Archaeological Investigations at Yourhaney Plantation (38GE18)

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT YOURHANEY PLANTATION45RESULTSFigure 11 shows GPR anomalies at depths of 0-1 feet, 1-2 feet, and 2 or more feet. It wasoriginally assumed that less than 1 foot was too shallow to show significant features and that 1-2feet might more accurately represent the location of archaeological features of interest since the topsoil was typically around 1 foot deep. However, in combining the information from previous workand the EM data (discussed below), as well as our findings upon mechanical stripping, it appearsthat the data from anomalies identified between 0-1 foot depicts the locations of features of interest.Figure 12 shows the EM data presented as a contour map. This data shows a metal concentrationjust northeast of the datum in Grid 4, which corresponds to a nail concentration encountered byWeeks in his shovel test data (Figure 13). They also found the nail scatter to continue somewhat,but to a lesser degree northwest of the datum. The EM data, however inexplicably shows nothingin this area. There is an area south, southeast of the datum in Grid 3. However no nailconcentrations were identified here in previous shovel test data. In the eastern portion of Grid 4 isa linear reading, which upon mechanical stripping turned out to be a utility pipe. The area inGrids 6 and 7 where believed to be modern, since a trailer used to be situated in this location.This is the area of the clay cap, which was removed prior to the GPR and EM survey.CONCLUSIONSThe GPR data suggested that the area located primarily north of Jim Michie’s datum contained themajority of the features related to the historic occupation of the property. The EM data confirmedthe location of the nail concentration identified by Bill Weeks northeast of the datum. An areasoutheast of the datum also appeared to contain a metal concentration, although this was not anarea where previous work had identified a nail concentration. The area closest to the Pee DeeRiver also contained a large quantity of metal readings, but these were thought to be due to a utilitypipe and the former location of a trailer.No distinct trench or foundation signatures were identifiable in the data sets. GPR anomaliesinterpreted as potential archaeological targets were indicative of subsurface point targets within thedepth of interest, and were not guaranteed to be of archaeological significance.All of the methods employed in this investigation were non-intrusive. There is a possibility thattargets may exist at the project site that were not detectable by the GPR or EM techniques due toeither method limitations, subsurface soil conditions, or the occurrence of features below the depthof penetration of the signals.