DOCSLIB.ORG

Archaeological Survey of the Chesapeake Bay Shorelines Associated with Accomack County and Northampton County, Virginia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Archaeological Survey of the Chesapeake Bay Shorelines Associated with Accomack County and Northampton County, Virginia ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE ATLANTIC COAST SHORELINES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCOMACK COUNTY AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA Survey and Planning Report Series No. 7 Virginia Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA 23221 2003 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE ATLANTIC COAST SHORELINES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCOMACK COUNTY AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA Virginia Department of Historic Resources Survey and Planning Report Series No. 7 Author: Darrin L. Lowery Chesapeake Bay Watershed Archaeological Research Foundation 5264 Blackwalnut Point Road, P.O. Box 180 Tilghman, MD 21671 2003 ii ABSTRACT This report summarizes the results of an archaeological survey conducted along the Atlantic shorelines of both Accomack County and Northampton County, Virginia. Accomack and Northampton Counties represent the southernmost extension of the Delmarva Peninsula. The study area encompasses all of the lands adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean and shorelines associated with the back barrier island bays. A shoreline survey was conducted along the Atlantic Ocean to gauge the erosion threat to the archaeological resources situated along the shoreline. Archaeological sites along shorelines are subjected to numerous natural processes which hinder site visibility and limit archaeological interpretations. Summaries of these natural processes are presented in this report. The primary goal of the project was to locate, identify, and record any archaeological sites or remains along the Atlantic seashore that are threatened by shoreline erosion. The project also served as a test of a prehistoric site predictive/settlement model that has been utilized during other archaeological surveys along the Chesapeake Bay shorelines and within the interior sections of the Delmarva Peninsula. The prehistoric site predictive/settlement model is presented in detail using archaeological examples from Maryland and Virginia’s Eastern Shore. The settlement model does not attempt to deduce, determine, or suggest any aspects relative to site function. The model suggests only site locations and cultural chronologies. Predicted site locations and the predicted cultural chronologies were established prior to the fieldwork. The fieldwork tested these predictions. The project suggested that the iii predictive/settlement model has a 95% accuracy level. Modifications to the model were made to take into account the unique barrier island ecological settings of the Atlantic seashore. With these modifications, it is suggested that more accurate site predictions could be formulated. As a “double-blind” test, the actual locations and cultural chronologies associated with previously recognized and recorded sites were not collected prior to the completion of the survey. By not knowing the previous site data, the present shoreline survey would help assess and gauge the accuracy of the previous single “one-time” archaeological survey data. The survey methodology would also gauge and assess the dynamics associated with archaeological sites in coastal settings and how coastal environments influence archaeological survey data. The previous archaeological site data associated with the shoreline study area are presented in the report and compared with the new site information found at the five sites relocated during the present study. The results suggest coastal environments and the natural processes associated with these environments greatly influence the data gleaned from single “one-time” archaeological shoreline surveys. In conjunction with testing the inability of single “one-time” archaeological site data, three archaeological sites found during the study were subjected to several site reexaminations. These reexaminations clearly indicate that in coastal environments archaeological sites should be reexamined and eroded archaeological remains should be collected to accurately assess the cultural chronologies expressed at any given locality. Therefore, chronological interpretations about individual sites can be made with a higher level of accuracy. Site functional interpretations can only be assessed after excavations iv are conducted. Suggestions to alleviate the interpretive limitation problems associated with archaeological resources in coastal settings are also presented. The present survey located and documented 44 archaeological sites, which span 13,000 years of the region’s prehistory and history. Of these, 39 archaeological sites had not been previously recorded. Recognizing the interpretive limitations associated with sites in coastal settings, a cultural synthesis of the site data cannot be constructed at this time. Data are presented that show a correlation between higher levels of fetch-related shoreline and larger more diagnostic shoreline-related archaeological site assemblages. Suggestions are presented as a means to alleviate the limitations associated with future interpretive cultural synthesis summaries. The Virginia Eastern Shore Atlantic shoreline survey has functioned mainly as a supplementary guide to cultural resource managers and future researchers. The report acts as a supplemental summary of the research methodologies presented in Lowery’s (2001) survey of the Chesapeake Bay shorelines. The project suggests that natural processes, not cultural processes, are a major influence in coastal environments. Unfortunately, the degree of site significance and erosional threat cannot be accurately evaluated at this time. Even so, information are presented that can be combined with short-term meteorological data and provide researchers with an assessment of the past daily fetch-related erosion history specific to unique shoreline settings associated with each documented site. The report concludes with suggestions for future research. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A project of this nature involves the cooperation of many individuals, institutions, and agencies. The Virginia Department of Historic Resources’ Threatened Sites Program funded the Virginia Eastern Shore survey. Mr. David Hazzard of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources was a major contributor to this project and helped with the success of the final report. The grant was processed through the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Archaeological Research Foundation. The help and assistance of Mr. Norman K. Brady and Mr. David R. Thompson, executive directors associated with Chesapeake Bay Watershed Archaeological Research Foundation, is greatly appreciated. Numerous people helped and contributed to the project. I would like to thank Mr. Mike Owens, a fellow graduate student, for being involved with the project. Mike provided helpful insight and was involved in the fieldwork. Mr. Norman K. Brady contributed many weekends of his time and the use of his powerboat while conducting the survey. Mr. David Thompson and Mr. Michael Middleton contributed their volunteer efforts to the survey. Mr. Ralph Eshelman contributed one week of valuable field assistance to the project. Mr. Eshelman also provided information relative to the region’s fossiliferous geologic deposits. Mr. Joseph McAvoy and Mrs. Lynn McAvoy also contributed their years of accumulated expertise to the success of the final report. I would also like to thank all of the residents of the Virginia Eastern Shore for their kind hospitality. I would like to acknowledge and thank all of the previous archaeologists and researchers that have worked on the Virginia Eastern Shore. It was their effort that provided me with important comparative data. I would like to thank all of my family vi members being patient and providing assistance during this and all of my previous work. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my father for taking me to my first eroding archaeological shoreline site. Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that a lot of the ideas about shoreline sites my father and I took for granted, others had never contemplated. This project was an attempt to document some of these ideas so that others could benefit. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………...iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………vi LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………...x LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………xi PART I: Archaeological Survey Background Data……………………………….……...1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………..1 Research Design…………………………………………………………………...8 Previous Archaeological Work in Accomack and Northampton Counties……...13 Geological and Paleoclimatological Overview of the Atlantic Seashore Study Area……………………………………………………………………….15 Current Physiographic Overview of Virginia’s Eastern Shore…………………..34 Cultural, Historical, and Archaeological Overview……………………………...38 Paleoindian Period……………………………………………………….38 Early Archaic Period……………………………………………………..51 Middle Archaic Period…………………………………………………...55 Late Archaic Period……………………………………………………...58 Early Woodland Period…………………………………………………..63 Middle Woodland Period………………………………………………...71 Late Woodland Period…………………………………………………...77 Contact Period……………………………………………………………80 Historic Period…………………………………………………………...83 viii PART II: Changing Landscapes, Changing Climates, and Changing Prehistoric Human Settlement Patterns: A Development of a Delmarva Peninsula Prehistoric Site Prediction Model…………………………………………………………………………………...101 Overview………………………………………………………………………..101 Marine Transgression…………………………………………………...102 Aeolian Processes………………………………………………………105 Climatic and Ecological Changes………………………………………113 Additional Site Predictability Factors…………………………………..117 Predictive Site Model For The Delmarva Peninsula……………………………124
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Further Investigations Into the King George
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2010 Further investigations into the King George Island Mounds site (16LV22) Harry Gene Brignac Jr Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Brignac Jr, Harry Gene, "Further investigations into the King George Island Mounds site (16LV22)" (2010). LSU Master's Theses. 2720. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/2720 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE KING GEORGE ISLAND MOUNDS SITE (16LV22) A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in The Department of Geography and Anthropology By Harry Gene Brignac Jr. B.A. Louisiana State University, 2003 May, 2010 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to give thanks to God for surrounding me with the people in my life who have guided and supported me in this and all of my endeavors. I have to express my greatest appreciation to Dr. Rebecca Saunders for her professional guidance during this entire process, and for her inspiration and constant motivation for me to become the best archaeologist I can be.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Survey of the Chesapeake Bay Shorelines Associated with Accomack County and Northampton County, Virginia
    ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE ATLANTIC COAST SHORELINES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCOMACK COUNTY AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA Survey and Planning Report Series No. 7 Virginia Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA 23221 2003 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE ATLANTIC COAST SHORELINES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCOMACK COUNTY AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA Virginia Department of Historic Resources Survey and Planning Report Series No. 7 Author: Darrin L. Lowery Chesapeake Bay Watershed Archaeological Research Foundation 5264 Blackwalnut Point Road, P.O. Box 180 Tilghman, MD 21671 2003 ii ABSTRACT This report summarizes the results of an archaeological survey conducted along the Atlantic shorelines of both Accomack County and Northampton County, Virginia. Accomack and Northampton Counties represent the southernmost extension of the Delmarva Peninsula. The study area encompasses all of the lands adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean and shorelines associated with the back barrier island bays. A shoreline survey was conducted along the Atlantic Ocean to gauge the erosion threat to the archaeological resources situated along the shoreline. Archaeological sites along shorelines are subjected to numerous natural processes which hinder site visibility and limit archaeological interpretations. Summaries of these natural processes are presented in this report. The primary goal of the project was to locate, identify, and record any archaeological sites or remains along the Atlantic seashore that are threatened by shoreline erosion. The project also served as a test of a prehistoric site predictive/settlement model that has been utilized during other archaeological surveys along the Chesapeake Bay shorelines and within the interior sections of the Delmarva Peninsula. The prehistoric site predictive/settlement model is presented in detail using archaeological examples from Maryland and Virginia’s Eastern Shore.
    [Show full text]
  • Bone Flutes and Whistles from Archaeological Sites in Eastern North America
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 12-1976 Bone Flutes and Whistles from Archaeological Sites in Eastern North America Katherine Lee Hall Martin University of Tennessee - Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Martin, Katherine Lee Hall, "Bone Flutes and Whistles from Archaeological Sites in Eastern North America. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 1976. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/1226 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Katherine Lee Hall Martin entitled "Bone Flutes and Whistles from Archaeological Sites in Eastern North America." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Arts, with a major in Anthropology. Charles H. Faulkner, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Major C. R. McCollough, Paul W . Parmalee Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Katherine Lee Hall Mar tin entitled "Bone Flutes and Wh istles from Archaeological Sites in Eastern North America." I recormnend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, with a maj or in Anthropology.
    [Show full text]
  • Discover Illinois Archaeology
    Discover Illinois Archaeology ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY ILLINOIS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY Discover Illinois Archaeology Illinois’ rich cultural heritage began more collaborative effort by 18 archaeologists from than 12,000 years ago with the arrival of the across the state, with a major contribution by ancestors of today’s Native Americans. We learn Design Editor Kelvin Sampson. Along with sum- about them through investigations of the remains maries of each cultural period and highlights of they left behind, which range from monumental regional archaeological research, we include a earthworks with large river-valley settlements to short list of internet and print resources. A more a fragment of an ancient stone tool. After the extensive reading list can be found at the Illinois arrival of European explorers in the late 1600s, a Association for Advancement of Archaeology succession of diverse settlers added to our cul- web site www.museum.state.il.us/iaaa/DIA.pdf. tural heritage, leading to our modern urban com- We hope that by reading this summary of munities and the landscape we see today. Ar- Illinois archaeology, visiting a nearby archaeo- chaeological studies allow us to reconstruct past logical site or museum exhibit, and participating environments and ways of life, study the rela- in Illinois Archaeology Awareness Month pro- tionship between people of various cultures, and grams each September, you will become actively investigate how and why cultures rise and fall. engaged in Illinois’ diverse past and DISCOVER DISCOVER ILLINOIS ARCHAEOLOGY, ILLINOIS ARCHAEOLOGY. summarizing Illinois culture history, is truly a Alice Berkson Michael D. Wiant IIILLINOIS AAASSOCIATION FOR CONTENTS AAADVANCEMENT OF INTRODUCTION.
    [Show full text]
  • A Late Archaic and Woodland Site in Northeastern Illinois Peter John Geraci University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
    University of Wisconsin Milwaukee UWM Digital Commons Theses and Dissertations May 2016 The rP ehistoric Economics of the Kautz Site: a Late Archaic and Woodland Site in Northeastern Illinois Peter John Geraci University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.uwm.edu/etd Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, and the Economics Commons Recommended Citation Geraci, Peter John, "The rP ehistoric Economics of the Kautz Site: a Late Archaic and Woodland Site in Northeastern Illinois" (2016). Theses and Dissertations. 1141. https://dc.uwm.edu/etd/1141 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by UWM Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UWM Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE PREHISTORIC ECONOMICS OF THE KAUTZ SITE: A LATE ARCHAIC AND WOODLAND SITE IN NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS by Peter J. Geraci A Thesis Submitted In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Degree of Masters of Science in Anthropology at The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee May 2016 ABSTRACT THE PREHISTORIC ECONOMICS OF THE KAUTZ SITE: A LATE ARCHAIC AND WOODLAND SITE IN NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS by Peter J. Geraci The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2016 Under The Supervision of Robert J. Jeske, Ph.D. The Kautz Site (11DU1) is a multi-component archaeological site located in the DuPage River Valley in northeastern Illinois. It was inhabited at least six different times between the Late Archaic and Late Woodland periods ca. 6000-1000 B.P. The site was excavated over the course of three field seasons between 1958 and 1961, but the results were never made public.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of Oneota and Langford Traditions
    A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ONEOTA AND LANGFORD TRADITIONS by Chrisie L. Hunter A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Anthropology at The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee May 2002 A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ONEOTA AND LANGFORD TRADITIONS by Chrisie L. Hunter A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Anthropology at The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee May 2002 ________________________________________________________________________ Major Professor Date ________________________________________________________________________ Graduate School Approval Date ii ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ONEOTA AND LANGFORD TRADITIONS by Chrisie L. Hunter The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2002 Under the Supervision of Dr. Robert J. Jeske This study is a comparative analysis of two contemporaneous sites from two related cultural systems, Oneota and Langford. Similarities and differences between the sites were examined through analysis of technology, faunal and floral remains, and environmental variables. A catchment analysis was completed to understand environmental factors affecting agricultural practices and resource utilization between the two sites. The issue of agricultural production and the extent this subsistence strategy was utilized at two sites was examined. The Crescent Bay Hunt Club site (Oneota) and Washington Irving site (Langford) are shown to be similar in lithic technology but significantly different in ceramic technology, and subsistence strategies. The Oneota Crescent Bay Hunt Club site occupants were more dependant upon wetland resources than were the Langford occupants of the Washington Irving site. _______________________________________________________________________ Major Professor Date iii © Copyright by Chrisie L. Hunter, 2002 All Rights Reserved iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage Preservation Plan ______
    Loudoun County Heritage Preservation Plan ____________________ Adopted by the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors December 15, 2003 CPAM 2008-0001 Approved by the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors February 9, 2009 Addendum: 2008 Review Process and Current Plan Implementation 2008 Process In February, 2008, the Board of Supervisors resolved to re-affirm the Heritage Preservation Plan and directed the Planning Commission to review the Plan, solicit stakeholder input and recommend to the Board minor updates and edits to the Plan. As part of the Planning Commission’s review, the concep t of adding a chapter on Civil War Battlefields was to be considered by the Commission. Between its adoption in 2003 and the 2008 re-affirmation of the Plan, strides were made by the County on several policy issues outlined in the Plan. These are listed briefly below: Historic Districts The County’s Historic District Interactive Website (www.loudoun.gov/historic) was launched in 2007. Funded in part by Certified Local Government grant money, the website is used to educate residents and the general public on the historic districts and associated benefits and regulations. Historic District Review Committee members and Planning Department staff have conducted realtor training programs on the County’s historic districts so that realtors can educate prospective buyers on the benefits and regulations of purchasing property in a locally administrated historic district. The County’s 2008 tax assessments highlight historic district designation to make property owners aware that their property falls within a locally administered historic district. The Historic District Guidelines adopted in 1987 were updated for the first time in 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Journa I of World-Systems Research
    World Systems Theory, Core Periphery Interactions and Elite Economic Exchange in Mississippian Societies Robert J.Jcskc Department of Anthropology Indiana-Purdue University Fort Wayne, IN 46805 j [email protected] Copyright 1996 by Robert J.Jeskc. Please do not cite without permis sion of the author. V. 7/8/96 Abstract World Systems Theory has been one approach used to explain the rise of the Mississippian social and political phenomenon. In this paper it is argued that a hierarchical model of core- periphery interaction docs not explain the Cahokian phenomenon, because several crucial clements of such a model cannot be demonstrated to have existed within the Mississippian system. It is suggested that looking at Mississippian society as a differential core-peripheral system may have utility as a framework for including concepts such as gateway communities and interacti on spheres previously used to describe the economic interactions between Cahokia and its neighbors. Introduction Archaeologists have long sought an explanation for the rise of Mississippian society in the major river valleys of the American Midwest and Southeast between A.D. 1000 and 1500 (Smith 1978). Over the years, our explanations have changed with the changing fashions of then-current theories of cultural evolution. From diffusion to cultural ecology to economic models ofredistributivc exchange, we have attempted to put a finger on the causal variables involved in the production of certain ceramic wares, the construction of earthen platform mounds, and the large and highly organized residential and ritual sites of these people. [Page l] JournaI of World-SystemsResearch None of these models have proven completely satisfactory, failing at one level or another to account for the complexity of Mississippian intergroup interactions revealed by the archaeological record.
    [Show full text]
  • Paleoindian Period Archaeology of Georgia
    University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report No. 28 Georgia Archaeological Research Design Paper No.6 PALEOINDIAN PERIOD ARCHAEOLOGY OF GEORGIA By David G. Anderson National Park Service, Interagency Archaeological Services Division R. Jerald Ledbetter Southeastern Archeological Services and Lisa O'Steen Watkinsville October, 1990 I I I I i I, ...------------------------------- TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURES ..................................................................................................... .iii TABLES ....................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................. v I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Organization of this Plan ........................................................... 1 Environmental Conditions During the PaleoIndian Period .................................... 3 Chronological Considerations ..................................................................... 6 II. PREVIOUS PALEOINDIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN GEORGIA. ......... 10 Introduction ........................................................................................ 10 Initial PaleoIndian Research in Georgia ........................................................ 10 The Early Flint Industry at Macon .......................................................... l0 Early Efforts With Private Collections
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Archaeology 3(2) Fall 2008
    TTEENNNNEESSSSEEEE AARRCCHHAAEEOOLLOOGGYY Volume 3 Fall 2008 Number 2 EDITORIAL COORDINATORS Michael C. Moore TTEENNNNEESSSSEEEE AARRCCHHAAEEOOLLOOGGYY Tennessee Division of Archaeology Kevin E. Smith Middle Tennessee State University VOLUME 3 Fall 2008 NUMBER 2 EDITORIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE David Anderson 101 EDITORS CORNER University of Tennessee ARTICLES Patrick Cummins Alliance for Native American Indian Rights 105 Brick Making as a Local Industry in Aaron Deter-Wolf Antebellum Kentucky and Tennessee Division of Archaeology TANYA M. PERES AND JESSICA B. CONNATSER Jay Franklin RESEARCH REPORTS East Tennessee State University 123 Obsidian Research in Tennessee and Phillip Hodge Department of Transportation Alabama MARK R. NORTON Zada Law Ashland City, Tennessee 131 An Analysis of Obsidian and Other Archaeological Materials from the Southeast Larry McKee TRC, Inc. Portion of Neelys Bend on the Cumberland River, Davidson County, Tennessee Katherine Mickelson BOBBY R. BRALY AND JEREMY L. SWEAT Rhodes College 139 Evidence of Prehistoric Violent Trauma from Sarah Sherwood a Cave in Middle Tennessee University of Tennessee SHANNON C. HODGE AND HUGH E. BERRYMAN Lynne Sullivan Frank H. McClung Museum 157 New Finds of Paleoindian and Early Archaic Sites along Sulphur Fork in Montgomery Guy Weaver County, Tennessee Weaver and Associates LLC AARON DETER-WOLF AND JOHN B. BROSTER Tennessee Archaeology is published semi-annually in electronic print format 163 The Cumberland Stone-Box Burials of Middle by the Tennessee Council for Tennessee. Professional Archaeology. JOHN T. DOWD Correspondence about manuscripts for 181 The Nelson Site: A Late Middle Woodland the journal should be addressed to Habitation Locale on the Nolichucky River, Michael C. Moore, Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Cole Building #3, 1216 Washington County, Tennessee Foster Avenue, Nashville TN 37243.
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan March 2010 Front cover: Waterfowl on Hail Creek Terry Willis Northern diamondback terrapin Ryan Haggerty/USFWS Bald eagle Steve Hillebrand/USFWS Tundra swans ©Heather R. Davidson Monarch butterfly USFWS Back cover: Waterfowl on Hail Creek Terry Willis This blue goose, designed by J.N. “Ding” Darling, has become the symbol of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fi sh, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefi t of the American people. The Service manages the 150-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 550 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 70 national fi sh hatcheries and 81 ecological services fi eld stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance Program which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fi shing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies. Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Survey of the Chesapeake Bay Shorelines Associated with Accomack County and Northampton County, Virginia
    ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCOMACK COUNTY AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA VOLUME I By: Darrin Lowery Manuscript Prepared For: The Virginia Department of Historic Resources Portsmouth Regional Preservation Office 612 Court Street Portsmouth, VA 23704 March 2001 ii ABSTRACT This report summarizes the results of an archaeological survey conducted along the Chesapeake Bay shorelines of both Accomack County and Northampton County, Virginia. Accomack and Northampton counties represent the southernmost extension of the Delmarva Peninsula. The study area encompasses the confluence of the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. A shoreline survey was conducted along the Chesapeake Bay to gauge the erosion threat to the archaeological resources situated along the shoreline. Archaeological sites along shorelines are subjected to numerous natural processes. Aside from erosion, some of the natural processes influencing shoreline related cultural resources include coastal inundation, prehistoric aeolian processes, bioturbation, recent coastal dune formations, chemical processes within tidal marshes, redeposition, and surface “sheet-erosion” or deflation. These natural processes greatly influence the success of an archaeological survey and what data are collected, noted, and observed while conducting a survey. Summaries associated with these natural processes are presented in this report. The report also offers examples, using Delmarva Peninsula archaeological data, which illustrate how these natural processes influence and limit the interpretive value of single analysis or one-time archaeological survey surface data. As a “double-blind” test, the actual locations and cultural chronologies associated with previously recognized and recorded sites were not collected prior to the completion of the survey. By not knowing the previous site data, the present shoreline survey would help assess and gauge the accuracy of the previous single “one-time” archaeological survey data.
    [Show full text]