HomeMy WebLinkAboutCultural Resources Existing Conditions Report���
C'�s�omer-Focused Salutr`aans
CULT[]RAL RE50URCES �XISTYI�iG C[l1VDITII'�l'�S �EP+DRT,
T�IORTH SH�C}RE RQ�AD ENVII�+D�VIEl'�TA�, IMP'AC"T
STA'�''�MENT, SWAIN A�TD GRAHAM CI��[Jl'�1TIE�,
NUR1'H CA�t�GLINA
FIN,t�L REP�RT
'I'�tC GARRtJW ASSOCIATES, iNC.
CULTURAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT,
NORTH SHORE ROAD ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT,
SWAIN AND GRAHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
FINAL REPORT
ARPA Permit GRSM 03-001
SEAC Accession No. 1850
Submitted to
ARCADIS G&M OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
800 Corporate Center, Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
C
TRC GARROW ASSOCIATES INC.
501 Washington Street, Suite F
Durham, North Carolina 27701
Project No. 02427
Authored by
Paul A. Webb
with contributions by Heather L. Olson and David S. Leigh
January 2004
ABSTRACT/MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Cultural resource background studies have been undertaken as part of the North Shore Road
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is designed to determine the feasibility of and assess the
poieniial environmental effects associated with fulfillment of a 1943 agreeinent among the U.S.
Department of Interior (DOI), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Swain County, and the state of
North Carolina, calling for the construction of a road along the North Shore of Fontana Lake in western
North Carolina. This road proposal ariginated in the early 1940s with the construction of TVA's Fontana
Lake in Swain and Grahain counties. Due to the inundation of parts of the Little Tennessee and
Tuckasegee valleys, road access was cut off to some 44,000 acres lying above the reservoir pool on the
north side of the lake. Raiher than consiruct a road to access the area during wartime conditions, the TVA
acquired the entire 44,000-acre area and subsequently transferred its ownership to Great Smoky
Mountains National Park (GSMNP). Although limited road construction took place between 1948 and the
early 1970s, construction was stopped in 1972 due to environmental and engineering concerns. The
project has remained controversial since that time, wiih numerous alternate proposals pui forth by road
proponents and opponents. The North Shore Road EIS study is intended to bring this long simmering
controversy to a close, and to discharge and satisfy any obligations on the part of the government that
presently exist as the result of the 1943 agreement. The present cultural resources studies are an initial
siep towards that goal, and are designed to gather and summarize existing data concerning the known or
potential cultural resources of the 121,000-acre study area for use in developing project alternatives.
The North Shore Road study area has a rich history. Native Americans have occupied the area for at least
the past 10,000 years, including several hundred years of Historic Cherokee presence. Although most
Cherokees were forcibly removed from the region in 1838, others remained within the study area, and
along with other nearby Cherokee groups formed the nucleus of the present-day Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians. Euro-Americans began to enter the area in numbers in the 1820s, living first in
dispersed settlements; some of these later developed into such communities as Bryson City, Bushnell,
Proctor, Almond, and Judson. The relatively self-sufficient farming/herding/hunting lifestyles of the
nineteenth century began to change with the arrival of the railroad and the beginning of logging and
mining operations in the 1880s and 1890s, and were modified greatly when large-scale railroad logging
commenced about 1910. Lumber companies such as Ritter, Norwood, Whiting, and Montvale logged
extensive parts of the study area before ceasing operations in the late 1920s. By the time the lumber
companies left, the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) had developed plans for a reservoir along
the Little Tennessee River and had begun buying up bottomland. Also in the late 1920s, the North
Carolina Park Commission began acquiring parcels in the northern part of the study area for GSMNP,
which was formally established in 1934. TVA took control of the proposed Alcoa reservoir in 1941, and
eventually acquired 68,291 acres in the Fontana Project area. Many communities along the rivers were
inundated by Fontana Lake when it was completed in 1944, and others were isolated by the reservoir
construction. In total, approximately 1,320 families were displaced by the reservoir.
Despite its history, relatively few cultural resource studies have been previously conducted in the study
area, and the extent of the coverages and resulting data is extremely uneven. Although considerable
information is available concerning cemeteries and historic structures, only an estimated 3.0 percent of
the study area has been intensively surveyed for archaeological sites. In particular, essentially no
intensive surveys have been conducted on the 53,600 acres of GSMNP lands in the study area. As a
result, attempts to determine the likely locations and densities of sites and other resources in the study
area must rely on a combination of existing information and predictions based on topographic and
historical data. The resulting data will prove useful in the preliminary identification of project
alternatives, but will eventually need to be supplemented by intensive inventory and evaluation studies.
Almost 2,000 known or predicted potentially significant cultural resources have been tentarively
identified in the study area, including 101 of 250 recorded archaeological sites, 16 other reported site
ii
locations, 44 structures and other aboveground resources, 97 cemeteries or former cemeteries, and 1,716
former historic structure locations derived from historic maps. (Another 149 archaeological sites have
been determined ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]). Although some of these
resources are inundated by Fontana Lake, they must be considered potentially NRHP-eligible pending
further study. Many other sites and potential sites are located above the reservoir pool in GSMNP or
elsewhere. Besides these recorded or potenrial resources, the specific locations of large numbers of
prehistoric, Historic Cherokee, and earlier Euro-American archaeological sites cannot be predicted based
on historic maps. Those sites are considered most likely to occur in areas of 15 percent or less slope,
however, although some specialized site types may occur on steeper areas. In addition, the locations of
some other types of potential resources, such as Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) and cultural
landscapes, cannot be readily predicted based on physiographic variables. Despite these limitations, the
combination of known and potential resource locations and slope data offers the best way to predict likely
site locations in the absence of extensive field surveys.
In order to facilitate the selection of preliminary project alternarives, a series of maps have been prepared
showing the known and potential resource locations (including lrnown and potential archaeological sites,
structures, and cemeteries, as well as likely areas of 15 percent or less slope) within the study area.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study has benefited from the assistance of many individuals, agencies, and institutions. In particular,
the work was greatly facilitated by the cooperation of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
GSMNP. Jack Van Dop, Contracting Officer's Technical Representative at the FHWA, provided
oversight throughout the project, as did Imelda Wegwerth, Project Manager for GSMNP. Several other
GSMNP staff inembers provided crucial data, including David Chapman, Erik Kreusch, and Maryann
Neubert of the Cultural Resources Office and Annette Hartigan of ihe Library and Archives. Other help
was provided by GSMNP staff inembers Bob Miller, Tobias Miller, George Minnigh, Richard Schultz,
Steve Shular, and Mike Tomkosky. Bennie Keel of the National Park Service (NPS) Southeast
Archeological Research Center (SEAC) is thanked for providing an Archaeological Resources Protection
Act (ARPA) permit for wark within the Park.
Many other federal, state, and tribal resource managers also provided assistance and information,
including representatives of the TVA Cultural Resources Ofiice (Eric Howard and Richard Yarnell), the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail (Don Owen), the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Ofiice
and Office of State Archaeology (Steve Claggett, Dolores Hall, Linda Hall, John Mintz, Susan Myers,
and Tony VanWinkle), the National Forests in North Carolina (Scott Ashcraft, Lorie Hansen, and Rodney
Snedeker), and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Offce (Lee Clauss and
Russell Townsend).
The worlc was aided by archivists and other librarians at several other institutions, including Hunter
Library at Western Carolina University, the Marianna Black Library in Bryson City, the North Carolina
Collection and Southern Historical Collection at iTNGChapel Hill, the TVA Land Department in
Chattanooga, the Forest History Society, the North Carolina Geological Survey, and the National
Archives and Records Administration in College Park and East Point. Steve Bush of the Duke Power
Company is thanked for providing access to early land acquisition maps. Morgan Sommerville of the
Appalachian Trail Conference also provided information on the study area.
A special debt is owed to those local residents and other interested persons who took time to share
information on the study area, including Gary Carden, Wade Cook, the late Leroy Fox, Lance Holland,
Linda Hogue, Bill Millsaps, David Monteith, Duane Oliver, and Tommy Thompson. Lance Holland,
David Monteith, and Duane Oliver also are thanked for providing perinission to reprint photographs and
maps from their collections or publications, as are the North Shore Historical Association and Hunter
Library. Several other regional researchers also provided assistance, including Lance Greene, Deborah
Joy, Brett Riggs, Scott Shumate, and Gail Walker.
At ARCADIS, thanks are due to Kristina Miller, Barney O'Quinn, and others for providing guidance and
sharing information on the study area, and to Rob Floyd and Scott Phelps for assistance with GIS
mapping. Consultant David Leigh conducted the geomorphic research, prepared the GIS slope maps, and
otherwise gave valuable assistance to the project.
At TRC, Heather Olson authored portions of the historic background. Todd Cleveland, Heather Millis,
and Heather Olson edited parts of the report for content. Will Adamson, Tasha Benyshek, Joel Evans, Jeff
Holland, Amy McDonough, Heather Olson, Jen Peters, and Cheri Williams assisted with the archival
research. Tracy Millis and Matt Pare assisted with the GIS work, and Randy Kuppless prepared many of
the graphics.
Paul A. Webb
iv
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT/MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ............................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................................... iv
FIGURES.................................................................................................................................................... vii
TABLES...................................................................................................................................................... ix
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................1
PROJECTOVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 1
THE NORTH SHORE ROAD EIS STUDY AREA ............................................................................ 5
REPORTORGANIZATION ............................................................................................................... 5
2. RESEARCH GOALS AND METHODS .....................
RESEARCH GOALS ..............................................
RESEARCH METHODS ........................................
Background Research .....................................
GISDatabase ..................................................
Field Inspection ..............................................
NRHP Eligibility Criteria ...............................
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .................................
PHYSIOGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGY ..............
GEOLOGY..............................................................
GEOMOPHOLOGY AND SOILS .........................
CLIMATE...............................................................
FLORA....................................................................
FAUNA...................................................................
PALEOENVIRONMENT .......................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
•
•
•
.
:
.
........................................................................12
........................................................................12
........................................................................12
........................................................................17
........................................................................18
........................................................................18
........................................................................19
........................................................................19
4. CULTURAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 20
PREHISTORIC CONTEXT ...............................................................................................................20
Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,000-8000 B.C.) ...............................................................................20
Archaic Period (ca. 8000—] 000 B.C.) ........................................................................................ 21
Woodland Period (ca. 1000 B.C.—A.D. l 000) ............................................................................ 22
Mississippian Period (ca. A.D. 1000-1540) .............................................................................. 23
HISTORIC CHEROKEE OCCUPATION .........................................................................................24
Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Century Cherokee Settlements ............................................. 24
Removal-Era Cherokee Occupations .........................................................................................27
Post-Removal Cherokee Occupations ....................................................................................... 30
EURO-AMERICAN OCCUPATiON ................................................................................................ 32
Early to Mid-Nineteenth Century Euro-American Settlement .................................................. 32
Late Nineteenth Century Through Twentieth Century Euro-American Settlement .................. 35
NINETEENTH AND EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS ... 37
THE LOGGING ERA IN THE NORTH SHORE ROAD EIS STUDY AREA ................................41
W.M. Ritter Lumber Company ..................................................................................................42
MontvaleLumber Company ...................................................................................................... 50
NorwoodLumber Company ......................................................................................................54
Whiting Manufacturing Company ............................................................................................. 57
MINING IN THE NORTH SHORE AREA ...................................................................................... 59
TheHazel Creek Mine ............................................................................................................... 59
TheFontana Mine ...................................................................................................................... 64
v
OtherMines and Prospects ........................................................................................................ 66
HISTORIC PERIOD SETTLEMENTS 1N THE STUDY AREA ..................................................... 67
North Shore Towns and Communities ...................................................................................... 68
South Shore Towns and Communities ...................................................................................... 94
GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK ...................................................................103
THE FONTANA PROJECT ............................................................................................................ 105
NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST ........................................................................................... ll 4
RECENT HISTORY AND CURRENT LAND USE ...................................................................... 114
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA ......................................................................... 116
PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS ........................................................ 116
KNOWN AND POTENTIAL CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA .................... 118
ArchaeologicalSites ................................................................................................................118
Historic Structures and Other Above-Ground Resources ........................................................131
Cemeteries...............................................................................................................................142
Traditional Cultural Properties ................................................................................................148
OtherCultural Resources .........................................................................................................149
6. SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................................151
REFERENCES CITED .............................................................................................................................155
vi
FIGURES
11. North Shore Road EIS study area in Swain and Graham counties, North Carolina.
1.2. Lake View Drive tunnel through Forney Ridge ........................................................
1.3. "Road to Nowhere" sign on Fontana Road near Bryson City ...................................
3.1. Forney Creek, view to north from Lakeshore Trail . .................................................
3.2. Fontana Lake, view to north from Cable Cove . ........................................................
3.3. North Shore Geological Survey (1985) map of study area .......................................
3.4. Robinson et al. (1993) geological map of study area ................................................
4.1. Portion of Kitchin (1760) map showing "Evanga." ..................................................
4.2. Cherokee land cessions in the study area and surrounding vicinity (Royce 1884)...
4.3. Williams (1838) inap of southern part of study area .................................................
4.4. Love's (1820) map of eastern part of study area . .....................................................
4.5. USGS (1906) map of western portion of study area . ................................................
4.6. Roads in the study area in 1930 (USBPR 1930) .......................................................
4.7. W.M. Ritter Lumber Company band mill at Proctor . ...............................................
4.8. Smoky Mountain Railway train at Hazel Creek . ......................................................
4.9. Proctor residents on Calico Street .............................................................................
4.10. Proctor School .........................................................................................................
4.11. The Hardwood Bark cover showing band mill at Proctor .......................................
4.12. "Views from Hazel Creek." ....................................................................................
4.13. "In Hazel Creek Woods." ........................................................................................
4.14. "Some of the Hazel Creek Planing Mill Crew." .....................................................
4.15. Montvale Lumber Company boarding house at Fontana ........................................
4.16. Montvale Coronet Band ..........................................................................................
4.17. Norwood Lumber Company skidder crew ..............................................................
4.18. Buchanan Lumber Company mill near Judson . ......................................................
4.19. Adams Mine village . ...............................................................................................
4.20. Structures and settling tanks at Adams Mine ..........................................................
4.21. TVA (1943) map of Fontana Mine . ........................................................................
4.22. Reconstructed map of Fontana Mine (Holland 2001) .............................................
4.23. Bryson City and vicinity in 1936 ............................................................................
4.24. Noland and Forney creeks area in 1936 ..................................................................
4.25. Plat of W.T. Woody tract on Forney Creek . ...........................................................
4 26 Bushnell and vicinity in 1936
. . . ................................................................................................
4.27. Bushnell in 1943 . ....................................................................................................................
4.28. The hotel at Bushnell . .............................................................................................................
4.29. The swinging bridge at Bushnell . ...........................................................................................
4.30. TVA (1943) map of farms in the Chambers Creek area . ........................................................
4.31. Dorsey and Hubbard areas in 1936 .........................................................................................
4.32. TVA (1943) map of structures at mouth of Hazel Creek ........................................
4.33. Horace Kephart's (n.d.) map of Proctor area about 1906 . ......................................
4.34. Reconstructed map of Proctor during the Ritter era (Holland 2001) . .....................
4.35. The Ritter mill complex in 1916 (Smoky Mountain Railway Company 1916)......
4.36. NP&L map of Proctor in 1932 ................................................................................
4.37. Proctor and vicinity in 1936 ....................................................................................
4.38. Proctor and vicinity in 1943 (TVA 1943) ...............................................................
4.39. Fontana and Eagle Creek area in 1935 ....................................................................
4.40. Judson and vicinity in 1936 . ...................................................................................
4.41. Judson (view to northeast) . .....................................................................................
4.42. Judson in 1943 (TVA 1943) . ..................................................................................
vii
.......... 2
.......... 4
.......... 4
........13
........13
........15
........16
........ 26
........ 26
........ 28
........ 33
........ 39
........ 40
........ 45
........ 46
........ 48
........ 48
........ 49
........ 51
........ 52
........ 53
........ 55
........ 55
........ 56
........ 58
........ 62
........ 63
........ 65
........ 65
........ 69
........ 71
........ 73
........ 74
........ 75
........ 77
........ 77
........ 79
........ 80
........ 82
........ 83
........ 84
........ 85
........ 87
........ 88
........ 89
........ 93
........ 95
........ 96
........ 97
4.43. KPC (1915) map of Almond ......................................................................................................
4.44. Stecoah and vicinity in 1936 ......................................................................................................
4.45. Great Smoky Mountains Parlc and North Shore area in 1938 (SOCNJ 1938) . ..........................
4.46. Fontana Dam construction area (TVA 1950) .............................................................................
4.47. Fontana Village during construction era (TVA 1950) . ..............................................................
4.48. Log house in Fontana acquisition area .......................................................................................
4.49. Box house in Fontana acquisition area . .....................................................................................
4.50. Frame house in Fontana acquisition area ...................................................................................
4.51. Frame house in Fontana acquisition area ...................................................................................
4.52. Monteith Store on Forney Creek ................................................................................................
4.53. Calhoun Store on Hazel Creek ...................................................................................................
4.54. Chambers Creek Church . ...........................................................................................................
4.55. Japan Post Office . ......................................................................................................................
4.56. Water rising at Forney Creek Bridge . ........................................................................................
5.1. Rock carving near Bushnell . ........................................................................................................
5.2. Standing chimney at Chambers Creek campsite ..........................................................................
5.3. Storage house at Fontana Mine ....................................................................................................
5.4. Powerhouse foundation at Fontana Mine .....................................................................................
5.5. Archaeological sites in North Shore Road EIS study area ...........................................................
5.6. Potential historic period archaeological sites in the study area ....................................................
5.7. Known site locations and areas of 15 percent or less slope in the study area ..............................
5.8. Known and potential site locations and areas of 15 percent or less slope in the study area. ......,
5.9. Hall Cabin in Bone Valley ...........................................................................................................
5.10. Calhoun House at Proctor . .........................................................................................................
5.11. Fontana Mine shaft . ...................................................................................................................
5.12. Winch at Fontana Mine ..............................................................................................................
5.13. W.M. Ritter Lumber Company dry kilns at Proctor . .................................................................
5.14. Pump or valve house at Proctor . ................................................................................................
5.15. Former NC 288 on North Shore .................................................................................................
5.16. Abandoned car on North Shore ..................................................................................................
5.17. Fortner NC 10 under water at Almond . .....................................................................................
5.18. Historic structures and other aboveground resources in the study area . ....................................
5.19. Woody Cemetery in Forney Creelc area .....................................................................................
5.20. Grave marker at former Judson Cemetery . ................................................................................
5.21. Cemeteries in the study area . .....................................................................................................
6.1. Known and potential cultural resources in the study area ............................................................
6.2. Known and potential cultural resources and areas of 15 percent or less slope in the study area.
viii
....... 99
.....101
.....104
.....106
..... 108
.....109
.....109
.....110
.....110
.....111
.....111
.....112
.....112
.....113
.....125
.....126
.....127
.....127
.....128
..... 129
.....132
..... 133
.....136
.....136
.....137
.....137
.....139
.....139
.....140
.....140
.....141
.....143
..... 146
.....146
.....147
.....153
.....154
TABLES
4.1. Population Statistics for Graham and Swain Counties, 1880-1950 . ................................................... 36
4.2. Lumber Operations in the North Shore Road EIS Study Area . ...........................................................44
4.3. Mines and Prospects in and Adjacent to the North Shore Road EIS Study Area . ............................... 60
5.1. Archaeological Sites in the North Shore Road EIS Study Area . .......................................................119
5.2. Summary Data on Archaeological Sites Recorded in the North Shore Road EIS Study Area. ......... 123
5.3. NRHP-Eligible and -Potentially Eligible Structures and Aboveground Resources in the North Shore
RoadEIS Study Area . ...................................................................................................................... 134
5.4. Known and Reported Cemeteries in the North Shore Road EIS Study Area . ................................... 144
1X
1. INTRODUCTION
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The North Shore Road is a long-controversial road proposal ihat originated in the early 1940s with the
construciion of ihe Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA's) Fontana Lake in Swain and Graham counties,
North Carolina (Figure 1.1). As a byproduct of the inundation of parts of the Little Tennessee and
Tuckasegee valleys, road access was cut off to some 44,000 acres lying above the reservoir pool on the
North Shore of the future lalce. Rather than construct a road to access the area during wartime conditions,
the TVA elected to acquire the entire 44,000-acre area (through a combination of purchase and
condemnation), and subsequently transferred ownership of the area to Great Smoky Mountains National
Park (GSMNP), which had been formally established in 1934 and bordered the area on the north. This
transfer was made official in a 1943 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the U.S. Department of
Interior, the TVA, Swain County, and the state of North Carolina, which also called for the construction
of a road along the north shore of the lake to replace NC 288, large sections of which had been inundated
(Brown 2000:267-274, 309-311; Holland 2001:191-196; Oliver 1989:95-99; Taylor 2001:122-143).
With the exception of initial work by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on a road in the Pinnacle area in
the western part of the North Shore, no attempt was made to begin construction on the road during the
waning years of World War II, presumably due to a lack of funds (NPS 1996:5; Oliver 1989:90; Taylor
2001:128). A short one-mile spur at Fontana Dam was built in 1948, but no additional construction
occurred for some time (NPS 1996:6). By the early 1950s controversy over future road construction was
also beginning. As summarized by Holland (2001:191), during the
late 1940s and early 1950s [North Carolina officials] and others lobbied extensively to precipitate
the road construction promised in the 1943 Agreement. Conversely, as early as February 1953 a
letter writing campaign to Park Service officials and members of Congress was undertaken ... to
protest the construction of the North Shore Road.
No federal road construction was immediately forthcoming, although by 1959 the State of North Carolina
had completed construction of 2.67 iniles of road from Bryson City to the park boundary. The following
year, construction in the park resumed with work on a 2.55-mile section of the road from the park
boundary west to Canebreak Branch. Construction did not go smoothly, however, due to the rough terrain
and unstable rock in the area (O'Neil et al. 1962).
As work progressed, the BPR [Bureau of Public Roads] discovered that the fill on which the road
was being built was "sett[1]ing and cracking" because it had been placed over underground
springs. As a result, the rock placed in the fill began to disintegrate. In order to correct this
problem, rather than place the road on fill in arder to build over the difficult terrain in the area, in
May 1963, the contractor was allowed to flatten the slopes on which the road was being built
[NPS 1996:7].
That section of the road was completed in 1963, and work began on the next section (a 2.135 mile section
from Canebreak Branch towards Noland Creek and Goldmine Branch) the same year. This part of the
road was completed in 1965, ending at a 1,200-foot tunnel through Forney Ridge. Diffculties were
encountered during construction of that section as well. As before, it was discovered that the route was
through very unstable terrain, resulting in the possibility of landslides, both during and after construction,
and requiring more invasive engineering techniques than originally considered (NPS 1996:7-8; Taylor
2001:133). In addition, the route traversed geologic strata of sulfidic and graphitic schists that can
produce acidic drainage when disturbed if not properly handled and contained (Flum and Nodvin 1995;
Foley et al. 1972).
-- �N�a�r" �`� i . " , ° "
. , � � `
, � ':-�_ a._ ���-��^,• �-":, . '� �� ,
,y . �. ' . t � K e, �� _ . . ,� _ � ,saal.r�. � --., . . � - ,�F �
b�4 u w� b' Fi'� il k T �4 .,� . , e . . . a - �$ _ . ' � �= - °'° . . — - � .
� -- -'" • y�: _ , .
�� s
' � �,' � ! � " � � ."' +� �� '� ' � v �ni • � �
- �• a ,>
+,�7{�r+ui. r�l� �'� �' � ,� -� .'+► , � — ` �
�
#��� . a �� - . . � � �;, ,
�, , � .
�, F- • � o r- - � . a f^ . . � � {� . ,
,. ,
, ,
���� ,�1��F � s � � ° i+ ' • . . �
. . � , �
., � , . ,
-- . - . �
� • V , �4 � .�:, � .� ��* - �
'.`�i `� �_ � � �, . ° A � - • � � " a � � - � � ~"l �
. � � ..
' _ �L' r • r �*+. , i - • � ° ti`�} . , �+ �
o,
� �.='G+,�_ .� .. #Y. .. r . y , � °- _ - � . . �,@
�� � �' � �� � � Y �" . + • '� ' v
,� , ,'+ # . � � �. . - . , # �v �
�-
, � . .
� �,r ,,, 9� .y� ° u ,� " _ � '' �'--� � : I
. _ . J� . .
y' ° . -. � �. _�� s
v . .. �� . .. � ��, .L`i�:, T.�-��� . �.�.4 ' .� �}
, � . � i � �.� Y -. a . . • ' � � - ` � �
� �, ��,� f � .. �F�i ' � ' �' n . � < Y ,, � � �.�
�,�er �, '� �il' �k k �r �- � � � . . . .., ^.idSli . .- - � � G . •a, 4 ;, C ��.�,I "�� �F•�'''
� � Al 4? L' �� 1'.A.. P �i �� ,� h ,. � � ...' ,� �� { � J�� .J � r
� ... �ry c , , , � �J 0 } r` _
.�� 5�^.�^' , �. � . � �+ . , . � ��1 f,y T y 4 ,� � �..
� GIIFd1�7 'S�'1�fSi' H'i,llJ91Td47nl�i L7�.�i.f1Li>�.%.� �'&A�r' . - e 4 �" {
'; � �� k .. ' ° � -�Yf?7 -'�s' - ��Y' l .
e �.
- � �. .. � ' . . .w ° r �s � ,' ' -
� ;" .
. , . : ' ."�� ,., . .. yk4.
,_ �-,-� _'.� 'y : J . . ,� � , , � yy�--�.� ' '} rf
�- . y ` �
. _ , , r . ._ + ; � ' _ . �.
s ; � y _ _ �.� �, �� + r - ` �' � �1�4'� 0
,_
. . , ,
�, . e
! �
, ,. ;
. �T �
F�P����R .. � J .Ae� i . . �4$ . �r � � . . ' , �
{
� ;+�i. � � ° . ��_.,�l-' 1� � f f �A"�� `.�, �f' .
� �'� 6�^, - �+t� - . .. ,, r � . ' ' � t t� �`� � �F�� � ��,� '.. � ��:.' � . � .�
r.' + .
. .. ,_ ` , . ,' _
.,' ' �.. n �°
N a ,}� •
_- - � 4 � � �� � v �� �
"-, -. _-_ �� _ . , , . � � . �
: ,�
� �
� , �-a.�i��-� �-: , ,,; � :, •.� 5 i . � ��, 9 �i�.. �•'� ..��
a
' .��
I . r° a_. � .- ��+i . .,Y tua i 1 . . r . � ' Y ��i�
�
�..•' ��4 . " . �
y � . r . �4� " . � r� a .. _ I i�.b {� �.a�'' : � .
, . ,�,� � � a�° + I. `• . u _ 'r ,. � M� .r .
' F _ � . � � . � . P ,' A�f� ; � ��r �
�r
- � ' Y� r+ e o a r� � t� �.� � F � � � a� - � � � ;�. a �_ ' ;� _ _
_ ... � � .4'� ey $� ..r��,�+_•_ . ��'
=t � � p
�� r�R^. _ . • I . ' , '1 "'_ �Y � a';1" . . � �; � � �
Y . .
x .�� ` . : ." - '� . a+�'
. � x - : �. � � . . � , � . . �` 1 Y � °.+
� �z+,' � . . ' ,°��. . �.��. .. .. •. �. +� �° . -i , � • W� �'P ' pn _ ' I,.
.
�.--+ ° ' r' d ,
, . .. � _� .. . rt_ � , .
�,... �� , _ � .°
, � . .M � ' �• '.- - - ,� f-. . ,r i Y. .��.,.
�- i I
. s , a�
�_ . , r . tl < J ° � � ,° � ' ' . '� . ..,,� j� ' ' �. � �yi
i ; .,.q! - -. •_ . � , i i . .
i. "_"°f _. _ . , . . . r'"� �- : � ;� , _ . - y � �-,�.,,�,`,_ .
� �
°*,.� '. 1 . ,� , � . . �' �r � -� . ., ' , . .. �-"_- _ -
u� � �
� � T,� . , � ,` .� , — .:
_ " �. � 1� `'...,� .: �_-•— -. .. - �� . . .'. � � �.j . . ti � L
•. , . ,. _� � -� �� , r _ � -
d j"
�'
�.i ! i• ��1Y. .v-_ " �'__._.
Y Y �� • , �, °'I' � 4. , A F .- � + ,
_ y�„ .
� ETS stud area boundar . * _ e,,, ��+ �.- ''L^ " �` '' '"'�, � 4 � '••
;. - ..,-�� ! . .
. f4
North ^' �_� '�� .a� � ` ��` r � _ ' � �"� f_ � .�
� � .��'i�i " . `�';� � _ _ _ y d ...� ���. �. _ � � �. � '
_ � � �' � � , „�'"
�,w
.:. . � , , � �.s-. - � � •.
� - �
-_ �^° ,�.. '
0 Miles 3 , . � _ �,' � �� /' T r,p � .. �•.- -' _ , :� �, ' � , 3 ^
j
', - 91 _ _ _ � ..3
,� :
� �
,� .-,.,,..� , ��� �.� fi'� �, .F s.r;� "` .� .-_ — �.`` -
Figure 1.].�North Shore Road EiS study area in Swain and Grahai� cow�ties, North Carolina. �
As a result of the environmental and engineering concerns and funding issues, road construction ended in
1972 after the completion of a tunnel through Forney Ridge (Figure 1.2). The past 30 years have been
marked by considerable controversy over the project, with the completed road section from Bryson City
to the tunnel acquiring considerable notoriety as the "Road to Nowhere" (Figure 1.3). The ongoing
debates between local, regional, and national groups concerning the pros and cons of road construction
have included many alternate proposals, ranging from those calling for completion of the road as
proposed to those calling for no new road construction and a cash settlement to Swain County (Brown
2000:267-274, 309-311; Holland 2001:191-196; Oliver 1989:95-99; Taylor 2001:122-143). Although
much of the debate concerns the potential economic benefits of the proposed road, other aspects include
three issues that have arisen since the 1943 agreement: the right of access of former North Shore residents
and their descendants to cemeteries and former homeplaces on the North Shore; the potential
environmental degradation to be caused by construction through acidic rock formations if not properly
treated; and the proposed designation of much of the area north of Fontana Lake and the rest of GSMNP
as wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964.
The North Shore Road Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a multi-year planning process designed
to determine the feasibility of and assess the potential environmental effects associated with fuli'illment of
the 1943 agreement. The study is being conducted in response to Public Law 106-346 Section 378, which
appropriated funds for the "construction and improvements to North Shore Road in Swain County North
Carolina," and under a Statement of Work prepared by the NPS, GSMNP, and the FHWA, Eastern
Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD). The NPS is the Lead Agency for the project. The EIS is
being prepared by ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc. (ARCADIS), under contract to the FHWA;
the cultural resource studies for the project are being conducted by TRC Garrow Associates, Inc. (TRC),
under contract to ARCADIS.
As described in the Purpose and Need statement for the EIS study:
The purpose of the proposed action is to discharge and satisfy any obligations on the part of the
United States that presently exist as the result of the Memorandum of Agreement of October 8,
1943, between the U.S. DOI [Department of Interior]; Tennessee Valley Authority; Swain
County, North Carolina; and the state of North Carolina. The Agreement dealt with the creation of
Fontana Dam and Reservoir that caused the flooding of lands and roads within Swain County. As
part of the Agreement, 44,170 acres of land were ultimaYely transferred to the DOI and made part
of GSMNP. The Agreement contained a provision by which the DOI was to construct a road
through GSMNP, along the north shore of the newly formed Fontana Lake (generally located
between Fontana Dam and Bryson City, North Carolina), to replace the flooded NC 288.
Approximately seven miles of the originally proposed North Shore Road have been constructed,
with the last segment being completed in 1970. The need of the project is to determine whether or
not it is feasible to complete the road and to evaluate other alternatives that would satisfy the
obligation. Both build (i.e., road or other facilities) and no-build alternatives will be developed to
determine how the 1943 obligation will be met.
In recognition of the extensive debate over the issue, the North Shore Road EIS will include a range of
alternatives for detailed study. These alternatives will be developed in part through an intensive public
involvement process, and will be "screened and subjected to detailed analysis in the drafi EIS based on
their ability to address ihe purpose and need, while attempting to avoid known and sensitive resources"
(Federal Register 68[79]:20169-20170). These alternatives will include a no action alternative (which is
required by the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]) as well as a variety of build and no-build
alternatives. Some of these latter alternatives may be based on past alternatives that have been proposed
for the project, which have included:
�s� _ �#�
'�-�-�lir� ��
� �'
. `_ _ '�'� _ �' . -
R � � � _ � � �� � � g - _
+1" ���' '_.� ,v�4- �� -
_ I I
� ��• '�s*� �_ '� �� ����°����� pi4. �=��^ ��R,�-�-
r� •�'' �..F a r�. .:°y�
� +� �e - 'Lv �`'�, � . �i .
- � .� ' �������,1��- �� � ���� .� '��
° � w�i , +
�r :��� • �
3
a ��.4�F�ai
�
�.�,,�' ,..� - .
' '"4
4. _ _° k
�#' �
�
_ ��
y �
�
�Y �
��
�
i,
.�,,� ..
���,° -
_ �
! � �
'��� �J..t�l �
Y �
� � . _ �F �'� �. �. a ' y T � • . ° ,f'�4, ' y . � il � � . �_ � � °'�� . " � �..
�.: _ ` �,
r .,.; � - a$: r= . � t ._ ? ' � i . L � i :.
�'1�' �r. �'`� � - . i� .-, - � � � �
Li!fz -���:r{s . �� $ � ., _ �«�_��� ._���.�Ir��"i.�.ti1�1.'ial i��_ �� °.' ._ ��. ir�YU.
�
� s � �' �
.. � : ,. ... � .. _
a �
- � � �
+:. � ,-r : • - ,� � � �� � -.- --. � � q
r'
a @ ��F_ �'s +' "'�.. �� . - ^� s � � *` � ����� .
�: M,,,-;� �� ?� � _„ s
� �, � �r °�a-� �Ir��h r,� � . � a . �, T +�,� .
:�°� * �"
���^Nb s � �• i +�"` - � -- - - , �' + � ,� ' ,
� .t'�` '�` � � '` � �# � " �._�, ,� � " , a
� .,
�! � . + w
�� . � ,�+.. . _ �, � - -. ..
� "' • q r F•- '�.p `,� �� d �a. . �'. + ,�" �': • . � � ��-,
,.� ^' , ,��1" .. • � I� �
�, �`�.�.r..,. ,� "- , ., �� «,�
�. � ,s
�" � ���,i � � -- . � . .
!� l4�r.�� �, ; � � � i � � - � , ,� � . w`!
',;,l, �� ' ,- �- _ � � ° � i ,�
�; '�._ _. - � _ -'�
��
��. �w � '�* � � �'+�'�� �' ,� ..� .
� . �• ,y _ �- '
�•����'������•� .
�
�� ��� ���""_
:-�� �,,,��r a •,��F '� � .�� � --� �- �
�". ,,�. iy ,, ,�,,, �y , . -+ � � :
'�' �'� « ''&�!F � ` -
n � � iJ � �' � a�� � - � � ' � - � �� T r;�� ;�'
y � _ . � . + i !� � .,I�'. qy � ��
_ � �� �- ;�. -�� � _ ,�� �, , �y�,
� �
,.
�. �
� . � •_
, ,� T,-' �; �.,�+�-� -� - - ,�-. � ,� :'� #� � �.
�+ � °�*,� � � ,. � � • - � � �,,,� ;�,� �. � � �
� �° �` �
� � � � ,� � ,�` �
! �� �� . �l, '^i �� � ,�'� �s. � � � � � F v
• Constructing a two-lane road across the Narth Shore area in accordance with the 1943 agreement,
either along the route proposed in the 1964 GSMNP Master Plan or along a different alignment
• Securing federal appropriations for Swain County in lieu of building the road;
• Constructing an unpaved narrow road (either as a public use road or a gated administrative road)
that would allow access to the Fontana Addition and the cemeteries;
• Constructing the previously designed Laurel Branch Picnic Area at the terminus of the tunnel
through Forney Ridge; and
• Continuing the road approximately five additional miles beyond the tunnel to a proposed
development near the former townsite of Bushnell or another location, and developing a recreation
area or heritage center as a desrination point.
THE NORTH SHORE ROAD EIS STUDY AREA
In order to provide the full range of study alternatives and thorough analyses that is required by NEPA,
the EIS study area has been drawn to include an extensive area on both the north and south shores of
Fontana Lalce. Specifically, the inclusion of land south of Fontana Lake is necessary to evaluate the
existing roadway network, the area's transportation needs, and potential access options across Fontana
Lake. The study area covers over 120,000 acres, and extends from just west of Fontana Village to the
eastern municipal limits of Bryson City, including portions of both Graham and Swain counties. The
southern limits of the study area run just south of and parallel to NC 28 and US 74/LTS 19, while the
northern limits follow an arc that includes most of the land transferred to GSMNP in the 1943 agreement
(as well as some acreage incorporated in the earlier park boundary). The study area includes
approximately 53,600 acres in GSMNP, approximately 10,300 acres of TVA property (including almost
all of Fontana Lake), and approximately 13,700 acres in the Wayah and Cheoah ranger districts of
Nantahala National Forest. An additional 43,400 acres of the study area is in private or other public
ownership.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report is organized as follows. Chapter 2 describes the goals and methods of the cultural resource
studies, and Chapter 3 contains a description of the natural environment of the study area. Chapter 4
summarizes the prehistory and history of the area, including the prehistoric Native American, Historic
Cherokee, and Historic Euro-American occupations. Chapter 5 discusses the known and potential cultural
resources in the study area, and Chapter 6 summarizes the research. The text is followed by the
References Cited.
2. RESEARCH GOALS AND METHODS
RESEARCH GOALS
This existing conditions report represents the initial aspect of the cultural resources studies for the North
Shore Road EIS, which will ensure that cultural resources are appropriately considered in the planning
process in accordance with the NEPA (42 United States Code (U�SC) Section 4321 et seq.), Sections 106
and ll0 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 USC 470 et seq.), and NPS Director's
Orders 2(Park Planning), 12 (Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision
Making), and 28 (Cultural Resource Management). As specified in the Final Project Goals, these studies
will seek to:
protect the tangible (archaeological sites, cemeteries, historic structures, landscapes, and
Tradirional Cultural Properties) and the intangible (feelings of attachment, family life, myth,
folklore, and ideology) aspects of the cultural resources
that might potentially be impacted by the project. In addition, the Final Project Objectives state that the
alternatives will incorporate cultural resource management strategies that include the following
elements:
ensure that any human remains, fiznerary objects, objects of cultural patrimony, or traditional
grave sites are treated in accordance with the provisions of the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act, and any other applicable laws and regulations;
protect Traditional Cultural Properries present within the study area; [and]
ensure that all cultural resources located within the study area are evaluated and considered in
accordance with the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act.
In order to fulfill these objecrives, it is necessary to have as thorough an understanding as possible of the
nature, extent, and potential significance of the known and potential cultural resources within the study
area. The present report attempts to provide this understanding through background research into the
prehistory and history of the study area, which along with data on environmental conditions and known
and potential cultural resources will enable the appropriate consideration of cultural resources in the
initial planning process. Once project alternatives are chosen, additional bacicground research and field
survey will be conducted to inventory and evaluate cultural resources that may be present within the
associated impact areas.
RESEARCH METHODS
Background Research
Information Sources. Data on the natural environment, prehistory and history of the study area were
gathered from a wide variety of sources, including regional and local histories (e.g., Brown 2000; Holland
2001; Jenkins 1988; Millsaps and Millsaps 1992; Oliver 1989, 1993, 1998a, 2002; Taylor 2001;
Thomasson 1965) and historic maps. In addition to these sources, valuable data were gathered from the
following repositories:
• GSMNP Library and Archives;
• North Carolina State Archives;
• North Carolina State Archives Old Records Center;
• North Carolina Geological Survey;
C�
• National Archives and Records Administration (East Point, GA, and College Park, MD);
• TVA Land Department (Chattanooga, TN);
• TVA Corporate Library (Norris, TN);
• Duke Power Company;
• Forest History Society;
• North Carolina Collection at UNC-Chapel Hill;
• Southern Historical Collection at iTNGChapel Hill;
• Hunter Library, Western Carolina University (Cullowhee); and
• Marianna Black Library (Bryson City).
Additional data were collected through communications with regional historians and archaeologists, and
through communications with local residents.
Information on known and potential cultural resources within the study area was gathered from these
repositories and agencies:
• GSMNP Cultural Resources Office;
• GSMNP Library and Archives;
• North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA);
• North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO);
• North Carolina State Archives;
• Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI) Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO);
• United States Forest Service/National Forests in North Carolina (USFS);
• Appalachian Trail Conference (ATC); and
• TVA Cultural Resources Office.
These institutions provided information on a variety of previously recorded and potential archaeological
sites, standing structures and other above-ground objects, cemeteries, and other resources. Data on
specific known and potential resources also were gathered from historic maps, published local histories,
through conversations with regional archaeologists and historians, and through communications with
local residents.
Land Acquisition Maus and Files. Several sets of land acquisition maps and/or fles are available for
various parts of the study area. Due to the varied nature of these relatively inaccessible data sources,
descriptions of these materials are provided below.
GSMNP Maps and Files. Parts of the northern portion of the study area were acquired for GSMNP in the
late 1920s and early 1930s by the North Carolina Park Commission. Data on those land acquisition tracts
are on file in the GSMNP Library and Archives and in the North Carolina State Archives, and include
individual plat maps, property descriptions and appraisals, chains-of-title, metes and bounds property
descriprions, and miscellaneous correspondence. The GSMNP plat maps do not illustrate structure
locations and there are no accompanying photographs, although later photographs of some of the
structures are on file in the GSMNP Library and Archives.
Pre-TVA Fontana Lake Land Acquisition Maps and Files. Several seis of land acquisition maps relate to
pre-TVA purchases of land by the Aluminum Company of Ainerica (Alcoa) for proposed reservoirs in the
Fontana Lake area. A set of 1913-1915 maps prepared by the Knoxville Power Company (KPC) (an
Alcoa subsidiary) show parcel boundaries and some cemeteries, but with the exception of a 1915 map of
Almond do not show individual structures. A second set of land acquisition maps was created from 1929—
1932 by the Nantahala Power & Light Company (NP&L). Those maps show parcel boundaries and some,
but not all, structure locations; accompanying maps provide detailed depictions of Judson and Almond.
Other NP&L maps include 1940 maps showing state land grant locations along the Little Tennessee and
7
Tuckasegee rivers. No attempt has been made to identify or examine any KPC or NP&L land acquisition
files that may be extant.
TVA Fontana Lake Land Acquisition Maps and Files. The 1943 TVA land acquisition maps provide the
most intensive documentation of the study area. Those maps include detailed depictions of each
acquisition parcel, including the location of structures (such as houses, sheds, barns, stores, etc.),
cemeteries, roads, fence lines, and other cultural features. The accompanying files contain detailed
appraisals, legal property descriptions, "affidavits as to possession," chains-of-title, and other
information. The TVA files also contain photos of some structures, as well as a variety of sociological
data. As summarized by Shumate (1994:32):
These files record statistics for a variery of property types, but for the typical mountain farmstead
include the current properry owner, composition of family, occuparion, wage, age, etc. Each file
records the process of acquisition, condemnation when necessary, and relocation of families
affected by the Fontana Dam project. In addition, they offer brief descriptions of nearby
communities and trading centers, descriptions of houses, landscapes, and local water resources.
On a more personal level, these records identify bealth and hygiene problems, describe attitudes
towards the TVA generated by the sale of these farms, identify difficulties in the purchase of some
farms and businesses, and detail the transactions of legal battles resulting from these land
acquisitions.
Besides the individual property files, the TVA also commissioned "Population Readjustment" studies of
the Stecoah, Bushnell, Proctor, and Almond-Judson communities (Hyde 1944a, 1944b; Ketchen 1944;
Sharp 1944). These studies and an accompanying synthetic report (Hunt 1945) are of varying quality, but
contain some useful descriptions and summary data on these communities.
GIS Database
The data on known and potential resources were placed into a Geographical Information System (GIS)
database that was created and manipulated in ArcViewT"' 3.2. Far the purpose of creaiing and displaying
data layers, all maps and data were maintained as ArcView�"' shapefiles using the NAD27 datum (UTMs);
when necessary, maps and data were converted from other projections using the ArcView'"' Projection
Utility. The following map layers have been utilized in viewing and analyzing the cultural resources data:
• Digital Raster Graphics (DRGs) of current USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles (obtained from the North
Carolina Geological Survey);
• USGS shaded relief map of the study area (10-meter National Elevation Dataset);
• Georeferenced versions of historic USGS planimetric and quadrangle maps (obtained from the TVA and the
Library of Congress and georeferenced by David Leigh); and
• Georeferenced versions of the TVA Fontana Lake land acquisition maps (georeferenced by the TVA).
The following data layers have been created and maintained:
• NRHP-eligible archeological sites;
• Potentially NRHP-eligible archaeological sites;
• Ineligible archaeological sites;
• NRHP-eligible shuctures or other above-ground resources;
• Potentially NRHP-eligible structures ar other above-ground resources;
• Cemeteries recorded on GSMNP;
• Other potential cemeteries on GSMNP;
• Former cemeteries (all graves moved);
• Other cemeteries;
• Former structure locations from pre-1926 maps (Kephart n.d.; Riggs 1988; USGS 1886, 1892a, 1892b,
1906, 1913; Williams 1838);
• Former structure locations from 1926-1941 maps (TVA 1941; USGS 1926, 1931a, 1931b, 1935, 1936a,
] 936b, 1936c, 1936d, 1936e, 1940a, 1940b, 1940c, 1940d, 1940e, 1941 a, l 941 b, 1941 c);
• Former structures in the Chambers Creek area (Chambers et al. 1988);
• Mines and prospect locations (Emmons 1942, 1944; Espenshade 1963; Fox et al. 1944; Mohr 1975;
Robinson et al. l 992);
• Former Hazel Creek mine structures (Espenshade 1963);
• Former Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) camp locations (Pyle 1979); and
• Areas that have been intensively surveyed for archaeological resources.
Other map sources, including the 1943 TVA land acquisition maps, earlier KPC (1913-1915) and NP&L
(1929-1932) inaps, and hand-drawn inaps provided by area residenis (e.g., Anonymous 1986; Monteith
n.d.) were also consulted, but were not used in the creation of the data layers.
In addition to these data layers, layers were also created to illustrate areas of less than 15 percent slope in
the study area, so that this information could be used in predicting potential archaeological site locations
and areas of potential alluvial/colluvial deposition (see Chapter 5 for a discussion of site predictive
modeling in the study area). These layers were created by David Leigh, and were derived from a 10-m
interval Digital Elevation Model (DEM) obtained from the Seamless National Elevation Dataset
developed by the USGS. Leigh used Erdas bnagineT"' to convert the DEM pixels into slope values.
Field Inspection
Due to the preliminary nature of this study (and the extensive size of the study area), no attempt was made
to field verify most of the data layers, although a few cemetery and structure locations were checked. In
addition, project personnel participated in a three-day hike of parts of the study area in June 2003.
Although the hike was intended only to provide an introduction to the existing road networks in that area,
very limited archaeological and geomorphic reconnaissance was also conducted at that time. Finally,
limited geomorphic reconnaissance also was conducted elsewhere in the study area.
The archaeological reconnaissance within GSIVINP was conducted under ARPA permit GRSM 03-001;
no archaeological investigations have been conducted on other federal, state, or privately owned lands.
NRHP Eligibility Criteria
Although no formal recommendations concerning NRHP-eligibility are made in this report, frequent
reference is made to the known or potential status of resources, and for that reason it is useful to review
the NRHP Eligibility Criteria as outlined in 36 CFR 60.4 and discussed in National Register Bulletins
(Little and Siebert 2000; McClelland et al. 1991; NPS 1991; Townsend et al. 1993) and other publications
(Anfnson 2002, Hardesry and Little 2000, King 1998, 2000).
The NRHP Eligibility Criteria state:
The quality of significance in Amencan history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture
is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that possess integriry of location,
design, setting, materials, worlananship, feeling and association.
(a). That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of our history; or
(b). That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(c). That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or
that represent the wark of a master, or that possess high artistic values; or that represent a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
�
(d). That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The regulations (36 CFR 60.4) also outline several Criteria Considerations that should also be taken into
account when evaluating eligibility of some types of resources:
Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious
institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original
locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties commemorative in nature, and properties
that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the
National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that
do meet the criteria or if they fall within the followin� categories:
(a). a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artisric distinction or
historical importance; or
(b). a building or strucYure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily
for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a
historic person or event; or
(c). a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no other
appropriate site or building directly associated with his productive life; or
(d). a cemetery that derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent
importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or
(e). a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in
a dignified manner as part of a restorarion master plan, and when no other building or structure
with the same association has survived; or
(fl. a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has
invested it with its own historical significance; or
(g). a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional signiiicance.
For the purpose of this report, the NRHP-eligibility of resources is discussed in four ways.
• NRHP-listed. These resources have been formally listed in the NRHP by the Keeper of the
National Register, either as a direct result of nomination by a Federal Agency or after their
nomination has been approved and forwarded to the Keeper by the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO). Consequenfly, these resources must be considered in federal undertakings
under the provisions of the NHPA.
• NRHP-eligible. These resources (generally archaeological sites) have been determined
eligible for listing in the NRHP by the SHPO or by the appropriate Federal Agency, such as
the NPS, the TVA, or the USFS. These represent Class I sites under USFS terminology. As
with NRHP-listed resources, these resources must be considered in federal undertakings
under the provisions of the NHPA.
Unassessed. These resources have been idenrified, but have not been determined either
eligible or ineligible by the SHPO or Federal Agency. In some cases these resources have
been recommended for additional evaluation on the basis of inirial archaeological or
architectural investigations, and in other cases no formal report or recommendation has been
made. These resources are often referred to as "potentially eligible" (despite the semantic
problems with the term), and represent Class II sites under USFS terminology. If such a
resource was potentially to be affected by a federal undertaking, it would be necessary to
obtain a formal determination of eligibility from the SHPO or responsible Federal Agency.
[[I]
• NRHP-ineligible. These resources have been assessed by the SHPO or Federal Agency and
determined not to meet the NRHP criteria. These represent Class III sites under USFS
terminology. Such resources merit no further consideration under the NHPA, although it is
possible that their status could be reevaluated based on new evidence or changing
understanding of their worth.
11
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PHYSIOGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGY
The North Shore Road EIS study area is centered along a 29-river mile section of the Little Tennessee
Valley in western North Carolina, which divides the Great Smoky Mountains to the north from the
Snowbird, Cheoah, Alarka, and Cowee ranges io the south. The Great Smokies are part of the Unaka
range. The mountain wall constituting the Smokies is the highest and most massive in all the
Appalachians, containing 16 peaks over 6,000 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) within its 34-mile
length (Frome 1994:17-18). The crest of the Smokies (which reaches an elevation of 6,642 feet at
Clingmans Dome, a few miles north of the project boundary) forms the narthern boundary of Swain
County as well as the boundary between North Carolina and Tennessee. South of Fontana Lake, the
nearby mountains reach over 5,062 feet at Cheoah Bald. The elevations in the study area vary
considerably, and range from the 1,276-foot elevation of the pool of Cheoah Lake (below Fontana Dam)
to 5,190 feet at High Rocks on Welch Ridge. The full pool elevation of Fontana Lake is 1,710 feet, and
most of the study area lies above that elevation.
The study area is drained by the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries, which include the Tuckasegee
and Nantahala rivers. The Little Tennessee and Nantahala head to the southeast, while the Tuckasegee
heads to the east and southeast. Major tributary streams within the study area include Tuskeegee, Stecoah,
and Alarka creeks, which drain the mountains to the south and southeast, and Eagle, Hazel, Forney,
Noland, and Deep creeks draining the Smokies to the north (Figure 3.1). Numerous smaller streams are
also present, some as tributaries to the major creeks and some draining directly into the rivers. The major
hydrologic feature in the vicinity is Fontana Lake (Figure 3.2), a 10,670-acre reservoir that was formed in
1944 when the TVA completed construction of a 480-foot high dam on the Little Tennessee in the
western part of the study area (TVA 1950:22). Construction of Fontana Lake submerged the bottomlands
along the major rivers in the study area, and also created major embayments along such streams as Eagle,
Hazel, Forney, Noland, Stecoah, and Alarka creeks. The only major drainages in the study area that were
not at least partially inundated by Fontana Lake (or by Cheoah Lake below Fontana Dam) are a short
segment of the Tuckasegee River at Bryson City and adjacent Deep Creek.
The Little Tennessee is part of the Tennessee River system, and flows west from Fontana Dam through
the Cheoah reservoir into Tennessee, continuing through Calderwood, Chilhowee, and Tellico reservoirs
before joining the Tennessee River west of Maryville. The Tennessee River flows first southwest, then
west, and then almost due north through the Mid-South before reaching the Ohio River a short distance
above its confluence with the Mississippi.
GEOLOGY
A number of geological maps are available for various parts of the North Shore project area. The entire
area has been mapped several times, beginning with early work by Keith (1895, 1907) and including
more recent maps or compilations by the NCGS (1985), Robinson et al. (1993), and Weiner and Merschat
(1992). In addition, detailed maps of portions of the area have been prepared by Espenshade ([parts of the
Hazel and Eagle creelcs drainages] 1963), Mohr ([the Noland Creek quadrangle] 1975), Southworth ([the
Fontana Dam and Tuskeegee quadrangles] 1995), and others. Given the expansive size of the study area
and the varied nature of this mapping, the following discussion provides only a brief overview of the local
geology. The reader is referred to the detailed inaps and other sources for more specific discussions of the
geology of any individual part of the study area.
[L►�
��; �1 " ;� . '� '�,� ' 1 � � � ��s + �
� � ��
4.� ,�,a�, � J `�.::�" f
'� � � ... � .d �+ia �v. � a`
� M ' ..;� �� �� ` � : 41 ..
, i �, . _ �' �y „�e'
'�' �� • . �I� ,�,�' . ..+� '� zn ,��
'�#3. 'n a� `. � T.� '�- .� ��F`��., �s�� . �'��..., "•i.:�
�
., T �
�' ,.,y`�7 ;. . �• '�M1� i•�..'�., A � : �+�.� �r� � �- . �..�
_` , �. . �}� .. � _ `
b � . " ::�11t -' �:�. . _. S ��`�..��-� � �� '�j ' !�
` ,'` y�, t�� � •�' $y ��9 .�l�' - ���
=� - �, : , ... „�.� , ��� . � �
._. _�. $a .
�. c � _ ..
z �� �-.-- ��� � � � ; �- ,�;�.- ,�_
" ,�. �
� �- ��4 .� � � �s� , 9 ar
., � - � � , .,� �s ; °" �. � • '�.� � �. c . :. •- : � �' °..'.. f ,�j • ` �'
_ ���
��, � pYa . 11 '' . � , ' �
. _vy� ii ��7.� _,� ��... • �. �, . ��� ' .
� . . , .. � .. a ' -' . o-. � .. .
` P s .
.:��'�� e .. . R _ :.. . n y .. . ��„ .. - .. . ,�_,. 7 �..�
--._- � � �. + ... � .: _ !
t
� � �..� � �1 ` .
k �;�
_ 1�' F�� ~ � _ � �� p..J' ri�� .,�' r4 ' .��_
- � � "I� tl M -�����'r a .'��-} '�. '� � .._ �q�
.�, ,°�� . . ° ..'F ¢�,a"� � �
� �4... _ " Y . � � .
� � . � �.�. � �r{Y �� w�"�:
� � � � .
�' �' �'?��'� - af
- ��,.�,, �.. , . - � , � �,"`�'°:� �
" ` 6 , ' - 4� . ; - _ a.:� t�.
� ' ",,�,, - '�r�.: � �'='��� '3 �,�_ � ��,���
, �' � r
�.�,�. _ .� .�,.', : �.� �°��
� � _ ?�� - .�° _ ' . �
� a �� ����
'�. ,�� _��M . .�y �.., - a
.,', `f- `."�-�r� _` .ry��� 6
�. e-a � e _ , �
�. ,. , a
�,
,�� •-. ._ - ' _ , -� , • _` � -,+r
F
h�r-._ . `�. ' . . !# :,fy � .._._. 't' _ _
yT a°�'4 - -
� ' �s . �, '� .. , � , �� ��e¢ 1• '�
.. � - �,-. - - _ ..ti,
E �_ ��-
�� M
,;, • � ..a�+1. ._- � �' �4.
L' -.a��� � �
Figure 3.1. Forney Creek, view to north from Lakeshore Trail.
13
The most readily available map of the area is the large-scale North Carolina geologic map (NCGS 1985).
That map indicates that most of the area is contained within the Great Smolcy Group, which includes a
number of sedimentary and inetamorphic rocks of the Blue Ridge Be1t (Figure 3.3). Most of the North
Shore is mapped as the Copperhill Formation (Zch), which consists of inetagraywacke along with dark
gray slate, mica schist, and "nodular calo-silicate rock." A linear band extending northeast-southwest in
the Eagle Creek area is mapped as Slate of Copperhill Formation (Zchs), and includes dark gray graphitic
and sulfidic slate to phyllite along with metagraywacke. Two small areas within that formation are
mapped as intrusive amphibolite (Czam) of the Murphy Belt. Most of the rest of the study area is
variously mapped as the Wehutty Formation (Zwe), which primarily consists of dark gray slate to schist;
unnamed metasandstone, metagraywacke, metasiltstone, and mica schist (Zhha); and seritic schist of the
Dean formarion (Zd), all of the Great Slnoky Group. Small areas at the south edge of the study area are
mapped as metamorphic rocks of the Murphy Belt, including the Nantahala Formation and Tusquitee
quartzite (Znt), which includes slate, metasiltstone, and quartzite; and schist and micaceous quartzite of
the Brasstown Fonnation (Zb). A small area surrounding Bryson City is mapped as middle to late
Proterozoic biotic granitic gneiss (Ybbg) (NCGS 1985).
Robinson et al.'s (1993) map of the Knoxville 1 x 2 degree quadrangle (Figure 3.4) depicts most of the
North Shore as the Anakeesta (Zga) or Copperhill (Zgc) formations of the Late Proterozoic Great Smoky
Group; smaller areas are mapped as intrusive Cambrian and late Proierozoic metadiorite (CZmd). Moving
south and east, sizeable areas are mapped as the Wehutty Formation (Zgw); sandstone, graywacke, and
siltstone of the Great Smoky Group (Zgsg); the Nantahala Formation and Tusquitee Quartzite (Cnt) of the
Murphy Belt; and the Copperhill (Zgc) and Dean formations (Zgd) of the Great Smoky Group. An area
around Bryson City is mapped as middle Proterozoic biotic gneiss (Ybg). (The red squares on this map
indicate the location of known mines or prospects). In addition, Espenshade et al. (1963) provide detailed
mapping of an irregularly shaped area in the Hazel and Eagle Creek drainages on either side of Pinnacle
Ridge, and differentiate feldpathic sandstone, phyllite, and schist of the Great Smoky Group, along with
small areas of diorite and carbonate schist.
The most detailed geologic maps of the study area are provided by Mohr (1972, 1975) and Southworth
(1995). Although these maps generally support earlier characterizations of the bedrock in the area, there
are substantial differences in the nomenclature employed. In particular, Southworth (1995:4) notes the
lack of detailed mapping and correlations between the North Shore area and the type localities for the
various metasedimentary formations (including the Anakeesta Formation and others), and far this reason
does not provide formation names for many lithologic units in the project area.
The varied formations in the area potentially provided a variety of lithic resources to the prehistoric,
Historic Cherokee, and early Euro-American inhabitants. Quartzite and quartz for stone tool making are
present as residual materials in many drainages, and workable quartz or quartzite outcrop in some areas.
In particular, Mohr (1975:4) notes the occurrence of a thick deposit of white, vitreous quartzite or
metaquartzite of the Thunderhead Formation south of McHan Knob in the southeastern part of the study
area. In addition to these materials, Southworth (1995:10) describes deposits of a"light gray, fine
grained" porphyritic material (probably metarhyolite) in the Ecoah Branch area of the Eagle Creek
drainage. This material is reportedly similar to metarhyolites of the Grandfather Mountain and Mount
Rogers formations to the northeast in North Carolina and Virginia, some of which are known to have
been exploited by prehistoric populations in those areas (Bondar 2001). There are no known chert sources
in the area, and chert occurrences are extreinely unlikely given the local geology.
Other potential lithic resources in the area include soapstone (carbonate-chlorite schist), which outcrops at
several locations in the Eagle Creek and Soapstone Gap areas (Southworth 1995:4, 6) and in Welch Cove
(Rodney Snedeker, personal communication 2003). Greenstone deposits have also been reported in the
Ecoah Branch area (Southworth 1995:6). Finally, copper was mined at several locations in the area
[L'!
i
i , �
� i,-.
� �Ilre�
� � � �
��o �
_, � -,� ,�
�z�!� ` �.�
��,� ,�ilu�;� ;��
' s, -
_ ° s'°� .��tk �`� �. •e - .: i
s, _ �� ,_ _ � .,.. e � , � ' .
- - - �_ _ � f � � . �`�
����� � � r N�F . .' '.°�� �e .. k�
� � � �� ,9.
. -g t.� �!PW 'C� �� � � �� �.-,-� � d ��p'E
� - - �'�� � � �4 r ;t �w �. � i�l � s '�. r �`i, ,
�- � � � � �
�* �� � �`� �::-�
::�: _ _� . ,
.w� � � �r�, �� `"�'�� �' �' ° � r� � � , i` .:�;
� �}a
. � � ��'1 �,� � �r� �.F� Y� -
r•.. .'f �` ';d� Jd e� . � �: ,. ' ` �i'`✓�
� �'T � �� . n . . J � ,�� t'' 7 '7� �
f r � ' ��:�.''��6.�� � __� .,yL � } � }'" � d*..•+ , l �fy L� �
� e �. 'r "�+n^ 7 L� 4�_ . 4 — '. ,�; ���. �°." : R`a �-.,�� �F �1 � �
� eCrni ._ . . �
� �`.` prle,-aa i`r 4�U1�� �� .1 � °��l4�` �—.� r ��, - � r � r �y __ � -�
.:
� , : . . --"� ��"I ' n +b'. - `: �r �. ; `"� y �4
�
�^ , �eh • - � "t H € � �. .y � , �_= ,'r'� �'�._ �r� � .. 1 g,�w'� - .
°-:g�nlare� �� � � � �° • '�• � �
, i� ° � ` m- u �, ,� , r L, ,� ��, - _.�. � �
, = � �-_ +�L - ,�� � ° r, �� - _ � �Y-r,r � .�u .r
�R
1� _�z F+ �4��.�` : � ~`� �
_ - ,� � .'�a. . j�,� " ,�,i.
�''� a . � ,:^I.�' �ta.�.11n� • r , � ?-� ,5� . `�a _ r � 1�"'�'"� .. . .. �
��.� • � � ' .��d " , ' , , '- ,�,�a_�.� -
�'�'! NYj r _ - � ' �'` �- •., ''� �,�''� `}, � i� TT_.'�LY� .'.
, � o . �.: ,ia_�.. .
� �° � ° , u ' . . " � y� .� ... . e
� Y +- ' V �'�p_.,y �� � �.�, ,_� ti ■rh���,,,;` �, � �i'`'�`'�����r1l�l�i���_
v • (u�* :. � �� A .,, �. ., . � . ,{.. r- , - "�1 1 �',¢j � � �1 �:A
d�rj � . .. � � �. I •_
� ` '����� ;_ �•' ., .. �� �� ti .�;,� �
L'
4
' � 4�� — Q r � �'� �;:- �' � �.� . �
�"' ' ���p� ` e'�'-., � r�'�;•" ,. � .
, : ;� •
: � °� �� ' -
v i'� � � �� ; Ritri �,,_ rt L_ ,. rt . ,.s � � , ,�.'p�� �� � p• , . �'�
:' �y�'�' e � � � . :r _ ��I.f: � T _ � ^�� • —-,• y • �}FFei'•��.r^th+l �," f� �
��
? I�. n� � � � g. '.. . I �,r ' '"�� I � . "�� '� � . i_ � � : . e.. � �- . . �p " � �f .. ��,
A`� , ,r+'l.l■ R �J � � �P�1�1�1�11cP+� . ` _. • " � � . 7�' � .. � ,�<� N' ..
r.. � ' - . ��� ��i�YS � -+aa . �°� � � _ a r +� y �''
: r,J�M. _ s y ,� � i y.- °o o•,. R� �„•� r �i �����1� � �I
�.' "� '�� � se'r� ` � ��^ � ' :�. i-A� ' _ ���. .I �`_ -� � r�a J � �,' -J �� "-�'�
M1 ' � �
' ��+ �
. ���, r,�� ��� � . ! �� _a F' ��� '�r�� � �.�'"�...t,��'� � � u
i. � '� • °4 � d' "Y'
g � � e i
�
�i , � � �. � . � �. � �.
�� r�:, � �'�`•t1i��� �9'�Fr ,� � t:� � `�'�.�. � ..' �'� 4 r � ,r
� ,, �r +� ` F �' � . . _ � �$ .
� -,�.;:. � � . .. . : � � r .
"'� d , �'S^ �� _ . � � �1R9 .r .JlIF
. �
� � �., T �. � ° ;=r�� i��5 _,f
� . . , � _ �_P�Y z� .. .
.. � .. .. .' # . . � - _ _ ' i i. � �s �. _ ''.
,r � � y �� +{�� .. y" � _9 . t
�nl� �� i ` _l � ' � .�q � �,I lt�i�+ �r H�-" � � ;
__ _. . ° � � +f'
• f d�r =
' r � k 1 . � ; � .,
'; y�e� � - � y.4�-.�"p�._ , _ `$ . �
:''p � � i. ,�
a ��'�' - . r' r�.d��.�� � ..� ¢� Y�'���� � ° � . `�-� � v`r� .� � �I� �; �� a��
Figure 3.3. North Carolina Geological Survey (1985) map of study area.
�
�_ ' - � a : , — _ f . _�
. � .
_a
.� . g. , � ' n _
,•. ,t. .• rk . . c+�o �" -. �� , �" , t' �jjra ,
y� .- �+�5 � ' � '' �'. .. " :..� � ��. � . '�.+'. . . . �
_ . °" +�ry ' ,, V
A•_• .
. . , I f"-�r° '' .�� . � � �•
fik • a����` � � d° 1a57d �� '
�.
, ' � ,
. - , —�.r
;, � o�: .'' ���+���'-�' �P ��
� I � �
. � � .
�'. • � °' ,� . � �zvd . ,��� •..� P ' - "
ti
... ., �• I ~ p -`4 .,�:�5:� r° ' ' 6d�nTM'I"' *1
. �.�a . - r . �� � �.�. .
�,�� � �
., y�j`�t ��� �� ,� - r.ar , ��-' �fi��'y15 ��.' °" � •� �- - .,� �.•_��-+� ° .
` r��. � .�.r'r� ar r �:uiv .. .� ` '� � � _ . � i�i - � �:;3 � _
, � � � "� � � ,.,. .,_ . �
. �. _,� .� _ � __ f-- ,. - � �
�
�
_ — � �ic�u,. �� � _ i�i.�` � _ . , �..
. �r $� � � —r
� � � � -- �1 f .� � ; — ��+I � � T I � f� " " " �'� � � � � ��
� �.� r. � �
�r X � r�,,� , " yy,�I �`r -f2 j-' ,ti�1r.� � �°±.
-. _ ? �� . '.M�� � � � � �'f � p `� � � ldilC7
. � ja� '4, ~ � {1
� �- � t_��, � � '�rr�d �-_ . � �`5t�� _rr� }y�`� � RP � �t
�.•
� r�`� . ; •
inlf} 7f a��il �'� �J,° .� f'�'� A 4 °t�ti :�'� ,
. "y eY G�• � � Y� Y., . .� � "a. � ± �,.� � � / � �,. t- _ �T � � * . ..
. g .�
, ep L- . _ . /� .
� �y _. � .. • . , r � .
' �� .�d u � , . t � ..: � MI`.R' AI�! 5 e1'�., , � .. .+� v � � j
k+ � �:� �`�1 '+ r' . � � �{ � nvF�esfi , _ � � �..
s 7� � - �de.��if+' a �' ,� f,.�� ' �� � ..
a. .�+. I �',�,� �r,�.. � +y+ �� ° �.f„ `�es;'� ,yu i' � � � 1 �� ;�l - .
! �} r�
� t yy,te! ± . �;. . ,� t � a��', li �` I, y �! �,.: ,
�. a� w �cu� � �r' .,� �.,} r.� '��. +� ��f "si�R° � . r'
��'�� � . � % ��� ' �'G2R5� +"`� '= f � r� v � �'r � . _ r . . . -r
� ' � , J ik �+ ,r'� � � ,,� �� tl
» '
' l^'� ri ��^' yr� �;.f '1y ,P �' j .�.�dy.�.� `�I �� .. -��. �� .
Y o' � I � � r
4 �l � �tl, � � �,.
� F r' r i f � _ _ �.'r4 '..:' ' , � � fl �-�, r`" ^a - �,
o . '.§., � 4 r ��` .FPI'. �� '-,, p' -
#i�q'�'- �Je'�
- +-, ,�- � ��`'�, �-�-� 7� '*� �. .� ' y
� A � tl .,
I ° , �f' �'",�i — {—�s z—,1L_ �� � _°�Y1 "h� fi ` _ � �' � • - • �.
_ ..,.� °.. �, � � ..
. r �' � t� �
. " _ r
_.� 4
� -� � � � � J a., �'�", 4' . vi +�vF �,..'.. Y:v � � ��� � � I .,, �� �„� s � W ° f• � ��. ".
�:'. � 4, . � ,r Y� � ' I �
� � i o ,,F . ^. � '� F � 'y,� � Y � � y_. rri — . " I .. 3 l i.. r .
.��'�r � �_. .,p +a� �;.,�, �r�C.�i-r5 `�'e_ - . o` . ^� ' _�. �''e° ' .a,• ,
rtr 'E 16
� '.� � � "� t• `5.
� '. . ' •�;. � . ^ �f b
.. , . � .. � � a. L _
. .� �
, � - �. - .,,�. =9.a45iu� i -1 ,�� ._ m � . L'� �y.s.,...•r �' ' .� �.`'..k ^ }' �EP . � `n+, I 4 . _ ..
�' -`�--
� _ ,: '°� '+q � �� . ,r-� . � � `. r . �� S
a
� � �� � �� � d� 'J :�"�•� �.a ��" Jt� ...f...� �. tiYi *��I ` ��'� .
#a h�_ -�■ _. ,,'� . �.� f .
s
�°�
en _ . r e. ' r r.• _ _ _. `"�t •
_ � � ti' � -
" ��,. ,, � � ��: <<• ` .� L_ ., a� � � :ti�
. � .- . - -� . L ^r , ry, � !'r. r. �: ,ry �.�,
� I .
_
_ . _ �- � 1JI�� � h.;�.�'` � �P ,r � -. �+I 7 � ; ; -� ' : E ; � �,S f,, f r - � t-1'P � i .
I ,.g�
'''�A ��' �ti tF. ' � � � . � _� '� ' •tt,,f j. � .E ,' �I �" f �r '. : �,I'� .-�
, -�
_ :�o �
. ,
� � ,�° '� - �'S �,� .`e � - �,d'T: 4�i �.s4�� Y4.�� � � i,,.L "., e �.` �.�yl .�.i' ! '� � �IA�'. � � • � •f:-
. •:•rr
r .- _
� � � � � P ���r� . Y'� � _ �,. . �#
_ .— :. ��, . =� • � �
.� � �� _
X '-} . e _ � ' � � �''�` . r� t' .
.r
:.-_ � • . , : '� �, �� � '�1' _
" � � ka
. ,� �.. 3 -'� r . � . p , _ �..
ti
r
0
.�. . ' _ � • . � ?��
r � ., T ��'� .e � ,�:,� . ' ° ` r' I� ; � _ :" ``� • � �'�'�' _ 4� r` Y. V
t � � .
' �, � .
�: '.' �`
.y� _ ,,
�–'. ° r�� . , . [' _ �yG .
. '. t •:n �' , � � .�t, _, y , .�.p � �� � � , �+ . : 4. . � ,: � L s � r' y•
� �
� 4 .
��I � .$ �� . _Y � �� j� i' iY. ;l`,G . .a � v � � Y�Y`�8:.'.e• i]-� ; � _ � I� .. . . ._ . rm �, ,,...'..
•° � - µ ..":.� s' h= 7�,Pl�� .. .,-'•,�;+� I �7 Y'�ky'uY. ' ��� ' ��,
�y .r ,��
_..:':.+�-Y � .,,_ � � .I. -X °�. � �d��. �,� f s - t e � F f " i � . � � 3 �'
•,_�" - . : Lrt _—� �7 - '�1 �:i� � �'° •..'�' • !i
C J I ,� ' w t:
� � .! V ' Le � _ � �b ���, . ` . y�j � •? � . i ,��-- .� . �':. �
, • . . ,
�'
, _
� .
w
. � �. . . " � a ' . v�'^ ' .
5 1� •� � �.' :, sF' _�7,� � f� - � � � • ~`I
' ' :a i _
i ti�'' _� �;. � e: � ." _ : ��s:
. r
"+� ,. � Se f l ,� ,. � +� � � �� p � � �,�.� t �� 'fi�� �4 � � : '*
^ ` .
.. � . +` �. � �
� 1 �:: �.-�� +��d �d � � . ..�m. ��"� f�]� �''� � �'_° ' . ,� . �y�1,1 . ���
. r� v �•. A,
,� �-�,, . . �. �
e _s . .. { ; . �
. �� 'm ���i � � fjj ,�..
� _# , �: `.
, � . . J. � y..��.s°�_ ...� n � �. . , � . , `�,•�jp . �'• �� ��p . . �{y ' �� �1 �V�
. � bs
Figure 3.4. Robinson et aL (1993) geological map of study area.
during the late nineteenth through mid-twentieth centuries (see Chapter 4), but is not known to have
occurred in a form suitable for use by the prehistaric or Historic Cherokee inhabitants.
GEOMOPHOLOGY AND SOILS
No comprehensive attempt has been made to characterize landforms in the study area, although some
preliminary investigaiions were undertaken as part of the present project (Leigh 2003). The following
overview is based on ihat work, map inspection, and more intensive investigations undertaken elsewhere
in the region (Cleveland et al. 2002; Leigh 2002).
At least fve basic landform types are present in the study area, each with a different potential for
containing intact archaeological remains. These include stream and river floodplains, terraces,
alluviaUcolluvial fans, hillslope deposits, and uplands.
Floodplains lie only a few feet (ca. 1-2 m) above the low-water levels of rivers and streams, are
characterized by distinct ridges and swales, and receive new sediment during relatively frequent overbank
flood events. These features are present along major streams such as Hazel Creek and probably along the
upper reach of the Tuckasegee River, although other floodplains along the rivers and lower reaches of the
major tributaries are inundated by Fontana Lake. Due to their recent age and instability, floodplains have
very low potential for containing intact or buried prehistoric cultural deposits, but could contain historic
sites or artifacts.
Fine-grained low terrace deposits are present along such drainages as Hazel and Deep creeks and the
Tuckasegee River, and are typically located some 5-12 feet (ca. 1.5-3.5 m) above the low-water level.
Limited investigation at sample locations in the study area (including along Hazel and Deep creeks)
suggests that these terraces are primarily mid-to-late Holocene in age, as are similar terraces mapped
along the Raven Fork River to the northeast (Leigh 2002). Consequently, these terrace deposits have a
high potential to contain shallowly buried cultural deposits. High terraces (greater than 12 feet [ca. 3.5 m]
above low-water level) are substantially older and offer little to no potential for burial of cultural
materials.
AlluviaUcolluvial fans and hillslope deposits constitute the third and %urth landform types. Alluvial/
colluvial fans are fan-shaped aprons of sediments situated along drainages along the valley edge and
contain sediments that have been transported from the uplands and redeposited in the valleys. Many such
fans in the study area have probably been inundated, but others are visible ai the mouths of tributaries
entering larger valleys. Hillslope deposits are similar to the fans but are largely composed of sediment
from debris flows and include more angular cobbles and gravels mixed with the fine matrix; these
deposits are common along the valley edges and in high-mountain valleys. Debris flows were apparently
relaiively common in ihe Smokies during the early to mid-Holocene, perhaps as a resuli of increased
rainfall during the period (Leigh 2002). Debris flows also frequently result from historic period logging
on upland slopes (Jakob 2000), and there is some evidence of increased debris flow activity in the study
area in the 1920s, as evidenced by a major flow that occurred in ihe headwaters of Pilkey Creek (David
Monteith, personal communication 2003; Southworth 1995:15). Both alluvial/colluvial fans and hillslope
deposits have a high potential to contain buried cultural deposits.
A fifth landform type consists of the upper mountain slopes and summits in the study area. Although
some of these areas were suitable for habitation, they represent erosional landscape settings and are
unlikely to contain buried deposits.
The only published soils data for Swain and Graham counties (Goldston and Getrys 1953; Perkins and
Gettys 1947) are based on pre-Fontana Lake fieldworlc; consequently, both surveys include data on both
inundated and noninundated areas. The lowest floodplain soils in the area were variously mapped as
17
Buncombe, Chewacla, Congaree, Toxaway, and Wehadkee soils, and were generally poorly drained.
Terrace soils were generally mapped as Hiwassee and State soils, and were considered of inedium to high
fertility. Tusquitee series soils were present on the colluvial slopes, while Porters, Burton, Ramsey,
Talladega, and Hayesville soils were present in the uplands (Goldston and Gettys 1953; Perkins and
Gettys 1947). Updated soil surveys of both Swain and Graham counties are currently in progress.
Provisional soil association data developed by the National Resources Conservation Service indicate that
three soil associations are present in the study area: the Sylco-Cataska-Spivey-Junaluska-Tsali
Association, the Evard-Cowee-Trimont Association, and the Soco-Stecoah-Cheoah-Spivey-Junaluska-
Brasstown Association.
CLIMATE
The climates of Swain and Graham counties are characterized by cool, relatively short summers and wet,
occasionally cold winters. Temperatures are generally moderate and usually do not exceed 90° F in the
summer or drop below 0° F in the winter. Average summer temperatures are about 70° F, with winter
temperatures averaging 40° F. Local weather conditions vary considerably with elevation and exposure
(Swain County Planning Team 1976:16-17). The area averages 176 frost-free days each year, and
snowfall is usually light. Snow does not remain long in the valleys, but may last throughout the winter on
the higher peaks (Perkins and Gettys 1947:7).
With the exception of the Pacific Northwest, the Little Tennessee drainage basin receives more rainfall
per year than any other area in the United States. Between 1937 and 1948, annual precipitation in the
river basin above Fontana Dam ranged from 49.6 inches to 69.6 inches (TVA 1950:23). The higher
elevations may sometimes receive as much as 80 inches of rainfall per year. Precipitation is fairly
consistent throughout the year, although fall is generally the driest season.
FLORA
The North Shore study area and the rest of the Southern Appalachians are part of the Oak-Chestnut Forest
Region, which includes a number of distinct forest types that vary with elevation. The pre-twentieth
century vegetation in the river valleys and coves, and on the sheltered mountain slopes was dominated by
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), ash (Fraxinus spp.), hemlock (Tsuga spp.), white basswood (Tilia
spp.), buckeye (Aesculus spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), red maple (Acer �ubrum), chestnut (Castanea
dentata), and walnut (Juglans nigra). The higher elevations supported wild cherry (Prunus serotina), oak,
maple, birch (Betula spp.), and beech (Fagus grandifolia). Clingmans Dome and other higher elevations
were covered with balsam (actually Fraser) fir (Abies fraseri) and rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.)
(Holmes 1911:38; Perkins and Gettys 1947:9).
Extensive logging in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries removed much of the virgin timber
from the area. By the late-1920s most of the accessible timber had been cut, and much of the study area
was covered by secondary growth. The chestnut blight also resulted in further alterations in forest
composition. Species present in upland forests today include oaks, pines (Pinus spp.), birch, hickory
(Carya spp.), dogwood (CoNnus spp.), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), cherry, honey locust
(Gleditsia triacanthos), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), tulip poplar, white basswood, hemlock,
cucumbertree (Magnolia acuminata), and buckeye. Valley species include pines, oaks, sourwood,
dogwood, hickories, and locusts (Gleditsia spp.) (Perkins and Gettys 1947:9).
In addition to arboreal species, the forests supported a variety of undergrowth species. The latter included
several varieties of edible berries, such as blackberries and raspberries (both Rubus spp.) and
hucicleberries (Gaylussacia spp.), as well as many other species used for food and medicinal purposes by
both the Cherokee and later Euro-American settlers (Mooney and Olbrechts 1932; Oliver 1989:29).
.
FAUNA
The varied forests in the area supported a substantial and diverse fauna, as indicated by both early historic
period observations and modern inventories (Davis 1990:32; Stupka 1960). Ecological analysis indicates
that white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) would have inhabited the forests at a rate of about 400
head per 10 square miles (Dorwin 1975), although densities likely varied by season and by local
topography and vegetation. Other large and small mammals were also common. Black bear (Ursus
americanus) were present in densities of about 5 per 10 square miles, and elk (Cervus elaphus) probably
occupied the region during some intervals when human populations were low (Dorwin 1975). Wolves
(Canis sp.) were also present, along with panthers or mountain lions (Felis concolor), bobcats (Lynx
rufus), gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), raccoons (Procyon lotor), beavers (Castor canadensis),
otters (LutNa canadensis), muskrats (Ondatra zibethica), mink (Mustela vison), opossums (Didelphis
marsupialis), gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), and fox squirrels (Sciurus niger) (Linzey 1995; Oliver
1989:31; Shelford 1963; Stupka 1960). Avian species of possible economic importance included turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo) and smaller species; other species may have been valuable non-food resources as
well. The Little Tennessee and its tributary streams would have provided a variety of fish, including
catfish (Ictaluridae), sunfish (Centrarchidae), largemouth (Micropterus salmoides) and smallmouth
(Micropterus dolo�nieui) bass, and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis).
PALEOENVIRONMENT
The contemporary climate and vegetation of the Great Smokies are products of a long and complex
process of natural and human-induced change. The average winter temperatures in the area were
considerably colder during the last glacial period, ca. 23,000-13,000 B.C. At that time, the Southeast was
covered by a boreal, northern coniferous forest dominated by pines and spruce (Delcourt and Delcourt
1983; Whitehead 1973). The climate warmed and precipitation increased from ca. 13,000 to 8000 B.C.,
the period during which the iirst humans arrived in the Appalachian Summit region. During this time (the
Late terminal Wisconsin glacial period), coniferous forests were replaced by northern hardwoods as
dominant overstory species in the lower elevations (Bryson et al. 1970; Watts 1975, 1980; Whitehead
1973). The period from ca. 6000 to 3000 B.C. is referred to the Hypsithermal. This has typically been
considered a period of continued warming but decreased precipitation (Bryson et al. 1970; Watts 1975),
although there is increasing evidence (e.g., Lamoreaux 1999; Leigh 2002; Leigh and Feeney 1995;
Prentice et al. 1991) that parts of the Mid-Holocene were much wetter than previously supposed. The
climate since ca. 3000 B.C. has cooled slightly. Delcourt and Delcourt (1983) have docuinented long-term
fluctuations in vegetation zone elevations through pollen analysis. This vegetational variability would
have been an important factor in the potential for human utilization of higher altitudes.
�
4.CULTURAL BACKGROUND
This chapter presenis an overview of the prehistoric and historic period occupations of the study area and
the Appalachian Summit region. Much of the earlier part of the cultural sequence for the region is based
on Coe's (1964) investigations of the prehistoric cultures of North Carolina, coupled with more recent
research across the mountains in Tennessee (e.g., Davis 1990; Kimball 1985). The later prehistory of
western North Carolina has been refined by various researchers, including Dickens (1976), Keel (1976),
contributors to Mathis and Crow (1983) and Moore (1986), Riggs and Rodning (2002), and Ward and
Davis (1999). Information on the historic period Cherokee occupation of the area was derived from a
number of sources, most prominently works by Duggan (1998, 2002), Finger (1984, 1991), Greene
(1996), and Riggs (1996, 1999).
Information on the historic period Euro-American settlement of western North Carolina was obtained
from regional and local histories, including warks by Arthur (1914), Brown (2000), Holland (2001),
Jenkins (1988), Millsaps and Millsaps (1992), Oliver (1989, 1993, 1998a, 2002, 2003), Taylor (2001),
Thomasson (1965), and others. The Fontana Lake area has also been the subject of a large number of
journal and newspaper articles, including those published in The Bone Rattler (the journal of the Swain
County Genealogical and Historical Society), Fontana (the North Shore Histarical Association
newsletter), and elsewhere. These books and articles form the basis for the following discussion, and have
been supplemented by a variety of technical or otherwise more speciiic publications (e.g., Espenshade et
al. 1963; Lambert 1958b, 1961; Stroupe 1996; TVA 1950), as well as information from published and
unpublished maps and other primary sources (e.g., Hyde 1944a, 1944b; Kephart n.d.; Ketchen 1944; KPC
1913-1915; NP&L 1929-1932; Ritter Lumber Company 1922-1928; Sharp 1944; Smoky Mountain
Railway 1916; TVA 1941, 1943, 1950).
I J.7 �1:1 f.�IL1 '] 7 C�lK�]��-� 11:/1 �
The prehistory of western North Carolina can be divided into four basic time and cultural periods. These
periods Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian relate to both social and technological
factors. Several authors (e.g., Dickens 1976:10; Keel 1976:18; Ward and Davis 1999; Wetmore 2002)
divide some or all of these periods into phases, some of which overlap in time and name but vary in
precise definition.
Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,000-8000 B.C.)
The Paleoindian period represents the earliest well documented human occupation of the Southeast. Key
diagnostic artifacts of this period are fluted and unfluted lanceolate projectile points; a variety of flake
tools, such as endscrapers, gravers, retouched blades, and burins, are also found. Almost all of the
Paleoindian materials found in the region have come from surface contexts, and as a result few data are
available concerning regional subsistence or social arganization (Anderson 1990). Hunting of late
Pleistocene megafauna is inferred based on evidence from other areas, although direct evidence for use of
animals of any kind is rare in the Southeast. Most, if not all, Paleoindian populations probably relied
extensively on other animal and plant foods as well (Meltzer and Smith 1986; Purrington 1983).
Paleoindian populations are believed to have been highly mobile, and settlements are thought to have
included small temporary camps and less common base camps that were occupied by loosely organized
bands. Paleoindians selected high-quality lithic materials for tools, and many sites are linked to important
source areas. The high degree of curation in the tool assemblage (and the low frequency of clearly
diagnostic artifacts) makes recognition of Paleoindian assemblages problematic. Keel (1976:17) suggests
that the earlier Clovis phase (pre-9000 B.C.) populations may have been con�ned to south of an east-west
line at the latitude of Asheville because of permafrost to the north. The later Paleoindian phase appears to
20
include Dalton (Goodyear 1982) and perhaps Hardaway (Ward 1983) points and related cultures,
although both types of artifacts are rare in the Appalachian Summit region.
Archaic Period (ca. 8000-1000 B.C.)
The Archaic period began with the onset of Holocene, post-glacial climatic conditions in the East, and has
been subdivided into three subperiods: the Early, Middle, and Late Archaic. Diagnostic projectile points
are the primary criteria used to identify and date distinct Archaic manifestations. As a whole, the Archaic
may be seen as a relatively long and successful foraging adaptation, with subsistence based on hunting,
fishing, and the collection of wild plant resources. The period is also marked by a general increase in the
density and dispersal of archaeological remains. Group size gradually increased during this period,
culminating in relatively large populations.
Earlv Archaic (ca. 8000-6000 B.C.). During the Early Archaic period, the mixed coniferous forests
present in much of the Southeast were replaced by mixed hardwood communities dominated by oak,
hemlock, beech, and maple (Claggett and Cable 1982:212). A modern faunal assemblage was in place
following the extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna. Diagnostic markers of the Early Archaic period in
western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee include Kirk projectile points of the Corner Notched
tradition (ca. 8000-6800 B.C.) and bifurcate-based points such as the St. Albans, LeCroy, and Kanawha
types (ca. 6900-5800 B.C.) (Kimball 1985). Low regional population densities and a continued high
degree of group mobility are inferred for this period in the Mountains, where most known sites are
located in high upland areas (Bass 1975). The nature of more general land use patterns and strategies for
technological organization remain the subjects of discussion, however. To the west in Tennessee, Kimball
(1992) has proposed an ongoing change from logistical to residential mobility patterns during the Early
Archaic period, perhaps as a result of the first signs of warming climatic conditions.
Middle Archaic (ca. 6000-4000 B.C.). During the Middle Archaic, the cool, moist conditions of the
early Holocene are generally considered to have given way to the warmer, drier climate of the mid-
Holocene Hypsithermal interval. Extensive estuarine marshes and riverine swamps began to emerge in
coastal regions as sea levels ceased their post-Pleistocene rise by 3000 B.C. The northern hardwoods
vegetational matrix in those regions was replaced by an oak-hickory forest, which was in turn replaced by
a southern hardwoods-pine forest characterized by the species occupying the region today (Claggett and
Cable 1982:212-216; Delcourt and Delcourt 1983, 1985). Subsistence economies became increasingly
diversified, and the �rst use of estuarine shellfish resources and possibly anadromous fish may have
begun at this time. Exactly how the Hypsithermal affected the relatively higher altitudes of western North
Carolina is unclear, however, and there is increasing evidence that parts of the Mid-Holocene were much
wetter than previously supposed (Leigh 2002).
Archaeologically, the transition from the Early Archaic to the Middle Archaic is characterized by the
appearance of stemmed rather than notched projectile points, and by an increased incidence of
groundstone tools such as atlatl weights, axes, and grinding implements. The Middle Archaic witnessed
the first substantial occupation in the Smoky Mountains and most adjacent regions (Bass 1975:109).
Three subperiods within this period are recognized. These are identified by the presence of Stanly (ca.
6000-5000 B.C.), Morrow Mountain I and II (ca. 5000-4200 B.C.), and Guilford (ca. 4200-3500 B.C.)
projectile points, following the classic Archaic sequence first identified by Coe (1964). Morrow Mountain
sites are frequently encountered in the uplands of western North Carolina (e.g., Purrington 1981), and
occur both at high elevations and along lower elevation drainages where they exit the mountains (Yu
2001). All three types of Middle Archaic points are found in the area, although the Smoky Mountains
appear to mark the western extent of the distribution of Guilford points (Bass 1975; Dorwin 1975).
Late Archaic (ca. 4000-1000 B.C.). During the Late Archaic period, population levels in the Mountains
appear to have risen markedly. Sites occur in a wide range of environmental zones although most major
settlements were in riverine or estuarine settings (Bass 1975; Ward 1983). In particular, many Late
21
Archaic sites in the Smoky Mountains region appear to be situated near quartzite sources (Bass 1975:77;
Shumate and Kimball 2001). The existence of formal residential base camps occupied seasonally or
longer is inferred, together with a range of smaller resource-exploitation sites, such as hunting, fishing, or
plant collecting stations (Claggett and Cable 1982; Mathis 1979; Ward 1983). Many sites from this period
contain evidence of prepared floors, post molds from structures, and features such as storage pits, all of
which indicate a more sedentary lifestyle than is suggested for earlier periods. Grinding implements,
polished stone tools, and carved soapstone bowls become fairly common, suggesting increased use of
plant resources, and possibly changes in subsistence strategies and cooking technologies. Although
regional evidence is minimal, the first experiments with horticulture probably occurred at this time, with
the cultivation of plants such as squash (Cucurbita pepo), sunflower (Helianthus sp.), and Chenopodium
(Cowan 1985; Ford 1981; Smith 1989).
The Late Archaic has been divided into a series of subperiods or phases, identified primarily by the
presence of diagnostic projectile points. Late Archaic occupations in the Appalachian Summit region are
marked by a variety of large- to small-stemmed points. The most prominent of these is the Savannah
River Stemmed type, a large, broad-bladed, square stemmed point that appears ca. 3000 B.C. and lasts to
ca. 1500 B.C. Subsequent Late Archaic sites frequently contain slightly smaller stemmed points of the
Iddins Undifferentiated Steinmed or Otarre Stemmed types (Ward and Davis 1999:71). Size reduction of
these stemmed forms, on the average, is clearly indicated over the course of the Late Archaic/Early
Woodland in the region (Oliver 1981, 1985). Soapstone vessels were in use during the Late Archaic in
some areas, and towards the end of this interval pottery appears in coastal regions (Sassaman 1993).
Woodland Period (ca. 1000 B.C.—A.D. 1000)
The Woodland period began about 1000 B.C. and continued until the appearance of the Mississippian
adaptation, about A.D. 1000. Across the eastern Woodlands the period is marked by the appearance of
widespread pottery use, a greatly increased role for horticulture in subsistence economies, and an
elaboration of mortuary ceremonialism, including the appearance of burial mounds (Griffin 1967:180).
In the greater Southeast, the Woodland began with a gradual transition from the Late Archaic. Although
this transition period is not we11 understood, Woodland occupations appear to be marked by increasing
sedentism and improvements in food storage and preparation technologies. Subsistence strategies
represent a continuation of earlier hunter-forager ways, but with an increased reliance on the cultivation
of native plants (Yarnell and Black 1985). Religious expressions, as evidenced by increased
ceremonialism and the development of burial mounds, seem to have become more complex during the
Woodland period. Large triangular projectile points are diagnostic of the Woodland period. Ceramics
became more refined and regional differentiation of wares, particularly in temper, paste, and surface
decoration, became evident during this time.
Early Woodland (ca. 1000-400 B.C.). Initial Woodland occupations are generally thought to reflect a
largely unchanged continuation of Late Archaic lifeways coupled with the first widespread introduction
of ceramics. The earliest Early Woodland manifestation in the region is the Swannanoa phase, which
dates ca. 1000-300 B.C. and is marked by distinctive thick, crushed quartz- or grit-tempered fabric or
cordmarked ceramics (Keel 1976:260-266; Ward and Davis 1999:140-143; Wetmore 2002:254-257).
Although Swannanoa site distributions have not been tharoughly documented, it is apparent that the
settlement pattern included both large floodplain sites, such as Warren Wilson, and numerous small
upland extractive camps. Direct evidence is lacking, but it seems likely that the Early Woodland
inhabitants of the region were engaged in at least some degree of horticulture (Ward and Davis
1999:145).
Middle Woodland (ca. 400 B.C.—A.D. 800). The Middle Woodland period is characterized by intensified
long-distance trade throughout the Eastern Woodlands, and there is increasing evidence that some western
North Carolina groups participated in the Hopewell exchange network (Keel 1976; Scott Shumate,
22
personal communication 2002). Bass (1975:81) reports that while over 50 percent of Middle Woodland
sites in his sample occurred on the floodplain, 40 percent were located above the valley in coves and on
benches. Numerous large and small sites dating to this period have been found, suggesting periodic
aggregation and dispersion or some kind of a village/base camp—specialized resource extraction station
settlement dichotomy. Horticulture also is thought to have become increasingly important during this
period.
Diagnostic Middle Woodland ceramics in western North Carolina include the Pigeon series, which Kee1
(1976:256-260) defines as including check stamped, simple stamped, plain, brushed, and complicated
stamped varieties. Vessel fonns include conical jars, hemispherical bowls, and tetrapodal and shouldered
jars with flaring rims. Pigeon ceramics are relatively common in the region but are generally found in
mixed contexts (Ward and Davis 1999:146). Subsequent Middle Woodland ceramics consist of Connestee
series wares, which are generally thin, sand-tempered wares often decorated with simple stamped or
brushed surfaces (Keel 1976:247-255). Connestee phase populations engaged in mound building,
evidenced by such substructure mounds as Garden Creek No. 2, and interacted with Hopewellian
populations in the Midwest and elsewhere (Kee1 1976; Ward and Davis 1999:151-153).
Late Woodland (ca. A.D. 800-1000). The Late Woodland period in much of the Southeast saw the
emergence of sedentary village life based on intensive maize (Zea mays) horticulture and the development
of complex tribal and chiefdom-level political structures. In the Appalachian Summit, the Late Woodland
is largely invisible, raising questions about its character there (Dickens 1986:74; Wetmore 2002). A
similar lack of recognition of distinctive Late Woodland componenis has been described in northern
Georgia (Rudolph 1991). Part of the problem may be the lack of specific diagnostic artifacts useful for
unequivocally identifying sites of this period, but it is also possible that the Appalachian Summit region
was only lightly populated during this tune. More recently, Robinson et al. (1994) have suggested that the
Connesiee phase may have lasted well into the Late Woodland period. Another Late Woodland
manifestation was identified by Keel and Egloff (1984) at the Cane Creek site; the distinctive, largely
plain-surfaced assemblage from that site has been suggested to daie to ca. A.D. 1000. Finally, scattered
Napier and Swift Creek ceramics and sites (such as the Cullowhee Valley School site [31JK32] [Greene
1996:120-121]) in the region reflect influences from the south during this period.
Mississippian Period (ca. A.D. 1000-1540)
The Mississippian period in the Southeast is marked primarily by the increasing intensification of maize
horticulture, the establishment of increasingly hierarchical social structures and settlement systems, and
an increase in ceremonialism expressed architecturally in the construction of flat-topped substructure
mounds. Increasing evidence exists that territorial boundaries between chiefdoms were closely maintained
during the Mississippian period, although individual chiefdoms rose and fell in cyclical patterns. Studies
of relations between native chiefdoms and Spanish expeditions suggest that some type of supra-chiefdom
level organization was maintained through a system in which paramount chiefs traveled from fief to fief,
displaying royal powers and prerogative and receiving gifts and tribute from subservient chiefdoms
(Smith and Hally 1992).
The Pisgah phase (ca. A.D. 1000-1450) corresponds with the early centuries of the Mississippian period
in parts of western North Carolina (Dickens 1976:13-14). Pisgah sites are found primarily in the eastern
and ceniral part of the Appalachian Summit region, and range from small farmsteads to nucleated villages
with substructure mounds (Ward and Davis 1999:160-161). Diagnostic Pisgah artifacts include small
triangular projectile points and distinctive rectilinear complicated stamped vessels with collared rims.
Maize and other crops were important sources of food, but floral and faunal remains document the
persistence of wild resources as major components of the diet (Ward and Davis 1999:171).
The Qualla phase represents the final centuries of Native American autonoiny in the region. Although
elements of the material culture, belief systems, place names, and social structure of Mississippian society
23
lingered in the region well into the nineteenth century (and in some cases to the present day), this period
is largely one of social change due to increasing Euro-American intrusion and settlement in the region.
This part of the Native American occupation of the region is discussed below as part of the historic
background of the region.
HISTORIC CHEROKEE OCCUPATION
Early Historic Period Cherokee Settlements
The first Euro-American incursion into western North Carolina took place in 1540, when Hernando de
Soto's expedition passed through the area. Several different reconstructions of de Soto's route have been
proposed, with some scholars (e.g., Swanton 1985:201-202) suggesting that he crossed the Cherokee
country by way of the Hiwassee River valley, approximately 45 km southwest of the study area. Another
reconstruction (Hudson 1997; Hudson et al. 1984) suggests that de Soto passed approximately 70 km to
the nartheast, crossing the Blue Ridge at Swannanoa Gap and continuing along the French Broad River
into Tennessee. A sunilar route was apparently followed by the expeditions of Juan Pardo, a later Spanish
explorer who traversed much of the same area in 1567-1568 (Hudson 1990:27-46).
Whatever the precise routes of these explorers, it is clear that the ancestral Cherokees' first encounters
with Europeans occurred in the mid-sixteenth century. These encounters were to have dramatic effects.
The introduction of European diseases to which the native populations had little resistance caused a major
reduction in population levels and extensive changes in political organization. Elsewhere in the Southeast,
the fragmentation and reformation of political groups resulted in a general decrease in social complexity
and the total disappearance of some prehistoric societies (Smith 1987). Although the Cherokee underwent
substantial disruption, they managed to retain control of portions of their homeland.
The historic-period Cherokee occupation of western North Carolina is known archaeologically as the
Qualla phase (ca. A.D. 1450-1838). Although early formulations of the phase (e.g., Dickens 1976)
divided it into two segments (Early Qualla, ca. A.D. 1450-1650; and Late Qualla, ca. A.D. 1650-1838),
more recent analysts (Riggs and Rodning 2002; Ward and Davis 1999) have suggested a triparrite
division. Following this scheme, the early Qualla phase predates A.D. 1450, and thus was likely
contemporaneous with the latter part of the Pisgah occupations in the region. These authors suggest that
Qualla represents an in situ development in the Upper Little Tennessee and Hiwassee basins and likely is
not a direct derivative of the Pisgah phase. Early Qualla phase ceramics show affinities to the more
southern Savannah and Wilbanks styles, and samples from Coweta Creek and 31 SW291 are characterized
by grit tempered, primarily rectilinear complicated-stamped wares (Riggs and Rodning 2002:39).
Subsequent Middle Qualla phase (ca. A.D. 1450-1700) ceramics are characterized by jar forms with
notched applique rims, and by the presence of carinated ar cazuela bowls with incised designs. By the
Late Qua11a phase (post-A.D. 1700), incised ceramics become much less common, and rectilinear stamped
designs are dominant. Checic stamping also becomes more common in later, pre-Removal (pre-1838)
assemblages.
The Qualla subsistence base was mixed, and included cultivation of maize, beans, and other foods as well
as wild plant gathering, hunting, and fishing (Dickens 1976:14). The Late Qualla phase is marked by the
increasing appearance of European goods at Cherokee sites, as well as shifts towards more European-
style architecture (Dickens 1976:15). Although small triangular projectile points are found in early and
Middle Qualla assemblages, these disappear with the increasing prevalence of European firearms after
A.D. 1700.
Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Century Cherokee Settlements
During most of the eighteenth century, the Cherokees were concentrated in towns and villages scattered
throughout much of present-day western North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, northeast Georgia, and
24
northwest South Carolina. The towns in western North Carolina were known as the Middle Towns (along
the upper Little Tennessee River), Out Towns, and the Valley Towns. The Lower Towns were situated to
the southeast, and the Overhill Towns lay to the west, across the mountains in Tennessee (Greene 1996;
Smith 1979). The northern and eastern parts of the study area were within the Cherokee Out Towns, while
the southwestern part of the study area was apparently a relatively sparsely populated area between the
Out Towns and the Valley Towns to the south. The only possibly documented eighteenth century
Cherokee town in the study area was the Out Town of "Evanga," which is depicted on the 1760 Kitchin
map immediately southeast oi the confluence of the Little Tennessee and Tuckasegee rivers, across the
Tuckasegee from the future site of Bushnell (Greene 1996:50; Kitchin 1760) (Figure 4.1). (The 1730
Hunter map also shows an unlabeled settlement at approximately the same location [Greene 1996:43]).
There is no other documentary evidence available concerning "Evanga," however, and it is likely that the
name (if not the location) is a misinterpretation by the cartographer (Lance Greene, personal
communication 2003). If there was a town at that site, it was apparently not visited by Grant's English
military expedition in 1761 (Greene 1996:53-56). After Grant burned several of the Out Towns they
apparently ceased to be referenced as such, and most surviving populations in the area were probably
categorized as belonging to ihe Middle Towns.
The latter eighteenth century brought the continuous arrival of Europeans and the resulting loss of
Cherokee lands (Figure 4.2). With the signing of the Treaty of Hopewell in 1785, the Cherokee lost their
remaining lands east of the Blue Ridge (Mooney 1900:61-62). A subsequent treaty in 1791 resulted in
additional cessions, but failed to stop Euro-American movement into Cherokee lands and the resulting
conflicts (Mooney 1900:68-77). A third treaty, signed in 1798, ceded additional land in North Carolina.
The early nineteenth century witnessed the increasing acculturation of many Cherokees, largely as a result
of increasing contact and intermarriage with white traders and settlers. Other Cherokees resisted changes
to their traditional lifestyles, especially those residing in western North Carolina (Riggs 1988:10-11).
Accounts by contemporary observers indicate that the population of this area was strongly traditionalist,
and contained the highest proportion of fullbloods to be found in the Cherokee Nation (McLoughlin and
Cosner 1984:224-225). The late eighteenth century was marked by a general shift to a more dispersed
settlement pattern (Dickens 1976:15), but some nucleated settlements remained in the region into the
nineteenth century. There is little documentation of Cherokee populations in the study area during that
late eighteenth to early nineteenth century, although the village of Tuckaleecheee was apparently located
at the mouth of Deep Creek (near present day Bryson City) in 1809, when a population of 92 was
recorded in Davis' census (Greene 1996:68).
The northern and eastern sections of the study area were part of a large tract in southwestern North
Carolina, southeastern Tennessee, and northeastern Georgia that was ceded to the U. S. government by the
Calhoun Treaty of February 1819 (Royce 1884, 1887). The cession boundary ran along ihe Litile
Tennessee River, with the area to the north and east passing to the U.S. and the area to the south and west
remaining in the Cherokee nation. Although this and an 1817 treaty were intended to encourage
Cherokees to migrate west to Arkansas, ihey also contained provisions allowing any Cherokee head of
family residing within the ceded lands who wished to become a U.S. citizen to apply for a life reservation
of 640 acres. Ninety-one heads of family in western North Carolina applied for reservations, and 49 life
estates and two fee-simple reservations were actually deeded (Riggs 1988:15, 25; Royce 1887). At least
seven of these reserves were in or immediately adjacent to the study area, including those of Yonah,
Backwater, the Heirs of Too-lee-noos-tah, Ool-lah-not-tee, Johnston, Parch Corn Flour, and Jack. (Yonah
25
. - "s
� �- �
v ` ��
f .
� �� � � �
a I�=�`,a��' �. ���
I , w , � i � � ' �, � �4 � 6
� �
� I4 _
, + y � � ^� � T - �
� � -� _� �
. , �r� �� ' �.� �� e.�a��}r.rr���+ P
+f-�°rr
L j �� �
!�i
. � � . r �.., • r ,, .. �p . - 1
• � � � r, �.r_rr
, .�. . , . . , , . . ,. �'.
/x/J" � , � , �. . ... _ i , . „ . {, r. s ..,
�f� wr
o�
� � ._ �
� . _.___� � _,.. �`
, ,,.3 �'ii
J��f�'.�°�f.j� .�
�'�^.*#,:r.r��r ! . } x
a. kJ�..� �f�fFPdl.rd�f'r�".¢,�.1.r3 ��
.r�Fd,r�`-rva�i'-�gd� � ,_.
k. ��� r��i'r°daF�Se�t�if! �.,} .
, �r . � �: �
�
� � ft�����a.�� � -
- �'° - �., ���-�Tra'� , r -�?�-'�
•� �;' _
'�M �� � I��'#r°ei`a' 1�r`{x�y!�. �
� r�re rr� �'' L
������T�—.�y. �_ ° � � a • •�
- .r r f ,^. .B,a�Y.�'.�r�' +, �,. �.r�f�7�it'S€'��•� r�� . `
J r� - � .i" Yl1J � � �,
r
� �•.�����r.��i�� �,. � a f�.��rFr: ��'r. �,� ,
�: �r�"s�.,Ptd � �r", '�
�
, � +a . -+� pa°y"�.� �'7�-.
�
# � � � � �
° _ � "� �'� d' r d" °� r' .�z =� �, _ +��f��r.r�?rP � � � �, "'� �
.. � # ti � .
Fy
� . , .!bi ���1'd_:ia�� Y
.. ' �t��
� �, .� e�e �� r �i,���'.. �� �+;,
.,` .F � f .r�.sTr�JaWB��r" .. r •rr� r#Yf14'��
�.ti � � .. � }�i�rTr r kr� � 1�7'r l,r"��'1..
a . �r"�d�J'�r'�' �,
s +ti F� ��v �r
.� � � .:�'� l:Jfit"�°f"r'r`dFf,1k"
f,
� . , ,
� . �• l . � � �••,++'�r�•,�rlr � �
f . 4`. ,.:� �.: - � .
a,� . � d �y
° � t^�. da2aiY'/Yi��•'��
Figure 4.1. Portion of Kitchin (1760) map showing "Evanga."
��� f�a�*fr`r��a'
f �rr�r,.��'� .
d{�•�,f.r,"rJ_r.,oP°�� � � M�
u a
, W �,°� . � fi — �`• ,r� �, �' ; ' �
, ti . -0. S, ` ..
h i � "� '� �"� �
'4 - ,.
94 .'`��- " �L�'�F++ ` -a � _ �� �dY� r� ' e � '�
� �� ,
d �,� r+_ v �.,,, ��}t �. yl - _ �, _�' ^ • y �� •a
, � �� �'�.� 01^� ]'{Af vtiYe� it f�� Ln=. ''e ;:I��� ." r :''�' i ' � d+14
1�
. . , 9 �o� � �. � r,.: A.�� ° �� �;} r��Y 7� a. �ay r `,�,�=�t'°� i
��-� 4� X" ��
X '� 3 L;�`�r. • � tir��,
. .�„ t �•� r. . ��'.;��,,.� . � , , {,.
. ��� �P� s" , � ` _ _ � 'a`
< , __ .
� µ� � *`�t > : �.. , y+� '
�, . ,
,, +�• • ��'•a- �r` s'!" ?` �� �i
2� ,�� F 9. � I} � ` ru�� r ka L � l.�'�� L
,r � � * � Y ��� ��. � I } YE � _ � .
�Y�� �, r ' . ',� ��y`� .�'t�,.. it31 . "
M1 �y �'�
ii��Yf�i�yy�� � � �� ` •A � `� .F � ���� ' •�4 �� .
�{1 �.
�1 ��•Yl1lr tl 1� i 1 ..
r� � :' • _�4 y,,� ., r� � �
,� �i��, � � 'i� 6 k5 ,, p �� j'��-e Nd� � � �jw ,y . ^�.
�f � � �� � �F�!" ' � ' �� y. i . , ' � � , i � },, se �y� -,.
� � � '��.. ' � � � �� �
�' � � , �k � - _ � ���
� _
C A ' y �
� a�� .. ' ' I � � �� � ' ' �.
� �' . �. �� j� i, Mi�A. il
� 7 _ _ �I
..•. �I
, � ��i�', �" 5-� �q_' '� ...11�i�711,rr�k —�'+a �,
�. -�� �� r
�L r _ ' y "_ - � "' � . .. akaue�arrll�� r�� - r �, �
' � .�c..' ' � c � � - � y�� � . ro ��; -
- e� 4, tl� n� l� , A y6 �' ��� �� � a
. ' .y �:-a� �t tl,�y - �� I' � " �-�� I,.� � ,f+��F d ��a'r � y �.� �R�t � ` ° 9�'-
� �x$ �,p, i ��*� 4 ; ` �i � . � e.' � +r r� ;yp ��;� ;� � 'g
� n na�R �� � ��v • �� ���' a
T. p � ,p " � `�
.. _-�s�4y��.`�� . ' r . _ 9:. .. ; .^ ��p,a.7:� .
�R �d � ., e,.
� . ' " f � � � �..�,. . h {p���
_ ,
a �,.., �P:
. . ef �r � i � �dj ��; q ��F• � 4 �3"r � .
. �} . .S F a� 1� E_'
, . � ` � y
�
_'r , �r ° � 4..,:�W"'�. � �'.AF�y,� � � t!.
. . . .. , � . ? � i�. . . . �! _ . . _ . . . _ . ,. .. . ' � . '.l. F� 1 �'�
Figure 42. Cherokee land cessions in the study area vicinity (Royce 1884).
26
[or Big Bear] may have been the father of Yonaguska [Yoon-ne-gis-kah, or Drowning Bear] who was
granted a reserve a few miles upriver at Kituhwa, and who played a major role in Cherokee efforts to
retain control of the Kituhwa area in the 1820s [Brett Riggs, personal communication 2003; Riggs et al.
1998:3.27-3.29]).
Yonah's (Big Bear's) reservation was on either side of the Tuckasegee River near the mouth of Deep
Creek, within the present boundaries of Bryson City (Douthat 1993:49; Riggs 1988:89-90), and was one
of a series of coniiguous reservations extending up the Deep Creek valley; other adjacent reservations
partly within the study area include those of Bacicwater, the Heirs of Too-lee-noos-tah, Ool-lah-not-tee,
and Johnston (Douthat 1993:20, 21, 55; Riggs 1988:89-91). Parch Corn Flour's reservation was to the
southwest, along Alarka Creek at its confluence with the Little Tennessee (Douthat 1993:ll; Riggs
1988:89; Webb et al. 1993:108). Finally, Jack's reservation was in the future Jackson Line communiiy at
the intersection of U.S. 19 and alternate 19, in the extreme southeastern corner of the study area (Riggs
1988:89). Other reservations in the area were claimed but not deeded, including one at Econettlee, an
island in the Little Tennessee River near the mouth of Calhoun Branch (Riggs and Greene i.p.; Brett
Riggs, personal communication 2003).
The Cherokee occupation of most of western North Carolina was to continue only a few more years past
1819. Despite the proinises contained in the treaties, the great majority, if not all, of the Cherokee
reservists lost their lands to settlers within a few years. Most remaining Cberokee land claims in North
Carolina were abolished with the signing of the Treaty of New Echota in 1835, which set in motion the
forced removal of most of the remaining Cherokees to lands in the Arkansas Territory (Mooney
1900:123-133; Thomason 2003). The cruelty of this march, known as the Trail of Tears, has been well
documented.
Despite the treaty and the Removal, an estimated 1,100 Cherokees remained in their former lands.
Approximately 700 Cherokees living around Quallatown (near the confluence of the Oconaluftee River
and Soco Creek) were allowed to remain, including some of the citizen Cherokees who had been granted
(and subsequently lost) reservations some years earlier (Finger 1984:29; Riggs 1988:19). After the death
of Chief Yonagusta in 1839, that group had been increasingly assisted by William H. Thomas, a white
merchant who was Yonagusta's adopted son. Thomas worked on the Cherokees' behalf for the next 40
years, acquiring land for both individual Cherokees and the tribe. Thomas eventually acquired some
73,000 acres for these communities, mostly within the present-day Qualla Boundary. Other Cherokees
remained in the vicinity of Cheoah (along Buffalo Creek in present-day Graham County), having been
allowed to stay primarily due to the difficulty in removing them along poor roads (Duggan 1998). Still
other Cherolcees remained due to their assistance to the U.S. Army in the Tsali affair (see below), while a
final group consisted of those that had evaded the Army, escaped during the Removal, or, like Junaluska,
returned from Arkansas soon afterwards.
Removal-Era Cherokee Occupations
The most detailed information on nineteenth-century Cherokee populations in the study area dates to the
Removal period, although even then the area was poorly documented compared to areas to the south. In
1837-1838 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers surveyed the Cherokee lands in North Carolina covered by
the Treaty of New Echota, recording the locations of Cherokee houses, fields, and other improvements
(Riggs 1996, 1999). The detailed surveyors' notebooks that are useful in locating Cherokee settlements
elsewhere in southwestern North Carolina are lacking far most of the study area (except far the Nantahala
drainage), however, and the only inap showing structures along this part of the Little Tennessee and most
of the rest of the study area is the large-scale composite map by Williams (1838) (Figure 4.3). That map
depicts up to 34 structures in the study area, as well as "Stekoah Town" at the site of modern Stecoah.
Although most, if not all, of the 15 or so structures shown by Williams on the north
27
� ::
, „�.-��,���._ —a._—�--T �—,_._- _ _ � �-_-- -�--- � - -
`
. � � ,� ..;-:� � �;1,; i r� .�. , , .
�'�Y��1 § , � s � _. .
� '� " ,� �ti� '
.�i ,�*� ,� ' ��'� �°` ..f °�� ��;.: , _
r� •�.�ii y'� {. _ �d.
• � �., ti .
� j � �� � �s �_� � .�� + �
�� ..1� B ��0.^i� �'-i �i � . ��f �y � ' � ii�
�5 1 f .' •
.J.fi'i2�• �e��i�+�4:�", / ��d �� 1 � i F� } � _�ia� � �i
tiy ,��
°��i � �,�4
.
!� �}
�� �
� ° �'
� +��
.r � -
_ � -+� 1
_.i
'r � �
. ��
, ,pfr�`5-�• r
L.
� f a� •f F
��- , i' d'
Figure 43. Williams (1838) map of southern part of study area.
,_ y..�J�-�.�� ...
7
'�" _�. i��J" y, . ' . Y � Yzis
� - { �'. L .1 � a }'
r ���,
,� .�' - �i� ;k .. �
�� . � .,�,�� �� `� �� , � �, �.� _� . �� ', �+
4
'� 'r`�"° 1 '� • r '� ,} -� -t ''t wrs� ,_��
_. _,
.� ti °5.t a �L4 � .� � _
.
°5. '
� �}� .: e �`�l'y' .� � . ' � ,� �.
k. '�� +�: �=. . J -� �� f.j�_r�_
tda}�� •. �. . . ;M1���; �aa�yi *�'-. � �� .
y •. -: y �4. r��i•y� F �. J �p �i ��r� ��_ �+y�y ' � � �kt , � "� ..
5'J+ �
.f v�R� � ... � '���� f f �.i � � S � ,� t_ 4`'1�.a „� . � + �� � ...
lis�r' ° v'� 1 '°4._�y �jl��i�lr,kj..,;�•S.�i��.v.* ,��.� o + .-
a b I'I y�'
� , • .
r� . �� ��y� ��.�,i 7��,,� �I^ '� � . � . .. � �� ° � .
� ='�r �_rA � r '� � . � � . y � -y s ��P �KJ�. y�Jr�
� B i $��� , r��o 14 r' 3 `'� F. � " ,y ''�'F�'° 9�i. � �, r • 'R'.• .
4 �}• �i� J�� � � wkyR � � H �,i��� � y�-�,�,. .
]�� �{ . ��' � �'
�°'�"F��rdY,+ F.�Y ';�`� J y.� _ *i� r�''.�.�� F�=4�a . '
�" � �. �. a �; ' � � G ' - � °
� . - �''••.y ��,' . f� s� � Y "-''� S r dy:.%i'+} ' y� ti.x` � ..i�' - � ��' . �Y.
mrA � . � � .. � � � ,d' y�y'�- {C4 � 9 � s ,,_
�..a. 4 'e'� �,.r�}'� �411 � �;:° 4*.'a�- T��. �i 'ti. , , _��' r�R �a ��
s. `�J ���!l�d.� � �S'k�� ' 9.�� �. � � � ��� "L "' ° -•�}�' � _�e�s
�, "-,� b r a �� � `� . ��. , a` F . �
,� � I�� ���k i. -is• � � 9 . � ��" '��'� � i ' � a 6 �
, r� � . I - �i . � x
� .. .�t L+ �, i � _ � , . . f
�� _ s i y 1�.1��,� 4. . `� � - M1 .��i�y �' �� , � � . . �� i ,
ya , . � ° t' 4 � �. .r ,F y . Y . � � x �. - P �' � .
} �ii�` ��' 'I�''�iu�f"� . ���,. �r ._,+;�';� `�-f 1): R.n�.^ kA_+; ,
�' ��..a� , �� i� F�+� , i.11d8i � ' � � • -F. C � .
S� $ 5... I'� � 1 ''�
� . ',. •`�'t a"J� ,�� � :..
,�y �r, �r
�.
'�'y�1.�'�''T , '�� �`'r� � -''` � � � . �r - `r y� _
r ' �� s� �,. � � � 3'' • • a.�" � -�I� � �P r '�i`�`P '�
�,I� - ,�,.. • , �,�� • � ` , � �
� r *�• s � y ' +� � r ;;` ;' 4� ` . �[r
.�� � � �� •; �� • ti �
. � '-a .q. t .. -� _'d � =y�.� . - fr •.. f� ��*
•. M1 l j�i� �-Z i
� �1� _ f .. r�' �� � �, , . � .:-� • R � ir �,1 . • f iy s . - t7�rw �rs.t
ti �'.� �i � s� � t, -�� j � ., L ��
. . , ++�' � e ° . ,�� i r � , y .. �� . 4 �� �,. i
�¢r�qd9 �4i G rY�� Y. + 1FF ' •�y.
. � ,g: 1 • " . '�C % I �. . �4; �' ^
� 1`;�' �� ,L'+t �''�. �.' . n�g � ° , �J t3�,� • ` ,,� �
,n � � a � y .i� � . dJ # � ^ � ,,t �` ��. � ` �I J i �-:_r _
+-J f Y� +� �_
f r�,' � ��,,,ti �,�A ... r�r, t��`.: �' y ?� Y ` t � , J � � � F� '�
. 4R.�t � ,� ' �i �,li.r s 'S � � .��'}, � . � � � 2G � ! � � at.� . �w
. ..� . , I. _ - i � �
•,�J_tiY �J ; , •k }� L f4'��,rla.r
� n9 y �
d _ +�e
,��r���i � y -'.{y�"~ F �," .�����'W ��t � ' �� x:� .i{' .
,- ,
°: � • .
• �� � �- � �_, ,� � . ' �� ��. �. �;,r+ .
a, . _ •
�,P" � �... : r � .. f `. . 4° _ M ¢ • - �' �}�r'�J � �_+��. , p • �l
�� 1.� � �. �L� .. . f ,�,/� 4
� �4�f°e ��' 4 r....�rA:, � 9 _ a;,' 1F ��'s. ''�"5�".' . . f.' � _
' :. a y9 1� il �ry� d'� -' .�F... �'�� .•�P S •
. � .. �e"h ��o R�.7� . . ~F� � . ' �•�54 .q' J� . � ��.
►[.�:3
�
`�
I
��
: �� I
x •_ e
bank of the Little Tennessee (which had already been ceded and was not intensively mapped) probably
were occupied by Euro-American settlers (see below), most of the remaining 19 structures were likely
Cherolcee homesteads. These included a group of at least three structures along the Nantahala River below
its confluence with the Little Tennessee (along with others to the south, outside the study area) and a
group of at least four houses along Stekoah Creek. Other homesteads were located along the Little
Tennessee River below its confluence with the Tuckasegee as well as along the lower reaches of Alarka
Creek.
Many Cherokee structures are likely not indicated on the 1838 map, however, and the 1835 census and
1836-37 property valuations indicate a somewhat larger population in the area. As suminarized by Riggs
(1996:73):
The 1835 census of Stecoa indicates twelve Cherokee families comprising a total of 77
individuals. The Buckahannon (Kulkeene) household included nine Anglo-Cherokee metis, the
remainder of the community members were fullbloods. Welch and Jarrett [who conducted the
property valuations] valued 13 properties in Stecoa, including 11 homesteads. These properties
comprised 20 houses and cabins, three hothouses, eight corn cribs, five stables, a shop house, 120
acres of farmland, and 267 fruit trees ... . Several of the Stecoa properties were particularly well
developed, with hewn log residential structures valued at more than $20.00 and larger (>10 ac)
tracts of farmland. Smith, the Federal census taker, observed that the Stecoa farms were enclosed
by the best fencing that he had seen in the Cherokee Nation (United States War Department
1835). Post-remova] spoilarion claims of former Stecoa residents indicate that the community
included a blacksmith shop and several water operated pounding mills (Cherokee Claims Papers
1838-1842). The nature of these improvements suggests that Stecoa was more westernized in
character than most nearby Cherokee communities. This is congruent with the presence of a
Chrisrian preacher (Arch) and congregation in the community (Jones 1837).
The census and valuations also identify two to three residents in the Tuskeegee Creek area (west of
Stecoah Creek), and several others at Yellow Town, along Panther Creek between Stecoah Creek and the
Nantahala. Another group of families apparently lived in Yalaga (Alarka), on the west bank of the Little
Tennessee between the mouths of the Nantahala and Tuckasegee, where they cultivated small patches of
riverbottom land (Riggs 1996:75; Riggs and Greene i.p.). The property evaluations indicate that at least
eight families were present in that area, occupying small log cabins and farming a total of 38 acres (Riggs
and Shumate 2003a:5).
The forced removal of the Cherokees from North Carolina began in June of 1838, with the arrest and
concentration of most of the remaining Cherokees in six removal forts and stockades across the area that
had been relinquished by the 1835 Treaty of New Echota. The northernmost of the removal forts was Fort
Lindsay, which was at the future site of Almond on the east side of the Nantahala a short distance below
its confluence with the Little Tennessee (Riggs 1996:75; Riggs and Greene i.p.). The Cherokees from
Yalaga and elsewhere in the study area were probably first taken from their homes and moved to Fort
Lindsay, where they were held for a short period before being transported to Fort Butler in Murphy,
probably along a route that ran along the Nantaheelee Road to the southwest, through a gap in Long
Ridge to its intersection with the Athens and Franklin Stage Road (Thomason 2003:E36; Riggs and
Shumate 2003a:6). From Murphy they were moved to camps at Fort Cass in Tennessee before their final
removal to the Arkansas Territory (Riggs and Shumate 2003a:6).
Besides the stockade at Fort Lindsay, a smaller stockade or "guardhouse" may have been located at
Welch's, on the north bank of the river a short distance downstream from the Tuckasegee confluence.
This may have been one of a number of smaller holding facilities present throughout the Removal area
(Duggan 1998:30-31), and if present was probably used to temporarily hold newly-arrested Cherokees
prior to their transfer to Fort Lindsay or movement out of the area. (There are no contemporary accounts
of this stockade, and it is possible that later references to it actually refer to ihe facility at Fort Lindsay
29
[Brett Riggs, personal communication 2003]). The Welch homestead was to figure prominently in the
arrest, escape, re-arrest, and execution of inembers of the Tsali family in October—November 1838.
Various accounts of this episode, and its relationship to the remaining Cherokee presence in the East,
have reverberated for almost two centuries (e.g., Finger 1979, 1984:22-28, 1991:ll6-117; King and
Evans 1979, Kutsche 1963; Lanman 1847, Mooney 1900). Although many of the details of the story are
uncertain, its general outline is relatively clear.
Prior to the removal, Tsali lived with his family along a small tributary on the east side of the Nantahala
River, a few miles south of the present study area. During the summer of 1838, he and his family fled
along with other Nantahala-area Cherokees into the mountains to avoid deportation and removaL This
strategy was initially successful, and government troops were ordered out of the area in late June, when
General Scott considered the removal to be essentially complete. In early August Scott learned that a
number of fugitives remained in the mountains, however, and ordered troops back into the area to search
for them. Tsali and 12 members of his family were captured by some of these soldiers near the mouth of
the Tuckasegee on October 30, and over the next two days were being transported out of the area
(possibly along the Little Tennessee Turnpike) by the troops. On the night of November 1(according to
Arthur [1914:577] near the mouth of Paine's [Payne] Branch, a few miles east of the present site of
Fontana Dam), the Cherokees rebelled against their captors, killing at least two of the soldiers. Tsali and
his family then fled into the uplands north of the Tuckasegee. On November 7 General Scott ordered
Colonel William S. Foster and the 4`" Infantry to search for and punish the fugitives, and Foster and his
troops set up camp at the Welch homestead on November 12 (King and Evans 1979:198-199). (The
Welch location is termed Camp Scott in letters of the time. This was a temporary designation, however,
and the Camp Scott at Welch's is not to be confused with the Camp Scott formerly located at the town of
Aquone, where the State Road crossed the Nantahala some distance to the southeast.)
The troops searched for the fugitives over the next week. Three of the Cherokees were recaptured
(possibly near the mouth of Forney Creek [Arthur 1914:578]) on or shortly after November 19, and were
brought to Welch's for an inquiry. The three captives (Tsali's sons Nantahala George [Chutequutlutlih],
Nantahala Jake [Canantuilaga or Ridge], and Lowan [Lauinnih]) were identified by witnesses, including
Joseph Welch and William H. Thomas, and on November 23 were executed near the Welch home by
other Cherokees under the leadership of Euchella, a former neighbor of Tsali who had assisted in their
capture (King and Evans 1979). The three executed Cherokees were buried at Welch's, probably wesi of
the family homestead in an area between Buckeye Branch and Poplar Pole Branch later known as
"Buckeye Flats" (Parris 1986). Tsali himself was captured a few days later on Deep Creek, and was
executed "near Big Bear's reserve" (the present site of Bryson City) on November 25 (King and Evans
1979).
TVA records suggest that in the 1940s the graves of Tsali's sons were located on the southwest side of the
railroad tracks on TVA Acquisition Tract FR-127, and formed the nucleus of a small cemetery named
after drowning victim William Cook, who was buried nearby. (No graves are shown at this location on
earlier land acquisition maps by the KPC [1914] or NP&L [1932]). The Fontana Project cemetery records
on file at NARA contain Grave Removal Permits for the graves of Little Charlie, Longridge, and Lawana,
who are described as Cherokee Indians who died in 1838. The permits specify that the graves had been
staked and provide for their relocation to the Old Mission Ceinetery in Cherokee, but it is not clear from
the available recards that the proposed disinterment and reinterment actually occurred.
Post-Removal Cherokee Occupations
As discussed above, some 1,100 Cherokees managed to stay in North Carolina after Removal (Finger
1984:29). Those who were officially allowed �o remain included the Citizen Cherokees residing in the
Oconaluftee area and members of Euchella's band, who had been exempted from removal due to their
help in aiding in the arrest and execution of Tsali and the other fugitives. A number of other Cherokees
remained in isolated areas in southwestern North Carolina and southeastern Tennessee. A sizeable
30
Cherokee population remained southwest of the study area near the former Buffalo Town, and later
became the nucleus of the Snowbird Cherokees (Duggan 1998:51; Neely 1991). Many of these Cherokees
occupied land that was bought on their behalf by W.H. Thomas and other sympathetic whites (as
Cherokees and other non-whites were not allowed to own land in the state until 1866); many of those
tracts were later incorporated into the modern tribal reservation. Other Cherokees who had evaded
removal likely lived on tracts owned by whites, as may have occurred on land owned by the Siler family
on the south bank of xhe Little Tennessee within the study area (Riggs and Shumate 2003a:6).
One mid-to-late nineteenth century Cherolcee settlement, Pretty Woman's Town, may have been located
on Deep Creek north of Bryson City (Duggan 1998; Duncan and Riggs 2003:75; Brett Riggs, personal
communication 2003), and some 30 Cherokees were living on Deep Creek in 1850 (Duncan and Riggs
2003:75). Another concentrarion of Cherokee settlements was present in the former Alarka area as early
as the 1840s, and is clearly documented near Almond and Judson along the lower Nantahala in the late
nineteenth century (Duggan 1998, 2002:57; Finger 1984:123). Many of these so-called Nantahala
Cherokees had ties with outlying settlements, including one some distance to the west in the Ducktown
Basin of East Tennessee (Duggan 1998). An 1898 tribal census lists the names of 82 individuals from 17
families residing in the area; most of whom "were kin or former neighbors of the Ducktown Basin
Cherokees" (Duggan 1998:263-266).
Many of the Cherokees were apparently gone from this area by the early 1900s, with soine moving to the
newly purchased 3200-acre tract near Ela (northeast of Bryson City) (Duggan 1998:268). At least a small
enclave remained in the study area, however. The KPC (1914) and NP&L (1932) acquisition maps
indicate that four tracts (totaling about 668 acres) in the area were tribally-owned as late as 1932,
including future TVA Acquisition Tracts FR-221, 227, 410, and 864. Three of the four tracts were sold by
the tribe between 1932 and 1943. By 1943 the only remaining tribal property in the area was located on
Mouse Branch (a tributary of the Little Tennessee west of Judson near the village of Japan), and consisted
of the 116-acre Tract FR-864, which was acquired directly from the "U.S.A. Cherokee Indian
Reservation" by the TVA. Other nearby tracts were owned by individual Cherokees, including members
of the Chickalala (Chicklelee) and other families (Taylor 2001:88-90; TVA 1943). Oiher material
evidence of Cherokee occupation remaining in the 1940s included a cemetery located on FR-864, two
adjacent cemeteries (one associated with the Cat [Catt] fainily) in the uplands east of Almond on Tract
FR-410, and an (apparently) isolated grave in the uplands across the river and northwest of Almond.
Besides these settlements, there is also anecdotal evidence of other Cherokee occupations in the study
area into at least the mid-1800s, including at several locations in the Hazel Creek drainage (Oliver
(1989:3, 2002:2-4, 2003:5-6). Additional documentary and oral history research would likely reveal a
more extensive mid-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century Cherokee presence in the study area (including
on the North Shore) than is readily apparent. Finally, many Cherokees married into Euro-American
families, and their ethnic heritage was not always readily acknowledged (Oliver 2003:106).
The mid-nineteenth through twentieth century social and political history of the Eastern Band has been
described in detail by Finger (1984, 1991), Hill (1997), Mooney (1900), and others, and needs only be
recapped here. The Cherolcees' rights to the lands bought by Thomas were confirmed by a federal court
decision in 1874, providing some measure of security to the local population. In 1889, the Cherokees in
North Carolina were officially incorporated under state law as the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
(Finger 1984). Most Cherokees continued to practice a farming economy throughout the nineteenth
century, although hunting, fishing, and gathering wild plant foods were also important subsistence
activities. Logging became an important source of jobs for a time beginning in the late 1800s, although
most logging jobs were gone by the early 1930s. Although the Cherokee population has increasingly
become outwardly acculturated since the growth of the modern tourist industry beginning in the 1930s, it
has preserved a distinct cultural and ethnic identity through the retention of the Cherokee language and
aspects of both day-to-day and ceremonial life (Riggs et al. 1997:19).
31
EURO-AMERICAN OCCUPATION
Early to Mid-Nineteenth Century Euro-American Settlement
Although a few traders were present by the late eighteenth century, the intensive Euro-American
settlement of the study area began in the early 1820s, shortly after the Cherokee cession of lands north
and east of the Little Tennessee River. Some of these early settlers occupied parcels surveyed by Elihu
Chambers and others under the direction of Robert Love, and which are shown on Love's 1820 map
(Figure 4.4). That map depicts a number of surveyed tracts along Alarka Creek and the Tuckasegee and
Little Tennessee rivers, including two at the rivers' confluence. (The map does not extend west along the
Little Tennessee from the confluence.) Several of these tracts were apparently settled in the 1820s, and by
1832 Joseph Welch had continued the Little Tennessee Turnpike west along the north bank of the river
(Oliver 1999, 2003). The MacRae-Brazier map of 1833 depicts the Turnpike Road running up the Little
Tennessee, crossing the Tuckasegee just above the confluence, and then extending west along the north
bank of the Little Tennessee. A single house (presumably Welch's, see below) is indicated on the north
bank of the river at the confluence.
The 1838 U.S. Army map (Williams 1838) is the first known map to show multiple structures in the study
area (see Figure 4.3). That map depicts up to 34 structures in the study area, including about 15 on the
north bank of the Little Tennessee that were probably occupied by Euro-American settlers. The map (and
a contemporary map by Thomas [1838]) also provides the first comprehensive data on stream names in
the area. Proceeding west from the river's confluence, the map shows "Welch's" on the east side of an
unnamed drainage (probably Poplar Pole Branch). Two structures labeled "Chambers" are located east of
Mill Creek (later Chambers Creek). Further to the west, Pointdexter's (marked "35 mi. fr. Franklin") is
shown across and downriver from the mouth of Stecoah Creek. Two unnamed structures are shown near
Haze's (probably what was later known as Hubbard Mill or Pilkey) Creek, and two or three structures
(one marked "Brewer") are shown at the mouth of what was later called Calhoun (or Chesquah) Branch.
A bridge is shown at the mouth of Hazelnut (later Hazel) Creek; Eagle Creek is depicted and labeled but
with no associated structures. An unnamed structure is shown near the mouth of what is apparently
Paine's Branch, and "McElroy's" is shown some distance downriver, at the western edge of the study
area. Working south from the Little Tennessee/Tuckasegee confluence, other early Euro-American
landowners included a second Pointdexter; two other illegible names are also indicated along the north
banlc of the Little Tennessee east of its confluence with the Nantahala (Williams 1838). The map does not
provide detail upriver along the Tuckasegee, as the government had already acquired both banlcs of the
river in that area.
No systematic attempt has been made to research all of these individuals, but some information
concerning a few of them is readily available. One of the most noted early settlers in the area was Joseph
Welch, who settled between Welch Branch and Chambers Creek sometime about 1828 (Holland 2001:15;
Oliver 2003:100-104). As mentioned above, Welch was instrumental in developing the western portion
of the Little Tennessee Turnpike, which was built in the early 1830s and extended down the north (right)
banlc of the Little Tennessee from its confluence with the Tuckasegee into Tennessee. Although Welch
was forced to declare bankruptcy due to the financial failure of the turnpike, he was able to keep his land.
The upkeep of the turnpike was apparenily taken over by Macon County, and ii ceased io be a toll road
(MacRae-Brazier 1833; Oliver 1999, 2002:ll-12, 2003:100-103; Williams 1838). As discussed above, a
small stockade at the Welch homestead may have been used to temporarily hold Cherokee prisoners
during the 1838 Removal, and Colonel Foster and his 4t" Infantry hunting Tsali and other escaped
Cherokees were headquartered at Welch's for a time in November 1838 (King and Evans 1979:198-199).
Three of the Cherokees involved in the Tsali episode were brought to Welch's after their
32
W
W
�
.�;�,�.- r �„�
.�,.,. �...�.� _"�
�i.na fFd � di d1-rt�ar�-e
.t°�. �'r'°:$"-°r �lrrr.re. �
. �e.t'�.�� eJ�f .�n "� �.��,t
r°— �..L* r� •+., +��. i�r°
.rRe� a__�f�—��� � � �7Y.,+r
+r�••�n� •F : � l ,..gF r� �.,..Jr
•�.� rr� M.r �.-f+.�rr
� �}lY i.•n� i,{/ tdKE�e- �+rW-•
�"a� �
� ��[
�I laau : f
9
,� 3
• 2 �°•
�i
+�'—.a� �i..e�ia�v.� +}'+
��!'.r� ��pio n�+
� � � � ++4 Cu� �
�.s.-s +an �rf --I.. d d.�..,i ivq
Itivf.��w.T i��u.L+r . .n.�v�•
aeMd�.� ee SAr� i�eaui�^e ali
""�a�a'�e.e� i�aaa�.h��e i ���
. �....� a
,�, +�- ���
�.. r--�'^—
��
I I� � �
� � p!
5�� , '_
��
s-r •
..W
J�a f1B
2�' F
M
SM1'. _� r, *"J .
�-bdR�^_= .'z�_ �,•.--, .
�L�
f\
-- � ?��
— i ��•Y'�
.�
3
Figure 4.4. Love's (1820) map of eastern part of the study area.
s''r•�
'•y r�r
F
d�
��•I
'�I
� �.
capture, and Welch was one of three witnesses against them prior to their execution on November 23. A
few days earlier, Welch had also been a signatory on the petition to Colonel Foster requesting permission
for Euchella and his band to remain in the area (Finger 1979:13). Joseph Welch and his wife Catherine
had at least eight children, the youngest of which (A. Burton Welch) inherited the family homestead.
Although NP&L acquired much land in the area for a proposed reservoir in the 1920s and 1930s, the
Welch family continued to live in the Bushnell area until the developinent of Fontana Lake in the 1940s
(Macon 1988:308).
The Chambers family were residents on nearby Chambers Creek by the early 1820s, and perhaps as early
as 1808 (Oliver 2003:105). Although Philip Chambers apparently established the earliest family
homestead near the mouth of the creek, the later homes of his son John and grandson Philip were further
to the north, along the North and West forks of the stream. The Elihu Chambers who was a surveyor with
Robert Love was apparently a brother of the elder Philip Chambers, and he and his brothers James and
Joseph were also early landowners in the area (Chambers 1988; Chambers et al. 1988). No data have been
gathered on the Pointdexter family, although four Poindexters (sic) were among those who signed ihe
1838 petition to Colonel Foster concerning the Euchella band.
Other accounts provide additional information on the early Euro-American settlement. The general
pattern of settlement apparently pushed downriver along the Little Tennessee. The earlier settlers
occupied the best bottomland along the Tuckasegee and Little Tennessee east of Hazel Creek; later
settlers were forced to acquire land further down the river and up the creeks (Oliver 1989:4-5; cf.
Lambert 1958a). When Arnold Henry Guyot came to map the Smoky Mountains about 1858, he
encountered settlers not only along the river valleys but also on creek bottoms and coves far back into the
mountains. Most of these early inhabitants were of Scots, Scots-Irish, or English ancestry (Sharpe
1954:19). The early Euro-American inhabitants of the area were primarily subsistence farmers, with some
supplementing their incomes by raising and selling livestock and through small-scale mercantile
establishments. The better-off settlers farmed the richer and more easily cultivated soils found on the
floodplains and in the larger coves, and raised such crops as corn, wheat, rye, and oats. Cattle and hogs
were also raised and for many years were given free rein. Much of the corn was used as fodder for the
cattle, hogs, and work animals, although some was ground into meal far local consumption.
While most settlement proceeded downriver, some of the earliest settlers in Hazel Creek came across the
mountains from Tennessee. Moses and Catherine Proctor followed an old Indian trail from Cades Cove
across the Pinnacle and through Possum Hollow, and established a homestead at the present site of
Proctor Cemetery about 1830. Another early family from Cades Cove, that of Samuel and Elizabeth
Cable, settled downstream on Cable Branch by 1835. At least four families were residing in Hazel Creek
by 1860, but settlement density in the area did not increase substantially until after the Civil War (Oliver
1989:8-12).
Many men from local communities joined Thomas' Legion or other regiments during the Civil War, but
there were few engagements in the study area. The most important of these occurred in February 1864,
when the Union 14t" Illinois Calvary moved across the mountains from Cades Cove, across "the upper,
unsettled section of Hazel Creek, and took the trail to the top of Welch Ridge and down Chambers Creek
to the tollroad" along the Little Tennessee (Oliver 1993:34). On February 2, the Union forces attacked a
group of up to 300 Cherokees and other Legion members camped near the mouth of Deep Creek. After
considerable fighting the troops returned to Tennessee, taking with them several prisoners (Crow 1982:
58-59; Finger 1984:94-96; Oliver 2003:36). A second Civil War episode occurred in 1865 near the
mouth of the Tuckasegee, where three reported horse thieves (George Williams, Bart Williams, and Jeff
Deavers) were overtalcen by their victim and other pursuers "not far from the house of A.B. Welch on the
(Little) Tennessee River." The three were reportedly executed for their crime on January 10, 1865, and
buried along the Old State Road (formerly the Little Tennessee River Turnpike) near the site. Their
graves were inoved to the U.S. Military Cemetery in Knoxville in the 1890s (Baker 2003).
34
The years following the Civil War saw a continuation of the pre-war pattern of subsistence agriculture
and small-scale livestock raising, there were few opporninities for wage-labor in most of the area until the
1880s, when the earliest logging operations began. In 1879, a total of 9,554 acres in Swain County were
in corn, wheat, rye, and oats. An additional 160 acres were in minor crops, including hay, sweet potatoes,
and tobacco. Fruit trees also became significant contributors to local subsistence about this time, and by
1889 almost 20,000 apple or peach trees were present (Perkins and Gettys 1947:12). Other settlers lived
farther back in the mountains, in the narrower coves and valleys far up smaller tributaries. These
occupants lived relatively isolated lives, making a living off small subsistence plots and having relatively
little contact with the larger settlements (Lambert 1958a:425; Shumate et al. 1996:32; Zeigler and
Grosscup 1883).
Late Nineteenth Century Through Twentieth Century Euro-American Settlement
Swain County was formed from adjacent parts of Jackson and Macon counties in 1871, with the county
seat established at the new settlement of Charleston (later Bryson City) (Corbitt 1950:202). The county's
population was 3,784 in 1880, but reached 6,577 in 1890, 8,401 in 1900, and 10,403 in 1910 (Table 4.1).
The population was predominantly "native white," with percentages ranging from a low of 85.5 percent in
1880 and 1890 to a high of 92.4 percent in 1920. Between 6.5 percent (1920) and 11.5 percent (1880) of
the population was described as "Indian." African-Americans made up a distinct minority during the
period, ranging from a high of 3.4 percent in 1890 to a low of 0.9 percent in 1920. Finally, a very small
percentage of the population (less than 0.5 percent) was described as "non-native white" (Black 1928:14—
15).
Adjacent Graham Counry was formed in 1872 from Cherokee County, and the counry seat was
established at Robbinsville (Corbitt 1950:107-108). Robbinsville developed around a trading post first
established by Thomas Cooper and William H. Thomas in the early 1840s near the site of Fort
Montgomery (one of the six Removal %rts); earlier names of the settlement included Cheoah Valley and
Fort Montgomery (Sheffey 1992:2; Thomason 2003:E35). As in Swain County, the lack of adequate
transportation routes hindered development of the area. For many years ihe Tatham Gap Road, which had
been constructed by the Army in 1838 to facilitate removal of the Cherokees from the Cheoah Valley,
remained the major route to nearby Andrews. A road to Topton and the Murphy Branch Railroad was
opened in the early 1900s, however, and greatly facilitated access to the area (Sheffey 1992:2).
The late nineteenth century saw increasing settlement, as well as the earliest development of the logging
and mining industries (see below). The extension of the railroad to Bryson City in 1884 increased access
to previously unavailable markets in the eastern part of the state and spurred the development of lo�ging
(Sharpe 1954:21). Although there were no recorded logging operations in Swain County in 1880, by 1890
twelve such establishments were present, with a total production valued at $85,226. This figure grew to
41 operations with a producrion of $156,990 in 1900; by 1920 the number of operations had shrunk to 22,
but total production value had risen to $2,001,208 (Black 1928). Major lo�ging operations developed in
Swain County during this period included those at Forney Creek (Harris-Woodbury Company [pre-1906],
Norwood Lumber Company [1906-1925]), Hazel Creek (W.M. Ritter Lumber Company [1903-1926]),
and Eagle Creek (Montvale Lumber Company [1904-1920s]) (Lambert 1958b, 1961; Pierce 2003).
Logging in Graham County began in the 1880s with work on Santeetlah, West Buffalo, and Snowbird
creeks; as elsewhere, the earliest logging utilized splash dams. More substantial operations were
organized in the early 1900s, including those of the Whiting Manufacturing Company, which was based
at Judson in Swain County but logged most of eastern Graham County. Other major operations in Graham
County included those of the Kanawha Hardwood Lumber Company, the Babcock Lumber and Land
Company, and the Bemis Hardwood Lumber Company (Nothstein 1972).
35
Table 4.1. Population Statistics for Graham and Swain Counties, 1880-1950.
Location 1880 1890
Graham Countv
Robbinsville Township 1774 1723
Cheoah Township
Robbinsville Town*
Stecoah Township 561 972
Yellow Creek Township 618
Total 2335 3313
Swain County
Charleston Township 1352 2669
Bryson Town*
Whit2ier Town (Swain county only)*
Whittier Town (Swain/.Iackson counties)*
Forney Creek Township 562
Nantahala Township 1003
Almond Town*
Oconaluftee Township 867
Total 3784
* Town figures are included in township totals.
Referenccs: USBC (1895, 1901, 1913, 1921-1922, 1932, 1943, 1952).
926
1615
1367
6577
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940
2368
2579 2446 3527 4057
122 119 345 399
1216 1498 1405 1399 1463
759 672 1021 915 898
4343 4749 4872 5841 6418
3202 3780 4405 5294 8030
417 612 882 1806 1612
156
261
1350 2324 3491 1960 1463
2199 2749 2603 2502 2684
98 146 613
1650 1550 2725 1812
8401 10403 13224 11568 12177
1950
4875
515
941
1070
6886
8329
1499
13
1579
9921
A 1916 article in the Bryson City Times (Latshaw 1916) provides an interesting picture of Swain County
in the early years of the twentieth century. At that time 33,647 acres, or 9.7 percent of the county's total
area, were under cultivation. A total of 1,383 farms were present, with an average area in cultivation of
24.3 acres. The county generally ranked low among North Carolina counties in most measures of farm
production and was below the state average in corn, wheat, pork, and poultry production per capita. The
estiinated value of farm crops grew considerably throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, however, from an estimated $73,527 in 1880 to $667,956 in 1920 (Black 1928:43).
The prosperity brought by the lumber companies was short-lived. Most of the companies left the area in
the mid-1920s (Black 1928:16), and the local decline in prosperity was only exacerbated by the onset of
the Great Depression. Conditions generally failed to improve throughoui the 1930s. A 1939 newspaper
article stated that over 80 percent of the families in Swain County were eligible for government
assistance, but reported that gains were being made in combating illiteracy and malnutrition (Anonymous
1939a).
One factor hindering development of Swain County was the removal of sizable amounts of land from the
tax base in the 1920s-1940s. Between 1929 and 1934, the North Carolina Park Commission acquired
169,414 acres, or about half the land in the county, for GSMNP; this was in addition to other land that
had been acquired for the Cherokee Indian Reservation in 1924. A further 58,000 acres were taken by the
TVA for the Fontana project in the early 1940s. The removal of this land from the tax base was a major
economic blow to the county, already hit hard by the collapse of the timber industry (Fleming 1958).
Ultimately, however, the development of the Park and of Fontana Lake increased tourism, providing a
new source of income. As early as 1932, Bryson City and the surrounding mountains were being
promoted as a tourist center (Anonymous 1932a; Bennett 1932). By the 1950s, the flourishing tourism
business was beginning to ameliorate the hardships caused by the land acquisitions (Fleming 1958; Paul
1950), although tensions over the loss of land remained.
NINETEENTH AND EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS
The availability of transportation routes played a major role in the settlement, growth, and eventual
depopulation of the North Shore region, and is the principal factor driving the present study.
Consequently, an understanding of the transportation history of the area is vital to interpreting the
settlement history of the area and the nature of the North Shore Road controversy.
A number of trails lilcely traversed the study area at the beginning of the historic period, including a route
extending from Hazel Creek over Ekaneetlee [Egwanulti] Gap to Cades Cove (ATC 1973:6-33); this was
likely the route taken into the area by the Proctors and some other early settlers of Hazel Creelc. The
earliest improved road in the area was the Little Tennessee Turnpilce, which by 1833 had been
constructed down the east bank of the Little Tennessee to its confluence with the Tuckasegee, across the
Tuckasegee to Welch's, and then down the river towards Tennessee (MacRae-Brazier 1833; Oliver 1999).
This remained the principal road through the area for most of the nineteenth century, and was
supplemented by a network of trails. By 1882 the road had been extended east along the narth bank of the
Tuckasegee to Charleston (later Bryson City), and a road had been built west from Judson (the later
Judson—Japan road) along the south bank of the Little Tennessee as far west as Panther Creek (Kerr
1882). (The road west along the Tucicasegee froin Charleston is not shown on the 1886 Cowee quadrangle
[USGS 1886], which depicts a road running northwest from Bryson City into the upper Lands Creek
drainage).
The Southern Railroad reached Bryson City in 1884 (although the route is depicted on the 1882 map), and
from there extended west along the north bank of the Tuckasegee as far as Bushnell, where it turned
south, crossed the Tuckasegee, and followed firsi the Little Tennessee and then the Nantahala to the south
towards Murphy (Holland 2001:75; USGS 1882). The railroad was not extended west from Bushnell until
37
the early 1900s, when the Carolina and Tennessee Southern Railroad was built to the Montvale Lumber
Company town of Fontana, at the mouth of Eagle Creek. That point marked the furthest extension of the
main line to the west, although the Kitchen Lumber Company built a three to four mile extension to
Kitchenville (a short distance below the Fontana Dam site) in the 1920s (Holland 2001:87).
By the early 1890s several other roads were present in the area, including roads up Forney, Hazel, and
Eagle creeks, and a route extending along Alarka Creek west to Judson, Wolf Creek, and the Stecoah
Creek drainage (USGS 1892b). By 1906 the road network south of the Little Tennessee had been
extended to include routes connecting Stecoah Creek with Sawyer and Tuskeegee creeks and the Little
Tennessee River across from Wayside and Dorsey (Figure 4.5). North of the river, other roads ran up
Hazel Creek to well above Proctor, and some distance up Forney Creek and Welch Branch. No road is
shown up Eagle Creek at that time (USGS 1906). Subsequent years saw considerable expansion of the
railroad network in the study area, as the Montvale, Ritter, Whiting, and Norwood companies began
extensive logging operations. Most of the logging railroads did not carry passenger traffic, although the
Ritter line (the Smoky Mountain Railway) did carry passengers up Hazel Creek to Proctor. The rail lines
up the creeks were generally removed when the luinber companies left, although the spur line continued
to extend as far west as Fontana.
The next major road improvement in the area took place in 1926, when
the Forney Creek Road District of Swain County floated two bond issues totaling $700,000 to
finance the construcrion of [North Carolina] Highway 288 ... to replace the old Joseph Welch
river turnpike and the Carolina and Tennessee Southern Railroad that would be flooded by
Alcoa's [then-proposed] reservoir. I-�ighway 288 connected Bryson City and U.S. Highway 129 at
Deals Gap. Even through it provided access to Tennessee and beyond, the winding, mountainside,
unpaved road was mainly used by local traffic [Holland 2001:186].
TVA described NC 288 in the early 19�Os as "an extremely narrow, winding mountain road, totally
unsuitable for heavy hauling and personnel traffic" (cited in Holland 2001:138), and as "a narrow
unpaved road with very low standards of alinement [sic] and grade" (TVA 1950:499). NC 288 is shown
on a 1930 North Carolina County Road Survey as a hard-suriaced road running the length of the county;
a similar road (NC 10) led southwest from Bryson City, west along Alarka Creek to Almond, and then
south to Wesser, while NC 286 ran south from NC 10 across Alarka Creek and down the east side of the
Little Tennessee (USBPR 1930; Webb et al. 1993) (Figure 4.6). These are the only hard surfaced roads
depicted by the Atlas in the study area (although NC 288 was never paved). Most of the other roads in the
area, which generally led up drainages such as Noland, Forney, and Hazel creelcs, are shown as graded or
(generally unimproved) Class B or C County Highways (USBPR 1930).
Although NC 288 had been designed to be above the pool of the Alcoa's proposed reservoir (which
would have been impounded by a 200-foot dam at the future Fontana dam site), most of the road was to
be inundated by the TVA's proposed 480-foot high dam. TVA concluded that the estimated $1,200,000
required to relocate the road using comparable construction standards was more than the value of the land
served, and
the War Production Board had indicated that reconstruction of the road was not of sufficient
importance to justify the expenditure of materials and manpower required for the work during the
war. [Consequently], TVA proposed an alternate solution that would cost only $1,075,000 and
would result in advantages to the mutual benefit of all concerned" [Holland 2001:187].
That solution, of course, was the acquisition of the North Shore area and its subsequent inclusion in
GSMNP.
.
�i� �'� � � ���'��
' �� � � =' I �;}
�, �,, ,� L �� �
� �,,� � � '�
.,' ,�; . �, °-,, � �
��•. �. : �: . .
�-�
�,.L -
��:
� ,,.�-::,�
�"I `4
a!_ A�.,°'yY
� �-�.� �;�..5�
�
f t .
ti�����.°��; f
_ . � �. .°_`��"
� � i .,�' °� �
{ - p °
�� I � ..k� � Y �
� � �� �: � ""�•.���
.��r _ b
� �� � 4 ,. � r,
�-- y � i'.°�� ,�_, {
�
; ..� ; � ° ',. �, ,.... .
�
-��
..��
._�`�,.
-. �
`� �. � _ -
,�:''�- ; ''�
u� ~�` r�
� �.
� � ::.•.;
� oI � � ,
�rii s'�... 5 16i.�'.••,a �
.:.y�
��
: �1f�.• ...
� 1i �+ ��� ..
'I�..�.r. -, ��.�
.. . �'�• `�..i,
. - ., _ :• _d`l.
Figure 4.5. USGS (1906) map of western portion of study area.
� o � . _ . . . , i ° . _. . � .. _ �� �' . , f : a. l' _.
r�r� r��� ���� r���r� �:_�� �� �
ee�.=:��
��-°,��•��i�x��.. ., . ., _� . . _ .. _ . �-����, °�
K�
. ,�••.�'
i ��t' ,.�
�A ..
��` ,
. c°-r�'-
�Ilafi� � �.,
�
�
� �� �` �''-� .��' �`
+���.�-�. ��—*�.;,-.�
.�� � � � � � P �
�i R � M � Y
� � �
� ���
�+ � �� �
�! �° i.
�
��
� � J �
w
� � 4� N T 1'
�+
��
�f
� �F' �'..���
�
Y �
1� A�a�
Figure 4.6. Roads in the study area in 1930 (USBPR 1930).
�
's
I
5
s
11
a
w
!
�� �'
�� � r
�, - . �
� '��� �_ r.. �
� � � � �
"�
� ti��:r.--r�;
� . a.� T k - �44 ,�
h
'� `�ati � M1�,
�
r.�' � i�.+�����
., w �j N � 1{ �y d
� ��, �a.' �' � � I
NC 288 was not the only transportation route to be affected by reservoir construction. As discussed
below, routes into Cable and Poison coves on the south shore west of Tuskeegee Creek were also
inundated, resulting in the acquisition of those areas by the TVA (and their subsequent transfer to
Nantahala National Forest). Parts of NC 10 (US 19) were also flooded, and a portion of that road was
relocated as well. Finally, the reservoir construction also submerged "24 miles of the Murphy line of the
Southern Railway between Bryson City and Wesser" along with the Carolina and Tennessee Southern
Railroad between Bushnell and Fontana. The Murphy Branch was relocated along a higher route, while
the route from Bushnell to Fontana was not rebuilt (TVA 1950:503-507).
The final stages of major road construction in the area postdate Fontana Lake. As discussed in Chapter 1,
small sections of the proposed replacement of NC 288 were constructed between 1948 and 1972, but no
new construction has occurred since that date. On the south side of Fontana Lake, NC Highway 28 was
built connecting Bryson City to Stecoah, Fontana Village and Robbinsville in the early 1950s (Taylor
2001:129-130). More recent road construciion in the area included the upgrading of US 19 in the 1980s,
and the ongoing widening of portions of NC 28 to a four-lane roadway.
THE LOGGING ERA IN THE NORTH SHORE ROAD EIS STUDY AREA
Some of the largest and most important lumber mills in western North Carolina operated on the North
Shore and elsewhere in Swain and Graham counties, and logging is an important part of the history of the
study area. The logging era in the study area began in the 1880s, and continued through the 1940s
(although most major operations ended in the 1920s). Although timber extraction always bad been a part
of historic settlements along the Little Tennessee and adjacent rivers, it ariginally related to personal uses
(such as for houses, barns, and fences) rather than commercial purposes. Until the Civil War, most
families used lumber far home use supplemented by the occasional sale of lumber to local sawmills (Eller
1982:86). By 1880, timber supplies in northern forests had become greatly diminished and the industry
turned to the Southern Appalachians as a new source (Eller 1982:87; Van Noppen and Van Noppen
1973:294). The resulting timber boom devastated the forests of the region, and ultimately helped to
inspire both the development of the National Forest system and that of GSMNP (Eller 1982:87).
Lambert (1958b, 1961) defines two broad periods in the history of regional logging, beginning with an
initial stage (180�1900) of selective cutting in which water transported most logs, and labor consisted of
seasonal workers (often comprised of farmers cutting logs as supplemental income during non-harvest
seasons). While local landowners and tenants conducted most of the earliest timbering, by the mid-1860s
large lumber companies had formed to take advantage of the vast timber resources. Transportation
remained a problem, however, and severely restricted lumber operations in the mountains.
The early lumber companies often relied on legal agreements with landowners to harvest timber, rather
than outright land purchase. For example, in 1885 J.F. Loomis and Xenaphon Wheeler entered an
agreement with J.C. Gunter of Graham County whereby Loomis and Wheeler paid $115.05 for the right
to harvest 318 hardwood trees and 46 pine trees on Gunter's land (Holland 2001:62). Interestingly, the
trees remained until 1888, when Gunter himself was contracted to remove the trees and deliver them
within two years to a Chattanooga lumber company (Holland 2001:63).
By the late 1880s and 1890s, lumber companies begun to buy or lease large iracis of land and to siep up
lumber production. Some of the earliest commercial lumber companies to operate in the study area were
Taylor and Crate, Loomis and Wheeler, and W.C. Heyser and Company, all of which worked along Hazel
Creek (Holland 2001:59), and the Bushnells of Ohio, who built "extensive mills" and booms near the
confluence of the Tuckasegee and Little Tennessee rivers (Arthur 1914:514). Taylor and Crate (of
Buffalo, New York) may have been the first large-scale commercial lumber company to operate in the
study area, and worked in the Hazel Creek area from 1892 to 1898 (Oliver 1989:55). The firm harvested
large stands of poplar, ash and cucumber tree along Hazel Creek, using teams of oxen to drag (or "skid")
41
the logs to the water. A series of splash dams was used to move the logs down the creek to the Little
Tennessee River, each opening successively to provide a continuous flood of water down to the river.
Men would line the banks of the creek as the logs floated by, pushing the logs away froin rocks and
standing trees. The operations were dangerous, and at least three men died working on the Hazel Creek
splash dams (Oliver 1989:57). By 1898, Taylor and Crate had harvested all the easily accessible lumber
from the area they controlled, having cut over one million board %et (Oliver 1989:57). Commercial
timber harvesting halted in the Hazel Creek drainage until 1902, when the Ritter Lumber Company
arrived.
The second stage of logging (beginning about 1900) involved a series of land and land rights purchases
by large timber companies, which were often based in northern states (Lambert 1961:355). These
transactions encompassed hundreds of thousands of acres of primary forest, and covered much of western
North Carolina. The large-scale operations of these companies relied on fewer, larger mills located along
major streams, and used newly created railroad lines for transport. The Southern Branch of the Western
North Carolina Railroad reached Murphy in 1890, connecting to the Georgia and North Carolina Railroad
(which had reached Murphy in 1888) and completing the path across the Appalachian Mountains. The
access to markets provided by these railroad lines had a tremendous impact on timber operations, as did
the developing technologies of the logging railroad and mechanized, steam-powered skidders. The ability
to access the very top reaches of the mountains while using new mechanical methods allowed the lumber
companies to harvest all commercially viable trees and bring them to the mills in tremendous quantities at
ever-increasing speeds.
Another important factor in regional logging was the establishment of a lumber by-products industry.
Large lumber companies would sell previously unusable wood (such as acidwood and pulpwood) to
tanneries and pulp mills. One such pulp mill was the Champion Fibre Company mill, which was
established at Canton, North Carolina in 1908 (Lambert 1961:354). While the by-product industry helped
lumber companies better utilize their timber resources, their non-sustainable logging methods led to the
wholesale destruction of vast areas of the Appalachian forests.
By the mid-1920s, most of the available timber in the region had been harvested. One by one, the lumber
companies finished logging their lands and closed up their operations (Holland 2001:104). Mills and
plants were disassembled, and land was sold. Some of the lumbermen and their families remained in the
former company towns (e.g., Fontana and Proctor), but others followed the lumber companies to other
areas, including the Pacific Northwest (Holland 2001:105). An estimated 2,000,000,000 board feet of
lumber were harvested from the Smoky Mountains by the time large-scale logging had ended (Williams
2002:250). The mountains were left a very different place than 30 or 40 years before, largely clear-cut of
timber and with eroded and fire-ravaged mountainsides and silted and polluted waterways. Of the over
500,000 acres now contained with GSMNP, more than two-thirds had been cut or burned in less than fifty
years (Oliver 1989:70).
Like much of the rest of the Appalachians, Swain and Graham counties experienced a timber boom in the
first decades of the twentieth century. Some of the largest timber companies in western North Carolina
were located in the study area, including the W.M. Ritter Lumber Company on Hazel Creek, the
Montvale Lumber Company on Eagle Creek, the Norwood Lumber Company on Forney Creek, and the
Whiting Manufacturing Company on the Grahain County side of the Little Tennessee River (Lambert
1958b; Holland 2001:79) (Table 4.2). In addition to these four major companies, numerous smaller
companies also worked in the area. While a thorough description of each of these operations is beyond
the scope of this report, the following paragraphs provide information on the four principal firms.
W.M. Ritter Lumber Company
The W.M. Ritter Lumber Company was the creation of William M. Ritter, who was born in Lycoming
County, Pennsylvania in 1864 and began warking as a lumberman as a young man. At the age of 26, he
L'�L►�
had taken $1,700 in capital and opened his first sawmill in West Virginia; within a decade he owned 18
mills (Brown 2000:52). By 1900, Ritter's company was working in West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky,
and North Carolina, and the company eventually owned at least 28 mills throughout the Appalachians
(Ritter 1940).
After scouting the Little Tennessee Valley, Ritter chose to concentrate on the Hazel Creek area, which
contained:
"the largest poplar trees" and the "best" oak and basswood in his experience ... [T]he watershed
was "nearly a completely virgin stand of timber." Granville Calhoun estimated that there was
210,000,000 feet of timber standing in 1906. In 1913, W.M. Ritter's estimate was about
140,000,000 feet, half of which was chestnut and hemlock and about thirty percent poplar and oak
[Lambert 1958b:4]].
After buying or acquiring rights to the land, Ritter began a complex series of dealings. First, he and others
convinced the Southern Railway Company to build a line from Bushnell past the mouth of Hazel Creek,
and worked to buy up timber rights and survey land for a logging railroad up the creek. A railroad spur
then was constructed from the small community at the creek mouth (called Ritter) north to Proctor, where
a band mill, log pond, and other support structures were built (Figure 4.7). Local workers were hired, and
logging and lumber production began in 1910 (Oliver 1989:59-60).
The Ritter Lumber operations involved a huge output of money and energy. The company's rail line
extended from the depot at Ritter ten miles up Hazel Creek past Proctor to Medlin (Oliver 1989:60;
Smoky Mountain Railway 1916); from Medlin it continued to various logging camps, changing location
as forested areas were cleared of timber. A great variety of people and goods traveled up and down the
railroad; logs came down the mountains to the band mill, and passengers, household goods, food, and
visitors (once even a small circus) went back and forth along the line (Oliver 1989:61) (Figure 4.8).
Temporary and semi-permanent camps were constructed, including a long-term camp at Buckeye Gap,
about two miles below the mountain crest in the Proctor Creek watershed (Oliver 1989:63). The Proctor
Creek camp included bunkhouses for the men and a boarding house, which could seat 35 men. The
temporary camps followed the cutting, and were created to allow the lumbermen a place to live without
having to descend the mountain each day. The loggers in these camps lived in "set-offs" or "railhouses,"
which were small, rough-boarded structures that arrived on logging cars for temporary set-up (Oliver
1989:62). The railhouses included not just bunkhouses and a kitchen, but also included small set-offs for
the foremen and their families, a commissary and a movable post office. When the camp was dismantled,
the buildings were picked up by the mechanical loaders, placed onto the logging cars, and transported to
the next camp location.
Due to his business acumen and access to vast amounts of capital, Ritter was able to efficiently log all but
the highest peaks in the Hazel Creek watershed. Logging began on the south side of the creek, working
north to within two miles of Silers Bald before moving to the north side of the creek and proceeding back
downstream. The loggers ended near the village of Ritter in 1928. (0liver 1989:61). The Ritter Lumber
Company harvested between 166 and 201 million board feet of lumber in only 18 years, probably paying
no more than $700,000 dollars for the timber rights (Lambert 1958b:42; Oliver 1989:67).
43
Table 4.2. Lumber Operations in the North Shore Road EIS Study Area.
Company Location Date Assoc. Town(s) Primary Species Production Principal References
Eversole Lumber Company Noland Creek 1880s-1890s Noland? Hardwoods, hemlock Unknowo Lambert I958U:37
Hairis-Woodbury Lumber Cmnpany Noland Creek 1905-1908 Noland Poplar, oak, chesmut, and spruce 9,000,000 to I QOOQ000 board feet Lambert 1958U38; Parris 1968b;
Oliver 1989:55
Norwood I.umber Company Forney Crcek 1910-1926? Forney Hardwoods, spruce Unluiown Cole 1996; Lambert ]9586
Bushncllfamily LittleTennessee/ 1880s? Bushnell Unknown Unknown
Tuckasegee confluence
Artliur 19I4:514
Notes
Land later purchased by
Champion Cibre Coinpany
Letcr chenged name to
Blackwood Lumber
Company
Operated "extcnsive miLls"
and log booms until
destroyed by flood
Taylor and Crate Hazel Creek 1892-1898 None Poplar, asl�, and cucumber tree 1,000,000 board feet Parris 1968b; Oliver 1989:55 Splash dams on Hazel Creek
Lomnis and Wheeler HazeL Creek 1890s'? None? Unknown Unknown Holland 2001 :59; Lambert 1958b:40
W.C. Heiser Hazel Creek 1890s? None? Unknown Unknown Holland 2001:59; Lambert 1958b:40
Black Mountain Timber Company Hazel Creek early 1900s None? Unknown Unknown Lambert 1958b:40
W.M. Ritter Lumber Compa�ry Hazel Creek 191�1928 Proctor, Ritter Chest�mt, poplar, hemlock, oak, 166,000,000 board feet Holland 2001; Lambert 1958b:40-42;
maple Oliver 1989; W.M. Ritter 1922-1928
Paul Crisp Hazel Creek 1930s None? Unknown Unknown Parris 1960 Granville Calhoim accoant
Strikeleather Lumber Company Hazel Creek 1928? None? Unknown Unknown; may have never operated Oliver 1998b
Unknown Eagle Creek Unlmown None Poplar 60Q000 board feet Lambert 19586:42 Mill located 6 mi. up creek
Montvale Lumber Company Eagle Creek 1909-1925 Fontana Hardwoods 100,000,000 board feet Lamben I958b:42�5; Oliver 1989:70
Kitchen Lumber Company Twentymile Creek 1921-1926 Kitchenville, Unknown Unknown Holland 200L87-88; Lambert
Fontana I )58b:45�6
Thompson-Canby I,umbcr Compuny Graham County pre-1906 None? Unknown Unknown Anonymous 1908a Owned "14,000 acros and
two small circular mills"
Buchanan Lumber Company Graham County unk-1906 Judson Oak, poplar, chestnut, basswood, Unknown Anonymous 1908a, 1908b
hemlock, birch, buckeye, ash and
beech
Whiting Manufacturing Company oraham County 190Fr1920s Judson Unknown Unknown Anonyinous 1908a, 1908b; Holland
200138; 6rown 2000:50
�
t�
� -� _
;_t.,
� +� -. � i � '_.'
:._—._.._� � � .
�- �=,�.a�
� .
' .� . � _- _—�'"�_.e.�.� �
.� ' . � }: _ .,.
� y � �� `
.� .�. ti�; ��`.�; ��
, ' ` . �qs� � . t .` ,°�; �-� _ � .
Z
` . . �� :
- .- �;�:e � _ • . •. .
''' °.,� -` ' �..T"P. tiyl r� -� .-r
� 1. .i �� 4�_ � 'rl
w . �
� ' 1 �..
�.
_ • , .
' _ s d
�
.� pY' — . ' . _
' _ � M1-. � �. ' . � . •Y:.-: � -,'. ry,F � .
J .�.
� a . �� _ . . .. .. . �������� .
!� -,n �...T"..:��i.:.-�. ��... . . , �. z-'� ... .e . .'. _ ' . �_ d� .��,� aT'.
�'
es�:i -... :s' .. .„._ . �. ..�.... rt
�_ �
. . . . . , . _. , t�:-+!�•.;,�_9 - �.��.� :
._ 5- -. ' . .. � � -
i
�.� . ... _ . . . .i� ,. -' a .....
h �
�� .a l-_._. . . k.�,�,� T�°�'i�'a�a �i�' - ' .. . - .�� �,� ..�
� '�'�,-e � . ., ���� a ; � _, �# F,�,r � � ■ r ' '' �,p p ?
VI " �-` ' .. ��'�M, �..�+-�.��, � _ . �r,aaY etk
r ��
} 6 � �� � ��� .' -
. �� � .. '��� �' , � ..� _ � "w`+;*rrq`r
L = "'`�'�� _''�° .� . �- ��,:9�_ . '- _-��:� ' ;��' ���'
�'��fe.Fa.: .,rt ". ��..,,_ �..,A ' , c '� P T.... -..� JIS+,.-:�i . '• • _�,I•� .�-��� n. ..
a • -y � � �F�� ' �
���� `��'� � �Y a i � u:.a:r.`.. �+.. r �� "'�a�.w : �-i� _ .
� �'`� a�'� � -¢ -� , `,�n�►��.� - µ�,�s `= � .,� 3 ... J , � • o: . "'IF -;• „yy :� -':Ya .. +��a� y�p�
� d� �
�t�� �° ��'�`.,����� � . �
� ��
�L �: ,.
�_ F'�_� ..�L_i.�_E'++e�.� - _ T l � � .. .. �. � ���'�.�I.tir'}�4. �Fr . � �:. y . . ' ' ' e
' _r'���._ . s a' �k - ... � . . <. -- �' r _ �"�„_ �.. f�FL �Y�`..�4, " "... --��...,:: -�.> s �. . � L-� - ..'.-+ . . � _
•1 k��11°;I.� � k:1 I•a �'�9:�'�` ill� ��3���i:'"T�elt 'i`i[1�:. 1'[i�.:�'f' �E';kl� 'C"F1l=: 5l€I.I. 44 -�;; l�.` ����l�:i�3�4�1"i+,�'w,'
Figure 4.7. W.M. Ritter Lumber Company band mill at Proctor.
�,,� �.
r y'y
� ���i
��k �
�
�
CI�TUI'C 4.b. J171UKy IVIVUIItiAITI KAIIWAy CCAIII iLT t7AZel l.TeOK.
More sound wormy chestnut was cut than any other hardwood. A great deal of hemlock was
logged, but most of it was shaky and was shipped to the Champion Fibre Company mill at Canton
for pulp. A few large poplars were found which measured eight and nine feet in diameter, and
some of them were so large that they were simply squared off to forty-four inches. Red Oak and
maple of high quality were plentiful [Lambert 1958b:41].
Two types of logging took place on Ritter land; horse team logging during the early years and later,
mechanical logging. For horse team logging, the teamsters readied their teams of horses and ascended the
mountain to the logging area (Ritter used Percherons because they were faster than oxen) (Oliver
1989:66). Loggers cut down the choicest trees with large crosscut saws, wiih some saws 8 or 10 ft in
length. The logs were then cut into smaller sections before the teams dragged or "skidded" the logs within
range of the loaders that loaded the logs onto railroad cars for transport to the sawmill. Mechanical
logging by Ritter started in 1913 (Lambert 1958b:41). That process involved the use of skidders: coal-
fired machines that moved cables up and down the mountain to which the logs were attached and dragged
to the loaders. Skidders maximized the efficiency of the system, and allowed the lumbermen to more
readily clear-cut the forest and move the logs to the railroad for transportation to the band mill.
Once the logs arrived at the sawmill, they were thrown into the millpond for washing and then hauled up
the jack ladder into the band mill. Clarence O. Vance (1988:28) described the process at the Proctor mill
as follows:
The pond man, Preacher Thurman Medford who knew his logs, walked on a floating raft carrying
a long pole with spikes in the end and would pull the logs one by one to the ` jack slip" that hauled
them up into the mill. The saw[y)er with his levers, the block-setter and the dogger on the carriage
would run them through the band saw. From there the lumber went through the edger, the trim
saws and onto the "chains" where it was graded, tallied, sorted, and placed on green lumber
trucks. Then it was taken down the luinber docks and stacked for drying.
The double band mill at Proctor was capable of producing 70,000 board feet of lumber per day. The
operation also had a planing mill and a drying kiln for processing finer grades of lumber. Ritter
specialized in high quality flooring, particularly for parquet floors (Lambert 1958b:40; Oliver 1989:68).
The Ritter company einployed hundreds of inen and woinen. Some were directly involved in logging,
such as the lumbermen, railroad, skidder, and loader men, while others worked as boarding house
managers, cooks, office workers, merchants, carpenters, land agents, and schoolteachers. The village of
Ritter, at the mouth of Hazel Creelc, consisted oi a railroad depot and a few houses. The main company
town was built at Proctor, about three miles up Hazel Creek. When the Ritter Lumber Coinpany first
arrived on Hazel Creek, Proctor was a small town composed of a few houses, a store and a post office
(Oliver 1989:'71). By the time Ritter finished modifying ii for use as the company town, Proctor contained
over 1,000 people and a large commissary with a post office, company offices, storage buildings, a barber
shop, a depot, a communiiy center with a theater and pool hall, three schoolhouses, a Baptist church, and
numerous houses (Figures 4.9 and 4.10). The Ritter company provided medical service, housing and food
for all of its employees, and even published a company-wide magazine called The Hardwood Bark
(Figure 4.11). The employees also formed a baseball team and had tennis matches, movie nights and a
literary club for entertainment (Holland 2001:90-91).
The company was a progressive one for its day, and Ritter was remembered as:
a benevolent employer who genuinely cared about the people who worlced for him. ... Ritter
provided the school and church buildings, as well as a community building. Ritter hired a
company doctor to deliver babies, assist the sick, and tend to injured warkers; single inen paid one
dollar a
47
. .�u.,, -�.�. . ,.,.,�.,. ..,�....,..�� .,,. �u...,., ��.,,.,�.
Figure 4.10. Proctor School.
.;
u i
; '�+i�Rr�'t'�����x�� ���r� �r��'��,�� �'��f��� f:a�����r��t�,���''��{�� '
�����' �s'rrr��-���'�#�rr���s�1��� '�":�'��r�fr� f���������.��r���x�� ".
:� �'���' ����'r'r�r��r1��� r���a�4�r�.tia�f���,��t.��r�������z� .�
�
i
� �'�� � • ti`� _ _ ,� � I���� 1 � � i``� 1� i� • �
Figure 4.11. The Hardwood Bark cover showing band mill at Proctor.
49
month for his services and families paid just fifty cents more. Each Ritter-owned home at Proctor
had a fenced garden, and the company provided land for residents to range cattle and hogs. Board
sidewalks built by Ritter lined the unlit streets of Proctor. Mail came on a Ritter-owned Smoky
Mountain Railroad [sic] train each afternoon around five o'clock, and residents gathered at the
Ritter commissary to collect it ... [Taylor 2001:29].
Ritter was considerate of his upper-level employees as well, as was shown in 1925 when he placed 12,500
shares of W.M. Ritter Lumber Company stock (with a par value of $100.00 per share) into a trust for the
benefit of 124 associates, including 94 "officers and employees of Mr. Ritter's companies, located in
twelve different states, and three of them in Liverpool, England." The action was noted and praised by
none other than President Calvin Coolidge, who commented that "such acts of generosity cannot help but
lead to better co-operation and understanding between the employers and employees" (Anonymous
1925:6).
The Hardwood Bark certainly played a part in promulgating the company ethos of production and
company loyalty (Taylor 2001:30-31). The magazine mixed production statistics with often-humarous
vignettes and photographs of life on Hazel Creek and at other company towns (see Figures 4.12-4.14).
For example, the January 1923 issue contained several paragraphs describing how crews rose to the
occasion to produce six cars of "4/4 Pin Wark Holes No Defect Chestnut, S2S to 7/8" to fill an order,
surfacing 95,630 feet of high-quality lumber in only one-and-a-half 11-hour days. Not to be outdone by
the surfacer crew's performance, the strip flooring crew retaliated a few days later by producing 18,074
feet of 91 percent select and better oak flooring. In contrast, the next month's issue provides over two
columns of community information, including an account of the production of the play The Little
Clodhopper at the Community Building.
Life in the woods and at the mill could certainly be dangerous, and several Ritter employees filed
successful personal injury lawsuits against the company over injuries caused by defective machinery or
other factors (Taylor 2001:30). Beyond dangerous working conditions, a more substantial criticism of
Ritter and the other lumber companies concerns the medium- and long-term environmental and economic
consequences of the rapid, indiscriminant cutting and the transformation of the local economy from one
of relative self-subsistence to one of wage labor. The Ritter era was a prosperous one for most residents
on Hazel Creek, however, and the average worker or area resident probably had few regrets (Oliver
1989:86; Taylor 2001:30-32). By the late 1920s Ritter had exhausted the watershed's timber reserves.
The company dismantled the band mill and associated buildings and left Hazel Creek in 1928, leaving
behind a changed environment, community, and economy (Oliver 1989:87-88). Although some limited
logging may have continued to be carried out in the drainage by Paul Crisp and others (Parris 1960), the
era of large-scale logging on Hazel Creek was over.
Montvale Lumber Company
The Montvale Lumber Company operated on Eagle Creek, the next major drainage west of Hazel Creek.
R.E. Wood, a lumber baron from Baltimore and the largest lumber dealer on the East Coast, began
scouting for and cutting timber in the area in the early 1900s, having paid $200,000 for timber rights on
27,000 acres in the Eagle Creek watershed in 1904-1905 (Oliver 1989:69; Eller 1982:106; Lambert
1958b:42-43). By 1909, lumber operations had begun, with logging siarting on the Lone Branch of
Pinnacle Creek, on the east side of Eagle Creek approximately 3.5 miles north of the company village of
Fontana (Lambert 1958b:43).
Montvale built a narrow gauge railroad approximately 14 miles up Eagle Creek from the Southern
Railroad line at Fontana (Lambert 1958b:43). Spur lines ran into the coves in order to retrieve the logs,
resulting in the construction of over 28 miles of railroad tracks during the Montvale operations (Lambert
1958b:43). Most of the timber removal on Eagle Creek involved logging with horse or ox teams.
50
.� � �. y�-f"}�'�'' ° �`+u �'� ,_ .. " . "s + 'r �
Y F' �•
'��'� ��' � �
�� � � ' � � 'F� �. �. �.'�
. �
. ,�3.,
}{ �
�„� s�'�'`' ��. o,� . � '�,�" �_ � .
� d 4 ��`l+�t : �� e =,r ,
t
�y � F 1' '�i ��.p '
_'; � y�6, , pt k .e.sfe.l�J��o�s•'� ����� '�:v�� i,
�e+ . . . � J i r A 3n 1S.a ! ° i� �� ' �s �'�! 4 _ �, � �� J� Y�.
I � . . ^ ��
. •
V � r' �..!� ..
.1 1
�a4a I
� ;..
�
�- �a ;+ ��,i����Y' �r + �
�; � � �
t � �,�� �
° � �r ��Y
�� � ��r� "�=� �- �
- ������'��. �� �-
� ++ P
ti; F rt'
� � � ,~�y # � ��
- . `� �tA �,°?uyr.: �� . �� .,,
�
�. � �
�s� P • ��T1J �a
� �,I
4,._.s, 7� ,r• �
i . � �;
�. .
� r�,q,
d. ��.��- :,�
z_';�
��
,�
k�"�13�6`�.ti J�'Fif�d.�i �:.J1i�9:,0., �d�L�l"�}a
f• :4, 'la4�i�t°1y [►f t�y� �w���a, ii��ludl�� Esdi K.`radde3r�'e h�au.nd, �n u.'�i��in��:4y
��xr�rni�m�.
?. IE;���l �:a�{e �i�mrcllr�� Ilaud��.
.�4. ��:cri rc�u•, f��r to rG�k�t_ "JFlr�t}�" ��Cc�arc, "IEuraf�'�xand Il�r6e,. s t�rr��.
i���ri�d�rt w���r y�r�i+ra parque�r �n hi■ ■purr ti3ne; ]I+cr�ri� I'i�Ftl�.
�i�r�r �tr� h,aa q�un�rh�r_
I'�::,=otir ra�+., �cft siE r1�}R�� �.:harr�e �cuE_ en�e�h�n4Rt= L'►��y ,�in•I�, filtr:
'�e.jrmuo� .Ld+r��r�s. �tl�r; P#vti� �si�p, ps�nc•h�rg �e�a� �la��c, er��.:l �reo+Rthrr:
�m_��I ti4"� �C'� F�Sirr�[en, �su7d�ly� inikn, ar��tr c1.lr�den Itbf C�arFe ARe[w�+rn e�dr.li��
,::� tht�a��e�t� T►rlrt �E �vr�apenar �tLO�inC ontl acrec{�in� aRi]I� urr� ke•,��.sif
`],�3ccr."
Figure 4.12. "Views from Hazel Creek."
51
:�
. �� .. �� +� ��
M� �
.. ��.
i �
I
�� F
� ��'�
.�a�;
�,,' '�_
�� n
� j' � 1
'�a �� ��9y��=�
�t P f.y R� ,
,-i
� ` a��y4 �` +�.'�� . ��.
a'� o
r � '� �'' _
� �, �� �µ'
'_ o r��. �'." A�,� . , ���r ' _
� F .� �° �
� '�' 0 4r
�
� � z ,, •; �� `'�
�;��. .� _
. y.��Yy _ — �.
�.�� _` - . . , �
� — i 6� F�
��� ` " ��
� 9 c
a
_ ' B � � '�,+�4 ���y�
ak� ��� ���_�
�'[ S r �y�
i` . . : -� _ . '� l� .ro _.v: JKS'�.
, e�y:
�7
� � �f� ,t. ° .
�
.F.:' �.
_ � MI !
� � � ��
� � ti � a�
� � �`�-=F
— �`� , y �
.,� �
� �r,.,-� . n,_ f d� � .
����` t� �
�' �' v���� � �;� ew'.�
+-���' �— � ' _ �°'_• �'�
• ' 2"'+T-��� , 4� � —�.-J
k_. : �. = _ �=—� �}
r;,�r�i
� ry
� x � � . . �y �+r. i � :; :
j . ���.F,�. eI . 7' ' F • � i, ��
� �' �+�p �[ o � ' ;. 1 y i4.-�:
�L + �' �F!.. .� � � , � I 9 � 9�,"'� .'
�4 � J�'� � �°� �y '��"'� � !
w E ��� }
�1ry,ry�' � .�, {? ��g� � �.
� r�+ �y , :.r� }4 ¢ '�
� � R .'c •• ' f
�_ S."? ��� � p� � �
�*�A '��' • �. � °,�.:
L - � �' . �� t �,�
T g ' �
�a ¢ �uY
� �j � ,��� 4.���'
� �� v � � � �
� ti�'1ry � � . .
` � � �.
��s '�.��
�;- � �.. � �'', r} .�.
,
rF� ' � �� ����,�
. —;r� °
. :`�? � � '�.;�'� '�
�� r �'*`
-�.'�'�� a� .:.� { .��: i��"�+�-` £
. . ^."� �`� s"` a � •"T,�a
y 5F 4�':
a�
�e ��� �'.
� . . `� �lis:�.
�`�,-,�lf�r�,� _ .�. 4 , .. -
, �
�� a.� �,.� ; - . .-,�, : � -- — .,,�,� ,�
c � -�� :i�
� � � r� .I
"�k k
�� ��" �' ' ' "•�, �, � �Y L'i _
�� �� w :� ���`�
.lY . . . F �; . .
� ,�. ._ : t .,;� r
� ,�
w ' ��� �'�' ,�. , y
� � 1,�. .� 4� ` _�� '.'�
; �g �, ,
�',. °� .�� '�6'• ''� �c, `�c ' ! �'�
e � � �
�"� , ��" s ��' ��r� �
M °� tlf,., �i r '� . ' �' ��"�� '
�E
{ �31� � :. �y�fy�. e° �, ^�f 1
. . ���
_R�_ ��.+�� . t `� �• � � �� � '�� �� � �. ,.
.y� �_ .,
'`^���.�,•.� ..
�+ • � i
i , �s � , - �"F.
� iv,.�� { �_ ' �� : � ti � .m:i
y
w � n -
��R "
� r a"°
� 5—..,�� �YF��k
�� . . � ���^1�r�y,�� ' �! �� �
. _. y ..�„{a� 3 .• f"f__ �s1 P ti�" ry
!
j`s �
'4 � .^ . � �} � �
� �� y� � p' � � - �9 : �
d•
�f �� u � L �i • u��P � f _
Y� � ��� S. �._... r,
. ,s +� '�!--. . r�'
. � �
�E�I r7,d�L�Y'u �[+�C_L�[� 9'Y7..�4Jf��
1 �3. '##. �;�dpi,:x�I+�l�, 74°�.+1� �NURF1Flfin�rM9� .�J :1.. VF'. ]. Fll.11rrd Iirll' �z u�� �d 9hF I§P. �II�dY Akl� ?'+hc'�lRii Ylyd�
1��'„�I�.a, I41LII ilop�r�ntan�lfni,. hr¢Il �{ ��i�l ��r�'i� e.. Li�.� fl:ll i'r:�ru,r �IAlei9� �F+' +Mx�
I��ae�itr ihrn u. Lra� la P'l."li:ll rr�r se� �'j F1a+�l �I°��yYl�°a �d��.ya. e. Ila�e�el {'i�4 .41rIAME' ^IFI e�r11aN: f+llk �. �q��rr I'n
c�- r�+
Fler: lJs�e� ar� a�ili, �F �uulsl rwslw� �r�` Ewlr ��• S. :tir. ahla. I. nul 1F� '�+�elnN +� �I I�511�-. II � sPf
..ri�wme, and �IlaYnr om r�.nlrz� ■:IrS el.r�n� v.lih I�Il,lar.1 APall, ■hrnrl�e� er�rynrr n.inr whrti: rv!A fr�: �r,r,�° In�r�!+s.. �!I�I
�,'ei.Y:�� P�c,rr�an. I:� :`7 ?'ui.LL�ri.-.�:.ai 1., J,. f„�T�q.•Ei�t
Figure 4.13. "In Hazel Creek Woods."
52
� `�
��
��
— �',_ a
� a �
_ - ' • � � • 3 + r � - ..� -e'9�' a � =-
d � —. ,- � � � y ''e "' . ° - -
� �
_ i � _ ---,1'. _ � . - ' _ -#�� . -.I -� k¢w� � '' � �
_ i . m p"�
,� � _ � -�`�`�� � , �' _. �,� .� � rTi� �,�� ,:�'
�4. I�� '�,.��w'�"�`� . ��I
�
� ��- � .. �3 4� ����� � •��—. _ �� � �� �i
� � � � �� � �
d'' � � ' �'
L y�
� � � � �•• . i 3 � �i ;k •,� � .� � e #��• �
. ,� ,a ��s � x �'.� �; ��:° ��,�: ,
.' g..�� �� �
, . .�.�4.�ry °��� ` ,�,
8�
• �• .�S �� ���. , .�
Y ' I . e���� '�� �L �" .. . .., . 9�1 } 4 � 1� ° �� �� '
� + �
'. .. � � � �+��• �
'� ....u.' _�t� y � Y��.�" .. ' .
' �,,.. w'�.e+- - Y lfi �y. �
� f�
�
r
�' � 'P ��� . �
� , .
�+�� , "'' � -��^'�+`•'- �� �;�i- �*'"� �',��, ,_'� '�';��' � :
�-�� � —` � - '-
.., � � � � ,�._�..`�} ��T";?'� �' � 'A�
'::�' � :�� wa � �,�^� �'" �� � � �,,,�` m .&.
t �
e�' ��' �; " ' .,,, ,�.�' o- � , .I�y '�j ,'F_ ��' . �''*.�' �° '�°' � ' _�
. ,� �' , • , w��" �
� � �- �. 4 �_ `�L., ,� , �' � ��
�� � r � L ti, ti �� � '�; T T�* ' r,: , ; .; y�t ', : �
. f� ) ' r..� Y �
M' � -. i �f ,a:� 3��i� � � J ! � M.iil �� �
�� � � �� � � �
� ,� . � � � � ��� �� � �� ��
F
F " �
I
Y
`
�� �a� �'�. �
' �1+�'�" ` �;
� �� J
' le � '� �df4
_i
n�i.�'� -.y�'
�_
�� :'
+�' ' `� _�
�r �'� J
� � i� 9�l e � 1 � y RT� � � � ` �4�
� � ! 9. —�
�1� ti, $
Y- � °
a ' M y!,
� .''�Ii. ,� �� � � r�'a'. +� � °"ay��� +. . ���
ar - � d _
� y ; °� � f �j , �~ '� •
P _ � �� � ^.-� � . � �pl '�= �'`
..� . w ' .
, s . . , . �a ��; � ,_ �" • `,�1. �'� � - � p
'� � � �� � � 4 �J'� i
�� a L � '' � 1 4 e� .r't' �k� � 4Y
� ti. ` g R � . P ' � 1 'v ,� �.". ! � � �
4;, �T�'h �"r.: ����' • � ,� �_$•,p��' � �� s'; y�. � .- '!�'.I
� '°. ��. �. _ _ � r � � .r�'� "�t ' � `�
� ' �Y•� � {. '' � ��� � � t �
` .., � '��'. '_ . , �' '�,„ i�-` � _" �'��..+ �'� . r -A F. �'E �J� '- � `���'!,y�"9
�
.�y,� yi
lbIMN1i MFY �'!'JY I,�h�.FmL I'ILF4ItFL I'Is�l.`}iI:K'%� ?9]]-.#. 1':M1L.4*�V1'
II r��.n'L tJIC �rr�. war 1h� �Ior� Li��i �e realYOd rsh�t ■�nool 9nWVn� ta�nrh �sf .�.
.. }9_,n�r�.
ry .�4i'f �
Fw" '� Y� y,
� � � ��
; �� � -
� �- ,`
� �
.. I���'�� r -.. �'`a.
i
� �', � � � _ ����
. � .!; I :, '� ri' `�aa °-9�
6. �
r..�.
. 1 •;
�� �
�
�
y`�'!
-• .�? � r
�.i 1�'i'��''�`��'
Y. :' ". : . L� _ . " 1` ' �
� � y s�' y' ', � � . �. t
'� � � i r � ;. i� fi���i t . .�
�� � ` � � ` V+°'��i� � j.. •
. �� . �' °�r :� F . f� �
" ,��: x �"�_e'�.:. _ . ,. . .. � ._
9_�� ��'.��r� y
, '� �� '
.�.,�---�i �� a�a � � 1 • . °
• ""!�'�P���""o",��"�
� � �.
����� � - � -
� � . - i '+..._ . - �
tY�` y. a � �� � � '■
,��"` � �' = � _ �.—*�_
� � �� ��
`'� � �. ..�
" �, �.
,,` �.,.� � , �� � � �
:. ��-�� � . ..
� ���-� ���-.
._. =��c::. �.-. . . `- ` ° ` - . ' - . ., - . � -
l. Y-Hr y••����r '!�7���ir�4�i.Y� LImI1:L �41L4. �.. '.�". �-r����rr In. �.hr rl�n�ir. i.. .IR. 45'de�n. ih� �aL cn�1.¢dl�n,. 14� 9hrrru e�. i�..
i��.".iirr ��� L���� .el. TFv+�•.r 4�� '�rn I�ne� I�!. I��Iw �riil. l�+rlr�vs� �an��l n�.nr9oei Fn�n� mi srr�ue c�acL�rflg. �4Jwr���.�, i���
�.��- d+IsR timl 15'.�� �r� .ryl�wrkrf�.�nn P�F1 e�i�l�ia �li ar •��� ..�� I�ISC n.� sw�s� ���rirti¢ad Kend� ■� Ihmi �� I.'�raadFr ..i.�i
it i:-..��� 1�� ��r� ��7 �l i�to ii�i.,,: i I.. -
. ..B S. o �le:,. , s.�.l.�- , ,e_ k...�.r�.. 6��.i. I r�E,��r. ����si.��� ,..�� ,�,. - .d J . iif*4.nP•. . I � .. . �d.�: . ., ..�,.
Figure 4.14. "Some of the Hazel Creek Planing Mill Crew."
53
Typically, logs were cut, dragged by the cattle teams to the railroad, and loaded onro cars with a
mechanical loader. Lambert (1958b:43) mentions other methods as well, including the use of skidders to
pull logs up to higher elevations and "ballhooting" (rolling or sliding the logs down cleared paths) from
high ridges. Montvale also experimented with using tractors instead of teams, but this did not appear to be
either economically or logistically feasible (Lambert 1958b:43).
The Montvale mill and support structures were at the village of Fontana, at the mouth of Eagle Creek. The
original operations included a 6-foot Clark band mill, which was replaced by an 8-foot mill in 1912
(Lambert 1958b:43). Brown (2000:53) estimates that the mill could produce at least 50,000 board feet
each day, and utilized at least 21 different varieties of trees. Fontana started as a tent village in the early
years, but was transformed into a more permanent settlement beginning in 1907 (Oliver 1989:69). The
town included the mill, a commissary, large clubhouse and hotel, a school, a church, and workers'
housing (Lambert 1958b:43; Oliver 1989:69) (Figure 4.15). Montvale had a baseball team, and organized
the "Montvale Coronet Band" in 1912 (Oliver 1989:70) (Figure 4.16). At least two logging camps were
located farther up Eagle Creek, including one seven miles up the creek (past the copper mine) and one at
Lost Cove, the final area logged by Monivale (Oliver 1989:70; Lambert 1958b:44).
According to Lambert (1958b:44-45):
The policy of the company was to cut hardwoods which were fourteen inches in diameter and
above, although near the railroad they were taken as small as ten inches.
A great deal of timber was left on some of the less accessible slopes. One witness tells of fine
poplar left in the head of Ekaneetlee Creek because of the distance it would have to be hauled.
G.L. Wood, in charge of the operation, later claimed that during the chestnut bark season a
shortage of labor caused them to leave some good hardwoods. ...
G.L. Wood estimated that in fifteen and one-half years of operation the Montvale Lumber
Company removed about 100,000,000 feet of timber. The original mill cut about 6,000,000 to
7,000,000 feet per year, while the larger one that replaced it consumed 8,000,000 or 9,000,000
feet.
By 1925, the timber reserves of the Eagle Creek watershed had been depleted. Fortunately for the
company, high—grade copper ore had been discovered on Montvale's land, and the company had begun
work at the Fontana Mine by the mid-1920s. Although the sawmill and associated buildings at Fontana
were dismantled, the town was converted to support the mining operations with little effort or expenditure
(see discussion of the Fontana Mine, below).
Norwood Lumber Company
The Norwood Lumber Company bought 17,000 acres of timberland in the Forney Creek watershed from
the Harris-Woodbury Company (which was working on Noland Creek) in 1906, and began logging the
property in 1910 (Lambert 1961:360). Norwood employed at least 400 men (Figure 4.17), and built 10
miles of railway extending up Forney Creek to an inclined railroad and thence to Clingmans Dome and
Andrews Bald (Brown 2000:51; Poole 1995:185-186). The company town was located at the mouth of
Forney Creek, and was called Forney. The Norwood band mill produced an estimated 50,000 board feet
per day from 12 varieties of trees (Brown 2000:53). At least three camps were located to the north on
Forney Creek, including Slab Camp, Board Camp, and Monteith Camp (Poole 1995:186).
Although the early Norwood operations focused on hardwoods for flooring (Cole 1996:63), the company:
operated in spruce during the First World War, and at one time was estimated to have some
30,000,000 feet of spruce on the stump and to be cutting it at the rate of 40,000 feet per day. ...
54
. .b....., �.. �. ....,.......... �..,.....,... ....,...t,.,...� .,.,........b ...,....,�. .�� . .,..�.A.....
- -a-'- - -. . _' '.' _"-' ---- - _' _'--- ---__�.
SJ
fi �,- �..
_ -�,. �r : �_
�;� � L �� ,��
, g �� "� ��� �' � , � � � -
�� . ��. � '
,t �' �'��' �'�,'E��,�� �� ' � -
' � '�'� � �'�-iy� 4. 4'f Y�3 �� S � � . .
, :. � f � � �� : L ,J �.� 1 L��'y+t. � .
1 �- y � t w*� 6 9y ��' ���..
. ��.Y�:�� � ������ ��� ��� ��•�� F �� � ��� .
J
+�1. Y $ � . 1�-�I 4 �R� ..� 'R� �.��, JW° � � C �' .
� _ t �s'� �'� ��',.t �t' i �-� & r.. ��.g L ' k.
:.�� �-- � p � �`� "t�.1!'�4.+�Ler_.� �,{~i�'��i.a�� �P� � , , 'il� � .
. , rt } �s���' ^� � � ' �� �;1,�'� ,_�, .� �.. IFy� � a .Mi�'T.,,y'�� �'si
°.� �a ��`j'�, �'t v ��F ° � rs,r � a 's �' �� �.g
�' � �s �( � 4� � � 1,, ���'�1 : +tr.
���� � � � . . �� �ti� � o.. �t �� �. *'��i,=
� ,�� _ ± - , �ir� ;,,F.'�.�� �� ` °���'4. a� � �t,l��•��,
' _ T � �, Y " � � �� g, iA,'. •� �r M � Ir,'.
- �_ .
. . &° �• ;�^��� "��W� �-ys....vr1+�' �� cl�'Je..
� a
i i
v, +��y,fi,� c�{.- ° " �t � � •'� ��� . 4 A., c _.
y �y�
�. � _ +l� .9�r. � �F. " R� � 9 f ye°�+ "'7� "Y . 7 � � . �Y� .
� �+
v� � �� �F�-°r ��yar,� � F �4 I x e L �,a �r. '_� I1.
_s K ,' '�a'- , �
�-a ,� � �rt��
"� ���_ ,�,� . Y �i�� t6} .. �, •:.+ �.'r�TM;.:
� .cno�i��,� - ,.� y �- ,� . f► ,. �-. .`'A.'. +�. a ,�'�i -.r��
^i � P ` � 3. �� �y .
A �.
r��7 . �YI = A�. - I ., � . �+p.�'
�, '���i} o
.' t ; � � � z � �� � ��: � � �,� � _ ; �, � � ��
�;� �� ; � �, , � .� _ � � '�,..
, � �z
� �� ; �,��� � �� �� �:
, LL
� . , -
, -
� _ � � ���
�
�� � �. . . . , ��
.
. . 1 . �. . Y � p � �� �
- p '� Y �'' -- �, __ �'. 4 S:
�.`' —` '� ±r''. I r _ � � ;! y� '��s'
�?-' �, '�� .�y" a` �, �e �� i� :,�
. � ,.. . _
. . ' � y p. I - ;�,; ' '� : � �' _
. s _ �.'+� �. :
_ � , k �� �`� . . .�� . _, '�
. .� �
, � . �� . 4 "�u..L��° � .
;
.
L�- L
�• _ ��s ..�y �y ��� _
,. _ Y �� a, � ��� �� E .
t
: � � ♦ � y c yL �, i - �� ` �'� �� : �
� ��. Y
f��� �. ��� �~- �`�;� �r. � d .�r���•m �` '.•��� ��.�,.�u
��� �, � .
"-,�- 1 q � �� � � n� `*vL��..
��'a,� '�!' �'�� '."S � M 1 : � i
R ° s �a, `
� ��E� Q ' ��. �..6�6°:. -' - i ��
� .�
9T,c �'�' �_� � r � -
�_ .1: �+� � � � � F'�".`1� �• -� � _�
� a 1"� �7��' �� � _ .. ,' '_�. ei°+yti-�, �
, � _ .. t�.'� �','�.� s - � y� � _ • ��a.
� 7� i � �,�. '�q � ' —� °
- � z �F
. ` � � - - � �� � � ��� .
E�c�� � �'
_ � � .; � ��
_ . . . - . '=_ � Y
� � � � ..4. . � w: vc . �
� 6• .,' ��� . V y��
• ^F � � . � * `� �.. T . ' _i.m M- . . . ti^yq
. � � J`�' �'.� Ta
o � � . ' � ��
r . ` �� � ��� �_ � a�.~ �
.' .,: . � �- ,,
F 1 � i ���P ��_ . ���i
m :+..a_ - . ,��:T':. ��` .�����!�-� c3. ._ � ,
,q. e � _ . .. ,�r " .i�=,' .
Figure 4.l 7. Norwood Lumber Company slcidder c►-ew.
56
After the war it was estimated that the average cut of spruce per acre had been about 15,000 feet
[Lambert 1958b:39].
Norwood's operations had a major setback (probably about 1925), when a"fire swept through the dry
kiln and mill at Forney, destroying the entire complex" (Cole 1996:64; Poole 1995:188). Accounts differ
as to whether the company ever rebuilt. While the 1928 Southern Lumberman 's Directory of American
Sawmills and Planing Mills reported that Norwood had a band sawmill, edger, trimmer, dry kiln, and
electric light plant, and was cutting ash, basswood, beech, birch, buckeye, cherry, chestnut, hemlock,
maple, oak, poplar, and spruce (Brown 2000:53-54), other accounts state that most operations ceased
after the fire (Cole 1996:64). Whatever the case, it is clear that by the late 1920s the mill was moved to
East LaPorte (in Jackson County), where the firm operated as the Blackwood Lumber Company (Cole
1996:64; Lambert 1958b:39).
When the Forney Creek watershed was cruised prior to acquisition for GSMNP, it had been almost
completely clear-cut. A 1928 valuation reported that only 12,300,000 board feet of lumber remained, with
a value of $104,000 (Rhodes and Monteith 1928; Rotha 1928). The report stated that the 17,000-acre
property also contained about 1,000 acres of orchard and farmlands with 1,200 apple trees, and that 1,500
acres had been burned from railroad spark fires (Rotha 1928).
Whiting Manufacturing Company
The Whiting Manufacturing Company, a Philadelphia firm owned by brothers Frank R. and William S.
Whiting, was based at Judson, a sinall town on the Little Tennessee River just above Alarka Creek
(Anonymous 1908a, 1908b; Lovin and Ingram 1972:118). The Whitings had entered the lumber business
in the 1890s, and in 1903 organized the Whiting Manufacturing Company. The firm acquired an interest
in the Buchanan Lumber Company in 1906 (Figure 4.18), and a 1908 American Lumberman article gives
a good picture of Whiting's new holdings in the area:
The Buchanan Lumber Company had a mill on Panther creek, located on what is known as the
Murphy Branch of the Southern railway, about seven miles from Judson, in Graham counry, North
Carolina. ...
Prior to the taking over of the Buchanan Lumber Company's stock by the Messr. Whiring, that
concern bought the property of the Thompson-Canby Lumber Company, securing by this
purchase 14,000 acres of timber land and two small circular mills ... . Since the Whiting brothers
bought the Buchanan Lumber Company they have succeeded in adding to its holdings about 1,500
acres of very fine timber land ... estimated to contain approximately 100,000,000 feet. It is a fine,
even growth of timber; the trees are large and tall, growing in the valleys or on the hillsides as
straight as ship masts. The average tree will produce about four and a half 16-foot logs, and the
cut from each acre of land is probably in excess of 7,000 feet. ...
The saw mill on Panther creek is a 7-foot Clark band mill, Prescott carriage with steam set works.
... The company now has under consideration the advisability of putting in two or more modern
dry kilns and these probably will be installed at a very early date. ... A dam has been thrown
across Panther creek at the mill and a very convenient and commodious log pond secured in this
way. It provides storage room for about 1,000,000 feet of logs and this supply enables the
company to keep its mill going should there be a temporary breakdown out in the woods.
The company owns the entire mill and town site and has erected for its employees suitable homes
which are let at a moderate rental. The company also operates a commissary which carries a
$5,000 stock and does annually about $50,000 worth of business. The stock consists of general
merchandise such as is required to meet the needs of the warkers. ...
57
�::1
�
� i J ' F ��•4, tl' �d"
,! y
,� +�,r.� ...1� � .�• ���G• �.
� f.� �.� � •�� �
l • : � 47 pr'�i._�. : �. 'w-�'�"`��.'� ��.
�:�,'�' -��.� , . . ��
-i , �
� � � �►"' �� }i,�
k� +�! �. _ .i
y� � � E.
, `!. "�'i�y� = :�, � F ' '�.. ,x� ,
k �
-�� C�.`��-�#
� � � � �� �ti I ��F
Y ,,}}"y �' ��}�`���� . � ,` .
�vn���� �'� ij} *if � �e� L � � •'ibxa
r3���,, �,� � ^�_��, > - � .
�
lya,�ilw� � a � �w-� -
�Uv�,� � . . �_ '.rr�r-" �-�.. . ,.
� .: �
�,
�� �� o '��
,
... ��� � 4 �q
,9 i I
y:
h' '
! ��': �e � � • �
� �.. . �1a �3' .: �... 'P�1'��n- T.�;
. i'e',�� �y �� . 5..
. Y � �� • i � RI �
.� rc. .te @ rY' I 4 ,n
� _" � • � rli'� �'.n.— � Ye4 p'�
M� T _#�. �, .. _ . , . .� ��•
3.�: � .
-i
��Y.�'�:4 � �IcJ� ..T , ...1. ;.�'' „�» .ur.. � �L_� '�F�-.r. -a - �.�> � '� m � ... �� M3es��" �' . ., � . ii�5 . .rt.a.':iW�J.1k�v 1 _�.a
. ��. � s`hl `!� � � j y� �� � .
'r '=11�.;,�'�:sl�� '. ,.:°y'i �:tl.� 1:ri.",;I`+ :or�°�� i.L.�4 �` �N1.F I�!A.Ei'J' [}I� tir'�4C�L] {]l� 1'II'° ��I.I,":il:°; �.��IR�, I.,,. Py;��i'rf� tY{aQ��1'r�,i^+�'��
�I:I�=��-,•, `;�.'"'��., ti �,..`.I�•4;',�' `,�7I�'�I'GI �';�[���]_��J�`�.
Figure 4.l 8. Buchanan Lumber Company mill near Judson.
The yard has been divided up, the stock carried ranging from 4,000,000 to 4,750,000 feet. ... This
stock covers the entire product of the mill, including oak, poplar, chestnut, basswood, hemlock,
birch, buckeye, ash and beech. ...
The work at Panther creek, both at the mill and in the woods, is under the supervision of W.R.
Johnston ... . The company gives employment to about 125 men [Anonymous 1908a].
The story goes on to relate that about 4,000 acres of the 15,000 acres in the Judson vicinity had been cut
over. The Whitings had just purchased another 14,497 acres in the Snowbird area of Graham and
Cherokee counties, adding considerably to their holdings (Anonymous 1908b).
In the early 1910s, the Whiting Company began construction of a double band mill, a planing mill, and
dry kilns at Judson, and had plans to employ at least 400 men (Brown 2000:50). Whiting extended narrow
gauge rail lines up many of the drainages along the Nantahala and Little Tennessee rivers, including
Panther Creek, Fox Branch and Welch Cove. Whiting typically skidded logs to the railroad using horses
or ox teams where they were transferred onto cars and taken to the band mill at Judson (Nothstein
1972:93-94).
The company also built a depot just below Judson, aptly named "Whiting." In a 1912 description of their
passenger rail stops, Southern Railway (1912:39) referred to the Whiting depot and Judson area as
containing "important and rapidly developing lumber plants" and mentioned that the nearby forests "have
scarcely been touched" and would develop the area as a populous and important part of Swain County.
The frm eventually logged much of eastern Graham County, but by 1928 had ceased operations in the
area (Brown 2000:159).
MINING IN THE NORTH SHORE AREA
Along with the logging industry, mining was one of the two major extractive industries to affect the
environment and economy of western North Carolina in the late nineteenth through mid-twentieth
centuries. Although some small-scale mining occurred in the region during the first half of the nineteenth
century, large-scale operations were not feasible until the railroads arrived in the late 1800s (Eller
1982:4). By the end of the nineteenth century, better transportation, a larger labar pool, and more
advanced mining equipment and metbods made western North Carolina an increasingly appealing locale
for mining operations. The history of mining in the study area reflects these regional trends. Commercial
mining operations began on the North Shore about 1889, and continued intermittently until 1944.
A wide variety of mineral resources (including copper, feldspar, mica, limestone, talc, kyanite, and
crushed stone) have been mined in Swain and Graham counties (Bennett 1932; Shipman 1924:285;
Stuckey 1965:385, 419, 453, 457), but the mining operations in the study area focused on copper. Parts of
the area are included within a large copper belt that runs from Ducktown in southeastern Tennessee north
to Floyd County, Virginia, and is the largest copper-producing ore body in the South (Bryson 1930:22;
Espenshade 1963:I3). Several major copper mines or districts are located along this ore body, including
the Toncrae Mine and Gossan Lead district of southwest Virginia and the Ducktown district of
southeastern Tennessee (Espenshade 1963:I4). Three primary mines and/or districts lie along the ore body
in North Carolina: the Ore Knob mine in Ashe County, the Cullowhee mine in Jackson County, and the
Swain County district. The Swain Counry district includes two primary mines, Hazel Creek (the Everett
or Adams mine) and Fontana, as well as a number of mining prospects (Table 4.3).
The Hazel Creek Mine
The Hazel Creek Mine was located on the Little Fork of Sugar Fork Creek, a tributary of Hazel Creek
about six miles north of Proctor (Espenshade 1963:I30). The ore deposit is composed of a group of
59
Table 4.3. Mines and Prospects in and Adjacent to the North Shore Road EIS Study Area.
Mine/Proapect M1'ame Location Date Minernl(s) Explored by Mining Eztent In Studv Area Principal Reference(s) Notes
Eagle Creek Drainase
Phil Myeis Prospect 6kowah (Ccoah) Branch Pre-] 907 Copper Phil Myers Unknown Yes Laney 1907 ProbabLy subsumed in Larer
Fontana Miue
Fontana Mine Ecoah Branch 1920s-L944 Copper, Gold, MonNale Lumber Company; Fontana Extensive Yes Emmons 1942, L943a, 1943b;
Silver Mining Company; North Carolina Espenshade 1963; Holland 2001;
Exploration Company Mead 1930; OBrien 1972; Oliver
1989
Cook Prospect On P,agle Creek Pre-1907 Copper Cook? Unknown Yes? Laney 1907
Fontana 1 Prospecl 125 mi southwest of Fontana Mine 1920s+ Copper Monroale Lumber or Fontana Mining Shaliow pit mine Yes Espeushade 1963
Pontana 2 Prospeci 0.75 mi northeast of Fontana Mine 1920s+ Copper Montvale Lumber or Fontana Mining Half dozen shallow pits and Yes Espenshade 1963
nenches
Fontana 3 Prospect 025 mi northeast of Fontana Mine 1920s+ Copper MonNale Lumber or Fontana Mining I S ft. deep adit Yes Espenshade 1963 ! 5 ft. long adit
Fontana 4 Prospect 0.9 mi northeast of Fontana Mine 1920s+ Copper MonNale Lumber or Fontana Mining Unknown Yes Espenshade 1963 Reported by informant, bu[ not
located by Espenshade
Hazel Creek Urainaee
Old Calhoun Pruspect On I�riar Knob Pre-1907 Copper Calhoun? Unknown No? Laney 1907 Probably at Briar IU�ob along
Calhoun Prospec� 1.5 mi up Bone Valley, near split with 1920s Copper Ducktown Chemical and Iroo Company: 20 ft. ]ong trench Yes L�spenshade 1963
Big Flats Branch Granville Calhoun
Adams-Everett Mine Little Fork of Sugar Foik I SA9-1901; Copper W. S. Adams; Ducktown Chemical and Extensive Yes Behre n.d.; Emmons 19446;
1929-L930; Iron Company; North Carolina Mining Espenshade et aL 1943; Fox et al.
1942-L944 Company 1944; HoLland 2001; Oliver 1989;
R�ikin and Hunter 1942
Westfeldt Prospect 0.5 mi northeast of Hazel Creek Mine, ca. 1900 Copper Westfeldt 5 adits and 2 shatts, main Yes Espeushade 1963
near Haw Gap Branch shalt I 10 ft. down w/driIl
Locust Gap R�ospect Raven Den Unknown Copper Calhoun Shallow pit No Espenshade 1963 Within OS mi ofstudy area
Silers Baid/Fornev Ridec Arca
Siler's Mcadow Prospec[ Meadow near Siler's Bald Pre-1907 Copper Unknown Unl<nown No Laney 1907
Matt Crisp Prospect Near Sile�s Bald Pre-J 907 Copper Crisp? Unlmown No Bryson 1928
Silera Bald L Prospect On SE end of ineadow Ca. 19U5 Copper G. Calhoun and others Shallow pit No Espenshade 1963 Probably same as Silers
Meadow Prospcct
Silers Bald 2 Prospect 500 ft. soutli of summit, on headwaters Ca. 1905 Copper Q Calho�n and others Shallow opencut and 2 No Calhoun 1929; Espenshade 1963 Possibly same as Matt Crisp
ofJonas Creek tunnels Pcospect
Forney Mine Unspecitied Unknown Copper Unknown Unknown Yes Bryson 193Q 1937 Probebly same as Silers
Meadow Prospect
Other North Shore Areas
Goldmine Branch Trib�tary to Tuckasegee east of Ca. 1900 Gold Unknown Placer gold reportedly Yes Mohr 1975 Mohr ceports aeeount of gold
Fomey Creek recovered by panning panning ca.1900
Welch Prospect Guardhouse Mountain on Welch Pre-1928 Copper, Gold, Unknown Tunnel extending about 45 Yes Anonymous 1960; Mohr 1975; First visited by Emmons in
PropeiTy ��ear Boshnell? Silver feet [o northwes[ Robinson et aL 1979 192A
Fomey Prospect Nonh side Tuckasegee .95 miles east Unknown Copper Unknown No workiugs known Yes Cmmons 1944; Mohr 1975 Sampled by Emmons
Noland Prospect Northeast of Noland Creek nt NC 288 Unknown Copper, Gold, Unknown No workings lmown Yes L�mmons 1944; Mohr 1975 Sampled by Emmons
Bridge Silver
Epps Springs Prospect 02 miles east of Epps Spring Unknown Copper Unknown No workings Imown Yes Emmons 1944; Mohr 1975 Sampled by Emmons
Welch Lead Mine Bone Valley Area? 1920s Lead Tiilly Weldi Shallow pit Yes? Olive�- 1989 Existence Unproven
Fontana Quarry North Bank of I.ilde Tennessee River 1942-1944 Aggregale TVA Quarry Yes Moneymaker 1941; 2oss 1943 Material osed for dam
below Fontana Dam (quartz, schisq constmction
Other South Shore in Studv Area Yes
Thomason Prospect Nonh of Alarka Creek, one-half mile 1860s?, I,ead Unknown; C.C. and W.D. Thomason Unknown Yes Thomason 1943 and related Supposedly a 12-inch wide
upsveam oF Grassy Branch Bridge correspondence vein; used for bullets during
"Federal War"
Hyde Prospect North of Little Tennessee River Pre-1907 Kaolin Hyde Pits, cuts, and mnnels over Yes Bayley 1922, 1925; Keith 1907;
southeast of Shear Knob 500 foot area Mohr 1975; Watts L914
Unnamed Beryl Exposure Within Little 9'ennessee Aiverchannel Unknown Beryl Unknown 125-foo[ long exposure Yes Mohr 1975 No known la�ge-scale
south of Hyde Prospect containing beiyl crys[als exploitation
Spencer Pmper[y North Bank of Little Tennessee River Unknown Metaquartzite TVA Unknown Yes Moh� 1975 Metaquartzite potentially
south of McHan Knob useful in t�lass manufacN�e
curved massive sulfide lenses that overlap one another. The lenses generally measure between 60 and 200
ft in length (most are under 100 ft), average 3 ft in thickness, and plunge at angles of 35 to 50 degrees
(Espenshade 1963:I1, I32). The Hazel Creek deposit contains both massive sulphide ore as well as
disseminated ore. The massive sulphide ore contains between 3 percent and 3.5 percent copper and zinc,
while the disseininated ore contains between 1 and 2 percent combined copper and zinc (Espenshade
1963:I1). The Hazel Creek copper ores have also yielded small amounts of gold and silver but only as a
byproduct of copper production (Robinson et al. 1993:26).
Although at least three prospectors may have found copper in the Hazel Creek drainage prior to the Civil
War (Oliver 1989:49-50), mining began as a result of Jacob Fonslow "Fonzie" Hall's discovery of copper
about 1883, on land belonging to Ep Everett along the Little Fark of the Sugar Fork. By 1889, W.S.
Adams, a New York mining developer, had purchased the land from Everett and began operations
(Holland 2001:46; Oliver 1989:48-49). Known as the Adams or Everett Mine, the mine produced copper
through trenches, open cuts, and short adits or drifts (underground tunnels) (Espenshade 1963:I30). Pratt
(1904:22) reported that a single drift from the Everett Mine had produced about 20 tons of tenoriie (black
oxide of copper), and estimated that between 8,000 and 9,000 tons of ore were removed from the mine
during the early development of the strike. The mine was equipped with four Rand drills, compressors,
engines, boilers and inany other tools "necessary ... for the employment of 125 inen" (Pratt 1904:22).
"About a half—dozen dwelling houses, a bunk house, a cookhouse, shops and a powder house were
constructed" (Holland 200L•47), and "plans were made to install an electric plant and smelters ... at
Medlin at the mouth of Sugar Fork Creek" (Oliver 1989:49) (Figures 4.19 and 4.20)
By 1901, however, Adams had become involved in a land dispute with George Westfeldt, a New Orleans
property developer who owned land adjacent to the Hazel Creek mine and who had developed his own
prospect containing iive adits, two shafts and at least one drift (Espenshade 1963:I35) (see below).
Convinced that Adams was trespassing on his property, Westfeldt brought suit for illegal mining and
prospecting on his lands (Arthur 1914:413-414; Holland 2001:48). Although Pratt (1904:21)
optimistically noted that the smelter at Hazel Creek would "undoubtedly be completed as soon as the
lawsuit is settled," the litigation was not settled for over 20 years. Finally, in 1927 the heirs of Adams and
Westfeldt reached a compromise whereby the Adams heirs controlled the mine, but the Westfeldt heirs
retained a large interest in the business (Holland 2001:49). Work resumed on the property in 1929, when
the Ducktown Chemical and Iron Company leased the property and began to explore the copper deposit
by diamond drilling (Espenshade 1963:I30). The company drilled 36 holes to a total depth of 2,900 ft
(Espenshade 1963:I30; Espenshade et al. 1943). Bryson (1930:23) reported that the explorations seemed
favorable, but work apparently had ceased by 1930 (Stuckey 1965:285).
Large-scale mining on Hazel Creek did not resume until late 1942, when the North Carolina Mining
Company reopened the mine to supply the war effort. The company confined its activities to a series of
drifts and general mining on the earlier levels established by Adams (Espenshade 1963:I31, Plate 3), but
by 1943 began shipping large quantities of primary and secondary ore directly to commercial smelters.
Over 248,000 lb of copper were reportedly shipped that year, and by early 1944 a small concentrating
mill, ball mill, rake classifier and four flotation cells had been set up at the mine. From April to November
of that year, the mill treated 2,615 tons of ore, and produced 167,106 lbs of copper (Espenshade
1963:I31). Unfortunately for the mining company, the TVA acquired the property in 1944, and access to
the mine was cut off by the creation of Fontana Lake. Although mining ceased, the Hazel Creek ore body
is estimated to still contain at least 14,000 short tons of high-grade ore and over 30,000 short tons of low-
grade ore (Espenshade 1963:I34).
61
Figure 4.19. Adams Mine village.
62
�
w
r�igure 4.ZU. 5tructures ancl settl�ng tanKs at Aclams Mme.
The Fontana Mine
The Fontana Mine was located on the Ecoah Branch of Eagle Creek, about two miles upriver from its
confluence with the Little Tennessee River. The mine exploited a large, pod-shaped are body that runs at
a 45-degree angle, is 450 ft in length and averages 10 ft in thickness (Espenshade 1963:I1). The ore
contains an average of 7.37 percent copper and 2.11 percent zinc, with 0.0072 ounces of gold per ton and
0.385 ounces of silver per ton (Espenshade 1963:I24).
The circumstances of this deposit's discovery are unclear, but it is likely that Laney's (1907:76) reference
to the Phil Myers diggings on Ekowah Branch relates to early mining at the site. Prospectors working for
the Montvale Lumber Company began mining at Fontana in the early 1920s (Holland 2001:50). Drane
and Stuckey (1925:25) reported the Montvale Lumber Company shipped about four carloads of copper
ore for smelting in 1923, and in the same year the Bryson Ciry Times noted that with the opening of the
Fontana Mine "valuable deposits of mineral will be found under the surface ... that will add materially to
the wealth of our county" (Taylar 2001:27). By 1926, Montvale had surface-mined approximately 2,000
tons of ore (Espenshade 1963:I27). In May of that same year, Dr. J.F. Riter joined with investors to form
the Fontana Mining Corporation, a subsidiary of Ducktown Chemical and Iron Company, and leased the
mine from the lumber company (Holland 2001:50; Oliver 1989:52). Between 1926 and 1931, the Fontana
Mine yielded almost 300,000 short tons of ore producing over 33,000,000 pounds of copper (Espenshade
1963:I28).
One of the first steps taken by Montvale was the construction of housing and support buildings (Holland
2001:52). A narrow gauge railroad spur was built from the mine to the logging railroad on Eagle Creek,
and the mining cainp developed along those railroad lines. The buildings included about 24 structures: a
kitchen/boardinghouse, two bunk houses, four small family houses, three supervisor houses, a
school/church/theater building, two water reservoirs, the mine office, two storage buildings for
explosives, a barn, two machine shops, and a steam plant, loading dock, boiler house, carbide house, and
compressor house (Holland 2001:51; Livingston n.d.) (Figures 4.21 and 4.22). At the mine entrance were
a head frame, a main shaft hoist and an incline railway hoist. A blacksmith shop and its vent shaft was
located on the mine's first level, allowing the blacksmith to sharpen and repair tools without requiring the
miners to bring them to the surface (Holland 2001:54). By the opening years of the 1930s, at least 300
men lived and worlced at the mine, but the nuinber decreased to 50 when the Depression began to affect
operations (Holland 2001:55).
The Fontana Mining Corporaiion successfully operated the mine until 1931, when it was sold to the North
Carolina Exploration Corporation, an affiliate of the Tennessee Copper and Chemical Corporation (later
called Cities Services Realty Corporation) (O'Brien 1972:4). The mine continued to produce large
quantities of high quality ore, totaling over 285,000 short tons of ore and over 38,000,000 pounds of
copper between 1931 and 1944 (Espenshade 1963:I28). Although the pre-1926 efforts were confined
mainly to surface prospecting, the Fontana Mine was eventually a large, deep vertical mine that extended
1,700 ft along the 2,500 ft plunge of the ore deposit. Twenty levels were sunk at vertical intervals ranging
from 31 to 155 ft, with a number of drill holes placed to explore the ore body (Espenshade 1963:I27;
O'Brien 1972:15). By 1931, the main shafi had reached the fifteenth level (1,500 ft deep), with overhand
and underhand stoping (i.e. loosening of ore either overhead or underfoot within a drift) on all but level
15. A cut-and-fill method of excavation was used below level 14. By 1935, the mine reached level 17 at
1,682 ft below the surface, and by 1942 it reached level 20 (at just over 1,700 ft deep). After 1942, all
mining took place above level 11, since water had been allowed to flood the lower levels due to lack of
shippable ore below level 20 (Espenshade 1963:I27; O'Brien 1972:8).
•�
�
��
��
#t#!'i6A� F�i�
L lk � ¢}K�
�
�'
6iF�ti 7
�+n�.�
�
���
I
I i�
� ,� �
�•:tMS?�ti•.
i I .�--i-I-I-�j� R1LLJie.�d
'e"�";^„i-�,i+-��ti�a+ft
.�f:.l l�a; yA I.i�'i'd' ��;,.'..�
r�twtr�asrS�l �-�-?i5���. -',� .
��i �:_: y � ° � � r;� �'
�YL�J]FRtil[� _..__�� .
a.��lAi'�:S`.7^IkI�F.f 'ti
� '�� - , � YWM 4�ea.._I..
;d.SAEfiatyllj�'m_._,_,_� �
`wF: i��(f S�+I�i_ �. � 4:f mE�irtG
�ay�� � Ek3i�14itt
N{9a�� — � �`
�Yi..tr�asx �
� 4i��YW
} rril
V�/LY�AG . I -
RI�CFFl Y R �LRTfCAV . .. � ' ,�y.�
ti_l�ds�:� �i�:dl5r5 -�'��*',,�r
� �uo��K w�e�
���¢�� :
�{.yr,�k: �� � 1� ''- OII.,ff.RFFi
� � �'� � '++yt L`�aF'.!
� .� 's�f ' - a �..ti: x�r,e� Ge
�•^ ry - s..l.:t'�g.%...i���Gj`.i
�5 � .
I i�4..L �,F.�.4�+.h�, � �.
hJ1�dL s-�keJd�3 �:
�E� �
Figure 4.22. Reconstructed map of Fontana Mine (Holland 2001).
65
vrr�N+r��';v
By the early 1940s it was clear that the imminent construction of Fontana Dam would greatly impact the
mining operations. Although there was considerable discussion regarding the feasibility of continued
mining beneath the lalce after its construction (e.g., Emmons 1942), mining operations ceased in 1944.
Much of the mine complex was flooded, but the TVA allowed Cities Services Realty Corporation to
retain ownership of a large parcel of surrounding land (Holland 2001:57). In the early 1970s, it was
determined that based on the small remaining ore body and probable lack of additional ore bodies, any
mining of the Fontana ore reserves would operate at a substantial loss (O'Brien 1972:22). Phillip Stewart,
Chief of Land Acquisition for the NPS, felt that since the reopening of the mine was not economically
feasible and that allowing the company to retain title would adversely affect GSMNP, the NPS should
buy the land and add it to the Parlc. In 1983, the NPS purchased the Fontana Mine property for
approximately one million dollars (Holland 2001:57).
Other Mines and Prospects
A number of other copper prospects also exist in and adjacent to the study area, primarily in the Hazel,
Eagle, and Forney creek drainages. The Westfeldt prospect on Hazel Creek (east of and across a drainage
divide from the Hazel Creek Mine) was particularly extensive, containing five adits, two shafts and at
least one drift at the bottom of the main shaft (Espenshade 1963:I35). Unfortunately for the owners, the
Westfeldt copper ore tested too low for commercial production (Espenshade calculated a rough copper
content of 0.19 percent to 0.56 percent) (Espenshade 1963:I35). When Fox visited the site in the early
1940s he observed "an old shaft filled with water, a mine dump of 200+/- cubic yards of weathered rock,
and a few pieces of abandoned mine equipment." Fox et aL (1944:13) concluded that "it is difficult to
deny that the Westerfeldt [sic] has some possibilities," and recommended that the TVA pay the owner up
to $10,000 as compensation for its "possibilities andprobabilities."
Other prospects in the Hazel Creek drainage included the "old Calhoun diggings" on Briar Knob (Bryson
1928:13; Laney 1907:76), the Locust Gap prospect, and the Calhoun prospect in Bone Valley, which
included a 20-foot long trench (Espenshade 1963). Other prospects in the Eagle Creek area included the
Cook prospect (Laney 1907:76) and at least four prospects that were opened near the Fontana Mine by its
operators (Espenshade 1963).
A third group of at least two copper prospects was located near Silers Bald at the head of Forney Creek.
One of these, the Silers Meadow Prospect, was opened by Granville Calhoun about 1904 (Calhoun
1929:6). This may be the prospect referred to by Laney (1907:76) as near Silers Meadow. In addition,
Bryson (1928:13) also inentions the "Matt Crisp" diggings near Silers Bald, which were reportedly
"immediately above the little cabin ai which ihe prospectors stopped while working at these diggings."
One of these prospects may have been the "Forney" mine referenced by Bryson (1930:28, 1937:34) in
later summaries. Most of these prospects, like the Whiting and Kitchen prospects south of the Little
Tennessee and southwest of the study area (Espenshade 1963), appear to have been shallow pit and
opencut trenches excavated to explore the chalcopyrite ore within sandstone, the parent material.
Also in the Forney Creek area was the Welch Prospect, a small copper, gold, and silver prospect located
north of NC 288 about "1'/a miles below Bushnell" (Emmons 1944:6). This prospect consisted of a 45-
foot long tunnel that was "driven approximately at the level of the river road." This is almost certainly the
same mine referred to in a local account (Anonymous 1964) that describes "a mine at the bottom of a
flattopped mountain which contained a huge hole from which hot air rushed," clearly a reference to
Guardhouse Mountain on the Welch Property. Rock samples taken by Emmons (1944:5) returned small
quantities of copper and silver and a trace amount of gold. Emmons (1944) also sampled three other
prospects along NC 288 to the east, which he termed the Forney, Noland, and Epps Springs prospects. At
least one of these, Forney, was reportedly considered a gold prospect, but it not clear that meaningful
attempts were ever made to explore any of the three locations. Emmons' (1944:5) samples produced small
amounts of copper from all three prospects; small amounts of silver were reported from the Noland
•.
prospect, and trace amounts of gold were present at all three locations. Also in the vicinity is Goldmine
Branch, a small tributary of the Tuckasegee. Mohr (1975:2) reported that placer gold was recovered from
this stream about 1900, and that one local resident reported that a"great uncle once panned enough gold
in P/z days work to pay his taxes and buy some coffee and salt." This area was the focus of considerable
local attention during construction of the partial North Shore Road in 1968, when local residents "asked
the Park Service if they could pick up rock from the excavation. The agency refused the request, stating
that there was never a goldmine in the area" (NPS 1996).
There are also other reported accounts of gold being found both as nuggets and in vein quartz in the study
area, and small amounts of gold, silver, and zinc were recovered from the Hazel Creek and Fontana mines
(Espenshade et aL 1963; Holland 2001:55). Similarly, members of the Hall family are reported to have
gathered gold nuggets in the Hazel Creelc vicinity (Oliver 1989:54). Laney (1907:73) was certainly alert
to the possibility of gold during his examination of the area's copper deposits. He visited two quartz veins
reported to be gold-bearing, but "careful examination of both of these in the field disclosed but little
evidence in favor of the report" (Laney 1907:78).
Lead also has been reported from the study area. Fidelia "Dilly" Welch reportedly exploited a small lead
deposit near Bone Valley in the 1920s (Oliver 1989:53), and in 1943 the TVA investigated accounts of a
lead deposit north of Alarka Creek in the southeastern part of the study area (Thomason 1943). Neither
account has been substantiated, however.
Other mineral resources have also been exploited or prospected in the area. Kaolin was apparently mined
at the Hyde Prospect south of Shear Knob at the southeastern edge of the study area, and deposits of
metaquartzite have also investigated nearby (Mohr 1975). A beryl deposit is also present in the bed of the
Little Tennessee River in the same general area, although it has apparently not been commercially
exploited. Finally, in the early 1940s the TVA quarried quartz and schist for use as aggregate for dam
construction at a large quarry on the north bank of the Little Tennessee a short distance downstream of
Fontana Dam (Moneymaker 1941; Ross 1943).
HISTORIC PERIOD SETTLEMENTS IN THE STUDY AREA
Information on the distribution of late nineteenth and early twentieth century settlements in the study area
is provided by early 60-minute USGS topographic quadrangles (USGS 1886, 1892a, 1892b, 1906, 1913)
and other maps (e.g., Kephart n.d.; NCGS 1906). Although many of these do not depict structures,
together they provide a picture of the overall settlement pattern in the area. Other information on this
period comes from some of the many articles and books on local history, and from the 1913-1915 KPC
maps. Considerably more detailed data are available on settlements dating to the 1930s and 1940s,
including information from planimetric and topographic maps as well as from the extensive
documentation compiled as part of land acquisition, first for GSMNP and later by NP&L and the TVA for
the Fontana Project. The TVA land acquisition maps and accompanying records are especially rich in
detail concerning individual structures and properties (see Chapter 2). Finally, the 1920s through 1940s
are within the reach of living memory, and detailed data concerning families and individuals are provided
in the wealth of local history publications, many of which include first-hand accounts of life in the area
(e.g., Britt 1987; Ferguson 1993; Kirkland 2000; Posey 1990; Trull 1986).
The 1904 Nantahala and 1913 Cowee topographic maps show 17 named settlements in the area, including
those (from east to west along the north side of the Tuckasegee/Little Tennessee) at Bryson, Noland, Gee,
Bushnell, Forney Creek (Chambers Creek, see below), Dorsey, Wayside, Proctor, and Fairfax; settlements
on the south side of the river include Judson, Almond, Swain, Welch, Japan, Brock, Stekoah, and
Tuskeegee. Other early settlements included Epps Springs, Collinwood, Ecola, and Medlin (see Figure
4.5). No settlements are shown in the study area on adjacent portions of the 1892 Knoxville and 1893 Mt.
Guyot quadrangles. Many of these communities survived into the mid-twentieth century, although almost
all met their demise with the coming of the Fontana Project. The following discussion presents a brief
67
history of these and other local communities. Since most of the available information dates to the 1930s
and 1940s, the discussion concentrates on the latter years of occupation.
North Shore Towns and Communities
Brvson City and Vicinity. The principal settlement in the study area (and in all of Swain and Graham
counties) in the 1930s and 1940s was Bryson City, situated on an expanse of Tuckasegee River bottoms
and adjacent uplands near the mouth of Deep Creek (Figure 4.23). Bryson City had its origins in the
village of Charleston, which was established in 1871 when Swain County was formed from parts of
Macon and Jackson counties. Charleston developed out of a small settlement known as Bear Springs,
which had acquired its name from Yonah (Big Bear), a Cherokee who was granted a 640-acre tract
surrounding his homestead in 1819 (Beck 1988) (see above). The property passed to a series of non-
Cherokee owners beginning in the mid-1820s (Beck 1988:9; Jenkins 1988:21; Thomasson 1965:5-7). A
post ofiice was established at Charleston in 1872; the town was renamed Bryson or Bryson City in 1889
to honar Colonel Thad Dillard Bryson, a Confederate veteran who had acquired much of Big Bear's
former reserve from the Shular family in 1868 (Bryson 1987:95; Corbitt 1950:2; Stroupe 1996:3-258, 3-
259).
Bryson City soon developed into a regional market center, and was to provide a"jumping-off point for
the timber industry's entry into the economy of southwestern North Carolina" (Taylor 2001:9). By 1930
it had a popularion of about 1,800, or about IS percent of that of Swain County (Anonymous 1932;
USBC 1932; Works Progress Administration [WPA] 1939:443). The WPA guide to North Carolina
considered it noteworthy for its proximity to the Cherokee reservation, the presence of a woodworking
plant (Carolina Wood Turning), and its roles as a"headquarters oi copper and feldspar operations" and as
a"shipping point for purebred stock" (WPA 1939:443).
By the 1920s the town was also developing into a resort location, and local businessmen were becoming
interested in the possibilities to be offered by the proposed GSMNP. Bryson City resident (and regional
booster) Kelly Bennett (1932) described Bryson City in the early 1930s in glowing terms:
Bryson City, on the Southern railway, North Carolina Highways 10, 107, 286 and 288 and U.S.
No. 19, having a population of 1,800, is the only town west of Asheville to double its population
in the last ten years. ... The town is situated in a bowl-shaped basin, through which runs the
Tuckasegee River. On terraces surrounding the business district are the central high school and
many homes from which charming views spread in all directions. Immediately back of the terraces
rise steep and lofty mountains, all forestclad to their summits.
Bryson City is fast becoming a tourist resort. It has an equable climate through the year. There are
charming drives over good roads, golf course[s], good fishing, and the primeval forest of the
Smokies comes to within six miles of the town, the park boundary within two miles.
In the same year, the Asheville Citizen-Times reported:
Bryson City, with its modern hotels, inns, and business houses, is the tourist and business center
[of Swain County], as well as the seat of governmental activities. It has the Marianna Black
Library, and also the private library of the late Horace Kephart, famous for his study and writings
relating to the Southern highlands, and his efforts in behalf of the establishment of the Great
Smoky Mountains National Park. Among the industrial enterprises is a wood turning company of
some size [Anonymous 1932].
As Taylar (2001:51-53) and others have noted, Bryson City's attempts to market itself as the gateway or
entrance to GSMNP were hampered by competition with other towns such as Waynesville, and by the
•.
..� e
,4 �
�r
y u
1
• •• 9 4��� f I �
� • 4�1 � K
. P 1 �
N , I
i !
o �°�'R �II
� ,�-fi ' � `. .� , °,�
{a '�' s x
''�, s , ��
. I i' � ��
Y ' _ � ,
r+ � o r
� ��
�' �' �$i�� ���` _ ` r �
F,
�I . , e�t�m ce.wr ,�,.� � ,i° '
� - J'r ,. +� �
�� � Q�i'A06� E�+.p � .� y= �M
� . — _. __1 �# �� �
�� 4'�6� ' ,r�*.'f� . .-. ��.� '•.., �j�y ��
. � •■ .y� ��v
i � '�
� �a� �. ��
i • � �� , �,
,f i ,�•; � - __ r "�,� ,' � �;.
r'� ' -,s � ,
y, ��� , , ` • �Y * ''. , � �.� ,
I � w � �
{ gcy�' �y�' a�����,�• ;' '--� --� . • -�
+� j� �• . � � x
� r �+f��T� � s + ��'�K- .
� ' "'� �
, ` r 9+�, �.. � _
r � z �' � i, �
b,
� , �_ � � ,b �� a .
� '�:
.. �'�1� �" y.
. .d� � j'_"— t� p'� - � � . , � •' 16.:a � Ir�'. �' ' _ ` } I :7' � �.. �,' �N����.
, �, F`ranklllh � . s •. "' #p _,� �7 �4 ��_ . . _ � �,s �:
. . e
�' � re {7h , - � '°�.. . • � � �s •�•
, �•, i�P�D � -,.� � :, t, � ,�,f , � ��
� �� .
" Ir ` � gr � � p �. ���� �� .
I � �. � �'" � ,t � Yi ���
� '�t+ ,�
� q �
aira�MS d ,' ' �` P ��'�r,41` "�� �. ;r�'�d . ,
�tna . ��°
..% ��� .� t�� a ,
� d a� �
' - , k,,,�p' �� ��1�'��,E'�
' � ��;�: ��, - � +� �, - -
r o _
,.�io
�. .. �J � �E... d'� � � gKyFi � � _.��p __.
;` t � � . .��C M Itir�d ��3.y
, s.: i,'�, �� ke P'Ei A G �.�i� `�l.
--1�,'�1��` s . - � ..' � . _„ � l
hyy �Yy �
� � �• a ',�` F. �' ' ,�iF' � A_ � � ' _._e,r^�
� }ie
4 "ti5 f
S �. M� � � � J
,s ' ��t ' �] f'
x • 6 { �r.s ee , ¢ �� � �p��P •� �. �,f e � � �
d j . - {§ � � y � � ��F� �'kk / �{.f�i:Y
` _ .
,
i r
� } � .- i
f }.
.��'���a-'��( �� `ia�� �,�. � � � t . �" �..� - J
� � +y^ a, � ,X' �
,l �� �� ;����� ° � i 't� � �.
[r�r�anr E .���- _- ,�` .`,.
� �� . ���xiaa+.� � �,� � � r
.� �c�e y „ * ,� . �+� � f a ;
` W- +��� . - "� � ��f_ 1
4 1� � �°
r � v �� �� � w
! }'� .
r �� r � k� `�p$ r � �°i
`ry ` � 1! _ S4. .. . _ . ��r' a . . a� _ r "�.:_ .. . , . � c
1,�a+ n. - ' "� � d � .� �"� . f - .-i .
`�y + o � � �,. � . ,. - gi �� � '
4$�+� e� � I �il • �' � f � # ti-
yd. � �� � `1, d iti�i��l P `� � � �� ,� $r
��.� , �r ��o,�� �' � ,�,. °� �`� ���p � `� ��
�ru�€J�r� +� . r �� 'c�r ,�
�I��". �. °�''��d � _ s• � �'�°'�. �I i �� �*� �. a1�, "'
a��' � �+ �' �• �
�, " x' � ' ` � + � � .
� � � w �
� � �I° � . y7 '•r
i �,
. .. . '°� � M1'ti, y � .. . +w ■
� ,� : '� L
, _ � , � �r� # • North
� ,' .� � � � � �* ti_ .
� � � sF � , *� ,�„� 0 2000
�-��� � � M � � �
°� i ' �4 � Y��S °, �� Feet
• �.��.�;;-.�- � : � �'` ` � ,� }� °
s.
Figure 4.23. Bryson City and vicinity in 1936.
69
unfortunate fact that local highways did not provide ready access to the Park. Similarly, the development
of Fontana Dam did not bring defense industries or other industrial facilities to the area, as some had
hoped (Taylor 2001:75). For the past 60 years Bryson City has continued to market itself as a vacation
destination (e.g., Sharpe 1954), and has lived in an uneasy relationship with the adjacent national park
(Holland 2001:199-201; Taylor 2001:139-140).
Epps Sprin�s. The community of Epps Springs was located at the mouth of Canebreak Branch, about six
river miles downstream from Bryson City. A post office was situated there from 1888-1890 and again
from 1908-1918 before being discontinued (Stroupe 1996:3-260). The community reportedly developed
in the late 1800s around a"chalybeate" (iron-impregnated) spring, and included "one or two cabins"
(Arthur 1914:507) and possibly a hotel (David Monieith, personal communication 2003); by the 1930s
the hotel was gone, and the community consisted of the Epps Springs school and a number of residences
distributed up the branch. Alihough very little of the Epps Creek community was to be inundated by
Fontana Lake, TVA acquired the entire Canebreak Branch and adjacent Peachtree Creek drainages, and
the land passed into GSMNP as part of the Fontana Addition (Shumate and Evans Shumate 1996:56-57).
Noland Creek. The mouth of Noland Creek is about two river miles downstream from Epps Springs and
eight river miles downstream from Bryson City. Logging apparently began on Noland Creek as early as
the 1880s, when
the Eversole Lumber Company cut hardwoods well up the main creek. They used cattle and a
slide to get the logs down to a circular mill at the mouth of the creek on the Southern Railway.
The mill blew up in the late 1890s, but its boiler was replaced. This company also peeled hemlock
bark. [Lambert 1958b:37].
A subsequent operation by the Harris-Woodbury Lumber Company from 1905-1908 extended as far up
as Bald Creek (well outside the present study area, and about three miles southeast of Clingmans Dome),
where a portable mill was constructed. A flume was also constructed on the main creek, and selected trees
(primarily poplars, oaks, and chestnuts) were removed from about 3,000 acres (Lambert 1958b:38).
The Noland post office was established at Noland Creek in 1900, and was active until 1925 (Stroupe
1996:3-262). The 1936 planimetric map (USGS 1936c) illustrates a dispersed community that extended
several miles up Noland Creek with few clusters of homes (Figure 4.24). It included two schools: the
Noland Creek School on Bearpen Branch about 2.5 miles up the creek, and the Mill Creek School,
another three miles up the creek near the Park boundary. (The present northern study area boundary on
Noland Creek is at approximately the earlier GSMNP boundary). Although much of the land along the
creek and its tributaries was owned by small landowners (or by NP&L), a 4,365-acre tract incorporating
much of the watershed was owned by Philip G. Rust. Rust was a Delaware resident who maintained the
land as a private retreat and preserve, complete with:
four wardens who took responsibility for fire protection as well as animal welfare. He actively
encouraged the preservation and propagation of wild animal species and maintained a trout-
stocking program. He operated a weather starion and a fish hatchery, as well as a thirty-mile
network of trails connecting to those of the park A private electric plant provided electricity to the
house, nursery, garages, and barns [Taylor 2001:119].
Rust initially challenged the TVA's legal right to take his property for the Fontana Project, but finally
settled for an almost $100,000 settlement in 1945 (Taylor 2001:119-120).
Fornev Creek. Forney (or Forney's) Creek is a large stream that joined the Tuckasegee about three river
miles downstream from Noland Creek and the same distance east of the Tucicasegee/Little Tennessee
confluence. Although the creek was reportedly named for a Jacob Forney who settled the area as early as
70
J
�
zs
_ .� ��.`�
` __.��--A_ ���-
� �,� Y'�
��_ � _��
y,l . � �- � � � .
�
1
�
�.
f a,� � i
�� r� � s .
=t f
�s e
�
A I
_ _ z � � � �
�,
North p
C
�j;, r .
� I
f ~
� �
�� _� �
�
a 4,
r�°�
�
�
���
0
y��t�� � � � ; �-�
� �y �
�
_ -� �� �L .� �
' jf� �� .. �t
�� �
�� � �
�
� .
4 a � y ��
..�;��.� �
��
�' � ��
��
�. �. � ���. � �
' ""�'�{,�
��71`rl �� �''' � �
�� ��' � r� �./� ilaa'T
� � �
'�,¢ =�! �;. � , ---
— +� ���
I �
i� . _ �. � . . .
� f E+ern�F �rnb � � a � �
�:•' �i � �`k`na ' � �
� '�� -��
�� 1 � � �
'�i. _ , ...� 7
F �
�.et��
�' �;,-4 � -
� y +_ . i: ^
� � �', t
�ti s � � �
o r ' �
� � � �44
� 4 � �
f' } �r �
1 i �
l � �
i
��~ � d� �
IJ �fr �
r
-�� �' �r �
� � r
i
���� � �: r
� � i
,
��� � �
.{
f '�
'4
� N pb ?�df
Na��wd I � ° �v
T ir
!
f! . -.. i , �� � 4�. 1
5
� i� �i
� 4.sr� ����
� '`�dr-�_._•° � .� r
f •e�'� � � ' ��r., rP����;,i, `,.1.y i
�1 �5.�'+ + -�ti � �.. _ ���� B �JP . ��,-
&i� �i � - � i M���*yF
c �Y � ��� � .
� � �� � �a
2��� � � 'S� , -+.`ti,_. �� �+
_' , �f �� � p � �
'. , '' r.;�
Feet '� � s � _ � �' .
i
� $
. 'i
� �_� . i
� 4 °� , ` _ 4.a
Figure 4.24. Noland and Forney creeks area in 1936.
��
i�
G�
�
,,
�� �:
�
�
� ,
�� ��
Ha �
��
+o- i
?
�i's: �
� �_��'��, .
i* � ,
�; Y�
s � ... �
�� �
y�_ � — t .
�� °'.
�� f� ��
i
, - ,�I
H�rrkarr� � .�
1750 (Coggins 1999:65), it is unlikely that any Euro-Americans were resident in the area at that early
date. The community was referred to as a"new settlement" when a Baptist Church was established on the
creek about 1872, suggesting that settlement in any density did not begin until after the Civil War (Cole
1996). A post office was first established (as Gee) at Forney Creek in 1902. Its name was changed to
Forney in 1908, and postal service to the location was discontinued 1937 (Stroupe 1996:3-260). (The post
office of Forney Creek, which was active from 1877 to 1903, was located some distance downriver at
Chambers Creek [USGS 1904]).
Although limited logging occurred in the drainage prior to 1900, intensive operations did not begin until
1910, shortly after the Norwood Lumber Company bought a 17,000-acre tract from the Harris-Woodbury
firm. The Norwood Company logged the watershed extensively, removing large quantities of hardwoods
and spruce from the headwaters of the stream (Cole 1996; Lambert 1958b:39). Up to 1,000 or more
people reportedly lived in the area during the 1910s and 1920s, but the population dropped dramatically
after Norwood left the area about 1928 (Cole 1996:60) (see above). Unlike the nearby Noland Creek
waiershed, much of the Forney Creek watershed was acquired for GSMNP shortly thereafter (Figure
4.25).
The pre-GSMNP topographic maps (USGS 1931a, 1931b) show few structures in the drainage, probably
reflecting the fact that much of it had been logged. The 1936 planimetric map (USGS 1936c) shows a
small community of about eight structures near the mouth of Forney Creek, which constituted the mid-
1930s community of Forney. Most of the parcels along the creek were owned by NP&L, but others
included a school lot (but no school), the Forney Creek Baptist Church, and parcels owned by the Cole
and Monteith families (TVA 1943). According to a TVA study,
At Forney ... there are stark reminders of former lumber industries. Still standing are a large
clubhouse, grocery store, and many residences built by the lumber companies. ... Traces of
concrete foundations may be seen where a large band mill [stood] [Ketchen 1944:2].
A CCC camp (NP-9) was established at Forney Creek in 1933 and operated until 1936; the location was
also used intermittently as a side camp from 1936-1938. The camp was located in a large hollow at the
mouth of Bee Gum Branch, near the northern boundary of the study area (Oliver 1998a:93, 295; Pyle
1979:8, 24).
Bushnell. The town of Bushnell was situated on the north bank of the Little Tennessee River at its
confluence with the Tuskeegee (Figures 4.26 and 4.27). The settlement developed shortly after 1879,
when the Western North Carolina Railroad (later part of ihe Southern Railway) reached the area (Holland
2001:75; Ketchen 1944:1); the railroad was not exiended west from Bushnell until large-scale logging
developed down river in the early 1900s. The town apparently received its name from the Bushnell family
of Ohio, who reportedly conducted logging operations in the area for a time in the 1880s (Arthur
1914:514; Oliver 2000). A post office was established at Bushnell in May 1886 (Stroupe 1996:3-258),
and the town was incorparated in 1901 (Taylor 2001:9). The town's population reportedly grew to over
1,000 in the early 1900s, when it became a"break-in-bulk point" where goods were transferred from the
railroad's main line (which continued south along the Little Tennessee), first to local roads, and later to
the Fontana spur (Taylor 2001:9). (The town is never enumerated separately in the census, however, and
it is likely that this figure [like that for Forney Creek, above] includes the population from the
surrounding region.) In 1912 Bushnell was described in railroad proinotionalliterature as follows:
For several notable reasons this little town gives promise of remarkable development. It is the
starting point of a new branch of the SOUTHERN RAILWAY which is designed to connect this
secrion of Western North Carolina directly with Knoxville, Tennessee. The county surrounding
the town is devoted largely to fruit growing and it is in the very heart of the finest apple growing
72
J .
ti .
�
� �`';�
. � �i �
� •�
�
�
��
�� :- �= _�
�:
e ° � }�y a
: �� F� si
� f i
� d
� p' r�`_
1J` F � � ..',. ,
!�� � � '
� • f + e
�� F f 1
� i� {'� +r J�—' .rP Iy
� � r" i
1 . ��� � �
. "� ,� i ,
�l }:,�� o� � �B�I
� �, � ,
� � h �
� •
f �a f
� �S y 'a�. `v ' � ! n ,
� !r
� ti���.��f��" �•��. € � �� `�.
1:. � —.. ' r ? ��� . •� r+'� ��.i r
�r� °
° t g_ ry'€.�� '
� �� � � � ��
.� �..
�,, i ., � r,� .�
a� � � � � °� _
e y S''y . y' � t �.i ..
l. L
� �"' �1. �,� �.
� - � ,� °� 4 ' '�•
4 fl
�,::.f: f�. �e~•� aPSY��' +
_``� � y�
� �� ���,,'" � �y�, �
'�~r_
.k�� �1�� _ � . �}.
l
�' � �. ���'i
�x] �� � '�
� r, , � �.
4 � � �F �
��� � �,
' � 9 ! � 1fi .."�'�?P��e'�€�F:
--�.•�'S ���',t %f'fi� �.;�{ : �y :r �,y{ 7 ir
. � � �
� � ry�l �10
,.�� ty� p� .ti! �_.:
.,5
�, �
� � -� , °�
�_ '��"w��,
���..�
� ���
�'�g�
•e�vl
� , 0 •7Y
�
� � �
� � �� � � �
� �����"� ���' ��
.���� T���'��„�`
�` �` � � � �' ��= ��' �'.�".�" ��'�''�'
��
�
Figure 4.25. Plat of W.T. Woody tract on Forney Creek.
73
J
�
� ,. - °��� °�_ _, . — �:,R� tn ,ti . -,
L��� '� '��.�°�� ` ���� �. M1�� � ��� .
4A
t �j
� -}=^'� � � � ��'�� l� �
North .4, � � � a� ���; r� I
� � +�, � — ' , i � egr� $ �� .
� 2��� �'°,a i �� 'ti �•k � wltl I
s M
Feet � �'�, ��,� � �'�� +�1'
� � , f"
�s . �a�..��� �,�4 � � ti � � r �.`�
� ''��,�f ��$�+14l17 � - •
� �'� �..'70�i '�9 �� __� � I# �`p � y� •� f�
� j�� � � — � � � ° �.�
. I ��'/'� f ' -_ _' i �i � ;}- 5 �5 E 41
e' �.b�3f�]�,�•r'� � � � ' t � 5 '� `' I'.�8�,
� � i�� �. �. � � �
��; ic �= —��y ��'� ±�R,- � *A ��in�. P
� . 4 �r ..i .;. � t� A.. .1'r
� '� � �� � ;� �
f ! i $ � I m
� �1 �:ii � . 4 .�
_y . •'�I �r ri* �J �� 0 5� �. + '+
"Li I � } 4
�� �_ a �— � L . r y .
° �, � ��i � r�� L
� � Hi
. . a ' } '�� + �' � � ����5 . � �
�f•`�'� � k�^b,� ��`'� r' �Hk;!�hili�ltl'��l �'�� ' °
`° � �i w r�ec �
�_4 �' 'i � �k 0." . I g e T "�e �4 ` .
.r�
°i---� � F+� �8 y �•t � , �+�� �L M" � ' -i�-
_—=�� '° , '•
_ __ e� •, .
�__ _ .
�
�„ �, �s. �� ��' � S ', � J� . . � � IVY 1 �� _.�,'� � � -
y�'" S'� � °� ye� '' � � p�'��a�:�''�" �� ��.°�
, � � � w � � � ,� �_ ' � 4 .
�, � ��'*� ` r �.� � ' ,� � � � .`
� 3 I � � I a,.,
� � � ..
, � �° �� � �°
.. �',�� Ei YF �..Idr�,y��4'� k ,'i �
�� � � � � _ _ � {a ��+TJ+s � R� '��,� e � � Y``.S'. ���,1
��� �5 1i�:7 _. � ,r � � — y
. . f ~ i�'�D' � � � �'� _
, . . 5���r � ar�.�kr�rf Y� �+. . � .
� -.. �} � _ . e.,— -'
I JF}�7 � � � - —�_� .,� . s 5..�
_ �. �' �� _ � � �
_ �•�_ i �..� �
. - — - � —�� � � � -� l � � � �
z
� - '� _ y. a "'j
s s� a r
• f'�'�� ' � f` � �e
,•., _ ��:� ___ � � . , � �
i, , � �
��� � � � .
�' �
" � � �— _ -. � �` � � r�r--
� . � �: ,5 ,�:
�� � �°t � � �, .:.�,- � �� t'
,�
.� , � � 4� ,
,�f� . �� ��—��—�-- � --hl _���. �, ,�o �j �
Figure 4.26. Bushnell andvicinity in 1936.
J
Ch
�,:, w a I5A�4i�
� �.__ �
! rty+w� �+� �s�r,�il,
!v�a..: r„r�oNTti°. �Ew� tiLfv7�.l��-+
9!M[fY{�CP lW���r
r'�i�i��l�!4 �E�in�4��1A
TCF�IdESiCE ����+ A++��r+
• �. `.� ,.�.��. a,,�.t
' ,.� �� �, ` �°a
. — .. F;a.'L •;" r�'�' -�.� �
r. ....
u�i �,
i
Figure 427. Bushnell in 1943
ia� yv�is.6T791+1 �[+4:Tt 4�
��,Ir�aa P. r��nar�sii ic�iilPi.Wq A'� U�-
. '�
y�
,'F � ,+��
� If
f� kv ��� � �er
�S �f.�
5j�
4 T� L .� �—'%
., � j'.
— u � ru��• �,ep^.
�. r a��3a e■a�r.t
,.} rt� v�rr:� .��:w. oxie�rom
� �� � �Y:i� J^TFfi Y1 �Y' a,JG•'1i0O1'4: YFw
���.r.
'f��..'i1Th4�!P 4R"Li77, "!'rR.'�
�� � 9�R"A!YlFXLILCM[i
�f a 9
, '
r��
d,
- Sa� Pt ry�ff'i i ra�r
s-.�w=„ �r, v,,;j �aL�
��
region in Western North Carolina. The scenery in this vicinity is rugged, picturesque and beautiful
[Southern Railway Company 1912:39].
Bushnell lost its importance with the demise of the local lumber industry, and by 1939 its population had
shrunk to about 75 (WPA 1939:443; Taylor 2001:57). By that time much of the land in the vicinity (and
extending downriver) had been acquired by NP&L for its proposed reservoir, a plan that was to soon be
supplanted by the TVA's Fontana Project.
Planimetric and land acquisition maps from the 1930s and 1940s depict a small settlement of less than 20
homes and other structures dispersed along about a mile of NC 288 and up Welch Branch (USGS 1936c;
TVA 1943) (Figure 4.28). A school is shown near the mouth of the stream, and a church (the Bushnell
Baptist Church) is a short distance up the drainage to the north. A suspension bridge and railroad bridge
extended south across the Tuckasegee just above the confluence, providing access to Judson and other
settlements to the south along the east bank of the Little Tennessee River (Oliver 1998a:10, 21) (Figure
4.29).
A community report developed for the Fontana Project provides a description of Bushnell in the early
1940s:
Bushnell proper is on a narrow bench where the Tuckasegee River flows into the Little Tennessee
River. This bench is on the 1600' contour and is the widest level area in the entire community. It
is from 250 to 300 yards wide at Bushnell and continues in both directions along the river for a
total distance of 0.6 mile, gradually narrowing until the formidable mountains reach the river
banks. Tumbling down the steep mountains from the Great Smokies to the river are numerous
streams ... over the years, narrow shelves have been washed out in some sections along the river
affording sufficient space upon which men have settled, farmed, and reared their families. ...
At the present time Bushnell has two grocery stores which furnish families in the eastern and
central parts of the community with their immediate needs. in the western portion of the
community there are two stores, one dating back to 1863, and east of Bushnell there are also two
s�mall stores. However, Bryson City is the chief trade center, and it is to this town that the farmers
journey each Saturday to trade and visit. ...
The majority of the farmers ... raise little foodstuff for the market, consuming most of it
themselves. Corn is one of the principal crops, but some cash is derived from the sale of livestock.
Potatoes, too, are one of the cash crops for a few of the farmers. More money is obtained from the
sale of jack pine and pulpwood then from the sale of any other crop [Ketchen 1944:1�].
As summarized by the report:
This [the larger community] is one of the few communities affected by the construction program
of the Tennessee Valley Authority which will be completely obliterated by the formation of the
lake — the roads will be inundated; the school and church buildings will be torn down; and all the
families will move to new locations outside the community [Ketchen 1944:5].
Chambers Creek. Chambers Creek was about 2.5 river (and road) miles downstream from the Little
Tennessee/Tuckasegee confluence and Bushnell. No town was ever organized at this location, but the
creek and surrounding area constituted a distinct settlement. A post office operated in the vicinity under
the name of Forney's Creek from 1873 to 1906, when the name was changed to Chambers; the Chambers
post office continued to 1931, when it was closed (Stroupe 1996:3-258, 3-259). Early settlers in the area
included members of the Chambers, Welch, and Sawyer families, some of whom were resident in the
drainage by the 1830s or earlier; later settlers included many members of the Anthony, Crisp, Chambers,
Kir(k)land, and McClure families (Chambers et al. 1988:23-24).
76
I'1�UiC �F.Gb. l f1C IlUICI 'dL [3USflilCll.
.■. ..� . � ..� � ,r.- 1�` � �.—
� �.� . � , . , _ ._
� �. � �,
P.y�.� C_ ' j�� . .. ;-. r. , � w . ' t,}: ..+�„
��f
�fy� , Y� +i�' �' ak ' . ,t�# '
� � My,� 1 . . .> - � �� . _ . .
°„ i�� �_ � ' " ,��
� � -a - , � `, ti' ,
�•-
.� t � . _ .r- -
. � 3 �
l''^,.
� �- °� `-�''�'-
� ' �' � *�
' �'' *� � ' '� h, _ ���
• p `�� �r �� / _- � �r
- �, . �,,�is. . .+� o ` � . _ 3_
� '��'������Y :�� ,�= k ry �'��i�
'3, , � r e
, �+ t� � �• � fe.
. c:.�.� `#�' ( �y. � i-.,Y}_' � 4 ��� {� ,1'��
� 1�' r T`
� �� o�t+e d`* ���' ` `�� � ,�.,i, �, � • � � ;` d
� � i�n . , ����, �
�� '� ' ;�� '�� '�''� `,�,� s ,t"��" � +y ��
�� �
' p � # �#
�f �
�!"'-��i� �" � , +�._� �
�Mi-���6� •_ �('. .i
`�i�� . _-i� � `�'�'�'�
.'�_, � �' �
� �,;'(,� L'Ma���i t:���} . 1��, ��R �c,"5� �_�
�y t-
R ��' � � � � �S�` _.+` ; ����,�„ � ? .
�� � ` � s e � � T� � ��'�rr
� � � ���� pa-�7 �� "T Si..�• � _
����
#
��.::� _ ._�- � ,s � �w .. ��
�.�,�. � �� , �h - : '�
� ���� �'��� �
�_ �� ��` - '�.
� .� ._ ..rl�,. ,��� � -- --
Figure 4.29. The swinging bridge at E3ushncll.
77
���;'+� '�,",�..i� �- —
� � �
����s���
�� -� � � � :
� N .. _ : -�,� �.
'�" �x � . "�'a��yr_,_Y_� .. �`'-�'��'
� TB -` ., , R Y, _ `,
� r.r. s� S€ -
� ��� �,+ ��z� �
�-�a �yi's� � °
�S � � �_
' �� �.'�if.�_.�:Itr.vrlla`°'_.s' �^_Y�'-�l+.a ..`'�-a
A hand-drawn map compiled by former residents shows the location of 42 homes along Chainbers Creek,
adjacent Kirlcland Creek, and the upper portion of Welch Branch in the 1930s and 1940s, as well as two
mills and the Chambers Creek Church (Chambers et al. 1988:23-24; see also Oliver 1998a:539). A
similar pattern is shown on the early planimetric and topographic quadrangles (USGS 1936c, 1936e,
1941c) and on the TVA land acquisition maps (TVA 1943) (Figure 4.30). Although several parcels along
the creek had been acquired by NP&L, others remained in private ownership until their acquisition by the
TVA.
Collinwood and Ecola. The communities of Collinwood and Ecola are depicted on the planimetric map
(USGS 1936c) at the mouth of Chambers Creek and a few miles downstream, between Kirkland and
Pilkey creeks. Both were rail stops (Poole 1995:185; Southern Railway 1914:44), but never had post
offices and were apparently not significant communities. According to the TVA, these settlements were
two of the "tiny settlement[s] or neighborhood[s] composed chiefly of relatives" in the Bushnell area
(Ketchen 1944:2).
Pilkey Creek (Hubbard and Dorsey). Pilkey Creek is a sizable drainage located downstream from
Kirkland Branch, and is separated from Hazel Creek to the west by Welch Ridge (Figure 4.31). Two
community names are shown on the planimetric quadrangle in this vicinity, Hubbard at the mouth of
Pilkey Creek (which was fonnerly known as Hubbard Mill Creek) and Dorsey at the mouth of a small
drainage less than one-half mile downriver (USGS 1936e). A post office was located at Dorsey from 1890
to 1940, when it was discontinued (Stroupe 1996:3-259). The quadrangle and land acquisiiion maps
(TVA 1943) depict scattered structures distributed up Pilkey Creek, including a stare with gas pumps and
the abandoned Dorsey School.
Wayside/Marcus. The community of Wayside was situated near the mouth of Calhoun Branch, a little
more than a mile downstream from Dorsey and about three miles upriver from the mouth of Hazel Creek.
The area was apparently known as Wayside while a post office was operated there from 1880-1922
(Stroupe 1996:3-262), but is designated Marcus (after early settler Alfonzo Marcus [Oliver 1989:1 l9;
Parris 1982]) on the 1936 planimetric map (USGS 1936e). Marcus is shown as a small cluster of
structures (including a store) on either side of Storehouse Branch on the TVA acquisition map, which
corresponds well with an undated photograph printed in Oliver (1998a:243). The entire community of
Marcus was owned by NP&L at the time of its acquisition by the TVA (TVA 1943).
Hazel Creek. Hazel Creek is the largest drainage on the North Shore, and was the site of several distinct
communities, including Ritter, Proctor, and Medlin. The following discussion proceeds south to north up
the creek, and is drawn primarily from published histories by Oliver (1989) and Holland (2001), an
unpublished map by Kephart (n.d.), and maps by NCGS (1906), USGS (1931a, 1935, 1936e, 1940b,
1941c) and the TVA (1941, 1943). A wide variety of other primary and secondary sources are also
available concerning life on Hazel Creek, including detailed information on the logging and mining
industries in the area.
The settlement of Hazel Creek began about 1830, and in slightly over 100 years progressed from early,
low-density pioneer settlement, through periods of increasing settlement density, early logging and
mining, intensive railroad logging, post-logging depopulation, and dam construction (Oliver 1989). This
account provides information on all of these periods, but of necessity emphasizes the better-documented
logging and post logging eras.
Ritter. The southernmost community on Hazel Creek was Ritter, which was a railroad stop established by
the W.M. Ritter Lumber Company after the railroad was extended past the mouth of Hazel Creek about
1907 (Oliver 1989:60). By 1910 the Ritter railroad (a common carrier named the Smoky Mountain
Railway Company) extended up the creek past Proctor and Medlin to the active cutting areas. Although
.
J
�
�.HF�!.�TI hl�
F I�o-����
'kfra?; a� �:'ic°�}7 .:�C•'�'..f�' L. �. �,1F�I�L#�f'.14 �--.-� F� �,-k���,�
.��;?•�" i
c��°C��`�iJrd7L°t ,jfa1A�1�� �,^ � r,..� � � .�'rrhi+c4'�qe ..�
F�lA�kTwi�. JA�1 E r�°.�drk'•�r� ���' �`���� �5
,�aIVTI�lON�f ��� � - ,
14.'�'!�`�V'-,�'i�: � �-
4.i�, � iti J�.�� .` k i � i4 iy
F4"��,�F"K'C�'� • - . :�.i.
!k€�� �
.5� •i � • �
J
.�� �
�
A1 ..�� ��T`��
'�.,�,r ���
� r��
Figure 4.30. TVA (1943) inap of farms in the Chambers Creek area.
R � L,
k�[R����Y[�
�e�'' ��+'s ;i I ��� ��r
,
�f� ;�i� ` �, � . c�' 't `. :
�`'*� � i` . �i#�y��'� i '`
y �' �? l'.��'�g }s ..
; . . .3�' � 4
_ � s *.,r�� y •
�� =�f"�'
`� + '^�� --.� : ;�, ;�� ,
�' . 'y� �� .. _ ..
�a r� �eS� �I.
� .
� �� ��7` r.}:'� #�'" � �f,� ° f � 3
. ;;,a.� • ; �r� ,
`'�:..� �+��3�':
� A
y ' �� r
`as���r� ti: �b;tih i_ � . . .
��.
��
4
i�
�I.�ti
s1r• '
'' " a
7�`ii`�
_7! �x�'
��
�, t R �r � � 1 � �
I r r-
i , �r��� � � . �:� f i� L r . ,. ��' # '
5 � #,,
lr � ��r + � � � � �r _ �
�,. u � , � I ' � � � 4 ^� ��_ ',
.., � �� s � � '1, i � � �o�r�r -_ �"L.
� �—
� j ,� ,� � �` I �' �
�� � r 1� i + {, °� !
� � �ii �'i * '� f�' � �
�d. �' � � � i � a� � � � k R
7i'w- ����l� � � `�� �
rs � � �y � W�y!t �- . � '
F I" f�s � � � � j , � � �! `~ ! � �
� Y
� � � � ~� �
ftYY' GF�f� 4�= �I . � � � ' I5 `... � � � �
� — } �
�4 ,'�.,.� M Nbs1`�vi�w °�h � � �� � � � Ii �, � y. � � � .
� � � � �¢ � {' 4� # � � r�
� a� � , I � � r !i' � � � —
'x ,�, '� �+'I�i�,�78 I �� y � -_-_t ,� r`�_ _ �: �
�
� .� 1 l
�rr��� � q � ; � � � + � t f � �� , � •.,� I
d ,
! � �� I � �� � � � � � � ;
� . �,4� , � ■hM1iMi#+� Rjare`�h �4C,� �r� � � .,� A � '
t
� � �+�44� a °� �� �h �' � !# � ai ;
'� Y I�I�rud �� o� _`__ '� e _ i_ � a i
�"}4��,� t� .��d'�
f!�i���7d�i Fi ��� �_' � s� 6� �� �4 � � ���
�'��i�i'w�`� }� � � ~ i S 4 � ~� . � � `. � �..
'ti+ � � �� - � ��j� + �
# t W41L�nE ���� � �=- . � � �°�
�.�t � �-- 1' � .R� ' �43 -� J ° ','! '
�: � � +
� $# ? 15 �`� � �� ��� � �� 3' �* �
!! I -�$ ? r�
�S I ' � { I � � � �
S M �
� '�4l2�
� � � �
; �� p r ias+
� �,
I �'4 0 '0 1 �- �T ., 3_ 1� �L
' � � �� ... ;} I � � � � � �^
I - �� . � � � � �
i _�• �
' � r+ �� � 1 �
�� _ �'� �� � � r� � _ � I �
���
��,r � � � ' i � _ � �,.
North 0 2000 :�'; _- � �� �f s+ L � � � +
Feet
�.�_
Figure 4.31. Dorsey and Hubbard area in 1936.
��
ti us�s.�����
�'� _ �a�:
the Ritter Company and the Smoky Mountain Railway were gone by the late 1920s, the Ritter stop
remained a key transit point, and the place where Hazel Creelc residents would catch the train east.
The 1935 quadrangle (USGS 1935) shows only four structures at the settlement, but the subsequent TVA
land acquisition maps depict over 25 "shacks" there, along with houses, trailers, a tent, a barn, and a stare
(TVA 1943) (Figure 4.32). Much of this housing was occupied by workers on the Fontana Project (TVA
1950:474). Part of the town was owned by NP&L; most of the surrounding area was owned by the heirs
of J.E. (Jack) Coburn, who had arrived on Hazel Creek with the first of the lumber companies in the late
1800s. Coburn accumulated extensive land holdings over the next decades, and by the 1920s owned
several thousand acres in the area. Coburn sold many of his land and timber rights to Ritter, and acted as
its agent in other transactions (Oliver 1989:68).
Although several small clusters of shacks were located along NC 288 (which ran up both sides of the
creek a few miles) in 1943, the next major concentration of settlement moving up the creek was at Cable
Branch, a little more than a mile upstream from the creek's mouth. The Cable family had settled Cable
Branch about 1835 (Oliver 1989:5). In the early 1940s the small community contained the Cable Branch
Church as well as several homes and other buildings; a cluster of shacks near the mouth of the branch
probably served Fontana Project workers. Although much of the land along the branch was owned by
Coburn, the Cable family still retained several parcels in the area. About one-half mile above Cable
Branch was a bridge where NC 288 crossed the creek; this was the site of a store and other buildings on
property owned in 1943 by L.C. Calhoun.
Proctor. The town of Proctor was located about two miles further north, a short distance above the mouth
of Sheehan Branch and Possum Hollow. The settlement and later town of Proctor developed in the
vicinity of the homestead of Moses Proctor, who had moved to Hazel Creek from Cades Cove and settled
on a hillside overloolcing Sheehan Branch by about 1830 (Oliver 2003:5). Sheehan Branch, its tributaries,
and the nearby section of Hazel Creek were subsequently occupied by numerous members of the Proctor
and allied families (including a branch of the Welch family) (Oliver 1989, 2003). Settlement gradually
increased, and a post office was opened at Proctor in 1886 (Stroupe 1996:3-262). Kephart's (n.d.) map of
the Proctor area in 1906 shows a mill and schoolhouse there, as well as dispersed homes belonging to
members of the Welch, Bradshaw, and other families up Sheehan Branch (Figure 4.33).
Small-scale commercial logging was begun in the Hazel Creek drainage as early as 1892 by the Taylor
and Crate Company, which used splash dams to transport logs down the creek to the Little Tennessee,
where they were made into rafts that were transported down river to Chattanooga (Oliver 1989:55-57;
Parris 1968b). Large-scale logging began with the arrival of the W.M. Ritter Lumber Company in the
early 1900s (see above). Ritter purchased outright or acquired timber rights to most of the Hazel Creek
drainage, and began logging it in earnest in 1910. A railroad was constructed up the drainage, and a large
band mill and associated facilities were built in a large bend of Hazel Creek above Sheehan Branch. This
became the nucleus of the logging town of Proctor, which thrived until the logging operations ceased in
1928. In its heyday in the 1920s, Proctor was a bustling town of over 1,000, and included a depot,
community building and theatre, store, commissary, cake and ice cream shop, church, school club house,
boarding house, and photo shop in addition to lumber company offices and numerous houses arranged
along Calico and Struttin' streets (Figure 4.34). Electric power was provided by a steam generator at the
band mill. A ball field was located in the floodplain near the present site of the Proctor Campground,
adjacent to the switching yard. Another complex of structures was located at Franklintown, near the
mouth of Possum Hollow. Upstream, the mill complex included dry kilns and numerous ancillary
structures in addition to the band mill (Figure 4.35). Further upstream was North Proctor, a small
community that was largely occupied by African-Americans (Oliver 1989:71-86; Williams 1995:155—
156).
:
r��ure 4.��. i v,� �iy4�� rnap �i s�ruc�ures a�rnvu�n ui na�ei �,reeK.
82
�
� ,!. I�k; ,�#. ��,�e
, 4�; o ; :`
'�
: i 1. :
.�
+�6 � '�a�� �
f � !
; �
`� �
� � �� ;
� �f�; �_�. �,���r.����
, �;r � .
�;, _;, . �, j
-; � i ;,
' G. �. �r��h ���ao�'� �
� � -��• F� �
� ���`�5��. � � ,�_� _' ,,, �''d,r���r J���'��f
I ��� � � i
� � I � � � 4 �
' I 5 � ' u�' [
I I �
� �'r1i +
I . ,..
, �{ J � �
� G�'f.� �•_.a� ��5
I
�
I
i
I
' _.
=�
I_, .,.. _._ .,..
�.
I
� • . � _ _
I
� �
x
�. �
,� ;
� � .
��
f,.
�
� ;�ti
. �
Figure 4.33. Horace Kephart's (n.d.) map of Proctor area about 1906.
� ' ��
9
�y
k
�
���� . � " ....�� �
9 �_
�
�
i
tl
�
-y� 1 i
� �
' e� f . �������
�tla°��. �. �, '�Ad'aJrru�r
la°
_.�_ �~s�,� '�.=
� ��
e
.-A�1 . .. .., ._ ..
�
� F� ��:
� ,i �
����� ��� "
, �
I v d.r
ti��- ��
,� s+" I
. I
. .�� ° �
� �,
. .� , �"'�
. .. ��'"F�_— �
I � r
� y
s�. � ���s� �'�d'�.�� F
, 0
_ � �
l:
� i
I �
I
� �
�
fllOIaRT l��'FflM �iA�VM
w
_����
�.7SSiui ar.� i�w
�6d6P�E[} �L7:
�
���,����
������Y
r �� . : wa+..-� � r �.,.s.:.�,:o
� EalS�l lai� �[� � F
� fi:n�����
� r.ai5�r� p�al �.a�x�s
��t�vr�
� S�'Fq�iN. �iTT
,�r, s Fie9 FT�i'
1�`
���� �� �������
�r�►,'kl��i r�s.
����a e�r � �u�na a� ot�
�1�1 �"�, �wa� �� H��r� r�i�iS
� ■ � WP.ldSl'�.tlIWC�YIITdY�T
� r s
0 �� �� ���
IS'��dFBI? y
�M S�+�Uv. '
��A� �C� .-�
R�rru4�owa
L 5'f�R
iiR� �
� '' �
a� i
r ,
r
��A� �t�:
_a� �,�
i
{���
����«����.
CL�i5�J111�Y�w r�r..�IYGYIe'J7C.1�
. � _ un�c� ��
��,� � - �„�
:�°r -::+�cG�+l • �
��•. � L �r
�i�rF. � `a�a
,. M,k'pi J
��� µ �
�� ���f � �
0
: rnan r� �+r �
',���55�#+ _,
��a�D�f'El§ �;
� 4 C�F�k'�
"• 1M�iPlA i �
� � _
S1d�f !�G! RG#�' 4
' +,
�
Figure 4.34. Reconstructed map of Proctor during the Ritter era (Holland 2001).
�� ��
9�
�
�uu
n�. ra�sa�n
F�a: J �j� I
��_ _n_ _�_l,
�� ��
��i
w«r
.l�`qIM 'b},��..''�
�,� ��� � �'
�. _. '�' ■" � .�
a
r".�
.�11
. _. �i �
. +' �
�
�
�
�
��
,� �,�'
�
�e
�
�+
��+* i!
� j�
f
1� � � �
��ql �� �� pr �rsF,��.�. . --
s � *
�«
�, �
�yti � �� �� �� �', � ,-R*J�� �
g• � a#fd
6y � � •� �' . .
� I lf�� il � � — �_� x �__ �n� ar
� � . .� . _
� { � � � �I—�t ,
7 7 � � �,��-.•� ' ;� �".- J — � _
_ � � 1'� ,
� � � y. y �
. .� � '� � � '� � . � � �
�.� '� , . � �
� _ -� , °'� � F �. �:
_ . � �_�� �, + � ,
� --���_� �- � �' � . ' r x
�9 F �
f � ��r �. I' � � .. � � �� {�} �
.r efi ��i. ,, �J ��`�� � �. ..- , �,� €
� �. ' . � �j + �
P* ,
� �
�����" �a ��� ����
: J�
��T ■
1
����� ''4 t �~� .
� �,;-.� � 4 _
�
' + �`
�� �+��' ___ '---_
���
�
4` h{�
��#���� �
'�
�pJ f�'
� �
J� � -
� � � ,
'� �
�'�#a .
.� �� ' -• • 9 ' � .
� a 4 � S�
� �� * ��`���
� � � r '#�' % � y 3af 1 � +.1�
�� ����
����_ � ti � �� -
L f_ s� y1
� , ; _ �ar � . „� ,y
��
`+la'` ,�'� _ 4 �-� a �.
� �'—`-- � �- �'
ti� � � �
1�. �
f
�_�-.' �� � , . ' �F .}'3'� "� -
��Ir ' �� � " _
�
�
��
�
p� �4
7
Figure 4.35. The Ritter mill complex in 1916 (Smoky Mountain Railway Company 1916).
�
•�F
� .
v ��
� 0.�
� �
'Y �
�
.�
. - ,��
� '
-, �,.
��
_ •.�
The Ritter Company logged first the south and then the north side of Hazel Creek, and employed an
estimated 450 workers (Oliver 1989:61; Sharp 1944:4). Many of those spent most of their time in the
lumber camps, and were served by the Coburn (or Coeburn) post office, a inobile facility. Open from
1912 to 1925; it reportedly moved 17 times during that period (Oliver 1989:64; Parris 1960; Stroupe
1996:3-259).
Proctor thrived in the 1910s and early 1920s, but logging operations began to slow by the mid-1920s. The
Hardwood Bark reported that the Ritter band mill was "sawed out" by March 1926, although the planing
mill continued operations until August. By December 1926, the magazine reported that
all but six piles of lumber are gone from the yard at Hazel Creek The dimension and lath stock is
also almost gone. Most of the pile bottoms and docks are about torn down to furnish wood for the
boiler house.
The company removed the railroad and many buildings before leaving town, but left the generating plant
to be operated by the remaining residents (Oliver 1989:87) (Figures 4.36-4.38). Most of the Ritter
holdings were sold, many to J.K. Strikeleather (see below). The March 1926 issue of The Hardwood Bark
had reported:
Since the purchase of this property by a realty company in Asheville, North Carolina, we
understand that Proctor will be known as the "Smoky Mountain Tourist City" after the W. M.
Ritter Lumber Company has completed operations.
The town of Proctor survived until 1944 as a shadow of its former self (Oliver 1989:87-90), although it
was never the backward, impoverished settlement depicted by the TVA in its Proctor Community report
(Sharp 1944) (c£ Williams 1995:157; Taylor 2001:84-85). As summarized by Oliver (1989:88),
The company, arriving in 1903, had changed the economy from one of trade and barter to a cash
base. No one wanted to or could return to the old 19`� century subsistence level, and that was no
longer possible anyway. Sufficient cash from a steady income and what it could buy had become
too appealing as a way of life; the good old days are usually better in memory than in reality. The
growth of the Eagle Creek copper mine helped soinewhat so that many people who wanted
employment could find it. Some men, however, could not bear to go down into the mine tunnels,
and they cut acid and pulp wood, farmed, dLig sang, found other ways to make a living, or left the
creek to go where work was more plentiful.
Although the phone system and railroad had been removed, the local residents kept the power generating
plant going using waterpower. The movie theatre and pool hall closed, however, as after a while did the
boarding house (Oliver 1989:88). A CCC camp (Camp NP-23) was established at the former mill site in
Proctor from 1939 to 1942, although the property was not then part of the Park (Pyle 1979:12, 38).
As discussed elsewhere in this report, in the early 1940s the residents of Proctor learned that the town site
and surrounding area was to be acquired by the TVA as part of the Fontana Project.
The three year period from 1941 to 1944 was a bitter-sweet time for the residents of Hazel Creek
and the surrounding area. For the first time since 1928, when Ritter left, there were sufficient jobs
for everyone who wanted one. The Eagle Creek copper mine was running three full shifts, the
Adams mine had reopened at long last, and TVA needed several thousand workers. The bitter part
came when everyone realized that they would have to sell their land and move, for when the lake
was filled they would have no road to the outside world [Oliver 1989:92].
:.
�� �� �� �� � � . ��
_� _ e------. - -�- T- � i � �
I ,
� � ;
� �� ,
i �... r ,
��i
. R.= ._� -_�_ "�e� _ � i � __'. _—'
A I
� � � r' � � .
� 5
� + � '
! � � `
,� i
■ ,I � i q� '� � .
i
--� � _ ��� , - �� _ �
. f , �
� i � i
,I� � 1 �,,
i + k• i � �
t I �
���'�,�._ s_��_�_ ._ }—__�.�.. -- -- t _—_ .
� � ��� �, � f 1, � I ,
,� F
�� � `y � . s � �. a ,
'�4 If �� � I ���' � I # I � �
y : ; �� � �i i P
� ' I �.�.� � � W tif '� f � �'��� � � ��+ I
{ � . �� � � � T �, � # �'
� '� r " � * � � ��a ,f
�
��'.__ a � { �__x�.�.. . _ _ .����. . . � � �' —_
I ' e�� F��;�. •. �
I �p �y, } � ^��� �
�. 1� I ���� � 1. y� i�.�1 �
� i 1 9
� I T yk
�
�� ! � �
� �
a. e� �� �.� .e . � 3 � � �� � i . �_. • . . � � "�Y
' � D
�
� �_� �
__._ . _ , .
� .�
_ ,.�
�_ - �
�� � �
:�
,,__�__�� � � , _
� � '
r� , ��r
� ; -_
_�.,_.�
�
Figure 4.36. NP&L map of Proctor in 1932.
:
;
;
_ �, _
,}T � � �
�
;
�� . �
�..� �
��
� _ r.y_�:�
�
�
'� � ° � '�, `° � ��w.,` � � I
I .Y.
� � I', j .`� T hi '.� � i-i �7 A� �"z E�� G� ��� 's o: -
I I °" �
� �
i ���,�.� e r �4 "`�t�;;�
��
. P � � � � s
` � �— r �._� M �
�� � t — �� `�
� � � � —' � � ��i�
' 'e �'� ,� � � �
� � � .., __
, �
r ,' ��` . _ ��
� � �����# #* .
.° v�� � �-s � �
�►�' �
���
_- � �
f�
�� rrr
� '� �
� ff
.� , �
4�
��� —k
— �,'�.
�
�
�� �'
w
r ~
. �
�' �
•_ __ �
'a �•,� �' �li
�'�. � } ren��s �',h
ti
� � — � �
a� � ,, �-� — � �..
- � ��. �
�.
�
�� 5� � h� TT. L���
+ � � � . �j 0 lel . 4-T .
� � � . Y� .. � . .
s � ,�
`� If ��+' �i � I�� � � { �5;1
� � �
,, r �'r f � � i r • •
� o�R-_._ ���'raR � �ar ia � ��, i��� � � ,�� �
�' � € A+ 1 i,. ,, : ,:' i .
�
. ; � �
�a, *�`� ++ Q�EI��+Jf r, ��'
�i+�l�lde� �;�. °� ~ �
{��an �It ��,� ,¢g �
— � �.,
� � �rru _ �
p ��} $���iia� # � � •a rr:��. _
�F
� + I � �
t �� �
— ' � .
�—Y''� � ,� *' � � �
a
��8 � f r %_� ! � i
�,__� � ' �` r� * � - � � � "� �
. �
.�
`
.��� *� ��� =�-��y�- � ��-���---� ---
� �'� �l � � + � � �
� �. '4�,� -��, , � � '
� k �
� �
�' __ f � � � r�` �
�_ '�r � x � �M
- • 'k- y �� � � f I R
_ F � �. •..� �
� �'�
�
�,..a,�a., ..._ _ a�..� _ .___.__ _ � North
�
� � . �� � � � � � � � 0 2000
�� —
�� � y'° � '�L , •.� .
� � , Feet
, � � � f n ��_ •�,.
Figure 4.37. Proctor and vicinity in 1936.
�
.�
���� .
��.'
. 1
��
' , .,�
. �, � • . . .� .� .
���� � ��a��'��'.- � "
��7'iJ� ,: r'1'J��� �� ����� , � i ,� ,1,�'�}�.� f�' ���� r , �.�
�i�. ��. • i : . , . � •
�- �
Y� �L ;d. j£�� } } ° _�J- 6 , � _ � v � �� �
. . � • _
eti �
� �� ..1�� �i � . .. . .; ���' �.:�.��,��; ''yi ti, . � � � `�`�,.� ��
� � �
. ,. : . ; ��;- . � , �, + � �
.
_
f
�� ,�.�,r� : • �� ' ` • � � 1 �`�
y f . � :
' r
�
} � ,�5 • �° �-�'���,,qc� . :�.,"� � . • �5"���J� .� �,
. r � , � ���- �� �. ��,� :��� � . ' , _ ��` ��,�
� � . .. .� .... ��
. �� ����� � � � �� -� �.: . . � � - � � � � ���� y . ���,�
r
: �� . �� �°�' �,� � '
. � �. .,�_. _ .. � :�.� �-� :.., , _ ,,� � �.�� . _.
� : �, � �'
� . , . � �,. -- :.. .
� �-
�
- �� ��� �����,� � ��� ���� . � o :� _�� . � - . � � : ��
.: � �-,� ,� ���� . . � . �+� . ��� .�.. �
:. . � . : ,
� � � �� � �.. � r �
. ��. ° ' {�..P �� . V- ' . . +� ��`,�F� . �i� � _,-
_ E , r.i , a .� _ • � '�,�,:� . ��'� . . , -
� . � _ � � . , -� � ��.� . . . �� � . � �
d �
+ {'�r r �,�j!� �. P�." r �I
�� � A , �,��• �.F �,Jy , •; ��� ��F+ � � .. . I ' � ��. ' °f .�.f'3+,. .- „ � $+ � � 7
.
' d , � '
� .� . ��.,� ,� ,�'�� . �� � - .. ; . - . � '1�
4e f � ��r �,.+�j ..` '6
� . Y e 4 ' .. q�� � ..� .�� r �F�i � .F � - , €�.. ' +.
t
• •
t. �^� y`. ,,. ' • ' •. . � � � _
..�' CaQ�AC�� • `� `"' 2"I�IP' ..� � •f •�•.'�y.x ..,, �� � lr ,,� � r� " a J. , .. , .
.�
. � � .
� -
. . n
k _ •� i :. .J E ia.�ia. tit . .ti: i �� , ,. ., ' a �{� ��.:P.I�" II�".i _ , �'� " . _ {
• , �`• � • r°i , t� ' ' 6 �'' � a . . ��,�
�� :.��. . �.� . � - _.. . . � .. . . ,
�,e � � �:r� t .
,�„` •�. �:��r.��w ,� �� ..� '—s • ._ . ' .. _ .
� Ei r � . • .
� 5 � wl hQhF� � °d ��.? f� f �;;,, � �t^1 •t'IC i�ti � � _ �� '.�� • .
... '
, .� r � ..
r , , _ , . .
W
, �� , r�� . � . -,� w�s.c�� . _ ., _. , - �`
�.
`3°:.d � .. ��� � �� � ��
- ,��� ��, �' � �: , -.; �' ' ,� � ' � � -� � ��� ����#"� [� ° C.� ^5, . ppp� .
: ,. . .
.� � " . i� e '�+ ! 1? I}Il�ry � '0, � t•�K ' ,�:I yrv,rn-� � . . . � _ `yl ��� ��� �'� 4`•° - }�'
` {
. .,: •,� - ,. ._ ,.. ;a .� ,,�9�° - .� �r ��f1
_
. • :
� �9`. ,� � k1" ,A'+FF'�-�':,, •..:�:._ �a ... t ,`.,` , . . ,�`, � • • y,. �,.,, . , ` :B�•� � �r�� • �- - . S ���., ��� , �,.���,al
��,a ..� ••�.fJprt �''�'�°}:"' : !A�' .a� �,.�°�'� -_ � rx� �:"�'ac• : p °� �'a'�"" �•, "� u�•� �M- . _ . "1�J,�, ., . r ? •• • -._�. . . . � �
,. � , {. �" � : syr i� �� ry4 f i ,�" �`';-r � ",^�.° yCf �1 � f , x � d (
�;`''� r �•� �.�•" 5 �' d _�'� w,�� ... � ��i4 4-,�e� A�la.� � , .r�-. �.����_ ' .;� � .. ' �iJ d
' � . • Y�`'.�� . " -.,._. � �'�+ 3. .,� •r� ,•� 1 _ r �� 1 . , j . .
P J
.' . � �
� ,' , ' y- f . � �j .
... : � . . ' , '• .� - . . .
. ., " s� I
, , . �,,.� � � .d 4 •T rC r, . y^� .��� r.�.•. . �. i �1 : ' - ' -
.. � . . _ . .. . � . .: � � . .. ' . ..9.
�= y
:.. _ . �r .;�.'r �.t�� r�..q , �.�7�` ^ '�. ':.�.� ' ... ��'� . . . ���-
� •�_ �: • . � , Y + � ' y •
. ' °. . . - e<Y" . .^. d �'�.:. e .'..••. o- : e ; i � e T ��°,. . +} • M1 �,I ly . . " . ' .
� f •J-Cy.. � }.. t � { � � �4 � .. y}� l . s
,, :.. . � � � % e� y
• �" g�J , .s i ' F• �.r?r'� +� �. � � ` �r
����� ..i . .°a• ', !, �"^'. G'ti:a. �� ;k- f il= . ,�� �4 1�y73 ;g _ � . �� �ti�`f - �7°, �+`�.•� �K�. _�
� {� ..��� . � ��
. . '�. �: ti .�,� � .
�`: .I �°�7$� � °I�h"�$F�� � , . ^w' .� �v �. . .
r .. . �� - . ° •
s , ' '' ,
�- • ;u `' F 1i •�7�57 , '�•• � � � �� � �, . .
d� ; �'. �,I �y{� �
�..
�' �'�_-'y,4,,�� ,.�� a ��• � ��� �� �PSiY � �•, . . ` y . ' L ��1�.� '� . � ry '�v
� ' y.� , ° � F � ' �' . P
_ t. ,�
. �. F'�r ��� �� �
. . . ._, , �
,. . F '�,,
r� �t.{?� y' . : .� � . . � .' ,� G r l�� Y'1� {L 4 .' W'i^�� � '�'— �� .� • � � �� :ti4
. . {�, : - _ .�
` � k� J . , . :� ,.°.. . � - • c�-�- .a�.,uy-ai -�. • ,'�i�'_�'�1-.�`'� �� - w � .;�, q . � 7:: .r ,� ..�i.�. „�' � . . . .
f� � 4 _ . .�• ' ,+ .R .
�--.^F ' '- � y � � �ti„ � ' � a-f.' , � L,' � .. a-. � .� � �41 .� ' , �� �'� � �. . ... l� � . •
, �� .��� � .� .,�: � _��t�, :�` + "ti - ; �'�� � �,
�. : • +kv . Y S. �" .
, * ...a . ' � •—. . .�4 ,,t. . �!' • . .
,
�-
.� .9�dc'.= � r��o-.:k -•-_ ° 1�,,. ��� • ��•"`+ti=Y ' f� - - .
. � `� ' , � �+r ��
' �
�.�,. .. �_ , ' , . l . � . ,�,`
. . . , . .,
.. � a� }�.
� ,� •.�� � s � �: � ,�t . : �,� .. :� _ � �
�� . . � � - 1 , : .., •.. r-' �'�,. ��. �. � . � 4 . � 5i ��. �
. � �'
1� °lL ,sr,:, , . .J�'a+C�' ,P-4.�. 'a . ,`� _ .�,.
�I !�i �+ ��r�r�•4 L,� ;.. �~ s� .
C,. �F }!
�i �4$� • 4 °'..[,� � a.�,^r�-� �� - � � '�t� �� � ���'� , ' . . �'�;�; °� ' �'n-�.. *. s..J . . �� . �, �, ..
r �''�-� r _��� ��a •� „ • � J , r, ' .," e �:� �� �j' ' , "�'�, . • ���-. , . .
� ,• ,� . __
}.—�,�,2� � • . �� 1 k � ,� . [•y�'�"�7•� � ,.�, �` ,.' • ���°' e , .. ••� � .�.� "" ��} ^}� � I
�V
r '�1r.:� �+ �;�v'�5� � � � r�1�•' i� � �M1���� � - � ""� ��n J� ,�n lF r���.�C7.rt• � ' �..
���'�.,{'�J .�;. " 1 ��:_ ti_ �.�-va..�, � ,"•: ' �. � L �:.;� � _ ,��, � � � �..�_ i} '" . -..
. ya -
-' '. . ' t� '��..�, '. �� � �{ .�y�, �� '�-�.
z • . F� " # � �r..F. _ ;;
� B FFl`'
`. , _
.. - '�° s , r �.' .�' e jlG ' ._.rr_ � '_ ,� 4,4. �€ • ': . ' _ _ . �+
�
, , - :, • : a . .. .: � �. _ r
, ::
, ' s�
; • � � �� • , . �. . , . �
_ . �
,
. . . . ��
, . . , .: ,., _„ , , . f ,
v
f �.a ...�" •'� .F � ����•,� ����'�9�� �.��,�•� �
� � , �
i' • . _i 'q� �� f . ^.. ,�, r� '+�' * � " ' � {+ r,�. .r�� � . , . : ° �r� . . . v
. • ,. ,
... . �. . .. , '� . .. . �i �^" �ti�e � ' �. i �'j • i A �r�� -f•' '�� ' -� E ri
Figure 4.38. Proctor and vicinity in 1943 (TVA 1943).
Medlin. The next significant settlement up Hazel Creek was Medlin, which was located at the confluence
of the Sugar Fork (or Haw Creek) and the main stem of Hazel Creek, several miles northeast of Proctor.
The settlement acquired its name from early settler Marion Medlin, who established a store there in the
late 1800s (Anonymous 1984a). A post office was opened at Medlin (under the name Bone) in 1885; its
name was changed to Medlin in 1887 (Stroupe 1996:3-258, 3-261). In the early 1900s, Medlin was the
site of the residence and store of Granville Calhoun, as well as a handful of other buildings. To the
northwest of Medlin, up the Little Fork of the Sugar Fork, was the Adams Mine, which was operated
discontinuously from the late 1880s until the 1940s (see above). The Medlin post of�ce was discontinued
in 1920 (Stroupe 1996:3-261), but a small community serving as the offices of the Hazel Creek Mine
(Holland 2001:48) was present there when the TVA mapped it in 1942.
Medlin and Hazel Creek were to acquire a degree of literary fame due to their association with Horace
Kephart, an outdoorsman and former librarian from St. Louis who came to the Smokies in 1904 seeking
the "Back of Beyond" (Kephart 1976:29). After spending a short tune near Dillsboro northeast of Bryson
City, Kephart moved to the Medlin area at the end of October 1904, and soon settled into an unoccupied
house at the former Adams Mine on the Little Fork of Sugar Creek, about two miles northwest of Medlin
(Ellison 1976:xxx).
I picked out the upper settlement of Hazel Creek, far up under the lee of those Smoky Mountains
... . On the edge of this settlement, scant two miles from the post-office of Medlin, there was a
copper mine, long disused on account of litigation, and I got permission to occupy one of its
abandoned cabins.
A mountain settlement consists of all who get their mail at the same place. Ours was made up of
forty-two households (about two hundred souls) scattered over an area eight miles long by two
wide. ... Fifteen homes had no wagon road, and could be reached by no vehicle other than a
narrow sled.
Medlin itself comprised two little stores built of rough planks and bearing no signs, a corn mill,
and four dwellings. A mile and a half away was the log schoolhouse, which, once or twice a
month, served also as church. Scattered about the settlement were several tiny tubmills for
grinding corn, some of them mere open sheds with a capacity of about a bushel a day. Most of the
dwellings were built of logs. Two or three, only, were weatherboarded frame houses and attained
the dignity of a story and a half [Kephart 1976:30-31].
Kephart's home on the Little Fork served as his base during over two years of rambling over Hazel Creek
and the adjacent mountains. Many of his adventures were recorded in a series of magazine articles that
later became the basis for an illustrated volume entitled Our Southern Highlanders (1976; originally
1913), his account of life in the `Back of Beyond." The book contained dramatic vigneties of life on
Hazel Creek and in the Smokies, including accounts of encounters with blockaders (moonshiners) and of
a bear hunt (probably based at the Hall herder's cabin on the divide at the head of Chestnut Ridge).
Kephart left Hazel Creek for Bryson City in 1907, and in later years became a major proponent of a
national park in the Smokies (Casada 1988; Ellison 1976). In addition to Our Southern Highlanders,
aspects of his life on Hazel Creek and elsewhere in the vicinity were featured in a variety of other
publications, including Camping and Woodcraft (1988) and Camp Cookery (1931). Kephart died in an
automobile accident in 1931, leaving behind his literary legacy and a somewhat tangled reputation (e.g.,
Alley 1941:472-497; Carden 2002; Casada 1988; Ellison 1976; Gore 1987; Oliver 1989:83b-85;
McDade n.d.; Middleton 1999; David Monteith, personal communication 2003).
The Sugar Fork area also played a role in another literary wark, Grace Lumpkin's 1932 novel To Make
My Bread (Lumpkin 1995), which was the basis for a popular Depression-era play titled Let Freedom
Ring (Bein 1936). The book
•�
revolves around a family of Appalachian mountaineers—small farmers, hunters, and moonshiners—
driven by economic conditions to the milltown and transformed into millhands, strikers, and
rebels against the established order [Sowinska 1995].
While this novel is known for its account of the Gastonia (North Carolina) textile strike of 1929, the early
part of the book is set on the Sugar Fork and in other areas along Hazel Creek, and features such place
names as Possum Hollow and Thunderhead. Lumpkin gained her lcnowledge of life in the area first-hand,
having spent about three months there in 1923, during which she lived at the Club House at Proctor while
making occasional visits to families in outlying areas (Oliver 1989:85-86, 1991).
A short distance up Hazel Creek from Medlin is Bone Valley, which received its name from the large
quantity of cattle who died nearby during a major blizzard sometime in the early 1880s. As of about 1906,
the valley was occupied by members of the Hall, Proctor, Cable, and other families (Kephart n.d.). Bone
Valley School house was located on Hazel Creek near its confluence with Bone Valley Creek, and served
members of the local community as well as those located further up Hazel Creek, including the Calhoun,
Cook, and Hall families.
By the 1940s, most of the upper reaches of Hazel Creek were owned by J.G. (Jim) Strikeleather et al.,
with most other sizeable tracts in the possession of the Hazel Creek Land Company and the heirs of J.E.
Coburn. Strikeleather was "an Asheville developer who had served as both highway commissioner and
park booster" (Taylar 2001:50). He had purchased several thousand acres of former Ritter land and
formed the Strikeleather Lumber Company with the apparent intent of logging the upper reaches of Bone
Valley, but upon realizing the recreational potential of the area joined with Judge Smathers of
Waynesville to form the Hazel Creek Fishing and Outing Club (Gasque 1948:20-27; Holland 2001:202;
Oliver 1989:88, 1998b). Strikeleather's holdings included the former mill site at Proctor and most of
Hazel Creek upstream, much in two large tracts totaling almost 6,500 acres. Strikeleather built two lodges
or clubhouses as well as cabins, and attracted anglers from across the east. Contemporary accounts
describe a fisherman's paradise that was patrolled by rangers and only occasionally invaded by
interloping children from Proctor (Gasque 1948:24-26).
A similar hunting lodge was established in 1940 further up Bone Valley by the Kress family (of
department store fame), and incorporated a log cabin built by Crate Hall in 1892 (Gordon 1973; Holland
2001:202; Oliver 1989:88; Parris 1978). Along with the Calhoun House at Proctor, the Hall Cabin is one
of the two suroiving domestic structures remaining in the North Shore area of GSMNP (see Chapter 5).
(This Hall Cabin is not the herder's cabin described by Kephart [1976], however.)
In recent years, Hazel Creek primarily has been known as a trout stream, for its ties to Horace Kephart,
and for its role in the ongoing North Shore Road controversy. The stream has been featured in books,
articles, poems (e.g., Laney 1986; Oliver 1986), songs (Brown 2003; Gore 1987), and a videotape
(Appalachian History Series 1995), and most recently has appeared in a dramatic monologue titled
Birdell, in which an 86-year-old mountain woman tells of her life on Hazel Creek prior to the Fontana
Project (Carden n.d.).
Eagle Creek and Fontana. The Eagle Creek drainage meets the Little Tennessee River about two miles
west of Hazel Creek. Although Eagle Creek, like Hazel Creek, is one of the major drainages on the North
Shore, it had a rather different settlement history (and has received considerably less historical and
literary attention). Eagle Creek was sparsely settled during the nineteenth century. When Zeigler and
Grosscup (1883:145) went up the creek in the early 1880s, they encountered:
a narrow trail wind[ing] on the wild banks along its waters. At its mouth we turned from the Little
Tennessee, and for ten miles pursued this trail without passing a house.
Only about seven families lived on Eagle Creek at the turn of the twentieth century, but the situation
changed rapidly when the Montvale Lumber Company began operating in the area a few years later
91
(Oliver 1992). The principal settlement on Eagle Creek was the original village of Fontana, a tent camp
established (first as McLin) along lower Eagle Creek in 1906 by Montvale (Holland 2001:203; Lambert
1958b:42-46; Stroupe 1996:3-260, 3-262). The initial camp was soon replaced by what has been termed
"the second Fontana," which was located at the confluence of the creek and the river (Figure 4.39).
Fontana was a typical lumber town, and included a band mill, commissary, hotel, and houses (Holland
2001:203-204). This version of Fontana thrived until the late 1920s, when Montvale ceased operations.
Unlike other areas nearby, industry did not leave Eagle Creek along with the lumber industry. In 1931
Montvale sold the town of Fontana to the North Carolina Exploration Company, which had succeeded the
Fontana Mining Company as operators of the Fontana Mine (Holland 2001:204).
Copper mining on Eagle Creek began in 1926, when the Fontana Mining Company leased a site on a
small tributary to Ecoah Branch (itself a tributary on the east side of Eagle Creek) and began operations.
The ore from the Fontana Mine was brought by rail to an ore dump at the Carolina and Tennessee
Southern Railway tracks at Fontana, from which it was shipped to a smelter in Tennessee for processing
(Holland 2001:54-55). The inine was serviced by a small village located on either side of Ecoah Branch,
which included bunkhouses, boarding houses, a doctor's office, machine shop, and other buildings.
Although mining on Eagle Creek ceased in 1944, the owner of the mine (then the Cities Services Realty
Corporation) was allowed to retain a 2,343-acre tract surrounding the mine. The tract was finally
incorporated into GSMNP in 1983 (Holland 2001:56-57).
Fontana appears as a settlement of only 10-12 structures on the 1935 planimetric map (USGS 1935),
although the 1943 land acquisition maps show a slightly greater settlement density. Although Fontana
Project Construction Camp No. 1 was later io be built at the mouth of a small cove only a few thousand
feet downstream (see below), the Eagle Creek drainage apparently never saw the growth of shack housing
that occurred in the lower reaches of Hazel Creek, presumably because the land remained in the hands of
the North Carolina Exploration Company. The town of Fontana met iis end about 1943, when it was
bought for $50.00 by a local resident who dismantled the structures and shipped the lumber to Hazelwood
(in Haywood County) by rail (Holland 2001:189; Oliver 1993:114—ll5).
One noted twentieth-century resident of Eagle Creek was Quill Rose (1841-1912), who lived and made
whiskey above Camp Ten Branch, a short distance outside the study area (Murless and Stallings
1973:209-210). Rose acquired notoriety as early as the 1880s, when he and his brother Jake were
featured in a travel book titled The Heart of the Alleghenies (Zeigler and Grosscup 1883:145-165). In
later years Rose was an acquaintance of Horace Kephart, and appeared by name in Our Southern
Highlanders (Oliver 1998a:204, 211, 2002:15).
Fairfax. The community of Fairfax was located at the mouth of a small cove on the north side of the
Little Tennessee about four river miles downstream from Eagle Creek. A post office was present at
Fairfax from 1878 to 1912 (Stroupe 1996:3-260). By the 1930s only a single structure was located at the
mouth of the cove, although the New Fairfax school was about 1.5 miles further east along NC 288.
Numerous structures are shown in this area on the TVA (1943) land acquisition map, however, and may
have been part of a community known as Tipton Camp (see below).
Kitchenville. The Kitchen Lumber Company built the town of Kitchenville in the Fairfax area about
1921 in order to facilitate logging on Twenty Mile Creelc downriver. Since the construction of Cheoah
Lake in 1919 had eliminated road access to Twenty Mile Creek, the company built a town and band mill
at Kitchenville, and connected it to the railroad terminus at Fontana with a standard gauge railroad. A
sternwheeler steamboat named Vivian was used to transport logs from Twenty Mile Creek to
Kitchenville, where they were sawn into lumber that was shipped out to the east via rail (Holland
'�
�
f�'�-11=��:a�;�_ f•nF�L�
_ —�
�, North
- � �� � �.��
~ � �� '� 0 2000
T _ �
� � '�m � ��
�'� � � .. Feet
� -°�
. �' � �� ,,�
���,� , - ' `,
�' k,� qL,' , ''; •'. ,
� � _ =��T *� f �l..'
' �. +# � �° �'���"�E�M�,ME �
i f � p 4 �
:� 5
�� � �� ,'� � 5# ''~7�A
� � � '�
�,. . ,
� — �_ � �. �� ; I' _ � P � '
� ,�� � �5 .���� °• � _ ��QM �.��` '�
� r �
`...,9� �I � �, �. J r T� ti � � '' � � �`''� .
.,°y i. � _- -_ . _ �5 � i ar� '�� e� :..,. •
,•• q - ...
� 4� �5I
L!:' � �} �. � �� f _v �.l -� �� � �
� � �
� ��
�'I �'y� �� �� '� 1
'' T ,,� ?S�' .'� _ � � � j ~ � � L'�,
�
. I�^�=�� �� � � � �� '6' �� � �� � � �� °
. � � � � � �
, �� � ,rw' � �
.. �
,, { � � y ' � �, ..
� -Y,
, � f A `�,. s�r a�, �a �
� r�
`I Y' � . � � � � � �'�,� � � '
.. � � �
,� ���id ti • I
,, •-
iy ! .: ��,.i�3��� e �, ''� ~� '�
_a �� �� � � �"� .
'' ro� _,- � � 3�9 � t _ � � ��
�,r� �: � � �� . � � � L��
- 3'� { � � 1 , '• ?x
I � m 1�i29. ,� � �Y
�; S1'. °.i. P .
�
� ' � ��
. _ �, � '� .
__ i � r � �
e s � � I� � ' '� A' + �
.�: ` � 1 � �'�'Y�'
.�,' r � �*�e � � � � �
L j� � � $� 1� � — 'w
} ? � -�- �
�"� � f � �$� �' � a
� � ° �� `�
d � $ ., � � � � `••.
r� �
t��oa?i�nb � { �
�! � ' tc� �
' � ,4 k, ' � �w i a � � �
� � �
� � �
•f.�. � �� � � . ' �, �' �
� � - *�� i �' �r {�
� ���
- �
' �: � _ � ,��
� �' }
� _� ,� � � .
�vj` �r �i
, ,, � � # a. � 1_ 's��q � �
F'•�o vF ��� � _ — — ' — — . i
. . , �` — . _ _.�4 . . . ..
r
' . _�3ry., �� r � •
Figure 4.39. Fontana and Eagle Creek area in 1935.
93
_ �_ �Ta,.� �
� �°:;�,,� .,,'' �
'� � ��n�;
�� , ��� �
� ����,i �
'�'�f+r,fr �i
� � ° • "�r�
f •?'L l�F'fS�Fi`�
.r
���.
fe
2001:87-88, 135). No trace of Kitchenville is evident on the 1935 map (USGS 1935), and the company
had apparently ceased cutting in the area by 1926.
Tipton Camp. A small community called Tipton Camp was located below the Fontana dam site in the
early 1940s, apparently on property leased (possibly from the Carolina Aluminum Company) by a man
named Tipton, possibly along NC 288 above Fairfax. When acquired by the TVA, this and nearby
Coburn properties contained "extensive shack developments," including over 70 structures (TVA
1950:201, 485).
It was the first instance where TVA owned and leased for occupancy substandard housing of this
character. An adequate potable water supply, sanitary privies, and means for fire protection were
made available, but the camp lacked other community facilities and the erection of additional
shacks was not permitted [TVA 1950:201].
South Shore Towns and Communities
Judson. The town of Judson was situated on either side of the Little Tennessee River, about two and a
half miles southeast of Bushnell and about two miles north of Almond (Figures 4.40 and 4.41). Most
buildings in Judson were on the east bank of ihe river, which was connected by a bridge to the Southern
Railway, which ran along the west bank. Judson was a small farming community that flourished briefly
during the 1910s and 1920s when the Whiting Manufacturing Company (which was to log much of
eastern Graham County) built a band mill and facilities nearby (Brown 2000:50; Millsaps and Millsaps
1992:8). A post office had been opened in 1886, and operated until it was disconiinued in 1944 (St�oupe
1996:3-261). Earlier operations in the area by the Buchanan Lumber Company had been centered on
Panther Creek some distance to the west, and probably had not greatly affected Judson itself (Anonymous
1908a).
A 1929 map was made shortly after Whiting left the area, and shows about 25 residences (primarily on
the east side of the river), along with Baptist and Methodist Episcopal churches, a school, a post ofiice,
four stares, and both freight and passenger depots. The 1936 planimetric map (USGS 1936c) shows
slightly fewer structures within one-half mile of the town center. A former resident describes Judson in
1943 as having four stores and a sawmill on the east side of the river, with a post office, garage, mill,
store, and barber shop on the west (Greene n.d.; c£ Oliver 1998a:484) (Figure 4.42). The Judson
Elementary School was on a hill above the depot (west of the river), in a former hotel building dating to
the Whiting era. The 1943 TVA land acquisition map indicates that many town lots in Judson had been
purchased by NP&L since 1929, and that several no longer held structures. The town retained a sense of
community, however, and TVA researcher Arnold Hyde praised the residents of Judson and nearby
Ahnond for their attempts to "keep community spirit alive" and for showing the initiative to build small
hydroelectric plants (Hyde 1944b:2-4).
Judson in 1943 has been described as a community of about 600 people (Greene n.d.). That figure
compares well with the recorded population of nearby Almond in 1940, and both figures clearly include
population from the surrounding countryside (see Table 4.1). TVA records suggest that Judson and
Almond supported 143 families in 1940 (Brown 2000:156).
Whiting. The rail stop of Whiting was located a few hundred yards north of Judson along the Murphy
Branch of the Southern Railway. Although described by the Southern Railway (1912) as a place of great
promise, Whiting is not depicted on the KPC (1914) or NP&L (1932) acquisition maps, the 1936
planimetric map (USGS 1936c), or the TVA (1943) land acquisition maps.
Almond. The town of Almond was on the east bank of the Nantahala River, about two miles south of
Judson and immediately south of the confluence of the Nantahala and Little Tennessee. Like Judson,
•.
Figure 4.40. Judson and vicinity in 1936.
95
8
Pl�'UIG `h.�-F1. JUUJVII �V1GW W IIVILIIGA�L�.
�
J
I_.�i��] A��!�rf�ITi�]+4
r_.�, _— L� F� � hR�k�'
T{1ile ��' :S"Y'9Y 3
'sfl.+'+� LL 1 �r I i .aPr;��si ,..
. . . a� ����n
F44�T� wa,� � E jC`a kr[i'•R
"w ..;�.r�cr �4'
• �•�•� r�.::�.
�'��rrr
� s � � .
�" � �
L
° f"�-��6 ..'4 ' �� f`.r. .__ "_ i. ,.-
:� ,..� X .
'� f � � . � ��.�
r.�'t+e� y '' rr 7.r l_.. �. � j1 �_ ., .
f '-' � 1 iY� -y�, . �
�f� `°,�{. �'� �
h�r
�i m .t �� �' �� , �, �
. � � ` �'� • r" � -' �?]
li�d.9s. �� .'� ° ��}'Wj� � �. - .i15E
_. „�, �`�� �.kr t ,+
. "�° .. ..� + .
f•YJ� �.
I C�erl33Cr �.si � �J'F'-7 �"�' . . : � � . �r . . .
.4 �. '� . .,+
�� . r�' .' .. .
T ,�� en_ di � .. - ' ' _.h'� h!�
.
:�
`- __- �
, ��{� • � �a �PF� 'aT ++' �� €i y.� �0.. ' C J+!e.°•iv '
. - - . .. .. ' , „�' f � . .�p -
R�al. C � ..e 1.6` , . � , • 4` 1 'tZ - '� T� • � � i
ll
'Fk
�19�! � e� ,w
�PJIctT�Al�lG� . il�a��J Ih Mi•jil K �l�t� ���� �' � ���l,.� {.I� J}YJM..��. . YL., �FY .. 5 „ _
' . � � � • + �•'.�M . �,'i'41 �+,r. � JdCA� . �.
JF
a n h . t�:. `Y , .,'r, +t�. y� - 'F �„� r1' . � � � �r , I ' .
.: - F� k µ � . 3 ,,.
.,• i **y�v�� �
}'r � d L .
s
¢.., J : �,. � `.c�.. , yp r ''', . � 4��r i..' rt�.
. �"'F!?a „ .
� • ..+t�� arf�� _. . . /'�st. _,�,��'�'r.°¢ "9r� ��?qy�f' ' a��� �+1 �,` • � � ..
a. •�' +wsLi.uh •� F' �• � . � `-;ts�pf �f Ps'I � ` �� �e4 ,.
. ^M1e � �' . T74. ; .
• , n �
4
�' 'x Y.,.n �e�r` F��av ``r'+r'�" '`'� =� " � i
,' �� . �,"� + ` � �� .,�, 'av.°''a �' co 't �:.•`w. _. . � �'� � . . .
. � T � F,� � �. ':� •. � a�u . �i. ' , f'f. °�. �/..s 'F � .�`� ..
� . ' , �- . .
r
. }�• [
� �°4.i�34 i' . � , Ks
r ' • r+�c: •. . . +F�
;: � f ��? .f'� :�,4� � �a ' ..o � i o.a. �:� . ri.� ' � � . . , . �
�
� � � � . � .��" . . ���4� ��:� �. �,�:. g �� � � �P .
�
,,� ,. .r . r - _ , .
•; � ,, � � ��� ,�-inalr F � LRd u1RY � l, y �` � �� �J ��,�1i � � •',' e`�..� 4Ti � +{ e
W{F 5� y � � �' � � ,+� R
:�' ,KT fT � • • � � , � 1��. �A ��;^ 4 i . � �. � � �� }�r'9 �
. S f
. _ r •" • ' _., _ � �.°L�\�. : : .� , .
.t � ' �
: .. ,- � , n ,- ± �� ,," _ �
,� � . �r � � „�� , � • ° r'
� �, , _. .:•°`° � , �r`.� .__.°�,a, ,�F ��� .'. '`}��'�.�...� rr�.R.,�.�iar��+��� . .z+ev�,° ���, + .,e. .
Q �4 � .
�� � t� .. ,.,.•° �1r�.� ��� � � 3� xk F �R��: �� � "'a. � +rq�}e,
r a
� •L�ii. , �.�� .. . ° � �_..,� ,�� '�2r' . !�pS�l. `y�T �-Mh:sE^'r.' .
+-�t�,.�d � �•a ,'`�� �
.
. , .: � � � ,4 7 �l�i�v _ � . � 'n
� yis {y
- . . � �j,�� �' �'�d�[Ri�T J~� ,r •a°A7ia �S'. �.'N.� � . . .' �S� .� ..
r: � . R � * `` � _ s
. s ..•' �_ � �I � l�"� �� J�9YVa ', ° �r � ''1 C3 "� °,�a, ° '. '
, •LT �
� . ' � . � , d . � { • . °. �i- j�'� - . ' , �.
: ' �d' . . .
' .. � .�u. $� '° f� �+ � �y�� � . �� . rv . .. , Y �4 _ P ,, ��} , -' �.
� 8Li � 9 `y , .,� � ,� . . ." ..� . _ , � ... .
.�� �'s[ dr d. : �'1�, . � 4r
,' �� � � �y,� , �. �' �, , ,.° �. � . r11�'}� ' ° •
-' �F.� . m �l7 ; - �. .. 3ll�y �Y�ii�i�� - _ f�iJ �,��i1JF �1C�•! � �
�J6 L f'O y .. `ry :_�. ea - - 1 ;i � .
�"fl.�: ' � � 7IiP,°'k' S�� w ` �� , ., �e.
4 . ' • l � •� 4
_ _ _._ �
(� 'P.
t �',,� �� �° , i�J �k, �,.�'_` . � �a � . . `.; ' ,��Fr _.' '
.._ ~ . .. ^"�. ,°.•' ,.. _ , �
vrrn � � ' ,= ¢� � � .'_.�.�._ �.., J - � ' .: �l�.� �.._ .e! � ,� �.,_v . . . �.�
r.
�� � .•��" .. - ,�
..,.� - .. ' ., .
..� �sA T e�,�•'��'�' S ra�p, :.v . .�� n �. .
, -
� � � + PIIfYI �fiGi '� � ' �o �i Tie�S �L .
' � isrr.,e ' �� 5��, �� rx�,� . �''., �` r*� • � .
� ,� ��., 1' � � �. ..,�,y � � �y�_ r, � .� s. � � -�" a � � .
A
y k �
s F �^ . i�. � M1'` � — �' � �;;'�, ' �h Caiel n .
� _ �P§ �.��7i�LY�QT�R7G1!i#{.�I�Jp�.
a
• a �._
�,. � r� � . ��� 9�`-•a � � ° i� ea.�� r��-�a,e.� �rr.�r���r�e ar�rr. ..
� .rt. � ��a -_ , '° .;r.,�p,�r,� �.��.r�+e-: .
. o., o.�t $ . dL r .r.s diti��ll� �: - .
r'r� .; r�+t �� J� . �*- "� _ - �r�� � .� F1�te� ,� „
o� �� �+� � . _��� ;�,��' °�c4vavr.a . �
- - � � �t-.�. - . ' _, .�..
;' r • �� .
. ,� ��.v.y iL�.�+Fli.a��C�S�l��1"�9AI �
��- . _ . , :��Nn __ �,$.�tj�.ly�,4P'
'+F.- � e . � �.. ... . _
- • .. . ... . .. 'l..JM^I =J�- !WCS�'�#� �
.v y .. ... . . - „ ._ . .. . + . a _'e � - '+:M. ia• : .u'J.., q+
Figure 4.42. Judson in 1943 (TVA 1943).
Almond was primarily an agricultural community. A post office was established at Almond (as Sophia) in
1886; it was renamed Nantehala (sic) in 1889 before becoming Almond in 1892 (Stroupe 1996:3-258, 3-
262, 3-263). Almond was incorporated in 1905, and in 1912 the Southern Railway described it as the
"location of what, in the future, promises to be really important lumbering and mining operations"
(Southern Railway 1912:38). The town's population reached 146 in 1920, but dwindled thereafter as
many residents sold their properties to NP&L and moved away (Hyde 1944b:2-4). The 1940 census
reported a population of 613 for Almond, which likely included residents of nearby Judson and outlying
communities.
A 1915 KPC map suggests that buildings were concentrated along the bottomlands along the Nantahala
River; higher areas to the east had been subdivided bui apparently did not contain structures (Figure
4.43). A few structures were present in that area by 1929, and a new high school had been built on the hill
overlooking the river (probably on the former site of Fort Lindsey). As at Judson, the 1943 land
acquisition maps show many vacant lots owned by NP&L, but depicts the post office, depot, and Almond
Baptist Church along with three school buildings. A concrete bridge carried NC Highway 10 across the
Little Tennessee River to the north, while highway and railroad bridges crossed the Nantahala River to
the west.
The Almond area was part-time home to writer Olive Tilford Dargan from 1906-1944, and the town
appeared (as Beebread) in her novels Call Home the Heart (Burke 1932) and A Stone Came Rolling
(Burke 1935), both written under the pseudonym of Fielding Burke. Dargan had acquired land on Round
Top (along the Swain/Graham County line west of Almond, and within the study area) as early as 1906,
and lived in a succession of homes there and in Almond for almost 40 years. In addition to her novels,
which discussed the plight of a mountain woman forced to leave her home for "the horror of the industrial
promised land" (Neufield 2001:276), Dargan featured Almond in a 1941 story collection called From My
Highest Hill: Carolina Mountain Folks (Dargan 1941), a rewarking of her earlier wark Highland Annals
(Dargan 1925) that also included photographs by Bayard Wootten. Dargan owned two parcels of land
(TVA Acquisition Parcels FR-828 and FR-836) across the Little Tennessee from Almond until their
acquisition by the TVA in 1944, and sold the remainder of her property in the Round Top area the same
year (Neuiield 2001).
Swain. The community of Swain appears on the 1906 map on the northeast bank of the Little Tennessee,
almost due east of Almond near the present US 19 river crossing (USGS l 906). Little is known about this
communiry, but a post office was first established in the area (under the name Nantahala) in 1873. The
name was changed to Swain in 1889, and the office was discontinued in 1915 (Stroupe 1996:3-262, 3-
263). By 1943 most of the land in the area was owned by NP&L (TVA 1943).
Japan. The small community of Japan (pronounced .Iay pan) was situated at the confluence of Wolf
Creek and Panther Branch, about one and one-half miles up Panther Creek from its confluence with the
Little Tennessee. The community first acquired a post office in 1881 under the name of Welch, which
was changed to Homestead in 1892 and to Japan in 1903 (Stroupe 1996:2-60, 2-62). The name Japan
apparently derived from a variety of wild clover that grew in the vicinity (Anonymous 1984b; Wikle
1988:29). By the early 1900s the community contained a post office, school, store, church, and several
houses, and "served as a supply source for the surrounding countryside which included a luinbering
business" (Wikle 1988:29), presumably the Buchanan/Whiting operations on Panther Creek discussed by
the American Lumberman (Anonymous 1908a) (see above). The 1936 map depicts only a handful of
houses and the Panther Creek Church within one-half mile of the stream confluence, although the post
office reportedly served about 30 families (Brewer and Brewer 1975:258). An undated photograph
illustrated by Oliver (1998a:370) depicts the Mashburn mill and store at Japan, apparently during
reservoir clearing operations in the early 1940s.
•,
- -o--- -- --- --- - �-� --i ----r -- - --------
��
With the advent of World War II, Japan gained a degree of notoriety due to its name, and there was
considerable discussion of renaming the community MacArthur (Wikle 1988:29). The name was never
changed, however, and the community died as Japan (Anonymous 1984; Brewer and Brewer 1975:258;
Wikle 1988:29).
Brock and Sawyer Creek Area. Brock was a small community along Sawyer Creek south of its
confluence with Stecoah Creek, near where present-day NC 28 crosses Sawyer Creek. A post office was
established at Brock in 1903, but was discontinued in 1931 (Stroupe 1996:2-60). The 1936 map (USGS
1936e) depicts scattered houses and two mills in the vicinity. Brock lay outside the reservoir pool and
acquisition limits for Fontana Reservoir, and most of the community site remains in private ownership.
Stecoah, Hidetown, and Stecoah Creek Area. The town of Stecoah is located on and adjacent to a large
expanse of bottomland along Stecoah Creek, at its confluence with Dry Creek and Carver and Edwards
branches, and about six miles upstream from its confluence with the Little Tennessee River (Figure 4.44).
This was the former site of the Removal-era Cherokee settlement of Stekoah Town, and Euro-American
settlement of the area apparently began almost immediately after 1838. Early settlers in the Stecoah Creek
area included members of the Crisp, Cody, Taylor, Gunter, Jenkins, Lovin, and Medlin families
(Anonymous 1972:62):
Along the road to Robbinsville, far fifteen miles, the predominating family is Crisp. It is Crisp
who lives in the valley, on the mountain side, in the woods, by the mill, on the bank of Yellow
Creek, and in numerous unseen cabins up the coves [Zeigler and Grosscup 1883:104].
A post office was established at Stecoah in 1874, and was discontinued in 1958 (Stroupe 1996:2-61).
Stecoah was relatively isolated from Robbinsville, the county seat, until a connector was built to NC 10 at
Judson in 1927 (Hyde 1944b:2-3).
With the exception of Bryson City, Stecoah was the largest community in the study area to escape
inundation by Fontana Lake, although the area was included in the TVA's economic studies for the
reservoir. The 1936 map (USGS 1936d) depicts a dispersed community (including nearby Hidetown)
containing a mill, church, and school. The Stecoah community (which subsumed Japan, Tuskeegee,
Sawyer's Creek, and Stecoah) received considerable criticism from Arnold Hyde, the TVA researcher,
who described "homes in poor condition," lacking running water and with pigs running "loose around the
house," which he attributed to the "reluctance of the mountaineer to make modern improvement and
develop a cooperative community spirit" (such as Hyde had reported for the Almond and Judson
communities) (Hyde 1944b:2-3). The Stecoah community was described further as:
strictly dependent on agriculture despite the fact that the income received from agricultural
sources is small. Practically all families grow vegetables for home use. A large part of the cash
income from the farm is derived from wood products; however, the cost and distance involved in
getting these goods to market cuts the profit to a minimum. The average income of the farm
family in 1941 was $409.43. A part of this was earned from public works projects and various odd
jobs during the non-farm season [Hyde 1944b:4].
Hyde concluded that:
The Stecoah Community as a whole will not be seriously affected by the creation of Fontana
Lake. Over 90 percent of the land lying below contour is not suitable for agricultural purposes.
The flooding of the land would have little, if any, effect on the lumber and pulp wood industry.
All accessible timbered land has been cut over. ...
The community will suffer a net loss of thirry families. ...
11
�-
0
�
Figure 4.44. Stecoah and vicinity in 1936.
The changes brought about by the program of the Authority have offered new opportunities to
dissatisfied families, who realize the futility of the struggle with proverty [sic] in their present
environment. The individual not only will be freed from resiricted circumstances, but the
community as a whole will profit by the advantages afforded by the creation of Fontana Lake.
With proper leadership and guidance, Graham County with its ideal climate, scenic attractions,
and opportunities for the sportsman should become one of the leading tourist resorts of the Smoky
Mountain Region [Hyde 1944b:4-5].
Tuskeegee Creek. Tuskeegee Creek enters the Little Tennessee River about two miles downstream from
Stecoah Creek, and the two drainages are only from one to two miles apart for much of their lengths. In
the 1930s communities along the creeks were connected by a paved road that followed the general route
of modern NC 28 across Chestnut Log Gap. Early settlers in the Tuskeegee area included members of the
Breedlove, Cable, Crisp, Dean, Garland, Golden, Guge, Higdon, and Jenkins families, and Tuskeegee was
reportedly a bustling community in the early 1900s (Millsaps and Millsaps 1992:7). A post office
operated at Tuskeegee from 1903 to 1954 (Stroupe 1996:2-62).
The 1936 planimetric map (USGS 1936e) indicates the dispersed village of Tuskeegee, consisting of a
few houses and a nearby mill, centered along Tuskeegee Creek about one mile south of its confluence
with the Little Tennessee. Due to the steepness of the local terrain, most of this area was above the
reservoir pool and was not acquired by the TVA. The present-day community of Tuskeegee is mapped a
few miles up the creek, at its intersection with NC 28 (USGS 1961/87b).
Two adjacent islands in the Little Tennessee are designated "Higgins Islands" on the planimetric map
(USGS 1936e), and no structures are shown on the islands or nearby. The TVA land acquisition survey
found that one island (covering 2.17-acres) had been divided into 34 lots, however, and termed it the
W.C. Collins et al. subdivision. The 341ots ranged in size from 0.03 to about 0.40 acres, and had at least
26 different owners. No structures are depicted on the map, however (TVA 1943). A nearby mainland
tract of about 3.04 acres was designated the J.R. Orr and W.C. Collins subdivision, and had been divided
into 43 parcels measuring as small as 0.002 acres (5 x 15 feet). The only other apparent subdivided tracts
in the study area were located about two miles downriver (also on the Graham County side); those two
contiguous tracts (the F.M. Carringer and G.T. Millsaps subdivision and the J.D. and G.B. Orr
subdivision) contained five and 42 tracts respectively, which were owned by a variety of owners and
measured as small as 0.03 acres. As with the other two subdivisions, no structures are shown on these
tracts. The histories of these four subdivisions have not been researched, and their significance is not
clear.
Cable Cove. Cable Cove is a moderate-sized cove on the south bank of the Little Tennessee River, about
three miles west of Tuskeegee Creek. The cove is drained by Powell Branch, and constituted a small but
distinct community in the 1940s. Although the 1,400-acre cove was not to be inundated by Fontana Lake,
it was ultiinately included in the acquisition area in order to save the $46,000 that would be required to
restore the limited road access that would be lost to lake construction (Taylor 2001:120). According to the
TVA, the principal routes in and out of the cove consisted of
a river crossing made by skiff, about three-quarters of a mile downstream from the mouth of the
branch, and a poar public road which followed the south bank of the river downstream from a
point near the crossing. Other means of access were winding paths over the ridges [TVA
l 950:476-477].
At the time of acquisition, Cable Cove supported about 15 houses, along with a school and the Powell
Church. Most of the land was owned by members of the Cable, Phillips, Jenkins, and Sherril fami]ies,
although some had been retained by the Whiting Manufacturing Company. The land, along with land in
nearby Poison Branch to the east, was purchased by the TVA and eventually transferred to Nantahala
National Forest (TVA 1950:476-477).
[[IL
Welch Cove. Welch Cove is located on Welch Branch, less than a mile south of the Little Tennessee
River and two miles southwest of Fontana Dam. The cove was settled by members of the Welch and
Gunter families shortly after the Civil War, but never acquired a substantial population.
Although the Whiting Manufacturing Company had constructed and operated a logging railroad
around the cove for a few years in the 1920s, it remained quite remote. When TVA surveyors
arrived in 1940 to change the cove forever, only six families lived there — half the houses were log
cabins and a rutted wagon road led to the outside world [Holland 2001.38].
Welch Cove was to acquire a much more substantial population in the 1940s, when it became the site of
Fontana Village (Holland 2001:145-148; TVA 1950) (see below).
GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK
Along with the subsequent Fontana Project, the development of GSMNP was one of two major federal
actions that were to greatly affect the early twentieth century communities in the study area. The idea for
a national park in western North Carolina originated in the late 1800s (Taylor 2001:38), and gained
momentum in the early 1920s with tbe recognition (on the part of preservationists) of the environmental
degradation caused by large-scale logging and (on the part of businessman and government officials) of
the economic potential of such a park (Pierce 2000; Taylor 2001:38). After considerable debate and
lobbying (which included the provision of copies of Our Southern Highlanders to members of a NPS
committee charged with evaluating proposed park sites), the Swanson-McKellar Bill authorizing a park in
the Smokies was approved by Congress in 1925. The proposed park boundary was outlined by NPS
associate directar Arno Cammerer. The resulting "Cammerer Line" included some 704,000 acres and
extended south to the Little Tennessee and Tuckasegee rivers, thus including the entire North Shore (as
well as most of the town of Bryson City) (Campbell 1960; Frome 1994; Pierce 2000; Taylor 2001:41-48;
USGS 1926). The purchase boundary was subsequently moved further north to exclude most of the Eagle
and Hazel creek watersheds and other areas owned by Alcoa and the W.M. Ritter Lumber Company.
Perhaps ironically, the area along the Little Tennessee was considered expendable, as most of it had been
logged (Taylor 2001:49). The irregular boundary along the southern part of the park created numerous
administrative headaches, however, and as late as 1940 the Great Sinoky Mountains Conservation
Association was attempting to iind a way to bring those areas into the park (Campbell 1960:130-132).
This was to be accomplished a few years later as a byproduct of the TVA's Fontana Project.
As established in the 1930s, GSMNP included the upper slopes of Thunderhead Mountain, Silers Bald,
and other peaks along the mountain crest, parts of the upper Hazel Creek and Eagle Creek drainages, and
most of the Forney Creek drainage (Figure 4.45). The parcels acquired within the present study area
included those owned by lumber companies (e.g., Montvale Lumber Company and Norwood Lumber
Company), speculators and developers (e.g., J.G. Strikeleather et al., Coburn, and Westfeldt), and what
were apparently more typical local residents (e.g., W.T. Woody and S.W. Monteith). Due to the nature oi
their ownership and the fact that many parcels had been logged, these tracts apparently contained fewer
structures and improvements that were present in many other parts of the parlc. For example, a 1935 CCC
survey of structures remaining on park lands in the Forney Creek district found only 12 structures,
including two grist mills (the Woody and Cook mills), one frame house (that of Tip Sanford) and a group
of log and frame cabins that had been built primarily by the CCC or the Norwood Lumber Company. Like
most structures elsewhere in the new park, these were soon to be torn down or burned (Brown 2000:119;
Pierce 2000:177).
l03
�
� ����. �'' �tl} �ti,',4 �'� ' i "'S��e'� I � �� �� I�'�R'��� �a1'�Is��+�� L '�'°��'�'"-�_ � � 4� � ��,
� A IIL 7 .i �" e-' � � �� .4.. a , � . � ; � .
+� .f'' .� �! , . . . +� . � �71� •°.� -•� - �' - • �
r � � � _ �Z �'� �
�- _ _
n ' a _:� �..j � , �
�- � . � I . . � C . , �+" ,4+1 ? �� �
� H� � �
.. � .,,,�
�' m� '"�' 6 as , � :' � I, s .l� �j�� �. � �•' s .� J ...'r� -'�-a � r a, �i i;�� �'-
. : R �� �
� e:� a �s � � � .; ': �. "�.� � gM r � 41 �"r' h�`� ��I�'�l �°� "�. �i
'i - � - � - - '�#"'
_'��i�r'i G�� � � ,° �s � � . '1�T+�,m�1 ` s _ ■ � �,^ �t � � �;F�i������a'I'�l� ��`�' �
.. . ° � 4_
,, �i ��` e �: = � � �+�n I�t �
*' $ � ��^ I -. �.'!��4, � ; ; � � �4 ' r�i�r�:
� a� .r -� �' .ir T'' � � �r �'h � ' �.
}° � ' ' �tSfi� �d�ll
- � �- �' `�
_ � . 8'C . . � � L .� ii ,�:F � v •� ? � • 4 . ' i y T ' �v;f dY , �.
'`r 0 � ,�� - ;y Y�s9�� �'.��,�� � _� - �� .''" �Jli��ylr'Y�%��' �, �-�.'�. I�IJ ���i
^ T
` ' � iltiS`i+��,+�l.t,°,e� �'LO i.Pi�'PA?(Gi �C�!� > i si p ,'fl°1 ,Ft � .'h '�-�, `
_� � � _ � i 6+,-•�°� .�q 64i1i�'F��+ c°s�'�$J � .
;i�����.PWH�+�1€W�.ri�P '� � � � . � ��.. � �� �r� � .
� �i � � ..•'J � �. �4 6� T_�, . , _ � _ _ e .. _ �. �IZ� f �:"� y. ��-', •'��� •�y
'' . . :
�` i• E � ^,` � �- � I��.R t H � E ��` � 'i- -q� A
� � , � . V � ..'� � � .:
�' 'v M,y dn �la '� � 4 * � � 1' �' � � .iS h. �SM"!f�'��Q� 'I
f ,.��� ��., � �d +'�* _ � �'�" �� ' Si L$�`S $�14� � ' ��!l�G�� ,+�PE.�Y '. - g�R.
� F •'��y � �° �, .�� � A � '• ,�� 4 d 7e o �f �'r �'A �.3�f F�"� �' �R � ' '�= � y'� .Y°f,��Y
� �6 � . � ���,i� ', o' �- a rdJN `�'4'§!.�' ��' �A} � e � 1�1��,.. .� ..I�� €+' �j,.y,� r i 1 ,_� :�� •
� k � ' �,1 .i . . - . - � _ . �-� ..z� ,;ti , T , � '7?
i � .� � + ' � .
Y �` t � ,� � � 4 _.,�� �� ._ �r `° . ' i �� • . � , . �� °�'� r a , �Y.� � '� -� � �
� . �
' � � � �,; . � �
i �� d'� , y� • p ' �' . ��"'y'���� .° � �' `" "- . �� , "�'~ � �� f� � ,,` . ��,114 P�1
�.
P`ir0�`'r I�d.� : �; �� : � . , �, • - e ` �- i - �r - � �3��' ° t . v�, �1f
.. _ .
, . - _ i , ,. e . ;: _ • .�.� � � � " ' . : � , ' �. y,��'`'.�P��14';E�� 1�112]" s rm ,,.�r4, �.AE.IAa�.
.�1_° ��.y , . � �>...�F.� _.. .., _ -�.�� - �.. �. � ' ,�,,.. , _�- . � �� a � . � „ ,::ai�
� �
, �� '- �.. + 6,..� ..i _ • , `e ` .. ° . • , ,r.� . _ ., �, �
+ s ". i _.�. , i � �. e '�a .' .. , . • � � _ � .. � f� �� �..� . "� � `
t +' _. '
-� ' -. . . _ ^ + : ; . . '" .
e � d�LaJa. � '
_ r g, 4
., � � . .� . �� . .:_ .!�'_ � - � '.�'�Y� .Y�:•
. ��5�"� � � �" , : t. � �. . �, z .. _�i.
� '�, ,. �. • . �• � - '� � - �t
._ , _ �, � , � �
i �'�Lll. � � " � nr.. ��.�v ,. . - r", . „ . ' ' � p � - ' ' _. .
4 P . _
,�,_. � � , �`� = �, ��'� �-'�'� � �,�
�� � g � � � d�, . � ,�.. �� �� � �.� y; �, , � .
. ;
� �,, .- . + = _
—_ . ::�d , • :
- , , . . ' ,. _. ,�
: �,,'4 y,�,re`.'R ,�'� �". �I � � �' � "� �. .. ._. _— y"� 'c �" �"' f� . ?� :�dy� " ���:1'�iS�C
�� � y
� �. _ ` �' • •. �k. , ��. • Y �� � � � ' i .
� '� ,� ., �-s �resrr� r ~'th, a _ ,�• � t �,,� -
. . .•, r' "'�.•'`;, � p� y r • � � � y �� �g� � _
. ,�.,�. f� f;.; , :� ^ � . ,, ,'��y+�'I��°•,, ai a, . _� ' . { �� 1 ��' — � �ir.Er���q ��
��� b T�.�++
�. '� � � �
'.�' 'i� d ° � " s`. � . , �.� �" �" �-;���;,,,�:.: � �� .,4 .�l� � .. � � �� ° . Ela y � �" �.
� ,, �� .. ..".: y,��. j
•'_S ' ty�� �"�: "- ^ �f� _� '� Y �' ��jry � A�'4 �ek;�� ? . • ' p,P ��
, �
_ , , o_
,' � . ;, . � � � ,-. _ . � �: . ,. . �� • � � �. � •` �:c: r
- �.r . . -r , ; . � _ 't'''-�' . _
+ ° ' r. � � "��.�y �S� �f r,' , � __� � . ' - . ' �. +
_ J �', -
3
. '�: : � i°-�� -�,,.--- �-,--:e, �"�� ;,, �li�Gl�l� 0 � � � �
� s �"
� � ' �� " -��,-_
, .
,
, ' � .
' o., '• k�
�I�+� 3 �
Se y F+, ! ql�l .�I,l.�}� At +, ' ri !yr _
�. f� .. a . . j� .
e
y u
11z�i' +'Ci° F3f�,�',' a .,,�9��'�oY Td ..�, � v� �..
J
� *� a � °� � _ - d'
PC� �, �� . �n �'� � £• .
I �� � 1�'Li;r.�
� ' � _ .. v� . 4• �, ���y. �, f' 'z'� vLt
� a _ ,. �.n����y �' ��i
a4+a... r�� 1.' ��'.
, ; ��°��'' } �-„r �"' rr" '� �''
ti �. r• � �
s ,,�' � 5 � � z�`�
` . . t,,. ,� � r. �@k °+ �± ,��. � ..
' �� _ .A�� �*�. � . .� � � 4"� �' '°�`
- i�' i � �^tr . '� J � �-
�� _� . a . ... .� ? � - ��+_ d�a p.F' t.
. '� �'y��I'.:'�� ".�� �,���.a ��' i p .. '�. �
i � ' . � � �1�CC�^�Y��? 1 ' � r . . " 9�
., �
_ .r, � f... � r � �.
�. ,,r: �«I ' ,i°,� � T: � �,,��.�.A ���
�. ;� .
, �,�,J� ,�. - _• � a _ .�...�
' .• � ��. a,
i'„'f.a ' . ' ^.
a.�� ��� �� �x.. . .
� .. ��v . 9� .�
��
�S.Lm���d
� �� �
. � al
- ,� � �
�e ..,
� 5y'i�FS
�r��� . �
� . �'n � � �
■
Figure 4.45. Great Smoky Mountai��s National Park and North Shore area in 1938 (SOCNJ 1938).
T
k � ��' . � �' �,.
f
� � ��� � ��`
�
�...
�� � r� �; ��
� ,�
At least 22 CCC camps were established in or adjacent to GSMNP during the 1930s, including two in the
present study area. Camp NP-9 was located in a large hollow at the mouth of Bee Gum Branch, on the
east side of Forney Creek within GSMNP and near the northern boundary of the study area. That camp
was established in 1933 and maintained until 1936; the location was also used intermittently as a side
camp from 1936-1938 (Jolley 2001:19; Oliver 1998a:93, 295; Pyle 1979:8, 24). A second camp (NP-23)
was located at the former mill site in Proctor from 1939-1942, although the property was not then part of
GSMNP. The CCC workers there built and maintained roads and bridges and cleared fire trails, and
several married local women and became part of the community (Jolley 2001:19; Oliver 1989:90,
1998a:99, 124; Pyle 1979:12, 38).
THE FONTANA PROJECT
The Fontana Project had its beginnings about 1910, when Alcoa begin purchasing tracts for potential
reservoirs and hydroelectric facilities along the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries between
Maryville, Tennessee (where its plant was located) and as far upstream as Bryson City (Taylor 2001:34).
As early as 1913 the KPC (an Alcoa subsidiary) was mapping the proposed reservoir. By 1928 Alcoa had
built Cheoah and Santeetlah dams downsiream, and had plans far two smaller dams (including a 200-foot
high dam at the Fontana site) in the study area (Taylor 2001:34); those plans were subsequently replaced
by plans for a 400- to 450-foot high dam at the current Fontana site (Bennett 1932; Taylor 2001:60). The
new projeci was surveyed by NP&L (also an Alcoa subsidiary) in 1932.
TVA became interested in constructing a dam in the area for flood control and power generation soon
after its creation in 1933, and by 1934 had opened negotiations with Alcoa to take over development of
the project. The TVA chairman, Arthur Morgan, saw Alcoa's potential control of the Little Tennessee
watershed as highly threatening to the new agency, and the agency and the company were to negotiate
and battle in the press and Congress for much of the 1930s. Although talks broke down temporarily in
1936, increasing international tensions coupled with concern over Alcoa's potential control of the
nation's aluminum production capability during wartime eventually led to an October 1940 agreement by
which Alcoa would develop the project but operate it according to TVA guidelines. This agreement fell
apart over issues relating to the long-term ownership of the facility (the agreement had allowed the
government the power to take over the facility after 50 years if it so desired), but under increasing
pressure Alcoa agreed in June 1941 to sell the site to the TVA in return for a guaranteed power supply
(Brown 2000:147-150; Morgan 1974:104-117; Taylor 2001:67-72; TVA 1950:1-2). Congress
authorized the Fontana Project in December of 1941, and construction was initiated in January of 1942.
Reservoir filling began in November of 1944, and the first power was generated on 20 January 1945
(TVA 1950:47).
Construction of the Fontana Project was a tremendous effort, and was described by one carpenter as "one
hell of a big job of work" (Holland 2001:141) (Figure 4.46). The 480-foot high, 2,662-foot long dam
required over 2,813,000 cubic yards of concrete, which incorporated aggregate from a quarry on GSMNP
land downstream (Brown 2000:152; Holland 2001:175-176; Moneymaker 1941). Thousands of workers
were employed on the project, including the 6,337 who were hired in the first year alone. Although many
workers were "unemployed white and Cherokee men from all over western North Carolina, Tennessee,
and northern Georgia," others included some 89 residents of Almond and Judson and 697 African-
Americans (Brown 2000:151, 160). In addition to building the dam, the workers quarried rock; built
roads, dormitories, and ancillary structures; cleared the reservoir; and moved cemeteries (TVA 1950).
The influx of workers posed an immediate housing problein, which was partially remedied by the
construction of Fontana Village in Welch Cove, a short distance southwest of the dam site. The villa�e
included dormitories, schools, and a shopping center, drug store, post office, bank, hospital, beauty parlor,
barbershop, and museum (in the Gunter cabin) (Holland 2001:155-158; TVA 1950:193-236;
l05
O
�
==f1#�f�e'i ird!6G�.42riti4'fr .f1G'd.+l'�''-�+
r'r�+�1 J4wwr �e+-� 1�;�+! �
�'C� �Y.�� �t.��.�Ft5" IRd �dgGY'�
�"�•'�, ,AI!��# p � �_�° .
.�,v'f+,'�f,iteyq .air.mCaY- '
M�._+,' �+.°� : _?fY tfV'E£ ilP�SFifj •',
a �'T• .3�x1
L� w ���
�I.Y.f: �•,.-s'G - }•
til
��
.� ,
' � .�
S •'i:X:ly dd��f - {.'�
>d � �
`' wylil�� i�
-�,�� �� ���� i�
N � a I7�� ' �5r
�: ��� . � _
�� �.�t= S.� ig �.4J'S�41Y'#�q`• -
ti:r4£e`N1+i�., �Il1f� " ��,f
,:�r.�eJ P�,;f.+�'T -- � ?
•.iG.a':,'�l:�.+Rdl. 5'FfJ{',�IreP �?t.�. ' �
-, �:�..�•� i:
Figure 4.46. Fontana Dam construction area (TVA 1950).
t . �A'�„ F.F' �'�°'�`°?i��'{7�'Y hY'�. F"
.�` F%'�M'�F'�Z 1l1�G r"�o �1`f.�l.�.�l;,j7i
FEili�e i4� �' •-,
:+�ff:_y� _ __ - -- ._. , — _ _
°1 � . -° `' f' �
�I y_�.��ryr,�1� �° p
�Y��•Yd �'p^L• ���� l��i ��Je� ���d
r�'� •
i �
��� �����
o �.,;'"
I � a�
�''�
��Pd6�f- a#S�C�,+'d 1 C@#�E+�JPTi' n��m:nec �i ��::
J' R�!P.7 F
i� .�r.tia�r cacuwr
�*r�vr� rrve� rar
A 7.,�-'� ii..�+C' {-#r�rd"4 dr�w•�
r �vaw.�. dsrar :svr �xcuare �ia°,1
JSNCh44i l7dYk'�ftN{ � Lr� ��.�r
� 9Ci i� �. 6
!»rpn?.:d�.i.rry' a {��19a�'Sit
��g,�a,.d ���.�a �rrr�x ar���.t i �:,�,,�.,
W rxcrs°c.�Pa� �raaa�if IW.dJ
� p,. o�d ar+lJ�i
. a, rtt� •,• �'
�.r�r �.�.��i,¢�
� i ti��:�t =t �aN�ro
.ayr-P �-ta.e� +�ro.�r.� .�,�■ r�r , a..�o-
a �vr��r rrxrr �
xa s.�•r i r rv�vrr
y au.*�+ as.+J
.i[di�.�(.i+�A� P6AlT
f.71! �':L"i f4�dLTY' f� d6EioliR rWrrr
a ,�w awa'
r iavraar ra*crYVC M PJ•i�' itCtiWikE r�.,�r
!' .iLlftiiY/F LYiYY� Lf1�LWYi JY�IY�
i.3 id'�rK� 'ieY�G�3I!VL'.4.�-A4l ik7Ff�PA' �abr 1 0.4d.}
�9k7 d� JY7i�
.'.Y3 F d•, J L:'.: cl W E L.
� d�s�J:l's.]r Y4S.J
J ✓.h.+ir RJMY
p ��'eati�se}CIrN�.W� ,NY'a.°M�
•"°.ir �L1�I.P!°.4F.O'P �J lW.I�a�Y�.RL: �AL;
.tl r2 *rXri
�e =.��f o l.ai�ri�h� t��rv d r:+.tiirr
�;+�!rd�ero w2rrFsw sr#�ro��
r ��. 0 7nv
F ?�!D ��#tiF.SRCfIJ l�aFFCI
i! rM�ItAJ' r3�'Id
Fl r1f� JJdJ PGy �'R F N-9tr['!d'�
�:J A.�yl'f:dlC ad-df CADitM fi�+I.�
: ■ .re+r�•a.rr�r�r rrr.rd,
r ■ .�e �J *: ° r.r.rswp � r a�arxx
Jd l Y� 2iFACa
++ pF4*JI��+. a.rE, .Y{+lid
rr ��.trr.�..��� �.�r.�?.� r F
s� r�.rov � cu `vsirr
r �.iin.�i r m : wv .w.wr
.�r c�+'ri�PC: ��o+
.Pr :��c.•frd.�;fAs ..ti•.r{
Pf (:i�i�M J�aYi�
t1 {+�wr�Ft �:p.ei
rr ..ir �urr
r i K r.,��as +ir�f
rr aoe�i. m.yp•
I r �LrJLwTiA 0.���fL°i�
ei ra•.eP
Ji 'NJdEF i0'LV'
a� ,�ra:a r,�vn���xev���� �rrmr yrc.yv�n�-
rr �Ax�r rr.rw, ��
u +vicec�-.: r��a�nric•� adue„v
u ,stivrav� •aucA �rr:av^ �.a�
.�� a,rh°��•r{, �m4,'C
.11 #1fd��r�h +ti��p#+�"
P1 P�i4 �#Fr}L
xF r.prf.rrr i�'ro{f i h•r�•
ea s�.f+{ xn+�� .�+.077 •P+��i'
� .r,.a�r �r'var
yt ��,r++- �-rrtr
� � a+� A... r.�r�#€
�v �_.�o�.-r �r�r� .r+nr
T� i � ■ � -- pFr �' .�:.th-e-�.,'+se+
Neeo �:•-�a.r.. F. H:
Young 1983:23) (Figure 4.47). Other facilities included a construction camp, which was built in Gold
Branch Cove about 0.75 miles south of the dam, and tent camps in Bee Cove to the east (Tent Camp 2)
and in the mouth of a narrow cove across the river (Tent Camp 1). Many workers poured into the area
prior to the completion of these facilities, however, and rented or otherwise occupied
almost any empry building available. On Hazel Creek alone, "transients," as their employer called
them, rented thirry-five trailers, thirry-five shacks, and five tents on Nantahala Power Company
land. In Bushnell, they occupied a deserted gas station and an unused warehouse. Almost
immediately, TVA's Population Readjustment Division began to receive complaints from the
North Carolina state health officer about the lack of sanitary facilities and the "grave danger of
epidemics" posed by the makeshift settlements. In response, the agency sponsored a Shack
Development Control Program to funnel the "transients" into the village and prevent families
from settling "permanently" in the shacks [Brown 2000: ] 52].
The Fontana Project resulted in the inundation of approximately 10,670 acres of land, including parts of
the Little Tennessee, Nantahala, and Tuckasegee rivers and their tributaries. The project also resulted in
the relocation of about 1,320 families, 600 of which had been residents of the area before construction
began (Hunt 1945:Table 1). In total, 1,486 tracts covering 68,291 acres were purchased. Most of those
were in private ownership, but 422, or almost 30 percent, had been previously obtained by NP&L in
connection with previous reservoir proposals (TVA 1950:477-479, 486).
Many of the long-term residents of the area lived on the farmsteads that were scattered across the
reservoir area. These farm families occupied log, box, or wood-frame houses (Figures 4.48-4.50), which
were generally surrounded by outbuildings such as barns, sheds, and springhouses. Other families lived in
towns such as Bushnell, Almond, Judson or Proctor, sometimes occupying relatively elaborate houses and
operating stores or other businesses (Figures 4.51�4.53). In addition to residences, these communities also
included schools, churches, and depots (Figures 4.54�.55), as well as cemeteries, some of which were
moved by the TVA.
The land acquisition process began in early 1942, and by the end of 1943 most of the parcels needed for
the project had been acquired. The tracts outside the dam area were not subject to surrender of possession
until 31 December 1943, however, and that date was later extended until 1 November 1944 as a result of
changes in construction schedules (TVA 1950:478). Due to wartime shortages of construction materials,
most structures in the area were torn down and salvaged by residents or others (Parris 1968a; Holland
2001:189; Oliver 1993:ll4-115). TVA officials felt that "the percent of buildings and materials salvaged
by former owners and their permittees exceed the salvage operations in any other reservoir to date" (Hunt
1945:5); records and eyewitness accounts state that truckloads of lumber left Proctor and other areas as
long as the roads were uncovered (Anonymous n.d.:3; Oliver 1989:92; Elbert Sti11we11, personal
communication 1993) (Figure 4.56). Other homes and buildings were burned by the TVA, including the
Franklin store and warehouse at Proctor (Oliver 1989:92-93).
There were not many places in the immediate vicinity for families to move:
Very little land left was available for agricultural relocation. This was particularly true in Swain
Counry. There was little or no industria] activiry to absorb any surplus labor and popularion. It
was noriced that there was some crowding back above pool elevarion in Graham Counry and a
limited number of locations in the east end of Swain County. However, the largest percentage of
the families moving from the purchase area moved east toward and beyond Asheville, many as far
as the foothills of the Blue Ridge, and a few to the Piedmont Section. A few families who lived in
the lower end of the reservoir moved to Tennessee, principally to Blount and Monroe counties
[Hunt 1945:6].
l07
=
�
i� ��ui� -r.-r i. iv���a��a v i��a��. uu� �i�� �v�����u��ivu ��a � i v c� i �✓v�.
- '• ,,�' "°_ _ �-�- - -' � �_.
� , � .. "��""-� ,.. _ ,�,�,r �. �, _ �.. .
� - �# �. ,,�.� � _ .�_��- — ��
� ' " � � �`T'+t�' �-� �' �r� � � Y�
- = .��� �� �
'i. .�s . _ '. � ,�_ . F + _ p ..� � p� �.��r' _ �� �c '�:�'-�
l�''�� �.�� - —�-- �• .• ���-� � _�. - �r x°.._
� ' � ,' �_ -. � v �- . _, ' _s _ —, �� _ � _ T _ _. -- � . ,�
_ ,� �
�e
,� . - � y - - - - �
�� . . �
� _ - v ._. -. _ � '�
. - �'�' - -- ° � �-�. e . " T .. ±�� � � .`.`, � 6
7 - � i =
� 4 �l�� �s� 'S � .�
� ��
� �� � � � .., � _.. . � — �� f� �, �� I ��
� a" _ ' � I, � , !�� �
� - � . � �- � t*r
� �_�
�_ - - �_: � � w �.
�r^pr .� r' � � ���`- - r- � � � ��'"
_ � ? _ � , �� `�
� ,.
� = R .t , � t9 .
u .y � � � a � � _ ,r�i��=�F r _ .� �' • - ��} �� _
' �� � .Te �j���'��_ � ,� ,� _ _ � � � �, .. '.
_ 4 �� �� �.
a �' . �� Y� � :.
�' � � � "�`�� � � - �-
Figure 4.48. Log house in Fontana acqusition area.
� y�
�
- rt,�i,,,�,* � '.� �''��i�.
_ � a.�- F,� � � - iL
R:�:,� —� � � �`�� ` _ ,..� �
� _ � _
. .- _ - -. �
. - 'Y. �-- � ' `"— � '4,!• - � 4 ' ^�tk� �4
y�� � .. , Y � f
� � .�_ 4 �• ��'S"� ,•F� ���
� � n 3 4 �
+� � '�` i
� _= �
� —?� � �f �. ,,,
�a
� -'• _ _ _� �,-`�,.�
'� �� �— '� ` Y ` � .
� � � ��
'N
'�t;�� _ �`
w ° �^
! �_�
,� �
i�
�J�
���
�
� � � ��
� ��� ���
�
��
'�
.� `� -
""�. -
*
pY ' t
�
�
��
i : — ��, ��
Figure 4.49. Box house in Fontana acquisition area.
109
- � r -.
A � �;�;' �
r"
�'' .. � �*, � . r .
L � " y °� �Y'
�� � �-f -
� � � ��
',�.. � � - ' , �
-,,��, � ,
�
,` y
, �'° 7
�„�� �i
- e ��
_ � .
� a f �
v_,�. -: r "g _ _
F-.,
�. ��""�' � 'i �
I ��i
•��� �
! '- � _
�. ��� _
� °� .� - +_, �
. e �*
k T ■ . " " ,�t, ��-.� .
^}���
.i✓�_�' - ��,
� - �
! �
.� ;
� -�.,, ,. �� � _ .. � .�
4
Y
�' �r�: j� ��� �� � �
�e �" r
��.� �,. ��,.-�'_ . . .
'�'ie �
: � � ,i�, �.�{!-'. i.���t#
� 7r� �
�� � �, #
- �
=e � � �
�� M} � �''` �� - *`� 'i - � .4� �;
_�i. y� �n' �'�� ��.-'� i�a.4 �
� # , '4 �W
Figure 4.50. Frame house in Fontana acqusition area.
� §'p �
I'1�UiC'+.J l. I'TAI'RC f1vU5C ITl CUill'dilA AGC�U1S111Ui1 ATCA.
l��
0
i
,^!� -� ;
� �-
�
� ���` '. �
�
t
�•�
'_ � p
� � ��
� _� �
� � �� - : �� ,
� � ��
-� ��►..��.� - a _,,,
_ .�
-- — �� � �
__ _
:#T
��
_� a— �� _.
� � � .*�
Figure 4.52. Monteith Store on Forney Creek.
� �- � �
Figure 4.53. Calhoun Store on Hazel Creek.
111
Figure 4.54. Chambers Creek Church.
rigure �.��. �apan ros� �rnce.
112
� �,
�.T+�,
��� y
' �� L
.�
;��� r�
-" n �
s
_.r � . – -
�� -
--�� �_
— ra � - . _
� •
# '
� I � ' � I
�' ; ��k � .�� � �
.R...
� �� , ,
� ,- �
� �: ,
, .., , i
� �, � -
�� 1, �1C" �.a�: �IIF .°` r r , i;�"
� �,� �
0
The average cost paid by the TVA was $37.76 per acre, which was one of the lowest for any TVA
reservoir, and reflected the mountainous character of the previously logged areas that remained after
Alcoa's earlier purchase of much of the bottomlands along the rivers (Anonymous n.d.:l; TVA
1950:479). Portions of several highways and secondary roads (including NC 288 and NC 10/US 19), as
well as 24 miles of the Southern Railway line between Bryson City and Wesser, were inundated by the
project, necessitating their relocation outside of the reservoir pool (TVA 1950:499-507). Finally, a total
of 1,047 graves were removed from cemeteries that were to be inundated or for which road access was to
be cut off by the project (TVA 1950:509).
Most of the 68,291 acres acquired by the TVA for the Fontana Project were not inundated, but consisted
of areas (including the North Shore and Cable Cove) for which access was to be cut off by lake
construction (TVA 1950:453). As discussed in Chapter 1, some 44,000 acres in the North Shore area were
deeded to GSMNP as part of the 1943 agreement. Other parcels were transferred to the Department of
Agriculture and became part of Nantahala National Forest, including Cable Cove and other areas along
the south side of the lake.
NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST
Nantahala National Forest began as the Nantahala Purchase Unit, which was one of the 11 original
national forest purchase units established in the Southern Appalachians. The Nantahala Purchase Unit had
an initial purchase boundary of 595,419 acres, and in 1920 was combined with the short-lived Savannah
Purchase Unit to form Nantahala National Forest. (A substantial part of the future GSMNP was included
within the nearby Smoky Mountains Purchase Unit, but that unit was never activated).
Early acquisitions for the Nantahala Purchase Unit included uncleared and cutover lands of the Macon
Lumber Company (Mastran and Lowerre 1983:23-25).
When the TVA decided to acquire Cable Cove, Poison Cove, and other "severed properties" on the south
and east banks of the Little Tennessee, the decision was quickly made to transfer those lands to Nantahala
National Forest, which already owned portions of Cable Cove as well as adjacent upland areas. About
2,500 of the estimated 4,500 acres acquired above pool on the south side of the reservoir were transferred
to the USFS by 1950 (TVA 1950:4�), including:
isolated lands and farm fragments in an overall area which extends along the south side of the
reservoir from the eastern limits of the dam site reservation to a point on the west side of the
Nantahala River and about three-fourths of a mile upstream from its confluence with the Little
Tennessee River [TVA 1950:477].
RECENT HISTORY AND CURRENT LAND USE
The recent history of the study area is largely one of federal agency decisions regarding land use. As
discussed above, most of the North Shore area is part of GSMNP. Although several attempts to designate
most of this area as wilderness have not been successful (in part due to local opposition), GSMNP
currently manages most of ihe area in accordance with NPS wilderness policies. Public vehicular access is
limited io the constructed sections of Lake View Road northwest of Bryson City and northeast of Fontana
Dam; both sections of the road have parking areas where visitors can access hiking and horse trails into
the Park. There are a total of 22 backcountry campsites and trails within the GSMNP part of the study
area, along wiin gated administrative roads along Hazel Creek Trail, Forney Creek Trail, and Noland
Creek Trail.
Since the 1970s GSMNP has been maintaining cemeteries in the North Shore area and providing periodic
access to them for family members and others. Cemetery visitors are transported across the lake by boat
on a weekend schedule during the summer months, and then are driven to the vicinity of each cemetery
[�L'!
via bus or other NPS vehicles (Anonymous 1978; Cable 1978; Chandler 1986; Gerber 1987; Holland
2001:193-194; Taylor 2001:141-142).
TVA maintains jurisdiction over Fontana Lake and areas surrounding Fontana Dam. TVA's management
of the area is guided by its mandate to consider the effects of power-generation on land reclamation,
public recreational use, economic developinent and wildlife preservation. TVA maintains a visitor's
center, Appalachian Trail shelter, marina, and other facilities at Fontana Dam (TVA 2003); the agency
also owns Fontana Village, which since 1946 has been operated as a resort by successive leaseholders
(Holland 2001:205-219).
Nantahala National Forest controls most of the southern shore of Fontana Lake. USFS recreational
facilities within the study area include Tsali Campground, boat ramps at Lemmons Branch and Cable
Cove, and several boat docks and floating moorages that are operaied under Special Use permits. An
extensive network of unimproved roads on USFS lands supports forest management and timber sales.
Another major recreational feature in the study area is the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, the north-
south hiking trail from Maine to Georgia that was established beginning in 1922 (ATC 1973:2-1). By
1935-36 the route had been marked across the Little Tennessee River at Tapoco, west of the current study
area. From that point it proceeded northeast to Deals Gap, and then east along the mountain crest along
the North Carolina-Tennessee line, over Parsons and Gregory balds north of the study area (ATC 1973:6-
39; Broome 2001:6-7). This part of the trail was rerouted in 1946-47, when the trail was moved to cross
Fontana Dam and then run north to Shuckstack and out of the study area (ATC 1973:6-39). The current
route up Shuckstack is a graded trail built by the NPS in 1963 (ATC 1973:6-40).
South of the river, the earlier trail route ran east along Yellow Creek to High Top, east through Cable
Gap, and east and then south to Stecoah Gap. From there it proceeded southeast to Cheoah Bald before
turning east through Grassy Gap, crossing the Nantahala River at Wesser, and proceeding south towards
Georgia (USGS 1935, 1936d, 1940e). The present-day trail proceeds southeast from Fontana Dam, joins
the older route at High Top, and generally follows the older route southeast from that point. Two
segments of the current trail are within the study area, an approximately 6-mile section extending about
325 miles north and 2.75 miles south oi Fontana Dam, and a 2000-foot section west of NC 143 through
Sweetwater Gap, about a mile north of Stecoah Gap.
Other parts of the study area are privately owned, including inholdings in Nantahala National Forest south
of Fontana Lake and the eastern portion of the study area around Bryson City. Bryson City is the county
seat of Swain County; land use in downtown Bryson City is predominantly commercial. Most other
residential and commercial development in the study area is situated linearly along the highways and
other roads on non-federal lands; one significant exception is Fontana Lake Estates, a gated community
being developed on the former Davis Cemetery Tract between Alarka Creek and the Little Tennessee
River. Other privately owned lands in the study area are in cultivation, while a variety of additional
recreational opportunities have been developed by Swain County and Bryson City along the Tuckasegee
River.
ll5
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA
This section summarizes previous cultural resource investigations in this part of western North Carolina,
and presents data on the known and potential cultural resources of the 121,000-acre study area. The intent
of this discussion is to provide information on the types of resources and issues that may be encountered
during subsequent survey and evaluation studies for the North Shore Road EIS. While the discussion
includes information on the NRHP status of known resources as well as suggestions concerning the
potential significance of other individual and types of resources, it does not provide evaluations of any
previously unassessed resources. Such resources are discussed here as "unassessed" ar"potentially
NRHP-eligible" (see Chapter 2).
PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS
Western North Carolina has been the subject of archaeological research far over a century, and most
trends in the history of North American archaeology are reflected in the region. As early as the 1880s,
workers from the Valentine Museum in Richmond investigated several mound sites in the region,
including the Sawnooke Mound (Nununyi) on the Oconaluftee River north of Cherokee (Valentine n.d.)
and others in Swain, Haywood, Jackson, and Cherokee counties (Dickens 1976:7). The museum's work
was primarily ariented toward recovering artifacts, although in some cases the resulting data have been
useful in addressing present-day research questions (e.g., Dickens 1976:91). Also in the 1880s,
researchers from the Smithsonian Institution's Bureau of Ethnology excavated sites in Buncombe and
Henderson counties as part of their investigations into the origin of the "Mound Builders" (Thomas
1894). That research was instrumental in demonstrating that the mounds in western North Carolina and
elsewhere had in fact been built by American Indians and were not the products of a mysterious, vanished
race.
Early twentieth century work in western North Carolina continued to focus on mound explorations.
Between 1915 and 1919, George Heye and associates excavated at the Garden Creek site in Haywood
County and at other nearby sites (Harrington 1922; Heye 1919; Heye et al. 1918). Although that work
was designed to gather artifacts for Heye's Museum of the American Indian in New Yorlc, it did provide
some data on the antiquity of the Cherokees in the region (Dickens 1976:7-8). Subsequent work in 1933
and 1934 by the Smithsonian Institution at the Peachtree Mound and Village in Cherokee County was
also designed to investigate the relationship between the Cherokees and prehistoric cultures in the area
(Setzler and Jennings 1941). Also in the 1930s, George MacPherson (1936a, 1936b) and Hirain Wilburn
conducted surveys of numerous sites in GSMNP. Although many of their data were to be incorporated
into later research (Bass 1975), at the time their work had little impact on the understanding of the
region's prehistory.
The 1940s and 1950s witnessed relatively little research in the Appalachian Smnmit region. Plans to
excavate sites in the area using WPA crews, as had been done elsewhere in the Southeast, were
terminated with the outbreak of World War II, and no archaeological excavations were conducted as part
of the Fontana Project or other TVA or NP&L reservoir construction in the region (Lyon 1996).
Intensive, systematic work in the Appalachian Summit region did not begin until 1964, when the
University of North Carolina instituted the Cherokee Archaeological Project. This project, which lasted
until 1971, included large-scale surveys and salvage excavations, as well as intensive investigations of
late prehistoric and historic Cherokee sites (Purrington 1983:98-99; Ward 1979; Ward and Davis
1999:17-18). Data from this project, reported in several theses, dissertations, and other publications (e.g.,
Dickens 1976; Egloff 1967; Keel 1976), provide much of the background information on the Appalachian
Summit region.
Beginning in the 1970s, new federal cultural resource legislation and management procedures resulted in
an increasing number of archaeological projects in the Swain County area. Many of the early CRM
[�L
(Cultural Resource Management) projects were conducted in the eastern part of the county, including
surveys by Baker (1979) on the Qualla Boundary and Purrington (1976) on Connelly Creek, a tributary of
the Tuckasegee River. The latter work led to the investigation of the Slipoff Branch site, a small Middle
Archaic period Morrow Mountain component in an upland setting (Purrington 1981). Other, more recent
work in Swain County has included data recovery excavations near Ela (Wetmore 1990) and survey and
testing at the Kituhwa site (Riggs et al. 1998; Riggs and Shumate 2003b), a short distance upriver from
Bryson City. A number of survey, testing, and data recovery projects have also been conducted on the
Qualla Boundary (Greene 1996, 1998; Riggs et al. 1997). Several survey and testing projects have also
been conducted on GSMNP lands near Cherokee, including a series of investigations along the Raven
Fork River for a sewer project and proposed land exchange (Webb 1999, 2001, 2002). Major recent
projects outside the study area in Graham County include surveys of Cheoah, Santeetlah, and Calderwood
reservoirs %r the Tapoco relicensing project (Joy 2002a, 2003).
Several projects have been conducted in the study area over the past two decades. The most significant of
these were a series of survey, testing, and data recovery efforts on the Davis Cemetery Tract, a land
exchange parcel situated between Alarka Creek and the Little Tennessee River in Fontana Lake (Shumate
1994; Shumate and Evans-Shumate 1996; Shumate and Kimball 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001a, 2001b;
Shumate et al. 1996; Webb et al. 1993). Most recently, data recovery work at three sites on that tract has
documented well-preserved remains representing significant Middle Archaic, Late Archaic and Historic
Cherolcee occupations. Other nearby projects have included a shoreline survey (Shumate et al. 1996) and
work in the Lemmons Branch area to the southwest, which included data recovery excavations at an
apparent post-Removal Cherokee site (Riggs and Shumate 2003a).
Very limited work has been conducted on GSMNP lands in the study area, although some siies have been
recorded by surveys conducted for proposed trail relocation and maintenance projects. No archaeological
work was conducted in association with construction of the extant sections of Lake View Road, as that
work was completed or underway when the NHPA was passed in 1966. Several sites in the study area are
included in Bass' (1975) synthetic study of sites in the Park, but no excavations were conducted as part of
that work. The most substantial NPS work near the study area was Murphy et al.'s (1976) survey for a
proposed extension of the Blue Ridge Parkway to Deep Creek. That study identified a number of sites
along Deep Creek and elsewhere along the proposed route towards Cherokee, and resulted in a
recommendation that a group of 18 prehistoric and historic sites be included in a proposed NRHP District.
That recommendation was never acted upon, however, and the proposed road extension was never
constructed.
A number of survey projects have been conducted on Nantahala National Forest land on the south shore
of Fontana Lake, including wark in Poison Cove (Noel and Snedeker 1998) and elsewhere (e.g., Ashcraft
et al. 1994; Bassett and Snedeker 1998, 2000, 2001; Dyson and Snedeker 1994; Noel and Snedeker
1999). These projects have identiiied a number of prehistoric and historic period sites, but have not led to
data recovery excavations. Other work outside USFS lands in the southern and eastern part of the study
areas has included survey along the Deep Creek drainage (Rogers 1985), work at the West Elementary
School Site for Swain County (Wetmore and Rogers 1988a, 1988b); and a number of surveys for road
projects (e.g., Garrow 1981; Joy 1992; Padgett 1982, 1990).
In addition to archaeological research, limited architectural surveys have also been conducted in the study
area. The most systematic architectural wark was a reconnaissance level survey of Swain and Graham
counties by Williams (1998), which documented 44 properties in Swain County and 25 in Graham.
Within GSMNP, NRHP documentation or other studies have been completed for the Hall Cabin (Gordon
1973) and the Calhoun House (Miri 1997). No structures within the study area are included in the
proposed GSMNP Park Development District, which is limited to the vicinity of Newfound Gap,
Clingmans Dome, and Little River/Laurel Creek roads (Blythe n.d.). HABS/HAER (Historic American
Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record) documentation has been prepared for the
existing segments of Lake View Drive (the North Shore Road), but its NRHP eligibility has not been
ll7
assessed (NPS 1996). Outside GSMNP and within the study area, several structures have been listed on
the NRHP (see below). Elsewhere, the NRHP-eligibility of the Santeetlah hydroelectric development has
been assessed by Thomason (2002) as part of the Tapoco project.
Several studies have inventoried cemeteries in Swain and Graham counties, beginning with work
conducted by the TVA as part of its cemetery relocation program (e.g., TVA 1948). More recent
inventories of Swain County cemeteries have been conducted by Hunter (1996) and by the SCGHA
(2000); a similar inventory of ceineteries in Graham County has been published by Millsaps and Millsaps
(1992). In addition, ongoing efforts are being made to further document cemeteries in the North Shore
area and elsewhere in GSMNP (Erik Kreusch, personal communication 2003; Gail Walker, personal
communication 2003).
A few other types of cultural resources studies have also been conducted in the area. Parts of the study
area have been included in themaiic studies being carried out as part of ongoing research concerning the
Trail of Tears (Riggs and Greene i.p.; Thomason 2003a), although no fieldwork has been conducted to
date in the study area. Portions of the area are also included in ongoing attempts by the EBCI THPO to
identify historic-period Cherokee grave sites. Other THPO-sponsored studies in the region include
attempts to identify canebreaks and other natural resources traditionally used by the Cherokees, but those
studies have not extended into the study area (Lee Clauss, personal communication 2003).
KNOWN AND POTENTIAL CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA
These and other previous studies have identified about 381 cultural resources in the study area, including
250 officially recarded archaeological sites, 44 historic structures and above-ground resources, and 87
cemeteries. Other resources are known to be present, and the intensity of the survey coverages and the
adequacy of the resulting inventories vary greatly with the type of resource. For example, the previous
studies probably have identified most of the historic period cemeteries and potentially NRHP-eligible
standing structures in the area, due to the relative visibility and high degree of community awareness of
these types of resources. The studies certainly have identifed a much smaller percentage of the
archaeological sites in the area, however, and no systematic studies of some other resource types (i.e.,
Traditional Cultural Properties) have yet been undertaken.
Archaeological Sites
Systematic attempts to inventory and evaluate archaeological sites have only been conducted over an
estunated 3.0 percent of the study area, with the most extensive surveys covering the 1,350-acre Davis
Cemeiery tract (Webb et al. 1993), and 770-acre (Noel and Snedeker 1998), 606-acre (including some
areas outside the study area) (Ashcraft et al. 1994), and 260-acre (Noel and Snedeker 1999) tracts in
Nantahala National Forest. Those four projects covered less than 2,800 acres, or about 2.3 percent of the
present study area, but recorded 129 sites, or 51.6 percent of the 250 recorded sites. Another 23 sites, or
9.2 percent of the total, were recorded by a survey of an estimated 250 acres of exposed lake shoreline
surrounding the Davis Cemetery Tract (Shumate et al 1996). That work represents the only systematic
survey of the Fontana Lake shoreline, and as a result archaeological sites are dramaiically
underrepresented at Fontana in comparison to other TVA reservoirs (Ahlman et al. 2003:Table 3.1-01).
Finally, no large-scale intensive surveys have been conducted on GSMNP or on privaiely owned lands
within the study area.
The 250 recorded sites are primarily prehistoric in age, with about 195 (78.0 percent) containing
prehistoric components (Tables 5.1-5.2). The data are incomplete and difficult to summarize, but it is
:
Table 5.1. Archaeological Sites in the North Shore Road EIS Study Area.
NC Statc Nu. CRSM Nu. Bass No. Countv OSGS Quadrangle Jurisdiction Compoucnt(s) SRAP S[a[us Reference (uther than Site Form)
Recordcd Sites
31GH005 n/a Graham Tuskeegee USFS Prehistoric: Archaic, Woodland Not Eligible None
31GH006 Graham Tuskeegee USFS Prehlatoric: Archaic, Woodland NotFligible None
71GII018 n/a Grahnm Tusl<ccgcc [JSFS Pr�historic: Archaic, Woodland, PisKah Not F.li�iblc Nonc
31G1-1019 n/e Graham Hewin USFS Prchistoiic: Middle Archaic, Middle Woodland Unasressed/Potentially EliRible None
31GH020 n/a n/a Graham Hewitt USFS Prehisroric: Late Archaic Unassessed/Potentially Bligible None
31GH021 ,. n/a Graham Hewitt USFS Prehieroric: Archaic, Woodland Unassessed/Potentialty Plikible None
31GH022 n/a Graham Hcwit� USFS Prchisronc: Archaic Unttsscescd/P�tcnnally P:limblc Nonc
31GH023 n/a n/a Graham Tuslceegee USFS Prehismiic La�e Archaic, Woodland Unassessed/Putemially Elieible None
31GH074 n/a n/a Graham Tusl<eegee USFS Prehisroeic: Early Archaic Unassessed/Potentialty Elig,ible None
31GH083 n/n n/n Graham Tuslceegae USPS Prehictoric:I.irhlc NotCli,�ible None
31GHOX4 n/z Graham Tuskccgcc USFS Prchistoiic: Liihic Not Hligiblc Nonc
31CHOR5 n/a Graham TuskeeQee USFS Prehistoric: Li�hic Not Eiigible None
31GH180 n/a Graham NolandQeek USFS Unknown UnassesseNPorentialtyEli,eible None
31GH182 n/a Grzham NolandCreek USFS Unknown Unassessed/PorentialtyCliqt6le None
31GI�I183 n/e n/a Gaham NolandCrcck USFS Unknown Unasscss4i/PotcntiallyCli�blc Nonc
31G11236 n/a Graha�n Hewitt USFS Unknown Unassessed/Potentially EliRible None
n/a
31GH237 n/a n/a Graham Hewitt USFS Unknown Unassessed/PotentiallyEliqible None
31GH238 n/a Graham Hewitt USFS Unknown UnassesseNPorentialtyEli�ible None
71GI7255** . n/a Grah2m Nolend Crcck USFS His�oric No� Eli�iblc 6asscn and Sncdckcr2001
n/�
31GH2fi6 n/e Graham Yon[ane Dam USFS Unknown Unas�sessed/Potentially EliRible None
31GH268 n/a i�/a Graham Fontana Dam USFS Prehisroric: Lithic Not EIiR�ble None
31GH269 n/n Graham �ontznaDam US�S Unknuwn NotHliqiblc None
31GF7270** n/a n/a Graham Nolnnd Crcck USFS Hisiuric: 20th ccniury Unacscssal/POtcntially P:ligiblc AshcrnR cl aL 1994
31G11271 n/a n/a Graham Nolend Geek USPS Prehismiic: Lithic Not EliQible Ashcrnft et aI. 1994
31GH272 n/a Graham Noland Geek USFS Prehismric: Lithic Not Bli�ible Ashcrafi et al. 1994
37GH273'• n/a n/a Graham PontanaDam USFS Hfsroric:20thcenmry hbt�ligible As-herafteraLl994
71GI-I274 Gaham L'ontnna Dam USFS Prchistoric: Lithic Not I?Ii�iblc Ash�ra(t cl oL 199A
31G11275** �/a Graham Fon[ana Dam USFS Histuric: 20th renturY Not EliRiblc AshcraCt et aI. 1994
31GH280** Graham "fuskee,qee USFS Historic:20thcentury Unassesscd/PotentialtyEliRible Ashcrakctal.l994
31GH281 Graham Tuskeegee USFS PrehiatoriaLfthfe NotElikfble AsherafretaLl994
31GI7282/2R2** , Graham Tuckcc�cc USfS Prchistoric: Middlc Archaic; Histonc-20th ccntury Not Hiigiblc A'shcraR ct xL 1994
31GH2N3/2R3** n/a Grahain Tuskeegee USFS Prehismiic: Litliic; Hismric�. 20th cenmry Unessessed/Potentiallv E��g�hle AshcraR et aI. I Y94
31GH284 n/a n/a Graham "fuskeegee USFS Prehismric:Lithic NotEligible Ashnakeral.l994
31GH285 Graham TuskeegeeMolandCk USFS Prehietoric:I.irhic NotHligiblc AsheraftetzL 1994
31GII2R6 � Graham Noland Crcck USFS Prchistonc: Lithic Nnt FliRiblc �shcrall cl al. 1994
31G1-ISR7 n/e n/a Graham Noland Creek USFS Prehismric: Lithic Not Eli�ible AshcraFl et el. 1994
31GH2R8 n/a Graham Noland G�eek USFS Prehismric: Middle Archaic Not Bligible Asheraft et aI. 1994
31GH289/289"* n/a n/a Graham Noland Creek USPS Prehistoric: Lithic; Historic�.20nc �enhiry Unassessed/Potentialty Clikible AsheraketaL 1994
31GH290 n/a n/a Graham NolandCrcck USFS Prchistonc:Lithic NotEli�,nblc AshcrnftctrLl994
31GH291 ** � n/a Graham Tuskeegee USFS His�oric 19th �0 20th centurv Unasecssed/Potemially Elieible Asheraft et al. 1994
31GH292 n/a n/a Graham Tusl<eegee USFS Prehismeic: Lithic Not �.Iigible Asherafi et aI. 1994
31GH293 n/n n/n Graham Tuslceegee USFS Prehismric:Lithic Unessessed/PotentialtyEligible AshcraftetaLl994
31GH290. n/z Graham Tuskccgcc USFS Prchistoiic: Liihic Not Hligiblc Ashcraft cl xL 1994
31GH2Y5/295** Graham TuskeeQee USFS Prehistoric: Lithic; Hisroric: 19th m 20th cenwry. Unassessed/Po[e�itially Eligible Ashcraft et ai. IY94
31GH302/302** n/a n/a Graham Fonrana Dam USFS Prehisroric: Late Archaic, Earty Woodland; Histo�ic: Late 19th ro eacty 20th Unassessed/Potenrialty Eligible Noel and Snedeker 1998
31GH303 n/a n/a Grahain Fontana Dam USFS Prehistoric: I,irhfe Not Gligible Noel and Snedeker 1998
31GI�I304 Graham ['untena Dmn USFS Prchistonc: Li[hic Nu� �Ii�iblc Nocl and Sncdckcr 1998
31G1�1305/305** n/a Grahem Fontana Dam USFS Prehistoiic: Middle Aichaic, Woodland; klismric: 19th m 20th cen[wy Not Eligible Noel and Snedeker 199R
nia
31GH306 n/a n/a Graham Fontana Dam USPS Peehisroric: Lithic Not EliRible Ncel and Snedeker 1998
31GH307*" n/a n/a Graham Pontana Dam USPS Historic: Late 19th to early 20th century Not Eligible Ncel and Snedeker 1998
71GI730R/30R** . Grahnm �ontena Da�n [7SFS Prchictoii�: Lithic; Histuric�, latc 19th to carly 20th crntury [7nesscsscd/POtcn[ially C7iRiblc Nocl and Sn��dckcr 1998
31G1-1309 n/a n/a Graha�n Yon[ane Dam USFS Peehismric: Lithic Not EliQible Noel and Sncdeker 199R
31GH310/310** n/a ida Graham F'ontana Dain USF'S Prehisroric: Late Arohaic, Earty Woodlnnd Unassessed/I'otentialty Eligible Noel nnd Snedeker 1998
31GH31 I n/n Grnham Pontzna Dam OS�S Prehistoric: Lirhic Not [Iifiible Noel and Snedeker 1998
31GF7712/312** n/a Graham Fontana Dem USFS Prchistonc: Lithic; Historic: Laic 19�h to cerly 20th ccntury Unasscsaal/POtcntially C1iRiblc Nocl ond Sncdckcr 1998
31G11313 n/a Graham Fontena Dam USFS Prehismiic: Lithic Not EliQible Noel and Snedeker 1998
n/a
37GH314 n/n n/a Graham F'ont�n¢ Uam USFS Prehistoric: Lithic Not Eli�ible Noel �nd Snedeker 1998
31GH315 , n/a Graham Fontana Dain USFS Prehisto�ic: Lithic Rot Eligfble Noel and Snedeker 1998
71GI7116 Gaham L'ontnna Dam USFS Prchistoric: Lithic Not F?Ii�iblc Nocl ond Sncdckcr 1998
31G1�1317 u/e n/a Graham Fonrana Dam USPS Prehism�ic: Liihic Not Eliqible Noel and Snedeker 199R
31GH318 n/a n/a Grahain Fbntana Dam USFS Prehistoric: Lithic Not F'.li¢,ible Noel and Snedekcr 1998
31GH319 Grahain Pontana Dain USFS Prehisroria Lirhie Unnssessed/Potennalty Eli�,ible Noel and Snedeker 1998
31GII320 �� Grahdm Funtuna Dam USFS Prchistoric- Li[hic linasscsscd/Potcntially Eligiblc Nocl end Sncdckcr 1998
31GI�1331 n/a Graham Fontenn Dam USFS Prehisto�ic Lidiic Not EliQible Noel and Snedeker 199R
31GH322/32** n/a n/a Graham Fontana Dam USFS Prehisroric: Eady Amhaic; Hismric: Lare 19Hi ro earty 20Hi cenn�y Unassessed/Pomntialty EliRible Noel and Snedeker 199R
31GH323 Graham Pontanu Dam USFS Prehiatoria Lirhic Not I:ligible Noel and Snedeker 1998
31GIi324 u/a Grahnm Funtnnu Dam USFS Prchistonc: Li[hic Not EliRiblc Nocl nnd Sncdckcr 1998
31G1-1325/325** n/a Graham Fontena Dam USFS Prchisioric: Lithic; Hism�ic La�e 19th m eady 20tli renmry Not EliRible Noel and Snedeker 1998
31GH326** , Graham Fontnna Dam USFS Hisroric: Lare 19th to earty 20tl� centwy Not Eligible Noel and Snedeker 1998
31GH327 .. n/a Graham Fontzna Dain USFS Prehieroria Lirhic Not �ligible Ncel and Snedeker 1998
n/i
31GH728 n/a Grahain Tusl<ccgcc [JSFS Prchistonc: Li�hic NniEligiblc Nocl nnJ Sncdckcr 1998
31GF1329 n/a n/a Grahem Tuslcee�ee USFS Peehistoiic: Lithic r;oi Eligible Noel and Snedeker 1998
Table 5.1. Archaeological SiCes in Che Norffi Shore Road EIS Studv Area (continued).
NC State No. CRSM Nu. Bass No. Counh� USGS Quadrangle Jurisdiction Compouent(s) SRAP S[n[us Reference (other thau Site Fm�m)
31GI1330 , , Graham Tuskcc�cc USfS PrG�istonc: Lithic Not Eiigiblc Nocl and Sncdckcr 1998
31(i1�1331 n/a Graham Tusl:ecgee USFS Prehismiic: Middle Archaic Vot EliQible Noel and Snedeker 199R
31GH332 n/a n/a Graham luslmegze USFS Prehismric: Lithic Not Eligible Noel and Snedeker 199R
31GH333 Graham Tuskeegee USFS Prehiatoria Lithic Not F:Iigible Noel and Snedeker 1998
31GH334 u/a Grahnm Tusl<ccgce OSFS Prchistonc: Liihic Rui F.Ifgiblc Nocl nnd Sncdckcr 1998
31Gh1335 n/e Grahain Tuslmegee USFS Peehistoric: Lithic Not Eiigibic Noel and Snedeker 1998
31GH336 n/a Graham Fontanx Dam USFS Prehistoric: Late Archaic Unassessed/Potenrialty Clikible Noel and Snedeker 1998
31GH777/337** n/a Graham Tuskccgcc USFS PrchisWnc: I.ithic Hisloric�, La�c 19th to carly 20th ccntuiy Unn.s�ssal/P��cniially G1iGiblc Nocl nnJ Sncdckcr 1998
n/z
31GH33R n/a n/a Graham Tuslceegee USFS Peehistoiic: Lithic Noi Eli�ible Noel and Snedeker 1998
31GH339 n/a n/a Graham Tuslceegee USFS Prehismeic: Lithic Not �.Iigible Noel and Snedekcr 1998
31GH340 n/n n/n Graham Tuslceegae USPS Prehictoric: Lithic Rot CIi,Gible Noel and Snedeker 1998
31GH341 n/z , Graham Tuskccgcc USFS Prchisroiic: Liihic Not Eligiblc Nocl an� Sn��dckcr 1998
31GH342 Na n/a Graham 7'uskeegee USFS Prehismric: Lithic Not Eligible Ncel and Snedeker 1998
31GH343 n/a n/a Grahain Tuskeegee USFS Prehistoria Lirhie Not Gligible Noel and Snedeker 1998
31GI�I344 Grahain Tuskccg v: USFS Prchisronc: Li�hic Mut C,Ii�iblc Nocl ond Sncdckcr 1998
31G113 45/3 4 5** n/a Grahem Tuskeegee USFS Prehistoiic: Lilhic; Hismiic'. Lste 19th m early 20tli cen�urv Not Eligible Noel and Snedeker 199R
nie
31GH346/346** n/a Graham Tuskeegee USFS Prehistocic: Late Archaic: Hismric: Late 19H� to eady 20th cenmry Not EliKible Ncel and Snedeker 1998
31GH347 n/a Graham Tuskeegee USFS Prehisroric: Lithic Unassessul/Potenrialty Eligible Noel and Snedeker 1998
71GI7348/34R** n/a Grahnm Tusl<cc^cc USFS Prchictoii�: Lithic; Histuric�, lztc 19th to carly 20th crntury [lnasscsscd/POtcn[ially C7iRiblc Nocl and Sncdckcr 1998
31G1-I349/349** Ne n/a Graham Tuskeegee USFS Prehismric: Li�hic; Histoiic La�e 19�h m early 20ih cenmry Not 61iQible Noel and Snedeker 199R
31GH350 n/a ida Grahain TuskeeQee USFS Frehistoiic: Lithic Not Eli,qible Noel nnd Snedeker 1998
31GH351** n/a n/n Graham Tuskeegee USPS Historic: Late 19th to early20th cenmry NotFliyiblo Noel anA Snedaker 1998
31G113ft9 n/e n/a Graham Noland Geek USFS Prehisroric: Lithic Unasseased/Porentialty EliQible None?
37GH390** � n/a Graham Tuskee¢,ee USFS Hismric: Eady 19rh to mid 20tl� century Unassessed/Poten2ialty EIi¢,ible Noel �nd Snedeker 1998
31GH391 , n/a Graham Tuskeegee USFS Prehistoric: Lithfc Rot �Iigfble Noel and Snedeker 1998
71GI7192 Gahain Tusl<cc�cc USFS Prchistoiic: Woo�land Vo� Cli�iblc Nocl ond Sncdckcr 1998
31G1�1393 u/e n/a Grahain Tuslceegee USPS Prehism�ic: LiOiic Noi EliRible Noel and Snedeker 199R
31GH394 n/a n/a Grahain "fuskee,qee USFS Prehistoric: Lithic Not F'.Ii,Gible Noel and Snedeker 1998
31GH395 Grahain Tuskeegee USFS Prehiatoria Lithie Not Elikible Noel and Snedeker 1998
31GII396** n/a n/a Grahdm Tuckcc�cc USFS Historic- Latc 19th [o carly 20th ccntury Not Eligiblc Nocl and Sncdckcr 1998
31GI�1397 n/a Graham Tuskeegee USFS Prehism�ic: Lithic No[ EliQible Bassett and Snedeker 1998
31GH398 n/a n/a Graham "fuskcegee USFS Prehismric: Lithic Not Eligible Noel and Sncdeker 199R
31GH408 Graham Tuskeegee USFS Prehiatoria Lirhic Not F:Iigiblc Bassett and Snedeker 1998
31GH409 Grahnm Tuskcc�cc [1SF5 Prchistonc: Lithic nu� EliRiblc Bassctt anil Snalckcr 1998
ni2
31GH410 n/e ida C aham Tusl:eegee USFS Prehismric Lithic Not EliRible Bassett and Snedeker 199A
31GH431 n/a Graham Noland Gcek USFS Prehismric: Lichie Not Eligible Mitchel12002
31GH432 n/a Graham Tuskeegee USFS Prehieroria Lirhic Not �Iigible None
n/z
315W011 n/a Swnin BrysonCity GSMNP Prchistonc:LatcMissis%ipP�nn:HintuncAmcnndian Unasscss�d/POtcnnallyEli¢iblc Nonc
31SW012 n/a i�/a Swain Bryson City O�her Prehismiic: Woodland Not Eligible RoRers 19H5
31SW022 n/a n/a Swain BiysonCiry 02her Prehismric:Woodland NotEligible Rogers1985
315W023 n/n Swain Rryson Ciry GSMNP Prehisroria Woodlan<I Unassesscci/Pomntialty Eliy;iblc Rogers 1985
315W026 n/z n/a Swein 6ryson City USFS Prchistonc: [.ntc Archaic Unasscssc�/POtcntinlly G1iRiblc Nonc
31SW035 n/a n/a Swain Bryson City GSMNP Prehis�oric: Litliic Unassessed/Pote�itially Eligible None
315W036 n/a n/a Swain Bryson Ciry GSMNP Prehismric: Amhaic UnassesseNPotentialty EliQible None
315W037 n/a Swain Bryson Ciry GSMNP Prehismria Late Archaic Unassessed/Potentialty Cliqfble None
315W050 Nonc Nonc Swnin Thimdcnc�zd Mm GSMNP Prchistoric: Lithic [;nasscescd/POtcn2ially Cli�blc Nonc
315W053 GRSM 74 31 SW3 Swain Foniana Dam GSMNP Prehistoric: Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, Unassessed/Potentielly Eligible Bass 1975
[ate Woodland, Pis�;ah
315W055 GRSM 75 3ISW5 Swain Fontana Dam (iSMhP Prehism�ic: Archaic, WoodlAnd, Pis�ah Unessessed/Putenlially EliRible Bass 1975
31SW056 GRSM77 31SW6 Swain l�uskeeQee GSM�'P Prehistoric:EartyArchaic,MiddleArchaic,Woodland Unassessed/PotentialtyEliR�ble Bass1975
315W057 GRSM 78 3ISW7 Swain Tuskeenee GSMV'P Prehistoric: MiAdle Amhaic, Laro Archaic Unassessed/Potentialty Eliqi6le Rass 1975
315W058 GRSM Il5 315W8 Swein Thundcnc�a� Mm GSMVP Prchisronc: MiddlcArch2ic Unnsscssc�/POtcntiolly P:ligi6lc Nonc'?
315W059 GRSM 136 315W9 Swain Thunde�'head Min GSMVP Prehismiic: Enrly Aichaic, Middle Archaic, La1e Archaic, Early Woodlnnd, Middle Unassassed/Poten[ially Eligible Basc 1975
Wuadland
31SW061 GRSM96 31SW11 Swain ThwiderheadMm
31SW062 GRSM84 31SW12 Swain NolandCreek
315W063A GRSM85 315WI3 Swain NolendCreek
315W061I3 GRSMRS 315W17 Swain NolandCrcck
315W064 GRSMA6 31SW14 Swain NolandCreek
315W066 GRSM88 31SW16 Swain NolandGeek
310 W U917
315W700
315W 145
315W 150
31 SW 151
315W152
31 SW 159
315WI68
315WI69
315W170
315W'171
GRSM 140
GRSM 144
Nonc
None
Nonc
nia
GRSM 80
GRSM 93
GRSM 81
(iRSM H2
31SW50
315W53
Nunc
Nonc
Nun
31SW98
3ISW99
315W 100
315W 101
Swa
Swa
Swu�
Swa
Swa
Sw2in
Swa
Swa
Sw �
Swe�n
'I'hunderhead Mm
Thundcrhend Mm
Bryson City
Bryson Ci[y
Bryson City
6ryson City
Wesser
"fuskeegee
Tuskecgcc
Tuskccgcc
luskeegee
(iSMNP Prehistoric: Early Woodland
GSMNP Prehistoric: Late Archaic
GSMNP Prehistoric: Late Archr�ic. Eai�ty Woodlnnd
GSM�P Prchistoiic: Latc Archnic, Farly Woodlond
(iSMVP Prehis[oiic: Late/�rchaic, tacly Woodland
GSMKP Prchistoric: Middle Archaic, Latc Archaic, Early WooAland, MiAdlc Woodland,
PisEah
QSMVP Prehismric: Late Archaic, Earty Woodland
GSMNP Prehistone: Lake Archaiq Middle Archaic
GSMArP Prchistoric: W��odlnnd
GSMNP Prehismric: Middle Woodland, Pisgah
GSMNP Prchistoric: Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, Early Woodland, Middle Woodland
GSMNP Prchistoiic: Middl�• Woodiand
USPS Prehistoric: Litliic
GSMNP Prehisroric: Lithic
GSMNP Prehistaric: Middle Woodlxnd
GSMNP Prchidtonc: Middic Archaic, 8iu-ly Woodland, Middlc Woodland
GSMNP Prehistoiic'. Middle Woudland
Unassessed/Potemiallv EliRiblc
Unassessed/Porentialty Eli¢,ible
Unassessed/Potenrialty Eliglble
Undsscsecd/Potcn�ially Elin blc
Unassessed/Potentiallv t��Q�hle
UnassesseA/Porentially Eligible
Unassessed/Potentially Eligible
Unassessed/Potentialty Clik:�nle
Unassccsa3/POtcnnally Gliqiblc
l;nassessed/Potemizlly Eli�iblc
Unassessed/Porentially Eligible
Unasscss�vi/POtcneiully G1iRiblc
Unassessed/Potentially Eligible
Unassessed/Potentialty Eli,eible
Unassessed/Porenrialty Cliqi6le
UnaascsscU/PMCntially Cli�blc
Unassessed/Potemially Eli�ible
Bass 1975
Bass 1975
Rass 197i
6ess 1975
Bass IY75
Vonc.
Bass 1975
Bass 1975
Nonc?
Bass IY75
Bass 1975
Rass 1975
None'.'
Bass 1975
Rass 1975
I3�ss 1975
Bnss 1975
Table 5.1. Archaeological SiCes in Che Norffi Shore Road EIS Studv Area (continued).
NC Statc �'o. CRSM Nu. Rass No. Counh� USGS Quadrangle Jurisdiction Compouent(s) SRAP S[n[us Reference (uther than Site Form)
315W 173 GRSM 95 315W 103 S�vain Thundcnc�d� Mm GSMVP Prchisroric Li�hic Undsscsscd/Putcn�ially Eligiblc 6ess 1975
315W174 GRSM145 31SW104/II Swain iliwiderheadMtn (iSMNP Prehis�oeic:MiddleAechaic,FailyWoodland Unassessed/PotentiallVt��Q�ble BassIY75
315W176 GRSM9J 31SW106 Swain 'PhunderheadMtn GSMVP Prehistoric:Litliic Unassessed/PotentialtyEligible None'?
315W177 GRSM100 315W107 Swain ThunderheadMm GSMNP Prehistoric:l.irhic Unassessed/Potennaltyliligible None'?
315W 17R GRSM 101 l I SW IOR Swnin Thun�icnc�n� Mtn GSMNP Prchisturic: Lithic [Jnasscss d/Putcntially Gli�iblc Nonc'
31 SW 179 GRSM 102 31 SW 109 Swain Thunderhead Mm GSMNP Prehisloric: Lithic Unassessed/Potentially EliRible None?
31SWI80 GRSM83 3ISWI10 Swain Tuskee�ee GSMNP Prehistoric:Lithic Unassessed/PotentiallyEligible None'?
315WIR5 n/a Swain Wesser USFS PrehieroriaLithic Not6ligible None?
315WIX7 Nonc 31SW7R Swain BrysonCity GSMArP Prchistonc:�rcheic Unttsscssal/P�itcnnallyP:limblc Rass1975
315W ISR None 31SW79 Swain Biyson City GSMNP Prehismiic: Laie Archaic, Lste Woodland. Middle Woodland Unassesscd/Potemially EliKiblc Bass 1975
315W 18) None 31SW80 Swain Biyson Ciry GSMNP Prehisroric Late Archaic, Woodiand, Mississippian; HistoricAmerindinn Unassessed/Potentialty Eli¢,ible Bass 1975
31SWI92** None None Swain BrysonCiry GSMFP Hisroric:20thcentury Unessessal/PotentialtyEligible None'?
315W215 n/o n/a Swein Wcsscr USFS Prchisroiic: Middlc Wuodland NutEligiblc Noni?
31SW216 n/a n/a Swain BrysonCity O�her voneliered NotEligible WemioreandRoqersl9RRa,19R86
315W218 n/a n/a Swain Bryson Ciry USFS Peehismric; Hisroric Unassessed/Potenrialty Eligible Uyson etal. 7)94
315W219 n/a Swain Noland Crcek Other Prehistoric: Lithic Unaesessed/Potentialty Cliqible Nonc?
315W223 n/a n/a Swain Noland Crcck USFS Prohistoric: Lithic [;nesscsscd/POtcntially Cli�blc Nonc?
315W242242** ��/a Swain Noland Creek USFS Prehistoiic; Hictoric Unessessed/Potentially Eli�ible Ashcraft et el. 1994
31SW243 n/a Swain NolandCreel< USFS Prehistoric:Lithic Unassessed/PotenriallyEli,gible None?
n/a
315W2A4 n/a n/a Swain BrysonClty U3P5 PrehistonaLirhic MotBligible Snedekaretal.1993
715W245 n/a n/a Swein Noland Crcck USFS-0�hcr Prchiaturic: Middl� Archaic, Lotc Archttiq Tcrminal Archaic, Woodland '.J<rt Hli�iblc Wcbb c[ al. 1993; Shumacc and Hvana-Shumaic 1996
31SW250** Swain Noland Creck USFS-Other Flisloric: Early io mid?Oih cenmry Not 61iQible Webb ei al. 1993
n/a
31SW251 n/a ida Swain Noland O�eek USFS-0ther Prehisroric: Late Archaic Not Eli,qible Webb et al. 1993; Shwnare and Evans-Shumate 1996
315W252 n/a n/n Swain NolandCreek USPS-Other Prehisroric:I,irhic NotP.liqible Webberal.1993
31SW253** n/a Swain Noland Crcd< U5�5-0�hcr Histuric: Eorly io mid 20ih crnWry \'u� Cligiblc Wcbb c� aL 1993; Shumatc and Hvans-Shumalc 1996
31SW354** i�/n n/a Swain Nolend Gcek USFS-0ther Hismric: Eadv �o mid 30ih cen�urv Vot EliQible Webb et al. 1993; Shumate and 6vans-Shumate 1996
31SW255** . Swain Noland Creek USFS-0ther Historic: Late I)th ro eady 20th century Not Eli�ible Webb et al. 1993; Shumare 1994
31SW256°W n/a rJa Swain Nolend Creek USFS-Other Hfsroric: Larty to mid 20th century hbt �likible Webb et al. 1993; Shumate 1994
71SW257** n/a Swnin Noland Crcck USFS-0[hcr I�[is�onc: I9th io 20th crntury Not Cli�iblc Wcbb c� al. 1993
n/a
31 SW25R . n/a Swain Noland Creek USFS-0tlier Prehis�oric: Liihic Not EliRiblc Webb ei al. 1993
31 SW259 n/a n/a Swain Noland O�eek USFS-0ther Prehistoric Lare Archaic, Late Pmhistoric Not Eli¢,ible Webb ef al. 1993; Shumam 1994
31SW260** n/a Swain Nolend Creek USFS-08ier Hisroric: 19rh to 20th century Not Elikible Webb er al. 1993; Shumate and P,vens-Shumate 1996
31SW261 n/a Sw.�in Noland Crcck USFS-0thcr Prchistonc: Mississippian; Histonc- Mid 19ih to carly 20th crntury Not Hligiblc Wcbb c[ nl_ 1993; Shuma[c and F!vens-Shumatc 1996
31SW262 u/a n/a Swain Nolund Qeek USFS-0ther Prehismric: Lidiic Not EliQible Webb e� al. 1993; Shumaie and Evans-Shumate 1996
315W263 n/a n/a Swain Noland Creek USFS-0Hier Prehistoric Middle Amhaic, Lare Archaic, Pisgah Eligible Webb c[al. 1993; Shumare and �.vans-Shumate 19J6;
31SW264**
31SW265
31SW2(6** n/a
31SW2fi7
n/e
31SW268 ii/a
31SW2ti9** n/a
315W270 n/a
31SW371** ��/n
37SW272 n/a
315W273/273"" n/a
315W274**
31SW27�
31SW276**
315W278
315W279
315W280
31SW2frl/2N1**
31SW282**
31SW283**
315W2R4
31SW28R**
31SW28J**
31SW290**
31SW291**
31SW292**
31SW293**
315 W294/294*"
315W295**
31SW296**
31 S W 297297* *
315W298/298**
n/a
n/u
n/a
n�a
n/a
n/a
n/u
n/a
n/a
n/a
nia
315W299/299*' n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
�,ia
n/z
n/n
n/a
i�/z
nia
n/a
n/a
Swa
Swain
Swain
Swa
Swa
Swa
Sw�
Sva
S�� a
Swain
Swa
Swa
Swa
Swa
S�vafn
Swa
Swa
Sw.
Swa
Swa
Swt
Sw.
Sw'a
Swa
Swa
Swain
Swa
Swain
Swain
Noland Geek
Noland Creck
Nolxnd Crock
Noland Cceek
Noland Creck
Noland Creek
Noland Crcck
Nolend Gcek
Nuland CreeA
Noland treek
Noland Creek
Noland Crcck
Noland Geek
�oland Crcek
Nolxnd Creek
Yolund Cicck
Noland Creek
Nolnnd Crcek
Noland C�eek
'VOlnn� Crcck
Noland Geek
Noland Crcck
Noland Creek
Noiend Crcck
Noland Creek
Nolznd Crcck
Noland Creck
Noland Crcek
Noland Creck
Noland Creek
Noland Creek
Noland Cmck
USFS-0ther }�isto�ic: Late 19eh to mid 20th cenwry
USFS-0tlier Prehistoric: Middle Aechaic, Late Archaic
Not EliRible
Bligible
USFS-0�hcr Historic: Early Lo mid 20ih ccnWry Noi Cligiblc
USFS-0tlier Prehisloric: Lithic Not 6ligible
USFS-Othcr Prehisroric: Lithic Not EIiK�blc
USPS-0ther Historic:l9rhto20thcenhiry NotElifiible
USFS-0thcr Prchisiuric: Liihfc Nut Cligiblc
USFS-Other His�oric: Eadv �o mid 30ih cenmry Not EliQiblc
USPS-0ther Prehistoric: Lithic Not Eli�ible
USFS-0ther Prehis-roric: Late Prehis-roric: Hisroric: L'arly Qualin Phxse. late 191h to 20th cenmry Eligi6le
USFS-0ther
USFS-0thcr
USYS-0ther
USP'S
USPS
USFS
USFS
USF'S
USfS
USfS
TVA
fVA
TVA
NA
fVA
fVA
TVA
TVA
TVA
I'VA
TVA
TVA
Hisroric: F.arty ro mfd 20th century
Pmhiscuric- Lichic
Hismric: EarlY �o mid 20th cenmry
Prchisroric: Lithic
Prehiatoria Lirhic
Prchistoric: Lithic
Prchistoiice Middle Archaic, Middle Woodland; Hisroric 19tli m 20th century
H t � : 20th - t �ry
P h t�. I..16 H�storic�.20th century
PrchiUOiic' [ ithic
Historic: 20th cen[w'y
Historic: 20tli cennuy
Hisroria 19th to 30th century
Ilistonc: ZOth �cn�ury
Hisloric: IYth to 20th century
Hisroric: 20Hi cenmry
Prehistoric: Archnic; Historic 19rh ro 20th cenhiry
Hiscoric: 20nc �cnmry
flisloric: IYth �0 2011i cenlury
Prehistoric Earty Archaic, Middle Arehnic; Historic: 19th m 20th century
Pmhistoric: Middle Archaic, Middle Woodland, Miseissippinn; Hisroric
Amerindian; Historic: 19th to 20�h cenwry
Prehietoric: Lare Archaic; Hisroric: 19th ro 20th cenmry
Not Eli,�Sible
Nut �lig�blc
No[ EliQible
Not Eligiblc
Not P.Ii�'ble
Nut Eli�iblc
Unassessed/PorentiallY E��R�ble
Una � d'Potcnc Ily Eli,�iblc
u� a rare�t n_ �^uqinie
Nul i'ligiblc
Not Eligible
Not E.ligible
n�� ci�r�ni�
\"ot Cli�;iblc
\ot Eligible
Vot Eliqiblc
\br l?lik'ble
Nni Cligiblc
',vbt 6ligible
Not EIiK�ble
Not 8ligible
Not Eligible
Shum�rc and Kimbnll 1996
Webb et al. 1993; Shumate ond Evans-Shumate 1996
Webb ec al. I 193; Shumare and Evans-Shumnte 1996;
�Shiimxir. xn�i Kimhall 711171u
Wcbb c� al. 1993; Shumatc 1994
Webb et al. 1993
Wcbb et al. 1993
Wcbb e[ al. 1993; Shumate 1994
Wcbb ci aL 1993
Webb et al. 1993; Shumate 1994
Webb etal. 1993
Webb et al. 1993; Shumam and F:vans-Sh�mate 1996;
Shumate and Kimball 1997, 1998, 20016
Webb er al. 1993; Shumate and F?vens-Shumate 1996
W cbb cc al_ I 993
Webb ec al. 1993; Shumaie and Evans-Shumate 1996
Ashcrak er aI. I 994
AshcraftetzL 1994
�shcrnll c� al. 1994
Ashcraft et el. 1994
Ashcraft et aI. 1994
n i �Tnerai. i99a
�shcreftctnL 199A
Shumate et al. 1996
Shumam et al. 1996
Shumate et aL I 996
Shumatc ct el. 1996
Shumate et al. 1996
Shumate et al. 1996
Shumate et aL I 996
ShumntcctaL 1996
Shumate et al. 1996
Shumate ct al. 19)G
Shwnate et aL 1996
Shumate et aL 1996
Table 5.1. Archaeological SiCes in Che Norffi Shore Road EIS Studv Area (continued).
NC State Nu. CRSM Nu. Bass No. Counh� USGS Quadrangle Jurisdiction Compouent(s) SRAP S[n[us Reference (other thau Site Fm�m)
315W300/300** n�a n/a Swxin NolandCrcck TVA Prchis[onc:MiddlcA�chzic,La[c�rchaic;IliyioncChcrokcc(Qualla):[Iisionc Unasscsscd/Potcntiallyeligible Shumutcctal-1996
Mid 19th m mid 20nc �enmry
715W301 n/a n/a Swain Volnnd Crcck TVA Prchistonc: Archnic; His[uric Latc 19�h io inid 20th ccntury Nut P.ligiblc Shumutc ct nl. 1996
31 S W 302/302**
315W303
31SW304**
31 S W 3U5/305**
31SW306**
315W307/307*"
3ISW308**
31SW309**
31SW310**
31SW323**
715W323
315W324
31 S W325/325 * *
315W326
315W327
315 W328
715W339
31 S W330
31SW331/331**
315W332
31SW337
31SW334**
315W335
315W336/336**
315W3i8
31SW339
315Wi40**
315W341/341**
31SW342**
315W343**
31SW344**
315 W362
31SW105**
n/a
n/a
n/a
��/a
i�/a
n/a
n/a
„ia
n/a
n/a
n�a
n/a
n/a
nia
n/a
Non
Nonc
None
Non
Non
Nm�c
Non
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n!z
n/a
n/a
Non
Nonc
None
Non
Non
Nm�c
Non
n/x e
n/a
Swa
Sw,
Swa
Swain
Swa
Swa
Swn
Swa
Swa
Swa
Sw,
Swa
Swa
Swa
Swa
Swa
Sw
s�va
Swa
Swa
Swu
Swa
Swa
Swn
Swn
Swa
S«a
Swa
Swa�
Sw2
Swa
Sw.
S�vain
Noland trcek
'.Vulzntl Crrck
Noland Creek
Noland Creek
Noland Creek
Noland Creck
Noland Crcck
Noland Creek
Noland Crcek
Noland Creek
NulAnd Crcck
Noland Cmck
Noland Creek
Noland treek
Noland Creek
Yoland Creek
Nolnn� Crcck
Noland Creck
Noland Creek
Nulend Creek
Noland Crcck
Noland Creck
Noland Crcek
Noland Creek
Noland Crcci<
Noland Ceeek
Nuland Creek
Noland Creek
T�skccgcc
Tuskeegcc
7'uskeegee
Noland Creek
Noland Crcck
7'VA
TVA
TVA
I'VA
fVA
TVA
NA
lVA
I'VA
usrs
US�S
usrs
L'SFS
usrs
usrs
USFS
usrs
USFS
USFS
USFS
USFS
USFS
USP'S
GSMNP
GSMNP
(iSMNP
GSMNf'
GSMNP
GSMYP
GSMNP
GSMNP
TVA
NA
Prehismrir Archaic; Hiamric 19th to 20th century
Prchislon�: MidJlc Woudlzn�. La3tc Woodland; His�oric Amcnn�iian
Hisloric: 19th to 20[h cen�ury
Prehistoric: Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, Middle Woodland; Histoiic: 19th to
20th ccntury
Hismric: 8arty ro mid 20th century
Prehistoric: Middlc Woodland: Hisroric: 19Hi to 20th wntury
Historic: L'arly to mid 20�h ccnWry
Ilismric: Eady �o mid �Oth cenmrv
Hismric: Latc I JNi m earlv ZOth cenmry
Hisroric: 20th century
Prchiston�: Li[hic
Prehismiic: Lithic
Prehisroric: Lithic; Hisroric: 30th century
Prehistoric: Llthic
Prehismiic: Lithic
Prehisroric: Lithic
Prchistoiic: Lithic
Prehismnc: Lithic
Prehisroric: Lirhic; Hisroric Late 19th ro eady 20th century
Prehisroria Lithic
PrGiist�nc: Lithic
Prchistoiic: Lithic
Prchisroric: Lithic
Prehistoria Lithic; Historic: 20th cenhiry
Prchis�odc: Lithic
PmhiFtoric: Lithic
Histm�ic: 20th cenmry
Prehistoric Lithie; Hiato�ia: 20th century
HisWric: 20th ccnNry
Hisloric: 2Uth century
Hismric: 20th centwy
Prehisroric: Archaic
Historic: His[oric Chcrokcc
�bt Eligible
Nirt Gligiblc
Not Eligible
Not �.ligible
�bt Eligible
\br l?lik'ble
Nni Cligiblc
',vbt 6ligible
Not tliKible
Not Bligible
Nui Hli�iblc
Not EliQible
Not Eli,qible
Gnassessed/Potentially Eligible
N�� ei�Kmi�
Not Eiikible
Nut Cli�iblc
Not Elfqible
Unassesscd/Potentialty EliRible
Not Elikible
Nut Eligiblc
n�� eua�ni�
Not EliKible
Unassessed/Potentialty F.Iiglble
Unnsscsscd/POtcntially Gli�iblc
Unassessed/Potentially EliRible
Unassessed;Potcncizlly Eligiblc
Unasseesed/Potentialty Cliqi6le
l7ne�le�ssal/POtcniially Elimblc
Unasecssed/Potemially Elieible
Unassessed/Potentialty Eli¢,ible
Not Eligible
Eligiblc
Shumate er al. 1996
Shumatc ct aL 1996
Shumate et al_ 1996
Shumare et al. 1996
Shumate et al. 1996
Shumate et nL I 996
ShumatcctaL 1996
Shumate et al. 1996
Shumatc ct al. 19)G
Noel and Snedeker 1999
Nocl and Sncdckcr 1999
Noel and Snedeker 1999
Nocl anA SneAeker 1999
Noel end Snedeker 1999
Noel and Snedeker 1999
Noel and Snedeker 1999
Nocl ond Sncdckcr 1999
Noel and Snedeker 1999
Nocl and SneAckcr 1999
Noel and Snedeker 1999
Nocl and Sncdckcr 1999
Noel and Snedeker 1999
Nocl and Sncdeker 19)9
Non
Nonc
Non�
Non
Nonc
Non
Shumate and F,vans-Shumate2000
Shumam anA Evans-Shumatc 2000; Riggs und Shumetc
2002
31SW3(6** n/a n/a Swain NolandCrcck USFS Historic:l9th[o20thccnturyChcrokccccmctcry F.liKiblc �ysun2002
315W367 ��/a n/a Swain Nolend Creek USFS Prehistoiic: Lithic Not Eligible Bassett end Snedeker2001
31 SW368 Swain Noland Geek USPS Pmhisroric: Lithic Not EliRible Basrett and Snedeker 2001
315W382/382** None None Swain �ontxna Dam GSMNP Prehisroria Lirhic; Historic: 20th centwy Unassessul/Potenrialty ['ligible Joy 2003
715W3R8 n/a n/a Swain Nnlend Crrck USFS Prchistoiic: Middlc �rchaic N<rt Eli�ibic Dyson and Sncdckcr2000
31SW389 None None Swain Bryson City GSMNP Prehismric: Lithic Unassessed/Putenlially EliRible None
None GRSM 97 None Swain Thunderhead Mm GSMNP Prehistoric: Lithic Unassessed/Potentially EIiR�ble None
Reoorted But Unrecorded Sires
Bruno Nunc Nonc Swnin Noland Cmck GSMNP Prchis�oria Lithic Unasscssal/Potcniially P:ligiblc Nonc
Chembers Rock n/a Swein Nolend Creek TVA Historic? Unassessed/Potentially EliQible CliamL ers et al. 199R; Oliver 1996
iva
Unrecorded 1 None? None? Swain Tuskee¢,ee GSMNP Prehisroric: Lithic Unassessed/Potentially Elioiblz None
Unrecurde<I2 None? None? Swain Tuskeegee GSMNP Prehisroric: Lfthic Unassesscd/Potentially Fligi6le Nonc
Unrccordai 3 n/e Swem I3ryson City Othcr Prchistonc: Lithic Unasscsscd/POtcntially Cli�,nblc Nonc
Unrerorded 4 Swain Bryson Ciry Ofher Prehistoric: Lithic Unassessed/Potentially EliRiblc None
Unrecorded 5 None None Swain Noland Crcek GSMNP Prehistoric: Lithic Unassessed/Potentialty EliRible None
Um�ewrded 6 None None Swain Nolznd 6�eek GSMNP Prehistonc: Lithic Unassessecl/Potentinity Eliglble None
Unrccurdcd 7 Nonc Nunc Swnin Noland Crcck GSMNP Prchistunc- Lithic Unnsscsacd/Potcntially Eligiblc Nonc
Unrecorded R None None Swain Noland Creek (iSVINP Prchisroric: Litliic Unassessed/PorentiallV t��e�ble None
Unrecorded 9 None None Swain NolanA Creek GSMNP Historic: 19th to 20th ccnmry Unassessed!PotentiallY E��K�ble None
Unrecorded 10 None None Swain Noland Qeck GSMNP Hisroric: 19th ro ?Oth century Unassessed/Potentialty liligible None
Unrccurdcd I I Nonc Nunc Swxin Nolnnd Crcci< GSMNP Prchis[oric: Lithic Unnsscsscd/POtcntially Gli�iblc Nonc
Unremrded 12 None None Swain Noland Crcek GSMNP Historic 19[h to 20th centurY Unassessed/Potentially EliKible None
UnrecordeA 13 None None Swain Noland G�eek GSMNP Prehistoric: Lithic Unassessed/Potencialty Eligible None
Unrecorded 14 None None Swain Noland Geek GSMNP Historic: 19th to 20th centurv Unassessed/Potentially Clit*ible None
Table 5.2. Summary Data on Archaeological Sites Recorded in the North Shore Road EIS Study Area.
Owncrship GSMNP USFS TVA Other Total
N U E T N U E T N U E T N U E T N U E T
Prehistoric 40 40 93 18 2 113 1 1 2 l 3 96 59 2 157
Historic Cherokee l 1 1 1 1 l 0 0 1 2 3
Historic Euro-American 5 5 21 5 26 13 13 0 34 10 0 44
Multicomponent P/HC l 1 0 1 1 0 l 1 0 2
Multicomponent P/HEA 3 3 8 14 22 7 7 0 15 17 0 32
Multicomponent HC/HEA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Multicomponent P/HC/HEA 0 l 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 3
Unknown 0 1 7 8 0 1 1 2 7 0 9
Total 0 50 0 50 123 44 4 171 23 1 l 25 3 l 0 4 149 96 5 250
N- Not eligible P- Prehistoric
U- Unassessed HC - Historic Cherokee
E- Eligible HEA - Historic Euro-American
T - Total
clear that most of the prehistoric sites contain Archaic or unidentified lithic components; only about 45
(18.0 percent) of the 250 sites are known to have Woodland or other ceramic components. Another eight
sites (3.2 percent) are recorded as having Historic Cherokee components, although Cherokee components
may also be present on a few sites that are recorded as Mississippian. Historic Euro-American
components are present on about 79 (31.6 percent) of the recorded sites, with most if not all of those
components dating to the late-nineteenth century or later. The ages and cultural affiliations of another
nine sites (3.6 percent) are unknown. An additional 16 sites are known in the study area but have not been
officially recorded; those include 11 prehistoric and five historic period sites.
A total of 149 (59.6 percent) of the recorded sites have been determined ineligible for the NRHP, and the
eligibility of another 96 sites (38.4 percent) has not been assessed. (All sites within GSMNP are
considered unassessed and potentially eligible, although a few were described as ineligible based on
preliminary fieldwork in the 1970s). These unassessed sites are considered potentially eligible for the
NRHP under Criteria A and/or D. The five sites (2.0 percent) that have been determined NRHP-eligible
include one (31SW265) dating to the Middle and Late Archaic periods (Shumate and Evans Shumate
1996:208-228; Shumaie and Kimball 2001a), one (31SW263) that contains Archaic and Pisgah
(Mississippian) materials (Shumate and Evans Shumate 1996:176-191; Shumate and Kimball 1996), one
(31SW273/273**) containing an early Historic Cherokee component (as well as earlier prehistoric and
later Euro-American components) (Shumate and Evans Shumate 1996:229-249; Shumate and Kimball
1997, 1998, 2001b), and one (31SW365**) that appears to represent a mid-nineteenth century Cherokee
homestead (Riggs and Shumate 2003a). Data recovery excavations have been conducted at all four of
those sites, although only one (31SW365**) has been completely reported. A fifth NRIIP-eligible site
(31SW366**) is a nineteenth to twentieth century Hisioric Cherokee cemetery.
Most of the prellistoric sites appear to be habitation sites. There are no officially recorded lithic quarries
in the study area, although a soapstone quarry has been reported in the Welch Cove/Fontana Village area
(Rodney Snedeker, personal communication 2003) and others could exist at source areas near Soapstone
Gap in GSMNP. One rock art site is known to be present (but offcially unrecorded) in the study area
(Figure 5.1); that site is beneath the full pool of Fontana Lake in the Bushnell area, and probably dates to
the historic period (Oliver 1996; Scott Ashcraft, personal communication 2003). Similarly, at least one
fish trap is known to have been present near Fishtrap Branch along the Little Tennessee near the former
town of Judson (Justice 2002), but has not been recorded as an archaeological site.
Most of the historic period sites appear to date to the late nineteenth century or later, and most appear to
represent domestic occupations. With the exception of 31SW365**, the nineteenth century Historic
Cherokee and early to mid-nineteenth century Euro-American occupations in the area are essentially
unrepresented among the recorded sites. The later Euro-American domestic occupations are also
substantially underrepresented, even though the locations of many such sites are easily discernable (e.g.,
Figure 5.2). In addition, none of the known logging or mining related sites (e.g., Figures 5.3 and 5.4) on
the North Shore have been officially recorded. A single transportation-related site (part of the former NC
10) has been recorded and assessed (and determined ineligible) on the Davis Cemetery Tract (Webb et al.
1993:91-93; Shumate 1994:98-104).
The locations of known archaeological site locations in the study area are shown in Figure 5.5. In addition
to these data, information on likely historic period site locations has been gathered from historic maps and
other sources (Chambers et al. 1988; Espenshade 1963; Kephart n.d.; Pyle 1979; Riggs 1988; Robinson et
al. 1992; TVA 1941; USGS 1886, 1892a, 1892b, 1906, 1913; 1926, 1931a, 1931b, 1935, 1936a, 1936b,
1936c, 1936d, 1936e, 1940a, 1940b, 1940c, 1940d, 1940e, 1941a, 1941b, 1941c; Williams 1838), and the
locations of these potential sites are shown in Figure 5.6. These combined sources provide potential
locations for 1,716 historic sites, each of which represents the mapped locations of a structure or other
facility known to have been present in the area between 1838 and the early 1940s. (Even this
l24
i �.,,�, - � _ - _ � s � . � � { .
..f � � . � r . � `'�-. �-rt� ` . }��„ `�,�-r��,�� '
� � ; �y �
_ ���,,�-�`'C�`- a� }',.7 ��._sY- . ' ' . .
�r�".� ' ' �` r- , t _�,..,Ty„�t . ��� _ �,.�i!�� f _ � ` _ ° . .
�-a��,�i� . � .r � •,q�. iy ` , . _ .aq�• . , •- � : .� ,.
� rz�.� - . � �' . �i! . �� . . �'
� R��
,. _ > . -
-� � � ,J�` �° �y,r 1�ij � 4 � � _ _ . .
, ' �y.�� . i J _'.��� ��' e : � r
� F _. . _ . . . �1" . ^ ..' " {'� i e, .,
. � .. �� '' . ' . .. , �-�� . . '.a . .� .� �, ,
� ' � ' � . • - . � ' _ - ..� R ... . .
� , y -
' _ . .. � '� ' ''-� - - .
, a, - .
_ - � - ,���� 2 .
; � . ..
... � ..• , ..
� .
.. . �� � ' � ,4 w `
., J � .�!� � ' 'aY. +. � 'i . : -
gi� ' .� � �� a.
. �� , � � � . ` . ... . .- _ ., . .�
. _
. _ - . . �. - . , .. . : �., r � - �
. �y�=._ . . '� �+'
_.'�.' . . pr� _ . . _ . . '� P� : . .. . 'y
1 � _���
' �� �' r
� - :�f � �_:� , _ � � �
3
. - ,. .. � , . E.:
- - � ' ' � . �R .� � � - . . _ .
.. _ � �P�.�`�� _ . ' . " , , .. � - .
� � 4�� ' . � ' - .
a '"; ' � .. ,, _ � a.� '
y� _ __ , •_,r.
* , .. . _ . �,�;� , - . . .
- � � _ � . . . � . . .° = "� � , _ � �,,,� _ _
+� � , +
,. . _ ,+�' � � ' • i`...�a ..
- -i �,' - , � e v' *" � y� .. - .,,.
� ,�'� �" #�"'�'' � " � t r r��,- +-_
.r ,a� : ��r ! �`. _ _� . � _..
� .. .� � � .. . �� �� *�5 ' � i� .' � n�
n" ��! L
' ^�'� r��. -
Figure 5.1. Rock carving neac Bushnell.
125
Figure 5.2. Standing chin�ney at Chambers Creek campsite.
126
ir � � - - , � # , —� - ti r
R�
� � _ � � � ' � � x" _ �, '' "�� �I , �, �
�� _ - ',� �' , } A - - � � 3
� � - 5�� ''�- -�;:, : •�y� �� ,
�pA• `� .' ��� ° � � _- � a„�t�`' �'�4 _ - -
y1- - _ . � �i� t. �'�-� i�� _ - . _ �, ,�,..�
1 � t n ` � , F•.. - � R. �y � -
� � �� � �- k'..IT` � _ _
'. �.�F.� €' , _ � R �c _ ' � � .i� �9 = � #�
� �r ��xJ' _� � ��` - �h.. ' —['p . `� .
4
v�' ��! �
_ _� ^ -�y�� -Q.-�� ��� '��L .is" �'�
� � . _ � r
�
�a
-� , ' � ��- : ;� � , �,,.� � - �.
,� ,�` °� ,. .+ _r - - '� -
�"�``wi�'_ =, -
e _ . �.a� s ,� a $ ° y �
- -� ,� � 6 �
�a
- � � a_,_:.� _ ,
� •
- �. _ ,t �_.�_- ��_ _ ` °
�, °a� ° � _ , � -
� - '� � � * �_s,� � s�.F+�=�1
-�� _�s�
� , , .
. , � - . " _ -_ -
� - s: -� ` . � _ _ „�.._. . , . � � - _ - ` - .,r � -
� -
, -��i.� ��� E ' _ � . . . . . - - ° �-
- _ _ _ .., - - � ���;' �• _ _ ' , - w
- - ��-:��, - � � � '��.,r _ � �.L.
, = F_���" 3ti� �`�- �,�� �,:� �
�:�.. �'- - � -
_ — , � .�a �
- = �
_ - _ - �- _ - � _ ° . _ - • m �' -.�F!�,�,�"�
. ... - .�.a�! � d+�.� - ° r, . � - . - . .
, _ - - ' i' '+� -q- +�.�. -
�'�!i- - - _ � � .� ' � , _ .a a . '� a. - - . "' �„`� .a
�
__�`� _ .� _ .._ _.. �
- - - -=.s� � ra.'���� z��'� �.�� tL � '� �� _ _ � � ` _ -' .. „a .ti+� �
. _.. . � `-et
Figure 5.3. Storage house at Fontana Mine.
� "i �� '��*^' �'� `*��;• �p � � _
�s � �
*..� � ,e ie, �
. . � .. • s � Y��,� '�'��_. �4,�,�',� � �
s . '
.,�� � � L � � r � � Ah.
�y
� _ . . ' ��f ' �K, . , - j . � yi�-3 p�_' J�.
A . � � �
, - '4. il,�.�- 3F�� if�.�
�" . .. ` � f ` - 'i.'�.S - . . a � ..
���, . � '� �.�#i'L`�'"�g . � � ^.�' � � � � �
s..�. .. � .. . . ' s i �. �+ % y' .��i� �.
�" °+i. _ . �� .
.
!Y. � , 4
� •... ' , . '. .. � r __
��. . . ! . � ��-�
_ �� � 1 ' �.-• � I
. " i
.
_ . � F � • � � ` •.r�'
a � � �'� a.� S�� _ �. ..i. .y .. u
�,�s. ' �" '� ` � � �
, t . �, } �� ��� �.�
. .� . �, �'_ ; -
, �� � ° . �"���-: . ,� .� -. ,_-
h
�' ■
� '� ,� y, � � � � '-,�� - °� � � �.� _ c +� '��r, �1_" �',.�i�,
� "�'� I*r �s � fi p ���� '�"T. 4 i r� � �'��
�� � � ,�
-� �.� ���
b i � �,: � `_ � �,� . � _�, � - ,, � �—� � `t� �" _ .�- -� � � _�
.�-�. +" „�"'' , ` - �'
A �
e'�`k��i+. � � �� - __ � ''��:� � - - -. -• � � -
, ...��� ` � '�..�' �� .i ' L. c i� P � �..
_ e�' M � �� � Y �.�. ;�' � , f$"
� -� �`a,"'� �-. _ ., �- _��,��g`��y��j ��
q i ''i�, s
� ��I� ���� _ �d ' : u, �+s'' '�'� �t J�� Y %
'� . ' � "�'� :�����'�,.� -�r P _��.a'.,rk 4 - 4 d + ��, 1. �. �' � �
M � � � � � - , „�� ;� � ti � �'• � �+-
- � �� �' � , � L' r �^- . �'� ,,, '
��I�� �S }R � o £ .
.IY� i , 1L, � � _ ! r �' y' W� ��A1 ,
.
�- , :
, . '
t ` y , r
'� : � " t � "� 4 � � ° • ,� •
r� d ., 4 � *o ���..�t� �. -. . . - - -
� *T ,�' � , 4
, a
` ��� � TM � �. �A �� �. � ��s��� `�� .
Figurc 5.4 � Power housc foundation at Fontana Minc.
127
PROTECTED RESOURCE LOCATIONAL DATA - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION
PROTECTED RESOURCE LOCATIONAL DATA - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION
total underestimates the number of possible historic site locations, however. The locations of some former
structures in the Bryson City area are not shown due to the difficulty in correlating them with current
structures, and the figure does not show former roads or other linear features as well as facilities
associated with Fontana Dam construction. Finally, of course, no data are available on the locations of
many pre-twentieth century historic structures.)
Each of these former structures is potentially now an archaeological site, and could be eligible for the
NRHP under Criteria A and/or D. This is true even of those potential sites that are now inundated by
Fontana Lake. While many of those sites are certainly severely eroded, others may be preserved due to
their topographical situations, and could contain intact artifact concentrations, subsurface features, or
structural remains. In particular, a number of early to mid-nineteenih century Cherokee homesteads have
been identified and deiermined NRHP-eligible in previous studies in Fontana, Hiwassee, and Naniahala
lakes (Benyshek 2003; Riggs 1996, 1999; Riggs and Shumate 2003a), and in some cases have been
successfully excavated despite over 50 years of inundation.
This information has two major implications for future archaeological research in the study area. First, the
combined data indicate that prehistoric Native American, Historic Cherokee, and historic Euro-American
sites are probably abundant in the study area and provide some information as to their likely locations.
Second, however, it is clear that most of the study area has not been adequately surveyed for
archaeological resources. Outside such limited areas as the Davis Cemetery Tract and smaller areas on
Nantahala National Forest (e.g., Poison Cove), the recorded site data are not sufficient for use in
identifying project alternatives or evaluating their likely effects on archaeological resources. The lack of
systematic data on prehistoric Native American and Historic Cherokee sites is particularly troubling, as
the locations of most of those sites cannot be predicted from historic maps. In arder to identify likely
locations of these site types, it is necessary to consider other regional studies and predictive models.
A number of recent studies have provided predictions concerning the likely locations of prehistoric and
Historic Cherokee sites in the region. Davis (1990:257-262) summarized site distributional data in the
lower Little Tennessee Valley, and documented extensive Archaic use of both upland and lowland zones
as well as increasing intensity of use of alluvial terraces during the Late Archaic and Woodland periods.
Recent work in GSMNP has documented a previously unsuspected high density of upland prehistoric
sites (Erik Kreusch, personal communication 2003; Yu 2001), and work on the Ravensford Tract has
shown that intact Early to Middle Archaic sites may be located beneath alluvial and colluvial deposits on
fans and along valley margins, while larger Late Archaic and Woodland sites are present on the alluvial
terraces (Webb 2002). Other regional projects (e.g., Ashcraft et al. 1994:22) have documented relatively
low frequencies of occupation of rugged uplands immediately adjacent to major drainages (as are present
south of the Little Tennessee River), probably because such locations were not advantageous for
exploiting either the alluvial landforms below or the upland coves, saddles, gaps, and benches further
from the river. Archival and field studies have also provided information on the locations of Historic
Cherokee farmsteads, which are usually situated on colluvial fans or benches, generally adjacent to water
sources, and frequently on the north or northwestern sides of valleys (Riggs 1996). Finally, of course,
considerable map and anecdotal data on the factors affecting later historic Euro-American land use are
available for the study area and elsewhere, although those data have not been synthesized.
Based on these types of information, Joy (2002b, 2003) has developed (and to some degree tested) a
model of site location for Santeetlah Reservoir, southwest of the present study area. The final Santeetlah
predictive model used landform, slope, distance to water, and distance to a stream confluence to identify
high, inoderate, or low probability zones for site occurrence (Joy 2003:15). Reduced to its essentials, that
model identified moderate to high probability zones for site occurrence as those located within 300 m of
water and possessing less than 15 percent slope. The final model successfully placed 100 percent of 250
identified prehistoric, Historic Cherokee, ar Historic Euro-American components in the Santeetlah area
within the moderate to high probability zones. As noted in the study, however, the model is probably not
]30
a good predictor of some specialized site types (such as quarries or rock shelters). A similar 15 to 20
percent slope cut-off for likely site occurrence is also used as a rule-of-thumb for surveys on both USFS
and GSMNP lands in western North Carolina (Erik Kreusch, persona] communication 2003; Rodney
Snedeker, personal communication 2003), and has also been employed on surveys of private lands in the
region (e.g., Ido12001).
Working from these models, it is reasonable to assume that archaeological sites in the present study area
will be found almost exclusively in areas of 15 percent or less slope, and that the slope variable
(supplemented by the data on known and potential site locations) can be used to identify those parts of the
study area that have a moderate to high potential for containing archaeological sites. In order to
operationalize this assumption, areas of 15 percent or less slope have been identified based on 10-m
(horizontal) interval Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) of the area obtained from the USGS (as discussed
in Chapter 2). This information has been supplemented with data on all known site locations, as well as
data on known former historic period structure locations derived from nineteenth and early-to-mid
twentieth century maps.
The resulting maps of the study area are provided as Figures 5.7-5.8. Figure 5.7 presents the data on
lcnown and potential archaeological sites as well as those areas of 15 percent or less slope (as well as
locations of areas for which slope data are presently lacking). As might be expected, there is an excellent
correlation between ihe known and potential site locations and areas of low to moderate slope. Finally,
Figure 5.8 presents the same data with the exclusion of ineligible sites, which need not be considered in
identifying and evaluating project alternatives.
In addition to providing information on likely site locations, previous studies (e.g., Riggs 1996; Webb
2002) and preliminary project work (Leigh 2003) also provide some insight into appropriate survey
methods, especially those that may be necessary to locate particular types of low-visibility sites or sites in
alluvial ar colluvial contexts.
Historic Structures and Other Above-Ground Resources
There are four NRHP-listed structures in the study area, including one in GSMNP and three in private or
public ownership in Bryson City (Table 5.3). The NRHP-listed struciure in GSMNP is the Hall
(Hall/Kress) Cabin, a 17 x 24-foot poplar log structure that was built by Crate Hall in Bone Valley in
1892 (Figure 5.9). It was incorporated into a hunting lodge complex built by the Kress family about 1940,
but survived when the larger structure burned (Gordon 1973; Holland 2001:202; Oliver 1989:88; Parris
1978). (As noted above, this Hall Cabin is not the herder's cabin described by Kephart [1976]).
NRHP-listed structures elsewhere in the study area include the Frye-Randolph house, Fryemont Inn, and
the old Swain County Courthouse, all in Bryson City. The Frye-Randolph house and Fryemont Inn are
adjacent buildings built about 1895 and 1923, respectively, and were listed in the NRHP in 1982
(Southern and Sumner 1982; Bisher et al. 1999:381). The nearby Swain County Courthouse is a two-story
Neo-Classical structure built in 1908, and was listed in the NRHP in 1979 (NC SHPO 2001).
At least 40 other structures, structural complexes, or similar aboveground resources in the study area have
been recorded to some degree by previous researchers or during the preliminary work for this study. Since
these have not been formally evaluated, they are considered potentially NRHP-eligible (generally under
Criteria A and/or C) for the purpose of this study. These include a number of structures identified by
Williams (1998), Bisher et aL (1999), and others, a few of which have been documented in detail and
officially placed on the state study list (e.g., the Calhoun Hotel in Bryson City and the Bryson City Down
Town Historic District). Others have not been recorded in detail, but have been noted as worthy of
]31
PROTECTED RESOURCE LOCATIONAL DATA - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION
PROTECTED RESOURCE LOCATIONAL DATA - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION
Table 5.3. NRHP-Eligible and -Potentially Eligible Structures and Aboveground Resources in the North Shore Road EIS Study Area.
Number Structure Name County USGS Quadrangle Jurisdiction NRHP Status
GH003 Jenkins Barn Graham Tuskeegee Other Unassessed
GH004 Sawyer Boxed House Graham Tuskeegee Other Unassessed
GH005 Cabe Boxed House Graham Tuskeegee Other Unassessed
GH006 Sawyer Creek Church Graham Tuskeegee Other Unassessed
GH007 Barn Graham Tuskeegee Other Unassessed
GH008 House Graham Tuskeegee Other Unassessed
GH024 SYecoah Grocery Graham Hewitt Other Unassessed
GH025 Stecoah School Graham Hewitt Other Unassessed
GH026 Stecoal� Baptist Church Graham Hewitt Other Unassessed
GH029 Tobacco Barn Graham Tuskeegee Other Unassessed
GH023 Stile House Graham Hewitt (location uncertain) Other Unassessed
GH028 Barn Graham uncertain Other Unassessed
GH033 Jesse Crisp House Graham Hewitt (location uncertain) Other Unassessed
GH035 Joseph Edwards House Graham Hewitt (location uncertain) Other Unassessed
GH045/GH057 Walker Cabin Graham Tuskeegee Other Unassessed
GH058 Fontana Dam and Powerhouse Graham Fontana Dam TVA Unassessed
GH059 Gunter House (Fontana VilLage) Graham Fontana Dam TVA Unassessed
GH061 Fontana Village Graham Fontana Dam TVA Unassessed
SW001 Hall/Kress Cabin Swain Thunderhead Mtn. GSMNP NRHP listed
SW004 Swain CounYy Courthouse Swain Bryson City Other NRHP listed
SW005 Fryemont Inn Swain Bryson City Other NRHP listed
SW006 Frye-Randolph House Swain Bryson City Other NRHP listed
SW009 Presbyterian Church Swain Bryson City Other Unassessed
SWOlO William Estes Log House Swain Bryson City OYher Unassessed
SWOl6 Lal<e View Drive (North Shore Road) Swain Bryson City, Noland Creek GSMNP, Other Unassessed
SW056 Log Barn Swain Bryson City OYher Unassessed
SW060 Bryson CiYy Depot Swain Bryson City Other Unassessed
SW061 Bryson City Elementary School Swain Bryson CiYy OYller Unassessed
SW062 Clampitt Hardware Store Swain Bryson City Other Unassessed
SW064 DeHart Store Swain Bryson City OYher Unassessed
SW070 Mill Swain Bryson City (location uncertain) Other Unassessed
SW079 Other Bryson City Commercial Buildings Swain Bryson City (location uncertain) OYher Unassessed
SW074 Millard Reeves House Swain Bryson City Other Unassessed
SW077 Sossamon House Swain Bryson City Other Unassessed
SW078 Store Swain Bryson City Other Unassessed
SW080 Tuckasegee River Bridge Swain Bryson City OYher Unassessed
SW083 Bryson City Historic DisYrict Swain Bryson City Other Unassessed
SW1 l5 Call�oun Hotel Swain Bryson City Other Unassessed
None Calhoun House/Haz.el Creek Ranger St. Swain Tuskeegee GSMNP Unassessed
None Westfeldt Prospect/Prospecting Hoist Swain Thunderhead Mtn. GSMNP Unassessed
None Fontana Mine Swain Fontana Dam GSMNP Unassessed
None Hazel Creek Mine Swain Thunderhead Mtn. GSMNP Unassessed
None Ritter Lumber Structures (Proctor) Swain Tuskeegee GSMNP Unassessed
None NC 288 Remnants Swain Tuskeegee, Fontana Dam GSMNP Unassessed
further study. A few of these resources are discussed individually below. Within GSMNP, the Calhoun
House (Figure 5.10) is a frame house that was built in 1928 at the close of the Ritter Lumber Company
era and was occupied by Granville and Lily Calhoun until 1944; it was later used as the Hazel Creek
Ranger Station (Oliver 1998). Although "not especially handsome and not an example of Ritter
construction, [it] was large enough" and appropriately situated to be preserved for Park use after 1944
(Oliver 1989:93). A 1997 NPS condition assessment (Miri 1997) described the structure as follows:
The exterior part of the original building is covered with shiplap weather boards. The wood
structure sits on the cellar walls and the stone and wood piers. The perimeter of the crawl space is
covered with river rock walls. ...
The addition to the building was constructed about 1966 with gable roof, two rooms, and a
bathroom ... .
Each room in the original building, except the kitchen, has a brick fireplace with brick firebox.
The front porch consists of six tree trunk columns with two staircases.
The condition assessment recommended removal of a 1966 addition to restore the structure's "character
and originality" as well as stabilization or reconstruction of the river rock wall and other protective
measures, and those changes were completed between 1997 and 2000 (Erik Kreusch, personal
communication 2003).
Not to be confused with the Calhoun House, the Calhoun Hotel in Bryson City was built about 1925 and
purchased by Granville Calhoun in 1946. It is a brick foursquare structure, played a part in the early
development of tourism in Bryson City, and served as a meeting place for communiiy leaders and others
during the planning and construction of Fontana Dam and the organization of the Cherokee Historical
Association. The Bryson City Down Town Historic District covers about 25 acres of the iown's
commercial district, including such notable structures as the former Bennett Drug Store and the Old Pillar
Building. (Some of these structures have also been recorded separately, and are listed individually on
Table 5.3).
The NRHP-eligibility of Fontana Dam and its affiliated structures has not been assessed, although these
structures are considered potentially NRHP-eligible under Criterion A and possibly Criterion C(cf.
Thomason 2003b). The dam is a straight-crested, concrete gravity structure, and according to Jackson
(1988:180) "occupies a particularly beautiful spot in the Smoky Mountains. In fact, historian Carl Condit
considers the dam `a perfect symbol of man and nature in harmony."' Similarly, Bisher et al. (1999:395—
397) describe the dam's "simple grandeur" and the architectural presence of the powerhouse and visitar's
center.
Fontana Village has functioned as a resort community since shortly after completion of the dam, but
"retains a number of the community facilities and houses built by the TVA in the early 1940s. These
structures have attracted scholarly attention for their importance in the history of manufactured housing"
(Bisher et al. 1999:397-398), and include a variety of "permanent," "temporary," "demountable," and
trailer houses. The potential significance of Fontana Village as a historic district remains to be assessed,
but it is likely that at least some of the remaining structures (if not the entire complex) are eligible under
Criteria A or C. The village also includes the ca. 1875 Gunter house, a two-room log house of half-
dovetailed construction (Bisher et al. 1999:398); it might be eligible under Criterion A and/or C, and
could also have associated archaeological resources (Criterion D).
A few other standing structures or objects within GSMNP must also be considered potentially NRHP-
eligible, including extant shafts, hoists, boilers, support structures, and other features associated with the
]35
Figure 5.9. Hall Cabin in Bone Valley.
Figtu-e 5.10. Calhoun House at Proctor.
136
Figure 5.11. Fontana Mine shaft.
ti � � � � ' ����5� � � '' �u k � �*j� �,��. t �, I�' �`
�
F
� �`.�, `f � �_ n'1Y�. . � Y •�_� L `• p � c t���,, � � i p
M
'�. ' . - - �1„ +.I�'�' . � ��' �� � .�i �•`. e . ,�� ` �a�' . � *�4� .'R� � i � ,r'` � •
..y ` � �' c � + � .4 � � (�
�y ,��F ti, � � �.: �„ 'a'� j' ' . _ � ` y �� � `' � ._ .
��: ... �e�.�y.. . ig ��� .. � e�� y�r _J�
, � � . �
'�. ' - � � - . „ . .,..
�� " r '
a
�,����� �, � � r- ,�_ �.k ' " �, __ � q , � �
e� _ '�� �.
�� r� ��,� ' � �t � . � � � �.^ � 'P Ih 4+��I -� ' � ._
e� - ''i _Is �'� � . "�I• �` � ' '� �_
° L �.� . +�� ,6 � . • ' �� � M 1 � �
I � �,y,' fa� � r .• .�Ff - �" � � I ,� �, ���.
`�¢� r - �'+. a*'. � . -`'� �� � ' A
�. ��.'°Y �■ � . k +y��� k . . . - ;-i, � ,,� F���
F . 9r -4 � J. ,� ,'�iR` :.'i y Y . a � .... I � .� . �i
� � I :� � ■
p �- r
��` `� � � � *�� �� ��� �o��jlu�I���Qi ^ I���' � ���� I '�°_"��
� " ° �`-- ._� , i �' � 1 � ! � � •
�—F i�• . � I' I I � ` � � � R 4 .. � . �.
� ` ._ � -.' ' . ' ', R.
��_ a. iP p 4i � I � Y
� � � "� �� +��, � � �, i
� i� `�'�� � � i �j � � -�� ,E+,
X � +n+" �
. � �
µF � � �, w. � �I ' � . !
��'• h'�.,'=� + � ?�. �" .�
� � � � � �
�� F y
�� . _- ���' ,u. ��� �i
� - . , � �- � � ., �
, .
� � : � �- ° � � z�� �� � , �►• � " � �` ��; . . - -
�.
y, � �,�.
� � � �
�� — L - w j�° �f
� 6 `�# ` w,* y�g "
ti �If� _ � � - �.• �' �' � '� �'
, �s� ��
_ �.
��'_'dG y�k .,�;`���C .
� �`����ik�
,� � � � , �,., .
F�'�a � � �. � � � ' � � , �"�,� _ .
,P �� ,�.
�_ � - ..
�. � . �- � � �.� ..
, �
a ` .. _ ���� � `'��� � � "
+,, _
Figure 5.12. Winch at Fontana Mine.
137
Fontana and Hazel Creelc mines and the Westfeldt and other prospects (Figures 5.11 and 5.12). Those
features, along with associated ruins and archaeological deposits, should be assessed as a potentially
NRHP-eligible historic mining district (under Criteria A and D) as outlined by Noble and Spude (1997).
The NRHP-eligibility of the standing dry kilns, pump houses, stream gauge, and other structural features
at the Ritter mill site in Proctor should also be assessed under Criteria A and D, preferably along with
associated ruins and archaeological deposits as part of a potential Proctor historic district (Figures 5.13
and 5.14).
There is only one recorded NRHP-eligible or potentially NRHP-eligible bridge in the study area; that
structure is a 1899 through-truss railroad bridge over the Tuckasegee River at Bryson City, and was
relocated to its present site from a Nantahala River crossing in 1944 prior to construction of Fontana Lake
(Bisher et al. 1999:381). The last potentially significant bridge in the GSMNP part of the study area was
removed in 1992 (Anonymous 1992; Hunter 1986; Scott 1991; Tommy Thompson, personal
communication 2003), and the exiant bridges over Hazel Creek and other park streams are relatively
recent. It is possible that some bridges elsewhere in the study area (such as the 1944 Southern Railway
Bridge over the Little Tennessee River near Almond [TVA 1950:505]) might eventually be considered
significant due to their historic associations (Criterion A) or structural characteristics (Criterion C),
however, and the significance of all such structures should be assessed if they are potentially to be
impacted by project alternatives.
Road segments merit some attention as aboveground resources ar as archaeological sites. The constructed
portion of Lake View Road was recorded as a potential historic resource by Williams (1998) and has been
documented to HABS/HAER standards by the NPS (1996). While most segments of the road presently do
not meet the NRHP criteria consideration concerning age (having been constructed primarily in the early
1960s), the completed segments should nonetheless be evaluated for their potential significance under
Criterion A for their association with the history of GSMNP and the North Shore Road controversy.
Surviving segments of NC 288 along the North Shore must be considered potentially eligible under
Criterion A for similar reasons (Figures 5.15 and 5.16). Other surviving nineteenth to mid-twentieth
century road segments or other transportation features (such as railroad grades, trestle remnants, or
tunnels) in GSMNP, beneath Fontana Lake (Figure 5.17), and elsewhere in the study area should also be
evaluated if they are to be potentially affected by project alternatives, as has previously been done for a
segment of NC 10 (Webb et al. 1993:91-93; Shumate 1994:98-104). Finally, the NRHP-eligibility of the
short section of road built during World War II by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Pinnacle
Creek area (in the Eagle Creek drainage) (NPS 1996:5; Oliver 1989:90; Taylor 2001:128) should also be
evaluated if it is to be potentially affected by project alternatives.
The potential significance of twentieth century hiking trails (and any older trails that can be identifed)
should also be considered during the EIS process. There are no known CCC-built hiking trails or shelters
in GSMNP within the study area (David Chapman, personal communication 2003). The historic
significance of the Appalachian Trail through the area should be assessed if it is to be potentially affected
by project alternatives (apart from any consideration it may be due as a National Scenic Trail), however,
and at least one segment of the Appalachian Trail (in New Jersey) has previously been determined
eligible for the NRHP (NRHP E.O. 11593, 2 October 1978). As discussed above, two segments of the
trail are within the study area, an approximately 6-mile section extending about 3.25 miles north and 2.75
miles south of Fontana Dam, and a 2,000-foot section west of NC 143 through Sweetwater Gap. Most of
this mileage dates to 1946 or later; only the Sweetwater Gap segment appears to follow or closely parallel
a pre-1946 route (ATC 1973:8-14). Even these later trail segments potentially could be NRHP-eligible,
however, and should be evaluated. There apparently are no potentially significant Appalachian Trail
shelters within the study area. The nearest potentially historic trail structure in the study area is the log
lean-to shelter at Cable Gap (about 400 m southwest of the study area), which was built in 1939 by
:
P. � ,_. � v-+. � � _. �x w . �. - .e �. . . n
r � ,t ,` �� � , , �:� �.. - .. j-
� ao �� � �'"�y �� . � . � ` F '� e � ^ # i` t �!t �
� 5.
� , � + M�T ,�
� ''� � ° 4 � y p F � � . ��tl yr* .� �I
, w
���� l '�' .� h... • _#-� � � _- - �'�� _ t '�� .�1�7
� � E' �•�'��A� _ �. •� , :� 7
y� . . .--i - k
. _;�� -°,�� --�� - •R� � ' �-� _ �J� �' .,�-^,� ~, � �
� _ � , . "
� � -��r�-�-��:� - �i _ ,r � °'�-' "*�� �
Y� � �YT � . j .. '
�� •
� . � r�i ei�i+ . � � , , .
mFl y �e' � °'�
� Y �•� ��°�� �� ".� i,. _ ��I h
�� ± � W
��, e�'7� � ���y•� 'i�..p. �� . � — .� �^ L
. �� , ,.�r '+ � �1.. ��� '��u_ ' 4F j� F . �
, i
� �4�
� •,1 � �_ .• � � i� �} . :_.._... :� �.—.^vi
5i �.� '& . � r �' ; � ��4y°" �..,� � � L'" �L..`
. • i 4 a ' Y� g ° �'�.
�� ''1 �. . �f` e..+�, --���,�J_ �..����..
I - .. ~'�'� f �(� � , �� � i � h �r�'I � ,'��.r
_ 'R•� ,J ���� � w ,*�, °' # a �:}`
� � . i _ ,;i y 3,;�`j._,�,y',�•.
..�'� 1 ...1 � ° '�F M'• �, i'"
I .a ��K-'. .. `'• ''�. �YO �� i�
�� � W
;' � '4 1,+��+^fi 'a"` 'F �-�' � ^,r•
� �
�� . � y9 ��_ v
�i5- - . � � _ - - .
�� � �-' � r �� � 3 � � � �
- , �, � � � ' ' �
� R.I, . a-� , � ` - -_' �._ � "
E ���� �+ � 1� �� ' ' � r ��� ;:�' r
.. � � � �� , � 4. _ ytl .. _ _
. . e _._ " � .y.�v ,yr 1• e� Y �a._�:��`
- _ � . . � .:r. - ��.�r � � :. � �
-� ; � ' ��'" � � � � �� ��• ', . •r - �i
� . �'�'� V '� �,� ` �`�°� � � �
� _ - �° ���'"r �= ���"`�- ��� �� ,
{�
Figure 5.13. W.M. Ritter Lumber Company dry kilns at Proctor.
. ` �.
�.. � �„ 'y`s.!�9
��
s� . �,:��,
�
� ',`.
� �
' � �#:
� � �.
, �
�,�'L r_,.�., - -
.
,,� � +��
� ��
`'r '•wr i
+ ^ k � .
�
. � °, �, r. r�
�.� ��
��` i- -
� �.
�• � ��
` 1 � � �
� .�.�.. -� �
�r �'�'ya �
!'u ' �
. �
V� _
-�� � I � � '�-@r� S� '�{/�.:
! .
4VI�
� _ :�,� ._
� � ._ � .��
�'' `� =� '1
� � r • � �
` '�v�s � ,` + 1 � t �s� ,a
� N R.� � ��1 �� ��1" � � ��, �. . .
� 1' �
�r '` h �►�� e r , � .
��� � e. � `�-.. � i-
�� ��_ ��� , _ , ` .,
' � � a� =� � � +�,�+ , e-'
� "�n� 1�' � � �•' � ���� �
y��4�':�� � +' . . _. ' '�.
. _ � � 4 (y� "ti Ip . -. � � '
� : �YiL t A e`e
- J •- 4 Tfia .{�.. � .' �p d� � �-
s .i
s t ' �a'. �� w F t��i �'
��_���� . ._� �` � .�� ����.
���
,��4�� � � �� ' ,
tl � �.�� �'� k.9 . .�� . . �
J� � � ' �
• • 4 �
� � - e`� ^ • � � •
I d �'t t � I
.y . � Fr bJ , _ � Y
1
�• ��. � L 15 : � � ' � �
L i+ T )
Jis' t��F ' y �P�_- � �, i' . [� . I'�i� . -i� ! ..�i�, n
`� ` - ' `�p'i:
y {., ,
'� � ' y . �'. ,�' �i } tn :i�F � y ,
A �,
�F f . ��4-: * ''. �
-�s �. �' � , . r,-4� "�" �' .. � -
. ... � ��� � . � �P .
� F �M L ., ry� � ' �1 - N p �.:e_ M {y �: . _
W �.d`�:. �" I'� -,�, u- �� e' . �
r ' .�'.
��;E � . - + �� � � � � ' � ,� , , � � - � .�
'• �' ` r�• ��5 �„ �t ii5 � � l.��i' . i
� ` �s "��t,
�5 –� � l�i — - • . ' ,
' � .
�s� ,' , ' � ''+' �.. �w a � w "
�� .
.. � . � � .. , � ���-�F b eti 5
��J � v� ��_��� y �'` ,.,'����
� � -, , . y����� `��y�-,� = � �.
+ ��.� � ;
i'ii.�*��.tr.s=1,' ��r;i Yr�� - �rdl n.
Figure 5.14. Pump or valve house at Proctor.
139
� r,
_,�� � ,�, �,� : � �,
- � � ,,.,c�
r ` ;�`�:r�� '" �
t tik
�� � 3�� -�.
�o �
� *`-F� _. .��"'�,� ...,.:}�.
;_� �v� � �i � ' . _ . .�.. • '-�i ��*- .. �4 f.'�..�
' . � , � � . y� e �{ p � � �.. e � L y '� R i
F� � _ f � _ ,,yu,t � � V + r ��4 � �� � .*� � �
� . F '1'
� ��, �, .- . �L,�, y
.' �
�. y . ��:' � ,� �r�e�• +' ' �t�' � L �� e`�-. _ �,� t`
. � s; ,
����. . "� � � . . � �'1 .0 � � �,� , _ 4 ' � -
. . • i� � i �
, ... . .. � i - .µ � i, � i I ,
° • +�� - b. t. .' � ' - ei �' ���
1
� ° � � '. ... tl `'�, , ' � ' - : . t. �
s
y s`_
'�� 4
� . . L' .�... � , �' � ,. ti ' �
� , �' l ���. d' 4 ., i` '� ` 4
� �, -'�1� d'�i� �" _ i�� � Y_ � . � ^i '� ° � �,'
� ��� +� ��
` � r °. p�� �� • "�i� ' � ��'#�J� '� '�.
� �a` �;; " �;, t ;� � �:s " .���.��r l d _ � �,. s � ��' � �'�
: �' �� { E �'�f
�+ � :� ��'� ��4� y � � � � ' �4 V� � �+u� i Y ^ P` ��� BFe i ��°:� �.
� +� � �• � � �� i^qy �r,� �F;.
. " � "� 5 .�� �
� °� 4" � E 6 ,'7�n � F� ' F �� �,
� i "'� �&-^� ; �'� . �r �:� - � �,y�r�,a�.� a .:
F `�' �� � �' N . . � ��' - . a� d'" �1�
� �
�k� �� . I _ aT- � i '.. �p�-: � , r� .
X+� ,� i -. . � j� ' . .F .. � .C.�'� � J. Y ,; y+l` P '. # ,�` � �..
� A� � + 4�n ,� � n � . �`�1 ` `�� � �r'� 7f' �. °��j� _'s gah �"'LE 1 p 0
` s
� b
M' �
y �` �4 r• �, _y ' `"N .�. ° ��_ '� �F � ` �.�'i �� ��''r't . �n .�iM`r � , d �
° - / - - , � .., - -.. _ � � � a �_'j� �''P ,�� .r :. ��1 �
�1 �• �..: . ��_9..-,F. � .�� ..r, � s .�`��0��@`
Y. . a .� `' . ay ' '�' � ��w���,� �is � r I_w' S�
. � , '
` _^� � v�� ," � n�'�� . ? � �� �+
� - �r ' " ���F . � � . i�. ��� �A ��� f
*� ��v � '�l�°y .�i�+- _ � r:a .
. ��+�� T � � � ti-0 "� �� �; � .
� _ ��.1��,�` `r ' , ,# : �.�'_e �� ' e'�' �Y�,.. -: 'y'T , . -'� . u � �.a� �.
s � .� � . F. _ �' ,�° �1..._ F n �" , �.� � 1 ,'�� " r� •�' . _ - = 1 . '.' �i'{ �..
a1���+ " 'f^ i� ` �tI' � �1 ` ` � ,.5� . _. �r � S��T� F' ' y �� �. .
r �� � `.�'+ } a' �y�,�� �r.-_.s.-." „°�� : �t'pw • 4 °r �L ° • '�-
� �,. ��. '� .�. . _ � "'t `r �tt � � F`� ��: � •". ,,t4 �
_� .. � �".��'�i � r' , __.e , +2�,� 'LY� �..� � .. y� .,�, �;. ; �,� �'7�" ,��T
L ,�, �,E. ,. s .t�'� 1 � i -sf'��dF . �� e� ��� �
�� T� . ,yN ° ` iFa�,."�.�,k ti�'4� '�'e � =�� S�. � �r
�� �"� �' ° •-�`�i� s�+:�, � � � �s� � ���j,i_, +. �"' �` �� ,�t�� ` ,-��
�.�_ M s�[ '�''� ��_=$•7�- �' # �'''"� ,. � "'� ��i �„ � �,.y�'� ,,�,� L-f'�',d� �..�.,, ,.� '#`1
F_ y .
. • �a �- � � 9i� �. "� Y � S�l� �" P�. .• .. � T , r� r'-' 'r � �I
'Ir� �,. i.y. �S - Sd .a = d ' i -.$ ia� �i '� ' "y s. J .
� � � _- ,,�, � ,.a�ii+3 .. �� ,�h y'�'t.�.r �ir£iF� }d_ �F � � - d
J.� :�. .. '� `� 5— tt �" � 'c �i' -� i1 � - � � . � - - � �
,._� ��} �yj`���,'�"' � �p�.'.��� r,,f �L; 'r� Fi+��.`�'���� � �°wfrw�'¢ `#�' ��� 4 t �,�ir •�''t+ ',�:. � ''� ' �
� di��• fT . �, � •�-5..�t � 1 pl�i � i'��� � �r � � '.,������'�'� � _ �� T
I�'L'
Figure 5.15. Former NC 288 on North Shore.
��" �. � a, r ._ � I�. ^' � R� �i��1} �• ���� -- �
��. �� .�+�_��. �,�-° � ws
� -� �
� � � _ �' � � � r_ �j F !� * � �_
.,-` � • ;_ , �f ..-
,'. - - ,. .--'�- ' � ;� � ' .�_ � i. i "�
t - ' , • � '� �. ��: � i . f .
�F � +� ��� � � . .. ` � 4 � q � � i �', y _� � . � � z r:.
.""[".� ' ��°6 6 '.. Y . __ , � , �' � ��. .'N y �. ' T� � M' r .
� �1 � '" :,+� � �- '�� ' i
�`� ��"�� � . n_ ��,; Y . :
a ��
�� _ ���" � -�S�,.r���� - �� , , . ` . ``�'�' • .. �I �i�'•.' �.,
?� r � "-�".�-,��� �. . , ,� � � � . ��� � - J�, R£' e-i�
� - � ":��, , W_ ��y' ' �L �,,.w,� _ . �J� �r ��_ . - _ • ` �
s�, ��
'!� ° � � � `�.�
.�, - . �rt. ° , �� � ��.�'s��- _ - . . ,'4 '�•- � • . � - . ��.,
S � �..�
. y � .
.
• : �_ �. � . � -r � ; ' .. _ , � _ .
� . , � � . ` �"' - . ._ . � g�j �.' � " �'-�
� „ $ � ��i�'� •�
. �
p � � ,r : � . . � �
" ' ' 4 �i
� ���
�� ��,�; - � - "x�;. � , _ . �..
. ar � -,� .. � : ,,� = ,,�- � �
� '� _ � s �
r �� r ' �� . s.�. � - ,�: ' °�., n��' ''' 1�_
. .
:_ ,
, � �
r � �r - — �
� - _
4 �
_ _ .
�. � �
�� " '' �,,� , -� * ��''"� �� ,� _ -���'T `� — ` _
�, �p .
.3 ��k � o a���,+�;�,%r�r�"i���` �— - ''1� _� -.
� : �' �
�-:. �� � . � � ��� �� ' � .r � ��y` ���� , �
� °,�, �•�}�'� .r�"'��� ~+ ' �� �� +,�' l ��` � � .� -°` w �� .
k �' � ..w. � � _ � -�
�+�' � 'r � � ���+',�r��4='• + ,� �' �. r�:�,--�� , � e #�'1 � �
. � . � *`� _ ' , " . �, _ a , �� _ H `
�' .�ir=-rr.-.�
� ,� �'' _ y. +.`r : � #�. �'
� � '� ''�. �� � ., �,5 p � �' � � - � -' -�} -
. ��` � '� � . 9 ��y
n._ _ ,
. t�
,
� � ��+"^#.' °r" _ � p ;-�, ry -° ,�! �. � ���� _ �'� ,"k.
, . :� _ . -- �'' � d,' ° �y {
��
� `a'*�� ' a� �- . . ' _ r � �i y� . 5 � . r
_- ~ `, _ �
e+. � '- � ��; �'�� r�� � � •
�- �: ... 4 � �•:� � � �� f'� ,y� . , ' � s � •ia� '��._ .�1�
�� � � ��. y i�3'.J .m� "�.'1 �� �T ��� '"�� . � �-
Figure 5.16. Abandoned car on North Shore.
140
rigure �. i i. rormer ��� i� unaer water at ti�mona.
141
the CCC under the direction of Nantahala National Forest (ATC 1973:8-11; Morgan Sommerville,
personal communication 2003).
Finally, there is the poteniial for historic iree carvings (arboglyphs) in the study area, as have been
documented elsewhere in the region (Erik Kreusch, personal communication 2003). If present, such
carvings could be NRHP-eligible under Criterion A. At least one (presumably historic period) rock
carving is known in the area; that resource is discussed above as an archaeological site.
The distribution of known NRHP-eligible and -potentially eligible structures and other aboveground
resources in the study area is shown in Figure 5.18. As might be expected, those structures are
concentrated in the Bryson City area and along historic roadways.
Cemeteries
Cemeteries and other burial sites represent a unique class of cultural resource. Although cemeteries are
generally not considered eligible for the NRHP, in some cases they have been determined NRIIP-eligible
or lisied in the NRHP eiiher as part of larger districts or because of other associations as noted in the
Criteria Considerations (Potter and Boland 1992) (see Chapter 2). In addition, the special importance of
cemeteries as spiritual places is widely recognized, and they are protecied by such federal and state
statutes as ARPA (graves over 100 years old), NAGPRA (Native American graves on federal land), and
North Carolina General Statutes 65 (Cemeteries) and 70.3 (The Unmarked Human Burial and Skeletal
Remains Protection Act). (A similar ordinance applies to cemeteries on EBCI tribal lands, but no such
lands are contained within the siudy area).
There are at least 87 known or reported cemeteries in the study area, including 22 known and two
possible cemeteries within GSMNP and 63 known cemeteries outside the Park (Table 5.4). The total
includes many cemeteries affected by the Fontana Project, but does not include 10 former cemeteries
from which all graves were reportedly moved by the TVA (ar an eleventh former cemetery site that was
destroyed by dam construction). The size and condition of these cemeteries vary considerably. Some are
active, while others are inactive but actively maintained by GSMNP and/or descendants of those interred
(Anonymous 1978; Chandler 1986; Holland 2001:193-194) (Figure 5.19). A few of the 87 cemeteries are
known only from map references, and some locations have been plotted based on written descriptions and
not field checked.
Some of the cemeteries in the study area, especially those on the North Shore, could be NRHP-eligible
due to their importance to local communities and/or their association with the North Shore Road
controversy (Criterion A; see discussion below), their association with important individuals (Criterion
B), the presence of distinctive grave markers or other features (Criterion C), or even their data potential
(Criterion D) (cf. Potter and Boland 1992). One Cherokee cemetery (the Cat or Catt cemetery) east of
Almond has been determined NRHP-eligible as an archaeological site (31SW366**). The 10 former
cemetery locations from which the TVA reportedly moved all graves may also merit consideration,
primarily due to the potential presence of remaining graves or grave markers, as at the former Judson
Cemetery (Figure 5.20).
Finally, it is evident that the approximately 9,000 known graves at these known and potential cemeteries
(Figure 21) do not represent all the individuals who were buried in these cemeteries or elsewhere in the
study area since the early 1800s. In particular, nineteenth century graves are likely underrepresented
among the recorded interments, and it is likely that many early historic period Cherokee, Euro-American,
or African-American interments exist only as unmarked graves in recorded or unrecorded cemeteries.
Other locations, such as a potential twentieth century cemetery on Eagle Creek, could contain individuals
who died in outlying camps during the logging era (Oliver 1992). Finally, it is certain that many
[�L
PROTECTED RESOURCE LOCATIONAL DATA - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION
Table 5.4. Known and Reported Cemeteries in the North Shore Road ElS Study Area.
Project No. Cemeteiy Name Fontana No. Counry USGS Quadrangle Jmisdiction Intennents Reference
Oldest Known Orignal Moved Remaining As of
CF.M OOl Indian #2 27 Graham Noland Creek TVA 1888* 13 13 0 1944 TVA Records
CEM 002 Edwards 28 Graham Noland Creck TVA 1877* 5 5 0 1944 TVA Records
CF.M 003 Yellow Branch 32, R-24 Graham 'I'usJceegee Other 1892 36 0 36 1944 TVA Records
CEM 004 Thompson 33 Graham Fontana Dam TVA 1922* 1 1 0 1944 TVA Records
CEM 005 Umiamed 37 Graham Tusl<eegee i'VA None* 1 l 0 1944 TVA Records
CEM 006 Hogne 40 Graham Tuskeegee TVA None 2 0 2 1944 TVA Records
CGM 007 Cable Cove S l Graham Fontana Dam USFS 1905 38 0 38 1944 TVA Records
CEM 008 Panther Creek Churcl� 29, R-2 Graham Noland Creek/ Tuskeegee Other 1868 o/a n/a 573 1984 Millsaps and Millsaps 1992
CGM 009 Guge Graham Tusl<eegee Other 1871 n/a n/a 221 1984 Millsaps and Millsaps I992
CEM O10 Blankenship Graham Tuskeegee Other 1909 �/a n/a 43 1984 Millsaps and Millsaps I992
CAM 012 Sawyers Creek Graham Tuskeegee Other 1901 n/a n/a 83 1984 Millsaps and Millsaps I992
CEM 014 Guy Cable Graham Hewitt Other 1978 n/a n/a 1 1954 Millsaps and Millsaps I992
CEM O15 Greene Graham Tuskeegee Other 1916 n/a n/a 24 1984 Millsaps and Millsaps 1992
CEM 016 Welch Cove Graham Fo�tana Dam Othcr 7884 n/a n/a 56 1984 Millsaps and Millsaps I992
CAM 018 Upper Sawyers Creek Graham Tuslzeegee Other 1901 n/a i�/a 23 1984 Millsaps and Millsaps I992
CEM 019 Johnson Graham Tuskeegee Other 1909 �/a �/a 23 1984 Millsaps and Millsaps I992
CF.M 02l Randolph Graham Hewitt Other 1876 n/a n/a 42 1984 Millsaps and Millsaps 1992
CEM 022 Adam Cable Graham Tuskeegee Other 1910 �/a ��/a 45 1984 Millsaps and Millsaps 1992
CAM 023 Holder 31 Graham 7�slceegee Other 1937 n/a n/a 13 1984 Millsaps and Millsaps I992
CEM 024 Stecoah-Jenkins Graham Hewitt Other 1901 n/a n/a 125 1984 Millsaps and Millsaps 1993
CEM 025 Hazie Brown Graham Hewitt Other 1877 n/a n/a 188 1984 Millsaps and Millsaps 1992
CEM 026 Breedlove Graham Tuskeegee Other 1929 �/a n/a 41 1984 MilLsaps and Millsaps I992
CEM 027 Edwards Graham I'uskeegee Other 1890 n/a n/a 17 1984 MilLsaps and Millsaps 1992
CEM 039 Calhoun Swain Thunderl�ead Mm GSMNP No Data n/a n/a 2 1993 A�onymous 1993
CGM 040 Payne Swain Fontana Dam CSMNP No Data i�/a n/a I 18 1993 A��ouymous 1993
CEM 041 Orr Swain Fontana Dam GSMNP ] 900 �/a n/a 11 1993 Anonymous 1993
CBM 042 Hoyle 49 Swain Noland Creek GSMNP 1885 4 0 4 1944 TVA Records
CEM 043 Woody Public ] 0 Swain Noland Creek GSMNP 1878* 146 61 85 1944 TVA Records
CEM 046 McClure Private 12 Swain Noland Creek GSMNP 1894* 23 10 13 1944 TVA Records
CEM 047 Stiles 38 Swain Noland Creek GSMNP 7 917 6 0 6 1944 TVA Records
CI;M 048 Conner (Hickory Flats) 34 Swain Noland Creek GSMNP 1921 14 0 14 1944 TVA Records
CEM 049 Posey Private R-18 Swain Tuskeegee GSMNP No Data �/a n/a 5 1944 TVA Records
CF.M O50 Welch 35 Swain Tuskeegee GSMNP 1910 IS 0 IS 1944 TVA Records
CEM O51 Anthony** Swain Noland Creek GSMNP N/A 0 0 0 1944 TVA Records
CAM 053 Montieth/Noland Public I I Swain Noland Creek TVA 1880* 256 256 0 L944 'PVA Records
CEM 054 Proctor 20 Swain Tuskcegee GSMNP 1864* ]98 6 192 1944 TVA Records
CEM O55 Cable #2/Cable Branch 24 Swain Fontana Dam GSMNP 1912* 27 2 25 1944 TVA Records
CEM 056 Bone Valley 22 Swain Tuskeegee GSMNP 1885 82 0 82 1944 TVA Records
CL,M 057 Hall 23 Swain Thunderhead Mm GSMNP 1900 n/a n/a 18 1993 Anouymous 1993
CEM 058 Higdon 21 Swain Tuskeegee GSMNP 1913 17 0 17 1944 TVA Records
CI;M 059 Wilson/McCampbell Gap Swain 'ihunderhead Mm GSMNP None i�/a n/a 5 1993 Anonymous 1993
CEM 060 Cable #1/Maggie Cable 19 Swain Tuskeegee GSMNP ] 882 155 0 155 1944 TVA Records
CEM 061 Fairview 18, R-22? Swain I'uskeegee GSMNP B68* 74 2 72 1944 TVA Records
CEM 062 Pilkey 15 Swain Tuskeegee GSMNP 1900* 42 1 41 1944 TVA Records
CEM 063 Mitchell 16 Swain Tuslceegee GSMNP 1912 5 0 5 1944 TVA Records
CEM 064 Nelcros/Cook/Mill Branch U Swain Tuskeegee GSMNP 7877 2 0 2 1944 TVA Records
CF,M 067 Tabor I Swain Wesser Other 1936 n/a n/a 4 1998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 068 Round Hill 4, R-14 Swain Noland Creak Othet 1902 n/a n/a ] 24 ] 998 SCGHS 2000
CF.M 069 Ashe Private #1/Jenkins 5 Swain Noland Creek Other 1892 14 0 14 1944 TVA Records
CEM 070 Ashe Privatc #2 6 Swnin Noland Creek TVA 1926* 2 2 0 1944 TVA Records
CEM 071 Judson Public 7 Swain Noland Creek TVA 1859*T 365 365 0 1944 'CVA Records
CEM 072 Delozier Public 8 Swain Noland Creek TVA ] 886* 40 40 0 1944 TVA Records
CLM 073 Laurel Branch 9 Swain Bryson Ciry Other 1912 n/a n/a 172 1998 SCGHS 2000
Table 5.4. Known and Reported Cemeteries in the North Shore Road EIS Study Area (continued).
Project No. Cemeteiy Name Fontana No. Counry USGS Quadrangle Jurisdiction Intem�ents Reference
Oldest Known Orignal Moved Remaining As of
CF,M 074 Hyde Public 13 Swain Tuskeegee TVA 1863* J 00 100 0 1944 TVA Records
CEM 075 Dorsey Public 14 Swain Tuskeegee TVA 185A* 171 170 1 1944 TVA Records
CEM 076 Cat (Indian Cemetery #I) 25 Swain Noland Creek USFS 1903 n/a n/a 47 1998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 077 Welch #2 39 Swain Noland Creek USFS 1900 3 0 3 1944 TVA Records
CL�M 078 Wm. Constant 42 Swain Noland Creek USFS 1838 1 0 1 1944 TVA Records
CEM 079 Davis Public 2, R-13 Swain Noland Creek Other 1908* 111 8 103 1944 TVA Records
CEM 080 Sawyer Private 3, R-12 Swain Noland Creek Other 19I0 n/a n/a 104 ] 998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 081 Estes Private R-10 Swain Bryson Ciry Other 1906 n/a n/a 58 1997 SCGHS 2000
CGM 083 Watkins Public R-l7 Swain Bryson Ciry Other 1886 n/a n/a 592 ] 998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 084 Jackson Line/DeHatt R-19 Swain Brysoo Ciry Other ] 830 n/a n/a 770 ] 998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 085 Cold Springs R-30 Swain Bryson Ciry Other 1896 n/a n/a 32 1998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 086 Adington Swain Bryso� Ciry Other 1851 n/a n/a 274 1998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 087 Lauada R-4/R-7 Swain Wesser /Noland Creek Other 1885 n/a n/a 1232 1998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 091 Swain Memorial R-20 Swain Bryson City Otber 7902 n/a n/a 1457 1997 SCGHS 2000
CEM 092 Mo�7ow Swain Bryson Ciry Other 1906 n/a n/a 83 1998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 093 Randall Swain Bryso� City Othet 1886 n/a n/a 140 ] 998 SCGHS 2000
CF.M 094 Jenkins Swain Bryson Ciry Other 1858 n/a n/a 86 1998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 095 Jankins Swnin Bryso� City Other 1910 n/a �/a 51 1998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 097 Bryson Ciry R-4 Swain Bryson Ciry Other 1835 n/a n/a 818 1998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 098 Blanke��ship Swain Bryson Ciry Other 7853 n/a n/a 49 1998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 099 Unknown Swain Bryson Ciry Other No Data n/a n/a No Data No Data USGS 1961/87a
CEM 105 Sawmill Hill Ch�rch Swain Wesser Other 1881 n/a n/a 4 1998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 115 Unknown Swain Wesser Other No Data n/a n/a No Data No Data USGS 196V87c
CEM 116 U�known*** Swain Tuskeegea GSMNP No Data n/a n/a No Data No Data GSMNP map (n.d.)
CGM 117 Bradshaw 50 Swain Tuslceegee GSMNP 1891 17 0 17 1944 TVA Records
CEM ll 9 Ball Swain Brysoo Ciry Other ] 969 n/a n/a 4 1998 SCGHS 2000
CBM l20 Buckner Swain Bryson Ciry Other None n/a n/a 22 1998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 121 Herron Swain Bryso� Ciry Other 1950 n/a n/a 16 199A SCGHS 2000
CEM 122 Sherrill Swain Bryson Ciry Other 19I I n/a n/a l 1998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 123 Snydcr Swain Bryson City Otber 7949 n/a n/a 3 1998 SCGHS 2000
CAM 127 Allen Otter 41 Swain Noland Creek USFS No Data I 0 I 1944 TVA Records
CEM 128 Green 44 Swain Noland Creek USFS 1928 6 0 6 1944 TVA Records
CEM 129 Dockery 45 Swain Noland Creek TVA 1866 2 0 2 1944 TVA Records
CEM 130 Cook 36 Swain Noland Creek TVA 183A* 4 4 0 1944 TVA Records
CF,M 131 Burns Swain Bryson Ciry Other 1862 n/a n/a I I S 1998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 132 Freeman Swai�1 Bryso� Ciry Other 1961 n/a n/a 7 1998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 133 Reeves Swain Bryson Ciry Other 1901 n/a n/a 20 1998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 134 John Brendle Swain Brysoo Ciry Other 1895 n/a n/a 1 1998 SCGHS 2000
CEM l35 Cunuingham Swain Bryson Ciry Other 1998 n/a ��/a 1 ] 998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 136 Swain Coonty Home Swain Bryson Ciry Othcr No Data n/a n/a 14 199R SCGHS 2000
CGM 137 Johnson Swain Wesser Other 1938 n/a n/a 4 1998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 138 Indian Cemetery #2 Swain Noland Creek Other No Data n/a n/a 14 1998 SCGHS 2000
CRM 139 Kirkland Swain Wesser Other No Uata n/a n/a No Data 1998 SCGHS 2000
CEM 140 Montieth Swain Wesser Other 18A5 n/a n/a 54 199A SCGHS 2000
� Prior [o grave removal.
** The Anthony Cemetery was mapped by TVA immediately adjacent to the McCl�re Cemetery (CEM 046). TVA recorded no graves in this cemetery, although a plat map shows a grave within its boundaries.
In this report, this cemetery is considered a potential cemetery in GSMNP.
***This is one of two cemeteries considered a potential cemetery in GSMNP.
T A gravestone dated 18l I is s[ill present at Judson (see Figure 5.20) bu[ TVA records indicate that the ac[ual intermen[ date for the individual was apparently 1910/l91 I.
Figure 5.19. Woody Cemetery in Forney Creek area.
� � ,.. ,. , �
.� �
. � _
� �
� i �•
.. � o
7.
�,
,� f
k , i L,
- � w �
. �� ���' ��„
_ __ - -
"�' _ ,
,
�
T
�kl .�� — ,� � �
� � � ! ' �
�L � �' "'�, .
Figure 520. Gravc marker at former Judson Cemetery.
146
� � ��� -��
�
.. . � :
t . . 'f " '/ � '�_r'.
i �' -iN �' - � �
R
�
�� w� ,
� �.
��� `•�
� �. Fu S
��N �
���� ','��
Fw � , � �`� ,� ,
• '�� ��, € y��1
� � �.�������
��
_ � P
k � �i
i �R � ':�' �
.e.��1 � •� .� ���• �
� - , � .�r kf.
.� � ����� � s
�I f�, `E..+ g
���� �, ��� e �_
�'A .��� x _.
� �
, "�.� � y +��y�' : �� � �
�� .� �_ <Ei � a.��
PROTECTED RESOURCE LOCATIONAL DATA - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION
prehistoric Native American or early Historic Cherokee graves are present, but unrecorded, in the study
area. Each of these graves merits the same protection afforded to marked cemeteries by state and federal
laws.
The locations of the 87 known or suspected cemeteries are shown in Figure 5.21, above. As might be
expected, there is a general correlation between their locations and those areas with dense historic period
settlement.
Traditional Cultural Properties
Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) are defined as places that are associated with the cultural practices
or beliefs of a living community. Such properties can be determined eligible for the NRHP under
Criterion A if they are rooted in that community's history and are important in maintaining the continuing
cultural identity of the community (King 2003; Parker and King 1992). Although TCPs are often thought
of as Native American "sacred sites," they can also be traditional resource procurement areas (locations at
which groups traditionally gathered foodstuffs, medicinal plants, or other materials) or sacred or secular
locations important to other ethnic groups.
Since TCPs by their definition are of special importance to a community, information on their locations
and significance may not be published or otherwise widely disseminated and is frequently restricted to
elders, religious leaders or other specific segments of the community. Consequently, identifying TCPs is
often a difficult process, and may require extensive and intensive consultation with the communities
involved (King 2003). Far this stage of the present study, attempts io identify TCPs in the study area have
been limited to the examination of published sources and initial consultations with the EBCI THPO.
The principal published source containing information on places of special importance to the Cherokees
of western North Carolina is Mooney's Myths of the Cherokee, first published in 1900. Only three such
places identifed by Mooney (1900) are located (or once were located) in the study area. Although those
places have either been inundated by Fontana Lake or destroyed by railroad construction and are not
likely to merit consideration as part of this project, Mooney's descriptions are presented below.
Datsi yi —"Datsi place," just above Eagle Creek, on Little Tennessee River, between Graham and
Swain counties. So called from a traditional water monster of that name, said to have lived in a
deep hole in the stream [Mooney 1900:405].
Dida skasti yi: "Where they were afraid of each other," a spot on the east side of the Little
Tennessee River, near the mouth of Alarka Creek, in Swain County. A ball game once arranged to
take place there, before the Removal, between rival teams from Qualla and Valleytown, was
abandoned on account of the mutual fear of the two parties [Mooney 1900:406].
Tsula sinun yi: "Where the footprint is," on Tuckasegee River, about a mile above Deep Creek, in
Swain County. From a rock now blasted out to make way for the railroad, on which were
impressions said to have been the footprints of the giant Tsul kalu and a deer [Mooney 1900:410].
Other places in the study area that might be of special importance to Cherokee populations could include
sites of spiritual importance, those associated with important events in Cherokee history, such as the Tsali
episode during Removal, or other recorded or traditional locations of Cherokee habitations or activities.
Two such locations near the study area are Clingmans Dome, on the mountain crest a few miles to the
north, and Kituhwa, a mound site and former village (and NRHP-listed property) on the Tuckasegee east
of Bryson City (Bisher et al. 1999:381-382; Duncan and Riggs 2003:72-73, 77; Mooney 1900:250, 264,
321-322, 396; Riggs et al. 1998; Riggs and Shumate 2003b). Although direct impacts to these properties
from the present project are extremely unlikely, any potential indirect or cumulative impacts that might
affect these properties as a result of the project must be considered as part of the EIS process.
.•
Consultation with the EBCI regarding TCPs is ongoing, and any further identification of Cherokee TCPs
within the project must await the results of those discussions.
There is also potential for TCPs associated with the later historic period occupation of the area. In
particular, some cemeteries on the North Shore were clearly invested with special importance prior to the
depopulation of the area in the 1940s (Oliver 1989:89). The Decoration Days described by Oliver for the
pre-1944 period were revived in the late 1970s by former residents and their descendants, and have
clearly played a major role in maintaining group identity among former area residents (Anonymous 1978;
Cable 1998; Cantrell 2000; Chandler 1986; Holland 2001:193-194; Rohr 2003; Taylor 2001:141-142;
Williams 2002).
At least two other known locations may merit consideration as TCPs. The first is the "hot pit" at
Guardhouse Mountain, on the former Welch property east of Chambers Creek. The hot pit was apparently
an opening in the ground that emitted smoke or steam, described by one former resident as "warm but
never hot" (Parris 1962, 1986). The opening was fenced off by the Welch family to keep children and
cattle from falling into it. The nature of this phenomenon is unknown, as is its precise location (David
Monteith, personal communication 2003). Although no special traditions are known to be attached to this
location, its potential significance should be assessed if it is likely to be affected by one or more project
alternatives. A second location that may merit evaluation is the "Elephant Rock," a large rock siivated on
the banks of Hazel Creek below Proctor. This rock was apparently a favorite diving location during the
former occupation, and is a noted landmark and destination for former residenis on return trips to the area.
Other Cultural Resources
Another potential type of cultural resource is the Cultural Landscape, which is defined as:
a geographic area, including both natural and cultural resources, associated with a historic event,
activity, or person. The Nationa] Park Service recognizes four cultural landscape categories:
historic designed landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, historic sites, and ethnographic
landscapes [NPS 1998:87].
Although historic designed landscapes and historic sites (which in this sense are associated with important
events, activities, and persons [NPS 1998:88]) are unlikely to be present in the study area, the potential
for historic vernacular landscapes and ethnographic landscapes must be considered. As defined by the
NPS (1998:87), "historic vernacular landscapes illustrate peoples' values and attitudes towards the land
and reflect patterns of settlement, use, and development over time." One particular type of historic
vernacular landscape is the Rural Historic Landscape, which consists o£
a geographical area that historically has been used by people, or shaped or modified by human
activity, occupancy, ar intervention, and that possesses a significant concentration, linkage, ar
continuity of areas of land use, vegetation, buildings and structures, roads and waterways, and
natural features [McClelland et al. 1999].
Such landscapes could potentially be NRHP-eligible under Criteria A, B, C, or D, but are probably most
frequently considered eligible under Criterion A.
No previous atteinpts have been made to identify Rural Historic Landscapes within the study area. It is
unlikely that any areas within GSMNP or Nantahala National Forest would meet the definition and
registration requirements, however, due to the extensive reforestation (and in some cases, other landscape
changes) that has occurred since they were occupied. Landscape features within these areas are probably
best treated as archaeological sites, or as part of potential NRHP districts consiructed primarily around
archaeological resources. There is some potential for Rural Historic Landscapes in other parts of the study
area io have maintained their traditional character, however, and ihe potential for this type of resource
should be assessed if such areas are potentially to be affected by projeci activities.
..
Ethnographic landscapes are "associated with contemporary groups and typically are used or valued in
traditional ways" (NPS 1998:78). Given the history of the study area, there is some potential for
ethnographic landscapes associated with both Cherokee and Euro-American populations in the area.
Similarly, it may be necessary to consider the potential presence and significance of other types of
ethnographic resources in or adjacent to the study area (NPS 1998:157-168).
Finally, the potential for other types of non-traditional NRHP districts in the area should also be
considered. Such districts could include a variety of structures, archaeological sites, or other resources
associated with a particular individual, such as Horace Kephart, or with a historical event or process, such
as logging on Hazel Creek, the construction of Fontana Dam, or even the North Shore controversy itself.
Any such proposed district should be evaluated against the NRHP requirements, as well as the guidelines
presented by Townsend et al. (1993).
l50
6. SUMMARY
The North Shore Road EIS study area covers about 121,000 acres of Swain and Graham counties, and
includes most of the TVA's Fontana Lake as well as sizeable areas of GSMNP, Nantahala National
Forest, and adjacent private holdings. This area has witnessed Native American occupation for at least the
past 10,000 years, including several hundred years of Historic Cherokee presence. Although most
Cherokees were forcibly removed from the area in 1838, others remained and formed the nucleus of the
present-day Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Euro-Americans began to enter the area in numbers in the
1820s, living first in dispersed settlements, some of which developed into such cominunities as Bryson
City, Bushnell, Proctor, Almond, and Judson. The relatively self-sufficient farming/herding/hunting
lifestyles of the nineteenth century began io change wiih the arrival of the railroad and the beginning of
logging and mining operations in the 1880s and 1890s, and were modified greatly with the
commencement of large-scale railroad logging operations by about 1910. Lumber companies such as
Ritter, Norwood, Whiting, and Montvale logged extensive parts of the study area before ceasing local
operations in the late 1920s.
By the time the lumber companies left, Alcoa had developed plans for a reservoir along the Little
Tennessee River and had begun buying up bottomland in the area. Also in the late 1920s, the North
Carolina Park Commission began acquiring parts of the study area for GSMNP, which was formally
established in 1934. TVA took control of the proposed Alcoa reservoir in 1941, and eventually purchased
(or acquired through condemnation) 68,291 acres in the Fontana Project area (TVA 1950:478). Many
communities along the rivers were inundated by Fontana Lake when it was completed in 1944. The town
of Proctor and large sections of the North Shore were to be left without road access as a result of reservoir
construction, and consequently the TVA acquired some 44,000 acres on the North Share rather than build
a new road under war-time economic conditions. This land subsequently passed to GSMNP under a four-
party agreement that was executed in 1943, and which provided for construction of a road across the
North Share as soon as funding was available. Road construction occurred intermittently from the late-
1940s through the 1960s, but by 1972 construction had ceased due to funding, engineering, and
environmental concerns. The past 30 years have been marked by continued debate over the future of the
road, including competing proposals for road construction, and for wilderness designation and an
accompanying settlement to Swain County (see Chapter 1).
While the recorded history of this area spans less than 200 years, parts of that period are extremely well
documented. In particular, the late nineteenth through mid-twentieth century history of the North Shore
has been documented and discussed to a degree that is unmatched most other places in the region. A large
number of primary and secondary records and accounts of life are available, as are synthetic studies that
address the significance of this area and the North Shore Road controversy in the context of GSMNP and
Appalachia. The historical coverage is uneven, however, and data are comparatively scanty for the early
historic period occupations and for much of the southern part of the study area.
Cultural resource studies have not kept pace with these historical studies, however. Although considerable
information is available concerning cemeteries and historic structures in the study area, only an estimated
3.0 percent of the study area has been intensively surveyed for archaeological sites. In particular, no
large-scale intensive surveys have been conducted on the 53,600 acres of GSMNP in the study area.
Consequently, atteinpts to determine the likely locations and densities of sites in the study area must rely
on a combination of existing information and predictions based on topographic and historical data. The
resulting data are considered useful in the preliminary identification of project alternatives, but will
eventually need to be supplemented by intensive field inventory and evaluation studies should the project
proceed.
The combined data on known and potential cultural resource locations within the study area are shown in
Figure 6.1. This figure includes a total of 1,968 resources, including 97 of 101 NRHP-eligible or
l51
-potentially eligible archaeological sites (locations of four are not positively known), 16 other reported
site locations, 38 of 44 structures and other aboveground resources (locations of six are not positively
known), 97 cemeteries or former cemeteries, and 1,716 former historic structure, mine, or other resource
locations derived from historic maps. Even this figure certainly considerably underestimates the number
of potentially significant cultural resources in the study area, however, and it is necessary to supplement
these data with predictive statements concerning the locations of areas of moderate to high probability for
site occurrence. In Figure 6.2 these data are combined with information on areas of 15 percent or less
slope to provide a map of archaeologically sensitive areas within the study area.
l52
PROTECTED RESOURCE LOCATIONAL DATA - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION
PROTECTED RESOURCE LOCATIONAL DATA - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION
REFERENCES CITED
Ahlman, Todd M., Delland Gould, Brad Duplantis, and Joseph Parfitt
2003 Archaeological Data Analysis of the Tennessee River T�alley Associated with the Tennessee T�alley
Authority's Reservoir Operations Study. The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Richmond. Submitted to TVA,
Norris, Tennessee, and PBPower, Inc., Boston.
Alley, Felix E.
1941 Random Thoughts and the Musings of a Mountaineer. Rowan Printing, Salisbury, North Carolina.
Anderson, David G.
1990 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View from the Southeastern United
States. In Research in Econornic Anthropology, edited by JAI Press Inc., pp. 163-216, Supplement 5.
Greenwich, Connecticut.
Anderson, David G., Lisa O'Steen, and Ken Sassaman
1996 Environmental and Chronological Considerations. In The Paleoinc�ian and Early Archaic Southeast,
edited by D.G. Anderson and K.E. Sassaman, pp. 3-15. University of Alabaina Press, Tuscaloosa.
Anfinson, Scott
2001 Both Sides Now: The National Register and Archaeology. Presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of
the Society for American Archaeology, Denver.
Anonymous
n.d. History of North Carolina Land Areas in Vicinity of North Shore of Fontana Reservoir and Great
Smoky Mountains National Park. On file, Marianna Black Public Library, Bryson City, Narth Carolina.
1908a Pertaining to the Manufacture of Lumber from Southern Appalachian Hardwood and Softwood
Timber. American Lumberman 171:62-75.
1908b Lumber Pioneering in the Appalachian Forests. American Lumberman 171:75.
1914 Untitled Article. Bryson Times, Bryson City, North Carolina. February 27.
1926 Mr. Ritter's Most Commendable Gift. The Hardwood Bark 5(1):6-7.
1932 Swain County. Asheville Citizen-Times. November 6.
1939 Economic Problem Number 1 A-Plus, Swain County. The News and Observer, Raleigh, North
Carolina. Vol. 148, No. 50.
196�} Many Stories Told About Lost Mines In Smokies. Smoky Mountain Times, Bryson City, Narth
Carolina. July 30.
1972 History of Stecoah Schools and Churches. In 1872-1972 Graham County Centennial, coordinated by
Jack D. Lovin and Marion Ingram, pp. 62-65. Graham County Centennial 1972, Incorporated, Robbinsville,
North Carolina.
1978 They Came to Cable Cove to Remember Their Dead. Asheville Citizen-Times. May 29.
1984a Medlin Once was Heart of Mountain Wisdom. Asheville Citizen-Times. February 2.
1984b Some Still Remember Japan, North Carolina. Asheville Citizen-Times. May 17.
1986 Some of First Hazel Creek Families (map). Fontana (North Shore Historical Association newsletter),
July.
1992 This Steel Truss Bridge ... . Sylva Herald; reprinted in Fontana (North Shore Historical Association
newsletter), July.
1993 North Shore Cemeteries. Fontana (North Shore Historical Association newsletter), January.
1995 Noted Confederate Vet, Moonshiner to be Honored in Tennessee. Smoky Mountain Times, May ll;
reprinted in Fon�tana (North Shore Historical Association newsletter), July.
Appalachian History Series
1995 Hiking on Hazel Creek. Videocassette, Appalachian History Series, Robbinsville.
Appalachian Trail Conference (ATC)
1973 Guide to the Appalachian Trail in the Great Smokies, the Nantahalas, and Georgia. Publication No.
23 (Fifth Edition). Appalachian Trail Conference, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia.
Arthur, John Preston
1914 Western North Carolina: A History fi^om 1730 to 1913. Reprinted 1996, Overmountain Press,
Johnson City, Tennessee.
l55
Ashcraft, A. Scott, and Rodney J. Snedeker
1994 Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed Cheoah Lake Pinebeetle Salvage, Compartments 18-20,
23, 25 and 155, Cheoah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest, Graham Couniy, North Carolina.
National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
Ashcraft, A. Scott, Rodney J. Snedeker, Alain H. Burchett, and Robert O. Noel
1994 Heritage Resources Survey for the PNOposed Cheoah Pineheetle and Storm Salvage, Hyde Branch/
"Nell " Movie Set and Lower Bear Creek Wildlife Fields, Compartments 7, 8, 11, 1 S, 19, 20, 22-24, 33, 37,
39, 119-124, 130-135 and I51-156, Cheoah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest, Graham and
Swain Counties, North Carolina. National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
Baker, Bill
n.d. Affair at Toqua: the Williams Boys During the Civil War. Accessed at
http://www3.tellico.net/�tellicotimes/Toqua/html, July 2003.
Baker, Charles M.
1979 An Intensive Archeological Reconnaissance on the Qualla Reservation, Cherokee, North Carolina.
On file, Archaeology Laboratory, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Western Carolina University,
Cullowhee.
Bass, Quentin R., III
1975 Prehistoric Settlement and Subsistence Patterns in the Great Smoky Mountains. Submitted to the
National Park Service, Knoxville.
Bassett, Jill, and Rodney Snedeker
1998 Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed Owensby Branch Timber Sale, Forest Servr�ce Report
No. CH 99-1, Compartments 123-124, Cheoah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest, Graham
County North Carolina. Narional Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
2000 Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed T.sali Concession Stand Project, Forest Service Report
No. CH00-4. National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
2001 Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed Tsali Forest Health FY01-OS Project, Forest Service
Report No. CH01-1, Compartments 154-1 SS, Cheoah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest, Graham
and Swain Counties, North Carolina. National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
Bayley, W.S.
1922 North Carolina. In High Grade Clays of the Eastern United States. By H. Ries, W.S., Bayley, and
others. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 708.
1925 The Kaolins of North Carolina. North Carolina Geological and Economic Bulletin 29.
Beck, Elaine S.
1988 Swain County's First Year. In The Heritage of Swain County North Carolina 1877-1987,
coordinaYed by Hazel C. Jenkins, p. 9. Swain County Genealogical and Historical Society and Hunter
Publishing Company, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Behre, Charles H., Jr.
n.d. Confidential Report on Preliminary Examination, Hazel Creek, Everett, or Adams Mine (Kolb-
Westervelt Estate). On file, North Carolina Geological Survey, Asheville.
Bein, Albert
1936 Let Freedom Ring.• A Play in Three Acts. French, New York.
Bennett, Kelly
1932 Dr. Bennett Presents Word Picture of Swain. Radio speech reprinted in the Asheville Citizen.
November 7.
Benyshek, Tasha
2003 Additional Archaeological Survey of the Nantahala Lake Shoreline and Testing of Site 31MA570 for
the Nantahala Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2692), Macon and Clay Counties, North Carolina.
TRC Garrow Associates, Durham. Submitted to Duke Power Co., Charlotte.
Bishir, Catherine W., Michael T. Southern, and Jennifer F. Martin
1999 A Guide to the Historic Architecture of Western North Carolina. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill and London.
Black, Ellen Engelmann
1928 A Study of the Diffusion of Cul2ure in a Relatively I.solated Mouniain County. Unpublished M.S.
Dissertation in Sociology and Anthropology, University of Chicago. On file, Marianna Black Library,
Bryson City, North Carolina.
�
Blythe, Robert W.
n.d. Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Park Development Historic District. NRHP Documentation
on file, North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Raleigh.
Bondar, Gregory H.
2001 Metarhyolite Use During the Transitional Archaic in Eastern North America. Paper presented at the
66`� meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.
Brewer, Alberta, and Carson Brewer
1975 Valley So Wild.• A FolkHistory. East Tennessee Historical Society, Knoxville.
Britt, George
1987 Life on Hazel Creek. Fontana (North Shore Historical Association newsletter), July.
Broome, Harvey
2001 Out Under the Sky of the Grea2 Smokies: A Personal Journal. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Brown, Margaret Lynn
2000 The Wild East.• A Biography of the Great Smoky Mountains. University of Florida, Gainesville.
Bryson, Edwin C.
1988 The Bryson Family. In The Heritage of Swain Counry, North Carolina, 1877-1987, coordinated by
Hazel C. Jenkins, pp. 94-95. Swain County Genealogical and Historical Society and Hunter Publishing
Company, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Bryson, Herman J.
1928 The Mining Industry in North Carolina During 1926. North Carolina Department of Conservation
and Development, Raleigh.
1930 The Mining Industry in North Carolina During 1927 and 1928. North Carolina Department of
Conservation and Development, Raleigh.
1937 The Mining Industry in North Carolina fi^om 1929 to 1936. North Carolina Department of
Conservation and Development, Raleigh.
Bryson, Reid A., David A. Baerreis, and W.M. Wendland
1970 The Character of the Late Glacial and Post Glacial Climatic Changes. In Pleistocene and Recent
Environments of the Central Coastal Plains, edited by W. Dort, Jr., and J.K. Jones, Jr., pp. 53-74.
University of Kansas Special Publications No. 3, Lawrence.
Burke, Fielding (pseudonym of Olive Dargan)
1935 A Stone Came Rolling. Longmans, Green and Co., New Yorlc.
1983 Call Home the Heart. Feminist Press, Old Woodbury. (reprint of 1932 edition).
Cable, Patricia
1998 Cemetery Decaration Reunion. Fontana (North Shore Historical Association newsletter), July.
Calhoun, Granville
1929 Testimony in State of North Carolina vs. Norwood Lumber Company, et al., pp. 4-25. On file,
National Park, Parkway, and Forest Development Commission Papers, North Carolina State Archives,
Raleigh.
Campbell, Carlos C.
1960 Birth of a National Park in the Great Smoky Mountains. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Cantrell, Geoff
2000 North Shore Homecomings Help Preserve Proud Heritage, Asheville Citizen-Tirnes, Apri126.
Reprinted in Fontana (North Shore Historical Association newsletter), July.
Carden, Gary
n.d. Birdell.• A Dramatic Monologue. Presented at Smoky Mountain Community Theatre, Bryson City,
June—July 2003.
2002 An Outlander Comes to the Hills. Smoky Mountain News, June 12.
Casada, Jim
1988 Introduction, in Carraping and Woodcraft, by Horace Kephart, pp. vii—xxxiii. University of
Tennessee, Knoxville.
Chambers, Lamon
1988 The Chambers Family. In The Heritage of Swain County, North Carolina, 1877-1987, coordinated
by Hazel C. Jenkins, p. 118. Swain County Genealogical and Historical Society and Hunter Publishing
Company, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
l57
Chambers, Lloyd, Hazel L. Chambers, Virgie Shook, Ruby Anthony, Buel Anthony, Dixie Kirkland, Lizzie
Kirkland, Edna E. Welch, Orene M. DeBord, Clinton Chambers, Verna W. Kirkland, Donald Bunn, Edna A.
Cloer, and Audie A. James
1988 Memories of Chambers Creek from 50 Years Ago. In The Heritage of Swain County, North
Carolina, 1877-1987, coordinated by Hazel C. Jenkins, pp. 23-24. Swain County Genealogical and
Historical Society and Hunter Publishing Company, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Chandler, Ruth
1986 There's No Place Like Home. Fontana (North Shore Historical Association newsletter), July.
Cherokee Claims Papers
1838-42 Cherolcee Spoilation and Improvement Claims. ln Cherokee Collection [Penelope Allen Papers],
Microfilm Record 815, Tennessee State Library and Archives, Nashville.
Claggett, Stephen R., and John S. Cable
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological lnvestigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North Carolina
Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson, Michigan. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Cleveland, Todd, Larry McKee, and Paul Webb
2002 Cultural Resource of the Elkrnont Historic District, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Sevier
County, Tennessee. TRC Garrow Associates, Inc., Atlanta. Submitted to Great Sinoky Mountains National
Park, Gatlinburg.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society 54(5).
Coggins, Allan R.
1999 Place Naines of the Smokies. Great Smoky Mountains Natural History Association, Gatlinburg,
Tennessee.
Cole, David
1996 A Social History of Forney's Creek, North Carolina. The Bone Rattler 12(3):59-71.
Corbitt, David Leroy
1950 The Formation of the North Carolina Counties, 1663-1943. Division of Archives and History, North
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources.
Cowan, C. Wesley
1985 Understanding the Evolution of Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America: Lessons from Botany,
Ethnography, and Archaeology. In Prehistoric Food Production in North America, edited by Richard I.
Fard, pp. 205-243. AnYhropological Papers No. 75. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
Crow, Vernon H.
1982 Storm in the Mountains: Thomas' Confederate Legion of Cherokees and Mountaineers. Museum of
the Cherokee Indian, Cherokee, North Carolina.
Dargan, Olive Tilford
1925 Highland Annals. C. Scribner, New York.
1998 From My Highest Hill. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville (reprint of 1941 edition).
Davis, R.P. SYephen, Jr.
1990 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Little Tennessee River Valley. Report of Invesrigations No. 50,
University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Knoxville, and Publications in Anthropology No.
54, Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga.
Delcourt, Hazel R., and Paul A. Delcourt
1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of the Southeastern United States. In Pollen
Records ofLate-Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by V.M. Bryant and R.G. Holloway, pp. 1—
37. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation.
Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt
1983 Late Quaternary Vegetational Dynamics and Community Stability Reconsidered. Quaternary
Research 19:265-271.
Dickens, Roy S.
1976 Cherokee Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region. University of
Tennessee, Knoxville.
:
Dorwin, John T.
1975 Upper Hiwassee River Survey, 197�1975. Archeology Laboratary, Western Carolina University,
Cullowhee. Submitted to the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and
History, Raleigh.
Douthat, James L.
1993 Robert Armstrong's Survey Book of Cherokee Lands. Institute of Histaric Research, Signal
Mountain, Tennessee.
Drane, Brent S., and Jasper L. St�ickey
1925 The Mining Industry in North Carolina fi^om 1918 to 1923 (Inclusive). The North Carolina
Geological and Economic Survey, Raleigh.
Dreyman, Wilma Lovelace
1992 Bushnell: A Living Memory. Fontana (North Share Historical Association newsletter), October.
Duggan, Betty J.
1998 Being Cherokee in a White World: The Ethnic Persistence of a Post-Removal American Indian
Enclave. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
2002 Voices from the Periphery: Reconstructing and Interpreting Post-Removal Histories of the Duck
Town Cherokees. In Southern Indians and Anthropologists: Culture, Politics, and Identiry, edited by Lisa J.
Lefler and Frederic W. Gleach, pp. 43-68. University of Georgia, Athens.
Duncan, Barbara R., and Brett H. Riggs
2003 Cherokee Heritage Trails Guidebook. Museum of the Cherokee Indian and University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London.
Dyson, D. McDaniel
2002 Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed Swain County Shooting Range (WA01-2), Cornpartment
1, Wayah Ranger Districi, Nantahala National Forest, Swain County, North Carolina. National Forests in
North Carolina, Asheville.
Dyson, D. McDaniel, and Rodney J. Snedeker
2000 Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed Almond Timber Sale (WA01-1), Compartment S& 6,
Wayah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest, Swain Counry, North Carolina. National Forests in
North Carolina, Asheville.
Dyson, D. McDaniel, Rodney J. Snedeker, and Robert O. Noel
1994 Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed Laurel Branch Small Tracts and PAWS Animal Shelter,
Compartment 2, Wayah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest, Swain Counry, North Carolina.
National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
Egloff, Brian J.
1967 An Analysis of Ceramics from Historic Cherokee Towns. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department
of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Eller, Ronald D.
1982 Miners, Millhands, and Mountaineers: Industrialization of the Appalachian South, 1880-1930.
University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Ellison, George
1976 Introduction, in Our Southern Highlanders, by Horace Kephart, pp. ix—xlviii. University of
Tennessee, Knoxville.
Emmons, W.H.
1942 A Report on the Fontana Mine, Swain County, North Carolina. On file, North Carolina Geological
Survey, Asheville.
1943a Second Report on the FonYana Mine. On file, North Carolina Geological Survey, Asheville.
1943b A Valuation of the Fontana Mine, Swain County, N.C., as of March 15, 1943. Third Report. On file,
North Carolina Geological Survey, Asheville.
1944a Welch, Forney, Noland, and Epps Springs Deposits, Swain County, North Carolina. On file, North
Carolina Geological Survey, Asheville.
1944b Notes on the Adams Mine, Hazel Creek, Swain County, North Carolina. On file, North Carolina
Geological Survey, Asheville.
Espenshade, Gilbert H.
1963 Geology of Some Copper Deposits in North Carolina, virginia, and Alabama, Geological Survey
Bulletin 1142—I. United States Department of the Interior, Washington D.C.
l59
Espenshade, Gilbert H., M.H. Staatz, and E.A. Brown
1943 Preliminary Report Hazel Creek Mine, Swain County, North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey. On
file, North Carolina Geological Survey, Asheville.
Ferguson, Unknown
1993 Some Memories of the Fontana Copper Mine Era. Fontana (North Shore Historical Association
newsletter), October.
Finger, John R.
1979 The Saga of Tsali: Legend Versus Reality. The North Carolina Historical Review 56(1):1-18.
1984 The Eastern Band of Cherokees, 1819-1900. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
1991 Cherokee Americans: The Eastern Band of Cherokees in the Twentieth Century. University of
Tennessee, Knoxville.
Fleming, Karl
1958 Swain Progresses. Asheville (N.C.) Citizen-Times. June 10.
Flum, T., and S.C. Nodvin
1995 Factors Affecting Streamwater Chemistry in the Great Smoky Mountains, USA. Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution 85:1707-1712.
Foley, Nora, Scott Southworth, A.P. Schulta, R.A. Ayuso, G.R. Robinson, and R.R. Seal
2002 Geochemical, Mineralogical, and Environmental Characteristics of Metamorphosed Black Shales of
the Central Appalachians, with Comparisons to Metalliferous Shales of the Northern Appalachians. USGS
Appalachian Region Science, accessed at
http://www.a�palachianregionscience.usgs.gov/a�pal/pub/abstract.asp?ID=61, August 2003.
Fard, Richard I.
1981 Gathering and Farming Before A.D. 1000: Patterns of Prehistoric Cultivation North of Mexico.
Journal of Ethnobiology 1:6-27.
Fox, Porfland P., Earl C. Van Horn, and Robert E. Barnett
1944 Geology and Ore Deposi2s of the Hazel Creek Land Company, Tract FR-1132, Westerfeldt Prospect,
and a Portion of the Adams Mine. TVA Water Control Planning Department, Geological Division. On file,
North Carolina Geological Survey, Asheville.
Frome, Michael
1994 Strangers in High Places: The Story of the Great Smoky Mountains (expanded edition). University of
Tennessee, Knoxville.
Garrow, Patrick H.
1981 Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Proposed U. S. 19, From Andrews Bypass to NC 28,
Cherokee, Graham, and Swain Counties, North Carolina (State Project Nos. A-8 and A-9). Soil Systems,
Inc., Marietta.
Gasque, Jim
1948 Hunting and Fishing in the Great Smokies. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Gerber, Grant
1987 Once Thriving Counry Confiscated for Park. Elko [Nevada] Free Press, November 7.
Glassow, Michael
1977 Issues in Evaluaring the Signiiicance of Archaeological Resources. American Antiquiry 42:413-420.
Goldston, E.F., and William Gettys
1953 Soil Survey of Graham County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American
Antiquiry 47:382-395.
Gordon, Paul
1973 Hall Cabin. NRHP Docuinentation on file, Great Smoky Mountains National Park Cultural
Resources Office, Gatlinburg.
Gore, Daniel
1997 Ways That are Dark.• A Musical Companion to Horace Kephart's "Our Southern Highlanders. "
Elephant Rock Records, Spokane.
Greene, Kathy
n.d. A Visit to the Judson of 1943. Accessed at
www.freepa�es.genealogy.rootsweb.com/�lynda77/judtxt.htm, July 2003.
•1
Greene, Lance K.
1996 The Archaeology and History of the Cherokee Out Towns. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
1998 An Archaeological Survey of the Qualla Boundary in Swain and Jackson Counties, North Carolina.
Museum of the Cherokee Indian, Cherokee, North Carolina. On file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
Griffin, James B.
1967 Eastern North America Archaeology: a Summary. Science 156:175-191.
Hamrick, James Y., and Warren V. Hall
1898 Eleven�th Annual Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of North Carolina Including the First
Annual Report of the Inspec2or of Mines for the Year 1897. North Carolina Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Raleigh.
1899 Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of North Carolina Including the Second
Annual Report of the Inspector of Mines for the Year 1898. North Carolina Bureau of Labor SYatistics,
Raleigh.
Hardesty, Donald L., and Barbara J. Little
2000 Assessing Site Signifccance. A1taMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Harrington, M.R.
1922 Cherokee and Earlier Remains on the Upper^ Tennessee River. Indian Notes and Monographs.
Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.
Heye, George C.
1919 Certain Mounds in Haywood County, North Carolina. Contributions from the Museum of the
Arnerican Indian, Heye Foundation 5(3)35-43.
Heye, George C., F.W. Hodge, and G.H. Pepper
1918 The Nacoochee Mound in Georgia. Contributions fi^om ihe Museum of the American Indian, Heye
Foundation 2(1).
Hill, Sarah H.
1997 Weaving New Worlds: Southeastern Cherokee Women and Their Basketry. University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Holland, Lance
2001 Fontana: A Pocket History of Appalachia. Appalachian Histary Series, Robbinsville.
Holmes, John S.
1911 Forest Conditions in Western North Carolina. North Carolina Geological and Economic Survey
Bulletin No. 23, Raleigh.
Hudson, Charles M.
1976 The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Exploration of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-1568. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington.
1997 Knights of Spain, Warriors of the Sun. University of Georgia, Athens.
Hudson, Charles M., Marvin T. Smith, and Chester B. DePratter
1984 The Hernando De Soto Expedition: from Apalachee to Chiaha. Southeastern Archaeology 3(1):45—
65.
Hunt, W.T.
1945 Final Report — Population Readjustment — Fontana Reservoir. Tennessee Valley Authority.
Manuscript on file, NARA, East Point.
Hunter, Elizabeth
1986 Park Bridges to Go Despite Liaison's Request. Asheville Citizen, October 8; reprinted in Fontana
(North Shore Historical Association newsletter), October.
Hyde, Arnold J.
1944a Reservoir Property Management Department: Population Readjustment, Stecoah Community.
Tennessee Valley Authority. Manuscript on iile, NARA, East Point.
1944b Reservoir Property Management Department: Population Readjustment, Almond-Judson
Community. Tennessee Valley Authority. Manuscript on iile, NARA, East Point.
Idol, Bruce
2001 Archaeological Survey for Phase 1 of the Proposed Balsam Mountain Preserve Developmeni,
Jackson Counry, North Carolina. TRC Garrow Associates, Inc. Report submitted to Balsam Mountain
Preserve, Waynesville, North Carolina.
l61
Jacob, M.
2000 The Impacts of Logging on Landslide ActiviYy at Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia. Ca2ena
38(4):279-300.
Jenlcins, Hazel C. (coordinator)
1988 The Heritage of Swain Counry, North Carolina, 1877-1987. Swain County Genealogical and
Historical Society and Hunter Publishing Company, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Jolley, Harley E.
2000 The CCC in the Smokies. Great Smoky Mountains Natural History Association, Gatlinburg,
Tennessee.
Jones, Evan
1826-38 Letterbooks and Journals of the Valleytowns Baptist Mission. Microfilm 93, Records of the
American Foreign Mission Societies, American Baptist Archives Center, Valley Forge.
Joy, Deborah
1992 Archaeological Survey Report, Improvements to NC 28 from the Intersection of US 19 Near Almond
to Just West of the Bridge over Fontana Lake, Swain County, North Carolina, TIP A-9DA. Planning and
Environmental Branch, Division of Highways, North Carolina Department of Transportation.
2002a Phase I Archeological Survey for the Relicensing of the Tapoco Hydroelectric Project. Legacy
Research, Durham, North Carolina. Submitted to Alcoa Power Generating, lnc..
2002b Archaeological Site Location Model for the Santeelah Development of the Tapoco Hydroelectric
Project in Graham County, North Carolina. Legacy Research, Durham, North Carolina. Submitted to Alcoa
Power Generating, Inc.
2003 A Phase 1 Archeological Survey for the Relicensing of the Tapoco Hydroelectric Project.• Predictive
Model Testing at Santeetlah Reservoir in Graham Counry, North Carolina. Legacy Research, Durham,
North Carolina. Submitted to Alcoa Power Generating, Inc.
Justice, Rollins
2002 Forney That Was. Fontana (North Share Historical Association newsletter), April.
Keel, Bennie C.
1976 Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of ihe Appalachian Summii. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Keel, Bennie C., and Brian J. Egloff
1984 The Cane Creek Site, Mitchell County, North Carolina. Southern Indian Studies 333-44.
Keith, Arthur
1895 Description oithe Knoxville Quadrangle (Tennessee-North Carolina). U.S. Geological Survey
Geologic Atlas Folio 16.
1907 Description of the Nantahala Quadrangle (North Carolina-Tennessee). U.S. Geological Survey
Geologic Atlas Folio 143.
Kephart, Horace
n.d. Map of Hazel Creek. Ms. on file, Hunter Library, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee.
1931 Camp Cookery. Macmillan, New Yark City.
1976 Our Southern Highlanders. University of Tennessee, Knoxville (originally published 1913).
1988 Camping and Woodcraft. University of Tennessee, Knoxville (originally published 1917)
Kerr, W.C., and William Cain
1882 Map ofNorth Carolina, by W.C. Kerr, State Geologist; assisted by Capt. William Cain, C.E.
Published under the authority of the State Board of Agriculture.
Ketchen, F.E.
1944 Reservoir Property Management Department: Population Readjustment, Bushnell Community.
Tennessee Valley Authority. Manuscript on file, NARA, East Point.
Kimball, Larry
1985 The 1977 Archaeological Survey: an Overall Assessment of the Archaeological Resources of Tellico
Reservoir. Publications in Anthropology 39. Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris.
1992 Early Archaic Settlement and Technology: Lessons from Tellico. In Paleoindian and Early Archaic
Period Research in the Lower Southeast: A South Carolina Perspective, edited by D.G. Anderson, K.E.
Sassaman, and C. Judge, pp. 143-181. Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists.
King, Duane H.
1979 The Origin of the Eastern Cherokees as a Social and Political Entity. In The Cherokee Nation: A
Troubled History, edited by Duane H. King, pp. 164-180. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
King, Duane H., and Raymond Evans
1977 Memoirs of the Grant Expedition Against the Cherokees, 1761. Journal of Cherokee Studies 2(3).
[[L
1979 Tsali: The Man Behind The Legend, 1838. Journal of Cherokee Studies 4(4).
King, Thomas F.
1998 Cul2ural Resour-ce Laws & Practice. A1taMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
2000 Federal Planning and Historic Places. A1taMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
2003 Places That Count. A1taMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Kirkland, Fred
2000 Memories of Proctor & Hazel Creek by a Full-blooded Kirkland. Fontana (North Shore Historical
Association newsletter), July.
Kitchen, T.
1760 A New Map of the Cherokee Nation. On file at Perkins Library, Duke University, Durham.
Klein, Terry H., and Sherene Baugher
2003 Addressing an Historic Preservation Dilemma: The Future of Nineteenth-Century Farmstead
Archaeology in the Northeast. Northeast Historical Archaeology 30-31:167-180.
Knoxville Power Company (KPC)
1913-15 Land Acquisition Maps. On file at Duke Power Company, Franklin, N.C.
Lambert, Robert S.
1958a The Oconaluftee Valley, 1800-1860: A Study of the Sources far Mountain History. The North
Carolina Historical Review 35(4):415-427.
1958b Logging in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.• A Report to the Superintendent. On file,
Great Smoky Mountains National Park Archives, Gatlinburg, Tennessee.
1961 Logging the Great Smolcies, 1880-1930. Tennessee Historicc�l Quarterly December:350-363.
Lamoreaux, Heidi K.
1999 Human-Environmental Relationships in the Coastal Plain of Georgia Based on High Resolution
Paleoenvironmental Records from Three Peat Deposits. Unpublished dissertation, University of Georgia,
Athens.
Laney, F.B.
1907 Copper Deposits of Swain County. In The Mining Industry in North Carolina Durireg 1905, by
Joseph Hyde Pratt, pp. 72-75. The North Carolina Geological and Economic Survey, Raleigh.
Laney, Myrtle
1986 Thinking of the Past. Fontana (North Shore Historical Association newsletter), July.
Latshaw, H.F.
1916 Social, Economic, and Historical Survey of Swain County. Bryson Ciry (N.C.) Tinzes.
Leigh, David S.
2002 Geomorphology of the Ravensford Tract. In Cultural and Historical Resource Investigations of the
Ravensford Land Exchange Tract, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Swain County, North Carolina,
by Paul A. Webb, pp. 135-156. TRC Garrow Associates, Inc., Durham. Submitted to the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, North Carolina.
2003 Archaeological Site Burial Potential for the North Shore Road Project Area, Graham and Swain
Counties, North Carolina. Draft report submitted to TRC Garrow Associates, Inc., Durham.
Leigh, David S., and Tom P. Feeney
1995 Paleochannels Indicating Wet Climate and Lack of Response to Lower Sea-Level, Southeast
Georgia. Geology 23(8):687-690.
Lewis, Dan
2003 FonYana: The Road to Nowhere. Song Lyrics from the Recording Highland Messenger. Privately
published, Asheville.
Linzey, Donald W.
1995 Mammals of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. McDonald and Woodward, Blacksburg,
Virginia.
Little, Barbara, and Erika Martin Seibert
2000 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Properties. National Register Bulletin, U.S.
Departinent of the Interior, National Park Service.
Livingston, Joe
2002 Fontana Mines. Accessed at http://aam.wcu.edu/livin�ston/fontana.htm, July 2003.
Love, Robert
1820 The Love Survey Map. On file, North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh.
l63
Lovin, Jack D., and Marion Ingram
1972 Wildlife and Forest Resources in Graham County. In 1872-1972 Graham County Centennial,
coordinated by Jack D. Lovin and Marion Ingram, pp. 117-123. Graham County Centennial 1972,
Incorporated, Robbinsville, North Carolina.
Lumpkin, Grace
1995 To Make My Bread. University of Illinois Press, Urbana (originally published 1932).
Lyon, Eugene
1996 A New Deal for Southeastern Archaeology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
McCann, Karen D., and Robert L. Ewing
2003 Recovering Information Worth Knowing: Developing More Discriminating Approaches for
Selecting Nineteenth-Century Rural Domestic Sites and Farmsteads. Northeast Historical Archaeology 30—
31:15-22.
McClelland, Linda F., J. Timothy Keller, Genevieve P. Keller, and Robert Z. Melnick
1991 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes. National Register Bulletin
30. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
McDade, Arthur
n.d. The Strange Life and Times of Horace Kephart in the Smoky Mountains. Accessed at
htt�://www.a�palachianlife.com/kephart.html, July 2003.
McLoughlin, William G., and Walter H. Cosner Jr.
1984 The Cherokee Censuses of 1809, 1825, and 1835. In The Cherokee Ghost Dance, by William G.
McLoughlin, Walter H. Cosner Jr., and Virginia D. McLoughlin, pp. 215-250. Mercer University, Macon,
Georgia.
MacPherson, George A.
1936a Record of Initial Investigations for Archaeological Sites in Certain Sections of the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park [Swain and Haywood Counties]. Ms. on file, Great Smoky Mountain Narional Park.
1936b Letter Report of Gearge A. MacPherson to Dr. H.C. Bryant. May 29. On file, Great Smoky
Mountains National Park Archives, Sugarlands, Tennessee.
MacRae, John, and Robert Brazier
1833 A New Map of the State ofNor2h Carolina. John MacRae, Fayetteville, North Carolina, and H.S.
Tanner, Philadelphia.
Macon, Vivian Muse
1988 The Burton Welch and Joseph Welch Families. In The Heritage of Swain County, North Carolina,
1877-1987, coordinated by Hazel C. Jenkins, p. 308. Swain County Genealogical and Historical Society and
Hunter Publishing Company, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Mastran, Shelly Smith, and Nan Lowerre
1981 Mountaineers and Rangers: A History of Federal Foresi Management in the Southern Appalachians
1900-1981. USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C.
Mathis, Mark
1979 General Settlement Models. In North Carolina Statewide Archaeological Survey: Introduction and
Application to Three Highway Projects in Hertford, Wilkes, and Ashe Counties, North Carolina, assembled
by Mark Mathis, pp. 24-37. North Carolina Archaeological Council, Raleigh.
Mathis, Mark A., and Jeffrey J. Crow (editors)
1983 The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium. North Carolina Department of
Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Mead, W.J.
1930 Report on Fontana Copper Mine for Aluminum Company of America. On file, North Carolina
Geological Survey, Asheville.
Meltzer, David J., and Bruce D. Smith
1986 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Subsistence Strategies in Eastern Narth America. In Foraging,
Collecting, and Harvesting.• Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by
Sarah W. Neusius, pp. 3-31. Occasional Paper No. 6. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern
lllinois University at Carbondale.
Miller, George L., and Terry H. Klein
2003 A System for Ranking the Research Potential of Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Farmstead Sites.
Northeast Historical Archaeology 30-31:155-166.
Millsaps, Bill, and Wilma Millsaps (assemblers)
1992 Graham Counry Heritage North Carolina Vol. 1. Don Mills Inc., Waynesville.
� .i
Miri, Ali A.
1997 Calhoun House. National Park Service Southeast Support Office, Aflanta. On file at GRSM Cultural
Resources Office, Sugarlands.
Mitchell, H.L., Jr.
2002 Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed Tsali Bath House and Septic System (CH02-3),
Compartment 154, Cheoah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest, Swain Counry, North Carolina.
National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
Mohr, D.W.
1972 Stratigraphy, Structure, and Metamorphism of the Eastern Par of the Fontana Lake Reservoir, Great
Smoky Mountains, North Carolina. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.
1975 Geologic Map of the Noland Creek Quadrangle, North Carolina. North Carolina Geological Survey,
Raleigh.
Moneymalcer, Berlen C.
1941 The Fontana Aggregate Quarry Site. TVA Water Control Planning Department, Geologic Division.
On file, North Carolina Geological Survey, Asheville.
Monteith, David
n.d. Unpublished Maps of North Shore Area. Ms. in possession of the author.
Mooney, James
1900 Myths of the Cherokee. Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1897—
1898, Pt. 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Mooney, James, and Frans M. Olbrechts
1932 The Swimmer Manuscript: Cherokee Sacred Formulas and Medicinal Prescriptions. Bureau of
American Ethnology Bulletin 99. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Moore, David (assembler)
1986 The Conference on Cherokee Prehistory. Warren Wilson College, Swannanoa, North Carolina.
Morgan, Arthur E.
1974 The Making of 2he TVA. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York.
Murless, Dicic, and Constance Stallings
1973 Hiker's Guide to the Smokies. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.
Murphy, Ellen B., Stephen J. Shephard, and Sandra Jo Forney
1976 Assessment of Archaeological Resources of the Proposed Blue Ridge Parkway Extension Within
Great Smoky Mountains National Park. On file, National Park Service Southeast Archaeological Center,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Nantahala Power & Light Company (NP&L)
1929-32 Land Acquisition Maps. On file at Duke Power Company, Franklin, N.C.
National Park Service (NPS)
1991 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
1996 Great Smoky Mountains National Parlc Roads and Bridges, Northshore Road. Historic American
Engineering Record, National Park Service. Accessed at http://Icweb2loc.gov/ammem/hhquery.html, July
2003.
1998 Director's Order 28: Cultural Resource Management. Accessed at
http://www.nps.�ov/policy/Dorders/Dorder28.htm1, May 2003.
Neufield, Rob
2001 Olive Tilford Dargan: Writer and Social Critic 1869-1968. In May We All Remernber Well, vol. 2,
edited by Robert S. Brunk, pp. 267-287. Robert S. Brunk Auction Services, Asheville.
Noble, Bruce J., Jr., and Robert Spude
1997 Guidelines for ldentifying, Evaluating, and Registering Historic Mining Sites (revised edition).
National Register Bulletin 42, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, National Register of
Historic Places.
Noel, Robert O., and Rodney Snedeker
1998 Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed Poison Cove Timber Sale (CH 98-2), Compartments
120. 121, 122, 123 an�d 128; Cheoah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest, Graham County, North
Carolina. National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
1999 Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed Upper Fontana Timber Sale (WA99-3), Compartments
1, 3 and 5; Wayah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest, Swain County, North Carolina. National
Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
l65
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS)
1906 Map of Hazel & Eagle Creeks, Swain County, North Carolina. On �le, Hunter Library, Western
Carolina University, Cullowhee.
1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina. Narth Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Comm�inity
Development. Raleigh
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
2001 North Carolina Listings in the National Register of Historic Places. Accessed at
http://www.hpo.dcr.state.nc.us/nrlist.htm, July 2003.
Nothstein, William L.
1972 Early History of Logging in Graham County. In 1872-1972 Graham County Centennial, coordinated
by Jack D. Lovin and Marion Ingram, pp. 91-94. Graham County Centennial 1972, Incorporated,
Robbinsville, North Carolina.
O'Brien, Robert D.
1972 Evaluation of the Fontana Mine, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee and North
Carolina. Manuscript on File, Great Smoky Mountains National Park Library, Gatlinburg.
O'Neil, William E., Eugene R. DeSilets, and Merel S. Sager
1962 Report of the Technical Committee for the Inspection of the Bryson—Fontana Road Construction
Great Smoky Mountains. Manuscript on File, Great Smoky Mountains National Park Library, Gatlinburg.
Oliver, Billy
1981 The Piedmont Tradition: Refinement of the Savannah River Stemmed Point Type. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence. In Structure and
Process in SouZheastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens and Trawick Ward, pp. 195-2ll .
University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Oliver, Duane
1989 Hazel Creek From Then Till Now. Privately published.
1991 Grace Lumpkin — A Communist Writer on Hazel Creek. Fontana (North Shore Historical
Association newsletter), October.
1992 The First Settlers and Lost Graveyard of Eagle Creek. Fontana (North Share Historical Association
newsletter), July.
1993 Remembered Lives: A Narrative History of Our Family. Privately published.
1996 Mysterious Rock Carving on Welch Branch. Fontana (North Shore Historical Association
newsletter), April.
1998a Along the River• People and Places. Privately published.
1998b A Bear Hunt in 1906: Part II. Fontana (North Shore Historical Associarion newsletter), April.
1998c Of Greek Tombs, Reservoirs, and Springs. Fontana (North Shore Historical Association newsletter),
October.
1999 The First Road Down the River. Fontana (North Share Historical Association newsletter), January.
2000 How Bushnell Got its Name. Fontana (North Shore Historical Association newsletter), April.
2002 Cooking and Living Along the River. Privately published.
2003 Remembered Lives: A Narrative History of Our Faniily. Second Edition, Revised and Rewritten.
Privately published.
Oliver, Zina Farley
1986 Wandering. Fontana (North Shore Historical Association newsletter), July.
Padgett, Thomas J.
1987 Archaeological Study, US 19, Little Tennessee River to NC 2, Swain Counry, TIP No. A-6. Ms. On
file, Planning and Research Branch, Division of Highways, North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Raleigh.
1990 Archaeological Study, Secondary Road 1236 in Nantahala National Forest, Graham Counry, North
Carolina. North Carolina Division of Transportation, Division of Highways, Planning and Environmental
Branch, Raleigh.
Paul, Guy, Jr.
1950 Swain County Now Emphasizing Its Great Scenic Attractions. Asheville Citizen-Times. March 26.
Parker, Patricia, and Thomas F. King
1992 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register
Bulletin 38. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
•:
Parris, John
1960 Hazel Creek a Wilderness? Asheville Citizen, September 25; reprinted in Fontana (North Share
Historical Association newsletter), July 1986.
1962 Mysterious Guardhouse Mountain. Asheville Citizen, January 22.
1968a Hazel Creek—Lost World in the Smokies. Asheville Citizen, July 18.
1968b Granville Calhoun Recalls Hazel Creek Logging Days. Asheville Citizen, July 19.
1978 Jesse Hall's Old Cabin is as Sound as Ever. Asheville Citizen, March 24.
1982 Marcus "Old Fons", Long Gone. Asheville Citizen, March 18; reprinted in Fontana (North Shore
Historical Association newsletter), January 1987.
1986 "Hot PiY' of Guardhouse Mountain. Asheville Citizen, March 23.
Perkins, S.O., and William Gettys
1947 Soil Survey of Swain County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Series 1937, No. 18.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville.
Pfeiffer, Michael A.
n.d. Rural Domestic Site Supplement Form. Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, Russellville, Arkansas.
Pierce, Daniel S.
2000 The Great Smokies: From Natural Habitat to National Park. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
2003 Logging in The Smokies. Great Smoky Mountains Natural History Association, Gatlinburg.
Poole, Cary Franklin
1995 A History of Railroading in Western North Carolina. Overmountain Press, Johnson City, Tennessee.
Posey, Alice
1990 At Home on Hazel Creek. Fontana (North Share Historical Association newsletter), October.
Potter, Elisabeth Walton, and Beth M. Boland
1992 Guidelines %r Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places. National Register Bulletin
41, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, National Register of Historic Places.
Pratt, Joseph H.
1904 The Mining Industry in North Carolina During 1903. The North Carolina Geological Survey,
Raleigh.
1907 The Mining Industry in North Carolina During 1905. The North Carolina Geological and Economic
Survey, Raleigh.
Prentice,l.C., P.J. Bartlein, and T. Webb III
1991 Vegetation and Climate Changes in Eastern North America Since the Last Glacial Maximum.
Ecology 72:2038-2056.
Purrington, Burton L.
1976 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of�the N-645 Tract, Nantahala National Forest, Near the Head of
Connelly Creek, Swain Counry, North Carolina. Submitted to National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
1981 Archaeological lnve.rtigations at the Slipoff Brarxch Site, A Morrow Mountain Culture Campsite in
Swain Counry, North Carolina. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication 5, Raleigh.
1983 Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of Prehistoric Archaeology of North Carolina's Western
Mountain Range. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A.
Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 83-160. North Carolina Deparhnent of Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History, Raleigh.
Pyle, Charlotte
1979 CCC Camps in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. On iile, Great Smoky Mountains
National Park Archives, Gatlinburg, Tennessee.
Rankin, H.S., and C.E. Hunter
1942 Preliminary Field Report on Adams Copper Mine (Covering Field Work fiom July 15 Yo August 8).
On file, North Carolina Geological Survey, Asheville.
Rhodes, J.E., and S.W. Monteith
1928 Report of J.E. Rhodes and S.W. Monteith of Their Estimate of the Merchantable Hardwood and
Spruce Timber also Chestnut Poles and Spruce Pulp Wood, on the Water Shed of Forney Creek. Letter on
iile, National Park, Parkway, and Forest Development Commission Papers, North Carolina State Archives,
Raleigh.
Riggs, Brett H.
1988 An Historical and Archaeological Reconnaissance of Citizen Cherokee Reservations in Macon,
Swain, and Jackson Counties, North Carolina. Submitted to the North Carolina Division of Archives and
History, Raleigh.
l67
1996 Removal Period Cherokee Households and Communities in Southwestern North Carolina (1835—
1838). Submitted to North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Raleigh.
1999 Removal Period Cherokee Households in Southwestern North Carolina: Material Perspectives on
Ethniciry and Cultural Differentiation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Riggs, Brett H., and Lance Greene
i.p. Cultural Resource Studies for the Trail of Tears Project (provisional title). Ms. in prepararion,
Research Laboratories of Archaeology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Riggs, Brett H., and Chris Rodning
2002 Cherokee Ceramic Traditions of Southwestern North Carolina, ca. A.D. 1400-2002: A Preface to
"The Last of'the Iroquois Potters." North Carolina Archaeology 51:34-54.
Riggs, BreYt H., and M. Scott Shumate
2003a Archaeologicallnvestigations at the Lerrlmons Branch Site (31SW365), a Probable Post-Removal
Cherokee Farmstead in Swain County, North Carolina. Research Laboratories of Archaeology, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina. Submitted to the Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris, Tennessee.
2003b Archaeological Testing at Kituhwa. Research Laboratories of Archaeology, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina. Submitted to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Cultural Resources Program.
Riggs, Brett H., M. Scott Shumate, and Patti Evans-Shumate
1997 Archaeological Data Recovery at Site 31 SW291, Jackson County, North Carolina. Blue Ridge
Cultural Resources, Boone, North Carolina. Submitted to the Tribal Casino Gaming Enterprise, Cherolcee.
Riggs, Brett H., M. Scott Shumate, Patti Evans-Shumate, and Brad Bowden
1998 An Archaeological Survey of the Ferguson Farm, Swain County, North Carolina. Blue Ridge
Cultural Resources, Boone, North Carolina. Submitted to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherolcee.
On file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Ritter Lumber Company
1922-28 The Hardwood Bark. W.M. Ritter Lumber Company, Columbus, Ohio. On file at Hunter Library,
Western Carolina University, Cullowhee.
1940 The Romance of Appalachian Hardwood Lumber. W.M. Ritter Lumber Company, Columbus, Ohio.
Robinson, G.R., Jr., F.G. Lesure, J.L Marlowe II, N.K. Foley, and S.H. Clark
1993 Bedrock Geology and Mineral Resources of the Knoxville 1 x 2 degree Quadrangle, Tennessee,
North Carolina, and South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1979. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington.
Robinson, Kenneth W., David G. Moore, and Ruth Y. Wetmore
1994 Woodland Period Radiocarbon Dates from Western North Carolina. Paper presented at the 6th
Uplands Archaeological Conference, Harrisonburg, Virginia.
Rogers, Anne Frazer
1985 An Archaeological Survey of Proposed Water and Sewer Lines Near Deep Creek, Swain Counry,
North Carolina. Archaeology Laboratory, Western North Carolina University, Cullowhee.
Rohr, Karl
2003 The Awakening of the Dead—Revival of Cemetery Traditions on the North Shore of Fontana Lake,
1943-2002. Paper presented at 26r� Appalachian Studies Conference, Richmond.
Ross, Robert M.
1943 The Composition and Condition of the Fontana Aggregate. TVA Water Control Planning
Department, Geologic Division. On file, North Carolina Geological Survey, Asheville.
Rotha, H.
1928 Report on Lands of Norwood Lumber Co., at Forney, N.C. Letter on file, National Park, Parkway,
and Farest Development Commission papers, North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh.
Royce, C.C.
1884 Map of the Former Territorial Limits of the Cherokee "Nation of" Indians. Smithsonian Institution,
W ashington.
1887 The Cherolcee Nation of Indians. In Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Rudolph, Teresa P.
1991 The Late Woodland "Problem" in North Georgia. In Stability, Transformation, and variation: The
Late Woodland Southeast, edited by Michael S. Nassaney and Charles R. Cobb, pp. 259-283. Plenum Press,
New Yark.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
•:
Sassaman, Kenneth E., Mark J. Brooks, David C. Crass, William Green, George S. Lewis, and D. Keith Stephenson
1993 Early Woodland Settlement in the Aiken Plateau. Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 3,
South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina.
Scott, Bob
1991 "Bridge Must Go" But U.S. Park Service Decision is Facing Opposition. Asheville Citizen; reprinted
in Fontana (North Shore Historical Association newsletter), October.
Setzler, Frank M., and Jesse D. Jennings
1941 Peachtree Mound and Village Site, Cherokee Counry, North Carolina. Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin 131. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Sharp, Rome
1944 Reservoir Property Management Department: Population Readjustment, Proctar Community.
Tennessee Valley Authority. Manuscript on iile, NARA, East Point.
Sharpe, Bill
1954 Our Best-Known County. The State 22(5):18-26.
Sheffey, Pamela
1992 History of Tatham Gap Road. In Graham County Heritage North Carolina Vol. 1, edited by Bill and
Wilma Millsaps, pp. 2-3. Graham County Historical Society and Walsworth Publishing Company,
Waynesville.
Shelford, Victor E.
1963 The Ecology of North America. University of Illinois, Urbana.
Shipman, M.L.
1924 Thirty Fourth Report of the Department of Labor and Printing of the State of North Carolina, 1923—
1924. North Carolina Department of Labor, Raleigh.
Shumate, M. Scott
1994 Phase 11 Testing on the Davzs Cemetery Tract, Nantahala National Forest, Swain Counry, North
Carolina. 3D/Environmental, Cincinnati. Report on file, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
Shumate, M. Scott, and Larry R. Kimball
1996 Archaeological Data Recovery at 31 SW263 on the Davis Cemetery Tract, Nantahala National
Forest, Swain County, North Carolina: Field Report. ASU Labaratories of Archaeological Science. Report
on file, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
1997 Archaeological Data Recovery at 31 SW273 on the Davis Cemetery Tract, Nantahala National
Forest, Swain County, North Carolina: Field Report. ASU Laboratories of Archaeological Science. Report
on file, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
1998 Archaeological Data Recovery a2 31 SW273 on the Davis Cemetery Tract, Nantahala Nationa�l
Forest, Swain County, North Carolina: Field ReportAddendum. ASU Labaratories of Archaeological
Science. Report on fle, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
2001 a Archaeological Data Recovery at 31 SW265 on the Davis Cemetery Tract, Nantahala National
Forest, Swain Co�unty, North Carolina. Presented at Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere
Conference, Gatlinburg.
2001b Archaeological Data Recovery at 31 SW273 on the Davis Cemetery Tract, Nantahala National
Forest, Swain County, North Carolina. Presented at Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere
Conference, Gatlinburg.
Shumate, M. Scott, and Patti Evans-Shumate
1996 Phase 11 Testing at Thirteen Prehistoric and Historic Sites on the Davis Cemetery Tract, Nantahala
National Forest, Swain Counry, North Carolina. ASU Labaratories of Archaeological Science Technical
Report No. 5. Report on file, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
Shumate, M. Scott, Patti Evans-Shumate, and Brett H. Riggs
1996 An Archaeological Reconr�aissance Survey of Selected Tracts Within Fontana Reservoir, Swain
County, North Carolina. Blue Ridge Cultural Resources, Boone, North Carolina. Submitted to Tennessee
Valley Authority, Norris, Tennessee.
Smith, Betty Anderson
1979 Distribution of Eighteenth-Century Cherokee Settlements. In The Cherokee Indian Nation: A
Troubled History, edited by Duane H. King, pp. 46-60. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Smith, Bruce D.
1989 Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America. Science 246:1566-1571.
•'
Smith, Marvin T.
1987 Archaeology ofAboriginal Culture Change in the Interior Sou2heast. UniversiYy of Florida,
Gainesville.
Smith, Marvin T., and David J. Hally
1992 Chiefly Behavior: Evidence from Sixteenth Century Spanish Accounts. In Lords of the Southeast.•
Sociallnequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North America, edited by A. Barker and T. Paulcetat,
pp. 99-109. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 3.
Smoky Mountain Railway
1916 Right of Way and Track Map. Office of Chief Engineer, Columbus, Ohio. On file, Interstate
Commerce Commission records, National Archives and Records Administration, College Park.
Snedeker, Rodney J., A. Scott Ashcraft, and Dave M. Dyson
1993 Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Wayah Salvage Project, Compartment 1, 2, 4, 6, and 2,
Wayah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest, Swain and Macon Counties, North Carolina. National
Farests in Narth Carolina, Asheville, NC.
South, Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Southern, Michael, and Jim Sumner
1982 The Frye-Randolph House and the Fryemont Inn. NRHP Documentation on file at North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Office, Raleigh.
Southern Railway
1912 The Western North Carolina Section at a Glance. Passenger Traffic Department, Southern Railway
Company, Washington D.C.
1914 Industrial and Shippers ' Directory of the Southern Railway. Southern Railway Company,
Washington, D.C.
Southworth, Scott
1995 Preliminary Geologic Map of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park within the Fon2ana Dam
and Tuskeegee Quadrangles, Swain Counry, North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 95-
264, Reston.
Sowinska, Suzanne
1995 Introduction, in To Make My Bread, by Grace Lumpkin, pp. vii—xliii. University of Chicago, Urbana
and Chicago.
Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (SOCNJ)
1938 North Carolina and South Carolina Road Map for 1938. On file, TRC Garrow Associates, Durham.
Stroupe, Vernon S. (editor)
1996 Post Offices and Postmasters of North Carolina. North Carolina Postal History Society, Charlotte.
Stuckey, Jasper Leonidas
1965 North Carolina: Its Geology and Mineral Resources. Department of Conservation and Development.
Raleigh.
Stupka, Arthur
1960 Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Natural History Handbook, Series 5. U. S. Government
Printing Office, Washington.
Swain County Planning Team
1976 Analysis of Selected Commercial Recreation Sites, Swain County, North Carolina. Bryson City.
Swain County Genealogical and Historical Society (SCGHS)
2000 The Cemeteries of Swain County, North Carolina. Bryson City, North Carolina.
Swanton, John R.
1985 Final Repor2 of�the United States De Soto Expedition Commission. Originally published in 1939.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Taylor, Stephen Wallace
2001 The New South 's New Frontier.• A Social Hisiory of Economic Development in Southwestern North
Carolina. University of Florida, Gainesville.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
1941 Topographic Map, Fontana Reservoir, Graham and Swain Counties, North Carolina. 19 MS 462 M
505.
1942-44 Land Acquisition Maps, Fontana Reservoir Graham and Swain Coun2ies, North Carolina.
1948 Cemetery Relocation for the Fontana Project. Ms. on file, NARA, East Point.
l70
1950 The Fontana Project, a Comprehensive Report on the Plann�ing, Design, Construction, and Initial
Operations of the Fontana Project. Technical Report 12. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington.
Thomas, Cyrus
1894 Reports on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Twelfth Annual Report of
the Bureau of Ethnology, 1890-1891. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Thomas, William H.
1838 Untitled Map of Tuckasegee and Little Tennessee Drainages. Journal of Cherokee Studies 4(4):220.
Thomason, W.D.
1943 Statement of Facts as to the Location and Nature of Properties Containing Strategic Minerals or
Metals. On file (TVA Mine folder), North Carolina Geological Survey, Asheville.
Thomason and Associates
2002 National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Study of the Tapoco Hydroelectric Project in
Tennessee and North Carolina. Thomason and Associates Preservation Planners, Nashville.
2003a Historic and Historical Archaeological Resources of the Cherokee Trail of Tears. Thomason and
Associates Preservation Planners, Nashville.
2003b National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Study of Seven Hydroelectric Projects in the
Nantahala Area, North Carolina. Thomason and Associates Preservarion Planners, Nashville.
Thomasson, Lillian F.
1965 Swain Counry: Early History and Educational Development. Bryson City, North Carolina.
Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., and John Knoerl
1993 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts. National
Register Bullerin 36, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
Trull, Willa Mae Hull
1986 Some of My Fondest Memories. Fontan�a (North Shore Historical Association newsletter), July.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (USBC)
1895 RepoNt on Population of the United States at the Eleventh Census: 1890. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
1901 Census Reports Volume I.• Twelfth Census of the United States, Taken in the Year 1900, Population
Partl. United States Census Office, Washington, D.C.
1913 Thirteenth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1910, Uolume III.• Population. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
1921-22 Fourteenth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1920, Volumes 1 and III.• Population.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
1932 Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930, Population, Volume III, Part 2. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
1943 Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940, Population, volumes II and 111. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
1952 A Report of the Seventeenth Decennial Census of the United States, Census of Population: 1950,
Volume 1. Government Printing Ofiice, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Bureau of Public Roads (USBPR)
1930 North Carolina Counry Road Survey. Tax Commission, Raleigh.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
1886 Cowee, N.C., 60-minute topographic map (1:125,000).
1892a Knoxville, N.C., 60-minute topographic map (1:125,000).
1892b Nantahala, N.C., 60-minute topographic map (1:125,000).
1906 Nantahala, N.C., 60-minute topographic map (1:125,000).
1913 Cowee, N.C., 60-minute topographic map (1:125,000).
1926 Proposed Great Smoky Mountains National Park, North Carolina-Tennessee (1:125,000).
1931a Proposed Great Smoky Mountains National Park (1:62,500).
1931b Proposed Great Smoky Mountains National Park (1:24,000).
1935 Fontana, N.C., 7.5-minute planimetric map (1:24,000).
1936a Alarka, N.C., 7.5-minute planimetric map (1:24,000).
1936b Bryson, N.C., 7.5-minute planimetric map (1:24,000).
1936c Judson, N.C., 7.5-minute planimetric map (1:24,000).
1936d Hewitt, N.C., 7.5-minute planimetric map (1:24,000)
1936e Proctor, N.C., 7.5-minute planimetric map (1:24,000).
1940a Alarka, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000).
l71
1940b Fontana, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000).
1940c Hewitt, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000).
1940d Judson, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (L•24,000).
1940e Wesser, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000).
1940/90 Hewitt, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (photorevised 1990) (1:24,000).
1941a Bryson, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000).
1941b Hewitt, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000).
1941c Proctor, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000).
1961a Bryson City, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000).
1961b Noland Creek, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000).
1961c Tuskeegee, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000).
1961/78a Bryson City, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (photoinspected 1978) (1:24,000).
1961/87a Noland Creek, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (photoinspected 1987) (1:24,000).
1961/87b Tuskeegee, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (photoinspected 1987) (L•24,000).
1961/87c Wesser, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (photoinspected 1987) (1:24,000).
1964a Silers Bald, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (L•24,000).
1964b Thunderhead Mtn., N.C.-Tenn., 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000).
1964/76 Cades Cove, Tenn.-N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (photoinspected 1976) (1:24,000).
2000a Fontana Dam, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000).
2000b Hewitt, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000).
U.S. War Department
1835 Census Roll of the Cherokee Indians East of the Mississippi. Microcopy T-496, Record Group 75,
U.S. Narional Archives, Washington, D.C.
Valentine, Edward P.
n.d. Report to M.S. Valentine on Excavations at the Sawnooke Mound, Swain County, North Carolina in
1882. Ms. on file, Valentine Museum, Richmond, Virginia.
Vance, Clarence O.
1988 Life on Hazel Creek (Proctor) with Ritter Lumber Company. In The Heritage of Swain Counry,
North Carolina, 1877-1987, edited by Hazel C. Jenkins, pp.28-29. Swain County Genealogical and
Historical Society, Winston—Salem, North Carolina.
Ward, H. Trawick
1979 A Report on Recent "Salvage" Archaeology at Nununyi, 31SW3. Ms. on file, Research Laboratories
of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The Prehistory of
North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by M. Mathis and J. Crow, pp. 53-81. North
Carolina Division of Archives and Histary, Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
Ward, H. Trawicic, and R.P. Stephen Davis Jr.
1999 Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Watts, A.S.
1914 Feldspar and Kaolin Deposits. In The Mining Industry in North Carolina during 1911 and 1912, by
J.H. Pratt. North Carolina Geological and Economic Survey Economic Paper 34.
Watts, W.A.
1975 Vegetation Record for the Last 20,000 Years from a Small Marsh on Lookout Mountain,
Northwestern Georgia. Geological Sociery ofAmerica Bulletin 86:287-291.
1980 Late-Quaternary Vegetation History at White Pond on the Inner Coastal Plain of South Carolina.
Quaternary Research 13:187-199.
Webb, Paul A.
1999 Archaeological Survey and Testing for the Proposed Big Cove Sewer Project, Swain County, North
Carolina. TRC Garrow Associates Inc., Chapel Hill, Narth Carolina. Submitted to Tribal Environmental
Office, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, North Carolina.
2001 Addendum: Archaeological Survey and Testing for the Proposed Big Cove Sewer Project, Swain
County, North Carolina. TRC Garrow Associates Inc., Durham, North Carolina. Submitted to Tribal
Environmental Office, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, North Carolina.
2002 Cultural and Historical Resource Investigations of �the Ravensford Land Exchange Tract, Great
Smoky Mountains National Park, Swain Counry, North Carolina. TRC Garrow Associates, Inc., Durham.
Submitted to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, North Carolina.
l72
Webb, Paul A., Thomas G. Lilly, and Kathy Wilson
1993 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Tract N-877, Wayah Ranger District, Nantahala National
Forest, Swain County, North Carolina. Garrow & Associates Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina. On file, Office
of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
Wetmore, Ruth Y.
1990 The Ela Site (31 SWS): Archaeological Data Recovery of Connestee and Qualla Phase Occupations
at the East Elementary School Site, Swain County, North Carolina. (CH-89-C-0000-0424). On iile, Office
of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
2002 The Woodland Period in the Appalachian Summit of Western North Carolina and the Ridge and
Valley Province of Tennessee. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C.
Mainfort, Jr., pp. 249-269. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Wetmore, Ruth Y., and Anne Frazer Rogers
1988a Archaeological lnvestigations at East and West Elementary School Sites, Swain County, North
Carolina. CH 88-C-0000-0424. Archaeological Laboratory, Western North Carolina University, Cullowhee
North Carolina.
1988b Draft of Final Report — West Elementary School. Archaeological Laboratory, Western North
Carolina University, Cullowhee North Carolina.
Wetmore, Ruth Y., Kenneth W. Robinson, and David G. Moare
2000 Woodland Adaptations in the Appalachian Summit of Western North Carolina: Exploring the
lnfluence of Climate Change. In The Years Without Summer.• Tracing A.D. 536 and Its Aftermath, edited by
Joel D. Gunn, pp. 139-150. BAR International Series 872, Archaeopress, Oxford.
Whitehead, Donald R.
1973 Late-Wisconsin Vegetation Changes in Unglaciated North America. Quaternary Research 3:621—
631.
Wiener, L.S., and C.E. Merschat
1992 Geologic Map of Southwestern North Carolina Including Adjoining Southeastern Tennessee and
Northern Georgia. North Carolina Geological Survey, Raleigh.
Wikle, John
1988 Friendly Japan. In The Heritage of Swain County North Carolina 1877-1987, coordinated by Hazel
C. Jenkins, p. 29. Swain County Genealogical and Historical Society and Hunter Publishing Company,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Williams, John Alexander
2002 Appalachia: A History. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Williams, Mark, and Daniel T. Elliott (editors)
1998 A World Engraved.• Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Williams, Michael Ann
1995 Great Smoky Mountains Folklife. University of Mississippi, Jackson.
1998 Graham Counry and Swain Counry Reconnaissance. On file at NC SHPO.
2002 "When I Can Read My Title Clear": Anti-Environmentalism and Sense of Place in the Great Smoky
Mountains. In Culture, Environment, and Conservation in the Appalachian South, edited by Benita J.
Howell, pp. 87-99. University of Illinois, Urbana and Chicago.
Williams, W.G.
1838 Map of Part of the Cherokee Territory Situated Among the Mountains of N. Carolina, Georgia, and
Tennessee. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Wilson, John
1990 We've Got Thousands of These! What Makes an Historic Farmstead Significant? Historical
Archaeology 24(2) 23-33.
Yarnell, Richard A., and M. Jean Black
1985 Temporal Trends Indicated by a Survey of Archaic and Woodland Plant Food Remains from
Southeastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology 4(2):93-102.
Young, Kelly V. (editedby Anne P. Wagg)
1983 The Village ofFive Lives: Fontana, N.C. Legacy Publications, Greensboro, North Carolina.
Yu, Pei-Lin
2001 The Middle Archaic of the Great Smoky Mountains: Upland Adaptation in a Regional Perspective.
Presented at the 66th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.
Ziegler, Wilbur B., and Ben S. Grosscup
1883 The Heart of the Alleghenies. A. Williams & Co., Raleigh.
l73
���
Custamer-F�c�sed Salutians