Phase I Archaeological Survey Rr002502

/p.

Tybouts Comer Landfill New Canlo County, Delivnr*

. Project No,'323.HH.28

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Pnpiradby ; . Cultural Heritaga (Uuveh Services, Me.-. ;" North Wales, Pennsylvania .. ;' .

RR002502 i

Phase I Archaeological Surrey

Tybouts Corner Landfill New C«stle County, D«liw«re

Project No. 323.HH.28

Ronald Berge Karen Metheny and Kenneth J. Basal ik Cultural Heritage Research iVnnw, Inc. North Wales, Pennsylvania

August 1991

AR002503 ABSTRACT /T-. This report documents a Phase I Archaeological Survey conducted adjacent to the (., i Tybouts Corner landfill, in New Castle County, Delaware. This survey was performed by '•<• Cultural Heritage Research Services, Inc. (CHRS) of North Wales, Pennsylvania for DPI Consultants of Wilmington, Delaware. Tybouts Corner is located at the intersection of Red Lion Road (Route 71) and DuPont Parkway (Route 13). The project area lies 1800 to 2700 feet southwest of the intersection, within the "V" formed by the converging roads. The project area is irregularly shaped, with one hundred feet bordering Route 71 and two hundred feet fronting Route 13. Prehistoric and historic archaeological site potential for the area is low. The project area is far removed from topographic, environmental, or geological features which would have been attractive to prehistoric populations. Potential prehistoric sites in the study area would, if present, be expected to consist of small, light density, lithic scatters. Historic maps of the study region show two structures in the vicinity of the project area during the nineteenth century. The location of these structures was carefully scaled. If the maps are precise, these structures would have been located outside the project boundaries. Historic archaeological deposits, if present, would be expected to consist primarily of small trash deposits which were removed from the house area. The potential resources which might be present were anticipated to be ephemeral and could not be correlated with any extant surface features. A systematic approach to subsurface testing was undertaken. A small section of the study area, Section B, could not be tested as trespass permission could not be obtained from the owner. A total of eighty-one shovel test pits were completed within Section A of the study area in i/"vT!' an effort to ensure that no intact historic or prehistoric archaeological deposits were present. ^ Phase I testing indicated that no significant structures or artifacts are present within the boundaries of the Section A of the study area. No further archaeological work is recommended in this area. Although no subsurface testing was performed in Section B of the study area, it seems unlikely that significant archaeological deposits would be found in this area. No structures or buildings are known to have stood in or adjacent to this portion of the study area. Excavations adjacent to this area have shown disturbed soil profiles. Given the extremely low potential for intact prehistoric or historic archaeological resources within Section B, no additional archaeological work is recommended in this area.

9R00250I| I _ CONTENTS IfJ Page ABSTRACT i TABLE OF CONTENTS ii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS iii INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND RESEARCH Introduction 3 Environment 3 Prehistory 5 History 11 FIELD DATA Introduction 29 Field Data 31 ANALYSIS Artifacts 33 Interpretations 34 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 35 REFERENCES CITED 36 APPENDICES Appendix A: Artifact Inventory 42 Appendix B: Qualifications of Researchers 43 Appendix C: Shovel Test Profiles 44 to

AR002505 ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures Page 1 Project Location 2 2 Project Area-1777 22 3 Project Area -1849 23 4 Project Area -1868 ' 24 5 Project Area-1881 25 6 Project Area -1893 26 7 Project Area -1980 30 8 Shovel Test Locations • Section A 31

Table • 1 A Comparison of the Paleoenvironmental 6 Cultural Sequences 2 Prehistoric Site Probability and Data Quality 10 3 Historic Context Elements 28

... flR002506 INTRODUCTION

^ This report documents a Phase I Archaeological Survey conducted adjacent to the Tybouts Corner landfill, in New Castle County, Delaware (Figure 1). This survey was performed by Cultural Heritage Research Services, Inc. (CHRS) of North Wales, Pennsylvania for DPL Consultants of Wilmington, Delaware, Located at the intersection of Red Lion Road (Route .-. 71) and DuPont Parkway (Route 13), the project area lies 1800 to 2700 feet southwest of the intersection, within the "V" formed by the converging roads. The project area was irregularly shaped, with one hundred feet bordering Route 71 and two hundred feet fronting Route 13. The Tybouts Corner Landfill is a CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act) listed site. Remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) for the site is being performed under the review of the United States Environmental Protection Agen- cy, Region III (EPA). The remedial strategy selected by the EPA includes preventing groundwater from coming into contact with the landfill materials; collecting waste liquids leaching from the landfill, and collecting, treating and preventing contaminated groundwater from leaving the site, These goals will be accomplished by installing a cap on the landfill, strategically locating interceptor wells and trenches, and by installing groundwater facilities, The lands located adjacent to the northeastern side of the Tybouts Comer Landfill site may be used for construction access and staging, and may have to be regraded, The purpose of the archaeological review is an evaluation of potential archaeological resources, which might be affected by the possible use of this land during remedial construction. The Archaeological research for this project was undertaken between January 23 and February 14 1991. Kenneth J, Basalik served as the project's Principal Investigator. Ronald Berge acted as project archaeologist, and Karen Metheny functioned as historian. Graphic materials were prepared by Randolph Kuppless of the staff of CHRS. | .'") The purpose of the archaeological study was to locate archaeological resources which may be affected by the proposed action, and to develop a plan of assessing the significance of these resources. This work was performed pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preserva- tion Act of 1966, as amended. Significance was based upon the criteria of the National Regis- ter of Historic Places as published in Title 36, Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Significant sites were those which were listed, or were eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places, Criteria for the National Register of Historic Places are included in Title 36, Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Department of the Interior established the following criteria for evaluating and determining the eligibility of properties to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places: ,- The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workman- ship, feeling and association, and: \ A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B, that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose compo- ( ' j nents may lack individual distinction; or

flR002507 •ni ,.i .. wiiMworow i.i MI, . ... I •--U - , . , ... 'jj._____«r«rc «i»o ; MI. /

PROJECT 0 3,000'

P,eemttoCHRS.Inc. SOURCE- U.S.G.3. SAINT GEORGES,DEL. 1965 ___ . PROJECT LOCATION o TYBOUTS CORNER LANDFILL SURVEY FIGUIg!»! 2. D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. ^ BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Introduction "*• The background literature search included consultation with the Bureau of Archaeology and Historic Preservation; the Delaware Department of Transportation, Division of Highways; the Delaware State Archives; the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service; the Delaware Historical Society; the Morris Library, University of Delaware; and individuals knowledgeable in the history and prehistory of the region, Much data had already been compiled by recent studies of the surrounding and project area (Custer 1986; Custer and Bachman 1984; Rappleye 1983a). These studies, which were heavily drawn upon in the compilation of this report, provided up-to-date, detailed and distilled cultural histories directly applicable to the study comdor. Environmental data assisted in the development of a survey testing strategy by which cultural resources were located. Factors such as underlying lilhology, topographical configuration, soil types, and/or hydrologic factors, were responsible for the creation and maintenance of established vegetational communities in accordance with prevailing climactical conditions, The floral composition in turn effected the fauna! distributions over a given landscape. Proxim- ity of previously resource rich locales where food, lithic, or other resources would have been abundant in conjunction with well drained, level or gently sloping soils served as a factor in determining high potential areas for prehistoric occupation. Social and cultural traits of aboriginal groups also served as factors to prehistoric site location. High site probability areas for historic sites generally fell into two categories. Early historic sites were expected to occur in a i, .w, similar relation to factors described for prehistoric sites. Later historic site areas were antici- ( ) pated to occur in the vicinity of extant or formerly extant historic buildings or areas of activity '" which can be identified through documentary research. Environment The Modem Climate. The present climate of the project corridor is of the humid, conti- nental type, modified by the proximity of the Atlantic Ocean and of the Delaware and Chesa- peake bays (Mathews and Lavoie 1970). The average annual temperature is 54 degrees Fahr- enheit, and the average annual rainfall is 45 inches. Floral assemblages in the corridor include deciduous species adapted to very poor drainage, such as tulip, poplar and gum, as well as oak and hickory, which are accustomed to drier conditions. Some stands of pine inhabit logged areas, while mixed coniferous and deciduous stands border some of the watercourses, The project corridor is located just north of the Red Lion river drainage, which lies in the Upper Coastal Plain province between the fall line of the Piedmont and the Lower Coastal Plain. The land is nearly level to gently sloping (Mathews and Lavoie 1970)\ Fluvial sedi- ments belonging to the Potomac formation, a Pleistocene deposit, lie over crystalline basement rock formed 65 million years ago. Lithic resources, available to prehistoric and historic populations, consisted of primary outcrops and secondary, cobble sources, Aboriginal populations used locally available, secondary sources of jasper, chert, quartz, quartzite, and chalcedony. These resources were laid down as bed deposits by the Susquehanna River as it migrated between its present location and the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland. High-quality, primary lithic resources were available at the headwaters of the Christina River drainage. Newark Jasper and Cecil Black Flint were i found in the Newark Gabbro formation in the western portion of northern Delaware and south-

flR002509 eastern Pennsylvania, especially in the vicinity of Iron Hill. Broad Run chalcedony was located in the chert outcrops of eastern Maryland, northern Delaware, and southeastern Pennsylva- nia, pan of the Wissahickon Schist formation. The soils of the area, reflective of the underlying lithology, consist of slightly plastic. .-!iiy ( ,; and clayey soils derived from Pleistocene fluvial deposits (Mathews and Lavoie 1970) Soils ''••- in and/or adjacent to the study area belong to the Matapeake series, They have been c!,aiacter- ized as level to gently sloping, well drained, medium textured soils on uplands (Mathews and . Lavoie 1970). Paleoenvironmenial Reconstruction. Paleoenvironmental information for this region was derived largely from pollen cores. Although the number available for the Middle Atlantic region was quite small, it was possible to develop a general picture of environmental change through time. The following discussion was based largely on data supplied by Carbone 1976; Custer 1981, 1984,1986; Anderson et al. 1981; Rappleye 1983b; and, Cunningham et al. 1980. The Late Glacial Climatic Episode: 15,000 lo 8.080 BC. During the Late Glacial period, the Middle Atlantic region was significantly influenced by the retreating Laurentide ice sheet. Although at the beginning of the period, tundra may have grown at the northern edge of the area, fauna! evidence suggests that a mosaic of yegetational communities was more typical. A variety of small mammals, currently found in different environments, were found together in Late Glacial deposits. Also, pine, birch, spruce and some grasses were found in the pollen sequence. The Pre-Boreal/Boreal Climatic Episode: 8.080 lo 6.540 BC. The shift from the Pleisto- cene to the Holocene during this period was characterized by the spread of boreal woodlands over previously open settings. The habitats of many animals were reduced, contributing to the extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna and resulting in a lower carrying capacity. Perennial and seasonal water sources, particularly poorly drained areas, served as foci for the distribution of fauna! resources. Sea level was rising. The Atlantic Climatic Episode; 6.540 to 3,110 BC. During this episode, the full Holo- cene epoch began in the Middle Atlantic region. Mesic forests were widely established; oak and hemlock were present in the pollen sequence. I'aunal assemblages were essentially modern in character, though not in distribution. Deer and turkey dominated, providing a rich and dependable resource base. Until the end of the period, moisture and temperature generally increased and sea level continued to rise. The Sub-Boreal Climatic Episode; 3.110 lo 810_HC. Early in this episode conditions were warm and dry; although, a gradual increase in moisture and an associated decrease in temperature followed. These changes affected both the distribution of floral and faunal communities and the effects of geomorphological processes on the landscape. Evidence indicates an increase in the distribution of hickory, probably leading to the growth of the wild turkey population. The extent of grasslands also increased, lowering the deer population. While carrying capacity does not appear to have decreased significantly, the Sub-Boreal was characterized by shifting resource distributions, Rising sea level caused the maximum inland penetration of anadromous fish species. Pine, oak and hickory were found in the pollen sequence. The Sub-Atlantic Climatic Episode; 810 BC to the Present. This episode was characterized by a wetter, cooler climate than that of the preceding Sub-Boreal episode, producing essentially modern conditions. No major floral discontinuities were noted for this period; however, a series of climatic shifts, such as the cooling trend known as the "Little Ice Age," may have put stress on incipient agricultural communities, Oak, chestnut and hickory domi-

flRQ025|0 nated the Coastal Plain, while deer and turkey were still important fauna! resources. Sea level continued to rise, though more gradually, contributing to accumulations of estuarine resources, ^ Postglacial climatic amelioration reduced grasslands and led to the extinction of late Pleis- . tocene megafauna. Although prehistoric populations could no longer rely on these for subsistence, the expansion of deciduous forests provided favorable habitats for new resources, including various smaller, mammal and avion forms and diverse flora, Additional resource variety ..'. was provided by the rising sea level, which enlarged swamps such as Churchman's Marsh, This richness and diversity of resources prevailed until historical land-clearing took place, Prehistory The general prehistoric chronology for the area was taken from Custer's (1984) division of prehistory into periods or traditions. See Table 1 for a comparison of the paleoenvironmental sequence with the prehistoric cultural sequence. The Paleo-Indian Tradition: 12,000 to 6.500 BC. The actual time of humankind's arrival in the Americas is still debated. The most widely accepted dates indicate that people arrived by the end of the last glacial episode, the Pleistocene, about 14,000 years ago or 12,000 BC. These early peoples were believed to have organized their society into small, nomadic bands that hunted large mammals and gathered wild foods. Their presence was recognized chiefly by their distinctive stone tools, typified by large, lanceolate, fluted points, blades, and scrapers. These diagnostic tools have been found in association with woolly mammoth, mastodon, and other extinct megafauna. It has been postulated that in the Middle Atlantic region, the settlement pattern revolved around a specific, high-quality lithic source that was periodically revisited for replenishing tool kits. This cyclical model included a quarry-related base camp and a number of less intensively ,»:; occupied hunting and gathering sites (Gardner 1974,1979). The latest model developed for the • ) Delmarva Peninsula by Custer (1984) hypothesized either a cyclical or serial settlement pattern '""' during the Paleo-Indian period. The cyclical model was similar to Gardner's model; however, in the serial model the quarry-related base camp was eliminated, and the tool kit was replen- ished as lithic sources were encountered in conjunction with other activities. In this model, new tools were added and old ones discarded at different or serial quarry sites (Custer 1984:54-55). A number of Paleo-Indian sites have been found in the northern Delmarva Peninsula. One, in northeastern Cecil County, Maryland, was associated with the Delaware Chalcedony complex, a high-quality lithic source (Custer 1984:55-56), Paleo-Indian tools have been recovered adjacent to poorly drained areas presumed to represent hunting or procurement sites, The Hughes Early Man complex, in central Kent County, was located on low, well-drained knolls adjacent to a large, freshwater swamp and several poorly drained areas/environmentally similar to that found near Churchman's Marsh (Custer 1984:58). Two other reported locales of Paleo-Indian sites on the Delmarva Peninsula were the mouths of the Chljptank and Nanti- coke rivers, which, during the late Pleistocene, were headlands overlooking the ancestral Susquehanna River. Large cobble deposits suggested that these Paleo-Indian sites were quar- ries (Custer 1984:56-57). During the late glacial period, high-quality, secondary lithic sources and a game-attractive environment were present in the north of the project area. Hunting and gathering or processing sites might be expected in the project region (Custer 1981,1986; Custer and Bachman 1984), TABLE 1 A Comparison of the Paleoenvironmental and Cultural Sequences

Years BC Paleoenvironmental Sequence Cultural Sequence 15,000 Late Glacial Paleo-Indian 14,000 13,000 12,000 ' 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,080 Pre-Boreal 7,350 Boreal 6,000 6,540 Atlantic Archaic 5,000 4,000 3,110 Sub-Boreal Woodland I 2,000 1,000 810 Sub-Atlantic 0 BC/AD 1,000 AD Recent Woodland 11 1,500 AD Historic Era

(Custer 1984)

flR002SI2 Th,e A"?Mc Tradition: 6,500 to 3.000 BC. By 6,500 BC the postglacial climate had changed sufficiently to allow the establishment of present-day flora and fauna. Diagnostic artifacts associated with these new environments, and adaptation to them, include bifurcated-base projectile points and a variety of stemmed points (Custer 1984:61-62). Increased utilization of forest resources changed the artifact assemblage of this period; as reflected by the addition of various ground-stone tools including axes, gouges, grinding stones, and other implements for processing plant foods. Since few Archaic sites were known for Delaware and no intact sites have been excavated (Custer 1984:65), evidence from the Middle Atlantic region, in general, must be applied, Settlement and subsistence strategies seem to have been shifting from nomadism to more scheduled exploitation of seasonally available resources (Humphrey and Chambers 1977; Brown and Basalik 1984). The increased number of plant-processing tools indicated a greater dependence on gathered foods. Exclusive use of high-grade lithic resources gave way to utilization of a wider variety of lithics, often derived from secondary, cobble sources and probably procured in serial fashion (Custer 1984:65). This willingness to use lower quality lithic material suggested a lessening importance of hunting in the Archaic economy. Another indicator of changing subsistence and settlement patterns during the Archaic was the exploitation of a wider variety of environmental settings (Custer 1984:66). Based on this increased variety of site locations, tools and lithics, indicating a diversified adaptation to an increased variety of resources based on seasonal rotation of activities, Custer (1984) has theorized that three types of sites might be expected to occur. The first was a macroband base camp located in an area of overlapping resources. This type of site could be recognized by a wide variety of tool types, and much artifactual debris typical of intensive occupation. The second was a microband base camp, also located in an area of overlapping resources. However, this site type had a lower carrying capacity and displayed less debris. The third was a procurement site where limited or specific activities occurred. This type was exemplified by less tool variety and still less artifactual debris (Custer 1984:67). On the coastal plain of Delaware, areas of overlapping environments were found near interior, fresh water marshes. Archaic sites have been located on the terraces adjacent to Churchman's Marsh, northeast of the study area, and along the Red Lion and White Clay creeks. Small procurement sites were possible but unlikely within the study area. The Woodland 1 Tradition: 3.000 to 1.000 BC. Cusier (1984) documented the beginning of this period chiefly by the reduced variety of site locations, the result of a drier climate. This environmental shift not only affected resource distribution, but also increased the importance of surface water in settlement location (Custer 1984:94-95), Base camps were established at the mouths of streams and rivers or in areas of marshy bays, and processing camps were in the uplands. The shift continued from primary 10 secondary lithic sources, or from quarried stones to stream cobbles. Quartzite became the most commonly used stqne (Potter 1980:17), Woodland I material culture included ground-stone axes, hammerstones, atlatl weights, various cutting tools, drill points, and other stone and bone implements. \ There was a gradual but dramatic shift from seminomadic hunting and gathering of the previous periods toward increasing sedentism during the Woodland I period. Other cultural changes included population increase; the introduction of steatite vessels followed by pottery- making; the establishment of agriculture; the beginnings of elaborate mortuary practices re- flecting the onset of social stratification; and the initiation of long-range trade (Humphrey and Chambers 1977:17; Tirpak 1980; Custer 1984).

AROQ25I3 Archaeological surveys immediately south of the study area found that prehistoric site locations conformed to interpretations of interior procurement sites for the Woodland I period (Hodny, Bachman, and Ouster 1989:84). Woodland I settlement focused on major waterways. From the base camps on the major drainages, forays were made to resource settings for the x~^ procurement of specific resources (producing discrete archaeological sites). Generalized, less ' •!! well focused forays were undertaken for various purposes, and produced less discrete archaeo- - logical sites, If such sites from this time period occurred within the study area, deposits would consist of defuse lithic scatters. The Woodland II Tradition; 1,000 BC to AD 1600. Several changes in effect by AD 1,000 were recognized as indicators of a new era. These indicators included the breakdown of the widespread exchange network, alteration of the settlement pattern, development of sedentism and varying degrees of agricultural activity (Custer 1984:146). Although plant domestica- tion occurred prior to 1,000 AD, its economic effect was minimal at that time. Gathered food continued to be the major source of sustenance throughout Woodland II. Intensified food procurement by both methods produced surpluses, which increased the use of storage facilities and allowed permanent villages and increased population. Estuarine locations were abandoned in favor of floodplains (Custer 1984:148), Settlements, located at stream confluences and near stream terraces, were typically large. Ossuary burial was practiced in the area by AD 1,000 (Potter 1980). Tbwnsend and Minguannan were diagnostic pottery types of this period. Other items of material culture included triangular points, bone and antler implements, stone celts, clay pipes, and shell beads (Brown and Basalik 1984). There was no evidence of an increase in population from Woodland I in Delaware. Exploi- tation of sites with Woodland I components continued during Woodland II, as did the system of macroband, microband, and procurement sites (Custer 1984:156). The Contact Period. The Contact period covered the initial contact of native American cultures with newly arriving Europeans. The Amerinds living in Delaware at the time of contact were Algonquin-spealdng peoples. Those in the northern part of Delaware referred to themselves as the Lenni Lenape (or Lenapi), meaning 'original' or 'real men,' According to Lenape oral history, they first arrived in the east during Late Prehistoric times from the west or northwest, beyond the Mississippi River. They divided and settled in eastern Pennsylvania, northern Delaware, and New Jersey (Weslager 1968:154-155), It wasn't until after 1610 and the naming of the bay and river in honor of Lord De La Warr, English governor of Virginia, that the Lenape became known as the "Delaware" Indians (Weslager 1968:154; Williams 1985:18). Lenni Lenape territory encompassed both sides of the Delaware River north of Bombay Hook, and extended northward to its headwaters. Because they lived in small, self-governing villages with no apparent central authority, the Lenni Lenape were often exploited by the more powerful Susquehannock Indians to the north. The Susquehannock were referred to as the 'Minguas' by the Lenape (Williams 1985:12-13), This distinction between the Lenape of the coast and the Minguas of the interior was recognized by early Swedish and Dutch settlers, who often made trading expeditions into "the Minguas Country" located some fifty to one hundred and fifty miles inland (Hoffecker 1973:7). Aboriginal settlement of northern Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania was documented during early European colonization of these areas. Large village sites were visited and described by Dutch, Swedish, and English explorers and settlers. Journals by European visitors to the Delaware region at the beginning of the seventeenth century recorded that the Lenape population was concentrated on the western shore of the Delaware River near Philadelphia. South of Philadelphia were the villages of Minquannan, on White Clay Creek near the Old London Tract Church, and Queominising, on the great bend of the Brandywine River, partly in Pennsylvania and partly in Delaware (Weslager 1968:156-157). Another small unnamed vil-

A'R0025|l» lage stood on the site of present-day Wilmington when the Swedes landed there in 1638 (Hoffecker 1973:4). Because these aboriginal settlements were often destroyed by urban development, archaeological evidence of them is scarce (Thomas 1981: HI-4), In 1638, Lenape chiefs "sold" all the land on the west side of the Delaware River, from Duck Creek on the south to the Schuylkill River on the north and continuing inland to the New Sweden Company, represented by Peter Minuit (Hoffecker 1973:4-5; Williams 1985:23-26). The Delaware Bay region was abundant with bear, elk, wolves, deer, beaver, and fish. European colonization of the area, begun because of interest in these resources, soon depleted them. The Minguas saw the Lenape as rivals in lucrative European trade and increased their victimization of them (Williams 1985:13-18), This combination of resource depletion, Indian appetite and rivalry for European trade goods, rampant disease, and bewilderment concerning the European view of land ownership caused the Amerind pultural suicide. In general, the Amerinds of the East Coast took the initial brunt of European arrival. During this period disease killed many, others had their lands taken, and several groups moved westward. Amerinds, therefore, vanished from the area early in the Contact period (Weslager 1968). After 1729, the last of the Delaware left their homelands on the headwaters of the Brandywine to join other Delaware Indian groups on the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania. During the French and Indian War the Delaware Indians joined other groups moving to Ohio. As the colonies expanded, the Delaware were forced onto Indian Territory; by 1868, most settled in Oklahoma and some in Canada. Today Delaware Indian descendants may be found in Oklahoma and Ontario, Canada, as well as a few of mixed blood in Delaware. Most of their old customs and traditions have been lost, and only a few can speak the original language (Weslager 1947:29-30). State Plan. The Management Plan for Delaware's Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Custer 1986) outlines the nature and variety of the prehistoric archaeological resources which might be present within the study region. The documents divides the state into management units which are based upon physiographic, paleoenvironmental, and archaeological data. This management approach permits the diverse prehistoric resources of Delaware to be more fully described, detailed, and evaluated. The Management Plan document also outlines the potential for the occurence of these sites and the potential for the sites to provide significant information relating to our understanding of Delaware's prehistory. Table 2 summarizes the data from this document. The Management Plan for Delaware's Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Custer 1986) also indicates the Data Quality from the region surrounding the study area. Data quality is based "either on the poor quality of the existing data, the poor (low) quantity of existing data or a combination of both" (Custer 1986:188), Site potential and probability in the North Bay sub- unit of the Coastal Management area is low, with the exception of some Woodland I and Woodland II site types. Areas where data quality is low and the potential, for significant information is high, such as the region surrounding the study area, would be high priority areas for intensive investigations. Unfortunately, detailed examination of\the study area characteristics using present models of settlement and subsistence, as described in the state plan and elsewhere, (see prehistoric background research above), suggests site probability to be low for all periods of prehistory and all prehistoric site types within the confines of the Tybouts Land- fill Project Area.

&ROQ25I5 Table 2 Tybouls Corner Landfill Project New Castle County, Delaware Prehistoric Site Probabilty and Data Quality (after Custer 1986) Site Type Site Data Quality Likely to yield Probability Probability significant data in Study area Paleo-Indian , quarry Low poor no Low quarry reduction Low poor no Low quarry related base camp Low poor no Low base camp Low poor no Low base camp maintenance station Low poor no Low hunting site Medium poor no Low Archaic macro-band base camp Low poor no Low micro-band base camp Low poor no Low procurement site Medium poor no Low Woodland I macro-band base camp Low poor yes Low micro-band base camp Medium-High poor yes Low procurement site High poor yes Low mortuary site Low poor yes Low Woodland II macro-band base camp Medium poor yes Low micro-band base camp Medium poor yes Low procurement site High poor no Low Contact general Contact Sites Low poor yes Low

10 flROQ25!6 history 1600 to 1700. On August 17, 1610, Samuel Argall, employee of the Virginia Company of ^-, London, was blown off course and took refuge in the bay behind Cape Henlopen. Argall named the region for Lord De La Warr, governor of Virginia, and it later became known as Delaware (Williams 1985:18). In 1612 the Dutch West India Company was granted a charter by the Dutch government giving them a monopoly on all commerce and colonization in the .,'. New World (Williams 1985:18-21). Dutch interest in the area was sparked by whaling and fur trade, especially that of beaver. Their first settlement in Delaware, established by the Dutch West India Company in 1621 near the present town of Lewes, was destroyed by an Indian massacre only a year later, Consequently, by 1635, the only Dutch settlement in the area was the intermittently occupied Fort Nassau on the east bank of the Delaware River near present- day Philadelphia (Williams 1985:18-21; Coleman et al. 1984:17). Paradoxically, it was Dutch businessmen, jealous of the monopoly granted the Dutch West India Company, that brought Sweden into the territory. In 1637 the New Sweden Company, comprised of Dutch and Swedish investors, was chartered and claimed rights to trade from Newfoundland to Florida (Williams 1985:23-26). In the same year two Swedish ships set out to colonize land formerly claimed by the Dutch. Under the command of Peter Minuit, they arrived at the mouth of the 'Minquas Kill' (the confluence of the Brandy wine and Christiana rivers) in March of 1638 and sailed west up the river to the present site of Wilmington. Cast- ing anchor before a "wharf of stones" and noting that Indians had "pitched their wigwams there," they went ashore. Minuit and some of his men also sailed several miles up the Minquas Kill in a sloop, even exploring some of the woods on foot, but saw no evidence of "Christian people." When several Indian chiefs arrived soon thereafter, Minuit arranged to purchase from them the "Minquas River and as many day's journey of land lying about it as would be re- quested." This translated into all the land on the west side of the Delaware River from Duck Creek (some 40 miles to the south) to the Schuylkill River (about 27 miles to the north) and __;, extending inland indefinitely (Johnson 1973:4; Williams 1985:23-26). The Swedes built a fort, which they named for the twelve-year old Swedish Queen, Chris- tina, about 2 miles from the mouth of the Minquas Kill on the north bank of the river, the site of present-day Wilmington. Apparently the New Sweden Company had learned from the experience of others that skilled workmen were essential to survival in the wilderness. In 1641 a ship arrived with a carefully selected number of colonists, including carpenters. Farm animals and other provisions were sent as well. It is perhaps due to this careful planning that the tiny settlement survived the initial phase of colonization in the New World (Johnson 1973:9). It also set the stage for the Delaware Valley's self-sufficiency, and fostered a feeling of independence amongst the colonists. Swedish trading for valuable furs (especially beaver) continued. Visiting in 1654, Peter Lindstrom portrayed the valley of the Christina River as "suitable for all-kinds of agriculture and the cultivation of all kinds of rare fruit-bearing trees." The rivepitself was deep, "rich in fish" and could "be navigated with sloops and other large vessels/a considerable distance." Lindstrom also wrote, "the pen is too weak to describe and extol it.(,. on account of its fertility it may well be called a land flowing with milk and honey" (Williams 1985:23-26). By the middle 1640s most of the beaver had been exterminated; the Dutch investors became dissatis- fied and sold their interests in the New Sweden Company. This left the company a wholly Swedish venture, but it was poorly managed until the arrival of Lieutenant Colonel Johan Printz in 1643. Sending a military man as governor of the colony alerted the Dutch to the possibility of a military solution to the rivalry between the Dutch and the Swedes (Williams 1985:23-26).

r ^&r 11 flR0025!7 For a few years after Printz's arrival, the colony appeared to thrive; new lands were acquired on both sides of the Delaware from Cape May to Trenton. Furs, acquired from the Minquas to the west, and tobacco, from the English settlements along the eastern shore of Maryland, continued to be traded to Sweden in return for European goods (Williams 1985:25- 26). Upon the end of the alliance between the Dutch and Swedes during the Thirty Years War in Europe, Peter Stuyvesant, in New Amsterdam, began to eye the Delaware Valley acquisi- tionally. In 1651 he had the intermittently occupied Fort Nassau moved to the present site of the town of New Castle, Delaware. Now called Fort Casimir, its location on the Delaware River enabled it to block New Sweden's access to the sea. Stuyvesant, easily capturing both Fort Casimir and Fort Christina in 1655, made Fort Casimir the capital of the Dutch colony and began laying out streets for a new town. The town was named New Amstel and in a few years had homes for one hundred and ten families (Williams 1985:26-28). Although Dutch control of the area lasted for only a few years, it is to the Dutch that modern Delaware owes its configuration of three counties. Originally set up as Dutch court judiciary units, they became counties under the administration of William Penn '(Johnson 1973:10). Events in Europe were to affect the colonies in America. The treaty between the Dutch and the English came to an end, making these two nations economic rivals. In 1664 James, Duke of York, received from his brother, King Charles II, a grant for all the lands between the Connecticut and Delaware rivers. As the Dutch were already occupying this land, the Duke of York sent a fleet of ships and captured his grant. Until the Revolutionary War (except for a brief Dutch reassertion between 1673 and 1675), the British ruled the Delaware Valley. New Amstel was renamed New Castle and became the center for trade, commerce, and government. Beginning in the last two decades of the 1600s, New Castle was eclipsed by the rise of Phila- delphia (Reed 1973:14). During this early period, {he Dutch and Swedish settlement pattern of population clusters in and around the newly established towns, which often had fortifications, continued. The land along the waterways had agricultural potential (Hoffecker 1977), and, as water continued to be the chief mode of transportation, settlement on waterways was preferable to inland (Custer and Bachman 1984:16-18), By the middle 1600s Swedish and Dutch settle- /"" ments had moved well up the valley of the Christina River (formerly the Minquas Kill) toward I , the Elk River which drained west into Chesapeake Bay (Scharf 1888:850). The hamlet of Christiana had been established by about 1660 at the navigable limit of the Christina River (Coleman et al. 1984:18-19). By 1686 a bridge had been built there; later, the road from New Castle to the Elk River and the Kings Road running south from Wilmington intersected at Christiana (Ward 1968:133). Christiana was strategically located at the intersection of these overland transportation routes This factor combined with Christiana's position at the head of the navigable extent of the Christiana River was responsible for its existence, and for its prominence in the trade network during the colonial period and on into the 1800s. Since water remained the major mode of travel during the late 1600s, most farmsteads and land grants had frontage on a stream or watercourse, ensuring access to local markets (Hof- fecker 1977). The area's major overland transportation route, a road from New Castle to Christiana Bridge, present-day Route 273, was described as being in horrible condition (Catts and Coleman 1986:5). It is estimated that over one-half of the area's farms were within eight miles, half a day's journey, of a mill or shipping wharf (Walzer 1972:163). Hamlets, such as Christiana Bridge (Christiana) became centers for marketing and shipping grain and other agricultural products from the surrounding country (Coleman et al. 1984:20). Mills appeared on Red Clay Creek by 1679 (Pursell 1958). Due both to its ease of cultivation and its marketability, wheat quickly replaced the rye and barley grown by the earlier Swedish settlers. Consequently, the economy or the area very early changed from a subsistence system to a market-oriented one. This regional specialization was already apparent at the end of the 1600s. Northern New Castle County became pan of the regional hinterland centered on a growing Philadelphia. Farmers sent their grains to local

12 SR0025I8 milling centers, from which flour was shipped to Philadelphia for export (Lindstrom 1978; Walzerl972). Another market product of the 1600s was lumber. Colonists were its primary consumers due to the rapidly diminishing timber resources of Great Britain. A saw mill in New Castle County stood on Bread and Cheese Island in 1679, The lumber mills in New Castle County probably provided much needed building materials for a growing population, while lumber from the lower two counties of Kent and Sussex was more important as an export product (Catts and Coleman 1986:7). As lumber used for building materials became scarce, brick manufacturing developed (Catts and Coleman 1986:7). Tanneries were established in the region when it was still New Sweden. These tanneries were usually located on the peripheries of urban areas "in localities best suited to the combination of the [raw] material" (Welsh 1973:130). William Penn was delighted to find that his grant contained "plenty of bark" necessary in the tanning'process. In addition, before the end of the 1600s, Kent and Sussex counties were considered "chiefest and most commodious places... for the Breeding and Improving of all Sorts of Cattle" (Welsh 1958:130). Delaware, thus, had all the raw materials essential for tanning (Welsh 1973:130). In summation, it may be said that, by the end of the 1600s, the colonial Delaware-Valley was virtually self-sufficient. Settlement was well established, though primarily rural. The colonists raised their own vegetables, grains, fruits, and livestock; they grew flax, sheared sheep, treated animal hides, and were, thus, able to supply their own clothing (Williams 1985:40-41), Mills had been established to process locally grown products, and building materials were available. When William Penn arrived, this independence was reinforced politically. Penn established a General Assembly to govern his grant and regarded Pennsylvania as his own personal property, independent of Great Britain's authority (Hanna 1917:242). 1700 to 1800. William Penn was the Proprietary Governor of Pennsylvania and the three lower counties along the Delaware. The General Assembly that Penn instituted gave equal representation to all counties, regardless of population. Thus Delaware, with a much lower population than other counties, carried weight in the Assembly disproportionate to its size (Hanna 1917:247). Hostilities between Pennsylvania proper and the three lower counties reached such a peak that in 1701, the Delaware representatives walked out of the General Assembly. Penn then agreed to allow Delaware its own General Assembly, which met for the first time in the town of New Castle in 1704, From this time on, Delaware essentially operated as a separate colony (Williams 1985:32). In addition to political changes, other important developments were occurring. One important change was in the function and size of colonial urban centers. Lemon (1967) has divided the 1700s in the Philadelphia region into three periods of urban growth. The first period, from 1700 to 1729, was typified by a stagnation in urban growth after the initial rapid expansion of the late 1600s. Moreover, "urban" centers have been defined and stratified according to their size and/or function (see Henry 1981). The smallest unit was the 'hamlet,1 an unplanned settlement, usually growing around some activity center such as a transportation depot, mill, tavern, or even a crossroad. The next largest unit, the 'village,' was also largely unplanned but provided some sort of service to the community. A village might supplied, for example, commercial enterprises such as a store or blacksmith shop and, perhaps, some son of small manufacturing activities like the tanning of leather or, again, milling of various products.

13 AR0025I9 'Towns' were defined as planned communities with regularly laid out streets and blocks. Towns were usually founded with some sort of special purpose in mind. They may have been transshipping depots, providing the products of specialized craftsmen; or functioned as markets in which the products of the surrounding area were sold, A town, moreover, may often have supplied the political center from which policies were decided and the management of its domain was conducted. 'Cities' were the largest, most diversified communities and wielded the most power over a well-defined region. They may have started out unplanned, like the hamlet or village, but as they grow in size, planning became necessary. Cities usually had some attribute that account- ed for their superior urban status. In the case of Philadelphia, for instance, it was the greater port facilities tram which ocean-going ships could deliver and pick up large amounts of cargo. These imported and exported goods served a large hinterland focused on the city of Philadel- phia. In addition, cities were capable of handling commercial, manufacturing and political activities as well. In the case of the town of New Castle, stagnation had begun by about 1679, It had lost its status as a commercial center to New York, and its role in transatlantic and coastal trade to Philadelphia's superior port facilities (Cooper 1983:15-16, 24). Because it possessed no special mercantile or manufacturing importance, it could cater only to the needs of its immedi- ate vicinity, New Castle retained its status as the governmental seat for the colony of Delaware (Cooper 1983:16-17), but never progressed beyond the classification of a "town" as defined above by Henry (1981). During this period, Christiana (north of the study area) probably remained a very small hamlet, whose only real importance had to do with its location at the juncture of main water- and land-based trade routes. As road conditions improved in the early 1700s, small hamlets appeared at crossroads and around mills and taverns. At this time, Hares Corner, Ogletown, Red Lion, Aiken's Tavern, and Middletown all developed on crossroads of major overland transportation routes (Catts and Coleman 1986:8). The second period of urban growth defined by Lemon lasted from 1730 to 1765, and was the result of internal trade in the region. Some of the towns that were founded or grew during this time period include Wilmington, Newport, Stanton, and Newark (Catts and Coleman 1986:8-9). Wilmington, located at the confluence of the Christina and Brandywine rivers, was founded in 1731 and by 1736 had thirty or forty buildings (Cooper 1983:31-32), As a planned settlement, it may be ranked as a 'town' (Henry 1981:10). Wilmington, the primary port of entry in Delaware, and an important link in the Philadelphia-focused trade network, was des- tined to become the largest and most important urban center in New Castle County (Catts and Coleman 1986:10), The fast-flowing Brandywine River had become the iiie of the largest concentration of mills in New Castle County. By 1770, for example, iliac were eight large, commercial mills along a quarter-mile stretch of the lower Brandywine River (Williams 1985:40-41). The pattern established was for grains to be shipped down the Christina, processed in the mills on the Brandywine, and then shipped either to Philadelphia or lo Wilmington for transshipment (Wil- liams 1985:41-42), Newport, founded on the Christina River between Wilmington and Christiana in 1736, rivaled both settlements as a flour-milling and grain-shipping center (Catts and Coleman 1986:9), Newport was the closest shipping point for farmers and millers on Red Clay and White Clay creeks. Besides grain and flour, woven goods from woolen and cotton mills were shipped from Newport (Johnson 1963:30-31).

14 Lemon's third period of urban growth, 1766 to 1800, was marked by erratic economic patterns and less noticeable urban growth. One may again assume that the political upheaval of the last quarter of the 1700s was largely responsible for this pattern. An increase in population and land tenancy occurred at this time (Catts and Coleman 1986: 10). Present day Hares Comer was settled during this period. This tract of land, obtained by William Clark in 1745 and passed to his son in 1772, was then known as Clark's Comer (Cavallo et al. 1988). The property was obtained by George Read II in 1790, and leased to a Jesse Hastings and Peter Spencer during Read's lifetime. A frame dwelling, a frame bam, and other improvements were noted near the intersection during this period (Cavallo et al, 1988). Delaware remained overwhelmingly rural throughout the 1700s; it was estimated that nine out of ten families lived on farms. Although these farms varied in size, in New Castle County they averaged slightly more than 200 acres. Land values also varied according to soil fertility and the ease of access to markets. Farms in New Castle County were, consequently, more valuable than those in more southern Kent or Sussex counties (Williams 1985:40-41). Within this framework, the size of landholdings declined as large seventeenth century tracts were subdivided by sale and inheritance (Munroe 19S4a:19). Tobacco, the initial cash crop of the lower two counties of Delaware, quickly depleted the soil, and was quickly replaced by corn as the major cash crop in the area. In New Gastle County wheat had been the cash crop almost from the beginning, and its fine quality brought higher prices than wheat grown elsewhere (Williams 1985:40-41). The Anglicization of the region was a slow and gradual process. Existing land ownership, trading privileges, and political structure remained very much as they had under Dutch and Swedish control, The ethnic profile of the Delaware Valley, however, was gradually changing from one predominately Scandinavian. In the first census, taken in 1790, at least 50 percent of the population declared themselves to be of English descent. English tobacco farmers from JJn, Maryland's eastern shore had been streaming into Delaware as their lands were depleted. ' • ) There was a great influx of Scotch-Irish immigrants in the 1720s and 1730s. Germans and -''' Welsh also came but in smaller numbers (Williams 1985:35-40). The town of New Castle was still a major port of entry in the first quarter of the 1700s as trade between Delaware and Ireland flourished (the Irish wanted locally grown flax seed). On the return voyage from Ireland, many of the Scotch-Irish immigrants disembarked at the town of New Castle, gradually altering the ethnic profile of the area (Williams 1985:35-40; Cooper 1983:30). Although many of the new immigrants were poor and arrived as indentured serv- ants, they were still, on the whole, better educated than the colonists of Delaware. "Let us go and buy a school master" was said to be a remark heard among Delaware farmers whenever they saw an immigrant ship coming up the river (Williams 1985:35-40; Conrad 1908:189). Vocational education was provided within the family or by the apprenticeship system (Conrad 1908:189). T In the early 1700s, the lack of good roads in most parts of Delaware made church attend- ance unfeasible. During the 1730s and 1740s, however, a new,evangelical movement swept the colonies. By the middle 1700s, transportation networks had improved, The combination of these two developments was of significance, as church activities provided not only religious teachings, but social interaction as well, Religious gatherings became the main social event in overwhelmingly rural Delaware (Williams 1985:35-40). During the Revolutionary War, the British blockaded the Delaware Bay, forcing trade to follow inland routes. Trade and traffic consequently increased at the inland port of Christiana Bridge. Goods moving between Philadelphia and Baltimore came up the Christina River, arrived at Christiana Bridge and were transported overland by horse and wagon to the head of the Elk River. From there they continued by packet boat to points west and south.

is 0R00252I Delaware was the scene of a number of troop movements and encounters during the war. General Howe, in his attempt to capture Philadelphia, decided to approach by sea. Rather than sail up the heavily fortified Delaware River, Howe sailed up the Chesapeake with a fleet of 260 snips and 13,000 troops. He disembarked on the Elk Neck Peninsula and entered Dela- ware in two divisions. These divisions met at Akin's tavern (or Glasgow) and marched towards Christiana; on the road, they met a force of just under one thousand American troops. This skirmish, known as the Battle of Cooch's Bridge, was the only actual combat to occur in Delaware. The British won the skirmish, proceeding north to defeat Washington at the Battle of the Brandywine. Washington expecting the British to march through Christiana and then move toward Wilminglon, kept his troops between Wilmington and Philadelphia. Howe's army took Wil- mington without resistance but only occupied it for about a month. In seizing Wilmington the British also captured the state treasury, seals, and many records hidden on a ship in the Chris- tina River for safekeeping. The Christiana area was to be the site of more war activity in 1781. In that year, General Lafayette landed with his troops at Christiana Bridge en route from Trenton to Elkton (Conrad 1908:495). Evidence of Lafayette's stop at Christiana Bridge was found in the shipping mani- fests of the 'Speedwell' and 'Lydia'. This record of trade up and down the Christina River encompassed most of 1781 and 1782 and contained specific entries referring to supplies shipped to the "French Army" through the village of Christiana. Materials transported to the French Army include "French Hospital Stores," wine, flour, tents, molasses, 'Queens ware', tin cups, and cedar buckets (Delaware Shipping Firms 1781-2). 1800 to Present^. Regional development during the nineteenth century was much more complex than in previous decades. The early years of the century witnessed a noticeable decline in Philadelphia's influence in northern Delaware. There were several reasons for this, including the epidemics of yellow fever that occurred and reoccurred in Philadelphia between the years 1798 and 1804 (Ferns 1846:239). A general economic slump, caused by events in Europe just prior to the War of 1812, jeopardized all of the new Union's marine commerce (Ferns 1846:240; Munroe 19S4b:294). This decline in the consumption by foreign markets of Philadelphia's produce resulted in diversification of agricultural production and increased devotion of resources to manufacturing (Lindstrom 1978:122), The city of Baltimore, formerly unimportant in overseas trade, began emerging as a major transshipment port city around 1812. Now, instead of western Pennsylvania and eastern Maryland sending their produce by way of Elkton and Christiana to Wilmington or Philadel- phia, Baltimore received the benefit of this trade (Lindstrom 1978:122). Wilmington also benefited from the yellow fever epidemics suffered by Philadelphia (Welsh 1973:93). Already dominated by milling and shipping activities; merchant traders moved their operations from the plagued city to Wilmington during the yellow fever epidemics (Welsh 1973:93). In 1815 White Clay Creek, Red Clay Creek and the Christina River support- ed forty-six mills or manufactories (Niles Weekly Register 1815). Furthermore, the Brandy- wine Valley continued as a major center for mills and all this trade came to Wilmington. It also began to develop industries of its own, notably tanning, and became in its own right "one of the best examples of an early industrial town" (Welsh 1973:95). Two important variables, demography and transportation, contributed to spectacular changes in Delaware during the 1800s. It has been noted by several authors that Americans in general tended to be a highly mobile people (Thernstrom and Knights 1981; Prude 1983), This was true of the nineteenth-century inhabitants of New Castle Hundred. Although Delaware's ,,;, population, as a whole, stagnated during the early 1800s (Cooper 1983:60), between 1800 and

16 AR002522 1840 only 27 percent of rural households in New Castle Hundred stayed in the Hundred for ten years (Cooper 1983:62). The continued arrival of new immigrants forced rural Delawareans to use more marginally productive farm lands (Catts and Coleman 1986:13). During the 1820s and 1830s, there was actual outmigration of a large portion of the population to better lands to the west. Population began to increase after 1840 for the state as a whole, while the decline in the number of people engaged in agriculture continued (Catts and Coleman 1986:13). Clearly, urban centers provided more opportunities for employment. In 1801, one in fifteen Delawar- eans lived in Wilminglon, By the end of the century, six in fifteen lived in Wilmington (Wil- liams 1985:73), Although the number of mills had increased only slightly, the variety of nonagricultural milling had risen so sharply, that one author stated in 1849 that "the manufac- turers of Delaware are more extensive than its commerce" (Myers 1849:40). Outside the major urban areas, the region remained primarily agricultural, The average farm size was about 200 acres, though farms of 300 to 400 acres were not uncommon (Baus- man 1933:64). The production of grain, cereal, and livestock was a major activity in the first half of the nineteenth century (Shannon 1945:260). In the early years of the 1800s (1798- 1816), the number of owners occupying rural land decreased dramatically. A full 45 to 50 percent of the land was worked by tenants or hired hands (Cooper 1983:114). As the maritime shipping industry was suffering from an economic slump during this period, it is likely that agriculture also suffered due to the lack of transportation to market. Furthermore, as the result of soil exhaustion, agricultural production per acre had steadily declined (Hoffecker 1973:95). Farmers in New Castle County had formed agricultural societies by 1830 to spread knowl- edge of soil fertilizers, drainage techniques, and the use of new machinery to increase crop yields. Dairy farming and fruit and vegetable production dominated New Castle County by midcentury, due, in part, to increased competition from grain-producing western states. Truck or market gardening and orchard industries showed their largest percentage of increase between 1889 and 1899 (Shannon 1945:260). Grain production served local markets and provided cattle feed. By the end of the nineteenth century, New Castle County specialized in the production of corn, dairy products, and fruits and vegetables which were desired by nearby urban communities, This shift from cereal farming to market gardening continued into the twentieth century, accompanied by increasing industrialization and urbanization. The location and growth of towns in New Castle County was always closely tied to transportation routes and agricultural production. In the lute 1700s it could still be said that all roads in Delaware, as well as all rivers and combinations thereof, led to Philadelphia. A road west from Wilmington connected Newport, Christiana, and the head of the Elk River. Christi- ana was connected at the hamlet of Red Lion, and from there to the New Castle-Christiana Road. Another road connected Wilmington to Dover, to the south (Munroe 1954b:137), As agricultural products were slowly replaced by industrial products in economic importance, and as transportation networks began to evolve in different ways, towns such as Christi- ana Bridge maintained their prominence in the market system for only a brief part of the nineteenth century. Transportation shifted away from a water-focused system in the first decades of the 1800s. Construction of numerous turnpikes in the area began, creating the New Castle and Frenchtown Turnpike Company (1809), the Elk and Christiana Turnpike Company (1813) and the Wilmington and Christiana Turnpike Company (1815) among others (Catts and Cole- man 1986:15). The construction of the New Castle and Frenchtown Turnpike, connecting New Castle and Elkton, contributed to the declining fortune of Christiana Bridge. This turnpike was met at either end by boats, contributing to the obsolescence of the Christina River trade route (Weslager 1947:135).

SR002523. Plans for a canal across the Delmarva peninsula were mentioned as early as the 1600s (Brown 198Sa:2). There was further discussion of the idea in 1797, but most people were opposed to the canal plans "because they had a lucrative trade route from Christiana by a great number of horses to the head of the Elk River and then to Elktown" (Munroe 1979:136). Notwithstanding, as the route between Christiana and Elkton remained the most favored, the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company was formed and commenced actual work on this ' '-- route in 1804, The Canal Company soon found the route too expensive to complete, and (lie canal progressed no further for another 18 years (Brown 1985a:2). In 1822, new plans were formulated for a canal that would bypass both Christiana and Elkton, thus isolating Wilmington from the commerce it enjoyed. Not surprisingly, businessmen in Philadelphia who chose the site of the canal selected Reedy Point m Delaware, miles south of the mouth of the combined Christiana and Brandywine overs (Brown 1985a:4). By 1829 it was completed, 13 5/8 miles long and costing $2,250,000 (Weslager 1947:129). Plans for two new towns were begun. One, at the Reedy Point, where the cast end of the canal met the Delaware River, was named Delaware City. This name suggests that the founders expected the town to become a city due, once again, to its location on this major new trade route. The other town, founded at the point where the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal entered Maryland, was named Chesapeake City. This new canal contributed to the decline of the Christina River as a major trade route, and to the resultant decline of the towns along it, including Newport, Stanton, and Christiana Bridge. The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal created an all-water route from Philadelphia to Baltimore, eliminating Wilmington altogether. Wilmington declined slightly but, due to its access to two rivers and its two different economic bases, shipping and milling, did not suffer greatly (Proctor and Matuszeski 1978:246). Residents of the town of New Castle, in an attempt to compete with the new canal, commenced plans to build a railroad from New Castle to Frenchtown, Maryland, One rail had been laid by 1832, but the steam engine that they had ordered from England had not yet arrived. The railroad, nevertheless, transported passengers in railed cars drawn by oxen. Even after the new engine had arrived, this practice continued until the fear of running the steam engine subsided (Brown 1985b: 19-20),

18 AR002521* "In 1838 the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad was completed and quickly became the major transportation route across the Delmarva Peninsula" (Dare 1856). Throughout the remainder of the century, rail lines continued to be built in northern New Castle County, such as the Baltimore and Ohio, the Wilmington, the New Castle, and the Wilmington and Western Railroads. The towns of Newark, Stanton and Newport benefited from their proximity to these railroads, staving off the economic stagnation and decline experienced by Christiana, Ogletown, and Glasgow (Custerand Cunningham 1986:16). Red Lion and Tybouls Corner Red Lion Road.. Route 7 I/Red Lion Road has been a principal county roadway for much of its history. During the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries this interior road connected New Castle, the county seat and center of the colonial administration, to settlements south of Red Lion Creek. A second road from Christiana converged with Red Lion Road at the creek. A tavern, the focus of later settlement, was located at this'crossroads at an early period. The origins of the Red Lion Road date to the seventeenth century. The construction and maintenance of public highways was an early concern in the colony. In 1675, the governor and court assembled in New Castle and issued the following order to establish roads throughout the area: Whereas it is found that there is a great necessity for a good highway between this Towne [New Castle] and Oppoquenomin [Appoquinimink] Creeke, the inhabitants of Oppoqunomin Creeke, St. George's Creeke and precincts do wth the first convenience, between this and the last of February next, make and clear a good and passable highway, twelve foot broad, from the sd Oppoqunomin to the Red Lyon [creek] (Scharf 1888(1):413). This was the first mention of the Red Lion Road and was an indication of the importance of this route for access to the settlements south of Red Lion Creek. This first attempt at road construction obviously met with failure, for the governor's order was reissued in 1679. The court also established road districts and appointed overseers for highway maintenance at that time, The fifth district, comprised of "New Castle from Mr. Tom's upwards Swanwike, Crainehooke and all those south side of Christine Creek" were ordered to clear from the "Towne [New Castle], downwards, as farr as the Red Lyon" (Scharf 1888(1):413-414). The success of this venture is unclear. It is obvious from various pieces of legislation enacted during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that the early roads were poor in general, frequently impassable, and always in need of improvement, Although some form of Red Lion Road existed from the late seventeenth century, the frequency with which the road was cited in new road legislation suggests that maintenance and repair were constant problems. For example, a 1762 Act of Assembly provided for changes to the public highway system in New Castle County as regulated by the 1752 Act for laying out highways, maintenance, and erecting bridges and causeways. Under this act, a public highway was established from the Chester County (Pennsylvania) line to Christina Ferry via Wilmington and Newport, and "from thence to New Castle, and from thence to the inn called Red Lion" (Scharf 1888(1):415). The road was to be sixty feet in width with forty feet cleared. Red Lion Village. The closest settlement to the project area is the village of Red Lion, located 5000 feet to the southwest on Route 71 (Red Lion Road). The histories of Red Lion Road, the Red Lion Tavern, and the settlement of Red Lion were linked, Red Lion derived its name from the colonial tavern which was located at the intersection of the roads from Christi- ana and New Castle just north of Red Lion Creek. Little was known about the original inn which supposedly burned by the American Revolution. The earliest documentary reference to Red Lion Tavern appeared to be in a deed ca. 1739 for an adjacent property, "Poplar Neck",

19 flR002525 on Pigeon Run (Conrad 1908(2):503), Local tradition also suggested that this structure was located on Pigeon Run near the old Presbyterian meeting house (Conrad 1908(2):505; Scharf 1888(2);8S3; Ward 1968:153-158). The tavern was the focal point of settlement, Maps of this vicinity indicated that the tavern predated the village and that the structures within the village s~\ of Red Lion were clustered around the tavern. ( . ••; 'v».. The inn was replaced after the Revolution by a second Red Lion Tavern, shown on an 1820 map of roads in New Castle County by Henry Heald (1828). The tavern came under the ownership of the Silver family (this name is prominent on later nineteenth century maps) after 1800. William Silver rebuilt the tavern in 1823. Silver also built a new store in that year, but after the demise of the Red Lion Tavern in 1837, he operated the store from the tavern and used it as his residence (Conrad 1908(2);506; Ward 1968: 153-158), The facade of the brick structure was purchased and brought to Winterthur in 1946 (Ward 1968:153). The importance of the Red Lion Tavern as a local landmark and frequent meeting ground, during the eighteenth century, was indicated by the prominence of both the inn and the road which led to it, in early maps and historical documents (Broom 1777; Heald 1820). Christo- pher Colics' survey of 1789, considered to be the earliest American road atlas, noted the location of the Red Lion Tavern (Ristow 1961:161). George Washington stopped here briefly in 1791 on his way from Chester to Baltimore. Washington's journey through New Castle, then south via Red Lion Road, elicited few comments on the inn or New Castle County; he did, however, comment on the deplorable conditions of the road (Ward 1968: 154). The newly formed Republican party regularly met at the Red Lion Tavern in the 1790s (Munroe 1979:87). During the nineteenth century, the village of Red Lion was most notable for its post office and its role as a "country trading center" (Conrad 1908(2):505). The settlement also contained a church, a schoolhouse, and several stores and residences (Scharf 1888(2):853). The opening of the New Castle and Frenchtown Railroad to the north in 1831 drew residents away from Red Lion, and forced the closing of the tavern (Munroe 1979:110; Ward 1968:155). As a consequence of this factor, Red Lion remained a small village to the present day. The DuPont Parkway. The DuPont Parkway was constructed in the 1920s under the finan- cial and administrative guidance of Coleman DuPont. Plans for the first modern highway to cross the entire state began in 191 1, but construction was delayed until 1917. The State Highway Department assumed responsibility for construction at that time, but DuPont continued to finance the project. DuPont's total expenditure on the highway was $3,917,004 (Hof- fecker 1977:57-58; Munroe 1979:202-204). The highway was finally completed in 1924. The parkway served as a more direct link between northern and southern Delaware. The route bypassed Red Lion, and instead crossed Red Lion Creek to the east of the village, then merged with the road on the south side at Corbit. Tybouts Corner. The 1928 map (Price and Price 1928) recorded the emergence of Tybouts Corner at the intersection of DuPont Parkway and Red Lion Road (Route 71), This place name does not appear on earlier maps of the area. The area was named for George Z. Tybout, a prominent agriculturalist who resided on this site during the second half of the nineteenth century. Hopkins1 atlas of 1881 indicated that Tybput's estate in this locale, called "Stockton", was 202 acres in size. This property, located on either side of Bear-Tybouts Road, was depicted on the maps of 1868 (Beers 1868), 1881 (Hopkins) and 1893 (Baist 1893). The latter map showed that the property was sold between 1881 and 1893. Tybout owned a second property, "Belle- vue" , which consisted of 365 acres. This property was situated just east of the Tybouts Comer project area along the west side of River Road (presently Route 9).

20 flR002526 d Census data for New Castle Hundred indicated that Tybout was the head of household in 1840,1850,1860, and 1870 and that members of his household were employed in agriculture. The size of the household included several free white males and females (6 in 1840) and several free colored males and females of varying ages (5 in 1840). Delaware, and New Castle County in particular, was an important agricultural producer in the nineteenth century. The first agricultural society in the United States was established in . New Castle County in 1804. George Tybout's success as a farmer may be measured by the * publication of production figures from his farm in the "Farmer" in 1852 (Scharf 1888(1):436): George Z. Tybout's Property; Two Hundred Acres Arable, Eighty-eight Meadow. 30 acres (corn-ground) wheat, yielding 15 bush, per acre, and 27 acres, yielding 31 bush, per acre, at $1.45 per bush. $1866.00 33 acres oats, yielding 40 bush, per acre, at 40 c. per bush. $ 528.00 31 acres com, yielding 55 bush, per acre, at 65 c. per bush. $1108.00 Potatoes $ 10.00 Calves $ 18.00 15 tons timothy hay, sold at $15 per ton $ 225,00 Net Profit on fat cattle for the season $1650.00 Labor of five men, board included $1000.00 Tybout was also a member of the State Agricultural Society, and a member of the board of directors for the Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Company of the State of Delaware (Scharf 1888(1):437; 1888(2):683), Tybout's prominence within New Castle County stemmed from the active role he took in county affairs, He was a key contributor towards the establishment of Delaware Academy in 1862 (Scharf 1888(2);977), and served as a trustee for the new court- house of New Castle County in 1879 (Scharf 1888(2):618). The Tybout family, residents in Delaware since the eighteenth century, was also prominent in the development of New Castle County. Family members saw military service during the American Revolution and the Civil War, participated in county administration, and were involved with local and agricultural communities (Historical Society of Delaware: Tybout Family History File; also Scharf 1888(1):141, 338,434; 1888(2)1620,879). Tyfrouts Corner Landfill Project Areq. The route of Red Lion Road from New Castle to Red Lion apparently has not changed since it was recorded on a 1777 map of New Castle County by Jacob Broom (Figure 2). This was the earliest map found showing the road and the project area. A comparison with nineteenth and twentieth century maps of New Castle County indicated that the course of Red Lion Road has not allured substantially since that time (Heald 1820; Rea and Price 1849; Beers 1868; Hopkins 1881; Haist 1893; Price and Price 1928; United States Geological Survey 1953,1985; DPL Consultants 1990). Historic maps indicated two structures in the vicinity of the project area during the nineteenth century. The location of these structures was carefully scaled, If these maps are precise, these structures would have been located outside the project boundaries (see project outline on the maps provided). The earliest map on which these buildings appeared dates from 1849 (Figure 3). The owner of one of the structures (hereafter called Structure #1) was D. Diehl. The second structure (Structure #2) was also shown, but no owner was indicated. The two structures were shown on maps dating from 1868 (Figure 4, Beers 1868), 1881 (Figure 5, Hopkins 1881) and 1893 (Figure 6, Baist 1893). Structure tt\ was owned by Wil- liam Couper on all of these maps. Structure #2 was owned by "A. Kitslow" in 18&8 and "William Couper (Cowper) Hrs" (heirs) in 1881, No owner was indicated for 1893,, but presumably this was still part of William Couper's estate, Structure #1 also appeared on a o USGS map dating from 1953. PROJECT LOCATION

Prep.r.dtwC/fflS,/*. SOURCE- JACOB BROOM PROJECT AREA CIRCA 1777 TYBOUTS CORNER LANDFILL SURVEY FIG ARO'03538 22 0_____ I MILE (APPROX.)

DRAWN FROM SOURCE- REA B PRICE, 1849 PROJECT AREA CIRCA 1849 TYBOUTS CORNER LANDFILL SURVEY FIGURE 3 ,2529 23 PROJECT AREA CIRCA 1868 TYBOUTS CORNER LANDFILL SURVEY FIGURE 4\fiO • ••«:>,

*\ // JM-*. PffOJECT LOC \TION.

SOURCE- HOPKINS, 1861 PROJECT AREA CIRCA 1881 TYBOUTS CORNER LANDFILL SURVEY I MILE

Prepared by CHRS.Ine. SOURCE- BAIST, 1893 PROJECT AREA CIRCA 1893 FYBOUTS CORNER LANDFILL SURVEY FIGURE 6 26 Although census records, family history files, and numerous secondary sources were consulted, very little information was recovered on these property owners. Daniel Diehl, 1849 owner of Structure #1, was listed in the index of the 1850 census for New Castle Hundred, New Castle County. Unfortunately, the census entry could not be found. Diehl was not listed in cither 1840 or I860, suggesting that his residence here was short-lived. The Family History File on the Diehls noted only that a son of Johann (1769-1842) and Jane Diehl was named Daniel. The owner of Structure #2 in 1868, A. Kitslow, could not be located in any census records for Delaware between 1840 and 1870, nor was any information on this individual found in any other sources. Some information was available for William Couper (or Cowper). The Couper family was of Scottish descent. James Couper Sr. emigrated to New Castle in 1763 and resided at Christi- ana (Historical Society of Delaware family history file). A cluster of Couper's descendants settled between Bear Station (to the west), Tybouts Comer, and Red Lion. In addition to Wil- liam Couper, the maps dating from 1849 to 1893 showed that Dr. James Couper (1778-1839) and Samuel Couper, and their heirs, owned large tracts of land in the vicinity of Bear Station and Tybouts Corner. William Couper (1806-1874), the owner of Structure tt\ in 1868 and 1881/1893 (heirs of), and Structure #2 in 1881/1893, also owned a parcel of 100 acres directly across Red-Lion Road, west of the project area. Unfortunately, William Couper was not listed in any Delaware census between 1820 and 1860. Little is known about him except that he apparently was the treasurer for the New Castle Library Co,; the Tybout family history file contained a receipt dated 18S1 for an investment of $20 by G. Tybout, and signed by W. Couper. The land which falls within the project area boundary was probably owned by the owners of Structure #1 and/or Structure #2 during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (although it should be noted that the historic maps do not show property lines). Like the general surrounding area, this land appears to have been used for agriculture up to the 1920s. Some- time after the construction of the DuPont Parkway in 1924 the land in Section A of the project area was subdivided for residential construction. A USGS quad map for 1953 showed six structures in, or immediately adjacent to, the project area (USGS 1953). A 1985 revision of this map indicated that a seventh structure had been added. A topographic and property map produced by DPL Consultants in 1990 depicted these seven structures, along with outbuildings, fence lines, swimming pools, etc. These houses and associated structures were demolished by the Delaware Department of Transportation subsequent to 1985, and prior to the fieldwork conducted within the project area, Slate Plan. The Delaware Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan (Ames et al 1989) outlines the nature and variety of the historic resources which might be present within the study region. The plan is developed around the concept of the Historic Context "an organiza- tional format that groups information about related historic properties, based on theme, geogr- pahic lines, and chronological period" (Ames et al 1989:20). The historic themes and chronological periods of this plan are summarized in Table 3. Details of property types as they relate to historic themes for the Coastal Zone during various chronological periods can be found in the Plan and the Historic Context, Master Reference, and Summary (Herman et al 1989). The historic themes which potentially could be explored in this area of the State include Agriculture, and Settlement Patterns, Red Lion Road was laid out in the late seventeenth century and many "Rural Farm Sites" (Ames et al 1989:146) were present, although near the study area site can be documented only in the nineteenth century, In addition, "Suburban Tract Housing" (Ames et al 1989:146) from the mid-twentieth century was present within the project area, in association with the Dupont Highway.

27 SR002533 If

£ ..^ ._ I;-a w s i i>9

28 RR00253H FIELD DATA

Introduction For the purposes of the field research the study area was divided into two sections, A and B. Section A consisted of portions of what was formerly seven residential properties fronting the DuPont Parkway (Route 13). Nine large buildings (probably houses and garages) were shown within these properties on a recent topographic and property map (Figure 7). Two swimming pools were also indicated. These structures were apparently demolished by the Delaware Department of Transportation after 1985. The locations of four of the buildings and one of the swimming pools fell within Section A, but none of these structures was intact at the time of the fieldwork. For the most part, Section A was composed of what used to be the backyards of these properties. At the time of the field excavations, the ground in Section A was covered with various types of vegetation. Most of the area was either covered with large patches of lawn grass (which had survived the demolition of the buildings), or with large patches of vegetation composed of briar bushes, vines, and weeds. It appeared that the patches containing briars and weeds were the spots where buildings once stood. There were also a few ornamental bushes and trees in various locations! and a few rows of trees along the former property lines. Section B had a denser cover of undergrowth composed of briars, vines and weeds. A few trees were also present. Judging from the vegetation, Section B apparently experienced little human activity m recent years. Permission to enter the property containing Section B was ijiij, denied by the owners. Therefore, this section was not tested. Prehistoric and historic archaeological site potential for the area was low. The project area is far removed from topographic, environmental, or geological features which would have been attractive to prehistoric populations. Potential prehistoric sites in the study area would, if present, be expected to consist of small, light density, lithic scatters. Several historic structures were present in the study region, however, historic research indicated that these early buildings are located outside of the project area, Historic archaeological deposits, if present, would be expected to consist primarily of small trash deposits which were removed from the house area. Because the potential resources which might be present were ephemeral and could not be correlated with any extant surface features, a systematic approach to subsurface testing was undertaken. The study area was tested by means of shovel test pits excavated at 15 intervals along a series of transects. There were eight such transects, which were parallel and spaced 15 meters apart. A total of eighty-one shovel test pits were dug (Figures 7 and 8). These tests were excavated to a depth at which natural, culturally sterile, subsoil was reached. All soil was screened through one-quarter inch hardware cloth. The stratigraphy for each shovel test was recorded (see Appendix C). All artifacts encountered (with the exception of brick, concrete and coal) were collected and brought back to the lab for analysis and cataloging (see Appendix A).

29 flR002535 TYBOUTS CORNER LANDFILL

DUPONT PARKWAY (ROUTE 13)

• LOCATION OF SHOVEL TEST(S)

LOCATION OF DEMOLISHED STRUCTURES 300'

Prepared by QMS, Inc. _____PROJECT AREA CIRCA 1980 TYBOUTS CORNER LANDFILL SURVEY I FIGURE n 7,,

30 TYBOUTS CORNER LANDFILL

ROUTE 13

0______. 3PO'

Prepared by CHRS, Inc. ______^^ • SHOVEL TEST LOCATIONS - SECTION A TYBOUTS CORNER LANDFILL SURVEY FIGURE 8 31' Field Data The basic stratigraphy of the project area consisted of an olive brown (2.SY4/4) clay loam (~~ topsoil underlain by a yellowish brown (10YR5/8) clay subsoil. This stratigraphy was encoun- ', •: tered in 70 percent of the shovel test pits. The topsoil varied in thickness from 12 cm to 58 cm. "" It was deeper in those areas which appeared to be intact remnants of lawn, and shallower in other areas. Four types of deviations from this basic stratigraphy were encountered. One occurred along the western edge of Section A in shovel tests 5-7,8-11, 16-17, and 19. A layer of olive gray (5Y5/2) clay was sandwiched between the olive brown topsoil and the yellowish brown subsoil. In some of the tests the olive gray clay was mottled with the yellowish brown subsoil. This olive gray clay had a strong, organic odor. With the possible exception of shovel test 11, these pits did not produce any artifacts. A more complex type of stratigraphy was found along the northern edge of Section A in shovel test pits 48, 49, and 68, Here there were alternating layers of olive brown (2.5Y4/4) clay loam and yellowish brown (10YR5/8) clay loam or clay. Often these layers had mixed with each other. For example, test 68 had a layer of yellowish brown clay loam mottled with olive brown clay loam immediately below the olive brown topsoil. This was followed by a stratum of olive brown clay loam mottled with yellowish brown clay; then a layer of yellowish brown clay mixed with the olive brown soil; and then a stratum of olive brown clay loam; and finally, a layer of yellowish brown clay. Each of the tests in this area had a unique stratigraphy. Thus in shovel test 48, the yellowish brown soil was uppermost, and a stratum of the olive gray (5Y5/2) clay was immediately above the yellowish brown subsoil. However, one consistent aspect of the soil in these tests was the presence of large amounts of demolition debris probably associated with frame structures (i.e. wood, burnt wood and charcoal). A third type of soil sequencing was revealed in the southern and eastern portions of Sec- I , tion A in shovel tests 3, 27, 34-35,58,61, and 75. Like the shovel test pits described in the ^~ paragraph above, these subsurface probes revealed a mixing of the soils found in the basic stratigraphy. Unlike the previous tests, however, they did not contain any burnt wood or charcoal. In tests 3, 35 and 61 there were alternating layers of olive brown (2.5Y4/4) clay loam and yellowish brown (10YR5/8) clay. In the latter two holes, the yellowish brown clay was the uppermost layer. The upper layer in shovel test 35 also contained large amounts of sand. In tests 27, 34 and 58 the two soils were completely mixed within the top stratum. Half of these test pits contained artifacts which appeared to be demolition debris such as: bricks, brickbat, cut and wire nails, and window glass. Finally, there were five shovel test pits, 45,46,53, 63, and 67, whose stratigraphy appeared to be related to a driveway. Shovel tests 45 and 46 had a similar stratigraphy, consist- ing of an upper layer of compacted, mottled olive brown (2.5Y4/4) clay loam superimposed upon a stratum of yellowish brown (10YR5/8) clay. Doth strata contained many quartz peb- bles. Tests 53 and 63 also had similar profiles, The former had an upper stratum of olive brown (2.5Y4/4) clay loam, followed by a layer containing a mixture of sand, olive brown clay loam and yellowish brown (10YR5/8) clay. This, in turn, was followed by a stratum of the olive brown clay loam, and then the yellowish brown clay subsoil. Shovel tests 63 and 67 had a similar, though slightly different, soil sequence (see Appendix C). o

32 ttR002538 ANALYSIS

/Artifacts ', Surface. All of the houses, outbuildings and other major structures which once stood within the project area had been removed. The only surviving items were a macadam driveway; a small (about 6x8') concrete pad (which appears to have located adjacent to a swimming pool); four railroad ties laid in a square (probably used as a flower bed); and sections of fenc- ing along former property lines. There were several linear "ridges" in the ground where foundation walls lay below the surface. In some places the tops of these walls were exposed. In all such cases, the foundations were composed of concrete block. Despite the fact that the houses and outbuildings had been demolished, there were no large mounds of demolition debris within or adjacent to Section A. There was one small trash midden adjacent to the cinder driveway, near shovel test 53. It contained a one gallon paint can, part of an electric blender, plastic flower pots, and glass bottles and decanters. There was also one small pile of debris in the vicinity or test 49. -All of the items were composed of wood, metal or plastic, and were mostly architectural in nature. Large sheets of plastic lay over the ground in this area. Other artifacts on the surface included: 1) scattered demolition debris, such as bricks, pieces of concrete, and concrete block; 2) pieces of clay pigeon, apparently as a result of the vacant lot being used for target practice; and 3) trash tossed by passing motorists or left behind by construction crews working in the area. Subsurface. Relatively few subsurface artifacts were encountered during the fieldwork. >j;. Seventy percent of the shovel test pits did not contain any artifacts. Of the tests that did contain I .J artifacts, only two (33 and 34) had large concentrations. Fourteen of the shovel tests contained architectural remains, such as brick, concrete, lumber, etc. Test 33 contained two crushed pieces of sheet metal (possibly flashing), two pieces of concrete, two pieces of wood (possibly floorboard), three pieces of asphalt shingle, two pieces of styrofoam, five sherds of clear window glass, and one small piece of metal (possibly lead). Shovel test 34 produced a short length of plastic-coated wire, one aluminum flip-top, one brick fragment, one concrete fragment, two pieces of slag, and one piece of quartzite road ballast, Brick fragments were also found in tests 2,38,48,72 and 77; while concrete fragments were encountered in shovel tests 27 and 67. In test 27 there was a steel rod which appeared to be of the type used to reinforce concrete. Wire nails and nails too corroded to be identified, were present in tests 5 (four nails) and 66 (two nails). Cut nails were found in shovel tests 2 (one nail), 14 (one nail), and 40 (one nail). Two pieces of wood, possibly flooring or sheathing, were recovered from test 48. Small fragments of clear window glass were encountered in shovel tests 52 and 66, Bottle glass and ceramics were recovered from nine test pits. Shovel tests 52 and 66 each contained one sherd of amber bottle glass. Test 55 contained an intact, half-pint, flask made of amber glass, with a screw-finish and a plastic top, Test 80 produced two very small pieces of colorless glass. A sherd of unglazed redware (possibly from a flower pot) was found in shovel test 30. Tests 46,64 and 65 each contained one redware sherd with a brown glaze. Test 76 had one underrated whiteware sherd. In terms of number of pieces, the most common type of artifact collected was clay "pigeon," Shovel tests 8,63,64 and 65 contained broken pieces of this item,

33 BR00253.9 Interpretation The soil stratigraphy appeared to be natural in 83 percent of the shovel test pits. Disturbed soils were encountered in three situations. The recent demolition of the houses and other structures seemed to account for the mixed soils found in shovel tests 3,27, 34,35,58, 61 and 75 and possibly in tests 48,49 and 68. The construction of a driveway apparently resulted in the abnormal stratigraphy encountered in shovel tests 45,46,53,63, and possibly 67. A few structures and artifacts on the ground surface most probably were related to the residential habitation of the twentieth century houses along the DuPont Parkway: the macadam driveway, fence lines, the small concrete pad, the flower bed, and the trash pile adjacent to the driveway. None of these structures or artifacts appeared to predate the mid to late twentieth century, and none seemed to be historically or archaeologically significant. Most of the subsurface artifacts recovered from the shovel test pits were either the result of the demolition of the twentieth century structures, or were the result of target shooting (i.e., the clay pigeon fragments). These items were not historically or archaeologically important. There were a few subsurface artifacts, such as redware and cut nails, which might predate the twentieth century. However, they were not present in sufficient quantities to indicate the presence of a substantial cultural deposit beneath the surface. Also no artifacts were recovered which clearly predate 1940.

34 flR0025liQ SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

~s This report has documented a Phase I Archaeological Survey conducted adjacent to the Tybouis Corner landfill, in New Castle County, Delaware. This survey was performed by Cultural Heritage Research Services, Inc. (CHRS) of North Wales, Pennsylvania for DPL Consultants of Wilmington, Delaware. Located at the intersection of Red Lion Road (Route " 71) and DuPont Parkway (Route 13), the project area lies 1800 to 2700 feet southwest of the intersection within the "V" formed by (he converging roads. The project area was irregularly shaped, with one hundred feet bordering Route 71 and two hundred feet fronting Route 13. Prehistoric and historic archaeological site potential for the area was low. The project area was far removed from topographic, environmental, or geological features which would have been attractive to prehistoric populations. Potential prehistoric sites in the study area would, if present, be expected to consist of small, light density, lithic scatters. Historic maps of the study region depicted two structures in the vicinity of the project area during the nineteenth century and several structures within the study area from the 1940s/50s to 1980s. The location of the nineteenth century structures was carefully scaled. If the maps were precise, these structures would have been located outside the project boundaries. Historic archaeological deposits, if present, would be expected to consist primarily of small trash deposits which were removed from the house area. The potential resources which might be present were anticipated to be ephemeral, and could not be correlated with any extant surface features. A systematic approach to subsurface testing was undertaken, A small section of the study area, Section B, could not be tested as trespass permission could not be obtained from the owner. ,;'::'"') A total of eighty-one shovel test pits were undertaken within Section A of the study area, ••'• in an effort to ensure that no intact historic or prehistoric archaeological deposits were present. Testing confirmed the expectations of the State Plan for prehistoric sites this region. The potential for such sites is generally low (see Table 2). No evidence was gathered concerning historic archaeological resources which might be related to historic periods before the present. This lack of archaeological remains severely hampers conclusions concerning historic economic and cultural trends in region (see Table 3). However, historical background data does reen- force the non-nucleated aspects of inland settlement as postualed for this portion of the State as well as providing data concerning suburban tract development along new highways during the second quarter of the twentieth century (see Herman et al 1989, Ames et al 1989). Phase I testing indicated that no significant structures or artifacts were present within the boundaries of the Section A of the study area, No further archaeological work is recommended in this area. Although no subsurface testing was performed in Section B of the study area, it seems unlikely that significant archaeological deposits would be found in this area. No structures or buildings are known to have stood in or adjacent to this portion of the study area. Excavations adjacent to this area have shown disturbed soil profiles. Given the extremely low potential for intact prehistoric or historic archaeological resources within Section B, no additional archaeological work is recommended in this area,

35 REFERENCES CITED Ames, David L,, Mary H. Callahan, Bernard L. Herman, Rebecca Siders ,. 1989 Delaware Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan. Center for Historic Archi- (.Si lecture and Engineering, College of Urban Affairs and Public Policy, University '•*• of Delaware, Newark, DE Anderson, E,A,, A.R. Brown, R. Wirnock, and N. Heydon 1981 Historic and Prehistoric Archaeological Survey of the F Route Alignment, Metrorail Green Line, Prince Georges County, Maryland. Report on file Soil Systems, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia, Baist, G. W. 1893 Atlas of New Castle County, Delaware. G;W. Baist, Philadelphia, Pennsylva- nia. Bausman, R. 0. 1933 The Economic and Historical Background of Farm Tenancy in Delaware. Journal of Farm Economics 15(164-167). Beers, D.G. 1868 Atlas of the State of Delaware. Pomeroy and Beers, Philadelphia, Pennsylva- nia. Broom, Jacob 1777 Map of New Castle County. Photostat and copies on file, Historical Society of Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware. Brown, Ann 1985a Delaware City: Evidence of Causality During the First Fifty Years. Manuscript in author's possession. 1985b Delaware City: The Tale of a Town That Never Grew, Manuscript in author's possession, Brown, Ann R., and K. J. Basalik 1984 Archaeological and Historic Survey of the Gravely Run Tax Ditch, Upper Ches- ter River Watershed, Kent County, Delaware, Report Submitted to the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Dover, DE. Carbone, V, A. 1976 Environment and Prehistory in the Shenandoah Valley, Ph.D. Dissertation, Catholic University of America. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI. Catts, Wade P., and Ellis C, Coleman 1986 Local History Summary. In "Current Research in the Historic Archaeology of Northern Delaware," edited by J.F. Custerand K.W. Cunningham. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Delaware, New Series Volume 21, Wilmington, Delaware. Cavallo, John, Amy Friedlander, and Martha A. Bowers 1988 Cultural Resources Assessment of the Hares Corner Interchange. U.S. Route 13 and S.R. 40, New Castle, Delaware. Delaware Department of"Transporta- tion Archeological Series Number 59. Dover, Delaware.

36 flR0025lt2 Coleman, E., K. Cunningham, J. O'Connor, W. Calls, and J. Custer 1984 Phase III Data Recovery Excavations of the William M, Hawthorn Site s~^ (7NC-E-46) New Churchman's Road, Christiana, New Castle County, Dela- ,' ware. Delaware Department of Transportation Archaeological Series Number 28. Dover, Delaware. .•- Conrad, Henry C. 1908 History of the State of Delaware Volumes I-III. Published by the Author, Wilmington, Delaware. Cooper, Constance J. 1983 A Town Among Cities: New Castle, Delaware 1780-1840. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware. Cunningham, Kevin W., J. Martin, and J. Calvert 1980 Preliminary Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed Dualizatlon of U.S. Route 113, Little Heaven to Dover Air Force Base, Kent County, DE. Delaware Department of Transportation Archaeological Series, Number 13. Dover, Delaware. Custer, Jay F. 1981 A Preliminary State Plan and Report on Prehistoric Archaeological Research In Delaware FY1979-1980. Bureau of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Department of Cultural Affairs, State of Delaware, Dover, Delaware. 1984 Delaware Prehistoric Archaeology; An Ecological Approach. University of Delaware Press, Newark, Delaware. I' • ) 1986 A Management Plan for Delaware's Prehistoric Resources University of Dela- "wf< ware Center for Archaeological Research Monograph Number 2, Newark, Delaware. Custer, Jay F,, and David C, Bachman 1984 Phase III Data Recovery Excavations of the Prehistoric Components from the Hawthorn Site (7NC-E-46), New Churchman's Road, Christiana, New Castle County, Delaware. Delaware Department of Transportation Archaeology Series Number 27, Dover, Delaware. Custer, Jay F., and Kevin W. Cunningham (editors) 1986 Current Research in the Historic Archaeology of Northern Delaware. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Delaware, New Series Volume 21. Wilmington, • Delaware. Dare, Charles P. 1856 Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Guide. Philadelphia, Penn- sylvania. Delaware Shipping Firms 1781-2 Records of the 'Speedwell' and the 'Lydia' M-66-8 Account 864. Microfilm on file, Hagley Historical Museum and Library, Greenville, Delaware. ,Q

37 AR0025I43 DPL Consultants 1990 Site Topographic and Property Plan, Tybouts Corner Landfill, Red Lion and New Castle Hundreds, New Castle County, Delaware. DPL Consultants, Wilmington, Delaware. Copy on file, Cultural Heritage Research Services, Inc., North Wales, Pennsylvania. Ferns, Benjamin . •, 1846 Original Settlements on the Delaware. Wilson and Heald, Wilmington, Dela- ware. Gardner, William M. 1974 The Flint Run Paleo-Indian complex: Pattern and Process During the Paleo- Indian to Early Archaic. In The Flint Run Paleo-lndlan Complex: a Preliminary Report of the 1971-1973 Seasons, edited by W. M. Gardner, pp. 4-57. Occa- sional Publication of the Catholic University Archaeology Laboratory Number 1, Washington, D.C. 1979 Paleo-Indian Settlement Patterns and Site Distribution in the Middle Atlantic. Paper presented to the Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, D.C. Hanna, Mary Alice 1917 The Trade of the Delaware District Before the Revolution. The Smith College Studies in History. Heald, Henry 1828 Roads of New Castle County. Map SO on file Historical Society of Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware. Henry, Susan L. 1981 Working Draft Towards a Historic Research Design, Delaware Department of Transportation Archaeology Series Number 19. Dover, Delaware. Herman, Bernard L., Rebecca), Siders, David 1. Ames, and Mary H. Callahan 1989 Historic Context Master Reference and Summary. Center for Historic Architec- ture and Engineering, College of Urban Affairs and Public Policy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE Historical Society of Delaware n.d. Family History File. Collection of genealogical information and copies of primary documents relating to Delaware families. On file, Historical Society of Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware. Hodny, Jay, David C. Bachman, and Jay F. Custer 1989 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Section, Odessa Segment, of the U.S. Route 13 Corridor, New Castle County, Dela- ware. Delaware Department of Transportation Archaeological Series No. 73. Delaware Department of Transportation, Dover, Delaware, Hoffecker, Carol W. 1977 Delaware; a Bicentennial History. W.W. Norton and Company, New York. Hoffecker, Carol W., editor 1973 Readings in Delaware History, University of Delaware Press, Newark, Dela- ware. Hopkins, G.M. 1881 Map of New Castle County Delaware from Actual Surveys and Records. G.M. Hopkins and Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Humphery, Robert L and M. E, Chambers 1977 Ancient Washington. American Indian Cultures of the Potomac \blley. George V&shington Studies Number 6, Johnson, Amandus 1973 The Swedes in Delaware. In Reading in Delaware History, edited by C. Hof- fecker. University of Delaware Press, Newark, Delaware. Johnson, Ella Weldin 1963 Story of Newport. Paragon Press, Wilmingtdn, Delaware. Lemon, James T. 1967 Urbanization and the Development of Eighteenth Century Southeastern Pennsyl- vania and Adjacent Delaware. William and Mary Quarterly Vol 24(4):500-539. Lindstrom, Diane 1978 Economic Development in the Philadelphia Region, 1810-1850. Columbia University Press, New York. Mathews, E. D., and 0. L. Lavoie 1970 Soil Survey of New Castle County, Delaware. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Dover, Delaware. Munroe, John A. 1954a Colonial Delaware. Km Press, Millwood, New York. 1954b Federalist Delaware 1775-1815. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. 1979 History of Delaware. KTO Press, Millwood, New York. Myers, J. C. 1849 , Sketches on a Tour Through the Northern and Eastern States. Wartmann and Brothers, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Niles Weekly Register 1815 Niles Weekly Register IX(6):93. Privately published, Baltimore, Maryland, Potter, Stephen R. 1980 A Review of Archaeological Resources in Plscataway Park, Maryland. Report on file, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Price and Price 1928 Map of New Castle County, Delaware. Price & Price, Wilmington, DE. On file, Historical Society of Delaware, Wilmington, DE. Proctor, Mary, and Bill Matuszesto 1978 Gritty Cities. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

39 Prude, Jonathan 1983 The Coming of the Industrial Order: Town and Factory Ltfe in Rural Massa- chusetts:1810-I8SO. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Pursell, C.W. 1958 Thai Never Falling Stream: A History of Milling Along Red Clay Creek During the Nineteen Century. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware. eye, LauraLee "a Notes on Preliminary Draft Report, Route 7 Corridor, New Castle County, Delaware. Typescript in possession of author. 1983b Summary of Analytical Processes Used to Predict Site Types and Locations in Route 7. Manuscript on file, Delaware Department of Transportation, Dover, Delaware. Rea.S. M., and J. Price 1849 Map of New Castle, Delaware, from Actual Surveys... Smith and Wister, Phila- delphia. Microfiche Map Collection, Library of Congress, Wellington, D.C. Reed, Clay 1973 The Early New Caiitle Court. In Readings in Delaware History, edited by C. Hoffecker. University of Delaware Press, Newark, Delaware. Ristow, Ytolter. W., ed. 1961 A Survey of the Roads of the United States of America, 1789, by Christopher Colles. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, Scharf, I. Thomas 1888 History of Delaware, 1609-1888 Volumes I and II. L. J. Richards and Compa- ny, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Shannon, Fred A. 1945 The Farmer's Last Frontier: Agriculture 1860-1897. Economic History of the United States, Vol V. Farrar and Rinehart, New York. Thernstrom, Stephan, and Peter R. Knights 1981 Men in Motion: Some Data and Speculations about Urban Population Mobility in Nineteenth Century America, in Industrialization and Urbanisation: Studies in Interdisciplinary History. T.K. Raab and R.I. Rotberg, editors. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Thomas, Ronald A. 1981 Archaeological Investigations at the Delaware Park Site (7NC-E-41), Slanton, New Castle County, Delaware, Delaware Department of Transportation Ar- chaeology Series Number 11, Dover, Delaware. Tirpak, Ronald A. 1980 Mount Olive Cemetery Site (7K-E-45): Archaeological Investigations in Kent County, Delaware. Report on File with the United States Department of Agri- culture Soil Conservation Service, Dover, Delaware.

40 (\R0025lf6 United States Geological Survey 1953 Saint Georges Quadrangle, Delaware, New Castle County. 7.5 Minute Series. 1985 Saint Georges Quadrangle, Delaware, New Castle County, 7.5 Minute Series. survey 1953,Photorevised 1985. Walzer, John F. 1972 Colonial Philadelphia and its Backcountry. Wintenhw Portfolio 7:161-173. Ward, Mary Ann 1968 Inns and Taverns in Delaware 1700-1850, Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Delaware. Hagley Historical Museum and Library, Greenville, Delaware. Welsh, Peter C. ' 1973 Merchants, Millers and Ocean Ships. In Reading in Delaware History, edited by C. Hoffecker. University of Delaware Press, Newark, Delaware, Weslager, Clinton A. 1947 Delaware's Forgotten River: The Story of the Christiana. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 1968 Delaware's Burled Past, Rutgers University Press. New Brunswick, New Jer- sey. Williams, William 1985 Pictorial History of Delaware. Delaware Chamber of Commerce, Dover, Delaware.

41 AR0025U ARQ025lf.8 .-., BSD ADDENDUM DOCUMENTS CONTINUED ARTIFACT INVENTORY

Shovel Test 2 Shovel Test 40 Shovel Test 67 Stratum A Stratum A Stratum A 1 cut nail 1 cut nail 2 pieces concrete 1 brick fragment* 1 piece coal* Shovel Test 46 Shovel lest 72 Stratum A Stratum A Shovel lest 5 1 sherd redware, 2 pieces brick* Stratum A brown glazed both sides 4 nails Shovel lest 76 (too corroded to type) Shovel Test 48 Stratum A Stratum A ' 1 sherd whiteware* Shovel lest 8 2 pieces wood Stratum A (flooring or sheathing) Shovel Test 77 1 clay pigeon fragment 1 brick fragment Stratum A 1 coal 2 pieces brick* Shovel Test 14 Stratum A Shovel lest 52 Shovel Test 80 1 cut nail Stratum A Stratum A 1 sherd window glass 2 pieces glass Shovel Test 27 1 sherd amber bottle glass Stratum A concrete & reinforcing rod* Shovel lest 55 Stratum A Shovel Test 30 1 half-pint amber glass bottle, Stratum A screw neck and plastic top 1 unglazed redware sherd (flower pot) Shovel lest 63 Stratum A Shovel lest 33 clay pigeon fragments* Stratum A 2 pieces sheet metal (flashing?) Shovel lest 64 2 pieces concrete Stratum A 2 pieces wood (floorboard) 1 sherd redware, 3 pieces asphalt shingle brown glazed 2 pieces styrofoam 1 piece clay pigeon 5 sherds window glass 1 piece metal (possibly lead) Shovel lest 65 Stratum A Shovel Test 34 1 sherd redware, Stratum A brown glazed both sides 1 plastic coated wire 1 piece plastic 1 aluminum flip top pieces clay pigeon* 1 brick fragment 1 concrete fragment Shovel Test 66 2 pieces slag Stratum A 1 quartzite road ballast 1 sherd amber bottle glass 1 wire nail Shovel Test 38 1 nail, unidentified * NOT BAGGED Stratum A 4 brick fragments*

42 ARJQQ255IJ:. QUALIFICATIONS OF RESEARCHERS

Principal Investigator: Kenneth J. Basalik Professional Experience: 12 years Education: ABD Anthropology, Temple University M.A. Anthropology, Temple University B.A. Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania Project Responsibility: Administration, analysis, report writing and review

Project Archaeologist: Ronald A. Berge Professional Experience: 8 years Education: M.A. Anthropology, Temple University B.A. Anthropology, Temple University Project Responsibility: Field survey, report writing

Project Historian: Karen Metheny Professional Experience: 8 years Education: B,A. Anthropology & History, William and Mary Project Responsibility: M.A. Anthropology, William and Mary Research, field survey, report writing Graphics: Randolph Kuppless Professional Experience: 8 years Education: BFS Kansas An Institute Project Responsibility: Graphics preparation Editor: GaleTreible Professional Experience: 3 years Education: B.A. Anthropology, Muhlenberg College Project Responsibility: Report editing

Archaeological Technician: Richard Baublitz Professional Experience: 2 years Education: B.A. Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania Project Responsibility: Fieldwork/laboratory processing

Q 43 AR00255I .X"-,,.:'':v":;-;.t;i'.,, v^ $*;•.•''•' •'

^v^ rAppendixG .•*'.! tiH™**.: . •'.' • ; ..c1.'.1 . .

flR002552 ...... c s: 5 «>. * Si 5f_5i J ^

i...... N.us. .. Jy .....,...,.,„..„.,.,.,.... • TES T f.. ^., .,p ., i...... ,.,...,.,., .. o«4sfi SJ1 KS i...... '^., .....j \,$ ...... OVE L I Ff'f -""•""-——""" u> X :J s *.«¥•»/ » el»)l< M a"J

h v|J o; j i« Sj elbjfex i Z.* * « M |«i3| ,, ^ijjjjl fiH ii S?' NS) ^u|j«|q.

i Lr)If !• t 1 s' SiaiWr MH| ; ;J I'sT""""'" """""""" S§ 1 Jal 3- sf Fi -*3f hjM? - la "4 AR002553-. N wSi1 flvjr rlO

"ffrj*" n Si1 M>i «3"

«s » H» 3T W R15r 5$J «^

45 AR002554 11V1)

U) Ul

46 AR002555 S3

flR002556 47