Back to top

CRM: Resource Inventory II. S.C.S./D.O.E.. Experiment Project Plant Yates

Report Number
Year of Publication

Resource Inventory II investigations were conducted during February, 1989 for two tracts facing potential development at Plant Yates, Coweta County, Georgia. The research on the 10.0 acres pond tract and the 3.0 acre gypsum storage tract included an archival records search which focused on the chain of title. This task was completed to determine the historic record of land use and occupation. The pond tract underwent screened shovel cutting on a 30 meter interval to determine if any archaeological sites were present. The gypsum tract, which contained a previously recorded site, was examined through screened shovel tests on a 10 m interval and through the excavation of a 1 by 1 m unit. In addition, the standing privy and open well at the site were recorded. The inventory of the pond tract discovered no archaeological resources. In general, the soils were indicative of a highly dynamic, eroded stratigraphy. It is likely that any sites which were present earlier in the pond tract were destroyed through the agriculturally triggered erosion of the nineteenth century. The archaeological site in the gypsum tract, (T)GP-CW-01, is the suspected locus of a domestic structure possibly related to the vanished 1910-1930s community of Doolittle. oral history and the land records suggest that the site was first occupied by A.P. Madaris and family after 1906. The Madaris occupation apparently ended in 1925, after which the site was probably occupied by tenant farmers until Georgia Power Company purchased the property in 1948. A structure was reportedly standing at (T)GP-CW-01 into the 1950s. The sparse early twentieth century artifacts of the site were found only in mixed contexts with the more frequent middle to late twentieth century debris. Intact features were limited to a well and a possible root cellar depression. overall, the site element of sufficient age for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) consideration lacks both integrity and clarity, and the site is recommended as ineligible for the NRHP. No further work is recommended.