HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25 Archaeological Survey LFCC Student CenterAn Ar c h A e o l o g i c A l Su r v e y o f t h e Pr o P o S e d
St u d e n t ce n t e r Building , lo r d fA i r f A x
co m m u n i t y co l l e g e , mi d d l e t o w n , virgini A
Pr e P a r e d f o r :
Lord Fairfax Community College Foundation Board
Pr e P a r e d b y :
William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research
An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed
Student Center Building, Lord Fairfax
Community College, Middletown, Virginia
VDHR File No. Unassigned
WMCAR Project No. 11-17
Pr e P a r e d f o r :
Lord Fairfax Community College Foundation Board
173 Skirmisher Lane
Middletown, Virginia 22645
(540) 868-4077
Pr e P a r e d b y :
William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research
The College of William and Mary
P.O. Box 8795
Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8795
(757) 221-2580
au t h o r :
William H. Moore
Pr o j e c t di r e c t o r :
Joe B. Jones
aP r i l 21, 2014
ii
Ma n a g e M e n t Su M M a r y
The William and Mary Center for Archaeological
Research conducted archaeological survey of
the proposed Student Center Building project
area on the campus of Lord Fairfax Community
College (LFCC) in Middletown, Virginia from
July 5–8, 2011. This study was conducted in
accordance with an agreement with the Lord
Fairfax Community College Foundation Board
(LFCCFB). The purpose of the study was to pro-
vide specific information concerning the nature
and distribution of archaeological resources within
the project area.
The project area is located along the east side
of Route 11 immediately north of Middletown
in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed
project will involve construction of a Student
Center Building on a footprint of approximately
13,000–16,000 ft.² (1,208–1,486 m²) plus ap-
proximately 2 acres (0.8 ha) of parking lots and
associated improvements for a total area of poten-
tial effect (APE) of 2.75 acres (1.1 ha). The APE
occupies a portion of a larger parcel owned by
the LFCCFB that is immediately adjacent to the
Lord Fairfax Community College Middletown
Campus (LFCC).
The project area is located within the previously
recorded battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek
(VDHR Architectural Resource 034-0303) and is
situated immediately northeast of a previously re-
corded archaeological site (Site 44FK0622), which
has been interpreted as the location of a temporary
artillery battery position (Light Battery B, 5th
US Artillery). Commanded by Captain Henry A.
DuPont, the battery has been recognized by histo-
rians for its pivotal role in the Union victory at the
Battle of Cedar Creek on October 19, 1864.
During the archaeological survey of the 256-
x-481-ft. (78-x-147-m) project area, a total of 75
shovel tests were excavated, of which 5 (7%) were
positive for artifacts. Additional historic artifacts
were recovered from 26 metal detector targets.
These efforts confirm that the extent of previously
recorded Site 44FK0622 extends northeast across
the entire project area. The combined results of
systematic metal detector and shovel test surveys
indicate the presence of a dispersed subsurface
scatter of artifacts consisting of military, domestic,
and architectural material that represent remains
of battle activities, as well as a possible military
encampment component that represents encamp-
ment sometime either before or after the Battle
of Cedar Creek. Overall, the results of systematic
shovel testing and metal detecting combined with
documentary evidence indicate that the entire
APE is situated within the Battle of Cedar Creek
Battlefield.
The identification of diagnostic artillery and
small arms ammunition that represent potential
battle lines or positions indicates that archaeo-
logical deposits within the project area and the
surrounding battlefield have sufficient archaeo-
logical integrity and potential to yield important
information about the Battle of Cedar Creek. The
possible remains of a Civil War military encamp-
ment have the potential to provide details relating
to the duration and intensity of the occupation
as well as more general information about varia-
tion in Civil War camp structure and function
in the Shenandoah Valley. Given the potential
to provide significant information about the
Military/Defense theme during the Civil War
(1861–1865), the archaeological resources
identified within the proposed Student Center
Building project area are recommended as
potentially contributing to the NRHP eligibil-
ity of Site 44FK0622 and the Battle of Cedar
Creek Battlefield under Criterion D; Criteria A
through C are considered not applicable. The
contributing resources within Site 44FK0622
should be avoided. If avoidance is not feasible,
more work is recommended to determine
whether the archaeological resources within the
project area contribute to the eligibility of Site
44FK0622 for the NRHP under Criterion D.
iii
Co n t e n t S
Management Summary ...............................................................................................................ii
Figures ......................................................................................................................................iii
Tables .......................................................................................................................................iii
1: Project Background ...................................................................................................................1
2: Project Methods ........................................................................................................................5
3: Historical Context ...................................................................................................................11
4: Survey Results, Research Summary, and Recommendations ....................................................17
References Cited .....................................................................................................................25
Appendix A: Artifact Inventory
Fi g u r e S
1 Project area location ..................................................................................................................1
2 Project area and environs ...........................................................................................................2
3 Previously identified archaeological resources within 1.6 km (1 mi.) of the project area .............6
4 Excavation of Metal Detector Target 112, looking east .............................................................8
5 Detail of antebellum map, showing project vicinity .................................................................13
6 Detail of Confederate map of the Battle of Cedar Creek, showing project vicinity ...................14
7 Detail of Union map, showing project vicinity ........................................................................15
8 Site 44FK0622, plan of 2011 WMCAR investigations ............................................................19
9 Site 44FK0622, Civil War artillery and ammunition recovered during survey .........................20
10 Site 44FK0622, other historic artifacts attributable to the Civil War military component .......21
11 Site 44FK0622, Shovel Tests 32, 48, and 72, profiles ..............................................................22
ta b l e S
1 Summary of previously identified archaeological
sites within 1 mi. (1.6 km) of the project area .........................................................................7
1
1: Project Background
in t r o d u C t i o n
The William and Mary Center for Archaeological
Research (WMCAR) conducted archaeological
survey of the proposed Student Center Building
project area on the campus of Lord Fairfax
Community College (LFCC) in Middletown,
Virginia from July 5–8, 2011 (Figure 1). This
study was conducted in accordance with an agree-
ment with the Lord Fairfax Community College
Foundation Board (LFCCFB). The purpose of
the study was to provide specific information
concerning the nature and distribution of archaeo-
logical resources within the project area.
The investigation was carried out under the
general supervision of WMCAR Director Joe
B. Jones. Project Archaeologist Will Moore was
responsible for organization and implementa-
tion of the archaeological field program as well
as preparation of the final report. Mr. Moore
was assisted in the field by Jack Aube, Stephanie
McGuire, Oliver Mueller-Heubach, and Harry
Schmitz. Deborah L. Davenport supervised
laboratory processing and conducted the historic
artifact analysis. David Lewes produced the final
report, and final illustrations were prepared by
Eric A. Agin. All project-related documenta-
tion and artifacts are temporarily stored at the
WMCAR in Williamsburg, Virginia, referenced
under WMCAR project number 11-17.
de SC ription a n d en v i r o n M e n t a l
Se t t i n g o F t h e pr o j e C t ar e a
The project area is located along the east side
of Route 11 immediately north of Middletown
in Frederick County, Virginia (Figure 2). The
proposed project will involve construction of a
Student Center Building on a footprint of ap-
proximately 13,000–16,000 ft.² (1,208–1,486
m²) plus approximately 2 acres (0.8 ha) of park-
ing lots and associated improvements for a total
area of potential effect (APE) of 2.75 acres (1.1
ha). The APE occupies a portion of a larger par-
cel owned by the LFCCFB that is immediately
adjacent to the Lord Fairfax Community College
Middletown Campus (LFCC).
The project area is located within the previ-
ously recorded battlefield of the Battle of Cedar
Creek (VDHR Architectural Resource 034-
0303), which involved an early morning attack
on October 19, 1864 by the Confederate Army
of General Jubal A. Early on Union forces under
General Philip Sheridan that drove the Union
forces from a point south of Middletown north to
a point about one mile north of Middletown. At
about 4 PM that day, the Union Army counter-
attacked and completely routed the Confederate
Figure 1. Project area location.
2
PROJECT AREA
Figure 2. Project area and environs (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 1999).
3
forces, driving them south beyond Strasburg,
Virginia. The Union forces subsequently held
control of the Shenandoah Valley until the end
of the war.
In addition to being located within the
boundaries of the recorded battlefield resource,
the sensitivity of the project area for containing
archaeological resources associated with the Battle
of Cedar Creek is further indicated by relatively
recent archaeological investigations on the LFCC
campus that involved the identification and ar-
chaeological study of Site 44FK0622 within the
proposed site of the Corron Center at LFCC.
Study of Site 44FK0622 revealed relatively undis-
turbed deposits of diagnostic Civil War military
artifacts associated with the Battle of Cedar Creek,
which offered interpretable patterning across the
site area representative of various actions during
the battle.
The project area lies within the northern por-
tion of the Shenandoah Valley. More specifically,
it is situated along a narrow ridge that is dissected
by Meadow Brook and its tributaries to the north
and Dry Run and its tributaries to the south.
The landscape within the project area is mostly
open pasture with just a few nut and fruit trees
scattered throughout. Adjacent to Route 11 and
within the northwestern portion of the property,
the topography is relatively flat. From the middle
of the project area, the topography slopes gently
toward its eastern and southeastern boundar-
ies. The soil is composed of relatively shallow,
well-drained Carbo and Carbo-Oaklet silt loam
(Natural Resources Conservation Service 2011).
4
5
2: Project Methods
in t r o d u C t i o n
The survey expectations set forth in this chap-
ter were generated from inspection of archival
resources, archaeological site records, and rel-
evant cultural resource management reports. A
discussion of the objectives and methods used
to complete the archaeological survey of the
proposed LFCC Student Center Building APE
is also presented.
ba C k g r o u n d re S e a r C h Me t h o d S
a n d Su r v e y ex p e C t a t i o n S
Historical and archaeological background research
included inspection of archaeological site records,
archival cartographic sources, and reports of
professional archaeological work relevant to the
project area stored at the Virginia Department
of Historic Resources (VDHR), LFCC, the
WMCAR, and Swem Library at the College of
William and Mary. The Data Sharing System
(DSS) provided by the VDHR was consulted
for previously recorded sites within a 1-mi. (1.6-
km) radius of the project area. The results of
the background research show a high potential
for identifying historic archaeological resources
within the project area.
The review of archaeological site files on
VDHR’s DSS augmented by a visit to the VDHR
Archives indicated that two previously recorded
archaeological sites (44FK0055 and 44FK0622)
are located within a 1.0 mi. (1.6 km) radius of
the project area (Table 1; Figure 3).
Site 44FK0055 is a multicomponent archaeo-
logical site identified approximately 1.0 mi. (1.6
km) north of the project area by Thunderbird
Archaeological Associates in 1985 during an
archaeological survey of the proposed Meadow
Brook substation. The site consists of a scatter
of historic domestic artifacts associated with the
structural remains of a nineteenth-century dwell-
ing as well as a scatter of prehistoric lithic debitage
of undetermined age (VDHR site files).
Site 44FK0622 consists of a subsurface scatter
of diagnostic Civil War military artifacts associ-
ated with the Battle of Cedar Creek that was iden-
tified immediately southwest of the project area
in 2005 by members of the Archeological Society
of Virginia. Subsequent archaeological survey
and data recovery investigations of the proposed
LFCC Corron Center conducted by ECS Mid-
Atlantic, LLC (ECS) from 2005–2006 resulted
in the identification of relatively undisturbed ar-
chaeological deposits which offered interpretable
patterning across the site area representative of
various actions during the battle (Huston 2007).
Ultimately, the archaeological resources identified
within Site 44FK0622 were interpreted as the
location of a temporary position of an artillery
battery (Light Battery B, 5th US Artillery) com-
manded by Captain Henry A. DuPont that played
a pivotal role in the Union victory at the Battle of
Cedar Creek on October 19, 1864.
Fi e l d Me t h o d S
The archaeological survey involved complete,
systematic pedestrian survey of the 2.75-acre
project area, including both surface examination
and shovel testing. Shovel testing was undertaken
6
44FK0055
44FK0622
PROJECT AREA
Figure 3. Previously identified archaeological resources within 1.6 km (1 mi.) of the project area (USGS 1999).
7
at intervals of not more than 50 ft. (15 m) in un-
disturbed areas with slopes of 10 percent or less.
Waterlogged areas were not systematically shovel
tested, nor were areas where previous construction
disturbance and/or deep fill deposition is evident.
Additional radial shovel tests were excavated
at half intervals or less around selected positive
shovel tests as necessary to delineate the limits of
subsurface artifact scatters.
Given that the project area lies within the
boundaries of the Battle of Cedar Creek Battlefield
(034-0303), a metal detector survey was con-
ducted within the project area for Civil War
archaeological resources (Figure 4). The metal
detector survey was conducted along intersect-
ing north/south and east/west transects that were
spaced 50 ft. (15 m) apart and between shovel test
transects. Metal detector targets were temporarily
flagged, checked, and unambiguously modern
materials (e.g., metal beverage containers, pull
tabs) were discarded in the field and not recorded.
Positive targets were mapped and collected for
analysis. Project Archaeologist Will Moore and
WMCAR staff member Jack Aube conducted
the metal detector survey using a Vaquero model
detector manufactured by Tesoro.
All relevant survey information, including
shovel test locations, metal detector target loca-
tions, and disturbed areas, was recorded on 8.5-
x-11-in. sheets of metric-ruled graph paper via
shovel test locations. The soil from each shovel
test was screened through 0.25-in. (0.64-cm)
wire mesh, and representative soil profiles were
recorded on standardized forms using Munsell
color and U.S. Department of Agriculture de-
scriptive terminology (Kollmorgen Instruments
Corporation 1992).
All recovered artifacts were returned to the
WMCAR laboratory for washing, identification,
and cataloging. All artifacts were prepared for
curation according to the standards of the VDHR.
An inventory was produced using a standard
descriptive typology for artifacts (Appendix A).
The WMCAR has developed a hierarchical cod-
ing system that operates using Microsoft Access
relational database software. With this system, ar-
tifacts are coded on standard data sheets for entry
into a data file. Using this file, overall inventories
and particularistic data reports can be generated
for inclusion in reports or for routine analysis.
de F inition S
Archaeological surveys require simultaneous
consideration of both human behavioral patterns
and cultural resource management concerns.
Technically, a strict definition of archaeological
resources would require that all traces of human
activity be designated as a site, a clearly impracti-
cal situation. Therefore, this field survey utilized
two designations for the archaeological resources
encountered during the survey—site and location.
Although somewhat arbitrary in construct and
application, these definitions represent a workable
though not infallible compromise.
An archaeological site is defined as any appar-
ent location of human activity not limited to the
simple loss, or casual or single-episode discard of
artifacts. A site has sufficient archaeological evi-
dence to indicate that further testing would pro-
re S o u r C e pe r i o d ty p e reCo r d e d b y /da t e
44FK0055 Unknown prehistoric Lithic scatter TAA 1985
Late 19th c. Dwelling
44FK0622 Civil War battlefield Artillery position ASV 2005
TAA=Thunderbird Archaeological Associates; ASV=Archeological Society of Virginia
Table 1. Summary of previously identified archaeological sites within 1 mi. (1.6 km) of the project area.
8
duce interpretable archaeological data. In contrast,
a location is defined as an area marked by surface
indications and little else, and/or the recovery of
artifacts that are clearly redeposited, or the result
of casual or single-episode discard. Examples of
locations are an isolated projectile point find or a
very low density scatter of nonstructural historic
artifacts. Locations are also defined as isolated
finds of lithic material of questionable cultural
origin, such as possible fire-cracked rock or deb-
itage. In addition, areas containing archaeological
material less than 50 years old are also recorded
as locations.
In application, both of these definitions require
a certain degree of judgment in the field and con-
sideration of a number of variables. Contextual
factors such as prior disturbance and secondary
deposition must be taken into account. The
representativeness of the sample, as measured
by such factors as the degree of surface exposure
and shovel test interval, must also be considered
when determining the nature of an archaeologi-
cal resource.
la b o r a t o r y M e t h o d S
All artifacts recovered were returned to the labora-
tory at the WMCAR for washing, identification,
numbering, and cataloging. Following analysis,
an inventory was assembled using a standard
descriptive typology for prehistoric and historic
artifacts (Appendix A). All artifacts were prepared
for curation according to the standards of the
VDHR.
The WMCAR has developed a hierarchical
coding system that operates using Microsoft
Access relational database software. With this
system, artifacts are coded during analysis on
Figure 4. Excavation of Metal Detector Target 112, looking east.
9
standard data sheets for entry into a data file.
Using this file, overall project inventories as well
as particularistic data reports can be readily gener-
ated for inclusion in reports or for routine analysis.
Basic categories identified are described below.
Historic Artifact Analysis
The hierarchical historic artifact coding scheme in-
cludes both functional and temporal dimensions.
At the most general level material is classified
according to “Group”, which would include the
“Food Preparation/Consumption, Architectural,
Furniture, Arms and Military, Clothing, Personal,
Medicinal/Hygiene, Domestic Activities,
Activities, Smoking, Industrial/Commercial,
and Unassigned” categories. Subsumed within
the “Groups” are artifact “Classes”, including, for
example, “Ceramic Cooking/Storage, Ceramic
Tableware, Glass Tableware, Window Glass,
Nails, Firearm, Apparel, and Writing” categories.
The next level comprises “Objects” that describe
specific artifact forms such as “Flatware, Jug, Jar,
Bowl, Nail, Door Knob, Musket Ball, Button,
and Auto Part”. Temporally diagnostic charac-
teristics are described as “Datable Attributes”
such as “Creamware: Edged, Pearlware: Mocha,
Whiteware: Flow Blue, Wrought [nail], and Cut
[nail]”. An additional descriptive level is provided
under the “Descriptor” category that includes
such information as coin dates, pipe stem bore
diameters, glass color, and vessel part. Each artifact
category, with the exception of shell, is further
recorded by count with respect to provenience.
Shell, brick, and coal/cinders are measured by
weight with respect to provenience. The results of
analysis are tabulated in a comprehensive inven-
tory by context.
Building on the results of the basic analysis
and inventory, more specific studies of the his-
toric artifact assemblage can be conducted to
better understand site structure, function, and
age. For example, the distributions of various
“Groups” and “Classes” of artifacts across the site
can be analyzed to identify various activity areas
and structural loci. The approximate time spans
of availability of certain temporally diagnostic
artifacts can indicate the range of occupation for
the site. Differential distributions of temporally
diagnostic artifacts representing different periods
of occupation of the site can potentially reveal
changes in site structure over time. Features or
discrete, intact cultural deposits may be assigned
a terminus post quem (TPQ) date, where the
quantities of associated temporally diagnostic
artifacts allow. This represents a date after which
the context was deposited and is determined by
the earliest possible dates of availability for the
youngest diagnostic artifact(s) in the context.
Analysis of historic artifacts was aided by the
following references: The Parks Canada Glass
Glossary by Jones and Sullivan (1985), A Guide
to Artifacts of Colonial America by Noël Hume
(1991), Philbin and Ettlinger’s (1988) guide to
hardware, Lee Nelson’s (1968) nail chronology,
an Introduction to Civil War Small Arms by Coates
and Thomas (1990), A Handbook of Civil War
Bullets and Cartridges by Thomas and Thomas
(2007), Civil War Collector’s Encyclopedia Volumes
I and II by Lord (1995), Record of American
Uniform and Historical Buttons by Albert (1976),
and two volumes on excavated Civil War artifacts
by Phillips (1974 and 1980).
ar t i F a C t Cu r a t i o n
All prehistoric and historic materials generated
by this project were curated according to stan-
dards outlined in 36 CFR Part 79 Curation of
Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological
Collections. All curated artifacts were washed and
placed in resealable polyurethane bags with labels.
These, in turn, were logically ordered in acid-free
Hollinger boxes for permanent storage. Materials
recovered are temporarily stored at WMCAR
until final disposition is arranged.
10
11
3: Historical Context
This chapter reviews the history for the environs
of the project area to provide a general context
for understanding the archaeological resources
identified within the proposed LFCC Student
Center Building project area. More specifically,
this context is designed to provide the relevant
background for assessing the research potential
and significance of archaeological resources
identified there. Much of the following context is
based on previous research conducted by Stuck et
al. (1994) for a previous WMCAR investigation
within Frederick County. The original histori-
cal research by WMCAR was conducted at the
Library of Virginia in Richmond, the Virginia
Historical Society in Richmond, and the Earl
Gregg Swem Library at the College of William
and Mary in Williamsburg. This overview in-
cludes a background history of the project area
from a regional perspective, as well as discussion
of specific contexts focused within the project
area, whenever relevant, that lend to expectations
about archaeological sensitivity.
Se t t l e M e n t t o So C i e t y (1607–1750)
European-American settlement in the Shenandoah
Valley occurred during the 1730s, as families
entered the lower Valley from Pennsylvania
(Norris 1890:51). There was a general migra-
tion of German and Scots-Irish farmers from
Pennsylvania into western Maryland and Virginia.
Farmland in these areas was cheap, and the
governors of both states, anxious to have the
frontier settled, adopted a general policy of le-
niency toward Lutherans, Quakers, and other
non-Anglican Protestants (Ebert and Lazazzera
1988:13). In 1730, Yost Hite and Isaac Vanmeter
obtained a grant for 40,000 acres in what is now
Frederick County (Quarles 1971:123). By 1738,
there was sufficient population in the lower Valley
for the General Assembly to create Frederick
County, although it was not officially organized
until 1743 (Norris 1890:71).
Co l o n y t o na t i o n (1750–1789)
The town of Winchester, the new county seat,
grew quickly. It was located on a major north-
south thoroughfare, and by 1757 there were half
a dozen taverns in town to serve travelers (Morton
1925:51). An ironworks was established during
the 1760s west of the town, along Cedar Creek
(Ebert and Lazazzera 1988:35). By the time of
the American Revolution, three additional coun-
ties to the west and south had been formed from
Frederick County. During the Revolution, the
famed militia unit known as Morgan’s Riflemen
was raised in Frederick County (Ebert and
Lazazzera 1988:30). British and Hessian prisoners
of war were sent to Winchester and housed in bar-
racks just west of the town (Greene 1926:81).
ea r l y na t i o n a l pe r i o d (1789–1830)
Frederick County prospered during the first half of
the nineteenth century. Farmers cultivated grain
in the fertile Shenandoah Valley. Grain produc-
tion was a tradition brought from Pennsylvania
and other northern states. After the Revolution,
newly opened grain markets in Europe increased
the profitability of the crop. Unlike the tobacco
planters in the eastern Tidewater region of the
12
state, grain farmers in the western counties did not
require a large labor force. Consequently, slavery
did not exist on a large scale in this region. There
was also a large population of free blacks in the
Valley (Ebert and Lazazzera 1988:40).
an t e b e l l u M pe r i o d (1830–1860)
Gristmills and sawmills were numerous in and
around Winchester by the Antebellum period
(Figure 5). Woolen mills were established in
Winchester as well. In 1836, the county assumed
its present size when Clarke and Warren coun-
ties were formed (Ebert & Lazazzera 1988:20).
Turnpikes, canals, and railroads were built dur-
ing the second quarter of the nineteenth century.
By mid-century, the macadamized Valley and
Northwest turnpikes extended from Winchester,
along with the Martinsburg, Berryville, and
North Frederick turnpikes (Morton 1925:104;
Ebert and Lazazzera 1988:45). The Winchester
& Potomac Railroad was completed by 1836,
connecting with the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
at Harper’s Ferry.
th e Civil Wa r (1861–1865)
When the Civil War began most of the counties in
the Shenandoah Valley, including Frederick, vot-
ed against secession (Quarles 1971:3). However,
with the passing of the Ordinance of Secession
in April of 1861, Frederick County immediately
raised troops, and the first units of militia vol-
unteers marched north to capture the Federal
Arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. Although small
skirmishes occurred across the Valley, Frederick
County remained mostly untouched by Union
forces for the first year of the war (Ebert and
Lazazzera 1988:52).
Winchester and its productive farmland stood
at the northern entrance to the Shenandoah Valley
and were located on a main route to Washington,
D.C. (Ebert and Lazazzera 1988:52). For these
reasons, the town became a focal point of conflict
as Union and Confederate forces sought control
of the area. Between 1862 and 1864, the First and
Second Battles of Kernstown; the First, Second,
and Third Battles of Winchester; and the Battle
of Cedar Creek took place in the town’s vicinity.
Winchester changed hands 72 times as armies
passed through the area (Ebert and Lazazzera
1988:52). Wounded soldiers from these and other
battles, including Antietam and Gettysburg, were
also sent to Winchester (Quarles 1971).
Map projections indicate that the proposed
LFCC Student Center Building is located within
the extreme northeastern portion of the core area
of the Cedar Creek Battlefield National Historic
Landmark (VDHR Architectural Resource 034-
0303) (Gillespie 1874; Hotchkiss 1864) (Figures
6 and 7). The Battle of Cedar Creek is considered
one of the last major battles of the Civil War. The
Union victory at Cedar Creek effectively marked
the end of large-scale Confederate military opera-
tions in the Valley, and combined with Sherman’s
campaign in Atlanta, ensured President Lincoln’s
re-election in 1864 (NPS 2008).
The Battle of Cedar Creek involved a pre-dawn
attack on October 19, 1864 by the Confederate
Army of General Jubal A. Early on Union forces
encamped on the north bank of Cedar Creek, a
few miles south of the project area. The surprise
attack initially overwhelmed the Union troops and
forced them to retreat. By that afternoon, how-
ever, General Philip Sheridan had rallied his forces
approximately one mile north of Middletown.
At about 4 PM that day, the Union Army coun-
terattacked in the vicinity of the project area and
completely routed the Confederate forces, driving
them south beyond Strasburg, Virginia.
re C o n S t r u C t i o n a n d gr o W t h
(1865–1914)
After the Civil War, prosperity slowly returned
to Frederick County. Commercial apple orchards
were planted, and the apple industry became an
economic mainstay of the region by the end of
the nineteenth century. Winchester regained its
13
standing as a commercial and manufacturing cen-
ter, with glove factories, foundries, tanneries, and
a paper mill by 1886 (Morton 1925:257).
Wo r l d Wa r i t o t h e pr e S e n t
Transportation continued to play a major role
in the development of Frederick County during
the twentieth century. An airstrip was built at
PROJECT VICINITY
Winchester during the 1920s, along with a rail-
road line into the timber-producing region in the
western part of the county (Ebert and Lazazzera
1988:147). During the past several decades,
Winchester has expanded through suburban de-
velopment. Interstate Route 81 was built through
the Valley during the 1960s, and Routes 7 and
17 link Winchester with Washington, D.C. and
Northern Virginia.
Figure 5. Detail of antebellum map, showing project vicinity (Böÿe 1859 [1826]).
14
Figure 6. Detail of Confederate map of the Battle of Cedar Creek, showing project vicinity (Hotchkiss 1864).
PROJECT AREA
15
PROJECT AREA
Figure 7. Detail of Union map, showing project vicinity (Gillespie 1873).
16
17
4: Survey Results, Research Summary,
and Recommendations
During the archaeological survey of the proposed
LFCC Student Center Building project, a total of
75 systematic shovel tests was excavated, of which
five (7%) were positive for artifacts. Additional
historic artifacts were recovered from 26 metal
detector targets. These efforts confirm that the
extent of previously recorded Site 44FK0622
extends northeast across the project area. Details
about location, setting, conditions, archaeological
results, and research potential are provided in the
following chapter, and an inventory of recovered
artifacts is provided in Appendix A.
Si t e 44Fk0622
Site 44FK0622 is a previously recorded site with
evidence of historic occupation dating from the
Civil War.
Site 44FK0622 was originally discovered during
initial land-clearing and grading activities associ-
ated with construction of the proposed LFCC Life
Sciences Building in 2005. At this time, Michael
Kehoe and volunteers of the Archeological Society
of Virginia (ASV) conducted a cursory metal
detector survey of the property and recovered a
small number of Union and Confederate military
artifacts (Huston 2007:31). In November and
December of 2005, ECS conducted a systematic
archaeological survey of the property, involving
regular interval shovel testing supplemented by
metal detector survey. Although no artifacts were
recovered from the shovel tests, additional Civil
War military artifacts were recovered as a result
of the metal detector sweeps.
Data recovery investigations conducted by
ECS from February through August 2006 in-
volved intensive systematic metal detector sweeps
along contiguous 5-ft.- (1.5-m-) wide transects
oriented north/south, followed by sweeps of in-
tersecting 5-ft.- (1.5-m-) wide transects oriented
east/west over the entire 450-x-500-ft. (137-x-
152-m) project area. These efforts resulted in
the recovery of a large number of diagnostic
Civil War military artifacts, including small arms
ammunition, small arms cleaning tools, artillery
shell fragments, canister and grapeshot, uniform
buttons, field gear, cannon friction primers, coins,
horse tack, and horseshoes. The results of the data
recovery offered interpretable patterning across
the site area representative of various actions
during the battle. Ultimately, the archaeological
resources identified within Site 44FK0622 were
interpreted as the location of a temporary posi-
tion of an artillery battery (Light Battery B, 5th
US Artillery) commanded by Captain Henry A.
DuPont that played a pivotal role in the Union
victory at the Battle of Cedar Creek on October
19, 1864.
The original boundaries of the site are de-
fined arbitrarily as the 5.2 acres (2.1 ha) of the
completed LFCC Life Sciences Building project
that is situated immediately southwest of the cur-
rent LFCC Student Center Building study area.
Much of the previously investigated portions
of Site 44FC0622 was either destroyed during
construction of the new building or was covered
by asphalt parking areas associated with the new
building. The portion of the previously recorded
18
site that is closest to the current study area is now
situated beneath the northeastern edge of the
parking area.
The site is situated at an elevation of 720 ft.
(219.5 m) above mean seal level along a narrow
ridge overlooking Meadow Brook approximately
600 ft. (183 m) to the north and an intermittent
tributary of Dry Run approximately 220 ft. (67.1
m) to the south (see Figure 2). To date, the ar-
chaeological resources documented with the site
consist of a continuous, subsurface scatter of Civil
War military artifacts representing Union battle
positions within the core of the Battle of Cedar
Creek Battlefield.
Analysis of Union and Confederate maps
clearly indicates that the LFCC Student Center
Building study area is located in the vicinity of
DuPont’s various battle positions within the
Union’s left flank during the fluid afternoon
counterattack (see Figure 7). Therefore, Civil
War archaeological resources identified within
the current study area are likely associated with
the previously documented resources within Site
44FK0622 and may help refine our understand-
ing of the archaeological site specifically and the
battle as a whole. Given the scale of the battle and
associated archaeological resources, the current
project did not involve boundary delineation.
The results of the investigation indicate artifact
deposits likely extend beyond the current property
boundaries in each cardinal direction.
ar C h a e o l o g i C a l Su r v e y
During the archaeological survey of the 256-x-
481-ft. (78-x-147-m) project area, a total of 75
shovel tests were excavated, of which 5 (7%) were
positive for artifacts. Additional historic artifacts
were recovered from 26 metal detector targets
(Figure 8).
Shovel test and metal detector survey was
conducted systematically at regular 50-ft. (15-m)
intervals over an informal grid that was established
using a compass and pull tapes and oriented with
the Valley Pike (Route 11) at a bearing of ap-
proximately 40 degrees west of magnetic north.
Additional shovel tests were excavated at half in-
tervals in selected areas to better define the nature
of subsurface artifact scatters identified with regu-
lar interval shovel tests. These efforts confirm that
the extent of previously recorded Site 44FK0622
extends northeast across the entire project area.
The combined results of systematic metal detector
and shovel test surveys indicate the presence of a
dispersed subsurface scatter of artifacts consisting
of military, domestic, and architectural material
that represent remains of battle activities, as well
as a possible encampment. Overall, the results
of systematic shovel testing and metal detecting
combined with documentary evidence confirm
that the entire study area is situated within the
Battle of Cedar Creek Battlefield.
A total of 36 individual historic artifacts and
2.2 g of handmade brick (which was weighed
instead of counted) were recovered from the proj-
ect area during the study. Recovered diagnostic
military artifacts associated with the Battle of
Cedar Creek include three conical artillery shell
fragments, two pieces of Confederate case shot,
one unfired Confederate .58 caliber three-groove
minié bullet, one unfired and extracted .58 cali-
ber three-groove minié bullet, and one unfired
.69 caliber round ball (Figure 9). Generally, the
battlefield remains as represented by fired bullets
and artillery are concentrated within the low-lying
eastern portion of the site, which corresponds well
with Gillespie’s map depicting the distribution of
Union forces across the topography of the battle-
field (see Figures 7 and 8).
All but the unfired and extracted bullet are
likely attributable to the heavy Confederate fire
sustained by the Union left flank during the battle.
The three conical artillery shell fragments and two
pieces of case shot are consistent with the relatively
high number of cannon shrapnel (n=40) recovered
during the ECS data recovery of Site 44FK0622
(Huston 2007:37). Conical artillery shells are
representative of the introduction of rifled canon,
19
POSITIVE SHOVEL TEST
METAL DETECTOR TARGETS
NEGATIVE SHOVEL TEST
HORSE-RELATED
ARTILLERY/AMMUNITION
DOMESTIC
MISCELLANEOUS/UNIDENTIFIED
NAILS
Figure 8. Site 44FK0622, plan of 2011 WMCAR investigations.
20
a major innovation in artillery design during the
war (Coggins 1990:76–77). Rifled cannon usu-
ally fired elongated cylindrical-conical shells with
far more accuracy and range than their smooth-
bored predecessors. Union and Confederate gun
manufacturers built a large variety of rifled cannon
during the war. During the initial stages of the
Battle of Cedar Creek, however, the advancing
Confederate forces captured over a dozen Union
field guns, which they used to shell the Union
forces as they retreated northward. It is pos-
sible that the unfired .69 caliber round ball and
unfired Confederate .58 caliber minié bullet are
representative of additional Confederate artillery
fire given that examples of Confederate case have
been found that were filled with conventional
rifle bullets either alone or mixed with .69 caliber
round balls (Ripley 1970:270).
The .58 caliber minié bullet was manufactured
for use with the .58 caliber rifle musket, the infan-
try weapon used most widely by both sides during
the Civil War (Thomas and Thomas 2007:43,
52). Most of the bullets manufactured in the
North were machine pressed, while the ones man-
ufactured in the South were predominantly cast in
moulds. Frequently, the only way to distinguish
between a .58 caliber three-groove minié bullet
that was manufactured in the South is if the bullet
exhibits casting features such as sprue locations
or irregularities in the cavity and/or rings such as
the nose cast identified on the bullet recovered
from MD Target 138. Although the unfired .58
Figure 9. Site 44FK0622, Civil War artillery and ammunition recovered during survey (a - .58 caliber
three-groove minié bullet, extracted [MD 88]; b - Confederate .58 caliber three-groove minié bullet with
nose cast, unfired, whittled or scraped [MD 138]; c - .69 caliber musket ball, unfired [MD 85]; d -
0.459 and 0.472 in. Confederate case shot [MD 144]; e - conical artillery shell fragment [MD 151];
f - conical artillery shell fragment with fuse hole [MD 109]; g - conical artillery shell fragment [MD 135]).
21
caliber minié bullet recovered from MD Target 88
does not exhibit casting features that would allow
us to determine which side manufactured it, the
fact that the bullet bears marks indicating that it
was extracted indicates the bullet is either associ-
ated with a Union battle position or a previously
undocumented encampment.
The remaining artifacts recovered during the
survey include three cast-iron fragments, three
scrap iron fragments, two horseshoes, two cut
nails, two whiteware ceramic sherds, two iron
bars, one unidentified bone fragment, one late
eighteenth/nineteenth-century coarse earthenware
ceramic sherd, one wrought iron strap hinge, one
iron hook or coupling, one iron chain, one pos-
sible decorative bone trim piece fragment, one
wrought nail, one harmonica reed fragment, one
piece of iron strapping, one iron nut with attached
bolt fragment, one twentieth-century lead wheel
balancing weight, and one mid-twentieth-century
wristwatch (Figure 10).
With the exception of the wheel weight,
wristwatch, and nut/bolt fragment, nearly all of
the artifacts recovered within the project area
may be attributable to military occupation of
the property during the Battle of Cedar Creek.
Given that cartographic analysis of Civil War
and early twentieth-century topographic maps
shows no indication of domestic occupation of
the project area during the nineteenth century,
Figure 10. Site 44FK0622, other historic artifacts attributable to the Civil War military
component (a - brass harmonica reed plate fragment [MD 37]; b - horseshoe fragment [MD
106]; c - wrought iron strap hinge [MD 5]; d - horseshoe fashioned into a hook [MD 7]).
22
it is possible that the domestic and architectural
artifacts such as the whiteware ceramic sherds,
harmonica reed, strap hinge, nails, and handmade
brick may be representative of an undocumented
post-battle Union encampment (Lewis 1988:289,
Rosenblatt and Rosenblatt 1992:270). Given that
Middletown was re-occupied multiple times by
Union and Confederate forces during the war, it
is also possible that the domestic and architectural
artifacts identified within the project area are rep-
resentative of an unrelated Civil War encampment
that predates the Battle of Cedar Creek.
Stratigraphy across the site is generally shal-
low and consists of two strata. Stratum I is a
post-occupational plowzone of yellowish brown
(10YR5/6) silty loam, which extends approxi-
mately 0.72 ft. (22 cm) below surface to a strong
brown (7.5YR4/6) sterile clay subsoil (Stratum
II) (Figure 11). Although all of the artifacts re-
covered during the survey were recovered from
post-occupational plowzone deposits, the iden-
tification of a concentration of fired bullets and
ammunition and artillery in the eastern portion
of the site indicates the presence of interpretable
horizontal artifact patterning and the potential for
identifying fluid battle lines and positions within
the project area.
Su r v e y eF F e C t i v e n e S S
The primary purpose of this survey was to pro-
vide LFCC with a statement of the nature and
distribution of archaeological resources within the
proposed Student Center Building project area.
The effectiveness of any such survey is contingent
upon and limited by the methods employed. The
major limitation of the survey was that most of
the project area had limited surface visibility, and
subsurface testing was necessary. In an effort to
control the biases inherent in shovel testing, fill
from shovel tests was screened through 0.25-in.
(0.64-cm) wire mesh.
It has been well documented that metal de-
tector survey is the most effective method for
conducting archaeological surveys of battlefields
(Conner and Scott 1998:80; Jolley 1997:3,
2003:237; Espenshade et al. 2002:59). It is felt
that our approach of combining systematic shovel
testing with systematic metal detecting has met its
intended goals and that no significant archaeologi-
I - Yellowish brown (10YR5/6) silty loam
II - Strong brown (7.5YR4/6) clay
Figure 11. Site 44FK0622, Shovel Tests 32, 48, and 72, profiles.
23
cal resources were overlooked within the proposed
project area. Overall, the survey results are con-
sistent with the expectations generated by back-
ground research for this project, which indicated
a high potential for discovering archaeological
resources within the project area.
Su M M a r y a n d re C o M M e n d a t i o n S
Archaeological survey of the proposed LFCC
Student Center Building resulted in confirma-
tion that the entire study area is encompassed
by the Battle of Cedar Creek Battlefield and that
the extent of previously recorded Site 44FK0622
extends northeast across the entire project area.
The combined results of systematic metal detector
and shovel test surveys indicate the presence of a
dispersed subsurface scatter of artifacts consisting
of military, domestic, and architectural material
that represent remains of battle activities, as well
as a possible encampment.
One of the primary variables in the success
of a metal detector survey is the intensity of the
survey. Given that the Civil War military arti-
facts recovered from within the project area were
identified as a result of a relatively low-intensity
survey, involving coverage of only a percentage of
the property (i.e. sweeps every 50 ft. [15 m]), it is
reasonable to assume that a higher intensity metal
detector survey such as the one conducted by ECS
during the 2006 data recovery of Site 44FK0622
would produce considerably more information
about battle activities within the Student Center
project area.
The identification of diagnostic artillery and
small arms ammunition that represent potential
battle lines or positions indicates that deposits
within the project area and the surrounding
battlefield have the potential to yield important
information about potential variation in tactics
and strategy between (a) the official records of
the battle and what actually occurred, (b) military
regulations and their application in the field, and/
or (c) historical details about the Battle of Cedar
Creek that may help fill the gaps in the docu-
mentary record concerning the specific positions
of companies of troops on the field. Remains of
a possible Civil War encampment have the po-
tential to provide details relating to the duration
and intensity of the occupation as well as more
general information about variation in Civil War
camp structure and function in the Shenandoah
Valley. Given the potential to provide signifi-
cant information about the Military/Defense
theme during the Civil War (1861–1865), the
archaeological resources identified within the
proposed Student Center Building project area
are recommended as potentially contributing
to the NRHP eligibility of Site 44FK0622
and the Battle of Cedar Creek Battlefield
under Criterion D; Criteria A through C are
considered not applicable. The contributing
resources within Site 44FK0622 should be
avoided. If avoidance is not feasible, more work
will be necessary to determine whether the ar-
chaeological resources within the project area
contribute to the eligibility of Site 44FK0622
for the NRHP under Criterion D.
24
25
References Cited
Albert, Alphaeus H.
1976 Record of American Uniform and Historical
Buttons. Bicentennial Edition. Boyertown
Publishing Co., Boyertown, Pennsylvania.
Böÿe, Herman
1859 Map of the State of Virginia. Copy on file,
[1826] Virginia State Library, Richmond.
Coates, Earl J. and Dean S. Thomas
1990 An Introduction to Civil War Small Arms.
Thomas Publications, Gettysburg, Penn-
sylvania.
Coggins, Jack
1990 Arms and Equipment of the Civil War. Re-
printed. Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola,
New York. Originally published 1962.
Conner, Melissa, and Douglas D. Scott
1998 Metal Detector Use in Archaeology: An
Introduction. Historical Archaeology 32:76-
85
Davis, George B., Leslie J. Perry, Joseph W. Kirkley,
and Calvin D. Cowles
1983 The Official Military Atlas of the Civil War.
Reprinted. Gramercy Books, New York.
Originally published 1891, U.S. War De-
partment, Washington, D.C.
Ebert, Roberta, and Teresa Lazazzera
1988 Frederick County, Virginia From the Frontier
to the Future: A Pictorial History. Donning
Company Publishers, Norfolk/Virginia
Beach, Virginia.
Espenshade, Christopher T., Robert L. Jolley, and
James B. Legg
2002 The Value and Treatment of Civil War
Military Sites. North American Archaeologist
23:39-67.
Gillespie, G.L.
1873 Battle fields of Fisher’s Hill [22 Sept. 1864]
and Cedar Creek [19 Oct. 1864], Virginia.
Map accessed online 2011, Library of Con-
gress, Prints and Photographs Online Cata-
log, <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3882f.
cw0537000 >.
Greene, Katherine Glass
1926 Winchester, Virginia and Its Beginnings.
Shenandoah Publishing House, Strasburg,
Virginia
Huston, Clifton A.
2007 Phase III Mitigation of Impact Investiga-
tion at Site 44FK0622 on the Lord Fairfax
Community College Tract, Frederick County,
Virginia. Submitted by ECS Mid-Atlantic,
LLC, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Submitted
to the Virginia Community College System,
Richmond.
Jolley, Robert L.
1997 A Metal Detector Survey of Camp Mason
(44FK533), A CSA Winter Encampment,
Frederick County, Virginia. Winchester
Regional Office, Department of Historic
Resources.
2007 An Archaeological Survey of the Confeder-
ate Left Flank, Third Battle of Winchester,
Virginia, September 19, 1864. Quarterly
Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia
62:4:190-229.
Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation
1975 Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen In-
strument Corporation, Baltimore.
26
Lewis, Thomas A.
1988 The Guns of Cedar Creek. Harper & Row
Publishers, New York.
Lord, Francis A.
1995 Civil War Collector’s Encyclopedia Volumes I
and II. Blue and Gray Press, Edison, New
Jersey.
Morton, Frederic
1925 The Story of Winchester in Virginia. Shen-
andoah Publishing House, Strasburg, Vir-
ginia.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
2011 “Web Soil Survey” page on Natural Re-
sources Conservation Service website. <
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov >Ac-
cessed August 2011.
Nelson, Lee H.
1968 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old
Buildings. History News 19(2).
Noël Hume, Ivor
1980 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America.
Knopf, New York.
Norris, J. E.
1890 History of the Lower Shenandoah Valley
Counties of Frederick, Berkeley, Jefferson, and
Clarke. Virginia Book Company, Berryville,
Virginia.
Philbin, Tom, and Steve Ettlinger
1988 The Complete Illustrated Guide to Everything
Sold in Hardware Stores. Macmillan Publish-
ing Company, New York.
Phillips, Stanley S.
1974 Excavated Artifacts from Battlefields and
Campsites of the Civil War, 1861-1865.
LithoCrafters, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
1980 Excavated Artifacts from Battlefields and
Campsites of the Civil War, 1861-1865:
Supplement I. S.S. Phillips and Associates,
Lanham, Maryland.
Quarles, Garland R.
1971 Some Old Houses in Frederick County. The
Farmers and Merchants Bank, Winchester,
Virginia.
Ripley, Warren
1970 Artillery and Ammunition of the Civil War.
Van Norstrand Reinhold Company, New
York.
Rosenblat, Emil, and Ruth Rosenblat (editors)
1992 Hard Marching Every Day: The Civil War
Letters of Private Wilber Fiske. Reprinted.
University Press of Kansas, Lawrence. Origi-
nally published 1983.
Stuck, Kenneth E., Christopher L. McDaid, and
Leslie McFaden
1994 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the
Proposed Route 695 Project, Frederick County,
Virginia. William and Mary Center for Ar-
chaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Submitted to the Virginia Department of
Transportation, Richmond.
Thomas, James E., and Dean S. Thomas
2007 A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Car-
tridges. Thomas Publications, Gettysburg,
Pennsylvania. Originally published 1996,
Thomas Publications, Gettysburg, Penn-
sylvania.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1999 Middletown, VA quadrangle. 7.5-minute
topographic series. USGS, Reston, Vir-
ginia.
A-1
Appendix A:
Artifact Inventory
A-2
8/19/2011 11-17 Page 1 of 3
Lord Fairfax Community College (Site 44FK0622) Survey: Historic Artifacts
Provenience Class Object Datable Attribute Comments Descriptor Weight (g) Quantity MD 005 Misc. Items Unidentified Wrought latch bar/utensil handle, ferrous 1 Provenience MD 005 Total: 1
MD 006 Misc. Material Sheet metal Ferrous with rivets 1 Provenience MD 006 Total: 1
MD 007 Misc. Items Hook Ferrous fashioned from 1st half 19th c.(?) 1 horseshoe (no toe clip) Provenience MD 007 Total: 1
MD 010 Misc. Material Unidentified Ferrous misc. cast fragment 1 Provenience MD 010 Total: 1
MD 011 Misc. Hardware Chain Ferrous three links 1 Provenience MD 011 Total: 1
MD 037 Toys and Leisure Harmonica Copper Alloy reed plate 2 Provenience MD 037 Total: 2
MD 046 Misc. Material Strapping Ferrous 1 9/16" wide, 7/16" thick, with 1 attachment hole Provenience MD 046 Total: 1
MD 047 Misc. Items Bar Ferrous threaded, machinery/wagon? 1 Provenience MD 047 Total: 1
MD 055 Misc. Material Unidentified Ferrous misc. cast fragment 1 Provenience MD 055 Total: 1
MD 060 Misc. Material Unidentified Ferrous misc. cast fragment 1 Provenience MD 060 Total: 1
MD 078 Personal Items Watch Copper Alloy face missing, marked "HELBROS", 1 gold-plated back; p. 1940s/1950s Provenience MD 078 Total: 1
MD 080 Misc. Items Unidentified Bone trim piece?, with attachment hole, 1 4 3/8" finished length Provenience MD 080 Total: 1
MD 085 Ammunition/Artillery Lead bullet: Smoothbore Musket Round ball .689, unfired .69 1 Provenience MD 085 Total: 1
MD 088 Ammunition/Artillery Lead bullet: Rifle Musket 3 groove conical cavity, mashed base, worn .58 1 smooth on one side, unfired, extracted; nose measurements range from .543-.559 Provenience MD 088 Total: 1
MD 106 Misc. Material Scrap metal Ferrous 1 MD 106 Stable/Barn Horseshoe Ferrous half; 18th c.? 1
8/19/2011 11-17 Page 2 of 3
Lord Fairfax Community College (Site 44FK0622) Survey: Historic Artifacts
Provenience Class Object Datable Attribute Comments Descriptor Weight (g) Quantity Provenience MD 106 Total: 2
MD 109 Ammunition/Artillery Artillery shell Ferrous conical, with smooth fuse hole 1 Provenience MD 109 Total: 1
MD 112 Nails Nail(s) Wrought 1 Provenience MD 112 Total: 1
MD 114 Misc. Material Sheet metal Ferrous 1 Provenience MD 114 Total: 1
MD 133 Nails Nail Fragment(s) Cut 1 MD 133 Nails Nail(s) Cut 1 Provenience MD 133 Total: 2
MD 134 Misc. Hardware Hook Ferrous or coupling; ball terminal, 2 7/8" 1 length Provenience MD 134 Total: 1
MD 135 Ammunition/Artillery Artillery shell Ferrous conical 1 Provenience MD 135 Total: 1
MD 138 Ammunition/Artillery Lead bullet: Rifle Musket 3 groove unfired, conical cavity, nose cast, .58 1 Southern manufacture; whittled or scraped/distorted; nose measurements range .568-.591 Provenience MD 138 Total: 1
MD 144 Ammunition/Artillery Case shot Ferrous .459, .472; Southern manufacture 2 Provenience MD 144 Total: 2
MD 150 Misc. Material Bar Wrought 6 7/8" length, 5/16" width; 5/16" 1 to 1/8" taper Provenience MD 150 Total: 1
MD 151 Ammunition/Artillery Artillery shell Ferrous conical 1 Provenience MD 151 Total: 1
MD 153 Misc. Hardware Nut Ferrous wing?, with bolt fragment 1 Provenience MD 153 Total: 1
ST 009 Construction Materials Brick Hand Made 1.9 Provenience ST 009 Total: 0
ST 032 Ceramic Tableware Unidentified Whiteware 2 Provenience ST 032 Total: 2
ST 042 Ceramic Cooking/Storage Unidentified Coarse Earthenware orange body, black iron glaze; 1 18th/19th c. Provenience ST 042 Total: 1
ST 048 Construction Materials Brick Hand Made 0.3
8/19/2011 11-17 Page 3 of 3
Lord Fairfax Community College (Site 44FK0622) Survey: Historic Artifacts
Provenience Class Object Datable Attribute Comments Descriptor Weight (g) Quantity Provenience ST 048 Total: 0
ST 072 Bone Unsorted bone 2 ST 072 Transportation Wheel balance weight Lead 4" x 1/2" 1 Provenience ST 072 Total: 3
Project Total: 36