DOCSLIB.ORG

Archaeological Testing of 38Rd1082, Kiva Construction Project, Richland County, South Carolina

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Archaeological Testing of 38Rd1082, Kiva Construction Project, Richland County, South Carolina ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING OF 38RD1082, KIVA CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, RICHLAND COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA CHICORA RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 232 © 2001 by Chicora Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or transcribed in any fQrm or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherWise without prior permission of Chicora Foundation, Inc. except for brief quotations used in reviews. Full credit must be given to the authors, publisher, and project sponsor. ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING OF 38RD1082, KIVA CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, RICHLAND COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA Prepared By: Michael Trinkley, Ph.D. Prepared For: Ms. Rebecca Miles, CEO Mental Health Association in South Carolina 1823 Gadsden Street Columbia, SC 29201 Chicora Foundation Research Series 232 Chicora Foundation, Inc. PO Box 8664 c 861 Arbutus Drive Columbia, South Carolina 29202-8664 803/787-6910 Email: [email protected] October 30, 1997 rl'his n.'port is printed on pern1anent paper 00 ABSTRACT ·rhis study reports on archaeological stains or other disturbances. No vertical testing at 38RD1082. 'll1is site was first reported as stratigraphy was apparent in this work, with both a scatter of lithic n1aterials encountered during Early Archaic and Late Archaic materials co­ construction of t\\'O concrete pads for aparttnent occurring in the san1e zone of dense remains. units. Situated north of the ('ity of ('olurnhia, just Horizontal stratigraphy, while difficult to outsi<lc Blythe\vood, the site \Vas found on a ridge conclusively identify in the testing, is possible. The nose currently wooded in 1nixed harlhvoods and investigations, however, failed to identify any p111cs. features an<l no concentrations of materials were identified in the units excavated. Faunal material An archaeological survey of the site is present only as small fragments of calcined bone. revealed a large quantity of artifacts, at least son1c Ethnobotanical material, while present, is widely of which were reported to he found at depths of dispersed and lacks clear cultural contexts. nearly 2.6 feet below grade. This survey consisted of the excavation of 13 shovel tests. ·rhe site was lbe presence of a number of worked found to measure ahout 165 by 500 feet and lithic specintens, as well as abundant secondary and ntaterials were recovered spanning the J\rchail· tertiary flakes, suggests that the site may represent Period. Several sherds, representative of the the loci of repeated encampments. There is little Woodland, were also recovered, although this indication of priniary reduction, although l'Ontponcnt scented n1uch less well dcfinc<l. resharpening and tool nlaintenance activities seem comn1on. As a result of the initial survey, the site \vas evaluated as potentially eligible for inclusion The investigation of the site also explored on the National llegister of 1-listoric Places. the disturbance which had already occurred, as well Additional testing was reco1nn1cn<led by the as the additional activities anticipated at the 1.:onsultant perfornting the initial survey. construction site. Although there has been considerable earth n1ovement throughout the 1.5 C~hicora Foundation \Vas retained to acre area, cut and fill areas appear about equal in ":on<luct additional testing of the site, which after volume, although the fill covers a greater surface consultation \Vith the State 1-listoric Preservation area. Even in the cut areas there appear to be Office was lirnitcd to two 5-foot units, one in each intact cultural remains, although they do occur pad area, and four 2-foot units, placed in the higher in the profile. posited site core. I::ach test \Vas excavated by <:1 con1hination of natural stratigraphy and arbitrary The proposed construction activities are 0.5 foot levels. litnited to the excavation of a 6-inch electrical service line, a 6-inch water line, and the placement ·rhese tests revealed the presence of t:arly of waste lines to a septic field (which is to located Archaic (Taylor), Middle Archaic (Morrow off the site). As a result, additional damage to the Mountain), l.ate Archaic (Savannah River site is expected to be limited and well-defined. Stemmed and Small Savannah River Stemmed), and Woodland (Yadkin pottery) materials. The The materials present at the site do not excavations, however, revealed that all materials appear to support the site's eligibility for inclusion \VCrl· confined prin1arily to tlu.· upper 1.5 feet. on the National Register of Historic Places. The When ntaterials \Vere found deeper they \Vere absence of vertical stratigraphy, the uncertainty of ahnost ahvays associated \Vith l'learly visible tree horizontal stratigraphy, the failure to identify features, the absence of culturally affiliated cthnohotanical ren1ains, and the highly 111iucralized nature of the sn1all quantities of fauna I n1atcrial all suggest that data sets at the site arc li111ited and not likely to he able to address significant research questions. It also appears that the proposed activities \viii have n1inin1al in1pact on the data sets which arc present. Further, the testing conducted at the site has obtained an excellent sa111ple or those ntatcrials for con1pariso11 to other fall line Archaic sites. As a result, no additional 111anagen1ent activities are reco111n1ended at 38RD1082. There is, of course, the possibility that additional resources will be identified during construction. Crews should be ntade aware that if pottery, arrowheads, concentrations of bricks, or the presence of hones are found in the project area, ground disturbing work should be suspended until the finds can be assessed by either the project archaeologist or the State Historic Preservation Office. II TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures iv List of Tables iv Acknowledgments v Introduction 1 Background 1 Goals and Methods 3 Curation 6 Environmental Background 7 Physiography 7 Geology and Soils 8 Clilnate 9 Floristics 9 Prehistoric E111•iro111ne11t 11 Prehistoric Synopsis 13 Prehistoric Qpen 1ieiv 13 Previous Archaeological Studies and Research Orie11tatio11 19 Archaeological Testing 25 Methodologv 25 Findings 30 Conclusions 41 Site Eiialuation 41 Recon1111e11da lions 42 Sources Cited 45 iii LIST OF FIGURES 1·\g.Url~S I. Clcneral area nf the projecl tract in Richland County 2 Project lract on the Hlythewood US<TS topographic map 4 3. View of open fnres\s on tlw wcsll'rn slope of lhc sitt· area 10 .\. 1\rca on the ridg.ctop cleart·d of Vt'gl'tation 10 (icnmcralizcd cultural scqucnct'. for South Carolina 14 I>. Test Pit 2 in the southern pad 26 7. Eastern edge of the site showing. cul and fill areas 26 ~- Top of the ridge al 38RDI0~2 27 9. Cleaning. ·rest Pit 2 27 10. Plan view of the excavations 28 11. Profiles of excavateJ units 32 12. Test Pit I excavated 33 13. 'fest Pit 2 t~xcavated 33 14. Examples of li1hics and pottery recn\'l'rt'li frotu 3f;RD10g2 37 LIST OF TABLES Tahle I. 1\rtifact counts from the original survey 21 2. Sand. silt. and clay content of soils in Tt•<;t Pit 1 34 ·'· Materials recovered hy Deplh 34 4. Materials recovered from 31'RDIOR2 35 '· Projectile points recovered from 38RD10~2 36 IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I \Vant to thank Mr. l)an I .igon for his received the level of investigation that it so richly ~ssistancc <luring the course or this projc<.·t. lie deserved. I also appreciate the efforts of Ms. Barile showed \vhat can only he described as exceptional and Ms. Rachel Campo, who were responsible for interest in the archaeological rcsourct's of the cataloging the collection under the supervision of project area, first halting his project, calling the Ms. Hacker. The initial field map was draft by Ms. site to the attention of the archaeological Barile and was transformed into the computer con1n1unity, and then patiently \Vaiting as the site generated graphic by Ms. Hacker. All of these \Vas explored in t\vo different stages over the efforts, absolutely essential to the production of course of several 1nonths. We realize that these this study, are appreciated. delays cost n1011ey and \Vt' arc very appreciative of his continued patience and support. Likewise it is in1portant to thank the staff of the Mental l·lcalth Association in South Carolina, whose dients will ultimately use the housing, both for their interest and also patience as the \vork progressed. We also \Vant to thank those rt..'sponsihlc for overseeing the \\'Ork at the S.C. J·lousing Authority, as \VCIJ as the U.S. f)epart111ent of llnusing and lJrhan f)cvelnpn1ent, \vho have funded the project. Mr. Keith l)crting, at the S.C'. Institute of J\rchcteology and Anthropology assisted US\Vith site recordation, especially sorting out previously recorded site data. We thank hint for his speedy and thorough work. Ms. Sharon Pekrul was rt.;'sponsiblc for assisting us \vith curation at the S.C. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, and again we offer our sincere appreciation for her tin1c and efforts. ()r. Jonathan Leader \Vas very kind to sharL' his insight concerning the site and evaluation of its potential significance. Finally, Mr. Niels 'raylor, staff archaeologist \\•ith the State llistoric Preservation Office, ovcrsa\v the revie\v of the..' project in that office and provided considerable tin1c and effort to go over the site data and explore different options and techniques that were both appropriatl' for the rcsourcL'S an<l also fair to the developer of the property. 'l'ltc field cre\v for this project \Vas Ms. Kerri llarile and Ms. Debi l·Ia<..·kcr. I appreciate their hard work and efforts to ensure that the site v INTRODUCTION Background Preservation Office (SHPO) of the site and it was determined that the project involved federal J\rchacological site 3Xlll)J()~2 is situated funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and in northern llichland (~ounty about 15 1nilL·s north Urban Development, administered through the of ('olu111hia and ahnut .'.\ tnilcs c~1st of Blythc\vood S.C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Archaeological Testing at Allenbrook (9Fu286), Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, Roswell, Georgia
    ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING AT ALLENBROOK (9FU286), CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, ROSWELL, GEORGIA Chicora Research Contribution 547 ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING AT ALLENBROOK (9FU286), CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, ROSWELL, GEORGIA Prepared By: Michael Trinkley, Ph.D. Debi Hacker Prepared For: National Park Service Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area 1978 Island Ford Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 30350 Contract No. P11PC50748 ARPA Permit No. CHAT 2012-001 CHICORA RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 547 Chicora Foundation, Inc. PO Box 8664 Columbia, SC 29202 803-787-6910 www.chicora.org December 3, 2012 This report is printed on permanent paper ∞ MANAGEMENT SUMMARY The investigations were conducted in saprolite rock that was designated Level 2 and compliance with ARPA Permit CHAT 2012-001 extended from 0.07 to 0.17m bs. This zone under contract with the National Park Service to represented fill and no artifacts were identified. examine archaeological features that may be associated with the foundation wall of the Level 3 was slightly deeper, extending Allenbrook House (9FU286, CHAT-98) and from 0.17 to 0.35m and consisted of identical determine if archaeological evidence of a previous compact mottled red (2.5YR 4/4) clay and porch on the south façade of the structure could saprolite rock that graded into a red clay (2.5YR be identified. 4/6) and saprolite rock. This fill was also sterile. The work was conducted by Dr. Michael Level 4 extended from 0.35 to 0.48m and Trinkley, RPA (who was on-site during the entire consisted of red clay (2.5YR 4/6) and saprolite project), Ms. Debi Hacker, and Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Annotated Atlatl Bibliography John Whittaker Grinnell College Version June 20, 2012
    1 Annotated Atlatl Bibliography John Whittaker Grinnell College version June 20, 2012 Introduction I began accumulating this bibliography around 1996, making notes for my own uses. Since I have access to some obscure articles, I thought it might be useful to put this information where others can get at it. Comments in brackets [ ] are my own comments, opinions, and critiques, and not everyone will agree with them. The thoroughness of the annotation varies depending on when I read the piece and what my interests were at the time. The many articles from atlatl newsletters describing contests and scores are not included. I try to find news media mentions of atlatls, but many have little useful info. There are a few peripheral items, relating to topics like the dating of the introduction of the bow, archery, primitive hunting, projectile points, and skeletal anatomy. Through the kindness of Lorenz Bruchert and Bill Tate, in 2008 I inherited the articles accumulated for Bruchert’s extensive atlatl bibliography (Bruchert 2000), and have been incorporating those I did not have in mine. Many previously hard to get articles are now available on the web - see for instance postings on the Atlatl Forum at the Paleoplanet webpage http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/forums/26/t/WAA-Links-References.html and on the World Atlatl Association pages at http://www.worldatlatl.org/ If I know about it, I will sometimes indicate such an electronic source as well as the original citation. The articles use a variety of measurements. Some useful conversions: 1”=2.54
    [Show full text]
  • Archeology Inventory Table of Contents
    National Historic Landmarks--Archaeology Inventory Theresa E. Solury, 1999 Updated and Revised, 2003 Caridad de la Vega National Historic Landmarks-Archeology Inventory Table of Contents Review Methods and Processes Property Name ..........................................................1 Cultural Affiliation .......................................................1 Time Period .......................................................... 1-2 Property Type ...........................................................2 Significance .......................................................... 2-3 Theme ................................................................3 Restricted Address .......................................................3 Format Explanation .................................................... 3-4 Key to the Data Table ........................................................ 4-6 Data Set Alabama ...............................................................7 Alaska .............................................................. 7-9 Arizona ............................................................. 9-10 Arkansas ..............................................................10 California .............................................................11 Colorado ..............................................................11 Connecticut ........................................................ 11-12 District of Columbia ....................................................12 Florida ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Whittaker-Annotated Atlbib July 31 2014
    1 Annotated Atlatl Bibliography John Whittaker Grinnell College version of August 2, 2014 Introduction I began accumulating this bibliography around 1996, making notes for my own uses. Since I have access to some obscure articles, I thought it might be useful to put this information where others can get at it. Comments in brackets [ ] are my own comments, opinions, and critiques, and not everyone will agree with them. I try in particular to note problems in some of the studies that are often cited by others with less atlatl knowledge, and correct some of the misinformation. The thoroughness of the annotation varies depending on when I read the piece and what my interests were at the time. The many articles from atlatl newsletters describing contests and scores are not included. I try to find news media mentions of atlatls, but many have little useful info. There are a few peripheral items, relating to topics like the dating of the introduction of the bow, archery, primitive hunting, projectile points, and skeletal anatomy. Through the kindness of Lorenz Bruchert and Bill Tate, in 2008 I inherited the articles accumulated for Bruchert’s extensive atlatl bibliography (Bruchert 2000), and have been incorporating those I did not have in mine. Many previously hard to get articles are now available on the web - see for instance postings on the Atlatl Forum at the Paleoplanet webpage http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/forums/26/t/WAA-Links-References.html and on the World Atlatl Association pages at http://www.worldatlatl.org/ If I know about it, I will sometimes indicate such an electronic source as well as the original citation, but at heart I am an old-fashioned paper-lover.
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of Lithic Extraction Technology at a Metavolcanic Quarry in the Slate Belt of North Carolina
    An Assessment of Lithic Extraction Technology at a Metavolcanic Quarry in the Slate Belt of North Carolina by Lawrence E. Abbott, Jr. Abstract The Three Hat Mountain Quarry, 31DV51, is located in Davidson County, North Carolina. Prehistoric groups used this quarry as a rich and variable source of metavolcanic raw materials, which included rhyodacites and tuffs. Excavations at the site revealed stratified deposits of cultural materials. This paper will present a comparative assessment of these materials and will address issues regarding changes in extraction technology, reduction strategies, and modes of distribution over time. Particular attention will be given to how the differences in raw material types across the quarry may have affected the technological aspects of procurement and initial processing strategies. In North Carolina we are both blessed and cursed at the same time. We are blessed in the fact that a major portion of the Piedmont Region of the state lies within the Carolina Slate Belt. The Slate Belt is a region of numerous metavolcanic outcrops, which supported prehistoric people with an abundance of knappable raw materials. As a result, the area is littered with prehistoric quarry sites. We are cursed in the fact that very little work has been undertaken on any of these quarries. Quarry studies in North Carolina is still in its infancy (Abbott 2003). Few detailed studies have been made at specific quarries. In this paper I will attempt to address several issues related to quarry studies, lithic resource procurement and distribution based on some of the information at hand. I will focus my discussion on a specific quarry site (31DV51, Three Hat Mountain) located in Davidson County, North Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • A Complex Web of History and Artifact Types in the Early Archaic Southeast
    A COMPLEX WEB OF HISTORY AND ARTIFACT TYPES IN THE EARLY ARCHAIC SOUTHEAST By KARA BRIDGMAN SWEENEY A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013 1 © 2013 Kara Bridgman Sweeney 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Most deserving of my acknowledgment are the indigenous American groups who created the archaeological record that forms the basis of this research. I hope that this document will serve as a partial history of the Early Archaic, which so long has been relegated to “prehistory.” I would very much like to thank the numerous individuals who shared their artifact collections and local knowledge with me. I especially want to express appreciation to those artifact collectors who make a concerted effort to share the information they have with archaeologists, and who assist in the recording of archaeological sites. In Alabama, I thank Ed and Richard Kilborn. I would also like to thank Don Marley and Steve Lamb for their contributions, as well as one individual who asked that he not be named in my dissertation (in this document, I have called him “X,” as requested). In South Carolina, I thank Doug Boehme, Darby, Kevin, and Ted Hebert, Gary LeCroy, Earline Mitchum, George Neil, Jimmy Skinner, and Larry Strong. Becky Shuler of the Elloree Heritage Museum and Barbara Butler of the South Carolina Bank and Trust of Elloree deserve thanks for allowing access to artifact collections at their repositories. In Georgia, I thank Danny Greenway, Seaborn Roberts, Danny Ely, Emery Fennell, John Arena, Larry Meadows, Marvin Singletary, and John Whatley.
    [Show full text]
  • Paleoindian Period Archaeology of Georgia
    University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report No. 28 Georgia Archaeological Research Design Paper No.6 PALEOINDIAN PERIOD ARCHAEOLOGY OF GEORGIA By David G. Anderson National Park Service, Interagency Archaeological Services Division R. Jerald Ledbetter Southeastern Archeological Services and Lisa O'Steen Watkinsville October, 1990 I I I I i I, ...------------------------------- TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURES ..................................................................................................... .iii TABLES ....................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................. v I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Organization of this Plan ........................................................... 1 Environmental Conditions During the PaleoIndian Period .................................... 3 Chronological Considerations ..................................................................... 6 II. PREVIOUS PALEOINDIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN GEORGIA. ......... 10 Introduction ........................................................................................ 10 Initial PaleoIndian Research in Georgia ........................................................ 10 The Early Flint Industry at Macon .......................................................... l0 Early Efforts With Private Collections
    [Show full text]
  • The Nochta Site: the Early^ Middle^ and Late Archaic Occupations
    The Nochta Site: The Early^ Middle^ and Late Archaic Occupations Michael J. Higgins with contributions by Andrew C. Fortier, Douglas K. Jackson, Kathryn E. Parker, and Mary Simon American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports AMERICAN BOTTOM ARCHAEOLOGY FAI-270 Site Reports Edited by Walthall Charles J. Bareis and James A. regions This multi-volume series on one of the-most significant archaeological Administration and in North America is co-sponsored by the Federal Highway report on excavation the Illinois Department of Transportation. The volumes floodplain of sites affected by the construction of Interstate Highway 270 on the across the of the Mississippi River in Monroe, St. Clair, and Madison counties river from St. Louis. of the anthropology department at the University Charles J. Bareis is a member Archaeologist of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and John A. Walthall is Chief actively involved for the Illinois Department of Transportation. Both have been in the excavations of the American Bottom. Volumes Now Available 1. The East St. Louis Stone Quarry Site Cemetery George R. Milner 2. The Florence Street Site K. Thomas E. Emerson, George R. Milner, and Douglas Jackson 3. The Missouri Pacific #2 Site Dale L. McElrath and Andrew C. Fortier 4. The Turner and DeMange Sites George R. Milner 5. The Mund Site Andrew C. Fortier, Fred A. Finney, and Richard B. Lacampagne 6. The BBB Motor Site Thomas E. Emerson and Douglas K. Jackson 7. The Julien Site George R. Milner 8. The Fish Lake Site Andrew C. Fortier, Richard B. Lacampagne, and Fred A. Finney 9. The Go-Kart North Site and The Dyroff and Levin Sites Andrew C.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Research Report #11 Figure 1
    NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURES IN THE PRECOLONIAL SOUTH Vincas P. Steponaitis Research Laboratories of Archaeology University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Contrary to what many people believe, Southern history does not begin 500 years ago with the Spanish exploration and subsequent incursions by missionaries, traders, and colonists. Rather, the South has a much longer history, one that stretches back at least twelve thousand years (Bense 1994; Smith 1986; Steponaitis 1986). This precolonial. Native history of the South—accessible principally through archaeological re- search—has been a fruitful area of inquiry for nearly two centuries. Indeed, many early-nineteenth-century residents of the Natchez District—including William Dunbar and Ben- jamin Wailes—took an active interest in the antiquities of this region and made written observations that arc still used by archaeologists today (Kennedy 1994; Sydnor 1938). My goal here is to review this ancient history in line with the second Historic Natchez Conference's theme, "Becoming Southern in Time and Place." The word "becoming" implies origins, and if we are to consider the origins of "Southernness," we must note that the South was a culturally distinctive region not only during the Colonial and American periods, but in precolonial times as well. At the time of first contact with Europeans, the Native Americans who lived in the South had a way of life that was recognizably different from that of the Northern and Western tribes. Early on, Euro-American observers recognized this difference by speaking of the Southern tribes as being more "civilized" than the rest. However ethnocentric and inappro- priate this description may have been, it did call attention to a very real distinction, which, as we shall see, had very deep historical roots.
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina Listings in the National Register of Historic Places As of 9/30/2015 Alphabetical by County
    North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov North Carolina Listings in the National Register of Historic Places as of 9/30/2015 Alphabetical by county. Listings with an http:// address have an online PDF of the nomination. Click address to view the PDF. Text is searchable in all PDFs insofar as possible with scans made from old photocopies. Multiple Property Documentation Form PDFs are now available at http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/MPDF-PDFs.pdf Date shown is date listed in the National Register. Alamance County Alamance Battleground State Historic Site (Alamance vicinity) 2/26/1970 http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/nr/AM0001.pdf Alamance County Courthouse (Graham ) 5/10/1979 http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/nr/AM0008.pdf Alamance Hotel (Burlington ) 5/31/1984 http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/nr/AM0613.pdf Alamance Mill Village Historic District (Alamance ) 8/16/2007 http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/nr/AM0537.pdf Allen House (Alamance vicinity) 2/26/1970 http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/nr/AM0002.pdf Altamahaw Mill Office (Altamahaw ) 11/20/1984 http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/nr/AM0486.pdf (former) Atlantic Bank and Trust Company Building (Burlington ) 5/31/1984 http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/nr/AM0630.pdf Bellemont Mill Village Historic District (Bellemont ) 7/1/1987 http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/nr/AM0040.pdf Beverly Hills Historic District (Burlington ) 8/5/2009 http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/nr/AM0694.pdf Hiram Braxton House (Snow Camp vicinity) 11/22/1993 http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/nr/AM0058.pdf Charles F. and Howard Cates Farm (Mebane vicinity) 9/24/2001 http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/nr/AM0326.pdf
    [Show full text]
  • Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
    THE POST-ARCHAIC OCCUPATION OF CENTRAL SOUTH CAROLINA Stuart, George Edwin ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; 1975; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global pg. n/a INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the origin.al submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may app·ear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may hav~ moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
    [Show full text]
  • Excavations at a Portion of the Secessionville Archaeological Site (38Ch1456), James Island, Charleston County, South Carolina
    EXCAVATIONS AT A PORTION OF THE SECESSIONVILLE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE (38CH1456), JAMES ISLAND, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA ~~ ,---~_tlll ~_--,· CHICORA FOUNDATION RESEARCH SERIES 52 EXCAVATIONS AT A PORTION OF THE SECESSIONVILLE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE (38CH1456), JAMES ISLAND, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA Research Series 52 Michael Trinkley Debi Hacker With Contributions By: Cheryl Claassen Arthur Cohen Douglas S. Frink S. Homes Hogue Irwin Rovner Michael S. Smith Chicora Foundation, Inc. P.O. Box 8664 • 861 Arbutus Drive Columbia, South Carolina 29202 8031787-6910 Email: [email protected] June 1997 ISSN 0882-2041 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publications Data Trinkley, Michael. Excavations at a pOltion of the Secessionville archaeological site (38CH1456), James Island, Charleston County, South Carolina / Michael Trinkley. Debi Hacker ; with contributions by Cheryl Claassen. ret al.I p. cm. -- (Research series, ISSN 0882-2041 ; 52) "June 1997." Includes bibliographical references. 1. Secessionville (S.C.)--Antiquities. 2. Excavations (Archaeology)--South Carolina--Secessionville. 3. Indians of North America--South Carolina--Secessionville--Antiquities. 4. United States--History--Civil War, 1861-1865--Antiquities. 5. Military camps--South Carolina--Secessionville--History--19th century. I. Hacker, Debi. II. Claassen, Cheryl, 1953- III. Chicora Foundation. IV. Title. V. Series: Research series (Chicora Foundation) ; 52. F279.S39T74 1998 975.T915--dc21 97-46639 CIP Copyright @ 1997 by Chicora Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transcribed in any form without the permission of Chicora Foundation, except for blief quotations used in reviews. Full credit must be given to the author and the publisher. Printed in the United States of America. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Infomlation Sciences - Permanence of Paper for Printed I.ihrary Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.
    [Show full text]