FORT STEWART 12: A SURVEY OF A · PORTION OF NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT UNIT D7.2, FORT STEWART, LIBERTY COUNTY, GEORGIA CHICORA RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 300 @ 2001 by Chicora Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored In a retrieval system, transmitted, or transcribed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherNise without prior permission of Chicora Foundation, Inc. except for brief quotations used in reviews. Full credit must be given to the authors, publisher, and project sponsor. FORT STEWART 12: A SURVEY OF A PORTION OF NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT UNIT D7.2, FORT STEWART, LIBERTY COUNTY, GEORGIA Prepared For: National Park Service Southeast Region 75 Spring Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30~03 Funded by the United States Army Under: Contract Number 1443CX500095044 Purchase Order Number 1443PX500099099 Prepared By: Michael T rink!ey and Debi Hacker CHICORA RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 300 Chicora Foundation, Inc. PO Box8664 Columbia, SC 29202-8664 803/787-6910 Email: [email protected] www.chicora.org July 2000 Tb report is printed on permanent paper °' ABS'TRACT Thi. study represents a pedestrian within the survey area. Historic maps of the project area archaeological survey of the Sniper Range on Natural were also exa1nined. Resource Management Unit D7, and shovel test ourvey of a portion of Natural Resource Management Unit One archaeological site (9Ll875) and one D7.2 in Liberty County. A total of 322.5 ha were isolated occurrence (which was also assigned a site surveyed for this project. The sniper area contains number, 9Ll874) were identified during the survey of unexploded ordnance and can not be tested using Natural Resource Management Unit D7.2. No subsurface method... The scope of work specified that archaeological resources were identified in the Sniper th;,, 93.5 ha area be pedestrian surveyed as high Range, which evidenced coruiderable ground alteration probability UBing traUBecta spaced at 30 m intervals. Of and dIBturbance. By definition the U.olated find is the remaining tract, 38 ha were specified as requiring recommended not elig;J,le for inclusion on.the National high probability survey nBing transects and shovel tests RegIBter. Site 9Ll875, although possibly associated at 30 m intervals, whJe 191 ha were specified as with the Bland Town community, ;,, recommended not needing only low probability survey, using !raruecls at eligilile based on the extent of ground du.turbance and 30 meters, with shovel testing every 50 meters. the its inability to address significant research questiom. AB a result, no further management activities are This work is being do.ne in order to comply recommended., pending concurrence by the lead agency with the National HIBtoric Preservation Ac;t (Public a;nd the Georgia State Historic Preservation Division. Law 89-665, as amended by Public Law 96-515), Guidelines for Federal Agency Responsibilities, under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Army Regnlation AR 200-4 (Cultural Resources Management) and 36CFRBOO (Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties). The project;,, adminIBtered for the United States Army by the National Park Service (NPS), Southeast Regional office. The primary purpose of thi. investigation ;,, to identify the archaeological remairIB present on the survey tract at Fort Stewart. These investigatioru incorporated a review of previously reported site files located at the office of the Cultural Resources Management Specialist (CRMS). No previously recorded sites were located in the survey tracts. A previous smvey suggests, however, that some portion of the ca. 1930 Bland Town community, situated at the intersection of F.S. Road 36 and 37D in the Taylors Creek Maintenance Ax.ea may extend southward into the current study tract. In addition, the post's Historic Preservation Plan was consulted regarding sites or structures on the National RegiBter of Historic Places TABLE OF CONTENTS List of F~ures iv List of Tables v Acknowledgments vi Introduction 1 Sutvf!y Background 1 Curation 5 Nahual Setting 7 Physiograp/1y and Drainage 7 Geology and Soils 7 Soils and Sit01 Location 13 Climate 14 F/oridtics and Pafeoenvironmmt 14 Prehistoric and Historic Ovetview 19 Prowious Research 19 Prdzistoric 0Vt?rview 21 Historic Ooorvi.nv 33 Re,eanoh Strategy and Methods 51 Researclz Goals 51 Arcliiva/ Researdz 54 Field Met/wdo/ogy 54 Lab0>~l<ny Met/,oJs 58 Results of Survey 59 Introdudion 59 Siw 9LIB75 59 Isolated Find at 9Lf874 65 Conclusions 67 lntrodudion 67 Historic Maps /or Suroey Tracts 67 11,, Current p,.dictive Mode/ and Land Un 69 Sit. Dmsity 70 lnfonnation on Bland Town 70 Sources Cited 73 Appendix 1: Specimen Catalog 87 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of Fort Stewarl, Georgia 2 2. Location of survey tract in Liberty County 3 3. Survey hact showing boundaries and road. 4 4. Surface water of Fort Stewart 8 5. Deserted m.i.htary bunker m D7.2 9 . 6. Planted pme forest with dense underslory q 7. SoJ types in the survey tract 12 8. Managed pme foreal with light gras• and palmetto under.tory 14 9. Hardwood. and more open vegetation m the area of 9LI875 15 10. Cultural period for the Georgia coastal region 22 11. Projectile points and BuggeateJ chronology for Georgia and the Carolinas 24 12. Hinton's A New and Accurate Jv[ap of the Protiince of Georgia 37 13. Fmley'• 1824 Georgia 38 14. The Civil Warm Georgia 40 15. The vicinity of Hmesville and Fort Stewart m 1865 42 lb. Typical twentieth cenlurylurpentine ati.11 4b 17. T ransecls m the survey hacl 55 18. Shovel testing m the Burvey hacl 56 19. Site.s identified in the survey area 60 20. Sketch map of 9LI875 and the lest unit 61 21. Concrete steps at 9LI875 b2 22. Tea! unit at9LI875 63 23. Vegetation in the vicinity of 9Ll875 63 24. Sketch map of isolated find al 9Ll874 64 25. Vegetation m the vicinity of 9LI874 b5 26. Survey boundari.BB overlaid on the Hmesville 1918 topographic map 68 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Metric equivalents 5 2. Soil series in the survey tract 10 3. SoJ types by percentage in the survey tract 13 4. Naval stores exported from Georgia 36 5, UTM C'oordinates 57 b. .Archaeological sites in the survey tract 59 9. Artifacts recovered from 9Ll875 62 10. Artifact recovered from 9Ll735 62 v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Wble the work at Fort Stewart was conducted assistance in providing publications related to the in con1pliance with various national historic background research of tbs project. preservation requirements, we wish to thank all of those involved for their support and interest in the project. In The success of \b. project iB largely due to the particular, at Fort Stewart, we thank Ms. Jennifer dedication and professionaliBm of the field crew which Glover (Baee Consulting Archaeologist), and Mr. Brian included Mr. Jason Butler, Ms. Andrea Rombaur, Mr. Greer (ORISE intem) for their assistance. Dr. David Van Steen, and Ms. Kate Su.11van. We also want to G. Anderson (National Park Service) administered the thank Ms. Rachel Campo, who served as the Field project for Fort Stewart. We appreciate his interest, Director for the project. The survey was conducted encouragement, and con.Hdence. Ms. Kimberly from November 3 through 12 and November 29 and Washington {National Park Service) assiBted us in 30, 1999. navigating the paperwork for payment - a seemingly essential component of science. We also wish to express our sympathy to the family and friend. of David McKivergan. We We would aleo like to thank personnel at the appreaiated the opportunity to work with him at Fort Georgia Archaeological Site Files for providing Stewart and b. patience and knowledge will be miBsed. direction concerning the filing of site information and vi INTRODUCTION tract lo the north. __ These investigatiotlB incorporated a portion of The survey tract features a number of different Nat=al Resource Management Unit D7 .2 and the vegetation type.. In the high probability area is among adjacent sniper range, all southeast of the Taylor Creek the highest ground in the survey tract, with elevatioru Maintenance Area on Fort Stewarl, Georgia. These sloping to the southeast. In the higher areas there are investigations were conducted by Rachel Campo of mixed hardwoods and pines, with some low scrub brush Chicora Foundation, Inc. for the National Park and palmettoes. In the lower elevations, especially near Service. This survey tract consists of 322.5 ha. Fort the various swamp areas the vegetation is Stewart is located in southeastern Georgia and characleristica.lly cypress. Forest margins tend to exhibit encompasses portions of Liberty, Long, Tattnall, Evans, dense brush and briars. The sniper range consists and Bryan counties (Figure 1). Training .Area D7 is primarily of open, grassed range with verying areas of located in the northern portion of Liberty County good visibility, ranging up to 50%. The remainder is (Figure 2). wooded with pines and a few mixed hardwoods. Along the creek margin the area is swampy with thick Georgia State Highway 144, which travel. underbrmh and cypress. In these areas there was no east-west, and Georgia State Highway 119, which visibility. The range area exhibit. heavy use with much travels north-south, are the two major highways that land modification. In addition, the range and the areas run through the post. lntereecting these main roads at immediately surroWlding the range contain occasional various locations within the post are a network of unexploded ordnance. primary and secondary clay or sand roads. The day balled, primary roads provide access to a number of The high probability survey area, consisting of secondary perimeter and firebreak roads, as well as 38 ha in the northwest corner of the survey tract was random two-rut vehicle tracts.