Archaeological Survey of Prince House Woods, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, Roanoke Island, North Carolina

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF PRINCE HOUSE WOODS FORT RALEIGH NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE ROANOKE ISLAND, NORTH CAROLINA

By: Nicholas M. Luccketti

Submitted to: NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Southeast Archaeological Center 2035 East Paul Dirac Drive Johnson Building, Suite 120 Tallahassee, FL 23210

ARPA Permit # FORA 2006-001 SEAC Acc. # 2092 FORA Acc. # 88

January 2007

Submitted by: FIRST COLONY FOUNDATION 1501 Cole Mill Road Durham, NC 27705

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Over the past 25 years, archaeological evidence related to the 16th-century Raleigh settlements on Roanoke Island in North Carolina has been found intermittently on the beach at the north end of Fort Raleigh National Historic Site between the Waterside Theater and the Prince House. These artifacts include an iron ax of 16th- century form, sherds of Iberian storage jar, and in the shallow water, an intact barrel buried and a hollowed out log which both radiocarbon dated to the 16th century. Furthermore, the exposed bluff in this area is subject to continual erosion, thus endangering any archaeological resources that may be present. Accordingly, the First Colony Foundation conducted a survey in October of 2006 to determine the potential for any significant archaeological features, strata, or artifact concentrations related to either the 1585 Lane Colony or the 1587 Lost Colony in the area between the edge of the bluff and the north end of the main parking lot.

The 2006 fieldwork consisted of the excavation of test units along a transect that was located about 100’ behind the edge of the bluff. Additional test units were excavated along a foot path to the beach and in the dunes along the beach. A total of 23 test units were excavated during the survey. The test units were all 1.5 meter squares with the exception of two test trenches. Several 16th-century European ceramics found on the beach also were recorded during the survey.

No 16th-century European artifacts, features, or strata were found in the test units. One sherd of Sevillian olive jar was found on the beach, and three sherds of 16th-century European pottery previously found on the beach were recorded. A concentration of late 19th-century artifacts was found in two test units, and a single layer in one of the test trenches yielded 68 sherds of Colington pottery, probably from a single vessel.

The ARPA permit number of this project is FORA 2006-001. The FORA accession number of this project is FORA 88 and the SEAC accession number for this project is SEAC 2092.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY...... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS...... v LIST OF FIGURES ...... vi INTRODUCTION ...... 1 CONTEXT...... 4 Historical Background ...... 4 Archaeological Background: Fort Raleigh National Historic Site ...... 6 Archaeological Background: Prince House Woods...... 7 2006 RESEARCH DESIGN...... 12 Objectives ...... 12 Methods...... 12 Expected Results...... 13 FIELDWORK RESULTS...... 15 Test Unit 1...... 15 Test Unit 2...... 16 Test Unit 3...... 16 Test Unit 4...... 17 Test Unit 5...... 18 Test Unit 6...... 19 Test Unit 7...... 20 Test Unit 8...... 21 Test Unit 9...... 22 Test Unit 10...... 23 Test Unit 11...... 24 Test Unit 12...... 25 Test Unit 13...... 26 Test Unit 14...... 27 Test Unit 15...... 28 Test Unit 16...... 30 Test Unit 17...... 31 Test Unit 18...... 31 Test Unit 19...... 31 Test Unit 20...... 32 Test Unit 21...... 33 Test Unit 22...... 34 Test Unit 23...... 35 Test Unit 24...... 37 Test Unit 25...... 37 SUMMARY...... 38 REFERENCES CITED...... 40 Appendix A...... 43

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of Fort Raleigh on Roanoke Island (Harrington 1962)...... 2 Figure 2. Detail of Raleigh’s ‘Map of Virginia’ by John White (Hulton 1984)...... 5 Figure 3. Location of Harrington test trenches at Fort Raleigh (Harrington 1962)...... 8 Figure 4. J.C. Harrington surveying mechanically stripped exploratory trenches in parking lot at Fort Raleigh (Fort Raleigh National Historic Site)...... 8 Figure 5. Location of 1982 survey test squares and transects (Phelps 1982) ...... 9 Figure 6. Location of probable 16th-century barrel-lined well in the shallow water off of the Prince House Woods. The two NPS rangers are photographing the submerged remains of the barrel (Phillip Evans)...... 10 Figure 7. Detail of barrel in shallow water off the Prince House Woods (Phillip Evans)...... 10 Figure 8. Location of Sevillian olive jar sherd near feature in bluff below Prince House Woods...... 11 Figure 9. 2006 FCF survey showing transect behind dune ridge, facing west...... 13 Figure 10. Location of Test Units, Prince House Woods, FCF survey, October, 2006... 15 Figure 11. North Profile of Test Unit 3...... 16 Figure 12. Test Unit 4 excavated to the surface of layer 4.5...... 17 Figure 13. Excavation of Test Unit 5...... 18 Figure 14. North profile of Test Unit 6...... 19 Figure 15. North profile of Test Unit 7 showing a treehole...... 20 Figure 16. North profile of Test Unit 8 with a treehole at the NW corner ...... 21 Figure 17. West profile of Test Unit 9...... 22 Figure 18. North profile of Test Unit 10...... 23 Figure 19. North Profile of Test Unit 11...... 24 Figure 20. South profile of Test Unit 12 showing treehole profiles...... 25 Figure 21. North profile of Test Unit 13...... 26 Figure 22. North profile of Test Unit 14...... 27 Figure 23. North profile of Test Unit 15...... 28 Figure 24. Test Unit 15, view facing north...... 29 Figure 25. Profile of Test Unit 16, facing north...... 30 Figure 26. Profiles of test Unit 20, facing northwest...... 32 Figure 27. North profile of Test Unit 21...... 33 Figure 28. North profile of Test Unit 22...... 34 Figure 29. West profile of Test Unit 23...... 35 Figure 30. East profile of Test Unit 23...... 36 Figure 31. Sevillian olive jar sherds from the bluff and beach along the Prince House Woods; the top sherd is Test Unit 24 and the bottom sherd is Test Unit 25. ... 37 Figure 32. Test square excavated along Hariot Trail in 1985 showing buried “A” horizon...... 39

INTRODUCTION

The Prince House Woods, so named for this project after the house at the east end of the project area, is located at the north end of Fort Raleigh National Historic Site (FRNHS) on Roanoke Island in North Carolina (Figure 1). Specifically, the Prince House Woods lies approximately 400’ east of the Waterside Theatre, between the north end of the main parking lot and the edge of the bluff above the beach along Roanoke Sound. It is comprised of a dense growth of vines, briers, and shrubs interspersed with live oaks, pines, and hollies. Since the early 1980’s, several probable 16th-century European artifacts and at least one feature – part of a barrel that in all likelihood was the bottom of a barrel-lined well – have been found on the beach below the Prince House Woods. The exposed bluff along Roanoke Sound, however, has been subjected to continuous erosion over the years, thus endangering any archaeological resources that might be present in the Prince House Woods.

The prospect of continuing erosion of the bluff along the Prince House Woods has been a major concern of the National Park Service (NPS) for decades. The first NPS attempt to control erosion at the north end of Roanoke Island was the construction of jetties in 1949. A breakwater of sandbags was installed several years later as part of Mission 66 (Binkley and Davis 2003:100). A geological study by Robert Dolan and Kenton Bosserman of the north end of Roanoke Island in 1972 documented the severe loss of land in this area; the authors estimated that more than 900’ has been lost since mid 19th century (Dolan and Bosserman 1972). Further erosion studies resulted in the construction of granite block revetments along the Dough Cemetery and Waterside Theatre in 1980. Concern over the loss of potential archaeological resources was expressed in 1993 at Roanoke Decoded conference and at a special erosion conference later that year (Binkley and Davis 2003: 101). The Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History (2003) report also details the more recent development at the north end of the island which has accelerated erosion of unprotected shoreline. A ‘Statement of Management’ in the report expresses concern that erosion of unprotected shoreline will increase with a rise in seal level.

Several events occurred within the past few years that resulted in the 2006 survey of the Prince House Woods. Hurricane Isabel in 2003 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005, both category 5 storms, caused significant erosion of the bluff. In the fall of 2005, another Sevillian olive jar sherd was found, though unlike previous finds, it was not a water-worn sherd lying on the beach, but a fragment that protruded out of a layer in the bluff. While the previous beach finds could have been sherds transported by tides and currents from elsewhere on Roanoke Island, the 2005 find suggested the possibility historic archaeological resources might be preserved in the vicinity of the Prince House Woods. Finally, the First Colony Foundation (FCF) was established in 2004 as a non- profit organization chartered in North Carolina whose mission is to sponsor and conduct historical and archaeological research related to the 1585 Lane Colony and the 1587 “Lost Colony.” The FCF -- composed of archaeologists, historians, and preservationists – initiated a project to investigate the potential for 16th-century European archaeological resources in endangered Prince House Woods.

Figure 1. Location of Fort Raleigh on Roanoke Island (Harrington 1962).

The Project Directors for the 2006 FCF Prince House Woods survey were FCF research vice-presidents Dr. Eric Klingelhofer and Nicholas Luccketti. Senior archaeologists Carter L. Hudgins and David K. Hazzard also provided field supervision. All four are veterans of the 1991-1995 Virginia Company Foundation archaeological survey and excavations at FRNHS.

In addition to Mssrs. Klingelhofer, Luccketti, Hazzard, and Carter L. Hudgins, the 2006 field crew consisted of Carter C. Hudgins, Nathaniel Smith, Martha Williams,

William Leigh, Alastair Macdonald, Luke Pecoraro, Tony Smith, Molly Brizendine, Casey Horna, and volunteers Rob Bolling, John Cross, Phillip Evans, Tom McDonald, and Mike Tames. The Sevillian olive jar sherds collected during the survey were identified by Beverley Straube and the artifact assemblage was catalogued by Merry A. Outlaw. Information on Native American ceramics recovered during the survey was graciously provided by North Carolina archaeologist Clay Swindell.

Of course, the 2006 FCF Prince House Woods survey would not be possible without the support and cooperation of FRNHS and the Southeast Archaeological Center (SEAC) of the NPS. The FCF is especially grateful to the ever-patient SEAC regional archaeologist Bennie Keel whose valuable advice is always greatly appreciated.

The 2006 fieldwork was conducted from October 15- October 29.

This report was written by Nicholas M. Luccketti.

CONTEXT

Historical Background

The history of English settlement at Roanoke Island has been researched in great detail and extensively published; it is therefore unnecessary to provide a shallow repetition of this material in this report. Nevertheless, it is important for evaluating the archaeological investigations to briefly describe those events that may have left archaeological remains at Roanoke Island in the 16th century.

In 1584, Sir Walter Raleigh received a charter from Queen Elizabeth to colonize part of North America in hopes of establishing an English Empire in America. A reconnaissance voyage to North Carolina that same year returned with a promising report of the country, which was named Virginia after Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen. Raleigh’s first colony, 108 men under the leadership of Sir Richard Grenville and Ralph Lane, landed at the north end of Roanoke Island in July of 1585. A letter written by Ralph Lane to Richard Hackluyt was addressed “From the Newe Forte in Verginia, the 8th daye of September:1585” (Quinn 1991:214). Contemporary accounts also suggest that the colonists built a town separate from the fort (Noel Hume 1994:37).

In addition to exploring the surrounding country, observations and experiments were conducted by scientist Thomas Hariot and by Joachim Gans, a metallurgist or ‘mineral man’ as he was called at the time. Archaeological research, discussed below, indicates that a scientific laboratory for Hariot’s and Gans’ work was set up apart from both the town and fort. Among the tangible results of the Lane Colony was valuable information from explorations, identifying natural resources, observations on Native American cultures, and conducting metallurgical experiments. One of the most historical significant legacies of the Raleigh expeditions was a collection of paintings by artist John White, particularly his rendering of the Roanoke Island and the Outer Banks area (Figure 2).

When supply ships commanded by Sir Richard Grenville, who had returned to England in August of 1585, were late in returning to the colony in 1586, the discouraged colonists abandoned Roanoke Island when Sir Francis Drake arrived from a Caribbean expedition in June of that year. Grenville’s resupply did arrive at Roanoke Island in late August of 1586, but finding the settlement abandoned, Grenville returned to England. However, he left a garrison of 15 men on Roanoke Island to hold it for the Crown. The expedition’s pilot, Pedro Diaz, although he was not allowed to leave the ship, reported that the settlement had “...a wooden fort of little strength...” (Quinn 1991:790).

Raleigh dispatched a second colony to Roanoke Island in 1587. The 117 men, women, and children arrived to find the 1585 fort ruined. The old houses were repaired and new cottages were built; all protected by a new fort, possibly constructed of posts set side-by-side in a trench. Governor John White, apparently an ineffective leader, was

Figure 2. Detail of Raleigh’s ‘Map of Virginia’ by John White (Hulton 1984).

persuaded to return to England for supplies, leaving on Roanoke Island his daughter Eleanor and her husband Ananais Dare, the parents of the fabled Virginia Dare, the first English child born in the New World. White's return to Roanoke Island was delayed due to war between England and Spain.

When White eventually returned to Roanoke Island in 1590, he found the settlement abandoned. He did find, in his words “...the place very strongly enclosed with a high palisado of great trees, with curtains and flankers very Fort-like, and one of the chiefe trees or posts at the right side of the entrance had the barke taken off, and 5 foote from the ground in faire Capitall letters was graven Croatoan without any crosse of distresse, this done, we entered into the palisado, where we found many barres of Iron, two pigges of lead, four iron fowlers, Iron saker shot, and such like heavie things, thrown here and there, almost overgrown with weeds and grass” (Quinn 1991:614). Despite several attempts to locate the missing settlers, they were never found and became the legendary "Lost Colony." A small earthwork, known as Fort Raleigh, is located at the site, but who built it, and when, is uncertain.

Archaeological Background: Fort Raleigh National Historic Site

The archaeological history of the search for the Raleigh settlements began in earnest in 1947 and 1948 when J.C. Harrington excavated a series of test trenches in the vicinity of the earthwork at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site (FRNHS), and later in 1953 on the adjoining Elizabethan Garden property (Figure 3). Harrington excavated at least 38 separate five foot wide trenches (depending upon how you count them) for a total length of 3,320 lineal feet. Harrington found only 18 artifacts that could be attributed to the 16th century and concluded that the habitation, or towne, site was elsewhere. The remains of the earthwork were excavated in 1950 (Harrington 1962). Later in 1965 Harrington excavated, just outside the entrance of the reconstructed earthwork, what he termed an outwork -- a nine foot square structure whose architectural footprint consisted of log stains connected to soil stains that were either postmolds or taproot molds for then living trees (Harrington 1966). Within the structure were three pits, one of which contained brick, tile, burned clay, Indian pottery, and sherds of a Normandy flask, but it was unclear at the time whether the outwork was part of a larger wooden fort or not.

Former Fort Raleigh National Historic Site's ranger and historian Phillip Evans, a dedicated student of the Roanoke settlements, noticed a similarity between Harrington's outwork and flankers of a c.1619 wooden fort excavated by Ivor Noel Hume at Martin’s Hundred in James City County, Virginia (Noel Hume 1982). Evans suggested that perhaps the outwork was a bastion for a wooden fort that preceded the construction of the earthwork. This supposition prompted a survey in 1982, when NPS archaeologists John Ehrenhard, William Athens, and Gregory Komara conducted a proton magnetometer, soil resistivity, infrared photographic, and soil chemical survey of the area west of the reconstructed earthwork, with subsequent field testing of selected anomalies in the fall of 1982 and in 1983. Only one of these areas, near the entrance of the earthwork and Harrington's outwork, produced 16th-century artifacts that eventually proved to be sherds of crucibles, flasks, and English or Neatherlandish tin-enameled ointment pots. No structural features related to houses or fortifications were positively identified (Ehrenhard, Athens, and Komara 1983; Ehrenhard and Komara 1984). Also in 1982, Evans discovered the bottom part of a barrel and a hollow log in the shallow water of the beach below the Prince House Woods. Both objects had a radiocarbon date range that encompassed the 16th century and they may have been the bottoms of wells (Noel Hume 1994:88-89).

In 1991, the Virginia Company Foundation (VCF) initiated the Fort Raleigh Archaeological Project under the guidance of Project Director Ivor Noel Hume and President Dr. William M. Kelso. Noel Hume's efforts to puzzle out the nature of the first forts at Jamestown led him back to Roanoke Island, Harrington's outwork, and Phil Evans observation on the resemblance of the outwork to the Martin’s Hundred fort flankers. Test trenches dug in the spring of 1991 relocated the area of Harrington's outwork and the 1983 NPS excavation area that yielded numerous 16th-century ceramics. In the fall of 1991 and 1992, a team of nine VCF archaeologists working with SEAC archaeologist Bennie Keel, six assistants, and with several NPS rangers and interpreters working as

volunteer soil sifters, opened up an area west of the reconstructed earthwork entrance in an effort to determine whether the appendages extending off of the Harrington outwork were in fact sections of palisaded walls of a wooden fort.

The VCF excavations found no evidence to suggest that the outwork was a flanker to a wooden fort, but instead, discovered the partially preserved remains of a scientific workshop floor. More than 100 artifacts consisting principally of crucible sherds, Normandy flask sherds, fragments of chemical glassware, worked and unworked copper, antimony (an essential ingredient in separating silver from copper), and sherds of delftware ointment pots, all point to the distilling experiments of Thomas Hariot and the metallurgical work of Joachim Gans which documents clearly indicate were members of only the Lane Colony. Harrington’s outwork is now thought to have been the furnace for the scientific workshop. The relationship of the earthwork to the scientific workshop is still a matter of debate; one interpretation is that the earthwork was constructed to protect the workshop, while a competing argument believes that the earthwork was erected on top of, and therefore after, the workshop area was deserted.

Despite this remarkable discovery, no remains of the people, houses, or forts of either the 1585 Lane Colony or John White’s 1587 "Lost Colony" have yet been found.

Archaeological Background: Prince House Woods

J.C. Harrington conducted the first archaeological investigation in the vicinity of the Prince House Woods. During his 1940’s survey, Harrington excavated a single trench across the area that is now the main parking lot at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site (Figure 3). Years later he had three mechanically cut test trenches excavated across the area prior to the construction of the parking lot (Figure 4) (Keel 2003). No features or artifacts associated with the Raleigh settlements were reported.

In 1982, Dr. David Phelps and students from East Carolina University conducted a survey of the property at the north end of the main parking lot when plans at the time proposed the construction of a Center for the Arts in that area (Phelps 1984). Part of the 1982 survey included the western half of the area north of the parking lot to the dune ridge, essentially identical to the 2006 survey area. Phelps’ team excavated two 2 meter test squares on the west side of the path from the parking lot to the beach and seven 2 meter squares on the east side of the path (Figure 5). The only cultural feature found during the survey was a 12 meter x 15 meter dump of late 19th/early 20th-century refuse near the south end of the site presumably related to Dough Farm. No early European or Native American artifacts were recovered from any of the test squares.

Figure 3. Location of Harrington test trenches at Fort Raleigh (Harrington 1962).

Figure 4. J.C. Harrington surveying mechanically stripped exploratory trenches in parking lot at Fort Raleigh (Fort Raleigh National Historic Site).

Figure 5. Location of 1982 survey test squares and transects (Phelps 1982)

The 1982 survey also included an examination of the beach and shallow water. Three transect lines were established extending from the beach into the shallow water and shovel test holes were excavated along the three transect lines at three meter intervals to test the potential for artifacts in the shallow water. Numerous water-worn Colington sherds were found along with three European sherds that were described as “coarse sand tempered earthenware with a tan to pink paste, finger marks from wheel throwing and vestiges of an interior green glaze” (Phelps 1984: 16-19). Two of the sherds were collected from the beach and the third was recovered 15 meters along the transect at the west end of the beach. The description strongly suggests that the sherds were from Sevillian olive jars.

Subsequent to its investigation of the Gans/Hariot scientific workshop, the VCF conducted additional archaeological area excavations and surveys at FRNHS in 1994 and 1995 which included the excavation of a single exploratory test unit in the Prince House Woods that was devoid of any artifacts (Luccketti 1996).

Although these were the only archaeological surveys conducted in this area, artifacts have been recovered from the beach over the years. There have been sporadic occurrences of 16th-century European artifacts and a probable 16th-century feature along the beach and bluff between the Waterside Theater and the Prince House. An ax of 16th-century form has been found on the beach. Also, as previously mentioned, former NPS historian Phillip Evans found an intact barrel buried in the shallow water; radiocarbon dating indicated the barrel -- likely the bottom of a barrel-lined well -- could have been associated with the Raleigh settlements (Figures 6 and 7).

Figure 6. Location of probable 16th-century barrel-lined well in the shallow water off of the Prince House Woods. The two NPS rangers are photographing the submerged remains of the barrel (Phillip Evans).

Figure 7. Detail of barrel in shallow water off the Prince House Woods (Phillip Evans).

Other Sevillian olive jar sherds also have been found on the beach below the Prince House Woods. One of the most recent finds was made by an avocational historian who found a sherd protruding out of a layer and near an apparent feature in the exposed bluff. Nicholas Luccketti and David Hazzard, accompanied by Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Ranger Rob Bolling, investigated the find and trowel cleaned the face of the exposed bluff where the sherd was found. The sherd was found in the interface between the silver and reddish brown layers. The feature profile continually changed during repeated troweling, suggesting that the feature was a tree root rather than a posthole/postmold (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Location of Sevillian olive jar sherd near feature in bluff below Prince House Woods.

2006 RESEARCH DESIGN

Objectives

The finds from the bluff and beach between the rip-rap and the Prince House are not of sufficient quantity to suggest that it was part of the English village or domestic area, but they do infer that some manner of English activity occurred here in the 16th century. This area is adjacent to an old road bed that is situated in a remnant gut, which would have provided convenient access from the high ground to Roanoke Sound, and therefore an area at around the head of the gut that might contain archaeological resources related to the Raleigh settlements. This area is subject to continual erosion which threatens any features or deposits that may be present

The 2006 FCF survey was designed to determine if there were significant features, strata, or artifact concentrations in the area behind the dune ridge that extends from the end of the rip-rap east of the Lost Colony Theatre to the Prince House. This was accomplished by excavating a series of 1.5 meter square test units at 5 meter intervals, and two test trenches, along a transect between the base of the dune ridge.

Methods

The thick underbrush was removed from the project area. An approximately 25’ wide corridor in the dense thicket behind the dune ridge was cleared by National Park Service personnel with a bush hog beginning at the foot path that leads to the beach (Figure 9). A grid was established in the project area using a total station and in consultation with SEAC staff. Following the grid, the initial transect was placed as close as practicable to the south edge of the bluff. It was not realistic to excavate test trenches into the dune ridge, consequently the transect ran along the south edge of the dune ridge. An east-west baseline was established through the corridor and was tied to the control point at the northwest corner of the parking lot that was used by Dr. David Phelps during his 1982 survey of the area.

All soil from the test units was screened through ¼” hardware mesh and all the test units were lined with geotextile fabric prior to backfilling.

All excavation, recording, and sampling will follow the methods described in the 2002 SEAC document entitled Standard Field Procedures manual for the Southeast Archaeological Center’s Regionwide Survey Program by Guy Prentice. All artifacts recovered during the project will be retained and will be catalogued using ANCS+.

Figure 9. 2006 FCF survey showing transect behind dune ridge, facing west.

Expected Results

The 2006 FCF survey did not expect to find evidence of the domestic area (village) or fort of either of the Roanoke settlements in the Prince House Woods. One Roanoke scholar had suggested that the well and metallurgical workshop were on fringe of the settlement which has been lost to erosion on Roanoke Sound. If true, there still could be isolated features in the project area peripheral to the largely lost site.

Sevillian olive jars served as all purpose storage vessels, including water containers. The presence of the probable 16th-century barrel-lined well in conjunction with olive jar sherds suggested that the project area might be associated with a possible landing site that was described in a Spanish account. A 1588 reconnaissance voyage to the Chesapeake Bay and Outer Banks reported seeing at Roanoke Island “on the inside of a little bay they had entered there were signs of a slipway for small vessels, and on land a number of wells made with English caskes and other debris indicating that a considerable number of people had been there (Quinn 1985: 308).

Archaeological excavations of first quarter of the 17th-century sites in Virginia, such as Martin’s Hundred (Noel Hume and Noel Hume 2001), Flowerdew Hundred (Deetz 1993), and Jordan Journey (McLearen and Mouer 1994), and more recently the excavation of James Fort by the APVA’s Jamestown Rediscovery project (Kelso and Straube 2004), have recovered ceramic types that also might be indicative of 1580s English activity at Roanoke Island. Those ceramic types are as follows:

Earthenware, English Sevillian olive jar Surrey-Hampshire Border ware Valencian lustreware Delftware London post-medieval redware Slipware, English Essex post-medieval redware North Devon Essex post-medieval blackware North Devon sgraffito Midlands purple butter pot North Devon calcareous Slipware, European North Devon gravel-free Italian sgraffito Southwest micaceous Werra

Earthenware, European Stoneware, European Dutch delftware Beauvais Berettino Frechen Montelupo Normandy Ligurian Raeren Saintonge Cologne Spanish majolica Martincamp costrel Type II German refractory clay crucibles Siegburg

Earthenware, Iberian Chinese Porcelain Merida-type Wan Li (although rare in this time period Sevillian costrel in England)

FIELDWORK RESULTS

A total of 23 test units were excavated during the survey (Figure 10). Test Units 1-14, all 1.5 meter squares, were placed along the transect line behind and approximately parallel to the dune ridge along the bluff. Test Unit 15, 1 meter x 7 meters, and Test Unit 16, 1 meter x 3 meters, were trenches located at the west end of the transect line and at the base of the dune ridge. Test Units 17-19, all 1.5 meter squares, were located along the west side of the foot path from the transect line north toward the beach. Test Unit 20 was a 1.5 meter x 2.0 meter trench excavated into the east side of the dune ridge next to the foot path. Test Unit 21, a 1.5 meter x 2.0 meter trench, and Test Unit 22, a 1.5 meter square, were located along the transect line in the woods to the east of the foot path. Test Unit 23 was a 1.5 meter square located off the southwest corner of the Prince House. Test Units 24 and 25 were used to designate beach finds.

23 17

22 19 15

14 13 21 12 9 8 7 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1

0m 10m 20m 30m

0ft 30ft 60ft

Figure 10. Location of Test Units, Prince House Woods, FCF survey, October, 2006.

Test Unit 1 This test unit, located adjacent to the foot path, was abandoned after preliminary excavation indicated that it had been significantly disturbed. The existing foot path

follows an old road bed that is evidenced by continuous low berms along either side of the foot path. The berms likely were the result of grading, which in turn, caused the disturbed soil in Test Unit 1.

Test Unit 2 Test Unit 2 contained two layers beneath the rootmat/humus, a light grey sand (2.2) and a dark yellowish brown sand (2.3). Subsoil was encountered at @58cms below modern grade. Layer 2.2 contained several 20th-century artifacts. No other artifacts or cultural features were found.

Test Unit 3 Test Unit 3 contained five layers beneath the rootmat/humus (Figure 11). Subsoil was encountered at @63cms below modern grade. Layer 3.3, consisting of mixed grey and white sand, contained a number of artifacts including whiteware, Albany slipped stoneware, brown stoneware, part of a porcelain doll, neck/shoulder pieces of at least 5 glass bottles, 3 glass vials including one complete Turlington’s ‘Balsam of Life’ vial (neck and body pieces which mended to form a complete vial), a Civil War button, copper alloy shot, a wire nail, and a hand wrought nail with machine head. Although most of this material dates to post-1850, a Winchester cap dates the deposit to post 1894. A test pit was excavated into the bottom of the unit to insure that subsoil had been reached.

0.0cm 10 20 30 Rock 40 50 60 Layer 3.1: Humus 70 Test Hole 80 Excavated into Layer 3.2: Light gray (10YR4/1) sand Subsoil 90 Layer 3.3: Tar like substance 1.0m Layer 3.4: White (10YR7/1) sand

Layer 3.5: Dark gray (7.5YR4/0) sand

Layer 3.6: Brown (10YR4/4) sand

Figure 11. North Profile of Test Unit 3.

Test Unit 4 Test Unit 4 contained six layers beneath the rootmat/humus. Subsoil was encountered at @94cms below modern grade. Beneath the upper modern layers was a layer of whitish/tan (10yr8/2) dune sand (4.3). This covered a layer (4.4) of light grey sand (10yr7/1) which in turn sealed a layer (4.5) of very dark grey to black sand (7.5yr2/0) (Figure 12). Layer 4.5 covered a layer (4.6) of brown sand (10yr4/4) which came down on subsoil – mottled yellow sand. No non-20th-century artifacts or cultural features were found.

Figure 12. Test Unit 4 excavated to the surface of layer 4.5.

Test Unit 5 Test Unit 5 contained three layers beneath the rootmat/humus. Subsoil was encountered at @46cms below modern grade. Cut nails, clear glass, whiteware, oyster shell and clam shell were recovered from layer 5.2 which was composed of grey sand (10yr5/1). The bottommost layer (5.4) was a very dark grey to black sand (7.5yr2/0) (Figure 13). No non-20th-century artifacts or cultural features were found.

Figure 13. Excavation of Test Unit 5.

Test Unit 6 Test Unit 6 contained two layers beneath the rootmat/humus (Figure 14). Subsoil was encountered at @32cms below modern grade. Layer 6.2 was grey sand (10yr5/1) and contained clear glass, green glass, brick, shoe pieces, small pieces of iron, and whiteware. No other artifacts or cultural features were found. A test pit was excavated into the bottom of the unit to insure that subsoil had been reached.

Stringline W E

0.0cm 10 20 30 40 50 60 Test Hole-Excavated Layer 6.1: Humus 70 Into Subsoil Layer 6.2: Gray (10YR5/1) sand 80 90 Layer 6.3: Brown (10YR4/3) sand 1.0m

Figure 14. North profile of Test Unit 6.

Test Unit 7 Test Unit 7 contained three layers beneath the rootmat/humus. Subsoil was encountered at @61cms below modern grade (Figure 15). Excavation of a grey sand (10yr4/1) layer 7.2 and light grey sand (10yr6/1) layer 7.3 revealed a treehole, 7.4, at the north end of the test unit. The treehole contained the same light grey sand as layer 7.3. The treehole cut into a layer of brown sand (10yr4/3) that contained numerous small ferrous concretions. No artifacts or cultural features were found.

Figure 15. North profile of Test Unit 7 showing a treehole.

Test Unit 8 Test Unit 8 contained three layers beneath the rootmat/humus that were identical to those in Test Unit 7 (Figure 16). Subsoil was encountered at @56cms below modern grade. A treehole was located in the northwest corner of the unit. No artifacts or cultural features were found.

Figure 16. North profile of Test Unit 8 with a treehole at the NW corner

Test Unit 9 Test Unit 9 contained three layers beneath the rootmat/humus (Figure 17). Subsoil was encountered at @59cms below modern grade. A treehole was found in the northwest corner of the unit. One lead shot was recovered from layer 9.2 which was the grey sand (10yr4/1) stratum immediately below the rootmat/humus. No other artifacts or cultural features were found.

Figure 17. West profile of Test Unit 9.

Test Unit 10 Test Unit 10 contained four layers beneath the rootmat/humus. Subsoil was encountered at @69cms below modern grade. The stratigraphy in Test Unit 10 is representative of the general stratigraphy across the project area (Figure 18). Beneath the rootmat/humus was layer 10.2 consisting of loose whitish grey sand (10yr4/1), which in turn covered a layer, 10.3, of homogeneous grey sand (7.5yr4/0). This sealed a layer, 10.4, of light grey/silver grey sand (10yr7/1) which covered the bottommost layer, 10.5, of brown sand (10yr4/4) with small ferrous concretions. No artifacts or cultural features were found.

Figure 18. North profile of Test Unit 10

Test Unit 11 Test Unit 11 contained four layers beneath the rootmat/humus (Figure 19). Subsoil was encountered at @52cms below modern grade. The stratigraphy was essentially identical to that in Test Unit 10. No artifacts or cultural features were found.

Figure 19. North Profile of Test Unit 11.

Test Unit 12 Test Unit 12 contained four layers beneath the rootmat/humus (Figure 20). Subsoil was encountered at @85cms below modern grade. It contained essentially the same stratigraphy as Test Units 10 and 11, thought the bottommost brown sand layer was reworked by several small treeholes and roots. No artifacts or cultural features were found.

Figure 20. South profile of Test Unit 12 showing treehole profiles.

Test Unit 13 Test Unit 13 contained three layers beneath the rootmat/humus (Figure 21). Subsoil was encountered at @67cms below modern grade. The northeast corner of the test unit contained part of a black plastic lined backfilled test unit excavated in either 1994 or 1995. No artifacts or cultural features were found.

Figure 21. North profile of Test Unit 13.

Test Unit 14 Test Unit 14 contained six layers beneath the rootmat/humus (Figure 22). Subsoil was encountered at @82cms below modern grade. Layer 14.2, a loose whitish grey sand (5yr4/1) immediately below the rootmat/humus yielded one wrought nail with a machine made head and a copper alloy strap. No other artifacts or cultural features were found.

Figure 22. North profile of Test Unit 14

Test Unit 15 Test Unit 15 was a 1m x 7m test trench and contained six layers beneath the rootmat/humus (Figures 23 and 24). Subsoil was encountered at @98cms below modern grade at the center of the test trench.

A light grey sand layer (15.2) and a tan sand layer (15.3) were under the humus; a percussion cap and one sherd of aboriginal pottery with shell temper voids were recovered from layer 15.3. Beneath this was a layer of white dune sand (15.4) which sealed a layer (15.5) of very dark grey to black sand. Layer 15.5 contained 64 sherds of aboriginal pottery with shell temper voids with occasional sand inclusions. Some sherds are simple-stamped and both base and body sherds were recovered. Several of the sherds mend, suggesting that all the sherds are part of a single vessel. No other artifacts or cultural features were found. The bottommost layer was brown sand with bits and small lumps of ferrous concretions.

0.0cm 10 20 30 Layer 15.1: Humus

40 Layer 15.2: Whiteish light grey (5YR5/1) sand 50 Layer 15.3: Light brown (10YR5/2) sand 60 Layer 15.4: White (10YR7/3) sand 70 Layer 15.5: Dark grey to black (10YR2/1) 80 sand Layer 15.6: Silver grey (10YR5/1) 90 sand 1.0m Layer 15.7: Dark reddish brown (7.5YR3/3) sand

Figure 23. North profile of Test Unit 15.

Figure 24. Test Unit 15, view facing north.

Test Unit 16 The stratigraphy in Test Unit 16 was identical to the stratigraphy in Test Unit 15. No artifacts or cultural features were found.

Figure 25. Profile of Test Unit 16, facing north.

Test Unit 17 The excavation of this test unit was confined to the northwest quadrant of this test unit. A thick white sand layer was found 22cm below the rootmat/humus and underlying grey sand. A test hole revealed that the white sand extended to a depth of at least 1.2m when excavation became impractical. This test unit was abandoned.

Test Unit 18 The excavation of this test unit was confined to the northwest quadrant of this test unit. A thick white sand layer was found 22cm below the rootmat/humus and underlying grey sand. A test hole revealed that the white sand extended to a depth of at least 1.3m when excavation became impractical. This unit was abandoned.

Test Unit 19 The excavation of this test unit was confined to the northwest quadrant of this test unit. A thick white sand layer was found 22cm below the rootmat/humus and underlying grey sand. A test hole revealed that the white sand extended to a depth of at least 80cm when excavation was suspended. This test unit was abandoned.

Test Unit 20 This test unit was excavated in the north face of the dune ridge. Test Unit 20 contained seven layers beneath the rootmat/humus (Figure 26). No artifacts or cultural features were found. Immediately below the humus layer (20.1) were several layers of mixed modern sands (20.2-20.4) that were covered a layer, 20.5, of fine olive brown sand (2.5yr4/4). These strata comprised the existing sand dune. Sealed by these layers was a stratum, 20.6, of very dark grey to black sand (10yr3/1), which covered a layer, 20.7, of light grey sand (10yr4/1). The bottommost layer, 20.8, consisted of brown sand (10yr5/4) with small ferrous concretions, and the surface of this layer began at 77cms below modern grade.

Figure 26. Profiles of test Unit 20, facing northwest.

Test Unit 21 This test unit was located in the woods on the east side of the foot path. Test Unit 21 contained three layers beneath the rootmat/humus (Figure 27). Subsoil was encountered at @54cms below modern grade. No artifacts or cultural features were found.

Figure 27. North profile of Test Unit 21

Test Unit 22 This test unit was located in the woods on the east side of the foot path. Test Unit 22 contained four layers beneath the rootmat/humus. Subsoil was encountered at @77cms below modern grade. No artifacts or cultural features were found.

Figure 28. North profile of Test Unit 22.

Test Unit 23 This test unit was located in the north face of the dune ridge (Figure 29). Test Unit 23 contained a minimum of seven layers beneath the rootmat/humus (Figure 30). These layers were composed of variously colored sands. The excavation of this test unit was considered unproductive was suspended before subsoil was reached. No artifacts or cultural features were found.

Figure 29. West profile of Test Unit 23.

Figure 30. East profile of Test Unit 23.

Test Unit 24 This context number was used to designate an artifact recovered from the bluff face by a collector in November, 2005 (see Figure 8). The artifact is a sherd from a green-glazed Sevillian olive jar (Figure 31).

Test Unit 25 This context number was used to designate an artifact recovered from the beach by a visitor to the FCF survey in October, 2006. The artifact is a Sevillian green-glazed olive jar sherd that was found approximately 30’ west of where the foot path from the parking lot exists on to the beach (see Figure 31). The sherd was not water worn.

Figure 31. Sevillian olive jar sherds from the bluff and beach along the Prince House Woods; the top sherd is Test Unit 24 and the bottom sherd is Test Unit 25.

SUMMARY

The 2006 FCF survey of the Prince House Woods did not locate any archaeological features associated with Native American occupation or with the 16th- century Roanoke settlements. Test Units 3, 5, and 6 did contain strata that yielded numerous artifacts dating to the second half of the 19th century and thus they likely are a product of the Dough farmstead.

There was a generally consistent stratigraphic sequence throughout the project area. Beneath the root mat and humus were various recent sand layers that lay above a typically thick layer of white sand that corresponded with the dune ridge. Beneath this was a layer of very dark grey to black sand that constituted a buried “A” horizon, which in turn sealed a layer of light grey or silver grey sand. The black sand layer existed only in those units that contained a thick layer of dune sand. The underlying light grey or silver sand is the same stratum as the black sand; however the dune sand prevented the complete transformation of the pedogenic leaching of the black sand to the light grey or silver sand. Beneath this was a medium brown sand that frequently contained small nuggets of ferrous concretions. This sequence is identical to the stratigraphy in the exposed face of the bluff.

A buried “A” horizon of black sand also was found in a 1985 survey of the woods along the Hariot Nature Trail (Figure 32). Like the buried “A” horizon in the Prince House Woods, the buried “A” in the Hariot Nature Trail stratigraphically was immediately below a thick layer of white sand that comprises the existing dune ridge. The 1985 survey also found Colington sherds in this layer as well as several pieces of 16th-century European ceramics (Luccketti 1996). Based on stratigraphy, the buried “A” horizons in the Prince House Woods and the Hariot Nature Trail are almost certainly the same horizon as the buried “A” horizon that was found in the1980’s NPS and 1990’s VCF excavations of the 1585 scientific workshop and earthwork. While most of the black sand had leached to grey sand at the scientific workshop/earthwork site, the surviving grey sand lay on top of a brown sand layer that contained small ferrous concretions. Below this was sterile subsoil. This stratigraphic sequence is analogous to that found in the Prince House Woods.

During the 2006 survey, two people brought artifacts they had collected over the years from the beach along the Prince House Woods. Most of the artifacts were small Native American sherds, but there were two sherds of possible 16th-century European ceramics. One was another sherd of Sevillian olive jar and the other was a sherd of London post-medieval redware. Both were quite water-worn, unlike the Sevillian olive jar sherd found in the bluff face or the sherd found in 2006. These sherds could be further evidence of a 16th-century landing site, although their context is uncertain.

The Colington vessel founding Test Unit 15 also might have been associated with the Roanoke colonists. There was no other evidence in the area of any Native American occupation, and therefore this isolated object may have been used by the English.

Colington ceramics, however, were not confined to the Late Woodland/Contact period, but are found throughout the Woodland period. But it could be argued that the presence of a single Native American vessel was more likely attributable to English use as there is no archaeological evidence of any other Native American activity in the immediate area.

Figure 32. Test square excavated along Hariot Trail in 1985 showing buried “A” horizon.

REFERENCES CITED

Deetz, James 1993 Flowerdew Hundred The Archaeology of a Virginia Plantation 1619-1864. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, VA and London.

Ehrenhard, John E., William P. Athens, and Gregory L. Komara 1983 Remote Sensing Investigations at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, North Carolina. Manuscript on file, Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, Fl.

Ehrenhard, John E. And Gregory L. Komara 1984 Archaeological Investigations at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, Season 2, 1983. Manuscript on file, Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, Fl.

Harrington, Jean Carl 1962 Search for the Cittie of Ralegh, Archaeological Excavations at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, North Carolina. Archaeological Research Series Number Six, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

1966 An Outwork at Fort Raleigh. Eastern National Park and Monument Association.

1984 Archaeology and the Enigma of Fort Raleigh. America’s Four Hundredth Anniversary Committee, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, NC.

Hulton, Paul 1984 America 1585, The Complete Drawings of John White. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Keel, Bennie C. 1991 Trip Report, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, SEAC Accession Number 927. Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, FL

Kelso, William M. with Beverly Straube 2004 Jamestown Rediscovery 1994-2004. The Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, Richmond, VA.

Luccketti, Nicholas M. 1996 Fort Raleigh Archaeological Project 1994/95 Survey Report. Virginia Company Foundation and the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Manuscript report on file, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, FL.

McLearen, Douglas C. and L. Daniel Mouer with R. Taft Kiser, Beverly J. Binns, and Christopher T. Egghardt 1994 A Preliminary Report on the 1992-93 Excavations at Archaeological Site 44PG307. Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research Center, manuscript on file with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, VA.

Noel Hume, Ivor 1982 Martin’s Hundred. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

1994a “Roanoke Island: America’s First Science Center.” The Journal of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Spring, vol. XVI, no.3.

1994b The Virginia Adventure, Roanoke to James Towne: An Archaeological and Historical Odyssey. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

1995 First and Lost: In Search of America’s First English Settlement, Archaeological Excavations at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, Roanoke Island, North Carolina. Manuscript on file, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, Manteo, NC,

Noel Hume, Ivor and Audrey Noel Hume 1991 The Archaeology of Martin’s Hundred. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, PA, and The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Phelps, David S. 1984 Archaeology of the Native Americans: The Carolina Algonkians. Manuscript on file, Institute for Historical and Cultural Research, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.

Quinn, David B. (editor) 1991 The Roanoke Voyages. Dover Publications, Inc., New York

APPENDIX A

Fl d Sp Catalog Item Manufact. Materia Within Object Description ec Type Name # Count Date l Site im en #

COMPLETE, MASON-TYPE; CYLINDRICAL NECK WITH EXTERIOR SCREW TEST FORA THREADS ABOVE POST FS JAR, CANNI 1.00 GLASS UNIT 1 2414 BEADED SEALING 1905 #1 1.2 SURFACE; SLOPED-DOWN SHOULDERS; CYLINDRICAL BODY; SL

LID FROM MASON- TYPE JAR (FORA 2414); CONSISTING OF MULTIPLE TEST FORA FRAGMENTS OF POST FS LID, JAR 1.00 ZINC UNIT 1 2415 FLAT-SECTIONED, 1905 #1 1.2 CIRCULAR- SHAPED ZINC LID WITH PLASTIC LINING ON I

BODY; BUFF- COLORED FABRIC; EXTERIOR TEST FORA SHERD, SALTGLAZED STONE FS BROWN 1.00 UNIT 1 2416 HOL APPEARING -WARE #1 STONEWARE 1.2 BROWNISH-BUFF OVER IRON OXIDE SLIP.

BODY; GRAY- COLORED FABRIC; EXTERIOR SALTGLAZED TEST FORA SHERD, APPEARING GRAY; POST STONE FS 1.00 UNIT 3 ALBANY SLIP 2417 HOL INTERIOR 1850 -WARE #2 3.4 APPEARING GLOSSY BLACK OVER IRON OXIDE SLIP.

BODY; REDDISH- BROWN FABRIC; EXTERIOR TEST FORA SHERD, POST STONE FS BROWN 1.00 SALTGLAZED UNIT 3 2418 HOL 1850 -WARE #2 STONEWARE APPEARING 3.4 GLOSSY REDDISH- BROWN.

RIM/BODY (POSSIBLE BASIN); WHITE FABRIC, COLORLESS EARTH- TEST FORA GLAZE; INTERIOR POST FS SHERD 1.00 ENWAR UNIT 3 WHITEWARE 2419 EMBOSSED 1880 #2 E 3.4 FLORAL DECORATION BELOW RIM; STAINED GRAY.

NECK; WHITE TEST FORA POST PORCE FS PORCELANEO DOLL 1.00 ABRIC; COLORLESS UNIT 3 2420 1840 -LAIN #2 US LAZE ON EXTERIOR. 3.4

COMPLETE; ROUND-CORNER FLAT PANEL FORM; TALL RINGED NECK TEST FORA POST FS BOTTLE, EX 1.00 WITH COLLARED GLASS UNIT 3 2421 1905 #2 DOUBLE RING 3.4 FINISH; BILATERAL VERTICAL SEAMS THROUGH LIP; COLORLESS;

NECK/SHOULDER; TALL RINGED NECK WITH BEAD TEST FORA POST FS BOTTLE, EX 1.00 FINISH; BILATERAL GLASS UNIT 3 2422 1860 #2 VERTICAL SEAMS 3.4 TO BOTTOM OF LIP; COLORLESS.

NECK/SHOULDER; NECK WITH BEAD FINISH; BILATERAL TEST FORA POST FS BOTTLE, EX 1.00 VERTICAL SEAMS GLASS UNIT 3 2423 1860 #2 TO JUST ABOVE 3.4 SHOULDER; COLORLESS.

NECK/SHOULDER; TALL RINGED NECK WITH EXTRACT LIP; TEST FORA POST FS BOTTLE, EX 1.00 BILATERAL GLASS UNIT 3 2424 1860 #2 VERTICAL SEAMS 3.4 TO JUST ABOVE SHOULDER; COLORLESS.

NECK/SHOULDER/ TEST FORA BODY; TALL POST FS BOTTLE, EX 1.00 GLASS UNIT 3 2425 RINGED NECK 1860 #2 3.4 WITH BEAD

FINISH; BILATERAL VERTICAL SEAMS TO JUST ABOVE SHOULDER; FLAT PANELED BODY EMBOSSED "USE.../F

NECK/SHOULDER/ BODY/BASE, SAME VESSEL, MENDABLE; ELONGATED NECK TEST FORA POST FS VIAL 2.00 WITH BEAD GLASS UNIT 3 2426 1860 #2 FINISH; VIOLIN- 3.4 SHAPED BODY WITH BILATERAL VERTICAL SEAMS TO JUST BE

NECK/SHOULDER/ BODY; ELONGATED NECK WITH BEAD FINISH; BILATERAL TEST FORA POST FS VIAL 1.00 VERTICAL SEAMS GLASS UNIT 3 2427 1860 #2 TO JUST BELOW 3.4 LIP; FLAT PANELED BODY EMBOSSED "BY/...H..."; L

NECK/SHOULDER/ BODY; SHORT NECK WITH BEAD FINISH; BILATERAL TEST FORA POST FS VIAL 1.00 VERTICAL SEAMS GLASS UNIT 3 2428 1860 #2 TO JUST BELOW 3.4 LIP; FLAT PANELED BODY; LIGHT AQUA.

NECK/SHOULDER/ BODY/BASE, SAME VESSEL, MENDABLE; WIDE, TEST FORA SHORT NECK POST FS BOTTLE, IN 2.00 GLASS UNIT 3 2429 WITH PACKER 1860 #2 3.4 FINISH; BILATERAL VERTICAL SEAMS TO JUST BELOW LIP; CYLINDRICA

SHORT, CIRCULAR- SHAPED, HOLLOW; EXTERIOR TOP COPPE TEST FORA POST FS LID, BOTTL 2.00 SLIGHTLY CONVEX R UNIT 3 2430 1850 #2 AND ROUNDED ON ALLOY 3.4 EDGE; EXTERIOR SIDES INDENTED HORIZONTALLY.

CIRCULAR- SHAPED CAP, HOLLOW; COPPE TEST FORA 1894- FS SHOT 2.00 EXTERIOR TOP R UNIT 3 2431 1904 #2 IMPRESSED ALLOY 3.4 "WINCHESTER/NO 10/NEW RIVAL".

CIRCULAR- SHAPED CAP, HOLLOW; EXTERIOR TOP COPPE TEST FORA 1864- FS SHOT 1.00 IMPRESSED "NO R UNIT 3 2432 1938 #2 12/US/ROMAX", ALLOY 3.4 RETAINS A SMALL AMOUNT OF PAPER.

RECTANGULAR- SHAPED, FLAT- SECTIONED, PERFORATED ON COPPE TEST FORA ESCUTCHE EACH SIDE WITH A 1880- R FS 1.00 UNIT 3 2433 ON SMALL HOLE FOR 1920 ALLOY/ #2 3.4 ATTACHMENT, 2 TI OF WHICH RETAIN STUDS; EMBOSSED

FLAT, CIRCULAR- SHAPED HEAD; CIRCULAR- SECTIONED COPPE TEST FORA SHAFT BELOW 1880- FS TACK 1.00 R UNIT 3 2434 HEAD THAT 1920 #2 ALLOY 3.4 TAPERS TO A SQUARE- SECTIONED POINT.

2-PIECE; DOMED FACE EMBOSSED WITH LEFT FACING EAGLE WITH SHIELD; BACK COPPE TEST FORA POST FS BUTTON 1.00 RETAINS WIRE R UNIT 3 2435 1860 #2 EYE AND ALLOY 3.4 IMPRESSED MAKER'S MARK: "SCOVILLE MFG CO, WATERBU

TEST FORA BATS; SALMON TO FIRED FS BRICK 6.00 16TH -- -- UNIT 3 2436 REDDISH-BROWN. CLAY #2 3.4

LUMP OF TEST FORA POST COMP FS INK 1.00 SOLIDIFIED INK; UNIT 3 2437 1860 OSITE #2 GRAYISH-WHITE. 3.4

FORA WOOD 1.00 STEM; WOOD TEST FS

2439 FRAGM UNIDENTIFIED. UNIT 3 #2 3.4

CIRCULAR- SHAPED HEAD, TEST FORA CIRCULAR- POST FS NAIL 1.00 IRON UNIT 3 WIRE 2440 SECTIONED 1850 #2 3.4 SHAFT WITH POINTED TIP.

SQUARE-SHAPED MACHINE-MADE HEAD, TEST FORA RECTANGULAR- CA. 1790- FS NAIL 1.00 IRON UNIT 3 CUT 2441 SECTIONED 1 #2 3.4 WROUGHT SHAFT WITH BROKEN SPATULA TIP.

HEAD/SHAFT, TOO TEST FORA FS NAIL 1.00 CORRODED FOR IRON UNIT 3 2442 #2 IDENTIFICATION. 3.4

PARTIAL SQUARE- SHAPED HEAD, RECTANGULAR- TEST FORA SECTIONED FS SPIKE 1.00 IRON UNIT 3 2443 SHAFT, WROUGHT #2 3.4 OR CUT, TOO CORRODED FOR IDENTIFICATION.

CIRCULAR- SECTIONED, TEST FORA ELONGATED FS ROD 1.00 IRON UNIT 3 2444 SHAFT, #2 3.4 THICKENED ON ENDS.

STOCK/BARREL TEST FORA FS GUN, TOY 2.00 FRAGMENTS, IRON UNIT 3 2445 #2 WESTERN STYLE. 3.4

SLIGHTLY DOME- TEST FORA SHAPED; FS SHOT 1.00 LEAD UNIT 3 2446 FLATTENED ON #3 3.5 ONE SIDE.

IRREGULAR- SHAPED; TEST FORA REDDISH-BROWN FIRED FS BRICK 2.00 16TH -- -- UNIT 5 2447 WITH GLAZED CLAY #6 5.3 EXTERIOR EDGE; SALMON.

RIM/BODY; VERTICAL RIM; EARTH TEST FORA SHERD, WHITE FABRIC; POST FS 2.00 ENWAR UNIT 5 WHITEWARE 2448 CUP COLORLESS 1850 #5 E 5.2 GLAZE; STAINED GRAY.

BASE; WHITE FABRIC; EARTH TEST FORA POST FS SHERD 1.00 COLORLESS ENWAR UNIT 5 WHITEWARE 2449 1850 #5 GLAZE; STAINED E 5.2 GRAY.

RIM/BODY; VERTICAL RIM; EARTH TEST FORA SHERD, WHITE FABRIC; POST FS 1.00 ENWAR UNIT 5 WHITEWARE 2450 CUP COLORLESS 1850 #4 E 5.1 GLAZE; STAINED GRAY.

BASE/BODY, MENDABLE; WHITE FABRIC, COLORLESS EARTH TEST FORA SHERD, GLAZE, STAINED POST FS 5.00 ENWAR UNIT 6 WHITEWARE 2451 BAS GRAY; TALL 1880 #7 E 6.2 ROUNDED FOOT; POSSIBLY BELONGS WITH FORA 2419.

BAT; BEARS A POSSIBLE ROPE TEST FORA IMPRESSION ON FIRED FS BRICK 1.00 16TH -- -- UNIT 6 2452 ONE SIDE; CLAY #7 6.2 SALMON- COLORED.

TEST FORA FRAGMENTS, RUBBE FS HOSE 2.00 UNIT 6 2453 SAME OBJECT. R #7 6.2

POSSIBLE JOINT OR FITTING; CYLINDRICALLY- TEST FORA FS BAND 1.00 SHAPED, HOLLOW, IRON UNIT 6 2455 #7 PIPE-LIKE; 6.2 BASHED ON ONE END.

C-SHAPED, OVAL- TEST SECTIONED; FS IRON UNIT 6 FORA HANDLE 1.00 PARTIALLY #7 6.2 2456 PERFORATED ON ONE END, BROKEN

ON THE OTHER; UNIDENTIFIED USE.

UNIDENTIFIED; C- TEST FORA SHAPED, FS ROD 1.00 IRON UNIT 6 2457 CIRCULAR- #7 6.2 SECTIONED.

UNIDENTIFIED, RESEMBLES CAST IRON DOOR HANDLE TEST FORA METAL FS 1.00 ATTACHMENT; L- IRON UNIT 6 2458 FRAG #7 SHAPED, D- 6.2 SECTIONED, CURVED; RIBBED ON ONE SIDE.

CIRCULAR- SHAPED ROD TEST FORA FS HOOK 1.00 WITH EYE ON ONE IRON UNIT 6 2459 #7 END, BROKEN ON 6.2 HOOK END.

SQUARE-SHAPED HEAD; TAPERING TEST FORA CA. 1790- FS NAIL 1.00 SQUARE - IRON UNIT 6 2460 1 #7 SECTIONED 6.2 SHAFT.

RECTANGULAR- TEST FORA FS STRAP 2.00 SHAPED; FLAT- IRON UNIT 6 2461 #7 SECTIONED. 6.2

IRREGULARILY- SHAPED FRAGMENT PERFORATED TEST FORA LEATHER LEATH FS 2.00 WITH NUMEROUS UNIT 6 2462 FR ER #7 HOLES; STRAP 6.2 FRAGMENT; POSSIBLE SHOE LEATHER.

TEST FORA COMP FS PLASTER 2.00 GRAYISH-WHITE. UNIT 6 2463 OS-ITE #7 6.2

HOLLOWWARE; GRAY FABRIC; ALBANY SLIPPED TEST FS FORA INTERIOR POST STONE SHERD 1.00 UNIT 6 #1 ALBANY SLIP 2464 APPEARING 1850 -WARE 6.2 1 GLOSSY REDDISH BROWN; SALTGLAZED

EXTERIOR APPEARING GRAY; EMBOSSED WITH ILLEGIBLE

SQUARE-SHAPED HEAD; TAPERING TEST FS FORA CA. 1790- NAIL 1.00 SQUARE- IRON UNIT 6 #1 2465 1 SECTIONED 6.2 1 SHAFT.

CIRCULAR- SHAPED HEAD; COPPE TEST FS FORA TAPERING CA. 1790- NAIL 1.00 R UNIT 6 #1 2466 SQUARE - 1 ALLOY 6.2 1 SECTIONED SHAFT.

RECTANGULAR- SHAPED BRICK BAT, UNUSUAL TEST FORA FIRED FS BRICK 1.00 ANGULAR 16TH -- -- UNIT 7 2467 CLAY #9 IMPRESSION ON 7.2 BREAK; SALMON COLORED.

RECTANGULAR- TEST FORA STONE, SANDS FS 1.00 SHAPED; RED UNIT 7 2468 WOR TONE #9 SANDSTONE. 7.2

TEST FORA SPHERICAL- FS SHOT 1.00 LEAD UNIT 9 2469 SHAPED. #8 9.2

SQUARE-SHAPED, DOMED HEAD; TEST FS FORA TAPERING CA. 1790- NAIL 1.00 IRON UNIT 14 #1 2470 SQUARE- 1 14.2 0 SECTIONED SHAFT.

RECTANGULAR- SHAPED, FLAT- COPPE TEST FS FORA SECTIONED STRAP 1.00 R UNIT 14 #1 2471 TAPERING FILE ALLOY 14.2 0 BLADE-LIKE STRAP.

CYLINDRICALLY- SHAPED, HOLLOW, COPPE TEST FS FORA RIBBED ON CAP 1.00 R UNIT 15 #1 2472 EXTERIOR; ALLOY 15.3 2 POSSIBLE PERCUSSION CAP.

SHERD; REDDISH- BROWN TO GRAY EARTH TEST FS FORA FABRIC WITH PREHIST SHERD 1.00 ENWAR UNIT 15 #1 ABORIGINAL 2473 NUMEROUS ORI E 15.3 2 SHELL-TEMPER VOIDS.

BODY; GRAY FABRIC WITH NUMEROUS SAND FS EARTH TEST FORA INCLUSIONS; 16TH -- #2 IBERIAN SHERD, OLI 1.00 ENWAR UNIT 24 2477 INTERIOR AD 4. OLIVE JAR E 24.1 COVERED WITH 1 COPPER GREEN GLAZE.

BODY; GRAY FABRIC WITH NUMEROUS SAND INCLUSIONS; EARTH TEST FS FORA 16TH -- IBERIAN SHERD, OLI 1.00 INTERIOR ENWAR UNIT 25 #1 2478 AD OLIVE JAR COVERED WITH E 25.1 5 COPPER GREEN GLAZE; EXTERIOR FRACTURED.

BASE/BODY, SAME VESSEL, MENDABLE; REDDISH-BROWN FABRIC WITH VERY EARTH TEST FS FORA SHERD, PREHIST 64.0 OCCASIONAL ENWAR UNIT 15 #1 ABORIGINAL 2479 HOL ORI SAND E 15.5 3 INCLUSIONS, NUMEROUS SHELL-TEMPER VOIDS; SIMPLE STAMPED; RO

TEST FS FORA WOOD FRAGMENTS, 8.00 WOOD UNIT 15 #1 2480 FRAGM CHARRED. 15.5 3

TEST FS FORA MILKY QUARTZ, QUART STONE 1.00 UNIT 15 #1 2481 NON-CULTURAL. Z 15.3 2

HOLLOWWARE BODY; COARSE PINK TO GRAY BODY; INTERIOR PRINCE LEAD GLAZE EARTH FS FORA HOUSE SHERD 1.00 APPEARING ENWAR #1 2482 TO NW GREENISH- E 2 POINT BROWN; POSSIBLY WATER WORN; UNIDENTIFIED COARSEWARE.

SHERD; COARSE ORANGE FABRIC; INTERIOR LEAD UTM GLAZE 43564E EARTH POST FORA APPEARING WGS 84 SHERD 1.00 16TH -- -- ENWAR MEDIEVAL 2483 AMBER; WATER 3977471 E LONDON WORN; POST W MEDIEVAL NAD83 LONDON REDWARE.

SHERD, HOLLOWWARE; COARSE PINKISH- BROWN FABRIC UTM WITH NUMEROUS 43564E EARTH FORA SHERD, OCHRE AND MICA 17TH -- WGS 84 1.00 ENWAR 2484 HOL INCLUSIONS; AD 3977471 E INTERIOR LEAD W NAD GLAZE 83 APPEARING GREEN; WATER WORN; FA

FRAGMENT; UTM FORA SALMON FIRED 43564E BRICK 1.00 16TH -- -- 2485 COLORED; CLAY WGS 84 WATERWORN. 3977471

W NAD 83

Total Records: 67