DOCSLIB.ORG

An Historical Archaeological Examination of a Battlefield Landscape: an Example from the American Civil War Battle of Wilson's Wharf, Charles City County, Virginia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Historical Archaeological Examination of a Battlefield Landscape: an Example from the American Civil War Battle of Wilson's Wharf, Charles City County, Virginia W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 2003 An historical archaeological examination of a battlefield landscape: An Example from the American Civil War Battle of Wilson's Wharf, Charles City County, Virginia Jameson Michael Harwood College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons, Military History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Harwood, Jameson Michael, "An historical archaeological examination of a battlefield landscape: An Example from the American Civil War Battle of Wilson's Wharf, Charles City County, Virginia" (2003). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539626393. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-bkaa-yg82 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF A BATTLEFIELD LANDSCAPE: An Example From The American Civil War Battle Of Wilson’s Wharf, Charles City County, Virginia A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Anthropology The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Jameson Michael Harwood 2003 APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Jameson MichaefHarwood Approved, May 2003 t Norman Barka Dennis Blanton MarleyBrown, III DEDICATION To the soldiers who fought and died the Wilson’s Wharf battlefield landscape TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements v List of Tables vi List of Figures vii Abstract ix Introduction 2 Chapter I. Issues in Battlefield Archaeology 7 Chapter II. Battlefield as Cultural Landscape 17 Chapter III. Research in Battlefield Archaeology 26 Chapter IV. Flistorical Perspective On the Battle of Wilson’s Wharf 41 Chapter V. Archaeological Perspective On the Battle of Wilson’s Wharf 70 Chapter VI. An Historical Archaeological Perspective On the Battle of 114 Wilson’s Wharf Appendix 131 Bibliography 134 Vita 150 iv ACKNOWLEGMENTS The success of this research was due to the commitment of a number of people. The project would not have been possible without a generous grant from the National Park Service American Battlefield Protection Program. The expert team of battlefield archaeologists consisted of Christopher Adams of the Lincoln National Forest, Charles Haecker of the National Park Service Intermountain Support Office, Paul Nasca of the College of William and Mary, and Bryan Shanks of the Lincoln National Forest. The author wishes to express his appreciation to Dennis Blanton, Director of the William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, for having faith that a wild-eyed graduate student could locate a little-known Civil War battle deep in the wilds of Virginia. The author is also indebted to Dr. Norman Barka and Dr. Marley Brown III for their careful reading and critique of the manuscript. Also, thanks to Dr. Douglas Scott for paving the way in the field of battlefield archaeology and for providing much needed encouragement during the project. This material is based upon work assisted by a grant from the Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of the Interior. v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Confederate and Union Participants at the Battle of Wilson’s 58 Wharf 2. Proposed verses achieved coverage of study areas 74 3. Battle-related artifact types and percentages 86 vi LIST OF FIGURES Study Area Location and Environs 5 Aerial Photograph of Site Environs 6 Union Major General Benjamin Butler 45 Eastern Virginia - Spring 1864 47 Union Brigadier General Edward A. Wild 53 Officers and Men of the 1st Regiment United States 54 Colored Troops Confederate Major General Fitzhugh Lee 56 Battle of Wilson’s Wharf - First Phase 60 Battle of Wilson’s Wharf - Second Phase 63 Battle of Wilson’s Wharf - Final Phase 66 “Sketch of Works at Wilson’s Wharf or Landing” 68 Wilson’s Wharf Battlefield Survey Examination Areas 73 Photograph of Area 1 - Transect 1 75 Photograph of Area 3 - Lee’s Ravine 76 Archaeologist Conducting Survey 83 Recovered Bullet In Situ 83 Artifact Locations Marked By Pin Flags 84 Mapping of Artifact Locations 84 Representative Bullets and Firearm Artifacts 87 Parrott Artillery Projectile Fragment 96 vii 21. Straight Back Sword Fragments 97 22. Buttons 99 23. Miscellaneous Artifacts 103 24. Equipment and Hardware Distribution Within Site 107 Examination Areas 25. Ammunition Distribution Within Site Examination 108 Areas viii ABSTRACT This thesis presents a case study for the historical archaeological examination of a battlefield. It presents an American Civil War battlefield, known as the Battle of Wilson’s Wharf, not so much as an archaeological site but rather as a cultural landscape of conflict. An examination of the artifactual residue of the battle patterned within the cultural landscape combined with an analysis of the historical documentation on the May 24, 1864, engagement, reveals a much broader insight into the nature of battlefields than can be reached through either history or archaeology alone. The thesis also makes recommendations for additional fieldwork on the battlefield. ix AN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF A BATTLEFIELD LANDSCAPE: An Example from the American Civil War Battle of Wilson’s Wharf, Charles City County, Virginia INTRODUCTION May 24th, 1864. Charles City County, Virginia. After an all night ride the 2,500 Confederate cavalrymen under the command of Major General Fitzhugh Lee finally reached their destination. As the military activity near Richmond developed into a virtual stalemate, the Confederate government decided it was time to deal with a small situation transpiring downriver. On May 5 , Federal troops assigned to protect the communication and supply line of the Army of the James had landed at Wilson’s Wharf and established a base of operations. All throughout the month reports had come in stating the Union garrison was continuing to fortify their position. However, it was not the strategic location of the fortification that worried the Southern military as the Union navy controlled the James River. Rather it was the nature of the Federal infantry stationed at Wilson’s Wharf that caused Confederate officials such discomfort. For the Union soldiers consisted of two regiments of United States Colored Troops (U.S.C.T.) under the command of the contentious Brigadier General Edward Wild. As in North Carolina, Wild continued to take the war to the local populace by raiding the surrounding countryside from his base at Wilson’s Wharf. Accounts of Wild’s activities, ranging from the factual to the fantastical, led outraged Southern citizens to demand action. By May 23, the Confederate army could no longer tolerate the idea of black soldiers operating freely in the heart of Virginia and General 2 3 Braxton Bragg sent the cavalry force to “break up the nest and stop their uncivilized proceedings in the neighborhood” (Fitzhugh Lee’s Postwar Report 1866). This thesis is based on an investigation of the May 24, 1864, Battle of Wilson’s Wharf conducted by the William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research in the fall of 2000 (Harwood 2001) (Figure 1 and 2). The project was funded by a grant from the National Park Service American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP). The project sought to demonstrate the value of a systematic metal detector survey combined with in-depth historical research as a means of delineating troop positions within a battlefield site. The artifact distributions not only demonstrated a positive correlation with aspects of the historical record, but also provided valuable insights into areas where the written accounts were incomplete or silent. By drawing on the data collected during the 2000 survey this thesis presents a case for the historical archaeological examination of a battlefield. It presents the Wilson’s Wharf battlefield not so much as an archaeological site but rather as a cultural landscape of conflict. An examination of the artifactual residue of the battle patterned within the cultural landscape, combined with an analysis of the historical documentation on the May 24, 1864, engagement, reveals a much broader insight into the nature of battlefields than can be reached through either history or archaeology alone. The thesis also makes recommendations for additional fieldwork on the battlefield. 4 The following chapters provide an historical archaeological examination of the Wilson’s Wharf battlefield landscape. Chapter One examines issues related to the study of battlefield archaeology. Chapter Two presents the battlefield as a cultural landscape and examines the study of landscapes in historical archaeology. Chapter Three discusses the study of battlefield archaeology from its beginnings up to the present day. Chapter Four presents the history of the Battle of Wilson’s Wharf. Chapter Five provides a description of the cultural landscape encompassed by the battle and presents the data recovered from the 2000 fieldwork. Chapter Six provides an historical archaeological examination of the Battle of Wilson’s Wharf through a comparison of the historical record and the behavioral patterning of artifacts within the cultural landscape of the battlefield. 5 C erri» . V C , m .STUDY Al i ■ j Sturgeon cHr*k^ Pomt :• 2 A© • * L ig h t ;■ Mifes .'■ M Flats % " > • ' . v ■ ... t •'•**i . %3SU, l * | ' V w * fcn-non. H'v ^ 4000 feet larsh v'i; *2>\ 1000 meters Figure 1. Study Area location and environs (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 1980, 1987). 6 500 feet Figure 2. Aerial photograph of site environs (USGS aerial photo).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How Strong Was Strong Mountain? Preliminary Remarks on the Possible Location of the Mamluk Siege Position at Montfort Castle
    CHAPTER 26 How Strong was Strong Mountain? Preliminary Remarks on the Possible Location of the Mamluk Siege Position at Montfort Castle Rafael Lewis During a topographic and landscape archaeology sur- logical site to the broader landscape, including every vey, thoughts on Montfort Castle’s topographical infe- archaeological feature in it. The field methods used riority led to some preliminary1 ideas on the manner in Landscape Archaeology and the Archaeology of in which the Teutonic Order dealt with this crucial Conflicts includes the equal examination of all man- weakness, and what would have been the best loca- made features, not excluding modern elements which tion for the Mamluks to position their siege machinery are documented and studied. The underlying concept and camps during the two assaults of the castle in May of this approach is that in order to understand the 1266 and June 1271.2 meaning of a single find or feature, we need to under- Montfort Castle is isolated from main roads, com- stand the environment in which they were found and mercial centres and major settlements. The problem how they relate to it. The manner in which objects of its isolated location has been raised in the past.3 In are scattered in the landscape is examined strati- order to better understand the castle in its setting, I graphically, but also according to their focal, discrete or decided to go beyond the well-secured boundaries of expanded nature. A path, for example, can usually be the castle’s walls, to raise my head (methodologically) described as a discrete or expanded feature, but a road from the trenches, bulks and archaeological artefacts, junction where a few such features meet, is usually of and look at this specific topic of inquiry from a wide a focal nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Inside... DIRECTOR’S NOTE VOL
    Inside... DIRECTOR’S NOTE VOL. 24, NO. 2, DECEMBER 2020 Battlefield Archaeology Book––Francis Marion and the Snow’s Island Community RESEARCH Small Arms Evidence from Star Fort Numismatic History of Charlesfort/Santa Elena: Plantation Era New Mound at Mulberry Archaeology in South Carolina Book MARITIME RESEARCH MRD Features in National Geographic TV Channel Drain the Oceans Season 3 A Mystery Object from Mississippi SAVANNAH RIVER By Chester B. DePratter, Director of Research ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH In 1976, I first became interested in colleagues, Charles Hudson and Marvin PROGRAM Hernando de Soto and the expedition he Smith, and I have published papers on Public Outreach in Time of Covid led through the Southeast when I was the 1539-1543 route that Soto and his men SCIAA ANNUAL REPORT just beginning work on my Ph.D. at the took from their landing in Tampa Bay, A New Feature in Legacy University of Georgia. In the 44 years that Florida, to the departure of the expedition have passed since then, my friends and survivors down the Mississippi River HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGY A New Feature in Legacy MYSTERY ARTIFACT, See Page 4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH TRUST (ART) AND SCIAA DONORS ENDOWMENT OPPORTUNITIES Stanley South Student Archaeological Research Endowment Fund Thank you for your generous support of the Archaeological Research Trust (ART) Endowment Fund and the printing of Legacy. Please send donations in the enclosed envelope to Nena Powell Rice USC/SCIAA, 1321 Pendleton Street, Columbia, SC 29208, indicating whether you want to continue receiving Legacy and include your email address. All contributions are appreciated. Please visit our website at: http://www.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Archaeology
    INDIANA ARCHAEOLOGY Volume 6 Number 1 2011 Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Indiana Department of Natural Resources Robert E. Carter, Jr., Director and State Historic Preservation Officer Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) James A. Glass, Ph.D., Director and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DHPA Archaeology Staff James R. Jones III, Ph.D., State Archaeologist Amy L. Johnson, Senior Archaeologist and Archaeology Outreach Coordinator Cathy L. Draeger-Williams, Archaeologist Wade T. Tharp, Archaeologist Rachel A. Sharkey, Records Check Coordinator Editors James R. Jones III, Ph.D. Amy L. Johnson Cathy A. Carson Editorial Assistance: Cathy Draeger-Williams Publication Layout: Amy L. Johnson Additional acknowledgments: The editors wish to thank the authors of the submitted articles, as well as all of those who participated in, and contributed to, the archaeological projects which are highlighted. The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service is gratefully acknow- ledged for their support of Indiana archaeological research as well as this volume. Cover design: The images which are featured on the cover are from several of the individual articles included in this journal. This publication has been funded in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service‘s Historic Preservation Fund administered by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology. In addition, the projects discussed in several of the articles received federal financial assistance from the Historic Preservation Fund Program for the identification, protection, and/or rehabilitation of historic properties and cultural resources in the State of Indiana.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Yeardley's Fort (44Pg65)
    CHAPTER 2 YEARDLEY'S FORT (44PG65) INTRODUCTION In this chapter the fort and administrative center of Flowerdew at 44PG65 are examined in relation to town and fortification planning and the cultural behavior so displayed (Barka 1975, Brain et al. 1976, Carson et al. 1981; Barka 1993; Hodges 1987, 1992a, 1992b, 1993; Deetz 1993). To develop this information, we present the historical data pertaining to town development and documented fortification initiatives as a key part of an overall descriptive grid to exploit the ambiguity of the site phenomena and the historic record. We are not just using historic documents to perform a validation of archaeological hypotheses; rather, we are trying to understand how small-scale variant planning models evolved regionally in a trajectory away from mainstream planning ideals (Beaudry 1988:1). This helps refine our perceptions of this site. The analysis then turns to close examination of design components at the archaeological site that might reveal evidence of competence or "mental template." These are then also factored into a more balanced and meaningful cultural interpretation of the site. 58 59 The site is used to develop baseline explanatory models that are considered in a broader, multi-site context in Chapter 3. Therefore, this section will detail more robust working interpretations that help lay the foundations for the direction of the entire study. In short, learning more about this site as a representative example of an Anglo-Dutch fort/English farmstead teaches us more about many sites struggling with the same practical constraints and planning ideals that Garvan (1951) and Reps (1972) defined.
    [Show full text]
  • NATIONAL REGISTER of HISTORIC Placet MULTIPLE PROPERTY
    NFS Form 10-900-b 4-0018 (March 1992) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACEt SHGISfER, HISTORY MULTIPLE PROPERTY DOCUMENTATION F RM NATIONAL PARK SERVICE This form is used for documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (National Register Bulletin 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. For additional space, use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer to complete all items. X New Submission Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing The Civil War in Virginia, 1861-1865: Historic and Archaeological Resources B. Associated Historic Contexts (Name each associated historic context, identifying theme, geographical area, and chronological period for each.) The Civil War in Virginia, 1861-1865: Historic and Archaeological Resources C. Form Prepared by name/title John S. Salmon organization _Virginia Department of Historic Resources street & number 2801 Kensington Avenue telephone 804-367-2323 ext. 117 city or town Richmond_____________ state VA zip code 23221 D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60 and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. (__ See continuation sheet for additional comments.) Signature and title of certifying official Date of tate or FeaeraHgency and ureau I hereby certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Register as a basis for evaluating related properties for listing in the National Register.
    [Show full text]
  • Winchester Down Home Series Berryville Again in the Year 2010, We’Re Making Our Way Woodstock 66
    WINCHESTER DOWN HOME SERIES BERRYVILLE AGAIN IN THE YEAR 2010, WE’RE MAKING OUR WAY WOODSTOCK 66 AROUND THE REGION, EACH ISSUE VISITING A 81 DALE CITY SMALL TOWN AND MEETING SOME OF THE 95 FOLKS WHO MAKE UP THE HEART OF Charlottesville KING GEORGE PUNGOTEAGUE ELECTRIC CO-OP COUNTRY. ON 64 64 THIS YEAR’S SIXTH STOP, Richmond BUCKINGHAM COURT HOUSE AMELIA COURT HOUSE WE’LL BE ... Roanoke 460 85 81 MEHERRIN 95 77 VALENTINES DOWN HOME IN WINCHESTER Story and photos by Robin Couch Cardillo, Contributing Writer n a sunny Friday morning in May, magnet for history buffs, and the recreation- “I started talking to old-timers in town, to the Visitor Center on Winchester’s filled future, which caters to the nouveau hear stories about Winchester from the early OPleasant Valley Road is unusually tourist. That’s why alongside the Civil War to mid-20th century,” he says. “I learn even busy. A middle-aged couple from Lynchburg museums and battlefield markers now reside the most innocuous details, like where peo - stops in to ask about biking paths in the city. intricately mapped bicycle and walking paths, ple used to go out to dinner and how that The phone rings and the caller inquires about a nationally recognized golf course, a state-of- changes over time.” Patsy Cline attractions. Joggers trot along the the-art fitness center, even a dog park. At the five-year-old Museum of the center’s walkways, and visitors walk their Making the transition isn’t easy, but the Shenandoah Valley, the administrators un - dogs under the shade trees of an adjacent his - colorful vision of the townspeople drives derstand their audience is diverse, too.
    [Show full text]
  • Battlefield Archaeology: a Guide to the Archaeology of Conflict
    BATTLEFIELD ARCHAEOLOGY: A GUIDE TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF CONFLICT Guide 8 BAJR Practical Guide Series Prepared By Tim Sutherland Department of Archaeological Sciences University of Bradford With Contributions On Human Remains By Malin Holst York Osteoarchaeology Ltd © held by authors TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements v 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 WHAT IS BATTLEFIELD ARCHAEOLOGY? 1 3.0 WHY IS THE ANALYSIS OF SITES OF CONFLICT IMPORTANT? 3 3.1 THE USE OF CONFLICTS FOR PROPAGANDA AND MISINFORMATION 4 3.2 BATTLEFIELDS AS MEMORIALS 5 3.3 BATTLEFIELD TOURISM 7 3.4 RE-ENACTMENT 8 3.5 FOCI FOR SOCIAL ACTIVITIES 8 3.6 VIEWS OF THE NATIONAL BODIES 9 3.6.1 The Battlefield Trust 9 3.6.2 English Heritage 9 3.7 BATTLEFIELDS AND THE MEDIA 10 4.0 A BRIEF BATTLEFIELD HISTORY 11 4.1 INTRODUCTION 11 4.2 CASE STUDIES 13 4.2.1 Pre-Twentieth Century Archaeological Investigations 13 5.0 WHY MIGHT A SITE OF CONFLICT BE DISTURBED 14 5.1 WHAT LEGISLATION IS THERE IN PLACE TO PROTECT HISTORIC 15 BATTLEFIELDS? 5.1.1 English Legislation 15 5.1.2 Scotland 18 5.1.3 Wales 18 5.1.4 Northern Ireland 18 6.0 IDENTIFICATION OF SITES OF CONFLICT 18 6.1 EVIDENCE FOR CONFLICT 18 6.2 HOW LARGE MIGHT A BATTLEFIELD BE 19 6.3 DIFFERENT TYPES OF BATTLEFIELD SITES 19 7.0 METHODS OF EVALUATION 20 7.1 EARTHWORK SURVEYS 21 7.2 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY 21 7.2.1 Metal Detector Survey 21 7.2.2 Fluxgate Gradiometer or Magnetometer 22 7.2.3 Electrical Earth Resistance Meter 23 7.2.4 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) 23 7.3 FIELD WALKING 23 7.4 DESK TOP ASSESSMENTS 23 8.0 ARTEFACT IDENTIFICATION
    [Show full text]
  • "Every American Should Stand Here Once": Jamestown's 400Th Anniversary Commemoration and the Creation of an American Origin Narrative
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 2013 "Every American Should Stand Here Once": Jamestown's 400th Anniversary Commemoration and the Creation of an American Origin Narrative Elizabeth Howard College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the American Studies Commons Recommended Citation Howard, Elizabeth, ""Every American Should Stand Here Once": Jamestown's 400th Anniversary Commemoration and the Creation of an American Origin Narrative" (2013). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539626708. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-xh3y-g425 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “Every American Should Stand Here Once”: Jamestown’s 400th Anniversary Commemoration and the Creation of an American Origin Narrative Elizabeth Howard McLean, Virginia B.A., Yale University, 2008 A Thesis presented to the Graduate Faculty of the College of William and Mary in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts Department of American Studies The College of William and Mary August 2013 APPROVAL PAGE This Thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Elizabeth Ann Howard Approved by tyie Committee, April 2012 : ,■ Committee Chair Associate Professor'Charles MbGovern, History and American Studies College of William and Mary Associate Professor M. Lynn Weiss, English and American Studies College of William and Mary f Associate Professor Karin Wulf, History and American Sttraies College of William and Mary ABSTRACT This thesis examines the way that narratives of American origin are created, sustained, and altered, utilizing the 400th anniversary of the English settlement of Jamestown, Virginia as a lens.
    [Show full text]
  • National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory 1999
    National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory 1999 Revised 2008 Jamestown Island Area Colonial National Historical Park Table of Contents Inventory Unit Summary & Site Plan Concurrence Status Geographic Information and Location Map Management Information National Register Information Chronology & Physical History Analysis & Evaluation of Integrity Condition Treatment Bibliography & Supplemental Information Jamestown Island Area Colonial National Historical Park Inventory Unit Summary & Site Plan Inventory Summary The Cultural Landscapes Inventory Overview: CLI General Information: Cultural Landscapes Inventory – General Information The Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI) is a database containing information on the historically significant landscapes within the National Park System. This evaluated inventory identifies and documents each landscape’s location, size, physical development, condition, landscape characteristics, character-defining features, as well as other valuable information useful to park management. Cultural landscapes become approved inventory records when all required data fields are entered, the park superintendent concurs with the information, and the landscape is determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places through a consultation process or is otherwise managed as a cultural resource through a public planning process. The CLI, like the List of Classified Structures (LCS), assists the National Park Service (NPS) in its efforts to fulfill the identification and management requirements associated
    [Show full text]
  • Route 10 (Bermuda Triangle Road to Meadowville Road) Widening Project VDOT Project Number 0010-020-632, (UPC #101020) (VDHR File No
    Route 10 (Bermuda Triangle Road to Meadowville Road) Widening Project VDOT Project Number 0010-020-632, (UPC #101020) (VDHR File No. 1995-2174) Phase I Architectural Identification Survey Chesterfield County, Virginia Phase I Archaeological Identification Survey for the Route 10 Project (Bermuda Triangle to Meadowville) Chesterfield County, Virginia VDOT Project No. 0010-020-632, UPC #101020 Prepared for: Prepared for: Richmond District Department of Transportation 2430VDOT Pine Richmond Forest Drive District Department of Transportation 9800 Government Center Parkway Colonial2430 Heights, Pine Forest VA Drive23834 9800 Government Center Parkway Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Colonial804 Heights,-524-6000 Virginia 23834 Chesterfield, VA 23832 804-748-1037 Prepared by: March 2013 Prepared by: McCormick Taylor, Inc. North Shore Commons A 4951 McCormickLake Brook Drive, Taylor Suite 275 NorthGlen ShoreAllen, VirginiaCommons 23060 A 4951 Lake Brook Drive, Suite 275 Glen Allen, VA 23060 May 2013 804-762-5800 May 2013 Route 10 (Bermuda Triangle Road to Meadowville Road) Widening Project VDOT Project Number 0010-020-632, (UPC #101020) (VDHR File No. 1995-2174) Phase I Architectural Identification Survey Phase I ArchaeologicalChesterfield County,Identification Virginia Survey for the Route 10 Project (Bermuda Triangle to Meadowville) Chesterfield County, Virginia VDOT Project No. 0010-020-632, UPC #101020 Prepared for: Prepared for: Richmond District Department of Transportation 2430VDOT Pine Richmond Forest Drive District Department of Transportation 9800 Government Center Parkway Colonial2430 Heights, Pine Forest VA Drive23834 9800 Government Center Parkway Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Colonial804 Heights,-524-6000 Virginia 23834 Chesterfield, VA 23832 804-748-1037 Prepared by: March 2013 Prepared by: McCormick Taylor NorthMcCormick Shore Commons Taylor, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Brochure Design by Communication Design, Inc., Richmond, VA Frederick, MD 21701 Jubal A
    To Chambersburg 418 60 494 194 Emmitsburg 30 81 140 58 60 15 Union Mills 63 11 Manchester Catoctin Mountain National Park 40 Hagerstown 70 64 CARROLL 68 27 56 194 40 Williamsport Thurmont (C&O Canal NHP) 140 97 550 77 Middleburg Williamsport 806 65 ALT Uniontown 40 Union Westminster 68 Bridge 84 R E WASHINGTON V William G. Cole, Mayor of Lincoln’s funeral train arrives at Harrisburg Station I 31 Y 1864 Attack on Washington Site O R 66 R Frederick from 1859 to 1865 via the Northern Central Railway on April 21, 1865 K R Y Courtesy John Crawford D Courtesy Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania Route of General Early C 75 A Woodsboro New Windsor Route of General Johnson Replica of armored battery and rifle car C 11 O HARFORD and Major Gilmor Courtesy B&O Railroad Museum N Capturing G U NP O 83 O W M BALTIMORE Cockeysville 145 D 24 65 RD E R Other Civil War Trails Site ILL R Boonsboro 194 550 ERM IV 30 128 SHAWAN RD PAP E Washington Gambrill 140 R National Park Service Site 81 34 State Park 146 C&O Canal NHP Antietam Monument 15 31 147 M O 40 WOR U National THI N NG T Turner’s Gap TO Glen A National, State or County Park Keedysville N F Cockeysville I Battlefield D A N Martinsburg A R Ellen DULANEY 17 Richfield Walkersville V E L R L E G VALLEY RD D ALT Libertytown S D (Multiple Sites) I Antietam R Jerusalem 40 R Information or Welcome Center Rocky Springs 26 D 45 RD D Reisterstown M R D Station 70 Y AR Mill R School House GR E GLE N M E L ALE 152 Fox’s Gap E L S 26 NSP RU Boat Launch – paddle access only R A MORGAN MANOR RD JE I V Sharpsburg 67
    [Show full text]
  • Documenting Women's Lives
    Documenting Women’s Lives A Users Guide to Manuscripts at the Virginia Historical Society A Acree, Sallie Ann, Scrapbook, 1868–1885. 1 volume. Mss5:7Ac764:1. Sallie Anne Acree (1837–1873) kept this scrapbook while living at Forest Home in Bedford County; it contains newspaper clippings on religion, female decorum, poetry, and a few Civil War stories. Adams Family Papers, 1672–1792. 222 items. Mss1Ad198a. Microfilm reel C321. This collection of consists primarily of correspondence, 1762–1788, of Thomas Adams (1730–1788), a merchant in Richmond, Va., and London, Eng., who served in the U.S. Continental Congress during the American Revolution and later settled in Augusta County. Letters chiefly concern politics and mercantile affairs, including one, 1788, from Martha Miller of Rockbridge County discussing horses and the payment Adams's debt to her (section 6). Additional information on the debt appears in a letter, 1787, from Miller to Adams (Mss2M6163a1). There is also an undated letter from the wife of Adams's brother, Elizabeth (Griffin) Adams (1736–1800) of Richmond, regarding Thomas Adams's marriage to the widow Elizabeth (Fauntleroy) Turner Cocke (1736–1792) of Bremo in Henrico County (section 6). Papers of Elizabeth Cocke Adams, include a letter, 1791, to her son, William Cocke (1758–1835), about finances; a personal account, 1789– 1790, with her husband's executor, Thomas Massie; and inventories, 1792, of her estate in Amherst and Cumberland counties (section 11). Other legal and economic papers that feature women appear scattered throughout the collection; they include the wills, 1743 and 1744, of Sarah (Adams) Atkinson of London (section 3) and Ann Adams of Westham, Eng.
    [Show full text]