1

Cf- - o 1.:i-
!
EH&A PROJECT NO. 13611

1
l

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS

OF
SPRATT RECYCLING, INC. PROPERTY,
(SCHWAB TRACT), SWANS CORNER,
CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

l
PREPARED FOR:

GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC.

220 EXECUTIVE DRIVE
MARS, PENNSYLVANIA 16046
(609) 273-1110

PREPARED BY:

ALAIN C. OUTLAW, PRINCIPAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

MARTHA W. McCARTNEY
CAROL D. TYRER
1
ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
460 McLAWS CIRCLE
J SUITE 150
WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA 23185
(804) 253-2858
j

CORPS OF ENGINEERS APPLICATION NUMBER PENDING

STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD APPLICATION NUMBER PENDING

J VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES FILE NO. 90.429.S

J APRIL, 1992

(REV042892)

J
J
 ABSTRACT

As part of a Phase I (identification) cultural resources survey, eight new archaeological sites and

12 isolated finds were discovered by Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc., (EH&A) in December, 1991 and

January, 1992 on 512 acres in Caroline County (Table 1). This effort was designed to ensure the

comprehensive identification of all cultural resources, within the limitations of established survey

procedures, in the proposed Dominion Recycling and Support Facility project area. EH&A served as

a subconsultant to Golder Associates Inc., Mars, Pennsylvania which is preparing permitting

documentation for W. C. Spratt Recycling Inc., Fredericksburg, Virginia.

1
Two known prehistoric campsites (44CE232 and 44CE233), identified in Virginia Department

of Historic Resources (VDHR) files, were revisited and are recommended for Phase II (evaluation), prior

to any ground disturbance. Additional work will clarify site integrity, areal extent, cultural affiliation, and
~
function. Four historic sites (44CE270; 44CE271; 44CEm; 44CE273) are not recommended for further

archaeological work due to their heavily disturbed condition as a result of past timbering operations.

Four additional historic sites (44CE267; 44CE269; 44CE272; 44CE274) are recommended for a Phase

II investigations. Site 44CE272 is a mid-18th century domestic site with an associated cemetery

surrounded by a brick wall. The brick chimney remnant of a dwelling, subsurface indications of

outbuildings, and an unmarked 3/4 acre cemetery comprise Site 44CE274. Possible quarters associated

with 44CE274 were designated as sites 44CE267 and 44CE269. These latter four sites may be eligible

for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D based upon the information they could

contain on 18th and 19th century lifeways in Caroline County and are therefore recommended for Phase

II fieldwork.

(REV042892)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The successful completion of the Cultural Resources Survey on the Schwab Tract, near Swans

Corner was made possible by the contribution of many individuals. In particular, important assistance

was provided by Francis T. Adams, Senior Geotechnical Engineer and Veronica E. Foster, Engineer, both

of Golder Associates Inc. ·

l At EH&A, Alain C. Outlaw, Principal Archaeologist, served as Principal Investigator during field,

laboratory, and report writing phases of the project. Alain Outlaw and Carol Tyrer, Laboratory

Supervisor, wrote the report. In addition, Martha McCartney, Historian, prepared the historical research

l section of the manuscript.

Archaeological fieldwork was supervised by Charles Thomas, Crew Chief. He was assisted by

Jake Whedbee, Lorna Wass, Dan Hall, and Brad Brown, Field Archaeologists. Laboratory processing

was accomplished by Madison Washburn, Laboratory Assistant, under the supervision of Carol Tyrer who

also analyzed the artifacts. The report graphics were prepared by Kim Elise Beatley, Draftsperson. Word

prm:essing was done by Joy Ashe. Lastly, administrative support was provided by Bruce Aitkenhead,

Group Manager, and Dianne Roberts, Administrative Assistant.

11

J
1
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Section

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................... 1

l 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND

2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1 2.2 SOILS.. . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.3 CLIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.4 FLORA ......... . ...... ... ... ... .... . ........... . ............ 6

2.5 FAUNA .......... .. ...................... .... . ... ...... ...... 7

3.0 RESEARCH DESIGN

3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................... 9

J
3.2 CULTURAL BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

_J 3.2.l Previous Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.2.2 Prehistoric Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

J 3.2.3 Historic Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

J 3.3

3.4
HISTORIC CONTEXT.... . .. ... ....... . . ... . ...................

METHODS . ... .... . ... ........................... . .......... .

26

35

J
J
iii
J
J
1
1 4.0 RESULTS OF THE PHASE I INVESTIGATION

4.1 HISTORICAL RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

1 4.1.1 Research Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4.1.2 Data Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.1.3 Historic Context of the Project Environs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

4.3 ISOLATED CULTURAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

APPENDIX A ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SITE FORMS

APPENDIX B ARTIFACT INVENTORY.

l
J

J
J
J
J
J
iv
J
J
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 L
2.
3.
Project Location
Project Area and Archaeological Site Locations
Virginia Discovered and Discribed (Smith 1610)
2
11
43

l 4.
5.
6.
Virginia and Maryland, 1670 (Herrmann 1673)
A New and Accurate Map of Virginia (Henry 1770)
A Map of the Most Inhabited Part of Virginia (Fry and Jefferson 1775)
47
49
53
7. Map of Land Between James and York Rivers (Major-C.aptaine 1781) 54
l 8.
9.
Carte Pour Servir du Journal d M. le Marquis de Chastellus (Dezoteux [1781-1782])
A Map of the Country between Albemarle Sound and Lake Erie (Jefferson
55

1787)54
10. The State of Virginia from the Best Authorities (Lewis 1794) 56
11. A map of Virginia Formed from Actual Surveys (Madison 1807) 58
12. Map of Virginia (Cary 1814) 59
13. Map of Virginia and Maryland (Findley 1825) 60
14. Map of the State of Virginia: Constructed in Conformity to Law (Boye
1826) 61
15. Map of Virginia and Maryland (Hinton 1831) 62
16. Geological Map of Virginia (Hotchkiss 1835-1841) 63
17. Map of Virginia, Maryland and Delaware exhibiting the post offices,
post roads, canals, railroads, etc. (Burr 1839) 64
I 18.
19.
Map of the Internal Improvements of Virginia (Crozet 1848)
Caroline County, Virginia (Hotchkiss [186-])
65
69
20. Caroline County (Gilmer [186-]) 70
21. Parts of Hanover, Caroline, and King William Counties, Virginia
(Anonymous 1864a) 72
22. Portions of Hanover, Caroline, and King William Counties, Virginia
(Anonymous 1864b) 73
J 23. Portions of Hanover, Caroline, and King William Counties, Virginia
(Anonymous 1864c) 74
24. Central Virginia Showing Lt. General U.S. Grant's Campaign in 1864-1865
1 (Engineer Bureau War Department 1865) 76
25. Central Virginia showing Maj. Gen. P.H. Sheridan's Campaigns
( Gillespie 1867) 77
26. Phase I Map of Sites 44CE267, 44CE269, 44CE273, and 44CE274 83
27. Phase I Map of Site 44CE272 89

V
1
1 LIST OF PLATES

1
1. Project environs in the vicinity of Site 44CE272, looking north 87
2. Cemetery at Site 44CE272, looking east 90
3. Detail of brick cemetery wall at Site 44CE272, looking northeast 91
4. Chimney ruins at Site 44CE274, looking west 93

l
l

_J

J
J
J
J
J
VI

J
 LIST OF TABLES

1. Cultural Resources Located and Recommendations 104

l
l

Vil
 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report describes a Phase I archaeological investigations on the Schwab Tract near Swan ·s

Corner, Caroline County, Virginia. The property is located in a section of Caroline County which has

been designated as an industrial zone and development in the vicinity has already occurred (Figure l ).

1.1 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS

l
l The investigation was performed pursuant to Section 40.i of the Clean Water Act (Public Law

(PL) 92-500) in compiiance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ias

:lffiended) and lhe National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (>'EPA). It was also conducted in

accordance with the guidelines of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources t VDHR). The report

describes fieldwork results and makes recommendations for further work.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Spratt Recycling. Inc. is proposing the development of a 512 :icre tract in Caroline County as the

Dominion Recycling and Support Facility. The property is located roughly two miles e:ist of Interstate

Route 95 and southeast of State Route 207 and is bisected east/West by the 250 foot wide Richmond.

Fredericksburg. and Potomac Railroad bed (RF&P). The section north oi the railroad contains

approximately 99 acres. while the area south of the tracks contains roughly 413 acres. The proposea

j focility will have. u direct impact on approximately 270 acres and at depths rangin.~ from O to 26 feet deep
~ J
on the portion of the tract located south of the railroad. Also for this section. a permanent 100 foot

vegetative buffer will be left intact around the area, and in addition. a 100 foot perimeter access has been

J l
 tlU HO. 3::i000-13611 - 001
DUI:: 2-11-92
DR41H 8\': K.E .B.

. --
' -( "'\- I........._

~ .i
( .. '
/ "_/ .

J .,:",) ( y-~ 1_,,

J. )- .
'\.__.I ).\ -.

~ ( z, foano~e \~
,.
.. I /.,
~

A
C •

:-.J

~ :it
L _ __

o
h,--zal w · to,:;;--
lcale,
IO

r •Approldmately
- - =, IO mh•
100 mll ..

FIGURE I
Scat• • I' 11.1ApproxJmatei•t 214000' PROJECT LOCATION
DOMINION RECYCLING
AND SUPPORT FACILITY
CAROLINE COUNTY 1 VIRGINIA
1
1 allotted around each phase of the development. The project area is located east of the Fall Line on the

1 upper and middle coastal plains over topography with rolling hills and interior creeks in an area once

dominated by an oak-pine forest.

~l
j

J
J
l
3
J
l
J
1
~l
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND

2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY

"1
l
The project area is situated east of the Fall Line in the Upper and Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain

Physiographic Province. This province emerged from the sea with little deformation of its scafloor

] characteristics. The strata slopes gently towards the east, and consist of ocean sediments forming thin

tapering wedges that are thickest on the seaward side and thinnest on the landward side. These

sediments consist of Quaternary and Tertiary terrace gravels and colluvium. as well as material of the

\1iocene and Paleocene age. Quaternary alluvium, composed of sand. gravel. silt. :md clay occurs aiong

rivers and streams. The rocks of the Coastal Plain are composed of Quaternary, Tertiary. and Cretaceous

age sediments of fluvial and marine deposit origins over Piedmont Crystalline rocks.

The terrain bordering major drainages and streams is nearly level but inland develops into a

rolling to hilly topography with long narrow terraces that have steep side slopes. Within the project :ire:i.

slopes range from relatively flat on the lowlands to steeply sloping uplands. The central portion of the

project area is dominated by a broad upland. Groundwater drains from this topographical feature in an

irregularly branched dendrite pattern toward Polecat Creek and its tributaries into the Mattaponi

:ind Pamunkey rivers which eventually empties into the Chesapeake Bav .

.., ..,
SOILS
l
.J

Research at the Caroline County Soil Conservation District (SCD) office revealed that a soils

survey is underway in the county, however. soils within the project area have not yet been mapped.

J Although classified soil associations and types are unavailable for this report. a few general statements

J 4

J
may be made about them. According to a report written by Golder Associates Inc. : : ?91 ). surficial soils

within the project area are predominantly sandy. In the wetland areas. the dark and usually saturated

soils were identified as hydric; whereas in the upland areas, they were drv and lighter in color. The dark

color in the hydric soils is the result of a constant. or near constant, presence of water and non-

decomposed organics.

2.3 CLIMATE

.vfajor climatic changes occurring in the Coastal Plain of Virginia during the past 12.000 years can

be extrapolated from several sources, the most important of which are studies of fossil poilen and sea

level fluctuations. Carbone (1976) constructed a paleoclimatic model for the Middle Atlantic states based

on an analysis of 17 pollen sequences. His resuits were consistent with giobai climatic trends

hypothesized by Wendland and Byson ( 1974).

Before 8500 B.C .. plant species represented in Carbone's pollen sequences suggest a closed

boreal forest dominated by pine and spruce with low amounts of non-arboreal pollen t Carbone 1976:75).

Around 8500 B.C .. deciduous pollen began to increase proportionally to coniferous poilen. This shift,

from a closed boreal to a mixed conifer deciduous forest. marks the approximate beginning of the

Holocene Era. and is interpreted as being the resuit of a climatic shift from cooi. moist conditions to

relatively warmer and slightly drier conditions.

The trend toward warmer and drier conditions continued until about 810 B.C. Prior to this date.

Carbone ( 1976:76) recognized two major vegetative shifts in the pollen record. .-\round 6250 B.C., the

vegetation changed from a mixed conifer-deciduous forest to a more mesic forest characterized by higher

percentages of hemlock. followed by an increase in oaic. About 3550 B.C.. the vegetation changed to a

5
 xeric forest with a higher percentage of oak :... d hickory. From around 810 B.C. to the presc:1t, climatic

conditions have shifted toward cooler and mote humid conditions. The species composition of the

modern temperate forest was formed during the period following 810 B.C.

As mentioned. the broad climatic trends summarized by Drbone (1976) correlate with the global

trends recognized by Wendland and Bryson (1974); thus, it is expected that changes in sea level wouid

:.ilso correlate to some extent with major climatic shifts along the Mid-Atlantic seaboard. Since the iinal

retreat of the continental glaciers over 12,000 years ago, sea levels have risen approximately 130 meters
l (-i26') because of glacial melt. Kr::ift (1977) has documented sea level changes through time for the

Delaware coast based upon radiocarbon dates of salt marsh peat. Kraft ( 19 7 7:38-39) found signific::int

reductions in the rate of sea level rise at 4000 B.C. and at 1000 B.C. These dates are fairly close to

C1rbone's ( 1976) dates tor one shift toward xeric conditions (3550 B.C.) and for a shift toward a

temperate forest environment (810 B.C.). A shift from mesic to xeric conditions should resuit in an

increased rate of sea level rise. Correlations between rate of sea level rise and climatic shifts may actuailv

he more complex than this Jue to the fact that as the area nf ice subject to melting decreased. the

capacity for climatic conditions to affect rate of sea level rise also decreased.

J
2.4 FLORA

The project area is located within the Coastal Plain Floristic Province I Gleason and Cronquist.

1964 ). The typical predominant natural plant communities in the project area include hardwood forest

and mixed pine-hardwood forest. The mesophytic Coastal Plain area is characterized by extensive pine

( Pi nus sp.j forests. In addition. many deciduous hardwood species on the gentle slopes of lhe Coastal

Plain Province are self-perpetuating under natural conditions. Among these are species of oak (Quercus

sp.). beech (Fagus s:mrndifo lia ), hickory (Qirva sp.), maple (Acer sp.), and tulip tree (Liriodendron

6
lulipifcra). Generally, these forests form a dense canopy with a well defined understory 01 shruhs, ferns,

and herbs. Mi.xed pine-hardwood forest differs slightly in appearance and species from the upland

hardwood forest community; typically occurring as a mosaic of evergreen pines intermingled with

deciduous hardwoods.

Lowland communities in the project area consist of forested wetlands and aquatic communities

(ponds and str~ms). Species which occur in the sandy sections of streams and other drainages include

sweet-gum (Liguid ambarstvraciflua), American elm ( Ulm us amerkan a), ironwood (Carpinus ca ro !inian::i),

sycamore (Pbt:i.tanus occidentalis), an occasional tulip tree. and beech. Species such as bald cypress

(T:ixndium dist ich um), green ash (Fraxinus pe nnsvlvnnica ), sweet-gum. and black willow I Salix nil!raJ mav

:ilsn n,' r11 r .

The species composition and dominance of both these communities varies with topograpny, soils.

:i.nd past management practices. Within the project area. pines and hardwoods have been rc.::pcatclily

logged within bst 50 years .

2.5 FAUNA

The pro_1ect area lies within the far eastern portion of the Carolinian Biotic Province ( Dice, 1943 ).

The major wildlife habitats on the property are forest ( both hardwood and mixed pine-hardwood '). cleared

areas. and the lowlands described above. Some of the \l.iidlife species encountered in the r·orest habitat

might include gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white-tailed deer (Odocoil e us virginianusJ, rough green

,;mike
--- -- - (Onhencirvs 8.estivus .,,
'
). Eastern hox turtle (Terr.mene
·. carolina).
,,, Carolina wren (Thrvothorus

ludovicianus), Caroiina chickadee (Parus c::irolinensis), blue jay (Cavanoci11a cristata), American crow

(Corvus brachvrhvnchos), barred owl (Strix varia), ::ind red-shouldered hawk (Buteo liane~tus) . Species

i
1
1 associated with lowland areas are beaver (Castor canadensis), painted turtle (Chrvsemvs Ilhd), northern

1 black racer (Colu ber co nstricto r co nst ricto r), mud snake (Farancia abacura), bullfrog (Rana ca tesbe iana),

great blue heron (Ardea herodias), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcvon), Northern harrier (Circus cvaneus),

1 American crow, and Northern cardina_l (Ca rdinalis ca rdinalis). Grasslands and cleared areas may contain

white tailed deer, blue jay. American crow, red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey vulture (Qitharr es
1 aura), and Northern bobwhite (Colinus vi rginianus).

~l
Several additional species of mammals and birds currently hunted in Virginia may exist in the

1 project area. These are raccoon ( Procvo n lotor), muskrat (Ondatra zibe thi cus), eastern cottontail

(Svlvilaeus no ridan us ), >lorthern bobwhite. mourning dove (Ze naida macrouraJ, mallard (Anas
l nla tvrh vn t: hos), and other duck species.

I
J

_J

J
J
J
J
J 8

J
 .3.0 RESEARCH DESIGN

.3.1 INTRODUCTION

I
This investigation was conducted in compliance with federal regulations and is intended to
l provide meaningful information for future researchers as well as the general public. Therefore, EH&A

l conducted a comprehensive identification of all cultural resources within the area of potential effect in

the project area and fit these cultural resources into an existing framework. permitting an assessment of

1.:ach site's potential importance. In order to direct the investigation. a research design was prepared

which integrated the field surveys. analyses. and background research with the historic context. anu

provided a focus for interdisciplinary research. It also provided a detailed plan of the study's theoreticai

:ind substantive goals. and the methods used for implementation. :vkGimsey and Davis (1977:72-73)

recognized four basis elements of a research design: research purpose and methodology; background

information relative to the project nrea: research goals and their rationale: and the research strategy and

its relationship to the research go:iis. Rabb (1977:168-171) identified five elements which are both

hierarchial and logical in nature: the theoretical basis of the research: implications of previous research;

specified hypotheses to be tested: test implications; and data collection and analysis techniques. This

structure. which combines both theoretical and empirical domains. allows this model to test general

theoretical concepts and to apply to concrete empirical entities at the same time. It also adds the basic

clement of feedback to the model of McGimsey and Davis (1977).

Rabb's research model has three leveis. The first level is composed of the baseline information

and theoretical background of the study. The second level contains both research hypotheses and

hypotheses generated during the study. The last level. composed of lists of test implications. data

f
9
collection techniques and analytical techniques. is the operational component of his model ( 1977: 170).

The first and second levels are planning and review stages of the design. fn practice. all aspects of

research design are interrelated (Babbie, 1986:71 ).

The current investigation generally follows Rabb's model. First, baseline information is presented

outlining the historic and prehistoric background of the study area. Secondly, rather than developing a

set of functional hypotheses. historical contexts are used to predict site types and determine the potential

significance of each. Finally, the methods for site identification are presented.

3.2 CCLTL'RAL BACKGROUND

This section of the report provides prehistoric and historic background information necessary for

assessing the archaeological potential of the project area (Figure 2). .-\ summary oi the vicinity's

archaeological resources and an overview of the regional cultural chronology is inducted.

J. 2.1 Previous lnvestiaations

,\ search of the site files at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) disclosed

that very little archaeological survey activity has occurred in the project area 's vicinity. in general.

:1 rchaeological survey coverage is very poor for Caroline County. A 1989 pipeiine survey located an

undated prehistoric lithic scatter outside of the project boundary, within the existing poweriine easement

which runs north/south through the tract. This site (44CE258) was situated 1.35 miles south of the

property. Approximately one mile west of the westernmost corner of the property. five cultural resource

10
 \ I.
',;;, . '
(.'
' 'o ,,'
"'
0
0

.
.'..

"'
44CE233
d, N~
0 <JIii.i
0 ..!..::.&:
I ::l7
"'>=
0
;z: ..
=
z \
,' 161
..
IOI~~
:::i .. a:
.? r·
~ r.gg I

I
.I

L (

--200" -

\ ,,.

SOURCE: RUTHER GLEN, YA. QUADRANGLE

1969, PHOTOREVISEO- 198~
11>--w• • ......_ _, ~c---•
ESPEY. HUSTON & ASSOCIATES. INC.

SCALE: lu= 2000

1
FIGURE 2

PROJECT AREA
AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE LOCATIONS

11
sites have been previously documented: a prehistoric lithic scatter (44CE235); a circa 19th century brick

kiln ( 44CE236): :.i site with prehistoric as well as 18th/19th century remains ( 44CE237): :rn 18th/19th

century building complex (44CE238); and a possible cemetery (44CE239).

North at the 1<.ichmond. Fredericksburg, and Potomac Railroad, two previously recorded sites

are situated within the project boundary. Sites 44CE232 and 44CE233 are both prehistoric. In addition,

three other known cultural resources lie approximately 3/4 miles to the west. but are all outside of the

property boundary. Site 44CE22 is a prehistoric site which was recorded in 1974 and 1975 along Polecat

Creek. A grist mill. dating to the twentieth century, is located along Coleman ·s Millpond ( -+4CE102).

Finally, a,farmstead dating after c. 1870 (44CE234) consists of a standing structure and outbuildings
situated on an elevated area just west of the powerline.

A recent architectural reconnaissance survey or' Caroline County recorded potenually signiiicant

structures along every paved and unpaved road that led to a marked property within the pr:mary and

secondary growth areas. This vehicular survey recorded no study structures in the project vicinity

(Stodghill et ai. 1991 ).

Prehistoric Background

Virginia ·s !Jrehistoric cultural chronology is subdivided into three major time periods based on

changes in subsistence as exhibited by material remains and settlement patterns ( after Willev and Phillips.

1958). These major time periods are Paleo-Indian. Archaic, and Woodland. A brief summary of the

regional cultural chronology follows.

12
 •

Paleo-Indian (Prior to 8000 B.C.)

The Paleo-Indian occupation in Virginia began some time before 10.000 B.C. This period is

1 alternately referred to as the "Big Game Hunting" tradition due to a presumed heavy reliance upon now

1 extinct species of Pleistocene mcgafauna as a food source (Willey, 1966:37). However, it should be

stressed that no site in eastern North America has been found to contain remains of extinct Pleistocene

megafauna in association with Paleo-Indian artifacts; therefore, a heavy emphasis on this association is

questionable. It is apparent from excavations that smaller mammals, as well as fish and a variety of plant
1 foods. were consumed. Social organization probably consisted of loosely structured. highly mobile bands

th:H hunted a wide. but defined territory. The majority of known Paleo-Indian sites in Virginia are

located in the area south of the James River and are represented by small temporary campsites located

c1long a nd between river drainages. BZ1Se campsites are relatively rare in the state and are usually

associated with lithic procurement activities. Two of the most important Paleo-Indian sites are the

Thunderbird site in the Shenandoah Valley ( Gardner and Verry, 1979) and the Williamson site in south-

(cntmi Vir,ginia. E\cnvatium; al Lht:st: sites revealed specialized nrens fnr 1h~ rerh1c.1inn of rnhhles.

rroduction of projectile points. and other tools.

]
Diagnostic anifacts indicative of the P::deo-fndian Period include finely crnfted. fluted projectile

points such as the Clovis, Hardaway, and Palmer types. Knapped from jasper or chert. this artifact type

exhibits a remarkable uniformity of style and has been found throughout most of North America.

Because of the rarity of identified Paleo-Indian production areas and the stylistic uniformitv of these

points over large geographic areas. it has been suggested that these projectile points were the focus of

tr:iding and distribution networks between wi<lely separated bands <luring the iJ:iieo-!ndian Period.

13

J
Archaic (8000-1000 B.C.)

The heginning of the Archaic Period generally coincides with the encl of the Pleistocene epoch.

marked in the Middle Atlantic region, by a climatic shift from a moist, cool period to a warmer dryer

climate. Vegetation also changed at this time from a largely boreal forest setting to a mixed conifer-

deciduous forest.

Archaic popuiations, like their Paleo-Indian predecessors, are thought to have organized into

bands. However. uniike their forebears. they probably relied more heavily on hunting smailer animais.

gathering plant foods. ;:ind harvesting marine and aquatic resources. However. this shift in suosistencc

may be overemphasized since the extinction of larger nmmai species generally occurred prior to this ume .

It is suggested that the use of floral and fauna! resources reached optimal diversitv during the E:.iriv

Archaic Period.

The Archaic Period can be characterized by the development of more specialized resource

procurement activities as well as the technology to accomplish these activities. These differencf'_<; in the

material culture are believed to reflect larger. more localized populations and changes in methods of food

procurement and processing. There was also a marked increase toward the use of locally available quartz

:md quartzite and a decrease in the.use of chert and jasper for tool manufacture (Hodges. 1990). Corner-

notching became a common characteristic of projectile points at the beginning of ~he Archaic Period with

the Palmer and Kirk types. suggesting changes in hafting technology and possibly the invention of the

atlatl. These differences in the material culture are believed to reflect larger. more localized populations.

and changes in methods of food procurement and processing.

 Toward the end of the Early Archaic. a distinctive innovation of a projectile point style appeared

with the introduction of bifurcate-base point types such as St. .Albans and LeCroy. This bifurcate

tradition continued into the Middle Archaic Period ( 6000-4000 B.C.) with the Kanawha and Stanly types

(Coe 1964; Maccord and Hranicky 1979). The Middle Archaic also marks ihe beginning of ground stone

technology in the Middle Atlantic area with the occurrence of ground atlatl weights.

] ~\,farked increases in population density and decreased mobility characterize the Late Archaic

Period in eastern North America ( 4000-1000 B.C.). Because population growth necessitated a larger :md

more predictable food supply. ::igriculture probably originated in the Middle Atlantic region during this

period. Yarnell (1976:268). for example, writes that sunflower. sumpweed, and possibly goosefoot m::iy

have been cultivated as early ::is 2000 B.C. Riverine or estuarine sites with large middens of discarded

oyster and clam shells ::ire also common for this period.

Broad-bladed stemmed projectile points such as Savannah River, Fox Creek. and Bare Island

types appear in the Late Archaic and extends into the Woodland Period (Coe. 1964: Maccord and

Hranciky. 1979). '.'l"ew tool categories develooed during the Late Archaic include chipped and ground

,;tone r:elts. ground stone net sinkers. pestles. pecked stones. mullers. and bowls carved from steatite.

Basketry and wooden containers may have been common toward the end of the Lite Archaic.

Woodl,md ( 1000 B.C. - _--\.0. 1600)

It was during the Woodland Period that the band level of social organiz.ation was gradually

replaced by the growing dependence on horticulture and sedentary villages. T}:e beginning of the

Woodland Period ( 1000-500 B.C.) is generally defined by the appearance of ceramics in the

J archaeological record. Although there are still many undefined localized ceramic traditions.

15
archaeologists can distinguish different cultural traits such as manufacturing techniques. tempering agents.

clays. and stylistic attributes. Three subpcriods (L.rly, Middle. and Lite Woodland) have been

designated. based primarily upon stylistic and technological changes in ceramic and projectile point types.

According to Gardner ( 1982) large base camps, hamleLc;, and villages were located on low terraces

adjacent lo rivers. Small seasonal campsites. located along streams. represent short-term hunting. fishing,

and gathering forays into the interior. These campsites are characterized by limited artif::ict

concentrations. and sparse lithic and ceramic scatters.

An important technologic::il innovation during the Early Woodland Period was the oow and arrow.

an invention ie::iding to smaller and more varied projectile point styles. The iish weir \vas probablv aiso

rirst used during this period. Early Woodland ceramic wares. in general. were crudely fashioned.

Rectangular or oval in shape. they resembled the earlier carved steatite vessels. Ceramic stvles

characteristic of this period include Marcey Creek and Accokeek types. Also characteristic of the Earlv

Woodland Period is the increased complexity of and emphasis on the ceremonial aspects oi life. cspcciallv

those concerned with the burial of the dead (Gluckman. 1973).

The .\liddle Woodland Period (500 B.C. - AD. 900), is poorly represented archaeologicaiiv in

Virginia. Subsistence practices are believed to have been. for the most part. seasonaily directed.

,\rtifacts diagnostic or· this period include Badin and ?otts projectile point types l Coe. 1964: :.IcCarv.

l953) and Popes Creek. :.locklev. and Stony Creek ce:-amics (Stephenson et al.. 1963).

By the Lite Woodland Period (A.D. 900-1600), agriculture had assumed a role oi maJor

importance in the prehistoric subsistence system. Diagnostic artifacts of this period include several

Lrianguiar-shaped projectiie point styles. The Yadkin ..\1adison. and Clarksville types l Coe 1964: Ritchie.

1965) are the most common within the Coastal Plain or Virginia.

16
 During this period. aboriginal groups in northern Virginia appear to have developed greater

intercultural contact with inhabitants of other regions; for example. the Mississippian cultures to the south

and west. Certain ceramic types such as Gaston and Roanoke ceramics exhibit the clear southwestern

influence. Also, the Iroquois Confederacy became a more important political force to the north, and

their influence began to spread throughout much of the Middle Atlantic region ( Griffin. 1975). By the

1 end of the Late Woodland Period. European trade goods such as pipes and beads also began to appear

in the archaeological record.

The development of agriculture. from its origin in the Archaic Period to its dominance as a means

of food procurement in the Late Woodland Period, represents a major change in the prehistoric

subsistence economy. site location. placement of structures. and settlement patterns. These early farmers

preferred a riverine environment with fertile floodplain soils. Most likely. as dcoendence on agriculture

increased. the Late Woodland Indians would have stayed near their· cultiv;: j fields to safeguard their

crops and. it is believed. would have experienced a more sedentary existence than their predecessors.

Villages dating to this time usually consisted of from 10 to over 50 structures. Outer villages were

placed within a circular palisade near their crops. an arrangement suggesting a rise in intergroup conflict.

Drawings and journais of early European explorers describing Indian villages indicate that houses were

_J t:onstructed of a circular framework of flexible wood poles set in the ground. bshcd together. and covered

with thatch or bark mats . Burial sites of the period were often situated in village trash oits or ossuaries.
J
Such historical accounts are consistent with data obtained from archaeolo gical excavations of Late

Woodland village sites (Hodges, 1981). E'<cavations revealed other structures: drying and storage racks,

storage pits. community buildings for group functions, and centrallv located hearths for cooking and

heating.

J
17
'1

3.2.3 Historic Background

-1 The European settlement of Virginia began in 1607 when three English ships, the Susan

Co nstant, Godspeed, and Discoverv, landed at Jamestown carrying 104 colonists. This first New World

settlement implemented a 1606 charter under King James I granting the London Company colonization

rights and jurisdiction of t~e land 50 miles north and south of Jamestown and 100 miles inland from the

coast.

Jamestown's early years were marked by problems with disease and conflict with the Indians. But

the potential value of raw materials found in this new land outweighed the hardships. King James I

issued a second charter extending the original jurisdiction 200 miies in a north-south direction from Point

Comfort and inland for an unlimited distance. He then designated a royal governor to appoint local

officials. Land distribution in the colony was administered through the head right system. where settlers

arranged transportation for themselves and their families in exchange for 50 acres per "head".

By 1650 approximately 19,000 people lived in Virginia. the number nearly doubling in 10 years.

Most of the inhabitants were free men working their own small farms and a few large plantations. Blacks

made up only a small part of the total population (about 6 percent in 1671), most employed as indentureo

j servants. Slavery for life had not yet become the normal condition for these involuntary African

immigrants.

I While there were numerous attempts throughout the colonial period to c.livcr.;ify Virginia's
..J
economy. tobacco remained "king". The ready availability of land for its cultivation. the demand from

J
J 18

J
England and other European countries. and the prospect of profit kept the coiony largely dependent

upon this single crop. Tobacco was lht: principal currt:ncy and Virginians used it Lo make purchases and

to pay local tithes and taxes.

The middle seventeenth century was a time of growth and prosperity in Virginia and as well. a

period of internal and ex:ernal crisis. In 1644 the Indians of the Powhatan Confederacy attacked the

settlements in a last-ditch effort to stop the English colonial venture. Almost 500 colonists died in the

initial attack on outlying plantations. L'nder the command of the new royai governor, Sir William

Berkeley. massive retaliatory raids were undertaken. The Indians were soon ciecisivelv defeated and

accepted a peace treaty ending trouble ior a generation.

,-\nother colonial crisis resulted from the English Civil War that began in 1642. :\ conflict

between the forces of the Crown and those of Parliament finally culminated in the execution of Kin g

Ch:iries I and the declaration of En~land as a Commonwealth. Virginia remaineci ardently Rovalist until

1652 ".vhen armed forces representing the Commonwealth arrived and regained authority without

hloocished. For the next eight years. \'irginia experienced more political freedom than it was to enjoy

durin!t the entire colonial era. The coionv was allowed almost complete seii-government until the

restoration of the monarchy in 1660 under Charles IL

The restoration brought Virgini:ms r-ew benefits. Soon after accession tO. the throne. Charles II

cailed for the re-enactment of the Navi gation Act. Virginians had prospered by seiling their tobacco on

Lhe European continent. but this law required that most colonial products be transported to England on

English ships and restricted colonial trade to England alone. These restrictions and the over- production

of tobacco in the colony and in Maryland led to a continued decline in prices. .\1aking matters worse,

local bws limiting production were disallowed by the royal authorities.

19
 Indian raids on the frontier in the mid-1660s precipitated a series of events which became known

as "Bacon ·s Rebellion''.. Susquehannock Indians, crossing the Potomac River from Maryland. attacked

and killed 36 people in Staftdd County. Other attacks were directed on settlements as far south as the

1 James River. As a safeguard, Governor Berkeley ordered the building and manning of forts but reiused

1 to order a counter offensive. Berkeley's defensive measures proved ineffective, and in the late spring of

1676 a young planter named Nathaniel Bacon raised an army of volunteers and requested a commission

l from the governor to ambush the Indians. When Berkeley refused, Bacon defied authority and with the

assistance of friendly Occoneechi Indians routed a band of Susquehannocks near the forks of the
1 Roanoke River. Then, becoming suspicious of his allies. Bacon attacked and defeated them.

l Proclaimed as rebels and with orders for their arrest. Bacon and his men found themseiv~s

open re·oit against royal authority. By September the insurgents had defeated Governor Berkeley's

troops and driven them to Virginia's eastern shore. Bacon ordered Jamestown burned, enabling him to

consolidate his grip on the colony. His sudden death from fever in October, however. quickly collapsed

the revoit. and by the year's end the old order was re-established.

J By the end of the seventeenth century, Virginia was no longer a small struggling colony but had

prospered economically and expanded its territory throughout the Tidewater region. The College of

William ::ind Mary was chartered in 1693 and established at Middle Plantation five miles c:m of

Jamesto\\TI. In 1699 the colonial capital was moved from the unhealthy environment at Jamestown to

the centrally located Middle Plantation - renamed Williamsburg - between the James and York rivers .

....
The first half of the eighteenth century was a period of rapid population increase in Virginia. the

population growing from about 58,000 in 1700 to more than 230.000 in 1750. There was also a great

20
increase in the number of blacks, most of whom by this time were slaves rather than indentured servants.

In 1760 the General Assembly ordered that all non-Christian servants brought into the colony should be

slaves for life.

As the number of blacks in the colony increased. the number of white servants decreased. Sl:lve

labor. concentrated on large plantations. also brought about a decline in the number of small farms which

could not compete with the economic advantages of free labor. Foreseeing the dangers of an unchecked

increase in the slave population. the colony passed laws to limit the importation of Africans. This

legislation. like other restraining measures. was disallowed by the Crown since it interfered with the

lucrative trade in which many intluentiai Engiish merchants participated .

.--\t the bc~inning of the eighteenth century the frontier began to recede with incre.aseci settlement

beyond the Fall Line which marked the boundary between the low-lying Tidewater and the rolling hills

of the Piedmont. Towns appeared at the heads of larger rivers: Alexandria on the Potomac.

Fredericksburg on the Rappahannock. Petersburg on the Appomattox. and Richmond on the James .

Continued immigration, soil depletion in many parts ot'Tidewater. expected profits from bnd speculation.

and the leadership of far-sighted governors iike Alexander Spotswood, served to speed growth of the

"back cou11try". New counties were formed ~s settlements moveci tnw::1rci the Rlue Ridge Mountains.

The Piedmont frontier was not devei o oed by poor farmers in search of greater opportunities but

by the wealthy who needed new land for themselves and their sons. The best acreage, along the rivers.

was claimed by the affluent families of the ?rovince. The Piedmont became an area of large estates.

some containing as many as 13.000 acres ..As in Tidewater. tobacco was the major cash crop and although

transportation difficulties made shipping more expensive, the enormous fertilitv or the area offset the

increased expenses.

21
 By the middle of the eighteenth century, settlers were beginning to enter the Shenandoah Valley,

the region between the Blue Ridge and Allegheny Mountains. These settlers were different from those

of Tidewater and the Piedmont. Their small farms in the valley were self-sustaining, and wheat and other

grains were the principal crops. Settlers o_ -3erman and Scotch-Irish background moving south from

Pennsylvania dominated this frontier. Extensive immigration from eastern Virginia was discouraged by

the formidable barrier formed by the Blue Ridge Mountains.

Tensions between the colonies and England continued to increase throughout the eighteenth

century and by 1775 the situation was at the breaking point. In April of that year shots were exchanged

between British regulars and militiamen in Massachusetts. The American Revolution was underwav. Jn

June. Governor Dunmore fled the country and royal rule came to an end in Virginia.

While war raged to the north in New England. Virginia provided military leadership and soldiers.

Virginia also aided the war effort with the production of goods and supplies. \luskets. bullets. c.nd

bayonets were manufactured in a gunnery near Fredericksburg. Wheat from western Virginia helped feed

the soldiers. and tobacco was used to purchase munitions in France.

Late in 1780. Virginia came under enemy attack. By the summer of 1781. British armies led bv

Generals Cornwallis and Phillips and the English traitor Benedict Arnold swept through Tidewater while

raiders led by Colonel Banastre Tarleton struck inland as far as Charlottesviile. .\!ilitary stores at

Richmond. Petersburg, and elsewhere were destroyed and Virginia's tiny fleet of ships were burned and

sunk. Eventually. Continental forces under the Marquis de Lafayette and General Anthony Wayne forced

Cornwallis to retreat and take up a defensive position at Yorktown where the Americans laid siege.

Forces under General George Washington and Count Rochambeau hurried from the north to join the

J
j 22
attack. The French fleet blocked the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay preventing a possible getaway.

Confronted by overwhelming forces and cut off from retreat by sea, Cornwallis surrendered on October

19, 1781.

The early nineteenth century was a period of increasing political tension in Virginia. There were

many differences between the eastern and western parts of the state, the former being an area of large

plantations devoted principally to the cultivation of tobacco, while the latter was a region of small farms

planted with wheat and other grains. Very few blacks lived west of the Blue Ridge Mountains and almost

none beyond the Alleghenies. The west. therefore. took a different view of slavery than the rest nf the

state where the slave population was large.

During this period eastern Virginians made an effort to develop better transportation between

Tidewater and the west. Work had begun in the late 1780s to improve the navigabiliry of the Jaml!S and

Potomac rivers so that produce from the west could be moved more easily and che;.iply Lu ports in the

cast. Plans were made in the 1820s to construct an extensive system of canals and turnpikes connecting

Lite Oltiu Vallev with Lhe Chesapeake Bay. But. Vi1ginia's financial capabilities were inadequate for such

an ambitious project. Canal projects stalled repeatedly throughout the 1830s and 1840s until, by mid-

century. the James River and Kanawha Canal and the Rappahannock Navigation \vere compicted onlv

to become unnecessary and obsolete by the advent of railroads.

Trade rivalry hastened the spread of rail transportation within the state. The race to tap the

tobacco region south of the James River was won by Richmond with the completion in the 1850s of a

railway line between the city and Danville. A similar contest was waged for the Valley's wheat crop and

the crops of the trans-Allegheny region. The Baltimore and Ohio was the first raiiroad to reach the

farming areas west of the Blue Ridge Mountains. and much of the trade in that area was t1ivertet1 Lo

23
 1 Maryland. The completion of the Virginia Central railroad in 1860 between Richmond and Staunton,

however, provided a competitive route and gave Shenandoah Valley farmers a choice of markets.

1 The development of a more rapid and efficient means of transportation fostered an increase in

manufacturing. Richmond blossomed as an industrial center becoming the tobacco capital of the nation.

and also assumed a lead position in the production of iron products. The Tredegar Iron Works became

l the largest such enterprise in the South. Manufacturing was also undertaken in other Virginia towns and

cities during the 1850s. Textiles, lumber, ships, and paper goods were among the principal products made

in the state during those years.

1 Even as Virginia grew more prosperous. nationwide agitation over states' rights :rnd slaverv

erupted into civil war between the United States and the newly formed Confederate States. Virginia

seceded from the L'nion in May 1861 and allied itself with the Confederacy.

The Civil \\"ar was costly to Virginia. Thousands were killed in battle or died from wounds or

Jisease. Thousands more were maimed or crippled. Virginia was a major theater of the war where few

] counties were spared the ravages of battle. Sections of Richmond were left in ruins. and other towns and

cities suffered great damage: railroads and industrial developments were destroyed. farms were

ransacked, crops destroyed. and livestock stolen. Virginia lost nearly a third of her former territorv in

1861 when West Virginia split from the slate. and by war's end in 1865 was devastated.

In March 1867. under the Military Reconstruction Act, Virginia was placed under martial rule

so the Congressional plan r·or reconstruction could be carried out in the state. In January 1870. Virginia's

senators and representatives were allowed to take their seats in Congress. Military rule e:~..1ed at that

_j time and Virginia \vas once more a part of the Union.

:-i
 The late nineteenth century was a time of commercial and industrial resurgence. Growth was

stimulated by the rapid expansion of the state's railroad system. Lines like the Norfolk and Western, the

Southern. and the Chesapeake and Ohio were organized by northern capitalists and facilitated by the

consolidation of smaller local routes. Improved rail facilities spurred development and communities

benefitted in almost every section they reached.

Growth and optimism were characteristic of Virginia's cities and towns in the late nineteenth

century. but the state's agricultural areas did not share in the new prosperity. Prices oi farm products

remained low throughout most of the period, while property taxes, freight costs, and other expenses were

high.

During the first half of the twentieth century, two world wars and the 1930s depression did much

to change the economic structure of Virginia. The rural state of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth

centuries had all but disappeared. The farm population showed a continuing decrease while cities

expanded and industry became more important. FJ.rms grew progressively larger in size and fewer in

number. while agriculture became more diversified. specialized. and mechanized. Truck farming became

important in Tidewater and on the Eastern Shore. In other parts of the state. poultry, livestock, and dairy

products accounted for increasing shares of the state's agricultural output. Other important crops

included apples and peanuts. Tobacco, however. continued to be Virginia's leading farm product.

Virginia's population growth and tr:msportation improvement m the last few decades have

accompanied phenomenal industrial growth. A wide variety of products. ranging from cigarettes to ocean

liners. and including chemicals. textiles, and metal products are manufactured in the state (Abstracted

from Virginia State Library 1965:59-101).

:5
 3.3 HISTORIC CONTEXT

A cultural resources survey not only requires decisions as to what constitutes a site, but also how

sites must be recorded, the criteria for site evaluation, and finally the basic clements of a plan for the

treatment of significant properties. The organizational framework that facilitates this decision-making

process is the Historic Context ( 48 FR 44717). According to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards

l and Guidelines ( 48 FR 44739), Historic Context is a planning unit that "groups information about historic

properties based on a shared theme, specific time period and geographical area."

l
Historic Contexts ::ipply to both historic and prehistoric sites. They a.re developed to provide :1

basis for which arch:ieologicai and historical sites can be evalu::ited by identifying patterns or resea.rcn

1 problems in the historical :md prehistorical record. The basic steps to the development of an Historic

Context are: 1) the identification of the chronological period and geographical areas of each context:.::

the assimilation of existing information through literature and background searches; 3) the ide:1tification

of trends in settlement, a.rchitecture. art, research and cultural values: 4) definition of property or site

types by characteristics of ea.ch type: and 5) the identification of gaps in the body of information

J concerning Historic C0ntexts (-IB FR 4.n17-44719). The last step leads toward an evaluation of Nationai

Register eligibility er each site according to the defined contexts. or for the need to establish new

contexts.

Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, it is

necessary to assess cuitural resources in terms of their potential for eligibility for the National Register

of Historic Places. T:-.e criteria of the National Register, as presented in 36 CFR 60.6, specifies that the

quality of significance m American history. architecture. archaeology, and culture is present in districts.

26
sites. buildings, structures, and objects of State and local importance that possess integrity of location,

design. setting, materials, workmanship, feeling. and association. i.'11e National Register of Historic Places

recognizes aspects of significance under four criteria which includes sites that:

(A). Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad

patterns of our history, or

(B). Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, or (C). Embody the

distinctive characteristics of a type. period, or method of construction. or that represent

the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a si~niiicant

and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individuai distinction. or

(D). Have yielded, or may be likely to :,ield. information in prehistory or history.

Of particular importance to the study ot history and prehistory are Criteria C and D. It is these

criteria that recognize that a site, (- :ilding, etc. may be significant because it represents a particular period

of American history or because it has the potential to contribute to the existing body of information in

u. particubr area. While National kegister survey activities must include properties representing all

aspects of the Historic Context, the evaluation process uses the Historic Context as a framework to

identifv data deficits as the criteria for evaluation. However. decisions about the tre,'.ltment of properties

must consider the range of properties within a given context (48 FR 44718). not _i1..:st the "typical"

property.

3.3.l Prehistoric Sites Context

,-\.lthough modern societies possess the technoiogy to shape or alter the environment to suit its

needs. the distribution of resources was a pnmary impetus in site selection among aboriginal groups.
 Resources associated with site selection for prehistoric sites included items that supplied the nutritive

needs of the population: materials for tool making, shelter, soil conditions for drainage, and view for

both watching the movements of game animals and for defense (Jochim, 1976:49-52). During bte.r

l prehistoric and historic times, environmental variables such as soil fertility and drainage were important

factors in site selection. Transportation routes were often an important consideration in the selection

l uf historic settlement lo.c ations.

l Settlement patterns may be defined as "the way in which man disposed himself over the landscape

l in which he lived" (Willey, 1953). This refers to the arrangement of individual dwellings and to the

nature and placement of other buildings associated with settlement. Beardsley et al. (1956) described :.i

"central-based wandering·' model lo explore the relationship ot base camps to extrative sites among

hunter-gatherers; however. in the case of aboriginal groups of the Coastal Plain. the abundant harvest

of varied food resources provided a routine and reliable subsistence base. According to Lee and De Vore.

this "routine and reliable food base appears to be a common feature among modern hunter-gatherers·
1
( 1968:6). Historic settlement patterns may be clustered or grouped within rural communities: may be

linear; may string along the courses of rivers or roads; may assume a grid plan such as many of the towns:

or may be disbursed across the rural landscape (Spencer and Thomas. 1973:96). The settlement system

can be viewed as the patterning of behavior as a result of solutions to economic problems (Jochim

I 976:11 ). Even though definitive settlement analysis requires substantially more data than can be

provided by survey projects, initial pattern recognition must begin with the survey level of site

identification in a region. Even the smallest of sites takes on a measure of significance when observed

from an overall settlement system perspective. The prehistoric sites context is directly related to this

settlement system in the environs of the Coastal Plain. Prehistoric contexts are diviJed along lines ot

_i subsistence. They are Paleo-Indian/Archaic and Woodland.

28
 Paleo-Indian/Archaic

Subsistence in the Coastal Plain region relied primarily on hunting and gathering. A simplified

model of hunter-gatherer settlement assumes that societies were primarily characterized by a band-level

social organization (Jochim. 1976; Yellen, 1977). At this level of society, the process of acquiring food

throughout the year required a settlement system involving at least seasonal movements. corresponding

to the seasonal availability of plants and animals. Settlement during the Paleo-Indian and Archaic periods

probably involved the occupation of relatively large regions by single band-sized groups. living in base

camps. During the course of a year. a group may have dispersed and merged as necessary in the process

of resource procurement. creating smaJler microband units. possibly consisting of no more than a singie

family.

Woodland

\Vith the development of a more sedentary settlement-subsistence system culminating in the

Woodland Period. permanem habitation sites gradually replaced base-camp type habitation sites more

characteristic of the previous hunter-gatherer adaptation. It can be inferred that associated \vith the band

am! the microband base camps as well as later rermanent settlements are a series of srecialized activity

sites. established in the day-to-day procurement of food and other resources ( i.e .. short-term camps,

4uarries. butcherinl! iocations. re-tooling iocationsJ. Locations used partially or largely for ceremoniai

purposes were also present in the Woodland Period. usually in association with habitation sites.

During previous investigations in the Coastal Plain of Virginia, the most common site types are

specialized activity sites for short-term resource procurement or associated activities. Their

representation in the archaeological record is often spatially small with relatively sparse artifacts. It is

29
1 also very common for sites in this region to be obscured by sediments or heavy vegetation. For th,

reasons, a relatively intense inspection system is necessary to locate and evaluate the cultural resources

in any given area.

l
l
3.3.2 Histo ric Sites Co ntext

l
The following discussions of contexts for historic sites are based on culture history periods defined
1 m Opperman and Jobrack (1986) . A definition of each period is followed by a brief discussion of

l relevant previously recorded sites. anticipated site types. and criteria of significance for sites of that period

which might be identified by this survey.

Frontier Period (1607-1630)

l Settlement during this period was concentrated along the major estuaries and lower tidal creeks.

causing a general disruption of aboriginal settiement systems. The economy was based on agriculture.

chiefly tobacco production. and trade with aboriginal peoples for food and marketable items. European

settlements during this period tended to be fortified villages and farmste_ads.

_J Vhile a number of sites dating to this period have been identified in nearby counties. none have

been found near the project area. The inlnnd setting of the proposed project wdl away from the James
j and York rivers. makes it less likely that sites of this period would be discovered. The occurrence of a

J Frontier Period site \vould be afforded singular significance for the contribution it could make to an

understanding of Virginia's early history.

J
J
30
J
J
 Settlement Period (1630-1720)

Settlement during this period became more dispersed as farmers moved inland. away from the

major rivers and tidal creeks. in search of new fertile lands to exploit in the production of tobacco.

Tobacco still dominated the agricultural economy, and minor rural industries such as brick making and

grist milling were appearing. Small courthouse villages and port towns. such as Yorktown. provided

central places for the dispersed settlements. Architecture of the period tended to be impermanent and

informal.

While settlement during this period was still relatively sparse, the presence of domestic1farmstcad

sites is expected in the project area, given the dispersed nature of these settlements. the impermanence

of construction. and the paucity of historic documentation for the period. However. the probability or
identifying all such sites is not high. Should such a site be located. it would be afforded a high level of

significance for the contribution it could make to our growing understanding ot colonial ::.ettlement

patterns. architecture. domestic activities, and artifacts.

Late Colonial Period (1720-1781)

The Late Colonial Period in Virginia saw a continuation of the dispersed farmstead settlement

trend \vith central piaccd courthouse and port villages. Settlement continued to move westward inlu ll1e

"Western Frontier." The economy of the period was still chiefly agricultural with some growth of light

rural industry. Agricultural diversification occurred throughout the period and tobacco production was

gradually replaced by a dependence on cereal crops. More permanent construction appeared during this

period with symmetricality of design and Georgian style dominating the architectural mindset. The

,:\merican Revolutionary War marked the end of this period.

31
~1
)
Numerous domestic structures survive the latter part of this period in Virginia. The survivals of

"'1 j
this period tend to be "Great Houses" and other structures of more permanent construction. As a result

of the historical significance which has been afforded these sites for many years. most of them are well-

documented. In general. the smaller, less grand. and then more common domestic sites are not well-

represented in archaeological literature. These small. impermanent domestic sites would be assigned

great significance for the c·o ntribution their study could potentially make to balancing our perceptions of

1 domestic life in Virginia during the eighteenth century. In instances where grander domestic sites are

well-represented in the state. they would be evaluated individually and their significance would be based

l upon site integrity rather than as a type of site. For example. a plantation which was burned and

abandoned in 1760 is likely to have more intact (and thus significant) :nchaeoiogical deposits than :.i

1 plantation of similar age which is still standing.

Revolutionary War military tactics did not warrant construction of extensive earthworks. as during

the Civil War. except in the case of a siege, as was the case at distant Yorktown. In the event any such

site were identified. it would be afforded very high significance and importance for its unprecedented

existence.

J
Antebellum Period (1781-1861)

The Antebeilum Period saw a continuation of the rural seulcment pattern of dispersed
J
domestic/farmstead sites begun in previous periods. Agriculture and light rural industry continued to
l
J dominate the economy. Federal/Neo-classical/Italianate architectural styles were among the most popular

uf this pt:riuu. Numerous huu.scs auu historic properties of this period exist nnd mnny have been included
J on the National Register of Historic Places. Conversely, because of the large number of existing historic

J
32

J
properties dating to this period, eligibility for the National Register is judged more on architectural or

historical uniqueness or archaeological potential than on mere survival. as is often the case with earlier

properties.

Because so many domestic structures exist from this period. it is unlikely that the remains of

buildings found by this survey will be able to contribute significantly to our knowledge of domestic

lifeways of the period. There are, however, exceptions. If a structure of this period were identified as

having been burned or otherwise destroyed during this period and neither rebuilt nor the site

subsequently occupied or disturbed, then the potential for significant archaeological contexts would be

quite high. Such sites would be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places on the

basis of potentiaiiy significant archaeoiogicai deposits.

Unfortunately. the majority of the more well-studied sites of this period are brge plantations and

:ire highly visible historic properties. Information about the then more commonplace domestic sites is

lncking by comparison. The study of sites which can be identified as relatively small family farmsteads

could provide data which would enhance understanding of the less affluent in Vir_ginia during the

nineteenth century.

When dealing with plantations and farmsteads of the Antebellum or Late Colonial periods. one

must consider the potential for ethnic data pertinent to African/American slaves. \fanv archaeologists

and social historians have undertaken projects in recent years to broaden the data base and understanding

of slave life in Virginia. However. slave houses and activity areas were generally insubstantial or

ephemeral in nature and are comparatively not well-represented in extant or archaeological examples.

For this reason. any historic resource that is suspected or known to have direct connections to slave

33
 lifeways would be considered significant and potentially eligible for the National Register. Thus. a

1 domestic dwelling/farmstead site which might not otherwise appear to be important could be considered

significant on the basis of its ethnic (e.g. slave) components.

Civil War Period (1861-1865)

-1

l The Civil War Period in Virginia saw a continuation of earlier domestic and industrial patterns

and shares expected site types with the Antebellum Period with a few important exceptions. War during
l this period necessitated the construction of extensive earthworks and the occupation of large military

campsites. The earthworks were constructed as trenches. rifle pits. and redoubts or gun emplacemems.
1
Virginia places great historical significance on the events of the Civil War. Many of the state's major

battlefields have been preserved as National Parks.

Unfortunately the Confederate and Union campsites were generally very ephemeral aad did not

J ordinarily sUivive long after the war. Cultivation, timbering, and other subsequent land use quickly

obliterated traces oi a great number of former camp activity areas. If such remains were detected.

especially those with surface features intact. they would be afforded the highest significance for the

contribution they could make to understanding military/domestic life in Virginia during the Civil War.

The rare nature of such a site. in light of the importance which Virginia places on Civil War history,

J would almost certainlv make it eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

l
..J Post-Bellum Period (1865-1917)

J This period saw many large farms become subdivided into smaller parcels as agricultural

J rroduction diversified and rural family units strove toward self-sufficiency. Cultural resources of this

~ 34

J
period and the following Modern Pe ~:od (1917 to present) are common and generally unremarkable with

regard to the National Register of Historic Places. Extant post-bellum or Modern Period dweilingsi

farmsteads arc not likely to be considered eligible for the National Register unless an unforeseen

significant historical event or unique architectural feature is associated with the site.

3.4 METHODS

Prior to the initiation of fieldwork, a review of the literature and a records search were begun

in order to compile a data base relevant to the project vicinity. The area's prehistory and historv was

researched at several facilities including the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and the Virginia

State Library in RichmonJ.

The Phase I survey was conducted by five archaeologists in December 1991 and Januarv oi 1992.

This fieldwork ran smoothlv as the project site was situated in recently timbered. open woccis and with

50% to 70% exposed ground visibility. The ground surface was inspected for signs of previous habitation

and shovel tests 20 to 50 cm (8 to 20 inches) in diameter were excavated at 20 to 25 m ( 66 to 62 ft)

intervals in transects this same distance apart and staggered to permit maximum coverage. Reasons for

limiting survey to surface inspection, alone, or with only occasional. judgmentally placed shovei tesL-;

included the presence oi ( 1) exposed subsoil. or (2) heavily disturbed areas such as deeply machined

:1reas, road cuts. and buried utilities. Shovel tests were excavated in natural layers to a ievei of sterile

subsoil. Whenever sites or isolated artifacts were located. the immediate vicinity surrounding the site or

artifact was more intensively investigated by decreasing the interval between shovel tests to approximate

10 m (33 ft) intervals to define the horizontal and vertical extent of a site area and soils excavated from

the shovei tests were dry-screened through 11-+" wire mesh.

35
1 J

1"1
J
The archaeological sites encountered during the field survey were recorded on Virginia

Department of Historic Resources Archaeological Site Inventory Forms. Also a single Architectural and

Brief Survey Form was prepared for the brick walled cemetery (Site 44CE272: Appendix A). EH&A

shovel test forms were also employed to record the data from the excavations. At the conclusion of the
1
fieldwork, all data and specimens were transported to EH&A's laboratory in Williamsburg, Virginia for

processing and analysis. A catalog of all finds may be found in Appendix B. All materials. such as

fieldnotes, forms, maps, photographs, and artifacts, generated by the project eventually will be submitted

lo the Virginia Department of Historic Resources for permanent curation .

.u EXPECTED RESULTS

As mentioned earlier, archaeological survey coverage for Oiroline County is generally very poor.

Surveys have tended to be in the northern half of the county (Opperman & Thomas 1983: Ayers and

I Beaudry 1979; Hodges et al 1985) whereas cultural resources in the southern half. where the current

project is situated, remain largely unknown. A summary of the archaeological resources of the entire

J ~ounty. prepared in 1985 (Hodges et al 1985), listed only 220 known sites and the highest new site

number assigned to this project was 27-t This dearth of survey data complicated the prediction of the
J
kind. number, location. character. and possible condition of sites in the survey area.

P:ist investig:itions h:ive shown that in the interior portions oi Caroline Countv. sucn as the

project area. Paleo-Indian to Early Archaic period sites were located along the middle reaches of the

l larger creeks and associated with the headwaters of their smaller tributaries. Late Archaic to Middle
..J
Woodl.and period sites tended to be located: along the terraces of major streams; on high reaches of land

J
J
36
J
J
overlooking these streams. frequently near the mouths of tributaries; and upland ridges and knolls along

headwaters of the smallest intermittent drainages. Late Woodland sites were usuaily located along m:i.Jor

floodplains (Hodges et al 1985: 17. 18, 22, 26).

These prehistoric settlement patterns suggest that P:i.leo-Indian to Late Archaic sites could be

located along Mill Run, which borders the northwestern edge oi the project area. and along the unnamed

tributary of Polecat Creek which runs across the southern portion of the property. Late Archaic ro

Middle Woodland sites might lie along both Mill Run and Polecat Creek as well as along the ridges

ll:i.nking the above-cited unnamed tributary. No Late Woodland Period sites were expected.

Historic sites were anticipared principaiiy aiong the RF&P raiiroad corridor anu. oy tr.e1r

association wilh this transportation system. would he expected to elate to the nineteenth and/or twentieth

centuries. In particubr the highest probability area was in the Coleman's Mill Crossing vicinity. along

Lhe western t:Jge uf the project area. Al this location. a twentieth century mill site ( 44CI::102) ana a

nineteenth-twentieth century farm compiex ( 44CE234) had already been recorded. ~o historic sites were

expected elsewhere due to the seeming remoteness from major road systems.

37
 4.0 RESULTS OF THE PHASE I INVESTIGATIO?-'

4.1 HISTORICAL RESEARCH

4.1.1 Resea rch Strategy

Phase I level archival research was undertaken in support of archaeological testing being

conducted upon the Schwab Tract in Caroline County, Virginia. Extensive use was made of historical

maps and some of the primary resource documents and published sources that were located during Phase

IA archival investigations (McCartney and Outlaw, 1991). These included maps that are on file at the

Library of Congress, National Archives, Virginia State Library, the Virginia Department of Historic

Resources, the Virginia Historical Society and the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Research Archives,

plus maps reproduced in secondary sources, such as Richard W. Stephenson's The Cartogra phy of

No rthern Virginia, Rice and Brown's The American Ca mpaigns of Rochambea u s Army, and The Official

Records of the Civil War. Use was made of a privately compiled index to plats that are in the collections

of the Virginia Historical Society. Documentary data accumulated during the process of tracing the

Schwab Tract's chain of title also were reviewed (McCartney, 1991). The gaol of this preliminary study

had been to determine whether or not two cemeteries shown on a 1953 plat of the Schwab Tract were

J cullural resources associated with archaeological sites. Record groups utilized during Lhe laller research

included deeds, wills, land lax rolls, plats, and orders.

During visits to the Virginia State Library, the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Research

Archives, the College of William and Mary's Swem Lihrary, the Caroline County Courthouse, and the

Caroline County Library, a relatively broad variety of historical and genealogical materials were examined.

j Reference works and compilations of data produced by Ralph E. Fall, Robert A. Hodge, Mary T. Haley,

38
M. B. Motley and May Campbell, and the Caroline County Jamestown Festival Committee were

reviewed, as were the county histories produced by Marshall Wingfield and T. E. Campbell. Collections

of Works Progress Administration (W.P.A.) photographs and an index to W.P.A. records also were used.

General background data were extracted from the volumes produced by respected scholars such as

Warren M. Billings, David Quinn, Wilcomb E. Washburn, and Thad Tate, and a manuscript produced

in 1985 under the auspices of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Finally, the recently

completed architectural survey of Caroline County was consulted (Stodghill et al 1991). All of the

previously described published and non-published sources were searched in an attempt to place the study

area and its owners/occupants within an appropriate historical context.

Because Civil ·t.1lnr era maps suggested that military activity may have occurred in the vicinity of

the study area, exte nsive use was made of primary and secondary sources that could be expected lo shed

li.ght upon whethe r combat actually occurred on the Schwab Tract. Published sources, such as The Ciyjl

Wnr Day by Dav, Bn LLles unJ Leade rs of The Civil War, The Civil War D ictio nary. and The O ffi cia l

RewrJ s of the Civil Wa r were examined. A relatively broad variety of pictorial sources and specialized

reference works, such as narratives and battlefield atlases, were searched. Dr. James I. Robertson's new

book, Civil War Virginia: Battleground for a Na tio n, was utilized as a source of general background data.

4.1.2 Data Limitations

Caroline County's antebellum court records are fragmentary. Although those of two of its

antecedents, Old Rappahannock and Essex Counties, are remarkably comprehensive and facilitate the

study of the area prior to 1728, relatively few local records exist that bridge the gap 1728-1865. with the

exception of demographic data and the land and personal property tax rolls maintained by the State

Auditor's Office. One early Caroline County Order Book is still in existence; it encompasses the years

39
 1782-1866 and contains a few early wills. A volume of Caroline County surveyors records, 1729-1762,

is on file in Campbell County, Kentucky; a photostatic copy of the surveys it contains is available at the
1 Virginia State Library. A deed book dating to 1808 also exists, along with the county marriage register,

1781-1813, and a register of births and deaths for the years 1864-1867. The records of Caroline County's

~l Committee of Safety, organized in 1774, are intact.

1 Seventeenth and early-to-mid eighteenth century cartographers' maps provide relatively little

information about how Caroline County's interior developed, for emphasis was placed upon the shore

l line of navigable waterways, which then served as the colony's main transportation conduits. Some

mid-to-late eighteenth century map-makers depicted a few roads and sites at which clustered settlement
l had occurred. During the Civil War, numerous Union and Confederate cartographers mapped Caroline

County, identifying its transportation corridors and some of its cultural features and better-known

landmarks.

4.1.3 Historic Context of the Project Environs

J Political and Ecclesiastical Boundaries

The land which now comprises Caroline County was once part of Oki Rappahannock County,

I a vast political entity that was established in 1656 and encompassed all of the land between the
_j
Piankatank and Rappahannock Rivers, from the Chesapeake Bay to the Fall Line. In 1692, Old

Rappahannock County was subdivided in response to an increase in population and Essex County, which

then included much of Caroline's land, was established. In 1728, Essex County was reduced in size when
_J Caroline County was formed. Some territory that previously had been included within the bounds of

J King and Queen and King William Counties also was added to Caroline. - Caroline County's first

40
J
J
courthouse was in the vicinity , lf Kidd's Fork, Ideal, and Shumnnsville. Later, the seat of the county court

was shifted to Bowling Green (Campbell 1954;66; Virginia State Library 1965:17). The Schwab Tract lies

within that portion of Caroline County which was formed from part of King William County.

In 1656, when Old Rappahannock County was formed, it was coterminous with Farnham Parish.

In 1661, however, the western part of Farnham Parish was split off to create Sittenburne Parish, a

frontier area that sat astride the upper reaches of the Rappahannock River. Inc. 1677-1678, Sittenburne

Parish was subdivided and St. Mary's Parish was created from its westernmost territory. St. Mary's Parish

was reduced in size in 1714 when its land north of the Rappahannock River was split off into a separate

ecclesiastical unit. In 1727, when Caroline County was created, it encompassed what then constituted

St. Mary's Parish plus St. Margaret's Parish, which was established in 1721 and included land both north

and west of the Mallaponi River, in King Willimn Co11nty. In 1779, St. Asaph's Parish was formed from

Caroline County land that prior to 1728 had been part of King and Queen County; it lay to the cast of

St. Margaret's Parish and northeast of the Mattaponi River (Cocke 1967:108-114). The Schwab Tract

is near the seat of St. Margaret's Parish's mother church, which was located at Chesterfield (Ruther

Glen).

Initial Exploration

The first European seafarers who are known to have explored the Chesapeake region and made

contact with its Natives were Captain Vincente Gonzales and Juan Menendez-Marques, who arrived in

the region in June 1588. It was the fourth voyage for Gonzales, who had brought a group of Jesuit

missionaries to Hampton Roads in 1570 and made two return visits to the area. Three accounts of

Gonzales and Menendez-Marques' 1588 journey exist which document their travels. Gonzales' ship,

having entered the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, progressed northward along its western shore line

41
1 J

~1
l toward its head. Just above 38 degrees north latitude, in the vicinity of the Northern Neck and Potomac

River, the explorers reportedly encountered Native Americans, one of whom they captured. Continuing

north to an estimated 40 degrees north latitude, they wheeled about and turned back down the bay,

sailing close to the western periphery of the Eastern Shore peninsula. As the Spanish explorers neared

the Eastern Shore's southern tip, a group of Indians ventured close to their vessel, whereupon a Native

was seized and carried away. Neither that Indian nor the one who had been captured further north

1 reportedly survived for very long. None of the accounts of Gonzales and Menendez-Marques' voyage

provide descriptions of the indigenous population or their habitat (Lewis and Loomie 1953:186-202).

Captain John Smith's writings not only describe Virginia's geographical attributes but also the
1 initial contact he had with the Natives of the Middle Peninsula. Smith and his fellow explorers visited

Indian villages along the York, Rappahannock, and Potomac rivers in 1607 and 1608 and recorded their

adventures, which accounts provide detailed information on the Native people, their habitat, and customs.

Though many of Captain John Smith's descriptions are general, some of the data he set down define the

attributes of the people of the Rappahannock River drainage and the territory that eventually became

Caroline County. In 1608. when Smith and his men ventured to the head of the Rappahannock River,

lhey st:l up 1.:russes and inscribed their names upon trees (Smith 1910:395-398,424-426). Smith's map of

Virginia (1610) identifies the sites at which the Indians of the Rappahannock River drainage were living

at the time of his visit (Figure 3).

l First European Settlement

..J
In 1641, land on the north side of the York River was officially opened to settlement and
J prospective planters were authorized to seat themselves in the area between Deep Creek on the York

J River and the mouth of the Piankatank River. A year later, the Grand Assembly instruded settlers

J 42

j
VIRGINIA DISCOVERED AND DISCRIBED ESPEY. HUSl'ON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
hr - a ..._ _ _all C I ...
(SIC) (NO SCALE GIVEN) (SMITH 1610)
FIGURE 3
0-0MINION RECYCLING

AND 8D~OIIT FACILITY-- ·'

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

41
 moving into the countryside along the Rappahannock River to seat in groups no smaller than 200 persons

and in households of six or more. Virginia Land Office records reveal that prospective patentees

commenced at once laying claim to literally thousands of acres of land in the Middle Peninsula. The

influx of new settlers led to land disputes with the Indians and most likely precipitated the Indian uprising

that occurred on April 18, 1644, and claimed an estimated 400 settlers' lives. In the wake of that

massacre, retaliatory expeditions were undertaken against the Indians and their aged leader,

Opechancanough, was captured and slain. In 1646 a treaty was signed whereby the Indians became

tributaries to the Crown and relinquished to the colonists the territory of the James-York peninsula.

inland to the fall line. In return, the colonists agreed to withdraw from their plantations to the north of

the York River and west of Poropotank Creek. Forts were constructed at strategic locations to maintain

surveillance over the Natives. The moratorium on settlement north of the York was lifted in 1649

(McCartney 1985:58-62; Beverley 1947:60-61; Nugent 1969-1979:1:131,132,135).

Old Rappahannock County, Caroline County's most ancient antecedent, was opened to settlement

in the 1650s. The slow but steady influx of settlers into the Old Rappahannock region led to its being

subdivided repeatedly into smaller political entities. In the early 1650s, planters who lived in the eastern

portion of Old Rappahannock C-0unty, which later was split off to become Essex County, began claiming

vast tracts of land in the upper reaches of the Rappahannock River. Indentured servants, tenants and

slaves would have been placed upon many of these outlying tracts to substantiate their owners' patents.

Even so, Old Rappahannock County remained a sparsely populated frontier throughout much of the

seventeenth century. Major William Lewis, John Hoomes, and Colonel Augustine Warner patented land

J in Caroline County's Mattapuni River valley during the third quarter of the seventeenth century and

William Collins is thought to have established a homestead on Poulcatte (Polecat) Creek in 1691 (Hodges

et al. 1985:30-31; Campbell 1954:12-13,45).

44
 During the third quarter of the seventeenth century, the Middle Peninsula was home to several

of Tidewater's Indian tribes, including some whose exodus from the James-York peninsula was

necessitated by the 1646 treaty. One of the Indian groups that had been allocated territory in the Middle

Peninsula was the Nanzattico, who by the late 1650s to the early 1660s, had been assigned land bordering

Portobago Bay (in what became Caroline County) and on the upper side of the Rappahannock River (in

what is now King George County). Although the Nanzatticos made their home on the north side of the

river in an area that still bears their name, the Portobago Indians during the 1660s and 1670s occupied

land on the south side of the Rappahannock, which also lay within the bounds of the Nanzattico Indians'

preserve. During the early 1680s, the area adjacent to Portobago Bay also served briefly as the home of

the Rappahannock Indians (McCartney 1985:62-68; Billings 1975:72-73; Hodges et al. 1985:31).

Despite the mnr.entrntinn nf Trih11tc1ry Tndic1n grnnps in the Midc11e Peninsnln, Fnrnpenn settlers

continued to move in, clear land, and establish their homesteads. Immediately prior to the onset of the

popular uprising known as Bacon's Rebellion, strong, overtly hostile non-tributary Indian tribes from

above the Fall Line descended upon the settlers of what was then Sittenburne Parish. These sporadic

attacks led to the temporary abandonment of many outlying plantations. Although the conclusion of the

Treaty of Middle Plantation in 1677 may have offered some assurance to those who lived on the colony's

frontier. settlers inhabiting the upper part of the Rappahannock River drainage continued to be troubled

by occasional Indian raids. During this period, the population of the Tributary Indian groups continued

lo dwindle and the colony's officials anticipated that settlers would eventually move into their territory

(Campbell 1954:15-22).

45
1
l G t'owth and Development

During the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, sizeable tracts of land in what was
-1
j to become Caroline County, amassed through the headright system, were developed to accommodate the

mass production of tobacco through the use of slave labor. Individuals such as Robert Beverley, Ralph

Wormeley, and John Catlett were able to accumulate vast quantities of acreage and add considerably to

their wealth. These same members of the planter elite were heavily involved in commerce and trade and

in the political affairs of the colony. Their plantations, which some early visitors to Virginia likened to

small villages, were relatively self-sustaining, for the production of cattle, poultry, sheep, and other

livestock which yielded meat, dairy products, hides, and wool, whereas field crops such as corn, oats,
I grains, orchard products, and vineyards provided other commodities that supported planter households,

their slaves, and· livestock (Hodges et al. 1985:31; Campbell 1954:58-59). Augustine Herrmann's map

(1673) indicates that by 1670 major plantations dotted the shore line of the colony's major rivers and

the lesser tributaries that fed into them (Figure 4). No cartographic works have come to light that

document the extent to which settlement had then penetrated Caroline County's interior.

J During the late seventeenth and early-to-mid eighteenth centuries old Indian paths and trails

provided a primitive means of overland transportation to settlers living in the Middle Peninsula. A ferry

ran across the Rappahannock River at a site that in 1744 became tqe town of Port Royal. It provided

j local residents with a connecting link to the Northern Neck and points beyond and it brought newcomers

into the area. Taverns. and other public service facilities, such as mills, stores, and blacksmiths shops,
'J
.J sprang up along pathways that developed into well traveled public thoroughfares. These sometimes gave

rise to clustered development that evolved into small communities. Urbanization, however, never became
J popular to any great extent in colonial Caroline County. Although Port Royal had been established by

J law in 1744 and a modest amount of development occurred there during its first 30 years, it was destined

J 46

J
 .R .APPAIL1~.;o CK
.:.~'
i

,_

/RICO
-
~ · / , l , . - ] (i>...-_...,.___

VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND, 1670

(24 ENG. MILES= 3 1 /4 INCH)

(HERRMANN 1673)
--
ESPEY, HUSTON &: ASSOCIATES, INC.
•••••--...,c

FIGURE 4
n •

DOMINION RECYCLING

AND SUPPORT FACILITY

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

47
r,
I
1
to rc- :.1in a small village. In time, more permanent growth occurred at the county seat, Bowling Green.
0

Even so, settlement in colonial Caroline County generally was dispersed rather than clustered (Reps
1 1972:213; Hodges et al. 1954:32; Virginia State Library 1965:17). Although John Henry (1770) failed to

include Caroline County's road network on his well-known map of Virginia, Joshua Fry and Peter

Jefferson (1755-1775) did so in 1775, when they updated their earlier-dated rendering (Figures 5 and 6).

The community of Chesterfield (which in 1836 was renamed Ruther Glen), which grew up around
1 St. Margaret's Church, an old inn or tavern, and the mercantile establishment of Richard Maudlin, was

important in the early life of Caroline County. St. Margaret's Parish, formed in 1721, lay partly in King

William County and in what by 1727 became Caroline County. The store erected by Richard Maudlin

at Chesterfield passed through the hands of Thomas Mallory, Peter Copeland, Samuel Garlick, and

l Samuel Redd, who was its proprietor at the time of the American Revolution. By 1731, Chesterfield's

merchants had sustained a significant loss of trade, since the number of travelers who passed through the

community, enroute to King William Courthouse, had diminished sharply. This led Chesterfield's

merchants to petition Caroline County's magistrates to construct a rolling road from their community to

the Rappahannock River, enabling them to revive their trade by means of overseas shipping. In 1734

J another new road was built; it extended from Chesterfield to the new bridge at Burk's Ford (Fall

1989:323-325).

By the 1730s members of the George family, whose descendants were part of the Chesterfield

or Ruther Glen community, were residing in Caroline County. John George of St. Margaret's Parish was

J a relatively prosperous man who was elected to the parish vestry and participated actively in civic affairs .
..J
Between 1732 and 1745 he served on ten juries and grand juries. His designation as the executor or

J administrator of several local citizens' estates attests to the high esteem in which he was held (Campbell

1954:98,352,356,433,471-472,476,478).

48
J
J
 .
. ,.
r:r.,
I

'• ~ i / ~
.\ It °";)\ I. I t:
/ · •
l
I.. ',
• '~.,,,.,I/. •'4,JI,·
J It, •I-,,,.,, .,, I)

\ ·
l"

';-1 ll.11·1,•,.,
1

•
.\·
()

( '. '":--
I ' \ •rt/, / ,:

11:,1,., ... ·
I
\ I

~
~J(.5/ ,{-'
,~
I ~ ti lln,(.J
. In,,'"·
\~· ;; ,.,

, .. __,._~ .
.\',. .. ~.h.fftJv,"',, · ,i

"". I·
.
/)
t.·~·
I,' ,,,-1 //, '" ·',
/.,
. ,,.,, I. I•
I-.
I
. .\'

A NEW AND ACCURATE MAP~ F VIRGINIA ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

(NO SCALE GIVEN) (HENRY 1770)

btvz - •·•-=----"'·
c.c-•n•-•

FIGURE e
DOMINION RECYCLING

AND SUPPORT FACILITY

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

Li.Q
 1 '

l
j

l
J

J ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

A MAP OF THE MOST INHABITED PART
•r - • _____.... c:.ic-•••••
OF VIRGINIA (30 MILES: 2 7/8 INCH)

(FRY AND JEFFERSON 1775) FIGURE 6

DOMINION RECYCLING

AND SUPPORT FACILITY

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

j
c; 0
 Caroline County true rolls suggest that during the early-to-mid 1780s the acreage currently known as

the Schwab Tract was in the possession of John George, Jr., who inherited it from his father, the late

John George. In 1785 John George, Jr., conveyed part of the land he had inherited to Reuben George,

who was residing upon the 539 acre tract at the time of his death, between May and December 1799.

Reuben George's wife appears to have predecea'ied him, for the couple's six children were described as

the decedent's sole heirs .(Caroline County Wills 1742, 1762, 1830 and Plats 1777-1840:60; Campbell

1954:494).

The American Revolution

Caroline was the first Virginia county to officially severe its ties with the royal government, after

the Declaration of Independence was proclaimed by the Continental Congress. In November 177'1 its

citizens elected members to a local Committee of Safety and the following year, they fielded a group of

Minute Men. One of those who enlisted in the local military was John George of Caroline County. The

county produced distinguished American patriots such as Edmund Pendleton and William Woodford, but

it also was home to John Tayloe Corbin, the chief espionage agent for the British. In 1776 the Caroline

County Committee of Safety subdivided the county into two sections, using the Mattaponi River as a

dividing line. Later, when food and clothing shortages forced the government to require local citizens

to furnish supplies to the army, Caroline County was subdivided into 93 small districts. each of which was

to outfit one man. The British Army under the leadership of Banastre Tarleton reportedly entered the

extreme southwestern corner of Caroline County on June 4, 1781, enroute to Falmouth (Campbell

1954:232-233,251,263,291-292,374; Motley et al. 1974:6-7,11).

Thanks to the fact that Caroline County was at the periphery of the countryside through which

troop movements occurred, some of its early roads were mapped by Revolutionary War cartographers.

51
1
1 In 1781 and 1782 Major-Captaine (1781) and Dezoteux (1781-1782) prepared maps upon which were

~ identified the itineraries of the British and Allied Armies. Major-Captaine indicated that the British
J
Army marched along the upper bank of the North Anna River before turning northward toward

Chesterfield Tavern (Ruther Glen), which during the eighteenth century was considered a major focal

point of Caroline County (Fall 1989:323-324) (Figure 7). Dezoteux, on the other hand, emphasized the
l territory to the south (Figure 8). The cartographers in Rochambeau's Army prepared maps that charted

their itinerary between Yorktown and Annapolis, Maryland, and identified some of the sites at which they

encamped along the way. Christopher Calles (1789), when mapping Virginia's postal routes, showed

many of these same public roads.

J All of these maps indicate that by the 1780s a relatively sophisticated network of roads

criss-crossed the Middle Peninsula, connecting Caroline County with neighboring jurisdictions. Many of

these early roadways were the forerunners of today's modern highways. Despite the improvement of

I overland travel, navigable waterways continued to be a favored mode of transportation. Thomas Jefferson

(1787) in mapping Virginia identified the sites at which the Chesterfield Tavern, Mattaponi Church,
I Todd's Tavern at Villeboro, and Port Royal were situated. He also showed a number of the major

plantations which then lined the banks of the Rappahannock River. Samuel Lewis (1794) depicted

Virginia's main public roads, but provided very little information bn the extent to which Caroline

County's interior was developed (Figures 9 and 10).

The Early-to Mid Nineteenth Century

By the first quarter of the nineteenth century several major public thoroughfares extended
j through Caroline County. The forerunners of Routes 17 and 360 were two of Caroline's most important

J highways. With the passage of time, Virginians became interested in the construction of internal

J 52

J
 ...

, I
Y :1.11 j. '"tl,
"
0
Cl
'-

-
'

MAP OF LAND BETWEEN JAMES AND

YORK RIVERS (NO SCALE GIVEN)

.,. _....
ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
t C .
(MAJOR - CAPTAINE 1781) FIGURE 7
DOMINION RECYCLING
AND SUPPORT FACILITY

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

53
 1
.. ,,
,
....
.- I
~
~1
,
l
'
lI<() I
C)

I
~H
Cl
' )
·I
, 0 ai.
ONLLI
0 OI '
- ..,- ..
.-, I '1:
->,
o~=
jz .. ~
...
el:! ..
QQ

-,' ~.
J ' . .
~ :1',

1
.r'

CARTE POUR SERVIR DU JOURNAL ESPEY. HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

hp - a ......
_ __., C »•..
DE M. LE MARQUIS DE CHASTELLUX

(NO SCALE GIVEN) (DEZOTEUX 1781-1782) FIGURE 8

DOMINION RECYCLING

AND SUPPORT . FACILITY

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

 DTh"l\'lDDlE

A MAP OF THE COUNTRY BETWEEN

ALBEMARLE SOUND AND LAKE ERIE

(60 MILES :a. 3 3/8 iNCH)

ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
lr_Ltz; - •

FIGURE
-

9
1•1 C
-
(JEFFERSON 1787) DOMINION RECYCLING

AND SUPPORT FACILITY

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

55
 --
~,·r.·

THE STATE OF VIRGINIA FROM THE BEST ESPEY. HUSTON & ASSOCIATES. INC.
AUTHORITIES (60 MILES: 2 3/8 INCH)
--·---- a ·---•·•Z C 79'1
( LEW IS 1 7 9 4) FIGURE 10
0-0MINION RECYCLING

AND SUPPORT FACILITY

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

56
improvements, which they perceived as a means of stimulating the local and state economics. During

the first half of the nineteenth century, the state's transportation networks became increasingly complex,

for new roads, turnpikes, canals, and railroads were built to serve the public interest. Maps produced

by cartographers during the first and second quarters of the nineteenth century depict these features as

well as the small communities that sprang up at rail stops and inland crossroads, such as George (a

former rail stop near Ruther Glen and Penola) and Swans Corner (at the intersection of Routes 656 and

684), which are near the study area (Fall 1989:129,349; Madison 1807; Cary 1814; Findley 1825; Boye

1826; Hinton 1831; Hotchkiss 1835-1841; Burr 1839; Crozet 1848) (Figures 11 through 18).

In 1801 the executors of the late Reuben George (then owner of the Schwab Tract) deeded 336

3/4 acres of his home farm to Lewis George. That the decendent's property came into Lewis George's

hands by means of an outright purchase rather than through inheritance suggests strongly that the

Reuben and Lewis, though likely related, were not father and son (Caroline County Wills 1742, 1762,

1830 and Plats 1777-1840:60; Land Tax Lists and Alterations 1782-1801). By 1802 Lewis George had

added to the quantity of land under his control, bringing it to a total of 553 1/4 acres. Two years later

he sold part of his land to John Brown. Lewis George retained his 433 1/2 acres (the only land he owned

in Caroline County), utilizing it as his home tract. In 1817 he acquired 400 acres of contiguous land from

the executors of Richard Johnson, amassing 833 1/2 acres in all. Tax records reveal that Johnson's land

lay to the west of the 433 1/2 acres Lewis George already owned and occupied. In 1820, when Caroline

County's tax commissioner commenced including in his estimate the value of the buildings that stood

upon individual landowners' acreage, Lewis George was credited with structures that collectively were

worth $1,350. That figure. which is relatively high, suggests that Lewis George was a member of the

upper middle class (Caroline County Land Tax Lists 1802-1820).

57
 l

..
~'-< . (. .
' -. ·.- .,,-..
"' ~
~·
..
~ \. , . .·,. I • •: , - • , •
\ i-•''.. .. ·-.. / ~
\/'-:+-,.) .•
. ,: <
rl'
... ••
~
, - .•
-~
\ ·' . .
J - . I •, /,'"\
......:;. . '-'""
. , 1. '_··.~;,;
\ \
,.,J.,,.,., ·.c.-
.- (
r. . ""' ...
AREA , \_ ' 1: ~ -~., •,
1 V
1
-~ -
l
.,.
.--:.· 1:r-;.
~ ..
,,
·-, .__,\.. .

. ' '.,, ~..

>,,.,,· .1 _........,..~__ -......_-,,. /•,J\11,,'.u-.

-~ ···'ic:' "'
~ ...
. . . ,:•
'
·, ,
/, •I.,, 1, • ~. .• . ....•"
\.;f. /1., '/.,v . . ~
l ·\.. .,'"l ',
..J ''·;,Q .
.. •'
(
' '
.':.,, , ..,. ;
..,. ...~.:,
1, . . ' , , ,.... .•'
, •
( ,:

·~
J ' "'· · • •• J • .. i. '.,,

ESPEY, HU~ON & ASSOCIATES. INC.

A MAP OF VIRGINIA FORMED FROM
by 77l77illl • .....,••_ _... c.c--••
J ACTUAL SURVEYS (NO SCALE GIVEN)
FIGURE 11
(MADISON 1807)

J AND
DOMINION RECYCLING

SUPPORT FACILITY

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

l
J
"'.,

MAP OF VIRGINIA ESPEY, , HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

... w • · · · · - - Oz'---
(NO SCALE GIVEN) CAREY 1814)
FIGURE 12
DOMINION RECYCLING

AND SUPPORT FACILITY

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

59
N\
ciI

MAP OF VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND ESPEY,

l'nl HUSTON
- ck ASSOCIATES.
a _____ _ INC.
, QC_ _ _

(60 MILES 2 1/2 INCH) (FINDLEY 1B25l

FIGURE 13
DOMINION RECYCLING

AND SUPPORT FACILITY

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

60
.!..
"',,,
I ai
0 .
QNU,1
~~~
,..,=~
d~~
z; .. ;z:
... ~:
i:~~

A MAP OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA:

CONSTRUCTE-D IN CONFORMITY TO LAW

11 I ESPEY. HUSTON & ASSOCL\TES, INC.
hhllr---• a • - - - - - - - - -

( 21J M!!...ES= ~ 7 / 8 INCH) (BOYE 1826) FIGURE I~

DOMINION RECYCLING

AND SUPPORT FACILITY

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

61
 1

l
.J

_J

J
MAP OF VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND

(24 MILES= 1 INCH) (HINTON 1831)

"" -.·--·--· c.--
ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

FIGURE IS
DOMINION RECYCLING

AND SUPPORT FACILITY

J CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

.!..

r"-- '
, • r

' /

,I.X.A..

GEOLOGICAL MAP OF VIRGINIA

- (24 MILES- - INCH)

lllb--·-· ......_____ c.---·
ESPEY, HUSTON .k ASSOCIATES. INC.

(HOTCHKISS 1835-1841) FIGURE 16

DOMINION RECYCLING

AND SUPPORT FACILITY

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

63
. ,I
l

J
MAP OF VIRGINIA, MARYLAND AND ESPEY. HUSTON & ASSOCIATES. INC.
.CIC-••••
J
lala_. .__ • .
.._
._ _ _
DELAWARE EXHIBITING THE POST OFFICES,

POST ROADS, CANALS, RAILROADS, ETC. FIGURE 17

(NO SCAL! GIVEN) (BURR 1839) DOMINION RECYCLING

AND SUPPORT FACILITY

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

 MAP OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS ESPEY, HUSTON ck ASSOCIATES. INC.
OF VIRGINIA
llh.., _...__ • •-----• cc---••
(SCALE 1 / 2 INCH: 50 MILES)
,.,.., ... ~
\\,,i,n"'i&.~ I
.... .
~
I
"" . ""'
U .. UI
FIGURE 18
DOMINION RECYCLING

AND SUPPORT FACILITY

CAAOLJNE COUNTY, 'IIRGINIA

 In 1828 Lewis George purchased 187.75 acres from the executors of John Pentross. bringing his

landholdings to 1,021.25 acres in all. By 1836 George had sold 400 acres to Bennett Wright, retaining

631.25 acres. The tracts that Lewis George bought and sold were devoid of taxable structural

improvements. Throughout this period. George's buildings on his home farm, which bordered Polecat

Creek. sustained their original assessed value of $1,350. Caroline County court records indicate that

Lewis George took an active role in public life. During the early-to-late 1820s he served as a

1 court-appointed commissioner and a county justice (Caroline County Deeds 1815-1834 [no pagination!;

Deeds 1758-1845 from Chancery Suits: 22; Land Tax Lists 1828-1836).

l Between 1838 and 1839 the value of the improvements on Lewis George's 631.25 acres declined

from Sl.350 to $1.000. During 1839 he acquired 146 to 156 acres from Jessee Richardson. a tract that

lacked improvements: this purchase gave Lewis George 777.25 acres in all (Caroline County Deed Book

39:305). The value of the buildings on his home farm continued to dwindle, for in 1840 they were

assessed at only $900. Lewis George died after the assessor's visit in 1847. Although his will no longer

f survives, the court documents generated by his executors when settling his estate. shed a considerable

amount of light upon the distribution of his assets. The late Lewis George bequeathed to three of his

J four children (Louisa C. W., Virginia L., and Henry H. George) the proceeds to be derived from the

sale of his land, slaves and railroad stock. He specifically instructed his executors (his sons Lewis M. and
1 Henry H.) to sell both his home farm and the tract called Johnson's to the highest bidder ( Caroline

County Deed Book 45:486-491,507).

l
_j On September 16, 1847. Lewis M. and Henry H. George, executors uf the late Lewis George,

deeded his home farm (then described as 923.50 acres) to Louisa C. W. George. Shortly thereafter, she
J relinquished her interest in the property by conveying to Lewis M. George the 400 acres that contained

_J their father's domestic complex and to Henry H. George 523 1/2 acres that were vacant. Through this

~j 66

j
series of transactions, the late Lewis George's home farm was subdivided and his daughters received

monetary compensation for their interest in his real and personal property (Caroline County Land Tax

Lists 1838-1848; Caroline County Deed Book 45:486-491,507).

Le\vis M. George was grown and married by the time he acquired part of his father's home farm.

for he and his wife. the fqrmer Sarah E. Samuel. were wed in January 1837 (Caroline County Marriage

Register l 787-1859:97.373). It is not certain where the couple was living prior to the death of the cider

Lewis George, except that they were residents of Caroline County. In 1852 Lewis M. George purchased

100 acres of land near Polecat Creek. the estate of the late Lucy Yarborough, which by adjacent to his

father's old home tract (Caroline County Deed Book 47:520). Through this purchase. Lewis M. Georges

C'.<1roline C.ounty landholdings grew to a total of 500 acres (Caroline County Land Tax Lists 1848-1855).

Construction of the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Raiiroad (RF&P), through the

Schwab Tract in 18-IB provided rail service between Bowling Green and various urban markets. including

Richmoml, which was only 29 miles away. Rail stops along the RF&P also became mail stops. exampie:;

of which were Chesterfield Station (or Ruther Glen), Polecat Station, and Coleman's Mill Station or

Crossing. Chesterfield Station derived its name from the old community called Chesterfield. which had

been established by the early 1720s. During the mid-nineteenth century, Virginia 's agricultural economy

was revitalized, thanks to the fact that scientific farming became popular and farmers began using marl

:rnd other fertilizers to restore soil that had long been depleted of its nutrients. In 1850. when

agricultural census records commenced being compiled. a variety of grain and forage crops was being

raised in Caroline County, along with a limited amount of cotton. Animal husbandry and wood products

also had become important to the local economy (Hodges et al. 1985:32; Fall 1989:101,232.323).

67
 1j

Lewis M. and Henry H. George improved their respective portions of thc:r late father's home

farm. Sometime prior to 1855 Lewis M. George constructed $2,000 worth of new buildings on his 500

acres or he added considerably to the value of the tract's previously existing structures. Concurrently,

Henry H. George erected $2,700 worth of buildings upon what previously had been vacant land (Caroline
1
County Land Tax Lists 1847-1855). The value of the improvements on the George brothers' property

l indicates that they were members of the upper middle class. A Virginia business directory that was

published in 1871 listed L. M. George as one of the Ruther Glen area's principal farmers and the George

brothers were said to own a saw mill (Fall 1989:329).

l
The Civil War

Caroline County's strategically important position midway between the Union and Confederate
1
capitals resulted in its being mapped by the military cartographers of both sides. Although no evidence

has come to light suggesting that the Schwab Tract was the scene of pitched combat, the raiirond line that

passes through its boundaries would have been of considerable interest to the opposing armies whei1
I planning their strategies. The Chesterfield Depot, on the RF&P (located in the vicinity of what is now

called Chandler Crossing), was shown prominently on maps of Caroline County that were produced by

D. E. Henderson (n.d.) and Jedediah Hotchkiss (186-) (Figure 19). One Confederate map identifies by

·J name and/or function many of Caroline County's buildings, transportation corridors. and less well known

geographical features. including Polecat Creek, the George dwelling (presumably that of Lewis M.

George, who during the 1860s owned and occupied the Schwab Tract), and his near-neighbors. the

l Colemans and Turners. whose homes lay to the west and south (Gilmer [186-]) (Figure 20). The George
.J
dwelling is shown at a site that corresponds with the "approximate location of a brick walled cemetery,"

J as depicted on a 1953 plat of the Schwab Tract (Caroline County Deed Book 137:456). Union

eartogrnphers' maps, which are considernbly le.-ss detailed, show the sites at which railroad stations and
J
68
 -..rr· ··r-··· ["
~
/·· · .
• I
. 1 r
\, ,.., ., .
'
)\
I
'
'
11·• " ' '" .,.

-- Yrt .
: I . .: ~

.: ' i .. \ . \\ •
. \, .
'~

"'0
' ),'
,,,
<;) ·-1·
I '.J.f,. .. !,,Jj'•'IIU •
c!,
ONIU
,n
:i....-~ p._. '
•\
t
..
~':':i -- ------- .. ----r-t
,.,=>= -....._.
;_
o.:..= I i
;z: :z: ---•---":
IOI!~:
f;~~
r··.
i ' '

_ ....,..,"" .......
' -.._
"'

:";

..
··.-¥,(#1' ,•
-. \

\ •

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA ESPEY. HU~ON & ASSOCIATES. INC.

hr w • ------• c--a1••
..
_(NO_SCALE GIVEN> p:19r_c:_H_~ _s_s ___ 1 a_~-) ..
FIGURE 19

DOMINION RECYCLING

AND SUPPORT FACILITY

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

n9
 J

J
.. .
... .
, ...--.
CAROLINE COUNTY ESPEY. HUSTON ik ASSOCIATES. INC.
l
J (NO SCALE GIVEN) (GILMER 186•) >• _ • ••••----.. cc---•••
FIGURE 20

J 0-0MINION RECYCLING

AND SUPPORT FACILITY

J CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

junctions. mill seats, and churches were then situated, all of which would have served as readily

identifiable reference points in a battle plan. Only one of these five maps identifies the site of the

George residence, which is shown close to Route 684, between the Dickenson and Turner residences

(Anonymous 1864a,1864b,1864c,1864d,1864e) (Figures 21, 22, and 23).

The first military activity that is known to have occurred in the general vicinity of the study area

took place in July 1862, when Union cavalrymen from Fredericksburg carried out a raid against the

Confederate cavalry at Mount Carmel Church, in an attempt to capture supplies. Between May 22 and

26, 1864, Caroline County again became the scene of combat, during the brief lull that occurred between

the Wilderness Campaign and The Battle of Cold Harbor. General Ulysses S. Grant, having abandoned

Spotsylvania, set out to march around the Confederate right flank. General Robert E. Lee. hoping to

parry Grant's maneuvers. hurried his men toward the North Anna River, which forms Caroline County's

southwestern border, so that they could take up positions on the far side at the river (Long 1971::2-U.507:

Robertson 1991:152).

According to one eyewitness account, on May 22nd around noon the head of the Confederate

column reached the North Arma River. By nightfall, the rest of Lee's army had attained the south side

of the river. By the time the Union Army arrived on the 23rd, the Confederates had crossed to the

North Anna's north side. Meanwhile, General Lee had subtly retired part of his line. leaving some of

his men in place at Ox Ford, midway between Jericho Ford and the Chesterfield bridge. Members of

Union Gt:neral Warren's corps, unaware of the ruse, crossed the North Anna at Jericho Ford, about four

miles above the Chesterfield bridge on the Telegraph Road, where they soon encountered Confederate

resistance. Meanwhile. Hancock's corps moved across the river at the Chesterfield bridge and pressed

forward until it encountered Longstreet's and Ewell's corps, who were in position and anticipating their

arrival. Thus. although both wings of Gtant's army had safely crossed ·the North Anna (at Jericho Ford

71
l

PARTS OF HANOVER, CAROLINE, AND ESPEY, HUS9I'ON &: ASSOCIATES. INC.

- • ....,.____ cc.-•--•
-11._-....
KING WILLIAM COUNTIES, VIRGINIA
FIGURE 21
(NO SCALE GIVEN) (ANONYMOUS 1864a)
DOMINION Rl!CYCLINO

AND SUPPORT FACILITY

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
~

"'
0 ai
Q0,111,1

~":'~..
,.,- - »
o~=
z .. :z:
~5:
i:1.11:1

PORTIONS OF HANOVER, CAROLINE, ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

. . • • - - - - - • cc.___
11t11r•-w
AND KING WILLIAM COUNTIES, VIRGINIA
FIGURE 22
iNO 5CALE GIVENi iANUNYMOU:S itstt4i>i
DOMINION RECYCLING

AND SUPPORT FACILITY

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

73
I
\ · .
•• ~HAIOOYER

~
\.
,1I .. 7'. .
I \.
..·... ··. ... .
.
. .
. .
. . : ,, : .. ~ .. : .
j
PORTIONS OF HANOVER, CAROLINE,

AND KING WILLIAM COUNTIES, VIRGINIA

hp;- - ...
_._ _ _ c.---
ESPEY. HUSTON & ASSOCL\TES. INC.

(NO SCALE GIVEN) (ANONYMOUS 1864c.) FIGURE 23

DOMINION RECYCLING

AND SUPPORT FACILITY

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

74
and Chesterfield bridge), the two wings were disconnected and Lee's men (who were at Ox Ford) were

midway between them. Thus, Lee in a savvy tactical move had successfully split the Union Army's ranks.

During May 25th and May 26th Grant made several attempts to penetrate the Confederate center, which

rested upon the river. The men of Confederate General E. M. Law, who were positioned across the

RF&P Railroad. which traversed the river at Chesterfield bridge, constructed a log breastwork from

which position they engaged their enemy. Finally, on May 27th General Grant withdrew his men to the

south side of the North Anna and began moving them toward Hanovertown. Throughout the day there

was skirmishing at Mount Carmel Church and Pole Creek, where minor cavalry engagements reportedly

occurred. Although Lee had been successful in out-maneuvering Grant. Grant was still able to pursue

his primary objective: the capture of Richmond (Johnson and Buel 1956:IV:134-137.146-147: Long

1971 :507-509).

Maps produced to depict the itineraries taken by the armies of Union Generals Grant and P. II.

Sheridan indicate that in May 1864 large bodies of troops passed close to but did not enter the ~tudy area.

Grant's men, upon reaching the Chesterfield Station or Depot. turned west. Sheridan. on the other hand.

crossed the RF&P below Polecat Creek and then headed down the west side of its tracks before turning

east just above Chesterfield Station (Engineer Bureau War Department 1865; Gillespie 1865) (Figures

24 and 25).

Reconstruction and Its Aftermath

After the close of the Civil War, the loss of slave labor and the death or disablement of a

relatively large percentage of Virginia's male population led to a shift toward less labor intensive forms

of agriculture, such as growing fruits and vegetables for urban markets. Fewer field crops were produced

and more emphasis was placed upon various Toirns-of animar lius6anary: --~any large farms were

75
J

1
CENTRAL VIRGINIA SHOWING ESPEY, HUSI"ON ck ASSOCIATES. INC.
hr - • ....
_ _ __.. cc._._...,.
LT. GENERAL U.S. GRANT'S CAMPAIGN

IN 1864-1865 (NO SCALE GIVEN) FIGURE 24

(ENGINEER BUREAU WAR DEPARTMENT 1865) DOMINION Rl!CYCLING

AND SUPPORT FACILITY

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

7F.
II\
"'Q
'

CENTRAL VIRGINIA SHOWING

MAJ. GEN. P.H. SHERIDAN'S CAMPAIGNS

,. _____ .....____ Col---
ESPEY, HUSTON ck ASSOCIATES. INC •

f•tl"'I
\ l'I '\J
r,.,.. • • ,-
~""" H ._ ~
,..,,,ro.1\
U I W I. n I
fl"II I
\ U I._._&;;
... ,,,,.,.._,,-
,i.t r' I ~
4ft~P\
I Q U .1 I

DOMINION RECYCLING
•
AND SUPPORT FACILITY
CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1
"'1
j
subdivided during this period and their acreage sold off. Some farmers turned to sharecropping as a

means of fulfilling their labor needs or they hired ex-slaves or poorer whites (Hodges et al. 1985:33).

According to one scholar. substantial numbers of Northern settlers established themselves in Caroline

1 County after the Civil War (Fall 1989:329).

1 In June 1875, Lewis M. George prepared his last will and testament. He bequeathed liferights

to all of his real and personal estate to his wife, Sarah E., and their daughter. Paulina J. Baker, stipulating

that after the survivor's death, the property was to descend to Paulina's children ( Caroline County Will

Book 37:104). George apparently lived a few years after making his will. for in 1880 he again was listed

as one of Ruther Glen's principal farmers (Fall 1989:329). In 1893. Paulina J. Baker deeded to L. M.

G. Baker and C. L. Baker, her sons. half-interests in her late father 's 500 acre home tract. C. L. Baker

used his share of the acreage as collateral when securing a loan; when he defaulted upon repayment. his

share of the property was sold at a public auction. In 1896 C. L. Baker's trustee deeded the acreage to
l L. M. G. Baker, noting that the property being conveyed had belonged to the late Dr. Lewis M. George

j (Caroline County Deed Book 66:13-14). Through this purchase. L. M. G. Baker came into possession

of all of his grandfather's c. 500 acre homefarm. In March 1899 Lewis M. G. Baker and his wife. who

J were residents of Knoxville. Tennessee. deeded their 505.50 acres to A. S. George, a single male

(C'.1roline C'mmty Dc:a:c:a:rl Rnnk 67:291-295;70:221 ).

During the 1880s and 90s. Ruther Glen was a thriving community that had its own post office.

a local magistrate. six general stores, grist and flour mills, and four saw mills (one of which was owned

and operated by the George brothers). By 1884 Ruther Glen hod a physician and a coach and wagon

maker. Located only 29 milt!s from Richmond, the selllement was one of only seven Caroline County

stations along the RF&P railroad. In 1897 Ruther Glen reportedly had a population of 200 persons (Fall

_J 1989:329-330).

j 78

J
 The Modem Era

The advent of the twentieth century brought a number of significant changes to those who lived

in rural America. Steam and horse-powered farming equipment was replaced by gasoline-powered

tractors that were both faster and more efficient. Likewise, horse-drawn vehicles were replaced by trucks

and automobiles, \vhich in. turn necessitated road improvements. i~Jong \vith these advances came rural

electrification, home mail delivery, and telephone service (Hodges et al. 1985:33).

Between 1897 and 1906 the population of the Ruther Glen area declined significantly, from 200

to only 30. The small rural community still had two general stores, two blacksmiths and wheelwrights,

a couple of flour and corn mills, saw mills, and a physician. Four school teachers and a notary public also

were living in the area. By 1910 there were two canneries, a druggist, lumber dealers, livery stables. and

an undertaker ar Ruther Gien. By i9i6 the esrabiishmem of J. D. Gray, an excelsior manufacturer, ai:;o

was iocated there (Fall 1989:330-331).

A.S. George retained the old George home place until 1903, at which time he deeded it to the

Hanover Excelsior Company of Maine. George, in disposing of his land, stipulated that he was preserving

his rights to "the family graveyard containing 3/4 acre and located about 100 yards from the dwelling and

now enclosed by a wire fence" and he noted that the 505 acre tract he was selling was known as Fairford

Farm (Caroline County Deed Book 67:293-295:70:221). In 1926 the officers of the Hanover Excelsior

Company conveyed the 505 acre Fairford Farm to C. H. Stevens, H.L. Taylor. and G. K. Coleman

(Caroline County Deed Book 96:318). They, like A S. George, reserved unto themselves "the family

grave plot containing about 3/4 acre ... and located about 100 yards from the site of the dwelling house"

:.i.nd certain rights of access. The Hanover Excelsior Company articulated its intent "to convey the land

79
1
"l
l with the same restrictions and reservations ... as it was conveyed to them" (Caroline County Deed Book

l 96:318-320). Stevens, Coleman, and Taylor deeded 5.81 acres of their farm to the Richmond,

Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad in 1927 (Caroline County Deed Book 97:510).

In November 1941 G. K. Coleman, H. L. Taylor, and the executor of C. H. Stevens sold their 505

acres known as Fairford to Walter G. Schwab (Caroline County Deed Book 116:360). He and his wife.

Ina M. H. Schwab, sold a 100 ft. right-of-way to the Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) in

1950 (Caroline County Deed Book 131:203-205). On January 25, 1954 the Schwab couple conveyed their

form to the Continental Can Company, Inc .. Attached to the Schwabs' deed was a recently executed plat.

indicating that Fairford or Fairfoot Farm then contained 507 acres. The December 16, 1953 Schwab plat
1 identifies the sites of the family graveyard and an "old chimney" that was located near at hand. presumably

the remains of the dwelling that A. S. George in 1903 described as being 100 ft. from the family cemetery.

T~e Schwab plat also shows the "approximate location [of a] brick-walled cemetery" that lies to the

northeast. beyond the VEPCO right-of-way (Caroline County Deed Book 137:456-456A). It should be

noted that the latter cemetery was close to the site of the George dwelling that was depicted on

Confederate cartographers' maps (see figure 20). In July 1986 KMI Continental Area I, Inc., a subsidiary

of Continental Can. deeded the Schwab Tract and another piece of Caroline County acreage to

Continental Land Sales, Inc. (Caroline County Deed Book 380-383).

]

The construction of Interstate 95 assisted Caroline County in realizing ·its economic potential,
J
circumventing the limited availability of commercial transportation (such as railways and aviation) that

previously had somewhat inhibited growth and development. Earlier on, Caroline, like many other

Middle Peninsula counties, relied largely upon an agrarian economy, which included truck farming,
J commercial livestock. and timber production, plus the recreation, sporting, and tourist industries. The

80

J
Ruther Glen community by 1968 was home to the Taylor Fiber Company, Satterwhite Brothers General

Store, and the Jarrell Oil Company, plus six forest wardens. More recently, Caroline County has seen

growth in the development of light industry (Hodges et al. 1985:33; Fall 1989:331).

4.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

44CE232 and 44CE233

These sites were first recorded by Lyle Browning in the spring of 1987 during a Phase I survey

conducted for the Caroline County Water and Sewer Project. At that time. 4.+CE232 appeared to be a

nondiagnostic sparse lithic surface scaLter approximately 94 meters (300') in diamerer located on the top

and middle portion of a stream terrace. while 4.+CE233, roughly 31 meters (100') in JiamL:tL:r. ocrnpied

the northern tip of lhe same terrace. Site 4-+CE233 was assigned to the Woodland Period based on two

sherds of sand and crushed quartz tempered pottery.

The sites were reinvestigated by EH&A during the Phase I survey and were found to occupy the

top and the side slopes overlooking Mill Run. The area east of the site is dominated by marshlands and

Polecat Creek is roughly 175 meters (550') northeast. Vegetation presently consists of young saplings

growing in a dense accumulation of tree limbs and tree tops recently left behind by loggers.

The sites yielded a light prehistoric scatter of flakes, one greenstone ax fragment. and aboriginai

pottery. Unfortunately, this type of smoothed ax was used for an extended pericxi of time and is difficult

to assign to a specific period. Two sand tempered pottery fragments were also coilected. Although too

small to be confidently identified into a ware type, these fragments may be tentatiYeiy dated to the Middle

Woodland Period based on a coarse sand temper. smoothed interiors. and cord-marked exteriors. Soils

81
 in Layer A consisted of a gray sandy loam 15-17 cm thick underlain by Layer B which consisted of a light

brown sandy loam 30-34 cm thick. Layer C was comprised of a sterile light tan sand of undeterminale
1 thickness.

Sites 44CE232 and 44CE233 correlate with known prehistoric upland settlement patterns in this

region. Based on the type; and quantity of artifacts recovered, these two sites appear to consist of a series

of small overlapping camps used by small groups of people for extremely short durations of time during

the Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods. These sites are potentially eligible for the National

Register of Historic Places under Criterion D for the information they may contain on prehistonc

settlement and subsistence systems at the local level of significance. If construction is anticipated at this

location. Phase II evaluations are recommended to clarify site boundaries. cultural affiliations. ar~1

extent. and function.

44CE267 and 44CE269

Sites 44CE267 and 44CE269 are probably quarters based upon their relatively small size and

J proximity to Site 44CE274 (Figure 26). Separated by a intermittent drainage, these two sites are located

on two high, broad inland terraces roughly 300 to 150 meters (1,000' to 500') from an unnamed tributary

1 of Polecat Creek. The area has been extensively clear cut of pines and large hardwoods and present

vegetation consists of young sapiings and yucca plants. Surface visibility ranges from 40 to 50 percent.

J These two sites were located during the Phase I survey and each consists of a semi-dense surface

brick scatter with a light subsurface scatter of historic artifacts. One blue shell-edged rococo pearlware

J rim fragment ( c. post 1795), one whiteware fragment ( c. post 1830), one quartzite secondary flake. and

J fourteen handmade brick fragments were collected from 44CE267. Artifacts recovered from Site

82
J
J
l
l

j ESPEY. HUSTON & ASSOCIATE~. INC.

tl..EGEND: EnltiD k !nmonmontal Consult.ant.a
FIGURE 28
e POSITIVE SHOVEL TEST Ph••• I Plan of Sit••
44CE287, 44CE289, 44CE273 A 44CE274
0 NEGATIVE SHOVEL TEST DOMINION RECYCLING
AND SUPPORT FACILITY
SOURCE: TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN IS MAPPING PROVIDED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES
AND IS PRELIMINARY BASE TOPOGRAPHY DATED JANUARY 6, 1992.
Scale: 1 ~: 200' . -If SURFACE FIND CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

83
 44CE269 consisted of two whiteware fragments (c. post 1830), one plain and one annular design

creamware fragment (c. 1775-1820), two pearlware fragments (c. post 1779), one cast iron pot fragment,

and ten handmade brick fragments. Soils in Layer A consisted of a dark brown sand 12-17 cm thick

l underlain by Layer B which consisted of a light tan sand 10-15 cm thick. Layer C was comprised of a

sterile yellow sandy clay of undeterminate thickness.

l
Sites 44CE267 and 44CE269 fall into the Antebellum Period (1781-1861) Historic Sites context
l and could be eligible under Criterion D of the National Register of Historic Places under a local level

1 of significance. The research value of these two sites. particularly in connection with 44CE274. is the

potential they may contain an architecture. settlement pattern, ethnicity, diet. and material culture of the

less affluent in Virginia during this time. Therefore, if construction is planned for these areas. Phase II

fieldwork is recommended.

44CE268

Site 44CE268 is located on a high inland terrace roughly 240 meters (800') west of an unnamed

tributary of Polecat Creek. Approximately 50 meters cast to west by 25 meters north to south (160' x

80'), the site is situated on the terrace crest and side slopes. The area has been repeatedly logged in the

J past and has recently been extensively clear cut of pines anJ large harJwuuJs. Vcgdaliun prcst!nlly

consists of young saplings with very little ground cover.

Except for tree limbs and tree tops, there is little ground cover and surface visibility ranges from

65 to 75 percent. A light surface scatter of historic material was located during the Phase I survey.

Artifacts recovered from the surface include one creamware fragment (c. 1775-1820), seven plain and two

blue embossed shell edged rim penrlwnrc fragments (c. post 1779), and one dark green bottle glass

84
fragment. Although the area surrounding the finds was systematically shovel tested at close intervals. no

intact subsurface artifact concentrations, features, or intact soil layers were encountered.

This site falls into the Antebellum Period (ca 1781-1861) and if intact may have been eligible for

the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D. However. the site has been heavily impacted

and soil stratigraphy is no longer intact due to past timber cutting and its associ:ire<l heavy equipment

usage. Therefore. no further work is recommended at this site .

..i..icE270

Histo ric Site 44CE270 is located on an inland terrace roughly 310 meters 1 :.000') east of an

unnamed tributary of Polecat Creek. Apprnxim:1tely 1.'i meters (50') in diameter. the sire occupies the

terrace top and side slope. Repeatedly logged in the past. the area has recently been extensively clear

cut of pines :md large hardwoods. Present vegetation consists primariiy of young saoiings with little

ground cover. Surface visible ranges from 65 to 75 percent.

During the Phase I survey, a light brick scatter was noted on the surface. The area around the

finds was systematically shovel tested at close intervals to determine site extent anci whether or not

cultural deposits survived. AH tests were negative and soil layers appear to be mixed due to heavy

equipment usage associated with the removal of trees during timbering operations. .--\.S no temporally

diagnostic artifacts were recovered. 44CE270 can not be placed within a specific Historic Site Context.

As a result of the high degree of soil disturbance and the lack of diagnostic artifacts. no further work is

recommended.

85
1
44CE271

l Site 44CE271 is located on a low-lying terrace roughly 275 meters (900') south of an unnamed

tributary of Polecat Creek. Approximately 31 meters (100') in diameter the site occupies the terrace's

top and side slopes. The area has been extensively clear cut of pines and large hardwoods and vegetation

presently consists of young sapling and yucca. Ground surface visibility ranges from 65 to 70 percent.

A light surface scatter of historic artifacts was located during the Phase I survey. Artifacts

collected from the surface include one whiteware fragment and three dark green bottle glass fragments.

The site has been heavily impacted by past logging activities which left the soils mixed. deflated. and

mottled by heavy equipment. The soil stratigraphy is no longer intact and over most of this location

subsoil is exposed on the surface.

This site can not be placed into a meaningful Historic Sites Context due to the general lack of

diagnostic artifacts, and the long manufacturing dates of the few which were recovered. As a result of

this situation, combined with the lack of site integrity, no further work is recommended at 44CE271.

J
44CE272

j
Site 44CE272 is located on a high broad inland terrace 44 meters (400') east of an unnamed

tributary of Polecat Creek. Approximately 167 meters north to south by 138 meters east to west (550'

J x 450'), this site occupies the middle of the terrace. Timber has been extensively clear cut in this area

and the vegetation presently consists of young saplings and yucca (Plate 1).

J
86
J
J
Pbtc L. ?roJect environs in the \'icinity
,)i Site c+..J.CE27:. looking north
 This site is comprised of evidence for a dwelling site with an associated brick-walled cemetery

(Figure 27, Plates 2 and 3). The area around the cemetery was systematically shovel tested at close

intervals and yielded two fire-cracked rocks, 27 handmade brick fragments, one wrought spike fragment.
l three medium green bottle glass fragments, one cast iron fragment, one agateware fragment (c. 1720-

l 1775), and three Rhenish stoneware fragments (c. 1700-1775). Soils in Layer A consisted of a dark

grayish brown sandy loam 12-15 cm thick underlain by Layer B which consisted of a tannish orange sandy

l loam 19-24 cm thick. Layer C is comprised of an orange sand of undeterrninate thickness.

l Although no grave markers remain. the cemetery is in a generally good state of preservation.

J It is completely enclosed by a continuous brick wall encompassing an area approximately 20' x 20'. The

wall was constructed one course wide, in Flemish bond, and bonded with shell-tempered mortar. Portions

of the wall were later re-painted with cement. The one course-wide wall is capped by coping bricks set

on 1 1/2 course-wide cap.

The dwelling site and associated cemetery are probably affiliated with the George family which

was residing in Caroline County by the 1730s. Based upon the date of the artifacts, the George family

residents of the site go at least as far back as John George, Jr. who was on the property in the 1780s.

Given the small size of the cemetery it would appear to be unlikely that its use extended beyond 1801

when Lewis George was deeded the property (McCartney, 1991 ).

J
Site 44CE272 appears to fall in both the L1te C.olonial Period (1720-1781) and the Antebellum

Period (1781-1861). Given its association with the prominent George family, the site is potentially

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D at a local level of significance for

the information it may contain on the architecture, settlement pattern, and material culture associated

with its inhabitants. Phase II fieldwork is therefore recommended for 44CE272.

88
r-
N
0

ESPEY. HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

:I,J::GEND : bF . . . . ._
. _attC • •
I
e POSITIVE SHOVEL TEST, FIGURE 27
0 NEGATIVE SHOVEL TEST!

* SURFACE FIND
! Scale: 1 ·, 200'
PhH• I Plan of Site.
DOMINION RECYCLING
44CE272

AND SUPPORT FACILITY

CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

89
1

]
1

I
]

J
·
•:::'cmctcrv m S1tc '+-+'J L_ -· ·· ,okin
~~-~ · - '-"
1• · " ' ~ '·

!
J
Pl:1tc .. . Detail ot hrick cemetery wail at Site
.i.+CE272. looking northeasl
 ,
...
j
I

44CE273

This site is located on a broad high inland terrace roughly 420 meters (1200') east of an unnamed

tributary of Polecat Creek. Approximately 62 meters north to south by 45 meters east to west (200' x

160'), this site is situated on the eastern side slope. Timber has been extensively logged in this area in

l the past. Present vegetation consists of young saplings and yucca.

A light surface scatter of late 19th and early 20th century artifacts were collected from the surface

J and from shovel tests. These included solarized amethyst bottle glass, wire spikes and nails. and

American stoneware with Albany glazed interiors and white Bristol glazed exteriors. Although handmade

brick fragments were recovered. these are probably associated with 44CE274 which is roughly 15 meters

(50') to the south (Figure 26). Soil stratigraphy has been heavily impacted by past timber management

and associated heavy equipment traffic. The site is deeply disturbed by tire ruts and bulldozer tracks and

subsoil is exposed in many areas. Due to its highly disturbed condition, this site is deemed not eligible

for the National Register of Historic Places and therefore. no further work is recommended.
I
44CE274
J

44CE274 is located on a high, inlaml l.Jruau terrace roughly 390 meters (1,300') east of an

unnamed tributary of Polecat Creek. Approximately 242 meters north to south by 305 meters east to
J west (600' x 1,000'), the site is situated on the terrace's eastern side.

J
The locations of three structures were tentatively identified during a Phase I survey (see Figure

J 26). As well, a bed of periwinkle marking the probable site of the documented cemetery, was recorded.

l Structure 1 (the main house) is represented by an above ground chimney ruin (Plate 4). The probable
_J
92

J
Plate 4. Chimney ruins at Site 44CE274, looking west

~3
1
- ,l location of another building Structure 2, is roughly 28 meters (90') northeast of Structure 1. Finally, a

third building (Structure 3) is located approximately 90 meters (300') south/southeast of Structure l.

1 These latter structures are characterized by dense surface concentrations of handmade brick. Although

l the cemetery is unmarked, reference is made to it in various documents (see Section 4.1). The chimney

was constructed of handmade bricks laid with alternating headers and stretchers in each course. Widely

used in the 18th century, this bricklaying technique is referred to as Flemish bond. Artifacts dating from

the 18th and 19th century were recovered from the surface and shovel tests. Material collected include

handmade brick fragments. cut and wrought nails, American Stoneware (c. post 1730), blue shell-edged

pearlware ( c. post 1795). whiteware ( c. post 1830), dipped white salt glazed stoneware ( c. 1720-1780). and

creamware (c. 1775-18:20). Soils in Layer A consisted of a light brown sandy loam 8-12 cm thick O\'erlain

by a humic layer 5 cm thick. Layer 'B was comprised of a yellowish tan sandy loam 24-28 cm thick

underlain by Layer C which was comprised of a sterile tannish brown sandy loam of undeterminate

thickness.

Site 44CE274 appears to fall into several Historic Contexts include the Antebellum Period ( 1781

1861 ), Civil War (1861-1865), and the Post-Bell um Period (1865-1917). It's link with the prominent

George family and other nearby archaeological sites makes it potentially eligible for the National Register

of Historic Places under Criterion D at a local level of significance. Information which may survive at

the site includes data on the architecture. settlement patterns. and material culture of the George family.

Phase II fieldwork is therefore recommended for 44CE274.

J
J
l 94
j
4.3 ISOLATED CULTURAL RESOURCES

A sand tempered aboriginal pottery fragment was recovered from the surface of a long narrow

terrace approximately 263 meters (850') east of an unnamed tributary of Polecat Creek. The area has

been extensively clear cut of pines and large hardwoods and vegetation presently consists of young

saplings and yucca plants.

Identified as Popes Creek ware (500 B.C.- AD. 200), the pottery fragment had a smoOLhcd

interior and a cord-marked exterior. This ware is usually associated with the Middle Woodland Period.

The area surrounding the find was systematically shovel tested at close intervais. howt:vt:r. ull shovel Lests

wPrP nPantivP
..... •
FvtPn<:.ivP. hnllrl<wino
._
nf trPP limh<:. nn<i tnn<:.
r
hn<:. imnnrtP<i
r
thP. <:.nil <:.tr:itior:inhv
o r .
:inrl exnnserl
r

the subsoil on the surface. As this site represents an isolated find, no further work is reccmmendcd.

A light nondiagnostic lithic scatter was noted in the middle of a road cut on a narrow finger of

bnd surrounded on the west by an unnamed tributary of Polecat Creek. on the north by Polecat Creek.

and on the east by wetlands. Pines and large hardwoods have been harvested repeatedly in the past and

present vegetation consists of young saplings in addition to a light ground cover of bushes and bramble.

Material collected from the surface included two fire cracked rocks. five debitage, and six flakes.

Although the area surrounding the finds was systematically shovel tested at close intervals. no other tests

were positive. No further work is recommended as this area represents an isolated find.

95
 CC-11 is located on a broad inland terrace approximately 263 meters (850') southeast of an

unnamed tributary of Polecat Creek. The area has been extensively clear cut of pines and large

hardwoods and present vegetation consists of young saplings with an undergrowth of yucca.

Two handmade brick fragments were recovered from Layer A of a shovel test. The area around

the finds was systematically shovel tested at close intervals, however. all tests were negative. As CC-11

•} represents an isolated find no further work is recommended.

CC-12 is located on the eastern side slope of a narrow finger of land surrounded on two sides

by an unnamed tributary of Polecat Creek. The area has been extensively clear cut of pines and large

hardwoods and vegetation presently consists of young saplings with little ground cover.

One quartz secondary flake was recovered from Layer B of a shovel test. Although the area

surrounding the find was systematically shovel tested at dose intervals, no further finds were discovered.

As this flake represents nn isolated find, no further work is rer.ommended.

CC-13 is located on the northern side slope of a narrow terrace that is situated between two

J unnamed tributaries of Polecat Creek. Present vegetation consists of young saplings with little ground

cover. Pines and large hardwoods have been repeatedly harvested in the past.
J
l 96
~J
J
 One quartzite flake was collected from Layer A of a shovel test. The area surrounding the find

was systematically shovel tested at close intervals, all were negative. CC-13 represents an isolated find

and no further work is recommended.

CC-14 is located on the tip and side slope of a narrow inland terrace that overlooks an unnamed

tributary of Polecat Creek. Pines and large hardwoods have been extensively clear cut. and prt:!Sent

vegetation consists of young saplings with little ground cover.

One sand tempered aboriginal pottery body fragment with a smoothed interior ami wiJe net

impressed exterior was recovered from Layer A of a shovel test. Identified as Popes Creek (500 B.C.-

systematically shovel tested at close intervals, however. no further finds were recorded. .--\s this pottery

fragment represents an isolated find, no further work is recommended.

CC-15 is located on the eastern side slope of a broad inland terrace approximately 248 meters

(800') east of an unnamed tributary of Polecat Creek. Pine and large hardwoods have been extensively

clear cut and vegetation presently consists of young saplings with little ground cover.

One handmade brick fragment was recovered from Layer A of a shovel test. Although the area

surrounding the find was systematically shovel tested at close intervals, no other finds were noted. As

CC-15 represents an isolated find, no further work is recommended.

97
~, I
I

CC-16 is located on the eastern side slope of a broad inland terrace approximately 124 meters

(450') east of an unnamed tributary of Polecat Creek. Pines and large hardwoods have been repeatedly

harvested in the past and present vegetation consists of young ·saplings with little ground cover.

Two handmade brick fragments were recovered from Layer A of a shovel test. Although the
l area around the positive test was systematically shovel tested at close intervals. all were sterile. No

further work is recommend on CC-16 as it represents an isolated find.

CC-17 is located on the northern side of a narrow finger of land approximately 31 meters (100')

south of an. unnamed tributary of Polecat Creek. Timber within the area has been extensively clear cut

and present vegetation consists of young saplings and yucca.

1
Three handmade brick fragments were recovered from Layer A of a shovel test. The area around
j
the finds was systematically shovel tested at close intervals, however, all were negative. As these brick

fragment'> represent an isolated find, no further work is recommended.

j
j
CC-18 is located on the southwestern side slope of a inland terrace roughly 310 meters (1000')

east of an unnamed tributary of Polecat Creek. Pines and large hardwoods have been extensively clear

cut and present vegetation consists of young saplings and yucca.

98
\
j
l
J
 Two handmade brick fragments were collected from Layer B of a shovel test. Although the area

around the finds was systematically shovel tested at close intervals, all were negative. As this location

has been impacted by bulldozing and heavy equipment associated with the cutting and removal of trcL.S,

soil stratigraphy is no longer intact. Thus, CC-18 represents an isolated find and no further work is

recommended.

CC-19 is located on the southwestern side slope of a narrow finger of land surrounded on the

west by an unnamed tributary of Polecat Creek, on the north by Polecat Creek, and on the east by

wetlands. Present vegetation consists of young saplings with an understory of bushes and brambles.

Timber h~s been repentedly harvested in the past at this location.

One: [Jmirtzite secondary flake was recovered from Layer A of a shovel test. The an:a

surrounding the artifact was systematically shovel tested al dose intervals. however. all tests were

negative. As this flake represents an isolated find no further work is recommended.

CC-20 is located on the crest of a narrow finger of land surrounded on the west by an unnamed

tributary of Polecat Creek. on the north by Pult:1.:al Crnek, and on the east by wetlands. Present

vegetation consists of young saplings with an understory of bushes and brambles. Timber has been

repeatedly harvested in the past.

99
1
1 One siliceous slate secondary flake was recovered from Layer A of a shovel test. The area

surrounding the artifact was systematically shovel tested at close intervals, however, all tests were
1 negative. As CC-20 represents an isolated find, no further work is recommended.

1
1
1
l
~l

I
J
J
J
J
J
J
100

J
j
1
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSIONS

A Phase I (identification) cultural resources survey conducted by Espey, Huston & Associates,

Inc. in December 1991 and January 1992 identified the location of 10 archaeological sites and 12 isolated

finds. All sites exhibited a degree of disturbance due to past land management which involved the

l production of commercial timber. While six of the archaeological sites are recommended for additional

work, the remaining four exhibit extensive disturbance and deflated soils due to logging and they are not

recommended for additional fieidwork. Past land use probably explains the discovery of the twelve

isolated finds which are also not recommended for further work.

These investigations were designed to .locate all cultural resources, within the limitations of

established survey procedures, in the 512 acre project area, however the presence of isolated finds and

ground disturbance indications suggest that the sample may be skewed. Site destruction caused by

J repeated logging of the property accompanied by destructive erosional processes likely reduced the

inventory of sites, particularly those dating to the prehistoric period. as they tend to be more ephermeral

and fragile.

J
With the exception of Late Woodland Period occupations. prehistoric sites of all periods were

predicted to be potentially occurring in two locations. In the northern portion of the project area, sites

were anticipated along Mill Run and Polecat Creek while occupations were also expected along and

flanking the unnamed tributary of Polecat Creek which flows through the southeastern portion of the

101

J
property. The two known sites in the northern sector of the property ( 44CE232 and 44CE233) were

revisited and were dated to the Middle Woodard Period. Further upstream, along Mill Run. three

undated isolated prehistoric finds were discovered. This portion of the property, consisting of 99 acres.

is generally flat and includes approximately 70 acres of wetlands, bordering Polecat Creek to the north

and Mill Creek to the northwest, which are completely inundated. The 413 acres of the property area

south of the railroad was largely clear cut for timber and is characterized by undulating topography with

steep-sided ravines along two unnamed tributaries of Polecat Creek. It was on the uplands bordering the

northern side of the unnamed tributary in the southern portion of the survey area that four prehistoric

isolated finds were discovered in expected locations. Two of these dated to the Middle Woodland Period.

In sum, it appears that the prehistoric settlement patterns conform Lu l:uuent expectations for

the area. Small upland sites. if present. were obscured or destroyed by repeated twentieth century logging

operations as well as historic agricultrual use uf the landscape since the eighteenth century, the two

l1oodplain sites apparently still exist because of their general inaccessibility to historic period land use.

Historic use of the property was predicted to date to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries based

upon the presence of the RF&P railroad and the proximity to known sites of this period just west of the

property. No earlier occupation was predicted since no major early roads appeared to occur within the

project area limits.

As the survey revealed. however, the principal elements of the historic landscape were

occupations dating to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries which were located on the uplands in the

center of the property. These discoveries indicate that inland road networks were more developed than

102
l previous survey as well as archival data suggested. Two of the sites recommended for further work

(44CE272 and 44CE274) apparently survived repeated logging of the property as a result of the

prominent brick architectural ruins which mark their locations.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

Table 1 summarizes the cultural resources identified during the Phase I survey and provides

recommendations for their disposition. As the 12 isolated finds are out of context, no further work is

l recommended at these locations. The 10 archaeological sites include four historic sites which were

heavily disturbed as a result of past timber management. Therefore, no additional work is recommended
l for sites 44CE268. 44CE270. 44CE271, and 44CE273.

The six remaining sites are potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places for

their research potential under Criterion D and are thus recommended for Phase II (evaluation) fieldwork

if construction is anticipated in these areas. Site 44CE272 is a mid-18th century domestic site with ai1

associated cemetery surrounded by a brick wall. The brick chimney remnant of a dwelling, subsurface

j indications of outbuildings, and an unmarked J/4 acre cemetery comprise Site 44CE274. Possible quarters

associated with 44CE274 were designated as sites 44CE267 and 44CE269. These four historic sites could
J contain important information on the 18th and 19th settlement of Caroline County and may therefore.

j be of local significance. In addition, prehistoric sites 44CE232 and 44CE233 potentially contain research

data on Native American subsistence and settlement systems which would place them within a local and

J multi-county level of significance.

103

J
~
I
I

··1 TABLE 1
CULTURAL RESOURCES LOCATED
AND
·1
ll RECOMMENDATIONS
Site ~ Period Recommendations
CC-9 Isolated Find Prehistoric: Middle Woodland No Further Work

CC-10 Isolated Find Prehistoric: No Date Available No Further Work

CC-11 Isolated Find Historic: No Date Available No Further Work

CC-12 Isolated Find Prehistoric: No Date Available No Further Work

CC-13 Isolated Find Prehistoric: No Date Available No Further Work

l CC-14 Isolated Find Prehistoric: Middle Woodland No Further Work

CC-15 Isolated Find Historic: No Date Available No Further Work

l CC-16 Isolated Find Historic: No Date Available No Further Work

CC-17 Isolated Find Historic: No Date Available No Further Work

CC-18 Isolated Find Historic: No Date Available No Further Work

CC-19 Isolated Find Prehistoric: No Date Available No Further Work

CC-20 Isolated Find Prehistoric: No Date Available No Further Work

44CE232 Campsite Prehistoric: Middle Woodland Further Work

J
44CE233 Campsite Prehistoric: Middle Woodland Further Work

44CE267 Quarter ( ?) Historic: Late 18th/Early Further Work

19th Century

44CE268 Domestic (?) Historic: Late 18th/Early No Further Work

19th Century
_J
44CE269 Quarter(?) Historic: Late 18th/Early Further Work
19th Century
1
j 4-!CE.270 Unknown Historic: No date available No Further Work

441.F.271 Domesric ( ?) I Iisloric: 19th Century No Further Work

J
44CE272 Domestic with Prehistoric: No date Further Work
Cemetery Available
'II
Historic: Early 18th Century
;
44CE273 Unknown Historic: Late 19th/ No Further Work
Early 20th Century

J 44CE274 Manor House with

Associated Out-
Historic: Late 18th/
Early 19th Century
Further Work

buildings ond on
J unmarked cemetery

J
104

J
..,,.,
l
REFERENCES CITED

Abdill, George B.
1961 Civil War Railroads: A Pictorial Story of the Iron Horse, 1861-1865. Bonanza Books, New
York.

Andrews, Charles, ed.

1967 Narratives of the Insurrections, 1665-1690. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. Reprint of 1915
edition.

Anonymous
n.d. WP A Photographs of Caroline County Homes. Notebook on file at the Caroline County Library,
Bowling Green.

1862 Country Between Washington and Manassas Junction and Country Between Fort Monroe and
Richmond. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

1864a Parts of Hanover, Caroline, and King William Counties, Virginia. National Archives, Washington.
D.C.

1864b Portions of Hanover, Caroline, and King William Counties, Virginia. National Archives.
Washington, D .C.

1864c Portions of Hanover, Caroline, and King William Counties, Virginia. National Archives.
Washington, D.C.

1864d Portions of Hanover, Caroline, and King William Counties, Virginia. National Archives,
Washington, D.C.

1864e Caroline County and Parts of the Adjacent Counties East Thereof. Library of Congress,
Washington, D.C.
J
Ayers. Edward and Ma ry Beaudry
1979 An Archaeological and His torical Survev of Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia. Southside Historical Siles,
Inc., Departme nt of Anthropology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.

j Babbie, Earl
1986 The Practice of Social Research: Fourth EuiLiun. Wadswurlh Publi.shing co., Delmont,
California.

Beverley, Robert
1947 History of the Present State of Virginia (1705). L. B. Wright, ed. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.

Billings, Warren
1968 'Virginia's Deploured Condition," 1660-1676: The Causes of Bacon's Rebellion. PhD.
dissertation. Modern History Department, University of Northern Illinois.

105

J
J
Billings, Warren M., John E. Selby and Thad W. Tate
1986 Colonial Virginia: A History. KTO Press, White Plains.

Blunt, E. and G. W.
[1862] E. and G. W. Blunt's Corrected map of Washington and the Seat of War on the Potomac. Library
of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Boatner, Mark M. III

1959 The Civil War Dictionary. David McKay Co., Inc., New York.

Boye, Herman
1826 A Map of Lhe Slate of Virginia: Constructed in Conformity to Law. Virginia State Library,
Richmond.

Burr. David H.
1839 Map of Virginia, Maryland and Delaware exhibiting the post offices. post roads. canals, railroads.
etc. Library of Congress, Washington. D.C.

Campbell, T.E.
1954 Colonial Caroline: A History of Caroline County, Virginia. Dietz Press. Richmond.

Carey, Mathew
1814 Map of Virginia. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Caroline County
1732-1992 Deeds, Wills, Inventories, Marriage Registers, Orders, Plats and Surveys, Land Tax Lists
and Alterations. Miscellaneous. Caroline County Courthouse. Bowling Green, and
Virginia State Library, Richmond.

Caroline County Jamestown Festival Committee

1957 Caroline County Historical Guide Book. Privately published, Bowling Green.

Carrier, Lyman
1957 Agriculture in Virginia, 1607-1699. The University of Virginia Press. Charlottesville.

Catton, Bruce
1960 The American Heritage Picture History of the Civil War. American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc.
New York.

Chappell, Edward A.
1975 Architecturnl and Archaeological Survey of Caroline County. Virginia. Including the Towns of
Bolwing Green and Port Royal. Unpublished ms. on file at the Division of Historic Landmarks,
Research Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.

Chestnut, Mory Boykin

1981 Mary Chestnut's Civil War. Edited by C. Vann Woodward. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Clark, J. T. and E. T. Long

1985 Guide to Church Records in the Virginia State Library. Virginia State Library, Richmond.

106
 Cocke, Charles F.
1967 Parish Lines of the Diocese of Virginia. Virginia State Library, Richmond.

1 Crozet, Claudius
1848 Map of the Internal Improvements of Virginia. Virginia State Library, Richmond.

l Davis, George B., Leslie J. Perry and Joseph W. Kirkley

1978 The Official Military Atlas of the Civil War. Compiled by Capt. Calvin D. Cowles. Arno Press
and Crown Publishers, Inc., New York. Originally published 1891. Government Printing Office.

l Washington, D.C.

Davis, Jefferson

l 1938 The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. 2 vols. Garrett and Massie, Inc., Richmond.

Des Cognets, Louis B.

1958 English Duplicates of Lost Virginia Records. Privately published, Princeton. N. J.
]
Dezoteux
[1781-1782] Carte Pour Servir du Journal de M. le Marquis de Chastellux. Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation Research Archives, Williamsburg.

Engineer Bureau War Department

1865 Central Virginia Showing Lt. General U.S. Grant's Campaign in 1864-1865. National Archives,
Washington, D.C.

Engineer Department, Army of the Potomac

J 1864 Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, Virginia, to Bowling Green and Sparta, C.'lroline County,
Virginia. National Archives. Washington, D. C.

Esposito, Vincent J., ed.

J 1959 The West Point Atlas of American Wars. Two vols.
Praeger Publishers. New York.

Evans, Clement A
1962 Confederate Military History. 12 vols. Thomas Yoseloff, New York.

Fall. Ralph E.
1989 People, Post Offices and Communities in Caroline County, Virginia. 1727-1969. W. H. Wolfe
Associates. Roswell, Georgia.

Findley, Anthony
1825 Map of Virginia and Maryland. Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.

Fry, Joshua and Peter Jefferson

1755-1775
A Map of the most Inhabited part of Virginia containing the whole Province of Maryland with
Part of Pensilvania, New Jersey and North Carolina drawn by Joshua Fry and Peter Jefferson in
1751. Library of Congress. Washington, D.C.

J
107
Gaines, William H., Jr.
1967 Piedmont Bonanza. In Virginia Cavalcade, Vol. 16 No.4:32-37. Virginia State Library, Richmond.

Gardner, Alexander
1959 Gardner's Photographic Sketch Book of the Civil War. Dover Publishing Co., New York.

Gillespie, George L.
1865 Central Virginia showing Maj. Gen. P.H. Sheridan's Campaigns. National Archives. Washington,
D.C.

Gilmer, J.F.
[186-] Caroline County. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

1864 Map of a Portion of Eastern Virginia. Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Richmond.

Golder Associates Inc. and Storch Engineers.

1992 Identification and Delineation of Wetlands and Waters of the United States Proposed Dominion
Recycling and Support Facility Caroline County, Virginia.

Haley, Mary T.
1985 Caroline County: A Pictorial History. The Donning Company, Norfolk.

Henderson, D. E.
n.d. The Vicinity of Hanover Junction and Its Defenses. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Research
Archives. Williamsburg.

Henry, John
1770 A New and Accurate Map of Virginia. Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Richmond.

Herrmann, Augustine
1673 Virginia and Maryland, 1670. Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Richmond.

Hinton, I. T.
1831 Map of Virginia and Maryland. Library of Congress, Washington. D. C.

Hodge, Robert A., comp.

1978 Indices to the WPA Reports for Caroline, King George, Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties.
Virginia. Manuscript on file at the Caroline County Library, Bowling Green.

Hodges, Mary Ellen N., Martha W. McCartney and Beverly A. Straube

1985 The Archaeo lo gical Resources of CarqJ.i11~ County: A Synthesis of Archaeologica l
Reconnaissance Survev. Division of Historic Landmarks, Department of Conservation and
Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia. On file at Virginia Department of Historic Resources,
Richmond.

Hondius, Henry
1619 Nova Virginiae Tabula. Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Richmond.

108
 Hotchkiss, Jedediah
1835-1841 Geological Map of Virginia. Virginia State Library, Richmond.

[186-) Caroline County, Virginia. National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Howe, Henry
1845 Historical Recollections of Virginia. E. Peters, Charleston.
1 Humphreys, Andrew A.
1862a Position of Richmond. National Archives, Washington, D. C.

1 1862b Approaches to Richmond. National Archives, Washington. D. C.

1862c Sketch Exhibiting the Approaches to Richmond. National Archives, Washington, D. C.

1
Jackson, W. A.
1836 Mining Districts of Virginia. Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Richmond.

Jefferson, Thomas
1787 A Map of the Country between Albemarle Sound and Lake Erie. Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation Research Archives. Williamsburg.

1954 Notes on the State of Virginia. William Peden, ed. W. W. Norton and Company, New York.

Johnson, Robert U. and C.C. Buel, eds.

1956 Battles and Leaders of the Civil War: The Way to Appomattox. 4 vols. Castle Books, New York.

Kraft. Carl and Nell

1977 Portsmouth's "Buoy Yard": Spars to Solid State. Manuscript on file at Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.

Lamb. F.
1676 A Map of Virginia and Maryland. Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Richmond.

J Le\vis. Clifford M. and A. J. Loomie

1953 The Spanish Jesuit Mission in Virginia, 1570-1572. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill.
J
Le\vis, Samuel
1794 The State of Virginia from the Best Authorities. Colonial Williamsburg -Foundation Research
Archives, Williamsburg.

Lindenkohl, N. and C. Krebs

1864 Military Map of Southeast Virginia, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Research Archives,
Williamsburg.

Long, E. B.
1971 The Civil War Day by Day, An Almanac 1861-1865. Da Capo Press, Inc., New York.

109
Madison, James
1807 A map of Virginia Formed from Actual Surveys. C..olonial Williamsburg Foundation Research
Archives, Williamsburg. ·

Major-Captaine. Michael
1781 Map of Land Between James and York Rivers. Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
Richmond.

McCartney, Martha W.
1985 Seventeenth Century Apartheid: The Suppression and Containment of Indians in Tidewater
Virginia. Journal .o f Middle Atlantic Archaeology, I:51-80.

1991 The Schwab Tract Cemeteries Caroline County, Virginia. Report of Archival Research.

McCartney, Martha W. and Alain C. Outlaw

1991 Phase IA Archaeological Investigations of Caroline C.ounty C.orporation Property (Schwab Tract).
Swans Corner. Caroline County, Virginia.

McDowell, Irvin
1862 Surveys for :\1ilitary Defenses. Map of N. Eastern Virginia and Vicinity of Washington. '.'lational
Archives. Washington, D.C.

McGimsey, Charles R.. III and Hester A Davis

1977 The Management of Archaeological Resources: The Arlie House Report. Society for
American Arch:ieology.

Michler, Nicholas
1864 Untitled mop of several north-central Virginia counties. National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Miller. Francis I.. ed.

1911 The Photographic History of The Civil War. 10 vols. Review of Reviews Co., New ':r.'ork.

Morgan, Edmund S.
1975 American Slavery. American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia. W. W. Norton, New
York.

Motley, M. B. and ;\fay Campbell

1974 A Chronology of Caroline County, Virginia, and the War of Independence. 1771-1783. Caroline
County Independence Bicentennial Committee, Bowling Green.

Nash. Gary B.
1974 Red, White and Black: The Peoples of Early America. Prentis-Hall, Englewood.

Nugent, Nell M.
1969-1979
Cavaliers and Pioneers:Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants. 3 vols. Dietz Press,
Richmond and Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore.

110
 Opperman, Antony F. and Ronald A Thomas
1983 Archaeological Investigations at Fort A.P. Hill. Caroli ne County. Vi rginia. Mid-Atlantic
Archaeological Research, Inc., Newark, Delaware,

Parks, Gary, ed.

1982 Virginia Land Records. Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore.

l Quinn. David B.
1977 North America from Earliest Discovery to First Settlement. Alfred Knopf, New York.

l Rabb, L. Mark
1977 The Santa Rosa Wash Project: Notes on Archaeological Research Design under Contract. In,
Conservation Archaeology: A Guide for Cultural Resource Management Studies. Michael B.
l Shiffer and George J. Gumerman, Editors. Academic Press. New York.

Rawson, E. K. and R.H. Woods, comp.

1898 Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion. Series I. Vol.
VII. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Reps, John W.
1972 Tidewater Towns: City Planning in Colonial Virginia and Maryland. University of Virginia Press.
Charlottesville.

Rice H. C. and A. S. K. Brown

1972 The American Campaigns of Rochambeau's Army, 1780, 1781. 1782, 1783. Princeton University,
Princeton, and Brown University, Providence.

Robertson, James I., Jr.

1969 English Views of the Civil War: A Unique Excursion to Virginia, April 2-8. 1865. Virginia

I Magazine of History and Biography 77:201-212.

1991 Civil War Virginia: Battleground for a Nation. University Press of Virginia. Charlottesville.

J Sauer. Carl 0.
1975 Sixteenth Century North America. University of California Press, Berkeley.

J Shea, William L.
1983 The Virginia Militia in the Seventeenth Century. Louisiana State University Press. Baton Rouge.

Smith, John
1610 Virginia Discovered and Discribed [sic]. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.
1910 Travels and Works of Captain John Smith, President of Virginia and Admiral of New England.
1580-1631, ed. by Edward Arber. 2 Vols. John Grant, Edinburg.

Stanard, William G. and Mary N.

J 1965 The Colonial Virginia Register. Gcnculugical Publishing Compuny, Bnl1in10rc.

Stephenson, Richard W.
1981 The Cartography of Northern Virginia. Fairfax Office of Comprehensive Planning, Fairfax.

111
Stodghill, Jeff, Kimberly Williams, Laura Harris, and Emily Eig. Historic Architectural Survey of
1991 Caroline County, Virginia. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.

Symonds, Craig L.
1983 A Battlefield Atlas of the Civil War. The Nautical and Aviation Publishing C 0mpany of America,
Annapolis.

Tate, Thad and David Ammerman, eds.

1979 The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

U. S. War Department
1891 The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate
Armies. Prepared by Lt. Col. Robert N. Scott and compiled by George B. Davis, Leslie J. Perl")®
Joseph W. Kirkley. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Virginia State Library

1965 A Hornbook of Virginia History. Virginia State Library, Richmond.

Washburn. Wilcomb E.
1972 The Governor and the Rebel: A History of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia. W.W. Norton. New
York.

Welcher. Frank J.
1989 The Uniun Army 1861-1865: Organizations and Operations. Indiana University Press.
Indianapolis.

Wertenbaker. Thomas J.
1922 The Planters of Colonial Virginia. Princeton University Press. Princeton.

Wiley. Bell I.
1964 Embattled Confederates, An Illustrated History of Southerners at War. Harper and Row,
Publishers. New York.

112
 APPENDIX A

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SITE FORMS

A-1
 VIRGINIA ~
0
C:

DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS a

l. RESEAROI CENTER FOR AROIAEOLOGY
'<

~l ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM

l
Name of Site: PO FOLKS Site Number. 44 C £ 2 3 2..

Type of Site: LITHIC SCATT!::R Cultural Affiliation: AP.C:-!A IC

-1 State, National Register Status:

L'SGS Map Reference: RUTHER GLEN

U.TM . Zone 1f:astine 287560 Northing 4204560

' (Attach photocopy of appropriate section of USGS 7.5 minute series topographical map sho~ng site boundaries.,

Owner: Address, Telephone:

Tenant , Address I Telephone:
Site Informant/ Address, Telephone: 7

Sur\'eyed By (name. address. affiliation. date):

L. E. Browning , 3812 Hawthorne Avenue . ~i=hmond . ?A

Gt:nerai Environment and Nearest Water Source:

Site cccupies middle of tongue of slightly higher land
that Polecat Uno occupoies. Density less than 1 / 10 mete~s.
Site extremely poorly drained. sliqhtly sandy, clayey
,-1ei::land soil.

Dimensions of Site:
300 X 300 approx
Site Description and Survey Techniques:
-J surface visibility 601 approx. Water acces~ is via
swampwater. Placement peculiar '-,

·C ndirion and Present Land Use:

cutover timber
- Specimens Obtained and Depository: z
rto collection
l
~J

_lpecimens Reported and Owne~1Addresses:

l
~

J .C·. -2
 Other Documentation (field notes, survey/excavation reports. historical accounts and maps, etc.) and Depository:

Pha~e I Survey report for Caroline County Water / Sew~r

Project, on file OHL

Photographic Documentation and Depository:

Recommendations:

No further work due to low density.

Additional Comments:

.. r-, ·
Form Completed By (name, address. affiliation. date):

DH L Number Assigned By: Date:

5-- b -87
;Y\. L,v , T• >::.o .f-s tc, 84-R
/I ')
,-,-J
 VIRGINIA
DIVISION OF IDSTORIC LANDMARKS
RESEARCH CL'lTER FOR ARCHAEOLOGY I
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVL'lTORY FORM In
:2
,,....
,,
'C

!~_
Name of Site: Po Folks Site Number: _44.:....:....;:C;;;.:E;;;:;2:.:3:a.:::?.=---....(~A:::..:~~E:a:aN:....:·. :a:D:. . : E=..!D:: . ·.:. )- - - -

Type of Site: Campsite Cultural Affiliation: Prehistoric:

~o date available
State/National Register Status:

l USGS Map Reference: Ruther Glen 7.5 Minute Quadrangle

U. T.M. Zone ...lli_ Easting 237560 Northing _ _..1.:.20~4"'· "5::.:61e:..:O-'

' --- - - - - - - -
(Attach photocopy of appropriate section oi CSGS 7.5 minute series topographical map showmg site bounaanes. 1

Owner1Addre·:s1Telephone: Spratt Recycling. Inc.

Tenant/AL.:_ · Telephone: 1321 Belman Road. P.O. Box bbo
Site Infori7 : : 0.ddress;T ele]Jhone: Fredericksburg, Virginia 22404 7

Surveyed E ·· .me. :.iddress. affiliation. date 1: Alain C. Outlaw. Principal .Arcnaeoiogist

January, Espey. Huston & Associates. Inc.
460 McLaws Circle. Suite 150
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

General Environment and Nearest Water Source: Located 160 meters (500') south or -WCE233 on
the same broad terrace landiorrn. Polecat Creek is roughly 175 meters (550') north oi the site
and Mill Run is 31 meters ( 100') west. The area has been repeatedly logged in the past and
vegetation consists of small hardwood and softwoods. The area has been impacted somewhat by heaw
cquipmenc.
s
G
Dimensions or· "cite: Approximately 46 meters north to south x 96 meters east to west ( 150' x 300'). r
n

, Site Descrmtion and Survey Techniques: Pines and large hardwoods have been harvested in the oast
, and vegetation presently consists of young sapiings. The site was revisited during a P hase I survey
J and yielded a light subsurface scatter of prehistoric lithics. Although, no areas of artifact concentrations

were noted by the limited shovel testing; the possibility does exist for subsurface deposirs and features
· at this site.

Condition and Present und Use: Development is planned for the future.

1 Spe.cimens Obtained and Depository: Two flakes were recovered from shovel tests. The artifacts are
. l currentlybeing curated at EH&A'::; Williamsburg laboratory. Tut! artifacts and appropriate documenrs
will be processed according to VDHR and wiil be permanently curated at their faci iiry.

Specimens Reported and Owners,Addresses: NIA

n 1
,'-\-~·
 Other Documentation (field notes. survey/excavation reports, historical accounts and maps. etc.) and Depository: Phase
I Survev Report for Caroline Countv Water and Sewer Project.

Photographic Documentation and Depository: N/A

Recommendations: If this site is to be impacted by construction, then further work is recommended to clarify site
boundaries. cultural affiliations, and areal extent.

Additional Comments:

~u • t'- •_, "--

'''"" ~•--- - -- ' -__

#
44CE232
,x ·--~
..·- . ,.
-; _-··

.- -
- ·· -. - ~

,,.._, V
V
-,
i- '---· - '

SCALE: I 11 = 2000
1
.- ~......, c:' - --
Cem

·=/L, .\\( -- ..-".J Swans \_r,

-~ . . . ...;~ Corner
~--··
-,;,r-,r/,_
i, i I/
1 I~
Scaie:

Form Completed by {.name. oddress. affiliation. date): Alain C. Outlaw, Principal An::haeologist
Espey, Huston & Associates. Inc.
460 McLaws Circle, Suite 150
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

Number Assigned By: Date: 4 February 1992 34-R

.A-5
 VIRGINIA (i
C
C
DIVISION OF lllSTORIC LANDMARKS =
'<
RESEARCH CENTER FOR ARCHAEOLOGY
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM

Name of Site: Folc:cat Uno Site Number: ------d-J-~C-E--2...,3...,.~ c

'I
"T:vpe of Site: Cultural Affiliation: \iocdlanJ

State, Na1ionai Register Status:

USGS Map Reference: Ruther Gli=n

U. T. M. Zone i ija.sting 2 3 7 a i oJ Northing · ;;; ·

(Allach photocopy of appropriare section of USGS 7.5 minute series topographic.u map showing site boundaries. I

'. Owner.' Address, Telephone:

Tenant: Address/ Telephone:
1 Site lnformant,Address, Telephone: 7'

' Surveved
.
Bv. (name. address. affiliation. date):
L, •

C'
; Generai Environment and Nearest Water Source: !

~1te locat~d on the northern end of a sl1yncly :.1gni=r t~an -.

1..:,c: sur1·cunci1r1':} 101-ilc:..nu a.1·1::a. ovcrlook.111.;i e1 ;:;111..c..i-11, ..::11:.:cl •.

, ',
r-

Dimensions oi Site:
10 U ft d1a.m e te:r
JSite Description and Survey ii!(;hni4ut:S:
.S1t:1.: 1;;. lu,1 d<a<n::.1ty, lc:ss than 1/10 m~t.e:1 ·s. V1sw~l
c...:a.m1nc:1.c .1. ca lil cucoveJ.- l:.i::nber 11ith c. 60.'i, surf;;,.C<= •;1s1bii1t•,r
1
; Concrniun and Present Land Use:
:;:
cu cover t 1m.L:.ic:1·
Specimens Obtained and Depository: r;
z
I qua.rtzlt~ ila.ke, complete; I quartz £la.kc, c~mplcta; J
qudrtz fl~~~s. Lrok~n;
ccmpare:d, ccmpact pasta pcttary
2 ~~erd~ ~ru~hed qu~rtz.~~nd x
I
k,
Specrmens Reported and Owners/Arldrcsscs:
1~
·""

,~~
1·
' r
i\-c
 Other Documentation (field notes. survey/excavation reports, historical aa:ounts and maps, etc.) and Depository:
Pha~~ I Survey Report for Caroline County W~t~r g
Sewer project on file OHL

Photographic Documentation and Depository:

Recommendations:

rhase II if site is impacted.

Additional Comments:

I I
- ---:i
- ~.. _-

1
SCALE: I 11 = 2000

Scale:

Form Completed By (name. address. affiliation. date):

OHL Number Assigned By: Date:

.s--6 -Si 84-R

A-7
 VIRGINIA
DIVISION OF IilSTORIC LANDMARKS
RESEARCH CE.'c1TER FOR ARCHAEOLOGY
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY F0~\-1
n
>
Name of Site: Polecat Uno Site Number: J.JCE-3:3 I ...\..\1ENDED) C

Type of Site: Campsite Cultural Affiliation: Prehistoric:

Middle Woodland
1
State/National Register Status:

l USGS Map Reference: Ruther Glen 7.5 Minute Quadrangle

L:.T.:\L Zone _1L E:isting - -'-:s. .7. _5_40_ _ _ _ Northing _....;;1=2-=-0-W

--·....;;5__0_ __ _
Attach phorocopy of appropri::n e section oi CSGS 7.5 minute series topographicai map s:1owmg sne rDunu:m-:s.:

1
) wne r: Address/fe leohone :
renan ti Address,T ele pbo ne :
Site Informant/Address/Telep hone:
7
Spratt Recycling. Inc.
L321 Belman Road. P.O . Box 066
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22404

Surveyed By ( name. address. affiliation. date l: Alain C. Outlaw. Principal Archaeoiogist

ranuary . 1992 Espey, Huston & Associates. Inc.
460 McLaws Circle. Suite 150
Williamsburg. Virginia 23185

- henerai Environment and Nearest Water Source: Located at the northern most end of a broad terrace
overlookin2 Polecat Creek and 31 meters (100') east of Mill Run. The area has been lo12 2ed
}eoe::nedlv in the past and ve2etation consists ot small hardwood and softwoods. --
-j . . -

)) imensions of Site: .\pprox:imately 62 meters north to south x 62 me'ters east to west ( 2'.JO' x 200' ).
~J
Site Description and Survey Techniques: The site was revisited during a Phase I survey and yielded a light
ubsuriace scatter of prehistoric lithics. Althou gh. no areas of arti fact concentrations were noted by the
1
~ }mired s hovel testing; the possibility does exist for subsurface depositS and features at this site.
:r.

fondition and Present Land Use: Pines and large hardwoods were harvested sometime in the past. Deveiopment
_ ray be planned for the tuture. . 1i
Specimens Obtained and Depository: A greenstone ax. two secondary flakes . a nd one sand and grit tempered -
t boriirioal bodv fraement with a cord-marked exterior ::i nci a smoothed interio r ""ere re covered from shove ~: ·-
- · ests. - The arcifacts- a re currently being curated at EH&A's Williamsburg labora tory however. lhey wi ll u.
()
a_
lle permanently curated at VDHR.

Jpecimens Reported and Owners/Addresses: N/A

j
 Other Documentation (field notes. survey/excavation reports. historical accounts and maps. etc.) and Deposirory:
Phase I Survev Report for Ca roline Countv Water and Sewer Project.

Photographic Documentation and Depository: N/A

Recommendations: This site correlates with known settlement patterns associated with the Middle
Woodland Period. therefore. further work is recommended if the site is going to be impacted by
construction.

Additional Comments:

- -· - ·J 44CE233
'-../

.J
I,

) '\

.
:._ - : ,./

-----.. ..) ~. .
•
.. / .. -~ ·-
~~ . .
~
?,H''
-- ''
RICHMOND-
... ~ "

,.\ _~.
Cole mn-ns....- · ..-.::::==--=- - ·

-
Mill-eVH<i
..: .... ~
,J :
,."i'-:.," -
-;:.,.. Colemaru.
• C rol!sm g ·
\
Mill ...... - . .,.--
..
--.
01

---
~I)j ~- --~ . -
~

4. /. /

1
\ Cem "
! .,.

SCALE: t" = 2000

Swans,~
·-" Comer
• 23,

Scaic:

Form Completed by (name. address. affiliation. date) : Alain C. Outlaw, Principal Archaeologist
Espey, Huston & Associates. Inc.
460 Mcl..aws Circle, Suite 150
Williamsburg. Virginia 23185

Number Assigned By: Date: 4 February 1992 34-R

f:,,-9
 VIRGINIA
DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS
RESEARCI CENTER FOR ARCHAEOLOGY
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM
(;

Name of Site: Field Site # CC-1 Site Number: __44'·-""'' Ca..aE=2=6'""'7_ _ _ _ _ __

Type of Site: Quarter (?) Cultural Affiliation: Historic: Late 18th/

Early 19th Century

State/National Register Status:

USGS Map Reference: Ruther Glen. VA 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangle

1
U.T.M. Zone~ Easting 287480 M Northing -+202960 i'vt
(Attach photocopy of appropriate section of USGS 7.5 minute series topographical map showing site boundaries.,

Owner/ Address;T elephone: Spratt Recycling, Inc.

l Tenant/ Address,Telephone: 1321 Belman Road. P.O. Box 666
jSite Informant/Address/Telephone: Fredericksburg, Virginia 22404

l..:
Surveyed By (name, address. affiliation. date): Alain C. Outlaw. Principal Archaeologist ~-
fonuary. 1992 Espey, Huston & Associates. Inc.
460 McLaws Circle. Suite 150
t;
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 ~-

L
r
General Environment and Nearest Water Source: I .ncated on a high broad inland terrace roughly 300
!
meters (1,000) south o An unnamed tributary of Polecat Creek. Pines and large hardwoods
have been harvested in the past and vegetation presently consists of young saplings. r:
Dimensions of Site: Approximately 75 meters (250') in diameter.

(,ite Description and Survey Techniques: During a Phase I Survey a light scatter of brick fragments were noted
bn the surface. The area around the finds were systematically shovel tested at close intervals.

:2ondition and Present Land Use: Timbered. vacant.

;
Specimens Obtained and Depository: Thirteen handmade brick fragments, one blue embossed shell-edged
i::arlware rim fragment. and one whiteware body fragment were collected from the surface and from shovel
_ e"ts. , \lthough presently stored at EH&A s Williamsburg office, artifacts will be permanently curated
at VDHR.

fI pecimens Reported and Owners/Addresses: NIA

: '
-..
 Other Documentation (field notes. survey/excavation reports, historical accounts and maps, etc.) and Depository:
Field notes, maps, and other associated documents will be permanently curated at VDHR.

Photographic Documentation and Depository: NIA

Recommendations: Further work , is recommended at this site to clarify site integrity, areal extem. :rnd its rebtionship
to CC-3 and CC-8.

Additional Comments: NIA

I
.. ~
}
j
_f ·
~'
/-
./
ff ' : ,-,· R !I" "<ICHMONO

1/,,' (1·1/Prt1(11(fS-....,
Jliii '{)i;,ul
..
--;;-
__.........
- -
Ii .- · «r Colemans !\fill
;· _\ '. - Crossing-
;!-. --~\ '
--
--~ ·cc-1
/
II
SCALE : I : 2000
1
'
Swans,~
Coml!r

·1 I _ _ __:___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
t __ _ _..;._
Sew::
Form C-::mpleted by (name. address. affiliation. date): Alain C. Outlaw. Principal Archaeologist
Espey, Huston & Associates. Inc.
460 Mcl..aws Circie. Suite 150
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
Number Assigned By: Date: 4 February 1992 S-l-R

A-11
 ~ VIRGINIA
(., D~~=~:~~
ARCliAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM
l Name of Site: Field Site # CC-2 Site Number: ____ll._C:-_C_E_2_C_3_ _ __

Type of Site: Domestic (?) Cultural Affiliation: Historic: Late 18th/

Early 19th Century

State/National Register Status:

USGS Map Reference: Ruther Glen. VA 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangle

U.T.M. Zone __lL Easting 287840 M Northing 4202540 M

(Attach photocopy of appropriate section of USGS 7.5 minute series topographical map showing site boundaries. l

Owner/Address/Telephone: Spratt Recycling, Inc.

, Tenant/Address/Telephone: 1321 Belman Road. P.O. Box 666
Site Informant/Address/Telephone: Fredericksburg, Virginia 22404

Surveyed By (name, address. affiliation, date): Alain C. Outlaw, Principal Archaeologist

' January, 1992 Espey, Huston & Associates. Inc.
460 McLaws Circle. Suite 150
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

General Environment and Nearest Water Source: located on a high broad inland terrace roughly 240
meters (800') west of an unnamed trihutary of Polecat Creek. Present vegetation consists of young saplings.

Dimensions of Site: Approximately 50 meters east to west x 25 meters north to south (160'x80').

Site Description and Survey Techniques: Pines and large hardwoods have been harvested in the past and
l vegetation presently consists of young saplings. Located during a Phase I survey and consists of a light
surface scatter of historic artifacts. The area was systematically shovel tests at close intervais.
however. no intact subsurface artifact concentrnLions. features. or soil layers were encountered.
, The site has been heavily impacted by past logging activities. heavy equipment. and soil stratigraphy
appears to be no longer intact.

Condition and Present Land Use: Timbered, vacant.

Specimens Obtained and Depository: One creamware body fragment, six pearlware body fragments. one
1plain rim fragment, two blue embossed shell-edge rim fragments, and one dark green bottle glass fragment
1were collected from the surface. Although presently smred at EH&A's Williamsburg office. artifacts
. will be permanently curated at VDHR.
(;
,-,-,
JSpecimens Reported and Owners/Addresses: NIA

/\-12
 Other Documentation (field notes, survey/excavation reports. historical accounts and maps. etc.) and Depository:
Field notes, maps, and other associated documents will be permanently curated at VDHR.

Photographic Documentation and Depository: NIA

Recommendations: No further work is recommended due to the high degree of soil disturbance from past logging
activities and heavy equipment.

Additional Comments: NIA

' ··.

• ./, f{l 11 ' ;; 1C HMO.NO

('olemnir~- ~ .. ~ •-+,-.,-r- ~-===-1.
JI?°llp<m(l __ ----;-...::- - -
- . -- • .-. ; 5 r . Colemans Mill
.\\ ••. Crossing
..- ".''-
\

--·
j'
- ·•
./

---
Cem s ·. .~ ,,

SCALE : I 11= 2000

1

-
--.::::- .....
---<~. '---.__
~
,
.........
Swans\r-
·= · Corner
23.:.
? --~ -
CC-2 . -i :

·""~~- .__ / ( ,,/

Scaie:

Form Completed by (name. address. affiliation. date): Alain C. Outlaw, Principal Archaeologist
Espey, Huston & Associates. Inc.
460 McLaws Circle. Suite 150
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

Number Assigned By: Date: 4 February 1992 84-R

 VffiGINIA
DIVISION OF lllSTORIC LANDMARKS
RF.SEARCH CENTER FOR AROIAEOLOGY
AROIAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM

Site Number: _ _c:._c._c_~_'.:_6_~- - - n

Name of Site: Field Site # CC-3 ::>
0
r
Type of Site: Quarter (?) Cultural Affiliation: Historic: Late 18th/
Early 19th Century

l State/National Register Status:

USGS Map Reference: Ruther Glen. VA 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangle

U.T.M. Zone ___l1L Easting 287370 M Northing 4207800 M

(Attach photocopy of appropriate section of USGS 7.5 minute series topographical map showing site boundaries.)

Owner/Address/Telephone: Spratt Recycling, Inc.

Tenant/Address/Telephone:
Site Informant/Address/Telephone:
Surveyed By (name. address. affiliation. date):
January, 1992
1321 Belman Road, P.O. Box 666 3:
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22-W4 -
Alain C. Outlaw, Principal Archaeologist
Espey, Huston & Associates. Inc.
460 McLaws Circle. Suite 150
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

General Environment nnd Nearest Water Source: Located on a high inland terrace approximately 150
meters (500') south of a unnamed tributary of Polecat Creek. Present vegetation consists of young
saplings.

Dimensions of Site: Approximately 120 meters west to east x 60 meters north to south (400' x 200').

Site Description and Survey Techniques: During a Phase J survey, a dense concentration of brick
fragments were noted on the surface. The area was systematically shovel tested at ciose
intervals and a light yield of subsurface was collected.

Condition and Present Land Use: Timbered, vacant.

Specimens Obtained and Depository: Seven handmade hrick fragments. a cast iron pot fragment. one
creamware body fragment, one annular ware creamware hody fragment, two pearlware body frngments were
collected. Although presently stored at EH&A's Williamsburg office, artifacts will be permanently curated at
VDHR.

- J Specimens Reported and Owners/Addresses: NIA

.)
Other Documentation (field notes. survey/excavation reports, historical accounts and maps, etc.) and Depository:
Field notes. maps. and other associated documents will be permanently curated at VDHR.

Photographic Documentation and Depository: NIA

Recommendations: Further work is recommended at this site to clarify its relationship with -14CE267 and 44CE27-L

Additional Comments: NIA

Gravel Pft...·;, - l ,. . ., I
I__/
• •

·~
-1-·
""

-..

;1
1~·)' /
,'

- --
•
~

CerT" ~·
11
= 2000
I/ .,........
1
SCALE: 1
- ', ~
'--'
.---...
::iwans,,..... CC-3 _-·
_.,----
/
Corner·
•\

.
,,-,..

Form Completed by (name. address, affiliation. date): Alain C. Outlaw, Principal Archaeologist
Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.
460 McLaws Circle, Suite 150
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
Number Assigned By: Date: 4 February 1992 84-R

A-15
 VIRGINIA
DIVISION OF lllSTORIC IANDMARKS
RESEARCH CENTER FOR ARCHAEOLOGY
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM

n
Name of Site: Field Site# CC-4 Site Number: _ _ '-1-_4_C_E_:::_
7_J _ _ _ __ ·---
:;:o

l Type of Site: Unknown Cultural Affiliation: Historic: ~o date available

0
r

n
State/National Register Status:

USGS Map Reference: Ruther Glen, VA 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangle

l U.T.M. Zone __lli.._ Easting _87630 M Northing 4203320 \1

(Attach photocopy of appropriate section of USGS 7.5 minute series topographical map showing site bound:1rics .)

O\v'ner/Address;Telephone: Spratt Recycling. Inc.

Tenant/Address;Telephone: 1321 Belman Road, P.O . Box 666
Site Informant/Address/Telephone: Fredericksburg, Virginia 22404

Surveyed By (name, address. affiliation, date): Alain C. Outlaw, Principal Archaeologist

January, 1992 Espey, Huston & Associates. Inc.
460 McLaws Circle. Suite 150
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

General Environment and Nearest Water Source: Located roughly 310 meters (1,000') east of an unnamed
tributary of Polecat Creek. Pines and large hardwoods have been harvested in the past and \'egetation
0
presently consists of young saplings.
----
~

Dimensions of Site: Approximately 15 meters in diameter (50').

Sit e Description and Survey Techniques: During a Phase I survey, u light surface brick scatter
was noted. The area around the finds was systematically shovel tested at close intervals to
determine site extent and/or cultural deposits; however, all were negative. Soil layers appear
to be mixed from heavy equipment associated with the past removal of trees.
Condition and Present L1nd Use: Development is planned for the future.

Condition and Present Land Use: Timbered, vacant.

Specimens Obtained and Depository: No artifacts were collected.

J
Specimens Reported and Owners/Addresses: NIA
 Other Documentation (field notes. suivey/excavation reports. historical accounts and maps. etc.J :md Depository:
Field notes, maps, and other associated documents will be permanently curated at VDHR.

Photographic Documentation and Depository: NIA

Recommendations: No further work is recommended at this site due to the high degree of soil disturbance.

Additional Comments: N/A

'Pit ~- //
Gravl!'I
-·
• • 68

_)-
1L.

·,·---,_/~~- -:r; \) CC-4

. ( \ -- 11( ..
} . . \ / (.._
/ -
~
.
'i u'
SCALE: I 11= 2000' Cem

Scaie:

Form C.ompleted by (name. address. affiliation, date): Alain C. Outlaw. Principal Archaeologist
Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc .
..160 McLaws Circle. Suite 150
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

Number Assigned By: Date: 4 February 1992 34-R

 VIRGINIA
DIVISION OF HISTORIC IANDMARKS
RF.SEA.ROI CENTER FOR AROIAEOLOGY
AROIAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM
Name of Site: Field Site # CC-5 Site Number: - -.:.;.([271
------
l Type of Site: Do.mestic (?) Cultural Affiliation: Historic:
19th Century
State/National Register Status:

USGS Map Reference: Ruther Glen. VA 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangle

U.T.M. Zone --1L Easting 287320 M Northing .+203230 M

(Attach photocopy of appropriate section of USGS 7.5 minute series topographical map showing site bounJanes.)

Owner/Addressffelephone: Spratt Recycling, Inc.

Tenant/Address/Telephone: 1321 Belman Road. P.O. Box 666
Site Informant/Address(felephone: Fredericksburg, Virginia 22404

Surveyed By (name. address. affiliation, date): Alain C. Outlaw. Principal Archaeologist

January, 1992 Espey, Huston & Associates. Inc.
460 McLaws Circle. Suite 150
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

General Environment 11ml Neurc~t Wntcr Source: Located on a low-lying terrace roughly 275 meters
(900') south of an unnamed tributary of Polecat Creek. Pines and large hardwoods have been harvested in the
J past and vegetation presently consists of young saplings.

j Dimensions of Site: Approximately 31 meters (100') in diameter.

Site Description and Survey Techniques: A light surface scatter of historic artifacts was
located during a Phase I survey. Although the site was systematically shovel tested at close
inter,als; no subsurface deposits or features were found. The site has been heavily impacted by
past logging and heavy equipment and soil layers appear to have been mixed by this activity.

Condition and Present Land Use: Development is planm:u fur the near future.

Specimens Obtained and Depository: One whiteware fragment and three dark green bottle glass fragments
were recovered from the surface. Although presently stored at EH&A's Williamsburg office. urtifacts will be
permanently curated at VDHR.
-.
~

~ l Specimens Reported and Owners/Addresses: NIA

.A- 18
 Other Documentation (field notes, survey/excavation reports. historical accounts and maps. etc.) and Depository:
Field notes. maps, and other associated documents will be permanently curated at VDHR.

Photographic Documentation and Depository: NIA

Recommendations: No further work is recommended at this site due to the high degree of soil disturbance.

Additional Comments: ">J/A

J
-/ ~·
~
//
/
if'
~
~
. .,~~
..
.

--
"---;:-:-·
~,~
' -
-.
!{ II 1L
:;1CHMON£;-

II
(',,/nm1n~
_ .iliup(;M --=--= - =- ·

-
- -..3;

,'/ · '---~ - / ', 5 r Colemans Mill

.JL .. ;·\ \ ~- · - ~-
;!)
vv- '~---
. ----·
~
'r ossmg -
"' ; --
:- - ·--- C C-5
/
...-a -
--·---- ·•
I -',
11
SCALE : 1 = 2000' Cem
y r
I ' !

- -'--
---c-: • -
·"

Scaic:

Form Completed by (name. address. affiliation. date): Alain C. Outlaw. Principal Archaeologist
Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.
460 McLaws Circle, Suite 150
Williamsburg. Virginia 23185

Number A'isigned By: Date: 4 February 1992 34-R

}\-19
1 VIRGINIA
DIVISION OF HISTORIC IANDMARKS
RESEARCH CENTER FOR ARCHAEOLOGY
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM
n
>
Name of Site: Field Site # CC-6 ..::_c_E_2_7_2_____
Site Number: _ _'-'_ ;;::J
C
r
Type of Site: Dwciling with Cemetery Cultural Affiliation: Prehistoric: No date
available Historic: Early 18th Century
State/National Register Status:

USGS Map Reference: Ruther Glen. VA 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangle

U.T.M. Zone ~ Easting 287470 M Northing _4=2=0=3"-54"'""'0'"-'-'-M-'-------

(Attach photocopy of appropriate section of USGS 7.5 minute series topographical map showing site bouncrnries.)

0\vner/Address{[ elepho ne: Spratt Recycling, Inc.

Tenant/Address{felephone: 1321 Belman Road, P.O. Box 666
Site Informant/Addressffelephone: Fredericksburg, Virginia 22404

Surveyed By (name. address. affiliation. date): Alain C. Outlaw, Principal Archaeoiogist

January, 1992 Espey, Huston & Associates. Inc.
l 460 McLaws Circle. Suite 150
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

General Environment and Nearest Water Source: Located on a high, broad inland terrace 122 meters (400')
east of an unnamed tributary of Polecat Creek. Pines and large hardwoods have been harvested in the
past and vegetation presently consists of young snplings.
0
Dimensions of Site: Approximately 167 meters north to south x 138 meters east to west (550'x 450').

Site Description and Survey Techniques: A light surface scatter of historic nrtifac:ts w~s colleneci during a
Phase I survey. The area surrounding the finds was systematically shovel tested at close intervals. Although
no grave markers remain, the 20' square cemetery, compieteiy enclosed hy a I' thick hrick \Vall. is in n good
state of preservation.

Condition and Present Land Use: Timbered, vacant.

Specimens Obtained and Depository: Two tire cracked rocks, 21 handmade brick fragments. one cut nail. and a
medium green bottle glass fragment were recovered from shovel tests. Although presently stored at
EH&A's Williamsburg office. artifacts will be permanently curated at VDHR.

Specimens Reported and Owners/Addresses: NIA

 Other Documentation (field notes, survey/excavation reports, historical accounts and maps. etc.) and Depository:
Field notes. maps. and other associated documents will be permanently curated at VDHR.

Photographic Documentation and Depository: NIA

Recommendations: If the site can not be avoided by construction. further work is necessary to clarify site
boundaries.
Additional Comments: N/A

/I ' I

·· _
/

-
,,.
::..

I
,. 188

.
.-
-- ··-::,_,,. ·
- .
~

-~
'
)

,·:.,
,It

' /

SCALE: :"= 2000

1
l \Cem

\ jJ
0
Ui!
// \:,. -
Scaic:

Form Completed by (name. address. affiliation. date): Alain C. Outlaw. Principal Archaeologist
Espey, Huston & Associates. Inc.
460 Mcl...aws Circle. Suite 150
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

Number Assigned By: Date: 4 February 1992 S~-R

.'\-21
 VIRGINIA
1 ct, DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS
RESEARCI CENTER FOR AROIAEOLOGY
ARCliAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM
I -
n
.--

I Name of Site: Field Site # CC-7 Site Number: .,:_4cc::273

---------- rr1

Type of Site: Unknown Cultural Affiliation: Historic: L1te 19th/

Early 20th Century
State/National Register Status:

USGS Map Reference: Ruther Glen, VA 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangle

U.T.M. Zone ___IB_ Easting __,.,=-8=-7'-l=-=7-=0'-M:.;.;·- =------ Northing 4203140 M

(Attacn photocopy of appropriate section of USGS 7.5 minute series topographical map showing site boundar:c:s. l

Owner/Address/Telephone: Spratt Recycling, Inc.

Tenant/Address/Telephone: 1321 Belman Road, P.O. Box 666
Site Informant/Address/Telephone: Fredericksburg, Virginia 22404

Surveyed By (name. address. affiliation. date): Alain C. Outlaw, Principal Archaeologist

, January. 1992 Espey. Huston & Associates, Inc.
460 McLaws Circle, Suite 150
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

General Environment and Nearest Water Source: Located on a low-lying tc:rrnc.c: ro11ghly 420 meters
(LOU·) east of an unnamed tributary of Polecat Creek. Although large hardwoods and pines have
been Ccarvested in the past, present vegetation consists of small saplings.

Dimensions of Site: Approximately 62 meters north to south x 45 meters east to west (200' x 160')

J
Site Description and Survey Techniques: A light surface scatter of ceramics and bottle glass was coilected
on the surface. Located during a Phase I survey, lhe ar~a was systematically shovel tested at close intervals.
The 2.rea has been heavily impacted by heavy equipment associated with past logging.

Condition and Present L1nd Use: Timbered, vacant.

I
Specimens Obtained and Depository: Two stoneware fragments wilh an Albany giazed interior and a Dristol
glazed exterior. five solarized amethyst hottle elass fragments. three wire nails. one wire spike. and brick
J fragments we re collected from the surface and shovel tests. Although presently stored at EH&A's Williamsburg
office. artifacts will be permanently curated at VDHR.

Specimens Rep()rted and Owners/Addresses: NIA

/\-22
 Other Documentation (field notes. survey/excavation reports, historical accounts and maps. etc.) and Depository:
Field notes. maps. and other associated documents will be permanently curated at VDHR.

Photographic Documentation and Depository: N/A

Recommendations: ;'/'o further work is recommended due to the high degree of past ground disturbing :ictivities.

Additional Comments: NIA

, ,.

_J
/ _
-
188 '

:;;JCHMOND

. ''-.i

'-
CC- 7
--
SCALE : I 11 = 2000 1
~

-~""---
-~
-
' ..
·- ___ ,.
·- Cem ) ·-

Swans, ~
... -- .. Corner /
,,--~
,.....-~~-::· -
.:..-

. (/

Sc:aic:

Form Completed by (name. address. affiliation. date): Alain C. Outlaw, Principal Archaeologist
Espey, Huston & Associates. Inc.
460 McLaws Circle. Suite 150
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

Number Assigned By: Date: 4 February 1992 84·R

A-23
 VIRGINIA
DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS
RESEARCll CENTER FOR ARCHAEOLOGY
ARCJLU:OLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM
l -~---
n

Site Number: __:._,[_

. C_[_:_
· ~_{_. _ _ _ __ c
:'fame of Site: Field Site # CC-8 r

Type of Site: Mari.or House with Associated Cultural Affiliation : Historic: Late 18th/
Outbuildings and an Unmarked Cemetery Early 19th Century
l State/National Register Status:

l USGS Map Reference: Ruther Glen, VA 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangle

U.T.M. Zone _l§_ Easting 287100 M Northing __. .!.-=2=0=29""'9'""'0"--'-'-M.;;.. __ _ __ _

(Attach photocopy of appropriate section of USGS 7.5 minute series topographical map showing site boundari es. l

Owner/Address/Telephone: Spratt Recycling, Inc.

, Tenant!Address!Tclephone: 1321 Belman Road. P.O. Box 666
Site Informant/Address;Telephone: Fredericksburg, Virginia 22404

1
Surveyed By (name. address. affiliation, date): Alain C. Outlaw, Principal Archaeologist
• January. 1992 Espey, Huston & Associates. Inc.
460 McLaws Circle, Suite 150
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

I General Environment and Nearest Water Source: LuL:ated on a high broad inland terrace roughly 390 meters
(1300') east of nn unnamed tributary of Polecat Creek. Pines nnd large hardwoods have been harvested in
the past and vegetation presently consists of young saplings. C
_::.,

--- ~
C

2
Dimensions of Site: Approximately 242 meters north to south x 305 meters east to west (600' x 1,000') .

. Site Description and Survey Techniques: Three structures were located during n Phase I survev, Structure l
; (the main house). is represented by an intact above ground chimney, Structure 2 is roughly 28 meters t90')
J northeast of Structure l, Structure 3 is located approximately 90 meters (300') south/southeast of Structure l.
Structure 2 and 3 are characterized by surface concentrations of handmade bricks. The cemetery is unmnrked
. but reference is made to it in land deeds as consisting of "a family cemetery 3/4 acre in size".
J
Condition and Present Land Use: Timbered, vacant.

Specimens Obtained and Depository: One blue embossed shell-edge pearlware rim fragment, one blue spatter
decorated pearlware holloware body fragment. three pearlware body fragments. one pearlware rim fragment from
a large basin. one creamware handle fragment, 2 whitcwarc body fragments. cut nails. aqua window glass, cast
iron pot fragment. and bottle giass fragments were c.:ollected from the surface and from shovel tests. Although
J presentiy stored at EH&A's Williamsburg office. artifacts will be permanently curated at VDHR.
Specimens Reported and Owners/Addresses: N/A
 Other Documentation (field notes. survey/excavation reports. historical accounts and maps. etc.i and Depository:
Field notes. maps, and other associated documents will be permanently curated at VDHR.

Photographic Documentation and Depository: NIA

Recommendations: Phase II excavations are recommended to determine site boundaries. functions oi structur~s 2. 2.
and to clarify the size and the extent of the cemetery.

Additional Comments: NIA

:. ... __ ,.
•"l CO- -

- ,,,j - ..
wf --=~-:.. . ~
- ,c -::;~::;~ • ~
- -:[ i ::~ -,:.. .:- - - \-:=
-'" -
'<i :·\

~ l.t t"-- ~ICHMONFJ

:fmnn~
.'.[ill D,;,Ul, ·.•. - - -
- - ·- " r C01eman.s. Mill
.. ~::.<~,....\\ - Crossing, ,"' -'
, / · \J . \
)\
. '

: cc-a -.
- .. if ~ - _.
7""_ ~ ..
. ...

1 - )< . , :-·: ,
·-.__....
.
\,
--
SCALE : "-- 2000
' \ Com· , - - ..__ ..
~ _... .. ,,

___ .. .... _

·- Swans,~
~ ~ ~Co~er

Scaic:

Form Completed by (name, address. affiliation. date): Alain C. Outlaw. Principal Archaeologist
Espey, Huston & Associates. Inc.
460 McLaws Circle, Suite 150
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

Number Assigned By: Date: 4 February 1992 84-R

,~-25
 VIH.GJNIA I ·ilc 110.
-·-- ---- -
Negative no(s).
l)IVISION OF I IIST(HtlC LANl)MAUKS
I IISTORIC l>ISTIUCT/HIUEli
- ----- ......... -· -- -- .. ---- SURVEY FORM
City /Town/ Village/ I lamlcl ( :ou 111 y Cn ro line
Street address or route number tJ.S.(i.S. (.)uml Ruther CJ.en, 198 5
Historic name Common name
Present use Building Style
Original ~ c Cen,~ery ___ Building l_)alc(s) 18th Cen tury

I. (. ·onslr trclio11 Materials J. Stories (11111111,cr) ..NIA

D low basement D raised hase111c111
0 wood rra me
Gil hrick 4. Bays ( mrmher): Irnnl r. L.,_,
.. ,. i1 cc _____ ..... · 1 (CIllllCI)
Sile I _. · -
bond: 0 Fnglish [ 1 syrrnnctr ical 0 asyrrn11ct rieal
~ Flemish
I I -•.:ot11 sc /\111c1 ican ~- I{ onf I vpc N/ P.
U slrclclll:r Ushcd L.I hipped
D other · - - - - D parapet? 0 pyramidal?
0 stone D gable [] 111a11sa1 d
D random rubble D pediment? D false mansard
D coursed rubble 0 parapet? D ga111hrcl
0 ashlar O dressed [] dipped rnd? [I flat
0 rock-faced [] cross gable? [~l parapcl?
D log: l l central Ir 11111 gahlc'l I I rool 1101 visible
D squared LJ unsqua1cd [ I other
notching:
- ----- ------· -· - --- -·-·------ - - - -- -- - -
0 V-notch 0 hall dovetail 6. RoolingMaterial N/P,
0 saddle D full dovetail
D square D diamond D shingle
D concrete hlock r:Jeomposilion (asphalt, ashcslos, clc.)
[J h:11 a coll a I I wood
D steel lrame [J metal
D other -·- - - - - - - - - - - - - - [] standing scam
D cornrgatcd
0 pressed tin (simulated shingles)
2. Cladding Material N/P, Dtilc
D pa11tilc D flat D glazed
D weather hoard D composition siding Dslatc
0 vertical siding D stucco CJ 1101 visible
0 hoard & hatten D aluminum or vinyl siding
0 shingle: D cast iron 7. I )or mcrs (number): Iron! _ . side N//\
D wood D sheet metal 0 gable lJ pcdirnrnl?
D asbestos D enameled metal Dshcd
D asphalt D glass 0 hipped
D hricktcx
D other ·--- ---------•-·--- --- - -- - - - - - - - - - 8. Primary l'rnch N/A
style
SIOI ics
levels --· __ hays _____ _
mate, ials . .. _ _ __ ·-- ··-
deser iplion and deem alive details

9. Gener al suppkmenlar y <.Iese, ipli1111 anti decor ;,1i

0 ;,:

Ruinous wal l enclos in g ~ontinuou~ c. 20 ' X c . 20 '

ar~a ; Flernis h boad l course wide capped by coping
.... . J1r.LCk.s......se.t. .un. 1 . .2. coursc .. wic..lc caD
10. Maj(lr additions and alterations: •· · ·
1'11010 W;rfl li ;1 1; l>c f.' n rC:'pni n tc•d wi th <'l'mc 11t; no ~'.T:lV( 1
ma r kers ~re vi s ibl e .

11. Outbuildings:

12. I .andsc--.-, p-e-:l;-:-:c-a-ll-11._c_s: - - - - - - - - - · - - - - - - - - --- - -

1.l S ignilicance: -· - - ... -- -~ -

Probab ly assoc i ated
with t h e pro minent Ccorg c Fmnil y ; cJ;rt es
c. 175 0 t o C . 1800

-·---. -- -- -
Su1wyed hy:
-·--- - ·------ AJ.:iin r.. Ou t law I >ate:
2 /1 2 /9 2
,.'\ -2 6
 rrimary Sources Interviews
1992, Outlaw Alain, Harth;i M"cC.artnev, C..1rol Tyrer Name
Address
Phase I Archaeological Investigations or
Caroline Continental Corporate Pronerty, Phone
.(Schwah Tract), Swans Conwr, C:iroline C:Dunty, Vir:;ini; !)ale

Name
Address

Published Sources Phone

l)alc

Name
Address

Phone
Dale

Plan and Mas.sing (Note original features, additions, and alterations)

Drawing or Plan

Ske~ch of Site Plan Historical Information

By the 1730s the George Family was
residino
I t--.
in Caroline Countv, . John
Ceorge, Jr. was on the property in the
early ;to mid 1780s. He had inherited
the tract from his father? John George
In 17~5 .John Ceor~e. Jr. conveyed part
. ·- --
or hi~ acrenr:e to Reuhcn r:eorge whose
execultors in turn deeded the home farm
'., to Lewis George in 1801.

- -- -----
·- ----- - - - - -'
-~
·J.<o ,< i..o ··

·- ------ ----- . -
28
l
1
l

APPENDIX B

ARTIFACT INVENTORY
]
J

J (ET9210040)

B-1
1
l
~l ARTIFACT INVENTORY

SITE: Isolated Finds PHASE I

RECORDER: C. Tyrer DATE: 3 January 1992

Provenience Quantity Description

40' from Transect 9 1 Aboriginal pottery body fragment. medium to coarse sand
l ST 13
Surface
temper, sandy slightly friable tan body. smoothed interior,
exterior cord-marked, Popes Creek, ca. 500 B.C.-A.D.
CC-9 200

80' West of Transect 49 2 Fire cracked rocks, quartz

ST 1 5 Debitage, quartz
Road Surface 3 Flakes, quartz. secondary
CC-10 1 Flake. quartzite, secondary
2 Flakes, quartz, tertiary

Transect 1 2 Brick fragments. reddish brown. handmade

ST 2
Layer A
CC-11

Transect 1 1 Flake, quartz. secondary

ST 6
Layer B
CC-12

J Transect 1
ST 17
1 Aboriginal pottery body fragment. fine to medium sand
temper, silty sandy slightly friable tan body, interior
Layer A smoothed, exterior wide-knotted net impressed. Popes
CC-14 Creek, ca. 500 B.C.- A.D. 200

Transect 1 1 Flake, quartzite, secondary

ST 26
Layer A
CC-13
_l Transect 3 1 Brick fragment. reddish brown. handmade
ST 2
J Layer A
..J CC-15

Transect 3 2 Brick fragments, reddish brown. handmade

J ST 6
Layer A
CC-16

J B-2

J
1
1 ARTIFACT INVENTORY

SITE: 44CE233 PHASE I

1 RECORDER: C. Tyrer DATE: 3 January L992

1 Provenience Quantity Description

1 Transect 55
ST2
Layer A
1
1
Flake, quartzite, secondary
Ax fragment, greenstone

l Transect 55
ST 4
2
1
Flakes, quartz, secondary
Aboriginal pottery body fragment. medium to coarse sand
Layer A temper. sandy slightly friable tan body, smoothed interior.
l Transect 57 1
exterior cord-marked,
Flake, quartzite, secondary
ST 2 1 Aboriginal pottery body fragment. medium to coarse sand
Layer A temper. sandy slightly friable tan body, smoothed interior.
exterior cord-marked, Middle Woodland

J
J
J
J
J
J
J
B•4
J
1 ARTIFACT INVENTORY

PHASE I
1 SITE: 44CE268

RECORDER: C. Tvrer DATE: 3 January 1992

1 Provenience Quantity Description

1 Surface 1
1
6
Refined earthenware core fragment, indeterminate
Creamware body fragment, ca. 1775-1820
Pearlware body fragments, ca. post 1779

l 1
2
Pearlware rim fragment. ca. post 1779
Pearlware rim fragments, painted blue shell-edge design
on interior, shallow even-scalloped edge, ca. 1800-18-40

-1 (mended)
Bottle glass base fragment. dark green

_J

J
J
J
J
J
B-6
J
J
1
1 ARTIFACT INVENTORY

SITE: 44CE271 PHASE I

1 RECORDER: C. Tyrer DATE: 3 January L992

1 Provenience Quantity Description

1 Surface 1
3
Whiteware rim fragment, plate. ca. post 1830
Bottle glass base fragments, dark green. ca. mid-19th
century (mended)

l
l
l
J

I
J
]
J
J
J
J
J
B-R
J
1
1 Site: 44CE272 cont.

Provenience Quantity Description

1
Transect 12 3 Brick fragments. reddish brown, handmade
ST 2 1 Shell, oyster
Layer A

l Transect 12
ST 3
Layer B
1
1
Fire cracked rock, quartzite with cortex
Brick fragment, reddish orange, handmade

l Transect 12
ST 10
1 Fire cracked rock, quartzite with cortex

Layer B

Transect 13 1 Nail fragment, cut

ST 2 2 Brick fragments. reddish brown, handmade
Layer B

Transect 13 1 Bottle glass fragment. medium green with white

ST 3 embossed stripes on exterior
1 Layer B

Transect 15 15 Brick fragments, reddish brown. handmade

STlO
Layer B

J
J
J
J
J
J
J
B-10

J
J
,..
ARTIFACT INVENTORY

SITE: 44CE274 PHASE I

1 RECORDER:
'
C.THer
.
DATE: 3 January 1992

Provenience Qu~rntity Description

From Chimney 1 Brick fragment, buff, poorly fired

2 Brick fragments, reddish brown, handmade. with shell
tempered mortar attached. 8 1/4" L x 4" W x 2 1(2" T

North side of l Creamware body fragment. ca. 1775-1820

hillside near road 3 Brick fragments, reddish brown, handmade
Surface

Found on left side or 1 Stoneware body fragment. gray body, gray salt glaze on
road across from ruins interior and exterior, wheel-thrown. American. ca. post
Surface 1730
Bottle glass fragments, aqua
1 1 Bottle glass fragment, dark green

Found in brick scatter l Creamware body fragment. ca. 1775-1820

across road from ruins 1 Whiteware base fragment
and Transect 30 ST 4 1 Whiteware rim fragment
Surface 1 Brick fragment. reddish brown, handmade. glazed

Due North of 1 Whiteware body fragment, ca. post 1830

Transect 30
ST 13
Surface

West of Transect 16 3 Pearlware body fragments, ca. post 1795

ST 7 1 Pearlware rim fragment, hand painted blue and embossed
Surface shell-edge, ca. pusl 1795

Found below cemetery 1 Brick fragments, reddish brown. handmade. glazed

24' N of Transect l -
ST 6
Surface

2' S of Brick fragment, reddish hrnwn, handmade. glazed

Transect 16
ST 7

J Surface

J
B-12

J
J
1
Site: 44CE274 cont.

~l Provenience

Transect 16
Quantity

5
Description

Tin can fragments, ca. 20th century

ST 4

l Layer A

Transect 16
ST 7
.,1 Window glass fragment, green, 2/32" thick
Brick fragments, reddish brown. handmade
Layer A 1 Brick fragment. reddish brown. handmade. glazed

Transect 16 2 Bottle glass fragments, solarized amethyst, ca. late 1880's-

ST 7 1918
Layer B 2 Brick fragments. reddish orange. handmade

I Transect 16
ST 8
Layer A
l Brick fragment. reddish orange. handmade

l Transect 16
ST ll
l
2
Brick fragment. reddish brown. handmade
Brick fragments. reddish brown. handmade. glazed
Laver B

Transect 16 1 Pearlware body fragment. cobalt blue transfer print

ST 20 on interior. ca. post 1795
Layer B .) Nail fragments. cut?
l Nail, cut, 1 1/2" long
Brick fragments. reddish brown. handmade

Transect 17 Brick fragments. reddish brown. handmade

ST 5
Layer B

Transect 17 Brick fragments. reddish brown. handmade

ST 6
Layer A

Transect 17 Brick fragments. reddish brown.· handmade

ST 6
Laver B

l .rransect 17 Bottle glass fragment, dark green

.J ST 11 5 Brick fragments. reddish brown. handmade
Layer A

J
B-14

J
J
1
~,
l Site: 44CE274 cont.

Provenience Quantity Description

Transect 30 1 Projectile point tip fragment, quartz with a reddish cast,

ST 4 indeterminate type
Layer B Stoneware body fragment, grainy gray body. brown salt
glaze on interior and exterior. wheel-thrown. American.
ca. late 18th/ early 19th century
3 Nail fragments , cut, corroded
1 Brick fragment, reddish orange, handmade
1 Brick fragment, reddish brown. handmade, glazed

l Transect 30
ST 5
1
27
Window glass fragment, aqua. 2:32" thick
Brick fragments, reddish brown. handmade
Layer A
} Transect 30 Brick fragments, reddish orange. handmade
ST 5
Laver B

Transect 30 1 Nail fragment, wire

ST 6 Brick fragments. reddish brown. handmade
Layer A

Transect 30 1 Nail fragment, cut

ST 9
Layer B

Transect 31 Brick fragment, reddish orange, handmade

ST 1
Layer A

Transect 31 Brick fragments, reddish brown. handmade

ST 4
Layer A

Transect 31 Brick fragments. reddish brown. handmade

ST 5
J Layer A
..,
Transect 31 Window glass fragments, aqua. 2.32" thick

J ST 6
Layer A

Transect 31
J ST 7
Layer A
Coarse enrthcnwarc body fragment, grainy red body,
unglazed interior and exterior. flowerpot, Redware
Chimney glass rim fragment, solarized amethyst, scalloped
rim, blown, ca. late 1880's-1918
J
B-16

J
J