Archaeological and Historical Study Report Morgan

Transcription

Archaeological and
Historical Study Report
Morgan Falls Project
FERC #2237
Fulton and Cobb Counties, Georgia
Brockington and Associates, Inc.
Atlanta Charleston Savannah
2006
Archaeological and Historical Study Report:
Morgan Falls Project (FERC #2237)
Fulton and Cobb Counties, Georgia
Prepared for
Georgia Power Company
Atlanta, Georgia
Prepared by
Alex Sweeney
Project Archaeologist
F. Patricia Stallings
Project Historian
and
Jeffrey W. Gardner
Principal Investigator
Atlanta Charleston
February 2006
Management Summary
During June and November 2005, and January 2006, Brockington and Associates,
Inc., conducted historical research, archaeological reconnaissance, and limited surveys of
shoreline areas in the Morgan Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC #2237). These
investigations were conducted for Georgia Power Company (Georgia Power) as part of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydroelectric project relicensing
process (18 CFR Part 4.51[4], Application for License for Major Project-Existing Dam).
Georgia Power implemented shoreline investigations to comply with requirements of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) and relevant regulations.
The Morgan Falls Project is located on the Chattahoochee River, north of Atlanta
between Roswell and Sandy Springs, Georgia. Project lands encompass approximately
1,028 acres in Fulton and Cobb Counties, Georgia. Nearly 627.4 acres of this property are
inundated, encompassed by approximately 29.6 km (18.4 mi) of shoreline.
Archaeological reconnaissance and limited shoreline surveys were conducted during a 2foot drawdown of the project impoundment.
Historical research documented previously recorded archaeological sites within
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) project boundary. The project
boundary extends approximately 7.5 miles upstream from the Morgan Falls facility and
encompasses areas from the 868-foot contour and below. Archaeological reconnaissance
identified shoreline segments within the Morgan Falls Basin with moderate to high
potential for archaeological resources. Limited surveys of selected shoreline segments
identified no new archaeological sites or isolated finds. Seven previously recorded
archaeological sites were reexamined during the shoreline survey.
Based on results of these investigations, two of the previously recorded
archaeological sites (9FU216 and 9FU228) are located either within or adjacent to the
FERC project boundary. The remaining five previously recorded sites reexamined during
ii
this investigation do not extend into the FERC project boundary.
Site 9FU216, a
prehistoric rockshelter, is recommended ineligible for the NRHP, and no further
management considerations are warranted for this site. Site 9FU228, the remains of a
nineteenth-century mill, is eligible for the NRHP. This site is currently monitored and
maintained by the National Park Service, therefore additional management by Georgia
Power should not be required.
iii
Acknowledgments
This study was sponsored by Georgia Power Company. Many Georgia Power
employees contributed their time and knowledge to the successful completion of this
investigation. Most notably, Mr. Larry Wall (Georgia Power Land Department) provided
logistical support for this project and was an excellent tour guide during our field
reconnaissance. Mr. Wall also provided us with pertinent reports and documents relating
to previous archaeological investigations within and near to the project area. Mr. Wayne
Hardie (Morgan Falls Plant) assisted in driving our boat during the field reconnaissance
and provided us boat-driving advice, directions, and extensive information regarding
shoreline access during our field survey.
The archaeological fieldwork was directed by Alex Sweeney, with the assistance
of Jason Grey. Jason also piloted the boat during the field survey. Patricia Stallings
conducted historical research on the dam facility. Report graphics and photographs were
produced by David Diener and Alex Sweeney. Jeff Gardner provided editorial assistance.
Ed Van Ness and Joel Silverberg provided crucial technical support for the production of
this report. Sharon Egan Putnam edited and produced the report. The report authors thank
each of these contributors for their efforts.
iv
Table of Contents
Page
Management Summary ................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................iv
List of Figures ..............................................................................................................................vii
List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................ix
Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................1
Chapter 2. Investigation Methods ................................................................................................5
Background Research Methods ...........................................................................5
Research Orientation............................................................................................5
Archaeological Field Methods.............................................................................6
Laboratory Analysis and Curation .......................................................................8
Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Background...................................................................9
Environmental Overview .....................................................................................9
Physiography............................................................................................9
Geology and Soils ....................................................................................9
Drainage...................................................................................................10
Climate.....................................................................................................11
Flora and Fauna........................................................................................11
Paleoenvironment ....................................................................................12
Cultural Overview................................................................................................13
Prehistoric Context...................................................................................13
Historic Context .......................................................................................17
Chapter 4. Georgia Power Company at Morgan Falls.................................................................25
Development at Morgan Falls..............................................................................25
Chapter 5. Results and Recommendations...................................................................................32
Results of Background Research .........................................................................32
Results of Archaeological Survey........................................................................38
Shoreline Survey......................................................................................38
Archaeological Site Revisits ....................................................................40
Site 9FU25 ...................................................................................42
Site 9FU64 ...................................................................................44
Site 9FU156 .................................................................................46
Site 9FU216 .................................................................................46
Site 9FU219 .................................................................................48
v
Table of Contents (continued)
Page
Site 9FU228 .................................................................................49
Site 9FU391 .................................................................................52
Summary and Recommendations ........................................................................53
References Cited ..........................................................................................................................56
Appendix A. Resumes of Key Project Personnel
vi
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1.
Project area location (1992 Chamblee, Mountain Park, Roswell, and
Sandy Springs, Georgia 7.5 minute USGS quadrangles). .............................2
Figure 2.
Aerial view of the project area (Terra Server USA 2002) .............................3
Figure 3.
Hightower Trail Historical Marker. ..............................................................18
Figure 4.
1796 map showing the general location of Hightower Trail and the project
area (Tanner 1796).........................................................................................18
Figure 5.
Map showing the location of the Cherokee Nation (Finley1830)..................20
Figure 6.
A portion of 1864 maps of Roswell showing McPherson’s crossing (top,
Office of Coast Survey, Historical Map and Chart Project) and union
earthworks (bottom, Davis et al. 1983:138-139) ..........................................22
Figure 7.
McPherson’s Troops Historical Marker. ......................................................23
Figure 8.
Initial stages of construction (Georgia Power Corporate Archives)..............27
Figure 9.
Completed Morgan Falls facility, 1904 (Georgia Power Corporate
Archives)........................................................................................................28
Figure 10.
View of Morgan Falls facility after 1920s upgrade (Georgia Power
Corporate Archives).......................................................................................29
Figure 11.
Refacing of the spillway crest, circa 1959 (Georgia Power Corporate
Archives)........................................................................................................30
Figure 12.
New channel dredged, 1959 (Georgia Power Corporate Archives) ..............31
Figure 13.
Previously recorded archaeological sites located within the western half
of the project area (1992 Mountain Park and Sandy Springs, GA 7.5
USGS quadrangles)........................................................................................33
Figure 14.
Previously recorded archaeological sites located within the eastern half
of the project area (1992 Roswell and Chamblee, GA 7.5
USGS quadrangles)........................................................................................34
Figure 15.
De Baillou’s (1959) map of investigations at Morgan Falls Reservoir .........36
vii
List of Figures (continued)
Page
Figure 16.
Typical view of Area 1, facing south.............................................................38
Figure 17.
Typical view of Area 2, facing south.............................................................39
Figure 18.
View of Area 3, facing east............................................................................39
Figure 19.
Location of high and moderate potential areas (1992 Chamblee, Mountain
Park, Roswell, and Sandy Springs, Georgia 7.5 USGS quadrangles) ...........41
Figure 20.
View of area around 9FU25, facing west ......................................................43
Figure 21.
View of wetland area near 9FU25, facing south............................................43
Figure 22.
View of plowed area around 9FU64, facing east...........................................45
Figure 23.
View of area around 9FU64, facing west ......................................................45
Figure 24.
View of 9FU156, facing east .........................................................................47
Figure 25.
View of 9FU216, facing south.......................................................................47
Figure 26.
Figure 27.
View of wall structure at 9FU228, facing north ............................................50
Figure 28.
View of raceway, facing north.......................................................................50
Figure 29.
Protective iron fence placed around the southern boundary of 9FU228,
facing north ....................................................................................................51
Figure 30.
Protective wire-mesh screening placed to prevent erosion along the
raceway, facing east .......................................................................................52
Figure 31.
viii
List of Tables
Page
Table 1.
Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Within the Morgan Falls FERC
Project Boundary .................................................................................................32
Table 2.
Previous Investigations Near the Morgan Falls FERC Project Boundary...........37
Table 3.
Management Recommendations for Revisited Archaeological Sites..................55
ix
Chapter 1. Introduction
The Morgan Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC #2237) is located on the Chattahoochee
River, north of Atlanta between Roswell and Sandy Springs, Georgia. Project lands encompass
approximately 1,028 acres in Fulton and Cobb Counties, Georgia. Approximately 627.4 acres
are inundated, encompassed by approximately 29.6 km (18.4 mi) of shoreline. Georgia Power
Company (Georgia Power) maintains the hydroelectric facilities in this project area (Figures 1
and 2). A brief summary of the history of this plant is presented below. Detailed descriptions of
the facilities are included in the historic hydroengineering study report (Stallings 2005).
The Morgan Falls Hydroelectric Facility was constructed between 1902 and 1904 based
upon plans by S. Morgan Smith. Commercial operation of the facility began in 1904. The
facility is located in Roswell, Georgia. The project area extends upstream along the
Chattahoochee River approximately 7.5 miles. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) project boundary is defined predominantly at the 868-foot (approximately 264.5 m)
contour.
This archaeological and historical study of the Morgan Falls Hydroelectric Project was
conducted as part of the relicensing consultation process (18 CFR Part 4.51[4], Application for
License for Major Project-Existing Dam) between Georgia Power and the FERC. As part of
the relicensing effort, cultural resources investigations must be conducted within the FERC
project boundary, in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 (NHPA, as amended through 2000). As stated in 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic
and Cultural Properties (ACHP 1986), Section 106 requires all federal agencies to consider
the impact of their actions on properties that are either listed on or considered eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
1
Figure 1.
Project area location (1992 Chamblee, Mountain Park, Roswell, and Sandy
Springs, Georgia 7.5 minute USGS quadrangles).
2
Figure 2.
Aerial view of the project area (Terra Server USA 2002).
3
This report documents the methods and results of archaeological investigations
conducted along the shoreline of Morgan Falls during a 2005 scheduled winter drawdown. The
reconnaissance and limited survey methods were developed to identify existing and remnant
landforms that retain moderate to high potential for the presence of archaeological resources,
and to examine significant or potentially significant previously recorded archaeological sites
identified within the FERC project boundary.
A Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the Morgan Falls project will be
produced after the Georgia State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviews and approves
this report and the associated historic hydroengineering study. The HPMP will summarize
information recovered during these studies, including management recommendations for
significant archaeological and historical resources. The HPMP will also address potential
effects of undefined future development on historic properties and provide guidelines for
avoiding and minimizing these effects.
Chapter 2 of this report describes the research and field methods and Chapter 3
provides overviews of the natural and cultural settings. Chapter 4 provides a brief history of the
Morgan Falls hydroelectric facility, summarized from the historic hydroengineering report
(Stallings 2005). Chapter 5 presents the results of the field investigations and management
recommendations.
4
Chapter 2. Investigation Methods
Background Research Methods
Background research for archaeological and historical studies of the Morgan Falls
Hydroelectric Project was designed to identify previously recorded archaeological sites within
and adjacent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) project boundary and to
provide an overview of the prehistoric and historic occupation and land use in the study area.
Researchers examined relevant archaeological site forms, descriptive reports, and manuscripts
at the Georgia Archaeological Site File (University of Georgia, Athens). Archaeologists also
reviewed reports of previous cultural resources investigations in environmental settings similar
to the project study area.
The Project Historian conducted historical research at several repositories. The
Historian reviewed reports and maps at the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historic
Preservation Division (HPD) in Atlanta, Georgia, and project documents from the Land
Department and the Engineering Archives at Georgia Power. The Historian also reviewed
historic maps and interviewed current Georgia Power personnel and local informants.
Research Orientation
Shoreline investigations had three primary components. Archaeologists conducted
reconnaissance (by boat) of the entire project shoreline to identify and delineate areas within
the project boundary with moderate to high potential for the presence of archaeological sites. In
addition, archaeologists conducted survey of areas with moderate to high potential for
archaeological sites. Archaeologists also revisited and reevaluated archaeological sites located
within or adjacent to the project boundary.
Archaeologists have previously described the effects of reservoir inundation and
periodic drawdowns on archaeological sites. Whyte (1986) and Dunn et al. (1996) identified
5
natural, mechanical, and human variables that affect these resources. The natural variable is
percentage of slope. Flat or gently sloping land forms tend to be covered with silt, which may
provide a protective cap over archaeological sites. Conversely, land forms with moderate or
steep slopes are likely to be severely deflated and eroded, resulting in the destruction of
archaeological deposits. The mechanical variable noted by Whyte (1986) and Dunn et al.
(1996) is wave action. This impact results from boat wakes, wind, and fluctuations in
impoundment water levels. This action leads to erosion of shorelines, contributing to the
gradual deflation and destruction of archaeological deposits. Southerlin and Reid (1997)
conducted shoreline reconnaissance of the Flint River Project (FERC #1218, Dougherty and
Lee Counties, Georgia) and found that regular operation and maintenance activities contributed
to deflation of upper soil horizons, exposing more compact strata. In areas of moderate to steep
slope, shoreline embankments and bluff edges are gradually undercut by wave action and erode
into the reservoir. In his shoreline survey of Lake Blackshear (on Flint River), Schnell (1975)
also concluded that archaeological sites located on slopes below the normal pool level suffered
sheet erosion and the depletion of cultural features and organic remains (Schnell 1980).
All of these possible effects were considered in evaluating the shoreline of the Morgan
Falls Project for archaeological potential. We combined information on pre-inundation and
current shoreline conditions with settlement data to develop informal criteria for delineating
shoreline segments with low and moderate to high potential for the presence of archaeological
sites.
Archaeological Field Methods
Archaeologists conducted reconnaissance (by boat) and limited survey of the exposed
shorelines of Morgan Falls during a scheduled drawdown. During shoreline reconnaissance,
the principal investigator and project archaeologist slowly toured the entire lakeshore by boat,
noting the extent of exposure and condition (e.g., degree of slope, amount of erosion,
presence/absence of development) of all shoreline areas. We used information recorded during
reconnaissance and background research to delineate areas of low and moderate to high
6
potential for the presence of archaeological sites. The project archaeologists and a technician
also conducted an archaeological survey on the moderate to high potential areas. Low potential
areas consist of shoreline segments exhibiting moderate to steep slope or areas with extensive
residential development. Moderate to high potential areas consist primarily of exposed terraces
and ridge ends exhibiting low to moderate slope, which have undergone no development.
These areas are currently represented by peninsular land forms in the project area. We recorded
this information in narrative form in field notes and plotted locations on field maps.
During archaeological survey, shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter (100-ft)
intervals within moderate and high potential areas. Shovel tests measured 30 cm (11.8 in) in
diameter and were excavated into sterile subsoil. All exposed surface areas were inspected for
cultural materials. Soil was screened through ¼-inch mesh hardware cloth. Detailed notes were
recorded on the soil condition, stratigraphy, and Munsell soil color. In addition, we excavated a
small number of judgmentally-placed shovel tests to determine soil depth and presence of
buried archaeological deposits.
Archaeologists and cultural resource managers utilize a variety of definitions for sites
and isolated finds. For the purposes of this project, a site was defined as an area containing five
or more artifacts of a possible single occupation in a 30-meter (100-ft) or less diameter of
surface exposure; or whereat least two shovel tests within 30 meters (100 ft) were positive
(contained one or more artifacts); or where surface or subsurface cultural features are present.
If an area does not contain features or ruins, artifacts recovered must have some utility of
meaning associated with their location (i.e., the area containing artifacts is of interest to a
research, educational, or other purpose). A relatively small number of obviously redeposited
artifacts (even if greater than five in number) would typically not be defined as a site without a
compelling research or other reason. Similarly, artifacts of recent age (less than 50 years)
would typically not define a site without a compelling research or management reason.
Isolated finds are those locations with fewer than five artifacts, not containing features
or ruins. As noted above, an isolated find may also be represented by more than five artifacts if
the location has no utility of meaning for a research or other purpose. Isolated finds are
7
generally assumed to be ineligible for the NRHP. Recording these finds included location and
environmental data similar to those recorded for archaeological sites.
The project archaeologist reexamined seven archaeological sites that appear to be
located within or adjacent to the project area and have an unknown or eligible NRHP
evaluation. Since ineligible sites do not warrant additional management, sites that have been
previously evaluated as eligible or potentially eligible for the NRHP or which have an
unknown recommendation were revisited during this investigation. The project archaeologist
attempted to relocate these sites to verify their location within the project boundary.
Judgmentally placed shovel tests were excavated in the vicinity of the reported UTM
coordinates for subsurface sites (i.e., artifact scatters) within the FERC project boundary.
Laboratory Analysis and Curation
We neither recovered nor encountered any artifacts during our field investigations. As a
result, laboratory analysis was not required. All field notes, photographs, and records from this
project are currently stored at the Atlanta office of Brockington and Associates, Inc. A
complete package of all field notes and project records will be submitted to the Erskine
Ramsay Archaeological Repository, Moundville Archaeological Park, Moundville, Alabama,
for curation upon approval of the project report.
8
Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Background
Environmental Overview
The following discussion provides background information regarding the physical
environment of the Morgan Falls project study area and the surrounding region. Knowledge of
local and regional environmental conditions and available resources assist cultural resource
professionals in identifying potential resource zones and areas favorable for human settlement.
Patterns of human settlement are often linked to specific environmental zones and availability
of associated natural resources.
Physiography
The project area is situated in Fulton and Cobb Counties, Georgia. At this location, the
Chattahoochee River valley is located to the north of the Fall Line, within the Gainesville
Ridges district of the Piedmont province. The Fall Line is the transition zone between two
physiographic provinces: the Piedmont and the Coastal Plain.
The Gainesville Ridges district of the Piedmont is described as “a series of northeasttrending, low, parallel ridges separated by narrow valleys. These ridges strongly control the
course of the Chattahoochee River”(Hodler and Schretter 1986:17). Elevations in this district
range from 2,700 to 1,600 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Elevations vary from 864 to 868
feet amsl within the Morgan Falls project area.
Geology and Soils
The Piedmont contains crystalline and granite deposits.
These deposits are
Precambrian and Paleozoic in age. The geology of this area is dominated by deposits
9
containing micaschist, gneiss, amphibolite, and aluminousschist (Georgia Department of
Natural Resources 1976).
Lithic resources exploited during prehistoric periods are generally available in nearby
areas of the Piedmont province. Quartz, quartzite, and soapstone are found throughout the
Piedmont. Metamorphic (metavolcanic) rocks are also dispersed across the Piedmont. Chert
occurs in the Piedmont in limited quantities, but is more abundant in the Ridge and Valley and
Coastal Plain provinces. All of these lithic materials may be collected from upland settings or
along creek and riverbeds in cobble deposits.
Soils in the study region were produced by the weathering of Piedmont rocks. More
specifically, these soils are
Characterized by steep to gently rolling thin, well-drained red soil with sandy
loam surface layers over sandy clay to clay subsoils (Hodler and Schretter
1986:36).
Hodler and Schretter (1986:36) place the survey area within the Southern Piedmont land
resource area. Soils in this land resource area have been eroded due to past agricultural abuses
and often exhibit red clay subsoil exposed on the ground surface. The general soil association
located within the project area belongs to the Congaree-Chewacla-Wickham series, which
corresponds to areas of recent alluvial deposits. Congaree-Chewacla-Wickham soils exhibit a
moderate to good drainage along the Chattahoochee River (Walker et al. 1958).
Drainage
The principal drainage in the region is the Chattahoochee River; the project area
consists primarily of lake shorelines formed along the Chattahoochee. Tributaries of the
Chattahoochee are short, swift streams, often entrenched in steep-sided gullies. Major
tributaries in the project area include Sullivan Creek, Vickery Creek, and Willeo Creek. In
10
addition, a number of smaller creeks and unnamed tributaries intersect the project area as they
drain into the Chattahoochee River.
Climate
North-central Georgia falls within the Warm Temperate Subtropical climate zone
(Hodler and Schretter 1986:44). Moist tropical air from the Gulf of Mexico persistently covers
the area making summers long and hot. Winters are moderately cold with winter cold spells
lasting for only a few days interspersed with periods of mild weather (Thomas 1973). Summer
temperatures average 63 to 90°F; winter temperatures average 30 to 55°F. The growing season
usually lasts from early April through early November, with an average length of 220 days
(Thomas 1973).
In an average year, both Cobb and Fulton Counties receive approximately 50 inches of
precipitation. Most of this rainfall is relatively evenly distributed throughout the year. On a
monthly basis, March is commonly above average with approximately 6 inches of rain, while
precipitation tends to be lowest in October with just over 2.5 inches of rain (Thomas 1973;
Hodler and Schretter 1986). Severe local storms, which rarely include tornados, strike the area
occasionally. Thunderstorms occur on about 50 to 60 days a year, mostly in summer. They
tend to be short, causing variable, sometimes severe, damage (Thomas 1973).
Flora and Fauna
Vegetation types vary across the region, based on differences in physiography,
topography, and historic land use. In this portion of the Piedmont, forests are dominated by
loblolly (Pinus taeda) and shortleaf (Pinus echinata) pine and various oaks (Quercus) (Hodler
and Schretter 1986:52). Prior to large-scale agricultural development, original vegetation over
most of the project region was dominated by mixed pines and hardwoods (Braun 1950). Stands
of planted pines are now widespread across ridge tops. Areas of natural regeneration
11
containing a mixture of pines and hardwoods are also present, primarily along lower slopes
near drainages. Remnants of the mixed pine/hardwood forest include loblolly, longleaf,
shortleaf/slashpines, hickory, oaks, and various understory trees. Deciduous trees common to
the wetlands and lower ridge slopes include black gum, sweetgum, and laurel, swamp, and
water oaks. Scrub oaks are common on the higher slopes.
Common larger mammal and marsupial species presently found in the project region
include white-tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), beaver (Castor canadensis), coyote (Canis
latrans), bobcat (Lynx Rufus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), opossum (Didelphys
marsupialis), and raccoon ( Procyon lotor). Smaller mammalian species consist of cotton
mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern pipistrelle
(Pipistrellus subflavus), field mouse (Peromyscus polionotus), flying squirrel (Glaucomys
volans), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), mole (Scalopus
aquaticus), pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), rice rat (Oryzomys
palustris), swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus), weasel (Mustela frenata), and wood mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus; Golley 1962).
Paleoenvironment
Palynological and paleoenvironmental studies in Georgia and South Carolina (Brook
1981; Delcourt 1979; Watts 1980) indicate that between 22,000 and 12,000 years before
present (BP) the cool, dry climate favored a mixture of conifers and cool-temperate hardwoods.
In contrast, the early Holocene forests of the region became dominated by less mesic species,
such as oak, hickory, and southern pine. By about 10,000 years BP, modern flora had
established itself in most of the southeastern United States (Kuchler 1964; Sheehan et al. 1985;
Wharton 1989). Analysis of palynological evidence recovered in the Richard B. Russell
Multiple Use Area (Sheehan et al. 1985), suggests that spruce, pine, fir, and hemlock rapidly
decreased in importance between 9,000 and 4,000 years BP. As the climate continued to warm,
increased moisture augmented the northward advance of the oak-hickory forest (Delcourt
1979). By the mid-Holocene period, the oak-hickory forest was gradually being replaced by a
12
pine-dominated woodland similar to forest types encountered by initial European settlers
(Wharton 1989:12).
Cultural Overview
Prehistoric Context
As it is presently understood, human occupation and its associated cultural environment
spans at least 12,000 years in the Southeast. This 12,000-year span is divided into a number of
developmental stages. Each stage is characterized by its own settlement patterns, subsistence
strategies, technology, and diagnostic artifacts, and is divided into distinctive, temporal
periods. Remnants of these temporal periods are left in the form of archaeological deposits. A
brief discussion of the cultural history of the region is presented below.
The prehistoric occupation of the southeastern United States can be described best in
terms of changes in fundamental social systemics. During much of the past, prehistoric cultures
maintained a lifestyle that focused on the acquisition of locally available wild resources
(hunting and gathering). The hunting-gathering lifestyle selected for a social structure which
emphasized small mobile groups that intensively exploited a given area for their preferred
resources. During times of economic stress, secondary resources could be relied upon, along
with increased mobilization and trade with neighboring groups, to supplement the diet.
The developmental stages most associated with this particular lifestyle are the
Paleoindian (9500-8500 BC) and the Archaic (8500-1000 BC). These stages are further
subdivided into periods based on the particular resource procurement strategies, their intergroup relations, and the projectile point typologies which have been developed through the
years.
The Paleoindian stage in the Southeast is characterized by isolated finds of fluted
projectile points and associated hearths or ephemeral features. Very little substantial data
concerning Paleoindian lifeways are known from the region. What is postulated tends to be
13
adopted from the interpretations of more substantial remains from the Plains and western North
America, since it is assumed that nomadic Pleistocene hunter-gatherers maintained a similar
pattern of behavior regardless of region. Populations were sparse across most of Georgia.
There are, however, some areas with concentrations of Late Paleoindian sites that indicate
either a denser population or repeated re-use of local habitats (perhaps seasonally).
During the transition from sparse Paleoindian colonization to higher Archaic population
densities, developments in technology mirrored the rise in populations. Large heavy lanceolate
projectile points were gradually replaced by generally smaller more finely crafted corner- or
side-notched types (Anderson et al.1990; Bullen 1975; Coe 1964; Whatley 1984). This
reflected not only a change in technological innovation, but a shift in focus to smaller prey
species (as opposed to now-extinct Pleistocene megafauna). It was during the late periods of
the Archaic stage that fiber-tempered ceramics (e.g., Stallings Island) were developed,
indicating a push towards a more sedentary settlement strategy (Fairbanks 1942; Sassaman
1993).
Site localities during the periods of intensive hunting and gathering were selected
primarily as a means to allow access to some necessary resources. For the most part these
resources were prey species, wild plants, and lithics. Natural barriers to movement prevented
colonization in some instances. Groups were aggregated according to complex territorial
arrangements that evolved early on and probably shrank considerably as populations increased
or seasonal rounds developed based on smaller prey species (Anderson and Joseph 1988).
The Early Archaic period is distinguished from the preceding Paleoindian periods on
the basis of the technological change from large fluted projectile points to simpler, smaller, and
more diverse points. The general density of populations increased, along with more
technological change to herald the period which archaeologists refer to as the Middle Archaic.
The shift towards more diverse and complex Middle Archaic populations took place gradually,
and is not easily distinguished by period boundaries. This can be seen most effectively when
trying to assess beginning and ending dates for the Early, Middle, and Late Archaic.
14
The Middle Archaic, however, appears to show an increase in more permanent
settlement, particularly in the large river valleys. This is perhaps most indicative of the
establishment of intra-regional territories by discrete tribal, ethnic, or familial units. During this
period, one begins to see the characteristics of seasonality and continual seasonal rounds within
restricted territories. This is expanded in the Late Archaic.
The primary development in the Late Archaic which distinguishes it from the preceding
periods is the manufacture and use of pottery. The subsistence systems did not change
substantially between periods, but it appears that settlement may have become increasingly
sedentary. The development of fiber-tempered pottery may have been in response to the
decrease in nomadic lifestyle, or the prolonged occupation of preferred sites.
It is inaccurate to consider changes in faunal procurement strategies or territorial
boundaries between and within the Paleoindian and Archaic stages as resultant from a single
factor (such as climate change). Rather, a complex web of individual yet interdependent factors
influenced the path taken in the evolutionary development of hunter-gatherers in the Southeast.
This implies that later developments were in many ways predestined by very early strategies,
though they were on the whole greatly more complex. These later period manifestations clearly
have their roots in earlier hunter-gatherer societies.
By the time that ceramics were developed, subsistence began to focus to a larger degree
on domesticated resources, such as maize, beans, and squash. These crops were probably
introduced from Mexico and supplemented the locally derived domesticates before displacing
them during the Mississippian (Yarnell 1993). The necessity for planting and maintaining plots
of land, initially through slash and burn horticulture but eventually through more sophisticated
crop management techniques, helped select for the development of more stable settled societies
(Bender 1978; Binford 1968). Increased sedentism was probably a factor leading to higher
rates of reproductive fertility, and subsequent population increases.
Through increased sedentism and larger populations in conjunction with many other
factors, social diversity eventually began to dominate. Evidence of differential access to exotic
15
trade goods and the social demands of craft specialization are ways in which the archaeological
record reveals the development of social diversity. A system evolved in which more complex
societies participated in regional interaction and developed centers of political influence
(Anderson 1994; Barker and Pauketat 1992; Marshall 1987).
The developmental stages in which these characteristics developed and reached their
greatest degree of complexity are usually identified as the Woodland (1000 BC-AD 900) and
the Mississippian (AD 900-1600). Each of these stages can also be divided into finer
classifications based on particular pottery typologies and the presence/absence of public or
symbolic architecture, usually identified as Early, Middle, or Late periods.
The Early Woodland period is correlated with increasing intra- and extra-regional trade
(exemplified by more exotic items), developing social hierarchies, technological innovations in
ceramics as well as hunting strategies (the bow and arrow), and a presumed increase in
political superstructures. Dwellings become more permanent, are situated in denser
concentrations and are extended as part of more continuous settlements. The trend increases
throughout the Middle and Late Woodland periods with the addition of mound building and the
extension of greater emphasis on sedentary agriculture.
It was during the Mississippian periods, however, that regional chiefdoms developed
which were associated with particular river valleys and dominated trade networks throughout
the Southeast. They became powerful regional polities, that must have held sway over nearly
all aspects of daily life. These societies engaged in building massive earthwork mounds,
presumably for use as religious structures, but which also emphasized the ability to mobilize
great human effort by socially elevated individuals. A vast number of sources focus on the
development and collapse of regional polities (e.g., Anderson 1994; Barker and Pauketat 1992;
Blitz 1993; Byrd 1991; DePratter 1991; Hudson et al. 1985; Knight 1990; Marshall 1987;
Smith 1987), primarily from a processual perspective, but with a heavy emphasis on social
stratification and regional spatial organization.
16
Anderson (1994) focuses on the “cycling” of political power in the region, with a
postulation that changes in the organizational development of particular chiefdoms resulted
from a number of primary motivating factors, including: regional physiographic structures;
climate; resource structure; agricultural/subsistence production; storage technology; tribute
mobilization; prestige goods exchange; alliance networking; information flow; territorial
boundary maintenance; population change; population movement; ritual institutions; authority
structures; factional competition; and the nature of succession. Anderson (1994) addresses the
development of chiefdoms in the region from the perspective of materialism and economic
motivation, suffused with a strong socioreligious ideal perpetuated by the exchange of exotic
prestige goods.
Historic Context
Concurrent with the arrival of the first Europeans, the southeastern polities began to
break up (Peebles 1986; Anderson 1994). It is difficult to determine if the change resulted from
the arrival of Europeans or was merely coincidental; but by the middle 1600s the region was
inhabited by smaller populations of historically-known tribal confederations (the Cherokee,
Coosa, Creek, Ocute, Calusa, and Apalachee). These cultures did not exhibit the same affinity
for moundbuilding or hyper-social stratification evidenced in the Mississippian societies. There
were well established trade routes that linked all of the individual regions with each other and
with areas outside the Southeast, but the regional political dominance of specific population
centers had changed. It is likely that disease introduced by the Spanish, and later the English,
was responsible for the elimination of a very large percentage of the population (Wood 1989),
and perhaps the role of regional polities as it transformed the elaborate political structure of the
region.
The Cherokee and the Creek occupied land in the vicinity of the project area. A major
Indian village, called Standing Peach (or perhaps pitch) Tree, was located on the
Chattahoochee River just south of the project. The Hightower, or Etowah, Trail, a major Indian
trading route that ran east from the Etowah River to the High Shoals of the Apalachee River
17
crossed the Chattahoochee River through the project area (Figure 3) (Cooper 1978). The
Hightower Trail crossed the Chattahoochee River at Shallow Ford, located in the central
portion of the project area (Figure 4). History records that the part of present-day Georgia that
Figure 3. Hightower Trail Historical Marker.
Figure 4. 1796 map showing the general location of Hightower Trail
and the project area (Tanner 1796).
18
encompasses the project area was claimed and fought over by the two tribes. The Hightower
Trail was eventually agreed by the two tribes to serve as a boundary between the Cherokee
lands to the north and the Creek territories to the south (Boyd 1993). Much of the trail bed is
occupied today by some of the area’s heavily traveled roads.
Historians and archaeologists agree that Spanish explorers probably passed near the
project region during the early to middle sixteenth century (DePratter et al. 1983; Hudson et al.
1984; Smith 1976). While exploratory expeditions led by Hernando de Soto and Juan Pardo
constituted the initial incursion of Europeans into the interior Southeast, Spanish influence over
what would become northern Georgia was short-lived and limited to occasional trade with
aboriginal populations.
English journeys into Native American lands of interior Georgia may have begun as
early as the late 1600s. Representatives of the British colonial government ventured westward
soon after the founding of Charles Town (now Charleston, South Carolina) in 1670, anxious to
establish trading relationships with interior settlements for the purpose of expanding their
commercial and political boundaries. To this end, visits to the interior region by Dr. Henry
Woodward in 1674 (Milling 1969) and James Moore in 1690 (Mooney 1982) were oriented
primarily toward establishment of trade and political alliance.
Treaties signed in Augusta in the late eighteenth century opened large portions of
northeast Georgia to European American settlement. In 1773, lands in east Georgia were ceded
to the British to pay debts owed to traders. This cession extended European American control
over 674,000 acres along the Ogeechee, Oconee, Broad, Savannah, and Tugaloo rivers. In
1784, additional Cherokee and Creek lands extending from the Savannah River to the
Apalachee River were ceded to the newly-formed United States of America. In 1831, all of the
land in Georgia west of the Chattahoochee River and north of Carroll County, including parts
of Carroll, DeKalb, Gwinnett, Hall, and Habersham Counties, became the new Cherokee
County (Figure 5). A year later, in 1832, the Georgia Legislature divided this large area into 10
separate counties (Cass, Cherokee, Cobb, Floyd, Forsyth, Gilmer, Lumpkin, Murray, Paulding,
and Union).
19
Figure 5.
Map showing the location of the Cherokee Nation (Finley 1830).
Early settlement and economy in north Georgia followed established frontier patterns.
Initial settlement was primarily along river and stream valleys where rich alluvial soils were
available. The first homes were small one- or two-room log cabins. During the early eighteenth
century, white traders traveling into interior Georgia followed the Etowah Trail, later known as
the Hightower Trail. This trail allowed comparatively easy travel from Augusta (along the
Savannah River) to Etowah in northwest Georgia. The first settlers in the area were subsistence
farmers. Pioneer farming focused on clearing trees on the best soils to establish a garden plot,
some fruit trees, a cash crop, and a food crop. Principal crops were corn, sweet potatoes, Irish
potatoes, and beans. Corn and tobacco were the first cash crops. Pigs, sheep, and cattle were
allowed to roam the open range and woodlands, and were driven overland to Augusta for river
transport to markets in Savannah (McIntosh 1940). As settlement developed and stabilized,
lands were consolidated, and a plantation economy, based originally on tobacco and later on
cotton, developed (Tabor 1974).
20
The economic base of the study area changed dramatically after the development of the
cotton gin which increased the profitability of upland cotton production. During the early
nineteenth century, cotton became the primary crop produced in the study area. The primary
markets for the area’s farm markets were Atlanta, Athens, and Augusta.
By the middle nineteenth century, transportation systems statewide had begun to be
developed; however, these improvements were slow in reaching north Georgia. Public roads,
following early Indians trails, were unimproved and often unmarked. Railroad construction in
Georgia began in the 1830s, but did not reach the project area until the middle 1840s. In 1853,
Fulton County was formed from the western half of DeKalb County.
The Civil War dealt much of Georgia a major blow in the form of social and economic
upheaval. Intermittent raids, guerilla activities, and finally Sherman’s destructive campaign
caused disruption of former lifeways; food, seed, and livestock were taken or destroyed, and
slaves were set free. The study area and surrounding vicinity saw extensive military action
during the summer of 1864. Union troops under the command of General William T. Sherman
passed through the project area during the infamous “March to the Sea.” General James
McPherson commanded his troops along the approximate route of the Hightower Trail and
across Shallow Ford to Atlanta (Cooper 1978). Figure 6 (top) shows the approximate route of
General McPherson and his troops across the Chattahoochee River in July of 1864 (Figure 7).
As a result of the Union occupation of Atlanta, many homes, businesses, and crops
were looted and burned. The entire landscape of north Georgia was transformed by both Union
and Confederate armies (totaling over 180,000 men); miles of excavated entrenchments and
fortifications were constructed throughout the area. Just south of the project area, Union forces
built several entrenchments and fortifications which were positioned strategically overlooking
the Chattahoochee River (Figure 6 bottom).
The loss of the slave labor force throughout the South, combined with severe financial
setbacks suffered by the southern states as the war’s defeated party, necessitated changes in the
overall economic system. Prunty (1955) attributes the development and growth of the tenant
21
Figure 6.
A portion of 1864 maps of Roswell showing McPherson’s crossing (top, Office
of Coast Survey, Historical Map and Chart Project) and union earthworks
(bottom, Davis et al. 1983:138-139).
22
Figure 7.
McPherson’s Troops Historical Marker.
farm/sharecropper system after the Civil War to extensive changes in sources of labor and
capital availability. The reorganization that occurred was primarily based on changes in the
relationship between management and labor, and resulted in the broad dispersion of smaller,
individual farmsteads (sharecroppers and tenant farmers) within the former boundaries of the
plantation. Former slaves and non-landholding whites ultimately became a part of this new
system wherein farmland was rented for cash or a share of the seasonal yield.
As the industrial revolution continued, European demand for American cotton grew.
The South responded to this demand; it actually produced about 10,000,000 more bales of
cotton in the four years preceding 1881 than it had during the 15 years immediately preceding
the Civil War (Aycock 1981). Apparently the tenant farm system was more efficient at
producing cotton than was the slave labor system. The problem with tenancy was its creation
of impoverished white and black farmers, forced to mortgage future crops for present needs. In
years when crops failed, these farmers went deeper into debt (Wynes 1977).
23
Currently, manufacturing and service industries employ most of the residents in the
study area. At the present time, Fulton and Cobb Counties are part of metropolitan Atlanta.
Many of the residents of these counties commute daily into Atlanta.
24
Chapter 4. Georgia Power Company at Morgan Falls
Many of Georgia=s early hydroelectric plants were developed by locally-oriented
utilities to supply power to textile mills and other industries associated with cities such as
Macon, Columbus, and Albany. However, most of these plants eventually came under the
ownership of the Atlanta-based Georgia Power Company and became part of its interconnected
power system, a transition whose significance is rooted in the history of the Georgia Power
Company itself. The Georgia Power Company is by no means unique or dominant in
southeastern hydroelectric development as a whole; its counterparts in adjacent states include
Alabama Power Company and Duke Power Company (in North and South Carolina).
However, Georgia Power is of particular significance in terms of regional history because it is
closely tied to the growth of Atlanta, one of the South=s largest cities.
The earliest antecedents of present-day Georgia Power Company were formed in
Atlanta in the second half of the nineteenth century through alliances between local developers
and northern investors. Early utility companies supplied street lighting, rudimentary household
utilities and, most importantly, railway and transit services that were emerging as primary users
of electricity in urban areas. Coal-fired steam turbines came into widespread use for production
of electricity in the 1890s, during which time Atlanta=s main sources of electricity were steam
plants (Wright 1957: 73-75). In 1902, all the street railway, electric light and power, and steam
properties in Atlanta were consolidated into a single company called the Georgia Railway and
Electric Company. In 1904, Atlanta=s first source of hydroelectric power was developed at the
Bull Sluice (Morgan Falls) Hydroelectric Plant by several Atlanta businessmen and S. Morgan
Smith, whose Pennsylvania-based company was one of the largest builders of water turbines in
the United States (Wright 1957: 106-109).
Development at Morgan Falls
The following section is a synthesis of information provided in Morgan Falls Project,
100 Years of Energy: Historic Hydro-Engineering Report, Cobb and Fulton Counties, Georgia
25
(FERC #2237) prepared by Brockington and Associates for Georgia Power Company
(Stallings 2005). Chapter IV of that report consists largely of a narrative text researched and
written by Mr. L.G. Byrnes, an independent relicensing consultant to Georgia Power Company.
Mr. Byrnes’s history of the Morgan Falls provided ample detail regarding the initial
development and construction of the facility as well as its re-development during the late
1950s. For the purpose of this report, we are including relevant themes and associations from
this work, with specific references as appropriate.
S. Morgan Smith’s turbines helped increase the value and popularity of hydropower
sites, particularly those within reasonable transition distances to urban areas.
He began
searching for such a site, one of which was brought to his attention in Georgia, known as Bull
Sluice. Located in a remote area north of Atlanta, Smith soon began negotiations for options
on the site in order to build a hydroelectric facility. Using a survey completed by the firm of
Lederle and Bellinger in 1897 as its basis, Smith joined with other Atlanta-based firms to
organize the Atlanta Water and Electric Power Company in 1902 (Stallings 2005: 21-24).
Initial construction began in 1902 (Figure 8), with the S. Morgan Smith Company
beginning work on the dam and powerhouse on the Chattahoochee River at the Bull Sluice site.
The firm of Smith & Hardaway soon contracted with them to complete the work. Construction
efforts included excavation of the dam, tailrace and powerhouse as well as the erection of the
dam, powerhouse and wing walls (Stallings 2005:24-26). Steam powered drills and crushers
helped excavate the foundation, and a total of 25,000 cubic yards of earth and 17,139 cubic
yards of solid rock were removed during construction of the dam (Stallings 2005:27-28).
The dam itself was constructed of concrete using what was called “Concrete Cyclopean
Masonry” where large pieces of unhewn stone were situated far enough apart so that the
crevices could be filled with poured concrete (Stallings 2005:29). A total of 56,037 cubic
yards of concrete and masonry were used in the Morgan Falls dam (Stallings 2005:31).
Construction of the spillway, intake system and powerhouse followed completion of the dam,
and water from the Chattahoochee soon began pooling upriver, forming the reservoir. The
26
Figure 8.
Initial stages of construction (Georgia Power Corporate Archives).
spillway was equipped with 2-foot flashboards and held a normal full pool elevation at 860
feet, with the reservoir extending approximately 1.6 miles upriver (Stallings 2005:33-34).
The 1904 construction consisted of seven horizontal shaft generators, each at 25 cycles
and 1,500 KW, with a total nameplate capacity at Morgan Falls of 10,500 KW. It was among
the first and by far the largest of the early hydroelectric plants built in the state of Georgia at
the time. The first unit was placed in commercial operation on October 10, 1904 (Figure 9)
and the total plant of seven units went into operation on January 1, 1905 (Stallings 2005:34).
S. Morgan Smith died in 1903 before the plant was completed; however, the Board of
Directors of the Atlanta Water and Electric Company soon adopted a resolution naming the
Bull Sluice development Morgan Falls in his honor (Stallings 2005:34). By 1912, the Atlanta
Water and Electric Company sold its properties to and merged with the Georgia Railway and
Power Company.
27
Figure 9.
Completed Morgan Falls facility, 1904 (Georgia Power Corporate
Archives).
Demand on the new system soon necessitated an upgrade of the Morgan Falls facility,
and in early 1920, the Georgia Railway and Power Company contracted with the S. Morgan
Smith Company and Westinghouse to upgrade the turbines and generators. These upgraded
units would increase capacity to 11,047,000 KwHrs per year.
Westinghouse rebuilt the
generators to 2,400 KW at 60 cycles each, which necessitated new and larger penstocks as well
as concrete draft tubes (Stallings 2005:35-36).
By 1924, all seven generators had been
upgraded, giving Morgan Falls a nameplate capacity of 16,800 KW (Figure 10). Additional
improvements during the 1920s included two motorized trash rakes, manufactured by Newport
News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company (Stallings 2005:37-38).
During the late 1950s, Morgan Falls underwent a major redevelopment. The
construction of Buford Dam upstream resulted in variations of water levels which created
28
Figure 10.
View of Morgan Falls facility after 1920s upgrade (Georgia Power
Corporate Archives).
problems for downstream water users, such as the City of Atlanta, in regard to its sewage
disposal system. After a study by the firm of Wiedeman and Singleton and an internal review
by the Georgia Power Company, public-private cooperation was sought to provide for the
redevelopment of Morgan Falls to accommodate adequate storage for timed and regulated
releases to the project from Buford Dam. The City of Atlanta agreed to pay half the cost, with
Georgia Power Company consenting to regulate discharges from Morgan Falls according to a
pre-arranged schedule. As a result, the reservoir was raised from elevation 860 to elevation
866 plant datum, increasing the reservoir to 7.5 miles long (Stallings 2005:38-41).
During redevelopment, the heightened reservoir level required the spillway to be
strengthened and raised. By 1959, over 100,000 pounds of reinforcing steel and approximately
1,000 cubic yards of concrete had been used for this task (Figure 11). By May 1960, 16 new
steel radial tainter gates measuring 8 feet by 40 feet were also installed. Additional work
29
Figure 11.
Refacing of the spillway crest, circa 1959 (Georgia Power Corporate
Archives).
included the installation of a new vertical lift trash gate, spillway piers, spillway bridge and the
required hoisting equipment. The east and west abutment walls were reinforced with concrete,
and a new spillway and intake floating stop log was constructed. On the upstream side of the
dam, Harrison Construction Company excavated a channel through a silt-formed-landprojection near the intake (Figure 12), and on the downstream side, they gunnited the face of
the spillway (Stallings 2005:41-43).
Raising the reservoir level required extensive clearing in the new flood area. Phillips
and Jordan, of Robinsville, North Carolina, cleared a total of 575 acres from June 1959 until
January 1960. By May 1960, the reservoir was filled to the new opening level of 866 feet plant
datum (Stallings 2005:43-44).
30
Figure 12. New channel dredged, 1959 (Georgia Power Corporate Archives).
31
Chapter 5. Results and Recommendations
Results of Background Research
Background research conducted at the Georgia Archaeological Site File (GASF) in
Athens identified eight previously recorded archaeological sites that are within or adjacent to
the boundary of the project area. Table 1 presents a summary of the archaeological sites within
the Morgan Falls FERC boundary and their current National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) status; Figures 13 and 14 show their locations.
Table 1.
Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Within the Morgan Falls FERC
Project Boundary.
Site
Number
9CO546
Site Type
NRHP Eligibility
Reference
Prehistoric lithic scatter
Ineligible
Webb et al. 1999
9FU25
Prehistoric artifact surface scatter
Unknown
Site form only
9FU64
Prehistoric village (hearsay only)
Unknown
Site form only
9FU156
Archaic-Protohistoric rockshelter
Unknown
Site form only
9FU216
Prehistoric rockshelter
Unknown
Site form only
9FU219
Unknown
Site form only
9FU228
Nineteenth-century mill
Eligible
Braley and Wood 1992; Jordan 2004;
O’Grady and Poe 1980; Rogers 1991;
Webb and Gantt 1997
9FU391
Unknown
Gantt and DeRosa 2000
Three of these sites (9CO546, 9FU228, and 9FU391) are presently located within the
boundaries of the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (CRNRA). Site 9CO546, a
prehistoric lithic scatter, was identified by Webb et al. (1999) during a cultural resources
survey of a proposed trail reroute in the Gold Branch unit of the CRNRA. Webb et al. (1999)
identified this site and recommended it ineligible for the NRHP. Site 9FU228 is the remains of
Ivy Mill and is located within the boundaries of Vickery Creek Unit of the CRNRA. Several
investigations have recorded this site which is considered eligible for the NRHP (Braley and
Wood 1992; Jordan 2004; O’Grady and Poe 1980; Rogers 1991; Webb and Gantt 1997). Site
32
This page left intentionally blank by removal of site location information in compliance with
Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
33
This page left intentionally blank by removal of site location information in compliance with
Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
34
9FU391 is a rockshelter located in the Island Ford Unit of the CRNRA. The NRHP eligibility
of 9FU391 is unknown (Gantt and DeRosa 2000).
In 1959, the University of Georgia
conducted an archaeological salvage survey of the Morgan Falls Development under the
direction of Clemens de Baillou and A. R. Kelly (de Baillou 1959). During their investigation,
they identified and excavated 11 prehistoric rockshelter sites and three stone mounds.
Evidence of Native American habitation (ceramics, tools, weapons, and hearth features) was
confirmed at six of the 11 rockshelters. De Baillou (1959) interpreted these rockshelters as
temporary fishing camps. The excavations at the three stone mounds located within the
vicinity of the rockshelters did not recover artifacts or evidence of human remains (de Baillou
1959). Site 9FU391 corresponds to the area on de Baillou’s map showing Rockshelters VII,
VIII, and IX (Figure 15). It is likely that 9FU391 is one of these three rockshelters.
The five remaining sites (9FU25, 9FU64, 9FU156, 9FU216, and 9FU219) are not
located within the CRNRA. The NRHP recommendations for all five of these sites are
unknown. In 1978, 9FU25, a prehistoric artifact surface scatter, was identified by a collector
who recovered prehistoric sherds.
Site 9FU25 is presently located within a portion of
Roswell’s Riverside Park. According to its site form, 9FU64 is the remains of a prehistoric
Indian village that was identified from a surface scatter of artifacts.
Site 9FU156, a
multicomponent rockshelter, is described as a fair-sized rock ledge and overhang. Ceramic
sherds and projectile points were recovered from 9FU156. Sites 9FU216 and 9FU219 are both
rockshelters located in the western portion of the project area. Site 9FU216 is located south of
Sullivan Creek. The site form for 9FU216 identifies it as Falls Site 7. According to its
corresponding site form, 9FU219, located on the eastern bank of the Chattahoochee, is
designated as Morgan Falls Site 10.The locations of 9FU216 and 9FU219 do not correspond to
any of the locations of the rockshelters mapped by de Baillou (1959). However, the location of
de Baillou’s Rock Shelter I is unknown; it is possible that one these sites may be Rock Shelter
I.
Several archaeological surveys have been completed in the vicinity of the Morgan Falls
FERC project areas. A total of 89 sites are located within a 1-mile-wide buffer of the project
tract. Table 2 lists all of the previous investigations located within a mile of the project tract.
35
Figure 15.
De Baillou’s (1959) map of investigations at Morgan Falls Reservoir.
36
Table 2.
Previous Investigations Near the Morgan Falls FERC Project Boundary.
Investigation
Type
Reference
Survey
Sites within
Morgan Falls
project
boundary
9FU391
Archaeological Salvage in the Morgan Falls Basin
Powder Springs to Savannah Pipeline
Survey
None
SSI 1978
Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area
Survey
9FU228
O’Grady and Poe 1980
Survey
None
SSI 1981
First Roswell Factory
Survey
None
Wood 1989
Riverside Road Pump Station and Pipeline
Survey
9FU25,
Rogers 1991
De Baillou 1959
Cultural Resources Inventory
Phase III Expansion of the Chattahoochee Nature
Center
Corridors
9FU228
Riverside Road Pump Station
Testing
None
Ledbetter and Chapman
1991
15-acre tract in Roswell
Survey
9FU228
Braley and Wood 1992
Morgan Falls West (CHAT-57), Tract 105-26,
Survey
None
Prentice 1994
Survey
None
Prentice
Land Lots 224 and 279, Chattahoochee River
National Recreation Area
Morgan Falls West (CHAT-57), Tract 105-08 and
and
Horvath
1995
105-26, Chattahoochee River National Recreation
Area
State Route 9 Improvements
Survey
9FU228
Webb and Gantt 1997
Roswell Pedestrian Bridge, Chattahoochee River
Survey
None
Joseph et al. 1998
Survey
9CO546
Webb et al. 1999
Survey
9FU391
Gantt and DeRosa 2000
Three Roswell Intersection Improvements
Survey
None
Joseph et al. 2002
Grimes Bridge Road at Big Creek
Survey
None
Webb and Gantt 2003
Vickery Creek Pedestrian Bridge Abutment
Survey
None
Gantt and Howard 2004
Survey
9FU228
Jordan 2004
Trail Reroutes for Gold Branch and Jones Bridge
Units, Chattahoochee River National Recreation
Area
Island Ford Trail System, Chattahoochee River
Fuel
Reduction
Areas,
Chattahoochee
River
37
Results of Archaeological Survey
The scheduled drawdown of Morgan Falls lowered lake levels from 866 to 864 feet
above mean sea level. This drawdown exposed beach areas, mud flats, and steeply sloping
embankments. Vegetation within the project area consists of a mix of hardwoods and pine
with various species of brush. Several disturbances were observed in areas around the various
parks (Morgan Falls Park, Chattahoochee River Park, Riverside Park, and Don White
Memorial Park) which included manicured lawns, sewer lines, transmission lines, paved areas,
and buildings.
Shoreline Survey
Archaeologists determined that three areas along the Chattahoochee River shoreline
have moderate to high potential for the presence of archaeological sites. Figures 16-18 show
typical views within these areas. These areas include former high river terraces and bluffs
Figure 16.
Typical view of Area 1, facing south.
38
Figure 17.
Figure 18.
Typical view of Area 2, facing south.
View of Area 3, facing east.
39
overlooking the river. When exposed during drawdown, these landforms are flat to very gently
sloping. Area 1 is a peninsula located just north of the confluence of Sullivan Creek and the
Chattahoochee River on the eastern shore. Area 2 is an island located south of the confluence
of Willeo Creek and the Chattahoochee River. Area 3 is a peninsula situated west of the
confluence of Willeo Creek and the Chattahoochee River on the eastern shore. Figure 19
shows the location of the areas investigated that we determined to have moderate to high
potential for archaeological resources within the project area.
Shovel tests excavated within these three areas contained various soil profiles. These
shovel tests were excavated into sterile soils. Shovel tests excavated in Area 1 typically
contained 15 cm (6 in) of brown silty loam overlaying overlaying yellowish red clayey silt
which extends to 45 cm (18 in) below the current ground surface. Yellowish red damp sand
was encountered from 45-65 cm (18-26 in) below the ground surface. Shovel tests excavated
in Area 2 typically contained yellowish red sand from 0-55 cm (0-22 in) below ground surface.
Damp tan sand was situated beneath this zone and extended below 85 cm (33 in). Many of the
shovel tests excavated in Area 3 contained wet mottled gray and brown clay. Other shovel
tests excavated in Area 3 consisted of brown sand from 0-55 cm (0-22 in) underlain by gray
clay. No artifacts were recovered from any of the shovel tests excavated within the three
moderate to high potential areas.
Archaeological Site Revisits
In addition to the shoreline survey, we reexamined the areas where previously recorded
archaeological sites were located within or adjacent to the project boundary. These sites were
inspected to verify their locations, evaluate their present conditions, and determine if they
require further management considerations. The locations of seven sites were revisited during
this investigation. Refer to Table 1 for a summary of these sites and to Figures 13 and 14 for
the location of these sites.
40
Figure 19.
Location of high and moderate potential areas (1992 Chamblee, Mountain Park,
Roswell, and Sandy Springs, Georgia 7.5 USGS quadrangles).
41
Site 9FU25
Site Number: 9FU25
Site Type: Prehistoric artifact surface scatter
Situation: Not identified in FERC boundary
NRHP Eligibility: Unknown
Management Recommendation: None
Site 9FU25 is reportedly located on the northern bank of the Chattahoochee River in
the western portion of Riverside Park, to the west of Georgia Highway 9. The area around the
reported UTM coordinates for this site is a low wetland that contains a few small hardwoods
and brush (Figures 20 and 21). Ten judgmental shovel tests were excavated in the vicinity of
the reported UTMs within the Morgan Falls project boundary. Most of these shovel tests
contained a wet brownish red clay on the surface. A few of the excavated shovel tests
contained a brownish red silty clay from 0-15 cm (0-6 in) underlain by a yellowish red clay
that extends to 60 cm (24 in) below the ground surface.
No artifacts were recovered from the vicinity of 9FU25 within the project area. As
previously recorded, this site contained a surface scatter of prehistoric pottery that was
collected in 1978. No formal investigation of this site has been conducted. It is possible that
this site was destroyed by the construction of the park or that that its location was not
accurately reported. Nonetheless, remains of this site do not exist within the Morgan Falls
project boundary and no further management considerations for this site are recommended.
42
Figure 20. View of area around 9FU25, facing west.
Figure 21.
View of wetland area near 9FU25, facing south.
43
Site 9FU64
Site Number: 9FU64
Site Type: Prehistoric village
Situation: Not identified in FERC boundary
Site 9FU64 is reportedly located on the southern bank of the Chattahoochee
River/Morgan Falls Lake, across the impoundment from site 9FU25.
According to its site
form, this site encompasses the terrace, the slope, and the ridge top in this area. The terrace
along the Chattahoochee is the only reported area of this site that is located within the Morgan
Falls project boundary. This area is lightly wooded with hardwoods and brush (Figures 22 and
23). A sewer line runs across this terrace. The land owner informed us that he had plowed
much the surface along this terrace and removed approximately 45 cm (18 in) of the soil. Four
judgmental shovel tests were excavated in the flood plain around 9FU64. Two of these shovel
tests were disturbed and contained yellowish red and dark gray clay. The other excavated
shovel tests contained brown sandy silt from 0-65 cm (0-26 in) underlain by a light brown silty
sand that extends to 85 cm (33 in) below the ground surface.
No artifacts were recovered from the terrace around the reported vicinity of 9FU64. As
previously mentioned, this site was recorded as a prehistoric village that contained a surface
scatter of artifacts. The corresponding site form indicates that the site location has not been
verified. If there is a site in this area, it is highly likely that it was located on the ridge top
south of the project area. However, this portion of ridge top is highly disturbed by residential
development. Therefore, it is unlikely that any remains of 9FU64 are intact. No further
management considerations for 9FU64 are recommended.
44
Figure 22.
View of plowed area around 9FU64, facing east.
Figure 23.
View of area around 9FU64, facing west.
45
Site 9FU156
Site Number: 9FU156
Site Type: Archaic-Protohistoric rockshelter
Situation: Identified outside of FERC boundary
Site 9FU156 is reportedly located in the eastern portion of the project area on the
eastern side of the Chattahoochee River, around Riverside Road. Our field inspection of the
area verified that the rockshelter is located on a slope to the west of Riverside Road, outside of
the project boundary. Small hardwoods are situated around the rockshelter. Figure 24 shows
an eastern view of 9FU156. According to its corresponding site form, no formal NRHP
recommendation concerning this site has been made. However, prehistoric ceramic sherds,
projectile points, and lithic debitage were reportedly recovered from the site, and the site was
recommended to be preserved or excavated and incorporated into a scenic park. Since this site
is located outside of the project boundary, no management considerations are recommended.
Site 9FU216
Site Number: 9FU216
Site Type: Prehistoric rockshelter
Situation: Identified adjacent to FERC boundary
NRHP Eligibility: Ineligible
Site 9FU216 is located along the southern shoreline of Sullivan Creek in the western
portion of the project area. This site consists of a rock overhang that faces to the north and is
oriented east-west. This rockshelter is situated along a step slope with a moderate mix of
hardwoods and is immediately west of an unnamed creek that flows into Sullivan Creek
(Figure 25). The floor of this rockshelter slopes downward towards the unnamed creek. As
46
Figure 24.
View of 9FU156, facing east.
Figure 25.
View of 9FU216, facing south.
47
previously mentioned, 9FU216 is identified as Morgan Falls 7, according to its site form. This
site may be de Baillou’s (1959) Rockshelter I, which is not located on any map. No artifacts
were recovered from the previous investigations of the site. The base of 9FU216 is adjacent to
the Morgan Falls project boundary. Due to the setting of the rockshelter on the severe slope,
no shovel tests could be excavated within the site. Therefore, the site does not have the
potential to have intact cultural remains and cannot contribute significant data that can be
applied to research questions regarding prehistoric occupations in the area. We recommend the
site ineligible for the NRHP; and no further management of this site should be required.
Site 9FU219
Site Number: 9FU219
Site 9FU219 is situated on the east bank of the Chattahoochee River to the north of the
confluence of the river and Sullivan Creek. This site consists of a rock overhang that faces to
the west, toward the river. The rockshelter is located on a steep slope above the river and is
surrounded by a mix of hardwoods (Figure 26). This site was referred to as Morgan Falls 10
on its site form. As previously mentioned, this is one of three rockshelters that may be de
Baillou’s (1959) Rockshelter I. This site is located just outside of the project boundary, above
the 868-foot contour. Therefore, this site does not warrant any management considerations.
48
Figure 26.
Site 9FU228
Site Number: 9FU228
Site Type: Nineteenth-century mill
Situation: Identified in FERC boundary
NRHP Eligibility: Eligible
Management Recommendation: None, site is currently monitored and maintained by
National Park Service
Site 9FU228 is located immediately northwest of the confluence of Big Creek and the
Chattahoochee River within the boundaries of the Vickery Creek Unit of the CRNRA. The site
is currently situated in a low wetland area with a moderate mix of hardwoods and dense brush.
This site contains ruins of Ivy Mill, a woolen mill constructed in 1856. A standing concrete
wall and a raceway are located just to the west of SR 9 (Figures 27 and 28). Braley and Wood
(1992) and Webb and Gantt (1997) provide detailed descriptions of this site. This site has been
recommended eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, B, C, and D (Braley and Wood 1992).
49
Figure 27.
View of wall structure at 9FU228, facing north.
Figure 28.
View of raceway, facing north.
50
Only a portion of this site falls within the Morgan Falls project boundary. Currently,
the site is being protected and managed by the National Park Service. An iron fence has been
placed around the southern boundary of the site (Figure 29). A raised wooden plank walkway
leading from Riverside Park toward Chattahoochee River Park has been placed just to the
south of the fence. Plastic wire-mesh screening has been placed over the banks of the raceway
to prevent erosion (Figure 30). We agree with the previous recommendations that this site is
eligible for the NRHP. While a portion of this site is within the Morgan Falls FERC project
boundary, it is currently being monitored and maintained by the National Park Service because
of its historic significance to the local community. Therefore, additional management of this
resource by Georgia Power should not be required.
Figure 29.
Protective iron fence placed around the southern boundary of 9FU228,
facing north.
51
Figure 30.
Protective wire-mesh screening placed to prevent erosion along the
raceway, facing east.
Site 9FU391
Site Number: 9FU391
Site 9FU391 is situated on the west bank of the Chattahoochee River within the Island
Ford Unit of the CRNRA. This site consists of a rock overhang that faces to the northeast,
towards the river. The base of the rockshelter is located just west of the trail maintained and
managed by the National Park Service, and is surrounded by a mix of hardwoods and pine
(Figure 31). As previously mentioned, this may be either de Baillou’s (1959) Rockshelter VII,
VIII, or IX, all of which presently have unknown precise locations. This site is located just
52
Figure 31.
outside the Morgan Falls project boundary, and is above the 868-foot contour. Therefore, this
site does not warrant any management considerations.
Summary and Recommendations
During June and November 2005, and January 2006, Brockington and Associates, Inc.,
conducted historical research, archaeological reconnaissance, and limited surveys of shoreline
areas in the Morgan Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC #2237). These investigations were
conducted for Georgia Power Company (Georgia Power) as part of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydroelectric project relicensing process (18 CFR Part
4.51[4], Application for License for Major Project-Existing Dam). Georgia Power
implemented shoreline investigations to comply with requirements of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) and relevant regulations.
53
The Morgan Falls Project is located on the Chattahoochee River, north of Atlanta
between Roswell and Sandy Springs, Georgia. Project lands encompass approximately 1,028
acres in Fulton and Cobb Counties, Georgia. Nearly 627.4 acres of this property are inundated
and encompassed by approximately 29.6 km (18.4 mi) of shoreline. Archaeological
reconnaissance and limited shoreline surveys were conducted during a 2-foot drawdown of the
project impoundment.
Historical research documented previously recorded archaeological sites within the
FERC project boundary. Archaeological reconnaissance identified shoreline segments along
the Morgan Falls Basin with moderate to high potential for archaeological resources. Limited
surveys of selected shoreline segments identified no new archaeological sites or isolated finds.
Seven previously recorded archaeological sites located within or nearby the project
boundary were reexamined during this investigation. Table 3 summarizes the management
recommendations for these seven sites. Two of the previously recorded archaeological sites
(9FU216 and 9FU228) are located either within or adjacent to the FERC project boundary.
The remaining five previously recorded sites reexamined during this investigation are not
present within the FERC project boundary.
Site 9FU216, a prehistoric rockshelter, is
recommended ineligible for the NRHP and no further management considerations are
warranted for this site. Site 9FU228, the remains of a nineteenth-century mill, is eligible for
the NRHP. This site is currently monitored and maintained by the National Park Service,
therefore additional management by Georgia Power should not be required.
54
Table 3.
Site
Number
9FU25
9FU64
9FU156
9FU216
9FU219
9FU228
9FU391
Management Recommendations for Revisited Archaeological Sites.
Site Type
Prehistoric artifact
surface scatter
Prehistoric village
ArchaicProtohistoric
rockshelter
Prehistoric
rockshelter
Prehistoric
rockshelter
Nineteenthcentury mill
Prehistoric
rockshelter
NRHP
Eligibility
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Ineligible
Unknown
Eligible
Unknown
Situation/Landowner
Site not present in FERC
boundary/City of Roswell
Site not present in FERC
boundary/Private
Site identified outside of FERC
boundary/Private
Site identified adjacent to FERC
boundary/Private
boundary/Private
Site identified in FERC
boundary/National Park Service
boundary/National Park Service
55
Management
Recommendation
None
None
None
None
None
None, site is currently
monitored and maintained
by National Park Service
None
References Cited
Anderson, David G.
1994 The Savannah River Chiefdoms: Political Change in the Late Prehistoric
Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Anderson, D. G. and J. W. Joseph
1988 Prehistory and History Along the Upper Savannah River: Technical Synthesis
of Cultural Resource Investigations, Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area.
Interagency Archaeological Services, National Park Service, Atlanta, GA.
Anderson, David G., R. Jerald Ledbetter, and Lisa O'Steen
1990 Paleoindian Period Archaeology of Georgia.
Laboratory of Archaeology, Athens.
University of Georgia,
Aycock, Roger
1981 All Roads to Rome. Rome Area Heritage Foundation, Rome, Georgia.
Barker, Alex W., and Timothy R. Pauketat (editors)
1992 Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern
North America.
Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological
Association No. 3.
Bender, Barbara
1978 Gatherer-Hunter to Farmer: A Social Perspective. World Archaeology 10:204222.
Binford, Lewis R.
1968 Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In New Perspectives in Archaeology. Edited by S.
Binford and L. Binford, Aldine, Chicago.
Blitz, John
1993 Ancient Chiefdoms of the Tombigbee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Boyd, Kenneth W.
1993 The Historical Markers of North Georgia. Cherokee Publishing Company,
Atlanta.
Braun, E. Lucy
1950 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. Hafner Publishing Company,
New York.
56
Braley, Chad O. and Karen G. Wood
1992 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of a Fifteen Acre Tract in Roswell,
Fulton County, Georgia. Report on file at the Georgia Archaeological Site File,
Athens.
Brook, George A.
1981 Geoarchaeology of the Oconee Reservoir Site: Some Early Results. Manuscript
on file, Laboratory of Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of
Georgia, Athens.
Bullen, Ripley P.
1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Revised Edition.
Florida State Museum, Gainesville.
Byrd, Kathleen M. (editor)
1991 . Geoscience and Ma The Pottery Point Culture: Local Manifestations,
Subsistence Practices, and Trade Networks n No. 29., Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont.
American Philosophical Society 54(5).
Transactions of the
Cooper, Walter G.
1978 Official History of Fulton County. Reprint of the 1934 edition published by
W.W. Brown, Atlanta, GA. The Reprint Company, Spartanburg, SC.
Davis, George B., Leslie J. Perry, Joseph W. Kirkley, and Calvin D. Cowles
1983 The Official Military Atlas of the Civil War. The Fairfax Press, New York.
Reprint of the 1891-1895 editions.
De Baillou, Clemens
1959 Archaeological Salvage in the Morgan Falls Basin.
Georgia Power Company, Atlanta.
Report prepared for
Delcourt, Hazel R.
1979 Late Quaternary Vegetation History of the Eastern Highland Rim and Adjacent
Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee. Ecological Monographs 49:255-280.
DePratter, Chester B.
1991 Late Prehistoric and Early Historic Chiefdoms in the Southeastern United
States. Garland Press, New York.
DePratter, Chester, Charles Hudson, and Marvin Smith
1983 Juan Pardo's Explorations in the Interior Southeast, 1566-68. The Florida
Historical Quarterly LXII:125-158.
57
Dunn, Robert A., Lawson M. Smith, Hollis H. Allen, and Hugh M. Taylor
1996 Managing Historic Properties in Drawdown Zones at Corps of Engineers
Reservoirs: Three Case Studies. Environmental Impact Research Program,
Technical Report EL-96-14. US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C.
Fairbanks, Charles H.
1942 Creek and Pre-Creek. In Archaeology of the Eastern United States, edited by
J.B. Griffin, pp. 285-300. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Finley, Anthony
1830 Cherokee Nation in Georgia, 1830. Available online at
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/histcountymaps/cherokeenation1830
map.htm. Accessed 1/2006.
Gantt, Mary E. and Suzanne DeRosa
2000 Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed New Trail System, Island Ford Unit,
Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, Fulton County, Georgia. Report
prepared for the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, Atlanta.
Gantt, Mary E. and Russell W. Howard
2004 Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey, Vickery Creek Pedestrian Bridge
Abutment, Roswell, Georgia. Report prepared for the City of Roswell Recreation
and Parks Department, Roswell.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Georgia DNR)
1976 Geologic Map of Georgia. Geologic and Water Resources Division, Georgia
Geological Survey, Atlanta.
Golley, Frank B.
1962 Mammals of Georgia: A Study of Distribution and Functional Role in the
Ecosystem. University of Georgia, Athens.
Hodler, Thomas W. and Donald R. Schretter
1986 The Atlas of Georgia. The Institute of Community and Area Development,
University of Georgia, Athens.
Hudson, Charles, Marvin T. Smith, and Chester B. DePratter
1984 The Hernando DeSoto Expedition: From Apalachee to Chiaha. Southeastern
Archaeology 3(1):65-77.
Hudson, Charles M., Marvin T. Smith, David J. Hally, Richard Polhemus, and Chester B.
DePratter
1985 Coosa: A Chiefdom in the Sixteenth Century United States. American Antiquity
50:723-737.
58
Jordan, William R.
2004 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Fuel Reduction Areas, Chattahoochee
River National Recreation Area, Cobb, Forsyth, Fulton, and Gwinnett Counties,
Georgia. Report prepared for the National Park Service, Chattahoochee River
National Recreation Area, Atlanta.
Joseph, J.W., Matthew J. Edwards, Theresa M. Hamby, and Mary Beth Reed
2002 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Three City of Roswell Intersection
Improvement Projects, Fulton County, Georgia. Report prepared for EdwardsPitman Environmental, Inc., Smyrna, Georgia.
Joseph, J.W., Theresa M. Hamby, and Mary Beth Reed
1998 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Roswell Pedestrian Bridge,
Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, Vickery Creek Unit, Fulton County,
Georgia. Report prepared for Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc., Smyrna,
Georgia.
Knight, Vernon J., Jr.
1990 Social Organization and the Evolution of Hierarchy in the Southern Chiefdoms.
Journal of Anthropological Research 46:1-23.
Kuchler, A.W.
1964 Potential Natural Vegetation of the Coterminous United States.
Geographical Society Special Publication, Vol. 36.
American
Ledbetter, Jerald R. and William R. Chapman
1991 An Archaeological Testing of a Portion of 9FU4 at the Site of the Proposed
Riverside Road Pump Station, Roswell, Georgia. Report on file at the Georgia
Archaeological Site File, Athens.
Marshall, R.A. (editor)
1987 The Emergent Mississippian: Proceedings of the Sixth Mid-South Conference
Archaeological Conference, June 6-9, 1985. Mississippi State University, Cobb
Institute of Archaeology, Occasional Papers No. 87-01.
McIntosh, John H.
1940 The Official History of Elbert County, 1790-1935. Stephen Heard Chapter,
Daughters of the American Revolution, Elberton, Georgia.
Milling, Chapman J.
1969 Red Carolinians. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.
Mooney, James
1982 Myths of the Cherokee. Originally published 1900, Bureau of American
Ethnology, 19th Annual Report. Charles Elder, Nashville.
59
Office of Coast Survey, Historical Map and Chart Project
1864 Map Showing the Operations of the National Forces under the Command of
Sherman during the Campaign Resulting in the Capture of Atlanta (CWATL).
Internet online http://historicals.ncd.noaa.gov/historicals/histmap.asp. Available
from January 30, 2006
O’Grady, P. and C. Poe
1980 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, Georgia Cultural Resource
Inventory: Archaeological Sites Final Report. Southeast Archaeological Center,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Tallahassee, Florida.
Peebles, Christopher S.
1986 Paradise Lost, Strayed, and Stolen: Prehistoric Social Devolution in the
Southeast. In The Burden of Being Civilized: An Anthropological Perspective on the
Discontents of Civilization, edited by M. Richardson and M.C. Webb, pp. . Southern
Anthropological Society Proceedings 18, University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Prentice, Guy
1994 An Assessment of the Archaeological Resources at the Morgan Falls West
(CHAT-57) Site, Tract 105-26, Land Lots 224 and 279, Bull Sluice District,
Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. Report prepared by the Southeast
Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida.
Prentice, Guy and Elizabeth A. Horvath
1995 An Assessment of the Archaeological Resources at the Morgan Falls West
(CHAT-57) Site, Tract 105-08 and Tract 105-26, Bull Sluice District, Chattahoochee
River National Recreation Area, Cobb County, Georgia. Report prepared by the
Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida.
Prunty, Merle Jr.
1955 The Renaissance of the Southern Plantation. The Geographical Review
XLV(4):459-491.
Rogers, Ronnie H.
1991 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Riverside Road Pump Station and
Associated Pipeline Corridors, Roswell, Georgia. Report prepared for Jordan,
Jones, and Goulding, Inc., Atlanta.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking
Technology. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Schnell, Frank T., Jr.
1975 An Archaeological Survey of Lake Blackshear. Southeastern Archaeological
Conference Bulletin 18:1-13.
60
Schnell, Frank T., Jr., continued
1980 A Cultural Resource Assessment of Portions of Bull Creek and Flat Rock
Branch, Fort Benning, Georgia. Report No. 79-12, prepared for Columbus
(Georgia) Water Works.
Sheehan, Mark C., Donald R. Whitehead, and Stephen T. Jackson
1985 Late Quaternary Environmental History of the Richard B. Russell Multiple
Resource Area. Report submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah
District, Savannah, GA.
Smith, Marvin T.
1976 The Route of DeSoto Through Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama: The Evidence
From Material Culture. Early Georgia 11(1-2):74-85.
1987 Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in the Interior Southeast:
Depopulation During the Early Historic Period. University of Florida Press,
Gainesville.
Southerlin, Bobby G. and Dawn Reid
1997 Archaeological Survey and Site Evaluation of the Flint River Project (FERC
#1218), Dougherty and Lee Counties, Georgia. Volume II: Project Shoreline Survey
and Reconnaissance. Submitted to CH2M Hill (Atlanta) and Georgia Power
Company. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta, GA.
SSI
1978 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed 40 inch O.D. Pipeline, Powder
Springs, Georgia to the Savannah River, Phase I: Complete Survey of the First
28.5 Miles. Report on file at the Georgia Archaeological Site File, Athens.
1981 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Phase III Expansion of the
Chattahoochee Nature Center, Fulton County, Georgia. Report on file at the
Georgia Archaeological Site File, Athens.
Stallings, F. Patricia
2005 Morgan Falls Project, 100 Years of Energy: Historic Hydro-engineering
Report, Cobb and Fulton Counties, Georgia, FERC # 2237. Report prepared
for Georgia Power, Atlanta.
Tabor, Paul
1974 Georgia from the Latest Authorities. Available online at
http://www.libs.uga.edu/darchive/hargrett/maps/1796g4.jpg.
Tanner, Benjamin
1796 The History of Madison County, Georgia. Advocate Press.
61
Terra Server USA
2002 Urban Area Map.
Available online at http://terraserver.microsoft.com.
Accessed December 2005
Thomas, Grover J.
1973 Soil Survey of Cobb County, Georgia. United States Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service, Washington D.C.
Walker, J.H., J.T. Miller, T.W. Green and R.F. Wells.
1958 Soil Survey of Fulton County, Georgia. United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington D.C.
Watts, W.A.
1980 Late Quaternary Vegetation History at White Pond on the Inner Coastal Plain of
South Carolina. Quaternary Research 13:187-199.
Webb, Robert S. and Mary E. Gantt
1997 Archaeological Resources Survey, Proposed Improvement of State Route
9/Atlanta Street, Roswell, Fulton County, Georgia. Report prepared for HNTB,
Atlanta.
2003 Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey, Grimes Bridge Road at Big Creek
Project, Roswell, Fulton County, Georgia. Report prepared for Pond & Company,
Atlanta.
Webb, Robert S., Mary E. Gantt, and Doug Tilley
1999 Cultural Resources Survey, Proposed Trail Reroutes, Gold Branch and Jones
Bridge Units, Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, Cobb and Fulton
Counties, Georgia. Report prepared for Chattahoochee River National Recreation
Area, Atlanta.
Wharton, Charles H.
1989 The Natural Environments of Georgia.
Resources, Atlanta.
Georgia Department of Natural
Whatley, J. S.
1984 A Proposed South Georgia Projectile Point Chronology. The Profile 45.
Whyte, Thomas R.
1986 Reservoir Inundation and Drawdown Impacts on Archaeological Sites. In
Archaeological Investigations in the Watauga Reservoir, Carter and Johnson
Counties, Tennessee, compiled by C. Clifford Boyd, Jr. University of Tennessee,
Department of Anthropology Report of Investigations No. 44.
62
Wood, Karen G.
1989 An Archaeological Survey of the Presumed Location of the First Roswell
Factory. Report prepared for the Roswell Historical Society, Inc., Roswell.
Wood, Peter
1989 The Changing Population of the Colonial South: An Overview by Race and
Region, 1685-1790. In Powhatan’s Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast.
Edited by P.H. Wood, GA. Waselkov, and M.T. Hatley, University of Nebraska
Press, Lincoln.
Wright, Wade H.
1957 History of the Georgia Power Company, 1855-1956. Georgia Power Company,
Atlanta.
Wynes, Charles E.
1977 Part Four: 1865-1890. In A History of Georgia, edited by Kenneth Coleman,
pp. 205-254.
Yarnell, Richard A.
1993 The Importance of Native Crops during the Late Archaic and Woodland
Periods. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C.M.
Scarry, pp. 54-78. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
63
Appendix A: Resumes of Key Project Personnel
Jeffrey W. Gardner, RPA
Senior Archaeologist
Professional Position (1987-Present):
Archaeologist, Historian, Program and Project Manager/Principal Investigator, and Vice
President, Brockington and Associates, Inc.
Areas of Specialization:
Cultural Resources Management and Section 106 Compliance; Archaeological Investigations and
Historical Records Research; Historic Sites Archaeology; Urban Archaeology
Education:
M.A. in Anthropology (1987) University of Tennessee
B.A. in Anthropology (1978) Ohio State University
Professional Society Memberships:
Register of Professional Archaeologists
Society for Historical Archaeology
Society for Georgia Archaeology
Conference
Georgia Council of
Professional Archaeologists
Tennessee Council for
Professional Archaeology
Southeastern Archaeological
Professional Experience (detailed listing of projects and reports available on request):
Cultural Resource Surveys (Phase I) and Archaeological Site Testing (Phase
II)
C
Utility Corridors for Georgia Power Company (Atlanta), Savannah Electric and Power
Company, Duke Power Company (Charlotte), Oglethorpe Power Corporation (now
Georgia Transmission Corporation, Atlanta), ANR Pipeline Company (Detroit), and
Transco Pipeline Company ( Houston)
C
Transportation Corridors for Georgia and South Carolina Departments of
Transportation; Georgia Power Company; and Savannah Electric and Power Company
C
Development Tracts for USDA Forest Service (South Carolina), Mobile
District/USACE, Duke Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Savannah Electric
and Power Company, Georgia and Tennessee Departments of Transportation,
Consolidated Government of the City of Columbus/Muscogee County (Georgia), South
Carolina Department of Parks Recreation and Tourism, Chatham County (Georgia), City
of Griffin (Georgia), Clemson University (South Carolina), Corporation for Olympic
Development in Atlanta (CODA), Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, Transco
Energy Ventures Company, Norfolk Southern Railroad, and numerous private developers
(Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee)
Archaeological Data Recovery (Phase III)
C
Late nineteenth through early twentieth century house site in Lincoln County, North
C
C
C
C
$
Carolina, for Duke Power Company
Eighteenth century Stono River plantation near Charleston, South Carolina, for USDA
Agricultural Research Service
Nineteenth century brickyard complex in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Miller
Development Company
Late nineteenth through middle twentieth century urban lots, downtown Atlanta, Georgia,
for the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta
Early to middle nineteenth century farmstead, Williamson County, Tennessee, for
Tennessee Department of Transportation
Middle nineteenth century slave residence turned tenant farmstead in Effingham County,
Georgia, for Savannah Electric
Program Manager for Cultural Resources Investigations at Palmetto Bluff, in
Bluffton, South Carolina
Program includes:
$
Archaeological survey and site evaluation of approximately 7,000 acres of the May River
Neck in three development phases;
$
Archaeological data recovery at 11 sites on Phase I tract;
$
Development of MOAs and management plans;
Cultural Resources Investigations for FERC Hydroelectric Relicensing
C
Georgia Power Company (Riverview and Langdale, Lloyd Shoals, North Georgia, Flint
C
C
$
River, and Middle Chattahoochee Hydroelectric Projects)
Carolina Power & Light Company (Walters Hydroelectric Project)
Duke Power Company (Buzzard Roost Hydroelectric Project)
Crisp County Power Commission (Lake Blackshear Project)
Archaeological Monitoring Plans for 1996 Olympics (Atlanta) streetscape development
(for Corporation for Olympic Development in Atlanta)
Architectural and Historical Documentation (Historic American Building Survey) of a
late nineteenth through middle twentieth century mill complex in Troup County, Georgia
for the USACE/Mobile District
Historic Cemetery Delineation and Preparation of Cemetery Disturbance Permit
Applications for Georgia Power Company (in Banks County, Georgia), Blue Circle
Aggregates, Inc. (in Clayton County, Georgia), and private developers in Gwinnett and
Chatham counties, Georgia
Historic Context Development for Phase II archaeological investigations of a late
nineteenth through early twentieth century farmstead and an early nineteenth through
early twentieth century plantation in Middle Tennessee for Tennessee Department of
Transportation
Development of Agreement and Management Documents (MOA, PA, HPMP,
CRMP, ICRMP) for Duke Power, Georgia Power, Fort Benning (Georgia), Fort
Buchanan (Puerto Rico), NAS Key West (Florida).
Alex Y. Sweeney
6611 Bay Circle, Suite 220
Norcross, Georgia 30071
(770) 662-5807, ext. 18 Fax (770) 662-5824
email: [email protected]
Professional Position:
Project Manager
Areas of Specialization:
Contact and Post-Contact Studies; Historical
Documentation; Prehistoric and Historic Ceramic Analysis
Education:
M.A., Anthropology, University of South Carolina, 2003.
B.S., Anthropology, Radford University, 1997
Professional Memberships: Society for Georgia Archaeology
Southeastern Archaeological Conference
Relevant Experience:
Project manager for Cultural Resources Survey at Camp Blanding Joint Training Facility
in Starke, Florida, and
Seven Florida National Guard Armories for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile
District.
Project Manager for Palmetto Bluff Data Recovery (38BU1768) in Bluffton, South
Carolina, for Palmetto Bluff L.L.C., Bluffton, South Carolina.
Laboratory supervisor for Bull Point Data Recovery (38BU1424) in Beaufort, South
Carolina, for the Bull Point
Management Group.
Laboratory supervisor and field technician for Richmond Hill Data Recovery (9BN177)
in Richmond Hill, Georgia,
for Ford Plantation L.L.C.
Laboratory supervisor and field technician for Silk Hope Data Recovery (9BN176) in
Richmond Hill, Georgia, for
Ford Plantation L.L. C.
Laboratory supervisor and field technician for Cherry Hill Data Recovery (9BN49/56/57)
in Richmond Hill,
Georgia, for Ford Plantation L.L.C.
Field and laboratory technician for Cedar Point Contact Period Data Recovery
(38BU1605, 38BU1609) in Beaufort,
South Carolina, for Chechessee Land and Timber Company.
On site director for Carters Lake NAGPRA documentation (9MU100, 9MU102,
9MU103), Athens, Georgia, for the
US Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District.
Field and laboratory technician for Bobby Jones Expressway Data Recovery (9RI88) in
Augusta, Georgia, for the
Georgia Department of Transportation.
Laboratory technician for Navy Lodge Data Recovery (8ES64) in Pensacola, Florida, for
US Army Corps of
Engineers, Mobile District.

Archaeological and Historical Study Report Morgan

Transcription

Similar documents

city place

Gonio, Georgia 18-25 September, 2013

golf 2016 - Georgia Bridgemen

Conference on the Americas - Georgia Southwestern State University

The tragedy of life doesn`t lie in not reaching your goal

Georgia Mancio Quartet:Quintet website

candice_l_dircks_042213 copy

khvanchkara - askaneli brothers

Chattahoochee River - Georgia River Network

10/28/2009 - Decatur Rotary Club