical documents indicate that more complex chiefdoms of five to seven villages existed during the 1500s. By the seventeenth century, the charismatic leader Powhatan controlled the James and York Rivers within the Coastal Plain region; meanwhile, the Chickahominy, residing on the river of the same name, were ruled by elders rather than chiefs (Rountree 1989; Rountree et al. 2007; Turner 2003).

The Powhatan Chiefdom reportedly coalesced and expanded during the 1500s (Gallivan 2003, 2005, 2016; Rountree 1989, 2005; Turner 1976, 1982, 1992). According to the early colonists, the chiefdom Powhatan inherited consisted of six districts centered on six main settlements: Powhatan, located east of the falls of the James River; Arrohateck, also in the inner Coastal Plain of the James River; Appamattuck, east of the fall zone along the Appomattox River; Pamunkey, located along the eastern, downstream meanders of the Pamunkey River; Youghtanund, the upper Pamunkey River to at least the South Anna River; and Mattaponi, which encompassed the length of the Mattaponi River. Rountree (2005:39) surmises that Powhatan could have assumed the position of Paramount Chief of the six districts by the late 1560s. By 1607 Powhatan led a chiefdom that approached or exceeded the maximum size of stable Mississippian chiefdoms (Hally 1996; Klein and Gallivan 2001).

In addition to palisaded villages, Native American settlements included nucleated villages lacking palisades, dispersed hamlets, and temporary camps. Recent work by Potter (1993), Hodges (1993), Hodges and Hodges (1994), and Opperman and Turner (1989, 1990), suggest that dispersed villages were common throughout the Coastal Plain of Virginia. The difficulty in identifying them archaeologically may have contributed to the low number of archaeologically identified Powhatan settlements known from the 1612 map by John Smith (Turner 1992:110). Housing varied throughout this region: some sites show evidence of longhouses located adjacent to the palisade (Callahan 1985; Egloff and Turner 1984:37–39), while elsewhere, short, oval structures have been unearthed (Dent 1995; Gallivan 2003; Hodges and Hodges 1994; Mouer et al. 1992; Potter 1993).

Rountree (2004) identifies prime agricultural soils, proximity to swamps, and access to resources found in deciduous forests as the major determinants of Late Woodland period and Contact-period settlement location. Nucleated villages and dispersed hamlets, recognized primarily by the presence of houses, various types of features, and dense concentrations of artifacts, generally cluster on the floodplains of the major rivers. Smaller seasonal camps and special-purpose sites supporting nearby villages and hamlets occur along smaller streams within the interior of the Coastal Plain. Limited spatial distributions and sparse scatters of lithics and ceramics typically characterize camps and special-purpose sites.

Late Woodland period materials have been identified during archaeological surveys throughout the James River drainage basin (e.g., Gallivan 2003, 2016). In addition, early seventeenth-century maps depict villages lining the rivers of Coastal Virginia. Components identified at site 44VB0007, located in the northeast part of the study area, included a Middle Woodland period shell midden and a Late Woodland period settlement (Hodges 1998).

24

Historic Period

Europeans increasingly affected the North American landscape after 450 B.P. British, French, and Spanish expeditions visited the Chesapeake Bay and its tributary rivers beginning in the mid-to-late sixteenth century (Quinn 1977). Captain Vincente Gonzalez and Juan Menendez Marques likely visited the Chesapeake Bay in 1588. These Spaniards, searching for Sir Walter Raleigh’s colonists, “sailed along the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay to its head and then traced the western coast of the Eastern Shore” and most likely encountered the region’s inhabitants (Lewis and Loomie 1953:186–202). In the late-sixteenth century (circa 1570), a Spanish Jesuit mission was established, most likely along the York River’s southern bank. It failed, meeting a violent fate at the hands of local Indians. In 1585–1586, a small party of English explorers from Roanoke Island in present-day North Carolina arrived in the Hampton Roads region. The party, which camped near the mouth of the James River, had amiable relations with local peoples residing along the Lynnhaven River (Quinn 1977; Rountree et al. 2007). Sustained contact between Native Americans and Europeans, however, began with the construction of the English fort at Jamestown in 1607.

Settlement to Society (1607–1750)

In April of 1607, three small English ships, the Susan Constant, the Godspeed, and the Discovery, made landfall at Cape Henry in a second attempt to establish an English colony in Virginia. After exploring the Lynnhaven Inlet and various waterways in the southern Chesapeake Bay, and engaging in hostile encounters with the inhabitants, the English colonists proceeded upstream. In May of 1607, the colony of Jamestown was established, and the newcomers began to explore the circum-Chesapeake Bay region (Mansfield 1989).

Virginia Discovered and Discribed (Smith 1624), by the Jamestown Colonist John Smith, depicts “kings howse” settlements in present-day Hampton and Norfolk. “Chesapeack,” represented by a “kings howse,” which appears in the interior of the landform near the study vicinity, represents an anomaly at the regional level (Figure 2). The settlements depicted on Smith’s Map hug the shorelines of the region’s rivers, a pattern mirrored by the archaeological record. The settlement was probably located near or on the Elizabeth River, perhaps moved by Smith or the cartographer to include the “X” depicting the extent of exploration up the Elizabeth River. Tindall’s (1608) map locates all Native American settlements in the region in the expected near-shore settings along the James River and its major tributaries, including Nattamonge on a branch of the Elizabeth River (Turner and Opperman nd:2–5). Powhatan reportedly eliminated the Chesapeack in 1607, perhaps preventing Smith from ascertaining the former location of the settlement (Rountree et al. 2007:144–145).

25

Figure 2: Detail from John Smith’s Virginia Discovered and Discribed (Smith 1624) Depicting the Settlements near the Mouth of the James River.

In 1609, the Jamestown settlers attempted to expand downstream by ransacking a Nansemond settlement; the Nansemond quickly retaliated, slaying the remaining colonists “with their mowthes stopped full of Bread…” (Percy 1922:265, cited in Turner and Opperman nd:2-11– 2-12). That same year Fort Algernon was erected on Point Comfort (Turner and Opperman nd:6-1l). English settlement in Norfolk and Virginia Beach, however, did not occur until the 1630s (Mansfield 1989).

The lower Tidewater area, including Virginia Beach, was originally part of New Norfolk County, which was formed in 1636 when an influx of settlers to the banks of the Lynnhaven and Elizabeth Rivers prompted the division of Elizabeth City County, one of the original Virginia counties (Parramore et al. 1994). In 1637 Lower Norfolk County was formed from New Norfolk County; the 1637 county comprised the Tidewater area south of the James River. Princess Anne County, which was later to become Virginia Beach, was formed in 1691 out of Lower Norfolk County. Thomas Keeling and Adam Thoroughgood were two of the first permanent residents of this area, and were responsible for bringing additional English settlers to reside in the region (Mansfield 1989).

In 1615, John Rolfe had sent a tobacco sample to England. The ensuing tobacco boom soon fueled immigration and the expansion of colonial settlement. The Norfolk area’s soils,

26

however, were ill-suited for tobacco (Wertenbaker and Schlegel 1962:27; see also Lukezic 1990). Nevertheless, tobacco eventually flowed through the ports of Hampton Roads. Early on, however, every important planter owned a wharf and ships docked at individual plantations. Even in the early-eighteenth century, however, the Reverend Hugh Jones observed: “No country is better watered, for the conveniency of which most houses are built near some landing place; so tht (sic) anything may be delivered to a gentleman there from London, Bristol, etc., with [very little] trouble and cost” (Jones 1722, cited in Wertenbaker and Schlegel 1962:3).

During the early period, turpentine, tar, and pitch extracted from the surrounding pine forests were brought to the wharves for shipment. Tar-burners sailed flat-bottomed boats or shallops from the inlets and streams surrounding Norfolk to the wharves (Wertenbaker and Schlegel 1962:28). Thus, many early economic activities were concentrated along waterways throughout the Tidewater region.

Charles II, nonetheless, persisted in his demand that the assembly create towns. The assembly responded in 1680 by passing an act requiring the counties to purchase 50 acres (20.2 ha) for planned towns. Lower Norfolk County selected land at the mouth of the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River. Although the king vetoed the act in 1681, the plans proceeded, lots were granted. In 1691, when the legislature created Princess Anne County, warehouses and dwellings stood in Norfolk, and work began on a courthouse (Wertenbaker and Schlegel 1962:4–5).

At the time that Princess Anne County was formed, the county contained 2,000 residents within 326 square miles (844 sq km) (Mansfield 1989). Settlements included large parcels owned by planters and worked by tenant farmers, overseers, indentured servants, and enslaved Africans that grew cash crops, as well as smaller farmsteads. On the plantations, the overseers administered the general workings of the plantations and the activities of the indentured and enslaved workforce. Enslaved Africans and African-Americans became the most prominent portion of the labor force near the middle of the eighteenth century, as the developments in the world economy that disrupted the influx of indentured servitude led planters to shift to enslaved laborers (Morgan 1975).

Colony to Nation (1750–1789)

As Norfolk grew, Kempsville, Newtown, and other inland ports in Princess Anne County list trade to the larger port. Farming, primarily on small farms, represented the most common employment in the county. Princess Anne County remained primarily rural into the twentieth century. Residents also found work harvesting the resources of the Dismal Swamp and the region’s rivers and streams (Mansfield 1989).

The population of the region continued to grow, marked by the establishment of the county seat in Newtown and town of Portsmouth in 1752, as well as the town of Kempsville in 1781. Kempsville served as the county seat from 1778–1823. Centered in Portsmouth and Norfolk, shipping became an integral part of the regional economy. The Lower Tidewater region was a major producer of goods exported through the major ports, and, as such, there was a great interest in developing navigable canals into and through the Dismal Swamp. It was hoped that

27

these canals would not only facilitate the transportation of goods but also provide access to forests that could be harvested and then used for agricultural purposes. To this end the Adventurers for Draining the Dismal Swamp was established in 1763 (Simpson 1990). This company oversaw the excavation of two canals and many ditches in the swamp, however the Revolutionary War decimated the enterprise (Simpson 1990).

Amidst colonial unrest the royal governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, fled the capitol at Williamsburg in 1775 and established the seat of the colony on board a frigate in the Elizabeth River. In that same year militias from Princess Anne County assembled at Kemp’s Landing to counter British troops under the direction of Lord Dunmore, in what was to be known as the Battle of Kemp’s Landing or the Skirmish of Kempsville. Dunmore ambushed the militia groups to claim victory at Kemp’s Landing (Virginia Beach Historical Society 2001). It was during this skirmish that John Ackiss of the Princess Anne militia was killed by Lord Dunmore’s forces, marking the first Virginia casualty of the American Revolution (Virginia Beach Historical Society 2001). Dunmore and his troops burned Norfolk in 1776, but later that year fled the colony. Princess Anne County was subjected to sporadic British raids in 1781 (Mansfield 1989).

Early National Period (1789–1830)

Following the Revolutionary War, the newly formed United States Congress authorized the construction of federal lighthouses. In 1792 a lighthouse at Cape Henry was built, purportedly in the same location of a cross erected by the colonists after their landing in 1607 (Virginia Beach Historical Society 2001). After its construction and in particular during the War of 1812, this lighthouse served as a vital marker at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. During the war the region was once again subjected to raiding by British troops (Mansfield 1989). More direct attacks followed the arrival of British forces commanded by Rear Admiral George Cockburn in the Chesapeake Bay during March of 1813. Cockburn hoped to lure American invaders back from Canada by threatening the capital and vital seaports at Baltimore and the Hampton Roads- Norfolk area. The American militia, aided by gunboats in the Elizabeth River, repulsed assaults on Norfolk, notably the attack on Craney Island on June 22, 1813, though Hampton was occupied briefly (Echelman et al. 2010).

Following the wars, what was to become the Norfolk Naval Shipyard was established via the confiscation of the Gosport Shipyard, which was originally established in 1767 by Andrew Sprowle, a British Loyalist (U.S. Navy Sea Systems Command 2017). This naval yard is situated near Portsmouth on the Elizabeth River and was an important driver of commerce in the region.

Ventures in the Dismal Swamp continued as the Adventurers for Draining the Dismal Swamp was reorganized into the Dismal Swamp Company. The Dismal Swamp Company constructed a 22.2-mile (35.6-km) canal from Deep Creek, Virginia to Joyce Creek in North Carolina, dug primarily by slave labor (Simpson 1990). This canal allowed ship traffic into and through the swamp and also provided timber and resources to the shipyards, in particular the Naval Shipyard. The canal was also an important organizing factor for road networks in the region. In 1805, a road that would later become U.S. Route 17 was constructed parallel to the canal. A stagecoach route along this road further facilitated the movement of goods in the region.

28

By the early nineteenth century, a community of free African-Americans was established at Seatack, in what is now the Beach District. Seatack is reported to be among the oldest African- American communities in Virginia, and possibly in the United States (City of Virginia Beach 2016).

In 1823 the Princess Anne County seat was moved for the fifth and final time to the village of Princess Anne Courthouse. The Princess Anne Courthouse was completed in January 1823, in anticipation of the county court session (Virginia Beach Historical Society 2001).

Antebellum Period and Civil War (1830–1865)

Life in the Virginia Beach area remained largely unchanged in the years leading up to the Civil War. Transportation networks grew with the population and settlements began to coalesce and more closely resemble towns and villages, but overall, the area in and around what is now the City of Virginia Beach remained largely rural, with a maritime economy continuing to thrive in coastal and estuarine areas. Life for Virginia Beach residents began to change at the outbreak of the Civil War. When Union forces surrendered Fort Sumter to the Confederates on April 14, 1861, the aging General Winfield Scott commanded the Federal Army. Scott, who had served in the War of 1812 and the Mexican War, formulated the strategy of blockading the Southern ports and slowly strangling the Confederacy known as the Anaconda Plan. On April 19, Lincoln ordered a blockade on all ports from the Rio Grande to southern North Carolina. The blockade was soon extended to North Carolina and Virginia.

In response, Confederate troops in Virginia lined the shores of the Potomac River with batteries, seized from existing fortifications throughout the south. Federal troops, however, remained in control of Fort Monroe, located on Point Comfort, throughout the war. Confederates constructed fortifications on nearby points to protect Southern warships and blockade runners. To disrupt the ongoing construction of fortifications at Sewell’s Point in Norfolk, the USS Monticello opened fire on the unfinished battery during the late afternoon of May 18, 1861, returning again in the evening. The naval battle proved inconclusive (Salmon 2001:67–68).

Federal sailors abandoned Norfolk on April 20, 1861, burning the buildings, wharves, and vessels at Gosport Navy Yard, the nation’s major shipyard. The hull and engines of the Merrimack, which was not completely consumed, were salvaged by the Confederates. Two- inch-thick (5.1 cm) plates cast at the Tredegar Iron Works clad the refurbished vessel, including a sharply pointed prow that served as a ram, and a casemate with sloping sides engineered to deflect shot capped the vessel. Re-named the Virginia when launched on February 17, 1862, the first ironclad of the war sported ten heavy guns. The U.S. Navy’s ironclad, the Monitor, had launched on January 30, 1862. On the morning of March 9th the Virginia sailed toward the Union fleet anchored at Fort Monroe. The Monitor prepared for battle. Shortly after 8 A.M., as the Virginia opened fire on the USS Minnesota, the Monitor moved into position near the Confederate ironclad, rotated its turret, and opened fire. Over the next four hours, the two ships circled each other, firing at close range and attempting to ram the other vessel, before both ships retired from the battle (Salmon 2001:72–76).

29

After the Confederate troops abandoned Hampton Roads in 1862, Union forces again seized control of Norfolk and Princess Anne County. Guerilla activity, however, remained intense. The guerillas demolished bridges to prevent supplies from reaching federal troops garrisoned in Norfolk and Princess Anne County. Federal garrisons were posted at various stations throughout the county, including Pungo Ferry, Kempsville, and Pleasure House Beach (White 1924). The war left Princess Anne County with no civil government, little infrastructure or money, and farms and land in disrepair (Mansfield 1989).

Reconstruction (1870–1916)

While Virginia bore the brunt of the war, the center of the conflict after 1862 had moved west, leaving the Tidewater landscape comparatively intact. Nevertheless, roads were damaged, hindering transportation of Princess Anne County’s crops to the port of Norfolk. Many freedmen remained agricultural laborers after the war, some migrating to the war-devastated lands of the piedmont where opportunities for ownership of small farms existed. Skilled blacksmiths and other craftsmen often migrated to cities where better-paying jobs were available. Many whites also moved west or sought factory work in cities. Others found work with the federal government that controlled Princess Anne County through 1870 (Heinemann et al. 2007:242; Mansfield 1989). Several African-American communities, consisting largely of former slaves, were also established during this period, including Beechwood, Burton Station, Doyletown, Gracetown, great Neck, and Lake Smith (Hawkins-Hendrix and Lucas 2017).

Proximity to the port of Norfolk provided ready access to the markets of the cities surrounding the Chesapeake Bay, as well as farther-flung commerce. Truck farming proved important to the regions renewal. Local farmers grew roughly half of the potatoes and other vegetables and fruits consumed in the cities of the East Coast (Heinemann et al. 2007:283). Completion of the region’s first successful post-bellum railroad line in 1883, coupled with opening of the Virginia Beach Hotel in 1884 and the establishment of the forerunner of Camp Pendleton, the State Rifle Range, presaged the shift to an economy based on shipping, tourism, and the military and associated industries that occurred during the twentieth century (Mansfield 1989).

Expectations for the region rose upon Norfolk’s selection as the site of 1907 Jamestown Tercentennial Exposition. The exposition, backed by federal, state, and local governments, was to mark a new era of progress and prosperity for Virginia. The inadequately financed facility, however, attracted far fewer visitors than hoped (Heinemann et al. 2007:283). Nevertheless, development continued, spurred by the wars of the twentieth century.

World War I to World War II (1917–1945)

Men connected with the 1907 Jamestown Tercentennial Exposition, as well as many naval officers, believed the exposition site was ideal for a naval base, though congress rejected the idea in 1908. When the United States entered the World War I, however, a bill to purchase the 474-acre (191.8-ha) plot passed both houses of Congress; President Woodrow Wilson signed the bill on June 15, 1917. During World War II the base expanded further through the addition

30

of made-land near Craney Island, and numerous other military bases were constructed in Hampton Roads (Wertenbaker and Schelegel 1962:344–361).

Construction began on a highway linking Norfolk to Virginia Beach in 1916, but ceased with the onset of war. The highway, completed in 1921, led to further expansion of the tourist industry in Virginia Beach during the 1920s. The construction of a new concrete boardwalk in 1926 and the Cavalier Hotel in 1927 attest to Virginia Beach’s increasing popularity as a tourist and vacation destination (City of Virginia Beach 2016). The depression of the 1930s, however, slowed construction, leaving Princess Anne County primarily rural throughout the decade (Mansfield 1989).

Drought during the depression compounded the drop in demand for agricultural products that followed the war’s end, leading to falling prices and a depressed agricultural economy. New Deal programs, notably the Civilian Conservation Corps mosquito-eradication program and the 1936 creation of Seashore State Park provided some work (Mansfield 1989).

Renewed warfare in Europe led to population growth in Norfolk and Portsmouth, particularly after the U. S. entered the conflict. The military acquired new tracts of land throughout the region, and numerous bases were constructed. Soldiers and civilian workers came to the region, many of whom stayed after the end of the war. Greater population density, combined with the prosperity during 1950s and 1960s and the post-war expansion of the national highway system spurred considerable growth in Virginia Beach. Virginia Beach became an independent city in 1963, and so annexed the rest of Princess Anne County (Heinemann et al. 1962:344–361; Mansfield 1989).

The Military in Virginia Beach

Virginia Beach’s proximity to Washington D.C., central location along the east coast of the United States, and access to natural harbors leading to the Atlantic Ocean and Chesapeake Bay make it an ideal location for military installations. The first military installation in the Virginia Beach area actually predates the United States. In 1767, the Gosport Shipyard was established in nearby Portsmouth and served both merchant and military needs. The Commonwealth of Virginia took over control of the shipyard in 1775, when its Loyalist owner, Andrew Sprowle, fled the Colonies for England. The shipyard was burned by the British in 1779, but was soon rebuilt and, in 1794, was leased from Virginia by the Federal government. By 1799, the shipyard was constructing ships for the U.S. Navy. In 1861, during the Civil War, the shipyard was again burned, but was soon rebuilt and renamed the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. It continues to operate today and is the largest shipyard on the east coast (U.S. Navy Sea Systems Command 2017).

Construction of the Virginia State Rifle Range, today known as the Camp Pendleton State Military reservation, began in 1912. Additional major construction episodes in 1919 and during World War II led to the development of the base in its current configuration. Today, the facility is used for training, primarily by the Virginia National Guard (United States Department of the Interior 2005).

31

In 1913, President William Howard Taft authorized the purchase of land at Cape Henry for the establishment of the U.S. Army installation to be known as Fort Story. During World War I, the fort was the most heavily armed position along the Atlantic Coast of North America. Additional lands were obtained until Fort Story attained its current size around 1940. The base continues to be used, primarily as a training site (Taylor 2006). Not far offshore of Fort Story, the U.S. military conducted training exercises off the Virginia capes in 1921, when several former German ships were bombed by U.S. aircraft (Naval History and Heritage Command 2015).

In 1940, the U.S. Navy began construction on what would become Naval Air Station Oceana, and by the end of the following year, three runways were in use, with two more under construction (U.S. Navy 2015). BY 1950, four runways were extended to 8,000 feet (2438.4 m) in length, and the facility became a Master Jet Base. In 1952, it became a Naval Air Station and was officially dedicated as NAS Oceana in 1957 (Taylor 2006). Today, NAS Oceana is a very active base, housing training facilities, F/A-18 Hornet squadrons, and a Fleet Support Logistics Squadron. It is the largest employer in the City of Virginia Beach (U.S. Navy 2015).

In 1941, the Navy established and anti-aircraft gunnery range at Dam Neck. The facility was greatly expanded in the 1950s, and the Fleet Anti-Air Warfare Training Center was established there in 1960. It continues to operate primarily as a training center for electronic warfare as the NAS Oceana Dam Neck Annex (U.S. Navy 2015).

Also in 1941, the Navy acquired land along Little Creek Cove for an Amphibious Training Base, which was officially commissioned in 1942. A Naval Section Base was also developed at Little Creek at the same time, and in 1942, A Construction Battalion Training Center was established there. The following year, the Naval Armed Guard Training Center was established to train gun crews for merchant vessels. The base was used for the remainder of the twentieth century and, in 2009, became part of Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, still heavily focused on amphibious operation training and support (U.S. Navy 2015).

32

BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Background research included a review of historic documents and maps, a search of regional literature, an evaluation of DHR site file maps and records, and an examination of data drawn from systematic surveys previously conducted in Virginia Beach. Examination of these data generated expectations about the probable location of archaeological resources within the northern portion of Virginia Beach.

A total of 315 previously identified sites are located in the study area. These sites represent 537 temporal components, ranging from the Paleoindian period to the twentieth century, as summarized in Table 3. Full site data is presented in the Appendix. Thirty-five of the sites contain both historic and prehistoric components. At least 27 different site types are represented, although site type data is absent for 87 of the sites (Table 4, p. 34). Seven of the sites in the study area have been evaluated by the DHR as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), 34 as potentially eligible, and 90 as not eligible, with the remaining 184 sites not having been evaluated for eligibility. None of the sites in the study area are currently listed in the NRHP.

Table 3: Summary of Temporal Components Represented in Previously Recorded Sites in Study Area. Time Period Number of Components Prehistoric (unknown period) 30 Paleoindian 5 Archaic (unknown sub-period) 7 Early Archaic 5 Middle Archaic 12 Late Archaic 10 Woodland (unknown sub-period) 32 Early Woodland 11 Middle Woodland 17 Late Woodland 9 Contact period 3 17th century 7 18th century 52 19th century 182 20th century 113 Historic (unknown period) 7 Sites containing both historic and prehistoric components 35 (any period/sub-period)

33

Table 4: Summary of Site Types Represented by Components in Previously Recorded Sites in Study Area. Site Type Number of Components Artifact scatter 8 Base camp 5 Boundary ditch 2 Camp 44 Canal 3 Cemetery 15 Church 2 Courthouse 1 Drainage ditch 1 Dwelling, multiple 1 Dwelling, single 51 Earthworks 1 Farmstead 30 General Store 1 Grave/burial 1 Hamlet 1 Lithic scatter 6 Military base/facility 12 Outbuilding 3 Railroad 2 Shell midden 8 Shipwreck 1 Trash pit 4 Trash scatter 50 Village/town 3 Well 1 Other 15 No data 87

34

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

The goals of the survey were to identify any previously recorded archaeological sites within the study area, assess their current conditions, and locate areas within in the study area with the potential to contain unrecorded archaeological sites. The survey methodology employed to meet these goals was chosen with regard to the study’s scope and local field conditions. Based on the topographic and environmental setting of the study area, as well as the antiquity of the surrounding road system and length of historic occupation, it was judged to have high potential for archaeological sites over 50 years in age, although many potential site locations have been significantly disturbed by twentieth-century and later development.

Archival Research/Map Review

To complete the historic map review, Dovetail examined records at several repositories in the Virginia Beach area and on the World Wide Web. Agencies and repositories that were visited during the work included the Virginiana Room at the Rappahannock Regional Library in Fredericksburg and the Virginia Beach Public Library. Because a plethora of archival documents are now available on-line, extensive travel was not required to complete much of the research. Online resources included the Library of Congress in Washington D.C., the Library of Virginia in Richmond, the DHR, and several other historical research web pages. This map review was primarily used in the creation of a predictive model for the locations of historic period archaeological sites in the study area.

Archaeological Survey

To facilitate organization of the survey and resulting data, the study area was divided into 13 survey areas (Figure 3, p. 36). These survey areas, lettered A–M, were generally bounded by major roads throughout the study area.

The fieldwork consisted of two Dovetail archaeologists conducting a “windshield survey” to inspect previously recorded archaeological sites and potential locations of as-yet unrecorded sites. Only sites visible from the right-of-way (ROW) of surface streets were surveyed. Excluded from the survey were sites having site forms completed or updated within the last five years, as indicated by consultation with DHR. Once the fieldwork was accomplished, Dovetail archaeologists used the data collected during the survey to determine existing conditions for each surveyed site and to assess the potential for various portions of the study area to contain intact archaeological deposits related to both previously recorded sites and as- yet undiscovered sites.

35

Figure 3: Locations of Survey Areas within Overall Study Area (Esri 2018).

36

Predictive Model

The background review for the archaeological predictive model consisted of searching the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) site and survey file records, as well as examining historic maps of the area to assess the potential of the study area to contain significant cultural resources. This research included an investigation of records on previous cultural resource investigations and previously recorded archaeological sites within all subwatersheds in a 10-mile (16-km) radius of the study area within Virginia. This was done to understand the previously recorded cultural context of the study area, specifically in relation to environmental variables including soils, distance to water, and more. This research was completed to aid in the creation of an archaeological predictive model for the study area.

Although the work did not include in-depth historical research on all of the parcels within the study area, a historic map review provided information on historic land use and area occupation prior to 1907. Maps from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were consulted. This information provided data on the potential for unrecorded historic resources in the study area.

Data obtained during the background review, historic map review, available environmental data, and field survey was then used to craft the predictive model. The archaeological predictive model maps were developed based on this model to note areas of high, moderate, and low potential to contain sites. A description of the variables and ensuing results can be found in the results section below.

37

This page intentionally left blank

38

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

Predictive Model

The background review and field results were used to generate a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based model to predict the probability for intact archaeological deposits within the study area. Probability ranking for the survey areas was generated utilizing variables deduced from the existing prehistoric site data within all subwatersheds in a 10-mile (16-km) radius of the study area within Virginia. This area is defined as the model area for this analysis. Primarily using data derived by Potter (1993; also see Klein et al. 2012), only two variables were found to have a high correlation with prehistoric archaeological sites; soil class (Table 5) and distance to water (Table 6, p. 40). Due to the common factors in human occupational choices of an area, the factors influencing prehistoric peoples often mimic early historic settlement patterns. These two variables were ultimately utilized; however, several other variables were also analyzed for their significance in relation to known prehistoric archaeological site locations within the proposed model area. These additional variables reviewed included elevation, aspect, and slope. These additional variables did not appear to demonstrate a notable impact on site identification within the proposed model area due to a lack of variability and were not used in the model. The two variables utilized for generating the probability ranking were overlain on each other utilizing a frequency scale in order to generate a combined Gain value (Kvamme 1988). These combined gain values were further used to generate a probability scale of high, moderate, and low for the location of prehistoric archaeological sites within the proposed model area.

Table 5: Comparison of the Site Area and Model Area by Soil Class. Model Site Study Percentage Gain Soil Class Area Area Area of Study Value (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) Area 1 16,178.3 423.0 6,642.3 7 5.71 2 43,733.8 673.3 11,574.3 12 3.36 3 89,014.2 262.9 43,656.0 47 0.64 4 130,694.5 402.2 13.5 0 0.67 6 4,186.6 51.8 2,250.6 2 2.70 7 45,178.6 14.2 7,481.8 8 0.07 8 39,536.4 59.7 2,946.3 3 0.33 Null 83,950.5 186.3 19,192.4 20 0.48 Total 452,472.9 2,073.4 93,757.2 100 -

Soil class association appeared to have the greatest weight toward identifying prehistoric sites. Soil classes, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), range from 1 to 8 and generally indicate the degree of fertility and suitability for planting crops/vegetation growth and/or development. Class 1 indicates the best suitability and class 8 has the least favorable characteristics. Null class values are generally associated

39

with water or other non-soil areas. Class 1, 2, and 6 soils show the highest gain values associated with known site locations. Soil classes 1 and 2 are generally associated with well drained sandy soils well suited for farming and generally account for 14 percent of all soils in the model area but represent a combined 52 percent of all site area. Class 6 soils appear to only be found along shorelines and are usually susceptible to erosion and seasonal flooding, but generally occur in close proximity to Class 1 and 2 soils. This may account for the higher than normal percentage of sites found in this soil class.

Table 6: Comparison of the Site Area and Model Area by Distance to Water. Distance to Model Site Study Percentage Gain Water Area Area Area of Study Value (Meters) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) Area 0 - 333 138,731.5 828.1 38,988.8 41 1.31 334 - 649 83,652.8 680.1 24,517.6 26 1.78 650 - 1,052 96,512.8 380.7 17,724.1 19 0.86 1,053 - 1,703 67,931.6 82.9 9,554.7 10 0.27 >1,704 66,620.4 101.6 3,682.2 4 0.33 Total 453,449.1 2,073.4 94,467.4 100 -

The distance to water variable appeared to have the second highest weight towards identifying prehistoric sites. Over the study area, 40 percent of prehistoric site area was identified within 1,092 feet (333 m) of water and a 2,129-foot (649-m) distance captured 73 percent of the site area. Distances beyond 2,129 feet (649 m) and up to 29,363 feet (8,950 m) captured the remaining site area. These distances were identified with a subset of high, moderate, and low ranking within this variable.

The historic probability model was generated based on the locations of historic structures noted on maps dating prior to 1907 and locations of historic archaeological sites. Historic research has shown a large majority of historic archaeological sites as well as known historic structures lie within close proximity of historic roadways (Anderson and Smith 2003; Wehner and Holmberg 2003). These historic roads were mapped and given a 500-foot (152-m) buffer classifying these areas as high probability for historic sites. Additionally, all structures noted on maps dating prior to 1907 were given a 200-foot (61-m) buffer classifying this area as high probability for historic sites. Because these data are based on known locations of buildings and building practices, no areas were classified as moderate probability for the Historic model. All remaining area was classified as low probability for containing historic archaeological sites.

In sum, the prehistoric predictive model variables identified 20,151 acres (8,155 ha) as high probability, with 25,348 acres (10,258 ha) as moderate, and 48,969 acres (19,817 ha) as low (Table 7, p. 41). The portions of the study area with the highest probability for prehistoric sites are located along the uplands surrounding Lynnhaven Bay and Broad Bay, as well as the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River (Figure 4, p. 42). These areas contain the highest concentrations of soil Class 1 and 2 as well as having close proximity to multiple water sources. Further study shows the four Paleoindian sites in the study area to be located in soil Classes 1, 2, and 3 and within 3,451 feet (1,052 m) of current water sources. Archaic period sites are

40

predominantly found in soil Classes 1, 2, 3, and 4 within 3,451 feet (1,052 m) of current water sources. Combined Woodland period sites encompass 35 percent of all prehistoric site acreage in the study area and are found primarily in soil Class 1 and 2 within 2,129 feet (649 m) of current water sources. The historic predictive model focuses around the oldest roads in the northern portion of Virginia Beach as well as several farms and plantations located at the backs of long drives further from main roadways (Figure 5, p. 43).

Table 7: Proportion of Prehistoric High, Moderate, and Low Probability Areas within the Study Area. Probability High Moderate Low Total Acreage 20,151 25,348 48,969 94,468 Percentage 21 27 52 100

Archaeological Survey

The Dovetail survey included a vehicular survey of previously recorded archaeological sites in the Virginia Beach study area as well as of specific locations where the background review indicated possible sites or areas having a high probability for containing archaeological sites.

Survey Results

The archaeological survey consisted of a vehicular reconnaissance of previously recorded archaeological sites in the study area and other areas of interest identified during a background review. While the survey did not involve 100 percent coverage of the land encompassed by the study area, it included examination of large enough portions of the area to ascertain the habitability of landscapes encompassed by the study area and their current conditions, and therefore the probability that those landscapes could contain intact archaeological deposits. In order to facilitate discussion, the study area was divided into 13 Survey Areas, lettered A– M (see Figure 3, p. 36). The breaks between these sections are located along landmarks such as major roads where possible. At the request of United States Armed Forces personnel, mapping is not shown for sites located on military bases. However, those sites are included in the total site counts presented in the discussion.

Area A

Area A is located in the northwestern portion of the study area (see Figure 3, p. 36). It is bounded to the north by the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, to the west by the Virginia Beach city limits, to the south by I-264, and to the east by Independence Boulevard and U.S. 13. (Figure 6, p. 44) Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek is located in the northwestern portion of Area A.

41

Figure 4: Results of Predictive Modeling for Prehistoric Site Location (Esri 2018).

42

Figure 5: Results of Predictive Modeling for Historic Site Location (Esri 2018).

43

Figure 6: Area A, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018). Archaeological site locations have been redacted.

44

In addition to the military base in the northern part of Area A, the northeastern part of the area is largely commercial and industrial, and the southern portion contains a great deal of commercial development along Route 58. The remainder of the area is primarily residential, with most of the houses dating to the late-twentieth century (Photo 1). Newer housing developments are also present and continue to be built on undeveloped tracts.

Photo Redacted

Photo 1: Site 44VB0358 in Area A, Facing Northeast and Showing Typical Neighborhood in Area A.

Eight archaeological sites are mapped within Area A and a portion of the Kempsville Canal (44VB0060) also passes through the area. Prior to development, much of the area had a high potential for containing both historic and prehistoric sites. Although undisturbed portions of large sites may exist among the development- for example, in the yards of homes- much of the archaeological record of Area A is likely destroyed. However, site 44VB0002 appears to be intact, as does site 44VB0067, although pin flags at the latter site at the time of the survey suggest imminent construction.

Area B

Area B is located in the northern portion of the study area (see Figure 3, p. 36). It is bounded to the north by the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, to the west by Independence Boulevard and U.S. 13, to the south by I-264, and to the east by Little Neck Road, the northern part of West Little Neck Road, and a line drawn from the northern terminus of West Little Neck Road to the center of Lynnhaven Inlet (Figure 7, p. 46). The Western Branch of the Lynnhaven River occupies much of Area B.

45

Figure 7: Area B, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018). Archaeological site locations have been redacted.

46

With the exception of the commercial development along Route 58 in the southern portion of the area, Area B is almost entirely residential. As is the case with Area A, newer housing developments continue to be built on undeveloped tracts. However, unlike Area A, where most of the housing developments are fairly dense, relatively large yards are present in many neighborhoods. As a result, minimal grading may have taken place during construction of these homes except for in the immediate area of the buildings’ footprints, leaving some portions of large archaeological sites potentially undisturbed.

Thirty-two archaeological sites are mapped within Area B, and a portion of the Kempsville Canal (44VB0060) also passes through the area. Due in large part to the access to waterways such as the Western Branch of the Lynnhaven River and its tributaries, and the resources available in and near them, most of Area B had a high potential for containing both historic and prehistoric sites prior to development. Although undisturbed portions of large sites may exist in the yards of homes, much of the archaeological record of Area B is likely destroyed. However, testing at the Chesopean Site (44VB0048) in 2005 (Luccketti et al. 2006) showed that large portions of the site are intact and that subsurface disturbance related to residential construction was limited primarily to house footprints (Photo 2). The naturally level topography of Virginia Beach lends itself to construction with minimal grading necessary outside of building footprints, utility installation trenches, and drainage features. Significant portions of sites like 44VB0048 which are located in the yards of houses are likely preserved in many of the older neighborhoods in which houses tended to be built one at a time rather than as large development projects involving wholesale grading of areas.

Photo Redacted

Photo 2: Site 44VB0048 (Chesopean Site) in Area B, Facing Southwest and Showing Large Yard Typical of the Neighborhood. Much of Site Survives in Rear Yards of This and Neighboring Houses.

47

Area C

Area C is located in the northern portion of the study area (see Figure 3, p. 36). It is bounded to the north by the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, to the west by the eastern boundary of Area B, to the south by I-264, and to the east by Great Neck Road. The Eastern Branch of the Lynnhaven River occupies much of Area C (Figure 8, p. 49).

Area C is largely residential and is mostly similar in character to Areas A and B (Photo 3, p. 50), but with several resorts and hotels located in the far northern portion of the area along the Chesapeake shore. Commercial development is present in association with this tourist-focused area, as well as in the southern portion of the area along Route 58. Many of the homes in Area C feature large yards where minimal grading likely took place during construction. As a result, intact archaeological deposits are likely present even in the residential neighborhoods.

A total of 22 archaeological sites are recorded within Area C, with one additional site (44VB0009) spanning across both Areas C and D. The Eastern Branch of the Lynnhaven River, which flows through Area C, and resources associated with it, result in most of Area C having had a high potential for containing both historic and prehistoric sites prior to development. As is the case in Area B, much of the archaeological record in Area C has likely been destroyed by development. However, as in Area B, many of the homes located in Area C have large yards which have likely not been subjected to extensive grading. Thus, portions of many sites may be preserved.

This field is modeled as having a high probability for containing archaeological sites and, being undeveloped, has presumably been minimally disturbed except for plowing.

Area D

Area D is located in the northeastern portion of the study area (see Figure 3, p. 36). It is bounded to the north by the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, to the west by Great Neck Road, to the south by I-264, and to the east by the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 9, p. 51). Little Neck Creek joins Linkhorn Bay in the southern portion of Area D, and these waters flow through The Narrows to form Broad Bay in the northern part of the area. Fort Story is also located in the northern part of Area D.

The western portion of Area D is largely residential and is similar in character to Areas A and B (Photo 5, p. 52). The northeastern most portion of the area is occupied by Fort Story, with Seashore State Park, a natural area with extensive wetlands, lying just to the south of it (Photo 6, p. 52). South and west of that lies Broad Bay and the streams feeding it. The eastern portion of Area D is primarily residential in the northern part of the area along the Atlantic coast, but transitions around 42nd Street to being dominated by hotels, resorts, and associated commercial development.

48

Figure 8: Area C, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites and Area Which May Contain Undiscovered Sites (Esri 2018). Archaeological site locations have been redacted.

49

Photo Redacted

Photo 3: Site 44VB0241, Showing Typical Neighborhood in Area C.

Photo Redacted

Photo 4: Field Southwest of Intersection of North Great Neck Road and Adam Keeling Road in Area C Which May Contain Undiscovered Archaeological Sites, Facing South from Adam Keeling Road.

50

Figure 9: Area D, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018). Archaeological site locations have been redacted.

51

Photo Redacted

Photo 5: Site 44VB0055, Facing Northeast and Showing Typical Neighborhood in Area D.

Photo Redacted

Photo 6: Facing North across Edge of Broad Bay in Area D toward Locations of Sites 44VB0359, 44VB0347, and 44VB0011.

52

Forty-six archaeological sites are located in Area D, as well as the site that spans across both Areas C and D (44VB0009). The presence of large waterways such as Broad Bay and its tributaries made Area D a resource-rich environment with a high probability for containing sites, particularly those dating to the prehistoric period. The extensive wetlands in Seashore State Park, while not necessarily suitable for habitation, would also have provided a trove of resources for the area’s early inhabitants. The central and southern portions of Area D, though primarily residential, contain houses with relatively large yards where some archaeological deposits may remain intact. A golf course in this area may also contain intact deposits where grading capped original surfaces rather than removing material. The southeastern portion of Area D, where tourist-industry development thrives, has likely had most of its archaeological sites destroyed. This is also likely true of the southern portion of the area along I-264 and Route 58 (Laskin Road), and the western portion of the area along First Colonial Road and Great Neck Road.

Area E

Area E is located in the southwestern portion of the study area (see Figure 3, p. 36). It is bounded to the north by I-264, to the west by the Virginia Beach city limits, and to the east by Kempsville Road (Figure 10, p. 54). The Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River flows through the northern portion of Area E. With the exception of commercial and industrial areas along U.S. 13, Indian River Road, and Kempsville Road, Area E is primarily residential (Photo 7, p. 55). Residential neighborhoods in the area are fairly dense and most houses have relatively small yards. Much of the original landscape of Area D has likely been disturbed by construction, mainly in the latter part of the twentieth century. Twelve archaeological sites are recorded in Area E, and one additional site– 44VB0305, the Deep Branch Ditch (Photo 8, p. 55)– crosses into Area F as well. Area E also contains a portion of site 44VB0060, the Kempsville Canal. The northern part of Area E, along the Elizabeth River and its tributaries, has a high potential for prehistoric and historic sites, while other portions of the area have only a moderate to low potential for containing prehistoric sites, mainly due to distance from water sources. Because of the relatively dense nature of both residential and commercial development, much of the archaeological record of Area E has likely been disturbed or destroyed. Site 44VB0283, located in the northern part of the area along the Elizabeth River, was inspected via pedestrian reconnaissance following coordination with Virginia Beach Historic Preservation Planner, Mark Reed, who arranged access. The site was reported to contain the remains of a brick clamp or, perhaps more likely, a series of brick clamps. The pedestrian survey identified numerous brick fragments on the surface and eroding out into the banks of the river (Photo 9, p. 56). Several of the fragments appeared to be over-fired or under-fired, suggesting a brick manufacture location. As the site appears relatively undisturbed, subsurface deposits, including archaeological features, are likely to be present.

53

Figure 10: Area E, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018). Archaeological site locations have been redacted.

54

Photo Redacted

Photo 7: Site 44VB0044, Facing Southwest and Showing Typical Neighborhood in Area E.

Photo Redacted

Photo 8: Site 44VB0305 (Deep Branch Ditch) in Area E, Facing Southeast.

55

Photo Redacted

Photo 9: Brick Clamp Area within Site 44VB0283 in Area E, Facing North.

Area F

Area F lies to the east of Area E (see Figure 3, p. 36) and is bounded to the north by I-264, to the west by Kempsville Road, to the south by Indian River Road and Lynnhaven Parkway, and to the east by South Rosemont Road (Figure 11, p. 57).

Area F is heavily developed, having virtually no green space except for that found in a golf course in the northwestern portion of the area. Most of Area F is dense residential neighborhoods (Photo 10, p. 58), with some areas of commercial and industrial development.

Only four sites are recorded in Area F, as well as one site that passes through both Areas E and F (44VB0305, the Deep Branch Ditch). Area F also contains a portion of site 44VB0060, the Kempsville Canal. A cemetery in the area (44VB0036) seems to be intact, and Deep Branch ditch is largely intact. The other sites in Area F have been partially or totally destroyed, although portions of 44VB0046 may remain intact in areas of the golf course where landscape modifications have resulted in deposits being capped rather than removed. Undiscovered sites in Area F are likely mostly destroyed or heavily disturbed by development, although most of the area is modeled as having only a low to moderate probability of containing archaeological sites. Any sites in that area have likely been at least somewhat disturbed by residential development, although many of the homes in the high-probability zone feature large yards that may contain undisturbed deposits.

56

Figure 11: Area F, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites and Location of Bellamy Manor House Site (Esri 2018). Archaeological site locations have been redacted.

57

Photo Redacted

Photo 10: Site 44VB0046 in Area F, Facing South.

Area G

Area G lies to the east of Area F (see Figure 3, p. 36) and is bounded to the north by I-264, to the west by South Rosemont Road, to the south by Dam Neck Road, and to the east by London Bridge Road (Figure 12, p. 60). The majority of Area G is drained by London Bridge Creek, a tributary to the Eastern Branch of the Lynnhaven River, although West Neck Creek drains the southern portion of the area.

The western portion of Area G is primarily residential and, like Area F, most neighborhoods are rather dense, with small yards. The eastern part of Area G is mostly commercial and industrial, with a mall and other retail shopping centers and business parks located along Lynnhaven Parkway, and a large industrial area located north of International Parkway and west of London Bridge Road. Some forested areas remain along London Bridge Road and Dam Neck Road in the southern and eastern portions of Area G.

58

Photo Redacted

Photo 11: Bellamy Manor House Site in Area F, Facing Northeast.

Only three archaeological sites are recorded in Area G. Of these, two (44VB0350 and 44VB0352) appear to have been destroyed by road construction (Photo 12, p. 61). The third, a boundary ditch (44VB0238) appears to be intact. Most of the area is considered to have only a low to moderate probability for containing archaeological sites.

Unrecorded sites which may have once existed in Area G are likely mostly or totally destroyed by development, particularly in the eastern portion of the area. However, some intact sites may exist in the wooded areas along London Bridge Road and Dam Neck Road, although these are modeled as low-probability areas.

Area H

Area H lies to the east of Area G (see Figure 3, p. 36) and is bounded to the north by I-264, to the west by London Bridge Road, to the south by Dam Neck Road, and to the east by Oceana Boulevard (Figure 13, p. 62). Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana occupies most of Area H.

Much of NAS Oceana is taken up by the air station’s four runways and the open fields lying at each end of the runways. Most of the buildings at the facility are clustered near the center of the base. The remainder of the air station is taken up mostly by open fields (Photo 13, p. 63), forested areas (Photo 14, p. 63), and a golf course. Residential neighborhoods and an industrial area lie north of NAS Oceana in Area H, and another industrial area lies outside of the air station property in the southwest portion of Area H.

59

Figure 12: Area G, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018). Archaeological site locations have been redacted.

60

Photo Redacted

Photo 12: Site 44VB0352 in Area G, Facing South.

Sixty-three recorded sites are located in Area H and one additional site straddles the border between Areas H and I. Many of the sites within the military base could not be evaluated directly during the survey because of access issues; however, the general locations of many of these sites could be observed from the roads around the base perimeter. The majority of Area H has a low to moderate probability for containing archaeological sites, although a strip of high-probability area is located along Oceana Boulevard on the eastern edge of the area. Many of the previously recorded sites in Area H are likely mostly intact due to their location in wooded areas or open fields that have been subjected to minimal disturbance. Due to the naturally level nature of the landscape in Virginia Beach, unrecorded sites which may be located beneath the airstrips at NAS Oceana may contain intact deposits due to minimal grading being necessary during construction.

Area I

Area I is located in the eastern portion of the study area (see Figure 3, p. 36). It is bounded to the north by I-264, to the west by Oceana Boulevard, to the south by Dam Neck Road, and to the east by the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 14, p. 64). The NAS Oceana Dam Neck Annex and Camp Pendleton State Military Reservation are located in Area I.

61

Figure 13: Area H, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018). Archaeological site locations have been redacted.

62

Photo 13: Typical Field in Area H, Facing Southwest.

Photo 14: Typical Forested Portion of Area H, Facing South.

63

Figure 14: Area I, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018). Archaeological site locations have been redacted.

64

Current land use varies within Area I. The northern portion of the area is mostly residential, with many of the homes in the northwest part of the area having relatively large yards. Residential housing becomes denser moving to the east, with commercial areas located along I-264. The western portion of the area contains wooded tracts and a few agricultural fields (Photo 15). The eastern part of the area, along the Atlantic Ocean, is characterized by hotels, resorts, restaurants, and other commercial and tourism-centered development north of Rudee Inlet, and residential neighborhoods south of Rudee Inlet. The NAS Oceana Dam Neck Annex and Camp Pendleton State Military Reservation are located in the central and southern portions of Area I. High-density residential neighborhoods, some of them military base housing, are scattered through the central and southern portions of Area I, but much of the area is undeveloped and wooded with the exception of a golf course north of Redwing Lake.

Photo Redacted

Photo 15: Site 44VB0227, Facing Northeast and Showing Typical Field and Forest in Western Portion of Area I.

A total of 32 previously recorded sites are located entirely within Area I, as well as one site (44VB0180) which lies partially in Area H. Many of the sites in Area I could not be surveyed directly due to access issues related to the military bases. Much of Area I is modeled as having only a low to moderate probability for containing archaeological sites; however, the network of streams feeding Lake Rudee and other bodies of water near the coast creates significant high-probability areas as well. Many of the sites which could be directly surveyed or indirectly assessed through aerial imagery are likely to be largely intact due to locations in fields, forested areas, or undeveloped portions of the military base. Although previously unrecorded sites in the northern and eastern portions of Area I are probably heavily disturbed or destroyed, there is potential for intact deposits throughout much of the central and southern parts of Area I.

Area J

Area J is located in the southwestern portion of the study area (see Figure 3, p. 36). It is bounded to the north by Indian River Road and Lynnhaven Parkway, to the west by Kempsville Road, to the south by the Virginia Beach city limits, and to the east by Elbow Road and Salem Road (Figure 15, p. 66).

65

Figure 15: Area J, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018). Archaeological site locations have been redacted.

66

The western and eastern portions of Area J are characterized by fairly dense residential neighborhoods, with four large school campuses and a golf course being present in the eastern portion. Most houses in the area feature relatively small yards where any subsurface deposits have likely been heavily impacted by construction. Stumpy Lake is located in the central part of the area, and is bordered to the north and west by Stumpy Lake Park and Golf Course. The park is primarily wooded and reflects a largely natural landscape.

Only one archaeological site is recorded in Area J. Site 44VB0288 is an archaic camp likely completely destroyed by high-density residential development (Photo 16). The lack of other recorded sites in the area is probably largely a function of lack of survey in this part of the City. Area J is modeled as being mostly low to moderate probability for containing archaeological sites, although small pockets of high-probability area exist, primarily along the margins of Stumpy Lake and along Kempsville Road. As-yet undiscovered sites are likely to be located in Stumpy Lake Park, where they may be mostly intact. Portions of the two golf courses in Area J that have been relatively unmodified or filled rather than cut may also contain intact deposits.

Photo Redacted

Photo 16: Site 44VB0288 in Area J, Facing South.

Area K

Area K is located in the southern portion of the study area (Figure 3, p. 36). It is bounded to the north by Lynnhaven Parkway, South Rosemont Road, and Dam neck Road, to the west by Elbow Road and Salem Road, to the south by the Virginia Beach city limits and North Landing Road, and to the east by Holland Road (Figure 16, p. 68). The North Landing River flows through Area K. A diverse range of land use is found within Area K. Much of the northern portion of the area is characterized by dense residential neighborhoods (Photo 17, p. 69). Commercial areas, a hospital complex, and the campus of Tidewater Community College are also located in the northern part of the area. An amphitheater, athletic complex, and golf course are located near the central portion of the area, while the southern part of the area remains semi-rural in character with large wooded areas as well as agricultural fields (Photo 18, p. 69).

67

Figure 16: Area K, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018). Archaeological site locations have been redacted.

68

A total of 54 previously recorded archaeological sites are located in Area K. Most of Area K is considered to have only a low to moderate probability for containing archaeological sites, largely as a result of distance from streams and poorly-drained soils. Most of the sites that are recorded in the area date to the historic period, when these obstacles to settlement could be overcome. Unrecorded sites may exist in a relatively undisturbed state in the undeveloped southern portion of the area, but sites dating to the historic period are more likely to occur in this area than prehistoric sites.

Photo Redacted

Photo 17: Site 44VB0172, Facing South and Showing Typical Neighborhood in Area K.

Photo Redacted

Photo 18: Site 44VB0290, Facing Northwest and Showing Typical Wooded Area in Area K.

69

Area L

Area L is located in the southern portion of the study area (see Figure 3, p. 36). It is bounded to the north by Dam Neck Road, to the west by Holland Road, to the south by Princess Anne Road, and to the east by General Booth Boulevard (Figure 17, p. 71). West Neck Creek flows through Area L.

The central portion of Area L and its western edge are mostly characterized by planned neighborhoods with relatively dense housing and small yards. The eastern portion of the area contains residential neighborhoods and commercial areas (Photo 19 and Photo 20, p. 72). Agricultural fields are present in the northeast portion of the area. Much of the western part of Area L comprises wetlands and poorly-drained areas along the margins of West Neck Creek and one of its tributaries.

Only six archaeological sites are located in Area L, likely a result of lack of survey in this part of the City. However, the low site density is not unexpected, as the area’s poor drainage results in most of it being modeled as having a low probability for containing archaeological sites.

Area M

Area M is located in the southeastern portion of the study area (see Figure 3, p. 36). It is bounded to the north by Dam Neck Road, to the west by General Booth Boulevard, to the south by a line extending due east from near the intersection of General Booth Boulevard and Princess Anne Road, and to the east by the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 18, p. 73).

The western portion of Area M is characterized by fairly dense residential neighborhoods with small yards (Photo 21, p. 74). The south-central portion of the area contains a school campus, industrial complex, and agricultural fields (Photo 22, p. 74; Photo 23, p. 75). The eastern part of the area contains a portion of the NAS Oceana Dam Neck Annex, the northern part of Lake Tecumseh, a wooded area characterized by poorly drained, swampy and wetland conditions, and an undeveloped area of Atlantic shoreline.

Twenty-eight previously recorded archaeological sites are located in Area M. Most of Area K is considered to have only a low probability for containing archaeological sites, largely as a result of distance from streams and poorly-drained soils. All but three of the sites that are recorded in the area date to the historic period, when these obstacles to settlement could be overcome, and even those three sites contain only minor prehistoric components on other wise historic-period sites. Unrecorded sites may exist in a relatively undisturbed state in the central portion of the area where agricultural fields and wooded areas exist, but sites dating to the historic period are more likely to occur in this area than prehistoric sites.

70

Figure 17: Area L, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018). Archaeological site locations have been redacted.

71

Photo Redacted

Photo 19: Site 44VB0121, Showing Typical Neighborhood in Area L.

Photo Redacted

Photo 20: Site 44VB0291, Showing Commercial Area in Area L.

72

Figure 18: Area M, Showing Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Esri 2018). Archaeological site locations have been redacted.

73

Photo Redacted

Photo 21: Site 44VB0118, Facing Northwest and Showing Typical Neighborhood in Area M.

Photo Redacted

Photo 22: Industrial Complex in Central Portion of Area M, Facing South. This is the location of sites 44VB0017 through 44VB0022 and 44VB330.

74

Photo Redacted

Photo 23: Agricultural Field in South-Central Portion of Area M, Facing East. This is the location of sites 44VB0323, 44VB0328, and 44VB0329.

75

This page intentionally left blank

76

SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT

The review of previously identified resources, previously surveyed areas, and known site locations of precontact and historic site location indicates that preserved archaeological resources, or portions of them, potentially exist throughout the Virginia Beach study area. The development of a predictive model for site locations further showcases the potential for as-yet undiscovered sites to exist within the study area. However, due to the long historic occupation of the northern part of Virginia Beach and the City’s large residential population, all or part of many archaeological sites have been destroyed by residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation-related development, among other sources of disturbance.

Of the 315 previously recorded sites considered during the study, only 57 (18 percent) were assessed as having high potential to contain intact cultural deposits (see Appendix for site data). A total of 146 sites (46 percent) were partially or totally destroyed. An additional 112 sites (36 percent) were not evaluated due to access issues (93 sites) or because their site data was recorded or updated within the past five years, making assessment of current conditions unnecessary (19 sites).

The potential for intact archaeological deposits to be preserved in various areas of the study area is highly dependent on location within the City. Not only are different areas of the City developed, and therefore disturbed, in different ways and to different extents, but the amount of disturbance to the archaeological record of an area is also a function of how and when it was developed. Older neighborhoods tend to have houses with larger yards, where portions of archaeological sites may be preserved outside of construction footprints. This is especially true given the house-by-house nature of construction for much of the twentieth century and the relatively flat natural topography of the area, making extensive grading unnecessary prior to construction. Newer neighborhoods, on the other hand, often have smaller yard areas and are more likely to be constructed as part of development projects in which large areas are graded wholesale prior to the near-simultaneous construction of multiple homes. Nonetheless, with regard to developed areas of the City, residential neighborhoods have the greatest potential for preserved portions of sites in comparison to areas impacted by roads or industrial or commercial development. Golf courses may also preserve portions of sites in areas where landscape modification was restricted to filling rather than cutting, but the extent to which this is true requires subsurface testing. Parks and military bases located in the City may also contain undisturbed resources or portions of resources due to minimal development and landscape modification.

The percentage of sites with intact deposits versus those which are partially or totally destroyed varies by survey area for reasons outlined above (Table 8, p. 78). The northern, western, and central portions of the study area (Survey Areas A–G) are the most developed and therefore contain the fewest sites with intact deposits and, accordingly, the largest percentages of sites which have been partially or totally destroyed. The highest percentages of sites with intact deposits are found in the southern and eastern portions of the study area, specifically, Areas H and M. This is a function of these areas being relatively undeveloped, except by military bases such as NAS Oceana, which contains a great deal of undeveloped or minimally developed land.

77

The predictive model developed during the present study also greatly informs potential for as- yet undiscovered sites to be present in various parts of the City. The northern part of the study area, along the margins of the Lynnhaven River, Lynnhaven Bay, and Broad Bay, has the greatest potential for prehistoric settlement, along with the western part of the study area along the Elizabeth River. Unfortunately, these areas are also among the most desirable for modern habitation and development, and are among the most heavily-impacted areas in the City of Virginia Beach. The southern part of the study area has significantly less potential for prehistoric settlement due to distance from major streams and often poorly-drained or wetland/marsh conditions. However, the possibility for historic period sites, particularly those dating to the nineteenth century and later, is still moderate to high in parts of these areas due to the technological ability to overcome such obstacles to settlement.

Table 8: Site Condition Assessments by Survey Area. Sites Total Sites with Sites with Partially Survey Area Number of Intact Conditions or Totally Sites Deposits Unknown Destroyed A 9 2 (22%) 6 (67%) 1 (11%) B 33 0 15 (45%) 18 (55%) C 23 1 (4%) 19 (83%) 3 (13%) D 47 1 (2%) 25 (53%) 21 (45%) E 14 0 12 (86%) 2 (14%) F 6 1 (17%) 5 (83%) 0 G 3 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 0 H 64 29 (45%) 19 (30%) 16 (25%) I 33 2 (6%) 7 (21%) 24 (73%) J 1 0 1 (100%) 0 K 54 13 (24%) 19 (35%) 22 (41%) L 6 0 6 (100%) 0 M 28 7 (25%) 16 (57%) 5 (18%) Total 315 57 (18%) 146 (46%) 112 (36%)

78

REFERENCES

Amick, Daniel S., and Phillip J. Carr 1996 Changing Strategies of Lithic Technological Organization. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by K. E. Sassaman and D. G. Anderson, pp. 41– 56. The University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Anderson, David G. 1990 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View from the Southeastern United States. In Early Paleoindian Economics of Eastern North America, edited by K. B. Tankersley and B. L. Isaac, pp. 163–216. Research in Economic Anthropology, supplement 5. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.

Anderson, David G., and Glen T. Hanson 1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah River Valley. American Antiquity 53:262–286.

Anderson, David G. and Steven D. Smith 2003 Archaeology, History, and Predictive Modeling Research at Fort Polk, 1972–2002. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Baicy, Daniel, Loretta Lautzenheiser, and Michael Scholl 2005 Archaeological Survey: Proposed Southeastern Parkway and Greenbelt: Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., Tarboro, North Carolina.

Bailey, Tom and Susan Bamann 2005 Archaeological Identification Survey: City Line Interchange: Virginia Beach, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., Tarboro, North Carolina.

Bamman, Susan and Bill Hall 2006 Archaeological Identification Survey, Proposed Improvements to Shore Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc. Tarboro, North Carolina.

Barber, Michael B. 2003 A Review of Early Archaic Research in Virginia: A Re-Synthesis a Decade Later. Quarterly Bulletin, Archaeological Society of Virginia 58 (3)):121–134.

Barber, Michael B., and George A. Tolley 1984 The Savannah River Broadspear: A View from the Blue Ridge. In Upland Archaeology in the East: Symposium 2, edited by C. R. Geier, M. B. Barber, and G. A. Tolley, pp. 25–43. USDA, Forest Service, Southern Region.

79

Barile, Kerri, Earl Proper, Danae Peckler, Mike Klein, and Emily Calhoun 2012 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Centerville Turnpike Improvement Area, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Dovetail Cultural Resource Group. Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Birkett, Courtney 2009a Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Stone Breakwater/Revetment, Fort Story, Virginia. Fort Eustis Cultural Resources. Newport News, Virginia.

2009b Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Child Development Center, Fort Story, Virginia. Fort Eustis Cultural Resources. Newport News, Virginia.

Blanton, Dennis B. 1992 Middle Woodland Settlement Systems in Virginia. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synopsis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 65–96. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

1996 Accounting for Submerged Mid-Holocene Archaeological Sites in the Southeast: A Case from the Chesapeake Bay Estuary, Virginia, pp. 200-221. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by K. E. Sassaman and D. G. Anderson, pp. 200–217. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2003 Late Archaic in Virginia: An Updated Overview. Quarterly Bulletin, Archaeological Society of Virginia 58(4):177–206.

Boehm, Christopher 1997 Impact of Human Egalitarian Syndrome on Darwinian Selection Mechanics. The American Naturalist 150 (Supplement):S100–S121.

Bott, Keith 1980a Review and Compliance Phase I Reconnaissance Summary: Barberton Drive Apartment Complex. Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Williamsburg, Virginia.

1980b Review and Compliance Phase I Reconnaissance Summary: North Landing River Bridge Replacement. Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Bourdeau, J. 1981 Replicating Quartz Squibnocket Small Stemmed and Triangular Projectile Points. Quartz Technology in Prehistoric New England, edited by R. Barber. Institute for Conservation Archaeology, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

80

Bowden, Bradley, Ashley Neville and Jerrell Blake 1998 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Norfolk/Virginia Beach Light Rail, Cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Gray and Pape, Inc. Richmond, Virginia.

Boyd, C. Clifford 1989 Paleoindian Paleoecology and Subsistence in Virginia. In Paleoindian Research In Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. M. Wittkofski and T. R. Reinhart, Special Publication 19 of the Archeological Society of Virginia, pp. 139–156. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia. 2003 Paleoindian Research in Virginia and Beyond. Quarterly Bulletin, Archaeological Society of Virginia 58 (2):58–93.

Boyko, Wayne C.J. and Beverly Boyko 2008 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the State Military Reservation, 83.81 ha (207 Acres) at Camp Pendleton, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Brady, Ellen M. and Loretta Lautzenheiser 2000 Archaeological Identification Survey, Princess Anne Road and Ferrell Parkway, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc. Tarboro, North Carolina.

Brady, Ellen M., Joanna Carter Jones, and Loretta Lautzenheiser 1998 Cultural Resources Survey, Proposed Improvements, Sandbridge Road, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc. Tarboro, North Carolina.

Brown, James A. 1986 Early Ceramics and Culture: A Review of Interpretations. In Early Woodland Archaeology, edited by K. B. Farnsworth and T. E. Emerson, pp. 598–608. Center for American Archaeology, Kampsville Seminars in Archaeology No. 2, Kampsville, Illinois.

1989 The Origins of Pottery as an Economic Process. In What’s New: A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation, edited by S. E. van der Leeuw and R. Torrence, pp. 203– 224. Unwin-Hyman, London, United Kingdom.

Brush, Grace 1986 Geology and Paleoecology of Chesapeake Estuaries. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 76(3):146–160.

Busby, Virginia, and Leslie Bashman 1993a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey: Route 190: Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, Virginia. The Cultural Resource Group, Louis Berger and Associates, Inc, Richmond, Virginia.

81

1993b Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, Birdneck Road, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. The Cultural Resource Group, Louis Berger and Associates, Inc, Richmond, Virginia.

Bussey, Stanley B. and Jerome D. Traver 1992 Phase I Archaeological Survey of a Proposed U. S. Navy Construction Project at Owl Creek in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Benham Group. Alexandria, Virginia.

Callahan, Errett 1985 The St. Mary’s Longhouse Experiment: The First Season. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 40:12–40.

Carr, Christopher, and Robert F. Maslowski 1995 Cordage and Fabrics: Relating Form, Technology, and Social Processes. In Style, Society, and Person: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edited by C. Carr and J. E. Neitzel, pp. 297–344. Plenum Press, New York.

Carr, Kurt 2018 Peopling of the Middle Atlantic: A Review of Paleoindian Research. In Middle Atlantic Prehistory: Foundations and Practice, edited by Heather A. Wholey, and Carole L. Nash, pp. 219–260. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.

Chapman, Jefferson, and Andria Brewer Shea 1981 The Archaeobotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to Contact in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley. Tennessee Anthropologist VI(1):61–84.

City of Virginia Beach 2016 It’s Our Future: A Choice City. City of Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan: Technical Document. Adopted May 17, 2016.

Clark, Robert and Bradley Bowden 2000 Archaeological Survey along a Portion of Holland Road (Route 410). Gray and Pape, Inc. Richmond, Virginia.

Clement, Christopher 2011 Phase I Archaeological Investigation of Approximately 170 Acres at Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Southeastern Archaeological Research. Jacksonville, Florida.

2012 Phase I Archaeological Investigation of Approximately 174 Acres at Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Southeastern Archaeological Research. Jacksonville, Florida.

Coe, Joffre S. 1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 54, No. 5 Philadelphia.

82

Cottrell, Marie G. 1993 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Proposed Aircraft Fuel Storage Site (P- 412), Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Command. Norfolk, Virginia.

Curry, Dennis 1999 Feast of the Dead: Aboriginal Ossuaries in Maryland. Maryland Historical Trust Press, Cockysville, Maryland.

2015 Ossuary Burial in Middle Atlantic Landscapes. Archaeology of Eastern North America 43:1–22.

Custer, Jay F. 1989 Prehistoric Cultures of the Delmarva Peninsula: An Archaeological Study. University of Delaware Press, Newark.

1990 Early and Middle Archaic Cultures of Virginia: Culture Change and Continuity. In Early and Middle Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 1–60. The Dietz Press, Richmond, VA.

Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr. 1998 Hardaway Revisited: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Dent, Richard J., Jr. 1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press, New York.

Dickinson, Martin F. and Lucy B. Wayne 1983 Appendix B (Nonpublic) of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Alternative Location of a Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) Operational Base on the East Coast of the United States. Water and Air Research. Gainesville, Florida.

Dietrich, Richard V. 1990 Geology and Virginia. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Duplantis, Brad M. and Eric Griffits 2003 Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Realignment of the Current Intersection of Route 165 (Princess Anne Road) and Route 190 (Kempsville/Witchduck Road), City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Louis Berger Group. Richmond, Virginia.

Echelman, Ralph E., Scott S. Sheads, and Donald Hickey 2010 The War of 1812 in the Chesapeake: A Reference Guide to Historic Sites in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

83

EDAW, Inc. 1982 Draft Final Ecological Evaluation for the Fleet Combat Training Center Atlantic, Dam Neck, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Appendix A. EDAW, Inc. Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Egghart, Christopher and Luke Boyd 1991 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey Along Proposed Improvements to Oceana Boulevard in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeology Research Center, Richmond, Virginia.

Egloff, Keith 1991 Development and Impact of Ceramics in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T.R. Reinhart and M.E.N. Hodges, pp. 243–252. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

Egloff, Keith T., and Stephen R. Potter 1982 Indian Ceramics from Coastal Plan Virginia. In Archaeology of Eastern North America 10:95–117.

Egloff, Keith T., and E. Randolph Turner III 1984 The Chesapeake Indians and Their Predecessors: Recent Excavations at Great Neck. Notes on Virginia 24:36–39.

Esri 2018 World Topo. Electronic document, http://services.arcgisonline.com/ arcgis/services, accessed April 2018.

Evans, Clifford 1955 A Ceramic Study of Virginia Archaeology. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin No. 160.

Fesler, Garrett C. and Matthew Laird 2006 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Realignment of West Neck Road Between North Landing Road and Indian Ridge Road in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. James River Institute for Archaeology. Williamsburg, Virginia.

2011 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of 98.664 Acres at Marshview Park in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. James River Institute for Archaeology. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Fichter, Lynn S., and Steve J. Baedke 2000 The Geoarchaeological Evolution of Virginia and the Mid-Atlantic Region. Electronic document, http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/vageo/vahist/, accessed July 2015. Fiedel, Stuart J. 2001 What Happened in the Early Woodland? Archaeology of Eastern North America 29:101–142.

84

Fiedel, Stuart J., and Gary Haynes 2004 A Premature Burial: Comments on Grayson and Meltzer’s “Requiem for Overkill.” Journal of Archaeological Science 31:121–131.

Ford, Richard I. 1974 Northeastern Archaeology: Past and Future Directions. Annual Reviews in Anthropology 3:385–413.

Fort Eustis Environmental Division 2005 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Five Forks Training Area and Phase II Evaluation of Site 44VB89, Fort Story, Virginia.

2006a Phase I Survey of the First Landing Reenactment Site and a Brief Review of Proposed Events, Fort Story, Virginia.

2006b Cultural Resource Management of GMH Military Housing RCI Undertakings at Fort Story, Virginia.

2006c Construction of Two New Buildings, a Parking Lot, and the Rehabilitation of Bunker 309, Fort Story, Virginia.

Gallivan, Martin D. 2003 James River Chiefdoms: The Rise of Social Inequality in the Chesapeake. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.

2005 Overview of the Powhatan Chiefdom. In A Study of Virginia’s Indians and Jamestown: The First Century, edited by D. Moretti-Langholtz. Report Prepared for the Colonial National Historical Park, Williamsburg, Virginia (www.cr.nps.gov/ history/online_books/jame1/moretti-langholtz), accessed March 2018.

2016 Powhatan Landscape: The Rise of Social Inequality in the Chesapeake. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Gallivan, Martin D., and Helen Blouet 2001 Middle Woodland Settlement in the Interior Coastal Plain: Excavations at 44JC1052 and 44JC1053. Quarterly Bulletin, Archeological Society of Virginia 56(3):127–145.

Gallivan, Martin D., and Justine McKnight 2006 Archaeobotanical Assessment of Chesapeake Horticulture: The View from Werowocomoco. Paper Presented at the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

85

Gallivan, Martin D., Thane Harpole, David A. Brown, Danielle Moretti-Langholtz, and E. Randolph Turner III 2006 The Werowocomoco (44GL32) Research Project: Background and 2003 Field Season Results. College of William and Mary, Department of Anthropology, Williamsburg, Virginia. Archaeological Research Report Series No. 1.

Gardner, William M. 1977 Flint Run Paleoindian Complex, its Implication for Eastern North American Prehistory. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironment in Northeastern North America, edited by W. S. Mewman and B. Salwen, pp. 257–263. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 288.

1981 Paleoindian Settlement Pattern and Site Distribution in the Middle Atlantic. Anthropological Careers, edited by R. H. Landman, L. A. Bennett, A. Brooks, and P. P. Chock, pp. 51–73. Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, D.C.

1982 Early and Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: An Overview. In Practicing Environmental Archaeology: Methods and Interpretations, edited by R. W. Moeller, pp. 53–86. American Indian Archaeological Institute Occasional Paper No. 3, Washington, Connecticut.

1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. In Paleoindian Research in Virginia edited by J.M. Wittkofski and T.R. Reinhart, pp. 5–52. Special Publication No. 19 of the Archaeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.

Gardner, William M. (editor) 1974 The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: Preliminary Report 1971-73 Seasons. Occasional Publication No. 1, Department of Anthropology, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.

Geier, Clarence R. 1990 A Middle Woodland Bipolar Pebble Technology in the Lower Chesapeake Area of Tidewater Virginia. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 6:55–74.

Gingerich, Joseph A. M. 2011 Down to Seeds and Stones: A New Look at the Subsistence Remains from Shawnee-Minisink. American Antiquity 76(1):127–144.

Gold, Debra L. 2004 The Bioarchaeology of Virginia Burial Mounds. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa.

Goodwin, R. Christopher

86

1993 Phase I Archeological Investigations for Proposed Vegetation Maintenance/ Management Areas and a Proposed Wetlands Restoration Project, Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Frederick, Maryland.

Goodyear, Allen C. 1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials among Paleoindian Groups of North America. Research Manuscript Series No. 156. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Gosser, Dennis, Jennifer Stewart, and Bill Hall 2009 Cultural Resources Survey Proposed Lesner Bridge Replacement, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research. Tarboro, North Carolina.

Grayson, Donald K., and David J. Meltzer 2003 A Requiem for North American Overkill. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:585–593.

Hally, David J. 1996 Platform Mound Construction and the Instability of Mississippian Chiefdoms. In Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States, edited by J. F. Scarry, pp. 92–127. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Hantman, Jeffrey L. 1990 Between Powhatan and Quirank: Reconstructing Monacan Culture and History in the Context of Jamestown. American Anthropologist 92:676–690.

Hantman, Jeffery. L., and Debra. L. Gold 2002 The Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: Ranking and Dynamic Political Stability. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and R. C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 270–291. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Hantman, Jeff, and Michael Klein 1992 Middle and Late Woodland Archaeology in Piedmont Virginia. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T.R. Reinhart and M.E.N. Hodges, pp. 137–164. Special Publication No. 29 of the Archaeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.

Hawkins-Hendrix, Edna and Joanne H. Lucas 2017 History of African-American Communities in Princes Anne County/Virginia Beach. Virginia Beach Historic Preservation Commission Historical research Paper. On File at Virginia Beach Public Library.

Heinemann, Ronald L., John G. Kolp, Anthony S. Parent, Jr., and William G. Shade

87

2007 Old Dominion, New Commonwealth: A History of Virginia, 1607–2007. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Heinrich, Keith T. and Loretta Lautzenheiser 2005 Cultural Resources Identification Survey Atlantic Wastewater Treatment Plant, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc. Tarboro, North Carolina.

Higgins, Thomas, Anne Beckett and Veronica Deitrick 1994 Additional Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of Revised Alignments for Proposed Southeastern Expressway, Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Hodges, Mary Ellen N. 1991 The Late Archaic and Early Woodland Periods in Virginia: Interpretation and Explanation within an Eastern Context. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 221–242. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.

1993 The Archaeology of Native American Life in Virginia in the Context of European Contact: Review of Past Research. In The Archaeology of 17th-Century Virginia, edited by T. R. Reinhart and Dennis J. Pogue, pp. 1–66. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.

1998 Native American Settlement at Great Neck: report on VDHR Archaeological Investigations of Woodland Components at Site 44VB0007, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Research Report Series, No. 9, Richmond, Virginia.

2003 Late Woodland Research in Virginia: Recent Trends and Contributions. Quarterly Bulletin, Archaeological Society of Virginia 59 (1):1–13.

Hodges, Mary Ellen N., and Charles T. Hodges (editors) 1994 Paspahegh Archaeology: Data Recovery Investigations of Site 44JC308 at the Governor’s Land at Two Rivers, James City County, Virginia. Reported submitted to Governor’s Land Associates, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia, by the James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia.

Hodges, Mary Ellen and Margaret L. Stephenson 1997 An Addendum to Phase I Cultural Resource Study of Proposed Improvements to Oceana Boulevard and First Colonial Road in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Virginia Department of Transportation. Richmond, Virginia.

Holm, Mary Ann, Loretta Lautzenheiser, and Jane McManus Eastman 1995 Phase I Archaeological Survey Improvements to Laskin Road; Route 58, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc. Tarboro, North Carolina.

Hornum, Michael B. 1994 Phase I Archeological Survey of Approximately 2,000 Acres at Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Fentress,

88

Chesapeake City, Virginia. R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates Inc. Frederick, Maryland.

Hoyt, Steven D., Robert L. Gearhart, and Clell L. Bond 1992 Marine Magnetometer Survey of The Parallel Crossing of the Chesapeake Bay Project, Virginia Beach-Northampton County, Virginia. Espey, Huston and Associates, Inc. Austin Texas.

Hoyt, Steven D. and James Schmidt 1993 Parallel Crossing of Chesapeake Bay, Phase I Underwater Archaeology, Magnetic Anomaly Ground Truthing. Espey, Hunton, and Associates, Inc. Austin, Texas.

Humphries, Amy, Dawn M. Frost, and Carol D. Tyrer 2011 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Marine Animal Care Facility Tract, City of Virginia Beach. Circa-Cultural Resource Management. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Hunter, Bruce A. 1989 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of Three Proposed Alternate Routes for the Extension of South Plaza Trail, Between Princess Anne and Independence Roads, Virginia Beach, Virginia. James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia.

Huston, Clifton A. and Peter W. O’Hara 2003 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Portions of the Highland Parish Tract, Virginia Beach, Virginia. ECS Mid-Atlantic. Richmond, Virginia.

Inashima, Paul Y. 2008 Establishing a Radiocarbon Date Based Framework for Northeastern Virginia Archaeology. Quarterly Bulletin, Archeological Society of Virginia 63 (4):187– 289.

Jensen, Todd L. 2003 Phase I Archaeological Identification Survey of the Proposed Security Improvements (P-445/P-509), NAS Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Johnson, Michael F. 2001 Gulf Branch (44AR5): Prehistoric Interaction at the Potomac Fall Line. Quarterly Bulletin, Archeological Society of Virginia 56(3):77–114.

Johnson, William C., Jeffrey P. Blick, and D. Scott Speedy 1989 Preliminary Report on the 1984 Archaeological Investigations at the Irwin Site (44PG4), Prince George County, Virginia. Report prepared for the Virginia Department of Historic Resources by the Virginia Commonwealth University Center for Archaeological Research, Richmond, Virginia.

Jones, Joe B. and Todd L. Jensen

89

2003 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Small Arms Range (MILCON P-259), NAS Oceana Annex Dam Neck, Virginia Beach, Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Jones, Tracey, Blair Toombs, and Eric Voigt 2009 Archaeological Survey of Regional Health Professions Center, Phase I, Virginia Community College System, Tidewater Community College, Virginia Beach Campus, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Louis Berger Group. Richmond, Virginia.

Jones, Tracey, and Eric Voigt 2009 Archaeological Survey of Learning Resource Center, Phase I, Virginia Community College System, Tidewater Community College, Virginia Beach Campus, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Louis Berger Group. Richmond, Virginia.

Justice, Noel D. 1995 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.

Kirchen, Roger 2001 The E. Davis Site: Technological Change at the Archaic-Woodland Transition. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Wake Forest University, Winston- Salem, North Carolina.

Klein, Michael J. 1997 The Transition from Soapstone Bowls to Marcey Creek Ceramics in the Middle Atlantic Region: Vessel Technology, Ethnographic Data, and Regional Exchange. Archaeology of Eastern North America 25:143–158.

2003 Early Woodland Archaeology. Quarterly Bulletin, Archaeological Society of Virginia 58(4):207–231.

Klein, Michael J., and Martin D. Gallivan 2001 Regional Systems and Social Ranking: An Analysis of John Smith’s Map of Virginia. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Klein, Mike, Marco A. Gonzalez, and Michael L. Carmody 2012 Archaeological Potential Assessment of the Interstate 64 Peninsula Study From Interstate 664 in Hampton to Interstate 95 in Richmond, Virginia. Dovetail Cultural Resource Group, Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Klein, Michael J., and Thomas Klatka 1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Demography and Settlement Patterns. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 139–184. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

Klein, Mike, and Dane Magoon

90

2017 Tsenacomoco Before and After the Tassantasses: Documentary, Bioarchaeological, and Archaeological Evidence of Population Size and Distribution during the Late Prehistoric and Contact Era in the western Chesapeake Region. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 33:79–98.

Klein, Michael J. and J. Sanderson Stevens 1996 Ceramic Attributes and Accokeek Creek Chronology: An Analysis of Sherds from the Falcon’s Landing (18PR131) and the Accotink Meander (44FX1908) Sites. North American Archaeologist 17(2):113-142.

Knepper, Dennis, John M. Rutherford, Daniel R. Hayes, Carter Shields, and Christopher L. Bowen 2006 The Archaeology of an Urban Landscape: The Whitehurst Freeway Archaeological Project, Volume I: Prehistoric Sites. 51NW103 (Peter House), 51NW117 (Ramp 3), and 51NW117W (Whitehurst West), Washington, D.C. Report prepared by Parsons, Washington, D.C., and Versar, Inc., Springfield, VA, for the District of Columbia Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

Kvamme, Kenneth L. 1988 Development and Testing of Quantitative Models. In Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method, and Application of Archaeological Predictive Modeling, edited by W. James Judge and Lynne Sebastian, pp. 325 – 428. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center. Denver, Co.

Lee, Richard B. 1979 The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Lewis, C. M., and A. J. Loomie 1953 The Spanish Jesuit Mission in Virginia, 1570-1571. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Luccketti, Nicholas M., Robert Haas, and Matthew Laird 2006 Archaeological Assessment of the Chesopean Site, Virginia Beach, Virginia. James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia.

Lukezic, Craig 1990 Soils and Settlement Location in 18th Century Colonial Tidewater Virginia. Historical Archaeology 24(1):1—17.

Magoon, Dane T. 1999 “Chesapeake” Pipes and Uncritical Assumptions: A View from Northeastern North Carolina. North Carolina Archaeology 48:107–126.

91

Mahoney, Shannon S. 2009 Mortuary Practices of the Chickahominy: Late Woodland Ceremonial Processes in Tidewater Virginia. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 25: 133—140.

Mansfield, S. S. 1989 Princess Anne County and Virginia Beach. The Donning Company, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Markell, Ann, Katherine Kuranda, Katherine Grandine, and Nathan Workman 2007 Survey of the Architectural and Archaeological Cultural Resources at the Virginia Air National Guard Installations at the Richmond International Airport, Henrico County and the State Military Reservation, Camp Pendleton, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates. Frederick Maryland.

Mayo, Ellen and Loretta Lautzenheiser 1997 Archaeological Survey Improvements to Lynnhaven and Volvo Parkways, Cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research. Tarboro, North Carolina.

McAvoy, Joseph M. 1992 Nottoway River Survey, Part I: Clovis Settlement Patterns. Archeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication No. 28. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.

McAvoy, Joseph M., and Lynn D. McAvoy 1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Research Report Series No. 8. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia.

McCary, Ben C. 1951 A Workshop of Early Man in Dinwiddie County, Virginia. American Antiquity 17(1):9–17.

1975 The Williamson Paleoindian Site, Dinwiddie County, Virginia. The Chesopiean 13(3–4):48–131.

1983 The Paleoindian in Virginia. Archeological Society of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin 38(1):43–70.

McDonald, Bradley 2002 Archaeological Identification Survey and Archaeological Evaluations of Nine Sites Along the Proposed Landstown-West Landing 230 KV Transmission Line, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Gray and Pape, Inc. Richmond, Virginia.

2003 Reconnaissance Archaeological Survey at Various Navy Region Mid-Atlantic Family Housing Complexes in Virginia. Cultural Resources Inc. Fredericksburg, Virginia.

92

McDonald, Bradley M. and Garrett R. Fesler 1994 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Corporate Woods Property, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. James River Institute for Archaeology. Williamsburg, Virginia.

McDonald, Bradley M. and Matthew R. Laird 1996 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Twelve Acres and Phase II Archaeological Significance Evaluation of 44VB240-241-242 at the Great Neck Point Disposal Area, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. James River Institute for Archaeology, Williamsburg, Virginia.

McFarland, E. Randolph, and T. Scott Bruce 2006 The Virginia Coastal Plain Hydrogeological Framework. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

McKnight, Justine W., and Martin Gallivan 2007 The Virginia Archaeobotanical Database Project: A Preliminary Synthesis of Chesapeake Ethnobotany. Quarterly Bulletin, Archeological Society of Virginia 62 (4):181–190.

McLearen, D.C. 1987 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Highway Improvements Along Dam Neck Road in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research Center. Richmond, Virginia.

1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Material Culture in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T.R. Reinhart and M.E.N. Hodges, pp. 89–138. Special Publication No. 23 of the Archaeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.

1992 Virginia’s Middle Woodland Period: A Regional Perspective. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T.R. Reinhart and M.E.N. Hodges, pp. 39–64. Special Publication No. 29 of the Archaeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.

McSherry, Perry 1993 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Bayville Farms, Virginia Beach, Virginia. James River Institute For Archaeology. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Meltzer, David J. 1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World Prehistory 2:1–52.

Monroe, Elizabeth 2008 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed I-64/I-264 Interchange Project, Cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research. Williamsburg, Virginia.

93

2009 Supplemental Archaeological Survey of the Proposed I-64/I-264 Interchange Project, Cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Monroe, Elizabeth, and Sean Devlin 2007 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed I-264/Lynnhaven and Great Neck Interchanges Project, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research.

Morgan, Edmund S. 1975 American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia. W. W. Norton and Company, New York.

Mouer, Daniel L. 1990 The Archaic to Woodland Transition on the Piedmont and Coastal Plain Sections of the James River Valley, Virginia. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

1991a Explaining the Formative Transition in Virginia: Concluding Remarks. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 259-274. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

1991b The Formative Transition in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T.R. Reinhart and M.E.N. Hodges, pp. 89–138. Special Publication No. 23 of the Archaeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.

Mouer, L. D., D. C. McLearen, R. T. Kiser, C. P. Egghart, B. J. Binns, and D. T. Magoon 1992 Jordan’s Journey. Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research Center, Richmond, Virginia.

Mouer, L. D., F. W. Gleach, and D. C. McLearen 1986 A Ceramics Temporal Typology in Progress for Central Virginia. In Archaeology in Henrico, Volume 2: Introduction to Phase 2 and Phase 3 Archaeological Investigations of the Henrico County Regional Wastewater System, edited by L. D. Mouer, pp. 119–149. Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research Center, Richmond. Submitted to Henrico County, Virginia. On file at the VDHR, Richmond.

Mounier, R. Alan, and John W. Martin 1994 For Crying Out Loud!: News About Teardrops. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 10:125–140.

Naval History and Heritage Command 2015 The Naval Bombing Experiments Off the Virginia Capes - June and July 1921. By Vice Admiral Alfred W. Johnson. Electronic document, https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list- alphabetically/n/the-naval-bombing-experiments.html#intro, accessed June 2018.

94

Opperman, Antony F. and Harding Polk, III 1989 Phase I Archeological Survey for Fort Eustis and Fort Story, Cities of Newport News and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Mid-Atlantic Archaeological Research Associates, Inc. Newark, Delaware.

Opperman Anthony F., and E. Randolph Turner 1989 Shelly Archaeological District, Gloucester County, Virginia, National Register of Historic Places Nomination. Document on file, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia.

1990 Archaeology at Shelly, Gloucester County. Notes on Virginia 34:24–27.

Painter, Floyd 1988 Two Terminal Archaic Cultures of S.E. Virginia and N.E. North Carolina. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 4:25–38.

Parramore, Thomas C., Peter C. Stewart, and Tommy L. Bogger 1994 Norfolk: The First Four Centuries. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Penner, Bruce R. 2003 Supplemental Archaeological Survey of Two Canals within the Proposed Realignment of Elbow Road, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Virginia Department of Transportation. Richmond, Virginia.

Phelps, David S. 1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and Hypotheses. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by M. A. Mathis and J. J. Crow, pp. 1–51. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh.

Ploglase, Christopher R. 1996 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Approximately 583 Acres at Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Frederick, Maryland.

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

Proper, Earl E. and Martha McCartney 1987 A Phase I Cultural Resource Evaluation of a Section of Route 165, Virginia Beach, Virginia. James Madison University. Harrisonburg, Virginia.

95

Pullins, Stevan C. 2002 Archaeological Survey Associated with the Proposed Nimmo (Ferrell) Parkway Project, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Quinn, David B. 1977 Set Fair for Roanoke: Voyages and Colonies, 1584–1606. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Ritchie, William A. 1971 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. New York State Museum and Science Service, Bulletin 384, Albany.

Rountree, Helen C. 1989 The Powhatan Indians of Virginia: Their Traditional Culture. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, Oklahoma.

2004 Again, More Closely: 18th Century Indian Settlements in Swamps. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 20:7–12.

2005 Pocahontas, Powhatan, Opechancanough: Three Indian Lives Changed by Jamestown. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Rountree, Helen C., Wayne E. Clark, and Kent Mountford 2007 John Smith’s Chesapeake Voyages, 1607–1609. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Ryder, Robin L., Luke Boyd and R. Taft Kiser. 1994 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Proposed Improvements to London Bridge Road in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Resarch Center.

Sadler, Donald, Sandra DeChard, Aimee Leithoff, and Ellen Brady 2012 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Approximately 13 Acres at 4081 Elbow Road in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Cultural Resources Inc. Richmond, Virginia.

Salmon, John S. 2001 The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsville, Pennsylvania.

Sara, Timothy 2008 Archaeological Characterization Study of Fleet Training Center Dam Neck, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Southeastern Archaeological Research Inc. Jacksonville, Florida.

96

Sassaman, Kenneth. E., Glen T. Hanson and Tommy Charles 1988 Raw Material Procurement and the Reduction of Hunter-Gatherer Range in the Savannah River Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 7(2):79–94.

Saunders, John 1976 An Initial Archaeological Survey of Haygood and Newtown Roads, City of Virginia Beach. Virginia Research Center for Archaeology. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Shephard, Christopher 2015 The Materiality of Politics: Tracking the Production and Circulation of Shell Artifacts in the Algonquian Chesapeake (A.D. 900––1680). Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 31:39–52.

Shmookler, Leonid I. 1996 Phase I Archaeological Identification Survey in Support of 1995 Base Realignment and Closure, Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Ecology and Environment, Inc. Lancaster, New York.

1996b Phase I Archaeological Identification Survey in Support of 1995 Base Closure and Realignment, Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Ecology and Environment, Inc. Lancaster, New York.

1997 Phase I Archaeological Identification Survey of the Proposed 3-Module Hangar and Parking Apron Expansion, Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Ecology and Environment Inc. Lancaster, New York.

Simpson, B. 1990 The Great Dismal: A Carolinian’s Swamp Memoir. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Smith, Bruce D. 1986 The Archaeology of Southeastern United States: From Dalton to de Soto, 10,500– 500 B.P. In Advances in World Archaeology, edited by F. Wendorf and A. Close, pp. 1–91. Academic Press, New York.

2007 Niche Construction and the Behavioral Context of Plant and Animal Domestication. Evolutionary Anthropology 16:188–199.

2011 General Patterns of Niche Construction and the Management of ‘Wild’ Plant and Animal Resources by Small-Scale Pre-Industrial Societies. Philosophical Transections of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences 366:836–848.

Smith, John 1624 Virginia discovered and described by Captayn John Smith, 1606. Library of Congress. Geography and Maps Division. Washington, D.C. (g3880 ct000377).

Smith, Marvin. T., and Julia. B. Smith 1989 Engraved Shell Masks in North America. Southeastern Archaeology 8(1): 9-18.

97

National Resources and Conservation Services, United States Department of Agriculture (Soil Survey Staff) 2018 Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed March, 2018.

Stephenson, Robert L. 1963 The Accokeek Creek Site: A Middle Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 20, Ann Arbor.

Stewart, Jennifer, and Loretta Lautzenheiser 2005 Architectural Survey: Proposed Southeastern Parkway and Greenbelt: Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., Tarboro, North Carolina.

Stewart, R. Michael 1989 Trade and Exchange in Middle Atlantic Prehistory. Archaeology of Eastern North America 17 47–78.

1992 Observations on the Middle Woodland Period of Virginia: A Middle Atlantic Region Perspective. Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 1–38. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

1995 The Status of Woodland Prehistory in the Middle Atlantic Region. Archaeology of Eastern North America 23:177–206.

1998a Thoughts on the Origin of Ceramic Use and Variation. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 14:1–12.

1998b Unraveling the Mystery of Zoned Decorated Pottery: Implications for Middle Woodland Society in the Middle Atlantic Region. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 14:161–182.

Stuck, Kenneth E. 1997 A Supplemental Identification Survey of Proposed Oceana Boulevard-First Colonial Road Project, Virginia Beach, An Addendum to Phase I Cultural Resource Survey Along Proposed Improvements to Oceana Boulevard In Virginia Beach, Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Stuck, Kenneth E. and Thomas F. Higgins 1997 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Proposed Landstown-West Landing, 230 KV Transmission Line, Virginia Beach, Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia.

98

Taylor, Martha Lewis 2006 The Military. In The Beach: A History of Virginia Beach, Virginia. The Virginia Beach Public Library.

Thomas, Pamela, and John D. Harper 2008 Soil Survey of the Tidewater Cities Area, Virginia. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

Tindall, Robert 1608 "The draught by Robert Tindall of Virginia Anno: 1608." The British Museum, London.

Tippett, Lee 2002 Archaeological Survey of Route 165 (Princess Anne Road) Between Dam Neck Road and Judicial Boulevard, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Louis Berger Group, Richmond, Virginia.

Tolley, George A. 2003 A Review of the Middle Archaic Period in Virginia. Quarterly Bulletin, Archaeological Society of Virginia 58 (3):135–147.

Traver, Jerome, D. 1991 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, Old Landstown Road Tract, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Mid-Atlantic Archaeological Research Associates, Inc. Newark, Delaware.

1993 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey and Visual Impact Assessment of the Interstate 64 HOV Lanes (Median Strip), Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, Virginia. Mid- Atlantic Archaeological Research Associates, Inc. Newark, Delaware.

Traver, Jerome D. and Maryana Ralph 1989 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Build Alternatives for the Southeastern Expressway in the Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Mid-Atlantic Archaeological Research (MAAR) Associates, Inc. Newark, Delaware

Turner, E. Randolph 1976 An Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Study on the Evolution of Rank Societies in the Virginia Coastal Plain. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.

1982 A Re-examination of Powhatan Territorial Boundaries and Population, ca A.D. 1607. Quarterly Bulletin, Archaeological Society of Virginia 37(2):45–64.

1989 Paleoindian Settlement Patterns and Population Distribution in Virginia. In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. M. Wittkofski and T. R. Reinhart, pp. 71–94. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

99

1992 The Virginia Coastal Plain During the Late Woodland Period. In Middle and Late Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 97–136. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

2003 Virginia Native Americans During the Contact Period: A Summary of Research Over the Past Decade. Quarterly Bulletin, Archaeological Society of Virginia 59 (1):14–24.

Turner, E. Randolph, and Anthony F. Opperman nd Searching for Virginia Company Period Sites: An Assessment of Surviving Archaeological Manifestations of Powhatan-English Interactions, A.D. 1607– 1624. Draft Report on File, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia.

Tyrer, Carol D. and Martha McCartney 1998 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Indian River Road and Elbow Road, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Cultural Resources Inc. Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Underwood, J. R., D. B. Blanton, W. J. Cline, D. W. Lewes, and W. H. Moore 2003 Archaeological Survey of 6,000 Acres, Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia. Report Prepared by the William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research for the Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, Virginia.

United States Army Corps of Engineers 1987a A Cultural Resources Assessment of Two Areas, U. S. Navy, Fleet Combat Training Center Atlantic, Dam Neck Virginia Beach, Virginia

1987b An Archeological Survey of the Naval Amphibious Base Annex, Camp Pendleton, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

1987c A Cultural Resource Survey of a Proposed Wetlands Mitigation Site, U. S. Navy Fleet Combat Training Center Atlantic, Dam Neck Virginia Beach, Virginia.

United States Department of Military Affairs 1987 An Archaeological Survey of the Virginia National Guard Camp Pendleton Training Camp Site, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia.

United States Department of the Interior 2005 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: Camp Pendleton/State Military Reservation Historic District. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

United States Navy 2015 Regional Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan for Naval Installations in Hampton Roads, Virginia. Draft on file with U.S. Navy Cultural Resources Program Manager.

100

United States Navy Sea Systems Command 2017 History. Electronic document, http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Shipyards /Norfolk/About-Us/History/, accessed December 2017.

Virginia Beach Historical Society 2001 Web Site. http://virginiabeachhistory.org, accessed March 2012.

Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) 2017 Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resource Surveys in Virginia. Virginia Department of Historical Resources, Richmond.

Ward, H. Trawick 1965 Correlation of Mississippian Sites and Soil Types. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 3:42–48.

Waselkov, Gregory A. 1982 Shellfish Gathering and Shell-Midden Archaeology. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Water and Air Research, Inc. 1984 Cultural Resources Survey of the Phase I Wetlands Mitigation Site FCTC, Dam Neck, Virginia. Gainesville, Florida.

Watts, Gordon 2009 Submerged Cultural Resource Remote-Sensing Survey Lesner Bridge Replacement Corridor, Lynnhaven Inlet, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Tidewater Atlantic Research. Washington, North Carolina.

Weathersbee, Chris 1966 “At 93, He’s Still Developing Tidewater,” Virginia Pilot, September 4, 1966.

Webb, T. III 1988 Eastern North America. In Vegetation History, edited by B. Huntley and T. Webb III, pp. 385–414. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts.

Wehner, Karen B. and Karen G. Holmberg 2003 Analyzing the Settlement Pattern of the Burnt Hill Study Area. Northeast Historical Archaeology 32:57–78.

Wells, Debra, Bruce Nodine, Robert Austin, and Nicholas Linville 2010 Archaeological Survey of South Parcel and Evaluation of Archaeological Sites 44VB345 and 44VB346, Fleet Training Center Dam Neck, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc. Jacksonville, Florida.

Wertenbaker, Thomas J., and Marvin W. Schlegel 1962 Norfolk: Historic Southern Port. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.

101

White, Benjamin D. 1924 Gleanings in the History of Princess Anne County. In An Economic and Social Survey of Princess Anne County, edited by E. E. Ferebee and J. P. Wilson, Jr., pp. 5–16. University of Virginia Record Extension Services, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Wittkofski, J. Mark 1980 A Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Improvements to the Entrance to Oceana Naval Air Station, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Virginia Research Center for Archaeology. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Wittkofksi, J. Mark, Martha W. McCartney, Beverly Bogley 1979 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Cultural Resources at Newtown, Norfolk, Virginia. Virginia Research Center for Archaeology. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Yarnell, Richard A. 1976 Early Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America. In Cultural Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland, Academic Press, New York.

102

APPENDIX: SITE DATA TABLE

103

This page intentionally left blank

104

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N Late Archaic (3000 - Lake 1201 B.C.), Early/ 44NR0035 A Whitehurst DSS Legacy Camp underwater N Site Totally Destroyed Middle Woodland (1200 East B.C. - 999 A.D.) Woodland (1200 B.C. - 44VB0002 A appears intact Y Intact Cultural Level 1606 A.D.) appears intact, although pin Dwelling, 18th Century: 1st half 44VB0066 A Domestic flags suggest imminent Y Intact Cultural Level single (1700 - 1749) construction Middle Archaic (6500 - 3001 B.C.), Early/ 44VB0284 A DSS Legacy Camp apt. complex Y Site Totally Destroyed Middle Woodland (1200 B.C. - 999 A.D.) Early Woodland (1200 B.C. - 299 A.D.), Middle developed, possibly some Ridgely Camp, Trash Woodland (300 - 999 intact at northern end, but it is 44VB0355 A DSS Legacy Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed Manor scatter A.D.), 17th Century for sale and likely to be (1600 - 1699), 18th developed soon Century (1700 - 1799) Early/ Middle Woodland 44VB0356 A SAJO Farm DSS Legacy Camp developed, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed (1200 B.C. - 999 A.D.) DSS Legacy, Industry/ Camp, Lithic Woodland (1200 B.C. - neighborhood, some portions 44VB0358 A Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed Processing/ scatter 1606 A.D.) may be intact in woods Extraction Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916), Dwelling, World War I to World recently completed/updated Recent data, survey not 44VB0397 A Domestic N single War II (1917 - 1945), The form necessary New Dominion (1946 - 1991) A, B, Kempsville 18th Century: 3rd quarter DHR Staff: intact at Princess Anne Road 44VB0060 DSS Legacy Canal Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed E, F Canal (1750 - 1774) Not Eligible crossing in Area E Woodland (1200 B.C. - possibly partially intact 44VB0003 B DSS Legacy Grave/ burial Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed 1606 A.D.) behind building Woodland (1200 B.C. - 44VB0004 B under road/paths Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed 1606 A.D.)

105

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N Woodland (1200 B.C. - 44VB0006 B not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1606 A.D.) in neighborhood, but largely Woodland (1200 B.C. - intact in backyards (see JRIA Chesopean Dwelling, 44VB0048 B Domestic 1606 A.D.), 17th Century 2006 report); site probably Y Site Condition Unknown Site single (1600 - 1699) somewhat larger than mapped in VCRIS Contact Period (1607 - 1750), Colony to Nation (1751 - 1789), Early National Period (1790 - 1829), Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Civil War Lynnhaven Dwelling, recently completed/updated Recent data, survey not 44VB0062 B Domestic (1861 - 1865), N House single form necessary Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916), World War I to World War II (1917 - 1945), The New Dominion (1946 - 1988) Middle Woodland (300 - 999 C.E), Late Woodland (1000 - 1606), Contact Period (1607 - 1750), Colony to Nation (1751 - 1789), Early National DHR Dwelling, Period (1790 - 1829), Thoroughgoo Evaluation recently completed/updated Recent data, survey not 44VB0063 B Domestic single, Antebellum Period (1830 N d House Committee: form necessary Village/ Town - 1860), Civil War (1861 Eligible - 1865), Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916), World War I to World War II (1917 - 1945), The New Dominion (1946 - 1991) Late Woodland (1000 - 44VB0064 B not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1606) Woodland (1200 B.C. - 44VB0067 B largely intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed 1606 A.D.)

106

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N Woodland (1200 B.C. - 44VB0068 B house, road- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed 1606 A.D.) Historic/ Unknown, DHR Staff: 44VB0069 B Woodland (1200 B.C. - not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Not Eligible 1606 A.D.) Woodland (1200 B.C. - DHR Staff: 44VB0070 B not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1606 A.D.) Not Eligible Woodland (1200 B.C. - 44VB0071 B house, road- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed 1606 A.D.) 44VB0072 B house, road- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed Prehistoric/ Unknown 44VB0073 B house, road- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) 17th Century (1600 - DHR Staff: 44VB0074 B DSS Legacy Other not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1699) Eligible Prehistoric/ Unknown 44VB0075 B not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) Woodland (1200 B.C. - DHR Staff: 44VB0076 B not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1606 A.D.) Eligible Woodland (1200 B.C. - DHR Staff: 44VB0077 B not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1606 A.D.) Eligible 18th Century (1700 - 44VB0078 B not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1799) Camp, Middle Woodland (300 - temporary, 999 A.D.), 18th Century DHR Staff: 44VB0079 B Domestic not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Dwelling, (1700 - 1799), 19th Not Eligible single Century (1800 - 1899) Woodland (1200 B.C. - DHR Staff: 44VB0080 B not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1606 A.D.) Eligible Woodland (1200 B.C. - DHR Staff: 44VB0081 B not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1606 A.D.) Eligible 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0111 B under house, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed 1899) 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0112 B not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1899) Woodland (1200 B.C. - 1606 A.D.), 18th Century Government/ County 44VB0138 B (1700 - 1799), 19th dense residential, destroyed Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed Law/ Political courthouse Century: 1st half (1800 - 1849) 107

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N Prehistoric/ Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.), 18th Century: 2nd some likely intact in backyard 44VB0139 B DSS Legacy Trash scatter Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed half (1750 - 1799), 19th of house Century: 1st half (1800 - 1849) 19th Century: 1st half some likely intact in backyard 44VB0140 B DSS Legacy Trash scatter Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed (1800 - 1849) of house 44VB0202 B not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Woodland (1200 B.C. - Camp, 1606 A.D.), 19th Century Domestic, 44VB0353 B Dwelling, (1800 - 1899), 20th under building, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed DSS Legacy single Century: 1st half (1900 - 1949) Early Woodland (1200 B.C. - 299 A.D.), Early/ destroyed or slated for Middle Woodland (1200 construction, some may 44VB0354 B DSS Legacy Camp Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed B.C. - 999 A.D.), Middle survive in woods along Woodland (300 - 999 shoreline A.D.) Prehistoric/ Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606 Church Point A.D.), 17th Century Parish 44VB0362 B Religion Church (1600 - 1699), 19th probably mostly intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed (Spring Century (1800 - 1899), House Trail) 20th Century (1900 - 1999)

108

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N Contact Period (1607 - 1750), Colony to Nation (1751 - 1789), Early National Period (1790 - 1829), Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Civil War Ferry Dwelling, (1861 - 1865), recently completed/updated Recent data, survey not 44VB0373 B Plantation Domestic N single Reconstruction and form necessary House Growth (1866 - 1916), World War I to World War II (1917 - 1945), The New Dominion (1946 - 1988), Post Cold War (1989 - Present) mostly underwater, some may Middle Woodland (300 - 44VB0005 C Long Creek Domestic Camp, base survive in woods on island at Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed 999 A.D.) north end of site under road and embankment- Woodland (1200 B.C. - partially destroyed, although 44VB0012 C Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed 1606 A.D.) some may be sealed under embankment fill Woodland (1200 B.C. - mostly destroyed, possibly 44VB0024 C Domestic Shell midden Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed 1606 A.D.) partially intact along shoreline Great Neck 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0042 C under building, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed Park 1899) Middle Woodland (300 - 44VB0043 C Sisson Domestic Shell midden house, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed 999 A.D.) Dwelling, 18th Century: 2nd/ 3rd houses, some probably intact 44VB0059 C Domestic Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed single quarter (1725 - 1774) in yards Dwelling, 18th Century: 1st half 44VB0065 C Domestic not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown single (1700 - 1749) Prehistoric/ Unknown 44VB0092 C DSS Legacy Trash scatter road, destroyed Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) 18th Century (1700 - appears mostly intact, some 44VB0094 C Domestic Farmstead Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed 1799) grading in driveway 19th Century (1800 - mostly intact, esp. eastern 44VB0101 C Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed 1899) portion of site 19th Century (1800 - some park facilities, but 44VB0104 C Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed 1899) mostly intact 109

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N 19th Century (1800 - road and yards, but probably 44VB0105 C Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed 1899) largely intact houses and road, mostly 44VB0106 C Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed destroyed 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0107 C not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1899) 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0108 C not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1899) 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0109 C house, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed 1899) 19th Century (1800 - houses, small portions 44VB0132 C Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed 1899) possibly intact in yards 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0137 C Funerary Cemetery 1899), 20th Century intact Y Intact Cultural Level (1900 - 1999) Camp, Domestic, Dwelling, 17th Century (1600 - DSS Legacy, single, 44VB0240 C 1699), 18th Century houses, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed Subsistence/ Hamlet, (1700 - 1799) Agriculture Outbuilding, Trash scatter Dwelling, 17th Century (1600 - 44VB0241 C Domestic single, 1699), 18th Century houses, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed Farmstead (1700 - 1799) houses, cul-de-sac, mostly 44VB0242 C DSS Legacy Camp Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed destroyed 19th Century (1800 - Dwelling, DHR Staff: 44VB0351 C Domestic 1899), 20th Century: 1st under I-264, destroyed N Site Totally Destroyed single Not Eligible half (1900 - 1949) central portion destroyed by Middle Woodland (300 - 44VB0009 C/ D road, east and west ends Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed 999 A.D.) likely largely intact Artifact White Hill Domestic, Pre-Contact, Woodland 44VB0011 D scatter, Shell not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Banks Indeterminate (1200 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) midden Artifact Domestic, Pre-Contact, Woodland 44VB0013 D Waterfield scatter, Shell not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Indeterminate (1200 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) midden

110

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N Woodland (1200 B.C. - 44VB0014 D Domestic Shell midden not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1606 A.D.) Woodland (1200 B.C. - 44VB0015 D Domestic Shell midden not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1606 A.D.) Woodland (1200 B.C. - 44VB0016 D Domestic Shell midden not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1606 A.D.) not visible from right-of-way, Little Neck 44VB0025 D DSS Legacy Camp but under house and probably N Site Condition Unknown Creek destroyed Woodland (1200 B.C. - 1606 A.D.), Middle DSS Legacy, Artifact 44VB0040 D Woodland (300 - 999 mostly intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed Indeterminate scatter, Camp A.D.), Late Woodland (1000 - 1606) Domestic, Other, Shell Woodland (1200 B.C. - 44VB0041 D intact Y Intact Cultural Level DSS Legacy midden 1606 A.D.) Late Archaic (3000 - golf course and residential, 44VB0049 D Domestic Camp, base Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed 1201 B.C.) mostly destroyed 18th Century (1700 - Dwelling, 44VB0050 D Domestic 1799), 19th Century houses, mostly destroyed Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed multiple (1800 - 1899) 17th Century: 2nd quarter Dwelling, (1625 - 1649), 18th not visible from right-of-way, 44VB0051 D Domestic N Site Condition Unknown single Century: 3rd quarter but likely intact (1750 - 1774) 44VB0052 D house, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed Middle Archaic (6500 - 44VB0053 D houses, mostly destroyed Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed 3001 B.C.) houses, some possibly intact Prehistoric/ Unknown 44VB0054 D in western portion of site in Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) trees and gold course Middle Archaic (6500 - 44VB0055 D Domestic Camp, base 3001 B.C.), Woodland houses, mostly destroyed Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed (1200 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) house, eastern portion in 18th Century (1700 - DHR Staff: 44VB0056 D backyard/golf course, may be Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed 1799) Not Eligible partially intact

111

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N house, eastern portion in Prehistoric/ Unknown 44VB0057 D backyard/golf course, may be Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) partially intact 18th Century (1700 - not visible from right-of-way, 44VB0058 D N Site Condition Unknown 1799) golf course Camp, Prehistoric/ Unknown 44VB0061 D Domestic not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown temporary (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) 19th Century: 4th quarter DHR Staff: 44VB0089 D DSS Legacy Other not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown (1875 - 1899) Not Eligible 44VB0090 D DSS Legacy Shipwreck Historic/ Unknown not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 19th Century (1800 - houses, landscaping- 44VB0096 D Y Site Totally Destroyed 1899) destroyed houses, but large yards and 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0097 D wooded portions, probably Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed 1899) partially intact 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0098 D not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1899) 19th Century (1800 - houses, but portions of site 44VB0099 D Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed 1899) likely intact in backyards 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0100 D appears to be largely intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed 1899) northern part of site destroyed 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0102 D by houses, southern part may Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed 1899) be largely intact 19th Century (1800 - houses, portions likely intact 44VB0103 D Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed 1899) in yards 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0110 D large yard, mostly intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed 1899) 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0113 D large yard, mostly intact Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed 1899) houses, but front yards look 44VB0114 D filled- small portions of site Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed may be intact/sealed 19th Century (1800 - houses with large yards- site 44VB0128 D Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed 1899) probably largely intact houses, but southern part of 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0129 D site in open field and likely Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed 1899) largely intact

112

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N probably destroyed by houses 44VB0130 D south of road, intact in woods Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed north of road 19th Century (1800 - houses, portions of site 44VB0131 D Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed 1899) possibly intact in backyards` 19th Century (1800 - dense residential, probably 44VB0133 D Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed 1899) destroyed 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0134 D shopping center, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed 1899) Military/ Military base/ 20th Century: 1st half 44VB0332 D Gun Mount not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Defense facility (1900 - 1949) DHR Staff: 20th Century: 1st half 44VB0333 D railway DSS Legacy Railroad Potentially not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown (1900 - 1949) Eligible DHR Staff: 44VB0334 D RCI Site 2 DSS Legacy Other Historic/ Unknown Potentially not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Eligible Military/ Military 20th Century: 1st quarter DHR Staff: 44VB0335 D Coal Shed not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Defense supply depot (1900 - 1924) Not Eligible Military/ Military base/ 20th Century: 2nd/ 3rd 44VB0336 D Emplacement not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Defense facility quarter (1925 - 1974) 18th Century (1700 - Dwelling, DHR Staff: 44VB0337 D RCI Site 1 Domestic 1799), 19th Century not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown single Not Eligible (1800 - 1899) Early Woodland (1200 B.C. - 299 A.D.), Artifact Woodland (1200 B.C. - Domestic, scatter, Camp, 1606 A.D.), Middle 44VB0347 D DSS Legacy, not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Dwelling, Woodland (300 - 999 Indeterminate single A.D.), Late Woodland (1000 - 1606), 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Prehistoric/ Unknown DSS Legacy, (15000 B.C. - 1606 First Landing Industry/ Lithic scatter, A.D.), 19th Century: 2nd 44VB0359 D State Park not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Processing/ Trash scatter half (1850 - 1899), 20th Marsh Site Extraction Century: 1st half (1900 - 1949)

113

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N 18th Century: 4th quarter Cape Henry recently completed/updated Recent data, survey not 44VB0371 D DSS Legacy Other (1775 - 1799), 19th N Lighthouse form necessary Century (1800 - 1899) Paleo-Indian (15000 - 8501 B.C.), Early Archaic (8500 - 6501 mostly under high-density 44VB0008 E Quail Springs Domestic Camp, base B.C.), Middle Archaic Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed housing, partially under pond (6500 - 3001 B.C.), Woodland (1200 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) Archaic (8500 - 1201 under residential 44VB0044 E DSS Legacy Camp Y Site Totally Destroyed B.C.) development, destroyed 18th Century (1700 - under residential 44VB0045 E DSS Legacy Village/ Town 1799), 19th Century Y Site Totally Destroyed development, destroyed (1800 - 1899) 18th Century (1700 - western portion probably 44VB0093 E Domestic Farmstead Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed 1799) mostly intact brick clamp, appears mostly 44VB0283 E DSS Legacy Other intact except for trails and Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed some erosion into river houses, but southern portion Woodland (1200 B.C. - 44VB0285 E DSS Legacy Camp probably largely intact , esp. Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed 1606 A.D.) on east end Late Archaic (3000 - 1201 B.C.), Early largely destroyed by housing, 44VB0286 E DSS Legacy Camp Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed Woodland (1200 B.C. - eastern portion underwater 299 A.D.) Late Archaic (3000 - 1201 B.C.), Early 44VB0287 E DSS Legacy Camp houses, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed Woodland (1200 B.C. - 299 A.D.) Norfolk Southern Railroad 19th Century: 1st half parking lot, roads, apt 44VB0304 E Bypass Line DSS Legacy Railroad bed Y Site Totally Destroyed (1800 - 1849) buildings- destroyed Grade and Bridge Foundations

114

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N mapped boundaries entirely 18th Century: 3rd quarter under road and destroyed; DHR Staff: Colonial (1750 - 1774), 19th however, if site is a village/ 44VB0367 E DSS Legacy Village/ Town Potentially Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed Kempsville Century: 1st half (1800 - town, portions may be intact Eligible 1849) in empty lot to south or recorded boundaries Colony to Nation (1751 - 1789), Early National Period (1790 - 1829), Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Civil War (1861 Emmanuel Church, - 1865), Reconstruction Episcopal Church- recently completed/updated Recent data, survey not 44VB0375 E Religion and Growth (1866 - N Church and related form necessary 1916), World War I to Rectory residence World War II (1917 - 1945), The New Dominion (1946 - 1988), Post-Cold War (1989 - Present) Reconstruction and Artifact Growth (1866 - 1916), recently completed/updated Recent data, survey not 44VB0378 E Domestic N scatter World War I to World form necessary War II (1917 - 1945) 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0036 F Funerary Cemetery 1899), 20th Century intact Y Intact Cultural Level (1900 - 1999) Prehistoric/ Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606 44VB0037 F houses, mostly destroyed Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed A.D.), 19th Century (1800 - 1899) 20th Century (1900 - under road and commercial 44VB0038 F Y Site Totally Destroyed 1999) development, destroyed golf course and residential, Archaic (8500 - 1201 partially destroyed, portions 44VB0046 F Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed B.C.) may be intact under golf course

115

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N 18th Century (1700 - Deep Branch Technology/ Ditch, 1799), 19th Century 44VB0305 F, E largely intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed Ditch Engineering drainage (1800 - 1899), 20th Century (1900 - 1999) 18th Century (1700 - Ditch, 44VB0238 G Landscape 1799), 19th Century intact Y Intact Cultural Level boundary (1800 - 1899) 18th Century (1700 - 1799), 19th Century Dwelling, 44VB0350 G Deary Site Domestic (1800 - 1899), 20th under road- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed single Century: 1st half (1900 - 1949) 19th Century (1800 - Dwelling, DHR Staff: 44VB0352 G Domestic 1899), 20th Century: 1st mostly under road- destroyed Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed single Not Eligible half (1900 - 1949) 18th Century (1700 - not visible from right-of-way, 44VB0001 H Wolfshave 1799), 19th Century N Site Condition Unknown but probably intact (1800 - 1899) 19th Century (1800 - parking lot and trailer park, 44VB0125 H Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed 1899) mostly destroyed 19th Century (1800 - in field, probably mostly 44VB0127 H Y Site Condition Unknown 1899) intact 19th Century: 2nd/ 3rd DHR Staff: in field, probably mostly 44VB0161 H Y Site Condition Unknown quarter (1825 - 1874) Not Eligible intact Prehistoric/ Unknown Camp, (15000 B.C. - 1606 DHR Staff: in field, probably mostly 44VB0170 H Domestic Y Intact Cultural Level temporary A.D.), 19th Century Not Eligible intact (1800 - 1899) 19th Century (1800 - DHR Staff: in field, probably mostly 44VB0171 H 1899), 20th Century Y Intact Cultural Level Not Eligible intact (1900 - 1999) Middle Archaic (6500 - DHR Staff: mostly under Camp, 44VB0173 H Domestic 3001 B.C.), 19th Century Potentially building/destroyed, northeast Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed temporary (1800 - 1899) Eligible portion in field may be intact Middle Archaic (6500 - Camp, 3001 B.C.), 18th Century: DHR Staff: Domestic, buildings, parking lot- 44VB0174 H temporary, 2nd half (1750 - 1799), Potentially Y Site Totally Destroyed Funerary destroyed Cemetery 19th Century (1800 - Eligible 1899) 116

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N 20th Century (1900 - DHR Staff: 44VB0187 H in woods, probably intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed 1999) Not Eligible 19th Century: 2nd half DHR Staff: 44VB0188 H in woods, probably intact Y Intact Cultural Level (1850 - 1899) Not Eligible 20th Century (1900 - DHR Staff: in field, probably mostly 44VB0203 H Y Intact Cultural Level 1999) Not Eligible intact 19th Century: 2nd half DHR Staff: 44VB0204 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter in woods, probably intact Y Intact Cultural Level (1850 - 1899) Not Eligible 19th Century: 2nd half DHR Staff: 44VB0205 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter (1850 - 1899), 20th in woods, probably intact Y Intact Cultural Level Not Eligible Century (1900 - 1999) 19th Century: 2nd half DHR Staff: 44VB0206 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown (1850 - 1899) Not Eligible 19th Century: 2nd half DHR Staff: 44VB0207 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter (1850 - 1899), 20th not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Not Eligible Century (1900 - 1999) Dwelling, 19th Century: 2nd half Domestic, DHR Staff: 44VB0208 H single, Trash (1850 - 1899), 20th not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown DSS Legacy Not Eligible scatter Century (1900 - 1999) 19th Century: 2nd half DHR Staff: 44VB0209 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter (1850 - 1899), 20th not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Not Eligible Century (1900 - 1999) 19th Century: 2nd half field/woods- probably mostly 44VB0210 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter Y Intact Cultural Level (1850 - 1899) intact 19th Century (1800 - DHR Staff: 44VB0211 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter 1899), 20th Century solar farm, partially intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed Not Eligible (1900 - 1999) 19th Century: 2nd half road, solar farm, partially 44VB0212 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter (1850 - 1899), 20th Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed intact Century (1900 - 1999) 20th Century (1900 - DHR Staff: in field, probably mostly 44VB0213 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed 1999) Not Eligible intact 20th Century (1900 - in field, probably mostly 44VB0214 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter Y Intact Cultural Level 1999) intact 19th Century: 2nd half Camp, Domestic, (1850 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff: in field, probably mostly 44VB0215 H Farmstead, Y Intact Cultural Level DSS Legacy Century: 1st half (1900 - Not Eligible intact Trash scatter 1949)

117

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N 18th Century: 4th quarter (1775 - 1799), 19th in field, probably mostly 44VB0216 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter Y Intact Cultural Level Century: 1st quarter intact (1800 - 1825) Prehistoric/ Unknown Camp, Trash (15000 B.C. - 1606 in field, probably mostly 44VB0217 H DSS Legacy Y Intact Cultural Level scatter A.D.), 19th Century intact (1800 - 1899) 19th Century (1800 - in field, probably mostly 44VB0218 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter 1899), 20th Century Y Intact Cultural Level intact (1900 - 1999) 19th Century: 2nd half DHR Staff: in field, probably mostly 44VB0219 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter (1850 - 1899), 20th Y Intact Cultural Level Not Eligible intact Century (1900 - 1999) Prehistoric/ Unknown in field, probably mostly 44VB0220 H DSS Legacy Camp Y Intact Cultural Level (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) intact Prehistoric/ Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606 Camp, Trash in field, probably mostly 44VB0221 H DSS Legacy A.D.), 19th Century: 2nd Y Intact Cultural Level scatter intact half (1850 - 1899), 20th Century (1900 - 1999) 19th Century (1800 - in field, probably mostly 44VB0222 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter 1899), 20th Century Y Intact Cultural Level intact (1900 - 1999) Prehistoric/ Unknown in field, probably mostly 44VB0223 H DSS Legacy Camp Y Intact Cultural Level (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) intact Prehistoric/ Unknown in field, probably mostly 44VB0224 H DSS Legacy Other Y Intact Cultural Level (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) intact Prehistoric/ Unknown in field, probably mostly 44VB0225 H DSS Legacy Other Y Intact Cultural Level (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) intact in field, probably mostly 44VB0226 H Funerary Cemetery Historic/ Unknown Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed intact 19th Century (1800 - in field, probably mostly 44VB0228 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter 1899), 20th Century Y Intact Cultural Level intact (1900 - 1999) 19th Century: 2nd half in field, probably mostly 44VB0230 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter (1850 - 1899), 20th Y Intact Cultural Level intact Century (1900 - 1999)

118

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N 20th Century (1900 - in field, probably mostly 44VB0231 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter Y Intact Cultural Level 1999) intact 19th Century (1800 - Dwelling, DHR Staff: 44VB0232 H Domestic 1899), 20th Century under roads, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed single Not Eligible (1900 - 1999) Commerce/ Dwelling, 20th Century: 1st half 44VB0233 H Trade, single, under road, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed (1900 - 1949) Domestic General store 20th Century: 1st half 44VB0234 H road, utilities- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed (1900 - 1949) Dwelling, 20th Century: 1st half 44VB0235 H Domestic road, utilities- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed single (1900 - 1949) 18th Century (1700 - mostly destroyed by road- 1799), 19th Century DHR Staff: southern portion may be 44VB0236 H Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed (1800 - 1899), 20th Not Eligible partially intact in open lot, but Century (1900 - 1999) appears graded 18th Century (1700 - Ditch, DHR Staff: 44VB0237 H Landscape 1799), 19th Century road, utilities- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed boundary Not Eligible (1800 - 1899) DHR Staff: 44VB0243 H Historic/ Unknown not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Not Eligible 18th Century (1700 - DHR Staff: 44VB0244 H Domestic Farmstead 1799), 19th Century: 1st Potentially not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown quarter (1800 - 1825) Eligible 20th Century: 1st half DHR Staff: mostly in woods and probably 44VB0245 H Domestic Farmstead Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed (1900 - 1949) Not Eligible intact 19th Century: 4th quarter (1875 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff: mostly in woods and probably 44VB0246 H Domestic Farmstead Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed Century: 1st half (1900 - Not Eligible intact 1949) Domestic, Farmstead, 20th Century: 1st half DHR Staff: mostly in woods and probably 44VB0247 H Subsistence/ Y Intact Cultural Level Outbuilding (1900 - 1949) Not Eligible intact Agriculture 19th Century: 4th quarter (1875 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff: mostly in woods and probably 44VB0248 H DSS Legacy Trash scatter Y Intact Cultural Level Century: 1st half (1900 - Not Eligible intact 1949)

119

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N 19th Century: 4th quarter (1875 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff: 44VB0249 H Domestic Farmstead not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Century: 1st half (1900 - Not Eligible 1949) Domestic, Farmstead, 20th Century: 1st half DHR Staff: 44VB0250 H Subsistence/ not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Outbuilding (1900 - 1949) Not Eligible Agriculture 19th Century: 4th quarter (1875 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff: 44VB0251 H Domestic Farmstead not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Century: 1st half (1900 - Not Eligible 1949) 19th Century: 4th quarter (1875 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff: 44VB0252 H Domestic Farmstead not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Century: 1st half (1900 - Not Eligible 1949) 19th Century: 4th quarter (1875 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff: 44VB0253 H Domestic Farmstead not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Century: 1st half (1900 - Not Eligible 1949) 19th Century: 4th quarter (1875 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff: 44VB0254 H Domestic Farmstead not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Century: 1st half (1900 - Not Eligible 1949) 18th Century: 2nd half (1750 - 1799), 19th DHR Staff: 44VB0255 H Domestic Farmstead in woods, probably intact Y Intact Cultural Level Century: 1st half (1800 - Not Eligible 1849) Industry/ Oceana Fence Prehistoric/ Unknown DHR Staff: mostly in woods and probably 44VB0300 H Processing/ Lithic scatter Y Intact Cultural Level 1 (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) Not Eligible intact Extraction 18th Century (1700 - Oceana Fence 1799), 19th Century DHR Staff: in field, probably mostly 44VB0301 H Domestic Farmstead Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed 2 (1800 - 1899), 20th Not Eligible intact Century (1900 - 1999) 19th Century (1800 - Oceana Fence DHR Staff: 44VB0302 H Domestic Farmstead 1899), 20th Century in woods, probably intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed 3 Not Eligible (1900 - 1999)

120

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N 19th Century (1800 - Potter's Dwelling, DHR Staff: 44VB0303 H Domestic 1899), 20th Century in woods, probably intact Y Intact Cultural Level corner single Not Eligible (1900 - 1999) Dwelling, 19th Century: 1st half DHR Staff: in field, probably mostly 44VB0321 H Domestic Y Intact Cultural Level single (1800 - 1849) Not Eligible intact in field, probably mostly 20th Century: 1st half DHR Staff: 44VB0361 H Domestic Farmstead intact- maybe some utility Y Intact Cultural Level (1900 - 1949) Not Eligible disturbance World War I to World recently completed/updated Recent data, survey not 44VB0379 H Domestic Farmstead N War II (1917 - 1945) form necessary 20th Century (1900 - 44VB0082 I Domestic Trash pit not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1999) Military/ 44VB0085 I Earthworks Historic/ Unknown not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Defense 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0087 I DSS Legacy Other not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1899) 19th Century: 4th quarter (1875 - 1899), 20th 44VB0088 I Domestic Trash pit not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Century: 1st quarter (1900 - 1924) 19th Century: 1st quarter 44VB0091 I Domestic Farmstead not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown (1800 - 1825) 19th Century (1800 - DHR Staff: Dwelling, 44VB0124 I Domestic 1899), 20th Century Potentially mostly intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed single (1900 - 1999) Eligible 19th Century (1800 - mostly under houses, southern 44VB0126 I Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed 1899) portion may be partially intact DHR Staff: 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0178 I Potentially not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1899) Eligible Archaic (8500 - 1201 DHR Staff: Camp, pond, utilities, grading- 44VB0179 I Domestic B.C.), 19th Century Potentially Y Site Totally Destroyed temporary destroyed (1800 - 1899) Eligible 20th Century: 1st half not visible from right-of-way, 44VB0196 I N Site Condition Unknown (1900 - 1949) but in woods and likely intact partially destroyed by roads, 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0200 I but mostly in woods and Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed 1899) probably intact

121

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N 19th Century (1800 - road, utilities, grading, mostly 44VB0201 I 1899), 20th Century Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed destroyed (1900 - 1999) Middle Woodland (300 - Camp, 999 A.D.), 19th Century: Domestic, DHR Staff: in field, probably mostly 44VB0227 I Farmstead, 2nd half (1850 - 1899), Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed DSS Legacy Not Eligible intact Trash scatter 20th Century: 1st half (1900 - 1949) Camp, Late Woodland (1000 - DHR Staff: 44VB0308 I Domestic not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown temporary 1606) Eligible 18th Century: 4th quarter Dwelling, (1775 - 1799), 19th 44VB0309 I Domestic not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown single Century: 1st quarter (1800 - 1825) 19th Century: 4th quarter 44VB0310 I Funerary Cemetery intact Y Intact Cultural Level (1875 - 1899) Camp 19th Century (1800 - Pendleton DHR Staff: 44VB0343 I DSS Legacy Trash scatter 1899), 20th Century not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown ANG Site C- Not Eligible (1900 - 1999) 1 18th Century: 4th quarter DHR Staff: Dwelling, (1775 - 1799), 19th recently completed/updated Recent data, survey not 44VB0363 I Domestic Potentially N single Century: 1st quarter form necessary Eligible (1800 - 1825) 19th Century: 2nd half Dwelling, (1850 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff: 44VB0364 I Domestic not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown single Century: 1st half (1900 - Not Eligible 1949) 19th Century: 2nd half Dwelling, (1850 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff: 44VB0365 I Domestic mostly in woods/intact Y Intact Cultural Level single Century: 1st half (1900 - Not Eligible 1949) World War I to World Military/ Military base/ War II (1917 - 1945), The 44VB0385 I not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Defense facility New Dominion (1946 - 1991)

122

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N World War I to World Military/ Military base/ War II (1917 - 1945), The 44VB0386 I not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Defense facility New Dominion (1946 - 1991) World War I to World Military/ Military base/ War II (1917 - 1945), The 44VB0387 I not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Defense facility New Dominion (1946 - 1991) World War I to World Military/ Military base/ War II (1917 - 1945), The 44VB0388 I not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Defense facility New Dominion (1946 - 1991) Industry/ Pre-Contact, World War I Processing/ Lithic scatter, to World War II (1917 - 44VB0389 I Extraction, Military base/ not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1945), The New Military/ facility Dominion (1946 - 1991) Defense World War I to World Military/ Military base/ War II (1917 - 1945), The 44VB0390 I not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Defense facility New Dominion (1946 - 1991) Dwelling, Reconstruction and 44VB0391 I Domestic not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown single Growth (1866 - 1916) Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Civil War (1861 Dwelling, 44VB0392 I Domestic - 1865), Reconstruction not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown single and Growth (1866 - 1916) Colony to Nation (1751 - 1789), Early National Period (1790 - 1829), Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Civil War (1861 Dwelling, 44VB0393 I Domestic - 1865), Reconstruction not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown single and Growth (1866 - 1916), World War I to World War II (1917 - 1945), The New Dominion (1946 - 1991)

123

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N Pre-Contact, Middle Industry/ Woodland (300 - 999 Processing/ Lithic scatter, C.E), Late Woodland 44VB0394 I Extraction, Military base/ (1000 - 1606), World not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Military/ facility War I to World War II Defense (1917 - 1945), The New Dominion (1946 - 1991) Pre-Contact, Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Industry/ Civil War (1861 - 1865), Processing/ Lithic scatter, Reconstruction and 44VB0395 I Extraction, Military base/ Growth (1866 - 1916), not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Military/ facility World War I to World Defense War II (1917 - 1945), The New Dominion (1946 - 1991) World War I to World Military/ Military base/ War II (1917 - 1945), The 44VB0396 I not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Defense facility New Dominion (1946 - 1991) Paleo-Indian (15000 - 8501 B.C.), Archaic Camp, DHR Staff: partially under road, DSS Legacy, (8500 - 1201 B.C.), 44VB0180 I/ H Cemetery, Potentially otherwise in fields- largely Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed Funerary Woodland (1200 B.C. - Trash scatter Eligible intact 1606 A.D.), 18th Century (1700 - 1799) Archaic (8500 - 1201 44VB0288 J DSS Legacy Camp dense residential- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed B.C.) largely in woods- probably 44VB0095 K 0-24% of Site Destroyed mostly intact

124

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N Early Archaic Period (8500 - 6501 B.C.E), Middle Archaic Period (6500 - 3001 B.C.E), Late Archaic Period (3000 - 1201 B.C.E), Early Woodland (1200 B.C.E - 299 C.E), Middle Woodland (300 - 999 C.E), Late Woodland Camp, DHR Staff: Domestic, (1000 - 1606), Early recently completed/updated Recent data, survey not 44VB0162 K temporary, Potentially N Funerary National Period (1790 - form necessary Cemetery Eligible 1829), Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Civil War (1861 - 1865), Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916), World War I to World War II (1917 - 1945), The New Dominion (1946 - 1991), Post-Cold War (1992 - Present) 19th Century: 2nd half (1850 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff: 44VB0163 K not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Century: 1st half (1900 - Not Eligible 1949) Paleo-Indian (15000 - DHR Staff: 8501 B.C.), Middle 44VB0165 K DSS Legacy Camp Potentially not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Archaic (6500 - 3001 Eligible B.C.) Camp, Camp, Middle Archaic Period Domestic, DHR Staff: base, (6500 - 3001 B.C.E), destroyed- construction in 44VB0166 K Military/ Potentially Y Site Totally Destroyed Dwelling, Early National Period progress Defense Eligible single (1790 - 1829) house, western portion Camp, Prehistoric/ Unknown DHR Staff: 44VB0167 K Domestic possibly partially intact in Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed temporary (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) Not Eligible backyard Camp, Prehistoric/ Unknown DHR Staff: 44VB0169 K Domestic not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown temporary (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) Not Eligible

125

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N Camp, Archaic (8500 - 1201 DHR Staff: temporary, 44VB0172 K Domestic B.C.), 19th Century Potentially dense residential, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed Dwelling, (1800 - 1899) Eligible single 18th Century (1700 - DHR Staff: not visible from right-of-way, 44VB0175 K DSS Legacy Other 1799), 19th Century N Site Condition Unknown Not Eligible but in woods and likely intact (1800 - 1899) Late Archaic (3000 - Camp, 1201 B.C.), 19th Century DHR Staff: in athletic field, possibly 44VB0176 K Domestic temporary, (1800 - 1899), 20th Potentially largely intact if not heavily Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed Farmstead Century: 1st half (1900 - Eligible graded 1949) Prehistoric/ Unknown Camp, (15000 B.C. - 1606 Domestic, DHR Staff: 44VB0177 K temporary, A.D.), 19th Century: 2nd under building, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed DSS Legacy Not Eligible Other half (1850 - 1899), 20th Century (1900 - 1999) DHR Staff: 19th Century: 2nd half 44VB0181 K Potentially not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown (1850 - 1899) Eligible 19th Century (1800 - DHR Staff: 44VB0182 K Funerary Cemetery 1899), 20th Century intact Y Intact Cultural Level Not Eligible (1900 - 1999) 19th Century (1800 - DHR Staff: 44VB0183 K Funerary Cemetery 1899), 20th Century intact Y Intact Cultural Level Not Eligible (1900 - 1999) DHR Staff: 44VB0184 K Funerary Cemetery Historic/ Unknown wooded, probably intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed Not Eligible 20th Century (1900 - DHR Staff: 44VB0185 K Funerary Cemetery intact Y Intact Cultural Level 1999) Not Eligible 19th Century: 2nd half DHR Staff: DSS Legacy, Cemetery, (1850 - 1899), 20th 44VB0189 K Potentially not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Funerary Other Century: 1st half (1900 - Eligible 1949) 18th Century: 2nd half DHR Staff: (1750 - 1799), 19th in field, probably mostly 44VB0190 K Potentially Y Intact Cultural Level Century: 1st half (1800 - intact Eligible 1849)

126

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N Archaic (8500 - 1201 DHR Staff: B.C.), 19th Century in field, probably mostly 44VB0191 K DSS Legacy Camp Potentially Y Intact Cultural Level (1800 - 1899), 20th intact Eligible Century (1900 - 1999) 19th Century: 2nd quarter DHR Staff: in field, probably mostly 44VB0193 K Domestic Farmstead (1825 - 1849), 20th Potentially Y Intact Cultural Level intact Century (1900 - 1999) Eligible 19th Century (1800 - DHR Staff: mostly in woods, probably 44VB0194 K Domestic Farmstead 1899), 20th Century Y Intact Cultural Level Not Eligible intact (1900 - 1999) 20th Century (1900 - 44VB0197 K Domestic Farmstead under road, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed 1999) 19th Century: 2nd half (1850 - 1899), 20th stormwater retention pond- 44VB0198 K Y Site Totally Destroyed Century: 1st half (1900 - destroyed 1949) 19th Century (1800 - parking lot and grading- 44VB0199 K 1899), 20th Century Y Site Totally Destroyed destroyed (1900 - 1999) 18th Century: 2nd half (1750 - 1799), 19th DHR Staff: mostly in woods, probably 44VB0257 K Domestic Farmstead Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed Century: 1st half (1800 - Not Eligible intact 1849) 18th Century: 2nd half (1750 - 1799), 19th DHR Staff: 44VB0262 K Domestic Farmstead not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Century: 1st half (1800 - Not Eligible 1849) 19th Century: 2nd quarter DHR Staff: (1825 - 1849), 19th 44VB0263 K DSS Legacy Trash scatter Potentially not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Century: 2nd half (1850 - Eligible 1899) 19th Century: 2nd half DHR Staff: (1850 - 1899), 20th 44VB0264 K DSS Legacy Trash scatter Potentially not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Century: 1st half (1900 - Eligible 1949) DHR Staff: 44VB0265 K DSS Legacy Trash scatter Potentially not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Eligible

127

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N Prehistoric/ Unknown DHR Staff: (15000 B.C. - 1606 44VB0266 K DSS Legacy Trash scatter Potentially not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown A.D.), 19th Century: 2nd Eligible half (1850 - 1899) Transportation Early National Period DHR Staff: / (1790 - 1829), recently completed/updated Recent data, survey not 44VB0269 K Trash scatter Potentially N Communicatio Antebellum Period (1830 form necessary Eligible n - 1860) Paleo-Indian (15000 - 8501 B.C.E), Early Archaic Period (8500 - 6501 B.C.E), Middle Archaic Period (6500 - 3001 B.C.E), Late Archaic Period (3000 - 1201 B.C.E), Early Woodland (1200 B.C.E - DHR Staff: Artifact recently completed/updated Recent data, survey not 44VB0270 K Indeterminate 299 C.E), Middle Potentially N scatter form necessary Woodland (300 - 999 Eligible C.E), Late Woodland (1000 - 1606), Early National Period (1790 - 1829), Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Civil War (1861 - 1865), Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916) Early National Period (1790 - 1829), Transportation Antebellum Period (1830 DHR Staff: / recently completed/updated Recent data, survey not 44VB0271 K Trash scatter - 1860), Civil War (1861 Potentially N Communicatio form necessary - 1865), Reconstruction Eligible n and Growth (1866 - 1916) Antebellum Period (1830 Transportation - 1860), Civil War (1861 DHR Staff: / recently completed/updated Recent data, survey not 44VB0272 K Trash scatter - 1865), Reconstruction Potentially N Communicatio form necessary and Growth (1866 - Eligible n 1916)

128

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N Transportation DHR Staff: / Reconstruction and recently completed/updated Recent data, survey not 44VB0273 K Trash scatter Potentially N Communicatio Growth (1866 - 1916) form necessary Eligible n Paleo-Indian (15000 - 8501 B.C.E), Early Archaic Period (8500 - 6501 B.C.E), Middle Archaic Period (6500 - 3001 B.C.E), Late Archaic Period (3000 - 1201 B.C.E), Early Artifact Domestic, Woodland (1200 B.C.E - DHR Staff: recently completed/updated Recent data, survey not 44VB0274 K scatter, N Indeterminate 299 C.E), Middle Not Eligible form necessary Farmstead Woodland (300 - 999 C.E), Late Woodland (1000 - 1606), Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Civil War (1861 - 1865), Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916) Antebellum Period (1830 Transportation - 1860), Civil War (1861 DHR Staff: / recently completed/updated Recent data, survey not 44VB0275 K Trash scatter - 1865), Reconstruction Potentially N Communicatio form necessary and Growth (1866 - Eligible n 1916) Late Archaic (3000 - mostly in woods, probably 44VB0290 K DSS Legacy Camp Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed 1201 B.C.) largely intact DHR Staff: 44VB0293 K intact Y Intact Cultural Level Not Eligible Salem Canal (Channelized 19th Century (1800 - Segment of DHR Staff: also VB172 (same 44VB0306 K DSS Legacy Canal 1899), 20th Century Y Site Totally Destroyed North Not Eligible boundaries) (1900 - 1999) Landing River)

129

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N 19th Century: 2nd half (1850 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff: 44VB0307 K Canal No. 4 DSS Legacy Canal intact at Dam Neck crossing Y Intact Cultural Level Century: 1st half (1900 - Not Eligible 1949) northwestern portion probably largely intact, rest may be Dwelling, 20th Century (1900 - DHR Staff: 44VB0311 K Domestic partially destroyed by sheds Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed single 1999) Not Eligible and other lightly-constructed buildings Y, Dwelling, 20th Century (1900 - DHR Staff: northern, wooded portion nowhere to 44VB0312 K Domestic 25-49% of Site Destroyed single 1999) Not Eligible likely intact pull over for photo Y, Dwelling, 20th Century (1900 - DHR Staff: southeastern, wooded portion nowhere to 44VB0313 K Domestic 25-49% of Site Destroyed single 1999) Not Eligible likely intact pull over for photo Dwelling, 19th Century: 2nd half DHR Staff: 44VB0314 K Domestic not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown single (1850 - 1899) Not Eligible Dwelling, 20th Century (1900 - DHR Staff: road cuts through, otherwise 44VB0315 K Domestic Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed single 1999) Not Eligible largely intact Dwelling, 20th Century (1900 - DHR Staff: 44VB0316 K Domestic appears mostly intact Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed single 1999) Not Eligible roads cuts through, but mostly Dwelling, 20th Century (1900 - 44VB0317 K Domestic in field, probably largely Y 0-24% of Site Destroyed single 1999) intact Dwelling, 19th Century (1800 - DHR Staff: in field, probably mostly 44VB0318 K Domestic Y Intact Cultural Level single 1899) Not Eligible intact Dwelling, 19th Century (1800 - DHR Staff: in field, probably mostly 44VB0319 K Domestic Y Intact Cultural Level single 1899) Not Eligible intact Dwelling, 19th Century: 1st half DHR Staff: field/woods- probably mostly 44VB0320 K Domestic Y Intact Cultural Level single (1800 - 1849) Not Eligible intact mapped as partially under Murphy 19th Century: 2nd half road, but probably intact in 44VB0342 K Funerary Cemetery Y Intact Cultural Level Cemetery (1850 - 1899) clump of trees north and east of road

130

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N 18th Century (1700 - 1799), 19th Century Dwelling, DHR Staff: recently completed/updated Recent data, survey not 44VB0370 K Domestic (1800 - 1899), 20th N single Not Eligible form necessary Century: 1st half (1900 - 1949) Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916), Artifact World War I to World recently completed/updated Recent data, survey not 44VB0374 K Domestic N scatter War II (1917 - 1945), The form necessary New Dominion (1946 - 1988) 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0121 L dense residential, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed 1899) Late Archaic (3000 - Camp, 1201 B.C.), Woodland DHR Staff: Domestic, 44VB0164 L temporary, (1200 B.C. - 1606 A.D.), Potentially dense residential, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed DSS Legacy Other 18th Century (1700 - Eligible 1799) southern portion under 20th c. house Domestic, Dwelling, 20th Century (1900 - DHR Staff: houses, northern part in 44VB0168 L Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed site DSS Legacy single, Other 1999) Not Eligible woods and likely largely intact 18th Century (1700 - DHR Staff: Dwelling, largely intact, far eastern 1/3 44VB0186 L Domestic 1799), 19th Century Potentially Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed single destroyed by modern house (1800 - 1899) Eligible Early Archaic (8500 - 6501 B.C.), Middle Archaic (6500 - 3001 under shopping center, 44VB0291 L DSS Legacy Camp B.C.), Late Archaic (3000 Y Site Totally Destroyed destroyed - 1201 B.C.), Early Woodland (1200 B.C. - 299 A.D.) DHR Staff: 44VB0292 L under road, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed Not Eligible Lake Dwelling, 19th Century (1800 - under industrial complex, 44VB0017 M Domestic Y Site Totally Destroyed Tecumseh single 1899) destroyed under industrial complex, 44VB0018 M Funerary Cemetery Y Site Totally Destroyed destroyed

131

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N 18th Century: 2nd half (1750 - 1799), 19th under industrial complex, 44VB0019 M DSS Legacy Trash scatter Y Site Totally Destroyed Century: 1st half (1800 - destroyed 1849) 18th Century: 2nd half Dwelling, (1750 - 1799), 19th under industrial complex, 44VB0020 M Domestic Y Site Totally Destroyed single Century: 1st half (1800 - destroyed 1849) 19th Century: 1st half under industrial complex, 44VB0021 M Domestic Trash pit Y Site Totally Destroyed (1800 - 1849) destroyed 18th Century (1700 - under industrial complex, 44VB0022 M DSS Legacy Other 1799), 19th Century Y Site Totally Destroyed destroyed (1800 - 1899) 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0083 M Domestic Farmstead not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1899) not visible from right-of-way, 20th Century (1900 - 44VB0084 M Domestic Trash pit but under parking lot, N Site Condition Unknown 1999) destroyed 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0086 M Funerary Cemetery not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown 1899) 19th Century (1800 - 44VB0117 M wooded, probably intact Y 50-74% of Site Destroyed 1899) 19th Century (1800 - dense residential, mostly 44VB0118 M Y 75-99% of Site Destroyed 1899) destroyed 19th Century (1800 - dense residential, mostly 44VB0119 M Y Site Totally Destroyed 1899) destroyed 19th Century (1800 - dense residential, mostly 44VB0120 M Y Site Totally Destroyed 1899) destroyed 19th Century (1800 - in church yard and woods, 44VB0122 M Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed 1899) probably largely intact Hickman House (ca. 1832), appears intact except for 44VB0123 M directly under house, where Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed construction taking place to stabilize or move building Prehistoric/ Unknown Dwelling, (15000 B.C. - 1606 44VB0281 M Domestic road, parking lot- destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed single A.D.), 19th Century (1800 - 1899) 132

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N 19th Century: 2nd half (1850 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff: in field, probably mostly 44VB0322 M field scatter 1 DSS Legacy Trash scatter Y Intact Cultural Level Century: 1st quarter Not Eligible intact (1900 - 1924) 19th Century: 2nd half (1850 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff: in field, probably mostly 44VB0323 M field scatter 2 DSS Legacy Trash scatter Y Intact Cultural Level Century: 1st half (1900 - Not Eligible intact 1949) 19th Century: 2nd half (1850 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff: in field, probably mostly 44VB0324 M field scatter 4 DSS Legacy Trash scatter Y Intact Cultural Level Century: 1st half (1900 - Not Eligible intact 1949) Prehistoric/ Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.), 19th Century: 2nd DHR Staff: in field, probably mostly 44VB0325 M field scatter 5 DSS Legacy Trash scatter Y Intact Cultural Level half (1850 - 1899), 20th Not Eligible intact Century: 1st quarter (1900 - 1924) Prehistoric/ Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606 Camp, Domestic, A.D.), 19th Century: 2nd DHR Staff: in field, probably mostly 44VB0326 M field scatter 7 temporary, Y Intact Cultural Level DSS Legacy half (1850 - 1899), 20th Not Eligible intact Trash scatter Century: 1st quarter (1900 - 1924) 19th Century: 2nd half (1850 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff: in field, probably mostly 44VB0327 M field scatter 8 DSS Legacy Trash scatter Y Intact Cultural Level Century: 1st half (1900 - Not Eligible intact 1949) southern portion in field, 19th Century: 2nd half probably mostly intact, (1850 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff: 44VB0328 M field scatter 9 DSS Legacy Trash scatter northern part may be Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed Century: 1st half (1900 - Not Eligible impacted by construction of 1949) road and building 19th Century (1800 - DHR Staff: field scatter in field, probably mostly 44VB0329 M DSS Legacy Trash scatter 1899), 20th Century: 1st Potentially Y 25-49% of Site Destroyed 10 intact quarter (1900 - 1924) Eligible

133

Site Evaluation Surveyed? DHR ID Area Site Name Site Types Time Periods Field Notes VCRIS Condition Entry Categories Status Y or N 19th Century: 2nd half field scatter (1850 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff: 44VB0330 M DSS Legacy Trash scatter industrial complex, destroyed Y Site Totally Destroyed 12 Century: 1st quarter Not Eligible (1900 - 1924) Subsistence/ 20th Century: 1st half DHR Staff: 44VB0344 M Well not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Agriculture (1900 - 1949) Not Eligible 18th Century: 2nd half Agricultural (1750 - 1799), 20th Domestic, field, Century: 1st quarter DHR Staff: 44VB0345 M Subsistence/ not visible from right-of-way N Site Condition Unknown Dwelling, (1900 - 1924), 20th Not Eligible Agriculture single Century: 2nd/ 3rd quarter (1925 - 1974) 18th Century (1700 - Domestic, Agricultural 1799), 19th Century DHR Staff: 44VB0346 M Subsistence/ field, appears intact Y Intact Cultural Level (1800 - 1899), 20th Not Eligible Agriculture Farmstead Century (1900 - 1999)

134