Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey Hanahan School Sites #1 and #2 Berkeley County, South Carolina S&ME Project No.

Transcription

1 November 13, 2014 Thomas and Hutton Engineering Company 682 Johnnie Dodd Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina Attention: Reference: Mr. Kevin Shoemake, P.E. Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey Hanahan School Sites #1 and #2 Berkeley County, South Carolina S&ME Project No Dear Mr. Shoemake: S&ME, Inc. (S&ME), on behalf of Thomas and Hutton Engineering Company, has completed a Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey (HAPS) of approximately 33 acres north of Williams Lane in Hanahan, South Carolina (Figures 1 and 2). S&ME staff completed this study in general accordance with S&ME Proposal Number , dated October 31, 2014, and with the standards and guidelines established in the Guidelines for Historic & Archaeological Properties Survey Conducted for the Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) s Coastal Zone Consistency Certification (CZC), developed by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in PROJECT BACKGROUND Berkeley County School District is interested in use of the Project Area for development of a new school. The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control s Office of Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) consults with the SHPO concerning the effect of projects on historic and archaeological sites in South Carolina s coastal zone. The goal of the HAPS is to assess the property s potential for containing significant resources and to make recommendations regarding additional work or considerations that may be necessary to address effects that the proposed development may have on properties that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This HAPS will serve as part of the due diligence efforts in advance of future planning and development. The Project Area consists of an approximately 33-acre tract formed from two parcels identified by the Berkeley County Tax Assessor as TMS Nos and The Project Area is comprised primarily of mixed upland forest with a small

2 portion of the property being a drainage system that gradually becomes more channelized prior to flowing off the site and eventually to Goose Creek (Figures 3 and 4). The Project Area is located in the Lower Coastal Plain physiographic province. The topography is level, with an elevation of approximately 20 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Mixed pines and hardwoods cover the majority of the property. The Project Area has been impacted by past land uses including silviculture (Figure 4) and the installation of buried utilities (Figure 5). The soils consist of moderately well-drained Duplin loamy sand, somewhat poorlydrained Wahee fine sand, and well-drained Caroline fine sand (Figure 2). BACKGROUND RESEARCH As part of S&ME s study of this property, Sarah Posin, RPA conducted a background literature review and records search (Figure 6 and Table 1). The area examined was a 0.5- mile radius around the Project Area. The records consisted of ArchSite (a GIS-based program containing the location and information about archaeological and historic resources in South Carolina), the master archaeological site files housed at the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology (SCIAA), and the Finding Aid to Records of the Survey of Historic Properties, which lists prior cultural resources studies conducted across South Carolina. Background research indicated that the Project Area has not been subject to an archaeological survey and as a result, there are no previously recorded sites within the boundaries of the property. Two previous surveys (Bailey et al and Poplin 1993) were conducted on property adjacent to and west of the Project Area. One previously recorded archaeological site (38BK1705) is within 0.5-miles of the Project Area. Archaeological site 38BK1705 is located 0.47-miles (740 meters) southwest of the Project Area (Bailey et al. 2000). The site consists of artifacts from the historic period and was determined not eligible for the NRHP on December 13, Table 1. Resources Identified During the Background Research Resource Identification Component / Time Period NRHP Status 38BK1705 Unknown Historic Not Eligible The background research also included a review of historic maps. Mills Atlas (1825) identifies Red Bank Road and other major features and settlements in the vicinity, but not in the Project Area (Figure 7). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1916 Soils map does not identify the presence of structures or other development in the Project Area, but it does depict the nearby railroad and the presence of secondary roadways (Figure 8). The 1979 United States Geological Survey (USGS) Ladson Quadrangle (Figure 1) depicts structures adjacent to the Project Area and a tertiary roadway crossing the property from north to south. 3

3 POTENTIAL FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES In the Coastal Plain of South Carolina, researchers have used various predictive models to identify areas having a high potential for containing archaeological sites (e.g., Brooks and Scurry 1978; Cable 1996; Scurry 2003). Recently these models have been revised based on data from Francis Marion National Forest (O Donoughue 2008). In general, the most significant variables for determining site location are distance to a permanent water source, proximity to a wetland or other ecotone, slope, and soil drainage. Prehistoric sites tend to occur on relatively level areas with well-drained soils that are within 200 m of a permanent water source or wetland. Historic home sites tend to be located on welldrained soils near historic roadways. The Project Area is located in an upland setting near a historic railroad. Additionally, the western side of the Project Area is adjacent to a large drainage that would have been at least, a likely source of water. Based on the setting and its historic location, S&ME characterized the portions of the Project Area near the road and railroad and along the tertiary roadway as having a high potential to contain archaeological resources dating to the historic period. Based on the environmental setting, primarily well-drained soil types, and proximity to a water source, we characterized the western margin of the Project Area as having a high potential to contain archaeological remains dating to the prehistoric period (Figure 9). FIELD INVESTIGATION On November 4, 2014, Quinn-Monique Ogden, RPA and Aaron Brummitt, RPA conducted the fieldwork portion of this study. Methods The field investigation consisted of a pedestrian reconnaissance of the dirt roads crossing the tract and other areas with exposed ground surfaces. The majority of shovel test pits were placed in areas with well-drained soils. Shovel test pits were approximately 30 cm in diameter and excavated to culturally sterile subsoil or to a minimum of 80 centimeters below the surface (cmbs) if no artifacts were recovered. Soil was screened through 0.25-inch hardware cloth. The field crew kept notes in a weatherproof field journal and recorded field conditions in the Project Area with digital photographs. In addition to the archaeological survey, the field crew conducted a limited architectural survey to determine whether there were previously unrecorded aboveground historic resources in or adjacent to the Project Area. Results The field crew excavated 32 shovel test pits, ranging from 45 to 80 cmbs (Figure 10). These investigations identified one Isolated Find, a single secondary flake, made of 4

4

5 REFERENCES CITED Bailey, Ralph 2000 Intensive Archaeological Survey of Selected Portions of the Charleston Naval Weapons Station. Brockington and Associates. Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Brooks, Mark J., and James D. Scurry 1978 An Interstate Archaeological Survey of Amoco Realty Property in Berkeley County, South Carolina with a Test of Two Subsistence-Settlement Hypotheses for the Prehistoric Period. Research Manuscript Series Number 147. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia. Cable, John 1996 A Study of Archaeological Predictive Modeling in the Charleston Harbor Watershed, South Carolina. Report prepared for the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Charleston, by New South Associates, Irmo, South Carolina. Mills, Robert 1825 Charleston District, South Carolina surveyed by Charles Vignoles & Henry Ravenel, Atlas of the State of South Carolina, Made Under the Authority of the Legislature; Prefaced with a Geographical, Statistical and Historical Map of the State. F. Lucas, Jr., Baltimore. O Donoughue, Jason 2008a Living in the Low Country: Modeling Archaeological Site Location in the Francis Marion National Forest, South Carolina. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Poplin, Eric 1993 Archaeological Literature Review and Intensive Architectural Survey, North Rhett Avenue Improvement Corridor, North Charleston, South Carolina. Brockington and Associates. Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Scurry, James D Integrating Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Modeling: Validating Prehistoric Site-Settlement Models for the South Carolina Coastal Plain Using A GIS. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 6

6 *ALL BOUNDARIES DEPICTED ON THIS SKETCH ARE APPROXIMATE AND INTENDED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. / Meters SCALE: SOURCE: SEE SCALE BAR USGS: Ladson Quad SOURCE DATE: 1979 DATE: NOVEMBER 2014 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THE PROJECT AREA HANAHAN SCHOOL SITES #1 AND #2 BERKELEY COUNTY, SC S&ME JOB NO FIGURE # 1

7 *ALL BOUNDARIES DEPICTED ON THIS SKETCH ARE APPROXIMATE AND INTENDED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. DUPLIN WAHEE / DUPLIN WAHEE CAROLINE DUPLIN DUPLIN BETHERA WAHEE DUPLIN BETHERA CAROLINE CAROLINE Meters SCALE: SOURCE: SEE SCALE BAR ESRI, USDA SOURCE DATE: 2014 DATE: NOVEMBER 2014 AERIAL VIEW AND SOILS MAP HANAHAN SCHOOL SITES #1 AND #2 BERKELEY COUNTY, SC S&ME JOB NO FIGURE # 2

8 Figure 3. View of field conditions in the western portion of the Project Area, facing north. Figure 4. View of field conditions in the north central portion of the Project Area, facing north. This photograph includes track, and furrows from past silvicultural activity. 9

9 Figure 5. One of the dirt paths, marked on the topographic map as a tertiary roadway. This image is typical of the roadways during the time of the field investigation with approximately 30 percent of the ground surface visible in these areas. 10

10 Figure 6. Results of the ArchSite review, conducted as part of the background information. 11

11 Figure 7. A portion of Mills Atlas (1825). The approximate location of the Project Area is highlighted in red. Figure 8. A portion of the 1916 Berkeley County Soils map, the approximate location of the Project Area is highlighted in red. 12

12 *ALL BOUNDARIES DEPICTED ON THIS SKETCH ARE APPROXIMATE AND INTENDED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. / Legend HIGH PROBABILITY AREAS PROJECT AREA Meters SCALE: SOURCE: SEE SCALE BAR ESRI, USDA SOURCE DATE: 2014 DATE: NOVEMBER 2014 SITE PROBABILITY MODEL HANAHAN SCHOOL SITES #1 AND #2 BERKELEY COUNTY, SC S&ME JOB NO FIGURE # 9

13 *ALL BOUNDARIES DEPICTED ON THIS SKETCH ARE APPROXIMATE AND INTENDED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. / Deer Stand and Game Feeding Area > Isolated Find Utility Corridor Legend > POSITIVE SHOVEL TEST PITS NEGATIVE SHOVEL TEST PITS PROJECT AREA Meters SCALE: SOURCE: SEE SCALE BAR ESRI, USDA SOURCE DATE: 2014 DATE: NOVEMBER 2014 RESULTS OF THE FIELD INVESTIGATION HANAHAN SCHOOL SITES #1 AND #2 BERKELEY COUNTY, SC S&ME JOB NO FIGURE # 10

14 Figure 11. Isolated Artifact. 15

15 Figure 12. Drawing of a typical soil profile. 16