1
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Goodwin Property, Chowan County, North Carolina
CONSULTANT: SEARCH PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Bryan C. Harrell, MS, RPA CLIENT: The Lost Colony Center for Science and Research DATE: October 2015
This technical memorandum presents the results of an archaeological reconnaissance survey of the Goodwin Property near the confluence of Rockyhock Creek and the Chowan River in western Chowan County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The purpose of the reconnaissance survey was to provide an initial examination of the property to determine if Native American and late sixteenth‐century English artifacts could be identified in direct association within intact archaeological deposits. Archaeologists conducted judgmental pedestrian survey and subsurface testing within three areas (Barn Locus, Pond Locus, and River Locus) on the property (see Figure 1). These areas were chosen based on topography, soil description, and information from local informants. Pedestrian survey was conducted across exposed landforms devoid of vegetation and along areas with low, dispersed grass cover to evaluate the extent of surface artifacts within each survey area. Subsurface testing was limited to shovel tests and a single 50‐x‐50‐centimeter (cm) test unit. Shovel tests for this project measured 30 cm in diameter and were excavated judgmentally at distances between 5 meters (m) and 20 m apart. Soil from each shovel test was removed in 30‐cm arbitrary levels (0–30 cm below surface [cmbs], 30–60 cmbs, etc.) to examine the integrity of strata and the vertical distributions of artifacts. The 50‐x‐50‐cm test unit was excavated in 10‐cm arbitrary levels within natural soil strata to provide a higher degree of vertical resolution. The cultural content, soil strata and texture, predominant Munsell color, and environmental setting were recorded on shovel test and test unit forms. All excavated sediments were screened through 1/4‐inch mesh hardware cloth. Locations of shovel tests and test units were recorded using a Trimble GeoExplorer XT GPS receiver. After data collection, location information was post‐processed for accuracy and imported into an ArcGIS shapefile.
Survey Results SEARCH archaeologists examined approximately 555 m2 during the pedestrian survey and excavated 14 shovel tests and one 50‐x‐50‐cm test unit during subsurface testing. Fieldwork resulted in the collection of 833 artifacts, including Native American pottery sherds (n=572), lithic artifacts (n=61), historic items (n=7), and faunal remains (n=193). Each locus is discussed below.
2
Figure 1. Survey area location map.
3
Barn Locus The eastern survey area, identified as the Barn Locus, is immediately west of a large pole barn (Figure 2) in the south‐central portion of the property (see Figure 1). The area measures approximately 45 m southwest to northeast and 10 m southeast to northwest. The topography is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 3.05 to 3.66 m (10–12 ft) above mean sea level (amsl). Soils are mapped as Dragston loamy fine sand—a somewhat poorly drained soil found along the edges of small streams throughout the region (Tant et al. 1986:18). SEARCH archaeologists excavated 10 shovel tests within the Barn Locus (Figure 3). Excavation transects were oriented parallel to the long axis of the barn. A typical shovel test profile (Figure 4) displayed dark grayish‐brown (10YR 4/2) loamy sand from 0 to 30 cmbs, light yellowish‐brown (2.5Y 6/4) loamy sand from 30 to 60 cmbs, and yellowish‐brown (10YR 5/8) sandy, clayey loam from 60 to 75 cmbs. This profile is consistent with the Dragston series with minor variations in hue and chroma. Two of the 10 shovel tests produced artifacts (n=4). Shovel Test 4 yielded one untyped Native American sherd, one bone fragment, one early reduction flake. Shovel Test 12 produced one thinning flake. Artifacts collected from the Barn Locus are displayed in Figure 5 and presented in Table 1.
Figure 2. Barn Locus, facing northwest. The large pole barn can be seen to the right in the photograph.
4
Figure 3. Barn Locus and Pond Locus shovel test locations.
Figure 4. Typical shovel test profile within the Barn Locus.
5
Table 1. Barn Locus Artifact Inventory.
Shovel Test
Depth (cmbs)
Lab Specimen #
Count Weight (g)
Description
4 0‐30 3.01 1 3.11 Native American fabric‐impressed pottery body sherd;medium sand and limestone temper. Possesses blocky voids
4 0‐30 3.02 1 0.29 Animal bone; UID Vertebrata; calcined and eroded
4 30‐60 4.01 1 3.13 Flake, early reduction; quartzite; > 1/2 cm; proximal; 0% cortex
12 0‐30 6.01 1 0.17 Flake, thinning; quartzite; > 1/4 cm; medial‐distal; 0% cortex
Totals 4 6.70
Figure 5. Artifacts collected from ST 4 and ST 12 within the Barn Locus.
6
Pond Locus The Pond Locus is approximately 100 m north of the Barn Locus (see Figure 1), and is adjacent to a large irrigation pond constructed by the property owners in 2013 (Figure 6). The area measures approximately 15 m southeast to northwest and 5 m southwest to northeast. The topography is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 1.83 to 2.44 m (6–8 ft) amsl. Soils are mapped as Dragston loamy fine sand—a somewhat poorly drained soil found along the edges of small streams throughout the region (Tant et al. 1986:18). SEARCH archaeologists excavated four shovel tests within the Pond Locus (see Figure 3). Excavation transects were oriented parallel to the long axis of the pond. A typical shovel test profile (Figure 7) displayed mottled brown (10YR 5/3), very pale brown (10YR 8/3), and very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sand from 0 to 20 cmbs; black (10YR 2/1) sand with charcoal and large burned roots from 20 to 35 cmbs; brown (10YR 4/3) sandy loam from 35 to 55 cmbs; and light brownish‐gray (10YR 6/2) from 55 to 75 cmbs. The upper soil strata in this area have been heavily impacted, and appear to be a graded layer of back dirt from the pond excavation over a soil stratum that was cleared and burned of vegetation prior to the construction of the pond. Two of the four shovel tests produced artifacts (n=6). Shovel Test 2 yielded four Cashie sherds (2 simple stamped, 2 fabric impressed) and one piece of quartz angular shatter. Shovel Test 6 produced one Hanover Fabric Impressed sherd. Artifacts collected from the Pond Locus are displayed in Figure 8 and presented in Table 2.
Figure 6. Pond Locus, facing southeast
7
Figure 7. Typical shovel test profile within the Pond Locus.
Figure 8. Artifacts collected from ST 2 and ST 6 within the Pond Locus.
8
Table 2. Pond Locus Artifact Inventory.
Shovel Test
Depth (cmbs)
Lab Specimen #
Count Weight (g)
Description
2 0‐30 1.01 2 2.48 Cashie Simple Stamped pottery; fine sand and grit temper
2 0‐30 1.02 1 1.19 Shatter, angular; quartz; > 1/2 cm
2 30‐60 2.01 2 5.57 Cashie Fabric Impressed pottery; fine sand and grit temper
6 30‐60 5.01 1 14.83 Hanover Fabric Impressed pottery; grog/clay temper
Totals 6 24.07
River Locus The western survey area, identified as the River Locus, is immediately east of and adjacent to the Chowan River (see Figure 1). The area that was examined measures approximately 15 m north to south and 2 m east to west. The topography presents as a low, narrow ridge of high ground between the Chowan River to the west and a lowland hardwood swamp to the east. Elevations range from 0.31 to 0.61 m (1–2 ft) amsl. Soils are mapped as Dorovan muck—a very poorly drained soil found on flood plains throughout the region (Tant et al. 1986:18). The River Locus is a known archaeological resource to many locals in the region. This area has been surface collected by looters and avocational archaeologists for years. Mr. David McCall, a resident of nearby Edenton, remembered collecting pottery sherds and projectiles points from the area when he was a small boy. Mr. McCall was gracious enough to accompany and guide the field crew to the area where he once collected artifacts. Upon arrival, SEARCH archaeologists observed numerous artifacts on the ground surface. An examination revealed that artifacts were scattered intermittently across the entire ridge of high ground. To evaluate subsurface deposits, a single 50‐x‐50‐cm test unit (Figure 9) was excavated at the south end of the ridge where the distribution of surface artifacts was the densest. The test unit was excavated in 10‐cm arbitrary levels to a depth of 40 cmbs. Excavations were halted due to the rapid inundation of water into the test unit at 25 cmbs. Though relatively small and shallow, the test unit produced 823 artifacts. These include 566 Native American pottery sherds, 58 lithic artifacts, 7 historic items, and 192 faunal remains. Representative artifacts from each general category are displayed in Figures 10, 11, 12, and 13. The River Locus artifact inventory is presented in Table 3.
Figure 9. Test unit excavate within the River Locus.
9
Figure 10. Representative pottery sherds collected from the River Locus.
10
Figure 11. Representative lithic artifacts collected from the River Locus.
11
Figure 12. Historic artifacts collected from the River Locus.
Figure 13. Representative faunal remains collected from the River Locus.
12
Table 3. River Locus Test Unit Artifact Inventory.
Depth (cmbs)
Lab Specimen #
Count Weight (g)
Description
Surface 7.01 1 16.91 Hard clam shell
Surface 7.02 1 21.72 UID Native American pottery; water worn; grit temper, linear voids
Surface 7.03 1 17.73 Native American cord‐marked pottery body sherd; grit and grog/clay temper (Cashie variant?)
Surface 7.04 1 17.96 Cashie Fabric Impressed body sherd; quartz and grit temper
0‐10 8.01 1 38.39 Native American fabric‐impressed pottery rim sherd; grit, sand, and grog/clay temper (Cashie variant?)
0‐10 8.02 1 6.85 Cashie Fabric Impressed rim sherd; straight rim, flattened lip; grit and sand temper
0‐10 8.03 1 27.55 Cashie Fabric Impressed rim sherd; straight rim, rounded lip; grit and sand temper
0‐10 8.04 12 168.73 Cashie Fabric Impressed body sherd; grit and sand temper
0‐10 8.05 14 93.28 Cashie UID decorated body sherd; water worn; grit and sand temper
0‐10 8.06 5 16.52 Native American plain pottery body sherd; sand temper
0‐10 8.07 1 9.84 Cashie Cord Marked body sherd; grit and fine sand temper
0‐10 8.08 1 1.57 Native American UID decorated body sherd; shell and sand temper
0‐10 8.09 62 160.24 Cashie UID decorated body sherd; water worn; grit and sand temper
0‐10 8.10 49 40.17 Residual sherds; grit and sand temper
0‐10 8.11 7 167.93 Broken quartz cobbles/pebbles; possible cultural modification
0‐10 8.12 1 84.61 Flake, early reduction; other; > 3 cm; complete;
0‐10 8.13 1 9.54 Flake, early reduction; quartzite; > 1 cm; complete; 26‐50% cortex
0‐10 8.14 1 2.44 Flake, early reduction; quartzite; > 1/2 cm; complete; 26‐50% cortex
0‐10 8.15 1 1.88 Flake, unspecified; diabase; > 1/2 cm; medial‐distal; 0% cortex
0‐10 8.16 1 0.33 Flake, thinning; UID chert; > 1/4 cm; proximal; 0% cortex
0‐10 8.17 3 3.03 Flake, thinning; quartz; > 1/2 cm; proximal; 0% cortex
0‐10 8.18 1 0.64 Flake, thinning; UID chert; > 1/2 cm; medial‐distal; 0% cortex
0‐10 8.19 1 0.32 Flake, thinning; UID chert; > 1/4 cm; complete; 0% cortex
0‐10 8.20 7 62.54 Hard clam shell
0‐10 8.21 26 22.84 Hard clam shell
0‐10 8.22 2 1.48 Animal bone; gar; scale and neurocranium
13
Table 3. River Locus Test Unit Artifact Inventory.
Depth (cmbs)
Lab Specimen #
Count Weight (g)
Description
0‐10 8.23 1 0.39 Animal bone; turtle; carapace
0‐10 8.24 9 9.53 Animal bone; UID Vertebrata; mineralized
0‐10 12.01 1 1.65 Coarse earthenware rim; possible tin glaze; water worn; 1492–1900
0‐10 12.02 1 0.65 Refined earthenware, blue impressed edgeware; water worn; 1841–1857
10‐20 9.01 3 22.35 Cashie Fabric Impressed body sherd; sand and grit temper
10‐20 9.02 1 41.15 Cashie Fabric Impressed rim sherd; straight rim, rounded lip; grit and sand temper
10‐20 9.03 3 34.34 Native American fabric‐impressed pottery body sherd; grit and grog/clay temper (Cashie variant?)
10‐20 9.04 1 29.53 Native American fabric‐impressed pottery body sherd; fine sand, grit, and grog/clay temper (Cashie variant?)
10‐20 9.05 15 92.94 Cashie UID decorated body sherd; water worn; grit and sand temper
10‐20 9.06 6 85.90 Native American UID decorated pottery body sherd; grit, grog/clay, and sand temper (Cashie variant?)
10‐20 9.07 13 69.06 Native American pottery sherd; heavily water worn; grit and sand temper
10‐20 9.08 9 38.84 Native American pottery sherd; heavily water worn; grit and grog/clay temper
10‐20 9.09 2 6.83 Native American pottery sherd; heavily water worn; medium sand temper
10‐20 9.10 4 4.47 Residual sherds; grit and sand temper
10‐20 9.11 1 3.74 Native American incised pottery sherd; water worn; fine sand, grog/clay, and shell temper
10‐20 9.12 1 5.72 Tested pebble; quartz
10‐20 9.13 4 50.90 Flake, core reduction; quartz; > 1 cm; proximal; 51‐75% cortex
10‐20 9.14 1 0.31 Flake, thinning; UID chert; > 1/2 cm; complete; 0% cortex
10‐20 9.15 2 20.09 Flake, early reduction; quartz; > 1 cm; complete; 1‐25% cortex
10‐20 9.16 1 36.39 Core, UID; quartz
10‐20 9.17 1 38.47 Possible lithic tool; igneous material; possible worked edge
10‐20 9.18 1 1.27 Flake, early reduction; UID chert; > 1/2 cm; medial‐distal; 51‐75% cortex
10‐20 9.19 1 3.44 Projectile point/knife fragment; quartz; distal fragment
10‐20 9.20 13 249.93 Unmodified stone/miscellaneous fragments
10‐20 9.21 2 0.66 Animal teeth; white‐tailed deer
10‐20 9.22 3 4.93 Animal bone; large mammal; long bone fragment
14
Table 3. River Locus Test Unit Artifact Inventory.
Depth (cmbs)
Lab Specimen #
Count Weight (g)
Description
10‐20 9.23 9 50.85 Hard clam shell
10‐20 9.24 1 0.99 UID bivalve shell
10‐20 13.01 1 4.06 Bottle glass, machine made; external thread; clear; 1905
10‐20 13.02 1 5.41 Bottle glass; amber
20‐30 10.01 6 40.98 Cashie Cord Marked body sherd; grit and fine sand temper
20‐30 10.02 13 106.58 Cashie Fabric Impressed body sherd; grit and sand temper
20‐30 10.03 3 31.29 Native American fabric‐impressed pottery body sherd; grit and grog/clay temper (Cashie variant?)
20‐30 10.04 1 15.51 Native American fabric‐impressed pottery body sherd; medium sand temper
20‐30 10.05 1 6.36 Native American UID decorated pottery body sherd; water worn; sand and shell temper
20‐30 10.06 4 22.92 Native American UID decorated pottery body sherd; water worn; grit, grog/clay, and sand temper (Cashie variant?)
20‐30 10.07 3 40.09 Native American UID decorated pottery body sherd; water worn; sand temper
20‐30 10.08 7 27.16 Cashie UID decorated pottery body sherd; water worn; grit and sand temper
20‐30 10.09 1 40.98 Native American UID decorated pottery base sherd; grit and grog/clay temper (Cashie variant?)
20‐30 10.10 7 21.93 Native American pottery sherd; heavily water worn; sand temper
20‐30 10.11 37 136.55 Native American pottery sherd; heavily water worn; grit and sand temper
20‐30 10.12 13 78.09 Native American pottery sherd; heavily water worn; grit and grog/clay temper
20‐30 10.13 17 18.13 Residual sherds; grit and sand temper
20‐30 10.14 1 7.10 Cashie Incised pottery body sherd; grit and sand temper
20‐30 10.15 1 13.35 Flake, core reduction; diabase; > 1 cm; complete; 26‐50% cortex
20‐30 10.16 1 20.96 Flake, core reduction; quartz; > 1 cm; complete; 26‐50% cortex
20‐30 10.17 1 5.96 Flake, unspecified; slate; > 1 cm; complete; 0% cortex
20‐30 10.18 9 5.99 UID clam shell
20‐30 10.19 5 4.02 Oyster shell
20‐30 10.20 2 16.44 Animal bone; white‐tailed deer; astragalus
20‐30 10.21 10 10.29 Animal bone; large mammal
20‐30 10.22 11 103.02 Hard clam shell
15
Table 3. River Locus Test Unit Artifact Inventory.
Depth (cmbs)
Lab Specimen #
Count Weight (g)
Description
20‐30 14.01 1 7.15 UID refined earthenware
30‐40 11.01 3 9.65 Cashie Cord Marked body sherd; fine sand and grit temper
30‐40 11.02 8 138.29 Native American fabric‐impressed pottery body sherd; grit, grog/clay, and sand temper (Cashie variant?)
30‐40 11.03 11 107.74 Cashie Fabric Impressed body sherd; grit and fine sand temper
30‐40 11.04 2 13.32 Native American fabric‐impressed pottery rim sherd; everted rim, folded lip; grit, grog/clay, and sand temper (Cashie variant?)
30‐40 11.05 2 12.83 Native American UID decorated pottery body sherd; water worn; sand/clay temper
30‐40 11.06 5 33.77 Native American UID decorated pottery body sherd; water worn; grit, grog/clay, and sand temper (Cashie variant?)
30‐40 11.07 1 57.72 Cashie UID decorated body sherd; grit and fine sand temper
30‐40 11.08 64 203.63 Native American pottery sherd; heavily water worn; grit and sand temper
30‐40 11.09 12 39.49 Native American pottery sherd; heavily water worn; grit, grog/clay, and sand temper
30‐40 11.10 4 17.10 Native American pottery sherd; heavily water worn; medium sand temper
30‐40 11.11 132 121.87 Residual sherds; grit and sand temper
30‐40 11.12 1 11.69 Flake, early reduction; quartz; > 1 cm; complete; 1‐25% cortex
30‐40 11.13 1 1.08 Flake, early reduction; quartz; > 1/2 cm; complete; 1‐25% cortex
30‐40 11.14 2 17.10 Flake, core reduction; quartzite; > 1 cm; proximal; 26‐50% cortex
30‐40 11.15 1 12.62 Flake, core reduction; quartz; > 1 cm; complete; 26‐50% cortex
30‐40 11.16 1 12.20 Flake, core reduction; silicified mudstone; > 1 cm; complete; 76‐99% cortex
30‐40 11.17 1 0.51 Flake, thinning; quartz; > 1/2 cm; complete; 0% cortex
30‐40 11.18 4 2.72 Flake, thinning; UID chert; > 1/2 cm; complete; 0% cortex
30‐40 11.19 1 0.15 Flake, thinning, late; UID chert; > 1/4 cm; complete; 0% cortex
30‐40 11.20 1 8.19 Unmodified stone; unknown igneous material
30‐40 11.21 2 24.29 Hard clam shell
30‐40 11.22 27 14.22 UID clam shell
30‐40 11.23 31 14.91 Oyster shell; 2 burned
30‐40 11.24 3 4.90 Animal teeth; white‐tailed deer
30‐40 11.25 11 20.61 Animal bone; large mammal; some mineralized and worn/eroded
16
Table 3. River Locus Test Unit Artifact Inventory.
Depth (cmbs)
Lab Specimen #
Count Weight (g)
Description
30‐40 11.26 19 8.95 Animal bone; UID vertebrata; some mineralized and worn/eroded
30‐40 11.27 1 0.41 Animal bone; turtle; carapace
30‐40 15.01 1 3.70 Refined earthenware, blue edgeware, unimpressed; 1874–1884
30‐40 15.02 1 2.36 Bottle glass; clear
Totals 823 3606.70
Discussion and Recommendation The reconnaissance survey resulted in the recovery of cultural material from all three survey areas at the Goodwin Property. The eastern survey areas (Barn Locus and Pond Locus) yielded a low‐density collection of late‐Middle‐to‐Late‐Woodland artifacts. These items may be associated with small camp sites or resource extraction points overlooking the adjacent wetlands; however, additional systematic fieldwork across the property would be needed to further characterize these archaeological deposits. In terms of depositional integrity, soils throughout the Barn Locus displayed a relatively thick plow zone approximately 30 cm deep, while the Pond Locus exhibited evidence of substantial subsurface disturbance associated with land clearing and the construction of a large irrigation pond on the property. The western survey area (River Locus) produced a much larger and more substantial archaeological deposit than those encountered in the east. A single 50‐x‐50‐cm test unit yielded 823 artifacts that included Native American pottery sherds, lithic debitage and tools, faunal remains, and historic items. Although historic artifacts were collected from this area, none could be associated with a late sixteenth‐century context. In fact, the few diagnostic historic ceramic sherds recovered from the test unit indicate a mid‐to‐late nineteenth century component. Nevertheless, the density of material recovered during subsurface testing and identified across the surface during pedestrian survey suggests that this area contains a significant archaeological resource. Efforts should be made to preserve archaeological deposits in this area.
17
REFERENCES CITED AND CONSULTED Herbert, Joseph M. 2002 A Woodland Period Prehistory of Coastal North Carolina. In The Woodland Southeast,
edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort Jr., pp. 292–317. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2009 Woodland Potters and Archaeological Ceramics of the North Carolina Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Phelps, David S. 1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and Hypotheses.
In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 1–52. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Phelps, David S, and Charles L. Heath 1998 Cashie Series Ceramics from the Interior Coastal Plain of North Carolina, Circa AD 800–
1725. Paper presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Greenville, South Carolina.
South, Stanley 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego. Tant, Phillip L., Joe P. Covington, Robert H. Ranson, Jr., J. Roger Hansard, John M. Scott, and L. Allan Mize 1986 Soil Survey of Chowan and Perquimans Counties, North Carolina. Soil Conservation
Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.