RSI/PORTS 231 OVAI Contract Report #2012-43 PHASE II ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF SIX HISTORIC FARMSTEAD SITES (33PK185, 33PK203, 33PK206, 33PK211, 33PK217, AND 33PK218) WITHIN THE PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT (PORTS), PIKE COUNTY, OHIO By Albert M. Pecora, Ph.D. and Jarrod Burks, Ph.D. July 3, 2012 This document has been approved for public release: Henry H. Thomas (Signature on File) 07/12/12 Classification & Information Control Officer Ohio Valley Archaeology, Inc. 4889 Sinclair Rd., Suite 210 Columbus, Ohio 43229 (614) 436-6926 www.ovacltd.com RSI/PORTS 231 OVAI Contract Report #2012-43 PHASE II ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF SIX HISTORIC FARMSTEAD SITES (33PK185, 33PK203, 33PK206, 33PK211, 33PK217, AND 33PK218) WITHIN THE PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT (PORTS), PIKE COUNTY, OHIO Albert M. Pecora, Ph.D. and Jarrod Burks, Ph.D. Prepared by: Ohio Valley Archaeology, Inc. 4889 Sinclair Road, Suite 210 Columbus, Ohio 43229 (614) 436-6926 Albert M. Pecora Ph.D., RPA Principal Investigator July 3, 2012 Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office 1017 Majestic Drive, Suite 200 Lexington, Kentucky 40513 Submitted by: Restoration Services, Inc. Portsmouth Environmental Technical Services Contractor Post Office Box 448 Waverly, Ohio 45690 Management Summary During the winter of 2010 and spring of 2011, Ohio Valley Archaeology, Inc., conducted Phase II archaeological assessment studies on six historic-era farmstead sites (33Pk185, 33Pk203, 33Pk206, 33Pk211, 33Pk217, and 33Pk218) within the U.S. DOE Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS) facility. The 3,777-acre PORTS facility is located in the deeply dissected portion of the Appalachian Plateau of south-central Ohio, adjacent to the Scioto River floodplain and south of the Village of Piketon in Pike County. Historical maps and records demonstrate that the lands that currently make up PORTS were subdivided into numerous individual property parcels in the early part of the nineteenth century. Limited deed research and extensive archaeological excavation, however, show that some of the PORTS farmsteads were developed and occupied no earlier than the middle and later decades of the nineteenth century, whereas others came to be as late as the early twentieth century. The primary goal of the Phase II site assessment was to develop a comprehensive understanding of the character and contents of each farmstead site. The methodology used in this study was designed to: (1) reconstruct, as much as possible, the history, use, and layout of each farmstead; (2) delineate and document all above ground features and structure locations as they exist today; (3) identify subsurface features, especially buried foundations, cellars, and privies, using geophysical survey and hand excavation; (4) delineate and sample artifact concentrations using close-interval systematic shovel testing; (5) excavate and document selected subsurface features; and (6) analyze the resulting artifact assemblages. Despite the 1950s-era farmstead demolition, which removed the farmstead buildings, the six farmsteads examined in this study are in fairly good archaeological condition. All contain intact artifact deposits and foundation remains for the major buildings and outbuildings that stood in these locations prior to demolition. In several instances, the foundations for buildings that are not visible on the 1938/9 and 1951 aerials were also identified. The Phase II investigation was also successful with the identification of architectural features that are not visible on the surface, such as privy shafts, sub-floor pit cellars, wells, foundations, and landscaping features. Although all above ground features were identified and documented, all six farmsteads are likely to contain additional subsurface features that were not detected in this survey effort. All six farmsteads produced sizeable artifact assemblages dominated by architectural debris and kitchen refuse. It is likely the majority of the architectural items were deposited when the buildings were razed in the 1950s. Some, however, may have resulted from construction, remodeling, and building replacement during farmstead occupation. For the most part, the kitchen refuse and architectural debris was found to be concentrated together, usually near the house foundations. Smaller artifact concentrations were only rarely found around outbuilding locations. The co-location of both artifact groups suggests their deposition was primarily the result of a catastrophic event, such as farmstead abandonment and demolition, rather than as the result of a gradual accretion of refuse over a long period of occupation. Although most of the dateable artifacts appear to date to the early and middle part of the twentieth century, five of the six farmsteads produced middle to late nineteenth century mean ceramic dates and some of the sites had notable amounts of early-mid nineteenth century ceramics. Inferences regarding the earliest date of occupation from property deed records correspond well with the mean ceramic dates calculated from these assemblages. As isolated sites, none of the six farmsteads examined in this study is independently eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. However, as individual components of a mid-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century rural community, they, along with other historic-era sites that have been documented at PORTS, have the potential to yield locally important information about the history of farmsteads and rural people of Pike County, Ohio. While the physical preservation and protection of individual farmstead sites is not recommended, the existing archaeological information coupled with future historical document research should be used to develop a comprehensive analysis of the rural community. Consultation with the Ohio Historic Preservation Office and other consulting parties regarding such a research plan is recommended. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Phase II Archaeological Assessment of Six Farmstead Sites ...........................................................1 1.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................1 Chapter 2. Methods ............................................................................................................................................6 2.1. Phase II Assessment Methods ......................................................................................................6 2.1.1. Farmstead Reconstruction ...........................................................................................7 2.2. Field Methods ...............................................................................................................................9 2.2.1. Identification of Above-Ground Features ...................................................................9 2.2.2. Identification of Below-Ground Features: Geophysical Survey .................................9 2.2.3. Midden Sampling ........................................................................................................14 2.2.4. Hand Excavation .........................................................................................................15 2.3. Laboratory Methods .....................................................................................................................17 2.3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................17 2.3.2. Artifact Processing and Analysis ................................................................................18 Chapter 3. South Shyville Farmstead (33Pk185) ...............................................................................................24 3.1. Environmental Setting of the South Shyville Farmstead ..............................................................24 3.1.1. Location, Topography, Soils, and Vegetation .............................................................24 3.1.2. Post Occupational Surface Disturbance ......................................................................24 3.2. Historical Reconstruction of the South Shyville Farmstead .........................................................28 3.2.1. Historical Maps and Aerial Photographs.....................................................................28 3.2.2. Property Deed Records: History of Ownership ..........................................................31 3.3. Ground Penetrating Radar Survey Results ...................................................................................33 3.4. Architectural Features at the South Shyville Farmstead ...............................................................37 3.4.1. Structure #1 (House) ...................................................................................................38 3.4.2. Structure #2 (Dairy Barn) ............................................................................................41 3.4.3. Structure #3 (Barn/Outbuilding) .................................................................................42 3.4.4. Structure #4 (Outbuilding) ..........................................................................................42 3.4.5. Structure #5 (Root Cellar) ...........................................................................................43 3.4.6. Structure #s 6-9 (Four Outbuildings) ..........................................................................43 3.4.7.