4a)_Hodges_Park_Cultural_Recon_Report.pdf

Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey

Hodges Corporate Park

Greenwood County, South Carolina

S&ME Project No. 4226-18-101

PREPARED FOR:

Greenwood Partnership Alliance

104 Maxwell Avenue, 6th Floor

Greenwood, South Carolina 29646

PREPARED BY:

S&ME, Inc.

134 Suber Road

Columbia, SC 29210

August 2018

Greenwood County, South Carolina

Prepared for:

Greenwood Partnership Alliance

104 Maxwell Avenue, 6th Floor

Greenwood, South Carolina 29646

Prepared by:

S&ME, Inc.

134 Suber Road

Columbia, South Carolina 29210

S&ME Project No. 4226-18-101

Kimberly Nagle, M.S., RPA

Principal Investigator

Authors: Paul Connell and Heather Carpini, M.A.

August 2018

August 2018 i

Management Summary

On behalf of Greenwood Partnership Alliance, S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) has completed a cultural resource reconnaissance survey of the proposed approximately 234.65 acres project area associated with the Hodges

Corporate Park in Greenwood County, South Carolina (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). The project area is located along US

Route 25 approximately one mile east of the community of Hodges, South Carolina.

The purpose of the survey was to assess the project area’s potential for containing significant cultural resources and to make recommendations regarding additional work that may be required under Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and other pertinent federal, state, or local laws. This work was done in anticipation of federal funding or federal permitting and was carried out in general accordance with S&ME

Proposal Number 42-1800738, dated August 2, 2018.

Fieldwork for the project was conducted on August 8 and 9, 2018. This work included the excavation of 47 shovel tests in areas of high and low probability for containing archaeological sites, as well as a limited architectural survey. As a result of the investigations, no archaeological sites and six above ground resources (Structure 0159 through Structure 0164) were identified during the investigation (Figures 1.1 and 1.2; Table 1.1). The project area is within the Old Cokesbury and Masonic Female College and Conference School National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP) listed historic area. Additional research is recommended for two (Structure 0159 and Structure 0163) of the resources to determine if they are within the period of significance and therefore contributing elements to the

NRHP listed historic area or if they are significant resources independent from the NRHP listed area.

It is the opinion of S&ME that approximately 68 acres (29 percent) of the project area contains well drained soils and has an intact soil horizon below the plow zone, as well as previously recorded archaeological sites within these areas. These areas have the potential to contain significant archaeological resources and are recommended for a Phase I intensive survey (Figure 1.3). The remaining 166.65 acres (73 percent) of the project area are considered low probability areas for containing significant archaeological sites since they contain poorly drained soils, have been disturbed by construction of a pond and cell tower complex, have areas of slope greater than 15 percent, or soil transitions directly to subsoil from the plow zone with no intact soil horizon. No further archaeological work is recommended in these low probability areas.

August 2018 ii

Table 1.1. Cultural resources identified during the survey.

Resource Description

NRHP

Eligibility Recommendation

0159 19th and 20th century residential and agricultural complex Unassessed Additional Work

0160 20th century residence Ineligible No Further Work

0161 20th century residence Ineligible No Further Work

0162 20th century residence Ineligible No Further Work

0163 20th century residence Unassessed Additional Work

0164 20th century residence Ineligible No Further Work

Old Cokesbury and Masonic Female College and Conference School Listed Additional Work

August 2018 iii

Table of Contents

Management Summary .............................................................................................................. i

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... iii

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Environmental Setting

3.0 Cultural Context

3.1 Prehistoric Context

3.1.1 Paleoindian Period (ca. 13,000–10,000 B.P.)

3.1.2 Archaic Period (ca. 10,000–3000 B.P.)

3.1.3 Woodland Period (ca. 3000–1000 B.P.)

3.1.4 Mississippian Period (ca. 1000–350 B.P.)

3.2 Historic Context

3.2.1 Early Settlement

3.2.2 Eighteenth Century Conflicts

3.2.3 Nineteenth Century

3.2.4 The Civil War and Reconstruction

3.2.5 Greenwood County

3.3 Background Research

3.4 Potential for Archaeological Resources

4.0 Methods

4.1 Archaeological Field Methods

4.2 Architectural Survey

4.3 Laboratory Methods

4.4 National Register Eligibility Assessment

5.0 Results

5.1 Archaeological Survey Results

5.2 Architectural Survey Results

5.2.1 Old Cokesbury, and Masonic Female College and Conference School

5.2.2 Structure 0159

August 2018 iv

5.2.3 Structure 0160

5.2.4 Structure 0161

5.2.5 Structure 0162

5.2.6 Structure 0163

5.2.7 Structure 0164

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

7.0 References Cited

8.0 Appendix A – Draft Structure Cards

List of Figures Figure 1.1. Topographic map showing project area and 0.5-mile search radius

Figure 1.2. Aerial map showing project area and 0.5-mile search radius

Figure 1.3. Topographic map showing the areas recommended for Phase I survey

Figure 2.1. Area of planted pine in the project area, facing north

Figure 2.2. Area of fallow grassy field in the project area, facing south

Figure 2.3. Area of mixed pine and hardwood forest in low-lying areas, facing southeast

Figure 2.4. Typical dirt road within the project area, facing southeast

Figure 2.5. Agricultural field within the project area, facing west

Figure 2.6. Pond within the project area, facing east

Figure 2.7. Transmission line corridor in the northern portion of the project area, facing west

Figure 2.8. Farmhouse complex within the project area, facing north

Figure 2.9. Typical cattle pasture within the project area, facing south

Figure 2.10. Cell tower within the project area, facing east

Figure 2.11. Aerial map showing soil types within the project area

Figure 3.1. ArchSite map showing 0.5-mile search radius

Figure 3.2. Portion of Mouzon’s map (1775), showing vicinity of project area

Figure 3.3. Portion of Mills’ Atlas map of Abbeville District (1825), showing vicinity of project area

Figure 3.4. Portion of USGS Abbeville quadrangle (1892), indicating the vicinity of project area

Figure 3.5. Portion of 1929 USDA soil survey map of Greenwood County, indicating vicinity of the project area

Figure 3.6. Portion of 1938 SCDOT map of Greenwood County, indicating vicinity of the project area. .. 27

August 2018 v

Figure 3.7. Portion of 1957 SCDOT map of Greenwood County, showing vicinity of the western portion of the project area

Figure 3.8. Portion of 1965 SCDOT map of Greenwood County map, showing vicinity of the eastern portion of the project area

Figure 3.9. Portion of USGS Cokesbury 7.5-minute quadrangle (1971), indicating vicinity of the project area

Figure 3.10. Aerial map showing probability areas within the project area

Figure 5.1. Area of planted pine in the project area, facing north

Figure 5.2. Area of fallow grassy field in the project area, facing northwest

Figure 5.3. Area of mixed pine and hardwood forest in the project area, facing south

Figure 5.4. Typical road within the project area, facing south

Figure 5.5. Agricultural field within the project area, facing southeast

Figure 5.6. Typical pond within the project area, facing north

Figure 5.7. Transmission line corridor in the northern portion of the project area, facing east

Figure 5.8. View of outbuilding and dirt road associated with a house in the central portion of the project area, facing south

Figure 5.9. View of cell tower in eastern portion of the project area along US Route 25, facing west

Figure 5.10. Aerial map showing transect locations within the project area

Figure 5.11. Typical soil profile in areas where an intact soil horizon between the plow zone and subsoil was encountered

Figure 5.12. Typical soil profile in areas where the plow zone transitions to subsoil

Figure 5.13. Typical soil profile in areas where subsoil was encountered at surface

Figure 5.14. View of Structure 0159, house, facing north

Figure 5.15. View of Structure 0159, house, facing northwest

Figure 5.16. View of Structure 0159, house, facing southeast

Figure 5.17. Aerial photograph, 1989, showing eastern portion of the project area

Figure 5.18. Aerial photograph, 1989, showing eastern portion of the project area

Figure 5.19. View of Structure 0159.1, the Lodge, facing southwest

Figure 5.20. View of Structure 0159.2, shed, facing north

Figure 5.21. View of Structure 0159.3, storage building, facing west

Figure 5.22. View of Structure 0159.4, barn/stable, facing east

Figure 5.23. View of Structure 0159.5, tenant house, facing south

Figure 5.24. View of Structure 0159.5, tenant house, facing east

August 2018 vi

Figure 5.25. View of Structure 0159.6, tenant house, facing north

Figure 5.26. View of Structure 0159.7, brick structure, facing northwest

Figure 5.27. View of Structure 0159.7, brick structure, facing north

Figure 5.28. View of Structure 0159.8, well box, facing northeast

Figure 5.29. View of Structure 0160, facing southwest

Figure 5.30. View of Structure 0161, facing southeast

Figure 5.31. View of Structure 0162, facing south

Figure 5.32. View of Structure 0163, facing southeast

Figure 5.33. View of Structure 0163, facing northeast

Figure 5.34. View of Structure 0163, facing southwest

Figure 5.35. View of Structures 0163.1 and 0163.2, outbuildings, facing southwest

Figure 5.36. View of Structure 0164, facing east

List of Tables

Table 1.1. Cultural resources identified during the survey................................................................................. ii

Table 2.1. Specific soil types within the project area

Table 3.1. Previously recorded cultural resources within a 0.5-mile search radius

Table 5.1. Summary of transects within the project area

August 2018 1

1.0 Introduction

On behalf of Greenwood Partnership Alliance, S&ME has completed a cultural resources reconnaissance survey of the proposed approximately 234.65 acres project area associated with the Hodges Corporate Park in Greenwood

County, South Carolina (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). The project area is located along US Route 25 approximately one mile east of the community of Hodges, South Carolina.

The purpose of the survey was to assess the project area’s potential for containing significant cultural resources and to make recommendations regarding additional work that may be required under Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and other pertinent federal, state, or local laws. This work was done in anticipation of federal funding or federal permitting and was carried out in general accordance with S&ME

Proposal Number 42-1800738, dated August 2, 2018.

S&ME carried out background research and field investigation tasks in August 2018. The fieldwork was conducted by Field Director Joseph A. DeAngelis, M.A. and Crew Chief Paul Connell and consisted of excavating shovel tests and photo documenting the project area. Graphics, GIS maps, and photographs were prepared by Senior

Archaeologist Kimberly Nagle, M.S., RPA, Paul Connell and Senior Architectural Historian/Historian Heather

Carpini, M.A. Architectural evaluations and historic research for the project was conducted by Ms. Carpini. Senior review of the report was conducted by Ms. Nagle.

38GN0043

38GN0042

38GN0041Old Cokesbury NRHP Area

38GN0044

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

³

4226-18-101

SCALE:

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

FIGURE NO.

0 0.250.125

MILES

Topographic Map Hodges Corporate Park 1.1

Legend

#* NRHP-eligible Structure Newly Identified Structures Project Area 0.5-mile Search Radius Previously Recorded Archaeological Site NRHP Listed Area Newly Identified Historic AreaCokesbury 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle.

KJN

8/28/2018

Dr aw ing Pa th:

T:

\Pr oje cts \20

\EN

V\ Ot he r O ffic e J ob s\(

) G ree nv ille

\42

-18 -10

1 H od ge s P ark Si te Ce rtif ica tio n\P ha se

0 C ult ura l R eso urc es\

GIS

\Fi gu res

\Fi gu re 1-1 to po

.m xd pl ott ed by

KN

ag le

-28 -20

1:16,163

38GN0043

38GN0042

38GN0041Old Cokesbury NRHP Area

38GN0044

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

³

4226-18-101

SCALE:

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

FIGURE NO.

0 0.250.125

MILES

Aerial Map Hodges Corporate Park 1.2

Legend

#* NRHP-eligible Structure Newly Identified Structures Project Area 0.5-mile Search Radius Previously Recorded Archaeological Site NRHP Listed Area Newly Identified Historic AreaESRI Aerial Imagery.

KJN

8/28/2018

Dr aw ing Pa th:

T:

\Pr oje cts \20

\EN

V\ Ot he r O ffic e J ob s\(

) G ree nv ille

\42

-18 -10

1 H od ge s P ark Si te Ce rtif ica tio n\P ha se

0 C ult ura l R eso urc es\

GIS

\Fi gu res

\Fi gu re 1-2 ae ria l.m xd pl ott ed by

KN

ag le

-28 -20

1:16,163

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

³

4226-18-101

SCALE:

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

FIGURE NO.

0 1,000500

FEET

Phase I Survey Recommendations Hodges Corporate Park 1.3

Legend

Project Area Areas Recommended for Phase I SurveyCokesbury 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle.

KJN

8/13/2018

Dr aw ing Pa th:

T:

\Pr oje cts \20

\EN

V\ Ot he r O ffic e J ob s\(

) G ree nv ille

\42

-18 -10

1 H od ge s P ark Si te Ce rtif ica tio n\P ha se

0 C ult ura l R eso urc es\

GIS

\Fi gu res

\Fi gu re 1-3

Ph I s urv ey.

mx d p lot ted by

KN

ag le

-13

-20

1:8,019

August 2018 5

2.0 Environmental Setting

The project area is located to the west of US Route 25, approximately 7.88-miles northwest of the city of

Greenwood (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). The project area is located in the Piedmont physiographic province of South

Carolina, which consists of a 100-mile wide belt between the Blue Ridge and the Sandhills (Kovacik and Winberry

1989). Topography in the project area ranges from 590 ft above mean sea level, (AMSL) along the unnamed tributary in the western portion of the project area, to 690 ft AMSL along US Route 25 along the southern boundary of the project area (Figure 1.1). Two unnamed tributaries associated with Dudley Creek are within the project area;

Dudley Creek is located approximately 0.38-mile northwest of the project area.

Vegetation in the project area includes areas of planted pine, pasture, and mixed pine and hardwood forest

(Figures 2.1–2.3). Disturbances in the project area include dirt roads throughout the project area, a pond and a transmission line corridor in the northern portion of the project area, and a farmhouse complex, cattle pastures, and a cell tower located along US Route 25 (Figures 2.4–2.10).

The project area is located in the Helena-Appling and Pacolet-Louisburg soil associations, which consist of moderately well drained soils to excessively drained soils (USDA 1978). There are six specific soil types located within the project area (Figure 2.11); their descriptions can be found in Table 2.1 (United States Department of

Agriculture [USDA] Web Soil Survey, Accessed August 7, 2018).

Table 2.1. Specific soil types within the project area.

Soil Name Type Drainage Location Slope

Appling Loamy Sand Well drained Interfluves 2-10%

Cecil Sandy Loam Well drained Interfluves 2-10%

Durham Loamy Sand Well drained Hillslopes 2–6%

Helena Loamy Sand Well drained Hillslopes 2-10%

Louisburg Loamy Sand Well drained Hillslopes 6-25%

Pacolet Sandy Loam Well drained Interfluves 10-40%

August 2018 6

Figure 2.1. Area of planted pine in the project area, facing north.

Figure 2.2. Area of fallow grassy field in the project area, facing south.

August 2018 7

Figure 2.3. Area of mixed pine and hardwood forest in low-lying areas, facing southeast.

Figure 2.4. Typical dirt road within the project area, facing southeast.

August 2018 8

Figure 2.5. Agricultural field within the project area, facing west.

Figure 2.6. Pond within the project area, facing east.

August 2018 9

Figure 2.7. Transmission line corridor in the northern portion of the project area, facing west.

Figure 2.8. Farmhouse complex within the project area, facing north.

August 2018 10

Figure 2.9. Typical cattle pasture within the project area, facing south.

Figure 2.10. Cell tower within the project area, facing east.

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

³

4226-18-101

SCALE:

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

FIGURE NO.

0 1,000500

FEET

Soils Map Hodges Corporate Park 2.11

Legend

Project Area Soil Types

Appling loamy sand, 2-10% slope Cecil sandy loam, 2-10% slope Durham loamy sand, 2-6% slope Helena loamy sand, 2-10% slope Louisburg loamy sand, 6-25% slope Pacolet sandy loam, 10-40% slope WaterESRI Aerial Imagery.

KJN

8/13/2018

Dr aw ing Pa th:

T:

\Pr oje cts \20

\EN

V\ Ot he r O ffic e J ob s\(

) G ree nv ille

\42

-18 -10

1 H od ge s P ark Si te Ce rtif ica tio n\P ha se

0 C ult ura l R eso urc es\

GIS

\Fi gu res

\Fi gu re 2-7 so ils.

mx d p lot ted by

KN

ag le

-13

-20

August 2018 12

3.0 Cultural Context

The cultural context of the region is reviewed below for two purposes: first, to outline previous research in the region as well as the nature of historic and prehistoric resources that might be expected in the project area, and second, to provide a comparative framework in which to place resources identified within the project area and

APE in order to better understand their potential significance and NRHP eligibility. The cultural context of the project area, includes the prehistoric record and the historic past, which are discussed in this section of the report.

3.1 Prehistoric Context

Over the last three decades there has been much debate over when humans first arrived in the New World. The traditional interpretation is that humans first arrived in North America via the Bering land bridge that connected

Alaska to Siberia at the end of the Pleistocene, approximately 13,500 years ago. From Alaska and northern Canada, these migrants may have moved southward through an ice-free corridor separating the Cordilleran and Laurentide ice sheets to eventually settle in North and South America.

Some researchers have suggested that initial colonization of the New World began well before Clovis, with some dates going back more than 35,000 years (Dillehay and Collins 1988; Goodyear 2005). Evidence for pre-Clovis occupations are posited for the Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania, the Cactus Hill and Saltville sites in

Virginia, and the Topper site in South Carolina, although this evidence is not widely accepted and has not been validated (Adovasio and Pedler 1996; Dillehay and Collins 1988; Goodyear 2005). A number of sites providing better evidence for a presence in the New World dating between 15,000 and 13,500 years ago have been discovered. Although far from numerous, these sites are scattered across North and South America, including

Alaska, Florida, Missouri, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and southern Chile. Despite this, the earliest definitive evidence for occupation in the Southeastern United States is at the end of the Pleistocene, approximately 13,000 years ago (Anderson and O’Steen 1992; Bense 1994).

3.1.1 Paleoindian Period (ca. 13,000–10,000 B.P.)

Unfortunately, most information about Paleoindian lifeways in the Southeast comes from surface finds of projectile points rather than from controlled excavations. However, the Tree House site (38LX531), located along the Saluda River near Columbia, has shed light on Paleoindian lifeways in the area. The Tree House site is a multi-component, stratified site containing occupations ranging from the Early Paleoindian to Mississippian periods

(Nagle and Green 2010). Evidence from the site, which yielded an in-situ Clovis point, indicated short-term use by relatively mobile populations. The tools found at the Tree House site could have been used for hunting and butchering, and it is likely that the site was used as a hunting camp during the Early and Late Paleoindian subperiods. Lithic raw materials associated with the Paleoindian component tended to be higher quality stone such as Black Mingo chert, Coastal Plain chert, and crystal quartz, although lesser quality local materials such as quartz were used as well (Nagle and Green 2010:264).

The limited information we have for the Paleoindian Period suggests the earliest Native Americans had a mixed subsistence strategy based on the hunting (or scavenging) of the megafauna and smaller game combined with the foraging of wild plant foods. Groups are thought to have consisted of small, highly transient bands made up of several nuclear and/or extended families. Paleoindian artifacts have been found in both riverine and inter-riverine contexts (Charles and Michie 1992:193). Paleoindian projectile points appear to be concentrated along major rivers near the Fall Line and in the Coastal Plain, although it is almost certain that many additional sites

August 2018 13 along the coast have been inundated by the rise of sea level that has occurred since that time (Anderson et al.

1992; Anderson and Sassaman 1996).

Paleoindian tools are typically well-made and manufactured from high-quality, cryptocrystalline rock such as

Coastal Plain and Ridge and Valley chert, as well as Piedmont metavolcanics such as rhyolite (Goodyear 1979).

Paleoindians traveled long distances to acquire these desirable raw materials, and it is likely that particularly favored quarries were included in seasonal rounds, allowing them to replenish their stock of raw material on an annual basis.

The most readily recognizable artifact from the early Paleoindian Period is the Clovis point, which is a fluted, lanceolate-shaped spear point. Clovis points, first identified from a site in New Mexico, have been found across the nation, although they tend to be clustered in the eastern United States (Anderson and Sassaman 1996:222).

Paleoindian artifact assemblages typically consist of diagnostic lanceolate projectile points, scrapers, gravers, unifacial and bifacial knives, and burins. Projectile point types include fluted and unfluted forms, such as Clovis, Cumberland, Suwanee, Quad, and Dalton (Anderson et al. 1992; Justice 1987:17–43).

In South Carolina, the Clovis sub-period is generally thought to date from 11,500 to 11,000 B.P. (Sassaman et al.

1990:8). Fairly recent radiocarbon data indicate that a more accurate time frame for the Clovis period in North

America may be 11,050 to 10,800 B.P. (Waters and Stafford 2007); however, this has yet to gain widespread acceptance. Suwanee points, which are slightly smaller than Clovis points, are dated from 11,000 to 10,500 B.P. This is followed by Dalton points, which are found throughout the Southeast from about 10,500 to 9900 B.P.

3.1.2 Archaic Period (ca. 10,000–3000 B.P.)

Major environmental changes at the terminal end of the Pleistocene led to changes in human settlement patterns, subsistence strategies, and technology. As the climate warmed and the megafauna became extinct, population size increased and there was a simultaneous decrease in territory size and settlement range. Much of the

Southeast during the early part of this period consisted of a mixed oak-hickory forest. Later, during the

Hypsithermal interval, between 8000 and 4000 B.P., southern pine communities became more prevalent in the interriverine uplands and extensive riverine swamps were formed (Anderson et al. 1996; Delcourt and Delcourt

1985).

The Archaic Period typically has been divided into three subperiods: Early Archaic (10,000–8000 B.P.), Middle

Archaic (8000–5000 B.P.), and Late Archaic (5000–3000 B.P.). Each of these subperiods appears to have been lengthy, and the inhabitants of each were successful in adapting contemporary technology to prevailing climatic and environmental conditions of the time. Settlement patterns are presumed to reflect a fairly high degree of mobility, making use of seasonally available resources in the changing environment across different areas of the

Southeast. The people relied on large animals and wild plant resources for food. Group size gradually increased during this period, culminating in a fairly complex and populous society in the Late Archaic.

Early Archaic (10,000–8000 B.P.)

During the Early Archaic, there was a continuation of the semi-nomadic hunting and gathering lifestyle seen during the Paleoindian Period; however, there was a focus on modern game species rather than on the megafauna, which had become extinct by that time. During this time there also appears to have been a gradual, but steady increase in population and a shift in settlement patterns. In the Carolinas and Georgia, various models

August 2018 14 of Early Archaic social organization and settlement have been proposed (Anderson et al. 1992; Anderson and

Hanson 1988). In general, these models hypothesize that Early Archaic societies were organized into small, band-sized communities of 25 to 50 people whose main territory surrounded a portion of a major river (Anderson and

Hanson 1988: Figure 2). During the early spring, groups would forage in the lower Coastal Plain and then move inland to temporary camps in the Piedmont and mountains during the summer and early fall. In the late fall and winter, these bands would aggregate into larger, logistically provisioned base camps in the upper Coastal Plain, near the Fall Line. It is believed that group movements would have been circumscribed within major river drainages, and that movement across drainages into other band territories was limited. At a higher level of organization, bands were believed to be organized into larger “macrobands” of 500 to 1,500 people that periodically gathered at strategic locations near the Fall Line for communal food harvesting, rituals, and the exchange of mates and information.

Daniel (1998, 2001) has argued that access to high quality lithic material has been an under-appreciated component of Early Archaic settlement strategies. He presents compelling evidence that groups were moving between major drainages just as easily as they were moving along them. In contrast to earlier models, group movements were tethered to stone quarries rather than to specific drainages. Regardless of which model is correct, settlement patterns generally reflect a relatively high degree of mobility, making use of seasonally available resources such as nuts, migratory water fowl, and white-tailed deer.

Diagnostic markers of the Early Archaic include a variety of side and corner notched projectile point types such as

Hardaway, Kirk, Palmer, Taylor, and Big Sandy, and bifurcated point types such as Lecroy, McCorkle, and St.

Albans. Other than projectile points, tools of the Early Archaic subperiod include end scrapers, side scrapers, gravers, microliths, and adzes (Sassaman et al. 2002), and likely perishable items such as traps, snares, nets, and basketry. Direct evidence of Early Archaic basketry and woven fiber bags was found at the Icehouse Bottom site in

Tennessee (Chapman and Adovasio 1977).

Middle Archaic (8,000–5000 B.P.)

The Middle Archaic subperiod coincides with the start of the Altithermal (a.k.a. Hypsithermal), a significant warming trend where pine forests replaced the oak-hickory dominated forests of the preceding periods. By approximately 6000 B.P., extensive riverine and coastal swamps were formed by rising water tables as the sea level approached modern elevations (Whitehead 1972). It was during this subperiod that river and estuary systems took their modern configurations. The relationship between climatic, environmental, and cultural changes during this period, however, is still poorly understood (Sassaman and Anderson 1995:5–14). It is assumed that population density increased during the Middle Archaic, but small hunting and gathering bands probably still formed the primary social and economic units. Larger and more intensively occupied sites tend to occur near rivers and numerous small, upland lithic scatters dot the interriverine landscape. Subsistence was presumably based on a variety of resources such as white-tail deer, nuts, fish, and migratory birds; however, shellfish do not seem to have been an important resource at this time.

During the Middle Archaic, groundstone tools such as axes, atlatl weights, and grinding stones became more common, while flaked stone tools became less diverse and tend to be made of locally available raw materials

(Blanton and Sassaman 1989). Middle Archaic tools tend to be expediently manufactured and have a more rudimentary appearance than those found during the preceding Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods. The most common point type of this subperiod is the ubiquitous Morrow Mountain, but others such as Stanly, Guilford, and

Halifax also occur, as well as transitional Middle Archaic-Late Archaic forms such as Brier Creek and

August 2018 15

Allendale/MALA (an acronym for Middle Archaic Late Archaic) (Blanton and Sassaman 1989; Coe 1964). The major difference in the artifact assemblage of the Stanly Phase seems to be the addition of stone atlatl weights. The

Morrow Mountain and Guilford phases also appear during the Middle Archaic, but Coe (1964) considers these phases to be without local precedent and views them as western intrusions.

Late Archaic (5000–3000 B.P.)

The Late Archaic is marked by a number of key developments. There was an increased focus on riverine locations and resources (e.g., shellfish), small-scale horticulture was adopted, and ceramic and soapstone vessel technology was introduced. These changes allowed humans to occupy strategic locations for longer periods of time. In the spring and summer, Late Archaic people gathered large amounts of shellfish. It is not known why this productive resource was not exploited earlier, but one explanation is that the environmental conditions conducive to the formation of shellfish beds were not in place until the Late Archaic. Other resources that would have been exploited in the spring and summer months include fish, white-tailed deer, small mammals, birds, and turtles

(House and Ballenger 1976; Stoltman 1974). During the late fall and winter, populations likely subsisted on white-tailed deer, turkey, and nuts such as hickory and acorn. It is also possible that plants such as cucurbita (squash and gourds), sunflower, sumpweed, and chenopod, were being cultivated on a small-scale basis.

The most common diagnostic biface of this subperiod is the Savannah River Stemmed projectile point (Coe 1964), a broad-bladed stemmed point found under a variety of names from Florida to Canada. There are also smaller variants of Savannah River points, including Otarre Stemmed and Small Savannah River points that date to the transitional Late Archaic/Early Woodland. Other artifacts include soapstone cooking discs and netsinkers, shell tools, grooved axes, and worked bone.

The earliest pottery in the New World comes from the Savannah River Valley and coastal regions of South Carolina and Georgia. Both Stallings Island and Thom’s Creek pottery date from about 4500–3000 B.P. and have a wide variety of surface treatments including plain, punctated, and incised designs (Sassaman et al. 1990). For a long time it was believed that fiber-tempered Stallings Island pottery was the oldest pottery in the region (perhaps in the New World), and that sand-tempered Thom’s Creek wares appeared a few centuries later (Sassaman 1993).

Work at several shell ring sites on the coast, however, has demonstrated that the two types are contemporaneous, with Thom’s Creek possibly even predating Stallings Island along the coast (Heide and Russo 2003; Russo and

Heide 2003; Saunders and Russo 2002).

3.1.3 Woodland Period (ca. 3000–1000 B.P.)

Like the preceding Archaic Period, the Woodland is traditionally divided into three subperiods—Early Woodland

(3000–2300 B.P.), Middle Woodland (2300–1500 B.P.), and Late Woodland (1500–1000 B.P.)— based on technological and social advances and population increase. Among the changes that occurred during this period were a widespread adoption of ceramic technology, an increased reliance on native plant horticulture, and a more sedentary lifestyle. There is also an increase in sociopolitical and religious interactions as evidenced by an increased use of burial mounds, increased ceremonialism, and expanded trade networks (Anderson and Mainfort

2002). In addition, ceramics became more refined and regionally differentiated, especially with regard to temper.

August 2018 16

Early Woodland (3000–2300 B.P.)

The Early Woodland subperiod is generally marked by the intensification of horticulture, an increased use of ceramics in association with a semisedentary lifeway, and the introduction of the bow and arrow. The earliest expression of the Early Woodland subperiod in the Piedmont is the Badin phase (Ward and Davis 1999).

Representative cultural material includes sand-tempered cordmarked or fabric-impressed ceramics and large, crude triangular projectile points (Ward and Davis 1999). Differences between the southern and northern

Piedmont traditions became more pronounced through time and by the Late Woodland subperiod ceramics were quite diversified (Ward 1983).

Middle Woodland (2300–1500 B.P.)

In some areas of the Piedmont, the Middle Woodland subperiod is characterized by the Yadkin phase, whose ceramics are similar to the previous Badin type except they are tempered with crushed quartz rather than sand

(Ward and Davis 1999). However, as Webb and Leigh (1995:29) point out, there is no clear, linear relationship between the development of the two phases. In some areas, Yadkin may represent the earliest ceramics, whereas in other areas Badin may be the earliest type. The Yadkin Large Triangular Point is the diagnostic point of the Early and Middle Woodland subperiods throughout much of North and South Carolina. Although substantial regional differences appear during this time, the Piedmont region was relatively unaffected by the elaborate Hopewell and

Swift Creek cultures.

Late Woodland (1500–1000 B.P.)

The Late Woodland subperiod is one of the least understood prehistoric subperiods, both in the South Carolina

Piedmont and in the Southeast as a whole. Few diagnostic artifacts are known that can definitively date occupations to this subperiod. The few diagnostic artifacts associated with the Late Woodland subperiod in the

South Carolina Piedmont include small triangular and pentagonal projectile points, as well as Swift Creek, Napier, and Woodstock ceramics (Benson 2006:53–54).

3.1.4 Mississippian Period (ca. 1000–350 B.P.)

The Mississippian Period saw dramatic changes across most of the Southeast. Mississippian societies were complex sociopolitical entities that were based at mound centers, usually located in the floodplains along major river systems. The flat-topped platform mounds served as both the literal and symbolic manifestation of a complex sociopolitical and religious system that linked chiefdoms across a broad network stretching from the

Southeastern Atlantic Coast, to Oklahoma (Spiro Mounds) in the west, to as far north as Wisconsin (Aztalan).

Mound centers were surrounded by outlying villages that usually were built along major rivers to take advantage of the rich floodplain soils. Smaller hamlets and farmsteads dotted the landscape around villages and provided food, tribute, and services to the chief in return for protection and inclusion in the sociopolitical system. While

Mississippian subsistence was focused to a large extent on intensive maize agriculture, the hunting and gathering of aquatic and terrestrial resources supplemented Mississippian diets (Anderson 1994).

Mound centers have been found along most major river systems in the Southeast, and South Carolina is no exception. Major Mississippian mounds in the area include the Belmont and Mulberry sites along the Wateree

River in central South Carolina; Santee/Fort Watson/Scotts Lake on the Santee River; the Irene site near Savannah;

Hollywood, Lawton, Red Lake, and Mason’s Plantation in the central Savannah River Valley; and Town Creek along the Pee Dee River in North Carolina (Anderson 1994).

August 2018 17

Diagnostic artifacts of the Mississippian Period include small triangular projectile points and sand-tempered

Lamar, Savannah, and Etowah pottery types (Anderson and Joseph 1988; Elliot 1995). These types are primarily identified by their complicated stamped designs, although simple stamped, check stamped, cordmarked, and other surface treatments also occur. Various ceremonial items made from stone, bone, shell, copper, and mica were used as symbolic markers of chiefly power and status.

There is increasing evidence that territorial boundaries between chiefdoms were closely maintained during the

Mississippian Period. Within the South Carolina Piedmont, Judge (2003, see also DePratter and Judge 1990) has identified six phases of Mississippian occupation within the Wateree Valley: Belmont Neck (A.D. 1200–1250), Adamson (A.D. 1250–1300), Town Creek (A.D. 1300–1350), McDowell (A.D.1350–1450), Mulberry (A.D. 1450–1550), and Daniels (A.D. 1550–1675). Cable (2000) adds a Savannah phase (A.D.1200–1300) to this list, between the

Belmont Neck phase (which he puts at A.D. 1100–1200) and Adamson phase (which he places between A.D. 1300–

1350). Meanwhile, groups living in the southern part of the North Carolina Piedmont were part of the Pee Dee culture, which includes the Teal (A.D. 950–1200), Town Creek (A.D. 1200–1400), and Leak (A.D. 1400–1600) phases

(Ward and Davis 1999:123–134).

3.2 Historic Context

The project area is located northwest portion of Greenwood County, northeast of the community of Hodges, which is approximately eight miles northwest of the city of Greenwood. Present day Greenwood County is bordered to the northeast by the Saluda River and Newberry County, to the north by Laurens County, to the southeast by Edgefield and Saluda counties, to the southwest by McCormick County, and to the west by Abbeville

County.

3.2.1 Early Settlement

Although settlers of European descent began arriving in South Carolina’s backcountry, following the rivers inland, during the mid-eighteenth century, the area containing the project area was sparsely settled during the mid- to late 1700s. It was near the boundary with Cherokee territory, as established in 1766, making it remote and somewhat dangerous territory. However, there were still a handful of white families living on both sides of the

Indian land boundary in the mid-1700s (Edgar 1998:275).

The area was distinctly different from the Lowcountry, where the plantation system had already developed to produce rice and indigo as cash crops (Klein 1981:662). Geographically, this northwestern region of South Carolina is part of the Piedmont, which did not contain the soils or rainfall needed to produce these early staple crops, thus delaying the adoption of the plantation system in this region (Kovacik and Winberry 1989:41).

As early as the 1500s, Spanish explorers traveled through the inland regions of North and South Carolina in their quest for land and gold, although they never entered present day Greenwood County (Edgar 1998:23). Other

Europeans had ventured into the Piedmont throughout the 1700s, seeking to trade with the local Indians, with at least four traders living among the Cherokee by 1714, but these men were only transitory and did not establish permanent settlements in the area (Edgar 1998). Although Governor Robert Johnson instituted a plan in 1730 to encourage settlement in the backcountry, as a protective buffer for Lowcountry plantations, this had little effect on the project area because of its location near Indian territory.

August 2018 18

During the mid-eighteenth century, some Lowcountry South Carolina residents did migrate to the backcountry, lured by the large unclaimed expanses of land, but the majority of the earliest white settlers came from more northern areas, including Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina. By the 1760s and 1770s, some of these colonists had begun to push their settlements near the boundary of the Cherokee lands, into territory in present day Greenwood County. Once the Cherokee ceded a portion of its southern hunting lands to the colony of South

Carolina, at the conclusion of the Cherokee War, settlers began to apply for individual land grants within present day Greenwood County, settling first along the major rivers and creeks in the area (Landrum 1900; Leonard 1986).

Land claims in these areas during the 1700s tended to be small, encompassing much less area than the massive

Lowcountry plantations, although some early grants to Indian traders were extensive. One of the earliest settlers in the area was Elijah Clarke. Clarke was followed by the Bobo, Rhodes, and Wofford families, who emigrated from

Virginia and claimed land on the Enoree River and Two Mile Creek during the 1760s, along with the Anderson, Bomer, Moore, and Montgomery families (Landrum 1900).

3.2.2 Eighteenth Century Conflicts

The second half of the eighteenth century was a period of unrest in the South Carolina backcountry, including the

Greenwood County area. The beginnings of the instability occurred during the 1750s, as the Cherokee became frustrated by the unfulfilled promises of the British colonies and began attacking settlements along the Carolina frontiers. The attacks increased and grew continually worse, eventually inaugurating the French and Indian War, which is generally recognized as lasting from 1754 to 1763 (Edgar 1998:205–206). During this period, settlers in the backcountry established small forts for protection, which were essentially stockades where families in the area could go in times of imminent danger. In the vicinity of the project area, a handful of these forts appeared, although the locations of most of them are unknown. A description of Fort Prince in nearby Spartanburg County gives an idea of their construction details. John Prince’s fort was “circular and about 150 feet in diameter—with upright timbers 12 to 15 feet high. Around the perimeter was a ditch…beyond the ditch was an abatis of heavy timbers. In the stockade itself were portholes for the use of the riflemen inside” (Huff 1995:19).

The most brutal of the attacks in the South Carolina backcountry came in early 1760. In February, a wagon train of refugees was massacred at Long Cane Creek, along the western edge of the colony. The French and Indian War ended in 1763 with the Treaty of Paris, but by 1761 the Cherokee had already been vanquished and had signed a treaty, essentially ending the Indian attacks on inland South Carolina settlements (Edgar 1998:206-207). From

1761 to 1776, through discussions and treaties, the Boundary Line between Indian lands and colonial territory was established (Weir 1997:275). Although this was before much of Greenwood County area was settled, the memory and threat of such attacks influenced settlers who moved on or near the Cherokee territory.

The end of the Cherokee threat did not restore order to the backcountry, however. With a growing population, backcountry residents felt that their needs were being neglected by the Charleston government. Settlers who had sought shelter within the forts during the Cherokee conflict had been victims of greed and extortion from the private fort owners. At the same time, the militiamen who were supposed to be protecting their property were raiding and squatting at the abandoned homesteads (Edgar 1998:206).

The treaty with the Cherokee and the subsequent end to the Indian threat did little to alleviate the situation.

During the mid-1760s, gangs of bandits swept through the nearby Congaree and Saluda River basins, “burning and looting, torturing victims presumed to have items of value, raping wives and daughters, making off with horses, furniture and household goods” and generally terrorizing residents of established settlements (Edgar

August 2018 19

1998:212). A lack of response from the colonial government in Charleston compelled the victims to band together and pursue vigilante justice in an attempt to protect themselves. This group of backcountry landowners became known as the Regulators, a movement which “united frontiersmen in an effort to make their region safe for planting and property [as] they struggled to establish a particular type of order consistent with the needs of hardworking farmers and rising slave owners” (Klein 1981:668). The issues of the 1760s were not limited to the conflict between gang members and the vigilante Regulators. The colonial government resented both the

Regulators’ tactics and their demands for backcountry equality. As a result, Regulators were arrested and tried for their actions just as often as bandits were. Ultimately, order was reestablished in the backcountry and the

Regulator movement diminished in its power and influence. The Charleston government had agreed to establish circuit courts to meet the legal needs of backcountry residents; this led to the establishment of Ninety Six District in the northwestern section of the colony. Although these courts did not begin operation until 1772, tensions between the two regions of South Carolina were lessened for the moment (Edgar 1998:215–216; Huff 1995:20).

This short period of peace would soon be ended by a more broad-reaching conflict, the third period of unrest to affect the backcountry in a quarter of a century. The residents of the Lowcountry, along with the citizens of other colonies, were becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the policies of the British. After Bostonians led a well-known protest against the Tea Act in 1773, the British government implemented harsh regulations as punishment. Seeing the situation in Boston reminded Charleston residents of their own recent struggles with the British-led colonial government—the Laurens-Leigh Controversy of 1767–1768 and the 1769 Wilkes Fund Controversy. Knowing that their own port could be easily closed by the British, Charlestonians generally supported Boston and the resolutions of the First Continental Congress (Edgar 1998:217–220).

Although the Lowcountry lent its support to the original tenants of the American Revolution, most backcountry settlers did not, highlighting the differences and tensions that still separated the two regions. Many backcountry settlers felt more slighted by the colonial government in Charleston than by the British. In Ninety Six District there was a large concentration of settlers with Loyalist feelings; many of these settlers were immigrants who had come to the colony seeking some measure of freedom. Often, these residents had acquired their lands through grants from the king and they felt a certain amount of loyalty and indebtedness to the monarchy. In 1775, William Henry

Drayton negotiated with the citizens of inland South Carolina and a compromise was reached, which allowed the backcountry residents to remain neutral in the conflict in return for the provincial government basically leaving them alone. Drayton also courted Cherokee support for the Revolutionary cause during this period, arranging meetings with Indian leaders through Richard Pearis. Later, Pearis would join the Loyalist cause, along with the militia commander of the Upper Saluda Region, Colonel Thomas Fletchell. A separate force of partier militiamen was then organized in the northwest part of the colony by Captain John Thomas (Weir 1997; Gordon 2003).

While many backcountry residents remained loyal to the crown, but practiced neutrality, for the beginning years of the Revolution, Ninety Six District had a more experience with the conflict in late 1775. In an effort to subdue the district’s Loyalist supporters, patriot leaders sent Colonel Richard Richardson to capture the forces of Patrick

Cunningham and the Cherokee-bound ammunition that he had intercepted. At the Battle of the Great Canebreak, near Simpsonville, the patriots recaptured the ammunition and took 130 prisoners. On December 23, 1775, Loyalists signed an agreement stating that if they took up arms against the patriots again they would forfeit their estates (Weir 1997; Gordon 2003).

In 1776, fighting came again to the northwestern corner of South Carolina, as Indian attacks began anew along the frontier. To defend their homes, frontiersmen under the command of Andrew Williamson began a campaign against the Cherokee and those who supported them, including Richard Pearis. By August 22, 1776, Williamson’s

August 2018 20 force had burned all of the Cherokee Lower Towns. In May 1777, the Cherokee signed the Treaty of DeWitt’s

Corner, formally transferring all land in South Carolina, except a small tract in Oconee and Pickens counties, to the state (Gordon 2003).

In May 1780, the capture of Charleston and the subsequent British conquest of inland South Carolina, along with the atrocities that accompanied the nearby fighting, stirred the anti-British sentiments of settlers in this area. A major battle occurred in present-day Greenwood County area at the town of Ninety-Six, southeast of the project area. The town of Ninety-Six began as a trading post in 1753 and was established as a town in 1772. By 1775 the town was a bustling commerce and government center in the backcountry along a major trade route connecting the Cherokee towns of the backcountry to the then capital city of Charlestown. In 1780, Ninety-Six was occupied by British Loyalists under the command of Lieutenant Colonel John Cruger. At Ninety-Six, Cruger and his men built defenses including palisades and a redoubt called the Star Fort that provided the British forces the ability to protect the defenders. On May 22, 1781, Continental Army Major General Nathanael Greene led 1,000 troops against 550 Loyalists to siege the fortified village. At first, Greene’s troops monitored the fort and built defense just on the outskirts of the town. On June 18, after more troops arrived, Greene decided to assault the fort. In a brutal fight that was dominated by bayonet and troops using their muskets as clubs, Greene’s forces failed to take that fort and retreated.