Archaeological Investigations at Yourhaney Plantation (38GE18)

40However, eight posts were used to compensate for one trench feature and four posts were used tocompensate for one pit feature.All features were drawn on the project map. Those chosen for excavation were bisected, with theplan and profile drawn and photographed. Float samples were taken from all non-post features.OCR and pollen samples were taken from features deemed to potentially contain significanttemporal and cultural information. Between 40 and 50 OCR samples would be taken from featurecontexts and from soil columns. Between 30 and 40 pollen samples would be taken from featurecontexts. All non-sample soils would be screened through 1/4 inch hardware cloth. The resultingartifacts were placed in a plastic ziplock bag with a water resistant paper tag containingprovenience information.LABORATORY METHODSArtifacts from this data recovery were analyzed as outlined below. The focus of the laboratoryanalysis was to determine the occupational range, likely function, manufacturer/user, socioeconomicstatus of occupants. In turn this information would be used to address the researchquestions presented. Typological analysis of diagnostic lithics and/or ceramics were the majordating mechanisms for prehistoric components, while historic materials were compared withpublished artifact descriptions. Period of occupation will be gauged through the application of theMean Ceramic Date formula (South 1977) and Bartovic’s (1981) ceramic probability contributionformula. OCR dates were also obtained to assist in feature dating.Prehistoric collections were compared with published site reports and materials from the region inorder to aid in the identification of both cultural and chronological association (for example, Coe1964; Anderson et al. 1982; DePratter 1979; Oliver 1985; Trinkley 1990).Historic collections were compared to descriptions provided in sources such as Brown (1982),Nelson (1968), South (1977), and Jones and Sullivan (1985) in order to determine temporalplacement. Site function was determined by artifact content and types of features identified.As previously mentioned, the focus on the fieldwork at the Yauhannah Bluff site was on the historiccomponent. Several types of specialized historic artifact analyses occurred. First was anexamination of the colonoware collection. From what is known about the historic occupation of thesite, one component is believed to represent a plantation main house. Recent work by Crane(1993) and Joseph (2004) suggest that colonowares should be examined not only by who madethese wares, but by what they were being made for. In an examination from an urban Charlestoncontext, Joseph (2004) used a typology created by Ron Anthony (2002) to suggest that somewares found on plantations were made for home use while others were made to sell to urbaninhabitants and perhaps, the rural planter class. The examination of colonowares from theYauhannah Bluff site tested Joseph’s model to determine how well it worked in a rural Georgetowncontext.New South also performed a detailed analysis of Native American artifacts believed to date to theearly historic period.