Investigation at Fort Yargo State Park, Barrow County

There have been conflicting opinions regarding the original location of the small (18 x 24 feet) log building known as Fort Yargo (Figure 1). Some argue that the building is in its original location; others state it was moved some 300 yards from its original site. Some believe that a military fort would not have been built on a slope, thereby giving up the higher ground advantage to a potential attacker, although there are historical accounts of this having happened elsewhere. Research is ongoing by the Friends of the Park group regarding the date of construction and original location of the building. The 1 1/2 story fortified house is located at the edge of a wooded area adjacent to a paved public road. It is far from the park office, and the 5' chain link fence provides limited protection from vandals. The question of whether or not the fort is in its original location recently became more important when the issue of relocating the building was presented. The local "Friends of the Park" chapter would like to move the building to a safer, more accessible location for their programs; park management would like to move the building to a location that can be more closely monitored. State Archaeologist David Crass and HPD architect William Hover examined the structure several months ago. It was obvious that much of the building was not original, but the question of original location was not addressed at that time. State Archaeologist David Crass and Staff Archaeologist Ronnie Rogers visited the site on March 3, 2004. Dr. Crass crawled under the building and examined the chimney, piers, wooden sills and joists, and the ground beneath the structure. No relict soil surface was observed, as would be expected if a long-standing structure had protected the ground beneath it from natural and anthropogenic effects. Joists appeared to have been cut with power saws and are replacements. Portland cement had been used in the base of the fieldstone chimney. The base was a mixture of several kinds of bricks, as well as stone, and the shape of the chimney was not typical of late 18"' or early 19th century construction. Individual logs had traces of numbers, suggesting that the building had been disassembled and later re-constructed. No artifacts, other than recent material, were found under the building or in the drip line on either side of the structure. Shovel tests were placed at five-meter intervals off each wall as shown in Figure 2. Four tests were dug within the fenced area surrounding the fort and three were dug outside the fenced area (the last test location on the west line fell on disturbed, graded area and was not dug). Shovel tests consisted of ca. 35cm diameter holes dug to clay subsoil. Soil was screened through 6.5 mm mesh hand screens, soil profiles were recorded, and the holes were filled. If this were the original location of the 1790's fort, we expected to see some artifacts dating to that period in the yard around the building; however, no pre-20th century artifacts were recovered from any of the tests. Six of the seven tests did contain more recent material, probably due to dumping from the nearby road. Based on archaeological evidence, this is not the original location of Fort Yargo.