REGIONWIDE ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY PLAN

SOUTHEAST fiELD AREA

•••

Bennie C. Keel John E. Cornelison, Jr. David M. Brewer

with contributions by Mark Barnes Allen Bohnert Dennis Finch Guy Prentice George Smith Robert Wilson

• • •

Southeast Archeological Center National Park Service Tallahassee,

1996 A CKNOW LEDGEMENTS

First, we would 1ike to thank the former chief of Dennis Finch, SEACs CSI Coordinator, SEAC, Richard D. Faust, who retired in 1994, Database Section,. helped formulate the quadrat for allowing us the time and resources to com­ survey st.rategy for ready application to GIS. He plete this plan. His guidance and supervision provided the CSI data necessary to generate greatly assisted the production of a report of this many of the site-specific charts and figures. magnitude. The present chief, John E. Ehrenhard, Allen Bohnert, former chief of SEACs also deserves our thanks for continuing the Collections Management Section, contributed the tradition. data in Chapter 3 concerning the status of col­ A special thanks goes to Mark Barnes, lections. Our thanks to Allen for this information Archeologist with the National Register Programs and for providing the material for Appendix 3. Division in Atlanta, for his contributions in both We would also like to thank George Smith, the history and sections describing the chief of SEACs Investigation and Evaluations cultural history of the SoutheasL The information Section, for his overall support of the planned be collected and graciously shared was invaluable program and for his helpful comments. to the authors in preparing this plan. Guy Prentice contributed the archeological We would like to thank all of the park research sections concerning Big South Fork superintendents and resource managers, as well National River and Recreation Area and Mam­ as the State Historic Preservation Officers, re­ moth National Park. gional scholars, and representatives from federal We would like to thank Regina Leabo and agencies and tribal governments that responded to Robb McGowan for the AutoCa~ maps of the our requests for information. Their responses Southeast Field Area. have greatly enhanced the value of this document This plan would not have been possible for the cultural resources management of areas without the administrative support we received both within and adjacent to NPS units within the from Janice Burke, Judy Hanson, and Wilma region. Clark. We would like to extend a special thanks Robert Wilson, chief of SEACs Database to Judy for scanning the Preliminary Cultural Section, provided the information in Chapter 3 Resource Management Plans (PCRMP). concerning the status of the Cultural Site Inven­ Finally, a very special thank you to Virginia tory (CSI). We appreciate his contribution and Horak of the Interagency Archeological Services his objective analysis of both current status and Division, whose editorial and formatting assis­ future needs. tance considerably improved this document.

• • •

2 CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... • ...... • . • ...... 2

FIGURES AND TABLES ...... • ...... • . . . . • ...... • ...... • ...... 6

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY . . . . . • . . • . • . . • ...... • ...... 7

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION . . . . • ...... • . • . . 9 DESCRIPTION OF PARK UNITS ...... • . • • . • • . • . • . . . • ...... • ...... • . • . . 9 PROJECf FORMULATION AND MElHODOl.OGY ...... • ...... • . . . • . . • . • . . 9

CHAPTER 2- REGIONAL OVERVIEW ...... • . • ... • ...... • .... 13 GENERAL OVERVIEW ...•••...... •...•••••••••••.. • •.. • .... • . • . •••• . • ..•• 13 Natural History ...... • ...... • .... • .... • ... • ...... 14 Caribbean Natural History ...... • . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . • . • ...... 15 PREHISTORY, HISTORY, AND MARITIME HISTORY ..... • .... • ... • . • .... • . • ...... 15 Southeastern Prehistory ...... • . . • ...... • . . . . • . • ...... 16 The Paleoindian Period ...... • ...... • .... • . • ...... 16 The Archaic Period ...... • .... • ...... • .... • ...... 17 The ...... • .... • . • ...... 20 The Mississippian and Late Prehistoric Period ...... • ...... 29 PREHISTORY OF Tim CARIBBEAN CUI..TIJRE AREA ...... •••...... 32 Paleoi11dian Period ...... 33 Mesoindian Period ...... • ...... 33 Neoi11dia11 Period ...... • . •...... 35 HISTORY OF Tim SOUTIIEAST AND CARIBBEAN AREA •...••• • ...... • ...... 39 Spanish Exploration and Settlement ...... 39 French Exploration and Settlement .... • .... • ...... • ...... • ...... 40 English Exploration and Settlement ...... • . • ..... 41 Other European Exploration and Settlement ...... • ..... • ...... • . • ..... 42 Physical Development ...... • ... . . • ...... • ...... 42 The American Revolution in the South .. . • ...... • ...... • ...... 42 Explorations of the West ...... • ...... • . • ...... • ..... 43 War of 1812 ...... • .... • ...... • ..... • ...... 44 The Civil War ...... • .. • ...... • ...... • . • ... . . 45 Post·Civil War ...... • ...... • ..... • ...... • . • ..... 48

3 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheasl Field Area

MARITIME H ISTORY IN 1l!E SOlTIHEAST •• . ••••••••••• .. ..•.. • ..•... • . •• • • . . .. . • 49 European Colonial Exploration and Settlement ...... • .. . . •. . .. . • ...... • .... 50 Development of the English Colonies ...... • ... . 51 Miscellaneous Themes ...... • . • .... • . • ...... 52

CHAPTER 3-STATUS OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ...... • . • ....•. . .. 54 II'ITROOUCI10N . . •• . . . . • •...••. . . •. . . ••... • • ...... •• •.•••••....•••.••• •••••• . • 54 A Brief History of Early NPS Archeological Research in SEFA ...... 54 THE SOlTiliEAST ARCHEOLOGICAL CENTI:R (SEAC) ...... 55 Mission Statement ...... •...... • ...... 55 PREVI OUS ARCHEOLOGICAL INVENTORY RESEARCH ••.. . ••• • ••••••••••.... • .•••... 56 PREVIOUS LARGE-SCALE SURVEYS ...... • ...... • .•• • •. . 56 Big Cypress National Preserve (BICY) ...... 56 Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area (BISO) ...... • . • ... . . 57 Biscayne National Park (BISC) ...... • . • ..... 59 Canaveral National Seashore (CANA) ...... • .... • .... . • . • ...... 59 Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO) ...... • ...... • . • ...... 59 Charles Pinckney National Historic Site (CHPI) ...... • ...... 60 Cltattaltoochee River National Recreation Area (CHAT) ...... • ...... 60 Cumberland Island National Seashore (CUJS) ...... • . • ...... • . • ... 60 Dry Tortugas National Park (DRTO) ...... • . •....•...... 61 Everglades National Park (EVER) ...... 61 Fort Matanzas National Monument (FOMA) ...... 62 Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM) ...... • ...... • ... 62 Gulf Islands National Seashore (GUIS) ...... • ...... • ... 62 Mammoth Cave National Park (MACA) ...... • ...... • . .. 64 Natchez Trace Parkway (NATR) ...... • ...... • ...... • ... 66 Obed Wild and Scenic River (OBRI) ...... • .... • ...... • . .. 66 Russell Cave National Monument (RUCA) ...... • ...... • . .. 66 Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve (TIMU) ...... • . • ...... 66 THE REGIONAL CSI-A ...... •...•• ...... ••• . • . • ••• . • . ••••... .. 67 CSI·A FOri/IS ...... • ...... • ...... 67 National Register Forms ...... • ...... • ...... 69 CSI-A Resource Base Inventory Maps ...... 69 Bibliography of Archeological Surveys, Studies, Researc/~ and Remote Sensing Data ..... 70 Archeological Inventories ofP ark-Conducted Studies ...... 70 Maps Keyed to Show the Level of Survey Coverage wit/tin Each Park .... • . • ...... 70 STA1US OF REGIONAL ARCHEOLOGICAL C0LLECI10NS • . •••• • •••. .. ••• • ...... 71 Collection Cataloging ...... 71 Collection Conservation and Storage ...... • .... • ...... 72

4 ConlenlS

SOUCITED COMMENTS ...... • ... . • ...... • ...... • ...... • .... 73 Florida ...... • .. • . • .. • .. • .... • . ... • .. . . • ...... • .... 74 Georgia ...... • .... • ...... • . .. • ...... • ...... • .. .. 74 Mississippi ...... • . ... 74 ...... • . • ...... • ... . • ...... • . •. . . . • . • ...... 75 Tennessee ...... • ...... • ...... • ...... 75 Virginia ...... • ...... 75 GENERAL COMMENTS ...... • . • ..... 77

CHAPTER 4-THEMATIC FRAMEWORK AND SIGNI FICANCE ..... • . • ...... • ..... 78 THEMATIC FRAMEWORK AS A REsEARCH FOR EVALUATION ...... • . • ...... 78 ASSESSMENT OF ARCHEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE ...... • ...... • ... 78 SEAC-IDEN11FIED RESEARCH TOPICS ...... • ...... • ...... 79

CHAPTER 5 - FIELD STRATEGIES .... . • ...... • . • ...... 81 SCOPE OF PROJECTS ...... • . • .. • .... • .. • . • ...... • ...... • ... 81 SURVEY ME1l10DS AND COVERAGE ...... • ..... • ..•. • . • ...... • ... 82 Archeological Overview and Assessments (AOA) ...... • ...... 82 Non-Invasive Investigations ...... • ...... • . • ...... 82 Remote Sensing Investigatians ...... • ...... • ...... 83 Invasive Investigations ...... • ...... • ...... • ...... 84 Site Testing ...... • .... • ...... • .... • .. • . . ...•.• ...... • ...... 84 Post Field ...... • .... • ...... 84 CONCLUSION ...... • ...... • . . .. • ...... 85

CHAPTER 6 - RELATED ARCHEOLOGICAL INVENTORY PROJECTS ...... • ...... 86

CHAPTER 7 - PROJECT SEQUENCE ...... • .... • ...... • ... . . • .... • ...... 92 THE PRIORITY SYSTEM ...... • ... .• ...... • ..... • ...... • ...... 92 PROJECI'S IN SEQUENTIAL ORDER ...... • .... . • ...... 93

APPENDIX I - PARK ACREAGE BY LEGAL TYPE ...... 104

APPENDIX 2 - MODULAR OVERVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OUTLINE ...... • ... 106

APPENDIX 3 -PREVIOUS ARCHEOLOGICAL TESTING BY PARK ...... • ... 107

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... • ...... • ...... • ... 138

5 FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES t. SEFA land holdings by ownership ...... 9 2. State and territory delineations and park locations in SEFA ...... 13 3. Major physiographic zones in SEFA ...... • . . ... 14 4. SEFA parks with a Palcoindian component ...... 16 5. SEFA parks with an Archaic component ...... • . • ... 18 6. Swift Creek and Napier complicated stamped motifs ...... 20 7. SEFA parks with a Woodland component ...... • . • ... 21 8. Bibb Plain vessel from Ocmulgec National Monument, recovered by the WPA ...... 30 9. SEFA parks with a Mississippian component ...... 31 10. Hat pin (6 inches long) recovered in the area of Canaveral National Seashore ...... 41 11. SEFA parks with a Revolutionary War component ...... 44 12. SEFA parks with a Civil War component ...... • ...... 46 13. Ship ring bolt from the area of Canaveral National Seashore ...... 51 14. Archeological resources in the Southeast by general period ...... 67 15. National Register status of prehistoric sites in SEFA ...... • ...... 68 16. National Register status of historic sites in SEFA ...... 68 17. Eighteenth-century Spanish wooden figurine found on the beach at Biscayne National Park .. 72 18. A quadrat showing numbering sequence ...... 83 19. SEFA parks with European contact sites ...... • .... • .. ...• ...... • ...... 87 20. SEFA parks with a plantation and slavery component ...... • .... • . •...... 91

TABLES I. Number of SEFA units by type ...... • . . . . • . . . . • ...... 9 2. Park locations, settings, and geographic zones ...... • . • ...... 10- 11 3. Palcoindian cultural chronology ...... • .. .• ...... 16 4. Archaic cultural chronology ...... • ..... • .. . . • ...... 18 5. Woodland/Gulf Formational cultural chronology ... . • .... • ..... • .... • . • ...... 22 6. Mississippian cultural chronology ...... • ...... • ...... • ...... 30 7. Caribbean cultural chronology ...... • ...... • ...... 33 8. Response to requests for comments regarding this plan ...... • ...... 73 9. Areas to be surveyed in SEFA parks ...... • . •...... 82 10. Atlantic Coast Cluster projects and cluster sequence ...... • ... • ...... 94-97 11. Appalachian Coast Ouster projects and cluster sequence ...... 98-100 12. Gulf Coast Ouster projects and cluster sequence ...... 101- 103

6 MANA GEMENT SUMMARY

The overall goal of the Systemwide Archeo­ projects. These themes-selected for their gen­ logical Inventory Program (SAIP) is to "conduct eral suitability to the historic development of systematic, scientific research to locate, evalu­ the Southeast and for their compatibility with ate, and document archeological resources on thematic associations in other field areas-arc National Park System lands" (Aubry el al. as follows: 1992:2). To accomplish Ibis in a timely and efficient manner, each field area of the National • European Colonial Exploration and Settlement Park Service (NPS) was asked to develop a plan of action. 1n response, this document--the Re­ • The American 'Revolution gionwide Archeological Survey Plan (RASP)­ was created by the Southeast Archeological • The Civil War Center for the Southeast Field Area (SEFA) (formerly the Southeast Region or SER). • American Way of Life (Slavery. and Planta­ Chapter 1 contains a description of park tion Life) lands and project formulation methodology. It also has information on land ownership, envi­ Chapter 7 discusses the following seven ronmental zones, physiographic zones, and ac­ criteria used to determine project sequence. cess. Databases, assembled to identify inventory and site testing projects, are also described. • Can archeological inventory projects be co­ Chapter 2 is a cultural overview containing ordinated with the scheduled development or the history, prehistory, and a maritime history of revision of park planning documents? the Southeast. Chapter 3 presents the current status of the • Are there current or potential threats to the archeological resources in SEFA. Additionally, park resources from natural processes or it contains statements both on previous archeo­ activities? logical research by SEAC and on the status of the Cultural Sites Inventory (CSI). Also dis­ • Are there development or special usc zones in cussed are comments solicited from lbc parks, the park? State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), scholars, other federal agencies, and federally • Is the park or a historic zone within lbe park recognized Indian tribes regarding regional listed on the National Register? archeology. Chapter 4 contains the theoretical frame­ • Does the archeological inventory project ad­ work and methodologies that will be used to dress research questions, problems, topics, or evaluate sites for National Register of Historic priorities of state, regional, or national im­ Places (NRHP) significance and to make recom­ portance? mendations for eligibility. Chapter 5 describes the field techniques • Does lbe park lack virtually any archeological that will be used for inventory and site testing. information? The Geographic Information System (GIS) digi­ tal structure is also explained. • Is lbe archcolo.gical potential either unknown Chapter 6 describes four thematic associa­ or considered to be high based on profes­ tions for interregional and mullipark survey sional recommendations?

7 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area

Two additional criteria were considered by the • HisiOric InveniOry SEFA SAIP/RASP team: • PrehisiOric InveniOry • Submerged lnveniOry • Has an Archeological Overview and Assess­ ment (AOA} been completed, or bas an AOA 3. Site Testing (Project Type - AES [Arche­ been requested in a project statement in the ological Evaluation Study]) Resource Management Plan (RMP)? As a result of recent restructuring in the • Is there ongoing archeological research or a NPS, the Southeast Field Area (formerly the previous SAIP/RASP commitment? Southeast Region) has recently been divided iniO three clusters: the Gulf Coas1, the Appalachian, Parks were also ranked, based on their and the Atlantic CoasL Although physically research needs, from No. 1 (meeting the most located within the Gulf Coast Cluster, SEAC will factors) to No. 64 (meeting the fewest factors). service all three clusters as well as Louisiana and Therefore, prehistoric inventory, historic inven­ parts of Texas and Maryland. Therefore, each tory, multiyear inventory, site testing (and evalu­ project statement bas been assigned a cluster ation}, inventory projects already stated in the sequence based on its former regional sequence. RMP, and submerged inventory projects were When this document was prepared, reorganization assigned their present sequence based on the plans had not been finalized; in fact, the process above ranking. is still a work in progress. Therefore, parks added Because it is more efficient and cost cUec­ to the clusters from outside the former region tive to conduct archeological inventories after might not yet be rellected in this document At completion of an AOA, a project statement to the appropriate time, they will be added to the this effect was created and added for each park project's database and assigned a sequence num­ that did not have one listed in its RMP. Project ber based on the criteria noted herein. statements were also created for evaluation stud­ Chapter 7 also bas three tables that show the ies when known and recorded sites bad not been proposed projects in regional and cluster tested to the level required by NPS-28: Cultural sequences. Resource Manageme11t Guidelines (NPS 1985) The plan concludes with the following three and by the Secretary of the Interior's standards appendices: for determining National Register eligibility. For the above reason, intrapark sequence 1. Park Acreage by Legal Type was consistently applied as follows: 2. Modular Overview and Assessment (AOA} 1. AOA (Project Type - AOA} Outline

2. Inventory Projects (Project Type - AIS [Ar­ 3. Previous Archeological Testing by Park cheological Inventory Study]), including (in RMP): Finally, for convenience, we have listed • Multiyear Inventory some abbreviations and acronyms, including • Thematic lnveniOry those for SEFA p.arks, on the inside back cover.

• ••

8 Chapter 1 INfRODUCTION

DESCRIPTION OF PARK UNITS Table 1 - Number of SEFA units by type.

As of February 1, 1994, the Southeast Regional Ecological and Histo,ie PreseN< I National Battlelield 5 Office (now SEFA) of the National Park Serv­ National Battlelield P"'k ice (NPS) consisted of sixty-four units divided National Battlefield Site l into eighteen basic types (fable 1), representing National Cemetery 4 17 percent of the total number of NPS holdings. National Historic Site 12 The SEFA units consist of over 3.7 million National Historical Park 2 acres (Appendix 1), or 4.8 percent of the total National Historical Park and Ecological Preserve I National Memorial 3 NPS acreage. Included in this figure are N•tional Military Pari< 6 approximately 1.019 million acres of submerged National Monument 9 lands that are owned, managed, or administered National Park 6 by SEFA. In addition, there are almost 242,200 National Preserve 2 acres of private inholdings (Figure 1). National Reaeation Area 1 Of all the parks in SEFA, only Ocmulgee National River and Recreation Area 1 National Sea.(iOOre S National Monument, Russell Cave National Parkw•y 3 Monument, and Tlmucuan Ecological and His­ Wild and Scenic River toric Preserve are major "archeological" parks wherein significant archeological values have Total 64 been expressly identified in their establishing legislation. The enabling legislation for most of the other parks in the region generally does not SEFA units are found in a variety of expressly mention archeological resources, al­ settings (Table 2) from the coastal zones, lo though preservation of significant historical, cul­ swamps, rivers, piedmonts, and mountains. tural, and scientific resources is often addressed Settings also vary from rural, as at Horseshoe in the enacting legislation itself or in subsequent Bend National Military Park, to urban, as at guidelines and/or defining rules and regulations. Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic It should be noted, however, that virtually every Site and San Juan National Historic Site. SEFA unit contains archeological resources.

PROJECT FORMUlATION AND METHODOLOGY Other 5% After reviewing the Systemwide Archeological Inventory Program (SAIP) requirements (Aubry et al. 1992), the Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan (RASP) team at the Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC) chose to use the Resource Management Plans (RMPs) from the Fcc park units to guide inventory (site location), 89"4 identification (site testing), and evaluation (rec­ ommendation of National Register eligibility) Figure I - SEFA land holdings by ownership.

9 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area

10 Chapter 1 - Introduction

• See inside back oover for a list of park names and I heir abbreviations/aaonyms. studies as required. Project statements from the Budget, and Finance. Project statements were park units' RMPs were placed into a database at compiled and sorted by type of study (inven­ SEAC. Once this database (PROJECI'S) was tory, identification, or evaluation) and then ap­ constructed, all noncultural project statements pended to the PIROJECI'S database. Duplicate were then removed. projec-ts were removed. Three additional databases were reviewed With all available cultural project state­ for inventory, location, identification, descrip­ ments in the PROJECI'S database, the projects tion, and evaluation studies. These databases were reviewed to insure that the project state­ were the SERRMP, a listing of regional project ments were suitable for inclusion into the SAIP statements maintained by tbe NPS Washington regionwide plan. The primary criterion for in­ Office (WASO), the RMP program database of clusion was whether the project statements project statements maintained by SEFA as part would result in accomplishing the SAIP objec­ of the overall RMP production software, and the tives of identification, inventory, evaluation, and MYPFS (Multiyear Project Formulation Sys­ documentation of archeological sites on SEFA tem), a database of early, older project state­ park unit lands. ments maintained by SEFA Administration, Where project statements reflecting SAIP

11 Region wide Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area r<:commendations were not addressed in either an Archeological Overview and Assessment the parks' RMPs or any of the above project­ (AOA) will be needed for each park. A project tracking databases, yet were identified by SEAC statement for completing an AOA was created as necessary to meet the program's overall and added for each park that lacked one in its goals, new project statements were formulated RMP. Project si3Jtements were also created for at SEAC to fulfill those needs. These project general inventories, both historic and prehistoric statements were added to the PROJECI'S data­ surveys, and evaluation studies when known base and coded as SEACgenerated (designated and recorded sites have not undergone testing to by a capital •z• before the project number). the level required by NPS-28: Cultural Re­ This ensured that as these project statements are source Management Guidelines (NPS 1985) and created, they wiJI be forwarded to the individual the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for parks for the superintendent's concurrence and Archeological and Historic Preservation to as a recommended addition to the park's RMP. recommend National Register eligibility. Information received from regional schol­ Regionwide project statements were also ars, other federal agencies, and recognized Indi­ created for conversion of the regional CSI an tribes was reviewed and then used to insure database into tbe servicewide Archeological that appropriate survey methods were selected Sites Management Information System (ASMlS) for each park unit. and for elimination of the backlog of data In preparation for archeological inventories, collection required for ASMIS.

•••

12 Chapter 2 REGIONAL OVERVIEW

GENERAL OVERVIEW homogeneity in physiography, environment, ar­ cheology, and history is lacking. Units of the SEFA comprises eight states and two territories: National Park system are present in all of the Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Missis­ major physiographic provinces and ecological sippi, , South Carolina, Tennes­ zones of the sou~heastern . Each see, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands unit's archeological resources need to be studied (Figure 2). Considering the extensive area and understood in relation to the local physi­ covered by SEFA, it is not surprising that ography, microenvironmental zone, and history.

f----1· •

• • • • • • • • •

Figure 2 - Slate and territory (inset, not to scale) delineations and park locations in SEFA.

13 Regwnwide Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area

So, at the park level, there may be a need for more de- tailed study than provided by the following generalizations of the natural hisiOry and development of human soci­ eties in the Southeast region.

NATURAL HISTORY

The eastern and southern margins of the southeastern United States are bounded by the Continental Margin and the Coastal Plain physio­ graphic provinces. The Alle­ Plains gheny Plateaus, Appalachian Ranges, and Piedmont Pla­ teaus physiographic prov­ inces cut diagonally in a northeast direction across the southern states from their Caribbean southwestern borders along the interior of the Gulf Coastal Plain (Thornbury 1965:1-13) (Figure 3). The geological history of . ... ~ the Southeast is complex and not completely understood. Figure 3- Major physiographic zones in SEFA (inset not to scale). Notwithstanding, we know that the waterways draining the interior of the region played a major role in (some localized) of sedimentary and metamor­ both prehisiOric and historic times. Rivers and phic rock were sources for ground and polished streams provided easy and emcient transporta­ , ornaments, and containers. In areas, such tion for trade and commerce, as well as sus­ as the coastal plain and coast, where stone was tenance in the form of fish, shellfish, and rare or absent, einher trade or the substitution of migratory waterfowl, which pass through the shell, wood, and bone filled the need for raw region twice annually. With periodic deposits of materials to fashion tools and other implements. fresh sediments, these watersheds improved the The ecological zonation of the region is a land for . They also provided the product of its climate, geology, and geomor­ energy to drive the mills of the Industrial phology. Revolution when it later spread across the area. The Temperate Deciduous Forest Biome in Both localized and widespread deposits of the southern region of the United States is char­ cryptocrystalline rocks provided Native Ameri­ acterized by three forest zones: the magnolia­ can groups, throughout the more than 10,000 maritime forests along the coast, the pine lands years of their exclusive occupation of the re­ further inland, and the oak-hickory forests in the gion, with the raw material for piercing, cutting, interior. Within each of the major forest zones, scraping, and boring tools. Likewise, deposits a variety of microenvironments, created by the

14 Chapter 2 - Regional Overview interaction of local soil, relief, drainage, climate, Rouse (1992) states that most of the islands and history, are present (Sbelford 1963:1-119). are within sight of each other, facilitating travel. The major fauna, such as and large fowl, He also states that the ocean currents Oow south were present throughout these zones. These to north and east 1o west. The trade winds animals were important to the first Americans blowing from the northeast bring heavy rain. as well as 1o later arrivals, such as the European When an island is mountainous, the rain is immigrants and the African slaves. To be sure, dumped on the north and east side of the some important species of shellfish bad restrict­ mountains leaving the other side dry. The ed distributions, but where these were absent, rainforest-to-semiarid environment affected the other resources were handily exploited. overall settlement patterns on the islands. In The continental Southeast as a whole is general, the climate and vegetation are tropical. characterized by a temperate climate, except for Rouse also states that the "forest contained an the Everglades, a small subtropical zone of abundance of wild fruit and vegetables" and southern Florida. Plant, animal, and mineral "saltwater Fish, shellfish, and waterfowl were resources were abundantly distributed across the available along tlile shore" (1992:4). Other ani­ region so that no human society bad to endure a mals found included turtles and manatees. The particularly hostile natural environment The limited variation of food resources on the abundance of this natural world is seen archeo­ different islands necessitated the development of logically by the recognition that throughout the trade networks. human history of the area, culture evolved smoothly both chronologically and in com­ plexity to a surprising degree. PREHISTORY, HISTORY, AND MARITIME HISTORY CARIBBEAN NATURAL HISTORY The subsequent sections on prehistory, history, The Caribbean is composed of two distinctive and maritime history are discussed using the chains of islands--the Lesser and Greater An­ format set forth in History and Prehistory in the tilles. The Lesser Antilles are a line of mainly National Park System and the National Histor-ic volcanic islands sweeping northward from the Landmarks Program (NPS 1987). This system island of Trinidad, near the mouth of the divides history into thematic associations within Orinoco River in Venezuela. This island chain a general historic framework or background. continues northward to the three American The goal of the system is "to cover all areas of Virgin Islands (St. Thomas, SL John, and St. United States hislory without excessive detail Croix), where they meet the Greater Antilles. and minutiae" (NPS 1987:i). Information regard­ The Greater Antilles consist of four large ing particular paiks is summarized from official islands: Puerto Rico, Hispaniola (containing park publications and other references as cited. Haiti and the Dominican Republic), Cuba, and The following sections present the region's Jamaica. While there is evidence of volcanism prehisiOry in the cultural history framework in the Greater Antilles, they are, for the most commonly taught in most Southeast university part, a submerged mountain range jutting archeology courses. As appropriate, the infor­ westward into the caribbean for over a mation and topics will be tied to specific NPS thousand miles. To the north of Cuba and National Hisroric Landmark (NHL) themes, as Hispaniola are the low-lying Bahamian Islands. out! ined in the shadow boxes. Coverage of the This area, and usually the eastern coast of continental portion of the region is followed by Venezuela, is collectively called the Caribbean a description of tihe Caribbean area. Cultural Area.

15 Regionwide Archeological Survey Pflln, Southeast Field Area

SOUTHEASTERN PREHISTORY the distribution of Paleoindian point types and the Late environment have led ar­ The Paleoindian Period cheologists to develop new models for Paleo­ indian occupation in the Southeast-now broken down into three subperiods between 9500 and I. Cultural Developments: Indigenous 7900 B.C. (Table .3). American Populations A. The Earliest Inhabitants I. The Early Peopling of North Table 3 - Paleoindian cultural chronology. America Early Paleoindian 9500 - 9000 B.C.

Middle Paleoind ian 9000 - 8500 B.C. The current view of the Paleoindian period envisions bands of bunters entering the North Late Paleoindian 8500 - 7900 B.C. American continent (circa 13,000 B.C.) by cross­ ing a land bridge that connected eastern Siberia The first subperiod, Early Paleoindian with Alaska. The land bridge was created during (9500-9000 B.C.), is characterized by Qovis or the Late Pleistocene by continent-sized glaciers, Clovis-like large Outed stone points. It is be­ which, when created, drew water from the lieved that the distribution of these points oceans' lowering sea levels by some 120 meters. throughout all th.e environmental zones in the It would appear that these same glaciers pre­ Southeast represents the initial exploration and vented these immigrants from expanding into colonization of the region. Great mobility of the the rest of the North American continent until Paleoindians of this subperiod is suggested by about 12,000 B.C. The best diagnostic archeological evi­ dence for these early Paleoindian bands are long Outed stone points called Clovis points after the Clovis Site, New Mexico, where this point type was first recognized as occur­ ring with Late Pleistocene fauna. The Paleo­ indians appear to have occupied most of the North American continent, including the Southeast, within just a few hundred years after 10,000 B.C. Paleoindian period artifacts have been located in Big South Fork Na­ tional River And Recreation Area, Chatta­ hoochee River National Recreation Area, M ammoth Cave National Park, Ocmulgee National Monument, and Russell Cave National Monument (Figure 4). Since 1960, archeological studies of the river basin projects, as well as statewide studies of Paleoindian point finds and site distributions in the Southeast, have led to refinements in the sequencing of point types and attempts to reconstruct Paleoindian cul­ tural activities. Excavations at Paleoindian . -- sites, better dating techniques, and study of Figure 4 - SEFA parks with a Paleoindian component.

16 Chapter 2 - Regional Overview

the finding of stone tools and traded or stone tools appear to decrease as Late Paleo­ transported by these small bands over hundreds indian groups relied on local materials for their of kilometers from their quarry source. The needs. Southeast, at this time, consisted of three broad environmental zones, running west to east They The Archaic Period were cool-climate forests, temperate oak­ hickory-pine forests, and subtropical sandy scrub. The last area was confined to the Florida I. Cultural Developments: Indigenous peninsula and the coastal plain in the Southeast, American Populations which extended several kilometers outward from A. The Earliest Inhabitants its present location due to the lower sea level. 12. Archaic Adaptations of the Mississippi Valley Region Megafauna of the Late Pleistocene was found in 13. Archaic Adaptations of the • these three environmental zones. Southeast (including the The second subperiod, the Middle Paleo· Cumberland Region) indian (9000--8500 B.C.), is characterized by a number of fluted and unfluted points, both larg­ er and smaller than Clovis points. The point types of this subperiod in the Southeast are William A. Ritchie (1932) first used the term Cumberland, Redstone, Suwannee, Lake, • Archaic• in American archeological literature Quad, Coldwater, and Simpson. This subperiod to describe the cultural material, primarily is viewed as a time when the population was chipped stone tools, from the Lamoka Lake Site adapting to optimum environmental resource in New York. During the Works Progress zones instead of randomly moving throughout Administration (WPA) excavations of the 1930s the Southeast. Concentration on specific zones and 1940s, southeastern sites that were recog­ and resources may account for the variation in nized as producing lithic materials similar to the stone points of this subperiod. Lamoka Lake were also classified as Archaic. The last subperiod, the Late Paleoindian Today, archeologists use the term to describe a (8500-7900 B.C.), is characterized by Dalton temporal and cultural period, differentiated from and other side-notched-style points. The replace­ the earlier Paleo£ndian period and more recent ment of Outed point forms by nonfluted points periods on the basis of stylistic differences in is believed to reflect a change in the adaptive stone point types, the appearance of other arti­ strategy, away from bunting Late Pleistocene facts, and changes in economic orientation. Ar­ megafauna toward a more generalized bunting chaic sites have been located in Big Cypress of small, modem game, such as deer, and a National Preserve, Big South Fork National collecting subsistence strategy within the south­ River and Recreation Area, Blue Ridge Park­ em pine forests as they replaced the boreal way, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Cape forests. Lookout National Seashore, Chattahoochee Chert deposits may have attracted Paleo­ R iver National Recreation Area, Chickama uga indian groups of this subperiod to specific and Chattanooga National Military Park, Foot­ locales in order to replenish their stone tools. hills Parkway, Gr eat Smoky Mountains Na­ Such a tendency may have constrained these tional Park, Horseshoe Bend National Military groups to a specific landscape, setting the stage Park, Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield for the intensive regional specialization that Park, Kings Mountain National Military Park, characterized the succeeding Archaic Period. It Mammoth Cave National Park, Natchez T race is possible that large Paleoindian sites in the Parkway, Ninety Six National Historic Site, Southeast are permanent or semipermanent base Obed Wild and Scenic River, Ocmulgee camps from which resources of specific terri­ National Monument, Stones River National tories were exploited. Trade or transportation of Battlefield, Timucuan Ecological and Historic

17 Region wide Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area

~ ..

FigureS- SEFA parks with An Arehaic component (inset of Caribbean area not to scale).

Preserve, Virgin Islands National Park, and ronment similar to that found in the Southeast Wright Brothers National Memorial (Figure 5). today. Before 1960, the major goal of Archaic Excavations at stratified Early Archaic sites period research was to develop a relative chro· near permanent water sources or along rivers no logy. Information derived from excavations at have produced comer, basal, and some side­ deeply stratified quarry, habitation, and cave notched points, such as Palmer, Kirk, and sites in the Southeast--such as Russell Cave in LeCroy, which a~e found throughout the south· Alabama, in Kentucky, and the Hardaway and Doerschuk sites in North Caro· !ina-was used to develop the following chro· Table 4 - Archaic cultural chronology. nology for the Archaic period (Table 4). Early Archaic 80()0 - 6CK)O B.C. The Early Archaic period (8000-6000 B.C.) was defined on the basis of chipped stone Middle Archaic 60()0 - 30<>0 B.C. projectile-point and styles. This time period is associated with the final glacial retreat Late Archaic 30()0 - 10<>0 B.C. on the North American continent and an cnvi-

18 Chapter 2 -Regional Overview eastern United States. Other points, such as St. as nuts, fruits, berries, and seeds. This period Albans, Kessell, Big Sandy, and Kanawab, have demonstrated the first occurrence of shellfish a limited southeastern geographical distribution. collecting within river valleys and along the It is this introduction of new point types that seacoast. At these "base• camps are found differentiates the Early Archaic period from the storage pits, remains of bouse floors, and preceding Late Paleoindian subpcriod. prepared -all indications or increased Like the Late Paleoindian subperiod, it was sedentism at certain sites. Recent radiocarbon presumed that the Early Archaic culture con­ samples in Louisiana have provided consider­ sisted of small mobile bands exploiting defined able evidence of a mound-building tradition in territories, but tbe increase in the number of Louisiana at least by 3000 B.C. There is also a sites and the recovery of non local cherts tend to moderate increase in the amount of trade in support an increase in population resulting in nonlocal chert materials supposedly due to a larger numbers of bands that traded resources continued growth in prehistoric population. with each other. The proliferation in point types Trade networks that focused on specialized re­ appeared to also represent the ongoing regional sources developed when people began to live in specialization ftrSt apparent in the Late Paleo­ sedentary base camps. indian subperiod. The Late Archaic period (3000-1000 B.C.) The range of lithic tools included , in the Southeast consisted of regional speciali­ perforators, drills, choppers, flake knives and zation using a generalized subsistence technol­ scrapers, gouges, and . In addi­ ogy to efficiently exploit locally available plant tion, wet sites--such as the Windover site near and animal resources. For example, freshwater present-day Titusville, Florida, which produced mussels from the Green River in Kentucky, exceptionally well-preserved organic materials­ provided the basis for an expanded dietary have produced artifacts that have enlarged this inventory that i.ncluded seed crops and native inventory. These artifacts include bone points, and tropical cultjgens, suggesting that this cul­ atlatl hooks, barbed points, fish books, and pins; ture was experimenting with horticulture. Late shell ; wooden stakes and ; and Archaic cultures .along the South Atlantic coast fragments of cloth, clothing, and woven bags. developed sedentary settlements based on the This new information on the Early Archaic has utilization of the saltwater oyster beds. The Late contributed to a view of a residentially stable Archaic culture in the lower Mis­ and gathering band society that season­ sissippi River Valley developed large permanent ally occupied base camps along major water towns with satellite communities. These were courses and exploited I ithic and food resources linked in a program of trade in exotic nonlocal within individual stream drainages. lithic raw materials as well as in the production The Middle Archaic period (~3000 and trade of finished goods made from these B.C.) in the Southeast is marked by a further materials throughout much of the eastern United intensification of regionalization of prehistoric States. The treatment of burials at the Green cultures. A variety of new chipped stone points River sites--some containing exotic trade (for example, Stanly, Morrow Mountain, Levy, materials-may reflect the beginnings of a Eva, Benton, Cypress Creek, Arrendondo, White hierarchy of individuals whose sole responsi­ Springs, Sykes, and Newnan) and a series of bility was the establishment and maintenance of tools and implements first appear these trade networks. in this period. These tools are used mainly for At the end of the Late Archaic, fiber­ plant food processing. tempered plain and decorated ceramics appeared The Middle Archaic appears to involve a along the South Atlantic coast. This ceramic very generalized resource exploitation strategy, technology spread westward to the coastal plain which included the bunting of a variety of of Alabama and Mississippi, to the Poverty animals and the gathering of wild plants, such Point culture area, southward into Florida, and

19 Region wide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area eventually to most of the southeastern United By the mid-1960s, however, it was evident that States. The appearance of this new technology in some areas of the United States prehistoric bas traditionally been viewed as the transitional cultural groups with a clearly Archaic cultural period between the Archaic bunting and gath· assemblage were making pottery without any ering societies and the emergence of settled evidence of the cultivation of domesticated Woodland-period villages and communities crops. In fact, it :appears that bunting and gath· whose existence depended on a combination of ering continued as the basic subsistence econo· horticulture and bunting and gathering. Finally, my and that true agriculture did not occur in the Archaic saw the beginning of a southeastern much of the Southeast for a couple of thousand mound-building tradition that would be further yean; after the introduction of pottery. Wood· elaborated on in the succeeding Woodland and land sites have been located in Andersonvllle Mississippian periods. National Historic Site, Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, Blue Ridge Park· The Woodland Period way, Canaveral National Seashore, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Cape Lookout National Seashore, Chattahoochee River Na· I. Cultural DcvelopmeniS: Indigenous tiona! Recreation Area, Chickamauga and American Populations Chattanooga National Military Park, Cumber· B. Post-Archaic and Preconlact Develop­ land Island National Seashore, De Solo Na­ ments tional Memorial, Everglades National Park, 9. Post-Archaic Adaplations Foothills Parkway, Fort Frederica National 14. Hunters and Gatherers of the Eastern Woodlands Monument, Great Smoky Mountains National IS. Eastern Fam1ers 16. Post-Archaic Adaplations of Eastern Coastal Regions 20. Post-Archaic Adaptations in Riverine Zones

The term "Woodland" was introduced in the 1930s as a generic beading for prehistoric sites falling between the Archaic hunting and gathe­ ring and the temple-mound-building Mississip· pian cultures in the eastern United States. By the early 1960s, Woodland sites were generally characterized as those that regularly produced pottery (Figure 6) and constructed mounds that contained elaborate . Although evidence was lacking, it was assumed that these burial mounds implied an agricultural-based economy to support the con· struction of these earthworks. Traditional archeological interpretation of the evolution of prehistoric Native American cultures dictated that there was a clear line of division between Archaic peoples and Wood­ Figure 6 -Swift Creek and Napier complicated stamped land pottery-making and agricultural peoples. pottery motifs (Kelly and Smith 1975).

20 Flaurc 7- SEFA pllts with 1 Woodland componmL

Park, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Horse· cultures witb a transitional stage or cultural sboe Bend National Military Park, Mammoth development, or to postulating alternative sub­ Cave National Park, Natchez Trace Parkway, sistence strategies ror tbe cultures or the Early Ninety Six National Historic Site, Ocmulgee Woodland period in the Southenst. Nntionnl Monument, Shiloh National Military In the Southeast, the Woodland period is Park and Cemetery, Stones River National Bat· now generally viewed as a cultural develop· tlcrield, n mucuu Ecological and Historic Pre­ mental stage or temporal unit dating [rom about serve, Vlciru>u'l! National Military Park, and 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1000. Rather than showing a Wrl:gbt Brothers National Memorial (Figure 7). wholesale change in material culture, archeology In recent years archeologists in the south· bas shown a continuity in the development or eastern United States bave addressed the issue Archaic and Woodland SlOne and bone tools ror or lgricultural devdopmeat by invesligating the acquisition, processing, storing, and prepara­ Woodland village sites to learn more about tbe tion or animal and plant roods, leather working, subsistence patterns or the period. This bas textile manuracture, tool production, cultivation, sometimes led to establishing cultural chronol· and shelter conSiruction. Some Woodland peo­ ogics that separate Artbaic from Woodland ples continued to usc Archaic-style and

21 Regwnwide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area

atlatls until the Late Woodland period (circa only by the addition of fiber-tempered pottery. A.D. 800) when these were replaced by bow and Researchers in the Southeast are attempting technology. The major technological to define the beginnings of the Woodland period change in the Woodland period, however, was using not only the appearance of pottery but the emergence of a distinct pottery-making tra­ evidence of permanent settlements, intensive dition with definite vessel forms and decoration, collection and/or horticulture of starchy seed although in the Southeast, pottery technology plants, differentiation in social organization, and apparently began in the Late Archaic. There was specialized activities, to name just a few topics also a culmination of an increasing sedentism, of special interesL Most of these cultural aspects which first appeared in the Archaic, into per­ arc clearly in place in parts of the Southeast by manently occupied villages. around 1000 B.C. The time period between Of importance was a realization that the about 2500 and 1000 B.C. should be considered subsistence economy of the Woodland period a period of gradual transition from the Archaic was essentially similar to that of the Archaic to the Woodland. period, utilizing seasonal exploitation of wild Beginning around 2500 B.c., the Stallings plants and animals but with the introduction of Island culture established itself as a Late Ar­ a system of planting and tending of garden chaic shellfish-collecting society that utilized the crops and the intensive collecting of starchy riverine and coastal environments, probably on seeds and autumnal nuts. This set the stage for a seasonal basis, leaving evidence of their occu­ agriculture economies of the later Mississippian pation in the form of large shell . This period. Generally, the Woodland period is di­ cultural group used an Archaic material culture, vided into three subperiods (Table 5). The but also created tlhe first ceramics known in the beginning and ending dates for these phases, United States. Called Stallings Island, these however, arc not consistent throughout the ceramics were named after a major shell Southeast. site on an island in the Savannah River near Augusta, Georgia. The Stallings Island ceramics generally Table 5- Woodland/Gulf Formational contained Spanish moss as a tempering agent, cultural chronology. and the forms consisted of simple shallow Early Woodland 1000-200 B.C. bowls and large, wide-mouthed bowls, as well as deeper jar forms. Most ceramics were plain, Gulf Formational 2000 - 100 B.C. although some with punctated surface decora­ Middle Woodland 200 B.C. - A.D. 500 tion were found. Stallings Island pottery dates from about 2500 to 1000 B.C., and ceramic Late Woodland A.D. 500 - 1000 finds range from the Tar River drainage in North Carolina, ooutbward to northwest Florida. • Early Woodland Contemporary with Stallings Island pottery along the South Atlantic coast arc other fiber­ If one uses the traditional definition of pottery tempered wares, such as Orangewarc from sites introduction being equated with a Woodland in northeast Florida and southeast coastal tradition, then the earliest Woodland sites would Georgia (1200 to 500 B.C.). sites be those found along the South Atlantic coast have been located at Canaveral National Sea­ that have produced fiber-tempered pottery dat­ shore, Fort Matunzas National Monument, and ing as early as 2500 B.C. Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve. An However, these sites are essentially Late unusual type of settlement pattern associated Archaic seasonally occupied coastal base camps with fiber-tempeTed ware.~ and found in this with a material cultural assemblage equivalent area are "shell rings. • Nearly three dozen of to that found on Archaic sites, and differentiated these ring-shaped settlements have been identi-

22 Chapter 2 - Regional Overview ficd as representative of pennanent, stable vil­ 800 B.C., and, by the end of the Early Wood­ lage life by about 1600 B.C. land period (800 to 500 B.C.), it had replaced By 1000 B.C. fiber-tempered ceramic tech­ fiber-tempered wares throughout the Southeast. nology appears to have spread throughout much With the introduction of these northern-type of the Deep South from the South Atlantic coast ceramics came isolated mortuary sites with to the Okeechobee Basin area of South Aorida. grave offerings. Some of the best examples of During the early Gulf Formational period (circa earthen enclosures and burial mounds dating to 2000 to 1000 B.C.) of Alabama, middle Ten­ the Early Woodland Adena complex (circa 500 nessee, and eastern Mississippi, fiber-tempered H.C.) were identif ied in the Ohio River Valley ceramic technology was acquired as a by­ of Kentucky. Early Woodland projectile-point product of trade between the Stallings Island styles [rom Kentucky include Kramer, Wade, and Orange cultures of the South Atlantic coast Gary, and Aden.a. These new ceramics later and the of the lower appeared in the mountains of western North Mississippi River VaHey. It was during the Gulf Carolina during the Swannanoa period (700 to Formational period that fiber-tempered ceramics 300 B.C.). were replaced first by plain, then by fabric­ Although plant occurred impressed, and, later, by cord-marked sand­ sporadically in tbe Late Archaic, even possibly tempered Alexander ceramics. as early as the terminal Middle Archaic, gen­ Poverty Point sites in Louisiana and west­ eralized plant domestication, or horticulture, em Mississippi exhibit the first major residential appears in Kentucky throughou t the Ea rly settlements and monumental earthworks in the Woodland with intensive collecting of starchy United States. Although the Poverty Point cul­ seeds and tubers. These appear to have included ture is not well understood in terms of social sunflower, maygrass, sumpwced, giant ragweed, organization, it was involved in the transpor­ and knotweed. tation of nonlocal raw materials (for example, As already noted, the Early Woodland of shell, stone, and copper) from throughout the central Tennessee, interior Mississippi, and eastern United States into the lower Mississippi Alabama, began with the introduction of fiber­ River Valley to selected sites where the mate­ tempered ceramics in the Gulf Formational rials were worked into fmished products and period (around 2000 B.C.) from the South then traded. While specific information on Atlantic coast Stallings Island and Orange Poverty Point subsistence, trade mechanisms, cultures. By the mid-Early Woodland period, and other cultural aspects is still speculative, the Gulf Formational cultures developed their own sites nevertheless exhibit specific material cul­ fiber-tempered pottery styles, such as Wheeler, ture, such as baked clay objects, magnetite which was in turn replaced by the sand­ plummets, steatite bowls, red- lapidary tempered Alexander series. This area also par­ work, fiber-tempered pottery, and mierolithic ticipated in long-range exchanges with other stone tools. areas of the Deep South in steatite, sandstone, In Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Tallabatta , and ceramics. North Carolina, fiber-tempered pottery from the Eastern North Carolina, during the Early 2500 to 1000 B.C. period is not usually found. Woodland period ( 1000 to 300 B.C.), exhibits This area appears to have functioned as a both Southeast and Middle Atlantic innuences transitional cultural area tbrougb which ceramic called New River and Deep Creek, respectively. influences from the Ohio River Valley and the The Early Woodland New River, found south of Middle Atlantic were introduced into the Deep the Neuse River, appears to be a continuation of South. For example, northern-inspired grit­ tbe Stallings Island, Thorn's Oeek, and Dept­ tempered plain, fabric-impressed, and cord­ ford cultures from Georgia and South Carolina. marked Early Woodland pottery first appeared Meanwhile, north of the Neuse River, the Early in central and eastern Kentucky around 1000 to Woodland Deep Creek culture produced Marcey

23 Region wide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area

Creek plain and cord-marked ceramics much interregional exchange of exotic materials. For like those from Virginia. many years archeologists have regarded as The Early Woodland Deptford ceramics "classic" those Middle Woodland sites with appear to have developed in Georgia (circa 800 elaborate ceremonial earthworks that contained B.C.) out of the Early Woodland Refuge phase the burial mound graves of elite individuals (1000 to 500 B.C.) and spread north into the buried with exotic mortuary gifts obtained Carolinas and south into Florida. Deptford through an extensive trade network covering ceramics continued to be made and found on most of the eastern United States. Because of Middle Woodland sites in the Southeast up the similarity of earthworks and burial goods through about A.D. 600. Subsistence for the found at widely scattered sites in the Southeast coast and coastal plains of Georgia and the and the area north of the Ohio River, it was Carolinas appears to have followed a trans­ assumed that a cultural continuity--sometimes human! (or seasonal) pattern of winter shellfish referred to as the Hopewellian Interaction camps on the coast, then inland occupation Sphere--existed throughout much of the eastern during the spring and summer for deer bunting, United States. and fall for nut gathering. Within the Ohio River drainage, the Early In northern Georgia the appearance of Woodland , with its emphasis on Dunlap fabric-marked ceramics (circa 1000 B.c.) elaborate mortuary customs, laid the foundations marks the beginning of the Early Woodland for the succeeding Hopewell (or Middle Wood­ Kellogg focus. These types of ceramics are land) culture. replaced by Middle Woodland ceramics (Car­ Another way of interpreting the archeologi­ tersville plain, checked, and simple stamped) cal manifestations of Middle Woodland burial after about 300 B.C. mounds and elaborate burial goods obtained By around 500 B.C., the Poverty Point from distant sou:rces may be as the result of culture was replaced by the Tchulaffchefuncte reciprocal obligations and formal gift-giving Early Woodland culture, which existed in west­ between lineages or clans that controlled em Tennessee, Louisiana, southern Arkansas, specific geographical territories. In Ibis scenario, western Mississippi, and coastal Alabama. The intensive exploitation of food or raw material sites of this lower Mississippi River Valley resources in these areas, begun in the Archaic culture were small village settlements. Sub­ period, would lead to lineages or clans that sistence continued to consist of intensive controlled access to certain food or raw material collecting of wild plants and animals, as with resources important to, if indeed not necessary the preceding Poverty Point culture, but for the to, the survival of groups outside their territory. first time quantities of pottery were produced. Access to important food or raw material There appears to be a de-emphasis on long­ resources outside a clan's territory would be distance trade and manufacture of lithic artwork insured by forrnanized trade between the leaders noted in the earlier Poverty Point culture. The of clans of different territories. The role of the Tchula{rchefuncte Early Woodland culture ap­ clan head in this exchange system would be pears to have coexisted with some Middle recognized by the group erecting burial mounds Woodland cultures in the lower Mississippi and interring exotic goods obtained through River Valley. long-distance trade with other clan heads. At the same time, the social identity of these cultural • Middle Woodland entities would be reinforced by regular burial ceremonies at earthworks where important clan The main characteristic, besides elaboration of leaders were buried. Such a cultural system burial practices, that distinguished the Early and would increase social and economic stability Middle Woodland from Late Archaic traditions, between the clans participating in reciprocal was the gradual intensification of local and trade. It would also reinforce trends toward sed-

24 Chapter 2 - Regional Ovef'l'iew

cntary living and the promotion of agriculture, was replaced by the Connestec phase (A.D. 200 which, in turn, would provide a surplus of food to 600), which produced thin sand-tempered and lead to an increase in population. ware. Pigeon and Connestee components are Reciprocal trade, begun in the Early Wood­ present at Great Smoky Mountains National land, would have served as a valuable cultural Park. The Connestec culture apparently was a mechanism to spread the Hopewell (Middle major source of mica, crystal, steatite, Woodland) physical manifestations of earth­ and chlorite schists for the Ohio Hopewell trade works and specialized burial artifacts throughout network. These were traded out for Tennessee much of the eastern United States. As distinct cherts, Appalachian quarlZ crystals, Ridge territorial units entered into the trading sphere, chalcedony of Ohio, and Cbillico ceramics. their goods would be added to a pool of Connestee ceramics have been found at Georgia, reciprocal trading items, and they would have Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee sites. access to goods unavailable in their own terri­ Prior to about A.D. I most of the Deep tory. At least some nonorganic trade items can South continued a Late Archaic style of sea­ be identified from the study of the burial sonal rounds of bunting and gathering. This was mounds of the Middle Woodland. To this trade, supplemented by geographic specializations-­ the Middle Woodland territories of the South­ such as riverine and coastal zone shellFish cast appear to have provided mica, quartz exploitation-and the planting and harvesting of crystals, and chlorite from the Carolinas, and a some native plants. The Early Woodland and variety of marine shells, as well as shark and early Middle Woodland cultures of the Deep alligator teeth, from the Florida Gulf CoasL ln South are differentiated by a variety of regional exchange, the Middle Woodland clans of the ceramic styles. There appears to be limited Southeast received galena from Missouri, Oint direct contact between these cultures and from lllinois, grizzly teeth, obsidian and Hopewell inOuences to the north. For example, chalcedony from the Rockies, and copper from Louisiana appears to have had contact with the the Great Lakes. Standardization of style for the River Hopewell during the Marksville Finished artifacts used in this trade may be times of the Middle Woodland. At the end of attributed to a relatively small number of clan the Late Gulf Formational (500 to 100 B.c.), the leaders controlling the exchange system and interior area of Mississippi and Alabama adopt­ developing their own symbolic language ed sand-tempered ceramics (Alexander) intro­ of what trade goods constituted a reciprocal ex­ duced from the north. There appeared to be change between clans. some linkage between Middle Woodland cul­ Most of the western and central Kentucky tures to the north through trade in locally and western Te-nnessee Woodland cultures ap­ available Tallabatta quar1Zite and Fort Payne pear to have participated fully in the Ohio River and Camden chert.. However, the subsistence Valley Early and Middle Woodland trading activity of this culture was essentially Late network. These cultures exhibited common Archaic in nature. . burial practices and earthwork construction from In northern Georgia, the predominant Mid­ the very starl Excavations in Kentucky have dle Woodland ceramics are the Cartersville and recovered Havana-like or Hopewell-decorated Swift Creek series after about 300 B.C. The ceramics and Copena and McFarland projectile incorporation of western Georgia into the Hope­ points. Burial offerings included gorgets, stone well ian Interaction Sphere of Trade and the or clay tablets, tubular and biconical pipes, appearance of burial mounds only occurred galena, mica crescents, copper bracelets, and from about A.D. 100 to 450. The exchange of marginella beads. materials associated with Hopewellian ceremo­ In western North Carolina, the early Middle nialism was restricted to western Georgia and Woodland Pigeon phase (300 B.C. to A.D. 200), did not appear to have spread, at this time, into noted for it crusbed-quarlZ-tempered ceramics, eastern Georgia or South carolina.

25 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area

The Middle Woodland accouterments of Coast to the Mobile Bay area, an area that now burial mounds arrived later in the Deep South. incorporates Gul:f Islands National Seashore. In central Mississippi, the Miller culture (100 showed marked similarity B.C. to A.D. 650) saw the introduction of burial with the contemporary Hopewell culture of the mound ceremonial ism, sand-tempered ceramics, Valley, particularly in the em­ and interregional trade from the Crab Orchard phasis on earthworks containing burial mounds culture of western Kentucky and Tennessee and and the interring of exotic trade goods with the the Illinois Valley Hopewell. This area also dead. Among the exotic trade items recovered received influence from the Marksville culture by excavations in both areas were copper pan· of the lower Mississippi River Valley. Some of pipes, earspools, bracelets and beads, siOne the larger Miller burial mounds have produced platform pipes, mica figurines, ceramic figures, Marksville pottery, galena, and copper ear­ galena, marine shells, freshwater , and spools. Subsistence was based primarily on green stone celts. The quantities of exotic trade intensive seasonal bunting and gathering. material found in Marksville sites, however, From the Early through the Middle indicate only minimal contact between the two Woodland periods, the extensive, low-lying areas. coastal environment of the South Atlantic coast, Marksville sites tend to be located on major stretching from North Carolina to northern waterways. Subsistence consisted of intensive Florida, was used by numerous Deptford hunter· hunting and gathering, with some suggestion of gatherer bands who lived seasonally within a horticulture. Although the current view is variety of ecosystems and took advantage of that there was no economically important horti· seasonally available foods. culture during Marksville times, it appears the Along the Gulf Coast, the Marksville culture represents an in-place cul­ continued the transbumant (or seasonal) exis· tural evolution from the Archaic through the tence throughout the Middle Woodland. Settle· Woodland periodls with selective adoption and ments in this geographical area lacked perma­ reinterpretation of Hopewell ian ideas. nence of occupation, although the cultures here In the interior of the Deep South during the participated in the Hopewellian trading network Middle Woodland period, one sees the perma­ to a limited extent and constructed numerous nent occupation of small· or medium-sized vil­ low sand burial mounds. These sand burial lages along major rivers (Ocmulgee National mounds along coastal Georgia and Florida Monument, for example), placing these settle­ (noted at Canaveral National Seashore and ments in the forefront of the expanding Hope­ Cumberla nd Island National Seashore, for wellian trading sphere along water courses. instance), as well as in the Carolinas, are Between A.D. 1 and 450, these interior sites believed to represent local lineage burial joined tbe Middle Woodland trading sphere as grounds rather than the resting place of an elite shown by the construction of hundreds of low individual. oval mounds, many containing traded material In northwest Florida, the Early Woodland from the Ohio Valley or the southeastern Deptford culture evolved in place to become the seacoast. Santa Rosa/. Trade items re­ The rest of the continental southeast was covered from burial mounds include copper only marginally affiliated with the Hopewcllian panpipes, ear ornaments, stone plummets, and Interaction Sphere. The St. Johns c.uJture area of stone gorgets. These show this area's incorpora· east and central Florida developed its own tion within the Hopewellian Interaction Sphere unique culture between 1200 B.C. and A.D. by about A.D. 100. 1565. This was exhibited by a number of sites The Marksville culture (A.D. I to 400) in Canave111l National Seashore, Castillo De existed throughout the lower Mississippi River San Marcos National Monument, Fort Malan· Valley and extended eastward along the Gulf zas National Monumen~ and Timucuan Eco-

26 Chapter 2 - Regional Oven>iew logical and Historic Preserve. The St. Johns of the state and the Cape Fear culture in the culture evolved in place from the Late Archaic southern part. Both date from about 300 B.C. to Orange culture. Subsistence showed little in the A.D. 800. Ceramics for the Mount Pleasant way of agriculture, with the majority of food culture are sand and grit tempered with fabric­ coming from seasonal plant food collecting, impressed or cord-marked surface finish. Shell­ hunting, fishing, and shellfish gathering. This tempered ceramics from the Mid-Atlantic area basically Archaic subsistence economy was able also occur. to support prehistoric Native Americans for Although the Cape Fear and Mount Pleas­ 2,000 years until contact with Europeans. The ant culture ceramics are similar, the Cape Fear St. Johns culture was largely unaffected by culture exhibits an extensive distribution of low Hopewell influences, although they did con­ sand burial mounds that represent an influence struct sand burial mounds, a few containing out of South Carolina. Many burials contain Hopewell ian-like grave goods. gorgcts, arrow points, conch shells, and plat­ The Manasota culture (500 B.C. to A.D. form pipes. This area appeared to have bad only 800) of the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast of limited connection with the Hopewell Inter­ Florida, like the St. Johns culture, subsisted by action Sphere. A few Mount Pleasant sherds plant-food collecting, fishing, hunting and have been recovered from Fort Raleigh Na­ shellfish gathering. The Manasota culture ap­ tional Historic Site. pears, as well, to have evolved in place from the local Late Archaic culture. At the beginning • Late Woodfa11d of the Manasota culture (500 B.C.), burials were interred in the shell midden of the villages. By Around A.D. 500, the archeological record reveals 400 B.C., however, sand mounds for the inter­ a sharp decline iin the construction of Middle ment of the dead were constructed. Later still Woodland burial mounds in the Hopewell ian core (around A.D. 600), elaborate imported burial area of the Ohio River drainage. The decline in gifts were interred with the dead. Finally, the the construction o:f burial mounds is accompanied Manasota culture began to construct simple by disruption of the long-distance trade in exotic burial mounds that contained Weeden Island materials and interregional art styles. pottery (A.D. 800). Traditionally, archeologists have viewed the The Lake Okeechobee/Kissimmee River ba­ Late Woodland (AD. 500 to 1000) as a time of sin of south central Florida saw the construction cultural poverty. With the exception of sites of major earthworks between 1000 B.C. and A.D. along the Florida Gulf Coast, Late Woodland set­ 200 for horticultural purposes rather than as true tlements tended to be small when compared with burial mounds. By A.D. 200, this area was in­ Middle Woodland sites. Based on our present-day corporated in the area, which perspective, few outstanding works of prehistoric today contains Big Cypress National Preserve, art or architecture can be attributed to this lime Biscayne National Park, and Everglades Na­ period. Careful analysis, however, shows that tional Park. throughout the Southeast the Late Woodland was Beginning around A.D. 1, the Glades culture a dynamic period. Bow-and-arrow technology, of south and southeast Florida represents a allowing for increased hunting efficiency, became transitional culture from the Archaic. By A.D. widespread. New varieties of maize, beans, and 800, distinctive Glades pottery, shell tools, and squash were introduced or gained economic bone tools appeared, remaining essentially un­ importance at this time, which greatly supple­ changed until contact with Europeans in the mented existing native seed and root plants. sixteenth century. Finally, although .settlement size was small, there The Middle Woodland of the North Caro­ was a marked increase in the number of Late lina coastal plain is represented by two cultures, Woodland sites over Middle Woodland sites, in­ the Mount Pleasant culture in the northern part dicating a population increase. These factors tend

27 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field A rea to give a view of the Late Woodland as an and the Cashie (historic Carolina Tuscarora) expansive period, not one of cultural collapse. phases. These cullures continued essentially un­ The reasons for the perceived collapse of the changed until abolilt A.D. 1520, when contact with Middle Woodland and the subsequent emergence Europeans in the Ca.rolinas occurred. Shell and of the Late Woodland are poorly understood. grit-tempered pottery, burial ossuaries, bow-and­ There are several possible explanations. The first arrow technology, palisaded villages, horticulture is that populations increased beyond the point of (involving maize, squash, sunflowers, and beans), carrying capacity of the land, and, as the trade and seasonal settlement movement to supplement system broke down, clans resorted to raiding horticulture with bunting and gathering typify rather than trading with other territories to these cultures. These cultures are present at Fort acquire important resources. A second possibility Raleigh National iHisloric Site and possibly Cape is that a rapid replacement of the Late Archaic H atte r~s National Seashore. and atlaU with the newer bow-and-arrow The Late Woodland of the piedmont and technology quickly decimated the large game western North Carolina (A.D. 600 to I 000) is animals, interrupting the bunting component of presently not as well understood as either the food procurement and resulting in settlements previous Middle Woodland culture or the South breaking down into smaller units to subsist on Appalachian that would local resources. A third reason is that colder succeed it. Likewise, the information on Late climate conditions about A.D. 400 might have Woodland for much of South Carolina is so scant affected yields of gathered foods, such as nuts or that some researchers have postulated a depopula­ starchy seeds, thereby disrupting the trade tion of the area for much of this period until networks. replacement by the South Appalachian Mississip­ A fourth and possibly interrelated reason is pian culture. that intensified horticulture became so successful In Georgia, Alabama, east Tennessee, and that increased agricultural production may have northern Aorida, Late Woodland sites through reduced variation in food resource availability about A.D. 750 are identified by the occurrence of between differing areas. This reliance on horti­ Swift Creek pottery styles. Gradually, this area culture, involving only a few types of plants, evolved into the core area of the South Appa­ would have carried with it a risk where variations lachian Mississippian culture by about A.D. 1000. in rainfall or climate could cause famine or short­ ln northeast Florida, the SL Johns culture, ages. discussed in the Middle Woodland period, con­ Rather than a prehistoric interaction sphere tinued as the Timucuan culture up to contact with sharing earthen architecture memorialization of Europeans in the sixteenth century with few the dead and the exchange of high status goods modifications in their material culture and subsis­ of nonlocal materials, as existed in the Middle tence base. Timucuan sites have been recognized Woodland, the Late Woodland saw the rise of in such parks as Canaveral National Seashore, numerous small-scale cultures distinctive to par­ Cumberland Island National Seashore, Fort ticular geographical areas. Matanzas National Monument, and Timucuan In the Carolinas, the Late Woodland (A.D. Ecological and Historic Preserve. Similarly, the 600 to 1100) was a continuation of the Middle Calloosahatchee Region of southwest Aorida Woodland Deptford culture. Even sand burial (circa A.D. 700) saw the beginning of the Cal usa mounds continued to be constructed. Here the culture at present-day Big Cypress National Late Woodland period is differentiated from the Preserve and Everglades National Park. This early Middle Woodland on the basis of the cultural group subsisted to a large extent on tempering and surface treatment of pottery styles. maritime food resources, yet constructed large The Late Woodland cultures in coastal North settlements and temple mounds. The Carolina emerged about A.D. 800--two examples culture continued as the dominant culture in arc the Colington (historic Carolina Algonkian) south Florida through the sixteenth century.

28 Chapter 2 - Regional Overview

The (A.D. 300 to In other areas of Louisiana and Arkansas 1000) developed locally in northwest Aorida, arose the Late Woodland (A.D. probably out of the preceding Swift Creek cul­ 400 to 800). The Troyville people, like the ture, and spread throughout much of northern earlier Marksville culture, continued building Florida and the Panhandle of the Gulf Coast, ceremonial centers, but the mounds were civic including areas now contained in Gulf Islands or ceremonial temples not burial mounds. National Seashore. The Weeden Island culture The Baytown and Troyville cultures of the was characterized by the construction of burial lower Mississippi River Valley were followed mounds containing nonlocal burial goods in· by the Coles Cre.ek culture in the latter part of tcrrcd with the dead in imitation of Middle the Late Woodland period (A.D. 700 to 1000). Woodland cultures. The subsistence strategies of The area covered the entire the Weeden Island culture were initially con· lower Mississippi River Valley. This culture cerned with the seasonal collecting of wild plant showed considerable homogeneity by an in­ foods and shellfish. However, by A.D. 800 in creased concern with socio-religious authority, the interior coastal plain, maize horticulture as exemplified by the construction of temple appears to account for a good portion of the mound complexes surrounding open plazas. food supply, allowing for expansion of the Location of these sites on major waterways territory and elaboration of political power. seemed to reflect a renewed interest in inter· As a display of this power, the Weeden regional associations of the previous Middle Island c.ulture constructed some of the earliest Woodland period. dated flat-topped platform or temple mounds In central Mississippi, the Miller culture (around A.D. 400). Apparently, these early continued into the Late Woodland, but, by A.D. mounds were intended to serve as bases for 400, there is a cessation of burial mound con­ charnel houses for the dead as opposed to struction. After A. D. 600, there is evidence of merely interment mounds for the elite. Even· maize horticulture and bow-and-arrow technol­ tually, evidence appears of multiple nat-topped ogy. About A.D. 1000, the Miller culture area mounds serving as a mortuary complex, with becomes incorporated into the succeeding M is­ some mounds also serving as the base for a sissippian cul ture. structure for the bead of a clan or lineage. In In Tennessee and Kentucky, some accre­ this respect, the Weeden Island nat-topped tem­ tional burial mounds were still being con­ ple or charnel house mounds may be considered structed in the Late Woodland, but construction proto-Mississippian models for more complex of earthwork enclosures ceased. Large projectile societies in the Southeast after about A.D. 1000. point types gave. way to smaller forms indic­ Influenced by the Weeden Island culture, ative of bow-and-arrow usc. Ceramics were cultures in Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and similar to those of the Middle Woodland, but Mississippi also constructed flat-topped mounds without the Hopewellian decorative motifs. during the Late Woodland period. The lower Mississippi River Valley, con­ The Mississippian and Late Prehistoric Period sisting of eastern Arkansas, western Tennessee, Louisiana, and western Mississippi, saw the I. Cultural Developments: Indigenous emergence of the Late Woodland Baytown cul­ American Populations ture (A.D. 300 to 700), which succeeded the B. Post-Archaic and Precontact Marksville culture of the Middle Woodland. In­ Developments stead of major earthwork centers, the Baytown IS. Eastern Farmers culture built dispersed settlements. Major inno­ C. Prehistoric Archeology: Topical vations in the Baytown phase were the intro· Facets duction of bow-and-arrow technology and horti· culture.

29 Regwnwide Archeological Survey Plan, Soulheast Field Area

The 1963 NHL Theme Study characterized Mis· garee Swamp National Monument, Great sissippian cultures (then called Temple Mound Smoky Mountains National Park, Gulf Islands cultures) (Table 6) as different from the Wood­ National Seashore, Mammoth Cave National land cullures on the basis of distinctive ceramic Park, Natchez Trace Parkway, Obed Wild and vessel forms (Figure 8), the use of ground shell Scenic River, Ocmulgee National Monument, as a tempering agent in ceramics, rectangularly Russell Cave National Monument, Shiloh Na­ shaped structures, and ceremonial earthwork tional Military Park and Cemetery, and Vicks· complexes containing nat-topped pyramidal burg National Military Park (Figure 9). mounds used primarily as bases for wooden It is now gemerally believed that a form of temple structures. Excavations within these chiefdom government operated within the Mis­ complexes uncovered high-status burials, some· sissippian period. These chiefdoms, operating times containing ceremonial materials that ap· out of temple mound complexes, such as peared to exhibit shared iconography from site Moundville or Etowah, apparently controlled to site. It was speculated that these artifacts specific territories usually associated with a represented a "Southern CUlt" or shared reli· defined floodplain environment. Chiefs were gious manifestations that linked these sites responsible for the redistribution of food be­ throughout much of the eastern United States. tween the main and outlying communities. One major problem noted in this study was the Whether these chiefs were able to control ex­ uncertainty of the Mississippian culture's place changes of goods within their territory and with of origin. other chiefdoms, employ full-time artisans and specialists, or function as both the religious and political heads are questions requiring more Table 6 - Mississippian cultural chronology research. (from Walthall 1990). In all probability, Mississippian chiefdoms Early Mississippian A.D. 900- 1200 controlled only small geographical areas and were in a constant state of change because Middle Mississippian A.D. 1200- 1500 power rested on (ragile agricultural adaptations. Failure of crops due to weather or other natural Late Mississippian A.D. 1500 -1700

Archeological investigations over the last thirty years have given us a very different pic· ture than that characterized in the 1963 study. First, although certain ceramic forms and tem­ pering agents and rectangularly shaped struc· lures are still considered indicators of Missis­ sippian period sites, there now appears to be nothing dramatically new in the way Mississip· pian cullures lived as opposed to the previous Woodland cultures. Mississippian sites appeared almost simultaneously throughout the Southeast around A.D. 900 and were mainly located within river floodplain environments. Mississippian period sites have been located in Big South 0 1 2 3 4 Fork National River and Recreation Area, -==-=:] Canaveral National Seashore, Chattahoochee in ii'\Ch!?S River National Recreation Area, Chickamauga Figure 8 - Bibb Plain vessel from Oc:mulgce Naoional and Chattanooga National Military Park, Con- Monument, recovered by the WPA.

30 Chapter 2 - RegioMI Overview

....

Figure 9 - SEFA parks with a Mississippian oomponenl. forces would have imperiled population stability similar system probably functioned in the Mid­ in the chiefdom. In the past, much was made of dle Woodland period and accounted for the the idea of a "Southern Cult" or pan-Mississip­ exchange of exotic goods that were similar in pian religious phenomenon, based on the appearance from site to site. finding of similar iconography on artifacts of The !963 s~udy also noted that in earlier shell, copper, and ceramic from high-status studies radiocarbon dating was inadequate for burials in large Southeastern temple mound dating Mississippian-type sites before about A.D. centers. It is now realized that postulating a 900. Then it was proposed that the Mississip­ religion on the basis of similar types of burial pian culture origiln was based at the great site of artifacts may be an erroneous assumption. More near East St Louis, lllinois, or in west­ likely, similarity in exotic artifacts was due to a em Kentucky and Tennessee. Today, archeo­ Mississippian exchange network linking hun­ logical investigations and radiocarbon dating dreds of large and small communities, which have identified "proto-Mississippian" sites with­ promoted the exchange of prestige goods. A in the Weeden Island culture area of Florida's

31 Region wide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheasl Field Area

Gulf Coast and the Apalacbicola-Challahoochee Ancient culture ar•ea of southern Ohio and eastern Valleys of Alabama and Georgia, which date Kentucky, and tlhe Caddoan Mississippian of from the Middle lo Late Woodland period (A.D. eastern Oklahoma, eastern Texas, western Arkan­ 150 to 750). Excavations have identified flat­ sas, and western Louisiana. The lOpped or platform ceremonial, rather than culture emerged around A.D. 1400 as a response burial, mound complexes similar in layout to by local Late Woodland populations 10 an in­ early Mississippian period earthworks. creasing reliance on agriculture, an increasing Another important result of the work con­ sedentism, and the accompanying rise in socio­ ducted on Mississippian sites in the last thirty political complexity associated with the Middle years has been the differentiation of the Missis­ Missis.~ippian culture area. The culture's settle­ sippian culture into distinctive cultural areas. ment pattern was villages organized into a circu­ The Middle Mississippian area, represented by lar or elliptical configuration of structures sur­ the major sites of Cahokia and Moundville, rounding a central plaza. The Fort Ancient covers the central Mississippi River Valley, the culture produced ceramics distinct from Middle lower Ohio River Valley, and most of the Mid­ Mississippian wares. South area, including western and central Ken­ The Caddoan culture appears 10 have tucky, western Tennessee, and northern Ala­ emerged from the local Middle Woodland cul­ bama and Mississippi. This apparent core of the tures in the western Louisiana area around A.D. classic Mississippian culture area contains large 800. Mississippian culture traits common to the ceremonial mound and residential complexes, people, primarily along the Red River sometimes enclosed within earthen ditches and drainage, appear ·to have been derived from the ramparts or a stockade line. Plaquemine Miss·issippian culture area more so The lower Mississippi River Valley con­ than from the Middle Mississippian core area. tains the Plaquemine Mississippian culture area These traits included, for example, the use of in western Mississippi and eastern Louisiana. maize agriculture, burial mounds, and temple Plaquemine Mississippian earthwork sites are mound complexes. However, the Caddoan culture similar in appearance to Middle Mississippian is generally viewed as a separate culture area complexes, except the former are ceremonial in from the Mississippian culture of the Southeast nature and usually lack a residential aspect The Other coeval Mississippian culture areas are Emerald Mound and Holly Bluff (Lake George) the SL Johns culture area of northeastern Florida, sites in Mississippi are good examples of this the Glades and Calusa culture areas of southern culture. Florida, and the coastal cultures of North Caro­ The South Appalachian Mississippian area lina. Many of these cultures constructed temple appears to have derived its inspiration from the mounds and/or b:urial mounds and, 10 a certain Middle Mississippian culture area, as it appears extent, utilized mai.ze agriculture. However, 10 a to postdate Mississippian occupation from the larger extent, they continued a Woodland period Iauer area. Selllemcnt patterns of floodplain type of subsistence. occupation, with stockades enclosing earthen temple mounds and residential areas, such as those represented at Etowah and Ocmulgee Na­ PREIDSTORY OF THE CARIBBEAN tional Monument in Georgia and Shiloh National CULTURE AREA Military Park in Tennessee, arc characteristic of the South Appalachian Mississippian. Sites are A National Historic Landmark (NHL) theme distributed throughout southeastern parks in Ala­ study written in 1963 noted that the Common­ bama, Georgia, northern Florida, South Carolina, wealth of Puerto Rico and the territory of the and central and western North Carolina and U.S. Virgin Islands were prehistorically a part of Tennessee. a much larger Caribbean culture area. The most Coeval Mississippian areas include the Fort recently developed cultural chronology for Puerto

32 Chapter 2 - Regwnal Overview

M ESOINDTAN PERIOD I. Cultural Developments: Indigenous American Populations The cultures of the Mcsoindian period of the A. The Earliest Inhabitants Caribbean area were considered roughly equiva­ 3. The Early Peopling of the lent to North American Archaic hunting and Caribbean gathering cultures. This period was believed to 14. Archaic Adaptations of the begin around 5000 B.C. and ended for most of Caribbean the Lesser and Greater Antilles about two thou­ sand years ago. A people, referred to as Ciboney by the early Spanish, continued to utilize a Meso­ indian life style lin extreme western Cuba until Rico and the Virgin Islands is derived from historic times. Essentially, this period was charac­ Oliver (1992) and Rouse (1992) (Table 7). terized as representative of a hunting and gath­ ering people, who increasingly became dependent PALEOINDTAN PERIOD on the littoral zones of the islands for subsistence (Willey 1976). The earliest recorded prehistoric site for the Caribbean cultural area is the El Jobo site in Venezuela, which has Table 7 - Caribbean cultural chronology (emphasis on been dated as roughly contempora­ Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands). neous with the Oovis period in North Paleoindian 9500 - 5000 B.C. America. Gordon Willey (1971) as­ sumes that this cullure is an offshoot Mesoindian 5000 B.C. - A.D. I of the North American big-game Preceramic subcultures: hunting tradition. • Casirn iro id 4000-2000 B.C. Although the Lesser and Greater • Ortoiroid 4000 B.C. - A.D. 200 Antilles were home to various types • Krum Bay subscries 1500 - 200 B.C. of extinct Pleistocene megafauna, • Coroso subseries 1000 B.C. -A.D. 200 such as the giant ground sloth no actual cultural (Megaelocsus), Neoindian A.D. 1- 1500 artifacts have been identified for this Ceramic subcultures time period (circa 9500 to 5000 B.C.) • Saladoid 500 B.C. -A.D. 545 for the Caribbean Islands. Some • Hacienda Grande 250 B.C. -A.D. 300 authors have treated the occurrence of • Cuevas A.D. 400 - 600 Pleistocene megafauna and an ac­ • Prosperity A.D. I - 350 knowledged lower sea level of nearly • Coral Bay-Longford A.D. 350 - 550 twenty meters-which could have • Ostionoid A.D. 600 - 1500 facilitated travel between the northern • Ostionan subseries A.D. 600 - 1200 coast of South America and the • Elenan Ostionoid A.D. 600 - 1200 Antilles during this period-as posi­ • Monserrate A.D. 600 - 850 tive conditions for Paleoindian occu­ • Santa Elena A.D. 850 - 1200 pation (Veloz Maggiolo and Ortega • Magens Bay-Salt River I A.D. 600- 1200 1976). • Chican A.D. 1200 - 1500 The 1963 theme study did not • Capa A.D. 1200 - 1500 note any prc-5000 B.C. sites for either • Esperanza A.D. 1200 - 1500 the Greater or Lesser Antilles.

33 Region wide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area

The first noted Mesoindian occupation in the vided into the Courian subseries of Cuba, Haiti, Antilles was the Banwari culture-a small Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, and the animal-hunting and shellfish-gathering phase Redondan subseries of Cuba (Righter 1992). from Trinidad (circa 5000 B.C.), which, over The 1963 theme study proposed that "the time, appeared to have possibly moved up the first peoples arriving in the Greater Antilles did Lesser Antilles to Puerto Rico, Hispaniola, and not filter through the Lesser Antilles to reach this Cuba. Most of the sites excavated from this pe­ goal. It seems much more probable that the riod are related in some manner to the utilization smaller islands may have been by-passed and of shellfish. However, it was acknowledged that bigger islands, such as Jamaica, Puerto Rico, and this might be due to a sampling error since most Cuba, occupied frrst' (Haag 1963:333). of the past archeological work in the Antilles had However, as noted above, any change in sea concentrated on the coastal environment The levels may have destroyed many of these early Banwari phase was noted for coastal shell mid­ sites if occupation was oriented toward the den sites. These yielded fresh water and salt coastal environment water shells of Neritina virginea and the conch, Mesoindian period sites are generally open Melogena, and, predominanUy, crab remains, camp sites of small shell middens found on or deer bones, peccary, small mammals, and fish. near the coast. The faunal material recovered The stone tools consisted of ground stone pesUcs, consists of fresh and saltwater shellfish and re­ manos, grooved , celts, and chipped pro­ mains of fish and sea and land mammals. jectile points and tools. The points were also Currently, there is no available information on made of bone, as were needles and fishing spears these sites that indicates seasonal use of marine (Harris 1976). and land resources. Although the sites were Twice during the Mesoindian period (2700 almost entirely oriented toward the maritime to 2000 B.C. and 1500 to 600 B.c.) the sea level environment, there appears to be a heavier dropped, altering the shellfiSh environments of reliance on land-based hunting resources in the the islands. This may explain the depopulation of earlier part of the Mesoindian period than in the the coastal area and hence a lack of sites from latter part. these periods. However, as the sea level dropped, The Mesoindian tool assemblage consists of the shellfiSh beds restabilized along the new stone tools, such as Oake points, knives, and shoreline, attracting the prehistoric peoples who awls. Ground stone celts, manos, and axes are subsisted on these. Therefore, sites for these two also found. In addition, modified conch shells intervals, if they exist, may now be underwater. made into vessels and plates arc found. It should One site of the Mesoindian perioc:l---4he Krum be noted that Puerto Rican sites tended to Bay site-bas been found in the U.S. Virgin produce more ground stone tools than similar Islands. sites in Cuba or Hispaniola. In the islands of Cuba, Hispaniola, and Generally, in comparison with areas sur­ Puerto Rico, where the greatest concentration of rounding the An'lilles, the Cuban material was Mesoindian sites were found, these period sites stylistically more closely related to material from tended to be coastal shell middens with artifact eastern Venezuela (Rouse 1970). The Hispaniola assemblages generally similar to the Banwari cul­ and Puerto Rican material, however, seemed to ture found on Trinidad. Dr. Irving Rouse (1970) be associated with material from Central America defined the Mesoindian period for the Virgin (Alegria et al. 1955; Rouse 1970). Therefore, it is Islands and Puerto Rico as having two distinct believed that origins for settling the Caribbean series. The Ortoiroid is known principally from were multiple, as: opposed to a single source of the South American mainland, but scattered finds origin for the Mesoindian cultures of the Antilles. of artifacts are found as far north as the Virgin Or, there may have been a single culture with Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Mona Passage. The differing manifestations related to different envi­ second series, the Casimiroid, is further subdi- ronments.

34 Chapter 2 - Regional Overview

Lithic and Archaic Period " Knun Bay Subseries (1 500 to 200 B.c.)

• Casimiroid Culture The Krum Bay subseries artifact assemblage is characterized by fairly fmc-grained basalt flake II bas been proposed that tbe Casimiroid Culture tools, hammerstones, shell picks, partially ground originated from Lithic or Archaic period cultures stone celts, and beads and pendants of stone, from either tbe Yucatan or Central America. It is bone, and shell. Krum Bay sites tend to be open presumed that the people of Ibis culture migrated habitation sites located near the shore. Subsis­ by sea from the mainland to western Cuba via a tence remains indicated that shellfish gathering, mid-Caribbean chain of islands, which is now fishing, and huntirng of birds and turtles were the submerged These cultures spread eastward major sources of food. The Krum Bay subseries through Hispaniola Island, where tbe earliest is noted on SL Thomas and St. John (Virgin known sites of Ibis culture are dated at around Islands National Park) in the U.S. Virgin Islands, 4000 B.C. Recent investigations in a rocksbelter the north coast of Puerto Rico, and Vieques on Mona Island have uncovered a Casimiroid­ island (Calio Hondo site) off the southeast coast like assemblage of lithic tools, with an appropri­ of Puerto Rico. ate radiocarbon date of about 2380 B.C. Only one Puerto Rican site, the Cerrillo site in the extreme " Coroso Subseries (1000 B.C. to A.D. 200) southwestern part of the island, exhibits Casimi­ roid-like lithic artifacts. The implications are that The Coroso subseries was identified as a lithic or the Casimiroid culture came into the western end preceramic culture as early as the 1930s by of the Greater Antilles and spread eastward only Rouse. Sites tended to be located on all the as far as extreme western Puerto Rico. coasts of Puerto Rico, in and at shell Casimiroid sites are generally noted fo r lithic middens. Recent work indicates that occupation artifacts manufactured of fmc-grained flint. These also occurred in tbe interior of the island. The include core tools, blades, burins, awls, and artifact assemblage of the Coroso subseries is scrapers, in addition to anvils and hammerstones. characterized by bammerstones, pebble choppers, It is believed that tbe sites on Mona Island and flake tools, shell scrapers, shell plates, and pebble western Puerto Rico date from the Barrera­ grinders. Subsistence data indicates that tbe early Mord3n Complex (3600 to 2000 B.C.). Little part of the Coroso culture saw a more gener­ information is forthcoming on subsistence of the alized diet of turtle, crabs, fish, and shellfish, Casimiroid culture. leading to a more specialized diet of shellfish in later times. Significant sites of tbe Coroso sub­ • Ortoiroid Culture series arc Cueva de Maria Ia Cruz (Lolz.a Cave), cayo Cofresi, Coroso site, and Playa Blanca. While the Casimiroid was a lithic culture that Inhabitants lived on or near the coast in both migrated from west to east through the Antilles, a open and cave siles. Burials were placed under­ contemporary lithic culture, the Ortoiroid, was neath shell middens by digging through them the result of migration of another lithic culture until reaching subsoil. from northern South America, north up tbe Lesser Antilles to the Virgin Islands, and thence NEOINDIAN PERIOD westward into Puerto Rico. The earliest dated Ortoiroid culture site in Puerto Rico is the This period, dating from about A.D. 1 to Euro­ Angostura site, which is dated at about 4000 B.C. pean contact around A.D. 1500, was characterized Rouse has proposed a Coroso and Krum Bay in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands by distinct subscries of lithic period sites for Puerto Rico cuiluml periods, which were originally separated and tbe Virgin Islands, respectively. on the basis of different ceramic styles and other cultural manifestations. The ftrSt group to immi-

35 Region wide Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area grate in10 the Antilles were the Saladoid who people controlled by chiefdoms. There was heavy brought horticulture (cassava, yucca, and maize) emphasis on the cultivation of yucca and cassava, and pottery technology 10 the islands. II is gen­ with supplemental bunting and shellfish-gather­ erally accepted that they originated in the lower ing, and the creatnon of ball courts or ceremonial Orinoco River Valley before spreading through­ plazas attached to the larger settlements. Relig­ out the Antilles pushing the Mesoindian groups ious artifacts, such as zemi, or spirit s10nes, were in10 western Cuba (Willey 1'176). The Saladoid often found in oontext with ceremonial sites, as culture appears 10 have established itself initially were distinctive polychrome and incised pottery in the southernmost Lesser Antilles as early as styles and fine ground SlOne and shell work. In 500 B.C., and reached the area of the Virgin the latter part of this period white-on-red ceram­ Islands and Puer10 Rico by 345 B.C. ics disappeared, and plain ceramics with lugs In reviewing this earliest of pottery-making shaped like human or animal heads were molded cultures in the Caribbean, the 1963 theme study onto the rim of vessels. These features were noted that "the hallmark of the earliest pottery believed to have originated in Mesoamerica and brought in10 Puer10 Rico [and the Virgin Islands) been diffused to llhe Caribbean through northern is a style which includes a number of types that South America. Evidence of this culture has been are white paint on a red background This white­ found in Virgin fslands National Park. on-red may be traced 10 its ancestral home in Just a few hundred years prior 10 contact, the northern Venezuela and probably indicates the Arawaks had begun 10 be displaced from the movement of new peoples rather than the simple Lesser Antilles by a new group of Orinoco River diffusion of new traits. However, there is little Valley migran~be Caribs. By contact (circa basis for believing that some of the white-on-red A.D. 1500), the Caribs had occupied all of the pottery was actually manufactured in Venezuela Lesser Antilles, including the U.S. Virgin Islands and imported in10 Puer10 Rico" (Haag 1963: (Righter 1992:26). 333- 335). It has been postulated that between AD. 600 Ceramic Periods and 800, another surge of migrants came out of the Orinoco area and spread throughout the Antilles (Stevens-Arroyo 1988). Called the Ostio­ I. Cultural DcvelopmeniS: Indigenous noid culture, it is separated from the preceding American Putb America northward up the Allaire (1 '178) on the basis of ceramic styles. Lesser Antilles (including the area now lncor­ These later cultures and their people were called poro~t ing Buck Island Reef National Monument Arawak or Taino Indians by the Spanish when and Virgin Islands National Park) and west in10 contact occurred in the early sixteenth century. Puerto Rico and Hispaniola. Radiocarbon dates This Arawak culture reached its peak shortly for Pucr10 Rico and the Virgin Islands indicate before European contact. The Arawak culture is that the Saladoid period, or Cedrosan subseries, noted for large village sites of 1,000 10 5,000 lasted from about 345 B.C. 10 A.D. 545. The

36 Chapter 2 - Regional Overview relatively rapid movemet1t of the Saladoid culture resources and fe.rtile soils for growing food into the Lesser Antilles and the eastern half of crops-such as manioc, cassava, or yucca, and, to the Greater Antilles appears to have displaced the a les.~er extent, maize-could be utilized. In the earlier lithic period cultures as far as Cuba, where later part of the Saladoid period, there appears to the Ciboney, a preceramic culture, continued to have been an expansion into the mountainous exist up until contact with Europeans in the interiors of the islands. Typical village patterns in sixteenth century. Puerto Rico and adjacent islands consisted of a This early ceramic period is further sub­ semi-circular series of mounded middens, fre­ divided by ceramic styles. On Puerto Rico, the quently serving as the village cemetery, facing a subperiods are Hacienda Grande (250 B.C. to A.D. central plaza. Excavations of these cemeteries 300) and Cuevas (A.D. 400 to 600). In the Virgin show that individuals were treated equally in Islands they are Prosperity (A.D. 1 to 350) and terms of grave goods, an indication of an Coral Bay-Longford (A.D. 350 to 550). The Sala­ egalitarian society. doid ceramic styles of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands showed significant influences from the • Ostio11oid Period Barrancoid styles of ceramics based in the lower Orinoco River Valley of Venezuela. It bas been At the time of th e 1963 NHL Theme Study, the suggested that these influences were due to long­ Ostionoid was viewed as a period of new m igra­ distance trade between the two areas. tion with people coming out of the northern Shared ceramic techniques between these South American coastal area and spreading two areas include vessel forms, such as zoo. throughout the Antilles. Today, the prevailing morphic effigy vessels, trays, and platters (some theory among Caribbeanists is that the Saladoid depicting animals native only to South America), culture evolved into the Ostionoid. So the jars and bowls with D-shaped strap handles, Ostionoid period represents a continuation of the censers, and bell-shaped vessels. Saladoid potters Saladoid period in terms of ceramic-making, decorated their vessels with polychrome designs agriculture, and sedentism. However, there seems in white-on-red, white-on-red with orange slip, to be a breakdown in cultural continuity between black paint, and negative-painted designs. A the Caribbean Islands and mainland South smaller number of ceramics were decorated with America due to tbe lack of trade goods-such as designs that were incised into the body of the the Saladoid exotic stone pendants-and the vessels. concomitant rise of regional ceramic styles in The diagnostic lithic artifacts of the Saladoid both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Another culture in both Puerto Rico and the Virgin change from the preceding period is the increase Islands are pendants shaped like raptorial birds-­ in size and complexity of communities in the endemic to South America. These are made from Ostionoid period, with the appearance of ball exotic materials, such as jasper-chalcedony, courts and ritualistic items, such as zemi stones, amethyst, crystal quartz, fossilized wood, green­ and a ranked hierarchy of chiefdoms that appear stones, carnelian, lapis lazuli, turquoise, garnet, to have controlled specific regions. epidote, and possibly obsidian. The distribution of these artifacts throughout the Greater and •• Ostio11an Subseries Lesser Antilles and northern South America is indicative of a Pan-Caribbean trade network of The Ostionan subseries (A.D. 600 to 1200), like raw and manufactured goods. By about A.D. 600, the earlier Saladoid period is defined by the however, these artifacts all but disappear. distribution of specific ceramic styles. These Settlement patterns of the Saladoid culture ceramics lack the polychrome-painted decoration tended to be on the flat coastal plains and alluvial of the earlier period and, instead, are decorated valleys of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. by polished, red-painted surface, applique and This was probably so that the maritime food modeled designs (usually zoomorphic) and, in the

37 R egionwide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area latter part of the subseries, by horizontal bands of subseries (A.D. 600 10 1200) is contemporary geometric line-and-dol incising. Based on the with the Puerto Rican subseries of the Ostionoid findings of ceramics specific 10 this subseries, the period. The subseries was partially named after Ostionan is restricted geographically 10 the west­ the type-site located at Salt River Bay National em half of Puerto Rico. Major sites include Historical Park and Ecological Preserve. The Boquer6n, Calvacbe, Las Cucbaras, Las Mesas, ceramics, stone artifacts, zemis, and ball courts Uanos Tuna, Abra, Buenos Aires, Canas, Car­ found in the Virgin Islands at this time show men, Diego Hernandez, and Pilahaya. continuity with the Elenan Ostionoid subseries of Other artifacts and features associated with eastern Puerto Rico. Major sites of this period tbe Oslionan subseries are petaloid stone celts; include Tutu, Magens Bay, and Salt River Bay. zemi objects of stone, shell, and clay; the intro­ duction of ; and ball courts. Begin­ •• C!ric011 Subseries ning about A.D. 600, the central plaza of the Saladoid period evolves into stone-lined enclo­ The last three hundred years of prehistoric occu­ sures, or ball courts, called batey. These ball pation in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands may courts appear to have served a multifunctional be traced 10 the Taino, a historic Native Ameri­ public space use. can culture encountered by the Spanish on their first voyages of discovery in the 1490s. •• Elenan Ostionoid Subseries Around A.D- 1200, a new ceramic style, called Boca Chica, emerged in the area of Contemporary with the Oslionan subseries on the southeastern Hispaniola (present-day Dominican western half of Puerto Rico, was the Elenan Republic). This style is characterized by compli­ Ostionoid subseries (A.D. 600 10 1200), which cated vessel forms, surface polishing, relatively was distributed over the eastern half of the island. few red-painted vessels, and elaborate incised, Two ceramic styles for this subseries bave been modeled, and punctaled designs. Trade ware of recognized in eastern Puerto Rico. The earliest is elaborately incised Boca Cbica ceramics are Monserrate (A.D. 600 10 850); the other is Santa found on Cap3- and Esperanza-phase sites in Elena (A.D. 850 to 1200). western and eastern Puerto Rico, respectively. II The Monserrate ceramic style is essentially a is believed that the introduction of Chican trade development from the earlier Cuevas style, but wares was respon.sible for stylistic changes in the without elaborate decoration, such as polychrome Capa and Espcranza culture areas, which saw the painting. Decoration consisted of red- or black­ introduction of elaborate incising in their ce­ painted geometric designs and strap bandies. In ramics. Recent work by Rouse {1992) has pos­ the following Santa Elena period, mainly bowl tulated that setUe.rs from the Boca Chica area of forms are produced. Ceramics lose the strap the Dominican Republic actually established a bandies. Painted decoration and polishing are also colony in the middle of the southern coast of abandoned. Modeling and incising become the Puerto Rico, (rom which they spread their major ceramic decoration. cultural influence. As with the Ostionan subseries, the larger What is clear about this period in both Puer­ Elenan Ostionoid subseries sites have associated to Rico and the Virgin Islands is the rapid popu­ ball courts. And, some sites, like Tibes, have lation growth, indicated by the number and size multiple plazas and ball courts. Major sites as­ of the sites. There appears 10 be a clustering of sociated with the Elenan Ostionoid subseries are large sites around major ceremonial centers, such Tibes, Collores, and El Bronec. as Caguana in western Puerto Rico and Cuevas-2 in eastern Puerto Rico. This suggests that these •• Magens Bay-Salt River 1 sites were centers of rei igious and political power that extended over large territorial units. In the Virgin Islands, tbe Magens Bay-Salt River

38 Chapter 2 - Regional Overview

•• Esperanza SPANISH EXPLORATION AND SETTLEMENT

The Espcranza phase appears to have extended Caribbean eastward into the Virgin Islands (Magens Bay­ Salt River 2 subseries) based on styles of ce­ On October 12, 1492, Christopher Columbus ramics and cultural attributes, such as ball landed on San Salvador Island. After exploring courts. Some have postulated the introduction of several other islands, he returned to Spain. On the Carib culture-which displaced the Esperan­ November 14, 1493, during his second voyage, za culture-on St. Croix island about A.D. 1450. Columbus anchored at Salt River Bay, St. Croix A currently debated topic among Caribbeanists to replenish his water supply (Brewer and Ham­ is the Carib culture. Some scholars have begun mersten 1988; Brown 1988). As the supply boat to question the traditionally held belief that the was returning to the ship, the Carib Indians Caribs represented a new migration from South began firing , and several members of America. They are suggesting that the Caribs both sides were wounded or killed. Columbus arc the product of the evolution of Arawak named the area Cabo de las Flechas, or Cape of speakers in the Lesser Antilles. the Arrows. This site is now part of the Salt At first contact, the Spanish viewed Puerto River Bay National Historical Park and Eco­ Rico as being controlled by a series of Taino logical Preserve, which commemorates Colum­ subchiefs, or caciques. These religious and poli­ bus's only attempted landing in what became a tical leaders of discrete goographical areas, were United States territory. loosely affiliated with paramount chiefs in a The conversion of the native population to ranked hierarchy organization. The Spanish Catholicism was only a secondary impetus for noted that the Taino of Puerto Rico were en­ Spanish settlement in the New World. The main gaged in resisting Carib attacks from the Virgin goal was the removal of mineral wealth. Two Islands. Ultimately, by the second decade of the things were necessary to accomplish this: large sixteenth century, both Taino and Carib cultures fleets and forts to protect important ports. Span­ in these areas were relatively extinct. ish fleets moved throughout the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico, and evidence of Spanish wrecks and/or forts exists in at least six parks in IDSTORY OF THE SOtrrHEAST AND the Southeast, including Biscayne National CARI BBEAN AREA Park, Castmo de San Marcos National Mon­ ument, Dr y Tortugas National Park, Fort Matanzas National Monument, Gulf Islands 11. European Colonial Exploration and National Seashore, and San Juan National Seulement Historic Site. A. Spanish Exploration and Seulement I. Caribbean Southeast 2. Southeast B. French Exploration and Settlement The first exploration to the Southeast on record I. Atlantic was led by the Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de 3. Mississippi Valley 4. Gulf Coast Le6n in A.D. 1513. Acoording to historical C. English Exploration and Seulement documentation, the site of his second landing I. Exploration may have been in the vicinity of Canaveral 8. Seulement of Georgia National Seashore (Brewer 1988). Other early D. Other European Exploration and explorers to the. Southeast were the M iruelo Settlement brothers (who discovered Pensacola Bay at I. Scandinavian present-day Gulf Islands National Seashore), P~nfilo de Narvaez (who most certainly passed

39 Region wide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area through Gulf Islands National Seashore), and attack the Spanish. A hurricane, however, Hernando de Soto (whose landing occurred near scattered and wrecked his Oeet to the south and is commemorated at De Soto National along the Florida coast. Menendez knew that the Memorial). The goal of these expeditions was to winds would hinder the French and used the find and acquire wealth comparable to that opportunity to attack Fort Caroline. Most of the found in South and Central America. remaining French soldiers were killed, while the Subsequently, the Spanish made three un­ women and children were captured. Menendez successful allempts to settle North America. later marched south and found a group of These were made by Ponce de LeOn (1521) in shipwreck survivors on the beach at an inlet southwest Florida, Lucas Vasquez de Ayll6n near present-day !Fort Matanzas National Mon­ (1526) along coastal Georgia or South Carolina, ument After bein,g told that their fate would be and Tristan de Luna y Arellano (1559) at Pensa­ "in the hands of God," the French surrendered, cola Bay near present-day Gulf Islands at which point Menendez bad them put to death National Seashore. Following these unsuccessful as heretics and interlopers. expeditions, the French decided to foray into Several weeks later Menendez heard that North America. there was yet another group of French at the inlet to the south. After locating these men he FRENCH EXPLORATION AND SETnEMENT again made the same offer. The majority or the French again surrendered and were put to death. The French, under Jean Ribault, landed near the The remaining French returned to the shipwreck St. Johns River (Florida) on May I, 1562 (Ben­ site somewhere in the vicinity of present-day nell 1968). Ribault then established a colony, Canavenal National Seashore. Menendez then Charlesfort, on present-day Parris Island, South marched his men from St. Augustine down the Carolina. When Ribault returned to Europe, the beach until be encountered the French survivors, colony at Charlesfort failed and was abandoned. who were building a ship and a fort from the In 1564, Ribault's lieutenant Rene de shipwreck remains. Again Menendez persuaded Laudonniere established the fort of La Caroline most of them to surrender, this time guaran­ on a bluff on the south side of the St Johns teeing clemency. About twenty of Ribault's men River, which is today commemorated by Fort refused to surrender, saying they would rather Caroline National Memorial. Upon hearing of take their chances with the Indians. Menendez the French incursion into Spanish territory, King took some of his captives south towards Cuba, Phillip 11 of Spain sent Pedro Menendez de while most of the prisoners were left as "guests" Aviles to destroy the French fort and establish a with an Ais Indian chief. Archeological infor­ Spanish colony in its place. At about the same mation recently recovered at Ca n avero~ l Nation­ time, Ribault was sent from France to take al Seashore (Figure 10) indicates the possible command of La Caroline (Fort Caroline) and location of the camp of the men who refused to reinforce the fort with a colonial settlement. surrender to Menendez (Elizabeth Horvath, When Ribault arrived, he found the remaining SEAC, personal communication 1993). soldiers prepared to return to France but In 1568, French forces under the command heartened by the new colonists and supplies. of Dominique de Gourgues returned to the site Menendez's Oeet arrived within days of of Fort Caroline, now renamed Fuerte San Ribault's and attacked the French Oeet, but the Mateo. De Gourgues destroyed the Spanish Iauer escaped The Spanish moved to the south garrison avenging the earlier Ribault massacres. and established a seulement near the present site The Spanish settlement at St. Augustine of Castillo De San Mar cos National subsequently became the first permanent colony Monument. This settlement eventually became in North America. The Spanish later settled the the city of St. Augustine. Ribault took most of surrounding area using the mission concept, the French vessels, still loaded with supplies, to wherein missions were established and used to

40 Chapter 2 -Regional Overview

Figure 10 - Hat pin (6 inches long) recovered in the area of Canaveral National Seashore. bring the native population under control. The (1763) control of the Natchez area passed to the capital of Spanish Florida (La Florida), bow­ British. ever, was located at Santa Elena in modern South Carolina. ENGUSH EXPLORATION AND SETTLEMENT

Atlantic Exploration

The French also attempted to colonize the In 1584, Sir Wal ter Raleigh secured a charter Caribbean. In 1650, they seized the island of St. from the Queen of England to settle lands in Croix. They laid out towns, plantations, and North America. His first colony, near present­ forts (including one at Christlaosted National day Manteo, North Carolina, consisted of 108 Historic Site) only to abandon them several colonists under the leadership of Governor years later. Ralph Lane. The fort's site now exists within the boundary of Fort Raleigh National Historic Gulf Coast Site. Indian trouble caused the colonists to abandon the colony. In 1692, LaSalle claimed the Mississippi River Raleigh returned to North Carolina in 1587 drainage for France and established a colony. In with 110 men, women, and children. The new 1699, d'Iberville documented landing on Ship colony was placed under the leadership of John Island and establishing an offshore warehouse in White. His daughter gave birth to Virginia Dare, what is currently the Mississippi section of Gulf the first European born in North America. Islands National Seashore. White soon returned to England to acquire sup­ plies for the colony. However, upon arrival in Mississippi Valley England, his ships were pressed into service against the Spanish Armada. He was unable to In the early eighteenth century, the French made return until 1590, at which time he found the a substantial attempt to colonize the lower Mis­ colony abandoned and the word "CROATOAN" sissippi Valley, with French explorers paddling carved on a post. The captain of the ship re­ down the Mississippi River to claim the land for fused to spend lime searching for the colony. France. In 1716, the French constructed Fort No evidence of the fate of the "lost" colony has Rosalie (ncar Natchez National Historical Park), been recovered to date. which served as the nucleus of the growing town. Increasingly agitated by the French, the Seulement of Georgia Natchez Indians destroyed Fort Rosalie and killed most of the male defenders. French The British established their hold on the eastern retaliation led to the destruction of the Natchez coast of North America during the seventeenth as a tribal entity. century so that by 1700 there were twelve Following the French and Indian War British colonies. However, fears ran high over

41 Region wide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area the Spanish presence in Aorida, and it was decided that a southern colony should be es­ ITI. Development of the English Colonies, tablished to ward off Spanish attacks. In 1732, 1688-1763 James Oglethorpe left England with 114 people. A. Physical Development In January 1733, they arrived at the Savannah I. Growth of Urban Areas and Previous Settlements River where they established the town of Savan­ 2. Territorial Expansion nah and the colony of Georgia. In an effort to defend against the Spanish, Oglethorpe estab­ lished defenses at strategic positions. One of these was Fort Frederica on St. Simons Island, holdings, they vootured inland, constantly push­ which is now Fort Frederica National Monu­ ing the frontier back. During this time, they ment. Others were Fort Saint Andrew at the both traded with and fought the Indians. One north end and Fort Prince William at the south significant town that grew out of this trading end of Cumberland Island, now Cumberland relationship was Ninety Six, South Carolina, Island National Seashore. As a result of the now established as Ninety Six National Historic new colony, tensions between Spain and Eng­ Site. The original inhabitants of the town be­ land increased. Oglethorpe went to England in lieved they were 96 miles from the Cherokee 1737 and returned with nine companies of sol­ village of Keowee, thus the name. diers. In 1739, the long anticipated war began. With his soldiers and Indian allies, Oglethorpe THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION IN THE SOUTH laid siege to the Spanish town of St. Augustine. He was unable to breach the walls and returned to the Georgia colony. The Spanish then moved IV. The American Revolution D. War in. the South on Fort Frederica. They advanced to within sight of the fort but were beaten back by the British. That same large Spanish force was later ambushed and beaten on Sl Simons Island at In 1755, the French and their Indian allies went the site of Bloody Marsh. In effect, this ended to war with England. This was the first Spain's northern expansion. European war where the bulk of the fighting took place outside of Europe. Although future­ O THER EUROPEAN EXPLORATION AND president George Washington was defeated in SEITLEMENT his early attacks :against the French, the English were the ultimate victors when the war ended in Scandinavian 1763. The French ceded territory south of Canada to the English, including NatchC"t: and The only other significant European exploration Fort Rosalie (Natchez National Historical Park). and setUement in the Southeast was the Danish To pay for tbe French and Indian War, West Indies Company's colonization in the England increased taxes on the British colonies, Virgin Islands, the remains of which can be thus precipitating the American Revolution. The seen at Cbristiansted National Historic Site on French provided aid to the Colonials during the St. Croix, and Virgin Islands National Park, St. Revolution, which caused the French govern­ John. ment to increase taxes on its citizens. This, in turn, helped precipitate the French Revolution. PHYSICAL D EVELOPMENT The Continental Congress signed the Declara­ tion of Independence on July 4, 1776, formally The English strengthened their hold on North declaring the revolution that had begun the year America by settling ncar major harbors, such as before. New York and Charleston. From these coastal The exiled Loyalist governor of North

42 Chapter 2 - Regiofllll Overview

Carolina bad devised a plan to regain control of The remains of the American army were his state. He planned to galher an army, march placed under lhe command of Nathaniel Greene. to lhe sea, and link up with British Naval Greene divided his army, sending Daniel forces. The combined army would then crush Morgan into the western Carolinas. Cornwallis the rebellion in lhe South. On February 27, countered, and db'Jlatched Banastre Tarleton and 1776, while en route to the sea, the governor's his dragoons to destroy Morgan's army. On Jan­ British LoyAl ist~ And the local PatriotS met at uary 17, 1781, the two forces met at Cowpens, the BntUc of Moores Creek (Moo RS CRek South Carolina (Cowpens National Battlefield). National Baulefield). The batUe was an over­ Morgan skillfully deployed his forces and whelming victory for the Patriots. The British devastatingly defeated the British. Loyalists never reached the sea. Cornwallis followed Morgon into North Unable to complete their rendezvous Carolina. However, Greene moved north and assignment, the Briti.~b ships sailed south to consolidated bis army. Cornwalli.~ followed Charleston, Soulh Carolina. When the ships Greene into Virginia and lhen back into North attempted to enter lhe harbor, lhey discovered Carolina. On March 15, 1781, lhe rwo armies that lhe Colonials had constructed a dirt-and­ met at Guilford Courlhousc, North Carolina, palmeuo log fort (Fort Mo ultrie). During the now Guilford Courthouse National Military ensuing battle, the British fleet suffered another Park. The British forces won a victory but could defeat at the hands of the Colonials. not continue lhcir campaign. Cornwallis retreat­ Following these two battles the focus of the ed to Wilmington, Norlb Carolina, and then into war shifted to lhe north. Battles were fought Virginia, only to be defeated at Yorktown. over cities such as New York, Trenton, Sam· The southern Cllmpaign broke the will of toga, and Boston. By the late 1770s, the war in the British to continue tbc war. Public sentiment the north was stalemated wilh neilher side able in England turned towards peace. While peace to gain the advantage. was not declared until 1783, for most purposes The British commanders decided lhat lhe the war ended with lhc southern campaign. war could still be won in lhe soulh. In 1778 lhe Revolutionary War units in the Southeast in­ British captured Savannah, Georgia. and, in clude Cowpe.ns National Battlefield, Fort 1780, Charleston, Soulh Carolina. American Moultr ie, Guilford Courthouse National Mili­ forces under Horatio Gates were defeated at tary Park, Kings Mountain National Military Camden, Soulh Carolina. Cornwallis the.n took Park, Moores Cre~k Nalional Battlefield, and possession of Camden and Ninety Six (Nindy Ninety Six National Historic Site (Figure II). Six National Historic Site). This cleared the way for Cornwallis to pursue his goals of gathering EXPWRA710NS Qf<' THE WEST southern Loyalists and taking the war to Vir­ ginia. He planned, then, to use his southern ports to move men and material into the interior X. Westward Expansion of the British of North and South Carolina. Colonies and tbc United States, In late 1780, Cornwallis advanced into 1763-1898 North Carolina. He assigned Major Ferguson to A. Britisb and United States Explora· command Loyalist troops on his left flank. tions of tbc Wc.'lt Ferguson placed his army at Kings Mountain, South Carolina (K1ogs MouutaiD National Mili­ tary Park) to await the enemy. On October 7, The desire for expansion was evident from lhe 1780, Ferguson's militia was defeated by Patriot beginning of lhe Colonial era in North America. militia in a batUe where pleas of surrender were Or. Thomas Walker and Daniel Boone were rwo ignored. Hearing of the defeat, Cornwallis re­ early explorers. Walker was the first recorded treated to Winnsborougb for lhe winter. European to use the Cumberland Gap (Cum her-

43 Region wide Archeological Suf'l/ey Plan, Southeast Field Area

movement of supplies. Towns, as well as havens for bandits, sprang up along these trails. An interesting historical note is that Meriwether Lewis

-~--- died under mysterious cir­ cumstances on the Natchez Trace some years after his famous expedition. ln 1813, the Upper Creeks (the Red Stick) began a revolt. This was brought on in 18!ge part by Anglo encroachment and broken treaties. In March 1814, Andrew Jackson and - --J his Tennessee militia at­ tacked and killed 800 of 1,000 revolting Red Sticks at Horseshoe Bend, Ala­ bama (Horseshoe Bend National Military Park).

WAR OF 1812

Subsequent to the Amer­ ican Revolution, the Unit­ ., .. ed States of America be­ came a significant force in naval commerce. This led Figure II - SEFA parks with a Revolutionary W•r component. the young nation into con­ nie! with England and oth- land G11p National Historical Park) to cross the er nations concerning maritime trade. These Appalachian Mountains. Boone was the first to problems led to the War of 1812. mark the trail for settlers to follow. The greatest expansion occurred when President Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Ter­ V. Political and Military Affairs, ritory lands from France. These lands had 1783- 1860 passed from French to Spanish and back to E. War of 1812, 1812- 1815 French control since the French and Indian War. President Jefferson sent the Lewis and Clark expedition to explore the new lands to the During the War of 1812, the Americans Pacific Ocean. tried to annex Canada, while the British at­ Trails, such as the CUmberland Gap Trail tacked major U.S. seaports. Even though the (Cumberland Gap National Historical Park) Americans lost most of the battles, they were and the Natchez Trace (Natchez Tr'.tce able to secure an equitable peace. Nine months P8!kway), became increasingly important to the after the Batlle of Horseshoe Bend, before th is

44 Chapter 2 - Regional Overview treaty could take effect, American forces under Tensions increased across the South where Andrew Jackson defeated a numerically superior states' rights advocates clashed with Federal British force at New Orleans. This battle made authorities over ownership of Federal property. Jackson a national hero and helped him later In January 1861, Federal forces at Pensacola, win the presidency. Florida, moved into Fort Pickens (Gulf Islands The War of 1812 had helped exhibit the National Seashore). State militia seized Fort weakness of American coastal defenses. Follow­ Pulaski, Georgia (Fort Pulaski National Monu­ ing the war, a plan was devised that called for ment) (Figure 12). the construction of a system of forts at major Neither side was willing to make the first American harbors. Known as the Third Ameri­ move towards war. An uneasy stalemate lasted can System, it was designed under the direction as long as President Abraham Lincoln did not of Brigadier General Simon Bernard, former resupply or reinforce Fort Sumter (Fort Sumter military engineer for Napoleon Bonaparte. Work National Monument). Lincoln, who was born in did not begin on the southern forts, such as the South (Abr.1ham U ncoln Birthplace Na­ Pulaski, Jefferson, Pickens, and Sumter, until tional Historic Site), did not wish to see the war the 1820s (NPS 1984a) (Dry Tortugas National escalate. However, on April 6, 1861, Lincoln Park, Fort Pulaski National Monument, Fort announced that he would provision the fort, Sumter National Monument, and Gulf Islands while still hoping to avert war. The Confederate National Seashore). leaders felt that tbis was unacceptable and fired on the fort on April 12, 1861. THE CIVIL WAR Union General Winfield Scott devised a plan to defeat the South. The plan, later known as the Anaconda Plan, was to blockade the VI. The Civil War southern coastline, use naval action on rivers, A. The Nation Divides, 1860-1861 and conduct land battles to slowly cut the South B. War in the East into increasingly smaller sections. C. War in the West D. Naval Action War i11 the East

Thirty-four hours after the bombardment of Fort Sumter (Fort Su mter National Monument) be­ The Nation Divides gan, Major Anderson surrendered to the Con­ federates. The fort was then occupied by Con­ Scctionalist tensions reached a fever pileh with federate troops and would remain in their the election of Abraham Lincoln as president. possession until near the end of the war (Ward The first southern state to act was South Caro­ et al. 1990). lina, which bad a long tradition of secessionist The Confederate defenders of Fort Pulaski tendencies dating back to the American Revolu­ (Fort Pulaski National Monument), at the tion and the Nullification Crisis. The state voted mouth of the Savannah River, felt that they to remove itself from the Union in December were safe from any Union threat. Robert E. Lee 1860. On December 26, fearing that his Union made a tour of the fort and pronounced it forces would be cut off, Major Robert Anderson capable of withstanding any siege. Lee's first moved his troops from Fort Moultrie on military assignment bad been at Fort Pulaski Sullivans Island to Fort Sumter (Fort Sumter and he was aware of its strengths. However, National Monument) in Charleston Harbor. Lee did not take into account the effect lhat After Anderson's men left, Fort Moultrie was rilled cannon would have on masonry forts. occupied by forces under the command of In November 1861, Captain Quincy Gill­ Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard. more was placed in charge of the siege of Fort

45 Regwn wide Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area

Pulaski (Lattimore 1970). Gillmore's forces In April 1862, Confederate forces were placed several batteries of rifled cannons on defeated at Shiloh, Tennessee (Shiloh National Tybee Island, Georgia, approximately one mile Military Park). Shiloh was the first of many de­ from Fort Pulaski. On the morning of April 11, feats that the Confederate Army defending Ten­ 1862, having the other siege elements in place, nessee would face. the Union guns opened fire. The fire of the It was almost a year after the fall of Fort rifled cannons breached the brick wall in two Donelson before the Union army reached Stones places. Gillmore then targeted the powder River near Murfreesboro, Tennessee (Stones magazine forcing the Confederate defenders to River National Battlefield and Cemetery). This surrender. battle was a huge fray where the Confederate army was thrown repeatedly against the Union War in the We.11 army in a series of uncoordinated attacks. In the end, the Confederates were defeated and forced West of the Appalachian Mountains, the land and to retreat. The commander of the Union forces, river portions of the Anaconda Plan were imple­ William Rosecrans, bad ordered the construction mented The first strikes were at Fort Donelson of an earthen fortress at Stones River. This was (Fort Donelson National BattJe.field and Ceme­ the largest earthworks buill during the Civil War. tery) and Shiloh (Shiloh National Military Park and Cemetery), Tennes­ see. Both of these battles were devastating defeats for the Confederacy. Prison exchange pro­ grams broke down as hostilities increased. The Union, realizing this was more of a hardship for the Confederacy, which was having trouble feed­ ing and caring for its own, fmaUy refused to exchange. Many prisoner­ of-war camps were built in both tbe North and the South, but the most fa­ mous was Andersonville Prison in Georgia (An­ dersonville National His­ toric Site). The poor con­ ditions at this prison resulted in tbe death of almost 25 percent of all the men ever held there. Today the park commem­ orates prisoners of war everywhere. Figure 12-SEFA parlcs with a Civil War component.

46 Chapter 2 - Regional Overview

The Union army continued its plan with the while being lOwed, the U.S.S. Mmtitor sank off capture of Vicksburg, Mississippi (Vicksburg the coast of Cape Hatteras. National Military Park). The Union forces, under The first significant usc of Union gunboats tbc command of General Ulysses S. Grant, laid was made at Fort Henry and Fort Donelson, siege 10 the city of Vicksburg, which surrendered Ten n e.c;.~ (Fort Donelson National Baulefield on July 4, 1863, after receiving word that Lee and Cemetery). The Confederate high command hod retreated at Gettysburg. 'Il1is completed th e knew they would have to defend the Tcnnc.o;.-;cc Un ion hold on the M iss Lo;.~ ippi River. and Cumberland Rivers. The ideal location For a The same two armies clashed again at fort was in Kentucky, north of the Tennessee Chickamauga, Georgia, and Chattanooga, Ten· state line, where the two riveJS merge. However, ncsscc (Chickamauga and Chattanooaa Na­ since bolb sides initially accepted the neutrality tional Military Park) in June 1863. With the of Kentucky, the Confederates were obligated to railhead at Chattanooga secure, the Union army build two forts in Tennessee, where the rivers began its move south while the Confede.mtes were over thirteen miles apart. These forts were fought a series of delaying actions north of Henry on the Tcnncsscc River a.nd Donelson on Atlanta, Georgia. Each time the Confederates the CUmberland River (Peterson 1968). slOpped to defend themselves, the Union army The Confederacy began constructing earth­ flanked them. However, at Kennesaw Mountain works at Forts Henry and Donelson in the fall of (K~nn ~sa w Mountain National Battlefield Park), 1861. Both earthworks were tO be constructed so they could not break the Confederate line. 'fbe as to best defend against both naval and infantry Confederates were forced 10 draw closer still to force.~. However, progress on the earthworks was Atlanta. The Union army entered Atlanta on slow due to the shortage of ~ I HVC laborers, who S<:ptcmber 2, 1864, and imposed anotbt:r defeat were already occupied at the undermanned iron on their opponents. works in the area. Although additional slave From Atlanta, General William T. Sherman labor from northern Alabama was employed, the cut a path of destruction 10 Savannah. He then fortifications were still not completed by Febru­ turned north and captured Columbia, the capital ary 1862. As hostilities increased, the neutrality of South Carolina. The fall of Columbia brougbt of Kentucky was eventually violated. Retaining about the surrender of Fort Sumter (Fort Sumter the two Forts then became extremely important National Monument). where the war bad begun. since the side that controlled the rivers would control all of Kentucky and western Tennessee, Naval Action and consequently have open waterways on whicb to move troops and supplies. Naval activity during the Civil War can be On February 2, 11162, General Grant began divided iniO three types: blockading, blockade· the movement of forces toward an engagement running, and river action. 'fbe blockade of south· with troops at Forts Henry and Donelson. The ern ports was a major strategy of the Anaconda fleet, commanded by Flag Officer Andrew H. Plan. Foote, and two infantry divisions attacked and The need for coaling stations for the captured Fort Henry. During the attack some blockade fleet led 10 much of the early action in 2,500 men from Fort Henry escaped 10 Fort the war, sucb as tbe siege of Fort Pulaski, Donelson. After Foote's successful venture at Fort Georgia (Fort Pulaski National Monument). Henry, Grant's anny began marcbing 10ward Fort Ironclads, foUowing the design of the U.S.S. Donelson. Monitor, eventually rendered much of the Fort Donelson was oommanded by Brigadier Confederate Oeet obsolete. Since tbe Confederate General John B. Floyd Under his command were navy was of little consequence, the Union was Brigadier Generals Gideon Pillow and Simon B. free 10 move its MoniiOr-class vessels up and Buckner and a cavalry commanded by Colonel down the coastline. During one such movement, Nathan Bedford Forrest. Grant began attacking

47 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJhNsl Field Area

Fon Donelson in small engagements on February hands except for Vicksburg, M issL~~ippi (Vicks­ 12, but a full-scale attack was postponed because burg National Military Park). The Confederate Foote's gunboats bad not yet arrived. Waiting for defenders placed artillery on the high bluffs the gunboalq a.nd reinforcemenl<;, Grant made above the river. While the Union gunboat~ were camp. On February 13, Foote engaged the water in position to attack the fonress, Grant's soldiers batteries with little success. The Confederate were not prepared 10 lay siege until May 18, water batteries, however, crippled three ironclads 1863 (NPS 1986). The Confedcmtc forces held and wounded Foote. The Union naval boats were out for a month and a half ~tnd only surrendered forced to withdraw, many of them floating down Vicksburg on July 4, 1863, following the news the Cumberland out of a:>ntrol. that Lee was defeated at Gettysburg. Following this battle, Floyd real ized that the Confederate forces at Fon Donelson were needed POST-CIVIL WAR to join General Alben Johnston's forces for the defense of Nashville. PilloW's infantry, some 10,000 men, and Forresfs cavalry attacked the VII. Poti1icat and Mililary Affairs, Union's right flank commanded by General John 1865-1939 A. MGCiemand Not expecting an attack, A. The ReconSlruction Era, 1865-1877 McOemand's forces were pushed back after D. America Becomes a World Power, 1865- 1914 seven hours of battle, thus opening the road to H. The Great Depression and the New Nashvill e for the Confederates. The Confederate Deal, 1929-1941 forces then pulled back into their rifle pits while Union Brigadier Generdl C. F. Smith's division was sent against their forces at Eddyville Road. After several counterattacks by the Confederate Following the assassination of Pre.~ident Abraham forces, Smith was able to gain the rifle pits and Lincoln, Andrew Johnson (commemorated at conltOI Lhc road When the plan to free the Con­ Andrew Johnson National Historic Site) became federate forces failed, Floyd and Pillow decided the seventeenth president of the United States it was 100 late to escape. During the nigh!, the (186>-1869). During his escape from Washing­ Confederate generals met at the Dover Hotel to ton, LiDaJin 's killer John Wilkes Booth broke his discuss their precarious situation. They decided to leg, which was later set by the unwitting Dr. discuss terms of surrender with the Unk>n com­ Samuel Mudd. For this act, Mudd was sent to manders. Forrest refused to surrender his cavalry prison. A significant ponion of his sentence was to the Union army and escaped that night across served at Fort Jefferson (Dry Tortugas Nat.ional Lick Creek with both his cavalry and other men Park). who chose not to surrender. Floyd and Pillow The emancipation of the slaves radically also escaped, Oeeing to Nashville, leaving changed the country. Before the Civil War, many Buckner in command of the Confederate forces. southern towns were accented by lavL~h man­ The following morning, General Buckner sions, such as Melrose at Natchez National met with General Lew Wallace, a subordinalC of Historical Park and Grey Columns at Tuskegee General Granl, at the Dover Hotel and discussed I n~·titu t e National Historic Site. While these terms of surrender. Grant bad given orders that mansions survived the war, their subsequent only an UDaJnditional surrender would be a

48 Chapter 2 - Regional Overview

Virginia, accepted the position as its first presi­ dating to this period and underlying inshore dent and set an immediate precedent for the lead­ barrier islands at Canaveral National Seashore, ership in black education. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Cape Look­ out National Seashore, Cumberbnd Island America Becomes a World Power National Seashore, Fort Matanzas National Monument, Gulf Islands National Seashore, and Following the Civil War the United States be­ Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve re­ came a world power. This is primarily reflected flect the potential for studies concerning the early in the modifications of the coastal defense sys­ peopling of North America. Submerged peat tem. The system that proved to be inadequate deposits that contain well-preserved cultural during the Civil War was upgraded beginning in resources arc also evident and to be anticipated at the 1890s in response to pressures leading to the Big Cyp ress National Preserve and Everglades Spanish-American War. Forts, such as Fort National Park. Moultrie (Fort Sumter National Monument) and Fort Pickens (Gulf Islands National Seashore) were modified using enormous amounts of iron I. Cultural Developments: Indigenous and concrete. Breechloading retractable guns American Populations replaced the muzzle loaders. Modifications of ar­ A. The Earliest Inhabitants maments continued through the two world wars. 3. The Early Peopling of the However, as with every weapon system, coastal Cari1bbean defense batteries and forts were eventually 14. Archaic Adaptations of the rendered obsolete by airplanes, radar, satellites, Caribbean and other electronic countermeasures. B. Post-Archaic and Precontact Developments TM GreaJ Depression and the New DIXll 16. Posn-Archaic Adaptations of Eastern Coastal Regions The Great Depression and the New Deal bad a 17. Caribbean Adaptations C. Prehistoric Archeology: Topical profound effect on parks in the Southeast As a Facets part of the New Deal, the Works Progress 20. Subnterged Prehistoric Period Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conser­ Archeological Resources vation Corps (CCC) were created The CCC D. Ethnohis.tory of Indigenous American worked in many parks, restoring them to their Populations perceived appearance. Under the WPA, buildings, I. Native Cultural Adaptations at roads, trails, and housing units were constructed. Contact Under the direction of professional archeologists, j. Native Adaptations to South­ WPA/CCC members also conducted systematic eastern Environments archeological excavations at many large prehis­ k. Native Adaptations 10 Carib­ toric sites within the region (Ocmulgee National bean Environments Monument). Virtually all parks established prior 2. Establishing Intercultural Rela­ tions to 1940 hosted CCC activities. k. Helping Foreigners Survive: Providing Food, Clothing, and Shelter MARITIME JUSTORY IN THE 3. Varieties of Early Conllic~ Con­ SOUI'HEAST quest:, or Accommodation d. Changing Settlement Types Although no Pleistocene archeological sites are 7) Maritime Trade Centers yet recognized for the coastal seashores and other maritime parks, the presence or peat deposits

49 Regwnwide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area

Prebisloric maritime exploration, probably Seashore, Cumberland Island National Sea­ from South America, resulted in the settling of shore, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Salt the Virgin Islands among the northern Leeward River Bay National Historical Park and Eco­ Islands, with the initial occupation of the Greater logical Preserve, and Timucuan Ecological and Antilles estimated to have taken place as early as Historic Preserve. 5000 ll.C. (Rouse and Allaire 1978:465). In his At Canaveral National Seashore, an archeo­ 1960 survey of St. John, (Virgin Islands Nation· logical site, which appears to be a survivors' al Park), Frederick Sleight noted that most of the camp of the ill-fated Ribault Occt of 1565, was prehistoric settlements were in the northwest sec· recently investigated by SEAC (Elizabeth Hor­ tion of the island (1962). vath, SEAC. per.sonal communication 1993). The development of specialized maritime, Metal-working remains appear to indicate an riverine, and other adaptations in select areas extended occupation by a small European group allowed for establishment of a scdcnlary way of living among the native population, which re­ life that was not spccif1C311y agriculwrally based. Oects the establishment of intercultural relations. Many maritime communities developed as a rc· A beach-face survey at the park is one of the suit of the use of specialized ftshing and hunting first scheduled SAIP!RASP projecL~ and will techniques or a combination of both. A combi· hopefully locate associated Ribault Occt material. nation of maritime and agricultural practices formed the foundation for cultural developments EUROPEAN COLONIAL EXI'I.OW.TION AND in the Caribbean and along the southeast coast of S6TIWMllNT the United StaleS. Examples of these cultures have been found in archeological contexts throughout the Southeast, including at Big Cy­ II. European Colonial Exploration and press National Preserve, Bi'icayne National Park, Senlement Canaveral National Seashore, Cumberland Is· A. Spanish iE.xptorotion 1nd Senlement I. Caribbean land National Seashore, Everglades National 2. Sou~ast Park, Fort Matanzas National Monument, Culr B. Freocb Exploration and Sentement Islands National Seashore, Timucuan Ecological I. Atlantic and Historic Preserve, and Virgin Islands Na­ 4. Gulf Coast tional Park. These sites are usually manifested as C. English Exploration and Selllemenl shell middens or mounds reflecting the remains I. Exploration of local shellftsh exploitation. 7. Senlement or tbe Carolinas Protected bay and cove prehistoric site types 8. Settlement of C.:orgla are also found at Buc.k Island Reef Notional D. Other European Exploration and Monument and Salt River Bay National Histori­ Senlement cal Park and Ecological Preserve. Elsewhere in I. Scandinavian the region, the potential for prehistoric maritime exploration and early settlement has been con­ sidered for Dry Tortugas National Park European maritime colonial exploration and (Cockrell 1989). settlement is thematically represented throughout Maritime cultural adaptations of the native the Southeast, csp«ially at most coastal parks. 1n populations througbout the Southeast were re­ northeast Aorida, the research needs for ex.amin· corded by early explorers, including Columbus, ing Spanish and French exploration and contact LeMoyne, Ribault, Laudonniere, and d'Iberville, of the sixteenth century have been addressed in A among others. National Parks in the region that Design for Historic and Archeological Research have either archeological sites or historic oc­ of the 16th Century European EIICOWJier in the co unL~ describing contact period maritime cul­ Natwnal Parks O'f Northeast Florida (Keel and tural adaptations include Canaveral National Brewer 1991).

so Chapter 2 - Regional Overview

Spanish and French maritime exploration and setUement is represented at the following Southeast parks for the stated reasons:

• San J uan National Historic Site, where the oldest masonry fortifications in the territorial limits of the United States were begun by the Spaniards in the sixteenth century to protect a strategic harbor guarding the sea lanes to the New World;

• Biscayne National Park, which contains one of the best-preserved shipwrecks of the 1733 Flota disaster;

Figure 13 - Shit> ring bolt from the area of Canaveral • Canaveral National Seashore, where, Nalional Seashore. considering the presence of the survivors' camp site noted earlier, one or more of the known Ribault fleet wrecksites may yet exist At Biscayne National Park, there exist the within the park's boundaries (Figure 13); remains of an English warship of the Caribbean Squadron, the HMS Fowey, sunk in 1748. This • Gulf Islands National Seashore, where some site has received considerable study over the past remains of the Deluna fleet of 1559 may decade. lndicatio.ns are that at least one other yet exist within the park boundary at British vessel of the same general period, as yet Pensacola Bay. identified but unstudied, exists in the northern section of the par!k. Economic and social ways of • Cumbemnd Island National Seashore, life arc also exemplified in the park at the site of where maritime archeological remains may the merchant vessel Hubbard (or Ledbury). This exist in the inland waters, reflecting the ship, laden with a cargo of ceramic tablewares, establishment of early Spanish mission set­ wrecked in either 1769 or 1n2, depending on tlements; and the correct identification of the vessel. At Gulf Isllands National Seashore, the • Virgin Islands National Park, where Danish French establishment of a Gulf Coast military sugar plantations were supplied and cargoes and territorial presence at the beginning of the carried off by mercantile shipping. eighteenth century is exemplified by the archco-

DEVEUJPMENT OF THE ENGUSH COWNIES

Ill. Development of the English Colonies, The maritime aspec.ts of the development of the t688-t763 English colonies are evident throughout the A. Physical Development Southeast Incorporating the golden age of piracy, 2. Territorial Expansion this period saw the English settlement of both C. Military Affairs Cape IUtteras and Cape Lookout National I. French Seashores, as well as the founding of English 2. Spanish fortified coastal towns in Georgia, such as Fo rt D. Social and Economic Affairs Frederica National Monument and the as-yet un­ 2. Economic Affairs and Ways of discovered Forts St Andrew and Prince William Life at Cumbemnd Island National Seashore.

51 Regionwid~ Archeological Survey Plan, SouJIIea.rt Field Area logical evidence of the French warehouse site at wrecks are documented. Other sites arc expected Ship Island. The significant anchorage off the to be located here a.~ well as in other coastal northeast end of the island served the F=ch for system-related parks in the Southeast, such as over a decade and may contain remnants of that Fort Pulaski National Monument, For1 Sumter early incursion. National Monument, and Forts Pickens, McRae, and Massachusetts in Gulf Islands National Senshore, where u:mstnaction and supply vessels IV. The American Revolution wrecked or foundered. D. War in the South The Civil War affected the naval activities F. The Naval War of coastal areas all across the Southeast, whether involved in blockading (and running those blockades), ship-10-shore engagements, or major Concerning maritime activities associated with assaults. Parks in the region that contain known the Rcvolutionruy War, there are seve.ral parks in or polential resources reflecting Civil War the region that manifest an archeological pres­ maritime history include For1 Sumter National ence, including Fort Sumter National Monu­ Monument, wberc the initial assault on and re­ ment. The original Fort Moultrie withstood the moval of Union forces procipitatcd the War battering guns of the British Oeet under Sir Peter Between the States. Ships running past the Union Parker on June 28, 1776, returning fire and sink­ forces, which blockaded Charleston Hamor, and ing several vessels. At Moores Creek National those that continuously fired upon Fort Sumter Battlefield, Jhc scene of the opening engagement also may have left archeologiC1ll remains. At in the South-the bridge site that crosses the Gulf Islands National Seashore, ship-to-shore navigable walerway there-may yet reveal evi­ engagements, as well as major landing.~, occurred dence of the brief but fierce engagement, which Jhrougbout the war at both the Florida and Mis­ dashed British hopes for a quick soulhem vic­ sissippi units. Aloo notable are the remains of the tory. Elsewhere, in 1781, as an ally of France U.S.S. Oliro at VIcksburg National Military (but not the American colonies) against the Park, Mississippi-a reminder of the riverine British, the Spanish sent an Annada of sixty-four naval actions during the war, such n.~ those that ships against the British at Pensacola Bay, which took place on the Mississippi River at Fort quickly fell. This invasion likely has left some Donelson and on the Tcn.nessee River at Pitts­ archeological remains in the waters of Gulf burg Landing (Shiloh National Military Park). Islands National Seashore at Pensacola. MISCELLANEOUS THEMES

V. Political and Military Affairs, Other thematic associalions are exemplified by 1783-1860 many of the more recent (i.e., post-Civil War) K. The Army and Navy shipwrecks known to exist in southeast coastal VI. The Civil War parks. In Biscayne National Park for instance, D. Naval Action the extractive industries of sponging and lobster trapping have left substantial remains that renect the livelihood of the ftn!l setUersto south Florida. The development of the coastal fort system relied Another extractive of considerable im­ heavily on the efforts of both military and mer­ pact to the do;:vclopment and settlement of south chant shipping. Construction alone entailed the Florida was the business, both legitimate and movement of ma-;.~ive amounts of malerials and otherwise, of wrecking, whereby stranded and men, with the inevitable losses that occur with imperiled ships and their cargoes were brought bad weather and perilous navigation. At Dry back into commerce by the efforts of professional Tortui!)IS National Park, several •construction" salvors of tbe late nineteenth and early twentieth

52 Chapter 2 - Regional Ove111iew centuries. Also extant in the park, and represent­ may come into play concerning historic wrecks ing a unique type of housing construction, are the within the boundaries of Southeast parks. still-standing structures known as Stillsville, soon Shipping and transportation are represented to become relics of a past way of life. by all merchant and cargo vessels wrecked within park waters. At Biscayne National Park, several sites come to mind, such as the wrecksites of the Xll. Business steamboat St. Lucie-the locally famous mail A. Extractive or Mining Industries packet and coastal transport wrecked in the 5. Fishing historic hurricane of 1906--and the Lugana and 6. Other [Wrecking) the Alicia-two of the last vessels ever worked C. Construction and Housing by Southeast Florida wreckers. Many cargo 2. Private vessels are known to lie within the boundaries of F. Insurance Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Cape 1. Fire and Marine L. Shipping and Transportation Lookout National Seashore, and at least one XIV. Transportation large lumber vessel lies within the waters of Gulf B. Ships, Boats, Lighthouses, and Islands National Seashore. At Dry Tortugas Other Structures National Park, near Fort Jefferson, the remains of XV. Communication the 1907 Windjammer wreck, the Kil/ean, still lie B. Mail Service (Overland, Water, exposed at low water. Thanks to the mapping and Air Routes) done by the Submerged Cultural Resources Unit XXX. American Ways of Life (SCRU), this wrecksite provides an especially 1. Occupational and Economic exhilarating interpretive dive for visitors who are Classes [Wreckers) trained in diving. This is just a sampling of maritime historic contexts known to exist in SEFA parks. Surveys to be carried out as part of Although it bas not yet become an issue, at this Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan will some point the insurance theme-involving ques· undoubtedly prov.ide further data to support these lions of marine insurance, ownership, and the thematic associations, as well as evaluate their development of the marine insurance industry- overall significance.

• • •

53 Chapter 3 STATUS OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH

INTRODUCI'ION eluding availabil ity or space and location of regional archeological collections. Undoubtedly, A B RIIiF H ISTORY OF E MILY NPS tradition also in nuenced the decision, for as ARCHEOLOGICAL REsEARCH IN SEFA early as the 193Qs and 1940s it was believed that Ocmulgee should be a research center Prior to the establishment of SEAC, archeologi­ Chief Archeologist Corbett implemented the cal investigations in the region were generally organizational change by combining the South­ limited to development-related activities rather east regional archeologist's position and three than to any coherent research inventory program other positions to form SEACs principal staff. that focused on gathering information for the One central objective was to place program database. Archeological research programs for execution and review activities closer to the in-park purposes had always been constrained archeological resource base, then identified as because of the NPS's overall responsibility at the vast accumulation or park-related archeo­ the time to deal archeologically with logical information that had been warehoused at construction activities and other land modifica­ Ocmulgee for a number of years under an tion programs on federal lands. This program unwritten consensus that the park was to serve constraint was an indication of SEFA's opera­ as a regional repository. At that time Ocmulgcc tional budget for archeology in fiscal year 1966, housed records and collections from Ar kansas where 68 percent of the budget funded archeo­ P ost National Memorial, Castillo de San logical contracts for survey or data recovery in M~rcos National Monument, Everglades Na­ reservoir projects, while 32 percent went toward tional Park, Fort Matanzas National Monu­ administering that year's program and planning ment, Guilford Courthouse National Military future reservoir salvage. Park, Kennesaw Mountain National B a t~ eficld However, beginning in the 1960s, a series Park, Natchez T race Parkway, Ocmulgee Na­ of developments greatly contributed to the evo­ tional Monument, RusseU Cave National Mo nu­ lution of archeological resource management in ment, and Virgin Islands National Park. the region. First, an improved organizational In rapid succession, several other develop­ basis was established as the result of interaction ments followed this organizational change. between the Washington Office (WASO) direc­ torate, the Southeast Regional Office (SERO) • Policy initiatives from historic preservation directorate, and the Chief Archeologist, WASO. legislation sharpened the focus on a need This re.~ulted in the establishment of SEAC at for systematic in-pnrk archeological pro­ Ocmulgee National Monument (An overview grams and increased funding. of the archeological center's establishment can be found in Logan and Calabrese's National • In response to the need to have tbc center Park Service Archeological Programs: An His­ near adequate research facilities and deposi­ torical Overview (1976)). This move to establish tories, SEAC was relocated to Florida State archeological centers had its origins in a man­ University in Tallahassee. agement goal to expand NPS capability to carry out comprehensive research in support of all • External program responsibilities were sep­ management programs. Ocmulgee was selected arated from internal requirements. They as the site of SEAC for several reasons, in- were separately funded and eventually

54 Clwpter 3 - Status of Archeological Research

transferred to another agency, thus allowing MISSION STATEMENT undivided emphasis to be placed on in-park archeological needs. SEAC's mission is to facilitate long-term pro­ tection of archeological resources in the parks • As pan of an overall NPS shift in phi­ of the Southeast and to preserve and utilize losophy, SEAC adopted a management-by­ archeological information from these parks. This objectives system. mission will be carried out by the effective utilization of human and material resources in • Regional management decided, at an early contributing to sound cultural resource manage­ date, that SEAC would be responsible for ment decisions, plans, and programs. For the in-park archeology in the region regardless past ten years, SEAC has been and will con­ of whether the client was Denver Service tinue to be guided by the following objectives: Center, the park, or the regional office. Th.is decision made possible the coordi­ • to provide cultural resource inventories; nation of archeological endeavors as one program and improved the scheduling, • to review proposed management, planning, delivery, and quality of products. and construction undertakings in order to insure an adequate recognition of cultural • It was agreed that archeological programs resource values and to identify any implica­ would emphasize the inventory and evalua­ tions of conflict~ with the undertakings; tion or resources in newly acquired areas and, at the same time, begin to inventory • to provide appropriate archeological re­ and evaluate existing areas whose archeo­ search in undertakings that may have an logical resources were then virtually un­ adverse effect on cultural resources; known. • to provide cultural data recovery programs, field inspections, surveys, and reports that THE SOUTHEAST ARCHEOLOGICAL conform to recognized service, departmen­ CENTER (SEAC) tal, and professional standards in order to provide quality archeological resource in­ During the 28 years since its creation, SEAC-a formation and recommendations to manag­ division of the regional office, now called the ers and planners; Southeast Field ArC3-has provided informa­ tion, recommendations, and project execution at to achieve high-quality sta.ndards for the both park and regional levels to support the design, execution, and reponing of archeo­ management of a variety of cultural resources logical undertakings; that, by definition, are archeological (Faust 1986). to provide for the development, research, Over this period, SEAC evolved into a and/or application of effective methodology base-funded review and production unit that or techniques for information management; utilizes varying amounL~ of yearly project funds and to gradually complete yearly program goals that contribute to the accomplishment of SEAC's to maintain an information base of objects main objectives. and data archeologically recovered from the National Parks in tbe Southeast and to provide for the effective utilization and • curation of archeological research collec­ tions, archives, and information bases.

55 Region wide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheasl Field Area

PREVIOUS ARCHEOWGICAL evaluate site significance. Actions 1 and 2 will INVENTORY RESEARCH be implemen ted to correct the surveys. Large-scale systematic surveys that meet During tbc past 28 years, SEAC bas acccssioncd the most current standards have been conducted over 1,150 projects. Appendix 3 contains a park at Big South Fork National River and Recrea­ by park listing of all archeological projects tion Area, Mammoth Cave National Park, and completed by SEAC over the past two decades. Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve. The bulle of these projects are archeological These surveys will be current when CSI clearances done to comply with Section 106 of (ASMIS) forms are completed for each site. the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980. One hundred-sixteen of the total projects (10 percent) are identification, PREVIOUS I.AIRGE-SCALE SURVEYS location, and/or survey studies. The combined result of these past efforts Summaries of previous major surveys under­ bas led to a situation wbere large numbers of taken in the region follow. These generally sites have been located bu t not documented or consist of identification studies as opposed to evaluated to the level required by current compliance-based activities. (In other words, the standards as outlined in the Secretary of the primary goal of these surveys was to identify Interior's Standards fo r Archeological and sites instead of surveying areas proposed for Historic Preservation and in NPS-28: Cultural development) They reflect work carried out by Resource Management Guidelines (1985). both NPS and contract archeologists. Other than Two actions are required to correct this the most recent (post-1985) surveys at Big deficiency. The first is to review project­ Sou th Fork, Mammoth Cave, and Timucuan, accessioned records to determine if the requisite they have resulted in an inventory of site information is present. If present, then regional locations with varying levels of documentation, CSI forms, scrviccwidc ASMIS forms, state site most of wh ich only minimally meet current forms, and archeological base maps will be registration criteria. Whether certain areas will completed; a determ ination of signi!icancc will be resurveyed o r simply site tested/evaluated be made; and National Register nomination depends on whether their data sets meet the forms will be prepared and submitted when current Secretary of the Interior's Standards for appropriate. If the required information is not Archeological and Historic Preservation and present, the second corrective action-site iden­ NPS cultural resource management guidelines tification and testing-will be used. For this (NPS 1985). reason a site testing project statement was writ­ ten for each park. Site testing will min imally BIG CYPRESS NA'TIONAL PRESERVE (BICY) consist of relocating and recording the location of the site (using GPS), determining site limits, Until recently there had been little professional determining cultural and temporal affiliation, attention directed towards sites within the Big and assessing National Register signi ficance. Cypress Preserve. One of the earliest surveys Several large inventory projects have been was conducted in 1930 by Roy Nash. He conducted by SEAC, but the majority of sites recorded the location of Seminole camps, many were not assessed by current standards. The of which are within the preserve boundaries recordation of sites during the Big Cypress (1931). National Preserve, Canaveral National Sea­ SEAC conducted five seasons (1977- 1981) shore, and Everglades National Parle surveys, of archeological survey as part of the cultural for instance, often did not include such infor­ resource inventory. The following four survey mation as datum, site limil'5, and discovery methods were used: aerial photography inter­ methodology. Many of these data arc needed to IHCtation, informants, field investigation, and

56 Chapter 3 - Stlltus of Archeological Research published maps. During the survey, 386 sites ter survey was the most productive means of were located (Ehrenhard and Taylor 1980; identifying natural resources of which over Ehrenhard, Carr, and Taylor 1978, 1979; Ehren· 2,000 were recorded using this method. A grand hard, Taylor, and Komara 1978). Of these, total of 3,245 natural features were identified by nineteen were considered regionally significant. ODS, of which approximately 50 percent were listed as blufnine shelters. or these, only BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RivER AND ninety-eight have been identified as archeo­ RECREATION AREA (BISO) logical sites on 'the basis of reported cultural materials. The ODS survey also identified The first systematic archeological investigations twenty-six open air sites, and a few other kinds in the Big South Fork National River and of archeological resources, such as cemeteries, Recreation Area were conducted by SEAC un· mines, and bridges. der the direction of Robert C. Wilson. Wilson Environmental Consultants, Inc. (ECI) con­ and his crew initiated fieldwork in the fall of ducted a historic resource study of the park 1978 and completed it in the fall of 1979. The from 1980 to 1982 (Hutchinson et al. 1982). work was divided into two stages. The work was directed by Steven K. Hutchin· The first stage was devoted to survey with· son, who oversaw ECI's inventory and evalua­ in proposed development areas. This consisted tion of 273 building locations identified on the of excavating shovel tests at 50-meter intervals basis of 1950s USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle in some upland and terrace areas and conduct­ maps and a 1934 Kentucky topographic map. ing pedestrian surveys wilh 25-by-25-ccntimeter Hutchinson and bis associates located a total of subsurface testing at rockshelters along bluff. forty-nine standing structures during their inves­ lines. tigation of the 273 sites. The second stage was devoted primarily to Following the initial work conducted by surveys along 1,500-meter-long transects in SEAC, ODS, and ECI, the Army Corps of areas outside the proposed development tracts. Engineers contracted with the University of During the investigation of these transects, Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK) to conduct addi· shovel tests were plaqed at 25-meter intervals in tional archeological survey and testing in the uplands and bottomlands. Inspection of selected park development areas and within a blufnine overhangs for evidence of occupation 300-meter-wide band around them. Members of was also conducted wilhin the transect areas. UTK conducted their investigations from Octo· During the two stages of the project, ber 1981 to June 1983 (Ferguson et al. 1982, eighteen proposed development areas were 1984; Ferguson ct al. 1986). Their field methods surveyed, and eleven transect areas (tracts) were in blufnine areas consisted primarily of system· traversed. A total of 145 sites were recorded atic pedestrian survey and visual inspection of during the Stage 1 investigations, and fifty-six ground surfaces in traverses that followed the sites were recorded during Stage 2. Sixty-three contours of the blufllines. In the upland and other sites located outside the development and bottomland areas, systematic pedestrian survey transect areas were also investigated by the and visual inspection of ground surfaces were SEAC crew. conducted following transects spaced at roughly Several months after SEAC staff members 30· to 40-metcr intervals in order to find initiated archeological surveys in the park, "highly visible sites" (Ferguson et al. 1986:71). employees of Ocean Data Systems (ODS) were Systematic shovel testing was conducted only in subcontracted by master planners Miller, Wihry, areas where inSjl'cction for archeological mate­ and Lee to perform a natural resource survey of rials had al ready identified sites. The purpose of the park area. This included ground inspections, shovel testing was to enhance a site's spatial flying aerial transects, and twenty-one hours of definition. helicopter survey along blufOines. The helicop· During the ·course of their investigations,

57 Rtgwnwidi! Archi!Ologit:al Surv11y Plan, SouJhtti~1 Field Area

UTK personnel surveyed 1,641.8 hectares deep-probing bottomland open-air sites discov­ (4,035.5 acres) within eight development areas ered during the 1991 BISOARS field season, and visited 340 sites (Ferguson et nl. I986:iii). and (3) surveying the blufnine areas of the Of these, 248 (72 percent) contained prehistoric gorge (Prentice 1993a). components and ninety-five (28 percent) bad Survey along Laurel Hill Road consisted of historic components. Of the prehistoric sites, pedestrian survey along ~ec tio n s of the road 154 were rocksheltcrs, sixty-eight were upland where ground swrface visibility permitted the sites, and twenty-six were terrace sites. identification of prehistoric and historic artifact During the summer of 1991, SEAC staff scatters. Determination of site limits and strati­ members conducted the second year of archeo­ graphic integrity following site discovery was logical field investigations at BISO as part of accomplished by shovel testing and visual the Big South Fork Archeological Resou rce ground inspection. A total of 9.6 kilometers (6 Survey project (BISOARS) The major focus of miles) of upland roadways were pedestrian the 1991 field sca.<;<>n was on surveying the surveyed and rwelve open-air sites were investi­ upland areas (referred to as "Adjacent Lands" in gated during the 1992 phase. Eleven of tbe the BISO enabling legislation) as well as the open-air sites were new discoveries; the rwelfth terraces and floodplains in the bottom areas of site (875.010) was discovered in 1991 (Prentice the gorge. 1992). 1\vo new rockshcltcr sites were also Survey in the upland areas consisted of recorded during the road survey. Of the eleven pedestrian survey along existing roads where newly discovered open-air upland sites located ground-surface visibility pcrmillcd the identi­ along Laurel Hill Road, seven were isolated fication of prehistoric and historic artifact scat­ prehistoric lithic scatters, three contained both ters. Determination of site limits and strati­ prehistoric and historic components, nnd one graphic integrity following site discovery was "site" was an isolated prehistoric find discov­ accomplished by shovel testing and visual ered at a modern deer bunting camp. ground inspection. A total of 66.8 kilometers Investigations in the terrace and floodplain (41.4 miles) of upland roadways were pedestrian areas consisted of shovel testing and deep­ surveyed aod tbirty-four open-air sites were probing to detennine site limits and strntigrnphy studied during Ibis phase of the 1991 investiga­ for eight open-air sites pr<.-viously discovered tions. Thirty-four new sites were identified along bottomland roads and trails (Prentice during the various upland road surveys. 1993a). Ten new rocksbcltcr sites were recorded Survey in the terrace aod floodplain orcas as a resull of the survey of Joe Branch Hollow. consisted of pedestrian survey along gorge One of the sites w~s located outside the park bottomland roads and trails in order to locate (Prentice 1993a). During the survey of Middle previously unreported sites. A total of 39.6 Creek Hollow, a total of fifteen newly recorded kilometers (24.6 mil es) of bottomland trails rockshcltcr sites were investigated (Prentice were surveyed, and fifteen open-air sites were 1993a). visited during Ibis phase. Seven of the sites Based on the previous work conducted in were previously unreported prehistoric artifact the park and historic cartographic information, a scatters, two of wbicb also contained historic total of 1,045 historic and prehistoric sites are components. The rest of the sites visited duri.ng currently identified on the Archeological Re­ tbe bottomland survey bad been previously sources Inventory, but several of lbesc arc reported. located ouL~ide park boundaries. Most of tbe The major foci of the 1992 BJSOARS field known prehistoric sites in the park occur within season were (I) surveying Laurel Hill Road as a the development areas and indirect impact areas means of testing the prehistoric site prediction designated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi­ model that bad been developed from tbe pre­ neers. Most of the historic sites were first vious year's research, (2) shovel testing and identilied on tbe basis of USGS maps.

58 Chapter 3 - Status of Archeological Research

BISCAYNENA110NALPARK (BISC) of Charles H. Fairbanks, carried out a study of the archeological and historical resources of the In 1975, SEAC conducted a general underwater Kennedy Space Center. A large section of the archeological survey of the park. This magneto­ northern NASA jurisdictional area lies within meter survey focused on the area immediately the Canaveral National Seashore boundaries, offshore from the islands and the fringes of the and, therefore, the survey conducted by Long outer reef. This was a nonsystematic, biased covered a great deal of park property in both survey based on information of known and Volusia and Brevard Counties. Sites were suspected shipwreck sites and potential areas visited by Long, and brief descriptions, as well provided by local divers and historic references. as loc.ational data, were recorded. As a reference Nthough a final report was not produced, the document, the report is extremely helpful for site data compiled provided the baseline infor­ determining the status of site integrities as they mation on the submerged resources within the existed in 1966. The final report for this work, park. For its day, this was considered state of Indian and Historic Sites Report, Jolm F. the art. Kennedy Space Cemer, NASA (1967) is on file In 1973, under contract from SEAC, A. at the Kennedy Space Center Public Affairs James McGregor, then a graduate student under Office. William H. Sears of Florida Atlantic University, In 1975, John E. Ehrenhard of SEAC conducted a terrestrial archeological identifica­ carried o ut a cultural resource inven10ry of tion study (Sears and McGregor 1974). The Canaveral National Seashore, which had been basic hypothesis was that prehistoric sites would established that year. The project was under­ be located on the bay sides of islands. Through taken, in compliance with Executive Order "surface survey• (presumably visual reconnais­ 11593, to provide the park with data for the sance survey) eleven sites were located. Limited draft General Management Plan. The survey recovery and testing took place at several of the method consisted of aerial photography interpre­ sites. This site survey bas provided the baseline tation and surface reconnaissance. Although the data for the park's prehistoric resources. survey relied heavily upon former surveys, and In 1984, SEAC conducted a systematic sixty-two sites were recorded within the bound­ underwater survey codirected by Ken Wild and aries of CANA, only twenty-five previously David Brewer (1985) as part of an underwater unreco rded sites were located. Recommenda­ archeological field school in conjunction with tions were made for seven prehistoric and three Florida State University's Academic Diving historic sites, as well as an archeological Program and Department of Anthropology. district, to be nominated to the National Regis­ Fourteen survey blocks consisting of more than ter of Historic Places. No archeological testing 4,000 acres (1,575 hectares) were surveyed was carried out at the sites surveyed. Fur­ using a magnetometer. Twenty-one submerged thermore, locational data, as listed in the final sites and one terrestrial shipwreck were report Canaveral National Seashore: Assessme/11 investigated, fourteen of which were newly of Arclreo/ogica I and Historical Resources identified resources. Two of the sites, the (Ehrenhanl 1976a), was later considered prob­ Hubbard/Ledbury (BISC-2) and the alleged lematical by Grifrin and Miller (1978:161-164). Populo (BISC-23), underwent limited site testing. CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE (CALO)

CANAVERAL NATIONAL SEASHORE (CANA) In 1976 SEAC conducted a survey of this park unit (Ehrenhard 1976b). The survey method In 1965-1966, George A. Long, then a candi­ consisted of a visual survey of the ground date for a Master's degree in Anthropology at surface. Fifteen sites were recorded during this the University of Florida and under the direction survey.

59 Regwnwide Archeological Survey Plan, SoUiheast Field Area

CHARLES PINCKNEY NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE and the level of Bull Sluice backwater. The (CHPI) archeologist Oemens de Baillou, under the general direction of A. R. Kelly, published his In 1987, Brockington and AssociaiCS conducted findings soon after completing the work (1962). a survey of the 28-acre tract. The area around In 1974, Christopher Hamil ton of SEAC the main house was posthole tested, while the conducted a survey of portions of the Chatta­ remainder of the property was shovel tested hoochee River floodplain between Buford Dam (Brockington 1987). Colonial era artifacts were and the Georgia Highway 20 bridge. This area located ncar the main bouse. ln addition, the was resurveyed during the cultural resource archeological remains of slave cabins were inventory of the proposed Chattahoochee River found in the southwest comer of the property. National Recreation Area corridor, begun in In 1992, two SEAC crews, one of which 1979 by Ellen Ehrenhard, also of SEAC. This was operating under the National Arebeological most recent investigation consisted of one sea­ Survey Initiative (now SAIP/RASP), surveyed son of surface survey and some subsurface the northeast quadrant of Snee Farm (SEAC/ testing followed by a season of testing and RASP 1993). Shovel testing, probing, and man­ evaluation to determine archeological signifi­ ual excavations were conducted. Metal detectors cance. The final report on these two seasons and GPR were used as part of the survey was prepared by field archeologists Patricia D. methodology. During this survey tbe remains of O'Grady and Charles B. Poe (1980) under the several structures were exposed supervision of the project archeologist. The project was suspended after the 1980 season CHATTAHOOCHEE RivER NATIONAL because of land ncquisition difficulties. Seventy RBCRJ-;,t1"10N ARF.A (CHAT) archeological sites were recorded.

The first scientifically oriented survey was di­ CUMIJERL.I.ND ISU.ND NATIONAL SEASHORE rected by Robert Waucbope under the auspices (CUIS) of tbe Works Progress Administration, the Society for Georgia Archaeology, and the In 1950, Lewis Larson conducted a walking University of Georgia. The survey began in survey of the island and used some of the 1938 and terminated with Waucbopc's departure material tbat was found for his Master's thesis. to North Carolina in 1940. The data was pub­ In 1974 and 1975, SEAC conducted a lished much later (Waucbope 1966), by which cultural inventory of the coast adjacent to time many of the sites bad been destroyed by Cumberland Island (Deutschle and Wilson urban expansion or intensive land usc. During t 975). The survey consisted of locating sites the course of Wauchope's field work, large-scale and some surface collecting. A number of geodetic maps were unavailable and access historic si tes in the town of St. Marys were also roads were poorly marked or unidentified by listed in the report. standard names. Consequently, later workers In 1975, SEAC conducted a broad cultural have had difficulty in locating the 1939-1940 inventory survey of the complete island (Ehren­ sites in any given area. hard !976c). This consisted of a systematic From 1940 until 1959, no scientific arche­ walking nx:onnaissance and the •ground-trutb• ology was undertaken in the general area. In ing• of infrared aerial photographs. Field parties 1959, the Department of Anthropology, Univer­ would string out at approximately I 00-meter sity of Georgia, agreed to conduct a small intervals, led by a guiding compass leader, with salvage operation above the hydroelectric dam sites recorded on 7.5-minute quadrangle maps in the Morgan Falls Basin on the Chattahoochee as encountered. Excavations were carried out River to recover data and materials that might with reference lo an arbitrary grid system. be destroyed upon raising the height of the dam Individual base lines were e.~tablished and

60 Chapter 3 - Status of Archeological Research marked at SO-meter intervals. TesiS minimally wrecks in areas previously surveyed. consisted of a single 1.5-meter square. In In 1992, 1993, and 1994, the Submerged situations that were historical in nature, specific Cultural Resource Unit (SCRU) conducted addi· historical data were used to aid in interpretation tiona! systematic magnetometcr/fathometer sur­ (Ebrcnhard 1976c:38-40). veys at Fon Jefferson as pari or the prototypic There are fifty-seven prehistoric and his­ development of an interrelated GPS/GIS survey toric archeological sites witbi.n tbc boundaries of system. Although funded by the Notional Ar· Cumberland Island National Seashore. The chcological Survey Initiative (now SAIP), no prehisiOric sites date as far back as 5,000 years interim reports of these surveys hove been made and arc usually located along the intersection of to date to either SEAC or SEFA. marsh and high pund along lite wulcm border of the island, whereas lite historic resources are EVBRGVIDES NATIONAL PAR.K (EVER) spread throughout lite island, usually near water. The sixteenth-century Spanish mi.~~ions were t.hc The Everglades area received its first archeo­ first historic occupations. These effectively logical attention from C. B. Moore, wbo navi­ ended the prehistoric aboriginal cultures. The gated the entire southwest coast in 1904, but island bas been occupied continually since that apparently spent little lime within the present time. The majority of these archeological sites park boundary. He did report a site on Lost. have been protected (rom the ocean side by a man's Key, however. well-developed dune system; however, on the Ales Hrdlicka, with the Smithsonian lnsti· river side, the major threat 10 sites is erosion lulion, made a remarkably detailed site survey from boat traffic and, in the case of the of the lower west coast of Florida in 1918. He Deptford Tabby House (NPS 9 CAM 44), from presented a ralher thorough list of sites, excessive vegetation (Ebrenhard 1982). including Johnson Hammock. He also listed several sites in the O.pc Sable area. DRY TORTVGAS NATIONAL PARK (DRTO) Following the establishment of the park, an informal cooperative research program was In 1970 and 1971, the Division of Archeology, established with the University of Aorida. Four W ASO, conducted the ftrsl NPS systematic un· annual midyear expeditions and a number of derwalcr survey, which consisted of: smaller ones yielded valuable data.

1) a study of USGS aerial pboiOgraphy and a • In January :ami February 1949, John M. visual survey of shallow water; and Goggin tested sites ncar Bear Lake and on Shark River. 2) a magnetometer survey near shoals, reefs, and channels whereby three tracts of I,000 • In 1950, Goggin's lostman's River Expedi· by 4,000 feet and two tracts of 2,000 by tion No. I surveyed thai river and tested 6,000 feel were "magged" at a 75-foot Onion Key. interval. • In 1951, the lostman's River Expedition Twelve shipwrecks and four artifact scaners No. 2 continued the river survey and tested were located. Johnson Hammock and HamiliOn Garden In 1974, Wilburn "Sonny• Cockrell, the Patch. State Underwater Archeologist under contract 10 SEAC, conducted a survey. One of his goals • The t 952 elCpedition worked on the Cape was to use metal-sensing, diver observation, and Sable area. Also, tesL~ were conducted at other methods 10 survey areas not covered by the Lund~ford Site, O.pc Sable Beach Site, earlier surveys. He located two unknown ship· and Cape Sable No. 2.

61 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area

During 1anuary 1964, an overall survey of sites. Since that time another ninety-two sites the archeological resources of Everglades have been added bringing the total sites to 196. National Park was begun under the direction of John W. Griffin, SERO. The Lostman's River FORT MATAN'LAS NATIONAl. MONUMENT area on the south to the north boundary of the (FOMA) park in Collier County was covered. Twenty­ one sites were visited. Three sites were tested: In 1966, Stephen Gluckman of SL Johns River Walter Hamilton Place, Hamilton Garden Patch, Junior College conducted the first systematic and Onion Key. survey at Castillo de San Marcos National In 1965, another archeological survey, call­ Monument. The survey method consisted of ing for "archeological base mapping" of known visual inspections of the ground surface while sites in Everglades National Park, was initiated walking parallel transects. Five sites were lo­ through a contract between the park and Florida cated ranging in time from Orange period to Atlantic University. Primarily a litemture search, Modern. only some minor site visits were made. This In 1975, Kathleen Oeagan, under contl'llct project was carried out under the direction of by the Park Service, did extensive survey and William H. Sears. It resulted in the location of testing on Ralllesnake and Anastasia Islands. seven previously unknown (unrecorded) sites The goal was to survey, locate, and test archeo­ and in the recording of locations for seventy­ logical resources within the monument. An four other sites within the park. An archeo­ attempt was made to survey all of the land that logical base map (with photo mosaics and had been dry in 1765. The testing consisted of overlays) and a report for the survey was also foot survey, soil auger testing, and trenching. compiled (Scars 1965, 1966). Evidence of preh is to ric and historic occupations During tbe 1973 fiscal year, the relocation was located. and determination of the nature of the sub­ merged remains of the Seminole War period GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PAliK Fort Poinsett on Cape Sable were undertaken. (GRSM) Acquisition and analysis of multispectral image­ ry and color aerial photogmphy were employed Between 1936 an.d 1941, George A. McPherson in the study. The location of the fort's remains located and recorded sites in the Great Smoky was compared to the present shoreline, earlier Mountains National Park region. This resulted aerial photographs, and historic and modern in the recording of 132 loci and eighty-six maps 10 determine rates and forms of beach and prehistoric sites. shoreline erosion or recession in the site areas. In 1975, Quentin R. Bass (Bas.~ et al. 1976) This research project was conducted for NPS by of the University of Tennessee began a multi­ the Aorida Resources and Environmental Anal­ year survey of the park. Forty-three new sites ysis Center, Florida State University. were recorded and forty-one recorded sites were The 1982-1984 survey of Everglades Na­ revisited. tional Park was carried out by SEAC. Resulls have been presented in three volumes (Ehren­ GULF ISlANDS NA1'10NALS£ASHORE (GUIS) bard ct al. 1982; Taylor 1984, 1985a, b). The first phase of the survey began with a review of In 1973, Louis D. Tesar conducted an intensive all previous Aorida Master Site File records. archeological su rvcy of the newly acquired Eighty-seven of the 168 site records were con­ lands making up the Gulf Islands National firmed and described within the park. Thirty­ Seashore. Tesar, with Florida State University's five other sites arc believed 10 exist in the park, Anthropology Department, conducted the survey but could not be relocated due to insufficient for the NPS under contract number CXS000-3- information. In all, the survey added 104 new 1438. The resuiL~ of the survey are reported in

62 Chapter 3 - Status of Archeological Research three volumes. The first volume contains the of lines at 70-foot intervals from the beach to activities within Santa Rosa Island, Perdido the offshore bar (Lenihan 1974:35). Dive crews Key, and the Naval Live Oaks portions of the were assigned to investigate the areas of mag­ seashore, all within Aorida. The second volume netic anomaly occurrences to locate any extant deals with the work conducted in the Missis· structural remains and related material deposits, sippi portions of the park. These include Davis and to determine the degree of sedimentation Bayou and East and West Ship Islands along and the state of site integrity and preservation. with Fort Massachusetts. The third volume deals The results of the survey found "the area to with the park holdings at Fort Barrancas in the be quite rich in cultural material, primarily Naval Air Station area. All three volumes shipwrecks, although a small number of bricks contained well-documented descriptions of the were also found at one location which was felt archeological activities as well as in-depth by the archeologist to be the site of the mid· historical research pertaining to each of the nineteenth century Fort McRee" (Lenihan three areas (Tesar 1973a). 1974:36-37). A total of eighteen apparent wreck Along with the discovery and reporting of sites were located, although, in most cases, the cultural resources on land, Tesar also reported materials inducing the magnetic anomalies on a number of submerged, semisubmerged, and "were covered by sand to such an extent that it coastal arcbeologieal sites, many of which were was not possible to get at the materials without being both directly and indirectly impacted by extensive excavation" (Fischer 1974:3-4). erosion. Within the Aorida sections of the park, A. Wayne Prokopetz, working under the eight shipwreck sites were located and recorded. direction of Hale Smith of Aorida State Uni· These sites were found on land in the intertidal versity, conducted an archeological survey of zones and in the shallows of the gulf and bay the east end of Perdido Key. The work was (See Tesar 1973a, b, c, d, e) (SEAC Ace. 318). done under contract number CXS000-4-1676 Also in 1973, a preliminary underwater from July to August 1974. Due to the changing archeological survey of the offshore lands of the nature of the barrier beach, it was assumed that Santa Rosa and Perdido Key areas of the Gulf many sites would have either been destroyed or Islands National Seashore was carried out. buried. Prokopetz found only one aboriginal Under the direction of George Fischer, SEAC, site, the Redfish Point Site (8ES112). The site research activities were carried out during July was represented only by a surface scatter of and August of that year. The principal focus of sherds. It covered approximately four acres, the study "was to determine the extent and with no subsurface component. From the types nature of submerged cultural remains in the of ceramics recovered, Prokopetz determined it waters surrounding Gulf Islands National was a Fort Walton period site. A World War I Seashore" (Lenihan 1974:34). Given the limited gun site (8ESI B) was also located west of the time and funding of the activities, the scope of presumed site of Fort McRee. No evidence of work concentrated on a preliminary survey of the fort could be located, although Prokopetz possible historic submerged resources. mentioned that there had been several (unsub­ The main mechanism for the recovery of stantiated) reports of local divers finding data centered upon the use of a Varian Model materials that may be related to the fort in the 4937A Marine Proton Precession Magnetometer, channel of Pensacola Bay (Prokopetz 1974). operated by Martin Meylach of Meylach In August 1979, Aorida State University's Magnetic Search Systems. Transect lanes were Scientific Diving Techniques class conducted established on a visual system and courses ran two simultaneous projects within the boundaries along a thin strip off and around the western of Gulf Islands National Seashore. Both of the end of Santa Rosa Island and the eastern portion projects were done by students under the super· of Perdido Key. Control for the transect lanes vision of Gregg Stanton of the FSU Academic was maintained by the establishment of a series Diving Program and George Fischer of the

63 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area

NPS. The fllSt project was directed by Ed survey, was conducted by Kenneth Carstens, a Deren. This involved a magnetometer survey of graduate student of Patty Jo Watson. the eastern tip of Perdido Key for the relocation The Hominy Hole survey was begun in of four magnetic anomaly occurrences discov­ 1970 and completed in 1977 (White 1980:1). ered during Fischer's 1973 survey. Another Survey work within the park was conducted objective was to try to verify magnetometer­ under the auspices of Antiquities Act Permit found anomalies with data from hand-held metal No. 72-KY-014, which was issued on April 20, detecting equipment and visual inspection by 1972 to Clifton D. Bryant, Chairman of the divers. A third objective was "to tie in possible Department of Sociology and Anthropology at sites to a surface map with surveying equip­ Western Kentucky University (WKU), to be ment" (Deren !979:3). The survey methodology used by Jack M. Schock (archeologist at WKU) involved the use of a magnetometer supplied by and Vernon White. The primary purpose of the the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, towed survey was to investigate the archeological behind a 17-foot AquaSport. Since no excava­ distribution of grinding boles (sometimes re­ tion was authorized, no subsurface work was ferred to as hominy holes) often found at the done, and all activities consisted of visual and larger sandstone rockshelters located in the metal detection verification. The results of the Western Coal Field area. White investigated a study produced the location of one anchor at the total of 223 sites (White 1980:3), seven of site of one of the 1973 anomalies and the which are located within the boundaries of location of two anomalies on the south side of Mammoth Cwe National Park. Perdido Key at points where two recorded In April 1974 two of Schock's students, wreck sites are currenUy charted. Frank Hoover and Mike Wells, also conducted a In 1992, a SEAC crew, operating under the pedestrian survey along the Green River be­ National Archeological Survey Initiative, sur­ tween Big Hollow and a point approximately veyed twenty areas in the Fort Pickens unit one-half mile north of Dennison Ferry under the (Wright 1993). Shovel tests, metal detectors, aegis of Permit 72-KY -014 (Hoover and Wells and GPR were used. During this survey three 1978). Hoover and Wells did not locate any sites were located. None were considered eli­ artifactual materials indicative of a prehistoric gible for nomination to the National Register. site, but they did identify the presence of twenty-two piles of stones on the northern rim MAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL PARK (MACA) of a mesa-like hill directly northeast of Den­ nison Ferry. Hoover and Wells suggested that Following the passage of the National Historic these may be burial locations, but their place­ Preservation Act in 1966, the National Environ­ ment around the perimeter of the hill suggests, mental Policy Act in 1969, and Executive Order instead, that they may be the result of historic No. 11593 in 1971, NPS began implementing field stone clearing activities. The "site" was governmental Jaw and policy regarding cultural given state site number 15Ht300 by WKU. resources within the parks. By 1973, NPS had In January 1974, Watson and Carstens established procedures for the inventory and initiated the Green River Surface Survey to evaluation of these cultural resources. locate and study the prehistoric sites of the At about the same time that the NPS was Mammoth C3vei1Upper Green River area (Car­ first coming to grips with the management of its stens 1980:22; Watson and Carstens 1975:2). cultural resources, two surveys of archeological During the course of their investigations, con­ sites in the Mammoth Cave area were initiated. ducted intermitte.nlly over the next eight years The first was known as the Hominy Hole and often in response to park needs to assess survey conducted by Vernon White, a folklorist­ impacts to archeological sites, Watson and sociologist on the faculty at Western Kentucky Carstens visited and recorded the locations of University. The second, the Green River Surface sixty-seven cultural sites within the park bound-

64 Chapter 3 - Status ofArcheolog ical Research aries (excluding Mammoth Cave) (Carstens SHPO in the evaluation of these historical 1974, 1980; Carstens and Jennings 1977; resources. The MCNPAIP survey bas provided Watson and Carstens 1975, 1982). Forty-eight site information .and GIS data to the National of these sites were rockshelters, two were caves, Register of Historic Places to assist in their two were quarries, and fifteen were open sites evaluations (Prentice 1993b). In addition to (two bottomland, thirteen upland) (Carstens these two recent surveys, members of the Cave 1974, 1980; Watson and Carstens 1975, 1982). Research Foundation, principally Phil DiBlasi, During November and December 1980, have studied and continue to study the locations Christine Beditz was enlisted to survey the of rockshelters and caves in Mammoth Cave rockshelter areas around the Childress Farm National Park. tract. During her survey, Beditz recorded the In June 198:7, Guy Prentice initiated the locations of 134 overhangs of which twenty­ first of three planned field seasons under the eight are listed on the CSI as archeological auspices of the MCNPAIP (Prentice 1988). The sites. Nine of these rocksbelters bad been second field season was begun in late February previously reported by Beditz (1979), Carstens 1988 and completed in early June of the same (1975), and Poe (1979). Of the 28 sites included year. The third field season began November in Beditz's 1981 report, twenty produced cultur­ 1988 and ended March 31, 1989. al materials and eight produced faunal materials, During the 1987 season, the MCNPAIP which Beditz interpreted as being of cultural crew identified thirty new sites (including iso­ origin. lated artifacts) and visited four sites previously As we have seen, due to park management identified by the !fieldwork of Nelson, Schwartz, objectives, most of the archeological studies and Carstens (Prentice 1988). All the sites sponsored by NPS prior to 1987 focused on except one, Sunday Hike Rockshelter (MACA- surveying the areas of the park containing the 90), were open air sites located in the uplands highly visible and vulnerable rocksbel.ters and and bottomlands. Test excavations were con­ caves. The NPS later came to recognize that ducted at two of the upland sites, Holton Ridge their focus on the rockshelters and eaves had (MACA-121) and Dennison Ridge (MACA- given archeologists an invaluable glimpse into 133). Four units encompassing sixteen square certain aspects of prehistoric life, but had left meters were excavated at MACA-121; three the archeological community with a large units encompassing six square meters were information gap in respect to the open air sites excavated at MACA-133. No subsurface fea­ that were known to exist in the area. tures were foundl at either of these historically To rectify this bias, the NPS initiated the plowed sites. Mammoth Cave National Park Archeological In the spring of 1988, the MCNPAIP crew Inventory Project (MCNPAlP) in order to returned to Mammoth Cave. During this second develop a more complete inventory of the types field season, they recorded fifty-nine new sites and the conditions of the prehistoric cultural and visited thirty-one previously known sites. resources in the park and to gain a better The majority of these were rockshelters and understanding of the factors that have affected were investigated during the blufOine survey the selection, use, and abandonment of these portion of the project Some shovel tests were sites. The project was directed by Guy Prentice, conducted, however, at a number of upland and an archeologist with SEAC. The NPS also noodplain sites to determine site boundary simultaneously funded a survey of the standing limits and as part of the random shovel testing historical struc.tures located within the park. procedure initiated in the first field season. Two This historical structures survey was conducted test excavations encompassing eight square by Kelly Lally in cooperation with the Ken­ meters were conducted at one upland site, Turn­ tucky SHPO. The National Register of Historic bole Ridge No. 2 (MACA-135). No subsurface Places, Washington, is now cooperating with the features were found at the site.

65 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area

In the fall of 1988, the third MCNPAIP new sites (twenty rockshelters, one chert quarry, field season was initiated. It culminated in the and three open air sites) were discovered in spring of 1989. During this phase, the emphasis areas of the park that had been previously was on conducting test excavations at ten pre­ surveyed. It is likely that additional unidentified historic sites in the park. Another major focus sites exist within surveyed areas. was to conduct shovel test surveys in the northeastern and southwestern portions of the NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY(NATR) park. Based on the artifactual materials recov­ ered in thirteen of the 274 shovel tests exca­ One of the first surveys in what was to become vated during this season, four sites were iden­ park land was conducted by Jesse Jennings in tified. A small portion of the third season was 1940 (1946). Large tracts of land were surveyed also spent conducting pedestrian surveys in along the proposed Natchez Trace Parkway three bluffline areas. As a result, six new rock­ route in Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee. shelter sites and one historic residential site SEAC, in cooperation with the Federal were recorded. Highways Administration, has conducted arche­ During the entire three seasons of the ological surveys near Jackson and Natchez, Mis­ MCNPAIP, a total of 1,594 shovel tests were sissippi (Atkinson 1992a, b). The methodology excavated at 25-meter intervals in twenty-eight consisted of vislllal survey and shovel testing. randomly selected shovel test blocks encom­ Following the testing, rifty-three sites were passing 78.04 hectares in the uplands (ridges tested for National Register significance. and valleys) and 30.30 hectares in the bottom­ lands. A total of twenty-eight sites and six 0BED WTW AND SCENIC RIVER (OBRJ) isolated finds were identified within the twenty­ eight shovel test blocks. The MCNPAIP pedes­ In 1977, SEAC conducted a survey of thirteen trian surveys of randomly selected units along proposed visitor access or use areas (Thomson the blufflines encompassed 1,359 hectares, or 16 1979). Ten prehistoric sites were located. percent of the total 8,665 hectares of bluffline area in the park, and resulted in the recording of RUSSEU CAVE NATIONAL MONUMENT (RUCA) 418 overhang locations within the survey areas. Forty-four of these overhangs produced prehis­ While many excavations have taken place at toric cultural materials and were classified as Russell Cave (Brown 1951; Miller 1956) and at prehistoric rocksbelter sites. Two overhangs the Cotton Patch Mound (Wilson 1963), the were classified as historic rockshelter sites. first systematic survey of the property was con­ Seven rocksbelters bad both prehistoric and ducted by SEACs NASI team in 1992 (Prentice historic components. 1994) and consisted of trenching and auger test­ Combined with the previous survey work ing. This confirmed that there were multicom­ of Watson and Carstens (3,522.34 ha.) and ponent occupations outside the cave area. Beditz and Poe (1,168.74 ha.), 4,951.79 hectares of the park have been surveyed by pedestrian T!MUCUAN ECOL.OGTCA.L AND HISTORIC survey and shovel/posthole testing. Although PRESERVE (f!Mll) 4,951.79 hectares of survey area represents a significant portion (24 percent) of the 20,567.25 Under a cooperative agreement with SEAC, the hec.tares of land in the park, large portions of University of Florida surveyed the park (Russo the park (76 percent) remain unexamined, 1993). Survey methods included walk-over, especially the Dry Prong drainage area and that surface collecting, probing, shovel testing, and portion of the park located within Hart County excavation units. Seventy-seven prehistoric and north of the Green River. It should also be nineteen historic sites were recorded. noted that, during the MCNPAIP, twenty-four

66 Chapter 3 - Sl4tus of Archeological Research

THE REGIONAL CSI-A Hi>WOe The Cultural Sites Inventory (CSI) is one of the 62% five scrviccwide cultural resource information repOsitories that serve as impOrtant references for planning and management The CSI contains information on archeological and ethnographic resources. It describes and documents the locn­ tion, significance, threats, and management re­ quirements for archeological and ethnographic resources. SEAC maintains the region's archeological Figun: 14 - An:btological .....,.,.,.,. in 111<> So

67 Re~:wnwide Arch eolo~:ical Survey Plan, Southealt Field Area

- -

... /.

0 • ., ~ ~ Utte4, A4••"· ltwlipbt. lie Nolll.iiWit«< llllt•t.k ......

Figure IS - N>!lonol Register St3tUS or prehistoric sites in SEFA. - - - - -"" ...... - Kllpble

Figure 16- N11tionat Register :.talus of historic site., in SBPA.

68 Chapter 3 - Status of Archeological Research tional Park files also contain onpies of state site Project Needs forms and any archeological statements dealing with their resources. • SEAC needs to work with park staff, SEFA staff, and National Register staff to acquire Project Needs additional information and copies of the revised, current National Register Nomina­ • There is a need to collect information for tion forms, National Historic Landmark each archeological resource from various forms, and World Heritage forms for the sources and build individual resource files. parks in the region. Much of this information may be found in the SEAC project accession files. SEAC also needs to work with these parties to update the National Register database to • Only 2,519 resources have official state site include newly acquired National Register numbers. Many archeological resources sites on the NPS list. have never bad state site forms completed; at least 4,043 sites are lacking this docu­ CSI-A RESOURCE BASE INVENTORY MAPS mentation. Current Status • There is a backlog of over 6,000 archeo­ logical resources entered in the region's All parks have USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle CSI-A that must be converted and updated base maps showing site locations. SEAC is to ASMIS standards. This is to be accom­ currently processing USGS Digital Line Graph plished in three phases. (DLG), Digital Elevation Model (OEM), and U.S. Department of Commerce TIGER Census • SEAC has over 20,000 photographs and data to produce tbe basic background needed for 20,800 color slides that relate to many of developing computer-generated archeological re­ the archeological resources in the region. source base inventory maps. This data can also Copies of site photographs need to be be used for GIS theme development. obtained for the individual site files. Project Needs NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS • SEAC staff must develop park baseline Current Status data from the DLG, OEM, and TIGER data riles to be used as a backdrop for display SEAC currently bas 120 National Register of various cultural resources themes. forms and one National Landmark form. Many of these forms arc draft copies. Some forms • SEAC needs to acquire accurate park have been revised by park staff. SEAC has a boundaries and data delimiting park man­ copy of the National Register database for NPS agement zones. resources. However, this is not up-to-date. There are a few archeological resources in SEFA that • Data from tbe CSI-A and the LCS should are listed on the National Register but do not be developed into a standard set of cultural show up in this database because the forms resource management themes for the arche­ were completed by other agencies before the ological base maps. resources were acquired by the NPS.

69 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field A rea

BIBUOGRAPHY OF ARCHEOWGICAL SURVEYS, Color-enhanced infrared photographs and S7TJDIES, RESEARCH, AND REMOTE SENSING Thematic Mlappcr data have also been DATA taken. SEAC needs to acquire copies of these data. Cu" enl Slalus • SEAC needs to acquire National High Alti­ SEAC maintains a library, which, in part, is tude Aerial Photography (NHAP) for park comprised of park survey and research reports. units not flown over by NASA Many of these documents have been entered into the Cultural Resources Bibliography • SEAC needs to acquire the early air photo­ (CRBIB). Recently, SEAC staff have entered graphs for each park unit. Some of these the card catalog for the SEAC library into a photos are in the National Archives, others ProCite• bibliography database. are on file with the U.S. Department of SEAC has limited remote sensing data Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Salt comprised of aerial photography and satellite Lake City, Utah. imagery for the parks in the Southeast. The aerial photographs are currently filed in SEACs ARCHEOLOGICAL INVENTORIES OF PARK­ archives by park. The satellite imagery is stored CONDUCTED STUDIES on tape and optical compact disc. Original data tapes are archived by the GIS Division, National Cu"ent Status Biological Survey, Denver. Other remote sens­ ing data records, such as magnetometer tapes Records from al.l archeological projects con­ and resistivity data records, are also stored at ducted in SEFA parks are archived at SEAC. SEAC by project accession. Aerial photographs Projects are given a SEAC accession number. are on file for: Currently, these accessions are being cross­ referenced to park accession numbers. They are BICY EVER MOCR also being inventoried, and recorded in a BISO GUIS RUCA ProCite• database and cataloged into the Auto­ CHAT MACA TTMU mated National Catalog System (ANCS) under CUIS History_

Satellite imagery is on file for BISO and Project Needs MACA- • There is a need to continue to process the Project Needs archeological project records and catalog them into ANCS. • SEAC should continue to provide data for updating the CRBIB database. • Project data should be synthesized for use in park AOAs. • SEAC needs to maintain the ProCite• bibli­ ography database as new reports are written MAPS KEYED TO SHOW THE LEVEL OF SURVEY and use it in producing park Archeological COVERAGE WITHIN EACH PARK INCLUDING Overviews and Assessments. Also, park UNSURVEYED AREAS files should be reviewed to recover and put on file uncataloged trip reports. Cu"enl Status

• Coastal parks in SEFA have been flown Currently, only two parks have maps showing over, under contract, by NASA's U-2 plane. survey coverage_ These are MACA and BlSO.

70 Chapter 3 - Status ofArcheowgical Research

The remaining parks have yet to have survey pretive purposes, such as object data, site coverage maps developed. Much information re­ name/number, within-site provenience, cultural mains in SEACs accession records for projects affiliation, and additional descriptive informa­ conducted at the parks. tion, are also captured. Since the ANCS does not provide data standards for much of the Project Needs descriptive information needed by archeological researchers, SEAC has developed and imple­ • Past AOAs have not included survey cover­ mented regionwide archeological collection data age maps. As new overview and assess­ standards. SEACs Cataloging Manual for ments arc programmed, survey coverage Archeological Collections (1992) provides a maps should be generated. These maps will standard system for capturing both analytical also be produced as part of any archeo­ and collection management data. The SEAC­ logical resources base map or GIS theme developed Southeast Archeological Catalog Sys­ development for a park. tem (SACS) program is then used to manipulate data and convert them to the ANCS. Archeological collections comprise the sin­ STATUS OF REGIONAL gle largest component of the service's museum ARCHEOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS collections. In SEFA, approximately 75 percent (about 5,600,000 objects) of the total regional SEAC is the central repository for archeological museum collection is classified as archeological. collections from Southeast Field Area parks. As Additionally, about 25 percent (some 250,000 a repository, SEAC provides day-to-day man­ items) of the region's archival collection is agement of archeological collections located at directly related to archeological field projects SEAC, assistance with the management of park and analysis of collections. All collections arc archeological collections that are not located at accessioned by SEAC. However, over 300,000 SEAC, and technical guidance on all archeo­ artifacts and documents are located at eighteen logical collection matters regionwide, including non-NPS repositories in the Midwest and EasL cataloging, conservation, and storage. Southeastern NPS archeological collections include materials that represent Palcoindian COLLECTION CATALOGING through modern "historic periods. A wide array of cultural affiliations are also present, from Archeological collections, including artifacts, early historic Spanish, French, Danish, and speeimens, and related project archival docu­ British, and American Indian, to twentieth­ ments, are cataloged into the Automated Na­ century modem American material. tional Cataloging System (ANCS). This is the servicewide system adopted for cataloging all Archeological Catalog Records NPS museum collections, including those per­ taining to history, geology, paleontology, biol­ SEAC maintains the ANCS and SACS data­ ogy, ethnography, and archeology. II is linked bases for park archeological collections. ANCS to other serviccwide databases, such as the LCS data and printed catalog records (Form 10-254) and CSI-A, through specific ANCS data fields are distributed to parks, who in turn send a that capture LCS or CSI·A numbers assigned to database and one printed ANCS catalog record the resources recorded by these databases. for each item to the NPS National Catalog. The ANCS includes data necessary for basic collection accountability purposes, such as Project Needs catalog and accession numbers, location, type of material, condition, number of items, and object • Approximately 700,000 of the region's ar­ name. Data useful for archeological and inter- cheological items are cataloged into the

71 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area

ANCS. Of approximately 4,900,000 uncata­ loged objects, over 3,700,000 are included in the regional and serviccwide backlog cataloging initiative, presently scheduled to be completed by the year 2011. Over 80 percent of this material resulted from 1930s WPA projects. It should be noted that the backlog cataloging initiative was a direct result of a 1985 Office of the Inspector General's audit, which declared the service's museum collection management program as a material weakness. Cataloging the re­ mainder of the region's uncataloged archeo­ logical material is in-progress and covered by the 1987 NPS special directive, Con­ servation of Archeological Resources. This special directive required "that the initial costs to catalog, stabilize, and store collec­ tions are [to be] included in the costs of the project that generates the collections. •

• Because many artifacts and specimens are not yet cataloged into the ANCS or the SACS, much collection or object informa­ tion is not readily accessible for research, management, or educational purposes. Thus SEAC is presently processing and catalog­ ing both backlogged and recent collections. This work can be planned to support or Figure 17- Eightecnth·ccntury Spanish furnish data for SAIP/RASP projects when­ wooden figurine round on the beach at ever possible. However, limited resources Biscayne National Park. and other mandates, such as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatri­ COLLECTION CONSERVATION AND STORAGE ation Act (NAGPRA), may have priority. Artifacts and specimens stored at SEAC are • Archival collection cataloging is a high pri­ being arranged by project (i.e., accession num­ ority, and much of the material bas been ber), type of artifact, and then by type of arranged and described. Documents gener­ storage system. !Bulk material is bagged, then ated by projects that may have NAGPRA placed on shelving units. More fragile or diag­ or current research relationships are empha­ nostic materials (for example, Figure 17) are sized. However, little systematic work bas routinely placed in standard closed museum been completed for maps and photographic specimen cabinets. images. While these are accessible at the Storage defidencies have been systemati­ accession or project level, at present many cally identified and documented through a of the maps and photographs arc not readi­ Special Directive 80-1 checklist, most recently ly accessible at the image or object level. completed in 1992. Needs identified on this This work can also be coordinated with checklist have been incorporated into the re­ SAIP/RASP projects whenever possible. gional plan for t!he Museum Collection Preser-

72 Chapter 3 - Status ofArcheological Research vation and Program initiative. This program SOLICITED COMMENTS initiative, like backlog cataloging, stems from the Office of the Inspector General's 1985 audit In preparing this ·plan, comments were solicited report from the parks, SHPOs, scholars, federal agen­ Most of the archeological objects in the cies, and federally recognized Indian tribes. collection are fragments of larger objects. Many Their responses pertained to gaps or weaknesses are relatively stable, given the nature of the in the scientific klllowledge about prehistory and materials comprising them (stone, ceramic) and history; research problems or questions; or top­ the environment from which they were recov­ ics in need of further archeological study. ered. Other objects or material types are un­ Contact and response levels are shown in Table stable. They may be fraught with inherent vice 8. State-specific comments arc provided in the (either ferrous or certain synthetic material), or fo llowing sections. Various park planning docu­ the post-recovery conditions to which they were ments, archeologi<:al reports and collections, and subjected may have encouraged deterioration. databases were also reviewed and evaluated. Others are unstable due to the environment from This in forma lion was used to identify park­ which they were recovered-submerged ship­ specific archeological needs and formed the wrecks, for example. Stable objects are subject basis for developing projects designed to con­ to further damage through poor handling or duct systematic, scientific research to locate, improper storage methods and conditions. evaluate, and document archeological resources on NPS lands in SEFA. This is further dis­ Project Needs cussed in Chapters 5, 6, and 7. Park-specific projects are presented in Chapter 7 (Tables 10, • Plans are also underway to relocate to 11, and 12). In general, archeological needs will SEAC many of the archeological collec­ be identified in the AOA prepared for each park tions presently at non-NPS repositories. prior to undertaking fieldwork. Field studies This effort may be coordinated with will address ide.ntifying and evaluating both SAIP/RASP projects, depending on the ex­ historic and prehistoric resources. Park-specific istence of more pressing priorities. Up­ recommendations provided by reviewers will be graded storage methods and materials, incorporated into research designs prepared for along with improved organization, will individual archeological projects. facilitate access, reducing possible damage to nearby objects. Similarly, improved storage of maps and photographs will Table 8 - Response to requests for comments facilitate access to these objects. regarding this plan. • The archeological collection has not un­ ,;~i~u;~~~,r ..R t'PR~a:«

73 Region wide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area

FLORJDA MISSISSIPPI

Cooperative survey level efforts in several of All of the National Park units in the state the National Park units (in Florida) might con­ should be assessed for site stability (Robert tribute to correct deficiencies in the arche­ Thorne, personal communication !993). ological inventory. The first is to assess the Beginning with the removal process in present condition and determine the boundaries 1837, the Chickasaw Nation has expressed its of recorded coastal sites so that the effects of concerns with the remains of those the tribe left erosion due to hurricanes and other storms can behind. In fact, before leaving their homelands be assessed and priorities established for salvage of Mississippi, the Chickasaw Nation set aside projects if and when such efforts become certain parcels of land dedicated to the grave­ necessary or desirable. In addition, storms, such sites of tribal ancestors. As part of the removal as the two we have experienced during the past agreement, those parcels of land were to be months, may have exposed new features at maintained as gravesitcs, in perpetuity, to assure recorded sites or evidence of previously un­ adequate protection, respect, and dignity for known sites in coastal National Park units, those graves. In the time since the removal of which could be added to the inventory. the tribe, many of those gravesites have been (Jaquelyn Piper, personal communication !993) lost through erosion, expansion and develop­ ment, and fading memories. GEORGIA Since the early 1980s, when the Mississippi state government afforded some means of Generally all sites (should) be critically mapped protection to Indian burial sites, the state gov­ and all existing archeological information be ernment has become active in the preservation placed on these maps as a basis for identifying of as many of those sites as possible. Given the other needs and priorities. In addition, full distance between the tribe's new and old bibliographies and other kinds of resource in­ homelands, it is only in the last few years that ventories (e.g., photo and map) should exist for the tribe itself bas been able to become effec­ each site. With this kind of information it tive. Tribal Law 5-003, adopted by the Chicka­ should be possible to initiate most archeological saw Tribal Legislature on July 15, 1988, grants site planning, both management and develop­ authority to the governor of the Chickasaw menL Nation for the preservation of gravesites and A broader spectrum of prehistoric sites related archeological finds. This tribal law, one (should) be acquired for the public. Within the of the first of its kind in the United States, calls state, NPS manages a Mississippi period site for specific measures and provides for some (Ocmulgee) while the Georgia Department of general ones as well. Natural Resources manages three other pre­ This law is very specific in its definition of historic sites (Etowah [Mississippian], Kolomoki "remains" and "artifacts, • and makes provisions (Late Middle Woodland, but also a pyramidal for the governor to recover and/or protect all mound site], and Fort Mountain [Woodland]). It remains, artifacts, and other items of Chickasaw would be desirable to interpret an Archaic site Indians that have been removed from original and a Middle Woodland site. Because these sites of burials, rituals, or domesticity. The law sites do not regularly have obvious features, grants the governor with all powers of enforce­ such as mounds or other structural elements, ment of the law and further instructs him to techniques for interpreting with open excava­ utilize "all legal and just means inherent in the tions need to be developed. (Lewis Larson, sovereign powers of the Chickasaw Nation• in personal communication !993) affording protection to those remains, sites, and artifacts.

74 Chapter 3-Status ofArcheologi cal Research

The governor is required by the law to study to be performed at sites of significant recover any and all items and to promptly findings. arrange for !he appropriate intennent of the The tribe will not allow the examinations of remains and disposition of artifacts, to be human remains tbat involve any but noninvasive consistent with the accepted Chickasaw tribal research teehniqu:es. Further stipulations require traditions, customs, and religion. While broad in that no buman remains or funeral items be scope, the law bas only been applied on those placed on display for other than research few and rare occasions when discoveries of reasons, and that all items used for research be such sites have been brought to the tribe's completely and reverently reinterred in as com­ attention. Although the time since the adoption plete and accurate a manner as possible. of the law bas been very short, it is expected (Anoatubby, personal communication 1989) that discoveries of Chickasaw sites will dramat­ ically increase in tbc years ahead as north­ SOUTH CAROliNA. eastern Mississippi continue.~ to prosper and develop. Steve Smith suggests thai since rive of your Desires on the part of the Chickasaw seven parks arc military, maybe you could Nation are simple, yet broad and effective in consider a coordinated theme 10 integrate them scope. Any time human remains are discovered, into a more regional history or military feeling which are logically and believably of Chickasaw (Bruce Rippeteau, personal communication origin, the tribe holds fast to its belief that those 1993). remains, including any and all funeral items found, be completely reinterred in a manner T ENNESSIW suitable to comply with the manner in which they were originally buried. Any other artifacts Given the current rudimentary level of know­ found or discovered should be returned to the ledge of the prehistory of West Tennessee, sur­ tribe for proper handling. Certain allowances vey findings in almost any portion of this arC

75 Regionwide A rcheological Sw-vey Plan, Southeast Field Area

Crozet's railroad tunnel connecting Augusta Blue Ridge, and these should be found, and Albemarle Counties was a major engineer­ identitled, and marked. ing feat for its day. Evidence of the workers' habitations, shops, and roadways should exist Roanoke County archeologically, and these should be found and marked. Railroading in the Roanoke area has been a major economic effort since the Civil War. The Rockbridge County crossing of the Blue Ridge by the east-west rail roads ncar the Parkway should be developed In the James River Vall ey, the Blue Ridge as a theme by NPS, with archeological evidence seems to divide major Indian cultures--Mana­ sought along the ROW for habitations and cans to the east in the Piedmont, and unknown shops, for instance. Indians in the Great Valley and headwaters During the Late Woodland times, the Dan areas. Did these Indians interact in the Blue River Culture expanded north into the upper Ridge area? If so, how? James River and westward into the New River During the late eighteenth and much of the areas. It is likely that the expansion took place nineteenth centuries, iron smelting was "big in the Roanoke area, with the access to U1e business" in the areas of Buena Vista and James River by way of Tinker and Looney Glasgow and south into Botetourt County. What Creek Valleys. Evidence for group or small­ role did the Blue Ridge play? [What was the] party movements should be sought in camps source of workers and their homes? along the upper Staunton (Roanoke) River In the area of Glasgow and Balcony Falls, Valley near the Blue Ridge. considerable work was done on the James River-Kanawha Canal in the early nineteenth Floyd County century. There should be much ev idence of stone quarrying, workers' habitations, and re­ The valley of Little River and its head streams lated facilities in the Blue Ridge Parkway area. are unknown archeologically. Needed is infor­ These should be found and marked, perhaps mation on Indian cultures found in the valleys with interpretive signs. Dr. William Trout in draining the western slopes of the Blue Ridge. Richmond may already have these pinpointed and recorded. Franklin CormJy

B edford County The valleys of tfue Blackwater River drain the eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge, but are almost In the upland valley at the Peaks of , unknown arcbeologically. Needed is information evidences of repeated camping episodes by on Indian cullure:s in those valleys. Indians were found in past construction and in Alan Briceland in 1987 suggests that a limited (1964) archeological work by John major crossing of the Blue Ridge in the seven­ Griffin. Additional work is needed there, as well teenth century was through Adney Gap, now as in other upland valleys to seek simil ar only a minor crossing point. II is possible that hunting-foraging-camping areas and sites. the crossing was still in use by Indians in the French and Indian War period, accounting for Botetourt CounJy "Oiptain Terry's Fort on the Blackwater" near present-day Callaway. If Adney Gap was much­ Iron-working and canal-building activities dur­ used, it should have evidence whic.h could be ing the nineteenth century surely produced found today. The proof of such use is needed. many archeological sites in and adjoining the

76 Chapter 3-Status of Archeological Research

Ca"oU County (and Patrick County on the GENERAL COMMENTS east) Other suggested archeological research topics The Late Woodland Dan River Culture has a are as follows: long history east of the Blue Ridge, with a shorter one in the New River drainage. Possible a history of Native American tribes in expansion routes for the culture from east to SEFA and a compilation of items of cul­ west could well have been the valleys of Mayo tural patrimony associated with those tribes; River and the upper Dan River. Archeology in the area is poorly known, and considerable • early land use in the Southeast; and research into sites there is sorely needed. In particular, intense surveys are needed in and • tbe archeological potential on Air Force near Fancy Gap and in the adjoining valleys. land, and an inventory of curation facilities (Howard MacCord, personal communication meeting the 36 CFR Part 79 standards. 1993) (Gary Vest, personal communication 1993)

•••

77 Chapter4 THEMATIC FRAMEWORK AND SIGN IFICANCE

THEMATIC FRAMEWORK AS A 4. The American Revolution RESEARCH TOOL FOR EVALUATION 5. Political and Military Affairs, 1783-1860 6. The Civil War The SAIP!RASP team at SEAC will use the 7. Political and Military Affairs, 1865- 1939 thematic (ramework set forth in Histcry and 8. World War [I Prehistory in the National Park System and tile 9. Political and Military Affairs after 1945 National Historic Landmarks Program (NPS 10. Westward Expansion of lhe British Colo- 1987) in determining primary research topics. nies and the United States, 1763- 1898 Projects will be generally divided on the basis 11. Agriculture of the thirty-four first-level themes. Suhlhemes 12. Business and facets of !he framework can be used as 13. Science more refined research topics; however, !hey will 14. Transportation be organized by their first-level heading. The 15. Communication use of !his framework will allow researchers to 16. Architecture cover all areas or United States history and 17. Landscape Architecture prehistory using guidelines outlined in the 18. Technology (Engineering and Invention) Natio11al Register Bulletin 16A: Guidelines for 19. Literature Completing Natio11al Register of Historic Places 20. Theater Forms, How to Complete the National Register 21. Motion Pictures Registration Form (NPS 1991a:51). It will also 22. Music allow researchers to assess the significance of 23. Dance the resources by historic contexts at the local, 24. Painting and park, state, regional, national, and international 25. Prints and Photography level, since 26. Decorative and Folk Art 27. Education decisions co11cerning tile sig11i[teance, historic 28. The Law integrity, docume11tation, a11d treatme11t of 29. Intellectual Currents properties ca11 be made reliably 011ly wile11 30. American Ways of Life tile resource is evaluated within its historic 31. Social and Humanitarian Movements context. Tile historic COIItext serves as tile 32. Conservation of Natural Resources framework wilhin which tile National Register 33. Historic Preservation Criteria are applied to specific properties or 34. Recreation property types. (NPS 1991b:1)

The first level themes to be used are: ASSESSMENT OF ARCHEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE 1. Cultural Developments: Indigenous American Populations A recommended determination of significance 2. European Colonial Exploration and will be made for each site recorded during Settlement inventory survey:s and for each known but un­ 3. Development of the English Colonies, evaluated site chosen for testing in compliance 1688-1763 with federal requirements and Executive Order

78 Chapter 4- Thematic Framework and Significance

11593. The method for determining significance Acculluration will be based on Guidelines for Evaluating and The initialization, process, and effcciS of inter­ Stating Significance as outlined in the National cultural contact, such as European exploration, Register Bulletin 16A (NPS 1991a:47) and the intertribal diffusion, and assimilation. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (NPS Conflict 1991b), where a series of factoring questions are Evidence of organized human conflict, such as considered in determining how to apply the forts, warships, earthworks, large weapon and following criteria: caches.

A) Property is associated with eveniS that have Cullural Affiliation made a significant contribution to the broad The presence of diagnostic artifaciS at each site patterns of our history. will be assigned to a specific cultural group or groups. This evidence could include typed ­ B) Property is associated with the lives of riginal ceramics, weapons, and building styles. persons significant in our past. Environment C) Property embodies the distinctive character­ What are or were the unique characteristics of istics of a type, period, or method of the local or regional ecology that attracted those construction, or represeniS the work of a who occupied the site? master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable Function entity whose components lack individual Evidence indicating the site has a unique or distinction. special function to be interpreted in the region or park unit. D) Property bas yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or M ulticomponent history. Evidence of site occupation during two or more temporaVcullural periods.

SEACIDENTIFIED RESEARCH TOPICS Origins of People Evidence of the previous origins of the people The following research topics have been iden­ that occupied a site. Where did they come tified by SEACs Regionwide Archeological from? Survey Program team to guide research design formulation . These topics will also be used as Site Type part of the framework to consider the National Evidence that the site is of a type not common Register criteria listed above. When each site is in the region/park unit. visited, it will be evaluated in terms of iiS potential to provide information relating to these Spatial and other research questions. The list provided Evidence that the site bas a special config­ herein is not designed to be all inclusive, but uration and/or is locationally significant, or that should ouUine minimum requirements for as­ a group of sites reflcciS certain patterning. sessing archeological and anthropological sig­ nificance. In light of these considerations and S ubsislence after consultation with the regional archeologist, Evidence for the collecting, growing, storage, National Register nomination forms will be pre­ processing, and/or transporting of special food pared for sites recommended for eligibility. resources.

79 Regwnwide Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area

Technology natural processes, looting, vandalism, or pro­ Evidence of technological innovation or marlc­ posed construction, or where newly recognized ers. processes arc made evident

Temporal Trade Networks Diagnostic artifacts or ecofacts are discovered Evidence or trade activity, such as exotic arti­ that will allow this and other sites to be as­ facts, t.rading posL~, merchant vessel cargoes, signed to a specific temporal period. which may answer questions of place of manu­ facture and origin, contact, and economic Threats processes. Evidence that the site is being destroyed by

• • •

80 Chapter 5 FIELD STRATEGIES

SCOPE OF PROJECTS both the resource type and environmental fac­ tors. Collecting data using a standard thematic The goal of the Systemwide Archeological framework will allow the data to be assimilated Inventory Program (SAIP) is to "conduct sys­ and viewed in ru regional or national context. tematic, scientific research to locate, evaluate, These cultural groups will then be extended to and document archeological resources on Na­ include resources in other regions, under other tional Park System lands" (Aubry et al. 1992:2). federal jurisdiction, and under state jurisdiction This section of the regionwide archeological whenever possible. survey plan establishes most of the strategies Another strategy is to use the quadrat (or that will be used to locate, identify, evaluate, quadtree) system. Each park will be divided in and document archeological resources in SEFA 200-by-200-meter quadrat.~ (9.88 or approxi­ parks. Following a brief overview, each step mately ten acres) based on real-world Un iversal will be described in detail. Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates. The The process for locating, evaluating, and quadrat will serve as the basic survey unit used documenting archeological sites will begin with for SAIP/RASP investigations because it is ideal the AOA. Specific project statements will then for converting field data into digital carto­ generate a research design describing a method­ graphic data and can be either split into smaller ology that is acceptable to the regional arche­ subunits (20-, 50-, or 100-meter squares) or ologist and that complies with professional aggrandized into larger one-kilometer-square standards. This research design will also include units. The number of quadrats to be surveyed a description of tbc appropriate curation of will be based on the size of the park unit. archeological objccL~ and the timetable for com­ Survey quadrats will be selected, based on GIS pletion of a technical report. The process ends interpretation for known and suspected site loca­ when the site is recorded in the SEAC GIS tions, to iocl ude areas deemed appropriate for Archeological Base Map System, the regional prioritization through consultation with the re­ CSI-A, the ASMIS database, and the appro­ gional archeologist and the SHPO, to be supple­ priate state site file; when artifact~ have been mented by random or stratified survey quadrats analyzed, catalogued, conserved (when appropri­ for unspecified areas. The superintendent may ate), and curated; and when documentation bas also request areas for survey based on park be.en completed and curatcd. National Register management needs (development, construction, forms will be initiated when appropriate, again interpretation, etc.). based on recommendations by the regional Two general survey project statemenL~ were archeologist. written for each! park, one historic and one In order to reach this goal, several strate­ prehistoric. These were written separately to gies have been developed to approach the field reOect the differing survey methodologies nec­ investigations. The most basic of these is the essary. In addition, separate project statements use of logical groups. Park units will be divided for site testing (and evaluation) are proposed. into cultural and/or time periods, according to While each of the above mentioned is designed the establishing legislation and/or the presence as a stand-alone project, every attempt will be of known resources (Civil War, Spanish period, made to undertake projects concurrently to Contact period, PrchisiOric, etc). Survey maximize resources. methods will then be developed, depending on

81 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, Soulheast Field Area

SURVEY METHODS. AND COVERAGE NON-INVASIVE INVESTIGATIONS

ARCHEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW AND ASSESSMENTS A separate and specific literature search should (AOA) also precede field operations and be keyed to the specific environmental area and/or resources Prior to any field investigations, an AOA will under investigat.ion. This would entail a review be compiled for each park. The outline for this of aeria l photos, historic basemaps, GIS data, document will follow the general recommenda­ archeological reports, and earlier fieldnotcs. tions given in NPS-28: Cultural Resource Mall­ Since parks in SEFA range from one acre agcmcnt Guidelines (NPS 1985), as well as the to over one million acres, in many cases a 100 guidelines presented in The Management of Ar­ percent survey of every park would be impracti­ cheological Resources: The Airlie House Report cal, if not impossible. It was decided, therefore, (McGimsey and Davis 1977). SEAC bas in­ that to meet anticipated survey goals, the per­ cluded additional categories of information to centage of area surveyed for a park would be reflect NPS regional and park RMP needs based inversely on total acreage (Table 9). (Appendix 2). The AOA will provide a compen­ Therefore, as the amount of acreage increases, dium of known site summaries for the park the percent of required survey decreases. For UJX>n review of all known site (iles (including example, a 1 percent sample area of a 110,000- both state site files and the CSI-A). In preparing acre park would be surveyed, whereas a ten-acre AOAs, previous investigations will be reviewed area would undergo a 100 percent survey. for areas already surveyed and for their levels As stated before, 200-meter-square quadrats of investigation. These will be assessed as to will be util ized for mapping, survey, and survey adequacy in light of presently required stan­ sampling. Titese will be based on the UTM grid dards. A comprehensive bibliography of historic system and tied in by GPS to a predetermined and archeological work will allow quick litera­ datum. Quadrat size can then be tied into metric lure searches for subsequent individual survey units and directly plotted onto 7.5-minute USGS and evaluation projects. Electronic base maps of quad maps, using AutoCad"', Atlas GIS", Surf­ previous archeological investigations, historic er.,, or many other electronic computer-assisted piaL~, cultural events (battle maps, town maps, mapping programs. etc.), vegetation, topography, and soils will also be created and reviewed for archeological infor­ Table 9 - Areas to be surveyed in SEFA parks (derived by mation needs. Besides being a multiplying park acreage by survey percentage). compilation of current archeologi­ cal knowledge for a park unit, the AOA should create preliminary site location predictive models, <1-50 100 1.00 27.15 12 which will then be tested in the 51- 100 75 55.79 64.89 4 field. Part of the AOA data­ capture process will result in 101-500 50 58.14 237.86 13 completion of state site file forms 501- 2,500 25 134.17 510.00 and will reduce the backlog in 8 converting and updating the re­ 2,501-10,000 10 288.44 926.47 8 gional CSI-A to ASMIS through the first two phases for el imina­ 10,001- 100,000 3 420.00 2,578.64 13 lion of this backlog. >100,000 I 1,229.60 13,989.38 6

82 Chapter 5- Field Strategies

· u.e. ,.,. Nl80

• [lit. N)70

Nl60

Nl40

Nl20 SaMple quo.<)l"o. t 200 M x 200 M N100 . t1J4 ~~~~· iOO shovel tests 20 Meter' ir'ltel"vo.t N80

N60

• CnQ. !dO N40 TN

N20

0 E20 [40 E60 E80 EIOO El20 E140 El60 E180

Figure 18 -A quodrat showing numbering sequence.

Although recogmzmg the limitations in five, eight-hour-day week (for most SEFA some environments (blufflines for example), the parks), and these time/person figures ean be usc of a standard 200-by-200-meter survey quickly generated for budget formulation. quadrat (Figure 18) is proposed for the follow­ ing reasons: • It can be "recursively subdivided with the areas of both the same shape and orien­ • It is divisible into 20-metcr squares for re­ tation' (Taylor 1991:88). mote sensing and shovel testing, and, where positive tests are encountered, sites would REMOTE SENSING INVESTIGATIONS be further delineated by ten-meter tests be­ tween squares. Remote sensing techniques will be used exten­ sively prior to any ground disturbance. These • It can be easily aggregated into 1,000-metcr will include resistivity, magnetometry, metal­ squares, or hectares, and congregated into detecting, GPR, and electromagnetic conductiv­ larger inclusive areas. ity, as well as any new applications that become available. Multiple will be used • The size (200-meter-square) can generally concurrenUy when possible to test against each be investigated by a two-person team in a and combine synergistically the resultant data.

83 Regwnwide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area

For example, GPR, metal detectors, resis­ discovery techniqllles arc encouraged and should tivity, and conductivity may all be used on the be considered at all levels of investigation to same site (Bevan 1993). For submerged surveys, meet the needs of ground cover, topography, magnetometry, side-scan sonar, and sub-bottom and site types. profiling are considered standard and should be tied into the quadrat system for inclusion into SITE TESTING any GIS. Other semi-invasive investigations, besides Once a site is delineated and recorded, raw surface reconnaissance and/or collection, might artifact counts will be made and entered into a include soil analysis (both chemical and physi­ computer mapping program. Distribution maps cal), probing, or selective core sampling. will be created indicating various artifact con­ centrations. Based on this information, test units INVASIVE INVESTIGATIONS will be selected within the site. Where disturbed overburden has been noted (plowzone), it may Invasive field investigative techniques include be stripped off to locate site features. Intensive shovel tests (generally 50 centimeters square or site testing would then be based on the results diameter to one-meter deep, or to culturally of the above general site locational strategy, and ste.rile levels), hand-auguring or posthole-testing will generally involve a minimum of two, one­ (generally from four to six inches in diameter to by-two-meter test units per site to determine a depth of one-meter, or sterile), and power­ such questions as stratigraphy, depth of cultural takeoff auguring (which may be from 12 to 16 deposits, and site integrity. Larger sites may inches in diameter and several meters deep). undergo further testing based on the potential Appropriate professional standards (contracting, for answering other, specific research questions. for instance) will sometimes require a specific Any new sites that appear significant will and consistent minimum level of testing, such then be further evaluated for National Register as 50-by-50 centimeters by one meter. In a eligibility after consultation with the regional submerged context, the use of dredges, airlifts, archeologist and the SHPO, as will any pre­ and possibly reverse-dredge blowers may be viously known and recorded sites in the survey used for uncovering anomalies generated by the area that require further testing and evaluation. remote sensing just described, although this would be to determine the nature of the POST FIELD anomaly only as opposed to their use in more refined site investigative techniques. Curation Based on data from remote sensing and shovel testing to determine presence/absence Following the field portion of each survey, all (above), and once a site is accurately located artifacts recovered will be analyzed, recorded, and delimited (by dropping down to a ten-meter catalogued, and curatcd using the guidelines set or less grid), the area and boundary of the site forth in the Cataloging Manual for Archeologi­ will be mapped and recorded. SAJP/RASP cal Objects, volumes I, II, and Ill (NPS 1990) forms and templates, which conform to the and Museum Ha11dbook, Museum Records, Part Southeast Regional Archeological Survey Pro­ II (NPS 1984b). Catalog data will be entered gram Field and Laboratory Procedures Manual into the NPS's National catalog of Museum (SEAC/RASP 1995), will be used. Specific Objects using the Automated National catalog survey project research designs will allow flexi­ System (ANCS). Conservation, treatment, or bility to handle different environmental and stabilization needls recognized during fieldwork, other situations (rock-shelters, blufOines, sub­ as well as artifact analysis or other project­ merged, etc.). Since the goal is to get all areas related activities, will be completed prior to surveyed to some standard level, multiple site final placement of the collection in storage.

84 Chapter 5- Field Strategies

Procedures arc to be carried out in consultation basemaps using computer aided drafting and with SEAC's curator and/or designated staff. design (CAD) technologies, GIS (as described herein), aerial photography, satellite imaging, Predictive Modeling magnetometer, GiPR, GPS, resistivity, metal de­ tectors, laser transits, and other technologies that AU data collected will be incorporated into the become available as this program proceeds. SEAC GIS system. They can then be compared When subsurface testing is required, meth­ to environmental data, such as topography, odologies should conform to the standards set slope, aspect, elevation, distance to nearest forth in NPS-28: Cultural Resource Ma11age­ water, distance to nearest permanent water, per­ me111 Guidelilles (NPS 1985). Every effort will manence of nearest water, elevation above also be made to meet SHPO requircmcniS. nearest water, primary vegetation cover, soil Every effort will be made to conduct joint types, site size, site type, and temporal affilia­ ventures with non-NPS parties, such as other tion of known sites in the area. Using the federal agencies, states, and Indian tribal gov­ collected data, it should be possible to produce ernments. Examples of joint ventures under accurate predictive models of similar site loca­ consideration for future surveys include dis­ tions without further extensive, intensive, and cussions with Canaven~ l National Seashore, expensive field survey (Padgett and Heister John F. Kennedy Space Center, and Merritt 1979). Then these models can be tested for Island National Wildlire Refuge. "Another accuracy, efficiency, and economy. might group Dry Tortugas National Park and Biscayne National Park with John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, Long Key and Bahia CONCLUSION Honda state recreation areas, and the three national wildlife refuges and the national marine In order to maximize the coverage in a park sanctuary in the Florida Keys" (Aubry 1994). unit, current technologies should be used as As discussed, cui tural resources will be grouped much as possible. These should include, but not and examined as a logical unit whenever be limited to, detailed examination of historic possible.

• • •

85 Chapter 6 RELATED ARCHEOLOGICAL INVENTORY PROJECTS

Several proposed arcbeological inventory proj­ ing intra- and interregional park efforts might ects can be grouped by prehistoric or historic be settlement patterns and social organization, context in order to economically and efficiently trade networks, border regions, and accultura­ combine survey efforts within the region as well tion. All sixty-four prehistoric projects are as across regions. 'Ibe following thematic included in Chapter 7, Tables 10, 11, ~md 12. groupings are suggested for combining many of these invento ry projects. For case of reference, A. The Earliest Inhabitants the numbering of thematic groupings follows 13. Archaic Adaptations of the that of History and Prehistory in the National Southeast Park System and the National Historic Land­ marks Program (NPS 1987). B. Post-Archaic and Prccontact Development Southeast Field Area parks that contain 14. Hunters and Gatherers of the known and/or potential archeological resources Eastern Woodlands reflecting these thematic associations arc listed 15. Eastern Farmers by project. Discussions with other regions and 16. Post-Archaic Adaptations of Eastern other cultural resource centers, including SCRU, Coastal Regions are ongoing and concern the planning and logis­ 20. Post-Archaic Adaptations in tics of interregional survey efforts. Riverine Zones The following projecL~ arc listed according 22. Physical Anthropology of the to the thematic association under which they arc American Indian grouped. The specific priority and order of im­ plementation will depend on these and other C. Prehistoric Archeology: Topical Facets factors, such as development construction priori­ I. Prehistoric Architecture/Shelter/ tics and special funding. Tile priority for project Housing implementation L~, by necessity, Quid, although 2. three- to five-year projections will be submitted 3. Prehistoric Social and Political and adhered to whenever possible. Organizations 6. Prehistoric Communication I. CUltural Developments: Indigenous 7. Prehistoric Diet/Health American Populations 8. Prehistoric Economicsfl'rade 9. Prehistoric Warfare These themes cover related activities of pre­ 10. , Ideology, and contact Native American populations in the Ceremonialism southeastern United States, based on known ll. Prehistoric Social Differentiation and probable cultural resources identified 12. Prehistoric Settlement and Settlement within the region. Project statements involv­ Patterns ing generalized prehistoric survey efforl~ have 15. Prehistoric Transportation and Travel been generated for all parks that exhibit pre­ 16. Prehistoric Agriculture/Plant Domesti­ historic resources and/or potential. Many if cati on/Horticulture not most of these will cross regional bound­ 18. Prehistoric Demographics aries and will require interregional coordina­ 20. Submerged Prehistoric Period tion. Examples of research questions involv- Archeological Resources

86 Chapter 6- Related Arclrealogicallnvenlory Projects

21. Major Contributions to the Develop­ Islands, and Puerto RiCO. French explora­ ment of CUltural Histories tion and settlement would involve compara­ 22. Major O:lntributions to the Develop­ tive studies between the initial sixteenth­ ment of the Science of Archeology century exploration of Florida and the seventeenth-century settlement of the Mis­ II. European Colonial Exploration and sissippi Valley and English exploration and Seltlement settlement, which centered on the Carolinas and Georgia. These themes cover the related activities of European nations as colonial powers within A. Spanish Exploration and Settlement the present territory of the United States (Figure 19). Spanish exploration includes CANA-Z004 Survey park beach face the movements and effects of several early CANA-ZOOS Complete survey/test forays tbrougbout tbe Southeast and would Armstrong site include parks located in Florida, the Virgin CANA-Z017 Test/evaluate known sites

~ - -

Figure 19- SEFA p3rks with European coruoot ~iK'i (inxt of Cari'bbean area not lo JC~~Ic) .

87 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area

BISCZOOl Produce AOA EVER-Z176 Comprehensive historic BICY-C004 Cultural resources survey and archeological survey inventory of BICY addition FOMA-COOO Archeological survey to locate area French/Spanish massacre site GUIS-Z027 Inventory submerged archeo- FOMA-ZI82 Comprehensive b istoric logical resources (Florida) archeological survey BUIS-Z038 Produce AOA BICY-Z181 Test/evaluate known sites CANA-Z044 Survey/inventory submerged GUIS-C033 Study on past military activities archeological resources sites in wilderness of OUIS GUIS-Z050 Inventory submerged arcbeo- GUIS-Z191 Comprehensive historic logical resources (Mississippi) archeological survey EVER-Z058 Inventory submerged BISC-Z201 Test/evaluate known sites archeological resources SNU-Z214 Test/evaluate known sites EVER-Z081 Test/evaluate known sites SNU-Z225 Comprehensive historic CAN A-CO IS Conduct archeological a rcheologica I survey inventory DESO-Z243 Test/evaluate known sites GUIS-2084 Test/evaluate known sites CANA-Z250 Conduct specific tests at major CASA-C027 Inventory archeological sites at archeological sites FOMA SNU-Z096 Produce AOA BICY-ZIOl ProduceAOA B. French Exploration and Settlement BISC-ZI05 Inventory submerged archeological resources CANA-Z004 Survey park beach face FOMA-Z109 Test/evaluate known sites CAN A-ZOOS Complete survey and test BUJS-ZllO Inventory submerged Armstrong site archeological resources CANA-Z017 Test/evaluate known sites BICY-Zlll Comprehensive historic OUJS-Z027 Inventory submerged archeo- archeological survey logical resources (Florida) BISC-Zll6 Comprehensive historic CANA-Z044 Survey/inventory submerged archeological survey archeological resources sites CASA-Z120 Prepare AOA GUIS-Z050 Inventory submerged arcbeo- BUIS-Z130 Comprehensive historic logical resources (Mississippi) arc.heological survey CANA-C015 Conduct archeological BU1S-ZI35 Test/evaluate known sites i'1Ventory CASA-ZI38 Test/evaluate known sites OU1S-Z084 Test/evaluate known sites CANA-Zl39 Comprehensive historic CANA-Zl39 Comprehensive historic archeological survey archeological survey DESO-Z145 Prepare AOA FOCA-Zl63 Prepare AOA CASA-Z146 Comprehensive historic FOCA-Zl79 Comprehensive historic archeological survey archeological survey DESO-C003 Complete archeological survey GU1S-C033 Study on past military activities EVER-Z152 Prepare AOA i" wil derness of GUIS EVER-C025 Archeological inventory of east GUIS-Zl91 Comprehensive historic Everglades archeological survey DESO-ZI70 Comprehensive historic FOCA-Z217 Test/evaluate known sites arc.beological survey CANA-Z250 Conduct specific tests at major FOMA-Zl75 Prepare AOA archeological sites

88 Chapter 6 - Related ArcJ•eological lt~ve11tory Projects

C. English Exploration and Seulcment NISI-Z018 Comprehensive historic archeological survey FORA-Z013 Produce AOA NISI-o:J03 Identify Lee's siege trenches at FORA-CXlOl Conduct systematic subsurface Holmes Fort survey of FORA KIMO-Z046 Develop AOA CALO-Z053 Produce AOA COWP-Z047 Comprehensive historic FOFR-Z056 Comprehensive historic archeological survey archeological survey N!Sl-Z064 Test/evaluate known sites FORA-Z061 Comprehensive historic GUCO-Z071 Comprehensive historic archeological survey archoological survey FOFR-Z104 Test/evaluate known sites KIMO-Z082 Comprehensive historic FORA-Z114 Test/evaluate known sites archcologiool survey CALO-Z115 Inventory submerged GUCO-Z092 Test/evaluate known sites archeological resources COWP-Z118 Prepare AOA CALO-Z136 Comprehensive historic KIMO-Z128 Test/evaluate known sites archeological survey COWP-COIO ln.adcquate arc::bcologicaJ survey FOFR-Zl61 Prepare AOA COWP-Z178 Test/evaluate known sites FOFR-

89 Regionwide Arclaeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area

KEMO-CXJ14 Complete archeological TUPE-2238 Comprehensive historic assessment survey archeological survey BRCR-Z030 Comprehensive historic VICK-Z241 Comprehensive historic archeological survey archeological survey FOPU-Z033 Survey to locate graves of SHII.rCOOS Survey, locate, and preserve Immortal 600 (12-14) historic housesites SHllrZ034 Test/evaluate known sites STRI-CXJ08 Archeological identification and CHCH-Z036 Comprehensive historic evaluation archeological survey STRI-CXJ24 Archeological survey of Blanton ANDE-CXJ24 Archeological investigation of House site prison s ite FODO-Z051 Comprehensive historic archeological survey XXX. American Ways of Life. FOPU-Z070 Test/evaluate known sites BRCR-Z078 Produce AOA A. Slavery and Plantation Life KEMO-Z079 Comprehensive historic archeological survey This less recognized important thematic asso- STRI-Z094 Comprehensive historic ciation that might be the subject of interpark and archeological survey interregional identification and evaluation studies ANDE-CXJ IS Archeological study of sites (Figure 20). The following project statements re- outside boundary fleet studies needed to address this neglected CHCH-C007 Archeological survey of facet of American history within parks through- Tennessee units out the southeastern United States, especially the BRCR-ZlOO Test/evaluate known sites Virgin Islands, South carolina, Aorida, Georgia, CHCH-CXJ12 Archeological inventory of and along the Natchez Trace. Survey pmjecL~ Chickamauga Battlefield across regions are especially reconunended for VICK-Z108 Produce AOA this historic context study, and discus.~ions with STRI-Z129 Produce AOA other NPS regional archeological centers along ANDE-Z141 Test/evaluate known sites the Eastern Seaboard are ongoing. TUPE-Z148 Test/evaluate known sites DRTO-Z149 Inventory submerged archeo- CHPI-Z007 Prepare AOA logical resources; survey of the VIIS-Z032 Inventory submerged monument archeological resources FODO-Z157 Prepare AOA VIIS-Z045 Test/evaluate known sites FODO-Z158 Test/evaluate known sites CHPI-Z073 Test/evaluate known sites STRI-Z162 Test/evaluate known sites NATCZ090 Comprehensive historic FOOO-C005 Complete archeological archeological survey assessment NATCZ132 Test/evaluate known sites VICK-Z169 Test/evaluate known sites NATCC056 ProduceAOA ORTO-Z173 Comprehensive historic CHPI-Z042 Comprehensive historic archeological survey archeological survey KEMO-Z196 Test/evaluate known sites NATCCOOI Archeological survey of park DRTO-Z213 Test/evaluate known sites property TUPE-Z228 Produce AOA Vl!S-Z244 Comprehensive historic VICK-CXJ67 Conduct archeological survey to a.x:heological survey zone for compliance VIIS-CXJ42 Conduct archeological study SHllrZ232 Comprehensive historic TUIN-Z224 ProduceAOA archeological survey

90 Chapter 6- Related Arclreological lnvenJQry Projects

Figure 20 - SEFA parks witb 1 plantotioct 111d • lavtty component (inser or Caribbun ,,... not 10 ~ l e).

TUJN-0)16 Tesl grounds for location of TUTN·Z236 Comprehensive historic outbuildings at the Oaks an.:hcologit:

...

91 Chapter 7 PROJECT SEQUENCE

THE PRIORITY SYSTEM about the presence or absence of resources should have a high priority. As described previously, current project state­ mentS were collected (rom several sources. Very 7. Priority slatus should take into account the few project statements listed in tho parks' RMPs archeological potential based on profession· requested the production of an AOA. Since an at recommendations. AOA is the logic:JI starting point of any inven­ tory project, SEAC bas produced project state­ Two additional factors were added by the SEFA ments for all the park units without one. All SAIP/RASP team. They are as follows: SEACgcncrated project statement&-which will be sent for review and approval to park super­ 8. The ran.king should consider if an AOA bas intendents and senior staff before being incor­ been completed that defines a specific need, porated into their RMPs-are designated by a or a if project statement in the RMP has "Z" after the park acronym, before the project requested an AOA. number. All park project statements were ranked on 9. Ongoing archeological research nnd/or a the basis of the seven factors defined in the previous NASI (SAlP/RASP) commitment •systemwide Program Priorities" section of the arc to be considered. Systemwide Archeological llzvemory Program (Aubry ct at. 1992:12-15). They are as follows: Parks were also ranked, based on their re­ search needs, (rom No. 1 (meeting the most l. Scheduling is coordinated in conjunction factors) to No. 64 (meeting the fewest (actors). with development or revision of park plan· Therefore prehistoric inventory, historic inven­ ning documents as a priority. tory, multiyear inventory, site testing (and evaluation), inventory projects already stated in 2. Park areas suffering from, or threatened by, the RMP, and submerged inventory projects natural processes or human activities re­ were assigned their present sequence based on ceive priority. the above ranking. lntrapark priority ranking wns consistently 3. Development and special use zones arc applied as follows: assigned a high priority. 1. AOA (Type-AOA) 4. Historic zones within a park and parks listed in the National Register of Historic 2. Inventory Projects (Typo-AJS} including Places are assigned a bigb priority. • Inventory (in RMP) • Multi-Year Inventory 5. • Archeological inventory projects that ad­ Thematic Inventory dress research questions, problems, topics, • Historic rnvcntory or priorities of state, regional, or national • Prehistoric Inventory importance" are given a high priority. • Submerged Inventory

6. Parks lacking virtually any information 3. Site Testing (Typc-AES)

92 Chapter 7- Project Sequence

For scheduling purposes, lhc first priority all three clusters as well as Louisiana and parts for any park is the AOA This should be com· of Texas and Maryland. pleted for a park prior to the beginning of any Because or this organization, each project type of inventory project From this document, a statement bas been assigned a cluster sequence final detennination of survey needs can be based on iL• regional sequence. II should be made. Second-priority projects are all inventory noted that the reorganization of the region bad project~, incl uding multiyear project~, since they not been finalized as this document was being involve extensive planning. A multiyc~r project written. Therefore, parks thnt nrc added to the may subsume all thematic inventory, historic clusters from outside of SEFA will not be re­ inventory, prehistoric inventory, submerged in· flected in this dO<:umcnt. They will be added to ventory, inventory projects (listed in RMP), and lhe projects database und ""',igned a sequence site testing project~. Third-priority projects arc based on the criteria described in the previous site testing and evaluation projects, since these section. will involve National Register site integrity and Tables 10, 11, and 12 Summariu all the significance level investigations and will include projects in proposed regional and cluster se­ not just previously known and recorded sites but quential order. those newly discovered as a result of the above Project numbers wilb a •c• following the mentioned investigations. hyphenation were taken from the RMP data· This priority system was used to determine bases; those that begin with 'Z" were SEAC· the sequential order in which the projects will generated, based on the above priorities in be accomplished by lhe SAIP team. However, it conjunction with the goals and objectives of the should be noted that lhe sequential order is fluid SATP program. Projects in the SEFA SCC(toCnce and will be changed based on funding, starring, and Cluster sequence columns of Tables 10, 11 , research needs, park needs, and dictates from and 12 with a number other than "0" following the regional archeologist or NPS management the decimal point (e.g., 17 .I and 17 .2) have been determined 1o be earlier versions of project statements lhat arc redundant, having already PROJECTS IN SEQUENTIAL ORDER been completed and not having the resources specified, or having been subsumed under a The Southeast Region bas recently been re­ broader category as a result of lhis plan. They named tbe Southeast Field Area and divided are included, nonetheless, to show that they into three clusters: tbe Gulf Coast, the Appala­ were not rejected out of hand and have been chian, and the Atlantic Coast Because of il~ considered and included wherever possible. location, SEAC is administratively assigned to Appendix 3 :shows all previous archeologi­ the Gulf Coast Cluster; however, it will service cal testing on a park·by·park basis.

•

93 Region wide Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area

Table 10 - Allantic Coast Ouster projects and cluster sequence. l'roj«::/1 T"~lt Type SEFA a ...... Elcimated • Scqueooc StqlltOOC 0»1 ($) O IPI·Z2S9 SAlP Remote-Sensing Survey AIS 2.0 1.0 Comp ieced MOCR-ZOOI Produoe AOA AOA 4.0 2.0 In progress MOCR-2002 Survey Park Developmenc Zone AIS 5.0 3.0 In progress MOCR·Z014 Conduce Themalic Archeological Survey (lllstoric) AIS 5.1 3.1 In progress MOCR-ZOI5 Conduce Prehistoric Archeological Survey AIS S.2 3. In progJess FOPU-Z003 Produoe AOA AOA 6.0 4.0 In progJCSS C/\N/\,-2.004 Survey Part Beach Face AJS 7.0 s.o In progress FOPU-Z033 Survey to Locate Graves of lmmortal 600 (12-14) AIS 9.0 6.0 In progJn or l)rison Site AIS 37.2 19.2 .. FOPU-7.028 Survey co Locale Fort Greene and George /\IS 41.0 20.0 20,000 KEMO·C014 Complece Archeological Assessment/Survey AIS 43.0 21.0 200,272 KEMO·Z079 Conduct 1bem•tic An:heological Survey (llistoric) AIS 43.1 21.1 .. FOPU·Z039 Survey lo Locate Prehistoric Sites AIS 52.0 22.0 24,000 TIMU·Z098 Conduct Historic Archeological Survey /\IS 53.0 23.0 56,000 ICA·ZI90 Produce AOA AOA 55.0 24,0 14,984 O IPI·Z042 Conduct Thematic Arcbeological Survey (ll.storic) !AJS 56.0 25.0 56,000 O IPI-7.043 Conduct Prehistoric Arcbeological Survey AIS 56.1 25.1 .. CANA·Z044 Survey Offshore Lands and Part Lands in Mosquito Lagoon AIS 57.0 26.0 164,623 CAIIA·Z06S ProduceAOA AOA 61.0 27.0 24,329 CAL().Z0S3 ProduceAOA AOA 65.0 28.0 24,329 IIOBE-Z119 Tesc and Evaluace Known SiiCS AES 67.0 29.0 78,000

94 Chapter 7 - Project Sequence

Table 10 - Atlantic Coast Cluster projects and cluster sequence.

95 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, SoUiheast Field Area

Table tO- Atlantic Coast Cluster projects and clusiCr sequence. Project' 'lille Type Sm'A Cl11>1er Estimated • ScqutOCO Sequence Coot (S) ' CUIS·ZI71 Q>ndUCI Prebistorie AlcbndUCI Thematic Archeological Survey (Prehistoric) AIS 135.0 58.0 150,000 C:OSW-7.159 Q>nduct Historic Areheological Survey AIS 135.1 58.1 .. COSW .CX)() I Prepare a Q>mprehensive Archeological Survey AIS 135.2 58.2 •• CAL().7.136 Q>ndUCI Thematic Arehoological Survey (llistoric) AIS 138.0 59.0 150,000 CAHA-ZI37 Q>ndUCI Prehistoric Archeological Survey AIS 139.0 60.0 30,000 CASA·ZI38 Tes.t aod Evaluate Known Sites AES 140.0 61.0 5.SOO CANA-7.143 Conduct Thematic AlcbndUCI Prehistoric Atcboological Survey AIS 146,0 65.0 45,000 OIAT·ZI56 Q>ndUCI Thematic Alcbmplele Atcboological Survey and Site !!valuation AIS 151.1 66.1 .. OIAT·ZI50 Q>nduct Historic Archeological Survey IS 154.0 67.0 33,000 FOCA·ZI63 Produce AOA AOA 159.0 68.0 14,984 nJIN·Z224 l'roduce AOA AOA 160.0 69.0 20,032 CUIS·Z236 Survey Swmerged Park Landa AIS 161.0 70.0 125,000 WRBR-7.172 Produce AOA AOA 164.0 71 .0 14,984 FOMA-7.182 Conduct Thematic Archeological Survey (llistoric) AIS 166.0 72.0 38,000 FOMA·COOO Archeological Survey to locate Frtnch/Spanisb Mossaae Site AES 170.0 73.0 25,000 FOCA·ZI79 Ceodud Thematic Alcbnduct Thematic Arehoologicol Survey (llistoric) AIS 184.0 80.0 15,000 JICA·C015 Archeological Assessment Md Inventory AIS 184.1 80.1 .. JICA·Z203 Q>nduct Prehistoric Alcbsment AES 199.1 85.1 10,000 CUIS-7.251 Q>nduct Alcbnduct Alcb

96 Chapter 7 - Project Sequence

AIS • Arc:l:aeoloeical ln"·enrory Srudy AOA • Atct.eologteal Overview a nd Assessmcat AES Atcbeological Evaluacioo Study

•• Projoct does D04 have a cosc estima ac bocal.lSC- ir will be sl.tbsumed by a project with a lo"Wt:r SN~ut:nce numbtt. For example. S.l's cost estimates are iM:Iudtd ill the budget Cor S.O. All cost estimates are in 1995 dollars.

97 Region wide Archec/ogica/ Survey Plan, SouJhecst Field Arec

Table 11 - Appalachain Coast Cluster projects and cluster sequence. ).'l'hle 'l)i,pt SIWA CII!Sle9 l'rl>~.,. I r?pf s.q.. _ ;,l"li.,aoed ' ~ Scqu'""'" c;'4so ($) RUCA-7.258 /iAI P Survey AIS 1.0 1.0 eo.,pleled NISI-ZOOS ProduccAOA AOA 8.0 2.0 In progress STRI-Z2SS ~I An:lleological SlllVey AIS 12.0 3.0 In I""BJ'CM STRI-<:008 logical ldenoirlatim aod Evaluation AIS 12.1 3.1 In prol!J'CM STRI-2.094 Condud HisiOrie An:lleological Survey AIS 12.2 3.2 In progress CARL-Z009 Produce ADA AOA 13.0 4.0 In progress BISO-Z121 Conduce I U~toric J\J'ehcological Survey AIS 16.0 s.o 40,000 GUCO-ZOll Produce ADA AOA 19.0 6.0 20,032 BISO-Z121 Conduco llisoorie Archeological Survey AIS 23.0 7.0 40,000 NISI-Z006 Survey and Tcsl Gouedy and Village Complexea AES 25.0 8.0 60,000 NISI-0l03 lclenlify Lee's Siege Treoches ao Holmes Fori AIS 25.1 8.1 •• 0 101-Z036 !Coodud Thtmaoic Archeologial Survey (llistcwie) AIS 26,0 9.0 125,000 0 10 1-0)()7 !JVc:bcological Survey or Tcnncsscc Unios AIS 26.1 9.1 •• 0 101-al12 Archeological ln..,noory of O.ictomauga Balllefoeld AIS 26.2 9.2 .. BI. RJ-())j() Condud Atcheological Survey ln..,noory AIS 27.0 10.0 300,000 BLRI-Z131 Condud P~h isooric Archeological Survey AIS 27.1 10.1 .. BLRI·Z125 Conduct Thtmalic Archeological Survey (lliSiorie) AIS 27.2 10.2 •• BLRI-C121 Conduct Preliminary Aaaeaament of New Area AIS 27.3 10.3 •• NISI-Z019 Conduct ~hisooric Archeological Survey AIS 29.0 11.0 98,000 URI-Z087 Conduct Thtmaoic Arcilcological Survey (Prehisooric) AIS 34.0 12.0 140,000 URI-2.086 Conduct llisiOric Archeologial Survey AIS 360 13.0 25,000 NISI-Z018 Conduct Tht!J)alic Archeological Survey (llistcwie) AIS 38.0 14.0 89,000 MACA-2.208 Conduct Themalic Archeological Survey (l'~hisloric) AIS 42.0 15.0 500,000 BlSO-OlOI Conducl ~heologica l Survey AIS 44.0 16.0 67,000 BIS0-0)27 PIM Survey Deferled ~a AIS 44.1 16.1 •• BISO-Z126 Conduco Themaoie Archeological Survey ( P~hisoorie) AIS 44.2 16.2 •• 0 101-Z037 Conduct Prehisooric Atcheological Survey AIS 49.0 17.0 100,000 0101-:Z.OW Test and Evaluate Known Sioes IAES 50.0 18.0 45,000 GRSM-ZD41 Produce ADA AOA 54.0 19.0 24,329 KIM().ZD46 Produce ADA AOA 59,0 20.0 14,984 COwP-Z1 18 Produce ADA AOA 60.0 21.0 20,032 FDDO-ZIS7 Produce ADA AOA 63.0 22.0 20,032 FDOO-ZOS1 Conduel Themalic Archeological Survey (lliSioric) AIS 64.0 23.0 42,000 1'000-COOS Compleoe ~heolog ical Aaaeaamenl AlS 64.1 23.1 .. BLRI-ZOS4 Test and Evaluale Known Sioes AES 66.0 24.0 60,000 BLRI-0181 S•rvey llisiOric Archeological-Rock Culle Gorge/Duin-Cove AES 66.1 24.1 .. NISI-7.064 lfest and Evaluale Known Sioes AES 750 25.0 12,000 GUCO-Z071 Conduct Thtmatic Archeological Survey (llistoric) AIS 80.0 26.0 35,000 GUCO-Z072 !Cooduct PrehisiOric Archeological s~y AIS 81.0 27.0 15,000 BISO-Z074 Produce ADA AOA 84.0 28.0 24,329

98 Chapter 7- ProjectS equence

Table 11 - Appalachain Coast austet projcclS and clusler sequence. ProjeclM 'Iitle l)pe SllFA ('1u.\l

99 Rtgionwidt Archeological S urvey Plan, Southeost Field Area

Table I I - Appalacbain Coast Ouster projects and cluster sequence. l'mjectl 1iolo lYre SEI'A ('111.\~ l"'imated ,,.,, .. ~. . S

AIS • MMoloJical Jnvcncory Study AOA • An.-heoloJical Overview aod A:f.Ks:smnt A£S • lvc:Woloaical Evaluat.ioa Study

• • Ptojeet dole .oc hve a OOISI!!:!$1i•.ate btcau:se it will M ••ut'Md by • proj«t v.itb a lo~J.'tr ~equucc ftYtrlbet. forex.ample, S.l'• U)St utimatts are ildudcd ia lhe blld~t (« $.0. All'*' utin.alt$ are i• IQ9S dolbr$.

100 Chapter 7- Project Sequence

Table 12 - Gulf Coast Ouster projects and cluster sequence. Projea. 1\lle Type SEFA n ..,.,. Eslimalf!d . Seqll<'noc Sequelleological Inventory or EaR Everglades AIS 90.2 19.2 .. NATCCOS6 Produce AOA AOA 95.0 20.0 20,032 SIIIL,.Z232 Conduct Thematic Archeological Survey (llistoric) AlS 101.0 21.0 70,000 SIll[,())()8 Survey Locale and P.-rve llistoric llousesites AIS 101.1 21.1 .. SAIU·Z096 Produce AOA AOA 102.0 22.0 24,329 BRCR·ZIOO rresl and Evaluate Known Sites AES 107.0 23.0 500 BISCZIOS Complete Survey and Evaluation of Submerged Lands AIS 111.0 24.0 357,437 VICK·ZI08 Produce AOA AOA 113.0 25.0 24,329 BUIS·ZIIO Survey Su!>mergecl Lands Within Monument Bound•ry AIS ll5.0 26.0 139,649 BICY .0)()4 Coltural Resources Survey ond Inventory or BICY Addition Azea AIS 116.0 27.0 300,000 BICY·Z117 Conduel Themalic Archeological Survey (Prehistoric) AIS 116.1 27.1 .. BICY·ZIII HisiOric Archeolo&icol Survey AIS 116.2 27.2 .. BISCZII6 'Tbematic Archeolo&ical Survey (Historic) A!S 120.0 2&.0 300,000 BISCZI22 CondUd Ptehi>loriic Archeological Su"'"Y AIS 123.0 29.0 60,000 BUIS·ZI34 CondUd Thematic Archeolo&ical Survey (PrehisiOric) AIS 130.0 300 48,000 NATCZ090 Conduel Thematic Archeological Survey {Historic) AIS 132.0 31 .0 25,000 NATCCDOI Archeological Survey or Park Ptoperty AIS 134.0 32.0 15,000 NATCZ091 Conduct PtehiSioric Archcologicol Survey AIS 134.1 32.1 ..

101 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area

102 Chapter 7- Project Sequence

• AIS = Atcbeologica.l Inventory Study AOA = Alt:beokleical Overview and Aaessmeru AES • AtehcoloaPc.l Evalwtion Study

• • Project dots not have a rose estimate bet.ause i1 will be subsumed by a project witb a lower sequtoce number. f"or example, S.J '&oost esrima~ are included io tho bud~el for S.O. All <::ost esti.males ~Aft!. in 199S dollars.

• • •

103 Appendix 1 PARK ACREAGE BY LEGAL lYPE

. ~J!>~f t lf~1 r. ' 6~r "" • ~. .@ ABLI 116.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 116.50 ANDE 479.88 l.OO 7.89 5.84 494.61 AN10 16.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.68 BICY 542,014.76 0.00 54,338.66 119,646.58 711'00000 BISO 107,364.81 0.00 ~~ i:S!' S!/'1 1,951.39 12S 00000 BISC 11'0 "m n1 0.00 o "" •n 896.42 172,924.73 BLRI 77,032.61 2,022.91 1,049.18 7,677.31 87,782.01 BRCR 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 BUIS 880.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 880.00 CANA 57,626.69 0.00 0.00 35.00 57,661.69 CAHA 30,318.88 0.00 0.00 0.55 'n"o"' CALO "o•n oo 1.1 ?«' «n 3,048.16 21.58 28243.36 CARL 263.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 263.52 CASA 20.18 0.00 0.33 0.00 20.51 CHP1 21.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.35 CHAT 4,006.43 2.75 2,711.72 2,539.01 9,259.91 CHCH 8,067.63 21.62 0.00 16.79 S! IM n« CHRI 26.24 0.00 0.91 0.00 27.15 COSW 19,940.45 0.00 0.00 2,259.55 22,200.00 COWP 788.71 0.00 48.82 4.03 841.56 CUGA ?n ?~? "' 48.03 0.00 11.50 20,312.14 curs 18,698.41 1.63 13,819.75 3,895.30 36,415.09 DESO 24.78 0.00 0.00 2.06 26.84 DRTO ,;, .tAA no 0.00 '??nnn 0.00 64 700 no EVER 1,444,480.20 0.00 1,774.77 60,244.43 1,506,499.40 FOCA 133.08 0.00 0.07 5.24 138.39 FODC 15.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.34 FODO 524.55 0.00 0.00 11.80 536.35 FOFR 211.47 0.00 0.00 4.88 216.35 FOMA 227.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 227.76 FOOT n/a n/a n/a n/a 960.00 FOPU 5,365.13 0.00 257.97 0.00 5,623.10 FORA 245.25 0.00 21.84 245.84 512.93

104 Appendix 1- Park A creage by Legal Type

- rw · ~ .. '~~ FOSU 163.12 31.25 0.00 0.23 194.60 GRSM 52llll03.78 0.00 0.00 265.66 520,269.44 GUCO 220.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 220.25 GUIS 00 ?I(~ 54 0.38 35,641.90 . 718.69 135,624.51 ROBE 2,040.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,040.00 JICA 1.45 0.00 9.99 59.10 70.54 KEMO 2,879.98 0.00 4.54 0.00 2,884.52 KIMO 3,945.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~ Od~ ?0 LIRI n/a n/a n/a n/a I" nnn M MACA 51AA057 0.00 814.75 12.20 52,707.52 MALU 4.72 0.06 5.23 13.17 23.18 MOCR 84.12 2.40 0.00 0.00 86.52 NATC 79.21 0.00 5.30 23.78 108.29 NATR 45,748.75 5,901.98 32.58 56.62 51,739.93 NISI 989.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 989.14 OBRJ ? nd? OR 1,066.00 326.40 1,631.56 5,066.94 OCMU 701.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 701.54 RUCA 310.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 310.45 SARI 0.00 0.00 683.41 228.59 912.00 SAIU 53.20 0.00 21.93 0.00 75.13 SHIC 10.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.05 SHJL 3,907.82 0.00 51.00 4.00 3,962.82 STRC 20.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.09 STRI 380.28 0.00 25.86 295.80 701.94 TIMU 1,387.25 1,330.00 16,572.82 26,709.93 di:Mn M TUPB 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 TUIN 7.30 1.02 0.00 49.30 57.62 VICC 116.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 116.28 VICK 1,607.27 5.78 7.66 4.56 1,625.27 vos 12,906.57 3.00 134.07 1,645.23 (d I'>AA R7

YY J:<.DJ:<. 424.77 0.00 6.63 0.00 431.40 TOTAL•• 1115 ISRQO 2 1 ,;sn .,, 1

• See back inside cover for park names and tbe acronyms/abbreviations . •• Because tbe legal types of tbc acreage at FOOT (960 acres) and URI (14,.000 acres) were not available, tbe acreage for tbese two uttits is not included in any of tbe column totals for tbe four legal types. Thus, 14,960 acres must be added to tbe total of tbese four columns to arrive at tbe grand total.

105 Appendix 2 MODULAR OVERVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OUTLINE

SECI'ION 1 SECTION 8 • Management Summary • Accession Files and Archival Materials • Table of Contents • List of Figures SECTION 9 List of Tables • Research Potential • Acknowledgments SECTION 10 SECTION 2 • Archeological and Cultural Resource • Introduction Management Issues Documentation Issues SECTION 3 Treatment Issues • Effective Environment Monitoring Issues • Physiography • O imatc SECfiON 11 • Soils and Geology • Bibliography • Flora a.nd Fauna SECTION 12 SECTION 4 • Appendices • Prehistoric Overview • Enabling Legislation

SECTIONS SECTION 13 • Historic Overview • List of Archeological Sites (Detachable)

SECTION 6 SECTION 14 • Chronological List of Archeological • Project Statements and Budgets Research (Oelachable)

SECTION 7 • Assessment of Research to Date

•••

106 Appendix 3 PREVIOUS ARCHEOLOGICAL TESTING BY PARK

This appendix is derived from a databa~e mainta ined by SEACs Curation Section. information concerning archeological surveys (inventory), clearance, site testing, and monitoring is included.

l'ulc. Am~~ )>ate l'ark /;..«. D_.riplii>li . . l'rl)j~ Ol~ctor " " ABU SEAC00795 1988 ABU.()()031 Ardlcologlcal mooiloring or a ...wee Kenneth S. W>ld, SEAC line iD5tallation

AND I! SEAC-00204 1976 ANDE-00429 1\J<:heological in,'e$tjgatioos for 1 Richard D. FAU

SEAC-00317 1978 ANDE~J0062 Archeological investigations of park Ellen £hrcnhArd, SPAC rt'-iOUfCCli

SEACOOS83 1982 ANDE-00432 A rchen l ngic~l investigations of See-- Ellen EhrcnhanJ, SI'AC lion P and t1unbmt Street extension SI'AC00651 1983 ANDE-00433 Arctacological investigations of T•.... • 1- P•glione, SEAC AUrplu.\ propeny TOICl 01·142 SEAC-00!27 1989 ANDI'Al0322 Archeological investigatioos or the Guy L. l'r Cooper, SEAC septic system at the POW MUlicum

SEAC..Q0905 1991 ANOt;.OOJ79 Archeological survey for cook house Eliz•heth A. llorv>~h, location SEAC

SI'AC00853 1990 ANDI~.00378 Ardlcological survey for the vi>itor Ehzabcth A. llorvoth, cence.r and road SEAC SEAC00366 1981 AND£.00430 Armeologal test excavatiom in the Uwis l.al$0n and &tookade Morpn R. Oaok, Jr., w ... Geo•&i• College SEAC00708 1985 ANDIJ.-00166 Soil resistivity survey of hospital Jitc: Rochelle A. Marrin•n. FSU

ANJO SEAC-00320 1978 ANJQ.OOI73 Areheo~giul inves1'igations at the Palricia O'Cndy, Cary Andrew Johnson house Knudsen, end JafJics W. Stoutamirc, FSU

107 Region wide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area

~~i. BICY SEAC00315 1978 BICY-00004 Archeological survey al Big Cypress John E. Ehrenhard, SEAC

H 1981 New site location data Park Staff

SEAC00619 1982 BICY-00008 Sub~su.rface testing of remote Randy V. Bellomo, FSU sensing anomalies, 1981 BISC 171 1981 , study, William II. Sears, 1973 Florida ACiantic Univ. SEAC-00665 1984 BISC-00062 Archeological investigation of the George Fisdler, SEAC, Populo wreck (BISC-UW-23) and John Broward, FSU SEAC-00589 1982 BISC00059 Archeological investigations at site George Fiscller, SEAC BISC-UW-22 (Giauber-Biggelli} SEAC-00998 1992 Areheological invesligations or Tot- Robert C. Taylor, SEAC ten Key mounds, 8DA3439 (1984) SEAC-01117 1993 BISC00072 Archeological investigations prior to George S. Sm ilh and Hurricane Andrew damage repair David M. Brewer, SEAC

SEAC00362 1980 BISCOOOS4 Archeo logica l _s~"!~Y and evaluation George Fischer, SEAC or rtl0r'. IIU1.2Q SEAC-00641 1983 BISC00055 Archeological testing or George Fischer, SEAC BISC-UW-20 (Fowey) SEAC-01129 1994 Elliot Key Complex telephone line David Brewer, SEAC clearance SEAC-01106 1993 BISC00071 Fowey documentation projecl Larry Murphy, Submerged Cultural Resource Unit, SWR

1976 o•~vvuv>> General I survey George Fisdler, SEAC SEAC-00704 1985 BISC-00063 General site survey of lhe Pillar John Broward, FSU Dollar Wreck fRISl'-UW-35) · SEAC-00369 1981 BISC-00056 Land reconnaisance at Elliot Key, John M. Goggin, 1944 Florida Sla1c Museum SEAC-00370 1981 BISC00057 Magnetometer survey, 1976 Martin Meylach, Meylach Magnetic Seareh System SI'Al'..M675 1984 I survey George Fischer, SEAC SEAC-00750 1987 BISC-00064 Underwater inves1igatin of BISC George Fischer, SEAC, UW-35 (Pillar Dollar Site) and Michael Pomeroy, FSU BISO 1991 BIS0-00026 1988 Station Carnp tesling project by William Bass, Ulair, Duvall and Associates Dep1. or Anthropology, Univ. or Tennessee SEAC-00932 1991 BIS0-00025 ArcheoLogical inves1iga1ions and William Bass, O.air, testing of BISO, 1981- 1983 Dep!. or Anthropology, Univ. or Tennessee SEAC-00722 1986 BIS0-00029 Archeological investigations at Richard D. Faust and BIS0-294, BIS0-265 and BIS0-211 Rober! C. Wil.son, SEAC SEAC-00978 1991 BIS0-00027 Areheological investigations 01 Tom n .... Honey Creek Overlook BISO A. SEAC-00740 1986 8150-00021 Archeological monitoring or Tom vandalized sites BISO

108 Appendix 3- Previous Archeological Testing by Park

~~~~'fii···~··· •j!i·~~~·~· $!k'lll~~''" . 4lrh>e.. - 6JI BISO SE.AC-00931 1991 BISQ.00024 Alcbeological Phase Ill testing of William Bass, O>air, (coot.) site 40ST6 by SSI, 1981 Dept. or Anthropology, Univ. of Tennessee SE.AC-00323 1978 BISQ-00020 Archeological reconnaissance survey Robert C. Wilson, SE.AC of BISO, Phase I SEAC00875 1990 BISQ-00022 Big South Fork Arcl!oological Ouy L. Prentioe, SEAC Project SE.AC00892 1990 BIS0.()()()23 tlistoric Site Survey, U.S. Army Stephen K Hutchinson, COE cootraCI NOAC W 62-81-C- Environment Consullants, 0013 Inc. SE.AC-01108 1993 Natural and cultural resource Ocean Data Systems. Inc. inventory, 1978-1979 BLRI 1981 . for road Robert S. Carr, SE.AC 1977 SE.AC-00791 1988 BLRI-00420 Archeological investigation of rock John W. Walker, SEAC chimney fall site SE.AC-00925 1991 BLRI-00401 Archeological investigations along Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC the proposed Roanoke River Pkwy. 1983 BLRI-00415 Archeological investigations at John W. Walker, SEAC Boone's Fork Trail SE.AC-01035 1992 BLRJ-00422 Archeological investigalions at John E. Cornelison, SEAC Chestnut Creek Rockshelter SEAC-01094 1993 BLRI-00424 Archeological investigations at Kennneth S. Wild, SE.AC Fischer Peak SEAC-00609 1982 BLRI-00414 Archeological investigations at John E. Ehrenhard, SE.AC Grandfather Mt. and Linville Falls SEAC-00373 1981 BLRI-00146 Archeological investigations at Peaks John W. Griffin, NPS, and or Otter, 1964 John H. Reeves, Virginia Mililary Institute SE.AC-00375 1981 BLRI-00434 Archeological investigations for a John T. Dorwin, Western folk arts center, 1975 Carolina Univ. SE.AC-01089 1993 Archeological invesligations for a Kenneth S. Wild, SE.AC road at Roanoke River Parkway SE.AC-00864 1990 BLRI-00399 for Elizabeth A. Horvath, Craggy~~~ overlook and trail SE.AC SE.AC-00787 1988 BLRI-00419 investigations for John W. Walker, SEAC .~fo lk music center SE.AC-Olll4 1993 BLRI-00427 Archeological investigations for John E. Cornelison, SE.AC septic systems at two locations SEAC-00378 1981 Archeological investigations of the David I. Bushnell, Mons Site, Peaks of Otter, 1940 Smithsonian Institution SEAC-00785 1987 BLRI-00431 Archeological investigations of the John W. Walker, SE.AC Mountain-to-Sea Trail SEAC-01034 1992 BLRI-00421 to John B. Cornelison, SEAC replace , lield SEAC-00372 1981 BLRI-00411 Archeological monitoring of road John E. Ehrenhard, SE.AC 1976

109 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area

' BLRI SEAC 00780 1987 BLRI-00418 Archeological survey and testing for Elizabeth A. Horvath, (coot.) the Linn Cove sept i ~ drainfie ld SEAC SEAC00992 1992 Archeological survey for a C. Michael Baker, Bunoomhe County sewer line Hall & Baker Archeo· logical Consultants SEAC00377 1981 BLRI-00413 Archeological survey for Daughton Harvard Ayers and Ed Park sewer line, 1979 Peters, Appalachian State Univ. SEAC00307 1977 B LRI-004 26 Archeological survey for proposed Ellen Ehrenhard, SEAC construction proj ects SEAC00822 1989 BLRI.00393 Archeological survey of Bass L•ke, Robert C. Wilson, SEAC Cone Manor, North Carolina SEAC00700 1985 BL RI-00417 Archeological survey of Grandfather John W. Walker, SEAC Mt. and U nville falls Trails SEAC00197 1976 BLRI-00425 Archeological survey of multiple John E. Ehrenbard, SEAC sites SEAC-00662 1984 BLRI-00416 Archeological survey of sec1ion 2H, M aurice W. Williams, Wilson Creek SEAC SEAC00889 1990 BLRI-00400 Archeological survey of the Fisher Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC Peak Music Center SEAC00823 1989 BLRI.00394 Archeological survey of Trout Lake, Robert C. Wilson, SEAC Cone Manor, North Carolina cr.•r~n"no 1993 AI General site survey Helen Pbilhp<>, BLR1 rnl 1994 ~ David~ Brewer, SEAC BUIS 1976 I survey of Buck Island George Fischer, SEAC CAHA 1991 ' T. Pouer, SEAC ' at F~i.,;.; ,.; for SEAC00387 1981 Archeological investigation to William Haag. establish culture sequence Louisiana State Univ. SEAC00673 1984 Archeological investigations at Jackson W. Moore CAliA SEAC009SS 1991 CAHA.00120 Archeological investigations at Douglas T. Pouer, SEAC multiple sites SEAC0101S 1992 CAHA.00121 Archeological investigations at Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC multiple sites SEAC0038S 1981 CAHA.00124 investigations for George Fischer, SEAC projeelS SEAC00390 1981 investigations for George Fischer, SEAC projeelS SEAC01040 1992 CAHA.00 123 Archeological investigations of David M. Brewer, SEAC beach eroded artifacts SEAC00869 1990 Archeological investigations of David G. Anderson, lAS proposed oonstruelion projeelS SEAC00988 1992 • investigations of David G. Anderson, lAS projeelS SEACOOS9S 1982 fo r George Fisdler, SEAC ' projects

110 Appendix 3- Previous Archeological Testing by Park

-~~CAHA SEAC00386 1981 CAHA-00125 Archeological resources at Cape T. Thompson, (cont.) Hatteras North Carolina Division of Asdlives SEAC-00904 1991 CAHA-00115 Asdlcological survey for park Susan Hammersten, SEAC housing SEAC-00753 1987 Archeological survey of Little Linda Carnes, Univ. of Kinnakect Life Saving Station North Carolina SEAC-00389 1981 Historical Management Plan, 1968 F. J. Rausch and C. E. Hatch, Jr., NPS Division of History SEAC-00952 1991 Material from park, lobe evaluated 8ebe B. Woody, Cultural for donation Resource Management CAHA SEAC00696 1985 '01 James P. Delgado, -'· East Carolina Univ.

CAi:O II 19sT 'at Olpe I Joffre L. Coe and Harry Lookout, 1938 Davis, Univ. or North Carolina SEAC-00392 1981 Archeological invesHgations at Cape Tucker Littleton, Lookout, 1963 Univ. or North Carolina SEAC00393 1981 Arcbeological investigations at Olpe Tucker Littleton, Bennie Lookout, 1964 C. Keel, and Brian Egloff, Univ. or Norlh Carolina SEAC00202 1976 CAL0-00065 Investigations of archeological and John !;. Ehrenhard, SEAC historical resources CANA 1992 Archeological clearance and moni· David M. Brewe.., SEAC lOring of Eldora Hotel demolilion SEAC-00677 1984 CANA.OOOSI Archeological clearance for Camera Robert Taylor, SEAC Pad Road construction

SEAC-00995 1992 CANA-00023 Arcbeological clearance for m~uito David M. Brewer and control dikes, Pardon Island Elizabeth A. Horvath, SEAC SEAC-00379 1981 Archeological e.xeavations at what is M. W. Stirling, now CANA Smithsonian Institute SEAC00351 1980 Archeological invesligations at George A. Long, Canaveral Kennedy Space Center SEAC00349 1980 investigations at Ripley R. Bullen, I Castle windy Florida State Museum SEAC-00963 1991 CANA-00022 Archeological investigations at Max David M. Brewer, SEAC Hoeek Dike Road SEAC-1>1082 1993 CANA.OOOS8 Archeological investigations at Elizabeth A. Horvath, Seminole Rest SEAC SEAC-00793 1988 CANA-00029 Archeological investigations at Robert C. Wilson, SEAC Seminole Rest parking lot SEAC00891 1990 CANA-00021 at abe Elizabeth A. Horvath, isite""'' ;, "'' SEAC SEAC00834 1989 CANA.Q0034 Asdlcological ' at Robert C. Wilson, SEAC and c;;.tle Windy

111 Regionwide A rcheological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area

. . . . ' . CANA SEAC00895 1990 CANA-00041 Archeological investigations for David M. Brewer, SEAC -(cont.) garage and wayside exhibits, North District SEAC00776 1987 CANA-00028 Archeological investigations for the Elizabeth A. Horvath, Apollo North District SEAC SEAC00646 1983 CANA-00012 Arcbcological investigations for the Rochelle A. Ma"inan, Apollo Road project FSU SEAC00886 1990 CANA-00040 Archeological in\'estigations fo r Elizabeth A. Horvath, three comfon stations SEAC SEAC00345 1980 Archeological investigations in tfle Ripley R. Bullen, area of what is now CANA Florida State M~eum SEAC00835 1989 CANA-00035 investigations of Stephen C. Bryne, SEAC I 1 Road, South District SEAC01038 1992 CANA-00024 Archeological investigations of lhe Elizabeth A. Horvath, Eldora Statehouse parking lot SEAC SEAC00860 1990 CANA-00037 Archeological monitoring of Apollo Elizabeth A. Horvath, boatramp~ Castle Windy disturbance SEAC SEAC00365 1980 CANA-00042 Archeological monitoring of board· John E. Ehrenhard, SEAC walk c::onstruction at Turtle Mound SEAC01005 1992 CANA-00047 Archeological rea:mnaissance of the David M. Brewer, SEAC Silver Palm site SEAC00383 1981 Archeological survey of sand C. 13. Moore mounds on the St. Johns River SEAC00384 1981 Archeological survey of the St. J. Francis LeBaron, JOhll$ and Indian Rivers Smithsonian Institution SEAC00382 198 1 Archeological survey of Vol usia John M. Goggin, County Yale Univ.

~a . lr_nn1 Q I 1976 r'ANAJ\MI)1 I survey project John ll. ,SEAC SEAC01006 1992 CANA-00048 Ground Penetrating Radar demon· David M. Brewer, SEAC slration al Seminole Rest, 8VOli24 SI'.AC'.. ll1127 1994 r survey of David Brewer, SEAC SEAC00797 1988 CANA-00030 Park lechnical assistance and archeo· Robert C. Wilson, SEAC logical monitoring of four sites SEAC00880 1990 CANA-00039 Park. technical assistance for Robert C. Wilson, SEAC archeological monitoring, CANA·63 CARL SB 1976 11 at John W. Walker, SllAC CARL

SEAC00205 1976 CARI...-00212 Archeolog~l investigations at Steve Shephard, SEAC CARL SEAC00333 1979 CARJ...-00213 Archeological investigations at Dennis Finch, SEAC CARL SEAC00394 1981 CARI...-00214 Archeological investigations at four John T. Dorwin, Weslern houses Carolina Univ. SllAC00985 1992 CARL.()()216 Archeological survey for a propo5ed John W. Walker, SEAC water sklrage lank, 1979

CASA 1981 1 or the John W. Griffin, NPS Cubo Line, 1963

112 Appendix 3- Previous A rcheological Testing by Park

. . ' . . : ~~ · ~~• •• CASA SEAC00399 1981 Archeological excavation or the Thomas Padgett, SEAC --Iii(cont.) Pow Well, 1973 SEACOOSS7 1981 Archeological excavations at the Kathleen A. Deagan, Castillo, 1979 Florida State Univesity SEACOOS23 1981 CASA.Q0112 Arcbeok>gical excavations at the R. Steinbach, smithy, 1961 H&sloric St. Augustine Preservation Board SEAC00968 1991 CASA-00242 Archeo)ogical investigations for a Elizabeth A. Horvath, new telephone line SEAC SEAC00397 1981 CASA-00044 investigations in the J. C. Harrington, NPS • . 1953 SEAC00398 1981 CASA.Q0109 Archeological investigations in the Alben C. Manucy, NPS sally port and guard rooms, 1960 SEAC00395 1981 Archeological investigations of the Thor Borresen, fort's foundation, 1941 NPS Historian SEAC-00401 1981 Archeological investigations related Alben C. Manucy, NPS to AlA, 1959 SEAC00396 1981 Archeological investigations to Crace W. J. Winter, St. Aug.,;~ the city moat palisade, 1937 tine Historical SocietY SEAC00789 1988 Archeological monitoring of exca- Sunley C. Bond, vations for underground utilities Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board SEAC00934 1991 Archeological monitoring of geo- Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC logical test bore holes in terrapin SEAC0082S 1989 c.ASA.Q0246 monitoring of sub- Bruce L. Manzano, SEAC ! surface t~ting of bastion waHs SEACOOS74 1981 CASA.Q022S Underwater archeological survey, Joan Koch, FSU 1978 . CHAT n9 1987 CHAT .()()()()5 at Hany ,lAS 9GW16 SEAC00404 1981 Archeological investigations of Christopher E. Hamilton, Chattahoochee River corridor, 1974 FSU SEAC00699 1985 CHAT.Q0004 Archeologtcal investigations of three Jackson W. Moore, SEAC tracts of surplus property SEAC00659 1983 CHAT.()()()()3 Archeological survey or Roberts Greg Komara and Jackson Drive entrance road. Island Ford Moore, SEAC SEAC01136 1994 Archeological Testing or Vickery David G. Anderson, SEAC C=k Parking lot (lAS, Atlanta) SEAC00337 1979 CHAT.()()()() 1 Cultuml Resource Inventory, Ellen Ehrenhard, SEAC 1979-1980 CHCii 1979 Archeological assessment or CHO·C I Jeffrey Brown, Univ. or 1975 SEAC00524 1981 Archeological excavations at the Jeffrey Brown, Univ. or CraY<:ns House, 1975 Tennessee, ,.... SEAC.Q0996 1992 Archeological investigations at Jeffrey Brown, Univ. or Gordon Lee PlanUtion

113 Region wide Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area

...... ' ' ' ., ' ' . ' ' CHOI SEAC-00997 1992 Archeological in'leStigations at 'the Mary A. Wilson, Univ. of (coot.) Mark. Thrash House site Tennes.p<. of SEACOOS26 1981 Archeological survey of Highway 27 Jeffrey Bro":"', Univ. of relocation alternatives, 1977 SEAC00710 1985 Archeological survey of Pistol Range Nicholas Honerkamp, Hollow Univ. of Tennessee. Olattanooga SEAC-00821 1989 Archeological testing for the Robert C. Wil.son, SEAC proposed visitor center addition SEAC-01045 1992 Archeological testing of proposed GeorgeS. Smith, SEAC Highway 27 SEAC00676 1984 Archcologicallesting of visitor Richard E. Johnson, SEAC center, parkin.g lot and Lookout Mt. SEAC-00991 1992 Assessment of damage to Guy Prcntioe, SEAC archeological resources, Lookout Ml. Unit SEAC-01081 1993 Assessment of damage to the Guy L. Prentice, SEAC cultural resources, ARPA investigation SEAC00679 1984 Dyer House/Field Sdlool at CHCH Jeffrey Brown, Univ. of Tennessee, n CHPI SEAC-00915 1991 at Julia King. Friends of I historic s-;,ee Farm o Snee Farm SEAC-00943 1991 CHP1.()()()()4 Archeological investigations for a Bennie C. Keel, SEAC new water line and fenoo SEAC00906 199 1 CHPl-00001 Archeological monitoring of a new Guy L. Prentice, SEAC water main at Snce Farm SEAC-00923 199 1 CHPI-00003 Arclleological monitoring of asbestos Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC removal SEAC-00972 1991 CHPI.OOOO.S Cultural resource survey of Snee Brockington &. Associates, Farm, 38CII917 Atlanta, Georgia SEAC-00983 1992 CHPI-00006 Tree fall assessment at Snee Fa_rm, David M. Brewer, SEAC 1989

I CHRI 819 1989 ; ror a A. Horvath, I sEI.c

114 Appendix 3- Previous Archeological Testing by Park

CHRI SEAC00813 1988 Arcbeological investigations for trash Elizabeth A. Horvath, --(cont.) can holders SEAC SEAC0084S 1989 Archeological investigations for Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC underground utilities

cosw 1990 ··o ; for a I s. Wild, SEAC

SEAC-00346 1980 Archeological survey or various. sites Robert Stephenson, in Congaree Swamp, 1978 Univ. of South Carolina

-cowr 1982 vVTO~~ at the fJOilrl W Wal~er, SEAC Richard ; Howe, 1979

SEAC0074S 1985 COWP.()()()26 Archeological investigations of four John W. Wal~er, SEAC land tracss SEAC-00406 1981 COWNXl024 Archeological survey at CowpellS, John W. Walker, SEAC 1974 SEAC00363 1980 COWP.()()()23 Archeological survey for Dennis Fineh, SEAC construction -cOoA 1986 Archeological assessment of newly Robert Taylor, SEAC aoquired properties SEAC-01047 1992 CUGA-00273 Archeological investigations at a John E. Cornelison, SEAC historic house and lithic scauer SEAC-00407 1981 MULTIPLE investigations at abe Jackson W. Moore, iron foundry site, 1957 NPS Archeologist SEAC00786 1987 CUGA-00272 Arc::heologic.al investigations at lhe Guy L. Prentice, SEAC Watts Brothers site, 40 Cc 6 SEAC00894 1990 CUGA-00264 investigations for a George Smith, SEAC : historic weapons c:ache SEAC00792 1988 CUGA-00257 Archeological investigations for a Roy W. Reaves, SEAC road and parking lot SEAC-00916 1991 CUGA-00267 investigations for the Elizabeth A. Horvath, t of US Route 58 SEAC SEAC-00144 1989 CUOA-00262 Archeological investigations for the Stephen C. Bryne, SEAC tunnel ptOjed, phase II SEAC0088S 1990 CUGA-00268 Archeological monitoring of a water Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC line installation

~~ 1990 CUGA-00276 Areheologieal testing for the Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC proposed waterline and footbridge SEAC-00527 1981 CUGA-00274 Assessment of archeological John W. Walker, SEAC resources CUIS 1981 at ToiiilE. ,SEAC t9n SEAC-00630 1983 CUIS-00362 Archeological drawings made at the John E. Ehrenhard, SEAC Stafford Golf House, 1978 SEAC-00409 1981 CUIS-00349 Archeological excavation of slave Charles H. Fairt>anks and cabins, 1969 Robest Aseher, Univ. of F1orida

115 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, Soulheast Field Area

CUIS SEAC-00599 1982 CUIS-00359 Archeological investigation at John E. Ehrenhard, SEAC (cont.) Garden Point and Dungeness Dock, 1980 SEAC-00413 1981 CUIS-00353 Archeological investigation for deep John E. Ehrenhard, SEAC well drilling, 1979 SEAC-01063 1992 CUIS-00375 Archeological investigation of an Elizabeth A. Horvath, eroding burial at 9 CAM 6 SEAC SEAC-00575 1981 CUIS-00357 Archeological investigation or John E. Ehrenhard, SEAC reported artifact concentration, 1975 SEAC-00412 1981 CUIS-00352 Archeological invesligation of tbe John E. Ehrenhard, SEAC Johnston Reservation, 1975 SEAC-00592 1982 CUIS-00358 Archeological investigations at 9 Rochelle A. Marrinan, CAM 4 and 9 CAM 22 FSU SEAC-00632 1983 CUIS-00363 Archeological investigations at John E. Ehrenhard, SEAC Rayfield Slave Cabin, 1978 SEAC-00620 1982 CUIS-00361 Archeological investigations at the John E. Ehrenhard, SEAC Dungeness Ice House, 1978 SEAC-00563 1981 CUIS-00356 Archeological investigations at the John E. Ehrenhard, SEAC Dungeness wharf and dump SEAC-00414 1981 CUIS-00354 Archeological investigations at lhe John E. Ehrenhard, SEAC Nightingale Campground, 1980 SEAC-00674 1984 CUJS-00365 Archeological investigations for a Jackson W. Moore and waterline to Dungeness Ice House Richard D. Faust, SEAC SEAC-01080 1993 CUIS-00376 Archeological investigations for Elizabeth A. Horvath, Dungeness Seawall SEAC SEAC-00982 1992 CUIS-00344 Archeological investigations for Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC Plum Orchard drain system and seawall SEAC-01051 1992 CUIS-00372 Archeological investigations for the John E. Cornelison, SEAC Bachlott House pari

116 Appendix 3- Previous Archeological Testing by Park

.. . . . CUIS SEAC00!72 1990 CUIS-00369 Brickhill Bluff site stabilization David M. Brewer, SEAC (coni.) 1975 ••• "' Cultural "1 I John E. ,SEAC SEAC-01137 1994 Global Posilioning Syslem Sile David Brewer, SE.AC Location Survey SEAC.Ol130 1994 CUIS-00377 Sea Camp Seplic Syslem Clearance Elizabelh A. Horvalb, SEAC SEAC-00410 1981 CUIS-00350 Walking survey of Olmberland Lewis LaMn Island, 1950 DESO 1989 Archeological investigations---of >A. boardwalk righl-of-way SEAC SllAC-00417 1981 DES0-00016 Archeological monitoring for a George Fischer, SEAC sewer line SEAC00!81 1990 DES0-00017 Alcbeologicallesling for Ktnnelh S. Wild, SEAC maintenance facility DRTO 1992 al ~Fischer, SEAC mulliple silos, 1971 --o· SEACOO!SS 1990 FOJE-00011 Aicbeological mapping projecl of Larry Nordby, FOJll-UW-03 Submerged Olllural Resource Unit, NPS SllAC-00954 1991 DRT0-00031 Alcheological moniloring for a Elizabelh A. Horvalh, seplic sys1em SEAC SEAC-00434 1981 Archeological monitoring of Sleven R. Richards, SEAC construction SEAC-01077 1993 Alcheological moniloring of Ktnnelh S. Wild, SEAC 1e"'phone and cable lines SEAC-00649 1983 Archeological testing or historic W. A. Cockrell, Florida shipwrecks, 1974 Div. of Hist. Resou~s SEAC-00433 1981 Archeological testing on historic Carl J. Clausen and W. A. shipwrecks Cockrell, Florida Bureau of Historic Sites SEAC-00432 1981 Remote sensing for shipwreck: s;urvey A.D.~ Earth Salellile r. SEAC-01085 1993 Remote sensing support for hlsroric A. D. Marmelstein, Earth shipwreck surveys, 1974 Satellite Corporation SllAC-01140 1994 SAJP Survey Larry Murphy, Submerged Cullural Resources Unit, SWR SllACOOS94 1982 Underwaler ardleological George Fischer, SEAC invesligalions of FOJE-UW-9, Rosario sire SEACOOS80 1982 Underwater arehcological survey of George Fischer, SEAC FOJE-UW-08 and FOJB-UW-09, 1981

EVER 170 1970 ~ al Easl RiCiWd Klukas, EVER Cape Sable and area

117 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area

.. EVER SEAC-00149 1969 EVER-00133 Archeological excavations at Bear John Griffin, NPS (cont.) Lake site, 08 Mo 33 SEAC-00150 1969 EVER-00108 Archeological investigations at Ricllard Stokes and EVER prior to 1970 John Griffin, NPS SEAC-00352 1980 Archeological investigations at John M. Goggin, EVER, 1950 Florida State Museum SE.AG-00420 1981 EVER-00352 Archeological investigations for a pit John Oalvin and toilet on Sand Fly Key Bill Truesdell, NPS SEAC-00711 1985 Archeological investigations for Robert Taylor, SEAC Sha.rt Valley road contruction SE.AC-00163 1970 Archeological investigations prior to Richard Stokes and 1970 John Griffin, NPS SE.AG-00532 1981 Archeological survey of proposed Steve Deutseblc, NPS Buuonwood Canal marina, 1976 SEAC-00423 1981 Archeological survey prior to John E. Ebrenllard, SEAC construction, 1979 SE.AG-00544 1981 EVER-00358 Archeology and Environment in John W. Griffin. South Florida, 1971 Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board SE.AC-00590 1982 Cllllural inventory, John E. Ehrenllard, SE.AC 1siles SE.AG-00528 1981 EVER-00357 Remote sensing investigation of Fl. Roland Wood and Poinseu, 1973 F. Stapor, FSU

FOCA 1981 'of I Sleven D. Ruple, Univ. of Shipyard Island, 1973' Flor·ida SE.AG-00424 1981 MULHPLE Archeological investigations at Fort Charles 11. fairbanks, Caroline, 1952 NPS Arclleologist SE.AG-00652 1983 FOCA-00281 Archeological investigations of St. John W. Walker, SE.AC Johns Bluff al Ribaull Column SE.AG-00425 1981 FOCA-00280 Archeological investigations on Charles H. Fairbanks, Shipyard Island (8 DU Ill), 1973 Univ. of Florida SE.AG-00726 1986 FOCA-00284 Archeological monitoring of Robert Taylor, SEAC drainfield excavation at residence B-4 SE.AG-00635 1983 FOCA-00282 Archeological monitoring of Ellen Ehrenhard, SEAC drainfield excavations SEAC-00545 1981 to assess archoologica 1 Williom H. Sea11;, of land, 1953 Florida State Mll!leum SE.AC00743 1986 FOCA-00283 M onitoring of a fcnoeline at Spanish Suzanne Lewis, Supl. Pond FOi50 1981 I' excavation of the .w. lower water ballery, 40 SW 190 Junior Historian, S~

SEAG-00897 1991 FODO~ Archeological testing of area around Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC Confederate Monument, 40 SW 190

118 Appendix 3- Previous Archeological T~ting by Park

hrk Acu... Dak hrkA«. DHcripdoD ' ProjM Diftdor FOOO SEAC00643 1983 F000-00087 Atchcologic:ol lcsting of wale< Judy L llellmich, SEAC (coni.) bauay 117, 40 SW 190 SEACOIOII 1992 FOD0-00084 Invesligalions for possible graves, John E. Corneliaon, SEAC ea~hworks and hisiOric roads SEAC00614 1982 FOD0-00086 Remote sensing investigations to John 1!. Ilhrcnhard, SEAC IdentiC)' limesiOne fearure FOFR SEAC00199 1976 FOFR-00043 Archeological excavalion of Hied Nickolas Honerksmp, l.o1 12N, 1975 Univ. or Florida SEAC0016S 1970 FOFR-00006 Archeological investigalions at the O.arles H. Fairbanks, ron, 1947 lluough 1953 NPS Arc:beologisl SEAC00617 1982 MULTIPLE Archeologic:ol iovcstigalioos 11 lhe Joel Shinu, ron, 19561hrough 1958 NPS Arc:beologis1 SEAC00901 1991 FOFR-ooo53 Atdleological in\utigations for a Eliubeth A. llorvolb, garden, boardwalk and fences SEAC SEAC00870 1990 FOFR.00052 Archeological investigations for Eli7.abdh A. Horvath, water and sewer lines SEAC SEAC00429 1981 FOFR·00051 Archeological inves1iga1ioos of l.ol Nicholas llonerksmp, 31 Soulh, 1978 Univ. of Florida SEAC00694 1985 Archcologial investigations of the Nicholas llonerkamp, riverbank area Unlv. of Tennessee SEAC00633 1983 Archeological investigations to John W. Walker, SEAC locate southwest bastion. tow-n wall

SEAC01119 1994 An::hcological investigations to ~nneth S. Wild, SEAC recover buried aniraas

SEAC01003 1992 MULTIPl.E Areheologic:ol investiga~ioos, 1958 Alben Manucy and and 1959 Jactaon Moore, NPS SEAC00986 1992 Archeological moniiOriog of Marian E. Saffer, Univ. of diSiribulion lrench excavalons, 1980 Florid1 SEAC00734 1986 Ardleologic:ol moniiOring of Allen Coop

FOMA SEAC00436 1981 FOMA-00006 Arohoologicol assessmenl of lo~ O.ri!lopher E. llamillon, eroding from !he beach, 1976 SEAC SEAC-00306 1977 FOMA.()()OOI Arcbeok)gical investigations at lbe Kathkcn A. Deagan, FSU ron ond nearby middens, 1975 SEAC00840 1989 Archeological io,.,.tigatioos at lhe S!ephen C. llryne, SEAC proposed visitor center restroOm SEAC00820 1989 FOMA.OOOII Archeological inYCSiigalioos al lhe Raben C. Wilson, SEAC proposed visitor center restroOm SEAC01037 1992 FOMA.OOOOO Archeological investigations for a Eliubdh A. llorvalb, sewer line, 8 SJ 3225 SEAC SEAC00969 1991 CASA.Q02.43 Archoological invesligalions for Elizabelh A. Ilorvalh, porlcing, boardwalk and Bally bldg. SEAC

119 Regionwide Archeological Su111ey Plan, Southeast Field A rea

FOMA SEAC00729 1986 Archeological investigations of east Roehelle A. Marrinan, (oont.) midden on Rattlesnake Island FSU SEAC00567 1981 CASA-00223 Archeological investigations of :fort Kathleen A. Deagan, FSU stabilization, 1980 SEAC-00321 1978 FOMA-00005 Alclleological investigations of the Kathleen A. Deagan, FSU fort inccrior, 1978 ~p,\f..rru

FOMO 1980 I t Archeological excavation at Fort 1 Stanley South, Moultrie, 1974 Univ. ~r South Carolina SEAC00448 1981 Archeological excavation of the well, John W. Walker, SEAC 1976 SEAC-00446 1981 FOSU-00170 Archeological investigations at John E. Ehrenhard, SEAC multiple sites, 1974 SEAC-00157 1969 FOSU-007 10 Archeological investigations of John Griffin, SEAC Osceola's Grave site. 1968 SEAC-00445 1981 monitoring of a John E. Ehrenhard, SEAC :line, 1978 SEAC-00837 1989 FOSU-00682 Archeological monitoring of David M. Brewer, SEAC drainfield conslruccion SEAC-00778 1987 Archeological monitoring of the Elizabeth A. Horvath, Dockside II tourboat facility SEAC SEAC-00953 1991 FOSU-0070 1 monitoring of the Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC sally port : system SEAC-00447 1981 Archeological monitoring of treoeh A. Wayoo Prokopetz, excavation on Middle Street, 1976 SEAC ~tA 1988 ' I testing or >II 1 S. Wild, SEAC 1989 "~ I testing or Robert C. Wilson, SEAC SEAC00553 1981 Soil resistivity study of Ft. Moultrie, John D. Combes, 1975 Univ. of South Carolina FOOT 1983 GiCrl Doran, FSU Hollow and Carr Gaps SEAC00460 198 1 GRSM-01341 for George Fielder, Jr., Univ. Parkway, 1974 of Tennessee SEAC00531 1981 Archeological investigations for George Fielder, Jr., Univ. proposed Foothills Parkway, 1974 of Tennessee SEAC-00702 1985 GRSM-01351 Arcbeological s of John W. Walker, SEAC Panerson -Hollow and-Carr Gap

120 Appendix 3-Previous A.rcheological Testing by Park

FOOT SllAC-00865 1990 GRSM-01348 Archeological investigations of Stephen C. Bryne, SllAC (cont.) Section 8D and 8D1 SllAC-00716 1983 GRSM-01352 Archeological investigations or John W. Walker, SEAC Section ll FOPU ofi42 1994 Remote Sensing John ..,SEAC SuM:y

SllAC-00437 1981 Archeologie<~l survey of CooksJ>ur John W. Griffin and Supt. Island R. B. Lattimore, NPS FORA """1990 Fi Archeological clearance of eled:rlC Bennie C. Keel, SEAC line right·of.way SllAC-00439 1981 Archeological or 13 Talcolt Williams trenches in fort and nearby mound --;;.,- 1981 FO~ • in the fort J. c. , NPS SllAC-01125 1994 Archeological investigations for a Bennie C. Keel, SllAC new fuel facility, 1993 SllAC-00956 1991 FORA-00054 Archeological ; for Douglas T. Potter, SllAC construction of SllAC-01107 1993 FORA-00055 Archeological investigations for Dan Penton, SllAC telephone cable and drainage system SEAC00946 1991 FORA-00045 Archeological investigations for Douglas T. Potter, SllAC telephone cable installation SllAC-00755 1987 FORA-00043 Archeological investigations fo r the David S.Phelps, Roanoke Island Art Center East Carolina Univ. SllAC-01126 1994 Archeological investigations for Bennie C. Keel, SEAC ticket booth oonstrudton SllAC-00442 1981 FORA-00003 Archeological investigations of the J. C. Harrington, NPS fort, 1947, 1948 and 1950 SEAC-00608 1982 FORA-00049 Archeological investigations to John E. Ebrenhard, SllAC locate the Lost Colony, 1982-1!183 SllAC-00927 1991 FORA-00046 Archeological monitoring of sewer Bennie C. Keel, SllAC line installation SllAC-01016 1992 Archeological monitoring of the Kenneth S. Wild, SllAC sewer system SllAC-00438 1981 FORA-00024 Archeological reoonnaissanoe of lhe J. C. Harrington, Garden Elitaberhan Garden area Club of North carolina

SEAC-00913 1991 FORA-00044 Archeological survey for park Susan Hamme~ten, SllAC housing SEAC-00707 1985 FORA-00053 Archeological testing of recorded John W. Walke<, SEAC anomolics SllAC-00552 1981 Early description or the ruins of the Edward C. Bruce fort SEAC-00440 1981 FORA-00050 Investigations to record abo riginal William Haag, sites and locate •t.ost Colony• Louisiana State Univ. FOSU 1989 t of David M. Brewer, SllAC from ' HullO at FOSU

121 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area

! FOSU SEAC00449 1981 Alcheological excavation of Battery William W. Luckett, (cont.) Huger, 1951-1959 Supt., and Horace J. Sh~iy Jr., NPS SEAC-00611 1982 Archeological monitoring at Fl. Bobby Joe Taylor and Johnson and Ft. Sumter John W. Walker, SEAC SEAC-00717 1987 Alcheologieal monitoring of U.S . Elizabeth A. Horvath, Navy SEFES antenna installation SEAC

GRSM 1981 GRSM-01340 -o· ' for bridge Chad Braley and 1977 John E. SEAC SEAC-00453 1981 GRSM-01335 Alcheologieal clearance for road Robert C. Wilson, SEAC work, 1978 SEAC-00458 1981 GRSM-01339 Archeological clearance for waterline Ouis Beditz and construction, 1979 John E. Ehrenbard, SEAC SEAC-00926 1991 GRSM-01355 Archeological investigation of trails Guy L. Prentice, SEAC in Cades Cove SEAC-01048 1992 GRSM-01364 Archeological investigations at Elizabeth A. Horvath, Ooonalufiee SEAC SEAC-00794 1988 GRSM-01010 Archeological investigations for Elizabeth A. Horvath, Cades Cove horse trail SEAC SEAC-00719 1985 GRSM-01353 Archeological for Allen Cooper, SEAC construction at Ming~ Mill SEAC-00848 1989 GRSM-01347 Archeological for Stephen C. Bryne, SEAC construction at 'sites SEAC-00866 1990 GRSM-01354 Archeological investigations for Stephen C. Bryne, SEAC development at Big Creek SEAC-00929 1991 GRSM-01252 Archeological investigations for Elizabeth Horvath, SEAC Oconatuftee water and sewer projed SEAC-00456 1981 GRSM-01337 Archeological investigations for MatSha A. Chance, SEAC Ooonlufiee Job eorp; Center, 1978 SEAC-01084 1993 investigations for Tina Rust, SEAC pa rking~~ at mill SEAC-00817 1988 GRSM-01345 Archeological investigations of the Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC Oconalufiee Trail SEAC-00799 1988 GRSM-01344 Archeological moni&oring a1 Cataloo· Elizabeth A. tlorvath, ehec School and Palmer CbapeU SEAC

SEAC-00839 1989 GRSM-01346 Archeological "'~ of the Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC Abrams Falls parking lot SEAC-00935 1991 GRSM-01343 Archeological survey for proposed Tom DesJean, SEAC construction at McCarter's Stable SEAC-00340 1980 GRSM-01334 Archeological survey for proposed Charles B. Poe, SEAC sewer line SEAC-00200 1976 GRSM-01333 Archeological survey of Blue Ridge Ellen Murphy, SEAC Partway E.xten.~ion SEAC-00578 1981 Alcheologieal survey of Deep Creek John E. Ehrenhard, SEAC and tunnel area, 1980 SEAC00455 1981 Alcheological survey of the parlc, Quentin R. Bass, Univ. of 1975 Tennessee

122 Appendix 3- Pre~~ious Archeological Testing by Park

...

GRSM SEAC00457 1981 GRSM.{)1338 Archeological survey work in park, Olarles Faulkner, Univ. o( (cont.) 1977 Tennessee SBAC01083 1992 GRSM.{)1427 Archeological testing at Oconalufice, Elizabeth A Horvath, GRSM-1 13 SBAC SBAC00601 1982 GRSM.{)1342 Archeological testing for John E. Ehrenhard, SEAC administrative site, 1980 SEAC00701 1985 GRSM.{)13SO Archeological testing of proposed John W. Walkcc, SBAC utility line route to Cades Cove SBAC01143 1994 Preliminary Archeological Elizabeth A. Horvath, Evaluation o( 3 Sites SEAC

-GUCO 1981 Gl t of 18th . Joffre 1... Coe and and 19th century houses, 1974 Trawick Ward, Univ. of North Carolina

SllAC00461 1981 GUCO~O Archeological investigations a1 John W. Walkcc, SBAC Guilford Courthouse, 1968

SllAC00811 1988 GUC0~2 Archeological investigations for Elizabeth A. Horvath, fence installation SBAC SBACOOS55 1981 GUC0~4 A investigations for Joffre 1... Coe, "H lot relocation, 1972 Univ. of North Carolina

SEA~I090 1993 ~ investigations for Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC utility lin~ for a VJP trailer SEAC00838 1989 GUC0~1 Archeological monitoring of fence Elizabeth A. Horvath, installation SBAC

GUIS 1981 G assessment ot -o· Bruce Piatek, SBAC from construction SEAC-00647 1983 GUIS~549 Archeological clearance at Ft. Glen Doran, FSU Pickens Historic Oistricl

SBAC-00648 1983 GUIS~SSO Arcbeok>gical clearance at Naval Glen Doran, FSU l..ive Oaka SBAC~66 1981 GUIS~545 Archeological clearnnce for YOC George Fiscller, SBAC oonslruction. J'1'17

SBAC00364 1980 GUIS~503 Archeok>gical excavation and testing James W. Stoutamirc and of selected sites Clifton Huston, FSU SBAC00331 1979 GUIS~S02 Archeological at Santa Hale G. Smith, FSU Ro.sa I (8 Es 22) SBAC00463 1981 Archeological excavations at 8 Sr 8, David S. Phelps, FSU 1968

SBACOOS77 1981 GUIS~5n Archeological excavations at James W. Thomson, Cosccnatcs 54-51, Fort Pickens, 1976 SEAC SBAC00334 1979 GUIS~542 Archeological excavations at Fort James W. Thomson. Pidcens, Bastion D SBAC

SBAC-00672 1984 GUIS~552 Archeological investigation or a W. A. Oockrell, shipwreck at Pensacola, 1982 Florida DAHRM SEAC00189 1975 GUIS~97 Archeological investigations at John W. Walker, SBAC Drawbridge Well and Advanced Redoubt

123 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field A rea

' .. ' . . . GUJS SEA~9 1990 GUIS-M0062 Alclleologicol investigations at East Susan Hammersten, SEAC (cont.) Ship Island, French Warehouse SEAC-00325 1978 GUJS-00501 investigations at James W. and 'sites OladBraley, FSU SEAC-00192 1976 GUIS-00499 Archeological investigations at Naval A. Wayne Prokopetz, Live Oaks Reservation SEAC SEAC-00806 1988 GU1S-M0058 Archeological investigations at the Robert C. Wilson, SEAC French Warehouse site SEAC-00775 1987 GUIS-M0063 Archeological investigations Cor a David Saunders and Eliza- boardwalk at Ft. Massadl.....,lts beth A. Horvath, SEAC SEAC-00723 1986 GUIS-00554 Archeological investigations for a Robert C. Wilson, SEAC lire station SEAC-01122 1994 Archeological investigations for a KA:nneth S. Wild, SEAC sewer system SEAC-00730 1986 GUIS-00379 Archeological investigations for a John W. Walker, SEAC vi,sitor center, 8 Sr 8 SEAC-01088 1993 Archeological investigations for an Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC electric line SEAC-00465 1981 An:heologicol investigations of area David Swindel, adjacent to Fl. Barrancas Florida State Archives SEAC-00732 1986 GUIS-00391 Archeological investigations of area John W. Walker, SEAC where Human Remains were found SEAC-00721 1986 GUIS-M0049 An:heologieal investigations of Robert C. Wilson, SEAC eroding site on East Ship Island SEAC-00833 1989 GUIS.OOS61 Archeological investigations of Fort Elizabeth A. Horvath, Pickens electric line, 8 Es 70 SEAC 1986 I< '"';"!>at 8 S r 69 Allen Cooper, SEAC SEAC-00572 1981 GUlS-00505 Archeological monitoring a1 Glacis Bruce Piatek, SEAC Fort Barrancas, 1980 SEAC-00984 1992 GUIS.OOS67 Archeological monitoring at Santa Dana C. Linck, Rosa Island E. day use area, 19.80 Denver Service Ctnter

SEAC-00752 1987 GUIS.()0559 Archeological monitoring ~und. KA:nneth S. Wild, SEAC visitor's center trail and _ ~ti _l _it~ - SEAC-00312 1977 GUIS-00540 Archeological monitoring of a Christopher E. Hamilton, waterline at Ft. Pickens Glacis SEAC SEAC-00338 1979 GUIS-00378 Archeological monitoring of Brure Piatek:. SEAC oons:truclion projecls

SEAC-00190 1975 GUIS-00498 Archeological monitoring of Ft ~ A. Wayne ProkopeiZ and Barrancas stabilization project George Fischer, SEAC SEAC-00739 1986 GUIS.()OS56 Archeological monitoring of Naval Allen Cooper, SEAC Live Oaks group camping area SEAC-00746 1987 GUIS-00557 Archeological monitoring of utility KA:nnetb S. Wild, SEAC lines at visitor center SEAC-00738 1986 GUIS-00555 Archeological monitoring of visitor Allen Cooper, SEAC center, 08 Sr 08 SEAC-00893 1990 GUIS-00563 monitoring of George Smi

124 Appendix 3- Previous A rcheological Testing by Park

GUJS SEAC-00462 1981 GUJS.00544 Archeological site assessment, 1972 A. Wayne Prokopetz and (cont.) Goorge Fischer, SEAC SEAC-00318 1978 MULTIPLE Archeological survey of GUIS, Louis Tesar, FSU Contract #CXS00031438 SEAC-00344 1980 GUJS.00543 Archeological survey of Perdido A. Wayne Prokopetz, FSU Key, 1974 SEAC-00491 1981 GUIS.00504 Archeological surveys and William and Yulee excavations at numerous sites, Lazarus, 1957-1970s Temple Mound Museum SEAC00605 1982 GUIS-M0061 Archeological resting for Davis John W. Walker, SEAC Bayou entrance road SEACQ1049 1992 GUIS.00569 Inventory and evaluation of Naval John R. Wright, SEAC Live Oaks/GUIS, NASI SEAC-00754 1967 Investigations at 8 SR 8, 1966 and S. S. Williams 1967 SEAC00658 1983 GUIS.00551 Magnetometer survey at Ft. Pickens, George Fischer, SEAC 1973 SEACQ0464 1981 GU1S.00565 Magnetometer survey, 1973 Martin Meylach, Earth Satellite Corporation SEAC-00173 1971 GUIS.00564 Northwest Florida Coast Survey, Gordon R. Willey, 1940 Columbia Univ. SEAC-01086 1993 Remote sensing for historic A. D. : survey, 1973 Earth ,(', SEAC-00314 1973 GUIS.00541 Underwater archeological survey of George Fischer, SEAC the offshore islands, Florida SEAC-00680 1984 GUIS.00553 Underwater search for prehistor-ic Greg Stanton, FSU remains and GUIS-UW-18 and 19,1979

HOBE 1979 1 at two Roy S. , Jr., Upper creek sites GeOrgia State Univ. SEAC-00468 1981 HOBE-00134 Archeological investigations at Charles H. Fairbanks, FSU and Nuyaka villages SEACQ1014 1992 HOBE-00132 for an John E. Cornelison, SEAC 'line SEACQ0900 1991 HOBE-00137 Archeological investigations for the Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC oonstruCiion or park housing SEAC-00469 1981 HOBE-00135 Historic documentatK>n on Indian George C. MacKenzie, Breastwork NPS

KEMO 1981 1 of B. C. Yates,_Supt. and (', fortitications, 1939 Charles II. NPS SEACQ0725 1986 Archeological investigations at Kolb Allen Cooper and Farm Battle site John W. Walker, SEAC SEAC-00957 1991 Archeological investigations for a Douglas T. Potter, SEAC proposed sidewalk SEAC-00910 1991 KEM0.00270 Archeological investigations for Robert F. Entorf, widening of Dallas Highway, 1990 Archeologist, Georgia Dept. of Transportation

125 Region wide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area

P1ork Anlt•o• Dak P1ork A«. O.Sttlplioal ,, Projtod Dlncte>r KEMO SEAC-00713 1985 Arehcological invesligatioos or loon W. Wolkcr, SEAC (cont.) retaining wall on Powder Sprinji;' Rd. SEAC-00909 1991 KEM0-00269 Archeological investigations of tract Robert F. Entorf, along Dallas Highway, 1987 Archeologist, Georgia Dept. of Transportation SEAC01028 1992 Archeological investigations of Guy L. Prentice, SEAC vandalism of a stone mound SEAC00989 1992 Arehcological monitoring of Burnt David G. And

SEAC00809 1988 MACA.()() ISS Archeological investigations at Old Guy L. P~nticc, SEAC Guide's Cemdcry, MACA-62 SEAC01064 1992 MACA.Q0277 Arcbeotogicll investigations for a Chris Oodil%, SEAC parting Jot, 1981 SllAC01069 1993 MACA-00269 Archoologic:ll investigatioos for Elizabeth A. Horvath, amphitheater trails and sewer line SllAC SllAC01121 1994 MACA-00280 Archeok>gical investigatiON for bat Elizabeth /\. llorvath, gates at various caves SUAC

126 Appendix 3- Previous Archeological Testing by Park

Park ~ u lo• Datr Park /!off. !Hsmp&a Projtd Dlrtc:tor MACA Sll.AC00329 1979 MACA-00196 Alchcological investigations or four Alan Dorian and (cont.) ahem ate Job Corps sites Ouis Bcditz, Sll.AC Sll.AC-01057 1992 Arcllcological investigations of Soil Tom Des Jean. Conserva1ion Service testing BISO Archeologist Sll.AC-00339 1980 MACA-00197 Archeological investigations or the Omlcs B. Poe, SEAC Chlldre.<.• Farm/Job Corps Center Sll.AC-00976 1991 MACA-00202 Arcllcological investigations of the Guy L. P"'ntlce and Eliza- wastewater and telephone systems beth A. Horvath, Sll.AC SEAC-00347 1980 Arehcological inve:stigatiOO$ up to Pani Jo Watson. 1980 Washington Univ. SEAC-00010 1981 An:ileologicalsurvcy including site w. S. Webb and in pitt W. 0 . Funlchouscr, Univ. of Ktntucty SEAC00484 1981 An:ileological su""'Y of proposed Jobn W. Walket, SEAC ho~troil SEAC-01065 1992 MACA-00276 Assessment of damage to archeo- Guy l'"'ntice, SEAC logicol resources, MACA-18 SEAC-00558 1981 QIVe explorations in Edmonson Gerald l'owkc, County Smithsonian Institution SEAC00476 1981 Discovery of Salts Cave T. ll. Lee, J. L. Lee and Little Alice w. 0. Cutliff SEAC-00683 1984 Preliminary archeological Jock M. Schock, Univ. of invcstigalions Wcstem Kentucky SEAC00477 1981 Purchase of midden deb

SEAC00637 1983 MOCR-00028 Archco~gicll investigations (or a Teresa Pog1ione, Sll.AC water line SEAC-00796 1988 MOCR-00031 Alchcologica1 investigations for Elizabeth A. Horvath, footbridge and tni1 eonstzuetioo SEAC SEAC-00489 1981 MOCR-00025 Alchcologica1 investigations of 1imothy A. Thompson. eorthworks and road, 1974 North Camlina Dq>t. of Cullurol Rcsourocs SEAC-00671 1984 MOCR-00030 Ar<:hcologica1 investigations of Greg Komoro, SEAC newly ooquired properly

127 Region wide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area

~. - . MOCR SEAC01059 1992 MOCR-00032 Archeological monitoring of bridge John R. Wright, SEAC (cont.) replacement- SEAC00488 198 1 MOCR-00024 Archeological survey for relocation John W. Walker, SEAC of Highway 210, 1973 SEAC00487 1981 MOCR-00023 Archeological survey of part Wlith John W. Griffin, NPS metal dctedor, 1958 SEAC00490 1981 MOCR-00026 Archeological testing of earthworks, Thor Borreson, NPS 1938 SEAC00486 1981 MOCR-00022 Investigations in southeast comer of Oyde King, Supt. the earthworks, 1939 SEAC00621 1982 Metal deteclor survey at l)atriot John W. Griffi n, NPS earthworks, 1958

~r.•~ n11~? 1994 NASI Survey I John~- ,SEAC SEAC006SO 1983 MOCR-00029 Underwater archeological Geocge Fischer, SEAC investigations of I he bridge

NATC 1992 NATCOOOil i allhe I James R. ,SEAC Melrose SEAC00973 1991 NATC00010 Archeological investigations at rhe James R. Atkinson, SEAC William Johnson House SEAC01071 1993 NATC00019 Archeological inV<:Stigations for James R. Atkinson, SEAC electric line installation SEAC00961 1991 NATC00007 Archeological investigations for James R. Atkinson, SEAC proposed conslruction at Melrose SEAC01110 1993 Archeological monitoring at Melrose James R. Atkinson, SEAC Man..o;ion SEAC01062 1992 Archeological testing for the James R. Atkinson, SEAC maintenance complex SEAC01056 1992 NATC00018 Mitigation at the Dependency for James R. Atkinson, SEAC restoration, Johnson House NI\TR 1980 ~ Archeological excavation at two o.-;y ,SEAC historic sites on Section 10 SEAC00332 1979 NATR.00208 Archeological excavation of four Carlos A. Martinez, SEAC Coles Creek sites, Section 3V2 SEAC00494 1981 NATR.Q0217 Archeological excavations at Jeffery P. Brain, Emerald Mound, 1972 Harvard Univ. SEAC01133 1994 Archeological investigation of John O'Hear, Choctaw Agency Site Mississippi State Univ.

SEAC00626 1983 NATR.00186 Archeological in~~<:stigation of the Carlos A. Martinez, SEAC Snowball site SEAC00766 1987 Archeological investigations at James R. Atkinson, SEAC Blackburn Cemetery SEAC01098 1993 NATR.00201 at Carlos A. Martinez, SEAC ; Village SEAC01032 1992 NATR-00014 Archcok>gical investigations at John L. Con,.., NATR Gordon Site SEAC01103 1993 Archeological investigations at James R. Atkinson, SEAC Meriwether·Lewis Monument

128 Appendix 3- Previous Archeological Testing by Park

" NATR SEAC00682 1984 Archeological investigations at Ian Brown, Harvard Univ. (cont.) Perkins Creek and Greenfield sites SEAC.Ol018 1992 NATR.Q0099 Archeological investigations at the OJarles F" Bohannon, Boyd site NPS Archeologist SEAC-00761 1987 NATR-00189 Archeological investigations at the James R. Atkimon, SEAC Gordon Ferry site SEAC-00774 1987 NATR-00196 Archeological investigations for a Carlos A. Martinez, SEAC proposed farm access road SEAC-01102 1993 investigations for an James R. Atkinson, SEAC cable SEAC-01087 1993 NATR-00214 Archeological investigations for Jay Johnson, Robert borrow pit construction Thor-ne., and Carey B. Oakley SEAC.Ollll 1993 Archeological investigations for James R. Atkinson, SEAC handicapped access to Sunken Trace SEAC-00760 1987 NATR-00188 Archeological investigations for the James R. Atkinson, SEAC Kosciusko Information Center SEAC-00770 1987 NATR-00194 Archeological investigations of a site James R. Atkinson, SEAC at Jourdon Occk picnic area SEAC.01031 1992 NATR.Q0097 Archeological invcsligations of Charles F. NPS Fireplace Mound and Rose's Bluff SEAC.01072 1993 " investigations of James R. Atkinson, SllAC Herring aCcesS """'ment, MP 269.4 SEAC-00607 1982 NATR-00211 Archeological investigations of Mud Jay K. •· Island Creek Univ. of SEAC.01068 1993 investigations of lhe James R. Atkinson, SEAC Leeson tract SEAC-00495 1981 NATR-00218 Archeological investigations on 3X John E. Ebrenhard, SEAC section of the Trace SEAC-00765 1987 NATR-00193 Archeological investigations on James R. Atkinson, SEAC Soelion IC SEAC.01097 1993 NATR-00200 Archeological investigations on n/a Section 10 SEAC-00773 1987 NATR-00195 Archeological investigations on Carlos A Martinez, SEAC Soelion 203

SEAC.01095 1993 NATR-00199 Archeological in~stigations on Carlos A. Martinez, SEAC Section 3A SEAC-00831 1989 NATR-00197 Archeological investigation.-; on James R. Atkinson, SEAC Section 3M I SEAC-00759 1987 NATR-00187 Areheologieal investigations on James R. Atkinson, SEAC Section 3V1 SEAC-00763 1987 NATR-00191 Archeok>gic.al investigations to James R. Atkinson, SEAC locate the Duck: River Cantonment SEAC-00764 1987 NATR-00192 Archeological monitoring of a utility James R. Atkinson, SEAC ditch at the Gordon House SEAC.OllOI 1993 Arehoological monitoring of a James R. Atkinson, SEAC waterline installation

129 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area

NATR SBAC-01070 1993 Archeological monitoring of phone James R. Atkinson, SBAC (cont.) line installation, MP 445 SBAC.01141 1994 Archeological Monitoring of Seer ion James R. Atkinson, SBAC 3P SBAC-01066 1992 monitoring of James R. Atkinson, SBAC ; cable installation SBAC.00208 1977 NATR-00206 Archeological survey and test Ouistopber E. Hamilton excavations and Shawn Bonath, SEAC SBAC.Oll05 1993 Archeological survey for Mt. Locust James R. Atkinson, SBAC wheelchair access SBAC.Oll44 1994 I Su""'y for Road James R. Atkinson, SBAC - t at · 422.2 SBAC.OOS79 1981 NATR-00221 at the Carlos A. Martinez, SBAC Gordon site(~~: 1) SBAC.009S8 1991 NATR-00182 Archeological testing at the James R. Atkinson, SBAC Anderson House, Hickman County, Tenn.

1984 NA t K.WI67 1 testing ofT Hk 29 John W. Walker, SBAC SEAC-00618 1982 NATR-00212 Colbert Ferry archeological survey Jay Johnson and Benyo Broyles, Univ. of Mississippi SBAC.00627 1983 Construction monitoring of sect;on Carlos A. Martinez, SEAC 3A SBAC-00493 1981 NATR-00216 Field inspection of 2D5, Bear Creek Carlos A. Martinez, SBAC M ound SEAC.00762 1987 NATR-00190 General surfaoo coli eel ion at James R. Atkioson, SEAC Emerald Mound, 22 AD 504 SBAC-00639 1983 Gordon House resistivity survey and Rochelle A. Marrinan, testing FSU SBAC.OOSS6 1981 NATR-0022.0 Location and investigation of Fl!. Sam 0. Brooks, James H. Dearborn Stone, and W. C. Wright, Mississippi Archives SEAC.00186 1915 NATR-00177 Material collected during 1975 A. Wayne Prok:opet:z, highway survey SEAC SBAC-00174 1972 NATR-00104 Material from excavations at Pharr Ch•rles F. Bohannon, NPS Mound SEAC-00625 1983 M iscellaneous monitoring on the Carlos A. Martinez, SEAC NATR 1983 M~d lsi;;;d~ , site 3V2 [ John W. Walker, SBAC SBAC-00600 1982 NATR-00222 Power line aossing survey, Attala Carlos A. Marlincz and County, Mississipp; David McCullough, SBAC SBAC.00497 1981 NATR-00210 Rock Creek Archeological Project Drexel A. Peterson, Memphis State Univ. SEAC-00645 1983 Rock Creek Archeological Project Gerald P. Smith, Memphis State Univ. SEAC-00603 1982 S.C.S. Dam 46A, Lee County, Lee H. Hanson, M Soil Conservation Service

130 Appendix 3- Previous Archi!Oiogical Testing by Park

Park ~ Dak Park A«. lHsaiplloa Projtrt Ol~or NATR SEAC00768 1987 Section lA Monitoring and Testing James R. Atlcinson, SEAC (cont.) TDa I SEAC00767 1987 Seet~n 18 Monitoring and Testing James R. At~inson, SEAC TWm 37,40 Wm 84

SEAC-00!07 1988 Section 3P Survey Jnmes R. At~inson, SEAC

SEAC00769 1987 Section 3W testing of historic Bolls James R. At~lnson, SEAC site SEAC00008 1988 Section 3X Survey James R. Atkinson, SEAC SEAC-00496 1981 NATR-00219 Shelby Bend Atcbeologicat P..ojeet Corey 0. OolcJey, Univ. of Alabama SEAC00642 1983 Station 188 site swfaoe collection, John W. Wolter, SEAC Section 3V3 SEAC.01007 1992 Sub-surfoce testing of remote Randy V. Bellomo, FSU Knsing anomaHes. 1981 SEAC00757 1987 Survey ond testing at Colhen Ferry Joy Johnson ond Part llettye Broyles, Univ. of M ississippi SEAC-00698 1985 S urvey and testing to locate site of James R. Atkinson, SEAC Gordon's Duck River Ferry Stand SEAC.OOOSS 1939 NATR.Q020S Survey of Le 14-1, Le 14-9, Le Jesse 0 . Jennings, Ar1hur 14-12 R. Kelly, Trueu Spalding SEAC.OOS71 1990 NATR-00168 Testing of sites along seclions 3X Jan>es R. Atkinson, SEAC and 3P SEAC00326 1978 NATR-00207 Testing on Section 38-Pbarr Villoge, James W. Stautamire and li.G. Smith Site, Mock.ey'$ Creet Chad llnley, FSU NISI SEAC00358 1980 NISI.OOIIS AtdJcok)gical excavations al the jail Miehael Rodeffer, Bock.- ond village, 38 GN 4, 1977 country Arcll. Suvioes

SEAC-00684 1984 NISI-00118 Atcbeological investigatioo of the J 1111H D. Scuny, proposed restroom and sq>tic unk Univ. of South Carolina SEAC00360 1980 Archeological investigations at Michael Rodeffer, Back- llolmes Fort, 38 GN 2 country Arcll. Services SEAC00361 1980 Archeological investigations at NISI Stanley South, Univ. of South Carolina SEAC.OOS21 1981 Archeological investigations at Star William Edwards, Fort Univ. or South CArolina SEAC00357 1980 ArchcoSogical investigations at the S. G. Oaker, house on Cambridge Hill Univ. or South Carolina SEAC00359 1980 N!SI.OOII6 Archeological investigations at the Michael Rodeffer, Bact- Seigeworks, 38 GN 3, 1976 country Arcll. Suvioes SEAC-00628 1983 N IS 1.00119 Archeological investigations at the Ellen EI!Rnhard, SEAC visitor cxnter sile SEAC00974 1991 NISI-00105 Archeological investigations for the Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC insullation of a gas line SEAC00336 1979 NISI-00114 Archeological monitoring of a Ellen Ehrer~herd, SEAC Wlterline inslallation. 38 GN 2 SEAC-00309 1977 NISI-00112 Archeological survey in search of llllen tlhrenhard, SEAC N1thanool Greene's Siege Camp

131 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area

SEAC-00201 1976 Archeological excavation, Tuft Gordon R. Willey, NPS SprinJlli 11{13 Bi 25) and 112(13 Bi 19) SEAC-01002 1992 OCMU-00147 Archeological investigations at the John E. Cornelison, SEAC Mound C and visitor center lots. SEAC-01044 1992 OCMU-00143 Archeological invt<>tigations ror John E. Cornelison, SEAC fence inslallation at Drake's Field SEAC-00686 1984 Archeological monitoring of Allen Cooper, SEAC sewer/water line installation SEAC-00623 1982 Archeological monitoring or water- George Fischer, SEAC proofing trench dug at earthlodge SEAC-00815 1988 Archeological survey of fence track Elitobeth A. Horvath, at Lamar SEAC SEAC-00319 1978 OCMU-00114 Archeological testing, various sites John W. Walker, SEAC SEAC-00183 1974 OCMU-00113 Al1ifaccs from Funeral Mound n/a Parking Lot 1 Bi 1 SEAC-00970 1991 Assessment of condition of the Allen S. Bohnert, SEAC Earthlodge noor SEAC-00550 1953 Fairchild's Landing and other Lake J. R. Caldwell, WPA Seminole sites SEAC-00112 1959 Fiber Tempered, Fabric Marked Park Starr Sherd SEAC-00040 1939 Flint from flint Ridge near Newark. R. E. Appleman Ohio SEAC-00137 1962 OCMU-00106 Flood Plain excavations materiol Big Jackson W. Moore, NPS Dig 1961-1962 SEAC-00549 1981 ft. Colerain and Ft Hawk:ins·Ed Price's Leuerbook, Indian trade

SEAC-00155 John W. Walker, SEAC

SEAC-00086 I 946 Lt. Col. Fred W. Rice

SEAC-00924 I 99 I OCMU-00143 David M. Brewer, SEAC

SEAC-00788 I 988 Elizabeth A. Horvath, SEAC

132 Appendix 3- Previous Arclleo/ogica/ Testing by Park

. RUCA SEAC-00499 1981 RUCA.OOOS9 Archeological excavalion al Russell Carl F. Miller, - - Cave,1956 Smithsonian Institution SEAC-00530 1981 RUCA.OQ027 Archeological excavation of Cotton Rex Wilson, NPS Palcb sile, 1963 SEAC-00498 1981 RUCA-00060 Archeological excavations at Russell Paul H. Brown, Tennessee Cave, 1951 Archeological Socie1y SEAC-00342 1980 RUCA.OOOS7 Archeological investigations in John W. Griffin, NPS Russell Cave, 1963 SEAC-OOen 1990 RUCA-00062 Archeological monitoring of erosion Robert C Wilson and at cave David M. Brewer, SEAC SEAC-01019 1992 RUCA.OOOSS lnvenlory and evalualion of RUCA, Ken Johnson, SEAC NASI SEAC-00500 1981 R UCA.OOOS8 Investigation of reported in John Fisher, Supt. cave, 1971

SAJU 1989 assessmenl or 1 S. Wild, SEAC distusbance at El Morro SEAC-00502 1981 SAJU-00110 Archeological assessmenl of pits dug ludilh Kenyon, SEAC by lhe park, 1976 SEAC-01093 1993 SAJU-00109 Archeological dala rerovery at El ..,.- · r, ., Morro Pan SEAC-00867 1990 SAJU-00106 Archeological investigations along Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC lhe wall al El Mono SEAC-00501 1981 SAJU-00040 Archeological investigations at El Hale G. Smith, FSU Morro, 1961 SEAC-00758 1987 SAJU-00104 Archeological investigalions of El Roy W. Reaves, SEAC Morro utilities SEAC-01043 1992 SAJU-00107 Archeological of the Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC El Mono road project SEAC-01120 1994 Archeological investigations to GeorgeS. Smith, SEAC assess damage from an oil spill SEAC-00503 1981 SAJU-00092 Archeological monitoring of sewer Gus Pantel, Foundation of line and stabilization, 1979 Arcbacology, Anthropol· ogy and History, PR SHlL 1981 Sl in the : Cadle, mound. 1898 Park r.

ltd~ 1994 David n,~,, SEAC SEAC-00987 1992 SHlL-00275 Archcologic.al investigations at James R. Alkinson, SEAC Cloud Field, 1984 SEAC-00962 1991 SHlL-00274 Archeological investigations fo r James R. Atkinson, SEAC proposed septic system, N. Batt~ry SEAC-00576 1981 SHlL-00273 or the John E. Ehrcnhard, SEAC Road • 1979 SEAC-00505 1981 Archeological investigations of the Cl;ucnce B. Moore mound, 1915 SEAC-00507 1981 SHIL-00272 Archeological investigations of the Gerald Smith, mound, 1975 Memphis State Univ.

133 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, Sowheast Field Area

. ' . . . ' . . '. . ' ' SHIL SEAC00335 1979 SHJJ..,.00270 Archeo1ogica1test excavaliOilS of John E. Ehrenhard, SEAC ---(cont.) Mound A, Shiloh Indian Mounds SEAC00509 1981 SHIL-00178 Assessment of cultural resources, Catherine H. Blee, 1975 Denver Service Center SEAC00908 1991 Assessment of damage 10 archoo- Bennie C. Keel, SEAC logical resowces SEAC-1>1008 1992 SHJJ..,.00276 Sub-surface tesling of remote Randy V. llcllomo, FSU sensing anomalies, 1981

STIU 1991 liS Archeologiea1 1 for a 1 S. Wild, SEAC trail and two parking -lots SEAC00709 1985 STRI.()()()72 investigation of the John W. Walker, SEAC Hazen Brigade Monument SEAC-1J0993 1992 STRI.OO 108 Archeological investigations at John E. Cornelison, SEAC Fortress Rosecrans. city propcny SEAC-1>1021 1992 STRJ .00 109 Archeological investigations at John E. Cornelison, SEAC Fortress Rosecrans, park properly SEAC-1>1022 1992 STRI.OO 111 Archeological investigations at John E. Cornelison, SEAC Redoubt Brannan SEAC-00203 1976 STRI.OO I 12 Archeologieal investigations at John W. Walker, SEAC Stones River SEAC00859 1990 STRI .()() 114 Archeological investigations for Stephen C. Bryne, SEAC oonstNCiion at the visitor center SEAC00884 1990 STRI .()()I 07 Archeological investigations for Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC tower removal SEAC-1>1134 1994 STRJ .00 125 Archeological surface survey of Elizabeth A. Horvath, agricultural fields SEAC SEAC00535 1981 STRI.OO 113 t of cultural resources in Catherine H. Blee, areas Denver Service Center 11MU 1991 l1 and historical Bennie C. Keel, SEAC in the TIMU SEAC-1>1118 1993 Arcbeological survey for a waterline Bennie C. Keel, SEAC al IGngsley Plantation

TUIN 1979 TUIN-00105 81 Marsha Olance, SEAC '-and parking-lots ' Grey SEAC00310 1977 TUIN-00104 Archeological investigations at the Shawn Bonalh, SEAC Grey Columns SEAC00879 1990 Archeological investigations for a Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC maintenance facility SEAC00508 1981 A monitoring of John W. Walker, SEAC ; li ne installation, 1978 \ilCK 1991 VJ( 'for a I John :sEAC Frencll drain system Q SEAC00515 1981 VICK-00239 Archeological investigations for a Carlos A Martinez, s£AC water fountain and building, 1979 SEAC00514 1981 VICK-00238 Archeological survey for Mission 66 Olrislopher E. Hamilton, road construction, 19'18 SEAC

134 Appendix 3- Previous Archeological T esting by Park

' .. VICK SEACOOSI2 1981 VICK-00236 Archeological survey for lrails and Crawford H. Blakeman (coot.) relocation or uss C.iro, 1975 and Michael K. C<>llins, Mississippi State Univ. SEACOOS10 1981 Archeological survey prior to road Lee H. Hanson, construction, 1968 NPS Archeologist SEACOOS13 1981 VICK-00237 Archeological testing or Temple A. Wayne Prokopetz, Mound for relocation of road, 1975 SEAC vus 1980 ··o ; at Krum Bay, 1962 :t=~·ta~:lkn, SEACOOS19 1981 Archeological excavation of the Alan Albright, Caribbean H.M.S. Santa Monica, 1971 Research Institute SEAC00802 1988 VIIS-00166 Archeological investigal'ion for !Mary Roy W. Reaves, SEAC Point parking lot SEAC00714 1985 VIIS-00156 Archeological investigations along Roy W. Reaves, SEAC North Shore Road SEAC00784 1987 VII S-00 164 investigations at Roy W. Reaves, SEAC 1Bay SEAC0080S 1988 VllS-00169 Archeological investigations at Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC Cinnamon Bay SEAC01027 1992 VIIS-00142 Archeological investigations at Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC Cinnamon Bay SEAC00193 1975 VIIS-00151 Archeological investigations at Edward S. Rutsd!, Cinnamon Bay, 1970 Univ. SEAC01026 1992 VIIS-00143 Archeological investigations at John Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC Head Road SEAC00903 1991 VIIS-00182 Archeological investigations at Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC Lameshur Plantation SEAC00898 1991 VIIS-00180 Archeological investigations at Lind Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC Point SEAC0!104 1993 Archeological investigations at Tina Bassett, SEAC multiple sites, 1989 SEAC00803 1988 VIIS-00167 Archeological investigations at Reef Roy W. Reaves, SEAC Bay Par Foree Great House SEAC00781 1987 VIIS-00161 Archeological investigations a1 Roy W. Reaves, SEAC Trunk Bay SEAC01042 1992 VIIS-00153 Arcbeological investigations al Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC Trunk Bay, Lyne House and Lameshur SEAC00772 1987 VIIS-00160 Archeological investigations at Viers Roy W. Reaves, SEAC

SEAC00828 1989 VIIS-00170 -:!'. for a Tina Bassett, SEAC 1 unit at Trunk Bay SEAC01113 1993 VIIS-00182 Archeological investigations for a Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC sewer system at Trunk Bay SEACOOS20 1981 investigations for a Jay B. Haviser, SEAC waste disposal site, 1978

135 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, SoUlheast Field Area

vus SEAC-00857 1990 VUS-00177 Archeological investigations for lllizabelh A. Horvath, (coot.) Cinnamon Bay landscaping SEAC SEAC-00847 1989 Archeolog;eal investigations for Elizabelh A. Horvath and housing at Lind Point Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC SEAC-00804 1988 VIIS-00168 Ardleological for Roy W. Reaves, SEAC installation of park. si&ns SEAC-00782 1987 VUS-00162 Archeological investigations for Roy W. Reaves, SEAC Trunk Bay holding tank SEAC-00516 1981 Archeological investigations in the 'lboodor Dcbooy Virgin blands, 1917 1988 VUS-00165 Archeological invesligations of Roy W. Reaves, SEAC Annaherg Waterway, Units 1 and 2 SEAC-00856 1990 VUS-00176 Archeological investigations of Cin· Elizabeth A. Horvath, namon Say wa~te water treatment SEAC SEAC-00854 1990 VIIS-00174 Archeological investigations of Lind Elizabeth A. Horvath, Point housing SEAC SEAC-00783 1987 VllS-00163 Archeological investigations of Mary Roy W. Reaves, SEAC Creek midden SEAC-00855 1990 VIIS.QOJ75 Archeological investigations of Mary Elizabeth A. Horvath, Point housing SEAC SEAC-00518 1981 Archeological investigations of St. Frederick W. Sleight, John, 1960 William L. Bryant Foundation. SEAC-00858 1990 VIIS.Q0178 Archeological investigations of Elizabeth A. Horvath, Trunk Bay septic syslem SEAC SEAC-00902 1991 VIIS.QOI81 Archeological monitoring at Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC Annaberg Plantation SEAC-00741 1986 VIIS-00158 Archeological monitoring of North Kenneth S. Wild, SEAC Shore Road construelion SEAC.Q0742 1986 VIIS-00159 Archeological monitoring o[ North Judy Shafer, Shott Road construction, Phase I Denver Service Center SEAC-00876 1990 V!IS-00179 Archeological moniroring of North Judy Shafer, Shoro Road, Phase U Denver Service Center SEAC-00829 1989 VIJS-00171 Archeological monitoring of septic Tina Bassett, SEAC tank: installation at Little Maho SEAC-00841 1989 V!IS-00173 Archeological survey for Annaberg Roy W. Reaves, SEAC vault toilet SEAC-00830 1989 VIIS-00172 Archeological survey for Lameshur Tina Bassett, SEAC Cistern facilities SEAC-00736 1986 VUS-00157 Ardleological survey of Lamesbur Roy W. Reaves, SEAC Road

SEAC-00348 1980 A , survey of Puerto Rico Irving Rouse and the Virgin Islands, 1952 SEAC-01029 1992 Archeological survey of St. Johns George Fischer, SEAC Island, 1976

SEAC-00566 1981 Investigations of the leinster Bay Noel J. Paehl~, Supt. wreck by pall< &taff, 1980

136 Appendix 3- Previous Archeological Testing by Park

Monitoring of utilil)l trenches by park staff, 1964

SBAC-00914 1991 survey for pMk Susan Hammersten, SBAC

•••

137 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alegria, Ricardo E. 1983 Ball Courts and Ceremo11ial Plazas i11 the West l11dies. Yale Un iversity Publications in Anthropology, No. 79. New Haven.

Alegria, Ricardo E., H. B. Nicholson, and Gordon R. Willey 1955 The Archaic Tradition in Puerto Rico. American Antiquity 21 (2):113-121.

Atlcinson, James 1992a Archeo/ogicallnvestigatiOIIS on the 3P Section of the Natchez Trace Parkway in Mississipp~ 1988, 1990, and 1991. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

1992b Archeological Investigations of the 3X Section of the Natchez Trace Parkway i11 Mississipp~ Including Those at the St. Catherine Creek and Perkins Creek Sites. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Aubry, Michele C. 1994 Memorandum H2215(434): Review of Southeast Region's Draft Rcgionwidc Archeological Survey Plan. Anthropology Division, National Park Service, Washington.

Aubry, Michele C., Dana Linck, Mark Lynott, Robert Mierendorf, and Kenneth Schoenberg 1992 Systemwide Archeological biVelltory Prngram. Anthropology Division, National Park Service, Washington.

Bass, Quentin, Major C. R. McCoUough, and Otarles Faulkner 1976 Second Interim Report on the Arcl1aeological Survey of Great Smoky Mowuains National Park. Ms. on file, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Bcditz, Otristinc 1979 Archeological Rec01maissa11ce a11d Testi11g of Altemative JCCC Sites in Mammoth Cave National Park. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

1981 Mammoth Cave National Park, Ke11t11cky: S11rvey ofthe Childress Farm/Great Onyx Job Corp Civilian C01rservati011 Ce11ter Property. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Bennett, Charles E. 1968 Sen/emem of Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Bevan, Bruce 1993 A Geophysical Test at Jamestown Island. Geosight, Pitman, New Jersey.

138 Bibliography

Brewer, David M. 1988 Archeological Overview and Assessment of Canaveral National Seashore. Draft. Southeast Archeological Ccnlcr, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Brewer, David M., and Susan Hammersten 1988 Archeological Overview and Msessmen~ Virgin Islands Natimwl Park, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Brockington, Paul 1987 A Cultural Resource Survey at S11ee Farm, 38CH917, Charleston County, South Carolina. Ms. on rile, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahosscc.

Brown, Lenard E. I 988 Christopher Columbus on Salt River Bay, St. Croix, Virgin Jsla11ds. Ms. on rite, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Brown, Paul 1951 A Cave Shelter. Tennessee Archaeologist 10(2):68-74, Knoxville.

Carstens, KeMeth C. 1974 Archeological .Surface Recomwiss(llrce of Mammoth Cave National Park. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis.

1975 Surface Archeology in Mammoth Cave National Parle. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, Dallas.

1980 Archeological Investigation in the Central Kentucky Karst. Ph.D. dis.~rtation, Department of Anthropology, Washington University, SL Louis.

Carstens, Kenneth C., and Kandis Jenings 1977 Three Springs Pump/rouse: An Assessment of Damage. Ms. on ftle, Mammoth Cave National Park, Cave City, Kentucky.

Carstens, KeMeth C., and Patty Jo Watson 1975 Archeological Resources of Mammoth Cave National Park.· A Brief Summary. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Cockrell, Wilburn A 1989 An Assessment of the Potential for Prehistoric Culturdl Resources in theOry Tortugas. In Dry Tortugas National Park Submerged Cultural Resources Assessment, edited by Larry Murphy, pp. 63-96. Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, National Park Service, Santa Fe.

Dcagan, Kathleen 1975 Tbiny Years of Archeology at Frederica, Georgia: An Archeological Assessment. Ms. on file, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

139 Regwnwide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area de Baillou, Ocmcns 1962 Archaeological Salvage in the Morgan Falls Basin. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report No. 4. University of Georgia, Athens.

Deren, Ed 1979 A Magnetometer Survey for the Relocation of UndeiWater Sh·ipwrecks of the Eastem Tip of Perdido Key. Ms. on file, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Deutscble, Stephen, and Robert Wilson 1975 Assessment of Archeological a11d Historic Resources of the Georgia Coast Adjacent to Cwnberla11d lslandNatumal Seashore. Southeast Arcbeologica I Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Ehrenbard, Ellen B. 1982 Archeological Data Section: Preliminary Cultural Resource Ma11ageme11t Plan, Cwnberland lslandNatwnal Seashore. Ms. on file, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Ebrenbard, John 1976a Canaveral National Seashore: Assessment ofArcheological and Historic Resources. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

1976b Cape Lookcut National Seashore: Assessment of Archeological and Historic Resources. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

1976c Cumberland Island Natwnal Seashore: Assessment of Arclreofogical and Historic Resources. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Ehrenbard, John, and Robert Taylor 1980 Tire Big Cypress National Preserve: Archeological Survey Season 3. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Ehrenhard, John, Robert Carr, and Robert Taylor 1978 The Archeological Survey ofBig Cypress National Preserve: Phase I. Southeast Archeologieal Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

1979 The Big Cypress National Preserve: Archeological Survey Season 2. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Ehrenharcl, John, Gregory Komara, and Robert Taylor 1982 Everglades National Park Cui/Ural Resource Inventory Interim Report Season 1. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Ehrenhard, John E., Robert Taylor, and Gregory Komara 1978 The Big Cypress National Preserve, Archeological Survey, Season 4. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

140 Bibliography

Faust, Richard D. 1986 Archeological Resources in the Southeast Region, Status Report and Projection of Fmure Requirements, vols. I and II. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Servic-e, Tallahassee.

Ferguson, Terry A., Robert A. Pace, and Jeffrey W. Gardner 1982 An Archaeological Survey and Testing of Proposed Construction Areas and Road Right-of­ Ways in the Bandy Creek Development Site of the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxvill e.

1984 An Archaeological Survey and Testing of Proposed Construction Areas and Road Right-of­ Ways in the Blue Heron Developme/11 Sites and Blue Heron, Devils Jwnp, and Leatherwood Ford Overlooks of the Big South Fork National River and R'ecreation Area. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Ferguson, Terry A., Robert A. Pace, Jeffrey W. Gardner, and Robert W. Hoffman 1986 An Archeological Reconnaissance and Testing of Indirect .Impact Areas Within Selected Development Sites of the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area. Department of Anthropology, Un iversity of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Fischer, George R. I 974 An Underwater Archeological Survey Conducted on Lands Offshore of the Fort Pickens Section and the Eastern End ofPerdido Key. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Griffin, John, and James Miller 1978 Merrill Island National Wildlife Refuge Cultural Resource Assessment. Ms. on file, NASA, Ken.nedy Space Center, Titusville, Florida.

Haag, William G. (editor) 1963 Early Indian Farmers a11d Village Commu11ities. National Survey of Historic Sites and Buildings, National Park Service, Washington.

Harris, Peter O'Brien 1976 The Preceramic Period in Trinidad. In Proceedings of the First Puerto Rican Symposium 011 Archaeology, edited by L Robinson, pp. 524-S52. Fundaci6n Arqueol6gica, Anthropol6gica e Hist6rica de Puerto Rico, San Juan.

Hoover, Frank, and Mike Wells 1978 Untitled ms. regarding survey along the Green River in Kentucky (MACA). On file, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, TallahaJ;see.

Hudson, Charles, Marvin Smith, and Chester DePraner 1984 The Hernando de Solo Expedition: From to . Southeastem Archaeology 3(1):65-77.

141 Regionwidt Archeological S urvey Plan, SouJiteast Field Area

Hulebinson, Steven K.., Ellen A. Dugan, and Richard S. Levy 1982 Inventory and Evaluation ofArchitectural and Engineering Resources of tire Big Sowlr Fork National River and Recreation Area, Tennessee/Kentucky. Environmental Consultants, Lexington.

Jennings, Jesse 1946 Summary Archeological Survey of tire Natchez Trace Parkway. Ms. on file, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Keel, Bennie C., and David M. Brewer 1991 A !Hsign for Historic and Arclleological Research of the 16tlo Ccmury European Encounter in the National Parks of Nortlreast Florida. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Kelly, A. R., and Belly A. Smith 1975 The Swift Creek Site, 9 Bi 3, Macon, Georgia. Ms. on file, Ocmulgec National Monument, Macon.

Lattimore, Ralston B. 1970 Fort Pulaski. Government Printing Office, Washington.

Lenihan, Daniel 1974 Preliminary Archeological Survey of the Offshore Lands of Gulf Islands National Seashore. In Underwater Archeology i11 the National Park Service, pp. 34-40. Southwest Cultural Resources Center, National Park Service, Santa Fe.

Logan, Wilfred D., and Francis Calabrese 1976 National Park Service Archeological Programs: An Historical Overview. In Proceedings of the First Conferena on Scientific Research in the National Parks, edited by Robert M . Linn, pp. 5~3. National Park Service, Washington.

Long, George 1967 flufian and Historic Sites Report John F. Kennedy Space Center, NASA . Ms. on file, Kennedy Space Center, Titusville, Florida.

McGimsey, Charles, and Hester Davis 1977 The Managemem of Arclreological Re.Murces: The Airlie House Report. Special Publication of the Society for American Archaeology, Washington.

Miller, Carl 1956 Life 8,000 Years Ago Uncovered in an Alabama Cave. National Geographic 1 0(4):542~558.

Nash, Roy 1931 Report to tire Commisswnu of Indian Affairs Concerning Conditions Among the Seminole Indians ofFlorida. U.S. Senate Resolution No. 482, Document No. 314. Government Printing OCCicc, Washington.

142 Bibliography

NPS (National Park Service) 1984a Fort Sumter: Anvil of War. Handbook 127. Division of Publications, National Park Service, Washington.

1984b Museum Handbook, Musertm Records, Part fl. National Park Service, Washington.

1985 NPS-28: Cullllral Resource Management Guidelines. National Park Service, Washington.

1986 Vicksburg and the Opening of the Mississippi River, 1862-1863. Division of Publications, National Park Service, Washington.

1987 History and PrehLvtory in the National Park System and the National Historic Landmarks Program. History Division, National Park Service, Washington.

1990 Cataloging Manual for Archeological Objects, vols. I, II, and III. National Park Service, Washington.

1991a National Register Bulletin 16A: Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Forms, How to Complete the National Register Registratio11 Form. National Register Branch, Interagency Resources Division, National Park Service, Washington.

1991b National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Branch, Interagency Resou rces Division, National Park Service, Washington.

O'Grady, Patricia, and Charles Poe 1980 Challa/wochee River Recreation Area. Georgia Cultural Resource lnve11t0ry Archeological Sites FiMI Report. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Oliver, Jose R. 1992 Results of the Archaeological Testi11g and Data Recovery flwestigations at tire Lower Camp Site, Culebra Island National Wildlife Refuge, Puerto Rico. Garrow and Associates, Atlanta.

Padgett, Thomas 1., and David M. Heisler 1979 Predictive Model ofArchaeological Site Location in tire Celllral Leaf River Basin Mississippi. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

Peterson, Gloria 1968 Administrative History, Fort Donelson National Military Park, Dover, Tetanessee. Division of History, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, Natill)nal Park Service, Washington.

Poe, Charles 1979 Mammoth Cave National Park, Childress Farm Rock-Shelter. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Prentice, Guy 1988 Mammoth Cave Archeological f11ve11tory Program Interim Report- 1987 lnvestigatic/IS. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

143 Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, Soulheast Field Area

1992 Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area Archeological Resource Survey 1990 and 1991 Field Seasons. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

1993a Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area Archeological Resource Survey 1992 Field Season. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

1993b Archeological Overview and Assessment of Mammoth Cave National Park, vol. 1. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

1994 National Archeological Survey Initiative Archeologicallnven.tory and Evaluation at Russell Cave National Monumen~ Alabama. Rcgionwidc Archcnlogical Survey Program Series No. 1. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Prokopetz, A. Wayne 1974 Archeological Survey of Perdido Key, Gulf Islands National Seas/tore, Florida. Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Righter, Elizabeth 1992 Statewide Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan: Prehistoric Context. Ms. on file, Virgin Islands State Planning Office, Charlotte Amalie, SL Thomas.

Ritchie, William A. 1932 The Lamoka Lake Site. Researches and Transactions 7:4. New York State Archeological Association.

Rouse, Irving 1970 The Entry of Ma11 i11 the West Indies. Yale University Publication in Anthropology, No. 61. New Haven.

1992 The Tainos: Rise and Decline of the People Who Greeted Columbus. Yale Un iversity Press, New Haven.

Rouse, Irving, and Louis Allaire 1978 Caribbean Chronology. In Chronologies in the New World, edited by C. W. Meighan and R. E. Taylor, pp. 431-481. Academic Press, New York.

Russo, Michael 1993 The Timucuan and Historic Preserve Phase Ill Final Report. Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.

SEAC (Southeast Archeological Center) 1992 Cataloging Manual For Archeological Collections. Draft ms. on file, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

SEACIRASP (Southeast Archeological Ccnter/Regionwide Archeological Survey Program) 1993 Archeological Testing and Ground Penetrating Radar Survey at Charles Pinckney NatioiUll Historic Site, South Carolina. National Archeological Survey Initiative, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

144 Bibliography

1995 Southeast Regional Archeological Survey Program Field and Laboratory Procedures Manual. National Archeological Survey Initiative, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Sears, William H. 1956 The Turner River Site, Collier County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 9(2):47-60.

1965 Archaeological Survey, Everglades National Park. Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

1966 Everglades National Park, Archaeological Base Mapping, Part/. Ms. on me, Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

1967 Archeological Survey in the Cape Coral Area at the Mouth. of the Caloosahatchee River. Florida Anthropologist 20(3~):93.

Sears, William H., and A. James McGregor 1974 An Archeological Survey of Biscayne National Seashore: A Report to the National Park Service Contract #CX50003I634. Ms. on file, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Sbel ford, Victor E. 1963 The Ecology of North America. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Sleight, Frederick W. 1962 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Island ofS~ John, U.S. Virgin Islands. The William L. Bryant Foundation, American Studies, Report No. 3.

Stevens-Arroyo, Antonio M. 1988 Cave of the Jugua, 71Je Mythological World of the Tainos. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Taylor, D. R. Fraser 1991 Geographic Information Systems: The Microcomputer and Modem Cartography. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Taylor, Robert C. 1984 Everglades National ParkArcheologicallnventory and Assessmetll Season 2: Interim Report. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tal lahassee.

1985a Everglades National Park Archeological Inventory and Assessment Season 3: Interim Report. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Talla!hassee.

1985b An Archeological Report for the Clearance of Proposed Developments and Road Improve­ ments in tire Everglades National Park. Ms. on file, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

145 Region wide Archeological Survey Plan, SouJheast Field Area

Tesar, Louis D. 1973a Field Notes and Related Data from Archeological Survey and Testing ofGulf Islands National Seaslwre Part 1: Florida. Ms. on file, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

1973b Archeological Review of Certain Lands of the Pensacola Naval Air Station. Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

1973c Archeological Survey and Testing of Gulf Islands National Seashore Part I: Florida. Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

1973d Archeological Survey and Testing of Gulf Islands National Seashore Part II: Mississippi. Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

!973e Field Notes and Related Data from Archeological Survey and Testing of Gulf Island National Seashore. On file, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Thomson, James 1979 Archeological Reconnaissance of the Obed Wild and Scenic River. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Thornbury, William D. 1965 Regicnal Geomorphology of the United States. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Veloz Maggiolo, Marcio, and Elpido Ortega 1976 The Preceramics of the Dominican Republic: Some New Finds and Their Possible Relation­ ship. In Proceedings of the First Puerto Rican Symposium on Archeology, edited by L. Robinson, pp. 147-201. Fundaci6n Arqueol6gica, Anthropol6giea e Hist6rica de PueriO Rico, San Juan.

Walthall, John 1990 Prehistoric Indians of the Southeast: Archeology of Alabama and the Middle South. The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

Ward, Geoffrey, Ric Bums, and Ken Burns 1990 The Civil War: An Illustrated History. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Watson, Patty Jo, and Kenneth C. Carstens 1975 Archeological Resources of Mammoth Cave Naticnal Park: A Brief Summary. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

1982 Archeological Survey and Testing, Mammoth Cave National Park. Ms. on rile, Mammoth Cave National Park, Cave City, Kentucky.

Waucbope, Robert 1966 Archaeological Survey of Northern Georgia. American Antiquity 31(5) part 2. (Memoirs of the SOCiety for American Archaeology No. 21).

146 Bibliography

White, Vernon 1980 Archeological Survey and Study of Hominy Holes in Kentucky. Kentucky Archeological Association Bulletin 14 and 15:1-63.

Wild, Kenneth S., and David M. Brewer 1985 Underwater Archeological Survey and Site Assessment of Biscayne National Park. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Willey, Gordon R. 1971 An Introduction to American Archaeology, Volume Two: South America. Prentice-Hall, Princeton, New Jersey.

1976 The Caribbean Preceramic and Related Matters in Summary Perspective. In Proceedings of the First Pwmo Rican Symposium on Archaeology, edited by L. Robinson. Fundaci6n Arqueol6gica, Antluopol6gica c Hist6rica de Puerto Rico, San Juan.

Wilson, Rex 1963 Maps on file, Russell Cave National Monument, Alabama. SEAC Accession File No. 530, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallabassee.

Wright, John 1993 Archeological Inventory and Evaluation of Portions of the Fort Pickens Uni~ Gulf Islands National Seashore, Florida. National Archeological Survey Initiative, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

• • •

147