Archaeological Investigations at Yourhaney Plantation (38GE18)

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT YOURHANEY PLANTATION49VI. RESULTS OF ARCHAEOLOGYMECHANICAL STRIPPINGBased on the previous fieldwork by Bill Weeks, Jim Michie, and New South Associates as well asthe results of the GPR and EM studies, New South Associates, in consultation with US Fish andWildlife Service Archaeologist Rick Kanaski, chose an area to mechanically strip. This would focuson the historic component of the site to include the plantation main house complex known to existand the suspected area of a 1716 Indian trading post thought to be present (Figure 14). No handexcavated test units were planned in the stripped area since Jim Michie had previously excavated99 1-meter squares (Figure 15) and no additional sampling was believed necessary.Initially, we looked most closely at the GPR targets found between 1 and 2 feet, as well as thelocation of most architectural artifacts. As a result New South chose an area that essentially placedthe existing datum planted by Bill Weeks and Jim Michie in the center of the area. While we hadconsidered stripping an area closer to the location of the old ferry crossing, discussions with localssuggested to us that the area may have been significantly impacted by previous utilities andbuildings including a mobile home.Interestingly, the mechanical stripping uncovered numerous features in an area north of JimMichie’s datum shown by the GPR data (1-2 feet) to contain few features. The data from 0-1 feetdid a better job at depicting this feature concentration. Of interest during the stripping was anarea of brick rubble/daub and organic midden overlying Features 24, 50, 108, 298 and anumber of posts. The source of the brick rubble is unclear, since large quantities of brick were notfound in any of the features. It is possible that a chimney was in this location, which had beenrobbed and was very shallowly set. This rubble corresponds with the densest area of brick foundin Bill Week’s reconnaissance survey (Figure 16) and overlaps with the nail concentration.However, hand wrought nails concentrate further grid east (Figure 17), suggesting that the area ofbrick rubble is later in the history of the site. Other possible structure areas were also encounteredgrid north of the datum.Stripping south of Michie’s datum where GPR results showed numerous anomalies at 1-2 feet, fewto none were found. The planned stripping in this area was terminated and the area closer to thelanding was examined. While the old utility pipe depicted by the EM study was encountered, nosignificant late historic disturbance was found. Features were uncovered in this area, but not in thedensity as found north of Michie’s datum.We concluded that the GPR survey was somewhat successful at locating features although theinformation wasn’t as coherent as we’d hoped. The EM study was somewhat more successful inthat it illustrated a peak in metal in an area that contained a great deal of nails found in shoveltests. However, the concentration southeast of the data appeared to be a high iron reading in thearea of a clay dome. Although the GPR and EM data provided some interesting data, the results ofshovel testing seemed to be the best indicator of, at least, architectural feature locations.