The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRt29Bypass archaeolog id survey"J?-03-177 ~ .... ARCHAEOLOGICAL IDENTIFICATION SURVEY ROUTE 29 BYPASS Albemarle County, Virginia VDOT PROJECT NO.: 6029-002-122, PE100 PPMS NO.: 16160 VDHR FILE NO.: 90-396-F Prepared for: VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 371-6753 Prepared by: THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC. 1001 East Broad Street, Suite LL40 Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 225-0348 December 2001 ARCHAEOLOGICAL IDENTIFICATION SURVEY ROUTE 29 BYPASS Albemarle County, Virginia VDOT PROJECT NO.: 6029-002-122, PE100 PPMS No.: 16160 VDHR FILE NO.: 90-396-F Pre£ared for: VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 371-6753 Prepared by: John J. Mullin THE LOU~S BERGER GROUP, INC. 1001 East Broad Street, Suite LL40 Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 225-0348 December 2001 ABSTRACT The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Richmond, Virginia, has completed an archaeological identification survey in association with the proposed intersection of the Route 29 Bypass with existing Route 29 in Albemarle County, Virginia. The identification survey was carried out on behalf of the Virginia Department of Transportation as part of Project No. 6029-002-122, PE100 (PPMS No. 16160). The proposed VDOT undertaking involves the construction of approximately 3,300 meters (2 miles) of new roadway, four stormwater management basins, and ramps connecting the new roadway to existing Route 29, all on new alignment. The construction limits vary from 60 to 220 meters (197 to 722 feet) in width over the course of the approximately 3,300 meters (2 miles) of roadway, and include an area that measures approximately 32.9 hectares (81.3 acres) m size. Five archaeological sites (44AB294, 44AB295, 44AB428, 44AB429, and 44AB430) were identified during previous investigations associated with Route 29 projects. Al1 five of the sites are located within the proposed right-of-way for the intersection as shown on current plans. Sites 44AB294, 44AB295, and 44AB429 were recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Archaeological evaluations were recommended and completed for Sites 44AB428 and 44AB430. The results of the evaluations indicated that the sites are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D. The objective of the current archaeological identification survey, conducted between September 26 and October 5, 2001, was ro identify any archaeological resources within the new construction limits and evaluate their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The archaeological fieldwork resulted in the relocation of one previously recorded prehistoric archaeological site (44AB428). Two previously unidentified prehistoric archaeological sites (44AB481 and 44AB482), one previously unidentified historic archaeological site (44AB483), and three isolated artifact locations (IA-l, IA-2, and IA- 3) were identified within the construction limits. Site 44AB428 is a Middle Archaic limited-activity camp. Subsurface testing revealed that the site has not been plowed and that it contains intact subsurface cultural deposits. An intact cultural feature was encountered at the site during the current survey. Berger concurs with the previous recommendation that Site 44AB428 is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D, as it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. Criteria A, B, and C are not applicable to this resource. Sites 44AB481 and 44AB482 are very low density, limited-activity, prehistoric procurement/processing sites. Surface observation and subsurface testing revealed that disturbances caused by logging activities and previous construction of nearby roads have destroyed most of each site. Berger recommends Sites 44AB481 and 44AB482 as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Histo~c Places under Criterion D, as they are not likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. Criteria A, B, and C are not applicable to these resources. Site 44AB483 is a modem, domestic trash scatter associated with the last half of the twentieth century. All artifacts were recovered in shallow soils and no other cultural features or intact subsurface cultural deposits were identified in the shovel tests. Site 44AB483 is not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places for the following reasons: (t) it is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history (Criterion A); (2) it is not associated with the lives of persons significant in our past (Criterion B); (3) Criterion C is not applicable to this resource; and (4) the archaeological information at the site is not likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D). TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER II III V Abstract ................................................................ List of Figures ........................................................... List of Tables List of Plates iNTRODUCTION VI VII PROJECT SETTING BACKGROUND RESEARCH A. Introduction B. Prehistoric Resources C. Historical Resources D. Previous Archaeological Investigations .................................... METHODS AND TECHNIQUES ........................................... A. Archaeological Field Methods and Techniques .............................. B. Laboratory Methods and Techniques ...................................... RESULTS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL IDENTIFICATION SURVEY ........... A. Introduction B. Site 44AB428 C. Site 44AB481 D. Site 44AB482 E. Site 44AB483 F. Isolated Artifact Locations SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... REFERENCES CITED APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: Methods of Artifact Cataloging and Analysis Artifact Inventory VDHR Archaeological Site Inventory Forms PAGE i iii iii 111 9 10 10 10 10 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 18 21 21 23 24 26 FIGURE 1 2a-e 4 TABLE 1 PLATE 1 2 3 4 5 LIST OF FIGURES Proposed Location of Route 29 Bypass Intersection, Albemarle County, Virginia ...... Project Area, Archaeological Sites and Isolated Artifacts Within ROW, and Shovel Tests ............................................. Previously Identified Archaeological Sites Within a 1.6-Kilometer (1-Mile) Radius of the Project Area ................................................. Representative Shovel Test Profiles for Sites 44AB428, 44AB481, 44AB482, and 44AB483 ........................................................... LIST OF TABLES Previously Recorded Archaeologi.cal 'Resources Within a. 1.6-Kilometer (1-Mile) Radius of the Project Area .......................................... Previously Identified Archaeological Sites Within the Proposed ROW .............. Isolated Artifact Locations ................................................. National Register Recommendations for Archaeological Sites Within the Construction Limits .................................................... LIST OF PLATES PAGE 2 3q7 13 19 PAGE 11 16 23 25 PAGE Site 44AB428, View from the South ......................................... 17 Site 44AB428, View from the East ........................................... 17 Site 44AB481, View from the Southeast ...................................... 20 Site 44AB482, View from the North ......................................... 22 Site 44AB483, View from the Northeast ...................................... 22 iii Archaeological Identification Survey Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle Count?, Virginia I. INTRODUCTION The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger), Richmond, Virginia, has completed an archaeological identification survey in association with the proposed intersection of the Route 29 Bypass with existing Route 29 in Albemarle County, Virginia (Figure 1). The identification survey was carried out on behalf of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) as part of Project No. 6029-002-122, PE100 (PPMS No. 16160). The proposed VDOT undertaking involves the construction of approximately 3,300 meters (2 miles) of new roadway, four stormwater management basins, and ramps connecting the new roadway to existing Route 29, all on new alignment (see Figure 1). The VDOT Route 29 right-of-way (ROW) will be expanded to include the proposed northbound and southbound Route 29 Bypass lanes, and the remainder of the land between the proposed lanes. The proposed construction limits for this project include the northbound and southbound Route 29 Bypass lanes, the proposed access ramps that will connect the Route 29 Bypass with existing Route 29, and the stormwater management basins. The construction limits vary from 60 to 220 meters (197 to 722 feet) in width over the course of the approximately 3,300 meters (2 miles) of roadway, and include an area that measures approximately 32.9 hectares (81.3 acres) in size (Figures 2a-e). The objective of the archaeological identification survey, conducted between September 26 and October 5, 2001, was to identify any archaeological resources within the project area and evaluate their possible eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Background historical and archaeological research was conducted prior to fieldwork to determine if any archaeological sites had been previously recorded within a 1.6-kilometer (1-mile) radius of the project area. This research indicated that five previously identified archaeological sites (44AB294, 44AB295, 44AB428, 44AB429, and 44AB430) are located within the proposed ROW for the proposed Bypass intersection. The archaeological fieldwork, consisting of pedestrian survey and subsurface testing, resulted in the relocation of one previously recorded prehistoric archaeological site (44AB428) and the identification of two previously unidentified prehistoric archaeological sites (44AB481 and 44AB482), one previously unidentified historic archaeological site (44AB483), and three isolated artifact locations (IA-i, IA-2, and IA-3) within the construction limits. The archaeological identification survey was conducted pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800, as revised); the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974; Executive Order 11593; and Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 660-666 and 800 (as appropriate). The field investigations and technical report meet the specifications of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (FederalRegister 48:190:44716-44742) (U.S. Department of the Interior 1999). The Project Manager and Project Archaeologist meet or exceed the qualifications described in the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards (Federal Register 48:190:44738-4473'9) (U.S. Department of the Interior 1999). All cultural materials collected, along with all records of this.contract, have been cared for in accordance with the requirements set forth in 36 CFR 79 and will be curated with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR). This report has been organized into seven chapters. Chapter II describes the physiography of the project area. Chapter HI presents the results of the background research. The methods used for the archaeological survey are discussed in Chapter IV, and the results of the fieldwork are presented in Chapter V. Chapter VI provides a summary and recommendations regarding the National Register eligibility of the archaeological resources identified during this survey. Chapter VII provides a list of the references cited. Appendix A contains an inventory of the artifacts recovered during the archaeological survey and a description of the laboratory methods and analytical techniques used. Appendix B contains a copy of the state site forms submitted to the VDHR. QUADRANGLE LOCATION 1 MILE FIGURE 1: Proposed Location of Rou~e 29 Bypass Intersection, Albemarle County, Virg 5O.URCE: USGS 1965 (Photorevised f978, Photoinspecte d 1984) 2 and 1973 (Photorevised ~987) 44AB428 POSITIVE SHOVEL TEST NEGAT1VE SHOVEL TEST UNEXC. AVATED SHOVEL TEST SITE BOUNDARY EXISTING ROW PROPOSED ROW CONSTRUCTION LIMITS FIGURE 2a: Project Area, Archaeological Sites and Isolated Artifacts Within ROW, and Shovel Tests ./ / / / / / × O 21 42 METERS FIGURE 2b: Project Area, Archaeological Sites and Isolated Artifacts Within ROW, and Shovel Tests 'x x, I LEGEND EXISTING ROW PROPOSED ROW CONSTR[~IC'~N LiM~TE !o 44AB481 LEGEND ~ POSITIVE SHOVEL TEST O NEGATIVE SHOVEL TEST ~ UNEXCAVATED SHOVEL TEST SITE BOUNDARY ~ EXISTING ROW PROPOSED ROW ~'~ ,~, ~,'-~, CONSTRUCTION LIMITS 44AB482 / o~ IA-2 FIGURE 2c: Project Area, Archaeological Sites and Isolate(~ A¢ifacts Within ROW, and Shovel Tests 44AB295 0 21 42 METERS ~GEND PROPOSED ROW ~NS~UC~ON L[M~ FIGUR~ 2d: Project Area, Archaeological SEes and Isolated Artifacts Within ROW, and Shovel Tests %°- 0 21 42 METERS LEGEND ~ POSITIVE SHOVEL TEST O NEGATIVE SHOVEL TEST SITE BOUNDARY .......... EXISTING ROW PROPOSED ROW CONST~[JCTL)N LimiTS FIGURE 2e: Project Area. Archaeological Sites and Isolated Artifacts Within ROW, and Shovel Tests Archaeological Identification Survey Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, Virginia The archaeological identification survey was conducted under the direction of Project Manager Kay Simpson, Ph.D. John Mullin served as Project Archaeologist and was assisted by Crew Chief Greg LaBudde and Field Archaeologists Brian Cavanaugh, Greg Konzleman, Paul Luton, Joseph McGuirmess, Ben Stewart, Stephanie Taleff, Pam Wood, and Aaron Zipp. Mr. Mullin authored the report. The artifacts were processed and cataloged by Susan Butler. Editing was provided by C. Carol Halitsky and Anne Moiseev, and the graphics were prepared by Jacqueline Horsford. Archaeological [dent!fication Survqy Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, P'irginia II. PROJECT SETTING Albemarle County lies within two physiographic provinces, the Piedmont province to the east and the Blue Ridge province to the west (Carter et al. 1985). The VDHR's cultural region classification system includes Albemarle County within the Piedmont cultural region (VDHR 1992). The project area for the archaeological identification survey is located in the Piedmont physiographic province portion of Albemarle County, adjacent to the transition into the Blue Ridge physiographic province. The Piedmont physiographic province is characterized by gently sloping to roiling terrain, broken up by multiple streams with steep slopes in areas along drainageways. The project area is approximately 32.9 hectares (81.3 acres) in size and is located approximately 125 meters (410 feet) north of the South Fork R_ivanna River. Construction in the area will consist of approximately 3,300 meters (2 miles) of new roadway, four new stormwater management basins, and ramps connecting the new roadway to existing Route 29 (see Figures 1 and 2a-e). The greater portion of the project area consists of steep ridge sideslopes above unnamed tributaries of the South Fork Rivanna River. The average annual temperature in Albemarle County is about 13.8 degrees Celsius (56.9 degrees Fahrenheit), with an average daily summer high of 30.5 degrees Celsius (87 degrees Fahrenheit) occurring in July and an average daily winter iow of-3 degrees Celsius (26.5 degrees Fahrenheit) occurring in January. The total average annual precipitation of 115.5 centimeters (45.48 inches) falls almost evenly throughout the year, with slightly greater rainfall in the summer months and an average of 13 centimeters (5 inches) of snow during the winter (Carter et al. 1985). Soils in the project area are of the Hayesville-Ashe-Chester series, but are loc~tted adjacent to soils of the Braddock-Thurmont-Unison series. The Hayesville-Ashe-Chester series is common to upland areas of the Piedmont and consists of deep, well-drained to excessively well-drained soils, formed in weathered granite and gneiss, with a clayey or loamy subsoil. The nearby Braddock-Thurmont-Unison series is located in colluvial terraces in the transition between the Piedmont and the Blue Ridge and consists of deep, well- drained soils formed by colluvium, with a clayey or loamy subsoil (Carter et al. 1985). The project area is predominantly wooded, with large portions showing evidence of previous, or recent, logging activities. The majority of the project area does not appear to have been disturbed by modem agricultural activities (e.g., plowing): Archaeological Ident!fication Survey Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, Virginia III. BACKGROUND RESEARCH A. INTRODUCTION The background research has two purposes. The first ptirpose is to compile and assess existing cultural resource data pertinent to the project area and the second is to compile sufficient and appropriate information to prepare a liistorical context as specified in VDHR guidelines for cultural resource survey reports. This research involved a review o£the archaeological site file inventory at the VDHR in Richmond and a review of historical maps and literature regarding the project area and vicinity. A total of 41 previously recorded archaeological sites were identified within a 1.6-kilometer (1-mile) radius of the project area (Table 1; Figure 3). These sites include 25 prehistoric sites (44AB13, 44AB14, 44AB15, 44AB118, 44AB129, 44AB130, 44AB 131, 44AB269, 44AB292, 44AB293, 44AB295, 44AB297, 44AB298, 44AB299, 44AB300, 44AB302, 44AB303, 44AB327, 44AB349, 44AB428, 44AB429, 44AB430, 44AB462, 44AB463, and 44AB464), nine historic sites (44AB137, 44AB30'1, 44AB337, 44AB344, 44AB367, 44AB373, 44AB424, 44AB42~, and 44AB427), and seven sites with prehistoric and historic components (44AB294, 44AB296, 44AB317, 44AB338, 44AB423, 44AB425, and 44AB437) (see Figure 3). Five previously recorded archaeological sites (44AB294, 44AB295, 44AB428, 44AB429, and 44AB430) are located within the ROW for the proposed Bypass intersection (see Figure 2a-e). The types of archaeological resources that may be encountered in the project area, based on the previously recorded cultural resources located in the vicinity, and the potential for the project area to contain prehistoric and historic archaeological resources are discussed below. B. PREHISTORIC RESOURCES Within a 1.6~kilometer (1-mile) radius of the project area there are 25 previously identified prehistoric sites and seven previously identified multi-component sites with prehistoric components (see Table 1 and Figure 3). These sites include a burial mound site (44AB15), a lithic extraction site (44AB295), a general purpose site (44AB293), an unknown site type (44AB437), two large village sites (44AB13 and 44AB14), three lithic workshop sites (44AB462, 44AB463, and 44AB464), s~x camp sites (44AB338, 44AB423, 44AB425, 44AB428, 44AB429, and 44AB430), and 17 lithic scatter sites (44AB 118, 44AB 129, 44AB 130, 44AB 131, 44AB269, 44AB292, 44AB294, 44AB296, 44AB297, 44AB298, 44AB299, 44AB300, 44AB302, 44AB303, 44AB317, 44AB327, and 44AB349). A variety of cultural periods are represented at these sites (see Table 1). The majority of these sites (N=20) are located on ridge sideslopes (44ABl18, 44AB129, 44AB130, 44AB13 l, 44AB292, 44AB297, 44AB298, 44AB299, 44AB300, 44AB302, 44AB303, 44AB327, 44AB338, 44AB349, 44AB425, 44AB429, 44AB437, 44AB462, 44AB463, and 44AB464). The remainder of the sites are located on ridgetops (44AB269, 44AB294, 44AB296, 44AB423, 44AB4~8, and 44AB430), floodplains (44AB 13, 44AB 14, and 44AB 15), ridge fingers (44AB293 and 44AB294), and ridge terraces (44AB317). Based on (1) the physical locations, temporal periods, and cultural activities associated with the previously recorded sites, (2) the general prehistory of Albemarle County (Botwick 1994; Hodges 1981; VDHR 1992), and (3) the physiography of the project area, it appears that ridgetops and ridge sideslopes in the project area have a moderate to high potential for Archaic and Woodland period sites. C. HISTORICAL RESOURCES Within a 1.6-kilometer (1-mile) radius of the project area there are nine previously identified historic sites and seven previously identified multi-component sites with historic components. These sites include an l0 Archaeological ldent!fication Survey Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, Vir~ginia TABLE 1 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES WITHIN A 1.6-KILOMETER (1-MILE) RADIUS OF THE PROJECT AREA SITE No. SITE TYPE TEMPORAL PERIOD ARTIFACTS/FEATLrRES 44AB 13 Large Village Late Woodland 44AB 14 Large Village Late Woodland 44AB 15 Burial Mound/Village Woodland 44AB 118 Lithic scatter Late Middle Archaic/ Late Archaic 44AB 129 Lithic scatter Late Archaic transitional 44AB 130 Lithic scatter Late Archaic transitional 44AB 131 Lithic scatter Middle Archaic 44AB137 Transportation-Mills 19t~' CentuD~ and Lock 44AB269 Lithic scatter Early Archaic/ Late Archaic 44AB292 Lithic scatter Unknown prehistoric 44AB293 General purpose Unknown prehistoric 44AB294 Lithic scatter/ Unknown prehistoric/ Isolated artifact Historic 44AB295 Lithic extraction Archaic 44AB296 Lithic scatter/ Isolated artifact 44AB297 Lithic scatter 44AB298 Lithic scatter 44AB299 Lithic scatter 44AB300 Lithic scatter 44AB301 Domestic; House site 44AB302 Lithic scatter 44AB303 Lithic scatter Unknown prehistoric/ Historic Unknown prehistoric Unknown prehistoric Unknown prehistoric Unknown prehistoric Late 19~h'/Early 20~' Century Unknown prehistoric Late Archaic/ Early Woodland Triangular projectile point, flakes, tool fragments, pottery Not listed Not listed White quartz side-notched projectile points and uncollected flakes White quartz projectile point and uncollected flakes White quartz side-notched projectile points and uncollected flakes Quartzite Morrow Mountain projectile point and uncollected white quartz flakes No collection 24 tools (including LeCroy, Brewerton, and Savannah River projectile points) and quartz debitage. 5 quartz flakes Quartz flakes, cores, preform, retouched flake, and distal point fragment Prehistoric: 7 quartz flakes and 3 bifaces Historic: Whiteware sherd Quartz flakes, bifaces, distal point fragment, and 2 quartzite Halifax projectile points Prehistoric: Quartz and quartzite flakes Historic: Whiteware rim sherd Quartz flakes Quartz flakes Quartz flakes Quartz flakes and triangular projectile points Wire nails; Extant foundations of house and outbuildings Quartz flakes and biface fragments, quartzite flakes and biface fragments Quartz flakes, straight-stemmed projectile point, and Vernon projectile point I1 Archaeological Identification Survey 'Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, Virginia SITE No. SITE TYPE TEMPORAL PERIOD ARTIFACTS/FEATURES 44AB317 Commercial, 20m-Century/ Historic: Bedsprings, burned glass, cut nails, wire nails, Industrial/ Unknown prehistoric window glass, mortar, and brick Lithic scatter Prehistoric: Quartz flakes 44AB327 Lithic scatter Unknown prehistoric 44AB337 Domestic; House site 20th-Century 44AB338 Camp site/ Late Archaic/ Historic scatter Middle Woodland/ Unknown historic 44AB344 Domestic; House site Early 20th-Century 44AB349 44AB367 44AB373 Lithic scatter Unknown prehistoric Carr Famity Cemetery . 2ff~-Century Domestic; House site 20~'-Century 44AB423 Camp/Historic scatter Unknown prehistoric/ Unknown historic 44AB424 Domestic; House site 19~-/20t~LCentury 44AB425 Camp/Historic scatter Unknown prehistoric/ 20t"-Centmy 44AB426 Domestic; Farmstead Late 19th-/20m-Century 44AB427 Domestic; House site Late 19L~-/20th-Century 44AB428 Limited-activity camp Middle Archaic 44AB429 Limited-activity camp Unknown prehistoric 44AB430 Limited-activity camp Middle Archaic 44AB437 Unknown Unknown prehistoric/ Unknown historic 44AB462 Lithic workshop Unknown prehistoric 44AB463 Lithic workshop Unknown prehistoric 44AB464 Lithic workshop Woodland Quartz flakes, biface fragments, and projectile point, chalcedony flakes, biface fragments, and preform; Potential buried deposits Porcelain sherds, glass fragments, metal can fragments, and metal fragments; Extant house foundation with chimney Prehistoric: Albemarle ceramic sherds, quartz flakes, biface fragments, and Savannah River point base Historic: Brick fragments Metal fragments, window and bottle glass fragments, leather, and whiteware sherds; Extant house foundation Quartz flakes and blank No collection/ 15 graves from the 1940s to 1969 marked with funeral placards or small uncut stones. Porcelain sherds, glass fragments, metal can fragments, and metal fragments; Extant house foundation with chimney Prehistoric: Quartz flakes Historic: Ceramic sherds and glass fragments 2ff~-cenvary artifacts Prehistoric: Quartz flakes Historic: 20th-century artifacts Not listed Not listed Quartz debitage, bifaces, uniface, and Morrow Mountain projectile point, and fire-cracked rock; Sheet deposit of cultural materials Quartz debitage Quartz debitage, bifaces, and Guilford projectile point, and fire-cracked rock; Sheet deposit of cultural materials Not listed Quartz flakes, and biface fragment Debitage Lithics, ceramic sherds, bone fragments, and kaolin pipestem fragments 12 FIGURE 3: Previously Identified Archaeological Sites Within a 1.6-Kilometer (1-Mile)'Radius of the Project Area 0 ¥4 o .5 SOURCE: USGS 1965 (Photorevised 1978, Photoins~ected 1984) and 1973 (Photorevised 1987) Archaeological Identification Survey Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, Virginia unknown site type (44AB437), a nineteenth-century canal site (44AB137), a nineteenth- through twentieth- century house site (44AB424), a late nineteenth- through early twentieth-century house site (44AB301), a late nineteenth- through twentieth-century farmstead site (44AB426), a late nineteenth- through twentieth- centm-y house site (44AB427), a twentieth-century commercial/industrial site (44AB317), an early twentieth- century house site (44AB344), a twentieth-century cemetery (44AB367), a twentieth-century historic scatter site (44AB425), two twentieth-century house sites (44AB337 and 44AB373), two historic scatter sites of unknown age (44AB338 and 44AB423), and two isolated artifact locations (44AB294 and 44AB296) (see Table 1 and Figure 3). Eight of the 16 sites are located on ridgetops (44AB294, 44AB296, 44AB301, 44AB373, 44AB423, 44AB424, 44AB426, and 44AB427), with the remainder of the sites located on ridge terraces (44AB317, 44AB344, and 44AB367), ridge sideslopes (44AB338, 44AB425, and 44AB437), and floodplains (44AB137 and 44AB344). Based on (1) the physical locations, temporal periods, and cultural activities associated with the previously recorded sites, (2) the general history of Albemarle County (see Botwick and Bashman 1994), and (3) the physiography of the project area, it appears that the project area has a moderate-to-high potential for twentieth-century domestic sims (including isolated artifact locations, historic trash scatter sites, and house sites) to be located along Route 29, Route 643, or one of the small side roads off of Route 29. Additionally, there is a low to moderate potential for (1) nineteenth- century domestic sites located in the same types of settings and (2) cemeteries associated with any nineteenth- and twentieth-century domestic sites located in the project area. D. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS Several previous archaeological surveys have been conducted for construction work related to Route 29 (Botwick 1994; Botwick and Bashman 1994; McLearen 1987; Stevens and Seifert 1989; Stevens and Seifert 1990; Wamsley 1986). Al1 five of the previously recorded archaeological sites (Sites 44AB294, 44AB295, 44AB428, 44AB429, and 44AB430) that are located within the current ROW for the proposed Route 29 Bypass intersection were identified during these prewous surveys for Route 29 projects (see Figure 2a-e). The Virginia Research Center for Archaeology originally identified Sites 44AB294 and 44AB295 during an identification survey conducted for the widening of Route 29 (Wamsley 1986). Further investigations were recommended at Site 44AB295. Site 44AB294 was not recommended for further investigations owing to low artifact density and lack of site integrity caused by erosion (Wamsley 1986). Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research Center conducted the Phase II evaluations at Site 44AB295. Based on the low density of artifacts and poor ske preservation, it was determined that no further investigations were warranted (McLearen 1987). Berger conducted the archaeological identification survey that identified Sites 44AB428, 44AB429, and 44AB430, and recommended further investigations at these three sites (Botwick and Bashman 1994). An archaeological evaluation was conducted at each of the three sites (Botwick 1994). Site 44AB429 was recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The presence of intact deposits of artifacts that date to the Middle Archaic period at Sites 44AB428 and 44AB430 demonstrated that the two sites are eligible for inclusion in the National Register. While Site 44AB428 is located within the current construction limits, Site 44AB430 is located outside the current construction limits but in a portion of the ROW that may be used as a construction staging area. 14 Archaeological ldenti, fication Survey Route 29 Bypass. Albemarle County. Virginia IV. METHODS AND TECHNIQUES A. ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD METHODS AND TECHNIQUES The archaeological identification survey consisted of pedestrian surface survey and subsurface testing. As the project area was not staked, the project plan maps did not include contours, and there were very few physical landmarks that could be used to identify the project area, it was first necessary to locate the proposed centefline using a Trimble GPS receiver and partial coordinates provided by VDOT. As the centerline was being located, a pedestrian surface survey was conducted to identify areas within the construction limits that could not be tested as a result of physical disturbances (e.g., road curs and timber piles) or ground slope. Once the centerline was established, subsurface testing was conducted only in those areas where it was deemed appropriate. Subsurface testing consisted of the systematic excavation of numerically labeled shovel tests along alphabetically labeled transects, at intervals of 23 meters (75 feet). In this way it was possible to obtain a comprehensive survey of all portions of the project area. When a shovel test yielded artifacts, additional radial shovel tests were excavated around the initial shovel test, at ll.5-meter (38-foot) intervals, in a cruciform pattern. These radial shovel tests ensured that sufficient information was obtained to determine the size and significance of archaeological resources identified during the survey. Shovel tests measured approximately 30 centimeters (12 inches) in diameter. All soils removed from each shovel test were passed through 0.64-centimeter (0.25-inch) mesh hardware cloth. As each natural or cultural stratum was excavated within a shovel test, that stratum was assigned an alphabetic designation (i.e., Stratum A, Stratum B, Stratum C, etc.) in order to indicate its stratigraphic relationship to the other levels within the shovel test. These letter designations were assigned beginning with the fn:st excavated level of a shovel test (Stratum A), and proceeded alphabetically through each subsequent level, until the termination of the shovel test. All artifacts recovered in the shovel tests were bagged by level, and a field number was assigned to each provenience. For each excavated shovel test, the shovel test profile, soil texture, soil color according to Munsell soil color charts, and artifact content were recorded on Berger's standardized shovel test forms. Although shovel test depths varied according to soil conditions, shovel tests were excavated, on average, to 35 to 40 centimeters (14 to 16 inches) in depth and were terminated at sterile subsoil. All transect and shovel test proveniences were recorded on project plan maps. Shovel tests were drawn to indicate the presence or absence artifacts. The project maps included information about environmental and cultural conditions in the project area (e.g., natural slopes and structures), and black-and-white photogaphs were taken of the project area. B. LABORATORY METHODS AND TECHNIQUES Artifacts recovered from the archaeological survey were processed, analyzed, and cataloged at Berger's laboratory facility. All cultural materials sent to the laboratory were placed in 4-mil resealable polyethylene bags, along with artifact cards listing field numbers and provenience data. These bags were then organized by site number and forwarded to the laboratory. Appendix A provides a detailed description of the methods and procedures used in the analysis of the materials recovered, along with an artifact inventory. At the termination of this archaeological project, all artifacts and associated documents will be curated with the VDHR. 15 Archaeological Identification Survey Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle Coun{y, Virginia V.RESULTS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL IDENTIFICATION SURVEY A. INTRODUCTION Pedestrian surface survey and subsurface testing were conducted to identify archaeological sites within the consu-uction limits of the project area. A total of 293 shovel tests were excavated within the project area. Five previously recorded archaeological sites (44AB294, 44AB295, 44AB428, 44AB429, and 44AB430) are documented within the project ROW; however, during the present survey it was determined that only Site 44AB428 is located within the construction limits for the current alignment (see Figure 2a-e; Table 2). In addition, two previously unidentified prehistoric archaeological sites (44AB481 and 44AB482), one previously unidentified historic archaeological site (44AB483), and three isolated artifact locations (IA-l, IA-2, and IA-3) were identified within the construction limits. Descriptions of the archaeological sites and isolated artifact locations identified within the construction limits are provided below, including site characteristics, shovel test data, and recovered artifacts. A detailed listing of all artifacts recovered during the survey is provided in the artifact inventory in Appendix A. TABLE 2 PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE PROPOSED ROW SITE No. SITE TYPE CULTURAL AFFILIATION RELOCATED IN ROW 44AB294 Lithic scatter Unknown prehistoric No 44AB295 Lithic extraction site Archaic No 44AB428 Limited-activity camp Middle Archaic Yes 44AB429 Limited-activity camp Unknown prehistoric No 44AB430 Limited-activity camp Middle Archaic No B. SITE 44AB428 Site 44AB428 (see Figure 2a) is located on a ridgetop approximately 152 meters (500 feet) from Schroder Branch, a tributary of the South Fork Rivanna River, at an elevation of 128 to 140 meters (420 to 460 feet) above mean sea level (amsl). The site is currently overgrown with pokeweed and briars, and sparse woods are found at the southern end of the site (Plates 1 and 2). Large tree stumps, and scrap timber are located across the ridgetop, and an old logging road approaches the site from the north but disappears in the northern portion of the site. The site consists of a ridgetop area that measures approximately 220x85 meters (722x279 feet), as determined by natural landform and by negative shovel tests to the north and south. The site was identified through the recovery of 145 artifacts from 17 shovel tests. A portion of an intact cultural feature (consisting of a layer of large, fire-cracked rocks) was encountered in Shovel Test D-8. The site was confmued to be Site 44AB428 through the use of a Trimble GPS receiver and the previously recorded coordinates for the site. Site 44AB428 was originally identified during an identification survey for a previous alignment of the proposed Route 29 Bypass intersection (Botwick and Bashman 1994). A subsequent archaeological evaluation recovered diagnostic artifacts and encountered an extensive sheet deposit of cultural materials that was considered to be an intact cultural feature (Botwick 1994). As a result of the archaeological evaluation, the site was recommended as eligible for inclusion in the National Register under Criterion D, as it was considered likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criteria A, B, and C are not 16 Archaeological Ident!fication Surve? Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, Virginia PLATE 1: Site 44AB428, View from the South PLATE 2: Site 44AB428, View from the East 17 Archaeological Ident!fication Survey Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, Virginia applicable to the resource). Furthermore, it was recommended that archaeological data recovery should be performed at the site prior to ground-disturbing activities (Botwick 1994:42). A typical shovel test profile for Site 44AB428 (Figure 4) consists of four strata: Stratum A (topsoil), a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loam extending from 0 to 4 centimeters (0 to 2 inches) below ground surface; Stratum B, a brown (10YR 4/3) sandy loam extending from 4 to 12 centimeters (2 to 5 inches) below ground surface; Stratum C, a brown (7.5YR 5/4) sandy clay loam extending from 12 to 42 centimeters (5 to 16.5 inches) below ground surface; and Stratum D, a dusky red (2.5Y 4/4) clay loam extending from 42 to 56 centimeters (16.5 to 22 inches) below ground surface. The 145 artifacts (all prehistoric) recovered at Site 44AB428 are all quartz (with the exception of some fire- cracked rock) and consist of one tested cobbie, one broken middle-stage biface, three freehand cores, three early reduction flakes, 17 biface reduction flakes, 19 flake fragments, 38 block shatter fragments, and 63 fire- cracked rocks (Appendix A). These artifacts were recovered from all four strata: (1) Stratum A (N=53), (2) Stratum B (N=81), (3) Stratum C (N=5), and (4) Stratum D (N=6). Artifacts designated as having been recovered from Strata C and D of Shovel Test D-8 (see Appendix A) constitute a portion of an intact cultural feature (possible hearth) located on top of, and set into, subsoil. In addition to the artifacts collected from Shovel Test D-8, several uncollected, large, fire-cracked rocks were recovered from Strata C and D. Limited-activity sites like Site 44AB428 are common in upland zones of the Piedmont, but because this type of site has usually been subjected to severe erosional processes as a consequence of land-clearing and agricultural activities, there is little detailed information available about many of these sites (LeeDecker et al. t991). Although Site 44AB428 does not appear to exhibit intact stratified cultural levels, an intact sheet deposit of artifacts is relatively rare, and excavations could provide valuable data about intrasite spatial patterning (see Sassaman 1993). Thus, data recovery at Site 44AB428 could provide information about spatial distributions of activities within limited-activity camps, the results of which would also assist in developing a broader understanding of intrasite activities and regional settlement patterns (Sassaman 1993; Tainter 1979; Wall 1993). Site 44AB428 is a limited-activity camp that dates to the Middle Archaic period. Based on (1) the artifacts and the intact cultural feature that were discovered at the site during the current archaeological identification survey of the new alignment, and (2) the large volume of artifacts (including diagnostic artifacts) and the intact cultural deposits and cultural features discovered during the previous archaeological investigations, Site 44AB428 appears to have extensive intact cultural deposits and cultural features. Berger therefore concurs with the previous recommendation of Ske 44AB428 as eligible for inclusion in the National Register under Criterion D, as it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criteria A, B, and C are not applicable to this resource). C. SITE 44AB481 Site 44AB481 (see Figure 2c) is located on a ridge sideslope approximately 76 meters (250 feet) from an unnamed tributary of the South Fork Rivanna River, at an elevation of 146 meters (480 feet) amsl. The site is currently wooded (Plate 3), although tree stumps, scrap timber, and old dirt roads on and in the vicinity of the site suggest that the area has been disturbed by previous logging activities. The site measures approximately 23x23 meters (75x75 feet), as determined by negative shovel tests. Site 44AB481 was identified through the recovery of five artifacts from three shovel tests. A typical shovel test profile for Site 44AB481 consists of three strata: Stratum A (topsoil), a dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) loam extending from 0 to 6 centimeters (0 to 2 inches) below ground surface; Stratum B, an olive yellow (2.5Y 6/6) sandy clay extending from 6 to 24 centimeters (2 to 9.5 inches) below ground 18 44AB428 44AB481 44AB482 44AB483 D-8 D-41d E-45 BB-14b11.5E 4cm 12 cm 42 cm 56 cm A C D BASE OF EXCAVATION A 6 cr~ 24 cm 30 cm LEGEND A B C B C BASE OF EXCAVATION 10YR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN LOAM 2.5Y 6/6 OLIVE YELLOW SANDY CLAY 2.5Y 6/8 OLIVE YELLOW SANDY CLAY LEGEND a 10YR 3/2 VERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN LOAM B 10YR 4/3 BROWN SANDY LOAM C 7.5YR 5/4 BROWN SANDY CLAY LOAM D 2.5Y 4/4 DUSKY RED CLAY LOAM A 21 cm B 36 cm I BASE OF EXCAVATION LEGEND A 2.5Y 6/6 OLIVE YELLOW SANDY LOAM B 5YR 5/6 YELLOWISH RED CLAY LOAM A 13 cm B 29 cm BASE OF EXCAVATION LEGEND A 7.5YR 3/4 DARK BROWN SANDY LOAM B 5YR 4/6 DARK RED CLAY LOAM FIGURE 4: Representative Shovel Test Profiles for Sites 44AB428, 44AB481,44AB482, and 44AB483 Archaeolo~,ical Ident!fication Survey Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, Virginia PLATE 3' Site 44AB481, View from the Southeast 2O Archaeological Identification Survey Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, Virginia surface; and Stratum C, an olive yellow (2.5Y 6/8) sandy clay extending from 24 to 30 centimeters (9.5 to 12 inches) below ground surface (see Figure 4). The five artifacts (all prehistoric) recovered at Site 44AB481 are all quartz and consist of one biface reduction flake, one flake fragment, one fire-cracked rock, and two early reduction flakes. Artifacts were recovered from two strata, Stratum A (N=2) and Stratum B (N=3) (see Appendix A). Site 44AB481 appears to be a very low-density, limited-activity prehistoric procurement/processing site. Although shovel test profiles suggest that some intact natural soil stratigraphy may be present at the site, surface conditions suggest that the area has been disturbed by logging activities (e.g., logging roads) and possibly filled/leveled in some places. Furthermore, shovel tests at the site did not reveal any intact subsurface cultural deposits or cultural features. Because of the low density of artifacts recovered at the site and the site's overall lack of physical integrity, Berger recommends Site 44AB481 as not eligible for inclusion in the National Kegister under Criterion D, as it is not likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criteria A, B, and C are not applicable to this resource). D. SITE 44AB482 Site 44AB482 (see Figure 2c) is located on a ridge sideslope approximately 76 meters (250 feet') from an unnamed tributary of the South Fork Rivarma River, at an elevation of 152 meters (500 feet) amsl. The site is currently wooded (Plate 4), although tree stumps, scrap timber, and old dirt roads on and in the vicinity of the site suggest that the area has been disturbed by previous logging activities. The site measures approximately 35x12 meters (1 t5x39 feet), as determined by negative shovel tests. Site 44AB482 was identified through the recovery of seven artifacts from two shovel tests, D-45 and E-45 (see Figure 2c). A typical shovel test profile for Site 44AB482 consists of two strata: Stratum A, an olive yellow (2.5Y 6/6) sandy loam extending from 0 to 21 centimeters (0 to 8 inches) below ground surface; and Stratum B, a yellowish red (5YR 5/6) clay loam extending from 21 to 36 centimeters (8 to 14 inches) below ground surface (see Figure 4). The seven artifacts (all prehistoric) recovered at Site 44AB482 are all quartz and consist of two finishing flakes and five biface reduction flakes. Ail artifacts were recovered from the Stratum A. Site 44AB482 appears to be a very low-density, limited-activity prehistoric procurement/processing site. Although shovel test profiles suggest that some intact natural soil stratigraphy may be present at the site, surface conditions suggest that the area has been disturbed by logging activities (e.g., logging roads) with the majority of the site consisting ora disturbed dirt road. Furthermore, shovel tests at the site did not reveal any intact subsurface cultural deposits or cultural features. Because of the lo~ density of artifacts recovered at the site and the site's overall lack of physical integrity, Berger recommends Site 44AB482 as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register under Criterion D, as it is not hkely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criteria A, B, and C are not applicable to this resource). E. SITE 44AB483 Site 44AB483 (see Figure 2e) is located on a ridge sideslope approximately 61 meters (200 feet) from an unnamed tributary of the South Fork Rivanna River, at an elevation of 146 meters (480 feet) amsl The site is currently covered in periwinkle and sparse trees, and is located adjacent to a vacant, deteriorated twentieth- century house and abandoned modem outbuildings (a garage, two cinderblock structures, and a fenced dog lot) (Plate 5). The site measures approximately 25x12 meters (82x39 feet). Site 44AB483 was identified through recovery of 27 artifacts from three shovel tests. The site boundary was determined by a surface 21 Archaeological Ident~cation Survey Route 29 Bypass. Albemarle County, Virginia PLATE 3: Site 44AB481, View from the Southeast 2O Archaeological Ident!fication Survey Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, Virginia PLATE 4: Site 44AB482, View from the North PLATE 5: Site 44AB483, View from the Northeast 22 Archaeological Identification Survey Route 29 Bypass. Albemarle County, Virginia scatter of domestic trash located in the periwinkle, as well as negative shovel tests to the north and east and the locations of the house and outbuildings to the west and south. A typical shovel test profile for Site 44AB483 consists of two strata: Stratum A, a dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) sandy loam extending fi:om 0 m 13 centimeters (0 to 5 inches) below ground surface; and Stratum B, a dark red (5YR 4/6) clay loam extending from 13 to 29 centimeters (5 to 11.5 inches) below ground surface (see Figure 4). The 27 artifacts recovered at Site 44AB483 consist of one window glass fragment, one ceramic insulator fragment, one iron spike, one iron staple, two unidentified bottle glass fragments, two machine-cut nails, five coal/cinder/slag fragments, and 14 deer bone fragments. All artifacts were recovered from Stratum A. Site 44AB483 appears to represent a modem, domestic trash scatter associated with the last half of the twentieth century. All artifacts were recovered in shallow soils and no other cultural features or intact subsurface cultural deposits were identified in the shovel tests. Although the artifacts recovered cannot provide specific dates Of occupation for the site, they appear to be relatively modem. This type of historic archaeological site is ubiquitous in Albemarle County, as are extant architectural examples representative of this type of resource. Berger therefore recommends Site 44AB483 as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register, as (1) it is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history (Criterion A), (2) it is not associated with the lives of persons significant in our past (Criterion B), (3) Criterion C is not applicable to this resource, and (4) the archaeological information at the site is not likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D). F. ISOLATED ARTIFACT LOCATIONS During the archaeological identification survey three isolated artifact locations were identified within the construction limits (see Figure 2c; Table 3). Each of these locations was defined by the recovery of nondiagnostic artifacts from a single shovel test. Radial testing around these initial shovel tests yielded no further artifacts. Although IA-3 yielded four artifacts, it was not determined to be an archaeological site because (t) at least one of the artifacts could be the resUlt of natural processes, (2) no additional artifacts were recovered from radial shovel tests, and (3) surface conditions in the area suggest that these artifacts are isolated in nature. Because these isolated artifact locations do not meet the minimal definition of an archaeological site as set out by the VDHR (1996), they were not considered for National Register eligibility. Additionally, four isolated artifacts (see Appendix A, IA-4 to IA-7) were surface-collected from a logging road near the edge of the ROW. These artifacts consist of four projectile points that were piece-plotted using a Trimble GPS receiver, which indicates that they were collected outside the ROW. TABLE 3 ISOLATED ARTIFACT LOCATIONS ISOLATED ARTIFACT No. SHOVEL TEST No. ARTIFACTS IA-1 D-36 IA-2 0-6 IA-3 D-49 1 quartz freehand core; 1 quartz block shatter 1 quartz biface reduction flake 3 quartz biface reduction flakes; 1 quartz block shatter 23 Archaeological ldentification SurveF Route 29 BFpass, Albemarle County, Virginia VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Richmond, Virginia, has completed an archaeological identification survey in association with the proposed intersection of the Route 29 Bypass with existing Rotue 29 in Albemarle County, Virginia (see Figure 1). The identification survey was carded out on behalf of VDOT as part of Project No. 6029-002-122, PE100 (PPMS No. 16160). The proposed VDOT undertaking involves the construction of approximately '3,300 meters (2 miles) of new roadway, four stormwater management basins, and ramps connecting the new roadway to existing Route 29, all on new alignment (see Figures 2a-e). The VDOT ROW for Route 29 will be expanded to include the proposed northbound and southbound Route 29 Bypass lanes, as well as the remainder of the land between the proposed lanes. The proposed construction limits for this project include the northbound and southbound Route 29 Bypass lanes, the proposed access ramps that will connect the Route 29 Bypass with existing Route 29, and the stormwater management basins. The construction limits vary from 60 to 220 meters (197 to 722 feet) in width over the course of the approximately 3,300 meters (2 miles) of roadway, and include an area that measures approximately 32.9 hectares (81.3 acres) in size. Five archaeological sites (44AB294, 44AB295, 44AB428, 44AB429, and 44AB430) were identified during previous investigations associated with Route 29 projects. All five of the sites are located within the proposed ROW for the intersection as shown on current plans. Sites 44AB294, 44AB295, and 44AB429 were recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register (Botwick and Bashman 1994; Wamsley 1986). Sites 44AB428 and Site 44AB430 are eligible for inclusion in the National Register (Botwick and Bashman 1994). Site 44AB428 is located within the current ROW and was relocated during the current survey. The previously recorded location of Site 44AB430 was identified outside the current construction limits but within the project ROW, in an area that may be used as a construction staging area. The objective of the current archaeological identification survey, conducted between September 26 and October 5, 2001, was to identify any archaeological resources within the project area and evaluate their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register. The fieldwork resulted in the relocation of one previously recorded prehistoric archaeological site (44AB428) (see Figure 2a), and the identification of two previously unidentified prehistoric archaeological sites (44AB481 and 44AB482) (see Figure 2c), one previously unidentified historic archaeological site (44AB483) (see Figure 2e), and three isolated artifact locations (IA- 1, IA-2, and IA-3) (see Figure 2c) within the construction limits for the project. National Register eligibility of the sites is discussed below and summarized in Table 4. Site 44AB428 is a limited-activity camp that dates to the Middle Archaic period. Based on (1) the artifacts and the intact cultural feature that were discovered at the site during the current archaeological identification survey of the new alignment, and (2) the large volume of artifacts (including diagnostic artifacts) and the intact cultural deposits and cultural features discovered during the previous archaeological investigations, Site 44AB428 appears to have extensive intact cultural deposits and cultural features. Berger therefore concurs with the previous recommendation that Site 44AB428 is eligible for inclusion in the National Register under Criterion D, as it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criteria A, B, and C are not applicable to this resource). Site 44AB430 is a limited-activity camp that dates to the Middle Archaic period (Botwick and Bashman 1994:41). The site was not relocated during the current archaeological identification survey. However, through the use of a Trimble GPS receiver, the previously recorded location of the site was identified as a ridgetop outside the construction hmits but within the project ROW, in an area that may be used as a construction staging area. No subsurface testing was performed during the current survey. Based on (1) the overall relief of the site's location, and (2) the large volume of artifacts (including diagnostic artifacts) and 24 Archaeological Ident!fication Survey Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, Virginia the intact cultural deposits and cultural features discovered during the previous archaeological investigations (Botwick and Bashman 1994:23-25, 35-39), Site 44AB430 appears to have the potential to yield extensive intact cultural deposits and cultural features. Berger recommended Site 44AB430 as eligible for inclusion in the National Register under Criterion D, as it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criteria A, B, and C are not applicable to this resource) (Botwick and Bashman 1994:42). Site 44AB481 is a very low density, limited-activity prehistoric procurement/processing site of unknown age. Although shovel test profiles suggest that some intact stratigraphy may be present at the site, surface conditions suggest that the area has been disturbed by logging activities (e.g., logging and associated roads) and possibly filled/leveled in some places. Furthermore, shovel tests at the site did not reveal any intact subsurface cultural deposits or cultural features. Because of the low density of art/facts recovered at the site, and logging-related disturbances, Berger recommends Site 44AB481 as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register under Criterion D, as it is not likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criteria A, B, and C are not applicable to this resource). Site 44AB482 is a very low density, limited-activity prehistoric procurement/processing site of unknown age. Although shovel test profiles suggest that some intact stratigraphy may be present at the site, surface conditions suggest that the area has been disturbed by logging activities (e.g., logging and associated roads) with the majority of the site consisting of a disturbed, dirt road. Furthermore, shovel tests at the site did not reveal any intact subsurface cultural deposits or cultural features. Because of the low density of artifacts recovered at the site, and logging-related disturbances, Berger recommends Site 44AB482 as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register under Criterion D, as it is not likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criteria A, B, and C are not applicable to this resource). Site 44AB483 is a modem, domestic trash scatter associated with the last half of the twentieth century. All artifacts were recovered in shallow soils and no other cultural features or intact subsurface cultural deposits were identified in the shovel tests. Although the artifacts recovered cannot provide specific dates of occupation for the site, they appear to be relatively modem. This type of historic archaeological site is ubiquitous in Albemarle County, as are extant architectural examples representative of this resource type. Therefore, Berger recommends Site 44AB483 as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register as: (1) it is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our h/story (Criterion A); (2) it is not associated with the lives of persons significant to our past (Criterion B); (3) Criterion C is not applicable to this resource; and (4) the archaeological information at the site is not likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D). TABLE 4 NATIONAL REGISTER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE AREA OF POTEN~TIAL EFFECT NATIONAL REGISTER SITE No. SITE TYPE TEMPORAL PERIOD RECOMMENDATION 44AB428 Limited-activity camp Middle Archaic Eligible 44AB430 Limited-activity camp Middle Archaic Eligible 44AB481 Procurement/processing site Unknown prehistoric Not Eligible 44AB482 Procuremenvprocessing site Unknown prehistoric Not Eligible 44AB483 Procurement/processing site Unkno~vn prehistoric Not Eligible 25 Archaeological Identification Survey Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, Virginia VII. REFERENCES CITED Botwick, 1994 Bradford Phase II Archaeological Investigations, Sites 44AB428, 44AB429, and 44AB430, Route 29, Albemarle County, Virginia. Prepared for the Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, by The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Richmond. Botwick, 1994 Bradford, and Leslie Bashman Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, Route 29, City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, Virginia. Prepared for the Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, by The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Richmond. Carter, John B., Kenneth E. Howard, and Rim C. Garduer 1985 Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Washington, D.C. Hodges, Mary Ellen N. 1981 A Brief Relation of Virginia Prehistory. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond. LeeDecker, Charles H., Brad Koldehoff, Cheryl A. Holt, Daniel P. Wagner, Grace S. Brush, and Margaret Newman 1991 Excavation of the Indian Creek V Site (18PR94), Prince Georges County, Maryland. Prepared for Wallace Roberts & Todd, Philadelphia, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, D.C., by Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., Washington, D.C. McLearen, Douglas C. 1987 A Phase 2 Significance Evaluation of 44AB293 and 44AB295, Albemarle County, Virginia. Prepared for the Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, by Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research Center, Richmond. Sassaman~ Kenneth E. 1993 Hunter-Gatherer Site Structure at Upland Sites in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. Southeastern Archaeology, 12:117-136. Stevens, J. Sanderson, and Donna J. Seifert 1989 Phase I Archaeological Investigations of the U.S. Route 29 Corridor Study, Charlottesville and Albemarle County, Virginia. Prepared for Sverdrup Corporation, Falls Church, Virginia and the Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, by John Milner Associates, Alexandria. 1990 Phase I Archaeological Investigations of the U.S. Route 29 Corridor Study, Charlottesville and Albemarle County, Virginia. Volume I. Prepared for Sverdmp Corporation, Falls Church and the Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, by John Milner Associates, Alexandria, Virginia. Tainter, Joseph A. 1979 The Mountainair Lithic Scatters: Settlement Patterns and Significance Evaluation of Low Density Surface Sites. Journal of Field Archaeology 6:463-469. 26 Archaeological Ident!fication Survey Route 29 Bypass. Albemarle County, Virginia U.S. Department of the Interior 1999 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines. Federal Register, Part IV, 48(2):44716-44742. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. United States Geological Survey [USGS] 1987 Charlottesville East, VA. 7.5-Minute Series Quadrangle. Washington, D.C. United States Geological Survey, 1978 Earlysville, VA. 7.5-Minute Series Quadrangle. United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Virginia Department of Historic Resources [VDHR] 1992 How to Use Historic Contexts in Virginia: A Guide for Survey, Registration, Protection, and Treatment Projects. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond. 1996 Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Virginia. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond. various Archaeological site files for the project area. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond. Wall, Robert D. 1993 Phase III Archaeological Investigations, 18AG167 and 18AG168, and Supplemental Phase II Investigations, 18A G168, Federal Corrections Complex, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Cumberland, Allegany County, Marylandl Prepared for U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D.C., by Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., Washington, D.C. Wamsley, J. Cooper 1986 Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, Phase I Archaeologicat Reconnaissance Survey. Prepared for the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, by the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology. 27 Archaeological ldent!fication Survey Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, Virginia APPENDIX A METHODS OF ARTIFACT CATALOGING AND ANALYSIS ARTIFACT INVENTORY Archaeological Identification Survey Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, Virgmh~ METHODS OF ARTIFACT CATALOGING AND ANALYSIS A. LABORATORY PROCESSING All artifacts were transported from the field to Berger's laboratory. In the field, artifacts were bagged in 4- mil, resealable plastic bags. Artifact cards bearing provenience information were included in the plastic bags. A temporary Field Number was assigned to each unique provenience in the field, and this number appears with all the provenience information. In the lab, a permanent Catalog Number was assigned to each provenience. The catalog number is used to track artifact processing. In the laboratory, provenience information on each artifact card and bag was checked against a master list of catalog numbers with their proveniences. Any discrepancies were corrected at this time, and the artifact bags were sorted by catalog number for washing and analysis. Prehistoric lithics and historic artifacts were washed with a soft toothbrush in water. All artifacts were laid out to air-dry, sorted by catalog number. During analysis, individual Specimen Numbers were assigned to artifacts within each Catalog Number for each analytical Class: prehistoric [ithics, faunal, curved (vessel) glass, and small finds/architectural. After analysis, the artifacts were re-bagged into clean, 4-mil, perforated, resealable polyethylene bags. Artifacts are organized sequentially fn:st by Site Number, then by Catalog Number, and finally by Specimen Number within each Catalog Number. An acid-free artifact card lis'ting full provenience information and analytical class was included in the bags. Artifacts were marked with full provenience information, following the format below, using black waterproof India ink on a base of Roplex mixed with water. The label was then sealed with a top coat of PVA mixed with acetone. (State Site Number) (Catalog #) - (Specimen #) Ex. 44AB428 5-1 B. ANALYTICAL METHODS A computerized data management system developed by Berger was used to compile an artifact inventory for data manipulation. The system is written on an IBM-compatible PC using Paradox 9, a relational database development package. Artifact information (characteristics), recorded on*~the data entry forms by the analysts, was entered into the system. The system was then used to enhance the artifact records with the addition of provenience information. C. LITHIC ARTIFACT ANALYSIS The methods and procedures used to analyze the lithic artifacts from the project area are discussed below. As the lithic artifacts were analyzed, specific observations were recorded on analysis sheets as a series of codes; the codes were then entered into a computer database program (Paradox 9). A more complete discussion of the coding system can be found in Taylor et al. (1996). A Type/Subtype system was used in the coding of the lithic artifacts. The Type/Subtype is entered as an alphanumeric code that consists of three letters and a number. The first letter is always L, for Lithic. The Archaeological tdent!fication Surve~ Route 29 BzDasa, Albemarle County, Virginh~ second and third letter refer to general hthic class: DB, for Debitage; CR, for Cores; BF, for Biface; and FC, for Fire-cracked Rock. The numbers following the letter code refer to particular types of artifacts within the larger classes: e.g., LDB2 - Early Reduction Flake; LBF1 - Projectile Point. 1. Technological and Functional Analysis of Lithics The analytical approach to stone-tool production and use that was used in this analysis can be described as technomorphological; that is, artifacts were grouped into general classes and then further divided into specific types based upon key morphological attributes that are linked to or indicative of particular stone-tool production (reduction) strategies. Function was inferred from morphology as well as from use-wear. Surfaces and edges were examined for traces of use polish and damage with the unaided eye and with a 10X hand lens. A conservative approach to the identification of utilized and edge-retouched flakes was taken because a number of other factors can produce similar edge damage such as the tramphng of materials on living surfaces, spontaneous retouch during flake detachment, and trowel contact. Data derived from experimental and ethnoarchaeological research were relied upon in the identification and interpretation of artifact types. The works of Callahan (1979), Clark (1986), Crabtree (1972), Fleuniken (1981), Gould (1980), and Parry (1987) were drawn upon most heavily. Organized by general artifact classes, artifact types are listed below, followed by their Paradox code and a brief definition. All types were quantified by both count and weight (grams). Also discussed below are the specific variables or attributes that were recorded and how they were coded. a. Del~itage Debitage includes all types of chipped-stone refuse that bear no obvious traces of having been utilized or intentionally modified. There are two basic forms of Debitage: flakes and shatter. Observations on raw material and cortex were recorded and are discussed later. The following descriptions are for the Debitage types identified, but not the full range of types described in Taylor et al. (1996). Early Reduction Flakes (LDB 2) are intact or nearly intact flakes with less than 50% dorsal cortex, fewer than four dorsal flake scars, on the average, and irregularly shaped platforms with minimal faceting and lipping. Platform grinding is not always present. These flakes could have been detached from early-stage bifaces or cores of the freehand and bipolar types. Biface Reduction Flakes (LDB 3) are intact or nearly intact flakes with multiple overlapping dorsal flake scars and small, elliptically shaped platforms with multiple facets. Platform grinding is usually present. Platforms are distinctive because they represent tiny slivers of what once was' the edge of a biface. Biface reduction flakes are generated during the middle and late stages of biface re~luction and also during biface maimenance (resharpening). Finishing Flake (LDB 6) are small flakes,' usually detached through pressure flaking and are used to create the final cutting edge of the blade. Flake Fragments (LDB 9) are sections of flakes that are too fragmentary to be assigned to a particular flake type. Block Shatter (LDB 10) are angular or blocky fragments that do not possess platforms or bulbs. Generally the result of uncontrolled fracturing along inclusions or internal fracture planes, block shatter ~s most frequently produced during the early reduction of cores and bifaces. A-2 Archaeological [denti, fication Survey Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, Virgmht b. Cores Cores are cobbles or blocks of raw material that have had one or more flakes detached and that have not been shaped into tools or used extensively for tasks other than as a nucleus from which flakes have been struck. The types of cores identified are listed below, but this does not represent the full range of types possible discussed in Taylor et al. (1996). Freehand Cores (LCR 1) are blocks or cobbies that have had flakes detached in multiple directions by holding the core in one hand and striking it with a hammerstone held in the other (Crabtree 1972). This procedure generates flakes that can be used as is for expedient tools or can be worked into formalized tools. Freehand percussion cores come in various shapes and sizes, depending upon the raw material form and degree of reduction. Tested Cobbles (LCR 5) are unmodified cobbles, blocks, or nodules that have had a few flakes detached to examine raw-material quality. c. Bifaces A biface is a flake or cobble that has had multiple flakes removed from the dorsal and ventral surfaces. Bilateral symmetry and a lenticular cross section are common attributes; however, these attributes vary with the stages of production, as do thickness and uniformity of edges (see Callahan 1979). Included in this artifact class are all hafted and unhafted bifaces that functioned as projectile points and/or knives, as well as unfinished bifaces. Specific types ofbifaces represented in the collection are described below. Projectile Points (LBF 1) are finished bifaces that were usually halted and functioned primarily as projectiles. Projectile points are usually triangular in overall form, with various types of halting elements. Middle-Stage Bifaces (LBF 5) look more like bifaces; they have been initially thinned and shaped. A lenticular cross section is developing, but edges are sinuous, and patches of cortex may still remain on one or both faces. These bifaces are roughly equivalent to Callahan's (1979) Stage 3 bifaces. Biface reduction is a continuum; therefore, middle-stage bifaces are often difficult to distinguish from early- and late-stage bifaces, depending upon the point at which their reduction was halted. Furthermore, rejected bifaces may have been used for other tasks (recycled). d. Fire-cracked Rock Cracked rock (LFC 1) includes all fragments of lithic debris that cannot be attributed to stone tool production. It may represent frre-cracked rock (FCR) which is cobbies and/~r chunks of local bedrock that were used in heating and cooking activities. 2. Raw Material Analysis (Var 3) Raw materials were identified on the basis of macroscopic characteristics: color, texture, hardness, and inclusions. Magnification with a 10X hand lens, and on occasion higher levels of magnification, was used to identify inclusions and to evaluate texture and structure. Three raw material types were identified during the analysis. Each type is listed below, followed by its Paradox code and a brief description of its physical properties and its availability. Cortex (Var 9) was recorded for alt chipped-stone art/facts with the following codes: 1 (A) = absent or 2 (P) = present. A-3 Archaeological [dent!fication Survey Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, Virginia Chert (1) is cryptocrystalline quartz. Unlike vein quartz and rock quartz crystal, chert tends to occur within sedimentary rock formations. In general, most varieties of chert are amenable to flaking because they are homogeneous or isotrop~c materials that fracture in a clear conchoidal pattern. Quartz (231), one of the most common minerals in the Earth's crust, is formed from igneous magma and hydrothermal veins. Quartz is fairly conducive to knapping owing to i~s conchoidal fracture pattern, but it also usually possesses many fracture planes that cause a great deal of uncontrolled breakage during reduction. Its hardness also makes for difficult reduction although this in turn is an advantage for producing an edge that will hold up well during use. Sedimentary (381) rock composes 75% of the rocks exposed at the Earth's surface. These are non- crystalline rocks which contain rounded and angular grains of one or several compositional types. Grains may be set in a finer-grained matrix or cement. These rocks are subject to quick weathering. They contain minerals that can be removed by transporting agents such as water. Some of the sedimentary facies contain fossils. 3. Stylistic Analysts Only projectile points or halted bifaces were stylistically analyzed. These artifacts were segregated into groups on the basis of shared attributes related to morphology (overall size and shape, blade and haft shape) and technology (production and resharpening methods (flaking patterns), presence or absence of haft grinding, and presence or absence of blade serration). It is important to stress that projectile points are formalized tools that were designed to be maintained and reused. As a consequence, their morphology is not static but dynamic, and attempts by archaeologists to construct meaningful typologies must take this fact into account. The effects ofresharpening and recycling on projectile point morphology should not be underestimated, but at the same time, these factors do not negate the usefulness ofhafted bifaces as "index fossils" of past cultures. Raw material was not considered a variable in the analyses, except insofar as different materials may have affected morphology because of their varying fracture mechanics (see Callahan 1979). These groups were then compared to a literature review of existing point types and types were assigned whenever possible.. Condition (Var 6) was also recorded for these artifacts utilizing the following codes: 1 (WHL) = whole, 2 (BRK) = broken, 3 (TIP) = tip, 4 (MED) = medial, and 5 (BAS) = base. D. FAUNAL ANALYSIS The faunal material was analyzed using the coding system created by Berger~ This level of analysis allows for identification ofspecxes, element, and any modifications to the specimen (such as burning). Type/Subtype. The Type/Subtype code is alphanumeric and consists of three letters and a number. The frrst letter is always Z, which indicates Faunal; the second letter denotes the class; and the third letter distinguishes groups within a class. The numerical Subtype code specifies species. Element (VAR 5). This field indicates what bone, or element, was being quantified, Portion Present (VAR 6). This field indicates whether the specimen was whole, fragmentary, or a butchered section. A-4 Archaeological Identification Survey Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, Virginia E. GLASS ANALYSIS The glass artifacts from the site were broken down, for analytical purposes, into one functionally distinct grouping based on Bottle use category. Window glass, considered more functionally inclusive under an architectural group of artifacts, was subsumed for analysis under Small Finds/Architectural Materials. Identification and tabulation of the glass proceeded according m a Stage 1 level of analysis. Stage 1 analysis involved, in addition to Type/Subtype and Count designations, the recording of select descriptive attributes of the sherds (e.g., Color). Type/Subtype. Tabulation of the glass proceeded according to artifact codes determined by function (Type) and form (Subtype). Codes are alphanumeric and consist of three letters and a number. The first letter, G, standard for all codes, denotes the artifact as Glass. The second letter denotes the general functional category in which the artifact fails: B, for Bottle. The third letter denotes specific function, e.g., U, for Unidentified. The number or numbers following these designations complete the identification and denotes vessel form. Color (VAR 6). In general, color was assigned to glass artifacts purely for descriptive purposes and was broadly def'med for this collection. Pattern This field is automatically assigned a pattern (group and class) by the database program according to the Type/Subtype entered for each artifact and is based on the South/Noel Hume (South 1977) typology. The first number indicates the pattern group, while the second number indicates the pattern class. F. SMALL FINDS/ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS The small finds/architectural materials received a Stage 1 level of analysis using the coding system created by Berger, based on the South/Noal Hume typology (South 1977). The Stage 1 coding system allows for a maximum of 14 fields of information for each artifact. At the minimum, each artifact was identified by its group and class, material type, and characteristic, and received a count or weight. For certain artifact types, additional descriptive information, such as weight, was coded. The remaining fields of information were used only if further information was provided by the artifact. A brief description of the coding procedures follows. Type/Subtype. The Type/Subtype code is alphanumeric and consists of three letters and a number. The frrst letter is always S, for Small Finds/Architectural; the second letter denotes Group (e.g., A, for Architecture); and the third letter denotes a class within a group (e.g., F, for Fasteners). The numerical Subtype code denotes the specific artifact type: e.g., SAF03 ~ Machine-Cut Nail. Begin Date/End Date. Dates for certain artifacts were generated automatically by the computer based on their Type/Subtype. References used for dating of artifacts included Nelson (1968). Material (VAR 3). The material composition of each artifact was determined and recorded. Characteristic (VAR 5). A modifier that best described the form or manufacturing technique of each artifact was entered in this field. If no diagnostic attribute was evident, the artifact was simply described as being whole or fragmented. Pattern. This field is automatically assigned a pattern (group and class) by the database program according to the Type/Subtype entered for each artifact and is based on the South/Noel Hume ( South 1977) typology. The first number indicates the pattern group, while the second number indicates the pattern class. A-5 Archaeological Identification Survey Route 29 Bypass. Albemarle County, Virginia REFERENCES CITED Callahan, Errett 1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manual for Flintknappers and Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7:1-180. Clark, John E. 1986 Another Look at Small Debitage and Microdebitage. Lithic Technology 15:21-23. Crabtree, Donald E. 1972 An Introduction to Flintworking. Pocatello, Idaho. The Idaho State Museum, Occasional Papers No. 28. Geismar, Joan 1983 The Archaeological Investigation of the 175 Water Street Block, New York City. Prepared for HRO International, New York, by. Soil Systems Division, Professional Services Industries, Inc., Marietta, Georgia. Gould, Richard A. 1980 Living Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hranicky, Wm Jack 1994 Middle Atlantic Projectile Point Typology and Nomenclature. Virginia, Special Publication Number 33, Courtland, Virginia. Archaeological Society of The Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. [Berger] 1987 Drttggists, Craftsmen, and Merchants of Pearl and Water Streets, New York: The Barclays Bank Site. Prepared for London and Leeds Corporation, New York, and Barclays Bank PLC, New York, New York, by the Cultural Resource Group, Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., East Orange, New Jersey. Nelson, Lee H. 1968 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings. Historic News 24:11. Parry, William J. 1987 Chipped Stone Tools in Formative Oaxaca, Mexico: Their Procurement, Production, and Use. Museum of Anthropology Memoir No. 20. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. South, Stanley 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Taylor, Randolph, and Brad Koldehoff, with contributions and revisions from Alex Ortiz, Robert Wall, and Ludomir Lozny 1996 A Guide to Lithica: An R-Base Lithic Analysis System. Manuscript on file at The Cultural Resource Group of The Louis Berger Group, Inc., East Orange, New Jersey. A-6 JM 5089 Routs 29 Bypass, Albemarle Co, VA Ph. I Site TempSIte Cat Fid Ph STP 44AB428 44AB428 44AB428 44AB428 44AB428 a4AB428 44AB428 P4AB428 44AB428 ~' 4AB428 ZLIAB428 44AB428 44AB428 44AB428 44AB428 44AB428 44AB428 44AB428 44AB4.28 44AB428 44AB428 44AB428 IA-1 IA-1 IA-2 IA-3 IA-3 IA~4 IA-5 IA-6 IA-7 I I D36 1 1 D36 2 I O6 301 I D49 301 I D49 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 I 501 1 C4 2 502 I C5 3 5O3 I C5 3 5O3 i C5 3 503 1 C5 4 504 I C6 5 505 I C6d 5 505 1 C6d 6 506 I C7 6 506 I C7 6 506 1 C7 7 5O7 I C8 8 508 I 09 8 508 1 C9 9 509 I Bll 10 510 1 B12 10 510 I B12 11 511 1 B12a 12 512 1 D8 13 513 I D8 13 513 1 D8 14 514 1 38 A B B B B B A B B B A C C D Str Spec Art Type Stype Translation B 1 B 2 B 1 B 1 B 2 Sud 1 I LBF Sud I 2 LBF SuE 1 3 LBF Sud I 4 LBF A 1 A 1 B 1 B 2 B 3 B 1 2 2 3 ¢1 2 2 2 Artifact Inveeto~y Beg End V3 V5 V6 V9 Cnt Wght Cmt Ptn Fnt Note Date Date LCR 1 Freehand Core LDB 10 Block Shatter LDB 3 Biface Reduction Flake LDB 3 Biface Reduction Flake LDB 10 Block Shatter 1 Projectile Point 1 Projectile Poinl Projectile Point 1 Projectile Point LDB 2 Eady Reduction Flake LDB 10 Block Shatter LDB 3 Biface Reduction Flake LDB 9 Flake Fragment LDB 10 Block Shatter LCR 1 Freehand Core LCR Freehana Core LDB 10 Block Shauer LDB 2 Eady Reduction Flake LDB 3 Biface Reduction Flake LDB 10 Block Shatter LBF 5 Middle-Stage Biface L DB 2 Eady Reduction Flake LDB 10 Block Shatter LDB 10 Block Shatter LDB 3 Biface Reduct~oiq Flake LDB 10 Block Shatter LDB 10 Blod~ Shatter LDS 3 Bifaos Reduction Flake LDB 10 Block Shatter .FC 1 Fire-cracked Roc~ LFC I Fire-cracKed Rock 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 1 231 23! 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 381 381 I 1 43.0 I I 1.2 I I 0.3 I 3 1.6 I 1 2.6 I i 1 10.3 1 1 1 3.7 1 I 1 4.7 5 I 1 3.9 1 I 7.8 I 4 8.0 I 1 1.2 1 2 0.6 I 7 41.3 2 I 52.3 1 I 113.7 1 I 8,1 2 I 8.5 1 2 2.8 2 1 0.7 2 1 1 10.3 I I 8.2 I I 4.6 I 1 1.0 I 11 8.6 1 4 4.4 1 I 4.4 I I 4.3 2 I 5.3 3 34.5 6 112.5 Page: 1 stemmed Archaic, tip and base fragment missing Halifax side-notcned(Hranicky1994:44), Middle Archaic, tip missing possible Guilford(Hranicky1994:43), Middle Archaic. lip and base fragment missing possible Guilford(Hranicky1994:43}, Middle Archaic. broken and revc:)r~ed JM 5089 Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle Co, VA Ph, I Site ferap$ite Cat Fid Ph STP 44AB428 15 515 1 D9 A 1 44AB428 15 515 1 D9 A 2 44AB428 15 515 I D9 A 3 44AB428 15 515 I D9 A 4 44AB428 16 516 1 [39 3 1 44AB428 16 516 I D9 B 2 44AB428 16 516 I D9 B 3 44AB428 16 516 1 D9 44AB428 17 517 ~;4AB428 18 518 I D13 B i 44AB428 18 518 1 D13 B 2 4-'4AB428 19 519 1 56 C 1 44AB428 20 520 I ECod B 1 44AB428 21 521 1 E9 B 1 44AB481 5089-'~ I 101 1 D41 B 1 44AB481 5089-1 I 101 I D41 B 2 44AB481 5089-1 2 102 I D41a B 1 44AB481 5089-1 3 103 1 D41a A 1 44AB481 5089-1 3 103 I D41a A 2 44AB482 5089-2 1 20t I D45 B 1 44AB482 5089-2 I 201 1 D45 B 2 44AB482 5089-2 2 202 I E45 A 1 44AB483 5089-4 1 401 I BB14 B 44AB483 5089-4 I 401 I BB14 B 1 44AB483 5089-4 1 401 I BB14 B 2 44AB483 5089-4 I 401 1 BB14 B 3 44AB483 5089-4 1 401 1 BB14 F~ 4 44AB483 5089-4 2 402 I BB14b A 1 44AB483 5089-4 3 403 1 BB14b 11.5E A 1 44AB483 5089-4 3 403 1 BB14b 11,5E A I Str Spec Art Type Stype Translation Artifact Inventory Beg End V3 V5 V6 V9 Cnt Wght Cml Ptn Fnt Note Date Date LDB 9 Flake Fragmenl LDB 10 Block Shatter LFC 1 Fire-cracKea Reck LFC 1 Fire-cracked Rock LDB 9 Flake Fragraen[ LDB 10 Block Shaaer LDB 10 Block Shatter LFC I Fire-cracked Rock LCR I Freehand Core LDB 3 Biface Reduction Flake LCR 5 Teste¢ Cobble LDB 3 Biface Reduction Flake LDB 9 Flake Fragment LDB 10 Block Shatter LDB 2 Eady ReducUon Flake LDB 3 Biface Reeuction Flake LDB 2 Eady Reduction Flake LDB 9 Flake Fragraent LFC 1 Fire-eracked ROCK LDB 3 Biface Reduction Flake LDB 6 Finishing Flake LDB 3 BJface Reauction Flake GBU 4 Unidentified Bottle/Fragment- Body SAF 3 Machine Cut Nail. 'Modern' 1830 SAG 13 Window Glass SAE 10 Insulator SXA 6 Coal/CindeflSlag SAF 19 Spike ZMZ 5 Large Mammal SAF 23 StaPle 231 231 231 381 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 1 42 2 2 2 1 2 31 2 42 2 120 2 42 2 1 6 3.4 2 10 360.9 27 204.3 I 19.3 I 9 6,2 I 5 13.8 2 1 2.5 26 338.2 1 176.0 I 0.2 1 106.7 1 0.2 2 0.7 1 24.7 1 10.2 1 2.8 I 7,1 1 0.7 I 36,1 3 1.6 2 0.1 2 1,9 2 2 1 1.6 i 5 1 14 53.2 1 1.2 28 2.12 2.11 2.14 8.63 2,12 11.99 2.12 probable deer Page: Utilized Codes forJM 5089 Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle Co., VA Ph. I I Butch~ring Type I - t Cut Locat on ] Ane/Fus on Glass ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I 1 J Clear (or White) Translation Whole Broken Base Var6 Meaning [ Var7 Mea_ning Var8 Meaning ~ Var9 Meaning Condition I Co,Tx Translation Chert Quartz Sedimentary Var10 Meaning ~. Var11 Meaning Temporal Affiliation -~ Translation Absent Present Pattern and Function Translations for Historic Materials Pattern Analysis Group Kitchen Architecture Activities Faunal Pattern Analysis Class Bottles Window Glass/Caming/Etc. Nails, Spikes, Tacks, etc., and Misc. Construction Hardware Electrical Related Heating Related Faunal/Floral - Other Function Trans '-~ Miscellaneous Bottle - Other Archaeological Ident!fication Survey Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle Count, Virginia APPENDIX B VDHR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORMS VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM GENERAL PROPERTY INFORMATION VDHR Site Number: 44AB428 Other VDHR Number: City/County: Albemarle County Site Class: X Terrestrial, Open Air __ Terrestrial, Cave/Rockshelter __Submerged Temporary Designation: Specialized Contexts: Resource Name: Open to public: Y N Is there a CRM report: Y N Ownership Status: X Private Public/Local Gov. Modifier Public/State Gov. Modifier Public/Federal Gov. Modifier Cultural Affiliation: African-American English Native American French Other German Scotch-Irish Italian Unknown Jewish None Multiple Huguenot Temporal Affiliation: Middle Archaic Thematic Contexts: Context Example ConCrnents Settlement Patterns Site Function: Procurement/processing site LOCATION INFORMATION UTM Center: Yes UTM Coords: Zone North East 17 4,220,325 722,425 Loran: Restricted UTM Data?: Yes Physiographic Province: Piedmont Aspect: Drainage: South Fork Rivarma River Direction: South Landform: Ridgetop Site Dimensions: 722 x 279 ft No Elevation: 420-460' Site Soils: Pacolet sandy loam, 2-7% slopes Adjacent Soils: Elioak loam, 7-15% slopes Louisburg sandy loam, 7-15% slopes Distance: 500 ft Nearest Water Source: Schroeder Branch Acreage: 4.6 acres Slope: 2-7 _ percent Survey Description: Archaeological Identification Survey of proposed Route 29 Bypass. Shovel tests excavated at 75' intervals along alphabetically labeled transects. Site 44AB428 was re-located through the recovery of 141 artifacts from 17 shovel tests, and the identification of one intact cultural feature in one of the 17 shovel tests. The site boundary was based on the natural landform and refined through negative shovel tests to the north and south. Site Condition(s): i25-49% of Site Destroyed [50-74% of Site Destroyed 75-99% of Site Destroyed Destruction of Surface and Subsurface Deposits ilntact Cultural Level Intact Stratified Cultural Levels ILess than 25% of Site Destroyed ~No Surface Deposits but With Subsurface Integrity iSite deliberately buried Site Totally Destroyed iSurfaee Deposits Present And With Subsurface Integrity iSurface Deposits Present But Subsurface Not Tested Surface Deposits Present But With No Subsurface Integrity Unknown Portion of Site Destroyed :Subsurface Integrity Surface Features Surface Deposits iSite Condition Unknown Survey Strategy. USGS Qusdraugle: Historic Map Projection Surface Testing Charlottesville East Informant Ob~rvation _X_ Subsurfae~ Testing Current Land Use: None Date of Use: Example: Land Uses: Comments: Previously logged, but no evidence ofplowing. *** Attach photocopy of appropriate section o~USGS 7.5 minute series topographical map showing site boundaries Scale: I: 24,000 SPECIMENS Specimens Obtained: X Assemblage Description: Yes __ No Depository: VI)HR Specimens Reported: X Owner Name: Assemblage Description: Yes No Owner Address: VDHR Artifacts from previous archaeological investigations. Field Notes: _X_ Yes No Photographic Documentation: _X_ Yes No Depository:. VDHR Depository: VDHR BIBLIOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION: Depository for Bibliographic Information: Reference Numbers: Bibliographic Source: Organization: Additional Comments GRAPHIC MEDIA DOCUM~ENTATION: Control ID Photo Media Depository Frame (s) Phote Date B&W photos V~)HR ' 10/2001 Report(s): X Yes No Depository: VDHR Archaeological Identification Survey, Proposed Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle Co., VA, The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Richmond, VA (2001). See also, Phase II Archaeological Investigations, Sites 44AB428, 44AB429, and 44AB430, Route 29, Albemarle Co., VA, By The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Richmond, VA (1994). And, Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, Route 29, City of Charlottesville and Albemarle Co., VA, By The Louis B erger Group, Inc., Richmond, VA (1994). CRM EVENT INFOR3~ATION Date Event ID Event Type CRMPerson (First) CR_MPerson (Last) Remarks 6/1994 Identification Brad Botwick I Survey 9/1994 ~ Archaeological Brad Botwick Evaluation 10/2001 Identification John Mullin Survey INDIVIDUAL/ORG AGENCY MAILING INFORMATION Owner Category: Owner Occupant Tenant Informant Property Mgr. Honorific: First Name: Last Name: Suffix: Title: Company: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP CODE: Phone 1/Extension: Country: Phone 2/Extension: SURVEYOR'S NOTES: The site was confirmed to be Site 44AB428 through the use ofa TrimbIe GPS receiver and previously recorded site coordinates. The UTM coordinates listed above were determined during the current identification survey. Surveyed By: John J Mullin Affiliation: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Address: 1001 East Broad Street, Suite LL40, Richmond, Virginia, 23219 Date:9/26 to 10/5 200I Form Completed By: John J Mullin Affiliation: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Address: 1001 East Broad Street, Suite LL40, Richmond. Virginia, 23219 Date: 10/12/2001 Virginia Register Status: National Register Status: Easement Status: VDHR Library Reference Number (s) : VDHR Number Assigaaed By: Date Entered By: Revisions/Updates By: For VDHR Staff Only Date: Date: Date: VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM GENERAL PROPERTY INFORMATION VDHR Site Number: 44AB481 Other VDHR Number: City/County: Albemarle County Site Class: X Terrestrial, Open Air Temporary Designation: TS5089-0t Specialized Contexts: Resoume Name: Open to public: Y N Ownership Status: X Cultural Affiliation: Terrestrial, Cave/Rockshelter Submerged Is there a CRM report: Ir N Private Public/Local Gov. Modifier Public/State Gov. Modifier Public/Federal Gov. Modifier African-American English Native American French Other German Scotch-Irish Italian Unknown Jewish None Multiple Huguenot Temporal Affiliation: Unknown prehistoric Thematic Contexts: Context Example Corn~'ments Settlement Pattems Site Function: Limited activity, procurement/processing site LOCATION INFORMATION UTM Center: Yes UTM Coords: Zone North East 17 4,220,930 722 875 Loran: Restricted UTM Data?: Yes No Physiographic Province: Piedmont Aspect: Drainage: South Fork Rivanna River Direction: South Landform: Ridge sideslope Site Dimensions: 75 x 75 ft Elevation: 480' Site Soils: Louisburg sandy loam, 15-25% slopes Adjacent Soils: Hazel loam, 15-25% slopes Wedowee sandy loam, 7-15% slopes Distance: 30 ft Nearest Water Source: Unnamed tributary, South Fork Rivarma River Acreage: 0.13 acres Slope:__15-25 percent Survey Description: Archaeological Identification Survey of proposed Route 29 Bypass. Shovel tests excavated at 75' intervals along alphabetically labeled transects. Site was identified through the recovery of 5 pieces of quartz debitage from 3 shovel tests, No cultural features or cultural deposits were encountered. The site is located on a partially Ievel, ridge sideslope near an intermittent stream and consists of an area approximately 23x23 meters (75x75 feet) in extent, with the site boundaries determined by negative shovel tests. Site Condition(s): !2s-49%..of~te De~t~oy{d ........................................... 50-74% of Site Destroyed i75-99% of Site Destroyed iDestruction of Surface and Subsurface Deposits ilntact Cultural Level " ilntact Stratified Cultural Levels .Less than 25% of Site Destroyed iNo Surface D?~s.i~s ~.U! ~v}(ith Subsurface !r)[¢gri~y site. d~.!ib~[a!e!y bur~ed iSite Totally Destroyed 'Su[£a?. P?.?si~. ~?sen[.~d }Vi~ St~bsuffa?..~?g[ity Surface Deposits Present But Subsurface Not Tested iSurface Deposits Present But With No Subsurface Integrity iUnknown Portion of Site Destroyed iSubsurface Integrity ISurface Features Surface Deposits Site Condition Unknown Survey Strateg~ Historic Map Projection Surface Testing USGS Quadrangle: Charlottesville East ti',formant Observation _X_ Subsurface Testing Current Land Use: Date of Use: Example: Land Uses: Cornments: Previously logged. ProbabtynotplowecL *** Attach photocopy of appropriate section of USGS 7.5 minute series topographical map showing site boundaries Scale: 1:24,000 SPECIMENS Specimens Obtained: _X_ /~ssemblage Description: Yes __ No Depository:. VDHR Specimens Reported: Owner Name: Assemblage Description: Yes X No Owner Address: Field Notes: X Yes __ No Deposito.ry: VDHR Photographic Documentation: X Yes No Depository: VDHR BIBLIOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION: Depository for Bibliographic Information: Reference Numbers: Bibliographic Source: Organization: Additional Comments: GRAPHIC MEDIA DOCUMENTATION: Control ID Photo Media Depository Frame (s) Photo Date B&W photos V~3HR r 10/2001 Report(s): X Yes __ No Depository: VDHR Archaeological Identification Sztrvey, Proposed Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle Co., VA, The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Richmond, VA (2001). CRM EVENT INFORMATION Date Event ID Event Type CRMPerson (First) CRMPerson (Last) Remarks 10/2001 Identification John Mullin Survey INDIVIDUAL/ORG AGENCY MAILING INFORMATION Owner Category: Owner Occupant Tenant Honorific: First Name: Last Name: Title: Informant Property Mgr. Suffix: Company: , Mailing Address: State: ZIP CODE: Phone I/Extension: Country:. Phone 2/Extension: SURVEYOR'S NOTES: Surveyed By: John J Mullin Affiliation: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Address: 1001 East Broad Street, Suite LL40, Richmond, Virginia, 23219 Date:9/26 to 10/5 2001 Form Completed By: Jolm J Mullin Affiliation: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Address: 1001 East Broad Street, Suite LL40, Richmond, Virginia, 23219 Date: 10/12/2001 Virginia Register Status: National Register Status: Easement Status: VDHR Library Reference Number (s) : VDHR Number Assigned By: Date Entered By: Revisions/Updates By: For VDHR Staff Only Date: Date: Date: VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM GENERAL PROPERTY INFORMATION VDHR Site Number: 44AB482 Other VDHR Number: City/County: Albemarle County Site Class: X Terrestrial, Open Air Temporary Designation: TS5089-02 Specialized Contexts: Resource Name: Open to public: Y N Ownership Status: X Cultural Affiliation: Private Public/Local Public/State Public/Federal African-American English French German Italian Jewish Multiple Terrestrial, Cave/Rockshelter Submerged Is there a CRM report: Y N Gov. Modifier Gov. Modifier Gov. Modifier Native American Other Scotch-Irish Unknown None Huguenot Temporal Affiliation: Unknown prehistoric Thematic Contexts: Context Example Com3uents Setttlement Patterns Site Function: Limited activity, procurement/processing site LOCATION INFORMATION UTM Center: Yes UTM Coords: Zone North East 17 4,220,985 1 722,945 Loran: Restricted UTM Data?: Yes Physiographic Province: Piedmont Aspect: Drainage: South Fork Rivarma River Direction: South Landform: Ridge sideslope Site Dimensions: 115 x 39 ft No Elevation: 500' Site Soils: Elioak loam, 2-7% slopes Adjacent Soils: Hazel loam, 15-25% slopes Distance: 250 ft Nearest Water Soume: Unnamed tributary, South Fork Rivanna River Acreage: I acre Slope: __2-7 percent Survey Description: Archaeological Identification Survey of proposed Route 29 Bypass. Shovel tests excavated at 75' intervals along alphabetically labeled transects. The site was identified through the recovery of 7 pieces of quartz debitage from 2 shovel tests. No cultural features or cultural deposits were encountered. The site is located on a ridge sideslope and consists of an area approximately 35xl 2 meters (115x39 feet) in extent, with the site boundaries determined by negative shovel tests. Site Condition(s): i25-49% of Site Destroyed i50-74~ .o.[Site Destroyed i75-99% of S!t~. !~e~troyed !Destruction of Surface and Subsurface Deposits ilntact Cultnral Level ilntact Stratified Cultural Levels iLess th~..~/~ c~!~..5!t~..D~s~qy~d iNo Surface Deposits but With Subsurface Integrity Site deliberately buried Site Totally Destroyed Surface Deposits Present And With Subsurface Integrity iSurface Deposits Present But Subsurface Not Tested iSufface Deposits Present But With No Subsurface Integrity iUnknown Portion of Site Destroyed Subsurface Integrity ]Surface Features iSurface Deposits [Site Condition Unknown Survey Strategy: Historic Map Projection __ Surface Testing USGS Quadrangle:. Cl-~rlottesville East Infommnt Observation _X_ Subsurface Testing Current La~d Us~ Date of Use: Land Uses: Example: Comments: Previously logged, and highly disturbed by logging roads. Probabtynot plowed. *** Attach photocopy of appropriate section of USGS 7.5 minute series topographical map showing site boundari~ Scale: I: 24,000 SPECIMENS Specimens Obtained: _X_ Assemblage Description: Yes __ No Depository:. VDHR Specimens Reported: Owner Name: Assemblage Description: Yes X No Owner Address: Field Notes: X Yes No Photographic Documentation: X Yes Depository:. VDHR No Depository: VDHR BIBLIOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION: Depository for Bibliographic Information: Reference Numbers: Bibliographic Source: Organization: Additional Comments: GRAPHIC MEDIA DOCUMENTATION: Control ID Photo Media Depository Frame (s) Photo Date B&W photos VDHK 10/200 t I I Report(s): X Yes No Depository: VDHR Archaeological Identification Survey, Proposed Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle Co.,VA, The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Richmond, VA (2001). CRM EVENT INFORMATION Date Event 1D Event Type CRMPerson (First) CRMPerson (Last) Remarks 10/2001I Identificati°n I J°hn Survey Mullin I I I INDIV1DUAL/ORG AGENCY MAILING INFORMATION Owner Category: Owner Honorific: First Name: Title: Occupant Tenant Last Name: Informant Property Mgr. Suffix: Company: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP CODE: Phone 1/Extension: SURVEYOR'S NOTES: Country: Phone 2/Extension: Surveyed By: John J Mullin Affiliation: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Address: 1001 East Broad Street, Suite LL40, Riclunond, Virginia, 23219 Date:9/26 to 10/5 2001 Form Completed By: John J Mullin Affiliation: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Address: [001 East Broad Street, Suite LL40, Richmond, Virginia, 23219 Date: 10/12/2001 Virginia Register Status: National Register Status: Easement Status: VDHR Library Reference Number (s) : VDHR Number Assigned By: Date Entered By: Revisions/Updates By: For VDHR Staff Only Date: Date: Date: VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM GENERAL PROPERTY INFORMATION VDHR Site Number: 44AB483 Other VDHR Number: City/County: Albemarle County Site Class: _X _ Terrestrial, Open Air Temporary Designation: TS5089-04 Specialized Contexts: Resource Name: Open to public: Y Ownership Status: Terrestrial, Cave/Rockshelter Submerged N Is there a CRM report: Y N X Private Public/Local Gov. Modifier Public/State Gov. Modifier Public/Federal Gov. Modifier Cultural Affiliation: At~ican-American English Native American French Other German Scotch-Irish Italian Unknown Jewish None Multiple Huguenot Temporal Affiliation: Early- to late-twentieth century Thematic Contexts: Context Example Con~nents Domestic residence Site Function: Domestic house site LOCATION INFORMATION UTM Center: Yes UTM Coords: Zone North East 17 4,221,600 723,440 Loran: Restricted UTM Data?: Yes Physiographic Province: Piedmont Aspect: Drainage: South Fork Rivarma River Direction: South Landform: Ridge sideslope Site Dimensions: 82 x 40 ft No Elevation: 480' Site Soils: Hazel loam, 15-25% slopes Adjacent Soils: Wedowee sandy loam, 2-7%slopes & 7-15% slopes Distance: 200 ft Nearest Water Source: Unnamed tributary, South Fork Rivanna River Acreage: 0.07 acres Slope: 15-25 . percent Survey Description: Archaeological Identification Survey of proposed Route 29 Bypass. Shovel tests excavated at 75' intervals along alphabetically labeled transects. The site was identified through the recovery of 13 historic artifacts and 14 bone fragments from 3 shovel tests. The site consists of an area af periwinkle and surface trash located between a 20th century house and it's associated late 20th century outbuildings. No cultural features or cultural deposits were encountered in any of the shovel rests. The site is located on a ridge sideslope and consists of an area approximately 25x12 meters (82x40 feet) in extent, with the site boundaries determined by negative shovel tests and surface features and deposits. Site Condition(s): 25-49% of Site Destroyed 50-74% of Site Destroyed i75-99% of Site Destroyed '.Destructig.n p£ S~f~.~.~d..Sub~u~f~s~. !~ep?~its Intact Cultural Level ilntact Stratified Cultural Levels Less than 25% of Site Destroyed iNo Surface Deposits but With Subsurface Integrity !Si.te.d~!.!b~mtely ~.u~!~! isite Totally Destroyed iSurfaee Deposits Present And With Subsurface Integrity i Surface Deposits ~m~?~..B~?ubs~rfase ~pt]r?te.~ ............ [surface Deposits Present But With No Subsurface Integrity Unknown Portion of Site Destroyed !S~bsurhc~..!~te~fit7 jSurface Features iSurface Deposits Site Condition Unknown Survey Strategy:. Historic Map Projection __ Surface Testing USGS Quadrangle: Charlottesville East Infom3ant X Observation _X_ Subsurface Testing Current Land Use: Date of Use: Land Use~: Example: Comments: Vacant, deteriorating house and associated outbuildings '** Attach photocopy of appropriate section ofUSGS 7.$ minute series topographical map showing site boundaries Sca~e: I: 24,000 SPECIMENS Specimens Obtained: X Assemblage Description: Yes __ No Depository: VI)HR Specimens Reported: ~ Owner Name: Assemblage Description: Yes X No Owner Address: Field Notes: X Yes No Photographic Documentation: X Yes Depository: VDHR No Depository:. VDHR Field Notes: X Yes No Photographic Documentation: X Yes BIBLIOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION: Depository for Bibliographic Information: Reference Numbers: Bibliographic Source: Organization: Depository: VDHR No Depository: VDHR Additional Comments: GRAPHIC MEDIA DOCUMENTATION: Control I13 Dhoto Media De~0osiror'd Frame (s) Photo Date [ B&W photos I V~3HR ' I 10/2001 I Report(s): X Yes No Depository: VDHR Archaeological Identification Survey, Proposed Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle Co., VA, The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Richmond, VA (2001). CRM EVENT INFORMATION Date Event ID Event Type CRMPerson (First) CRMPerson (Last) Remarks 10/2001 IdentificatiOnsurvey John Mullin I INDIVIDUAL/ORG AGENCY MAILING INFORMATION Owner Category: Owner Occupant Tenant Honorific: First Name: Last Name: Title: Informant PropertY Mgr. Suffix: Company: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP CODE: Country: Phone 1/Extension: Phone 2/Extenslon: SURVEYOR'S NOTES: Artifacts collected appear to represent a modem trash scatter. Surveyed By: John J Mullin Affiliation: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Address: 1001 East Broad Street, Suite LL40, Richmond, Virginia, 23219 Date:9/26 to 10/5 2001 Form Completed By: John J Mullin Affiliation: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Address: 1001 East Broad Street, Suite LL40, Richmond, Virginia, 23219 Date: 10/12/2001 Virginia Register Status: National Register Status: Easement Status: VDHR Library Reference Number (s) : VDHR Number Assigned By: Date Entered By: Revisions/Updates By: For VDHRStaffOnly Date: Date: Date: