SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS

I-002154 Angel Tract Mine Angel Tract, LLC Hampton County, TMS 188-00-00-030 Latitude: 32.7088 Longitude: -80.9132

Reports submitted for Requested Angel Tract Mine page 1) Cultural Resource Identification Survey of the Angel Tract 2 2) Threatened and Endangered Species Survey Report 74 3) Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Determination Request and maps 92 Cultural Resource Identification Survey of the Angel Tract

Hampton County, South Carolina

Final Report

March 2010 Cultural Resource Identification Survey of the Angel Tract Hampton County, South Carolina final Report

Prepared for:

Angel Tract, LLC Estill, South Carolina

c/o

Wise Batten, Inc. Estill, South Carolina

Prepared by:

Charles F. Philips Jr. Senior Historian

and

Joshua N. Fletcher, RPA Principal Investigator

March 2010

Brockington and Associates, Inc. Atlanta • Austin • Charleston • Elizabethtown • Pensacola • Savannah ii Brockington and Associates Abstract

In December 2009, Brockington and Associates, Inc., coupled with observations of each of our survey areas conducted a cultural resource identification survey of the Angel Tract during our initial field investigations. (CRIS) of the 1,853-acre Angel Tract in Hampton Approximately 1,099 acres of the Angel Tract possess a County, South Carolina. The investigations were high potential to contain cultural resources. Transects conducted for Angel Tract, LLC. This survey was in the high-potential areas should be spaced at 30-meter requested in compliance with the Memorandum of intervals, with shovel tests excavated at 30-meter Understanding (MOU) between the South Carolina intervals along each transect. Approximately 468 acres Department of Commerce (SCDOC) and the South of the Angel Tract possess a low potential to contain Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SCSHPO) cultural resources. Transects in the low-potential areas regarding the implementation of guidelines for CRISs should be spaced at 30-meter intervals, with shovel tests conducted for the South Carolina Site Certification excavated at 60-meter intervals along each transect. Program. The purpose of the SCDOC Site Certification Investigators should visually inspect the ground surface Program is to identify and clarify issues pertaining to where possible. No shovel tests will be excavated in the development of a specific commercial or industrial wetlands areas. site. This report presents initial information regarding cultural resources that may be affected by potential development of the Angel Tract Certification Site, as well as recommendations for possible additional cultural resource survey investigations of the Angel Tract. The CRIS of the Angel Tract included background research and archaeological survey. There are no structures within or adjacent to the tract; therefore, an architectural survey was not necessary. Investigators identified six sites (38HA1097– 38HA1102) and three isolated finds (Isolates 1–3) during the CRIS of the Angel Tract. We recommend sites 38HA1097, 38HA1101, and 38HA1102 and Isolates 1–3 not eligible for the NRHP. No further management consideration of sites 38HA1097, 38HA1101, and 38HA1102 and the isolated finds is warranted. We recommend sites 38HA1098, 38HA1099, and 38HA1100 potentially eligible for the NRHP. If sites 38HA1098, 38HA1099, and 38HA1100 cannot be preserved in place, we recommend that evaluative testing be conducted to determine definitively the NRHP eligibility of each site. One of the purposes of the CRIS, as detailed in the MOU, is to provide recommendations for possible additional cultural resource survey investigations of the Certification Site. As detailed in Chapter 3, we base our recommendations for possible additional cultural resource survey investigations of the Angel Tract on research conducted prior to our field investigations,

Brockington and Associates iii iv Brockington and Associates Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mr. Wise Batten of Wise Batten, Inc., for his assistance during this project. Charlie Philips served as historian; he conducted the background research for the project tract. Damon Jackson conducted research on the ArchSite program. Paige Wagoner conducted research of previously identified cultural resources at the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology and the South Carolina Department of Archives and History. Kong Cheong, Jimmy Lefebre, Patrick Severts, and Caitlin Uhl completed the archaeological survey. In the laboratory, Lauren Andersen conducted the artifact processing and analysis, under the direction of Nicole Isenbarger. Damon Jackson and Allison Wind prepared the graphics for this document. Jennifer Salo provided editorial assistance. Jennifer Salo and Michael Walsh produced the report.

Brockington and Associates v vi Brockington and Associates table of contents

Abstract...... iii

Acknowledgments...... v

LIST OF FIGURES...... viii

LIST OF Tables...... ix

1.0 Introduction and Methods of Investigation...... 1 1.1 Introduction...... 1 1.2 Methods of Investigation...... 1 1.2.1 Project Objective...... 1 1.2.2 Background Research...... 1 1.2.3 Field Investigations...... 3 1.2.4 Laboratory Analysis and Curation...... 7 1.2.5 Assessing NRHP Eligibility...... 7

2.0 Environmental and Cultural Overview...... 11 2.1 environmental Setting...... 11 2.2 Brief History of the Land Ownership of the Angel Tract ...... 11 2.3 Previous Cultural Resources Investigations Near the angel Tract...... 18

3.0 Results and Recommendations...... 23 3.1 Results of the Field Investigations...... 23 3.1.1 Etheridge Parcel Area A...... 23 3.1.2 Etheridge Parcel Area B...... 24 3.1.3 Etheridge Parcel Area C...... 25 3.1.4 Etheridge Parcel Area D...... 26 3.1.5 Angel Parcel Area A...... 26 3.1.6 Angel Parcel Area B...... 28 3.1.7 Angel Parcel Area C...... 31 3.1.8 Angel Parcel Area D...... 34 3.1.9 Angel Parcel Area E...... 37 3.1.10 Angel Parcel Area F...... 38 3.1.11 Angel Parcel Area G...... 43 3.1.12 Angel Parcel Area H...... 48 3.2 summary and Management Recommendations...... 49

REFERENCES cited...... 51

Appendix a: Artifact Inventory

Brockington and Associates vii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Location of the Angel Tract and all identified cultural resources (USGS 1988 McPhersonville, SC quadrangle)...... 2 Figure 1.2 Locations of high- and low- potential areas within the Angel Tract, pre-field investigations...... 5 Figure 1.3 Locations of survey compartments, survey transects, wetlands, ponds, and all identified cultural resources within the Angel Tract...... 6 Figure 2.1 Location of the Angel Tract, key landowners ca. 1800, and potential cultural resources (USGS 1988 McPhersonville, SC and 1988 Yemassee, SC quadrangles)...... 12 Figure 2.2 A 2006 aerial photograph of the project area showing the old dam across the branch of Buckfield Backwater that enters the project tract (Google Earth 2006)...... 14 Figure 2.3 Approximate location of the Angel Tract on the 1825 Mills’ Atlas map of Beaufort District (Mills 1825)...... 15 Figure 2.4 Approximate location of the Angel Tract on the 1878 Stroeber map of Beaufort County (Stroeber 1878)...... 16 Figure 2.5 Approximate location of the Angel Tract on the 1918 US War Department map (US War Department 1920 Yemassee, SC quadrangle)...... 17 Figure 2.6 Approximate location of the Angel Tract on the 1938 South Carolina Highway Department road map of Hampton County (South Carolina Highway Department 1938)...... 19 Figure 2.7 A 1957 aerial photograph of the project area showing the old reservoir dam and drainage lines into Buckfield Backwater (USDA 1957)...... 20 Figure 2.8 Approximate location of the Angel Tract on the 1975 South Carolina Highway Department road map of Hampton County (South Carolina Highway Department 1975)...... 21 Figure 3.1 Typical view of Etheridge Parcel Area A...... 23 Figure 3.2 Typical view of Etheridge Parcel Area B...... 24 Figure 3.3 Typical view of Etheridge Parcel Area C...... 25 Figure 3.4 Typical view of Etheridge Parcel Area D...... 26 Figure 3.5 Typical view of Angel Parcel Area A...... 27 Figure 3.6 Typical view of Angel Parcel Area B...... 28 Figure 3.7 Plan and view of 38HA1099...... 30 Figure 3.8 Typical view of Angel Parcel Area C...... 31 Figure 3.9 Plan and view of 38HA1098...... 33 Figure 3.10 Typical view of Angel Parcel Area D...... 34 Figure 3.11 Plan and view of 38HA1097...... 36 Figure 3.12 Typical view of Angel Parcel Area E...... 37 Figure 3.13 Typical view of Angel Parcel Area F...... 38 Figure 3.14 Plan and view of 38HA1100...... 40 Figure 3.15 Plan and view of 38HA1101...... 42 Figure 3.16 Typical view of the northern portion of Angel Parcel Area G...... 44 Figure 3.17 Typical view of the central portion of Angel Parcel Area G...... 45 Figure 3.18 Typical view of the southern portion of Angel Parcel Area G...... 45 Figure 3.19 Plan and view of 38HA1102...... 47 Figure 3.20 Typical view of Angel Parcel Area H...... 48 Figure 3.21 High- and low-potential areas of the Angel Tract...... 50

viii Brockington and Associates LIST OF Tables

Table 3.1 Artifacts Recovered from 38HA1099...... 29 Table 3.2 Artifacts Recovered from 38HA1098...... 32 Table 3.3 Artifacts Recovered from 38HA1100...... 41 Table 3.4 Artifacts Recovered from 38HA1101...... 43 Table 3.5 Artifacts Recovered from 38HA1102...... 46

Brockington and Associates ix x Brockington and Associates 1.0 Introduction and Methods of Investigation

1.1 Introduction In December 2009, Brockington and Associates, Inc., 1–3 not eligible for the NRHP. No further management conducted a cultural resource identification survey consideration of sites 38HA1097, 38HA1101, and (CRIS) of the 1,853-acre Angel Tract in Hampton 38HA1102 and the isolated finds is warranted. We County, South Carolina. The investigations were recommend sites 38HA1098, 38HA1099, and 38HA1100 conducted for Angel Tract, LLC. This survey was potentially eligible for the NRHP. If sites 38HA1098, requested in compliance with the Memorandum of 38HA1099, and 38HA1100 cannot be preserved in place, Understanding (MOU) between the South Carolina we recommend that evaluative testing be conducted to Department of Commerce (SCDOC) and the South determine definitively the NRHP eligibility of each site. Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SCSHPO) The remainder of Chapter 1 describes the methods regarding the implementation of guidelines for CRISs employed during this survey. Chapter 2 presents a conducted for the South Carolina Site Certification brief overview of the natural setting of the project Program. The purpose of the SCDOC Site Certification tract, a brief history of the ownership of the tract, and Program is to identify and clarify issues pertaining to a summary of previously recorded cultural resources the development of a specific commercial or industrial near the Angel Tract. Chapter 3 presents results of site. This report presents initial information regarding the CRIS and the recommendations for management cultural resources that may be affected by potential of cultural resources on the project tract, as well as development of the Angel Tract Certification Site, as recommendations for possible additional cultural well as recommendations for possible additional cultural resource survey investigations of the Angel Tract. The resource survey investigations of the Angel Tract. artifact inventory is attached as Appendix A. The Angel Tract is located to the north and south of SC Route 68. The tract is bounded in all directions by private property. Figure 1.1 presents the location of the 1.2 Methods of Investigation Angel Tract and all identified cultural resources on the 1.2.1 Project Objective USGS 1988 McPhersonville, SC quadrangle. The purpose of the SCDOC Site Certification Program The CRIS of the Angel Tract included background is to identify and clarify issues pertaining to the research and archaeological survey. There are no development of a specific commercial or industrial structures within or adjacent to the tract; therefore, an site. This report presents initial information regarding architectural survey was not necessary. Charlie Philips cultural resources that may be affected by potential served as historian; he conducted the background development of the Angel Tract Certification Site. research for the project tract. Damon Jackson conducted Tasks performed to accomplish this objective include research on the ArchSite program. Paige Wagoner background research, field investigations, laboratory conducted research of previously identified cultural analysis, and the assessment of the NRHP eligibility of resources at the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology identified resources. Also, we present recommendations and Anthropology (SCIAA) and the South Carolina for possible additional cultural resource survey Department of Archives and History (SCDAH). Kong investigations of the Angel Tract. Methods employed for Cheong, Jimmy Lefebre, Patrick Severts, and Caitlin each of these tasks are described below. Uhl completed the archaeological survey. Investigators identified six sites (38HA1097– 1.2.2 Background Research 38HA1102) and three isolated finds (Isolates 1–3) The historian reviewed maps and plats at the Charleston, during the CRIS of the Angel Tract. We recommend Beaufort, and Hampton County Register of Mesne sites 38HA1097, 38HA1101, and 38HA1102 and Isolates Conveyance (RMC) offices in Charleston, Beaufort, and

Brockington and Associates 1 Figure 1.1 Location of the Angel Tract and all identified cultural resources (USGS 1988 McPhersonville, SC quadrangle).

2 Brockington and Associates Hampton. He also reviewed maps and plats at the South the 1970s. We employed soil conditions and historic Carolina Historical Society in Charleston, SCDAH in maps and plats to define areas of high and low potential Columbia, and Cooper Library at the University of South within the Angel Tract, following models used by Hill et Carolina in Columbia. Specifically, he reviewed aerial al. (1994), Poplin et al. (2002), and Baluha et al. (2003b) photographs of the area and historic maps including for portions of the Palmetto Bluff Tract; Fletcher and DeBrahm (1757), Mills (1825), Stroeber (1878), US War Harvey (1999), Bridgman et al. (2001), Bridgman and Department quadrangles, and South Carolina state road Harvey (2001), and Fletcher et al. (2001) for portions of maps, among others. Records in the Beaufort County the former Buckwalter Tract; Baluha et al. (2003a) for courthouse were destroyed during the Civil War, and the Argent East Tract; and Runyan and Philips (2006) thus a large gap exists in historical legal records between for the Anderson Tract. 1788 and 1865. These records are supplemented with We assumed that areas with anhydric soils (soil existing plats and maps in other archives as well as types described as moderately to excessively well personal family records. drained) where historic plats and maps indicate The GIS specialist consulted the ArchSite former facilities possess a high potential to contain program to determine if previously identified cultural archaeological sites. Areas with hydric soils away from resources are located within 0.25 miles of the Angel mapped facilities possess a low potential to contain Tract. Following the initial ArchSite research, the archaeological materials. historian conducted research at SCIAA and SCDAH We defined the soils within our model as anhydric to gain more information on nearby previous cultural (dry). All of these soils are well drained to poorly drained, resources investigations and the locations of known have agricultural capability class designations less than archaeological sites, historic architectural resources, or equal to III w with seasonal high water tables at 45+ and historic properties within 0.25 miles of the project cm below surface, and witness no or rare flooding. The tract. The locations and kinds of cultural resources other soils are all defined as hydric (wet). identified during these investigations were examined We defined spaces within and around the to determine if similar settings are present in the Angel anhydric soils as possessing a high potential to contain Tract. Previous cultural resources investigations and archaeological sites. All areas covered by hydric soils recorded cultural resources within and near the Angel are defined as low-potential areas. Some of these are Tract are discussed at the conclusion of Chapter 2. The extensive wetlands (e.g., Buckfield Backwater and its purposes of the background research were to identify tributaries, as well as areas of unnamed wetlands) where potential Pre- or Post-Contact archaeological sites and water stands most of the year. buildings and to develop a historical context that would To summarize, areas containing soils that are well assist in evaluating cultural resources. drained, somewhat well drained, moderately well drained, somewhat poorly drained, and poorly drained 1.2.3 Field Investigations were considered to have a high potential to contain Shovel testing and archaeological site and isolated cultural resources (Eppinette 1995). As presented in find delineation followed the guidelines contained Chapter 3, our field investigations revealed that some in South Carolina Standards and Guidelines for of the poorly drained soils were in fact inundated or Archaeological Investigations (COSCAPA et al. 2005). very wet/hydric, and should be considered to be low- Survey of the Angel Tract was conducted within the potential areas. parameters of areas with high or low potential to Additionally, areas within approximately 60 meters contain cultural resources. of each side of roads are considered to have a high potential to contain cultural resources. Areas of known Defining High-Potential Areas. Archaeologists have historic activity (based on archival research) also were attempted to predict the locations of archaeological considered to have a high potential to contain cultural sites on the Lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina since resources. The Angel Tract contains approximately

Brockington and Associates 3 282 acres of wetlands, as well as several man-made within the tract, we excavated an average of 1.25 shovel ponds totaling approximately four acres. Basically, tests per five uplands acres. when all factors were taken into consideration, nearly Each shovel test measured approximately 30 the entire tract contains a high potential to contain centimeters in diameter and was excavated until cultural resources. Investigators approached the field reaching culturally sterile soil, the depth of which varied investigations under this preliminary assumption. across the project tract. Sterile subsoil was generally Our field investigations changed this high- and low- encountered between 55 and 70 centimeters below potential model, to some degree. Figure 1.2 presents surface (cm bs). The maximum depth of sterile subsoil the high- and low- potential areas across the project reached in several shovel tests was approximately tract pre-field investigations. 80 cm bs. The fill from these tests was sifted through In order to accurately keep records of survey areas ¼-inch mesh hardware cloth. Investigators recorded within the large tract, investigators divided the tract information relating to each shovel test and soil profile into smaller compartments largely defined by dirt in field notebooks. This information included the roads, property boundaries, and wetlands. Investigators content (e.g., presence or absence of cultural materials) designated the survey compartments Areas A–D to the and context (e.g., soil color, texture, stratification) of north of SC Route 68 (Etheridge Parcel) and Areas A–H each test. Also noted was the environmental setting to the south of SC Route 68 (Angel Parcel) and noted near each shovel test (e.g., hardwoods, wetlands). The all conditions and identified cultural resources based on shovel test investigations were supplemented by visual these survey area designations. inspection along shovel test transects. All shovel tests In order to sample each of the survey areas, were backfilled upon completion. investigators traversed pedestrian transects spaced at An archaeological site is a locale yielding three 90-, 120-, and 150-meter intervals. Shovel tests were or more Pre- or Post-Contact artifacts within a excavated at varying intervals along each transect. 30-meter radius. Locales that produce fewer than three No shovel tests were excavated in wetlands areas. contemporaneous artifacts are identified as isolated finds Investigators also visually inspected the ground surface (COSCAPA et al. 2005). Also, obviously redeposited where possible. Figure 1.3 presents the locations of artifacts (even if greater than three in number) are survey compartments, survey transects, wetlands, typically defined as an isolated find rather than a site ponds, and all identified cultural resources within the unless there is a compelling reason for doing otherwise. Angel Tract. Investigators identified six sites (38HA1097–38HA1102) Per the MOU, we excavated no less than one shovel and three isolated finds (Isolates 1–3) during the test per five acres of land. Investigators excavated no survey of the Angel Tract. Archaeologists defined the shovel tests in areas containing wetlands or ponds. There boundaries of the isolated finds by excavating additional are approximately 1,567 acres of uplands within the shovel tests at reduced (7.5-meter) intervals around 1,853-acre tract. In the Etheridge Parcel, investigators the positive tests until two consecutive shovel tests excavated 30 shovel tests in Area A, 16 shovel tests in failed to produce artifacts. Archaeologists defined the Area B, 11 shovel tests in Area C, and 10 shovel tests in boundaries of the sites by excavating additional shovel Area D. In the Angel Parcel, investigators excavated 75 tests at reduced (15-meter) intervals around the positive shovel tests in Area A, 37 shovel tests in Area B, 15 shovel tests until two consecutive shovel tests failed to produce tests in Area C, 32 shovel tests in Area D, 19 shovel tests artifacts. The locations of all sites and isolated finds in Area E, 13 shovel tests in Area F, 122 shovel tests in were recorded with a Garmin eTrex Legend© handheld Area G, and 13 shovel tests in Area H. Across the 1,853- unit. TheG PS receiver was calibrated to the 1927 North acre tract, we excavated 393 shovel tests (excluding American Datum to coordinate with the appropriate additional site and isolated-find delineation shovel USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. The UTM coordinates tests), for an average of 1.06 shovel tests per five acres. obtained from the GPS readings were entered in the If we were only to consider the 1,567 acres of uplands ArcView software program. These coordinates were plotted on the digital USGS quadrangle for the tract.

4 Brockington and Associates Figure 1.2 Locations of high- and low- potential areas within the Angel Tract, pre-field investigations.

Brockington and Associates 5 Figure 1.3 Locations of survey compartments, survey transects, wetlands, ponds, and all identified cultural resources within the Angel Tract.

6 Brockington and Associates 1.2.4 Laboratory Analysis and Curation All recovered artifacts are transported to Brockington sources commonly used for the specific region. Historic and Associates, Inc.’s Mount Pleasant laboratory facility, artifacts are identified by material (e.g., ceramic, glass, where they are cleaned according to their material metal), type (e.g., creamware), color, decoration (e.g., composition and fragility, sorted, and inventoried. Most transfer-printed, slipped, etched, embossed), form (e.g., artifacts are washed in warm water with a soft-bristled bowl, mug), method of manufacture (e.g., molded, toothbrush. Artifacts that are fragile, have sooting, or wrought), production date range, and intended function are to be used for chemical analyses are not washed (e.g., tableware, personal, clothing). The primary but left to air-dry and, if needed, lightly brushed. Each sources used are Noël Hume (1969) and the Charleston separate archaeological context from within each site Museum’s type collection. Additional historic ceramic (surface collection, shovel test, test unit, scrape) is sources include Dieringer and Dieringer (2001) and assigned a specific provenience number. The artifacts Slesin et al (1997). The Parks Canada Glass Glossary from each provenience are separated by artifact type, (Jones and Sullivan 1985), Lorrain (1968), and Wilson using published artifact type descriptions from sources (1981) are used to identify bottle glass. Nelson (1977) that are pertinent to the project area. Artifact types are is an additional source used to identify nails. Clothing- assigned a separate catalog number and analyzed, and related artifacts are identified using Sprague (2002) and quantity and weight are recorded. Certain artifacts tend White (2005). Modified South Inventories (Wheaton to decompose through time, resulting in the recovery of and Garrow 1985; South 1977) are calculated for the fragments whose counts exaggerate the original amount artifact assemblages. present; in this case, artifact weight is a more reliable All artifacts are bagged in 4-millimeter-thick tool for reconstructing past artifact density. Artifacts archivally stable polyethylene bags. Artifact types are that are weighed but not counted include biological bagged separately within each provenience and labeled (wood, charcoal), floral, and faunal artifacts that have using acid-free paper labels. Provenience bags are not been modified into a tool (e.g., bone comb or labeled with the site number, provenience number, and handle); building materials (brick, mortar, tabby, slate, provenience information. Proveniences are separated building stone); fire-cracked rock; and cultural rocks. by site and placed into appropriately labeled acid-free All artifact analysis information is entered into a coded boxes. Artifacts are temporarily stored at the Mount database (Microsoft Access 2000). Pleasant office of Brockington and Associates, Inc., Pre-Contact artifacts are categorized into typological until they are ready for final curation. Upon completion classifications determined by their technological and and acceptance of the final report, the artifacts and stylistic attributes. All nonresidual Pre-Contact ceramic all associated materials (artifact catalog, field notes, sherds (those greater than 2.0 by 2.0 centimeters in size) photographic materials, and maps) are transferred to are classified by surface decoration and aplastic content. SCIAA in Columbia for curation. When recognizable, these attributes are also recorded for residual sherds. Nondiagnostic residual sherds 1.2.5 Assessing NRHP Eligibility are cataloged as a group. Pre-Contact ceramic sherds All cultural resources encountered are assessed as to are compared to published type descriptions from their significance based on the criteria of the NRHP. As comparable sources (Anderson et al. 1996; Williams per 36 CFR 60.4, there are four broad evaluative criteria and Thompson 1999). Lithics are categorized by raw for determining the significance of a particular resource material and stage of production. Identified categories and its eligibility for the NRHP. Any resource (building, of lithic flakes include the stage of production (primary, structure, site, object, or district) may be eligible for the secondary, tertiary, or thinning), portion (whether NRHP that: whole or flake fragments), and cores (Odell 2003). Post-Contact artifact analysis is primarily based on A. is associated with events that have made a observable stylistic and technological attributes. Artifacts significant contribution to the broad pattern of are identified with the use of published analytical history;

Brockington and Associates 7 B. is associated with the lives of persons significant in created or used during the historical period in question. the past; For example, early-nineteenth-century farmhouses, the C. embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, ruins of African American slave settlements from the period, or method of construction, or represents 1820s, and/or field systems associated with particular the work of a master, possesses high artistic value, antebellum plantations in the region would illustrate or represents a significant and distinguishable various aspects of the agricultural development of the entity whose components may lack individual region prior to the Civil War. Conversely, contemporary distinction; or churches or road networks may have been used during D. has yielded, or is likely to yield, information this time period but do not reflect the agricultural important to history or prehistory. practices suggested by the other kinds of resources. The fourth step involves determining the specific A resource may be eligible under one or more of association of a resource with aspects of the significant these criteria. Criteria A, B, and C are most frequently historical context. Savage and Pope (1998) define how applied to historic buildings, structures, objects, non- one should consider a resource under each of the four archaeological sites (e.g., battlefields, natural features, criteria of significance. Under Criterion A, a property designed landscapes, cemeteries), or districts. The must have existed at the time that a particular event eligibility of archaeological sites is most frequently or pattern of events occurred, and activities associated considered with respect to Criterion D. Also, a general with the event(s) must have occurred at the site. In guide of 50 years of age is employed to define “historic” addition, this association must be of a significant nature, in the NRHP evaluation process. That is, all resources not just a casual occurrence (Savage and Pope 1998). greater than 50 years of age may be considered. However, Under Criterion B, the resource must be associated more recent resources may be considered if they display with historically important individuals. Again, this “exceptional” significance (Sherfy and Luce n.d.). association must relate to the period or events that Following National Register Bulletin: How to Apply convey historical significance to the individual, not just the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Savage that this person was present at this locale (Savage and and Pope 1998), evaluation of any resource requires a Pope 1998). Under Criterion C, a resource must possess twofold process. First, the resource must be associated physical features or traits that reflect a style, type, period, with an important historical context. If this association or method of construction; display high artistic value; is demonstrated, the integrity of the resource must be or represent the work of a master (an individual whose evaluated to ensure that it conveys the significance of work can be distinguished from others and possesses its context. The applications of both of these steps are recognizable greatness) (Savage and Pope 1998). discussed in more detail below. Under Criterion D, a resource must possess sources of Determining the association of a resource with a information that can address specific important research historical context involves five steps (Savage and Pope questions (Savage and Pope 1998). These questions must 1998). First, the resource must be associated with a generate information that is important in reconstructing particular facet of local, regional (state), or national or interpreting the past (Butler 1987; Townsend et al. history. Secondly, one must determine the significance of 1993). For archaeological sites, recoverable data must be the identified historical facet/context with respect to the able to address specific research questions. resource under evaluation. A lack of Native American After a resource is associated with a specific archaeological sites within a project area would preclude significant historical context, one must determine which the use of contexts associated with the Pre-Contact use physical features of the resource reflect its significance. of a region. One should consider the types of resources that may The third step is to demonstrate the ability of a be associated with the context, how these resources particular resource to illustrate the context. A resource represent the theme, and which aspects of integrity apply should be a component of the locales and features to the resource in question (Savage and Pope 1998). As

8 Brockington and Associates in the antebellum agriculture example given above, a variety of resources may reflect this context (farmhouses, ruins of slave settlements, field systems, etc.). One must demonstrate how these resources reflect the context. The farmhouses represent the residences of the principal landowners who were responsible for implementing the agricultural practices that drove the economy of the South Carolina area during the antebellum period. The slave settlements housed the workers who conducted the vast majority of the daily activities necessary to plant, harvest, process, and market crops. Once the above steps are completed and the association with a historically significant context is demonstrated, one must consider the aspects of integrity applicable to a resource. Integrity is defined in seven aspects of a resource; one or more may be applicable depending on the nature of the resource under evaluation. These aspects are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (36 CFR 60.4; Savage and Pope 1998). If a resource does not possess integrity with respect to these aspects, it cannot adequately reflect or represent its associated historically significant context. Therefore, it cannot be eligible for the NRHP. To be considered eligible under Criteria A and B, a resource must retain its essential physical characteristics that were present during the event(s) with which it is associated. Under Criterion C, a resource must retain enough of its physical characteristics to reflect the style, type, etc., or work of the artisan that it represents. Under Criterion D, a resource must be able to generate data that can address specific research questions that are important in reconstructing or interpreting the past.

Brockington and Associates 9 10 Brockington and Associates 2.0 Environmental and Cultural Overview

2.1 Environmental Setting The Angel Tract is located to the north (Etheridge Parcel) plats and maps in other archives as well as personal and south (Angel Parcel) of SC Route 68, and to the east family records. of Davidson Tower Road, in the southeast portion of The project tract has been known as the Angel Tract Hampton County. A railroad line is located to the north since the early 1900s. At least parts of the tract were of SC Route 68. The tract is bounded in all directions by granted or came into ownership of Isaac McPherson, private property. The Angel Tract is crossed by a series John Hunt, Thomas Ferguson, and John McTeer by the of named and unnamed dirt roads. A large transmission mid-eighteenth century (McCrady Plat 4524; South line corridor passes through the eastern portion of Carolina Memorials [SCM] 7:479, 9:310, 12:129, 419). the tract. A large swath of wetlands associated with Doubtless, by the 1760s some of these planters Buckfield Backwater passes along the eastern edge of were planting rice in Briar Field Branch, today known the tract. Smaller isolated (non-jurisdictional) wetlands as Buckfield Backwater (McCrady Plat 4524). They are scattered across the tract (see Figure 1.3). Several were also planting indigo on the high ground. By the drainages across the tract with associated jurisdictional 1790s the project tract was owned by three individuals: wetlands feed into the Buckfield Backwater. There are John McTeer, J.F. Grimke, and John McPherson, all approximately 1,567 acres of uplands within the 1,853- leaders in the post-Revolutionary Lowcountry. Figure acre Angel Tract. The remaining non-uplands acreage 2.1 shows a map of the project tract and the lands of comprises approximately 227 acres of jurisdictional the individual owners. wetlands, 56 acres of isolated non-jurisdictional The destruction of the Beaufort County records wetlands, and four acres of non-jurisdictional ponds. makes an exact date impossible to determine, but the The majority of the tract is wooded in planted pines, project tract was acquired by William Heyward in the with some mixed hardwoods. Portions of the tract have early to mid-nineteenth century and annexed onto been clearcut. his Buckfield Plantation. Buckfield was a large inland rice plantation located southeast of the project tract. Heyward was often called “Tiger Bill” Heyward due to 2.2 Brief History of the Land his meticulous attention to detail and willingness to get ownership of the Angel “into a passion and fight somebody” when his plans went Tract awry (Heyward n.d.:100). Heyward was reputed to have The historian reviewed maps and plats in the Charleston, gotten into a serious altercation with a local Confederate Beaufort, and Hampton County RMC offices in officer named Colcock during the Civil War. Apparently, Charleston, Beaufort, and Hampton. He also reviewed against his instructions, the Confederate troops used maps and plats at the South Carolina Historical Society Heyward’s fences for building supplies for their camp in Charleston, SCDAH in Columbia, and Cooper located southwest of the project tract. Library at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. Heyward was born in Beaufort District, the son of Specifically, he reviewed aerial photographs of the William Miles Heyward of Pocataligo and his French- area and historic maps including DeBrahm (1757), born wife, Charlotte Mandy Villeponteaux. Tiger Bill Mills (1825), Stroeber (1878), US War Department may have received his fiery temper from his mother, quadrangles, and South Carolina state road maps, among of whom it was said she never learned to speak good others. Records in the Beaufort County courthouse English and often “cussed in French” (Heyward n.d.:73). were destroyed during the Civil War, and thus a large Tiger Bill Heyward amassed a 5,000-acre estate at gap exists in historical legal records between 1788 and Buckfield and also owned lands elsewhere in Beaufort 1865. These records are supplemented with existing District. At a time when many members of his famous

Brockington and Associates 11 Figure 2.1 Location of the Angel Tract, key landowners ca. 1800, and potential cultural resources (USGS 1988 McPhersonville, SC and 1988 Yemassee, SC quadrangles).

12 Brockington and Associates family were building tidal rice plantations, Heyward the Stroeber map shows several houses along the public was known as an “inland rice planter” in the district. road to the east of the project tract. With the acquisition of the project tract, Heyward’s Tiger Bill kept his estate intact until after the Civil Buckfield complex would have been one of the largest War. He died in 1871 in a yellow fever epidemic in active inland rice field plantations in the nineteenth Charleston (Heyward n.d.:100). After his death, his century. His plantation included more than 1,000 estate was divided by his only heir and sold. The project acres of inland fields along Briar Field Branch. Either tract portion was part of 3,076 acres that composed Heyward or McTeer built a large dam across the mouth much of the upper section of Heyward’s Buckfield of a branch of Briar Field Branch that enters the project complex and was conveyed to Northern investors. In tract from the east. Due to the size of his inland fields, 1888 Phila M. Angell of Rhode Island purchased the the builder’s purpose may have been to impound a land, giving the tract its current name. Hilton-Dodge water reserve in the finger branches west of the dam. Lumber Company obtained ownership in 1901, and the The planter may also have used the dam to power a mill. tract continued in the hands of lumber companies until One plat noted the presence of a mill near the dam. recent decades (Hampton County Deed Books [HCDB] Most likely, a planter of Heyward’s initiative would have D4:382, D11:377). used the dam for both purposes. Figure 2.1 shows the Railroads increased in importance throughout the approximate location of the dam on the project tract. United States in the nineteenth and early twentieth Figure 2.2 shows a 2006 aerial photograph with the tree- centuries, and small communities sprang up around lined dam clearly evident. rail stops. The 1918 US War Department Yemassee, SC Early plats of the area indicate that the dirt road that quadrangle shows the small community of Davidson enters the project tract from the southwest was originally northwest of the project tract on the rail line and called the “road to the pineland settlements” (South Blountsville and Yemassee to the southeast. Additionally, Carolina State Plat Book 40:39). Near the north end of small worker houses were built along the line. Figure 2.5 the road, along the highland peninsula that protrudes shows the 1918 map with at least one house along the into the lowlands, an early plat indicates the presence of rail line near the project tract. a settlement (McCrady Plat 4478; see Figure 2.1). This During the late nineteenth and early twentieth peninsula overlooks the water impoundment dam, and centuries, Northern capitalists seeking to escape the the location of a settlement here would have been ideal crowded cities of the Northeast and Midwest began for both health reasons and accessibility to management buying up large tracts of Southern land for recreational of a mill and the rice field complex located along Briar hunting and retreats (Cuthbert and Hoffius 2009). Field Branch. Beginning in 1906, C.W. Kress, a founder of the Kress The Mills map of 1825 shows no settlements “five and dime” store chain, acquired all but the project near the project area, though it notes the presence of tract portion of the Heyward lands. He combined these the “Buckfield Causeway” across Briar Field Branch lands with others into an 11,000-acre hunting and southeast of the project tract. Current Hampton County planting estate east and southeast of the project tract. Route 17 follows the old causeway across Buckfield He called his estate Buckfield after Heyward’s former Backwater. Figure 2.3 shows the approximate location rice plantation. Kress used the old rice fields along Briar of the project tract on the Mills map. Just prior to the Field Branch for duck hunting and renamed the branch Civil War, Heyward conveyed a strip of his lands to the Buckfield Backwater. Port Royal and Augusta Railroad Company. This line In the 1920s the South Carolina Highway separates the northern portion of the project tract from Department began modernizing its road system, the balance of the land. Figure 2.4 shows the rail line straightening old roads as well as building new ones. The on the 1878 Stroeber map. This line later became the highway department was accommodating the American Charleston and Western Railroad line and currently is a fascination with automobiles, and road improvements branch of the Southern Railroad Company. Additionally, expedited travel time for both commercial and

Brockington and Associates 13 Figure 2.2 A 2006 aerial photograph of the project area showing the old dam across the branch of Buckfield Backwater that enters the project tract (Google Earth Earth (Google tract project the enters that Backwater Buckfield of branch the across dam old the showing area project the of photograph 2.2 A 2006 aerial Figure 2006).

14 Brockington and Associates Figure 2.3 Approximate location of the Angel Tract on the 1825 Mills’ Atlas map of Beaufort District (Mills 1825).

Brockington and Associates 15 Figure 2.4 Approximate location of the Angel Tract on the 1878 Stroeber map of Beaufort County (Stroeber 1878).

16 Brockington and Associates Figure 2.5 Approximate location of the Angel Tract on the 1918 US War Department map (US War Department 1920 Yemassee, SC quadrangle).

Brockington and Associates 17 recreational vehicles. Figure 2.6 shows a portion of and one previously recorded historic architectural the 1938 Hampton County highway department map. resource (Resource 0030) located within 0.25 miles of Two small houses appear along the rail line outside the the project tract. Site 38HA218 is a scatter of Middle northern portion of the project tract. One of the houses Woodland artifacts recommended probably not may be associated with site 38HA227 (discussed below). eligible for the NRHP (Tippett and Griffitts 2002). The The houses were likely built for access to the rail line reported location of 38HA218 is within the Angel Tract; (see Figures 1.1 and 2.1). investigators during the current CRIS investigations Meanwhile, in 1916 the Savannah River Lumber did not visit this location. Site 38HA227 is a twentieth- Company purchased the project tract portion of the century homesite recommended probably not eligible Heyward lands when Hilton-Dodge defaulted on a for the NRHP (Battle 2008). Resource 0030 is a house mortgage. Savannah River Lumber Company kept the constructed ca. 1940. Tippett and Griffitts (2002) land for nearly 50 years and sold it to Cox Woodlands recommended the resource not eligible for the NRHP. Company in 1964 (HCDB D24:58, D55:31). On an aerial photograph taken in 1957, presented in Figure 2.7, the lowland on the east side of the project tract does not appear to have been used as rice fields; no fields appear in the photograph. However, the old reservoir dam and drain lines into Buckfield Backwater are quite clear on the photograph. The eastern lowlands of the project tract appear to have been open lands with some pine cover. Since the ownership by Cox Woodlands, these lands have been planted in pines. The 1975 South Carolina highway map, presented in Figure 2.8, shows a small structure located along the rail line inside the project tract. This structure is no longer standing. Cox Woodlands Company continued in ownership of the Angel Tract for many years, though it eventually merged with Augusta Woodlands, and later with AbitibiBowater. Angel Tract, LLC, an investor group, purchased the tract from AbitibiBowater in 2007 and is the current owner of record.

2.3 Previous Cultural resources Investigations near the Angel Tract We consulted the ArchSite program to determine if previously identified cultural resources are located within 0.25 miles of the Angel Tract. Following the initial ArchSite research, we examined the state archaeological site files at SCIAA and the NRHP listings at SCDAH for previously recorded archaeological sites, historic properties, and previous investigations within 0.25 miles of the Angel Tract. There are two previously identified archaeological sites (38HA218 and 38HA227)

18 Brockington and Associates Figure 2.6 Approximate location of the Angel Tract on the 1938 South Carolina Highway Department road map of Hampton County (South Carolina Highway Department 1938).

Brockington and Associates 19 Figure 2.7 A 1957 aerial photograph of the project area showing the old reservoir dam and drainage lines into Buckfield Backwater (USDA 1957).

20 Brockington and Associates Figure 2.8 Approximate location of the Angel Tract on the 1975 South Carolina Highway Department road map of Hampton County (South Carolina Highway Department 1975).

Brockington and Associates 21 22 Brockington and Associates 3.0 Results and Recommendations

The CRIS of the Angel Tract was designed to identify Parcel and the Angel Parcel that make up the Angel Tract. and clarify issues pertaining to the development of a Again, the Etheridge Parcel is located to the north of SC specific commercial or industrial site. Again, this report Route 68, and the Angel Parcel is located to the south presents initial information regarding cultural resources of SC Route 68 (see Figure 1.3). Investigators identified that may be affected by potential development of the a total of six sites (38HA1097–38HA1102) and three Angel Tract Certification Site. This chapter presents the isolated finds (Isolates 1–3) during the survey of the results of the CRIS, followed by the project summary Angel Tract. We did not visit the reported location of and management recommendations. This chapter also previously identified site 38HA218. Descriptions of the provides recommendations for possible additional cultural resources are presented below in the discussion cultural resource investigations of each survey area of each survey area. within the Angel Tract. 3.1.1 Etheridge Parcel Area A Etheridge Parcel Area A is wooded in approximately 3.1 Results of the Field 15-year-old planted pines with some mixed hardwoods. Investigations For the most part, the planted pines have not been This section presents a discussion of the investigations thinned. Surface visibility is low. The northern portion conducted in each survey area within the Etheridge of this area is very wet. Several isolated wetlands are

Figure 3.1 Typical view of Etheridge Parcel Area A.

Brockington and Associates 23 present across the area. Soils generally consist of a dark 3.1.2 Etheridge Parcel Area B gray loamy sand at 0–20 cm bs over a light gray loamy Etheridge Parcel Area B is wooded in approximately 15- sand at 20–50 cm bs, underlain by a dark brownish-black to 25-year-old planted pines that have been thinned in sand subsoil at 50–60+ cm bs. Investigators traversed areas. Portions of this area have been clearcut. Surface Etheridge Parcel Area A along transects spaced at visibility is generally low. Several ponds are located in 90-meter intervals and excavated a total of 30 shovel this area. Soils generally consist of a pale gray sandy tests. Investigators identified no cultural resources in loam at 0–30 cm bs over a compact yellowish-ray sand Etheridge Parcel Area A. Figure 3.1 presents a typical at 30–0 cm bs, underlain by a yellow sandy clay subsoil view of Etheridge Parcel Area A. at 50–0+ cm bs. Investigators traversed Etheridge Parcel Etheridge Parcel Area A possesses a high potential Area B along transects spaced at 120-meter intervals to contain cultural resources. Transects in this high- and excavated a total of 16 shovel tests. Investigators potential area should be spaced at 30-meter intervals, identified no cultural resources in Etheridge Parcel Area with shovel tests excavated at 30-meter intervals along B. Figure 3.2 presents a typical view of Etheridge Parcel each transect. No shovel tests will be excavated in Area B. wetlands areas. Investigators should visually inspect the Etheridge Parcel Area B possesses a high potential ground surface where possible. to contain cultural resources. Transects in this high-

Figure 3.2 Typical view of Etheridge Parcel Area B.

24 Brockington and Associates potential area should be spaced at 30-meter intervals, Area C along transects spaced at 120-meter intervals with shovel tests excavated at 30-meter intervals along and excavated a total of 11 shovel tests. Investigators each transect. No shovel tests will be excavated in identified no cultural resources in Etheridge Parcel Area wetlands areas. Investigators should visually inspect the C. Figure 3.3 presents a typical view of Etheridge Parcel ground surface where possible. Area C. Etheridge Parcel Area C possesses a high potential 3.1.3 Etheridge Parcel Area C to contain cultural resources. Transects in this high- Etheridge Parcel Area C is wooded in approximately potential area should be spaced at 30-meter intervals, 15-year-old planted pines with some mixed hardwoods with shovel tests excavated at 30-meter intervals along and thick underbrush. For the most part, the planted each transect. No shovel tests will be excavated in pines have not been thinned. Surface visibility is low. wetlands areas. Investigators should visually inspect the Wetlands are present in the southern/central portion ground surface where possible. of the area. Soils generally consist of a grayish-brown silty loam at 0–30 cm bs over a yellowish-brown silty clay at 30–35 cm bs, underlain by a yellow clay subsoil at 35–50+ cm bs. Investigators traversed Etheridge Parcel

Figure 3.3 Typical view of Etheridge Parcel Area C.

Brockington and Associates 25 3.1.4 Etheridge Parcel Area D Etheridge Parcel Area D is wooded in unthinned planted with shovel tests excavated at 60-meter intervals along pines with moderate undergrowth. Surface visibility is each transect. No shovel tests will be excavated in low. Ponds/jurisdictional wetlands are located in the wetlands areas. Investigators should visually inspect the eastern portion of Area D. Soils are poor and hydric ground surface where possible. and generally consist of a dark brownish-black sandy loam at 0–15 cm bs over a wet dark gray sand subsoil at 3.1.5 Angel Parcel Area A 15–30+ cm bs. Investigators traversed Etheridge Parcel Angel Parcel Area A is wooded in thinned, approximately Area D along transects spaced at 90-meter intervals 15- to 25-year-old planted pines. Surface visibility is and excavated a total of 10 shovel tests. Investigators good in several portions of the survey area. The area is identified no cultural resources in Etheridge Parcel Area bounded to the north, south, and east by jurisdictional D. Figure 3.4 presents a typical view of Etheridge Parcel wetlands. Cross Road and Main Road pass through this Area D. area. Soils generally consist of a dark gray loamy sand at Etheridge Parcel Area D possesses a low potential 0–10 cm bs over a dark yellowish-brown silty sand at 10– to contain cultural resources. Transects in this low- 35 cm bs, underlain by a very pale brown sand subsoil potential area should be spaced at 30-meter intervals, at 35–80+ cm bs. Investigators traversed Angel Parcel

Figure 3.4 Typical view of Etheridge Parcel Area D.

26 Brockington and Associates Area A along transects spaced at 90-meter intervals 7.5-meter intervals in an attempt to recover additional and excavated a total of 75 shovel tests. Investigators artifacts and define the artifact cluster. Due to the low identified one isolated find (Isolate 2) in Angel Parcel frequency of material at this locale and the lack of Area A. Isolate 2 is described below. Figure 3.5 presents cultural features, we recommend Isolate 2 not eligible a typical view of Angel Parcel Area A. for the NRHP. Further management consideration of Angel Parcel Area A possesses a high potential Isolate 2 is not warranted. to contain cultural resources. Transects in this high- potential area should be spaced at 30-meter intervals, with shovel tests excavated at 30-meter intervals along each transect. No shovel tests will be excavated in wetlands areas. Investigators should visually inspect the ground surface where possible.

Isolate 2. Isolate 2 consists of one chert flake fragment recovered from a shovel test at 0–60 cm bs. Investigators excavated eight additional shovel tests at

Figure 3.5 Typical view of Angel Parcel Area A.

Brockington and Associates 27 3.1.6 Angel Parcel Area B Angel Parcel Area B is wooded in approximately 15- to Parcel Area B. These resources are described below. 20-year-old planted pines. The western portion of Area Figure 3.6 presents a typical view of Angel Parcel B is unthinned with thick undergrowth. The eastern Area B. portion has been thinned. Surface visibility is generally Angel Parcel Area B possesses a high potential low. The area is bounded to the north by private property to contain cultural resources. Transects in this high- and to the south, east, and west by jurisdictional wetlands. potential area should be spaced at 30-meter intervals, Hadwin Road passes through this area. Soils generally with shovel tests excavated at 30-meter intervals along consist of a grayish-brown sandy loam at 0–10 cm bs, each transect. No shovel tests will be excavated in over a dark yellowish-brown silty sand at 10–40 cm bs, wetlands areas. Investigators should visually inspect the over a pale brown silty sand at 40–70 cm bs, underlain ground surface where possible. by a very pale brown fine sand subsoil at 70–80+ cm bs. Investigators traversed Angel Parcel Area B along transects spaced at 90-meter intervals and excavated a total of 37 shovel tests. Investigators identified one site (38HA1099) and one isolated find (Isolate 1) in Angel

Figure 3.6 Typical view of Angel Parcel Area B.

28 Brockington and Associates Site 38HA1099 to our understanding of the history of the region. The Cultural Affiliation – Unknown Pre-Contact site contains a variety of lithic artifacts associated with Site Type – Pre-Contact lithic scatter unknown Pre-Contact occupations. Artifacts were Soil Type – Blanton fine sand recovered up to 100 cm bs. Though the upper portions Elevation – 13.5 meters amsl of some areas of the site have been disturbed by road Nearest Water Source – Buckfield Backwater construction and maintenance, remaining areas of the Site Dimensions – 15 meters n/s by 15 meters e/w site seem to be relatively undisturbed, and intact cultural Present Vegetation – Planted pines deposits could be present. Site 38HA1099 may provide NRHP/Management Recommendations – Potentially information adequate to address site- and temporal- eligible; test or preserve in place specific research questions for the occupation of the site. The site may be able to generate additional important Site 38HA1099 is a small surface and subsurface information concerning past settlement patterns or scatter of nondiagnostic Pre-Contact lithic artifacts. land-use practices in Hampton County. Therefore, we The site measures approximately 15 by 15 meters and is recommend 38HA1099 potentially eligible for the NRHP. located in the northern portion of the tract (see Figures Site 38HA1099 should be protected from disturbances 1.1 and 1.3). Hadwin Road and Pot Road intersect within associated with any proposed future development until the site. Site 38HA1099 is wooded in approximately 15- its NRHP status has been determined definitively. If to 20-year-old planted pines. The land slopes down to avoidance of 38HA1099 is not possible, an appropriate the north and east of the site into a lower, wetland-type archaeological testing plan should be implemented. If area. Figure 3.7 presents a plan and view of 38HA1099. land-disturbing activities associated with any proposed Investigators excavated 20 shovel tests at 15-meter future development are designed to avoid the site, intervals within and around 38HA1099; three (15 38HA1099 will not be affected. percent) of these shovel tests produced artifacts. Investigators collected artifacts from the ground surface Isolate 1. Isolate 1 consists of one chert tertiary bifacial at the location of one of the negative shovel tests (Prov. reduction flake recovered from the ground surface (at 2.0). These artifacts may have been redeposited on the the location of a negative shovel test) to the north of ground surface as a result of nearby road construction Hadwin Road (see Figures 1.1 and 1.3). Investigators and maintenance. Soils at the site generally consist of a excavated eight additional shovel tests at 7.5-meter dark grayish-brown sandy loam at 0–20 cm bs over a intervals in an attempt to recover additional artifacts yellowish-brown sandy loam at 20–80 cm bs, underlain and define the artifact cluster. Due to the low frequency by a very pale brown sand at 80–100+ cm bs. Artifacts of material at this locale and the lack of cultural were recovered from 0–100 cm bs. features, we recommend Isolate 1 not eligible for the Investigators recovered 28 artifacts from NRHP. Further management consideration of Isolate 1 38HA1099. Eleven of the artifacts were recovered from is not warranted. the ground surface. The artifacts include one chert uniface, two chert tertiary core reduction flakes, two chert thinning flakes, 18 chert flake fragments, and Table 3.1 Artifacts Recovered from five pieces of chert shatter. Table 3.1 summarizes the 38HA1099. artifacts recovered from 38HA1099. For a complete Artifact Description Total artifact inventory, see Appendix A. The Pre-Contact Chert tertiary core reduction flake 2 artifacts are not diagnostic and cannot be associated with a particular cultural period. The artifacts may Chert thinning flake 2 represent the remnants of an unknown Pre-Contact Chert flake fragment 18 campsite or lithic reduction area. Chert shatter 5 We assessed the NRHP eligibility of site 38HA1099 Chert uniface 1 with respect to Criterion D, its ability to add significantly Total 28

Brockington and Associates 29 Figure 3.7 Plan and view of 38HA1099.

30 Brockington and Associates 3.1.7 Angel Parcel Area C Angel Parcel Area C is wooded in approximately 15-year- Angel Parcel Area C possesses a high potential old planted pines with varying degrees of underbrush. to contain cultural resources. Transects in this high- Several pockets of mixed hardwoods are present across potential area should be spaced at 30-meter intervals, the area. Surface visibility is low. The area is bounded to with shovel tests excavated at 30-meter intervals along the north by private property and to the west and south each transect. No shovel tests will be excavated in by jurisdictional wetlands. Hadwin Road passes through wetlands areas. Investigators should visually inspect the this area. Soils generally consist of a grayish-brown loamy ground surface where possible. sand at 0–20 cm bs over a yellowish-brown sand at 20– 70 cm bs, underlain by a pale brown fine sand subsoil at 70–80+ cm bs. Investigators traversed Angel Parcel Area C along transects spaced at 150-meter intervals and excavated a total of 15 shovel tests. Investigators identified one site (38HA1098) in Angel Parcel Area C. This site is described below. Figure 3.8 presents a typical view of Angel Parcel Area C.

Figure 3.8 Typical view of Angel Parcel Area C.

Brockington and Associates 31 Site 38HA1098 to our understanding of the history of the region. The site Cultural Affiliation – Ceramic Late Archaic and Middle contains artifacts associated with Ceramic Late Archaic to Late Woodland and Middle to Late Woodland occupations. The area Site Type – Pre-Contact ceramic and lithic scatter seems to be relatively undisturbed, and intact cultural Soil Type – Blanton fine sand deposits could be present. Site 38HA1098 may provide Elevation – 15 meters amsl information adequate to address site- and temporal- Nearest Water Source – Buckfield Backwater specific research questions for the occupation of the site. Site Dimensions – 15 meters n/s by 15 meters e/w The site may be able to generate additional important Present Vegetation – Planted pines with small information concerning past settlement patterns or hardwoods land-use practices in Hampton County. Therefore, we NRHP/Management Recommendations – Potentially recommend 38HA1098 potentially eligible for the NRHP. eligible; test or preserve in place Site 38HA1098 should be protected from disturbances associated with any proposed future development until Site 38HA1098 is a subsurface scatter of Ceramic its NRHP status has been determined definitively. If Late Archaic and Middle to Late Woodland ceramic avoidance of 38HA1098 is not possible, an appropriate and lithic artifacts. The site measures approximately 30 archaeological testing plan should be implemented. If meters north–south by 45 meters east–west and is located land-disturbing activities associated with any proposed to the west of a low wetlands-type area in the northern future development are designed to avoid the site, portion of the tract (see Figures 1.1 and 1.3). The site 38HA1098 will not be affected. is located approximately 70 meters south of Hadwin Road. Site 38HA1098 is wooded in approximately 15- to 20-year-old planted pines with some small hardwoods. Figure 3.9 presents a plan and view of 38HA1098. Investigators excavated 30 shovel tests at 15-meter intervals within and around 38HA1098; six (20 percent) of these shovel tests produced artifacts. Soils at the site Table 3.2 Artifacts Recovered from generally consist of a dark brown sandy loam at 0–25 cm 38HA1098. bs, over a yellowish-brown sandy loam at 25–60 cm bs, Artifact Description Total over a light yellowish-brown silty sand at 60–80 cm bs, Stallings Plain 1 underlain by a very pale brown sand subsoil at 80–90+ Wilmington Fabric Impressed 3 cm bs. We recovered artifacts from 0–60 cm bs. Plain body sherd, coarse sand tempered 1 Investigators recovered 25 artifacts from 38HA1098, including one Stallings Plain sherd, three Wilmington Eroded body sherd, grog tempered 2 Fabric Impressed sherds, one unidentifiable plain sherd, Residual sherd 4 two unidentifiable eroded sherds, and four residual Chert tertiary bifacial reduction flake 1 sherds, as well as one chert tertiary bifacial reduction Chert flake fragment 8 flake, eight chert flake fragments, and five pieces of chert Chert shatter 5 shatter. Table 3.2 summarizes the artifacts recovered Total 25 from 38HA1098. For a complete artifact inventory, see Appendix A. Site 38HA1098 is likely the remnants of a small Ceramic Late Archaic and Middle to Late Woodland camp. The occupants of this site likely chose the location in order to exploit the natural resources of the nearby wetlands. We assessed the NRHP eligibility of site 38HA1098 with respect to Criterion D, its ability to add significantly

32 Brockington and Associates Figure 3.9 Plan and view of 38HA1098.

Brockington and Associates 33 3.1.8 Angel Parcel Area D Angel Parcel Area D is wooded in approximately 15- D. This site is discussed below. Figure 3.10 presents a to 20-year-old planted pines; some areas have been typical view of Angel Parcel Area D. thinned. Small hardwoods are present across the area. Angel Parcel Area D possesses a high potential Surface visibility is low. Area D is bounded to the north to contain cultural resources. Transects in this high- by jurisdictional wetlands, to the south by Tee Road, potential area should be spaced at 30-meter intervals, and to the west by private property. Main Road passes with shovel tests excavated at 30-meter intervals along through the area. Soils generally consist of a grayish- each transect. No shovel tests will be excavated in brown sandy loam at 0–15 cm bs, over a yellowish-brown wetlands areas. Investigators should visually inspect the sandy loam at 15–40 cm bs, over a pale brown sand at ground surface where possible. 45–60 cm bs, underlain by a very pale brown fine sand at 60–75+ cm bs. Investigators traversed Angel Parcel Area D along transects spaced at 150-meter intervals and excavated a total of 32 shovel tests. Investigators identified one site (38HA1097) in Angel Parcel Area

Figure 3.10 Typical view of Angel Parcel Area D.

34 Brockington and Associates Site 38HA1097 recovered from the ground surface. These artifacts may Cultural Affiliation – Unknown Pre-Contact have been deposited on the ground surface during the Site Type – Pre-Contact lithic scatter excavation of the borrow pit. The site has been disturbed Soil Type – Blanton fine sand by borrow pit activities. The integrity of the materials, Elevation – 15 meters amsl their location, and their associations is compromised. Nearest Water Source – Early Branch The potential for intact subsurface features to be present Site Dimensions – 15 meters n/s by 15 meters e/w at the site is very low. Additional investigation of Present Vegetation – Planted pines with small 38HA1097 is unlikely to generate information beyond hardwoods the period of use (unknown Pre-Contact) and the NRHP/Management Recommendations – Not eligible; presumed function (camp for procuring resources/ no further management lithic reduction area). The site cannot generate additional important information concerning the past Site 38HA1097 is a small surface scatter consisting settlement patterns or land-use practices in Hampton of four nondiagnostic Pre-Contact lithic artifacts. The County. Therefore, we recommend 38HA1097 not site measures approximately 15 by 15 meters and is eligible for the NRHP. Site 38HA1097 warrants no located just north of a borrow pit in the central portion further management consideration. of the tract (see Figures 1.1 and 1.3). The site area has been disturbed due to borrow pit activities. The land slopes down to the east of the site. Green Pine Road is located approximately 20 meters to the west of the site. Site 38HA1097 is wooded in approximately 15-year-old planted pines with some small hardwoods. Figure 3.11 presents a plan and view of 38HA1097. Investigators excavated seven shovel tests at 15-meter intervals within and around 38HA1097; none of these shovel tests produced artifacts. Investigators collected artifacts from the ground surface at the location of one of the negative shovel tests (Prov. 2.0). Soils at the site generally consist of a dark grayish-brown sand at 0–30 cm bs, over a yellowish-brown sand at 30–50 cm bs, over a pale yellowish-brown silty sand at 50–75 cm bs, over a very pale brown silty sand subsoil at 75–85+ cm bs. All artifacts were recovered from the ground surface. Investigators recovered four artifacts from 38HA1097, including one chert biface, one chert preform, one chert blade, and one piece of chert shatter. For a complete artifact inventory, see Appendix A. The artifacts are not diagnostic and cannot be associated with a particular cultural period. The artifacts may represent the scant remnants of an unknown Pre- Contact campsite or lithic reduction area. We assessed the NRHP eligibility of site 38HA1097 with respect to Criterion D, its ability to add significantly to our understanding of the history of the region. The artifact density at the site is low. All of the artifacts were

Brockington and Associates 35 Figure 3.11 Plan and view of 38HA1097.

36 Brockington and Associates 3.1.9 Angel Parcel Area E Angel Parcel Area E is wooded in approximately 15- to potential area should be spaced at 30-meter intervals, 20-year-old planted pines with low underbrush. Surface with shovel tests excavated at 30-meter intervals along visibility is low. The area is bounded to the north by Tee each transect. No shovel tests will be excavated in Road and to the south by Indian Road; Cotton Road wetlands areas. Investigators should visually inspect the passes through the area. Soils generally consist of a gray ground surface where possible. sandy loam at 0–20 cm bs over a yellowish-brown sand at 20–60 cm bs, underlain by a pale brown fine sand subsoil at 60–75+ cm bs. Investigators traversed Angel Parcel Area E along transects spaced at 150-meter intervals and excavated a total of 19 shovel tests. Investigators identified no cultural resources in Angel Parcel Area E. Figure 3.12 presents a typical view of Angel Parcel Area E. Angel Parcel Area E possesses a high potential to contain cultural resources. Transects in this high-

Figure 3.12 Typical view of Angel Parcel Area E.

Brockington and Associates 37 3.1.10 Angel Parcel Area F Angel Parcel Area F is wooded in unthinned, discussed below. Figure 3.13 presents a typical view of approximately 15-year-old planted pines with moderate Angel Parcel Area F. to heavy undergrowth. Several small areas have been Angel Parcel Area F possesses a high potential cleared, and there is a scattering of oaks across the to contain cultural resources. Transects in this high- area. The area is bounded to the northwest by Indian potential area should be spaced at 30-meter intervals, Road and to the southwest by isolated wetlands. Soils with shovel tests excavated at 30-meter intervals along generally consist of a grayish-brown sandy loam at each transect. No shovel tests will be excavated in 0–20 cm bs over a yellowish-brown sand at 20–60 cm wetlands areas. Investigators should visually inspect the bs, underlain by a pale brown sand subsoil at 60–80+ ground surface where possible. cm bs. Investigators traversed Angel Parcel Area F along transects spaced at 150-meter intervals and excavated a total of 13 shovel tests. Investigators identified two sites (38HA1100 and 38HA1101) and one isolated find (Isolate 3) in Angel Parcel Area F. These resources are

Figure 3.13 Typical view of Angel Parcel Area F.

38 Brockington and Associates Site 38HA1100 century occupation. Small amounts of brick are present Cultural Affiliation – Middle nineteenth to early in the majority of shovel tests on both sides of the road. twentieth century Concentrations indicative of former house piers or Site Type – Post-Contact homesite other architectural features or house activity areas Soil Type – Blanton fine sand are not readily apparent from shovel testing to date. Elevation – 22.5 meters amsl Maps reviewed to date show no structures in the area Nearest Water Source – Buckfield Backwater of the site. Site Dimensions – 105 meters n/s by 90 meters e/w We assessed the NRHP eligibility of site 38HA1100 Present Vegetation – Planted pines with large oaks with respect to Criterion D, its ability to add significantly NRHP/Management Recommendations – Potentially to our understanding of the history of the region. The site eligible; test or preserve in place contains artifacts associated with a middle-nineteenth- to early-twentieth-century occupation. William “Tiger Site 38HA1100 is a large surface and subsurface Bill” Heyward acquired the project tract in the early to scatter of middle-nineteenth- to early-twentieth- mid-nineteenth century and annexed it onto his Buckfield century artifacts representing a homesite. The site is Plantation, though it is unclear at this time who may located in the southern portion of the tract (see Figures have lived in the house represented by 38HA1100. The 1.1 and 1.3). The site area is wooded in approximately site area appears to be relatively undisturbed, and intact 15- to 20-year-old planted pines with at least 12 large cultural deposits could be present. We recovered quite a oaks scattered across the area. A clearcut area is present variety of ceramic types, possibly indicating an extended in the southern portion of the site. Indian Road passes occupation. Site 38HA1100 may provide information through the center of the site. Site 38HA1100 measures adequate to address site- and temporal-specific research approximately 105 by 90 meters. Figure 3.14 presents a questions for the Post-Contact occupation of the site. plan and view of 38HA1100. The site may be able to generate additional important Investigators excavated 68 shovel tests at 15-meter information concerning past settlement patterns or intervals within and around 38HA1100; 16 (24 percent) land-use practices in Hampton County. Therefore, we of these shovel tests produced artifacts. Additionally, recommend 38HA1100 potentially eligible for the NRHP. investigators collected artifacts from the ground surface Site 38HA1100 should be protected from disturbances of eight locales. Soils at the site generally consist of a associated with any proposed future development until grayish-brown loamy sand at 0–20 cm bs over a dark its NRHP status has been determined definitively. If yellowish-brown fine loamy sand at 20–60 cm bs, avoidance of 38HA1100 is not possible, an appropriate underlain by a pale brown sand subsoil at 60–75+ cm archaeological testing plan should be implemented. bs. Artifacts were recovered from the 16 positive shovel tests at 0–60 cm bs, though the majority of the positive shovel tests produced artifacts from 0–40 cm bs. Investigators recovered a total of 43 artifacts from 38HA1100, including 25 whiteware sherds, one ironstone sherd, two porcelain sherds, one stoneware sherd, one redware sherd, one earthenware sherd, four bottle glass fragments, four window glass fragments, four nails, and one hinge, as well as 910.43 grams of brick fragments and 0.82 grams of faunal material. Table 3.3 summarizes the artifacts recovered from 38HA1100. For a complete artifact inventory, see Appendix A. The artifacts recovered indicate that the site is likely associated with a middle-nineteenth- to early-twentieth-

Brockington and Associates 39 Figure 3.14 Plan and view of 38HA1100.

40 Brockington and Associates Table 3.3 Artifacts Recovered from 38HA1100. portion of the tract (see Figures 1.1 and 1.3). Indian Artifact Description Total Road passes approximately 20 meters to the north of Whiteware, undecorated 21 the site; an unnamed dirt road passes approximately 10 meters to the east of the site. The site area is wooded Whiteware, polychrome hand-painted 1 in approximately 15- to 20-year-old planted pines Whiteware, blue transfer-printed 2 with a scattering of oaks. Site 38HA1101 measures Ironstone, molded 1 approximately 45 by 75 meters. Figure 3.15 presents a White porcelain, undecorated 2 plan and view of 38HA1101. Clear-glazed stoneware 1 Investigators excavated 42 shovel tests at 15-meter Unglazed redware 1 intervals within and around 38HA1101; six (14 percent) of these shovel tests produced artifacts. Additionally, Unidentifiable burned refined earthenware 1 investigators collected artifacts from the ground surface Olive-green bottle glass 2 of three locales. Soils at the site consist of a grayish- Aqua bottle glass 1 brown sandy loam at 0–25 cm bs over a yellowish- Colorless bottle glass 1 brown fine silty sandy loam at 25–70 cm bs, underlain Aqua window glass 4 by a pale brown sand subsoil at 70–80+ cm bs. Artifacts Cut nail 1 were recovered from 0–50 cm bs. Investigators recovered 11 artifacts from 38HA1101, Unidentifiable square nail 3 including one Deptford Cord Marked sherd, one Iron hinge 1 Wilmington Check Stamped sherd, two whiteware Total 43 sherds, two porcelain sherds, one bottle glass fragment, Brick (in grams) 910.43 three window glass fragments, and one nail, as well as Faunal (in grams) 0.82 55.73 grams of brick fragments. Table 3.4 summarizes Total 911.25 the artifacts recovered from 38HA1101. For a complete artifact inventory, see Appendix A. The two Pre-Contact artifacts indicate a Middle Woodland presence in the site area. The Post-Contact artifacts indicate that the site is likely associated Site 38HA1101 with a late-nineteenth- to early-twentieth-century Cultural Affiliation – Middle Woodland; late nineteenth occupation. Concentrations indicative of former house to early twentieth century piers or other architectural features or house activity Site Type – Pre-Contact ceramic scatter; Post-Contact areas are not readily apparent from shovel testing to homesite date. Maps reviewed to date show no structures in the Soil Type – Blanton fine sand area of the site. Elevation – 22.5 meters amsl We assessed the NRHP eligibility of site 38HA1101 Nearest Water Source – Buckfield Backwater with respect to Criterion D, its ability to add significantly Site Dimensions – 45 meters n/s by 75 meters e/w to our understanding of the history of the region. The Present Vegetation – Planted pines with scattered oaks artifact density at the site is low. Investigators recovered NRHP/Management Recommendations – Not eligible; only 11 artifacts from six positive shovel tests and no further management three surface collections. Additional investigation of 38HA1101 is unlikely to generate information beyond Site 38HA1101 is a surface and subsurface scatter the period of use (Middle Woodland; late nineteenth of Middle Woodland Pre-Contact ceramic artifacts to early twentieth century) and the presumed function and late-nineteenth- to early-twentieth-century Post- (Pre-Contact camp for procuring resources [?]/Post- Contact artifacts. The site is located in the southern Contact homesite). The site cannot generate additional

Brockington and Associates 41 Figure 3.15 Plan and view of 38HA1101.

42 Brockington and Associates Table 3.4 Artifacts Recovered from 38HA1101. Era Artifact Description Total Deptford Cord Marked 1 Pre-Contact Wilmington Check Stamped 1 Subtotal 2 Whiteware, undecorated 2 White porcelain, undecorated 2 Olive-green machine-made bottle glass 1 Post-Contact Aqua window glass 2 Colorless window glass 1 Cut nail 1 Subtotal 9 Total 11 Brick (in grams) 55.73

important information concerning past settlement The northern portion of Area G, between SC patterns or land-use practices in Hampton County. Route 68 and a creek/drainage that feeds into Buckfield Therefore, we recommend 38HA1101 not eligible Backwater, is high and thinned. Surface visibility is for the NRHP. Site 38HA1101 warrants no further moderate. This portion has been heavily disturbed by management consideration. timbering activities and is littered with piles of downed trees and bulldozed debris. Soils in this portion of Isolate 3. Isolate 3 consists of one olive-green bottle Area G generally consist of a dark grayish-brown glass fragment recovered from the ground surface (at sandy loam at 0–20 cm bs over a dark yellowish- the location of a negative shovel test) to the west of brown sand at 20–50 cm bs, underlain by a pale brown an unnamed dirt road. Investigators excavated eight sand subsoil at 50–75+ cm bs. Figure 3.16 presents a additional shovel tests at 7.5-meter intervals in an attempt typical view of the northern portion of Angel Parcel to recover additional artifacts and define the artifact Area G. Investigators identified one archaeological site cluster. Due to the low frequency of material at this (38HA1102) in this northern portion of Area G. This locale and the lack of cultural features, we recommend site is described below. Isolate 3 not eligible for the NRHP. Further management The northern portion of Angel Parcel Area G consideration of Isolate 3 is not warranted. possesses a high potential to contain cultural resources. Transects in this high-potential area should be spaced 3.1.11 Angel Parcel Area G at 30-meter intervals, with shovel tests excavated at Angel Parcel Area G is the largest of all survey 30-meter intervals along each transect. No shovel tests compartments. Investigators traversed Angel Parcel will be excavated in wetlands areas. Investigators should Area G along transects spaced at 150-meter intervals and visually inspect the ground surface where possible. excavated a total of 122 shovel tests. Area G is bounded The central portion of AreaG , between the northern to the east by a large transmission line corridor. Several creek and another creek/band of wetlands to the south, large pockets of isolated non-jurisdictional wetlands is wooded in unthinned planted pines with heavy are scattered across Area G. There are three distinctly undergrowth. This area is lower than the northern different areas/conditions within Area G. portion of Area G. Surface visibility is low. Soils in

Brockington and Associates 43 Figure 3.16 Typical view of the northern portion of Angel Parcel Area G. this portion of Area G generally consist of a dark gray time of our investigations, standing water was present sandy loam at 0–20 cm bs over a dark grayish-brown along the dirt roads and also in many areas between the sand at 20–60 cm bs, underlain by a pale brown sand rows of planted pines. This southern portion of Area G subsoil at 60–75+ cm bs. Investigators identified no contains several pockets of non-jurisdictional wetlands, cultural resources in this portion of Area G. Figure as well as a large swath of jurisdictional wetlands. This 3.17 presents a typical view of the central portion of portion of Area G is wooded in unthinned planted pines Angel Parcel Area G. with heavy underbrush, including tall wetlands grasses. The central portion of Angel Parcel Area G Surface visibility is low. Soils in this portion of Area G possesses a high potential to contain cultural resources. consist of a very wet dark gray loam at 0–15 cm bs over Transects in this high-potential area should be spaced a wet light gray sandy clay at 15+ cm bs. Water seeped at 30-meter intervals, with shovel tests excavated at into the excavated shovel tests in this area. Investigators 30-meter intervals along each transect. No shovel tests identified no cultural resources in this portion of Area will be excavated in wetlands areas. Investigators should G. Figure 3.18 presents a typical view of the southern visually inspect the ground surface where possible. portion of Angel Parcel Area G. The large southern portion of Area G, to the south The majority of the southern portion of Angel of the southern creek/wetlands, is very low. At the Parcel Area G possesses a low potential to contain

44 Brockington and Associates Figure 3.17 Typical view of the central portion of Angel Parcel Area G.

Figure 3.18 Typical view of the southern portion of Angel Parcel Area G.

Brockington and Associates 45 cultural resources. Transects in the low-potential areas Investigators recovered five artifacts from should be spaced at 30-meter intervals, with shovel tests 38HA1102, including one Wilmington Cord Marked excavated at 60-meter intervals along each transect, in sherd, one chert secondary core reduction flake, one higher areas not inundated with water. No shovel tests chert flake fragment, one piece of chert shatter, and will be excavated in wetlands areas. Investigators should one chalcedony flake fragment. Table 3.5 summarizes visually inspect the ground surface where possible. There the artifacts recovered from 38HA1102. For a complete are two slightly higher areas in the southern portion of artifact inventory, see Appendix A. Site 38HA1102 Angel Parcel Area G that may possess a high potential is likely the scant remnants of a small Middle to Late to contain cultural resources. Transects in these high- Woodland camp. The occupants of this site likely chose potential areas should be spaced at 30-meter intervals, the location in order to exploit the natural resources of with shovel tests excavated at 30-meter intervals along Buckfield Backwater to the east. each transect. We assessed the NRHP eligibility of site 38HA1102 with respect to Criterion D, its ability to add significantly Site 38HA1102 to our understanding of the history of the region. The Cultural Affiliation – Middle to Late Woodland artifact density at the site is low. Investigators recovered Site Type – Pre-Contact ceramic and lithic scatter only five artifacts from three positive shovel tests and Soil Type – Goldsboro loamy sand one surface collection. Additional investigation of Elevation – 6 meters amsl 38HA1102 is unlikely to generate information beyond Nearest Water Source – Buckfield Backwater the period of use (Middle to Late Woodland) and the Site Dimensions – 30 meters nw/se by 15 meters ne/sw presumed function (camp for procuring resources/ Present Vegetation – Thinned pines lithic reduction area). The site cannot generate NRHP/Management Recommendations – Not eligible; additional important information concerning past no further management settlement patterns or land-use practices in Hampton County. Therefore, we recommend 38HA1102 not Site 38HA1102 is a surface and subsurface scatter eligible for the NRHP. Site 38HA1102 warrants no of Middle to Late Woodland Pre-Contact ceramic and further management consideration. lithic artifacts. The site measures approximately 30 meters northwest–southeast by 15 meters northeast– southwest and is located in the northeast portion of the tract (see Figures 1.1 and 1.3). The site is located approximately 45 meters southwest of SC Route 68. An unnamed dirt road passes through the site. The area Table 3.5 Artifacts Recovered from 38HA1102. containing site 38HA1102 has recently been thinned. Artifact Description Total Piles of timber debris are located across the site area. Wilmington Cord Marked 1 Figure 3.19 presents a plan and view of 38HA1102. Chert secondary core reduction flake 1 Investigators excavated 22 shovel tests at 15-meter Chert flake fragment 1 intervals within and around 38HA1102; three (14 Chalcedony flake fragment 1 percent) of these shovel tests produced artifacts. Additionally, investigators collected two artifacts from Chert shatter 1 the ground surface at a locale in the northern portion Total 5 of the site. Soils at the site generally consist of a dark grayish-brown sandy loam at 0–25 cm bs, over a dark yellowish-brown sandy loam at 25–70 cm bs, over a pale brown sand subsoil at 70–80+ cm bs. Artifacts were recovered from 0–60 cm bs.

46 Brockington and Associates Figure 3.19 Plan and view of 38HA1102.

Brockington and Associates 47 3.1.12 Angel Parcel Area H Angel Parcel Area H is wooded in planted pines with Angel Parcel Area H possesses a low potential to some mixed wetlands hardwoods. Several areas have contain cultural resources. Transects in this low- been thinned. The area contains heavy undergrowth; potential area should be spaced at 30-meter intervals, surface visibility is low. Area H is bounded to the west with shovel tests excavated at 60-meter intervals along by the transmission line corridor and to the east by the each transect, in higher areas not inundated with water. extensive wetlands of Buckfield Backwater. Area H is No shovel tests will be excavated in wetlands areas. very low, with hydric soils throughout. Soils in Area Investigators should visually inspect the ground surface H consist of a wet dark gray loamy sand at 0–20 cm where possible. bs over a wet light gray sandy clay subsoil at 20–40 cm bs. Water seeped into the excavated shovel tests in this area. Investigators traversed Angel Parcel Area H along transects spaced at 150-meter intervals and excavated a total of 13 shovel tests. Investigators identified no cultural resources in Area H. Figure 3.20 presents a typical view of Angel Parcel Area H.

Figure 3.20 Typical view of Angel Parcel Area H.

48 Brockington and Associates 3.2 Summary and Management recommendations In December 2009, Brockington and Associates, Inc., and central portions of Angel Parcel Area G possess a conducted a cultural resource identification survey high potential to contain cultural resources (see Figure (CRIS) of the 1,853-acre Angel Tract in Hampton County, 3.21). Transects in these high-potential areas should be South Carolina. The investigations were conducted spaced at 30-meter intervals, with shovel tests excavated for Angel Tract, LLC. This survey was requested in at 30-meter intervals along each transect. No shovel compliance with the MOU between the SCDOC and the tests will be excavated in wetlands areas. Investigators SCSHPO regarding the implementation of guidelines should visually inspect the ground surface where for CRISs conducted for the South Carolina Site possible. High-potential areas of the Angel Tract total Certification Program. The purpose of the SCDOC Site approximately 1,099 upland acres. Certification Program is to identify and clarify issues Etheridge Parcel Area D possesses a low potential to pertaining to the development of a specific commercial contain cultural resources. The majority of the southern or industrial site. portion of Angel Parcel Area G, as well as Angel Parcel The CRIS of the Angel Tract included background Area H, possesses a low potential to contain cultural research and archaeological survey. There are no resources (see Figure 3.21). Transects in these low- structures within or adjacent to the tract; therefore, an potential areas should be spaced at 30-meter intervals, architectural survey was not necessary. with shovel tests excavated at 60-meter intervals along Investigators identified six sites (38HA1097– each transect. No shovel tests will be excavated in 38HA1102) and three isolated finds (Isolates 1–3) wetlands areas. Investigators should visually inspect the during the CRIS of the Angel Tract. We recommend ground surface where possible. Low potential areas of sites 38HA1097, 38HA1101, and 38HA1102 and Isolates the Angel Tract total approximately 468 upland acres. 1–3 not eligible for the NRHP. No further management consideration of sites 38HA1097, 38HA1101, and 38HA1102 and the isolated finds is warranted. We recommend sites 38HA1098, 38HA1099, and 38HA1100 potentially eligible for the NRHP. If sites 38HA1098, 38HA1099, and 38HA1100 cannot be preserved in place, we recommend that evaluative testing be conducted to determine definitively the NRHP eligibility of each site. One of the purposes of the CRIS, as detailed in the MOU, is to provide recommendations for possible additional cultural resource survey investigations of the Certification Site. We base our recommendations for possible additional cultural resource survey investigations of the Angel Tract on research conducted prior to our field investigations, coupled with observations of each of our survey areas of the Angel Tract during our initial field investigations. Figure 3.21 presents the areas of the Angel Tract that possess a high or low potential to contain cultural resources. Etheridge Parcel Areas A, B, and C possess a high potential to contain cultural resources. Angel Parcel Areas A, B, C, D, E, and F possess a high potential to contain cultural resources. Additionally, the northern

Brockington and Associates 49 Figure 3.21 High- and low-potential areas of the Angel Tract.

50 Brockington and Associates REFERENCES cited

Anderson, David G., John S. Cable, Niels Taylor, and Christopher Judge (editors) 1996 Indian Pottery of the Carolinas: Observations from the March 1995 Ceramic Workshop at Hobcaw Barony. South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia.

Baluha, David S., Pat Hendrix, and Ralph Bailey Jr. 2003a Cultural Resources Survey of the Argent East Tract, Jasper County, South Carolina. Prepared for International Paper Company, Savannah, Georgia.

Baluha, David S., Eric C. Poplin, and James Hill 2003b Cultural Resources Survey of the Palmetto Bluff Phase II Development Tract, Bluffton, South Carolina. Prepared for Palmetto Bluff, LLC, Bluffton, South Carolina.

Battle, D.O. 2008 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed R&L Carriers Trucking Facility Near Yemassee, Hampton County, South Carolina. Prepared by Cypress Cultural Consultants.

Bridgman, Kara, and Bruce G. Harvey 2001 Cultural Resources Inventory of Selected Portions of the Former International Paper Company Buckwalter Tract, Beaufort County, South Carolina. Prepared for RRZ, LLC, Bluffton, South Carolina.

Bridgman, Kara, Peter von Loewe, and Pat Hendrix 2001 Cultural Resources Survey of the Rose Dhu Creek Plantation Tract, Beaufort County, South Carolina. Prepared for Thomas and Hutton Engineering, Savannah, Georgia.

Butler, William B. 1987 Significance and Other Frustrations in the CRM Process. American Antiquity 53:820-829.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 36 CFR 60.4: National Register of Historic Properties.

Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists (COSCAPA), South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, and South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology 2005 South Carolina Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations. South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Columbia.

Cuthbert, Robert B., and Stephen G. Hoffius 2009 Northern Money and Southern Land: The Lowcountry Plantation Sketches of Chlotilde R. Martin. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

DeBrahm, William 1757 A Map of South Carolina and Part of Georgia. T. Jefferies, London.

Brockington and Associates 51 Dieringer, Ernie, and Bev Dieringer 2001 White Ironstone China Plate Identification Guide 1840-1890. Schiffer Publishing Ltd., Atglen, Pennsylvania.

Eppinette, Robert T. 1995 Soil Survey of Hampton County, South Carolina. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC.

Fletcher, Joshua N., and Bruce Harvey 1999 Cultural Resources Survey of the Buckwalter Access Road Tract, Beaufort County, South Carolina. Prepared for the Branigar Organization, Bluffton, South Carolina.

Fletcher, Joshua N., Kristrina A. Shuler, Pat Hendrix, and Ralph Bailey 2001 Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of the Eastern Sandhills at Buckwalter Tract, Beaufort County, South Carolina. Prepared for Thomas and Hutton Engineering Company, Savannah, Georgia.

Google Earth 2006 google Earth aerial photograph of Hampton County, South Carolina. Available online at www.googleearth. com (accessed December 8, 2009).

Hampton County Deed Books (HCDB) 1878-present Originals at the Hampton County Register of Mesne Conveyance (RMC) Office, Hampton, South Carolina.

Heyward, James Barnwell n.d. “A good Name is rather to be chosen than great riches.” Privately published by the author. No publication given. Copy in the South Carolina Room of the Charleston County Public Library, Charleston, South Carolina.

Hill, James R., III, Elsie I. Eubanks, and Eric Poplin 1994 A Cultural Resources Overview of the Palmetto Bluff Tract, Beaufort County, South Carolina. Prepared for the Branigar Organization, Savannah, Georgia.

Jones, Olive, and Catherine Sullivan 1985 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary. National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa.

Lorrain, Dessamae 1968 An Archaeologist’s Guide to Nineteenth Century American Glass. Historical Archaeology 2:35-44.

McCrady Plat Collection n.d. Unpublished plat collection of John McCrady. Originals at the Charleston County RMC Office, Charleston, South Carolina. Microfilm copies in the South Carolina Room of the Charleston County Public Library, Charleston, South Carolina.

Mills, Robert 1825 Atlas of the State of South Carolina. Reprinted 1979. The Sandlapper Company, Inc., Lexington, South Carolina.

52 Brockington and Associates Nelson, Lee H. 1977 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings. American Association for State and Local History. Technical Leaflet 48. History News 21:11.

Noël Hume, Ivor 1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Vintage Books, New York.

Odell, George H. 2003 Lithic Analysis. Springer, Tulsa.

Poplin, Eric. C., Ralph Bailey, Dave Baluha, Joshua Fletcher, James Hill, and Tina Rust 2002 Cultural Resources Survey of the May River Tract at Palmetto Bluff, Bluffton, South Carolina. Prepared for Palmetto Bluff, LLC, Bluffton, South Carolina, by Brockington and Associates, Inc., Charleston, South Carolina.

Runyan, Catherine, and Charles Philips 2006 Cultural Resources Survey of the Anderson Tract, Jasper County, South Carolina. Prepared for Thomas & Hutton Engineering Company, Savannah, Georgia.

Savage, Beth L., and Sarah Dillard Pope 1998 National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC.

Sherfy, Marcella, and W. Ray Luce n.d. National Register Bulletin 22: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that Have Achieved Significance within the Last Fifty Years. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Washington, DC.

Slesin, Suzanne, Daniel Rozensztroch, and Stafford Cliff 1997 Everyday Things: Kitchen Ceramics. Abbeville Press, New York.

South Carolina Memorials (SCM) 1719-1775 Originals at the South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia.

South Carolina Highway Department 1938 General Highway and Transportation Map of Hampton County, SC. Columbia.

1975 General Map of Hampton County, SC. Columbia.

South Carolina State Plat Books 1783-1868 Originals at the South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia. Microfilm copies in the South Carolina Room of the Charleston County Public Library, Charleston, South Carolina.

South, Stanley 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.

Brockington and Associates 53 Sprague, Roderick 2002 China or Prosser Button Identification and Dating. Historical Archaeology 36(2):111-127.

Stroeber, E.M. 1878 Map of Beaufort County, SC. William Sloane Lithographers, Columbia, South Carolina.

Tippett, Lee, and Eric Griffitts 2002 Intensive Archaeological and Architectural Survey of SC Route 68 Widening and Improvements From Near I-95 to the Regional Industrial Park, Hampton County, South Carolina. Prepared by the Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle Jr., and John Knoerl 1993 National Register Bulletin 36: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Washington, DC.

US Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1957 Aerial photographs of Hampton County, South Carolina. Originals in the Special Collections Map Room of the Cooper Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

US Geological Survey (USGS) 1988 McPhersonville, SC quadrangle.

1988 Yemassee, SC quadrangle.

US War Department 1920 Yemassee, SC quadrangle. Original in possession of the authors.

Wheaton, Thomas R., and Patrick H. Garrow 1985 Acculturation and the Archaeological Record in Carolina Lowcountry. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, edited by T.A. Singleton, pp. 239-259. Academic Press, New York.

White, Carolyn L. 2005 American Artifacts of Personal Adornment 1680-1820: A Guide to Identification and Interpretation. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Williams, Mark, and Victor Thompson 1999 A Guide to Georgia Indian Pottery Types. Early Georgia 27(1).

Wilson, Rex L. 1981 Bottles on the Western Frontier. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

54 Brockington and Associates Appendix a: Artifact Inventory

Brockington and Associates

Artifact Catalog

Brockington and Associates, Inc. uses the following proveniencing system. Proveniences 2 to 200 designate shovel tests. Numbers after the decimal point designate levels. Provenience X.0 is a surface collection at a shovel test or unit. X .1 designates level one, and X.2 designates level two. For example, 2.1 is Shovel Test 2, Level 1.

Table of Contents Site Number Page Number Site Number Page Number Site Number Page Number 38HA1097 A - 138HA1100 A - 2 Islolates A - 6 38HA1098 A - 1 38HA1101 A - 5 38HA1099 A - 2 38HA1102 A - 6

Site Number: 38HA1097 Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Lithic Type Ceramic Type Temporal Range Comments

SITE NUMBER: 38HA1097

Provenience Number: 2. 0 Transect 11, Shovel Test 1, N500, E500, surface 1 1 43.95 Chert Biface Tool 2 1 45.62 Chert Preform Tool 3 1 4.89 Chert Blade/Knife Tool 4 1 6.41 Chert Shatter

SITE NUMBER: 38HA1098

Provenience Number: 2. 1 Shovel Test, N500, E485, 0-60 cmbs 1 1 14.67 Plain Body Sherd, Fiber Tempered Stallings 2 1 0.55 Chert Shatter 310.5Chert Shatter

Provenience Number: 3. 1 Shovel Test, N530, E485, 0-20 cmbs 1 1 6.53 Plain Body Sherd, Coarse Sand Tempered

Provenience Number: 4. 1 Shovel Test, N500, E500, 20-60 cmbs 1 2 0.33 Chert Flake Fragment 2 3 1.26 Chert Flake Fragment 3 1 1.78 Chert Flake Fragment 4 1 0.07 Chert Shatter 5 2 0.39 Chert Shatter

Provenience Number: 5. 1 Shovel Test, N500, E515, 20-50 cmbs

Page 1 of 6 Site Number: 38HA1098 Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Lithic Type Ceramic Type Temporal Range Comments

1 1 0.31 Residual Sherd 2 1 0.06 Chert Flake Fragment 3 1 0.16 Chert Flake Fragment

Provenience Number: 6. 1 Shovel Test, N515, E515, 20-30 cmbs 1 1 0.06 Chert Tertiary Bifacial Reduction Flake

Provenience Number: 7. 1 Shovel Test, N500, E530, 15-40 cmbs 1 1 4.32 Fabric Impressed Rim Sherd, Grog Tempered Wilmington 2 2 11.27 Fabric Impressed Body Sherd, Grog Tempered Wilmington 3 2 6.94 Eroded Body Sherd, Grog Tempered 4 3 7.07 Residual Sherd

SITE NUMBER: 38HA1099

Provenience Number: 2. 0 Shovel Test, N500, E500, surface 1 4 0.3 Chert Flake Fragment 2 3 0.76 Chert Flake Fragment 3 1 0.14 Chert Shatter 4 2 3.18 Chert Shatter 5 1 4.87 Chert Uniface Tool

Provenience Number: 3. 1 Shovel Test, N515, E500, 20-50 cmbs 1 3 0.39 Chert Flake Fragment

Provenience Number: 4. 1 Shovel Test, N500, E515, 10-100 cmbs 1 2 0.2 Chert Thinning Flake 2 1 0.07 Chert Tertiary Core Reduction Flake 3 1 0.81 Chert Tertiary Core Reduction Flake 4 1 0.01 Chert Flake Fragment 5 6 0.37 Chert Flake Fragment 6 1 0.15 Chert Flake Fragment 7 1 1.37 Chert Shatter

Provenience Number: 5. 1 Shovel Test, N515, E515, 0-40 cmbs 1 1 0.63 Chert Shatter

SITE NUMBER: 38HA1100

Provenience Number: 2. 1 Shovel Test, N545, E440, surface

Page 2 of 6 Site Number: 38HA1100 Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Lithic Type Ceramic Type Temporal Range Comments

1 185.39 Brick Fragment

Provenience Number: 3. 1 Shovel Test, N530, E455, 20-40 cmbs 1 1 8.39 Cut Nail

Provenience Number: 4. 1 Shovel Test, N515, E455, 0-40 cmbs 1 55.26 Brick Fragment

Provenience Number: 5. 1 Shovel Test, N500, E470, 0-30 cmbs 1 33.47 Brick Fragment

Provenience Number: 6. 1 Shovel Test, N515, E470, 0-40 cmbs 1 137.3 Brick Fragment

Provenience Number: 7. 1 Shovel Test, N530, E470, 0-40 cmbs 1 1 1.13 Undecorated Whiteware Body Sherd 2 165.48 Brick Fragment 3 1 0.82 Bone

Provenience Number: 8. 0 Shovel Test, N545, E470, surface 1 1 1.06 Undecorated Whiteware Body Sherd

Provenience Number: 9. 1 Shovel Test, N500, E485, 0-40 cmbs 1 1 18.43 Undecorated Whiteware Body Sherd

Provenience Number: 10. 1 Shovel Test, N530, E485, 0-20 cmbs 1 1 3.01 Undecorated Whiteware Body Sherd 2 1 1.26 Aqua Window Glass Fragment 3 2 8.23 Unidentifiable Square Nail 4 20.68 Brick Fragment

Provenience Number: 11. 1 Shovel Test, N560, E485, 0-40 cmbs 1 1 1.14 Undecorated Whiteware Base Sherd 2 1 10.28 Clear Glazed Stoneware Buff-Bodied Body Sherd 3 1 6.18 Unidentifiable Square Nail 4 12.93 Brick Fragment

Provenience Number: 12. 1 Shovel Test, N500, E500, 0-60 cmbs 1 1 1.2 Undecorated Whiteware Rim Sherd 2 3 13.66 Undecorated Whiteware Body Sherd 3 2 15.01 Undecorated Whiteware Base Sherd

Page 3 of 6 Site Number: 38HA1100 Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Lithic Type Ceramic Type Temporal Range Comments

4 2 5.03 Undecorated White Porcelain Body Sherd 5 1 26.88 Aqua Glass Bottle Fragment 6 1 1.61 Aqua Window Glass Fragment 7 1 378 Iron Hinge

Provenience Number: 13. 1 Shovel Test, N515, E500, 0-40 cmbs 1 2 5.77 Undecorated Whiteware Rim Sherd 2 1 9.29 Blue Transfer Printed Whiteware Base Sherd 3 52.11 Brick Fragment

Provenience Number: 14. 1 Shovel Test, N530, E500, 0-30 cmbs 1 1 2.59 Undecorated Whiteware Rim Sherd 2 2 2.12 Undecorated Whiteware Body Sherd 3 1 5.3 Undecorated Whiteware Base Sherd 4 1 3.79 Unglazed Redware 5 1 1.58 Olive Green Glass Bottle Fragment 6 1 1.15 Colorless Glass Bottle Fragment 7 1 2.09 Aqua Window Glass Fragment

Provenience Number: 15. 0 Shovel Test, N545, E500, surface 1 1 1.32 Undecorated Whiteware Rim Sherd 2 1 23.28 Molded Ironstone Handle Fragment

Provenience Number: 16. 1 Shovel Test, N560, E500, 0-30 cmbs 1 1 1.17 Undecorated Whiteware Body Sherd

Provenience Number: 17. 1 Shovel Test, N455, E515, 0-40 cmbs 1 1 10.17 Undecorated Whiteware Base Sherd

Provenience Number: 18. 1 Shovel Test, N485, E515, surface 1 200.75 Brick Fragment

Provenience Number: 19. 0 Shovel Test, N500, E515, surface 1 34.26 Brick Fragment

Provenience Number: 20. 0 Shovel Test, N515, E515, surface 1 1 3.53 Olive Green Glass Bottle Fragment

Provenience Number: 21. 1 Shovel Test, N530, E515, 0-30 cmbs 1 1 0.61 Polychrome Hand Painted Whiteware Body Sherd

Page 4 of 6 Site Number: 38HA1100 Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Lithic Type Ceramic Type Temporal Range Comments

2 1 5.38 Unidentifiable Burned Refined Earthenware Rim Sherd 3 10.44 Brick Fragment

Provenience Number: 22. 0 Shovel Test, N545, E515, surface 1 1 10.49 Undecorated Whiteware Base Sherd

Provenience Number: 23. 1 Shovel Test, N485, E530, 0-20 cmbs 1 1 3.59 Blue Transfer Printed Whiteware Body Sherd

Provenience Number: 24. 1 Shovel Test, N530, E530, 20-40 cmbs 1 1 1.55 Aqua Window Glass Fragment 2 2.36 Brick Fragment

SITE NUMBER: 38HA1101

Provenience Number: 2. 0 Shovel Test, N470, E470, surface 1 41 Brick Fragment

Provenience Number: 3. 1 Shovel Test, N500, E470, 0-30 cmbs 1 1 1.32 Undecorated Whiteware Body Sherd 2 1 0.16 Aqua Window Glass Fragment

Provenience Number: 4. 1 Shovel Test, N515, E470, 0-40 cmbs 1 1 4.71 Cut Nail 2 14.73 Brick Fragment

Provenience Number: 5. 1 Shovel Test, N500, E485, 0-30 cmbs 1 1 0.38 Aqua Window Glass Fragment 2 1 0.31 Colorless Window Glass Fragment

Provenience Number: 6. 0 Shovel Test, N470, E500, surface 1 1 41.46 Undecorated White Porcelain Base Sherd

Provenience Number: 7. 0 Shovel Test, N500, E500, surface 1 1 0.95 Undecorated White Porcelain Rim Sherd 2 1 74.65 Olive Green Machine-Made Glass Base Fragment

Provenience Number: 8. 1 Shovel Test, N470, E530, 0-50 cmbs 1 1 3.42 Check Stamped Body Sherd, Grog Tempered Wilmington

Provenience Number: 9. 1 Shovel Test, N485, E530, 0-50 cmbs

Page 5 of 6 Site Number: 38HA1101 Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Lithic Type Ceramic Type Temporal Range Comments

1 1 11.7 Cord Marked Body Sherd, Very Coarse Sand Deptford Tempered

Provenience Number: 10. 1 Shovel Test, N470, E545, 0-50 cmbs 1 1 2.35 Undecorated Whiteware Body Sherd

SITE NUMBER: 38HA1102

Provenience Number: 2. 1 Shovel Test, N485, E500, 0-60 cmbs 1 1 0.56 Chert Flake Fragment

Provenience Number: 3. 0 Shovel Test, N500, E500, surface 1 1 3.52 Chert Secondary Core Reduction Flake 2 1 2.42 Chalcedony Flake Fragment

Provenience Number: 4. 1 Shovel Test, N485, E530, 10-50 cmbs 1 1 8.36 Cord Marked Rim Sherd, Grog Tempered Wilmington

Provenience Number: 5. 1 Shovel Test, N500, E530, 0-20 cmbs 1 1 1.15 Chert Shatter

SITE NUMBER: Isolate 1

Provenience Number: 2. 0 Area B, Transect 7, Shovel Test, N500, E500, surface 1 1 0.21 Chert Tertiary Bifacial Reduction Flake

SITE NUMBER: Isolate 2

Provenience Number: 2. 1 Area A, Transect 10, Shovel Test 2, 0-60 cmbs 1 2 0.42 Chert Flake Fragment

SITE NUMBER: Isolate 3

Provenience Number: 2. 0 Area F, Transect 7, Shovel Test 2, surface 1 1 0.91 Olive Green Glass Bottle Fragment

Page 6 of 6

Referenced Maps Wetland determination letter Army Corps of Engineers August 7, 2008

The project area is depicted on the survey plat you submitted which was prepared by Thomas & Hutton Engineering Co., dated February 8, 2008, and entitled "FRESHWATER WETLANDS OF THE ANGEL TRACT", sheets 1 thru 17 of 17."