DOCSLIB.ORG

A History of Piscataway Park

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Preservation and Partners: A History of Piscataway Park Janet A. McDonnell, PhD December 2020 Resource Stewardship and Science, National Capital Area, National Park Service and Organization of American Historians FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PISCATAWAY NATIONAL PARK ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY 1/5/2021 Prepared by: Janet A. McDonnell, PhD Recommended by: Date; 01/05/21 Dr. Noel Lopez, NCA Cultural Anthropologist Concurred by: Drt Joshua Torres, NCA Supervisor of History and Culture Programs Approved by: Date; 1/6/2021 Michael Commisso, Piscataway National Park Acting Superintendent EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the early republic period of American history, President George Washington was the most renowned resident of the Potomac River valley. His sprawling Mount Vernon estate sat on a hill directly across the Potomac River from the 17th century Marshall Hall estate in Maryland. There is ample evidence that Washington and his guests enjoyed and very much appreciated the stunning view. Many years later preserving this view would become the major impetus for establishing what we know today as Piscataway Park (PISC), a few miles south of Washington, DC. These lands along the Maryland shore of Potomac River were actively cultivated during George Washington’s time, and the existing park setting, which includes agricultural lands and open spaces interspersed with forests and wetlands, closely approximates that historic scene. The National Park Service’s (NPS) primary goal and responsibility in managing the park has been, and continues to be, preserving this historic scene of open fields and wooded areas and ensuring that it does not authorize any landscape alterations except those that would restore previously undisturbed sites, reduce visual intrusions, or maintain open fields. The NPS continues to take into account the slope and orientation of the terrain and the tree cover when considering the location of any new facilities. Piscataway Park and its associated lands are for the most part held under scenic easements and constitute a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) historic district made up of nearly 5,000 acres of meadow, woodland, and wetland, along six miles of the Potomac River shoreline from the head of Piscataway Creek to the historic Marshall Hall in Maryland’s Prince George’s and Charles counties. The northern border of the historic district crosses Piscataway Creek, a tidal tributary that enters the Potomac River at Fort Washington, and includes the Fort Washington Marina as well as adjacent lands to the northeast of the marina. A community of private property owners living in what is called the Moyaone Reserve occupy a good portion of the park. The origins of that community date back to the 1920s when Alice and Henry Ferguson and a small group of Washington, DC, residents were attracted to the Potomac shoreline in Maryland’s Accokeek area. These local residents mobilized after World War II to preserve the rustic environment that they had come to appreciate and helped launch the movement leading to the creation of Piscataway [Cover Image: A wetland view of Piscataway Park, NPS] 2 Park. In the 1950s these Moyaone Reserve residents established the current Moyaone Association and joined forces with the newly formed Alice Ferguson Foundation and the Accokeek Foundation, along with the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association (MVLA) to preserve the natural environment they valued and to preserve the viewshed from Mount Vernon. Over time, the NPS became more deeply involved working with these various organizations and with Congress to achieve their shared goals of creating a national park. Preservation of the historic view has depended to a great extent on effective cooperation and communication between the NPS and the park’s partners and stakeholders and continues to do so. Although President John F. Kennedy signed legislation formally authorizing the park in October 1961, the struggle to secure appropriations for the park, to acquire the additional lands within the Mount Vernon viewshed and to secure scenic easements from local property owners continued. The park was established through the conveyance of scenic easements by private landholders and the purchase of land in fee. These scenic easements were legally binding agreements between landowners and the easement holder (in this case the Department of the Interior) that restricted development and use of the land to achieve conservation goals. Meanwhile, during the early 1960s the Department of the Interior signed cooperative agreements with both the Accokeek Foundation and the Alice Ferguson Foundation defining their respective roles and responsibilities in the park and their relationship with the NPS. These critical agreements were updated over the years and continue to play a major role in the park’s management, development, and operations. By the late 1960s, the NPS had made significant progress in preserving the park’s cultural and natural resources. For example, one of the park’s most significant archeological resources, the Accokeek Creek Site, was added to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1966 and is a National Historic Landmark. The 1970s and 1980s proved to be a period of expansion for Piscataway Park. On October 15, 1974, President Gerald Ford signed P.L. 93-444 adding 625 acres to the park, to include the Marshall Hall Amusement Park and adjacent Charles County lands, as well as the eight-acre Fort Washington Marina. The period was also a time for developing and refining additional measures to protect the park’s rich cultural resources. In 1979 the entire park was added to the NRHP, marking a key milestone in its history and reinforcing the importance of its preservation mission. 3 During the 1970s and 1980s, the NPS further refined its relationships with its various partners and stakeholders. It turned more attention to the management and development of the Accokeek Foundation’s National Colonial Farm along the Maryland shore of the Potomac at the end of Bryan Point Road in the park, conducting an environmental assessment and preparing a development concept plan. The NPS also took a major step in refining and clarifying its role in managing the park by adopting a General Management Plan (GMP) in 1983, and continued documenting the rich archeological resources in the park. The presence of the Piscataway Indians in the park and their involvement with the NPS and other park partners increased. In an unprecedented step Congress passed legislation in 1979 allowing Piscataway Chief Turkey Tayac to be buried inside the park on fee land (Federal Property). In recent decades the park continued to deal with a variety of threats to its natural and cultural resources and worked to improve the visitor experience. There was a growing environmental focus, shoreline restoration, boardwalk construction, facility improvements, and other measures to enhance the visitor experience. Piscataway Park is unique in a number of ways, adding to its value and significance. There is no direct precedent for what has been done at Piscataway Park. It remains the only national park unit that was created and exists for the scenic protection of a non-federal property, specifically Mount Vernon. In addition, while it does not represent the first use of scenic easements, it was one of the first national park units to use them so extensively. Indeed, the park has served as a model in this regard, and those scenic easements will continue to play a critical role in the park’s future. Inside the park, the NPS works to preserve what are recognized as some of the most significant archeological resources on the Eastern Seaboard. In addition, Piscataway Park has come to demonstrate a value well beyond its original mission of preserving the Mount Vernon and Fort Washington viewsheds. Its role in preserving important natural and cultural resources has grown and become increasingly important. This includes its role in preserving the park’s rich archeological resources and its preservation and interpretation of American Indian heritage. The park’s story also provides valuable insight into the challenges of maintaining effective partnerships and the importance of civic engagement. Piscataway Park’s history is complex, as are the relationships among the park’s various partners and stakeholders, particularly as these private organizations each have their own missions, goals, and priorities and have developed their own plans for the limited development of park resources. The partnerships and the scenic easements have presented 4 both opportunities and challenges. Yet for all the complexities and challenges, the value of Piscataway Park to those who live there and to those who visit continues to resonate. 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This history could not have been written without the ongoing support and cooperation of various National Park Service managers and staff, representatives of the various Piscataway Park’s partner organizations, and fellow historians. National Capital Regional Historian Dean Herrin and Aidan Smith of the Organization of American Historians shaped this project and provided oversight from its beginning. Kate Birmingham in National Capital Parks – East made available important office files and reports. Herrin and several members of the National Capital Parks – East staff spent considerable time reviewing drafts of this history and sharing their recommendations. Piscataway Park’s superintendent, Christine Smith, made herself available to provide guidance and share her perspective. Former
Recommended publications
  • Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds

    Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds

    Defining the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for The Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Virginia R. Busby Julia A. King With Contributions From: Francis Gray • Diana Harley • Mervin Savoy • Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland Mark Tayac • Piscataway Indian Nation Joan Watson • Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and Subtribes Rico Newman • Barry Wilson • Choptico Band of Piscataway Indians Hope Butler • Cedarville Band of Piscataway Indians Prepared For: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Annapolis, Maryland St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland November 2015 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to identify and represent the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for the Nanjemoy and Mattawoman creek watersheds on the north shore of the Potomac River in Charles and Prince George’s counties, Maryland. The project was undertaken as an initiative of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay office, which supports and manages the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. One of the goals of the Captain John Smith Trail is to interpret Native life in the Middle Atlantic in the early years of colonization by Europeans. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept, developed as an important tool for identifying Native landscapes, has been incorporated into the Smith Trail’s Comprehensive Management Plan in an effort to identify Native communities along the trail as they existed in the early17th century and as they exist today. Identifying ICLs along the Smith Trail serves land and cultural conservation, education, historic preservation, and economic development goals. Identifying ICLs empowers descendant indigenous communities to participate fully in achieving these goals.
  • Bladensburg Prehistoric Background

    Bladensburg Prehistoric Background

    Environmental Background and Native American Context for Bladensburg and the Anacostia River Carol A. Ebright (April 2011) Environmental Setting Bladensburg lies along the east bank of the Anacostia River at the confluence of the Northeast Branch and Northwest Branch of this stream. Formerly known as the East Branch of the Potomac River, the Anacostia River is the northernmost tidal tributary of the Potomac River. The Anacostia River has incised a pronounced valley into the Glen Burnie Rolling Uplands, within the embayed section of the Western Shore Coastal Plain physiographic province (Reger and Cleaves 2008). Quaternary and Tertiary stream terraces, and adjoining uplands provided well drained living surfaces for humans during prehistoric and historic times. The uplands rise as much as 300 feet above the water. The Anacostia River drainage system flows southwestward, roughly parallel to the Fall Line, entering the Potomac River on the east side of Washington, within the District of Columbia boundaries (Figure 1). Thin Coastal Plain strata meet the Piedmont bedrock at the Fall Line, approximately at Rock Creek in the District of Columbia, but thicken to more than 1,000 feet on the east side of the Anacostia River (Froelich and Hack 1975). Terraces of Quaternary age are well-developed in the Bladensburg vicinity (Glaser 2003), occurring under Kenilworth Avenue and Baltimore Avenue. The main stem of the Anacostia River lies in the Coastal Plain, but its Northwest Branch headwaters penetrate the inter-fingered boundary of the Piedmont province, and provided ready access to the lithic resources of the heavily metamorphosed interior foothills to the west.
  • Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan

    Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan

    Restoration Plan for the Anacostia River Watershed in Prince George’s County December 30, 2015 RUSHERN L. BAKER, III COUNTPreparedY EXECUTIV for:E Prince George’s County, Maryland Department of the Environment Stormwater Management Division Prepared by: 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 COVER PHOTO CREDITS: 1. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 7. USEPA 2. Tetra Tech, Inc. 8. USEPA 3. Prince George’s County 9. Montgomery Co DEP 4. VA Tech, Center for TMDL and 10. PGC DoE Watershed Studies 11. USEPA 5. Charles County, MD Dept of 12. PGC DoE Planning and Growth Management 13. USEPA 6. Portland Bureau of Environmental Services _Tom Liptan Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan Contents Acronym List ............................................................................................................................... v 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Report and Restoration Planning ............................................................................... 3 1.1.1 What is a TMDL? ................................................................................................................ 3 1.1.2 What is a Restoration Plan? ............................................................................................... 4 1.2 Impaired Water Bodies and TMDLs .............................................................................................. 6 1.2.1 Water Quality Standards ....................................................................................................
  • Maryland's 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards

    Maryland's 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards

    Maryland’s 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards EPA Approval Date: July 11, 2018 Table of Contents Overview of the 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards ............................................ 3 Nationally Recommended Water Quality Criteria Considered with Maryland’s 2016 Triennial Review ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Re-evaluation of Maryland’s Restoration Variances ...................................................................... 5 Other Future Water Quality Standards Work ................................................................................. 6 Water Quality Standards Amendments ........................................................................................... 8 Designated Uses ........................................................................................................................... 8 Criteria ....................................................................................................................................... 19 Antidegradation.......................................................................................................................... 24 2 Overview of the 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that States review their water quality standards every three years (Triennial Review) and revise the standards as necessary. A water quality standard consists of three separate but related
  • Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Vol

    Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Vol

    SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 96, NO. 4, PL. 1 tiutniiimniimwiuiiii Trade Beads Found at Leedstown, Natural Size SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLUME 96. NUMBER 4 INDIAN SITES BELOW THE FALLS OF THE RAPPAHANNOCK, VIRGINIA (With 21 Plates) BY DAVID I. BUSHNELL, JR. (Publication 3441) CITY OF WASHINGTON PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION SEPTEMBER 15, 1937 ^t)t Boxb (jBaliimore (prttfe DAI.TIMORE. MD., C. S. A. CONTENTS Page Introduction I Discovery of the Rappahannock 2 Acts relating to the Indians passed by the General Assembly during the second half of the seventeenth century 4 Movement of tribes indicated by names on the Augustine Herrman map, 1673 10 Sites of ancient settlements 15 Pissaseck 16 Pottery 21 Soapstone 25 Cache of trade beads 27 Discovery of the beads 30 Kerahocak 35 Nandtanghtacund 36 Portobago Village, 1686 39 Material from site of Nandtanghtacund 42 Pottery 43 Soapstone 50 Above Port Tobago Bay 51 Left bank of the Rappahannock above Port Tobago Bay 52 At mouth of Millbank Creek 55 Checopissowa 56 Taliaferro Mount 57 " Doogs Indian " 58 Opposite the mouth of Hough Creek 60 Cuttatawomen 60 Sockbeck 62 Conclusions suggested by certain specimens 63 . ILLUSTRATIONS PLATES Page 1. Trade beads found at Leedstown (Frontispiece) 2. North over the Rappahannock showing Leedstown and the site of Pissaseck 18 3. Specimens from site of Pissaseck 18 4. Specimens from site of Pissaseck 18 5. Specimens from site of Pissaseck 18 6. Specimens from site of Pissaseck 26 7. Specimens from site of Pissaseck 26 8. Specimens from site of Pissaseck 26 9. I. Specimens from site of Pissaseck.
  • American Indians of the Chesapeake Bay: an Introduction

    American Indians of the Chesapeake Bay: an Introduction

    AMERICAN INDIANS OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY: AN INTRODUCTION hen Captain John Smith sailed up the Chesapeake Bay in 1608, American Indians had W already lived in the area for thousands of years. The people lived off the land by harvesting the natural resources the Bay had to offer. In the spring, thousands of shad, herring and rockfish were netted as they entered the Chesapeake’s rivers and streams to spawn. Summer months were spent tending gardens that produced corn, beans and squash. In the fall, nuts such as acorns, chestnuts and walnuts were gathered from the forest floor. Oysters and clams provided another source of food and were easily gathered from the water at low tide. Hunting parties were sent overland in search of deer, bear, wild turkey and other land animals. Nearby marshes provided wild rice and tuckahoe (arrow arum), which produced a potato-like root. With so much food available, the American Indians of the Chesapeake region were able to thrive. Indian towns were found close to the water’s edge near freshwater springs or streams. Homes were made out of bent saplings (young, Captain John Smith and his exploring party encounter two Indian men green trees) that were tied into a spearing fish in the shallows on the lower Eastern Shore. The Indians framework and covered with woven later led Smith to the village of Accomack, where he met with the chief. mats, tree bark, or animal skins. Villages often had many homes clustered together, and some were built within a palisade, a tall wall built with sturdy sticks and covered with bark, for defense.
  • This Land Is Whose Land?

    This Land Is Whose Land?

    This Land Is Whose Land? Author: Mary Davis, Anne Arundel County Public Schools Grade Level: Upper Elementary Duration: One 90 minute class (or two 1 hour classes) Overview: In the latter half of the 17 th century, the expanding colony of Maryland came into conflict with the Eastern Woodland Indian tribes who had been hunting and farming the region for almost 6,000 years. The conflict developed from competing views of land use. The Indians saw the land as the bearer of seasonal resources to be used when available and the English colonists saw it as a commodity to be bought and sold. When the Nanticoke tribe could no longer repel the incursions of colonists, they petitioned the Maryland Assembly to have lands granted to them for their exclusive use. The terms of the agreement and size of the lands granted were insufficient for the traditional lifeways of the Nanticoke, which led to further conflicts with their neighbors. In this lesson, the students will use a series of legal documents from the Maryland Assembly to trace the development of the conflict over land ownership. Content Standards: Era 1: Three Worlds Meet (Beginnings to 1620) Standard 2: How early European exploration and colonization resulted in cultural and ecological interactions among previously unconnected peoples Historical Thinking Standards: Standard 3: Historical Analysis and Interpretation C. Analyze cause­and­effect relationships and multiple causation, including the importance of the individual, the influence of ideas, and the role of chance. Lesson Objectives: ­Students will read primary source documents about relationships between colonial Maryland and nearby Native American tribes.
  • Defining the Nanticoke Indigenous Cultural Landscape

    Defining the Nanticoke Indigenous Cultural Landscape

    Indigenous Cultural Landscapes Study for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail: Nanticoke River Watershed December 2013 Kristin M. Sullivan, M.A.A. - Co-Principal Investigator Erve Chambers, Ph.D. - Principal Investigator Ennis Barbery, M.A.A. - Research Assistant Prepared under cooperative agreement with The University of Maryland College Park, MD and The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Annapolis, MD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Nanticoke River watershed indigenous cultural landscape study area is home to well over 100 sites, landscapes, and waterways meaningful to the history and present-day lives of the Nanticoke people. This report provides background and evidence for the inclusion of many of these locations within a high-probability indigenous cultural landscape boundary—a focus area provided to the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay and the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Advisory Council for the purposes of future conservation and interpretation as an indigenous cultural landscape, and to satisfy the Identification and Mapping portion of the Chesapeake Watershed Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit Cooperative Agreement between the National Park Service and the University of Maryland, College Park. Herein we define indigenous cultural landscapes as areas that reflect “the contexts of the American Indian peoples in the Nanticoke River area and their interaction with the landscape.” The identification of indigenous cultural landscapes “ includes both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife therein associated with historic lifestyle and settlement patterns and exhibiting the cultural or esthetic values of American Indian peoples,” which fall under the purview of the National Park Service and its partner organizations for the purposes of conservation and development of recreation and interpretation (National Park Service 2010:4.22).
  • Piscataway Indian Nation

    Piscataway Indian Nation

    Piscataway Indian Nation From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The Piscataway Indian Nation is a non-state, non-federally recognized Native American tribal nation, which, at one time, was one of the most populous and powerful Native polities of the Chesapeake region. By the early seventeenth century, the Piscataway had come to exercise hegemony over other Native American groups on the north bank of the Potomac River. While Piscataway fortunes declined as Maryland colony grew and prospered, the Piscataway continue to be leaders among the tribal nations of Maryland, as well as throughout Indian Country in their commitment to Indigenous and Human Rights. Contents [hide] 1 Geography 2 Government 3 History o 3.1 The Indigenous Chesapeake o 3.2 English Colonization o 3.3 The Long Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries o 3.4 Piscataway Revival 4 Sources 5 External links [edit] Geography The Piscataway Indian Nation is a long-established tribal nation of Native Americans inhabiting traditional homelands on the western shore of Maryland's Chesapeake Bay in the areas of Charles County, Prince George's County, and St. Mary's County, located near two metropolitan areas, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. [edit] Government The current chief of the Piscataway Indian Nation is Billy Redwing Tayac, an outspoken leader in the movement for Indigenous and Human Rights, and the son of the late Chief Turkey Tayac, a prominent figure in the Native American revitalization and reclamation movements of the last half of the twentieth century. [edit] History No scientific scholarship supports the theory that those claiming today to be Piscataway Indians are actually descended from the historical tribe of that name.
  • Potomac River News, Page 3 Classifieds, Page 7 Entertainment, Page 6 V Classifieds

    Potomac River News, Page 3 Classifieds, Page 7 Entertainment, Page 6 V Classifieds

    Piscataway Tribal Ongoing Connections To the Potomac River News, Page 3 Classifieds, Page 7 Classifieds, v Entertainment, Page 6 Piscataway Conoy Native American speaker Mario Harley talks about Piscataway Conoy past and present at Discovering Wildflowers Great Falls Tavern. Requested in home 5-16-19 home in Requested Time sensitive material. material. sensitive Time Along the C&O Canal Postmaster: Attention News, Page 4 WSS ECR Postal Customer Postal permit #322 permit Easton, MD Easton, Obituary: Peter M. Kimm PAID U.S. Postage U.S. Page 6 STD PRSRT Photo by Debbie Stevens/The Almanac by Debbie Stevens/The Photo May 15-21, 2019 online at potomacalmanac.com 2 ❖ Potomac Almanac ❖ May 15-21, 2019 www.ConnectionNewspapers.com Potomac Almanac Editor Steven Mauren News 703-778-9415 or [email protected] See www.potomacalmanac.com Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland Shares History, Present Piscataway continue connection to the Potomac River. he Piscataway people and their ancestors have lived in Mary Tland for more than 13,000 years. All Piscataway are con- scious of a history that reaches back long before Europeans had invaded their home- land. Despite having endured the effects of colonialism for nearly 400 years, the Piscataway continued to thrive, leaving their mark on the history of the region, ac- cording to a report by Many place names throughout the region, for example, are derived from Algonquian words used by the Piscataway. The Piscataway Conoy were recognized in 2012 by then-Gov. Martin O’Malley after decades of lobbying. “American Indians have, through their cultural heritage, his- torical influence, and participation in pub- lic life, and helped to make the State of Maryland the great State that it is today,” the orders read, according to press reports from the time.
  • Governor's Commission on Indian Affairs Annual Report

    Governor's Commission on Indian Affairs Annual Report

    Governor’s Commission on Indian Affairs Annual Report 2011 Mission Statement The Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs works to serve as a statewide clearinghouse for information; to identify unmet social and economic needs in the native community; to support government education programs for American Indian youth; to provide support in the process of obtaining Recognition of State and Federal Indian Status; and to promote the awareness and understanding of historical and contemporary American Indian contributions in Maryland. 2 Table of Contents Message from the Governor …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4 Message from the Executive Director, Governor’s Office of Community Initiatives…………….5 Message from the Chair, Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs………………………………………6 Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7 Commissioners……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8 Commission Meeting Schedule…………………………………………………………………………………………..9 State and Federal Agency Partner Meetings and Events …………………………………………………….10 State Recognition…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….....11 2011 initiatives…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12 Outreach………………………………………………………………………………………………................................14 Commissioners in Action…………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 Resident Population………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 Maryland Indigenous Tribes………………………………………………………………………………………………19 3 STATE OF MARYLAND OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR MARTIN O’MALLEY GOVERNOR STATE HOUSE 100 STATE Circle ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND
  • Site Report, Phase II, Handwritten Draft

    Site Report, Phase II, Handwritten Draft

    Generally the site cJot _ /confined to the area above the 21.5 meter contour interval (Figure 5). The southwest , ^ corner of the site was not clearly defined^ since it was disturbed by a gravel road and lies outside the impact_area./" . _ _ _ _, . current | alignment of^Ro'ute 21 i| obscures the norther^Tb^n^ry. North of"' Route"2IU a "' !sewer line runs parallel to the road, and a steep slope rises immediatelyj" beyond that. - —l The distributions of various classes of cultural material from the . were plotted in order to determine the locations of clusters. First, ? maps depicting flakes and fire?jcracked rock4 (Figure •&) show two main activity areas, one on the northern edge of the site and another toward the southern' end. Flakes are dispersed across the entire site as well. Mapped by raw • material (quartz, quartzite, rhyolite, and chert), flake distributions do not differ from the overall pattern, and are thus not illustrated.' '^r ^d^t^^a^^L^/^Uv^^Jl <^^e^^t^A^ F'/^-^tiXi^J^yt ., £*£3t*^)--<t^-3£^J^<^^ .. V ' yf Ceramics from shovel test pits are scattered across the site (Figure w, with concentrations in the center and southern parts of the site. When l\euJ IJ plotted by ceramic type according to period (Figures - A•), most of the ceramic types are dispersed across the site,' with no noticeable clustering. The only exceptions are the Late Woodland types (Potomac Creek, Townsend, and Moyaone), which show a tendency to occur in the central and southern portions !HL of the site. 'h A comparison of the flake and ceramic distributions suggest a negative correlation between the two artifact classes except in the southern area, where there is a concentration of both.