University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Research Manuscript Series Institute of 10-1981 Predictive Modeling: An Archeolgical Assessment of Duke Power Company's Proposed Cherokee Transmission Lines Veletta Canouts Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Canouts, Veletta, "Predictive Modeling: An Archeolgical Assessment of Duke Power Company's Proposed Cherokee Transmission Lines" (1981). Research Manuscript Series. 173. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books/173 This Book is brought to you by the Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Institute of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Manuscript Series by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Predictive Modeling: An Archeolgical Assessment of Duke Power Company's Proposed Cherokee Transmission Lines Keywords Excavations, Duke Power Company, Transmission lines, Cherokee County, South Carolina, Archeology Disciplines Anthropology Publisher The outhS Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology--University of South Carolina Comments In USC online Library catalog at: http://www.sc.edu/library/ This book is available at Scholar Commons: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books/173 PREDICTIVE MODELING: AN ARCHEOLOG~CAL ASSESSMENT OF DUKE POWER COMPANY'S PROPOSED CHEROKEE TRANSMISSION LINES by Veletta Canouts Research Manuscript Series 181 With Contributions by Paul E. Brockington, Jr. and Tommy Charles INSTITUTE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA 29208 October 1981 The University of South Carolina offers equal opportunity in its employment, admissions and educational activities, in accordance with Title IX, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and other civil rights laws. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEGMENTS. v LIST OF FIGURES vi LIST OF TABLES. vii MANAGENENT SUMMARY. CHAPrER 1 1 IntY'oduction • 1 The PY'oject Design 3 The AY'cheo!ogica! PY'ogY'am. 3 CHAPrER 2 7 The AY'cheo!ogica! RecoY'd: A BackgY'ound Assessment. 7 EnviY'onmenta! Assessment 7 EnviY'onmenta! Potentia! 8 EnviY'onmenta! PaY'ameteY's. 11 Site TY'ansfoY'mation PY'ocesses 12 Cu!tuY'a! Assessment. 13 PY'ehistoY'y. 14 EthnohistoY'y • 19 HistoY'y 20 SummaY'y. 23 CHAPrER 3 27 Phase I: Reconnaissance SUY'vey 27 SUY'vey Fie!d Methods 27 SUY'vey Resu!ts 30 SUY'vey Eva!uation. 38 SummaY'y. 46 CHAPrER 4 47 Phase I: PY'edictive Assessment and Recommendations 47 CHAPrER 5 53 CheY'okee FOY'd IY'onwoY'ks: Nationa! RegisteY' PY'opeY'ty. 53 AY'cheo!ogica! BackgY'ound • 53 PY'oject Design 54 Fie!d Reconnaissance and Resu!ts 54 AY'cheo!ogica! Eva!uation 59 AY'cheo!ogica! Recommendations. 62 iii APPENDIX I: P~ehisto~ic And Histo~ic Backg~ound by PauL E. B~ockington, J~ ••••• 65 APPENDIX II: LocaL CoLLecto~s In Che~okee County, South Ca~oLina by Tommy Cha~Les •• 71 APPENDIX III: "ELmo~e" • . ..... .. 75 APPENDIX IV: Mitigation PLan fo~ the P~otection of the Po~tion of the Che~okee Fo~d I~onwo~ks NationaL Registe~ P~ope~ty Affected by Duke Powe~ Company's P~oposed Che~okee T~ansmission Lines by Andy CLoninge~ •• •• 77 REFERENCES •• ..... ...... 79 iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to recognize sev­ eral individuals whose efforts enhanced the quality of the field survey and the final report. Mike Harmon, a very able field assis­ tant, is deserving of a special thank you. The archeological staff of the Institute offered welcome comments and advice. Duke Power Com­ pany is thanked for their cooperation and assistance, and in particular Andy Cloninger who worked closely with the archeologists in the field. Technical assistance in preparing this report was provided by Gordon Brown, photographer; Darby Erd, draftsman; and Mary Joyce Burns and Kenn Pinson, manuscript pro­ duction. v LIST OF FIGURES Page FIGURE 1. PY'oject Vicinity Map • •• 2 FIGURE 2. PY'oject COY'Y'idoY': Map 1. 26 FIGURE 3. PY'oject COY'Y'idoY': Map 2 ••• 27 FIGURE 4. PY'oject COY'Y'idoY': Map 3. 28 FIGURE 5. PY'oject COY'Y'idoY': Map 4. 29 FIGURE 6. Site 38CK58 Looking NOY'theast • 35 FIGURE 7. AY'ea of FOPmeY' Site 38CK11 • •• 35 FIGURE 8. Site 38CK59 Looking Southeast. 36 FIGURE 9. Site 38CK60 Looking South •• 36 FIGURE 10. Hafted QuaY'tz Bifaces fY'om 38CK59 • 37 FIGURE 11. Site Map of 38CK59 • ••••••• 41 FIGURE 12. PY'oject SUY'vey COY'Y'idoY' Schematic 42 FIGURE 13. Map of the AY'cheo~ogica~ ResouY'ces at Duke PoweY' Company's PY'oject X-81 3 Site B ••• 44 FIGURE 14. AY'cheo~ogica~ ResouY'ces in the Vicinity of the the Gaffney By-Pass Route •• 45 FIGURE 15. The CheY'okee FoY'd IY'onwoY'ks: 1976 Nationa~ RegisteY' PY'opeY'ty BoundaY'y 55 FIGURE 16. Re~ationship of the Iso~ated Furnace and Cana~ (38CK2) to Duke PoweY' Company Right-of-Way. •• 56 FIGURE 17. The Iso~ated B~ast Furnace: "E~ ~en". •• 58 FIGURE 18. Lanceo~ate PY'ojecti~e Point Data Sheet. 72 vi LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1. National Register of Historic Places: Cherokee County. •••••••••• 14 TABLE 2. Archeological sites Located in Cherokee County 16 TABLE 3. Cherokee archeological survey segments. 31 TABLE 4. Site descriptions • •• 32 TABLE 5. Survey artifact collections. 33 TABLE 6. Comparison of survey data • •• 39 TABLE 7. Archeological sequence expected in the Project Area •••• •• •• 67 TABLE 8. The Second Collection •• 74 vii viii I MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Duke Power Company proposes to construct two 230 kV trans­ mission lines in Cherokee County, South Carolina. As part of the federally mandated assessment of the potentially adverse impacts to archeological resources, the Institute has developed a two phase program to locate and evaluate archeological sites wi thin the project corridor. Phase I involved a two-day reconnaissance survey in February 1980 and a one-day field inspection, in September 1981, of the Cherokee Ford Ironworks already listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Because Phase I also involved the development of a predictive model of site occurrence, the area was surveyed sys­ tematically. Two transects and ten field check points along road rights-of-way provided fairl y even coverage. Two archeologists traversed a little over 25% of the 21-kilometer long corridor. Shovel probing at 20-meter intervals was necessary due to extreme­ ly poor ground visibility. This technique was of limited utility and only five archeological loci were identified: two prehistoric sites; one historic site; and two historic isolated finds. The survey was judged to be less than 50% effective, and between 15 and 25 archeological loci are predicted for the corridor as a whole. The archeological sites conform to general predictions about prehistoric and historic man-land relationships in the upper Pied­ mont, particularly along the Broad River drainage. Prehistoric flaking debris and a Middle Archaic biface dominated; lithic scat­ ter fit hypothesized patterns of interriverine resource extrac­ tion. An abandoned homestead testifies to the decline of farming in the area. A blast furnace located on Peoples Creek was once part of the Cooperville factory complex. Its National Register status recognizes the local production of iron in the "Old Iron Dis­ trict." Because of the position of the furnace relative to the proposed right-of-way, a plan to avoid or protect the site is recommended. In response, Duke Power Company proposes a mitigation plan to minimize potential adverse effects. The significance of the five surveyed sites lies in their potential to predict site locations in the unsurveyed portions of the corridor and to contribute information about the effects of transmission line construction. A Phase II walk-over of the en­ tire corridor is planned to gather these data. For these reasons, the sites are not recommended for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, designed a two-phase· archeological program to assess the potential impact of Duke Power Company's proposed 230 kV Cherokee transmission line upon the archeological resource base (Brockington 1977, 1980; Canouts 1980). The project area is located in Cherokee County near the town of Gaffney, South Carolina (Fig. 1). The pro­ posed lines will parallel the western bank of the Broad River, tra­ versing several small drainages, i.e., Peoples Creek, Toms Branch Creek, Little London and London creeks, McKowns Creek, Quinton Branch, and Gilkey and Abingdon creeks, which drain into the Broad. This Piedmont setting is characterized by a highly dissected sur­ face due to intensive agricultural and timbering practices during the 18th and 19th centuries. Most of the area has been affected by severe erosion, resulting in deflated and truncated soil profiles on the ridgetops and alluvial build-Up in the narrow drainages. Recent land management practices occurring in the project corridor include the commercial planting of pine, which serves, in part, to impede the erosional processes. In February 1980, under agreement with Duke Power, the Institute conducted a background review and a 25% reconnaissance field survey (Chapters 2 and 3). The survey design involved systematic subsurface shovel probes and the collection of artifacts, but no test excava­ tions. The reconnaissance survey located two prehistoric sites, one historic site, and two isolated finds. All three sites will be impacted by the proposed construction. None of these sites is recom­ mended for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (Chapter 4). A second field investigation and subsequent assessment was under­ taken in September 1981 on the Cherokee Ford Ironworks National Regis­ ter property. The corridor crosses this National Register property at its northernmost extension. The archeological assessment recommends, if possible, a realignment west of the known isolated blast furnace and canal or the development of a preservation plan incorporating protective landscaping, fencing, and/or stablilization for the ruin (Chapter 5).