An Archaeological Assessment of Spotsylvania County, Virginia

A Wealth of Hidden Resources An Archaeological Assessment of Spotsylvania County, Virginia

Submitted by: Submitted to: William and Mary Virginia Department of Historic Resources Center for Archaeological Research and County of Spotsylvania

2007

A Wealth of Hidden Resources: An Archaeological Assessment of Spotsylvania County, Virginia

WMCAR Project No. 06-17

Submitted by: Submitted to: William and Mary Center for Virginia Department of Historic Archaeological Research Resources The College of William and Mary 221 Governor Street P.O. Box 8795 Richmond, Virginia 23219 Williamsburg, Virginia 23187 and

County of Spotsylvania Planning Department, Development Services Division 10304 Spotsylvania Avenue, 4th Floor Authors: Fredericksburg, Virginia 22408 Elizabeth J. Monroe with contributions by Courtney Birkett Stephanie Sapp Oliver Mueller-Heubach

Project Director: Joe B. Jones

2007

i Abstract

This document represents an assessment of the archaeological resources in Spotsylvania County, Virginia. It is based on the records of sites officially recorded with the Depart- ment of Historic Resources before the end of July, 2006. In addition, information from 17 archaeological sites identified through limited survey conducted by WMCAR staff augmented the database of known sites and informed the definitions of archaeological sensitivity. The intent of the assessment is to provide managers of archaeological sites, especially at the local level, with a handy reference describing the nature of the current sample, identifying sensitive areas of archaeological potential, and providing recommendations for taking archaeological sites into account during the planning process. Spotsylvania County contains numerous archaeological resources of regional and national significance, especially those relating to the period of early European settlement, the industrial heritage of the county, and the Civil War.

Acknowledgments

Projects of this scope are completed only with the contributions of many people. All that aided this effort deserve some credit and as many as possible deserve mention. Staff of the William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research played various roles and provided all manner of support. Eric Agin manipulated the data through various GIS analyses and produced the final graphics, David Lewes transformed a rough file into a present- able report, and Courtney Birkett assisted with data compilation and editing. We are especially appreciative of guidance and assistance provided by Department of Historic Resources personnel, particularly Bob Jolley, Quatro Hubbard, and Lyndsay Graham. Spotsylvania County personnel provided considerable logistical support and useful con- ceptual guidance. Foremost among them are Wanda Parrish and Andrew Deci in the Development Services Division of the Planning Department, and Jennifer Calamos with the Department of Information Services. Carroll Hayden provided important information on the archaeological resources present in the eastern portion of the County, and served as a liaison and guide. A number of local landowners generously granted the WMCAR staff permission to enter their properties during the limited fieldwork phase of the project; in particular we would like to thank the Smiths, Pappases, Daminskis, Mr. Kirklighter, Mr. Orndorf, Ms. Blankenbaker, and the Catholic Diocese of Arlington. The cooperation we received from various organizations holding collections and records of Spotsylvania archaeological sites was unfailing.

ii Contents

Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgments...... ii Figures ...... iv Tables ...... iv 1 Introduction ...... 1 Purpose ...... 1 Methods ...... 2 User’s Guide ...... 4 2 Background Contexts ...... 7 Introduction ...... 7 Prehistoric Context ...... 7 Historical Context ...... 13 3 Compilation, Assessment, and Update of Known Resources ...... 25 Introduction ...... 25 Description of Known Resources ...... 25 Assessment of Known Resources ...... 46 4 Identification of Sensitive Areas ...... 53 Introduction ...... 53 Defining Sensitivity Areas ...... 54 Application of the Sensitivity Definitions ...... 56 5 Management Recommendations and Guidelines ...... 59 Summary of Priority Ranking and Eligibility Determinations ...... 59 Summary of Sensitive Areas ...... 60 Management and Planning Recommendations...... 61 Bibliography of Known Sources ...... 65 Appendix A: Glossary of Archaeological Terms Appendix B: Directory of Collections/Archive Repositories Appendix C: Explanation of Data Records and Inventory of Known Resources

iii Figures

1 Historic map of Spotsylvania County, 1820 ...... 18 2 Portion of Civil War–era map showing Spotsylvania County, 1863 ...... 21 3 Historic map of Spotsylvania County, 186–...... 22 4 Distribution of archaeological sites (n=416) and large survey tracts ...... 26 5 Distribution of archaeological sites by voting district ...... 29 6 Distribution of archaeological sites by zoning ...... 32 7 Distribution of archaeological sites according to the Comprehensive Plan..... 34 8 Distribution of archaeological sites by drainage ...... 36 9 Distribution of archaeological sites by soil association ...... 38 10 Distribution of mining sites ...... 40 11 Distribution of sites with known (a) historic and (b) prehistoric archaeological components ...... 42 12 Frequency of prehistoric and historic components by era ...... 44 13 Archaeological sites listed as eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and Virginia Landmarks Register ...... 48 14 General extent of high-, moderate-, and low-sensitivity areas ...... 56 15 Example of sensitivity areas in a representative area of Spotsylvania County ...... 58

Tables

1 Summary of prehistoric contexts ...... 8 2 Comparison of selected county/city site samples ...... 27 3 Archaeological components by voting district ...... 30 4 Archaeological components according to zoning...... 33 5 Archaeological components according to the Comprehensive Plan...... 35 6 Archaeological sites according to drainage ...... 37 7 Archaeological sites by soil associations ...... 39 8 Archaeological components by time periods ...... 44 9 Prehistoric components by type (function) ...... 45 10 Historic components by type (function) ...... 45 11 Archaeological sites potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and Virginia Landmarks Register ...... 47 12 Prioritized ranking for archaeological sites in Spotsylvania County ...... 50

iv 1 Introduction

Purpose Federally mandated efforts to avoid the loss of significant resources apply only to undertakings This document represents an assessment of ar- involving federal monies and permits or to re- chaeological resources in Spotsylvania County, sources located on federal lands. These weak- Virginia. It is designed to serve as the key ref- nesses explain the need for local governments erence for making decisions about treatment of to formulate plans for cases outside of other archaeological resources in the context of land- preservation programs. use planning and the development of programs Consensus is elusive when it comes to re- for future survey, evaluation, and treatment of source management of any kind, and opposing archaeological resources in the county. This viewpoints are familiar to cultural (historic) re- document is designed to accommodate the needs source management. At the root of most debates of many users, including non-specialists in his- is the perceived value of archaeology and historic preservation. Particular consideration is toric preservation. To orient users of this docu- given to the needs of Spotsylvania County offi- ment, basic tenets of our underlying philosophy cials. are offered, in support of sensible archaeologi- More clearly put, the assessment attempts to cal management practices. distill in one document what we know 1. Archaeological sites contain an important archaeologically about Spotsylvania County, as record of the past, and in most cases the of the end of July 2006. The intention has been only surviving record. to produce a no-nonsense translation of this in- 2. People are naturally curious and interested formation. The central issue is this: there are hun- in the past, and often protective of sites, dreds of archaeological sites in the county, but especially at the local level. what do we do about it as a community? This fact, viewed in the context of the area’s devel- 3. Archaeological sites are non-renewable resources; once destroyed or damaged opment, presents a historic preservation di- they can never be replaced. An apt anal- lemma. We are satisfied that intelligent solutions ogy is that archaeological sites represent are in reach, and spell out several in the con- the pages and chapters of a local history cluding section. Spotsylvania County has before book, which if removed make under- it the opportunity to formulate and implement standing of the information difficult at a model plan for managing archaeological sites, best. and this document contains the basic facts with Finally, it is important to enumerate exactly which to begin the process. what this assessment will and will not accom- The development of historic preservation plish. The assessment will provide: plans at the local level is crucial to close gaps in 1. A user-friendly reference for planners, the federal program initiated under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in 1966. Even 2. A summary of current knowledge, with the implementation of the NHPA, numer- 3. A catalogue of officially recorded sites, ous very important archaeological sites remain 4. Locations of officially recorded sites, unprotected and vulnerable to development.

1 5. Discussion of relative site significance and 1. Create a data base format using Micro- rank, soft Access software to accept and manipu- 6. Definitions and locations of sensitivity late the information; areas, and 2. Design a data collection sheet onto which 7. Recommendations for planning/manage- necessary site attributes were transcribed; ment of these resources. 3. Photocopy all relevant site records from The assessment will not provide: VDHR files; 4. Transcribe information onto data collec- 1. An inventory of all sites in the county, tion sheets; 2. Final determinations of significance for all 5. Plot site locations onto U.S. Geological sites, Survey [USGS] topographic quadrangles; 3. Absolute statements of site rank and sen- 6. Refine site records based on archaeologi- sitivity, or cal reports; and 4. The final archaeological “word” for the 7. Enter site record data into the computer county. data base. Users of this document must carefully read The site information compiled in these for- and understand it in order to effectively and mats constitutes the source from which the final responsibly apply the recommendations and assessment products were derived. The princi- guidelines. We have striven to create a “hand- pal products, many of which are found within book” for treatment of archaeological resources; this document, include: even in this format, however, planning to account for the county’s below-ground heritage 1. A master computer file, or data base, con- must always be a thoughtful process. taining summary information for all sites included in the study; 2. A final assessment report; Methods Methods 3. Hard copy tax maps on which site loca- All archaeological sites in Spotsylvania County tions are plotted; and officially documented by July, 2006, were inven- 4. A limited number of digital maps show- toried. “Official” documentation means those ing site location in the county. sites that are represented in Virginia Department Attendant to implementation of these basic of Historic Resources (VDHR) site files records. methods and goals were a variety of procedural We recognize that “archaeological resources” rules and guidelines. The remainder of this sec- include both historic and prehistoric sites older tion describes the measures taken to maintain a than 50 years of age, and also appreciate the very reasonable degree of internal consistency and wide range of resource types to be considered, quality in the data base and other products. including those that are underwater. While there The first priority was to assemble an inven- is no doubt that only a fraction of the total num- tory of all officially documented archaeological ber of sites has been recorded, the records ex- sites within Spotsylvania County. The key source isting in official files are substantial. There are for such information is the Archives Division, 541 sites recorded for Spotsylvania County, and Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, each file was examined. For reasons explained Virginia (VDHR). The VDHR is the principal re- in Chapter 3, however, the number of site pository for Archaeological Site Inventory records actually utilized in this study is 416. Forms, National Register of Historic Places The general procedure for collecting and (NRHP) property files, and reports concerning compiling the raw site information was straight- archaeological sites within the Commonwealth forward. The key steps were to: of Virginia. Of these sources, the Archaeologi-

2 cal Site Inventory Form provides the essential Another task entailed checking site locations descriptive and locational information for each and transferring the boundaries of archaeologi- site. These archaeological site forms are, there- cal survey areas to working copies of USGS 7.5- fore, the primary data source of this report. minute quadrangles. This became one of the Photocopies of all Spotsylvania County site forms most time-consuming aspects of the work. Re- were brought to the William and Mary Center search in various libraries and consultations with for Archaeological Research (WMCAR). cultural resources research organizations iden- Data from VDHR’s Data Sharing System tified 57 official compliance reports relating to (DSS) were provided to the WMCAR by archaeologically surveyed parcels in Spotsyl- Spotsylvania County. The information provided vania County (this number does not include ar- includes both site shape files that can be used to chaeological evaluations or data recovery generate maps in a geographic information sys- projects). Survey area boundaries illustrated in tem (GIS) and metadata, which consists of all these reports were transferred to USGS quad- the information recorded for each site recorded rangles. on state site forms. This textual information is Finally, for the purposes of data analysis, site presented using standardized alphanumeric locations transferred from DSS were loaded into codes defined in VDHR’s How To Use Historic a GIS data file and plotted against a number of Contexts in Virginia: A Guide for Survey, Registra- natural and cultural “layers,” such as streams, tion, Protection, and Treatment Projects (1992). An topography, and modern roads. Visual exami- Excel spreadsheet containing the metadata was nation of correlations between sites and such generated and examined for data gaps. The features permitted identification of sensitivity original site forms and topographic maps were areas and also helped to determine the repre- used to fill in those gaps. Each site is representativeness of current survey coverage. sented as one record or line on the spreadsheet. Many of the headings are consistent with those Fieldwork Methods appearing on standard archaeological site forms and include: Site #, USGS Quadrangle, Site Di- In order to augment the pool of known sites mensions, Cultural Era, Historic Component, and to provide for some limited testing of ex- Prehistoric Type, Historic Type, Survey Strat- pectations about archaeological sensitivity in egy, NRHP Status, and Site Condition. unsurveyed areas, a series of locally known (but Under this system each site record was ex- unrecorded) sites and high potential areas was amined twice by different researchers, and ques- subjected to limited archaeological survey. The tionable information was scrutinized further to slate of sites and areas to be visited was com- minimize error. As necessary, professional con- piled from resources suggested by various citi- sultations occurred between WMCAR research- zens at a public meeting and identified through ers and personnel at VDHR to establish the map research. In addition, based on consulta- credibility of particular data. Information tion with the County, a set of pertinent research deemed inaccurate or obsolete was removed themes was compiled. These themes include sites from the database. dating to the early Colonial period, sites related Data in the Excel file was ultimately synthe- to the industrial heritage of the county (mines, sized into summary reports to facilitate assess- mills, and furnaces), and sites associated with ment of the archaeological resources. Three the African American experience. The general reports inventory all archaeological sites accord- consensus at a startup meeting with the County, ing to temporal period (age) and theme (func- VDHR, and interested members of the commu- tion), location, and current status, respectively nity was that, in general, Civil War–era re- (Appendix C). sources in Spotsylvania County have traditionally received a lot of attention and that

3 at least the major battlefields are relatively well- standing of the human experience in this area, protected by the National Park Service, though especially as it is derived from archaeological less well-known site types, such as encamp- studies. Spotsylvania has a rich and varied his- ments, should be afforded special consideration. tory, a full accounting of which could fill vol- The recommended sites that corresponded to umes. The historical context presented here is these themes were given priority in the field- not intended to provide such a full accounting, work. Once potential sites and areas had been but instead offers a synthetic overview empha- identified on parcel maps, the County contacted sizing historic events and trends most relevant landowners to request permission for the lim- to archaeological resources, with references to ited archaeological testing. more detailed historical sources for the reader, During the week of March 5–9, 2007, WMCAR if necessary. staff identified a total of 17 sites (44SP0587– Chapter 3 is where the basic data are de- 44SP0603). The reconnaissance survey consisted scribed in summary fashion. It serves to present of observation and, when necessary, limited a profile of archaeological sites in Spotsylvania judgmental shovel testing to identify the pres- County, noting everything from the total num- ence of subsurface artifact scatters. Structural ber of sites recorded to the relationship of elements, if present, and artifact scatters were known sites to various factors like soil types or mapped on metric graph paper. All sediment political divisions. This chapter also offers a dis- was screened through 0.64-cm (0.25-in.) wire cussion of the representativeness of the sample, mesh to ensure the adequate recovery of arti- a review of site eligibility for the NRHP, and a facts, and representative soil profiles were re- suggested priority ranking of archaeological sites corded on standardized forms using Munsell in the county. color and U.S. Department of Agriculture de- Chapter 4 defines the archaeological sensi- scriptive terminology (Kollmorgen Instruments tivity of all areas of the county, as it can be de- Corporation 1992). All artifacts recovered were termined from the present sample. These returned to the laboratory at the WMCAR for judgments represent an application of the sum- washing, identification, numbering, and catalog- mary data provided in Chapter 3. ing. All artifacts were prepared for curation ac- Chapter 5 concludes the assessment with pre- cording to the standards of the VDHR. Details sentation of recommendations and guidelines on the identified sites can be found on their re- for managing the county’s archaeological re- spective site forms filed with VDHR. sources. It is a culmination of site data analysis designed to direct planning efforts over both User’s Guide the short and long terms. User’s Guide The bibliography contains references for all This section of the assessment report provides sources cited in this document as well as other basic instructions on how to most effectively use printed sources relevant to archaeology in the document. It points out the location of dif- Spotsylvania County. ferent kinds of information and also makes note Three appendixes are also included. Appen- of inherent limitations of the basic data. dix A is a glossary of potentially unfamiliar terms found in this report. Appendix B lists all known Document Organization repositories of artifacts and records related to archaeology conducted in the county. Appen- Chapter 2 following this introductory chapter dix C consists of three summary tables describ- provides reviews of background information or ing all known sites in Spotsylvania County in summary “contexts” for local prehistoric and terms of the fields that comprise the master data historic archaeological sites. This chapter is es- file. The tables are preceded by a narrative ex- sentially intended to outline our current under-

4 planation of the data fields and terms found in forms. For instance, the form for 44SP0188 them. records information in a very general fashion: “Stone foundation. South bank of Rappahannock Data Limitations River very overgrown.” Modern forms characterize the soil based on U.S. Soil Conservation In order to confidently assess the known cul- Service surveys, describe elevation in terms of tural resources of Spotsylvania County, it is nec- meters above sea level (ASL), slope and aspect essary to identify inherent limitations in the data of the terrain, and must include a descriptive source; in this case the archaeological site inven- list of artifact types and frequency. tory forms (site forms) maintained by VDHR. The use of the site form by a variety of infor- Site forms represent the most accepted manner mants has also resulted in a range of data qual- of recording archaeological properties through- ity and completeness. One reason for this effect out the Commonwealth. The limitations of the is that the VDHR has had a longstanding, lib- site form are due to change over time, use by a eral policy of accepting forms that may lack in- wide variety of informants, and the unverified formation. Although such a policy has the benefit nature of certain records. These factors some- of increasing the number of sites on record, it times result in outdated, incomplete, unverified, also invites inclusion of sketchy records. The and missing information. majority of “undetermined” responses appear- Site forms were first utilized more than three ing in this data file are directly attributable to decades ago by archaeologists at the Virginia this limitation of the data. State Library (the first site forms to identify an Forms completed prior to 1980 or completed archaeological property in Spotsylvania County by non-professionals are not the only source of were filed in 1963). At that time these forms error. For example, sites are occasionally attrib- represented an advance in systematic site inven- uted to a particular time period by professional tory. The first forms recorded information as archaeologists without obvious support from the loosely organized narrative descriptions of the artifacts. It is this type of incorrect information site and associated artifacts. Information was that, if not identified, induces error into the re- often very subjective, and the possibility of sults of any archaeological assessment. multiple informants describing the same site The final source of questionable data encoun- differently was high. Since then the format of tered during this project is represented by “Map site inventory record forms has undergone at Projected/Not Field Checked” sites. These sites least four revisions, with constant movement were generated by overlaying historic maps toward more standardized information. The from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries on current format requires use of a 20-page book- modern USGS quad maps and projecting site let that outlines the meaning of each category locations. This process identified the probable and acceptable responses. location of just one site. Since the existence of This evolution of format and ranges of in- this site has not been verified, it is not consid- formant training have resulted in occasional ex- ered further in this assessment. tremes in the quality of information on site

5 6 2 Background Contexts

Introduction Prehistoric Context The development of contexts for evaluating and This prehistoric context represents a summary managing both individual sites and classes of discussion of each of the major periods or stages sites is important to any assessment. A number defined for the state by the VDHR (1992); a com- of models for context development exist; how- panion chart further synthesizes the information ever, the principal framework to be used is pro- (Table 1). The goal is to characterize the salient vided in the DHR’s publications Virginia Department events and patterns that distinguish one divi- of Historic Resources Comprehensive Preservation sion from another, in other words, to describe Planning Process and Programs in Archaeology (Feb. the hallmarks of these periods. At the most ba- 1991) and How to Use Historic Contexts in Virginia: sic level, the trends cited are generally exhib- A Guide for Survey, Registration, Protection, and ited across the Mid-Atlantic region, but Treatment Projects (Sept. 1992). In these docu- ultimately the emphasis here is placed on de- ments, a set of standardized headings are describing local expressions of prehistoric cultures. fined to account for region, thematic area (site The source for virtually all of this information type/function), and historic period. By adher- is archaeological research published in various ing to this established framework, the contexts formats. Key synthetic sources are the series of for sites in Spotsylvania County will be compat- volumes published by the Council of Virginia ible with and will complement other recent, Archaeologists (Reinhart and Hodges 1990, 1991, county-specific studies, thus bringing the state’s 1992; Reinhart and Pogue 1993; Wittkofski and program closer to its goal of comprehensive Reinhart 1989) for major periods in Virginia and planning and management. numerous technical reports produced for com- Fortunately, a wealth of research time has pliance projects in the region. Ultimately, the been invested by various individuals and orga- results of the assessment will be evaluated nizations into development of historic contexts against the patterns cited in this section. for Spotsylvania County. In particular, we have relied heavily on the historic context prepared Paleoindian Stage by Traceries for their report on the architectural (10,000 – 8000 BC) survey of the county conducted between 1995 and 1996 (Traceries 1996:1–31). The conventional wisdom even 10–15 years ago With these sources in mind, this chapter pro- was that Paleoindian groups subsisted almost vides (1) a brief summary of prehistoric and his- exclusively as hunters, with an emphasis on ex- toric contexts, including synthetic tables defining tinct “big game” species such as mammoth, mast- major periods and their defining attributes/ odon, and bison. Today it is widely recognized events, and (2) a comprehensive list of the pri- that these populations derived much of their mary sources of relevant contextual overviews. sustenance from plant foods, small game, and even fish, in addition to meat from larger mam-

7 Years Stage Period Subsistence Organization Hallmarks BP

12,000 Hunting and Dispersed gathering bands Paleoindian

Early Archaic 10,000 Bands

A r c Middle Archaic 8,500 h a i c Late Archaic 5,000 Intensified hunting Intensified and gathering hunting and gathering

Early 3,200 Woodland W o o Middle 2,500 Hunting and Tribes d Woodland gathering with l incipient horticulture a n Late Woodland 1,100 Horticulture with Tribes/ d hunting and chiefdoms gathering

400 European contact and colonization Historic 0

Table 1. Summary of prehistoric contexts.

8 mals such as deer and elk. An actual mammoth certain locations were recognized as the focal or mastodon hunt was probably a rare event, point of a group’s territory, such as a source of owing largely to dwindling populations as the high-quality stone for tools or a location known environment suitable for these megafauna for an abundance of food. These locations are changed at the end of the Pleistocene, or last Ice among the only ones where artifacts of this pe- Age. riod occur in significant numbers, signifying Although hunting of extinct animals is now places where individual bands congregated from de-emphasized, it is still certain that the natural time to time. Two such sites in Virginia associ- environment in which Paleoindians operated ated with stone sources are the Williamson Site was fundamentally different from the region’s in Dinwiddie County and the Thunderbird Site modern climate. Their arrival coincided with the in Warren County. end of the Pleistocene when climate was still The signature artifacts of this stage are stone governed by the effects of enormous continen- spear/dart points with a lanceolate shape and tal glaciers extending as far south as Ohio and basal thinning, often in the form of a distinctive New York just 12,000 years ago. Aside from rem- channel flake. An obvious preference for high- nant populations of megafauna, forests had a quality stone such as jasper, chert, and crystal- distinctly boreal character, meaning that plants line quartz is also a trademark. Other distinctive now restricted to northerly latitudes in the tools, such as endscrapers and gravers, domi- United States, such as jack pine and spruce, nate these assemblages. dominated the forest. Much of the planet’s wa- According to state site files, no Paleoindian ter existed as glacial ice at this time, to the point components have been identified in Spotsylvania that sea level was depressed as much as 300 ft. County. In addition, as of 2004, two fluted point lower than it is today. This exposed vast areas isolated finds have been recorded in the McCary of the continental shelf that are now underwa- Fluted Point Survey (The Paleoindian Database ter, and many of today’s slow-moving rivers of the Americas, 2007). Extensive interior wet- were much more active. The successful adapta- lands and fine-grained stone for tools which tion by Paleoindians to these cooler and more attracted intensive Paleoindian settlement south moist conditions required a specialized technol- of the James River in Mecklenburg and Dinwid- ogy and organization. die counties (Dent 1995:135–139; McAvoy 1992) As the first human colonists in the region, are not present in this area, and probably ac- these populations ultimately arrived in eastern count for the dearth of occupation. However, North America after the initial immigration from the lack of preferred stone sources in the region Asia via the Bering land bridge. (Although re- likely did not prevent small Paleoindian groups cent discoveries at sites such as Cactus Hill in from utilizing other resources in the Piedmont. Virginia or Topper in South Carolina suggest the possibility of human presence in North America Archaic Stage (8000–1000 BC) prior to 13,000 BC, so far the data are sparse regarding “pre-Clovis” groups.) Paleoindian The Archaic Stage overall distinguishes the ini- populations were small and followed a relatively tial adaptation, and its later refinements, to the simple lifestyle. They appear to have consisted more modern environmental conditions of the of small, selectively mobile bands ranging across Holocene. It was a time of steady population a somewhat fixed but large area (Gardner increase and distinctive adjustments to local con- 1977:261; Turner 1989:77). These groups typically ditions. The roughly seven millennia compris- established small, temporary encampments at ing this stage can be subdivided into three various points on the landscape where food was periods that reflect the trend toward increas- available. The archaeological traces of such sites ingly effective patterns of adaptation. The length are meager and somewhat rare. It appears that of this stage and its higher populations combined

9 to create a richer archaeological record than the son that its archaeological record is a relatively preceding Paleoindian stage. paltry and confusing one. A clear definition of what kinds of artifacts, much less lifestyle, con- Early Archaic (8000–6500 BC) stitute the period has been elusive. In terms of degree, climatic change was more What is clear is that the onset of the Middle significant than cultural change during this ear- Archaic corresponds to the first distinct diver- liest period of the Archaic. In fact, some argue gence from the Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene that the Early Archaic should be subsumed un- adaptive mode to one that is seemingly uniquely der the Paleoindian stage. The strongest conti- Holocene-oriented. Certainly this implies adjust- nuity between the periods is in the realms of ments to the evolving regional environment, but settlement pattern and technology. Early Ar- more importantly we can see a greater degree chaic population density was still relatively low of localized patterns, probably in response to and the small bands continued to utilize many population increase and local resource distribu- of the same sites their Paleoindian predecessors tions, among other factors. did. There is some divergence, however, as Early Adjustment to conditions on a smaller scale Archaic groups began to routinely establish are manifest in several ways. Middle Archaic camps in areas virtually ignored before, espe- sites occur in an unprecedented variety of set- cially near interior wetlands and in interior up- tings, essentially including any habitable loca- lands. Beyond the new locations, site types and tion. A widely cited hallmark of settlement at sizes do not show much change. Much of the this time is a dramatic increase in the number of Early Archaic tool kit consists of scrapers and upland, interior sites. Shrinking group territo- other formal tools that are also typical of Paleo- ries were one important inducement to utilize indian sites. The aspects of their tool kit that these varied settings. A corollary of restricted changed are the form of projectile points and ranges is increased utilization of local sources the addition of new tool forms such as ground of stone for tools. Unlike the preceding periods stone adzes and grinding slabs. Projectile points when high-quality material was clearly sought, become distinctive as the earlier, basic lanceolate Middle Archaic tools are almost always made form is notched and serrated. from locally available stone of often lesser qual- Locally, Early Archaic components are rela- ity. Preserved food remains are essentially non- tively rare. Few early Archaic sites have been existent at these sites, but an increasingly thoroughly investigated, and few diagnostic localized subsistence base is inferred. This kind artifacts have been identified at sites within of generalized foraging economy is indirectly Spotsylvania County. However, the lack of in- reflected by the typical Middle Archaic tool kit, formation on official records concerning the di- which is dominated by an array of less formal agnostic artifacts recovered from numerous items. The preponderance of expedient tools is Archaic sites leaves the possibility that these lim- indicative of a highly varied resource base best ited-activity sites might contain Early Archaic maximized by high mobility among band-level components. groups. The local archaeological record remains Middle Archaic (6500–3000 BC) sparse through the end of the Middle Archaic even with a small increase in numbers of com- This has been referred to by some as the lost ponents reported (Baltz et al. 1991b). Middle period, and it routinely gets short shrift in over- Archaic sites tend to be ephemeral, located along view discussions. There is some justification for the margins of streams and swamps and well- abbreviated and sketchy treatment of the Middle drained knolls and hilltops with nearby water Archaic in the Mid-Atlantic for the simple rea- sources.

10 Late Archaic (3000–1000 BC) Woodland Stage At the very least, the Late Archaic represents (1000 BC – AD 1600) an important cultural threshold, and arguably The Woodland Stage is at the beginning distin- it also stands as a “Golden Age” of the prehis- guished more by a technological advance than toric era. The Middle Archaic tendency toward by a change in lifestyle, and this advance is the localized adaptation culminates at this time in introduction of ceramic vessels for cooking and highly efficient modes of natural resource ex- food storage. Over time, however, population traction that by the end of the period allowed steadily rose and significant cultural changes did for establishment of fairly long distance trade. occur. First among these is the appearance of A cornerstone of these successes was a newly more complex social organizations. Denser mature Holocene environment. Major estuaries populations benefitted first from a shift from and their tributaries finally stabilized after a long band- to tribal-level organization, and later from postglacial rise in sea level such that concentra- tribal- to chiefdom-level organization. By at tions of foodstuff, especially aquatic resources least AD 1000, Woodland groups had begun to like shellfish and anadromous fishes, were supplement their diet of native foods with semi- widely available. domesticated native plants and eventually with Dent (1995:187–188) labels the Late Archaic introduced plant foods such as corn, beans, and a time of “intensification” when focused exploi- squash. Like the Archaic, this stage is divided tation of natural foods occurred in the context into three periods. of a scheduled, seasonal round. This kind of subsistence pattern is referred to as a collector Early Woodland (1000–400 BC) (as opposed to forager) strategy. As such, the Late Archaic settlement pattern typically con- The distinction between the preceding Late Ar- sists of a series of larger, possibly semiseden- chaic and the Early Woodland is not always tary “base camps” along major streams, from finely drawn, just as the shift from Paleoindian which both nearby aquatic and other concen- to Early Archaic is not. As noted, the basic sub- trated resources could be gathered. Indeed, this sistence pattern appears to be similar if not the is the first time shell middens accumulated at same, and the major difference is the addition human habitations. Scattered elsewhere are of ceramic bowls and other technological smaller camp sites where hunting and gather- changes. The period is termed “transitional” to ing parties temporarily collected other foods. account for the underlying similarities as well This more organized adaptation spawned tech- some obvious changes. Ceramics from this pe- nological advances such as ground stone axes, riod were usually tempered with steatite, grog, carved stone bowls, and specialized flaked stone or a mixture of the two. Less common are the tools like drills. Production of many of these occasional fiber-tempered and grog/sand-tem- items benefitted, if not depended, on acquisi- pered ceramics. tion of particular types of stone, and a response Mouer (1991) is largely responsible for shap- was establishment of regional-scale trade net- ing our current impression of the Early Wood- works. land. He would argue, in fact, that this Sites dating to this period are slightly more “formative transition” is at least a continuation, frequent than Middle Archaic sites in the county. or culmination, if not an advance, over the pre- Smaller encampments and lithic scatters are typi- ceding Late Archaic pattern. So-called base camps cal. anchor the settlement pattern, but his work sug- gests that they may be more accurately viewed as sedentary villages. He also documents the establishment of circumscribed tribal territories

11 separated by “buffer zones,” but whose popu- incipient level of plant husbandry was practiced. lations carried on an active trade. The subsis- Technologically, this was the time when it is tence pattern is clearly oriented to collection of certain that the bow and arrow was in use. As- natural resources. sociated with the late-period integration was an The results of work to date indicate that exchange system involving at least stone for Early Woodland components in Spotsylvania flaked tools. County are rare; only four have been identified, Middle Woodland sites appear with much the but this bears further testing. Where they are same frequency as Early Woodland sites. Over- found, they generally represent small, short- all, the sites tend to represent small camps. term camp sites with sparse scatters. Due to a lack of diagnostic artifacts, it is likely that some Late Woodland (AD 1000–1600) Woodland sites date to the early part of that Stripped to its essentials, the distinctive way of era. life we recognize as Late Woodland, and for all intents and purposes continuing into the Proto- Middle Woodland (400 BC – AD 1000) historic, represents a moderately intensive hor- This period marks an important time in regional ticultural system layered upon a highly refined prehistory, when populations appear to have collector economy, arranged among minimally made the shift from band- to tribal-level orga- sedentary settlements, and organized into tribes nization. It is also the period when subsistence or incipient chiefdoms. patterns evolved that are necessary prerequi- The backbone of the Late Woodland economy sites for the more intensive horticultural pattern is what has been referred to as a collector sys- to follow. The trappings of a distinctly regional tem, meaning a sophisticated hunter-gatherer cultural pattern are also increasingly evident. pattern highly attuned to local resource avail- The latter half of this period is marked by ability. Archaeological studies show that no less region-wide homogeneity, using ceramic ware than 50% of foods were native plant and animal distribution as a measure of integration. Inte- resources (Barfield and Barber 1992; Turner gration at this time was potentially a response 1992). This system is characterized as sophisti- to stresses posed by population pressure, as a cated in the sense that it was scheduled accord- means to facilitate if not foster intergroup co- ing to periods of natural abundance, generally operation. In general, the entire Middle Wood- on a seasonal basis. land can be characterized as a period of Horticulture was a distinctive aspect of the egalitarian organization. The attendant settle- Late Woodland economy, and this was the first ment pattern is quite similar to that characteris- time that it contributed dietary staples. The tic of the preceding two millennia, wherein overall contribution of homegrown, tropical semisedentary base camps were established cultigens like maize, beans and squash is de- along major streams and smaller, collector sites bated, but most acknowledge that it amounted located elsewhere. The one exception that oc- to a significant supplement. Naturally, activities curs late in this period is widely spaced “aggre- associated with propagation of such plants oc- gation” sites. These are interpreted as locations curred in the spring and summer and required where annual intergroup meetings were held. the greatest concentrations of population at vil- Subsistence staples still consisted of native plant lage sites. The form of horticulture practiced is and animal foods gathered according to seasonal termed “swidden” to account for the fact that abundance. As will be discussed, intensified fields were cleared from the forest and rotated exploitation of some resources occurred at this frequently as soils were depleted. Archaeologi- time. Also, it is at least postulated that greater cal evidence of this activity is very meager. reliance was placed on native plant foods, espe- Settlement patterning in the Late Woodland cially starchy seed plants, to the point that an is reflective of a swidden horticulturalist life-

12 style. For the first time, we can find true village his hold over peripheral groups was tenuous. sites where a sedentary lifestyle was the norm. At least one group centrally located within his Archaeologically we also find clear evidence for territory, the Chickahominy, refused to ac- much smaller “camps.” Certainly, many of these knowledge his leadership. did serve hunting and gathering parties, espe- Late Woodland/Protohistoric sites occur in cially during the fall and winter, but others Spotsylvania County in slightly higher numbers might eventually be recognized as family farm- than sites of the preceding period. Sites continue steads. Indeed, the existence of numerous small to primarily consist of small camps, likely occu- sites is testament to the continuing importance pied for the purposes of gathering resources such of natural foodstuffs and, therefore, the linger- as food (nuts, fish) and raw materials (stone for ing tradition of seasonal dispersal to offset scar- tool manufacture). city. Late Woodland groups had reached a rela- Historical Context tively complex level of social organization (Fried Historical Context 1967, Service 1962). Probably all of the local The following documentary overview of his- groups were operating at the level of tribes by toric-period archaeological resources in Spotsyl- the twelfth century. This means, just as the ar- vania County is drawn primarily from an historic chaeological record indicates, that the popula- context produced for a recent county-wide ar- tion is organized into groups of not more than chitectural survey (Traceries 1996). This has been about 1,000 people, and they reside at least much augmented by information gathered by of the year in villages. Ties between the com- WMCAR for previous projects based in the munities are maintained along kinship lines and county. although leaders are recognized, their status is The VDHR has defined seven chronological normally achieved rather than inherited. periods covering the state’s history from 1607 Sometime in the mid- to late sixteenth cen- to the present. The following overview is orga- tury, the beginnings of a paramount chiefdom nized according to the VDHR headings. A num- emerged. This did not mark a sharp divergence ber of subheadings have been included to allow from the Late Woodland lifestyle, but rather was for the discussion of trends or periods of par- a shift that began at a small scale, locally, and ticular importance to Spotsylvania County’s past. gradually grew in prominence. We are not per- suaded, in fact, that the larger chiefdom that Settlement to Society did emerge was ever a mature one with a se- (1607-1750) cure future. Powhatan inherited a domain consisting of Prior to permanent settlement of Spotsylvania six petty chiefdoms or tribes, generally near the County in the early eighteenth century, several falls of the James and the upper York River explorers made frequent expeditions into drainage. Through time he expanded his do- Virginia’s interior beyond the reaches of the main, evidently by force at times, to include Chesapeake Bay. During his 1608 exploration about 32 groups over most of the Virginia along the Rappahannock River as far as the Falls, Coastal Plain. He is known to have received trib- John Smith traversed present-day Spotsylvania ute payments of maize and other goods, of up County. The region was the territory of the to 80% of all that was harvested. He tended to Manahoac Indians, a Siouan-speaking group al- reside at a single village, such as Werowoco- lied to the Monacans (Traceries 1996:2–3). Eu- moco on the York River, and was attended to ropean settlement of the region was slow. In there and elsewhere by an entourage of advi- 1671 Lawrence Smith patented a 4,972-acre tract sors and servants. As is typical, however, alle- on the Rappahannock River, near Massaponax giances were weakened with distance such that Creek; he established a fort there in 1676. As a

13 reward for service during Bacon’s Rebellion, Eventually settlement began to increase Governor Berkeley augmented Smith’s land throughout the area along the Rappahannock holdings, and in 1678 Smith was authorized by and Rapidan rivers. Land patents were issued the Assembly of the Colony to settle the area. for the prime agricultural lands along these riv- In spite of a number of incentives, the settle- ers, as well as the area farther south bordering ment was unsuccessful and the fort was closed the Pamunkey or North Anna River. After the in 1682 (Traceries 1996:4). initial German settlement in 1714 in Germanna, Alexander Spotswood, appointed governor a second wave of 80 workers arrived in 1717 to of the Colony of Virginia in 1710, was among work in the iron mines in Germanna and at the the early explorers of this Virginia frontier re- furnace at Tubal. Two years later, a third wave gion. In 1713, he traveled along the Rappahan- of German workers came to Spotsylvania nock and Rapidan rivers and discovered a very County. At that time, Spotswood obtained the rich iron ore deposit on the south side of the Wilderness Tract, 3065 acres of land along the Rapidan River. This discovery led to his imme- Rapidan River, for this third wave of workers diate purchase of thousands of acres of land in (Mansfield 1977:42). In 1721, by an act of the the vicinity. In 1714, Spotswood along with a Virginia General Assembly, the county of Swiss entrepreneur, Baron de Graffenreid, sent Spotsylvania was formed out of territory that several German miners and their families to Vir- had previously been part of Essex, King and ginia as indentured servants to establish them- Queen, and King William counties. selves near the iron deposits within the region Therefore it is enacted, that Spotsylvania County (Mansfield 1977: 43). When these iron workers bounds upon Snow Creek up to the mill, then by arrived in Tappahannock, Virginia, Governor a southwest line to the North Anna, thence up Spotswood paid for their expenses and imme- the said river as far as convenient, and thence by diately “transported them to the Rapidan River, a line to be run over the high mountains to the river on the northwest side thereof, so as to making them serve “for a barrier to the most include the northern passage through the said naked part of the frontier”” (Spotswood in mountains, thence down the said river until it Felder 1982:8). Although Spotswood’s primary comes against the head of Rappahannock, intentions were to use these workers in the sev- thence by a line to the head of Rappahannock eral iron ore mines that were started in the area, River, and down that river to the mouth of Snow he also intended for their settlement on the edge Creek, which tract of lands from the 1st of May, of the frontier to serve as a buffer zone between 1721, shall become a county by the name of the established tidewater farms and plantations, Spotsylvania County (Hening 1820:77). and the Indians to the west. During the early Germanna served as the site of the first eighteenth century, the settlement known as Spotsylvania Court House during the early eigh- Germanna was started as the outpost for these teenth century. This settlement was the largest German settlers brought to the Virginia colony in the county at this time and served as an ac- by Spotswood and de Graffenreid. In 1715, a tive business community during the early eigh- group of men including Spotswood and Robert teenth century. The iron industry required an Beverley formed the Iron Mine Company, which enormous labor force in the mines and in the led to the creation of the Tubal Furnace furnaces. In order to operate the furnaces for (44SP0012), the only early eighteenth-century pig one day, an acre of woodland was required. Sim- iron furnace in the colony (Traceries 1996:7). A ply providing fuel for the furnaces employed a second furnace (Fredericksville Blast Furnace) whole army of workers. In addition, industries was established by Spotswood on Douglas Run, were springing up to support the iron workers. in the southern portion of Spotsylvania County, Livestock and other food had to be provided in 1728. for the miners. By 1723, hemp production in Spotsylvania County was providing floor cov-

14 erings and clothing for the workers (Mansfield great population increase adding to its tobacco 1977:45). Moreover, the iron industry required trade and other businesses. Slaves provided a reliable transportation to convey goods; several large part of the labor supporting the commerce roads were established that led to Germanna in Spotsylvania. William Fitzhugh brought the and linked it to other areas of settlement within first Africans to Spotsylvania County in the late the region. 1600s to work on his tobacco plantation. By the As demonstrated in Governor Spotswood’s 1730s, slaves were being used in other indus- earliest attempts at the Germanna settlement, tries, including 120 slaves at Spotswood’s iron “Spotsylvania was to serve as a buffer between mines (Fitzgerald 1979:3). But Spotsylvania the comfortably established homes and planta- County’s growing economy attracted all types tions in Virginia’s Tidewater Area and the dan- of settlers including wealthy merchants who gers of French and Indian incursions from the wanted to profit from the area’s tobacco trade west” (Mansfield 1977:1). Settlement continued as well as middling and poor farmers who had throughout the early eighteenth century in left the tidewater due to land shortages. “Poor Spotsylvania County, concentrating primarily in families left tidewater to escape the effects of areas adjacent to or near any available road and/ low tobacco prices and relative land scarcity and or waterway. The cultivation of tobacco and its moved to the frontier to find inexpensive land” transport were the primary factors that influ- (Kulikoff 1986:92). Although the profits received enced the early development of Spotsylvania from tobacco crops were lucrative, the cost of County. An efficient means of transporting the starting a tobacco plantation was still expensive hogsheads of tobacco to the ports and wharves for most inhabitants, and therefore, the major- was essential to the early planters and farmers. ity of Spotsylvania County’s population re- This required the construction of rolling roads. mained small to middling farmers. Nevertheless, In order to transport tobacco, farmers would Fredericksburg and surrounding Spotsylvania tightly pack their cured goods into hogsheads. County continued to grow and prosper through- Then, they would stick a pole through the cen- out the mid-eighteenth century, eventually be- ter of the hogshead to act as an axle, and oxen coming one of Virginia’s leading port towns. As would pull the wheel to the ports. For the hogs- Kulikoff notes on the development of towns heads, farmers needed bridges and dry roads within the tidewater region, so that the tobacco would not become damp and Most of the new towns were tobacco ports, ruined. Thus, the rolling roads leading to the located on every navigable river in the region, ports in Fredericksburg were the best in the area and they gained resident population when (Mansfield 1977:150). The town of Fredericks- Scottish and local merchants began to compete burg was established on the Rappahannock River for business of nearby planters. The availability of credit, combined with ideal locations for in 1726 by a bill passed by the Virginia Assem- marketing tobacco and grain, explains the bly and served as a major port for this area and continued growth of most of these places. Four its increasing tobacco trade. In 1730, the Assem- cities — Alexandria, Fredericksburg, Richmond bly, being influenced by several large planters and Petersburg — huddled close to the head of of this area, voted to establish an official tobacco navigation of the regions’ rivers; they com- inspection warehouse at Fredericksburg (Felder manded the business of a vast hinterland then 1982). This greatly increased the amount of trade sent them tobacco and grain and received and business conducted in Fredericksburg as manufactures in return (1986:123). well as in its outlying areas. It was also during Due to the ever present problem of trans- this time that the Spotsylvania County Court porting tobacco to the nearest navigable water- House was moved from the Germanna settle- ways, the establishment of roads was a primary ment to the town of Fredericksburg (Mansfield factor in much of Spotsylvania County’s earliest 1977). During the 1740s, this area experienced a legislation. Roads, bridges, and ferries were leg-

15 islated by the county court; however, the main- The colonists, unsettled by England’s policy tenance of these structures and facilities was of taxation without representation, began as- under private supervision. “The location, clear- sembling without the Crown’s consent; these ing and maintenance of roads was a function of meetings later became known as the Virginia the county courts. The court would appoint an Conventions. By 1774, revolutionary debates overseer to supervise the maintenance of the and the call for militias were commonplace road and all male tithables living along or near among the colonies. On June 29, 1776, Virginia the road would have to help work on it when declared its independence from the Crown. The necessary” (Mansfield 1977:132). These individu- struggle for independence would last several als then furnished all of their own tools, wag- years, causing economic hardship throughout the ons, and teams and were required to labor for land (Joseph 1988:9–11). six days each year on the roads. “Major projects, Spotsylvania County no doubt felt the over- such as bridges over rivers, demanding consid- all effects of the war, particularly the economic erable expenditures were executed by Commis- restraints. Many of Spotsylvania County’s citi- sioners appointed by the Court to select the site zens did serve in the military, and several promi- and to contract with workmen for the construc- nent Fredericksburg citizens were quite tion” (Pawlett 1985:1). According to the Spotsyl- influential in significant events both during and vania County Order Book from 1726, a Mr. after the Revolutionary War. Robert Taliaferro’s petition of the court “for a After years of agitation, the county was fi- road from Baylor’s Mountain to the falls, is nally permitted to move the county seat to a granted, and Capt. Thomas Chew and Mr. Rob- more central location in 1778. In spite of objec- ert Taliaferro area appointed and ordered to tions from residents and merchants of Freder- view and lay out the same the most convenient icksburg, a courthouse, stocks, pillory, and way,” (Pawlett 1985:16). Based on later maps gallows were erected approximately one-half and the assumption that “the falls” referred to mile north of the Po River, near the center of in this court order were the same falls that are the county, and the first court session was held above Fredericksburg on the Rappahannock in 1781 (Traceries 1996:17). This brought dissat- River, this early eighteenth-century road may isfaction and dissent to the residents of Freder- have been the precedent to the road known as icksburg. They feared mayhem in the streets with the Orange Plank Road. the loss of the court, provoking them to incor- porate the following year (Goode and Dutton Colony to Nation (1750–1789) 1999:6). As the eighteenth century progressed, Spotsyl- Early National Period vania County and its major port town of Fred- ericksburg continued to prosper from the (1789–1830) tobacco trade. In conjunction with this major Following the Revolutionary War, Spotsylvania trade network, several other businesses and County continued to profit from the trade and small industries were attracted to the region in transport industry that had developed in Fred- the mid-eighteenth century. During this peak of ericksburg. Although tobacco was still a lead- prosperity, Spotsylvania County’s economy ing factor in Fredericksburg’s economy, other “covered the entire range from large scale farm- crops began to replace tobacco’s importance at ing on vast plantation estates, to shipping, iron- this time. Corn, wheat, and other grains being works, merchandizing, warehouses, printing produced in the Shenandoah Valley were fre- and publishing, taverns, saltworks and lumber quently transported overland to industries” (Darter 1957:101). Fredericksburg’s port for shipment on the in- ternational market, although Fredericksburg and

16 Spotsylvania County did not receive as much of erns and ordinaries continued as important es- the Shenandoah Valley’s trade as Alexandria and tablishments for the travelers coming through Georgetown. In 1783, Spotsylvania County sup- the area on their way to and from the markets ported a population of 5,171 white men and 5,933 of Fredericksburg. By the mid-nineteenth cen- slaves (Fitzgerald 1979, 6). Slaves worked on tury, a variety of new businesses were attracted tobacco plantations, the iron mines, and as by this region’s prosperity: “in addition to the skilled labor. mercantile establishments there were such busi- As a result of Spotsylvania County’s contin- nesses as lumbering, sawmills, lumber yards, ued prosperity during the early nineteenth cen- staymaking, coopers; mining and quarrying; tury, major roads and the beginnings of several flour and grist mills; powder factory; real es- turnpikes were constructed. These roads were tate concerns; building and construction; print- intended to attract business from the west, as ing and publishing; salt works; tanneries; well as to serve the farmers and others in counting and clearing houses; and brickmaking” Spotsylvania County who traveled frequently (Darter 1957:107). Slaves could be found work- to and from Fredericksburg. An 1820 map of ing in each of these productions prior to the Civil Spotsylvania County depicts several of the riv- War. In 1810, Spotsylvania County was home to ers, streams, roads, houses, churches, meeting- 6,126 slaves and 600 slave owners (Mansfield houses, taverns, mills, and iron furnaces within 1977:127). Slaves were mostly found still on to- the county (Figure 1). A new Spotsylvania bacco plantations and in the iron mines, but they County Court House was erected in 1800, pre- could also be found working in the paper mill, sumably in a location adjacent to the previous the woolen mill, and the tobacco factory in Fred- structure (Traceries 1996:19). ericksburg (Fitzgerald 1979, 21). All of these In 1806, gold was discovered along the gold- business ventures were indicative of Spotsyl- pyrite belt located in the western part of Spotsyl- vania County’s economic success and the over- vania County at Whitehall mine. Deposits were all development of the area during the extracted using pick and shovel, with cheap or mid-nineteenth century. slave labor (Sweet 1980:1–2). Changes in agri- Throughout the nineteenth century, Spotsyl- cultural practices occurred in early nineteenth- vania County and its major city, Fredericksburg, century Spotsylvania County with the continued to thrive as a commercial center, car- introduction of scientific farming methods such rying on direct trade with both Europe and the as crop rotation, deep plowing, and the use of West Indies (Cullen 1966). Spotsylvania County’s fertilizers. Spotsylvania population declined prominence and importance continued through- from 1790 to 1810 according to census records, out the nineteenth century until the eve of the but was again on the rise by 1820. The African- Civil War. The increase in production prompted American population in the county also increased the construction of a transportation network, during this period, and by 1820 the African- including canals and turnpikes (Traceries American/Euro-American ratio was 2 to 1 1996:20). The Orange Plank Road, indicated on (Goode and Dutton 1999:7). several maps of this period, was paved with planking in 1854 (WPA 1940). The arrival of the Antebellum Years (1830–1860) railroad greatly influenced Spotsylvania County’s economy during these antebellum As the nineteenth century progressed, Spotsyl- years. The Richmond, Fredericksburg and Pe- vania County continued to enjoy a degree of tersburg Railroad located in the eastern part of prosperity created as a result of its prior eco- the county encouraged even more trade. As nomic boom in the eighteenth and early nine- noted in adjacent Orange County during the teenth centuries. Roads remained an important 1850s, “the railroads brought a number of factor in the trade and industry of the area. Tav- products...particularly dry goods, furniture and

17 Figure 1. Historic map of Spotsylvania County (Wood 1820).

18 commercial goods, and carried away the rich Four major military engagements took place agricultural harvest, while spurring village in Spotsylvania County: the battles of Freder- growth and adding to the land values” (Benson icksburg in 1862, Chancellorsville in 1863, the 1991:60). Wilderness in 1864, and Spotsylvania Court In the 1830s, a gold boom seized Virginia, House later that year, in addition to skirmishes and the area south of Spotsylvania County, along such as the one fought at Salem Church in early Contrary Creek, became a center of gold pro- May 1863, when Confederate forces were able duction. From 1832 to 1836, David Tinder’s land to curtail an advance of Union forces (Cullen along Contrary Creek had produced $35,000 in 1966). Spotsylvania County and, in particular, gold (Egghart and Harbury 1998:21). The area the major roads that traversed it were vital to consists of shallow placer deposits that were the troops’ movements and maneuvers. easily accessible with raw labor using pick and On December 11, 1862, Gen. Ambrose shovel (Sweet 1980:1–2). This type of gold op- Burnside’s forces crossed the Rappahannock eration was tied to water sources. Stream re- River just south of Fredericksburg under heavy sources were required for washing the gravel fire from Confederate snipers. The Federal placer deposits in pans, long toms, and rockers. forces looted the deserted city as the Confeder- Gold operations sprung up from Virginia to ates slowly withdrew to consolidate their de- Georgia, with thousands of people hoping to fensive positions to the west. Two days later, strike it rich (Green 1937:234–5). Placer mines Burnside ordered Maj. Gens. George Meade and consisted of shallow pits and trenches, usually John Gibbon to move their divisions from Fred- placed across streambeds or on benches at bed- ericksburg to assault the Confederate force com- rock where miners sought gold, “often without manded by Gen. Thomas J. Jackson (Official luck” (U.S. Department of the Interior 2004:4). Records of the Union and Confederate Armies By the 1840s, vein mines were opened, shafts [OR], Series I, vol. 21, 1884). The first Federal were sunk, and the ore extracted and crushed. attack was repulsed by Jackson’s entrenched Mining shafts sunk during this period ranged force, and Burnside then ordered a second as- in depth from 35 to 150 ft. deep (Green 1937:234– sault against the Confederate left flank at 5; Hammett 1966). Gold was actively mined in Marye’s Heights. The heights were defended the region until the California Gold Rush of 1849 by elements of Confederate General began to draw local attention, and local opera- Longstreet’s command, and 14 successive waves tions dwindled until after the Civil War (Sweet of Federal troops were beaten back. Confeder- 1980:1–2). ate artillery positioned on the high ground west of Fredericksburg poured volleys of grapeshot Civil War (1861–1865) into the advancing Federal Forces, inflicting ter- rible numbers of casualties. By December 15, Many military encounters and battles took place Burnside ordered the remainder of his forces within Spotsylvania County’s borders during the back across the river. His command had suffered Civil War, making it perhaps one of the most some 13,000 casualties as opposed to just over active areas, in regard to military action, in the 5000 casualties among Lee’s forces (Gallagher state of Virginia. Fredericksburg and 1995a). Spotsylvania County held a key position because In April 1863, Gen. Joseph Hooker, they were located between Washington, D.C. Burnside’s replacement as commander of the and the Confederate capital of Richmond. “Its Army of the Potomac, moved his force from importance lay in the obstacle it presented, along their winter camps near Washington. D.C. to- with the Rappahannock River, to any overland ward Fredericksburg to surround Lee. More march from Washington on Richmond” (Cullen than 50,000 Federal troops crossed the Rapidan 1966:7). and Rappahannock rivers and marched toward

19 Fredericksburg from the west. In a repeat of the artillery would be of little use, placing the two December campaign, two Federal corps crossed forces on a more even footing. Grant attempted the Rappahannock below Fredericksburg and a to push through but was forced to engage with large contingent remained in Falmouth in full the Confederate troops. The Battle of the Wil- view of the Confederates. The plan was to force derness ensued and continued until the night of Lee to either withdraw from Fredericksburg May 6, when it became clear to both sides that and move south to defend Richmond or attack the two armies were so strongly entrenched that the Union Army on unfavorable ground (Sears further attack could be suicidal (Traceries 1996). 1996). Lee chose to move west to meet Hooker, Following the Battle of the Wilderness, the and the two forces battled near the tavern Confederate command expected the Army of the known as “Chancellorsville” on the Orange Potomac to continue retreating back north across Turnpike on May 1–May 6, 1863 as the Union the Rapidan River as had happened after previ- forces tried to proceed to Fredericksburg. ous battles in Spotsylvania County. Instead, Federal General Sedgwick’s Sixth Corps ad- General Grant and the Federal forces suddenly vanced westward from Falmouth across the wheeled to the east and began to march toward Rappahannock River, trying to reach Hooker’s Spotsylvania Courthouse. Grant’s forces tried main force at Chancellorsville. They were en- to break through the Confederate army’s left gaged by elements of Confederate Gen. Jubal flank, but ran into stiff opposition near the T. Early’s force at Salem Church, including Courthouse on May 8. Grant massed his forces troops from Hay’s and Hoke’s brigades (OR, and on May 12 initiated a frontal assault on the Series I, vol. 21, 1884). As the battle proceeded, entrenched Confederate force at a salient that General Early pleaded for additional troops to later became known as “the Bloody Angle.” The bolster his command and Lee reluctantly de- initial assault was successful, capturing almost a tached two additional divisions from the Chan- division of Lee’s troops and nearly cutting the cellorsville Battle to bolster the Confederate Confederate army in half. Confederate counter- lines at Salem Church. The Federal force at- attacks plugged the gap, and fighting continued tempted several assaults on Early’s position, but unabated for nearly 20 hours in what may well each was repulsed with heavy casualties. The have been the most ferociously sustained com- reinforcements arrived late that afternoon and bat of the Civil War. The Confederates with- began a counterattack that forced the Federal drew to new a defensive position that night. On Sixth Corps back the following day. General May 18, two Federal Corps once again attacked Sedgwick then withdrew his corps back across the Confederate salient, but were again repulsed the Rappahannock River, and upon hearing of in bloody fighting. Casualties were heavy on Sedgwick’s defeat, General Hooker abandoned both sides, and on May 20, both forces disen- his attack. After suffering heavy casualties, Gen- gaged and moved south toward Richmond (Mat- eral Hooker ordered his remaining troops at ter 1991). Chancellorsville back across the Rappahannock One result of the conflict was the creation of River on May 5 (Sears 1996). high-quality maps of the county by military car- On May 4, 1864, the Army of the Potomac tographers (Figures 2 and 3). In addition to pre- under Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant advanced across senting the mid-nineteenth-century road the Rapidan River. Seeing this, Lee ordered his configurations, these maps often identify indus- forces to attack the Union forces in the “Wil- trial sites and dwellings by the names of their derness,” an area of tangled scrub and uneven owners/proprietors, and show the layout and ground just west of the Chancellorsville battle- extent of fortifications. The location of encamp- field. In these conditions, the superior Union ments are not as well documented.

20 Figure 2. Portion of Civil War–era map showing Spotsylvania County (Gilmer 1863).

21 Figure 3. Historic map of Spotsylvania County (Hotchkiss 186–).

22 Reconstruction and Growth automobile and the construction of several ma- (1865–1914) jor highways such as U.S. 1, did the railroad’s importance decrease. The increasing steamer Spotsylvania County, along with the majority traffic along the Chesapeake Bay also began to of Virginia, suffered from the lasting effects of compete with the railroad’s role in the economy the devastation caused during the Civil War. of the area. Although development and recovery from the Mining of gold resumed after the war and war was slow, Spotsylvania County gradually was steady from 1870 to 1910 (Sweet 1980:2). regained some of it former prosperity. Follow- Other minerals began to be mined in the region, ing the Civil War, Fredericksburg was no longer including iron, lead, and zinc. “The Bertha Min- one of Virginia’s prominent port towns as it had eral Company began mining lead and zinc at the been during the eighteenth and early nineteenth Holladay Mine in 1909. By 1905 the Grindstone centuries. Changes caused by the war, as well Mine was producing gold as well as lead and as overall economic and other conditions caused zinc. Several mines existed along Pigeon Run to Fredericksburg to decline in importance. The the north of Route 601” (Goode and Dutton biggest change after the war was the loss of slave 1999:8) labor. Most African-Americans after the Civil Spotsylvania County’s first public grade War either continued to work for their former schools were established in the 1880s, and in masters or started their own small farms. Un- 1914 these were joined by a public high school fortunately, discrimination prevented former (Traceries 1996:27). The formation of the State slaves from earning fair wages and experienc- Normal and Industrial School for Women in 1908 ing equal hiring practices. While the Freedman may have assisted in the development of Fred- Bureau tried to help with education, health care, ericksburg and its surrounding area. This school and voting rights, it was unable to help the ma- along with other community buildings such as jority of African-Americans living in poverty. the Wallace Library and the hospital were all Many black people left the area. In 1870, Spotsyl- begun at approximately the same time. All of vania County had an African-American popula- these improvements further increased tion of 3,231, compared to 6,126 in 1810. After Fredericksburg’s and Spotsylvania County’s sta- the war, Spotsylvania suffered an enormous la- tus as a growing and prosperous community bor loss. Instead of a prosperous port town on within this central section of Virginia.. the Rappahannock River, it became a typical postbellum Virginia town. The reconstruction World War I to World War II and redevelopment of several of the main buildings, civic facilities, businesses, and other estab- (1917–1945) lishments were needed for this area to recover Prior to the First World War, Fredericksburg losses suffered during the war. In 1879, the Vir- and its outlying areas continued to grow due to ginia Assembly incorporated Fredericksburg as the gradual economic changes that were being a city, resulting in its transition from “a sleepy felt throughout the majority of the state. community into a modern little city” (WPA With the outbreak of the First World War, 1940:218). mining in the state gained importance. Mines Railroads, including the Richmond, Freder- located in Spotsylvania county supported the icksburg and Petersburg Railroad, which had war effort with the extraction of lead and zinc come through eastern Spotsylvania County dur- for the production of bullets. The Holladay Mine, ing the early nineteenth century, continued to located five miles north of Lake Anna State Park, aid the economy of the area through the turn of used a 17.5-mi. branch railroad line to transport the century. Not until the introduction of the ore to Mineral, Virginia. The ore was then

23 shipped from Mineral via Chesapeake & Ohio ing area. Modern transportation corridors such Railroad to northern factories (Lake Anna State as Interstate 95, have caused some changes Park n.d.). within Spotsylvania County; however, most In 1924, the school in Fredericksburg became other transportation routes still follow the es- the Fredericksburg State Teachers College and tablished roads that have been in use since the in 1938 was renamed Mary Washington College eighteenth century. Since 1945, the population (WPA 1940). The school is now known as the of the county has grown enormously, with ac- University of Mary Washington. Another fac- companying development, due in large part to tor that was beginning to influence Fredericks- Spotsylvania County’s location midway be- burg and Spotsylvania County overall was the tween Richmond and Washington, D.C. (Trac- effort to preserve its eighteenth- and nineteenth- eries 1996:30). century buildings and locations of historical During the 1970s and 1980s, efforts were merit. In 1927 the Fredericksburg and Spotsyl- made by staff from the Virginia Division of Min- vania National Military Park was established to eral Resources to locate prospecting sites of vari- commemorate the Civil War battles fought in ous ages, as part of a statewide and nationwide the area. In the same year, Route 1 was opened, database of mining and minerals (Sweet and providing the first direct access between Wash- Rowe 1984). The characteristics of these pros- ington and Richmond and stimulating commer- pecting sites are shallow pits and trenches, from cial development along its path. Industrial which deposits were either not considered eco- development also increased, notably with the nomically workable or there was no mention of opening in 1930 of the Sylvania Plant, the world’s whether there was ever any production. A bur- largest cellophane manufacturing facility (Trac- geoning preservation movement became influ- eries 1996:29). ential in Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County, characterized by an effort to preserve New Dominion (1945–Present) its eighteenth- and nineteenth-century buildings and locations of historical merit. These ranged Improvements to major roads and highways from historic colonial buildings in Fredericks- continued throughout the early twentieth cen- burg to Civil War battlefields. tury and still have an impact on the surround-

24 3 Compilation, Assessment, and Update of Known Resources

Introduction on limited survey conducted by the WMCAR in March 2007 (see Chapter 1). These sites have This chapter presents a profile of the known been included in the following discussion, bring- archaeological resources in Spotsylvania County. ing the total number of sites to 416. The chapter is organized under two headings Sites comprising the sample have been re- that allow, first, for a basic descriptive summary corded by both professional and non-profes- of sites according to various attributes and, sec- sional efforts. Avocational archaeologists, ond, for statements characterizing the quality sometimes representing the unofficial activities and representativeness of the current pool of of the Archeological Society of Virginia (ASV), data. The initial section summarizes site distri- students, and others have independently sub- bution according to several factors, which ulti- mitted site records to the state. A greater num- mately will serve as predictors of site locations. ber have been recorded by professionals, A central feature of the latter section is a dis- especially in the context of mandated, compli- cussion of the significance of both specific sites ance “surveys” in advance of development and larger categories of sites. projects. There are at least 52 survey areas recorded for Spotsylvania County; of these, 41 are Description of large-area surveys (1.6+ ha [4+ acres]) (Figure Known Resources 4). Total survey coverage of the county yields Known Resources an area of 27 km² (10.43 mi.²), or 2.5% of the A total of 541 site records were on file for county’s land area (Note: not all surveys are Spotsylvania County at the VDHR as of July apparent on this map because several are con- 2006. Just over a quarter of these sites (n=141) tiguous or overlapping). Just over a quarter of are located within the city limits of Fredericks- the sites recorded in the county fall within these burg, and will not be discussed further, reduc- areas (28%, n=117). Readers are cautioned to ing the site total to 400. One site is recorded consider that survey methods and, therefore, based on historic map projection and has not survey effectiveness have generally improved been field-checked. It too has been disregarded over time, so that all project results are not com- in the following analysis, bringing the total to pletely comparable. The most significant effect 399. A number of sites have been recorded of recent improvements has been the discovery based solely on informant identification or ob- of more small, often special-purpose sites. It servation. In spite of the lack of formal testing, should also be kept in mind that different in- however, enough information has been recorded vestigators tend to concentrate on particular for these sites to merit inclusion in the assess- types of resources, perhaps resulting in certain ment. In many cases, formal testing would be biases in the archaeological record. For example, undesirable or impractical. For example, sites avocational archaeologists tend to be interested identified based on observation include cemeter- in large sites with collectible artifacts, while com- ies, bridges, historic roads, railroad beds, earth- pliance archaeology results in the identification works, quarries, and mines, among other site of numerous common site types, such as late types. In addition, 17 sites were identified based nineteenth/early twentieth century sites and lithic scatters.

25 Distribution of archaeological sites (n=416) and large survey tracts. Figure 4. Figure 4. Figure 4. Figure 4. Figure 4.

26 TOTAL SITES1 LAND AREA2 SITE DENSITY (HECTARES)(SITES/100 HECTARES) Spotsylvania County 416 107,3120 0.39 Goochland County 362 76,405 0.47 James City County 1165 38,310 3.04 Fairfax County 3244 107,932 3.01 York County 1075 33,715 3.19 Henrico County 1078 68,506 1.57 Gloucester County 442 58,349 0.76 Bath County 912 139,130 0.66 City of Hampton 101 13,292 0.76 Surry County 252 72,898 0.35 1 Total number of known sites listed in the site files of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia, as of April 2007. Spotsylvania data current as of July 31, 2006. 2 Table 7.4, “Area By Land Class for Virginia Counties & Cities: 1991–1992.” Virginia Statistical Abstract, 1994–95 Edition. Center for Public Service, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 3 Calculated from the County-produced GIS data. Table 2. Comparison of selected county/city site samples.

Summary of Judgmental foundation, the remnants of two log structures, Archaeological Survey Results a well, and a cemetery with two marked graves. Based on the observation of additional depres- Seventeen archaeological sites were recorded as sions and the size of the patch of periwinkle a result of judgmental survey of potentially surrounding the marked graves, it is likely there archaeologically sensitive areas and known but are other graves as well. In addition, a portion unrecorded sites. Most of the sites fall within of the old Glebe Road (44SP0596) was identi- two of the historical themes or time periods that fied, as was a more modern pit that may be re- had been identified as priorities for Spotsylvania lated to logging activities (44SP0591). Local County staff and citizens: early colonial sites and traditions hold that the Blockhouse was either industrial sites (see Chapter 1). Though efforts an eighteenth-century fortification or perhaps a were made to survey sites associated with the secure storage facility for materials and equip- African-American experience in Spotsylvania ment used in the construction of the road from County, which had also been identified as a pri- the Fredericksville Furnace (44SP0043, 088-0086; ority, no such sites were recorded due to situ- now under Lake Anna) and the Massaponax ational challenges. Specifically, an attempt was River wharves. The results of shovel testing sug- made to investigate the reported site of a Civil gest the presence of an eighteenth-century oc- War encampment of African-American troops. cupation (two fragments of pearlware, a cut nail, Landowner permission could not be obtained, and one fragment of eighteenth-/nineteenth-cen- however. tury window pane glass) as well as a prehis- Field visits were made to two colonial-era toric occupation of unknown age (12 fragments sites, the Berkeley Glebe farm (44SP0590), iden- of debitage). Judgmental survey in the vicinity tified on the basis of deed research conducted of the community of New Post (the intersection by the landowner, and a site known locally as of Routes 17 and 2) and along the Rappahan- “The Blockhouse” (44SP0593). The former con- nock River upstream from Massaponax Creek sists of a stone house foundation, a stone barn revealed indications that gravel mining activi-

27 ties and other episodes of earthmoving have sig- The site is located on a remnant of Days Bridge nificantly altered the landscape in the vicinity Road (44SP0594), which has gone out of use due of some of the earliest historically occupied ar- to the creation of Lake Anna. The remains of an eas of the county. Nevertheless, fragments of Esso Station (44SP0588) were identified on Route handmade brick and mortar were recovered 1 during the documentation of Smith’s Mill from a small area of floodplain adjacent to the (44SP0587). Rappahannock River (Site 44SP0592), and three Civil War–era sites (44SP0597, 44SP0598, and General Spatial Patterns 44SP0599) were identified within a protected buffer for the river. The minimum archaeological site density for Industrial sites are integral to the history of Spotsylvania County calculated from these sum- Spotsylvania County. Three mill sites were vis- mary statistics is 0.39 sites/km² (1.01 sites/mi.²). ited as representative sites of early industrial This density ranks among the lowest in the state, history: Smith’s Mill (44SP0587), Anderson’s Mill less than in Bath County and the City of Hamp- (44SP0589), and a previously recorded mill on ton, roughly equivalent to Surry County, and Plentiful Run (44SP0039). While this sample of considerably less than most others (Table 2). mills is small, a wide variety in mill size, dis- These numbers, however, are not necessarily tance to and size of mill pond, and presumed based on comparable survey coverage or qual- wheel type was observed. Stone piers for what ity. Another measure of density is derived from is likely the miller’s house (44SP0601) were iden- individual survey tracts. Within the combined tified on a ridge overlooking 44SP0039. In addi- area of all survey tracts (27 km² [10.43 mi.²]), tion, the remnants of a bridge (44SP0603) that archaeological site density is 4.33 sites/km² may have been washed out after a failure of the (11.22 sites/mi.²). It is likely that the relatively mill dam at 44SP0039 was also observed. An at- low overall site density reflects the concentra- tempt to confirm the location of Alexander tion of large survey areas, as well as develop- Spotswood’s eighteenth-century Massaponax ment, in the northern portion of the county. Iron Furnace (44SP0046 or 44SP0208) was unsuc- One way to measure site distribution is to cessful, although an earthen berm that runs par- examine density according to modern political allel to Massaponax Creek (Site 44SP0602) was divisions such as voting districts (Figure 5 and observed from the road not far from the pur- Table 3). While such districts are artificial units ported location of the forge. Site location infor- and have no causal relationship to the distribu- mation for the U.S. Gold Mine (088-0092) on DSS tion of archaeological sites, they serve as a use- and in the Red Book (Durrett and Harvison 1987) ful shorthand for Spotsylvania residents. The was contradictory. While the field survey was Chancellor Voting District has the highest num- unsuccessful in locating the mine, a portion of ber of sites, followed by the Lee Hill Voting what is likely the U.S. Ford road was identified District. The Salem Voting District has the small- (44SP0595). Thematic surveys of iron furnace est number of sites. The site density (number of sites, and gristmills and saw mills would pro- sites per square kilometer) of the Courtland vide a basis for a better understanding the range Voting District is the highest. This district lies of associated site types, and the research poten- adjacent to the Rappahannock River, upstream tial of such sites. from the City of Fredericksburg. Only the Battle- Three additional sites were identified dur- field Voting District has more prehistoric than ing the judgmental survey. A series of stone foun- historic sites. Examining the distribution of sites dations suggesting an industrial or domestic based only on areas that have been surveyed complex (44SP0600) was reported to the county intensively, reveals that the Courtland district by a citizen. Additional investigation would be has a survey site density of 10.00, or 10 sites per necessary to determine the function of the site. square kilometer. The Berkeley Voting district

28 Distribution of archaeological sites by voting district. Figure 5. Figure 5. Figure 5. Figure 5. Figure 5.

29 TOTAL PREHISTORIC HISTORIC

Battlefield Voting District Number 11 8 5 Overall Density* 0.46 0.33 0.21 Survey Density* 2.50

Berkeley Voting District Number 50 18 34 Overall Density 0.14 0.05 0.09 Survey Density 8.70 Chancellor Voting District Number 97 34 69 Overall Density 1.05 0.37 0.75 Survey Density 4.91 Courtland Voting District Number 73 24 52 Overall Density 1.38 0.45 0.98 Survey Density 10.00 Lee Hill Voting District Number 90 42 61 Overall Density 1.22 0.57 0.82 Survey Density 5.18 Livingston Voting Distrtict Number 81 17 66 Overall Density 0.18 0.04 0.15 Survey Density 2.88 Salem Voting District Number 13 7 9 Overall Density 0.54 0.29 0.38 Survey Density 5.83 * sites per km² Table 3. Archaeological components by voting district.

30 also has a relatively high survey density. Both York rivers. The York watershed is much larger, Chancellor and Lee Hill districts have had large encompassing an area of 826 km2 (319 mi.2) or area surveys resulting in the identification of about 75% of the county, but only holds approxi- numerous sites. In particular, the survey for the mately 43% of recorded sites. Hunting Run reservoir, located in the Chancel- Distinctions between major soil associations lor district, resulted in the identification of at are a potentially useful locational factor. Among least 31 sites within a survey area of approxi- the seven broadly defined soil associations in mately 2 km2, or a density of 15.50. Spotsylvania County (Elder 1985), the Appling- Examining the distributions of sites by land Louisburg-Wedowee and Nason-Tatum- use or zoning categories can be useful for plan- Catharpin associations have the largest number ning purposes (Figure 6 and Table 4). In par- of sites (Figure 9 and Table 7). The latter soil ticular, zoning can provide clues to determining type appears to coincide with the gold-pyrite archaeological sensitivity, by identifying areas belt, while the former is composed of relatively where development is likely to occur. The fertile soils. Density, however, is highest on county has been divided into 27 zoning catego- Aquults-Wickham-Altavista and Dystrochrepts- ries, of which 14 contain recorded sites (some Kempsville-Udults soils. The latter association categories cover such a small area that it is not is the only soil type with a higher number of surprising that no sites have been identified prehistoric than historic sites. This association within their bounds). The category with by far is composed of excessively to moderately well the largest number of sites is RU or Rural drained soils found on Coastal Plain uplands; (n=200), which generally parallels the Rappahan- Dystrochrepts and Udults are not suitable for nock River. The highest density for prehistoric farming. Wickham soils are some of the most sites is to be found on category I2 or Industrial productive in the county. 2 (1.29 sites/square km). The geology of the county is also good pre- Dividing the county into units based on the dictor of certain site types (Figure 10). The Comprehensive Plan shows that the majority of northwestern half of the county falls within the sites fall into the Rural and Primary Settlement gold-pyrite belt that parallels the Blue Ridge; District sectors (Figure 7 and Table 5). Since accordingly, a number of mines and prospect- parks are often created in order to protect cul- ing pits have been identified in that region (Vir- tural or natural resources, it is not surprising ginia Division of Mineral Resources 1999). that the greatest site density lies within the Similarly, the iron resources present in the Parks sector. Site density is also relatively high county have been exploited from the earliest within the Jackson Gateway, an area where de- days of European settlement. velopment is planned; these results suggest that archaeological resources may be concentrated Temporal Patterns here, or that development has resulted in a concentration of archaeological surveys leading in Describing the sample according to time peri- turn to the identification of sites at a greater ods requires an appreciation of some of its limi- rate than elsewhere. tations. Most important is to recall the variable Natural or environmental factors can be used precision at which age assignments are made, to measure site distribution. Dividing the county related most often to the vagaries of archaeo- into drainages shows that the Ni River and Rap- logical data—for example, “diagnostic artifacts” pahannock River/Massaponax Creek water- are not recovered at every site, especially dur- sheds each contain 103 sites (Figure 8 and Table ing survey projects. Further, some locations were 6). Their overall and survey site densities are inhabited several times over thousands of years. roughly equivalent. All streams in the county With this in mind, the sample is described at are tributary either to the Rappahannock or the more than one level of precision to provide a

31 Figure 6. Figure 6. Figure 6. Distribution of archaeological sites by zoning. by sites archaeological of Figure 6. Distribution Figure 6. Figure 6.

32 TOTAL PREHISTORIC HISTORIC TOTAL PREHISTORIC HISTORIC

Zoning A2 Zoning PDC Number 29 7 24 Number 1 -- 1 Overall Density* 0.27 0.07 0.23 Overall Density 2.5 2.5 Survey Density* 2.50 Survey Density -- Zoning A3 Zoning PDH Number 39 7 33 Number 17 13 6 Overall Density 0.08 0.01 0.06 Overall Density 1.31 1.00 0.46 Survey Density 10.00 Survey Density 2.5 Zoning C2 Zoning PRR Number 3 3 2 Number 3 -- 3 Overall Density 0.75 0.75 0.50 Overall Density 1.00 1.00 Survey Density 10.00 Survey Density -- Zoning C3 Zoning R1 Number 5 -- 5 Number 28 8 23 Overall Density 0.56 0.56 Overall Density 0.47 0.13 0.38 Survey Density 2.50 Survey Density 5.83 Zoning I1 Zoning R2 Number 17 6 14 Number 27 12 18 Overall Density 1.21 0.43 1.00 Overall Density 1.92 0.86 1.29 Survey Density 6.67 Survey Density 11.43 Zoning I2 Zoning RA Number 27 18 11 Number 18 8 11 Overall Density 1.93 1.29 0.79 Overall Density 0.49 0.22 0.30 Survey Density 10.00 Survey Density 30.00 Zoning O1 Zoning RU Number 1 1 1 Number 200 67 141 Overall Density 2.5 2.5 2.5 Overall Density 0.92 0.31 0.65 Survey Density 33.33 Survey Density 3.72 * sites per km²

Table 4. Archaeological components according to zoning.

33 Distribution of archaeological sites according to the Comprehensive Plan. Figure 7. Figure 7. Figure 7. Figure 7. Figure 7.

34 TOTAL PREHISTORIC HISTORIC

Agricultural Forestal Number 37 8 30 Overall Density* 0.06 .01 0.05 Survey Density* 11.36 Courthouse Number 9 4 6 Overall Density 0.39 .17 0.26 Survey Density 3.33 Jackson Gateway Number 28 11 18 Overall Density 1.00 0.39 0.64 Survey Density 8.42 Lake Anna Resort Number 2 -- 2 Overall Density 0.05 0.05 Survey Density -- Parks Number 77 9 70 Overall Density 2.14 0.25 1.94 Survey Density 23.81 Rural Number 143 65 84 Overall Density 0.60 0.27 0.35 Survey Density 3.62 Primary Settlement District

Number 116 52 81 Overall Density 0.86 0.39 0.60 Survey Density 4.13 * sites per km² Table 5. Archaeological components according to the Comprehensive Plan.

35 Distribution of archaeological sites by drainage. Figure 8. Figure 8. Figure 8. Figure 8. Figure 8.

36 TOTAL PREHISTORIC HISTORIC

RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER DRAINAGE Lower Rapidan River Number 51 24 28 Overall Density* 0.93 0.44 0.51 Survey Density* 5.36 Rappahannock River/Massaponax Creek Number 103 50 68 Overall Density 0.74 0.36 0.49 Survey Density 3.56 Rappahannock River/Motts Run Number 85 29 60 Overall Density 1.60 0.55 1.13 Survey Density 21.05

YORK RIVER DRAINAGE Lake Anna/Pamunkey Creek Number 25 8 18 Overall Density 0.18 0.06 0.13 Survey Density 31.58 Lower North Anna River/Northeast Creek Number 2 -- 2 Overall Density 0.02 0.02 Survey Density -- Matta River Number 12 5 7 Overall Density 0.08 0.03 0.05 Survey Density 23.53 Po River Number 34 5 31 Overall Density 0.15 0.02 0.14 Survey Density 6.38 Ni River Number 103 29 79 Overall Density 0.77 0.22 0.59 Survey Density 3.54 * sites per km² Table 6. Archaeological sites according to drainage.

37 Distribution of archaeological sites by soil association. Figure 9. Figure 9. Figure 9. Figure 9. Figure 9.

38 TOTAL PREHISTORIC HISTORIC Appling-Louisburg-Wedowee Number 104 42 65 Overall Density* 0.41 0.17 0.26 Survey Area Density* 11.60

Appling-Wedowee-Emporia Number 57 23 38 Overall Density 0.26 0.10 0.17 Survey Area Density 9.23 Aquults-Wickham-Altavista Number 50 14 44 Overall Density 1.02 0.29 0.90 Survey Area Density 5.00 Dystrochrepts-Kempsville-Udults Number 41 27 20 Overall Density 0.89 0.59 0.43 Survey Area Density 3.97 Fluvanna-Appling-Poindexter Number 18 2 16 Overall Density 0.16 0.02 0.15 Survey Area Density 3.00 Nason-Tatum-Catharpin Number 101 20 84 Overall Density 0.37 0.07 0.31 Survey Area Density 2.22 Savannah-Facelville-Varina Number 44 22 26 Overall Density 0.36 0.18 0.21 Survey Area Density 5.8 * sites per km² Table 7. Archaeological sites by soil associations.

39 Distribution of mining sites. Figure 10. Figure 10. Figure 10. Figure 10. Figure 10.

40 full sense of the county’s records. Below, each Patterns emerge when the sample is divided major period of occupation is referred to as a by time period, although the scarcity of certain site “component.” Prehistoric components are kinds of sites sometimes make the patterns dif- recorded at 153 (37%) sites, and historic com- ficult to discern. Archaic-stage sites are relatively ponents occur at 294 (71%) sites (Figure 11). widespread, although most lie within 2.5 km These numbers show that historic settlement oc- (mi.) of the Rappahannock River. Sites dating to casionally followed prehistoric occupation at the the Woodland stage are more abundant than same site; 31 sites (7.5%) have both prehistoric their Archaic counterparts but are distributed and historic components. almost exclusively within the northeastern half Table 8 summarizes the frequency of occu- of the county. pations by time period, according to both single- Sites of the historic period also include a few component and multicomponent sites. The locations with multiple occupations (here de- longer-term trend is an expected general in- fined as spanning more than one century). While crease in component frequency through time, a number of historic sites are of undetermined reflective of steady population increase. The age (5%, n=40), a great many have generously earliest sites, dating from the Paleoindian pe- bracketed components wherein nondiagnostic riod, are low in numbers across most of the re- material is recorded as potentially dating to one gion and are not represented at all in period or another. The number of historic sites Spotsylvania County. Components representing generally increase in numbers until the twenti- the succeeding Early Archaic period are low in eth century, when the sample decreases. This is number. These sites are probably more common due to compliance standards that require a mini- than indicated, but typically low artifact densi- mum age of 50 years for officially recorded sites, ties at Early Archaic sites tend to reduce the unless they have exceptional significance. Eigh- odds that they get identified. Prehistoric com- teenth century sites are generally located along ponents increase notably beginning in the the Rappahannock or on drainages that, at least Middle Archaic, and remain stable through the in the past, provided boat access to the river. Late Archaic (Figure 12). Woodland habitations By the nineteenth century, while sites continue are generally less common than Archaic compo- to be located in the major river drainages, more nents, despite the general regional increase and sites appear in the interior of the county, espe- stabilization during the Middle Woodland pe- cially in the western portion, reflecting an in- riod. Because of the number of Archaic and crease in industry, specifically mining. The Woodland sites which could not be dated any smaller and less representative sample of twen- more precisely, and the number of sites that can tieth-century sites shows a similar but weaker only be identified as prehistoric, these numbers pattern. and patterns may not be completely accurate. Additional fieldwork at these sites would likely Functional Patterns clarify their temporal placement. Prehistoric sites overall are generally concen- Each site was identified as to function or “type,” trated in areas adjacent to the Rappahannock. to the extent possible. Site records tend to iden- This may more accurately reflect survey inten- tify the function of only the primary components sity rather than actual potential. The Hunting and leave the nature of lesser components un- Run reservoir project resulted in the identifica- recorded. Consequently, this presentation con- tion of at least 31 sites. Another cluster of pre- cerns the types of sites reflected by major historic sites is located in the eastern portion of components, but it is implicit that minor com- the county, within the Ni River drainage. ponents served simpler needs. In addition, it should be noted that in order to provide flex-

41 a Distribution of sites with known (a) historic and (b) prehistoric archaeological components. Figure 11. Figure 11. Figure 11. Figure 11. Figure 11.

42 b

43 TIME PERIOD TOTAL Paleoindian — Archaic (general) 7 Early Archaic 5 Middle Archaic 8 Late Archaic 9 Woodland (general) 7 Early Woodland 5 Middle Woodland 5 Late Woodland 6 Seventeenth Century 1 Eighteenth Century 40 Nineteenth Century 143 Civil War 67 Twentieth Century 75 Undetermined Prehistoric 109 Undetermined Historic 40 Indeterminate 6 Table 8. Archaeological sites by time periods.

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 P Ar Earl Mid La WoodlandEa Mi L SeventeenthEighteNineteenth Ce Civil TwentiCentury ale at chaic (ge te Archaic rly Woodd e W o y d dl Wa indi A le e r Archai Woodoo ent e a chaic r th n ( dl h Centu C n g la and ent eral) e n l c neral) d an ury ntury d ry

Figure 12. Frequency of prehistoric and historic components by era.

44 TEMPORARY CAMP,LITHIC LITHIC LITHIC UNDETER- CAMP UNKNOWN QUARRY WORKSHOP SCATTER MINED FUNCTION Paleoindian Archaic 1 1 1 4 Early Archaic 1 1 2 Middle Archaic 1 3 4 Late Archaic 5 1 1 2 Woodland 2 3 2 Early Woodland 2 3 Middle Woodland 3 1 2 Late Woodland 3 3 Undetermined 3 18 1 2 8 37 Table 9. Prehistoric components by type (function).

17TH 18TH 19TH CIVIL 20TH UNDETER- CENTURY CENTURY CENTURY WAR CENTURY MINED Blacksmith shop 1 Bridge 2 1 Canal, lock 6 1 Cemetery 6 10 5 5 5 Church 2 2 County Courthouse 1 Dam/Mill/Mill race 5 7 4 1 Dwelling 12 38 5 24 Farmstead and related 2 18 14 4 Ford 1 1 Iron furnace 6 1 Logging 1 Military and related 1 49 Mine/Prospect pit 24 5 13 Post Office 1 Quarry 1 Railroad/Railroad bed 3 2 Road trace 1 4 3 School 1 Shipwreck 1 1 Tavern/Inn 1 3 1 Trash scatter/pit 2 17 8 Well 1 1 Wharf 1 1 Table 10. Historic components by type (function).

45 ibility, VDHR offers a wide variety of functional population. Systematic, intensive survey de- site types to choose from when completing site signed to identify all sites in a given area has forms. Survey-level data, particularly with re- been conducted over at least 2.5% of the county’s spect to prehistoric sites, rarely offers the de- land area, so that we can be confident that a tailed information necessary to define site representative sample exists for that portion. function with specificity. For example, a “lithic Additional non-intensive surveys may increase scatter” with additional work could turn out to the survey coverage to as much as 4% (see Fig- contain evidence of a more specialized function ure 2). The results from these latter surveys can- related to lithic technology or subsistence and not be regarded as fully representative, but serve settlement patterns. Likewise, a site typed as a to record only the most visible sites. “single dwelling” based on survey data may The distinction made here is an important ultimately prove to be a tavern site with addi- one, for the label “survey” can carry different tional study. Some researchers are conservative meanings. Practically speaking, any survey con- in their approach, and use the broadest category ducted prior to about 1988 should be consid- possible. ered non-intensive or non-systematic. Before The small assemblage of prehistoric sites falls that time it was not expected or required that into two primary functional types: camps and shovel tests be systematically excavated at a lithic-related sites. Given the low number of prescribed interval across entire survey areas, sites identified as to type, this pattern probably and it was also not standard practice to screen reflects a lack of identification. By far, camps shovel test fill. Instead, many surveys amounted are more common (77%, n=47) (Table 9). These to opportunistic walkovers of plowed fields with usually represent the locations of relatively small little or no subsurface testing, or they consisted encampments occupied briefly by small groups of judgmental testing of high-probability land- while they gathered local food resources. Re- forms, and in some instances combinations of gion-wide these small encampments are the most both approaches. It is fair to say that these kinds common prehistoric site. of site searches were effective in identifying the Domestic sites are the most common type of largest and richest sites, especially in plowed historic site, representing the majority of sites fields, but they were not dependable for locat- for each of the periods, except the Civil War era, ing small, low-density sites, including some very though this exception is due more to the limited important ones such as small Archaic and Wood- span of the period and its focus on military re- land campsites. sources than to a lack of housing (Table 10). If Survey coverage overall has been focused one includes farmsteads with dwellings, the primarily around the Route 1/I-95 corridor in dominance of such sites is clear. The variety of the eastern portion of the County, and within site types expands dramatically in the nineteenth the north-central portion of Spotsylvania century with historical introduction of industrial County, in the vicinity of Hunting Run and Ely’s sites such as mines, mills, and related resources. Ford, and associated with the Stonewall Devel- The list of twentieth-century sites continues the opment. trend observed in previous eras. A review of summary Table 8 indicates not only that most periods are represented, as is a Assessment of Known range of site types, but also that the expected Assessment of Known increase in sites through time occurs. However, Resources the size of the sample is not very large consid- Representativeness ering the overall size of the county, and many areas remain under- or unrepresented. In addi- An important consideration is how representation, many sites are unidentified as to time pe- tive this sample of 416 sites is of the actual county riod and/or type. Despite this, the sample

46 appears to be representative in most respects lets are also underrepresented. Variable crite- and at the very least is sufficient to develop an ria applied between recorders has introduced informed management strategy. some error into the files and may account for According to age, or components repre- this. sented, the sample meets general expectations. As noted, there is a steady increase in sites over Eligibility time, which is to be expected. One exception already mentioned is the unexpectedly low num- Information was gathered on determinations of ber of Paleoindian and Woodland-era sites, and eligibility for either the National Register of low numbers for prehistoric sites in general. Historic Places (NRHP) or the Virginia Land- This, again, is suspected to be a factor of recog- marks Register (VLR), to the extent that it is nition, in large part due to environmental fac- present on official site records. This informa- tors outlined earlier. Nevertheless, many of the tion is summarized in Table 11. Reporting cur- earlier sites are probably low-density scatters rent eligibility status of sites in the county is that require intensive survey to locate. The low probably the most problematic aspect of the as- number of twentieth century sites is due in part sessment in view of incomplete and outdated to the 50-year cutoff for NRHP eligibility. At records on file at the VDHR. The summary pro- present for example, no site postdating 1957 vided here represents a best-effort but should would be eligible and, therefore, would attract be used with some reservation. More accurate little or no archaeological attention. It is also true appraisal will not be achieved until official that twentieth-century sites, and even postbel- records are updated and corrected. lum nineteenth-century sites, fail to garner the Of the 416 Spotsylvania County sites under same research interest as earlier resources. discussion, 14% (n=58) have been formally Several of the expected site types are not evaluated for the national or state registers. adequately represented in this sample. One ex- NRHP Status is the data field that most often ample is Native American “base camp” sites, of receives a response of “undetermined”; 358 which none has been recorded for Spotsylvania (98%) of the sites are listed as having not re- County. This may stem in part from the limited ceived any type of evaluation for NRHP status. survey coverage over much of the county. In This relates in part to the fact that at minimum addition, at the survey level researchers gather 47% (n=194) of sites identified in Spotsylvania the least amount of information necessary to County were located by Phase I surveys, which identify a site; additional research at many pre- were designed to offer preliminary assessments historic sites is likely to clarify their temporal of site eligibility for the NRHP. More formal positions and functions. Workshops and ham- recommendations usually take place as part of a

SITE CATEGORY AREA OF ELIGIBLE KNOWN CANDIDATE CONCENTRATION SITES SITES Late Archaic Tributary of Massaponax Creek 44SP0312 Middle Woodland Hunting Run drainage 44SP0222, 44SP0227 Colonial-era Rappahannock River drainage 18th and 19th c. industrial Various drainages 44SP0220 44SP0039, 44SP0587, 44SP0589 19th-c. County Courthouse Po River drainage 44SP0273 19th to 20th c. dwellings Hunting Run drainage 44SP0228 Table 11. Archaeological sites potentially eligible for the NRHP and the VLR.

47 Archaeological sites listed as eligible or potentially for the National Register of Figure 13. Figure 13. Figure 13. (Site 44SP0012) is on the Register. Furnace Landmarks Register; Tubal Historic Places and Virginia Figure 13. Figure 13.

48 Phase II evaluation, although a Phase I survey eligibility for the NRHP. The significance of can result in recommendation of “not eligible.” these sites stems from the information they pos- Thus, sites in Spotsylvania County are currently sess concerning a major industry in the county. eligible, potentially eligible, or ineligible for placement on the NRHP and VLR. Ineligible sites Ranking (12%, n=51) have been evaluated and determined to have no potential for yielding addi- The current prevailing view is that all archaeo- tional significant information. logical sites are considered potentially signifi- Only six sites in the county are listed as eli- cant until proven otherwise, such that each gible for the national or state register, meaning requires a basic level of assessment. In modern that through formal evaluation they are shown cultural resource management parlance, site iden- to meet one or more of the four NRHP criteria tification or survey is often referred to as Phase for eligibility (Figure 13). Sites in this category I of the process, more focused evaluation is should be afforded all due protection since they known as Phase II, and intensive study or data are demonstrated to retain significant research recovery is Phase III. Current practice in Vir- potential. ginia as suggested by VDHR, however, is to re- Sites that have met the criteria for placement fer to the three typical phases of archaeological on the NRHP and the VLR must be held in the investigation as survey, evaluation, and data highest regard. At this time, only one archaeo- recovery, respectively. A very small proportion logical site in Spotsylvania County has been (approximately 5.7%, n=14) of the known sites placed on the NRHP, the Tubal Furnace site in Spotsylvania County have been examined be- (44SP0012, 088-0074). There are Spotsylvania ar- yond the Phase I level, leaving a more absolute chitectural resources on the NRHP, but they have determination of significance yet to come. This not been evaluated for their archaeological re- also means that our ability to confidently inter- search potential. pret a great many sites is quite limited. Still, Many of the remaining sites can be accounted some criteria exist or can be defined to guide for based on the DHR’s commitment to list sites decisions that efficiently and effectively man- located by informants other than archaeologists. age the county’s resources. In short, progress Such site records usually lack NRHP status in- has been made in our ability to learn from and formation. At this time, no sites have been evalu- care for archaeological sites in Spotsylvania ated by VDHR to be “potentially eligible.” County, and the present sample is a reasonable However, any site that has not been determined basis for decision making through assessment to be ineligible should be considered potentially of this kind. eligible for the NRHP. Attempting to rank sites according to their Independent evaluations of NRHP and VLR relative significance is the riskiest and probably eligibility can be made for any sites lacking clear most controversial aspect of the assessment. determinations but only to the extent that avail- Most archaeologists today recognize that ar- able information will allow. Standard NRHP chaeological sites are significant or valued for criteria are utilized with reference to the con- different reasons, which are subject to change texts developed for the area. These determina- over time. Valuation is judged according to (1) tions are summarized in Table 11 to supplement research potential, or the capacity to contribute written descriptions of representative sites. Re- important information, and (2) integrity, or con- cent limited survey conducted by the WMCAR dition. Research potential, meaning the poten- identified two mills and revisited a third. In tial to yield new information, is most crucial and addition, gold mines have been recorded across is typically based on (a) how rare or poorly the northwestern half of the county; as of this known certain types of sites are (e.g., Paleoin- writing, none has been formally assessed for dian and Early Archaic sites are rare or poorly

49 known in Spotsylvania County), and (b) how or that possesses high artistic values, or unique a site or class of sites is at either the lo- that represents a significant and distin- cal, regional, or national level. Even sites of the guishable entity whose components may most important types can offer little informa- lack individual distinction; or tion if they have low integrity, meaning they D. have yielded, or be likely to yield, infor- are poorly preserved. In this area, sites are com- mation important in prehistory or history monly impacted by plowing, logging, erosion, (U.S. Department of Interior 1991). and development. Research potential is some- These general criteria are set down to guide times equated with uniqueness, to the extent that cultural resource management nationwide, but a site represents a type that is not common in an effective application is dependent on local or area or that contains exceptionally well pre- regional contexts, which define the state of served information even among others of its knowledge for that area. Archaeological sites kind. This aspect of sites is an important deter- are most often evaluated according to Criterion minant in the ranking scheme proposed here. D, although others can apply in certain situa- Four criteria are defined to guide determi- tions. In some respects, the degree to which mul- nations of eligibility for the NRHP, and are in tiple criteria apply to a site can influence the common usage among archaeologists today. ranking that it receives. These criteria relate primarily to issues of re- The explicit guidelines cited above are intrin- search potential. They require that, in order to sic to today’s management of sites by contem- be NRHP-eligible, a site must: porary professional archaeologists. This does not A. be associated with events that have made mean, however, that non-professionals in the a significant contribution to the broad local populace will agree with the outcome of patterns of our history; or the process, nor that professionals will neces- B. be associated with the lives of persons sig- sarily agree with priority rankings preferred by nificant in our past; or County officials and citizens. This poses a significant dilemma but one that must be taken into C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, account in efforts of the kind undertaken here. or that represents the work of a master, Ultimately, we must engage in a consensus-

RANK ORDER SITE TYPE SIGNIFICANCE INTEGRITY CATEGORY REQUIREMENTS First Order Native American Protohistoric/ National Minimal Contact Period (AD 1500–1634) Early Colonial-era National Minimal 18th- and 19th-century industrial Regional Moderate African-American experience Regional Moderate Second Order Civil War National Moderate Paleoindian National Moderate Archaic National Moderate Woodland Regional Moderate 19th-century Regional/local Moderate/high Third Order Late 19th-/early 20th-century Local High Table 12. Prioritized ranking for archaeological sites in Spotsylvania County.

50 building effort to manage resources at the local sources remain in isolated areas. Thirdly, the level, within reasonable limits. county’s industrial heritage is represented by It is atypical to act on site records as we will the remains of iron furnaces, mines, and mills. here, although it is recognized as the ideal out- The earliest European settlement in the region come of the modern cultural resource manage- was spurred by the iron deposits found in the ment process. By acknowledging the strengths region. These sites are poorly understood. At- of the local record, represented by site types tempts to locate the Massaponax Furnace (Site that are either unique or prominent in the 44SP0046) in March 2007 were unsuccessful. county, a prioritized ranking can be constructed. Given the expressed interest of citizens in this This exercise can eventually minimize the class of sites, coupled with the degree to which amount of fieldwork demanded by local gov- they are underrepresented in existing records, ernment and lead to more thorough study of they are considered first-order resources. existing collections instead. One logical outcome The fourth class of first-order sites are those of a ranking of this kind is protection of repre- that may reveal information about the African sentative examples of the area’s most unique American experience in Spotsylvania County. In archaeological resources. the early nineteenth century, approximately two- The ranking scheme offered here is more cat- thirds of the county population was black, yet egorical as opposed to absolute. This reflects the only six sites have been identified as being cul- fact that some classes of sites share a level of turally associated with the African American significance (all other factors being equal) and, community, and the link is based on little re- therefore, deserve similar treatment. This said, search in at least two of them. This subject is it is also true that the factor of integrity (condi- understudied state-wide, and includes a range tion) will figure prominently in final manage- of site types, from eighteenth-century slave ment decisions. This assessment takes the view quarters to free black enclaves, and all the com- that sites in even the most important classes can munity structures one can imagine. Known sites lose research potential if integrity is poor. Table include a Civilian Conservation Corps encamp- 12 summarizes the ranking scheme proposed ment (44SP0435), probable slave quarters here. (44SP0019, 44SP0470), a farmstead (44SP0305), First-Order Sites. Four classes of sites are and a cemetery (44SP0218). In addition, local present in the county that warrant high signifi- tradition holds that an African American regi- cance. The first, Protohistoric/early historic ment was encamped in the vicinity of the inter- Native American sites (AD 1500–1634), are as- section of Old Plank Road and Catharpin Road. signed a priority status that reflects their unique- These sites and others like them have the po- ness not only regionally, but nationally. tential to illuminate social and commercial net- Although the English did not settle in works between enslaved and freed communities Spotsylvania County at this time, they made as well as with the white community, and re- contact with native populations, the effects of veal the lifeways of a significant proportion of which can be studied and preserved. In addi- the population of the county during most of the tion, early colonial settlement of the region holds historic period. great interest to citizens of the county. A fort Second-Order Sites. Site classes in this cat- was established within what is today Spotsyl- egory are either relatively well-represented, or, vania County in 1671. Its likely location is on based on our current understanding of settle- the right bank of the Rappahannock River, up- ment practices, have a low probability of dis- stream from Massaponax Creek. Development covery. It may also be the case that such types and gravel mining have greatly altered this re- of sites are best represented by sites located gion; nevertheless, recent survey conducted by elsewhere in the region. This category will in- the WMCAR has shown that archaeological re- clude most archaeological sites in the county.

51 Analysis as part of this assessment can intro- as battlefield sites, should be granted an el- duce some refinement to these rather broad cat- evated status. egories by defining the specific site types of Third-Order Sites. Site classes placed in this specific ages that are of most interest. category are afforded the lowest priority. They Of great interest are sites that date to the are not necessarily without research potential, Paleoindian (10,000–8000 BC) and Archaic (8000– however, given that particularly well preserved 3000 BC) periods. Paleoindian sites are probably examples of each them should be carefully the most rare of Virginia’s archaeological re- treated. The late nineteenth- and early twenti- sources. Were an intact Paleoindian site to be eth-century sites in this category have a high discovered, the impact of such a resource would integrity and research potential threshold, and prove invaluable to our current understanding must be shown to have clear ethnic, functional, of prehistoric settlement of the region, refining or other important associations before intensive and expanding what little is known about preservation or research measures are war- Virginia’s first inhabitants. Archaic sites are ranted. known to occur across the county. In fact, it is It is emphasized again that this ranking at this time that the first strong evidence of pre- scheme is not an absolute one. The structure of historic occupation appears in the county. They the scheme is based on current knowledge and hold important evidence of native lifeways and expectations, derived from a large sample of sites adaptation. Among them are small camps along and published reports for Spotsylvania County. the major stream courses. This basis is a strong one and it is not likely that Nineteenth-century sites occur in relative a radical overhaul of the priorities will be nec- abundance in the county, such that not all of essary. At the same time, it is not unreasonable them are of strong significance. Those that should to expect the unexpected on occasion. Well-pre- command treatment at this level are rural do- served Paleoindian and Archaic sites do not mestic sites and well-preserved sites relating to appear to be common in the county, for example, industries such as mining, milling, and iron pro- but there is always the chance that an exception duction. While considered to have national sig- will be discovered. In this case, the exceptional nificance, Civil War sites are numerous in site would deserve an elevated priority, but not Spotsylvania due to the significant engagements necessarily the class as a whole. that occurred here. Also, many Civil War sites Looking ahead to the final chapter, efforts have been afforded a degree of protection to protect examples of the higher-order site through the creation of the Fredericksburg and classes are uneven. Considerably more success Spotsylvania National Military Park. Neverthe- has been achieved at preserving and interpret- less, less documented sites, such as encampments ing Civil War–era sites than has been realized and resources associated with battlefield or for Native American sites of any age. Recom- earthwork sites outside of the protected battle- mendations will be presented to correct this fields, which in general are not as well known problem.

52 4 Identification of Sensitive Areas

Introduction some predictive potential and, with further study, could provide a measure of site poten- By evaluating the results of the site assessment tial. In the case of Spotsylvania County, access in Chapter 3 against the cultural contexts for the to the Rappahannock appears to be a stronger county, archaeological sensitivity areas can be predictor than fertility, but economic minerals constructed. Three sensitivity ratings will be are also predictive. The Nason-Tatum-Catharpin defined: high, moderate, and low. This should soils, which coincide with the gold-pyrite belt represent one of the more useful sections of the located in the northwestern half of the county, document. In it areas of Spotsylvania County has one of the highest quantities of sites largely are identified according to archaeological sen- based on the number of gold and iron mines sitivity, meaning the estimated potential for lo- locate within its bounds. cating archaeological sites and, where possible, Distance to water is a final natural variable the estimated potential for significant sites. The long recognized as a significant indicator of hu- discussion is accompanied by maps identifying man settlement, particularly during prehistoric the areas. Sensitivity has been judged from site periods. This can be an aspect of elevation, but distributions generated from the current sample can also be independent of it, since streams of and their association with specific variables that various rank occur throughout the county. The in a sense serve as the predictors of site poten- various major streams occur in the dissected tial. Site potential ratings are also heavily reli- uplands, which cover a considerable area of the ant on the results of recent, systematic survey, county. Limited flood plains lie along the Rap- which produces the most dependable informa- pahannock and some of the other, smaller, tion. streams. The county is crossed by numerous Several areas defined by specific variables drainages, all tributary to either the were identified in an earlier section as having Rappahannock or the York (see Figure 2). The relatively high site densities. These include cer- swift-moving waters proved a boon to early tain types of soils and modern political divisions. industrialists, and a number of mills were es- Not all of them are reliable or meaningful pre- tablished across the county in the eighteenth and dictors, especially the modern abstractions which nineteenth centuries (see Figure 1). are not only completely artificial but subject to Also, early cultural features such as roads, change. Because natural environmental factors bridges, landings, and canals, can be utilized to are more constant through time and less subject predict site locations, especially beginning in the to bias, they are the principle variables used to mid- to late eighteenth and nineteenth centu- gauge sensitivity. ries (see Chapter 2). More extensive develop- Soils have long been utilized as a potentially ment tended to occur close to the Rappahannock sensitive predictor of archaeological site loca- River until the late eighteenth century. A net- tions. Obviously, drainage and slope are impor- work of trails and then roadways was estab- tant factors in the choice of any habitation site, lished throughout the county. Roads, such as the but less obvious characteristics such as fertility Orange Plank Road and Catharpin Road, were also figure into decisions. Our rather coarse cor- in place by the end of the eighteenth century relation of sites to soil associations does offer

53 and experienced development of different kinds High-Sensitivity Areas occur within 3.2 km along their routes (see Chapter 2). (2 mi.) of the Rappahannock River, where natu- Certain tendencies in early settlement are ral ground surfaces are sloped less than 10%, understood at least in their basic patterns. It has and outside of permanently waterlogged soils been observed that (1) the earliest settlement (Figure 12). The most favorable water access (early eighteenth century) was oriented very conditions co-occur over much of this area. It is strongly to the major waterways that served as in these locations that many of the county’s sites corridors for transportation; (2) settlement ex- of national and regional significance will most panded inland, especially by the late eighteenth likely occur. These include contact period Na- century, as population increased and road sys- tive American sites and Colonial-era sites, as well tems expanded; and (3) beginning in the early as some eighteenth-century industrial sites. nineteenth century, settlement became more Ultrasensitive zones occur where these high- specifically oriented to the major roads, rail- sensitivity areas fall within areas of anticipated roads, canals, and communities as opposed to major growth. natural features like streams, springs, and the Moderate Sensitivity Areas exist elsewhere most productive soils. in the county where natural ground surfaces are The present correlation of sites and certain more sloped, outside of permanently water- modern political/economic divisions is useful logged soils, and where there has not been any only insofar as they identify currently sensitive significant amount of landscaping for develop- areas; they are not useful predictors. To some ment (see Figure 14). “Landscaping” refers to extent they are biased by the varying amounts relatively intensive earthmoving such as grad- of survey coverage devoted to them, but again, ing, improved road construction, and excava- as concretely understood locations they deserve tion for sand and gravel or landfills. It does not some consideration. Perhaps most significantly, necessarily refer to residential construction or certain of these areas explicitly define the loca- simple paving. Moderate-sensitivity areas have tions most susceptible to development and, high potential for regionally and locally signifi- therefore, subject to more potential threats to cant sites of all periods. This is particularly true archaeological resources. of Archaic- and Woodland-stage sites, and eigh- Subareas referred to as “Ultrasensitive teenth- and nineteenth-century sites. Zones” are defined with reference to the county’s Ultrasensitive zones in these areas occur in planning map where threats are viewed as great- areas of anticipated major growth. In addition, est. These exist especially where the high- and it is likely that terraces overlooking interior moderate-sensitivity areas coincide with lands drainages have potential for Archaic- and Wood- reserved for moderate to heavy development land-stage resources. such as residential and industrial properties in Low-Sensitivity Areas are those locations that the areas of anticipated major growth. either (1) occur in permanently waterlogged Ultrasensitive zones can also occur where im- soils, (2) are steeply sloped, and/or (3) have portant known archaeological resources occur been significantly altered by landscaping for in low-sensitivity areas. development. It is important to note that, while habitation sites are not likely to be found in Defining Sensitivity Areas steeply sloped settings, many of the gold and Defining Sensitivity Areas iron mines identified in the western portion of The three basic sensitivity rankings reflect the the county are found on sideslopes and it is not combined effects of documented natural and uncommon for Civil War winter encampments cultural patterns, meaning that they have been to be located on slopes. In addition, areas that defined by environmental, documentary, ar- are waterlogged today were not always so. The chaeological, and modern planning factors.

54 General extent of high-, moderate-, and low-sensitivity areas. Figure 14. Figure 14. Figure 14. Figure 14. Figure 14.

55 eastern tip of the county lies within the Coastal tions on a given tract in order to translate them Plain and contains some wetland areas. into sensitivity ratings. The specific factors to The potential of even wetland areas, how- consider are topography, drainage, distance to ever, for archaeological sites should not go un- water, density of current development, and re- noticed (Blanton and Margolin 1994). The lationship to the areas of anticipated major de- extensive wetlands that characterize eastern velopment, which are the conditions that Virginia are relatively new features of the land- combine to distinguish the sensitivity categories. scape, and now cover areas that were formerly Figure 15 is a sample application of the sensitiv- well drained and suitable for human habitation. ity definitions to illustrate the outcome of such A rise in sea level over the past 15,000 years has an exercise. It provides a detailed view of a sec- expanded wetlands to cover many prehistoric tion of the county that the scale of most other and some historic-period sites. Indeed, some of figures in this document will not allow. In the these hidden sites may be among the best-pre- figure, each of the four sensitivity areas is indi- served resources. But because recent legislation cated by a different color. allows for the draining of these wetlands, their It will be clear that well-drained and mini- protection is no longer a certainty. As a conse- mally developed areas adjacent to streams are quence, these resources will likely lose their highly sensitive locations. As one moves away natural protection from development and other from stream margins onto other well-drained impacts, exposing sites that lie beneath and areas, the sensitivity is reduced to moderate. within them. Only those wetlands that fall However, steeply sloped and heavily developed within federal boundaries are excluded from this portions of any area, regardless of drainage or fate. Any wetlands drained and slated for new slope, receive only a low sensitivity rating. Like- development would immediately be elevated to wise, poorly drained stream bottoms and other ultrasensitive status. wetlands, unless subject to intentional draining, generally are not highly sensitive. Application of the Sensitivity Actual mapping of sensitivity ratings county- Application of the Sensitivity wide was not a product of this assessment. In- Definitions stead, the assessment defines the criteria and The foregoing section has defined three catego- general graphic translations of these definitions ries of archaeological sensitivity in Spotsylvania suitable for future GIS translation by the county County. In addition, situations where height- government. Specifically, GIS programmers can ened sensitivity might apply have been detailed. apply the rating criteria to generate detailed, Applying these definitions to “real life” situa- county-wide plots of sensitivity. tions will involve careful examination of condi-

56 Figure 15. Example of sensitivity areas in a representative area of Spotsylvania County.

57 58 5 Management Recommendations and Guidelines

The development of recommendations and bust than others. In this respect, they can often guidelines for management of Spotsylvania suffer damage and yet retain some research County’s archaeological resources is recognized potential, thus making integrity of less concern. as the major contribution of the assessment. The significance of smaller sites even of the first- They are offered to aid formulation of local his- order type can be severely compromised, how- toric preservation policy involving archaeologi- ever, by damage, so that some may not warrant cal sites. Guiding principles in their development special protection or study. Integrity must be are practical application and relevance vis-à-vis weighed more seriously among sites in the sec- present-day concerns. In keeping with this goal, ond- and third-order classes. Sites in these recommendations and guidelines are presented classes tend to be less unique and/or less ro- in a format suitable for use by both historic pres- bust in the county. Once again, where integrity ervation specialists and non-specialists alike. is high at some of these sites, they deserve careful treatment commensurate with their informa- Summary of Priority Ranking tion potential. This would be especially true of Summary of Priority Ranking sites dating from the Paleoindian period, for and Eligibility Determinations example, or understudied types of Civil War sites Archaeological resources were ranked on a rela- with excellent integrity. tive scale in Chapter 3 based on current knowl- The ranking scheme that has been presented edge and research merit. Rank assignments are is intended to be applied with a healthy dose of based first on uniqueness and research poten- judgement and flexibility. Integrity is an obvi- tial. Contact-era sites top the ranking; they are ous factor to account for. Another is the excep- unique nationally as well as regionally in the tional sites technically falling within the second, record they hold of English colonization of the but especially the third order, that prove to be New World and its effects on Native Ameri- unique in their information potential in ways cans. Also at the top of the list are earliest Colo- that most of their kind in the county or region nial-era sites and eighteenth-century industrial are not. Examples that might reasonably be an- sites. The second-order site categories enjoy a ticipated are unusually rich or well-preserved degree of uniqueness but this may be tempered Archaic sites. by reasons to expect a low probability for their The ranking of sites in this manner can po- occurrence within the county, or the extent to tentially be criticized for a rationale seemingly which such resources may have already received based on biased value judgments. Clearly the a lot of attention or protection; third-order sites exigencies of planning at the local level demand are important only at the local level and can be creative solutions when addressing what some better represented elsewhere (see Table 12). would refer to as “nonessential” services. Es- Integrity or physical condition also figures tablishing a set of priorities is simply a prag- into the ranking scheme but to a varying de- matic solution for data organization. Bear in gree based on uniqueness. Some of the settle- mind, too, that priorities shift as new informa- ments representing first-order sites are relatively tion is gathered and interpretations improve, extensive and contain deposits that are more ro- and, consequently, schemes of this kind deserve

59 to be updated periodically. One salvation of the sible, potential threats were also taken into ac- ranking is that sites often contain multiple com- count and led to definition of “ultrasensitive ponents, or evidence from several occupations. areas.” By preserving a number of sites, especially those As noted above, one result of the fieldwork of first- and second-order status, records from component of the assessment was an evaluation other occupations will also be effectively pre- of the utility of historic resources for identify- served. ing areas with high potential for early colonial Many sites that have been identified in the sites (e.g., New Post and the Rappahannock county and even some that have not are likely River bank). A primary source for historic site eligible for the NRHP and VLR. Precautions information in Spotsylvania County is the “Red should be taken to insure that they are accounted Book,” a collection of topographic maps keyed for or anticipated in preservation plans. A pre- to county parcel numbers, on which the loca- liminary list of candidate NRHP/VLR sites is tions of historic structures (both standing and provided here (see Table 11). It is not necessar- demolished) have been marked (Durett and ily a complete list, however, since information Harvison 1987). Several sites presented in the recorded for known sites is seldom sufficient to Red Book (but not recorded with the state) were make an accurate determination. These sites can ground-truthed with varying results. For ex- be discussed in terms of categories consistent ample, judgemental survey revealed that gravel with the ranking scheme. mining and other earthmoving activities have Contact-period sites represent one category; significantly altered the landscape in the vicin- they qualify as first-order sites. No village or ity of New Post and Massaponax Creek. Pock- base camp sites have been identified in the ets of intact sediments remain, however, county; nevertheless, such sites are likely to be particularly within the resource protection area found with additional survey, along the Rappa- for the Rappahannock River. This observation hannock River below the fall-zone. can likely be applied to other regions of the A number of industrial enterprises across the county where quarrying and development may county have been documented, such as Tubal seem to have obliterated archaeological poten- Furnace, Catharine Furnace, iron and gold tial. mines, and numerous mills that operated dur- The three levels of sensitivity defined are ing the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. linked to the prioritized ranking scheme to the These concerns were an important feature of the extent that degrees of sensitivity commonly re- county at that time, but very little archaeology flect site significance. High-sensitivity areas, for has been done at representative sites in the area. example, are defined in large measure as the These sites should be assigned a special, elevated zone where first-order sites are concentrated. ranking when they are identified in accordance The high-sensitivity zone can be described as a with their clear research potential. narrow band following the margins of the Rap- pahannock River (see Figure 14). Most ultra- Summary of Sensitive Areas sensitive areas occur in this band where it Summary of Sensitive Areas intersects with the areas of anticipated major Areas of the county are ranked according to their growth, thereby marking locations in greatest archaeological sensitivity in Chapter 4 and il- need of attention to guard against damage or lustrated in Figures 14 and 15. Natural features loss. and the sample of known sites both served as Moderate-sensitivity areas are most likely to variables for predicting where archaeological contain second- and third-order sites, and cover resources in general are most likely to occur, the majority of the interior lands in the county but more importantly where the most signifi- (see Figure 14). This broad definition reflects a cant sites are more prevalent. To the extent pos- wide distribution of sites in the county, espe-

60 cially those that qualify as second order sites. Short-Term Recommendations Other important types of sites to be expected are Archaic and Woodland encampments along 1. Take archaeological resources into consid- interior streams and tributaries and a variety of eration in the Comprehensive Plan: Ap- eighteenth-century sites. ply the information presented in this document towards the county’s compre- Low-sensitivity areas are defined primarily hensive plan by by environmental factors. They include the portions of the county that are steeply sloped or a. alerting citizens and developers of ar- waterlogged and generally unsuitable for habi- chaeological sensitivity areas so that potential impacts to sites can be foreseen, and tation. These areas also include locations that have undergone development destructive to b. spell out formal guidelines and procedures for addressing archaeological is- archaeological sites of any kind. Wetlands are sues. included in the definition of low-sensitivity areas, but they represent a case in which special 2. Clearly define guidelines and procedures for addressing archaeological issues: If circumstances could elevate their importance. there is consensus over any aspect of this The marshes fringing major creeks and rivers process, it is that expectations should be have expanded in places, even over the last few explicitly stated and procedures clearly centuries. In the process, they have obscured and defined. In effect, any ordinances or for- preserved unusual remains. Occasionally, they mal measures implemented by the county contain important archaeological material and must be detailed and explained to mini- environmental records. As such, wetland dis- mize procedural guesswork and to per- turbances should be minimized and monitored. mit long-range planning, especially cost analysis. Examples of existing archaeological plans in Virginia should be consulted, Management and Planning especially those for the City of Alexandria, Recommendations the City of Williamsburg, and Fairfax County. Steps that would improve the lo- Recommendations for management of archaeo- cal protection process are: logical resources in Spotsylvania County are di- a. Establish a basis and procedures for fund- vided between short-term and long-term ing archaeological protection efforts in the objectives. The intention is to offer constructive, county. Consider a fixed per unit (acres, realistic suggestions for addressing these issues. for example) fee intended to cover the costs The body of this assessment report describes of initial identification (Phase I survey) studies, and the costs of subsequent land the current record of sites in the county, giving purchases for site protection and preser- statistics as to their nature and making predic- vation and/or data recovery excavation. tions about where they will occur. The recom- Monies not expended would be allocated mendations outlined in this final section can to a fund explicitly reserved for archaeo- orient future planning, but how the information logical protection, whether for land pur- will be utilized cannot be dictated. The ideal chases, excavations, or public outcome would be to reach a consensus and interpretation. Matching contributions implement a formal procedure or guidelines for from the county would significantly bolster the fund. Perhaps any fees established treatment of archaeological resources as part of should also be sufficient to cover environ- the county’s comprehensive plan or through lo- mental conservation costs. cal ordinance. b. Emphasize to developers the cultural en- hancement aspects of archaeological protection and research. Archaeological

61 resources can represent a marketing and be funded through the Survey and Plan- public relations asset if properly managed ning Cost-Share Program or Certified and interpreted. Local Government Grants. Numerous ex- 3. Interpret archaeology to the public amples of similarly themed projects are on through exhibits, lectures, and publica- file with the VDHR, including surveys of tions: The spirit of legislation requiring Louisa County industrial sites, Clarke federal agencies to account for archaeo- County mill sites, and Civil War resources logical resources in their undertakings was in Leesburg and the City of Fairfax. enacted with the interests of the public in mind, and the same motivation should Long-Term Recommendations guide local efforts. It is not enough to simply recover artifacts and write a technical 1. Interpret archaeology to the public report; the results should be shared with through exhibits and publications: Con- the citizens whose heritage we are pre- tinue and expand efforts initiated under serving. No. 3 above. a. Public interpretations efforts should be 2. Consider archaeological preservation stipulated in agreements for archaeologi- when assessing and acquiring “conserva- cal studies, including the preparation of tion” properties: Efficient use of energy summary, popular reports and schedul- and funds would be attained if the often ing of “open house” visitation to suitable complementary goals of conservation and excavations. historic stewardship efforts were com- b. Create exhibit space in public buildings bined. Attention should be focused on such as administrative centers, libraries, areas of high archaeological sensitivity to and schools where archaeological find- the extent possible. ings can be displayed. a. Attempt to include important archaeologi- 4. Establish a county historical commission cal sites within property acquired as con- to promote the heritage of Spotsylvania servation area or greenways, or within County and increase public awareness and existing greenspace, such as that associ- participation in historic resource preser- ated with school, recreational, and indus- vation. trial property. 5. Work closely with citizen action groups b. Seek to acquire property with archaeologi- to coordinate efforts: Organizations exist cal sites through land exchanges. whose purpose is to promote an appre- c. Initiate a relationship with the Archaeo- ciation of the area’s historical heritage and logical Conservancy, a nonprofit archaeo- natural resources (for example the Ar- logical advocacy group that protects chaeological Society of Virginia or the archaeological sites by buying and pre- Spotsylvania County Historical Society). serving them. This would be particularly The leadership of these groups should be appropriate for any of the sites listed in apprized of the county’s plans so that Table 11. complementary efforts can be organized d. Promote the positive benefits of agricul- to achieve the same goals. These organi- tural and forestal districts as places for zations could be instrumental in imple- archaeological preservation. By maintain- menting a program of public ing the current use of these lands, archaeo- interpretation, including exhibit design, logical sites could be spared from the sponsoring lecture series, and preparing threat of intensive development or land- and distributing literature. scaping. 6. Carry on exploration of themes relevant 3. Archaeological easements: Special ease- to the citizens of the County, through the- ments designed to protect archaeological matic surveys. For example, an intensive sites are encouraged, especially if they can study of mill sites or iron furnaces could carry tax incentives for landowners. The

62 VDHR has initiated an easement program plications, to support archaeological stew- of this kind that could be utilized locally, ardship efforts. This resource could sup- but a similar plan more suitable to local port excavation, exhibit, publication, or needs could also be considered (to qualify emergency field projects. for the VDHR Easement Program, sites 6. Update this assessment: This document must be on the VLR). Easements would has a limited “shelf life” due to the con- be most effective for preserving first-or- stant addition of new archaeological in- der sites in high-sensitivity areas. formation from projects in the county. 4. Hire a county archaeologist or retain a Much of the information will remain rel- consulting professional: A county archae- evant for a considerable period, but two ologist could be hired to attend to rou- kinds of updates should be considered: tine and emergency needs. This person a. A relatively brief supplement to this docu- would be required to meet the profes- ment should be considered after about five sional standards set by the Secretary of years, summarizing new site records and the Interior for a principal investigator. A the implications of recent projects for plan- cooperative arrangement between the ning. A model for this is the update of the neighboring counties, such as Fluvanna Brown et al. (1986) RP3 planning report and Cumberland counties, should be con- for James City County prepared by sidered, whereby a small staff serves the Meredith Moodey et al. (1991) and entitled need of multiple jurisdictions. Responsi- Resource Protection Planning Revisited: James bilities would include: City County, York County, and City of Wil- a. timely review of reports generated by lo- liamsburg. A second part of this update cally funded projects, would be to make additions to maps, GIS files, and the database. b. management of archaeological records in files and on maps, b. After approximately 10 years, or just prior to a revision of the comprehensive plan, a c. advisement of planners, developers, and thorough revision of this assessment will others potentially seeking to avoid im- probably be in order. Intensive analysis of pacts to archaeological sites, and all records should be included at this time, d. responding to “emergency” situations the purpose of which would be to deter- such as late discoveries of sites. mine whether sensitivity areas and the 5. Create a fund to sponsor necessary and ranking scheme should be refined. This desirable archaeology: Create a secure would provide an opportunity to incor- fund through various sources, including porate such changes into any revisions of private donations and external grant ap- the comprehensive plan.

63 64 Bibliography of Known Sources

Adams, Robert M., Mary L. Rothwell-Zellmer, and Barfield, Eugene B., and Michael B. Barber James G. Harrison III 1992 Archaeological and Ethnographic Evidence of 1992 The Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the Brit- Subsistence in Virginia During the Late Wood- tany Elderly and Brittany Congregate Development land Period. In Middle and Late Woodland Re- Project, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Harrison search in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by & Associates, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Pre- Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. pared for Connemara Limited Partnership, Hodges, pp. 225–248. Special Publication No. Fredericksburg, Virginia. 29. Archeological Society of Virginia, Rich- mond. Archaeology of Eastern North America 1982 A Compilation of Fluted Points of Eastern Beaudry, Mary C. North America by Count and Distribution: 1978 Report of an Archaeological Survey of the Proposed An AENA Project. Archaeology of Eastern North Vocational/Technical Center, Spotsylvania, Vir- America 10:27–45. ginia. Southside Historical Sites, Inc., Wil- liamsburg, Virginia. Prepared for Spotsyl- Baicy, Dan, Keith Heinrich, and Loretta Lautzenheiser vania County, Virginia. 2005 Phase I Archaeological Survey Proposed Massaponax Gravity Sewer Interceptor Pipeline Benson, T. Lloyd Replacement, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. 1991 The Plain Folk of Orange: Land, Work and Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., Tarboro, Society on the Eve of the Civil War. In The North Carolina. Prepared for Spotsylvania Edge of the South: Life in Nineteenth Century Vir- County, Virginia and Whitman, Requardt, ginia, edited by Edward L. Ayers and John C. and Associates, LLP., Baltimore, Maryland. Willis, pp. 56–78. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Balicki, Joseph, Elizabeth Barthold O’Brien, and Charles D. Cheek Bevan, Bruce 1996 Phase I and Phase II Archeological Investigations 1993 A Ground-Penetrating Radar Survey at the for the Motts Run Water Filtration Plant Access Stevens House. Road. John Milner Associates, Alexandria, Vir- Blanton, Dennis B., and Samuel G. Margolin ginia. Prepared for Spotsylvania Utilities, 1994 An Assessment of Virginia’s Underwater Cultural County of Spotsylvania, Fredericksburg, Vir- Resources. Prepared by William and Mary ginia. Center for Archaeological Research, Williams- Balicki, Joseph, Kerri Culhane, and Bryan Corle burg, Virginia. Survey and Planning Report 2002 Data Recovery Investigations at the Bailey Farm No. 3. Virginia Department of Historic Re- (44SP0228), Spotsylvania County, Virginia. John sources, Richmond. Milner Associates, Alexandria, Virginia. Pre- Brady, Ellen M., and Lily A. Richards pared for Spotsylvania Utilities, County of 2004 Phase I Archaeological Survey of a Portion of the Spotsylvania, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Proposed Sales Center and Security Gate Improve- Baltz, Christopher J., John W. Picklesimer II, Daniel R. ments Within the National Park Service Easement Hayes, Misty Jackson, W. Kevin Pape, Margaret E. at Fawn Lake, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Hess, and E. Jeanne Harris Cultural Resources, Inc., Fredericksburg, Vir- 1991 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Pro- ginia. Prepared for Welford Engineering As- posed Virginia Power Pipeline Project: The Licking sociates, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Creek Loop in Chesterfield County, the James River Loop in Goochland County, and the Boswell Loop in Albemarle and Louisa Counties, Virginia. Gray & Pape Cultural Resources Consultants, Cin- cinnati, Ohio. Submitted to Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, Charleston, West Virginia. 65 Brown, Marley R., III, Kathleen Bragdon, Gregory J. Catlin, Mark Brown, Linda K. Derry, Thomas F. Higgins III, Robert 1981 Phase II Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of R. Hunter, Jr., Craig Lukezic, Lisa Royce, Patricia Neabsco and Powells Creeks, Prince William Samford, and Ann Morgan Smart County, Virginia. On file, Thunderbird Research 1986 Toward a Resource Protection Process: James City Corporation, Front Royal, Virginia. Submit- County, York County, City of Poquoson, and City ted to Prince William County, Virginia. of Williamsburg. 2d ed. Office of Archaeologi- Catts, Wade P., Stuart J. Fiedel, Reginald Pits, and cal Investigation, Department of Archaeol- Charles D. Cheek ogy, The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1996 Data Recovery at Hord’s Mill, Site 44SP0220: Pre- Williamsburg, Virginia. historic and Historic Archeology in the Hunting Browning, Lyle E. Run Valley, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. John 1981a Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor- Milner Associates, Alexandria, Virginia. Pre- tation Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Sur- pared for the Virginia Department of Historic vey: Route 208. Worksheet on file, Virginia Resources, Richmond, Virginia. Department of Highways and Transportation, Catts, Wade P., Amy C. Rose, Peter E. Siegel, and Richmond, Virginia. Prepared at the request Margarita Jerabek Wuellner of the Virginia Research Center for Archaeol- 1995 Phase II Archeological Evaluation of the Motts Run ogy, Richmond, Virginia, for the Virginia Site (44SP0254) for the Proposed Motts Run Wa- Department of Highways and Transportation, ter Filtration Plant, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Richmond, Virginia. John Milner Associates, West Chester, Penn- 1981b Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor- sylvania. Prepared for Hayes, Seay, Mattern tation Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Sur- & Mattern, Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia. vey: Route 1298. Worksheet on file, Virginia Center for Historic Preservation, Mary Washington Department of Highways and Transportation, College Richmond, Virginia. Prepared at the request 1991 Archaeology in Market Square: Additional Ar- of the Virginia Research Center for Archaeol- chaeological Testing. Center for Historic Preser- ogy, Richmond, Virginia, for the Virginia vation, Mary Washington College, Fredericks- Department of Highways and Transportation, burg, Virginia. Prepared for The Fredericks- Richmond, Virginia. burg Area Museum and Cultural Center, Fred- Carr, Kurt W. ericksburg, Virginia. 1980 A Preliminary Archeological Resources Reconnais- 1992 Archaeological and Historical Assessment of Blocks sance of the Proposed Widening of Route 639 Near 48 and 49 in Fredericksburg, Virginia: Appendix Salem Church, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. VIII: Artifact Catalogue. Center for Historic Pres- Thunderbird Research Corporation, Front ervation, Mary Washington College, Freder- Royal, Virginia. Prepared as part of an envi- icksburg, Virginia. Prepared for The Freder- ronmental impact assessment at the request icksburg Area Museum and Cultural Center, of the Virginia Research Center for Archaeol- Fredericksburg, Virginia. ogy. Chadderdon, Thomas J., and Philip Pendleton Carr, Kurt W., and William M. Gardner 1995 Spotsylvania Courthouse Bypass of State Route 208, 1980 A Preliminary Archeological Resources Reconnais- Corridors A and C. Louis Berger & Associates, sance of Alternative 2B, Spotsylvania Courthouse Richmond, Virginia. Prepared for the Virginia Area Facilities Plan, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Department of Transportation, Richmond, Thunderbird Research Corporation, Front Virginia. Royal, Virginia. Prepared for Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Chatelain, Edwood R. 1981 Archaeological Survey and Testing Program at Carter, Joanna, Shane Peterson, Loretta Lautzenheiser, Providence Park, Fairfax County, Virginia. Sub- Mary Ann Holm, and Ellen Mayo mitted to Fairfax County Archaeological Sur- 1997 Architectural Evaluation, Outer Connector Study, vey, Fairfax, Virginia. Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties, City of Fred- ericksburg, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Chittenden, Betsy, et al. Tarboro, North Carolina. Prepared for the 1985 Fairfax County Heritage Resource Management Virginia Department of Transportation, Rich- Plan (Draft). Heritage Resources Branch, Of- mond, Virginia, and Michael Baker, Jr., Inc., fice of Comprehensive Planning, Fairfax Richmond, Virginia. County, Virginia. Cultural Resources, Inc.

66 2001a Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Luck Davis, George B., Leslie Perry, and Joseph Kirkley Stone Industrial Park, Spotsylvania County, Vir- (editors) ginia. Cultural Resources, Inc., Williamsburg, 1978 Official Military Atlas of the Civil War. Fairfax Virginia. Prepared for Timmons Consulting Press, New York. Engineers, Richmond, Virginia. Dent, Richard J. 2001b Phase II Archaeological Significance Evaluation of 1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Di- Site 44SP0364 Located at the Proposed River Run rections. Plenum Press, New York. Business Park, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Durrett, Virginia, and Sonya Harvison Cultural Resources, Inc., Williamsburg, Vir- 1987 Handbook of Historic Sites of Spotsylvania County. ginia. Prepared for Timmons Consulting En- Manuscript on file, Virginia Department of gineers, Richmond, Virginia. Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia. 2001c Phase I Archaeological Survey of Approximately Eddins, John T., and Eric Griffitts 526 Acres of the Proposed Luck Stone Quarry 1998 Cemetery Testing at Site 44SP0210 and Archaeo- Facility, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Cultural logical Evaluation of Site 44SP0290, Route 627 Im- Resources, Inc., Fredericksburg, Virginia. Pre- provement Project, Route 610 to Route 620. Louis pared for Timmons, Consulting Engineers, Berger & Associates, Richmond, Virginia. Pre- Richmond, Virginia. pared for the Virginia Department of Trans- 2001d Cultural Resources Assessment of 14 Proposed portation, Richmond, Virginia. Wetland Crossings at the Estates of Ely’s Ford Edlund, Jack Development, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Cul- 1988 The Sandstone in Fredericksburg. Manuscript on tural Resources, Inc., Fredericksburg, Vir- file, Virginia Department of Historic Re- ginia. Prepared for John Pruitt, Fredericks- sources, Richmond, Virginia. Prepared for the burg,, Virginia. Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks, 2001e Archaeological Testing, Spotsylvania Courthouse Richmond, Virginia. Green, Spotsylvania, Virginia. Cultural Re- Elder, John H., Jr. sources, Inc., Fredericksburg, Virginia. Pre- 1985 Soil Survey of Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Soil pared for the Planning Department, County Conservation Service, United States Depart- of Spotsylvania, Virginia. ment of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Cooke, John P., et al. Engineering Consulting Services 2004 Phase I Archaeological Testing at Six Locations 2004 Archaeological Removal of Three Historic Burials Within the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania Na- at the Harrison’s Crossing Tract, Spotsylvania tional Military Park Stafford and Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Engineering Consulting Ser- Counties , Virginia. Cultural Resources, Inc. vices, Washington, D.C. Prepared for Mr. Joel 2005 Archaeological Investigations at the Innis House Dicker, Manekin LLC, Columbia, Maryland. (44SP0463), Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania 2005a A Phase I Archaeological Survey of Portions of Tax National Military Park, City of Fredericksburg, Map 35A, Parcel 98, Spotsylvania County, Vir- Virginia. Cultural Resources, Inc. ginia. Engineering Consulting Services, Wash- Cooke, John P., and Lily A. Richards ington, D.C. Prepared for the Silver Compa- 2004 Phase I Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Power nies, Washington, D.C. line Burial within the Fredericksburg and Spotsyl- 2005b A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the River Walk vania National Military Park Stafford and Spotsyl- Tract, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Engineer- vania Counties , Virginia. Cultural Resources, ing Consulting Services, Washington, D.C. Inc. Prepared for K. Hovnanian Homes of Vir- Cullen, Joseph P. ginia, Inc., Virginia South Division, Red Bank, 1966 The Battles of Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, the New Jersey. Wilderness and Spotsylvania Court House Where 2005c Phase I Archaeological Survey and Archaeological A Hundred Thousand Fell. National Park Ser- Monitoring of Portions of the Maple Grove Tract, vice, Washington, D.C. Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Engineering Darter, Oscar H. Consulting Services, Washington, D.C. Pre- 1957 Colonial Fredericksburg and Neighborhood in Per- pared for Mr. Tom Sandlin Scheer Partners, spective. Twayne Publishers, New York. McLean, Virginia.

67 2006 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Portions of the 1982 Early and Middle Woodland in the Mid-At- Smith Run Preserve II Tract, Fredericksburg, lantic: An Overview. In Practicing Environmental Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Engineering Archaeology: Methods and Interpretations, edited Consulting Services, Washington, D.C. Pre- by R. W. Moeller, pp. 53–86. American Indian pared for Mr. Tony Georgelas, Smith Run Pre- Institute, Washington, D.C. serve, LLC. Gardner, William M., Tammy Bryant, and Gwen Hurst Felder, Paula S. 1997 Phase I Archeological Investigations at an 80 Acre 1982 Forgotten Companions – The First Settlers of Parcel Along Massaponax Creek, Spotsylvania Spotsylvania County and Fredericksburgh Town. County, Virginia. Thunderbird Archeological Historic Publications of Fredericksburg, Fred- Associates, Woodstock, Virginia. Prepared for ericksburg, Virginia. Minchew-Slabtown Joint Venture, Centreville, Virginia. Fernández-Sardina, Ricardo, and Philip E. Pendleton 1999 A Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed Gardner, William M., and Kimberly A. Snyder Cowan Boulevard Improvement Project, Spotsyl- 1995 A Phase I Archeological Resources Reconnaissance vania County, Virginia. Louis Berger & Associ- of Proposed Impact Areas, Section 7, Bloomsbury ates, Richmond, Virginia. Prepared for the Development, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Virginia Department of Transportation, Rich- Thunderbird Archeological Associates, mond, Virginia. Woodstock, Virginia. Prepared for Sagun and Company, Spotsylvania, Virginia. Fitzgerald, Ruteh Coder 1979 A Different Story: A Black History of Fredericks- Gardner, William M., Kimberly A. Snyder, and Gwen burg, Stafford, and Spotsylvania, Virginia. Uni- Hurst corn, Greensboro, North Carolina. 2001 Phase I Archeological Investigations of the Idlewild Property, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Thun- Frank, R. Neil derbird Archeological Associates, Woodstock, 1973 The Rising Sun Tavern, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Virginia. Prepared for Dogwood Develop- Manuscript on file, Virginia Department of ment, Inc., Reston, Virginia. Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia. Geier, Clarence R., James R. Cromwell, Elaine S. Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Harlow, Timothy J. Hills, and Bruce A. Hunter Park 1989 A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed ca. 1980s Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Horner Road/I-95 Interchange in Prince William Assessment. Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Archaeological Research National Military Park, Fredericksburg, Vir- Center, James Madison University. Submit- ginia. Prepared for Fredericksburg and ted to Dewberry and Davis, Fairfax, Virginia. Spotsylvania National Military Park, Freder- icksburg, Virginia. Geier, Clarence R., and Kimberly Sancomb 2000 Proposed House Structure Locations: Fairview and Fried, Morton H. Bullock Historical Archaeological Sites, Chancel- 1967 The Evolution of Political Society. Random House, lorsville Battlefield, Fredericksburg and Spotsyl- New York. vania National Military Park. James Madison Gallucci, Mark, Scott M. Hudlow, and Charles M. University, Harrisonburg, Virginia. Submit- Downing ted to Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania Na- 1992 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Pro- tional Military Park, National Park Service, posed Route 33 Project, Middlesex County, Vir- Fredericksburg, Virginia. ginia. On file, William and Mary Center for Geier, Clarence R., W. Cullen Sherwood, and Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Vir- Kimberly Sancomb ginia. Submitted to Virginia Department of 2001 “They Went as They Came—In the Night. They Transportation, Richmond, Virginia. Suffered Heavily As Far As Their Battle Went, But Gardner, William M. It Did Not Go Far Enough to Satisfy Me.” A His- 1977 Flint Run Paleoindian Complex and Implica- torical-Archaeological Assessment of Cultural Re- tions for Eastern North American Prehistory. mains Along the “Sunken Road” Sub-area of the In Amerinds and their Paleoenvironments in Fredericksburg Battlefield, December 13, 1862 and Northeastern North America, edited by W. S. May 3, 1863 With Comments on Strategies of Re- Newman and B. Salwen. Annals of the New York construction and Interpretation. James Madison Academy of Sciences 288:257–263. New York. University, Harrisonburg, Virginia. Submit- ted to Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania Na- tional Military Park, Fredericksburg, Virginia.

68 Gilmer, Jeremey F. Higgins, Thomas F. III, Anna Gray, and Scott M. 1863a Map of Caroline, Essex, Orange and Hudlow Spotsylvania, and Parts of the Counties of 1993 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Pro- Hanover, King and Queen, King George, King posed Route 627 and Commuter Parking Lot William, and Stafford, Virginia. Virginia State Project, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. William Library, Richmond, Virginia. and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia. Submitted to the Vir- 1863b Map of Spotsylvania County. Virginia State ginia Department of Transportation, Rich- Library, Richmond, Virginia. mond, Virginia. Goode, Amy, and David Dutton Higgins, Thomas F. III, Scott M. Hudlow, Willie 1999 Archaeological Resource Management Plan, Lake Graham, Mark R. Wenger, Martha W. McCartney, Anna State Park. Virginia Department of His- Donald W. Linebaugh, and Dennis B. Blanton toric Resources, Richmond, Virginia. Pre- 1991 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of Three Can- pared for the Department of Conservation and didate Sites for A Proposed Ground Wave Emer- Recreation, Richmond, Virginia. gency Tower Nelson County, Virginia. Submit- Gowans, Alan ted to SRI. On file, William and Mary Center 1986 The Comfortable House: North American Subur- for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, ban Architecture, 1890–1930. MIT Press, Cam- Virginia. bridge. Higgins, Thomas F., III, and Jane S. Smith Hammett, A. B. J. 1992 A Supplemental Phase I Cultural Resource Sur- 1966 The History of Gold, Braswell Printing Co., vey of Portions of the Proposed Horner Road/I-95 Kerriville, Texas. www.mme.state.va.us/ Interchange, Prince William County, Virginia. On dmr/PUB/ Chapters/VaGold/auham1.html file, William and Mary Center for Archaeo- logical Research, Williamsburg, Virginia. Sub- Harrison, James Gardner III mitted to Dewberry and Davis, Fairfax, Vir- 1982 An Investigation of Historic Archaeological ginia. Sites in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Unpublished bachelor’s thesis, Department of Anthropol- Hopkins, Joseph W., III ogy, College of William and Mary, Williams- 1991 Phase Ia Archeological Investigation, Site 9, Sec- burg, Virginia. Prepared for the College of tion 801 Housing, Naval Surface Warfare Center, William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. Dahlgren, Virginia. Greenhorne and O’Mara, Greenbelt, MD. Prepared for the Chesapeake Harrison, Noel G. Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Com- 1986 Gazetteer of Historic Sites Related to the Freder- mand, Washington, D.C. icksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Hotchkiss, Jedediah Military Park, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Pre- 186– Map of Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Map pared for the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania on file at the Library of Congress, Washing- National Military Park, Fredericksburg, Vir- ton, D.C. ginia. 1978 Sketch of the Battles of Chancellorsville, Sa- Heinrich, Keith T., and Loretta Lautzenheiser lem Church and Fredericksburg, May 2, 3, and 2004 Phase I Archeological Survey, Proposed Wishner 4, 1863. In Official Military Atlas of the Civil War, Gravity Influent Sewer, Spotsylvania County, Vir- edited by George B. Davis, Leslie Perry, and ginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Tarboro, Joseph Kirkley, plate 41-1. Fairfax Press, New North Carolina. Prepared for Spotsylvania York. County, Virginia and Whitman, Requardt, Hudlow, Scott M., and Charles M. Downing and Associates, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland. 1993 Phase II Architectural Evaluation of Structure 88- Hening, William Waller 27, Bunker Hill, Associated with the Route 608 1820 The Statutes at Large, vol. IV. Franklin Press, Project, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. William Richmond, Virginia. and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia. Submitted to the Vir- ginia Department of Transportation, Rich- mond, Virginia and Delmarva Properties, Inc., West Point, Virginia.

69 Hunter, Robert R., Jr., and Gary G. Robinson Jones, Joe B., Scott M. Hudlow, and Charles M. 1988 An Archaeological Resource Planning Overview Downing and Limited Phase I Archaeological Survey of the 1992 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of a Portion of Proposed Stonewall Development, Spotsylvania the Proposed Route 58 Coeburn Bypass, Wise County, Virginia. William and Mary Archaeo- County, Virginia. On file, William and Mary logical Project Center, Williamsburg, Vir- Center for Archaeological Research, Williams- ginia. burg, Virginia. Submitted to Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation, Richmond, Virginia. Hydro Research 1985 Competing Application for License for a Major Joseph, John Mark Water Power Project, 5 Megawatts or Less, for 1988 War on the Rapidan. Moss Publications, Orange, Embrey Dam Hydroelectric Project Located on the Virginia. Rappahannock River in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Joseph, John Mark, Anna Gray, and Joe B. Jones Hydro Research, Portsmouth, Virginia. Pre- 2004 Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Camp- pared for the Federal Energy Regulatory ground and Cabin Development Project at Lake Commission, Washington, D.C. Anna State Park, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. James River Institute for Archaeology William and Mary Center for Archaeological 2002 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Lee’s Research, Williamsburg, Virginia. Prepared Park Project Area, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. for the Department of Conservation and Rec- James River Institute for Archaeology, Wil- reation, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. liamsburg, Virginia. Prepared for Fried Com- Kalbian, Maral, Bill Hall, and Loretta Lautzenheiser panies, Inc., Springfield, Virginia. 2001 Evaluation of Selected Civil War and Architectural Jirikowic, Christine, Joseph Blondino, John P. Mullen, Resources, Proposed Spotsylvania Parkway, Tammy Bryant, and Gwen J. Hurst Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Coastal Carolina 2004 Phase III Data Recovery Excavations of 44SP90, Research, Tarboro, North Carolina. Prepared The Landram House, City of Fredericksburg, Vir- for the Virginia Department of Transporta- ginia. Thunderbird Archeology, Chantilly, tion, Richmond, Virginia and H. W. Lochner, Virginia. Prepared for Ryland Group, Inc., Inc. Richmond, Virginia. Fairfax, Virginia. Karell Institute Johnson, Michael F. 1981 Springfield Bypass and Extension, Fairfax County, 1982 Site Density and Function in the Upland-Interior Virginia [Phase I Investigations]. On file, Karell Fall Zone of Neabsco Creek: A Phase I Archaeologi- Institute, Arlington, Virginia. Submitted to cal Reconnaissance of the Area Around Belair Plan- Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton of Wash- tation, Prince William County, Virginia. Submit- ington, D.C. ted to the Prince William County Historical Kiser, R. Taft, Douglas C. McLearen, and Luke H. Boyd Commission, Prince William County, Vir- 1997 Archaeological Survey of Proposed Highway Im- ginia. provements to Route 627, Spotsylvania County, Jolley, Robert L. Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth University 1986 Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor- Archaeological Research Center, Richmond, tation Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Sur- Virginia. Prepared for the Virginia Depart- vey (for Proposed Rte. 636 Commuter Parking Fa- ment of Transportation, Richmond, Virginia. cility). Virginia Department of Highways and Klein, Michael J., and J. Sanderson Stevens Transportation, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Pre- 1994 Addendum: Phase Ib Archeological Investigations pared for the Virginia Department of High- of the Hunting Run Reservoir and Motts Run ways and Transportation, Richmond, Virginia. Water Filtration Plant, Spotsylvania County, Vir- 1988 An Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Sewer Line ginia. John Milner Associates, Alexandria, Vir- Extension Near Massaponax in Spotsylvania ginia. Prepared for Hayes, Seay. Mattern & County, Virginia. Manuscript on file, Virginia Mattern, Inc., Virginia Beach. Virginia. Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia. Prepared for the County of Spotsyl- vania, Virginia.

70 Klein, Michael J., Laurie J. Paonessa, and Kerri S. Barile 2003c Cultural Resources Assessment of the 124-Acre 1997 Phase I Archaeological Investigations of the Pro- Luck Stone Quarry Expansion Area, Spotsylvania posed Elementary and Middle School Sites, County, Virginia. James River Institute for Ar- Catharpin Road, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. chaeology, Williamsburg, Virginia. Prepared Center for Historic Preservation, Mary Wash- for the Luck Stone Corporation, Richmond, ington College, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Pre- Virginia. pared for Spotsylvania County Schools, Con- Louis Berger Group struction Management Department, Spotsyl- 2004 Archaeological Data Recovery, Old Spotsylvania vania, Virginia. County Courthouse Site (44SP0273), Spotsylva- Klein, Michael J., Laurie J. Paonessa, and Martin D. nia County, Virginia. Louis Berger Group, Rich- Gallivan mond, Virginia. Prepared for the Virginia 1998 Hunting Run Reservoir Cultural Resources Re- Department of Transportation, Richmond, covery: Phase III Mitigation of Sites 44SP0222 and Virginia. 44SP0227. Mary Washington College Center Mansfield, James Rogers for Historic Preservation, Fredericksburg, 1977 A History of Early Spotsylvania. Green Publish- Virginia. Submitted to L. L. Branner, Director ers, Inc., Orange, Virginia. of Utilities, Fredericksburg, Virginia. McAvoy, Joseph M. Klein, Michael J., J. Sanderson Stevens, Charles D. 1992 Nottoway River Survey Part I: Clovis Settlement Cheek, and Margarita Jerabek Wuellner Patterns. Special Publication No. 28. Archeo- 1994 Phase Ib Archeological Investigations and Phase I logical Society of Virginia, Richmond. Historic Architectural Investigations of the Hunt- ing Run Reservoir and Motts Run Water Filtra- McCartney, Martha W. tion Plant, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. John 1978 The Fredericksburg Gun Manufactory, Fredericks- Milner Associates, Alexandria, Virginia. Pre- burg, Virginia. Virginia Research Center for pared for Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc., Archaeology, Richmond, Virginia. Virginia Beach, Virginia. McCary, Ben C. Kulikoff, Allan 1983 The Paleo-Indian in Virginia. Quarterly Bulle- 1986 Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern tin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 38(1):43– Cultures in the Chesapeake, 1680–1800. Univer- 70. sity of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 2007 McCary Fluted Point Survey. Paleoindian Koski-Karell, Daniel Database of the Americas. http://www. 1988 Phase II Cultural Resources Evaluation Investiga- mccary-survey.com/pages/1/index.htm tion for the Interstate Highway 95 HOV Lanes Project, Fairfax and Prince William Counties, Vir- McDonald, Bradley, and Jerrell Blake, Jr. ginia. Submitted to Parsons, Brinkerhoff, 2001 Archaeological Evaluations of Sites 44SP0272 and Quade, and Douglas, Inc. Herndon, Virginia. 44SP0273, Within the Route 208 Bypass Project, On file, Karell Institute, Arlington, Virginia. Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Gray & Pape, Richmond, Virginia. Prepared for the Virginia Laird, Matthew R., and Carol D. Tyrer Department of Transportation, Richmond, 2003a Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the 124-Acre Virginia. Luck Stone Quarry Expansion Area, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. James River Institute for Ar- McLearen, Douglas C. chaeology, Williamsburg, Virginia. Prepared 1987 Phase I Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Com- for the Luck Stone Corporation, Richmond, muter Parking Facility for the Spotsylvania Four Virginia. Mile Fork Area, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth University Ar- 2003b Phase II Archaeological Investigation of Site chaeological Research Center, Richmond, Vir- 44SP0402, Luck Stone Quarry Expansion Area, ginia. Prepared for the Virginia Department Spotsylvania County, Virginia. James River In- of Transportation, Richmond, Virginia. stitute for Archaeology, Williamsburg, Vir- ginia. Prepared for the Luck Stone Corpora- tion, Richmond, Virginia.

71 McLearen, Douglas C., and Luke H. Boyd Norman, J. Gary, and Leonard R. Voellinger 1993 Phase II Cultural Resources Significance Evalua- 1990 Phase I Archaeological Investigations of the Ger- tion of the Mount Zion Church Cemetery manna Community College, Fredericksburg Area (44SP0209), Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Vir- Campus, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Espey, ginia Commonwealth University Archaeo- Huston & Associates, Williamsburg, Virginia. logical Research Center, Richmond, Virginia. O’Brien, Elizabeth Barthold, Dana B. Heck, and Stuart Prepared for the Virginia Department of Fiedel Transportation, Richmond, Virginia. 1996 Phase I Archeological Survey of the Johnson Tract, McLearen, Douglas C., Luke H. Boyd, and R. Taft Kiser Route 1 at Route 607, Spotsylvania County, Vir- 1992 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Proposed ginia. John Milner Associates, Alexandria, Vir- Highway Improvements to Route 620, Spotsylvania ginia. Prepared for Spotsylvania County County, Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth Schools, Spotsylvania, Virginia. University Archaeological Research Center, O’Donnell, Darby Richmond, Virginia. Prepared for the Virginia 2006 Phase I Archaeological Testing at Three Areas Department of Transportation, Richmond, Within the Wilderness Battlefield of the Freder- Virginia. icksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park, Moodey, Meridith, with contributions from Michael J. Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Cultural Re- Bradshaw, Marley R. Brown III, Robert R. Hunter, Jr., sources, Inc., Richmond, Virginia. Prepared and Carl Lounsbury for National Park Service, Fredericksburg and 1991 Resource Protection Planning Revisited: James City Spotsylvania National Military Park, Freder- County, York County, and City of Williamsburg. icksburg, Virginia. Department of Archaeological Research, Co- O’Donnell, Darby, and Dane Magoon lonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williams- 2005 Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of Site 44SP0481 burg, Virginia. Located in the Proposed Harrison Crossing North Mouer, Daniel C. Development, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Cul- 1991 The Formative Transition in Virginia. In Late tural Resources, Inc., Richmond, Virginia. Pre- Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: pared for The Silver Companies, Inc., Freder- A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart icksburg, Virginia. and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 1–88. Special 2005 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Chan- Publication Archaeological Society of Vir- cellor Oaks Tract, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. ginia, Richmond. Cultural Resources, Inc., Richmond, Virginia. Mullen, John, Joan M. Walker, and Gwen Hurst Prepared for the Williamsburg Environmen- 2004 Phase III Data Recovery Excavations at Site tal Group, Richmond, Virginia. 44SP0382, A Civil War Campsite, Spotsylvania Parker, Patricia L. County, Virginia. Thunderbird Archeological 1985 The Hinterland: An Overview of the Prehistory Associates, Woodstock, Virginia. Prepared for and History of Prince William Forest Park, Vir- Ryland Group, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia. ginia. Occasional Report No. 1. Regional Ar- Nash, Carole chaeology Program, National Capital Region, 1983 A Phase I Archaeological Study of Terrain Included National Park Service, Washington, D.C. in the Construction of a Two-Lane Roadway on a Pawlett, Nathaniel Mason Four-lane Right-of-Way on State Route 639 in 1985 Historic Roads of Virginia Spotsylvania County Prince William County, Virginia. Submitted to Road Orders 1722–1734. Virginia Highway and Virginia Department of Transportation. On Transportation Research Council, file, James Madison University, Archaeologi- Charlottesville, Virginia. cal Research Center. Planning and Community Development Office Norman, J. Gary 1994 City of Fredericksburg, Virginia Rappahannock 1992 Findings of the Kenmore Association Archaeologi- River Watershed Plan. Planning and Commu- cal Program 1990–1992. Kenmore Association, nity Development Office, Fredericksburg, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Prepared for the Virginia. Prepared for the City of Fredericks- Kenmore Association, Fredericksburg, Vir- burg, Virginia. ginia.

72 1997 Historic Resources Along the Rappahannock and Sanford, Douglas W., and Gary N. Stanton Rapidan Rivers. Office of Planning and Com- 1992 Archaeological and Historical Assessment of Blocks munity Development, Fredericksburg, Vir- 48 and 49 in Fredericksburg, Virginia: Volume II: ginia. Prepared for the City of Fredericksburg, Appendices. Center for Historic Preservation, Virginia. Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Prepared for the City of Fredericks- Reinhart, Theodore R., and Mary Ellen N. Hodges burg, Virginia. (editors) 1990 Early and Middle Archaic Research in Virginia: A Sanford, Douglas W., Carter L. Hudgins, and Dean A. Synthesis. Special Publication No. 22 Archaeo- Doerrfeld logical Society of Virginia, Richmond, Vir- 1991 Phase One Archaeological Survey of the Site of the ginia. Art Gallery at Mary Washington College. The Center for Historic Preservation, Mary Wash- 1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Vir- ington College, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Pre- ginia: A Synthesis. Special Publication No. 23 pared for Mary Washington College, Freder- Archaeological Society of Virginia, Rich- icksburg, Virginia. mond, Virginia. Sanford, Douglas W., Gary N. Stanton, Karen France, 1992 Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia, and Carter L. Hudgins A Synthesis. Special Publication No. 29. Ar- 1992 Archaeological and Historical Assessment of Blocks chaeological Society of Virginia, Richmond, 48 and 49 in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Center for Virginia. Historic Preservation, Mary Washington Col- Reinhart, Theodore R., and Dennis J. Pogue (editors) lege, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Prepared for 1993 The Archaeology of 17th Century Virginia. Special the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia. Publication No. 30. Archaeological Society of Schamel, Kerry K., and Dane Magoon Virginia, Richmond, Virginia. 2006 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Approxi- Rimmler, Suzanne mately 30 Acres for the Proposed Spotsylvania Mall 1981 A Preliminary Archeological Resources Reconnais- Expansion, Spotsylvania County, and the City of sance of the Location Proposed for the Construc- Fredericksburg, Virginia. Cultural Resources, tion of a New Bridge and Bridge Approaches on Inc., Fredericksburg, Virginia. Prepared for Route 610, Spotsylvania and Culpeper Counties, Lynn Kaerwer, P.E., Professional Service In- Virginia. Thunderbird Research Corporation, dustries, Inc., Richmond, Virginia. Front Royal, Virginia. Prepared as part of an Service, Elman R. environmental impact assessment at the re- 1962 Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary quest of the Virginia Research Center for Ar- Perspective. Random House, New York. chaeology, Richmond, Virginia, for the Vir- ginia Department of Highways and Transpor- Sherwood, Sarah C., and Martha McCartney tation, Richmond, Virginia. 1986 A Phase I Cultural Resource Evaluation of Route 1, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. James Madi- Sanders, John E., and Wayne E. Clark son University Archeological Research Cen- 1976 An Initial Archaeological Survey of the Pohick Creek ter, Harrisonburg, Virginia. Prepared for the Watershed Project, Fairfax County, Virginia. Vir- Virginia Department of Transportation, Rich- ginia Research Center for Archaeology, The mond, Virginia. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg. Submitted to the Soil Conservation Service, 1987 A Phase I Cultural Resource Technical Report of a United States Department of Agriculture. Section of Route 208, Spotsylvania County, Vir- ginia. James Madison University Archeologi- Sanford, Douglas W. cal Research Center, Harrisonburg, Virginia. 1992 Archaeological Testing of the Sandstone Wall at Submitted to the Virginia Department of Fredericksburg’s Masonic Cemetery. Center for Transportation, Richmond, Virginia. Historic Preservation, Mary Washington Col- lege, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Submitted to the Advisory Committee on the Masonic Cemetery in care of the James Monroe Mu- seum, Fredericksburg, Virginia.

73 Siegel, Peter E., Wade P. Catts, and Margarita Jerabek 2000 Historic Architectural Survey of Spotsylvania Wuellner County, Virginia. E.H.T. Traceries, Washington, 1995 Phase II Archeological Evaluations of Nine Sites in D.C. Prepared for The Virginia Department the Proposed Hunting Run Reservoir Area, of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia and Spotsylvania County, Virginia. John Milner As- Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Department sociates, Alexandria, Virginia. Prepared for of Planning. Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc., Virginia Troup, Charles G. Beach, Virginia. 1982 An Assessment of Archaeological Resources along Snyder, Kimberly A. the Rappahannock River in Fredericksburg, Vir- 1979 A Preliminary Archeological Resources Reconnais- ginia. Manuscript on file, Virginia Department sance of the Fredericksburg Historic District of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia. “Chimneys” House, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Prepared under contract with the City of Fred- Thunderbird Research Corporation, Front ericksburg, Virginia. Royal, Virginia. Prepared at the request of Turner, E. Randolph, III Susan Ford Johnson, Executive Director, His- 1989 Paleoindian Settlement Patterns and Popula- toric Fredericksburg, Inc. and the Virginia tion Distribution in Virginia. In Paleoindian Research Center for Archaeology. Research in Virginia: a Synthesis. Edited by J. Stevens, J. Sanderson, and Charles D. Cheek Mark Wittkofski and Theodore R. Reinhart, 1988 Phase Ia Archeological and Historic Architectural pp. 71–94. Special Publication No. 29. Archaeo- Investigations for the Proposed Reservoir and Wa- logical Society of Virginia, Richmond, Vir- ter Filtration Plant, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. ginia. John Milner Associates, Alexandria, Virginia. 1992 The Virginia Coastal Plain During the Late Prepared for Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Woodland Period. In Middle and Late Woodland Roanoke, Virginia. Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Sweet, Palmer C. Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. 1980 Gold in Virginia. Virginia Division of Mineral Hodges, pp. 97–136. Special Publication No. Resources Publication 19. Department of Con- 29. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Rich- servation and Economic Development, Divi- mond, Virginia. sion of Mineral Resources, Charlottesville, U.S. Department of the Interior Virginia. 1986 Land Protection Plan, Fredericksburg and Spotsyl- Sweet, Palmer C., and William D. Rowe, Jr. vania National Military Park. National Park Ser- 1984 Selected Virginia Mineral-Resource Information. vice, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Prepared for Virginia Division of Mineral Resources Pub- Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National lication 51. Department of Conservation and Military Park, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Economic Development, Division of Mineral 1991 How to Apply the National Register Criteria Resources, Charlottesville, Virginia. for Evaluation. U. S. Department of the Inte- Thomas, Ronald A. rior, National Park Service, Interagency Re- 1979 An Archaeological Survey of the Chatham Manor sources Division, Washington, D. C. Tract, Fredericksburg-Spotsylvania National His- 2004 Guidelines For Identifying, Evaluating and torical Park, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Submitted Registering Historic Mining Sites. U. S. De- to the National Park Service. On file, Mid-At- partment of the Interior, National Park Ser- lantic Archaeological Research, Newark, Dela- vice, National Register, History and Educa- ware. tion. Accessed online County, Virginia. Traceries, Washington, D.C. Virginia Department of Historic Resources Prepared for The Virginia Department of His- 1991 Virginia Department of Historic Resources Com- toric Resources, Richmond, Virginia and prehensive Preservation Planning Process and Spotsylvania County, Virginia Department of Programs in Archaeology. Virginia Department Planning. of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia. 1992 How to Use Historic Contexts in Virginia: A Guide for Survey, Registration, Protection, and Treatment Projects. Virginia Department of Historic Re- sources, Richmond, Virginia.

74 1998a Lake Anna State Park: Assessment of Structural 1979 A Preliminary Archeological Resources Reconnais- Remains. Virginia Department of Historic Re- sance of Two Areas to Be Developed in Lake Anna sources, Richmond, Virginia. State Park, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Thun- derbird Research Corporation, Front Royal, 1998b Lake Anna State Park: Stripping of Site 44SP0304 Virginia. Prepared as part of an environmen- Virginia Department of Historic Resources, tal impact assessment for the Commission of Richmond, Virginia. Outdoor Recreation at the request of the Vir- 1998c Lake Anna State Park: Assessment of a Possible ginia Center for Archaeology. Burial. Virginia Department of Historic Re- 1990 Phase II Archeological Work on Three Sites in the sources, Richmond, Virginia. Proposed Transmission Line Right-of-Way Between Virginia Division of Mineral Resources Locust Grove, Orange County and Deerfield, 1999 Gold in Virginia. Department of Mines, Miner- Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Thunderbird Ar- als, and Energy, Charlottesville, Virginia. chaeological Associates, Woodstock, Virginia. Pamphlet available online at Http:// Prepared for the Rappahannock Electric Co- www.dmme.virginia.gov/DMR/PUB/Bro- operative , Fredericksburg, Virginia. chures/gold.html 1992 A Phase I Archeological Resources Reconnaissance Virginia Research Center for Archaeology of the Proposed Right-of-Way of the Western Sec- 1980 Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor- tion of the Rappahannock Electric Cooperative Trans- tation Phase I Reconnaissance Survey: Route 3. mission Line from the Todd’s Tavern Substation to Worksheet on file, Virginia Department of High- the Ni River Substation, Spotsylvania County, ways and Transportation, Richmond, Virginia. Virginia. Thunderbird Archeological Associ- Prepared by the Virginia Research Center for ates, Woodstock, Virginia. Prepared for the Archaeology, Richmond, Virginia for the Vir- Rappahannock Electric Cooperative, Freder- ginia Department of Highways and Transpor- icksburg, Virginia. tation, Richmond, Virginia. Walker, Joan M., Kimberly A. Snyder, and Gwen Hurst 1981 Resources Management Plan and Environmental 2003 A Phase II Archeological Site Evaluation of Site Assessment, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania 44SP90, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Thunder- County Battlefield Memorial National Military Park bird Archeological Associates, Woodstock, and Cemetery. Virginia Research Center for Virginia. Prepared for Ryland Group, Inc., Archaeology, Richmond, Virginia. Prepared Fairfax, Virginia. under the recommendation of James R. Zinck, 2003 A Phase II Archeological Site Evaluation of Site Superintendent of Fredericksburg and 44SP0382, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Thun- Spotsylvania County Battlefield Memorial derbird Archeological Associates, Woodstock, National Military Park and Cemetery, Fred- Virginia. Prepared for Ryland Group, Inc., ericksburg, Virginia. Fairfax, Virginia. Walker, Joan M. Wamsley, J. Cooper 1979 A Preliminary Archeological Resources Reconnais- 1984 Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor- sance of the W. K. Gordon Recreation Area, Spotsyl- tation Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Sur- vania County, Virginia. Thunderbird Research vey: Route 208. Worksheet on file, Virginia Corporation, Front Royal, Virginia. Prepared Department of Highways and Transportation, as part of an environmental impact assessment Richmond, Virginia. Prepared at the request at the request of the Virginia Research Center of the Virginia Research Center for Archaeol- for Archaeology. ogy, Richmond, Virginia, for the Virginia 1979 A Preliminary Archeological Resources Reconnais- Department of Highways and Transportation, sance of the Location Proposed for the Bridge Con- Richmond, Virginia. struction over the Rappahannock River, Freder- Wittkofski, J. Mark, and Theodore R. Reinhart (editors) icksburg, Virginia. Thunderbird Research Cor- 1989 Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. poration, Front Royal, Virginia. Prepared for Special Publication No. 19. Archaeological the Virginia Research Center for Archaeol- Society of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia. ogy and the Virginia Department of Trans- portation, Richmond, Virginia. Work Projects Administration (WPA) 1940 Virginia A Guide to the Old Dominion. Oxford University Press, New York.

75 76 Appendix A: Glossary of Archaeological Terms

Artifact: Any tangible object modified or used by humans. Most often, artifacts represent discarded debris at locations occupied by groups of people. Component: A distinctive aspect of an archaeological site, usually a particular occupation. A prehistoric occupation and a historic occupation at the same site represent different components. Cultural Resource The general activity under which most modern archaeological stud- Management: ies are conducted. Cultural resource management is mandated (i.e., required by federal law) under the National Historic Preservation Act or local ordinances. Also known as CRM, these activities are syn- onymous with historic preservation activities intended to preserve important features of our nation’s heritage. “Cultural resources” include archaeological sites and historic buildings. Data Recovery: Usually the final step in archaeological investigations required under federal statutes, designed to recover virtually all essential, significant information from a site. This typically entails large-scale excavations and intensive laboratory analysis, and is widely referred to as “Phase III” excavation. Evaluation: The process under federally mandated archaeological studies by which a site’s eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places is determined. Associated fieldwork is of moderate intensity, usually involving close-interval shovel testing and test unit excavation. This step is commonly known as “Phase II.” Feature: Sometimes referred to as artifacts that cannot be removed to the laboratory, representing traces of human activity, such as cellars, wells, graves, postholes, pits, and earthen fortifications. Features are often mere discolorations in the soil and can be as large as a building. Historic: Sites or events that date to the time of recorded history, beginning locally no later than 1607. Historic sites usually are associated with Europeans and African Americans in this area. Identification: Generally, the first step taken in federally mandated archaeological projects, designed to locate sites and make preliminary evaluations of their eligibility for the NRHP. Often referred to as “Phase I” survey, this work almost always involves systematic shovel testing and surface examination.

Appendix A — 77 National Register of The official list of “historic properties” recognized as significant to Historic Places: the nation’s heritage and, therefore, deserving of preservation. The NRHP was created under the National Historic Preservation Act (1966) and is maintained by the National Park Service. Phase I: See “Identification.” Phase II: See “Evaluation.” Phase III: See “Data Recovery.” Prehistoric: Sites or events that date prior to the arrival of Europeans. Prehistoric sites are associated exclusively with Native Americans. Protohistoric: Sites or events that correspond to the period of earliest European exploration, before permanent settlement. In this area, the Protohis- toric period dates from 1492 to 1607. Shovel Test: A small excavation utilized as an expedient means of identifying sites and making preliminary assessments. Most shovel tests are about 1 ft. in diameter, and all soil from the test is sifted through 0.25 in. mesh to recover artifacts. Survey: The search for archaeological sites, normally undertaken as part of “Identification/Phase I” studies. Virginia Landmarks Register: The VLR is the state’s version of the National Register of Historic Places.

78 — Appendix A Appendix B: Directory of Collections/ Archive Repositories

Existing Collections and Records Extensive collections of artifacts and records for Spotsylvania County sites (not including those at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources [DHR]) are known to exist. The DHR archives not only includes official site records, but also artifacts and records donated from VDOT projects and surface finds. Other records exist in the offices of cultural resource organizations such as Thunder- bird Archeological Associates and the WMCAR. The directory on the following pages lists each known repository of artifacts and/or records pertaining to archaeological sites in the county. Each listing contains a description of the material, ownership, current location(s), and a contact person from which additional information can be obtained. Some repositories were more responsive to our inquiries than others, so that listings of holdings by name are not always provided. In addition, up-to-date contact information was not available for three agencies.

Repositories for Information Relating To Spotsylvania County, Virginia (Current as of April 2007)

Algonquin Archaeological Consultants 3327 Bishop Street, Cincinnati, OH 45220 (This address is no longer in use as of April 2007.) Contact: Rebecca A. Hawkins

Browning & Associates (804) 379-1666 2240 Chartstone Drive, Midlothian, VA 23113 Contact: Lyle E. Browning All artifacts have been transferred to DHR in Richmond. Copies of reports may remain.

Center for Historic Preservation, Mary Washington College (540) 654-1314 1301 College Avenue, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 Contact: Dr. Douglas Sanford The Center is no longer active as of 2005, but maintains reports and files for a small collection of projects in long-term storage. For additional information, see entry below for University of Mary Washington, Department of Historic Preservation.

Appendix B — 79 Coastal Carolina Research, Inc. (252) 641-1444 P.O. Box 1198, Tarboro, NC 27886 CCR does not maintain artifact collections; all materials resulting from work conducted in Spotsyl- vania County are returned to property owners or curated at DHR.

Cultural Resources, Inc. (CRI) 710 Littlepage Street, Suite C, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 Contact: Katherine Lee Priddy Reports for four surveys; burial permit for the removal of human remains; temporary storage of artifacts from a survey of the Eagle Harbor Tract 4A.

Department of Historic Resources (DHR) (804) 367-2323, ext. 131 2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, VA 23221 Contact: Keith Egloff Many collections, records, and reports, including those sponsored by VDOT.

Department of Transportation (VDOT) (757) 925-2500 Fredericksburg District, 87 Deacon Road, Fredericksburg, VA 22405 Contact: Cultural Resource Coordinator Once complete, all artifacts resulting from archaeological surveys conducted within the county are conveyed to DHR in Richmond.

ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC (540) 785-6100 , ext. 315; [email protected] 915 Maple Grove Drive, Suite 206, Fredericksburg, VA 22407 Contact: Clifton A. Huston, Principal Archaeologist ECS has completed a number of Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III investigations in Spotsylvania County and retains copies of reports and holds a number of artifacts from these projects in long-term temporary storage. No collections are on loan to other agencies or individuals.

Epsey, Huston & Associates, Inc. 7600 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22043-2004 (This address is no longer in use as of April 2007.) Contact: John Paine

Greenhorne & O’Mara Laurel (301) 982-2866, [email protected] 6110 Frost Place, Laurel, MD 20707 Contact: Paul Kreisa, Senior Archaeologist and Project Manager Holds no archaeological collections from Spotsylvania County, and no artifacts are on loan.

80 — Appendix B Harrison & Associates “Hanover Street” 209 Hanover Street, Suite 7, Fredericksburg, VA 22401-5930 Contact: James G. Harrison III (This address is no longer in use as of April 2007)

James Madison University Contact: Clarence Geier All artifacts and report-related material relating to Phase I and II work completed at Fredericksburg- Spotsylvania National Military Park are stored at the archives of the NPS at Chancellorsville.

James River Institute for Archaeology (JRIA) (757) 229-9485, [email protected] 223 McLaws Circle, Suite 1, Williamsburg, VA 23185 Contact: Kathy Mapp JRIA has completed 10 projects in Spotsylvania County and retains copies of the associated reports. JRIA no longer holds artifacts for any of these projects.

Louis Berger Group, Inc. (804) 225-0348, ext. 8131, [email protected] 203 E. Cary Street, Suite 100, Richmond, VA 23219 Contact: Kay Simpson, Vice President, Cultural Resources All artifacts have been transferred to DHR in Richmond.

Mid-Atlantic Archaeological Research Associates, Inc. (MAAR) P.O. Box 655, Newark, DE 19715-0655 Contact: Jessica Billy All artifacts have been transferred to DHR in Richmond. Copies of reports may remain.

Thunderbird Archaeology, A Division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. (703) 679-5615, [email protected] 5300 Wellington Branch Drive, Suite 100, Gainesville, VA, 20155 Contact: Tammy L. Bryant, Senior Archaeologist/Laboratory Supervisor Long-term temporary storage of artifacts and associated reports. This includes 19 reports and artifacts for six projects (including 11 boxes of artifacts from “Archaeological Investigations of the Idlewild Property, Spotsylvania County, Virginia”). Thunderbird has no artifacts from Spotsylvania County on loan to any agencies or individuals.

University of Mary Washington, Department of Historic Preservation [email protected] 1301 College Avenue, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 Contact: Douglas Sanford, Chair Holds project files, reports, maps, and photographic images relating to Spotsylvania projects at Hunting Run, Roxbury, and Catharpin Road. There are also four boxes of selected artifacts relating to Site 44SP0222, Hunting Run.

Appendix B — 81 Virginia Foundation for Archeological Research, Inc. 368 Spring Grove Road, Spring Grove, VA 23881 Contact: Eve Gregory, Director No significant collections of materials.

William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research (WMCAR) (757) 221-1581 P.O. Box 8795, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795 Contact: Joe B. Jones, Director Long-term temporary storage of artifacts, field notes, and associated reports: Phase I surveys of the Route 627 commuter parking lot, portions of Lake Anna State Park, and limited judgmental survey associated with this assessment.

82 — Appendix B Appendix C: Explanation of Data Records and Inventory of Known Resources

Appendix C — 83 84 — Appendix C 5/18/2007 SPOTYSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 1 SUMMARY OF SITE COMPONENTS AND TYPES

Site No. Cultural Era Archaic Component Woodland Component UND Prehistoric Historic Component UND Historic Prehistoric Type Historic Type 44SP0001 P UA LW 44SP0003 P UW Camp-Temporary 44SP0004 P Undetermined Lithic Workshop 44SP0005 P UW 44SP0007 H 19th Century Single Dwelling 44SP0008 P Undetermined 44SP0009 H 18th, 19th & 20th Century Single Dwelling 44SP0010 P Undetermined 44SP0011 P MA 44SP0012 H 18th & 19th Century Iron Furnace 44SP0013 P Undetermined 44SP0014 P Undetermined 44SP0015 P Undetermined 44SP0016 P Undetermined 44SP0017 P Undetermined 44SP0018 P EA 44SP0019 H 19th & 20th Century Single Dwelling 44SP0020 H 19th Century Outbuilding 44SP0021 H 19th Century Single Dwelling 44SP0022 P MA 44SP0023 P MW 44SP0024 P, H 19th Century 44SP0027 P MA 44SP0028 H Undetermined 44SP0029 P, H Undetermined Undetermined Outbuilding 44SP0030 P LW 44SP0031 P Undetermined 44SP0032 P MA 44SP0033 P EW 44SP0034 P UA UW Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0036 P UW 44SP0037 H 19th Century: 2nd/3rd Quarter Iron Furnace 44SP0038 H Undetermined Mill 44SP0039 H 18th Century: 4th Quarter, 19th Century 3rd Quarter Mill 44SP0040 H Undetermined Post Office 44SP0041 H 19th Century: 1st half Tavern/Inn 44SP0042 P UA 44SP0043 H 18th Century Iron Furnace 44SP0044 H 18th, 19th & 20th Century Mill 44SP0045 H Undetermined Cemetery 44SP0046 H 18th Century: 2nd Quarter Mill, Iron Furnace, Raceway 44SP0047 P Undetermined Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0048 P Undetermined Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0049 P, H Undetermined 19th Century Camp-Unknown Function Earthen Fortification 44SP0057 H 18th & 20th Century Dam 44SP0058 P Undetermined 44SP0059 H 19th Century Tavern/Inn 44SP0060 H 18th Century: 2nd Half, 19th Century: 1st half Cemetery, Single Dwelling 44SP0061 H 19th Century: 2nd/3rd Quarter Earthworks 44SP0062 P Undetermined 44SP0063 H 18th Century: 4th Quarter Single Dwelling 44SP0065 H 18th Century: 2nd Half Cemetery, Single Dwelling 44SP0066 H 18th Century Single Dwelling 5/18/2007 SPOTYSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 2 SUMMARY OF SITE COMPONENTS AND TYPES

Site No. Cultural Era Archaic Component Woodland Component UND Prehistoric Historic Component UND Historic Prehistoric Type Historic Type 44SP0067 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Earthworks 44SP0068 P, H MA 19th Century: 2nd Half Camp-Temporary 44SP0071 H 18th Century Cemetery, Single Dwelling 44SP0072 H 19th & 20th Century Shipwreck 44SP0075 H 19th Century Canal Lock 44SP0076 H 19th Century Canal Lock 44SP0077 H 19th Century Canal Lock 44SP0079 H 19th Century Canal 44SP0080 H 19th Century Canal Lock 44SP0084 H 18th Century Iron Furnace 44SP0086 P, H EA MW 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Lithic Workshop Military Camp 44SP0088 H 19th Century, 20th Century: 1st Quarter Dam, Mill 44SP0089 H 19th Century: 1st Quarter Tavern/Inn 44SP0092 H Undetermined Mine, Gold 44SP0093 H 19 Century Mine, Gold 44SP0094 H 19th Century: 4th Quarter Mine, Gold 44SP0095 H Undetermined Mine, Gold 44SP0096 H Undetermined Mine, Gold 44SP0097 H 20th Century: 1st Quarter Mine, Gold 44SP0098 H 20th Century: 1st Quarter Mine, Gold 44SP0099 H 19th Century Mine, Gold 44SP0100 H 20th Century: 1st Quarter Mine, Gold 44SP0101 H 19th Century Mine, Gold 44SP0102 H 19th Century Mine, Gold 44SP0103 H Undetermined Mine, Gold 44SP0104 H 20th Century: 1st Quarter Mine, Gold 44SP0105 H 20th Century: 1st Quarter Mine, Gold 44SP0106 H Undetermined Mine, Gold 44SP0107 H Undetermined Mine, Gold 44SP0108 H 19th Century Mine, Gold 44SP0109 H Undetermined Mine, Gold 44SP0110 H Undetermined Mine, Gold 44SP0111 H 19th Century: 1st Quarter Mine, Gold 44SP0112 H 19th Century: 2nd/3rd Quarter Mine, Gold 44SP0113 H Undetermined Mine, Gold 44SP0114 H 19th Century: 4th Quarter Mine, Gold 44SP0115 H 19th Century Mine, Gold 44SP0116 H 19th Century Mine, Gold 44SP0117 H 19th & 20th Century Single Dwelling 44SP0118 H 19th & 20th Century Single Dwelling 44SP0120 H 19th Century Cemetery, Single Dwelling 44SP0123 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Cemetery, Single Dwelling 44SP0124 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Transportation 44SP0125 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Military Base/Facility, Single Dwelling 44SP0126 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Fort, Single Dwelling 44SP0127 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Single Dwelling 44SP0128 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Bridge 44SP0139 H Undetermined Mine, Gold 44SP0140 H Undetermined Mine, Gold 44SP0141 H Undetermined Mine, Gold 44SP0150 P, H Undetermined 19th Century Battlefield, Cemetery, Single Dwelling 44SP0151 H 18th Century: 2nd Half, 19th Century Church 44SP0152 H 19th Century: 2nd/3rd Quarter Single Dwelling 5/18/2007 SPOTYSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 3 SUMMARY OF SITE COMPONENTS AND TYPES

Site No. Cultural Era Archaic Component Woodland Component UND Prehistoric Historic Component UND Historic Prehistoric Type Historic Type 44SP0153 H 19th Century: 2nd Half, 20th Century: 1st Half Single Dwelling 44SP0154 H 19th Century: 2nd Half, 20th Century: 1st Half Single Dwelling 44SP0155 H 19th Century: 2nd Half Single Dwelling 44SP0157 H 19th Century: 2nd/3rd Quarter Single Dwelling 44SP0158 H 19th Century: 2nd Half Church 44SP0159 H 19th Century Railroad 44SP0161 H 19th Century Single Dwelling 44SP0162 H 19th Century: 2nd Half Dam, Mill 44SP0163 H 19th Century: 2nd/3rd Quarter Earthworks 44SP0164 H Undetermined Single Dwelling 44SP0165 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0166 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0167 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0168 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0169 P, H Undetermined 19th Century: 2nd Half, 20th Century: 1st Half Camp-Temporary Trash Scatter 44SP0170 P Undetermined 44SP0171 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0172 P Undetermined 44SP0173 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0174 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0176 P, H EA 19th & 20th Century Trash Scatter 44SP0177 P Undetermined Lithic Quarry, Lithic Workshop 44SP0178 H 19th Century Tavern/Inn 44SP0179 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Earthworks 44SP0181 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Single Dwelling 44SP0183 H 18th Century 44SP0184 H 18th Century 44SP0189 H 18th & 19th Century Wharf 44SP0190 H 18th Century Industrial 44SP0191 P EW 44SP0192 H 18th Century Single Dwelling 44SP0193 H 20th Century: 1st Half Trash Scatter 44SP0194 H 20th Century: 2nd Quarter Trash Scatter 44SP0195 H Undetermined Single Dwelling 44SP0196 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Military Camp 44SP0197 H Undetermined 44SP0198 H 20th Century: 2nd/3rd Quarter Single Dwelling 44SP0199 P 44SP0200 P Undetermined 44SP0201 P Undetermined 44SP0202 H Undetermined Well 44SP0207 H 18th Century: 2nd Half Industrial 44SP0208 H 18th Century: 2nd Half Iron Furnace 44SP0209 H 19th & 20th Century Cemetery 44SP0210 H 18th Century Church 44SP0211 H 19th Century: 2nd Half, 20th Century: 1st Half Railroad Bed 44SP0212 P, H 18th, 19th & 20th Century Camp-Temporary 44SP0213 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0214 P, H UW Undetermined 19th Century Camp-Temporary Cemetery 44SP0215 H 18th Century: 4th Quarter, 19th Century Single Dwelling 44SP0216 H 18th Century: 4th Quarter, 19th & 20th Century Single Dwelling 44SP0217 H 19th Century Cistern, Single Dwelling 44SP0218 H 20th Century Cemetery 5/18/2007 SPOTYSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 4 SUMMARY OF SITE COMPONENTS AND TYPES

Site No. Cultural Era Archaic Component Woodland Component UND Prehistoric Historic Component UND Historic Prehistoric Type Historic Type 44SP0219 H 19th Century: 4th Quarter, 20th Century: 1st Quarter Dam, Canal 44SP0220 H Undetermined Mill 44SP0221 H 19th Century: 2nd Half, 20th Century: 1st Half Farmstead 44SP0222 P MW Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0223 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0224 H Earthworks 44SP0225 P MA Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0226 P Undetermined 44SP0227 P MW-LW Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0228 H 19th & 20th Century Single Dwelling 44SP0229 P EA-LA Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0230 P Undetermined 44SP0231 P EW Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0232 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Fort 44SP0233 H 19th Century Mine, Gold 44SP0234 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0235 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0236 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0237 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0238 H 19th Century Mine, Gold 44SP0239 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0240 H 19th Century Mine, Gold 44SP0241 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0242 H Undetermined Military 44SP0243 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Fort 44SP0244 H 19th & 20th Century Fort, Trash Pit 44SP0245 P LW Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0246 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Fort 44SP0247 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0248 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0249 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0250 H 20th Century Farmstead 44SP0251 P, H MW-LW 20th Century Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0252 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0253 H 19th & 20th Century 44SP0254 P, H MA 18th & 19th Century Camp-Unknown Function Farmstead 44SP0255 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0256 H 19th Century Bridge 44SP0257 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0258 P, H 18th Century: 2nd Half, 19th Century Single Dwelling 44SP0259 P, H 19th Century: 2nd/3rd Quarter Camp-Unknown Function Single Dwelling 44SP0260 H 20th Century Cemetery 44SP0261 P, H 19th Century: 2nd Half, 20th Century: 1st Half Camp-Unknown Function Domestic 44SP0262 P Undetermined Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0263 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0264 P Undetermined Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0265 H 19th Century Military 44SP0266 P Undetermined Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0267 H 19th Century Trash Pit, Trash Scatter 44SP0268 P Undetermined Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0269 P Undetermined Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0270 P Undetermined Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0271 P Undetermined Camp-Unknown Function 5/18/2007 SPOTYSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 5 SUMMARY OF SITE COMPONENTS AND TYPES

Site No. Cultural Era Archaic Component Woodland Component UND Prehistoric Historic Component UND Historic Prehistoric Type Historic Type 44SP0272 H 18th Century: 4th Quarter, 20th Century: 1st Half Cemetery, Tavern/Inn 44SP0273 H 19th Century: 1st Quarter County Courthouse 44SP0274 H 20th Century: 1st Quarter Cemetery 44SP0275 H 19th Century Farmstead, Hospital 44SP0277 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Fort 44SP0278 H 18th Century: 2nd Half, 19th Century: 1st half Single Dwelling 44SP0279 H 19th Century: 2nd Half, 20th Century: 1st Half Single Dwelling 44SP0280 H 19th Century Barn 44SP0281 P Undetermined Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0282 P EW Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0283 H 19th Century: 2nd Half, 20th Century: 1st Half Trash Scatter, Single Dwelling 44SP0284 P Undetermined Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0285 H 19th Century, 20th Century: 1st Quarter Trash Scatter 44SP0286 P, H MA 19th Century Camp Trash Scatter 44SP0287 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0288 P LA Camp-Temporary 44SP0289 P LA Camp-Temporary 44SP0290 H 19th Century Single Dwelling 44SP0291 H Undetermined Cemetery 44SP0292 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0293 P, H LA 20th Century: 1st Half Camp-Temporary Single Dwelling 44SP0294 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0295 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0296 P, H Undetermined 20th Century: 1st Half Camp-Temporary Single Dwelling 44SP0297 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0298 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0299 H 19th Century Mill 44SP0304 H Undetermined Cemetery 44SP0305 H 20th Century: 1st Single Dwelling 44SP0306 H Undetermined Cemetery 44SP0307 H Undetermined Farmstead 44SP0308 P LW 44SP0309 P Undetermined 44SP0310 P, H Undetermined Undetermined 44SP0311 P LA 44SP0312 P LA 44SP0313 P Undetermined 44SP0314 P, H Undetermined Undetermined Farmstead 44SP0315 P Undetermined 44SP0316 P Undetermined 44SP0317 P Undetermined 44SP0318 P Undetermined 44SP0319 P Undetermined 44SP0320 P, H Undetermined 19th & 20th Century 44SP0321 P Undetermined Farmstead 44SP0322 P, H Undetermined 19th & 20th Century Farmstead 44SP0323 H 19th Century Trash Pit 44SP0324 H 19th & 20th Century Single Dwelling 44SP0325 P, H Undetermined Undetermined 44SP0326 H 20th Century Farmstead 44SP0329 H 19th Century: 2nd Half Single Dwelling 44SP0330 H 19th Century: 2nd Half Trash Scatter 44SP0331 H 19th Century: 1st Quarter Trash Scatter 5/18/2007 SPOTYSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 6 SUMMARY OF SITE COMPONENTS AND TYPES

Site No. Cultural Era Archaic Component Woodland Component UND Prehistoric Historic Component UND Historic Prehistoric Type Historic Type 44SP0332 H 19th Century: 1st Quarter Trash Scatter 44SP0333 H 19th Century Trash Scatter 44SP0334 H 19th Century: 2nd Half Military Camp 44SP0335 H 19th Century 44SP0336 H 19th Century: 1st Quarter Trash Scatter 44SP0337 H 19th Century: 1st Quarter Trash Scatter 44SP0338 H 19th Century: 2nd Half Trash Scatter 44SP0339 H 18th Century: 2nd Half Trash Scatter 44SP0340 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Earthworks 44SP0341 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Earthworks 44SP0342 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Earthworks 44SP0343 P Undetermined Lithic Scatter 44SP0344 P Undetermined Lithic Scatter 44SP0345 P Undetermined Lithic Scatter 44SP0346 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Earthworks 44SP0347 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Earthworks 44SP0348 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Rockshelter 44SP0349 H 20th Century Trash Scatter 44SP0350 P Undetermined Lithic Scatter 44SP0352 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0353 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0354 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0355 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0356 H 20th Century Farmstead 44SP0357 P Camp-Temporary 44SP0358 H Undetermined 19th Century: 4th Quarter Cemetery 44SP0359 P UA Camp-Temporary 44SP0360 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0361 H 19th Century Outbuilding 44SP0362 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0363 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0364 H 19th Century: 1st Half Single Dwelling 44SP0365 H 19th Century: 1st Half Farmstead 44SP0366 H 19th Century: 2nd Half Farmstead 44SP0390 P UW Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0391 P Undetermined Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0392 H 20th Century Farmstead 44SP0393 H 20th Century Farmstead 44SP0394 H Undetermined Mine 44SP0395 P Undetermined Lithic Scatter 44SP0396 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Earthworks 44SP0397 H Undetermined 44SP0398 H Undetermined 44SP0399 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Earthworks 44SP0400 H Undetermined 44SP0401 H 19th Century, 20th Century: 2nd Half Farmstead 44SP0402 P UW Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0403 P Undetermined Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0404 P Undetermined Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0405 P, H Undetermined 19th Century 44SP0415 H 19th & 20th Century: 1st Half Farmstead 44SP0416 H 19th & 20th Century: 2nd Half 44SP0417 H Undetermined Industrial 5/18/2007 SPOTYSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 7 SUMMARY OF SITE COMPONENTS AND TYPES

Site No. Cultural Era Archaic Component Woodland Component UND Prehistoric Historic Component UND Historic Prehistoric Type Historic Type 44SP0418 H Undetermined 44SP0419 H 19th Century Domestic 44SP0420 H 20th Century Farmstead 44SP0421 H 19th Century Railroad 44SP0422 H 19th & 20th Century Ford 44SP0423 H Undetermined 44SP0424 H Undetermined Ford 44SP0425 H 19th Century Outbuilding 44SP0426 H 19th Century: 1st Half Mine, Iron 44SP0427 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Military Camp 44SP0428 H 19th Century: 1st Half Mine, Iron 44SP0429 H 19th Century: 1st Half Mine, Iron 44SP0430 H 19th Century: 1st Half Mine, Iron 44SP0431 H 19th Century Mine, Iron 44SP0432 H 19th Century Camp 44SP0433 H 19th Century Mine, Iron 44SP0434 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Battlefield 44SP0435 H 20th Century: 1st/2nd Quarter Camp 44SP0436 H 19th Century Domestic 44SP0437 H 18th Century: 3rd Quarter Military Grave/Burial 44SP0438 H 18th Century: 3rd Quarter Military 44SP0439 H 20th Century Outbuilding 44SP0440 H 18th & 19th Century Road 44SP0441 H 19th Century Dependency 44SP0442 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Military 44SP0443 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Earthworks 44SP0444 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Military Camp 44SP0445 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Military Camp-Temporary, Earthworks 44SP0446 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Earthworks 44SP0447 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Military Camp-Temporary 44SP0448 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Grave/Burial 44SP0449 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Earthworks 44SP0450 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Earthworks 44SP0452 P Undetermined 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Camp-Temporary 44SP0453 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0454 P Camp-Temporary 44SP0455 P, H LA 19th Century: 1st Half Prospect Pit 44SP0456 H 20th Century: 1st Half Single Dwelling 44SP0457 H 20th Century: 1st Quarter Railroad Bed 44SP0458 P Undetermined Camp-Temporary 44SP0459 P LA Camp-Temporary 44SP0460 H 19th Century: 1st Half 44SP0461 H 19th Century, 20th Century: 1st Quarter Single Dwelling 44SP0468 H 17th Century 4th Quarter, 19th Century: 2nd/3rd Quarter Battlefield, Earthworks Military Camp 44SP0469 H 19th Century: 2nd/3rd Quarter Battlefield, Military Camp 44SP0470 H 18th Century: 4th Quarter, 19th Century Military Base/Facility, Single Dwelling 44SP0471 H 19th Century: 2nd/3rd Quarter Military Base/Facility, Earthworks 44SP0472 H Undetermined 44SP0473 H Undetermined 44SP0474 H 19th Century: 4th Quarter Farmstead 44SP0480 H 19th Century: 1st Half, 20th Century Farmstead 44SP0481 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Cemetery, Farmstead, Earthworks 44SP0482 H 19th Century Single Dwelling 5/18/2007 SPOTYSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 8 SUMMARY OF SITE COMPONENTS AND TYPES

Site No. Cultural Era Archaic Component Woodland Component UND Prehistoric Historic Component UND Historic Prehistoric Type Historic Type 44SP0483 H 19th Century: 4th Quarter, 20th Century Cemetery, Farmstead 44SP0484 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Earthworks 44SP0485 P Undetermined Lithic Scatter 44SP0486 P, H Undetermined 19th Century: 4th Quarter Single Dwelling 44SP0487 P, H UA 19th Century: 1st Half Single Dwelling 44SP0488 P, H MW 19th Century: 1st Half Trash Scatter 44SP0495 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Cemetery 44SP0496 H 20th Century: 1st Half School 44SP0497 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Cemetery 44SP0498 H 19th Century: 2nd Quarter Farmstead, Single Dwelling 44SP0499 H Undetermined Cemetery 44SP0500 H 19th Century: 4th Quarter, 20th Century Single Dwelling 44SP0501 H Undetermined Quarry 44SP0502 H Undetermined Blacksmith Shop 44SP0503 H 18th Century: 2nd/3rd Quarter, 19th Century Single Dwelling 44SP0504 P, H LA 19th Century: 3rd Quarter, 20th Century Lithic Scatter Farmstead 44SP0505 P Undetermined Lithic Scatter 44SP0506 H 18th Century: 4th Quarter, 19th Century Trash Scatter 44SP0507 P UA Lithic Scatter 44SP0508 H 19th Century Mine 44SP0509 P Undetermined Camp-Unknown Function 44SP0511 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Mine 44SP0512 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Mine, Iron 44SP0513 H 19th Century: 4th Quarter, 20th Century Single Dwelling, Agriculture 44SP0514 P Undetermined Lithic scatter 44SP0538 H 19th Century Cemetery 44SP0539 H 19th Century: 2nd Half, 20th Century: 1st Quarter Domestic 44SP0540 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Military 44SP0541 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Military 44SP0587 H 19th Century Dam, Mill, Mill Race 44SP0588 H 20th Century: 1st Half Gas Station 44SP0589 H 19th Century Dam, Mill, Mill Race 44SP0590 H 18th Century Cemetery, Farmstead 44SP0591 H 19th Century: 2nd Half, 20th Century Logging 44SP0592 P, H Undetermined Undetermined 44SP0593 P, H Undetermined 18th, 19th & 20th Century 44SP0594 H 19th & 20th Century Road 44SP0595 H 19th & 20th Century Road 44SP0596 H 19th & 20th Century Road 44SP0597 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Earthwork 44SP0598 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Earthwork 44SP0599 H 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Earthwork 44SP0600 H Undetermined 44SP0601 H 19th & 20th Century Single Dwelling 44SP0602 H Undetermined Earthwork 44SP0603 H 19th & 20th Century Bridge 5/18/2007 SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 1 SUMMARY OF LANDSCAPE AND LOCATION

Site No USGS Quadrangle State Plane N (ft) State Plane E (ft) Size (Acres) Landform Drainage Basin 44SP0001 SALEM CHURCH 6797378 11759779 6.20 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0003 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6814743 11717145 2.70 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0004 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6795675 11718589 0.41 Hillock York 44SP0005 SALEM CHURCH 6798794 11758188 0.69 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0007 SALEM CHURCH 6783975 11748447 0.23 Hillock Rappahannock 44SP0008 SALEM CHURCH 6810425 11739786 0.23 Terrace 1 Rappahannock 44SP0009 SALEM CHURCH 6810379 11736690 1.38 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0010 SALEM CHURCH 6799633 11738049 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0011 SALEM CHURCH 6797372 11736417 1.15 Knoll Rappahannock 44SP0012 SALEM CHURCH 6804831 11737786 0.34 Sideslope Rappahannock 44SP0013 FREDERICKSBURG 6781956 11773043 0.46 Hillock Rappahannock 44SP0014 SALEM CHURCH 6799826 11753352 0.11 Shoreline Rappahannock 44SP0015 SALEM CHURCH 6800257 11753084 Shoreline Rappahannock 44SP0016 SALEM CHURCH 6800673 11752685 Shoreline Rappahannock 44SP0017 SALEM CHURCH 6801221 11752060 Shoreline Rappahannock 44SP0018 SALEM CHURCH 6798479 11754380 Knoll Rappahannock 44SP0019 FREDERICKSBURG 6780665 11784781 0.23 Terrace 4 Rappahannock 44SP0020 FREDERICKSBURG 6780813 11784640 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0021 FREDERICKSBURG 6780484 11784024 0.69 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0022 SALEM CHURCH 6803272 11743348 0.23 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0023 SALEM CHURCH 6803799 11742997 0.31 Hillock Rappahannock 44SP0024 SALEM CHURCH 6803565 11742651 0.16 Knoll Rappahannock 44SP0027 GUINEA 6772027 11804404 6.31 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0028 GUINEA 6772794 11805059 0.14 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0029 GUINEA 6772786 11805520 0.02 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0030 GUINEA 6772755 11806115 Bluff Rappahannock 44SP0031 RAPPAHANNOCK ACADEM 6772905 11806397 0.46 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0032 RAPPAHANNOCK ACADEM 6773120 11806829 0.23 Knoll Rappahannock 44SP0033 RAPPAHANNOCK ACADEM 6774008 11807225 2.07 Knoll Rappahannock 44SP0034 SALEM CHURCH 6811412 11739714 9.18 Terrace 1 Rappahannock 44SP0036 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6814811 11716284 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0037 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6789424 11727461 Sideslope York 44SP0038 BELMONT 6747799 11671518 Floodplain York 44SP0039 BELMONT 6741448 11666983 Sideslope York 44SP0040 GUINEA 6768944 11797297 Other Rappahannock 44SP0041 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6802144 11705906 1.84 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0042 GUINEA 6772411 11805248 Other Rappahannock 44SP0043 LAKE ANNA WEST 6716401 11687828 2.00 Terrace York 44SP0044 LAKE ANNA WEST 6717286 11687890 1.00 Sideslope York 44SP0045 GUINEA 6775653 11795258 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0046 GUINEA 6767913 11790950 Marsh Rappahannock 44SP0047 LAKE ANNA WEST 6727392 11673592 Shoreline York 44SP0048 LAKE ANNA WEST 6726699 11673571 Shoreline York 44SP0049 SPOTSYLVANIA 6759090 11747732 0.46 Ridge York 44SP0057 SPOTSYLVANIA 6745680 11769636 Floodplain York 44SP0058 SPOTSYLVANIA 6774214 11765398 4.32 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0059 SPOTSYLVANIA 6732948 11764254 Terrace York 44SP0060 SPOTSYLVANIA 6737183 11755522 Terrace York 44SP0061 SALEM CHURCH 6804970 11737449 0.01 Ridge Finger Rappahannock 44SP0062 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6813989 11718456 0.46 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0063 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6789660 11730431 Ridge York 44SP0065 FREDERICKSBURG 6783894 11788055 0.25 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0066 LADYSMITH 6728219 11764329 Terrace York 5/18/2007 SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 2 SUMMARY OF LANDSCAPE AND LOCATION

Site No USGS Quadrangle State Plane N (ft) State Plane E (ft) Size (Acres) Landform Drainage Basin 44SP0067 FREDERICKSBURG 6785265 11780297 0.18 Hillock Rappahannock 44SP0068 FREDERICKSBURG 6785078 11780657 1.23 Hillock Rappahannock 44SP0071 FREDERICKSBURG 6776218 11797287 0.50 Island Rappahannock 44SP0072 FREDERICKSBURG 6776160 11798361 Other Rappahannock 44SP0075 SALEM CHURCH 6812639 11739399 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0076 SALEM CHURCH 6812892 11739134 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0077 SALEM CHURCH 6813105 11738905 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0079 SALEM CHURCH 6815059 11737948 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0080 SALEM CHURCH 6817377 11736583 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0084 FREDERICKSBURG 6776593 11798305 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0086 FREDERICKSBURG 6780721 11787950 1.29 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0088 LADYSMITH 6727178 11763742 Floodplain York 44SP0089 LADYSMITH 6727910 11764104 44SP0092 BELMONT 6734664 11682426 Sideslope York 44SP0093 BELMONT 6735680 11682496 Sideslope York 44SP0094 BELMONT 6734648 11683192 Sideslope York 44SP0095 BELMONT 6747719 11689490 Ridge York 44SP0096 BELMONT 6754389 11689900 Other York 44SP0097 BELMONT 6755999 11690652 Other York 44SP0098 BELMONT 6756787 11691473 Other York 44SP0099 BELMONT 6754728 11694014 Other York 44SP0100 BELMONT 6760857 11694880 Sideslope York 44SP0101 BELMONT 6751270 11696214 Sideslope York 44SP0102 BROKENBURG 6759746 11699177 Sideslope York 44SP0103 BROKENBURG 6771010 11701561 Ridge York 44SP0104 BROKENBURG 6774142 11704763 Sideslope York 44SP0105 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6785962 11707210 Ridge York 44SP0106 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6781197 11717950 Ridge York 44SP0107 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6796993 11721964 Knoll York 44SP0108 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6807888 11724851 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0109 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6789382 11725881 22.72 Other York 44SP0110 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6813834 11731744 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0111 SALEM CHURCH 6814412 11734874 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0112 SALEM CHURCH 6805428 11738324 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0113 SALEM CHURCH 6804521 11744316 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0114 SALEM CHURCH 6807113 11746366 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0115 SALEM CHURCH 6809485 11748088 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0116 SALEM CHURCH 6802344 11751163 Sideslope Rappahannock 44SP0117 SPOTSYLVANIA 6767723 11752148 0.36 Ridge York 44SP0118 SPOTSYLVANIA 6766152 11751290 0.69 Other York 44SP0120 GUINEA 6773482 11789528 Other Rappahannock 44SP0123 GUINEA 6769549 11783849 0.25 Sideslope Rappahannock 44SP0124 GUINEA 6773606 11788940 Other Rappahannock 44SP0125 FREDERICKSBURG 6779195 11783127 0.004 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0126 FREDERICKSBURG 6781158 11791088 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0127 FREDERICKSBURG 6787130 11786155 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0128 FREDERICKSBURG 6787617 11786818 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0139 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6787446 11721551 4.59 Sideslope York 44SP0140 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6787551 11721162 2.07 Sideslope York 44SP0141 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6790437 11725945 10.33 Other Rappahannock 44SP0150 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6796128 11729227 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0151 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6797621 11720950 Terrace York 44SP0152 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6793682 11726264 Floodplain Rappahannock 5/18/2007 SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 3 SUMMARY OF LANDSCAPE AND LOCATION

Site No USGS Quadrangle State Plane N (ft) State Plane E (ft) Size (Acres) Landform Drainage Basin 44SP0153 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6798926 11720203 Terrace York 44SP0154 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6797467 11718269 Terrace York 44SP0155 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6795782 11717321 Sideslope Rappahannock 44SP0157 SALEM CHURCH 6810383 11736966 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0158 SALEM CHURCH 6790501 11748952 Other Rappahannock 44SP0159 FREDERICKSBURG 6787011 11770399 0.02 Other York 44SP0161 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6799782 11730496 0.06 Terrace York 44SP0162 BROKENBURG 6750857 11732832 Other Rappahannock 44SP0163 SALEM CHURCH 6811168 11738940 0.26 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0164 SALEM CHURCH 6809072 11734399 2.81 Sideslope Rappahannock 44SP0165 SALEM CHURCH 6805631 11734532 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0166 SALEM CHURCH 6804990 11734793 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0167 SALEM CHURCH 6800673 11737225 0.007 Sideslope Rappahannock 44SP0168 SALEM CHURCH 6799952 11737637 0.02 Sideslope Rappahannock 44SP0169 SPOTSYLVANIA 6765977 11749565 0.17 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0170 SALEM CHURCH 6806303 11734348 Knoll Rappahannock 44SP0171 LADYSMITH 6726187 11755339 Terrace York 44SP0172 SALEM CHURCH 6776795 11744948 Sideslope York 44SP0173 SALEM CHURCH 6810908 11739458 0.02 Ridge Finger Rappahannock 44SP0174 SALEM CHURCH 6780908 11744533 0.009 Ridge Finger York 44SP0176 BELMONT 6771950 11696461 Bluff York 44SP0177 BELMONT 6771944 11695974 0.28 Bluff York 44SP0178 BROKENBURG 6774290 11721529 0.92 Knoll York 44SP0179 BROKENBURG 6774411 11720355 0.01 Terrace York 44SP0181 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6796749 11731311 0.87 Urban Rappahannock 44SP0183 FREDERICKSBURG 6778304 11793374 0.04 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0184 FREDERICKSBURG 6778013 11794451 0.009 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0189 GUINEA 6774068 11802005 0.02 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0190 SALEM CHURCH 6800486 11741829 0.06 Ridge Finger Rappahannock 44SP0191 GUINEA 6775093 11775810 0.03 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0192 GUINEA 6770780 11778656 0.13 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0193 GUINEA 6769840 11778504 0.36 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0194 GUINEA 6769158 11778297 0.69 Sideslope Rappahannock 44SP0195 GUINEA 6770407 11775495 0.52 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0196 GUINEA 6770447 11776257 1.72 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0197 GUINEA 6768507 11774860 0.009 Sideslope Rappahannock 44SP0198 GUINEA 6767618 11775846 0.006 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0199 GUINEA 6774984 11775653 0.007 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0200 GUINEA 6771387 11774549 0.02 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0201 GUINEA 6769370 11771427 0.001 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0202 GUINEA 6769024 11774023 0.003 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0207 SPOTSYLVANIA 6745436 11748532 Floodplain York 44SP0208 GUINEA 6766407 11789971 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0209 SALEM CHURCH 6783446 11757363 0.69 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0210 SALEM CHURCH 6788567 11752066 0.05 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0211 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6784445 11758540 23.03 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0212 SALEM CHURCH 6789874 11752430 4.89 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0213 SALEM CHURCH 6790123 11751890 0.84 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0214 SALEM CHURCH 6789816 11751898 0.81 Hillock Rappahannock 44SP0215 SPOTSYLVANIA 6740018 11768340 0.34 Terrace York 44SP0216 SPOTSYLVANIA 6740673 11768100 0.26 Terrace York 44SP0217 SPOTSYLVANIA 6741403 11768278 0.15 Terrace York 44SP0218 SPOTSYLVANIA 6741523 11767932 0.17 Terrace York 5/18/2007 SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 4 SUMMARY OF LANDSCAPE AND LOCATION

Site No USGS Quadrangle State Plane N (ft) State Plane E (ft) Size (Acres) Landform Drainage Basin 44SP0219 FREDERICKSBURG 2.24 Other Rappahannock 44SP0220 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6812525 11729984 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0221 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6813182 11729022 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0222 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6812083 11729430 0.15 Bench Rappahannock 44SP0223 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6811397 11729614 0.08 Ridge Finger Rappahannock 44SP0224 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6811026 11731015 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0225 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6810940 11727046 0.08 Saddle Rappahannock 44SP0226 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6811179 11729065 0.39 Knoll Rappahannock 44SP0227 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6810733 11730283 0.69 Ridge Finger Rappahannock 44SP0228 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6809921 11726960 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0229 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6809747 11727947 4.32 Ridge Finger Rappahannock 44SP0230 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6810202 11729251 0.02 Ridge Finger Rappahannock 44SP0231 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6810521 11729231 0.50 Ridge Finger Rappahannock 44SP0232 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6810306 11730265 Ridge Finger Rappahannock 44SP0233 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6809085 11729018 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0234 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6808516 11726232 0.08 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0235 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6808264 11725948 0.08 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0236 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6809391 11729059 0.08 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0237 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6808925 11729069 0.15 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0238 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6808796 11728676 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0239 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6808162 11725790 0.02 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0240 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6808138 11724806 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0241 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6807674 11726060 0.12 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0242 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6807069 11725782 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0243 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6807006 11726067 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0244 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6806954 11724999 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0245 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6807252 11725468 0.93 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0246 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6806383 11726633 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0247 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6806144 11727302 0.02 Ridge Finger Rappahannock 44SP0248 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6806874 11725351 0.15 Bench Rappahannock 44SP0249 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6807905 11725506 0.03 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0250 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6805689 11724984 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0251 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6805580 11724233 1.23 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0252 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6804474 11724417 0.15 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0253 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6803708 11723639 0.03 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0254 SALEM CHURCH 6796728 11758439 22.23 Bluff Rappahannock 44SP0255 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6807210 11726712 0.03 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0256 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6808603 11726704 0.04 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0257 SPOTSYLVANIA 6739307 11766812 0.26 Terrace York 44SP0258 SPOTSYLVANIA 6739039 11767773 12.57 Terrace York 44SP0259 SPOTSYLVANIA 6750858 11769467 13.77 Ridge Top York 44SP0260 SPOTSYLVANIA 6757237 11747273 0.02 Ridge York 44SP0261 SPOTSYLVANIA 6757752 11746157 12.40 Ridge York 44SP0262 SPOTSYLVANIA 6758517 11747438 2.45 Ridge Finger York 44SP0263 SPOTSYLVANIA 6756708 11747272 0.06 Ridge York 44SP0264 SPOTSYLVANIA 6756925 11748166 0.02 Ridge York 44SP0265 SPOTSYLVANIA 6758070 11748263 Ridge York 44SP0266 BROKENBURG 6744965 11725028 0.46 Sideslope York 44SP0267 BROKENBURG 6742499 11722270 0.29 Ridge Finger York 44SP0268 BROKENBURG 6742992 11723634 0.36 Floodplain York 44SP0269 BROKENBURG 6743476 11724137 0.90 Terrace York 44SP0270 BROKENBURG 6743925 11724439 0.46 Sideslope York 44SP0271 BROKENBURG 6742419 11724065 0.60 Floodplain York 5/18/2007 SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 5 SUMMARY OF LANDSCAPE AND LOCATION

Site No USGS Quadrangle State Plane N (ft) State Plane E (ft) Size (Acres) Landform Drainage Basin 44SP0272 BROKENBURG 6743427 11729899 5.17 Terrace York 44SP0273 SPOTSYLVANIA 6751295 11735700 5.50 Terrace York 44SP0274 BROKENBURG 6743077 11727617 Terrace York 44SP0275 SPOTSYLVANIA 6754008 11736603 Hillock York 44SP0277 SALEM CHURCH 6795667 11755591 Ridge Finger Rappahannock 44SP0278 SPOTSYLVANIA 6750079 11766787 1.86 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0279 SPOTSYLVANIA 6751105 11767074 1.31 Terrace York 44SP0280 SPOTSYLVANIA 6750640 11768396 0.10 Terrace York 44SP0281 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6784544 11733730 3.16 Ridge York 44SP0282 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6782207 11734143 1.29 Ridge Finger York 44SP0283 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6782594 11732178 7.68 Terrace York 44SP0284 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6783658 11733792 0.07 Terrace York 44SP0285 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6782749 11732973 0.61 Ridge York 44SP0286 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6782758 11733258 1.45 Terrace York 44SP0287 GUINEA 6769186 11771290 0.01 Sideslope Rappahannock 44SP0288 SALEM CHURCH 6788156 11751788 0.23 Ridge Spur Rappahannock 44SP0289 SALEM CHURCH 6787693 11751455 1.04 Ridge Spur Rappahannock 44SP0290 SALEM CHURCH 6789000 11752271 0.13 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0291 GUINEA 6767362 11777158 0.01 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0292 GUINEA 6766559 11776627 0.57 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0293 GUINEA 6767183 11778112 0.69 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0294 GUINEA 6767873 11778312 0.29 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0295 GUINEA 6768376 11778268 0.92 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0296 GUINEA 6767563 11778809 1.50 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0297 GUINEA 6767000 11778728 0.03 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0298 GUINEA 6767168 11779032 0.13 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0299 LAKE ANNA EAST 6687311 11717334 0.10 Sideslope York 44SP0304 LAKE ANNA WEST 6724667 11681420 Terrace York 44SP0305 LAKE ANNA WEST 6724856 11681792 0.86 Terrace York 44SP0306 LAKE ANNA WEST 6721331 11680347 0.15 Terrace York 44SP0307 LAKE ANNA WEST 6721318 11680672 0.46 Terrace York 44SP0308 SPOTSYLVANIA 6763885 11758741 8.89 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0309 SPOTSYLVANIA 6762669 11757905 2.17 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0310 SPOTSYLVANIA 6762208 11757607 5.19 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0311 SPOTSYLVANIA 6761048 11759495 8.88 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0312 SPOTSYLVANIA 6762287 11760826 6.53 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0313 SPOTSYLVANIA 6761359 11761386 3.16 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0314 SPOTSYLVANIA 6765181 11761671 2.23 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0315 SPOTSYLVANIA 6764850 11762513 0.81 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0316 SPOTSYLVANIA 6764635 11764044 0.89 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0317 SPOTSYLVANIA 6764553 11764658 0.0002 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0318 SPOTSYLVANIA 6757429 11768095 0.08 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0319 SPOTSYLVANIA 6759863 11766144 0.39 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0320 SPOTSYLVANIA 6760388 11765423 5.19 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0321 SPOTSYLVANIA 6761602 11763222 3.29 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0322 SPOTSYLVANIA 6759270 11764091 5.05 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0323 SPOTSYLVANIA 6758730 11764489 0.11 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0324 SPOTSYLVANIA 6758050 11766092 2.97 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0325 SPOTSYLVANIA 6767847 11766156 0.75 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0326 SPOTSYLVANIA 6762269 11765779 0.45 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0329 SALEM CHURCH 6791159 11745905 0.56 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0330 SALEM CHURCH 6791697 11742850 0.17 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0331 SALEM CHURCH 6792479 11740623 0.15 Floodplain Rappahannock 5/18/2007 SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 6 SUMMARY OF LANDSCAPE AND LOCATION

Site No USGS Quadrangle State Plane N (ft) State Plane E (ft) Size (Acres) Landform Drainage Basin 44SP0332 SALEM CHURCH 6792623 11740824 0.15 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0333 SALEM CHURCH 6792431 11741208 1.54 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0334 SALEM CHURCH 6792662 11741952 1.29 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0335 SALEM CHURCH 6792178 11742645 0.34 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0336 SALEM CHURCH 6795569 11740377 0.10 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0337 SALEM CHURCH 6791960 11743159 0.25 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0338 SALEM CHURCH 6792516 11742830 0.33 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0339 SALEM CHURCH 6794694 11740824 0.29 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0340 SALEM CHURCH 6796502 11739675 0.10 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0341 SALEM CHURCH 6799949 11738135 1.93 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0342 SALEM CHURCH 6800601 11737894 0.60 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0343 SALEM CHURCH 6800985 11738334 0.15 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0344 SALEM CHURCH 6802862 11738680 0.15 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0345 SALEM CHURCH 6803926 11739563 0.20 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0346 SALEM CHURCH 6805072 11739933 0.23 Bluff Rappahannock 44SP0347 SALEM CHURCH 6805179 11740260 0.002 Bluff Rappahannock 44SP0348 SALEM CHURCH 6805354 11740390 0.04 Bluff Rappahannock 44SP0349 SALEM CHURCH 6800828 11738140 0.10 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0350 SALEM CHURCH 6804535 11740034 0.56 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0352 SPOTSYLVANIA 6752989 11760348 0.92 Terrace York 44SP0353 SPOTSYLVANIA 6752601 11761320 0.46 Terrace York 44SP0354 SPOTSYLVANIA 6751627 11761896 0.13 Terrace York 44SP0355 SPOTSYLVANIA 6751661 11760953 0.06 Terrace York 44SP0356 SPOTSYLVANIA 6751238 11761848 2.30 Floodplain York 44SP0357 SPOTSYLVANIA 6750926 11761191 0.09 Ridge York 44SP0358 SPOTSYLVANIA 6750598 11762452 0.69 Terrace York 44SP0359 SPOTSYLVANIA 6751316 11762320 0.13 Terrace York 44SP0360 SPOTSYLVANIA 6749183 11763470 0.06 Terrace York 44SP0361 SPOTSYLVANIA 6752200 11764993 0.06 Ridge York 44SP0362 SPOTSYLVANIA 6751800 11764261 0.34 Ridge Toe York 44SP0363 SPOTSYLVANIA 6751488 11764254 0.06 Floodplain York 44SP0364 SPOTSYLVANIA 6750944 11765603 0.52 Ridge York 44SP0365 SALEM CHURCH 6791249 11748608 0.43 Ridge York 44SP0366 SALEM CHURCH 6792469 11748164 0.29 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0390 SPOTSYLVANIA 6759698 11752087 0.13 Terrace York 44SP0391 SPOTSYLVANIA 6760733 11752518 0.06 Floodplain York 44SP0392 SALEM CHURCH 6787220 11753918 1.00 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0393 SALEM CHURCH 6787499 11752574 1.00 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0394 SALEM CHURCH 6796114 11742063 0.80 Sideslope Rappahannock 44SP0395 SALEM CHURCH 6800078 11743758 0.06 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0396 SALEM CHURCH 6799620 11743446 0.08 Ridge Toe Rappahannock 44SP0397 SALEM CHURCH 6801916 11744907 0.15 Sideslope Rappahannock 44SP0398 SALEM CHURCH 6801913 11744711 0.64 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0399 SALEM CHURCH 6804956 11745490 0.07 Sideslope Rappahannock 44SP0400 SALEM CHURCH 6806414 11744923 0.03 Sideslope Rappahannock 44SP0401 SPOTSYLVANIA 6764719 11765903 10.10 Ridge Top Rappahannock 44SP0402 SPOTSYLVANIA 6761014 11752746 0.69 Terrace York 44SP0403 SPOTSYLVANIA 6761353 11752735 0.06 Terrace York 44SP0404 SPOTSYLVANIA 6761137 11753154 0.06 Terrace York 44SP0405 SPOTSYLVANIA 6761607 11754091 0.06 Terrace York 44SP0415 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6785822 11728079 1.38 Ridge Top York 44SP0416 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6785823 11728518 0.01 Sideslope York 44SP0417 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6785555 11727968 0.04 Ridge York 5/18/2007 SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 7 SUMMARY OF LANDSCAPE AND LOCATION

Site No USGS Quadrangle State Plane N (ft) State Plane E (ft) Size (Acres) Landform Drainage Basin 44SP0418 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6785465 11728071 0.01 Ridge Top York 44SP0419 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6785312 11727995 0.05 Ridge York 44SP0420 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6786407 11728093 0.57 Sideslope York 44SP0421 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6786690 11728672 0.34 Floodplain York 44SP0422 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6786917 11728529 0.01 Floodplain York 44SP0423 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6786735 11727936 0.01 Terrace York 44SP0424 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6786975 11727768 Floodplain York 44SP0425 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6790086 11730189 0.02 Ridge York 44SP0426 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6790377 11730029 1.72 Floodplain York 44SP0427 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6789619 11728194 0.34 Terrace York 44SP0428 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6789765 11728708 0.02 Terrace York 44SP0429 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6789933 11729255 0.40 Terrace York 44SP0430 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6790200 11729114 0.34 Sideslope York 44SP0431 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6789792 11728312 0.23 Sideslope York 44SP0432 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6789339 11730176 0.06 Ridge York 44SP0433 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6789382 11729047 0.01 Sideslope York 44SP0434 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6789179 11728550 0.05 Ridge York 44SP0435 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6798987 11731345 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0436 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6797154 11726623 0.002 Terrace York 44SP0437 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6797138 11726882 0.09 Terrace York 44SP0438 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6796976 11727318 0.04 Ridge York 44SP0439 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6797519 11726060 0.001 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0440 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6797415 11727639 0.69 Terrace York 44SP0441 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6797205 11728529 0.23 Floodplain York 44SP0442 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6797398 11727485 0.01 Sideslope York 44SP0443 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6797380 11727670 0.57 Sideslope York 44SP0444 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6795886 11726183 13.77 Sideslope York 44SP0445 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6796416 11728122 17.22 Sideslope York 44SP0446 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6794846 11727318 0.14 Ridge York 44SP0447 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6794921 11726961 0.01 Bench York 44SP0448 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6795527 11727308 0.01 Ridge York 44SP0449 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6795520 11727028 0.07 Ridge York 44SP0450 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6796679 11726312 0.01 Ridge York 44SP0452 LAKE ANNA WEST 6724037 11679148 0.09 Ridge York 44SP0453 LAKE ANNA WEST 6723375 11679975 0.23 Ridge York 44SP0454 LAKE ANNA WEST 6723516 11680448 0.06 Ridge York 44SP0455 LAKE ANNA WEST 6723333 11680815 0.04 Ridge York 44SP0456 LAKE ANNA WEST 6722448 11681203 0.17 Shoreline York 44SP0457 LAKE ANNA WEST 6725324 11676931 1.90 Ridge York 44SP0458 LAKE ANNA WEST 6724347 11676817 0.39 Ridge York 44SP0459 LAKE ANNA WEST 6723708 11676856 0.12 Ridge York 44SP0460 SPOTSYLVANIA 6761835 11739819 0.01 Other York 44SP0461 SPOTSYLVANIA 6764584 11741606 1.29 Ridge York 44SP0468 GUINEA 6775193 11787853 86.25 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0469 FREDERICKSBURG 6775577 11783368 160.00 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0470 FREDERICKSBURG 6779008 11783357 25.71 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0471 FREDERICKSBURG 6778870 11781923 45.54 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0472 FREDERICKSBURG 6778237 11781796 0.35 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0473 FREDERICKSBURG 6777824 11781754 0.02 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0474 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6798166 11720943 0.12 Ridge Top York 44SP0480 SALEM CHURCH 6790403 11750592 0.40 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0481 SALEM CHURCH 6791273 11749399 2.00 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0482 SALEM CHURCH 6792443 11750278 0.25 Ridge Rappahannock 5/18/2007 SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 8 SUMMARY OF LANDSCAPE AND LOCATION

Site No USGS Quadrangle State Plane N (ft) State Plane E (ft) Size (Acres) Landform Drainage Basin 44SP0483 SALEM CHURCH 6791048 11750883 2.50 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0484 SALEM CHURCH 6791515 11751473 1.00 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0485 SPOTSYLVANIA 6769702 11756294 1.00 Ridge Spur Rappahannock 44SP0486 FREDERICKSBURG 6780860 11787091 2.90 Terrace 2 Rappahannock 44SP0487 FREDERICKSBURG 6781102 11787437 1.70 Terrace 2 Rappahannock 44SP0488 FREDERICKSBURG 6780702 11787407 0.20 Terrace 2 Rappahannock 44SP0495 CHANCELORSVILLE 6790063 11705854 0.04 Other Rappahannock 44SP0496 CHANCELORSVILLE 6790119 11706264 1.84 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0497 CHANCELORSVILLE 6791308 11707427 1.50 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0498 SPOTSYLVANIA 6767434 11743402 0.50 Ridge Top York 44SP0499 SPOTSYLVANIA 6763982 11739931 0.39 Knoll York 44SP0500 SPOTSYLVANIA 6762036 11737834 1.50 Knoll York 44SP0501 SPOTSYLVANIA 6761602 11736990 0.37 Ridge York 44SP0502 SPOTSYLVANIA 6762280 11737905 0.08 Ridge York 44SP0503 SPOTSYLVANIA 6762108 11736899 1.84 Ridge York 44SP0504 SALEM CHURCH 6790259 11763633 3.20 Hillock Rappahannock 44SP0505 SALEM CHURCH 6778074 11755639 0.22 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0506 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6790179 11719046 0.13 Ridge Top York 44SP0507 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6789110 11719032 0.06 Ridge Top York 44SP0508 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6788659 11718580 0.002 Ridge Finger York 44SP0509 SPOTSYLVANIA 6758237 11764133 0.13 Ridge Spur Rappahannock 44SP0511 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6786457 11724096 5.18 Sideslope York 44SP0512 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6787348 11724124 6.90 Sideslope York 44SP0513 FREDERICKSBURG 6785070 11771318 6.50 Ridge Rappahannock 44SP0514 FREDERICKSBURG 6786168 11771871 0.06 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0538 CHANCELORSVILLE 6814107 11717250 0.01 Ridge Finger Rappahannock 44SP0539 CHANCELORSVILLE 6814538 11717188 0.15 Terrace 1 Rappahannock 44SP0540 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6793454 11709859 0.10 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0541 CHANCELLORSVILLE 6792494 11708454 0.10 Terrace Rappahannock 44SP0587 SPOTSYLVANIA 6747309 11763838 0.15 Terrace York 44SP0588 SPOTSYLVANIA 6747562 11765003 0.30 Sideslope York 44SP0589 SPOTSYLVANIA 6754889 11759304 0.23 Terrace York 44SP0590 LAKE ANNA EAST 6726055 11716673 3.55 Ridge York 44SP0591 LAKE ANNA EAST 6725925 11716911 0.02 Ridge York 44SP0592 FREDERICKSBURG 6780249 11792239 0.41 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0593 SPOTSYLVANIA 6756217 11736908 0.36 Ridge York 44SP0594 BELMONT 6736787 11666424 1.50 York 44SP0595 SALEM CHURCH 6811114 11739375 0.45 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0596 LAKE ANNA EAST 6726086 11716893 0.59 York 44SP0597 FREDERICKSBURG 6780416 11792030 0.08 Bluff Rappahannock 44SP0598 FREDERICKSBURG 6778811 11792804 0.05 Bluff Rappahannock 44SP0599 FREDERICKSBURG 6779068 11792658 0.23 Bluff Rappahannock 44SP0600 BELMONT 6736904 11667515 0.05 York 44SP0601 BELMONT 6741362 11667243 0.15 Ridge York 44SP0602 SPOTSYLVANIA 6767941 11791242 0.02 Floodplain Rappahannock 44SP0603 BELMONT 6741409 11666727 0.15 York 5/18/2007 SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 1 SUMMARY OF SITE STATUS

Site No. Site Integrity NRHP Status Zoning Area Comments 44SP0001 Surface and subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0003 Intact stratified cultural level Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0004 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0005 Surface and subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0007 Surface features Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0008 Subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0009 Surface features: Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0010 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0011 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0012 Surface features On Register ZON_RU 44SP0013 74-99% destroyed Undetermined ZON_C2 44SP0014 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0015 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0016 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0017 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0018 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0019 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_I1 44SP0020 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_I1 44SP0021 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_I1 44SP0022 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0023 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0024 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0027 Less than 25% destroyed Undetermined ZON_I1 44SP0028 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_I1 44SP0029 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_I1 44SP0030 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0031 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0032 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0033 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0034 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0036 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0037 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0038 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0039 Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0040 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_C3 44SP0041 Site totally destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0042 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0043 75-99% destroyed Undetermined ZON_RA 44SP0044 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RA 44SP0045 Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0046 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0047 Undetermined ZON_RA 44SP0048 Undetermined ZON_RA 44SP0049 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0057 Surface features Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0058 Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0059 Undetermined ZON_C3 44SP0060 Surface features Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0061 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0062 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0063 Surface features Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0065 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0066 Surface features Undetermined ZON_A2 5/18/2007 SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 2 SUMMARY OF SITE STATUS

Site No. Site Integrity NRHP Status Zoning Area Comments 44SP0067 Surface features Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0068 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0071 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0072 Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0075 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0076 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0077 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0079 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0080 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0084 Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0086 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0088 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0089 Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0092 Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0093 Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0094 Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0095 Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0096 Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0097 Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0098 Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0099 Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0100 Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0101 Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0102 Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0103 Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0104 Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0105 Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0106 Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0107 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0108 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0109 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0110 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0111 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0112 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0113 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0114 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0115 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0116 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0117 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0118 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0120 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0123 Undetermined ZON_I1 44SP0124 Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0125 Undetermined ZON_I1 44SP0126 Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0127 Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0128 Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0139 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0140 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0141 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0150 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0151 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0152 Undetermined ZON_RU 5/18/2007 SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 3 SUMMARY OF SITE STATUS

Site No. Site Integrity NRHP Status Zoning Area Comments 44SP0153 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0154 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0155 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0157 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0158 Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0159 Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0161 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0162 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0163 Surface features Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0164 Surface and subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0165 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0166 Surface deposits, no subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0167 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0168 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0169 Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0170 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0171 Unknown portion destroyed: Surface deposits, no subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0172 Surface deposits, no subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0173 Surface deposits, no subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0174 Unknown portion destroyed: Surface deposits, no subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0176 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0177 Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0178 Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0179 Less than 25% destroyed Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0181 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0183 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0184 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0189 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_I1 44SP0190 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0191 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_R1 44SP0192 Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0193 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0194 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0195 Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0196 Surface features Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0197 Surface features Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0198 Surface features Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0199 Surface deposits, no subsurface integrity Ineligible ZON_R1 44SP0200 Subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0201 Subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0202 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0207 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0208 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested Undetermined ZON_I1 44SP0209 Surface features Ineligible ZON_R1 44SP0210 Undetermined ZON_PDH 44SP0211 Surface features Undetermined 44SP0212 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_C2 44SP0213 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_R1 44SP0214 Destruction of surface and subsurface features: No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Ineligible ZON_R1 44SP0215 Surface and subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0216 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0217 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0218 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested Undetermined ZON_A2 5/18/2007 SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 4 SUMMARY OF SITE STATUS

Site No. Site Integrity NRHP Status Zoning Area Comments 44SP0219 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested Undetermined 44SP0220 Surface features Eligible ZON_RU 44SP0221 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0222 Less than 25% destroyed Eligible ZON_RU 44SP0223 Less than 25% destroyed Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0224 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0225 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0226 Less than 25% destroyed Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0227 Less than 25% destroyed Eligible ZON_RU 44SP0228 Unknown portion destroyed Eligible ZON_RU 44SP0229 75-99% destroyed Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0230 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0231 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0232 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0233 Less than 25% destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0234 Less than 25% destroyed Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0235 Less than 25% destroyed Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0236 Site condition unknown Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0237 Less than 25% destroyed Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0238 Less than 25% destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0239 Subsurface integrity Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0240 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0241 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0242 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0243 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0244 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0245 Subsurface integrity Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0246 Less than 25% destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0247 Less than 25% destroyed Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0248 Less than 25% destroyed Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0249 Less than 25% destroyed Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0250 Surface features Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0251 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0252 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0253 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0254 Site condition unknown Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0255 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0256 Less than 25% destroyed Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0257 Destruction of surface and subsurface features: Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0258 Destruction of surface and subsurface features: Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0259 Intact stratified cultural level Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0260 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0261 Surface deposits, no subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0262 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0263 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0264 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0265 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0266 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0267 Surface and subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0268 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0269 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0270 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0271 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_A3 5/18/2007 SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 5 SUMMARY OF SITE STATUS

Site No. Site Integrity NRHP Status Zoning Area Comments 44SP0272 Site condition unknown Ineligible ZON_A3 44SP0273 Unknown portion destroyed Eligible ZON_A2 44SP0274 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0275 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0277 Surface deposits, no subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0278 Surface and subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0279 75-99% destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0280 Surface and subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0281 Surface deposits, no subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0282 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0283 Surface deposits, no subsurface integrity: Site totally destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0284 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested: Site totally destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0285 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0286 Site totally destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0287 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0288 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_PDH 44SP0289 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_PDH 44SP0290 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0291 Surface deposits, no subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0292 Surface and subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0293 Surface deposits, no subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0294 Surface deposits, no subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0295 Surface deposits, no subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0296 Surface deposits, no subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0297 Surface deposits, no subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0298 Surface deposits, no subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0299 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0304 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_RA 44SP0305 Surface and subsurface integrity: Intact cultural level Undetermined ZON_RA 44SP0306 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_RA 44SP0307 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested Undetermined ZON_RA 44SP0308 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_PDH 44SP0309 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_PDH 44SP0310 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_C2 44SP0311 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_PDH 44SP0312 Unknown portion destroyed Eligible ZON_PDH 44SP0313 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_PDH 44SP0314 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_PDH 44SP0315 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_PDH 44SP0316 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_PDH 44SP0317 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_PDH 44SP0318 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0319 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0320 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0321 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_PDH 44SP0322 Surface features Ineligible ZON_RU 44SP0323 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0324 Surface features Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0325 Unknown portion destroyed Ineligible ZON_PDH 44SP0326 Surface features Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0329 Surface and subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_PDC 44SP0330 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0331 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 5/18/2007 SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 6 SUMMARY OF SITE STATUS

Site No. Site Integrity NRHP Status Zoning Area Comments 44SP0332 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0333 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0334 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0335 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0336 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0337 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0338 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0339 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0340 Surface features Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0341 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0342 Surface deposits, no subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0343 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0344 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0345 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0346 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0347 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0348 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0349 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0350 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0352 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0353 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0354 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0355 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0356 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0357 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0358 Surface and subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0359 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0360 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0361 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_I1 44SP0362 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_I1 44SP0363 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_I1 44SP0364 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Ineligible ZON_I1 44SP0365 No surface deposits, subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0366 Surface and subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0390 Surface and subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_I2 44SP0391 Surface and subsurface integrity Ineligible ZON_I2 44SP0392 75-99% destroyed Undetermined ZON_PDH 44SP0393 75-99% destroyed Undetermined ZON_PDH 44SP0394 Surface features: Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0395 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0396 Less than 25% destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0397 Destruction of surface and subsurface features Undetermined ZON_PRR 44SP0398 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_PRR 44SP0399 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0400 Less than 25% destroyed: Surface features Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0401 Surface features: Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_PDH 44SP0402 Surface and subsurface integrity Ineligible ZON_I2 44SP0403 Surface and subsurface integrity Ineligible ZON_I2 44SP0404 Surface and subsurface integrity Ineligible ZON_I2 44SP0405 Surface and subsurface integrity Ineligible ZON_I2 44SP0415 Surface deposits, sub surface not tested: Surface features: Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0416 Surface features: Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0417 Surface features: Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_A2 5/18/2007 SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 7 SUMMARY OF SITE STATUS

Site No. Site Integrity NRHP Status Zoning Area Comments 44SP0418 Surface features: Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0419 Surface features: Surface deposits: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0420 Surface features: Unknown portion destroyed: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0421 Surface features Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0422 Surface features: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0423 Surface features: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0424 Surface features: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0425 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested: Surface features: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0426 Subsurface integrity: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0427 Surface features: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0428 Surface features: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0429 Surface features: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0430 Surface features: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0431 Surface features: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0432 Surface features: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0433 Surface features: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0434 Unknown portion destroyed: Surface features: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0435 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested: Surface features: Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0436 Surface deposits: Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0437 Surface features: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0438 Surface features: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0439 Surface features: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0440 Surface features: Unknown portion destroyed: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0441 Surface features: Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0442 Surface feature: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0443 Surface feature: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0444 Surface feature: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0445 Surface features: Unknown portion destroyed: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0446 Surface feature: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0447 Surface feature: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0448 Surface feature: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0449 Surface feature: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0450 Surface feature: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0452 Subsurface integrity Ineligible ZON_RA 44SP0453 Subsurface integrity Ineligible ZON_RA 44SP0454 Subsurface integrity Ineligible ZON_RA 44SP0455 Surface and subsurface integrity Ineligible ZON_RA 44SP0456 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested Undetermined ZON_RA 44SP0457 Surface features Undetermined ZON_RA 44SP0458 Subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_RA 44SP0459 Subsurface integrity Ineligible ZON_RA 44SP0460 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0461 Intact cultural level: Surface and subsurface integrity: surface features: Unknown portion destroyUedndetermined ZON_RU 44SP0468 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0469 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0470 Surface and subsurface integrity Undetermined ZON_I1 44SP0471 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0472 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0473 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0474 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0480 50-74% destroyed Undetermined ZON_C3 44SP0481 Surface features: Surface deposits PIF Deferred ZON_C3 3 separate components evaluated separately 44SP0482 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_R1 5/18/2007 SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 8 SUMMARY OF SITE STATUS

Site No. Site Integrity NRHP Status Zoning Area Comments 44SP0483 Surface features: Surface deposits: Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_C3 44SP0484 Surface features Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0485 50-74% destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0486 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_I1 44SP0487 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0488 Surface deposits Undetermined ZON_I1 44SP0495 Surface features Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0496 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0497 Surface features Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0498 Intact cultural level: Subsurface integrity: Surface features Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0499 Surface features: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0500 Surface features: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0501 Surface features: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0502 Surface features: Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0503 Intact stratified cultural level: Subsurface integrity: Surface features Undetermined ZON_A2 44SP0504 50-74% destroyed: Surface and subsurface integrity Ineligible ZON_O1 44SP0505 Destruction of surface and subsurface features Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0506 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0507 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0508 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0509 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0511 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0512 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0513 Destruction of surface and subsurface features Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0514 Destruction of surface and subsurface features Undetermined ZON_R1 44SP0538 Surface deposits, subsurface not tested Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0539 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0540 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0541 Site condition unknown Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0587 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0588 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0589 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0590 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0591 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0592 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0593 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0594 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_PRR 44SP0595 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0596 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0597 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0598 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0599 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_R2 44SP0600 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RA 44SP0601 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_A3 44SP0602 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RU 44SP0603 Unknown portion destroyed Undetermined ZON_RA