Management Summary of an Archaeological Survey of a Portion of the Willbrook Development, Georgetown County, South Carolina
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF A PRTION OF THE WILLBROOK DEVELOPMENT, GEORGETOWN COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 16 © 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 form 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. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF A PORTION OF THE WILLBROOK DEVELOPMENT, GEORGETOWN COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA Prepared For: Mr. Steven Goggans Litchfield Architectural Division P.O. Drawer 1859 Pawleys Island, S.C. Prepared By: Michael Trinkley Chicora Research Contribution 16 Chicora Foundation, Inc. P.O. Box 8664 Columbia, South Carolina J.•--- .,r::: ,nn.., Introduction This study was conducted by Dr. Michael Trinkley of Chicora Foundation, Inc. for Mr. Steven Goggans, Manager of The Litchfield Company Architectural Division, which is developing the approximately 2400 acre Willbrook Plantation tract. This property is situated about 17 miles northeast of Georgetown and about 5 miles southwest of Murrells Inlet in Georgetown County. The tract is bounded by the Waccamaw River to the west, Brookgreen Gardens to the north, and various other properties to the south and east. The tract partially fronts U.S. 17 on its east border and is bisected by the old Kings Highway (Figure 1). The archaeological surveys and evaluation of the Willbrook tract were begun in 1984 and continued through 1986 by Dr. Larry Lepionka. A series of reports have been prepared (Lepionka 1984, 1985, 1986), although the surveys have not been accepted by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) as adequate compliance studies. Development, however, has continued.unabated in the interim. As a result, Chicora was approached by The Litchfield Company in March 1987 with the request to prepare a·compliance report on the property which would be acceptable to the SHPO and a contract was entered into in April to review the previous archaeological work conducted on the tract, incorporate spot checks of the survey tract, re-evaluate all known archaeological resources, conserve and curate the collections, and prepare a new report. Within the development boundaries is a 9 acre tract which is slated to immediate golf development. On this tract Lepionka located three archaeological sites -- 38GE294, 295, and 296. This management report involves an evaluation not of the entire tract, but rather of this area of immediate concern. The boundaries of this survey area are shown on Figures 1 and 2 and the tract is situated in an area referred to by Lepionka (1986: 39, 83) as the "South Oatland Sector." The study tract is a peninsula bordered by Wacammaw River rice fields to the west and South Oatland Creek to the east. This area will be extensively impacted by golf course development, including major grading. This will result in considerable land alteration and potential damage to archaeological and historical resources which may exist in the project area. This summary is intended to provide a synopsis of the • .... ~ 9;~ -~·'--"-~~ ~ ,, N "II ' . y-.; ;S·t'~-: .:; .t3,~···- ,r_':f'. - Ii~.,~--.t - t~·i:.r;i ·.. ;,..,... ~ ~ 1 ;;::-·~'~: - ....~ SIT[ (39GE) :-:.. ::---"-:~..:::.-,.._:~ 1-~~:-~~; ~· ~qodvm. - -o" -;i~l•nd - ,_\:/. ,-- - -I -----" ·~=- C:ClrfTOIJR IHTERVM. <'Cl F'W Figure 1. Portions of the Brookgreen, Magnolia Beach, Plantersville, and Waverly Mills USGS topographic maps showing the Willbrook Plantation area. ~· CAUSEWAY SOUTH OAT LAND DRAINAGE RICE • LEPIONKA TESTS FIELDS ROAD •CHICORA SHOVEL TESTS 0 100 200 300 FT Figure 2. Archaeological sites 38GE294 and 38GE295. 3 to be a final report. This 9 acre tract and its associated sites will be more fully discussed in the final report for the entire 2400 acre development. Based on discussions with the developer, Dr. Lepionka, and staff persons of the South Carolina Department of Archives and History on March 31 and April 7, 1987, it was determined that the scope of work for this study would involve field visits to the three sites, further subsurface testing at 38GE296, a re-exam ination of the collections, and the production of a management summary for these three sites so the compliance review could be carried forward while the final study was being prepared. A total of two weeks (May 4-15, 1987) were spent in the field reviewing the known sites and spot checking for additional sites. In addition, a historian is completing an evaluation of the historical records (begun May 1) for the tract. Those collections provided by Lepionka are being analyzed, conserved, and cataloged (begun May 11, 1987). This report, including associated laboratory studies, was conducted May 11-22, 1987. The author of this summary was in the field during the entire study and was assisted by Ms. Ramona Grunden. The laboratory studies are being conducted by Ms. Debi Hacker and the author. While final arrangements have not yet been made, The Charleston Museum has agreed to curate these collections and field notes. Site numbers have been assigned by the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of South Carolina. Effective Environment Georgetown County is situated in the northern lower coastal plain of South Carolina and is bounded on the east by about 37 miles of irregular Atlantic Ocean shoreline (including marsh and barrier islands such as Pawleys and Litchfield). The mainland topography consists of subtle undulations in the landscape char acteristic of ridge and bay topography of beach ridge plains. Elevations in the county range from sea level to about 75 feet MSL (Mathews et al. 1980:132). The county is drained by five significant river systems, four of which (the Waccamaw, Black, Pee Dee, and Santee rivers) have significant freshwater discharge and only one of which (the Sampit River) is dominated by tidal action. Because of the low topography, however, many broad, low gradient interior drains (such as Oatland• Creek) are present as either extensions of tidal streams and rivers or flooded bays and swales. There are many diverse wetland communities influenced by either the freshwater drainage (dominant in the study area) or tidal flows. Upland vegetation in the County is primarily pine or mixed hardwood and pine, although the study tract has had almost all of the pine logged out within the last five years, leaving an artificially influenced hardwood community. In addition, extensive development has altered the vegetation through the reduction of understory and herbaceous plant~ and through the 4 construction of golf course facilities. Large areas of Georgetown county are in forest, with only 6.7% of the acreage being cultivated and 4.2% being urbanized (Mathews et al. 1980:132). The geology of the county is characteristic of the coastal plain, with unconsolidated, water-laid beds of sands and clays overlying thick beds of soft marl. The Willbrook tract is characterized by nine soil series: Centenary, Chipley, Hobonny, Johnston, Lakeland, Leon, Rutlege, Wakulla, and Yauhannah. The peninsula which is the subject of this study, however, is dominated by Wakulla fine sands (Stuckey l982:Map 26). Wakulla soils are somewhat excessively drained, have a low organic matter content, and have a low available water capacity. The soils are so droughty that they are poorly suited to row crops (Stuckey 1982:13). The survey tract is characterized by elevations ranging from about 8 feet MSL adjacent to the South Oatland drainage to the east and the Waccamaw rice field to the west to about 13 feet MSL at the ridge crest. There is a gradual slope down to the marsh along the west shore, although a more pronounced bank is found to the north and east. Areas of the peninsula have been cleared and farmed during the early twentieth century, whi.le other areas have been in a mixed hardwood forest. Today the area has been largely opened up with only a light fringe of vegetation along the shorelines still remaining; denser herbaceous vegetation occurs on the slope to the creek at the north edge of the peninsula. River Road runs along the edge of the tract, adjacent to the Waccamaw River rice fields (Figure 2) . Backqround Research Several previous published archaeological studies are available for the Georgetown area to provide background, including Drucker's (1980) work at Brookgreen Gardens immediately north of Willbrook, Drucker and Jackson's (1984) research at Minim Island about 23 miles to the south-southwest, Michie's (1984) survey of the Wachesaw and Richmond Hill plantations, about 6 miles to the northeast, and the work by Trinkley et al. (1983) also at Wachesaw. Surprisingly little published archaeology has been conducted in this area, although the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology site files reveal a number of relatively small, shell and nonshell middens found almost exclusively adjacent to a creek or swamp. Few sites are found in the interior, away from marsh or freshwater habitats. Most sites, based on the previous studies, are found on excessive to well drained soils, although a few are consistently found in areas which are poorly drained (which suggests that factors other than drainage may occasionally have determined aboriginal settlement location) • Work by South and Hartley (1980) suggests that major historic site complexes will be found on high ground adjacent to a deep water access. Plantation main houses tend to be located on the 5 highest and best drained soils, while slave settlements may be found in intermediate or even poorly drained areas. Extractive or milling sites will be located near necessary raw materials and where the products may be easily transported in and out. Healthful conditions and drainage are not usually significant considerations. Based on these previous studies and the presented data on the soils and drainage typical of the survey area, the peninsula is clearly an area of high archaeological potential.