HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25 Archaeological Survey of the Laurel Ridge Education Project ParcelAn ArchAeologicAl Survey of the
lAurel ridge educAtion Project PArcel,
frederick county, virginiA
PrePared for:
Laurel Ridge Educational Foundation
PrePared by:
William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research
0 400 meters
0 800 feet
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROJECT AREAAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROJECT AREA
An Archaeological Survey of the
Laurel Ridge Education Project Parcel,
Frederick County, Virginia
W&MCAR Project No. 25-20
PrePared for:
Laurel Ridge Educational Foundation
173 Skirmisher Lane
Middletown, Virginia 22645
PrePared by:
William & Mary
Center for Archaeological Research
P.O. Box 8795
Williamsburg, Virginia 23187
author:
Thomas F. Higgins III
Project director:
Elizabeth J. Monroe, Ph.D.
SePtember 15, 2025
ii
ManageMent SuMMary
The William & Mary Center for Archaeological
Research (W&MCAR) conducted an archaeo-
logical survey of the Laurel Ridge Education
Foundation (LREF) parcel in Frederick County,
Virginia from July 14–24, 2025. This study, con-
ducted in accordance with an agreement with
LREF, was to provide specific information con-
cerning the nature and distribution of archaeologi-
cal resources within the project area in advance of
proposed expansion of Laurel Ridge Community
College. The project area consisted of approxi-
mately 13 acres of LREF’s 19.81-acre property.
The project area is located within the previously
recorded Civil War battlefield of the Battle of
Cedar Creek (Resource 034-0303) and is situated
immediately northeast of a previously recorded
archaeological site (44FK0622), which has been
interpreted as the location of a temporary artil-
lery battery position (Light Battery B, 5th U.S.
Artillery). Commanded by Captain Henry A.
DuPont, the battery has been recognized by his-
torians for its pivotal role in the Union victory at
the Battle of Cedar Creek on October 19, 1864.
During the systematic archaeological survey of
the project area, which due to dense overgrowth
excluded approximately 2.6 acres at the north end
of the property, 187 shovel tests were excavated,
of which 16 (9%) were positive for artifacts. Metal
detector survey yielded an additional 64 historic
artifacts. These efforts confirm that previously
recorded Site 44FK0622 extends northeast across
the entire project area. The combined results of the
systematic metal detector and shovel test surveys
indicate the presence of a dispersed, low-density
subsurface scatter of artifacts consisting of military,
domestic, and architectural material that represent
remains of battle activities, as well as subtle traces
of possible military encampment sometime before
or after the Battle of Cedar Creek, though it is also
possible that the domestic artifacts are not related
to the military event. Evidence of the twentieth-
century farm buildings stood on the property until
the early part of the twenty-first century is also
apparent. Overall, the results of systematic shovel
testing and metal detecting, combined with docu-
mentary evidence, indicate that the entire project
area is situated within the Battle of Cedar Creek
Battlefield. In addition to the historic artifacts,
archaeologists recovered a prehistoric tool (i.e.,
hammerstone/grindstone) from a shovel test.
Given that one prehistoric artifact was recov-
ered from the plowzone, the minor prehistoric
component of Site 44FK0622 possesses little ad-
ditional research potential. The historic-period
artifacts (i.e., diagnostic Civil War artifacts and
nineteenth-century domestic artifacts) are very
lightly manifested, generally widely dispersed, and
limited in type, which suggests that the project
area has most likely been extensively searched
by relic hunters in the past. In the opinion of
the consultant, the research potential of the
archaeological resources within the surveyed
portion of the project area is unlikely to pro-
vide significant new information that may ad-
dress themes of Military/Defense during the
Civil War (1861–1865) or themes of Settlement
and Subsistence during periods of prehistory
and history, including the twentieth-century
farm component at Site 44FK0622, in the
Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. Accordingly,
the research potential of the project area has
been effectively exhausted with the comple-
tion of the current study, such that it does not
contribute to the eligibility of Site 44FK0622 for
the NRHP under Criterion D; Criteria A–C are
considered not applicable. Due to the density of
vegetation, it was not possible within the scope of
the current project to systematically test the 2.6-
acre area at the north end of the property. It is
recommended that prior to any development
of the 2.6-acre wooded area at the north end
of the property, the vegetation be cleared and
systematic shovel testing and metal detector
survey be conducted on the as-yet untested
portion of the LREF parcel.
iii
ContentS
Management Summary ...................................................................................................................................ii
Figures ..........................................................................................................................................................iii
Tables ............................................................................................................................................................iv
1: Project Background ...................................................................................................................................1
2: Project Methods .........................................................................................................................................5
3: Historical Context ....................................................................................................................................19
4: Survey Results, Research Summary, and Recommendations ............................................................31
References Cited.......................................................................................................................................39
Appendix A: Artifact Inventory
Appendix B: Archaeological Site Form
Appendix C: Thomas F. Higgins III Curriculum Vitae
FigureS
1 Project area location ................................................................................................................................1
2 Project area and environs ........................................................................................................................3
3 Previously identified archaeological resources within 1.6 km (1 mi.) of the project area ............6
4 Site 44FK0622, plan of metal detector targets and artifact Loci 1 and 2
identified during 2012 supplemental archaeological evaluation of the
Student Center Building project area .................................................................................................8
5 Site 44FK0622, plan of possible Union firing lines identified during 2012 supplemental
archaeological evaluation of the Student Center Building project area .......................................9
6 Site 44FK0622, selected small arms-related artifacts recovered during 2012 supplemental
archaeological evaluation of the Student Center Building project area .....................................10
7 Site 44FK0622, selected artillery-related artifacts recovered during 2012 supplemental
archaeological evaluation of the Student Center Building project area .....................................11
8 Site 44FK0622, plan of current investigations ..................................................................................14
9 Excavation of Shovel Test J1, looking south .....................................................................................15
10 Recording Shovel Test M9, looking northeast ...................................................................................15
11 Metal detector survey in the northeast quadrant of the project area, looking south ..................16
12 Detail of antebellum map, showing project vicinity .........................................................................26
13 Detail of Confederate map of the Battle of Cedar Creek, showing project vicinity ..................27
14 Detail of Union map, showing project vicinity .................................................................................28
15 Site 44FK0622, Shovel Tests G12, P13, JM2, and JM4, profiles ....................................................32
16 Site 44FK0622, Civil War artillery shell fragments recovered during current investigation .......34
iv
17 Site 44FK0622, selected horse furniture ............................................................................................34
18 Site 44FK0622, selected copper alloy artifacts ..................................................................................35
19 Site 44FK0622, selected fasteners ......................................................................................................35
tableS
1 Summary of previously identified archaeological sites within 1.6 km (1 mi.) of the project area
and environs with contours .................................................................................................................7
1
1: Project Background
Figure 1.1. Location of project area.
introduCtion
The William & Mary Center for Archaeological
Research (W&MCAR) conducted an archaeologi-
cal survey of a 13-acre parcel for the Laurel Ridge
Education Foundation (LREF) in Middletown,
Virginia from July 14-24, 2025 (Figure 1). The
purpose of the study was to provide specific in-
formation concerning the nature and distribution
of archaeological resources within the project area
in advance of proposed expansion of the Laurel
Ridge Community College (LRCC).
The investigation was carried out under the
general supervision of W&MCAR Co-Director
Elizabeth J. Monroe. Project Archaeologist
Thomas F. Higgins, III was responsible for orga-
nization and implementation of the archaeological
field program as well as preparation of the final
report. Mr. Higgins was assisted in the field by
Senior Field Archaeologist Kevin Goodrich, and
Archaeological Field Technicians Heather Little,
Maddie Dorton, Haley Mullins, and Jordan Wolfe.
Michele Brumfield supervised laboratory pro-
cessing and conducted historic artifact analysis.
Mr. Goodrich analyzed the pre-Contact artifact.
David W. Lewes and Eliza Trost 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
W&MCAR in Williamsburg, Virginia, referenced
under W&MCAR project number 25-20.
deSCription and environMental
Setting oF the projeCt area
The project area is located along the east side of
Route 11 immediately north of Middletown in
Frederick County, Virginia (Figure 2). The proj-
ect area is located within the previously 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 to a point about one mile north of
Middletown. At about 4 PM that day, the Union
Army counterattacked and completely routed the
Confederate forces, driving them south beyond
Strasburg, Virginia. The Union forces subse-
quently 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
2
archaeological resources associated with the Battle
of Cedar Creek is further indicated by previous
archaeological investigations on the LRCC (for-
merly known as the Lord Fairfax Community
College) campus that involved the identification
and archaeological study of Site 44FK0622 within
the proposed site of the Corron Center and the
Student Center. Study of Site 44FK0622 revealed
relatively undisturbed deposits of diagnostic Civil
War military artifacts associated with the Battle of
Cedar Creek, which offered interpretable pattern-
ing 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 broad terrace 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 field,
portions of which are maintained as lawn. There
are several clusters of dense vegetation and trees,
including a heavily overgrown 2.6-acre area near
the northwest boundary. The property is relatively
flat, however, there is a gentle swale in the north-
west quadrant of the project area near Valley Pike.
Elevations range from about 219-223 m (718-732
ft.) above mean sea level (amsl). The soil is com-
posed of relatively shallow, well-drained Carbo
silt loam and Carbo-Oaklet very rocky silt loams
(CSRL 2025).
3
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP
Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System,
National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset;
USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data;
USFS Road data; Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State
HIU; NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. Data
refreshed February, 2025.
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP
Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System,
National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset;
USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data;
USFS Road data; Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State
HIU; NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. Data
refreshed February, 2025.
0 1000 meters
0 2000 feet
PROJECT AREA
Figure 2. Project area and environs.
4
5
2: Project Methods
introduCtion
The survey expectations set forth in this chapter
were generated from inspection of archival re-
sources, archaeological site records, and relevant
cultural resource management reports, includ-
ing a previous survey and evaluation conducted
adjacent to the current project area (Higgins and
Moore 2014; Huston 2007; Moore 2014). A dis-
cussion of the objectives and methods used to
complete the archaeological survey of the LREF
project parcel is also presented.
baCkground reSearCh MethodS
and teSting expeCtationS
Historical and archaeological background re-
search 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), W&MCAR, and
Swem Library at William & Mary. The Virginia
Cultural Resource Information System (V-CRIS)
provided by the VDHR was consulted for previ-
ously recorded sites within a 1.6-km (1-mi.) radius
of the project area. The results of the background
research, including the results of previous ar-
chaeological investigations in the immediate vi-
cinity of the project area, showed a high potential
for identifying historic archaeological resources
within the 13-acre LREF parcel.
The review of archaeological site files on
V-CRIS indicated ten previously recorded archae-
ological sites (44FK0055, 44FK0056, 44FK0622,
44FK0712, 44FK0713, 44KF0730, 44FK0818-
44FK0820, and 44FK1061) are located within a
1.6 km (1.0 mi.) radius of the project area (Figure 3
and Table 1). Most of the sites were recorded
by VDHR Regional Archaeologist Robert Jolley
during the period 2011-2022 while conducting
reconnaissance surveys for sites that may have
National Register potential.
Site 44FK0055 is a multicomponent ar-
chaeological site approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mi.)
north of the project area. It was identified by
Thunderbird Archaeological Associates in 1985
during an archaeological survey of the proposed
Meadow Brook Substation. The site consists of a
scatter of nineteenth-through twentieth-century
artifacts associated with the structural remains of
a nineteenth-century dwelling as well as a scatter
of prehistoric lithic debitage of undetermined age
(V-CRIS 2025).
Site 44FK0056 is a multicomponent archaeo-
logical site approximately 187 m (614 ft.) north of
Site 44FK0055 and 1.46 km (0.91 mi.) north of the
LREF project area. Site 44FK0056 was identified
in 1985 during a pedestrian archaeological survey
by Thunderbird & Associates for the previously
mentioned substation project and is represented
by a broad scatter of prehistoric lithic flakes and
unspecified historic artifacts over an area of ap-
proximately 2.26 acres (V-CRIS 2025).
Site 44FK0622 is the largest and most exten-
sively investigated archaeological site recorded
within a 1-mi. (1.6-km) radius of the project area.
Identified initially just southwest of the 5.26-ha
(13-acre) LREF project area in 2005 by members
of the Archeological Society of Virginia, it con-
sists of a subsurface scatter of diagnostic Civil
6
44FK082044FK0820 44FK062244FK0622
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP
Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System,
National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database,
National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset;
USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data;
USFS Road data; Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State
HIU; NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. Data
refreshed February, 2025.
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP
Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System,
National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database,
National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset;
USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data;
USFS Road data; Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State
HIU; NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. Data
refreshed February, 2025.
0 1000 meters
0 2000 feet
PROJECT AREA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
44FK005644FK0056
44FK005544FK0055
44FK071244FK0712
44FK081844FK0818
44FK071344FK0713
44FK106144FK106144FK081944FK0819
44FK073044FK0730
Figure 3. Previously identified archaeological resources within 1.6 km (1 mi.) of the project area.
7
War military artifacts associated with the Battle
of Cedar Creek. Subsequent data recovery at
the site for the proposed Corron Center at the
LRCC, conducted by ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC
(ECS) from 2005–2006, resulted in the recovery
of a large number of diagnostic Civil War military
artifacts from relatively undisturbed deposits,
including small arms ammunition, small arms
cleaning tools, artillery shell fragments, canister
and grape shot, uniform buttons, field gear, can-
non friction primers, coins, horse tack, and horse
shoes. Careful analyses of the distribution of these
items offered interpretable patterning across the
site area representative of various actions during
the battle (Huston 2007). Ultimately, the archaeo-
logical resources identified within Site 44FK0622
were interpreted as the location of a temporary
position 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.
In 2011, W&MCAR conducted an archaeo-
logical survey of the proposed 1.11-ha (2.75-acre)
Student Center Building (SCB) project area,
which was located just northeast of the Corron
Center. Systematic shovel test and metal detector
surveys confirmed that previously recorded Site
44FK0622 extended across the entire project area
and yielded results that were recommended as
potentially contributing to the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of Site
44FK0622 and the Battle of Cedar Creek under
Criterion D.
In September 2012, the then Lord Fairfax
Community College Foundation Board (LFCCB)
afforded W&MCAR the opportunity to undertake
a supplemental archaeological evaluation study
of Site 44FK0622 in the proposed SCB project
area. Systematic shovel testing, metal detecting,
and test unit excavation yielded hundreds of ar-
tifacts contained in a shallow plowzone. The vast
majority of these are likely attributable to action
on the battlefield and include over one hundred
arms-related artifacts (e.g., bullets, artillery shell
fragments). Many of the arms-related artifacts
present interpretable distribution patterns that
suggest the possible locations of firing positions
and reflect the intensity and ferocity of the fight-
ing on what would have been the Union Army’s
eastern flank during the late afternoon portion of
the battle (Figures 4–7). In addition, traces of a
possible military encampment were discovered,
which are indicated by a relatively small quantity
RESOURCE PERIOD TYPE RECORDED BY/DATE
44FK0055 Undet. prehistoric;
19th c.
Undet. prehistoric;
Dwelling
Thunderbird Archaeological Associates/1985
44FK0056 Undet. prehistoric;
Undet. historic
Undet. prehistoric;
Undet. historic
Thunderbird Archaeological Associates/1985
44FK0622 Civil War Battlefield, military camp ECS Mid-Atlantic/Huston/ 2005
44FK0712 20th c.Lime kiln VDHR/Jolley/2011
44FK0713 19th c.Mill VDHR/Jolley/2011
44FK0730 Civil War Battlefield VDHR/Jolley/2013
44FK0818 19th c./20th c. Dwelling VDHR/Jolley/2016
44FK0819 20th c.Dwelling VDHR/Jolley/2016
44FK0820 20th c.Dwelling VDHR/Jolley/2016
44FK1061 19th c.Cemetery VDHR/Jolley/2022
Table 1. Summary of previously identified archaeological sites within 1.6 km (1 mi.) of the project area.
8
410 425 440 455 470 485 500 515 530 545 560 575 590
410
425
440
455
470
485
500
515
530
545
560
575
1 to 10
11 to 20
21 to 30
31 to 40
41 to 50
51 to 60
61 to 70
71 to 80
Misc./Unidentified
Nails
Clothing
Ammunition/Artillery
Horse-related
Accoutrements
Domestic
20th c.
Figure 1. Site 44FK0622, supplemental archaeological evaluation, distribution of metal detector targets by class.
20th Century
House Site
Project Area
Project Area
Parking
Lot
Tree line
Locus 2
Locus 1
GRID NORTH
(40 degrees west of Magnetic North)
0 15 30 meters
Valley Pike
Figure 4. Site 44FK0622, plan of
m
e
t
a
l
d
e
t
e
c
t
o
r
t
a
r
g
e
t
s
a
n
d
a
r
t
i
f
a
c
t
L
o
c
i
1
a
n
d
2
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
2
supplemental archaeological evaluation of
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
(
H
i
g
g
i
n
s
a
n
d
M
o
o
r
e
2
0
1
4
:
1
9
)
.
9
Figure 5. Site 44FK0622, plan of possible Union firing lines identified during 2012 supplemental archaeological evaluation of the Student Center Building project area (Higgins and Moore 2014:21).
10
Figure 6. Site 44FK0622, selected small arms-related artifacts recovered during 2012 supplemental archaeological evaluation
of the Student Center Building project area (Higgins and Moore 2014:27; a–b - miscellaneous carbine rifle cartridge cases
[a - MD475; b - MD444]; c–g - representative Confederate examples [c - .54 caliber rifle musket or indeterminate Enfield
rifle musket (MD58); d - Gardner 2 ring rifle musket (MD94); e - 3 groove rifle musket nose cast (MD247); f - Sharps
sporting rifle (MD441); g - round ball, smooth bore musket (MD311)]; h–n - representative Union examples [h - rifle
musket (MD473); i - Merrill carbine (MD453); j - Sharps carbine (MD440); k - Sharps rifle (MD254); l - Colt(?) pistol
(MD119); m - Williams cleaner bullet, Type III (MD469); n - Williams cleaner bullet]; o–q - fired bullets [o - Gardner 2
ring (MD99); p - 3 groove rifle musket (MD299); q - .54 Enfield rifle musket (MD141)]).
11
Figure 7. Site 44FK0622, selected artillery-related artifacts recovered during 2012 supplemental archaeological evaluation of
the Student Center Building project area ((Higgins and Moore 2014:32; a - segmented shell shrapnel [MD196, MD582,
MD405, MD316]; b - copper alloy sabot fragment [MD11]; c - cannister shot [MD343, MD152]; d - case shot [MD270,
MD50, MD29]; e - conical shell fragment [MD557]; f - spherical ball fragment [MD328]).
12
of period domestic and architectural items (e.g.,
buttons, ceramics, nails). Given that Middletown
was re-occupied multiple times by Union and
Confederate forces during the war, it is possible
that these items represent an unrelated Civil War
encampment that predates or postdates the Battle
of Cedar Creek.
Site 44FK0712 represents an early twentieth-
century lime kiln on the west side of Valley Pike,
approximately 1.62 km (1.0 mi.) north of the
LREF project area. This site, identified by VDHR
Regional Archaeologist Robert Jolley during a
reconnaissance survey in 2011, consists of an
extant kiln that is constructed of limestone rocks,
Portland cement, and machine-made bricks. The
kiln measures 20 ft. (6 m) square, and the stack is
at least 50 ft. (15 m) tall. The remains of at least
two structures that are associated with the kiln
are located nearby.
Site 44FK0713 represents a mid-to-late nine-
teenth-century mill site (“Millbrook Mill”) that
is located approximately 640 m (2,100 ft.) west
of the LREF project area. More specifically, the
site is located on the west side of Meadow Brook
Run, near the intersection of Cougill Road and
Mineral Street in Middletown. Site 44FK0713 was
identified by Mr. Jolley in 2011 during a pedes-
trian survey in which he made observations of
mill foundations on the ground surface and used
historic map projections to identify and locate
this resource.
Site 44FK0730 represents a Civil War artifact
scatter that is part of the Cedar Creek Battlefield.
The site is located just west of I-81 and approxi-
mately 805 m (2,641 ft.) south of the LREF proj-
ect area. It was recorded in 2013 by Mr. Jolley in
collaboration with Mike Kehoe during a limited
metal detector survey prior to the construction of
a housing development. Despite the fact that the
site was well-known to relic hunters and routinely
collected for artifacts, the survey yielded 35 Civil
War-era artifacts, including a wide range of am-
munition (i.e., .52 caliber Sharps carbine bullets,
.54 caliber Burnside carbine bullets, a .52 caliber
Spencer bullet casing), canister shot, artillery shell
fragments, and part of a stirrup, among other ar-
tifacts. These items were recovered from a 1.2-ha
(2.76-acre) area (V-CRIS 2025).
Site 44FK0818 is located near the intersec-
tion of Cougill Road and Mineral Street and is
north of Site 44FK0713 and approximately 650
m (2,133 ft.) west of the LREF project area. The
site, recorded by Mr. Jolley in 2016, consists of a
collapsed dwelling that dates to the nineteenth/
early twentieth century and may have been the
residence of the miller who operated the mill at
Site 44FK0713.
Site 44FK0819 is a twentieth-century house
site approximately 940 m (3,084 ft.) west of the
intersection of Reliance Road and Valley Pike
(Route 11) in Middletown. Site 44FK0819 was
recorded during a pedestrian survey by Mr. Jolley
in 2016 and evidenced by landscape features and
period artifacts (i.e., concrete and miscellaneous
metal artifacts) on the ground.
Site 44FK0820 is a mid-twentieth-century
house site identified by Mr. Jolly in 2016 during
a pedestrian survey. The site is located adjacent to
Valley Pike on the west and is approximately 460
m (1,509 ft.) southwest of the LREF project area.
It is indicated by a concrete floor and little else.
Site 44FK1061 is a nineteenth-century (ca.
1839-1878) Euro-American cemetery known as
Ridings Cemetery and was recorded by Mr. Jolley
in 2022. The cemetery is located approximately
2,635 ft. (803 m) (southwest of the LREF project
area and consists of 22 marked graves.
Field MethodS
The archaeological survey involved complete,
systematic pedestrian survey of most of the 13-
acre project area. While most of the project area
was open, there were several clusters of dense
vegetation and trees, including a heavily over-
grown 2.6-acre area at the northeast boundary
of the property. The aerial coverage used during
the planning process was obsolete and the effort
13
to clear the dense vegetation was beyond the
current scope. After consultation with LREF,
it was decided not to systematically survey the
overgrown areas during the current survey but
rather were to investigate these with a limited
number of judgmental shovel tests. In all other
areas, the field survey was accomplished by sur-
face examination and shovel testing at intervals
of not more than 15 m (50 ft.) in undisturbed
areas having slopes of 15 percent or less (Figures
8–10). All surface exposures were examined
carefully for cultural material. The soil from
each shovel test was screened through 0.64-cm
(0.25-in.) mesh to ensure adequate recovery of ar-
tifacts. Representative, detailed soil profiles were
recorded on standardized forms using Munsell
color and U.S. Department of Agriculture de-
scriptive terminology (Kollmorgen Instruments
Corporation 1992). Shovel testing was augmented
by systematic metal detecting along 7.5-m (25-
ft.) transects (Figure 11). Metal detector targets
for unambiguously modern materials (e.g., pull
tabs, bottle caps, plow parts, spark plugs) were
discarded back into the hole from which they
were recovered; all other targets were mapped
and collected. Project Archaeologist Tom Higgins
conducted the metal detector survey using a
White’s MTX PRO detector.
Definitions
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 ap-
plication, these definitions represent a workable
though not infallible compromise.
An archaeological site is defined as any ap-
parent location of human activity not limited to
the simple loss, or casual or single-episode discard
of artifacts. A site has sufficient archaeological
evidence to indicate that further testing would
produce 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 projec-
tile 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 debitage. In addition, areas
containing archaeological material less than 50
years old are also recorded as locations.
In application, both 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 rep-
resentativeness 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.
Laboratory MethoDs
All artifacts recovered were returned to the labora-
tory at the W&MCAR for washing, identification,
and cataloging. Following analysis, an inventory
was assembled using a standard descriptive ty-
pology for prehistoric and historic artifacts (see
Appendix A). All artifacts were prepared for cu-
ration according to the standards of the VDHR.
The W&MCAR has developed a hierarchical cod-
ing system that operates using Microsoft Access
relational database software. With this system,
artifacts are coded during analysis on standard
data sheets for entry into a data file. Using this file,
overall project inventories as well as particularistic
14 722721720719718717716715714712710709722721720719718717716715714713712711718717716715712
71 1
710
709
708
707715714
713730
729
728
725724732731731730730729723 722721
720 720719713
712 727726725724723713
71 1714712711732732731731731729728729 723
723
721720720719719720
720
720717 710723720
71371244331111131315151717551010121214141616181866998877CCBBRRQQPPOONNMMLLKKJJIIHHGGFFEEDDSSTTVVUUWWXXYYG12G12H3H3M10M10N10N10O10O10P13P13Q6Q6JM2JM2JM1JM1JM4JM4JM3JM3Q7Q7Q8Q8S8S8V6V6V7V7P15P15P16P16G15G15XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDENSE VEGETATIONNOT SYSTEMATICALLY SURVEYEDDENSE VEGETATIONNOT SYSTEMATICALLY SURVEYED20TH c. HOUSE SITEIN DENSEVEGETATIONNOT SYSTEMATICALLY SURVEYED20TH c. HOUSE SITEIN DENSEVEGETATIONNOT SYSTEMATICALLY SURVEYEDCONCRETE FOUNDATION/DEBRISCONCRETE FOUNDATION/DEBRISDUMP/DEBRISDUMP/DEBRIS44331111131315151717551010121214141616181866998877SURVEY AREASURVEY AREASURVEY AREASURVEY AREAROUTE 1 1
V
ALLEY PIKE
ROUTE 1 1
V
ALLEY PIKECCBBRRQQPPOONNMMLLKKJJIIHHGGFFEEDDSSTT VVUUWWXXYY224455667733889910101212151517171818202021212222242429293030333335353636373738383939414142424343444445455353646465656767686869697070717157575959616163636262CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FOOT050 meters0100 feetMNNEGATIVE SHOVEL TESTPOSITIVE SHOVEL TESTMETAL DETECTOR TARGET - COLLECTEDNOT EXCAVATED/DISTURBEDXFigure 8. Site 44FK0622, plan of current investigations.
15
Figure 9. Excavation of Shovel Test J1, looking south.
Figure 10. Recording Shovel
Test M9, looking northeast.
16
Figure 11. Metal detector survey in the northeast quadrant of the project area, looking south.
data reports can be readily generated 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 arti-
fact 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 in-
ventory by context.
17
Building on the results of the basic analysis and
inventory, more specific studies of the historic
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 ar-
tifacts 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 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), Volumes I and II
of Civil War Collector’s Encyclopedia 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).
artiFaCt Curation
All prehistoric and historic materials generated by
this project were curated according to standards
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 W&MCAR until transfer
to LREF is arranged.
18
19
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 LREF 13-acre parcel. More
specifically, this context is designed to provide the
relevant background for assessing the research po-
tential 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 W&MCAR investiga-
tion within Frederick County, and augmented
by subsequent studies conducted immediately
adjacent to the current area (Higgins and Moore
2014; Moore 2014; Huston 2007).
The original historical research by W&MCAR
was conducted at the Library of Virginia in
Richmond, the Virginia Historical Society in
Richmond, and the Earl Gregg Swem Library at
William & Mary in Williamsburg. This overview
includes 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.
prehiStoriC Context
Unlike the historic past, the only source of infor-
mation available about prehistoric human occupa-
tion at the 13-acre LREF property is archaeology.
In the absence of written documentation, scholars
of prehistory must rely on interpretations of ar-
chaeological remains that are expected to reflect
patterning in the activities and behavior of pre-
historic peoples, or widespread cultural changes
over time. Because the acquisition of archaeologi-
cal data is a cumulative process, archaeological
interpretations are frequently refined as the pool
of data grows with the completion of each new
investigation. Thus, the prehistoric contextual
information reviewed below represents a sum-
mary of the most recent attempts to synthesize
prehistoric archaeological data pertinent to the
region that includes the project area.
The prehistoric context is presented with re-
spect to the major stages and periods of prehistory
that archaeologists have traditionally employed
to categorize material culture assemblages of
various ages, which have been formally defined
for the state by the VDHR (2011). Three stages
of prehistory have been delineated with general
time frames that correspond to a broad degree of
continuity in patterns of culture as manifested in
archaeological remains, including the Paleoindian
stage (prior to 8000 BC), the Archaic Stage (8000
–1200 BC), and the Woodland Stage (1200 BC
– AD 1600). The Archaic and Woodland stages
are each further subdivided into early, middle, and
late periods that represent distinctive patterning
over time in material culture assemblages and/or
interpreted patterning in settlement/subsistence
strategies and social organization. Background
information with respect to each of these stages
and periods is summarized below. More details
regarding local prehistory can be found in several
synthetic publications of varying scope. Gardner’s
1986 publication, Lost Arrowheads and Broken
Pottery: Traces of Indians in the Shenandoah
Valley, provides a good overview of the pre-
historic occupation of the surrounding region.
Each of the prehistoric periods is summarized
20
on a state-wide scale in a series of publications by
the Council of Virginia Archaeologists (Reinhart
and Hodges 1990, 1991, 1992; Wittkofski and
Reinhart 1989). An even broader, regional syn-
thesis of prehistory for the Chesapeake estuary,
at large, is covered in Dent (1995). Pertinent
background information regarding particularly
the Late Woodland period is provided by Potter
(1993).
Paleoindian Stage (before ca. 8000 BC)
The earliest archaeological evidence of Paleoindian
activity in Virginia has been identified at the
Cactus Hill site (44SX0202) in Sussex County,
where a radiocarbon date of 15,070 +/-70 BP was
produced from carbonized white pine recovered
from a hearth-like feature (McAvoy and McAvoy
1997). Evidence for cultural activity in the lower
Shenandoah Valley of Virginia extends back at
least 11,000 years.
Paleoindian groups occupied the Shenandoah
Valley during the last two millennia of the
Pleistocene, a period when “megafauna” such
as ground sloth, bison, and mastodons roamed
North America. Paleoindians have been char-
acterized as large game hunters utilizing limited
floral resources. However, evidence of a mixed
deciduous/coniferous and boreal forest during
this period, as well as evidence of Holocene fauna
coexisting with soon-to-be-extinct Pleistocene
forms suggests that Paleoindian groups in the
Eastern Woodlands relied more heavily on
generalized foraging than previously accepted.
Although Paleoindians elsewhere in North
America relied upon the hunting of big game such
as mastodon and bison, these animals appear to
have been sparse if not entirely extinct in what is
now Virginia by the time the first humans came
to the region. Instead, moose, elk, caribou, and
deer served as the focus for hunting activities,
supplemented by exploitation of floral resources
and small mammals and fish (Gardner 1986, 1989;
Turner 1989).
The project area is situated within a part of
the northern Shenandoah Valley that is generally
recognized as a “hot spot” or concentration of
Paleoindian and Early Archaic occupation. The
best documented Paleoindian sites in the region
are the Thunderbird Site (44WR0011) and the
Fifty Site (44WR0050). Both are within the Flint
Run Archaeological District (093-0163), which is
located approximately 8.0 mi. (12.8 km) south-
east of the project area. The Thunderbird Site,
which was identified and excavated under the
direction of William Gardner, produced evidence
of Paleoindian activity dating back to 9200 BC.
Centered on a jasper quarry and lithic reduction
areas, the site also contained the ephemeral traces
of a post-built structure. Gardner has identified
a series of sites associated with jasper quarrying
in the Thunderbird vicinity, which he has labeled
the Flint Run Complex. According to Gardner
(1989), the Flint Run Complex consists of four
site types; the quarry itself, the reduction station
where quarried materials are knapped into more
portable tool ‘blanks;’ the base camp incorpo-
rating living areas; and the base camp procure-
ment area, where food and other resources are
obtained to sustain activities in the base camp.
A second premier Paleoindian site in Virginia is
the Williamson site, located in Dinwiddie County.
Like the Thunderbird site, the Williamson site is
associated with quarrying activities. Fine-grained
cherts were procured from this location, and
turned into a variety of forms on site, presum-
ably destined for trade as well as the use of those
working the quarry (McCary 1975).
The peoples of the Paleoindian period in
Virginia have generally been characterized as
selectively mobile populations, operating within
a prescribed territory, but with an eventual return
to a central base (Gardner 1977:261; Turner
1989:77). Based on the Flint Run Complex settle-
ment system, their nomadism was not necessarily
seasonally oriented, but was to some degree tied
to tool kit depletion and social factors. Studies of
21
known Paleoindian sites, especially Flint Run and
Williamson, and studies tracing specific cherts
and jaspers back to original source locations, have
consistently documented a recurring emphasis
on high-quality lithic sources and a focus on
wide-ranging “foraging,” rather than “collecting”
subsistence patterns. This suggests a settlement
pattern of “tethered nomadism” (Custer and
Wallace 1982:163; Turner 1989:82).
Palynological studies suggest that the cold
climate of the Paleoindian period resulted in a
vegetational landscape where conifers dominated
over hardwoods. The appearance of the Virginia
landscape was vastly different than it is today.
The continental ice sheet, which still covered
portions of eastern North America as far south
as New York until about 12,000 years ago, caused
greatly lowered sea levels, and the cooler climate
resulted in the previously mentioned boreal plant
environment.
Archaic Stage (8000–1200 BC)
Cultural groups of this stage are characterized
by a subsistence strategy adapted to the warming
Holocene environment and the fluorescence of
new biotic communities. The seasonal hunting
and gathering strategy they employed focused on
the exploitation of small and large game, aquatic
resources including fish and shellfish, and a variety
of berries, nuts, and roots.
In addition, these groups began to use a wider
array of locally available resources such as quartz
and quartzite for lithic tool manufacture. These
materials were fashioned into a variety of distinc-
tive stone tool types. Diagnostic projectile points
from tightly dated contexts on Archaic sites serve
as the basis for subdividing the stage into Early,
Middle, and Late periods. Although these sites
are better represented in the region than those
of the preceding period, they are frequently in
a poor state of preservation, often disturbed by
plowing, erosion, or inundation by coastal waters.
Early Archaic Period (8000–6500 BC). The
range of diagnostic hafted bifaces recovered
from Early Archaic stratified and surface contexts
includes corner-notched varieties such as Kirk
Corner-notched and Palmer points, as well as
side-notched varieties such as Hardaway points
(Dent 1995:168). Stratified sites and relatively
sparse radiometric dates for contexts that included
diagnostic points indicate that the notched hafted
bifaces date between 8000 to 5500 BC and that
the Kirk Stemmed points continue to be depos-
ited well into the Middle Archaic period (i.e.,
between about 6500 to 4000 BC) (Dent 1995:168,
175). Lithic assemblages associated with notched
point assemblages indicate a continued reliance
on nonlocal rhyolites and cherts during the Early
Archaic period (Dent 1995:170). The earliest
evidence for the use of ground stone tools in the
Chesapeake region has also been found in Early
Archaic contexts (Dent 1995:170).
Primarily due to the rising sea level, informa-
tion on settlement patterning is sketchy for the
Early Archaic period. In general, Early Archaic
components represent small, short-term episodes
of occupation at locales that are widely scattered
across the landscape. Assemblages associated with
notched points may display regional patterning
more similar to the preceding Paleoindian stage
than to subsequent periods. Bifurcate point oc-
cupations may display a radiation into a wider
variety of habitats, however, perhaps suggestive of
exploitation of an expanding Holocene resource
base (Dent 1995:171–172). In short, Early Archaic
societies were likely characterized by a band level
of organization, although these hunting and gath-
ering bands were probably not as dispersed as
those of the preceding Paleoindian stage.
Stratified deposits and radiometric dates from
the Thunderbird and Fifty sites also provide
evidence for Early Archaic occupation in the
study area. These findings are corroborated by
radiometric dates from 44WR0050 (Gardner
1974). Corner-notched points are the typologi-
cal markers for the transition, followed by side-
notched and stemmed varieties. At this time drills,
adzes, and chipped stone axes were added to the
22
tool kit (Gardner 1989). While jasper continues
to dominate lithic assemblages, raw materials
become more varied. Use of rhyolite, apparently
from Blue Ridge outcrops in the Harper’s Ferry
region, points to nonlocal procurement of lithic
raw materials (Gardner 1989).
Middle Archaic Period (6500–3000 BC). In
general, the transition from Early to Middle
Archaic has been described as more abrupt than
that typifying the Paleoindian to Early Archaic
split. Bifurcate hafted bifaces mark the beginning
of the period followed by various stemmed variet-
ies. Overall, the tool kit becomes more generalized
not only in form, but also in the choice of raw
materials. Jasper appears less frequently in these
assemblages. Formal, curated tools decrease in
frequency, while non-standardized, expedient
forms increase (Gardner 1989). Grinding slabs,
mortars, and pestles appear (Snyder and Fehr
1984). These patterns are thought to reflect en-
vironmental changes that influenced subsistence
regimes and, by extension, settlement systems.
During this period, the Holocene warm-
ing trend continued, resulting in expansion of
deciduous forests at the expense of parklands
and coniferous forests. As these forests became
established, plant resources from arboreal and
non-arboreal species, particularly nuts, prolifer-
ated. Deer and a variety of smaller mammalian
species predominated. Large Middle Archaic
sites have been viewed as spatially focused on
areas of high biotic productivity—localities that
provided access to a variety of seasonally avail-
able resources within both horizontal and vertical
zones (Gardner 1989).
These adaptive changes can be seen as suc-
cessful, in that there is evidence for significant
population increase during the Middle Archaic
throughout the Middle and Northern Shenandoah
Valley (Gardner 1989). Site visibility, changing
mobility patterns, and geomorphological pro-
cesses also must be considered when inferring
demographic shifts, however. Middle Archaic
components are common on high Pleistocene
terraces and appear to be the most abundant
prehistoric resources documented within upland
settings (Gardner 1987:64).
Late Archaic Period (3000–1200 BC). Climatic
conditions approached those present in modern
times during the Late Archaic (Carbone 1974).
Riverine settings became increasingly produc-
tive during this period, including the presence of
anadromous fish. Chestnut and oak forests also
climaxed, providing other dependable resources,
even if only seasonally available and involving
high processing costs. These factors appear to
have favored an increasingly sedentary and river-
oriented settlement component. Importantly, sites
continue in smaller stream and upland settings
as well.
Late Archaic sites appear to be marked by
differential utilization of cryptocrystalline raw
materials. In terms of the artifact assemblage,
Gardner (1974) has remarked that despite a re-
surgence of jasper use, quartz and quartzite tools
generally dominate assemblages. However, jasper
comprised 65 percent of the assemblage at the
Late Archaic Dry Run Site (44WR0060) (Boyer
1978). Broadspear points of the Susquehanna
and Savannah River types typify the hafted
biface component (Snyder and Fehr 1984).
Steatite vessels occur. Interestingly, their source
appears to be quarry locations in Albemarle and
Nelson Counties, which are farther away than
the Madison County sources (Boyer 1978). This
as well as stylistic divisions in hafted biface styles
may be archaeological correlates of social contacts
reflecting interaction from procurement or trade
relationships.
Late Archaic components are commonly
found along the floodplains and high Pleistocene
terraces of the region. Site types include transient
camps and small hunting stations, as well as
probable base camps, which Gardner (1987:59)
views as staging areas for exploitation of higher
elevations.
23
Woodland Stage (1200 BC – AD 1500)
Although Woodland groups continued to exploit
the varied resources utilized during the Archaic
period, the emphasis on seasonal hunting and
gathering gradually shifted to an economy more
dependent on horticulture. During the Early and
Middle Woodland, wild plant foods were most
important in the diet, but by the Late Woodland,
there was a great reliance on cultivation of
corn, beans, and squash. Concurrent with these
changes in subsistence patterns, the trend towards
lower residential mobility continued through the
Woodland stage, and social organization that
was predominantly tribal gradually shifted into a
chiefdom level of complexity. Among the most
obvious changes manifested archaeologically,
however, are the technological advances that
distinguish the Woodland stage from the Archaic,
including the introduction of ceramic vessels for
food preparation and storage.
Early Woodland Period (1200–500 BC). The
Early Woodland period is distinguished from the
preceding Late Archaic primarily by changes in
material culture with, as many argue, very little
associated change in subsistence patterns, at least
initially (e.g., Mouer 1991). The ceramic wares
that are introduced during the Early Woodland
period are often characterized as experimental,
displaying a considerable variety of manufactur-
ing techniques, tempering agents, and surface
treatments. Early vessel forms resemble the
characteristics of the carved steatite bowls that
are associated with the Late Archaic period, with
wide openings, flat bottoms, and lug handles.
Diagnostic Early Woodland ceramic wares that
have been defined based on investigations along
the lower Potomac River include Marcey Creek
ware and Bushnell ware (Stephenson et al. 1963;
Waselkov 1982). Diagnostic hafted bifaces that
are found in association with Early Woodland
ceramics include Fishtail and variants of the
broad-blade points, which carry over from the end
of the Late Archaic period, Calvert, Piscataway,
and Rossville points. The wide variety of ground
stone tools that characterized the Late Archaic
period also continues into the Early Woodland,
although trade networks for lithic raw materials
are not as extensive (Dent 1995:228–229).
Increased permanence of the riverine settle-
ment component is suggested by storage pit
features and a series of hearths at the Corral Site
(44WR0057; see Snyder and Fehr 1984) and the
522 Bridge Site (44WR0329; see McLearen 1991).
These are interpreted as microband residential
sites. More limited in size and artifact/feature
diversity are a series of non-floodplain sites. It
is generally agreed that they represent extractive,
limited-activity sites.
Among the prehistoric components that have
been identified in the region’s floodplain settings,
Early Woodland components are second only to
Late Woodland components. Early Woodland
sites are least abundant within the high terrace
and upland zones (Gardner 1987:59–64).
Middle Woodland Period (500 BC – AD 900).
During this period, settlement began to shift
from inner floodplains toward the floodplain
levees—a trend that would continue through the
Late Woodland. Factors that have been suggested
for this reorientation include (1) anthropogenic
depletion of inner floodplain resources (Walker
and Miller 1992) and (2) increased exploitation
of backwater environments for horticultural
purposes (Snyder and Fehr 1984; Walker and
Miller 1992).
Small, contracting-stem hafted bifaces similar
to Rossville and Piscataway types are the diagnos-
tic artifacts for the period (Snyder and Fehr 1984).
Grooved stone axes were replaced by celts. The
ceramic series for the Middle Woodland is divided
by changing relative frequencies of various surface
treatments. Crushed rock-tempered Albemarle
series sherds, with cord- and net-marked surfaces,
gradually give way to fabric-impressed varieties,
with mixed sand and crushed rock temper (Snyder
and Fehr 1984).
Despite these gradual changes in the material
culture repertoire, the Middle Woodland appears
24
to be a period of rapid change with the relatively
sudden appearance and disappearance of the
Stone Burial Mound Complex. Beginning about
500 BC, piles of stones located on bluffs overlook-
ing the floodplains cap burial pits that sometimes
include individual and multiple burials. Artifacts
include stone pipes, copper beads, pendants, celts,
and projectile points. The complex extends along
the South Fork of the Shenandoah and into West
Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania (Snyder
and Fehr 1984). The relatively small number of
burial mounds and the presence of nonlocal ar-
tifacts have led researchers to assume that their
occupants held relatively high status, perhaps in-
dicative of some degree of social ranking. By AD
300, although no major changes in settlement or
subsistence are visible archaeologically, the Stone
Burial Mound Complex disappears.
Late Woodland Period (AD 900–1700). Small,
dispersed hamlets are ubiquitous throughout
the Shenandoah Valley floodplain areas during
the early Late Woodland period. These hamlet
sites consist of circular house clusters and burial
areas, along with a suite of storage and thermal
features. Burials at one such site, 44WR0300, are
highly variable and include primary and secondary
interments composed of both single and multiple
individuals (Snyder and Fehr 1984).
By the end of the Late Woodland period,
these hamlets appear to have coalesced into
aggregated, palisaded village locations. An archi-
tectural hierarchy between the small curvilinear
habitation structures and large rectangular struc-
tures suggests an evolving level of socio-political
complexity in the region (Walker and Miller
1992). Site 44WR0003 is an example of such a
palisaded Late Woodland site. Burials and large
storage features are present. The factors behind
this Late Woodland phenomenon are varied but
certainly include the introduction of maize into
the diet, the changing organizational and schedul-
ing requirements of domestic crop production,
and the social adjustments necessary to provide
cohesion in large group settings.
The material culture of the period also reflects
technological innovations. The introduction of
the bow and arrow seems to correspond with
the use of triangular projectile points through-
out the Late Woodland sequence. The crushed-
stone Albemarle series, a continuation from the
Middle Woodland period, is the primary ceramic
type during the beginning of the Late Woodland
period. The occurrence of limestone-tempered
Page series ceramics overlaps and then replaces
the Albemarle series, spreading north through the
valley into the Potomac drainage and east into the
Piedmont as far as the Monocacy Valley. The end
of the Late Woodland period is marked by the ap-
pearance of the shell-tempered Keyser ceramics,
which abruptly replace the widespread ceramics
of the Page series. The Keyser series appears
closely related to the Monongahela series and
may represent migrations of groups into the area
from the northwest (Walker and Miller 1992:166).
hiStoriC Context
Settlement to Society (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).
25
Colony to Nation (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 prison-
ers of war were sent to Winchester and housed in
barracks just west of the town (Greene 1926:81).
Early National Period (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
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).
Antebellum Period (1830–1860)
Gristmills and sawmills were numerous in and
around Winchester by the Antebellum period.
Woolen mills were established in Winchester as
well. In 1836, the county assumed its present size
when Clarke and Warren counties were formed
(Ebert & Lazazzera 1988:20). Turnpikes, canals,
and railroads were built during the second quarter
of the nineteenth century (Figure 12). 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.
The Civil War (1861–1865)
When the Civil War began most of the counties in
the Shenandoah Valley, including Frederick, voted
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 13-acre
LREF project area is located within the extreme
northeastern portion of the core area of the Cedar
Creek Battlefield National Historic Landmark
(Resource 034-0303) (Gillespie 1874; Hotchkiss
1864) (Figures 13 and 14). 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 operations in the Valley, and
26
PROJECT VICINITYPROJECT VICINITY
0 5 miles
0 5 kilometers
Figure 12. Detail of antebellum map, showing project vicinity (Böÿe 1859 [1826]).
27
0 600 meters
0 1200 feet
APPROXIMATE PROJECT
AREA LOCATION
APPROXIMATE PROJECT
AREA LOCATION
Figure 13. Detail of Confederate map of the Battle of Cedar Creek, showing project vicinity (Davis et al. 1983:Plate
LXXXII:9).
28
0 400 meters
0 800 feet
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROJECT AREAAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROJECT AREA
Figure 14. Detail of Union map, showing project vicinity (Gillespie 1873).
29
combined with Sherman’s campaign in Atlanta,
ensured President Lincoln’s re-election in 1864
(Higgins and Lewes 2014:15).
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 counter-
attacked in the vicinity of the project area and
completely routed the Confederate forces, driving
them south beyond Strasburg, Virginia.
Reconstruction and Growth (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
standing as a commercial and manufacturing
center, with glove factories, foundries, tanneries,
and a paper mill by 1886 (Morton 1925:257).
World War I to the Present
Transportation continued to play a major role
in the development of Frederick County during
the twentieth century. An airstrip was built at
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.
30
31
4: Survey Results, Research Summary,
and Recommendations
The survey of the 13-acre LREF parcel consisted
of systematic shovel testing, metal detecting, and
surface examination to identify archaeological
resources on the property. A discussion of the
results from this work is provided in the following
sections of this chapter. An inventory of recov-
ered artifacts is provided in Appendix A and an
updated V-CRIS archaeological site form for Site
44FK0622 is in Appendix B.
reSultS oF arChaeologiCal Survey
Site 44FK0622
Site 44FK0622 represents a large, previously
recorded multicomponent site that is located
adjacent to the project area in the southwest. Site
44FK0622 was originally identified in 2005 on the
parcel that is now occupied by the LRCC Life
Sciences Building and then was subsequently ex-
panded through additional investigations several
hundred meters to the northeast to the building
site of the LRCC Student Center. Site 44FK0622
contains evidence of historic occupation dating
primarily to the Civil War period but includes indi-
cations of nineteenth- through twentieth-century
domestic occupation and a minor prehistoric
component (Higgins and Moore 2014; Huston
2007; Moore 2014). Based on this previous work,
Site 44FK0622 encompasses at least 11 acres and
is situated immediately adjacent to and southwest
of the current 13-acre LREF project area.
The landscape within the 13-acre LREF parcel
is mostly field, portions of which are maintained
as lawn. It is generally flat, though there is a gentle
swale in the northwest quadrant of the area, and
has an elevation of about 222 m (730 ft.) amsl.
There are several clusters of dense vegetation and
trees, including a heavily overgrown 2.6-acre area
near the northwest boundary of the property.
The clusters of vegetation on the western half of
the project area are noteworthy as these contain
remnants of a twentieth-century dwelling and
outbuildings that were part of a recent farm. Due
to the density of vegetation in the northern 2.6
acres, it was not possible to systematically test this
area under the current scope.
During the archaeological survey of the
13-acre project area, a total of 187 shovel tests
(including four judgmental shovel tests) were
excavated, of which 16 (9%) were positive for
artifacts. Additional historic artifacts were recov-
ered from 43 metal detector targets (see Figure 8
and Appendix A). Based on the recovery of
nineteenth-century sherds and a Civil War artillery
shell fragment, the boundaries of site 44FK0622
have been extended to encompass an additional
225 x 195 m (738 x 640 ft.) area, bringing the total
size of Site 44FK0622 to approximately 22 acres.
Stratigraphy across Site 44FK0622 is gener-
ally shallow and consists of two strata. Stratum
I is a post-occupational plowzone comprised of
variations of brown, clayey loam, which extends
approximately 0.49–0.66 ft. (15–20 cm) below
surface to a distinctive dark yellowish brown
(10YR4/4), or strong brown (7.5YR5/8), clay
subsoil (Stratum II) (Figure 15). Archaeologists
identified several modern deposits and/or fea-
tures and other disturbances during the survey.
These include subsurface deposits of road gravel
in Shovel Tests P8 and M10 in the vicinity of the
32
ST G12
I - Yellowish brown (10YR5/8) silty clay loam (plowzone)
Subsoil - Strong brown (7.5YR5/8) clay
ST P13
I - Dark brown (10YR3/3) silty clay loam (plowzone)
Subsoil - Dark yellowish brown (10YR3/3) silty clay mottled with
strong brown ((7.5YR4/6) clay
Judgmental ST JM2
I - Brown (10YR4/3) silty loam (topsoil)
Subsoil - Yellowish brown (10YR5/6) silty clay
Judgmental ST JM4
I - Dark yellowish brown (10YR3/4) clayey loam
Subsoil - Brown (10YR4/3) clay
Figure 15. Site 44FK0622, Shovel Tests G12, P13, JM2, and JM4, profiles .
house site, and distinctive, redeposited clay in
Shovel Test R11 close to the southern boundary
of Site 44FK0622 as defined by the limits of the
project area. No significant sub-plowzone cultural
deposits were identified.
Two judgmental shovel tests (JM1 and JM2)
were dug at the twentieth-century house site in
the large grove of trees and dense vegetation on
the west half of the project area near Valley Pike.
Shovel Tests JM1 and JM2 in this area yielded
near-surface, late nineteenth-/twentieth-century
domestic deposits and/or artifacts. Shovel Test
JM2 exposed remnants of a compacted gravel
driveway and beneath this, a fragment of nine-
teenth-century window glass, pieces of rope, and a
machine-made brick (except for the window glass,
these were discarded in the field). Archaeologists
also observed concrete steps and structural debris
on the ground in the vicinity of Shovel Test JM2.
According to V-CRIS data and aerial imagery of
the property, an early twentieth-century house
and outbuildings (Resource 034-0271) stood at
this location until the early 2000s. During the field
survey, remnants of one of the outbuildings were
identified in a cluster of vegetation approximately
61 m (200 ft.) to the northeast of the house site
and consisted of a concrete floor and construction
debris. To the northeast of the house site, inside
the densely overgrown vegetation at the north
end of the project between Transects F9 and
F17, archaeologists excavated Judgmental Shovel
Tests JM3 and JM4 and both were negative (see
Figures 8 and 15). The topsoil in these shovel tests
consisted of variations of dark brown clayey loam,
33
ranged from 0.46-1.02 ft. (14-31 cm) thick, and
was over brown (10YR4/3) clay subsoil.
Systematic shovel test and metal detector sur-
veys yielded a total of 104 artifacts, including 103
historic artifacts and one prehistoric artifact. The
historic assemblage includes, but is not limited to,
12 fragments of bottle glass (eight colorless and
four amber), 12 nails (one wrought, seven cut,
four wire), nine horseshoes, six chain links, five
ceramic sherds, four iron buckles/buckle parts,
four artillery shell fragments (i.e., shrapnel), two
pieces of window glass, two wrought spikes, and
one each of an iron hinge, a bridle bit, a piece
of folded copper, and a copper alloy grommet
(Figures 16–19; see Appendix A). The historic
ceramic assemblage includes two fragments of
pearlware (Shovel Tests H3 and Q8) and three
sherds of locally/regionally made coarse earth-
enware (one each from Shovel Tests G12 and
G15 and Metal Detector Target MD7). The lone
prehistoric artifact consists of a hammerstone/
grindstone made from sandstone and was re-
covered from Shovel Test M11. No significant
sub-plowzone cultural deposits were identified.
Systematic metal detecting was undertaken
across the field portion of the project area,
producing 64 metallic artifacts. The assemblage
proved to be quite variable in terms of artifact type
and artifact density, depending on the location.
The western half of the project area (between
Transects 3 and 11) revealed considerable metal-
lic “noise” that was likely attributable to iron ore
and/or other metallic mineralization near surface
and/or in the substrata (particularly in the area
of the gentle swale in the northwest quadrant
of the project area); modern road-trash scatter
along Transects 3-5 near Valley Pike, and finally,
extensive metal debris (e.g., plow share fragments,
sheet metal, barbed wire, spark plugs) associated
with twentieth-century domestic occupation and
farming. The results of the metal detector survey
indicate that all but seven of the targets (MD57,
MD59, and MD61-65) representing military ob-
jects, or possible military items (i.e., the artillery
shell fragments/shrapnel, cut nails, horse-related
hardware, a copper alloy grommet, metal bucket
fragments, a chisel, chain link), were recovered
east of Transect 11 on the eastern half of the
project area and most of these in the northeast
quadrant (see Figures 8, 16, and 17). Metallic
artifacts recovered from the northeast quadrant
include, but not limited to, shrapnel (MD20,
MD35, and MD37), horseshoes (MD12, MD15,
MD20, MD21, MD29, MD39, MD53), a bridle bit
(MD33), a chisel (MD2), chain link (MD7, MD10,
MD42), a wrought spike (MD45), wrought and
cut nails (MD3, MD5, MD9, MD18, MD44), and
iron buckle/buckle parts (MD22, MD24). The
few items recovered from the northwest quad-
rant include a wrought spike (MD57), an iron
wedge-like object (MD59); a folded, oval copper
object (MD61), a horseshoe (MD62), chain link
(MD63, MD65), and finally, an iron, washer-like
attachment (MD64).
The only diagnostic Civil War military artifacts
recovered during the metal detector survey and
the shovel test survey were chunks of shrapnel
(n=4) from Shovel Test P13 and Metal Detector
Targets MD20, MD35, and MD37. These came
from spherical balls that were fired from smooth-
bore cannon and are like examples previously
recovered from Site 44FK0622 and other parts of
the Cedar Creek Battlefield (Higgins and Moore
2014; Moore 2014; Higgins and Lewes 2015). One
of the shrapnel pieces (MD37) retains part of a
distinctive fuse channel (see Figure 16). Another
noteworthy artifact is the copper alloy grommet
(MD69). This item might have come from a
military tent or a soldier’s poncho. Examples like
this have been found on other Civil War military
campsites (Higgins et al. 2024).
The artifacts were usually recovered about 15-
23 cm (0.49-0.75 ft.) below the ground surface.
Except for the pieces of shrapnel, the remaining
61 metal objects recovered during metal detection
are nondiagnostic in terms of Civil War military
association, though they could represent period
military-related items, or alternatively, be associ-
34
Figure 16. Site 44FK0622, Civil War artillery shell fragments recovered during current
investigation (a - exploded artillery shell [MD 04]; b - exploded artillery shell with fuse [MD
37]; c - exploded artillery shell [MD 35]).
Figure 17. Site 44FK0622, selected horse furniture (a - possible horse tack [MD 24];
b - horseshoe [MD 39]; c - possible curb bit chain [MD 42]; d - bridle bit [MD 33]).
35
Figure 18. Site 44FK0622, selected copper alloy artifacts (a - copper alloy belt plate [MD
61]; b - copper alloy grommet [MD 69]).
Figure 19. Site 44FK0622, selected fasteners (a - wrought spike [MD45]; b - wrought spike
[MD57]).
36
ated with farming the property in the postbellum
era and later. As noted, this assemblage includes
horseshoes, a bridle bit, and iron buckles/buckle
parts that could be horse furniture (see Figure 17).
In summary, the overall distribution of arti-
facts (i.e., shrapnel, nineteenth-century ceram-
ics) indicate that the project area represents an
extension of Site 44FK0622 that has been previ-
ously identified adjacent to the project area in the
southwest. The 16 positive shovel tests are widely
dispersed across the site and show no significant
patterning in distribution. The concentration of
metallic artifacts in the northeast quadrant of this
site may reflect more intensive activity in this
area of the site, however, most of the recovered
artifacts are temporarily undiagnostic and could
post-date the Civil War. The overall low density
and/or lack of diagnostic Civil War military ar-
tifacts (e.g., bullets, accoutrements) may reflect
the lack of intense fighting on this portion of the
battlefield, or perhaps more likely, that it has been
exhaustively searched by relic hunters in the past
and therefore has low potential for significant
archaeological evidence of the battle, military
supply storage/staging, and encampment areas,
as found in previous studies on other parts of Site
44FK0622 and the larger Cedar Creek Battlefield
(Higgins and Lewes 2015; Huston 2007; Moore
2014) (see Figures 4 and 5).
Survey eFFeCtiveneSS
The primary purpose of this survey was to pro-
vide LREF with a statement of the nature and
distribution of archaeological resources within the
proposed 13-acre 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 0.64-cm (0.25-in.)
wire mesh. In addition, some areas within the
project area consisted of dense vegetation, such
that systematic shovel test and metal detector
surveys were not feasible in these areas during
the current study.
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; Geier et al. 2023;
Higgins and Lewes 2014; Jolley 1997:3, 2003:237,
2007; 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 archaeo-
logical resources were overlooked within the
proposed project area. Although the survey results
are somewhat inconsistent with the expectations
generated by background research for this project
(which indicated a high potential for discovering
Civil War-related resources), previous searches
of the property by relic hunters factors into the
survey results.
SuMMary and reCoMMendationS
Intensive, systematic shovel test and metal de-
tector surveys of the project area yielded a low-
density scatter of historic artifacts. Given that
one prehistoric artifact was recovered from the
plowzone, the minor prehistoric component of
Site 44FK0622 possesses little additional research
potential. The historic period artifacts (i.e., diag-
nostic Civil War artifacts and nineteenth-century
domestic artifacts) are very lightly manifested,
generally widely dispersed, and limited in type.
In the opinion of the consultant, the research
potential of the archaeological resources
within the surveyed portion of the project area
is unlikely to provide additional significant
new information that may address themes of
Military/Defense during the Civil War (1861-
1865) or themes of Settlement and Subsistence
during periods of prehistory and history in the
Shenandoah Valley of Virginia (VDHR 2017).
Accordingly, the research potential of the
37
project area has been effectively exhausted
with the completion of the current study, such
that it does not contribute to the eligibility of
Site 44FK0622 for the NRHP under Criterion
D; Criteria A-C are considered not applicable.
Due to the density of vegetation, it was not pos-
sible within the scope of the current project to
systematically test the 2.6-acre area at the north
end of the property. It is recommended that prior
to any development of the 2.6-acre wooded area
at the north end of the property, the vegetation
be cleared and systematic shovel testing and metal
detector survey be conducted on the as-yet un-
tested portion of the LREF parcel.
38
39
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] Library of Virginia, Richmond.
Boyer, William P., Jr.
1978 Test Excavations at the Dry Run Site: Late
Archaic-Woodland and a Buried Stone
Wall. Master’s thesis, Catholic University of
America, Washington, D.C.
California Soil Resource Lab (CSRL)
2025 Soil web: An Online soil Survey Browser.
Online database/mapping of Natural Re-
sources conservation Service/National Co-
operative soil Survey data. Accessed through
Goggle Earth Interface, March 2025.
Coates, Earl J., and Dean S. Thomas
1990 An Introduction to Civil War Small Arms.
Thomas Publications, Gettysburg, Pennsyl-
vania.
Conner, Melissa, and Douglas D. Scott
1998 Metal Detector Use in Archaeology: An
Introduction. Historical Archaeology 32:76–85.
Custer, Jay F., and E. B. Wallace
1982 Patterns of Resource Distribution and
Archaeological Settlement Patterns in the
Piedmont Uplands of the Middle Atlantic
Region. North American Archaeologist 3:139–
172.
References Cited
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 Depart-
ment, Washington, D.C.
Dent, Richard J.
1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New
Directions. Plenum Press, New York.
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.
Gardner, William M.
1974 The Flint Run Complex: Pattern and Process
during the Paleo-Indian to Early Archaic. In
The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: A Prelimi-
nary Report, 1971–1973 Seasons, edited by W.
M. Gardner, pp. 5–47. Occasional Publica-
tion No. 1. Archeology Laboratory, Catholic
University of America, Washington, D.C.
1977 Flint Run Paleoindian Complex and Implica-
tions for Eastern North American Prehis-
tory. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironments
in Northeastern North America, edited by W. S.
Newman and B. Salwen. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences 288:257–263.
New York.
40
1986 Lost Arrowheads and Broken Pottery: Traces of
Indians in the Shenandoah Valley. Thunderbird
Museum, Front Royal, Virginia.
1987 Comparison of Ridge and Valley, Blue
Ridge, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain Archaic
Period Site Distribution: An Idealized Tran-
sect (Preliminary Model). Journal of Middle
Atlantic Archaeology 3:49–80.
1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in
the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene
(Ca. 9200 to 6800). In Paleoindian Research
in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. M. Witt-
kofski and T. R. Reinhart, pp. 5–51. Special
Publication No. 19. Archeological Society
of Virginia, Richmond.
Geier, Clarence R., Joseph W. A. Whitehorne, and
Michael Kehoe
2023 One Hour at the Mouth of Meadow Brook,
Oct. 19, 1864: The Battle of Cedar Creek.
Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of
Virginia 78(2):55–97.
Gillespie, G. L.
1873 Battle fields of Fisher’s Hill [22 Sept. 1864]
and Cedar Creek [19 Oct. 1864], Virginia.
Library of Congress, http://hdl.loc.gov/
loc.gmd/g3882f.cw0537000
Greene, Katherine Glass
1926 Winchester, Virginia and Its Beginnings. Shenan-
doah Publishing House, Strasburg, Virginia.
Higgins, Thomas F., III, and William H. Moore
2014 Cedar Creek Battlefield Speaks: Supplemental
Archaeological Evaluation of Site 44FK0622 at
the Proposed Student Center Building Project Area,
Lord Fairfax Community College, Middletown,
Virginia. William & Mary Center for Archae-
ological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Submitted to the Lord Fairfax Community
Foundation Board, Middletown, Virginia.
Higgins, Thomas F., III, and David W. Lewes
2015 Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of the
Vermont Monument Property (44FK0060),
Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical
Park, Frederick County, Virginia. William &
Mary Center for Archaeological Research,
Williamsburg, Virginia. Submitted to Cedar
Creek and Belle Grove National Historical
Park, National Park Service, Middletown,
Virginia.
Higgins, Thomas F., III, David W. Lewes, Charles
M. Downing, Kevin Goodrich, and Elizabeth J.
Monroe
2024 “Comfortable things that were left behind”: Archae-
ology of Civil War Camp Life at Gloucester Point,
Virginia, 1861–1865. Archaeological Evaluation
of Sites 44GL0355 and 44GL0356 and Data
Recovery of Sites 44GL0034 and 44GL0358,
Chesapeake Bay Hall Replacement Capital Project,
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester
Point, Virginia. William & Mary Center for
Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Vir-
ginia. Submitted to Facilities Management,
William & Mary Virginia Institute of Marine
Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.
Huston, Clifton A.
2007 Phase III Mitigation of Impact Investigation at Site
44FK0622 on the Lord Fairfax Community Col-
lege Tract, Frederick County, Virginia. Submitted
by ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC, Fredericksburg,
Virginia. Submitted to the Virginia Com-
munity College System, Richmond.
Jolley, Robert L.
1997 A Metal Detector Survey of Camp Mason
(44FK533), A CSA Winter Encampment, Fred-
erick County, Virginia. Winchester Regional
Office, Department of Historic Resources.
2003 An Archaeological Survey of Hupp’s
Hill, a Civil War Military Site (44SH353),
Shenandoah County. Quarterly Bulletin of the
Archaeological Society of Virginia 58(4).
41
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.
Jones, Olive R., and Catherine Sullivan
1985 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the De-
scription of Containers, Tableware, Flat Glass,
and Closures. National Historic Parks and
Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Environment
Canada, Ottawa.
Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation
1992 Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instru-
ment Corporation, Baltimore.
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.
McAvoy, Joseph M., and L. D. McAvoy
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202,
Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Research
Report Series No. 8. Virginia Department
of Historic Resources, Richmond.
McLearen, Douglas C.
1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Material
Culture in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early
Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis,
edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary
Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 89–137. Special Pub-
lication No. 23. Archeological Society of
Virginia, Richmond.
Moore, William H.
2014 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Student
Center building, Lord Fairfax Community College,
Middletown, Virginia. William & Mary Center
for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg,
Virginia. Submitted to the Lord Fairfax
Community Foundation Board, Middle-
town, Virginia.
Morton, Frederic
1925 The Story of Winchester in Virginia. Shenan-
doah Publishing House, Strasburg, Virginia.
Mouer, L. Daniel
1991 The Formative Transition in Virginia. In
Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in
Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R.
Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp.
1–88. Special Publication No. 23. Archeo-
logical Society of Virginia, Richmond.
Nelson, Lee H.
1968 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old
Buildings. History News 19(2).
Noël Hume, Ivor
1991 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Re-
printed. Vintage Books, New York. Origi-
nally published 1969. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.,
New York.
Norris, J. E.
1890 History of the Lower Shenandoah Valley Counties
of Frederick, Berkeley, Jefferson, and Clarke. Vir-
ginia Book Company, Berryville, Virginia.
Philbin, Tom, and Steve Ettlinger
1988 The Complete Illustrated Guide to Everything Sold
in Hardware Stores. Macmillan Publishing
Company, New York.
Phillips, Stanley S.
1974 Excavated Artifacts from Battlefields and Camp-
sites of the Civil War, 1861–1865. LithoCraft-
ers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
1980 Excavated Artifacts from Battlefields and Camp-
sites of the Civil War, 1861–1865: Supplement
I. S.S. Phillips and Associates, Lanham,
Maryland.
Potter, Stephen R.
1993 Commoners, Tributes, and Chiefs: The Development
of Algonquian Culture in the Potomac Valley.
University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Quarles, Garland R.
1971 Some Old Houses in Frederick County. The
Farmers and Merchants Bank, Winchester,
Virginia.
42
Reinhart, Theodore R., and Mary Ellen N. Hodges
(editors)
1990 Early and Middle Archaic Research in Virginia:
A Synthesis. Special Publication No. 22. Ar-
cheological Society of Virginia, Richmond.
1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in
Virginia: A Synthesis. Special Publication
No. 23. Archeological Society of Virginia,
Richmond.
1992 Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia:
A Synthesis. Special Publication No. 29. Ar-
cheological Society of Virginia, Richmond.
Snyder, K. A., and A. M. Fehr
1984 Data Recovery Excavations at 44WR3,
44WR299, 44WR300, and 44WR301. Thun-
derbird Research Corporation, Front Royal.
Submitted to The Town of Front Royal,
Virginia.
Stephenson, Robert L., Alice L. L. Ferguson, and
Henry Ferguson
1963 The Accokeek Creek Site: A Middle Atlantic
Seaboard Cultural Sequence. Anthropological
Papers No. 20. Museum of Anthropology,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
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
Archaeological Research, Williamsburg,
Virginia. Submitted to the Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation, Richmond.
Thomas, James E., and Dean S. Thomas
2007 A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges.
Thomas Publications, Gettysburg, Pennsyl-
vania. Originally published 1996, Thomas
Publications, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.
Turner, E. Randolph, III
1989 Paleoindian Settlement Patterns and Popula-
tion Distribution in Virginia. In Paleoindian
Research In Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J.
Mark Wittkofski and Theodore Reinhart,
pp. 71-94. Special Publication No. 19. Ar-
cheological Society of Virginia, Richmond.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1999 Middletown, VA quadrangle. 7.5-minute
topographic series. USGS, Reston, Virginia.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources
(VDHR)
2017 Guidelines for Conducting Cultural Resource
Surveys in Virginia. Revised. Virginia Depart-
ment of Historic Resources, Richmond.
Walker, Joan M., and Glenda F. Miller
1992 Life on the Levee: The Late Woodland
Period in the Northern Great Valley of Vir-
ginia. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in
Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart
and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 165–185. Special
Publication No. 29. Archeological Society
of Virginia, Richmond.
Wittkofski, J. Mark, and Theodore R. Reinhart
(editors)
1989 Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis.
Special Publication No. 19. Archeological
Society of Virginia, Richmond.
A-
Appendix A:
Artifact Inventory
A-
QuantityWeight(g)CommentRaw MaterialSubclass IISubclass IClassProvenience
9/2/2025 Prehistoric Artifacts: Laurel Ridge Education Foundation (44FK0622) Survey Page 1 of 1WMCAR # 25-20
Informal Groundstone Combination Tool >50% Complete Sandstone 4.01, combo tool: grindstone and
hammerstone
1ST M11
Provenience ST M11 Total :1
Provenience Total:1
1Project Total:
Provenience Class Object Datable Attribute Comment Descriptor Weight(g)Quantity
9/2/2025 Historic Artifacts: Laurel Ridge Education Foundation (44FK0622) Survey Page 1 of 4WMCAR # 25-20
JM 02 Window Glass Pane glass 19th century #82.01, w/ paint, 2 mm thick Light Blue 1
Provenience JM 02 Total : 1
MD 02 Hand/Maintenance Tools Chisel Ferrous #5.01, 3.25-inch length 1
Provenience MD 02 Total : 1
MD 03 Nails Nail Fragment(s)Cut #6.01 1
Provenience MD 03 Total : 1
MD 04 Misc. Material Scrap metal Ferrous #7.01 1
Provenience MD 04 Total : 1
MD 05 Nails Nail Fragment(s)Cut #8.01 1
Provenience MD 05 Total : 1
MD 06 Nails Nail Fragment(s)Cut #9.01 1
Provenience MD 06 Total : 1
MD 07 Misc. Hardware Chain link Ferrous #10.02, 1-inch length, 0.5-inch width 1
Ceramic Tableware Hollowware Coarse Earthenware #10.01, w/ black lead glaze, orange body, wheel
thrown
1
Provenience MD 07 Total : 2
MD 08 Misc. Items Unidentified Ferrous #11.01 1
Provenience MD 08 Total : 1
MD 09 Nails Nail Fragment(s)Wrought #12.01 1
Provenience MD 09 Total : 1
MD 10 Misc. Hardware Chain link Ferrous #13.01, 1-inch length, 0.5-inch wide 1
Provenience MD 10 Total : 1
MD 12 Stable/Barn Horseshoe Ferrous #15.01, incomplete 1
Provenience MD 12 Total : 1
MD 15 Stable/Barn Horseshoe Ferrous #17.01, incomplete 1
Provenience MD 15 Total : 1
MD 17 Misc. Hardware Hinge Ferrous #19.01 1
Provenience MD 17 Total : 1
MD 18 Nails Nail Fragment(s)Cut #20.01 1
Provenience MD 18 Total : 1
MD 20 Stable/Barn Horseshoe Ferrous #21.01, incomplete 1
Ammunition/Artillery Shrapnel Ferrous #21.02, curved 1
Provenience MD 20 Total : 2
MD 21 Stable/Barn Horseshoe Ferrous #22.01, w/ calkin, incomplete 1
Provenience MD 21 Total : 1
MD 22 Fasteners Buckle/buckle part Ferrous #23.01, incomplete 1
Provenience MD 22 Total : 1
MD 24 Fasteners Buckle/buckle part Ferrous #25.01, 2-inch x 1.5-inch, missing prong, possible
horse tack?
1
Provenience MD 24 Total : 1
Provenience Class Object Datable Attribute Comment Descriptor Weight(g)Quantity
9/2/2025 Historic Artifacts: Laurel Ridge Education Foundation (44FK0622) Survey Page 2 of 4WMCAR # 25-20
MD 29 Stable/Barn Horseshoe Ferrous #29.01, w/ calkin, incomplete 1
Provenience MD 29 Total : 1
MD 30 Misc. Material Scrap metal Ferrous #30.01 1
Provenience MD 30 Total : 1
MD 33 Stable/Barn Bridle bit Ferrous #33.01, curb/leverage bit, incomplete, mend 2
Provenience MD 33 Total : 2
MD 35 Ammunition/Artillery Shrapnel Ferrous #35.01, spherical 1
Provenience MD 35 Total : 1
MD 36 Misc. Items Bucket/bucket part Ferrous #36.01 Handle 2
Provenience MD 36 Total : 2
MD 37 Ammunition/Artillery Shrapnel Ferrous #37.01, w/ partial 2 mm fuse, spherical 1
Provenience MD 37 Total : 1
MD 38 Misc. Material Sheet metal Ferrous #38.01, possible can/bucket?18
Provenience MD 38 Total : 18
MD 39 Stable/Barn Horseshoe Ferrous #39.01, w/ two cut nails, calkin, incomplete 1
Provenience MD 39 Total : 1
MD 41 Misc. Material Sheet metal Ferrous #40.01 1
Provenience MD 41 Total : 1
MD 42 Misc. Hardware Chain Ferrous #41.01, w/ 13 links, possible curb chain for horse
bit?
1
Provenience MD 42 Total : 1
MD 43 Misc. Hardware Nut Ferrous #42.01 1
Provenience MD 43 Total : 1
MD 44 Nails Nail Fragment(s)Cut #43.01 1
Provenience MD 44 Total : 1
MD 45 Misc. Hardware Spike fragment(s)Wrought #44.01 1
Provenience MD 45 Total : 1
MD 53 Stable/Barn Horseshoe Ferrous #50.01, incomplete 1
Provenience MD 53 Total : 1
MD 57 Misc. Hardware Spike Wrought #66.01, ferrous 1
Provenience MD 57 Total : 1
MD 59 Misc. Items Unidentified Ferrous #68.01, wedge-like, incomplete 1
Provenience MD 59 Total : 1
MD 61 Misc. Items Unidentified Copper Alloy #70.01, 2.375-inch height, oval, folded, 3-inch
length when unfolded, possible belt plate?
1
Provenience MD 61 Total : 1
MD 62 Stable/Barn Horseshoe Ferrous #71.01, w /calkins, 5.5-inch length, 4-inch width,
complete
1
Provenience MD 62 Total : 1
MD 63 Misc. Hardware Chain link Ferrous #72.01 1
Provenience MD 63 Total : 1
MD 64 Misc. Items Unidentified Ferrous #73.01, washer-like attachment 1
Provenience Class Object Datable Attribute Comment Descriptor Weight(g)Quantity
9/2/2025 Historic Artifacts: Laurel Ridge Education Foundation (44FK0622) Survey Page 3 of 4WMCAR # 25-20
Provenience MD 64 Total : 1
MD 65 Misc. Hardware Chain link Ferrous #74.01, two links, each link 2.5-inch length w/ 1.5-
inch width
1
Provenience MD 65 Total : 1
MD 67 Stable/Barn Horseshoe Ferrous #76.01, w/ three square nail holes 1
Provenience MD 67 Total : 1
MD 68 Door and Window Hardware Chain link Ferrous #77.01, 1.5-inch width, stretched/broken 1
Provenience MD 68 Total : 1
MD 69 Misc. Hardware Grommet Copper Alloy #78.01, 1-inch diameter 1
Provenience MD 69 Total : 1
MD 70 Door and Window Hardware Hinge Ferrous #79.01, 7.5-inch length w/ four 0.25-inch diameter
holes
1
Provenience MD 70 Total : 1
MD 71 Misc. Hardware Fastener Copper Alloy #80.01, possible bride bit snap, incomplete 1
Provenience MD 71 Total : 1
ST G12 Agriculture/Horticulture Flower pot #3.01 1
Provenience ST G12 Total : 1
ST G15 Ceramic Cooking/Storage Hollowware CE: Local #2.01, w/ lead glazed interior, burned Rim 1
Provenience ST G15 Total : 1
ST H03 Ceramic Tableware Tableware Pearlware #1.01, molded Rim 1
Provenience ST H03 Total : 1
ST M10 Misc. Material Wire Ferrous #51.01 9
Provenience ST M10 Total : 9
ST N10 Nails Nail(s)Wire #53.02, 4-inch length 1
Misc. Ceramics/Glass Hollowware Coarse Earthenware #56.01, w/ clear lead glaze, orange body 1
Provenience ST N10 Total : 2
ST O10 Nails Nail Fragment(s)Cut #52.01 1
Agriculture/Horticulture Barbed wire Ferrous #52.02 1
Provenience ST O10 Total : 2
ST P13 Ammunition/Artillery Shrapnel Ferrous #53.01 1
Provenience ST P13 Total : 1
ST P15 Nails Nail(s)Cut #54.01, 2.5-inch thick 1
Provenience ST P15 Total : 1
ST P16 Misc. Material Wire Ferrous #61.01 1
Provenience ST P16 Total : 1
ST Q06 Nails Nail(s)Wire #59.09, 2.5-inch length 1
Provenience ST Q06 Total : 1
ST Q07 Window Glass Pane glass 20th century #55.01 Light Blue 1
Provenience ST Q07 Total : 1
ST Q08 Nails Nail(s)Wire #57.02, 2.5-inch length 1
Nails Nail Fragment(s)Wire #57.03 1
Provenience Class Object Datable Attribute Comment Descriptor Weight(g)Quantity
9/2/2025 Historic Artifacts: Laurel Ridge Education Foundation (44FK0622) Survey Page 4 of 4WMCAR # 25-20
ST Q08 Ceramic Tableware Tableware Pearlware #57.01 Rim 1
Provenience ST Q08 Total : 3
ST S08 Misc. Material Unidentified #60.01, possible foundation/chimney stone?1
Glass Beverage Container Beverage bottle 20th century #60.02 Colorless 7
Glass Beverage Container Beer bottle 20th century #60.03 Amber 4
Provenience ST S08 Total : 12
ST V06 Glass Beverage Container Beverage bottle 20th century #62.01 Colorless 1
Provenience ST V06 Total : 1
ST V07 Electrical/Telecommunication Electrical item(s)20th century #58.01, electrical insulator 1
Provenience ST V07 Total : 1
Provenience Total : 103
103Project Total :
B-1
Appendix B:
V-CRIS Archaeological Site Inventory Form
B-2
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0622
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 1 of 5
Snapshot Date Generated: September 02, 2025
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):1850 - 1874
Site Type(s):Artifact scatter, Battlefield, Farmstead
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:Site 1
Site Evaluation Status
DHR Staff: Eligible
Locational Information
USGS Quad:MIDDLETOWN
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:Ridge and Valley
Elevation:725
Aspect:Facing Northwest
Drainage:Potomac/Shenandoah River
Slope:2 - 6
Acreage:5.700
Landform:Ridge
Ownership Status:State Govt
Government Entity Name:State University and College System
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Military/Defense
Site Type:Battlefield
Cultural Affiliation:Other
Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data
DHR Time Period:Antebellum Period, Civil War, Reconstruction and Growth
Start Year:1850
End Year:1874
Comments:Battle of Cedar Creek, October 19, 1864
----------------------
December 2005
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:The prehistoric component is represented by a single artifact (i.e., hammerstone/grindstone) from an
unknown cultural period.
-------------
July 2025
Component 3
Category:Domestic
Site Type:Farmstead
Cultural Affiliation:Euro-American
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0622
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 2 of 5
Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data
DHR Time Period:Reconstruction and Growth, The New Dominion, World War I to World War II
Start Year:No Data
End Year:No Data
Comments:In addition to a Civil War battlefield component, the portion of Site 44FK0622 identified in the 13-acre
project area contains resources associated with a previously recorded, early to mid-nineteenth-century farm
(034-0271).
------------
July 2025
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
Name: Mr. Gary Hobson
Title: Program manager
Company 1: VCCS
Address 1: 101 North 14th Street
City: Richmond
State: Virginia
ZIP: 23219
Phone 1: 804-819-4913
Ext: 0000
Surveyor Notes: Site identifed by regular interval shovel testing, surface collection, and metal detector investigations.
Owner Relationship: Property Manager
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0622
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 3 of 5
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
The William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research (W&MCAR) conducted archaeological survey of the Laurel Ridge Education Foundation
(LREF) Parcel in Frederick County, Virginia from July 14-24, 2025. This study, conducted in accordance with an agreement with LREF, was to
provide specific information concerning the nature and distribution of archaeological resources within the project area. The project area consisted of
approximately 13 acres of LREF's 19.81-acre property and was systematically surveyed in advance of proposed expansion to the Laurel Ridge
Community College.
Project Review File Number:No Data
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research
Investigator:Thomas Higgins
Survey Date:7/14/2025
Survey Description:
The archaeological survey involved complete, systematic pedestrian survey of most of the 13-acre project area. While most of the project area was
open, there were several clusters of dense vegetation and trees, including a heavily overgrown 2.6-acre area at the northeast boundary of the property.
The condition of these areas was unanticipated during planning for the project and after the fieldwork was underway, required modification of survey
coverage area. After consultation with LREF, it was decided not to systematically survey the overgrown areas during the current survey but rather
were to investigate these with a limited number of judgmental shovel tests. In all other areas, the field survey was accomplished by surface
examination and shovel testing at intervals of not more than 50 ft. (15 m) in undisturbed areas having slopes of 15 percent or less (Figures 8-10). All
surface exposures were examined carefully for cultural material. The soil from each shovel test was screened through 0.25-in. (0.64-cm) mesh to
ensure adequate recovery of artifacts. Representative, detailed soil profiles were recorded on standardized forms using Munsell color and U.S.
Department of Agriculture descriptive terminology (Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation 1992). Shovel testing was augmented by systematic metal
detecting along 25-ft. (7.5-m) transects (Figure 11). Metal detector targets for unambiguously modern materials (e.g., pull tabs, bottle caps, plow parts,
spark plugs) were discarded back into the hole from which they were recovered; all other targets were mapped and collected. Project Archaeologist
Tom Higgins conducted the metal detector survey using a White’s MTX PRO detector.
All artifacts were returned to the W&MCAR 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 W&MCAR has
developed a hierarchical coding system that operates using Microsoft Access relational database software. With this system, artifacts 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.
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Agricultural field 7/14/2025 12:00:00 AM Grass-covered field that appears to be or has recently been in agricultural use,
and lawn at the south end of the project area.
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:Unknown Portion of Site Destroyed
Survey Strategies:Historic Map Projection, Metal Detection, Subsurface Testing
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:Yes
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
Recovered historic artifacts (n=103) include horseshoes, horse bridal, belt buckle, copper alloy grommet, artillery shell fragments (e.g., shrapnel), cut
nails, locally/regionally made coarse earthenware, and whiteware, among other artifacts. In addition, archaeologists recovered one prehistoric
hammerstone/grindstone.
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
Artifacts associated with twentieth century farm operation, including plough parts, spark plugs, and scrap metal.
Current Curation Repository:Temporally stored at W&MCAR
Permanent Curation Repository:To be determined
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:W&MCAR
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
An Archaeological Survey of the Laurel Ridge Education Project Parcel, Frederick County, Virginia, by T. F. Higgins, III (2025)
Survey Report Repository:W&MCAR
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:Intensive, systematic shovel test and metal detector surveys of the project area yielded a low-
density scatter of historic artifacts. Given that one prehistoric artifact was recovered from
the plowzone, the minor prehistoric component of 44FK0622 possess little additional
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0622
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 4 of 5
research potential. The historic period artifacts (i.e., diagnostic civil War artifacts and
nineteenth-century domestic artifacts) are very lightly manifested, widely dispersed, and
limited in type. In the opinion of the consultant, the research potential of the archaeological
resources within the surveyed portion of the project area is unlikely to provide additional
significant new information that may address themes of military/Defense during the Civil
War (1861-1865) or themes of Settlement and subsistence during periods of prehistory and
history in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. Accordingly, the research potential of the
project area has been effectively exhausted with the completion of the current study, such
that it does not contribute to the eligibility of Site 44FK0622 for the NRHP under Criterion
D; Criteria A-C are considered not applicable.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
Event Type: DHR Staff: Eligible
DHR ID:44FK0622
Staff Name:Kirchen, Roger
Event Date:7/3/2007
Staff Comment No Data
Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance
Project Staff/Notes:
Phase I survey of 5.5 acre portion of the Lord Fairfax Community College tract, Middletown, Va. Site identified by metal detector investigation and
regular interval shovel testing
Project Review File Number:2004-1758
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS)
Investigator:Huston, Clifton
Survey Date:12/15/2005
Survey Description:
Site identified by regular interval shovel testing, surface collection, and metal detector sweeps.
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
College/university 12/15/2005 12:00:00 AM Site is on campus of Lord fairfax Community College, Middletown Campus.
Threats to Resource:No Data
Site Conditions:25-49% of Site Destroyed
Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing, Surface Testing
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No Data
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
artillery shrapnel, .58 caliber Minie balls, .54 caliber Spencer carbine cartridge cases, .58 caliber muzzle tompkin, cannon friction primers.
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC, 4536 Plank Road, fredericksburg, Va. 22407
Permanent Curation Repository:No Data
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC, 4536 Plank Road, Fredericksburg, VA 22407
Photographic Media:No Data
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
2007. Sweet. Phase II NRHP Evaluation of a Portion of Site 44FK0622 at the Proposed Corron Center on the Lord Farifax Community College Tract,
Frederick County, Virgniia.
-----------------------------
Phase III Mitigation of Impact Investigation at Site 44FK0622 on the Lord Fairfax Community College Tract, Frederick County, Virginia
-----------------------------
A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Corron Center at Lord Fairfax Community College, Frederick County, Maryland. Prepared by ECS, May,
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0622
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 5 of 5
2007. FK-86.
Survey Report Repository:DHR, DHR/ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC, 4536 plank Road, Fredericksburg, Va. 22407, VDHR
DHR Library Reference Number:FK-86, FK-90
Significance Statement:No Data
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
C-1
Appendix C:
Thomas F. Higgins III Curriculum Vitae
C-2
Thomas F. Higgins, III • tfhiggins@wm.edu • (757) 221-2584 – Page 1
THOMAS F. HIGGINS, III
4712 Hickory Sign Post Road
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
tfhiggins@wm.edu
(757) 221-2584
SUMMARY
Mr. Higgins has over 36 years of experience working as a project archaeologist in Virginia. Though his educational
background and research interests focus on historical archaeological resources, working for over two decades on a
variety of prehistoric and historical archaeological resources in the context of cultural resource management projects
has given him broad expertise in the range of significant archaeological resources that can be found in the Mid-
Atlantic region. He has worked for the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation within the Department of Archaeological
Research (1984-1988), W&MCAR (1988-2001), the James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc., (2001-2012), and
rejoined the senior staff at W&MCAR (2012-present). Mr. Higgins has supervised fieldwork and produced summary
reports and publications on survey-level, site evaluation, and data recovery projects that span the breadth of Virginia
prehistory and history, including Archaic-stage campsites, Woodland-stage villages, colonial farmsteads, plantation
complexes, slave quarter sites, and Civil War military sites. Over the course of his career, Mr. Higgins has served as
lead author for more than 100 archaeological reports.
EDUCATION
The College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia
M.A. Received June, 1985
Specialization in Anthropology/Historical Archaeology
Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina
B.A. Received December, 1981
Specialization in Anthropology/Archaeology Concentration
Oaxaca, Mexico: Summer School, 1981
Specialization in Anthropology/Archaeology
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Project Archaeologist 2012-Present. The William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research, The College of
William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. Responsible for all aspects of cultural resource management projects,
including design and implementation of archaeological survey, site evaluation, data recovery, and report preparation in
coordination with state and federal agencies.
Senior Project Archaeologist 2002-2012. James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia. As part
of a multidisciplinary research team, responsible for the implementation and management of long-term archaeological
program at historic Mount Pleasant in Surry County, Virginia. Assisted in management and report preparation for cultural
resource management projects, including Camp Peary (DOD), and private development.
Project Archaeologist 1988-2002. The William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research, The College of William
& Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. Responsible for all aspects of cultural resource management projects, including design
and implementation of archaeological survey, site evaluation, data recovery, and report preparation in coordination with
state and federal agencies. Extensive work on Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)-related projects across the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
Thomas F. Higgins, III • tfhiggins@wm.edu • (757) 221-2584 – Page 2
Staff Archaeologist 1984-1988. Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg, Virginia. Supervised and prepared reports on major excavations within the Historic Area of Williamsburg,
including Shields Tavern, and conducted major surveys and site evaluations for the proposed Route 199 extension project
in James City County, Virginia.
Archaeological Field Assistant September, 1983-December, 1983. Historic Annapolis, Inc., Annapolis,
Maryland. Assisted in the excavation of Reynolds Tavern and other historic sites within the city of Annapolis.
Graduate Assistant July, 1983-August, 1983. Department of Anthropology, The College of William & Mary,
Williamsburg, Virginia. Supervised field school students in the excavation of 18th-century warehouses on Saint
Eustatius, Dutch West Indies.
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Society for Historical Archaeology
Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology
Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA)
SELECTED PROFESSIONAL REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS
2024 “Comfortable things that were left behind”: Archaeology of Civil War Camp Life at Gloucester Point,
Virginia, 1861-1865. Archaeological Evaluation of Sites 44GL0355 and 44GL0356 and Data Recovery of
Sites 44GL0034 and 44GL0358, Chesapeake Bay Hall Replacement Capital Project, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia. William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research,
Williamsburg, Virginia. For Facilities Management, William & Mary Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
Gloucester Point, Virginia.
2021 Archaeological Survey and Testing at the Ferry Hill Plantation (Site 18WA476), C&O Canal National
Historical Park, Sharpsburg, Maryland (With J. Jones, et al.). William & Mary Center for Archaeological
Research, Williamsburg, Virginia. For C&O Canal National Historical Park, National Park Service,
Sharpsburg, Virginia.
In prep Archaeological Survey of the French Encampment Area and the British Defenses Area, Colonial National
Historical Park, York County, Virginia. William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg,
Virginia. For Colonial National Historical Park, National Park Service, Yorktown, Virginia.
2020 An Archaeological Evaluation of Site 44LA0147 Associated with the Proposed Belle Isle Shoreline
Stabilization Project, Lancaster County, Virginia. William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research,
Williamsburg, Virginia. Submitted to Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, Virginia.
2020 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Subsurface Utilities Associated with the Acuff Aquaculture
Genetics and Breeding Technology Center Project, William & Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
Gloucester Point, Virginia. William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Submitted to Facilities Management, William & Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester
Point, Virginia.
2018 An Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of the Proposed Ware Creek WMA Shoreline Project, New Kent
County, Virginia (With D. Lewes). William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg,
Virginia. Submitted to Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, Virginia.
2018 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Route 11 Widening Project, Rockingham County, Virginia.
William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia. Submitted to Virginia
Department of Transportation, Richmond, Virginia.
Thomas F. Higgins, III • tfhiggins@wm.edu • (757) 221-2584 – Page 3
2018 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed I-95 Auxiliary Lanes Project, Chesterfield County, Virginia.
William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia. Submitted to Virginia
Department of Transportation, Richmond, Virginia.
2017 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Alumni House Expansion Project Area, The College of William &
Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia (With D. Lewes). William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research,
Williamsburg, Virginia. Submitted to Facilities Planning, Design & Construction Division, The College of
William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.
2015 Exploring Life and Landscape at a Nineteenth-Century Slave Quarter: Archaeological Data Recovery at Site
44JC1140, Associated with the Proposed AT&T and Verizon Communication Towers, Kingsmill Residential
Development, James City County, Virginia (With D. Lewes, et al.). William & Mary Center for
Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia. Submitted to Environmental Resources Management,
Washington, DC.
2015 Archaeological Survey and Evaluation, Interstate 64 Peninsula Widening Segment 2, City of Newport News,
Virginia. William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia. Submitted to the
Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, Virginia.
2014 The Civil War at William & Mary: Archaeological Data Recovery in the Brafferton and Wren Yards, College
of William & Mary, City of Williamsburg, Virginia. William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research,
Williamsburg, Virginia. Report submitted to Louise Kale, Director, Historic Campus, The College of William
& Mary, Williamsburg.
2009 Exploring the Landscape of Slavery: Archaeology at an Eighteenth-Century Virginia Slave Quarter Site.
Data Recovery at Sites 44JC1012 and 44JC1009 at Greenmount, James City County, Virginia (With G.
Fesler, et al.). James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia.
2007 Historic Secrets of the Quarterpath Tract: The Archaeology of a 17th- and 18th-Century Indentured
Servant/Slave Quarter Site (44WB100) in Williamsburg, Virginia (With G. Fesler, et al). James River
Institute for Archaeology, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia.
2003 Life and Landscape at Mill Housing: Archaeological Data Recovery on Sites 44PY178 and 44PY181
Associated with the Main Street Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement Project, City of Danville, Virginia
(With K. A. Ettinger, et al.). William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Report submitted to the Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond.
2003 Early Family Life in the Valley: Archaeology at an Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Farmstead in the
Shenandoah Valley. In Augusta Historical Bulletin, Volume 39, pp. 105-152. Augusta County Historical
Society, Staunton, Virginia.
2000 Wilton Speaks: Archaeology at an Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Plantation – Data Recovery at Site
44HE493, Associated with Proposed Route 895 Project, Henrico County, Virginia (With D. B. Blanton, et
al.). William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia. Submitted to the Virginia
Department of Transportation, Richmond.
1999 Traces of Historic Kecoughtan: Archaeology at a Seventeenth-Century Plantation Site in the City of
Hampton, Virginia: Archaeological Data Recovery at Site 44HT44, Associated with the Proposed Pentran
Bus Parking Lot, City of Hampton, Virginia (With Charles M. Downing, et al.). Technical Report Series No.
28. William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia.
1996 Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of Site 44JC848, Proposed Route 199 Project, James City County,
Virginia (With V. L. Deitrick). William & Mary Center For Archaeological Research, Williamsburg,
Virginia. Submitted to the Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond.
Thomas F. Higgins, III • tfhiggins@wm.edu • (757) 221-2584 – Page 4
1995 The Civil War at Gloucester Point. Mitigation of Site 44GL358, Associated with the Proposed Route 17
Coleman Bridge Project, Gloucester County, Virginia (With Charles M. Downing, et al.). William & Mary
Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia. Submitted to the Virginia Department of
Transportation, Richmond.
1995 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44CF7, Falling Creek Ironworks, and Vicinity, Chesterfield County,
Virginia (With Charles M. Downing, et al.). Survey and Report Series No. 4. Virginia Department of Historic
Resources, 221 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219
1991 Phase III Data Recovery at Site 44PM46 for Proposed Relocation of Commanding Officer’s Quarters, Naval
Hospital, Portsmouth (With Charles M. Downing). William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
1988 A Phase II Evaluation of Cultural Resources within the Proposed York River Crossing Alternatives. William
& Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia (With R. Hunter). William & Mary
Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia.