ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT LUCKY RUN STREAM AND SITE 44AX0031, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA

PREPARED FOR: CITY OF ALEXANDRIA TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, STORMWATER SECTION 200B BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314

PREPARED BY: RALPH KOZIARSKI PHD, RPA BENJAMIN M. STEWART

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: SCOTT SEIBEL, MSC, RPA

AECOM 12420 MILESTONE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 150 GERMANTOWN, MD 20876 301.820.3000

DECEMBER 2018 Page Intentionally Blank Abstract

ABSTRACT The City of Alexandria (the city) is undertaking a stream restoration along 266 meters (m) [875 feet (ft)] of the Lucky Run stream, located on the west side of the City of Alexandria, Virginia. Phase I survey and Phase II evaluation archaeological investigations were completed to assist the city in meeting regulatory obligations for the undertaking. The project’s area of potential effect (APE) extends from a culvert emerging from the road prism east of Braddock Road approximately 72 m (236 ft) north of the I-395 viaduct and continues northeast to a retention pond, whose center-point is located 225 m (40 ft) southwest of the intersection of Ford Avenue and Park Center Drive. The width of the approximately 0.68 hectare (1.69 acre) APE varies throughout the project, but generally follows the foot of the bluff slopes along the edges of the stream floodplain. Three archaeological isolates and two archaeological sites (44AX0031 and 44AX0236) were identified as a result of the current survey. Site 44AX0236 is located on the southern bank of the stream and consists of a small number of commingled lithic debitage and historic artifacts. Artifacts may have been transported into the area by stream activity. Historic artifacts may in fact be modern and be the result of casual discard, not unlike the trash scattered on the ground surface in the vicinity of the site. Site 44AX0236 is recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and no further archaeological investigations are recommended. Site 44AX0031 is a large, multi-component occupation on the north bank of Lucky Run. The current AECOM investigations identified three loci that extend from the lip of the upper floodplain terrace and onto a lower terrace on Lucky Run’s north bank. The diversity of prehistoric artifacts recovered from the site is suggestive of intensive use of the area during at least the Early Woodland and Middle Woodland periods. A more ephemeral nineteenth to twentieth century component may relate to refuse discarded from rural domestic occupations that once existed in the nearby uplands. Site 44AX0031 was previously recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. AECOM recommends that the portions of Locus A investigated during this study contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the site. The investigations completed near the lip of the second terrace, at Locus A, revealed intact stratified deposits, which contained diagnostic artifacts. The City’s project plans indicate the anticipated equipment and worker access routes to the project area will be located almost entirely within the broad floodplain on the southern bank of Lucky Run, where no impact to significant archaeological resources is expected. However, limited construction staging and access from the north bank might be included in project designs. AECOM recommends designating a protected area around significant portions of 44AX0031 throughout the duration of the stream restoration work to prevent unanticipated adverse effects, as these locations might be outside of the APE as investigated in this current study

i Abstract

Page Intentionally Blank

ii Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...... i 1.0 Introduction ...... 1-1 2.0 Project Location and Description ...... 2-1 2.1 Project Area Description ...... 2-1 2.2 Geology and Topography ...... 2-1 2.3 Hydrology...... 2-1 2.4 Soils ...... 2-3 2.5 Current Conditions and Land Use ...... 2-3 3.0 Cultural Context ...... 3-1 3.1 Prehistoric Context ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Paleoindian Period (10,000–8,000 B.C.) ...... 3-1 3.1.2 Archaic Period (8,000–1,000 B.C.) ...... 3-1 3.1.2.1 Early Archaic (8,000-6.000 B.C.)...... 3-1 3.1.2.2 Middle Archaic (6000-4000 B.C.) ...... 3-2 3.1.2.3 Late Archaic (4.000-1,000 B.C.) ...... 3-3 3.1.3 Woodland Period (1,000 B.C.–A.D. 1600) ...... 3-4 3.1.3.1 Early Woodland (1,000-500 B.C.)...... 3-4 3.1.3.2 Middle Woodland (500 B.C.-A.D. 900) ...... 3-5 3.1.3.3 Late Woodland (A.D. 900-1600) ...... 3-6 3.2 Historic Context ...... 3-7 3.2.1 Settlement to Society (A.D. 1607–1750) ...... 3-7 3.2.2 Colony to Nation (A.D. 1750–1789) ...... 3-8 3.2.3 Early National and Antebellum Periods (A.D. 1789–1860) ...... 3-9 3.2.4 The Civil War (A.D. 1861–1865) ...... 3-9 3.2.5 Reconstruction and Growth (A.D. 1865–1914) ...... 3-10 3.2.6 WWI to Present (A.D. 1915–Present)...... 3-10 3.3 Project area history ...... 3-11 3.4 Previous Investigations ...... 3-15 3.4.1 Previous Cultural Resource Surveys ...... 3-15 3.4.2 Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources ...... 3-16 3.4.3 Previously Recorded Above-Ground Resources ...... 3-17 4.0 Research Design ...... 4-1 4.1 Objectives ...... 4-1 4.2 Methods ...... 4-1 4.2.1 Background Research ...... 4-1 4.2.2 Field Methods ...... 4-1 4.2.3 Laboratory Processing ...... 4-1 4.2.3.1 Historic Artifacts ...... 4-2 4.2.3.2 Prehistoric Artifacts ...... 4-3 Cores and Tested Material ...... 4-4 Flaked Stone Tools and Diagnostic Artifacts ...... 4-4 Fire-Cracked Rock ...... 4-5 4.3 Expected Results ...... 4-6 5.0 Results ...... 5-1 5.1 Results Summary...... 5-1

iii Table of Contents

5.1.1 Surface Inspection Results ...... 5-1 5.1.2 STP Results ...... 5-3 5.1.2.1 Isolated Finds ...... 5-3 5.1.2.2 Site 44AX0031 ...... 5-3 5.1.2.3 Site 44AX0236 ...... 5-3 5.2 Site 44AX0031 ...... 5-7 5.2.1 Locus A ...... 5-7 5.2.1.1 Locus A STPs ...... 5-7 5.2.1.2 TU 2 ...... 5-10 5.2.1.3 TU 3 ...... 5-11 5.2.1.4 TU 4 ...... 5-16 5.2.1.5 TU 5 ...... 5-16 5.2.2 Locus B ...... 5-16 5.2.2.1 Locus B STPs ...... 5-20 5.2.2.2 TU 6 ...... 5-20 5.2.3 Locus C ...... 5-23 5.2.3.1 Locus C STPs ...... 5-23 5.2.3.2 TU 1 ...... 5-24 5.3 Site 44AX0031 Artifact Analysis ...... 5-26 5.3.1.1 Prehistoric Ceramics ...... 5-26 5.3.1.2 Stone Tools ...... 5-26 5.3.1.3 Lithic Debitage ...... 5-31 5.3.1.4 Historic Artifacts ...... 5-31 5.4 SITE 44AX0031 Interpretations ...... 5-33 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 6-1 7.0 References Cited ...... 7-1

APPENDICES Appendix A: Qualifications of the Investigators Appendix B: Artifact Catalog Appendix C: Site Forms

LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. Sassafras Soils Typical Pedon ...... 2-3 Table 3-1. Previous Cultural Resources Surveys within 0.5 Mile of the Project Area ...... 3-15 Table 3-2. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within 0.5 Mile of the Project Area ..... 3-16 Table 3-3. Historic Properties Located within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the Project APE ...... 3-18 Table 4-1. Functional Typology (Modified from Orser 1988) ...... 4-2 Table 5-1. Isolated Finds ...... 5-3 Table 5-2. Artifacts from Site 44AX0236 ...... 5-5 Table 5-3. Artifacts Recovered from Locus A STPs ...... 5-10 Table 5-4. Artifact Distribution in Locus A STPs ...... 5-10 Table 5-5. Artifacts from TU 2, Surface ...... 5-11 Table 5-6. Artifacts from TU 2, Stratum II ...... 5-11 Table 5-7. Artifacts from TU 3 Stratum I ...... 5-13 Table 5-8. Artifacts from TU 3, Stratum II ...... 5-15

iv Table of Contents

Table 5-9. Artifacts from TU 3, Stratum III ...... 5-15 Table 5-10. Artifacts from STP 60NE in Locus B ...... 5-20 Table 5-11. Artifacts From Locus C STPs...... 5-23 Table 5-12. Artifact Distribution in Locus C STPs ...... 5-24 Table 5-13. Artifacts from TU 1, Stratum II ...... 5-24 Table 5-14. Prehistoric Ceramics from 44AX0031 ...... 5-26 Table 5-15. Distribution of Stone Tools Recovered from 44AX0031 ...... 5-28 Table 5-16. Size Grades of Complete and Near Complete Flakes from Locus A ...... 5-31 Table 5-17. Historic Artifacts from Disturbed Contexts at 44AX0031 ...... 5-32 Table 5-18. Historic Artifacts from Secured Contexts at 44AX0031 ...... 5-32

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Project Location ...... 1-2 Figure 1-2. Project APE ...... 1-3 Figure 2-1. Landforms Described in Text ...... 2-2 Figure 3-1. 1777 LeRouge, Fry, and Jefferson Map ...... 3-12 Figure 3-2. 1864 Milcher Map ...... 3-13 Figure 3-3. 1879 Hopkins Map ...... 3-14 Figure 5-1. Survey Plan ...... 5-2 Figure 5-2. Site 44AX0236Plan Map ...... 5-4 Figure 5-3. Site 44AX0236 Representative Soil Profiles ...... 5-6 Figure 5-4. Site 44AX0031 Plan Map ...... 5-8 Figure 5-5. Site 44AX0031 Locus A Selected Representative Soil Profiles ...... 5-9 Figure 5-6. TU 2 South Profile ...... 5-12 Figure 5-7. TU 3 North Profile ...... 5-14 Figure 5-8. TU 4 South Profile ...... 5-17 Figure 5-9. TU 5 West Profile ...... 5-18 Figure 5-10. Disturbances near Locus B. View to the West...... 5-19 Figure 5-11. Site 44AX0031 Loci B and C Selected Representative Soil Profiles ...... 5-21 Figure 5-12. TU 6 South Profile ...... 5-22 Figure 5-13. TU 1 West Profile ...... 5-25 Figure 5-14. Selected Representative Accokeek Ware Sherds from 44AX0031 ...... 5-27 Figure 5-15. Diagnostic PPKs from 44AX0031 ...... 5-30 Figure 6-1. Topographic Map Showing Site Identified During the Survey ...... 6-3 Figure 6-2. Historically Significant Locations of site 44AX0031 ...... 6-4

v Table of Contents

Page Intentionally Blank

vi SECTIONONE Introduction 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Alexandria (the city) is undertaking a stream restoration along 266 meters (m) [875 feet (ft)] of the Lucky Run stream, located on the west side of the City of Alexandria, Virginia (Figure 1-1). Phase I survey and Phase II evaluation archaeological investigations were completed to assist the city in meeting regulatory obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and the City of Alexandria’s Archaeological Protection Code (1989) and in accordance with the City of Alexandria Archaeology Standards (Alexandria Archaeology 2007). The survey’s principal objective was to identify significant archaeological resources within the project’s defined Area of Potential Effect (APE). The APE extends from a culvert emerging from the road prism east of Braddock Road approximately 72 m (236 ft) north of the I-395 viaduct and continues northeast to a retention pond, whose center- point is located 225 m (40 ft) southwest of the intersection of Ford Avenue and Park Center Drive (Figure 1-2). The width of the approximately 0.68 hectare (1.69 acre) APE width varies throughout the project, but generally follows the foot of the bluff slopes along the edges of the stream floodplain. The investigations were conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s “Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties” (36 CFR 800; U.S. Department of the Interior USDI 2004). The study also conformed to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources’ (DHR) Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia (DHR 2011) and the City of Alexandria Archaeology Standards (Alexandria Archaeology 2007). All work was conducted under an Archaeological Preservation Certification approved by the City Archaeologist. Phase I investigations were completed in July 9-12, 2018. Phase II testing at 44AX0031 occurred September 24-28, 2018. Scott Seibel served as the Principal Investigator for the project, Ralph Koziarski served as Field Director, Kayla Marciniszyn was the Laboratory Director, and field and laboratory technicians included Benjamin Stewart and Joseph Normandy. Following this Introduction the report is divided into six sections: Project Location and Description; Cultural Context; Research Design; Results; Conclusions and Recommendations; and References Cited. Appendices follow the main body: Appendix A contains the qualifications of investigators and Appendix B contains the artifact catalog. The VDHR site forms for 44AX0031 and 44AX0236 are in Appendix C.

1-1 APE

Project Location

0 0.5 1 Miles

0 0.5 1 1.5 Kilometers

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II Project Location SCALE 1:25,000 PROJ NO 60535473 SOURCE Esri 2018 12420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\ VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Germantown, MD 20876 1-1 Concepts\900-Work\920_GIS\Cultural Resources ¹ Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 1-2 K ea r AP EDr n ton ey mp C Ha t

l n P nto Hu

K Pl e y m sb p d a C G t

0 100 200 Feet y Hw rial 0 20 40 mo 60 Meters Me W y irle h B S CLIENT TITLE G r City of Alexandria nry a He PROJd 5 d Lucky Run Phase I & II Project APE 39 o I- c SCALE k 1:1,000

R PROJ NO 60535473 SOURCE d Esri 2018 12420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\ VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Germantown, MD 20876 1-2 Concepts\900-Work\920_GIS\Cultural Resources ¹ 1-3 SECTIONONE Introduction

Page Intentionally Blank

1-4 SECTIONTWO Project Location and Description 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION The project APE is an irregular-shaped area encompassing 0.68 hectares (1.69 acres) along Lucky Run. Its northern and southern boundaries are formed by the bluff slopes at the edges of the floodplain and terraces. The southern portion of the APE, south of Lucky Run, is characterized by a broad floodplain elevated approximately 0.5 m (1.6 ft) above the stream at the northeast and southwest ends of the APE. Near the center of the APE, the floodplain rises to approximately 1.7 m (5.6 ft) above the stream and is bisected by two deeply incised tributaries that emerge from the bluffs located further southwest. The bluffs overlooking the northern bank are situated closer to the stream than those on the southern bank. This is especially the case in the southwestern portion of the APE, where the several meter high bluffs descend directly into the stream. The bluff slope is broken up by a long narrow terrace at the approximate midpoint of the APE. The terrace is approximately 80 m (262 ft) long and generally 6 m (20 ft) wide. At its northern end, the terrace widens to approximately 20 m (65.6 ft). The terrace is approximately 1 m (3.2 ft) above the stream for most of its length and slopes gently at its northern end to no more than 0.5 m (1. 6 ft) above the stream. This terrace is referred to as the lower terrace throughout the remainder of this document (Figure 2-1). An active floodplain consisting of sand and gravel bars and a stabilized slump area are located at the northernmost boundary of the lower terrace. There is an approximately 1 m (3.2 ft) tall scarp behind the terrace, which culminates in a second alluvial terrace, or upper terrace. The lip of the second bluff roughly corresponds to the APE boundary (Figure 2-1). 2.2 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY The project area is located within the Upland Subprovince of the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province (Roberts and Baily 2000). The landscape consists of broad uplands with low-relief and gentle drainage divides, and steeper slopes in areas dissected by stream erosion. The terraced landscapes rise west from the Atlantic Ocean to a maximum elevation of around 76 m (250 ft) above mean sea level near the Fall Line (Roberts and Baily 2000). The landscape is the product of geologically recent oceanic advances and retreats that have sculpted it over the last few million years. The Coastal Plan consists of unconsolidated sediment layers including sand, sandstone, silt, clay, and gravels that gradually thicken from the Fall Line to the Atlantic Ocean (Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation 2016). 2.3 HYDROLOGY The project area is bisected by a branch of Lucky Run, which historically flowed northeast into Four Mile Run. The stream has been modified and currently emerges from a large culvert under Braddock Road and flows northeast to a retention pond where it is channeled underground. Much of the downstream has been filled and channelized due to housing and commercial development. The stream re-emerges near the intersection of King Street and Walter Reed Drive, some 0.87 kilometers (km) [0.54 miles (mi)] further downstream. The part of the stream within the APE is very shallow and has a gravelly bed. There are sandbars near the streambanks, especially near the northeast end of the APE. Large pieces of concrete debris are common in the streambed, and further modify its flow.

2-1 APE

Upper Terrace

Bluffs

Lower Terrace

Floodplain

Note: Boundaries are approximate

0 100 200 Feet

0 20 40 60 Meters

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II Landforms Described in Text SCALE 1:1,000 PROJ NO 60535473 SOURCE Esri 2018 12420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\ VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Germantown, MD 20876 2-1 Concepts\900-Work\920_GIS\Cultural Resources ¹ 2-2 SECTIONTWO Project Location and Description 2.4 SOILS The United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS 2018a) has mapped the Sassafras-Marumsco Soil Complex within the entire APE. Sassafras soils are well-drained fluviomarine deposits that occur on slopes of 0 to 45 percent and are typically found on the slopes, shoulders, or summits of marine terraces. Table 2-1 provides a summary of the typical Sassafras pedon (USDA NRCS 2018b). The official series description notes that common variations to the typical pedon may include E horizon soils with loamy sand textures (USDA NRCS 2018b). The presence of a substantial developed E horizon may indicate limited subsurface disturbance from agricultural activity. Table 2-1. Sassafras Soils Typical Pedon Horizon Depth (in) Color Texture Ap or A 0–9 Brown (10YR 4/3) Sandy Loam BA 6–21 Yellowish Brown (10YR 5/4) Loam Bt1 21–32 Brown (7.5YR 5/4) Sandy Clay Loam Bt2 32–40 Strong Brown (7.5YR 5/6) Sandy Loam C1 40–52 Strong Brown (7.5YR 5/6) Gravelly Sandy Loam C2 52–70 Brownish Yellow (10YR 6/8) Loamy Sand Marumsco soils are poorly drained marine sediments that occur on low coastal plain terraces. Table 2-2 provides a summary of the typical Marumsco pedon (USDA NRCS 2017b). The presence of a substantial developed E horizon may indicate limited subsurface disturbance from agricultural activity. Table 2-2. Marumsco Soils Typical Pedon Horizon Depth (in) Color Texture O 2-0 Organic cover Sandy Loam A 0–1 Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) Loam E 1–7 Pale Brown (10YR 6/3) Loam Bt1 7–10 Brownish Yellow (10YR 6/6) Clay Loam Bt2 10-29 Brownish Yellow (10YR 6/6) Clay Btg 29–47 Gray (10YR 5/1) Sand Clay Loam Cg 47-75 Gray (10YR 6/1) Sandy Clay Loam

2.5 CURRENT CONDITIONS AND LAND USE The landscape within the project area has been modified considerably. Lucky Run has been channelized within its valley, and the terraces have also seen extensive development. The second terrace above the north bank has been turned into park-land and includes walking paths and a storm water retention pond located just outside of the APE. The floodplain on the southern bank features a sewer line running parallel to the stream. The APE is densely wooded, but many of the trees appear to be relatively young, and the location was probably logged and or cultivated into the first half of the twentieth century. The stream’s active floodplain is likely affected by the storm water retention pond at the northeast end of the APE.

2-3 SECTIONTWO Project Location and Description

Page Intentionally Blank

2-4 SECTIONTHREE Cultural Context 3.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT The DHR has developed historic contexts that provide a framework for the description and analysis of known or expected cultural resources and the basis for evaluating the significance of those resources. These contexts are organized by geographic region, time/developmental period, and theme. 3.1 PREHISTORIC CONTEXT Mid-Atlantic prehistory is traditionally divided into three major periods: the Paleoindian (10,000–8,000 B.C.), Archaic (8,000–1,000 B.C.), and Woodland (1,000 B.C.–A.D. 1600) periods. Taken together, the major eras of Mid-Atlantic prehistory represent a timescale beginning with the earliest regional occupations and concluding with the watershed period of contact with European and African cultures. Major alterations to Native American lifeways help characterize each period, as trends in settlement patterns, subsistence strategies, exchange networks, and material culture experienced diachronic change. 3.1.1 Paleoindian Period (10,000–8,000 B.C.) The earliest documented prehistoric occupations within the Mid-Atlantic region are those of the Paleoindian period. While Paleoindian sites are rare in the region, there have been sufficient excavations to adequately identify some of this period’s character-defining attributes. Lithic technology is particularly distinctive for this era, with end scrapers and fluted projectile points of jasper, chert, chalcedony, quartz, and quartzite comprising the diagnostic Paleoindian tool kit (Dent 1995). Settlement patterns and subsistence strategies are somewhat difficult to define, but Binford’s (1980) forager-through-collector spectrum has traditionally been applied. In this model, settlement and subsistence are tied closely together and fall within a spectrum that ranges from highly mobile foraging strategies to a more sedentary, resource collection lifestyle. In the Mid- Atlantic, inhabitants seem to have been idealized foragers rather than sedentary collectors at this time; people may have moved in small bands to procure resources, but probably returned to valuable sites such as lithic outcrops at certain times of the year (Dent 1995). Sites associated with these restricted resources are termed temporary resource procurement camps and would have likely been repeatedly visited during forays from larger base camps (Gardner 1980). 3.1.2 Archaic Period (8,000–1,000 B.C.) The Archaic period represents a regional lifestyle shift driven in part by changes in climatic, biotic, and environmental conditions that occurred at the end of the Pleistocene. While the Paleoindian foraging system continued through the Early and Middle Archaic subperiods, settlement strategies eventually shifted in focus to macro-group base camps with outlying resource procurement sites. Newly emerging ecosystems enabled Mid-Atlantic populations to expand into regions with productive freshwater environments, shifting early base camp sites from lithic to biotic resources (Custer 1990). 3.1.2.1 Early Archaic (8,000-6.000 B.C.) During the Early Archaic Period, environmental conditions were not drastically different from Paleoindian times. Glacial recession continued and deciduous forests expanded, possibly leading to a greater proliferation of temperate fauna. The most distinctive cultural characteristic of the

3-1 SECTIONTHREE Cultural Context Early Archaic was the appearance of notched projectile points, most notably the Palmer and Kirk varieties. There was a continuation in the Paleoindian tradition of using high quality cryptocrystalline lithic materials until the end of the Early Archaic Period when lower quality quartz and quartzite materials were more frequently used. During the Early Archaic Period, and into the Middle Archaic Period, there was significant innovation in stone tool kits. Stemmed and side-notched serrated projectile points replaced the fluted projectile point varieties. The variety of projectile points associated with these periods indicates possible changes in subsistence strategies and exchange networks, and a possible regionalization of cultural traditions. Projectile point styles characteristic of the period include: corner-notched, serrated point styles such as Kirk, Palmer, Charleston, Lost Lake, Decatur, Amos, Kessel, and Fort Nottoway/Thebes; and stemmed points such as the Kirk stemmed and Pequea types (Custer 1984a, 1989, 1996; Dent 1995). Other tool types characteristic of Early Archaic Period assemblages include grinding slabs, milling stones, nutting stones, chipped stone adzes, wedges, perforators, knives, scrapers, as well as unifacial and bifacial tools (Dent 1995). Both Gardner (1974) and Custer (1980) have hypothesized that during the Early Archaic Period, people banded together into macro-base camps, or groups of families, in the spring and summer, and dispersed into smaller micro-base camps in the fall and winter months. The larger base camps were located in the valley floodplains while the smaller autumn and winter encampments were located in upland regions. There is little faunal or floral evidence from archeological sites dating to the Early Archaic period, though “it is assumed that this environment supported bear, deer, elk, and a variety of small game adapted to a northern climate” (Kavanagh 1982:9). Floral evidence from sites such as the Crane Point site on the Maryland Western Shore, includes hickory nut, butternut, acorn, amaranth, and chenopodium (Lowery and Custer 1990; Lowery 2001, 2003). Changes in tool types have been interpreted as a shift in subsistence strategies towards a broad-spectrum adaptation, utilizing a variety of species of animals and plants, rather than focusing primarily on large animals. 3.1.2.2 Middle Archaic (6000-4000 B.C.) The beginning of the Middle Archaic Period coincides with the on-set of the Atlantic climatic episode, a warm, humid period with a gradual rise in sea level that led to the development of inland swamps (Barse and Beauregard 1994:9). It was a period marked by an increase in summer drought, sea level rise, grassland expansion into the Eastern Woodlands, and the appearance of new plant species (Carbone 1976:106; Hantman 1990:138). Human settlements consisted of small base camps located in or near inland swamps that were convenient to access seasonally available subsistence resources as well as small, temporary upland hunting sites. Supplementing hunting, and the use of a greater variety of plant resources allowed for an increase in general foraging (Kavanagh 1982:50). Tools such as projectile points exhibit increasing diversity in morphology and raw material usage. Projectile point styles dating to this period include St. Albans, LeCroy, and Kanawaha bifurcated types, as well as other varieties including Stanly Stemmed/Neville, Morrow Mountain I and II, and Guilford. Groundstone tools (e.g., axes and gouges), such as those used in plant processing, appear for the first time during this period. A tendency towards greater reliance on local lithic sources led to a marked increase in numbers of expedient or informal flake tools for short-term use.

3-2 SECTIONTHREE Cultural Context 3.1.2.3 Late Archaic (4.000-1,000 B.C.) By approximately 3000 B.C., modern vegetation had become established in the region and the climate was punctuated by alternating periods of dry and moist conditions (Brush 1986:150). In general, the Late Archaic Period is characterized by a warmer and drier climate than today, with the development of xeric forests (e.g., oak and hickory) and open grasslands (Carbone 1976; Custer 1984b; Custer and Mellin 1989; Kellogg and Custer 1994). Sea level continued to rise, but was relatively stable by the end of the Late Archaic Period (Colman et al. 1993; Dent 1995; Lowery 2003). The warmer and drier climate appears to have stabilized stream valleys and estuaries in the region making such localities more attractive for settlement. These settings developed into rich habitats with a great diversity of exploitable resources, particularly shellfish and anadromous fish (Dent 1995). This is reflected in the changes manifested in Late Archaic tool kits as well as in the number of site types and site locations utilized. The Late Archaic Period is characterized by a large variety of projectile point styles, including Otter Creek, Vosburg, and Brewerton, Lackawaxen, Bare Island, Halifax Side-Notched, Vernon, Clagett, Piscataway (a type that persists into the Woodland Period), and Holmes (Dent 1995). Projectile point styles characteristic of the end of the Late Archaic (sometimes referred to as the Terminal Archaic Period) include “broadspears” such as the Savannah River, Susquehanna Broadspear, Koens-Crispin, Lehigh, and Perkiomen types (Dent 1995). Other projectile point types found during the Terminal Archaic that persist into the Early Woodland Period include the Orient Fishtail and Dry Brook types. The Fishtail phase marks the end of the Archaic Period and the beginning of the Early Woodland. Other artifacts characteristic of the period include steatite (soapstone) bowls, groundstone tools (axes, adzes, celts, and gouges), perforators and drills made on broken projectile points, and scrapers (Dent 1995). Rhyolite was established during this period as a preferred lithic raw material for tool manufacturing. It was during the Terminal Archaic as well as the succeeding Early Woodland Period that large amounts of rhyolite were transported from sources in the Blue Ridge to the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. In spite of the prevalence of rhyolite on Piedmont and Coastal Plain sites, the network that facilitated the rhyolite trade is not well understood (Kavanagh 1982:99). Locally available materials, such as quartz, also continued to be used for tool manufacture. The Late Archaic was characterized in the eastern United States by evidence of population growth, patterns of regional differentiation, and increased technological specialization. Trade networks appear to have been established for the exchange of raw materials and finished goods. The first large, semi-sedentary (i.e., occupied for several months or seasons) base camps were established along rivers and streams. Surface site data show increases in site size, which may simply represent multiple, repeated occupations rather than single, large group manifestations. Site types postulated for the area include base camps, temporary camps, and resource procurement stations (Dent 1995). Subsistence was still largely based upon gathering and hunting, although there was an increased reliance on riverine resources toward the end of the period (Steponaitis 1980). The earlier trend toward a broad spectrum adaptation in which a variety of resources were exploited in many different environmental settings continued. This broad spectrum adaptation is another way of characterizing what Caldwell (1958) called primary forest efficiency in the Archaic of the Eastern Woodlands.

3-3 SECTIONTHREE Cultural Context A number of indicators point to an intensification of certain subsistence strategies ca. 2000 B.C., representing a major change in lifeways. This intensification has been explained both as a consequence of gradual change (Caldwell 1958), and as episodic change relating to a shifts in the composition of the environment (Carbone 1976). Structures such as fish weirs, used to exploit anadromous fish runs, were constructed during this period and reflect the intensive riverine focus of the latter part of this period. While riverine resources were certainly important, interior and upland areas continued to be utilized by Late Archaic peoples. Late Archaic subsistence economies may be described as diffuse, considering the use of upland areas for a broad range of resource procurement activities gathering foods such as acorns, hickory nuts, and butternuts as well as large and small game (Cleland 1976). By 1500 B.C., subterranean storage pits and steatite containers appear in the archeological record, both of which are direct evidence of technological development that reflects the production of food surpluses and the need to preserve them over an extended period. The appearance of large numbers of implements, useful in processing seed and fiber products, is further evidence of this emerging economic pattern. 3.1.3 Woodland Period (1,000 B.C.–A.D. 1600) Innovations in technology, economy, and settlement blossomed during the Woodland period in the Mid-Atlantic. Ceramic technology was developed, replete with regional stylistic and construction variations. Projectile point technology also underwent further development and was eventually adapted to the bow and arrow (Dent 1995). Local and regional exchange systems were also important components to some Woodland period societies, with the movement of exotic materials from the Piedmont to sites on the Coastal Plain (Dent 1995; Sperling 2008). Throughout the Woodland period, there is a greater regional move toward sedentary lifeways, transitioning from a system of mobile collection strategies to one of established village sedentism (Dent 1995; Sperling 2008). During this shift, there is evidence for greater emphasis placed on horticultural, and eventually, agricultural practices throughout the Mid-Atlantic region, although the extent to which this subsistence strategy contributed to local diets is debated (Smith 1992; Dent 1995). Toward the close of the Woodland period, indications of sedentism can also be found in permanent cooking and food storage features, village palisades, middens, and the ossuary burial method. Together with stabilizing agricultural practices, the final centuries of the Woodland period witnessed the greatest degree of sedentism in the Mid-Atlantic until the arrival of Europeans (Dent 1995). 3.1.3.1 Early Woodland (1,000-500 B.C.) The introduction of pottery around 1000 B.C. marks the beginning of the Woodland Period. Potters’ innovations, as reflected in ceramic types, have become a significant basis for dating Woodland Period archeological site components. The earliest ceramic types from the area are the steatite-tempered Marcey Creek ware and Selden Island varieties, which were replaced by the sand or crushed quartz-tempered Accokeek wares. These ceramics are associated with fishtail and corner-notched projectile point types. In particular, Accokeek ceramics are often associated with Calvert and Rossville points (Wesler et al. 1981:183). Stone artifacts characteristic of the Early Woodland Period include Calvert, Rossville, Potts, and Piscataway types, some of which are also found in Late Archaic contexts (Dent 1995; Hranicky 1991, 1993, 1994; Hranicky and Painter 1989). Other artifact types include drills, perforators, flake tools, scrapers, bifaces, anvil stones, net sinkers, mortars, pestles, manos, metates,

3-4 SECTIONTHREE Cultural Context groundstone tools (e.g., axes, adzes, celts), ground slate, gorgets, and tools made from animal bone and teeth (Dent 1995). The Early Woodland Period is marked by an intensification of burial ceremonialism. Influences from the Ohio River Valley include the Adena culture, which is represented on a few key sites in the Middle Atlantic region during the Early Woodland Period. Artifacts associated with the Adena culture include Cresap stemmed points, large bifaces, blocked-end tubular pipes, effigy pipes, copper beads and other copper artifacts, gorgets, pendants, bird stones, bar stones, ground slate objects, and red ochre (Dent 1995). Many of the known Adena sites in the region are found on the Western Shore and Delmarva Peninsula, but are unknown in the Maryland Piedmont. Early Woodland sites are generally larger than sites of previous times, and there seems to have been an increasing reliance on riverine and estuarine resource areas. The smaller camps were established seasonally in areas where ripening resources or concentrations of game could be found. The settlement-subsistence system of this period was focused primarily on a series of base camps where people gathered together to exploit seasonally available resources (Gardner 1982:60). These base camps were used to harvest anadromous fish in the spring and early summer and to exploit estuarine resources in the fall and early winter. Barber (1991) contends that an increase in sedentism was in part a result of a stabilized sea level that facilitated the establishment of resource-rich environments. Other than a trend toward sedentism and more focused hunting and gathering, subsistence patterns were similar to the preceding Late Archaic period with increasing reliance on marine resources (e.g., shellfish) and cultivated plants (Dent 1995). There is presently little evidence of the use of cultigens in the Middle Atlantic region at this time. 3.1.3.2 Middle Woodland (500 B.C.-A.D. 900) The Middle Woodland Period (500 B.C.-A.D. 900) generally is not well-defined, and researchers disagree about the exact boundaries of the period. Dent (1995:235) has referred to this period of “technological homogenization” where “ceramic and projectile point variability becomes limited to fewer types.” Despite the presence of fewer ceramic and projectile point styles, the Middle Woodland Period represents a continuation and further development of cultural complexity that culminates in the Late Woodland Period. In addition, intensification in trade networks over a large region is one of the notable trends evident by the onset of the Middle Woodland Period. It is thought that warmer and drier conditions may have prevailed during this period (Kellogg and Custer 1994). The major ceramic type for the area is Popes Creek ware (Barse and Beauregard 1994; Dent 1995). Popes Creek ceramics were first manufactured in the Early Woodland Period, and the style persisted through the early Middle Woodland Period in the region (Jefferson Patterson Park Museum [JPPM] 2018). Stone tool kits utilized by Middle Woodland peoples are basically the same as those used during the succeeding Late Woodland but more exotic lithic materials are evident in Middle Woodland assemblages. The technology evident in many of the Middle Woodland sites seems to favor bifacial tool production rather than the prepared core and blade flake technology that typifies Ohio Valley cultures at this time. Projectile points characteristic of the Middle Woodland Period include Selby Bay/Fox Creek and the Jack’s Reef types (Custer 1989; Dent 1995; Potter 1993). Other tool types found during the Middle Woodland Period include drills, perforators, flake tools, scrapers, bifaces, anvil stones, net sinkers, mortars, pestles, manos, metates, groundstone tools (e.g., axes, adzes, celts), ground slate, gorgets, and

3-5 SECTIONTHREE Cultural Context tools made from animal bone and teeth (Dent 1995). Dent (1995) also notes that bone tools, such as awls and needles, appear to be more ubiquitous during the Middle Woodland than the preceding Early Woodland Period. The presence of non-local rhyolite, argillite, and jasper at a few sites suggests that exchange networks may have been in place (Barse and Beauregard 1994:15). Settlement patterns were largely similar to those of the Early Woodland Period, although base- camp settlements located at freshwater/brackish water junctions appear to have been abandoned in favor of broader floodplain sites where maximum resource exploitation of both non-tidal and tidal aquatic resources was possible (Dent 1995). The large number of sites for this time period and the extensive size of some of the sites support the argument for possible seasonal aggregation and dispersal. Hunting and gathering continued as the primary food sources, with increased reliance on riverine and domesticated plant resources. The presence of large shell midden sites during the Middle Woodland Period indicate the increased reliance on shellfish. 3.1.3.3 Late Woodland (A.D. 900-1600) By the Late Woodland Period (A.D. 900-1600) cultivated crops came to play an important role in subsistence for much of the region (Dent 1995). It is during this time that maize horticulture is adopted, although hunting, gathering, and fishing remained an important part of the subsistence economy. The Holocene was thought to have been climatically stable; however, recent research has demonstrated the Holocene was punctuated by abrupt periods of cooling and/or drought lasting decades or centuries (Brush and Hilgartner 2000; deMenocal 2001; Mann et al. 1998; Mayewski et al. 2002; National Climatic Data Center 2005; Osborn and Briffa 2006; Stahle et al. 1988; Stahle et al. 1998; Willard et al. 2005). One of these cooling cycles, The Little Ice Age, occurred between ca. A.D. 1300 and 1850. Wall (2001:28) notes that the archeological evidence in the region suggests less agriculturally productive areas were occupied after A.D. 1400, and this is perhaps a reflection of deteriorating environmental conditions caused by the Little Ice Age. Late Woodland ceramics found in the region include Page, Shepard, Townsend, Potomac Creek, and Shenks Ferry wares (JPPM 2018). Ceramic decoration and embellishment appear to be very important at this time. Small triangular projectile points, such as Madison and Levanna types, are evidence of a change in hunting technology from the atlatl-launched spear to the bow and arrow. There is an apparent preference for locally available stone material for making points. Other stone artifacts associated with Late Woodland Period sites include scrapers, perforators, bifaces, hoes, choppers, net sinkers, groundstone axes, celts, adzes, mauls, grinding slabs, metates, manos, mortars, pestles, pendants, boatstones, bannerstones, and abraders (Dent 1995; Stephenson and Ferguson 1963). Artifacts made from shell and bone also are recovered from Late Woodland Period sites, including fish hooks, scraping implements, pendants, beads, awls, bodkins, beamers, needles, pins, and beads (Dent 1995). Clay tobacco pipes were manufactured during this period. Copper beads and pendants are also, but rarely, found (Dent 1995). Unlike the Early and Middle Woodland Periods that exhibited a rich mortuary tradition, Late Woodland mortuary sites consist of large ossuaries containing human remains and few grave goods. Exotic items, such as are found in Early and Middle Woodland Period mortuary contexts, are absent from Late Woodland ossuaries (Dent 1995). Smaller, single interments are found throughout the Chesapeake region. Late Woodland Period dog burials have also been recorded in Virginia (Dent 1995).

3-6 SECTIONTHREE Cultural Context The establishment of stable agriculture during the Late Woodland Period led to the development of sedentary floodplain village communities. Villages were often located within palisades near agricultural fields (Wall 2001). The reliance on agriculture, as well as the presence of the remains of village palisades, hearths, storage pits, middens, and burials indicates the greatest degree of sedentism seen until this time. Settlements were generally located on broad floodplains, often near the junction of a tributary stream and river (Wall 2001). Small transient camps have been found in upland settings (Gardner et al. 1984:18-20). Hunting and gathering was conducted from larger estuarine camps surrounded by micro-band camps. Other trends include shifts in lithic raw material preferences, perhaps related to the development of more sedentary lifestyles. As a result, smaller foraging and hunting ranges would have resulted in more limited exploration for lithic raw materials and greater dependence on resources found near the camps as well as those regularly obtained through exchange with other groups. Increased population density and competition for choice land and resources led to the rise of chiefdoms and a hierarchical type of political organization. Hunting, gathering, and fishing were still practiced, but to a lesser extent than earlier. After A.D. 1500, there was an increase in social and political interaction among native tribes in the region, and Potter (1993:151) has suggested that an alliance of coastal plain Algonquian groups was formed prior to European contact. 3.2 HISTORIC CONTEXT The time periods listed in the following history are those identified by DHR as important historic contexts for the state. 3.2.1 Settlement to Society (A.D. 1607–1750) In 1607, the first permanent English colony was established at Jamestown, Virginia, and European exploration and settlement of the Chesapeake area continued from that time onward. Captain John Smith’s explorations of the Chesapeake Bay area during the years 1608 to 1610 marked the first documented contact between European explorers and Native Americans in the region. Captain Smith’s journal describes his travels and maps Indian village sites along the extensive estuaries of the Potomac River. Captain Smith noted six tribes living on the northern side of the Potomac River, with the largest population of Native Americans found at the community of Moyaone (Clark 1980; Toogood 1969). By the 1650s, European settlers were taking an aggressive role in claiming lands and driving out Native Americans. Disease and warfare virtually exterminated the chiefdoms of Maryland and Virginia, and those that survived were eventually forced out of their homelands or lived among the Europeans. The location of the City of Alexandria was originally part of a 700-acre patent that was issued to Margaret Brent (1601–1671) of Maryland on September 6, 1654, by Virginia Royal Governor Richard Bennett. Although Brent had re-patented her 700 acers “in the Freshes of Potomac River beginning at the Mouth of Hunting Creek” in 1662, Governor Berkeley had also issued an overlapping patent of 6,000 ac to Robert Howson, a Welsh sea captain in October 1669 (Moxham 1974:6-7; 262). Howson quickly resold his real estate to John Alexander, a Stafford County planter, on November 13, 1669, for 6,000 pounds of crop tobacco. Alexander, who did not realize that Brent’s 700 ac were encompassed in his grant, had to pay for the parcel twice. He paid the heirs of Margaret Brent 10,500 pounds of tobacco in 1674 for a clear title to the same. John Alexander leased the land to tenant farmers (Barse and Harbison 2000). Upon John Alexander’s death, his holdings were devised to his two sons, Robert and Philip, and a portion became the site of Hugh West’s Hunting Creek Warehouse, thence Alexandria.

3-7 SECTIONTHREE Cultural Context Virginia quickly became an important tobacco-producing colony, and the Tidewater Potomac River area was intrinsic in the development of the Chesapeake tobacco culture (Kulikoff 1986;). In 1730, the Virginia Legislature passed a tobacco inspection act that called for the construction of tobacco warehouses along the major tributaries to allow for the regulated inspection, packaging, and shipping of tobacco to Great Britain. The first tobacco station in Alexandria, then known as West’s Point, was established in 1732. The station consisted of a tobacco warehouse to be used as a public inspection facility. The construction of this facility occurred after a protracted battle over the proposed location. Charles Broadwater petitioned for the tobacco station to be built on his land south of Hunting Creek. This location was found to be insufficient as it lacked deep water for ocean going vessels. Instead, the tobacco warehouse was built on 220 acres of Hugh West’s land approximately 1 mile up the Potomac (Alexandria Archaeology Museum 2010a). In 1748, a dispute arose when the residents of Fairfax County petitioned the Virginia House of Burgesses for a charter to build a town near the tobacco inspection site. The location of the town was debated, and a decision was finally reached in May of 1749 (Alexandria Archaeology Museum 2010b). John West, Jr., assistant surveyor for Fairfax County, laid out the town on 60 acres formerly owned by Philip and John Alexander and Hugh West; the town was divided into 84 one-half-acre lots. 3.2.2 Colony to Nation (A.D. 1750–1789) The eighteenth century saw a significant increase in population and wealth in Fairfax County, including the formation of port towns like Colchester and Alexandria. The population of the county increased by 85 percent between the 1742 formation of Fairfax County and 1754 (Netherton et al. 1992). The population of Fairfax County increased by an additional 95 percent between 1757, when Loudon County was formed from western Fairfax County, to 1773 (Netherton et al. 1992). As a port city, Alexandria took a central place in the commerce, trade, and economy of Fairfax County. The Fairfax County courthouse was moved to Alexandria in 1753, encouraging new business and settlement in the town. Alexandria boasted a courthouse, jail, six ordinaries, warehouses, a kiln, and both small, rustic houses and more substantial brick, Georgian style houses owned by wealthy men, like John Carlyle in the 1750s. By the 1760s, the town included carpenters, merchants, doctors, wig makers, and a school. Shipbuilding also became a thriving industry along the Potomac, and shipyards were first established in Alexandria at West’s Point and Point Lumley in the 1760s. By the end of the eighteenth century, Alexandria ranked third in traffic among port cities in the new United States (Miller 1987). Tobacco was the chief export of the Alexandria region prior to the Revolution, but grain production increased throughout the second half of the century (Barse et al. 2006; Netherton et al. 1992). Grain, most notably wheat, soon surpassed tobacco as the primary export. Exported grains frequently made their way to the British West Indies, although new markets in Europe opened once independence was declared (Barse et al. 2006). In order to process this grain, grist mills sprang up along the Fall Line across the region. These mills continued to be prevalent in the region well into the nineteenth century. The water-powered mills often spawned new communities as other merchants began to locate near the mills. The landscape underwent change as cultivated fields replaced forests and new infrastructure led to the development of burgeoning communities (Netherton et al. 1992).

3-8 SECTIONTHREE Cultural Context On July 18, 1774, several townsmen including George Washington met at the courthouse in Alexandria to approve the Fairfax Resolves. Penned by George Mason, these resolutions were a firm statement of the Colonists’ position regarding their constitutional rights under British law. With the outbreak of hostilities at Lexington, Massachusetts on April 19, 1775, many Alexandrians enlisted in the Continental Army. The town soon became a logistical supply center for the American forces, including supplying grain and foodstuffs to the army. The advent of the Revolutionary War altered the landscape, including construction of a gun battery on Jones Point for the protection of Alexandria (Barse and Harbison 2000; Miller 1984:19). Generals Washington and Rochambeau and their troops traveled along the King’s Highway en route to and from the battle of Yorktown. They camped at Alexandria and Colchester in Fairfax County (Rochambeau 1782). 3.2.3 Early National and Antebellum Periods (A.D. 1789–1860) In 1789, Alexandria and a portion of Fairfax County were ceded by the State of Virginia to become a component of the newly created 10-square-mi District of Columbia. The first cornerstone of the District was laid at Jones Point in Alexandria on April 15, 1791 (Barse et al. 2006; Brockett and Rock 1883). Formally accepted by the U.S. Congress in 1801, Alexandria remained under the aegis of the new federal government until it was retroceded back to Virginia in 1847 (Brockett and Rock 1883). It then became the seat of government for the newly formed Alexandria County (Hurd 1989). Alexandria became a chartered city in the 1850s, and the city limits were expanded (Barse et al. 2006). Alexandria’s position as a major Virginia seaport made it vulnerable to epidemics during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Residents of Alexandria were stricken with malaria, typhoid, yellow fever, and smallpox, some of which were brought on arriving merchant vessels (Miller 1984). The strong economy was gone by the late 1820s and 1830s, and a depression extended to 1843. As grain and flour exports waned, the export of shad and herring became a major industry. Alexandria was retroceded to Virginia in 1847. This action corresponded with a period of economic prosperity and the rise of industries. The completion of a number of railroads, including the Orange and Alexandria, the Manassas Gap, the Alexandria, Loudoun and Hampshire, and the Alexandria and Washington, further spurred economic development (Hurst 1991). The railroads transported the agricultural riches of the Virginia hinterland to the docks and wharves at Alexandria. From 1850 to 1860, Alexandria experienced another period of growth. The city’s population increased from 8,795 to 12,652, and more than 500 houses were constructed in the five year period from 1850 to 1860 (Hurst 1991). Among the many internal improvements during this time were a new gas and waterworks. The Alexandria Water Company was incorporated in March 1850, and by summer 1852, water flowed from the reservoir on Shuter’s Hill to downtown through 7 mi of pipelines (Hurst 1991). Gas lighting soon followed. 3.2.4 The Civil War (A.D. 1861–1865) On May 24, 1861, one day after Alexandrians voted to withdraw from the Union, federal forces occupied the city. Because of its strategic importance, Alexandria became a major logistical supply center for the federal Armies fighting in Virginia. Private homes, land, churches, and local public buildings were commandeered for military barracks, hospitals, and prisons. Fortifications were established along the approaches to Washington D.C. including Fort Ward established near 4 Mile Run (Barber 1988). The African-American population grew during the

3-9 SECTIONTHREE Cultural Context war as people came to the city for protection; this resulted in establishment of several new African-American communities on the edges of the city (Miller 1987). By the war’s end, Alexandria’s economy and commerce were ruined, its harbor damaged, and many of its buildings destroyed. 3.2.5 Reconstruction and Growth (A.D. 1865–1914) The post-Civil War period was a difficult time for Virginia. Although efforts were made to repair the damage caused by the war, the devastation was too extensive to make that task either easy or short. Farmers resumed production, but the cash needed to rebuild the buildings and for necessary improvements was not always available. The labor force had also been severely stressed by losses during the war and by the loss of slave labor. Plantation agriculture was replaced with tenant farming. For the first post-war years, farm produce brought good prices. Prices fell to pre-war levels within a few years. As time passed, improvements were made in agricultural techniques and machinery, and new animal breeds were introduced. The state began to improve its economic situation by the last decades of the nineteenth century. Although Alexandria was slow to recover from the Civil War, once the Alexandria Canal and the railroads began operation again, the city once again saw significant merchant and manufacturing activity (Miller 1987). By 1882, Alexandria industries included tanneries, iron foundries, shoe factories, machine shops, paper mills, breweries, railroad car works, cement mills, textile mills, bakeries, brickmaking, and other industries employing up to 2,480 people (Brockett and Rock 1883). During the 1880s Alexandria began to acquire modern conveniences with the introduction of the telephone in 1881, rural free mail delivery in 1887, and electricity by 1889. As Alexandria prospered and became more populous, housing developments and suburban communities sprang up in the environs surrounding the city. Among the neighborhoods were the planned was the Stonegate Community and the Avenatti Place towers, both with in the project area. 3.2.6 WWI to Present (A.D. 1915–Present) The Alexandria of the early twentieth century was a town of many manufacturing industries and commercial enterprises, including glass works and the Potomac Yards, the nation’s largest railroad classification facility at that time (Miller 1987). World War I resulted in an influx of workers to the city to support new industries, such as the U.S. Naval Torpedo Factory and the Virginia Shipbuilding Company (Barse et al. 2006). In 1915, a segment, including the project area, of what had been Alexandria County was annexed into the City of Alexandria. After World War I, Alexandria’s restoration was facilitated during the “New Deal” era, resulting in the flow of money into the city’s economy. World War II provided economic opportunities for Alexandria through the placement of government military installations and industries of defense in the city. Cameron Station, built between 1941 and 1945, was a large war-period addition to the western Alexandria landscape. The station functioned as a quartermaster depot during the war and upgraded and enhanced Alexandria’s rail transportation. The growth of the federal government in the twentieth century resulted in an increase in suburban development. To protect its historic resources, Alexandria created an old and historic district in 1946. Modeled after Charleston, South Carolina’s preservation ordinance, Alexandria’s law created the third such historic district in the country. Today, Alexandria is a vibrant community which boasts boutiques and shops, historical museums, art galleries, and

3-10 SECTIONTHREE Cultural Context restaurants. Each year thousands of tourists crowd Alexandria’s cobblestone streets and alleys to enjoy the city’s living history.

3.3 PROJECT AREA HISTORY The western side of the City of Alexandria was farmland up until the start of the twentieth century. Early histories of the area including the project APE are sparse. The location was patented in 1651 as part of what would later become Fairfax County and the general area was soon cleared for tobacco cultivation (Adams et al. 1993:66). The project area was part of 982 acre deed that went to Fairfax County court justice William Henry Terrett in 1741 (Adams et al. 1993:69). The landscape would have been sparsely inhabited during the eighteenth century. A late eighteenth century map illustrates Alexandria, and a route leading west out the town, south of Four Mile Creek (Figure 3-1). The path can be seen branching into three roads south of the approximate project area, and “Camerons Ordinary” is illustrated at the cross-roads. The path leading to the northwest is most likely the same as what would later become the Little River Turnpike (Route 236) approximately 3.57 km (2.22 mi) south of what is now the project area. The road ran from Alexandria and northwest to the town of Aldie (Geddes 1967:115). Roads continued to be built through the region in the early to mid-nineteenth century. In 1828, the Middle Turnpike, which would become Leesburg Turnpike and later King Street (Route 7), was completed (Netherton et al. 1992). King Street runs just 0.33 km (0.21 mi) north of the APE. The Columbia Turnpike (Route 244) and the Loudoun and Hampshire Railroad were build prior to the Civil War. Mills were established near where the roads crossed rapid local streams, and taverns and small villages developed near some of the cross-roads (e.g., Bailey’s Cross Roads). Nevertheless, the region remained largely undeveloped. By the nineteenth century, tobacco farms had exhausted the local soils, and land was allowed to grow fallow. A mid-nineteenth century traveler described the region between the Little River and Middle Turnpikes as a pine wilderness, with only a scattering of cabins along a 12 mile long track between Alexandria and Fairfax (in Wren 1972:12). Early during the Civil War, a series of fortifications were raised around the Capitol in Washington D.C. One of these was Fort Ward, which was built approximately 0.35 km (0.22 mi) east of the current project area. Period maps (e.g., Milcher 1864) illustrate the fort, and roads around the project area, but no buildings are illustrated within its immediate vicinity (Figure 3- 2). Following the Civil War, the pace of development in the region increased. Maps from the 1870s and 1880s illustrate buildings largely to the south and east of the project area, but few in the immediate vicinity. An 1879 Hopkins map (Figure 3-3) illustrates buildings nearby, one of which is labeled “Green”, located northwest of the project area, and a second unlabeled building slightly to the northeast. Both of these were likely located in the upland areas on either side of Lucky Run’s stream valley. Adams et al. (1993) reference a series of late nineteenth and early twentieth century maps that attest to the development of the western side of Alexandria during this time. They also document the deeds and conveyances showing the progressive division and subdivision of the large tracts

3-11 Approximate Project Location

0 1 2 Miles

0 1 2 3 Kilometers

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II 1777 LeRouge, Fry, and Jefferson Map SCALE 1:100,000 PROJ NO 60535473 SOURCE LeRouge et al. 1777 12420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\ VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Germantown, MD 20876 3-1 Concepts\900-Work\920_GIS\Cultural Resources ¹ 3-12 Approximate Project Location

Fort Ward

0 1 2 Miles

0 1 2 3 Kilometers

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II 1864 Michler Map SCALE 1:39,353 PROJ NO 60535473 SOURCE LeRouge et al. 1777 12420 Milestone Center Dr. Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar GeograpFIhGiUcRsE, CNES/Airbus Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\ VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Germantown, MD 20876 3-2 Concepts\900-Work\920_GIS\Cultural Resources ¹ DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 3-13 Approximate Project Location

0 500 1,000 Feet

0 100 200 300 Meters

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II 1879 Hopkins Map SCALE 1:12,000 PROJ NO 60535473 SOURCE Hopkins 1879 12420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\ VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Germantown, MD 20876 3-3 Concepts\900-Work\920_GIS\Cultural Resources ¹ 3-14 SECTIONTHREE Cultural Context of farmland immediately around the project area. At this time residential developments were growing to the north and east of the project area, coincident with the influx of government employees, military leaders, and their families, to the Washington D.C. area during and shortly after World War II. In 1957 the city limits of Alexandria expanded westwards to encompass the project area. At this time, an easement was granted to the city to construct sewer lines in the area. By the 1970s plans were in place for moderate density residential development of the area, and by the 1990s condominiums and high-rise apartments had been built. The area is now highly populated and continues to grow and develop. 3.4 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS Background research was conducted using the archaeological and architectural resources files available from the Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (VCRIS) electronic database and a review of reports of investigations from projects in the area. The primary goal of this research was to identify archaeological sites and above-ground resources recorded within a 0.5- mi radius of the project area. 3.4.1 Previous Cultural Resource Surveys Seven cultural resource surveys registered with DHR had been completed within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the project area as of April 2018 (Table 3-1). Sites and historic resources recorded during these surveys are described in sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 of this document.

Table 3-1. Previous Cultural Resources Surveys within 0.5 Mile of the Project Area Report DHR Report Title Year Report Author(s) No. Archaeological Investigation of the Stonegate Development (Including Sites 44AX31,166, & 167), 1993 Robert M. Adams et al. West Braddock Road, City of Alexandria, Virginia AX-045 Preliminary Archaeological Investigation of the Stonegate Development (Parcel C) West Braddock 1996 Robert M. Adams Road, City of Alexandria, Virginia William M. Gardner, Phase II Archaeological Investigations of an Historic Kimberly A. Snyder, No Data 1995 Area Within 44AX177, City of Alexandria, Virginia Tammy Bryant, Gwen Hurst

Phase III Data Recovery Excavations of the Prehistoric William M. Gardner, No Data Component of 44AX177 and 44AX176, Stonegate 1995 Kimberly A. Snyder, Development, Parcel C, City of Alexandria, Virginia Tammy Bryant

The Archaeological Investigation of the Undeveloped AX-047 Upland Terraces in Mark Center, City of Alexandria, 1994 Robert M.Adams Virginia Cultural Resources Investigations of the 4-Acre Mark Center VI Parcel (Area A) and One Acre of the 6-Acre Sara Ferland, Mike Klein, AX-115 Mark Center Buildings 2A, 2B, and 3 Parcel (Area B) 2009 Emily Lindveit Within the Mark Center Complex on Seminary Road in the City of Alexandria, Virginia Intensive Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Lynn AX-116 1991 Varna G. Boyd et al. House Property, Alexandria, Virginia

3-15 SECTIONTHREE Cultural Context

Report DHR Report Title Year Report Author(s) No. Report on Ground-penetrating Radar Surveys: Possible AX-121 Cemeteries within Fort Ward Historical Park, 2009 Sarah Lowry Alexandria, Virginia Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Stream AX-124 Restoration Project, Winkler Botanical Preserve, 2011 Karl Franz, Thomas Bodor Alexandria, Virginia Third Addendum to the Phase I Archeological Investigations of the I-95/395 HOV/Bus/HOT Lanes Jarod Hutson, John PW-316 2008 Project, Arlington, Fairfax, Prince William and Stafford Mullen Counties and the City of Alexandria Brian Buchanan, Christopher Shephard, Phase I Archeological Investigations of the I-95/395 David Carroll, Curt HOV/Bus/HOT Lanes Project, Arlington, Fairfax, Prince ST-153 2007 Breckenridge, Johnna William and Stafford Counties and the City of Flahive, Christine Alexandria, Virginia Jirkowic, Tammy Bryant, William Barse

3.4.2 Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources Seventeen archaeological sites are recorded within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the project area (Table 3- 2). These include nine historic sites, seven prehistoric sites, and one multicomponent site. The historic sites all date to the second half of the nineteenth century or later and include dwellings (44AX0152, 44AX0162, and 44AX0167), cemeteries (44AX0090, 44AX0121, 44AX0151, and 44AX0153), a hospital and school (44AX0173), and components of the Civil War period Fort Ward (44AX0155). Each of these sites is located in the upland settings, largely to the west and south of the current project area. The late nineteenth century military cemetery (44AX0121) and Fort Ward barracks, mess hall, and midden (44AX0155) have been listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Table 3-2. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within 0.5 Mile of the Project Area Site Number Site Name Site Type Temporal Affiliation Late Archaic to Middle 44AX0031 Unspecified Camp, Domestic Woodland Paleo-Indian to Late 44AX0032 Unspecified Camp, Temporary Woodland Paleo-Indian to Late 44AX0036 Unspecified Camp, Temporary Woodland, 18th Century Late 19th to early 20th 44AX0090 Fort Ward Historical Park Cemetery century 44AX0121 Unspecified Cemetery, Military Camp Late 19th Century Paleo-Indian to Late 44AX0124 Unspecified Camp, Temporary Woodland Oakland Baptist Church 44AX0151 Cemetery Late 19th to 20th century Cemetery 44AX0152 Unspecified Dwelling, Single Late 19th to 20th century Civil War to early 20th 44AX0153 Fort Ward Historical Park Cemetery century

3-16 SECTIONTHREE Cultural Context

Site Number Site Name Site Type Temporal Affiliation

Fort Ward barracks, Mess th 44AX0155 Military Base/Facility 19 century, Civil War Hall, and Trash Dump Indeterminate, likely a 44AX0162 Unspecified 19th century dwelling Paleo-Indian to Late 44AX0166 Unspecified Camp Temporary Woodland 44AX0167 Unspecified Single Dwelling 20th century Protestant Episcopal School, Hospital, Camp, 44AX0173 Theological Seminary in Early 19th to 20th century Farmstead Virginia Paleo-Indian to Late 44AX0176 Unspecified Camp, Temporary Woodland Paleo-Indian to Late 44AX0177 Unspecified Camp Woodland Early Archaic to Late 44AX0205 Unspecified Lithic Workshop Archaic Prehistoric sites include an Early Archaic to Late Archaic period lithic workshop (44AX0205), a Late Archaic to Middle Woodland period camp or habitation site (44AX0031), and five unspecified prehistoric camp sites (44AX0032, 44AX0124, 44AX0166, 44AX0176, and 44AX0177). A multicomponent site (44AX0036) includes an unspecified prehistoric component as well as a late eighteenth to early nineteenth century isolated find. The small prehistoric sites are located largely in upland settings to the north, west, and south of the project area. The larger site 44AX0031, meanwhile, is located within the stream valley of Lucky Run and extends into the APE. Site 44AX0031 was first recorded in 1979 by Alexandria City Archaeology. The site survey form indicates three small artifact loci connected by surface scatters of flakes on the north bank of Lucky Run (in Adams et al. 1993:Appendix B:163). It is not possible to accurately georeference the hand drawn map from the site form, but the location appears to correspond with the lower terrace surveyed during this investigation, approximately 190 m (625 ft) east of Braddock Road. In September of 1992 International Archaeological Consultants (IAC) conducted investigations of 44AX0031 in the location of a storm water retention pond on the upper terrace, just north of the current project APE. The IAC investigations focused on a 58 m (190 ft) long portion of the site located on the second terrace above the northern bank of Lucky Run. IAC’s excavations recovered nearly 2,000 flakes, 14 chipped stone bifaces, Terminal Archaic soapstone vessel fragments, and Early Woodland Accokeek ceramic sherds. The cultural material was stratified within test unit excavations; ceramics and soapstone fragments were identified with lithic artifacts in the upper unit levels of each unit, while the lower levels included only lithics (Adams et al. 1993:204). The site was recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP based on Criterion D. There was an attempt to preserve part of the site by covering it with landscape fabric and burying under 1.5 to 2 ft of gravel (Adams et al 1993: 211). The site area location was set aside as a “Scenic Easement” with a path and interpretive signage (Adams et al 1993:211). 3.4.3 Previously Recorded Above-Ground Resources Seven above-ground resources are registered with DHR within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the project area (Table 3-3). Two are components of The Fort Ward Historic Park listed in the NHRP. These

3-17 SECTIONTHREE Cultural Context include the Fort Ward fortifications and barracks located approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mi) south of the APE, and the ca. 1897 Oakland Baptist Church Cemetery located approximately 0.64 km (0.4 mi) south of the project APE. East of the project APE is the large Fairlington Historic District, which is also listed in the NRHP. The district features several 1940s period Colonial Revival style properties, some of which are as close as 0.4 km (0.25 mi) from the APE. Table 3-3. Historic Properties Located within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the Project APE Direction Resource NRHP Distance Name Type Date From Project ID Status (Mi) Area Larchmont Potentially 100-5336 Residential 1960s North 0.48 Apartments Eligible Mattress & 100-5337 Furniture Commercial ca. 1955 Not Eligible North 0.47 Outlet Fairlington 000-5772 Historic Residential 1940s Listed East/Northeast 0.25 District 100-0113 Fort Ward Military ca. 1861 Listed South 0.22 Oakland Baptist 100-5339 Cemetery ca. 1897 Listed South 0.4 Church Cemetery Southern Potentially 100-5334 Residential 1960s West 0.4 Towers Eligible Hermitage Retirement 100-5335 in Northern 1940s Not Eligible Northwest 0.5 Home Virginia Two potentially NRHP eligible properties are 1960s period residential structures. These include the Larchmont Apartments condominiums located (0.48 mi) north of the APE and the Southern Towers high-rise buildings located 0.64 km (0.4 mi) to the west. The properties called Hermitage in Northern Virginia, a retirement home built in the 1940s, and the Mattress and Furniture Outlet, a 1950s commercial building, have been assessed and determined not eligible for the NRHP.

3-18 SECTIONFOUR Research Design 4.0 RESEARCH DESIGN 4.1 OBJECTIVES The objective of the archaeological investigations was to determine if significant archaeological resources are present within the APE that may be affected by the proposed stream restoration. 4.2 METHODS 4.2.1 Background Research Background research was conducted to provide a context for project area and to aid in the evaluation of the significance of any archaeological sites. This research consisted of the examination of previous documentary studies, cultural resource files registered with DHR within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the project area, a review of historic maps and photographs, and a detailed study of archival materials and other documents. 4.2.2 Field Methods As requested by Alexandria Archaeology, shovel test pits (STPs) were excavated at 9 m (30 ft) or 4.5 m (15 ft) intervals through the APE, excluding the creek bed, disturbed areas, or steep slopes. Each STP measured 43 cm (1.4 ft) in diameter and was stratigraphically excavated up to 1 m (3.28 ft) below ground surface or 10 cm (0.33 ft) into culturally sterile Pleistocene-era subsoil. STP locations were pre-plotted and located in the field with a GPS receiver. The survey transects generally paralleled the course of Lucky Run, thus the survey grid was oriented roughly 45 degrees to the west of magnetic north, and all cardinal references for the Phase I survey were relative to this “grid north”. Radial STPs were placed 4.5 m (15 ft) from positive STPs in all unobstructed grid directions. Six test units (TUs) were excavated to better characterize the nature of archaeological deposits within three loci of site 44AX0031 extending into the APE as identified during the Phase I survey. Four TUs were excavated in Locus A and one each in Loci B and C. TUs measured 1-x-1 m (3.28-x-3.28 ft) in size, except TU 5, which was a 1-x-0.5-m (3.28-x-1.64-ft) rectangular excavation. TUs were excavated in 10 cm (0.33 ft) arbitrary levels, unless a natural soil change was encountered. Excavations were carried 10 cm (0.33 ft) into culturally sterile Pleistocene-era subsoil. In cases where soil conditions prohibited effective excavations, a sondage extending across approximately one-quarter of the TU was excavated into the resistant stratum. All soils were screened through 0.63 cm (0.25 inch) hardware mesh to ensure uniform artifact recovery. Field data were recorded on standard field forms and in general field notes. The forms included Munsell soil color, soil texture, profiles, features present, artifacts recovered, excavator’s initials and the date of excavation. The locations of STPs and TUs were noted on field maps. Artifacts were placed in resealable plastic bags labeled with all relevant provenience information and transported to the AECOM archaeology laboratory in Gaithersburg, Maryland. 4.2.3 Laboratory Processing Artifacts were cleaned, cataloged, and analyzed according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archeological Collections (United States Department of the Interior 1991) and in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the City of Alexandria Archaeology Standards (Alexandria Archaeology

4-1 SECTIONFOUR Research Design 2007). The objectives of laboratory analysis and cataloging were to determine the date, function, cultural affiliation, and significance of the artifacts to the extent possible, as well as to prepare the artifacts for curation with Alexandria Archaeology. Artifact data were entered into a Microsoft Access 2010 database.

4.2.3.1 Historic Artifacts Historic artifacts were classified using Orser’s (1988) functional typology (Table 4-1), which provides a means for interpreting the function of specific historic artifact classes. Within Orser’s system, historic artifacts were analyzed according to material type and function, when possible. The same attributes were recorded for all artifacts, including bag number (corresponding to provenience); artifact number (sequential numbers arbitrarily assigned within a bag); count; material (i.e., the main material composition of the artifact); and form (i.e., the object name reflecting intended use). The original form was often difficult to determine given the fragmentary nature of the artifacts, resulting in the form designation of “fragment.” Identical, or nearly identical, artifacts within a provenience were grouped together under the same catalog number. (Note: catalog number = bag number plus artifact number.) Whenever possible, mendable artifacts were grouped together. Dates of manufacture for diagnostic artifacts were determined using Miller (2000), South (1977), Sprague (1983), and Visser (2017). Table 4-1. Functional Typology (Modified from Orser 1988) Category Subcategory Examples a. Procurement Ammunition, fishhooks, fishing weights b. Preparation Baking pans, cooking vessels, large knives c. Service Fine earthenware, flatware, tableware Coarse earthenware, stoneware, glass bottles, d. Storage 1. Foodways canning jars, bottle stoppers e. General Foodways Unidentified glass and ceramic containers f. Floral Nut shells, seeds, fruit pits, phytoliths, pollen Animal bones, antlers, horns, shells and other g. Faunal remains a. Fasteners Buttons, eyelets, snaps, hooks, eyes 2. Clothing b. Manufacture Needles, pins, scissors, thimbles c. Other Shoe leather, metal shoe shanks, clothes hangers a. Architectural/ Nails, flat glass, spikes, mortar, bricks, slate Construction 3. Household/Structural b. Hardware Hinges, tacks, nuts, bolts, staples, hooks, brackets c. Furnishings/ Stove parts, furniture pieces, lamp parts, fasteners Accessories a. Medicinal Medicine bottles, droppers b. Cosmetic Hairbrushes, hair combs, jars 4. Personal c. Recreational Smoking pipes, toys, musical instruments, souvenirs d. Monetary Coins e. Decorative Jewelry, hairpins, hatpins, spectacles f. Other Pocketknives, fountain pens, pencils, ink wells Barbed wire, horse shoes, harness buckles, hoes, a. Agricultural 5. Labor plow blades, scythe blades b. Industrial Tools

4-2 SECTIONFOUR Research Design

Category Subcategory Examples c. Household Household cleaning products, iron d. General Coal, slag, clinker

4.2.3.2 Prehistoric Artifacts Lithic Artifacts Lithics were catalogued and analyzed using the procedures described below; detailed debitage analysis was confined to specific intact contexts. The following basic information is recorded for lithics: count, weight, material type, group, class, and, as applicable, subclass. Weight is recorded to the nearest hundredth of a gram (g) using a digital Sartorius scale calibrated to 800.00 g. A four-tiered system of classification (group, material, class, and subclass) was used for any artifacts recovered. The broadest level of classification is the group. Potential prehistoric lithic groups include core/tested material, debitage, flaked stone tool, fire-cracked rock, ground/battered stone, and unmodified cultural. Lithics are initially classified based on group and material type, followed by sorting into applicable class and subclass. For example, biface is a lithic class of the group flaked stone tool; early, middle, and late stages are subclasses of the biface class. Depending on the completeness and/or condition of an artifact, additional attributes are recorded, including thermal alteration, cortex percent, and cortex type. Thermal alteration is not necessarily intentional heat treatment, but relates to whether or not the lithic artifacts exhibit evidence of being heated (e.g., luster or color change) or exposed to fire (e.g., potlidding, crazing, burning, or crumbling). Cortex percentage has long been used as an indicator of core and biface reduction stages, as the amount of cortex present on debitage is generally related to the manufacturing process. A greater amount of cortex is perceived as being indicative of an earlier stage of reduction, and a lack of cortex is indicative of later stages of reduction. Although percent cortex can be misleading as a sole source of proxy data (Sullivan and Rozen 1985), studies have demonstrated its usefulness for differentiating general reduction stages (e.g., Ahler 1989; Bradbury and Carr 1995). Raw Material Identification Previous studies at the nearby sites identified a variety of materials both locally procured from riverine cobbles and exotic materials imported from unknown sources. The most commonly encountered locally procured materials are quartzite and quartz (Adams et al 1993; Adams 1996; Gardener 1995a), thought there were other presumably local materials utilized, including sandstone, hornfels, and metarhyolite. Imported materials included chert, jasper, hornsfel, and metarhyolite. Any of these materials are expected to be found on site. Macroscopic observation was the primary method for material identification, with the use of a magnifying hand lends (10 x) or stereomicroscope (10 to 40 x) providing magnification as needed. Debitage Analysis Debitage were sorted into classes based on percent body cortex on the dorsal surface. When possible, percent cortex on the exterior surface of the flake is estimated (none [0], less than 50 percent [<50], or greater than or equal to 50 percent [>50]) and the type of cortex is recorded. Cortex in the form of a rounded surface rind (e.g., from fluvial transport) is classified as

4-3 SECTIONFOUR Research Design smoothed. Angular remnant residual, or parent, material lacking evidence of fluvial transport is classified as residual/matrix. Cortex in the form of a heavily weathered exterior surface as yet unflaked is classified as weathering rind. Debitage were grouped into one of five sublasses: complete/mostly complete flake, which has at least a partial striking platform present and most or all of the distal flake is present; Flake fragments, which are missing the striking platform and/or much of the body of the flake; debris/shatter, which has no identifiable flake morphology, yet is identifiable as resulting waste from flint knapping; Blade/microblade is a flake with a length more than twice its width. Another type of debitage that could be present is the bipolar flake. This method of reduction is the product of hard hammer percussion on one side of the object piece with the other side placed on a hard surface, or anvil. It is possible for there to be and appearance of a striking platform at both ends of the flake. Bipolar flakes can be the byproduct of initial cobble reduction, where the object piece is too small for easy freehand reduction (Andrefsky 1998: 27). The size of each debitage was determined by fitting it into one of a series of circles with graduated diameters. Size grades for debitage were determined by the diameter of the smallest circle into which it fit. Size grades begin at less than 0.375 in (0.95 cm; size grade G1) and end at 4.125 to 4.375 in (10.48 to 11.11 cm; size grade G17); size grades increase in 0.25 in (0.635 cm) increments. The intervals are roughly equivalent to the diagonals of squares that progressively increase in 0.25 in (0.635 cm) increments. This provides a general and relative characterization of debitage sizes rather than an exact measurement of length and width. Cores and Tested Material Tested material and cores are produced during reductive freehand or bipolar processes in which smaller pieces of lithic material are detached from a larger source for the purpose of producing useable flakes. Flake detachment is evidenced by negative flake scars and, sometimes, remnant striking platforms. Cores exhibit a pattern of flake removal and typically a minimum of three or four negative flake scars. Pieces of material with no flaking pattern and fewer flake scars are considered tested material, not cores, the implication being the material was rejected for further reduction. The nature of cores in the lithic reduction continuum is dynamic. Characteristics of a core are attributable to the form of the object starting piece. For example, a quarried chunk of stone will require a reduction strategy different from a thin, tabular slab or a stream cobble. Previously exhausted cores, broken tools, and debitage transported or discarded on the landscape could have been collected, recycled, and reduced by prehistoric people, effectively functioning again as cores. These cores may not necessarily possess characteristics normally attributed to cores (e.g., discoidal or bifacial core). Cores are sorted into classes based on flake removal direction(s). Core classes include unidirectional, bidirectional, and multidirectional: unidirectional cores exhibit flake detachment in one direction from a single striking platform (Andrefsky 2004); bidirectional cores demonstrate flake detachment in two different directions; and multidirectional cores exhibit flake detachment from three or more different directions. Flaked Stone Tools and Diagnostic Artifacts Artifacts classified as flaked stone tools are the result of reductive bipolar, knapping, or pressure flaking processes; flaked stone tools exhibit edge modification and/or use-wear. Flaked stone

4-4 SECTIONFOUR Research Design tools are organized into classes and subclasses based on overall design and shape; tool types identified in the lithic assemblage are defined below. Bifaces are tools that have been flaked across two opposing faces (Crabtree 1972); these faces meet to form an edge that circumscribes the entire artifact. Bifaces can also be opposing bifacially retouched margins, depending on the nature of the reduction complexity (e.g., the manufacture of a biface from a very thin flake blank would not necessarily require invasive thinning). The general shape and edge characteristics of a biface become more regular as the form is reduced and shaped. Bifaces are divided into subclasses relative to an early, middle, or late reduction stage, or the extent of flaking and modification exhibited by the biface. Those classified as early stage bifaces are minimally weakly bifacial, depending on the blank, or starting, form. Early stage bifaces exhibit bulbar flake scars produced by percussion flaking, square to sinuous margin edges, and irregular topography. Middle stage bifaces exhibit bulbar flake scars that typically extend to at least the center of the biface, less sinuous margins, and a relatively continuous flake pattern on both faces. Middle stage bifaces may or may not have undergone initial shaping. Late stage bifaces have undergone shaping and exhibit a regularized topography, straighter margins, and a thinner cross-section relative to earlier stages. Faces may exhibit evidence of secondary thinning, which partially obliterates previous flake scars. The primary distinguishing factor between a late stage biface and a finished biface, or projectile point/knife, is the presence of a diagnostic haft element. An unfinished biface exhibiting macroscopically visible use-wear is classified as an “unfinished biface used as a tool.” Debitage exhibiting use or marginal retouch are classified as either utilized or retouched. Utilization creates a regular, but not necessarily continuous, pattern of edge damage (i.e., microflaking) attributable to tool use. Retouch is a deliberate pattern of consecutive scalar (i.e., feather-termination) flake scars along one or more margins; retouch flake scars are larger than those created from just use (microflakes) and generally do not extend more than 5 to 8 mm in from the margin (Odell 2003:108). Debitage are classified as utilized or retouched only when use or retouch evidence was unmistakable. Specimens exhibiting use-wear in conjunction with intentional retouch are classified as retouched. Fire-Cracked Rock Fire-cracked rock (FCR) is stone that has been reddened, fractured, or cracked during intentional or accidental exposure to heat and/or fire. If cultural, these stones can be the waste products from boiling receptacles or thermal features, such as hearths and earth ovens. Sharp or pronounced fractures and/or a reddish discoloration are the primary characteristics used to identify FCR. FCR identified in the assemblage was separated from other lithic groups. Those lacking evidence of intentional flaking, modification, and/or use were classified as FCR, counted, and weighed. Prehistoric Ceramics Prehistoric ceramic were analyzed and cataloged based on a standard procedure. The following information was recorded for each sherd, where applicable: weight, vessel part, any surface treatment, decorations, and the types of temper present. If possible, a vessel form was identified. Each sherd was weighed to the nearest hundredth gram (g) using a digital Sartorious scale. If possible, vessel portions were identified by the morphology of the sherd and could include: body, base, rim or appendage (handles or support legs). Temper was identified using a hand lens (10

4-5 SECTIONFOUR Research Design x) or a stereomicroscope (10 to 40 x). Temper types could include sand, crushed stone (quartz, phylite, steatite etc.), grog (crushed ceramic), shell, or clay nodules. The surfaces of each sherd were examined for the presence of surface treatment and decoration. Surface treatments include cord-marked, net-impressed, mat-impressed, smoothed cord-marked, brushed, and burnished. Surface treatments are usually over all or most of a vessel, whereas decorations are limited to certain zones of the vessel (i.e. rim or foot) and are discrete placements. Decorations are presumed to have deeper symbolic or aesthetic meanings while surface treatments are more likely to serve a functional purpose in the manufacture and use of the ceramic. Based on surface treatment, temper types, and decorations, a ware type and associated temporal period will be assigned, if possible.

4.3 EXPECTED RESULTS Prehistoric and historic sites had been recorded in the immediate vicinity of the project APE. One of the sites (44AX0031) was partially located within the project area on a lower terrace to the north of Lucky Run. It was expected that portions of this site would be encountered during the Phase I investigation and that lithic and ceramic artifacts similar to those identified by Adams et al. (1993) would be found. It was expected that portions of 44AX0031 extending onto the lower terrace in the APE would reflect more limited and specialized use of that area (e.g., specific resource procurement, refuse discard) than the more generalized habitation areas previously documented on the upper terrace north of the APE.

4-6 SECTIONFIVE Results 5.0 RESULTS 5.1 RESULTS SUMMARY This chapter summarizes the results of the Phase I survey of the Lucky Run project area and the Phase II evaluation of 44AX0031. The Phase I survey included visual inspection of surface conditions and excavation of 111 STPs. Seventy-nine artifacts were recovered from 24 STPs, and two archaeological sites and three isolated artifacts were recorded (Figure 5-1). Site 44AX0236 is a small scatter of prehistoric debitage commingled with historic artifacts, on the south bank of Lucky Run. Site 44AX0031 is a large prehistoric site on the northern bank. Portions of 44AX0031 were recorded in the 1970s and 1990s, and the site’s boundaries, which extend into this project APE, were refined during this investigation. 5.1.1 Surface Inspection Results Surface conditions within the APE were recorded while STP excavations occurred. No sites or archaeological features were visible on the surface during the survey. Evidence of modern land use was noted. The southern portion of the APE, south of Lucky Run, is characterized by a broad floodplain. The stream itself is very shallow and features a gravelly bed. There are sandbars near the streambanks, especially near the northeast end of the APE, before the stream broadens into a large retention pond. Lower and upper terraces comprise the north bank, with the lower terrace forming only an approximately 80 m (262 ft) long section of the bank (Figure 2-1). The southern bank area is covered by sycamore, maple, tulip poplar, and oak woodland. Most trees appear to be between 10 and 50 years old, but a few of the larger and wider trees may be older. Undergrowth throughout the woodlands is dense and consists of both native and invasive flora. A deer-path parallels the southern bank of the stream, and smaller paths connect it to the properties located on the upland bluff. Modern refuse is strewn along the ground surface around the paths and along the base of the bluff south of the bank. The stream itself is heavily modified. Several manholes and concrete pipes emerge from the southern bank. Large pieces of concrete are also periodically visible in the streambed, and at the southwest end of the APE, the stream emerges from a large concrete culvert that runs beneath Braddock Road. The stream flows directly into a manmade storm water retention pond at the northeast end of the APE. Surface conditions on the lower terrace of the north bank are broadly similar to those on the southern bank, though the upper terrace is more manicured and includes a wood-chip covered and partially paved walking path. To the north lies a second rainwater retention pond and large concrete drainage crib structure. Black silt-fencing material is visible along much of the length of the path and can be seen emerging from between patches of grass to its south. This may correspond to the protective fabric that was laid down over previously documented portions of 44AX0031 when the Stonegate development was built in the 1990s. Large pieces of cement were noted eroding from the ground surface at the top of a gradual slope near where the south end of the lower terrace rises up to the upper terrace. This landform might have been graded or filled. Large pieces of concrete are also visible in the streambed beneath the

5-1 APE K ea r r D n STPs n ey pto C am t (!H Positive STP D (! Negative STP Pl on D unt D H STP Not Excavated (! (! (! 44AX0031 (! (! 44AX0236 G (! a d s (! b (! y (!

P (! (! l (! (! ! (! ( D (! (! (! (! K (! (! (! e (!(! (! (! m (! p (! (! (! (! (! C (! (! t (! (! D (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! D (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! ! D (! (! (! ( (! (! (! (! (! (! (! D D (! (! D D (!

(!

(! (! (!

(! (! (! (! (! (!

(! (! D D (!

(! 0 100 200 Feet

D 0 20 40 60 Meters

TITLE y CLIENT City of Alexandria l Hw oria PROJ Survey Plan em Lucky Run Phase I & II y M irle SCALE Sh 1:1,000 G nry PROJ NO 60535473 SOURCE He Esri 2018 1925420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE I- 3 Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\ VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Germantown, MD 20876 5-1 Concepts\900-Work\920_GIS\Cultural Resources ¹ 5-2 SECTIONFIVE Results bank here. It is possible that a foot path once led to the bank that a small bridge crossed the stream at this point, or that large debris was simply dumped here. 5.1.2 STP Results One-hundred eleven STPs were excavated in the APE (Figure 5-1). Soils on the low floodplain typically consisted of thin sandy loam A horizon over sandy BA horizon and Bt horizon subsoils. The A horizon soils were found buried beneath more recent fluvial deposits in a number of locations, especially in the eastern end of the project area. STPs excavated closest to the stream encountered fluvial deposits, with A horizons buried beneath thin sandy lenses overburden and Bw subsoils. At higher elevations, there was evidence of more substantial soil development with deeper A horizons sometimes underlain by an E horizon and/or more consolidated Bt horizon soils. Soil profiles encountered at the sites recorded during the survey exemplify the range of the soils encountered and are described in further detail in the portions of this document dealing with each site. Seventy-nine artifacts were recovered from STPs. These included three isolated finds and assemblages from two archaeological sites. Site 44AX0236 was recorded on the floodplain near the southern bank of Lucky Run, and 44AX0031 on the terraces of the north bank.

5.1.2.1 Isolated Finds Three isolated finds were recovered in the APE (Table 5-1). Each was recovered from fluvial sand deposits on the floodplain near the southern bank of Lucky Run. A quartz flake fragment was found in a thin lens of sandy soil comprising the second stratum of STP 33. A fragment of whiteware ceramic was recovered from very near the surface of the adjacent STP 33SW. Though the two artifacts were found within 4.5 m (15 ft) of one-another, they are classified as isolates on account of differing stratigraphic contexts and a lack of obvious contemporaneity. A quartz flake was also found in the loamy A horizon soil of STP 40, located approximately 40 m (131 ft) northeast of the other isolated finds. Table 5-1. Isolated Finds Group Artifact Date Range N= Foodways Whiteware Post-1820 1 Lithics Quartz Debitage 2 TOTAL 3

5.1.2.2 Site 44AX0031 Portions of the previously recorded 44AX0031 were found to extend into the APE, mostly along a terrace located on the north bank of Lucky Run. Detailed discussion of the artifacts and soil conditions at site 44AX0031 is provided in Section 5.2 of this document, a synthesis of data collected during the Phase I and Phase II investigations of the site.

5.1.2.3 Site 44AX0236 This site is situated at the toe slope of the bluff about 17 m (56 ft) south of Lucky Run (Figure 5- 2). There are wetlands immediately east of the site, and a small ephemeral tributary of Lucky

5-3 (! (!

APE (! (! (! Positive STP (! (! Negative STP

D (! Wetlan(!ds D STP Not Excavated (! Site Boundary Lucky Run (! (! (!

! (! ( (!

(! (! (! (!

(! 4 (! 9 (! (! (! (! (! (! 9SE

(! (! (! B 3 lu ff D S D lo (! p e

DD

DD Stream

0 10 20 30 Feet

0 5 10 Meters

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II Site 44AX0236 Plan Map SCALE 1:300 PROJ NO 60535473 SOURCE Esri 2018 12420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\ VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Germantown, MD 20876 5-2 Concepts\900-Work\920_GIS\Cultural Resources ¹ 5-4 SECTIONFIVE Results Run is several meters to the west. The site is roughly L-shaped, and both arms of the “L” are approximately 14 m (46 ft) long. Four positive STPs define the site. Soil conditions recorded in the STPs were similar to the overall soil conditions noted for the low floodplain areas of the APE (Figure 5-3). STP 9, located closest to Lucky Run, encountered four strata. The top stratum was an 8 cm (0.3 ft) thick layer of brown (10YR 4/3) sandy loam river sediment. Stratum II was a dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sandy loam sediment extending down to 22 cm (0.7 ft) below ground surface (bgs). The third and four strata consisted of olive brown (2.5Y 4/4 and 2.5Y 4/3) gravelly coarse sands with constituent gravels and river cobbles extending to 45 cm (1.47 ft) bgs. In STP 9SE, located only 4.5 m (15 ft) away, the soil column was dramatically different. The A horizon was a 12 cm (0.4 ft) thick brown (10YR 4/3) loam. Stratum II was a brown (7.5YR 4/4) sandy clay loam that reached a depth of 26 cm (0.85 ft) bgs. Stratum III was a gray (10YR 5/1) sandy loam, which may be a gleyed remnant of now drained wetland subsoil. The soil columns in STPs 3 and 4 were broadly similar to those in STP 9SE, with the exception that in STP 3, the Ab horizon is buried beneath 48 cm (1.57 ft) of colluvium, likely washed down from the bluff immediately south of the STP (Figure 5-3). Three prehistoric and four historic artifacts were recovered from site 44AX0236 (Table 5-2). A small assemblage of lithic debitage included three small quartz flakes, one of which was broken. One flake featured a minor amount of cortical surface, perhaps indicative of local production. Historic artifacts included two non-diagnostic nail fragments, a shard of window glass, and a piece of clinker. Table 5-2. Artifacts from Site 44AX0236 Group Artifact Date Range N= Nail 2 Household Structural Window 1 Glass Miscellaneous Clinker 1 Lithics Debitage 3 TOTAL 7 Historic and prehistoric artifacts were found commingled in the second fluvial stratum of STP 9. The flakes in STP 9SE and STP 4 were recovered from the A horizon, while the historic artifacts in STP 3 were from the Ab horizon. Modern debris accumulated on the surface of the deer path and along the foot of the bluff, is not considered associated with the site. Artifacts may have been transported into the area by stream activity. Historic artifacts may in fact be modern and might be the result of casual discard, not unlike the trash scattered on the ground surface in the vicinity of the site.

5-5 STP 9

0 I I - Brown (10YR 4/3) Sandy Loam A Horizon 10 II -Yellowish Brown (10YR 4/4) Sand Bw Horizon II 20 III - Olive Brown (2.5Y 4/4) Coarse Sandy Loam Ab Horizon IV - Olive Brown (2.5Y 4/3) Coarse Sandy Loam BA Horizon 30 III 40 IV cm

STP 9SE

0 I I - Brown (10YR 4/3) Sandy Loam A Horizon 10 II - Brown (7.5YR 4/4) Sandy Clay Loam BA Horizon III - Gray (10YR 5/1) Sandy Loam Bg Horizon 20 II

30 III

40 cm STP 3

0 I - Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) Silty Loam Colluvium 10 II - Brown (10YR 4/3) Sandy Loam A Horizon III - Brown (7.5YR 4/4) Sandy Clay Loam BA Horizon 20 I IV - Gray (10YR 5/1) Sandy Loam Bg Horizon 30

40

50 II 60

70 III 80 IV 90 cm

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE Site 44AX0236 Representative Soil Profiles PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II

SCALE As Shown PROJ NO 60538952

SOURCE n/a 12420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE Germantown, MD 20876 Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Concepts\400-Technical\ 5-3 410 Cultural Resources\Second MS\Figures 5-6 SECTIONFIVE Results 5.2 SITE 44AX0031 Three loci composed of 17 positive STPs were identified within the APE during the Phase I investigation. The three loci broadly correspond with the artifact scatters originally recorded by Alexandria City Archaeology in 1979. Locus A is centered on STP 57 in the northeast, Locus B on STP 60NE in the center, and Locus C on STP 63 in the southwest. The three loci are on the lower terrace, with Locus A and Locus C extending onto the upper terrace (Figure 5-4). Per guidance from Alexandria Archaeology, the investigations extended just north of the APE to determine how the portions of 44AX0031 investigated by Adams et al. (1993) relate to those recorded in 1979. 5.2.1 Locus A Locus A is in the northern portion of the lower terrace and extends to the upper terrace, past the northern boundary of the APE. Per the request of Alexandria Archaeology, STPs were excavated immediately outside of the APE along the lip of the upper terrace after a cluster of seven positive STPs was recorded on the lower terrace. The distribution of positive STPs later prompted the placement of three TUs on the lower terrace and one TU on the upper terrace in Locus A (Figure 5-4). In total, 177 artifacts were recovered from Locus A. Fifty-two from STPs, 14 from TU 2, 110 from TU 3, and one from TU 4. There were no artifacts in TU 5.

5.2.1.1 Locus A STPs Fifteen STPs comprised the initial Locus A area. The locus was later expanded to include an artifact scatter visible on the surface and an additional STP. Twelve of the STPs were positive for artifacts. Seven positive STPs were located on the first terrace, and five near the lip of the second terrace. Fifty-two artifacts were recovered. Soils in Locus A STPs showed a moderate range of variability (Figure 5-5). They included fluvial and colluvial deposits, evidence of relic stream bed on the lower terrace, and intact stratified contexts on the upper terrace. In STPs excavated in the northeastern section of the lower terrace, soil pedons were composed of thin, coarse sandy strata indicative of fluvial deposits over gravelly and cobble-rich stream bed soils. For example, in STP 55 the upper stratum was a dark brown (10YR 3/3) sandy loam A horizon, rich in decayed organic matter, but unconsolidated in structure, like a riverine sediment. The second stratum was composed of a yellowish brown (10YR 6/6) coarse sand, which also included water rounded gravels. Similar gravels were also recorded in the B horizon strata of STP 57NE. In locations further to the southwest, subsoils were more consolidated, with finer, more dense sandy clay. These soils may be from former levees formed along the stream banks. In STP 57, Stratum I was an olive brown (2.5Y 4/3) sandy loam A horizon, likely comprised of fluvial sediment underlain by a strong brown (7.5YR 4/4) loamy sand BA horizon, and beneath that, variegated sandy clay loam Bt horizon soil (Figure 5-5). Soils recorded in excavations at the upper terrace evidence a more stabilized and older landform. For example, the pedon in STP 102N exhibited a deep, well-formed, dark brown (10YR 3/3) loam A horizon over an organically rich olive brown (2.5Y 4/4) sandy loam BA horizon. The subsoil was a light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6) sandy clay loam Bt horizon (Figure 5-5). In excavations closest to the lip of the scarp, the A horizon was found to be buried beneath thin layers of fill.

5-7 Legend !(

Area of Potential Effects !( !(

44AX0031 Boundary !( Test Units !( Phase I STPs !(

!( Positive STP !( LOCUS A !( Negative STP 102N !( !( !( 102 D STP Not Excavated 102NW 57NW !( !( TU 5 !( TU 3 !( !( 102W !( 57NE !( !( !( !( 102SW TU 4 !( 57W 57 57E !( !( 57SW !( !( D

!( TU 2

!( LOCUS B !( 60NE TU 6 !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !(

!( 100 !( !( !( !( !( !( LOCUS C TU 1 !( !( 63W 63 !( !( !( !( 64NW !(

D !( !( !( !(

0 !(50 !( 100 Feet !( !( 0 10 !( 20 30 Meters !( !( !( !( D CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE !( !( !( PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II Site 44AX!(0031 Plan Map SCALE 1:360 PROJ NO !( 60535473 SOURCE Esri 2018 !( !( 12420 Milestone Center Dr. !( !( FIGURE Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\ VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Germantown, MD 20876 5-4 Concepts\900-Work\920_GIS\Cultural Resources ¹ D !( 5-8 STP 55

0 I - Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) Sandy Loam A Horizon II - Brownish Yellow (10YR 6/6) Gravelly Coarse Sand Bw Horizon 10 I III - Strong Brown (7.5YR 5/6) Sandy Clay Bt Horizon 20 II 30

40 III

50 cm STP 57SE

0 I I - Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) Sandy Loam A Horizon 10 II - Yellowish Brown (10YR 5/6) Sand Bw Horizon

20

30 II cm STP 57 0 I - Olive Brown (2.5Y 4/3) Sandy Loam A Horizon 10 I II - Strong Brown (7.5YR 4/4) Loamy Sand BA Horizon III - 60% Strong Brown (7.5YR 4/4) Sandy Clay Loam; 20 40% Grayish Brown (10YR 5/2) Sandy Clay Loam Bt Horizon

30 II 40

50 III 60 cm STP 102N

0 I - Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) Loam A Horizon I II - Olive Brown (2.5Y 4/4) Sandy Loam BA Horizon 10 III - Light Olive Brown (2.5Y 5/6) Sandy Clay Loam Bt Horizon 20 II 30

40 III 50 cm

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE Site 44AX0031 Locus A Selected Representative Soil Profiles PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II

SCALE As Shown PROJ NO 60538952

SOURCE n/a 12420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE Germantown, MD 20876 5-5 Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Concepts\400-Technical\ 410 Cultural Resources\Second MS\Figures 5-9 SECTIONFIVE Results Fifty-two artifacts were recovered from STPs in Locus A. The assemblage includes one historic machine made champagne finish bottle glass fragment, four flaked stone tools, 44 pieces of lithic debitage, and three prehistoric ceramic sherds (Table 5-3). Datable artifacts include the machine made bottle finish, which according to Lindsay (2018) post-dates 1905, and the prehistoric ceramics, which are cord marked, sand tempered Accokeek wares associated with the Early Woodland period in Northern Virginia (Jefferson Patterson Park Museum [JPPM] 2018). Table 5-3. Artifacts Recovered from Locus A STPs Group Artifact Date Range N= Machine Made Champagne bottle Foodways Post-1905 1 finish Quartz flake 29 Debitage Quartz shatter 1 Quartzite flake 14 Quartz utilized flake 1 Flaked Stone Quartzite microblade 2 Tool Quartzite utilized flake spokeshave 1 Prehistoric Early Accokeek sherd 3 Ceramic Woodland Total 52 Debitage was recovered from A, BA, and Bw horizon soils in STPs on the lower terrace, and from A and BA or E horizon soils on the upper terrace. Three lithic tools were recovered from the A horizon strata on the upper terrace and from Bw Horizon soil on the lower terrace. Prehistoric ceramics were found only on the upper terrace in A and Ab horizon soil (Table 5-4). Table 5-4. Artifact Distribution in Locus A STPs

Terrace STP Fill/Colluvium A Ab BA or E Bw Bt 57 1d 2d 57W 57E Lower 57NE 3d; 1t 57NW 2d 57SW 4d; 1h 102 2d 102N 3d; 1t 3d 102NW 10d 5d Upper 102SW 1d; 1c 102W 3d; 2t 104 2d 3d; 2c Note: h=historic, d=debitage, c=prehistoric ceramic, t=flaked stone tool 5.2.1.2 TU 2 TU 2 was excavated near the southwestern end of Locus A (Figure 5-4) on a broad flat portion of the lower terrace, approximately 1 m (3.2 ft) above the stream, which was swollen with rainwater at the time. The unit location was selected on the basis of quartz flakes visible on the ground

5-10 SECTIONFIVE Results surface. These flakes were not observed during the Phase I portion of the project, but extensive recent rains had eroded the sandy surface revealing the artifacts. The initial 1979 VDHR site file for 44AX0031 described surface scatters in this same general area. The boundary of Locus A as defined based on the Phase I survey was enlarged to encompass the visible surface scatter. Two soil strata were recorded in TU 2 (Figure 5-6). Stratum I was a 14 cm (0.46 ft) thick A horizon composed of grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sandy loam. Stratum II was a BA horizon of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) and brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) extremely gravelly coarse sand with many constituent water rolled cobbles. Only a 0.5-x-0.5-m (1.64-x-1.64-ft) sondage of the second stratum was excavated, as the densely packed cobbles and gravel made additional excavation unfeasible. The sediments visible in the BA horizon resembled those in the sand and gravel bars in the active floodplains of the stream. Fourteen artifacts were recovered from TU 2. The only artifacts in Stratum I were two pieces of quartz debitage and a quartz flake from the surface (Table 5-5), One flake, along with 11 historic and modern artifacts were recovered from the sondage excavated into Stratum II (Table 5-6). The historic and modern artifacts included an aluminum pull tab from a beverage can of a type common in the third quarter of the twentieth century, six unidentified bottle glass fragments, one indeterminate vessel glass fragment, a piece of asphalt, and a shard of highly weathered glass that may could have either been flat or container glass. Table 5-5. Artifacts from TU 2, Surface Date Group Artifact N= Range Quartz Flake 1 Debitage Quartz Shatter 2 Total 3

Table 5-6. Artifacts from TU 2, Stratum II Date Group Artifact N= Range Aluminum can pull 1960s- 1 tab 1970s Foodways Glass bottle 6 Indeterminate 1 vessel glass Household/Structural Asphalt 1 Miscellaneous Weathered glass 1 Debitage Quartzite Flake 1 Total 11

5.2.1.3 TU 3 TU 3 was excavated on the upper terrace very close to the lip of the scarp and slightly outside of the APE (Figure 5-4). The unit was located near an area of positive STPs recorded during the Phase I investigations on a portion of the scarp lip protected from erosion by a large tree, whereas locations to the north and south appeared to be more impacted by slope wash. TU 3 was

5-11 0 I

20 II Not Excavated

40 cm

I - Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2) Sandy Loam A Horizon

II - Dark Yellowish Brown (10YR 4/4) & Brownish Yellow (10YR 6/6) Extremely Gravelly Coarse Sand BA Horizon

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II TU 2 South Profile SCALE As Shown PROJ NO 60535473 SOURCE N/A 12420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\ VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Germantown, MD 20876 Concepts\900-Work\920_GIS\Cultural Resources 5-6 5-12 SECTIONFIVE Results excavated beyond the APE boundary per the request of Alexandria Archaeology, to compare site conditions on the two terraces. TU 3’s Stratum I was a 12 cm (0.39 ft) thick overburden layer of very dark grayish brown (10YR 4/3) silty loam. Commingled modern, historic, and prehistoric artifacts were in this layer. Stratum I was conjectured to be fill deposited when the path and the retention pond were constructed. Stratum II was buried A (Ab) horizon of brown (10YR 5/3) silty loam. It was about 22 cm (0.72 ft) thick but its transition to Stratum III was a gradual one. Stratum III was a light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) sandy clay loam. Thickness was variable, from 17 cm (0.56 ft) in the west half of the unit to 27 cm (0.89 ft) in the east. Stratum III was interpreted as BA horizon soil. Stratum IV was a brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) gravelly sandy clay loam. The stratum was recorded with a slight west to east and north to south downward slope. In the northwest corner of TU 3, Stratum IV was encountered at 48 cm (1.57 ft) bgs, while in the southeast the transition was at 61 cm (2 ft) bgs. In total, 110 artifacts were recovered from TU 3; 30 in Stratum I, 69 in Stratum II, and 11 in Stratum III. The assemblage from Stratum I has commingled historic (40 percent) and prehistoric (60 percent) artifacts. Only 4 percent of the Stratum II artifacts are historic, and these were recovered from the uppermost level of Stratum II, indicating they were likely intrusive into the transition from the overburden layer to the intact Ab horizon. The Stratum III assemblage is entirely prehistoric. Historic artifacts from Stratum I include a stoneware hollow-ware vessel sherd, one yellowware service vessel sherd, three pieces of bottle glass, a cut nail, two unidentified nail fragments, a piece of coal, two unidentified ferrous alloy fragments, and an unidentified lead alloy fragment (Table 5-7). The yellowware dates to the period between 1830 and 1940 (Miller 2000:12), the cut nail is from the period circa 1815 to 1900 (Visser 2018), and the coal likely post-dates the 1830s, when the first practical coal stoves were introduced (Bellis 2018). Table 5-7. Artifacts from TU 3 Stratum I Group Artifact Date Range N= Stoneware storage 1 Foodways Yellowware service 1830-1940 1 Bottle glass 3 Cut nail 1815-1890 1 Household/Structural Unidentified nail 2 Coal Post 1870s 1 Ferrous metal Miscellaneous 2 fragment Lead alloy fragment 1 Quartz flake 5 Debitage Quartz shatter 3 Quartzite flake 5 Quartz uniface Flaked Stone Tool 1 preform Fire Cracked Rock FCR fragment 4 Total 30

5-13 0 I - Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/3) Silty Loam Fill

10

II - Brown (10YR 4/3) Sandy Loam Ab Horizon 20

30

III - Light Olive Brown (2.5Y 5/4) Sandy Clay Loam 40 BA Horizon

50 IV - Brownish Yellow (10YR 6/8) cm Gravelly Sandy Clay Loam Bt Horizon

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II TU 3 North Profile SCALE As Shown PROJ NO 60535473 SOURCE N/A 12420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\ VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Germantown, MD 20876 Concepts\900-Work\920_GIS\Cultural Resources 5-7 5-14 SECTIONFIVE Results Prehistoric artifacts from Stratum I include five quartz flakes, three pieces of quartz shatter, five quartzite flakes, four pieces of FCR, and a quartz uniface. The uniface appears to be an early stage preform which broke during manufacturing. None of the prehistoric artifacts are diagnostic. The assemblage from Stratum II is almost entirely prehistoric (Table 5-8). Three small pieces of unidentified weathered glass were recovered from the very top of the first level of the stratum. Debitage artifacts include 19 quartz flakes, 10 pieces of quartz shatter, and 14 quartzite flakes. Flaked stone tools include a retouched quartz flake, an unidentified unifacial blade tool fashioned from an unidentified yellow microcryptocrystalline stone, two unidentified quartzite biface fragments, an unidentified slightly concave quartz projectile point/knife (PPK) base, and a complete PPK consistent with the Middle Woodland period Selby Bay/Fox Creek type. Other artifacts include a small quartzite hammer-stone, 11 pieces of FCR, and five sand-tempered, obliquely cord marked ceramic sherds, identified as Early Woodland period Accokeek ware. Table 5-8. Artifacts from TU 3, Stratum II Group Artifact Date Range N= Miscellaneous Unidentified glass 3 Quartz flake 19 Debitage Quartz shatter 10 Quartzite flake 14 Quartz retouched flake 1 Microcryptocrystalline 1 uniface Flaked Stone Quartzite biface 2 Tool Unidentified quartz ppk 1 base Middle Selby Bay/Fox Creek PPK 1 Woodland Fire Cracked FCR fragment 11 Rock Ground Stone Quartzite hammer-stone 1 Tool Prehistoric Accokeek Creek sherd Early Woodland 5 Ceramic Total 69 There is a notable drop in the volume of artifacts from Stratum II to Stratum III. Only 11 artifacts were recovered from Stratum III (Table 5-9). These include six quartz flakes, three quartzite flakes, a quartz biface fragment, and the basal half of an Early Woodland Piscataway PPK. Table 5-9. Artifacts from TU 3, Stratum III Group Artifact Date Range N= Quartz flake 6 Debitage Quartzite flake 3 Flaked Stone Quartzite biface 1 Tool Piscataway PPK Early Woodland 1 Total 11

5-15 SECTIONFIVE Results 5.2.1.4 TU 4 TU 4 was excavated at the base of the scarp connecting the lower and upper terraces. Its northeast corner was directly in line with the southwest corner of TU 3 (Figure 5-4). The unit was located near STP 57, which was positive for prehistoric artifacts, and nearby historic artifacts seen eroding from the scarp. Four soil strata were recorded in TU 4 (Figure 5-8). Stratum I was a dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty clay loam overburden layer that varied in thickness. It reached depths of 12 cm (0.39 ft) bgs in the southwest corner of the unit but was only 6 cm (0.2 ft) bgs at the unit center. Stratum I appears to be a modern fill layer, based on the many modern artifacts found within it. Stratum II is also a fill layer. The soil was a brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) silty clay loam, with constituent modern artifacts. Stratum II basal depths ranged from 18 cm (0.59 ft) bgs in the west half of the TU, to 26 cm (0.85 ft) below ground surface in the east. Stratum III was a buried A horizon. Its soil was a dark brown (10YR 3/3) loam that typically reached depths between 45 and 48 cm (1.48 and 1.57 ft) bgs. There were small to moderate concentrations of tree roots throughout the approximately 20 cm (0.66 ft) thick stratum. The subsoil in Stratum IV consisted of grayish brown (10YR 5/2) and dark brown (10YR 3/3) sand with large amounts of cobbles and gravel and resembled sediments visible on the surface of the active floodplain. Very few artifacts were recovered from TU 4. Modern plastic wrapper fragments, ferrous wires, and machine-made bottle glass fragments were recovered from the fill strata and were discarded in the field. An unidentified ferrous alloy fragment was recovered from the Ab horizon. It could be a badly corroded nail fragment. No prehistoric artifacts were recovered. 5.2.1.5 TU 5 TU 5 was placed in low slump at the northeast end of the lower terrace to determine the extent of the floodplain area into the vegetated lowland portions of this landform (Figure 5-4). The area was inundated at the beginning of the Phase II investigations and interpreted as active floodplain unlikely to contain intact, significant deposits. Therefore, TU 5 was excavated as a 1-x-0.5 m (3.2-x-1.6 ft) “half unit”. Excavations revealed two strata (Figure 5-9). Stratum I was a layer of organically rich and mucky very dark gray (10YR 2/2) silty clay loam that extended to depths ranging from 19 to 22 cm (0.62 to 0.72 ft) bgs. Stratum II was a light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) rocky sandy clay that extended to the base of excavations at a depth of 28 cm (0.91 ft) bgs. No artifacts were recovered from TU 5. 5.2.2 Locus B Locus B consists of a single positive STP and single TU (TU 6) excavated in the approximately 91 m (30 ft) wide middle section of the lower terrace. Only a single row of STPs were excavated at 4.6 m (15 ft) intervals along this section of the terrace, between the stream bank and a series of surface disturbances at the foot of the scarp leading to the upper terrace. Surface disturbance, including spoil piles and remnants of what might have been trenches from construction, previous excavations, or possibly even looting were noted along the foot of the scarp from Locus B to Locus A (Figure 5-10). TU 6 was excavated in the location between the STP transect and the scarp, where there were no visible disturbances. Only five artifacts were recovered from Locus B.

5-16 0

I - Dark Yellowish Brown (10YR 4/4) Silty Clay Loam Fill 10

II - Brownish Yellow (10YR 6/6) Silty Clay Loam Fill 20

30

III - Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) Loam Ab Horizon 40

50 IV - Grayish Brown (10YR 5/2) & Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) Gravelly Sand Bt Horizon

60 cm

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II TU 4 South Profile SCALE As Shown PROJ NO 60535473 SOURCE N/A 12420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\ VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Germantown, MD 20876 Concepts\900-Work\920_GIS\Cultural Resources 5-8 5-17 0 I

20 II

40 cm

I - Dark Gray (10YR 2/2) Mucky Silt Clay Loam A Horizon

II - Light Brownish Gray (2.5Y 6/2) Rocky Sandy Clay Bt Horizon

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II TU 5 West Profile SCALE As Shown PROJ NO 60535473 SOURCE N/A 12420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\ VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Germantown, MD 20876 Concepts\900-Work\920_GIS\Cultural Resources 5-9 5-18 Backdirt Pile Trench

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE Disturbances near Locus B. View to the west. PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II

SCALE n/a PROJ NO 60538952

SOURCE n/a 12420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE Germantown, MD 20876 Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Concepts\400-Technical\ 5-10 410 Cultural Resources\Second MS\Figures 5-19 SECTIONFIVE Results 5.2.2.1 Locus B STPs A single positive STP defines Locus B; STP 60NE. Four strata were recorded in STP 60NE (Figure 5-11). Stratum I was a dark brown (10YR 3/3) sandy loam A horizon soil. Stratum II appeared to be a fluvial Bw horizon of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sand, while Stratum III was an olive brown (2.5Y 4/4) sandy loam that most likely represents an Ab horizon; all artifacts were recovered from it. Stratum IV was a Bw horizon of yellow (10YR 7/6) gravelly sand that extended to the base of excavations. Five artifacts were recovered from Locus B STPs (Table 5-10). These include three pieces of refined earthenware service vessels, a brick fragment, and a thumbnail scraper. The earthenware fragments have a white paste, and two, which mend, also feature a light blue glaze. They most likely postdate the ca. 1820s (Miller 2000:12). The scraper is made from a small piece of non- cortical quartz. It is not diagnostic of a particular time period or cultural horizon. Table 5-10. Artifacts from STP 60NE in Locus B Date Group Artifact N= Range Post- Foodways Refined earthenware service 3 1820 Household/Structural Brick 1 Flaked stone tools Thumbnail scraper 1 Total 5 All artifacts were recovered from Stratum III. It is likely that this stratum represents an Ab horizon, and the presence of historic artifacts seems peculiar. However, this may be the result of extensive bioturbation or other disturbance in this section of the site, as evidenced by the modern artifacts in deeper layers of TU 6 and the surface disturbances visible from this location. 5.2.2.2 TU 6 TU 6 was excavated in Locus B, about 6 m inland from creek and at the foot of the scarp leading to the second terrace. The TU was located to the north of STP 60NE in one of the few locations in the middle portion of the lower terrace that did not appear to be disturbed. Three soil strata were recorded in TU 6 (Figure 5-11). Stratum I was an A horizon composed of dark brown (10YR 3/3) sandy loam. The transition from Stratum I to II was gradual and obstructed in many parts of the unit profile by large and very dense root clusters. In spots where it could be mapped, the A horizon generally reached depths ranging from 17 to 20 cm (0.56 to 0.66 ft) bgs. The second stratum was a strong brown (7.5 YR 5/6) sandy clay containing a dense oak root system. This soil appeared to be more consolidated than the Bw horizon soils in nearby STPs and may represent an ancient fluvial deposit that had stabilized over time. Beneath the root layer, roughly 40 cm (0.98 ft) bgs, the soil transitioned to a brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) dense coarse sand. This was not as rocky as B horizon soils encountered elsewhere. Only modern artifacts were recorded in TU 6. These included plastic candy wrappers, Styrofoam, and a plastic drinking straw, all of which were discarded in the field. Surprisingly, each of these objects was recovered from Stratum II. It is believed they were carried below the ground by bioturbation caused by the dense oak root mass in Stratum II. No historic or prehistoric artifacts were recovered from TU 6.

5-20 STP 60NE (Locus B)

0 I - Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) Sandy Loam A Horizon II - Dark Yellowish Brown (10YR 4/6) Sand Bw Horizon 10 I III - Olive Brown (2.5Y 4/4) Sandy Loam Ab Horizon 20 IV - Yellow (10YR 7/6) Gravelly Sand Bw Horizon II 30 III 40

50 IV cm

STP 63 (Locus C)

0 I - Dark Brown (10YR 4/3) Loam A Horizon I II - Olive Brown (2.5Y 4/4) Sandy Loam BA Horizon 10 III - Light Yellowish Brown (2.5Y 6/4) Sandy Clay Loam Bt Horizon 20 II

30

40 III cm STP 63W (Locus C)

0 I I - Brown (10YR 4/3) Sandy Loam A Horizon II - Light Gray (5Y 7/2) Sand E Horizon 10 Extreme Gravels Beginning at 23 cm bgs. II 20 cm

STP 64NW (Locus C)

0

10 I I - Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) Loam A Horizon 20 II II - Grayish Brown (2.5Y 5/2) Sandy Loam E Horizon III - Very Dark Grayish Brown (2.5Y 3/2) Sandy Clay Loam Ab Horizon 30 IV - Pale Olive (2.5Y 6/4) Sandy Clay Bt Horizon

40 III

50 IV 60 cm

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE Site 44AX0031 Loci B and C Selected Representative PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II Soil Profiles

SCALE As Shown PROJ NO 60538952

SOURCE n/a 12420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE Germantown, MD 20876 Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Concepts\400-Technical\ 5-11 410 Cultural Resources\Second MS\Figures 5-21 0

I - Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) Sandy Loam A Horizon 10

Roots Roots

20 Roots

30 II - Strong Brown (7.5YR 5/6) Sandy Clay Bw Horizon

40 cm

III - Brownish Yellow (10YR 6/6) Sand Bw Horizon

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II TU 6 South Profile SCALE As Shown PROJ NO 60535473 SOURCE N/A 12420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\ VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Germantown, MD 20876 Concepts\900-Work\920_GIS\Cultural Resources 5-12 5-22 SECTIONFIVE Results 5.2.3 Locus C Locus C is centered on STP 63, near the south end of the lower terrace on the northwest bank of Lucky Run (Figure 5-4). The terrain is slightly sloped in this area, and the lower and upper terraces, mentioned in the descriptions of Loci A and B, blend almost imperceptibly. Four positive STPs were recorded in Locus C, although one of the four was positive only in a recently deposited fill layer. TU 1 was excavated at the base of the sloping portion of the terrain, near STP 63 and cement chunks seen eroding from the surface. 5.2.3.1 Locus C STPs Soil profiles from the STPs showed considerable variability in the small area (Figure 5-11). STP 63 exposed three strata. Stratum I was an A horizon of brown (10YR 4/3) loam. The second stratum was an olive brown (2.5Y 4/4) sandy loam BA or Bw horizon. The third stratum was a light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4) sandy clay loam. A rocky impasse was reached at 45 cm (1.48 ft) bgs. Further up the slope, soils were markedly different. STP 63W showed a thin A horizon of brown (10YR 4/3) sandy loam over a light gray (5Y 7/2) sand. The second stratum was likely an E horizon formed of a mineral leached alluvial deposit. At 23 cm (0.75 ft) bgs, the sand layer turned extremely gravelly and excavations were terminated. The gravelly layer may be from a relic stream bed, though it should be noted that this location was several meters above the current stream. Further west, STP 64NW had four strata. Stratum I was an A horizon of dark brown (10YR 3/3) loam. Stratum II was a grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) sandy loam E horizon. Stratum III resembled an Ab horizon and was composed of a very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2) sandy clay loam. Stratum IV was a subsoil layer of pale olive (2.5Y 6/4) sandy clay loam Bt horizon. In STP 100, located at the edge of the APE, near the Stonegate path, excavations revealed a variegated sandy loam fill. At approximately 30 cm (0.98 ft), an upright piece of rebar was encountered, and excavations were terminated. It is unclear if the rebar was a construction element for the path to the north or the metal site benchmark used during the IAC excavations and described in their report as being in approximately this area (Adams et al. 1993:215). Eight artifacts were recovered from Locus C (Table 5-11). Historic artifacts include a nineteenth century Albany slip stoneware vessel fragment, a shard of aqua colored window glass, a piece of coal, and a small flat piece of ferrous material, resembling part of a small blade or strap. Prehistoric artifacts were limited to four quartz flakes. Table 5-11. Artifacts From Locus C STPs Date Group Artifact N= Range 1805- Foodways Albany slip stoneware 1 1920 Household/Structural Window glass 1 Post- Coal 1 Miscellaneous 1830s Flat ferrous fragment 1 Debitage Quartz flake 4 Total 8

5-23 SECTIONFIVE Results Most artifacts from Locus C were recovered from A horizon soils (Table 5-12). In STP 63, debitage was in the A horizon, and historic artifacts were found in the A horizon of STPs 63W and 64NW. Two historic artifacts were found in the e horizon of STP 63W. Two flakes were found in fill soil in STP 100. Table 5-12. Artifact Distribution in Locus C STPs

STP Fill/Overburden A E 63 2d 63W 1h 2h 64NW 1h 100 2d Note: h=historic, d=debitage 5.2.3.2 TU 1 TU 1 was placed in the approximate center of Locus C, near STP 63 and south of a several moderately large pieces of cement seen eroding from the slope to the north (Figure 5-4). Stratum I was a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silty loam fill that extended to an average depth of 20 cm (0.66 ft) bgs. Stratum II was also fill; this time a brown (10YR 6/3) silt loam, mottled with brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) silt loam and periodically with flecks of asphalt. The stratum was excavated to a depth of 27 cm (0.89 ft) bgs, at which point large cement and asphalt chunks prevented additional excavations in most of the unit. A director’s window (i.e., sondage) was dug into the southwest section, where fewer large asphalt chunks made an additional 21 cm (0.69 ft) of excavation possible. The same Stratum II soil continued to the base of the sondage at 48 cm (1.57 ft) bgs, where more large cement and asphalt chunks made additional excavation impossible (Figure 5-13). Five artifacts were recovered from TU 1; all from Stratum II (Table 5-13). Two brick fragments, a piece of window glass, an unidentified ferrous alloy fragment, and a white plastic vessel rim were recovered, in addition to the many pieces of cement and asphalt, which were not collected. Each of these is assumed to be modern. Table 5-13. Artifacts from TU 1, Stratum II Date Group Artifact N= Range Brick fragment 2 Household/Structural Window glass 1 Ferrous metal 1 Miscellaneous fragment Plastic vessel rim 1 Total 5

5-24 0

Asphalt 20 Asphalt

40 Cement Not Excavated

60 cm

I - Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) Silt Loam Fill

II - Brown (10YR 6/3) & Brownish Yellow (10YR 6/6) Silt Loam Fill

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II TU 1 West Profile SCALE As Shown PROJ NO 60535473 SOURCE N/A 12420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\ VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Germantown, MD 20876 Concepts\900-Work\920_GIS\Cultural Resources 5-13 5-25 SECTIONFIVE Results 5.3 SITE 44AX0031 ARTIFACT ANALYSIS In total, 204 artifacts were recovered from excavations at 44AX0031. Seventy four percent (n=150) of the assemblage was recovered from excavations made on the upper terrace. The volume and range of artifact types, and the interpreted behaviors they represent, indicate intensive occupation of the upper terrace. What follows is a comparison of the upper and lower terrace artifact assemblages demonstrating the differences between the two. 5.3.1.1 Prehistoric Ceramics Eight prehistoric ceramic sherds were recovered from A or Ab horizon contexts in the upper terrace (Table 5-14). All sherds are sand tempered, with five also featuring crushed quartz in addition to the sand. Six sherds have cord marked exterior surfaces, while one is plain. One sherd has no discernable exterior surface. The sherds are somewhat friable and have a sandy texture. The paste, temper, and surface treatment of the ceramics are each characteristic of Accokeek ware (Figure 5-14). Three sherds were identified as bowl or jar body fragments, the other five are too small to define. Table 5-14. Prehistoric Ceramics from 44AX0031 Artifact Soil Sherd Surface Paste Consistency Temper ID Horizon Type Decoration Sandy/ 16.1 A Body Sand/Crushed quartz Cord marking Somewhat friable Sandy/ Cross cord 27.4 Ab Body Sand Somewhat friable marking Sandy/ 27.5 Ab Body Sand/Crushed quartz Cord marking Somewhat friable Sandy/ 204.15 Ab Fragment Sand/Crushed quartz Cord marking Somewhat friable Sandy/ 204.16 Ab Fragment Sand/Crushed quartz Cord marking Somewhat friable Sandy/ 206.19 Ab Fragment Sand Plain Somewhat friable 206.2 Ab Fragment Sandy/Friable Sand None discerned Sandy/ Micaceous sand/ 206.21 Ab Fragment Cord marking Somewhat friable Crushed quartz Accokeek is an Early Woodland ware typically dating from ca. 900 B.C. – 300 B.C. (JPPM 2018). The ware is common at Early Woodland sites throughout the Coastal Plain of Maryland and Virginia and into southern Delaware, No prehistoric sherds were found on the lower terrace.

5.3.1.2 Stone Tools Fifteen stone tools were identified in the assemblage (Table 5-15). These include three retouched flakes, two microblades, two unidentified unifaces, three unidentified bifaces, an unidentified PPK base, an Early Woodland Piscataway PPK, a Middle Woodland Selby Bay/Fox Creek PPK, a thumbnail scraper, and a hammer-stone. Thirteen tools are from the upper terrace in Locus A, and 11 of these are from A or Ab horizon contexts, two from BA horizon contexts, and one from

5-26 Left to Right: Artifact IDs 206.21, 206.19, 204.15

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II Selected Representative Accokeek Ware Sherds SCALE As Shown PROJ NO 60535473 SOURCE N/A 12420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\ VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Germantown, MD 20876 Concepts\900-Work\920_GIS\Cultural Resources 5-14 5-27 SECTIONFIVE Results overburden soil. Two tools were recovered from the lower terrace, one from the Ab horizon and one from the Bw horizon. Table 5-15. Distribution of Stone Tools Recovered from 44AX0031 Tool Type Location Horizon N= Retouched Locus A/Upper A/Ab 2 Flake Locus A/Lower Bw 1 Microblade Locus A/Upper A/Ab 2 Overburden 1 Uniface Locus A/Upper A/Ab 1 A/Ab 2 Biface Locus A/Upper BA 1 A/Ab 2 PPK Locus A/Upper BA 1 Thumbnail Locus B/Lower A/Ab 1 Scraper Hammer-stone Locus A/Upper A/Ab 1 Total 15

Retouched Flakes and Microblades Three flakes showed retouching on their cutting edge and were classified as retouched flakes. Two were fashioned from quartz, while a third example was made from a quartzite. The quartzite example has small hooked end that suggests function as a spokeshave; however, since it is unknown if its morphology was intended, its interpreted function should be considered provisional. The retouched flakes were informal scraping or cutting tools, likely fashioned from expedient materials for an immediate need and afterwards discarded. Two of these artifacts were found in A or Ab horizon soils on the upper terrace, while a third was found in the Bw Horizon soil on the lower terrace. It is unclear whether the example from the Bw soil predates those from the upper terrace. Two quartzite blades are classified as microblades. These, long, narrow flakes have sharp edges along their long axes. They could have been mounted with the long axes parallel to a bone or wooden handle to form a long bladed cutting tool like a knife, or sickle. Both microblades were recovered from intact A or Ab horizon soils on the upper terrace.

Uniface and Biface Tools Two unifacial and three bifacial tools were recovered, all from TU 3. One uniface was found in the overburden. This tool appears to be have an early stage quartz preform which broke during the manufacture process. The second unifacial tool was a worked flake of unidentified yellow microcryptocrystalline stone. The stone was heavily weathered, and partially covered in cortex, suggesting an early stage preform. The function and intended form of the tool are unknown. The artifact was recovered from the Ab horizon in TU 3.

5-28 SECTIONFIVE Results Two biface fragments were recovered from the Ab horizon in TU 3. Both are small quartzite fragments of late stage bifaces whose full form could not be projected from the fragments. A quartz late stage biface fragment was also found in the BA horizon of TU 3. Early stage unifaces can be considered tool blanks that were transported to the site for ad hoc production of finished tools. The late stage biface fragments, along with the PPKs described below, indicate that tools were being finished at the site.

Projectile Point Knives Three PPKs were recovered from TU 3 (Figure 5-15). Two from the Ab horizon include an unidentified broken basal fragment and an Selby Bay/Fox Creek point. The broken example has a lightly concave base and is fashioned from quartz. The fragment is too incomplete to make a determination of type. The Selby Bay/Fox Creek PPK is made from a yellow microcryptocrystalline material similar to that of the unidentified uniface described above. The PPK has a slender lanceolate shape with a poorly defined stem and slightly excurvate ears. It is moderately broad in cross-section, likely due to the low quality of the stone. According to Hranicky (1994:91), this type of PPK is typically found at Woodland period sites dating between 1,500 B.C. and 750 B.C., which would make it roughly contemporaneous with the Early Woodland Accokeek ceramics found in the same context. However, Curry and Kavanagh (1991), assign the type to the Middle Woodland period Selby Bay phase culture dating 200 to 700 AD. The stratigraphic association of the point with Early Woodland ceramics at 44AX0031 may indicate that Selby Bay PPKs span both periods, or the transition between the Early to Middle Woodland period. Recently, Robinson and Bulhack (2006) identified a Selby Bay PPK at the Point Lookout site, in St. Mary’s County, Maryland, in association with early Middle Woodland Mockley ceramics. The ceramics at the Point Lookout Site were dated to roughly 10 AD (Robinson and Bulhack 2006:5). A quartz Piscataway PPK was recovered from the BA horizon stratum in TU 3. This was below the Accokeek ceramic and Selby Bay PPK bearing Ab horizon stratum of the same unit. The Piscataway PPK is a small, narrow triangular blade with a contracting stem and convex base. In Maryland, the Piscataway PPK is typically associated with Early Woodland period cultures. The points have been found in association with Accokeek pottery in Prince Georges and Ann Arundel Counties (Siegel et al. 2004), and McLearen (1991) argues that the type was common on the Lower Potomac by 900 B.C. Dent (1995), however, places the Piscataway in the preceding Late Archaic period. Other Stone Tools and FCR A small hammer-stone and several pieces of FCR were also recovered from TU 3. The quartzite fragment weighs nearly one kilogram (2.2 pounds) and shows evidence of battering and pecking, associated with the flake stone tool production. The stone also shows evidence of being fire- cracked and may have also been used to boil water. Additional, smaller FCR specimens were common throughout TU 3. Four were in the overburden Stratum I, and 11 in the Ab horizon stratum. The only stone tool found in Locus B was a small quartz thumbnail scraper. This was recovered from Ab horizon soil in STP 60NE. The scraper does not have a diagnostic form and cannot be dated.

5-29 Left to Right:Selby Bay/Fox Creek PPK, Piscataway PPK basal half.

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II Diagnostic PPKs from 44AX0031 SCALE As Shown PROJ NO 60535473 SOURCE N/A 12420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\ VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Germantown, MD 20876 Concepts\900-Work\920_GIS\Cultural Resources 5-15 5-30 SECTIONFIVE Results 5.3.1.3 Lithic Debitage By far the most common artifact type recorded at 44AX0031 was lithic debitage. In total, 118 pieces were recovered. Of these, 99 were found on the upper terrace and 19 on the lower terrace. The debitage assemblage includes 50 complete or near complete flakes, 52 flake fragments, and 16 pieces of lithic shatter. Quartz debitage is more common (n=81) and comprises nearly 69 percent of the assemblage. The remaining 31 percent is quartzite (n=37). The 50 complete or near complete flakes were graded by size to help determine whether tool production at the site was focused more on finishing and resharpening activities, which would tend to produce mostly smaller flakes, or on initial preform production, which would result in larger flakes. Flakes were categorized by size classes starting at G-1 (0.95 cm [0.375 in]) and increasing by 0.635 cm (0.25 in) intervals at each class step. The bulk of flakes fall into the small-to-medium size range. The upper terrace assemblage includes six G-2, ten G-3, 16 G-4, four G-5, three G-6 flakes, and one each of G-7, G-8, and G- 11 flakes (Table 5-16). The much smaller lower terrace assemblage included three G-2, one G-3, two G-5, and one each of G-6 and G-7 flakes. The flakes are typical of the kind produced off of flake blanks and preforms being produced into tools. The lack of G-1 and comparatively few G-2 flakes, may result in part from recovery bias due to screen mesh size, but also from a paucity of formal tool finishing and sharpening behaviors at this part of 44AX0031. The small assemblage from the lower terrace has a broadly similar distribution of small and medium flakes, though at much lower numbers. Table 5-16. Size Grades of Complete and Near Complete Flakes from Locus A Upper Lower Class In Cm Terrace Terrace N= N= G-1 0.375 0.95 0 0 G-2 0.625 1.585 6 3 G-3 0.875 2.22 10 1 G-4 1.125 2.855 16 0 G-5 1.375 3.49 4 2 G-6 1.625 4.125 3 1 G-7 1.875 4.76 1 1 G-8 2.125 5.395 1 0 G-9 2.375 6.03 0 0 G-10 2.625 6.665 0 0 G-11 2.875 7.3 1 0

5.3.1.4 Historic Artifacts Forty-four historic artifacts were recovered from 44AX0031. Thirty-eight percent of historic artifacts were in recovered from fill soil, while 27 percent were from fluvial sediments recorded over Ab horizons, which might be representative of relatively recent flooding episodes. Approximately 5 percent of historic artifacts were found in A horizon soil, often near the surface, suggesting more recent discard. This assemblage of 33 artifacts includes the few datable historic artifacts found, including a yellowware fragment and a cut nail, both from the overburden fill in TU 3. The artifacts are summarized in Table 5-17.

5-31 SECTIONFIVE Results Table 5-17. Historic Artifacts from Disturbed Contexts at 44AX0031 Group Artifact Date Range N= Bottle glass 11 Unidentified vessel glass 3 Foodways Pull tab 1 Stoneware 2 Yellowware 1840-1930 1 Window glass 1 Asphalt 1 Household/Structural Brick 2 Cut nail 1815-1900s 1 Nail 1 Coal Post-1830 2 Unidentified ferrous 4 fragment Miscellaneous Unidentified glass 1 Plastic 1 Unidentified lead fragment 1 Total 33 Only eleven of the historic artifacts (30 percent) were from seemingly more secure Ab, E, or Bt horizon contexts (Table 5-18). Most of these artifacts are nondescript, including a brick fragment, window glass, unidentified glass fragments, and unidentified ferrous alloy fragments. A machine molded bottle finish appears to be from a twentieth century Champagne bottle. Three pieces of white paste refined earthenware could not be securely dated, but are likely from the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Table 5-18. Historic Artifacts from Secured Contexts at 44AX0031 Date Group Artifact N= Range Machine made bottle 20th 1 Foodways glass century Refined earthenware 3 Brick 1 Household/Structural Window glass 1 Unidentified glass 3 Miscellaneous Unidentified ferrous 2 fragment Total 11 The lower terrace was once an active floodplain bordered by natural levees. The prehistoric artifacts recovered from buried sediments of the lower terrace could reflect more limited and specialized use of the landform, possibly by the same people who were living on the upper terrace.

5-32 SECTIONFIVE Results 5.4 SITE 44AX0031 INTERPRETATIONS Site 44AX0031 is a complex multi-component part that was occupied largely during the Early to Middle Woodland periods. Diagnostic artifacts recovered from secured stratified contexts on the upper terrace suggest the earliest use of the location was by Early Woodland hunter-gatherers. They occupied the site most likely after ca. 900 B.C. Little else can be definitively said about this early occupation, as only a few pieces of debitage were found in association with the Piscataway PPK. Elements of better defined occupation are represented within the intact A Horizon soil on the upper terrace in Locus A. This occupation by Early to Middle Woodland period peoples was more intensive and generated a larger volume of material culture. Diagnostic tools associated with this occupation include Accokeek ceramics, typically associated with the Early Woodland period, and a Selby Bay PPK more commonly found at Middle Woodland period sites, but also at transitional period sites. It is in fact likely that this location was revisited frequently throughout the Early and Middle Woodland periods, and the PPK and ceramics could have been discarded many centuries apart. The volume and variety of material culture found in association with the diagnostic artifacts points to a wide range of activities that took place at the site. These would have likely included the production of stone tools (bifaces, stone chipping debitage, hammer stone) and the preparation of food (FCR, ceramics for boiling, possibly scrapers and microblades for meat or fiber cutting). The presence of micro-blades, scrapers, a possible spokeshave, and other expedient cutting tools might also indicate butchering of animal kills, hide working, cutting of fibrous plants (for food or other uses), and woodworking activities. The broad range of activities suggests intensive occupations, possibly of the resource extraction or seasonal-camp varieties. During the Early and Middle Woodland periods, riverine resources became increasingly more important to growing populations, and larger rivers supported seasonal population aggregates. Though Lucky Run had different characteristics during that period than it does today, it was not a large stream that could have supported anadromous fish runs. The lack of any shell middens also precludes intensive use or presence of shellfish. Therefore, it is unlikely that 44AX0031, though large, supported a seasonal aggregate village. Instead, the site was may have functioned as a camp occupied by smaller groups, perhaps extended families or small bands. The sheltered valley would have been favorable during cold parts of the year, or might have been a location where specialized plant or animal resources were harvested. Occupations were likely brief, but frequent. The historic period component of the site is poorly defined. Many of the site’s historic artifacts were recovered from fill or fluvial deposits and may have been brought in from elsewhere. The few historic artifacts in secure contexts indicate a light footprint during the more recent past. There was no evidence of plowing in the areas investigated, and it is possible that the lower terrace and edge of the upper terrace were never cultivated. The historic record and distribution of historic sites in the project vicinity suggest that what few habitations were in the area, were in the uplands and likely did not predate the second half of the nineteenth century.

5-33 SECTIONFIVE Results

Page Intentionally Blank

5-34 SECTIONSIX Conclusions and Recommendations 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Three archaeological isolates and two archaeological sites (44AX0031 and 44AX0236) were identified as a result of the current survey (Figure 6-1). Site 44AX0236 is located on the southern bank of the stream and consists of a small number of commingled lithic debitage and historic artifacts. Artifacts may have been transported into the area by stream activity. Historic artifacts may in fact be modern and be the result of casual discard, not unlike the trash scattered on the ground surface in the vicinity of the site. Given the apparent lack of archaeological integrity and lack of diagnostic artifacts, there is low potential that the small scatter can provide additional information on past prehistoric or historic occupations in the area. Site 44AX0236 is recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and no further archaeological investigations are recommended. Site 44AX0031 is a large, multi-component occupation on the north bank of Lucky Run. Previous investigations (Adams et al. 1993) had focused on parts of the site located on the upper terrace overlooking the north bank of Lucky Run and around a retention pond that was built at the foot of the Stonegate residential development. The current AECOM investigations identified three loci that extend from the lip of the upper terrace south and southwest of the retention pond and onto a lower terrace on Lucky Run’s north bank. The diversity of prehistoric artifacts recovered from the site is suggestive of intensive use of the area during at least the Early Woodland and Middle Woodland periods. A more ephemeral nineteenth to twentieth century component may relate to refuse discarded from rural domestic occupations that once existed in the nearby uplands. The investigations completed near the lip of the second terrace, at Locus A, revealed intact stratified deposits, which contained diagnostic artifacts. Adams et al. (1993) recommended site 44AX0031 eligible for listing in the NRHP, and AECOM recommends that the portions of Locus A investigated during this study contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the site (Figure 6-2). A small number of prehistoric artifacts on the lower terrace suggest at least marginal use of this landform. Low artifact densities and evidence of fluvial deposits in soil pedons show that the lower terrace was frequently flooded, and, as a result, was not likely to have been intensively utilized in the past. Furthermore, portions of the lower terrace near Locus B and in Locus C have been disturbed by construction and possibly looting. The archaeological deposits that are present on the lower terrace provide very limited data potential, and do not contribute to the eligibility of the site. Project plans indicate the anticipated equipment and worker access routes to the project area (Figure 6-3). These are located almost entirely within the broad floodplain on the southern bank of Lucky Run, where no impact to significant archaeological resources within the project APE is expected. However, limited construction staging and access from the north bank might be included in project designs. AECOM recommends designating a protected area around significant portions of 44AX0031 throughout the duration of the stream restoration work to prevent unanticipated adverse effects, as these locations might be outside of the APE as investigated in this current study. This protected area should include portions of Locus A that extend beyond the APE boundary and onto the upper terrace along with portions of the site on the upper terrace within a previously designated “scenic easement” described by Adams et al. (1993:211). Following the 1993 investigations, measures were taken to preserve the part of 44AX0031 located within the

6-1 SECTIONSIX Conclusions and Recommendations footprint of the storm water retention pond by covering it with landscape fabric and 0.75 inches of gravel (Adams et al 1993:211). The protected area is mapped in Figure 6-3, and AECOM recommends that clear signage and fencing designating the protected area boundaries are erected while the stream restoration efforts are ongoing. If significant portions of 44AX0031 cannot be avoided by construction activities, including staging and access, additional consultation with Alexandria Archaeology will be necessary to address the potential for adverse effects to the site.

6-2 APE

Site 44AX0031

Site 44AXxxxx

Isolated Finds

44AX0031

44AX0236

0 100 200 Feet

0 20 40 60 Meters

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II Topographic Map Showing Sites Identified During the Survey SCALE 1:1,000 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, PROJ NO 60535473 SOURCE Esri 2018 USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, 1G24e2o0B Masiles, toIGneN C, eKnatdera Dstre. r NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swiFsIGsUtoREpo, © Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\ VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Germantown, MD 20876 6-1 Concepts\900-Work\920_GIS\Cultural Resources ¹ OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 6-3 APE

Contributing Elements

Non Contributing Elements

Construction Access Route

0 100 200 Feet

0 20 40 60 Meters

CLIENT City of Alexandria TITLE PROJ Lucky Run Phase I & II Contributing Elements at Site 44AX0031 SCALE 1:568 PROJ NO 60535473 SOURCE Esri 2018 12420 Milestone Center Dr. FIGURE Q:\Projects\WR\City of Alexandria\ VPDES-IDIQ 2013\Lucky Run- Germantown, MD 20876 6-2 Concepts\900-Work\920_GIS\Cultural Resources ¹ 6-4 SECTIONSEVEN References Cited 7.0 REFERENCES CITED Adams, Robert M. 1994 The Archaeological Investigation of the Undeveloped Upland Terraces in Mark Center, City of Alexandria, Virginia. Submitted to the City of Alexandria by International Archaeology Consultants, Rawlings, Wyoming. Document on file at Virginia DHR.

Adams, Robert M., et al 1993 Archaeological Investigation of the Stonegate Development (Including Sites 44AX31,166, & 167), West Braddock Road, City of Alexandria, Virginia. Submitted to the City of Alexandria by International Archaeology Consultants, Rawlings, Wyoming. Document on file at Alexandria Archaeology Museum, Alexandria, Virginia.

Ahler, Stanley A. 1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather than the Tree. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by D. O. Henry and G. H. Odell, pp. 85-118. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association Number 1.

Alexandria Archaeology 2007 City of Alexandria Archaeology Standards. Office of Historic Alexandria. Alexandria, Virginia.

Alexandria Archaeology Museum n.d. List Compiled from the Land and Personal Property Tax Assessments for the Year of 1810 and the Local Census of the Same Year for Alexandria, Virginia. Document on file at the Alexandria Archaeology Museum, Alexandria, Virginia.

Andrefsky, William Jr. 2004 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Originally published 1998, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Barber, James G. 1988 Alexandria in the Civil War. H.E. Howard, Inc., Lynchburg, VA.

Barse, William P. and A.D. Beauregard 1994 Phase III Data Recovery at the Clifton Site (18CH358), Maryland Route 228 Wetland Mitigation, Charles County, Maryland. Maryland State Highway Administration Archeological Report Number 86. Prepared by KCI Technologies, Inc., Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.

Barse, William P., and J. Harbison 2000 Phase II Archaeological Testing on the Prehistoric and Historic Components of Site 44AX185, Jones Point Park, Alexandria, Virginia. Submitted to the Federal Highway Administration, Virginia Department of Transportation, and the National Park Service by the Potomac Crossing Consultants, Florence, New Jersey.

7-1 SECTIONSEVEN References Cited Barse, William P., J. Harbison, I. Wuebber, and M. Janowitz 2006 Phase III Archaeological Mitigation of the Prehistoric and Historic Components of Site 44AX185, Jones Point Park, Alexandria, Virginia. Submitted to the Federal Highway Administration, Virginia Department of Transportation, and the National Park Service by the Potomac Crossing Consultants, Burlington, New Jersey.

Bellis, Mary 2018 History of the Oven from Cast Iron to Electric. Electronic document, https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-the-oven-from-cast-iron-to-electric-1992212, accessed October 15, 2018

Binford, Lewis R. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20.

Boyd, Varna G., Et Al 1991 Intensive Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Lynn House Property, Alexandria, Virginia. Prepared for Walton Madden Cooper, Inc. by The American University, Washington D.C. On file at the Alexandria Archaeology Museum, Alexandria, Virginia.

Bradburry, A.P., and P. J. Carr 1995 Flake Typologies and Alternative Approaches: An Experimental Assessment. Lithic Technologies 20(2):100-116

Brockett, F.L., and Geo. W. Rock 1883 A Concise History of the City of Alexandria, Virginia from 1669 to 1883, with a Directory of Reliable Business Houses in the City. Gazette Book and Job Office, Alexandria, Virginia. On file at the Alexandria Archaeology Museum, Alexandria, Virginia.

Buchanan, Brian, Christopher Shephard, David Carroll, Curt Breckenridge, Johnna Flahive, Christine Jirkowic, Tammy Bryant, and William Barse 2007 Phase I Archeological Investigations of the I-95/395 HOV/Bus/HOT Lanes Project, Arlington, Fairfax, Prince William and Stafford Counties and the City of Alexandria, Virginia. Produced for Virginia DOT by Thunderbird Archaeological Associates. Document on file at Virginia DHR.

Caldwell, Joseph R. 1958 Trend and Tradition in the Prrehistory of the Eastern United States. American Anthropological Memoir 88.

Carbone, Victor A. 1976 Environment and Prehistory in the Shenandoah Valley. Ph.D. Dissertation, Catholic University, Washington D.C.

7-2 SECTIONSEVEN References Cited Clark, Wayne E. 1980 The Origins of the Piscataway and Related Indian Cultures. Maryland Historical Magazine 75(1):8-22.

Cleland, Charles E. 1976 The Focal-Diffuse Model: An Evolutionary Perspective on the Prehistoric Cultural Adaptations of the Eastern United States. Mid-Continental Journal of Archeology 1(1):59-76.

Crabtree, Don E. 1972 An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State Museum Number 28. Pocatello.

Curry, Dennis C. and Maureen Kavanagh 1991 The Middle to Late Woodland Transition in Maryland. North American Archaeologist 12 (1):2-28.

Custer, Jay F. 1984 Delaware Prehistoric Archaeology: An Ecological Approach. University of Delaware Press, Newark.

1989 Prehistoric Cultures of the Delmarva Peninsula: An Archeological Study. University of Delaware Press. Newark, Delaware.

1990 Early and Middle Archaic Cultures of Virginia: Culture Change and Continuity. In Early and Middle Archaic Research in Virginia. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication No.22, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 1-60. Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia

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

Ferland, Sara, Mike Klein, and Emily Lindveit 2009 Cultural Resources Investigations of the 4-Acre Mark Center VI Parcel (Area A) and One Acre of the 6-Acre Mark Center Buildings 2A, 2B, and 3 Parcel (Area B) Within the Mark Center Complex on Seminary Road in the City of Alexandria, Virginia. Prepared for Duke Realty Company by Cultural Resources Inc. Document on file at Virginia DHR.

Franz, Karl and Thomas Bodor 2011 Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Stream Restoration Project, Winkler Botanical Preserve, Alexandria, Virginia. Prepared by The Ottery Group. Report on file at the Alexandria Archaeology Museum, Alexandria, Virginia.

7-3 SECTIONSEVEN References Cited Gardner, William M. 1974 The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex: A preliminary Report, 1971-73 Seasons. Occasional Publication No. 1, Department of Anthropology, Catholic University, Washington, D.C.

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

1982 Early and Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: An Overview. In Practicing Environmental Archaeology: Methods and Interpretations, edited by Roger Moeller, pp. 53-86. American Indian Archaeological Institute, Washington, Connecticut.

Gardner, William M., Kimberly A. Snyder, and Tammy Bryant 1995a Phase III Data Recovery Excavations of the Prehistoric Component of 44AX177 and 44AX176, Stonegate Development, Parcel C, City of Alexander, Virginia

Gardner, William M., Kimberly A. Snyder, Tammy Bryant, and Gwen Hurst 1995b Phase II Archaeological Investigations of an Historic Area Within 44AX177, City of Alexandria, Virginia

Geddes, Jean 1967 Fairfax County Historical Highlights from 1607. Denlingers, Fairfax.

Hantman, Jeffrey L. 1990 "Between Powhatan and Quirank: Reconstructing Monacan Culture and History in the Context of jamestown," American Anthropologist 92(3)676- 701.

Hopkins, Griffith Morgan 1879 Atlas of Fifteen Miles around Washington, Including the Counties of Fairfax and Alexandria, Virginia. Electronic document, https://www.loc.gov/item/map53000779/, accessed September 5, 2017.

Hranicky, William J. 1994 Middle Atlantic Projectile Point Typology and Nomenclature. Archaeological Society of Virginia Special Publication Number 33, Courtland, Virginia.

Hranicky, William J. and Floyd Painter 1989 Guide to the Identification of Virginia Projectile Points. Archeological Society of Virginia Special Publication No. 17.

Hurd, William 1989 U.S. Military Hospital Sites in Civil War Alexandria, VA. The Fireside Sentinel 3(2):13- 19.

7-4 SECTIONSEVEN References Cited Hurst, Harold W. 1991 Alexandria on the Potomac: Portrait of an Antebellum Community. University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland.

Hutson, Jarod and John Mullen 2008 Third Addendum to the Phase I Archeological Investigations of the I-95/395 HOV/Bus/HOT Lanes Project, Arlington, Fairfax, Prince William and Stafford Counties and the City of Alexandria. Prepared for the Virginia Department of Transportation by Thunderbird Archaeological Associates. Document is on file at the Virginia DHR.

Jefferson Patterson Park Museum (JPPM) 2018 Diagnostic Artifacts in Maryland. Electronic document http://www.jefpat.org/diagnostic/PrehistoricCeramics/PrehistoricWareDescriptions/Acco keek.htm, accessed October 15, 2018

Kavanagh, Maureen 1982 Archaeological Resources of the Monocacy River Region, Frederick and Carroll Counties, Maryland. Maryland Geological Survey, Division of Archeology Field Report No. 216.

Kellogg, Douglas C., and Jay F. Custer 1994 Paleoenvironmental Studies of the State Route 1 Corridor: Contexts for Prehistoric Settlement, New Castle and Kent Counties, Delaware. Delaware Department of Transportation Archeology Series No. 114, Dover, Delaware.

Kulikoff, Allan 1986 Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the Chesapeake, 1680- 1800. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

LeRouge, Georges-Louis, Joshua Fry, and Peter Jefferson 1777 Virginie, Maryland en 2 feuilles par Fry et Jefferson. Electronic document, https://www.loc.gov/item/74692503/, accessed October 19, 2018.

Lowry, Sarah 2009 Report on Ground-penetrating Radar Surveys: Possible Cemeteries within Fort Ward Historical Park, Alexandria, Virginia. Prepared as a courtesy for Alexandria City Archaeology. Document On file at the Alexandria Archaeology Museum, Alexandria, Virginia.

Lowery, Darrin L., and Jay F. Custer 1990 Crane Point: An Early Archaic Site in Maryland. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 6:75-120.

Michler, Nathaniel 1864 Map of Fairfax and Alexandria counties, Virginia, and parts of adjoining counties. Electronic document, https://www.loc.gov/item/2006627694/, accessed October 19, 2018.

7-5 SECTIONSEVEN References Cited Miller, George L. 2000 Telling Time for Archaeologists. Northeast Historical Archeology 29:1-22.

Miller, T. Michael 1984 Jones Point: Haven of History. Alexandria Library, Lloyd House, Alexandria, Virginia. 1987 Wandering along the Wharves and Waterfronts of Old Alexandria, Virginia. Fireside Sentinel. Lloyd House, Alexandria Library. Moxham, Robert M. 1974 The Great Hunting Creek Land Grants. Colonial Press, Springfield, Virginia.

Netherton, Nan, Donald Sweig, Janice Artemel, Patricia Hickin, and Patrick Reed 1992 Fairfax County, Virginia: A History. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Fairfax, Virginia.

Odell, George H. 2003 Lithic Analysis. Kluwer Academic. New York.

Orser, Charles. E., Jr. 1988 The Material Basis of the Post-Bellum Tenant Plantation: Historical Archaeology in the South Carolina Piedmont. The University of Georgia Press,

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

Roberts, C. and C.M. Bailey 2000 Physiographic Map of Virginia Countie. Modified from Virginia Division of Mineral Resources/ U.S. Geological Survey Map of Mineral Producing Localities, College of William and Mary.

South, Stanley. 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Sperling, Stephanie T. 2008 The Middle Woodland Period in Central Maryland: A Fresh Look at Old Questions. Maryland Archaeology 44(1):22–36.

Sprague, Roderick 1983 Tile Bead Manufacturing. Proceedings of the 1982 Glass Bead Conference. Research Record No. 16 Rochester Museum and Science Center, New York.

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

7-6 SECTIONSEVEN References Cited Steponaitis, Laurie C. 1980 A Survey of Artifact Collections from the Patuxent River Drainage, Maryland. Maryland Historical Trust Monograph Series 1. Maryland Historical Trust and Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD.

Sullivan, III, Alan P., and Kenneth C. Rozen 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50:755-779. Toogood, Anna C. 1969 Piscataway Park, Maryland: General Historic Background Study. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) 2018a Web Soil Survey. Electronic resource, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/, accessed May 10, 2018. 2018b Official Soil Series Descriptions. Electronic document, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm, accessed May 10, 2018.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation 2016 Overview of the Physiography and Vegetation of Virginia. Electronic document, http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/natural-communities/document/ncoverview phys-veg.pdf, accessed August 22, 2017.

Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) 2011 Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia. Electronic resource, http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/pdf_files/survey%20manual-revoct.2011final.pdf, accessed September 5, 2017.

Visser, Thomas D. 2018 Nails: Clues to a Building’s History. Electronic document, https://www.uvm.edu/ ~histpres/203/nails.html, accessed October 15, 2018.

Wall, Robert D. 2001 Late Woodland Ceramics and Native Populations of the Upper Potomac Valley. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 17:15-37.

Washington, George 1749 A Plan of Alexandria, Now Belhaven. Electronic document, https://www.loc.gov/ item/98687108/, accessed September 5, 2017.

Wesler, Kit W., Gordon J. Fine, Dennis J. Pogue, Patricia A. Sternheimer, Aileen F. Button, E. Glyn Furgurson, and Alvin H. Luckenbach 1981 The M/DOT Archaeological Resources Survey, Volume 1: Eastern Shore. Maryland Historical Trust Manuscript Series, No. 5. Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville, Maryland.

7-7 SECTIONSEVEN References Cited Wrenn, Tony P 1972 Falls Church: History of a Virginia Village. Historical Commission of the City of Falls Church, Falls Church.

7-8 Appendix A:

Qualifications of Investigators This Page Intentionally Blank Ralph Koziarski, PhD has over 15 years of experience in cultural resources management and archaeological research and meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR Part 61) for archaeology and history. His career experience includes project management, field direction, crew supervision, analysis and report writing of archaeological survey, site testing and data recovery projects throughout much of the United States. He has worked on both historic and prehistoric sites for private, municipal, state, federal, and tribal clients. In addition, he has extensive experience in faunal analysis, public outreach and education. Dr. Koziarski holds an MS and PhD in Anthropology with a focus on Zooarchaeology from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. This Page Intentionally Blank Appendix B:

Artifact Catalog This Page Intentionally Blank Lucky Run Phase I

Catalog # Count Group Subgroup Material Form Color Comments Weight/Discarded? STP: 3 Stratum: III Depth: 48-68 cmbs 32 . 1 1 Household/ Architectural/ Glass Window Aqua g Structural Construction

32 . 2 1 Household/ Architectural/ Iron Nail Expanded corrosion product 11.7 g Structural Construction

STP: 4 Stratum: I Depth: 0-14 cmbs 4 . 1 1 Debitage Quartz Secondary Cortex 0.18 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake < 50% STP: 9 Stratum: II Depth: 8-22 cmbs 8 . 1 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 0.16 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake 0% - Non-cortex 8 . 2 1 Household/ Architectural/ Iron Nail g Structural Construction

8 . 3 1 Miscellaneo Unknown Clinker Fragment 1.21 g us

STP: 33 Stratum: II Depth: 14-30 cmbs 13 . 1 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 0.18 g Flake Fragment 0% - Non-cortex STP: 33SW Stratum: I Depth: 0-6 cmbs 31 . 1 1 Foodways Service Whiteware Fragment Small fragment g

STP: 34 Stratum: I Depth: 0-14 cmbs 9 . 1 2 Foodways Storage Glass Bottle 7up green Mend; 4 circular divots on vessel g exterior Indeterminate manufacture

Note: Additional attribute data is recorded in the electronic database. Tuesday, July 10, 2018 Lucky Run Phase I Page 1 of 8 Catalog # Count Group Subgroup Material Form Color Comments Weight/Discarded? STP: 40 Stratum: I Depth: 0-14 cmbs 7 . 1 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 0.59 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake 0% - Non-cortex STP: 42 Stratum: II Depth: 20-49 cmbs 2 . 1 1 Foodways Storage Plastic Bottle 0.68 g

2 . 2 1 Miscellaneo Unknown Plastic Fragment 0.16 g us

STP: 57 Stratum: I Depth: 0-21 cmbs 12 . 1 1 Debitage Quartz Secondary Cortex 9.5 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake < 50% STP: 57 Stratum: II Depth: 21-45 cmbs 6 . 1 1 Debitage Quartzite Non-Cortex 2.53 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake 0% - Non-cortex 6 . 2 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 0.05 g Flake Fragment 0% - Non-cortex STP: 57NE Stratum: II Depth: 13-27 cmbs 11 . 1 1 Debitage Quartz Secondary Cortex 0.69 g Flake Fragment < 50% 11 . 2 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 0.19 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake 0% - Non-cortex STP: 57NE Stratum: III Depth: 29-65 cmbs 5 . 1 1 Flaked Quartz Retouched/Utilized Debitage 6.24 g Stone Tool Retouched Flake 0% - Non-cortex 5 . 2 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 2.06 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake 0% - Non-cortex

Note: Additional attribute data is recorded in the electronic database. Tuesday, July 10, 2018 Lucky Run Phase I Page 2 of 8 Catalog # Count Group Subgroup Material Form Color Comments Weight/Discarded? 5 . 3 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 0.67 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake 0% - Non-cortex 5 . 4 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 0.32 g Flake Fragment 0% - Non-cortex STP: 57NW Stratum: II Depth: 20-51 cmbs 1 . 1 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 4.98 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake 0% - Non-cortex 1 . 2 1 Debitage Quartzite Non-Cortex 3.40 g Flake Fragment 0% - Non-cortex 1 . 3 1 Debitage Quartz Secondary Cortex 0.74 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake < 50% 1 . 4 1 Debitage Quartzite Non-Cortex 0.34 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake 0% - Non-cortex 1 . 5 1 Foodways Storage Glass Bottle Colorless Champagne finish g Automatic machine made STP: 57NW Stratum: II Depth: 13-35 cmbs 28 . 1 1 Foodways Storage Glass Bottle Green, light Embossed "IN…" g Automatic machine made STP: 57W Stratum: I Depth: 0-18 cmbs 3 . 1 1 Foodways Storage Glass Bottle Colorless Unidentified finish g Automatic machine made 3 . 2 1 Foodways General Glass Fragment Colorless Small fragment g

3 . 3 1 Foodways General Glass Fragment 7up green g

3 . 4 1 Miscellaneo Unknown Plastic Fragment 0.21 g us

Note: Additional attribute data is recorded in the electronic database. Tuesday, July 10, 2018 Lucky Run Phase I Page 3 of 8 Catalog # Count Group Subgroup Material Form Color Comments Weight/Discarded? STP: 60NE Stratum: III Depth: 28-43 cmbs 22 . 1 1 Flaked Quartz Scraper 44.47 g Stone Tool Thumbnail Scraper 0% - Non-cortex 22 . 2 2 Foodways Service Refined earthenware Fragment Blue, light Mend; white paste; spalled interior g Color glaze 22 . 3 1 Foodways Service Refined earthenware Fragment White paste; spalled g

22 . 4 1 Household/ Architectural/ Brick Brick 5.56 g Structural Construction

STP: 63 Stratum: I Depth: 0-10 cmbs 14 . 1 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 14.45 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake 0% - Non-cortex 14 . 2 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 0.05 g Flake Fragment 0% - Non-cortex STP: 63W Stratum: I Depth: 0-11 cmbs 33 . 1 Miscellaneo Unknown Coal Fragment g us

STP: 63W Stratum: II Depth: 11-23 cmbs 19 . 1 Household/ Architectural/C Glass Window Small fragment g Structural onstruction

19 . 1 1 Miscellaneo Unknown Iron Fragment g us

STP: 64NW Stratum: I Depth: 0-19 cmbs 10 . 1 1 Foodways Storage Stoneware Fragment Buff paste, interior and exterior g Albany slip

Note: Additional attribute data is recorded in the electronic database. Tuesday, July 10, 2018 Lucky Run Phase I Page 4 of 8 Catalog # Count Group Subgroup Material Form Color Comments Weight/Discarded? STP: 95E Stratum: I Depth: 0-12 cmbs 18 . 1 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 0.39 g Flake Fragment 0% - Non-cortex STP: 100 Stratum: I Depth: 0-14 cmbs 17 . 1 1 Debitage Quartz Secondary Cortex 0.44 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake < 50% 17 . 2 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 0.24 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake 0% - Non-cortex STP: 102 Stratum: II Depth: 30-50 cmbs 29 . 1 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 2.38 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake 0% - Non-cortex 29 . 2 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 0.20 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake 0% - Non-cortex STP: 102N Stratum: I Depth: 0-16 cmbs 25 . 1 1 Debitage Quartzite Non-Cortex 12.66 g Blade/Microblade 0% - Non-cortex 25 . 2 1 Debitage Quartzite Non-Cortex 0.99 g Flake Fragment 0% - Non-cortex 25 . 3 1 Debitage Quartz Secondary Cortex 7.94 g Debris/Shatter < 50% 25 . 4 1 Debitage Quartzite Non-Cortex .26 g Flake Fragment 0% - Non-cortex STP: 102N Stratum: II Depth: 16-32 cmbs 24 . 1 1 Debitage Quartzite Non-Cortex 2.29 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake 0% - Non-cortex 24 . 2 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 1.26 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake 0% - Non-cortex

Note: Additional attribute data is recorded in the electronic database. Tuesday, July 10, 2018 Lucky Run Phase I Page 5 of 8 Catalog # Count Group Subgroup Material Form Color Comments Weight/Discarded? 24 . 3 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 0.23 g Flake Fragment 0% - Non-cortex STP: 102NW Stratum: II Depth: 22-38 cmbs 23 . 1 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 3.76 g Flake Fragment 0% - Non-cortex 23 . 2 2 Debitage Quartz Secondary Cortex 7.14 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake < 50% 23 . 3 1 Debitage Quartz Secondary Cortex 1.04 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake < 50% 23 . 4 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 0.91 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake 0% - Non-cortex 23 . 5 1 Debitage Quartzite Non-Cortex 0.90 g Flake Fragment 0% - Non-cortex 23 . 6 1 Debitage Quartzite Non-Cortex 0.33 g Flake Fragment 0% - Non-cortex 23 . 7 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 0.46 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake 0% - Non-cortex 23 . 8 2 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 0.64 g Flake Fragment 0% - Non-cortex STP: 102NW Stratum: III Depth: 38-54 cmbs 21 . 1 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 5.06 g Bipolar Flake 0% - Non-cortex 21 . 2 1 Debitage Quartzite Secondary Cortex 2.90 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake < 50% 21 . 3 1 Debitage Quartzite Non-Cortex 1.80 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake 0% - Non-cortex 21 . 4 1 Debitage Quartzite Non-Cortex 0.76 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake 0% - Non-cortex

Note: Additional attribute data is recorded in the electronic database. Tuesday, July 10, 2018 Lucky Run Phase I Page 6 of 8 Note: Additional attribute data is recorded in the electronic database. Lucky Run Phase I Page 7 of 8

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

27 . 1 Debitage Secondary Cortex 11.86 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake < 50%

STP: 104 Depth: 23-61 cmbs 1 Quartz

Stratum: II

26 . 1 Debitage Non-Cortex 0.98 g Flake Fragment 0% - Non-cortex

2 Quartz

26 . 1 Debitage Non-Cortex 1.58 g Flake Fragment 0% - Non-cortex

STP: 104 Depth: 0-23 cmbs 1 Quartz

Stratum: I

15 . 1 Debitage Non-Cortex 0.67 g Flake Fragment 0% - Non-cortex

5 Quartz

15 . 1 Debitage Primary Cortex 2.63 g Flake Fragment ≥ 50%

4 Quartz

15 . 1 Debitage Primary Cortex 1.04 g Flake Fragment ≥ 50%

3 Quartzite

15 . 1 Flaked Retouched/Utilized Debitage 4.17 g Stone Tool Spokeshave ≥ 50%

2 Quartzite

15 . 1 Debitage Non-Cortex 3.48 g Blade/Microblade 0% - Non-cortex

STP: 102W Depth: 20-30 cmbs 1 Quartzite

Stratum: II

20 . 1 Debitage Primary Cortex 44.89 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake ≥ 50%

STP: 102SW Depth: 0-20 cmbs 1 Quartzite

Stratum: I

Accokeek

16 . 1 Prehistoric Ceramic 7.78 g Ceramic

STP: 102SW Depth: 0-20 cmbs 1 Bowl/ Jar fragment

Stratum: I

21 . 1 Debitage Primary Cortex 1.02 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake ≥ 50%

Weight/Discarded? 5 Quartz

Catalog # Count Group Subgroup Material Form Color Comments Catalog # Count Group Subgroup Material Form Color Comments Weight/Discarded? 27 . 2 1 Debitage Quartz Non-Cortex 6.16 g Bipolar Flake 0% - Non-cortex 27 . 3 1 Debitage Quartzite Non-Cortex 3.26 g Complete/Mostly Complete Flake 0% - Non-cortex 27 . 4 1 Prehistoric Ceramic Bowl/ Jar fragment 11.48 g Ceramic Accokeek 27 . 5 1 Prehistoric Ceramic Bowl/ Jar fragment 5.68 g Ceramic Accokeek

Grand Total: 84

Note: Additional attribute data is recorded in the electronic database. Tuesday, July 10, 2018 Lucky Run Phase I Page 8 of 8 Appendix C:

VDHR Site Forms

Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44AX0031 Archaeological Site Record

Snapshot Date Generated: November 01, 2018

Site Name: No Data Site Evaluation Status Site Classification: Terrestrial, open air Year(s): 15000 B.C.E - 1606 C.E, 1830 - 2018 Not Evaluated Site Type(s): Artifact scatter, Camp, temporary Other DHR ID: No Data Temporary Designation: No Data

Locational Information

USGS Quad: ALEXANDRIA County/Independent City: Alexandria (Ind. City) Physiographic Province: Coastal Plain Elevation: No Data Aspect: No Data Drainage: Potomac Slope: 2 - 6 Acreage: 0.670 Landform: Other, Terrace, First, Terrace, Second Ownership Status: Local Govt Government Entity Name: No Data

Site Components

Component 1 Category: Domestic Site Type: Camp, temporary Cultural Affiliation: Native American DHR Time Period: Pre-Contact Start Year: -15000 End Year: 1606 Comments: No Data Component 2 Category: Indeterminate Site Type: Artifact scatter Cultural Affiliation: Indeterminate DHR Time Period: Antebellum Period, Civil War, Post Cold War, Reconstruction and Growth, The New Dominion, World War I to World War II Start Year: 1830 End Year: 2018 Comments: No Data

Bibliographic Information

Bibliography: Adams, Robert M. 1994The Archaeological Investigation of the Undeveloped Upland Terraces in Mark Center, City of Alexandria, Virginia. Submitted to the City of Alexandria by International Archaeology Consultants, Rawlings, Wyoming. Document on file at Virginia DHR.

Adams, Robert M., et al 1993Archaeological Investigation of the Stonegate Development (Including Sites 44AX31,166, & 167), West Braddock Road, City of Alexandria, Virginia. Submitted to the City of Alexandria by International Archaeology Consultants, Rawlings, Wyoming. Document on file at Alexandria

Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979). Page: 1 of 5 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44AX0031 Archaeological Site Record

Archaeology Museum, Alexandria, Virginia. Informant Data: No Data

Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979). Page: 2 of 5 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44AX0031 Archaeological Site Record

CRM Events

Event Type: Survey:Phase I

Project Staff/Notes: Ralph Koziarski Scott Seibel Benjamin Stewart

Project Review File Number: No Data Sponsoring Organization: No Data Organization/Company: AECOM Germantown Investigator: Ralph Koziarski Survey Date: 6/11/2018 Survey Description: Surface and subsurface archaeological investigations of 1,000 linear feet of Lucky Run flood plain. STP survey. Excavations at 30 ft intervals, with 15 ft supplemental STPs. Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Park 10/1/2018 12:00:00 AM No Data Threats to Resource: Development, Erosion Site Conditions: 0-24% of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies: Subsurface Testing, Surface Testing Specimens Collected: Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected: Yes Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: In total, 204 artifacts were recovered from excavations at 44AX0031. Seventy four percent (n=150) of the assemblage was recovered from excavations made on the upper terrace.

All diagnostic artifacts recovered from upper terrace. Diagnostics include Early Woodland Accokeek Ceramic Sherds (8) Middle Woodland Selby Bay/Fox Creek Projectile Point/Knife (1) Early Woodland Piscataway Projectile Point/Knife (1) 1805-1920 Albany Slip Stoneware (2) 1840-1930 Yellowware (1) 1815-1900 Cut Nail (1) 1960-1980 Beverage Can Pull Tab (1) Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: Modern trash visible on surface Current Curation Repository: AECOM Gaithersburg, MD. archaeology lab Permanent Curation Repository: Alexandria Archaeology Field Notes: Yes Field Notes Repository: AECOM Germantown, MD Photographic Media: Digital Survey Reports: Yes Survey Report Information: Koziarski, Ralph 2018 Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Lucky Run Stream Restoration from Braddock Road to the Park Place Palazzo Pond. Alexandria Virginia. Survey Report Repository: VDHR DHR Library Reference Number: No Data Significance Statement: Portions of site on upper (second) terrace contribute to eligibility. Intact stratified deposits of Early to Middle Woodland period camps.

Lower (first) terrace portions are non-contributing. Low density lithic and historic artifact scatters commingled in fluvial deposits on former active floodplain. Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations: Recommended Eligible Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, : D Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations: No Data

Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979). Page: 3 of 5 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44AX0031 Archaeological Site Record

Event Type: Other

Project Staff/Notes: temporal catagory changed from "possibly Archaic" Project Review File Number: No Data Sponsoring Organization: No Data Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Investigator: WMCAR Survey Date: 2/4/1997 Survey Description: site cosists of three continuous scatters B1O-2, B1O-3, B1O-4 Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Forest No Data undisturbed deciduous forest Threats to Resource: No Data Site Conditions: Unknown Portion of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies: Surface Testing Specimens Collected: Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected: Yes Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: one projectile point, many quartz and quartzite flakes not collected. Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository: ARPO Permanent Curation Repository: No Data Field Notes: No Field Notes Repository: No Data Photographic Media: No Data Survey Reports: No Survey Report Information: No Data Survey Report Repository: No Data DHR Library Reference Number: No Data Significance Statement: No Data Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations: No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, : No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations: No Data

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance

Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number: No Data Sponsoring Organization: No Data Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Investigator: Alexandria RPO-Terry Klein Survey Date: 8/26/1980 Survey Description: No Data

Threats to Resource: No Data Site Conditions: No Data Survey Strategies: No Data Specimens Collected: No Data Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data

Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979). Page: 4 of 5 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44AX0031 Archaeological Site Record

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

Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979). Page: 5 of 5 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44AX0236 Archaeological Site Record

Snapshot Date Generated: November 01, 2018

Site Name: No Data Site Evaluation Status Site Classification: Terrestrial, open air Year(s): No Data Not Evaluated Site Type(s): Artifact scatter, Artifact scatter Other DHR ID: No Data Temporary Designation: LR 1

Locational Information

USGS Quad: ALEXANDRIA County/Independent City: Alexandria (Ind. City) Physiographic Province: Coastal Plain Elevation: No Data Aspect: No Data Drainage: Potomac Slope: 0 - 2 Acreage: 0.020 Landform: Floodplain Ownership Status: Private Government Entity Name: No Data

Site Components

Component 1 Category: Indeterminate Site Type: Artifact scatter Cultural Affiliation: Indeterminate DHR Time Period: Antebellum Period, Civil War, Post Cold War, Reconstruction and Growth, The New Dominion, World War I to World War II Start Year: No Data End Year: No Data Comments: No Data Component 2 Category: Indeterminate Site Type: Artifact scatter Cultural Affiliation: Indeterminate DHR Time Period: Pre-Contact Start Year: No Data End Year: No Data Comments: No Data

Bibliographic Information

Bibliography: na Informant Data: na

Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979). Page: 1 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44AX0236 Archaeological Site Record

CRM Events

Event Type: Survey:Phase I

Project Staff/Notes: Ralph Koziarski Scott Seibel Benjamin Stewart

Project Review File Number: No Data Sponsoring Organization: No Data Organization/Company: AECOM Germantown Investigator: Ralph Koziarski Survey Date: 6/11/2018 Survey Description: Surface and subsurface archaeological investigations of 1,000 linear feet of Lucky Run flood plain. STP survey. Excavations at 30 ft intervals, with 15 ft supplemental STPs. Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Forest 10/1/2018 12:00:00 AM No Data Threats to Resource: Development Site Conditions: Unknown Portion of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies: Subsurface Testing Specimens Collected: Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected: Yes Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: Nail 2 Window Glass 1 Clinker 1 Debitage 3 Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: Modern garbage on surface Current Curation Repository: AECOM Lab Gaithersburg, MD Permanent Curation Repository: Alexandria Archaeology Field Notes: Yes Field Notes Repository: AECOM Germantown, MD Photographic Media: Digital Survey Reports: Yes Survey Report Information: Koziarski, Ralph 2018 Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Lucky Run Stream Restoration from Braddock Road to the Park Place Palazzo Pond. Alexandria Virginia. Survey Report Repository: VDHR DHR Library Reference Number: No Data Significance Statement: Site lacks integrity and has no data potential. Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations: Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, : No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations: No Data

Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979). Page: 2 of 2 Virginia Dept. of Historic Resources

Legend Architecture Resources Architecture Labels Individual Historic District Properties Archaeological Resources Archaeology Labels DHR Easements USGS GIS Place names County Boundaries

Title: Archaeological Resources Date: 11/1/2018 DISCLAIMER:Records of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) have been gathered over many years from a variety of sources and the representation depicted is a cumulative view of field observations over time and may not reflect current ground conditions.The map is for general information purposes and is not intended for engineering, legal or other site-specific uses. Map may contain errors and is provided "as-is". More information is available in the DHR Archives located at DHR’s Richmond office.

Notice if AE sites:Locations of archaeological sites may be sensitive the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) and Code of Virginia §2.2-3705.7 (10). Release of precise locations may threaten archaeological sites and historic resources.