Background Research

Local historian Dr. Lee Formwalt was hired by former Cypress Pond owner Chip Hall in the 1980’s to conduct research on the history of the plantation. He provided an extensive report on the families who once resided on CPP. In order to confirm his research, I went to the Georgia Archives, located outside of Atlanta, to look at the same documents that Dr. Formwalt once did.

Tax digests proved to be most helpful in regards to researching the owners and activities of the plantation. According to employees at the state archives, tax digests from the 1800’s were “hit and miss.” Many counties didn’t have them or if they did, they were sparse. Fortunately, Dougherty County had the majority of tax digests available from its inception as a new county in 1853 though the 2000’s. I attempted to collect all tax information based on who owned the plantation during any given tax year.

As shown above, the tax digests were helpful in seeing how the plantation

changed over time. This was best seen with land lots being added and subtracted yearly, especially during the antebellum years. Some of the land lots that were original to the property in the 1850’s are not lots that are a part of the plantation today.

Tax digests were divided by militia districts and provided the following information:

§ Head of household

§ Number of polls (exclusive to males 21-60 years of age) § Taxable profession

§ Acreage owned (by land lot)

§ Value, quality, and quantity of acreage § District and county of where land is located § Shares held in banks, stocks and securities

§ Personal possessions, such as animals, tool implements, agricultural products, jewelry, etc.…

Post emancipation, the names of “freedmen” were recorded as a separate section in the back of the tax digests. Freedmen were African-American men and women who were hired to help out on plantations and other areas (Georgia Archives 2015b). Freedmen records documented:

§ The name of the freedman/freedwoman (first and last) § His/her employer

§ Polls

§ Acres owned (if any) and value § Value of city or town property

§ Value of any personal property, including household items, stocks, tools, merchandise

It is well known that census records can provide a wealth of information

regarding ancestors and property. Most of the historical information for the plantation was provided through census data. The records at the archives were both online through ancestry.com and on microfilm. Records presented on microfilm were categorized by type: agriculture, mortality, and social statistics, such as manufacturing, population, and slave schedules (Prechtel-Klushkens 1995). I concentrated on the records available from 1860 to the early 1900’s.

5.3 Field Methods

Five areas on Cypress Pond were found during the Phase I survey process through shovel testing and metal detection. The Phase II survey commenced with the excavation

of units in one prehistoric activity area. Each survey area was located within the eastern half of the plantation. All the historic areas were given the name “Survey Area #” based on when they were surveyed. Tapes measuring 100 m were laid out on the ground to mark where our stopping and ending points were.

Figure 5.1: The Eastern half of the plantation featuring all the areas surveyed (map made by the author).

Phase I survey:

The environmental firm TRC Solutions, Inc. had conducted a brief archaeological survey on a small portion of the plantation due to a proposed pipeline project targeted to go through Dougherty County and various surrounding counties. Through contact with TRC archaeologist Tracy Millis, he was able to provide me with information on the

areas where they had conducted their shovel tests. They had encountered evidence of historic and prehistoric occupations on CPP. I used their work as a starting point for mine. In my search for TRC’s survey area, my colleague Mary and I accidentally

stumbled upon a field with a large assortment of chert nodules on the surface. I decided to begin my fieldwork here. With Mary’s help, we laid out a 50 m x 50 m grid.

Once the rest of the crew had arrived the following day, we confirmed the

placement of the grid, marking each corner with a flag. A GPS coordinate of each corner was taken and noted. Shovel tests were done every 10 meters, only collecting diagnostic artifacts. Shovel tests were considered “positive” if artifacts were present, regardless of being diagnostic or not. A total of 25 shovel tests were conducted. Transect six was not shovel tested due to a lack of positive shovel tests in transect five. In January 2015, I conducted additional shovel tests to determine where the site ended. Each transect (north to south) and row (east to west) was shovel tested. I considered three consecutive negative shovel tests to be the end for each transect/row. Seventy-six shovel tests were performed.

The use of metal detectors in archaeological contexts is becoming more widely accepted in archaeology because of their usefulness in providing insight as to where potential historic sites may be. I employed the use of metal detectors on Cypress Pond as well. Four areas of historic activity were found through metal detecting. In addition to metal detecting, Survey Area 4 was shovel tested.

Aerial photos from Dougherty County were available though the Digital Library of Georgia, taken between about every decade from 1938 until 1977. Google Earth also had aerial images, spanning from 1993 until 2015. Some structures were seen in the

images, especially the images between 1938 and 1964. The placement of former structures was also one of the criteria when considering areas to survey.

Figures 5.2: A zoomed-in aerial image from 1938 showing several structures (top image). The magenta rectangle is the main house. The purple rectangle is where Survey Area 1

was located. Survey Area 3 was based on the aqua rectangle. The orange rectangle is where Survey Area 4 was located. The same structures are seen in the 1964 aerial below

(Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service 1938, 1964).

Four areas of historic activity were discovered through metal detecting. Survey Area 1 was located near the farm shops. A series of aerial photos taken between the

1930’s and the 1960’s indicated that there was a large structure near the main house. Based on this, a 100 m x 150 m grid was set up. Transects were walked east/west. Survey Area 2 was another 100 m x 100 m grid area set up near an area referred to as Aunt Mamie’s cabin. Gerald Lawhorn moved his aunt (and her cabin) to the property during his ownership (1994-2008). New Communities wanted this area surveyed because they were told that tenant housing was once there. A 100 m x 100 m area was set up and metal detected, walking north/south. Survey Area 3 was surveyed based on information that employees from New Communities stated that they had demolished a structure when they first acquired the property. Farm manager Brock Welch took me to the area where he remembered it to be. I set up a 100 m x 60 m grid and metal detected.

Survey Area 4 was in close proximity to where TRC had found historic artifacts during their survey. During the first week of November, a crew of three helped metal detect the 100 m x 100 m section. Systematic shovel tests were not performed here because I did not want an overlap between what TRC had done and what my crew and I were going to do. The following weekend, a crew of five shovel tested another 100 m x 100 m area located slightly north of the metal detected hectare. A total of 110 shovel tests were systematically done in 10 m intervals in ten transects. Although two areas were surveyed, the material culture was analyzed as one collective whole. All diagnostic artifacts were collected, bagged and labeled with their survey area number, artifact name, transect and shovel test number (if applicable), depth and GPS point if one was assigned.

Table 5.1: Areas surveyed with the method of surveying employed.

SURVEY AREA METHOD OF SURVEYING USED

Prehistoric Area 1 Shovel testing, excavating Historic Area 1 Metal detecting Historic Area 2 Metal detecting Historic Area 3 Metal detecting

Historic Area 4 Metal detecting, shovel testing

Phase II:

Phase II surveying was limited to the area of prehistoric activity. Based on the results from Phase I, I proceeded to open up a 2 m x 2 m unit (Unit 1) based on where the majority of artifacts from the shovel tests were found. It was assumed that the area had been plowed due to the history of the property and the ground being extremely compact. Due to time constraints, Unit 1 was narrowed to a 1 m x 1 m unit in the Southwest corner. Each level was systematically excavated every 10 centimeters until the level was sterile. Level 10 was excavated at 20 centimeters. Level 11, the final level, was excavated at 10 centimeters.

Three units were started but only one unit was fully excavated. Unit 1 was the first 2 m x 2 m unit opened up. Because Unit 1 had extremely compact dirt present, Unit 2 (2 m x 2 m) was opened to confirm whether the dirt was only within Unit 1 or

extended to Unit 2. Only the topsoil was removed before we hit the compact dirt. Due to limited time in the field, Unit 2 was filled back up. Artifacts were not collected. Per the advice of my advisor, Unit 1 was condensed down to a 1 m x 1 m in the Southwest corner, becoming Unit 3. Unit 3 was excavated until culturally sterile.