*1 I'. / A REPORT ON THE * NEW HANOVER ýCOUNTY•/•AHAEO.OGICALi!SURVEY .'A C.E.T.A. PROJECT I August 1977 - July 1978 Mark Wilde-Ramsing, Director Woody K. Beddoes Dina Wilde-Ramsing / Andrew V. Asbury Michael J. Martin Richard D. Stiles Ida M. Landis Alan K. DeWitt 7) A REPORT ON THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY: A C.E.T.A. PROJECT Mark Wilde-Ramsing, Director Woody K. Beddoes, Supervisor Dina Wilde-Ramsinq, Supervisor Andrew V. Asbury, Surveyor Michael J..Martin, Surveyor Richard D. Stiles, Surveyor Rick C. Ba]lenqer, Surveyor Ida M. Landis. Secretary Alan K. DeWitt, Draftsman August 1977 - July 1978 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION .......................................... DESCRIPTION OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY ................... 4 Physical Environment ........................... 4 Ecology (Biotic Communities) ................... 8 Cultural History of New Hanover County......... .14 Archaeological Background....................... 19 ETHNOHISTORIC RESEARCH.............................. 23 Introduction............... ................... 24 William Hilton ................................. 26 Thomas Hariot.................................. 27 William Strachey...................... ....... 31 Conclusion ..................................... 36 SURVEY METHODS ................... 38 Survey Methodology............................. 39 L.R.I.S ........................................ 41 ARTIFACT.ANALYSIS.................................... 43 CeramicAnalysis............................... 44 Non-Ceramic Artifact Analysis .................. 63 HISTORIC SITES ...................................... 87 Introduction................................ .. 88 Domestic Sites ................................. 89 Civil War Sites ................................ 101 Commercially Related Sites ..................... 105 Dated Sites of Unknown Backgrounds ............. 108 Sites of Unknown Dates and Backgrounds.......... II SPECIAL PROJECTS SECTION.................... ........ 113 L.R.I.S. Project ....................... .. 114 Dugout Canoe Recovery Operations ..... 122 Salvage Excavations at 31NH153 ................. 125 Test Excavations at 31NH28 ..................... 127 Test Excavations at 31NH256.................... 140 Subsurface Tests ............................... 144 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont) PAGE A Statement of The Archaeological Resources with- in the Area Proposed For the Kure Beach To Carolina - Beach Sewage Main.' .... ..... ........... .. 152 A Statement of the Archaeological Resources within the Area Proposed Fort The Carolina Beach Municipal Airport. Controlled Collections ................................... 155 Productive Site Areas..................................... 159 Historical Sites of Archaeological Note .... ;............ 167 Ph6tbgraphi.c Records ............................... ..... 168 APPENDAGE(artifctcharts) ......... .. ............. 171 LIST OF FIGURESA I. New Hanover County Geological Map ........................ 5 II. Site Map of Hanover Series....................... ........ 57 Ill. Site Map of Cape Fear Series ............................. 58 IV. Site Map of Oak Island Series ............................. 59 V. Site Map of Thom's Creek Punctate......................... 60 VI. Site Map of Stick Bundle Punctate And Sand-Grit Smooth... 61 VII. Site Map of Lithic Distribution............................. 64 VIII. Site Map of Early Archaic Po iht Types .................... 66 IX. Site Map of Morrow Mountain Point Types .................. 67 X. Site Map of Guilford. and Halifax Point Types ............. 68 XI. Site Map of Savannah River Point Types ................... 69 XII. Site Map.of Badin,Pee Dee, And Atypical Triangular Pointý Types ................................ ................ 71 XIII. Site Map of Yadkin Point Types ............................ 72 XIV. Site Map of Randolph Stemmed Point Types .................. 73 XV. Site Map of Historic,. Domestic Sites ..................... 90 XVI. Site Map of Civil War Sites ............................... 102 XVII. Site Map of Commercial Sites ............................. 106 - Figures in the Special Project Section are contained within each report. LIST OF PLATES.. I. Pottery Surface Treatment(cordmarked,fabric impressedand simple stamped)............................................ 53 II. Surface Treatment(stick-bundle punctate,Cape Fear net impressed,Oak Island net impressed,Thom's Creek punctate, series) .............................................. 54 I'l. Interior Surface Treatment(Hanover Series,Cape Fear Series, Oak Island Series,Thom's Creek Series) .............. a.... 55 IV. Rare Pottery Tempers(fiber,unidentified,crushed quartz).. 56 V. Projectile Point Types for Palmer,Halifax,and Morrow Mountain ............................... .... .............. 79 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont) VI. Projectile Point Types for Guilfordunidentified stemmed, Savannah River .......................................... 80 VII. Projectile Poi.nt Types for unidentified corner notched, Stanl'ey,Kirk,atypical triangular ............ ........... 81 VIII. Projectile Point Types for Badin,large Yadkin .......... 82 IX. Projectile Point Types for small Yadkin,Pee Dee,Randolph stemmed,unidentified, and drills ......................... 83 X. Chipped Stone Tools(modified cobble,axe,modified pebble,. side scraper,end scraper) ......... ....................... 84 XI. Ground Stone Tools(atlatl weightsnet sinker,gorget and Beads) ....................... .......................... 85 LIST OF CHARTS. I. Ceramic Distribution By Sites ................ ......... 172 II. Total Artifact Distribution By Sites .................... 182 iv Acknowledgements This venture would never have been if Gordon Watts and Dina Hill had not possessed the foresight to conceive such a-project with the use of C.E.T.A. funds. We owe thanks many times over to them and to the personnel at the Fort Fisher Preservation Lab and the-Fort Fisher Museum. Our lab facilities at the N.C. Marine Resources Center at Kure Beach have been more than comfort- able, and the whole staff there has made us feel very much at home. Nat Blevins, our.-C.E.T.A. coordinator, and his assistant, Lucille.Walker, acted as parents to.our project. The special attention they gave us was often much needed and always deeply appreciated. Two i:nd.ivliduals contrlibuted: much of their-.ow tinme,.•_:;Thei+'r!arne sit'• enthusiasm for the'science of-.archeology refreshed-us all]. Tom Schietlin, state archeologist at the Archeology Branch, Raleigh, has worked closely with us in our efforts to enter New Hanover County mapping data and arch- eological information into-the Land Resources Information Service. David Weaver, assistant professor at Wake Forest University, handled the analysis. of all our faunal remains. His field inspection of the burial feature-at 31NH28 was thorough, and proved instructional to us all. These two have added much to our understanding of the archeological evidence in the county. The most.credit is due to the individuals on our survey team, each adding their varied talents and energies to make it an interesting and successful project. Through all kinds of situations and many procedural. changes, they have always managed to keep their heads up and see each job through.. Special thanks goes to Ida Landis,our secretary, whose organization and reliability kept the project running smoothly. We wish to express our gratitude to the people of New Hanover County for their interest, information, and hospitality. We hope that this report takes a step toward protecting their" cultural history. Mark Wilde-Ramsing v INTRODUCTION During the winter months of 1977, a C.E.T.A. (Comprehensive Employ- Training Act) Project was proposed by Dina Hill and Gordon Watts, both of North Carolina Archaeological Branch at Fort Fisher to Nat Blevins, C.E.T.A. coordinator for Division of Archives and History. The project was desicned to fund an archaeoloaical survey of New Hanover County to fill a lack in substantial and comprehensive archaeological site information. It was felt that the rapfd development in a county already impacted by a great deal of modern construction was running far ahead of a statewide survey planned to detect and protect archaeologically sensitive areas. If sites could..be located and evidence presented for use by environmental reviewing agencies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, North Carolina Archaeology Branches at Fort Fisher and Raleighand local city/county planners, the loss of irreplaceable cultural resources could, at least to some degree, be checked. Although the project proposal was waylaid for several months, it was eventually resubmitted in June, 1977, and approved as of June 31st. The project was to commence immediately manned with a nine member team, which included a project director, two field supervisors, four field assistants, a draftsman and a secretary, and extend for a twelve mohth period. It had been funded exactly as submitted with money set aside for salaries, travel, xeroxing and supplies. The approval came~at an inopportune time since the majority of' Fort Fisher staff was tied up with the recovery project at Fort Branch, North Carolina, and-therefore, a delay until August 1, 1977 was asked for and granted. At this time, candidates who had to fullfill the C.E.T.A. requirements were being channeled to Fort Fisher for interviews. A surprise reversal required that by July 18, 1977 the project be operational at least to some deqree. Personnel were hired as they applied to ensure that the project