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 



By 

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. 



IV 



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 

vi 



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 



IX 



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 



XI 



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 




< < < < 




2 
I 









z 



% 



9 




k4 

BO 
O 

O 



Pi 

a 

Q 
> 

x> 

•o 

a 
eo 






o 

u 

2 

a 

o 

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 



10 



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 



11 



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. 



12 



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 



13 



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 



14 



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 



15 



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 



16 



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. 



17 



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 



19 




> 
o 
u 

K 
111 



o 
a. 



CD 

> 

O 
UJ 



»- 
< 



UI 



CQ 
> 



3 
•O 

C 

o 
o 



00 



> 



60 

"o 

■B 



a 
o 

es 
u 

o 



s 
oo 

E 



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. 



21 







Q 



0. 

i 



t 



♦^ 



o 



c9 



CM 



• • 












••% 



Q 



% 










<0 

I 



o 

05 > 
_ o 

CD 
CO 



CO 

I- 
o 



> 



UJ 

o 

o 

< 

lU 



o 

< 
> 
< 

o 

X 

UJ 

en 

"q: 

u 



< 
a. 



>% 
^ 



o 
E 



U w 

• 2 

■K C 
M •— 

o 
E °- 



V 

o. 

o 

< 



c 
o 



X) 

s 

WD 

u 

60 

o 
u 






.3 

e 
o 

IH 

u 

e 
"3 

CL. 

•a 
»-. 

, o 



>> 

•3 






U 

"ei 

o 

o 
a 
a 

"i 

< 

a 

s 






Uj 




a. 




3 




^ 




•o 




C 




^ 




w 








<D 










-J 


3 


^ 




« 


















£ 


o 


o 






























a 


3 


3 






T3 


i 


^ 


A 






C 












O 


•D 


T3 


T3 








c 


C 


C 






•o 


o 


O 


O 






o 








(0 




o 


T3 


TJ 


■o 






$ 


O 


O 


o 


O 






o 


o 


o 




0) 


S 


* 


? 


-t 




TT 


4> 


« 


a> 






■o 














O 


o 


o 






2 


-1 


_i 


_J 



mm 



0. 
«0 



CO o 

- > 



CO 

z 
o 



il 5 



o 



GD 

> 



IT 

o 
o 

< 

UJ 

s. 



o 

< 

X 

o 

a. 



e 
o 



•3 



00 

o 



c 

n! 



o 
•a 






3 



OO 

_o 

"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 



24 



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 



25 



Shall 
Caramiet 



Witch 
BottU 



Sh«ll^./ 



.7^ 



Shovel 
T«tt Pit* 



LOT 16 



\ 



F3/4 



F2 



Fl 



HOUSE 



, Pip* 
/ ^ Tr«iioli«« 



/ 



/ 



/ 



\ LOT 17 



S 



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. 

26 



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 



27 



BROAD 



BAY 












1 


— 










4 


16 


1 


15 ■ 


AREA 


B 


K 




26 












./''^ 


\ 


' 


Wf 


fc 


5 



/ 



/ 



/ 



/ 



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. 



28 



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 



29 



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 



30 



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 



31 







< 

a 

3 



E 
< 



3 



_2 

Q. 



OS 
u 



6JJ 

in 



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, 



33 




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. 

34 




•^^^ 



I 






m 




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



35 



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 



36 







.rfrf*"*"- 



I 



4. and frue jarm^ aftnftr hew^s coucred 



r 



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. 



37 



0.6 
0.4 
0.3 
0.2 
0.1 



R«latlv« Frequency 




6 



8 



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. 

38 



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 


PALISADE 






N 


28 


120 


36 


11 


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 


PALISADE 






(CM) 










N 


10 


23 


36 


11 


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 











39 



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 



40 



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. 

41 



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. 



42 




Figure 15. Burial 18B, Lot GHF16. 



43 



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. 



44 



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 



45 




o 

O 



O 



o- 



. ' * 




Jo. 



m 





> 00 


LU 


5 2} 

CO 


CC 


< 


-^ 


iO 


2° 




q: t; 


(— 


^^ 


o 




_l 








» 


I 


r^ 


K 


CD 


ZX 


> 


UJO 


UJ> 


"d" 


q: 


^ 


o 




r ' 


- S 


PL. 




a ^ 3 


X 


■^ s 




a 










5 -i _ 


o 


^ < 


? E 5 


J 
















■i S S 


CQ 








t> r 


U lU Z 


a> 







D 



> 

(J 

X 

pq 



3 



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 



47 



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. 



48 



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 



49 



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



CERAMIC 
SHERDS LARGER 
THAN ONE INCH 
(NUMBER) 


1 


2 


3 


4 


TEST UNITS 
5 6 


7 


9 


10 


11 


TOTAL 

# % 


SHELL- 
TEMPERED 
























SIMPLE 
STAMPED 


15 


12 


60 


11 


15 


24 


21 


6 


3 


2 


169 


FABRIC 


7 


4 


5 


5 


7 


3 


12 


2 


6 


1 


52 


SUB-TOTAL 


22 


16 


65 


16 


22 


27 


33 


8 


9 


3 


221 57.8 


SHELL- 
TEMPERED 
























NET 


1 


- 


1 


5 


4 


1 


- 


- 


1 


- 


13 


CORD 


8 


1 


1 


15 


- 


2 


4 


1 


1 


- 


33 


SUB-TOTAL 


9 


1 


2 


20 


4 


3 


4 


1 


2 


- 


46 12.0 


SHELL- 
TEMPERED 
























UNIDENTIFIED 


6 


1 


4 


3 


6 


11 


11 


5 


6 


4 


57 14.9 


FINE SAND- 
TEMPERED 
























NET 


16 


2 


2 


3 


7 


1 


4 


2 


- 


- 


37 


CORD 


4 


1 


- 


1 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


6 


SUB-TOTAL 


21 


3 


3 


4 


8 


2 


5 


2 


- 


- 


48 12.6 



50 



Table 2 (com.) 



CERAMIC 
SHERDS LARGER 
THAN ONE INCH 

(NUMBER) 


1 


2 


3 


4 


TEST UNITS 
5 6 


7 


9 


10 


11 


TOTAL 

# % 


MEDIUM SAND- 
TEMPERED 






















NET 


1 


1 


- 


3 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


5 


UNIDENTIFIED 


1 


- 


- 


- 


1 


2 


1 


- 


- 


5 


SUB-TOTAL 


2 


1 


~ 


3 


1 


2 


1 


- 


- 


10 2.6 


TOTAL 


60 


22 


74 


46 


41 43 


55 


17 


17 


7 


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 


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. 



51 



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



CERAMIC TYPE 






FEATURE 








3E 


7E 


16C 18B 


25A 


29A 


SHELL-TEMPERED 












SIMPLE STAMPED 


15 


~ 


11 12 


9 


86 


FABRIC 


- 


14 


6 28 


20 


24 


NET 


- 


- 


2 


~ 


- 


CORD 


~ 


- 


2 


1 


- 


PLAIN 


- 


- 


4 


7 


23 


COMBED 


- 


- 


1 


1 


- 


UNIDENTIFIED 


- 


1 


1 5 


8 


31 


FINE SAND-TEMPERED 












NET 


- 


- 


3 2 


2 


5 


CORD 


- 


~ 


~ 


1 


~ 


PLAIN 


- 


- 


- 


- 


14 


UNIDENTIFIFD 


1 


- 


— - 


1 


— 


MEDIUM SAND- 












TEMPERED 












NET 


- 


- 


1 


- 


- 


FABRIC 


- 


- 


1 


- 


1 


UNIDENTIFIED 


— 


— 


— - 


- 


3 


TOTAL 


16 


15 


22 58 


49 


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. 



52 






-.-jK*"/- 



^ 




'^^jKLjs.. 
















^n||^ 



- o 

'^ CO 

I 

I 

■I 

ll 



o 

o 



o 



§ 



a 
o 



3 







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

54 



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 



55 




•a 

4^ 



IH 



•a 









u 






u 

O. 



M 




X 

o 



u 
u 

•§ 

'a 

o 
o 



O 

e 
_o 

3 



CS 



0\ 






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 


46 


14.1 


TEMPERED. 










NET AND CORD 










FINE SAND- 


17 7.8 


31 28.4 


48 


14.7 


TEMPERED 










MEDIUM SAND- 


6 2.8 


4 3.7 


10 


3.1 


TEMPERED 










TOTAL 


217 100.0 


109 99.9 


326 


100.0 



57 



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 



58 




?^ 



CO 



to 



X 
O 
•*■* 
o 






03 
C/5 



O 



3 
60 

E 



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. 



60 




"8 



. 8 

g 



-? 



•a 
u 

1) 

a. 
S 



•I 

S 

o 



•a 
u 






J3 




[1, 

o 

o 
-J 



•a 
o 
o 



•a 



s 
o 



3 



-a 

cs 
00 



3 
60 







JT 






* 



y 



— O 
^ CO 





o 

o 

-J 



o 



CM 



00 



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 



63 



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. 



64 



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. 



65 



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



TEST 


FLAKES 


SPLIT PEBBLES. 


HAMMERSTONES. 


BEFACES 


FIRE- 


UNIT 




CORES 


ANVILS 




CRACKED 
ROCK 

(GRAMS) 


1 


55 


7 


- 


4 


8 


2 


39 


7 


- 


- 


242 


3 


47 


4 


-- 


1 


69 


4 


43 


7 


-- 


1 


14 


5 


102 


15 


1 


2 


602 


6 


50 


9 


-- 


1 


184 


7 


141 


1 


2 


2 


341 


9 


55 


7 


-- 


4 


97 


10 


11 


6 


- 


- 


48 


11 


37 


1 


- 


2 


19 


TOTAL 


580 


64 


3 


17 


1624 



66 






— o 

CO 



I . 

•I 

II 



PL. 

X 

o 

o 
-J 



c 
o 



< 






3 
00 




rc 




X 

o 

o 








x: 



> 

o 

o 



CO 
3 



<N 



3 
00 

E 










o 






"if • - f - ^-' 





a: 
o 

o 






CO 

§ 



3 



in 



r 

1 



o 

CO 



PL, 

X 
O 

o 

< 

in 



o. 
'E. 
op 

•l 

o 



3 

3 
H 






3 







X 

o 

o 



'5. 

CO 

o 





3 
O 
OS 






3 



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 



72 



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 



73 



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. 



74 



I 



o 




X 

o 

o 



CD 

00 



t 



c 
o 



a: 
3 



C8 

c 

o. 
o 

u 



oo 



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. 



76 



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. 



77 



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 



79 




44VB7, LOT 3 
MEA00WRID6E SUBDIVISION 
VOHR EXCAVATIONS 1982 



N60 -I 



N50- 



N40- 



N30- 



N20- 



NIO - 



N - 



N-IO- 



BROAD BAY 



107 




u 




109 


103 




I 


106 


1 1 




104 



101 

n 



100 

n 



n 

102 



108 



J 



Thomas Bishop Lone 



E90 



— I 1 — 

ElOO EIIO 



— I 1 — 

EI20 EI30 



£140 



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

80 



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. 



81 



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 



82 



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 



83 



2 



•a 

s 



o 

N 

o 



i 



•o 
u 
1-1 

u 





^ 


'^ 


3C 


00 


3C 




c 


o 

§ 


































H^ 






















r- 


r-1 


-rt 


i/^ 


oc 


in 




3t 


c 


W~l 


w-i 


r-1 




oc 






















-«c 


^ 




>J^ 


^o 


oo 


_ 




^ 


- 




r^ 


-^ 


o^ 


O 


O 


o ^ 
















~~ 




















E 5 


















H < 






















































— c 
























Ov 


X 




TT 




(N 




^ 


<s 


c 


r^J 


o 


r-) 














sC 






r- 


r- 




■^ 


r- 


■^ 


O 


^s 


SS: 


r^ 


rr 


r-^ 


•^ 


d 




1 










<N 


(S 


— 


IS 




















^ 


m 


w-» 


*o 


ao 


tn 


U-, 


a- 






oc 


3C 


<s 


SC 


Ov 


u-i 


o 


s 5 




<N 


■^^ 


r- 


•^^ 


o_ 


o 




z 










ri 


ci 




o' 
























^_ 


CN 


m 


c^ 




r~ 


oc 




S^ 


- 


^c 




^' 


^ 


vC 




z s 




































^ ^ 




































« as 




































^ m 


















U O 


5t 




m 


m 


■^ 

m 


— 


^ 


oc 

o 

04 


^« 




r- 


(N 


04 


Wj 


w-j 







^ 


.6 


<> 


a\ 


r^ 


oi 




d 


as u 






r^^ 


<N 








Xi 


cs — 


















< 2 


















5: < 


















H H 




















5t 


-^ 


r~ 


P^ 


m 


m 
























H ■- 
|2 1 
















3 








pn 


wn 


^c 


r-- 






- 


- 


O 


- 


o 


o 


£ 



u 



oo 
u 

i 




I 



o 

a 

cs 

-3 






4> 



u 
u 

•o 






O 



a 
o 



o 

SS 

o 

I 

•3 

o< 

CO 



o 



s 

BO 






o 
o 

Q 

LJ 

O 



EC 




u 

2 

•a 




I 






^ 






o 
e 
o 

■^* 

% 

c 

M 

■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 



87 




CO 



so 

o 



•a 



a 

s 



d 






3 




o 

-J 



> 

X 

1) 



U 
o 



C3 
U 

a. 



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



3 



UJ 

< 
o 



Ul 

q: 

< 
li. 





o 



llj 

o: 

< 




CD 

< 

o 
III 



< 
bJ 




3 



c 

0) 

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 



91 



FEATURE I06D 




FEATURE I06AC 




FEATURE I06AF 




FEATURE I06ANI 




FEATURE I06AP 



FEATURE I06AN2 




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

92 



■«? 



^ 




o 

-J 

m 

< 
O 

3 

< 
o 
o 



3 

o 

"> 






3 



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 



94 



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. 



95 



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 



96 



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



FEATURE NUMBER 


DIAMETER (CM) 


DEPTH (CM) 


106G 


10 


8 


106J 


6 


6 


106H 


6 


8 


106K 


15 


19 


106M 


8 


2 


106N 


9 BY 17 


3 


106P 


6 


2 


106R 


9 


5 


106S 


6 


2 


106T 


6 


2 


106W 


7 


6 


106X 


6 


3 


106Y 


10 


5 


106AD 


14 


8 


106AH 


9 


20 


106AJ 


10 


2 


106 AM 


10 


3 



97 



FEATURE I08C 




FEATURE I08B 




0.5 



METER 



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

98 



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 



99 



o 

-J 



3 



o 



o 
o 



c 
o 







m 


'a- 




to 


o 


Ov 


o 






SS 


r-^ 


^ 


a^ 


Tf 


_j 


vd 


b 










v^ 








o 




_) 




















< 








































Q 




















^ 


















1 °^ 




^ 


— 


^ 


On 


^-1 


<r> 


00 


NO 


1 ° 






<N 




VO 


^ 




■* 


00 






r- 
















1 ° 




o 






Ov 


U-) 




rJ 


NO 


























S 
















1 __ 




o 


<^ 




T^ 


-^ 




l^ 




1 <~^ 


















o) 






tfl 
















1 ^ 




o 


(S 




a\ 


U-1 






00 


I ^ 










(N 








■^ 






s 












en 


V~l 


1 NO 
1 ° 






















Z 




















D 




















H 




















s 


r-1 
















r- 


H 


o 


^O 


, 


O 


f*^ 


_« 


■^ 


wi 


1 ~' 










o 








r^ 






Si 
















1 ""^ 




o 














r-l 


1 ° 








































' «^ 




o 


u^ 


OJ 


00 


»ri 


.^ 


<s 


r^ 


1 "^ 


















(Nl 






o 
















' n 




o 


■^ 




»^ 


00 


„_ 


00 


NO 


[ ^ 


















r*^ 








Q 














1 Q^ 


Q W 


- 


^S 


O 






2 




_] 


1 t« f^ 

Q -J _ K 


S o 


2 — 




S 




Q 


g 

2 


< 


s^ i:^ 5 5 _ 


CJ ^ 


^5 


03 
< 


s 


Pi 
O 


< 
.J 


C 


1 cfl c« H — C- 


i^ J 


c/3 on 


K. 


2 


U 


Cu 


5 


H 



U 



re 



o 



•3 



■a 

o 
o 






u 

1-4 

> 
o 
a 
u 



CQ 






■o 


^ 






W^ j 




1 




-^ 


00 




















rJ 


r*-i 


o 
















































< 






^o 


^ 




^ 


^ j 








00 






















(S 


\o 
























o 
























< 






tn 


TT 






•» ! 




tr\ 




VO 






TT 


m 






«*i 1 










VO 






















<S 


o 








































































5 




„_ 


o\ 


CA 


1 


t 


_^ 1 




1 


1 


o 


< 










' 


' 






' 




fn 


»o 
























o 
















































O 






Ov 




<s 


^ 










l:^ 






VO 


m 






!s 1 










o 






rJ 


rJ 




o^ 


r^ ! 








\o 


\c 






oo 








^0 1 








\D 


o 






















n 
















1 












Q 












1 












M 












Q 1 












DS 








n 




u 






U 






U 








> 




a. 1 

P! 

a 1 
11 






> 




C/3 

y 


.J 

EC 


Si 






< 








h 






Z 


u 


z 5 

U BO 
&. < 

C B, 


< 

Oh 


Kg 
§1 


z 


2 H 
O H 


1 


u 


c/3 












1 

1 
1 


2 r- 






H 



> 



•a 

3 



QQ 

< 

o 



CO 
U 
PL, 



3 



I) 

b4 

3 



m 

> 

c3 

0) 



a) 




> 




OJ 








1) 




T3 




3 




a 




c 


U 








T 


U 




vo 


1) 


O 




— ^ 


^4-1 


tl> 


O 


3 


V3 
U 
> 



tjl- 2 



U 






^ 


a> 




? 


1) 




b4 


T) 


3 




e« 


ns 






fc 


VI 




C8 




1> 


<i> 








o 


'^l- 


Z 


CN 



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 


CERAMICS 


WALL THICKNESS. BODY AND RIM SHERDS (CM) 






N 


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) 






N 


54 


41 


MEAN 


0.78 


0.73 


STANDARD DEVIATION 


0.1333 


0.1011 


RIM PROFILE (N = 78) 






STRAIGHT 


18 


9 


INCURVED 


25 


23 


EVERTED LIP 


3 


— 


RIM TREATMENT (N=78) 






SMOOTHED SURFACE 


19 


15 


ROUGHENED SURFACE 


13 


11 


NOTCHED DECORATION 


13 


4 


PUNCTATE DECORATION 


1 • 


2 


BASAL FORM (N=12) 






FLAT-BOrrOMED 


7 


2 


CONICAL 


1 


1 


ROUND 


- 


1 



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 
< 



o 



•a 

3 



— "^ _. 



u 

s 
o 

u 

o 



•a 

a 

u 







I 



o 
-J 



o 
a. 



s 








^ 


s y- 


s 




a: 




H 


,— ^ 


o S 1 


2 


U 


[i: 




~j 












-J 
D 
O 

X 


D 


C/5 


& 








2 


J 


u 


<, 




V3 


s 


< 


H 


ca 


Q 








^ 


J 




< 








oi 




w 




^ 




< 




s 




w 




u 




z 




u 








z 




u 




> 




o 




Qi 




a. 




^ 




o 




11, 





< 



02 

< 


1 


1 

D 




D 
1 


o 


z 




z 


.^ o 


w => 


^ o 


og 


vo oa 
2 S- 


o^ 


q 


z 


o 




u 


J 


S^ 


1 


Pu 



^ 



s 
o 



a 



+ 






CJ 

< 

CJ 



< 

t/3 



< 

O 



D 

a 
z 
< 



O 

z 
< 



z 
< 



a 
z 
< 



IS 

< 

o 



Q 
u 

a: 

o 
z 

o 






O 



— 

3 



<u 

u 

•3 



o 



3 



c 

CO 

o 
o 






o 

a 

i 






a: 



§g| 



u 1^ 

g < 2 « 

as ^^ O 
(J -- 



U 

< 



IS 

— < 



5«S 

§8 

E- CO 
S U 



< 



< 



< 



< 



[1. 
< 



< 



CQ 
< 

o 



CO 
CL, 



00 



3 



> 

"3 

CO 

1) 

3 
CB 



J3 



5 



lU 

> 
•a 

3 

1 






U 

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 


11 


1 


- 




-- 


12 


20 MM 


48 


2 


5 




2 


57 


30 MM 


1 


2 


8 




- 


11 


40 MM 


-- 


- 


3 




- 


3 


50 MM 


- 


1 


1 




- 


2 


>50MM 


- 


-- 


1 




- 


1 


TOTAL 


60 


6 


18 




2 


86 



(b) 



FLAKE 
SIZE 


JASPER 


QUARTZ 


FLAKES LACKING CORIEX 

QUARTZITE SANDSTONE 


TOTAL 


<10MM 


14 


4 


2 




2 


22 


20 MM 


15 


8 


9 




- 


32 


30 MM 


- 


1 


1 




1 


3 


40 MM 


- 


- 


- 




- 


- 


50 MM 


- 


- 


~ 




- 


~ 


>50MM 


- 


- 


- 




- 


— 


TOTAL 


29 


13 


12 




3 


57 



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



113 




\ 4 



^ 




y 




— o 

'^ CD 




o 
-J 



o 

60 



o 






3 
60 

E 





2 S 

— C 

f^' CO 



B 



■I 

ll 



o 



o 
o 

I 



I 



CO 



3 
00 

E 











.5 !N 



K^ 



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 



r 










ro 



CO 



i 

1 

I 

I 



o 



1) 

O. 
03 

c 
'S 



o< 









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 



rO 




CO 



I 

I 

I 

I 



3! 






o 
2 

o 

CQ 



s 



— o 

1^ CD 




'f 



o 

-J 



s 
o 

CQ 






00 





ro 



CO 



I 

I 
i 



2 



H 



00 



00 



^ 




'0 



- r 

i 



o 

CO 



en 

O 



a 



o 

PQ 






s 

QO 



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 



GN 



D 



O SUuCture F 



Ol92 

© 193 









©205 



^ 



©200 



©" 






• * Structure D 
' Q\7AA 



746 ."O .. 




4'^ 



•/. 



As, 


■\ * structure 
G . 


. 

• 


0' 


.0 




O-; ©„e 






TS9 



n □ □ □ 



D 



D 



n 



I - 1 Historic 



+ NI40 



.L 



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 



'U 



\ 



© 



© • . 




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

129 



FEATURE I55B 

Ai- 



FEATURE I58B 





-'A 



B B 



FEATURE 165 




FEATURE 195 



Cf- 




i 



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 




N 



k 



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 


NO 


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 


NO 


NONCULTURAL 


168 


N182E205 


NO 


NONCULTURAL 


169 


N179E205 


NO 


HISTORIC POST 


170 


N179 E205 


NO 


NONCULTURAL 


171 


N172E203 


NO 


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 


NO 


NONCULTURAL 


178 


N125E207 


YES 


HISTORIC POST 


179 


N121 E207 


NO 


NONCULTURAL 


181 


N114E215 


NO 


NONCULTURAL 


182 


N125 E220 


NO 


NONCULTURAL 


187 


N169E221 


NO 


NONCULTURAL 


192 


N185E210 


NO 


HISTORIC POST 


193 


N182E210 


NO 


HISTORIC POST 


194 


N176 E209 


NO 


HISTORIC POST 



135 



Table 17. Continued. 



FEATURE 


LOCATION 


EXCAVATED 


INTERPRETATION 


NUMBER 








196 


N100E212 


NO 


HISTORIC POST 


197 


N160 E205 


NO 


HISTORIC POST 


199 


N187 £222 


NO 


HISTORIC POST 


200 


N162E223 


NO 


HISTORIC POST 


201 


N104 E234 


NO 


HISTORIC POST 


202 


NlOO E234 


NO 


HISTORIC POST 


203 


N104 E236 


NO 


HISTORIC POST 


204 


N165E213 


NO 


HISTORIC POST 


205 


N167 E201 


NO 


HISTORIC POST 


206 


N192E116 


NO 


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 




o 

q' 

3 



> 

o 



S3 
U 

3 
O 

o 






3 
00 



6N 



_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. 


FT. 


FT. 


CM. 




DIAMETER 












N 


53 


56 


109 


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 


0.20-0.75 


6,10-22.86 




DEPTH 












N 


53 


56 


109 


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 



o 

d 

It 

cu 
Q 

2 

u 

S 



a 






















a 






















m 








^o 


TT 








T 


■* 


3 






't 


ON 


d 
en 






^ 


OS 


d 


& 




30 


o 


O 




00 


d 


Ol 


O 


D 








d 


d 








d 


d 


^ 






















c« 






















t. 






















CJ 






















cn 








m 










r^ 


en 


D 






o 


00 








VO 


o\ 


d 


H 




(S 


(S 


■* 


d 




<s 




«-i 


O 




•*" 


o 


o 


(^ 




"■ 


d 


o 


— 


D 








d 


d 








d 


d 


n 






















C/3 






















a 






















u 






















oi 








t^ 


VO 








n 


w^ 


z> 






v^ 


tt 


d 






o 


r>> 


d 


H 




o 


rl 


(N 




o 


m 


'S- 


U 




'^ 


O 




O) 




"" 


d 


"" 


— 


D 








d 


d 








d 


d 


PS 






















on 






















Q 


























Q\ 


»/^ 


CO 






Ov 


•o 


00 


oo 
d 


Urn 




o 


r^ 


Ov 


d 




o 


m 


\o 


b 






d 


O 


_1h 






d 


"■ 


o 
d 


3 

g 








d 


d 








o 
























CO 
























g 






Q Z 










Q Z 






0^ 


2 


Z 
< 


32 


O 

z 
< 


g 

a 


z 


Z 
< 


§2 

i| 


a 
u 
z 
< 




5 










Q 











ON 



3 



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 


1 


2 


3 


TEST SQUARE 

4/5 


6 


8 


9 


TOTAL 

# % 


CERAMIC SHERDS 
LARGER THAN 
1 INCH 




















SHFIT- 
TEMPERED 






3 


4 


1 


1 


15 


24 


40.7 


FABRIC 


- 


- 


2 


1 


1 


1 


4 


9 


15.2 


NET 


- 


~ 


4 


~ 


2 


-- 


1 


7 


11.9 


CORD 


- 


- 


1 


5 


-- 


2 


1 


9 


15.2 


UNID. 


- 


- 


1 


4 




2 


- 


7 


11.9 


FINE SAND- 
TEMPERED 




















NET 


-- 


-- 


-- 




1 


- 


1 


2 


3.4 


MEDIUM SAND- 
TEMPERED 




















CORD 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


1 


1.7 


TOTAL 


~ 


~ 


11 


14 


5 


6 


23 


59 


100.0 


CERAMIC SHERDS 
SMALLER THAN 

IINCH 


12 


7 


42 


180 


20 


47 


25 


333 




CLAY PIPES 


- 


- 


- 


1 


-- 


-- 


-- 


1 




LITHIC 
ARTIFACTS 


1 


-- 


2 


7 


-- 


1 


6 


17 




BONE/SHFT T 
TOOLS OR 
ORNAMENTS 


~ 


~ 




1 




- 


- 


1 




EUROPEAN- 
AMERICAN 
ARTIFACTS 


2 


- 




1 




- 


- 


2 





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 


6 




- 


5 


~ 




2 


~ 


1 


~ 


NET 




6 


3 


2 


- 


4 


- 


- 


- 


~ 


CORD 


- 




~ 


~ 




9 


- 


- 


- 


- 


UNIDENTIFIED 




1 


- 


9 


2 


.. 


- 


- 


6 


- 


FINE SAND- 
TEMPERED 






















NET 


~ 


~ 


~ 


~ 


~ 


~ 


- 


- 


~ 


1 


CORD 


- 


- 


- 


1 


- 


.. 


2 








TOTAL 


6 


7 


3 


150 


2 


13 


4 


6 


1 


1 


CERAMIC SHERDS 
SMAT T FR THAN 
IINCH 


3 


5 


12 


73 


10 


32 4 


2 


23 


2 


5 


LITHICS 






















FLAKES 


- 


2 


- 


1 


~ 


1 


- 


- 


- 


- 


TESTED COBBLES 


- 


~ 


- 


~ 


- 


- 


- 


1 


- 


- 


UNMODIFIED 
COBBLE/PEBBLES 


- 


- 


~ 


~ 


- 


3 


- 


- 


- 


- 


BONE/SHELL TOOLS 
OR ORNAMENTS 


~ 




~ 


1 


- 


~ 


" 


~ 




- 



146 




^^ 



ro 



CO 



I 






I 



1 

Mi ' 
I 



o 



u 



CO 



s 



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 



mm 





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 



1 



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 



o 
« 
n 



O 
N 



O 
o 



o 

CB 
CM 



VDHR 
EXCAVATIONS 




lO 


• 

2 

o 

3 






/ 


s • 

Sit "^ ' 




CO 











o 




♦ 


•o 


lO 


• 


UJ 


e 




> 




o 




o 




M 




• 


o 




N 


>> 






Ul 


• 
3 




e 








> 




• 




b 


o 


o. 


o 




lO 


k 


UJ 


o 




^ 




o 




e 








e 


o 




« 




N 


g|H 


W 


■ 


o 




« 




M 




U 





42 
3 

U 
DO 

? 

O 

re 
u 

in 

o 



e o 

< I- 

— U 

OB X 

a. u 



i'^ 




«2\.'\ 2 


% 


-% ■■ ■-■ 

^ .0 0- 


f 




-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 



X 

o 
> 



e 
e 



e 
o 
9 



e 



Xi 

-T3 
U 

u 

> 

O 
a 



09 

e 



I e 



e 
E 



e 
e 
E 



S 



"re" 
2 



00 



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? 



13 


LW 


18 


LW 


- 


LW 


- 


MW. LW 


- 


LW 


~ 


LW 


21? 


MW 


- 


UNKNOWN 


~ 


MKED MW/LW 


- 


PROBABLY LW 


22 


MW 


- 


LW 


- 


UNKNOWN 


16. 17 


MW 


16? 


MW 


- 


LW 


- 


LW 


- 


LW 


- 


MW 


5 


MW 


6 


MW 


3 


MW 


17? 


MW 



1? 



14 



11? 



MW 



MW 



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



156 




<N 



C8 
<U 

U. 

O 
Ji 

o 



ON 



3 



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 



o 






,«> 

Oh 
O 

ts 
2 

D. 

1 

e 



O 



3> 



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 




^r 



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 


20 


11 


3 


FINE FABRIC 


2 


1 


27 


NET 


- 


85 


- 


CORD 


- 


45 


1 


OPEN-WEAVE FABRIC 


- 


1 


- 


UNIDENTIFIED 


1 


65 


3 


FINE SAND-TEMPERED 








NET 


- 


5 


- 


CORD 


- 


1 


- 


TOTAL 


23 


214 


34 



169 



Table 25. Ceramics from Feature 255, Lot M5. 



CERAMIC 
TYPE 


1 


EXCAVATION LEVEL 

2 3 


4 


# 


TOTAL 

% 


SHELL-TEMPERED 














SIMPLE 
STAMPED 


48 


3 


- 


~ 


51 


6.6 


FINE FABRIC 


57 


3 


- 


- 


60 


7.8 


NET 


26 


55 


76 


35 


192 


25.0 


CORD 


15 


17 


57 


12 


101 


13.2 


OPEN-WEAVE 
FABRIC 


1 


- 


- 


1 


2 


0.3 


UNIDENTIFIED 


158 


44 


79 


17 


298 


38.9 


FINE SAND- 
TEMPERED 














NET 


28 


8 


4 


- 


40 


5.2 


CORD 


2 


1 


8 


- 


11 


1.4 


UNIDENTIFIED 


- 


1 


5 


- 


6 


0.8 


MEDIUM & COARSE 
SAND-TEMPERED 














NET 


- 


- 


6 


~ 


6 


0.8 


TOTAL 


335 


132 


235 


65 


767 


100.0 



170 




o 



u 

Si 
§ 

s 

1 
1 



3 
(I, 



Table 26. Sherd thickness of ceramics from Lot M5. 



CERAMIC TYPE 


N 


MEAN (CM) 


STANDARD DEVIATION 


SHELL-TEMPERED, SIMPLE 








STAMPED 








FEATURE 255 


46 


0.78 


0.1095 


FEATURE 258 


19 


0.78 


0.088 


TOTAL 


65 


0.78 


0.0982 


SHELL-TEMPERED, FABRIC 








FEATURE 255 


57 


0.78 


0.1274 


FEATURE 282 


24 


0.87 


0.0624 


TOTAL 


81 


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 


49 


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 

;>^ 

u 

u 

o 



CO 



s 

CO 

PL 





■^ ■ ,^' 



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?''' 



IM 





3 ;N. 
S CM 



Figure 65. Sand-tempered ceramics. Lot M5. 



177 







,5 IN 



H^ 



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) 


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 


L9 


- 


2.5 


0.5 


NARROW. 


SURFACE 


CHERT 


0.5 


L9 


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 







i 



o 

OJ 




.# 



%. 






u 






u 
U 



so 



s 



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) 








N 


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) 








N 


78 


35 


Chi-square= 8.28876 


DECORATED 


20 


1 


d.f. = l 


NOT DECORATED 


5S 


34 


p = 3. 98913 E-3 


RIM PROFILE (RIM SHERDS) 








N 


78 


35 


Chi-square=3. 30612 


STRAIGHT/EVERTED LIP 


30 


19 


d.f.=2 


INCURVED 


48 


16 


p = 0.191463 


BASAL FORM (BASAL SHERDS) 








N 


12 


15 




FLAT-BOTTOMED 


9 


15 


N.A. 


ROUND 


1 


- 




CONICAL 


2 


-- 





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 % 


N % 


N 


180NF23 


1 100.0 


- 


1 


200 Fl 


1 100.0 


- 


1 


200N F3 


1 9.1 


10 90.0 


11 


200N F6 


6 23.1 


20 76.9 


26 


200N F8 


21 65.6 


11 34.4 


32 


200N FIO 


53 37.8 


87 62.1 


140 


200NF11 


11 23.9 


35 76.1 


46 


200N F17 


5 71.4 


2 28.6 


7 


200NF19 


28 32.6 


58 67.4 


86 


200N F23 


7 30.4 


16 69.6 


23 


200N F28 


39 19.4 


162 80.6 


201 


200N F33 


5 16.7 


25 83.3 


30 


200N F34 


4 16.0 


21 84.0 


25 


220N F5 


13 86.7 


2 13.3 


15 


220NF11 


23 26.7 


63 73.2 


86 


220N F12 


- 


1 100.0 


1 


220NF13 


17 34.0 


33 66.0 


50 


220N F22 


10 16.4 


51 83.6 


61 


220N F28 


13 14.9 


74 85.0 


87 


220N F30 


9 60.0 


6 40.0 


15 


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 



o 

^^ 220N F4 

O24ON F6 



o 

220N F5 



200N F33 
_200N Fl 
O 

^- V-^ 200N F28 

C/200N F6 
200N F8 




Q 



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 



o 



/^~N.200N 



F23 



+ 

240N 

92E 



^ ^220N F28 
/ N.220N F22 



4- 

I90N 
92E 



o 



200N F40 



K//////////// 

/p\220N F40 // / 



10 



FEET 



20 



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 


77 


227 


4 


12 


1008 


477 


MOCKLEY 


27 


26 


1 


13 


231 


71 


MT. PLEASANT 


58 


96 


7 


8 


96 


391 


DEEP CREEK 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


1 


CLAY-TEMPERED 


-- 


- 


- 


- 


5 


- 


OTHER 


1 


- 


- 


-- 


19 


18 


TOTAL 


163 


349 


8 


21 


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 




N 




LENGTH IN FEET 


Silt 






MINIMUM 


MAXIMUM 


GREAT NECK, 44VB7 




3 


30.7 




40 + 


JORDAN'S POINT 












44PG300 




5 


18.8 




27.2 


44PG302 




9 


15.0 




27.5 


44PG303 




11 


16.9 




32.0 


44PG307 




1 


17.2 




17.2 


GOVERNOR'S LAND AT TWO 


19 


14.4 




30.7 


RIVERS, 44JC308 












FLOWERDEW HUNDRED. 


44PG65 


3 


21.0 




22.0 


AMITY, 31HY43 




2 


29.5 




45.9 


UNIFLl'l't, 310N33 




1 


42.6 




42.6 


PERMUDA ISLAND. 310N196 


1 


26.2 




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 



CL 



VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY 



A1 



8232 034173