Report No. 12June 18, 1984

S

An Archeological Overview andManagement Plan for the

Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant,Hancock County, Mississippi

Under Contract CX-5000-3-0771with the

National Park ServiceU.S. Department of the Interior

Washington DC 20240

for the

U.S. Army Materiel Development andReadiness Command

by _

.1.. ,, Gerald P. Smith

.; Department of Anthropology

I * QR Memphis State UniversityMemphis, TN 38152

L4J

Prepared under the Supervision of

' •~j ? . . 'Ruthann Knudson, WCC Principal Investigator

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsOne Walnut Creek Center

100 Pringle Avenue, Walnut Creek, CA 94596

84 09 18 027'

sun2- 101 ________________________________________REPORT DOCUM 019TA 11irftNo~. L L. RocipeeWs Aceession No.

PAGE__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4. Title and SubtitleLMoeAn Archeological Overview and Management Plan for the June fA, 1984Mississippi Army Azmmunition Plant, Hancock County, Mississippi i

7 AuthorA. Performing Organization Rept. No.ri -eadP. Smith DARCOM report #12

9. Performind Orilaninatien NAMe and Adrs ML. Project/Task/wor1I unit m..

WoodwAard-Clyde Consultants subcontractor: 609U3A/O0Ol-1One Walnut Creek Center Memphis State University It. ontecie~C) or Gront(G) No.100 Pringl~e Avenue Memphie, TN 38152 ()C-00307

Walnut Creek, CA 94596(C

12. Sponsoring Organisation, Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period CoveredU. S. Department of the Interior FINALNational Park ServiceIhitssell Federal Building, 75 Spring Street S.W. .

A~lanta, GA 30303A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

AL. tu.implmentory Notes This report was prepared as part of the DARCOM Historical/ArcheologicalSurvey (DHAS), an inter-agency technical services program to develop facility-specificarcheological overviews and management plans for the U. S. Army Materiel Development and

IL. Abstract (Limit: 200 wunds)

0. The Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant (AAP) is the first ammunition plant to have beenbuilt by the U. S. Army in more than 25 years. The facility is located on the northernportion of NASA's National Space Technology Laboratory (NSTL) facility near Bay St.Louis, Hancock County, Mississippi. The 7,148-acre plant manufactures projectiles.Construction began in 1979 and will continue until 1984. A brief reconnaissance surveyof cultural resources was conducted in 1974; however, no artheological sites were foundor recorded. Information exists for the plant vicinity, however, which indicates thatboth prehistoric and historic sites occur in the area, and could also occur on thefacility property. Prehistoric sites spanning the entire period of human occupation ofthe area are known, and an important contact-period Indian village is suggested to be inthe immediate vicinity. Management recommendatinns include a staged archival andarcheological study in order to develop a data base for use in historic preservationplanning. The base cost of this recommended Phase I program is anticipated to cost7between $72,200 and $85,560 in FY84 dollars. This proposed program represents an idealmodel for cultural resource management at the Mississippi AA.P.

17. Document AnelyuItk v. DescriptorsArcheolog'cal Management reference: Thesaurus of Engineec.Lng

* Army Ins tallation Management and Scientific TermsEnvironmental Assessment

b. Identflfirs/OpenCinded TermsCultural Resource Management

* Mississippi HistoryMississippi PrehistoryMississippi Paleoenvironments

c. COSATI Field/Grcop 5f111. Availability Statement 19. Security Class (This Report) 21. No. of PagesAvailable for public release Unclassified xi + 51

2(L Security Class (This Pogoe) 22. PriceUnclassif led

(Son ANSI-139.1) See Instructions on Reverse OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)ii (Formerly NTIS-3S)

Deportment of commerce

0212D-1

MANAGEMENT SUVMARY

The Mississippi Army KMunition Plant (AAP) is the first ammnitionplant to have been built by the U. S. Army in more than 25 years. Thefacility is located on the northern portion of NASA's National SpaceTechnology Laboratory C(STL) facility near Day St. Louis, Mississippi.The 7,148-acre plant employs the most modern advances in manufacturingmethods and technology in its manufacture of projectiles. Consttuctionof the facility began in 1979 and will continue until 1984.

A brief cultural resources reconnaissance of the pre-facility areawas conducted in 1974, but there are no apparent surviving records.Present information indicates that no archeological sites were identifiedor recorded. Sufficient archeological and historic data exist for theplant vicinity, however, to indicate that prehistoric and/or historicarcheological remains could occur on the property. Recorded prehistoricsites in the facility area include sites representing the entire span ofhuman occupation of the area, while historic data suggest that an impor-tant contact-period Indian village is within the immediate vicinity.

Management recounendations include a staged archival and archeolog-ical study in order to develop a data base for use in historic preserva-tion planning. The base cost of the recommended Phase I program isanticipated to cost between $72,200 and $85,560 in FY84 dollars.

/' 7

<:11

ii.i

0212D-2

PREPAEURS AND QUALIFICATIONS

Gerald P. Smith in the Principal investigator and author of thisreport. He holds a BA with Honors in Anthropology, an MA in Anthropology(University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill), and a PhD in Anthropology(University of Missouri-Columbia), all with wphasis in archeology andgraduate minors in physical and historical geography. He is an adjunctAssociate Professor of Anthropology at emwphis State University and hasbeen curator of that'Department's Chucalissa facility since 1968. His 20years of experience in southeastern archeology has included excavationand survey work in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Hisiissippi, Nissouri,North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, with emphasis on culturalresource management projects during the past ten years.

1

iv

0212D-3

ACINOWLDGEMME.S

Mr. Raymond Leibelaperger (Chief of Operations and Review) and DonBales (Forester) at the Mississippi Army ALminition Plant were most cor-dial in the arrangements for Dr. Gerald Smith's visit to the facility.Mr. Bales was an enthusiastic and knowledgeable guide over the facility,assisting in the review of the various activity areas and potentialarcheological resource areas. He also provided useful insight into mamsof the local botanical resources and forest management methods, whichdiffer somewhat from those Dr. Smith had previously encountered in coast-al Virginia and Worth Carolina. Dr. Harold Balbach, U. S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Champaign, Illinois, provided information on some previousbrief reconnaissance survey work conducted on the Mississippi AAP.

Additional thanks go to Dr. Mark 2. Barnes and Ms. Susan Garett, UPPS,SERO; Ms. Mary Lee Jefferson, UPS, WASO; Mr. Ilbert Hilliard, MisaissippiSHPO, and his staff, who reviewed the draft Mississippi document; and Ms.Susan Cleveland, Contracting Officer, UPS. SRlO.

Final report preparation, including graphics, has been completed byWoodward-Clyde Consultants, with editorial review (particularly of man-agement recomnendations) and text preparation completed by Dr. RuthannKnudson, Ms. Betty Schmucker, and Mr. Charles Mclutt, Jr.

ILV

0212D-4

TABLE OF CON1TENTS

Page

ITIS FORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MANAGEMHNT SUMMAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....

PREPARERS AND QUALICIONS .C .. ................. iv

ACEHOWLEDGKEUNTS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

LIST OF TABLES ................ . . . . . . viii

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

..0 ZITRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.1 Purpose and Need . . . . ....... 1-11.2 The Mississippi. Arymu.nitionlnt ......... 1-41.3 Summary of Previous Archeological Work .... .......... ... 1-41.4 The Sociocultural Context of the Archeological Resources

in the Vicinity of the Mississippi AAP. .............. ... 1-6

2.0 AN OVERVIEW OF THE CULTURAL AND RELEVANT NATURAL HISTORY OF

THE MISSISSPPI AAP ...... ................... 2-1

2.1 The Physical Environment ......... ................. ... 2-1

2.1.1 Earth Resources ............. ............... ... 2-12.1.2 Water Resources ...... ............... . 2-12.1.3 Modern Climate .............. ............... ... 2-12.1.4 Plant Resources ............. .............. .... 2-22.1.5 Animal Resources ............ ............... ... 2-22.1.6 Palsoenvironment ............ ............... ... 2-2

2.2 The Cultural Environment ......... ................. ... 2-4

2.2.1 Prehistory ............................ 2-42.2.2 Ethnohistory ........ ................ . . . . 2-142.2.3 History ................ ...................... 2-15

2.3 Archeological Research Directions ...... ............ .. 2-17

2.3.1 Regional Concerns ........... ................ ... 2-17

vi

0212D-5

TABLE OF CONTENTS (concluded)

Page2 2.3.2 Installation-Specific Archeological Research

Direction. . . . . . . .............. 2-17

3.0 AN ASSESSMENT OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCE PRRSERVATION AUDSURVEY ADEQUACY . . . . . . . . . ............ . . . 3-1

3.1 Envi~ronmental Constraints to Site Preservation . . . . . . 3-1.3.2 Historic and Recent Land Use Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1.3.3 Summary Assessment of Data Adequacy and Caps . . . . . . . 3-2

4.0 KNOWN ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON THE MISSISSIPPI AAP . . . . . 4-1

5.0 AN ASSESSMNhgT OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ARCHEOLOGICALRESOURCE BASE ON THE MISSISSIPPI AAP . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1 The Significant Resource Base . . . . ......... . . 5-1

5.1.1 Prehistoric Cultural Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15.1.2 Historic Cultural Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.2 Ideal Goals and Objectives . . . . ............ 5-5

6.0 A RECOMMENDED ARCHEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THEMISSISSIPPI LAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . .•. . . . . . . 6-1

6.1 Facility laster Plan.. . . ... ....... . 6-6.2 Appropriate Archeological Management Coals within the

Mississippi AAP's Master Plan ....... ............. .... 6-1

6.2.1 General Facility Planning.. ._...... .... ...... ... 6-16.2.2 A Summary of Recommended Management Directions

and Priorities ....... ................... 6-1

6.3 Estimated Scope of Work and Cost Levels for PresentlyIdentifiable Management geeds ............... . . . 6-3

6.3.1 Goals and Sources of Data .... ............ . 6-36.3.2 Activitiess.... . . .... .. . .. .. .. .. .... 6-36.3.3 Personnel Qualifications .............. .......... 6-6

7.0 SUMMARY ............ ............................ 7-1

8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.1 Primary Sources and References Cited .... ........ ... 8-18.2 Other Pertinent Literature ....... .............. ... 8-3

vii

0212D-6

LIST OF TABLES

Table Pas:

2-1 A SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY OF THEMISSISSIPPI AAP. ....................... 2-3

2-2 SUMMARY OF CULTURAL CHROiOLOGY OF THE AREA OF THEMISSISSIPPI AAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1.1

3-1 SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL AND MODERN GROUND DISTURBANCETHAT NIGHT LIMIT THE PRSE9NT ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCE BASEO THE EISSISSIPPI AA ...................... ... 3-3

5-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON THEMISSISSIPPZI AP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

viii

0 0212D- I

LIST OF FIGURES

Fi.guro Page

1-1 MAP OF THE GENERAL VICINITY OF THE MISSISSIPPI AAP . . . . . . 1-2

1-2 MASTER BASSEMAP OF THE MISSISSIPPI AAP? . . .................... . . 1-5

2-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF MAJOR GEOGRAPHIC FEATURESDURING GTHEPALIO-INDIANP PRROD.................. . 2-5 :

2-2 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF MAJOR GEOGRAPHIC FEATURESDURING THE EARLY AND MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIODS, ABOUT8000-4000 BC . .* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

2-3 APPROXIMATE LOCATION Of MAJOR GEOGRAPHIC FEATURESDURING THE MIDDLE AND LATE ARCHAIC PERIODS, ABOUT4000-2000 BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

*2-4 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF MAJOR GEOGRAPHIC FEATURESDURING THE POVERTY POINT AND TCHEFUNCTS ERID,

f.ABOUT 2000 BC-AD 12.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

*2-5 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF MAJOR GEOGRAPHIC FEATURESDURING THE MIDDLE AND LATE WOODLAND PERIODS, ABOUTAD 1-800 ft ft ft ft ft . ft ft ft ft ft ft . ft ft ft ft ft . ft . ft . . . 2-9

*2-6 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF MAJOR GEOGRAPHIC FEATURESDURING THE COLES CREEKC AND MISSISSIPPIAN PERIODS,ABOUT AD 800-1550 ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft . f.f. . f.f. . f. . . . . ft 2-10

3-1 GROUND DISTURBANCE THAT MIGHT LIMIT THE PRESENTARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCE BASE ON THE MISSISSIPPI AAP ft .. . 3-4

ix

0212D-8

FORNWORD

-!

Au a federal agency with large public land holdings, the U. S. Armyis responsible for the stewardship of a variety of natural and culturalresources that are part of its installations' landscapes. The Army'sMaterial Development and Readiness Comuand (DARCOM) presently manages anationwide network of 65 installations and 101 subinstallations and saps-rate units, which range in sixe from one acre to over one million acres.An part of its programs of environmental and property management, DARCONhas requested that the U. S. Department of the Interior's National ParkService provide technical guidance to develop programs for managing in-stallation cultural resources.

UPS is thus conducting the DARCON IHistorical/Archeological Survey(DHAS), which has two major disciplinary elements. The architectural re-view and planning function is being directed by the Service's HistoricAmerican Buildings Survey (HABS), While the prehistoric and historicarcheological resource assessment and planning function in the responsi-bility of the Service's Interagency Resource Division (IRD). lID has con-tracted with Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) for the development ofguidelines for the DARCOM archeological management planning effort, andfor the completion of 41 overviews and plans throughout the central UnitedStates. WCC has in turn subcontracted the technical studies to severalregional subcontractors, with final editorial review of reports and prup-aration of text and illustrations handled by WCC.

This overview and recommended management plan for the archeologicalresources of the Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant was prepared by MemphisState University, Memphis, under subcontract to WCC. It follows the guid-ance of "A Work Plan for the Development of Archeological Overviews andManagement Plans for Selected U. S. Department of the Army DARCOM Facili-ties," prepared by Ruthann Knudson, David J. Fee, and Steven E. James asReport No. 1 under the WCC DARCON contract. A complete list of DHAS proj-ect reports is available from the National Park Service, Washington, DC.

The DHAS program marks a significant threshhold in American culturalresource management. It provides guidance that is nationally applicable,is appropriately directed to meeting DARCOK resource management needswithin the context of the Army's military mission, and is developed incomplement to state and regional preservation protection planning (the RP3process, through State Historic Preservation Offices). All of us partici-pating in this effort, particularly in the development of this report, are

K K -

0212D-9

pleased to have had this opportunity. Woodward-Clyde Consultants appre-ciates the technical and contractual guidance provided by the NationalPark Service in this effort, from the Atlanta and Washington DC officesand also from other specialists in NPS regional offices in Philadelphia,Denver, and San Francisco.Woodward-Clyde Consultants Ruthann Knudson

x-i

xi

0210D-1

1.0

INTRODUCTION

The following report is an overview of and recommended managementplan for the prehistoric and historic archeological resources that arepresently known or likely to occur on the Mississippi Army AmmunitionPlant in Hancock County, Mississippi (Figure 1-1). This facility is aninstallation of the U. S. Department of the Army DARCOM (Materiel Devel-opment and Readiness Command), which as a reservation of public land hasresponsibilities for the stewardship of the cultural resources that arelocated on it. The following is that portion of the facility-specificsurvey that is focused on the prehistoric and historic resource base ofthe Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant (AAP), and was developed in accor-dance with the Level B requirements as set forth in the archeologicalproject Work Plan (Knudson, Fee, and James 1983). A companion historicarchitectural study is in preparation by the National Park Service's His-toric American Building Survey (HABS), but is not yet available (WilliamBrenner, personal comuunication 1984).

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED

A corpus of federal laws and regulations mandate cultural resourcesmanagement on DARCOM facilities. Briefly these are:

* The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (80Stat. 915, 94 Stat. 2987; 16 USC 470), with requirements to,

- inventory, evaluate, and where appropriate nominate to theNational Register of Historic Places all archeological proper-ties under agency ownership or control (Sec. 110(a)(2))

- prior to the approval of any ground-disturbing undertaking,take into account the project's effect on any NationalRegister-listed or eligible property; afford the AdvisoryCouncil on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity tocoment on the proposed project (Sec. 106)

- complete an appropriate data recovery program on an eligibleor listed National Register archeological site prior to itsbeing heavily damaged or destroyed (Sec. 110(b), as reportedby the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs [96thCongress, 2nd Session, House Report No. 96-1457, p. 36-371)

1-1

, ,4 S

*I 9 )

~ *N q

-AJ

1-2'

0210D-2

* Executive Order 11593 (36 FR 8921), whose requirements forinventory, evaluation, and nomination, and for the recovery ofproperty information before site demolition, are codified in the1980 amended National Historic Preservation Act.

* The Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (88Stat. 174, 16 USC 469), which requires that notice of an agencyproject that will destroy a significant archeological site beprovided to the Secretary of the Interior; either the Secretaryor the notifying agency may support survey or data recovery pro-grams to preserve the resource's information values

* The Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (93 Stat.721, 16 USC 470aa; this su~persedes the Antiquities Act of 1906(93 Stat. 225, 16 USC 432-4311), with provisions that effective-

ly mean that

- The Secretary of the Army may issue excavation permits forarcheological resources on DARCOM lands (See. 4)

- No one can damage an archeological resource on DARCOM landswithout a permit, or suffer criminal (Sec. 6) or civil penal-ties (See. 7)

* 36 CFR 800, "Protection if Historic and Cultural Properties" (44FR 6068, as amended in May 1982); these regulations from theAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation set forth proceduresfor compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preser-vation Act

* Department of the Interior procedures for determining site eli-gibility for the National Register of Historic Places (36 CPR60, 36 CPR 63), and standards for data recovery (proposed 36 CPR66)

* UniLed States Department of the Army procedures and standardsfor the preserving historic properties (32 CPR 650.181-650.193;Technical NManu 5-801-1; Technica.l Vte 78-17; Army Regulation420); and procedures for implementing the ArchaeologicalResources Protection Act (32 CFR 229).

Integratlon of the necessary procedures into basic facility opera-tions and planning in needed to assure effective management of the var-ious archeological resources on the property and minimize the risk ofunanticipated project disruptions. This operational integration shouldinclude assuring awareness of the locations and need for preservation ofthe resources on the part of maintenance personnel as well as the engi-neering and planning staff in order to preclude damage from maintenanceand groundskeeping activities. Over a period of time a tree plantedhere, a drain line or sidewalk run there, and a bucket of "X" dumped

1-3

0210D-3

somewhere else can destroy a site as effectively as a bulldozer and in along-term hazard which may best be prevented by routine facility-lovelprocedures.

1.2 THE MISSISSIPPI ARMY AMMUIITION PLANT

The Mississippi Army Amunition Plant (UAP) is the first auwnitionplant to have been built by the U. 3. Army in more than 25 years. Thenew plant is located on the northern portion of NASA's rational SpaceTechnology Laboratories (NSTL) facility near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi,and consists of three separate manufacturing complexes: the projectilemetal parts area; the cargo metal parts area; the load, assemble, andpack area; plus support and administrative facilities (Figure 1-2). Theplant employs the most modern advances in manufacturing methods and tech-nology to integrate fully in one location all steps of projectile manu-facture. The 7,148-acre plant is designed to be capable of producing the155mm M483A1 artillery projectile. This will contribute significantly tothe army's capability to meet mobilization requirements for this new typeof artillery shell...

Construction and equipping of this important new facility, whichbegan in early 1979, will continue until 1984. Overall development andmanagement of the project is the responsibility of the Army's ProjectManager for Munitions Production Base Modernization and Expansion. TheArmy Corps of Engineers is responsible for plant construction, which isbeing accomplished under contracts by commercial construction firms.This is a government-owned/contractor-operated (COCO) facility operatedby Mason Chamberlain Incorporated, integrating construction and equipmentpurchase and installation activities to provide efficient, smooth runningproduction lines.

To date, construction activities under the supervision of the U. S.Army Corps of Engineers include the following:

. First increment of site development: clearing and grubbing,ditching and drainage for the metal parts manufacturing area

* Second increment of site development: sanitary sewage, potablewater, roadway layout and paving, railroads in metal parts manu-facturing area, and 13.8kv power distribution from NSTL substa-tion to MPTS area

1.3 SUKMARY OF PREVIOUS ARCHEOLOGICAL WORK

A selectiv'. ultural resources reconnaissance survey was conducted atthe Mississippi AAP in 1974. This was described as "minimal" survey, asthe surveyors apparently only looked in the "most likely spots" ofapparently unspecified portions of the then pre-facility property area.No archeological sites or isolated finds were recorded; only receuthistoric trash was found on what is now facility property. U. S. Army

1-4

1-5-

0210D-4

Corps of Ingineers personnel have apparently discarded records from thatperiod, and have no copy of any report that may have been written (HaroldBalbach, personal communication 1984). Further, there are no survivingrecords of any field roconnaiesance in the Mississippi Department ofArchives and History Archaeological Survey files.

1.4 THE SOCIOCULTURAL CONTEXT OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN THE VICINITYOF THE MISSISSIPPI ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT

Local archeological resources can be expected to have quite different"significance to various groups and individuals in the area, or even farbeyond the area. Archeologists are concerned with archeologicalresources in terms of the scientific information they can provide abouthuman ways of life as they have developed through time. This concernincludes topics ranging from the technology of particular tools to into-gration of local data into large-scale patterns of human activity.

Historians share many concerns of the archeologist but confine them-selves to the relatively short, recent period of written records. Theirinterests generally emphasize the use of archeological data to confirmand/or expand the written record of the area. Within this context theFrench were the earliest settlers of the region and their descendantsmaIntain a continuing interest in the history and customs of those net-tiers.

Geologists and engineers have come to take a strong interest in thearcheology of the Pearl River area and the adjacent areas because of theclose association of archeological sites with key geological features.Detailed chronologies and local environmental data recovered by thearcheologists are crucial information for geologists and engineers seek-ing to understand and deal with processes affecting the 'behavior of theriver today.

The !irst known historic inhabitants of the area, the Acolapissa andTangipahoa Indian tribes, no longer ew.ist. Choctaws from central Missis-.sippi have been moving into the area since the early nineteenth centuryand are also frequent temporary residents while working in the area oilfields and shipyards (Grady John, personal coummunication 1984). Thereare also many Indian groups in the nation and region who take an interestin archoologicaX resources and whoue members are often quite mobile. Theinterests of theme groups span the entire range of concern for such re-sources, from representing the surviving evidence of their cultural heri-tage to use of the resources as vehicles for social and political activi-ties. Any actual or potential distutzbance or destruction of Indian bur-ials is a particularly sensitive issue. It musat be handled with greatcare whenever raised, regardless of any apparent relationship or lack ofrelationship between the particular living and dead individuals involved.

1-6

0204D-1

2.0

AN OVERVIEW OF THE CULTURAL AND RELEVANT

NATURAL HISTORY OF THE MISSISSIPPI AAP,

2.1 THE PH•SICAL ENVIRONHENT

2.1.1 Earth ResourcesThe Mississippi Army Auwnition Plant is located on a Coastal Plain

marine terrace overlooking the floodplain of the Pearl River. Soils ofthis terrace consist primarily of Atmore Silt Loam, Harleston fine SandyLoam, lscambia Loam, and Siuthton Fine Sandy Loam (Smith at al. 1981).These are strongly acid soils that are often wet or flooded except forthe Harleston soil, which in moderately well drained. The soils of thePearl River floodplain are the frequently flooded Arkabutla-Rosebloom andHandsboro soil associations. A few small areas of Poarch Fine SandyLoam, a strongly acid but well drained soil, occur along the edge of thePearl River floodplain. The general warm climate and high rainfall ofthe area are specifically noted by Smith et al. (1981:59) as causingsevere leaching of nutrients from the soils of the area. The Poarch,Harleston, and Escambia soils are all considered capable (under modernintensive management) of corn yields on the order of 90 bushels per acre,and Atmore can produce about 40 bushels per acre. Their productivityunder pro-industrial, no-fertilizer conditions would have been severelylimited in both quantity and temporal duration.

Local lithic resources are gravels from the Pearl River floodplain,consisting primarily of small chart cobbles derived from inland deposits.

2.1.2 Water ResourcesThe water resources of the AAP consist of a network of swampy streams

"on the marine terrace surface, and the various channels of the PearlRiver through its floodplain on the western edge.

2.1.3 /gdern ClimateThe modern climate can be stumarized as humid, with short mild win-

tore and long hot sumuers. Recant data from Bay St. Louis indicate agrowing season of over 280 days during eight out of ton years (Smith atal. 1981:71). Minimum temperatures below freezing can be expected resu-larly by early December and continua to occur as late as early March dur-ing 2 out of 10 years. Maximum temperatures above 900 F. (320 C) contin-ue regularly from early May through late September. Rainfall averages

2-1

0204D-2

slightly under 57 inches per year, with 3.9 or more inch*@ per month ex-pectable every month except October and November, which average 2.42 and3.35 inches respectively. The maximam average in 6.38 inches during :Iep-tember, Which is also the peak of the hurricane season. Hurricanes passthrough or near the.. oe* very few years and can produce severe damage byvarious combinations of high winds, high tides, heavy rainfall, and spin-off tornadoes.

2.1.4 Plant ResourcesThe terrace surface is covered by a mixed pine forest composed pri-

marily of longleaf, shortleaf, and loblolly pines mixed with a wide var-* iety of hardwoods, shrubs, and palmetto in the areas of greater mois-

ture. Areas with better drained, sandy soils are generally covered withthe longleaf pine and wiregrass, while the moist soils of stream valleysand silt loam flatwoods include a complex mixture of loblolly and short-

* leaf pines, magnolia, beech, holly, oaks, hickories, gums , and walnut.

several researchers, notably Quarterman and Keever (1962) and Del-court and Delcourt (1977), have emphasized the role of fire in maintain-ing the pine forest. They note the strong tendency of hardwoods to re-place pines on moist soils throughout the southeastern coastal plainnorth of the Florida peninsula when fire control is introduced and main-tained. The Pearl River floodplain was essentially a Sum-cypress swampuntil the cypress tress were removed by logging operations during thelate nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Pecan, shagbark hickory, and walnut would have provided the primasources of nuts since they do not require leaching of excess tannic acidbefore they are eaten by humans. Their occurrence is scattered along themargins of areas of moist soils and they are minor species in the totalforest composition. other important vegetal resources include grape,persinuon, blackberries, greenbrier (root), and cattail (root) as sourcesof food, and cambe as a key industrial plant for use in matting, basket-ry, blowguns. arrow shafts, and knives.

2.1.5 Animal ResourcesAnimals of particular importance in the Coastal Plain terrace zone

would include deer, bear, rabbit, and turkey. These species would also

be present in far lesser numbers and/or seasonally in the floodplain,where beaver, muiskrat. raccoon, alligator, mink, and otter were the more

* plentiful resident Same. Fresh water species such as drum, buffalo, cat-* ~fish, crawfish, and clams would also have been obtainable from the flood-

plain. Only a few miles away by canoe are the Pearl River estuary, thegulf of Mexico, and Lake Pontchartrain with their wide variety of fish,ducks, and marshland resources.

2.1.6 PalooniroDpM2LtLThe past onvirotiments of the Plant area have been subject to drastic

changes during the past 12,000 years, the period of best documented humanpresence in the New World (Table 2-1). Primary factors involved have

00477D-1

Table 2-1. A SUMMARY OF THE EUVIIOUMEMTAL HISTORY OF THE AREA OF THEMISSISSIPPI AAPa

Date Inferred Climate Primary Forest Composition

Present Temperatures and rain- Pine forest on marine terraces,fall approximate modern Sum-cypress forest in major

to conditions stream bottoms, mixed hardwoodson stream margins

2000 DC Temperatures above Oak-pine forest on terracesmodern conditions and with magnolia increasing,rainfall below or near hickory and sweetsum decreasing

to modern conditions rapidly; mixed hardwoods andSum-cypress swamp in samehabitats as modern

8000 BC Temperatures at or Oak-hickory-pine forest onslishtly below modern terraces with sweetgum a majorconditions; rainfall secondary species; mixed hard-somewhat above modern woods and Sum-cypress swamp inconditions same habitats as modern

a Data based on Delcourt 1980.

2-3

0204D-.3

been changes in noa level, major east-west changes in the location of themouth of the Mississippi River, and climatic changes. Up to about 8000DC the coastline may have initially been up to 50 miles south of itspresent position, with sea level as much as 120 feet below its presentlevel and the mouth of the Mississippi southeast of Nei Orleans (Figure2-1). Under these conditions the Pearl River would initially have beendeeply entrenched, but would have undergone progressive filling of itsvalley as sea level rose to about 60 feet below present levels by the endof the period. Pollen studies undertaken just northeast of Mobile, Ala-bama, in a similar geographic setting (Delcourt 1980) suggest somewhathigher rainfall and a forest cover composed of mixed oak-hickory-pineforest with sweetgum as a major secondary species. Such a forest shouldhave had a far higher carrying capacity than the modern forest for suchspecies as deer, bear, turkey, and squirrel due to the much greater abun-dance of nuts. Swamp and coastal plant and animal species would havebeen far lses locally important due to lack of habitat.

Between about 8000 and 3000 D0 the primary changes appear to havebeen a reduction in the hickory and sweetgum importance in the local for-est and formation of offshore barrier islands through the present loe-stion of Now Orleans eastward to about Waveland (Figure 2-2). Rapidchanges between about 3000 and 2000 BC saw a rise in sea level to aboutthe present level, formation of a new, eastward-growing Mississippi Riverdelta, and replacement of the oak-hickory-pine forest by essentially mod-ern forest composition (Figure 2-3). The rapid sea level rise would haveconverted the Pearl River valley into an estuary similar to Mobile Dayperhaps as far upstream as the Plant property, and would have begun theconversion of an ambayment of the Gulf of Mexico into the present LakePontchartrain. Changes since about 2000 BC have consisted largely ofsiltation of the postulated Pearl River estuary, formation of the modernMississippi River delta area southeast of New 0rleans, and reclamation bythe Gulf of Mexico of much of the area east and west of that delta thathad once been filled by the earlier delta formations (Figures 2-4, 2-5.2-6).

2.2 CULTURAL ENVIRONMEIT

2.2.1 PrehistoryThe southeastern United States has had a human occupation for at

least the past 12,000 years and perhaps longer (Table 2-2). The earliestwell documented occupations are those of the Palso-Indian culture. Flut-ed and unfluted Clovis points have been found in the area on the Prairieand Deweyville terraces, the lowest and most recent of the coastal plainterraces. Such points are normally associated with stone knives, scrap-ers, drills, and bone-working tools. The area at that time would havebeen in oak-hickory-pine forest on the uplands and probably a Sum-cypressswamp in the Pearl River valley. The Gulf of Mexico would have been sev-oral miles further away than at present and an open coastline would haveextended almost due east and west to the Mississippi River, then in anorth-south channel well to the west of present day New Orleans (Figure2-1).

2-4

ILc2 E

4C

2-5S

ri ccO

2-6-

uj8

U-

2-72

K 2 2

WEz

CC O

4~L 6%

CK U

0Il.

0 N

2-8 c

IC

Nw

LLdI

.11J

2-9o

CL

2-10

cc .00

IA 0

-4 90 ý4 *

.4 al

w'A 4 w a44 4)0.J ~ 4a 44

44 '

0 P4 -4 '.

.4 .4 IN 4

- ~ h .4

.4) 6 .4 -W-4 '.

2.4 he 0 w 'i)ia h4A U -4 o-1.4

hiIG 44 to -.. 0. 4

44 to4 44 4) .4.4

I j .4 -1 :ý4

4-4 -0 04 N 0b4 P44 0

4) 0 ~ 0 04) 4)0 %0 00 ~0 Un 0 N%

-44 4

4) IVA 4)I44&444@

~~ 44J~ 44) .. 0444.4

-1 1 41 M 6 4

1 0 -1

U 6-4 6

U *.1 3-4 d I:� 1� �.6

� Z4. A 0. USC.8

Ii � .�1

aW 6

p£ I. i� -- 4 .- 4 --I' � .�! .�'

I � *.� �a' � �

1 -- .�'J.�uE�E.! 1 1.� I�ii I

� 11A 3I � -

I '1

I IU 1 1

..J S U I-4 �4 I I I

-4 -4 -4 I Ii�!. �. I *� S.

M

a�

N

I Ud U

N � 0 .�N a � U

* I 2, -* -4 ,4� 6 'U

* C .0 � I4.� -a.. .2 4.4 0. UN N U 0

2-12

0204D-4

By about 8000 BC the Clovis point styles had been replaced locally bytypes such as Dalton and San Patrice. These were smaller in size andbegan the use of barbs and strong shoulders on points. They were perhapsused on spears thrown at relatively fast Same such as deer, rather thanthrust into relatively slow Pleistocene megafauna such as mastodon, whichwere virtually gone by this time. The increased importance of plant re-sources at this time is suggested in many areas of the Southeast by thepresence of seed-grinding and woodworking tools.

The period from about 6000 BC to about 1500 BC is very poorly knownlocally. Test excavations in Jackson County, MS (Marshall 1982) revealedapparent Middle Archaic components containing Abby points. These areclosely similar to Levy points of northern Florida and Stanley points ofthe Carolinas and Georgia, which both date to about 5000 to 4000 BC.Gagliano and Webb (1970:67) report a Morrow Mountain point from the Clai-borne site, located on a relict barrier island at the present mouth ofPearl River. It should be noted also that this poorly known period spansa time of major climatic and geological changes in the area and termi-nates well after the establishment of essentially modern conditionsthere. The combined rise in sea level and influx of sedimentation maywell have combined to submerge a major portion of the archeologicalrecord of the period under silt and water, particularly given the likelyclimatic stress that could have placed a premium on riverine and coastalresources (Figures 2-2, 2-3).

The Pearl River Phase of the Late Archaic cultural period was definedby Gagliano and Webb (1970) as the terminal Archaic occupation of thearea. The key sites included are Cedarland and Graveyard, oyster shellmiddens flanking the present mouth of the Pearl River, and Cedar Point onthe north shore of Lake Pontchartrain. Cedarland's lithic raw materialsand copper indicate that its occupants were participants in a Late Archa-ic trade network that operated between the Appalachians and the GreatPlains. A single radiocarbon determination of 3200±130 years (1250 BC)(Gagliano and Webb 1970:69) from Cedarland probably does not relate tothe Pearl River Phase occupation there, but may instead reflect lateractivity on the site.

Dates from good Poverty Point contexts throughout the Mississippivalley from south of Now Orleans into northern Mississippi now indicatethat the Poverty Point culture was well established in the area by atleast 1700 BC and perhaps even earlier. Recent geological data presentedby Saucier (1974), Gagliano (1979), and Gagliano et al. (1982) indicatethat local salinity sufficient to support oysters was very unlikely afterabout 2500 to 2000 BC. At this time the final rapid sea level rise hasbeen completed and major influx of both silt and fresh water had begunwith the development of the St. Bernard Delta of the Mississippi Rit-er(Figures 2-4, 2-5). Saucier (1963:55-62) notes that a CocodrLe lobe dis-tributary, aimed directly at the Pearl Rtver estuary roughly along Inter-state Highway 90, iL to be considered the earliest of the St. BernardDelta distributaries. The Claiborne site, the major Poverty Point period

2-13

0204D-5

site at the mouth of Pearl River, is less than 200 feet across a gullyfrom Cedarland. It is composed of shells of brackish water-dwellingRIMza, and has a series of radiocarbon determinations that range from2040 to 1150 BC (Webb 1977:5). The aggregate of these data suggests that"the extant carbon date from Cedarland should be attributed to PovertyPoint period activity on the sit*, probably by residents of Claiborne,and that the Pearl River Phase should date on the order of about 2500 DC.

The Poverty Point culture was the first in the region to constructlarge earthworks, and is widely known for its fired clay objects (appar-ently used as the heating element in earth-oven cooking), highly skilledlapidary work, long-range trade in status goods, and microlithic toolassemblage.

The subsequent Tchefuncte culture (Figure 2-6) finally accepted theroutine use of pottery and is marked by localization of activities with-out the long-range trade and specialized arts and crafts of the PovertyPoint culture. Local leaders were honored by burial in small mounds, apractice that continued throughout the eastern United States almost tothe time of Buropean settlement. The area was once again drawn into alarge-scale trade network during the Middle Woodland period, with theMarksville culture as the regional representative. larthworks and moundsagain became important, this time on a dispersed, localized basis. Thetrade network collapsed with the end of Hopewellian culture of Ohio andupper Mississippi River valleys. However, the basic Marksville culturecontinued in the lower Mississippi valley as Troyville, and eastwardalong the Gulf Coast as the similar Wooden Island culture of northwesternFlorida and adjacent portions of Georgia and Alabama.

inland from the imnediate coastal area the population was expandingrapidly and first gardening, then agriculture appear to have been involv-ed. Chiefdoms arose with more permanent and effective organization. TheColes Creek culture developed the use of platform mounds for publicbuildings arranged around a central plaza as the local seat of politicaland religious authority. This basic system further developed into theMississippian culture observed by the DeSoto expedition of AD 1539-1542,and survived in attenuated form as represented by the Natchez of theearly eighteenth century. In the coastal area however, life continuedwith a few po]itinal/religious centers but without the intensive agricul-ture, large fortified towns, and high porulation densities found in theI!ississIppi River valley north of Natchez. Plant cultivation was done ona small scale, but hunting, fishing, end ra~hering of marine, estuarine,and fresh-water resources continued to b*, t-h mainstay of the economy.

2.2.2 ltbgobistoryzThe residcnl tribe of the lower Pearl River at the time of initial

sustained European contact was the Acolapissa, a muall tribe encounteredby the French in 1699. They had a village about four leagues (about 12miles) above the mouth of the river aud were already combined with the

2-14

0204D-6

Tangipahoa (Swanton 1911:281). The initial contact was of short dura-tion, since the French operations were concentrated on the lower Miamis-sippi River from bases off present-day Ship Island and at Biloxi and thenlater above present-day Mobile. The Acolapissa moved to the north shoreof Lake Pontchartrein about 1702, then to a new village above New Orleansabout 1720, before vanishing from the historical record in the mid-1700s.

The salient few recorded bits of information about the Acolapissawere documented about 1706, during their residence on Lake Pontchartrainbut before major acculturation. The village is described as having around temple that contained a variety of figurines kept in closed con-tainers and the bones of the dead. Bodies were reduced to skeletons byplacement on a low scaffold, cealed in soil, for six months. The boneswere then removed, cleaned, and carried to the temple in a basket. Thetemple thus served as the tribal mausoleum.

Different types of food, such as meat and fish, ware cooked in sepa-rate pots. Bear fat was the basic cooking oil and dressing in use. Nutswere crushed and used as a porridge or mixed with cornmeal in breads.Doer were hunted by stalking while wearing a deerskin, dressed with thehead and antlers attached, a disguise comoonly used throughout the south-eastern United States.

Houses in the village above New Orleans were round with a thatchedroof of palmetto leaves covered with mats. The chief's house is said tohave been 36 feet in diameter; presumably the rest were smaller. Withina few years after this village was established the Acolapissa had becomefused with remuants of the Bayougoula, Houma, and Hugulasha, all Muskho-Sean tribes of the Lake Pontchartrain vicinity who had become allies ofthe French. Quimby (1957) provided perhaps one idea of what a site ofthe contact period might reveal. However, his picture is confused byrapid multiple occupations of an earlier prehistoric site by tribes whosetraditional architecture differed, but who were by that time in the pro-cess of fusion and mutual exhange of customs,

d'Iberville (1981:139-140) provided a description of a deserted Bil-oxi village he found about 6.5 leagues (about 20 miles) up the PascagoulaRiver in 1700. It is described as having 30 to 40 oblong huts with barkroofs and an eight-foot high palisade of 1.5-foot thick timbers. Thepalisade was further equipped with a form of plastered box that was tenfeet square and was raised eight feet above the ground on posts; one wasplaced at each corner of the wall and at the center of each wall section,with loopholes from which to shoot arrows. This general form of fortifi-cation is widely known from late prehistoric contexts in the Mississippivalley and the southeastern United States where Mississippian culturalinfluence appears.

2.2.3 HistoryUntil the middle of the eighteenth century the area saw little zuro-

american activity other than travel across the mouth of Pearl River be-tween Noew Orleans and the Biloxi-Mobile area. By the mid-1700s a few

r -~ 2-15

0204D-7

plantations appeared on the Prairie terrace surface near the mouth of theriver. Early traffic simply bypassed Pearl River, using small vessels toshuttle back and forth along the coast between Now Orleans, Biloxi, andMobile from anchorages at Dauphin Island off the mouth of Mobile Bay andat Now Orleans. The favored route followed the coast to the Rigoletsentrance to Lake Pontchartrain, then along the lake shore to Bayou St.John and into Vew Orleans via the bayou. The capital of Louisiana wasmoved from Biloxi to New Orleans in 1723 in keeping with French emphasison settlements up the Mississippi River. Bay St. Louis and Pescagoulahad been founded at least by 1727 when they were inspected by tha newlyarrived Governor Periere (Lowry and MeCardle 1891:69).

Britain gained the former French possessions east of the MississippiRiver, except New Orleans, by the Treaty of Paris in 1763. British ruleintroduced the use of small land grants to war veterans as a means ofencouraging settlement. British West Florida was established as essen-tially the southern third of Mississippi and Alabama along with Floridawest of the Appalachicola River and eastern Louisiana, with its capitolat Pensacola. British policy was particularly successful in increasingsettlement in the Mississippi valley, but also brought new settlers tothe coastal area.

Spain retook the area by a series of deft military moves in 177g-1781and retained the area south of latitude 310 by the Treaty of Madrid in1795. The Spanish continued the British policy of encouraging settlementby the award of small land grants to prospective settlers, and acquiredan influx of settlers from the United States. This policy backfired in1810 when the settlers proclaimed the Republic of West Florida, thenpromptly had themselves annexed by the United States. The area west ofPearl River was added to Louisiiua, While the portion between Pearl Riverand the Perdido River was added to Mississippi Territory in 1812. Han-cock County was formed in December of 1812 with Pearlington as itsintended major towu.

By 1816, maps of the area (Gagliano 1979:3-27, 3-28) show roads east-ward from both the mouth of Mulatto Bayou (an area with archeologicalevidence of a plantation by the late 1700s) and the approximate locationof Pearlington. A series of maps reprinted by the Mississippi Departmentof Archives and History (NDAH) in 1969 shows a road extending north alongthe Pearl River from Pearlington by about 1842 (MDAH 1969:Map 3), withthe town of Habolochitto (now Picayune) added by 1850. The area escapedsignificant attention during the Civil War, and except for the coastaltowns it remained relatively isolated and unpopulated until outside eco-nomic developments brought sudden massive change to the landscape andeconomy.

During the 1870s the national railroad system was undergoing rapiddevelopment. During this period the present Illinois Central trunk linefrom New Orleans to Chicago was assembled by merger of a series of localroads, and the New Orleans and Mobile, now part of the Louisville and

2-16

S. 0204D-8

Nashville system, opened the area to major freight movement. During thissame period the last of the major northern pine forests war cleared and anew source of lumber was needed. The southern coastal plain pine belt,still mostly in virgin timber and now accessible by rail, became the nextmajor source. By 1879 one of the largest lumber mills in the south wasin operation at the mouth of the Pearl River (Hiclman 1973:213). The1873 "Hap of Mississippi" from Gray's LU (MDAH 1969:Map 5) shows theMobile and New Orleans railroad as completed and most of the new IllinoisCentral trunk line in place. The town of Gainesville, now part of theNASA Test Facility, appears on this map as do the towns of Pinetucky andRicevilLe, north of Picayune.

The logging industry built up rapidly, with railroads shipping largequantities of lumber north into the Midwestern states. most of the landwas bought up in huge tracts by the various lumber companies. Initialselective cutting of all the prime timber was essentially complete in thepine belt by about 1900 (Hickman 1973:210). By 1910 about half the landhad been clearcut, and rapid mechanization begun about this time helpedfinish the rest by 1930. Some efforts were made during the 1920s to de-velop the cutover land for agriculture, but the soil was too poor forcrops. The few attempts at reforestration failed due to lack of firecontrol until the Civilian Conservation Corps, Federal timber management,and fire control programs of the 19303 took effect over a large enougharea. Most of the area is now reforested and used primarily for pulpwoodrather than lumber production.

2.3 ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

2.3.1 Reuional ConcernsThe primary regional concerns are expansion of the very weak data

base for the region east of New Orleans, and unravelling of the complexinteraction of shifting geological features and habitats. Archeologicalsurvey of the area around the margin of Lake Pontchartrain has been inprogress since the 1920s, although development of canals, industrialsites, highways, and suburbs has far outstripped survey and excavationcapabilities in the area for at least 30 years. Survey work along thePearl River has been virtually nonexistent outside the vicinity of Mulat-to Bayou. Major prehistoric concerns include the definition of the na-ture and extent of occupation during all periods, and the relationshipsof inland and coastal occupations to each other and to those west on theMississippi River delta complexes. Gagliano et al. (1982) have begunwork on the location of submerged sites, both offshore and under coastalmarshes. Keller (1982:40-51) has begun work on small sites in the pineforest area as another aspect of the regional settlement-subsistence sys-tem.

2.3.2 Installation-Soecific Archeological Research DirectionsSince there presently is no inventory of the archeological resources

of the Mississippi AAP, the acquisition oC such an inventory record ispreliminary to the definition of possible research directions there. If

2-17

000

sites are located along the Peaicl tiver bluff line, their relatioship tosites at the heaG of the Pearl River estuary would be an important pre-historic isouo. In addition, it is yaswible that the reported AD 1700Acolapissa village is on the property. AAP resources could also supportresearch into the aga, nature, and extent of historic period occupations,particularly along the Pearl River bankline and the early road inlandalong Pearl River from near its mouth.

2-18

02131D-1

3.0

AN ASSESSMENT OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCE

PRESERVATION AND SURVEY ADEQUACY

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS TO SITE PRESERVATION

Local environmental constraints to site preservation include erosionfrom terrace surfaces and margins, lateral migration of large streamssuch as the Pearl River, and wave action associated with normal beachdevelopment and with hurricanes. Where soil erosion ham been a dominantfactor, heavy item may be dropped vertically several feet below theiroriginal context while soil and lighter objects may have been washedaway. However, soil deposition may seal relatively intact sites under alayer of silt; the Mississippi River delta abounds in examples of suchsites. Secondary factors affecting site preservation include soil chem-istry, moisture, permability, degree of moisture saturation, and soilgrain size. submersion of a site below the water table often has the .

effect of preserving perishable organic items, from nut hulls and basket-ry to dugout canoes, and permits a far more complete picture of life atthat time and place than would normally be possible. Any porous itemssaturated with salt water and allowed to dry in that condition, as wouldoccur on a beach, will be rapidly destroyed by crystallization of saltwithin the pores of the object.

The Mississippi ALP includes a portion of the Pearl River floodplain,where both buried sites and sites with preserved organic remains must beconsidered reasonably possible occurrences. All the facility soils arequite acid, a factor which can be expected to have destroyed any bonepresent at the sites except in very special circumstances, such as whenthey have been included in a massive shell midden or charred.

3.2 HISTORIC AND RECENT LAND USE PATTERNS

Except in the immediate vicinity of the road along the east bank ofPearl River, the Mississippi AAP lands seem to have been in forest duringmost of recorded history. Fishing, trapping, hunting, a bit of garden-ing, and the coastal trade appear to have been the primary traditionaleconomic activities of the area, and these involved little land clearingor soil disturbance. However, the logging boom of 1880-1930 may have haddevastating effects on any reumant shallow upland archeological sites andon any sites within two or three feet of the surface of the floodplain

3-1

0213D-2

swamps. Damage in the swamps would have resulted from rutting and miringof the large wagons used to haul logs out during the relatively dry sea-sons. Historic photographs (Hicoman 1973) indicate the use of wagonsbuilt much like modern log-hauling trailers, with iron-banded Wheels fiveor six feet in diameter and only about four to six inches wide. Suchwagons could be expected to mire down about three feet before bottomingagainst more solid material. This damage would have been concentrated onthe haul roads, which would have shifted at random as convenience andquagmires dictated. Occasional replacement of wagon haul roads by tem-porary logging railroads may have lessened the impact of later opera-tions, except where grades were improved.

Some erosion can te expected to have occurred after completion ofvirtual clearcutting and after the perennial fires of the immediate post-logging period. More crucial, however, is reforestation. The earliestplanting was done by crews with spades who dug a relatively shallow indi-vidual hole for each tree and probably did only negligible damage to anyarcheological sites encountered. A more recent and much more widely fol-lowed method is to use a heavy plow mounted on a bulldozer or large trac-tor to rip open furrows up to two feet deep into which the seedlings areset. This method is particularly devastating over the long term as rowlocations or directions are shifted between harvests. Finally, the mostrecent technique in general use is to broadcast seed into a cleared area,usually from an airplane, then later to thin the resulting stand to thedesired tree intervals with saws or chemical poisons. This methodappears to be least physically destructive but the effects of the chemi-cals on the archeological resources remains unknown.

Modern harvesting techniques offer little improvement over those ofthe boom era. Track-mounted bulldozers, loaders, and Franklin loggers donot usually sink as deeply as did the old ox wagons. However, the wheel-mounted equipment also in common use does sink and generally has suffi-cient power to simply plow along through the mud. Use of high spots formaintenance and parking areas can add large amounts of fuel and oil tothe soil of any site unfortunate enough to lie underneath. In swampyareas, high spots usually have sites on them.

All of these factors are likely to have affected the archeologicalresource base of Mississippi AAP, whose land was purchased from timberinterests. The extent of such damage can only be assessed by review ofthe methods used by the companies involved over the years and by examina-tion of the particular sites when found. Military construction appearsto have resulted in localized impact in the immediate vicinity of thebuilding complexes (Table 3-1, Figure 3-1), and is estimated to have af-fected only 532 acres of the AAP's 7148 acre area. Some 6600 acres arethus relatively unmodified except by forestry activities.

3.3 SUIMARY ASSESSMENT OF DAtA ADEQUACY, GAPS

Prior to the completion of this overview and management plan, per-sonnel at the Mishisoippi AAP informed the National Park Service that

3-2

N0 0

(.2 1g. A IAIA I U¶&

P. N ~..

00 pa t

t% pal IAIMFV In i 4'r "w n: vA I 0in 0 0 0 0.4w

11 MP In1 .4- .4 .I .M

1ý a 3I~ 0L 4r 4

-~~i Aoo -euqqq to)

e4NN NN N NNNN NNN NNNI N NN IVNada00 0 00 0 44I I I

0111..4 0 400I

U -0.

03-3

..... -----

~~CA.

S ~zU

LU-

11313aw

3-4i

0213D-3

a cultural resources reconnaissance survey of PAP lands had been con-ducted in 1974 by a Louisiana State University archeologist (Mark Barnes,personal couminication 1984). This was described as "minimal" survey, as

the surveyors apparently only looked in the "wost likely spots" of ap-parently unspecified portions of the then pre-facility property area. goarcheological sites or isolated finds were recorded; only recent historictrash was found on what is now facility property. Mississippi AAP per-sonnel have not retained records from that period, and have no copy ofany report that may have been written; the Corps of Engineers office thatsupported the survey has no copy of the report (Harold Balbach, personalcommunication 1984). Vone of the senior archeologists at Louisiana StateUniversity (William Haag, personal coumunication 1984; Robert Neuman,personal coumunication 1984) or the University of New Orleans (RichardBeavers, personal comminication 1984) participated in such a survey orhas any information about it. Further, there are no surviving records ofany field reconnaissance in the Mississippi Department of Archives andHistory Archaeological Survey files. Thus no data are available to meetpresent or future management needs.

3-5

0479D-1

4.0

KNOWN ARCHROLOGICAL RESOURCES ON THE MISSISSIPPI AAP

No prehistoric or historic cultural resources are presently identi-fied on the Mississippi AAP, although significant archeological sitesexist in the vicinity (see Section 5.1). The facility is located on aterrace above the Pearl River floodplain, and the possibility exists thatterrace deposits may retain buried prehistoric materials. Further, ahistoric townsite has been recorded two miles south of the facility onNASA property, and historic data suggest that an important contact-periodIndian village exists within the inuediate vicinity.

0

4-19

0235D- 1

5.0

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ARCHEOLOGICAL

RESOURCE BASE ON THE MISSISSIPPI AAP

5.1 THE SIGNIFICANT RISOURCE BASE

Sufficient archeological and historic data exist for the plant vicin-ity to indicate that prehistoric aud/or historic archeological remainscould occur on the property (Table 5-1). At least 20 sites have beenrecorded so far within a ten-mile radius of the facility, including oneat the facility boundary and a historic townsite on the adjacent NASAproporty. Historic data suggest that an tmportant contact-period Indianvillage is within the immediate vicinity. Recorded prehistoric sites inthe vicinity include occupations representing the entire span of humanoccupation of the area.

5.1.1 Prehistoric Cultural RemainsCultural remains from all prehistoric periods are represented from

sites within a few mile@ of ths facility and are expected to be presenton the Mississippi AAP also. sites to be expected from the Paleso-Indianthrough Middle Archaic periods voald consist mainly of hunting and gath-ering camps along the crest of the terrace overlooking the Puarl Riverfloodplain, and deeply buried under the modern surface. Late Archaicthrough Early Woodland period sites are likely to represent camps andhamlets of various types, oriented toward the use of changing resourcesof a salino embayment undergoing geologically rapid siltation and ulti-mate conversion to a fresh-water swamp. Middle Woodland through Proto-historic occupations are likely to consist of camps, hamlets, and vil-lages of part-time agriculturalists also making extensive use of the wildresources of an essentially modern environment. The long-tbrm archeo-logical record should cover the cultural responses of the local inhabi-tants to a long series of drastic environmental changes. 3ites of theLate Archaic through Early Woodland and the Protohistoric peeiods arethose most likely to occur with sufficient integrity to provide signifi-cant cultural data. Unless deeply buried, earlier sites can be locatedunder the Pearl River floodplain; sites of the remaining periods are mostlikely to consist of deflated short-term camps.

5.1.2 Historic Cultural RemainsThe historic record indicates little or no Euroamerican occupation in

the vicinity until the mid-1700s. By this time a few plantations, not

5-1

C .4 to .. -n

ja I N N 0 i NMiN

I oi il 13 1 1

ii I.1 4 11j

*ý .4..4

h.0

4N 4 N N N 44 N N4 N

NN rN N- N m4 (

NN In ~ kN in

5t11 1 To1i

+4,j I I S IN I

C 4 I n 4 j. 4 .

1 ,

A .5-3A A A.

4"-4 + +

* I,,,I !i 1+ ++++ +++ ++' +'+' ja+ +j ++I ++:++'+"

ON 4 2 N U O

. .. .S . . . .. *?. a

N N N ~ N4

-' N - 41

Ll La

U3~

0' 0* ..4 '44

11 0 .*

ý4~

64 ý4 .,4.

'4 IH! 4

5-4

0235D - 2

necessarily the classic pretentious establishments of the following cen-tury, and probably various squatters' cabins. were present in the area.Construction of a road along the terrace near the floodplain by the early1840s may have had some effect on settlement in its vicinity. The estab-lishment of Gainesville a few miles south of the facility boundary by the1870. may have resulted in increased activity along the road in the foaof early logging camps, supply yards, and fishermen's houses.

The degree of disturbance associated with activities during the log-Sing boom era is uncertain, but the heavily used dirt/mud roads of theera should probably be regarded as zones of intertwined ruts and mudholesrather than the neatly confined hard-surfaced roads of today. Cisterns,foundations, and trash dumps are the most likely historic period remainsto be encountered.

5.2 IDEAL GOALS AMD OBJECTIVES

Given the assumption that significant (and presently unidentified)archeological resources appear to be located on the property, the follow-ing is an outline of a desirable program to manage these resources forthe best preservation or use of their research and sociocultural values.An ideal facility archeological resource managemnt program would encom-pass identification, evaluation, conservation, excavation and analysis,and interpretation activities. It would emphasize the conservation ofsignificant resources, and their excavation or "use" only to mitigate anyunavoidable destruction or damaging activities or in search of importantinformation that is being collected and studied within a well designedresearch project.

Since only a minimal reconnaissance and testing of the "most likelyspots" has occurred on the Mississippi AAF, the first step in developinga management program is field identification of the sites predicted to bethere. Such an identification program should begin with a more intensiveand extensive review of oral and archival historic information. The fo-cum of this preliminary review would be to evaluate the historical infor-mation base presently available without recourse to any historical arche-ological investigations and, through consultation with professional his-torians and people with personal ties to the pro-facility area occupants,evaluate the historic significance of any materials that might be left onthe facility. This would complement the more extensive evaluations ofnatural resource distributions presented within this report as the basisof evaluating the distribution and potential significance of any prehis-toric archeological resources there.

The next stage of the identification program would be the field in-ventory of the undisturbed portions of the facility to identify the sur-face evidence of any historic or prehistoric archeological sites. Suchan identification project would include the pedestrian survey of the fa-cility, with close-interval spacing of survey transects. Large-scaleaerial photographs and detailed topographic maps should be used for fieldreference. Standard forms for recording the surface characteristics of

5-5

0235D - 3

identified prehistoric and historic resources should be completed as partof the inventory procedures and the area and methods of the survey shouldbe well documented. The preferred survey policy for most contemporaryprojects is to make only minimal collections of artifacts off of sitesurfaces, retaining a representative sample including artifacts that arediagnostic of particular styles and/or technologies or are Immediatelyvulnerable to non-professional collection or damage. Any collected mate-rials should be fully described and appropriately curated.

In addition to a description of the surface evidence of these sites,the ideal inventory would include some kinds of subsurface investigation(e.g., augering, test excavation, remote sensing) to evaluate the con-tents, extent, and integrity of the identified resources. Finally, thisstage should include an identification of the important research or othervalues inherent in the inventoried sites, both as a basis for the devel-opment of future research designs as well as for the evaluation of man-agement options should the resource be threatened with damage or destruc-tion by non-archeological research activities. For purposes of futureresearch development, the identification and evaluation of the resourcesneeds to be well documented and available to the research com•mnity. Forfuture resource management purposes, it needs to be appropriately stated

within the U. S. Department of the Interior's terminology and concepts ofresource significance.

The prevailing professional approach to archeological resources forthe past decade has been one of conservation (Lipe 1977:21)--"Ourgoal...is to see that archaeological resources everywhere are identified,protected, and managed for maximum longevity." Thus, the ideal objectiveis to develop a "bank" of significant sites that may be investigatedthrough a variety of techniques, including destructive excavation, onlyas part of well designed research projects that are scheduled within aregional research program that seeks to maintain the overall range ofundisturbed sites for future use. A corollary to this is that the sitesshould be allowed to be investigated by scientists in a non-reactivesituation (i.e., not threatened with immediate destruction of theresource). Such basic investigation of resources on the public landsshould be conducted only within research designs that are appropriate tothe contemporary regional or broader study questions. It should also beconducted only within a program that includes long-term protection of theinformation collected from the resources, and a coummitment to the publicdissemination of that information.

If an archeological site evaluated as being of research or sociocul-tural significance is going to be damaged or destroyed, the ideal objec-tive would be to preserve its included materials and information valuesthrough a "salvage" or "data recovery" program. Such a program would belittle different from the non-reactive investigations discussed above,but is likely to be conducted in emergency situations with requirementsfor immediate recovery. Again, an important element in such an emergencyresearch program would be the adequate analysis, curation, and publica-tion of the recovered information.

5-6

0235D- 4

Thus, in summary the ideal Soals for the management of the Minnie-sippi AAP archeological resources are to:

e Inventory and evaluate all the resources on the facility

e Conserve the significant sites, allowing their research use onlywithin a reSional research design

a Recover the contents and information from any xignifitaantresources threatent by damase or destruction

e Provide the public. with the substance of the information valuesthat are inherent within or collected from the facility's arche-ological rssotLrce base.

i •,

5-7

02110-1

6.0

A RECOMMENDED ARCHEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ,

FOR THE MISSISSIPPI ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT

6.1 FACILITY MASCTER PLAN

The facility master plan, establishing phased development of the fa-cility, has essentially been completed. Plant personnel expressed noexpectation of significant modifications of the facility in the formse-atable future.

6.2 APPROPRIATE ARCHEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT GOALS

6.2.1 General Facility PlanningThe most fundamental goal for archeological resource management at

the Mississippi LAP is the integration of such management into a facilityHistoric Preservation Plan developed under the guidance of AR 420. Amsjor element to the development of this Plan is the characterization ofthe archeological resource base, as theoretically outlined in Table 5-1,based an well-controlled field data. Completion of such field inventoryevaluations, combined with archival research and an evaluation of anyhistoric architectural resource base on the AAP, would also assist inbringing the facility into compliance wi.th the general goals of Section110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. It would also facilitatetirnme.y consultation with the Mississippi State Historic Preservation Of-fice and with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as part ofany project-specific Section 106 reviews needed for now projects or lease

*renewals

The following discussion of recommended management directions andpriorities is thus focused on the acquisition of baseline archeologicalresource inventory and evaluation data, and of resource-specific manage-ment recommendations made in the context of an adequate characterization -. +of the overall prehistoric and historic archeological resource base onthe KAP. The development of a multi-distiplinary facility Historic Pres-ervation Plan, which could appropriately be done as a contract involvingarcheologists as well as historic architects/engineers and historians, isnot presented in detail in this report other than as a necessary nextstage beyond the following recommendations.

6.2.2 A S---ry of Recomended Management Directions and PrioritiesFull compliance with Section 110 involves completion of an inventory

and evaluation of all "historic properties" (prehistoric and historic

6-1

021ID-2

archeological sites am well as historic architectural or engineering re-sources) on the Mississippi AAP. The completion of such an inventory onan "as needed" basis is appropriate to large government properties Wherethere are not many new ground-disturbing activities. A primary defini-tion of inventory "need" is relative to general facility planningneeds--enough field-truthed information is needed about the facility'sarcheological resources in order to characterize or predict the overallresource base requiring management. Decisions about Which site to "bank"for future research, which to excavate and study now in order to developa better understanding of the resources and/or to answer important scion-tific questions, and which resources to allow to be destroyed should bemade within the context of the overall facility resource base.

The definition of "how much is enough?" inventory information forplanning needs requires a somewhat circuitous answer when first asked L -

about a buried resource that presently is not even described from thesurface information. The general approach used in prehistoric archeologytoday is to develop a stratified sample design that uses natural environ-mental zonation as the stratification criterion. This approach is basicto the outline of Section 2.0, which is a first description of the natu-ral environmental information that is likely to be relevant to the dis-tribution of prehistoric activities and hence their archeological re-mine. That information suggests that stratification of the loss-dis-turbed portion of the Mississippi LAP by landformu (e.s , terrace, flood-plain) would be an appropriate design strategy. Thus, a stratifiedselection of 16 inventory plots in 40 acre units (each being a singlequarter-quarter-quarter section) distributed by landform across the rela-tively undisturbed 6600 acres of the AAP (see p. 3-2 above) would resultin a 10 percent "black box" sample of the potential prehistoric resourcebase. Such a sample inventory program should be reviewed at variousmlestones (e.g., 10 percent completion, 35 percent completion, 75 per-ceot completion) to evaluate the need to adjust sample units to take intoaccount any sampling biases that are identified in the course of thesurvey program.

Thus, Phase I is recommended to be an archeological sample survey ofthe facility that is preceded by a review of the AAP documentary data anda mare intensive geomorphological study aimed particularly at determiningthe depth and general nature of the alluvial fill, in the portion of PearlRiver floodplain in the western portion of the property. Since all thestanding structures on the property wore demolished after acquisition,their ages and nature as archeological sites will need to be determinedfrom field studies and documentary sources. Some of these data are pres-ently held in the Washington National Federal Records Center in Suitland,MD, in U. S. Army record groups RG 77 (Rocord. 9f the Office of the Chiefof Engine.r) and RG 156 (Records of the Office of the Chief of Ordnance).

After the Phase I archeological site survey and historical recordsstudy has boon completed, archeological sites that appear likely to beeligible for the National Register of Historic Places should be test ex-cavated to determine their condition and scientific potential. This is

6-2

0211D-3

recommended even if they are not subject to impending damago or destruc-tion, because of the need for developing an adequate characterization ofthis buried resource base. Once this work in accomplished, it will bepossible to develop a realistic management plan for the archeologicalrrmaing confirmed to be of scientific significance and to reach agreementthrough the district Corps of Engineers Nnvirornental Resources Sectionand the Mississippi State Historic Preservation Officer as to the speci-fic management program that is appropriate to the identified resource"base. The procedures and references to be provided in AR 420 should beof particular value in this regard. These goals are intended to complyin particular with Section 110O(a)(2) of the National Historic Preser-vation Act, and the initial stages of development of a facility HistoricPreservation Plan as required by AR 420 end 36 CfR 800.4(a).

6.3 ESTIMATED SCOPE OF WORK AND COST LEVELS FOR PRZSENTLY IDENTIFIABLEMANAGEMENT NIEDS

6.3.1 Goals and Sources of DataSince the requirements of the Phase 11 work will be almost entirely

dependent of the findings of the Phase I investigations, no realisticscope of work can be provided beyond Phase 1. Qualifications of all per-sonnel should be at least those provided In AR 420, Appendix C.

Sources to be consulted for data other than primary archeologicalfield work include:

e Thorough review of the archival information available at thefacility and in the national archives

e Existing public and private collections with sufficient documen-tation to render them of scientific value as necessary for iden-tification and use as comparative materials for analyzing facil-ity collections

* Cartographic, historical, biological, and geological sourcespertaining to the facility directly or including the area of thefacility (as outlined in this overview)

e Wills, deeds, and property tax records related to land and his-toric period sites now in the facility

• Boring logo, @ite preparation plans, and as-built constructiondata on subsurface portions of facility structures

* Available surface and aerial photography of the facility andfacility area.

The Phase I studies should permit, for all sites, determination of:

e Location and extent of the site

6-3*1

.............................................. ,.., ~ '.. .. . . . .

0211D-4

* Expectable kind and degree of disturbance

* Major components represented

M Hajor finds of activities represented such as village, huntingcamp, farmstead, church and/or general store

* Relationship of the mite to major resource zones and significantresources as appropriate to the components and activities repre-sented

* Relationship of the site occupation to local and regional chro-nologies and settlement-submistence patterns

Additional data to be obtained for historic period sites should include:

"* The approximate location, size, and purpose of each structure onthe site, particularly those recorded in the detailed precon-struction facility maps

"* Expectable unrecorded outbuildings associated with recordedstructures

"* The nature of the activities carried out at the site as ref lect-ad by diagnostic artifacts .-O-

"* The identity of the various owners/occupants of the site andcorrelation of the artifactual remains found on the site withthe remains expectable from review of the documentary sources

6.3,2 Agiti." "e

The activities recouemnded above are grouped into categories in amanner suitable for different archeological/archival work groups func- , ,tioning simultaneously or sequentially within the overall operation. itmest be recognised that estimation of the specific amount of time andeffort involved in such cultural resource investigations is not subjectto a normal level of precision and control, since most of the relevantfactors are unknown at the start of such a project. However, a primaryfunction of this overview and management plan is to provide some betterbased estimates of future work and cost needs.

Archival Data Collection. The archival work should be aimed at bothethnohistoric data to be gleaned from the various early sources and morerecent data on Colonial and post-Colonial settlement. Documents in bothFrench and English can be expected to provide crucial data, and theresearchers should be prepared to deal with bot'ki languages. Only sucharchival review should be involved in Phase I activities as is necessaryto design the archeological survey and develop a facility Historic Pres-ervation Plan. This is estimated to involve approximately 15 profession-al work-days.

6-A

02110-5

Archeolouical Survey. This activity is to find, record, and collectsamples of material from sites evident on the present land surface. Ar-tifact collection is expected to be minimal, and include only temporallydiagnostic item. Since virtually all the area of primary archeologicalsit* potential is in forest this will be reliable only if accompanied byshovel tests at 30-moter intervals. Survey with such tooting (by shovelor core sampler) can be estimated as covering an average of 30 to 40acres per person-day. Thus, survey with shovel testing of a 10 percentsample of the undisturbed 6600 acres of the Mississippi AAP, the sampledesign being stratified by landform, is estimated to require a minimum of15 work-days in the field. In addition, 10 work-days would be requiredto design the survey sample.

If potential archeological sites are identified during the archivalreview outlined above, the survey should include all or part of thosepotential resource localities.

Anthrouologv Laboratory Work. Based on the assumption that therewill be minimal artifact collection during survey, but that there will be ;**extensive paper records, photographs, and maps requiring management, itis estimated that basic analysis and curation of collected materials re-covered can be expected to average approximately two laboratory workinghours per field hour, or approximately 26 person-days.

Integration of Archival. Environmental, and Archeolouical Data. Thisstep will provide a preliminary working model of the local prehistoricand historic cultural developments remnant on the Mississippi AAP thatmerit preservation. It will be based on the archival and archeologicalinvestigation of a sample of the prehistoric and historic resource base,and is estimated to require 20 work-days to complete. If historic archi-tectural survey information is available, this should also be integratedwith the archival and archeological data, to provide an appropriateinterdisciplinary basis for AAP preservation planning.

Recommendation for Further Action. The goal of Phase I activities asoutlined here is the organization of appropriate information so that afacility Preservation Plan can be developed. Thus it is desirable thatall identified resources be evaluated as to their eligibility for theNational Register of Historic Places; their level of' investigation shouldbe appropriate to obtaining that goal. Thus, there will be a well-evalu-ated sample of inventoried resources from whose information a characteri-zation of the significance of the overall facility resource base can bemade. Each site must be evaluated against the definable scientific prob-.le=s along with its degree of preservation and probable nature of itssurviving data base, if any, and recommended either, for no further actionor for some degree of test excavation. The data obtainable under theconditions of this proposal are unlikely to provide detailed informationabout the extent or occupations of the sites located, but should indicatesites in excess of about 20 meters diameter that have surviving intactcultural deposits. To provide some basic guidance to planning the recom-mended Phase I activities, it is estimated here that test investigation

6-5

0211D-6

of five sites will be required during this sample investigation. Basedon an assumption that an average site sise will be 1000 square meters andsite depth Aill be one meter, and that each site test requires an average25 work-days in the field end 50 work-days in the laboratory, we estimatethat this testing effort would involve 375 work-days.

Historic Preservation Plan Precaration. Organixation of informationcollected during the activities outlined above into a facility HistoricPreservation Plan will require a varying amount of effort depending onthe outcome of the Phase I activities. Thus, it is not seoped or costedhere. The completion of reports on each of the activities outlined aboveis assumed to be included within the scoping estimates.

6.3.3 Personnel Oualifientiqct and Estimated Phase I Cog".The qualifications of all personnel involved in the conduct of the

activities outlined above should at least follow the guidance of AR 420.The nature of the work is such that it should be conducted in its entire-ty under the direction of an experienced cultural resource manager with aprofessional staff to include at least a prehistoric archeologist, a his-toric archeologist, and a historian. Consulting professional staff needsexpectable include specialists in folklife, cartography, geology, botany,zoology, architectural history, and preservation planning. Technicalstaff requirements will include archeological field and laboratory assis-tents, photographer, cartographic draftspeople, assistant historian, andperhaps others to meet special contingencies. It may be most efficientand cost-effective to establish a field laboratory and base of operationson or adjacent to the facility for at least the duration of field opera-tions.

The costs of the activities outlined in Section 6.3.2 are estimatedas follows:

* Archival data collection. Assumptions of cost for this activityare that all necessary travel, reference, telecomaunications,data management, search fees, and report preparation are includ-ed within a unit cost of $25-830 per work hour. The estimatedoes not include a fee, general and administrative costs, orinflation multiplier. Thus, the estimated effort of 15 work-days to complete this activity, or 120 work-hours, is estimatedto cost $3000 to $3600 in FY84 dollars.

Archeolouical Survey, Assumptions for cost of this activity arethat it includes no archival research but does include researchdesign development, that the survey area is readily identifiableand accessible, that there are adequate aerial photos and mapsavailable for recording locational data, that there will beminimal artifact collection, and that the survey rate is 50acres/work-day. All necessary travel, reference, and telecom-munications are assumed to be included within a unit rate of$20-$25/work-hour, but that rate is not loaded with fee, generaland administrative, or inflation factors. Thus, the estimated

6-6

0211T)-7

effort of 23 work-days to complete this field activity, or 184work-hours, in estimated to cost $3680 to $4600 in FY84 dollars.

* Archeological Laboratory Work and Integration of Archival.Environmental. and Archeological Data. Assumptions for cost ofthis activity are similar to those presonted above, with theadditional assumption that the cost estimated under this headingdoes include report preparation costs. Thus, the suggested costof these activities, which are expected to requive 46 work-daysor 368 work-hours at a rate of $15-$20/work-hour, is estimatedto be between $5520 and $7360 in FY84 dollars.

T Test Excavations. If this additional activity is required, theinvestigation of an estimated five sites is suggested to involve375 work-days or 3000 work-hours, which at a unit rate of$20-$25/work-hour would cost between $60,000 and $75,000 in FY84dollars. Thus unit rate is based on assumptions as presentedabove, including the preparation of a final report.

Thus, if all of the activities outlined above were to be completed aspart of Phase I of a historic preservation planning effort on the Missis-sippi AAP, the 'base costs are estimated to be between $72,200 and $85,560in FY84 dollars.

6-7

0207D-1

7.0 -

SUMMIARY

The Mississippi Army hmunition Plant is a new facility of moderatesize with a limited area devoted to manufacturing and storage faci3.ltie.anvi a large buffer zone necessitated by adjacent other facilities. Vir-tually all land not in use for roads, buildings, and test areas ic intimber. There are no structures remaining from previous land used and nodocumented archeological survey haa been conducted on the facility.

Eveluation of the archeological needs of the facility, was based on atour of the facility, end review of extant archeological records and lit-erature for the area. It was concluded that significant archeologicalsites are likely to exist on the facility. A comprehensive program ofarcheological, archival, and environmental studies ic recommended in or-der to inventory a reliable sample of the resource base, as a baselinefor planning further work and development of a facility Historic Preser-vatLon Plan. The anticipated base cost of the Phase I study is estimtedtsat between $72,200 and $85,560 in FY84 dollars.

It is understood that the proposed program represents an ideal modelfor cultural resource management at the Mississippi AAP. Fiscal con-straints may necessitate a different program. Facility personnel areencouraged to contact the Mississippi State Historic Preservation Officerin regard to new construction on the facility or development of surveyprograms.

7-1

021601

8.0

BIBLIOGRAPHY

8.1 PRIMARY SOURCES AND REFRVENCES CITED

Balbach, Harold. 1984. Personal coimznication. Research Laboratory,U. S. Army Corps of Migineere, Champaign, 1L.

Barnes, Mark R. 1984. Personal couujnicatLon DARCOM ContractingOfficer's Technical Representative, U. S. National Park Service,Southeast ReSional Office, Atlanta, CA.

Beavers, Richard. 1984. Personal coimnication. Director,Archaeological and Cultural Research Program, University oE NewOrleans, New Orleans.

Brenner, William B. 1984. Personal comuwnication. PrincipalInveatigator, DARCON HA1S Survey, Building Conservation Technology,Inc.. Silver Spring, MD.

Delcourt, Hazel R., and Paul A. Delcourt. 1977. Presettlement Magnolia-Beech Climax on the Gulf Coastal Plain: Quantitative Evidence fromthe Appalachicola River Bluffs, Nurth-Central Florida. IEology58:1085-1093.

Delcourt, Paul A. 1980. Coshen Springs: A Late QuaternaryVegetation Record for Southern Alabama. S[lo28 61:371-386.

d'Iberville, Pierre LeMoyne. 1981. Iberville's Gulf Journals.Translated and edited by Richebourg 0. McWilliams. University:Univorsity of Alabame. Press.

Gagliano, Sherwood M. 1979. Cultural Resources Studies in the PearlRiver Mouth Area. Louisiana-Missihhl.Dii: Chef Menteur and RigoletsPasses Hurricane C"ntrol Structures, Orleans and St. TamaanvParishes. Louisiana. Baton Rouge: Coastal Environments. Inc.

Gagliano, Sherwood N., Charles Z. Pearson, Richard A. Weinstein, Diane E.Wiseman, and Christopher M. NcClendon. 1982. Sedimentary Studies ofPrehistoric Archaeological Sites. Report prepared for U.S. NationalPark Service, Division of State Plans and Grants, Washington DC,under Contract No. 35003(79),

8-1

0216D-2

Gagliano, Sherwood X., and Clarence H. Webb. 1970. Archaic-PovertyPoint Transition at the Pearl River Mouth. SoutheasternArchasolokical Conference Bulletin 12:47-72.

Haag, William. 1984. Personal communication. Retired faculty member,Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University,Baton Rouge. F-

Hickman, Nollie W. 1973. Mississippi Forests. In ALiJ.ljrLofMisJss i. edited by Richard A. HcLemote, pp. 212-232.

Hattiesburg: University and College Press of Mi3sisslppi.

John, Grady. 1984. Personal communicatio~n. Choctaw Staff Member,Chucalissa Museum, Memphim, TH.

Keller, John R. 1982. Lithic Scatters and Longleaf Pine: LiUitedActivity Areas in Pyrogenic Environments. •Lgto 1. r 9.W,1(1):40-51.

Knudson, Ruthann, David J. Fee, and Steven Z. James. 1983. £dg91LR....for the evelomuent of ArcheoloaicpaLxervigwn and Hanagement PLansfor Selected U. S. Department of th AltA•y RWCO Facilits. WalnuL,Creek, CA: Woodward-Clyde Consultants lavailable through the U. S.Department of the InterS.or, National Park Oervice, Atlanta].

Lips, William D. 1977. A Conservation Model for American Archeology.Zn Conservation Arlheology: A Guide for Cultural Res2urce NaUKIemeStudies, edited by Michael S. Schiffer and Ceorge J. Oumorman, pp.19-42. Vow York: Academic Press.

Lowry, Robert, and William F. lcCardle. 1891. hJItpr...QitMiuissi. Jackson, US: R. H. Henry and Co.

Marshall, Richard A. 1982. A Roport on Archaeological Toot Excavationaat Godde Lake, Jackson County, Mississippi. Hissiphinli ODemtmntof Archives &. History Archaeologic t &Wort Mo. 10.

Mississippy Department oZ Archives and History, 1069. litoriuL.Hai

of Mislijiieg i (reprint seriesi. Jackson: Miwsisuippi Department ot'Archives and History.

Neuman, Robert W. 1904. Personal co~mmnication. Curator cfAnthropology, Museum of Geoscience, Louisirkia State University, BatonRouge.

Quarteru•an, Elsie, wa'd Catherine Keevtr. 1962. Suuthern Mixed HardwoodForest: Climax in the Southeastern Coastal Plain, U.S.A. I .iMornap 32:167-18S.

Quimby, George I. 1957 Thm Bayou Goalsa Site, Iberville Pariuh,Louisiana. Fieldtiana: AnthRo~Cloy 47(2).

0216D-3

Saucier, Roser T. 1963. Recent Geomorphic History of the PontchartrainBasin. Louisiana State University Studies, Coastal Studios SeriesNo. 9.

. 1974. Quaternary Geology of the Lower Mississippi Valley.Arkansas Archeolotical Survey Research Series No. 6.

Smith, William I., Paul itchols, Jr., Lloyd B. Walton, and Lloyd B. Hale.1981. OqJJ .urvvey of Hancock County, MississiDDi. Washington:U. S. Department of Agriculture, SoUl Conservation Service.

Swanton, John R. 1911. Indian Tribes of the Lower Mississippi Valley andAdjacent Coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Bureau of American EthnologvK kBulletin 43.

Webb, Clarence H. 1977. The Poverty Point Culture. Geoscience andfln 17.

8.2 OTHER PIRTINENT LITERATUbA

Aten, Lawrence 1. 1983. Indiana of the ,outh Texas Coaet. Now York:Aca4emic Presp.

Brose, David S., and N'wloi Oraber, editors.. 1979. HopewellMrnhlaa&UJL._ The Cnillicoah qqoL1Ereu . Kent, OH: Kent StateUniversity Preow.

Brown, %an W. 1976. A Reexamination of the Houses at the Bayou GoulaSite, Tbarville Perish. Louiwiana. Louisiana Archaeology 3:193-205.

Bt~ueth, James 1. 1980. Intresite Structure at the Clairborne Site.Louisiana Archaeology 6 285-318.

Broyles, Bettye J., and Clarence H. Webb, editors. 1970. The PovertyPoint Culture. * MS.• tu•Un•Archaeoloaical Conterence Bulletin 12.

Byrd, Kathloen M. 1976. Tchefuncte Subsistence: Information Obtained'rom the Excavation of the Horton Shell Hound, Iberia Parish,Louisiana. Southeastern Aoiical Conference DuLletin 19:70-75.

S.. ....... 1976. The Brackish Water Clam (Rantia cuneata): APrehistoric "Staff of Life" or a Minor Food Resource. Louisia&rcaagsx 3:23-31.

Chase, David W. 1972. Ivideace of Bayou LaBattre-Archaic Contact.Journal of Alabama Archaeoloay 18 (2):152-161.

Connaway, John M., Samuel 0. McGahey, and Clarence H. Webb. 1977.Teoc Creek: A Poverty Point Site in Carroll County, Mississippi.

isis ivojp_.pDeprtment of Archives and History ArchaeologicalkqPvL!t 3.

8-3

0216D-4

Davis, Dave D., and Marco J. Giardino. 1980. Some Notes onMississippian Period Ceramics in the Mississippi River Delta.Louisiana Archaaolozy 7:53:66.

Delcourt, azel R., and Paul A. Delcourt. 1974. PrimevalMagnolia-Holly-Beech Climax in Louisiana. Ecology 55:638-644.

Delcourt, Paul A., Hazel R. Delcourt, Ronald C. BrUster, and Laurence Z.Lackey. 1978. Quaternary History of the Mississippi Embayment.Center for Ouateknary Studies of the Southeastern United StatesCnrbto 11.

Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt. 1978. Late Pleistocene andHolocene Distributional History of the Deciduous Forest in theSoutheastern United States. Center for OuaternarX Studies of theoutheastgruUnited States Zontribution 12.

Duhs, Brian J. 1976. Preliminary Evidence of Seasonal Fishing Activityat Bayou Jasmine, Louisiana Archaeology 3:33-74.

Ensor, H. Blaine. 1979. Classification and Synthesis of the GainesvilleReservoir Lithic Materials: Chronology, Technology, and Use. Reportsubmitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, underContract No. DACW 01-76-C-0120,

Ford, James A. 1954. Greenhouse: A Troyville-Coles Creek Period Sitein Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana. Anthrouolo9ical Papers of theAmerican Huleum of Natural History 44(1).

Ford, James A., and George I. Quimby, Jr. 1945. The Tchefuncte Culture,an Early Occupation of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Society forAmerican Archaeology Kemoir 2.

Ford, James A., Philip Phillips, and William G. Haag, 1955. The

Jaketown Site in West-Central Mississippi. Anthropological Papers ofthe American Huseaum of Natural History 45(1).

"Ford, James A., and Clarence H. Webb. 1956. Poverty Point, a Late

Archaic Site in Louisiana. Anthropological Pavers of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History 46(l).

Ford, James A., and Gordon Willey, 1940. Crooks Site, a MarksvillePeriod Burial Mount in LaSalle Parish, Louisiana. LouisianaDevartment of Conservation Geological Survey Anthropological Study 3.

Gagliano, Sherwood M. and Roger T. Saucier. 1963. Poverty Point Sitesin Southeastern Louisiana. American Antiquity 28(3):320-327.

Gemboys, S. R., and Earl J. Hodgkins. 1971. Forests of Small StreamBottoms in the Coastal Plain of Southwestern Alabama. geology52:70-84.

8-4

0216D-5

Gibson, Jon L. 1980. Speculations on the Origin and Development ofPoverty Point Culture. Louisiana Archaeology 6:319-348.

Giraud, Harcel. 1953. Histoire do Ia Louisiana Francaise. Paris:Presses Universitaires do France.

Goodyear, Albert C. 1974. The Brand Site: A Techno-Functional Study ofa Dalton Site in Northeast Arkansas. Arkansas Archeoloaical surveyResearch Series 7.

_ 1982. The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon inthe Southeastern United States. American Antiauity 47(23):382-395.

Higginbotham, Jay. 1968. Fort Kauravu. Mobile: Colonial Books.

, 1969. The Journal of Sauvole. Mobile: Colonial Books.

Johnson, Jay K. 1980. Poverty Point Period Social organization in theYazoo Basin, Mississippi: A Preliminary Consideration. LouisianaArhia•gI.yz 6:253-281.

Le Page du Pratz. 1774. History of LouRisiana or of the Western Parts ofViruinia and Carolina. Reprint of London edition, edited by StanleyC. Arthur. New Orleans: Pelican Press.

eorSy, Pierre. 1974. Voyages des Zrantais our lee Grands Laos etDtcouverte do l'Ohio et du Mississippi. [Reprint of 1879 edition.)Vew York: AMS Press.

MoLemore, Richard A., editor. 1973. A History of Mississipoi.Hattiesburg: University and College Press of Mississippi.

Miller, J. Jefferson, and Lyle M. Stone. 1970. Eighteenth CenturyCeramics from Fort Michillimackinac. SmithIonian Studies in History*nd Technoloy 4.

Neumair, Mary. 1974. Prehistory on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, a Reporton the Mulatto Bayou Area of Southern Hancock County. MigsissippiArchaeolo* y 9(9):2-12.

Neuman, Robert W. 1981. Complicated Stamped Pottery in Louisiana: itsSpatial Distribution and Chronolosy. Geoscience and Man 22:71-76.

Parker, James W. 1982. Archaeological Test Excavations at I Su 7: TheFort Tombecbe Site. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 27(1).

Penfound, W. T., and 8. S. Hathaway. 1938. Plant Commuunities in theMarshlands of Southeastern Louisiana. Ecological Monograyhs 8:1-56.

Phillips, Philip. 1970. Archaeological Survey in the Lower YazooBasin, Mississippi, 1949-1955. Pavers of the Peabody Museum ofArcheology and Ethnology. Harvard University 60.

8-5

0216D-6

Phillips, Philip, James A. Ford, and James B. Griffin. 1951.Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley,1940-1947. Perset of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology andEthnology. Harvard University 25.

Seare, William H. 1956. Excavations at Kolomoki, Final Report. magUniversity of Georzia series in Anthrooloty 5..

Sheniel, J. Richard. 1974. Big Oak and Little Oak Islands: Excavationsand Interpretations. Louisiana Archaeology 1:37-65.

_ ..... . 1981. Pontchartrain Tchefuncte Site Differentiation.Louisiana Archaeology 8:21-35.

Smith, Brent W. 1974. A Preliminary Identification of Faunal Remainsfrom the Claiborne Site. Misiusizip Archaeoloty 9(5):1-14.

Society of Professional Archeologists. 1983. The Directory ofProfessional Archeologists. Tampa: Society of ProfessionalArcheologists.

Toth, Alan. 1974. Archaeology and Ceramics at the Marksville Site.University of Michigan Museum of Anthrouoloty athrovolotical Eaters56.

Tricksy, Z. Bruce, and Nicholas H. Holmes, Jr. 1971. A ChronologicalFramework for the Mobile Bay Region. Journal of Alabama Archaeology17(2):115-128.

U. S. Department of the Interior. 1982. Guidelines for the Dispositionof Archeological and Historic Human Remains. Hs., DepartmentalConsulting Archeologist, National Park Service, U. S. Department ofthe Interior, Washington, DC.

1 1983. Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelinesfor Archeology and Historic Preservation: Professional QualificationsStandards. Federal Reistaer 48(190):44716-44740.

Walthall, John A. 1980. Pr2historic Indiana of the Southeast:Archaeology of Alabama &D,4 the Middle South. University: Universityof Alabama Press.

Webb, Clarence H., Joel L. Shiner, and E. Wayne Roberts. 1971. The JohnPearce Site (16 CD 56): A San Patrice Site in Caddo Parish,Louisiana. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 42:1-49.

Weinstein, Richard A., and Philip G. Rivet. 1978. Beau Hire: A LateTchula Period Site of the Tchefuncte Culture. Ascension Parish,Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Culture. Recreation and TourismArchaeological Survey and Antiquities Coiission Anthronolo9icaliReport 1.

8-6

0216D-7

Wil•ley, Gordon R. 1949. Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast.smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 113.

_...... .. 1966. An Introduction to American Archaeology: VIm.o .iort.h and Mddle America. Iflewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentiae-Hall

Wim1berly, •teve. 1960. Indian Pottery from Clar'ke County and MobileCounty, Southern Alabava, AlIbaga Muge= of Natural History Husenumfoye 36.

* -.4

-8-7

S