Full text of "Native American settlement at Great Neck : report on VDHR archaeological investigations of Woodland components at site 44VB7, Virginia Beach, Virginia, 1981-1987"

See other formats

NATIVE AMERICAN SETTLEMENT AT GREAT NECK:

REPORT ON VDHR ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF

WOODLAND COMPONENTS AT SITE 44VB7,

VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, 1981-1987

«!!#>

RESEARCH REPORT SERIES NO. 9

1998

Commonwealth of Virginia

Department of Historic Resources

2801 Kensington Avenue

Richmond, Virginia 23221

Cover photo by David Hazzard

NATIVE AMERICAN SETTLEMENT AT GREAT NECK:

REPORT ON VDHR ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF

WOODLAND COMPONENTS AT SITE 44VB7,

VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, 1981-1987

Mary Ellen Norrisey Hodges

Virginia Department of Historic Resources
Research Report Series No. 9

Commonwealth of Virginia

Department of Historic Resources

2801 Kensington Avenue

Richmond, Virginia 23221

1998

REFERENCE

00 NOT REMOVE FROM LIBRARY

PREFACE

This report was prepared in 1993 in partial
fulfill of the author's requirements for a Master's
degree received from the Department of
Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
The research presented here was made possible
through the contributions of numerous individuals.
At the time of the report's completion it had been
over ten years since the field investigations reported
here were initially conducted at Great Neck, and the
author sincerely regrets if some contributors are
missing from these acknowledgements as a result of
the effects of time on memory.

The author would like to thank the "Virginia
Department of Historic Resources (VDHR), Hugh C.
Miller, former director, and M. Catherine Slusser,
state archaeologist, for permission to use the results
of VDHR archaeological investigations at Great Neck
as the basis for my thesis. A large ponion of the
research presented in this report was completed while
the author was employed with the VDHR full-time
from 1977 through 1987 and pan-time from 1989
through 1990. Lisbeth Acuff. Keith T. Egloff, David
K. Hazzard, and E. Randolph Turner of the VDHR
provided particularly important professional assistance
and support to the author. Keith Egloff also prepared
the photographs which are included herein.

The author and the VDHR are grateful to
Forest Norman, Jackie Morris, Gregory and
Georgianna French, and representatives of
Meadowridge Associates who expressed their concern
for Virginia's cultural heritage by granting the VDHR
access to their lands at Great Neck and permitting
archaeological excavations on their property. Mr.
Norman provided earth-moving equipment used
during excavations on Lot 16.

Richard Fleming is perhaps most responsible
for bringing about the VDHR's involvement at Great
Neck. Fleming's careful documentation of the
archaeological remains disclosed by construction of
his parent's home, his survey of the adjoining
building lot, and his concern about future impacts at
Great Neck are coimnendable. Appreciation is also
due Mr. and Mrs. William Fleming for the
hospitality they extended VDHR staff during the
excavations on Lot 16. The City of Virginia Beach
Fire Department is gratefully acknowledged for

providing overnight accommodations for members of
the VDHR staff during excavations at Great Neck.

The author is also gratefiil for the
contributions of Joan Chase and Paul S. Gardner,
whose respective analyses of the htmian osteological
and archaeobotanical remains from VDHR
excavations are summarized in this report. Errett
Callahan, whose considerable knowledge of coastal
Algonquian material culture has been gained foremost
through experimental archaeology, was very helpful
in interpreting the remains of the longhouse,
Structure A, on Lot 16. This report also benefitted
greatly from the contributions of Stephen R.
Clements, Department of Geology, College of
William and Mary, and the late M. Dale Kerby. Dr.
Clements has often voluntarily provided his expertise
to archaeological research, and is acknowledged for
his analysis of copper recovered in the excavations.
Mr. Kerby's contributions to archaeology as a
member of the Archeological Society of Virginia are
well known to many, but in this instance the merging
of this avocation with his professional expertise in the
chemical analysis of the tobacco char from a smoking
pipe recovered on Lot 1 6 is acknowledged. The staff
of Jamestown Settlement, particularly Mike Taylor
and Tom Davidson, are thanked for permitting and
facilitating access to artifacts and doctmients from the
Coates Collection relating to the Great Neck area.

The late Floyd Painter, James Pritchard,
Paul Green, and Clarence Geier were very helpful in
sharing with the author the results of their respective
excavations at Great Neck as well as their general
knowledge of regional prehistory. Interpretation of
the archaeological remains encountered in VDHR
excavations was considerably enhanced by the
perspective provided by the work of these
researchers.

Fieldwork at Great Neck involved a nimiber
of members of the VDHR staff as well as interns and
volunteers with the Department. Keith T. Egloff and
E. Randolph Turner directed excavations on Lots 16
and 3 and, along with David K. Hazzard, were
particularly instnmiental in seeing that later
excavations and diis report became a reality. Apart
from die author, other staff members involved in
excavations on Lots 16 and 3 were J. Mark
Wittkofski, Leslie McFadden, Keith Bott, Bruce
Larson, Arm Grossman, and Diane Haggaman.
Interns with the VDHR at this time were Varna

Boyd, Cara Burton, Jacque Hasse, Joan Kreca, and
Megan Miller. Those who contributed as volunteers
include Lucy Ann Clark, Rick Fleming, Linda
France, Romy Gaida. Paul Green, Alex Kuizhumber,
Ann Morgan, Pat Morgan, April Passwaters, Pattie
Perry, Melva Price, Cassandra Richards, Marie
Robinson, Becca Spragens, Anne Soulayrol, and
Christine Sterna.

Hodges, my husband, rendered me
encouragement and support, as always.

loving

Mary Ellen Norrisey Hodges
October 1997

Fieldwork on Lots 1 1 and 5 was directed,
respectively, by Chris Egghan and Esther White.
These phases of the project were coordinated by
VDHR staff then responsible for the Threatened Sites
Program including David Hazzard and Keith Egloff.
Egghart and White's reports on their excavations
were consulted extensively in the preparation of this
report, and their enormous contributions to this
project are gratefully acknowledged. White, Mary
Ruth Baldridge, and Steve Baty assisted Egghart in
the excavations on Lot 1 1 . White was assisted on
Lot 5 by Baldridge, John Sprinkle, and Cartoll
Williams.

Laboratory processing and analysis of the
archaeological collections recovered at Great Neck
also involved a number of individuals over the years.
In addition to work completed by the author, initial
processing and analysis from 1981-1987 was
conducted by Leslie McFadden and Merry Oudaw of
the VDHR, Lots 16 and 3; Esther White, Lot 11;
and Ruth Baldridge, Lot 5. Varna Boyd, an intern,
and Lucy Ann Clark and Theresa Barton, volunteers,
assisted enormously in this task, enabling work to
continue during an era of fiscal conservancy within
state government. More recendy, Mike Bream and
Dagmar Vondel of the VDHR staff performed
important functions in processing the collections,
enabling the author to coordinate analysis of the
collections for this report.

The author is especially grateful for the
assistance provided by the members of her thesis
committee at the University of Tetmessee, Knoxville.
Through their critque and comments, Drs. Gerald F.
Schroedl (chair), Charles H. Faulkner, and Jan F.
Simek were particularly helpful in providing structure
to the work presented here. Sarah Sherwood, whose
friendship with the author has been unflagging since
we first entered the University of Tennessee together,
assisted in numerous ways on this thesis. Casimir E.
and Marie C. Norrisey, my parents, and Charles T.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER 2

ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT 7

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH ORIENTATION AND ANALYTICAL METHODS 13

CHAPTER 4

HISTORY OF EXCAVATIONS AT GREAT NECK 19

CHAPTER 5

LOT 16, GREEN HILL FARM SUBDIVISION 25

Introduction 25

Previous Investigations 25

VDHR Excavations and Field Methods 27

Topography and Recent Land Use 30

Site Stratigraphy 30

Excavation Area A 31

Historic Component 31

Palisade 33

Structures 36

Human Burials 42

Ossuary 44

Other Features 45

Excavation Area B 45

Structure 47

Human Burials 47

Other Features 48

Collections 48

Ceramic Artifacts 48

Lithic Artifacts 60

Ceramic Smoking Pipes 65

Other Ceramic Objects 73

Copper Artifacts 73

Ethnobotanical Remains 74

Summary 76

CHAPTER 6

LOT 3, MEADOWRIDGE SUBDIVISION 79

Introduction 79

Previous Investigations 79

VDHR Excavations and Field Methods 79

Results of Initial Testing 81

Test Units 81

Cultiiral Affiliation and Settlement Distribution and Structure 83

Excavation Unit 106 87

Trash-filled Pit Features 87

Burial Features 95

Smaller Features 96

Excavation Unit 108 96

Collections 99

Ceramic Artifacts 99

Lithic Artifacts 109

Ceramic Smoking Pipes 109

Bone and Shell Tools and Ornaments 117

Copper Artifacts 124

Coprolites 124

Etlmobotanical Remains 124

Summar>' 125

CHAPTER 7

LOT 11, MEADOWRIDGE SUBDIVISION 127

Introduction 127

Field Methods 127

Archaeological Feamres 128

Midden Deposit 128

Pit Feattires 128

Human Burials 133

Animal Burials 134

Historic Feamres 134

Non-Cultm-al Disturbances 134

Structures 137

Collections 144

Ceramic Artifacts 144

Lithic Artifacts 148

Bone and Shell Tools and Ornaments 149

Ethnobotanical Remains 149

Summar}' 149

CHAPTER 8

LOT 5. MEADOWRIDGE SUBDIVISION 153

Introduction 153

Previous Work 153

VDHR Excavations and Field Methods 153

Feamres Excavated by VDHR 154

Large Refuse-Filled Depressions 154

Small Refuse-Filled Pit Features 162

Hxmian Burials 165

Additional Feamres Shown on Pritchard's Map 166

Refuse-Filled Pit Feamres 166

Human Burials 166

Structures 167

Collections 167

Ceramic Artifacts 167

Lithic Artifacts 176

Ceramic Smoking Pipes 180

Bone and Shell Tools and Ornaments 180

Ethnobotanical Remains 180

Summary 180

CHAPTER 9

CERAMIC ANALYSIS 183

Middle Woodland Ceramics 183

Late Woodland Ceramics 1 94

CHAPTER 10

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 199

REFERENCES CITED 211

APPENDIX

INVENTORY OF ILLUSTRATED ARTIFACTS 221

Vll

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2011 with funding from

LYRASIS members and Sloan Foundation

http://www.archive.org/details/nativeamericanseOOhodg

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 . Location of the Great Neck site within the coastal regions of Virginia and North Carolina 2

Figure 2. The Great Neck site and immediate environs 3

Figure 3 . Relationship of Great Neck and lots investigated by VDHR to local topography 4

Figure 4. Location of major archaeological investigations conducted at site 44VB7 20

Figure 5. Archaeological features identified by Floyd Painter on Lots 1 and 2, Meadowridge subdivision . 22
Figure 6. Archaeological features identified by James Pritchard on Lots 4. 5, and 6, Meadowridge

subdivision 23

Figure 7. Plan of test excavations by Richard Fleming, Lot 16, Green Hill Farm subdivision 26

Figure 8. Topographic map of Lot GHF16 showing VDHR excavation units 28

Figure 9. Plan of Euro-American features in Area A, Lot GHF16 32

Figure 10. Plan of Native American features in Area A, Lot GHF16 34

Figure 11. Palisade line in Area A. Lot GHF16 35

Figiue 12. The Town of Pomeiock. Watercolor by John White 37

Figtu-e 13. Histogram of postmold diameter, interior and exterior palisade. Lot GHF16 38

Figiu-e 14. Histogram of distances between postmolds along walls of Structure A, Lot GHF16 41

Figure 15. BuriaT 18B, Lot GHF16 43

Figm-e 16. Plan of Excavation Area B, Lot GHF16 46

Figure 17. Townsend. Roanoke, and Mockley ceramics. Lot GHF16 53

Figure 18. Townsend vessel fragment from Feature 17C, Lot GHF16 54

Figine 19. Spatial distribution of Late Woodland ceramics. Lot GHF16 56

Figure 20. Sand-tempered ceramics. Lot GHF16 59

Figure 21. Spatial distribution of Middle Woodland ceramics. Lot GHF16 61

Figure 22. Projectile points. Lot GHF16 62

Figure 23. Anvil stones. Lot GHF16 67

Figiue 24. Three-quarter grooved axe and celt. Lot GHF16 68

Figiire 25. Miscellaneous ceramic artifacts. Lot GHF16 69

Figure 26. Tubular smoking pipe from Feature 25A, Lot GHF16 70

Figtire 27. Roulette-decorated ceramic smoking pipes. Lot GHF16 71

Figure 28. Copper pendant and tube beads from Features 18B and 25A, Lot GHF16 75

Figure 29. Plan of excavations on Lot 3, Meadowridge subdivision 80

Figure 30. Spatial distribution of ceramics on Lot M3 85

Figure 31. Spatial distribution of lithic artifacts. Lot M3 86

Figure 32. Plan of features in Unit 106, Lot M3 88

Figure 33. Feature 106C after excavation. Lot M3 89

Figure 34. Profiles of larger, deeper pit features. Lot M3 90

Figure 35. Profiles of smaller, more shallow pit features. Lot M3 92

Figure 36. Profile view of Features 106AB1 and 106AB3 93

Figure 37. Profiles of Features 108B and 108C, Lot M3 98

Figure 38. Mockley Cord-Marked and decorated ceramics. Lot M3 103

Figure 39. Mockley Net-Impressed ceramics and Mockley sherd marked with open-weave textile, Lot

M3 104

Figure 40. Mockley Cord-Marked round base. Lot M3 106

Figxire 41. Non-shell-tempered ceramics, Lot M3 108

Figure 42. Projectile points and gorgets. Lot M3 114

Figure 43. Ground stone tools. Lot M3 115

Figure 44. Ceramic smoking pipes. Lot M3 116

Figure 45. Antler projectile points and preforms, Lot M3 118

Figure 46. Bone tools, Lot M3 120

Figure 47. Bone beamers. Lot M3 121

Figure 48. Turtle shell cups. Lot M3 122

Figure 49. Bone ornaments. Lot MS 123

Figure 50. Plan of archeological features. Lot 11, Meadowridge subdivision 129

Figure 51. Plans and profiles of Middle Woodland pit features. Lot Mil 130

Figure 52. Plans and profiles of Late Woodland pit features. Lot Mil 132

Figure 53. View of longhouse after excavation. Structure D, Lot Mil 138

Figure 54. Plan of Structure D, Lot Ml 1 139

Figure 55. Histogram of postmold diameter and depth. Structure D, Lot Mil 140

Figure 56. Roanoke Simple Stamped ceramics. Lot Mil 147

Figiu-e 57. Lithic and bone anifacts. Lot Mil 150

Figure 58. Major features uncovered by Pritchard and VDHR excavations on Lot 5, Meadowridge

subdivision 155

Figure 59. Profile of Feature 255, Lot M5 157

Figure 60. Plan and profile of Feanire 261, Lot M5 161

Figure 61. Plans and profiles of features. Lot M5 163

Figure 62. Townsend and Roanoke ceramics. Lot M5 171

Figure 63. Mockley ceramics. Lot M5 174

Figure 64. Shell-tempered, flat-bottomed basal sherds. Lot M5 175

Figure 65. Sand-tempered ceramics. Lot M5 177

Figure 66. Projectile points and gorget. Lot M5 178

Figure 67. Ceramic smoking pipes, Lot M5 181

Figure 68. Plan of archaeological features in section of the Addington site 188

Figure 69. De Bry etching of White-Hariot map of the coast of Virginia 204

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Postmold diameter and depth for palisade lines and structures. Lot GHF16 39

Table 2. Ceramics recovered from test imits. Lot GHF16 50

Table 3. Ceramics recovered from selected feamres. Lot GHF16 52

Table 4. Stratigraphic distribution of ceramics in test units. Lot GHF16 57

Table 5. Projectile point data. Lot GHF16 63

Table 6. Size, material type, and presence/absence of cortex among lithic flakes. Lot GHF16 64

Table 7. Total lithic collection from test units. Lot GHF16 66

Table 8. Artifacts recovered from plowzone in test imits. Lot 3 84

Table 9. Dimensions of probable Native American postmolds. Unit 106 97

Table 10. Ceramics from plowzone contexts in test units. Lot M3 100

Table 11. Ceramics recovered from Middle Woodland pit features. Lot M3 101

Table 12. Comparison of cord- and net-marked, shell-tempered ceramics. Lot M3 105

Table 13. Lithics recovered firom plowzone contexts in test imits. Lot M3 110

Table 14. Projectile points. Lot M3 Ill

Table 15. Lithic anifacts from major Middle Woodland pit feamres. Lot M3 112

Table 16. Flake size, material, and presence/absence of conex in Middle Woodland features. Lot M3 . . 113

Table 17. Historic feamres and nonculmral disturbances. Lot Mil 135

Table 18. Diameter and depth of postmolds along wall of Stmcmre D, Lot 11 141

Table 19. Diameter and depdi of postmolds associated with Strucmres D, E, F, and G, Lot Mil 142

Table 20. Artifacts recovered from test squares in midden. Lot Mil 145

Table 21. Artifacts recovered from pit feamres. Lot Mil 146

Table 22. Features excavated by VDHR, Lot M5 156

Table 23. Correlation of excavation levels and stratigraphic layers in Feature 255 159

Table 24. Ceramics from Features 258, 261, and 282, Lot M5 169

Table 25. Ceramics from Feamre 255, Lot M5 170

Table 26. Sherd thickness of ceramics from Lot M5 172

Table 27. Projectile points from Lot M5 179

Table 28. Comparison of Middle Woodland, shell-tempered ceramics from Lots M3 and M5 184

Table 29. Addington site ceramics 187

Table 30. Ceramic collections, north shore of Broad Bay 193

Table 3 1 . Late Woodland longhouses at seven sites within the Coastal Plain of Virginia and North

Carolina 209

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

To those familiar with the aichaeology of the
Coastal Plain of Virginia, the Great Neck site is
recognized as one of the largest and most significant
sites in the region dating from the Woodland period
of prehistory. Located in the City of Virginia Beach,
the site is simated on Great Neck Peninsula, roughly
2 km southeast of Lynnhaven Inlet (Figures 1,2, and
3). Traces of Native American activity dating from
the Paleo-Indian and Archaic periods have been found
either within or in the immediate vicinity of the Great
Neck site, but the area is most important for the
record preserved there of the lifeways of peoples who
lived during the Middle and Late Woodland periods
(ca. 500 B.C. through A.D. 1600). The Great Neck
site proper (44VB7) is comprised of the remains of
overlapping Middle and Late Woodland settlements
which, as presently understood, extend for a distance
of at least 640 m along the south shore of Broad Bay.
The archaeological investigations reponed here
indicate the most intensive use of the site occurred
during the periods ca. A.D. 300-400 and A.D. 1400-
1500.

For many years following prehistoric Native
American settlement at Great Neck, the forces of
nature, particularly processes of erosion along the
shoreline of Broad Bay, constituted the most severe
threat to the preservation of the archaeological
remains. During most of the historic period. Great
Neck Peninsula was a sparsely populated agricultural
region, and human impact on the archaeological
remains from the building of strucmres and plowing
could be considered relatively minor within a
statewide context. This situation changed in the
1970s as the City of Virginia Beach experienced
rapid economic and population growth. Plans from
this period called for residential development of the
Great Neck site, which at present is encompassed by
two subdivisions, Meadowridge and Green Hill
Farms, each comprised of single family dwellings
simated on one-half to one-acre parcels.

Fortunately, a nimiber of individuals and
organizations were able to conduct archaeological
excavations at several locations within the Great Neck
site prior to residential construction. The Virginia
Department of Historic Resources (VDHR)

participated in this effort begirming in 1981,
sponsoring the excavations which are the focus of this
report.

The report opens with a discussion of Great
Neck's environmental and cultural context (Chapter
2) and a discussion of the research questions which
guided the analysis of the archaeological remains
presented here (Chapter 3). Following a review of
excavations at the site by individuals and
organizations other than the VDHR (Chapter 4), the
remains encoimtered on each of four residential lots
investigated by the VDHR are described in separate
chapters. Middle Woodland remains at Great Neck
are analyzed for information pertinent to determining
the role the site played within local and regional
settlement systems. Examination of Late Woodland
remains focuses on the recognition of socio-political
organization and culmral variation and affiliation
among coastal Algonquian peoples in Virginia and
North Carolina.

The residential lots examined by the VDHR
are discussed in chronological order by date of
investigation. Lot 16, in the Green Hill Farms
subdivision, was the first property examined by the
VDHR, and was found to contain structural,
processing, and mormary features associated with a
palisaded setdement dating from the second half of
the Late Woodland period (Chapter 5). Traces of
Middle Woodland occupation and the remains of a
late 1 9th/20th-century agricultural structure were also
encoimtered within the areas tested. The focus of
VDHR excavations in 1982 on Lot 3 in the
Meadowridge subdivision was a cluster of Middle
Woodland pit features presiunably used for storage
and processing and dating from ca. A.D. 300-400
(Chapter 6). A few artifacts and one burial dating
from the Late Woodland period were also found.
The two other lots examined in the Meadowridge
subdivision also contained remains of both Middle
and Late Woodland settlement. In excavations on
Lot 1 1 in 1986, the VDHR uncovered several Middle
and Late Woodland pit features and the remains of
possibly four strucmres, at least two dating from the
Late Woodland period and one possibly from the
Middle Woodland (Chapter 7). Lot 5, tested during
the winter of 1986/87, was found to contain a
ntmiber of Middle Woodland pit feamres, most of
which had previously been excavated by avocational
archaeologists (Chapter 8). The intensive Middle
Woodland settlement on the property was followed by

NORTH
CAROLINA

1 Greot Nack

2 Currituck Sit*

3 Hand Sil*

4 Go««rnor'( Land at Two Rivart

5 Flawtrdta Hundrad

6 Jordan's Point

SO UilH

Figure 1. Location of the Great Neck site within the coastal regions of Virginia and North Carolina.

< < < <

2
I

BO
O

Q
>

•o

a
eo

o
ct.

s
o

s
eo

a Late Woodland occupation indicated by several
small processing features, tliree burials, and the
remains of post structures.

The artifacts recovered in VDHR
excavations are described in each of the chapters
devoted to the four lots. Ceramic vessel sherds are
also discussed in an additional chapter (Chapter 9)
which examines these artifacts in relation to the
specific research questions which underlie this work
as a whole. Drawing on the work of the VDHR and
others, the report concludes with a summary of the
culture history of the Great Neck site.

CHAPTER 2

ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL
CONTEXT

The Great Neck site is situated in the Outer
Coastal Plain of southeastern Virginia in a near-
coastal, yet relatively well-protected location within
the City of Virginia Beach. The site lies inland just
over 5 km southwest of the Old Cape Henry
Lighthouse, which marks the mouth of the
Chesapeake Bay on the Atlantic Ocean. This location
would have provided a particularly rich
environmental setting for aboriginal occupation dining
the Woodland period due to its proximity to the
estuarine resoinces of several drowned tributaries of
Chesapeake Bay and its association with elevated,
well drained, and agriculturally productive soils.

The climate of the Outer Coastal Plain in
southeastern Virginia is relatively mild. As measured
at Norfolk, Virginia, the average daily minimum
temperature in winter is 33°F, while the average
daily maximiun in summer is 85 °F. Annual
precipiution is 45 inches, with 56% of this falling
from April through September (Hatch et al. 1985:1-
2).

The Great Neck site lies along the south
shore of Broad Bay, which flows westward to enter
the Lynnhaven River near its confluence with the
Chesapeake Bay at Lynnhaven Inlet. These
waterways contain extensive areas of tidal flats and
brackish water marshlands and would have supported
a wide array of mammalian, finfish, shellfish, and
plant species of potential economic importance to the
native inhabitants.

Great Neck is positioned at the northern end
of Oceana Ridge, an elevated landform probably
formed as a barrier island very late during the
Pleistocene. The ridge extends southeastward from
Broad Bay for a distance of 11 km parallel to the
Atlantic Coast. The Great Neck site lies along the
crest of the ridge where elevations reach 25-30 ft
above mean sea level (amsl) (Oaks and Coch
1973:21-22, 89).

The soils on Oceana Ridge in the vicinity of
Lynnhaven, Broad, and Linkhom bays are of the
State-Tetotxmi-Augusta series, which includes well-

drained, moderately well-drained, and somewhat
poorly-drained soils with a loamy subsoil (Hatch et
al. 1985). The soils of the Great Neck site itself are
State loam on 2-6% slopes, a deep, well-drained soil
considered prime farmland (Hatch et al. 1985:26-27).
While almost 48 % of the land surface in the City of
Virginia Beach is classified as potential prime
farmland, roughly three-quarters of this acreage
requires drainage in order to be suitable for cultivated
crops (Hatch et al. 1985:Tables 4 and 5). Much of
this poorly drained acreage is located on the broad
Mount Pleasant Flat, an incompletely dissected
landform extending west, south, and east of Oceana
Ridge from the Western Branch of the Lynnhaven
River to Back Bay and the Adantic Ocean (Oaks and
Coch 1973:21).

Lands located north of Oceana Ridge are
also generally unsuited to cultivation. Much of this
area now comprises Seashore State Park and consists
of a series of convex sand ridges separated by marshy
flats. The relatively restricted areas of Fripp sand
which top the ridges are excessively drained and have
a low available water capacity (Hatch et al. 1985;
Oaks and Coch 1973:23).

A number of researchers have examined the
environmental strucmre of the Coastal Plain of
Virginia and its influence on population distribution
and size, setdement systems, sociopolitical
organization, and cultiu'al interactions among the
native inhabitants dining the Woodland period
(Binford 1964; Egloff 1985; Mouer 1991; Turner
1976). While much of this work has focused on the
limer Coastal Plain and fall line transition zone, the
Outer Coastal Plain of southeastern Virginia also
presents an interesting smdy region in this respect.
The close proximity of the different environments
associated with the Chesapeake Bay and Carolina
Sounds drainages in southeastern Virginia may be
panicularly important for understanding culmral
development and interactions during the Woodland
period.

Similar to areas north of the James River,
die Outer Coastal Plain of southeastern Virginia is
characterized by very low relief and elevation, with
only few areas standing higher than 15 ft amsl.
Elevation ranges approximately 20-70 ft amsl across
the Inner Coastal Plain, which extends from die
Suffolk Scarp (which forms the western border of die
Great Dismal Swamp) westward to the fall line.

Relief within the Inner Coastal Plain may be 20-50
feet in areas away from the major streams (Oaks and
Coch 1973:8).

In southeastern Virginia, the divide between
the Chesapeake Bay and Carolina Somids drainage
systems lies only about 10 km south of the Great
Neck site. Following the divide westward, it runs
first to the southwest to encompass the tributaries of
the Elizabeth River within the James River drainage,
and then to the northwest and southwest to skirt the
Great Dismal Swamp, which is included in the
Carolina Sounds drainage. From Suffolk westward
the divide trends to the northwest again to end up
roughly 10 km south of the James River in the
vicinity of Hopewell. The remnant of a third
drainage system comprised of Rudee Inlet, Owl
Creek, Salt Pond, and Fresh Pond lies southeast of
Great Neck, but this has been nearly destroyed by
headland retreat of the Atlantic Coast (Oaks and Coch
1973:10-11).

East of Isle of Wight Coxmty, the major
rivers which comprise the Chesapeake drainage in
southeastern Virginia include Chuckatuck Creek, the
Nansemond River, the Elizabeth River, the Lafayette
River, Little Creek, and the Lyimhaven River. The
tributaries of the Carolina Soimds drainage which
flow through the Outer Coastal Plain of Virginia
include the Northwest and North Landing rivers,
which empty into Currituck Soimd, as well as the
Great Dismal Swamp. The Meherrin, Nottoway, and
Blackwater rivers are major components of the
Carolina Sounds drainage which originate within the
Piedmont or at the fall line and flow south or
southeast across the Virginia Coastal Plain to meet
the Chowan River at or a few miles south of the
Virginia-North Carolina border. From here the
Chowan flows into Albemarle Soimd. The
confluence of the Nottoway and Blackwater rivers
with the Chowan River is situated about 80 km
southwest of Great Neck, while Lake Drummond in
the Great Dismal Swamp is located within a distance
of about 50 km.

The waterways comprising the Chesapeake
Bay and Carolina Soimds drainages in southeastern
Virginia differ in many respects. Saltwater from the
Adantic Ocean enters the Chesapeake Bay and the
James River relatively unimpeded, and the saltwater
zone of the James extends upriver as far as the mouth
of the Chickahomiuy River. Tributaries of the James

and Chesapeake Bay in the Outer Coastal Plain in
southeastern Virginia are relatively short, and
saltwater penetrates deeply into the interior. The
mouths of the waterways are embayed and their
shorelines are lined with brackish water marshes.

While portions of the Carolina Sounds
drainage are equally as embayed as components of
the Chesapeake system, north of Cape Lookout the
Carolina Sounds system is protected from direct
saltwater intrusion by a chain of barrier islands which
has few inlets leading from the Adantic Ocean.
Thus, the waters of Currimck Sound are essentially
fresh. Brackish water marshlands line the eastern
shores of Albemarle Sound, but freshwater swamp
forests are found at the moudis of the major rivers
which enter the soimd. The Great Dismal Swamp
and the East Dismal Swamp are the largest examples
of the many interior freshwater cypress and tupelo
gum swamps characteristic of the Coastal Plain of
northeastern North Carolina (Binford 1964:42; Oaks
and Coch 1973: 10-1 1 ; Schoenbaum 1982:8-9, 72, 74,
77, 106, 115-116).

The different environmental characteristics of
the Chesapeake Bay and Carolina Sounds drainage
systems may explain the presence and distribution of
at least two distinct cultural traditions within
southeastern Virginia by the beginning of the
Woodland period. At present, these traditions are
most clearly distinguished by their material culture.
The environmental structure and relative productivity
of the two drainage systems may also account for less
well understood differences in settlement and
subsistence systems associated with each cultural
tradition.

The Woodland period, as defined by the
development of a ceramic technology, begins ca.
1 ,200 B.C. in Virginia. As elsewhere in the Eastern
Woodlands, a number of general trends are associated
with the Archaic AVoodland transition in Virginia. By
the Late Archaic, settiement patterns begin to reflect
a decline in residential mobility, an increased focus
on riverine and estuarine settings, and an expansion
of die subsistence base with subsequent intensification
in the use of certain resources.

While all would agree that an increasing
degree of sedentism is reflected in the archaeological
record of die Early Woodland (ca. 1.200 B.C. - 500
B.C.), Middle Woodland I (ca. 500 B.C. - A.D.

200), and Middle Woodland II (ca. A.D. 200 - A.D.
900) periods in Virginia, diere is some difference of
opinion among researchers about whether fully
sedentary settlement systems, in which at least a
portion of a population resided year-round at the
same location (Rafferty 1985: 1 15), were present prior
to the Late Woodland. Some have suggested that
sedentary systems existed during the Early and
Middle Woodland periods in the vicinity of
Portsmouth and Virginia Beach (Gardner 1982, 1987;
Mouer 1992; Painter 1988); the Outer Piedmont in
the James River Valley (Mouer, Ryder, and Johnson
1981a, 1981b); the Outer Coastal Plain of the
Northern Neck (Potter 1982); and the Shenandoah
River Valley (Gardner 1982, 1987). But, as Blanton
(1992:71) has noted, other than contrasts in site size
and in artifact density between large and small sites,
there is little evidence yet available to suppon the
idea these systems were sedentary. Exceptions
include seasonality data derived from analysis of
vertebrate faunal remains from Middle Woodland II
contexts at the Maycock's Point (44PG40) site in the
Inner Coastal Plain on the James River (Barber 1981)
and the discovery of substantial Early Woodland
structures at the 522 Bridge site (44WR329) on the
North Fork of the Shenandoah River (McLearen
1992a).

Blanton ( 1 992: 69-7 1 ) has proposed two basic
models to explain the Early and Middle Woodland
large site/small site dichotomy which is found
throughout the state. In the first, which conforms
generally to the logistical model defined by Binford
(1980), base camps occupied by an extended kin
group were established on a seasonal basis for the
exploitation of certain preferred, predictable
resources. From these settlements, subunits of the
larger group dispersed to procurement camps. Both
base camps and procurement camps were
supplemented by more briefly occupied foray camps.
Under the second model, which accounts for a
greater degree of social integration among regional
populations, the larger sites are interpreted as
"aggregation" sites where extended kin groups from
adjoining territories gathered at least annually at
certain resource-rich locations.

Related to the reduction in residential
mobility which characterizes the ArchaicAVoodland
transition in Virginia is the development of
subregional traditions by the Early Woodland. These
are best reflected in the archaeological record by

different technologies and styles of ceramic
manufacture, and likely indicate an increase in
territorial circumscription, perhaps due to population
growth (Blanton 1992:69; Egloff 1985). While
ceramic distributions are distinct, they do overlap,
and thereby suggest that territorial boundaries were
flexible (McLearen 1992b:46).

Research by Painter (1988) and Phelps
(1983) has documented the presence of at least two
major culmral traditions within the Coastal Plain of
southeastern Virginia and northeastern North Carolina
during the Early and Middle Woodland. For the
Early Woodland, Painter (1988) has identified the
"Currituck Culmre," which "inhabited the seacoast,
barrier islands, and coastal esmaries (the bays,
sounds, and river mouths) of the region," and the
"Dismal Swamp Culture," which "inhabited the
elevated fringes and raised ridges or islands within
the Great Dismal Swamp, its tributary swamps and
small streams, its outlet rivers to the south and east
and other freshwater swamps and smaller inland
rivers to the west and northwest of the Great Dismal
Swamp." Each culture is associated with ceramic
manufacturing traditions which show a roughly
parallel evolution in vessel shape, but which can be
distinguished by trends in the tempering agents
employed.

Painter (1988) identified Waterlily Plain, a
shell-tempered ware produced in low, oval, flat-
bottomed forms with lug handles, as the earliest
ceramic associated with the Currimck Culture. He
believed the ware may date even earlier than ca. 1550
B.C. and. similar to Stalling's fiber-tempered
ceramics in coastal South Carolina (Sassaman et al.
1988:91), may have preceded the manufacture of
steatite bowls in the region. A few sherds of
Waterlily Plain have been recovered from shell
midden sites in the vicinity of Currituck, while five
cached pots have been fotmd in the town of Waterlily
situated on the western shore of Currimck Sound
(Painter 1988:16-17).

Waterlily Plain was followed in the
Currituck Culture by two ceramics which were
manufactured in taller, open-mouthed jar forms with
lugs or small knobbed handles and distinctive
circular, flat bottoms which flare at the base. These
types. Great Neck Plain and Craney Island, were
tempered, respectively, with shell and clay, and shell,
clay, and sand. These wares in turn were succeeded

by similarly-shaped vessels of the Currituck type
which lack handles. Painter believed the earliest
Currituck wares were tempered with shell and clay
and the later with shell only. He obtained
radiocarbon dates ranging from 810 B.C. ii260 to
660 B.C. ± 60 on "beaker" forms without handles
at the Currituck site in North Carolina, where he
described the ceramics as "shell-tempered, sand-
tempered, and sherd-tempered. . . cord-marked, fabric-
impressed, and net-impressed... Sometimes they
combine two or more tempering agents such as shell
and sand, or shell, marl, and sand" (Painter 1977:47-
48; 1978).

Painter (1988) associated both aceramic and
ceramic components of his Dismal Swamp culture
with Perkiomen projectile points, although it might be
more reasonable to assume that these points predate
the manufacture of ceramics and are instead
associated only with steatite bowls. The earliest
ceramic identified in the area is the White Marsh
type, a steatite-tempered ware produced in vessel
forms similar to those of the Currituck culture type
Waterlily Plain. The steatite-tempered Marcey Creek
type and the steatite and clay-tempered Dismal
Swamp type which followed White Marsh were
produced in taller, oval forms with lug handles.
They were succeeded by the Cypress Swamp
Knobbed type, a clay-tempered ceramic made in tall,
lugged, beaker forms. The latest type in the
developmental sequence within the Dismal Swamp
culture is a clay and sand-tempered ceramic of the
Currituck type, produced in beaker forms lacking
handles.

While Painter's research produced
iirfonnation relevant for understanding the distribution
of cultural traditions in coastal versus interior sections
of southeastern Virginia, Phelps's (1983) research
best highlights contrasts between the cultural
traditions foimd along the Virginia versus North
Carolina coasts. The discovery of Stallings fiber-
tempered ceramics within the North Carolina Coastal
Plain is among Phelps's most important findings.
The ceramic is relatively common as far north as the
Neuse River drainage. Phelps (1983:27) notes that
"... the implication of this distribution is the earliest
known boundary between the Southeast and Middle
Atlantic subareas."

provides some clues to early ceramic development
within the Middle Atlantic region, suggesting that the
technology is unlikely to have developed
independently, but rather from influences from the
south (Egloff 1991:246-247). Stallings fiber-
tempered ceramics date from ca. 2500 - 1300 B.C.
The earliest radiocarbon date yet obtained on
ceramics in Virginia is 1 160 B.C +. 70. This date is
associated with Bushnell Plain, a schist-tempered
ware (also containing small proportions of clay, fiber,
steatite, bone, and shell inclusions) produced in
vessel forms similar to those associated with the
Waterlily Plain and Marcey Creek types (Waselkov
1982:290-291, Table 42).

Marcey Creek ceramics are found in small
quantities in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina,
although they are not common in the area. Phelps
(1983:29-30) equates the sand-tempered. Deep Creek
series with the Early Woodland in northeastern North
Carolina. Deep Creek is predominantly cord-
marked, although net-marked, fabric-marked, and
simple stamped surfaces are also present. Both
conoidal and flat bases are associated with the series,
although the latter are rare.

The Middle Woodland period in coastal
North Carolina is represented by the Mount Pleasant
series which includes sand-, grit-, or pebble-tempered
ceramics with fabric-marked, cord-marked, net-
marked, and plain surfaces. These ceramics have
been radiocarbon dated from A.D. 265 i 65 to A.D.
890 ± 80 (Phelps 1983:31-33). The boundary
between a circum-Chesapeake interaction sphere
(Egloff 1985) and the North Carolina Coastal Plain at
this time is indicated by the distribution of the
Mockley series. This shell-tempered ceramic is
nearly ubiquitous within the Coastal Plain of Virginia
and Maryland north of the James River, but has been
foimd on only a few sites in North Carolina along the
Chowan River (Phelps 1983:32). Mockley is also
rarely found along the Nottoway and Meherrin rivers
in the interior of southeastern Virginia. The
predominant Middle Woodland ceramic in this area
is Stony Creek, a poorly-defined series of sand-
tempered ceramics with cord-marked, fabric-marked,
and net-marked surfaces comparable to Phelps's
Mount Pleasant series (Egloff and Potter 1982:99-
103).

The fact that three sites along the Chowan
River have also produced fiber-tempered ware also

Although the distribution of cultural
traditions within the Coastal Plain of northeastern

North Carolina and southeastern Virginia are
beginning to be understood, less information is
available on the nature of settlement systems within
the region during the Early and Middle Woodland.
On the basis of a study of settlement patterns in the
vicinity of Ponsmouth, Virginia, Gardner (1982) has
proposed that a major shift in settlement practices
occurred between the Late Archaic and Early
Woodland. During the Late Archaic period, seasonal
macro-band base camps were established in
association with the Dismal Swamp. From these,
subunits of the group dispersed to seasonal micro-
band base camps established adjacent to the estuaries.
Both settlement types were supplemented by foray
camps. By the Early Woodland period, the primary
focus of the settlement system had shifted from the
Dismal Swamp to the estuaries. Sedentary macro-
band base camps were established adjacent to the
estuaries at their juncture with freshwater streams.
The base camp was supplemented by foray camps as
needed, but no seasonal dispersal was necessary.

Information on site size and structure is hard
to glean from Painter's work, but, in general, his
descriptions of the Currituck Culture also suggest a
reduction in residential mobility over time. Sites
associated with Waterlily Plain ceramics in the
estuarine zone seem to be small, and at least one
yielded cached pots suggesting seasonal abandonment
and reoccupation. In contrast, at the Currituck site
Currituck series ceramics were found associated with
structural remains, large pit features, and a
predominance of primary versus secondary burials
(Painter 1977, 1988). Painter was uncertain whether
sites associated with the Dismal Swamp culture are
"long-term" habitations or seasonally-occupied base
camps, although he noted that no structural patterns
or pit features have yet been identified at these
locations (Painter 1988).

Phelps admits that little is known about Early
Woodland settlement systems within the North
Carolina Coastal Plain, but suggests that they may
represent a continuation of Late Archaic patterns. By
die Middle Woodland period, a major change is
evident. Small interior streams are occupied less
frequendy, and the number of sites associated widi
the major rivers, the estuaries, and the coast
increases. Site types include seasonal base camps in
each of these zones and, possibly, sedentary villages
(Phelps 1983:33-35).

By the Late Woodland period, settlement
systems based on sedentary village setdements
supplemented by small procurement sites and hunting
quarters were the norm throughout the Coastal Plain
of Virginia (Rountree 1989:45). Sixteenth and 17th-
century ethnographic accounts as well as a limited
amount of archaeological data on subsistence remains
indicate that by this time agriculture played a
significant role within the economy (Barfield and
Barber 1991; Rountree 1989:44-47). While site
settlement locations suggest horticultural practices
may have been introduced within the Coastal Plain of
Virginia as early as the Early Woodland period, a
dearth of systematic ethnobotanical data makes it
presently impossible to assess for the Early and
Middle Woodland either the importance of the oily
and starchy seeds which comprised the Eastern
Agricultural Complex or the development of these
herbaceous annuals toward cultigen status within the
state. Maize pollen estimated to date from ca. 250 -
50 B.C. has been recovered from a peat profile in the
Great Dismal Swamp (Whitehead 1965), but the
earliest remains of com and beans in archaeological
contexts in the Virginia Coastal Plain postdate ca.
900 A.D.

While no evidence for other than tribal
organization exists for the Early and Middle
Woodland periods in Virginia, the ethnohistorical
record indicates that chiefdom level societies had
arisen by the late 16th century within the Coastal
Plain of North Carolina and Virginia (Feest
1978a:277-278; Rountree 1990:10; Turner 1986:21-
22). Political authority was further consolidated
within the Virginia Coastal Plain during the last few
decades of the 16th century with the rise of die
paramount chiefdom of the Powhatans. By A.D.
1607, the Powhatan chiefdom incorporated
approximately 3 1 districts distributed east of the fall
line from the southern shore of the James River north
to at least the southern shore of the Rappahannock
River, and perhaps the southern shore of the Potomac
River, and including the Eastern Shore.
Characteristics of the Powhatan chiefdom included
"ascribed positions of leadership, formalized
redistribution systems and priesthoods, and an
hierarchical organization which centralized and
coordinated economic, socio-political, and religious
activities bodi within and between settlements"
(Turner 1988:1). It remains a subject of debate
among researchers whether the development of the
paramount chiefdom of the Powhatans was the result

of purely indigenous processes such as population
pressure (Turner 1976, 1985:209-211), or whether it
involved external factors, such as a military threat
from European or other native peoples or social
disruption due to the spread of epidemic disease
caused by European contact (Rountree 1989: 140-142;
1990:10,25).

The Great Neck site lies within what was the
early 17th-century district of Chesapeake, which
extended over what are now the cities of Norfolk,
Portsmouth, Chesapeake, and Virginia Beach
(Rotmtree 1990:20). Chesapeake territory was
conquered and resettled by the Powhatans through
warfare sometime either shortly before or shortly
after the founding of the English settlement at
Jamestown (Rountree 1990:25-27).

Within the Coastal Plain of southeastern
Virginia and northeastern North Carolina, the cultural
groups present during the Late Woodland are
represented by two ceramic traditions. Shell-
tempered ceramics with predominantly fabric-marked
or simple stamped surface treatment are associated
with the distribution of Algonquian groups within the
Outer Coastal Plain of both Virginia and North
Carolina as noted in late 16th-century and early 17th-
century ethnographic accounts. In Virginia, these
ceramics include several types defined within the
Townsend series (Blaker 1963; Stephenson and
Ferguson 1963: 109-1 13) as well as the type Roanoke
Simple Stamped (Blaker 1952; Harrington 1948). In
North Carolina, similar ceramics are subsumed under
the Colington series as defined by Phelps (1983:36-
37). Cashie, a series of sand-tempered ceramics with
predominantly fabric-marked and simple stamped
surfaces, is associated with the territories of three
Iroquoian-speaking groups, the Tuscaroras,
Meherrins, and Nottoways. The Tuscaroras inhabited
the Inner Coastal Plain from the Neuse to the
Roanoke River, while the Meherrins and Nottoways
occupied the Inner Coastal Plain within the drainages
of the rivers which bear their names (Phelps 1983:36-
47). Within each ceramic tradition, simple stamped
surfaces may be primarily associated with the
Protohistoric period, or post ca. A.D. 1500.

The presence of Colington series ceramics in
coastal North Carolina represents a southern
expansion of a shell-tempered ceramic tradition,
represented by the Mockley and Townsend series,
which spans the Middle Woodland II and Late

Woodland periods within much of the Coastal Plain
of Virginia and Maryland. Ceramic distributions
above the mouth of the Chowan River in the Carolina
Sounds drainage are difficult to interpret, but here,
too, available data suggest an interior expansion of
the shell-temper tradition. Research by Phelps
(1982), Binford (1964), and Smith (1984) indicates
that Late Woodland shell -tempered ceramics are a
significant component of sites as far inland as the
mouth of the Meherrin River and at least 15 km
above the mouth of the Nottoway River. Collections
from these sites contain a very low proportion of
shell-tempered, simple stamped ceramics relative to
fabric-marked sherds (Binford 1964:Table 45; Smith
1984: Figure 4), suggesting associated components
may predate ca. A.D. 1500. In contrast, the high
proportion of a Cashie-like ceramic (Branchville)
with simple stamped versus fabric-marked surfaces
docimiented by Binford for several sites at or just
below the mouth of the Meherrin River may indicate
that associated components may post date A.D. 1500,
and may in fact represent early 18th-century
settlements of the Meherrin (Binford 1964:259-260,
Tables 45 and 51).

These interpretations remain tentative,
however, and it should be noted that at the Hand site,
situated on the Nottoway River southwest of
Franklin, Virginia, shell-tempered, fabric-marked
sherds were predominant over shell-tempered, simple
stamped ceramics in the fill of a burial which was
accompanied by a pair of iron scissors and a wood-
hafted, hand-wrought nail (Smith 1984:79). Further,
the fact diat Late Woodland shell-tempered ceramics
are distributed within the freshwater tidal zone of the
Chowan drainage (the late 16th-century territory of
the Chowanook) does not necessarily imply that other
cultural practices of the groups who occupied this
region where indistinguishable from those found
along the North Carolina coast. For example, Phelps
(1980) has noted variation between mormary
practices associated with the iimer and outer estuarine
zones in northeastern North Carolina.

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH ORIENTATION
ANALYTICAL METHODS

AND

Archaeological interpretation is
fundamentally dependent on the ability to recognize
pattern among material remains. In the Virginia
Coastal Plain, as elsewhere, efforts to interpret the
archaeological record and, ultimately, to explain
cultural behavior and processes are stymied by a
dearth of systematic survey and excavated data.
Until data from a representative regional sample have
been acquired, each new site or collection presents a
unique case, and pattern cannot be recognized. Thus,
much of the report which follows is concerned with
basic description of the archaeological remains
encountered at Great Neck. The value of some of
this information may be proved only in future
comparative research.

The Woodland record at Great Neck is also
examined below in relation to a number of specific
research questions. For the Middle Woodland
period, analysis of the archaeological remains is
primarily directed toward determining the role the
Great Neck site played within local and regional
settlement systems.

Upon cursory examination of the Middle
Woodland record at Great Neck, one is struck by the
large size of the site, the abundance of pit features,
and the dense accimiulation of artifacts. On the basis
of these characteristics alone, it is tempting to assume
that the site represents a single settlement occupied
for an extended period by a large population group,
or perhaps an aggregation site occupied by a number
of local groups who gathered together aimually on a
seasonal basis. In recent years, however, increasing
appreciation for the complex culmral and natural
processes involved in site formation (Schiffer 1987)
has obliged archaeologists to be wary of such easy
assumptions. Schiffer (1987:100) defines an
occupation as the "continuous and uninterrupted use
of a place by a particular group. " In interpreting the
function of Great Neck during the Middle Woodland
period, diverse sources of data need to be critically
evaluated to eliminate the possibility, among others,
that the large size of the Middle Woodland
component and its artifact-rich deposits are not the

product of multiple, short-term occupations by
relatively small population groups.

The number of occupations represented by
the Middle Woodland record at Great Neck is
assessed in this repon by studying the stratigraphic
relationship between deposits at the site; but, as
Binford (1982:16-17) has noted, the rates of the
geological processes which conspire to bury
archaeological remains combine with the "tempo of
land use, or how frequently a place is utilized, " to
determine how discretely occupational episodes may
be preserved. At a given locale with a slow rate of
noncultural deposition and a fast tempo of land use
the result may be "palimpsest" assemblages (Binford
1982:16-17; Schiffer 1987:102-103). Given Great
Neck's topographic setting, much of the site has been
subject to erosion since the Middle Woodland, with
nonculmral deposition occurring primarily only in
down-slope locations through such processes as soil
creep, wash, and slumping. Further, within many of
the deposits at the site, any evidence of cultural
stratification which once may have existed has since
been destroyed by plowing.

Although data from vertically stratified
deposits at Great Neck are limited, the horizontal
distribution of features is also analyzed for
information on the number of occupations represented
at the site. For example, the frequency with which
Middle Woodland pit featiures intrude one another ~
an indication of reoccupation — is examined. The
absence of such intrusions, however, does not
necessarily imply that only a single occupation is
represented. If occupation by one group follows
closely upon another, the location of earlier features
might still be visible to the later group and, thus,
avoided. To accoimt for these circumstances, the
internal structure of the site is fiirther analyzed to
determine if discrete clusters of functionally similar
features occur across the site.

The question of contemporaneity among
feature clusters must still be addressed if we are to
establish the ntunber of occupations as well as the
size of the population group represented at any one
time at Great Neck. Although refitting of artifacts is
often useful in this regard, because of the excavation
strategies employed, most collections acquired from
the Great Neck site are not suited to this type of
analysis. Consequently, the question of

contemporaneity is addressed primarily through

analysis of technological and stylistic variation
between assemblages of functionally similar artifact
types associated with different areas of the site.
Caution is exercised in attributing such variation to
cultural change through time, however, since some
degree and type of diversity might be expected at an
aggregation site occupied concurrently by a number
of local bands (Conkey 1980).

The Middle Woodland record at Great Neck
is also scrutinized to assess the degree of permanence
represented by the settlement. In addition to site
seasonality data provided by Gardner (1990a) and
Whyte (1986, 1988), who have studied botanical and
faunal remains from the site, three types of features
are examined in this regard. Structural remains are
studied, since the size of structures and the amount of
labor invested in their construction have commonly
been found to be correlated with the degree of real or
anticipated mobility among hunter-gatherers. Larger
and more substantial structures are associated with
reduced mobility (Kent 1991:41-42; Rafferty
1985:129). Evidence for the existence of formal
storage facilities at Great Neck is assessed, since
these types of features are also correlated with
mobility (Kent 1991:39; Rafferty 1985:134). Storage
facilities are generally considered indicative of low
residential mobility: they represent one strategy to
stretch subsistence resources through seasons when
local resources are in decHne (Rafferty 1985:134).
Finally, mortuary features are examined, particularly
the presence of secondary versus primary interments
and the arrangement of these within the site. Among
"forager" societies, in which settlement and
subsistence strategies are logistically organized
(Binford 1980), the frequency of secondary burial
may be correlated with the proportion of the annual
cycle spent away from the primary base camps
(Hofinan 1986:49). The relative frequency of
secondary burial should decrease and the
establishment of preferred cemetery areas should
increase with a reduction in residential mobility.

While this report focuses on determining
how Great Neck itself was used by native peoples
during the Middle Woodland, the site obviously
functioned within larger geographical and cultural
contexts during the period. Thus, archaeological data
from the coastal regions of southeastern Virginia and
northeastern North Carolina are reviewed briefly to
establish Great Neck's position within this broader
setting.

This report's analysis of the Late Woodland
remains at Great Neck is concerned primarily with
understanding the nature of sociopolitical organization
and cultural variation and interaction among
Algonquian societies in coastal Virginia and North
Carolina. One of the most interesting features of
coastal Algonquian societies in Virginia was the
existence by the early 17th century of the paramount
chiefdom of the Powhatans (Roimtree 1989; Turner
1976). The Powhatans have generated considerable
anthropological interest for, as Fitzhugh has
observed, they are:

one of a few examples of
ethnographically known "complex
chiefdoms" in the eastern United
States, and their origins and
development are critical to
understanding processes that may
have been important in the origins
of the more complex Mississippian
societies that had become extinct in
eastern North America several
hundred years earlier (Fitzhugh
1985:199).

Scholars of the Powhatans have proposed a
number of sometimes conflicting hypotheses to
explain the rise of the Powhatan chiefdom (Binford
1964; Rountree 1989:140-142, 1990:10. 25; Turner
1976, 1985:209-211; 1993), yet these remain to be
tested extensively with archaeological data. In fact,
as Turner (1986) has pointed out, identification of the
Powhatan as a chiefdom level society remains
grounded in analysis of ethnohistorical sources.
Review of the known archaeological record reveals
that "At best, only limited nonconclusive data exist
concerning the presence of rank societies in the
Virginia Coastal Plain" (Turner 1986:24).

A complete understanding of the evolution of
the Powhatan chiefdom awaits years of directed
archaeological research, but analysis of the Late
Woodland record at Great Neck potentially can
contribute in at least a small way to this process.
The site represents one of the many dated contexts
which will be required to chart the development of
the paramotmt chiefdom. It is a particularly
important locale in this respect, however, since it lies
within what was the Chesapeake district during the
late 16th and early 17th centuries. Turner (1993:89,
1 992: 115-116) has noted that Chesapeake , which was

occupied by one of the largest population groups
among the Powhatan, was also among the last
districts to be incorporated into the chiefdom. In
contrast to other groups which are suggested to have
been incorporated through alliance, the Chesapeake
were among those conquered through warfare (Turner
1993:87-89). With the aim of further documenting
and explaining such variation in the expansion of the
Powhatan chiefdom, this report aimlyzes the Late
Woodland record at Great Neck for evidence
regarding the nature of sociopolitical organization
among the site's inhabitants and for information
relevant to understanding economic, social, and
political relations among population groups within the
Coastal Plain.

The nature of sociopolitical organization at
Great Neck is explored by examining two types of
features-structural patterns and burials—for evidence
of vertical stratification within the society.
Ethnohistorical data on coastal Algonquian peoples in
Virginia indicate the existence of three levels of
ascribed sociopolitical rank in the Powhatan
chiefdom: 1) commoners, 2) district and village
chiefs, and 3) the paramount chief. Turner (1986:23)
has suggested that the Powhatans might be identified
archaeologically as a chiefdom by the presence of
specialized structures. The higher status of

paramount, district, and village chiefs was reflected
in the size of their houses, which were larger than
those of commoners; in the existence of warehouses
in which tribute in the form of luxury goods and
foodsmffs was stored; and in the existence of temples
to which access was restricted and in which tribute,
the mortuary remains of the rulers, and images of
their god were watched over by priests (Rountree
1989:144-145; Turner 1986:23). Thus, the structural
remains at Great Neck and their spatial associations
within the site are examined to determine if these
types of specialized structures can be identified.

Archaeologists working in diverse temporal
and geographic contexts have employed mortuary
remains as a source of information on sociopolitical
organization among past societies. O'Shea (1984)
has explicitly examined the often unstated principles
which underlie such use of mortuary data. For
present purposes, the most important of these are
O'Shea's Corollary 3a and Corollary 3b:

Corollary 3a. The nature of the
society will pattern and

circumscribe the practices for the
disposal of the dead; and.

Corollary 3b. The specific
treatment accorded an individual in
death will be consistent with that
individual's social position in life
(O'Shea 1984:36).

Based on these premises, the mortuary features at
Great Neck are examined to determine if patterned
variability in the treatment of individuals indicative of
social ranking is present. Five "chaimels of mortuary
variability" (O'Shea 1984:39-44) are examined: age
and sex as expressed by physical characteristics of the
human remains; preparation and treatment of the
corpse; type of mortuary facility; the presence or
absence of associated funerary items and their type;
and interment location and spatial context.

Building on work by Mouer (1985), who
first explored the possibility of ethnic diversity within
the Powhatan chiefdom. Turner (1993) has identified
five major cultural or political regions which were
evenmally incorporated into or allied with the
Powhatans. While ethnohistorical data indicates that
one of these regions, the Chickahominy district, was
politically autonomous from the Powhatan until 1616,
identification of the remaining regions rests largely
on observations of patterned variation in the
distribution of ceramic types in the Virginia Coastal
Plain. These four regions include the Powhatan core
area along the Pamunkey and Mattaponi rivers,
represented by Townsend ceramics; the Patawomeck
district located within the Irmer Coastal Plain on the
Potomac River, represented by Potomac Creek
ceramics; a number of districts located on the upper
James River in the Coastal Plain where Cashie
ceramics are foimd; and the Nansemond and
Chesapeake districts in die coastal areas of
southeastern Virginia where Roanoke Simple Stamped
ceramics are found.

The question of edinic diversity among the
Powhatans has significance for explaining both the
order and manner in which different regions were
added into the chiefdom and for understanding how
social and political relations within the chiefdom were
extended and solidified (Mouer 1985; Turner 1993).
In order to determine if cultural differences in other
than ceramic technology might be identified to
support the existence of ethnic diversity within

Powhatan society, the Late Woodland record at Great
Neck is compared to other roughly contemporaneous
sites in the Virginia and North Carolina Coastal Plain
which have been the subject of extensive areal
excavation. Variation in community plan,

sociopolitical organization, and building and mormary
practices is examined among these geographically
diverse contexts.

Before presenting the findings of VDHR
excavations at Great Neck, a few words are needed
concerning the methods employed in the analyses of
artifacts reported in succeeding chapters. Unless
otherwise noted, the artifacts discussed include only
those remains recovered in the field through hand
excavation or screening through one-quarter-inch
mesh, or those recovered in one-quaner-inch fraction
waterscreen samples processed. Materials comprising
the smaller fractions from the waterscreen samples
and anifacts included in fill (usually less than 2 liters
in volume) later processed by flotation techniques
were not analyzed.

Descriptions of ceramics in the text refer
only to those sherds "larger than one inch." unless
otherwise noted. Sherds with a sufficiently small
interior or exterior surface area to be enclosed by a
square measiuing one inch on a side were quantified
by weight or nimiber, but were not examined further
except to identify small fragments of ceramic
smoking pipes. Frequencies noted in the text or in
tables, whether referring to the number of body or
rim sherds, or the occurrence of decoration, reflect
the number of sherds in a collection prior to refitting.
This method was adopted to eliminate biases which
often result from an analyst's ability to easily
recognize vessels with signature styles of paste,
surface treatment, or decoration when individual
vessels are less easily distinguished among the more
commonplace sherds.

The ntmiber of basal sherds in each
collection was quantified in a conservative manner.
Counts of bases from flat-bottomed vessels include
only those sherds on which a portion of the
distinctive juncture between the vessel wall and base
is represented. Presence of the apex of the base was
required for quantification as a conical or round base.

Sherd thickness was measured to the nearest
whole millimeter. The thickness recorded for each
sherd was die highest reading obtained on

approximately three measurements per artifact.
Vessel diameter, where noted, was derived by
transferring the arc of the vessel wall on die interior
of the lip to paper. The diameter of the circle
including this arc was estimated using a standard
geometric formula.

The typology employed in the ceramic
analysis might be described as "generic. " Within the
Coastal Plain Province of Virginia and North
Carolina, ceramic paste and exterior surface
treatment are presently understood as the most
temporally-sensitive attributes of prehistoric Native
American pottery within a given geographic region
(see, for example, Egloff and Potter 1982; Phelps
1983). Only these two attributes are used in
quantifying the collections in die tables which
accompany diis report, although other attributes are
reviewed in the text.

The reader should also note that plain-
surfaced ceramics are not always quantified, but
instead are subsumed imder the category
"Unidentified," which also includes sherds with
surfaces so highly weathered as to preclude accurate
identification of surface treatment. Since current
research is increasingly yielding evidence that the
production of plain-surfaced ceramics became more
prevalent during the late prehistoric and early contact
period among Native American populations in the
Virginia Coastal Plain (Hodges 1993a: 19-20), it may
appear that an opportimity to acquire significant data
was lost by this approach. It was believed, however,
that litde purpose would have been served in certain
instances by quantifying plain-surfaced ceramics. To
have done so meaningfully by assigning such sherds
to defined ceramic series posed a high risk of
entering researcher bias into die analysis. Each lot
investigated by the VDHR at Great Neck held
archaeological components dating from the Middle
and Late Woodland periods, and the predominant
ceramics from each period are shell-tempered. It is
the experience of the author that the age (Middle or
Late Woodland) of individual shell-tempered sherds
caimot be determined reliably by, for example, the
proportion of shell inclusions in the paste or by sherd
thickness, even though these attributes may display
modal tendencies over time.

All lidiic artifacts recovered dirough one-
quarter-inch dry- or wet-screening processes were
analyzed in the collections reviewed. The artifacts

were examined visually without the aid of
magnification for evidence of intentional modification
or use-wear. Categorization of certain assemblages
of flakes by size was done by comparing flakes, in
the manner described for size-sorting ceramic sherds,
against squares graduated in increments of 10 mm on
a side. Both whole and fragmentary flakes are
included in each size category.

All bone remains recovered in one-quarter-
inch dry- or wet-screening processes were examined
for evidence of modification, again, without aid of
magnification. Examination of shell remains was
admittedly cursory, with the result that only very
obviously modified artifacts, such as beads, are
identified in the collections.

CHAPTER 4

fflSTORY OF EXCAVATIONS AT
GREAT NECK

While a number of prehistoric sites have
been identified along the south shore of Broad Bay,
the area usually referred to as the Great Neck site is
officially designated by state archeological site
number 44VB7. This designation encompasses an
area of approximately 7.8 hectares (19.3 acres)
situated roughly 400 m east of the Great Neck Road
bridge over Long Creek, and extending east along the
south shore of Broad Bay for a distance of at least
640 m (Figures 2 and 3). Within this area, remains
of Middle and Late Woodland settiement have been
encountered from the shoreline of Broad Bay
extending south as far as 120 m. Site 44VB7 is now
contained within two residential developments:
Meadowridge subdivision on the west and Green Hill
Farms subdivision on the east (Figures 3 and 4).
Since lot nimibers are duplicated between the two
developments, in this report lots in the Meadowridge
subdivision are designated by the prefix "M", and
those in the Green Hill Farm subdivision by the
prefix "GHF".

Because of the richness of the archaeological
remains at Great Neck, it is likely that the site was
surface collected by avocational archaeologists and
others for a number of years prior to the excavations
reviewed in this chapter. At least one of these
collections is known to have been deposited in a
public facility. Field notes accompanying the
collection of the late James Coates of Norfolk, now
curated by Jamestown Settlement, indicate Coates
collected artifacts in the Great Neck area between
1939 and 1942. The collections from Great Neck,
designated by Coates's site numbers 8, 9, 9'/2, and
10, were obtained from areas west of Great Neck
Road as well as the areas east designated by state site
numbers 44VB9 and 44VB7. The collection from
Coates' site 9 'A includes the nearly complete remains
of one shell-tempered, fabric-marked and three shell-
tempered, simple stamped ceramic vessels which
Coates excavated during the construction of Dey
School (Mike Taylor, personal communication 1990).

Between the time residential development
was proposed in the 1 970s and the completion of the
Meadowridge and Green Hill Farms subdivisions in

the late 1980s, the Great Neck site was the focus of
several archaeological excavations of larger scale
conducted by a nxmiber of individuals and
organizations. While researchers commonly shared
information with each other, their efforts were not
formally coordinated. No overall grid coordinate
system exists to enable one to link site plans from
one project with another. Fommately, each group
did reference its finds to nimibered residential lots
indicated on plats of the subdivisions (Figure 4).

The first excavations conducted at the Great
Neck site in anticipation of residential construction
were directed by the late Floyd Painter, an
avocational archaeologist from Norfolk who was
often assisted in his work by students from Old
Dominion University. Painter was very familiar with
the archaeology of the coastal areas of southeastern
Virginia and northeast North Carolina. Three sites
which he had previously worked on are particularly
pertinent to his investigations at 44VB7; Long Creek
Midden (44VB5), a Middle and Late Woodland site
situated on Bay Island just 500 m west of 44VB7 and
presentiy separated from Great Neck Peninsula by a
canal linking Broad and Lyimhaven bays (Painter
1967a. 1967b, 1968, 1971; Pearce and Painter 1966;
Pearce 1968a, 1968b; Sawyer 1971); the Currituck
site (31CK34), located on the west shore of Currituck
Sound five miles south of the Virginia-North Carolina
border (Painter 1962, 1963, 1977, 1978); and
Waratan (31C01), located on the east bank of the
Chowan River above Edenton about midway between
Bennetts and Rockyhock creeks (Painter 1962, 1963).

Painter conducted work at Great Neck from
the late 1970s through the mid-1980s, during which
time he tested at least nine house lots. In 1983 and
1985 he donated to the VDHR large portions of his
collection from Great Neck, including human skeletal
remains and samples of ceramics, lithics, bone, and
shell from Lots Ml, M2, M7, and M13. Painter
published several articles concerning the general
history of the area (Painter 1 979) and certain artifact
types (Painter 1967a, 1967b, 1980a, 1980b, 1980c).
At the time of his death, he was preparing a full
report on his excavations. In Painter's writings, the
portion of the Great Neck site encompassed by the
Meadowridge subdivision is referred to as the
"Riding Ring" site. Lots lying to the east in the
Green Hill Farms development are part of his "Hill
Top" site (Painter 1981). Figure 4 was prepared

>
o
u

K
111

o
a.

O
UJ

»-
<

CQ
>

3
•O

o
o

■B

a
o

es
u

s
oo

from a map provided to the VDHR by Painter and
shows the areas he examined on each lot.

In his writings and in personal
communication. Painter identified the remains of two
different prehistoric cultures at Great Neck. The
"Lynnhaven Culture," which Painter ascribed to the
Early Woodland period based on radiocarbon dates of
ca. 810 - 660 B.C. from the Currituck site (Painter
1978). is represented by flat-bottomed ceramic
vessels, or "beakers." As discussed below, similar
vessels have since been radiocarbon dated by the
VDHR at Great Neck to ca. A.D. 290-380.

A number of closely spaced, large pit
feamres and burials associated with the Lynnhaven
Culture were excavated by Painter on Lot M 1 and the
western edge of Lot M2 (Figure 5). He also
encountered a few Middle Woodland pit features on
Lots GHF13 and M13, noting that the features on Lot
M13 were not as densely distributed as those on Lot
Ml, and that the ceramics on Lot M13 were
primarily shell-tempered, cord-marked, and conical
in form. Flexed burials are characteristic of the
mormary pattern within the Lynnhaven Culture
(Painter, personal communication 1989).

Painter's "Chesapeake Culture," dating to
the Late Woodland period, is represented by shell-
tempered, fabric-marked and "combed or brushed"
(referred to in this report as simple stamped) pottery.
Charcoal and bone recovered in Painter's excavation
of a shallow pit feature, containing both fabric-
marked and simple stamped sherds and located on the
south edge of Lot M6, was radiocarbon dated to
A.D. 1520 ±70 (uncalibrated) (Painter 1981).
Painter has noted that few pit features other than
burials are associated with the Chesapeake culture at
Great Neck. Burial pits are commonly shallow and
the skeletal remains are in an extended position. He
encountered no ossuaries in his excavations.

In the last years of his life, Painter (personal
communication 1989) came to believe that the "Great
King of Great Neck, " an adult burial he encountered
near Thomas Bishop Lane on Lot M 1 , probably dates
from the Late Woodland period and not the Early
Woodland as he previously reported (Painter 1980).
Thousands of shell beads which presimiably covered
the individual's clothing were associated with the
burial, as were two tubular copper beads and two
pearls. At least one other Chesapeake burial was

encountered on Lot Ml. Identified as a subadult
female, the burial was accompanied by a shell-
tempered, simple stamped vessel and shell and copper
beads. In his excavations on Lot M7, Painter
(personal communication 1989) encountered a large
Chesapeake Cxilmre midden deposit.

James Pritchard, another avocational
archaeologist from southeastern Virginia, also
conducted extensive excavations at the Great Neck
site in the 1970s and 1980s. Pritchard excavated a
nxunber of features on Lots M4, M5, and M6, and
has provided the VDHR copies of his sketch maps of
these areas (Figure 6). The maps show a munber of
Middle Woodland and Late Woodland trash-filled pit
features and burials:

Lot M4: 2 Middle Woodland shell-filled pits

1 Late Woodland shell-filled pit
5 Late Woodland burial pits
(including one adult interment
accompanied by shell beads and
one child interment accompanied by
shell beads)

Lot M5: 15 Middle Woodland trash-filled

pits
3 Middle Woodland burial pits

1 Late Woodland trash-filled pit

2 Late Woodland burial pits
(including one pit containing a child
accompanied by shell and copper
beads and an adult accompanied by
shell beads)

Lot M6: 7 Middle Woodland trash-filled pits

1 Middle Woodland burial pit
1 Late Woodland midden deposit
10 Late Woodland burial pits
(including one interment referred to
as the "Prince")

Other archaeological investigations at Great
Neck during the late 1970s were conducted by Paul
R. Green (1987), then a graduate student in
anthropology at the University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill. In the course of his dissertation
research, Green conducted archaeological survey and
test excavations in 1978-81 in Seashore State Park
and Natural Area, located on the north side of Broad
Bay. In 1979, he excavated two small areas on the
Great Neck site.

♦^

• •

••%

05 >
_ o

CD
CO

I-
o

<
>
<

"q:

<
a.

>%
^

o
E

U w

• 2

■K C
M •—

o
E °-

c
o

o
u

e
o

e
"3

CL.

•a
»-.

, o

•3

"ei

o
a
a

•o

-J

•D

•o

■o

-t

■o

-1

0.
«0

CO o

- >

z
o

il 5

o
o

e
o

•3

o
•a

"o
<u

3
DO

Green opened one 5 ft by 5 ft unit on Lot
M7 near the end of one of Painter's excavation
trenches, finding three small, trash- filled pits and
some possible postmolds. The featm'es yielded
predominandy Late Woodland, shell-tempered,
fabric-marked and simple stamped ceramics along
with a few sand-tempered Middle Woodland sherds.
Four 5 ft by 5 ft units were opened along the
boundary between Lots Ml and M2, contiguous with
Painter's excavations. Feamres encountered here
included two large trash-filled pits, one of which may
have included a burial or have been intruded by the
mormary feature. Middle Woodland period shell-
tempered ceramics were associated with each of the
two trash-filled features, with both conical and flat-
bottomed bases recovered from one.

The VDHR became actively involved in
archaeological investigations at Great Neck through
the work of Richard Fleming (1981), dien a
university smdent in anthropology, whose family had
purchased a residential lot in the Green Hill Farms
subdivision. In Fleming ' s monitoring of construction
of his family's house on Lot GHF17 in 1980, he
documented eight prehistoric features including five
human burials. Conducting further survey and test
excavations on Lot GHF16, Fleming found that the
second property also contained archaeological
remains, including two burial features.

Contacted by Fleming about his findings, the
VDHR was encouraged to conduct excavations on
LotGHF16in 1981 (Egloff and Turner 1984). Plans
for excavation elsewhere within the Great Neck site
were developed by VDHR once it was learned that a
large portion of the site had yet to be examined by
Painter and Pritchard. The work on Lot GHF16 was
followed the next year by excavations on Lot M3
(Egloff and Turner 1984). Plans for fiirther
excavation at Great Neck were hampered, however,
by budgetary difficulties at VDHR. When these
problems were finally resolved in 1986, housing
construction had already been completed or initiated
on all but two lots of the subdivisions encompassing
the site. Excavations on these lots, M5 and Mil,
were conducted by VDHR in the fall and winter of
1986/87.

Archaeological Research Center (JMUARC) at two
other sites on Great Neck Peninsula. The JMUARC
excavations involved the Addington (44VB9) and
Sherwood Forest (44VB92) sites, which were slated
to be impacted by the widening of Great Neck Road
and the bridge over Long Creek. The Addington site
lies directly west of the Great Neck site proper
(44VB7), while Sherwood Forest lies roughly 300 m
south of Addington. It is likely that sites 44VB7 and
44VB9 represent portions of what once may have
been a continuous complex of settlement remains
which is now divided into two sections by a canal
dug sometime after 1918 coimecting Long Creek
Canal and Brock Cove.

At both the Addington and Sherwood Forest
sites, JMUARC encountered extensive archaeological
remains dating from the Middle Woodland period,
including numerous trash-filled pit features, two
burials, and midden deposits (Geier, Cromwell, and
Hensley 1986; Geier, Cromwell, and McCartney
1985; Geier, Smith, Andrews, and Buchanan 1986;
Sherwood 1986; 'Whyte 1986). At Addington, the pit
featiu'es were distributed across the crest and northern
slope of the west end of a ridge rising 24 ft above sea
level. Midden deposits were found along the flanks
of the ridge, particularly along its north side.
Radiocarbon dates of A.D. 300 +.70 and A.D. 230
jf 60 (uncalibrated) were obtained on debris from the
fill of two of the pit feamres. Abundant Late
Woodland ceramics were recovered from an
extensive talus midden which had accmnulated along
the present shoreline of Long Creek Canal at
Addington, but the only other features encoimtered
which could be associated with the Late Woodland
period were two trash-filled pits. No strucmres were
indicated by the arrangements of the few scattered
postmolds found at the site. Evidence of Early
Woodland occupation at Addington was confined to
two pit features which yielded a flat-bottomed, shell-
tempered ware with plain surfaces similar to the type
Wateriily Plain defined by Painter (1988:25-28).

Also of direct relevance to the excavations
reported here are investigations conducted in 1984
under contract to the Virginia Department of
Transportation by the James Madison University

CHAPTERS

LOT 16, GREEN HILL FARM
SUBDIVISION

Introduction

The VDHR conducted test and salvage
excavations on Lot 16 during the late spring and late
summer of 1981, investigating approximately 12% of
the lot prior to the construction of a residential
structure by the landowner. Based on preliminary
testing, area excavation focused on two major clusters
of prehistoric features dating from the Late Woodland
period. In the northeast comer of the lot, adjacent to
the bank above Broad Bay, excavations revealed a
portion of a prehistoric settlement consisting of the
remains of a palisad- enclosing an area containing
two oval house patterns. Two burial features were
situated along the palisade. In the west-central
section of the lot, excavations exposed a cluster of
postmolds, suggestive of another oval house pattern,
and two additional burial features. After the
conclusion of planned excavations and during
construction of the new house, an ossuary was
investigated just south of the palisaded enclosure.

The artifact collections recovered from
VDHR excavations on Lot 16 also provided evidence
of additional prehistoric occupation dating from the
Middle Woodland period, but no intact featiu'es
associated with the period were identified in the
course of excavations. During the Historic period.
Lot 16 was used for agricultural purposes.
Excavations in the northeastern comer of the lot
uncovered the remains of an historic stracture,
probably a work shed or bam dating from the late
19th through 20th-century, as well as several
pestholes forming a fenceline.

Previous Investigations

The VDHR was encouraged to conduct
excavations on Lot 16 after being contacted by
Richard Fleming, who had tested the lot in 1980.
Prior to Fleming's work, only very limited
archaeological investigations had been conducted on
the Great Neck site in the immediate vicinity of Lot
16. Floyd Painter included Lot 16 in what he refers
to as the "Hill Top" section of the Great Neck site.
On his overall map of the site and in personal

communication with Fleming and VDHR staff.
Painter indicated that the investigations he conducted
in the area involved limited shovel testing on Lots
GHF15 and GHF16 and the excavation of a narrow
test trench perpendicular to the shoreline on Lot
GHF15. VDHR excavations on Lot 16 revealed little
evidence of previous shovel tests and no evidence of
previous excavations of a more extensive nature.

Archaeological features noted by Painter
include the presence of whole and broken brick in the
western half of Lot 15; a brick cattle dip on the
boundary between Lots 16 and 17; and the recovery
of a "witch bottle, " or glass phial containing nails and
brass pins, on Lot 16 near the edge of the cliff above
Broad Bay (Fleming 1981; Painter 1980a). Painter
also reported on a secondary burial of a single
individual dating from the prehistoric period
excavated from the eroding cliff bank on Lot GHF15
(Painter 1981).

Richard Fleming's involvement with the
Great Neck site began when his parents began
constmction of a house on Lot GHF17, situated
immediately east of Lot 16. Fleming occasionally
had the opportunity to monitor the excavation of the
foundation footings and water pipe trenches for the
new house, and he documented the presence of eight
prehistoric features exposed by this activity (Figure
7) (Fleming 1981). Included among these were a
large pit (Fleming's Feature 3) 8 ft in diameter
containing a hiunan burial (Fleming's Feature 4),
another human burial (Fleming's Feature 1), and a
basin-shaped pit (Fleming's Feature 2) approximately
2 ft in diameter, all situated between 40 and 80 ft
south of the present bank above Broad Bay. Fleming
also noted the presence of three additional human
burials destroyed in constmction.

Fleming's archaeological investigations on
Lot 16 involved systematic surface reconnaissance,
shovel testing, and the excavation of a small test
square (Fleming 1981) (Figure 7). Beginning with an
inspection of the cliff face above Broad Bay, he
noticed an area where oyster shell and prehistoric
artifacts were eroding from the bank. Removing die
forest humus from above a bone protmding from the
bank in this area, he exposed the surviving portions
of a human burial (Fleming's Feature 7). The burial
was partially flexed to the right side and oriented
north-south. The cranium would have been situated
at the north end, although this and elements of the

Shall
Caramiet

Witch
BottU

Sh«ll^./

.7^

Shovel
T«tt Pit*

LOT 16

F3/4

HOUSE

, Pip*
/ ^ Tr«iioli««

\ LOT 17

44VB7, LOTS 16 AND 17
FLEMING'S INVESTIOATIONS 1980

FCCT

Figure 7. Plan of test excavations by Richard Fleming, Lot 16, Green Hill Fann subdivision.

upper torso had already been lost to erosion. Fearing
that further excavation would only increase erosion
along the bank, Fleming covered the burial with
sterile sand, camouflaging it with forest litter so that
it could be scientifically excavated at a later date.
Unfortunately, the burial was subsequentiy disturbed
and removed by vandals.

Following discovery of the burial feature,
Fleming undertook a more thorough examination of
Lot 16 during December 1980, beginning with a
systematic surface inspection conducted by walking
longimdinal transects spaced 1 5 ft apart. As the lot
was lighdy wooded and had been recently cleared of
brush, siu-face visibility was estimated at 70%.
Lithic debitage, small prehistoric ceramic sherds,
historic artifacts, and shell were observed, generally
in low densities. Three concentrations of cultural
debris were noted: one concentration of shell situated
along the eastern edge of the lot about 60 ft south of
Broad Bay and two overlapping concentrations of
shell and prehistoric ceramics located about 150 south
of Broad Bay just west of the center of the lot
(Figure 7).

Test excavations were focused in the latter
area. Along a line extending east-west across the lot
through the northern edge of die shell concentration,
Fleming excavated 13 shovel test pits at intervals of
5ft. A trench 15 ft long and 1 ft wide was
excavated within the shell concentration along this
line. Soil from the shovel test pits and trench was
screened, and the soil profile at the location of each
shovel test pit was recorded. Plowzone depth was
found to increase gradually from east to west,
extending to 6 in below surface at the east and to 12
to 17 in below surface at the west. Artifact
frequencies were fairly consistent along the line,
except for a higher frequency of prehistoric ceramics
in the most westerly shovel test pit and a sharp
decline in ceramic frequency at the far eastern end.

Excavation of the test trench revealed a
large, circular feature extending below plowzone into
the subsoil, and Fleming opened a unit 8 ft by 10 ft
in plan to folly expose the feamre. Eleven possible
prehistoric postmolds and one historic posthole/mold
were also identified within the square and mapped.
The large feature (Fleming's Feature 6, VDHR's
Feature 29A) proved to be a shallow pit containing a
himian burial. The feature was fully excavated and
the skeletal remains removed by Fleming. Both

feature fill and plowzone from direcdy above the
feature were screened through one-quarter inch mesh,
with a 50-gallon sample of feature fill reserved for
waterscreening and flotation. The latter sample as
well as the human remains from the feature were
evenmally donated by Fleming to the VDHR.

VDHR Excavations and Field Methods

The VDHR conducted salvage investigations
on Lot 16 in 1981. Fieldwork was carried out over
two extended periods: die first comprised of 20 days
between June 1 and June 23, and the second
involving 25 days during die period August 24
du-ough October 28. Keidi T. Egloff, then VDHR
staff archaeologist, served as field director. Field
crew consisted of VDHR staff, interns, and
volunteers, and ranged in size each day from one to
seven persons. A total of 1368 hours (the equivalent
of 171 person-days) was contributed to the excavation
phase of the project, with approximately 13 % of this
total provided by interns and volunteers.

Because it was known that only limited time
could be devoted to the salvage effort, initial testing
was designed to assess the distribution of cultural
feamres across the property so that excavation could
quickly be focused on those areas with the highest
probability of yielding significant remains. Once a
topographic map of die lot had been prepared and a
metric grid established, testing began widi the
excavation of 11 units, each 2 m square in plan
(Units 1-11, Figure 8). Four of these units were
scattered across die northern diird of die lot,
hereafter referred to as Area A. On Lot 17,
Fleming's monitoring of construction had indicated a
high density of feamres in this area. The remaining
seven test squares were positioned in the central third
of the lot, hereafter referred to as Area B, distributed
around the excavation unit opened by Richard
Fleming.

In general, each test square was excavated in
arbitrary 10-centimeter levels. Observations were
recorded on die natural and culmral stratigraphic
layers encountered, and the soil profile of one wall
from each square was drawn. All soil was dry
screened through one -quarter-inch mesh and informal
observations were made in the field regarding artifact
size, type, and density. In some areas, remnants of
features disturbed by plowing were discemable above
subsoil and were excavated as separate units. At

BROAD

BAY

—

15 ■

AREA

./''^

44VB7, LOT 16

GREEN HILL FARM SUBDIVISION

y//\ Fleming E«cavotion Unit

I I VDHR Excavation Un.t. Phase i

I . I VDHR EncavQfion Unit, Phose 2

J VDHR Encovotion Unit, Phase 3

Topographic contour interval 25 mete
EtevoTions reiofive to site dotum, 00 meter
Gnd North is 20° eosl of Mognefic North

MENH 1992

Figure 8. Topographic map of Lot GHF16 showing VDHR excavation units.

subsoil level, the surface of each square was troweled
carefully and any cultural or natural features were
mapped.

Based on the distribution of prehistoric
features and postmolds encountered in the test
squares, selected areas of the lot were chosen for
further examination (Figure 8). These units were
first excavated by backhoe to a depth a few inches
above subsoil, and then were shovel skimmed to
subsoil level, troweled, and mapped.

In Area B, Units 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 24
were opened in the vicinity of Richard Fleming's
initial excavation unit. Although Squares 4 and 5 in
this area had yielded only a few postmolds, several
postmolds and the edge of a large feature had been
exposed in Square 1 . Numerous additional postmolds
suggesting an oval pattern were exposed in the new
units. Since excavation of Unit 7 had also exposed a
feature, a trench 1 m wide was excavated from the
edge of the square for a distance of 10 m southward.
No additional cultural features were identified in the
trench, however. Unit 19, excavated to test for a
possible alignment of postmolds encountered in
Square 9, yielded few cultural features.

In Area A, further excavation was initially
focused in the vicinity of Unit 11 where a line of
prehistoric postmolds oriented north-south had been
exposed. Excavation by shovel of an area of roughly
four square m directly west of Unit 1 1 had revealed
a second line of postmolds, so the remainder of Unit
18 south of grid line N80 was opened using the
backhoe. Exposed in the xmit were two lines of
prehistoric palisade posts converging toward the
south, a large oval pit feature, and several brick piers
and historic postholes. The palisade lines were
traced further north of grid line N80 through shovel
excavation of narrow trenches. Units 21 and 22,
which measured 1 m by 2 m, were excavated to track
the palisade eastward. Although a single line of
postmolds was uncovered in Unit 21, excavation of
Unit 22 indicated that any prehistoric features which
may have existed in this area would have been
disturbed by an old roadbed which had truncated the
subsoil. A final test unit was excavated within the
area defined by the palisade before the first phase of
field excavation of Lot 16 was concluded on June 23.
Unit 23, which measured 1 m by 2 m, revealed the
presence of a few prehistoric post molds.

Excavation was resumed August 24 with the
intent of investigating both the interior spaces defined
by the palisade lines in Area A and the oval postmold
pattern in Area B. To this end, a trench was
excavated by shovel between grid lines E89 and E98
exposing additional sections of the palisade as well as
another large oval prehistoric feature. A backhoe
was then used to open as large an area (Unit 27)
within the palisade as was possible without damaging
several trees standing on the property. In Area B,
the backhoe was used to open Unit 26 which
comprised the interior space defined by the test units
excavated earlier in this area.

Excavations on Lot 16 were formally
concluded on October 28, 1981, and the site was
backfilled; however, when VDHR staff returned to
the Great Neck site in April 1982 to begin salvage
excavations on another lot, they learned an ossuary
had been uncovered the day previous on Lot 16
during excavation of the footings for the new house
the landowner had begun to build. Over the next two
days the remains of the ossuary were excavated and
its location plotted in relation to the datvmi used in
the previous year's work on the lot.

All soil stains exposed in the investigations
during 1981 on Lot 16 were mapped in plan view in
the field at a scale of 1 in = 1 m. Due to constraints
on time and budget, not all identified feamres were
excavated. Those feamres which were excavated
include all major prehistoric pit features; all soil
stains exposed either along the wall lines or within
the interior of the two longhouse patterns in Area A;
a sample of postmolds along the two palisade lines in
Area A; a sample of postmolds in Area B; sections of
two linear trench features in Area A; and several
historic postholes in both Areas A and B. Among
features not excavated were several postholes and
brick piers associated with an historic strucmre in the
western section of Area A.

Both larger features and postmolds were
bisected prior to full excavation, and a profile of each
was drawn at a scale of 1 in = 50 cm. In most
cases, field measurements of the diameters and depths
of postmolds were also recorded to ensiu'e against
possible inacciu-acies conveyed by the small
drawings. Htmian burial featines were bisected until
the level of the skeletal remains was reached on one
side. The opposite side of the feature was then taken
down to this level and, finally, fill was removed firom

the skeleton remains from across the entire feature.
Burials were drawn in plan after excavation at a scale
of 1 in = 25 cm. Sections along both the long and
short axes of the burial pit were drawn. Fill from all
features was described by color and texture and was
screened, at minimum, through one-quaner-inch
mesh. Fill from the northern half of Feature 1 6C (a
trash-filled pit containing a himian burial) was
reserved for waterscreening through one-sixteenth-
inch mesh and for flotation. Both black and white
and color photographs were taken of excavation areas
at subsoil level after troweling. Closer views of
major features were photographed both before and
after excavation.

Topography and Recent Land Use

Although the topography of Great Neck
Peninsula is relatively flat, the terrain slopes gently
downward from elevations of up to 28 ft along the
southern bank of Broad Bay where erosion has
truncated one face of a former ridge line. This ridge
presendy has two peaks within the Great Neck site
area, one of which is centered on Lots GHF15 and
16. This area, including those properties east of Lot
11, has formerly been referred to as the "Hill Top"
section of the Great Neck site by Floyd Painter.

Within the bounds of Lot 16, the terrain
slopes from the northeast comer with a difference of
about 1.25 m in elevation across the lot. Prior to
initiating excavations, VDHR staff prepared a
topographic map of the propeny using the brick sill
of the garage door of the house on Lot 17 as a
datum. The elevations shown in Figiu^e 8 are relative
to this datum. The 0.75-meter contotu" corresponds
to an absolute elevation of approximately 28 ft amsl.
The lot is highest, about 1 m above dattmi, in the
northeast comer and slopes gently to the west and
southwest. The slope toward die southeast comer of
the lot, where the elevation is about 0.25 m above
datimi, is more abmpt.

An aerial photograph taken of Great Neck
Peninsula in March 1963 indicates that Lot 16 was
once included within a triangular parcel which
formed an open yard around what was probably a
domestic stracture associated widi an agricultm-al
complex. Efforts to reconcile subdivision and city
maps and aerial photographs of the area suggest the
domestic stmcture was simated along what is now the
eastern edge of Lot GHF14. An access road to the

stracmre ran along what now would be the botmdary
between Lots GHF9 and 10.

The eastern boundary of Lot 16 is simated
roughly along what in 1963 was a hedgerow
separating the yard compoimd from a small pasture
or overgrown field to the east. A portion of an old
brick cattle dip which would have been situated near
this hedgerow was preserved along the northwest
border of Lot 17 when the VDHR began excavations
on Lot 16 in 1981. Also visible at this time was an
old dirt roadbed ruiming along the eastem edge of
Lot 1 6 whose position is reflected in the topographic
contours depicted in Figure 8.

The 1963 aerial photograph also indicates
that a circle of trees straddled the hedgerow which
once ran along the eastem border of Lot 16. This
feature, represented by a circular, filled area of trees
on city maps prepared from aerial photographs taken
in 1972, would presently lie just outside the southern
border of Lot 16 within Thomas Bishop Lane. It is
likely the grove marked an historic cemetery said to
have been removed and relocated prior to
construction of the present subdivision road (Fleming
1981).

Site Stratigraphy

When VDHR began its excavations in 1981,
Lot 16 was lightly forested. In some areas of the lot,
heavy equipment used to clear bmsh in advance of
house constmction had disturbed the topsoil to a
depth of 5-10 cm. Other areas along the eastem edge
of the lot had been covered with fill presumably
derived from constmction activities on Lot 17.

Excavation of Units 1-11, the initial test
squares opened by VDHR staff, indicated that Lot 16
had been plowed sometime in the past prior to its
incorporation into die domestic yard discussed above.
Plowzone consisted of a dark brown sandy loam and
varied from 10-20 cm in thickness. Plowscars were
visible against undismrbed soil matrix in Units 8 and
1 1 . Yellow-tan sterile subsoil was encountered at
roughly 20-30 cm below modem grade across the lot.

In most of the 11 test sqtiares, the interface
between plowzone and sterile subsoil was
characterized by a zone of tan-brown sandy loam 5-
10 cm thick. Although not organically rich, the
larger size of the sherds recovered from this layer

suggested in the field that it represented a relatively
intact deposit. As discussed below, later analysis of
the ceramics recovered from excavated imits of the
plowzone and the interface zone indicated the lower
layer contained a greater proportion of Middle
Woodland period ceramics, or cord- and net-marked
sherds.

More organic-rich midden deposits were
encountered below plowzone in two areas of the lot.
About 3 m south of the bank above Broad Bay,
centered roughly on grid point N72 E90, a small
backhoe trench excavated by the landowner's brother
revealed a soil profile consisting of 10 cm of
plowzone overlying a midden layer 10 cm thick. The
upper 4 cm of midden contained an undisturbed
concentration of ceramic sherds (VDHR Feature 17)
dating firom the Late Woodland period. An intact
midden layer, consisting of brown-black sandy loam,
was also found below plowzone in Square 7.
Encountered 20-25 cm below modem grade, the layer
extended for 15 cm to sterile subsoil. A small
concentrated deposit of shell and predominantly Late
Woodland ceramics (Feature 7E) was discemable at
the top of the midden layer and extended for a depth
of 5 cm.

Excavation of Square 22 indicated that some
areas along the northeast border of Lot 16 had been
severely dismrbed by historic activity. The soil
profile in Square 22 consisted of 25 cm of mixed
orange clay, yellow clay, and brown humus, which
is believed to have been backdirt from construction
on Lot 17. Below this fill lay a lense of topsoil 5 cm
thick. Subsoil was encountered 30 cm below modem
grade. Square 22 was situated in the area of an old
dirt roadbed, noted previously, which ran along the
edge of Lot 16. As no soil stains were visible at
subsoil level in the square, it seems likely that the
subsoil had been tmncated within the roadbed.

Excavation Area A

In addition to an historic component dating
from the mid 19th through 20th-century, Excavation
Area A of Lot 16 contained a small section of the
southwest portion of a palisaded Native American
settlement (Figures 9 and 10). The Native American
settlement was found to have been severely truncated
on its northem side by erosion along the shore of
Broad Bay. Associated ceramics, which are
predominantly shell-tempered, simple stamped and

shell-tempered, fabric -marked and incised-decorated
wares, indicate a date late within the Late Woodland
period. The settlement area is defined by two lines
of palisade posts, which may form a corridor
entrance. Within the enclostire, excavations exposed
portions of two oval structures, or longhouses. Two
burial pits lay along the inside of the exterior palisade
line. Several discrete trash deposits were also
encountered in the excavations.

Historic Component

Since it is not a focus of the present study,
the historic component documented on Lot 16 during
VDHR investigations is discussed only briefly. Two
major groups of historic features were identified in
the excavations: one defining an historic stmcmre
and the other defining a fenceline (Figure 9). Several
scattered features were uncovered as well.

The historic structure was located in the
vicinity of grid point N64 E84. Oriented northwest-
southeast along its longer axis, the structiu-e was
defined by a series of postholes and brick piers, only
one of which was excavated. Given the pairing of
posts and piers in at least three comers and along the
northeast wall, it is likely that the stracture was built
initially employing post-in-the-ground construction,
with piers added at a later date for reinforcement or
repair.

The original stmcture is likely defined by
comer postholes 18AN, 18AP, and 18AR, with two
secondary posts 18AL and 18AM perhaps supporting
a sill along the northeast side. It is unclear whether
posthole 18C2 formed the fourth comer of the
stmcture since it does not lie square with the other
three posts.

In repairing the stmcture, brick piers 18AC,
18AF, and 18AH were added to the comers, while
18AD and 18AE were added along the sill. It
appears the building was also expanded at this time
with the addition on the southwest side of piers 18AJ
and 18AK. Whether Feature 18 AW is a posthole
representing additional expansion caimot be known
given the limits of the excavation area.

The initial stmcture in Area A was roughly
16 ft northwest-southeast by 8 ft northeast-southwest.
The addition represented by piers 18AJ and 18AK

E
<

OS
u

6JJ

extended 9.2 ft along the southwest wall and was
approximately 3 ft deep.

The second major group of historic features
uncovered on Lot 16 represents an historic fenceline
located in the eastern half of Area A. Situated
approximately 18 ft due east from the northeast
comer of the structure just described, the fenceline is
oriented northwest-southeast. It is comprised of at
least six postholes: 25T. 8D, 27C1, 27F, 27BP, and
27BR. Only the first five of these were excavated.
The postholes are simated approximately 8 ft apart.
It is likely that another post within the line would
have been found if an area left to preserve a tree
between posts 8D and 27C1 had been excavated.
Three soil stains identified along the fence line may
represent repair posts: 27DC, 8F, and 8G. Of
these, only Feature 27DC was excavated.

In addition to the structiire and fenceline.
Area A of Lot 16 also contained some rather
enigmatic trenches which are believed to date from
the historic period. Excavation of sections 25P, 25S,
27D, and 27E within three of the trenches indicated
that they were too narrow to have been dug by
shovel, and too deep to represent plow scars. An
additional trench. Feature 18BA, was not tested.

The bottoms of the trenches were thoroughly
searched for evidence of post stains in the excavated
sections. While stains of four postmolds were visible
at the bottoms of the features, one of these relates to
a prehistoric palisade line and one to a Native
American longhouse. Thus, there is little evidence to
suggest the trenches were used to seat a wall or other
line of posts.

The trenches ranged from 0.3 to 0.5 ft (10-
15 cm) wide and extended to a maximum of 0.6 ft
(20 cm) below subsoil level. Fill consisted of brown
loam varying with from 5% to 70% yellow clay
mottling. Basal profiles varied firom rounded to
wedge-shaped.

No clear evidence exists to indicate the
trenches are historic, since only prehistoric artifacts
were recovered from fill excavated from the test
sections. Examination of prehistoric postmolds 25R,
27CA, and 27GB, which were situated along the
margins of two of the trenches, also provided no clue
to dating the features. Similar fill in both postmolds
and trenches prevented determining if the trenches

were intrusive upon the postmolds or vice versa. The
four postmolds simated within the trenches
(postmolds 25Y, 27BR, 27BS, and 27GA) were
discemable only at the bottoms of the linear features.

Historic artifacts recovered from plowzone
contexts on Lot 1 6 include a relatively small number
of pearlware, whiteware, porcelaneous, and
stoneware ceramics; an abundance of bottle and jar
glass; lesser amounts of window glass; several cut
and wire nails; other miscellaneous iron and other
metal objects; coquina tile; brick rubble and mortar;
coal; gun cartridge caps; and numerous fragments of
clay pigeons. While the assemblage does include
domestic items, architecmral debris and artifacts
relating to agricultural activities are better
represented. Additionally, much of the botde glass
collected could have been deposited during target
shooting on the property, an activity indicated by the
mmierous clay pigeon fragments recovered.

The array of artifacts suggests that the
historic structure identified in Area A served as a
work shed or bam dating from the mid- 19th through
20th centiu^. If animals were not housed within the
stracture, the evidence suggests they were kept
nearby. Several fragments of barbed wire were
foimd within Unit 8 which falls along the historic
fenceline discussed above. A snaffle bit and strap
ornament were recovered from Units 9 and 11,
respectively, and three horseshoes were noted on the
surface of the lot during the course of excavations.

Palisade

Two series of prehistoric postmolds forming
sections of roughly concentric palisade lines were
uncovered in Area A (Figures 10 and 11). The
longest section exposed was that of the exterior
palisade, which was exposed from grid unit N73 E82
through N54 E96. Between grid units N69 E85 and
N61 E85, an 8-meter section of an interior palisade
was foimd.

From the small sample of postmolds
excavated along the palisade lines, diagnostic artifacts
were recovered from only the exterior line.
Indicative of a Late Woodland period occupation,
these artifacts consisted of one shell-tempered, fabric-
marked sherd each from postmolds 18H and 25M,

44VB7, LOT 16, AREA A
NATIVE AMERICAN FEATURES

GREEN HILL FARM SUBDIVISION
VDHR EXCAVATIONS 1981

Confirmed or Suspaclad

jjj Nolivc Americon Feolurit

Conftrmcd or Sw»p«cted
Euro- American or
Noncultorol Faolurea

Figure 10. Plan of Native American features in Area A, Lot GHF16.

•^^^

Fig\ire 11. Palisade line in Area A, Lot GHF16.

and one shell-tempered sherd with incised decoration
from postmold 25E.

The exact configuration of the palisade
remains unclear. The arc formed by the exposed
section of the exterior palisade line defines a circle
approximately 30 m in diameter which would have
enclosed 0.071 hectares (0. 176 acres). If the palisade
was indeed circular, the exposed section would
represent roughly 30% of its circumference. It
would also follow that erosion would have removed
at least 10 m of shoreline since construction of the
village, destroying 27% of the area enclosed by the
palisade.

There are suggestions that the palisade was
not circular, however. Two burial pits (Features 18B
and 25A) were uncovered in Area A, both situated
just inside the exterior palisade and aligned roughly
parallel to it. One of the burial feamres (Fleming's
Feamre 3) docimiented by Richard Fleming on Lot 17
is very similar to these burials in the shape and size
of the pit and the orientation and placement of the
skeleton (no information is available on the other
three burials on Lot 17 identified by Fleming). It
seems likely that the burial on Lot 17 also lay along
the palisade. If so, an oval palisade extending at
least 42 m east-west is indicated.

The function of the interior palisade line is
also problematical. This line of postmolds appears to
represent a palisade rather than a house wall, since
the posts are spaced more closely than those in two
longhouse patterns (Structures A and B) identified in
Area A. Since the interior palisade line could not be
tracked further north, and its southern terminus is
obscured by the placement of Feamre 18B, it remains
to be determined whether the interior line is an
earlier palisade, with the size of the enclosure
expanded by the addition of the exterior line, or if the
interior line forms the inside wall of a corridor
entrance approximately 3.5 m wide at its north end
and 1.5 m wide at its south end. Entrances of this
type are indicated in ethnohistoric sources from the
contact period. In the 16th cenmry, Arthur Barlowe
described the village of Roanoke in coastal North
Carolina as "forufied round about with sharpe

trees and the entrance into it made like a tume

pike very artificially" (Barlowe 1982:7). A palisade
with two entrances formed by overlapping the ends of
two separate walls is also picmred in John White's

late sixteenth-century drawing of the village of
Pomeiock in North Carolina (Figure 12).

Differences in the size and spacing of posts
used in constructing the interior and exterior palisades
suggest each wall may have served a different
function. Based on diameters measured at subsoil
level, posts comprising the exterior palisade are
larger than those from the interior line (Analysis of
variance: F = 9.170; d.f. ^ l; p = .0029) (Table
1, Figure 13). Among the small sample of postmolds
excavated, those from the exterior line also extended
to a greater mean depth below subsoil level (Analysis
of variance: F = 3.555; d.f. = 1; p = .0688).
These differences, as well as the closer spacing of
postmolds along the exterior palisade, suggest this
line was more heavily fortified and formed a stronger
barricade than the interior palisade.

Alternatively, differences in mean postmold
diameter and depth between the two lines may be due
to variation in plowzone depth across the excavation
area. Although the posts in both palisade lines were
seated vertically in the soil, the postmolds commonly
tapered slightly near the bottom to pointed or slighdy
rounded bases. Thus, postmold diameter is panially
dependent on the depth of exposme. It is also
possible that the closer spacing of posts along the
exterior palisade is the result of repair or
reinforcement of the wall.

It may be significant, however, that the
ntmiber of scattered postmolds adjacent to the
palisade lines is greater in the area containing both
the interior and exterior walls than in the area to the
southeast where only the exterior palisade extends.
While no clear patterns are apparent in die
arrangement of scattered posts in die western secdon
of Area A, it is possible some may form interior
barriers along a proposed corridor and some may
form a type of defensive scaffolding along the outside
edge of the exterior palisade (for example, note the
rectangular arrangement of postmolds in the vicinity
of grid point N61 E83).

Structures

Two prehistoric structures, referred to as
Strucmres A and B (see Figure 10), were present in
Area A within the area enclosed by the palisade lines.
The walls of both strucmres form elongated oval

.rfrf*"*"-

4. and frue jarm^ aftnftr hew^s coucred

f ,' r-^r ^ r f^ r jl J" , f^rr p >

ancic-rictr- cd sot^ v^ mrMS aM SVmt z</ bartki Of trecj , ^iil Compaaca
a.bewt ^.^ !mc[i vclfS \h>(k. thirkioarther -m J/e^4 Jar Wiru ,

Figure 12. The Town of Pomeiock. Watercolor by John White. Source: Stefan Lorant, ed., The New World:
The First Pictures of America. Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New York, 1946, p. 189.

0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

R«latlv« Frequency

9 10 11 12

Diameter (cm)

13 14

Exterior PailMda iH Interior PallMde

Figure 13. Histogram of postmold diameter, interior and exterior palisade, Lot GHF16.

Table 1. Postmold diameter and depth for palisade lines and structures. Lot GHF16. (a) diameter (b) depth.

(a)

POSTMOLD

INTERIOR

EXTERIOR

STOUCTURE A

STRUCTURE B

DIAMETER (CM)

PALISADE

120

RANGE

6.0-U.O

5.0-16.0

8.0-16.5

9.0-13.0

MEAN

8.12

9.65

12.03

11.18

STANDARD

1.32

2.59

2.03

1.08

DEVIATION

(b)

POSTMOLD

INTERIOR

EXTERIOR

STRUC rURE A

STRUCrURE B

DEPTH

PALISADE

(CM)

RANGE

6.0-12.0

5.0-25.0

6.5-29.0

17.0-30.0

MEAN

9.20

12.67

18.65

24.54

STANDARD

1.75

5.66

5.41

4.54

DEVL\TION

shapes, oriented along their long axes in an east- west
direction roughly parallel to the shore of Broad Bay.
Several ceramic sherds, including both shell- and
sand-tempered wares, were recovered from postmolds
excavated along the walls of the structures, but only
one of these is diagnostic. Postmold 27 J of Structure
A yielded one shell-tempered sherd with simple
stamped surface treatment, a type diagnostic of the
Late Woodland period.

Structmre A was the most completely
exposed of the two postmold patterns. The
configuration of the exterior of the structure is well
defined because the postmolds along the wall are
evenly spaced with no signs of rebuilding. The walls
are straight along the sides of the strucmre, curving
around in an arc on at least the west end. The
strucmre is 6.3 m wide (20.7 ft) and at least 12.2 m
(40.0 ft) long. The east end could not be exposed
fully because the postmold pattern extended into the
area of a tree which the owner of Lot 1 6 intended to
retain and into the landscaped yard of Lot 17.

As excavated, the walls of Structure A are
comprised of 38 postmolds. With a mean diameter
of 12 cm (Table 1), these postmolds were larger than
those employed in construction of the palisade lines.
The posts were oriented vertically and had either
rounded or pointed ends. Mean depth below subsoil
was approximately 19 cm (Table 1).

Examination of the spacing between the wall
posts in Strucmre A provides a strong indication of
the placement of doorways. While the distance
between posts ranged from 38 to 103 cm, fully 70%
of the distances fell within a range of 58 to 69 cm
(Figure 14). The distances between posts were most
regular along the side walls, and less so along the
curved western end. Still, along the curved end, two
doorways are suggested by outlying measurements
between two pairs of posts. On the south side of the
structure, postmolds 27 AL and AM were situated 95
cm apart. Along the north wall, a distance of 103
cm separated postmolds 27Y and 27Z.

The placement of the doorways in respect to
each other may explain some of the irregularities in
the spacing of posts along the cm^'ed end of the
structure. In analysis of the building, a line was
drawn connecting the centers of postmolds 27 AP and
27BF along the north wall, and then perpendiculars
to this line, running through the center of each

postmold along the north wall were established. This
process indicated that, with the exception of
postmolds 27AM and 27Z, each post on the south
half of the structure is paired with a post on the north
side. This pattern suggests the frame of the structure
was constructed by raising prepared arches comprised
of two saplings lashed together, a method employed
in some modem reconstructions (Callahan 1981,
1985).

Offsetting of the entrances into the strucmre
must have been a deliberate action if diis construction
method was employed. Some of the shorter distances
between posts in sections of the walls near the
entrances may represent efforts to provide additional
stability near the doorways, or, if prepared arches
were used, may have been partially determined
merely by the placement of the doorway on the
opposite wall. Alternatively, irregular spacing
between postmolds at the west end of the strucmre
may indicate the use of a framing method similar to
that recendy employed in the Indian Village at the
Jamestown Setdement museum. In this technique,
posts forming the curved end of the structure are
pulled backward parallel with the long axis of the
structure and tied into the arches which form the
straight walls of the building.

Sixty-two soil stains identified as prehistoric
postmolds were excavated within the interior of
Structure A. Postmold diameters ranged from 5.0 to
20.0 cm, with depths below subsoil level ranging
from 4.0 to 30.0 cm. As suggested by their larger
diameter or greater depth in relation to other
postmolds and by their placement widiin the interior
of die house, seventeen posts (27BW, 27BT, 27CF,
27CM, 27CP, 27CW, 27DE, 27DM, 27DN, 27DR,
27DS, 27EF, 27EG, 27EM, 27EX, 27FK, and 27FL)
are likely to have functioned as interior roof
supports. How the remaining interior posts
functioned is uncertain, but there is a linear
arrangement of postmolds running roughly down the
center of the structure parallel to the long axis.
Postmolds such as 27CR, 27DW, 27EB, and 27EC
along the north side and 27DK and 272DL along the
south side of die strucmre may represent suppons for
benches along the walls. The arrangement of posts
within the western end of the structure suggests
windbreaks behind each doorway.

A second structure was identified in Area A,
but only a small portion of it was exposed. Strucmre

Relative Frequency

36-40 40 46 60 66 60 66 70 76 60 86 00 96 100 106

Distance (cm)

Figure 14. Histogram of distances between postmolds along walls of Structure A, Lot GHF16.

B also appears to be oriented east-west along its long
axis. It lies north of and parallel to Structure A, and
the walls of the two structures lie 1.5m apart.

Eleven postmolds were identified along the
south wall of Structure B. They are roughly the
same size as those in Structure A, although, on
average, they extend to a greater depth below subsoil
level (Table 1). Distances between the wall posts are
also similar. With the exception of the space
between postmolds 27S and 27T, the distance
between posts ranged from 40 to 66 cm. The gap
between the aforementioned posts, measuring 104
cm, likely defines a doorway.

positioned at the east end. Extended on its back, the
body had been placed with the arms stretched out
along each side and the face turned to the left side.
The long axis of the body, defined by a line running
from the base of the occipital through the sacrum,
was oriented N 123° E.

The burial was of an adult female, 25-30
years of age. Hypoplastic lines were noted on the
left first incisor and canine (Chase 1992). Three
triangular ornaments made from sheet copper and
drilled at one end were fotmd with the skeleton
closely spaced together on the medial side of the
distal end of the left humerus.

Human Burials

Two burial pits were uncovered in Area A:
Features 18B and 25 A. Both were fully excavated
with the skeletal remains removed for analysis. The
burials are very similar both in the placement of the
features in relation to the exterior palisade and in the
orientation of the skeletal remains. A burial pit and
associated skeletal remains exposed by Richard
Fleming on Lot 17 (Fleming's Feamre 3 and 4,
respectively) are also similar in orientation to the Lot
16, Area A burials.

Burial 18B lies in the area of grid point N61
E85. The featmre is situated just within the exterior
palisade and appears to intrude upon the fortification
line. Oriented roughly east- west along its long axis,
the burial pit was 2.30 m long and 1.75 m wide
(Figure 15). The sides of the pit sloped slightly
inward toward the base at an angle ranging from 8 to
17° from the vertical. The base of the feature was
relatively flat, extending from subsoil level to a depth
of 0.27 m at the east end to 0.36 m at the west.

Fill within the pit was mottled, consisting of
brown loam and yellow and orange clay. The fill
contained lithic and ceramic debris as well as small
quantities of animal bone and shell. Sixty-nine
percent of ceramic sherds recovered are diagnostic of
the Late Woodland period (12 shell-tempered, simple
stamped; 28 shell-tempered, fabric -marked). A
triangular projectile point of jasper was also
recovered.

The skeleton was situated at the base of the
feature and was roughly centered within the pit. The
remains were fully articulated with the cranium

Burial 25A was located approximately 9 m
southeast of Burial 18B. The former pit was also
situated just within the exterior palisade line and,
again, the burial appeared to intrude upon the
fortification. Feature 25 A3, which was visible at
subsoil level within the feamre fill, is believed to be
a modem test hole, although it does lie in line with
the exterior palisade. The hole was 15 cm in
diameter and extended to a depth of 46 cm. Two
iron fragments, along with prehistoric artifacts, were
recovered from its fill. Two other scattered circular
stains were identified at the base of the burial pit.
Feature 25 A 1 was observed at 21 cm below subsoil
in the feature fill and was 14 cm in diameter and 10
cm deep. Feature 25A2 was discemable at 28 cm
below subsoil and was 7 cm in diameter and 5 cm
deep.

The pit of Burial 25A was oriented along its
long axis in an east-west direction. Slightly larger
than Burial 18B, it was 2.42 m long and 1.95 m
wide. The walls of the pit sloped inward towards the
base at an angle 10 to 20° from the vertical. The pit
was 0.49 m deep and had a flat base.

Similar to Burial 18B, Feature 25 A was
filled with mottled soil consisting of brown loam and
yellow and orange clay containing ceramic, lithic,
bone, and shell debris. Fifty -nine percent of ceramic
sherds are shell-tempered types diagnostic of the Late
Woodland period (9 simple stamped; 20 fabric-
marked). No diagnostic lithics were recovered.
Radiocarbon analysis of a sample of human bone
obtained from the featiu-e produced a modem date
(Beta- 12 117). It is possible the sample had been
contaminated with Butvar, a consolidant applied in
the field to preserve some bone elements.

Figure 15. Burial 18B, Lot GHF16.

The skeleton itself was oriented in a similar
manner to the one contained in Featiu-e 18B:
aniculated and lying fully extended on its back, arms
at its sides, the head t\imed to the left side. The long
axis of the body was oriented N 107° E, with the
head at the east end.

The skeleton was of an adult male with an
estimated age of 45 years or older. Caries were
present on seven teeth and one tooth contained an
abscess. Seven molars and one incisor were resorbed
(Chase 1992). On the individual's right side, simated
between the arm and the trunk, lay a tubular clay
smoking pipe with an expanded bowl. The pipe
extended from the region of the wrist parallel to the
radius. The mouthpiece lay at the west end. Also
recovered with the skeleton was a rolled copper mbe
bead found on the left side of the neck region. Two
additional fragments of mbular copper beads were
recovered from the fill of the pit near the level of the
skeletal remains.

Although precise information is not available
on the burial exposed in a pipe trench dug during
construction of the house on Lot 17, the feamre was
very similar to Burials 18B and 25 A in terms of the
orientation of both the pit (Fleming's Feattire 3) and
skeletal remains (Fleming's Feature 4). The burial
pit on Lot 17 was oriented roughly east-west along its
long axis and was approximately 2.7 m long and 1.9
m wide. The body was placed fully extended on its
back, head at the east end, arms at its side, and face
turned to the left. The skeletal remains were not
removed.

The similar placement of burials 18B and
25A in relation to the exterior palisade line suggests
that the palisade was standing when the bmials were
deposited. Additionally, the burials appear to intrude
upon the palisade. No prehistoric postmolds in line
with the palisade were discemable in the fill of the
burials or found at die base of the features.
Scenarios which could account for the evidence
include repair of the palisade following placement of
the burials (in which case postmolds placed into die
burial fill were no longer discemable at the time of
excavation) or placement of the burials after the
palisade had fallen into disuse, but while its former
boimdaries were still evident. It is also possible that
the burials were positioned at entrances through the
palisade. It is unlikely that the burials represent

secondary interments placed upon abandonment of the
village, since the skeletons were fully articulated.

Ossuary

While digging the footings for his house
foundation in April 1982, the owner of Lot 16
encoimtered an ossuary simated roughly 5 m directly
soudi of Burial 25A. VDHR staff learned of the find
the next day when they visited the site prior to
commencing planned test excavations on Lot 3 in the
Meadowridge subdivision. Efforts were made to
retrieve as much information on the ossuary as
possible, although heavy machinery had disturbed
portions of the feature and a concrete foundation had
already been poured covering up one end.

Expanding the backhoe excavation slightly
beyond the foimdation trench revealed that the
ossuary pit was oval, extending ca. 5.40 m north-
south and at least 5.0 m east-west. The profile of the
western wall of the excavation indicated the pit
extended 25 cm below subsoil level. Fill consisted of
brown sandy loam mottled with yellow to orange
clay. As defined, the center of the feamre was
situated at approximately grid point N49 E95.

The human skeletal material which remained
in the ossuary was concentrated at the east end of the
exposed section. (Human bone was also seen in the
spoils thrown out by the mechanical digger used to
excavate the foimdation trench). Here die fill
contained less clay motding and the deposit extended
only 7.5 cm below subsoil level. The pit and bone
deposit extended fiirther eastward but were
interrupted by the concrete foimdation.

The skeletal elements were deposited in
disarticulated position and included the remains of at
least three individuals: one male estimated at 30
years of age; one adult female; and an adolescent
(Chase 1992). Both long and short bones, including
elements of the wrist, hand, and foot, were
recovered. Ceramics from the ossuary fill indicate a
Late Woodland period date for die feamre. Of five
shell-tempered sherds, two are fabric-marked, one
simple stamped, and two unidentified. One sand-
tempered, net-marked sherd was also recovered.

Other Features

Feature 18C1 was one of several additional
prehistoric features exposed in the northern portion of
Lot 16. Located just outside of the exterior palisade
line near grid point N66 E82, the feature was a small
basin 0.5 m in diameter. The walls of the basin
sloped gentiy to a roimded bottom which lay 10 cm
below subsoil level. Fill consisted of a dark brown
sandy himius containing small shell fragments.

Although the configuration of the basin
suggested a prehistoric feature, in both plan and
profile it appeared to intrude on Feature 18C2,
interpreted as an historic posthole. Artifacts
recovered from Feamre 18C1 include five small
prehistoric sherds, one quartzite flake, seven
fragments of window glass, one fragment of emerald
green molded glass, a small piece of coal, and 47
grams of oyster shell. Feature 18C2 yielded only
prehistoric artifacts. It is likely that Feature 18C1
indeed dates from the prehistoric period, but that its
upper siuface just below subsoil level had been
disturbed by plowing.

Another prehistoric feature located in Area
A was encountered in the northeast comer of Test
Square 3 . Only that portion of the feature included
within the square was excavated. Feature 3E was
discemable at 20 cm below modem grade at the top
of a zone of tan-brown sandy loam which lay below
plowzone. The fill of the feature was distinguished
from the smrounding matrix by the presence of shell
and larger ceramic sherds. In plan. Feature BE
extended at least 1.1m north-south and 0.75 m east-
west. Both the feature deposit and the surrounding
matrix extended for a depth of 10 cm before grading
into sterile subsoil. Ceramics recovered from
Feature 3E were predominantly shell-tempered with
simple stamped surface treatment. The faunal
remains from the feature included oyster, hard shell
clam, and soft shell clam shell in addition to bone.

Directly south of Unit 3 lay another feature
for which little information is available. Encountered
in a shovel test by the landowner's brother, the
presumably prehistoric feature contained charcoal,
animal bone, hardshell clam, and large lumps of
baked clay. Spoils from the excavation yielded shell-
tempered ceramics with fabric-marked and simple
stamped stuface treatment.

During additional digging with a backhoe
near the edge of the bluff overlooking Broad Bay, the
landowner's brother exposed another feature centered
on grid point N71.65 E90.30. Once the feature was
recognized, trenching was halted and the wall of the
trench was troweled and examined by VDHR staff.
The profile revealed the remaining intact portion of
a dense concentration of ceramic sherds, designated
Feamre 17, situated at the interface between the
plowzone layer and a lense of midden soil 10 cm
thick. The sherd cluster itself was 0.30 by 0.60 m in
plan and 6 cm thick.

The intact portion of the feature was
excavated by VDHR staff and soil from both the
backhoe spoils and the plowzone directly above the
feature was screened for artifacts. Subsequent
mending in the laboratory indicated that the intact
portion of the feature contained fragments from two
shell-tempered, fabric -marked vessels. Sizable
portions of each vessel were reconstructed through
cross-mending with sherds recovered from the
screened backhoe spoils. Some of the mended sherds
from each vessel show evidence of having been burnt
after the vessel was broken. Because of the threat of
erosion along the cliff face, no further area was
opened up in the vicinity of the feamre, which lay a
little over one m beyond the northem edge of Unit
27. The position of Feature 17 suggests, however,
that it may have been associated with Structure B.

Radiocarbon analysis was conducted on
charcoal collected from between several tightly
packed sherds excavated firom the intact portion of
Feature 17. A date of 1570 JilTO years: A.D. 380
(Beta- 19777, not calibrated) was obtained. This date
is considered much too early for the Townsend
ceramics associated with the charcoal sample.

Excavation Area B

Excavation Area B, located south of
Excavation Area A, contained a dense array of
prehistoric postmolds, which appear to define an oval
stmcmre, as well as a few historic postholes (Figure
16). Two Native American burials lay along what
seem to be opposite walls of the stmcmre. Three
trash-filled pits were also uncovered in the vicinity of
the stmcmre and in the area to the south. The
predominance of shell-tempered, simple stamped and
fabric-marked ceramics in the fill of the burial pits
and the presence of these wares in a few postmolds

. ' *

Jo.

> 00

5 2}

2°

q: t;

(—

UJO

UJ>

"d"

r '

- S

PL.

a ^ 3

■^ s

5 -i _

^ <

? E 5

■i S S

t> r

U lU Z

indicates the burials and structure date from late
within the Late Woodland period. This feature
complex shows some affinity to the palisaded
setdement in Area A in respect to the plan of the
structure and the configuration and placement of the
burials.

Structure

Numerous prehistoric postmolds 'were
uncovered in Area B, with the most dense
concentration centered on Unit 26. The arrangement
of posts in this area is difficult to interpret, but
suggests an oval structure. Structure C, with its long
axis r unni ng north west-southeast. The southwest side
of the structiure is the best defined, and is represented
by a line of postmolds including 13A, B, and C. The
opposite wall is less apparent. The strongest linear
pattern on this side of the structure is
represented by postmolds 26S-T, 26W-Z, and 1C9-
10. This line does not run parallel to the southwest
wall, however.

These two walls define a structure whose
width decreases gradually toward the southeast end
from a maximum of 6.90 m at the position of
postmold 1C9 to 5.5 m at postmold 26 W. The ends
of the structure are defined by arched lines of
postmolds in the vicinity of N47 E76 at the northwest
end and N41 E82 at the southeast end. The density
of postmolds in Area B outside of these side and end
walls is noticeably less than within the defined
structure.

Measurement along a line drawn midway
between the two side walls indicate that Structure C
was 10.20 m long. The diameters of eleven
excavated posts from along the side walls ranged
from 7.0 to 11.0 cm (mean 8.6, a = 1.463). Depths
ranged from 2.0 to 16.0 cm below subsoil level.
Seven distances measured between the excavated
posts ranged from 25 to 42 cm.

Although the postmolds in Area B do not
form a clear pattern and it is uncertain whether
evidence from all posts associated with Strucmre C
survived, certain other features of the structure can
be suggested. For example, given the walls of the
structure as defined above, gaps between adjacent
postmolds in each of the foiu- comers may indicate
the locations of doorways. A bench or platform
inside the northeast wall is suggested by series of

posts in this area which run parallel to the exterior
wall. (Alternatively, these lines could represent
exterior walls themselves). It is likely that many
other postmolds on the interior of the structure
represent support posts, but the dense arrangement of
postmolds at the northwest end of the structure
suggests the presence of additional earth-fast furniture
or interior partitions.

Diagnostic ceramics recovered from the
sample of excavated postmolds in the vicinity of
Structure C indicate a Late Woodland period date.
Postmolds 13C, 26Y, 26 AA, 26 AE, and 26 AS each
yielded one sherd of shell-tempered, simple stamped
ware.

Human Burials

Two burials were uncovered in Area B:
Features 16C and 29A. Burial 16C, situated in the
vicinity of grid point N48 E78, lay along the northern
wall of Structure C. No postmolds in line with this
wall were discemable in the biuial fill.

The intact portion of the burial pit was very
shallow, extending only 10 cm below subsoil level
which, in this area of the site, was 35 cm below
modem grade. Disturbed fill from the feature could
be discerned within the plowzone.

At subsoil level, the burial pit appeared oval
in plan extending 1.90 m northwest-southeast and
1.55 m northeast-southwest. The outer edges of the
pit were filled with yellow and orange sandy clay
mottled with brown loam and containing a litde
ceramic, lithic, bone, and shell debris. The skeletal
remains were simated roughly in the center of the
overall pit, but within the southeast end of an inner
core of very dark brown fill containing an abundance
of ceramic sherds, lithic flakes, and fragments of
non-himian bone and shell. This oval, trash-rich
deposit was 1 .35 m by 0.90 m in plan. The ceramics
recovered from the deposit are predominandy shell-
tempered. Of die 18 shell-tempered sherds
recovered, 33% are fabric-marked and 61% simple
stamped. Surface treatment on 4% was

unidentifiable. The four additional ceramic sherds
recovered are Middle Woodland sand-tempered types.

The interment was an infant, fiilly
articulated, placed extended on its back widi the arms
stretched along its sides and die legs placed slightly

toward the right side. The cranium lay at the north
end. The long axis of the body, defined by the
venebral column, was oriented N 20° E. The infant
is estimated to have died at 6-9 months of age (Chase
1992).

The second burial within Area B was
excavated and mapped by Richard Fleming in
December 1980. The test square opened by Fleming
to expose the burial was relocated during VDHR
excavations in 1981, and Fleming's map of the
square was tied into the VDHR site plan. Feature
29A (Fleming's Feamre 6) appears to lie along the
south wall of Structure C as defined by postmolds
13A-C. No postmolds were recognized within the
feature fill. The burial pit was circular in plan, 1 .60
m in diameter. Fill consisted of dark brown loam
containing abundant artifacts and shell.

The human skeletal remains were centered
within the pit. Placed on its back, the limbs were
fully extended, except for the left arm which was
bent at the elbow and oriented so that the hand rested
above the lower portion of the vertebral column. The
cranium lay at the northeast end of the pit and was
turned slightly to the right side. The long axis of the
body, defined by a line running from the base of the
occipital through the sacnmi, was oriented N 46° E.
The skeletal remains are of an adolescent estimated to
be 15 years of age ±_ 36 months (Chase 1992).

Paul Green's (1987:Table 11) analysis of
ceramics recovered by Fleming from the fill of
Feature 29 indicated a predominance of shell-
tempered Late Woodland wares: 46% simple
stamped and 13% fabric-marked. Fill reserved fi^om
the feamre by Fleming for waterscreening (54 liters)
and processed by the 'VDHR yielded only one
ceramic sherd larger than one square inch. The
ceramic was shell-tempered with simple stamped
surface treatment. Among other artifacts, the
waterscreen sample also yielded one small, circular
shell disc bead perforated through the center.
Radiocarbon assay of human bone from the burial
yielded a date of 620 ± 80 years: A.D. 1330 (Beta-
12117, not calibrated).

Other Features

Three additional prehistoric features were
encountered in Area B. Two of these. Features 15B
and 26B, were located in the immediate vicinity of

Structure C. Feamre 15B, simated just west of grid
point N47 E81, was an oval deposit of primarily
oyster shell, 34 cm by 24 cm in plan. The deposit
extended only a few centimeters below subsoil level.
In addition to 532 grams of oyster shell, one shell-
tempered, fabric-marked sherd, one jasper flake, and
two fish vertebrae were recovered from the fill.

Feature 26B was a concentration of ceramics
and oyster shell centered on grid point N42.20
E76.50 and identified in the plowzone. The artifact
concentration measured roughly 0.80 m north-south
by 1.00 m east-west in plan and 15 cm thick. None
of the deposit extended below subsoil level.
Diagnostic ceramics recovered through screening the
plowzone in a 1.5 m by 1.0 m area centered on the
artifact concentration were all shell-tempered and
included 15 simple stamped, 1 cord-marked, and 1
plain-surfaced sherd.

South of Strucmre C, Feature 7E, another
concentration of ceramics and shell, was identified
above subsoil level within a 10 cm thick layer of
midden soil preserved in this section of the site. The
feature was located adjacent to grid point N34 E79.
It measured 0.40 north-south by 0.45 m east-west in
plan and was 15 cm thick. Thirteen of the 17 sherds
recovered are shell-tempered, fabric -marked.
Shellfish remains recovered from the pit include
2809.0 grams of oyster shell and 2.4 grams of hard
shell clam shell.

Collections

Ceramic Artifacts

Using two attributes—paste and surface
treatment-four ceramic series were identified in the
collections from Lot 16. Each of these is at least
roughly comparable to a series previously described
in the regional archaeological literature and can be
used to date the Woodland occupations on the
property.

"VDHR excavations on Lot 16 were focused
on those areas which test tmits had indicated held the
highest feature density. Once these areas were
identified, efforts were directed primarily toward
exposing the plan of structural features associated
with prehistoric setdement and recovering
archaeological information from those portions of
discrete features preserved intact below subsoil level.

The only prehistoric pit features or structural patterns
encountered in the excavations date from the Late
Woodland period. Excavation of 1 1 initial test imits
provided more general and systematic data relating to
use of the property during the prehistoric period.
The artifact collections recovered from these units
were obtained by screening all deposits above sterile
subsoil through one-quarter inch mesh. Analysis of
these collections indicated they include a significant
number of ceramic sherds diagnostic of the Middle
Woodland period.

Table 2 shows the distribution of ceramics
by temper and surface treatment recovered from 10
of the 11 initial 2 m by 2 m test units excavated on
the lot, while Table 3 lists those ceramics recovered
from 6 Late Woodland feamres. The shell-tempered,
simple stamped and fabric-marked ceramics which
predominate in both collections are comparable,
respectively, to the Late Woodland type Roanoke
Simple Stamped (Blaker 1952; Harrington 1948) and
types in the Townsend series (Blaker 1963;
Stephenson and Ferguson 1963). In the

archaeological literature of North Carolina,
comparable ceramics are subsumed under the
Colington series (Phelps 1982, 1983:36-37).

Both Roanoke and Townsend ceramics from
Lot 16 are tempered with at least moderate amoimts
of crushed shell added to a clay paste which is
usually silty (Figiure 17). The shell of the ribbed
mussel (Geukensia demissa) appears to have been
used most frequently, although shell from other
species which are harder to identify from small
fragments may also have been employed. Surface
color of the wares varies widely from tan to orange
to black.

The exterior surfaces of Roanoke sherds bear
usually overlapping impressions of an untwisted fiber
which seems to have been applied by beating the
vessel with a wrapped paddle. Impressions of
individual fibers are most conunonly 1.5-2.0 mm
wide. The interior of sherds are sometimes scored
with shallow grooves as might be produced by
scraping the surface with the edge of a ribbed mussel
shell. Of four rims recovered from the test units and
features, two have straight profiles and two flare
outward slightly at the lip. Two rims are marked
with tamping on top of the lip: two are smoothed.
Vessel bases appear rounded to sub-conical in form.

Mean thickness of all but obvious basal sherds
recovered from the features listed in Table 3 is 0.71
cm {n = 45, cr = 0.09492).

Decoration occurs on only 3 (2.8%) of the
total of 118 Roanoke sherds analyzed in the
collection. Two of the sherds bear incised
decoration. All that can be said from these examples
is that the decorative motifs represented consist of, at
minimum, parallel lines of incising. One rim sherd
in the collection is decorated with a line of
punctations direcdy below the lip on the exterior
surface.

The exterior surfaces of Townsend sherds
recovered from Lot 16 bear impressions of fine,
tightly woven, weft-twined fabrics. Interior surfaces
of sherds are often scored. This treatment is also
occasionally found on exterior surfaces. The large
vessel fragments recovered from Feamre 17C suggest
that combing was a routine process in exterior
surface preparation preceding malleation of the
surface with a fabric- wrapped paddle.

Of seven Townsend rim sherds in the two
analyzed collections, three have straight profiles,
three may curve inward forming a slightly constricted
neck, and one flares outward at the lip. The one
basal sherd (Featiu:e 7E) in the analyzed collections
is sub-conical in form. Mean thickness of sherds
recovered from the feamres listed in Table 3 is 0.76
cm {n = 66, ff = 0. 10666). A large rim fragment in
the collection (Feature 7E) derives from a vessel
estimated to measure 32 cm in diameter. The rim
sherd is 0.7 cm thick 2 cm below the lip. The two
vessels partially reconstructed from sherds recovered
from Feature 17C (Figure 18) are estimated to
measure 25-30 cm and 30 cm in diameter at the
mouth. The former is estimated to stand 32 cm high
and has a sub-conical base. The wall of each vessel
is 0.8 cm thick 2 cm below the lip.

Seventeen (14.2%) of die 120 Townsend
sherds analyzed bear some form of decoration
comprised of incised elements or punctations, but the
fragmentary condition of the sherds precludes a full
understanding of the decorative designs represented.
To facilitate comparison with assemblages from other
sites, a code referring to the typology of Townsend
decoration developed by Griffidi (1982:55-57, Figure

Table 2. Ceramics recovered from test units. Lot GHF16.

CERAMIC
SHERDS LARGER
THAN ONE INCH
(NUMBER)

TEST UNITS
5 6

TOTAL

# %

SHELL-
TEMPERED

SIMPLE
STAMPED

169

FABRIC

SUB-TOTAL

221 57.8

SHELL-
TEMPERED

NET

CORD

SUB-TOTAL

46 12.0

SHELL-
TEMPERED

UNIDENTIFIED

57 14.9

FINE SAND-
TEMPERED

NET

CORD

SUB-TOTAL

48 12.6

Table 2 (com.)

CERAMIC
SHERDS LARGER
THAN ONE INCH

(NUMBER)

TEST UNITS
5 6

TOTAL

# %

MEDIUM SAND-
TEMPERED

NET

UNIDENTIFIED

SUB-TOTAL

10 2.6

TOTAL

41 43

382 100.0

CERAMIC
SHERDS

SMALLER THAN
ONE INCH
(WEIGHT IN
KILOGRAMS)

1.1

0.7

0.4

0.5

1.2 1.2

1.9

1.0

0.4

8.0

Note: The ceramics listed include only those recovered from plowzone, interface zone, and midden layers, and not
those recovered from discrete areas of feature fill observable above sterile subsoil level. Ceramics from Unit 8 are
not listed as this sqiiare contained an overburden of fill from construction activities on Lot 17. Mistakes were also
made in labeling artifacts recovered from lower levels of Unit 8.

Table 3. Ceramics recovered from selected features. Lot GHF16.

CERAMIC TYPE

FEATURE

16C 18B

25A

29A

SHELL-TEMPERED

SIMPLE STAMPED

11 12

FABRIC

6 28

NET

CORD

PLAIN

COMBED

UNIDENTIFIED

1 5

FINE SAND-TEMPERED

NET

3 2

CORD

PLAIN

UNIDENTIFIFD

— -

—

MEDIUM SAND-

TEMPERED

NET

FABRIC

UNIDENTIFIED

—

— -

TOTAL

22 58

187

Note: Frequencies for Feature 29A are from Green's (1987:Table 11) analysis of the collection retained by Richard
Fleming. Fine sand-tempered category includes Green's Middletown type. Medium sand-tempered category
includes his Mount Pleasant type.

-.-jK*"/-

'^^jKLjs..

^n||^

- o

'^ CO

■I

a
o

Figure 18. Townsend vessel fragment from Feature 17C, Lot GHF16.

8) is noted where possible in the discussion which
follows.

Evidence of decoration on five of the
Townsend sherds from Lot 16 consists only of a
series of parallel incised lines, and it is not known if
other elements were paired with this motif. Five
other sherds have incisions which cross-cut a band of
parallel incised lines at an angle (R18). On one of
these specimens, the overlying incisions form
triangles or chevrons. Three additional sherds have
a band of parallel lines paired with a line of
pimctations. Two of these are rim sherds, and on
both the pimctations are positioned above (closer to
the rim) the band of incising (similar to R12, for
which Griffith specifies the band smmounts another
element). Of the four remaining sherds, two appear
to be decorated with hanging elements of grouped,
parallel incised lines (R16); one has a filled triangular
element; and one has an isolated, open triangle drawn
with incising (R17). One additional rim sherd in the
analyzed collections, as well as the rims of the two
vessels from Feamre 17C, are marked with the edge
of a fabric-wrapped paddle on the interior of the
vessel just below the lip. This "decoration" is likely
a by-product of the vessel-shaping process.

As related in the descriptions above, the
Roanoke and Townsend ceramics recovered from Lot
16 are similar in many respects. The primary
difference between the two is in surface treatment,
although one shell-tempered sherd (listed as
"Unidentified" in Table 2 imder Unit 6) was found to
bear both fabric and simple stamped impressions on
the exterior surface. The ceramics also differ in their
use of incised decoration, with Townsend ware
decorated more frequently. The sample recovered
from Lot 16 does not permit us to determine whether
the same or different decorative designs were used
for each ceramic type.

The distribution of Roanoke and Townsend
sherds on Lot 16 was examined to determine if
temporal differences in the use of the ceramics might
be discerned or if separate phases of Late Woodland
occupation were represented by the structural remains
and burials associated with Areas A and B of the
excavation or by the two ceramics. Analysis of the
spatial distribution of Roanoke and Townsend
ceramics on Lot 16 yielded no evidence to suggest
more than one Late Woodland occupation is
represented on the property. The distributions of

simple stamped and fabric-marked sherds recovered
from 10 of the initial test units are plotted in Figure
19. (These and similar plots in the report were
created with the computer program SURFER 2.0
[Golden Software, Inc.], set to use the inverse
distance method with a weighting power of 10 to
generate a grid of values from unevenly distributed
data. Data from Unit 8 were omitted in creating
plots for Lot 16 for reasons addressed in Table 2).
With the exception of the dense cluster of simple
stamped sherds centered on Unit 3, which contained
plow-disturbed remains from pit feature 3E,
frequencies for both Roanoke and Townsend sherds
are highest in the southwestern section of Excavation
Area B. If a separate occupation is represented by
each of the ceramics, disposal patterns dining the two
occupations were similar.

Some differences are evident, however, in
the distribution of Roanoke and Townsend sherds in
the Late Woodland features excavated on Lot 16. As
seen in Table 3, Townsend ceramics are relatively
more frequent than Roanoke ceramics in the
collections from the two burials (Features 18B and
25 A) situated along the palisade line. In the
collections from burials associated with Structure C
(Features 16C and 29 A), located outside of the
palisade, Roanoke ceramics predominate. The only
two non-burial Late Woodland features which were
encountered on Lot 16 in relatively undisturbed
condition (Features 7E and 3E) contained either one
or the other ceramic exclusively.

Extant contextual and radiocarbon
associations suggest that Roanoke Simple Stamped
was developed late within the Late Woodland
period relative to the initial appearance and use of
fabric-marked and incised-decorated types within the
Townsend series (Egloff and Potter 1982:109-111).
The evidence from Lot 16 appears to confirm these
findings as well as suggest temporal differences in the
use of Areas A and B. The predominance of
Townsend ceramics in the fill of the two burials
situated along the palisade line is surprising
considering that 76 % of identifiable Late Woodland
sherds recovered from plowzone, interface zone, and
midden levels in the initial test units on Lot 16 are
simple stamped (Table 4). If collections from the fill
of each of the four burials on Lot 16 are assumed to
be a representative sample of trash discarded on the
site prior to each interment, an earlier date is
indicated for interments 18B and 25 A associated with

•a

u
u

•§

o
o

e
_o

Table 4. Stratigraphic distribution of ceramics in test units, Lot GHF16.

CERAMIC TYPE

PLOWZONE

INTERFACE ZONE

TOTAL

# %

SHELL-

168 77.4

54 49.5

222

68.1

TEMPERED,

SIMPLE

STAMPED AND

FABRIC

SHELL-

26 12.0

20 18.3

14.1

TEMPERED.

NET AND CORD

FINE SAND-

17 7.8

31 28.4

14.7

TEMPERED

MEDIUM SAND-

6 2.8

4 3.7

3.1

TEMPERED

TOTAL

217 100.0

109 99.9

326

100.0

the palisaded settlement in Area A. The array of
ceramics recovered from interments 16C and 29A,
associated with the structure in Area B, more closely
approximates the ratio of fabric to simple stamped
sherds foxmd in accimiulated deposits at the site at the
close of Late Woodland occupation.

Sherds diagnostic of the Middle Woodland
period constitute at least 27% of the ceramic
collection recovered from the initial test units opened
on Lot 16 (Table 2), although no Middle Woodland
pit features or strucmres were encountered in the
excavation areas. Twelve percent of Middle
Woodland sherds are shell-tempered and comparable
to types within the Mockley series (Egloff and Potter
1982:103-104; Stephenson and Ferguson 1963:105-
109).

Since the temper had leached out of the body
of Mockley sherds recovered on Lot 16, the type of
shell used could not be identified. The majority of
sherds have a silty paste, but some have inclusions of
fine sand. While surface color varies, sherds more
commonly are of an orange or red hue than are the
Middle Woodland sand-tempered wares described
below.

Mockley ceramics are distinguished from
Late Woodland shell-tempered types by cord- and
net-marked sm-faces (Figure 17). Cord-marking
predominates in the collection from Lot 16.
Occasional sherds are scored on the interior surface.
Three rim sherds, one with a straight profile and two
which curve slightly inward, are included in the
analyzed collections from the test units and feamres
listed in Tables 2 and 3. The one basal sherd in the
collections is sub-conical in form. Mean wall
thickness of 25 sherds recovered from Units 1 and 4
is 0.84 cm (a = 0.16350). No decoration was
identified on any of the Mockley ceramics in the two
analyzed collections, although notching on the interior
of the rim was noted on a sherd recovered from a
surface context.

Approximately 15% of Middle Woodland
ceramics from the test units on Lot 16 are
characterized by the inclusion of sand in the paste,
exclusive of shell (Figure 20). Among these sherds,
two provisional series were distinguished in the
analysis. The presence of cord- and net-marked
types in each series suggests these ceramics date from

the Middle Woodland period (Egloff 1985:238-239;
Egloff and Potter 1982).

Those ceramics categorized as "fine sand-
tempered" have a hard, compact paste containing a
high proportion of sand particles smaller than 1.0 mm
in diameter as well as occasional particles as large as
2 mm in diameter. While some of the ceramics feel
sugary to the touch, they are not friable. Most of the
fine sand-tempered ceramics are oxidized to a light
orange to tan color on interior and exterior surfaces,
and have a thick grey to black core. Mean thickness
of 24 sherds from Units 1 and 4 is 1 . 1 cm (a
=0.12740). Rim and basal sherds observed in the
test unit collections and in imsystematic collections
from Lot 16 suggest that vessels curved inward
slightly at the rim and had round to sub-conical
bases. In the collections from the test imits, only
knotted net- and cord-marked siulfaces were
observed. A few fabric -marked sherds are included
among the artifacts collected from spoil piles from
areas cleared to subsoil by bulldozing. Both a coarse
wicker fabric and an open-weave, weft-twined fabric
were identified. No decoration was identified in the
collections.

Ceramics categorized as "medium sand-
tempered" constitute only a small proportion of the
collection from Lot 16. These ceramics are
distinguished from the fine sand-tempered ware by a
higher proportion of sand in the paste and by the
larger size of individual particles, which most
commonly measure 1.5-2.5 mm in diameter. The
definition ignores additional variation in paste among
the sherds categorized as "mediiun sand-tempered,"
but no further splitting was attempted since the size
of the sample is very small. Both knotted net-
marking and impressions of an open- weave, weft-
twined textile were observed on exterior surfaces.
The five sherds recovered in Units 1 and 4 ranged
0.8-1.2 mm in thickness (mean 1.0) .

Clues to the temporal and culmral
relationships between the sand-tempered and shell-
tempered Middle Woodland ceramics recovered on
Lot 16 were sought by examining their stratigraphic
and spatial distributions. Stratigraphic distribution of
the ceramics was assessed by comparing the array of
sherds recovered in plowzone contexts in the initial
test imits to that recovered in an interface zone of
tan-brown sandy loam encoimtered in several of the
squares between plowzone and sterile subsoil. Field

X
O
•*■*
o

03
C/5

3
60

observations had suggested the interface zone
represented an undisturbed deposit, since it appeared
to contain both larger sherds than the overlying
plowzone and a higher proportion of Middle
Woodland ceramics.

As discussed earlier, more rigorous analysis
of ceramics recovered from the test units confirmed
the preliminary field interpretation (Table 4). The
proportion of Middle Woodland ceramics (both shell-
and sand-tempered) was found to be higher in the
interface zone (50.4%) than in the plowzone
(22.6%). The data presented in Table 4 appear to
indicate a temporal difference between shell-tempered
and fine sand-tempered Middle Woodland ceramics,
but this may be misleading. Fine sand-tempered
sherds do show a stronger tendency to be associated
with the interface zone than do shell-tempered, net-
and cord-marked ceramics, but this pattern is shaped
largely by the 21 sherds of fine sand-tempered
ceramics recovered in the interface zone in Unit 1
which appear to represent only two vessels. The
fact that nine shell-tempered Middle Woodland sherds
recovered in this square also derive from the interface
zone suggests the difference in stratigraphic
distribution may merely be the product of sampling.

Analysis of the spatial distribution of Middle
Woodland ceramics on Lot 16 yielded no evidence
for significant temporal differences between the
Mockley ceramics and the two sand-tempered types.
The distributions of shell- and sand-tempered Middle
Woodland ceramics are shown in Figure 21 . Sherds
of both sand-tempered types were combined in the
analysis since sample size for the ware with the
coarser clastic inclusions is small. The plots show
the highest frequencies of both sand- and shell-
tempered Middle Woodland ceramics in the vicinity
of Units 1 and 4. The results suggest the two types
may derive from the same occupation, or are at least
roughly contemporaneous. There is some variation
in the frequency of the two types between Test Units
1 and 4, but, as noted above, these clusters likely
represent only a few individual vessels.

Lithic Artifacts

The lithic artifacts recovered in excavations
on Lot 16 provide firm evidence for only Woodland
period occupation. Among the bifaces recovered
from all contexts including surface, bulldozer spoils,
screened plowzone and midden layers, and feature

and postmold fill were nine projectile points/knives
sufficiently accomplished and whole to discern the
intended morphology (Figure 22, Table 5). This
group includes five triangular points, four
manufactured of jasper and one of quartz, which
could be associated with either the Middle or Late
Woodland occupations indicated by the ceramics
recovered from the lot. The remaining four points
most likely date from the Middle Woodland period.
One is a chert, side-notched point similar to the Potts
Side-Notched type, which is suspected to date from
the middle of the Middle Woodland, or ca. 100 B.C.
- A.D. 400. (Egloff et al. 1988:16). A side-notched
point made of quartz was also found. Two of the
points recovered are probably unfinished. One is a
medium-sized, somewhat stemmed biface of
quartzite. The other is made on a chert flake which
has been retouched to form a stem or notches.

The lithic artifacts recovered from the initial
test units opened on Lot 16 were examined to provide
a more inclusive picture of lithic use. The
information obtained from the analysis cannot be
specifically associated with the Middle or Late
Woodland periods, however, since ceramics
recovered from these contexts indicate they represent
multiple components. Even the interface zone
encountered in some test sqxiares contained a sizable
number of Late Woodland ceramics in addition to the
predominant Middle Woodland sherds.

Examination of the lithic collection from the
initial test squares indicated that, overwhehningly,
locally-available materials were used. The quality of
these materials likely was a major factor in shaping
the structure of the assemblage. Lithic materials best
suited for tool manufacture are scarce in the far
Outer Coastal Plain, and the materials available are
present in only small cobble or pebble form.

Table 6 lists the flakes recovered from the
test squares by material and size. The collection is
comprised primarily of jasper flakes (this term
includes all cherty materials) followed in order of
decreasing frequency by quartzite and quartz. All
three materials are available locally (Geier 1990:70).
Only two flakes in the collection are of materials-
basalt and rhyolite-which are only uncommonly
found within the geological deposits of the James
River drainage.

. 8

•a
u

a.
S

•I

•a
u

[1,

o
-J

•a
o
o

•a

s
o

-a

cs
00

3
60

— O
^ CO

-J

Table 5. Projectile point data, Lot GHF16.

FORM PROVENIENCE MATERIAL BASAL SHOULDER LENGTH MAXIMUM

WIDTH WIDTH THICKNESS

TRL\NGULAR

SURFACE

QUARTZ CA. 2.1

N.A.

3.2

0.8

TRL^iNGULAR

UNIT 9

INTERFACE

ZONE

JASPER

1.6

N.A.

N.M.

0.7

TRIANGULAR

UNIT 9

INTERFACE

ZONE

JASPER

2.3

N.A.

2.0

0.4

TRL«lNGULAR

UNIT 11
PLOWZONE

JASPER

2.3

N.A.

2.2

0.5

TTlLkNGULAR FEATURE 18B JASPER CA. 1.

N.A. CA. 2.4 0.7

SIDE

SURFACE

NOTCHED

SIDE

SURFACE

NOTCHED

STEMMED

SURFACE

STEMMED

UNITS

PLOWZONE

CHERT

QUARTZ

2.0

CHERT

N.M.

1.9

1.7

2.1

2.6

3.6 +

N.M.

4.4

N.M.

0.5

1.0

1.2

0.3

Table 6. Size, material type, and presence/absence of cortex among lithic flakes. Lot GHF16.

JASPER

QUARTZ

QUARTZIl'E

OTHER

# %

SIZE

CATEGORY

<, 1 MM

52 17.2

8 13.3

8 3.7

2MM

231 76.2

41 68.3

134 62.3

3MM

19 6.3

9 15.0

56 26.0

2 100.0

4MM

2 3.3

13 6.0

5MM

1 0.3

—

4 1.9

TOTAL

303 52.2

60 10.3

215 37.1

2 0.3

FLAKES

PROPORTION

184 60.7

24 40.0

55 25.6

OF SAMPLE

WITH

CORTEX

Note: Table includes plowzone, interface, and midden levels. Unit 8 not included.

The distribution of flake size and the
proportion of flakes bearing a remnant of cortical
surface within each of the three major material
classes very likely reflects the size of cobbles or
pebbles locally available in each material. The
material represented by the highest proportion of
flakes in smaller size categories and the highest
proportion of flakes with cortex is jasper. Sixty -three
small fractured jasper pebbles, a niunber of which
were evidentiy split or reduced through a bi-polar
process, are also included in the collection from the
test units, as are three jasper bifaces directiy reduced
from pebble cores. Quartzite debitage had the largest
proportion of flakes in larger size categories and the
lowest proportion of flakes with cortex. The array of
quartz debitage lies between jasper and quartzite for
both flake size and cortex. The sizes of the rough
bifaces of quartz (two) and quartzite (five) and of one
quartzite cobble core recovered from the test units
suggest these two materials were available in larger
cobble form than was jasper, although small quartz
pebbles were also used.

The lithic collection from the test units also
included a nimiber of tools (Table 7). Seven finished
projectile points or bifacial preforms were recovered:
six jasper and one quartzite. Only three of these
artifacts were sufficientiy complete to determine the
intended form. These were described above and are
listed in Table 5 (two from Unit 9, one from Unit
11). The collection also includes the seven crude
quartz and quartzite bifaces and the three bifacially
reduced jasper pebbles discussed above.

Flake tools with minor edge wear or retouch
were not quantified in the test imit collection since
the artifacts were recovered by shoveling and
screening. Visual inspection of the collection without
the aid of magnification did not indicate these types
of tools were common, however, and no small
unifacial tools such as end scrapers were found.

of fire-cracked rock totaling 1624 grams were also
recovered from the test squares.

The flakes, split pebbles, and anvil stones
recovered from Lot 16 suggest that bi-polar
techniques were commonly employed in lithic
reduction. The use of this technique was also
recognized by Geier in collections from the nearby
Addington site and has been examined by him in
some detail (Geier, Smith, Andrews, and Buchanan
1986:255-287; Geier 1990). Although bipolar flaking
does not permit the flintknapper as much control over
fracmring as do some other reduction techniques,
Geier has noted that several researchers have
documented die use of bipolar reduction in areas
where lithic materials are available only in pebble
forms too small to be worked by more conventional
methods (Geier 1990:56-57).

Although the artifacts recovered from
backhoe spoils on Lot 16 were not acqmred in a
systematic fashion, two finds are mentioned since
similar tools are not represented in the test unit
sample. Both are ground stone tools presumably
used for wood working. The spoils from Unit 27
yielded a three-quarter grooved axe made of gneiss
(Figure 24). A small basalt celt was recovered from
Unit 18 (Figure 24).

Ceramic Smoking Pipes

Thirty-eight fragments of clay smoking pipes
(after mending) were recovered in surface, plowzone,
and feature contexts from Lot 16. Three types of
pipes are included in the collection: platform,
tubular, and elbow forms (Figures 25, 26, and 27).
Most fragments are very small, however, and could
not be assigned to a particular form. For this reason,
the smoking pipes from Lot 16 are discussed by first
describing a few of the more complete specimens
recovered.

The only other lidiic tools identified in the
test unit sample are three fine-grained sandstone
cobbles used as anvil stones as indicated by pecked
scars on one or both faces (Figiu-e 23). Two of these
artifacts have wear along the edges which suggest
they were also used as hammers and abrading stones,
but since the artifacts were recovered from the
plowzone, some of this wear may be the product of
impact from farm machinery. Eighty-nine fragments

Two platform pipes could be identified in the
collection. The most complete of these was
recovered from Featiu'e 27FE, an historic posthole.
A small portion of the bit end of the pipe is
represented. The pipe stem is elliptical in cross
section and flattened on one face. On the portion
represented, the width expands from the bit to bowl
end. The clay paste is shell-tempered with a smooth
surface. The second platform pipe in the collection
(Unit 1 , plowzone) is also elliptical in cross section.

Table 7. Total lithic collection from test units. Lot GHF16.

TEST

FLAKES

SPLIT PEBBLES.

HAMMERSTONES.

BEFACES

FIRE-

UNIT

CORES

ANVILS

CRACKED
ROCK

(GRAMS)

242

102

602

184

141

341

TOTAL

580

1624

— o

I .

•I

PL.

o
-J

c
o

3
00

CO
3

3
00

"if • - f - ^-'

a:
o

PL,

X
O

o.
'E.
op

•l

3
H

'5.

3
O
OS

Only a small ponion of one side of the stem is
represented. There is no visible temper in the paste,
and the surface of the pipe is smooth.

The most complete pipe in a mbnlar form
was associated as a burial good with the human
interment in Feature 25 A (Figure 26). The pipe is
9.94 cm long. The stem is circular in cross section
and 1.01 cm in diameter at the bit end. The bore is
0.46 cm in diameter. The stem contracts slightly to
a distance 0.4 cm from the mouth, and then expands
to a diameter of at least 1.58 cm at the rim of the
bowl. The bowl is formed by an expansion of the
bore diameter ca. 6.7 cm from the bit end.

The pipe from Feature 25A is very well
made. The profile of the rim of the mouth is
squared. The bowl rim has a rounded profile and the
bowl wall is only 0. 14 cm thick just below the rim.
No temper is visible in the clay paste. The exterior
surface of the pipe is smooth, and was possibly
burnished: narrow facets from smoothing the siuface
run parallel to the long axis of the pipe. Charred
residue scraped from the interior of the bowl was
identified as containing tobacco and is described
further below.

Two other mbular pipes can definitely be
identified in the collection. One fragment recovered
firom the plowzone in Test Unit 6 has a fine sandy
paste. The exterior surface is smooth. The portion
represented is from the section where the bore
expands forming the bowl. The stem just below the
bowl is at least 1.4 cm in diameter. The other
tubular pipe, composed of two fragments recovered
from the plowzone in Test Unit 7, is thicker and
manufactured from a shell-tempered paste. The
exterior surface is smooth. The portion of the stem
represented expands from a diameter of 1.86 cm at
one end to a minimum of 2. 18 cm at the other end.
The stem curves slightly.

Only one elbow pipe can definitely be
identified in the collection. The specimen is
composed of three bowl fragments recovered from
plowzone in Test Unit 2 (2B, 2B1). The smallest
fragment is from the front, basal section of the bowl.
The angle formed by the exterior surface of this piece
indicates the pipe was an elbow form.

The bowl of the elbow pipe expands from
the base to a slight shoulder 0.35 cm below the rim.

Bowl diameter is at least 1.77 cm at the shoulder,
and 1.68 cm at the rim. The rim profile is squared.
The wall of the pipe is very thin, ranging from 0. 13-
0.20 cm in thickness. The bowl is roulette-decorated
below the shoulder. A design composed of three
rows of spaced triangles set on their side is executed
by filling the ground arovmd the smoothed-sm^faced,
triangular fields with rows of small indentations, or
rouletting. The bases of some of the triangles are
defined by incised lines.

The remaining 31 pipe fragments in the
collection are too fragmentary to be classified to a
particular form. Most are well-made with thin walls,
suggesting they are more similar to the tubular pipe
from Feature 25A or the elbow pipe from Test Unit
2 than to the thicker, relatively crude shell-tempered
pipe from Unit 7 described above.

Of the remaining fragments not described
individually above, 3 are shell-tempered and 10 are
tempered with fine sand or are made from a sandy
paste. No temper is visible in the paste of 18
firagments. Of 18 bowl fragments represented, 6
have portions of the rim preserved. Five rims ciu^e
inward; one is straight. Two stem fragments are
other than circular in cross section. One stem from
the fill of Burial 18B is rectangular in cross section.
The stem appears to expand in width from one end to
the other. The maximimi distance between the two
opposing faces preserved is 1.06 cm. The surface of
the pipe is very smooth, perhaps burnished, with
facets from the process ruiming parallel to the long
axis of the stem. The other stem fragment is from
the fill of Burial 25A. The stem is hexagonal in
cross section. The pipe is composed of a very fine
sandy paste and the surface is smoothed with faceting
visible.

Four of the 18 bowl fragments are decorated
with designs executed by rouletting (Figure 27), with
the rest having simply smooth surfaces. The design
on an untempered pipe from the fill of Burial 18B
appears similar to that on the elbow pipe from Test
Unit 2 described above: it bears a smoothed-surfaced
triangular field against a ground filled with lines of
rouletting. A small bowl fragment from the
plowzone of Test Unit 5 (5C) bears a triangle filled
with rouletting. This pipe has a fine sandy paste.
The spoils removed by backhoe from the ossuary on
Lot 16 yielded a fragment of an imtempered pipe
bowl (30A) on which the roulette decoration appears

to form a herringbone design. The final decorated
pipe was recovered fi"om the plowzone in Test Unit
7 (7C). Not enough of the design is present on the
siuA'iving fragment of this untempered pipe to
describe it.

The indentations forming the designs on
three of the five roulette-decorated pipes clearly were
not executed using a pseudo-cord or wrapped-cord
technique. Instead, the notched edge of a thin tool is
suggested. In contrast, the indentations on the
specimen from Test Unit 7 are curved and sit at a
slight angle to each other and may have been
executed with a cord wrapped around the edge of a
tool. Indentations on the specimen from Test Unit 5
are too weathered to describe accurately.

Aside from the tubular pipe which
accompanied the Late Woodland period bmial in
Feature 25A, the different varieties of smoking pipes
recovered from Lot 16 cannot unequivocally be
assigned to a particular prehistoric period since the
property was occupied during both the Middle and
Late Woodland periods. The small proportion of
Middle Woodland vessel sherds recovered from the
fill of burial features 18B and 25 A suggests,
however, that at least the pipe fragments recovered
from these two features can tentatively be assumed to
date from the Late Woodland period. This small
assemblage is quite diverse and includes burnished,
plain-surfaced, tubular pipes with stems circular in
cross-section; pipes with stems rectangular or
hexagonal in cross-section; and pipe bowls bearing
roulette decoration. The clay paste of pipes from
these features is either imtempered or contains
inclusions of very fine sand.

The roulette-decorated pipes from Lot 16 are
particularly significant in light of recent research on
the origin of similar artifacts found in 17th-century
colonial contexts. Differing from most researchers in
the Chesapeake region, Emerson (1988) has recently
discounted the role Native Americans may have
played in the manufacture of roulette-decorated,
elbow pipes. He proposes the 17di-cenmry pipes
were a product of primarily English and African-
American manufacture, and suggests similar pipes
previously attributed to post-contact Native American
contexts were actually derived from English colonial
and African- American components represented in the
supposedly mixed assemblages at these sites.

No evidence has been obtained from
analysis of the artifacts recovered from Lot 16 to
support the hypothesis that the latest Native American
occupation on the property dates from after the
period of sustained European contact in Virginia (see
results of radiocarbon dating of Feature 29A and
analysis of pipe bowl residue and copper). Nor
were any European or American-made artifacts
manufactured prior to ca. 1850 recovered from either
surface, plowzone, or intact archaeological contexts
on the site. Thus, the roulette-decorated, elbow pipes
from Lot 16 are clearly of Native American
manufacture and add to an ever-growing body of
evidence from the circimi-Chesapeake region that this
pipe-decorating technique existed within pre -contact
Native American ceramic traditions.

Other Ceramic Objects

A fragment of an interesting, but unidentified
ceramic object was recovered from Feature 3E on
Lot 16 (Figure 25). The item is a thick, circular
ceramic disc with a perforation through the center,
clearly shaped and perforated while in a plastic state
before firing. The object is not a reworked fragment
of ceramic vessel, as the surfaces of the two faces,
the circumferential edge, and the perforation all
display oxidized surfaces overlying a grey core. The
item was probably circular in plan and at least 4.5 cm
in diameter (based on a measurement of 2.28 cm
from the circumferential edge to the nearest edge of
the perforation) and 1.79 cm thick. The siorfaces are
smoothed, the faces more so than the circumferential
edge. The paste possibly contained shell temper
which has since leached away leaving only thin, flat
holes in the body. The perforation suggests the item
may have been a large bead.

Copper Artifacts

Copper artifacts were found in two Native
American contexts on Lot 16, both Late Woodland
period burials. With the interment of the adult
female in Feature 18B were three copper ornaments
clustered on the medial side of the distal end of the
left himierus. The ornaments, which are made from
thin sheets of copper, are triangular in form and each
is perforated at one end (Figure 28). In situ, the
perforated ends were situated nearest the himierus,
suggesting the ornaments were worn on an arm
bracelet or were attached to clothing covering the
arm. The one ornament which could be completely

reconstructed is 5.9 cm long and 1.4 cm wide at the
base.

Copper beads were found with the adult
male burial in Feature 25 A (Figure 28). A complete
tube bead of rolled copper, 6.4 cm long and 0.4 cm
in diameter, was situated at the neck of the
individual. Fragments of copper mbe beads were
also foimd imder the left zygomatic bone and at the
level of the skeleton 1 6 cm south from the left side of
the craniimi.

The elemental composition of one of the
triangular ornaments from Feature 18B and the bead
located at the neck of Burial 25A was analyzed using
X-ray diffraction by Dr. Stephen Clements of the
Department of Geology, College of William and
Mary. In addition to copper, both artifacts were
found to contain nickel, calcium, and iron, but only
in trace amounts. Although not conclusive, the
results of the analysis suggest the copper was
originally obtained from geologic deposits in North
America, since copper items of 16th-century
Eiuopean manufacture would be expected to contain
a higher proportion of impurities (Stephen Clements,
personal commimication 1982).

Ethnobotanical Remains

Carbonized remains from three flotation
samples representing two Late Woodland features—
16C and 29A-on Lot 16 were analyzed by Paul S.
Gardner (1990a) to determine what plant foods played
a role within the subsistence economy of the native
inhabitants of Great Neck. The 4.2 liters of soil
processed from Lot 16 yielded a total of 0.33 grams
of plant food remains. Within this small sample,
foiu plants were identified: hickory (Carya sp.)
(0.27 g, nutshell); maize (Zea mays) (0.05 g,
cupule); acorn {Quercus sp.) (trace amount, nutshell);
and blackgum (Nyssa cr. sylvatica) (one seed; 0.01
g).

In addition to the smdy of charred plant
remains recovered in flotation samples, examination
of paleoethnobotanical remains from Lot 16 included
chemical analysis of a sample of charred residue from
the clay smoking pipe associated with the human
interment in Feature 25A. The analysis, conducted
by Merle D. Kerby, sought to determine what plant
was represented by the residue. If tobacco was

indicated, it was hoped that analysis of the alkaloids
would indicate whether Nicotiana rustica, the species
cultivated by native peoples in North America prior
to Emropean contact, or a later import was present.
The following description and assessment of the
results of the aiialysis is drawn from correspondence
with Kerby (1982a, 1982b).

A heavy residue of charred material was
scraped from the interior of the pipe bowl and
approximately one-half, or 0.25 grams, was analyzed
for its alkaloid content. The test confirmed that
residue from tobacco (Nicotiana sp.) was present in
the char. The total alkaloid content of the sample
was 3.0 mg with 2.4 mg nicotine and 1.0 mg
nomicotine.

Analysis of the distribution of alkaloids in
the sample proved inconclusive for determining the
species of Nicotiana represented. The ratio of
nomicotine to total alkaloid in the charred residue
was 0.33. The results of modem experimental
plantings suggest the ratio of nomicotine to total
alkaloids in N. rustica ranges from approximately
0.40 to 1.00. CoBomercial tobacco smoked today is
derived from the Caribbean species A^. tabacum,
which was introduced as a crop in Virginia in the
early years of the English colony. The ratio of
nomicotine to total alkaloids in modem tobacco
ranges from less than 0.05 to less than 0.10. The
level of nomicotine in N. tabacum grown among the
English colonists would have been higher than
modem tobacco, but lower than N. rustica. "Sweet
Orinoko," as the import was called, was less pungent
and narcotic than the native species.

The ratio of nomicotine to total alkaloids in
the Great Neck sample is lower than expected levels
for A^. rustica, but not so low as to allow one to
conclude the residue is derived from another species.
The results of the analysis provide no supporting
evidence for the hypothesis that the palisaded
settlement on Lot 16 was occupied after European
contact with the native populations of Eastem North
America. A fuller understanding of the Great Neck
tobacco sample, however, awaits the development of
a comparative data base on the alkaloid content of
tobacco from well-dated prehistoric contexts and post-
contact period contexts of both English colonial and
Native American affiliation.

c
o

a:
3

o.
o

3
50

Summary

Archaeological investigations on Lot 16
yielded evidence of Native American occupation
dating from the Middle and Late Woodland periods.
Because it was not a focus of the investigations,
relatively litde is known about the Middle Woodland
occupation, which is indicated primarily by
predominantly cord- and net-marked ceramics with
shell-tempered and sand-tempered pastes. The
distribution of ceramic sherds recovered from initial
test units indicates Middle Woodland setdement was
likely focused in an area just to the northwest of Test
Units 1 and 4. No Middle Woodland feanires or
structures were identified in the areas opened for
excavation by VDHR, but some evidence suggests the
flexed burial (Fleming's Feamre 7) found in 1980 in
the far northwest comer of the lot eroding from the
bank above Broad Bay may date from the Middle
Woodland period. In the four known Late Woodland
burials later excavated on the propeny, the bodies
were placed in extended position. Further, Painter
(personal communication 1 989) has found that flexed
bmials are commonly associated with the Middle
Woodland period at Great Neck.

The presence of both sand-tempered and
shell-tempered ceramics on Lot 16 suggests at least
two occupations are represented by the Middle
Woodland deposits. Although differences in the
stratigraphic distributions of the ceramics might
indicate that the sand-tempered ceramics are earlier,
similar horizontal distributions suggest that the time
between the deposition of the sand-tempered and
shell-tempered ceramics was not great. Both the
restricted horizontal distribution of Middle Woodland
ceramics and the lack of associated structures and pit
features imply that the Middle Woodland deposits on
Lot 16 are the product of relatively short-term
settlements, such as foray camps.

Excavations on Lot 16 yielded extensive
information on use of the property during the Late
Woodland period. A palisaded setdement was found
to have been simated at the highest end of the
property alongside Broad Bay. Approximately 12 m
southwest of the palisade, the remains of a single
Late Woodland structure were identified. The
predominant ceramics associated with each area are
shell-tempered with simple stamped or fabric-marked
surfaces, but it caimot be demonstrated that structural

remains in the two areas are necessarily the product
of the same Late Woodland occupation.

A radiocarbon date of A.D. 1330 ±80 was
obtained from a burial (29A) associated with the
isolated structure. Comparison of the proportion of
fabric-marked versus simple stamped sherds in burial
deposits across the site may indicate the isolated
structure was erected sometime after the palisade and
its associated structm'es. No artifacts of known
European manufacture were recovered to indicate that
Native American occupation dating from the period
of European contact in the Carolina Sounds or
Chesapeake Bay region is represented on the lot.

Information about the placement of burials
documented on Lot 17 suggests the enclosed
setdement identified on Lot 16 was oval in plan and
the palisade extended at least 40 m east- west, cutting
across both lots. A substantial portion of the
settlement has been lost to erosion along Broad Bay.
At least two structures (Structures A and B) were
enclosed by the palisade: Both were oval longhouses
displaying no evidence of rebuilding. The houses
were oriented parallel to each other, spaced 1.5 m
apart, and were situated only a short distance within
the palisade line. Remains of the palisade consisted
of two roughly concentric lines of posts. Differences
in die arrangement, diameter, and depth of postmolds
associated with each line suggest the two overlapped
to form an entrance. No subsurface features other
than one ceramic cluster, two burials, and several
postmolds were foimd within the enclosed area, while
six pit features daung to the Late Woodland period
were found in areas opened to the south and west of
the palisade.

The structure situated outside of the
enclosed setdement was smaller than the more
complete structure exposed within the palisade. The
outline of Structiu-e C is not very clear among the
profusion of postmolds uncovered in Area B, but the
remains do not appear to indicate rebuilding of the
same structure. Instead, they suggest use of Area B
for other types of activities either before or after
constnicdon and abandonment of Structure C. Two
pit featiu'es were found widiin the bounds of the
postmold pattern defining Structure C, but it is not
known if the pits were contemporaneous, or
fonctionally associated widi the building.

Information on the Late Woodland pit
feattires identified on Lot 16 is sketchy since some
were only partially exposed and others had been
disturbed by plowing. In general, the features were
relatively shallow and, except possibly for Feature
3E, small. Six of seven features contained shellfish
remains in the fill and, as noted above, were located
outside of the palisaded area.

The excavations on Lot 16 provided
significant information on Late Woodland mortuary
practices. Both ossuary and single, primary
interments were encountered in the excavations. The
primary interments exhibited many similarities.
Relatively large, almost circular pits ranging 1.60-
2.42 m in diameter were prepared for the four
burials, and each individual was placed in an
extended position on his or her back. The two
individuals buried along the palisade line were
situated with the head at the east end of the burial pit
with the face turned toward the left side, while the
two individuals in Area B were placed with the head
at the north or northeast end of the burial pit with the
face tiuned slightiy to the right side. Some evidence
suggests the two burials situated along the palisade
were positioned at entrances into the enclosiue, and
the two burials outside the palisade appear to have
been situated at opposite comers of Structure C in
locations which may have held doorways.

Some aspects of the Late Woodland record
on Lot 16 are suggestive of the nature of status and
sociopolitical organization within the society. The
differences in the size and spatial contexts of the
isolated structure and the well-defined structure
within the palisade (if these two are indeed
contemporaneous) are consistent with ethnohistorical
docvmientation on ascribed rank and its material
correlates within the Powhatan chiefdom. Writing
ca. 1613 about the Powhatans, Henry Spehnan
(Arber 1910:cvi) noted that "Kinges houses are
broader and longer then ye rest." In his early 18th
century accoimt of the Virginia Indians, Robert
Beverley (Wright 1969:177) observed that "They
often encompass their whole Town: But for the most
part only their Kings Houses." Beverley noted that
palisades also enclosed "as many others [houses] as
they judge sufficient to harbour all their people, when
an Enemy comes against diem, " so the possibility that
the large size of Structure A may reflect its use as a
conmiunity structure, not its association with an elite
class, must also be considered.

At least two levels of status are suggested by
patterning among the primary interments on Lot 16,
although data from these burials alone are insufficient
to conclude that ascribed versus achieved rank is
indicated. It is proposed that the two adult primary
interments are individuals of high status as indicated
by the copper ornaments associated with the burials.
Within Powhatan society, copper was highly valued,
and access to the metal was controlled by the chiefs
(Potter 1989; Turner 1985:201-203). The close
spatial association of the interments with the palisade,
a community structure, is also possibly reflective of
the high economic, political, or ideological
importance of these adtilt individuals within the
society.

Relative to the two adult interments, the two
subadult interments associated with the isolated
strucmre on Lot 16 would appear to be of lesser
status. The subadults are not accompanied by
funerary items of any type, and they are spatially
associated with a structure which presumably was not
of particular symbolic or economic importance to the
community as a whole.

Since the differences among the primary
interments pattern by age, we cannot conclude that
ascribed rather than achieved status is indicated on
the basis of these four morttiary feamres alone. The
presence of the ossuary interment on Lot 16 may help
elucidate the relationship between the adult and
subadult primary interments, however. The absence
of funerary items in the ossuary suggests the
individuals in this feature were of lesser stams than
the adults interred along the palisade, and the
communal form of burial may indicate that the
individuals in the ossuary were of lesser stams
relative to bodi adult and subadult primary
interments. Since adtilts and subadtilts are
represented among both primary interments and the
ossuary, these two types of interments may
distinguish ascribed positions of status within the
society. Two levels of rank, chief (primary
interments) and commoner (multiple, secondary
interment), may be indicated, with differential
treatment accorded to members of the niler class on
the basis of age.

CHAPTER 6

LOT 3, MEADOWRIDGE
SUBDIVISION

Introduction

Archaeological field investigations were
conducted on Lot 3 of the Meadowridge subdivision
dining the spring and late summer of 1982. The
property is situated between Broad Bay and Thomas
Bishop Lane roughly 300 m east of the canal
connecting Broad Bay and Brock Cove. The
distribution of cultural features across the lot was
sampled initially through the excavation of scattered
test sqtiares and one larger unit situated near Thomas
Bishop Lane. Later work focused on the excavation
of several trash-filled pits dating from the Middle
Woodland period and one Late Woodland period
burial which were encountered in the west-central
section of the property. A few historic postholes,
some of which may define fencelines, were also
found. Approximately 5 % of the property was tested
in the course of excavations.

Previous Investigations

No significant archaeological work is known
to have been conducted on Lot 3 prior to the
VDHR's excavations. While Floyd Painter had
conducted extensive excavations on Lots M 1 and M2,
situated immediately to the west, this work did not
extend into Lot M3.

On his map of the Great Neck site, however,
Painter indicated that James Pritchard at one time
conducted shovel testing on Lot 3 in the northern half
of the property. A few soil discontinuities
encoumtered in VDHR test units in this portion of the
lot might be attributed to Pritchard's activities, but
the evidence of previous work was mi nim al and in no
way suggests the level of testing and excavation
encountered in later VDHR excavations on Lot M5.

VDHR Excavations and Field Methods

The VDHR's field investigation of Lot 3 was
conducted over two extended periods. The initial
phase of the investigation was executed during the
spring of 1982 beginning April 15 and continuing

through May 15. Fifteen days were spent in the field
during this period.

Keith T. Egloff, then VDHR staff
archaeologist, served as field director dining the
initial phase of the investigation. The excavation
crew consisted of additional members of the VDHR
staff, interns, and volunteers, with two to seven
persons present each day. A total of 66 man-days
was devoted to the field phase of the project, with
35% of this total contributed by interns and
volunteers. Artifact collections from the investigation
were processed and cataloged by VDHR staff,
interns, and volunteers during July and August 1982.

After a metric grid was established across
Lot 3, seven test units (Units 100-107), each 2 m
square in plan, were opened across the property
(Figure 29). The soil in each unit was removed by
shovel to the sterile subsoil level and screened for
artifacts through one-quarter-inch mesh. Removal of
soil proceeded in approximately 5-cm levels so that
any changes in stratigraphy could be noted. Each
natural or cultural layer encountered was assigned a
distinct provenience number, and the artifacts from
each layer were kept separate. Once sterile subsoil
level was reached, the surface of each square was
troweled and any visible features were mapped at a
scale of 1 in = 50 cm.

At the southern end of Lot 3 , near the edge
of Thomas Bishop Lane, a larger excavation unit
(Unit 108) was opened by backhoe to a level a few
centimeters above subsoil. This roughly 5 by 10 m
area was then shovel skimmed to subsoil level and
mapped. Soil from above subsoil level was not
screened for artifacts.

Only a few possible prehistoric features,
prehistoric postmolds, and historic postholes/molds
were encountered within the initial excavation units.
Two trash-rich prehistoric deposits were visible along
the edges of Unit 106, however, so this unit was
expanded to the west and northeast to fiilly expose
the large features. For the remainder of the initial
phase of the investigation, work was devoted to the
excavation of these and other prehistoric features
exposed in the excavation units.

The second phase of field investigation on
Lot 3 was conducted during the periods August 1-19
and September 16-24, 1982, by several VDHR staff

44VB7, LOT 3
MEA00WRID6E SUBDIVISION
VOHR EXCAVATIONS 1982

N60 -I

N50-

N40-

N30-

N20-

NIO -

N -

N-IO-

BROAD BAY

107

109

103

106

1 1

104

101

100

102

108

Thomas Bishop Lone

E90

— I 1 —

ElOO EIIO

— I 1 —

EI20 EI30

£140

Figure 29. Plan of excavations on Lx»t 3, Meadowridge subdivision.

members while on leave from their positions. E.
Randolph Turner, then senior prehistoric
archaeologist with the VDHR, directed the
excavations. Field notes and artifact collections from
the investigation were transferred to the VDHR,
where monies from its threatened site program were
made available for their analysis in 1989.

Sixteen days of fieldwork were involved in
the second phase of excavations, with the crew
ranging from two to six persons per day. Of the total
of 60 man-days devoted to the project, 45% were
contributed by volunteers from the VDHR staff and
55% from VDHR interns and volunteers from the
community at large. Individuals in the latter group
also cleaned and packed the artifact collection for
storage at VDHR to await cataloging and analysis.

The testing conducted during the initial phase
of excavations on Lot 3 had provided some
understanding of die distribution of cultural features
across the property. In plaiming for the second phase
of excavations, it was clear that time was not
available to expose large, continuous areas of the lot,
the approach which would have been required to
discern any patterning in the arrangement of
prehistoric postmolds fotmd thus far on the property.
A decision was made to focus excavations in the area
of Unit 106. The two large pit features excavated
earlier in this area had yielded a wealth of artifacts
and subsistence remains in an excellent state of
preservation. The decision to expand the excavations
in this area reflected a desire to both understand these
features within a slighdy larger spatial context and
uncover additional features with similar potential to
yield, for example, radiocarbon associations,
subsistence data, and a well-preserved bone tool
assemblage.

As the second phase of excavations was
begun. Unit 106 was expanded further on the east
side to encompass an additional area approximately 4
by 6 m in plan. Soil above subsoil level was
removed by shovel, but not screened. After the
surface of the unit was troweled and mapped, the
remainder of the investigation involved the excavation
of die several pit features and postmolds exposed in
the unit.

In the course of investigations on Lot 3 , all
larger features and a sample of postmolds exposed in
the eight test units except those clearly originating

from recent historic activity were fully excavated. In
general, features were bisected with the first side
removed as one unit or in arbitrary levels. Profiles
were drawn at a scale of either 1 in = 50 cm or 1 in
= 25 cm. The second half of each feature was
removed in units corresponding to any cultural and
natural stratigraphy discemable. All soil was
screened through one-quarter-inch mesh. Samples of
fill from larger features, acquired before screening,
were saved for later waterscreen and flotation
processing. Larger features were also photographed
in black and white and color before excavation, in
profile, and after excavation.

Results of Initial Testing

As discussed above, investigations on Lot 3
were initiated with the excavation of seven test units,
each 2 m square in plan, scattered across the property
(Figure 29). The surface of the lot is relatively flat
and stands at an elevation of about 26 ft amsl.
Excavation of the test units provided information on
the soil profile across Lot 3, indicating that plowing
had disturbed any cultural deposits for a depth of
approximately 25-30 cm below modem grade.
Sterile subsoil was encountered directly below
plowzone. Two units contained an old and more
recent plowzone layer, however, and deposits in die
lower level were less disturbed.

The soil profile and cultural features
encountered in each of the initial test squares are
described below. More general informauon on use of
the property during the prehistoric period, provided
by analysis of the artifacts recovered in screening the
plowzone from each unit, is also discussed.

Test Units

Unit 100: Unit 100 was situated at grid
point N30 El 26 (squares are called from die
southwest comer) along the eastem edge of Lot 3.
The soil profile in the unit was characterized by a
plowzone 25 cm thick consisting of brown
sandy /clayey loam overlying a sterile subsoil layer of
orange clay. At subsoil level the soudi half of die
square exhibited two linear rodent burrows.
Excavation indicated that several small, circular soil
stains along the eastem edge of the unit were also the
result of rodent activity. Two other small stains.

lOOC and lOOK, were confirmed as prehistoric
postmolds.

Another possible prehistoric feature, lOOL,
was encountered along the northern edge of the
square. The feature was identified at subsoil level as
an area of mixed brown loam and orange clay
containing ceramic sherds. The boundaries of the
feanure were rather indistinct, although it appeared to
extend from the northern wall of the square about
0.60 m south along the west profile, and about 1.10
m south along the east profile. Excavation suggested
Feature lOOL may be a tree hole filled with some
prehistoric debris. Artifacts were largely confined to
the upper 10 cm of fill below subsoil level and
included 5 shell-tempered sherds, 2 net-marked and
3 with unidentified surface treatment; 60.3 g of
ceramic fragments smaller than 1 in; a flaked quartz
pebble; and 0.3 g of bone. Below this level, the fill
became progressively more clayey, extending to a
depth of 0.45 cm below subsoil. One small ceramic
sherd and some charcoal were encountered at 0.43
cm depth.

Unit 101: Unit 101 was situated in the
northeast comer of Lot 3 at grid point N46 El 28.
Plowzone in the unit extended to a depth of 25 cm
below modem grade. Remnants of plowscars
nmning northeast-southwest were visible at subsoil
level. One historic posthole/mold (lOlY, not
excavated) was visible along the eastem edge of the
square. In plan, the posthole was ca. 16 cm (0.5 ft)
in diameter. The associated postmold was 12 cm
(0.4 ft) in diameter.

The southwestern comer of Unit 101 was
dominated by an irregularly shaped area of relatively
loose, brown fill extending 1.10m north-south and at
least 0.60 m east-west into the west wall of the
square. Feature lOlN exhibited an irregular profile
along this wall. The outer edges were relatively
shallow, widi the base sloping irregularly to a
maximum depth of 26 cm below subsoil. A large
root ran through die feature. The texture of die fill
and the irregular plan and profile of the feature
suggested it was not of cultural origin. Artifacts
from die fill include a shell-tempered, net-marked
sherd; 59.5 g of ceramic fragments smaller than 1
inch; 23.5 g of hardened lumps of sandy clay; and
10.0 g of fire-cracked rock.

Another feature , 1 1 P , was located along the
southem edge of Unit 101 . The feature extended into
the south wall of the unit, but if regular in plan
measured 0.60 m in diameter. Fill consisted of light
brown loam containing some charcoal, and extended
to a depth of 12 cm below subsoil. The fill contained
a few prehistoric artifacts including 2.4 g ceramic
fragments smaller than one inch square; 1 quartzite
flake; 1 cracked quartzite pebble; and a trace of
bone. In plan and profile, however, the pit is similar
to historic postholes encountered in VDHR
excavations on Lot 16.

Sixteen prehistoric postmolds (lOlC-H, K-
M, R-X) were identified in the eastem half of Unit
101 . These ranged 8-15 cm in diameter and 5-27 cm
in depth below subsoil.

Unit 102: The final test square placed along
the eastem edge of Lot 3 was Unit 102, situated at
N20 El 26. The upper surface of the square was
covered with a layer of sand and clay which was not
screened. A plowzone layer of brown sandy loam
was encountered at 20 cm below modem grade and
extended 6 cm in depth to sterile subsoil. A few
possible prehistoric postmolds (102C-G, not
excavated) were identified at subsoil level.

Unit 103: Unit 103 was situated at grid
point N28 E108 in the central portion of the lot. The
soil profile was characterized by 20 cm of plowzone
(Level A) consisting of brown sandy loam overlying
ca. 10 cm of brown to dark brown sandy loam (Level
B) which graded into sterile subsoil. While both
Levels A and B yielded significant amoimts of
historic artifacts, comparison of the prehistoric
ceramics from each suggests Level B represented a
relatively less disturbed midden deposit. Level B
contained no sherds larger than one inch diagnostic of
the Late Woodland period, while Level A yielded
seven. The sherds in Level B also tended to be
larger than those recovered from Level A.

Nine prehistoric postmolds (103C-K, M) were
identified at subsoil level in Unit 103. These ranged
7-15 cm in diameter and 3-12 cm in depth. An
additional feamre, 103L, was also encountered.
Filled with dark brown loam mottled with orange
clay and yielding a few prehistoric artifacts. Feature
103L was 0.73 m in diameter. A rodent burrow or

tap root identified 27 cm below subsoil suggests the
feature was created or disturbed by an animal or tree.

Unit 104: Unit 104 was situated 8 m south
of Unit 1 03 at grid point N 1 8 E 1 08 . Plowzone in the
unit had been disturbed in some areas and was only
7 cm thick. Max imum thickness of plowzone was 20
cm, at which depth sterile subsoil was encoimtered.
One possible prehistoric postmold (104B, not
excavated) 11 cm in diameter was identified in the
northwest comer of fbe square, and an historic
posthole/mold (104C, not excavated) was identified
in the southwest comer. The posthole was 13 cm
(0.4 ft) in diameter, and the mold 6 cm (0.2 ft) in
diameter. In the eastern half of the square a munber
of oval or irregular faint stains (104D, E, and F)
were encoimtered which were judged to have
originated through non-culmral means. Also in this
area were three small circular stains approximately 5
cm in diameter which may have been decayed roots.

Unit 105: The final three test squares
opened on Lot 3 were situated along the westem edge
of the property. Unit 105 was located at grid point
N28 ElOO, 6 m west of Unit 103. The square
contained two layers of plowzone. The upper layer
was composed of brown sandy loam and extended to
a depth of 20 cm below modem grade. Below this
and extending for 5 cm to sterile subsoil was a layer
of light brown sandy loam, which probably represents
an older plowzone. In addition to prehistoric
artifacts, the lower plowzone layer contained cinders.
At subsoil level near the southern edge of the square,
the outlines of two historic postholes/molds (not
excavated) were identified. Posthole 105C was 16
cm (0.5 ft) in diameter; posthole 105D was 19 by 21
cm (0.6 by 0.7 ft) in plan. The postmolds in both
featm^es were 12 cm (0.4 ft) in diameter. No
prehistoric features were encountered in the square.

Unit 106: Unit 106 was situated at N20
ElOO. Plowzone in the unit consisted of
approximately 20 cm of dark brown sandy loam
containing bits of shell overlying sterile subsoil.
Numerous prehistoric postmolds and the edges of two
trash-rich prehistoric pit feamres foimd to date from
the Middle Woodland period could be discerned at
subsoil level. The test unit was expanded during the
first phase of excavation to fully expose the features.
During the second phase of excavation, the imit was
expanded an additional 4 by 6 m to the east revealing

several more Middle Woodland pit features, a Late
Woodland burial, and postmolds. Feamres contained
within the unit are discussed in a separate section
below.

Unit 107: Unit 107 was situated north of
Units 106 and 105 at grid point N39 E98. Like Unit
105, Unit 107 appeared to contain two layers of
plowzone: a more recent layer of dark brown to
black sandy loam extending in depth 20 cm below
modem grade overlying an older layer of brown to
light brown loam 5 cm thick. Both layers contained
historic artifacts. Sterile subsoil was encoimtered 25
cm below modem grade. No features were visible
at this level.

Cultural Affiliation and
Distribution and Structure

Settlement

As with Lot 16, the initial test units placed
across Lot 3 provide a systematic artifact sample
from which the cultural affiliation of inhabitants of
the property during the prehistoric period as well as
the spatial distribution of their activities can be
assessed. Plowzone in all units was screened through
one-quarter-inch mesh. Thus, except for the effect of
differences in the volume of plowzone in each unit,
the plowzone samples are a source of comparable
data on the relative density of artifacts across the site.
The spatial stracture of prehistoric activity on Lot 3
was assessed, then, by plotting the distribution of
artifacts recovered from plowzone contexts in the
initial test units as shown in Table 8. Plots of the
distribution of four artifact types are shown in
Figures 30 and 31. Samples from Units 102 and 104
are not considered in parts of the following
discussion, since a large portion of plowzone in each
of these units had been removed by recent activities
on the property. Only the initial 2 meter test square
is considered in references to Unit 106.

The collection of prehistoric ceramics
recovered from the test units is overwhelmingly
dominated by sherds diagnostic of the Middle
Woodland period. Net- and cord-marked sherds
account for 73% of the collection. Only 9% of
sherds in the collection are simple stamped or fabric-
marked, traits associated with the Late Woodland
period. Fabric-marked and simple stamped sherds
were thinly scattered across the property. Middle

•a

•o
u
1-1

r-1

-rt

i/^

W~l

w-i

r-1

-«c

>J^

o ^

E 5

H <

— c

r^J

r-)

■^

SS:

r-^

•^

—

w-»

U-,

u-i

s 5

■^^

•^^

z s

^ ^

« as

^ m

U O

■^

—

^«

w-j

as u

r^^

cs —

< 2

5: <

H H

H ■-
|2 1

r--

oo
u

-3

u
u

•o

a
o

•3

o
o

•a

o
e
o

■^*

■a

s
eo

Woodland ceramics, in contrast, were highly
clustered in one area.

indicate as well that certain processing activities were
focused in this area.

The focus of the dense cluster of Middle
Woodland ceramics— Unit 103— is somewhat
surprising in light of information on the distribution
of Middle Woodland features obtained during the
course of excavations. In general, however, the
distributions of cord- and net-marked sherds larger
than 1 inch and all ceramic fragments smaller than 1
inch indicate an intensive Middle Woodland
setdement once existed in the vicinity of Units 103,
105, and 106. Variation in the frequency or density
of ceramics among these three units probably reflects
differences in the types of Middle Woodland deposits
in each. These differences, in turn, may provide
some clues to the spatial structuring of activities
within the settlement.

Given the relatively low density of features
encountered in Units 103 and 105, the high densities
of ceramics in the squares indicate a midden deposit
had accvmiulated in these areas during the course of
Middle Woodland settlement. Stratigraphic profiles
in each imit also indicated that the lower portions of
this deposit were less disturbed from plowing than
upper portions. This simation explains the high
frequency of Middle Woodland sherds larger than 1
inch recovered from each of the tmits. The
significantly lower frequency of similarly-sized sherds
recovered from Unit 106 is likely due to severe
disturbance of any midden deposits by plowing, and,
possibly, to preferential use of large pit features for
trash disposal in this area. The differences in the
densities of postmolds and features between Units 103
and 106 may also reflect use of the former area for
primarily domestic activities. The immediate vicinity
of Unit 106 may have been used more for certain
types of processing activities and storage.

Data on the distribution of lithic flakes and
fire -cracked rock across Lot 3 appear to confirm the
findings of the ceramic analysis. While flakes and
fire-cracked rock recovered in the plowzone cannot
specifically be attributed to the Middle Woodland
period, both artifact types display relatively high
frequencies in the vicinity of Units 103, 105, and 106
where the highest frequencies of Middle Woodland
ceramics were recovered. Within this pattern, the
relatively high amount of fire-cracked rock in Unit
106 is particularly interesting. This artifact type may
provide a clue to the function of the pit features, and

The density of ceramics on Lot 3 was foimd
to be relatively low in all areas tested outside the
vicinity of Units 103, 105, and 106, all located in the
west-central area of the property. When the
distribution of lithic artifacts is examined, however,
another focus of prehistoric activity is indicated in the
northeast comer of the property. Unit 101 in this
area yielded the highest frequency of flakes recovered
from a test square as well as a relatively large
amount of fire-cracked rock. Several prehistoric
postmolds were also encountered in the imit. While
it cannot be determined if the prehistoric occupation
in the vicinity of Unit 101 is even roughly
contemporaneous with the Middle Woodland
settlement indicated in Units 103, 105, and 106, the
data suggest that at least different types of activities
or setdements were associated with each area.

In the course of excavations on Lot 3, the
only evidence encountered for use of the property
during the historic period were several postholes and
a light scattering of artifacts. No structures were
indicated by the patterning of postholes, but a few
fence lines appear represented (see discussion of
featines in Unit 106 below). The artifacts recovered
date generally from the mid-19tii through 20th
century.

Excavation Unit 106

The main focus of VDHR excavations on
Lot 3 was Unit 106. The area contained several
large prehistoric pits and a few prehistoric postmolds
and historic postholes. The plan of the featxires is
show in Figure 32. Larger features are described
individually below, while smaller featiu"es are
discussed in a following section. Ceramic artifacts
and radiocarbon determinations indicate all but one of
the larger features date from the Middle Woodland
period. The exception, a Late Woodland burial, is
described separately.

Trash-fllled Pit Features

Feature 106C (Figures 33 and 34): Feature
106C was a large, roughly circular pit, 1.65 m in
plan at the surface of subsoil and extending in depth
to 0.72 m below subsoil level. On the south side, the

•a

-J

U
o

C3
U

• 55:3:i*^'i3;r->ia--^. vTtV sss****?^.

<
o

<
li.

llj

o
III

<
bJ

1)
•3

IS
o

3
DO

wall of the pit was almost straight-sided. The wall
sloped inward at an angle approximately 27° from the
vertical on the north side. The floor of the feature
was flat and approximately 1. 10 m in diameter.

Three layers of fill were recognized within
Feature 106C. The thickest and earliest deposit,
Level 3, was composed of dark brown, sandy loam
containing small bits of charcoal, nimierous ceramic
and lithic artifacts, and dense accumulations of whole
and fragmentary animal bone and shell. Aroimd the
periphery of the pit was a deposit 5-10 cm thick
which contained only a few small fragments of shell
and varied from a dark brown sandy loam to a lighter
brown sandy loam mottled with yellow sandy clay
(Level 4). This zone was likely created through the
mixing of feature fill and subsoil matrix by biological
agents.

originated from a rodent burrow (106E) observed
along the north edge of the feature. The Middle
Woodland date suggested by the ceramics was
confirmed by dating of a charcoal sample from Level
3 which yielded a radiocarbon age of 1690 +.60
years: A.D. 260 (Beta 12119, not corrected for C-
13, not calibrated). The date falls within die early
end of the accepted temporal range of Mockley
ceramics (Gleach 1988).

Although the faunal remains recovered from
Feature 106C have yet to be quantified, the collection
is dominated in terms of volume by oyster shell. A
number of other shellfish species were also identified
in the collection, including hard shell clam, soft shell
clam, short razor clam, ark, periwinkle, welk, angel
wing, ribbed mussel, slipper, marginella, and blue
crab.

No clear breaks in stratigraphy could be
discerned within Level 3. In profile, however, lenses
of shell could be seen which sloped down from the
edges of die pit towards the interior. The position of
the shell, which sloped from the side walls to die
base, suggests the deposit represents several episodes
of filling, with setding of the deposits between
episodes.

The final deposit of fill in Feature 106C
preserved below subsoil level was designated Level
2. Situated roughly in the center of die larger pit,
this deposit was bowl-shaped, 0.65 m in diameter,
and extended from subsoil level to a depdi of 10 cm.
The deposit could be differentiated from Level 3 as
it contained significantly less, and only extremely
fragmentary, shellfish debris.

The diird layer of fill in Feature 106C was
designated Level 1 and appears to represent an
intrusive feamre. Level 1 was a circular deposit
situated in die northeast quadrant of Feature 106C.
The deposit was bowl-shaped, 0.79 m in diameter
and 28 cm deep. The fill was very similar to that of
Level 2.

Ceramics recovered from Feature 106C
indicate a Middle Woodland period association. The
vast majority of sherds (N = 366) are shell-tempered
widi net-marked (50%) or cord-marked (31%)
surfaces. Apart from plain- and unidentified-surfaced
ceramics, die collection also contains one shell-
tempered simple stamped sherd which may have

Feature 106D (Figure 34): At the surface
of subsoil Feature 106D appeared as roughly egg-
shaped, extending 1.30m northeast-southwest and a
maximum of 0. 82 m north west-soudieast. Excavation
revealed the pit was shallower at the narrow end,
sloping across a distance of 0.37 m from the
northeast end to a maximum depth of 10 cm (Figure
35). The remainder of the pit was a bowl-shaped
depression, roughly 0.5 cm in diameter and extending
0.23 m below subsoil level to a flat base. The fill
within the feature was a dark brown sandy loam
containing ceramic and lithic artifacts, bone, and
shell. The upper portion of fill (Level 1) contained
the most dense concentration of shell. All 30
ceramic sherds recovered are shell-tempered: 19 net-
marked, 9 cord-marked, 1 simple stamped, and 1
unidentified surface. The feature is believed to date
from die Middle Woodland period. The simple
stamped sherd may have been introduced fi-om three
narrow rodent burrows or root stains which intruded
on the pit fill.

Feature 106AB1 (Figures 34 and 36):
Feature 106AB1 was a large, cylindrical pit filled
with a series of deposits containing ceramic and lithic
artifacts, bone, and shell. The pit was intruded along
the south side by Feature 106AB3 which contained a
human burial apparendy dating from the Late
Woodland period.

At the surface of the subsoil. Feature
106AB1 was circular in plan. Given the intrusion

FEATURE I06D

FEATURE I06AC

FEATURE I06AF

FEATURE I06ANI

FEATURE I06AP

FEATURE I06AN2

Figure 35. Profiles of smaller, more shallow pit feamres. Lot M3.

■«?

-J

<
O

<
o
o

from 106AB3, the size of the pit is estimated at 1.05
m in diameter. The upper layer of fill (Level 1) in
Feature 106AB1 was a bowl-shaped deposit, 20 cm
deep, of dark brown sandy loam with moderate
amounts of bone and shell. Level 1 may actually
represent an intrusion on pit fill deposited earlier.
The deposits corresponding to Levels 2, 3, and 4
were sloped toward the center of the pit as if the fill
were allowed to settle as more debris was added
through time. In contrast, the base of Level 1 was
flat and appeared to tnmcate deposits in Levels 2 and
3.

through the intrusion of Feature 106AB3, a bmial
believed to date from the Late Woodland period.

Feature 106AC (Figure 35): Feature
106 AC was a small oval pit with a bowl-shaped
profile. At the surface of the subsoil the feature
extended 0.74 m east-west and 0.55 m north-south.
While the wall of the pit sloped directly to the base
on the west side, on the east side the wall sloped
gently to a depth of 7 cm and then dropped more
abruptly. The base of the feamre was flat and
situated 18 cm below subsoil level.

The fill in Level 1 also extended beyond the
edge of the deposits comprising Layers 2, 3, and 4.
At a depth of 20 cm below subsoil level. Feature
106AB1 was only 0.84 m in diameter. From this
depth the walls of the pit were relatively straight-
sided with some outward bulging on the south side.
The base of the feamre was flat and situated 0.82 m
below subsoil level.

Three layers of fill were discemable within
this more constricted area. The uppermost layer.
Level 2, was a very dark sandy loam with densely
packed shell. Level 3 was comprised of a grey,
ashy, sandy loam with a high proportion of crushed
shell. Level 4 contained large, whole oyster shells
within a matrix of mediimi brown sandy loam. A
rodent burrow (Level 6) ran through these deposits
along the northern side of the pit. The burrow was
coimected to the rodent disturbance labeled 106AB2
on the plan drawing of the feamre.

Analysis of ceramics and charcoal recovered
from the lower levels of fill within Feature 106AB1
indicated diese deposits clearly date from the Middle
Woodland period. All 229 ceramic sherds recovered
from Levels 2, 3, and 4 are shell-tempered: 74%
net-marked and 14% cord-marked. Radiocarbon
analysis of charcoal recovered from the three levels
provided an age of 1490 jh90 years: A.D. 460
(Beta-12120, not corrected for C-13, not calibrated).

The date of deposits in Level 1 , which may
be intrusive on Level 2, is unclear since Level 1
yielded both Middle and Late Woodland ceramics.
Among a majority of shell-tempered, net- and cord-
marked ceramics, one simple stamped sherd was also
recovered. Level 1 may be either a Late Woodland
feature, or a Middle Woodland feature contaminated

Only one layer of fill could be discerned in
the pit. The deposit was comprised of very dark
brown, sandy loam containing charcoal and shell.
Only three ceramic sherds were included within the
fill, but they suggest a Middle Woodland date for the
feature. All three sherds are shell-tempered: two
cord-marked and one imidentified siuiace.

Feature 106AE (Figure 34): Featiure
106AE was similar in shape and size to Feature
106C. At the surface of the subsoil Feature 106AE
appeared oval in plan, extending a maximum of 1.45
m northwest-southeast and 1.25 m northeast-
southwest. It is probable that the feature was
originally more circular in plan. The upper few
centimeters of fill were disturbed and spread by
plowing and yielded two nails. As shown in the
profile drawing (Figure 34), an outer layer (Level 2)
of mixed feature fill and subsoil matrix along the
walls of the pit was discemable beginning only at a
depth about 7 cm below subsoil level.

The walls of Feature 106AE sloped rather
steeply to a flat base. Including the upper layer of
plow-disturbed fill, the feature extended to a depth of
0.74 cm. Pit fill (Level 1) consisted of very dark
brown, sandy loam with occasional inclusions of shell
and charcoal. As mentioned above, a 5-8 cm thick
layer (Level 2) of dark brown sandy loam motded
with yellow clay lined the walls of the pit.

Of 216 ceramic sherds recovered from
Feamre 106AE, all but three are shell-tempered.
Sixty-two percent of shell-tempered sherds are cord-
marked and 21% are net-marked. The three other
sherds are sand-tempered and net-marked.
Radiocarbon dating of charcoal from the feamre
produced an age of 1540 ±60 years: A.D. 410 (Beta

12121, not adjusted for C-13, not calibrated), which
is consistent with the date generally suggested by the
ceramics.

Feature 106AF (Figure 35): Feature
106AF was a shallow, basin-shaped pit, oval in plan.
The feature was 0.72 m wide north-south and 1.05 m
long east- west. The walls sloped to a flat bottom 14
cm below subsoil level. In profile, a slight ledge was
discemable along the south wall, somewhat similar to
those seen in Features 106D and 106AC (Figure 35).
Fill consisted of brown sandy loam with occasional
flecks of charcoal. Only ten ceramic sherds were
recovered. These are shell-tempered, net-marked
(seven) and shell-tempered, cord-marked (three)
sherds diagnostic of the Middle Woodland period.

Feature 106 AN (Figure 35): Feature
106 AN is comprised of two small, shallow pits
excavated as one unit. Pit 106AN1 is the larger of
the two. It was oval in plan, 0.60 m long and 0.42
m wide, with the long axis running north-south. The
base of the feature sloped to the south to a maximum
depth of 0. 16 m below subsoil level (Figure 35).

Pit 106AN2 was also oval in plan. It
extended 0.40 m northeast-southwest and 0.27 m
northwest-southeast. The base of the pit sloped to a
maximum depth of 0.07 m on the southwest end.

The temporal relationship between the pits
could not be discerned through excavation. A small
depression of fill 3 cm deep coimects the two
features. Only ceramics smaller than 1 inch were
recovered from the features. These were very small
and cannot be attributed to a particular type, although
they are suggestive of the shell-tempered Mockley
series. Pit 106AN2 was intruded by Feature 106AE,
so it must date from sometime prior to this Middle
Woodland period feature.

Feature 106 AP (Figure 35): At the surface
of the subsoil Feature 106AP appeared oval in plan,
extending roughly 1.27 m northeast-southwest and
0.78 m northwest-southeast. The upper levels of
feature fill appear to have been spread by plowing,
particularly in a northeastward direction. Fill at this
end of the feature was quite shallow and grey-brown
in color, while the fill elsewhere was dark brown.

Although smaller, the pit was roughly
similar in shape to Features 106C and 106AE (Figure
35). The walls sloped rather steeply to a flat base
0.32 m below subsoil level. The fill contained only
shell-tempered sherds (N=28): 57% net-marked,
14% cord-marked, with the remainder plain or
unidentified.

Burial Features

One himian burial. Feature 106AB3, was
encountered and excavated on Lot 3. As discussed
above, ceramics recovered from Feature 106AB3
suggest die interment dates from the Late Woodland
period. The pit was intrusive into Feature 106AB1,
a trash-filled pit dating from die Middle Woodland
period.

At die surface of the subsoil. Feature
106AB3 was oval in plan, extending 1.5 m northeast-
southwest and approximately 0.73 m northwest-
southeast. In profile the feature was bowl-shaped.
The base of the pit was rounded and extended to a
maximum depth of 0.25 m below subsoil level
(Figure 34).

The burial feature was filled with medium
brown sandy loam mottled with orange clay which
contained some animal bone and shell. The skeletal
remains were situated at the base of the pit. The
interment was of an infant, 9 +_3 months of age
(Chase 1992), placed in an extended position on its
back widi the cranium at the east end. The head was
turned to the individual's right side.

Numerous small shell disc beads were found
associated with the burial. These were scattered
adjacent to the skeletal remains in the area between
the temporal bone of the cranium and the base of the
rib cage. The beads were most concentrated in the
neck and upper thoracic region. Two articulated
rows of beads, one comprised of 17 beads and die
other of 10, were found in among several vertebrae
near the temporal bone. The beads were positioned
end on end with their flat faces touching.

Feature 106AB3 appears to date from the
Late Woodland period. The ceramics recovered from
die burial fill are all shell-tempered. Of a total of 15
sherds, 6 are diagnostic of the Late Woodland period.

Smaller Features

Making sense of the numerous small soil
stains exposed at the subsoil level in Unit 106 is
difficult because the area contained the remains of
historic posts presximably set with a posthole digger
as well as an extensive amount of disturbance from
rodent activity. Once stains attributed to these agents
are eliminated, very little evidence of prehistoric
structures remains.

A number of small circular stains excavated
in the vicinity of Feature 106C appeared to represent
prehistoric postmolds. These include Features 106K,
M, N, P, R, S, T, W, X, Y, and AD. Widi the
exception of Features 106K and 106 AD, the stains
were very shallow, ranging from 2-6 cm deep, with
most falling at the lower end of that range (Table 9).

This group of features contains the only
possible pattern of postmolds identified on Lot 3.
Features 106K, X, Y, W, T, and M are arranged in
an arc around the periphery of Feature 106C, a large,
deep pit feature, and the postmolds are somewhat
evenly spaced along this arc. The distance across
Featiu-e 106C between postmolds 106K and 106M is
1 .65 m. If the postmolds do represent a structure, its
size appears small for domestic use, suggesting
instead some type of covering over a storage facility.

Six other possible prehistoric postmolds were
confirmed through excavation in Unit 106. These
include Features 106G, H, and J, located in the
southwest comer of the excavation area, and Features
106 AH, AJ, and AM, situated between pit features
106AB 1 and 106AE. The diameter and depth of each
of these postmolds is listed in Table 9.

Feamres 106BS and 106BR (not excavated)
are historic postholes/molds. The two fall in line
with another historic posthole/mold, 105C, located in
the southwest comer of Unit 105. The distance
between 106BS and BR is 2.65 m (8.7 ft), while the
distance between 106BR and 105C is 5.10 m (16.7
ft). The three posts no doubt formed part of a
fenceline with uprights spaced approximately every
eight feet.

It is possible that Features 106 AH, AJ, and
AM, previously identified as prehistoric postmolds,
are instead the remains of historic posts. Features
106 AH and AM fall along a line joining historic

postholes/molds 105D and 104C. The distance
between 106AH and 104C is 4.42 m (14.5 ft). The
distance between 106AM and 104C is 5.12 m (16.8
ft). If the line were extended to 105D, the distance
from 106AM to 105D would represent three
segments each 7.6 ft in length. Room for three
segments, each 8.4 ft long, exists between 106 AH
and 105D. This fenceline would run roughly parallel
to the one defined by 105C, 106BR, and 106BS,
separated by a distance of 2.15 m (7.0 ft) between
106BS and 1 06AM.

The remaining soil stains excavated in Unit
106 were identified as rodent or root disturbances.
These include 106E, F, L, AK, AL, AQ, AR, AS,
AT, AW, AX, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, and
BG. Feature 106BW, a linear stain of grey-brown
loam in the northwest comer of the unit was not
excavated, but historic ceramics could be seen in the
fill. The origin of the remaining unexcavated soil
stains is unknown. These include 106BH, BJ, BK,
BL, BM, BN, and BP.

Excavation Unit 108

Unit 108 was a large test area,
approximately 5 by 9 m in plan, situated about 40 m
north of Thomas Bishop Lane. Plowzone was
removed from across the unit with a backhoe to
within a few centimeters of the subsoil level, so no
information is available on the density or distribution
of artifacts within the plowzone in this area of the
lot. Two modem intrasions had disturbed ponions of
the excavation area. A long narrow trench (108BZ),
presumably bearing a telephone cable, ran along the
southem border of the imit. Cutting across the north
end of die unit was a similar trench (108X, 108Y)
which presimiably held an electrical cable.

Only two feamres were excavated in Unit
108. Feature 108B was a small oval pit. At the
surface of the subsoil the feature was marked by a
concentration of prehistoric ceramics, but the edges
of the pit were indistinct. Excavation indicated the
feature had been disturbed on one side by a tap root.

As shown in Figure 37, only a portion of the
south side of the feature approximately 23 cm wide
north-south was foxmd to be intact. Pit fill in this
area (Level 2) was a brown loam mottled with orange
clay. The original pit had straight sides extending to

Table 9. Dimensions of probable Native American postmolds, Unit 106.

FEATURE NUMBER

DIAMETER (CM)

DEPTH (CM)

106G

106J

106H

106K

106M

106N

9 BY 17

106P

106R

106S

106T

106W

106X

106Y

106AD

106AH

106AJ

106 AM

FEATURE I08C

FEATURE I08B

0.5

METER

Figure 37. Profiles of Features 108B and 108C, Lot M3.

what seemed in excavation to be a flat bottom 1 8 cm
below subsoil level. The original pit was no larger
than 52 by 45 cm in plan.

The disturbed portion of the feature was
characterized by a brown loam containing charcoal
flecks (Level 1). Below 50 cm depth, where the
disturbance narrowed, charcoal was very dense and
the fill very wet. Numerous ceramic sherds were
recovered from the disturbed area, however. These
were most concentrated in the upper 20 cm of the pit
on the west side, although a few small sherds were
found in disturbed fill below 50 cm depth.

Feature 108B likely dates from the Middle
Woodland period, although included among the 34
ceramic sherds recovered is one with shell temper
and a simple stamped surface. Of the remaining
sherds, 12 are shell-tempered (6 net-marked, 1 cord-
marked, 5 unidentified siurface treatment) and 21 have
an untempered, very fine sandy paste. The latter
derive from a single vessel impressed with an open-
weave textile. Ceramics similar to this type were not
common elsewhere on Lot 3. Also recovered from
the feature were 158.2 g of ceramic fragments
smaller than 1 inch, a jasper flake, a quartzite flake,
12.9 g of animal bone, 0. 1 g of shell, and a fragment
of bog iron.

The other feamre excavated in Unit 108 had
also been disturbed, presimiably by rodent activity.
At the surface of die subsoil. Feature 108C appeared
as an oval stain of brown loam mottied with orange
clay measuring 52 cm by 78 cm. Darker brown fill
lay along the border of the feature on the east side.
Because of the motded fill, the feature was originally
suspected to be a burial pit.

Excavation indicated Featiu^e 108C was
bowl-shaped with a roimded base, extending to a
maximum depth of 19 cm below subsoil level. No
evidence of a human interment was found. Very few
artifacts were recovered from the fill: 17.7 g of
ceramic fragments smaller than 1 inch; a jasper flake;
0.3 g of shell; and a fragment of bog iron. None of
the ceramic sherds was sufficiently large to permit
identification to a diagnostic type.

The remaining soil stains identified within
Unit 108 were not excavated. This group included a
number of historic posthole/molds: 108BA, BB, BC,
BD, BE, and BF. The fill or shape of other features

suggested they were either very recent disturbances
or originated from root or rodent activity. These
include 108BG, BH, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BP, BR,
BS, and CA. The rest of die features, 108D-AY (the
letters I, 0, Q, U, and V were not used), may
represent prehistoric postmolds. No clear structural
features are suggested in the arrangement of these
stains.

Collections

Ceramic Artifacts

Ceramics diagnostic of the Middle and Late
Woodland periods were recovered in the excavations
on Lot 3. Table 10 lists the ceramics recovered from
plowzone contexts in the seven test units, while Table
11 lists the ceramics from major pit feamres. As
discussed earlier. Middle Woodland ceramics
overwhelmingly predominate in the plowzone
collections as well as in collections from all major
features except 106AB3.

Only 8.7% of sherds recovered from the
plowzone are simple stamped or marked with fabric
impressions of a type commonly associated with the
Late Woodland period. These shell-tempered
ceramics are comparable, respectively, to the type
Roanoke Simple Stamped and types within the
Townsend series. Roanoke sherds were recovered
more frequently.

While occasional Late Woodland ceramics
were found in Middle Woodland features in Units
106 and 108, only Feature 106AB3 yielded a
sufficiendy high proportion of Late Woodland sherds
to be ascribed to the period. Of a total of 1 5 sherds
recovered from the feature, 5 are simple stamped, 1
incised-decorated over a roughened surface, 5 net-
marked, 1 cord-marked, 1 plain, and 2 imidentified.

The vast majority of Middle Woodland
sherds recovered from Lot 3 are roughly comparable
to types defined widiin the Mockley series. While
the Mockley-like ceramics recovered from feature
contexts are categorized as shell-tempered in Table
11, apart from the inclusion of shell fragments, die
paste of the ceramics is actually quite variable.
Included in the shell-tempered type are sherds widi a
fine silty paste, sherds with a very sandy paste, and
sherds with a paste lying somewhere between die two
extremes. Sherds with a silty paste appeared more

-J

o
o

c
o

'a-

r-^

1 °^

—

^-1

<r>

1 °

■*

1 °

U-)

1 __

1 <~^

tfl

1 ^

U-1

I ^

■^

V~l

1 NO
1 °

r-1

f*^

_«

■^

1 ~'

1 ""^

r-l

1 °

' «^

»ri

1 "^

(Nl

' n

■^

»^

„_

[ ^

r*^

1 Q^

Q W

1 t« f^

Q -J _ K

S o

2 —

s^ i:^ 5 5 _

CJ ^

03
<

Pi
O

<
.J

1 cfl c« H — C-

i^ J

c/3 on

•3

■a

o
o

1-4

>
o
a
u

■o

W^ j

r*-i

^ j

•» !

tr\

«*i 1

„_

_^ 1

»o

l:^

!s 1

r^ !

^0 1

Q 1

a. 1

a 1
11

C/3

z 5

U BO
&. <

C B,

Kg
§1

2 H
O H

c/3

1
1

2 r-

•a

CO
U
PL,

— ^

^4-1

tl>

V3
U
>

tjl- 2

e«

<i>

'^l-

common, but this type of variability was not
quantified formally. The use of ribbed mussel shell
in varying proportions as temper was observed
frequently in the collections.

Middle Woodland ceramics (net- and cord-
marked surfaces) recovered from plowzone contexts
were not categorized by temper, since their
weathered condition prevented accurate description of
the paste, which varied as described above. In the
early stages of analysis of the plowzone collections,
several sherds were originally described as having
only sand inclusions in the paste, exclusive of shell.
Under 7X magnification, however, many of these
were found to exhibit a laminar stracture in the paste,
and very sparsely distributed pores with flat profiles
were visible. It was later found that in similar
ceramics recovered from feamre contexts, shell
inclusions could be seen with the unaided eye.

The use of varying proportions of shell and
sand in the paste of Mockley-like ceramics has been
noted elsewhere within the Virginia Coastal Plain
(Egloff et al. 1989; Edwards et al. 1989). The Lot
3 collection differs from more common occurrences
of Mockley ware, however, by a high frequency of
vessels with flat-bottomed bases. While this vessel
form has been noted in several contexts within the
Virginia and North Carolina Coastal Plain,
researchers have refrained from formally including it
within the definition of Mockley ware (see Egloff and
Potter 1982). With the hope of generating data
which may one day prove helpfiil in understanding
variability within the type, several attributes of the
Mockley-like ceramics recovered ft'om Features
106C, 106AB1, and 106AE were examined. The
description which follows is based on these three
collections.

Impressions on the exterior surfaces of
Mockley-like ceramics from Lot 3 were produced by
simple cordage and at least three types of textiles:
knotted nets; looped nets; and open- weave, weft-
twined fabrics (Figures 38 and 39). Sherds marked
by the first two types of textile are combined imder
one category in Table 1 1 , and the relative frequency
of the two was not formally quantified. While the
use of looped nets was common, knotted net-marked
sherds appeared to be relatively more frequent. Only
two sherds marked with an open-weave fabric were
noted, and these almost certainly derive from the
same vessel. The total collection of Middle

Woodland, shell-tempered ceramics with identifiable
surface treatment from the three features is comprised
of 58.8% net-marked and 4L 2% cord-marked sherds,
but the ratio between the two treatments varies widely
between individual features.

In comparing various attributes of vessel
form between cord- and net-marked ceramics in the
collections, several differences were observed which
may correspond to variation in the range of vessel
forms associated with the two surface treatments.
Mean sherd thickness associated with each surface
treatment is shown in Table 12. Both mean
thickness of all but basal sherds (t = 4.6726; d./. =
640; p = 1.8138E-6) and mean thickness of rim
sherds measured 2 cm below the lip (t = 1.9942;
d.f. =93; p = .0491) were found to differ
significanUy between cord- and net-marked ceramics,
with cord-marked sherds being thinner on average.

Because litfle reconstruction of the ceramics
from the features was attempted, vessel form was
analyzed further by examining the profiles of rim
sherds and the shapes of basal sherds. Straight rims
and rims which curve inward are common among
both net- and cord-marked sherds, but a greater
proportion of cord-marked sherds are incurved (Table
12). Only three rim sherds were considered
sufficiently large to provide reliable estimates of rim
diameter. One is a net-marked vessel from 106AB1
estimated at 32.7 cm. Two cord-marked vessels
from 106AE were estimated at 21.2 and 22.5 cm
diameter.

Too few basal sherds were identified in the
collection to compare basal forms associated with the
two surface treatments, but the bases in the collection
are important for the variability they display. Bases
were classified as flat-bottomed, conical, or round.
Among a total of 12 bases counted in the collection,
9 are flat-bottomed, 2 conical, and 1 round (Table
12, Figure 40). The basal sherds are distributed
among the features as follows: 106C, 8 flat-
bottomed, 1 conical; 106AB1, 1 flat-bottomed;
106AE, 1 conical, 1 round.

The flat-bottomed bases recovered from Lot
3 correspond well to Painter's (1977:48) description
of this type in collections from the Currituck site.
The base of the vessel is comprised of a flat disc of
clay, sometimes formed by coiling. The base and

102

,.~^'».

^^'VitSaaiaiv

8 CM.

Figure 38. Mockley Cord-Marked and decorated ceramics. Lot M3.

103

■*^-

Figure 39. Mockley Net-Impressed ceramics and Mockley sherd marked with open-weave textile, Lot M3.

104

Table 12. Comparison of cord- and net-marked, shell-tempered ceramics. Lot M3.

ATIRIBUIH

NET-MARKED

CORD-MARKED

CERAMICS

WALL THICKNESS. BODY AND RIM SHERDS (CM)

378

264

MEAN

0.86

0.80

STANDARD DEVIATION

0.1702

0.1414

RANGE

0.4-1.5

0.4-1.2

WALL THICKNESS. RIM SHERDS (CM)

MEAN

0.78

0.73

STANDARD DEVIATION

0.1333

0.1011

RIM PROFILE (N = 78)

STRAIGHT

INCURVED

EVERTED LIP

—

RIM TREATMENT (N=78)

SMOOTHED SURFACE

ROUGHENED SURFACE

NOTCHED DECORATION

PUNCTATE DECORATION

1 •

BASAL FORM (N=12)

FLAT-BOrrOMED

CONICAL

ROUND

Note: The nimiber of rim sherds measured for wall thickness (N=95) exceeds the total of 78 examined for rim
profile and form because the latter attributes were recorded only after rim sherds from within each feamre were
compared to eliminate duplicate readings from the same vessel. Among all three featmes, however, vessels are
likely duplicated.

105

3 iN
8 CM

Figure 40. Mockley Cord-Marked round base, Lot M3.

106

wall of the vessel meet at a fairly abrupt angle, and
are welded with a rather weak join by pulling clay
from the basal disc upward on the outside of the
vessel and pulling clay from the wall downward on
the interior. The lower edge of the vessel is
commonly thickened. Three of the sherds from Lot
3 representing flat-bottomed vessels could be
measured for fairly reliable estimates of the exterior
diameter of the vessel at the base: 106C, 8.9 cm;
106C, 10.6 cm; and 106AB1, 6.3 cm. A complete
flat-bottomed base recovered from the plowzone in
Unit 107 was oval in plan, measuring 6.1 cm by 5.3
cm.

identified in Features 106C and 106AE. Mean sherd
thickness was also foimd to be relatively consistent
among the three features (Net: 106C, 0.84 cm;
106AB1, 0.87 cm; 106AE, 0.85 cm; Cord: 106C,
0.79 cm; 106AB1, 0.80 cm; 106AE, 0.80 cm).
Radiocarbon analysis of charcoal recovered from the
features also suggests the assemblages may be
contemporaneous. Three dates were obtained: A.D.
260 ±60, Feature 106C; A.D. 410 ±60, Feamre
106AE; and A.D. 460 ±90, Feature 106AB1. If the
date of each sample is extended for two standard
deviations on either side of the mean, the dates
overlap in the range A.D. 290-380.

Two shell-tempered ceramic fragments
recovered from die plowzone on Lot 3 provide
additional information on the forms of vessels likely
included in the Middle Woodland assemblage,
although not represented in the collections from the
three featores analyzed. The fragments are rim
sherds with plain, but uneven exterior surfaces. The
configuration of the sherds suggests each may
represent a pouring lip similar to those described by
Painter from the Currituck and Waratan sites in
North Carolina (Painter 1977:48, Plate 3). Both rims
are decorated. One has pxmctations on the top of the
lip (Unit 106), and one is notched on the interior of
the lip (Unit 103).

Although the paste of ceramics recovered
from the three feamres in Unit 106 is quite variable,
these collections contain only three sherds which
appeared originally to have contained only sand and
no shell inclusions. Each of these sherds is net-
marked and could be subsumed imder the description
of the Middle Woodland "fine sand-tempered"
ceramics from Lot 16. This type of ware is also
included in collections recovered from plowzone
contexts in test units. It is believed the frequency of
the ware is relatively higher in these contexts than in
the three features analyzed, but, because of problems
in describing ceramic paste noted above, exact
frequencies could not reliably be obtained.

Within the collections from the three
features, decorative embellishment is found only on
the lips of the Mockley-like ceramics (Table 12).
Only two types of decoration were observed. The
most common form is some type of notching, ranging
from relatively thin nicks to broader scalloping,
placed along the top or iimer surface of the lip.
Much less common are a series of punctations along
the top of die lip. On the remaining rim sherds, the
upper surface of the lip is either marked with cord or
net impressions or is smoothed. Sometimes the
exterior surface of the rim is smoothed for a few
centimeters below the lip as well.

Study of the ceramic collections from
Features 106C, 106AB1, and 106AE involved
determining whether the three assemblages are
contemporaneous. The ratio of cord-marked to net-
marked ceramics varies widely among the three
features, but comparison of only decorated rim sherds
suggests that the fill of each derives from the same
occupation. Fragments of two vessels, one with
notched decoration, one with punctations, were

Portions of a single vessel containing no
shell in its paste were also recovered from Feature
108B in the southern section of Lot 3 (Figure 41). It
would be misleading to describe this vessel as "sand-
tempered, " however. Under 7X magnification only
very sparse inclusions of sand particles 0.5-1.0 mm
in diameter are visible in the hard, compact paste.
Several shell-tempered sherds recovered from the
same feamre actually contain a higher proportion of
larger sand particles in the paste.

Rim and basal portions of a small conical
vessel were reconstructed from the sherds from
Feature 108B which lack shell inclusions. The vessel
has a straight rim profile and is estimated to measure
15.7 cm in diameter at the mouth. Wall thickness is
0.7 cm at 2 cm below the lip, and 0.8 cm at 6 cm
below the lip. The exterior surface of the vessel is
marked with an open- weave, weft- twined fabric. The
vessel likely dates from the Middle Woodland period.

107

3 iN.
8 CM

Figure 41. Non-shell-tempered ceramics. Lot M3.

108

Lithic Artifacts

Considering the volume of ceramic debris
recovered on Lot 3, the lithic collection suggests
stone implements were only a minor component of
the Woodland period tool assemblage. From mixed
Middle and Late Woodland contexts above subsoil
level in the initial test squares a total of 701 flakes
(46.9% jasper, 30.7% quartzite, and 22.4% quartz),
7 bifaces (4 jasper, 2 quartzite, 1 quartz), 5 anvil
stones, 2 tested cobbles, 131 cracked pebbles or
pebble cores, and 2742 grams of fire-cracked rock
were recovered (Table 13). Included among the
bifaces are fragments of two triangular projectile
points (1 jasper, 1 quartz) (Table 14). The remaining
bifaces either are artifacts discarded at a relatively
early stage of manufacture or are points/knives too
fragmentary for description.

The lidiic collection recovered from the fill
of the pit features in Unit 106 is also very small.
From the six major features listed in Table 1 5 only
143 flakes were recovered. Similar to the plowzone
assemblage from Lot 16, the character of the
assemblage reflects a dependence on accessible local
geological deposits which contain few cobbles of
large size. The assemblage is characterized by a high
proportion of small flakes and a high proponion of
flakes with some cortex (Table 16). The most
frequent material represented is jasper. The number
of split pebbles and cobbles in the collection as well
as the anvil stones recovered from plowzone contexts
suggest a bi-polar technique was used to reduce the
material.

Three bifaces, one possible gorget blank,
two groujid stone tools, and a small amount of fire-
cracked rock also were recovered from the larger
Middle Woodland pit features in Unit 106. The
bifaces (Figure 42, Table 14) include a triangular and
a side-notched point, each of quartz, and a small
stemmed slate point. In addition to these points and
the points recovered from plowzone, the collection
from Lot 3 includes only one other nearly complete
projectile point. This is a triangular point of
quartzite found in the fill of a rodent burrow (Table
14).

A fragment of fine-grained sandstone 0.7 cm
thick recovered from Feature 106AB1 is tentatively
identified as a gorget blank (Figure 42). One face of
the artifact retains its original cortical surface, and

short flakes have been removed from the edge. A
fragment of a presumably completed but broken
gorget was recovered from the plowzone of Unit 106
as the excavation area was being expanded in the late
stmmier of 1982. The slate artifact is ground and
polished. It contains two drilled perforations and is
0.7 cm diick (Figure 42).

The remaining artifacts recovered from the
five features in Unit 106 are a quartzite cobble used
as a mano from Feature 106AE (maximum length
11.0 cm, width 8.3 cm, thickness 5.3 cm) and a
cobble of fine-grained, green quartzite recovered
from Feature 106AB1 which was used as a
hammerstone and abrader (maximum length 12.5 cm,
width 8.3 cm, thickness 3.6 cm) (Figme 43). Large
flake scars on each artifact suggest the cobbles were
tested for possible reduction prior to their later use.
On the artifact from 106AE, the cortical surface of
the cobble is abraded on the highest points on both
faces. The green quartzite artifact is battered at both
ends and is ground slightly at the broader end of one
face.

Ceramic Smoking Pipes

Thirty-eight fragments of ceramic smoking
pipes were recovered from all contexts on Lot 3
(Figure 44). The types, or forms of pipes derived
from contexts above the subsoil level in the initial test
imits are difficult to identify since most fragments are
very small. At least one tubular pipe (100 A) and the
bowl from what appears to be an elbow pipe (10 IB)
are represented, however. The tubular pipe has a
very sandy paste and is decorated with lines of
punctations (now faint) running parallel to the long
axis of the stem. Within each row the pimctations
are possibly connected by incising. Also notable
from this portion of the collection are two pipe stem
fragments, one square and one probably hexagonal in
cross-section.

Nineteen fragments of ceramic pipes were
recovered from Middle Woodland period levels in
five of the major pit features excavated in Unit 106:
Feature 106C, 106D, 106AB1, 106AE, and 106AF.
Four stem fragments can definitely be identified as
tubular pipes. The form of these pipes is quite
variable. Two of the pipes, manufactured from a
sandy paste, expand abruptly from the bit end. One
(106C3) with a diameter of 0.8 cm at the bit end
expands over a distance of 2.8 cm to a diameter of

109

2
P

Z
<

u
<

•a

— "^ _.

s
o

•a

o
-J

o
a.

s y-

,— ^

o S 1

[i:

-J
D
O

C/5

11,

D
1

.^ o

w =>

^ o

vo oa
2 S-

s
o

t/3

a
z
<

z
<

a
z
<

Q
u

o
z

—

•3

o
o

§g|

u 1^

g < 2 «

as ^^ O
(J --

— <

5«S

§8

E- CO
S U

[1.
<

CQ
<

CO
CL,

3
CB

>
•a

O .

y a

3 S3

« =ii

■-' (4-1

O •—

« tS

«= -a

u .^

3 <L>

00 ^

ij «

Table 16. Flake size, material, and presence/absence of cortex in Middle Woodland features, Lot M3. (a) flakes
with cortex (b) flakes without cortex.

(a)

FLAKE

FLAKES WITH CORTEX

SIZE

JASPER

QUARTZ

QUARTZriE

SANDSTONE

TOTAL

<10MM

20 MM

30 MM

40 MM

50 MM

>50MM

TOTAL

(b)

FLAKE
SIZE

JASPER

QUARTZ

FLAKES LACKING CORIEX

QUARTZITE SANDSTONE

TOTAL

<10MM

20 MM

30 MM

40 MM

50 MM

>50MM

—

TOTAL

Note: Tables (a) and (b) include the same collections analyzed in Table 13.

113

\ 4

— o

'^ CD

o
-J

3
60

2 S

— C

f^' CO

■I

o
o

3
00

.5 !N

I 2 CM

Figure 44. Ceramic smoking pipes. Lot M3.

116

2.2 cm. The other pipe (106AB1) is decorated with
closely spaced punctations aligned in rows running
parallel to die long axis of die stem. A fragment of
another tubular pipe (106C) expands at a more gentle
angle from 1.5 to 1.9 cm diameter over a distance of
approximately 3.6 cm. The paste of this pipe
contains a high proportion of shell temper, now
leached. The exterior surface of the lower end of the
stem is roughened with what may be cordage
impressions oriented perpendicular to the long axis.
Beyond these markings, the exterior surface of what
may be the base of the pipe bowl is smooth. The
form of the two remaining pipe stem fragments in
this portion of the collection caimot be positively
identified. Bodi fragments (106AB1, 106AF1) are
decorated with a row of closely spaced punctations.

The thineen remaining fragments recovered
from the five Middle Woodland feamres are sections
of bowls, none of which can definitely be identified
as deriving from a panicular pipe form. Of this
total, only five fragments do not bear some son of
decoration. Four of diese have a smooth exterior
surface. One (106C3), which has a thickened,
somewhat evened lip, is roughened, perhaps with net
impressions.

Seven of the eight decorated bowl fragments
are either marked with rows of small punctations or
with a linear series of narrow indentations longer than
they are wide. On two of the bowls (106C2, 106AE-
15), large portions of the surface are covered with
stacked rows of punctations oriented parallel to the
rim. A diird pipe (106D4A) has three lines of
punctations running up or down at an angle to a
similar band of decoration. In several instances, the
punctations decorating these pipes appear to be
coimected with incised lines, a form of decoration
seen also on some decorated bone artifacts recovered
from the features (see below). The eighth artifact
(106AB1D-1 1) is a fragment of a very long pipe bowl
(at least 4 cm in lengdi). A single faint line of
incising cuts diagonally across the bowl. The
decoration on this pipe is similar to the incised "leaf"
design on a steatite pipe of elbow form recovered
from the Long Creek Midden site (Pearce 1968b).

Bone and Shell Tools and Ornaments

Among the most remarkable ardfacts in the
collection from Lot 3 are die bone tools and
ornaments, all of which described here were

recovered from intact Middle Woodland period
contexts. The naturally acidic soils of the Virginia
Coastal Plain are not normally conducive to the
preservation of organic materials. On Lot 3,
however, bone subsistence remains and a variety of
bone tools and ornaments were recovered in an
excellent state of preservation from the large, trash-
filled pit features in Unit 106. The leaching of
calcium carbonate from the abundant shellfish
remains in these pits no doubt increased die alkaline
content of the pit fill, creating an excellent
environment for the preservation of organic materials.

A number of the bone tools recovered from
Lot 3 were manufactured on deer ander and are
likely projectile points similar to those described by
Painter (1980) from his excavations at Great Neck.
Nine possible fragments of these tools in various
stages of manufacture were recovered in VDHR
excavations of intact Middle Woodland deposits
(Features 106C, 106AB1, and 106AE) (Figure 45).

No complete antler projecdle points were
recovered, but the fragments suggest the following
manufacmring process for the tool. First, a secdon
of ander was detached from the rack by cutdng along
the circumference of a dne several centimeters below
the dp. Several specimens indicate the ander was not
cut clean dirough, but rather die dne was scored and
then snapped off. The interior of the dne was
gouged out and then smoothed, presumably so the
point could be fitted onto the shaft or foreshaft of a
spear or arrow. The exterior surface was smoothed
or shaped by scraping with a narrow gouge blade
parallel to the long axis of the tine as with a draw
knife. This procedure produced facets, or "flutes"
along the length of the implement. Two of the
specimens in die collection (106AE1-31, 106C3)
exhibit a marked degree of curvature along the tine
which seemingly would preclude their use as
projectiles. Painter (1980) illustrates several points,
however, in which one side of the dne has been cut
away. This type of modification was perhaps used to
eliminate the natural curvature of the deer tine as
seen on the unfinished specimens from Lot 3.

Another ander tool (106AB5A-10) recovered
from Lot 3 is modified in a similar manner as those
tools identified as projectile points, but apparendy
served a different function. The specimen is a
section of ander dne with the tip detached. The
proximal end of the tool has been finished by

117

O.
03

c
'S

grinding which produced an edge beveled on the
interior. The distal end was cut and snapped and has
not been smoothed. Similar to the projectile points,
the interior of the antler has been hollowed out and
the exterior surface scraped in a marmer producing a
faceted surface. The resulting implement, now
broken, presumably was an antler tube, 3.71 cm
long.

Two other fragments of antler recovered
may have served as punches of some sort. On one
tool the antler tip has been thiimed, but only to a
blunt point. On the other tool the tip is severely
abraded on the underside.

One bone tool in the collection exhibits
modifications similar to the antler projectile points.
One end of the section of mammalian long bone shaft
has been scored and snapped. The other end is
fractured. The exterior cortical surface shows some
traces of faceting from scraping as well as some
polish. The tool was approximately 1.9 cm in
diameter and of an unknown length.

Eight bone tools classified as several
varieties of awls were recovered (Figure 46). One
deer ulna awl with a rather short, blunt tip is
included in the collection (106C3). More numerous
were various imrrower tools with sharper points made
from the long bones of smaller mammals, some with
their proximal ends unmodified. Two of these,
however, display similar modifications at the
proximal end (106AB5B-22, r06AE-30). One flake
of bone has been removed from the proximal edge
down the shaft as if to modify this end for hafting.
Ten awls were produced on bone splinters (106AB1-
10, 106AB5A-11). Some of these had very sharp
points; on others, the tips were blunt.

Perforations through two fragmentary tools
(106C, 106C2) in the collection suggest they
functioned as needles (Figiure 46). Fragments of
three other tools recovered from the pit features on
Lot 3 are thin relative to their width and may also be
needles.

roughly 2 cm wide. The edges have been abraded,
although the flake scars have not been obliterated.
Several broad flakes have also been removed from
the edge on the exterior cortical smface on one side
of the tool. It is suspected that the abrasion and
exterior scarring are not intentional modifications, but
are the product of use. The opening between the
working edges of the other specimen (106AE-29) is
only 1 cm wide. While a few small flakes are
removed from the exterior stu-face on one side, the
working edges are not abraded. It is evident that this
tool was either used very little, or was unfinished
when discarded. Painter recovered several beamers
from Great Neck produced in a maimer similar to
those foimd in the VDHR excavations. As he noted
(Painter, personal communication 1989), the Great
Neck specimens differ from the type typically
recovered from Late Woodland period contexts in
southwest Virginia in which the working edges are
groimd smooth with no indication of pressure flaking
being used to shape die tool.

Modified carapaces of the box turtle were
also abundant in the fill from pit features on Lot 3.
Fragments representing a minimum of two modified
turtle shells were recovered from Featiu-e 106AB1.
Two nearly complete modified carapaces were
recovered from Feature 106AE (Figure 48).
Excepting one of the nearly complete shells from
Feature 106AB1, the specimens show only a
minimum amount of modification, specifically,
scraping along the vertebral colimm on the interior of
the shell. This type of alteration might result merely
from cleaning the shell for consumption of the meat.
One of the specimens from Feature 106AB1
(106AB5B-25) is abraded at several places along the
exterior edges at both ends of the shell as well as at
several places on the interior edge along the sides.
This modification or wear indicates intended use of
the carapace as a cup or scoop.

One bone fishhook was recovered in the
excavations. The specimen was foimd in Feature
106AB1 and has a barbed point (106AB1E-16)
(Figure 46).

The collection also includes two bone
beamers made on the long bones of large mammals
(Figiu'e 47). The working edges of each tool were
formed by beveling the interior cortical surface
through pressure flaking. The opening between the
working edges of one specimen (106AE1-32) is

Several types of bone ornaments were also
recovered. The most notable of these are two items
suggested to be hair pins, both recovered from
Feature 106C (Figure 49). The artifacts appear to be
modified longitudinal splinters of deer metacarpals.
The back surfaces show the natural concave surface

119

^ ^B

^^^^w

— O

o
2

— o

1^ CD

-J

s
o

I
i

- r

of the interior cortical surface of the bone, although
the edges have been ground. Neither specimen is
complete, but surviving portions of both indicate a
minimum length of 11.6 cm.

Both ornaments are decorated with designs
executed by series of irregularly-shaped pimctations
which are either overlain or underlain by incised lines
(the order of execution is impossible to discern). On
one pin, two lines of punctations and paired incising
zig-zag across the width of the ornament effectively
producing a series of stacked diamonds down the
length. On die other, two lines of punctations and
paired incising run parallel for a distance before
turning towards each other and eventually crossing.
At the first inflection point, the two lines of
punctations are connected by two short incisions
oriented perpendicular to the long axis of the pin.
Two similar lines are incised at the point where the
lines of punctations cross.

The fill of Feature 106AP produced a
fragment of modified bone which may also be a hair
pin. The shape and dimensions of die artifact are
similar to die two pins described above, although it
is not decorated. A fragment of another ornament
recovered from Feature 106C (Figure 49) may be the
base of yet another hair pin. This artifact is also
manufactured on a splintered long bone. Both the
basal and lateral edges of the ornament are notched.
The front surface is decorated with two rows of
elements running down each side of the pin along its
long axis. Each row is comprised of a series of
short, incised lines oriented perpendicular to the long
axis. On the back of the pin, the surface is decorated
with a single series of incisions extending from one
lateral edge of the pin to die odier.

One final type of bone ornament, perforated
animal teedi, was recovered on Lot 3 (Figure 49).
Feature 106C yielded a raccoon canine (106C) widi
a single perforation as well as a small shark's tooth
(106C3) widi a hole drilled at each end of the base.
Another drilled canine was recovered from Feamre
106AB1 (106AB5C-19).

Shell ornaments were recovered from both
Middle and Late Woodland contexts on Lot 3. One
marginella bead was found in Level 4 of Feature
106C. The apex of the whorl of the shell is broken
off, presumably prior to discard.

Numerous small shell disc beads were
associated with the Late Woodland period infant
burial in Feature 106AB3. The placement of the
beads within the burial has been described above.
The beads may have formed a necklace, as several
were found arranged in two rows near the temporal
bone of the infant skeleton.

Copper Artifacts

One copper artifact was found in excavations
on Lot 3. This is a triangular ornament of sheet
copper perforated at the base. The artifact was
recovered from the plowzone of Unit 104. It is
similar to ornaments associated with the Late
Woodland burial in Feature 18B on Lot 16. The
artifact from Lot 3 measures 2.7 cm in length and is
1.2 cm wide at die base.

Coproiites

Several fragments of coproiites were found
on Lot 3 in die fill of Features 106C and 106AB1.
Both features contained abimdant shellfish remains,
and the soft matter of the feces appears to have been
replaced by geological sediments cemented with
calcium salts leached firom the shell. The coproiites
resemble hardened lumps of sandy clay, except they
contain inclusions of bone and shell. The first
fragment encountered when cataloging the collection
was suspected to be ceramic manufacturing debris
until whole fish vertebrae were seen in the matrix.
The size and shape of some of die coprolite
fragments suggest they are eidier hxunan or dog
feces.

Ethnobotanical Remains

Charred plant food remains were analyzed
from 1 1 flotation samples representing seven Middle
Woodland features on Lot 3: Features 106C, 106D,
106AB1, 106AC, 106AE, 106AF, and 106AP
(Gardner 1990a). The 18.7 liters of soil processed
yielded 0.89 g of plant food remains. The bulk of
diis total was comprised of hickory nutshell {Cory a
sp.) (0.84 g). Other nutshell within the samples was
identified as walnut {Juglam nigra) (0.05 g) and
acorn (Quercus sp.) (trace amount). The samples
also contained seeds (trace amount) from two fleshy
fhiits: grape (1 seed), most likely die muscadine

124

(Vitis rotundifolia) or the summer grape (V.
aestivalis), and huckleberry (Gaylussacia sp.) (1
seed). Three unidentified seeds were also present.

One flotation sample each from features
106D and 106AB1 also contained trace amounts of
Zea mays (cupules). If these specimens are truly
associated with the Middle Woodland occupation of
the site dated ca. A.D. 290-380, then they are among
the earliest confirmed evidence of the cultigen in the
Eastern Woodlands. Maize has heretofore been
docimiented in contexts as early as the late second-
early third century A.D. in eastern Tennessee and
central Ohio, but is not believed to have become of
widespread economic significance within the region
until ca. A.D. 900-1000 (Chapman and Crites 1987;
Ford 1987; Smith 1990; Yamell and Black 1985, as
cited in Gardner 1990a).

The contextual integrity of at least one of the
flotation samples from Lot 3 which yielded maize is
suspect. The sample is derived from Level 1 of
Feature 106AB1 which, as discussed earlier, yielded
one shell-tempered, simple stamped sherd among a
majority of net- and cord-marked, shell-tempered
ceramics. Level 1 may either represent a Late
Woodland feature intrusive into a deep Middle
Woodland pit or a second, more shallow Middle
Woodland feature contaminated through the intrusion
of Feature 106AB3, a Late Woodland bvuial. No
firm evidence is known to exist indicating that the
flotation sample from Feature 106D derives from
other than a Middle Woodland context. The
cultigen's association wdth Middle Woodland and not
subsequent Late Woodland occupation on Lot 3
remains suspect, however, since it is possible that a
maize specimen of such small size could easily have
been incorporated into die feature through undetected
means.

Summary

Subsurface investigations on Lot 3 indicated
that the east-central section of the property was the
site of intensive occupation during the Middle
Woodland period. A cluster of at least nine Middle
Woodland pit features filled with abundant ceramic,
shell, and bone debris was situated in this area.
Radiocarbon determinations indicate the settiement
area was occupied ca. A.D. 290-380.

Differences in the size and shape of features
in this cluster suggest that at least two types of pits
serving distinct functions are included in the group.
Three of die features (106C, 106AB1 Levels 2-4, and
106AE) were relatively large, deep, circular pits
ranging 0.84-1.65 m in diameter and 0.72-0.82 m in
deptii. The remaining pits (106D, 106AC, 106AF,
106AN1, 106AN2, and 106AP) were much
shallower, extending only 0.07-0.32 m below the
subsoil level. Even though their size varied widely,
the shallower pits were also smaller and generally
oval in plan (although, in some, the latter trait was
exaggerated at the surface of the subsoil by plowing
which had dragged the feature fill).

The functions served by the featiures on Lot
3 are not clearly indicated, although the larger,
deeper pits are of a size and shape comumonly
attributed by archaeologists to storage facilities.
Around the eastern edge of one of the deep pits
(106C) were several postmolds which may have
anchored a cover over the feature. The association
of storage facilities with the settiement would imply
low anticipated mobility, with occupation of the
settiement intended to involve more than one season.

The shallower pit features may have been
used for processing activities. No evidence, such as
burned walls, was found in the excavations to suggest
that either deep or shallow pit features were used for
roasting. Among the seven test units excavated
across Lot 3, however, the original test square placed
in Unit 106 yielded the greatest amount of fire-
cracked rock.

The spatial arrangement of features in Unit
106 suggests at least two groups of features may be
represented, each containing at least one deep and
one shallow pit. The spatial relationships between
Features 106C and 106D, and Features 106AE and
106AF or Features 106AB1 and 106AF, may indicate
that the deep pits and shallow pits are functionally
related, and that each pair of features represents a
single work or social unit. No evidence exists to
support the argument that more than one occupation
is represented by these major features, none of which
intrude on each other. Fragments from the same
ceramic vessels are known to be represented in fill
from Feamres 106C and 106AE, and radiocarbon
dates obtained on charcoal from Features 106C,
106AB1, and 106AE overlap at two standard
deviations.

125

The large amount of ceramic debris
recovered in Units 103 and 105 suggest the setdement
encountered in Unit 106 extended in a north and
northeast direction to include these areas.
Differences in feature density and type between the
north and south halves of the setdement area may
indicate each half was the focus of different activities.
Associated ceramics are shell-tempered with
predominantly cord- or net-marked surfaces and are
similar to types in the Mockley series, albeit with a
higher frequency of flat-bottomed vessels. Lithic
artifacts were only a minor component of the tool
assemblage, which reflects a remarkable fluency in
the manufactme of bone implements and ornaments.

Only very limited evidence of Middle
Woodland occupadon was found on Lot 3 outside the
settlement area in the vicinity of Units 103, 105, and
106. Of interest, however, is Feature 108B, located
at the southern end of the property. This pit was
comparable in size and shape to the shallower pit
features in Unit 106, but contained a different type of
Middle Woodland ceramic. A number of possible
postmolds and one odier pit feature were also
encotmtered in Unit 108, but the remains do not
suggest the same intensity of occupation seen in Unit
106. Also of interest is the relatively large amount of
lithic debris, including flakes and fire-cracked rock,
recovered from Unit 101 in the northeast comer of
the lot. Since this area yielded reladvely few ceramic
artifacts, a different type or period of occupation
seems indicated.

VDHR excavations tmcovered only a very
minor amount of evidence for occupation during the
Late Woodland period on Lot 3. The most
significant find was the primary interment of a
subadult which intruded on one of the Middle
Woodland pits in Unit 106. The position of the
individual in the burial pit ~ extended on its back
with die head at the east end - was similar to the
primary, Late Woodland interments encountered on
Lot 16. Shell beads, which presumably formed a
necklace, were found with the infant. If the use of
diis type of ornamentation was confined to persons of
high status, its association with a subadult might be
indicative of ascribed levels of status within die
society. Additional evidence of Late Woodland
occupation on Lot 3 is limited to a light scatter of
Townsend and Roanoke ceramics, among which the
latter type is predominant.

126

CHAPTER?

LOT 11, MEADOWRIDGE
SUBDIVISION

Introduction

Lot 11 in the Meadowridge subdivision is
located just southeast of Lot M 3 on the south side of
Thomas Bishop Lane. The northern boundary of the
property is situated approximately 60 m south of the
bank above Broad Bay. No archaeological tests or
excavations are known to have been conducted on Lot
11 prior to VDHR investigations in 1986, and the
property was the only area south of Thomas Bishop
Lane examined by VDHR in the comse of its work
at Great Neck. In fact, the only other area of the
subdivision situated on this side of Thomas Bishop
Lane known to have been examined previously is a
section of Lot M13 excavated by Floyd Painter.
VDHR investigations indicated the property held
several Middle Woodland pit features and, perhaps,
a small structure dating from the period. Late
Woodland remains on the lot included posdnolds
forming at least two structures, a few pit features, a
human burial, and a dog burial.

Field Methods

VDHR investigations on Lot 11 were
initiated in June 1986 by cutting three, 8-ft wide test
trenches north-south across the property with a grade-
all. This work was conducted by the Virginia
Foundation for Archaeological Research under
contract to VDHR and was reported on by Paul
Peebles (1986). Topsoil was removed from within
the grade-all trenches, and the surface of the subsoil
was troweled to reveal the presence of any
archaeological features. A small collection of shell,
animal bone, lithics, and both Middle and Late
Woodland ceramics was made from the grade-all
spoils.

The test trenching indicated that plowing had
disturbed the soils on Lot 11 to a depth of 0.9-1.5 ft
below modem grade. On the west side of the lot, a
sterile subsoil with intrusive pit features and
postmolds dating from the prehistoric period was
encoimtered directly below plowzone. On the east
side of the property, a prehistoric sheet midden

deposit 0.3-0.7 ft thick lay undisturbed between the
plowzone and sterile subsoil.

With the existence of cultural features on Lot
11 established, it was decided to strip the entire
propeny of its plowzone overbtnden to expose an
excavation area measuring 75 ft east-west by 110 ft
north-south. This work was accomplished on
October 3, 1986, and investigations continued over a
period of three weeks ending October 24. The
excavations were conducted by a crew of three
persons with Christopher Egghart serving as field
director. Results of the excavation were described in
a report prepared by Egghart (1986) under contract to
VDHR. Four additional days were spent on Lot 1 1
during November 1986. This work was directed by
Esther White and was described in Appendix A to her
report on excavations on Lot M5 (White 1987).

The investigations on Lot 1 1 involved testing
the large midden deposit and excavating prehistoric
features exposed elsewhere on the property. After
the boundaries of the midden were determined and
mapped, seven test squares, 2 ft on a side, were
opened in the midden. These were spaced 8 ft apart
on two lines crossing at grid point N170 E260. The
midden deposit in each square was excavated as one
unit to subsoil level, although discrete features
recognized within the matrix were given separate
designations.

Outside the midden area, the surface of
subsoil was troweled carefully, and the locations of
cultmal features were then mapped at the scale 1 in
= 2 ft. (Metric equivalents of original English
system measurements are provided in the text to
facilitate comparison with findings from Lot GHF16
and M3). Eventually almost all pit features which
appeared to be of cultural origin were tested and a
large sample of postmolds was fully excavated.
Smaller pit features were bisected with one half of
the fill removed. Larger features were quartered.
Feature profiles were drawn at the scale 1 in = 2 ft.
Because of their smaller size, postmold profiles were
drawn at 1 in = 1 ft. All archaeological deposits
removed in the excavations were screened through
one-quarter-inch mesh in the field, except for small
samples reserved for flotation processing.

127

Archaeological Features

Prehistoric archaeological deposits
encountered on Lot 1 1 date from the Middle and Late
Woodland periods and include a sheet midden, pit
features, a dog burial, and postmolds. Possibly four
structures are indicated by patterning in the
arrangement of postmolds. One of these is a well-
defined Late Woodland longhouse spatially associated
with a human burial. Another structure has
tentatively been attributed to the Middle Woodland
period. These features as well as the few historic
pestholes exposed in the excavation are described
below. A plan of the excavation area is shown in
Figure 50.

Midden Deposit

Sheet midden was preserved below the
plowzone in the eastern half of Lot 1 1 . The deposit
extended north and east of grid point N140 E230.
South of grid line N140, the border of the midden
tapered eastward toward the southeast comer of the
excavation area. The deposit extended beyond the
northern and eastern boundaries of the property.

The midden deposit apparently fills what is
now a shallow ravine on Great Neck Peninsula which
can be seen on topographic maps of the area running
southeast across Lot 12 (Figure 3). Excavation of the
seven test squares in the midden indicated that the
base of the deposit slopes downward in the direction
of the ravine. The depth of the base of the deposit
below plowzone increased from 0.2 ft in Test Square
1 to 1.1 ft in Test Square 4. A similar ravine is
situated to the west of Lot 11 extending southwest
across Lot MIO and adjacent properties. Painter
(personal communication 1989) indicated that a rich
midden was exposed when the roadbed of Thomas
Bishop Lane was cut through this area.

No cultural or natural stratigraphy could be
discerned within the midden deposit from soil color
and texture. Instead, the deposit was a relatively
consistent, dark grey-brown loam containing some
bone, but nearly devoid of shell. Below the midden
layer was a thin zone of eluviated, sandy loam
containing some cultural debris and varying in
thickness in direct proportion to the thickness of the
overlying midden. In the deepest sections of the
midden this zone was stained with organic material

leached from above. Sterile subsoil was encoimtered
below this zone.

Fill excavated from the midden deposit
contained very few lithic artifacts: only a few flakes
and small fragments of fire-cracked rock were
recovered. Ninety-five percent of the 59 ceramic
sherds are shell-tempered, with the majority of these
diagnostic of the Late Woodland period. Forty-one
percent of the shell-tempered sherds are simple
stamped, 15% fabric-marked, 15% cord-marked,
12% net-marked, and 12% imidentifiable. The
remaining three sherds are sand-tempered ceramics
diagnostic of the Middle Woodland period: two net-
marked and one cord-marked.

Except where intrusive pit features could be
recognized, the midden deposit in each square was
excavated to the sterile subsoil as a single imit. This
approach precluded smdying the vertical distribution
of ceramic artifacts to determine if the midden
deposits were stratified culturally. It is known,
however, that the composition of the midden did vary
horizontally and vertically in other ways. A discrete
layer was encountered in Test Square 3 which yielded
an abundance of bone relauve to the amount
recovered in most other test squares. Late Woodland
period simple stamped and fabric-marked sherds were
fotmd to be relatively more abundant in Test Square
9, and a Late Woodland pit feature (Feature 163)
intrusive into the midden was encountered in Test
Square 5.

Pit Features

Feature 155A (Late Woodland) and 155B
(possibly Middle Woodland) (NlOl E243) (Figure
51): At the surface of subsoil, Feature 155A was
oval in plan, measuring 4.8 ft (1.46 m) east-west and
approximately 2.3 ft (0.70 m) north-south. The pit
was bowl-shaped with sloped sides and a rounded
bottom extending a maximiun of 1.1 ft (0.34 m)
below subsoil level. Fill consisted of a light, grey-
brown loam. Only the west half of the feamre was
excavated. Six refitted sherds of shell-tempered,
fabric-marked ceramic diagnostic of the Late
Woodland period were recovered.

Feature 155B, a smaller pit, was situated
along the south side of Featm:e 1 55 A and appeared to
intrude it. The fill of the two features could not be

128

O SUuCture F

Ol92

©"

• * Structure D
' Q\7AA

746 ."O ..

4'^

•/.

As,

■\ * structure
G .

•

O-; ©„e

TS9

n □ □ □

I - 1 Historic

+ NI40

t56e_

00
I56A

' Midden boundary
posThole

Y/^ Middle Woodland feoiure

y/'A Loie Woodlond feature

11 Posttnold. confirmed or prtsumed

I \ Noncullurol or unconfirmed -i-NI30

10 FEET

Figure 50. Plan of archeological features. Lot 11, Meadowridge subdivision.

129

FEATURE I55B

Ai-

FEATURE I58B

-'A

B B

FEATURE 165

FEATURE 195

Cf-

FEATURE I75A

B C

I 2

FEET

FEATURE
166

B C

Figure 51. Plans and profiles of Middle Woodland pit features, Lot Mil.

130

distinguished until a depth a few inches below subsoil
was reached. Here, the fill of 155B was darker,
contained more charcoal, and was less compact than
155A.

Feature 155B appeared oval in plan and
measured 2.4 ft (0.73 m) northeast-soudiwest by 2.0
ft (0.61 m) northwest-southeast. Its walls sloped to
a maximum depth of 0.6 ft (0. 18 m) below subsoil to
a flat bottom. The six diagnostic sherds recovered
are shell-tempered, net-marked ceramics diagnostic of
the Middle Woodland period, leaving open to
question whether the feature did indeed intrude into
and, thus, postdate Feamre 155A. In addition to die
ceramics, the fill of Feature 155B also yielded two
lithic flakes (one quartz and one quartzite).

Feature 158B (Middle Woodland) (N117
E251) (Figure 51): Feature 158B was a small
deposit measuring 2 . 5 ft (0 . 7 6 m) northwest-southeast
by 2.0 ft (0.61 m) northeast-southwest in plan. The
walls of the feature sloped to a flat bottom situated
0.6 ft (0. 18 m) below the siuface of subsoil. The fill
was a grey sandy loam containing small bits of
charcoal. Only the southeast quadrant of die feature
was excavated. Three shell-tempered, net-impressed
ceramics diagnostic of the Middle Woodland period
were recovered. The deposit may represent a
prehistoric pit or fill associated with tree hole
disturbances noted in the area.

Feature 163 (Late Woodland) (N182 E260)
(Figure 52): Feature 163 was a large, trash-filled
pit. At first, only the southeast section of the pit
exposed in Test Square 5 was excavated. Later,
while conducting excavations on Lot M5, VDHR
staff returned to Lot 1 1 to remove the remainder of
fill from the feature.

Feature 1 63 intruded into the midden deposit
preserved in the east half of Lot 1 1 and was visible
after a thin layer of plowzone was removed from the
surface of Test Square 5. The feature was oval,
extending a maximum of 6.1 ft (1.86 m) northwest-
southeast and 4.7 ft (1.43 m) northeast-southwest.
The base of the pit was irregular, sloping from south
to north along the west wall of die test square and
from west to east along the north wall. Fill extended
to a maximum depth of 1.0 ft (0.30 m) below the
base of the plowzone. The configuration of die pit
walls was not recorded.

Fill of Feature 1 63 consisted of brown sandy
loam containing an abundance of shell and animal
bone. One hundred fifty ceramic sherds were
recovered. Of these, 89% are shell-tempered,
simple stamped and 3% shell-tempered, fabric-
marked. The ceramics indicate a Late Woodland
period date for the feature. Apart from the ceramic
sherds, the only other artifacts recovered are a small
shell disc bead and a jasper flake. A radiocarbon
assay on charcoal recovered from Feature 163 yielded
a date of 470 ±50 years: A.D. 1480 (440 ±50
years: A.D. 1510 adjusted for C-13; Beta-38915).

Feature 165 (possibly Middle Woodland)
(N162 E218) (Figure 51): Feamre 165 was a small
pit 2.2 ft (0.67 m) in diameter with sloping sides and
a rounded bottom. Maximum depth was 0.7 ft (0.21
m) below subsoil. (The feature appeared, and was
mapped, slighdy larger in plan when first exposed.
It is suspected that feature fill had been smeared
across the surface of subsoil by the plow or grade-
all.) Fill consisted of a medium grey, compact,
sandy loam containing some charcoal. Surface
treatment cannot be identified on the two shell-
tempered sherds larger than one inch square
recovered from the feature. One shell-tempered, net-
marked sherd can be identified among the smaller
ceramic fragments recovered, however, suggesting a
Middle Woodland period date for the deposit. Field
notes indicate that a few fire-cracked rocks were also
recovered. Feature 165 might represent a prehistoric
pit, or it might be a pocket of fill associated with
several non-cultural disturbances identified in an
adjacent area.

Feature 166 (Middle Woodland) (N195
E204) (Figure 51): Feature 166 was a large, roughly
circular pit, 4.0-4.5 ft (1.22-1.37 m) in diameter at
the surface of the subsoil. The walls of the feamre
were nearly straight and the base was flat. Maximum
depth was 1.8 ft (0.55 m) below subsoil. Only the
northwest quadrant of the feature was excavated.
The pit fill was a grey-brown loam containing flecks
of charcoal. Ceramics recovered are diagnostic of
the Middle Woodland period. All 13 sherds are
shell-tempered: 4 net-marked and 9 cord-marked.

Feature 175A (Woodland) (N145 E215)
(Figure 51): Feamre 175 A was a small deposit, oval
in plan, extending 2. 1 ft (0. 64 m) northwest-southeast
and 1.5 ft (0.46 m) northeast-southwest. The walls

131

FEATURE 163

insir

B B

FEATURE 184

Figure 52. Plans and profiles of Late Woodland pit features, Lot Ml 1.

132

of the feature sloped to a rounded bottom 0.8 ft (0.24
m) below subsoil. The south half of the pit was
excavated. Four ceramic sherds smaller than one
inch square were recovered from the fill, but these
are in poor condition and provide no information to
date the deposit. Feature 175 A might be a
prehistoric pit intrusive into the fill of a tree hole, but
it is likely that it merely represents another layer of
non-cultural origin within that disturbance.

Feature 184 (Late Woodland) (N148 E242)
(Figure 52): Feature 184 was a small, bowl-shaped
pit measuring 2.0 ft (0.61 m) in diameter and 0.8 ft
(0.24 m) deep which intruded on the midden. The
base of the feature was rounded. The pit was filled
with a dark grey, sandy loam containing an
abundance of burned and unbumed oyster shell and
a few fragments of animal bone. Only the south half
of the pit was excavated. Two shell-tempered,
fabric-marked and two sand-tempered, cord-marked
sherds were recovered. The former ceramics suggest
the feature dates from the Late Woodland period.

Feature 185 (possibly Middle Woodland)
(N180 E221): Feature 185 was a circular pit 3.1 ft
(0.94 m) in diameter. The northwest quarter of the
pit was excavated, but, apparently, no profile
drawing was made. The feature was filled with
moderately compact, grey sandy loam. All six
ceramic sherds recovered are shell-tempered, but
surface treatment could not be identified on any. It
is believed the ceramics date from the Middle
Woodland period, however. One quartz cobble was
also recovered. The artifact bears flake scars
presumably resulting from tests to see if the material
was suitable for tool manufacture.

Feature 191 (Late Woodland): Featiu-e 191
was a circular pit, intrusive into the sheet midden and
situated somewhere within the ten foot square defined
by the northwest comer point N160 E240. One half
of the pit was excavated, but the feature was not
plotted on the overall site plan and no profile was
drawn. Egghart (1986:14) reported the pit was
"nearly identical to" Feature 184. Feature 191 was
filled with dark loamy sand with an abundance of
unbumed oyster shell. The fill yielded one shell-
tempered, fabric-marked sherd indicating a Late
Woodland period date for the feature.

Feature 195 (Middle Woodland) (N123
E226) (Figure 51): Feature 195 was an oval pit, 4.6
ft (1.40 m) northeast-southwest by 3.0 ft (0.91 m)
northwest-southeast in plan at the surface of subsoil.
The pit extended a maximum of 0.6 ft (0. 18 m) deep
and had sloped walls and a somewhat flattened
bottom. The fill was a light, grey-tan sandy loam.
Only the northwest quarter of the pit was excavated.
One sand-tempered, net-marked sherd diagnostic of
the Middle Woodland period was recovered.

Human Burials

One human burial. Feature 189 (N143
E201), was identified on Lot 11. Once it was
determined that human remains were present in the
pit, the VDHR filed a petition with the Circuit Court
of the City of Virginia Beach requesting permission
to remove the remains and place them in an
archaeological curation facility for scientific study.
The Court denied the request. The presiding judge
noted that the petition sought a relief different from
that then permitted under Virginia law, which, in his
interpretation, authorized the Court to permit only the
removal and reinterment of himian remains, not their
smdy or testing. (In 1989, the Virginia Antiquities
Act was amended by the General Assembly, giving
the VDHR authority in granting permits for the
archaeological excavation and study of human
remains.)

While Feature 189 was not excavated, the
human remains were situated near the top of the pit
and a few characteristics of the interment could be
determined. The burial pit was oval in plan,
extending 3.3 ft (1 .00 m) northwest-southeast by 2. 1
ft (0.64 m) northeast-southwest. The human remains
had been damaged by plowing and grading, but it
was apparent that a single individual was represented.
The interment was a subadult whom the excavators
suggested was perhaps 6-8 years of age. The
individual was placed in a flexed position with the
head at the southeast end of the pit. Three ceramic
sherds smaller than one inch square were recovered
from the pit fill. Two of these can be identified as
shell-tempered, simple stamped ceramics diagnostic
of the Late Woodland period. The position of the
burial with respect to Structure F, a longhouse
pattem dating from the Late Woodland period,
suggests the two feamres are associated. The burial
was eventually backfilled, and care was taken to

133

ensure that it was not damaged during construction on
Lots.

Animal Burials

A dog burial. Feature 190 (N121 E267), was
identified on Lot 1 1 while excavating the test trenches
placed across the property. The feature was
encountered directly below plowzone at the upper
surface of the midden deposit in the east half of the
lot. Grading had damaged and scattered most of die
skeletal remains associated with the feature, but a few
vertebrae remained in situ in articulated position. No
evidence that the dog was contained within a pit was
visible. The stratigraphic placement of the dog burial
in relation to the midden suggests the feature dates
from die Late Woodland period. No diagnostic
artifacts were directly associated with the skeletal
remains, however.

Historic Features

The configuration and fill of at least 19
features encoxmtered on Lot 11 suggested they are
historic postholes/molds (Table 17). These features
were most commonly circular in plan, about 1.0 ft in
diameter at the surface of subsoil level. Very few
were excavated.

The remains of at least one historic fenceline
running north-south can be identified within the west
half of the lot. The fenceline is comprised of
Features 178, 194, and 193. Features 178 and 194
were roughly square in plan, while Feature 193 was
circular. Excavation of Feature 178 indicated it was
0.8 ft wide and extended 0.2 ft below subsoil The
walls were straight and the base flat. Features 178
and 194 lie 48 ft apart. Feature 193 lies an
additional 8 ft north from 194. The remainder of the
features which likely represent historic
postholes/molds were concentrated primarily in the
northwest and southeast quarters of the lot.

Non-Cultural Disturbances

Apart from the cultural features identified on
Lot 11 , a number of disturbances believed to have
originated dirough non-cultural processes were found
to extend below the surface of subsoil level. Those
disturbances assigned provenience numbers are
included on die site plan as well as listed in Table 17,
where it is noted whether they were excavated or not.

The remainder of the disturbances which were neither
excavated nor assigned provenience numbers are
merely indicated on the site plan (Figure 51).

In some areas of the site, natural
disturbances were quite extensive. They were
commonly indicated by a light grey or olive-brown
staining of the soil which graded gradually into the
subsoil matrix. Some had smaller, darker core areas
of fill. It is likely that several of the dismrbances are
filled tree fall depressions. An irregular, light soil
stain was noted, for example, in the area
encompassing Feamres 158 A and 158B. Excavation
of 158 A indicated it was a filled tap root hole.
Feature 1 58B appeared to be an intentionally dug pit,
but it could merely be a midden deposit which filled
in a portion of a larger tree fall disturbance.
Features 172 and 187, with their darker core areas
surrounded by lighter staining, might also be filled
tree holes. The stain marking Feature 182 was
lighter and less distinct, suggesting it may have been
another type of natural depression in the landscape in
which a thin remnant of sheet midden deposit was
preserved below plowzone.

The identification of non-cultural
disturbances on Lot 11 is of some importance since
a nimiber of diem were encoimtered within the oval
postmold pattern defining Structure F, a Late
Woodland period longhouse. It is clear, however,
diat these disturbances predate the structure.
Postmolds associated with the longhouse intrude on
die outer boimdaries of Features 173, 174, 175, and
177. The only identifiable ceramics recovered from
excavated portions of Features 173, 174, 175, and
176 are shell-tempered wares diagnostic of the
Middle Woodland period.

This is not to say, however, that the
disturbances situated within the bounds of die house
pattern are cultural features dating from die Middle
Woodland period. Instead the evidence suggests
diese disturbances were created through non-cultural
processes. Features 174 and 176 resemble rodent
burrows. The configuration and low organic content
of Features 173, 175, and 177 suggest diey are tree
holes. A number of smaller, postmold-size features
in the vicinity were also identified as namral
disturbances. Postmolds 97, 98, 99, and 100 and
Postmolds 125, 126, 127, and 128 were found to be
rodent burrows. Postmolds 86, 143, and 144 were
determined to be root stains. Among the larger

134

Table 17. Historic features and noncultural disturbances, Lot Mil.

FEATURE

LOCATION

EXCAVATED

INTERPRETATION

NUMBER

151A

N100E265

HISTORIC POST

151B

N108E265

YES

HISTORIC POST

154

N113E245

YES

NONCULTURAL

156A

N118E245

YES

NONCULTURAL

156B

N118E244

YES

NONCULTURAL OR HISTORIC
POST

157

N123 E240

YES

NONCULTURAL

158A

N115E255

YES

NONCULTURAL

159

N110E249

YES

HISTORIC POST

167

N188E206

NONCULTURAL

168

N182E205

NONCULTURAL

169

N179E205

HISTORIC POST

170

N179 E205

NONCULTURAL

171

N172E203

NONCULTURAL

172

N165E211

YES

NONCULTURAL

173

N158E214

YES

NONCULTURAL

174

N151 E204

YES

NONCULTURAL

175B

NI45E2I2

YES

NONCULTURAL

176

N140 E210

YES

NONCULTURAL

177

N129E212

NONCULTURAL

178

N125E207

YES

HISTORIC POST

179

N121 E207

NONCULTURAL

181

N114E215

NONCULTURAL

182

N125 E220

NONCULTURAL

187

N169E221

NONCULTURAL

192

N185E210

HISTORIC POST

193

N182E210

HISTORIC POST

194

N176 E209

HISTORIC POST

135

Table 17. Continued.

FEATURE

LOCATION

EXCAVATED

INTERPRETATION

NUMBER

196

N100E212

HISTORIC POST

197

N160 E205

HISTORIC POST

199

N187 £222

HISTORIC POST

200

N162E223

HISTORIC POST

201

N104 E234

HISTORIC POST

202

NlOO E234

HISTORIC POST

203

N104 E236

HISTORIC POST

204

N165E213

HISTORIC POST

205

N167 E201

HISTORIC POST

206

N192E116

HISTORIC POST

136

features encountered within the longhouse pattern,
only Feature 175 A may possibly represent a
prehistoric pit as suggested by its regular shape and
high charcoal content.

Structures

The remains of possibly four structures were
identified on Lot 11. Two of the structures
imquestionably date from the Late Woodland period,
while one may date from the Middle Woodland. The
age of the fourth structure cannot definitely be
determined.

The clearest structural pattern identified on
Lot 11, designated Structure D, is defined by a very
obvious, oval arrangement of postmolds in the west-
central section of the property in the vicinity of grid
point N145 E210 (Figure 53). A detailed plan of the
structural remains with all postmolds numbered is
provided in Figiu'e 54. The structure is 30.7 ft (9.36
m) long and oriented roughly north-south along its
long axis. Length was determined by measuring
between the midpoints of lines drawn between
Postmolds 89 and 92 at die north end of the pattern
and Postmolds 6 and 7 at the south. Midway down
its length, die structure is 15.0-15.5 ft (4.57-4.72 m)
wide.

Unlike Structures A and B on Lot 16, the
profusion of irregularly-spaced postmolds along the
outer wall of Structure D indicates diat it had been
repaired or reinforced over time. Signs of repair are
most evident along the northwest, north, and east
walls. The northwestern and northern sections of the
outer wall are comprised of spaced clusters of
postmolds, each apparently representing an original
post and replacements or reinforcements (eg. 112,
112A; 110, llOA; 107, 108, 109; 104, 105, 106;
101, 102; 93, 94, 95; 91, 92; 88, 89; 85, 86). No
clear clustering of postmolds is evident along the east
side of die structure where even the line of the wall
is hard to identify. There is some evidence of repair
to die far south half of die structure (eg. clustering of
Postmolds 132, 133, 134; 12, 13, 14); however, die
greater evidence along the northwestern, northern,
and eastern sections of the outer wall suggests repair
or reinforcement was necessitated, perhaps by heavy
winds associated widi storms out of die northeast
which are frequent in the region during the fall,
winter, and spring (Hatch et al. 1985:2).

The arrangement of postmolds along the east
wall of Structure D suggests a bench may have
existed along the inside of the wall. The inner edge
of a bench may be defined by a line of postmolds
situated about 1.5 ft (0.46 m) west of die east wall.
The line includes Postmolds 35, 36, 51, 71, and 75.
A somewhat narrower bench may be represented in
the south half of the structure by Postmolds 14, 17,
19, and 26. There is no evidence for similar
furniture on the west side of the building.

Differentiating between wall and bench posts
along the east side of Structure D is difficult, as is
identifying which posts are original to the structure
and which represent replacements or repairs.
Attempts to sort postmolds along the wall by size and
depdi to see if any patterns representing original,
repair, or furniture posts were apparent proved
unsuccessful. It was found, however, that the
postmolds within the most densely packed section of
the east wall (from Postmold 20 north to Postmold
76) are, on average, smaller and shallower than the
remaining posts along the wall of the structure
(Figure 55, Table 18). Analysis of variance indicated
diat bodi diameter (F = 7.851; d.f. = \\ p <..0060)
and depdi (F = 10.610; d.f. = I; p ^.0015) of
postmolds differ significandy between the two
sections of the wall. These differences could be due
to a higher proportion of furniture or repair posts, or
both, within the east secdon of the wall. On average,
the postmolds along the walls of Structure D were
smaller and more shallow than those in Structure A
on Lot 16 (see Table 19).

Because of repairs to Structure D, it is also
difficult to establish the exact placement of doorways.
There is evidence to suggest the comers and at least
one side wall held entrances. A doorway in the
southeast comer of the stmcture may be indicated by
the 2.4 ft (0.73 m) gap between Postmolds 10 and
11. The 2.2 ft (0.67 m) gap between Postmolds 1
and 3 or the 4.0 ft (1.22 m) gap between Postmolds
135 and 3 may represent entrances in the southwest
comer. Another doorway may have existed in the
northeast comer between Postmolds 8 1 and 85 which
are situated 3.5 ft (1.07 m) apart. If Postmolds 104
and 108 in the northwest comer of the stmcture are
contemporaneous, then the 2.5-ft (0.76 m) gap
between them may represent another doorway. There
are also some relatively large gaps between postmolds
along the central section of the west wall of the

137

S3
U

3
O

3
00

_jNI60

Ol03

#104

-•106
• l06

#107 O

WI08

/ I74A /

|113/ N^^

• 1J4 ', ;i43

152 151 iM 141, '47

3e 41«# 043 #40

••• g#>4» ^^%,^ ,33

\ 35"*»»33 ^aj,

\ 34 ^o

#154 28«*^^

^ #24 #27
V23

a2I

* #22

#20

Al33
•#134
132

#157

• l>

|tll30
"'E200

• '
• 3

• 4

•^ #7

^P Excavated postmold

V, ' Not excavated

\.t Excovated rodent or
root disturbance, or
historic posthole

Figure 54. Plan of Structure D, Lot Mil.

139

(a)

R«latlv» Fr«qu«ncy

0.2-0.3 0.3-0.4 0.4-0.6 0.6-0.6 0.6-0.7 0.7-0.8

Diameter (feet)

(b)

nol6tlv6 FroQuonoy

0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.3-0.4 0.4-0.6 0.6-O.6 0.6-0.7 0.7-0.8 0.8-0.9

Depth (feet)

Figure 55. Histogram of postmold diameter and depth. Structure D, Lot Mil. (a) diameter (b) depdi.

140

Table 18. Diameter and depth of postmolds along wall of Structure D, Lot 1 1 .

EAST WALL

REMAINDER OF

TOTAL

STRUCTURE

FT.

CM.

DIAMETER

109

MEAN

0.33

0.38

0.35

10.7

STANDARD

0.0829

0.0968

0.0931

2.8376

DEVIATION

RANGE

0.20-0.55

0.20-0.75

6,10-22.86

DEPTH

109

MEAN

0.31

0.41

0.36

11.0

STANDARD

0.1471

0.1728

0.1678

5.1145

DEVIATION

RANGE

0.05-0.70

0.10-0.85

0.05-0.85

1.52-25.91

141

cu
Q

■*

d
en

c«

■*

«-i

•*"

"■

—

C/3

r>>

'S-

—

»/^

•o

oo
d

Urn

_1h

"■

o
d

Q Z

Z
<

z
<

Z
<

§2

a
u
z
<

structure, specifically between Postmolds 129 and
131 (2.8 ft or 0.85 m) and Postmolds 122 and 124
(2.6 ft or 0.79 m).

Ethnohistoric sources ft"om coastal North
Carolina provide some information on house plans to
suggest tentatively that the gaps along the west wall
of Structure D may represent entrances. The
structures depicted in John White's watercolor
painting of the Native American village of Pomeiock
(Figure 12) display considerable variation in the
placement of entrances and the treatment of the walls.
In the structures in the foreground of the drawing,
the walls are fully covered and doorways are
positioned at the ends, either centered or positioned
slightly off-center on the end wall. In several
structures in the background of the drawing,
however, large sections of both side and end walls
are uncovered. Entrances are located long the side
walls and possibly at the ends of the structures.

The fact that White shows arched roofs
overhanging the entrances on some of these structures
suggests his depiction of this more open, structural
form is not merely an anistic convention enabling
him to reveal interior furnishings. It is possible that
differences in the plans and wall coverings of the
structures depicted in White's drawing of Pomeiock
are reflective of functional differences relating to
seasonal use of the buildings. The structures depicted
in the foreground of the picture may have been used
for cold weather occupancy, while those in the
background may have been used primarily during the
warmer seasons. The use of dual summer and winter
dwellings has been documented both ethnographically
and archaeologically in some portions of the
Southeast and Midwest (Faulkner 1977).

While it is difficult to determine the exact
placement of doorways in Structure D since the
structure apparently was repaired overtime, it is
tentatively suggested that the building was similar in
plan to those structures depicted in the backgroimd of
White's drawing of Pomeiock, with entrances located
both along the west wall and in the comers. It is
interesting that Feature 189, a human burial, is
situated along the west wall of Structure D in the
vicinity of some of the gaps between postmolds
believed to represent entrances. On Lot GHF16, the
two burials associated with Structure C are situated in
the comers of the stmcture in areas also suggested to
have held doorways. Similar mortuary patterns

involving at least short-term interment of the dead in
the doorways of presumably residential stmctures
may be indicated by the remains from Lots 16 and
11.

The location of the burial associated with
Stmcture D also coincides with the north-south
position of a line of postmolds which may represent
an interior partition or, perhaps, roof support posts.
The line extends from the southern end of the
possible doorway between Postmolds 122 and 124,
and is comprised of Postmolds 35, 145, 146/147,
150, 151, 152, 153, 161, and 162. Mean diameter
of these nine postmolds is 0.34 ft (standard deviation
0.0846), while mean depth is 0.317 ft (standard
deviation 0.1696).

Another apparent line of postmolds (136-
142) within the stmcture may be at least partly
comprised of namral disturbances. Since excavators
were unable to determine the bases of Postmolds 138,
140, and 142, it is suggested they are root stains.
Dismrbances 143 and 144, situated nearby, were
identified as root stains in the field.

Artifacts recovered from the fill of
postmolds associated with Stmcture D clearly indicate
the building dates from the Late Woodland period.
Seventeen of the postmolds yielded prehistoric
ceramics. Of the 10 sherds recovered which are
larger than 1 inch, one is sand-tempered and cord-
marked, while the remainder are shell-tempered:
four simple stamped; four (mended) fabric -marked;
and one cord marked. Fourteen sherds recovered are
smaller than 1 inch: five shell-temper, simple
stamped; one shell-temper, net-marked; and eight
unidentified. Several fragments of animal bone, a
few lithic flakes, and one triangular projectile point
were also recovered from the fill of postmolds
associated with Stmcture D.

At least one other Late Woodland stmcmre,
Stmcture E, can tentatively be identified within the
excavation area on Lot 1 1 . The stmcture is located
in the southeast comer of the lot, simated between
grid points Nl 10 E250 and Nl 10 E260. A complete
stmctural pattern is by no means evident, but two
linear arrangements of posts running roughly parallel
to each other in a northwest-southeast direction and
situated 2-3 ft apan are suggested. A sample of ten
postmolds was excavated from along these two lines
(Table 19). The five ceramic sherds larger than 1

143

inch which were recovered from these postmolds and
four other postmolds in the immediate vicinity are
shell-tempered; three simple stamped; one net-
marked; and one unidentified. Of eight sherds
smaller than 1 inch, six are shell-tempered, simple
stamped and two unidentified. Fill in the postmolds
also yielded some shell and bone.

Another structure, designated Structure F,
appears indicated by a cluster of postmolds in the
vicinity of grid point N185 E225. An oval structure
measuring roughly 15 ft (4.57 m) northwest-southeast
by 11 ft (3.35 m) northeast-southwest is suggested.
The posts are small and especially shallow when
compared to those which comprise Structure D. A
sample of 12 postmolds associated with Structure F
was excavated (only a few of the postmolds are from
along the outer edge of the pattern) (Table 19). The
only artifact recovered from the postmolds is one
modified fragment of deer antler.

It is possible that Feature 185 and the
somewhat rectangular arrangement of postmolds
which surroimds it are associated with Structure F
and represent a storage facility attached to the larger
building. Feature 185 was 3.1 ft (0.94 m) in
diameter at the surface of the subsoil. Its depth and
the configuration of its walls were not recorded. The
postmolds surroimding the pit feature form an
enclosure approximately 5 ft (1.52 m) northeast-
southwest by 4 ft (1.22 m) northwest-southeast. The
northeast wall would appear to lie slightly inside the
exterior wall of Structure F, a fact which may argue
against the suggestion that the two features are
contemporaneous. The sample of five postmolds
excavated along the walls of the enclosure has a mean
diameter of 0.29 ft (range 0.20-0.35) and a mean
depth of 0.12 (range 0.10-0.15). No artifacts were
recovered from the postmolds. As discussed above,
ceramics recovered from Feature 185 suggest the pit
dates from the Middle Woodland period.

The only other possible structural pattern
which can be discerned among the postmolds
uncovered on Lot 1 1 is designated Strucnire G and is
situated in the vicinity of grid point Nl 15 E220. A
small, oval structure 9 ft (2.74 m) northeast-
southwest by 7 ft (2.13 m) northwest-southeast is
suggested, but the arrangement of posts is not
regular. A sample of eight postmolds from along the
walls of the structure was excavated (Table 19). No

artifacts were recovered from the fill of the
postmolds.

It should be noted that data on the existence
and spatial arrangement of structures on Lot 1 1 are
derived from only one half of the property. No
postmolds could be discerned directly below
plowzone at the surface of the sheet midden deposit
which covers most of the east half of the property.
One prehistoric postmold was revealed at subsoil
level in Test Square 2, however. The fill of the
postmold contained one sherd of shell-tempered,
simple stamped ceramic smaller than one inch square.

Collections

Ceramic Artifacts

The ceramic collection recovered in
excavations on Lot 1 1 is comprised of the same types
diagnostic of the Middle and Late Woodland periods
recognized on other lots tested by the VDHR at Great
Neck. Middle Woodland ceramics from Lot 11
include shell-tempered, net- or cord-marked wares
comparable to types within the Mockley series as
well as a few sherds of fine or medium sand-
tempered, net- or cord-marked ceramics similar to
the types recovered on Lot GHF16. One base from
a flat-bottomed vessel was identified within the
collection of shell-tempered, or Mockley-like, sherds.

Very few possible Middle Woodland features
were identified on Lot 1 1 , and the small collection of
ceramics recovered in the excavations supports
indications that the property lay beyond the main
focus of Middle Woodland settlement at Great Neck.
Only 16 sherds diagnostic of the Middle Woodland
period were recovered from the eight test units
excavated into the midden preserved on the east half
of the property (Table 20). Excavation of one half or
one-quarter of the fill from die seven possible Middle
Woodland features exposed on the lot yielded only 28
identifiable sherds dating from the Middle Woodland
(Table 21). These samples were considered too small
to warrant further analysis.

Late Woodland ceramics recovered from Lot
1 1 include shell-tempered sherds of the type Roanoke
Simple Stamped (Figure 56) and shell-tempered,
fabric-marked ceramics of the Townsend series
(Tables 20 and 21). Only Roanoke ceramics were
examined beyond identification of temper and surface

144

Table 20. Artifacts recovered from test sqxiares in midden, Lot Mil.

ARTIFACT
TYPE

TEST SQUARE

4/5

TOTAL

# %

CERAMIC SHERDS
LARGER THAN
1 INCH

SHFIT-
TEMPERED

40.7

FABRIC

15.2

NET

11.9

CORD

15.2

UNID.

11.9

FINE SAND-
TEMPERED

NET

3.4

MEDIUM SAND-
TEMPERED

CORD

1.7

TOTAL

100.0

CERAMIC SHERDS
SMALLER THAN

IINCH

180

333

CLAY PIPES

LITHIC
ARTIFACTS

BONE/SHFT T
TOOLS OR
ORNAMENTS

EUROPEAN-
AMERICAN
ARTIFACTS

Note: Collections from Test Squares 4 and 5 were combined inadvertently in the field.

145

Table 21. Artifacts recovered from pit features. Lot Mil.

ARTIFACT TYPE

FEATURE

155A

155B

158B

163

165

166 175A

184

185

191

195

CERAMIC SHERDS
LARGER TBAN
IINCH

SHELL-TEMPERED

SIMPLE
STAMPED

133

FABRIC

NET

CORD

UNIDENTIFIED

FINE SAND-
TEMPERED

NET

CORD

TOTAL

150

CERAMIC SHERDS
SMAT T FR THAN
IINCH

32 4

LITHICS

FLAKES

TESTED COBBLES

UNMODIFIED
COBBLE/PEBBLES

BONE/SHELL TOOLS
OR ORNAMENTS

146

Mi '
I

3
60

treatment since the Townsend collection from midden
test units and features consists of only 17 sherds.

Feature 163 is the only deposit excavated on
Lot 1 1 which yielded a sizable sample of Roanoke
ceramics. Of a total of 150 sherds recovered, 89%
are shell-tempered, simple stamped. The Roanoke
ware recovered from the feature is similar to that
foimd elsewhere in VDHR excavations at Great
Neck. The paste of the sherds is comprised most
commonly of a silty clay containing moderate to high
proportions of crushed fragments of ribbed mussel
shell. Impressions on the exterior surfaces of the
ceramic are usually made with a relatively wide,
untwisted fiber. Interior surfaces are often scored.

Ten rim sherds are included in the collection
of Roanoke ware firom Feature 163. Eight rims
exhibit straight profiles. Two flare outward slighdy
at the lip. Nine of the rim sherds are marked with
stamping of the top of the lip. On one rim the lip is
smooth. Mean thickness of Roanoke sherds from
Feature 163 is 7.65 mm (n=132, standard deviation
1.2600). Thickness of rim sherds measured 2 cm
below the lip ranges from 5.0-7.0 mm. No basal
sherds are included in the collection.

Five (3.8%) of the 133 Roanoke sherds are
decorated. Only incised decoration was observed.
Two of the sherds bear a series of parallel incised
lines oriented at an angle to the rim. The incised
design overlies stamped impressions oriented parallel
to die rim. On one of diese sherds (two mended rim
fragments cotmted separately above) the lines are
interrupted by incised lines forming a chevron or
triangle, a motif found also on a third sherd in the
collection. The final example of decoration is found
on a rim sherd which is marked with a band of
shallow, thin incised lines situated direcdy below the
lip and oriented parallel to it.

The incised triangle or chevron is a common
design motif on Townsend ware seen, for example,
on a sherd recovered from the surface of Lot 5. On
the Townsend sherd, however, the triangle motif is
integrated into a band of decoration comprised of
incised lines oriented parallel to die rim. The filling
of the band of decoration with incisions oriented at an
angle to die rim may be a design alternatively chosen
on Roanoke ware in order to heighten the visual
contrast between the decoration and the simple
stamped background. Even with this adjustment, the

elaborate design on the sherd pictured in Figure 56
(top left) does not stand out well against the stamped
impressions.

The collection of Late Woodland ceramics
recovered from Lot 11 is remarkably small
considering that at least one, and possibly two
longhouses (Structures D and E) were simated on the
property during the Late Woodland. Disposal patterns
within the Late Woodland settiement are intriguing.
The vast majority of ceramics in the collection derive
from the fill of only one of the four Late Woodland
non-burial pit features identified (Feature 163), with
the other three features yielding a total of only nine
Late Woodland sherds (Table 21). Test imits within
sheet midden deposits east of Structure D and north
of Structure E yielded only 33 Late Woodland sherds
(Table 20). Unfortunately, the lack of plowzone
samples from the immediate vicinity of the two
structures prevents us from knowing whether a sheet
midden had also accumulated in these areas over the
course of occupation.

The results of excavation on Lot 1 1 provide
some indications that Roanoke Simple Stamped was
a late development within the material culture of Late
Woodland peoples who occupied Great Neck. Three
of the four features yielding Late Woodland ceramics
produced only Townsend sherds; but in the collection
from Feature 163, which is dominated by Roanoke
Simple Stamped, the few Townsend sherds .
recovered, while of comparable size, are more ^
weathered that the Roanoke ceramics. Charcoal
associated with Feature 163 was radiocarbon dated to
A.D. 1510 jf50 (adjusted for C-13).

Lithic Artifacts

Very few lithic artifacts were recovered in
excavations on Lot 1 1 . The eight test units placed in
the midden yielded a total of 14 flakes (13 jasper, 1
quartzite) and 3 small fragments of fire-cracked
sandstone (Table 20). From among the 11 features
listed in Table 21, a total of 4 flakes (1 jasper, 1
quartz, 2 quartzite), 1 tested quartz cobble, and 3
unmodified cobbles or pebbles (2 jasper, 1 quartzite)
were recovered. One triangular projectile point of
quartz was recovered from the fill of one of the
postmolds associated with Structure D (Figure 57).
The artifact measures 1.8 cm wide at the base, is 2.2
cm long, and has a maximum thickness of 0.5 cm.
The only other artifact of note recovered is a

148

fragment of a quartzite cobble used as a hammerstone
(Figure 57). The artifact, excavated from the fill of
Feature 178, an historic posthole, is battered at the
end and along both edges.

Bone and Shell Tools and Ornaments

Two fragments of bone modified for use as
tools or ornaments were recovered in the excavations.
One is a fragment of deer antler tine (Figure 57)
which may have been intended for manufacture into
a projectile point. A series of cut marks made
circumferentially around the tine for detaching it
from the rack are visible at the proximal end of the
tool. Some of the interior of the antler has been
gouged out, and the exterior surface has been shaved
smooth. The artifact was excavated from the fill in
one of the postmolds believed associated with
Structure F. The other bone artifact is a small
polished fragment decorated with incising recovered
from Test Square 4 or 5 in the midden (Figure 57).
The collection also includes one small shell disc bead
recovered from the fill of Feature 163.

Ethnobotanical Remains

Charred plant food remains from nine
flotation samples from Lot 5 were analyzed (Gardner
1990a). Among these are represented six Middle
Woodland features-155B, 158B, 165, 166, 185, and
195-and three Late Woodland features- 155A, 163,
and 191. Maize (Zea mays) (0.01 g, cupule),
hickory nutshell (Carya sp.) (0.29 g), acorn shell
{Quercus sp.) (trace amount), and two unidentified
seeds (trace) were identified among the 0.30 grams of
plant food remains recovered from the 14.3 liters of
soil processed from Middle Woodland features. The
association of maize with the Middle Woodland
period may be suspect. The maize was recovered
from Feanire 158B. Although the pit yielded only
Middle Woodland ceramics, the feature is shallow
and is situated only 2 ft south of the mapped edge of
an extensive midden deposit of mixed Middle and
Late Woodland materials. The feature is also
surrounded by postmolds which yielded shell-
tempered, simple stamped ceramics.

The total of 0.77 grams of plant food
remains recovered from the 21.2 liters of soil
processed from Late Woodland features contained
maize {Zea mays) (0.21 g, cupule and kernel),

cucurbit (0.01 g), hickory nutshell {Carya sp.) (0.52
g), acorn shell {Quercus sp.) (frace amount),
huckleberry {Gaylussacia sp.) (1 seed), persinmion
{Diospyros virginiana) (1 seed), and unidentified
seeds (4). The cucurbit remains include three
fragments of squash rind and four fragments of botde
gomd rind.

Summary

Similar to other lots investigated by the
VDHR at Great Neck, Lot 1 1 was the site of both
Middle and Late Woodland occupation.
Archaeological remains dating from the Middle
Woodland period include six pit features and,
possibly, a small structure. This portion of the Great
Neck site does not appear to have been occupied as
intensively during the Middle Woodland as areas
closer to the shore of Broad Bay. During the Late
Woodland period, at least two longhouse structures
were situated on Lot 1 1 . Other features encountered
which date from this period include a single burial,
four pit features, and, possibly, an additional small
structure and dog burial.

If Features 158B, 165, and 175 A are
assumed to be of cultiual origin, the most common
type of Middle Woodland feature encotmtered on Lot
1 1 is a relatively small and shallow, oval pit ranging
2.0-2.5 ft in length, 1.5-2.2 ft in width, and 0.6-0.8
ft in depth (this type also includes Featme 155B).
One equally shallow, although larger oval pit was
also found (Feature 195). While the exact function
of these features is not known, their size and shape
suggest they were used for processing rather than
storage. The features were widely dispersed across
the lot, they do not intrude one another, and they do
not appear to have been associated with any strucmral
remains. This evidence is insufficient to determine
whether single or multiple occupations are
represented, but does suggest the features may be the
product of relatively short-term occupation.
Alternatively, the entire complex of pits may
represent an activity area associated with more
permanent settiements located in the more intensively
occupied portions of Great Neck on the north side of
Thomas Bishop Lane.

The latter interpretation is partially supported
by the Middle Woodland features encountered in the
far northwest comer of Lot 1 1 . This area holds two

149

3 IN.
8 CM.

Figure 57. Lithic and bone artifacts. Lot Mil.

larger features (Features 166 and 185), one of which
is also known to have been deeper, which might
represent storage pits. Feature 185 and the small
rectangular postmold pattern which surrounds it were
spatially associated with an oval structure. This
building is smaller than known Late Woodland
structures at Great Neck (Structures A and C on Lot
GHF16 and Structure D on Lot 11).

There are similarities between the complex
of Middle Woodland features in the northwest comer
of Lot 1 1 and the cluster of pit features encountered
by the VDHR in Unit 106 on Lot M3, located north
of Thomas Bishop Lane. In both areas, a settlement
of at least multi-seasonal occupation is indicated by
the presence of storage features. Relative
permanency is also indicated for the settlement area
on Lot 1 1 by the structural remains associated with
one storage feature. Although the Middle Woodland
structme was smaller than three Late Woodland
structures documented at Great Neck, similarities in
the building technologies employed during each
period indicate the Middle Woodland structure was
not necessarily less substantial.

In addition to their similarities, there are
differences between the Middle Woodland deposits on
Lot 1 1 and Lot 3 . On Lot 3 , the larger pit feamres
were more numerous and more densely concentrated.
The two storage featmes on Lot 11 were widely
separated and, thus, may have been the product of
more than one occupation, each involving a smaller
population group. Ceramic debris, shellfish remains,
and animal bone also were relatively more abundant
in the fill of features on Lot 3 dian in either the
Middle Woodland pit features on Lot 11 or in the
sheet midden deposit preserved in the east half of the
lot. These differences may indicate that the two
areas were occupied for different purposes, perhaps
during different seasons of the year.

Alternatively, no difference in settlement size
or fimction may be indicated by the contrasts between
the Middle Woodland deposits on Lots 3 and 11.
The low overall density of Middle Woodland features
and artifacts encountered across Lot 1 1 may merely
be a reflection of diiis property's position relative to
Broad Bay. As noted earlier. Painter (personal
communication, 1989) found that Middle Woodland
features on Lot M13 were distributed less densely
than those he encoimtered in excavations on Lot Ml .
Apparendy, north of Thomas Bishop Lane, closer to

die shore of Broad Bay, the Great Neck site was used
either more intensively or more often.

During the Late Woodland period. Lot 1 1
held at least two presumably domestic structures
(Structures D and E). The buildings were widely
separated, and no evidence was found in the
excavations to suggest that either was enclosed within
a palisade. It is possible that other structures existed
on the lot, but their remains may have been obscured
by the sheet midden deposit which covered the east
half of the property. Postmolds associated with
Structure D were rather shallow, so it is also possible
that additional structural remains in the west half of
the lot had been removed by plowing.

Structure D was similar in many respects to
the Late Woodland structures docimiented by the
VDHR on Lot GHF16 at Great Neck. Structure D
was oval in plan, probably had a bench along die
interior of one wall, and possibly had doorways in
the comers. Unlike the other buildings, however,
Stmcture D may also have had doorways positioned
midway along one side wall. The stmcdire also
showed evidence of repair.

The four Late Woodland pit features found
on Lot 1 1 likely were used for processing activities
rather than storage. Three of the four features were
filled after abandonment with dense deposits of
shellfish. Two of these (Feature 184 and 191) were
relatively small and shallow, circular pits, similar to
those later found on Lot M5. The third shell-filled
pit (Feature 163) was also radier shallow, but quite a
bit larger in plan. It may be significant that all three
features were located in the northeast and east-central
sections of the lot. The remains in this location,
which include the sheet midden deposit, may
represent a special activity area used for processing
and disposal situated outside of the residential section
of the settlement.

The fourth Late Woodland pit feature found
on Lot 1 1 was relatively large, but shallow. Feamre
155 A was situated near a group of postmolds which
may represent a longhouse stmcture. Aldiough the
feature may have served some type of processing
function, it should be noted that the shape of the pit
is similar to the Late Woodland burial identified on
the property, and its position in relation to Stracmre
E is possibly similar to the spatial relationship
between the known burial (Feature 189) and Structme

151

D. No skeletal remains were found with Feature
255A, however, and the fill was more organic-rich
than the redeposited subsoil which commonly fills
biuial pits.

The one burial feature definitely identified
on Lot 11 (Feature 189) was an interment of a child
and is likely contemporaneous with Structure D.
Subadult interments were also found in association
with Structure C on Lot GHF16, the structure located
outside of the palisaded enclosure. These burials
appeared to be positioned within doorways. A
similar pattern may be displayed at Structure D if the
identification of entrances along the west wall is
correct.

proposed that primary and secondary interments on
Lot 16 differentiate two levels of ascribed status.
Among persons of higher status, who were buried
individually in primary interments, differential
treatment was accorded by age: Adults were buried
in close spatial association with the palisade, while
subadults were buried in association with non-
corporate structures. The association of the subadult
interment (Feamre 189) on Lot 1 1 with a presumably
residential structiure is consistent with the pattern seen
on Lot 16.

No definite evidence is available to date two
additional prehistoric feamres encountered on Lot 1 1 .
It is likely that Feature 190, a dog burial, is
associated with the Late Woodland period since it
was situated directly below the plowzone at the upper
surface of the midden. Three other Late Woodland,
but no Middle Woodland features were encountered
at this level.

No good clues exist for dating Structme G,
an oval arrangement of postmolds. The postmolds
associated with the structure were similar in diameter
to those associated with Stmcmres D and E, although
shallower. In contrast, the excavated postmolds
associated with Structure F were smaller (however,
the assignment of this structure to the Middle
Woodland period is based only on its prestuned
association with Feature 185). If Strucmre G is
associated with Late Woodland occupation at Great
Neck, its small size would argue against its use as a
domestic structure. The use of small structures such
as sweathouses, watchhouses, and work huts/storage
facilities is documented in the ethnohistorical
literature on coastal Algonquian peoples in North
Carolina and Virginia (Callahan 1981:74-75).

The Late Woodland record on Lot 11 is
consistent with patterned variation among structural
remains and mortuary features encountered on Lot
GHF16. It was proposed earlier that Strucmre A on
Lot 16 may be associated with an elite class as
indicated by its placement widiin a palisade and its
larger size relative to Structure C. Structure D on
Lot 11 is also smaller dian Structure A, and no
evidence exists to suggest the former structure was
situated within a palisade. It was also tentatively

152

CHAPTERS

LOT 5, MEADOWRIDGE
SUBDIVISION

Introduction

Lot 5 was the last property to be investigated
by the VDHR at Great Neck since housing
construction had been initiated on all other lots in the
Meadowridge subdivision along Thomas Bishop Lane
except Lots 5 and 11 by Spring, 1986. In the course
of investigations on Lot 5 it was soon fo\md that most
major prehistoric features on the property had been
excavated previously by other researchers.
Additional features documented by the VDHR include
the possible remains of two structures and several
small pit features dating from the Late Woodland
period. Large samples of Middle and Late Woodland
period ceramics were also recovered from fill
deposits within depressions caused by two tree falls
on the property. By combining the findings of
VDHR excavations with information provided by
other researchers, the nature of Middle and Late
Woodland occupation on the property can tentatively
be reconstructed.

Previous Work

A considerable amount of archaeological
testing and excavation had been conducted on Lot 5
by Floyd Painter and James Pritchard prior to VDHR
investigations on the property. On Painter's map of
the Great Neck area, he indicated an excavation unit
was opened in the southwest quadrant of the lot
(Figure 4). Excavations in this area were being
conducted in the spring of 1982 when VDHR staff
was working on Lot M3.

Painter's map also indicates that James
Pritchard had placed shovel test holes across the
entire property. The full extent of Pritchard's
investigations was unknown to VDHR staff when
they first began to work on Lot 5, although Pritchard
had earlier donated to the VDHR a collection of
artifacts he recovered from a prehistoric pit feature in
the southwest comer of the lot disturbed during the
excavation of a utility trench in 1982. In a later
meeting with Pritchard once VDHR excavations on
Lot 5 were underway, it was learned that he was

aware of a number of additional prehistoric features
which had been excavated on the property. On a
sketch map he provided VDHR are indicated four
burial features, each containing a single human
interment; one bmal feature containing the remains
of three individuals; one burial feature containing the
remains of a mature individual and a child; and
fifteen refuse-filled pits. Features are attributed to
both the "Chesapeake" (Late Woodland) and "Flat
Bottom" vessel (Middle Woodland) cultures. The
features shown on Pritchard's map are discussed in
more detail below in conjimction with descriptions of
VDHR finds.

VDHR Excavations and Field Methods

Excavations by the VDHR on Lot 5 were
approached in a manner similar to that employed on
Lot Mil. During the initial testing conducted in
]\me 1986 on Lot 11 by the Virginia Foundation for
Archaeological Research, Inc., three test trenches
were also opened across Lot 5 (Peebles 1986). The
test trenches were each approximately 8 ft wide and
ran from north to south across the lot. Trenches 1
and 2 were centered, respectively, on grid points
E275 and E310. Trench 3 was oriented slightly
northeast-southwest, and was centered on E350 at the
northern end of the lot and E330 at the southern end.

Each trench was stripped to the subsoil level
using a backhoe. The soil profile across the lot from
the surface of modem grade was characterized, in
general, by a 1-2 in layer of root mass overlying a
plowzone 10-16 in thick. Sterile subsoil was
encountered direcdy below plowzone. Numerous soil
stains representing shovel test pits, prehistoric
postmolds, and larger features were discemable at
subsoil level. Plowzone removed from the trenches
was not screened, but a collection of ceramic artifacts
from the backhoe spoils indicated that both Middle
and Late Woodland period occupations were
represented on the lot.

Based on these findings, further investigation
on Lot 5 seemed warranted. House constraction was
planned for the near future, and the profusion of
postmolds exposed in the initial test trenches
indicated that large areas of the lot would need to be
opened if any stmctural patterns were to be
recognized among these features. Thus, the VDHR
decided to proceed with further investigations by

153

removing the plowzone mechanically from across the
entire property.

The second phase of field investigations on
Lot 5 was conducted from November 21, 1986,
through January 26, 1987, widi a crew of four
persons. Esther White served as field director. The
results of the excavation were simimarized by White
(1987) in a report prepared under contract to VDHR.

After the plowzone across the lot was
removed to within a few inches above the subsoil
level, the surface of the site was shovel-skimmed and
troweled. An overall map of the lot showing the plan
of all soil stains visible at subsoil level was drawn at
the scale 1 in = 2 ft (metric equivalents of original
English measurements are provided where
appropriate below to facilitate comparison between
features on different lots).

VDHR excavations on Lot 5 were hampered
by the many small disturbances into the subsoil which
were the product of shovel testing conducted
previously on the property. The remains of shovel
test holes were most concentrated in the south half of
the lot where they were spaced on roughly 3-foot
centers. All disturbances intrusive into the subsoil
below plowzone level were mapped. As time
permitted, those disturbances whose size and fill
suggested they were the remains of shovel test holes
were excavated both to identify the nature of the
disturbance and to reveal the remains of any
prehistoric features preserved at deeper levels. Time
was not available to investigate all of these
disturbances, however. Thus, many of the smaller
features pictured on the overall field map of the site
likely are die remains of shovel test holes. Because
of the time spent in removing modem disturbances,
only a small sample of smaller features believed to be
prehistoric postmolds were eventually excavated.

All larger features identified on Lot 5 were
tested. Two large, refuse-filled depressions. Features
255 and 261 , which are believed to have originated as
tree falls during the prehistoric period, were tested by
excavating narrow trenches across the features. Each
of the remaining features on Lot 5 was tested by
excavating either a half or quarter of the deposit.
Initial examination suggested that several of these
were prehistoric features which had previously been
excavated.

All confirmed cultural features and
postmolds, whether previously excavated or not, were
drawn in profile at the scale 1 in; 1 ft. Samples of fill
from each stratigraphic level were reserved for
flotation processing, with the remaining excavated fill
screened in the field through one-quarter-inch mesh.

Features Excavated by VDHR

Each of the features tested by VDHR on Lot
5, regardless of whether the feature was found intact
or had been excavated previously, is described below.
As much as possible, die findings of VDHR
investigations are correlated with information
provided by Pritchard from earlier excavations on the
lot. A copy of Pritchard' s sketch map of the
property showing the location of features he was
aware of is shown in Figure 58 along with a copy of
the VDHR's site plan with only major features
indicated. Features encountered by the VDHR are
listed in Table 22.

Large Refuse-Filled Depressions

Feature 255 (N345 E335) (Figure 59):

Feature 255 was a very large, roughly circular
depression, likely originating from a tree fall, which
was foimd to contain imdisturbed Middle Woodland
period deposits imderlying mixed Middle and Late
Woodland deposits. The feature was located along
the eastern edge of Lot 5, and extended to the east
beyond the limits of the excavation area. At the
surface of the subsoil, the deposit measured 23.6 ft
north-south and a minimum of 23.2 ft east- west.

Feature 255 was sampled by excavating a
test trench 5 ft wide and 30 ft long which extended
north-south roughly across die middle of the deposit.
As seen in Figure 59, which shows the profile along
the west wall of the trench, the feature was shallow
relative to its length. The walls sloped gently to a
flat base 1.8-2.2 ft below subsoil level. About
midway along the length of the test trench, however,
the base of the feamre sloped downward again to
form a bowl-shaped depression approximately 6 ft in
diameter, centered beyond the west side of the test
trench. Feature fill extended to a maximtma depth of
3.2ft below the surface of subsoil in this area of die
trench.

154

o
o

o
«
n

O
N

O
o

CB
CM

VDHR
EXCAVATIONS

•

s •

Sit "^ '

♦

•o

•

•
3

•

g|H

■

42
3

U
DO

re
u

e o

< I-

— U

OB X

a. u

i'^

«2\.'\ 2

-% ■■ ■-■

^ .0 0-

-1

§ 1 s

2 * I I

•««>• —

« «- « ^

— O C o

S -i 3 O

2 2 3 -o
2 » o 2

.= •= — 3

re
>
re
u
X

o
>

e
e

e
o
9

-T3
U

O
a

I e

e
E

e
e
E

"re"
2

3
00

Table 22. Features excavated by VDHR, Lot M5.

VDHR

NUMBER

CONDraON/DESCRIPTION

PRITCHARD'S
NUMBER

CULTURAL
AFFILL\TION

250 PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED BURIAL PIT

25 1 PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED BURL\L BIT

252 INTACT. SMALL REFUSE-FILLED PIT
255 INTACT. LARGE REFUSE-FILLED TREE HOLE

257 INTACT. SMALL REFUSE-FILLED PIT

258 INTACT, SMALL REFUSE-FILLED PIT

259 PIT, RECORDS LOST

260 FILLED TREE HOLE, POSSIBLY PART OF 261

261 INTACT, LARGE REFUSE-FILLED TREE HOLE

262 INTACT. SMALL PIT

264 PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED PIT

265 INTACT. LARGE REFUSE-FILLED PIT

266 INTACT, SMALL REFUSE-FILLED PIT
270 PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED PIT(S)
274 PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED PIT
282 INTACT. SMALL REFUSE-FILLED PIT
289 INTACT, SMALL REFUSE-FILLED PIT
291 INTACT, SMALL REFUSE-FILLED PIT
309 INTACT, SMALL REFUSE-FILLED PIT
318 PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED PIT

320 PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED PIT

321 DISTURBED AREA, BURIAL?

322 DISTURBED AREA. PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED

PIT?

323 DISTURBED AREA. PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED

BUIUAL?

324 DISTURBED AREA, PAINTER'S EXCAVATION

AREA

328 DISTURBED AREA. PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED

PIT?

MW. LW

21?

UNKNOWN

MKED MW/LW

PROBABLY LW

UNKNOWN

16. 17

16?

17?

11?

Key: MW, Middle Woodland; LW, Late Woodland.

156

C8
<U

O
Ji

Six stratigraphic layers were recognized
within the fill of Feature 255. The upper-most layer
(Layer A) was found to have been disturbed by
plowing. Plowzone extended 0.2-0.4 ft below the
subsoil level across the feature, suggesting the
elevation of the modem grade direcdy above Featiu^e
255 had been slighdy lower than surrounding areas.
Once this plow-disturbed layer had been removed, it
was clear that lower levels of fill in Feature 255 were
intact archaeological deposits, and not secondary
deposits of spoil from earlier excavations on Lot 5.
Below the plowzone, both plowscars and small
postmolds could be seen intruding into the underlying
deposit of dark grey brown sandy loam. Lot 5 had
not been plowed in recent years.

In the center of the test trench and along its
south end, three major stratigraphic layers could be
discerned within the fill of Feature 255 below the
plow-disturbed layer: Layer B was a dark, grey-
brown sandy loam; Layer C, a grey-brown loam with
grey sandy splotches; and Layer D, a grey-brown
loam. Each of these layers sloped downward from
the north, east, and south edges of the feature toward
the depression in the base noted earlier. A thin zone
of mottled soil (Layer F) marked the transition from
feature fill to subsoil along die base of the
depression.

On the north side of Feature 255, the
stratigraphy was more complex. Layer D, which fills
the base of the depression on the south side and in
the center, appeared to be intruded on in the vicinity
of N350. Underlying Layer C at the north end of the
feature was a layer of light brown loam containing
fragments of clay and charcoal bits (Layer E). This
fill extended to the surface of subsoil and beyond the
limits of the test trench.

Fill from Feamre 255 was removed in four
excavation levels. In Table 23, these levels are
correlated to the stratigraphic layers indicated in
Figure 59.

Since Excavation Level 1 included a layer of
plow-disturbed fill from Featiu-e 255, it is not
surprising that a few historic artifacts (two nail
firagments and a fragment of glass) were recovered in
the level. Prehistoric artifacts from die level included
an abundance of botii Middle and Late Woodland
period ceramic sherds with shell-tempered, fabric-
marked and simple stamped sherds predominant. It

is unknown whether the Late Woodland ceramics
derive from both Layers A and B or were confined to
the upper, plow-disturbed layer. The large number
of ceramics suggests the feature was intentionally
filled during the Late Woodland period, but diere is
no systematic sample of artifacts from the plowzone
on Lot 5 to test die alternative hypothesis that die
debris is a remnant of a sheet midden deposit
removed elsewhere with the plowzone when the site
was stripped by backhoe.

Only 4% of ceramics recovered in the
second level of fill removed from Feature 255 can
definitely be attributed to the Late Woodland period
on the basis of temper and surface treatment. When
compared to Level 1 , die extremely low frequency of
Late Woodland ceramics in Level 2 suggests that
Layer C was an essendally imdisturbed deposit daung
from the Middle Woodland period. The ceramic
collections from Excavation Levels 3 and 4 contain
no ceramics resembling Late Woodland period types,
and indicate that Layer D was an intact Middle
Woodland period deposit. Shell-tempered, cord- and
net-marked sherds are predominant in collections
from Levels 2-4, with fragments of several flat-
bottomed vessels represented. Some Middle
Woodland sand-tempered ceramics with cord- or net-
marked surfaces were recovered from Levels 2 and
3, but none were foimd in Level 4.

Few artifacts other than ceramics were
recovered from the feamre fill. While the collection
from Level 1 includes 83 fragments of bone and five
fragments of shell. Level 2 yielded only 7 fragments
of bone. No shell or bone was recovered from
Levels 3 and 4. Collections from Levels 1-3 include
a total of only 28 lithic artifacts and 8 small
fragments of fire-cracked rock. Level 4 yielded only
3 unmodified fragments of slate.

Each excavation level of Feature 255 also
yielded a number of irregularly-shaped fragments of
burned, sandy clay which may provide some clue to
the origin of die feature or its fill. The fragments
vary in size up to approximately 2 inches in diameter.
They were most abundant in Excavadon Level 3 (48
fragments) with a significant amount also recovered
from Level 4 (21). Levels 1 and 2 yielded,
respectively, 7 and 18 fragments. James Pritchard
notes that similar objects were recovered in large
numbers from his Features 17 and 22 on Lot 5
(These features are believed to correspond.

158

Table 23. Correlation of excavation levels and stratigraphic layers in Feature 255, Lot M5.

EXCAVATION LEVEL

STRATIGRAPHIC LAYER

Level 1

Layer A and Layer B

Level 2

Layer C

Level 3

Layer E and upper 0.4 ft of Layer D

Level 4

remainder of Layer D

159

respectively, to VDHR Features 270 and 264, which
yielded a number of fragments of burned clay).

A number of hypotheses were initially
proposed for the origin of the clay items, including
that they represent waste from ceramic manufacture,
hearth furniture serving the function of stone cobbles,
or daub (White 1987:13, 19). While the two former
hypotheses carmot be tested convincingly, the latter
alternative is not supponed by available evidence.
Close examination of the clay indicated that only one
specimen (from Level 4) bears the type of stick
impression one might expect if the clay had been
used as daub. Additionally, while several postmolds
were recorded within Feature 255, most were first
visible at the upper surface of or within Excavation
Level 2, with two first visible at the top of Level 3.
No postmolds were found to originate below Layers
D and E, as might be expected if the two deposits,
which contained a concentration of the burned clay,
represented de facto destruction debris from a daubed
structure. It should be noted, though, that only a
small section of the base of the feature was exposed.

The most conservative interpretation of the
burned clay items is that they are of non-cultural
origin. Feamre 255 appears to have originated as a
tree fall. The configuration of the depression is less
regular than one might expect if it were of cultural
origin and represented the remains, for example, of
a semi-subterranean structure. Instead, the deeper
depression in the center of the feature and the nature
of the fill along the edges suggest a disturbance
caused by the falling of a tree, subsequently altered
by slimiping. The bimied clay items recovered from
the fill possibly derive from natural processes
involving lighting associated with the tree fall, or
from later burning of the clayey subsoil caused by
natural or human agents. In either case, the burned
clay fragments were incorporated primarily into the
earliest cultural deposits to fill Feature 255 and do
not appear to be cultural products associated with the
end of this occupation or with later occupations at the
site.

Feature 261 (N375 E295) (Figure 60):

Similar to Feature 255, Feature 261 was an extensive
area of fill incorporating cultural debris which
probably originated as a tree fall. The depression left
from the root ball of the tree was eventually filled
with deposits containing refuse dating from die

prehistoric occupations on Lot 5. This fill was later
intruded by several discrete prehistoric feamres.

The edges of Feature 261 were never
precisely defined in the excavation, since the fill
feathered out and was light in color and mottled with
subsoil near the edges. The feature measured at least
18 ft east-west and 15 ft north-south in plan,
extending beyond the limits of the excavation area on
the north side.

Feature 261 was tested by excavating a
trench 2.5 ft wide and 19 ft long which cut across the
southern edge approximately midway east- west. The
fill was removed in three excavation levels
corresponding to the natural or cultural
stratigraphy observed. Profiles along the walls of
one section of the test trench are shown in Figure 60.
Maps prepared during the excavation suggest the ■
southern edge of the filled depression lay at grid line \
N370, but no information is available on the
configuration of the walls or base of die feature on
this side.

Level 1 of Feature 26 1 was a deposit of dark
grey-brown loam extending 0.29 ft below the surface
of the subsoil. It is probable that Level 1, like the
upper layer of fill in Feature 255, was a plow-
disturbed deposit, although no historic artifacts were
recovered. The prehistoric ceramic collection from
the level includes both Middle and Late Woodland
types, with Middle Woodland sherds predominant.
Several postmolds intrusive into the surface of the
feature were visible once Level 1 had been removed.

Level 2 was a dark yellow-brown loam with
grey mottling in some areas. The deposit was 0.50
ft thick at the north end of the test trench, extending
to 0.85 ft below subsoil. The base of the deposit
sloped downward to the south. At grid line N277
along the test trench, Level 2 was 0.8 ft thick and
extended to a depth of 1.3 ft below subsoil. The
ceramics recovered are a mixed Middle and Late
Woodland assemblage, although 63 % can definitely
be attributed to the Middle Woodland period and only
6% to die Late Woodland. The Middle Woodland
ceramics are predominandy shell-tempered, cord- and
net-marked types with the distinctive bases of flat-
bottomed vessels included. A few sand-tempered
sherds with net- and cord-marked surfaces are also
included.

160

<o ■

• .

9
O

■ o

• • •• ^

• • • . ■ • • N

£ .

+12

+SI

,«>

Oh
O

ts
2

Level 3 of Feature 261 was a zone of
yellow-brown loamy clay, 0.15-0.3 ft thick, which
was transitional between feature fill and sterile
subsoil along the base of the depression. A small
collection of Middle Woodland period ceramics was
recovered at this level.

The fill of Feature 261 appears to be a
relatively intact Middle Woodland deposit with some
intrusion of Late Woodland artifacts . Very little bone
and no shell debris was recovered from the feature.
Level 2 of the deposit yielded 86 fragments of burned
clay similar to the items found in Feature 255.

A number of smaller features were
recognized within the botmdaries of Feature 261.
Feature 260, situated near the southwest edge of the
feature, was identified as a tree hole. The feature
was irregular in plan and profile and extended 0.6 ft
deep. A few prehistoric sherds and a fragment of
brick were recovered from the fill. If the latter
artifact derives from some remnant plowzone
removed from the upper surface of the deposit.
Feature 260 might be interpreted as an upper layer of
fill within the larger tree fall depression. Feature 261 .
Excavation of the test trench through Feature 261
indicated that the fill sloped to the south, generally in
the direction of Featiu-e 260. Additionally, Feature
260 was also intruded by, and, thus, must predate
Featm-e 262, which appears to be a small prehistoric
pit. Feature 262 and other small features intrusive
into Featiu^e 261 are discussed in the section below.

Small Refuse-Filled Pit Features

Feature 252 (Late Woodland) (N328 E327)
(Figure 61): Feature 252 was a shallow prehistoric
pit extending only 0.3 ft below subsoil level.
Irregular in plan, the feature measured 2.7 ft
northeast-southwest and 2.4 ft north west-soudieast.
Ceramics recovered suggest a Late Woodland period
affiliation. All 1 1 ceramic sherds recovered from the
west half of the feature are shell-tempered: 6 net-
marked (4 refitted into 1 fragment), 1 simple
stamped, and 4 unidentified. The fill also contained
a few fragments of oyster shell and one quartz flake.
The east half of the pit was intruded by three
postmolds.

Feature 257 (Late Woodland) (N375 E284)
(Figure 61): Featore 257 was a small pit intrusive

into Feature 261, a large tree hole in the northeast
comer of the excavation area. At the surface of the
subsoil, Featiue 257 was 2.4 ft in diameter. Fill
from the south half was excavated, showing the pit to
have a flat base 0.7 ft below the subsoil level. The
east wall sloped steeply to the base, while the wall on
the west side sloped more gendy.

The upper layer of fill (Level 1) within
Feature 257 was a dark brown loam with densely
packed oyster shell. The lower 0.2 ft of fill (Level
2) consisted of ash and charcoal. The one diagnostic
artifact recovered was a shell-tempered, fabric-
marked sherd diagnostic of the Late Woodland
period.

Feature 258 (Late Woodland) (N376 £298)
(Figure 61): Feature 258 was very similar in shape
to Feature 257, and the two features were situated
approximately 11 ft apart. Feature 258 was a
circular pit, 2.0 ft in diameter, which intruded on
Feature 261. The pit was bowl-shaped, 0.6 ft deep,
with sloping walls and a rounded base. The fill was
a dark brown loam with densely packed shell
consisting primarily of oyster. The artifacts
recovered from the south half of the pit indicate a
Late Woodland period date for die feature. Twenty-
three ceramic sherds were recovered. These are
shell-tempered: 20 simple stamped, 2 fabric-marked,
and 1 unidentified. No other artifacts were found.

Feature 259 (possibly Middle Woodland)
(N365 E292): Feature 259 was identified as an oval
pit in the field notes from Lot 5 excavations, but all
other information on the feature has been lost. The
location of the feature corresponds roughly to the
location of Pritchard's Feature 21, which he suggests
dates from die Middle Woodland period.

Feature 262 (Woodland) (N375 E288)
(Figure 61): Feature 262 was intrusive into the small
tree hole. Feature 260, which may in fact be a fill
deposit in a larger tree fall depression recorded as
Feature 261. Oval in plan, Feature 262 measured
1.5ft north-south by 1 . 3 ft east- west. The south half
was removed, revealing walls sloping to a rounded,
somewhat pointed base. The fill within the pit
consisted of about 25% shell in a matrix of dark
brown loam. A few small fragments of ceramic and
bone as well as one jasper flake were recovered, but
none of these artifacts is diagnostic.

162

FEATURE A
252

FEATURE 257

FEATURE 258

FEATURE
262

FEATURE 266

FEATURE 289

A I .7 B

I t

Firr

A B

L. i

Figure 61. Plans and profiles of features. Lot M5.

163

Feature 264 (probably Middle Woodland)

(N356 E325): Feature 264 was a disturbed deposit
which may correspond to Pritchard's Feature 22. As
mapped by VDHR staff. Feature 264 was roughly
oval in plan: 5 ft north-south by 4 ft east- west. The
southwest quadrant was excavated. The wall of the
pit had been shoveled smooth. Fill was a brown
loam molded with yellow clay yielding three brick
fragments in addidon to prehistoric artifacts. Fill
extended to a maximimi of 1.2 ft below subsoil.
Pritchard's notes suggest his Feature 22 dates from
the Middle Woodland period. Identifiable ceramics
recovered in VDHR excavations are shell-tempered,
net-marked, and similar to the Mockley type. Six
fragments of burned clay similar to those described
for Feature 255 are also included in die collection.

Feature 265 (Late Woodland) (N297

E281): Roughly oval in plan. Feature 265 extended
approximately 4.2 ft northeast-southwest by 3.5 ft
northwest-southeast. The pit had sloping walls and a
rounded bottom, and was 0.9 ft deep. The soudi half
of the feature was excavated. Fill was a very dark
brown sandy loam which contained some shell and an
abundance of bone. Only two ceramic sherds larger
than one inch square were recovered. Both are shell-
tempered: one simple stamped and one net-
impressed. The simple stamped sherd suggests the
feature dates from the Late Woodland period.

Feature 266 (date unknown) (N310 E301)
(Figure 61): Feature 266 was an irregularly shaped,
roughly oval pit measuring 2.2 ft north-south and 1.3
ft east-west at subsoil level. The base of die pit
sloped to the east side to a maximum depth of 0.4 ft.
The pit was filled with a dark brown loam which
yielded no artifacts.

Feature 270 (possibly Middle Woodland)
(N355 E300): Fill of brown loam mottied widi
orange clay and walls shoveled smooth indicated diat
Feature 270 had previously been excavated. At die
surface of subsoil, the deposit was irregidar in plan,
measuring a maximum of roughly 14 ft east- west and
8 ft north-south along the east side. The shape of the
deposit suggests that two pits were originally
represented. The location of Feature 270 correlates
roughly with an area on Pritchard's map where two
overlapping pit features (Pritchard's 16 and 17) are
depicted. Pritchard suggests the features date from
the Middle Woodland period. He notes that Feature

17, situated along the northeast side of Feature 16,
was a large, deep pit which contained litde refuse
other than a number of fragments of burned clay.

Only a small section along the southern edge
of Feature 270 was excavated. A relatively flat
bottom was reached in this section at a depth of 1.6
ft below the surface of subsoil level. There was a pit
in the base on the far east side of the feature which
extended an additional 0.5 ft in depth. The fill
removed from the tested section contained ceramics
dating from the Middle and Late Woodland periods,
animal bone, several lumps of burned clay, a plastic
button, and two fragments of glass, among other
items. A thin layer of brown loam with shell lined
the bottom of the pit.

Feature 274 (possibly Late Woodland)

(N340 E309): Feature 274 had been previously
excavated. At the surface of subsoil level, the
feature extended 7.8 ft east- west and 4.4 ft north-
south and was roughly oval in plan. Excavation of
the southwest quadrant indicated the walls had been
shoveled smooth. Fill of brown loam mottied with
orange clay extended to a maximum depth of 2.3 ft
below subsoil in the center of the feature; however,
the walls were stepped, descending first to a
relatively flat base 1.3 ft below subsoil. This level
may represent the original floor of the pit.

When the location of Feature 274 is
compared to Pritchard's map it corresponds to his
Features 16 and 17. VDHR Feature 270 better fits
Pritchard's description of these features, however.
Fill excavated by the VDHR from Feature 274
contained two fragments of bone and four shell-
tempered sherds: two simple stamped and two
unidentified.

Feature 282 (Late Woodland) (N350

E332): Feature 282 was a small cluster of ceramic
sherds within a matrix of dark brown loam exposed
in Feature 255 after Excavation Level 1, a mixed
plowzone deposit, had been removed. The ceramic
deposit was 1.0 ft in diameter and extended for a
depth of 0.5 ft. All the ceramic sherds recovered
from the feature are shell-tempered: 3 simple
stamped, 27 fabric -marked, 1 cord-marked, and 3
unidentified. Twenty-five of the fabric-marked
sherds were mended into one large fragment. This

164

Late Woodland period deposit also contained two
fragments of btimed clay and three of anim al bone.

Feature 289 (Late Woodland) (N355 E339)
(Figure 61): Feature 289 was also exposed below
Level 1 in Feature 255. The feature was a small
deposit of ashy, brown loam 1.0 ft in diameter and
0.5 ft deep. Ten fragments of animal bone were
recovered. Only one of the four ceramic sherds
recovered, all smaller than one inch square, is
diagnostic. This shell-tempered, simple stamped
ceramic suggests a Late Woodland period date for the
deposit.

Feature 291 (Late Woodland) (N349
E334): Feature 291 was a small deposit 1.0 ft in
diameter and 0.8 ft deep also intrusive into Level 2
of Feature 255. One shell-tempered, simple stamped
sherd was contained in the fill, suggesting the feature
dates from the Late Woodland period.

Feature 309 (Middle Woodland) (N352

E334): Feature 309 was visible within Feamre 255
at the top of Excavation Level 3. The feature
appeared to be approximately 2.2 ft in diameter,
although it extended into the west wall of the test
trench. Any notes on the fill or depth of the deposit
have been lost. Artifacts recovered include one
jasper pebble and several ceramic fragments. Only
one of the latter is diagnostic. This is a shell-
tempered, net-marked sherd diagnostic of the Middle
Woodland period.

Feature 318 (probably Middle Woodland)
(N318 E272): Feature 318 was a disturbed pit and
may correspond to Pritchard's Featiu-e 5, which he
identifies as Middle Woodland. At the surface of
subsoil the feature extended roughly 7 ft northwest-
southeast and 4 ft northeast-southwest. Only a small
section of the southeast end was excavated. Here, a
motded fill of brown loam and clay extended 1.0 ft
below the surface of subsoil level. The walls of the
feature were shoveled smooth. Two shell-tempered,
net-marked sherds and one fragment of animal bone
were recovered in VDHR excavations.

Feature 320 (probably Middle Woodland)

(N346 E271): Feature 320 had also been excavated
previously, and may correspond to Pritchard's
Feature 6, which he suggests dates from the Middle
Woodland period. The deposit was 2.6 ft in diameter

and contained redeposited fill of brown loam and
orange clay to a depth of 2.0 ft below subsoil level.
This fill contained several small fragments of
prehistoric ceramic and 30 fragments of wire nails.
It is possible that undisturbed prehistoric deposits
survived below this level (as noted by the excavator),
but the feature was not excavated further.

Human Burials

Feature 250 (Late Woodland) (N318
E318): At the surface of subsoil Feamre 250
appeared as a roughly oval stain extending 8.0 ft
east-west and 6.0 ft north-south. The feature is
believed to be the remains of a biuial pit excavated
by James Pritchard, his Feature 13. Removal of the
fill during VDHR excavations indicated that the walls
of the pit had been shoveled smooth. In addition to
prehistoric artifacts, the fill contained a fragment of
an iron nail and a cigarette package. Several pieces
(14-I-) of whole and fragmentary human bone were
collected from the surface of the feature at subsoil
level including, among other possible elements,
portions of a left femur, tibia, and fibula; an occipital
fragment; a right and left talus; a fragment of a
calcaneus; and three metatarsals.

Pritchard's notes on the burial indicate the
pit contained the remains of two individuals: one
adult and one child. The adult was placed extended
with its head at the east end. The child lay in an
extended position on the north side of the adult with
its head at the west end. Shell beads were associated
with the adult, while both shell and copper beads
were associated with the child. Pritchard identifies
the burial as dating from the Late Woodland period.
In the fill removed by VDHR staff 12 ceramic sherds
larger than one inch square were recovered. All are
shell-tempered: four simple stamped, one incised-
decorated, one knotted net-marked, and six
imidentified. A triangular projectile point made of
jasper was also included among several other artifacts
recovered.

Feature 251 (Late Woodland) (N363
E318): This feature is believed to be the remains of
a prehistoric burial which, according to Pritchard's
notes, was excavated by Floyd Painter (Pritchard's
Feature 18, Painter's Burial 7). The western half of
the feature was excavated by VDHR staff. The pit
was 4.6 ft wide north-south, with the walls shoveled

165

smooth. Disturbed fill, which yielded such items as
a Mountain Dew bottle, extended to a maximum
depth of 1 .4 ft below subsoil level. At the surface of
subsoil, the pit extended a maximum of 7.6 ft east-
west. The redeposited fill excavated by VDHR staff
yielded 19+ fragments of human bone including
first, second, and third cuneiforms; a left cuboid; 11
phalanges; a vertebra; portions of a sacrum and the
ischium of an innominate; and several ribs.

Pritchard's notes on this burial identify it as
the single interment of an adult dating from the Late
Woodland period. The body was placed in an
extended position with the head at the east end of the
pit. The 73 ceramic sherds larger than one inch
sqtiare recovered in excavation of the distinbed fill by
VDHR staff include 2 which are sand-tempered and
net-marked. The remaining ceramics are shell-
tempered: 28 simple stamped, 2 fabric -marked, 1
incised-decorated, 1 plain-surfaced, 6 net-marked, 2
cord-marked, and 31 tmidentified.

Additional Features Shown on Pritchard's Map

Refuse-Filled Pit Features

At least nine pit features indicated on
Pritchard's map caimot be specifically correlated with
features located dtuing VDHR excavations. Pritchard
depicts a cluster of Middle Woodland pits along the
west side of Lot 5. It was suggested above that
Pritchard's Features 5 and 6 may correspond to
VDHR Features 318 and 320, respectively. A burial
situated on the northeast side of the pit cluster
(Pritchard's Feature 3) may correspond to the
disturbance recorded by the VDHR as Feature 321.
Several shallow disturbances removed by the VDHR
in cleaning die subsoil in the vicinity of grid point
N320 E280 may relate to die other pit features
indicated by Pritchard in diis area (Pritchard's
Feamres 4, 7, 8, and 9).

Pritchard's Features 2 and 11 were situated
along the southern edge of Lot 5. Both pits are
interpreted by Pritchard to date from the Middle
Woodland period. The location of Feature 11, a
large, deep pit which intruded on a multiple burial,
may correspond to a disturbance recorded by the
VDHR as Feature 328.

A Late Woodland pit was recorded by
Pritchard in the southeast comer of Lot 5 as Feature

12. No traces of the feature were uncovered in
VDHR excavations. Neither was any evidence found
for the location of Pritchard's Features 19 and 21,
two Middle Woodland pits situated along the northern
edge of die lot. It is possible, however, that Feature
21 corresponds to the pit recorded by the VDHR as
Feature 259.

Pritchard's Feature 15 is also problematical.
Its position in relation to the area excavated by
Painter (Pritchard's Feamre 14, VDHR Feature 324)
suggests that it may correspond to VDHR Feamre
270. Feature 270 fits more closely the characteristics
noted by Pritchard for his Features 16 and 17,
however. The shape of Feature 270 suggested two
pits, and the VDHR recovered a number of burned
clay fragments from the fill. Pritchard noted diat
Feature 17 had yielded a larger number of these
items.

Human Burials

The notes James Pritchard provided the
VDHR also indicate that at least four burial features
not relocated during VDHR investigations were
excavated by Pritchard or Floyd Painter on Lot 5.
All were primary interments. Pritchard's Feature 1
was an interment of a single individual placed in an
extended position with the head at the east end of die
pit. Pritchard suggests the burial dates from the
Middle Woodland period. The feature was situated
in the southwest comer of Lot 5. Its location may be
represented by a disturbance noted by VDHR staff
along the edge of dieir excavation area at grid point
N290 E270 (Feature 323). Pritchard's Feature 1 is
very likely the feature disturbed by the excavation of
a power line along the edge of Lot 5 in May 1982.
The collection made by Pritchard at this time and
donated to the VDHR contains several fragments of
human bone as well as shell-tempered, cord- and net-
marked ceramics with recognizable sections of flat-
bottomed vessels included.

Pritchard's Feature 10 is a multiple,
seemingly primary, interment of three individuals
placed side by side, each in extended position. The
individual along the north side of the pit was oriented
with the head at the east, while the two other
individuals were placed with the heads at the west
end. The pit was located roughly midway along die
southern border of the lot. No cultural affiliation is
mentioned in Pritchard's notes, although the burial

166

was intruded by a large pit feature on the east side
(Pritchard's Feature 11). No definite traces of either
feature were detected within the limits of the
excavation area opened by the VDHR, although a
disturbance (Feature 328) was noted along the edge
of the excavation limits at grid point N287 E317.

An interment of a single individual,
Pritchard's Feature lA, lay roughly one third of the
way north along the eastern edge of Lot 5. The body
was extended with the head at the east end. Neither
cultural affiliation nor the age of the individual
interred are indicated in notes provided by Pritchard,
and no deposits which may relate to this burial were
recognized by VDHR staff within the limits of their
excavation area.

Pritchard's Feamre 3 is the only bmial
excavated on Lot 5 in which the individual, placed in
extended position, was oriented north-south. The
head was at the north end of the pit. Pritchard
suggests the feature dates from the Middle Woodland
period. The feature was located on the west side of
Lot 5, about midway between the bank above Broad
Bay and Thomas Bishop Lane. A niunber of Middle
Woodland period refuse-filled pit features excavated
by Pritchard were situated directly west of the burial.
Although none of these features can be positively
correlated to deposits recorded by the VDHR, the
location of Pritchard's features may correspond to the
vicinity of N320 E280 where a number of recent
disturbances were noted. Feature 321 , an area of fill
noted by the VDHR at grid point N334 E289, may
possibly be the remains of Pritchard's Feature 3.
This was a rectangular-shaped deposit measuring 6.4
ft northeast-soutiiwest by approximately 4 ft
northwest-southeast. Excavators noted that Feature
321 was intruded by plowscars, however, and Lot 5
has not been plowed in recent years.

Structures

It is difficult, if not unpossible, to make
sense of the many small postmold-Iike soil stains
which were visible at the surface of the subsoil once
the plowzone was removed from across Lot 5 during
VDHR investigations. As discussed earlier, many of
the small features likely are scars fi'om shovel test
holes filled with plowzone, but time was not available
to carefully examine these across the entire lot.

The small features intrusive into the subsoil
were examined most thoroughly in the southeast
comer of Lot 5, with the result diat most shovel test
holes in this area could be eliminated from the site
plan. The remains of two structures are possibly
indicated in diis area by the arrangement of what
appear to be prehistoric postmolds, but which were
not excavated.

Structure H is tentatively reconstructed based
on a line of eight postmolds extending from N293
E270 to N306 E268. These postmolds are spaced
roughly 2 ft apart, a measurement within the range of
distances between posts comprising Structure A on
Lot GHF16 and Strucnire D on Lot Mil, both of
which date from the Late Woodland period. The
north and south ends of Structure H are recognizable
only if one anticipates an arcuate arrangement of
posts. These two lines define a structure 32 ft long -
- similar in size to Structures C and D. No clear
pattern of postmolds indicates the position of the east
wall of Structure H, but a structure approximately 16
ft wide, the width of Strucmre D on Lot 11, is
suggested.

Evidence for a second structme on Lot 5 is
even more tenuous. Structure 1 is defined by a line
of posts extending ft-om N285 E296 to N309 E294.
The line appears to curve at the north end, so the
west wall of a structure is possibly indicated by the
series. The line of posts which likely defines the east
wall of the structme is largely conjectural. The
width between the two side walls indicated is 18 ft.

Collections

Ceramic Artifacts

In VDHR excavations on Lot 5 only a few
features were encountered which did not contain
redeposited fill from earlier excavations. The
majority of undisturbed features produced only small
ceramic collections which, for the most part, are
iminformative except for allowing us to roughly date
the features. Four features-255, 258, 261 , and 282-
contained significant quantities of ceramics, however.
Analysis of the ceramics from these features was
conducted to imderstand ceramic variation across time
and space. The Middle Woodland ceramics in
particular were considered a potentially important
sample which, through comparison to ceramics
recovered from Lot M3, could possibly help define

167

the role the Great Neck site played within prehistoric
settlement systems.

Using attributes of paste and smface
treatment, five ceramic series dating from the Middle
and Late Woodland period were identified in the
analyzed collection (Tables 24 and 25). The
collections firom Features 255 and 261 are dominated
by Middle Woodland sherds, although the upper level
of Feature 255 contained significant amounts of Late
Woodland ceramics. The predominant ceramics in
Feature 258 and 282 are diagnostic of die Late
Woodland period.

The Late Woodland ceramics recovered fi^om
Lot 5 are exclusively shell-tempered and are
equivalent to the type Roanoke Simple Stamped and
types within the Townsend series. The latter are
characterized by surfaces marked with a fine weft-
twined fabric. The Roanoke and Townsend ceramics
from Feature 255 are derived primarily from Level 1
of the feamre, a mixed deposit dismrbed by plowing
which contained both Late and Middle Woodland
ceramics in significant nimibers. It is not known if
the Late Woodland assemblage was from a discrete
fill deposit in the feature. It is likely that the deposit
actually represents a portion of a sheet midden which
would have been removed outside the boundaries of
Feature 255 when the site was stripped to subsoil
level. Simple stamped and fabric -marked sherds are
approximately equally represented by nimiber within
the assemblage from Feature 255 (Table 25).

In contrast, Features 258 and 282 are
dominated by one or the other of the Late Woodland
ceramic types. Featine 258 was a relatively small pit
containing densely packed oyster shell. Twenty of
the 23 sherds recovered from the pit are shell-
tempered, simple stamped. The remaining two
identifiable sherds are shell-tempered, fabric-marked.
At least 12 of the 20 Roanoke sherds appear to derive
from the same vessel. Feamre 282 was a very small
pit intruding into the intact Middle Woodland period
deposits in Feature 255. At least 25, and perhaps the
total 27, shell-tempered, fabric-marked sherds
recovered derive from a single vessel. Seven other
sherds were recovered, all shell-tempered: diree
simple stamped, one cord-marked, and three
unidentifiable.

In general, both the Roanoke and Townsend
ceramics from Lot 5 are characterized by a very

compact, hard, silty paste containing a high
proportion of crushed ribbed mussel shell (Figure
62). Surface color varies widely from grey -black to
light orange. Interior surfaces are commonly scored.
Relatively large vessels which may constrict slightly
near the moudi of the pot and then rise to a straight
or slighdy everted lip are indicated. Two of seven
total rim sherds in collections from the three features
curve inward slighdy. No bases were recovered.

Incised decoration occurs on both Townsend
and Roanoke ceramics. No decoration was observed
in the collections from Features 258 and 282, but
seven Townsend sherds (11.7%) and 3 (5.9%)
Roanoke sherds from Feamre 255 are decorated with
incising (Codes following descriptions of the designs
refer to Griffidi's [1982:55-57, Figure 8] typology of
Townsend decoration). On one fabric-marked sherd
only a band of parallel incised lines is visible. Three
sherds of each ceramic type bear designs composed
of angled lines presumably fonning triangles or
chevrons which, in at least two cases, terminate at a
band of incised lines (similar to R14). On one of the
fabric -marked sherds, angled lines overlie a band of
several parallel lines (R18). Two other fabric-
marked sherds are decorated with incised lines which
are oriented perpendicular to the rim and which do
not terminate in intersection with other lines (R16).

Townsend sherds collected from above
Feature 255 during bulldozing of Lot 5 indicate that
the range of decorative motifs appearing in die
excavated collection does not represent the full
inventory. One decorated sherd recovered during test
trenching has a row of punctations below a band of
incised lines (R12). Anodier sherd has hanging
triangles incised over a band of incised lines oriented
parallel to the rim (R18). In addition to die
decorated sherds, the excavated collection from
Feature 255 includes two rim sherds which are
marked with the edge of a wrapped paddle on the
interior of the rim.

Mean sherd thickness for Roanoke and
Tovrasend ceramics recovered from die three feamres
is listed in Table 26. Within Feature 255, mean
thickness of simple stamped and fabric-marked sherds
does not differ significandy (f = 0. 1720; d.f. = 101 ;
p = .8638). While the difference between diickness
of fabric-marked sherds in Feature 255 and 282 is
statistically significant {t = 3.2950; d.f. = 79; j? =

168

Table 24. Ceramics from Features 258, 261, and 282, Lot M5.

CERAMIC TYPE

FEATURE

258

261

282

SHELL-TEMPERED

SIMPLE STAMPED

FINE FABRIC

NET

CORD

OPEN-WEAVE FABRIC

UNIDENTIFIED

FINE SAND-TEMPERED

NET

CORD

TOTAL

214

169

Table 25. Ceramics from Feature 255, Lot M5.

CERAMIC
TYPE

EXCAVATION LEVEL

2 3

TOTAL

SHELL-TEMPERED

SIMPLE
STAMPED

6.6

FINE FABRIC

7.8

NET

192

25.0

CORD

101

13.2

OPEN-WEAVE
FABRIC

0.3

UNIDENTIFIED

158

298

38.9

FINE SAND-
TEMPERED

NET

5.2

CORD

1.4

UNIDENTIFIED

0.8

MEDIUM & COARSE
SAND-TEMPERED

NET

0.8

TOTAL

335

132

235

767

100.0

170

Si
§

1
1

3
(I,

Table 26. Sherd thickness of ceramics from Lot M5.

CERAMIC TYPE

MEAN (CM)

STANDARD DEVIATION

SHELL-TEMPERED, SIMPLE

STAMPED

FEATURE 255

0.78

0.1095

FEATURE 258

0.78

0.088

TOTAL

0.78

0.0982

SHELL-TEMPERED, FABRIC

FEATURE 255

0.78

0.1274

FEATURE 282

0.87

0.0624

TOTAL

0.91

0.1191

SHELL-TEMPERED, NET

FEATURE 255

188

0.75

0.1385

SHELL-TEMPERED. CORD

FEATURE 255

101

0.75

0.1412

FINE SAND-TEMPERED, NET &

CORD

FEATURE 255

0.81

0.1057

172

.002), the result may be biased by the fact that a
portion of only one vessel is represented in the
collection from Feature 282. When mean thickness
of Roanoke and Townsend sherds from all three
features is compared, the difference between the two
ceramics is not statistically significant (r = 1.4078;
d.f. = 144; /> = .1613). The thickness of Roanoke
rim sherds, measured 2 cm below the lip, ranges
from 0.5-0.8 cm, while Townsend rims range 0.5-0.7
cm in thickness.

The ceramic assemblage from Lot 5 provides
only equivocal evidence for determining the
chronological and perhaps cultural relationship
between Townsend and Roanoke wares. The
condition of the ceramics recovered from Features
258 and 282 suggests that, although production of the
wares overlapped, Roanoke ware was a later
development. The three Roanoke sherds ft'om
Feature 282 are in good condition and could have
been deposited simultaneously with the Townsend
ceramics which dominate the feature. The two
Townsend sherds from Feamre 258 are in poor
condition, which may suggest they were redeposited
into the Roanoke-dominated fill sometime after initial
discard. In the assemblage from Feature 255,
however, the Roanoke sherds are generally smaller
than the Townsend ceramics, although the two wares
appear about equally weathered. A number of
plausible explanations could account for the condition
of the sherds, and it caimot reliably be determined if
the ceramics in this deposit were used
contemporaneously .

The Middle Woodland ceramic assemblage
recovered from Feature 255 is similar in many
respects to the assemblage from Lot M3. The vast
majority of Middle Woodland sherds are shell-
tempered, and, except for the presence of flat-
bottomed vessels again, are roughly comparable to
types within the Mockley series (Figure 63). The
following description of Middle Woodland ceramics
from Lot 5 is based on close examination of the
collection from Feature 255. More cursory
inspection of the ceramics from Feature 261
suggested that the two assemblages are quite similar.
Given limited time for analysis, the larger of the two
collections was chosen for study. Since the ceramics
recovered from the various layers of Feature 255 did
not appear to differ significantly, they are treated as
a single sample in the description below.

Among the shell-tempered Middle Woodland
ceramics from Feature 255, the paste varies widely in
a maimer similar to that described for the ceramics
from Lot 3. Some sherds contain a high proportion
of sand to shell. Considering only Middle Woodland
shell-tempered ceramics with identifiable siu-face
treatment, 65% of sherds are knotted net-marked, and
34 % are cord-marked. Only two sherds are marked
with an open- weave fabric. No looped net

impressions were identified in the collection.

In contrast to the assemblage from Lot 3,
few significant differences were observed between
cord and net-marked, shell-tempered ceramics. Mean
sherd thickness associated with the surface treatments
are ahnost equal (t = 0.0992; d.f. = 287; p =
.9210) (Table 26). Mean thickness of rim sherds did
tend to be less for net-marked ceramics, however
(Net 0.63 cm. Cord 0.71 cm; t = 2.04428; d.f. =
33; p = .04897).

Basal sherds within the assemblage provide
no evidence for other than vessels of flat-bottomed
form. Counting only those sherds showing die
juncture of the vessel base with the wall, the
collection contains 18 shell-tempered sherds from
flat-bottomed bases. After mending, this number
represents a maximvmi of 15 vessels: 6 net-marked,
1 cord-marked, and 8 unidentified. Two of the bases
are nearly complete (Figure 64) and provide reliable
measurements of vessel size at the base. One net-
marked base measiu-es 9.7 cm in diameter. The
vessel wall is 1 .0 cm thick 3 cm above the base. The
other vessel (imidentified surface) is 9.3 cm in
diameter at the base and 0.5 cm thick at a similar
height. The basal diameters indicated by sherds of
other vessels are 8.8 cm, 10.1 cm, and 12.4 cm.

The walls of Middle Woodland, shell-
tempered vessels frequendy curve inward at the rim
(78% of net-marked rims, 67% of cord-marked
rims). On a few sherds the curve is quite
pronounced. Except for two cord-marked rims which
have a slightly everted lip, the remainder of die rims
display a straight profile (22% net, 17% cord). The
lips of vessels are most commonly smoothed (83 %
net, 92 % cord) as opposed to marked with a cord
or net- wrapped paddle. Often smoothing extends
for a few centimeters below the lip. Rims are also
often markedly dunned in this area. As noted below,
one rim sherd in the collection may represent a

173

u
u

;>^

■^ ■ ,^'

3 .N^

Figure 64. Shell-tempered, flat-bottomed basal sherds. Lot M5.

175

portion of a pouring lip. A definite pouring spout
from a shell-tempered, net-marked vessel was
identified in the collection from disturbed fill in
Feature 270, and another may be represented by a
rim sherd recovered from Feature 261.

sherds which are probably from the same vessel.
The sherds are marked with a knotted net and are 1 .0
cm thick. The paste contains a very high proportion
of sand with numerous particles ranging from 1.0-1.5
mm in size.

Only one of the 35 cord- or net-marked rim
sherds in the collection from Feature 255 is
decorated. The cord-marked rim is notched on the
interior of the lip. Four other occurrences of
decoration were observed among other shell-tempered
sherds in the collection which are presimied to date
from the Middle Woodland. Two rims with
imidentified exterior surface treatment, one of which
may be a pouring spout, bear a series of small
punctations along die top of the lip. A third rim
sherd bears faint traces of shallow incisions against a
smoothed surface. The lip of this vessel is unique
within the collection as a thin edge is rolled over
sharply toward the interior of the vessel. The final
example of decoration in the collection occurs on a
body sherd from what appears to be a small vessel.
The sherd is covered with lines of small shallow
pimctations oriented perpendicular to coil breaks.

Although the Middle Woodland assemblage
from Lot 5 is dominated by shell-tempered ceramics,
sherds with only lithic inclusions in the paste
comprise 8% of the collection from all levels of
Feature 255 (Figure 65). The majority of these
ceramics are similar to the fine sand-tempered ware
described for Lot GHF16. The paste is compact and
hard, and the size of sand inclusions rarely exceeds
1.0 mm in diameter. The ceramics are marked with
knotted net and cord impressions.

Seven of the nine sand-tempered rims have
straight profiles and two curve inward. The rim
diameter of one cord-marked vessel was estimated at
10.7 cm. Another net-marked rim appears to derive
from a much larger vessel. Mean thickness of rim
and body sherds is 0.81 cm (Table 26). Although
this value is larger than the one derived for Middle
Woodland shell-tempered ceramics in the collection,
comparison between the two may not be valid since
at least 26 sherds of the fine sand-tempered ware
very likely derive from one vessel. The one basal
sherd in the collection is of conical form.

Ceramics similar to the medium sand-
tempered ware described for Lot GHF16 are
represented in the collection from Feature 255 by two

The final variety of sand-tempered ware
identified in the collection is represented by four
refitted, knotted net-marked sherds. The paste has a
moderate proportion of sand particles 0.5-1.0 mm
and 2.0-3.5 mm in size. Maximiun thickness of the
sherds is 1 . 1 cm. These sherds somewhat resemble
ceramics commonly found along the James River
drainage in the Itmer Coastal Plain which have been •
called Prince George by researchers (Egloff and
Potter 1982:103).

Lithic Artifacts

The intact features excavated on Lot 5
yielded a very small collection of lithic artifacts. Of
the 11 intact featares or tree holes filled widi
prehistoric debris, only 5 features yielded any stone
artifacts. Features 251 and 262 produced only one
flake each. Only a fractured sandstone cobble was
found in Feature 265.

The two filled tree holes on Lot 5 yielded
larger lithic collections. The entire collection from
Levels 1-4 of Feature 255 contains 21 flakes (11
jasper, 7 quartzite, and 3 quartz); 2 jasper pebble
cores; a modified jasper flake which is likely a
fragment from the working edge of an end scraper;
a fragment of a modified quartzite flake; a section of
a thin, naturally split sandstone cobble which has
been edged in a few places as if tested for tool
manufacture; 3 unmodified fragments of slate; a
quartzite biface in an early stage of manufacture; the
tip of a jasper projectile point; and 8 fragments of
fire-cracked rock, one of which is a cobble fragment
tested for flake or biface production. Feature 216
yielded five flakes, two jasper pebble cores, a
modified jasper flake, and a fragment of fire-cracked
rock, previously tested.

The nearly complete projectile points
recovered in VDHR excavations derive from
dismrbed contexts (Figure 66, Table 27). The
collection includes three triangular points and one
narrow, stemmed point. Another artifact of note
recovered from a disturbed context is a fragment of
a possible gorget. This thin piece (0.4 cm) of ground

176

JPBHS-

l- Y?'''

3 ;N.
S CM

Figure 65. Sand-tempered ceramics. Lot M5.

177

,5 IN

2 CM

Figure 66. Projectile points and gorget, Lot M5.

178

Table 27. Projectile points from Lot M5.

FORM

PROVENIENCE

MATERL\L

BASAL

SHOULDER

LENGTH

MAXIMUM

WIDTH (CM)

(CM)

THICKNESS

(CM)

TRIANGULAR

SURFACE

QUARTZ

N.M.

3.7

0.7

TRIANGULAR

FEATURE 250

JASPER

2.0

2.2

0.6

TRIANGULAR

FEATURE 270

QUAKTZIIE

2.5

0.5

NARROW.

SURFACE

CHERT

0.5

N.M.

1.0

STEMMED

179

sandstone is marked with notches along a portion of
one surviving edge (Figure 66).

Ceramic Smoking Pipes

Feature 255 was the only intact deposit on
Lot 5 to yield fragments of clay smoking pipes
(Figtire 67). Five of the total of 15 fragments derive
from Level 1, a mixed Middle and Late Woodland
deposit. Included in this group are fragments of two
pipe stems, one of which (255-1-31) is similar to the
stem of the tubular pipe associated with the Late
Woodland interment in Feature 25A on Lot GHF16.
The bit end of the untempered pipe is 1.0 cm in
diameter. The stem contracts slightly from the bit
end and then expands again, although for a maximum
of only 1.1 mm in diameter on the portion
represented. The surface of the pipe has been
smoothed and perhaps burnished by a process leaving
facets running parallel to the long axis.

One pipe bowl (255-1-33) in the collection
from Level 1 is decorated similarly to several pipes
from the Middle Woodland features on Lot M3 . The
pipe bears five rows of small punctations in a band
directly below the rim, and the top surface of the lip
also bears a row of punctations. Again, the
punctations appear cormected by an incised line. The
pipe is made from a fine sandy paste.

Another decorated fragment in the collection
is tentatively identified as a pipe bowl, although it
could be from a small vessel. There are coil breaks
at both ends of the sherd. Along one edge of the
fragment can be seen two faint, closely spaced lines,
probably incised, which run parallel to the coil
breaks. The artifact is shell-tempered. The final
fragment from Level 1 possibly derives from a
platform pipe with a fine sandy paste.

Four stem and six pipe bowl fragments were
recovered from the lower levels of Feature 255.
Each of the stem fragments derives from a tubular
pipe. Three recovered from Level 2 are made from
a sandy paste and expand gently from the bit end.
The fourth stem, from Level 3, is shell-tempered and
expands abruptly from the bit end. The bowl
fragments from this portion of the collection all have
plain surfaces and silty pastes. No form of
decoration was identified on any of these specimens.

Bone and Shell Tools and Ornaments

No bone or shell artifacts modified for use
as tools or ornaments were identified in the VDHR
collection from Lot 5.

Ethnobotanical Remains

Charred plant food remains from two
flotation samples from Feature 255, dating from the
Middle Woodland, and five flotation samples
representing four Late Woodland features— 252, 257,
258,and 265-were analyzed (Gardner 1990a). Only
0.06 grams of plant food remains were recovered
from the 4.5 liters of fill processed from Feature
255. Included were hickory nutshell (Carya sp.)
(0.05 g), acorn shell {Quercus sp.) (trace amount),
and maize (Zea mays) (0.01 g, cupule). The flotation
sample containing the maize derives from Excavation
Level 3 of Feature 255. While the ceramic artifacts
recovered from this Middle Woodland deposit
provide no evidence of contamination, the site is
multicomponent, and the possibility that the maize
entered the deposit through the intrusion of Late
Woodland postmolds carmot be eliminated.

The 9. 1 liters of fill processed from the Late
Woodland features on Lot 5 yielded 1.4 grams of
plant food remains. Included in the samples were
maize (0.12 g, cupule and kernel), hickory nutshell
(1.28 g), acorn (trace amount), huckleberry
{Gaylussacia sp.) (1 seed), grape {Vitis sp.) (1 seed),
blueberry (Vaccinium sp.) (1 seed), and 1
imidentified seed. Seeds of two commensuals,
bedstraw (Galium sp.) (1 seed) and pigweed
{Amaranthus sp.) (2 seeds) were also recovered.

Summary

Based on evidence both from Pritchard's and
the VDHR's excavations, Lot 5 was the site of
intensive occupation during the Middle and Late
Woodland periods. In addition to a few scattered
Middle Woodland features identified by Pritchard and
the VDHR, Pritchard's map of the property shows at
least two clusters of Middle Woodland pits: one
prestmiably centered roughly on VDHR grid point
N360 E300 and one located in the vicinity of grid
point N330 E270. The former cluster, Pritchard
notes, was comprised of a six very large and deep
pits (his Features 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 22)

180

u
U

containing very little refuse. In VDHR excavations,
a considerable amount of Middle Woodland ceramics
was foimd deposited in a large tree hole (Feature
255) situated just east of the feature cluster. Two of
the six pits in the cluster overlap, but it is not known
which features intrudes on the other.

Litde information is available on the size and
depth of the pits in the second cluster of features
(Pritchard's Features 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9), although
Pritchard indicates the group included a burial
(Pritchard's Feature 3). The features in this cluster
are depicted on Pritchard's map as grouped more
closely together than the cluster to the northeast, but
none of the features intrudes on another. It is not
known if any of the postmolds on Lot 5 are
associated widi die Middle Woodland occupation.

The pattern of Middle Woodland settlement
on Lot 5 is similar to diat encoimtered in VDHR
excavations on Lot M3 in Excavation Area 106,
where another cluster of pit features was found. On
bodi properties, the large size and great depth of
some pits suggest thiey served a storage function and
imply occupation extending over the course of more
than one season is represented. The close spatial
arrangement of numerous pits in each cluster may
indicate that each of the three settiement groups
involved more than one family. The lack of overlap
among features suggests that primarily only one
occupation is represented by each cluster of features.

There is insufficient data available on
mortoary features excavated on Lot 5 by either
Pritchard or die VDHR to discuss their significance
in relation to sociopolitical structure. The remaining
Late Woodland features identified by the VDHR were
grouped in two clusters. Three relatively small pits
(Feature 257, 258, and, presimiably, 262) were
located in the vicinity of grid point N375 E290.
These pits were roughly circular, measuring 1.4-2.4
ft in diameter and 0.6-0.7 ft in depth. Each was
filled with shellfish debris. Three additional small
pits lay in the vicinity of grid point N350 E335.
Feature 182 was a cluster of ceramic fragments.
Features 289 and 291 were 1 ft in diameter and 0.5-
0.8 ft deep. The former contained a deposit
comprised of ash and bone. A number of Late
Woodland ceramics were also recovered from the
plow-disturbed upper layer of a filled tree hole
(Feature 255) in this area.

One difference between Lots 3 and 5 is the
almost complete absence of shellfish and bone
associated with Middle Woodland deposits excavated
by VDHR on Lot 5. The features on Lot 3, in
contrast, yielded an abundance of both materials.
While bone might not be expected to have survived
in the absence of shellfish, which reduce soil acidity,
the lack of Middle Woodland shellfish deposits on
Lot 5 must be a reflection of differences in site
function, seasonality, or disposal patterns.

Information about the type of Late Woodland
occupation represented on Lot 5 is sketchy. Two
structural patterns of presumably domestic longhouses
were identified on Lot 5, but data for dating the
structures, other than their size and shape, is not
available. The numerous postmolds encountered
across Lot 5 suggest it is likely other structures once
existed on the property.

182

CHAPTER 9

CERAMIC ANALYSIS

Ceramic sherds are the most ubiquitous
artifact recovered in VDHR excavations at Great
Neck and have the potential to provide a variety of
information about the Native American peoples who
inhabited the site during the prehistoric period.
Significant portions of Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 have
already been devoted to describing the physical
attributes of the ceramics recovered from each lot
investigated by the VDHR. A simple classification
system using two attributes— paste and surface
treatment-was employed to link the artifacts to
current regional ceramic typologies which enabled
dating the prehistoric components at Great Neck
within broad temporal frameworks. Spatial and
contextual associations were also examined on each
lot for the information diey might provide on the
temporal or cultural relationships among the
populations who used these wares. Each of these
aspects of the ceramic collections are reconsidered
below with emphasis placed on synthesizing
information gained from each of the four lots.
Ceramic variability within a larger regional context is
also examined in relation to questions of cultural
affiliation and interaction among Native American
populations who inhabited the Middle Adantic area.

Middle Woodland Ceramics

Comparison of the ceramics recovered at
Great Neck to existing regional typologies (e.g.
Egloff and Potter 1982; Phelps 1983) indicates diat
the primary archaeological components at Great Neck
date from die Middle and Late Woodland periods.
The paste of Middle Woodland ceramics contains
shell or sand inclusions, or both, and sherds are
predominandy cord- or net-marked. Under the
classification system used in die analysis conducted
for this report, ceramics containing only shell
inclusions in the paste as well as those containing
both a mixture of shell and sand are referred to as
"shell-tempered." The term "sand-tempered" is used
to refer to ceramics containing no shell in the paste.
The size and proportion of sand inclusions in both of
these wares varies widely.

The shell-tempered Middle Woodland
ceramics at Great Neck are roughly comparable to

types within the Mockley series (Egloff and Potter
1982:103-104; Stephenson and Ferguson 1963:105-
109). In general, the paste of the ceramics is
tempered with moderate amotmts of crushed shell,
most frequendy shell from the ribbed mussel. The
paste often contains a significant proportion of sand
inclusions as well. The vast majority of sherds are
marked with impressions of cordage or knotted nets.
Some sherds are marked with looped nets.
Impressions of open- weave, weft-twined fabrics also
occur, but are rare. Smoothing of the rim surface
below the lip is common. Decoration, when it
occurs, is usually confined to the lips of vessels,
which may be notched or scalloped. Other forms of
decoration are rare. Occasionally, the top of the lip
is marked with small punctations. One rim sherd in
the collection is decorated with shallow incising on a
plain surface. Another sherd is completely covered
on the exterior surface with small punctations.

Our understanding of the form of Middle
Woodland, shell-tempered vessels represented in the
collections from Great Neck is not complete, but the
most common basal form is flat-bottomed. The bases
on flat-bottomed vessels are oval or circular in plan
and range ca. 6-12 cm in diameter. Vessel walls
expand outward as diey rise from the base. This
vessel form is hereinafter referred to as a "flat-
bottomed, beaker vessel" following the terminology
used by Painter (1977). A few conical and rounded
bases are also present in the collection.

Rim profiles are most commonly straight or
incurved. While some rims curve inward quite
markedly, it is unknown whether bowls as well as
taller jar forms are represented. Rim sherds which
could be measured indicated vessel diameter ranges
from 21 to 32 cm. A few rim sherds in die
collections are configured in such a manner as to
indicate they formed an open spout, or pouring lip.

Two of the ceramic collections described
earlier in this report— samples from Lots M3 and M5-
-were sufficientiy large to make statistically valid
comparisons between some physical attributes (Table
28). Cursory examination of the collections from
each lot shows them to be very similar. Both contain
a high proportion of flat-bottomed, beaker vessels,
and pouring rims are present in each. Several of the
same decorative motifs also occur on the ceramic
vessels, as well as the smoking pipes, in each
collection.

183

Table 28. Comparison of Middle Woodland, shell-tempered ceramics from Lots M3 and M5.

ATIRIBUTE

LOT 3

LOTS

SIGNIFICANCE

SHERD THICKNESS (BODY &

RIM SHERDS)

642

289

t = 7. 57367

MEAN (CM)

0.83

0.75

d.f. = 929

STANDARD DEVIATION

0.15895

0.13944

p = 2.3924E-9

DECORATION (RIM SHERDS)

Chi-square= 8.28876

DECORATED

d.f. = l

NOT DECORATED

p = 3. 98913 E-3

RIM PROFILE (RIM SHERDS)

Chi-square=3. 30612

STRAIGHT/EVERTED LIP

d.f.=2

INCURVED

p = 0.191463

BASAL FORM (BASAL SHERDS)

FLAT-BOTTOMED

N.A.

ROUND

CONICAL

184

Mean sherd thickness and the proportion of
decorated rim sherds differ significantly between the
two samples, however. Further, there is some
difference in the frequency of certain rim forms
associated with each sample, and only one sample
contained vessels with conical and rounded bases as
well as flat-bottomed forms. While the similarities
between the collections indicate a shared cultural
tradition, it is imclear whether the differences
between the assemblages are the product of change
dirough time or represent variation among
contemporaneous sub-units of a single population.

Sand-tempered, Middle Woodland ceramics
in the collections from Great Neck were classified
into three generic types. So-called "fine sand-
tempered" wares are the most common variety.
These ceramics are characterized by a hard, compact
paste containing a low to moderate proportion of very
fine sand particles rarely larger than 1.0 mm in
diameter. Cord- and net-marked exterior surfaces are
most common, but a few vessels are marked with
open- weave twined or coarse, closed- weave twined
fabrics. No occurrences of decoration were identified
in the collections. The few bases recovered are
conical. Measurable rim sherds indicate vessel
diameter ranges 11-16 cm at the mouth, but larger
vessels are also probably represented.

Only small samples of ceramics classified as
"mediimi sand-tempered" or "coarse sand-tempered"
were recovered at Great Neck. The group of
mediimi sand-tempered sherds is rather diverse, but
is generally characterized by a paste containing a high
proportion of sand particles ranging 1.5-2.5 cm in
diameter. Exterior siufaces of sherds are marked
with cords, nets, and open-weave, twined textiles.
No good evidence on vessel form is available.

Only four sherds in the collection were
classified as "coarse sand-tempered," and these all
derive from the wall of the same vessel. The paste
of this ware contains a moderate proportion of sand
particles ranging 0.5-1.0 mm and 2.0-3.5 mm in
diameter. The exterior surface of the vessel is
marked with a knotted net.

Overall, shell-tempered wares are the
predominant ceramic associated with Middle
Woodland components at Great Neck, although the
ratio of shell-tempered to sand-tempered wares is
known to vary between areas of the site defined by

current subdivision lots. In excavations by the
VDHR, shell-tempered wares were found to be the
predominant ceramic associated with the cluster of
Middle Woodland pit features in Unit 106 on Lot
M3. They also were found to predominate in Middle
Woodland levels of the two large tree fall depressions
(Features 255 and 261) on Lot M5. Pritchard's
excavations indicated this property held two clusters
of Middle Woodland pit features. Shell-tempered
ceramics also constitute a significant proportion of the
assemblage of Middle Woodland ceramics recovered
by the VDHR on Lot GHF16, although they are
outniunbered slightly by sand-tempered sherds in
collections recovered from above the subsoil level in
initial test squares. No Middle Woodland pit features
were encountered within the areas opened during
excavations on this lot, and little difference was
found in the spatial distribution of shell- and sand-
tempered wares across the property.

Shell-tempered wares also appear to be the
dominant Middle Woodland ceramic associated with
Lot Ml and the west edge of Lot M2, an area in
which Painter encountered a dense array of Middle
Woodland pit features in his excavations. In Green's
collections from this area, 97 % of Middle Woodland
ceramics are shell-tempered (Green 1987: Table 11).
At the Addington site where numerous Middle
Woodland pit features were encountered, 67% of
vessels identified in JMUARC's study sample were
classified as Mockley ceramics (Geier, Smith,
Andrews, and Buchanan 1986:441-442, Table VC:1).
The results of JMUARC's analysis are not direcdy
comparable to the present analysis, however, since
different classification systems were used. At least
78 % of Addington vessels would likely be classified
as Mockley imder the system used in analysis for this
repon, since 8 of 25 vessels classified by JMUARC
as Moimt Pleasant ceramics (a Middle Woodland
sand-tempered type [Phelps 1983:32-33]) were
described as containing both sand and shell inclusions
in the paste (Geier, Smith, Andrews, and Buchanan
1986:443, Table VC:2).

Middle Woodland sand-tempered ceramics
have been recovered in at least small numbers from
all lots investigated at the Great Neck site, but have
been foimd in significant quantities in only a few
areas. As noted above, sand-tempered sherds were
found to slighdy predominate over shell-tempered
ceramics in collections recovered by die VDHR on
Lot GHF16, aldiough little difference was foimd in

185

the spatial distribution of the two ceraniics. In only
one feature on Lot M3 were sand-tempered sherds
(all from one vessel) predominant. Feature density in
the vicinity of this find (Excavation Area 108) was
low in comparison to Excavation Unit 106. In the
collection from the small area investigated by Green
on Lot M7, 93% of Middle Woodland ceramics are
sand-tempered (Green 1987: Table 11). The few
small pit features encountered in Green's excavations
appear to be associated with the Late Woodland
period. The Middle Woodland collection from the
Addington site is also apparendy comprised of a
significant proportion of sand-tempered sherds,
although shell-tempered ceramics are predominant.
Addington differs from other areas at Great Neck
where sand-tempered wares are relatively abundant,
since a number of Middle Woodland pit features were
encoimtered at the Addington site.

In order to determine if the pit features at
Addington were associated with sand- or shell-
tempered ceramics, data on assemblages from twenty
feamres were examined (Table 29). These features
formed a linear arrangement of perhaps three clusters
between grid lines N 190 and N220 in JMU ARC'S
excavation area (Figure 68). As a group, the features
were found to be dominated by shell-tempered
ceramics (72%). In only 6 of 20 features was the
proportion of sand- tempered sherds greater than 40 % ,
and the number of sherds recovered from these
features was relatively small, ranging from 1 to 32.

Although attributes of paste and surface
treatment associated with the shell- and sand-
tempered ceramics reviewed above indicate the
ceramics date from the Middle Woodland period (ca.
500 B.C. to A.D. 900) (Egloff 1985), radiocarbon
determinations obtained by the VDHR ft-om Great
Neck provide a more precise estimate of their age.
The overlap at two standard deviations among
radiocarbon dates associated with three features on
Lot M3 places the date of at least die shell-tempered
ceramics at ca. A.D. 290-380. Two of diese feamres
contained only shell-tempered ceramics. Only 1 % of
sherds recovered from the third feature are sand-
tempered. A fourth radiocarbon date of 1 180 jf 100
B.C. obtained by die VDHR on Feature 255, Lot 5,
is considered much too early to accurately date the
Middle Woodland ceramics associated with the
feature.

The radiocarbon dates for Middle Woodland,
shell-tempered ceramics obtained by the VDHR from
Great Neck and by JMU ARC from Addington fit
well within die early temporal range of Mockley
ceramics thus far established in the Middle Adantic
region. Mockley ware has been radiocarbon dated in
Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware from ca. A.D.
200-900 (Egloff and Potter 1982:103-104). Dates
within the Virginia Coastal Plain range from A.D. 20
±70 (Edwards et al. 1989:63) to A.D. 880 ±60
(Waselkov 1982:285). The Mockley-like ceramics
associated with the dated featm^es on Lot M3 at Great
Neck challenge previous understandings of change in
vessel form over time, however.

Before the radiocarbon dates from Lot 3 at
Great Neck were obtained, flat-bottomed, beaker
vessels were generally considered to date from the
late Early Woodland or the very early years of the
Middle Woodland based on radiocarbon dates of 660
±60 B.C., 660 ±85 B.C., and 810 ±260 B.C.
obtained by Painter (1978) from die Currituck site in
North Carolina. Currimck is located five miles south
of the Virginia-North Carolina border on the west
shore of Currituck Sound. Painter's (1977:47-52)
description of ceramics from the site indicates that
flat-bottomed, beaker vessels in jar or bowl forms are
the predominant, if not only, vessel forms
represented in the collection. A variety of pastes are
associated with these vessels, which can contain shell,
sand, or clay inclusions, or a mixture of more than
one of these materials. Exterior surfaces are marked
with cord, fabric, or net impressions. The rim of
one vessel from Currimck is modified to form a
pouring lip. Decoration on the ceramic vessels is
uncommon (Painter, personal commujoication 1990),
although tubular ceramic pipes in the assemblage are
decorated with "simple lines of punctadons or crude
roidetting in an open cross-hatched or diamond
design" (Painter 1977:60). These motifs are similar
to those identified on ceramic pipes and bone
ornaments associated with the Middle Woodland
contexts excavated by the VDHR on Lot M3 and M5
at Great Neck.

Discrepancies between the dates obtained
thus far on flat-bottomed, beaker ceraniics are
puzzling. Within each group of samples assayed by
Painter or the VDHR from Currimck and Great
Neck, the radiocarbon dates appear internally
consistent. If each group is accurate, a relatively
conservative ceramic vessel and pipe tradition

186

Table 29. Addington site ceramics.

FEATURE

SAND-TEMPERED CERAMICS

SHELL-TEMPERED
CERAMICS

TOTAL

N %

180NF23

1 100.0

200 Fl

1 100.0

200N F3

1 9.1

10 90.0

200N F6

6 23.1

20 76.9

200N F8

21 65.6

11 34.4

200N FIO

53 37.8

87 62.1

140

200NF11

11 23.9

35 76.1

200N F17

5 71.4

2 28.6

200NF19

28 32.6

58 67.4

200N F23

7 30.4

16 69.6

200N F28

39 19.4

162 80.6

201

200N F33

5 16.7

25 83.3

200N F34

4 16.0

21 84.0

220N F5

13 86.7

2 13.3

220NF11

23 26.7

63 73.2

220N F12

1 100.0

220NF13

17 34.0

33 66.0

220N F22

10 16.4

51 83.6

220N F28

13 14.9

74 85.0

220N F30

9 60.0

6 40.0

TOTAL

268 28.4

676 71.6

944

Note: Ceramic sherd data is drawn from Geier, Cromwell, and Hensley 1986: Appendix E. Fabric-marked and simple stamped
sherds are omitted. Sherds counted here as sand-tempered include the following temper categories of Geier et al. : coarse sand;
fine sand; and fine sand, natural inclusions. Sherds counted here as "shell-tempered" include the following temper categories
of Geier et al.: shell; shell in sandy clay; burned shell; coarse sand and shell; and fme sand with some shell. The VDHR dates
from Great Neck associated with shell-tempered, Middle Woodland ceramics coincide well with two of the radiocarbon assays
obtained by JMUARC at the Addington site. Feature 200N F28, dated A.D. 230 ±60, contained sherds from eight shell-
tempered, net- or cord-marked vessels and two shell-tempered, fabric-marked vessels. Feature 200N FIO, dated A.D. 300_+70,
contained sherds from six shell-tempered, cord- or net-marked vessels; two sand-tempered, net-marked vessels; and two sheU-
tempered, plain and incised vessels (Geier, Smith, Andrews, and Buchanan 1986:441-442, Table VC: 1). (Only conical vessels
were identified among the Middle Woodland ceramics recovered at Addington [Geier, Smith, Andrews, and Buchanan 1986:456,
Table VC:15]). It should be noted that it is assumed here that JMUARC 's dates are reasonably accurate, and that fabric-marked
and simple stamped sherds recovered from the features are late intrusions. This interpretation differs from that of the JMUARC
researchers (Geier, Smith, Andrews, and Buchanan 1986:329-330).

187

See diagram next page.

Figure 68. Plan of archaeological features in section of the Addington site.

Adapted from Clarence R. Geier, T. Ted Cromwell, and Steven L. Hensley. Archaeological Mitigation of Two
Components (44VB9 and 44VB92) of the Great Neck Site Complex. Virginia Beach. Virginia. Volume 11: Tlie
Addington Site (44VB9), Report of Finding.^. James Madison University Archaeological Research Center,
Harrisonburg, Virginia, 1986, Map 2. Postmolds and clay-domed features are eliminated from plan.

188

200N F3

^^ 220N F4

O24ON F6

220N F5

200N F33
_200N Fl
O

^- V-^ 200N F28

C/200N F6
200N F8

240N
98E

220N

C3)200N Fll

|220N F30

O18ON F23

O200N FIO I90N

98E

I JZOON FIT

(^220N FI3

/— S. Q200N F38

200N FI9

I80N FI9

220N FI2

/^~N.200N

F23

240N

92E

^ ^220N F28
/ N.220N F22

I90N
92E

200N F40

K////////////

/p\220N F40 // /

FEET

189

identifiable over the course of ca. 1000 years is
indicated. Changes over time include the early
abandonment of sherd, or clay-tempered wares and
the eventual addition of conical vessels to the
inventory of forms. While both trends conform to
current understandings of ceramic development within
the Virginia Coastal Plain (see Egloff et al. 1988: 17-
23, 28-32), it might be advisable at present to
consider the vast temporal range of this tradition with
some skepticism.

Middle Woodland sand-tempered wares at
Great Neck can be dated only through association
with the Mockley-like shell-tempered wares, since no
radiocarbon determinations on contexts with a
preponderance of sand-tempered wares are available.
The close spatial association of Middle Woodland
sand- and shell-tempered ceramics on Lot GHF16,
where the two ceramics are represented in roughly
equal numbers, suggests the ceramics are at least
roughly contemporaneous.

It remains to be determined whether
differences among the three series of sand-tempered
ceramics identified at Great Neck are temporally
significant, although several researchers have
previously suggested that among Middle Woodland
sand-tempered ceramics, the size of clastic particles
increases through time (Coe 1964:99-105, Table 10;
Egloff 1985:238-239; McLearen and Mouer 1989:9-
11; Phelps 1983:33; Smith 1984:32). If this is true,
the fine sand-tempered wares at Great Neck may date
from ca. 500 B.C. to A.D. 200, a span of time
comparable to Popes Creek ware in the Coastal Plain
of northern Virginia (Egloff and Potter 1982:99).
The medium sand-tempered ceramics may be later.
These ceramics are roughly comparable to Phelps's
Mount Pleasant series (Green, personal
communication 1990), which has been radiocarbon
dated in North Carolina from ca. A.D. 200 to 800
(Phelps 1983:32). Distinctive coarser sand- or
pebble-tempered ceramics in the Prince George series
have been recovered in association with radiocarbon
samples yielding dates of 420 B.C. and 690 B.C. in
James City County (Hunter, Hodges, and Blanton
1993) and dates ranging from A.D. 250-480 in
Henrico Coimty (McLearen and Mouer 1989:7). The
coarse sand-tempered ceramics identified at Great
Neck on Lot 5 may not be direcdy comparable to this
ware, however.

While the best information currentiy
available indicates the various Middle Woodland
ceramics represented at Great Neck are at least
roughly contemporaneous, some evidence suggests
that the sand- and shell-tempered wares derive from
distinct ceramic traditions likely representing separate
population groups. Consideration of the spatial
distribution and contexmal associations of shell- and
sand-tempered wares at Great Neck, while not
imequivocal, provides some support for this
conclusion. In associations at Great Neck die two
ceramics frequentiy co-occur, but either one or the
other usually overwhelmingly predominates. Only in
collections from Lot GHF16 are the ceramics about
equally represented.

Differences in the proportion of shell- and
sand-tempered ceramics in various areas at Great
Neck are not sufficient, however, to conclude that the
two wares represent separate population groups.
Differences in ceramic paste do not necessarily reflect
profound cultural differences, since clay paste may
vary due to the vagaries of clay sources used by a
single population within a specific locale, or from
differences in soxu^ces available to a population as it
travels throughout its territorial range. It is
important, then, diat analysis of the Middle
Woodland ceramics from Great Neck indicated the
existence of a number of other differences in the
physical attributes of the sand- and shell-tempered
wares. Both the degree and type of variation
between these two major ceramic groups appear
sufficient to suggest that each represents a separate
Middle Woodland population group.

Paste is not the only characteristic which
distinguishes the Middle Woodland shell- and sand-
tempered ceramics at Great Neck. In fact, as noted
several times previously, many sherds classified in
the analysis as shell-tempered contain a significant
proportion of sand inclusions. The decision made
early in the analysis to separate sherds containing any
amount of shell in the paste from those containing
only sand inclusions appears supponed by later
findings, however. Comparison of die two groups
indicates that, in addition to their temper, sand- and
shell-tempered wares are distinguished also by
surface treatment, vessel form, and decoration.
While the two groups share some surface treatments
(marking with cord, net, and open-weave twined
textiles), coarse wicker impressions are found only
among the sand-tempered wares. The majority of

190

shell-tempered basal sherds are derived from flat-
bottomed vessels, a form not represented among the
sand-tempered wares. Finally, while the frequency
of decoration within separate shell-tempered
assemblages at Great Neck varies, the types of
decoration present are similar between collections.
No occurrences of decoration were identified among
the sand-tempered wares.

The regional distribution patterns of ceramics
comparable to the sand- and shell-tempered wares
recovered at Great Neck also suggest that the two
traditions represent separate population groups. Sub-
regional differences in the ceramic complexes of the
Virginia Coastal Plain have been recognized since
Clifford Evans (1955) published the first systematic
analysis of ceramics in the state. Evans divided the
Coastal Plain into two ceramic areas, noting "...each
area has a slighdy different pottery emphasis" (Evans
1955:96). His Coastal Virginia Ceramic Area,
dominated by shell-tempered wares, extended
eastward from a line ruiming southeast from the Fall
Line on the Potomac and Rappahannock rivers to the
Dismal Swamp. Evans noted sand-tempered ceramics
predominate in his Southeast Virginia Ceramic Area,
which included the drainages of the Meherrin,
Nottoway, and Blackwater rivers as well as portions
of the Appomattox, James, Chickahominy, and
Pamxmkey drainages within the Inner Coastal Plain
and Fall Line Zone.

Research conducted since Evans's landmark
study has confirmed the existence of sub-regional
differences within the Virginia Coastal Plain, and our
imderstanding of these has improved with additional
information now available on the temporal
relationships between wares. Ceramics were first
produced within the Middle Atlantic region ca. 1200
B.C. Similar in form to Late Archaic vessels carved
from steatite, the earliest ceramics were plain-
surfaced, rectangular or oval bowls with flat bases
and lug handles. Several types of these ceramics
have thus far been identified in Virginia, suggesting
that certain regional tendencies in choice of temper
existed within the Virginia Coastal Plain even at this
early date (Egloff et al. 1988:17-23; Egloff and
Potter 1982; Mouer 1991).

By ca. 600 B.C., these wares were largely
replaced by sand-tempered ceramics produced
predominantly in forms with conical bases. North of
the James River, this change is represented by

Accokeek, a cord-marked ceramic dated ca. 600
B.C.- 300 B.C., which is followed by Popes Creek,
a predominandy net-marked ceramic dated ca. 500
B.C. - A.D. 200. Contemporary ceramics within
southeastern Virginia include types within the Stony
Creek and Prince George series. Cord-, net-, and
fabric-marked vessels are commonly found in these
two series, and the presence of fabric-marking
distinguishes this area from more northerly regions
within the Virginia Coastal Plain (Egloff and Potter
1982:99). Stony Creek vessels are tempered with
mediimi-sized sand particles, and are conoidal with
straight rim profiles. Prince George is a very
distinctive ware with pebble-sized temper, and
decoration consisting of a row of large and deep
punctations below the rim is common. Ceramic
trends within the northern Coastal Plain of North
Carolina at this time are similar to developments
within southeastern Virginia, although the former
area exhibits some additional traits which suggest
more contact with populations to the south. Phelps
( 1 983 : 29-3 1 ) proposes that Marcey Creek-like vessels
in the northern Coastal Plain of North Carolina were
replaced by the Deep Creek series, a coarse sand-
tempered ceramic with cord, net, fabric, and simple
stamped surfaces (Phelps 1983:29-31).

By ca. A.D. 200, sub-regional differences
among the ceramics of the Virginia Coastal Plain are
more pronoimced. In Evans's Coastal Virginia
Ceramic Area, sand-tempered wares were replaced
by the shell-tempered Mockley series, which includes
cord- and net-marked types. North of the James
River, Mockley ceramics are found as far west as the
Fall Line, but are predominant primarily in the Outer
Coastal Plain, with their frequency declining above
the saltwater-freshwater transition zone (Egloff and
Potter 1982:103-104; McLearen and Mouer 1989:8).
Ceramics in Evans' Southeast Virginia Ceramic Area
at this time represent a continuation of earlier
traditions in this subregion. Recent research suggests
that Prince George ware was used up darough die
early temporal range of Mockley ware (McLearen
and Mouer 1989). Sand- and grit-tempered ceramics
with cord-, net-, and fabric-marked surfaces continue
to dominate the region through the second half of the
Middle Woodland (McLearen and Mouer 1989; Smith
1983). During this time ceramics in the northern
Coastal region of North Carolina continue to display
a strong affinity to traditions found within the upper
reaches of the Chowan River drainage in southeastern
Virginia. In North Carolina during the second half

191

of the Middle Woodland the predominant ceramic is
Mount Pleasant, which is tempered with sand, grit,
or pebbles, and marked with fabric, cord, or net
impressions (Phelps 1983:32). Mockley ceramics
have been fotmd on only a few sites in this area,
usually in only low frequencies (Green 1987: Tables
25-30; Phelps 1983:33-34).

The relative proportions of sand- and shell-
tempered ceramics at Great Neck indicate the locale's
strongest affinities during the Middle Woodland
period are with ceramic traditions characteristic of the
Outer Coastal Plain of Virginia north of the James
River. As in this sub-region, the predominant
ceramics at Great Neck are shell-tempered, and
assemblages from some portions of the site (Lot
GHF16 and the Addington site) are indistinguishable
from the Mockley series.

Sand-tempered ceramics from Great Neck
are similar to types popular along the Nottoway,
Meherrin, and Blackwater River drainages in
southeastern Virginia and the Chowan River drainage
in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Some sand-
tempered ceramics at Great Neck have fabric-marked
surfaces, an attribute characteristic of these areas. It
might also be noted that Painter recovered grit-
tempered ceramics at the nearby Long Creek midden
site which bear pimctate decoration reminiscent of
motifs foimd on Prince George ware (Painter
1967:96-98, Figures 23-24). Similar decoration has
been seen by the author in a collection of cord-
marked, sand-tempered ceramics recovered by an
avocational archaeologist from Occracoke Island on
the Outer Banks of North Carolina.

Differences in the physical attributes of sand-
and shell-tempered Middle Woodland ceramics at
Great Neck, differences in their relative frequency
and contextiml associations across the site, and their
similarities to ceramics characteristic of separate
subregions of the Coastal Plain suggest Great Neck
was used by at least two distinct population groups
during the latter half of the Middle Woodland. The
site was occupied most ffequendy and more
intensively by a primarily estuarine-oriented
population which produced shell-tempered ceramics.
The recurrent associations of the shell-tempered
ceramics with clusters of large pit featiu-es, some
perhaps used for storage, suggests Great Neck was an
important locale visited again and again in the
cyclical movement of these peoples within their

territorial range. Areas much fiirther south below the
North Carolina- Virginia border, and to the west along
the interior drainages of the Chowan River, were
used only infrequendy by these peoples.

The relatively low frequency of sand-
tempered ceramics as well as the types of contexts
with which they are associated at Great Neck suggest
the population responsible for these artifacts used the
locale less frequendy and for periods of shorter
duration. Sand-tempered ceramics are less commonly
associated widi pit features at Great Neck than are
the shell-tempered ceramics; and in sections of the
site where the ceramics co-occur, sand-tempered
ceramics most often constitute the smaller proportion
of the Middle Woodland ceramic assemblage. This
pattern might be contrasted against collections Green
recovered from along the north shore of Broad Bay
in Seashore State Park (Table 30). Middle Woodland
sites in this area are relatively small and discrete
when compared to the occupation area covered by the
Great Neck site. Of six sites surveyed by Green on
the north shore, the Middle Woodland ceramics from
four are dominated by sand-tempered wares (68-85 %)
(Green 1987:Tables 4, 6, and 11). The sand-
tempered wares at Great Neck may represent a
people whose core territory was situated to die west
in southeastern Virginia and who practiced an
adaptation which was more interior, riverine oriented.
The regional distribution of similar ceramics suggests
that this population had frequent interactions with or
were perhaps even identical to diose situated further
down the Chowan River drainage in esmarine
portions of the North Carolina Coastal Plain.

While the predominance of shell-tempered,
Middle Woodland ceramics at Great Neck seemingly
indicates a close affinity to areas to the north within
the Outer Coastal Plain of Virginia, the frequency of
flat-bottomed, beaker vessels suggests the peoples
who used the locale were in at least some ways
distinct from tiiese other populations. To date, flat-
bottomed, beaker vessels with either shell- or lithic-
tempered pastes have been reported from the Croaker
Landing site (44JC70) (Egloff et al. 1988:28) and site
44JC359 (Hunter, Hodges, and Blanton 1990) in
James City County; site 44PM 13 in Portsmouth
(Egloff et al. 1988:28); possibly site 44HT55 in
Hampton (Edwards et al. 1989:61) in Virginia; and
die Waratan site (31C01) in Chowan County, North
Carolina (Painter 1963). At none of these locations
have flat-bottomed vessels been found to be as

192

Table 30. Ceramic collections, north shore of Broad Bay.

CERAMIC WARE

SITE NUMBER

44VB11

44VB13

44VB14

44VB15

44VB16

44VB40

COLINGTON

227

1008

477

MOCKLEY

231

MT. PLEASANT

391

DEEP CREEK

CLAY-TEMPERED

OTHER

TOTAL

163

349

1360

958

Source: Green 1987: Table 4, 6, and 11.

193

frequent as at Great Neck or Currituck, although only
Waratan appears to have been occupied as intensively
as these two sites.

Review of these occurrences suggests the
popularity of flat-bottomed, beaker forms was a sub-
regional phenomenon largely restricted to the Coastal
Plain of southeastern Virginia and northeastern North
Carolina. At Great Neck, this phenomenon was
colored by other sub-regional innovations in ceramic
technology. Radiocarbon dates from the Cturituck
site indicate that flat-bottomed, beaker vessels were
first produced by at least ca. 660 B.C. This change
from the flat-bottomed forms associated with Marcey
Creek-like ceramics is likely functionally comparable
to the introduction of conical-bottomed vessels in
areas to the north at about the same time.
Collections of rim and body sherds from Great Neck
analyzed for this report suggest these two vessel
forms likely differ significantly only in basal
structure.

Radiocarbon dates from Lot M3 at Great
Neck indicate flat-bottomed beaker vessels remained
popular up to ca. A.D. 400 in the Coastal Plain of
northeastern North Carolina and southeastern
Virginia, although conical vessels also began to be
produced prior to this time. The seeming anomalous
association of beaker vessels with a Mockley-like
paste at Great Neck at this late date might be
explained by other early developments in ceramic
technology within this region. Painter's (1977:48)
identification of a shell-tempered ceramic (Waterlily
Plain) in forms similar to those associated with
Marcey Creek has led some researchers to suggest
that shell-tempered ceramic traditions spread
throughout the Outer Coastal Plain of the Middle
Atlantic region from early origins within the coastal
areas of southeastern Virginia and northern North
Carolina (Custer 1989:276-277). Recent early
radiocarbon dates of A.D. 20-40 associated with
Mockley-like ceramics at Hampton (Edwards et al.
1989:63) may provide support for this interpretation.
The shell-tempered, flat-bottomed beaker ceramics
associated with Lot 3 at Great Neck may represent,
then, an expression developed from two earlier
technological traditions within this subregion.

Late Woodland Ceramics

Two types of ceramics dating from the Late
Woodland period were identified in the analysis of

collections from Great Neck. Both are shell-
tempered ceramics distinguished from each otber and
from shell-tempered. Middle Woodland ceramics by
exterior surface impressions which are either fabric-
marked or simple stamped. Impressions on fabric-
marked vessels are from relatively fine, plain weave
or twined textiles. On simple stamped vessels, the
edges of single, stamped impressions are crisp and
straight, and the bottom surfaces relatively flat. The
configuration of the impressions suggests the vessels
were beaten with a carved paddle or a paddle
wrapped with material similar to a leather thong.
Occasionally, striations running parallel to the long
axis of the impression, suggestive of wood grain or
a material more fibrous than leather, are visible.

Except for differences in surface treatment,
the two Late Woodland ceramics represented at Great
Neck appear very similar. The paste characteristic of
each ceramic is comprised of a silty clay tempered
with a moderate to high proportion of crushed ribbed
mussel shell. Jars with subconoidal bases are the
only vessel form recognized in the collections. Rims
most commonly have a straight profile, but they may
flare outward a bit at the lip. Some rims are
incurved slightiy. Mean sherd thickness in analyzed
collections of fabric-marked sherds from Lots M5
and GHF16 ranges from 0.76 to 0.81 cm, while
mean thickness of simple stamped sherds in
collections from Lots M5, Mil, and GHF16 ranges
from 0.71 to 0.78 cm.

Each ware may be decorated with motifs
executed with incising or punctation. Similar design
motifs are foimd on the ceramics, although fabric-
marked sherds (12-14%) are more frequentiy
decorated than those which are simple stamped (3-
6%). Of the twelve groups of decorative motifs
defined for Townsend ware by Griffith (1980, 1982),
six are represented in collections of shell-tempered,
fabric-marked or simple stamped ceramics from
Great Neck analyzed earlier in this report. These are
motif numbers Rll, R12, R14, R16, R17, and R18.

Decorative motifs appearing on both fabric-
marked and simple stamped ceramics include bands
of incising oriented parallel to the rim. Also
common to both wares are motifs consisting of
incised lines forming triangles or chevrons which
may surmount, lie below, or perhaps bridge a band(s)
of incising (fabric-marked sherds); overlie a band of
incising (fabric); or overlie a band of decoration

194

consisting of parallel incised lines oriented at an angle
to the rim (simple stamped). On fabric-marked
sherds, a row of pimctations may be added below or
above a band of incising. Other motifs noted on
fabric-marked sherds include spaced groups of
parallel incised lines extending down from and
perpendicular to the rim; a triangular element filled
with incising; and an isolated open triangular
element. The only other type of decoration observed
on a simple stamped sherd is a line of punctations
placed direcdy below the lip.

The Late Woodland fabric-marked and
simple stamped ceramics at Great Neck are
comparable, respectively, to the types Rappahaimock
Fabric-Impressed and Rappahannock Incised in the
Townsend series (Blaker 1963:14-22) and the type
Roanoke Simple Stamped (Blaker 1952). These types
are equivalent to fabric-marked and simple stamped
ceramics substmied xmder the shell-tempered
Colington series defined by Phelps (1983).

Townsend ceramics have been recovered in
contexts dating from A.D. 945 +.65 (Oudaw
1990:85) to A.D. 1590 ±120 (MacCord 1965) in
Virginia. Phelps has obtained radiocarbon dates
ranging firom A.D. 860 ±85 to A.D. 1315 ±70 on
Colington ceramics in North Carolina (Phelps
1982:27). Based on its recovery in early Contact-
period contexts at Fort Raleigh in North Carolina
(Harrington 1948) and the Kicotan (Kecoughtan) site
in Hampton, Virginia (Blaker 1952), Roanoke Simple
Stamped has been suggested to be diagnostic of the
late prehistoric or Contact periods (Green 1987:133-
134). As noted previously. Painter (1981) obtained
a radiocarbon date of A.D. 1515 ±70 on a pit
feature containing predominandy Roanoke Simple
Stamped on Lot M6 at Great Neck. More recendy,
a series of radiocarbon dates (not calibrated) of A.D.
1320 ±90, A.D. 1470 ±50, A.D. 1500 ±100, A.D.
1740 ±50, and A.D. 1790 ±50 were obtained from
die Amity site in North Carolina where 69% of
Colington ceramics recovered were simple stamped,
24% plain, and 7% unidentified (Gardner 1990b:42-
44, 49). Gardner has concluded that die Nadve
American occupation represented at Amity by
Colington ceramics dates from the mid- 17th century,
and suggests that a "sizable" proportion of Colington
Simple Stamped sherds is diagnostic of the post-
contact period (Gardner 1990b: 49-50).

Two new radiocarbon dates associated with
Roanoke Simple Stamped ceramics were obtained by
die VDHR at Great Neck. A date of A.D. 1510 ±50
was derived from Feature 163 on Lot Mil. Eighty-
nine percent of the 150 ceramic sherds recovered
from the feature are shell-tempered, simple stamped,
while 3 % of the sherds are shell-tempered, fabric-
marked. An earlier date of A.D. 1330 ±80 was
obtained on Burial 29A on Lot GHF16. A sample of
fill screened from the burial yielded 187 sherds
(Green 1987: Table 11): 46% shell-tempered, simple
stamped and 13% shell-tempered, fabric-marked.
The new dates from Great Neck may provide
evidence that simple stamping became popular as a
surface treatment earlier than has previously been
imderstood. The diree radiocarbon dates from Great
Neck overlap at two standard deviations in the range
A.D. 1410-1490. No European artifacts have yet
been recovered in association with aboriginal
materials at Great Neck to indicate the site was
occupied during the post-contact period by Native
American peoples.

Several additional lines of evidence from
Great Neck appear to support the proposition that the
shell-tempered, fabric-marked and simple stamped
ceramics derive from a single cultural tradition in
which the use of simple stamped vessels became
relatively more popular through time. It should be
noted, however, that these arguments are dependant
upon certain improved assumptions about site
formation processes. The two radiocarbon dates
from Lots Mil and GHF16, for example, appear to
indicate a marked increase in the popularity of simple
stamped vessels relative to fabric-marked vessels over
die period represented. The later of the two mean
dates is associated with the ceramic collection with
the higher proportion of Roanoke sherds, but we have
no evidence to demonstrate that this particular
assemblage from the fill of one feature is necessarily
representative of the fiill range of vessels in use at
that time. The dates also overlap at the two sigma
range.

On Lots M5 and Mil, the relative age of
Roanoke and Townsend ceramics was assessed by
comparing the condition of the two wares in
collections from four features. In features in which
Townsend sherds were predominant or Townsend and
Roanoke sherds were about equally represented, the
fact that neither ceramic was foxmd to exhibit more
weathering than the other suggests they were used

195

contemporaneously. In the two collections dominated
by Roanoke ceramics, the few Townsend sherds were
markedly more weathered. The relative condition of
the two ceramics may indicate the Townsend sherds
were older materials eventually incorporated into later
deposits, but, again, it cannot be confirmed whether
these assemblages are representative of the Late
Woodland occupation. Differences in the relative
proportions of Townsend and Roanoke sherds from
Lot 16 recovered from the fill of two burials
associated with the palisade and in plowzone contexts
also may indicate an increase in the use of simple
stamping through time. Fabric -marked sherds are
predominant in the burials, while simple stamped
sherds are predominant in plowzone contexts. The
plowzone collection is presumed to be representative
of the range of ceramics produced throughout the
entire Late Woodland occupation on the property.

The association of Townsend and Roanoke
ceramics with Late Woodland components at Great
Neck fits well with what has previously been known
about the regional distribution of each of these types.
The distribution of Townsend ceramics is
coterminous with the Mockley ceramics which
preceded it, although more extensive. Townsend is
foimd throughout the Coastal Plain of Virginia,
Maryland, and southern Delaware except for some
far interior portions of southeastern Virginia and,
during the second half of the Late Woodland, the
limer Coastal Plain along die Potomac River drainage
(Egloff 1985:235, 239-241; Egloff and Potter
1982:109; Griffith 1982:56). The distribution of
shell-tempered, fabric-marked ceramics also extends
southward within the Coastal Plain, beyond the
boundary of shell-tempered Middle Woodland
ceramics. Phelps (1983:39) suggests die southern
boundary of the distribution of Colington ceramics
lies along the southern side of the Neuse River
estuary in North Carolina. Colington has been found
in significant quantities along the Chowan drainage as
far inland as the confluence of the Meherrin and
Chowan rivers (Phelps 1982: 12-13). It is distributed
even fiirther inland within this drainage along the
Nottoway River, and is die predominant ceramic at
the Hand site (44SN22) near Franklin, Virginia
(Smith 1984). Colington comprises only a minor
portion of collections from along the Roanoke and
Cashie rivers west of Plymouth, North Carolina
(Phelps 1982:27).

Roanoke Simple Stamped is not distributed
as widely as shell-tempered, fabric-marked ceramics.
The simple stamped ceramic has yet to be identified
in assemblages in Maryland and Delaware or along
the Rappahannock and Potomac drainages in
Virginia. While it is increasingly being found at
some presumed Protohistoric or early Contact period
sites within the limer Coastal Plain within the James
River drainage as far upriver as the fall line (Hodges
1993b; McLearen and Binns 1992), Roanoke Simple
Stamped is most common in areas of the Coastal
Plain of southeastern Virginia and northeastern North
Carolina where shell-tempered, fabric-marked
ceramics are also found (Egloff and Potter 1982: 111;
Green 1987:Figure 153; Phelps 1983:39).

Patterns in the distribution of Late Woodland
ceramics in Virginia and North Carolina appear to
confirm information derived from ethnohistoric
sources on the major linguistic and cultural divisions
among native populations at the time of European
contact, and thus are potentially useful lines of
evidence in understanding political, social, and
economic interactions among these peoples. The
geographic distribution of shell-tempered wares is
essentially coterminous with the distribution of
Algonquian-speaking peoples at the time of contact
(Egloff 1983:241-242; Feest 1978b:253; Holland
1966; Phelps 1983). West of the Fall Line, the
ceramics of contemporary Siouan-speaking
populations of the Virginia Piedmont are lithic-
tempered wares with predominandy fabric (Albemarle
series, Evans 1955:39-44), cord (Potomac Creek
series, Stephenson and Ferguson 1963:113-120), or
net-marked (Dan River series, Coe and Lewis 1952
and Gardner 1980) surfaces. Abutting the territories
of Algonquian peoples on the southeastern border of
their range were Iroquoian-speakers who inhabited
the outer Piedmont and Inner Coastal Plain of
southeastern Virginia and northern North Carolina
(Boyce 1978:282, Figure 1). The ceramics in this
region are lithic-tempered and predominandy fabric-
marked or simple stamped, and are defined in various
subregions as Cashie (Phelps 1083:43), Branchville
(Binford 1961), or Gaston (Coe 1964). Litde is
known about populations in the region directiy soudi
of the Neuse River in the North Carolina Coastal
Plain, although they are suggested to be Siouan
speakers. The predominant ceramics in this region
are shell-tempered with cord-, net-, fabric-marked, or
plain surfaces (Phelps 1983:48).

196

The distribution of simple stamped ceramics
within these regions is potentially significant in
understanding alliances and interactions among Native
American peoples. The high proportion of shell-
tempered, simple stamped ceramics in several
contexts at Great Neck suggests that populations at
the site were more closely affiliated with Algonquian
groups within the North Carolina Coastal Plain than
with those north of the James River in Virginia. This
is indeed the situation suggested by ethnohistoric
sources.

By 1607, a large number of the Native
American populations within the Coastal Plain of
Virginia were united imder the Powhatan chiefdom.
Named after its paramoxmt leader, this political entity
included approximately 31 districts encompassing
lands east of the Fall Line lying between the south
bank of the Potomac River and the south bank of the
James, and including the lower Virginia Eastern
Shore (Turner 1976). Begiiming with a core area
comprised of six to nine districts inherited sometime
during the late 1500s, Powhatan incorporated
additional districts into the chiefdom through warfare
or the threat of hostilities (Feest 1978a: 254; Turner
1976).

Based on information obtained from an
exploration party sent out from the English colony at
Roanoke in the late fall of 1585, the Great Neck
locale is known to have been included within the
territory of the Chesapeake Indians. An engraving by
Theodore de Bry of the John White-Thomas Hariot
Map of the Coast of Virginia (Figure 69) indicates
that the Chesapeake occupied possibly three major
villages: Apasus and Chesepiooc on the Lynnhaven
River and Skicoak on the Elizabeth River (Quinn
1985: 107; see also McCartney [Geier, Cromwell, and
McCartoey 1985:207-208] who argues tbat Skicoak
may instead be the village of the Nansemonds located
on an island in the Nansemond River).

The Chesapeake appear to have had peaceful
relations with Algonquian groups in North Carolina
and may have entered into alliances with them on
occasion. Ralph Lane included them when
enumerating the Native American peoples who
Wingina (Pemisapan), the chief of the Roanoke, was
attempting to enlist in a conspiracy against the
English in the spring of 1586 (Lane 1982:38).
Powhatan is said to have "extinguished" the
Chesapeake either shortly before or shortly after the

establishment of the English colony at Jamestown
(Rountree 1989:25-27; Wright and Freund 1953: 104-
105, 108). It is unclear whether the threat posed to
Powhatan by the Chesapeake stemmed from purely
indigenous developments or involved European
contact and settlement near or within Chesapeake
territory (Quinn 1985:360-368; Rountree 1989:140-
142, 1990:10, 25; Turner 1985:209-211). Writing in
1610-11, Strachey noted that the "new Inhabitants
that now people Chessapeak again (the oled
extinguished as you have heard upon the Conceipt of
a prophesye)" were at peace with Powhatan, but
advised that they could be easily persuaded to ally
with the English against die paramount chief (Wright
and Freund 1953:108).

The fact that simple stamped surface
treatment is found within the ceramic traditions of
both Algonquian populations in northeastern North
Carolina and southeastern Virginia and Iroquoian
populations who inhabited regions to the west
suggests these two groups had frequent interactions.
The exact nature of these as represented by the
distribution of ceramic types is difficult to interpret,
however. Phelps (1982:27) has reviewed the
occurrence of Colington ceramics along the Roanoke
and Cashie rivers within the Interior Coastal Plain
and has interpreted the Colington ceramics as vessels
traded to Iroquoian groups. Similarly, Green
(1987:131) has suggested Cashie ceramics recovered
from Roanoke Island are a reflection of "riverine
exchange between coastal Algonquian and interior
Iroquoians." The results of field surveys by Smith
(1984: 133-134, 143. 149. Table 17, Maps 8 and 13)
indicate that ceramics believed representative of both
Algonquian and Iroquoian groups are common along
the entire course of the Nottoway River in
Soudiampton County, Virginia. At present it is
difficult to determine whether the co-occurrence of
the two ceramics in this area is the product of
expansion and contraction of Algonquian and
Iroquoian peoples along a territorial border over
time, or flexible and peacefiil use of border areas by
both groups. Interpretation of Late Woodland
settlement systems in these areas is also complicated
by post-contact population movements (cf. Phelps
1982: 12-13), since similar ceramics were used during
both periods.

Ceramics recovered from the Great Neck site
provide only negative evidence of direct interactions
between Algonqman groups in the coastal areas of

197

southeastern Virginia and Iroquoian peoples from the
interior, since no Late Woodland ceramics
representative of the latter groups were recovered in
VDHR excavations at the site. This fact may suggest
that other occurrences of Algonquian or Iroquoian
ceramics outside of the respective core territories of
each group are indicative of the actual movements of
peoples, whether permanent or transitory, rather than
the exchange of the ceramics themselves as trade
goods. The ethnohistoric record indicates that
peaceful contacts between the two groups did take
place in southeastern Virginia. While residing within
Chesapeake territory during the winter of 1585/86, an
English exploration party from the Roanoke colony
was visited by the Mandoaks, who are believed to be
an Iroquoian people, perhaps the Nottoway s or the
Meherrins (Lane 1982:25; Quinn 1985:108). It does
seem reasonable, however, diat as exchange and
other interactions occurred between Algonquian and
Iroquoian peoples, these contacts would have been
channeled along the major river systems of the
interior. Because of their geographic position,
Algonquian populations at Great Neck would have
been relatively isolated from direct interactions with
interior Iroquoian peoples. Still, Iroquoian ceramics
might be expected to have reached Great Neck
through down-the-line exchange, if these types of
goods were indeed being traded.

198

CHAPTER 10

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Archaeological remains thus far encountered
at Great Neck indicate the site was not used
extensively by Native American peoples xmtil the
Middle Woodland period. At least one Paleo Indian
projectile point and occasional finds of Archaic points
have been reported firom Great Neck (44VB7),
Addington (44VB9), and other locations close by
(Geier, Smith, Andrews, and Buchanan 1986:292;
Green 1987: 1 18; Painter 1979), but no other types of
archaeological information are yet available on these
periods. In VDHR excavations at the Great Neck
site, no artifacts which can definitely be attributed to
the Paleo Indian or Archaic periods were recovered.

Ceramics believed to date from the Early
Woodland period have been found in some areas of
Great Neck, but these artifacts too are rare. At
Addington, JMUARC recovered a shell-tempered,
plain surfaced ceramic with lug handles, similar to
Painter's Waterlily Plain type, from two relatively
isolated pit features (Geier, Cromwell, and Hensley
1986:365-368; Geier, Smith, Andrews, and Buchanan
1986: 25, 29-30). Painter (personal communication
1990) also reported finding some clay-tempered
ceramics with lug handles on Lot M 1 at Great Neck,
but the contextual associations of these were never
formally described. Both wares tentatively can be
dated ca. 1200-800 B.C.

In contrast to these earlier periods,
archaeological remains dating from the Middle
Woodland period are abundant on the Great Neck
Peninsula and have been encountered across an area
extending at least 1.2 km along the south shore of
Broad Bay from the vicinity of Lot 17 in the Green
Hill subdivision west to at least the edge of die Long
Creek Midden site (44VB5). East of the canal
separating the Addington and Great Neck sites,
feature density is greatest in areas approximately 25-
50 m south of the present edge of the bank above
Broad Bay. Feature density also varies along die
length of diis area, and is apparently highest at the
west end in the vicinity of Lots 1-5 in the
Meadowridge subdivision.

Radiocarbon samples associated with Middle
Woodland artifacts and features at Great Neck

obtained by the VDHR date occupation during this
period to ca. A.D. 290-380, and this is comparable
to dates of A.D. 230 and A.D. 300 received by
JMUARC on two Middle Woodland features at
Addington (Geier, Smith, Andrews, and Buchanan
1986). Associated with Middle Woodland

occupations at Great Neck are shell-tempered
ceramics and ceramics with only sand inclusions in
the paste. In addition to ceramic containers. Middle
Woodland populations at Great Neck used ceramic
smoking pipes and a variety of tools and ornaments
made of stone, bone, antler, and shell. Tubular
smoking pipes are most clearly associated with
Middle Woodland contexts at Great Neck, but
platform pipes and elbow pipes with a large bowl set
at an obtuse angle to the stem may also have been
used during the period. Smoking pipes are often
decorated with pimctate, roulette, or incised designs.
The vessel forms and decorative motifs associated
widi ceramic vessels and clay pipes at Great Neck are
very similar to those associated with the Currituck
site in North Carolina, radiocarbon dated from 810-
660 B.C. (Painter 1977, 1978).

Middle Woodland stone artifacts recovered
in VDHR excavations at Great Neck include bifaces,
possibly three-quarter grooved axes, manos,
hammerstones, abraders, anvil stones, and gorgets.
Triangular, side-notched, and stemmed projectile
points of medium size appear to be associated with
the Middle Woodland occupations. Overall, the lithic
assemblage at Great Neck displays a dependance on
materials, such as jasper, quartz, quartzite, and
sandstone, which were probably acquired locally.
Bipolar reduction techniques were employed so that
pebbles and small cobbles of jasper and quartz could
be used. Materials used which were probably not
obtained locally include various grades of slate used
in the manufacture of points and gorgets; gneiss used
for the production of a grooved axe; and rhyolite and
basalt, which were recovered in flake form in
extremely low frequencies from plowzone contexts.
Steatite beads and pipes have been reported from the
Addington and Long Creek Midden sites, and these
too may be associated with the Middle Woodland
period (Geier, Smith, Andrews, and Buchanan 1986;
Pearce 1968b).

The frequency of lithic tools and debitage
associated with Middle Woodland contexts at Great
Neck is low when the large volume of contemporary
ceramic debris is considered. In contrast, some

199

Middle Woodland contexts have yielded a high
frequency of bone and antler tools, including
projectile points, punches, a variety of awls, needles,
fishhooks, beamers, and turtle shell cups. Bone
hairpins, perforated animal teeth, and shell were used
as ornaments. Some bone ornaments display a style
of pimctate decoration similar to that seen on ceramic
smoking pipes from the period.

The floral and faunal remains recovered
from Middle Woodland contexts by the VDHR at
Great Neck are best interpreted as representative of
a broad-based subsistence economy dependant on
wild foods. Faimal collections have yet to be
systematically analyzed, but are known to include
remains of large and small mammals, finfish, and a
variety of shellfish. Analysis of ethnobotanical
remains (Gardner 1990a) indicates that at least three
mast crops-hickory, walnut, and acorn— and a few
fleshy fruits were utilized. Com was identified in
four Middle Woodland contexts, two of which have
a relatively high degree of archaeological integrity;
however, the extremely small volume of the two
specimens from these features combined with the
possibility of contamination firom Late Woodland
components prevent us from concluding that maize
agriculture was practiced at Great Neck during the
Middle Woodland. Apart firom maize, no other
cultigens such as cucurbits or the array of starchy or
oily seed plants which comprised the "Eastern
Agricultural Complex" were recovered from Middle
Woodland contexts. It remains to be determined
whether die absence of these foods is a true reflection
of subsistence practices or the product of limited
sampling or preservation biases in the archaeological
record.

in these areas, but a high proportion of flat-bottomed,
beaker vessels have been found in several
assemblages of Mockley-like ceramics at Great Neck.

The Middle Woodland medium sand-
tempered wares at Great Neck are comparable to
Mount Pleasant ceramics, which are common within
the Chowan River drainage in the Outer and Inner
Coastal Plain in North Carolina and Virginia. The
Mount Pleasant series has been radiocarbon dated in
Nortii Carolina to ca. A.D. 200-800 (Phelps
1983:32). The fine sand-tempered wares at Great
Neck may be slightly older. The coarse sand-
tempered wares are suggested to date ca. 500 B.C.-
A.D.500 based on their similarity to Prince George
ceramics, which are found within the Inner Coastal
Plain of central Virginia (Egloff and Potter 1982:103;
Himter, Hodges, and Blanton 1993; McLearen and
Mouer 1989:7).

Two types of Middle Woodland feamres
have been encountered at Great Neck: pits and,
possibly, structural patterns. While some of the pit
features were no doubt used for processing activities,
the large size and depth of others suggest diey were
used as storage facilities. The amount of labor
invested in the preparation of the larger features
would indicate they were associated with occupations
of at least several months diu'ation. Shell-tempered
ceramics are predominant in all areas at Great Neck
and Addington where high firequencies of pit features
occur. Because very few of the pit features are
associated with a preponderance of sand-tempered
ceramics, it is suggested the groups who
manufactured these wares used Great Neck on a more
transient basis.

Comparison of the regional distributions of
Middle Woodland shell-tempered versus sand-
tempered ceramics and the contexmal associations of
each ware at Great Neck suggest that the wares
represent separate yet roughly contemporaneous
populations associated widi distinct yet overlapping
territories, and that the use of Great Neck by each
population differed functionally. The shell-

tempered, net- or cord-marked ceramics at Great
Neck are comparable to types within the Mockley
series. Mockley was the predominant ceramic used
within the Outer Coastal Plain north of the James
River in Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware ca. A.D.
200-900 (Egloff and Potter 1982:103-104). Conical
vessels are most commonly identified with Mockley

The Middle Woodland settlements at Great
Neck associated with shell-tempered ceramics may be
of a type similar to the macro-band base camp
described by Gardner (1982). Examination of the
spatial distribution of the Middle Woodland pit
features at Great Neck and Addington indicate that
situations in which the pits intrude on one another are
rare, and the features are commonly clustered in
groups of approximately four to seven. The
possibility that multiple occupations are represented
by each group of features cannot be eliminated with
currently available data, but it is believed that the
best interpretation of the feature clusters is diat each
represents a single occupation. Earlier, it was
suggested that the cluster of features in Unit 106 on

200

Lot M3 may represent a settlement comprised of two
family or work units, each associated with at least
one deep and one shallower pit feature. Comparison
of the shell-tempered ceramic assemblages associated
with several feature clusters at Great Neck and
Addington indicated that the collections differ in such
attributes as sherd thickness, the frequency of
decoration, and the frequency of certain vessel forms.
It is presently unclear whether variation among the
assemblages is the product of temporal differences or
the reflecdon of culmral differences among
contemporaneous sub-units of a single regional
population.

In his model of Late Archaic through Middle
Woodland settlement patterns in the Outer Coastal
Plain of Virginia, Gardner (1982) recognizes a major
change between the Late Archaic and Early
Woodland periods which he interprets as a shift from
setdement systems involving seasonal cycles of group
fusion and fission to ones involving group sedentism.
Subsistence and setdement focus also shifts from die
Great Dismal Swamp to local estuaries over this
period. Gardner proposes that diiring the Late
Archaic macro-band base camps located on the
fringes of the Dismal Swamp were abandoned
seasonally as sub-units of the population dispersed to
micro-band base camps associated with the estuarine
zone. Foray camps were located in settings where
the range of available resources was less diverse. By
the Early Woodland, macro-band base camps were
located along the shorelines of major estuaries,
particularly at their junction with freshwater streams.
These setdements were supplemented by micro-
transient camps established along interior streams and
estuarine shores, as well as by foray camps located
along the estuaries.

The archaeological record at Great Neck
indicates that Middle Woodland setdements associated
widi shell-tempered ceramics likely represent macro-
band base camps abandoned for only short periods of
time. Although the site does not provide clear proof
diat diese setdements were fiilly sedentary and that
the setdement system was not structured by seasonal
cycles involving group fusion and fission, some
evidence does suggest a situation somewhat similar to
this pattern was in place. Both Gardner's (1990a)
analysis of floral remains from Middle Woodland
contexts at Great Neck and Whyte's (1990) analysis
of faunal remains ft-om Addington indicate occupation
occurred during die late spring, summer, and fall.

Whyte (1990) has suggested Addington was
reoccupied during the late winter, at which time food
cached in storage pits during the fall was utilized.

Mortuary practices associated with the
Middle Woodland period at Great Neck may also
provide some clues to the degree of sedentism
represented by the setdements. No Middle Woodland
mortuary remains were encountered by die VDHR in
excavations at Great Neck, but Painter (personal
communication cited by Geier, Smith, Andrews, and
Buchanan 1986:371) attributes most of the
approximately 170 burials he encountered in the
Riding Ring section of die site to the Middle
Woodland period, and has noted that most were
primary interments. One secondary burial believed
to date from the Middle Woodland was encountered
by JMUARC at Addington (Geier, Cromwell, and
Hensley 1986:85-90). Geier has noted diat die
number of Middle Woodland burials at Great Neck
suggests a "substantial population ... which was
resident long enough locally to have multiple deaths
take place within a period of setdement" (Geier,
Smith, Andrews, and Buchanan 1986:407).

In his smdy of the effect of organizational
variability and setdement mobility on mortuary
behavior during die Archaic in Tennessee, Hoffinan
(1986:49) has proposed diat frequency of secondary
bmial may be correlated widi die extent of logistical
mobility widiin a setdement and die proportion of die
annual cycle spent away from primary base camps.
Following this line of thinking, the low frequency of
secondary burials at Great Neck may indicate that
only a small proportion of the annual cycle was spent
away from the Middle Woodland setdements diere.

Although the archaeological record at Great
Neck would support Gardner's (1982) hypothesis diat
an almost fiilly sedentary setdement system focused
on estuarine resources had developed within the
Outer Coastal Plain in southeastern Virginia by the
Middle Woodland period, there is no evidence at
Great Neck that this type of system was established
earlier than the first few cenmries B.C. Elsewhere
widiin the immediate region, die earliest excavated
site which may fit this pattern is Currituck (Painter
1977, 1978) dated ca. 810 - 660 B.C. If setdement
systems involving sedentary macro-band base camps
situated within estuarine settings had developed by the
Early Woodland period, Great Neck clearly was not
a preferred locale at this time. As noted previously,

201

very few artifacts which can be attributed to the Early
Woodland have been recovered from Great Neck, and
the results of JMUARC's excavations at Addington
suggest Early Woodland remains at Great Neck may
represent seasonal base camps involving smaller
groups than those which utilized the site during the
Middle Woodland. Information available on Archaic
settlement at Great Neck is insufficient to determine
if the Early Woodland remains represent an increase
in the intensity of site use and settlement duration and
size over time.

The distribution of Middle Woodland shell-
tempered ceramics within the Coastal Plain of
Virginia provides some clues to the subsistence focus
and territorial range of populations who used similar
ceramics at Great Neck. Egloff and Potter
(1982:104) have noted "Mockley ware is found in
great qxiantities throughout most of the Coastal Plain
of Virginia, with the exception of Dinwiddle,
Greensville, Southampton, and Sussex counties."
Within southeastern Virginia, then, groups who
manufactined shell-tempered ceramics moved within
the interior beyond the distribution of estuarine
resources on only a limited and probably transient
basis.

Within the overall range of the distribution
of Mockley-like ceramics, a subregional tradition
confined to the Outer Coastal Plain of southeastern
Virginia may be represented by a more frequent use
of flat-bottomed, beaker vessels and an earher
development of a shell-tempered ceramic technology.
Comparison of the distribution of ceramics associated
with Painter's Currimck culture, which are
predominantly shell and clay-tempered or shell-
tempered, and his Dismal Swamp culture, which
employ steatite, clay, and sand temper, suggests
distinct subregional traditions focused respectively on
estuarine and interior freshwater settings may have
developed by the beginning of the Early Woodland
period in southeastern Virginia.

The fact that Mockley ceramics are
infrequently found in the Coastal Plain in North
Carolina raises some interesting questions about
differences in adaptations and settlement systems
between populations in this area and those in the
Outer Coastal Plain of southeastern Virginia. The
distribution of Mockley ceramics in the Middle
Atlantic region has been interpreted to reflect the
boundaries of a circum-Chesapeake interaction sphere

among populations practicing comparable estuarine-
oriented adaptations (Egloff 1985). Since similar
estuarine habitats are found in the Outer Coastal Plain
of northern North Carolina, the absence of a shell-
tempered ceramic tradition and the development of
the boundary in this area between the Middle Atlantic
and Southeast culture areas is problematical.

At present our knowledge and imderstanding
of variation among the Middle Woodland sand-
tempered ceramics occurring within the Chowan
River drainage is insufficient for delineating distinct
population groups or for determining what, if any,
territorial boundaries may have existed in this area.
The similarity between ceramics found in the Outer
Coastal Plain of northern North Carolina and the
Interior Coastal Plain of southeastern Virginia
suggests, however, that a high degree of cultural
interaction between these two areas was chaimeled
along the Chowan River and its tributaries, and that
perhaps the subsistence/settlement systems of the
groups which resided along the drainage involved
seasonal transhumance between coastal and interior
zones.

It is proposed that the Middle Woodland
sand-tempered ceramics present at Great Neck might
be interpreted along this vein. As discussed earlier,
review of the contextual associations of ceramics at
Great Neck suggests that the groups who
manufactiu:ed the sand-tempered ceramics occupied
the site for periods of shorter duration than the
groups who manufactured the shell-tempered wares.
While the settlements associated with sand-tempered
ceramics at Great Neck may represent procurement
camps situated along the periphery of the territorial
range of an estuarine-oriented population located in
coastal North Carolina, it is also possible these
settlements are associated with groups focused
primarily on the interior freshwater zone whose
setdement systems also involved seasonal dispersal to
small base camps or procurement camps within the
estuarine zone.

Radiocarbon dates available from the Great
Neck site suggest the locale may not have been used
extensively by Native American peoples from ca.
A.D. 400 to A.D. 1300. Among a total of 13
radiocarbon samples from various excavations at
Great Neck and Addington, only one has yielded a
date falling within this period. This date of A.D.
1160 was obtained by JMUARC on what is

202

seemingly a multi-component deposit containing 74 %
Early or Middle Woodland and 26% Late Woodland
ceramics (Geier, Smith, Andrews, and Buchanan
1986). Whether abandonment of the Great Neck
locale during these years was the product of
significant changes in subsistence/setdement systems
or the outcome of localized phenomenon such as
changes in the natural enviroiunent is not known and
can only be addressed through comprehensive
regional survey.

From ca. A.D. 1330 to A.D. 1510 Great
Neck was the site of Native American village
settlement. Maps of the Virginia and North Carolina
coasts resulting from the Roanoke expedition (Figure
69) indicate that two villages of the Chesapeakes-
Chesepiooc and Apasus— were located along the
Lynnhaven River ca. A.D. 1585/86; however, diere
has yet been no evidence uncovered in excavations at
die Great Neck site to indicate positively diat the
native inhabitants had any contact widi early
European explorers, traders, or colonists. Although
two radiocarbon samples associated with Late
Woodland remains at Great Neck have yielded mean
dates of A.D. 1510 and 1515, which at two standard
deviations from the mean extend as late as A.D. 1630
and A.D. 1655, no artifacts of European manufacture
dating from the late 16th or 17th centuries have been
found. A later radiocarbon date of A.D. 1620 ±100
obtained by JMUARC at Addingtonis not considered
reliable as it is derived from a deposit containing only
Middle Woodland artifacts (Geier, Cromwell, and
Hensley 1986:240-241; Geier, Smith, Andrews, and
Buchanan 1986:329).

Late Woodland remains encountered in
excavations at Great Neck by Pritchard, Painter,
Green, and the VDHR include (from east to west
across die site) a palisaded settiement with associated
burials and at least two structures located on Lots 16
and 17 in die Green Hill subdivision; an ossuary
burial and a third structure associated with burials
simated outside of the palisade on Lot GHF16; a few
small pit features associated with Late Woodland
artifacts on Lot 7 in the Meadowridge subdivision;
several burials on Lots M4-M6 with at least a few
structures on Lot M5; a longhouse structure and
burial on Lot Ml 1; a burial on Lot M3; and at least
two burials on Lot Ml. Abundant Late Woodland
artifacts have also been encoimtered in midden
deposits along the shore of the Long Creek canal at
the Addington and Lona Creek Midden sites.

although no Late Woodland structural remains or
burials have been identified in these two areas.

Given the nature and extent of the
excavations which have been conducted and the
accuracy of archaeological dating techniques it is
difficult, if not impossible, to reliably assess the
number of separate occupation episodes or the spatial
structure of the settlement represented by the Late
Woodland remains at Great Neck. Available
information suggests that settlement was focused in at
least two areas, each centered on elevated areas on
the landscape. The palisaded settlement on Lot
GHF16 is situated on what is presentiy the peak of a
gently sloping terrace ridge in an area Painter called
the "Hill Top" section of the Great Neck site. Late
Woodland remains in the western half of the site
appear concentrated around another topographic high
centered on Lots 6 and 7 in the Meadowridge
subdivision.

If the mean dates associated with radiocarbon
samples from these two areas are accurate, and
representative, at least two separate occupations may
be indicated: one dated ca. A.D. 1330 and one ca.
A.D. 1510-1515. Alternatively, die Late Woodland
remains at Great Neck may comprise a single
settiement of internally dispersed plan. Such
settiements are described in the early ethnographic
literatiue on Virginia Indians. John Smith noted, for
example:

Their houses are in the midst of
their fields or gardens, which are
small plots of ground. Some 20
acres, some 40, some 100. some
200. some more, some lesse. In
some places from 2 to 50 of those
houses togedier, or but a littie
separated by groves of trees.
[Arber 1910:363]

Robert Beverley observed that the Virginia Indians
most often palisaded "only their Kings Houses, and
as many others as diey judge sufficient to harbour all
their People, when an Enemy comes against them"
(Wright 1968:177).

Late Woodland structural remains
encoimtered at Great Neck are generally what would
be expected given information on building practices
among coastal Algonquian peoples in Virginia and

203

Figure 69. De Bry etching of White-Hariot map of the coast of Virginia. Source: Stefan Lorant, ed., 77?^ New
World: The First Pictures of America. Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, New York, 1946, Plate 1 .

204

North Carolina provided in ethnohistoric sources for
the late 16th and early 17th centuries (for a thorough
review of these sources see Callahan 1981:52-82 and
Rountree 1989:60-62). A total of possibly seven
presumably residential structures have been identified
at Great Neck. The best defined of these are
Structures A and C on Lot GHF16 and StructiKe D
on Lot Mil, which are each represented by an
elongated oval arrangement of postmolds which
defines the exterior walls. On Structure A it is clear
that posts on opposite walls were paired, forming
arches in a maimer which several early writers
compared to the construction of garden arbors in
England (Hariot 1982:67; Wright and Freund
1953:78). The length of the three structures ranges
from 9.4 m (30.7 ft) to over 12.20 m (40 ft).
Length/ width ratios range from 1.48 to at least 1.98,
generally conforming to Thomas Harlot's (1982:67)
observation that the length of coastal Algonquian
houses were "commonly double the breadth."
Doorways were most conmionly located in the
comers of the structiu-es. Structure D may also have
had an entrance located in the center of one side
wall. The structures at Great Neck do differ in one
respect from the houses depicted in John White's late
16th-century watercolors of coastal North Carolina.
The latter have straight endwalls and, thus, are
rectangular in plan.

In addition to the larger, longhouse
structures at Great Neck, a much smaller oval
structure, measuring 2.7 m by 2.1 m, which may
also date from the Late Woodland period was
identified on Lot Mil. The types of small structiu-es
which might be expected on coastal Algonquian sites
in Virginia and North Carolina include sweathouses,
watch houses, and work huts (Callahan 1981:74-74).
The latter were used for food processing and storage
as well as shelter.

Relatively few pit features at Great Neck can
be attributed to the Late Woodland period. In VDHR
excavations, no clear evidence was found to indicate
diat the longhouse structures contained pit hearths or
below-grotmd storage facilities. Recent excavations
at roughly contemporaneous sites elsewhere in the
Virginia Coastal Plain have yielded similar results
(Hodges and Hodges, eds. 1994; Mouer et al. 1992).
In contrast, storage pits are common on Late
Woodland sites located in the Piedmont of North
Carolina and southern Virginia (Davis and Ward
1991) and in southwestern Virginia in the Ridge and

Valley Province (Buchanan 1986; Egloff and Reed
1980). Whether these patterns represent relatively
insignificant cultural variation resulting, for example,
from differences in local soil conditions and climate,
or whether they reflect more profound differences in
settlement/subsistence systems or sociopolitical
structure (cf. DeBoer 1988; Ward 1985) might prove
a fruitful line of investigation to pursue in future
research. Regardless of its cause, the low frequency
of pit features on Late Woodland coastal Algonquian
sites is an important factor to be considered in the
development of archaeological research designs and
excavation and sampling strategies. On these types
of sites, midden as well as plowzone deposits are
extremely important contexts for obtaining
representative samples of material remains and
information on intrasite spatial patterning.

Only a rather limited inventory of Late
Woodland artifacts has been encoimtered in
excavations at Great Neck. Ceramics associated with
the period are shell-tempered, fabric-marked ceramics
of the Townsend series and the shell-tempered
Roanoke Simple Stamped type. Both fabric-marked
and simple stamped vessels are sometimes decorated
with incised or punctate motifs, but decoration is less
common on simple stamped sherds. The only vessel
form clearly indicated in VDHR ceramic collections
is a jar with a conical or sub-conical base and straight
or slightiy flaring walls. Both contextual evidence
and radiocarbon dates associated with ceramic
assemblages at Great Neck indicate that simple
stamped ceramics increased in popularity over time
relative to fabric-marked ceramics.

The collection also includes a number of clay
smoking pipes. Tubular pipes such as the one
associated witii Btirial 25 A on Lot GHF16 were
clearly made during the Late Woodland period. The
stems of tubular pipes can be circular, rectangular, or
hexagonal in cross-section. Clay elbow pipe forms
also are almost certainly associated with the period,
as is a type of pipe decoration executed with
rouletting and involving designs with triangular or
herringbone elements. The latter finding, in
particular, has significance in the current debate over
the ethnicity of pipes with similar decoration
recovered in 17th-century colonial contexts in
Virginia, which at least one researcher has suggested
were largely the product of African American
manufacture (Emerson 1988).

205

Since Great Neck is a multi-component site,
no definite Late Woodland lithic assemblages can be
isolated. The low frequency of lithic artifacts and
debris recovered from Late Woodland contexts
indicates relatively limited use of stone for tool
manufacture during the period, however. Specific
artifacts which may date from the Late Woodland are
small triangular points made of jasper and quartz and
a celt made from basalt. No bone tools were
recovered in clearly Late Woodland contexts, but
small disc beads made from shell were found
associated as funerary items with one Late Woodland
biuial and were recovered from the fill of two other
features.

The subsistence practices of the populations
who settied at Great Neck during the Late Woodland
period clearly involved agriculture as well as the use
of wild plant and animal foods. The remains of
hickory nut, acorn, and a few fleshy fhiits were
recovered in Late Woodland contexts. Cultigens
recovered include maize, squash, and bottle gourd.
No evidence for the use of any wild or domesticated
seed crops other than maize was found, although this
may be due to the limited number and size of samples
analyzed or sampling bias (Gardner 1990a).

Significant iirformation on the mortuary
practices of the Native American peoples who
inhabited the Coastal Plain of North Carolina and
Virginia during the Late Woodland was acquired in
VDHR excavations at Great Neck. Two forms of
burial were encoimtered at Great Neck: ossuary
burial and single, primary interment. On Lot
GHF16, primary biuials of two adults accompanied
by copper funerary items were situated along the
palisade line, while an small ossuary containing a
minimutn of three individuals and primary burials of
two subadult burials associated with a longhouse were
located outside the palisade. A primary biuial of a
subadult accompanied by shell disc beads was
encountered on Lot M3, and another primary bmial
of a subadult was foimd on Lot Mil just outside the
wall of a longhouse.

Early ethnographic sources on coastal
Algonquian peoples in Virginia and North Carolina
describe two forms of burial, but the practice of
ossuary interment is not mentioned. In his writings,
for example, John Smith noted that after elaborate
preparation the bodies of "kings" were laid on a
scaffolding within a mortuary temple where they

were maintained by priests. "For their ordinary
burials, they digge a deep hole in the earth with
sharpe stakes; and the corpse being lapped in skins
and mats with their jewels, they lay them upon sticks
in the ground, and so cover them with earth" (Arber
1910:75).

Ossuary burial may be referred to in a 1678
document from Maryland in which most of the
Piscataway "great men" were said to have been
absent from a meeting because they "were very busie
in gathering together their dead bones" (Browne
1896:185); but oiu" imderstanding of this mortuary
practice in North Carolina and Virginia is based
largely upon early ethnographic descriptions of the
Huron, an Iroquoian-speaking people who inhabited
the Saint Lawrence Lowlands region. At 8 to 12
year intervals, in anticipation of relocating their
villages, the Hiuron gathered together the remains of
those individuals who had died dming this period and
deposited them in a common grave. The Feast of the
Dead associated with this ceremony sometimes
involved only one village, although more often
several villages with strong social ties participated
together (Heidenriech 1978:374-375). If the interval
between the ceremonies associated with ossuary
interment in the Middle Atiantic was equally as long,
it is not surprising that it may not have been
witnessed by the English.

The close spatial association of mortuary
features with structural patterns at Great Neck is a
pattern not yet docimiented archaeologically
elsewhere within the Coastal Plain of Virginia.
Writing in the early 17th century, Henry Spelhnan
described a mortuary custom with some resemblance
to this pattern:

If he dies his biuiall is thus ther is
a scafrbuld built about 3 or 4 yards
hye from the ground and the deade
bodye wraped in a matt is brought
to the place, wher when he is layd
ther on, the kinsfolke falles a
weopinge and make great
sorrow... if any of ye kindreds
bodies which haue bin layed on ye
scaffould should be consumed as
notheing is leaft but bonus they
take thos borms from ye scaffould
and puttinge them into a new matt,
hangs them in ther howses, wher

206

they continew whille ther house
falleth and then they are buried in
the ruinges of ye house. [Arber
1910:cx]

Although describing what archaeologically
would be encountered as a secondary burial,
Spellman's account does note a connection between
interments and structures while also emphasizing
familial associations. The latter suggests that
variation in the location of primary interments on Lot
GHF16 might be understood in terms of family
versus community relationships. Adults, whose
economic value to the community as a whole is
expected to have been higher than that of subadults,
were interred along the palisade, a public structure.
The primary interments associated with the residential
structures on both Lot GHF16 and Mil are
subadults. The distribution of high status funerary
items among these five burials also patterns by age.
Copper was highly valued among coastal Algonquian
societies in North Carolina and Virginia, and access
to and redistribution of the material was controlled by
the chiefs (Potter 1989; Turner 1985:201-203). It is
unclear if high status is indicated by the shell beads
which accompanied the subadult burial on Lot M3.

Patterned variation among the primary
burials at Great Neck by age, location, and the
presence/absence of copper fimerary items could be
considered reflective of achieved levels of status.
Other aspects of the mortuary practices encountered
at the site, particularly the use of ossuaries, suggest
that members of the society were ranked by levels of
ascribed status as well. Archaeologists in the Middle
Adantic have generally assumed that individuals
interred within ossuaries represent the "common folk"
because, at least in precontact contexts, few fimerary
items of a type believed associated with high stams
have been recovered from ossuaries (Potter 1989;
Turner 1992: 116). Similarly, the absence of funerary
items in the ossuary on Lot GHF16 suggests the
individuals in this feature were of lesser status than
the adults interred along the palisade. The communal
form of the secondary burial may indicate that the
individuals in the ossuary were also of lesser stams
relative to the subadults interred in the primary,
single burials on the property.

Since adults and subadults are represented
among both primary interments and the ossuary at
Great Neck, these two forms of burial may

distinguish ascribed positions of status within the
society. Among members of the higher class, who
were interred in primary burials, the status of
individtials may also have been differentiated by age.
The existence of ranked status may also be indicated
at Great Neck by the difference in size between the
structiu-e located within versus those located outside
the palisade, although the structure inside the palisade
may be larger because it served the entire
community.

The ossuary burial at Great Neck may also
provide some clues to the level or nature of inter-
community organization among native populations of
southeastern Virginia during the Late Woodland
period. The number of individuals interred within
the ossuary is low and contrasts markedly with two
sites located in the Inner Coastal Plain widiin the
Potomac River drainage. At the Potomac Creek site
(44ST2), the number of individuals in five excavated
ossuaries was 41, 57, 77, 181, and 287 (Potter
1989:161-166). Ossuaries I and II at the Juhle site
(14CH89) in Charles City County, Maryland,
contained 124 and 173 individuals, respectively
(Ubelaker 1974). Ubelaker (1974) has suggested tiiat
the ossuaries at the Juhle site may represent the
combined remains of several affiliated setdements.

The ossuary at Great Neck is most similar to
those associated with sites located closer to the core
area of the Powhatan chiefdom. In a sample of
approximately 25 ossuaries from 10 Late Woodland
sites within the James and York River drainages and
on the Eastern Shore, the number of individuals
represented in each most commoiHy ranges ft^om 10
to 20 (Turner 1992:118). Ossuaries excavated in
coastal North Carolina have contained approximately
30-58 individuals each (Phelps 1980). The ossuary
at Great Neck prestmiably represents the deceased
from only one settlement. Its similarity to ossuaries
closest to the Powhatan core area suggests some
correspondence in the size of individual setdements
and the nature or degree of inter-community
organization within individual districts between these
two areas.

The sizes of longhouses at Great Neck,
however, suggest that some aspects of social
organizadon at the community level were more
similar to populations in coastal North Carolina.
Data on the length of longhouse patterns uncovered
at six other sites within the North Carolina and

207

Virginia Coastal Plain are shown in Table 3 1 . Three
sites— Governor's Land at Two Rivers (44JC308),
Flowerdew Hundred (44PG65), and Jordan's Point
(44PG300, 302, 303, and 307)--are located on or
near the James River within the Inner Coastal Plain
between the mouth of the Chickahominy River and
Hopewell. The remaining three sites— Amity
(31HY43), Uniflite (310N33), and Permuda Island
(3 ION 196)— are situated within the coastal region of
North Carolina. The sample of structures from the
coastal locations, including Great Neck, is small, but
house sizes are relatively large when compared to
those from settings within the Inner Coastal Plain of
Virginia. A considerable range in strucmre size is
displayed within the large samples from the Jordan's
Point sites and the Governor's Land at Two Rivers,
and only the largest structures at these two locations
approach the size of structures which have been
excavated thus far in the coastal regions. The
smaller size of the structures at the Inner Coastal
Plain sites may indicate that they housed smaller or
different types of social units than those in the coastal
locations.

Few other differences suggestive of variation
in social structure or indicative of distinct ethnic
groups are yet apparent in comparisons between the
archaeological record at Great Neck and sites located
closer to the Powhatan core area in the James River
drainage. For example, both single, primary burials
and ossuaries are present at Jordan's Point and the
Governor's Land at Two Rivers (Hodges and
Hodges, eds. 1994; Mouer et al. 1992; VDHR
Archives). At the latter site, the configuration and
size of the burial pits as well as the placement of the
bodies within the graves are markedly similar to the
Great Neck burials (Hodges and Hodges, eds. 1994).

Turner (1993) has suggested that the
distribution of Roanoke Simple Stamped ceramics
may be significant in defining group territories and
delineating regional interactions relevant to
imderstanding the evolution of the Powhatan
chiefdom. As reviewed earlier, ethnohistoric sources
indicate that dming the late 16th century Great Neck
was situated within the territory of the Chesapeakes,
who at the time had peacefiil relations and may have
been loosely allied with coastal Algonquian groups in
northeastern North Carolina. Until very recentiy , the
presence of Roanoke Simple Stamped ceramics at
Great Neck and in coastal northeastern North
Carolina was interpreted as fiulher evidence of the

political or cultural affinity between populations in
the two areas. Other districts within the Powhatan
chiefdom located on the James or York rivers were
distinguished from the Chesapeake and Nansemond
districts in southeastern Virginia by the presence of
predominantiy Cashie Simple Stamped or Townsend
ceramics. Research conducted over the past two
years indicates, however, that Roanoke Simple
Stamped is also the predominant ceramic in village
assemblages at the Governor's Land at Two Rivers
(Hodges 1993b) and the Tree Hill Farm (44HE674)
sites. The latter is located just below the falls of the
James River (McLearen and Biims 1992). The
Governor's Land at Two Rivers site has been
radiocarbon dated to A. D. 1560± 60 and A.D. 1700
+_ 70 (adjusted for C-13, uncalibrated) (Hodges and
Hodges, eds. 1994), and it and Tree Hill Farm both
correlate well with village locations shown on the
John Smith (1612) and Zuniga (1608) maps of
Virginia.

Although investigations at Great Neck have
provided important new data on the nature of
sociopolitical organization and cultural variation
among coastal Algonquian populations in Virginia
during the Late Woodland, additional regional
research is required before the roles these factors
played in the development and evolution of the
Powhatan chiefdom are understood. If ethnic
variation did exist among the groups eventually
incorporated into the paramount chiefdom of the
Powhatans, archaeologists will likely need to develop
new approaches to detect its presence. As is true of
most archaeological investigations, one of the most
important contributions of recent research at Great
Neck may be the recognition that an equal degree of
complexity is involved in cultural behavior and
processes and in teasing the reflection of these
phenomenon out of the archaeological record.

208

Table 3 1 . Late Woodland longhouses at seven sites within the Coastal Plain of Virginia and North Carolina.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL

LENGTH IN FEET

Silt

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM

GREAT NECK, 44VB7

30.7

40 +

JORDAN'S POINT

44PG300

18.8

27.2

44PG302

15.0

27.5

44PG303

16.9

32.0

44PG307

17.2

GOVERNOR'S LAND AT TWO

14.4

30.7

RIVERS, 44JC308

FLOWERDEW HUNDRED.

44PG65

21.0

22.0

AMITY, 31HY43

29.5

45.9

UNIFLl'l't, 310N33

42.6

PERMUDA ISLAND. 310N196

26.2

Sources: Jordan's Point (Mouer et al. 1992:Table 2; VDHR Archives); Governor's Land at Two Rivers (Hodges
and Hodges, eds. 1994); Flowerdew Hundred (Charles T. Hodges, personal communication 1992); Amity (Gardner
1990b:40); Uniflite (Loftfield 1979 as cited in Gardner 1990b:40); Permuda Island (Loftfield 1985 as cited in
Gardner 1990b:40).

209

REFERENCES CITED

Arber, Edward

1910 Travels and Works of Captain John
Smith. John Grant, Edinburgh.

Barber, Michael B.

1981 The Vertebrate Faunal Utilization
Pattern of the Middle Woodland
Mockley Ceramic Users: The
Haycock's Point Shell Midden Site,
Prince George County, Virginia.
Repon on file, Virginia Department of
Historic Resources, Richmond.

Barfield, Eugene B., and Michael B. Barber

1991 Archaeological and Ethnographic
Evidence of Subsistence in Virginia
During the Late Woodland Period. In
Middle and Late Woodland Research in
Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by
Theodore R. Reinhan and Mary Ellen
N. Hodges, pp. 225-248.
Archeological Society of Virginia
Special Publication 29.

Barlowe, Arthur

1982 Arthur Barlowe 's Narrative of the 1584
Voyage. In The First Colonists:
Documents on the Planting of the First
English Settlements in North America
1584-1590, edited by David B. Quimi
and Alison M. Quinn, pp. 1-12. North
Carolina Department of Cultural
Resoxirces, Division of Archives and
History. Raleigh.

Binford, Lewis Roberts

1964 Archaeological and Ethnohistorical
Investigations of Cultural Diversity and
Progressive Development among
Aboriginal Cultures of Coastal Virginia
and North Carolina. Ph.D.

dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Michigan.

Binford, Lewis Roberts

1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails:
Hunter-Gatherer Setdement Systems and
Archaeological Site Formation.
American Antiquity 45:4-20.

1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 1:5-31.

1983 In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the
Archaeological Record. Thames and
Hudson.

Blaker, Margaret C.

1952 Further Comments on Simple-Stamped
Shell-Tempered Pottery. American

Antiquity 17(3): 257-258.

1963 Aboriginal Ceramics. In The Townsend
Site Near Lewes, Delaware, edited by
H. Geiger Omwake and T. D. Stewart,
pp. 14-39. The Archeolog 15(1).

Blanton, Deimis B.

1 992 Middle Woodland Settlement Systems in
Virginia . In Middle and Late Woodland
Research in Virginia: A Synthesis,
edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and
Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 65-96.
Archaeological Society of Virginia
Special Publication 29.

Boyce, Douglas W.

1978 Iroquoian Tribes of the Virginia-North
Carolina Coastal Plain. In Handbook of
North American Indians 15, edited by
Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 282-289.
Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.

Browne, William Hand, ed.

1986 Archives of Maryland. Proceedings of
the Council of Maryland 1671-1681.
Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore.

Buchanan, William T., Jr.

1986 The Trigg Site, City of Radford,
Virginia. Archaeological Society of
Virginia Special Publication 14.

211

Callahan, Errett H., Jr.

1981 Pamunkey Housebuilding: An
Experimental Study of Late Woodland
Construction Technology in the
Powhatan Confederacy. Ph.D.
dissertation. Department of
Anthropology, Catholic University of
America.

1985 The St. Mary's Longhouse Experiment:
The First Season. Archeological
Society of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin
40(1): 12-40.

Chapman, Jefferson, and Gary D. Crites

1987 Evidence for Early Maize {Zea mays)
from the Icehouse Bottom Site,
Tennessee. American Antiquity 52:353-
354.

Chase, Joan

1992 Inventory of Human Osteological
Remains from the Great Neck Site,
44VB7, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Virginia Department of Historic
Resources Archives, Richmond.

Clements, Stephen R.

1982 Personal commimication, November 1 5 ,
1982.

Coe, Joffre L.

1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina
Piedmont. Transactions of the

American Philosophical Society (New
Series) 54(Part 5).

Coe, Joffre L., and Ernest Lewis

1952 Dan River Series Statement. In
Prehistoric Pottery of the Eastern
United States, edited by James
B . Griffin. University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.

Conkey, Margaret W.

1980 The Identification of Prehistoric Hunter-
Gatherer Aggregation Sites: The Case
of Altamira. Current Anthropology
21:609-630.

Custer, Jay F.

1989 Prehistoric Cultures of the Delmarva
Peninsula: An Archaeological Study.
University of Delaware Press, Newark.

Davis, R. P. Stephen, Jr., and H. Trawick Ward
1991 The Evolution of Siouan Communities
in Piedmont North Carolina.
Southeastern Archaeology 10:40-53.

DeBoer, Warren R.

1988 Subterranean Storage and the
Organization of Surplus: The View
from Eastern North America.
Southeastern Archaeology 7: 1-20.

Edwards, Andrew C, William E. Pittman, Gregory
J. Brown, Mary Ellen N. Hodges, Marley R. Brown
III, and Eric E. Voigt

1989 Hampton University Archaeological
Project: A Report on the Findings.
Department of Archaeological Research,
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Williamsbiu-g.

Egghart, Chris

1986 Archaeological Investigations at Great
Neck Site (44VB7) on Lot #11 of the
Green Hill (sic) Subdivision in Virginia
Beach, Virginia. Repon submitted to
Virginia Division of Historic
Landmarks, Richmond.

Egloff, Keidi T.

1985 Spheres of Cultural Interaction across
the Coastal Plain of Virginia in the
Woodland Period. In Structure and
Process in Southeastern Archaeology,
edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr. and H.
Trawick Ward, pp. 229-242.
University of Alabama Press,
University, Alabama.

1 99 1 Development and Impact of Ceramics in
Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early
Woodland Research in Virginia, edited
by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary
Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 243-252.
Archeological Society of Virginia
Special Publication 23.

212

Egloff, Keith T., Mary Ellen N. Hodges, Jay F.

Custer, Keith R. Doms, and Leslie D. McFaden
1988 Archaeological Investigations at
Croaker Landing, 44JC70 and 44JC71 .
Virginia Department of Conservation
and Historic Resources, Division of
Historic Landmarks, Research Report
Series 4.

Egloff, Keith T.. and Stephen R. Potter

1982 Indian Ceramics from Coastal Plain
Virginia. Archaeology of Eastern North
America 10:95-117.

Egloff, Keidi T., and Celia Reed

1980 Crab Orchard Site: A Late Woodland
Palisaded Village. Quarterly Bulletin of
the Archeological Society of Virginia
34:130-148.

Egloff, Keith T., and E. Randolph Turner

1984 The Chesapeake Indians and Their
Predecessors: Recent Excavations at
Great Neck. Notes on Virginia 24:36-
39.

Emerson, Matthew Charles

1988 Decorated Clay Tobacco Pipes from the
Chesapeake. Ph.D. dissertation.

Department of Anthropology,
University of California, Berkeley.

Evans, Clifford

1955 A Ceramic Study of Virginia
Archeology. Smithsonian Institution,
Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin
160. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.

Faulkner, Charles H.

1977 The Winter House: An Early Southeast
Tradition. Mid-Continental Journal of
Archaeology 2(2): 141-159.

Feest, Christian F.

1978b Virginia Algonquians. Id. Handbook of
North American Indians 15, edited by
Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 253-270.
Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.

Fitzhugh, William W.

1985 Commentary on Part III. In Cultures in
Contact: The Impact of European
Contact on Native American Cultural
Institutions A.D. 1000-1800, edited by
William W. Fitzhugh, pp. 187-192.
Anthropological Society of Washington
Series. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.

Fleming, Richard D.

1 98 1 Preliminary Report of Archaeological
Investigation of 44VB7 . Report on file,
Virginia Department of Historic
Resources, Richmond.

Ford, Richard I.

1987 Dating Early Maize in the Eastern
United States. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of
Science, Chicago, Illinois.

Gardner, Paul

1990a Armlysis of Carbonized Plant Remains
from the Great Neck Site (44VB7),
Virginia Beach, Virginia. Report
Submitted to the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources, Richmond.

1990b Excavations at the Amity Site: Final
Report of the Pomeiooc Project, 1984-
1989. East Carolina University,
Department of Sociology and
Anthropology , Archaeology Laboratory.
Archaeological Research Report 7.

Feest, Christian F.

1978a North Carolina Algonquians. In
Handbook of North American Indians
15, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp.
271-289. Smidisonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.

1980 An Analysis of Dan River Ceramics
from Virginia and North Carolina.
Unpublished M.A. thesis. Department
of Anthropology, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.

213

Gardner, William M.

1982 Early and Middle Woodland in the
Middle Atlantic: An Overview. In
Practicing Environmental Archaeology:
Methods and Interpretations, edited by
Roger W. Moeller, pp. 53-86.
American Indian Archaeological
Institute, Washington, Connecticut.

1987 Comparison of Ridge and Valley, Blue
Ridge, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain
Archaic Period Site Distribution: An
Idealized Transect (Preliminary Model).
Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology
3:49-80.

Madison University Archeological
Research Center. Harrisonburg, VA.

Gleach, Frederic W.

1988 A Rose By Any Other Names:
Questions on Mockley Chronology.
Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology
4:85-98.

Green, Paul R.

1987 Forager-Farmer Transitions in Coastal
Prehistory. Ph.D. dissertation.

Department of Anthropology,
University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill.

Geier, Clarence R.

1990 A Middle Woodland Bipolar Pebble
Technology in the Lower Chesapeake
Area of Tidewater Virginia. Journal of
Middle Atlantic Archaeology. 8:55-74.

Geier, Clarence R. , T. Ted Cromwell, and Steven L.

Hensley

1986 Archaeological Mitigation of Two
Components (44VB9 and 44VB92) of the
Great Neck Site Complex, Virginia
Beach, Virginia. Volume II: The
Addington Site (44VB9), Report of
Findings. James Madison University,
Archaeological Research Center.
Harrisonburg, VA.

Geier, Clarence R., T. Ted Cromwell, and Martha
W. McCarmey

1985 Archaeological Mitigation of Two
Components (44VB9 and 44VB92) of the
Great Neck Site, Virginia Beach,
Virginia. Volume I: Methodology, Pre-
Mitigation Evaluation, History, and
Background Data. James Madison
University Archaeological Research
Center, Harrisonbiu-g, VA.

Geier, Clarence R., Jane L. Smith, Susan C.
Andrews, and Rita Buchanan

1986 Archaeological Mitigation of Two
Components (44VB9 and 44VB92) of the
Great Neck Site Complex, Virginia
Beach, Virginia. Volume V: Artifact
Analysis and Data Syntheses. James

1990 Personal Communication, August 15,
1990.

Griffidi, Daniel R.

1980 Tovmsend Ceramics and the Late
Woodland and Southern Delaware.
Mary land Historical Magazine! 5{l):23-
41.

1982 Prehistoric Ceramics in Delaware (An
Overview). Archaeology of Eastern
North America 10:46-68.

Harrington, J. C.

1948 Plain Stamped, Shell Tempered Pottery
from North Carolina. American
Antiquity 13(3):251-252.

Harriot, Thomas

1982 A Briefe and True Report of the New
Found Land of Virginia (1588), as
reprinted in Hakluyt in 1589. In The
First Colonists, Documents on the
Planting of the First English Settlements
in North America 1589-1590, edited by
David B. Quinn and Allison M. (^nn,
pp. 46-76. North Carolina Department
of Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History, Raleigh.

Hatch, Danny R. , James E. Belshan, Steve M. Lantz,
George R. Swecker, and David E. Stamer

1985 Soil Survey of City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia. U.S. Department of

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.

214

Heidenreich, Conrad E.

1978 Huron. In Handbook of North
American Indians, edited by Bruce G.
Trigger, pp. 368-388. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Hodges, Charles T.

1992 Personal communication.

Hodges, Mary Ellen N.

1993a The Archaeology of Native American
Life in Virginia in the Context of
European Contact: Review of Past
Research. In The Archaeology of nth-
Century Virginia, edited by Theodore
R. Reinhart and Dennis J. Pogue, pp.
1-66. Archeological Society of

Virginia, Special Publication 30.

1993b Phase II Archaeological Significance
Evaluation of Site 44JC308, The
Governor 's Land at Two Rivers, James
City County, Virginia. Prepared by
James River Institute for Archaeology,
Inc. for Governor's Land Associates,
Inc., Williamsburg.

1: Summary of Research for Prehistoric
Components. College of William and
Mary Center for Archaeological
Research, Williamsburg.

and Charles T. Hodges,

Hodges, Mary Ellen N.

editors

1994 Paspahegh Archaeology: Data

Recovery Investigations of Site 44JC308
at the Governor's Land at Two Rivers,
James City County, Virginia. Prepared
by James River Institute for
Archaeology, Inc. for Governor's Land
Associates, Inc., Williamsburg.

Hoffman, Jack L.

1986 Hunter-Gatherer Mortuary Variability:
Toward an Explanatory Model. Ph. D.
dissertation. Department of
Anthropology, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville.

Hunter, Robert R., Jr., Mary Ellen N. Hodges, and

Deimis B. Blanton

1993 Phase II Data Recovery of Significant
Archaeological Resources within the
Proposed Route 199 Extension
Corridor, James City County, Virginia,
Project 0199-9650101, PEIOI, Volume

Kent, Susan
1991

The Relationship Between Mobility
Strategies and Site Structure. In The
Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial
Patterning, edited by Ellen M. Kroll
and T. Douglas Price, pp. 33-60.
Plenmn Press, New York.

Kerby, Merle D.

1982a Letter to Mary Ellen N. Hodges, April
23, 1982.

1982b Letter to Mary Ellen N. Hodges, July
7, 1982.

Lane, Sir Ralph

1982 Ralph Lane's Narrative of the
Settlement of Roanoke Island 1585-
1586. In The First Colonists:
Documents on the Planting of the First
English Settlements in North America
1584-1590, edited by David B. Quinn
and Alison M. Quinn, pp. 24-45.
North Carolina Department of Culmral
Resources, Division of Archives and
History. Raleigh.

Lorant, Stefan, ed.

1946 The New World: The First Pictures of
America. Duell, Sloan, and Pearce,
New York.

MacCord, Howard A. , Sr.

1965 The DeShazo Site, King George
County, Virginia (44KG3). Quarterly
Bulletin of the Archeological Society of
Virginia 19:98-104.

McLearen, Douglas C.

1992a Phase II Archaeological Investigations
on the "522 Bridge Site" (44WR329),
Warren County, Virginia. Virginia
Commonwealth University
Archaeological Research Center,
Richmond.

215

McLearen, Douglas C.

1992b Virginia's Middle Woodland Period; A
Regional Perspective. In Middle and
Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A
Synthesis, edited by Theodore R.
Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges,
pp. 39-63. Archeological Society of
Virginia Special Publication 29.

McLearen, Douglas C, and Beverly J. Binns

1992 Description and Analysis of Controlled
Surface Collection of the Tree Hill Farm
Site, 44HE674, Henrico County,
Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth
University Archaeological Research
Center, Richmond.

McLearen, Douglas C, and L. Daniel Mouer

1989 Middle Woodland II Typology and
Chronology in the Lower James River
Valley of Virginia. Paper presented at
the Middle Atlantic Conference,
Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.

Mouer, L. Daniel

1985 The Occaneechee Connection: Social
Networks and Ceramics at the Fall Line
in the 16th and 17th Centuries. Paper
presented at the Middle Adantic
Conference, Rehoboth Beach,
Delaware.

Mouer, L. Daiuel, Robin L. Ryder, and Elizabeth G.

Johnson

1981a Down to the River In Boats: The Late
Archaic/Transitional in the Middle
James River Valley, Virginia.
Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological
Society of Virginia 36:29-48.

1981b The Elk Island Tradition: An Early
Woodland Regional Society in the
Virginia Piedmont. Quarterly Bulletin
of the Archeological Society of Virginia
36:49-76.

Oaks, Robert Q., Jr., and Nicholas K. Coch

1973 Post-Miocene Stratigraphy and
Morphology, Southeastern Virginia.
Virginia Department of Mineral
Resources Bulletin 82. Charlottesville.

Opperman, Antony Frank

1992 Middle Woodland Subsistence at
May cock's Point (44PG40), Prince
George County, Virginia. M. A. thesis.
Department of Anthropology,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

O'Shea, John M.

1984 Mortuary Variability : An

Archaeological Investigation. Academic
Press, New York.

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.
Archaeological Society of Virginia
Special Publication 23.

Mouer, L. Daniel, Douglas C. McLearen, R. Taft
Kiser, Christopher P. Egghart, Beverly J. Binns, and
Dane T. Magoon

1992 Jordan's Journey: A Prelimiruiry
Report on Archaeology at Site
44PG302, Prince George County,
Virginia, 1990-1991. Virginia
Commonwealth University
Archaeological Research Center,
Richmond.

Outlaw, Alain Charles

1 990 Governor 's Land: Archaeology of Early
Seventeenth-Century Virginia
Settlements. University Press of
Virginia.

Painter, Floyd

1962 The Mussel Eaters of Waratan, Part 1.
Quanerly Bulletin of the Archaeological
Society of Virginia 16:51-54.

1963 The Mussel Eaters of Waratan, Part 4:
Projectile Points of Bone and Ander.
The Chesopiean 1(6).

1967a Long Creek Midden, Part 2: Micro-
Tools. The Chesopiean 5(1):19-21.

216

Painter, Floyd

1967b The Long Creek Midden, Pan 3:
Geometrically Incised Decorations on
Great Neck Ceramics. The Chesopiean
5(4): 94-110.

1968 Long Creek Midden, Part 5: A
Busy con Shell Gouge. The Chesopiean
16(3):57-61.

1971 An Engraved Hematite Pendant from
Long Creek Midden. The Chesopiean
9(4):63.

1977 The Beaker Makers of Currimck Sound.
Archaeology of Eastern North America
5:43-60.

1978 The Beaker Makers of Currimck,
Carbon 14 Dates. The Chesopiean
16(4-6): 67.

1979 The Ancient Indian Town of
Chesapeake on the Peninsula of Great
Neck: A Brief History. The
Chesopiean 17(4-5):65-75.

1980a An Early Eighteenth Century Witch
Bottle: A Legacy of the Wicked Witch
ofPungo. The Chesopiean \^306)■.62-
71.

Painter, Floyd

1989 Personal
1989.

conununication, August 1 ,

Pearce, Grayson B.

1968a Long Creek Midden, Part 4: Clay
Tobacco Pipes. The Chesopiean
6(2): 44-46.

1968b Long Creek Midden, Part 6: A
Decorated Stone Pipe with a Bone
Stem. The Chesopiean 6(6): 144-145.

Pearce, Grayson, and Floyd Painter

1966 The Long Creek Midden, Part 1. The
Chesopiean 4(2):35-38.

Peebles, Paul M.

1986 Preliminary Trenching, Mapping, and
Artifact Recovery Lots 5 and 11,
44VB7. Report prepared by Virginia
Foundation for Archaeological
Research, Inc. for Virginia Department
of Historic Resources.

Phelps, David Sutton

1980 Carolina Algonkian Ossuaries. Paper
presented at the 37th Meeting of the
Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana,
November 14, 1980.

1980b

1980c

"Fluted" Projectile Points of Bone and
Antler from the Great Neck Site. The
Chesopiean 10(l-2):35-37.

The Great King of Great Neck.
Chesopiean 18(3-6):75.

The

1982 A Summary of Colington Phase Sites in
the Tidewater Zone of North Carolina.
East Carolina University, Department of
Sociology and Anthropology,
Archaeology Laboratory. Greenville,
North Carolina.

1981 Letter to Richard Fleming, January 15,
1981. In Preliminary Report of
Archaeological Investigations of44VB7,
by Richard Fleming. Report on file
Virginia Department of Historic
Resources, Richmond.

1988 Two Terminal Archaic Cultures of S.E.
Virginia and N.E. North Carolina.
Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology
4:25-38.

1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina
Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and
Hypotheses. In The Prehistory of North
Carolina, edited by Mark A. Mathis
and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 1-52. North
Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources, Division of Archives and
History. Raleigh.

217

Potter, Stephen R.

1982 An Analysis of Chicacoan Settlement
Patterns. Ph. D. dissertation.

Department of Anthropology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel
HiU.

1989 Early English Effects on Virginia
Algonquian Exchange and Tribute in the
Tidewater Province. In Powhatan's
Mantle, edited by Peter H. Wood,
Gregory A. Waselkov, and M. Thomas
Hatley, pp. 151-172. University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Schiffer, Michael B.

1987 Formation Processes of the
Archaeological Record. University of
New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Sherwood, Sarah C.

1986 Archaeological Mitigation of Two
Components (44VB9 and 44VB92) of the
Great Neck Site, Virginia Beach,
Virginia. Volume III: The Sherwood's
Forest Site (44VB92). Report of
Findings. James Madison University
Archaeological Research Center,
Harrisonburg.

Quinn, David Beers

1985 Set Fair for Roanoke: Voyages and
Colonies, 1584-1606. University of
North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill.

Shoenbaum, Thomas J.

1982 Islands. Capes, and Sounds: The North
Carolina Coast. John F. Blair,
Publisher. Winston-Salem, NC.

Rafferty, Janet E.

1985 The Archaeological Record on
Sedentariness: Recognition,

Development, and Implications. In
Advances in Archaeological Method and
Theory, 8, edited by Michael B.
Schiffer, pp. 113-156. Academic Press,
New York.

Rountree, Helen Clark

1989 The Powhatan Indians of Virginia:
Their Traditional Culture. University
of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

1990 Pocahontas's Peoples: The Powhatan
Indians of Virginia Through Four
Centuries. University of Oklahoma
Press, Norman.

Smith, Bruce D.

1990 Agricultural Origins in Eastern North
America. In Agricultural Origins in
World Perspective, edited by Patty Jo
Watson and C. Wesley Cowan.
Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.

Smith, Gerald P.

1984 The Hand Site, Southampton County,
Virginia. Archeological Society of
Virginia, Special Publication 1 1 .

Smith, John

1612 Virginia Discovered and Described.
Facsimile on file Virginia Department
of Historic Resources Archives,
Richmond.

Sassaman, Kenneth E., Glen T. Hanson, and Tonomy

Charles

1988 Raw Material Procurement and the
Reduction of Hunter-Gatherer Range in
the Savannah River Valley.
Southeastern Archaeology 7:79-94.

Stephenson, Robert L. , and Alice L. L. Ferguson
1963 The Accokeek Creek Site: A Middle
Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence.
University of Michigan Museum of
Anthropology Anthropological Papers
20, Ann Arbor.

Sawyer, Fred

1971 A Platform Pipe from the Long Creek
Midden. The Chesopiean 9(4):65-66.

Taylor, Michael

1990 Personal conomunication.

218

Turner, E. Randolph, III

1976 An Archaeological and Ethnohistorical
Study on the Evolution of Rank Societies
in the Virginia Coastal Plain.
Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation.
Department of Anthropology,
Pennsylvania State University, College
Station.

1985 Socio-Political Organization Within the
Powhatan Chiefdom and the Effects of
European Contact, A.D. 1607-1646. In
Cultures in Contact: The European
Impact on Native American Cultural
Institutions in Eastern North America,
A.D. 1000-1800, edited by William W.
Fitzhugh, pp. 193-224. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

1986 Difficulties in the Archaeological
Identification of Chiefdoms as Seen in
the Virginia Coastal Plain During the
Late Woodland and Early Historic
Periods. In Late Woodland Cultures of
the Middle Atlantic Region, edited by
Jay F. Custer, pp. 19-28. University of
Delaware Press, Newark.

1988 Protohistoric Native American
Interactions in the Virginia Coastal
Plain. Paper presented at the American
Society for Ethnohistory Annual
Meeting. November 1988.

1992 The Virginia Coastal Plain During the
Late Woodland Period. In Middle and
Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A
Synthesis, edited by Theodore R.
Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges,
pp. 97-136. Archaeological Society of
Virginia Special Publication 29.

1993 Native American Protohistoric
Interactions in the Powhatan Core Area.
In Powhatan Foreign Relations 1500-
1722, edited by Helen C. Rountree, pp.
76-93. University Press of Virginia,
Charlottesville.

Ubelaker, Douglas H.

1974 Reconstruction of Demographic Profiles
from Ossuary Skeletal Samples: A Case
Study from the Tidewater Potomac.
Smithsonian Contributions to
Anthropology 18. Smithsonian

Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Ward, H. Trawick

1985 Social Implications of Storage and
Disposal Patterns. In Structure and
Process in Southeastern Archaeology,
edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr. and H.
Trawick Ward, pp. 82-101. University
of Alabama Press, University,
Alabama.

Waselkov, Gregory A.

1982 Shellfish Gathering and Shell Midden
Archaeology. Ph. D. dissertation.
Department of Anthropology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill.

White, Esther C.

1987 Archaeological Investigations at Great
Neck Site (44VB7) on Lot #5 of the
Green Hill Subdivision (sic) in Virginia
Beach, Virginia. Report submitted to
Virginia Department of Conservation
and Historic Resoiu^ces, Division of
Historic Landmarks. Richmond.

Whitehead, Donald R.

1965 Prehistoric Maize in Southeastern
Virginia. Science 150:881-883.

Whyte, Thomas T.

1986 Archaeological Mitigation of Two
Components (44VB9 and 44VB92) of the
Great Neck Site Complex, Virginia
Beach, Virginia, Volume IV: The
Zooarchaeology oftheAddington Site, A
Middle and Late Woodland Fishery.
James Madison University,
Archaeological Research Center.
Harrisonburg, VA.

219

Whyte, Thomas T.

1988 Fish and Shellfish Use in the Woodland
Period on the Virginia Coast. Journal
of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 4: 105-
120.

Wright, Louis B., ed.

1967 The History and Present State of
Virginia by Robert Beverley. Dominion
Books, Charlottesville, VA.

Wright, Louis B., and Virginia Freund, eds.

1953 The Historic of Travell Into Virginia
Britania (1612) by William Strachey.
Hakluyt Society. London.

Yamell, Richard A., and M. Jean Black

1985 Temporal Trends Indicated by a Sinvey
of Archaic and Woodland Plant Food
Remains from Southeastern North
America. Southeastern Archaeology
4:93-106.

Ztmiga

1608 Chart of Virginia. Facsimile on file
Virginia Department of Historic
Resources Archives, Richmond.

220

APPENDIX

Figure 22: Projectile points, Lot GHF16.

INVENTORY OF ILLUSTRATED
ARTIFACTS

Figure 17: Townsend,
ceramics. Lot GHF16.

Roanoke, and Mockley

Top row, from left: shell-tempered, net-marked
rim (14A); shell-tempered, net-marked rim
(18B); shell-tempered, cord-marked rim (14A);
shell-tempered, cord-marked sherd (4C).

Middle row: shell-tempered, fabric-marked rim
with incised and punctate decoration (7E); shell-
tempered, fabric-marked sherd with incised
chevron motif; shell-tempered, simple stamped
rim with punctate decoration; shell-tempered,
simple stamped sherd (3E).

Bottom row: shell-tempered, fabric-marked
sherd with incised and punctate decoration
(16C1); shell-tempered, fabric-marked rim with
incised and punctate decoration (18B); shell-
tempered, simple stamped sherd (3E).

Figure 18: Townsend vessel fragment from Feature
17C, Lot GHF16.

Shell-tempered, fabric-marked vessel fragment
with rim, partially reconstructed (17C).

Figure 20: Sand-tempered ceramics. Lot GHF16.

Top row, from left:
marked sherd (IC);
marked rim (27 A);
marked rim (IC).

fine sand-tempered, cord
fine sand-tempered, net-
fine sand-tempered, net-

Middle row: fine sand-tempered sherd marked
with open- weave textile (27 A); medium sand-
tempered, net-marked sherd, interior view (lA).

Bottom row: fine sand-tempered sherd marked
with wicker fabric (27 A); medium sand-
tempered, net-marked sherd (18A).

Top row, from left: triangular point, jasper
(9C); triangular point, quartz (surface);
triangular point, jasper (18B); triangular point,
jasper (9C); triangular point, jasper (IIB).

Bottom row: side-notched point, Potts Side-
Notched, chen(18A); side-notched point, quartz
(surface); stemmed point or preform, quartz
(siu-face); stemmed preform, chert (8C).

Figure 23: Anvil stones. Lot GHF16.

Top row, from left: anvil stone (7B); anvil stone

(5A).

Bottom row: anvil stone (7B).

Figure 24: Celt and three-quarter grooved axe, Lot
GHF16.

From left: three-quarter grooved axe, gneiss
(27); cek, basalt (18A).

Figure 25: Miscellaneous ceramic artifacts. Lot
GHF16.

From left: tubular clay smoking pipe (7D);
platform clay smoking pipe (27 FE); unidentified
ceramic object (3E).

Figure 26: Tubular smoking pipe from Feature 25A,
Lot GHF16.

Tubular clay smoking pipe (25 A6).

Figiu-e 27: Roulette-decorated ceramic smoking
pipes, Lot GHF16.

Top row, from left: bowl, roulette decoration,
smooth-surfaced triangular field (18B); bowl,
roulette decoration, herringbone design (30 A);
bowl, roulette decoration, smoothed-surface
triangular field (2B, 2B1).

Bottom row: bowl, roulette-like decoration
(7C); bowl, roulette-filled triangle (5C).

221

Figure 28: Copper pendants and tube beads, Lot
GHF16.

From top: copper tube bead fragment (25 A4);
triangular pendant of sheet copper (18B1A);
copper tube bead (25 A7).

Figure 38: Mockiey Cord-Marked and decorated
ceramics. Lot M3.

Top row: shell-tempered sherd with punctate
decoration (106C).

Middle row, from left: shell-tempered, cord-
marked rim with smoothed rim (106C3); shell-
tempered, cord-marked rim with notched lip
(106C3).

Bottom row: shell-tempered rim with cord-
marked surface smoothed over (106AE-8).

Figure 39: Mockiey Net-Impressed ceramics and
Mockiey sherd marked with open-weave textile. Lot
M3.

Top row, from left: shell-tempered, knotted net-
marked sherd (106AB5B-1); shell-tempered
sherd marked with open-weave textile
(106AB1B-12).

Middle row: shell-tempered sherd marked with
looped net(106AB5B-l).

Bottom row: shell-tempered, knotted net-marked
rim sherd(106AB5A-3).

Figure 40: Mockiey Cord-Marked roimd base. Lot
MS.

Shell-tempered, cord-marked basal sherd
(106AE1).

Figure 41: Non-shell tempered ceramics. Lot M3.

Top: fine sand-tempered rim sherd marked with
open-weave textile (108B).

Bottom: fine sand-tempered basal sherd marked
with open- weave textile, presumably same vessel
as above (18B).

Figure 42: Projectile points and gorgets. Lot M3.

Top row, from left: triangular point, jasper
(105A); triangular point, quartz (107A);
triangular point, quartzite (106E).
Middle row: stemmed point, slate (106C3);
side-notched point, quartz (106AB5B-19);
triangular point, quartzite (106AE1-12).

Bottom row: gorget fragment, slate (106AA-4);
gorget blank, slate (106AB1E-11).

Figure 43: Groimd stone tools. Lot M3.

Top: hammerstone, quartzite (I06AB1-6).

Bottom: mano, quartzite (106AE1-23).

Figiire 44: Ceramic smoking pipes, Lot M3.

Top row, from left: bowl, incised decoration
(106AB1D-11); bowl, elbow pipe (lOlB); bowl
rim with roughened surface (106C3); bowl with
punctate decoration (106C2).

Second row: bowl with punctate decoration

(106D4A); bowl

with punctate and incised decoration ( 1 06 AE- 15).

Third row: tubular pipe with punctate and
incised decoration (106AB5C).

Fourth row: tubular pipe (106C3); tubular pipe
(106C).

Bottom row: tubular pipe with punctate
decoration (100 A); shell-tempered, cord-marked,
tubular pipe (106C).

Figure 45: Antler projectile points and preforms, Lot
M3.

From left: antler tube (106AB5A-10); point
blank (106AE1-31); (upper) point, distal end
(106AB5B-24); (lower) point, proximal end
(106C); point blank (106C3); cut ander tine
(106AB5B).

Figure 46: Bone tools, Lot MS.

Top row, from left: fishhook (106AB1E-16);
needle (106C); needle (106C2).

222

Second row: splinter awl (106ABI-10); awl
(106C).

Third row: awl (106AB5C); awl (106AE-30).

Fourth row: splinter awl (106AB5A-11); awl
(106AB5B).

Fifth row: awl (106AB5B-22).

Bottom row: awl, deer ulna (106C3); antler
with worn tip (106C).

Figure 47: Bone beamers. Lot M3.

Top: beamer (106AE-29).

Bottom: beamer (106AE1-32).

Figure 48: Turtle shell cups, Lot M3.

From left: cup (106AB5B-25); cup (106AE,
106AE1).

Figiu-e 49: Bone ornaments. Lot M3.

Top row, ft-om left: marginella shell bead
(106C4); perforated shark's tooth (106C3);
perforated canine tooth (106AB5C-19);
perforated canine tooth (106C).

Middle row: hairpin (106C).

Bottom row: hairpin, proximal end (106C);
hairpin (106C).

Figure 56: Roanoke Simple Stamped ceramics. Lot
Mil.

Top row, from left: shell-tempered, simple
stamped sherd with incised decoration (163-2);
shell-tempered, simple stamped rim sherd with
incised decoration (163-1-6).

Bottom row: shell-tempered, simple stamped
sherd, interior (163); (upper) shell-tempered,
simple stamped sherd (163-1); (lower) shell-
tempered, simple stamped sherd (163).

Figure 57: Lithic and bone artifacts. Lot Mil.

Top row, from left: incised bone (150A5-11);
triangular projectile point, quartz (164 "0").

Bottom row: modified antler tine (186G);
hammerstone, quartzite (178-1).

Figiu-e 62: Townsend and Roanoke ceramics, Lot
M5.

Top row, from left: shell-tempered, fabric-
marked rim with incised decoration (255-1-6);
shell-tempered, fabric-marked sherd with incised
decoration (255-1-6); shell-tempered, fabric-
marked rim with incised decoration (149A3A-2).

Bottom row: shell-tempered, simple stamped
rim (258-1); shell -tempered, fabric-marked sherd
with incised and punctate decoration (149A3A-
1).

Figure 63: Mockley ceramics. Lot M5.

Top row, from left: shell-tempered, net-marked
rim (319-1A-2); (upper) shell-tempered, net-
marked rim (319-1A-2); (lower) shell-tempered,
net-marked rim (255-3-2); shell-tempered, net-
marked pouring lip, interior view (270-2).

Bottom row: shell-tempered rim marked with
open- weave fabric (255-1-17); shell-tempered,
cord-marked rim with smoothed lip (255-3-5).

Figure 64: Shell-tempered, flat-bottomed basal
sherds, Lot M5.

Top: flat-bottomed, basal sherd, interior view
(255-3-13).

Bottom: flat-bottomed, basal sherd, interior
view (319-1-2).

Figure 65: Sand-tempered ceramics. Lot M5.

Top row, from left: fine sand-tempered, net-
marked rim (255-1-27); fine sand-tempered,
cord-marked rim (155-1-29); fine sand-tempered,
cord-marked rim (255-3-17).

223

Middle row: medium sand-tempered, interior
(255-3-24); fine sand-tempered, interior (255-3-
14); coarse sand-tempered, interior (255-3-14).

Bottom row: medium sand-tempered, net-
marked (255-3-14); coarse sand-tempered, net-
marked (255-3-14).

Figure 66: Projectile points. Lot M5.

Top row, fi-om left: triangular point, quartz
(221A-1); triangular point, quartzite (270-1-11);
triangular point, jasper (250-1-7).

Bottom row: stemmed point, chert (221E-1);
notched gorget, sandstone (220-27).

Figure 67: Ceramic smoking pipes. Lot M5.

Top row, from left: bowl, punctate decoration
(255-1-32); bowl, punctate decoration (255-1-
33); bowl (255-3-23).

Middle row: tubular pipe (255-3-24); stem (255-
1-31).

Bottom row: tubular pipe (255-2-27); tubular
pipe (255-2-27); tubular pipe (255-2-17).

224

VIRGINIA BE.\CH
PUBLIC LIBRARY

"discover the world

VRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY

A1 8232 0341 73

VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY

8232 034173

Featured

Top

Featured

Top

Featured

Top

Featured

Top

Featured

Top

Full text of "Native American settlement at Great Neck : report on VDHR archaeological investigations of Woodland components at site 44VB7, Virginia Beach, Virginia, 1981-1987"

See other formats