B01 Attachment 6 Phase I Archaeological Survey.pdf

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

SUBMITTED BY

Dewberry Engineers Inc.

600 Parsippany Road Suite 301 Parsippany, New Jersey 07054

PREPARED FOR

Nashville Area Indian Health Service (IHS) 711 Stewarts Ferry Pike Nashville, TN 37214

35 Pocket Road King William County, Virginia

JANUARY 2022

Pamunkey Indian Tribe

Phase I Archaeological Survey

Pamunkey Indian Tribe

New Water Utilities 35 Pocket Road, King William County, Virginia

Prepared By:

Michael Navarro, RPA, and Zachary Davis, RPA

Prepared For:

Nashville Area

Indian Health Service (IHS)

Submitted By:

Dewberry Engineers Inc.

January 2022

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY, PAMUNKEY INDIAN TRIBE

35 POCKET ROAD, KING WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA

ABSTRACT ii

ENV\50148955\Adm\Reports\Cultural Resources\Report Pieces\Draft Archaeology Report HIS 35 Pocket Road.docx

ABSTRACT

The Nashville Area Indian Health Service (IHS) proposes to serve members of the Pamunkey Indian Tribe with individual private wells, community water service lines, and individual wastewater treatment systems at locations throughout multiple counties in Virginia. This project intends to install a well and water line at 35 Pocket Road on the Pamunkey Indian Reservation in King William County, Virginia. This report consists of a Phase I Archaeological Survey prepared by Dewberry Engineers Inc. (Dewberry) on behalf of the IHS.

The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is located within the Pamunkey Indian Reservation Archaeological District (PIRAD), an historic resource listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register).

The Project APE is defined, following 36CFR800.16(d), as the geographic areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. For this project, the APE corresponds to the area where ground disturbance would result from the installation of the well and water line. The APE covers 0.28 acres southwest of the main mobile home dwelling.

The archaeological investigation consisted of background research and pedestrian reconnaissance to assess the archaeological sensitivity of the APE, and subsurface investigations within the APE. As a result of the research, much of the APE was assessed with high historic archaeological sensitivity associated with early to mid-twentieth century occupations and with high sensitivity for pre-contact archaeological resources. The pedestrian reconnaissance was preceded by a meeting with Pamunkey tribal representatives; reconnaissance was a joint effort between Dewberry field staff and the Pamunkey Natural Resource Department (PNRD). The PNRD staff noted the presence of a lean-to. Following consultation with the PNRD, Dewberry field personnel avoided the structure. Subsurface testing was not conducted within or near the lean-to.

A total of six grid-based shovel tests and four cruciform-spaced radial tests were excavated within the APE.

A scatter of recent refuse associated with architecture and domestic occupation of the site was recovered throughout the APE. An historic colonoware ceramic sherd was uncovered from shovel test S5, in the southern portion of the APE. Radial testing around the positive test yielded one additional historic colonoware sherd from the southern radial test, S5-R3-S. Both sherds were found in the same context as recent refuse and likely represent a secondary deposition within the plowzone. These two sherds, recovered from tests on the western portion of the APE, do not meet Virginia Department of Historic Resource (DHR) site definition given their low density and scattered distribution. Therefore, no significant archaeological resources are present within the APE; no additional investigations are recommended.

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

ENV\50148955\Adm\Reports\Cultural Resources\Report Pieces\Draft Archaeology Report HIS 35 Pocket Road.docx

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ................................................................................................................. ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Purpose

1.2 Project Description and Area of Potential Effects

1.2.1 Area of Potential Effects

1.3 Project Personnel and Schedule

2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Archaeological Survey

2.1.1 Background Research

2.1.2 Site Visit and Phase IB Archaeological Investigations

2.1.3 Laboratory Analysis

2.2 National Register Criteria for Evaluation

2.2.1 Criteria of Adverse Effect

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.1 Physiography

3.2 Hydrology

3.3 Geology

3.4 Soils

3.5 Climate, Flora, and Fauna

4.0 CULTURAL CONTEXTS

4.1 Pre-Contact Overview

4.1.1 Paleo-Indian Period (17,000-10000 BP)

4.1.2 Archaic Period

4.1.3 Early Archaic Period (10000-8000 BP)

4.1.3.1 Middle Archaic Period (8000-4500 BP)

4.1.3.2 Late Archaic Period (4500-3200 BP)

4.1.4 Woodland Period

4.1.4.1 Early Woodland Period (3200-2500 BP)

4.1.4.2 Middle Woodland Period (1500 BP – 1100 BP)

4.1.4.3 Late Woodland Period (1100 BP -1600 AD)

4.2 Historic Overview

4.2.1 Contact Period

4.2.2 King William County

4.2.3 Pamunkey Indian Reservation

4.2.4 Historic Development within the APE

5.0 PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS AND

KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

5.1 Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Investigations

5.2 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites

6.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY MODEL AND ASSESSMENT

6.1 Pre-Contact Sensitivity Model

6.1.1 Pre-Contact Sensitivity Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

ENV\50148955\Adm\Reports\Cultural Resources\Report Pieces\Draft Archaeology Report HIS 35 Pocket Road.docx

6.2 Historic Sensitivity Model

6.2.1 Historic Sensitivity Assessment

6.3 Sensitivity Conclusions

7.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUBSURFACE SURVEY

7.1 Existing Conditions

7.2 Results of Field Investigation

7.3 Summary and Potential Project Effects to Historic Properties

8.0 CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Archaeology

9.0 REFERENCES

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Project Location Figure 2: Area of Potential Effects (APE) Figure 3: Soils within the APE Figure 4: Approximate Location of the APE in 1775 Figure 5: Approximate Location of the APE in 1865 Figure 6: Location of the APE in 1920 Figure 7: Location of APE in 1964 Figure 8: Location of APE in 1978 Figure 11: Archaeological Sensitivity Figure 10: Shovel Test Locations and Features Figure 11: Plate Locations Figure 12: Representative Soil Profiles using Tests S3 and S4 Figure 13: Representative Soil Profiles using Radial Tests S5-R3-S and S5-R4-W

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1: The Main Dwelling (Left) with Shed Outbuilding……………………………………………………… 39 Plate 2: Vehicles Parked on Property and Western Border of Property (Background, Brush Line)………. 39 Plate 3: Overgrowth in Southern Extent of APE at Rear of Property………………………………………… 40 Plate 4: Collapsed Trailer at Rear of Property………………………………………………………………….. 40 Plate 5: Historic Lean-to Identified by PNRD During Pedestrian Reconnaissance………………………… 41 Plate 6: Location of Radial Test S5-R2-E Offset due to Overgrowth………………………………………… 42 Plate 7: Obverse and Reverse of Colonoware Sherd Recovered from Shovel Test S5…………………… 46 Plate 8: Obverse and Reverse of Colonoware Sherd Recovered from Radial Test S5-R3-S…………….. 47

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Mapped Soil Types within the APE Table 2: Archaeological Sites within One Mile of the APE Table 3: Pre-Contact Archaeological Sensitivity Model Table 4: Historic Archaeological Sensitivity Model Table 5: Breakdown of Artifacts Recovered during Phase IB Field Survey

TABLE OF CONTENTS v

ENV\50148955\Adm\Reports\Cultural Resources\Report Pieces\Draft Archaeology Report HIS 35 Pocket Road.docx

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Shovel Test Log Appendix B Artifact Catalog Appendix C Professional Qualifications

INTRODUCTION 1

ENV\50148955\Adm\Reports\Cultural Resources\Report Pieces\Draft Archaeology Report HIS 35 Pocket Road.docx

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Purpose

The Nashville Area Indian Health Service (IHS) proposes to provide members of the Pamunkey Indian Tribe with individual private wells, community water service lines, and individual wastewater treatment systems at locations throughout multiple counties in Virginia. This project intends plans to install a well and water line at 35 Pocket Road on the Pamunkey Indian Reservation in King William County, Virginia. This report consists of a Phase I Archaeological Survey conducted at one property, 35 Pocket Road, on the Pamunkey Indian Reservation (Reservation) in King William County Virginia prepared by Dewberry Engineers Inc.

(Dewberry) on behalf of the IHS (Figure 1).

IHS, as a federal agency, is responsible to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA) to consider the project’s potential effects to cultural resources (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800). The Section 106 process provides a mechanism to minimize potential harm and damage to historic properties from an undertaking. The Phase I Archaeological Survey was conducted in accordance with the NHPA (Title 54 of the U.S. Code [USC]). This study was completed following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716; NPS 1983), and, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia (2011).

1.2 Project Description and Area of Potential Effects

The proposed Project will consist of the installation of an individual private well at 35 Pocket Road for a Pamunkey Tribe member. The project area is located within the Pamunkey Indian Reservation Archaeological District (PIRAD), an historic resource listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Ground disturbance may occur in association with the drilling of a well and installation of a water line to the main dwelling. The water line is estimated to be installed at a depth of four feet below ground surface to avoid freezing during the winter months. The proposed well shaft will extend to depths appropriate to access the ground water table, likely up to 100 feet below the ground surface.

1.2.1 Area of Potential Effects

The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16[d] as:

The geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.

The project APE is defined as the area of potential proposed ground disturbance. Current project concepts indicate that potential ground disturbance will be restricted to the southwestern portion of the property. The APE was established to correspond to the area west of the residential structure. The APE consists of approximately 0.28 acres measuring about 184 feet long northwest to southeast and about 83 feet wide southwest to northeast (Figure 2). Well-manicured grass constitutes the majority of the APE, the remaining portions of the APE consist of overgrowth south of the main dwelling and outbuilding. The APE was established in coordination with the IHS prior to conducting the archaeological investigation.

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

Pa th:

Q :\5

4\

\G

IS\

Mx d\

Po ck et

Rd Ki ng W illia m

US

GS

.m xd

0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet

Source: U.S.G.S. Topographic Quadrangles, Tunstall & New Kent, Virginia 1982.

BATH AUGUSTA

ACCOMACK

LEE HALIFAX

BEDFORD

SCOTT

WISE

PITTSYLVANIA

FRANKLIN

LOUISA

ROCKINGHAM

FAUQUIER

SMYTH WYTHE

ALBEMARLE

SUSSEX

GILES

PATRICK

NELSON

FLOYD

HENRY

PAGE

CAROLINE

LOUDOUN

RUSSELL

BLAND

CARROLL

TAZEWELL

CRAIG

FAIRFAX

AMHERST

HANOVER

CAMPBELL DINWIDDIE

AMELIA

BRUNSWICK

NORTHAMPTON

SUFFOLK

ROCKBRIDGE

GRAYSON

BUCHANAN

BOTETOURT

MECKLENBURG

BUCKINGHAM

SURRY

WASHINGTON

ESSEX

HIGHLAND

SOUTHAMPTON

CHARLOTTE

ORANGE

PULASKI

ALLEGHANY

FREDERICK

SHENANDOAH

YORK

CULPEPERMADISON

CHESTERFIELD

SPOTSYLVANIA

DICKENSON

NOTTOWAY

FLUVANNA

STAFFORD

CHESAPEAKE

HENRICO

VIRGINIA BEACH

MATHEWSAPPOMATTOX

WARREN

PRINCE WILLIAM

CLARKE

KING WILLIAM

RICHMOND

GREENE WESTMORELAND

ARLINGTON

SALEM

BRISTOL

GALAX

NORTON

WV

KY

NC

MDOH

TN

VA DE

NJ

Site Location

FIGURE 1

Task Order No. 75H71522F2500 35 Pocket Road, King William, Virginia

PROJECT LOCATION

Archaeological APE

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

SCALE: 1" = 2000' DATE: January 20221 " = 2,000 '

1 Mile Radius

INTRODUCTION 3

ENV\50148955\Adm\Reports\Cultural Resources\Report Pieces\Draft Archaeology Report HIS 35 Pocket Road.docx

1.3 Project Personnel and Schedule

The archaeological fieldwork for the Project was conducted by Michael Navarro, RPA, Archaeologist, in December 2021. Background research for the Project was performed by Beth Moyer, Environmental Specialist, and Mr. Navarro. This report was prepared by Mr. Navarro and Dewberry Senior Archaeologist Zachary Davis, RPA. Report graphics were completed by Clifford Moore, Design Manager, and Ashton Mook, GIS Professional; technical editing and formatting were provided by Dewberry Technical Writer Samantha Condo. Zachary Davis, RPA, Senior Archaeologist, served as Project Manager.

th:

Q :\5

4\

\G

IS\

Mx d\

Po ck et

Rd Kin gW illia m_ Pro jec tA

PE

.m xd

0 100 20050 Feet

Source: Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN), 2018, 2019, 2021 FIGURE 2

Task Order No. 75H71522F2500 35 Pocket Road, King William, Virginia

PROJECT APE

Archaeological APE

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: January 2022

METHODOLOGY 5

ENV\50127962\Adm\Reports\Cultural Resources\Report Pieces\Draft Archaeology Report PennDOT SR 170 Wayne County.docx

2.0 METHODOLOGY

The Phase I Archaeological Survey has been designed to determine the presence or absence of Pre- European Contact (pre-contact) and/or historic cultural resources within the project APE. If archaeological resources are identified, the study would then evaluate the project’s potential effects to the identified resource(s). The archaeological survey consisted of background research, photo-documentation, and a subsurface survey. The purpose of the background research was to develop a site-specific land-use history of the APE in which identified materials or sites could be interpreted. Photo-documentation was conducted to record the present conditions of the project site. The subsurface survey was conducted to identify the presence or absence of any pre-contact or historic-period archaeological resources.

2.1 Archaeological Survey

2.1.1 Background Research

Background research conducted in December 2021 included the examination of state files, maps, reports, and databases available through the Virginia Department of Historic Resources’ (DHR) online Cultural Resource Information System (V-CRIS). Additionally, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Resources (DCR) Virginia Natural Heritage Data Explorer interactive map was consulted to determine the Cultural Resource Preservation Index of the APE. Through the V-CRIS research, Dewberry identified previously surveyed historic properties, pre-contact and historic archaeological sites, and cultural resource surveys conducted in the Project vicinity. Prior historic period land use was also researched through a review of historic maps, historic aerial photographs, local histories, and secondary sources. Additional research was undertaken online through the Library of Congress, the John D. Rockefeller Jr. Library in Williamsburg, the Library of Virginia, and informal discussions with the Pamunkey Natural Resource Department (PNRD).

V-CRIS was also consulted to identify known archaeological sites within one mile of the APE to characterize what, if any, archaeological resources may be expected within the area. This research included a review of state-sponsored surveys and site records available through V-CRIS. Past archaeological studies have identified a certain degree of correlation between particular environmental elements and the location of human activities across a landscape. As a result, a comprehensive analysis of the environmental elements found in a given area can be used to predict the location and preservation of pre-contact and historic archaeological remains. Prediction of pre-contact site potential is based upon the geographic setting, pre-contact settlement models within the Middle Atlantic region, and general knowledge derived from previous archaeological research. The background research contributed to the creation of archaeological probability models for the APE.

2.1.2 Site Visit and Phase IB Archaeological Investigations

Dewberry personnel conducted a site visit of the project APE in December 2021. The site visit documented existing conditions including areas of evident disturbance, slope, standing water, and/or surface features.

The information acquired through the site visit contributed to the development of an archaeological probability model for the APE and the subsurface testing strategy. The Archaeological Probability Model is presented in Chapter 6.

PNRD staff were on site and provided guidance during the Phase I investigation. The PNRD staff indicated areas of modern cultural sensitivity for avoidance and identified areas of previous disturbance. PNRD staff were on site for much of the field effort and remained in constant contact with Dewberry field personnel.

The property owner was not available during the fieldwork.

Phase IB archaeological testing was conducted in December 2021. Field methods were based on conventional archaeological methods used throughout the Middle Atlantic region and the general requirements of the DHR. The Phase IB archaeological field methodology and sampling strategy were

METHODOLOGY 6

ENV\50127962\Adm\Reports\Cultural Resources\Report Pieces\Draft Archaeology Report PennDOT SR 170 Wayne County.docx designed to identify the presence and/or absence of archaeological resources within the APE. In doing so, the methodology set out to identify and describe previously unknown archaeological resources; delineate vertical and horizontal disturbances; and obtain sufficient information regarding the stratigraphic and overall archaeological integrity of any identified archaeological resources.

Phase IB archaeological field methods consisted of:

• visual inspection (via walkover survey) of the APE and its vicinity;

• review of one-call utility mark-outs;

• shovel testing consisting of linear transects of 1.5-foot diameter holes plotted within a 50-foot interval grid, where possible, across the APE;

• recording of all exposed soil profiles; and

• complete mapping and recording of all excavations (conducted on-site at the time of excavation). All mapping activities were conducted using a mapping grade Trimble Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) device, a Trimble Geo7X. The GPS device provided sub-meter real-time accuracy while postprocessing the field data provided sub-foot accuracy of the field collected survey data.

All excavations (shovel tests) were completed by hand and extended into subsoil; a rock, root, or compact impasse; or within at least 0.3 foot of sterile soil. The excavated soil from each shovel test was passed through ¼-inch mesh screening to ensure uniform recovery of cultural material.

Six shovel tests were placed within the 0.28-acre APE at approximately 50 foot (or exactly 15 meter) spacing. The profiles of the excavated shovel tests are presented in Appendix B. Radial tests were conducted around shovel tests containing pre-contact material and/or significant historic deposits. Radial tests were placed along cardinal directions where possible at about 16 feet, or exactly 5 meters, from the positive test. These radial tests were assigned labels referencing the label of the original positive test and reflecting the distance and direction of the radial test. Radial testing was conducted to determine the potential isolation and/or vertical and horizontal extent of any exposed cultural deposits. Four radial tests were excavated as part of the Phase IB survey as one colonoware ceramic sherd was recovered in a grid-based shovel test.

2.1.3 Laboratory Analysis

All curation and laboratory procedures followed DHR guidelines set forth in the Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia (DHR 2011:54). All artifacts recovered from the Phase IB were washed, inventoried, cataloged, and labeled (Appendix B).

Artifact analysis and interpretation consisted of basic identification of morphological type, temporal types, and basic functional classification and interpretation. Artifacts were identified and inventoried by raw material (glass, plastic, ceramic, etc.), functional group (domestic/kitchen, architectural, and personal/small finds), general class (brick, fastener, hardware, etc.), type (wire nail, beer/soda bottle, etc.), description, and chronology. Where applicable, chronological dates for pre-contact artifacts would be derived from previous material studies, including but not limited to Egloff and Potter (1982). Chronological and analytical data for pre-contact artifacts would also, if necessary, be derived from the 2021 Phase I survey of the Reservation by the William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research (W&MCAR). All recovered archaeological resources will be returned to the Pamunkey Tribe.

2.2 National Register Criteria for Evaluation

The entirety of the APE is within the National Register-listed Pamunkey Indian Reservation Archaeological District (PIRAD), suggesting a high potential to encounter pre-contact or historic resources that may contribute to the archaeological district. Therefore, the criteria for listing in the National Register and the criteria for adverse effects to National Register-eligible and listed properties are presented.

METHODOLOGY 7

ENV\50127962\Adm\Reports\Cultural Resources\Report Pieces\Draft Archaeology Report PennDOT SR 170 Wayne County.docx

The criteria applied to evaluate properties for inclusion in the National Register are specified in 36 CFR Part

60.4 and are listed below.

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Ordinarily, cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years would not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties would qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories:

a. a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or

b. a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or

c. a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or

d. a cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or

e. a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or

f. a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or

g. a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance (National Park Service [NPS] 1995).

In addition to meeting the significance criteria listed above, a property must possess “integrity” to be considered eligible for listing in the National Register. According to National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, the property must physically represent its history by possessing integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (NPS 1995).

2.2.1 Criteria of Adverse Effect

In order to determine if a proposed undertaking would have an adverse effect on identified historic properties, the criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR Part 800.5(a)) is applied. In general, a proposed project is deemed to have an adverse effect if it would alter a historic property in a manner that would diminish any of the characteristics of the property that qualifies it for inclusion in the National Register. Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to:

METHODOLOGY 8

ENV\50127962\Adm\Reports\Cultural Resources\Report Pieces\Draft Archaeology Report PennDOT SR 170 Wayne County.docx

• physical destruction, alteration, or damage to all or part of the property;

• removal of the property from its historic location;

• change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance;

• introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features; and

• neglect of a property that causes its deterioration (NHPA 2004).

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 9

ENV\50148955\Adm\Reports\Cultural Resources\Report Pieces\Draft Archaeology Report IHS 35 Pocket Road.docx

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.1 Physiography

The APE is located within the Northern Coastal Plain Physiographic Province (VDCR 2021). The Northern Coastal Plain Province consists of brackish marshes, rivers, and drainages divided by elevated plains and hills. The dominant topography includes rounded hills and valleys, with lowlands more common along the Atlantic Coast. The relief is low with elevations ranging from zero to 300 feet above sea level (asl).

Elevations within the APE generally range from 14 to 18 feet asl. The highest elevations are located in the southern terminus of the APE. In general, the terrain slightly descends from south to north.

3.2 Hydrology

The APE is within the northwest corner of the Pamunkey Indian Reservation (Reservation), which exists on a peninsula formed by an oxbow of the Pamunkey River. The northern terminus of the APE is approximately 570 feet southeast of the river; the western terminus is 805 feet east of an unnamed drainage of the river.

The Pamunkey is a major river in King William County and joins the Mattaponi River to form the York River at West Point approximately 12.4 miles to the east. The York River continues southeast until it joins the Chesapeake Bay at historic Yorktown about 36.7 miles southeast of the APE. Williams Creek, the northern border of the Reservation, is 2,331 feet northeast of the APE. The APE is situated within the Pamunkey Watershed, Pamunkey River-Cohoke Mill Creek Subwatershed (VDCR 2021).

3.3 Geology

The Northern Coastal Plain is underlain by deep sedimentary deposits left by the rising and falling of sea levels during glacial maximum and minimums beginning in the Eocene. Because of these deposits, crystalline basement rock from the Grenville Event is 900 to 1,100 feet below sea level. Therefore, bedrock outcrops do not appear in King William County. Surficial geology of the APE consists of the Tabb Alloformation, Lynnhaven/Poquoson Members. This sequence dates to the Upper Pleistocene and consists of gray to yellow, slightly silty, fine to medium-grained sand grading downwards to pebbly sand. The bedding is well developed; thicknesses within the bedding range between 15 and 25 feet (Gilmer and Berquist 2015).

3.4 Soils

According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Websoil Survey, there are two soil types within the APE (Figure 3; Table 1). The majority of the APE contains 6A-Bojac fine sandy loam soils.

These soils are well-drained and generally have slopes from zero to two percent. They are associated with stream terraces and consist of fine sandy loam with a depth to water table between 48 and 79 inches. The remaining portions of the APE, the southern third, are associated with 17A-Munden loamy sand. This soil type is associated with stream terraces and is moderately well-drained. Slopes range between zero and two percent. Depth to water table ranges between 18 and 30 inches. Shovel Tests S1, S2, S5, S6, and Radial Test S5-R1 North were excavated where 6A soils were mapped by the NCRS Websoil Survey. The remainder of the tests were excavated in areas mapped for 17A.

3.5 Climate, Flora, and Fauna

King William County is located in the Tidewater Climate Zone; its climate is characterized as cold in the winter with hot summers. Temperatures tend to be cooler inland than in the lower-lying coastal areas. The county experiences its lowest daily temperatures in January and February and its highest daily temperatures during July and August.

8A

6A

30A

27A

32A

17A

16A

27AW

Pa th:

Q

:\5

4\

\G

IS\

Mx d\

Po ck et Rd

Kin gW illia m_

So ilsM ap .m xd

0 100 20050 Feet

Source: Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN), 2018, 2019, 2021.

Web Soil Survey, NRCS & USDA, 2021. FIGURE 3

Task Order No. 75H71522F2500 35 Pocket Road, King William, Virginia

SOILS MAP

Archaeological APE

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: January 2022

Soil Code Soil Description 17A Munden loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes 6A Bojac fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 11

ENV\50148955\Adm\Reports\Cultural Resources\Report Pieces\Draft Archaeology Report IHS 35 Pocket Road.docx

Table 1: Mapped Soil Types within the APE

Soil Type Horizon Depth (inches) Soil Color Soil Texture Slope Drainage

6A-Bojac fine Sandy Loam

H1 0–12 Brown Fine Sandy Loam

0-2% Well-Drained H2 12-46 Yellowish Brown

Fine Sandy Loam

H3 46-65 Yellowish Brown Fine Sand

17A-Munden Sandy Loam

H1 0-13 Dark Brown Loamy Sand

0-2% Moderately Well-Drained H2 13-44

Yellowish Brown/Dark

Brown Sandy Loam

H3 44-60 Grayish Brown Sand

In general, King William County averages approximately 44 inches of precipitation annually; the summer months are typically the wettest months. The length of the growing season varies between 181 and 240 days. Frost has been recorded as late as mid-May and as early as early-September (Virginia Places 2021).

At the time of European Contact, the Coastal Plain of Virginia was characterized by predominantly oak-pine forests with oak-hickory forests where betters soils were found (Braun 1959:259). The Oak-Pine Forest Region identified by Braun was typically dominated by loblolly and longleaf pine, white oak, red oak, post oak, black oak, and southern red oak, and white and pignut hickories (1959:259). At the time of Contact, the principal animal species in the Coastal Plain of Virginia included white-tailed deer, bobcat, black bear, beaver, cottontail rabbit, gray squirrel, opossum, woodchuck, muskrat, raccoon, mink, and red and gray fox. There were also bird species including wild turkey, woodcock, ruffled grouse, and mourning dove, along with a wide variety of fish and freshwater and brackish shellfish available in the local waterways (Thunderbird 2021).

CULTURAL CONTEXTS 12

ENV\50148955\Adm\Reports\Cultural Resources\Report Pieces\Draft Archaeology Report IHS 35 Pocket Road.docx

4.0 CULTURAL CONTEXTS

4.1 Pre-Contact Overview

Archaeologists typically organize the pre-contact occupation of Virginia into three broad time periods: the Paleo-Indian, the Archaic, and the Woodland (Egloff and Woodward 2006). These periods establish a heuristic framework within which to frame the human occupation of the area prior to European colonization.

There is debate regarding the timing of the earliest human populations within North and South America.

Most contemporary scholars believe that Paleo-Indian groups began slowly expanding into the area during a period from 21,7000 to 34,000 years ago. Sites consistent with this interpretation, with components dating to over 12,000 years ago, have been found within both American Continents. The Archaic and Woodland periods are generally further divided into Early, Middle, and Late sub-periods; a Transitional Period has also been defined at the end of the Archaic. The pre-contact chronology ends around circa 1550 to 1600 A.D. with the earliest records of European contact with the indigenous peoples.

4.1.1 Paleo-Indian Period (17,000-10000 BP)

The Paleo-Indian Period can be differentiated into two phases—Pre-Clovis and Clovis. The Pre-Clovis phase occurs before 13,000 BP1 and is associated with the earliest human occupations in the Western Hemisphere. During this period, glaciers covered the Northern U.S., while Virginia was characterized by expanding Oak-Hickory forests south of Richmond, and cooler, open grassy environments to the north. The Appalachian Mountains contained open, tundra-like environments; the Shenandoah Valley may have supported grasslands, conifer forests, and occasional deciduous trees. Animal populations consisted of megafauna species including mastodons, bison, elk, moose, deer, and caribou. The environment also supported smaller mammals and a variety of nuts and berries (Edwards and Merrill 1977; Turner 1989;

Egloff and Woodward 2006).

The Clovis Phase of the Paleo-Indian Period is defined by the appearance of a distinctive stone tool technology circa 13,100 BP. The tool consisted of a long, fluted point referred to as the Clovis tradition which is found at sites throughout North America. These points were generally constructed of high-quality crypto-crystalline materials suggesting that Clovis populations deliberately exploited particular lithic sources. Concentrations of Paleo-Indian points in the Southern Virginia Counties of Mecklenburg and Dinwiddie are four times higher than in any other counties; this concentration marks the rough northern boundary of the warmer Oak-Hickory forest, indicating a reliance on this ecotone.

Possibly reflecting low population levels, it appears that Paleo-Indian peoples organized into mobile small families or bands which moved to exploit natural resources. Studies of Flint Run, Williamson, and other Virginia Paleo-Indian sites have documented recurring use of high-quality lithic sources and wide-range foraging from a central location. Stone tools associated with this time include simple flake knives and scrapers, long narrow blades, and leaf-shaped tools. About 20 Paleo-Indian sites had been documented by the DHR for the Coastal Plain of Virginia in 1984; 30 to 55 more were added by 1988 (Turner 1989;

Egloff and Woodward 2006).

No Paleo-Indian sites have been discovered in King William County (McCary 1983; DHR 2021). Throughout the Northern Coastal Plain, basement crystalline bedrock is located between 900 to 1,100 feet below sea level and outcrops are absent; a lack of quality stone may explain the dearth in sites. The evidence that the outer Coastal Plain of Virginia did not support an Oak-Hickory/boreal forest ecotone during the Paleo-Indian may also correlate with the lack of sites in the region (W&MCAR 2021).

1 Before the present, with the present defined as 1950 A.D. given most archaeological dates are established by radiocarbon dating and 1950 represents the beginning of the Atomic Era and the prolific release of radioactive material into the atmosphere.

CULTURAL CONTEXTS 13

ENV\50148955\Adm\Reports\Cultural Resources\Report Pieces\Draft Archaeology Report IHS 35 Pocket Road.docx

4.1.2 Archaic Period

By 10000 BP, the climate had warmed, and regional vegetation was slowly changing. The open forest or tundra of the Paleo-Indian Period was gradually replaced by Oak-Hickory forest. Deciduous trees, including pine, oak, and hickory species migrated from the south. Human population sizes increased throughout the Archaic Period. The technology and culture of the Archaic period groups appear to have evolved in response to increasing population density and environmental changes (Egloff and Woodward 2006).

4.1.3 Early Archaic Period (10000-8000 BP)

Early Archaic period peoples appeared to follow a mobile seasonal round similar to that of Paleo-Indian populations until around 9000 BP. An increasingly productive Oak-Hickory forest and rising sea levels creating marshlands, coastlines, and the Chesapeake Bay changed subsistence strategies to incorporate smaller mammals, birds, fish, and abundant fruit, acorns, and hickory nuts. Population density continued to increase. Fluted point-technology was replaced by a preference for side and corner-notched bifaces such as Palmer and Kirk points along with bifurcated notched-stem points (Custer 1990; Hunter and Higgins 1985; Egloff and Woodward 2006).

Early Archaic populations are believed to have been mobile hunter-gatherers with a strong economic and social emphasis on hunting. Archaeological sites from this period are generally small ephemeral assemblages with chipped stone tools reflecting temporary camp sites. In addition to projectile points, such lithic deposits include bifacial knives, end scrapers, and spokeshaves for working bone. Sites dating to this period are often dispersed and small. The few Early Archaic large sites are typically associated with specific resource locations including stone quarries or springs. These sites have been interpreted as multiple sequential short-term occupations as opposed to a single long-term occupation (Custer 1985, 1996).

The majority of Early Archaic sites recorded in King William County are interpreted as temporary campsites located near key resources. One Early Archaic context has been identified within one mile of the APE

(W&MCAR 2021; DHR 2021).

4.1.3.1 Middle Archaic Period (8000-4500 BP)

The Middle Archaic is associated with an increase in base and temporary campsites as well as more efficient exploitation of the eastern woodland environment. The Oak-Hickory forest provided exploitable resources including walnuts, hickory nuts, acorns, berries, and seeds and supported a variety of bird and small mammal species. The Middle Archaic is marked by changes in material culture and technology reflective of environmental changes. A wider variety of lower-quality lithic materials and a broader tool kit are associated with this time. Distinct tool types identified with the Middle Archaic include the atlatl, bifurcated-base spear points, stemmed points, corner-notched, and side-notched points. Stanley, Neville, Merrimack, Halifax, and Brewerton-type points are all associated with the Middle Archaic. Other lithic tools often recovered from Middle Archaic sites in Virginia include mortars and pestles, chipped stone axes, net sinkers, and other spear points (Custer 1990:26, 34-36; Egloff and Woodward 2006).

In general, the Middle Archaic is poorly understood as few sites dating to this period have been identified within the Mid-Atlantic. Nevertheless, based on available site data, Custer has suggested that there were three major site types with the Middle Archaic settlement system in the Mid-Atlantic. These sites included large macro-band base camps where multi-family groups gathered for periods of time, smaller micro-band camps associated with fissioned family units, and resource procurement sites where specific resources were exploited and obtained (Custer 1985:34).

4.1.3.2 Late Archaic Period (4500-3200 BP)

The Late Archaic Period is defined by an increase in the exploitation of the Coastal Plain region. Evidence for fire-cracked rock and shell middens near estuaries and drainages indicates increased coastal populations. Larger, semi-sedentary camps appear along waterways throughout Virginia’s lowlands. In the Appalachians, soapstone became a primary resource for large vessels, indicating more sedentary behavior.

Several projectile point types associated with the latter part of the Middle Archaic persist into the Late

CULTURAL CONTEXTS 14

ENV\50148955\Adm\Reports\Cultural Resources\Report Pieces\Draft Archaeology Report IHS 35 Pocket Road.docx

Archaic such as Savannah River and Holmes/Bare Island stemmed points. Late Archaic period sites reflect an intensified exploitation of a more localized territory. The sites indicate that a greater variety of resources were used and that new technologies were developed to increase the efficiency of food gathering and processing. Broader forms of ground stone tools including axes, adzes, manos, and metates appear, potentially reflecting an early cultivation of sunflowers, gourds, sumpweed/marsh elder, maygrass, lamsquarter/goosefoot, and amaranth. Net sinkers and other fishing tools also appear during this time. Food processing tools have been found in pit features at base camp sites indicating the increasing importance of these sites and the growing reliance on plant food within the diet (Klein and Klatka 1991; Custer 1996;

Egloff and Woodward 2006).

4.1.4 Woodland Period

The Woodland Period is generally associated with two major developments—the widespread use of ceramic technology and the adoption of cultivating agricultural practices. Each of these developments is associated with increasing sedentism and the growing importance of base camps and defined territorial boundaries. The period terminates with the onset of European settlement in the Mid-Atlantic.

4.1.4.1 Early Woodland Period (3200-2500 BP)

Widespread early use of pottery is associated with the Early Woodland Period. The adoption of ceramic technology, which is heavy and would pose limitations for mobility, is associated with the increasing importance of base camps. Ceramic technology seems to have been imported into Virginia from peoples along the coast of Georgia and South Carolina. In these areas, the earliest pottery dates to at least 4500 BP. Early pottery vessels imitated earlier soapstone vessels (Egloff and Woodward 2006).

Ceramics in this period were tempered by steatite, grog, or more rarely fabric/grog-and-sand. Diagnostic ceramics of the Coastal Plain from this period include Bushnell Ware, consisting of coiled pottery with a smooth surface crafted of compacted paste and tempered with schist, rog, fiber, steatite, shell, and bone.

Bushnell Ware is roughly dated to 2950 BP. Marcey Creek Ware, a coil-constructed ceramic tempered with steatite, is also distinctive of the Early Woodland, dating to between 3200 and 2800 BP. Marcey Creek-type vessels generally consist of rectangular or oval shallow bowls with flat bases and protruding basal heels, lug handles, and straight sides. Croaker Landing Ware, dating between 3200 and 2800 BP, was first identified in York County, and consists of both plain and cord-marked types tempered with subangular clay particles. Vessels are reminiscent of carved soapstone vessels. Distinctive to between Eastern North Carolina and the York River, Flat Bottom Jars date to between 2810 to 2660 BP and consist of sherd, sand, and shell tempered flat bottom beaker shaped vessels. They exhibit cord, fabric, and net impressions (Egloff and Potter 1982).

Calvert and Rossville points make up the diagnostic lithics of the Early Woodland (Dent 1995:229). Within King William County, few Early Woodland sites have been discovered. Those few sites have consisted of short-term campsites and lithic scatters found as early components of larger multicomponent sites

(W&MCAR 2021).

4.1.4.2 Middle Woodland Period (1500 BP – 1100 BP)

Populations appear to have increased by the beginning of the Middle Woodland. A reliance on semi-sedentary camps within a foraging buffer-zone located on waterways also became more common. The high volume of Middle Woodland period sites that have been identified in King William County are attributed to a stabilizing floodplain (Klein 2003). The first smoking pipes, possibly suggesting the use of tobacco, date to the Middle Woodland. Stone weights for spear throwers, some ornamentally carved, and a variety of axes and adzes have also been recovered from sites dating to this period. The bow and arrow slowly replaced the spear by the end of the Middle Woodland (Egloff and Woodward 2006; W&MCAR 2021).

Ceramic typologies in the Coastal Plain include Accokeek Ware, a coil-constructed, coil-marked vessel type composed of buff, tan, orange or reddish-brown clay. Temper is coarse to medium-fine sand and lesser amounts of angular to crushed quartz. Vessels appear as large to medium conical or semi-conical bases

CULTURAL CONTEXTS 15

ENV\50148955\Adm\Reports\Cultural Resources\Report Pieces\Draft Archaeology Report IHS 35 Pocket Road.docx with everted or inverted rims. This type has been found by the W&MCAR in the PIRAD in 2018 (2021).

More distinctive of the Middle Woodland in the Coastal Plain of Virginia, Popes Creek Ware is represented by Popes Creek net-impressed vessels. These appear as large, wide-mouthed jars with walls that descend in even curves. Clay is tempered with medium to coarse sand and coil-constructed with thick walls. Stony Creek Ware has a medium sand temper and is gritty and sandy in texture. Vessels appear as conical shapes made from coiling with vertical rims. Surfaces are often treated with wicker-fabric, cord, or net. This ware is closely associated with Accokeek ware and dates from 2500 BP to 1800 BP. Mockley Ware appears at the terminus of the Middle Woodland, consisting of cord-marked, net impressed, and plain types. Vessels are medium to large coil-constructed jars with straight rims and rounded or conical bottoms; all are shell tempered and date from 1800 BP until about 1100 BP (Egloff and Potter 1982; W&MCAR 2021).

Within portions of the northern Shenandoah Valley, this period is associated with the Stone Mound Burial culture. Sites associated with this phenomenon have been found on bluffs overlooking the floodplain. These sites are defined by hundreds of low stone mounds containing individuals buried with great ceremony.

Cultures such as these indicate an increasing pattern of hierarchy and class structure. Specialized pendants have been found at Middle Woodland sites in Virginia, indicating an increasing awareness of status and identity within a group (Egloff and Woodward 2006).

4.1.4.3 Late Woodland Period (1100 BP -1600 AD)

The Late Woodland Period is the most known pre-contact period within Virginia as it terminated with the beginnings of European settlement, roughly placed at 1600 AD. Circa 1100 BP, permanent villages that were occupied year-round began to replace the semi-sedentary base camps of the Middle Woodland Period. Settled village life was supported in part by the adoption of agriculture and a growing reliance on cultigens including maize and squash. Late Woodland groups also continued to rely on wild food resources to supplement agricultural products.

In southwestern Virginia, the imported Mississippian Culture appeared; the Mound Builder Culture in the Shenandoah continued to thrive, and the Coastal Plain developed into a unique culture. Rank and status became increasingly important, marked by cyclical fluctuations in mortuary ceremonialism and the long-distance trade of exotic artifacts. Exotic items were associated with high-status individuals; increasingly elaborate burial patterns indicated both a social acceptance of status and a fascination with the afterlife Hantman and Gold 2002; Egloff and Woodward 2006).

Sites dating to the Late Woodland are generally found on slightly elevated fertile terraces along rivers and streams. At the onset of the period, settlements consisted of simple farmsteads. Over time, the farmsteads were replaced by stockaded village sites. These villages were often large and were sometimes surrounded by a wall of posts. When soil lost productivity or the supply of firewood had been depleted, the village sites were typically moved and re-established in the near vicinity (McCann 1983).

Within the Coastal Plain region, adaptation to the brackish, fresh, and saltwater environment included a reliance on fishing for shad and sturgeon and fathering of oysters as well as consumption of wild and cultivated plants. Sedentary villages appear on the Coastal Plain later than inland, around 1300 AD. Houses in these villages were long, oval structures surrounded by a palisade and either spaced close together or separated by gardens. The Pamunkey River appears to have supported a greater population than the rest of the Coastal Plain. Unique mortuary patterns such as single burials followed by secondary ossuaries develop, mirroring ossuary use in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. (Roundtree et al 2007:175, Egloff and Woodward 2006).

Ceramic typologies of the Late Woodland in the Coastal Plain of Virginia include Townsend Ware, Cashie Ware, Gaston Ware, Roanoke Ware, Potomac Creek Ware, Moyaone Ware, Yeocomico Ware, Camden Ware, Courtland Ware, and colonoware. Many of these types are distinctive of the Late Woodland thin-walled type vessels found elsewhere in the Middle Atlantic; often these vessels are net or fabric impressed.

Colonoware is a unique typology first found as eighteenth-century sherds from historic plantations in the Coastal Plain and is generally dated from 1680 through 1900 AD. The presence of colonoware on

CULTURAL CONTEXTS 16

ENV\50148955\Adm\Reports\Cultural Resources\Report Pieces\Draft Archaeology Report IHS 35 Pocket Road.docx plantations may represent imitations of English vessels produced by enslaved peoples or native groups.

Sherds previously recovered from the Pamunkey Indian Reservation helped to define colonoware as a thin-walled, shell or sand-tempered,…