Cultural Resources Intensive Survey

Hodges Corporate Park

Greenwood County, South Carolina

S&ME Project No. 4226-18-101

SHPO No. 18-KL0311

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

March 2019

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

SHPO No. 18-KL0311

Kimberly Nagle, M.S., RPA

Principal Investigator

Authors: Joseph A. DeAngelis, M.A. and Heather Carpini, M.A.

March 2019

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 i

Management Summary

On behalf of Greenwood Partnership Alliance , S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) has completed a cultural resources intensive survey for the Hodges Corporate Park in Greenwood County, South Carolina (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). The survey included a Phase I archaeological survey of approximately 68 acres of the proposed 234.65 acre project area, the additional research needed to evaluate two previously recorded aboveground resources (0159 and 0163), and to assess effects of the proposed project on the Old Cokesbury and Masonic Female College and Conference School.

The project area is located along US Route 25 approximately one mile east of the community of Hodges, South

Carolina.

In August 2018, a Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey was completed for the Hodges Corporate Park; no archaeological sites were identified during the investigation, however, a total of 68 acres was identified as having the potential for containing significant archaeological deposits and was recommended for Phase I investigations.

In addition to the archaeological survey, an architectural survey was completed and six above ground resources

(0159–0164) were identified and evaluated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) during the investigation. The project area is located within the NRHP-listed Old Cokesbury and Masonic Female College and Conference School historic district. Additional research was recommended for two (0159 and 0163) of the resources to determine if they were within the period of significance and therefore contributing elements to the

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

In a letter dated November 2, 2018, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) agreed with the recommendations made for the Phase I investigations of 68 acres within the project area, along with the additional research to determine NRHP eligibility for resources 0159 and 0163 and to assess effects of the project on the NRHP-listed Old Cokesbury and Masonic Female College and Conference School (Appendix A). This work is being conducted based on the recommendations provided by SHPO in the November 2, 2018 letter, in anticipation of federal funding or federal permitting, and was carried out in general accordance with S&ME

Proposal No. 42-1801117, dated October 22, 2018.

Fieldwork for the project was conducted intermittently from January 29 through February 27, 2019. As a result of the survey, one new archaeological site (38GN0853) was recorded and an attempt was made to re-locate the two previously recorded archaeological sites (38GN0042 and 38GN0043) within the intensive survey areas. No evidence of the two previously recorded archaeological sites was identified (Figures 1.1 and 1.2; Table 1.1). The newly recorded archaeological site is recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

Table 1.1. Summary of cultural resources identified or revisited during the investigation.

Resource Description NRHP Eligibility Recommendation

0159 Rampey-Snead Farm complex Contributing Resource to

NRHP-Listed District Consultation with SHPO

0163 Ouzts House (ca. 1949) Contributing Resource to

NRHP-Listed District Consultation with SHPO

Old Cokesbury and Masonic Female College and

Conference School Listed Consultation with SHPO

38GN0853 20th century outbuilding site Not Eligible No Additional Work

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 ii

S&ME revisited the NRHP-listed Old Cokesbury, and Masonic Female College and Conference School historic district (Old Cokesbury district), as well as two previously recorded aboveground resources, the Rampey-Snead

Farm (0159) and the Ouzts House (0163). S&ME recommends that neither the Rampey-Snead Farm (0159) nor the

Ouzts House (0163) are individually eligible for listing in the NRHP, but both are recommended as contributing resources to the Old Cokesbury historic district. For the Old Cokesbury historic district, S&ME surveyed and photographed structures greater than 50 years of age within its boundaries. Research into the history of the area and field investigations revealed that the current Old Cokesbury district could have an expanded period of significance and additional historic context that addressed the growth and development of the area as a whole, including both Cokesbury and Hodges, as well as the surrounding agricultural lands. Because of the proposed project area’s location, within the NRHP listed historic district and on the property of a contributing resource to the district, the project has the potential to directly and indirectly adversely affect the Old Cokesbury District.

S&ME recommends beginning consultation with SHPO to develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to minimize or mitigate these adverse effects.

38GN0043

38GN0041

38GN0853

38GN0044

38GN0042

01620160

Old Cokesbury NRHP-Listed District

Area A

Area B

Area C

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

³

4226-18-101

SCALE:

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

FIGURE NO.

0 0.50.25

MILES

Topographic Map Hodges Corporate Park 1.1

Legend

!( Revisited Historic Structure !( NRHP-Eligible Structure !( Previously Recorded Historic Structure

Phase I Survey Area Project Area 0.5-mile Search Radius Revisited Historic Area Newly Recorded Archaeological Site Previously Recorded Archaeological Site NRHP-Listed DistrictCokesbury 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle.

JAD/KJN

3/6/2019

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

I S urv ey \G

IS\

Fig ure s\F igu re

1.1 To

po .m xd pl ott ed by

KN

ag le

-06

-20

1:16,163

38GN0043

38GN0041

38GN0853

38GN0044

38GN0042

01620160

Old Cokesbury NRHP-Listed District

Area A

Area B

Area C

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 0.50.25

MILES

Aerial Map Hodges Corporate Park 1.2

Legend

!( Revisited Historic Structure !( NRHP-Eligible Structure !( Previously Recorded Historic Structure

Phase I Survey Area Project Area 0.5-mile Search Radius Revisited Historic Area Newly Recorded Archaeological Site Previously Recorded Archaeological Site NRHP-Listed DistrictESRI Aerial Imagery.

JAD/KJN

3/6/2019

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

I S urv ey \G

IS\

Fig ure s\F igu re

1.2 Ae

ria l.m xd pl ott ed by

KN

ag le

-06

-20

1:16,163

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 v

Table of Contents

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

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................v

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Environmental Setting

2.1 Location

2.2 Geology and Topography

2.3 Hydrology

2.4 Soils

2.5 Climate and Vegetation

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 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources

4.0 Methods

4.1 Archaeological Field Methods

4.2 Laboratory Methods

4.3 Architectural Survey Methods

4.4 National Register Eligibility Assessment

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 vi

5.0 Results

5.1 Archaeological Survey Results

5.1.1 Area A

5.1.2 Area B

5.1.3 Area C

5.1.4 Site 38GN0853

5.2 Architectural Survey Results

5.2.1 Old Cokesbury, and Masonic Female College and Conference School

5.2.2 Rampey-Snead Farm (0159)

5.2.3 Ouzts House (0163)

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

7.0 References Cited

8.0 Appendix A – SHPO Correspondence

9.0 Appendix B – Artifact Catalog

10.0 Appendix C – Table of Old Cokesbury Historic District Parcels

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

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

Figure 2.1. Aerial map showing soil types in the intensive survey areas

Figure 2.2. View of planted pine in Area A, facing west

Figure 2.3. View of secondary growth in Area A, facing north

Figure 2.4. View of a grassy field in Area A, facing east

Figure 2.5. Typical vegetation in Area B, facing southwest

Figure 2.6. Typical vegetation in Area C, facing east

Figure 2.7. View of dirt road in Area A, facing west

Figure 2.8. View of a transmission line corridor in Area B, facing west

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

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 vii

Figure 3.4. Portion of USGS Abbeville 30-minute 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. .. 24

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 5.1. View of planted pine in Area A, facing south

Figure 5.2. View of secondary growth in Area A, facing east

Figure 5.3. View of a grassy field in Area A, facing northwest

Figure 5.4. View of a dirt road in Area A, facing east

Figure 5.5. Typical shovel test in Area A with intact soil horizon

Figure 5.6. Typical shovel test in Area A with no intact soil horizon

Figure 5.7. Approximate location of site 38GN0042, facing south

Figure 5.8. Typical vegetation in Area B, facing northwest

Figure 5.9. View of a transmission line corridor in Area B, facing east

Figure 5.10. Typical shovel test in Area B with intact horizon

Figure 5.11. Typical shovel test in Area B with no intact horizon

Figure 5.12. Approximate location of site 38GN0043, facing north

Figure 5.13. Typical vegetation in Area C, facing northwest

Figure 5.14. Typical shovel test in Area C

Figure 5.15. Overview of site 38GN0853, facing southwest

Figure 5.16. Site map for 38GN0853

Figure 5.17. Overview of brick and concrete push pile at site 38GN0853, facing northeast

Figure 5.18. Historic aerial map from 1939 showing location of structures in the vicinity of site

38GN0853

Figure 5.19. Aerial map from 1989 showing location of site 38GN0853

Figure 5.20. Tabernacle Cemetery marker, facing north

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 viii

Figure 5.21. Photograph of the Hodges business district (Evening Index [Greenwood, South Carolina]

1911 September 14:17)

Figure 5.22. Map of Greenwood County, 1898

Figure 5.23. Unpublished Sanborn Map of Hodges, 1926

Figure 5.24. Map tax parcels within the Old Cokesbury District with structures built before 1970

Figure 5.25. Cokesbury College building, facing south

Figure 5.26. Cokesbury general store building, facing northeast

Figure 5.27. Cokesbury Methodist Church (1970 reconstruction), facing northwest

Figure 5.28. House (circa 1815), 403 Asbury Road, facing southwest

Figure 5.30. House (circa 1865), 110 College Road, facing southeast

Figure 5.31. House (circa 1865), 504 Asbury Road, facing north

Figure 5.32. House (circa 1865), 4422 Highway 246 N, facing north

Figure 5.33. House (circa 1875), 4419 Highway 246N, facing south

Figure 5.34. House (circa 1875), 408 Asbury Road, facing east

Figure 5.35. House (circa 1890), 221 Sandy Run Road E, facing southeast

Figure 5.36. House (circa 1901), 122 Daniel Road, facing northeast

Figure 5.37. House (circa 1901), 506 Asbury Road, facing northeast

Figure 5.38. House (circa 1910), 931 Townsend Road E, facing southwest

Figure 5.39. House (circa 1930), 4318 Highway 246 N, facing north

Figure 5.40. House (circa 1930), 123 Mt. Ariel Road, facing north

Figure 5.41. House (circa 1930), 4312 Cokesbury Road, facing north

Figure 5.42. House (circa 1930), 4001 Highway 246 N, facing southwest

Figure 5.43. House (circa 1944), 408 Daniel Road, facing northeast

Figure 5.44. House (circa 1957), 303 Daniel Road, facing southwest

Figure 5.45. Former location of the Payne Institute, facing northwest

Figure 5.46. Cemetery off of Allen University Road, facing southwest

Figure 5.47. Hodges commercial buildings along Main Street, facing southeast

Figure 5. 48. Former Bank of Hodges building, 4525 Main Street, facing northwest

Figure 5.49. Hodges House, 4517 Main Street, facing southeast

Figure 5.50. House (circa 1898), 4521 Main Street, facing south

Figure 5.51. House (circa 1915), 4523 Main Street, facing northwest

Figure 5.52. House (circa 1950), 4311 Main Street, facing east

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 ix

Figure 5.53. House (circa 1828), 4401 Main Street, facing south

Figure 5.54. Hodges Presbyterian Church, 4413 Main Street, facing southeast

Figure 5.55. Former cotton gin (circa 1850), 110 Freeman Road, facing northeast

Figure 5.56. Hodges Presbyterian Church, 4413 Main Street, facing southeast

Figure 5.57. House (circa 1890), 5207 Emerson Street Road, facing south

Figure 5.58. House, 4413 Moorefield Street, facing east

Figure 5.59. House (circa 1915), 5222 Emerson Road, facing north

Figure 5.60. House, 122 Robertson Street, facing northeast

Figure 5.61. House (circa 1925), 4820 Highway 185, facing southwest

Figure 5.62. Former Piedmont and Northern Railroad Depot, Moorefield Street, facing southwest

Figure 5.63. Former Southern Railroad Depot (circa 1870; moved 1975), facing northwest

Figure 5.64. North Hodges Elementary School, facing southeast

Figure 5.65. House (circa 1900), 300 Devore Road, facing north

Figure 5.66. House (circa 1900), 4206 Highway 185, facing northeast

Figure 5.67. House (circa 1910), 917 Gary Road, facing southwest

Figure 5.68. House (circa 1935), 200 Freetown Road, facing north

Figure 5.69. House (circa 1940), 706 Deadfall Road, facing north

Figure 5.70. House (circa 1940), 302 Cromer Road, facing west

Figure 5.71. Cokesbury Hills Golf Course and Motel, 3818 Cokesbury Road, facing east

Figure 5.72. Cokesbury Hills Golf Course and Motel, 3818 Cokesbury Road, facing southeast

Figure 5.73. Sunnywood Drive, facing east

Figure 5.74. Kaye Drive, facing north

Figure 5.75. Windemere Drive, facing east

Figure 5.76. Clifton Road, facing southeast

Figure 5.77. Porter Road, facing southeast

Figure 5.78. Aerial photograph of parcels within the Old Cokesbury historic district

Figure 5.79. Farmland along Keels Road E, facing south

Figure 5.80. Farmland along Cokesbury Road, facing west

Figure 5.81. View of Structure 0159, house, facing northeast

Figure 5.82. View of Structure 0159, house, facing northwest

Figure 5.83. View of Structure 0159, house, facing southeast

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 x

Figure 5.84. View of Structure 0159.1, the Lodge, facing southwest

Figure 5.85. View of Structure 0159.2, shed, facing north

Figure 5.86. View of Structure 0159.3, storage building, facing west

Figure 5.87. View of Structure 0159.4, barn/stable, facing east

Figure 5.88. View of Structure 0159.5, tenant house, facing southeast

Figure 5.89. View of Structure 0159.5, tenant house, facing east

Figure 5.90. View of Structure 0159.6, tenant house, facing north

Figure 5.91. View of Structure 0159.7, brick structure, facing northwest

Figure 5.92. View of Structure 0159.7, brick structure, facing north

Figure 5.93. View of Structure 0159.8, well box, facing northeast

Figure 5.94. Aerial photograph, 1939, showing former location of Rampey-Snead House

Figure 5.95. Aerial photograph, 1951, showing former location of Rampey-Snead House

Figure 5.96. Aerial photograph, 1989, showing eastern portion of the project area

Figure 5.97. Aerial photograph, 1989, showing eastern portion of the project area

Figure 5.98. Plat of the Snead property (Greenwood County Register of Deeds 1986 Plat Book 49:351). .. 89

Figure 5.99. View of Structure 0163, facing southeast

Figure 5.100. View of Structure 0163, facing northeast

Figure 5.101. View of Structure 0163, facing south

Figure 5.102. View of Structures 0163.1 and 0163.2, outbuildings, facing southwest

Figure 5.103. Aerial photograph, 1939, showing former location of Ouzts House

Figure 5.104. Aerial photograph, 1951, showing former location of Ouzts House

Figure 5.105. Plat of the property of S. P. Ouzts, 1948 (Greenwood County Register of Deeds 1948 Plat

Book 3:178)

Figure 5.106. Plat of the property transferred to S. P. Ouzts by John Rampey, 1948 (Greenwood County

Register of Deeds 1962 Plat Book 12:256)

List of Tables Table 1.1. Summary of cultural resources identified or revisited during the investigation. ........................... i

Table 2.1. Specific soil types found within the intensive survey areas

Table 5.1. Summary of different areas within the project area

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 1

1.0 Introduction

On behalf of Greenwood Partnership Alliance, S&ME has completed a cultural resources intensive survey for the

Hodges Corporate Park in Greenwood County, South Carolina (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). The survey included a Phase I archaeological survey of approximately 68 acres of the proposed 234.65 acre project area, the additional research needed to evaluate two previously recorded aboveground resources (0159 and 0163), and to assess effects of the proposed project on the Old Cokesbury and Masonic Female College and Conference School. The project area is located along US Route 25 approximately one mile east of the community of Hodges, South Carolina.

In August 2018, a Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey was completed for the Hodges Corporate Park; no archaeological sites were identified during the investigation, however, a total of 68 acres was identified as having the potential for containing significant archaeological deposits and was recommended for Phase I investigations.

In addition to the archaeological survey, an architectural survey was completed and six above ground resources

(0159–0164) were identified and evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP during the investigation. The project area is located within the NRHP-listed Old Cokesbury and Masonic Female College and Conference School historic district. Additional research was recommended for two (0159 and 0163) of the resources to determine if they were within the period of significance and therefore contributing elements to the NRHP listed historic district or if they are significant resources independent from the NRHP listed district.

In a letter dated November 2, 2018, the SHPO agreed with the recommendations made for the Phase I investigations of 68 acres within the project area, along with the additional research to determine NRHP eligibility for resources 0159 and 0163 and to assess effects of the project on the NRHP-listed Old Cokesbury and Masonic

Female College and Conference School (Appendix A). This work is being conducted based on the recommendations provided by SHPO in the November 2, 2018 letter, in anticipation of federal funding or federal permitting, and was carried out in general accordance with S&ME Proposal No. 42-1801117, dated October 22, 2018.

Fieldwork for the project was conducted intermittently from January 29 through February 27, 2019. Archaeological fieldwork was conducted by Field Director Joseph A. DeAngelis, M.A., and Crew Chief Paul Connell intermittently from January 29 through February 5, 2019. Architectural fieldwork and historic research was conducted by Senior

Architectural Historian Heather Carpini, M.A. intermittently from February 18 through February 27, 2019. Mr.

DeAngelis and Ms. Carpini wrote the report, prepared photographs, and completed graphics and mapping.

Artifact analysis was conducted by Mr. Connell. Architectural evaluations were conducted by Ms. Carpini. Senior

Archaeologist Kimberly Nagle, M.S., RPA, senior reviewed the report.

This report has been prepared in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1979; procedures for the Protection of Historic

Properties (36 CFR Part 800); and 36 CFR Parts 60 through 79, as appropriate. Field investigations and the technical report meet the qualifications specified in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for

Archaeology and Historic Preservation (Federal Register [FR] 48:44716–44742), and the South Carolina Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations (Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists [COSCAPA] et al. 2013). Supervisory personnel meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards set forth in 36 CFR Part 61.

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 2

2.0 Environmental Setting

2.1 Location

The project area is located in the northwestern portion of Greenwood County approximately one mile east of the corporate limits of the community of Hodges, South Carolina. Greenwood County, which covers approximately

463 square miles is bounded by Laurens County to the north, Newberry County to the northeast, Saluda and

Edgefield counties to the southeast, McCormick County to the south, and Abbeville County to the west.

2.2 Geology and Topography

The project area is located in the Piedmont physiographic province of South Carolina (Kovacik and Winberry

1989). The Piedmont is a 100 mile wide belt that encompasses most of the northwest portion of the state (Kovacik and Winberry 1989:16). The Piedmont physiographic province, which is underlain by soils weathered in place from the parent crystalline bedrock material. Rocks found in the Piedmont are generally metamorphic, with igneous granite intrusions (Kovacik and Winberry 1989). Topography in the project area ranges from 590 ft above mean sea level, (AMSL) along an unnamed tributary of Dudley Creek 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).

2.3 Hydrology

The project area is located at the boundary of the Savannah River and the Saluda River drainage basins. The

Savannah River drainage basin covers approximately 4,900 square miles and consists of approximately 16 percent of the state’s area; the Saluda River drainage basin covers approximately 3,210 square miles and consists of approximately 10 percent of the state’s area (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources [SCDNR] 2013).

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. Dudley Creek flows north into Mulberry Creek, which meanders east and empties into Lake Greenwood, an artificially dammed portion of the Saluda River approximately 2.8 miles northeast of the project area.

2.4 Soils

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 (Camp and Herren 1980). There are four soil types located within the intensive survey areas (Figure 2.1); their descriptions can be found in Table 2.1 (USDA Web Soil

Survey, Accessed January 28, 2019).

Table 2.1. Specific soil types found within the intensive survey areas.

Soil Name Type Drainage Location Slope

Appling Loamy Sand 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%

Area A

Area B

Area C

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 300150

METERS

Aerial map showing soil types Hodges Corporate Park 2.1

Legend

Project Area Phase I Survey Area

Soils Appling loamy sand, 2-10% Durham loamy sand, 2-6% Helena loamy sand. 2-10% Louisburg loamy sand, 6-25%ESRI Aerial Imagery.

JAD

3/6/2019

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

I S urv ey \G

IS\

Fig ure s\F igu re

2.1 So

ils.

mx d p lot ted by ja de an ge lis

-06 -20

1:8,019

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 4

2.5 Climate and Vegetation

The climate of Greenwood County is subtropical. It is characterized by long, warm summers and short, relatively mild winters. The average daily temperatures range from 47.8° Fahrenheit in winter to 72.6° Fahrenheit in summer.

Precipitation is relatively evenly distributed throughout the year, averaging 46.29 inches annually. Rainfall is adequate for most crops during the peak-growing season of April through October. Snowfall is uncommon and averages only 1.5 inches per year (Camp and Herren 1980).

The 68 acres surveyed are within three noncontiguous parcels (Area A, Area B, and Area C). Vegetation in Area A consists of planted pine, secondary growth and grassy fields; Areas B and C consist predominately of grassy pastures with stands of mixed hardwood and pine trees (Figures 2.2–2.6). Disturbances within the survey areas include dirt roads traversing Area A and a transmission line corridor in Area B (Figures 2.7 and 2.8).

Figure 2.2. View of planted pine in Area A, facing west.

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 5

Figure 2.3. View of secondary growth in Area A, facing north.

Figure 2.4. View of a grassy field in Area A, facing east.

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 6

Figure 2.5. Typical vegetation in Area B, facing southwest.

Figure 2.6. Typical vegetation in Area C, facing east.

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 7

Figure 2.7. View of dirt road in Area A, facing west.

Figure 2.8. View of a transmission line corridor in Area B, facing west.

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 8

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 area of potential effects (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-

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 9 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 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 subperiod is generally thought to date from 11,500 to 11,000 B.P. (Sassaman et al.

1990:8), however, radiocarbon data indicate that a more accurate time frame for the Clovis subperiod in North

America may be 11,050 to 10,800 B.P. (Waters and Stafford 2007); 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. 1996a; 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.

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 10

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 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 subperiod, 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.

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 11

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

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

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 12 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.

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).

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 13

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).

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

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

Greenwood County, South Carolina

March 2019 14 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.

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…