Archaeological Survey of the Chesapeake Bay Shorelines Associated with Accomack County and Northampton County, Virginia
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCOMACK COUNTY AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA VOLUME I By: Darrin Lowery Manuscript Prepared For: The Virginia Department of Historic Resources Portsmouth Regional Preservation Office 612 Court Street Portsmouth, VA 23704 March 2001 ii ABSTRACT This report summarizes the results of an archaeological survey conducted along the Chesapeake Bay shorelines of both Accomack County and Northampton County, Virginia. Accomack and Northampton counties represent the southernmost extension of the Delmarva Peninsula. The study area encompasses the confluence of the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. A shoreline survey was conducted along the Chesapeake Bay to gauge the erosion threat to the archaeological resources situated along the shoreline. Archaeological sites along shorelines are subjected to numerous natural processes. Aside from erosion, some of the natural processes influencing shoreline related cultural resources include coastal inundation, prehistoric aeolian processes, bioturbation, recent coastal dune formations, chemical processes within tidal marshes, redeposition, and surface “sheet-erosion” or deflation. These natural processes greatly influence the success of an archaeological survey and what data are collected, noted, and observed while conducting a survey. Summaries associated with these natural processes are presented in this report. The report also offers examples, using Delmarva Peninsula archaeological data, which illustrate how these natural processes influence and limit the interpretive value of single analysis or one-time archaeological survey surface data. As a “double-blind” test, the actual locations and cultural chronologies associated with previously recognized and recorded sites were not collected prior to the completion of the survey. By not knowing the previous site data, the present shoreline survey would help assess and gauge the accuracy of the previous single “one-time” archaeological survey data. The survey methodology would also gauge and assess the dynamics iii associated with archaeological sites in coastal settings and how coastal environments influence archaeological survey data. The previous archaeological site data associated with the shoreline study area are presented in the report. The previous site information is compared with the data from the eleven sites relocated during the present study. The results suggest coastal environments and the natural processes associated with these environments greatly influence the data gleaned from single “one-time” archaeological shoreline surveys. Suggestions to alleviate the interpretive limitation problems associated with archaeological resources in coastal settings are also presented. The present survey located and documented 108 archaeological sites, which span 13,000 years of the region’s prehistory and history. Of these, 97 archaeological sites had not been previously recorded. Recognizing the interpretive limitations associated with sites in coastal settings, a cultural synthesis of the site data cannot be constructed at this time. Limited site data are presented in respect to the presence of non-local lithic materials and marine subsistence information noted at some of the prehistoric archaeological sites. Limited comparisons are made between the prehistoric marine subsistence data from the upper, middle, and lower Chesapeake Bay sections of the Delmarva Peninsula. Suggestions are presented as a means to alleviate the limitations associated with future interpretive cultural synthesis summaries. The Virginia Eastern Shore shoreline survey has functioned mainly as a guide to cultural resource managers and future researchers. The project suggests that natural processes, not cultural processes, are a major influence in coastal environments. Unfortunately, the degree of site significance and erosional threat cannot be accurately evaluated at this time. With all of the sites documented and degree of erosion reflected iv along each shoreline, the researcher does not know if one is “at the beginning of the race or at the end”. Obviously, significance and threat are greatly dependent on such unknown data. As a final summary, suggestions are presented as a means to gauge and assess the significance and threat at each site. The report concludes that significance and threat must be evaluated on a site-by-site basis. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A project of this nature involves the cooperation of many individuals, institutions, and agencies. The Virginia Department of Historic Resources’ Threatened Sites Program funded the Virginia Eastern Shore survey. Mr. David Hazzard of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources was a major contributor to this project and helped with the success of the final report. The grant was processed through the Department of Anthropology at Temple University, Philadelphia. All of my fellow graduate students and the departmental staff at Temple University are acknowledged for their continued support. The support of the staff associated with Temple University’s Grant Accounting office and the Research and Program Development office is greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank Dr. R. Michael Stewart at Temple University for supervising the project and providing constructive criticisms. The help of Dr. Athony Ranere, the chairperson of the Anthropology Department, is also greatly appreciated. I would also like to acknowledge the help of Ms. Eunice Connor at the Department of Anthropology for her assistance during the project. Outside of the various institutions, numerous people helped and contributed to the project. I would like to thank Mr. Mike Owens, a fellow graduate student, for being involved with the project. Not only was he involved with the project, Mike provided the “all important” scale for many of the photographs taken during the survey. Mr. Norman K. Brady contributed many weekends of his time to the survey. Mr. Brady also provided a power boat that allow me to conduct shoreline surveys along some very inaccessible islands within the study area. Mr. Joseph McAvoy and Mrs. Lynn McAvoy also vi contributed time, effort, and space towards the success of the final report. I would also like to thank all of the residents of the Virginia Eastern Shore for their kind hospitality. It amazes me that there are still places on the Delmarva Peninsula that you can feel at home even though you are not a local resident. Also I would like to acknowledge and thank all of the previous archaeologists and researchers that have worked on the Virginia Eastern Shore. It was their effort that provided me with important comparative data. I would like to thank all of my family members being patient and providing assistance during this and all of my previous work. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my father for taking me to my first eroding archaeological shoreline site. Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that a lot of the ideas about shoreline sites my father and I took for granted, others had never contemplated. This project was an attempt to document some of these ideas so that others could benefit. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………...iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………vi LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………..x LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………xi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………...1 2. RESEARCH DESIGN…………………………………………………………….7 3. ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOMORPHIC BACKGROUND………………...16 Virginia Eastern Shore Study Area………………………………………16 Paleoenvironmental Data………………………………………….……..27 Factors Effecting Shoreline Erosion in the Macro Chesapeake Bay Region………………………………………….….…..39 4. CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND………………………………………………………….……..53 Paleoindian Period……………………………………………………….53 Early Archaic Period……………………………………………………..66 Middle Archaic Period…………………………………………………...69 Late Archaic Period……………………………………………………...72 Early Woodland Period…………………………………………………..75 Middle Woodland Period………………………………………………...83 Late Woodland Period…………………………………………………...87 Contact Period ……………………………………………………………91 viii Historic Period…………………………………………………………...93 Previous Archaeological Work Within the Coastal Areas of Accomack and Northampton Counties………………………….……...103 5. RESULTS……………………………………………………………..…..……108 Assessments of Shoreline Erosion on the Virginia Eastern Shore..……108 Results of the Eroded Shoreline Analysis of Accomack and Northampton Counties……………………………………………..…...132 Evidence of Prehistoric Trade and Exchange…………………….…….142 Marine Subsistence……………………………………………….…….145 Problems With Archaeological Assessments of Regional Survey Data……………………………………………………….…….154 Aeolian Deposition on the Delmarva Peninsula………….…….154 Differential Surface Sheet Erosion……………………….…….163 Coastal Inundation and the Formation of Tidal Marsh Environments……………………………………………..…….170 The Impact of Coastal Dunes on Shoreline Surveys……..…….183 Redeposition of Artifacts in Coastal Environments…….….…...186 Disadvantages of Single Shoreline Collection Site Assemblage Data………………………………………….……193 Site Dimensional Assessments in Coastal Environments….…...198 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………..201 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………….…...207 APPENDIX A: VIRGINIA EASTERN SHORE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INFORMATION………………………………………………………………………..232 APPENDIX B: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE DATA FORMS………………...Volume II ix LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Summary of Environmental Changes (after Custer and Mellin 1991)………..…28 2 Summary of