HRABAgenda2024October181.Minutes
1.A.Meeting Minutes - August 16, 2024
2.Application Review
2.A.Review of Winchester East at Opequon Creek Rezoning Application
3.Historic Plaque Program
3.A.Historic Plaque Program
AGENDA
HISTORIC RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2024
10:00 AM
FIRST-FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
HRAB10-18-24MeetingMinutesAugust16.pdf
HRAB10-18-24REZWinchesterEastatOpequonCreek_Redacted.pdf
HRAB10-18-24HistoricPlaqueProgram.pdf
1
Historic Resources Advisory Board
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: October 18, 2024
Agenda Section: Minutes
Title: Meeting Minutes - August 16, 2024
Attachments:
HRAB10-18-24MeetingMinutesAugust16.pdf
2
Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB)
Mee�ng Minutes
August 16, 2024
First Floor Conference Room of the County Administra�ve Building
107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA
Members Present: Lucas Cook, Jack Owens, Dana Newcomb, Nicholas Powers, and Elijah Filbert
Members Absent: Gary Crawford, Robert Molden, Steve Cantu
Others Present: Maral Kalbian, Kayla Peloquin, Wyat Pearson, and Barbara Houdershell
Agenda Items:
Call to order at 10:00 a.m.
Item 1: Introduc�ons
Members introduced themselves as there was a new member in atendance.
Item 2: Minutes
Nick Powers made a mo�on to approve the June 21, 2024 mee�ng minutes. Jack Owens seconded the
mo�on. The minutes were approved unanimously.
Item 3: Review of Houdershell Rezoning Applica�on
Staff provided informa�on on the proposed rezoning of +/- 5 acres from the M1 (Light Industrial) District
to the RA (Rural Areas) District with no proffers. The property is located at 8183 Valley Pike, Middletown
and adjoins Middletown to the north (PIN 92-A-28B). Monte Vista, the historic home on the property
was built in the 1880s and is a unique architectural resource in the county that is also listed on the
Virgina Landmarks Register and the Na�onal Register of Historic Places. Mrs. Houdershell added that it
was unknown for many years that the property was zoned M1 as it has always been used as a residence,
and the downzoning to RA would help protect the property. Members suggested a conserva�on
easement may be another op�on for the applicant through the Department of Historic Resources if they
were interested.
Lucas Cook made a mo�on to recommend approval of the rezoning. Dana Newcomb seconded the
mo�on. The mo�on passed unanimously.
The HRAB directed staff to dra� a leter to Middletown expressing concern with the new proposed
industrial development adjacent to Monte Vista and offer to provide formal comment on that special use
permit applica�on that is being processed by Middletown. Staff will dra� a leter and share with the
commitee for feedback. The HRAB also directed staff to dra� a leter to Mrs. Houdershell sta�ng their
apprecia�on for the opportunity to review the rezoning, state that the commitee will send a leter to
Middletown regarding the proposed industrial development, and provide informa�on on conserva�on
easements for reference.
3
Item 4: Historic Plaque Program
There was an update to the informa�on that was in the agenda packet. Upon further inves�ga�on,
Wyat Pearson stated there are funds le� from the original dona�on for the historic plaque program that
has been in an interest-bearing account with $16,820.59 available that could be moved to a line item
specifically for historic plaques and historic signage. If the funds were to be moved to the plaque
program, they would need to be spent rela�vely quickly as they cannot sit indefinitely in that account.
Members discussed some ideas for con�nuing the plaque program with this funding, which would likely
involve ge�ng three quotes for plaques to the finance department. The planning department s�ll has
the mold from the original plaque cas�ng. Staff will look into pricing for the original plaque design in
advance of the next mee�ng.
The mee�ng was adjourned at 11:10 a.m.
4
Historic Resources Advisory Board
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: October 18, 2024
Agenda Section: Application Review
Title: Review of Winchester East at Opequon Creek Rezoning Application
Attachments:
HRAB10-18-24REZWinchesterEastatOpequonCreek_Redacted.pdf
5
Item # 2.A
Winchester East at Opequon Creek Rezoning Application
The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) has been asked to provide a review agency comment
pertaining to a rezoning application of +/- 91.70 acres (Property Identification Numbers: 65-A-195 & 65-
A-194B) from the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District to the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District
with proffers to allow for a maximum of 283 dwelling units. Reference section 6 of the proffer statement
for the historic resources section. The properties are located at 2737 & 2747 Senseny Road in the eastern
part of the County near the Clarke County line in the Red Bud Magisterial District.
The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley published in 1992 by the National Park Service
does not identify the properties as within the study area or core area of any of the major Civil War battles.
The applicants submitted a Phase 1 Cultural Resources Investigation, the purpose of which was to
“locate and record any cultural resources within the impact area and to provide a preliminary assessment
of their potential significance in terms of eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP (pg. 38 of the report). A
summary of the report is included on pages 80-85.
Included below are some of the pertinent findings:
• One structure (DHR #034-1155 (2737 Senseny Road House)) had been previously studied and
was determined to be not eligible for the NRHP. This report determined that “in our opinion, the
resource is a typical, unremarkable example of an American Foursquare dwelling dating to the
first quarter of the 20th century. None of the buildings are associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns in history or with known individuals of transcendent
historical importance. Therefore, in our opinion, DHR Resource 034-1155 is not eligible for
listing on the NRHP under Criteria A, B, or C. No further documentation is recommended.” (pg.
85).
• Five previously recorded archeological sites and six new archeological sites were recorded as a
result of this investigation. Most sites were determined to be trash scatters and no further work
was recommended for all but one site.
• Site 44FK0279 contained artifacts such as “architecture-related brick and nails, kitchen-related
ceramics and glass, and tobacco-related kaolin pipe stem fragments” and “no definitively 20th
century or modern artifacts” (pg. 84). It was concluded that “the site has the potential to yield
significant research data regarding the lifeways of the residents of Frederick County, Virginia in
the 19th century and may be eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D. Phase II
archeological evaluation of Site 44FK0279 is recommended if the site cannot be avoided by the
proposed development” (pg. 84).
Please find the following attachments for your information:
• Location Map
• HRAB Application
• Proffer Statement & Impact Analysis Statement
• General Development Plan (GDP)
• Phase 1 Cultural Resources Investigation
6
• Virginia DHR Surveys, Maps, and Photographs
The Applicant will be available at the HRAB meeting to provide additional information on the proposed
Rezoning. Staff will be seeking comments from the HRAB on the historical elements possibly impacted
by the proposed use. The comments will be included in the rezoning application package.
**If you have any questions prior to the meeting please forward them to me and I will relay them to the
Applicant.
7
##¬«7
CLARKECOUNTYVIRGINIA
ValleyMill Farm
Millbank
SEMINOLE DR
ASHLEYCIR
CHESHIRECT
LAKOTA ST
DURHAMWAY HAVERFORDCTKAPOKCIR
POMOLN
TWINBROOKCIRNOR F OLKCTKELLERCTNASSAUDR
DELLCTTILFORDDRTAMARACKCIR
ASHLEYDRGINGERSTROSSMANNBLVDM O N ETTER
WOODMANCT
VANGOGHTER
HIGHCLIFFEDREVETTEPL
SEQUOIADRNOOTKAWAY
D
OV
E
R
D
R PRIMROSEPL
OAKMONTCIR
M
E
N
A
S
H
A
C
T
C
OMB
E
D
R YUROK CTJU LEE D R
A U LEEC TALPINEMEADOW RDKI
NGSLEYDRCORALYROSECTHE
AT
H CT
BEDFORDDRHOPKINSW AYROSSUMLNMONACANSTWHIPPDRMILL RACE DRTHOMPSONCT
W I C K H A MTER PANGBORNECTHAIDALNB I S C A N ECT
SOLARA DRBENTPATHCTREBECCADRWAPPINGERTERRMILLSTONECIRMASCOUTENST
TICKHILL LNMANASQUANWAYGODWINCT
T
YE
CTCOBBLESTONE DRW A Y F A R I N GDR
EDGEWOODDR
W A L E SCT MUNSEECIR
S E N S E N Y
G L E N D R
BERRYVILLEPIKE
CANYON RD SIOUXLOOPLEHIGH DR GLENRIDGEDRMORNINGGLORY DRSULPHURSPRING RD
CHICKASAW DRCHANNING DR
THORNTON WAY EDDYS LNSENSENY RD
W
O
O
D RISE LN HALLOWED CROSSING WAYV A LLEY M ILL RD
Winchester East at O pequon Creek RE Z
#Historic Rural Landmarks
0.5 Mile B uffer
Sewer and Water Service A rea
Parcels
Future Rt 37 Bypass
Map Produced by Frederick C ounty Planning and D evelopment Dept.September 25, 2024 0 0.25 0.50.125 Miles
W i n c h e s t e r E a s t a t O p e q u o n C r e e k R e z o n i n g
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
PROFFER STATEMENT
REZONING: RZ# _____________
Rural Areas (RA) to Residential Performance (RP)
PROPERTY: 91.70 Acres +/-;
Tax Map Parcels 65-A-195 and 65-A-194B (collectively, the
“Property”)
RECORD OWNER: Tax Map Parcel 65-A-195: Lisa Ann Riggleman
Tax Map Parcel 65-A-194B: Remington J. Cussen
(collectively, “Owners”)
APPLICANT: T VA Winchester II LLC (“Applicant”)
ORIGINAL DATE
OF PROFFERS: September 20, 2024
The undersigned Owners and Applicant hereby proffer that the use and development of the
above-referenced parcels, which are requested to be rezoned, shall be in strict conformance with
the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers on the Property that may have
been made prior hereto. In the event that the above-referenced RP conditional rezoning is not
granted as applied for by Owners and Applicant, these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and
shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property
with “final rezoning” defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day
upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors’ (the “Board”) decision granting the
rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board’s decision is contested, and the
Owners and Applicant elect not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the
term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of
the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has
been affirmed on appeal.
The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or
reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any
provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of
development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other
proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The terms “Owners” and “Applicant”
as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest.
When used in these proffers, the “Generalized Development Plan,” shall refer to the plan entitled
“Generalized Development Plan” dated September 9, 2024 (the “GDP”), attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as “Exhibit A,” and shall include the following:
1. LAND USE:
1.1 Residential development of the Property shall be limited to a maximum of 283
dwelling units. Of said 283 dwelling units, a maximum of 136 shall be duplex/small lot units, a
14
2
maximum of 117 shall be single family attached units, and a maximum of 30 shall be single family
cluster units. Multi-family dwelling units shall be prohibited.
1.2 The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the GDP provided
that minor modifications may be permitted during the Master Development Plan and final
engineering process.
2. PARKS AND RECREATION:
2.1 Applicant shall provide recreation areas for the benefit of the residents of the project
in the general locations shown on the GDP. The recreation areas shall be owned and maintained
by the homeowners’ association for the Property.
2.2 The minimum amount of open space to be provided for the Property, in its entirety,
is thirty percent (30%) of the entire Property which is generally 25.07 acres as shown on the GDP.
3. PROFFER PAYMENTS:
3.1 Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County (the “County”) the sum of
$20,449.00 per single family cluster unit, less the per unit proffer credit of $4,299.89 described in
Section 3.3 below, for parks and recreation purposes, fire and rescue purposes, and public school
purposes, payable upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each single family cluster
unit.
3.2 Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $21,149.00 per single family
attached unit and duplex/small lot unit, less the per unit proffer credit of $4,299.89 described in
Section 3.3 below, for parks and recreation purposes, fire and rescue purposes, and public school
purposes, payable upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each single family attached
and duplex/small lot unit.
3.3. Applicant shall receive a per unit proffer credit in the amount of $4,299.89 for the
right-of-way dedication for future Virginia Route 37 described in Section 7.4 below. The value of
the land Applicant proffers to dedicate to the County pursuant to Section 7.4 below is
$1,216,869.00.
4. CREATION OF A HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION:
4.1 The Property shall be made subject to a homeowners’ association (“HOA”) that
shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any
recreation areas, excluding any areas that may be dedicated to the County or other public entities.
For each area subject to their jurisdiction, the HOA shall be granted such responsibilities, duties,
and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such HOA herein.
4.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, the HOA
shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open areas not otherwise dedicated to public
use, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots, (iii) establishing and managing a
common solid waste disposal program; (iv) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any
15
3
perimeter or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be
granted to the HOA if platted with residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by
appropriate interest, (v) maintenance of private alley ways providing access to residential lots, and
(vi) ownership and maintenance of stormwater management facilities.
5. WATER AND SEWER:
5.1 Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and
sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such connection. All water and sewer
infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Frederick County
Sanitation Authority.
6. HISTORIC RESOURCES:
6.1 Applicant shall complete a cultural resources survey documenting any historic
structures or areas on the Property in general conformance with the guidelines established by the
Department of Historic Resources and submit it to the County Historic Resources Advisory Board
for review and comment. Applicant proffers to follow the recommendations of the study for
development of the Property. Applicant is aware of prior historical studies of the Property dated
October 15, 1991, March 1, 1992, October 1, 1992, and September 8, 2020. The bulk of the
historic areas on the Property identified in these prior studies are located in areas of the Property
that will not be disturbed.
7. TRANSPORTATION
7.1 Design of the roadway system shall be substantially consistent with the GDP. The
exact location and design of proffered improvements shall be subject to reasonable adjustment
upon Master Development Plan and final engineering thereof, as approved by the County.
7.2 Applicant shall construct an entrance to the Property on Senseny Road in the
general location shown on the GDP.
7.3 Applicant shall construct a public street connection to Canyon Road at its
intersection with Senseny Glen Drive, an existing public right-of-way in the adjoining Senseny
Glen subdivision, in the general location shown on the GDP.
7.4 The right-of-way for Virginia Route 37 as identified by future County studies and
generally shown on the GDP will be surveyed and platted. Applicant shall reserve a 7.8-acre
portion of the Property that is 104’ wide for the future Virginia Route 37 and shall dedicate the
right-of-way to the County, at no cost to the County, within ninety (90) days of request by the
County.
7.5 All public streets and roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) subdivision street requirements and subject to
review and approval by the County.
16
4
7.6 All sidewalks shall be constructed with a minimum width of 5 feet as shown on the
GDP to accommodate pedestrian movement.
8. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY FROM PROFFERS
8.1 Any portion of the Property hereafter dedicated for public street purposes (or
otherwise conveyed to a public entity) shall, upon such dedication, be excluded from the terms and
conditions of these Proffers and the remainder of the Property shall continue to be subject to the
full force and effect of these Proffers.
9. SEVERABILITY
9.1 In the event any portion of these Proffers are subsequently determined to be illegal
or unenforceable, the remaining Proffers shall continue in full force and effect.
10. BINDING EFFECT
10.1 These Proffers run with the land and shall be binding upon all heirs, executors,
administrators, assigns, and successors in interest of the Owners and Applicant.
11. ESCALATOR CLAUSE
11.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in these Proffers are paid to the
County within thirty (30) months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by Owner, said
contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in
these Proffers which are paid to the County after thirty (30) months following the approval of this
rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (“CPI-U”)
published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid
they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that date thirty (30) months
after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the date the contributions
are paid, subject to a cap of six percent (6%) per year, non-compounded.
[remainder of page intentionally left blank]
17
5
Respectfully submitted,
LISA ANN RIGGLEMAN
STATE/COMMONWEALTH OF _________, AT LARGE
CITY/COUNTY OF ____________, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ___________,
2024, by LISA ANN RIGGLEMAN.
____________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires: ______________________
Registration number:
18
6
REMINGTON J. CUSSEN
STATE/COMMONWEALTH OF _________, AT LARGE
CITY/COUNTY OF ____________, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ___________,
2024, by REMINGTON J. CUSSEN.
____________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires: ______________________
Registration number:
19
7
T VA WINCHESTER II LLC
By:
Its:
STATE/COMMONWEALTH OF _________, AT LARGE
CITY/COUNTY OF ____________, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ___________,
2024, by ___________, ____________ of T VA WINCHESTER II LLC.
____________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires: ______________________
Registration number:
20
WINCHESTER EAST AT OPEQUON CREEK
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
September 20, 2024
INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Frederick County by the
proffered rezoning of property identified as Tax Map Numbers 65-A-195 and 65-A-194B
(collectively, the “Property”) to RP (Residential Performance). The subject parcel is situated on
Senseny Road and is bounded by the Twin Lakes Overlook and the Senseny Glen subdivisions to
the west and the Retreat at Winding Creek subdivision to the north. Opequon Creek, the Clarke
County/Frederick County line, and property zoned RA (Rural Areas) are located on the eastern
boundary of the Property. Senseny Road and property zoned RA (Rural Areas) is on the Property’s
southern boundary.
The property is currently zoned RA (Rural Areas). This application proposes to rezone the Property
from RA to RP.
The Property is currently used for residential and agricultural purposes.
General Site Information
Location:
2737 and 2747 Senseny Road
Magisterial District:
Red Bud District
Tax Map Numbers:
65-A-195 and 65-A-194B
Current Zoning:
RA
Current Use:
Residential and Agricultural
Proposed Zoning:
RP, Residential Performance with proffers
Proposed Use:
Residential Subdivision
Total Rezoning Area: 91.70 +/- acres with proffers
21
Impact Analysis Statement Winchester East at Opequon Creek
2
COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN
Urban Development Area
The Urban Development Area (UDA) defines the general area in which residential, commercial,
industrial, and institutional land use development is encouraged in the County. The subject
acreage is located inside of the UDA.
Sewer and Water Service Area
The Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) defines the areas of the County to which public water
and sewer service may be extended. The Property is located inside of the SWSA.
Comprehensive Plan Conformity
The Senseny/Eastern Frederick Area Land Use Plan designates the subject acreage primarily for
Residential (4 units per acre) with Rural Areas located on the eastern most portion of the Property.
Given the adjoining residential uses, the subject acreage is ideally situated for a residential
subdivision. The proposed concept plan for the subdivision includes an one hundred four foot
(104’) right-of-way for the future Route 37 bypass expansion as noted on the Frederick County
Comprehensive Plan. The concept plan proposes thirty (30) single family cluster units and
stormwater management areas on the eastern side of the future Route 37 bypass in conformance
with the designated Rural Areas character of that portion of the Property. Townhouse and
duplex/small lot residential units will be located on the western side of the future Route 37 bypass.
The proposed development aligns with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan,
notably by maintaining residential uses in areas of the County designated for residential growth
and by reserving a portion of the Property for the future Route 37 bypass.
SUITABILITY OF THE SITE
Access
The subject acreage fronts on Senseny Road. Access to the site will be provided via an entrance
on Senseny Road. The proposed subdivision will also connect to Senseny Road via Senseny Glen
Drive, an existing public right-of-way in the adjoining Senseny Glen subdivision. A combination
of public and private rights-of-way will provide internal access from Senseny Road to the
residential units. A Traffic Impact Analysis is provided with the rezoning application.
Flood Plains
The subject acreage contains areas of floodplain per FEMA NFIP Map #51069C0240E Effective
Date January 29, 2021.
22
Impact Analysis Statement Winchester East at Opequon Creek
3
Wetlands
The subject acreage contains wetland areas as demonstrated on the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) Map information or from information identified in the Frederick County GIS Database.
Environmental Features
The subject acreage contains some areas of steep slope, lakes or ponds or natural stormwater
retention areas as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Opequon Creek is on the
eastern boundary of the Property. Development of the Property in this area will be managed during
final engineering design in accordance with all applicable ordinances and regulations.
Soils/Geology
As per the Frederick County GIS Database, the following soil types are present on the subject
acreage: ClearBrook Channery silt loam; Zoar silt loam; Weikert-Berks Channery silt loams; and
Wheeling loam. The characteristics of these soil types are manageable for development following
the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control practices.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
North: RP, Residential Performance District
Use: Residential
South: RA, Rural Area District
Use: Residential
East: RA, Rural Area District
Opequon Creek
Clarke County, Virginia
Use: Residential
West: RP, Residential Performance District
RA, Rural Area District
Use: Residential
TRANSPORTATION
Please refer to the Traffic Impact Analysis Statement for Winchester East at Opequon Creek dated
September 19, 2024 prepared by Gorove Slade.
SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY
The Property is located wholly within the Sewer and Water Service Area and is therefore entitled
to be served by public water and sewer based on County Policy. Frederick Water is the provider
of public water and sewer service within this area of the County.
SITE DRAINAGE
23
Impact Analysis Statement Winchester East at Opequon Creek
4
Topographic relief on the Property generally follows a pattern that directs drainage towards the
east of the Property. A complete stormwater management plan will be designed at the time of final
engineering design. All associated stormwater quantity and quality measures will be designed in
conformance with all applicable state and local regulations; therefore, site drainage and stormwater
management impacts to adjoining properties and the community will be mitigated.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
The subdivision will utilize private refuse collection services administered by the homeowners
association, which will result in limited impacts to the Greenwood convenience center.
HISTORICAL RESOURCES
The Property is not located within and does not adjoin any existing or potential historic districts,
Civil War Battlefields or sites, or landmarks, as identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive
Plan. A cultural resources survey of the Property will be conducted and presented to the Historic
Resources Advisory Board for review and comment. The recommendations for development of
the Property from the cultural resources study will be followed. There are prior historical studies
of this Property dated October 15, 1991, March 1, 1992, October 1, 1992, and September 8, 2020.
The bulk of the historic areas on the Property identified in these prior studies are located in areas
of the Property that will not be disturbed.
IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Educational Facilities: The proffer statement submitted with this Impact Analysis Statement
addresses impacts on Frederick County education facilities.
Emergency Services: Police protection will be provided by the Frederick County Sheriff’s
Department. The property is located in the first response area for the Greenwood Volunteer Fire
and Rescue Company. Response times from the station to the site are reasonable.
Parks and Recreation: The proffer statement submitted with this Impact Analysis Statement
addresses impacts on Frederick County parks and recreation facilities.
24
S104' ROW104' DEDICATED ROW(FUTURE ROUTE 37)± 7.8 ACRES104' ROWSINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(ATTACHED AND/OR DETACHED)SINGLE FAMILYRESIDENTIAL(ATTACHED AND/ORDETACHED)PRESERVED OPENSPACEPRESERVED OPENSPACESENSENY GLENSUBDIVISIONSITE TABULATIONS:TM : 65-A-195 = 73.53 ACRESTM : 65-A-194B = 18.17 ACRESTOTAL ACRES = 91.70 ACRESEX. ZONING: RAPROP. ZONING: RPTM # 65-A-195TM # 65-A-194BLEGEND:ACCESS LOCATIONAPPROX. LOCATION OF SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENTIALPRESERVED OPEN SPACE -FEMA FLOODPLAINPROJECT BOUNDARYTWIN LAKESSUBDIVISIONOPEQUONCROSSINGSUBDIVISIONROUTE 37CONTINUATIONOPEQUON CREEKPARCEL LINESDEDICATED ROWPARCEL LINESGENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VA
WINCHESTER EAST AT OPEQUON CREEK6003000150300SCALE: 1 = 300'151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22602
Telephone: (540) 662-4185
Fax: (540) 722-9528
www.greenwayeng.com
FND 1971
E N G I N E E R I N GSHEET OFDESIGNED BY:FILE NO.SCALE:DATE:PROUDLY SERVING VIRGINIA & WEST VIRGINIA
OFFICES IN: WINCHESTER, VA & MARTINSBURG, WV1 = 300'109/09/2024STAFF1869825
Winchester East at
Opequon Creek
Frederick County, Virginia
WSSI #32927.01
Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
September 2024
Prepared for:
T VA Winchester II LLC
1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600, PMB 1154
Alexandria, VA 22314
Prepared by:
Jeremy Smith, MSc, RPA, and Brittany Vance
5300 Wellington Branch Drive, Suite 100
Gainesville, Virginia 20155
Tel: 703-679-5600 Email: contactus@wetlands.com
www.wetlands.com
26
27
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01- September 2024 Page i
ABSTRACT
A Phase I cultural resources investigation was conducted of the ±91.7-acre Winchester East at
Opequon Creek project area, located at 2737 and 2747 Senseny Road (Route 657) in eastern
Frederick County, Virginia near its boundary with Clarke County. Thunderbird Archeology, a
division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc., of Gainesville, Virginia conducted the study
described in this report for T VA Winchester II, LLC of Alexandria, Virginia. The fieldwork
was carried out in August of 2024. Six new archeological sites (44FK1086-44FK1091) were
recorded as a result of this investigation. Additionally, five previously recorded archeological
sites (44FK0277-44FK0281) and one previously recorded architectural resource (034-1155)
were revisited during the study; one of these sites (44FK0279) is recommended for Phase II
or avoidance.
Sites 44FK1086, 44FK1087, 44FK1088, 44FK1090, and 44FK1091 were all interpreted as
trash scatters dating to the 20th century, likely the result of casual discard associated with the
20th-century occupation and use of the property. Site 44FK1089 was interpreted as casually
discarded refuse associated with the long-term occupation of the extant circa 1920 dwelling
and farmstead at 2737 Senseny Road (DHR Resource 034-1155) and the associated use of the
property into the modern era. In our opinion, these sites are not eligible for listing in the NRHP
under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.
Sites 44FK0277, 44FK0278, 44FK0279, 44FK0280, and 44FK0281 were previously recorded
within the project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University;
none of the sites have been evaluated for listing in the NRHP. Site 44FK0277 represents a trash
scatter dating to the 20th century, with a low-density (n=3) precontact component dating to an
unknown period reportedly recovered from the vicinity by the landowner. Site 44FK0278
represents a modern domestic dump site dating to the 20th century. Site 44FK0280 represents
a possible waste disposal area dating to an unknown historic period, with a low-density
precontact component (n=2) dating to an unknown period. Site 44FK0281 represents a low-
density (n=3) lithic scatter dating to an unknown precontact period. In our opinion, these sites
are not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.
Site 44FK0279 was previously recorded as a farmstead dating to the 19th century that includes
a low-density (n=1) precontact component dating to an unknown period. Additional artifacts
recovered during the current investigation included architecture-, kitchen-, and tobacco-related
artifacts; no definitively 20th-century or modern artifacts were recovered. In our opinion the
site has the potential to yield significant research data regarding the lifeways of the residents
of Frederick County, Virginia in the 19th century and may be eligible for listing in the NRHP
under Criterion D. Phase II archeological evaluation of Site 44FK0279 is recommended if
the site cannot be avoided by the proposed development.
Finally, DHR Resource 034-1155 (House, 2737 Senseny Road) encompasses the majority of
the project area and is a single dwelling constructed circa 1920 that has been determined not
eligible for listing in the NRHP by DHR. No new data was obtained during the current study
that would contradict the previous determination by the DHR that the resource is not eligible
for listing in the NRHP. In our opinion, the resource is not eligible for listing in the NRHP
under Criteria A, B, or C. No further documentation is recommended.
28
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01- September 2024 Page ii
29
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01- September 2024 Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ iii
LIST OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ v
LIST OF PLATES ........................................................................................................... vi
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..................................................................................... 1
PALEOENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND ............................................................ 3
CULTURAL HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................. 6
Prehistoric Overview .................................................................................................... 6
Paleoindian Period (9500/10000-8000 BCE) ........................................................................................ 6
Early Archaic Period (8000-6500 BCE) ................................................................................................ 8
Middle Archaic Period (6500-3000 BCE) ............................................................................................ 10
Late Archaic Period (3000-1200 BCE) ................................................................................................ 11
Early Woodland Period (1200 BCE-300 CE) ...................................................................................... 13
Middle Woodland Period (300-1000 CE) ............................................................................................. 15
Late Woodland Period (1000-1606 CE/European Contact) ................................................................ 17
Historic Overview ....................................................................................................... 21
PREVIOUS ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ......................................................... 32
RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................................... 38
Research Objectives .................................................................................................... 38
Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation Methodology ......................................... 40
Archeological Fieldwork Methodology ................................................................................................ 40
Architectural Reconnaissance Methodology ........................................................................................ 41
Laboratory Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 41
Research Expectations ................................................................................................ 42
RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ................................................................. 42
Site 44FK1086.............................................................................................................. 48
Site 44FK1087.............................................................................................................. 51
Site 44FK1088.............................................................................................................. 54
Site 44FK1089.............................................................................................................. 56
Site 44FK1090.............................................................................................................. 62
Site 44FK1091.............................................................................................................. 65
Site 44FK0277.............................................................................................................. 68
Site 44FK0278.............................................................................................................. 71
Site 44FK0279.............................................................................................................. 72
Site 44FK0280.............................................................................................................. 75
Site 44FK0281.............................................................................................................. 77
DHR Resource 034-1155 (House, off Route 657) ..................................................... 79
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 80
REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................. 87
PLATES ........................................................................................................................... 97
APPENDIX I ................................................................................................................. 117
Artifact Inventory ..................................................................................................... 117
APPENDIX II ................................................................................................................ 129
30
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01- September 2024 Page iv
Staff Qualifications ................................................................................................... 129
APPENDIX III .............................................................................................................. 133
Cultural Resource Forms ......................................................................................... 133
31
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01- September 2024 Page v
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................... 2
Exhibit 2: 2001 USGS Quadrangle, Stephenson, VA WV ................................................. 4
Exhibit 3: June 2024 Natural Color Imagery ...................................................................... 5
Exhibit 4: 1755 Fry-Jefferson Map of Virginia ................................................................ 26
Exhibit 5: 1863 Macomb Map, Upper Potomac Region, MD & VA ............................... 30
Exhibit 6: 1873 Battlefield of Winchester, Virgina (Opequon) - September 19, 1864 .... 33
Exhibit 7: 1938 USGS Quadrangle, Winchester, VA-WV ............................................... 34
Exhibit 8: Overview of Phase I Testing (South) ............................................................... 43
Exhibit 9: Overview of Phase I Testing (Central) ............................................................ 44
Exhibit 10: Overview of Phase I Testing (North) ............................................................. 45
Exhibit 11: Representative Soil Profile from Project Area ............................................... 47
Exhibit 12: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1086 ........................................... 49
Exhibit 13: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1086 .......................................... 50
Exhibit 14: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1087 ........................................... 52
Exhibit 15: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1087 .......................................... 53
Exhibit 16: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1088 ........................................... 55
Exhibit 17: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1088 .......................................... 57
Exhibit 18: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1089 ........................................... 58
Exhibit 19: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1089 .......................................... 60
Exhibit 20: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1090 ........................................... 63
Exhibit 21: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1090 .......................................... 64
Exhibit 22: Detail of Phase I Testing within Sites 44FK1091, 44FK0280, and 44FK0281
........................................................................................................................................... 66
Exhibit 23: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1091 .......................................... 67
Exhibit 24: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK0277 ........................................... 69
Exhibit 25: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK0277 .......................................... 70
Exhibit 26: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK0279 ........................................... 73
Exhibit 27: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK0279 .......................................... 74
Exhibit 28: Representative Soil Profile at Site 44FK0280 ............................................... 76
Exhibit 29: Representative Soil Profile at Site 44FK0281 ............................................... 78
Exhibit 30: Locations of Cultural Resources Within the Project Area ............................. 81
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Previously Recorded Archeological Sites .......................................................... 36
Table 2: Previously Recorded Architectural Resources ................................................... 37
Table 3: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FX1086 .......................................................... 51
Table 4: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK1087 .......................................................... 54
Table 5: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FX1088 .......................................................... 56
Table 6: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FX1089 .......................................................... 61
Table 7: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK1090 .......................................................... 62
Table 8: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK1091 .......................................................... 65
Table 9: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK0277 .......................................................... 71
Table 10: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK0279 ........................................................ 72
32
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01- September 2024 Page vi
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1: Senseny Road ....................................................................................................... 99
Plate 2: Opequon Creek – Northeast of Project Area ....................................................... 99
Plate 3: Example of Forested Vegetation ........................................................................ 100
Plate 4: Example of Pastureland/Overview of Site 44FK1089 (North) .......................... 100
Plate 5: Example of Manicured Lawn/Overview of Site 44FK1089 (South) ................. 101
Plate 6: Example of Steep Slope ..................................................................................... 101
Plate 7: Example of Constructed Farm Pond .................................................................. 102
Plate 8: Example of Drainage Swale/Cut ........................................................................ 102
Plate 9: Example of Artificial Landform ........................................................................ 103
Plate 10: Example of Gravel Farm Roads....................................................................... 103
Plate 11: Example of 100-Year FEMA Floodplain of Opequon Creek .......................... 104
Plate 12: Example of 100-Year FEMA Floodplain of Opequon Creek .......................... 104
Plate 13: Oblique of Building 8 (Dwelling at 2747 Senseny Road) ............................... 105
Plate 14: Oblique of Building 8 (Dwelling at 2747 Senseny Road) ............................... 105
Plate 15: Building 9 (R) and Building 10 (L) ................................................................. 106
Plate 16: Overview of Site 44FK1086 ............................................................................ 106
Plate 17: Overview of Site 44FK1087 ............................................................................ 107
Plate 18: Vicinity of Site 44FK1088 ............................................................................... 107
Plate 19: Overview of Site 44FK1090 ............................................................................ 108
Plate 20: Overview of Site 44FK1091 ............................................................................ 108
Plate 21: Overview of Site 44FK0277 ............................................................................ 109
Plate 22: DHR Location of Site 44FK0278 .................................................................... 109
Plate 23: Example of Surface Trash at Site 44FK0278 .................................................. 110
Plate 24: Overview of Site 44FK0279 ............................................................................ 110
Plate 25: DHR Location of Site 44FK0280 .................................................................... 111
Plate 26: DHR Location of Site 44FK0281 .................................................................... 111
Plate 27: Building 1, South and East Elevations (034-1155).......................................... 112
Plate 28: Building 1, North and West Elevations (034-1155) ........................................ 112
Plate 29: Building 2, West and south Elevations (034-1155) ......................................... 113
Plate 30: Building 3, North Elevation (034-1155) .......................................................... 113
Plate 31: Building 4, North Elevation (034-1155) .......................................................... 114
Plate 32: Building 5, South and East Elevations (034-1155).......................................... 114
Plate 33: Building 6, East Elevation (034-1155) ............................................................ 115
Plate 34: Building 7 (034-1155) ..................................................................................... 115
33
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 1
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a Phase I cultural resources investigation of the ±91.7-
acre Winchester East at Opequon Creek project area, located at 2737 and 2747 Senseny
Road (Route 657) in eastern Frederick County, Virginia near its boundary with Clarke
County (Exhibit 1). Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and
Solutions, Inc., of Gainesville, Virginia conducted the study described in this report for T
VA Winchester II, LLC of Alexandria, Virginia. The fieldwork was carried out in August
of 2024.
Jeremy Smith, MSc, RPA, served as Principal Investigator and supervised all aspects of
the investigation. The fieldwork was completed by Brittany Vance, Scott McElroy,
Amelia Puchino, Jennifer Carroll, Macey Stearns, Andrew Lewis, Megan Bull, Jennifer
Cullison, and Rebekah Thimlar. Elizabeth Waters Johnson, M.A., served as Laboratory
Supervisor and conducted the artifact analysis with Amber Nubgaard, M.A., RPA. All
artifacts, research data, and field data resulting from this project are currently on
repository at the Thunderbird offices in Gainesville, Virginia.
The fieldwork and report contents conformed to the guidelines set forth by the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources (DHR) for a Phase I identification level survey as
outlined in their 2017 Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia
(DHR 2017), as well as the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for
Archeology and Historic Preservation (DOI 1983). In general, at the time of the survey
all aspects of the investigation were in compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665) (as amended).
The purpose of the survey was to locate any cultural resources within the impact area
and, insofar as possible at this level of investigation, to provide a preliminary assessment
of their potential significance in terms of eligibility for inclusion on the National Register
of Historic Place. If a particular resource was felt to possess the potential to contribute to
the knowledge of local, regional, or national prehistory or history, then Phase II work was
recommended.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Frederick and Clark Counties are encompassed by Valley and Ridge and Blue Ridge
provinces. The Valley and Ridge province is characterized by a series of north-south
trending ridges separated by river valleys and represents one portion of the Great Valley
System of the Appalachian Mountains running from New York to Alabama. The Great
Valley of Virginia, defined by limestone and dolostone (carbonate) bedrock, is bound by
the Blue Ridge province to the east. The limestone in the area forms good agricultural
lands with occasional karst formations. Sinkholes and caverns are common throughout
the valley. Other dominant rock types in the region include sandstone, shale, and
quartzite.
34
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.01_01_Vicinity.mxd
0 2,000
Feet
Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map
®Source: World Street Map - ESRI
Original Scale:
1 " = 2,000 '
Project Area: ±101.4 acres
Frederick County
VA
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 2
35
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 3
The Valley and Ridge province is divided into three sub-provinces: Ridge and Valley, Great
Valley, and Massanutten Mountain (Exhibit 2). The project area lies in the Great Valley,
where broad valleys with low to moderate slopes are underlain by carbonate rocks.
Elevations range from 1,200 to 2,300 feet above mean sea level (a.m.s.l.).
The project area is located on the eastern edge of a generally north-south-trending landform
immediately above Opequon Creek (Exhibit 2). Drainage for the project area is to the east
into Opequon Creek, which flows 26 miles to the north into the Potomac River. The
vegetation of the project area consists of a mix of deciduous and evergreen forest, grassy
pasture, and manicured lawns (Exhibit 3).
PALEOENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND
The basic environmental history of the area has been provided by Carbone (1976) (see also
Gardner 1985, 1987; Johnson 1986). The following will present highlights from this history,
focusing on those aspects pertinent to the project area.
At the time of the arrival of humans into the region, about 11,000 years ago, the area was
beginning to recover rapidly from the effects of the last Wisconsin glacial maximum of circa
18,000 years ago. Vegetation was in transition from northern dominated species and included
a mixture of conifers and hardwoods. The primary trend was toward a reduction in the
openness which was characteristic of the parkland of 14-12,000 years ago. Animals were
undergoing a rapid increase in numbers as deer, elk and, possibly, moose expanded into the
niches and habitats made available as the result of wholesale extinctions of the various kinds
of fauna that had occupied the area during the previous millennia. The current cycle of
ponding and stream drowning began 18-16,000 years ago at the beginning of the final retreat
of the last Wisconsin glaciation (Gardner 1985); sea level rise has been steady since then.
While the Shenandoah Valley was not subject to direct glaciation at this time the limestone
formations provided a well-watered environment.
These trends continued to accelerate over the subsequent millennia of the Holocene. One
important highlight was the appearance of marked seasonality circa 7000 BCE. This was
accompanied by the spread of deciduous forests dominated by oaks and hickories. The
modern forest characteristic of the area, the mixed oak-hickory-pine climax forest, prevailed
after 3000-2500 BCE. Continued forest closure led to the reduction and greater territorial
dispersal of the larger mammalian forms such as deer. Sea level continued to rise, resulting in
the inundation of interior streams. This was quite rapid until circa 3000-2500 BCE, at which
time the rise slowed, continuing at a rate estimated to be ten inches per century (Darmody
and Foss 1978). At about this time the North Fork of the Shenandoah had reached its present
bend forming the current floodplains of today.
Based on archeology (see Gardner and Rappleye 1979), it would appear that the mid-Atlantic
migratory bird flyway was established circa 6500 BCE. Oysters had migrated to at least the
Northern Neck by 1200 BCE (Potter 1982) and to their maximum upriver limits along the
Potomac near Popes Creek, Maryland, by circa 750 BCE (Gardner and McNett 1971), with
anadromous fish arriving in the Inner Coastal Plain in considerable numbers circa 1800 BCE
(Gardner 1982).
36
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.01_02_USGS.mxd
Exhibit 2: 2001 USGS Quadrangle, Stephenson, VA WV
Latitude: 39°9'54"N
Longitude: 78°5'13"W
Project Area ®0 2,000
Feet
Original Scale:
1 " = 2,000 '
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 4
37
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.01_03_Nearmap.mxd
Exhibit 3: June 2024 Natural Color Imagery
Source: Nearmap®
Project Area ®0 600
Feet
Original Scale:
1 " = 600 '
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 5
38
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 6
A warming trend that lasted for several centuries stalled by a cooling event around 1300
CE known as the Little Ice Age. This climatic event brought about more late spring frosts
and early autumn frosts accompanied by cool and rainy summers (Rice 2009:30).
During the historic period, circa 1700 CE, cultural landscape alteration becomes a new
environmental factor (Walker and Gardner 1989). Around this time, Euro-American
settlement extended into the Piedmont/Coastal Plain interface and later into the
Shenandoah Valley. With these settlers came land clearing and deforestation for
cultivation, as well as the harvesting of wood for use in a number of different products.
At this time the stream tributaries to the Potomac, were broad expanses of open waters
from their mouths well up their valleys to, at, or near their "falls" where they leave the
Piedmont and enter the Coastal Plain. These streams were conducive to the establishment
of ports and harbors, elements necessary to commerce and contact with the outside world
and the seats of colonial power. Most of these early ports were eventually abandoned or
reduced in importance, for the erosional cycle set up by the land clearing resulted in tons
of silt being washed into the streams, ultimately impeding navigation. Widespread
deforestation and cultivation led to erosion of topsoil within the Valley and siltation of
streams while uplands suffered from deflation.
The historic vegetation would have consisted of a mixed oak-hickory-pine forest.
Associated with this forest were deer and smaller mammals and turkey. The nearby open
water environments would have provided habitats for waterfowl year round as well as
seasonally for migratory species. Elevation is an important characteristic in the
Shenandoah Valley especially when discussing agricultural practices. Changes within
elevation in the Valley produce abrupt seasonal transitions and also dictate the amount of
precipitation in certain areas making the Valley floor drier than other higher elevations.
CULTURAL HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Prehistoric Overview
The following section provides a brief overview and context of the general prehistory of
the region. A number of summaries of the archeology of the general area have been
written (see Gardner 1987; Johnson 1986; Walker 1981); Gardner, Walker, and Johnson
present essentially the same picture, with the major differences lying in the terminology
utilized for the prehistoric time periods. The dates provided below for the three general
prehistoric periods, and associated sub-periods, follow those outlined by the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources (DHR 2017:107-108).
Paleoindian Period (9500/10000-8000 BCE)
The Paleoindian period corresponds to the end of the Late Pleistocene and beginning of
the Early Holocene of the Late Glacial period, which was characterized by cooler and
drier conditions with significantly less seasonal variation than is evident in the region
today. The cooler conditions resulted in decreased evaporation and, in areas where
39
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 7
drainage was restricted by topography, could have resulted in the development of
wetlands in further inland regions (Walker 1981; Johnson 1986:P1-8). Generally
speaking, the nature of the vegetation was marked by open forests composed of a mix of
coniferous and deciduous elements. The individual character of local floral communities
would have depended on drainage, soils, and elevation, among other factors. The
structure of the open environment would have been favorable for deer, bear, moose, and,
to a lesser degree, elk, which would have expanded rapidly into the environmental niches
left available by the extinction and extirpation of the large herd animals and megafauna
characteristic of the Late Pleistocene.
The fluted projectile point is considered the hallmark of the Paleoindian lithic toolkit.
Based on his work at the Flint Run Complex, Gardner identified three distinct sub-phases
within the larger fluted point phase (Gardner 1974). The oldest of the Paleoindian sub-
phases is identified by the now classic Clovis point, a large, bifacially flaked tool with a
channel or flute removed from both sides of its base. Regionally, the widely accepted
beginning date for Clovis type points is circa 9500 BCE; however, some data has
suggested a pre-11,000 BCE beginning date for Clovis points (McAvoy and McAvoy
1997; Johnson 1997). The Clovis sub-phase is followed in time by the Middle Paleo sub-
phase, defined by smaller fluted points. The Dalton-Hardaway sub-phase is the final one
of the period and is characterized by the minimally fluted Dalton and Hardaway
projectile points. This three-period subdivision is well supported by stratigraphy.
Associated with these projectile points are various other tools that usually cannot be
taken by themselves as diagnostic Paleoindian indicators. Examples of such stone tools
include end or side scrapers, bifaces, blades, and spokeshaves, which are all associated
with the hunting and processing of game animals. While Clovis points have been found
across North America, a significant concentration of them have been found in Virginia
(Egloff and Woodward 2006:9).
Possible evidence for pre-Clovis colonization of the Americas has been found at the
Cactus Hill site (44SX0202) in Virginia, where an ephemeral component dating from
15,000 to 13,000 BCE included prismatic blades manufactured from quartzite cores and
metavolcanic or chert pentagonal bifaces (Haynes 2002: 43-44; Johnson 1997; McAvoy
1997; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997). Generally, lanceolate projectile points, prismatic
blades, pentagonal bifaces, polyhedral blade cores, microflakes, and microlithic tools
comprise possible pre-Clovis assemblages and a preference for cryptocrystalline lithic
material such as chert and jasper is noted (Goodyear 2005). Cactus Hill and other
reportedly pre-Clovis sites, including SV-2 (44SM0037) in Saltville, Virginia (McDonald
2000; McDonald and Kay 1999) and the Meadowcroft Rock Shelter in western
Pennsylvania (Adovasio et al. 1990; Adovasio et al. 1998), have been the subject of much
controversy and no undisputed pre-Clovis sites or sites representing substantial pre-
Clovis occupations have been identified in the region.
Paleoindian archeological assemblages rarely contain stone tools specifically designed
for processing plant material, such as manos, metates, or grinders. This general absence
40
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 8
or rarity of such tool categories does not mean that use of plant resources was
unimportant; rather, it may suggest that a far greater emphasis was placed on hunting
versus gathering, at least when viewed from the perspective of an assemblage of stone
tools. For instance, carbonized plant materials have been found in Paleoindian contexts
and plant remains have been recovered from some Paleoindian sites. The remains of
acalypha, blackberry, hackberry, hawthorn plum, and grape were recovered from a hearth
in the Paleoindian portion of the Shawnee-Minisink Site in eastern Pennsylvania (Dent
1991). The subsistence settlement base of Paleoindian groups in the immediate region
likely focused on general foraging, drawing a comparison with the Shawnee-Minisink
data, and certainly focused on hunting (Gardner 1989 and various).
The settlement pattern of Paleoindian peoples has been described as being quarry-centered,
with larger base camps being situated in close proximity to localized sources of high quality
cryptocrystalline lithic raw materials, such as chert, jasper, and chalcedony. Smaller
exploitative or hunting and/or gathering sites are found at varying distance from these
quarry-centered base camps (Gardner 1980). This model, developed from Gardner’s work at
the Thunderbird site complex in the Shenandoah River Valley, has wide applicability
throughout both the Middle Atlantic region and greater Eastern United States. The extreme
curation (or conservation) and reworking of the blade element exhibited by many stray point
finds recovered throughout the Middle Atlantic region, especially specimens from Coastal
Plain localities, is a strong argument supporting the quarry-base camp settlement model.
Gardner has argued that once a tool kit has been curated to its usable limit, a return to the
quarry-tied base camp would be made in order to replenish raw materials (Gardner 1974).
The Thunderbird Site in the Shenandoah Valley produced evidence of the Paleoindian tool
kit, along with food and resource processing activities demonstrating large social
cooperation. The complex of sites within the surrounding area forms one of the most
significant sites in North America, stratigraphically linking the Paleoindian period with the
Early Archaic (Egloff and Woodward 2006:12).
Early Archaic Period (8000-6500 BCE)
The Early Archaic period coincides with the early Holocene climatic period. The
warming trend, which began during the terminal Late Pleistocene and Paleoindian period,
continued during the Early Archaic period. Precipitation increased and seasonality
became more marked, at least by 7500 BCE. This period encompasses the decline of the
open grasslands of the previous era and the rise of closed boreal forests throughout the
Middle Atlantic region; this change to arboreal vegetation was initially dominated by
conifers, but soon gave way to a deciduous domination. Arguably, the reduction of these
open grasslands led to the decline and extinction of the last of the Pleistocene megafauna,
as evidence suggests that the last of these creatures (e.g., mastodons) would have been
gone from the area around the beginning of the Early Archaic period. Sea level
throughout the region rose with the retreat of glacial ice, a process that led to an increase
in the number of poorly drained and swampy biomes; these water-rich areas became the
gathering places of large modern mammals.
41
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 9
Similar to the Paleoindian period, the subsistence settlement strategy of Early Archaic
peoples was one focused on seasonal migration and hunting and gathering. Early Archaic
humans were drawn to the wet biomes resulting from sea level rise because the abundant
concentration of game animal, such as white-tailed deer, elk, and bear, made for excellent
hunting. As the arboreal vegetation became more abundant and deciduous forests spread,
the exploitation of newly available and abundant plant resources, such as fruits, nuts, and
acorns increased among Early Archaic populations (Egloff and Woodward 2006:13-14).
Although the manufacturing techniques of projectile points and the favored use of
cryptocrystalline raw materials of the Paleoindian period remained unchanged throughout
the Early Archaic period, stylistic changes in the lithic toolkit of Early Archaic peoples
are evident. The switch from the fluting of projectile points to notching is generally
considered to mark the end of the Paleoindian and the beginning of the Archaic period;
examples of Early Archaic point types include Amos Corner Notched, Kirk and Palmer
Corner Notched, Warren Side Notched and Kirk Stemmed varieties. Gardner has
demonstrated that while corner notched and side notched points show a stylistic change
from the earlier fluted varieties, they all occurred within a single cultural tradition
(Gardner 1974). The transition from fluting to notching is not a radical change, but the
gradual replacement of one attribute at a time. The fluting, which was nearly absent
during the Dalton-Hardaway sub-phase, is replaced by corner notching, which is then
gradually replaced by side notching in the Archaic sequence. The initial reason for the
change in hafting and related modifications of the basal elements of Early Archaic points
is likely related to the introduction of the atlatl or spear-thrower, which increased the
accuracy and force with which spears could be thrown; the fluted forms may have been
utilized mainly as thrusting tools, while the earlier notched forms may have been
mounted onto a smaller lance with a detachable shaft and powered by the atlatl. As in the
earlier Paleoindian period, stone tools designed for the processing of plant materials are
rare in Early Archaic assemblages.
Toward the close of the Early Archaic period, trends away from a settlement model
comparable to the earlier Paleoindian quarry-focused pattern are evident. A major shift is
one to a reliance on a greater range of lithic raw materials for manufacture of stone tools
rather than a narrow focus on high quality cryptocrystalline materials. Lithic use was a
matter of propinquity; stone available was stone used. However, extensive curation of
projectile points is still evident up until the bifurcate phases of the subsequent Middle
Archaic period. It may be that while a reliance on high quality lithic materials continued,
other kinds of raw material were used as needed.
This pattern is not readily documented during the earlier Paleoindian period. Johnson
argues that the shift to a wider range of materials occurs in the gradual shift from the
Palmer/Kirk Corner Notched phases of the Early Archaic to the later Kirk Side
Notched/Stemmed or closing phases of the period (Johnson 1983; 1986:P2-6). Changes
in lithic raw material selection are likely related to movement into a wider range of
habitats coincident with the expansion of deciduous forest elements. Early Archaic period
42
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 10
sites begin to show up in areas previously not occupied to any great extent, if at all.
Additionally, the greater number of sites can be taken as a rough indicator of a gradual
population increase through time.
Middle Archaic Period (6500-3000 BCE)
The chronological period known as the Middle Archaic coincides with the appearance of
full Holocene environments. Climatic trends in the Holocene at this time are marked by
the further growth of deciduous forests, the continuing rise of sea levels, and warm and
moist conditions. This change led to the spread of modern temperate floral assemblages
(such as mesic hemlock and oak forests), modern faunal assemblages, and seasonal
continental climates. The advent of such climates and related vegetation patterns allowed
for the development of seasonally available subsistence resources, which led to base
camps no longer being situated near specific lithic sources, but closer to these seasonal
resources. This shift also led to an increase in the number of exploited environmental
zones. The moist conditions favored the spread of swamps and bogs throughout poorly
drained areas like floodplains, bays, or basins. Rising sea level and overall moist
conditions helped form these swamps and basins; sea level had risen too rapidly to allow
the growth of large, stable concentrations of shellfish. Estuarine resources were scarce,
and the inhabitants relied on varied animal resources for sustenance. Essentially modern
faunal species were spread throughout the various biomes, but their distributions would
have been somewhat different than that known for today. The prevalent species included
deer, turkey, and smaller mammals.
The initial technological shift in lithic projectile points between the Early and Middle
Archaic periods is generally considered to be marked by the introduction of bifurcate
base projectile points, such as St. Albans, LeCroy, and Kanawha types (Broyles 1971;
Chapman 1975; Gardner 1982). Other researchers place the bifurcate phase within the
Early Archaic period. The bifurcate points do not occur throughout the entire Middle
Archaic period; however, they appear to be constrained to the earlier portion of the period
and disappeared sometime before 5000 BCE (Chapman 1975, Dent 1995; Bergman et al.
1994). Several other marked changes occurred along with the onset of the bifurcate
points. Ground stone tools, such as axes, gouges, grinding stones, and plant processing
tools, were introduced along with bifurcate points (Chapman 1975, Walker 1981). These
new tools are evidence for the implementation of a new technology designed to exploit
vegetable/plant resources. Also, a shift to the use of locally available lithic raw material,
which began during the closing phases of the Early Archaic, is manifest by the advent of
the bifurcate phases.
The major stemmed varieties of projectile point that follow the earlier bifurcate forms
and typify the middle portion of the Middle Archaic period include the Stanly, Morrow
Mountain I and Morrow Mountain II varieties. Coe (1964) documented a Stanly-Morrow
Mountain sequence at the Doerschuk Site in the North Carolina Piedmont, and similar
results were recorded at the Neville Site in New Hampshire (Dincauze 1976) and the
Slade Site in Virginia (Dent 1995). The projectile points marking the latter portion of the
43
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 11
Middle Archaic period are the lanceolate shaped Guilford type and various side notched
varieties (Coe 1964; Dent 1995). Halifax style points return to side notched formed
projectile points and Shenandoah Valley sequences parallel typology progressions similar
to the North Carolina Piedmont and along the Kanawha River in western West Virginia
(Gardner 1986:53). The Rudacil and Fifty sites located near the project area have
established projectile point sequences for the Valley (Gardner 1986).
It is during the Middle Archaic period that prehistoric human presence becomes relatively
widespread in a wide range of environmental settings (Gardner 1985, 1987; Johnson
1986; Weiss-Bromberg 1987). As far as the inhabitants of the Middle Archaic period are
concerned, there is an increase in population, which can be seen in the sheer number of
sites (as represented by the temporally diagnostic point types) throughout the Middle
Atlantic region. With the increasing diversity in natural resources came a subsistence
pattern that was predicated on the seasonal harvest of various nut species and other plant
resources that characterized deciduous forest environments. Base camps were located in
high biomass habitats or areas where a great variety of food resources could be found
(Walker 1981). These base camp locations varied according to the season and were
located on floodplains, interior fluvial swamp settings, and in some cases, within interior
upland swamp settings. The size and duration of the base camps appear to have depended
on the size, abundance, and diversity of the immediately local and nearby resource zones.
Late Archaic Period (3000-1200 BCE)
The rise in sea level continued during the Late Archaic period, eventually pushing the
salinity cline further upstream and creating tidal environments; a corresponding
movement of various riverine and estuarine species took place with the development of
tidal conditions in the embayed section of the Potomac and its main tributary streams.
Seasonal fish runs became increasingly reliable along the Shenandoah River as
freshwater species travelled further upstream to spawn. Mussels were also prominent in
the shallow rivers and streams. The development of brackish water estuaries occurred to
the east of the Ridge and Valley including the Chesapeake Bay, Delaware, and Hudson
River estuaries. In general, climatic events approached those similar to modern times
during the Late Archaic period.
Throughout the Eastern United States, distinctive patterns of the Native-American
landscape become evident by about 3000/2500 BCE, marking a significant shift with
earlier Middle Archaic components. The Late Archaic period is characterized by an
increase in population over that documented for the Early and Middle Archaic periods,
based on an increase in both the number of identified sites dating to this period and in
their size and widespread distribution. An increasingly sedentary lifestyle evolved, with a
reduction in seasonal settlement shifts (Walker 1981; Johnson 1986:5-1). Food
processing and food storage technologies were becoming more efficient, and trade
networks began to be established. Settlement continued within the Ridge and Valley
along high mountain meadows, in saddles, gaps, and hollows as people searched for
game, useful plant species, and lithic materials (Egloff and Woodward 2006:25).
44
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 12
In parts of the Middle Atlantic region, the development of an adaptation based on the
exploitation of riverine and estuarine resources is apparent. Settlement during the Late
Archaic period shifted from the interior stream settings favored during earlier periods to
the newly embayed stream mouths and similar settings (Gardner 1976). Although Late
Archaic populations continued a foraging pattern linked to dense forests and their
seasonally available plant resources, interior sites became minimally exploited, though
not abandoned, sustaining smaller hunting camps and specialized exploitative stations;
sites in these areas exhibit varying emphasis on procurement of locally available cobble
or tabular lithic sources, such as chert, quartz, and quartzite, as well as a variety of plant
species. In settlement-subsistence models presented by Gardner, this shift is linked with
the development of large seasonal runs of anadromous fish. These sites tend to be
concentrated along the shorelines near accessible fishing areas. The adjacent interior and
upland zones become rather extensively utilized as adjuncts to these fishing base camps.
The Late Archaic technological assemblage continued an emphasis on ground stone tools
first noted in the Middle Archaic period. Steatite net weights and carved steatite bowls
with lug handles, which would not break when heated during cooking, first appeared
during this period and are common throughout the Eastern United States from Maine to
Florida. The use of steatite bowls is often seen as an indicator of increased sedentism
among Late Archaic populations, as the vessels would have been heavy and difficult to
transport (Egloff and Woodward 2006:26). In Virginia, outcrops of steatite have been
identified in the eastern foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, though in limited
numbers, from Fairfax County to Carroll County in southern Virginia. Archeologically,
fragments of steatite bowls have been recovered in Late Archaic contexts in varying
physiographic settings in the Middle Atlantic, often at great distances from steatite
outcrops and quarry sites, which many have interpreted as evidence of widespread
trading between Late Archaic peoples across the region. Kavanagh's (1982) study of the
Monocacy River watershed in Maryland suggests that dug-out canoes were being
produced during the Late Archaic period, based on the greater occurrences of gouges and
adzes recovered from Late Archaic contexts (Kavanagh 1982:97); canoes would have
allowed for increased mobility and facilitated trading among Late Archaic groups via the
various rivers and streams in the region.
The occurrence of steatite in the Piedmont meant that Late Archaic peoples within the
Valley would have had to travel east to procure such material as trade networks increased
during this time. While signs of increased sedentism occurred along the Atlantic coast
and at the mouths of estuarine river and stream systems, the Shenandoah Valley was
likely still inhabited more seasonally at this time for chestnut harvests (Gardner 1986:61).
Excavations of these seasonal base camps have occurred in the Valley at the Corral site
and the Peer site and have included projectile point typologies found below.
The most easily recognizable temporally diagnostic projectile point in the Middle
Atlantic region is the parallel stemmed, broad-bladed Savannah River point, which has a
number of related cognate types and descendant forms, such as the notched broadspears,
Perkiomen and Susquehanna, Dry Brook and Orient, and more narrow bladed, stemmed
45
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 13
forms such as Holmes. Defined by Coe based on work in the Carolina Piedmont (Coe
1964), the Savannah River point represents what could be, arguably, a typological
horizon throughout the Eastern United States east of the Appalachians, dating from about
2600 to perhaps as late as 1500 BCE. Gardner (1987) separates the Late Archaic into two
phases: Late Archaic I (2500-1800 BCE) and Late Archaic II (1800-1000 BCE). The Late
Archaic I corresponds to the spread and proliferation of Savannah River populations,
while the Late Archaic II is defined by Holmes and Susquehanna points. The distribution
of these two, Gardner (1982; 1987) suggests, shows the development of stylistic or
territorial zones. The Susquehanna style was restricted to the Potomac above the Fall
Line and through the Shenandoah Valley, while the Holmes and kindred points were
restricted to the Tidewater and south of the Potomac through the Piedmont. Another
aspect of the differences between the two groups is in their raw material preferences:
Susquehanna and descendant forms such as Dry Brook and, less so, Orient Fishtail,
tended to be made from rhyolite, while Holmes spear points were generally made of
quartzite.
Early Woodland Period (1200 BCE-300 CE)
The Early Woodland period corresponds generally to the Sub-Atlantic episode, when
relatively stable, milder, and moister conditions prevailed, although short-term climatic
perturbations were present. By this point in time, generally, the climate had evolved to its
present conditions (Walker 1981).
The major artifact hallmark and innovation of the Early Woodland period is the
appearance of pottery (Dent 1995; Gardner and McNett 1971). Archeologists believe that
ceramic technology was introduced to Virginia from people living on the coasts of
Georgia and South Carolina, where pottery had been made by prehistoric populations
since approximately 2500 BCE (Egloff and Woodward 2006:26). It is important to note
that pottery underscores the sedentary nature of the local resident populations, as clay
ceramics of the period would have been fragile and cumbersome to transport. Further
evidence of this sedentism has been identified in the region in the form of subsurface
storage pits (likely for foodstuffs), platform hearths, midden deposits, and evidence of
substantial pole-constructed structures. This is not to imply that Early Woodland
populations did not utilize the inner-riverine or inner-estuarine areas, but rather that this
seems to have been done on a seasonal basis by people moving out from established
bases; this settlement pattern is essentially a continuation of Late Archaic lifeways with
an increasing orientation toward seed harvesting in floodplain locations (Walker 1981).
Small group base camps would have been located along Fall Line streams during the
spring and early summer in order to take advantage of the anadromous fish runs. In the
Valley, semi-permanence or sedentism can be seen in storage pits located near hearths at
the Corral site (Gardner 1986).
In the Shenandoah Valley, as well as most of the surrounding Middle Atlantic region, the
earliest known ceramics begin with a ware known as Marcey Creek. In chronological
46
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 14
terms, Marcey Creek likely falls within the first 200 years of the final millennium BCE,
or roughly 1000 to 800 BCE. This ware is a flat-bottomed vessel tempered with crushed
steatite or, in the Eastern Shore region, other kinds of crushed rock temper (Manson
1948). Based on vessel shape, this distinctive ware is interpreted as a direct evolution or
development from the flat-bottomed stone bowls of the Late Archaic period. Vessels of
this ware frequently exhibit the same lugs on the side walls as seen on Late Archaic
steatite bowls. As a ceramic ware group, Marcey Creek is short lived in terms of its
position in the chronological record. The earliest dates for Marcey Creek are 1200 BCE
in the Northern Neck (Waselkov 1982) and 950 BCE at the Monocacy site in the
Potomac Piedmont (Gardner and McNett 1971). Marcey Creek Pottery has been
documented in the Valley at the Corral site, overlying a Susquehannah Broadspear
occupation, as well as the earliest occupation levels at the Cabin Run excavations near
Front Royal (Gardner 1986:65).
Shortly after about 800 BCE, conoidal and somewhat barrel shaped vessels with cord
marked surfaces enter the record in the Middle Atlantic region and greater Northeast;
whether these evolved from the flat-bottomed Marcey Creek vessels or simply replaced
them is unknown. In Maryland and Virginia such a ware has been designated Accokeek
Cord Marked, first described from the Accokeek Creek Site in Prince George’s County,
Maryland (Stephenson et al. 1963). Radiocarbon dates for Accokeek place it between
approximately 750 BCE and 300/400 BCE, when it is superseded by net impressed
varieties, including Popes Creek and related wares (Gardner and McNett 1971; Mouer et
al. 1981; Mounier and Cresson 1988). Accokeek ware was tempered with both sand and
crushed quartz, although any suitable stone may have been used for the grit source,
including steatite. In many cases, temper selected for use by Accokeek potters appears to
have been based on propinquity to specific resources. Crushed rock tempered ceramics
(Albemarle) dominated in the successive Middle Woodland, with net marking and cord
marking as the surface treatments; net marking was eventually replaced by fabric
impression. Crushed rock tempering replaced the use of steatite in areas surrounding the
Valley and nearby Pennsylvania known as Vinette. In the Coastal Plain settings of the
Maryland and Virginia, Accokeek typically has a "sandier" paste and could be said to
have sand as a tempering agent. However, when large enough sherds are analyzed,
crushed quartz tempering is invariably found in this ware. Whether or not the paste of the
vessel is sandy or more clayey in texture (or “feel”) depends on the clay source, either
Piedmont or Coastal Plain. Clay sources from Coastal Plain settings usually contain
greater amounts of sand.
Some chronological frameworks for the Middle Atlantic region, particularly in Maryland,
suggest a transitional ware, such as Selden Island (Slattery 1946), between Marcey Creek
and Accokeek and its cognate wares. While this concept of a transitional ware has logical
merit, it cannot be demonstrated conclusively with the evidence currently available. In
many cases, the excavated sites show depositional contexts from this period with little
vertical separation between Late Archaic and Early Woodland deposits. A more refined
chronology that clarifies such issues of ceramic change still needs to be developed. The
appearance of Marcey Creek pottery in the Potomac Piedmont is associated with the
47
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 15
arrival of Susquehanna populations when correlated with projectile point typologies. The
appearance of small side notched points and similar pottery in the Valley suggests strong
interactions between Susquehanna peoples and Savannah River Late Archaic groups.
Generally, temporally diagnostic projectile points from the Early Woodland period
include smaller side notched and stemmed variants such as Vernon and Calvert, and
diagnostic spear points such as Rossville/Piscataway points. The lobate based Piscataway
point has been associated archeologically with Accokeek pottery at a number of sites in
the Middle Atlantic region; locally these points have been termed “Teardrop” points by
Mounier and other investigators (Mounier and Cresson 1988). This point type has been
found in association with Accokeek pottery at sites in New Jersey (Mounier and Cresson
1988; Barse 1991), in Maryland (Barse 1978), and in Virginia (Mouer et al. 1981;
McClearen 1991). These points continue into the early phases of the Middle Woodland
period and have been found in contexts containing Popes Creek, Albemarle, and early
variants of Mockley ceramics along the Potomac River (Barse 2002).
Middle Woodland Period (300-1000 CE)
The Middle Woodland period is characterized by an increase in population size and
increased sedentism. With the emergence of Middle Woodland societies, an apparent
settlement shift occurred compared to those seen in the intensive hunter-gatherer-fisher
groups of the Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods. In brief, it appears that a
selection to broader floodplain localities and the development of larger storage facilities
at base camp localities dominated settlement patterns at this time (Cross 1956). Some
degree of seasonal occupation and migration centered on natural food resources still
occurred; potentially the year was split between more permanent settlements located in
the inner Coastal Plain region and the Piedmont uplands. In general, from 200 CE to
approximately 900 CE, settlement in the Potomac Piedmont was sparse. Essentially all
available food resources were now utilized, including freshwater aquatic species (i.e.,
mussels and fish), deer, turkey, and migratory waterfowl. People also began to
intensively harvest and store a variety of locally available plants, seeds, and nuts, such as
amaranth seeds, chenopod seeds, wild rice, hickory nuts, acorns, and walnuts.
According to Gardner (1986:71) the most striking societal change in the Middle
Woodland in the Valley is the appearance of stone burial mounds. These burials were cut
into the earth and interred one to several individuals before the graves were filled in with
earth and cobbles, then piles of earth and stone covered them. The burials often formed
clusters of mounds with concentrations along the South Fork of the Shenandoah and
South Branch of the Potomac. These areas could have been marked as boundaries for
confederations or centers of polity between hamlets (Gardner 1986:72). The mound
culture was influenced by western cultures, including the Adena of the Ohio Valley
region. The Stone Mound Burial culture in the northern Shenandoah Valley further
demonstrates the diversity of peoples within the Valley at this time, with the burials
placed on ancient blufflike river terraces overlooking floodplains (Egloff and Woodward
2006:28).
48
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 16
The earliest radiocarbon dates for the Shenandoah Valley mounds come from the
Thunderbird Ranch site and places the beginning of the mound building at 420 BCE
(Gardner 1986:72). Later accretional mound burial continued throughout the period into
the Late Woodland period atop the original stone mound burials, as more recent
excavated examples in the Valley demonstrate (Dunham et al. 2003). Grave goods
included in these burials were less extravagant than western examples, but included Great
Lakes copper, Ohio cherts, and Carolina slates (Gardner 1986:72).
Middle Woodland ceramics are typified by crushed rock temper as opposed to sand
which dominated the Early Woodland period. One notable addition to ceramic
technology, and one clearly widespread throughout the Middle Atlantic region, is the
inception of vessels exhibiting net impressed surface treatments. A wider range of vessel
forms and sizes also can be documented compared to earlier vessel assemblages. The net
impressed surfaces and greater variation in vessel size and shape represent a significant
change used for defining the Middle Woodland period in the Middle Atlantic region from
areas south of the James River through the Chesapeake region and into the lower
Susquehanna and Delaware River drainages. Accokeek and related wares of the Early
Woodland period gradually developed into what has become known as the Albemarle
ware group, commonly found in the Piedmont of Virginia and, perhaps, Pennsylvania and
Maryland; it does not appear to be present in the Delaware Valley area.
Based on work in the lower Potomac River Valley and the upper Delaware River Valley,
net impressed ceramics enter the chronological record around 500 BCE (Gardner and
McNett 1971). More recently, AMS dating on carbon taken from a sherd of Popes Creek
recovered in Charles County, Maryland returned a slightly younger date of 2235 ±100
B.P., or 285 ±100 BCE (Curry and Kavanagh 1994). In the upper Delaware River area,
Broadhead net impressed ceramics, which have been considered as a northern Popes
Creek cognate, have been dated to 480 ±80 BCE in New Jersey (Kinsey 1972:456). Other
similar wares include the net impressed varieties of Wolf Neck and Colbourn ceramics
from the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Delaware. Comparisons could also be extended
to the Prince George Net Impressed ceramics from southern Virginia and the Culpepper
ware in the Triassic Lowlands of the Piedmont; Culpepper ware is a sandstone tempered
ceramic occasionally found in the Piedmont and is recognized by some archeologists
working in Fairfax County but has not been clearly defined in the literature. These wares
or ware groups are circum-Chesapeake Bay in their geographic distribution, pointing to
close interrelationships between the societies making these wares. All of these groups
were undoubtedly participating in a growing Middle Woodland interaction sphere
widespread throughout the Shenandoah, James, Potomac, lower Susquehanna, Delaware,
and even lower Hudson River Valleys.
Popes Creek ceramics developed into the shell tempered Mockley ceramics, a ware that
has both net impressed and cord marked surfaces. Many, if not most, radiocarbon dates
associated with Mockley ceramics bracket the ware between about 250/300 CE to
approximately 800 CE, after which it develops into the Late Woodland Townsend Ware.
Why the shift from sand to shell tempering occurred is unknown, although it was
49
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 17
widespread in the Middle Atlantic region. In the lower Potomac Valley, Mockley may
have been tied to the intensive exploitation of oyster beds, a phenomenon first manifested
in the earlier Popes Creek phase of the Middle Woodland period. Mockley ware exhibits
relationships with the earlier Popes Creek ceramics and its cognate wares in basic
attributes such as rim form, vessel shapes, and the range of vessel sizes (Barse 1990).
Further into the interior reaching the Ridge and Valley net marking on pottery halted
along with the burial mound tradition around 200 CE and was replaced by fabric
impression, which was brought from southwestern Virginia and Tennessee (Gardner
1986:75).
Popes Creek and Mockley ware ceramics are not as common in Piedmont settings as they
are in Coastal Plain settings where they are prevalent. Albemarle ceramics, bearing
mostly cord marked exterior surfaces that show continuity with the earlier Accokeek
ware, are commonly found in Middle Woodland contexts in the Potomac Piedmont. This
ware was found associated with Mockley ceramics at the Fletchers Boathouse site in pit
contexts (Barse 2002) along with small quantities of Mockley and Popes Creek ceramics.
Radiocarbon dates from several of the large pits at this site fall between 100 BCE and
100 CE, suggesting that Popes Creek was in the process of being replaced by the shell
tempered Mockley ceramics. Albemarle is considered to be contemporary with both,
though more commonly found in the Piedmont; as a ware it continued up to and perhaps
into the Late Woodland period. Gardner and Walker (1993:4) suggested that fabric
impressed wares become more common toward the end of the Middle Woodland period.
This surface treatment is restricted to Albemarle wares though and does not really occur
on Mockley ceramics. Fabric impressing on shell tempered ceramics by default is
identified as Townsend ware.
Lithic artifacts associated with Middle Woodland occupations frequently include side
notched and parallel stemmed points manufactured from rhyolite, argillite, and
Pennsylvania jasper. Such points are known as Fox Creek in the Delaware Valley and
Selby Bay in the Chesapeake region. The Middle Woodland people also manufactured
and used a stone axe called a celt, used for woodworking. The celt differed from the
earlier axes because it was not grooved; rather, it was hafted into a socketed wooden
handle.
Late Woodland Period (1000-1606 CE/European Contact)
The Late Woodland period begins around 900 CE, the result of a culmination in trends
concerning subsistence practices, settlement patterns, and ceramic technology. A trend
toward sedentism, evident in earlier periods, and a subsistence system emphasizing
horticulture eventually led to a settlement pattern of floodplain village communities and
dispersed hamlets reliant on an economy of both hunting and the planting of native
cultigens.
Migrations into the Middle Potomac and the major stream and river valleys feeding the
Potomac, including the Shenandoah, around 1000 to 1300 CE has been defined by
50
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 18
northern groups entering the area bringing new ceramic traditions and settlement patterns.
Excavated examples of Late Woodland Villages such as the Rostenstock Site on the
Monocacy River have drawn parallels with Owasoco ware cultures from New York
(Curry and Kavanagh 2004). These new groups expanded into the region corresponding
with the introduction of corn into the region and climatic change. The Montgomery
Complex had no precursor in the region, as there was likely a lack of a resident group in
the Piedmont during the Middle Woodland period; however, a replacement culture
following this influence is known as the Luray Complex beginning from 1300 to 1400
(Curry and Kavanagh 2004).
In the Potomac Piedmont, the crushed rock wares are replaced by a shell tempered ware
that spread out of the Shenandoah Valley to at least the mouth of the Monocacy River at
about 1350-1400 CE. Shell tempered Keyser ceramics, a downstream variant of the Late
Woodland Monongahela ware common in the Upper Ohio River Valley, extend nearly to
the Fall Line, although they are not found in Coastal Plain settings. Triangular projectile
points indicating the use of the bow and arrow are often considered diagnostic of this
period as well. However, triangular projectile points have also been recovered from well-
defined and earlier contexts at regional sites such as the Abbot Farm site in central New
Jersey, the Higgins site on the Inner Coastal Plain on Maryland's Western Shore, and the
Pig Point site in Anne Arundel County, Maryland (Stewart 1998; Ebright 1992;
Luckenbach et al. 2010). Additionally, triangular points have been found in context with
Savanah River points in Fairfax County, although the context appears to have been mixed
(Christopher Sperling, personal communication 2015).
Other examples of the Montgomery Complex can be found at the Kerns Site along the
Shenandoah River. The influence from the north from Iroquoian cultural groups seem to
have influenced one migration, while influences from the west is evident in later
occupations. The Biggs Ford Site is a good example of the replacement Luray Complex,
containing smoothed ceramics, both tempered with crushed river mussel shell, related to
Keyser-cord marked ceramics from the Upper Ohio River Valley (Bastian 1974:4). While
occupation levels with the Keyser Ware at the Biggs Ford Site define the later
occupations between 1300 and 1500 CE (Bastian 1974:6).
The Late Woodland period is also marked by an increase in ceramic decoration. Most of
the motifs are triangular in shape and applied by incising with a blunt-tipped stylus. The
marked increase of ceramic decoration and the various design motifs on Late Woodland
pottery compared to earlier periods likely reflect the need to define ethnic boundaries and
possibly smaller kin sets. Neighboring groups that may have been in low level
competition for arable riverine floodplains may have used varied embellishments of basic
design elements to set themselves apart from one another. Additionally, in a
noncompetitive setting, ceramic designs simply may have served to distinguish between
individual social groups, as the region now sustained the highest population level of the
prehistoric sequence. As such, ceramic design elements functioned as a symbolic means
of communication among groups, serving as badges of ethnic identity or, perhaps,
smaller intra-group symbols of identity.
51
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 19
As noted above, Late Woodland societies were largely sedentary with an economy
relying on the growth of a variety of native cultigens. Late Woodland settlement choice
reflects this horticultural focus in the selection of broad floodplain areas for settlement.
This pattern was characteristic of the Piedmont, as well as the Coastal Plain to the east
and the Shenandoah Valley to the west (Gardner 1982; Kavanagh 1983). The uplands and
other areas were also utilized, for it was here that wild resources would have been
gathered. Smaller, non-ceramic yielding sites are found away from the major rivers
(Hantman and Klein 1992; Stevens 1989).
Most of the functional categories of Late Woodland period sites away from major
drainages are small base camps, transient, limited purpose camps, and quarries. Site
frequency and size vary according to a number of factors, e.g., proximity to major rivers
or streams, distribution of readily available surface water, and the presence of lithic raw
material (Gardner 1987). Villages, hamlets, or any of the other more permanent
categories of sites are rare to absent in the Piedmont inter-riverine uplands.
Perhaps after 1400 CE, with the effects of the Little Ice Age, an increased emphasis on
hunting and gathering and either a decreased emphasis on horticulture or the need for
additional arable land required a larger territory per group, and population pressures
resulted in a greater occupation of the Outer Piedmont and Fall Line regions (Gardner
1991; Fiedel 1999; Miller and Walker n.d.). The 15th and 16th centuries were a time of
population movement and disruption from the Ridge and Valley to the Piedmont and
Coastal Plain. There appears to have been shifting socio-economic alliances over
competition for resources and places in local exchange networks. Factors leading to
competition for resources may have led to the development of more centralized forms of
social organization characterized by incipiently ranked societies. Small chiefdoms
appeared along major rivers at the Fall Line and in the Inner Coastal Plain at about this
time. A Fall Line location was especially advantageous for controlling access to critical
seasonal resources, as well as being points of topographic constriction that facilitated
controlling trade arteries (Potter 1993; Jirikowic 1999; Miller and Walker n.d.).
Migrations into and out of the Shenandoah Valley are made through assumptions based
on the geographic dispersal of different ceramic traditions and projectile point typologies.
Ablemarle ceramics were developed in the Valley using crushed rock tempering. Radford
or Page ceramics spread north from southwestern Virginia and used crushed limestone
temper. Potomac Creek dominated the Potomac Piedmont. This shows greater trade
networks and movement of peoples. Gardner describes four major documented
population movements between 900 and 1400 CE that affected the Valley:
1) Groups from the southwestern Virginia Piedmont moved north and west
through the New and Roanoke River Valleys, then north along the eastern side of
the Great Valley to the James River valley; 2) Groups moved up the central and
western parts of the Great Valley from southwestern Virginia; 3) Eastward from
the southern Shenandoah and the northern James River drainage, groups travelled
52
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 20
through the James River corridor into the western Piedmont; and 4) An eastward
dispersal of people from the Potomac Piedmont traveled into the northern
Shenandoah Valley (Gardner 1986:79).
New migrations and influences entering the Valley from West Virginia into the branches
of the Potomac included the New River series known as Keyser in the Shenandoah and
Potomac Valleys. By 1500 CE the Keyser series dominated the Valley and is associated
with palisaded villages, likely a sign of consolidation of power and warfare between rival
groups (Gardner 1986:89). Further influences from the Ohio River Valley spread the
Earthen Mound Burial culture, which began in the Shenandoah Valley around 950 CE
and continued to contact with Europeans (Egloff and Woodward 2006:40). Studies on
accretional burial mounds in Virginia identified a mound group composed of 13
accretional mounds dotting the Roanoke, James, Rivanna, Rapidan, and Shenandoah
Rivers, all dating to the Late Woodland period (Dunham et al. 2003).
The 13 identified mounds are the remnants of what was a much larger complex that was
found across central Virginia at the time of European contact but have essentially
disappeared from the visual landscape due to agricultural practices and erosion of river
terraces (Dunham et al. 2003:111). The mounds not only provide valuable
bioarcheological information, but they represent burial practices outside of the eastern
extent of Mississippian mound burial distributions and west of Coastal Plain ossuary
burials. Mound burials of these types contained primary and secondary burials including
massive collective burials of many individuals represented as large clusters of bone and
sub-mound pit burials predating the later earthen mound burials. At Rapidan Mound an
estimated 1,000-2,000 individuals were buried over the course of several centuries with
as many as 28 to 32 individuals represented in collective burial features (Dunham et al.
2003:120).
The appearance of accretional mound burials on large floodplains and river terraces (on
the best agricultural land) within the Ridge and Valley suggest that agriculture played an
intense role during this period and counters early colonial perspectives of a region as an
unused frontier (Dunham et al. 2003:124). The mounds were monuments to ancestors
built in prominent places marking territory of different peoples who lived within the area.
The Monacans and Mannahoacs have been attributed with occupying the area between
the James, Rivanna, Rappahannock, and Rapidan Rivers since first documented in 1607
by John Smith (Dunham et al. 2003:112). Other groups that would have occupied the area
at the time of European contact in the eastern Valley have been described as Eastern
Siouans and Algonquians associated with shell-tempered Keyser series ceramics
(Gardner 1986:92).
In the early 1600s, Captain John Smith made contact with local populations in the Upper
Potomac Coastal Plain and Henry Fleet lived among and traded with the Native
Americans on the Chesapeake. Based on their comments, the upper Potomac may have
served as a gateway location where Native Americans from diverse regions came to trade
53
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 21
(see Potter 1993). Native Americans along the Potomac appear to have adopted a range
of social strategies during this period based on varying archeological evidence for
European trade goods in aboriginal household assemblages and interpretations of how
such goods were incorporated into traditional practices and social relations (Gallivan
2010).
Following his voyage up the Potomac in 1608, Captain John Smith described several
substantial aboriginal occupations within the interior of Virginia along the major river
systems including the Monacans, Mannahoacks, and Massowomecks. Hamlets and
villages are noted throughout the Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions but at this time the
Shenandoah Valley was unexplored by Europeans. The Valley was outside of the direct
influence of the Powhatan Confederacy and other coastal Algonquian speaking peoples
but would have been in contact with northern Iroquoian peoples and Algonquians in the
nearby Piedmont. In 1706 a French Swiss traveler by the name of Louis Michel travelled
up the Shenandoah River to present day Edinburg, southwest of the current project area,
and reported that the Valley was sparsely populated with only Shawnee, Susquehannock,
and Iroquois parties moving through (Egloff and Woodward 2006:63). The early history
of the Valley would be characterized by constant settler conflicts with these peoples.
Initially early conflicts between the Susquehannock and Shawnee over the European fur
trade were witnessed by settlers.
Historic Overview
In 1584, Sir Walter Raleigh obtained a license from Queen Elizabeth of England to
search for “remote heathen lands” including a right to a deed to all the land within two
hundred leagues of any settlement he made on these lands. After some unsuccessful
attempts to settle a colony on Chesapeake Bay, Sir Raleigh granted Thomas Smith and
others the liberty to trade to “his new country.” Sir Walter Raleigh was attained, or lost
all his civil rights, in 1603. King James I of England thereafter granted to Sir Thomas
Gates and others of “The Virginia Company of London “ the right to establish a new
settlement in the Chesapeake Bay region of North America (Tucker 1969). The charter to
the Virginia Company of London was reaffirmed by King James I by a second “Ancient
Charter” dated 23 May 1609 (Hening 1823:88).
Three ships--the Susan Constant, the Godspeed, and the Discovery --under the command
of Captains Newport, Gosnold, and John Smith sailed from England to the Chesapeake
shortly after Christmas in 1606 (Kelso 1995:6), reaching Cape Henry in the lower
Chesapeake Bay on 16 April 1607 (Weinert and Arthur 1989:1-3). The first settlement in
Virginia in 1607 was made on Jamestown Island 60 miles up the James River (Kelso
1995:7).
Until 1692, all properties obtained by settlers in Virginia Colony were issued by the
governor of the colony as Virginia Land Grants. In 1618, a provision of one hundred
acres of land was made for “Ancient Planters,” or those adventurers and planters who
arrived as permanent settlers prior to 1618. Thereafter, Virginia Land Grants were issued
54
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 22
by the “headright” system by which "any person who paid his own way to Virginia
should be assigned 50 acres of land...and if he transported at his owne cost one or more
persons he should...be awarded fifty acres of land" for each person (Nugent 1983:XXIV).
During the mid-17th-century Civil Wars in England, King Charles I was beheaded in
January 1648/9. His son, Prince Charles II, was crowned King of England by seven loyal
supporters, including two Culpeper brothers, during his exile near France in September
1649. For their support, King Charles granted his loyal followers “The Northern Neck,”
or all that land lying between the Rappahannock and Potomac Rivers in Virginia colony;
the grant was to expire in 1690. King Charles II was restored to the English throne in
1660.
Early white traders and trappers were in the Shenandoah Valley by the 1670s, over a half
century prior to serious early settlement along the Shenandoah River and its branches.
The earliest European to have seen the Shenandoah Valley was German explorer John
Lederer, who sought a passage across the mountains based on his belief that “the Indian
Ocean does stretch an Arm or Bay from California into the Continent as far as the
Apalataean Mountains” (Lederer 1672:23). Lederer entered the Valley in the vicinity of
Strasburg or Front Royal in late August of 1670 during his third expedition into the
interior of Virginia. Lederer referred to the Valley as the “Savanae,” which he described
as a vast open plain abounding in large herds of red deer (Lederer 1672:25). Seeing no
possibility of ascending and passing through what we now know as the Allegheny front,
Lederer journeyed no farther to the west and turned back “without making any further
Difcovery” (Lederer 1672:23).
In 1677, Thomas, Second Lord Culpeper, became successor to Governor Berkeley in
Virginia, and by 1681 he had purchased the Northern Neck interests of all the other
proprietors. In petitioning for a renewal of the Northern Neck grant, which was to expire
in 1690 according to the original grant by Charles I, the grant was reaffirmed in
perpetuity to Lord Culpeper in 1688. Lord Culpeper died in 1689, and four-fifths of the
Northern Neck interest passed to his daughter, Katherine Culpeper, who married Thomas,
the fifth Lord Fairfax, in 1690. The Northern Neck thus became vested, and was affirmed
to Thomas, Lord Fairfax, in 1692 (Kilmer and Sweig 1975:5-9).
Thomas, the fifth Lord Fairfax, leased his Northern Neck interests by appointing agents
in the colony to manage and lease the properties and to collect the yearly quit rents.
However, the western extent and boundaries of the Northern Neck were not established
until two separate surveys of the Northern Neck were carried out, beginning in 1736 and
finalized in 1745-1747 (Kilmer and Sweig 1975:13-14). Northern Neck Land Grants
escheated to the Commonwealth of Virginia during the War of the Revolution as the heirs
of the Northern Neck were aliens residing in England. Persons in possession of Northern
Neck lands at the time the Fairfax lands escheated were granted certificates following a
“Northern Neck Survey” of their property, paying a small fee for a certificate, or deed in
fee simple, to the coffers of the Virginia Commonwealth.
55
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 23
By 1705, the governing council of Virginia had offered incentives to explorers willing to
cross the Blue Ridge mountains. A monopoly on trade was offered to individuals or
companies who would “make discovery of any town or nation of Indians, situating or
inhabiting to the westward of, or between, the Appalatian [sic] Mountains” (Wayland
1980:48). The explorer Louis Michelle and his company may have ventured into the
vicinity of Mount Jackson in 1707. Having come out of Powell's Fort in the Massanutten
Mountains, they followed the North Fork of the Shenandoah River as far as present-day
Woodstock or Edinburg (Wayland 1980). Settlement had only begun to be promoted in
the early 1730s by large land speculators such as the Van Meter brothers, William
Russell from New Jersey/Delaware, and Jost Hite from Pennsylvania (McKay
1951:1632; Magin 1991:8). At the time of the initial European settlement of the area, the
Valley is described as having been:
…one vast prairie and...afforded the finest possible pasturage for wild
animals. The country abounded in the larger kinds of game. The buffalo,
elk, deer, bear, panther, wild cat, wolf, fox, beaver, otter, and all other
kinds of animals, wild fowl, &c., common to forest countries, were
abundantly plenty. (Kercheval 1986:69)
By an Act of the Virginia Legislature passed in November 1738 for strengthening the
frontier of Virginia and inducing settlers to settle on the northwest side of the Blue Ridge
Mountains, the county and parish of Frederick was created from the parent county of
Orange (Hening 1819a:78-80). The Town of Frederick, later to be renamed Winchester,
is located within a Northern Neck Land Grant of 1,116 acres granted to James Wood in
1735. The Northern Neck land grant to James Wood, discussed in the following text, was
first surveyed in 1752 and recorded in 1753 (Northern Neck Land Grants H:307-308).
The establishment of Frederick Town (Winchester) was approved in 1744 by the
Frederick County Justices and was to be laid out on 30 lots of land owned by James
Wood. One frame or squared (hewn) log dwelling at least 20 x 16 feet was required to be
built on the individual lots within two years of sale by the owners or occupants of each
lot (Quarles 1986:1).
James Wood (1707-1759), born in England in 1707, was appointed surveyor of Orange
County, Virginia on 1 January 1734/35 (Orange County, Virginia Court Minutes 1:2). In
about 1735, he married Mary Rutherford. In 1742, James Wood was commissioned by
the Orange County Court as “Colonel of Horse and Foot,” and in 1743 he was appointed
the first clerk of Frederick County. The first court in Frederick County “met at his
surveying office beside his home” on 11 November 1743. John Wood's residence, named
“Glen Burnie,” was located near the springhead of Town Run on Amherst Street
(Frederick County Board of Supervisors 1989: Chapter 45; Winchester-Frederick County
Historical Society 1980:6).
In 1749, the first year that a list of tithables are available for Frederick County, there were
1,586 white males above the age of 16 within the county. Dunmore County (current
Shenandoah County) to the south and Berkeley and Hampshire Counties to the north and
56
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 24
west, now in West Virginia, were also a part of Frederick County at this time, and settlers
in these counties are included in the 1749 tithe list. In 1755, there were 2,173 white males
and 340 slaves in Frederick County. By 1783, when the first available tithable list
specifically for Shenandoah County was published, the county had a total number of
7,908 white persons and 347 slaves (Greene 1932:150, 153).
Conflicts between northern Iroquoian tribes and tribes within the Valley prior to
European settlement played a role in the Treaty of Lancaster in 1744. The first treaty
affecting settlement is the region was the Treaty of Albany in 1722, opening the Loudoun
Valley to German immigrants from Pennsylvania. When the Treaty of Lancaster took
place, the tribes representing the Iroquois Confederation were acknowledged as those
having rights over the Valley. The subsequent treaty led to an increased colonization of
the Valley by white settlers coming from Pennsylvania, Maryland, and parts of Virginia.
By an Act of the Virginia Assembly passed in February 1752 (Chap. XXVI), an addition
to Frederick Town, now to be called Winchester, consisting of 11 acres (18 lots) of the
land of James Wood and 492 acres (116 lots), including “Common's” or “outlots,”
located on the lands of Lord Fairfax, were surveyed and laid out adjoining the southeast,
north, and northeast sides of the original town of Frederick. Lord Fairfax (6th Baron of
Cameron) was appointed by the Virginia Assembly at this time to lay out the town of
Winchester in such a manner as he “shall think fit” (Hening 1819b:268). Thomas, the 6th
Lord Fairfax, 1693-1781, was the only Fairfax proprietor to reside in the colony of
Virginia. Conditions set forth by Thomas, Lord Fairfax, were that the dwelling houses
built on the lots “shall be no less than sixteen by twenty feet with a chimney of brick or
stone.” The five-acre Commons Lots, which were separate lots to the north of
Winchester, and not contiguous to the town lots, were required by Lord Fairfax to
“remain a part of the parcel forever” (Northern Neck land Grants H:307-397).
In order to increase the trade of the fledgling town of Winchester, the Virginia Assembly
decided that:
...two fairs shall and may be annually kept, and held, in the said town of
Winchester, on the third Wednesday in June, and the third Wednesday in
October, in every year, and to continue for the space of two days, for the
sale and vending all manner of cattle, victuals, provisions, goods, wares,
and merchandizes, whatsoever; on which fair days, and two days next
before, and two days next after, the said fairs, all persons coming to, being
at, or going from the same, together with their cattle, goods, wares and
merchandizes, shall be exempted, and privileged, from all arrests,
attachments, and executions, whatsoever, except for capital offences,
breaches of the peace, or for any controversies, suits or quarrels, that may
arise and happen during the said time....(Hening 1819b:268-269)
Winchester, in the fall of 1753, had “about sixty houses rather badly built” (Abbott
1983:263). A recruited soldier of Braddock's army in the early stages of the French and
57
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 25
Indian War, noted in 1755 that Winchester “is very Smalle...[consisting] of four cross
streets and for its defence it have four pieces of cannon of twelve poundus [sic] Placed in
the Center of the town” (Abbott 1983:263). The last remaining Indians living in the
Shenandoah Valley are said to have disappeared around the year 1754, when an oral
tradition has it that emissaries from western tribes came to invite the local Indians
westward across the Alleghenies to escape the increasing European presence in the
Valley (Kercheval 1986).
The Fry-Jefferson Map of Virginia of 1755 shows several roads in the vicinity of the
project area, with two generally following the modern-day alignments of Berryville Pike
(Route 7) and Millwood Pike (Route 50); no other cultural features are recorded within
the immediate vicinity of the project area, though a grist mill is recorded to the north of
the project area along modern-day Route 7 (Exhibit 4). This map also shows several other
mills, ordinaries, ferries, and dwellings associated with European names farther afield
from the project area; Frederick Town or Winchester is shown to the west.
In March of 1756, the Virginia General Assembly found that it was “... necessary that a
fort should be Immediately erected in the town of Winchester, in the county of Frederick,
for the protection of the adjacent inhabitants from the barbarities daily committed by the
French and their Indian allies...” (Hening 1820:33). Fort Loudoun was subsequently built
on the north fringes of the original town of Winchester, on a five-acre outlot (Commons
Lot. No 49), conveyed to Isaac Parkins (Perkins) in 1753 (Ansel 1984:122; Northern
Neck Land Grants H:349).
In May of 1756, Colonel George Washington, commander of the First Virginia
Regiment, began directing the erection of Fort Loudoun which, in addition to providing
defensive works, was to serve as his headquarters. Major Joseph Stevens of the Caroline
County militia oversaw the construction of Fort Loudoun until 1 August 1756; however,
the General Assembly lost interest in the fort, and it was never completed. A garrison was
maintained at Fort Loudoun, and the fort served as a staging area for troops as well as
being a depot for military supplies. Fort Loudoun never came under Indian attack during
the French and Indian Wars.
At the end of December of 1758, George Washington resigned his command and married
Martha Dandridge Custis on 6 January 1759 (Tinling 1977:607; Reese 1980:158, 159n2).
Very few improvements were made to Fort Loudoun after 1758 and by 1775, “the outer
walls of the old fort had begun to crumble.” However, prisoners captured during the
Revolutionary War were housed in the barracks at Fort Loudoun during this time, and the
fort was visible as late as 1838 (Ansel 1984:125-126). Portions of the fort are still visible
today, although most of it has been destroyed.
By the middle of the 18th century, tobacco was the major crop of the region and colony.
At this time small industries like tanneries, lumber mills, and iron furnaces began to
develop within the Valley, and trade by way of wagon and river barges began to be
58
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.01_05_1755_FryJefferson.mxd
Exhibit 4: 1755 Fry-Jefferson Map of Virginia
Source: Fry, Joshua, Approximately, Peter Jefferson, and Thomas Jefferys.
A map of the most inhabited part of Virginia containing the whole province ofMaryland with part of Pensilvania, New Jersey and North Carolina. [London,
Thos. Jefferys,1755] Map. https://www.loc.gov/item/74693166/.
Vicinity of Project Area ®Original Scale:
0 5
Miles
1 " = 5 miles
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 26
59
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 27
established to the major shipping ports to the north and east. The barge traffic utilized a
series of dams to ease them down the river. Other marketable produce from the Valley
included cattle, poultry, flour, cornmeal, and cured pork. Iron furnaces that supplied a
major source of pig iron for iron forges in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia began
operating in the region in the 1740s and lasted until the early 1900s (Magin 1991:8).
In the midst of the French and Indian Wars, an Act of the Virginia Assembly in
September of 1758 authorized enlarging the town of Winchester, adding 106 acres (158
lots) of contiguous land owned by James Wood (Hening 1820:234-235). The following
year, in 1759, 139 acres (203 lots) were added by Thomas, Lord Fairfax, to the town of
Winchester (Quarles 1986:8).
One of the prisoners captured during the Revolutionary War and housed at the barracks
of Fort Loudoun in 1777 was Lieutenant Andreas Weiderhold, of the Hesse-Cassel
Regiment, who was captured at the Battle of Trenton on 26 December 1776. A map of
the town of Winchester sketched by Lieutenant Andreas Weiderhold in 1777 shows the
location of Fort Loudoun to the north of Winchester. An English translation of Lieutenant
Weiderhold's “Plan” in the lower right-hand corner of the map reads:
of the small town of Winchester, located in Friedrichs County in Virginia,
which was founded only about 25 years ago, at a time when there was still
war with the Indians. From that time can still be seen he remains of the
fort where General Washington, then Colonel, commanded and himself
defended. A. English Church. B. Court House. C. Market House. D.
German Lutheran Church. E. German Reform Church. F. Public Jail.
By 1760, the town of Winchester is reported as having 800 residents compared to
Williamsburg's, the capital of Virginia during that period, 1,000 residents (Morton
1925:85).
Soon after the end of the French and Indian Wars, minds turned to thoughts of the
Revolution, and the town of Winchester saw increased activity associated with movement
of supplies and militia, first to Boston and then to the coast of Virginia (Morton 1925: 87-
89). During the Revolutionary War, no military battles occurred within the Shenandoah
Valley. A committee of resolutions to prepare for military assistance and a committee of
defense met in Woodstock on 16 June 1774, with the Reverend Peter Muhlenburg
presiding as the moderator and chairman. As a result, the "German Regiment," organized
under Peter Muhlenburg, later Major-General Muhlenburg, was organized in 1776 at
Woodstock. The German Regiment fought at the Battle of Brandywine Creek in
Pennsylvania, northwest of Wilmington, Delaware, in 1776, and in the “successful
defense of Charleston” then known as Charles Town, South Carolina in 1780 (Wayland
1976:145, 149; Smith 1976:949, 1083).
During the Revolution, Winchester was chosen to be the site of a prisoner-of-war camp.
The town's distance from the Virginia coast and its wilderness surroundings contributed
60
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 28
to its suitability as a station for British prisoners (Morton 1925:88). While numerous
prisoners were housed and worked on local farms, others were housed in a sparse camp
located four miles west of the town (Morton 1925:89).
Winchester prospered in the post-Revolution period; taverns and hotels were established,
and roads were built, some of which were paved. Fairs where goods were traded, debts
were paid, and games of chance were prevalent were held periodically in the town of
Winchester (Morton 1925:111-112). An 1833 description of the town cites a total of
“4000 residents, 30 to 40 retail stores, six or seven large warehouses…many lawyers and
doctors, several taverns confectionaries, and merchant tailors…and every kind of
business found in a seaport occurs here” (Morton 1925:112). In addition to paved roads,
railroads made their appearance in the Winchester area during the early 1800s as well.
The Baltimore and Ohio (historically Winchester and Potomac) Railroad was in place by
the middle of the 19th century, originally terminating at Harpers Ferry in 1834, and later
extending to the town of Winchester in 1836 (Morton 1925: 128-129).
The Valley Turnpike Company was incorporated on March 3, 1834, and authorized to
build a pike from Winchester to Harrisonburg. This pike ran approximately the same
course as the present Route 11. The charter instructed the company to make use of as
much of the old stage road, which was believed to follow an older Indian trail, as they
deemed fit. A sum of $250,000 was authorized for the construction of the pike, and
shares in the company were sold for $25 each. When three-fifths of the $250,000 had
been subscribed by private citizens, the remainder would be allotted on behalf of the
Commonwealth of Virginia by the State Board of Public Works. On March 24, 1838, the
Virginia General Assembly authorized the Valley Pike to be paved with macadam from
Winchester, the Frederick County seat, south to the town of Staunton in Augusta County,
Virginia (Commonwealth of Virginia 1838:129-130); Macadam, introduced by John
Macadam in England in about 1815, consists of small stones and pebbles held together by
dust and water (Rouse:1973:218). The Turnpike was completed as far as Staunton by
1840 (Magin 1991).
Martin's Gazetteer of Virginia from 1836 describes the land in the Shenandoah Valley as:
…well adapted to the cultivation of wheat, rye, Indian corn and oats and is
divided into small farms. Its staple articles are flour, bacon, beef, butter
and iron [with] 34 manufacturing flour mills, 2 furnaces and 4 forges, for
the manufacturing of pig metal into bar iron.... (Martin 1836:445)
In 1836, Clarke County was created from a portion of Frederick County and Warren
County was derived from portions of Frederick and Shenandoah Counties (Hiden
1957:61, 62). Frederick County attained its current configuration at this point.
Following the occupation of Fort Sumter in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina, on
26 December 1860, the Commonwealth of Virginia joined other southern states in
seceding from the United States on 17 April 1861 (Boatner 1991:729). The ordinance of
61
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 29
secession was ratified by the voters of Shenandoah County in a referendum held on May
23 of that year. The vote was 2,500 to 5 in favor of secession; however, it is believed that
many of those opposed to secession may have refrained from voting for fear of reprisal.
Winchester, Stephenson, and their vicinities were focal points of the Civil War in
Virginia. Winchester's position along the Valley Turnpike (Route 11) at the northern end
of the Shenandoah Valley, an area known as the “eastern breadbasket of the
Confederacy,” made the already prosperous city a strategic location important to both the
Confederate and Union Armies (Beck and Grunder 1988:v). The railroads were used to
move large amounts of wheat produced within the Valley during the Civil War and the
productivity of the region made it a focal point for numerous campaigns to dominate and
secure supply lines. Additionally, Saltpeter Cave, north of Mount Jackson, was mined for
saltpeter for the manufacture of gunpowder during the war (Wayland 1980).
A dwelling is recorded within the project area on the 1863 Macomb Map of the upper
Potomac River region (Exhibit 5). An unnamed road following the general alignment of
Senseny Road is shown to the south; other unnamed roads and dwellings are recorded in
the greater vicinity.
Winchester served as a battleground, hospital, and staging area throughout the Civil War,
with both Union and Confederate troops occupying the City of Winchester and the
surrounding vicinity during the war. Several battles and conflicts occurred within the
vicinity of Winchester during the Civil War, including but not limited to The First and
Second Battles of Kernstown (respectively fought March 23, 1862 and July 24, 1864), the
First, Second, and Third Battles of Winchester (respectively fought May 25, 1862, June
13-15, 1863, and September 19, 1864), the Battle of Rutherford’s Farm (fought July 20,
1864, and the Battle of Belle Grove/Cedar Creek (fought October 19, 1864. The
Winchester East at Opequon Creek project area is not located within the limits of any
Civil War-era battle; however, the easternmost portion of the Third Battle of Winchester
battlefield is located approximately 3,000 feet to the north of the project area. A brief
synopsis of the Third Battle of Winchester is presented below.
General Philip Sheridan’s arrival in the Shenandoah Valley following the Union loss at
Kernstown in July brought a large number of Union troops to the region with the mission
to end Confederate General Jubal Early’s control of the Valley. However, Sheridan began
his campaign cautiously, aware that a major military setback could spell disaster for
Lincoln, and therefore the war effort, in the upcoming presidential election (Noyalas
2020). Through August and early September, the armies clashed in several smaller
battles, but the Union force did not commit to a concerted effort to take the fight to Early,
who once again occupied Winchester while Sheridan headquartered in Berryville, about
nine miles to the east.
On 16 September Sheridan received a critical piece of intelligence provided by two local
Union sympathizers; an enslaved man from Millwood named Thomas Laws and a young
62
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.01_06_1863_Macomb_Shenandoah.mxd
Exhibit 5: 1863 Macomb Map, Upper Potomac Region, MD & VA
Source: United States Army. Corps Of Engineers, J. N Macomb, and D. H Strother.Upper Potomac from McCoy's Ferry to Conrad's Ferry and adjacent portions of Marylandand Virginia. Washn., D.C., Lith. by J. F. Gedney, 1863. Map. https://www.loc.gov/item/99447368/.
Vicinity of Project Area ®0 3,000
Feet
Original Scale:
1 " = 3,000 '
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 30
63
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 31
Quaker woman from Winchester, Rebecca Wright. Laws carried a message from Wright
to Sheridan that an infantry division and a large amount of artillery had recently left
Early’s army bound south for Richmond and Petersburg. Knowing that Early’s forces
were reduced, Sheridan began to plan an attack on Winchester (Noyalas 2020; National
Park Service 2020).
On 17 September, Sheridan’s scouts informed him that Early had split his diminished
force further, sending three divisions under Generals John Gordon, Robert Rodes, and
John Breckinridge north to Martinsuburg, West Virginia to attack the B&O Railroad,
leaving only General Stephen Ramseur’s division for the defense of Winchester. Sheridan
readied an attack, hoping to push west and crush Ramseur’s division and take Winchester
before help could arrive from the scattered Confederate force. However, Early realized
his vulnerability and called back the troops he had sent north (Beck 2015).
The morning of the 19th, Sheridan’s main force pushed west, crossing Opequon Creek
and along the Berryville Pike through the long ravine known as Berryville Canyon.
Meanwhile, two cavalry divisions under Generals Wesley Merritt and William Averell
crossed the Opequon farther north, moving toward Stephenson’s Depot. Early managed
to recombine his forces and the Union met a Confederate line of battle that stretched
across the mouth of the Berryville Canyon from the Pike north to Red Bud Run
(American Battlefield Trust 2020). Breckinridge’s division remained in the vicinity of
Stephenson’s Depot but would be called to Winchester to reinforce the Confederate line
before the Union cavalry arrived there that afternoon.
Both sides were resolute, and after an initial series of pushes the lines became static,
although the intensity of the firing did not decrease. Sheridan’s superior numbers allowed
him to send two divisions commanded by Colonels Joseph Thoburn and Isaac Duval
down Red Bud Run to attack the Confederate left flank. The attack was a success,
although the rebel forces contracted their lines, moving westward and reinforcing their
left flank to protect from further attack from the north rather than breaking. Fort Collier, a
small redoubt located just east of the Valley Pike, provided cover for the west end of the
new north-facing flank (Beck 2015).
As evening approached, Sheridan sent orders to Averell and Merritt’s cavalry divisions at
Stephenson’s Depot to attack the Confederate left flank. The two divisions formed a
massive line of battle and advanced south along the Valley Pike, culminating in a charge
that overran Fort Collier and the Confederate left flank. Sheridan called for the rest of his
troops to attack and the rebel line disintegrated, with troops fleeing south through the
streets of Winchester echoing the flight of the Union troops north through the city
following the battle Kernstown two months prior. Early managed to prevent the Federals
from pursuing his routed troops all the way to Strasburg by fighting delaying actions in
Winchester (Beck 2015).
The Battle of Opequon/Third Battle of Winchester was the bloodiest battle fought in the
Shenandoah Valley. Union losses approximated 700 killed, 4,000 wounded, and 350
64
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 32
missing or captured. The Confederates lost 225 killed, 1,500 wounded, and just under
2,000 missing or captured (Beck 2015). Although the Union lost more men, their greater
numbers and ability to be reinforced made the losses easier to absorb. Early could expect
little reinforcement or support from Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia, who were
committed to the south around Richmond and Petersburg. Sheridan’s Shenandoah Valley
Campaign would end a month later with the defeat of Early at Cedar Creek.
A map showing troop positions during the Third Battle of Winchester shows the 1st and
2nd Divisions of Union Brigadier General George Crook’s Army of West Virginia to the
north of the project area along Berryville Pike (modern-day Route 7) (Exhibit 6). A
dwelling associated with S. Robinson is shown within the northern project area and a
dwelling associated with Lafayette Henry is shown in the vicinity; a ford is shown at the
intersection of Senseny Road and Opequon Creek to the east.
The end of the Civil War brought freedom to enslaved African Americans, leaving
plantations without sufficient labor to plant and harvest crops. Consequently, the
economy of Clarke County went into a decline. A common practice during this period
was for former slave owners to offer a tract of land for sale which could be purchased
only by freed enslaved laborers.
One of the most tragic natural disasters to occur in the Shenandoah Valley was the great
flood of 1870. On Wednesday, September 28, the rain began. It continued throughout the
following day and by Friday the destruction had reached its maximum. As many as sixty
people were killed throughout the Valley, and there were massive losses of houses, barns,
livestock, and property (Couper 1952).
Frederick and Clarke Counties, including the vicinity of the project area, remained mostly
rural throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the cultivation of
apples, and the associated production of vinegar, was an economic boom in the greater
Valley, along with an increase in flour milling, dairying, and the quarrying of limestone
and manufacture of lime (Magin 1991; Kalbian 1999:143-144). Farther south, the
Shenandoah National Park opened in the 1930s. Expansion and development have greatly
accelerated in cardinal directions around Winchester during the middle and late 20th
century.
A dwelling is recorded within the south-central portion of the project area on the 1938
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Winchester, VA-WV quadrangle (Exhibit 7).
Development in the project area vicinity is generally sparse, with few dwellings recorded
along the various roadways in the vicinity.
PREVIOUS ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
The following inventory of previously recorded cultural resources within and near the
project area was established by using the Virginia Department of Historic Resources’
65
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.01_06_1873_Battle_of_Winchester.mxd
Exhibit 6: 1873 Battlefield of Winchester, Virginia (Opequon) - September 19, 1864
Gillespie, G. L. Battle field of Winchester, Va. Opequon. [S.l, 1873] Map. https://www.loc.gov/item/99446372/.
Vicinity of Project Area ®0 1,000
Feet
Original Scale:
1 " = 1,000 '
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 33
66
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.01_10_1938_Quad_Winchester.mxd
Exhibit 7: 1938 USGS Quadrangle, Winchester, VA-WV
Latitude: 39°9'54"N
Longitude: 78°5'13"W
Project Area ®0 2,000
Feet
Original Scale:
1 " = 2,000 '
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 34
67
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 35
(DHRs) online Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (V-CRIS), as well as
examining cultural resource files and reports at the Thunderbird Archeology office in
Gainesville, Virginia.
According to V-CRIS, two cultural resources investigations intersect the project area.
• The entire project area was previously included within the limits of a much larger
cultural resources inventory study conducted in 1991/1992 by James Madison
University and Shenandoah University in association with a Survey and Planning
Grant awarded by the DHR to the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County,
Virginia (Hofstra et al. 1992). A review of the report indicated that an unknown
portion of the project area was subjected to subsurface testing, as mapping
detailing subsurface testing occurred was not presented; rather, the report only
defined areas where “surface conditions allowed evaluation of soil contents and/or
[were] shovel test pitted,” while others were identified as being subjected to
“careful visual reconnaissance only.” As such, the study does not comply with
current DHR standards.
• A small portion of the project area was previously subjected to Phase I cultural
resources investigation in 1997 by Gray & Pape, Inc. in association with the
proposed Route 37 project in Frederick County, Virginia (Botwick et al. 1997).
While this study appears to generally comply with current DHR standards, due to
its age the area was subjected to Phase I testing during the current study.
Five archaeological sites (44FK0277, 44FK0278, 44FK0279, 44FK0280, and 44FK0281)
and one architectural resource (034-1155) have been previously recorded within the
project area. None of the previously recorded archeological sites have been evaluated for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) by DHR staff; however, the
one architectural resource has been determined not eligible for listing.
• Site 44FK0277 is located in the southern project area and represents a trash
scatter dating to the 20th century, with a low-density (n=3) precontact component
dating to an unknown period; no precontact artifacts were recovered from the site
by the recording surveyor, but three projectile points were reportedly recovered
from the vicinity by the landowner, according to the DHR site form. The site was
identified through surface collection and shovel testing.
• Site 44FK0278 is located in the northeastern project area and is recorded as a
modern domestic dump site dating to the 20th century. The site was identified
through surface collection only.
• Site 44FK0279 is located in the northwestern project area and is recorded as a
farmstead dating to the 19th century, with a low-density (n=1) precontact
component dating to an unknown period. The site was identified through surface
collection, historical map projection, and shovel testing.
• Site 44FK0280 is located in the northeastern project area and is recorded as a
possible trash dump dating to an unknown historic period, with a low-density
precontact component (n=2) dating to an unknown period. The site was identified
through surface collection only.
68
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 36
• A portion of Site 44FK0281 extends into the northeastern project area and is
recorded as a low-density (n=3) precontact site dating to an unknown period. The
site was identified through surface collection only.
• DHR Resource 034-1155 (House, 2737 Senseny Road) encompasses the majority
of the project area and is recorded as a single dwelling constructed circa 1920.
In addition to the resources discussed above, 31 archeological sites and 13 architectural
resources have been previously recorded within an approximate one-mile radius of the
project area (Tables 1 and 2).
Table 1: Previously Recorded Archeological Sites
within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area
DHR SITE
NUMBER SITE TYPE TEMPORAL AFFILIATION NRHP
ELIGIBILITY
44FK0038 Temporary Camp; Trash
Scatter
Prehistoric/Unknown;
Historic/Unknown Not Evaluated
44FK0039 Camp; Trash Scatter Late Archaic, Early Woodland;
Historic/Unknown Not Evaluated
44FK0040 Temporary Camp; Trash
Scatter
Prehistoric/Unknown;
Historic/Unknown Not Evaluated
44FK0274 Possible Confederate
Fortification 19th Century: 3rd quarter Not Evaluated
44FK0275 Earthwork Historic/Unknown Not Evaluated
44FK0276 Mill, Raceway 19th Century Not Evaluated
44FK0277 Lithic Scatter; Trash
Scatter
Prehistoric/Unknown;
20th Century Not Evaluated
44FK0278 Trash Scatter 20th Century Not Evaluated
44FK0279 Lithic Scatter;
Farmstead
Prehistoric/Unknown; 19th
Century Not Evaluated
44FK0280 Lithic Scatter; Possible
Trash Scatter
Prehistoric/Unknown;
Historic/Unknown Not Evaluated
44FK0281 Lithic Scatter Prehistoric/Unknown Not Evaluated
44FK0282 Artifact Scatter 19th Century Not Evaluated
44FK0283 Lithic Scatter Prehistoric/Unknown Not Evaluated
44FK0284 Lithic Scatter Prehistoric/Unknown Not Evaluated
44FK0285 Camp; Artifact Scatter Prehistoric/Unknown;
19th Century Not Evaluated
44FK0286 Artifact Scatter 19th Century Not Evaluated
44FK0287 Artifact Scatter 19th Century,
20th Century: 1st half Not Evaluated
44FK0288 Mill, Raceway 19th Century Not Evaluated
44FK0289 Camp; Artifact Scatter Early Archaic; Historic/Unknown Not Evaluated
44FK0291 Lithic Scatter; Historic
Scatter
Prehistoric/Unknown;
Historic Unknown Not Evaluated
44FK0292 Lithic Scatter Prehistoric/Unknown Not Evaluated
69
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 37
Table 1 (continued)
DHR SITE
NUMBER SITE TYPE TEMPORAL AFFILIATION NRHP
ELIGIBILITY
44FK0293 Single Dwelling 20th Century: 2nd quarter Not Evaluated
44FK0294 Farmstead 19th Century: 1st half Not Evaluated
44FK0297 Boundary Line 18th Century Not Evaluated
44FK0299 Foundations 20th Century: 2nd Half Not Evaluated
44FK0300 Farmstead 19th Century, 20th Century Not Evaluated
44FK0301 Lithic Scatter; Camp Prehistoric/Unknown;
19th Century: 3rd Quarter Not Evaluated
44FK0308 Mill 19th Century Not Evaluated
44FK0311 Mill 19th Century: 1st half Not Evaluated
44FK0312 Depression Historic/Unknown Not Evaluated
44FK0313 Lithic Scatter Prehistoric/Unknown Not Evaluated
44FK0318 Single Dwelling 19th Century, 20th Century Not Evaluated
44FK0325 Trash Scatter 20th Century: 3rd Quarter Not Evaluated
44FK0327 Ford 18th Century Not Evaluated
44FK0329 Ford 18th Century, 19th Century Not Evaluated
44FK0378 Property Corner 18th Century: 2nd Half Not Evaluated
*Sites in bold are within the project area
Table 2: Previously Recorded Architectural Resources
within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area
DHR
RESOURCE
NUMBER
RESOURCE NAME TYPE TEMPORAL
AFFILIATION
NRHP
ELIGIBILITY
021-0041 Helmley Single Dwelling Ca 1732 Eligible
021-0467 Opequon View Single Dwelling Ca 1890 Not Evaluated
034-0108 Valley Mill Farm Single Dwelling Ca 1820 NRHP Listing,
VLR Listing
034-0396 House, Route 659 Single Dwelling Ca 1890 Not Eligible
034-0397 Adams Farm Single Dwelling Ca 1880 Not Eligible
034-0398 Haggerty House Single Dwelling Ca 1920 Not Eligible
034-0423 Brathwaite House Single Dwelling Ca 1920 Not Eligible
034-0456 Third Battle of Winchester Battle Site 1864 Eligible
034-1150 Carter-Lee-Damron House Single Dwelling Ca 1890 Not Eligible
034-1152 Outbuildings, Route 657 Barn Ca 1920 Not Eligible
034-1155 House, off Route 657 Single Dwelling Ca 1920 Not Eligible
034-1562 Carper House Single Dwelling Post 1800 Not Evaluated
034-1563 Tick House Single Dwelling Ca 1910 Not Evaluated
034-5316 House, 233 Eddys Lane Single Dwelling Ca 1946 Not Evaluated
*Resources in bold within the project area
None of the previously recorded archeological sites within an approximate one-mile
radius of the project area have been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. Two
70
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 38
of the architectural resources within an approximate one-mile radius have been
determined eligible for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff (021-0041 and 034-0456) and
one is listed in the NRHP and the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR) (034-0108). DHR
Resource 021-0041 (Helmley) is located about 3,300 feet to the southeast and is recorded
as a single dwelling constructed circa 1732. DHR Resource 034-0456 (Third Battle of
Winchester) is a large Civil War-era battlefield that is located to the north and west of the
study area; the nearest portion of the battlefield to the study area is about 3,000 feet to the
north. DHR Resource 034-0108 (Valley Mill Farm) is located about 2,500 feet to the
north and is recorded as a single dwelling constructed circa 1820.
RESEARCH DESIGN
Research Objectives
The purpose of the survey was to locate and record any cultural resources within the
impact area and to provide a preliminary assessment of their potential significance in
terms of eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP, individually and as part of a district if
possible. As codified in 36 CFR 60.4, the four criteria applied in the evaluation of
significant cultural resources to the NRHP are:
A. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
B. Association with the lives of significant persons in or past; or
C. Representative of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent
the work of a master; or
D. Have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in history or
prehistory.
Seven types of properties are ordinarily not considered for listing; however, they may
qualify if part of a district or if they meet one of the following criteria considerations:
a. a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic
distinction or historical importance; or
b. a building or structure removed from its original location but which is
significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure
most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or
c. a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is
no appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive
life; or
d. a cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of
transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, from
association with historic events; or
e. a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment
and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and
when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or
71
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 39
f. a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or
symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or,
g. a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of
exceptional importance.
In addition to demonstrating significance under National Register criteria, a property must
also retain integrity in order to be listed in the NRHP, i.e., a property must possess the
ability to convey its significance. According to the National Park Service (Andrus 1997:44-
45), there are seven aspects or qualities that define integrity:
• Location, i.e., “the place where the historic property was constructed or the
place where the historic event occurred;”
• Design, i.e., “the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space,
structure, and style of a property;”
• Setting, i.e., “the physical environment of a historic property;”
• Materials, i.e., “the physical elements that were combined or deposited during
a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form
a historic property;”
• Workmanship, i.e., “the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture
or people during any given period in history or prehistory;”
• Feeling, i.e., “a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a
particular period of time;”
• Association, i.e., “the direct link between an important historic event or
person and a historic property.”
Any architectural resources identified as result of this investigation were subjected to a
Phase I reconnaissance-level architectural survey only, unless otherwise indicated; this
includes preliminary assessments of the resource’s eligibility for the NRHP and of the
potential direct and indirect adverse effects on the resource that may be caused by the
proposed undertaking. Typically, architectural resources recorded at the Phase I
reconnaissance-level are evaluated using Criterion C only; however, evaluation under
Criteria A, B, and/or D was considered if necessitated by specific site conditions,
characteristics, and/or contexts.
Archeological sites are commonly evaluated under Criterion D and must show enough
integrity to be able to yield significant information and answer research hypotheses in
history and/or prehistory. The evaluation of archeological sites under Criteria A, B, and C
was considered if necessitated by specific site conditions, characteristics, and/or contexts.
Cemeteries and individual graves, if identified, were recorded as either archeological
sites or architectural resources with the DHR, depending on specific field conditions.
Burial places evaluated under Criterion D for the importance of the information they may
impart do not need to meet the requirements for the Criteria Considerations but should
have the potential to yield significant information through archeological excavation and
analysis of the human remains (Potter and Boland 1992).
72
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 40
Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation Methodology
Archeological Fieldwork Methodology
The conventional Phase I field methodology included both the use of surface
reconnaissance and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites.
The surface reconnaissance consisted of walking over the area and examining all exposed
areas for the presence of artifacts. Exposed areas included cut banks, tree falls, machinery
cuts, soils exposed by erosion, etc. The surface reconnaissance was also used to examine
the topography of specific areas in order to determine the probability that they contain
archeological sites. All high and moderate probability areas, i.e., areas that were well
drained and possessed low relief, were tested at 50-foot intervals. High probability areas
also included historic structure areas identified through surface reconnaissance or through
archival review of historic maps. In accordance with DHR guidelines for conducting a
Phase I identification level survey, an approximately 10% sample of areas considered low
probability for the presence of archeological sites were also subjected to shovel testing at
50-foot intervals (DHR 2017:45); in general, the low probability areas were those that
were significantly sloped, poorly drained, or that have been disturbed. Additional shovel
tests were excavated at 25-foot intervals in a cruciform pattern around positive shovel
tests, as necessary, to delineate artifact concentrations and to define archeological site
boundaries.
Shovel test pits measured at least 15 inches in diameter and were excavated in natural or
cultural soil horizons, depending upon the specific field conditions. Excavations ceased
when gleyed soils, gravel, water, or well-developed B horizons too old for human
occupation were reached. All excavated soils were screened through 1/4-inch mesh
hardware cloth screens and were classified and recorded according to standard
pedological designations (A, Ap, B, C, etc.); excepting the terms Fill and Fill horizon,
which are used to describe culturally modified, disturbed, or transported sediments and
soils. The use of these terms is consistent with use in standard geomorphological studies
and recordation of geo-boring profiles in environmental studies. Soil colors were
described using Munsell Soil Color Chart designations and soil textures were described
using the United States Department of Agriculture soil texture triangle. Artifacts
recovered during Phase I shovel testing were bagged and labeled by unit number and soil
horizon.
No subsurface testing was conducted within the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequon
Creek within the project area. However, the floodplain was subjected to pedestrian
reconnaissance.
The location of each shovel test pit was mapped; unless otherwise noted, the graphic
representation of the test pits and other features depicted in this report are not to scale and
their field location is approximate.
73
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 41
Architectural Reconnaissance Methodology
Phase I reconnaissance-level architectural survey included recordation of resources that
are 45 years of age or older, or are of exceptional merit regardless of age, to provide a
preliminary assessment of their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. If a resource was
previously recorded within the last five years, the survey form was not updated, per DHR
guidelines; the survey form was updated if significant changes to the resource were
observed. Phase I recordation included a site plan identifying primary and secondary
resources and the location and limits of the property; a full description of the resource,
including the historic and/or current name of the property, a classification of the resource
type, exterior description of the primary resource, date or period of construction,
alterations and dates or periods of alterations, physical condition; possible threats to the
resource, etc.; photographs of the resource, including exterior photographs of the front,
rear, and side elevations and oblique views of the resource, close-up photographs of
architectural and/or construction details, etc.; and a preliminary summary statement of
significance for the resource, including recommendations for additional work at the
intensive level and recommendations concerning the potential NRHP eligibility of the
resource, either individually or as part of a historic district.
Laboratory Methodology
All recovered artifacts were cleaned, inventoried, and curated. Historic artifacts were
separated into four basic categories: glass, metal, ceramics, and miscellaneous. The
ceramics were identified as to ware type, method of decoration, and separated into
established types, following South (1977), Miller (1992) and Magid (1990). All glass was
examined for color, method of manufacture, function, etc., and dated primarily on the
basis of method of manufacture when the method could be determined (Hurst 1990).
Metal and miscellaneous artifacts were generally described; the determination of a
beginning date is sometimes possible, as in the case of nails.
Any recovered prehistoric artifacts were classified by cultural historical and functional
types and lithic material. In addition, the debitage was studied for the presence of striking
platforms and cortex, wholeness, quantity of flaking scars, signs of thermal alteration,
size, and presence or absence of use. Chunks are fragments of lithic debitage which,
although they appear to be culturally modified, do not exhibit clear flake or core
morphology.
Recovered artifacts were entered into a Structured Query Language (SQL) Server
database in order to record all aspects of an artifact description. For each artifact, up to 48
different attributes are measured and recorded in the database. Several pre-existing report
templates are available, or users can create custom queries and reports for complex and
unique analyses. The use of a relational database system to store artifact data permits a
huge variety of options when storing and analyzing data. A complete inventory of all the
artifacts recovered can be found in Appendix I of this report.
74
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 42
Research Expectations
The following presents an assessment of the probability that archeological sites will occur
within the project area based on topography, drainage, the presence of roads and historic
map projection.
The probability for locating precontact sites generally depends on the variables of
topography, proximity to water, and internal drainage. Sites are more likely on well-
drained landforms of low relief in proximity to water. The project area is considered to
have a moderate to high probability of containing precontact cultural resources due to
several precontact sites previously recorded in the vicinity, the presence of low-relief
topography and previously recorded precontact artifacts within the project area, and due
to the immediate proximity of Opequon Creek to the study area.
The probability for the occurrence of historic period sites largely depends upon the
historic map search, the history of settlement in the area, the topography, and the
proximity of a particular property to historic roads. However, the absence of structures on
historic maps does not eliminate the possibility of an archeological site being present
within the property as it was common for tenant, slave, and African American properties
to be excluded from these maps. The project area is considered to have a high probability
of containing historic cultural resources due to dwellings recorded within the study area
on examined 19th- and 20th-century maps and the presence of previously recorded historic
period archeological sites and artifacts dating to the 19th and 20th centuries within the
project area.
RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
The project area consists of approximately ±91.7 acres located directly to the north of
Senseny Road (Route 657) (Plate 1) in eastern Frederick County, Virginia (Exhibits 8-
10). The project area included rolling topography and is located on the eastern edge of a
generally north-south-trending landform immediately above Opequon Creek; topographic
elevations within the project area range between about 638 feet a.m.s.l. in the uplands to
518 feet a.m.s.l. in the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequon Creek. Drainage for the
project area is to the east into Opequon Creek (Plate 2), which flows 26 miles to the north
into the Potomac River. The vegetation of the project area consists of a mix of deciduous
and evergreen forest, grassy pasture, and manicured lawns (Plates 3-5).
Disturbances and limitations within the project area were moderate and included steep
slopes in excess of 15%, drainage swales and cuts, low and wet areas, and disturbances
associated with the active use of the property as a farmstead including constructed farm
ponds, gravel farm roads, and livestock paddocks and pens (Plates 6-10). Additionally, no
subsurface testing was conducted within the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequon
Creek; the floodplain was subjected to pedestrian reconnaissance only (Plates 11and 12).
75
TICK HILL LNSENSENY GLEN DR
SENSE
N
Y
R
DVALE CTCANYON RDL:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 8: Overview of Phase I Testing (South)
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 43
ThunderbirdArcheology
N
EW
S
Feet
0 250
Original Scale: 1" = 250'
Project Area Boundary
Previously Recorded Archeology Site
8
910
343
1
2
3
352
114
224
168
233
159
231
221
Gravel
Driveway
93
64
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Pond
Low
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Disturbed
Slope
Slope
Disturbed
Drainage
Swale
Utility
Slope
Slope
Slope
Gravel Driveway
Disturbed
Drainage Swale
Drainage
Swale
Gravel Dri
v
e
w
a
y
Drainage
Swale
Slope
Slope Slope
Opequon Creek
Matchline
Exhibit 9
SlopeDisturbed
44FK1089
(see Exhibit 18)
44FK1087
(see Exhibit 14)
44FK1086
(see Exhibit 12)
44FK1088
(see Exhibit 16)
See Exhibit 24
44FK0277
Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site
#Building -- Field Verified
Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit
Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit
Drainage
S
w
al
e
76
NORFOLK CTCANYON RDL:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 9: Overview of Phase I Testing (Central)
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 44
ThunderbirdArcheology
N
EW
S
Feet
0 250
Original Scale: 1" = 250'
Matchline
Exhibit 8
Matchline
Exhibit 10
Project Area Boundary
Previously Recorded Archeology Site
Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site
#Building -- Field Verified
Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit
Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit
1
2
3
352
7
6
5
4
Pond
Pond
Pond
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
SlopeLow
Slope
Disturbed
Slope
Gravel Dri
v
e
w
a
y
Slope
Drainage
Swale Drainage
Swale
Drainage
Swale Low
Disturbed
Disturbed
Disturbed
Disturbed
Drainage
SwaleSlope
Drainage
Swale
Drainage
Swale
Drainage
Swale
Drainage
Swale Drainage
Swale
Slope
Slope
Slope
SlopeSlope
Drainage
Swale
Slope
Slope
Gravel RoadOpequon Creek
44FK1089
(see Exhibit 18)
44FK1090
(see Exhibit 20)
44FK0279
(see Exhibit 26)
44FK0278
Drainage
Swale Low
Slope
Slope
Low
77
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 10: Overview of Phase I Testing (North)
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 45
ThunderbirdArcheology
N
EW
S
Feet
0 250
Original Scale: 1" = 250'
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Drainage
Swale
Drainage
Swale
44FK0278
Low
Slope Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Drainage Swale Dense BrushSlope
Matchline
Exhibit 9
Opequon Creek
44FK1091
(see Exhibit 22)
44FK0281
(see Exhibit 22)
44FK0280
(see Exhibit 22)
Project Area Boundary
Previously Recorded Archeology Site
Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site
Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit
Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit
78
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 46
Ten buildings or structures (Buildings 1-10) are extant within the project area. Buildings
1-7 are associated with DHR Resource 034-1155, which was previously recorded
encompassing the majority of the project area; the resource is discussed below under a
separate heading. Buildings 8-10 are located in the southern project area and are all
associated with the extant dwelling at 2747 Senseny Road (Building 8). Building 8 is a
prefabricated house set on piers, with vinyl siding and a side-gable roof clad in asphalt
shingles (Plates 13 and 14); according to Frederick County tax records, Building 8 was
constructed in 1990 and is not historic. Buildings 9 and 10 are both sheds that are
contemporaneous with the 1990 dwelling. Building 9 is a frame shed set on wooden piers
clad with T1-11 siding, with a shed roof clad in ribbed metal sheeting (Plate 15).
Building 10 consists of two parts, with both portions being frame sheds clad with a
mixture of T1-11 siding and plywood sheeting; the southern portion of the building has a
shed roof clad with corrugated metal sheeting, while the northern portion has a collapsed
shed roof clad with asphalt shingles (see Plate 15).
A total of 1,018 shovel test pits (STPs) were excavated at 25-/50-foot intervals. The
majority of STPs excavated exhibited a plowed stratum (Ap), overlying subsoil (B
horizon), similar to the profile of STP 343 (Exhibit 11). Numerous STPs exhibited
shallower or truncated Ap strata.
STP 343
Ap: 0-0.7 feet below surface - [10YR 3/4] dark yellowish brown silt loam
B horizon: 0.7-1.0 feet below surface - [10YR 5/6] yellowish brown
silty clay loam with approximately 5% saprolite
A total of 473 artifacts were recovered as a result of the Phase I shovel testing program
(see Appendix I), resulting in six new archeological sites (44FK1086, 44FK1087,
44FK1088, 44FK1089, 44FK1090, and 44FK1091) being recorded with the DHR; these
sites are discussed below under separate headings. Additionally, the locations of five
previously recorded archeological sites (44FK0277, 44FK0278, 44FK0279, 44FK0280,
and 44FK0281) were revisited, and the limits of one (44FK0277) were expanded; these
sites are also discussed below under separate headings.
Nine STPs not included within the limits of the above sites also yielded artifacts (see
Exhibits 8-10; see Appendix I). STP 64 was excavated in the southwestern portion of the
project area and yielded one fragment of automatic bottle machine glass (1910-present).
STP 93 was excavated in the southwestern project area and yielded an aluminum bottle
cap. STP 114 was excavated in the southcentral project area and yielded one fragment of
temporally non-diagnostic clear bottle glass. STP 159 was excavated in the southcentral
project area one fragment of slag. STP 168 was excavated in the southcentral project area
and yielded one fragment of temporally non-diagnostic light aqua glass. STP 221 was
excavated in the southcentral project area and yielded the proximal ends of one quartz
primary reduction flake and one rhyolite primary reduction flake. STP 231 was excavated
in the southcentral project area and yielded one fragment of amber automatic bottle
79
Ap: 10YR 3/4 dark yellowish brown silt loam
B horizon: 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown silty clay loam
with approximately 5% saprolite
STP 343
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 11: Representative Soil Profile from Project Area
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 47
ThunderbirdArcheology
Feet
0 1
Original Scale: 1" = 1'
80
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 48
machine glass (1907-present). STP 233 was excavated in the southcentral project area
and yielded one fragment of clear automatic bottle machine glass (1907-present) and the
medial portion of a chert biface thinning flake. STP 242 was excavated in the
southcentral project area and yielded one fragment of light aqua bottle glass (1850s-
1930s). Finally, STP 352 was excavated in the northcentral project area and yielded one
fragment of clear bottle automatic bottle machine (1938-1980). The artifacts from these
STPs were not found in the requisite quantities, were not temporally or functionally
related, and/or were not found in the request proximity to other finds to meet the
definition of an archeological site, based on DHR guidelines. As such, these artifacts are
interpreted as isolated finds that likely represent casual discard associated with the 20th-
century use of the properties. No further work is recommended for the artifacts in these
STPs.
Site 44FK1086
The site is located within the southeastern portion of the project area and encompasses an
area of approximately 19,217 feet²/0.44 acres (see Exhibit 8; Exhibit 12); the site limits
shown on Exhibits 8 and 12 are approximate. The site is situated along an eastward-
trending ridge of a larger north-south-trending landform, with topographic elevations
ranging between approximately 618 feet a.m.s.l. in the eastern portion of the site to about
634 feet a.m.s.l. in the west. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek via an
unnamed tributary to the north of the site. The vegetation within the site consists of
mixed deciduous and evergreen forest within the northern portion of the site and grasses
within the southern portion of the site, which is within a maintained utility corridor (Plate
16).
A total of 24 STPs were excavated at 25-/50-foot intervals within the site, nine of which
yielded artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a
plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 34 (Exhibit 13).
STP 34
Ap: 0-0.5 feet below surface - [10YR 3/3] dark brown silt loam
B horizon: 0.5-0.8 feet below surface - [10YR 5/4] yellowish brown clay
loam with approximately 25% saprolite
A total of 224 artifacts, consisting predominantly of fragments of post-1907 automatic
bottle machine glass (n=210), were recovered from plowed contexts within the site
(Table 3; see Appendix I); 186 of the artifacts were recovered from a single provenience
(STP 21) in the western end of the site. Other finds included four fragments of temporally
non-diagnostic bottle glass and one fragment unidentifiable glass, one ferrous metal bolt,
two wire nails (post-1890), one piece each of unidentified brass and unidentified ferrous
metal, three pieces of slag, and one slate pencil.
81
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 12: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1086
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 49
ThunderbirdArcheology
N
EW
S
Feet
0 50
Original Scale: 1" = 50'
Project Area Boundary
9
10
21
21b
33
33c
34b
34c
37
34d
34
Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site
#Building -- Field Verified
Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit
Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit
Disturbed/
Push Pile
Disturbed
Disturbed
Slope
Slope
Slope
SENSENY ROAD
Utility
Gravel
Driveway
Disturbed
Slope
Slope
Slope
Mobile Home
82
STP 34
Ap: 10YR 3/3 dark brown silt loam
B horizon: 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown clay loam
with approximately 25% saprolite
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 13: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1086
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 50
ThunderbirdArcheology
Feet
0 1
Original Scale: 1" = 1'
83
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 51
Table 3: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FX1086
Artifact Description Ap
Glass
bottle, bottle/jar, jar, (ABM)* (post-1907) 210
bottle/jar, tableware 4
unidentified glass 1
Metal
ferrous metal bolt 1
nail, wire (post-1890) 2
unidentified brass 1
unidentified ferrous metal 1
Miscellaneous
slag** 3
slate pencil 1
Total Site 44FK1086 224
* automatic bottle machine
** discarded
Based on the types of artifacts and lack of functional diversity in the recovered
assemblage, the site does not appear to represent a significant locus of human activity or
occupation; rather, the site presents as a trash scatter dating to the 20th century, likely the
result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the
property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would
yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion
the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is
recommended.
Site 44FK1087
The site is located within the southwestern portion of the project area and encompasses
an area of approximately 3,179 feet²/0.07 acres (see Exhibit 8; Exhibit 14); the site limits
shown on Exhibits 8 and 14 are approximate. The site is situated along an eastward-
trending ridge of a larger north-south-trending landform, at an elevation of approximately
640 feet a.m.s.l. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek via roadside
drainage ditches to the south of the site. The vegetation within the site consists of mixed
deciduous and evergreen forest (Plate 17).
A total of six STPs were excavated within the site at 25-/50-foot intervals, two of which
yielded artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a
plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 52 (Exhibit 15).
84
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 14: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1087
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 52
ThunderbirdArcheology
N
EW
S
Feet
0 30
Original Scale: 1" = 30'
Project Area Boundary
52
52b
Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site
Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit
Positive Phase I Shovel Test PitGravel Driveway85
Ap: 10YR 3/3 dark brown silt loam
B horizon: 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown silty clay loam with
approximately 5% saprolite
STP 52
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 15: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1087
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 53
ThunderbirdArcheology
Feet
0 1
Original Scale: 1" = 1'
86
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 54
STP 52
Ap: 0-0.5 feet below surface - [10YR 3/3] dark brown silt loam
B horizon: 0.5-0.8 feet below surface - [10YR 5/4] yellowish brown silty
clay loam with approximately 5% saprolite
A total of nine artifacts were recovered from the site (Table 4; see Appendix I). As seen,
the recovered assemblage consists of five fragments of post-1907 glass, one fragment of
temporally non-diagnostic glass, two pieces of slag, and the proximal end of a chert
primary reduction flake dating to an unknown precontact period.
Table 4: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK1087
Artifact Description Ap
Glass
tableware 1
bottle/jar, (ABM)* (post-1907) 5
Miscellaneous
slag** 2
Precontact
chert primary reduction flake 1
Total Site 44FK1087 9
* automatic bottle machine
** discarded
Based on the lack of functional diversity in the historic artifacts recovered, the site does
not appear to represent a significant locus of human activity or occupation; rather, the site
presents as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century, likely the result of casual
discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property. Similarly, the
single precontact artifact is likely associated with ephemeral use of the site location
during an unknown precontact period, due to a lack of additional finds in the vicinity.
Considering this, and that the precontact artifact was recovered from plowed contexts, it
is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above
that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in
the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.
Site 44FK1088
The site is located within the southeastern portion of the project area and encompasses an
area of approximately 2,711 feet²/0.06 acres (see Exhibit 8; Exhibit 16); the site limits
shown on Exhibits 8 and 16 are approximate. The site is situated along the eastern edge
of a generally northwest-southeast-trending landform, sitting at an elevation between 632
and 628 feet a.m.s.l. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek. The
vegetation within the site consists of mixed deciduous and evergreen forest (Plate 18).
87
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 16: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1088
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 55
ThunderbirdArcheology
N
EW
S
Feet
0 20
Original Scale: 1" = 20'
171
171c
Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site
Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit
Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit
88
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 56
A total of six STPs were excavated within the site at 25-/50-foot intervals, two of which
yielded artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a
shallow plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 171c
(Exhibit 17).
STP 171c
Ap: 0-0.4 feet below surface - [10YR 4/3] brown silt loam
B horizon: 0.4-0.7 feet below surface - [10YR 5/4] yellowish brown
clay loam with approximately 20% saprolite
A total of seven artifacts were recovered from the site (Table 5; see Appendix I). As seen,
the recovered assemblage consists of four fragments of post-1907 glass, one fragment of
temporally non-diagnostic bottle glass, the proximal end of a chert biface thinning flake,
and the medial portion of a chert biface thinning flake; the two pieces of chert debitage
date to an unknown precontact period.
Table 5: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FX1088
Artifact Description Ap
Glass
bottle/jar 1
bottle/jar, (ABM)* (post-1907) 4
Precontact
chert biface thinning flake 2
Total Site 44FK1088 7
* automatic bottle machine
Based on the lack of functional diversity in the historic artifacts recovered, the site does
not appear to represent a significant locus of human activity or occupation; rather, the site
presents as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century, likely the result of casual
discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property. Similarly, the
two precontact artifacts are likely associated with ephemeral use of the site location
during an unknown precontact period, due to a lack of additional finds in the vicinity.
Considering this, and that the precontact artifact was recovered from plowed contexts, it
is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above
that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in
the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.
Site 44FK1089
The site is located within the central portion of the project area, surrounding the extant
farmstead complex at 2737 Senseny Road (DHR Resource 034-1155) (see Exhibit 9;
Exhibit 18); the site limits shown on Exhibits 9 and 18 are approximate. The site
encompasses an area of approximately 112,771 feet²/2.59 acres, situated along a
generally north-south-trending landform; topographic elevations within the site range
89
STP 171c
Ap: 10YR 4/3 brown silt loam
B horizon: 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown clay loam
with approximately 20% saprolite
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 17: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1088
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 57
ThunderbirdArcheology
Feet
0 1
Original Scale: 1" = 1'
90
CANYON RDL:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 18: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1089
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 58
ThunderbirdArcheology
N
EW
S
Feet
0 100
Original Scale: 1" = 100'
7
5
4
3
2
1
301
301a
301b
302
314a
314b
314c
317a
317
314
317d
352
368
369
370
411
420
424
849
882
883
Utility
Disturbed Disturbed
Disturbed
Disturbed
Disturbed
No Dig
(Landowner
Request)
Disturbed
Disturbed
Gravel Driv
e
w
a
y Gravel DrivewayGravel
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Drainage
Swale
Slope
Pond
Drainage
Swale
Drainage
SwaleGravel/Dirt Farm RoadLow
Low
Project Area Boundary
Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site
#Building -- Field Verified
Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit
Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit
91
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 59
between 634 and 598 feet a.m.s.l. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek
via drainages and unnamed tributaries located to the east. The vegetation within the site
consists primarily of grassy lawn and pastureland (see Plates 4 and 5).
Five standing buildings are located within the site and are associated with previously
recorded DHR Resource 034-1155, a circa 1920 farmstead; the farmstead and its
buildings are discussed below under a separate heading. Disturbances within the site were
moderate and were associated with the active use of the site location as a working farm.
A total of 73 STPs were excavated within the site at 25-/50-foot intervals, of which 20
yielded artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a
plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 314b (Exhibit
19). Several STPs within the site in the vicinity of extant buildings exhibited varying
degrees of disturbance, including STPs containing a disturbed Fill overlying a B horizon,
similar to STP 302, and others with one or more disturbed Fill layers overlying a buried
Ap stratum (Apb) over a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 849.
STP 314b
Ap: 0-0.7 feet below surface - [10YR 4/4] dark yellowish brown silt
loam
B horizon: 0.7 - 1.0 feet below surface - [10YR 5/6] yellowish brown
silty clay loam
STP 302
Fill: 0-0.9 feet below surface - [10YR 4/3] dark yellowish brown loam
with 5% saprolite
B horizon: 0.9 - 1.2 feet below surface - [10YR 6/4] light yellowish
brown silty clay with 30% saprolite
STP 849
Fill 1: 0-0.2 feet below surface - [10YR 4/3] brown silt loam
Fill 2: 0.2-0.4 feet below surface - [10YR 4/6] dark yellowish brown silty
clay loam with about 5% gravel
Apb: 0.4-0.8 feet below surface - [10YR 4/3] brown silt loam
B horizon: 0.8-1.1 feet below surface - [10YR 5/6] yellowish brown silty
clay loam
A total of 175 artifacts were recovered from the site (Table 6; see Appendix I). As seen
below, about 50% (n=86) of the recovered assemblage consists of fragments of post-1907
glass and other temporally non-diagnostic glass; about 13% (n=23) consists of kitchen-
related post-1820 ceramics and sherds dating to the late 19th/early 20th century; about
16% (n=28) consists of post-1890 wire nails, aluminum foil fragments and a pull tab
dating to the second half of the 20th century, and/or other temporally non-diagnostic
metallic fragments, hardware, and fasteners; and about 21% (n=38) consists of
miscellaneous finds including fragments of temporally non-diagnostic asphalt, bone,
brick, coal, oyster shell, plastic, and slag and a bone button, a plastic toy, and a shoelace.
92
Ap: 10YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown silt loam
B horizon: 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown silty clay loam
STP 314b
Fill 1: 10YR 4/3 brown silt loam
B horizon: 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown silty clay loam
STP 849
Fill 2: 10YR 4/6 dark yellowish brown silty clay loam
with about 5% gravel
Apb: 10YR 4/3 brown silt loam
Ap: 10YR 4/3 dark yellowish brown loam with
approximately 5% saprolite
B horizon: 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown silty clay loam
STP 302
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 19: Representative Soil Profiles from Site 44FK1089
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 60
ThunderbirdArcheology
Feet
0 1
Original Scale: 1" = 1'
93
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 61
Table 6: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FX1089
Artifact Description Fill Ap
Ceramics
hard paste porcelain 1
whiteware (1820-1900+) 3 17
redware 1
stoneware (late 19th-early 20th century) 1
Glass
bottle, bottle/jar, tableware 1 32
bottle, bottle/jar, jar (ABM)* (post-1907) 7 10
unidentified glass 4 32
Metal
aluminum foil** (post-1947) 2
aluminum pull tab** (post-1962) 1
brass 7mm cartridge casing 1
ferrous metal hinge 1
ferrous metal screw 1
ferrous metal screw cap 1
ferrous metal wire staple (post-1890) 2
nail, wire (post-1890) 1 13
unidentified ferrous metal 5
Miscellaneous
asphalt** 1
bone 1
bone button 1
brick** 1
coal** 6
oyster shell** 1
plastic** 19
plastic toy 1
shoelace 1
slag** 6
Total Site 44FK1089 26 149
* automatic bottle machine
** discarded
Considering the generally low quantities of 20th-century domestic, architectural, and
miscellaneous artifacts recovered from across the approximately 2.5-acre site, with no
concentrations indicating any loci of significant activities associated with the occupation
observable, the site presents as casually discarded refuse associated with the long-term
occupation of the extant circa 1920 dwelling and farmstead at 2737 Senseny Road (DHR
94
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 62
Resource 034-1155) and the associated use of the property into the modern era. Based on
the period of occupation and the long manufacturing and use dates for the bulk of the
artifacts in the assemblage, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would
yield any significant research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the
site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D.
No further work is recommended for the site.
Site 44FK1090
The site is located along a farm access road within the northcentral portion of the project
area and encompasses an area of approximately 18,476 feet²/0.42 acres (see Exhibit 9;
Exhibit 20); the site limits shown on Exhibits 9 and 20 are approximate. The site is
situated along the eastern edge of a generally northwest-southeast-trending landform,
sitting at an elevation between 604 and 584 feet a.m.s.l. Drainage for the site is to the east
into Opequon Creek via a drainage swale located to the southeast of the site. The
vegetation within the site consists predominantly of grassy pasture, with a few evergreen
trees adjacent to the farm road (Plate 19).
A total of 19 STPs were excavated within the site at 25-/50-foot intervals, seven of which
yielded artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a
plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 801 (Exhibit 21).
STP 801
Ap: 0-0.5 feet below surface - [10YR 4/3] dark yellowish brown silty clay
B horizon: 0.5 - 0.8 feet below surface - [10YR 5/4] yellowish brown
silty clay
A total of 12 artifacts were recovered from the site (Table 7; see Appendix I). As seen,
the recovered assemblage consists of nine fragments of temporally non-diagnostic glass,
one shard of post-1907 glass, one shard of post-1940 glass, and one fragment of ferrous
metal wire.
Table 7: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK1090
Artifact Description Ap
Glass
bottle, bottle/jar 9
bottle, (ABM)* (post-1907) 1
bottle, duraglas (post-1940) 1
Metal
ferrous metal wire 1
Total Site 44FK1090 12
* automatic bottle machine
95
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 20: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1090
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 63
ThunderbirdArcheology
N
EW
S
Feet
0 60
Original Scale: 1" = 60'
760
785d 785
Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site
Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit
Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit
Pond
Drainage
Swale
Pond
Drainage
Swale
Disturbed
Drainage
Swale
Drainage
Swale
Slope
Slope
Drainage
Swale
Drainage
Swale
Gravel/Dirt Farm RoadGravel/Dirt Fa
r
m
R
o
a
d
801
801c
805
805b
Disturbed
Disturbed
96
STP 801
Ap: 10YR 4/3 dark yellowish brown silty clay
B horizon: 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown silty clay
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 21: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1090
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 64
ThunderbirdArcheology
Feet
0 1
Original Scale: 1" = 1'
97
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 65
Based on the lack of functional diversity in the recovered assemblage, the site does not
appear to represent a significant locus of human activity or occupation; rather, the site
presents as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century, likely the result of casual
discard along a farm road associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the
property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would
yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion
the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is
recommended.
Site 44FK1091
The site is located within the northeastern portion of the project area and encompasses an
area of approximately 7,530 feet²/0.17 acres (see Exhibit 10; Exhibit 22); the site limits
shown on Exhibits 10 and 22 are approximate. The site is situated along the southern
edge of a north-south-trending toe landform immediately above the 100-Year FEMA
floodplain of Opequeon Creek at an elevation of approximately 530 feet a.m.s.l. Drainage
for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek. The vegetation within the site consists of
grassy pasture (Plate 20).
A total of ten STPs were excavated at 25-/50-foot intervals within the site, four of which
yielded artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a
shallow plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 446
(Exhibit 23).
STP 446
Ap: 0-0.6 feet below surface - [7.5YR 4/2] brown loam
B horizon: 0.6-1.0 feet below surface - [5YR 5/4] reddish brown clay loam
with approximately 3% saprolite
A total of five artifacts were recovered from four STPs (Table 8; see Appendix I). As
seen below, the recovered artifacts included two sherds of post-1820 whiteware ceramic,
two shards of temporally non-diagnostic bottle glass, and one fragment of coal.
Table 8: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK1091
Artifact Description Ap
Ceramics
whiteware (1820-1900+) 2
Glass
bottle/jar 2
Miscellaneous
coal* 1
Total Site 44FK1091 5
* discarded
98
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 22: Detail of Phase I Testing within Sites 44FK1091, 44FK0280, and 44FK0281
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 66
ThunderbirdArcheology
N
EW
S
Feet
0 60
Original Scale: 1" = 60'
446
446c
442
452
447
446d
Project Area Boundary
Previously Recorded Archeology Site
Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site
Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit
Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit
44FK1091
44FK0281
44FK0280
99
STP 446
Ap: 7.5YR 4/2 brown loam
B horizon: 5YR 5/4 brown clay loam with approximately
3% saprolite
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 23: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1091
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 67
ThunderbirdArcheology
Feet
0 1
Original Scale: 1" = 1'
100
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 68
Based on the low density of artifacts recovered and the lack of functional diversity in the
assemblage, the site does not appear to represent a significant locus of human activity or
occupation; rather, the site presents as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th
century, likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and
use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site
would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our
opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work
is recommended.
Site 44FK0277
Site 44FK0277 was previously recorded in the southern project area in 1991/1992 by
James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Exhibit 8) (see Hofstra et al.
1992). The site represents a trash scatter dating to the 20th century, with a low-density
(n=3) precontact component dating to an unknown period; no precontact artifacts were
recovered from the site by the recording surveyor, but three projectile points were
reportedly recovered from the vicinity by the landowner, according to the DHR site form.
The site was originally identified through surface collection and shovel testing and has
not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The site limits were subjected
to Phase I testing during the current investigation; however, only two of the 14 STPs
excavated at the DHR-recorded location of the site yielded artifacts. One of these STPs
excavated on the northwestern boundary of the site resulted in the expansion of the site
boundaries to include the recovered artifacts.
The site is situated along a generally east-west-trending landform at an elevation of
approximately 638 feet a.m.s.l. The expanded limits of the site encompass an area of
approximately 14,045 feet²/0.32 acres and include the previously recorded DHR location
of the site as originally defined through surface collection and shovel testing (Exhibit 24);
the site limits shown on Exhibits 8 and 24 are approximate and have not been survey
located. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek. The vegetation within the
site consists of scrub vegetation and evergreen trees, with grassy pasture in the southern
portion of the site (Plate 21).
A total of 14 STPs were excavated at 25-/50-foot intervals within the site boundary, with
only two yielding artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile
consisting of a plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP
236 (Exhibit 25).
STP 236
Ap: 0-0.6 feet below surface - [10YR 3/3] dark brown silt loam
B horizon: 0.6-0.9 feet below surface - [10YR 7/4] yellowish brown silty
clay loam with approximately 5% saprolite
A total of two artifacts were recovered from two STPs (Table 9; see Appendix I). As
seen, the recovered artifacts included one shard of temporally non-diagnostic bottle glass
and the proximal end of one chert biface thinning flake.
101
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 24: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK0277
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 69
ThunderbirdArcheology
N
EW
S
Feet
0 60
Original Scale: 1" = 60'
114
242
168
233
236
245
159
Slope
Slope
Slope Slope
Previously Recorded Archeology Site
Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site (Extension)
Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit
Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit
102
STP 236
Ap: 10YR 3/3 dark brown silt loam
B horizon: 10YR 7/4 yellowish brown silty clay
loam with approximately 5% saprolite
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 25: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK0277
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 70
ThunderbirdArcheology
Feet
0 1
Original Scale: 1" = 1'
103
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 71
Table 9: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK0277
Artifact Description Ap
Glass
bottle 1
Precontact
chert biface thinning flake 1
Total Site 44FK0277 2
The artifacts recovered from the site environs during the current study, though minimal,
were similar to those reported in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and
Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992), consisting of both 20th-century refuse
and precontact materials; however, the absence of any significant quantities of historic or
precontact artifacts recovered from the site location during this investigation suggests that
the past use of the site was likely ephemeral. As such, it is unlikely that additional
excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already
known. In our opinion, the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the
NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site.
Site 44FK0278
Site 44FK0278 was previously recorded in the northeastern project area in 1991/1992 by
James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Exhibits 9 and 10) (see
Hofstra et al. 1992). The site was recorded as a modern domestic dump site dating to the
20th century and was identified through surface collection only. The site has not been
evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff.
The site location was revisited through pedestrian reconnaissance during the current
investigation. However, as the site is recorded within a drainage swale surrounded by
steep slopes it was not subjected to subsurface testing, in accordance with DHR
guidelines; the site extends into the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequon Creek,
which was excluded from subsurface testing during the current investigation. As recorded
with the DHR, the site encompasses an area of about 20,107 feet²/0.46 acres at an
elevation between 552 and 526 feet a.m.s.l. Drainage for the site is to the east into
Opequon Creek. The vegetation within the site consists of mixed deciduous forest (Plate
22).
As no shovel testing was conducted at the site during this study, no artifacts were
recovered. However, dumped refuse was observed on the ground surface at the site
location (Plate 23), similar to the 1991/1992 study that recorded it. Considering the site
represents an area of secondarily deposited refuse dumping, within a drainage swale and
low floodplain, in our opinion it lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in
the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site.
104
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 72
Site 44FK0279
Site 44FK0279 was previously recorded in the northwestern project area in 1991/1992 by
James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Exhibit 9) (see Hofstra et al.
1992). The site was identified through surface collection, historical map projection, and
shovel testing, and is recorded as a farmstead dating to the 19th century that includes a
low-density (n=1) precontact component dating to an unknown period; according to the
DHR site form, the farmstead may be associated with S. Robinson, whose dwelling is
recorded in the vicinity on a 19th-century map of the Third Battle of Winchester (see
Exhibit 6). The site has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff.
The DHR-recorded limits of the site were subjected to Phase I testing during the current
investigation. A total of 38 STPs were excavated at 25-/50-foot intervals within the site
boundary, of which six yielded artifacts within its limits (Exhibit 26); the site limits
shown on Exhibits 9 and 26 are approximate. The site is situated along the top of a
generally east-west-trending landform at an elevation between approximately 636 and
624 feet a.m.s.l. The site as recorded with the DHR encompasses an area of
approximately 73,435 feet²/1.68 acres. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon
Creek. The vegetation within the site consists of grassy pastureland (Plate 24).
The STPs excavated within the site exhibited a profile consisting of a shallow plowed Ap
stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 634 (Exhibit 27).
STP 634
Ap: 0-0.4 feet below surface - [10YR 4/4] dark brown silt loam
B horizon: 0.4-1.2 feet below surface - [10YR 7/6] yellowish brown
clay loam with approximately 20% saprolite
A total of 27 artifacts were recovered from the site (Table 10; see Appendix I).
Table 10: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK0279
Artifact Description Ap
Ceramics
kaolin pipe stem 3
whiteware (1820-1900+) 7
redware 1
Glass
bottle, bottle/jar 3
unidentified glass 2
Metal
nail, cut (post-1790) 3
Miscellaneous
brick* 8
Total Site 44FK0279 27
* discarded
105
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 26: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK0279
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 73
ThunderbirdArcheology
N
EW
S
Feet
0 60
Original Scale: 1" = 60'
634
631
Project Area Boundary
Previously Recorded Archeology Site
Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit
Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit
631c
631d 634a
634c
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
106
Ap: 10YR 4/4 dark brown silt loam
B horizon: 10YR 7/6 yellowish brown clay loam
with approximately 20% saprolite
STP 634
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 27: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK0279
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 74
ThunderbirdArcheology
Feet
0 1
Original Scale: 1" = 1'
107
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 75
As seen above, the recovered artifacts included architecture-related brick and nails,
kitchen-related ceramics and glass, and tobacco-related kaolin pipe stem fragments.
Temporally diagnostic artifacts in the recovered assemblage included post-1790 cut nails
(n=3) and post-1820 whiteware sherds (n=7), indicating a 19th-century date for the site;
no definitively 20th-century or modern artifacts were recovered. Based on the artifacts
recovered from the site during this investigation, along with those recovered in
1991/1992, the site presents as the former location of a domestic dwelling and occupation
dating to the 19th century, likely that of S. Robinson whose dwelling is recorded in the
vicinity on 19th-century mapping (see Exhibit 6).
Considering the temporal affiliation of the site, the functional diversity in the recovered
artifacts and those reported in 1991/1992, and the absence of any definitively 20th-
century/modern artifacts in the assemblage, in our opinion the site has the potential to
yield significant research data regarding the lifeways of the residents of Frederick
County, Virginia in the 19th century and may be eligible for listing in the NRHP under
Criterion D. Phase II archeological evaluation of Site 44FK0279 is recommended if the
site cannot be avoided by the proposed development.
Site 44FK0280
The site was previously recorded in the northeastern corner of the project area in
1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Exhibit 10)
(see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site was recorded as a possible waste disposal area dating to
an unknown historic period, with a low-density precontact component (n=2) dating to an
unknown period. The site was identified through surface collection only and has not been
evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff.
The DHR-recorded limits of the site were subjected to Phase I testing during the current
investigation. The site is situated along the eastern edge of a generally east-west-trending
landform at an elevation of approximately 532 feet a.m.s.l. (see Exhibit 22); the site
limits shown on Exhibits 10 and 22 are approximate. The site as recorded with the DHR
encompasses an area of approximately 6,494 feet²/0.15 acres. Drainage for the site is to
the east into Opequon Creek. The vegetation within the site consists of grassy pastureland
and forest edge (Plate 25).
A total of four STPs were excavated at 50-foot intervals within the site boundary. The
STPs excavated within the site exhibited a profile consisting of a plowed Ap stratum
overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 447 (Exhibit 28).
STP 447
Ap: 0-0.4 feet below surface - [10YR 4/3] dark yellowish brown silty
clay loam
B horizon: 0.4 - 0.7feet below surface - [10YR 5/4] yellowish brown
clay loam
108
Ap: 10YR 4/3 dark yellowish brown silty clay loam
B horizon: 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown clay loam
STP 447
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 28: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK0280
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 76
ThunderbirdArcheology
Feet
0 1
Original Scale: 1" = 1'
109
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 77
None of the STPs excavated within the DHR-recorded limits of the site yielded artifacts.
This suggests that either the site is inaccurately mapped within the project area or that its
occupation was so ephemeral that it could not be identified with 50-foot shovel testing.
Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any
significant research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the DHR-
mapped location of the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the
NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.
Site 44FK0281
The site was previously recorded in the northeastern corner of the project area in
1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Exhibit 10)
(see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site straddles the current project area boundary and
represents a low-density (n=3) lithic scatter dating to an unknown precontact period. The
site was identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing
in the NRHP by DHR staff.
The DHR-recorded limits of the site within the project area were subjected to Phase I
testing during the current investigation. The site is situated along a generally east-west-
trending landform at an elevation of approximately 530 feet a.m.s.l. (see Exhibit 22); the
site limits shown on Exhibits 10 and 22 are approximate. The site as recorded with the
DHR encompasses an area of approximately 7,231 feet²/0.17 acres. Drainage for the site
is to the east into Opequon Creek via a drainage swale and unnamed tributary to the north
and a drainage swale to the south. The vegetation within the site consists of dense
hardwood saplings (Plate 26).
A total of two STPs were excavated at 50-foot intervals within the site boundary. The
STPs excavated within the site exhibited a profile consisting of a shallow plowed Ap
stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 452 (Exhibit 29).
STP 452
Ap: 0-0.3 feet below surface - [10YR 4/3] dark brown silt loam
B horizon: 0.3-0.7 feet below surface - [10YR 5/4] yellowish brown silty
clay loam with approximately 10% saprolite
None of the STPs excavated within the DHR-recorded limits of the site yielded artifacts.
This suggests that either the site is inaccurately mapped within the project area or that its
occupation was so ephemeral that it could not be identified with 50-foot shovel testing.
Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations of the portion of the site within
the current project area would yield any significant research data above that which is
already known. In our opinion, the DHR-mapped location of the site lacks research
potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is
recommended.
110
Ap: 10YR 4/3 dark brown silt loam
B horizon: 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown silty clay loam
with approximately 10% saprolite
STP 452
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg
Exhibit 29: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK0281
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 78
ThunderbirdArcheology
Feet
0 1
Original Scale: 1" = 1'
111
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 79
DHR Resource 034-1155 (House, off Route 657)
DHR Resource 034-1155 (House, 2737 Senseny Road) was originally recorded in 1992
and encompasses the majority of the project area. The primary resource is recorded as a
single dwelling constructed circa 1920 and was determined not eligible for listing in the
NRHP by DHR staff in October of 1992. The resource was revisited during a Phase I
architectural survey in 2020; however, it appears that the property was not accessed
during the survey and observations were made from the public right-of-way. Seven
buildings (Buildings 1-7; see Exhibits 8-10) associated with the resource were
documented during this investigation; a description of the buildings is presented below.
The DHR Architectural Survey Form for the resource was also updated as a result of this
investigation.
Building 1 is the primary resource and is a two-and-a-half story, single dwelling built
using the American Foursquare form (Plates 27 and 28). The house is covered by an
asphalt shingle hipped roof with a gable dormer on the south elevation and a central,
interior chimney. A full width shed roof extends from the south elevation and covers an
entry porch. Two additions extend off the main body of the dwelling: a garage on the east
elevation and an enclosed room on the west elevation. An asphalt shingle shed roof
extends from the west elevation to cover the garage addition to the dwelling. An asphalt
side-gable roof extends eastward to cover the enclosed room addition to the dwelling; the
roof is cut by a stretcher bond brick chimney on the northern slope. The entire building is
covered in white vinyl siding. One-over-one vinyl double hung windows are the primary
window type for the dwelling. According to previous V-CRIS records, Building 1 was
constructed circa 1920 and is historic.
Building 2 is a one-and-a-half story, concrete block and wood frame barn located
northeast of Building 1 (Plate 29). The barn is covered with a metal gambrel roof; a metal
broken-gable roof extends north from the gambrel roof. All elevations are constructed
with concrete blocks, except for the upper half-story and west elevation which are
constructed with a wood frame and vertical wood siding. Several sliding doors are
located on the west and east elevations. Additionally, a sliding hay loft door is in the half-
story on the east elevation. An examination of aerial imagery indicates that Building 2
replaced an older building sometime between 1958 and 1964 and is historic.
Building 3 is a single-story, wood frame chicken coop located southeast of Building 1
(Plate 30). The chicken coop appears to be a small shed which was adapted for animals.
Building 3 is clad in white vinyl siding, similar to Building 1, and covered with a metal
gable roof. The north elevation hosts a wood door and a one-over-one double hung vinyl
window. An examination of aerial imagery indicates that Building 3 was constructed
prior to 1958; however, a more exact construction date is difficult to determine due to
lack of earlier imagery.
Building 4 is a two-bay, wood frame run-in animal shelter located northeast of Building 1
(Plate 31). Building 4 is clad is plywood siding an supported by vertical wood posts. A
metal shed roof covers Building 4. A review of aerial imagery indicates that Building 4
was constructed circa 2000 and is not historic.
112
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 80
Building 5 is a two-story, concrete block and wood frame dwelling that has been
converted into a workshop and is located northeast of Building 1 (Plate 32). The east and
west elevations are constructed with a wood frame and horizontal wood siding, while the
north and south elevations are constructed and clad with concrete block siding. A metal
gable roof with open eaves covers Building 5 and is broken by a common bond brick
chimney that rises from the interior of the roof’s northern slope. A metal shed roof
extends north from the north elevation of the dwelling and covers a three-bay-wide
machine shed addition that is clad with vertical metal sheets. Three-over-one, fixed
wooden windows are the primary window type for Building 5 and can be found on both
the main dwelling and the machine shed addition. Examination of aerial imagery
indicates Building 5 was constructed prior to 1958; however, a more exact construction
date is difficult to determine due to lack of earlier imagery. The machine shed addition to
Building 5 appears to have been added sometime between 1964 and 1982 and likely
marks when the dwelling was converted into a workshop.
Building 6 is a wood frame animal shelter located northeast of Building 1 (Plate 33). The
animal shelter is clad in vertical wood siding and covered with a flat metal roof. The
shelter is not historic and is currently being used as a pig pen.
Building 7 is a standing common bond brick chimney located northeast of Building 1 and
southwest of Building 5 (Plate 34). Examination of aerial imagery indicates the chimney
was once located on the west elevation of a dwelling constructed prior to 1958 and
removed from the property, either intentionally or unintentionally, sometime between
1964 and 1982.
No new data was obtained during the current study that would contradict the previous
determination by the DHR that the resource is not eligible for listing in the NRHP. In our
opinion, the resource is a typical, unremarkable example of an American Foursquare
dwelling dating to the first quarter of the 20th century. None of the buildings are
associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns in
history or with known individuals of transcendent historical importance. Therefore, in our
opinion, DHR Resource 034-1155 is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria
A, B, or C. No further documentation is recommended.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A Phase I cultural resources investigation was conducted of the ±91.7-acre Winchester
East at Opequon Creek project area, located at 2737 and 2747 Senseny Road (Route 657)
in eastern Frederick County, Virginia near its boundary with Clarke County. Thunderbird
Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc., of Gainesville, Virginia
conducted the study described in this report for T VA Winchester II, LLC of Alexandria,
Virginia. The fieldwork was carried out in August of 2024. Six new archeological sites
(44FK1086-44FK1091) were recorded as a result of this investigation (Exhibit 30).
Additionally, five previously recorded archeological sites (44FK0277-44FK0281) and
one previously recorded architectural resource (034-1155) were revisited during the
study; one of these sites (44FK0279) is recommended for Phase II or avoidance.
113
44FK1087
44FK1088
44FK0277
44FK1089
44FK1090 44FK1091
44FK1086
44FK0279
44FK0280
44FK0278
44FK0281
034-1155
L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.32_CulturalResourcesWithin.mxd
Exhibit 30: Cultural Resources Within the Project Area
Latitude: 39°9'54"N
Longitude: 78°5'13"W
Project Area ®0 1,000
Feet
Original Scale:
1 " = 1,000 '
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 81
Archeological Resource
Architectural Resource
114
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 82
Site 44FK1086 is interpreted as a trash scatter dating to the 20th century, likely the result
of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property.
Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any
significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is
not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.
Site 44FK1087 is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century that
is likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use
of the property; one precontact artifact was also recovered from plowed contexts that is
likely associated with ephemeral use of the site location during an unknown precontact
period, due to a lack of additional finds in the vicinity. Considering this, and that the
precontact artifact was recovered from plowed contexts, it is unlikely that additional
excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already
known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under
Criterion D. No further work is recommended.
Site 44FK1088 is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century and
is likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use
of the property; two precontact artifacts were also recovered from plowed contexts that
are likely associated with ephemeral use of the site location during an unknown
precontact period, due to a lack of additional finds in the vicinity. Considering this, and
that the precontact artifact was recovered from plowed contexts, it is unlikely that
additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is
already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP
under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.
Site 44FK1089 is interpreted as casually discarded refuse associated with the long-term
occupation of the extant circa 1920 dwelling and farmstead at 2737 Senseny Road (DHR
Resource 034-1155) and the associated use of the property into the modern era. Based on
the period of occupation and the long manufacturing and use dates for the bulk of the
artifacts in the assemblage, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would
yield any significant research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the
site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D.
No further work is recommended for the site.
Site 44FK1090 is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century that
is likely the result of casual discard along a farm road associated with the 20th-century
occupation and use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional
excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already
known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under
Criterion D. No further work is recommended.
Site 44FK1091 is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century that
is likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use
of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site
115
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 83
would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our
opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work
is recommended.
Site 44FK0277 was previously recorded in the southern project area in 1991/1992 by
James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site
represents a trash scatter dating to the 20th century, with a low-density (n=3) precontact
component dating to an unknown period; no precontact artifacts were recovered from the
site by the recording surveyor, but three projectile points were reportedly recovered from
the vicinity by the landowner, according to the DHR site form. The site was originally
identified through surface collection and shovel testing and has not been evaluated for
listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The site limits were subjected to Phase I testing during
the current investigation; however, only two of the 14 STPs excavated at the DHR-
recorded location of the site yielded artifacts. One of these STPs excavated on the
northwestern boundary of the site resulted in the expansion of the site boundaries to
include the recovered artifacts.
The artifacts recovered from the environs of Site 44FK0277 during the current study,
though minimal, were similar to those reported in 1991/1992 by James Madison
University and Shenandoah University, consisting of both 20th-century refuse and
precontact materials; however, the absence of any significant quantities of historic or
precontact artifacts recovered from the site location during this investigation suggests that
the past use of the site was likely ephemeral. As such, it is unlikely that additional
excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already
known. In our opinion, the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the
NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site.
Site 44FK0278 was previously recorded in the northeastern project area in 1991/1992 by
James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site
was recorded as a modern domestic dump site dating to the 20th century and was
identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the
NRHP by DHR staff. The site location was revisited through pedestrian reconnaissance
during the current investigation. However, as the site is recorded within a drainage swale
surrounded by steep slopes it was not subjected to subsurface testing, in accordance with
DHR guidelines; the site extends into the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequon Creek,
which was excluded from subsurface testing during the current investigation. As no
shovel testing was conducted at the site during this study, no artifacts were recovered.
However, dumped refuse was observed on the ground surface at the site location, similar
to the 1991/1992 study that recorded it. Considering the site represents an area of
secondarily deposited refuse dumping, within a drainage swale and low floodplain, in our
opinion it lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under
Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site.
Site 44FK0279 was previously recorded in the northwestern project area in 1991/1992 by
James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site
116
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 84
was identified through surface collection, historical map projection, and shovel testing,
and is recorded as a farmstead dating to the 19th century that includes a low-density (n=1)
precontact component dating to an unknown period; according to the DHR site form, the
farmstead may be associated with S. Robinson, whose dwelling is recorded in the vicinity
on a 19th-century map of the Third Battle of Winchester. The site has not been evaluated
for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff.
The artifacts recovered during the current investigation included architecture-related
brick and nails, kitchen-related ceramics and glass, and tobacco-related kaolin pipe stem
fragments. Temporally diagnostic artifacts in the recovered assemblage included post-
1790 cut nails (n=3) and post-1820 whiteware sherds (n=7), suggesting a 19th-century
date for the site; no definitively 20th-century or modern artifacts were recovered.
Considering the temporal affiliation of the site, the functional diversity in the recovered
artifacts and those reported in 1991/1992, and the absence of any definitively 20th-
century/modern artifacts in the assemblage, in our opinion the site has the potential to
yield significant research data regarding the lifeways of the residents of Frederick
County, Virginia in the 19th century and may be eligible for listing in the NRHP under
Criterion D. Phase II archeological evaluation of Site 44FK0279 is recommended if
the site cannot be avoided by the proposed development.
Site 44FK0280 was previously recorded in the northeastern corner of the project area in
1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al.
1992). The site was recorded as a possible waste disposal area dating to an unknown
historic period, with a low-density precontact component (n=2) dating to an unknown
period. The site was identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated
for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The DHR-recorded limits of the site were
subjected to Phase I testing during the current investigation; however, none of these STPs
yielded artifacts. This suggests that either the site is inaccurately mapped within the
project area or that its occupation was so ephemeral that it could not be identified with
50-foot shovel testing. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the
site would yield any significant research data above that which is already known. In our
opinion, the DHR-mapped location of the site lacks research potential and is not eligible
for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.
Site 44FK0281 was previously recorded in the northeastern corner of the project area in
1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al.
1992). The site straddles the current project area boundary and represents a low-density
(n=3) lithic scatter dating to an unknown precontact period. The site was identified
through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by
DHR staff. The DHR-recorded limits of the site within the project area were subjected to
Phase I testing during the current investigation; however, none of these STPs yielded
artifacts. This suggests that either the site is inaccurately mapped within the project area
or that its occupation was so ephemeral that it could not be identified with 50-foot shovel
testing. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations of the portion of the
site within the current project area would yield any significant research data above that
117
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 85
which is already known. In our opinion, the DHR-mapped location of the site lacks
research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No
further work is recommended.
Finally, DHR Resource 034-1155 (House, 2737 Senseny Road) was originally recorded
in 1992 and encompasses the majority of the project area. The primary resource is
recorded as a single dwelling constructed circa 1920 and was determined not eligible for
listing in the NRHP by DHR staff in October of 1992. The DHR Architectural Survey
Form for the resource was also updated as a result of this investigation. No new data was
obtained during the current study that would contradict the previous determination by the
DHR that the resource is not eligible for listing in the NRHP. In our opinion, the resource
is a typical, unremarkable example of an American Foursquare dwelling dating to the
first quarter of the 20th century. None of the buildings are associated with events that
have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns in history or with known
individuals of transcendent historical importance. Therefore, in our opinion, DHR
Resource 034-1155 is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A, B, or C. No
further documentation is recommended.
118
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 86
119
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 87
REFERENCES CITED
Abbott, W. W. [editor]
1983 The Papers Of George Washington. Colonial Series. I. 1748-August 1855.
University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Adovasio, J.M., J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath
1990 The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology 1975-1990. American
Antiquity (55):348-54.
Adovasio, J.M., D. Pedler, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath
1998 Two Decades of Debate on Meadowcroft Rockshelter. North American
Archaeologist (19):317-41.
Ansel, William H.
1984 Frontier Forts Along The Potomac And Its Tributaries. McClain Printing
Company, Parsons, West Virginia.
Barse, William P.
1978 Preliminary Notes on the West Shore Site, 18AN219. Archeological Society of
Maryland Newsletter, January 1978.
1990 A Trial Formulation of Vessel Shapes for the Early and Middle Woodland
Ceramic Assemblages. Paper presented at the 21st Middle Atlantic Archeological
Conference, Ocean City, Maryland.
1991 Phase III Data Recovery Excavations at 28GL209, Gloucester County, New
Jersey. Report prepared for Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation by Louis
Berger & Associates.
2002 An Archeological Survey, Inventory and Evaluation Study, and Data Recovery for
the Fletchers Boathouse Site (51NW13) C&O Canal National Historical Park,
Washington, D.C. Report submitted to the National Capital Region, National Park
Service.
Bastian, Tyler
1974 Preliminary Notes on the Biggs Ford Site, Frederick County, Maryland.
Manuscript on file at the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory.
Beck, Brandon H.
2015 “The Third Battle of Winchester.” Electronic document,
https://www.shenandoahatwar.org/the-third-battle-of-winchester/, accessed 11
November 2020.
Beck, Brandon H. and Charles S. Grunder
1988 Three Battles of Winchester: A History and Guided Tour. The Civil War Society,
Special Edition. The Country Publishers, Inc. Berryville, Virginia.
120
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 88
Bergman, Christopher A., John F. Doershuk and Joseph Schuldenrein
1994 A Young Archaeologist’s Summary Guide to the Deeply Stratified Sandts Eddy
Site, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. In Recent Research into the Prehistory
of the Delaware Valley, edited by Christopher A. Bergman and John F. Doershuk,
Journal of Middle Atlantic Archeology, Volume 10.
Boatner, Mark M. III
1991 The Civil War Dictionary. Vantage Books, New York, New York.
Botwick, Brad and Ashley M. Neville
1997 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Investigations Route 37 Frederick County,
Virginia. Gray & Pape, Inc, Richmond, VA. Prepared for Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
Broyles, Bettye J.
1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia.
West Virginia Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 3.
Carbone, Victor A.
1976 Environment and Prehistory in the Shenandoah Valley. Ph.D. Dissertation, The
Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.
Chapman, Jefferson
1975 The Rose Island Site and the Bifurcate Point Tradition. Knoxville, University of
Tennessee, Department of Anthropology.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 54 (5), Philadelphia.
Commonwealth of Virginia
1850 Acts Of The General Assembly Of Virginia, Passed At The Extra And Regular
Sessions In 1849 & 1850, And In The Seventy-Third And Seventy-Fourth Years Of
The Commonwealth. William F. Ritchie, Richmond, Virginia.
Couper, William
1952 History of the Shenandoah Valley. Lewis Historical Publishing Company, Inc.
New York.
Cross, Dorothy
1956 Archeology of New Jersey, Volume 2: The Abbot Farm. Trenton: Archeological
Society of New Jersey and the New Jersey State Museum.
Curry, Dennis and Maureen Kavanagh
1994 A New Radiocarbon Date for Popes Creek Ware. Maryland Archeology 30(1):29-
32.
121
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 89
Darmody, R.G. and J.E. Foss
1978 Tidal Marsh Soils of Maryland. Maryland Agricultural Experimental Station
Publication 930:1-69.
Department of Historic Resources (DHR)
2017 Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia. Virginia State
Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia.
Dent, Richard J.
1991 Deep Time in the Potomac Valley – Thoughts on Paleoindian lifeways and
revisionist archeology. Archeology of Eastern North America 19:23-41.
1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press, New
York.
Dincauze, Dena
1976 The Neville Site: 8,000 Years at Amoskeag, Manchester, New Hampshire.
Peabody Museum Monographs Number 4, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Dunham, Gary H., Debra L. Gold, and Jeffrey L. Hantman
2003 Collective Burial in Late Prehistoric Virginia: Excavation and Analysis of the
Rapidan Mound. American Antiquity 68(1): 109-128.
Ebright, Carol A.
1992 Early Native American Prehistory on the Maryland Western Shore: Archeological
Investigations at the Higgins Site. Maryland State Highway Administration
Archeological Report Number 1. Report prepared for the Maryland State Railroad
Administration.
Egloff, Keith and Deborah Woodward
1992 First People: The Early Indians of Virginia. Second Edition. Virginia Department
of Historic Resources. University of Virginia Press. Charlottesville, Virginia.
Fiedel, Stuart J.
1999 Connecting Late Prehistoric Ceramic Lineages with Early Historic Ethnic-
Linguistic Groups: Prospects and Problems. Paper presented at the Middle
Atlantic Archeological Conference, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Frederick County Board of Supervisors
1989 The Story of Frederick County. Frederick County Board of Supervisors,
Winchester, Virginia.
Gallivan, Martin
2010 “The Archaeology of Native Societies in the Chesapeake: New Investigations and
Interpretations.” Springer Science+Business Media.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/54k17240122u2k5k/.
122
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 90
Gardner, William M.
1974 The Flint Run Paleo Indian Complex: Report on the 1971-1973 Seasons.
Occasional Publication 1, Department of Anthropology, Catholic University of
America, Washington, D.C.
1976 Excavations at 18PR141, 18PR142 and 18PR143 Near Piscataway, Maryland.
Report submitted to the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission.
1980 The Archaic. Paper presented at the 11th Middle Atlantic Archeological
Conference, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.
1982 Early and Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: An Overview. In Practicing
Environmental Archeology: Methods and Interpretations, pp. 53-86, Roger W.
Moeller, editor. Occasional Paper Number 3, American Indian Archeological
Institute, Washington, Connecticut.
1985 Prehistoric Site Distribution in the Greater Washington, D.C. Area. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Society,
Washington, D.C.
1986 Lost Arrowheads and Broken Pottery: Traces of Indians in the Shenandoah
Valley. Thunderbird Museum Publication.
1987 Comparison of Ridge and Valley, Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain
Archaic Period Site Distribution: An Idealized Transect. In Journal of Middle
Atlantic Archeology, Vol. 3, pp. 49-80, Roger W. Moeller, editor. Archeological
Services, Bethlehem, Connecticut.
1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene
(circa 9200-6800 B.C.) In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, pp. 5-
51, J. Mark Wittkofski and T.R. Rhinehart, editors. Archeological Society of
Virginia Special Publication No. 19. The Dietz Press, Richmond.
1991 Notes for the Territory Presentation. Presented at the 1991 Middle Atlantic
Archeological Conference.
Gardner, William M. and Charles W. McNett, Jr.
1971 Early Pottery in the Potomac. Proceedings of the Second Middle Atlantic
Archeological Conference. Washington, D.C.
Gardner, William M. and Lauralee Rappleye
1979 A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance and Impact Assessment of the Proposed
Additions to the Mount Jackson Wastewater Treatment Plant, Shenandoah
County, Virginia. Thunderbird Research Corporation, Front Royal, Virginia.
Gardner, William M. and Joan M. Walker
1993 A Phase I Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed Mitchell
Substation and Mitchell Transmission Line in Culpeper County, Virginia. Report
prepared for Rappahannock Electric Cooperative, Fredericksburg, by the
Thunderbird Archeological Associates, Inc., Woodstock, Virginia.
123
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 91
Goodyear, A.C
2005 “Evidence of Pre-Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States.” Paleoamerican
Origins: Beyond Clovis. R. Bonnichsen, B. Lepper, D. Stanford, M. Waters (eds.)
pp. 103-112. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas.
Greene, Evarts B.
1932 American Population Before the Federal Census of 1790. Columbia University
Press, New York, New York.
Hantman, Jeffrey L. and Michael J. Klein
1992 Middle and Late Woodland Archeology in Piedmont Virginia. In Middle and Late
Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, pp. 137-164, Theodore R. Reinhart
and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, editors. Archeological Society of Virginia Special
Publication No. 29. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.
Haynes, Gary
2002 The Early Settlement of North America: the Clovis Era. Cambridge University
Press, New York, New York.
Hening, William Waller
1819a The Statutes at Large; Being A Collection Of All The Laws Of Virginia, From The
First Session Of The Legislature, In The Year 1619. Volume V. Franklin Press,
Richmond, Virginia.
1819b The Statutes at Large; Being A Collection Of All The Laws Of Virginia, From The
First Session Of The Legislature, In The Year 1619. Volume VI. Franklin Press,
Richmond, Virginia.
1820 The Statutes at Large; Being A Collection Of All The Laws Of Virginia, From The
First Session Of The Legislature, In The Year 1619. Volume VII. Franklin Press,
Richmond, Virginia.
Hiden, Martha W.
1957 How Justice Grew. Virginia Counties: An Abstract of Their Formation. Third
printing 1980; Jamestown Booklet No. 2. The University Press of Virginia,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Hofstra, Warren R.
1986 A Separate Place, The Formation of Clarke County, Virginia. Clarke County
Sesquicentennial Committee, White Post, Virginia.
Hofstra, Warren R., Clarence Geier, et. Al.
1992 The Abrams Cree-Redbud Run Project: A Cultural Resource Inventory Study of
Archaeological Sites in the Shale Area of East Winchester, Virginia. Shenandoah
University and James Madison University, Virginia
124
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 92
Hurst, Gwen J.
1990 U.S. Bottle Chronology. B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Jirikowic, Christine
1999 Keyser Ware Ceramics at the Hughs Site and in the Potomac Basin. Paper
presented at the Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania.
Johnson, Michael
1983 The Evolution of the Bifurcate Hunting System in the Interior Piedmont of
Fairfax County, Virginia. In Piedmont Archeology, pp. 55-73, J. Mark Wittkofski
and Lyle E. Browning, editors. Archeological Society of Virginia Special
Publication No. 10. Richmond, Virginia.
1986 Fairfax County Archeological Overview. Heritage Resources Branch, Fairfax,
Virginia.
1997 Additional Research at Cactus Hill: Preliminary Description of Northern Virginia
Chapter—ASV’s 1993 and 1995 Excavations. In Archaeological Investigations of
Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia, edited by J.M. McAvoy and
L.D. McAvoy, Appendix G. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research
Report Series No. 8, Richmond, Virginia.
Kalbian, Maral S.
1989 Clarke County Rural Reconnaissance Survey. Report prepared for Clarke County,
Virginia.
1999 Frederick County, Virginia: History Through Architecture. Winchester-Frederick
County Historical Society Rural Landmarks Publication Committee, Winchester
Printers, Inc.
Kavanagh, Maureen
1982 Archaeological Resources of the Monocacy River Region. Maryland Geological
Survey, Division of Archaeology, File Report #164.
1983 Prehistoric Occupation of the Monocacy River Region, Maryland. In Piedmont
Archeology, pp. 40-54, J. Mark Wittkofski and Lyle E. Browning, editors.
Archeological Society of Virginia Special Publication No. 10. Richmond,
Virginia.
Kercheval, Samuel
1986 A History of the Valley of Virginia. Seventh Edition. C.J. Carrier Company,
Harrisonburg, Virginia.
Kinsey, W.F. III
1972 Archeology in the Upper Delaware Valley. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Museum
and Historical Commission, Anthropological Series 2.
125
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 93
Lederer, John
1672 The Discoveries of John Lederer, In three feveral Marches from Virginia, To the
Weft of Carolina, And other parts of the Continent: Begun in March 1669, and
ended in September 1670. Together with a General Map of the whole Territory
which he traverfed. Printed by J.C. for Samuel Heyrick, at Grays-Inne-gate in
Holborn. London, England.
Lindsey, Bill
2024 Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website. Society for Historical
Archeology. Electronic document, https://www.sha.org/bottle, accessed
September 11, 2024.
Luckenbach, Al, Jessie Grow, Shawn Sharpe
2010 Archaic Period Triangular Points From Pig Point, Anne Arundel County,
Maryland. In Journal of Middle Atlantic Archeology, Volume 26, pp. 1-15, Roger
W. Moeller, editor. Archeological Services, Bethlehem, Connecticut.
Magid, Barbara H., editor
1990 Alexandria Archaeology Artifact Code Books. Alexandria Archaeology
Publications Number 11. Alexandria Archaeology Office of Historic Alexandria,
City of Alexandria, Virginia.
Magin, Irvin D.
1991 Shenandoah County Gazetteer & Historical Geography. Commercial Press,
Stephens City, Virginia.
Manson, Carl
1948 Marcey Creek Site: An Early Manifestation in the Potomac Valley. American
Antiquity 12(3):223-227.
Martin, Joseph
1836 A New And Comprehensive Gazetteer Of Virginia, And The District Of Columbia:
Containing A Copious Collection Of Biographical, Statistical, Political,
Commercial, Religious, Moral, And Miscellaneous Information, Collected And
Compiled From The Most Respectable, And Chiefly From Original Sources.
Moseley & Tompkins, Charlottesville, Virginia.
McAvoy, J.M.
1997 Addendum: Excavation of the Cactus Hill Site, 44SX202, Areas A-B, Spring
1996: Summary Report of Activities and Findings. In Archaeological
Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia, edited by
J.M. McAvoy and L.D. McAvoy, Appendix G. Virginia Department of Historic
Resources, Research Report Series No. 8, Richmond, Virginia.
126
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 94
McAvoy, J.M. and L.D. McAvoy (editors)
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County,
Virginia. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No.
8, Richmond, Virginia.
McClearen, Douglas C.
1991 Phase III Archeological Investigations of the "522 Bridge Site" (44WR329)
Warren County, Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth University, Archeological
Research Center, Richmond, Virginia.
McDonald, J.N.
2000 An Outline of the Pre-Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia, with
Special Attention to a Bone Tool Dated 14,510 yr BP. Virginia Museum of
Natural History, Martinsville, Virginia.
McDonald, J.N. and M. Kay
1999 Pre-Clovis Archaeology at SV-2, Saltville, Virginia. In Abstracts of the Society
for American Archaeology 64th Annual Meeting, p. 196. Society for American
Archaeology, Washington, DC.
McKay, Hunter Branson
1951 Fairfax Land Suit. Transcript Of Copy In The British Museum Being An Extract
From. Privately Published, Belmont, Massachusetts.
Miller, George
1992 Refinement of South's Types and Median Dates. Manuscript at University of
Delaware Center for Archeological Research, Newark.
Miller, Glenda F. and Joan M. Walker
n.d. Competing Agendas: The Fur Trade and Native Americans.
Morton, Frederic
1925 The Story of Winchester in Virginia: The Oldest Town in the Shenandoah Valley.
Shenandoah Publishing House, Strasburg, Virginia.
Mouer, Daniel, Robin L. Ryder and Elizabeth G. Johnson
1981 The Elk Island Tradition: An Early Woodland Society in the Virginia Piedmont.
Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 36:49-76.
Mounier, Alan and Jack Cresson
1988 A Case of Lachrymose Archeology in Southern New Jersey. Archeological
Society of New Jersey Newsletter 146:5-8.
Norris, J.E.
1890 History of the Lower Shenandoah Valley, Counties of Frederick, Berkely,
Jefferson, and Clarke. A. Warner and Col., Publishers, Chicago, Illinois and
Virgnia Book Company, Berryville, Virginia.
127
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 95
Potter, Stephen R.
1982 An Analysis of Chicacoan Settlement Patterns. Dissertation on file, Department of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1993 Commoners, Tribute and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the
Potomac Valley. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Quarles, Garland R.
1986 The Streets of Winchester, Virginia: The Origin and Significance of Their Names.
Prepared for The Farmers and Merchants National Bank, Winchester, Virginia.
Reese, George
1980 The Official Papers of Francis Fauquier Lieutenant Governor of Virginia 1758-
1768. Volume I 1758-1760. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Rice, James D.
2009 Nature & History in the Potomac Country: From Hunter-Gatherers to the Age of
Jefferson. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland.
Rouse, Parke Jr.
1973 From Philadelphia To The South. The Great Wagon Road. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, New York.
Slattery, Richard G.
1946 A Prehistoric Indian Site on Selden Island, Montgomery County, Maryland.
Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 36 (8):262-266.
Smith, Page
1976 A New Age Now Begins. A People's History of the American Revolution. Volume
Two. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, St. Louis and San Francisco.
South, Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archeology. University of Illinois Press,
Urbana.
Stephenson, Robert L., Alice L. Ferguson and Henry G. Ferguson
1963 The Accokeek Site: A Middle Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence.
Anthropological Papers (20) Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
Stevens, J. Sanderson
1989 Environmental Site Predictors and Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Central
Piedmont of Virginia. Paper presented at the Middle Atlantic Archeological
Conference, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.
128
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 96
Stewart, R. Michael
1998 Archaic Triangles at the Abbott Farm National Landmark: Typological
Implications for Prehistoric Studies in the Middle Atlantic Region. Paper
accompanying Exhibit at the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Cape
May, New Jersey.
Tinling, Marion [editor]
1977 The Correspondence of The Three William Byrds of Westover, Virginia 1684-
1776. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
United States Department of Interior (DOI)
1983 Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
Guidelines. Federal Register 48 (190):44716-44742.
Walker, Joan M.
1981 A Preliminary Report on the Prehistory of Prince William County, Virginia.
Report prepared for the County of Prince William by the Thunderbird Research
Corporation, Woodstock, Virginia.
Walker, Joan M. and William M. Gardner
1989 Phase I Archeological Survey, Telegraph Woods Sanitary Sewer Line, Fort
Belvoir, Virginia. Report prepared by Thunderbird Archeological Associates, Inc.
for Paciulli, Simmons and Associates, Ltd., Fairfax, Virginia.
Waselkov, Gregory A.
1982 Shellfish Gathering and Shell Midden Archeology. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Wayland, John W.
1976 Twenty-Five Chapters On The Shenandoah Valley To Which is Appended A
Concise History Of The Civil War In The Valley. Second Edition. C. J. Carrier
Company, Harrisonburg, Virginia.
1980 A History of Shenandoah County Virginia. Second (Augmented) Edition.
Regional Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland.
Weiss-Bromberg, Francine
1987 Site Distribution in the Coastal Plain and Fall Zone of the Potomac Valley from
ca. 6500 B.C. to A.D. 1400. Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology,
The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.
Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society
1980 Images Of The Past. A Photographic Review of Winchester and Frederick
County, Virginia. Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society, Winchester,
Virginia.
129
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 97
PLATES
130
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 98
131
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 99
Plate 1: Senseny Road
View to Southwest
Plate 2: Opequon Creek – Northeast of Project Area
View to Northeast
132
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 100
Plate 3: Example of Forested Vegetation
View to East
Plate 4: Example of Pastureland/Overview of Site 44FK1089 (North)
View to North
133
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 101
Plate 5: Example of Manicured Lawn/Overview of Site 44FK1089 (South)
View to Northeast
Plate 6: Example of Steep Slope
View to West
134
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 102
Plate 7: Example of Constructed Farm Pond
View to North
Plate 8: Example of Drainage Swale/Cut
View to West
135
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 103
Plate 9: Example of Artificial Landform
View to North
Plate 10: Example of Gravel Farm Roads
View to South
136
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 104
Plate 11: Example of 100-Year FEMA Floodplain of Opequon Creek
View to South
Plate 12: Example of 100-Year FEMA Floodplain of Opequon Creek
View to Southeast
137
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 105
Plate 13: Oblique of Building 8 (Dwelling at 2747 Senseny Road)
View to North
Plate 14: Oblique of Building 8 (Dwelling at 2747 Senseny Road)
View to Southeast
138
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 106
Plate 15: Building 9 (R) and Building 10 (L)
View to North
Plate 16: Overview of Site 44FK1086
View to East
139
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 107
Plate 17: Overview of Site 44FK1087
View to Southeast
Plate 18: Vicinity of Site 44FK1088
View to South
140
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 108
Plate 19: Overview of Site 44FK1090
View to South
Plate 20: Overview of Site 44FK1091
View to Northeast
141
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 109
Plate 21: Overview of Site 44FK0277
View to Northeast
Plate 22: DHR Location of Site 44FK0278
View to South
142
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 110
Plate 23: Example of Surface Trash at Site 44FK0278
View to Northwest
Plate 24: Overview of Site 44FK0279
View to North
143
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 111
Plate 25: DHR Location of Site 44FK0280
View to West
Plate 26: DHR Location of Site 44FK0281
View to North
144
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 112
Plate 27: Building 1, South and East Elevations (034-1155)
View to Northwest
Plate 28: Building 1, North and West Elevations (034-1155)
View to Southeast
145
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 113
Plate 29: Building 2, West and south Elevations (034-1155)
View to Northeast
Plate 30: Building 3, North Elevation (034-1155)
View to South
146
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 114
Plate 31: Building 4, North Elevation (034-1155)
View to South
Plate 32: Building 5, South and East Elevations (034-1155)
View to Northwest
147
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 115
Plate 33: Building 6, East Elevation (034-1155)
View to West
Plate 34: Building 7 (034-1155)
View to Southeast
148
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 116
149
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 117
APPENDIX I
Artifact Inventory
150
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 118
151
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 119
WINCHESTER EAST PHASE I
ARTIFACT INVENTORY
Isolated Finds
STP 064, Ap
Glass
1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, automatic bottle machine (1910-
present, Hurst 1996)
STP 093, Ap
Metal
1 aluminum bottle cap (discarded in field)
STP 114, Ap
Glass
1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated
STP 159, Ap
Miscellaneous
1 slag fragment, 1.5 grams
STP 168, Ap
Glass
1 unidentified light aqua sherd, flat, ribbed interior
STP 221, Ap
Precontact
1 quartz primary reduction flake, proximal
1 rhyolite primary reduction flake, proximal
STP 231, Ap
Glass
1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907-
present, Hurst 1996)
STP 233, Ap
Glass
1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, automatic bottle machine (1910-
present, Hurst 1996)
Precontact
1 chert biface thinning flake, medial
STP 242, Ap
Glass
1 light aqua cylindrical bottle sherd, club sauce lip finish (1850s-
1930s, Lindsey 2024)
STP 352, Ap
Glass
1 clear square/rectangular bottle sherd, base fragment, base
embossed "9/9/...ADE IN USA", Anchor Hocking Glass
Corporation maker's mark, automatic bottle machine (1938-1980,
Lindsey 2024)
152
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 120
Site 44FK0277
STP 236, Ap
Glass
1 light green cylindrical bottle sherd, base fragment, base embossed
"...XAN.../VA", scratched
STP 245, Ap
Precontact
1 chert biface thinning flake, proximal
Site 44FK0279
STP 631, Ap
Ceramics
1 whiteware sherd, blue hand painted decoration interior, rim
fragment, hollow vessel, indeterminate rim diameter (1820-
1900+, South 1977; 1830-1860+, Miller 1992)
Glass
1 light aqua cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated
1 unidentified light aqua sherd, flat, patinated
Metal
1 cut nail fragment (post-1790)
Miscellaneous
3 brick fragments (discarded in lab), 2.1 grams
STP 631c, Ap
Ceramics
1 redware sherd, dark brown glazed, indeterminate vessel shape
Glass
1 unidentified light aqua sherd, flat, patinated
Metal
1 cut nail fragment (post-1790)
1 cut nail fragment, unidentified head (post-1790)
Miscellaneous
4 brick fragments (discarded in lab), 3.3 grams
STP 631d, Ap
Glass
1 olive amber cylindrical bottle sherd, molded, patinated
STP 634, Ap
Ceramics
3 kaolin pipe stem fragments (mend)
2 whiteware sherds, mulberry transfer printed decoration,
indeterminate vessel shapes (1820-1900+, South; 1825-1875+,
Miller 1992)
3 whiteware sherds, undecorated, indeterminate vessel shapes
(1820-1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992)
Miscellaneous
1 brick fragment (discarded in lab), 2.1 grams
153
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 121
STP 634a, Ap
Glass
1 olive green cylindrical bottle sherd, patinated
STP 634c, Ap
Ceramics
1 whiteware sherd, mulberry spatter/sponge decoration interior,
hollow vessel (1820-1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992)
Site 44FK1086
STP 021, Ap
Glass
1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907-
present, Hurst 1996)
2 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds (mend), base fragment,
embossed "1269/...16", Tygart Valley Glass Company maker's
mark, automatic bottle machine (1927-1959, Lindsey 2024)
170 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine
(1910-present, Hurst 1996)
4 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, base fragments, automatic
bottle machine, scratched (1910-present, Hurst 1996)
4 clear cylindrical jar sherds, large mouth external thread lip finish,
automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996)
2 clear cylindrical tableware sherds (mend), patinated
Metal
1 ferrous metal bolt fragment
1 unidentified brass fragment, hollow
Miscellaneous
1 slate pencil fragment
STP 021b, Ap
Miscellaneous
1 slag fragment (discarded in lab), 5.0 grams
STP 033, Ap
Glass
1 unidentified clear sherd, flat, ribbed interior
STP 033c, Ap
Metal
1 wire 12d nail, pulled (1890-present)
STP 034, Ap
Glass
1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, molded
11 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine
(1910-present, Hurst 1996)
1 clear cylindrical jar sherd, large mouth external thread lip finish,
automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996)
154
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 122
STP 034b, Ap
Miscellaneous
1 slag fragment (discarded in lab), 3.6 grams
STP 034c, Ap
Glass
7 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine
(1910-present, Hurst 1996)
STP 034d, Ap
Glass
1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, small mouth external thread lip
finish, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996)
3 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine
(1910-present, Hurst 1996)
Miscellaneous
1 slag fragment (discarded in lab), 4.9 grams
STP 037, Ap
Glass
1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated
6 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine
(1910-present, Hurst 1996)
Metal
1 unidentified ferrous metal fragment
1 wire nail fragment (1890-present)
Site 44FK1087
STP 052, Ap
Glass
2 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine
(1910-present, Hurst 1996)
Precontact
1 chert primary reduction flake, proximal
STP 052b, Ap
Glass
3 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine
(1910-present, Hurst 1996)
1 clear cylindrical tableware sherd, rim fragment, patinated
Miscellaneous
2 slag fragments (discarded in lab), 8.7 grams
Site 44FK1088
STP 171, Ap
Precontact
1 chert biface thinning flake, medial
1 chert biface thinning flake, proximal
155
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 123
STP 171c, Ap
Glass
1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, base fragment, base embossed
"1249/...0"
4 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine
(1910-present, Hurst 1996)
Site 44FK1089
STP 301, Ap
Glass
1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, molded, patinated
1 cobalt cylindrical bottle sherd, patinated
STP 301a, Fill
Ceramics
1 whiteware sherd, undecorated, base fragment, hollow vessel,
indeterminate base diameter (1820-1900+, South 1977; Miller
1992)
2 whiteware sherds, undecorated, hollow vessels (1820-1900+,
South 1977; Miller 1992)
Glass
2 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine
(1910-present, Hurst 1996)
1 unidentified light aqua sherd, heat melted
Metal
1 ferrous metal screw fragment
2 ferrous metal wire staples
Miscellaneous
1 bone fragment, 5.5 grams
STP 301b, Fill
Glass
1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907-
present, Hurst 1996)
1 light aqua cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, automatic bottle machine
(1907-present, Hurst 1996)
STP 302, Fill
Glass
1 light aqua cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated
1 unidentified white milk glass sherd, heat melted
STP 314, Ap
Glass
1 light aqua cylindrical jar sherd, large mouth external thread lip
finish, automatic bottle machine (1907-present, Hurst 1996)
STP 314a, Ap
Miscellaneous
1 plastic screw top (discarded in field)
156
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 124
STP 314b, Ap
Metal
1 wire 8d nail (1890-present)
1 wire nail fragment, clinched (1890-present)
STP 314c, Ap
Glass
1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, automatic bottle machine (1910-
present, Hurst 1996)
1 clear cylindrical tableware sherd, molded, stained
1 unidentified light aqua sherd, flat, patinated
Miscellaneous
1 asphalt fragment (discarded in lab), 23.1 grams
STP 317, Ap
Ceramics
1 redware sherd, unglazed, hollow vessel
Glass
1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated
10 unidentified light aqua sherds, flat, patinated
STP 317a, Ap
Glass
1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907-
present, Hurst 1996)
1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, molded, patinated
Metal
1 brass 7mm cartridge casing, headstamp "IMI/7/20",
manufactured by Israel Military Industries
1 wire 6d nail (1890-present)
STP 317d, Fill
Glass
1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907-
present, Hurst 1996)
2 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine
(1910-present, Hurst 1996)
2 unidentified light aqua sherds, flat, patinated
STP 368, Ap
Glass
3 unidentified light aqua sherds, flat, patinated
STP 369, Ap
Ceramics
1 buff bodied coarse stoneware sherd, Bristol slipped interior and
exterior, hollow vessel (late 19th/early 20th century)
STP 370, Ap
Glass
1 clear cylindrical tableware sherd, base fragment, molded
1 unidentified light aqua sherd, flat, patinated
157
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 125
STP 411, Ap
Glass
1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, automatic bottle machine (1910-
present, Hurst 1996)
1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated
1 unidentified light aqua sherd, flat, patinated
Miscellaneous
1 shoelace fragment
STP 420, Ap
Glass
1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, unidentified embossing, automatic
bottle machine (1907-present, Hurst 1996)
STP 424, Ap
Glass
1 clear tableware sherd, rim fragment, patinated
STP 849, Fill
Metal
1 wire 12d nail, pulled (1890-present)
Miscellaneous
6 slag fragments (discarded in lab), 5.8 grams
STP 882, Ap
Ceramics
3 hard paste porcelain sherds (Continental European) (mend), gilt-
edge decoration exterior, rim fragment, hollow vessel, 2 inch rim
diameter, stained (1880-1920, MACL 2018)
7 whiteware sherds (mend), molded rim decoration interior,
scalloped rim fragment, hollow vessel, stained (1820-1900+,
South 1977; Miller 1992)
7 whiteware sherds, molded decoration interior, hollow vessels,
stained (1820-1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992)
Glass
1 7-up® green cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine
(post-1934, Hurst 1996)
1 clear cylindrical bottle sherd, small mouth external thread lip
finish, automatic bottle machine, patinated (1910-present, Hurst
1996)
3 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, applied color labels, automatic
bottle machine, patinated (post-1934)
23 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, heavily patinated
1 clear cylindrical tableware sherd, rim fragment, patinated
16 unidentified light aqua sherds, flat, heavily patinated
Metal
2 aluminum foil fragment (post-1947, Miller 2000) (discarded in
field)
1 aluminum pull tab (post-1962, Miller 2000) (discarded in lab)
158
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 126
1 ferrous metal hinge fragment
1 ferrous metal screw cap fragment
5 unidentified ferrous metal fragments
3 wire 2d nails (1890-present)
3 wire 6d nails (1890-present)
4 wire nail fragments (1890-present)
Miscellaneous
1 bone two- hole sew through button- 1.2 cm diameter
1 brick fragment (discarded in lab), 14.1 grams
6 coal fragments (discarded in lab), 41.1 grams
1 oyster shell fragment (discarded in lab), 3.2 grams
1 plastic toy fragment, porky pig head
18 unidentified plastic fragments (discarded in lab)
STP 883, Ap
Ceramics
1 hard paste porcelain sherd (Continental European), black transfer
printed decoration interior, rim fragment, hollow vessel,
indeterminate rim diameter
Site 44FK1090
STP 760, Ap
Glass
1 light aqua cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, molded, scratched
STP 785, Ap
Glass
1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, duraglas stippling, automatic
bottle machine (1940-present)
2 amber cylindrical bottle sherds, patinated
2 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, patinated
STP 785d, Ap
Metal
1 ferrous metal wire fragment, insulated, curved
STP 801, Ap
Glass
1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, scratched
1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated
STP 801c, Ap
Glass
1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907-
present, Hurst 1996)
STP 805, Ap
Glass
1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, patinated
159
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 127
STP 805b, Ap
Glass
1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated
Site 44FK1091
STP 442, Ap
Ceramics
1 whiteware sherd, undecorated, indeterminate vessel shape (1820-
1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992)
STP 446, Ap
Glass
1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, molded, patinated
Miscellaneous
1 coal fragment (discarded in lab), 1.6 grams
STP 446c, Ap
Ceramics
1 whiteware sherd, undecorated, hollow vessel (1820-1900+, South
1977; Miller 1992)
STP 446d, Ap
Glass
1 light aqua cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, molded, patinated
160
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 128
161
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 129
APPENDIX II
Staff Qualifications
162
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 130
163
Jeremy Smith, MSc, RPA
Firm Association
Wetland Studies and
Solutions, Inc. (WSSI)
Direct Phone Line
(703)679-5648
Project Assignment
Principal Investigator
Years of Experience With this firm: 18 With other firms: 1.75
Education
MSc/European
Archaeology/The University
of Edinburgh
Registrations &
Certifications
2024/Register of
Professional Archaeologists
2014/HAZWOPER
Hazardous Materials
Technician Training
2024/HAZWOPER 8-Hour
Review
Principal Archeologist (Principal I)
Jeremy Smith has over 19 years of professional experience
in archeological research and fieldwork in the Middle Atlantic Region
with a specialization in cultural resource management. He has
participated in archeological research on diverse prehistoric and
historic period archeological sites, including lithic quarries and
reduction stations, Archaic camps, Woodland Period villages, Civil War
battlefields and campsites, historic cemeteries, and numerous late 18th-
through 20th-century domestic sites. He is proficient in field and
laboratory techniques, technical report writing, and AutoCAD mapping.
Mr. Smith’s current responsibilities as a Principal Archeologist include the
management of projects from the proposal stage to the completion of final
reports, client and agency interaction, the management and supervision of
archeological field crews conducting Phase I, II, and III investigations, and
the preparation and editing of technical reports associated with historic and
archeological research and fieldwork. He has conducted all phases of
archeological research for Section 106 and Section 110 compliance
projects, as well as those required for county comprehensive plans or
proffers and local ordinances.
Ramsey Homes, (44AX0160), City of Alexandria, VA
Mr. Smith served as Field Director during the Phase I/II investigations of Site
44AX0160 and as a Principal Investigator during the Phase III Data Recovery in
the City of Alexandria, Virginia. Additionally, Mr. Smith was co-author of the data
recovery treatment plan approved by DHR and all consulting parties and a primary
author of the Phase III data recovery report. The work at Site 44AX0160 identified
numerous cultural features that likely date to the 19th century; archeological
evidence of the Civil War-era military occupation and pre-war domestic occupations
of the site were also found.
Inova Center for Personalized Health (44FX2429), Fairfax County, VA
Mr. Smith served as Field Director during the Phase III Data Recovery of Site
44FX2429, in Fairfax County, Virginia, and as a primary author of the report. Intact
historic features and artifact deposits indicated the locations of the stone-lined
cellar of a dwelling, a detached kitchen or dependency, and a possible smokehouse
associated with a circa 1766 to 1810 occupation.
Lyndam Hill II Property (44FX0223), Fairfax County, VA.
Mr. Smith served as Field Director during the Phase II evaluation and Phase III data
recovery of Site 44FX0223, a circa 1720 to 1769 outlying farm quarter site in Fairfax
County, Virginia, and served as a co-author for the Phase II and Phase III reports
describing the results of the investigations. Intact historic features and artifact
deposits indicated the locations of an overseer’s house and a dwelling for enslaved
laborers of African descent, a unique and rarely identified site type in Virginia.
Major research issues in the archeology of regional slavery including the lifeways
and material culture of the enslaved and overseers, ethnicity, agency, and
plantation provisioning were re-considered in view of findings at the site.
164
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 132
165
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 133
APPENDIX III
Cultural Resource Forms
166
Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 134
167
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1086
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 1 of 13
Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):No Data
Site Type(s):Artifact scatter
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:Site 44FKxxx1
Site Evaluation Status
Not Evaluated
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENSON
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge
Elevation:No Data
Aspect:No Data
Drainage:Potomac
Slope:No Data
Acreage:0.440
Landform:Ridge
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Domestic
Site Type:Artifact scatter
Cultural Affiliation:Indeterminate
Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data
DHR Time Period:Post Cold War, Reconstruction and Growth, The New Dominion, World War I to World War II
Start Year:No Data
End Year:No Data
Comments:No Data
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
168
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1086
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 2 of 13
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:No Data
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc.
Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Date:8/19/2024
Survey Description:
The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and
define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh
hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017).
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Forest 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:0-24% of Site Destroyed
Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
Glass
210 bottle, bottle/jar, jar, automatic bottle machine (post-1907)
4 bottle/jar, tableware
1 unidentified glass
Metal
2 nail, wire (post-1890)
1 ferrous metal bolt
1 unidentified brass
1 unidentified ferrous metal
Miscellaneous
3 slag (discarded)
1 slate pencil
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
Permanent Curation Repository:Frederick County Repository
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
Winchester East
Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation
August 2024
Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:This site is interpreted as a trash scatter dating to the 20th century, likely the result of casual
discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property. Considering
this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data
above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for
listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
169
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1087
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 3 of 13
Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):No Data
Site Type(s):Artifact scatter
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:Site 44FKxxx2
Site Evaluation Status
Not Evaluated
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENSON
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge
Elevation:No Data
Aspect:No Data
Drainage:Potomac
Slope:No Data
Acreage:0.070
Landform:Ridge
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Domestic
Site Type:Artifact scatter
Cultural Affiliation:Indeterminate
Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data
DHR Time Period:Post Cold War, Reconstruction and Growth, The New Dominion, World War I to World War II
Start Year:No Data
End Year:No Data
Comments:No Data
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
170
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1087
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 4 of 13
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:No Data
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc.
Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Date:8/19/2024
Survey Description:
The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and
define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh
hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017).
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Forest 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:0-24% of Site Destroyed
Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
Glass
6 bottle/jar, automatic bottle machine (post-1907)
1 tableware
Miscellaneous
2 slag (discarded)
Precontact
1 chert primary reduction flake
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
Permanent Curation Repository:Frederick County Repository
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
Winchester East
Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation
August 2024
Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:This site is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century that is likely
the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the
property; one precontact artifact was also recovered from plowed contexts that is likely
associated with ephemeral use of the site location during an unknown precontact period, due
to a lack of additional finds in the vicinity. Considering this, and that the precontact artifact
was recovered from plowed contexts, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site
would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our
opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is
recommended.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
171
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1088
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 5 of 13
Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):No Data
Site Type(s):Artifact scatter, Artifact scatter
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:Site 44FKxxx3
Site Evaluation Status
Not Evaluated
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENSON
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge
Elevation:No Data
Aspect:No Data
Drainage:Potomac
Slope:No Data
Acreage:0.100
Landform:Ridge
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Domestic
Site Type:Artifact scatter
Cultural Affiliation:Indeterminate
Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data
DHR Time Period:Post Cold War, Reconstruction and Growth, The New Dominion, World War I to World War II
Start Year:No Data
End Year:No Data
Comments:No Data
Component 2
Category:Indeterminate
Site Type:Artifact scatter
Cultural Affiliation:Native American
Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data
DHR Time Period:Pre-Contact
Start Year:No Data
End Year:No Data
Comments:No Data
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
172
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1088
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 6 of 13
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:No Data
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc.
Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Date:8/19/2024
Survey Description:
The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and
define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh
hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017).
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Forest 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:0-24% of Site Destroyed
Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
Glass
4 bottle/jar, automatic bottle machine (post-1907)
1 bottle/jar
Precontact
2 chert biface thinning flake
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
Permanent Curation Repository:Frederick County Repository
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
Winchester East
Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation
August 2024
Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:This site is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century and is likely
the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the
property; two precontact artifacts were also recovered from plowed contexts that are likely
associated with ephemeral use of the site location during an unknown precontact period, due
to a lack of additional finds in the vicinity. Considering this, and that the precontact artifact
was recovered from plowed contexts, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site
would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our
opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is
recommended.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
173
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1089
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 7 of 13
Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):No Data
Site Type(s):Farmstead
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:Site 44FKxxx4
Site Evaluation Status
Not Evaluated
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENSON
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge
Elevation:No Data
Aspect:No Data
Drainage:Potomac
Slope:No Data
Acreage:2.580
Landform:Ridge
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Domestic
Site Type:Farmstead
Cultural Affiliation:Indeterminate
Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data
DHR Time Period:Post Cold War, Reconstruction and Growth, The New Dominion, World War I to World War II
Start Year:No Data
End Year:No Data
Comments:No Data
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
174
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1089
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 8 of 13
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:No Data
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc.
Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Date:8/19/2024
Survey Description:
The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and
define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh
hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017).
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Farmstead 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:0-24% of Site Destroyed
Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
Ceramics
20 whiteware (1820-1900+)
1 hard paste porcelain
1 redware
1 stoneware
Glass
36 unidentified glass
33 bottle, bottle/jar, tableware
18 bottle, bottle/jar, jar, automatic bottle machine (post-1907)
Metal
14 nail, wire (post-1890)
5 unidentified ferrous metal
2 aluminum foil (post-1947) (discarded)
2 ferrous metal wire staple (post-1890)
1 aluminum pull tab (post-1957) (discarded)
1 brass 7mm cartridge casing
1 ferrous metal hinge
1 ferrous metal screw
1 ferrous metal screw cap
Miscellaneous
18 plastic (discarded)
6 coal (discarded)
6 slag (discarded)
1 asphalt (discarded)
1 bone
1 bone button
1 brick (discarded)
1 oyster shell (discarded)
1 plastic screw top (discarded)
1 plastic toy
1 shoelace
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
Permanent Curation Repository:Frederick County Repository
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
175
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1089
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 9 of 13
Winchester East
Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation
August 2024
Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:This site is interpreted as casually discarded refuse associated with the long-term occupation
of the extant circa 1920 dwelling and farmstead at 2737 Senseny Road (DHR Resource 034-
1155) and the associated use of the property into the modern era. Based on the period of
occupation and the long manufacturing and use dates for the bulk of the artifacts in the
assemblage, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant
research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the site lacks research
potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is
recommended for the site.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
176
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1090
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 10 of 13
Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):No Data
Site Type(s):Artifact scatter
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:Site 44FKxxx5
Site Evaluation Status
Not Evaluated
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENSON
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge
Elevation:No Data
Aspect:No Data
Drainage:Potomac
Slope:No Data
Acreage:0.420
Landform:Saddle
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Domestic
Site Type:Artifact scatter
Cultural Affiliation:Indeterminate
Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data
DHR Time Period:Post Cold War, Reconstruction and Growth, The New Dominion
Start Year:No Data
End Year:No Data
Comments:No Data
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
177
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1090
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 11 of 13
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:No Data
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc.
Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Date:8/19/2024
Survey Description:
The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and
define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh
hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017).
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Road 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:0-24% of Site Destroyed
Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
Glass
9 bottle, bottle/jar
1 bottle, automatic bottle machine (post-1907)
1 bottle, duraglas (post-1940)
Metal
1 ferrous metal wire
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
Permanent Curation Repository:Frederick County Repository
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
Winchester East
Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation
August 2024
Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:This site is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century that is likely
the result of casual discard along a farm road associated with the 20th-century occupation
and use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site
would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our
opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is
recommended.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
178
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1091
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 12 of 13
Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):No Data
Site Type(s):Artifact scatter
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:Site 44FKxxx6
Site Evaluation Status
Not Evaluated
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENSON
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge
Elevation:No Data
Aspect:No Data
Drainage:Potomac
Slope:No Data
Acreage:0.170
Landform:Ridge Toe
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Domestic
Site Type:Artifact scatter
Cultural Affiliation:Indeterminate
Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data
DHR Time Period:Antebellum Period, Civil War, Post Cold War, Reconstruction and Growth, The New Dominion, World
War I to World War II
Start Year:No Data
End Year:No Data
Comments:No Data
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
179
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1091
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 13 of 13
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:No Data
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc.
Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Date:8/19/2024
Survey Description:
The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and
define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh
hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017).
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Agricultural field 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:0-24% of Site Destroyed
Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
Ceramics
2 whiteware (1820-1900+)
Glass
2 bottle/jar
Miscellaneous
1 coal (discarded)
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
Permanent Curation Repository:Frederick County Repository
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
Winchester East
Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation
August 2024
Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:This site is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century that is likely
the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the
property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield
any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is
not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
180
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0277
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 1 of 16
Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):15000 B.C.E - 1606 C.E, 1900 - 1999
Site Type(s):Artifact scatter, Trash pit
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:No Data
Site Evaluation Status
Not Evaluated
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENSON
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge
Elevation:No Data
Aspect:No Data
Drainage:Potomac
Slope:No Data
Acreage:0.320
Landform:Other
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Indeterminate
Site Type:Artifact scatter
Cultural Affiliation:Native American
Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data
DHR Time Period:Pre-Contact
Start Year:-15000
End Year:1606
Comments:October 1991
Component 2
Category:Domestic
Site Type:Trash pit
Cultural Affiliation:Euro-American
Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data
DHR Time Period:Post Cold War, Reconstruction and Growth, The New Dominion, World War I to World War II
Start Year:1900
End Year:1999
Comments:October 1991
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
181
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0277
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 2 of 16
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:No Data
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc.
Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Date:8/19/2024
Survey Description:
The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and
define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh
hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017).
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Forest 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:0-24% of Site Destroyed
Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
2024
Glass
1 bottle
Precontact
1 chert biface thinning flake
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
Permanent Curation Repository:Frederick County Repository
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
Winchester East
Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation
August 2024
Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:2024
The artifacts recovered from the environs of Site 44FK0277 during the current study,
though minimal, were similar to those reported in 1991/1992 by James Madison University
and Shenandoah University, consisting of both 20th-century refuse and precontact materials;
however, the absence of any significant quantities of historic or precontact artifacts
recovered from the site location during this investigation suggests that the past use of the
site was likely ephemeral. As such, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site
would yield any significant data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the site
lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No
further work is recommended for the site.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
182
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0277
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 3 of 16
Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance
Project Staff/Notes:
leader- Hofstra
Project Review File Number:AC-7; WH10/15A
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS)
Investigator:JMU- Abrams Creek Arch. Survey
Survey Date:10/15/1991
Survey Description:
Site surveyed by visual reconnaissance and shovel test pitting (28 STPs). Located in overgrown pastureland showing localized evidence of fill
dumping and resident gardening. Appears disturbed by acitvities associated with modern construction and gardening. The site is situated on the face
of a high, waethered SE trending upland ridge whose eastern face serves as the valley wall to Opequon CReek. Deeply entrenched ravines enclose the
aite area to the SW and north. Site includes a modern scatter of waste debris. Prohistoric indicators are of uncertain age and implication.
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Pasture No Data No Data
Threats to Resource:No Data
Site Conditions:Unknown Portion of Site Destroyed
Survey Strategies:Observation
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:Yes
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
modern glassware, rubber gasket parts, 7 pieces of slag, 13 pieces of clear pane glass, 1 possible square cut nail. Several pieces of small and large cut
limestone were observed pushed off the SE end of the lobe. Appears to have been included in fill soils deposited in that area.
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
3 projectile points were reported by landowner and found in the garden area within the site loacle.
Current Curation Repository:JMU-ARC
Permanent Curation Repository:No Data
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:JMU-ARC
Photographic Media:No Data
Survey Reports:No Data
Survey Report Information:
No Data
Survey Report Repository:No Data
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:No Data
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
183
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0278
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 4 of 16
Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):1900 - 1999
Site Type(s):Trash pit
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:No Data
Site Evaluation Status
Not Evaluated
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENSON
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge
Elevation:No Data
Aspect:No Data
Drainage:Potomac
Slope:No Data
Acreage:0.460
Landform:Other
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Domestic
Site Type:Trash pit
Cultural Affiliation:Euro-American
Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data
DHR Time Period:Post Cold War, Reconstruction and Growth, The New Dominion, World War I to World War II
Start Year:1900
End Year:1999
Comments:waste dump
----------------------
October 1991
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
184
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0278
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 5 of 16
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:No Data
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc.
Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Date:8/19/2024
Survey Description:
The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and
define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh
hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017).
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Forest 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:Unknown Portion of Site Destroyed
Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing
Specimens Collected:No
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
No Data
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:No Data
Permanent Curation Repository:No Data
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
Winchester East
Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation
August 2024
Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:2024
Site 44FK0278 was previously recorded in the northeastern project area in 1991/1992 by
James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site
was recorded as a modern domestic dump site dating to the 20th century and was identified
through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR
staff. The site location was revisited through pedestrian reconnaissance during the current
investigation. However, as the site is recorded within a drainage swale surrounded by steep
slopes it was not subjected to subsurface testing, in accordance with DHR guidelines; the
site extends into the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequon Creek, which was excluded
from subsurface testing during the current investigation. As no shovel testing was conducted
at the site during this study, no artifacts were recovered. However, dumped refuse was
observed on the ground surface at the site location, similar to the 1991/1992 study that
recorded it. Considering the site represents an area of secondarily deposited refuse dumping,
within a drainage swale and low floodplain, in our opinion it lacks research potential and is
not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for
the site.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
185
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0278
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 6 of 16
Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance
Project Staff/Notes:
led by Whitley
Project Review File Number:AC-9
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS)
Investigator:JMU- Abrams Creek Arch. Survey
Survey Date:10/15/1991
Survey Description:
Site surveyed by visual reconnaissance. Site is loacted in an overgrown pioneer forest and consists of waste debris scattered on the floor and both
sides of a small, SE trending erosional ravine that enters Opequon Creek from the NW. Artifacts include and undocumented scatter of modern glass,
metal, and other waste debris. Site is a modern domestic dump site.
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Forest No Data No Data
Threats to Resource:No Data
Site Conditions:Site Condition Unknown
Survey Strategies:Observation
Specimens Collected:No
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
No Data
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:No Data
Permanent Curation Repository:No Data
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:JMU-ARC
Photographic Media:No Data
Survey Reports:No Data
Survey Report Information:
No Data
Survey Report Repository:No Data
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:No Data
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
186
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0279
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 7 of 16
Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):15000 B.C.E - 1606 C.E
Site Type(s):Farmstead, Other
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:No Data
Site Evaluation Status
Not Evaluated
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENSON
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge
Elevation:No Data
Aspect:No Data
Drainage:Potomac
Slope:No Data
Acreage:1.680
Landform:Other
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:No Data
Site Type:No Data
Cultural Affiliation:Native American
Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data
DHR Time Period:Pre-Contact
Start Year:-15000
End Year:1606
Comments:October 1991
Component 2
Category:Transportation/Communication
Site Type:Other
Cultural Affiliation:No Data
Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data
DHR Time Period:No Data
Start Year:No Data
End Year:No Data
Comments:Native American component
----------------------
October 1991
Component 3
Category:Domestic
Site Type:Farmstead
Cultural Affiliation:No Data
Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data
DHR Time Period:No Data
187
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0279
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 8 of 16
Start Year:No Data
End Year:No Data
Comments:October 1991
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
188
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0279
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 9 of 16
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:No Data
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc.
Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Date:8/19/2024
Survey Description:
The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and
define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh
hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017).
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Agricultural field 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:0-24% of Site Destroyed
Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
2024
Ceramics
7 whiteware (1820-1900)
3 kaolin pipe stem
1 redware
Glass
3 bottle, bottle/jar
2 unidentified glass
Metal
3 nail, cut (post-1790)
Miscellaneous
8 brick (discarded)
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
Permanent Curation Repository:Frederick County Repository
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
Winchester East
Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation
August 2024
Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:2024
The artifacts recovered during the current investigation included architecture-related brick
and nails, kitchen-related ceramics and glass, and tobacco-related kaolin pipe stem
fragments. Temporally diagnostic artifacts in the recovered assemblage included post-1790
cut nails (n=3) and post-1820 whiteware sherds (n=7), suggesting a 19th-century date for the
site; no definitively 20th-century or modern artifacts were recovered. Considering the
temporal affiliation of the site, the functional diversity in the recovered artifacts and those
reported in 1991/1992, and the absence of any definitively 20th-century/modern artifacts in
the assemblage, in our opinion the site has the potential to yield significant research data
regarding the lifeways of the residents of Frederick County, Virginia in the 19th century and
may be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. Phase II archeological evaluation
189
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0279
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 10 of 16
of Site 44FK0279 is recommended if the site cannot be avoided by the proposed
development.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended for Further Survey
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance
Project Staff/Notes:
led by Frye
Project Review File Number:AC-10; RAF10/15A
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS)
Investigator:JMU- Abrams Creek Arch. Survey
Survey Date:10/15/1991
Survey Description:
Site surveyed by visual reconnaissance, archival map evaluation, and shovel test pitting. Site is in a mowed hatfield bounded on the east and north by
stand of oaks, pines, cedar, and hickory. Artifacts are scattered but soil profiles show no clear evidence of deep plowing. The site covers a high knob
that dominates a heavily weathered east trending upland ridge that descends into a complex of terraces west of Opequon Creek. The slopes of a
deeply entrenched east trending feeder stream lie to the north of the site. Available Civil War maps (Gillespie) identify this as the home of S.
Robinson who was in place at the time of the battle of third Winchester. An early road passed north to the west of this site from Senseny Road
towards Abrams CReek.
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Forest No Data No Data
Threats to Resource:No Data
Site Conditions:Site Condition Unknown
Survey Strategies:Historic Map Projection
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:Yes
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
1 fragment of a hand-forged cauldron/kettle; 13 small pieces of tempered handmade brick; 3 pieces cut limestone; 1 piece brown lead glazed red
earthenware; 1 piece amber and 1 piece pale blue bottle glass; 5 pieces of pale blue pane glass; 1 piece pearlware, 1 piece whiteware; 4 square
machine cut nails; 1 black chert acortical flake
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:JMU-ARC
Permanent Curation Repository:No Data
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:JMU-ARC
Photographic Media:No Data
Survey Reports:No Data
Survey Report Information:
No Data
Survey Report Repository:No Data
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:No Data
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
190
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0280
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 11 of 16
Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):15000 B.C.E - 1606 C.E
Site Type(s):Artifact scatter, Trash pit
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:No Data
Site Evaluation Status
Not Evaluated
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENSON
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge
Elevation:No Data
Aspect:No Data
Drainage:Potomac
Slope:No Data
Acreage:0.140
Landform:Other
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Indeterminate
Site Type:Artifact scatter
Cultural Affiliation:Native American
Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data
DHR Time Period:Pre-Contact
Start Year:-15000
End Year:1606
Comments:October 1991
Component 2
Category:Domestic
Site Type:Trash pit
Cultural Affiliation:Euro-American
Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data
DHR Time Period:Indeterminate
Start Year:No Data
End Year:No Data
Comments:October 1991
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
191
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0280
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 12 of 16
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:No Data
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc.
Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Date:8/19/2024
Survey Description:
The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and
define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh
hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017).
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Agricultural field 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:25-49% of Site Destroyed
Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing
Specimens Collected:No
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
No Data
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:No Data
Permanent Curation Repository:No Data
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
Winchester East
Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation
August 2024
Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:2024
Site 44FK0280 was previously recorded in the northeastern corner of the project area in
1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al.
1992). The site was recorded as a possible waste disposal area dating to an unknown historic
period, with a low-density precontact component (n=2) dating to an unknown period. The
site was identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in
the NRHP by DHR staff. The DHR-recorded limits of the site were subjected to Phase I
testing during the current investigation; however, none of these STPs yielded artifacts. This
suggests that either the site is inaccurately mapped within the project area or that its
occupation was so ephemeral that it could not be identified with 50-foot shovel testing.
Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any
significant research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the DHR-
mapped location of the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the
NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
192
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0280
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 13 of 16
Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance
Project Staff/Notes:
led by Frye
Project Review File Number:AC-11; RAF10/15B
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS)
Investigator:JMU- Abrams Creek Arch. Survey
Survey Date:10/15/1991
Survey Description:
Site surveyed bu visual reconnaissance. Located on a dry weathered pasture with good ground surface visibility. No artifact concentration. The site
is situated oh the face of a south trending first terrace lobe overlooking the flow of Opequon Creek.
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Pasture No Data No Data
Threats to Resource:No Data
Site Conditions:Site Condition Unknown
Survey Strategies:Observation
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:Yes
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
2 gray chalcedony acortical flakes, 4 pieces of clear bottle glass, 5 pieces clear pane/flat glass, shell, 2 pieces creamware; 1 piece refined earthenware
of uncertain type
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:JMU-ARC
Permanent Curation Repository:No Data
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:JMU-ARC
Photographic Media:No Data
Survey Reports:No Data
Survey Report Information:
No Data
Survey Report Repository:No Data
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:No Data
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
193
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0281
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 14 of 16
Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):15000 B.C.E - 1606 C.E
Site Type(s):Artifact scatter
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:No Data
Site Evaluation Status
Not Evaluated
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENSON
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge
Elevation:No Data
Aspect:No Data
Drainage:Potomac
Slope:No Data
Acreage:0.160
Landform:Other
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Indeterminate
Site Type:Artifact scatter
Cultural Affiliation:Native American
Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data
DHR Time Period:Pre-Contact
Start Year:-15000
End Year:1606
Comments:Native American component
----------------------
October 1991
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
194
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0281
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 15 of 16
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:No Data
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc.
Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Date:8/19/2024
Survey Description:
The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and
define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh
hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017).
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Agricultural field 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:Unknown Portion of Site Destroyed
Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing
Specimens Collected:No
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
No Data
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:No Data
Permanent Curation Repository:No Data
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
Winchester East
Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation
August 2024
Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA
Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:2024
Site 44FK0281 was previously recorded in the northeastern corner of the project area in
1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al.
1992). The site straddles the current project area boundary and represents a low-density
(n=3) lithic scatter dating to an unknown precontact period. The site was identified through
surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff.
The DHR-recorded limits of the site within the project area were subjected to Phase I testing
during the current investigation; however, none of these STPs yielded artifacts. This
suggests that either the site is inaccurately mapped within the project area or that its
occupation was so ephemeral that it could not be identified with 50-foot shovel testing.
Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations of the portion of the site within
the current project area would yield any significant research data above that which is
already known. In our opinion, the DHR-mapped location of the site lacks research potential
and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is
recommended.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
195
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0281
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 16 of 16
Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance
Project Staff/Notes:
led by Frye
Project Review File Number:AC-12; RAF10/15C
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS)
Investigator:JMU- Abrams Creek Arch. Survey
Survey Date:10/15/1991
Survey Description:
Site surveyed by visual reconnaissance. Located in a weathered pasture with good ground visibility. The site is located on the center of a high east
trending first terrace south of the point where an unnamed east trending stream joins Opequon Creek.
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Pasture No Data No Data
Threats to Resource:No Data
Site Conditions:Site Condition Unknown
Survey Strategies:Observation
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:Yes
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
1 gray quartzite and one large red banded gray chert acortical flake; 1 large acortical gray chert flake scraper
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:JMU-ARC
Permanent Curation Repository:No Data
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:JMU-ARC
Photographic Media:No Data
Survey Reports:No Data
Survey Report Information:
No Data
Survey Report Repository:No Data
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:No Data
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
196
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-1155
Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data
September 16, 2024 Page: 1 of 6
Property Information
Property Names
Name Explanation Name
Function/Location House, 2737 Senseny Road
Current House, off Route 657
Property Addresses
Alternate - Route 657
Current - 2737 Senseny Road
County/Independent City(s):Clarke (County), Frederick
(County)
Incorporated Town(s):No Data
Zip Code(s):22602, 22611
Magisterial District(s):No Data
Tax Parcel(s):No Data
USGS Quad(s):STEPHENSON
Property Evaluation Status
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
Additional Property Information
Architecture Setting:Rural
Acreage:No Data
Site Description:
September 2020: The House at 2737 Senseny Road is located in a rural agricultural and residential area in Winchester in the eastern
part of Frederick County. The property, located on the north side of Senseny Road, is bounded by the Senseny Glen residential
subdivision on the west, Opequon Creek and Clarke County on the east, and other agricultural properties to the north and south. The
resource, concentrated in the western portion of a 73.53-acre tract, is set among a concentration of buildings surrounded by agricultural
fields. A wooded area is located along the eastern boundary which follows Opequon Creek and in the southeast corner of the property.
A small pond, is situated north of the group of buildings. The property is accessed via a long gravel driveway that leads from Senseny
Road along the west side of the tract and continues north through the grouping of buildings and terminates just north of the pond. The
resource consists of a dwelling, a secondary dwelling, and at least three outbuildings according to current online aerials. This property
was heavily marked with no trespassing signs and was not visible from the public right-of-way.
September 2024: The resource is located on a large parcel containing primarily agricultural and wooded vegetation. All but one of the
six secondary resources on the property are associated with agriculture; one chimney feature remains from a no-longer extant structure.
Surveyor Assessment:
Example of American Four square style dwelling w/ several alterations.
September 2020: According to the previous record, the House at 2737 Senseny Road is a two-and-a-half-story, hip-roofed, single-family
dwelling built around 1920 in the American Foursquare form. DHR staff determined the resource not eligible for the NRHP in 1992.
The resource was inaccessible during the time of survey; and therefore, could not be assessed for its NRHP eligibility.
September 2024: No new data was obtained during the current study that would contradict the previous determination by the DHR that
the resource is not eligible for listing in the NRHP. In our opinion, the resource is a typical, unremarkable example of an American
Foursquare dwelling dating to the first quarter of the 20th century. None of the buildings are associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns in history or with known individuals of transcendent historical importance. Therefore, in
our opinion, DHR Resource 034-1155 is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A, B, or C. No further documentation is
recommended.
Surveyor Recommendation:Recommended Not Eligible
Ownership
Ownership Category Ownership Entity
Private No Data
Primary Resource Information
Resource Category:Domestic
Resource Type:Single Dwelling
NR Resource Type:Building
Historic District Status:No Data
197
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-1155
Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data
September 16, 2024 Page: 2 of 6
Date of Construction:Ca 1920
Date Source:Site Visit
Historic Time Period:World War I to World War II (1917 - 1945)
Historic Context(s):Domestic, Subsistence/Agriculture
Other ID Number:No Data
Architectural Style:Other
Form:American Four-Square
Number of Stories:0.0
Condition:Good
Threats to Resource:None Known
Cultural Affiliations:Indeterminate
Cultural Affiliation Details:
No Data
Architectural Description:
Architecture Summary, March 1992: American Four Square
September 2020: According to the previous record, the House at 2737 Senseny Road is a two-and-a-half-story, hipped-roof, single-family
dwelling built around 1920 in the American Foursquare form. The resource was barely observed during the current survey; only the western
addition was partially visible. This house is covered by a hipped roof with a dormer on the south elevation and an interior, brick chimney. A
full-width, shed- or hipped-roof porch lines the south elevation. Addition extends from the northwest and northeast corners. The northwest
addition clad in an indiscernible siding and covered by an asphalt-shingled gabled roof was partially visible. A stretcher-bonded brick chimney
pierces the northern roof slope.
September 2024: This is a two-and-a-half story, single dwelling built using the American Foursquare form. The house is covered by an asphalt
shingle hipped roof with a gable dormer on the south elevation and a central, interior chimney. A full width shed roof extends from the south
elevation and covers an entry porch. Two additions extend off the main body of the dwelling: a garage on the east elevation and an enclosed
room on the west elevation. An asphalt shingle shed roof extends from the west elevation to cover the garage addition to the dwelling. An
asphalt side-gable roof extends eastward to cover the enclosed room addition to the dwelling; the roof is cut by a stretcher bond brick chimney
on the northern slope. The entire building is covered in white vinyl siding. One-over-one vinyl double hung windows are the primary window
type for the dwelling. According to previous V-CRIS records, the resource was constructed circa 1920 and is historic.
Exterior Components
Component Component Type Material Material Treatment
Porch 1-story, 3-bay Wood Posts, Turned
Windows Sash, Double-Hung Wood Other
Structural System and
Exterior Treatment
Frame Wood Siding, Aluminum
Chimneys Central interior Brick No Data
Roof Gable No Data Other
Roof Other No Data Other
Secondary Resource Information
Secondary Resource #1
Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence
Resource Type:Barn
Date of Construction:1964Ca
Date Source:Map
Historic Time Period:The New Dominion (1946 - 1991)
Historic Context(s):Domestic, Subsistence/Agriculture
Architectural Style:No discernible style
Form:No Data
Condition:Fair
Threats to Resource:None Known
Cultural Affiliations:Indeterminate
Cultural Affiliation Details:
No Data
Architectural Description:
Architecture Summary, Marc 1992: concrete block
198
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-1155
Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data
September 16, 2024 Page: 3 of 6
September 2020: A barn located east of the dwelling and was observed on current online aerials. The building is covered by a metal-clad, gabled
roof and a shed lean-to lines the north elevation.
September 2024: This is a one-and-a-half story, concrete block and wood frame barn located northeast of the primary resource. The barn is
covered with a metal gambrel roof; a metal broken-gable roof extends north from the gambrel roof. All elevations are constructed with concrete
blocks, except for the upper half-story and west elevation which are constructed with a wood frame and vertical wood siding. Several sliding
doors are located on the west and east elevations. Additionally, a sliding hay loft door is in the half-story on the east elevation. An examination
of aerial imagery indicates that the barn replaced an older building sometime between 1958 and 1964 and is historic.
Number of Stories:1.5
Exterior Components
Component Component Type Material Material Treatment
Roof Gambrel Metal No Data
Structural System and
Exterior Treatment
Wood Frame No Data Vertical Board
Structural System and
Exterior Treatment
Masonry Concrete Block
Secondary Resource #2
Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence
Resource Type:Outbuilding
Date of Construction:2000Ca
Date Source:Map
Historic Time Period:Post Cold War (1992 - Present)
Historic Context(s):Subsistence/Agriculture
Architectural Style:No discernible style
Form:No Data
Condition:Good
Threats to Resource:None Known
Cultural Affiliations:Indeterminate
Cultural Affiliation Details:
No Data
Architectural Description:
September 2020: An outbuilding located east of the dwelling and was observed on current online aerials. It is covered with a shed roof.
September 2024: This is a two-bay, wood frame run-in animal shelter located northeast of the primary resource. The animal shelter is clad is
plywood siding an supported by vertical wood posts. A metal shed roof covers the shelter. A review of aerial imagery indicates that the shelter
was constructed circa 2000 and is not historic.
Number of Stories:1
Exterior Components
Component Component Type Material Material Treatment
Structural System and
Exterior Treatment
Wood Frame No Data No Data
Roof Shed Metal No Data
Secondary Resource #3
Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence
Resource Type:Outbuilding
Date of Construction:1958Ca
Date Source:Map
Historic Time Period:The New Dominion (1946 - 1991)
Historic Context(s):Subsistence/Agriculture
Architectural Style:No discernible style
Form:No Data
Condition:Fair
Threats to Resource:None Known
Cultural Affiliations:Indeterminate
Cultural Affiliation Details:
No Data
Architectural Description:
September 2020: An outbuilding located east of the dwelling and was observed on current online aerials. It is surrounded by vegetation and
199
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-1155
Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data
September 16, 2024 Page: 4 of 6
details were indiscernible from the aerials.
September 2024: This is a single-story, wood frame chicken coop located southeast of the primary resource. The chicken coop appears to be a
small shed which was adapted for animals. The coop is clad in white vinyl siding, similar to the primary resource, and covered with a metal
gable roof. The north elevation hosts a wood door and a one-over-one double hung vinyl window. An examination of aerial imagery indicates
that the coop was constructed prior to 1958; however, a more exact construction date is difficult to determine due to lack of earlier imagery.
Number of Stories:1
Exterior Components
Component Component Type Material Material Treatment
Structural System and
Exterior Treatment
Wood Frame Vinyl Siding
Roof Front Gable Metal No Data
Secondary Resource #4
Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence
Resource Type:Outbuilding
Date of Construction:1958Ca
Date Source:Map
Historic Time Period:The New Dominion (1946 - 1991)
Historic Context(s):Subsistence/Agriculture
Architectural Style:No discernible style
Form:No Data
Condition:Fair
Threats to Resource:None Known
Cultural Affiliations:Indeterminate
Cultural Affiliation Details:
No Data
Architectural Description:
September 2020: An outbuilding located north of the dwelling and south of the pond; it was observed on current online aerials. It covered by a
metal-clad shed roof and a shed lean-to spans the east elevation. A small area to the south is fenced in, indicating this is some sort of animal
shelter and pen.
----------------------
September 2020
---------------------
September 2024: This is a two-story, concrete block and wood frame dwelling that has been converted into a workshop and is located northeast
of the primary resource. The east and west elevations are constructed with a wood frame and horizontal wood siding, while the north and south
elevations are constructed and clad with concrete block siding. A metal gable roof with open eaves covers the structure and is broken by a
common bond brick chimney that rises from the interior of the roof’s northern slope. A metal shed roof extends north from the north elevation
of the dwelling and covers a three-bay-wide machine shed addition that is clad with vertical metal sheets. Three-over-one, fixed wooden
windows are the primary window type for the structure and can be found on both the main dwelling and the machine shed addition. Examination
of aerial imagery indicates the structure was constructed prior to 1958; however, a more exact construction date is difficult to determine due to
lack of earlier imagery. The machine shed addition to the structure appears to have been added sometime between 1964 and 1982 and likely
marks when the dwelling was converted into a workshop.
Number of Stories:2
Exterior Components
Component Component Type Material Material Treatment
Structural System and
Exterior Treatment
Masonry Concrete Block
Structural System and
Exterior Treatment
Wood Frame No Data No Data
Roof Front Gable Metal No Data
Chimneys Interior Slope No Data American/Common Bond
Secondary Resource #5
Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence
Resource Type:Pen
Date of Construction:2000Ca
Date Source:Site Visit
Historic Time Period:Post Cold War (1992 - Present)
Historic Context(s):Subsistence/Agriculture
Architectural Style:No discernible style
Form:No Data
Condition:Fair
200
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-1155
Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data
September 16, 2024 Page: 5 of 6
Threats to Resource:None Known
Cultural Affiliations:Indeterminate
Cultural Affiliation Details:
No Data
Architectural Description:
September 2024: This is a wood frame animal shelter located northeast of the primary resource. The animal shelter is clad in vertical wood
siding and covered with a flat metal roof. The shelter is not historic and is currently being used as a pig pen.
Secondary Resource #6
Resource Category:Unknown
Resource Type:Chimney
Date of Construction:1982Ca
Date Source:Map
Historic Time Period:The New Dominion (1946 - 1991)
Historic Context(s):Domestic
Architectural Style:No discernible style
Form:No Data
Condition:Fair
Threats to Resource:Erosion, Neglect
Cultural Affiliations:Indeterminate
Cultural Affiliation Details:
No Data
Architectural Description:
September 2024: This is a standing common bond brick chimney located northeast of Building 1 and southwest of the workshop. Examination
of aerial imagery indicates the chimney was once located on the west elevation of a dwelling constructed prior to 1958 and removed from the
property, either intentionally or unintentionally, sometime between 1964 and 1982.
Historic District Information
Historic District Name:No Data
Local Historic District Name:No Data
Historic District Significance:No Data
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance
Project Review File Number:No Data
Investigator:Brttany Vance
Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc.
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Date:8/27/2024
Dhr Library Report Number:No Data
Project Staff/Notes:
Jeremy Smith MSc, RPA and Brittany Vance
Project Bibliographic Information:
Winchester East at Opequon Creek, Prince William County, Virginia - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation
Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance
Project Review File Number:No Data
Investigator:Adriana Moss
Organization/Company:Dovetail CRG
201
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-1155
Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data
September 16, 2024 Page: 6 of 6
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Date:9/8/2020
Dhr Library Report Number:No Data
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Bibliographic Information:
Frederick County, Virginia
2020 Interactive Maps. Electronic document, https://www.fcva.us/departments/geographic-information-systems/interactive-maps, accessed
September 2020.
Moss, Adriana T.
2020 Phase I Architectural Survey of the Opequon Crossing Project, Frederick County, Virginia. Prepared for D.R. Horton Capital Division,
Annapolis, Maryland.
Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR)
n.d. Historic Aerial Mosaic Frederick County, Virginia. Electronic document, historicaerials.com/viewer, accessed September 2020.
Event Type: DHR Staff: Not Eligible
DHR ID:034-1155
Staff Name:Mitchell, Bryan H.
Event Date:10/1/1992
Staff Comment
No Data
Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance
Project Review File Number:No Data
Investigator:Kalbain, Maral; Perkins, J.A.H.
Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS)
Photographic Media:No Data
Survey Date:3/1/1992
Dhr Library Report Number:No Data
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Property Notes:
September 2020: Property was inaccessible during the time of survey due to being posted heavily.
202
Historic Resources Advisory Board
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: October 18, 2024
Agenda Section: Historic Plaque Program
Title: Historic Plaque Program
Attachments:
HRAB10-18-24HistoricPlaqueProgram.pdf
203
FREDERICK COUNTY HISTORIC PLAQUES ISSUEDPlaqueProperty NameOwnerLocation 1 Frederick County Courthouse 5 N Kent Street Winchester2 Springdale Robert & Susan Claytor 4273 Valley Pike3 St. Thomas Episcopal Church Town of Middletown4 Monte Vista Farm William & Barbara Houdershell 8183 Valley Pike5 Sunrise Margaret Chapin 975 Hollow Road6 Springdale Flour Mill Louis Brim 124 Springdale Road7 Hopewell Friends Meeting House Hopewell Meeting Lot 616 Hopewell Road8 Poor House Fruit Hill Orchard 956 Poorhouse Road9 Belle Grove Plantation National Trust 336 Bell Grove Road10 Willow Shade Charles & Nancy Poole 6273 Northwestern Pike11 Valley View James Hutton 303 Old Baltimore Road12 Adelphi Mills Harry & Susan Harbaugh 202 Sir Johns Road13 Springdale Flour Mill Louis Brim Springdale Road14 Kenilworth Charles Orndoff 2897 Martinsburg Pike15 Cleridge Martha Clevenger 1649 Old Charlestown Road16 Lynn-Lodge House Robert Grogg 3641 Apple Pie Ridge Road17 Rose Hill Farm Glass-Burnie Museum 1985 Jones Road18 Springdale Thomas Keech 1663 Apple Pie Ridge Rd.19 Cherry Row David & Jenny Powers 1389 Apple Pie Ridge Rd.20 Old Stone Church Old Stone Church Off of Green Spring Rd21 Carter Hall Homer & Doris Alexander 310 Carters Lane22 Buffalo Marsh David & Elizabeth Moseley 697 Clark Road23 Sulphur Springs Spa Greig Aitken & Toni Wallace 1160 Jordan Springs Road24 Homespun R.J. & Mary Turner 949 Cedar Creek Grade25 Ridings-McClung House Theodore & Bonnie Garrett 1271 Ridings Mill Road26 Glass-Rinker House Marjorie Copenhaver 2463 Cedar Creek Grade 27 Winter Hill Jacques & Nancy Billmyer 5439 Cedar Creek Grade28 Hedgebrook Farm Kitty Hockman 690 Shady Elm Road29 Barrett-Fries House Gregory & Pembroke Hutchinson 2187 Apple Pie Ridge Road204
30 Glass Rinker Cooper Mill I. William Zartman & Marie Zartman 2431 Cedar Creek Grade 31 White Hall United Methodist Church same 3265 Apple Pie Ridge Road32 Hites Chapel United Methodist Church same 150 Chapel Road33 Ireson Springs Farm David & Kathy Holliday 4750 Cedar Creek Grade34 Chrisman Springs John Lumpkin & Todd Lumpkin 6283 Valley Pike35 Family Drive-In Catherine F. Dalke 5890 Valley Pike36 Brightside (Pritchard House) Kernstown Battlefield Association610 Battle Park Drive37 Green Spring Mill Martha and William Shabb 617 Green Spring Road38 Taylor Furnace Farm John Rosenberger 3616 Back Mountain Road39 Long Green Joe Headley 498 Long Green Lane 40 Hackwood William Britz 534 Redbud Road
205