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