Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Altama Plantation Development Tract

R.S. Webb & Associates conducted a Phase I cultural resources survey for the proposed 2,271-hectare (ha)

(5,622-acre) Altama Plantation tract in Glynn County, Georgia. The study area is located along the northern

edge of the county, 6.0 kilometers southwest of Darien and 13.8 kilometers north of Brunswick, Georgia.

“Cultural resources” include archeological sites, historic structures, historic landscapes, and other entities

that are 50 years old or older. In this report this term is interchangeable with the term “historic properties”,

as defined by 36 CFR 800.16(l) and 36 CFR 60.4. The Phase I cultural resources survey was performed from

March 9 through July 17, 2011. The project was conducted in compliance with the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, to meet the conditions of United States Army Corps of Engineers

wetlands permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The purpose of the study was to locate and

identify cultural resources within the project Area of Potential Effects (APE), and to assess resource

significance based on National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria [36 CFR Part 60.4]. Given the

proposed residential and commercial nature of the project, the project APE was set at 100 meters (m) beyond

the physical project boundaries.

Literature Review: A Phase I-level literature review was conducted to determine if previously recorded

cultural resources are located within or adjacent to the project area. Documents and files reviewed included

the NRHP, the Georgia Archeological Site File (GASF), county historic structure files, compliance and

research reports, historic maps, and early aerial photographs. The resources at the Georgia Historical Society

in Savannah were reviewed for documents specific to the plantations within or partially within the project

area.

Phase I Archeological Resources Survey: The field team surveyed the project area along transects spaced

not more than 30 m apart, using surface and subsurface techniques. Exposed surfaces within the project area

were inspected for artifacts and surface features; landscapes were scanned for historic vegetation and

constructions. Subsurface techniques included the excavation of 30-by-30-centimeter screened shovel tests

taken to sterile subsoil. Shovel tests were excavated across the project area at 30-m intervals unless standing

water or saturated wetlands were encountered; standing water and saturated wetlands were avoided. Shovel

test soil profiles were recorded for each shovel test. The boundaries of archeological sites were delineated

by shovel tests excavated at 15 to 30-m intervals (depending on site size), or landform termination.

Historic Resources Survey and Viewshed Analysis: During the pedestrian field survey, the project area and

the APE were visually inspected for historic structures or other above-ground historic features that could be

more than 50 years old. Structures within the APE that appear to be at least 50 years old were assessed by

an architectural historian for age, condition, and style; each structure was photographed and plotted on the

project map. Various aspects of the viewshed were also photo-documented.

Literature Review: The files at HPD revealed that one NRHP-listed property, the Hofwyl-Broadfield

Plantation, is located approximately 1.0 km to the east of the project area boundary. This property is outside

the project APE and will not be affected by the current project. Review of maps at GASF revealed that six

previously recorded archeological sites are located within 1.6 km of the Altama Plantation tract; none of

these sites are located within the project area/APE. A historic resources survey completed in 1995 cataloged

One historic structure, designated GN-53, within the current project area. However, the structure form

indicated that the record was based only on historic written and photographic sources. It appears that GN-53

was intended to be a record of the Altama Plantation house built by James Hamilton Couper in 1857, but

razed in 1960. The 1995 Glynn County historic structure survey also recorded a series of structures and

features associated with the former Elizafield Plantation adjacent to the northeast project boundary. These

resources include a tabby rice mill ruin (GN-54), a slave cemetery (GN-55), and the Grant family cemetery

(GN-59). This property was used for many years as a “Boys Estate”. The property is now known as the

Morningstar Youth Treatment Facility. Several structures in this vicinity (GN-56, 57, and 58) were built in

the 1940-1960 period. None of these resources is within the project APE.

A review of the Official Military Atlas of the Civil War (Davis et al. 1983) indicates that no military action

or movements related to the Civil War occurred in or near the Altama Plantation property. Review of historic

documents, maps, plats, and aerial photography revealed that there were several structures and landscape

features within the boundaries of the project area. The tract encompasses the 19th century Hopeton and

Altama Plantations which were bought by John Couper and James Hamilton, but managed into successful

ventures by James Hamilton Couper. The Hopeton structures were situated on a peninsula in the northwest

part of the project area. Records and plats indicate that there was an original modest main house replaced

by a three-story tabby house around 1830. The houses were flanked by slave quarters, service buildings, and

a sugar mill. Four other “settlements” (slave or tenant) in the west part of the project area are noted on an

undated 19th century plat. James Hamilton Couper moved to Altama in the north central part of the project

area in the 1850s. The complex included a large tabby main house, barns and other service buildings, and

“quarters” at a distance south of the main house according to an 1879 plat. Early 20th century maps record

the Altamaha Plantation house and outbuildings and a house to the southwest of the plantation complex, as

well as the sugar mill, a hospital, and house on the Hopeton peninsula. Nineteenth and early 20th century

maps show at least five roads running into the project area. The field and canal system features established

by J.H. Couper in the early 19th century and recorded in his crop maps are reflected on 19th century plats and

early 20th century maps of the area.

Phase I Archeological Survey: The field survey resulted in the identification of 33 archeological sites and

18 isolated artifact finds (Table I; Figures 1a and b). Isolated Find (IF)-7 was incorporated into one of the

33 sites resulting in a total of 17 isolated finds. Thirty-seven prehistoric components were identified at 28

locations, while a historic period presence was recorded at 38 locations. The following prehistoric

components (including the isolated finds) were identified during survey: unknown prehistoric (n=2), Late

Archaic (n=6), Middle Woodland (n=10), Late Woodland (n=4), Woodland-Mississippian (n=11), and

Mississippian (n=4). During prehistory, the project area appears to have been occupied most intensively

during the Middle Woodland Deptford phase, represented by one residential site (9GN390) and several short

term task camps. Based on the archival records, historic use and occupation of the project area ranges from the early 19th century to the late 20th century. The most significant periods based on the archeological resources appear to be from the middle to late 19th century (n=9) and the late 19th to early 20th century (n=6) which represent the height and decline of plantation production. Eleven locations correspond to plantation-related signatures on historic maps and plats; these include the Altama Plantation (9GN390) and Hopeton Plantation (9GN402) complexes.

Historic Resources Survey and Viewshed Analysis: There are six historic resources within the Altama survey tract (Table I; Figure 2): the sugar mill at Hopeton, the Play House Complex, the Altama Outbuildings Complex, the Blue House, the Hopeton/Altama Agricultural System, and the Hopeton/Altama road system represented by the routes of five roads/trails. There are no historic resources within 100 m of the Altama Tract boundaries. Nine modern resources were recorded within the Altama study tract (Figure 2). These include four modern recreational cabins, an airstrip, and four ponds/lakes.

NRHP and Management Recommendations Archeological Resources Recommended Ineligible for the NRHP: Applying NRHP eligibility Criterion (d) in 36 CFR Part 60.4, 26 archeological sites and the 17 isolated finds are recommended ineligible for the NRHP (Table I). These resources are severely disturbed and exhibit little or no potential to add significant information about the prehistoric or historic settlement/use of the lower Altamaha River basin. No additional cultural resources work is recommended for these resources.

Historic Resources Recommended Ineligible for the NRHP: After applying NRHP Criteria (a), (b), and/or

(c) in 36 CFR 60.4, the five roads/trails representing the remains of the Hopeton/Altama Plantation road

system are recommended ineligible for listing on the NRHP (Table I). Most of the historic routes have been

intersected by 20th century logging/access roads, and disturbed by logging activities and/or later development. In some cases sections of roads have been realigned, paved/graveled or truncated. In addition the historic vegetation and settings associated with these roads have been significantly altered as a result of commercial logging and in some cases, modernization. For these reasons, none of the roads/trails within or adjacent to the Altama Tract meet NRHP eligibility criteria. No further cultural resources work is warranted for these resources.

Archeological Resources with an Unknown NRHP Eligibility Status: Five sites, 9GN378, 9GN380, 9GN382, 9GN385, and 9GN397, have an unknown NRHP eligibility status under Criterion (d). These resources could retain archeological features/deposits relating to the lifeways of slaves, sharecroppers/ tenants, and planters/owners living and working on the Hopeton and Altama Plantations from about 1805 into the early 20th century. Preservation is recommended for these five sites; if it is determined that some or all of these resources can not be preserved, then Phase II evaluation is recommended so that clear NRHP eligibility recommendations can be made.

Archeological Resources Recommended Eligible for the NRHP: Following NRHP eligibility Criterion (d)

in 36CFR Part 60.4, the archeological deposits sampled during site delineation at 9GN390 (Altama

Plantation) and 9GN402 (Hopeton Plantation) strongly suggest that these sites have the potential to yield

significant archeological information about life on Hopeton and Altama Plantations before and after the Civil War. In addition, the Middle to Late Woodland Deptford deposits (and perhaps others) at 9GN390 appear to have the potential to retain features and/or deposits that may address research on prehistoric settlement of the lower Altamaha River system. Preservation is recommended for these two sites. If it is not feasible for these sites to be avoided, then Phase II evaluation is recommended for the affected portions of these sites so that clear management recommendations can be made on the need for data recovery of specific areas. Historic Resources Recommended Eligible for the NRHP: Four historic resources, the Sugar Mill, Historic Outbuildings Complex, the “Blue House”, and the Agricultural System are recommended eligible for the NRHP (Table I). J.H. Couper’s Sugar Mill, located within archeological site 9GN402 is recommended eligible for the NRHP under Criterion (a) for history, Criterion (b) for its association with James Hamilton Couper, Criterion (c) for engineering, and Criterion (d) for its archeological research potential. The Sugar Mill is currently being preserved and project plans support the continuation of this treatment. If it is determined that preservation is not a viable option, then Phase III data recovery is recommended. HAER documentation is recommended for the Sugar Mill in either case. The Historic Outbuildings Complex, within the central part of 9GN390, includes a double-crib barn, a large “commissary” structure, a blacksmith and stable building, and a two-room saddle-bag type cottage. The

complex is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criteria (a) (history) and (c) (architecture). These

buildings were originally associated with the final stage of Altama as a working plantation, but were

maintained and used while the property evolved into its recreational form. The structures remain

representative of their type, period, and method of construction. Present project plans appear to affect some

portions of the Historic Outbuildings Complex. Preservation is recommended, but if this treatment is not

feasible, historic structure documentation is recommended. The Blue House is located in the southwest corner of 9GN390. This Georgian-type house with simple Colonial Revival style elements is recommended eligible for the NRHP under Criterion (c) for architecture as a good representative of its type, period, and method of construction. The structure’s significance is strengthened because it appears to be a frame emulation of the tabby Altama Plantation main house. Current project plans appear to avoid the Blue House. Preservation is recommended, but if this treatment is not feasible, historic structure documentation is recommended. The historic agricultural system includes the extensive fields, canals, banks/dikes, and footpaths that extend north to the river. This system was used extensively in rice culture and to a lesser degree for other crops at Hopeton and Altama Plantations and is recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion (a) for history, Criterion (b) for its association with J.H. Couper, and Criterion (c) for engineering. The agricultural system was developed and improved by Couper over a period of about 40 years as he applied the most recent technology of the time. The system was very successful and was emulated by many of the planters in the region. Project plans indicate the Agricultural System of dikes, canals and fields will remain protected as part of the jurisdictional wetlands. No further action is needed. The treatment of the eligible archeological and historic resources and the archeological resources with unknown NRHP status should be outlined in a project Memorandum of Agreement among the Owner, USACE, and the HPD.