Georgia`s Inland Waters - Historic Preservation Division

Transcription

Georgia’s Inland Waters
August 2003
On the cover: a fishweir and artifacts from southwest Georgia.
Submitted to:
Archaeological Services Unit
Historic Preservation Division
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
156 Trinity Avenue, SW, Suite 101
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3600
Prepared by:
Southern Research Historic Preservation Consultants, Inc.
P.O. Box 250
Ellerslie, Georgia 31807
(706) 569-7233
__________________________
Rita Folse Elliott
Author and Principal Investigator
August 2003
Table of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................. iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................... v
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................... viii
Chapter 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Chapter 2
Submerged Context Documents, Surveys, and Programs in Georgia and
Neighboring States .................................................................................................................................. 7
Alabama ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
Historical Perspective of Underwater Archaeological Research ................................................. 7
Surveys and/or Context Documents .................................................................................................... 7
Florida ......................................................................................................................................................... 7
North Carolina ........................................................................................................................................... 8
South Carolina ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Surveys and/or Context Documents .................................................................................................. 10
Georgia ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
Historical Perspective of Underwater Archaeological Research ............................................... 10
Surveys and/or Context Documents .................................................................................................. 10
Chapter 3
Methods ................................................................................................................................................... 13
Archaeological Literature Search ......................................................................................................... 13
Historical Documents Literature Search ............................................................................................. 14
Interviews ................................................................................................................................................. 14
Data Interpretation .................................................................................................................................. 15
Chapter 4
Environmental Contexts ......................................................................................................................... 17
Rivers and Streams ................................................................................................................................. 17
Lakes ......................................................................................................................................................... 17
Man-made Lakes (Corporate, Federal) ........................................................................................... 17
Other Lakes .............................................................................................................................................. 23
Swamps ..................................................................................................................................................... 23
Oxbows ..................................................................................................................................................... 25
Carolina Bays and Limestone Sinks .................................................................................................... 25
Chapter 5
Previous Work, Site Types and Current Site Data ........................................................................... 27
Reservoir Sites in Georgia ..................................................................................................................... 27
Tallulah River and Tributaries .......................................................................................................... 27
Cossawattee River ............................................................................................................................... 27
Carter’s Lake ..................................................................................................................................... 27
Etowah River ........................................................................................................................................ 28
Lake Allatoona .................................................................................................................................. 28
Chattahoochee River ........................................................................................................................... 28
Lake Lanier ....................................................................................................................................... 28
Morgan Fall’s .................................................................................................................................... 28
i
Table of Contents, continued…
West Point Lake ................................................................................................................................ 29
Lake Harding .................................................................................................................................... 29
Goat Rock Lake ................................................................................................................................ 29
Lake Oliver........................................................................................................................................ 29
Walter F. George Lake .................................................................................................................... 29
Lake George W. Andrews .............................................................................................................. 31
Flint River ............................................................................................................................................. 31
Lake Blackshear ............................................................................................................................... 31
Lake Worth ........................................................................................................................................ 31
Lake Seminole .................................................................................................................................. 32
Ocmulgee River .................................................................................................................................... 32
Oconee River ........................................................................................................................................ 32
Lake Oconee ..................................................................................................................................... 32
Lake Sinclair ..................................................................................................................................... 33
Savannah River .................................................................................................................................... 33
Lake Hartwell .................................................................................................................................... 33
Lake Richard B. Russell .................................................................................................................. 34
Strom Thurmond Lake .................................................................................................................... 35
Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 36
Key Underwater Investigations in Georgia ........................................................................................ 36
Fort Argyle ............................................................................................................................................ 37
Petersburg ............................................................................................................................................. 39
Rembert Mounds .................................................................................................................................. 40
Riverine Survey .................................................................................................................................... 41
Chattahoochee River Investigations ................................................................................................. 41
Representative Examples of Submerged and Near Water Site Types In Georgia ...................... 42
Aboriginal Sites .................................................................................................................................... 42
Fishweirs/traps..................................................................................................................................... 43
River Navigation Structures ............................................................................................................... 45
Watercraft ............................................................................................................................................. 47
Ferry Landings/Ferries ...................................................................................................................... 52
Bridges/Wharves/Docks/Maine Railways/Boat Yards .................................................................. 52
Canals .................................................................................................................................................... 55
Augusta Canal ................................................................................................................................... 57
Brunswick-Altamaha Canal............................................................................................................ 57
Savannah-Ogeechee Canal ............................................................................................................. 58
The Suwannee Canal ....................................................................................................................... 58
Mills ....................................................................................................................................................... 58
Other Locks and Dams ....................................................................................................................... 68
Other Riverine-Related Industries .................................................................................................... 68
Submerged Timbers ............................................................................................................................. 68
Sites Located Through Historical Documentation ........................................................................ 69
Chapter 6
Challenges and Opportunities ............................................................................................................... 71
Recording the Resource Base ............................................................................................................... 71
Patterns in Current Data ......................................................................................................................... 72
Interpreting the Resource Base............................................................................................................. 72
Drainage and Hydrology Studies ..................................................................................................... 72
Navigational Systems .......................................................................................................................... 72
Early Man Studies ............................................................................................................................... 74
ii
Table of Contents, continued…
Natural Impacts to Submerged Resources .......................................................................................... 76
Protecting the Resource Base................................................................................................................ 77
Man-made Impacts to Submerged Resources .................................................................................... 77
Dredging ............................................................................................................................................... 77
Boating .................................................................................................................................................. 77
Artifact “Surface” Collecting ............................................................................................................ 77
Artifact Looting .................................................................................................................................... 77
Development ......................................................................................................................................... 78
Expected Condition of These Resources/Current Status .................................................................. 80
Managing the Resource Base................................................................................................................ 80
Chapter 7
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 81
Specific Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 81
Submerged Native American Terrestrial Sites ................................................................................ 81
Limestone Sinkhole Sites .................................................................................................................... 81
Carolina Bay Sites ............................................................................................................................... 81
Prehistoric Riverine Artifact Scatters .............................................................................................. 82
Dug-out Canoes ................................................................................................................................... 82
Fishweirs/traps..................................................................................................................................... 82
Ferries ................................................................................................................................................... 83
Canals .................................................................................................................................................... 83
Mills ....................................................................................................................................................... 84
Vessels ................................................................................................................................................... 84
Wharves/Docks..................................................................................................................................... 84
Bridges/Fords....................................................................................................................................... 84
Navigational Structures ...................................................................................................................... 84
Submerged Timbers ............................................................................................................................. 85
NRHP Significance ................................................................................................................................. 85
Specific Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 85
Establish a State Underwater Archaeology Program ................................................................... 85
Mission ............................................................................................................................................... 85
Funding .............................................................................................................................................. 85
Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................................... 86
Data Management ............................................................................................................................ 86
Research Goals ................................................................................................................................. 87
Preservation Issues ........................................................................................................................... 87
Public Education ............................................................................................................................... 87
Other Specific Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 89
Site Data Management .................................................................................................................... 89
Completion of Reservoir Investigations ....................................................................................... 89
Archaeology on State and Federal Land ...................................................................................... 89
CRM and Aquatic Environments .................................................................................................. 89
Site Protection ................................................................................................................................... 89
Education Outreach .......................................................................................................................... 90
Research ......................................................................................................................................... 90
Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 90
Chapter 8
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................... 93
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
Figure 17.
Figure 18.
Figure 19.
Figure 20.
Figure 21.
Figure 22.
Figure 23.
Figure 24.
Figure 25.
Figure 26.
Figure 27.
Figure 28.
Figure 29.
Figure 30.
Figure 31.
Figure 32.
Figure 33.
Figure 34.
Figure 35.
Figure 36.
Figure 37.
Figure 38.
Figure 39.
Figure 40.
Figure 41.
Figure 42.
Aquatic environments in Georgia ........................................................................................................... 2
Recorded submerged sites in Georgia .................................................................................................... 4
All archaeological sites recorded in Georgia as of March 2002 ....................................................... 5
Southwestern Georgia’s rivers and creeks are dotted with limestone
And chert outcrops ................................................................................................................................... 19
Selected Reservoirs in Georgia ............................................................................................................. 20
Construction of Lake Yonah Dam by Georgia Power Company .................................................... 21
Tugalo Dam in northern Georgia .......................................................................................................... 22
Swamp environment in southwestern Georgia ................................................................................... 24
Historical document depicting an oxbow formation in Georgia ..................................................... 25
Prehistoric sites encircling a Carolina bay in Screven County, Georgia ....................................... 25
A portion of John Milledge’s Plat near Fort Argyle (redrawn) ....................................................... 38
Historical sketch of town lots in Petersburg, at the forks of the Broad
and Savannah Rivers ............................................................................................................................... 39
Archaeological survey map of Petersburg showing submerged areas
below the 320 ft. contour line ................................................................................................................ 40
Scuba divers preparing to dive in a sinkhole ...................................................................................... 42
This Lee County fishweir has been truncated to allow vessel passage .......................................... 44
Southeastern Indians using a fishweir constructed from wooden poles ........................................ 44
Recorded fishweirs in Georgia .............................................................................................................. 46
Map of US Army Corps of Engineers navigation improvements ................................................... 48
A sleek, dug-out canoe crafted by southeastern Indians .................................................................. 48
Open, oar-powered boat used in colonial Georgia’s interior waterways ....................................... 49
Shallow draft, partially decked vessel used in transporting trade
goods 200 miles inland ........................................................................................................................... 49
Poling a Petersburg boat near vernacular watercraft ......................................................................... 50
Reconstructed lines of a Petersburg boat ............................................................................................ 51
The sinking steamboat, Calhoun, circa 1910 ...................................................................................... 51
Recorded wrecks in Georgia ................................................................................................................. 53
Ferry crossings at Lisbon and Petersburg, Georgia and Vienna, South
Carolina ...................................................................................................................................................... 54
Note the rope and pulley system used to pull the ferry across the river ........................................ 54
The nineteenth century covered Dillingham Bridge over the Chattahoochee
River linking Alabama and Georgia ..................................................................................................... 54
Steamboat landing and wharf in Columbus, Georgia ....................................................................... 55
Bridges, wharves, and related structures recorded in Georgia ........................................................ 56
Eighteenth century drawing of a German mill in Effingham County,
Georgia ....................................................................................................................................................... 59
Structural remains of a mill on Mill Creek in Effingham County .................................................. 60
Archaeological map of mill dam, timbers, and raceway in Baker County,
Georgia ....................................................................................................................................................... 60
Grist mill in Columbus, Georgia, originally constructed in 1828 ................................................... 61
Location of recorded mill sites in Georgia .......................................................................................... 63
Dams along the Chattahoochee River supplied water power to numerous
mills and factories in Columbus ........................................................................................................... 69
This nineteenth century plat depicts a dam, pond, and mill house ................................................. 70
This newspaper advertisement provides some details about an 1866 mill
in Baldwin, County, Georgia ................................................................................................................. 70
Wooden cribbing and rock fill in southwestern Georgia .................................................................. 74
Fossils from sinkholes in southern Georgia ........................................................................................ 75
Examples of typical brown-to-black, heavily patinated stone tools from
submerged sites in Georgia ................................................................................................................... 79
The looted remains of the steamboat, White Rose, in the Flint River ............................................ 80
iv
List of Tables
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Georgia Rivers Grouped by Drainage System..................................................................................... 18
Georgia Power Lakes in the State .......................................................................................................... 19
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Lakes in Georgia ................................................................................. 22
Selected Mills in Georgia........................................................................................................... 64
v
Executive Summary
Georgia’s Inland Waters is a context document examining inundated sites in all but the state’s coastline and coastal waters.
This report was prepared in 2002 by Southern Research Historic Preservation Consultants, Inc. as a management document
for the Archaeological Services Unit, Historic Preservation Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. It
examines submerged context documents of neighboring states, environments in Georgia containing underwater/near water/water related sites, and the identification and location of such resources in the state. The report includes a discussion of
site conditions, research questions, and recommendations for an inundated sites program in Georgia. Sites studied are
either partially in, or completely under water, seasonally, year-round, or during periods of average or high rainfall or high
pool elevations in reservoirs.
Georgia’s hinterland includes a diverse range of man-made and natural environments containing underwater sites. These
include rivers, lakes, ponds, swamps, bays, canals, and oxbows. Sites in these environments include aboriginal hamlets,
lithic/pottery scatters; quarries, villages, and mounds; boat yards; bridges; dams; docks; ferry landings; fishweirs and fish
dams; historic towns; locks; marine railways; mills; navigation structures, watercraft, and wharves. Of Georgia’s 37,000
sites, approximately 2,059, or 5% were documented by this report as falling in the category of underwater, submerged, or
water related. Problems relating to site recordation practices, database organization, and biases by field archaeologists,
make it extremely difficult to ascertain reliable figures for the total number of such sites recorded in the Georgia Archaeological Site File in Athens. As with terrestrial sites, there are likely many more unrecorded submerged sites than recorded
ones. The largest percentage of submerged sites in Georgia falls in areas now inundated by man-made lakes, such as United
States Army Corps of Engineers and Georgia Power lakes. No archaeology has been conducted on most of Georgia’s
submerged sites (whether in lakes or elsewhere).
Inundated sites study and management in Georgia includes many challenges and opportunities; challenges such as those
involved in accurately recording sites in this data subset. Other challenges include those to the resource base in the form of
natural impacts such as storms, erosion, droughts, floods, and fluctuating water levels. Man-made impacts can be challenging too, and include dredging, boating, “surface” collecting, looting, and development. Opportunities in the study of
this field abound. Research issues include drainage and hydrology studies as it relates to man’s interaction; navigational
systems; and early man/woman studies. This report generated a number of research questions that can be asked of specific
inundated site types.
Wise stewardship of Georgia’s inundated resources will require meeting these challenges and embracing opportunities.
Such stewardship will require an energetic approach on numerous fronts, including administrative, legal, and public education, and will require partnerships and both proactive and reactive measures. We hope this report will facilitate wise
stewardship efforts in an effective state Inundated Sites Program.
vi
Chapter 1. Introduction
Georgia could be known best for her profusion of
rivers, creeks, branches and reservoirs, in addition to being
the largest state east of the Mississippi River (Figure 1). Both
characteristics contribute to the state’s abundant number of
inundated archaeological sites. The focus area of this project
is Georgia’s hinterland and the submerged resources that lie
within it. This report examines cultural resources in the rivers, reservoirs, and numerous other aquatic environments
throughout the state of Georgia. This document was prepared for the Archaeological Services Unit, Historic Preservation Division (HPD), Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
A separate project documented by Gordon Watts
of Tidewater Atlantic Research in North Carolina will examine Georgia’s coast and offshore resources. For the purposes of this project, the coast is defined as terminating at
the locations of towns where oceanic commerce intersects
with inland commerce. In general, these can be thought of
as coastal ports, and towns whose waterways are influenced
by tidal flow. The Georgia Inland Waters report does not
include these towns, although it does discuss canals leading
from these towns to each other and to interior parts of Georgia.
This inland waters submerged sites historic context was written to “...document what is known about waterrelated archaeological sites and their environments for the
purpose of management...” (Crass 2000:1). Project tasks
were multi-faceted and included:
• historical research
• examination of related context documents in neighboring states
• identification of resource types known and expected
• identification of resource locations
• discussion of site condition and significance
• discussions of goals and priorities for a state wide inundated sites program.
These tasks are divided into various chapters of the
report as follows. Chapter 1 presents an overview of the
project, including a background and introduction. Chapter 2
is a brief assessment of the types of context documents and
programs in Georgia’s neighboring states. Research for this
document was conducted during the spring of 2002 and reflects state conditions as of that time. The methods used in
researching and producing this document are detailed in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 examines the environmental context of submerged sites in Georgia’s hinterland with discussions about
the state’s rivers, lakes, swamps, bays and other natural and
man-made aquatic features. Chapter 5 is an in-depth examination of different archaeological site types within these various environments. It uses the Georgia Archaeological Site
File (GASF) database to examine specific recorded sites,
while offering potential sources for information about unrecorded sites in the state. Chapter 6 discusses challenges and
opportunities regarding Georgia’s submerged cultural resource base. It examines issues dealing with site recordation, interpretation, management, and protection. It examines biases in the inventory, natural and cultural impacts to
the resource base, expected condition of inundated resources,
their current status, patterns observed in site data, and interpretive models. Chapter 7 outlines research questions for
the various site types discussed in the report, addresses National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) issues, and makes
specific recommendations regarding the future of Georgia’s
submerged archaeological sites. Tables and figures are located throughout the report for further clarification of content.
For the purposes of this report, the terms “inundated,
submerged, and underwater” sites are used interchangeably.
All the terms refer to sites that are either partially in, or completely under water, either seasonally, year-round, or during
periods of average or high rainfall or high pool elevations in
reservoirs. Such sites may have been constructed intentionally to be in and under the water, such as mill dams. They
also include “drowned” terrestrial sites such as Woodland
hamlets flooded by reservoirs. Sites located in impoundment
areas of reservoirs that are usually inundated, but have become dry due to the recent persistent drought, are considered
to be inundated normally.
1
N
W
E
S
30
0
30
60 Kilometers
Figure 1. Aquatic Environments in Georgia.
2002 Georgia's Inland Waters
2
BACKGROUND
In spite of the likely existence of an abundance of
underwater archaeological sites, only a very few (n=2,059)
have been recorded officially in the Georgia Archaeological
Site File (GASF) in Athens (Figure 2). This is less than five
percent of the total number of all archaeological sites recorded in the state. Shipwrecks are perhaps the most commonly invoked image when most people think of underwater sites. Georgia has her share of these as well as a multitude of other site types. Many sites were inundated by twentieth century reservoir construction. Of the 2,059 submerged
sites located in the GASF for this study, a total of 1,452 or
70 percent, are sites falling within reservoir impoundment
areas. These may not be the types of sites traditionally
thought of in conjunction with the concept of “underwater
archaeology”; however, they qualify from both management
and research perspectives. This is particularly true of sites
that were not archaeologically investigated prior to inundation by the impoundment of Georgia’s many reservoirs.
Many of these sites may be only partially inundated, or inundated only during certain times of the year or during certain particularly rainy years. The remaining 607 sites are
not related to reservoir impoundment and represent only a
handful of the submerged sites that exist across the state.
Examination of Figure 2 reveals that the majority
of recorded submerged or inundated sites in Georgia are located within reservoirs. The dense clusters of sites clearly
reveal the outline of these impoundment area. Excepting
portions of the lower Chattahoochee River valley, most of
these reservoirs lie within the northern half of the state, which
skews the data to give that part of Georgia a disproportionately large number of sites. The remainder of the sites outside reservoir areas are scattered throughout the state. A
study of a map depicting all 37,000 of Georgia’s recorded
sites and a map of her submerged sites illustrate the marked
disparity in documentation (Figure 3). Terrestrial sites are
routinely sought out during survey, recorded in the GASF,
protected, or impacts mitigated as required by law. Submerged sites, however, are seldom intentionally surveyed,
infrequently recorded, and rarely protected from damage or
wholesale destruction. These and other biases are apparent
in the two maps.
3
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$$ $
$
$
$
$$
$$ $
$
$
$$
$ $$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$ $$
$
$
$
$$$$$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$ $$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$$$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$$$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$ $$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$ $
$
$
$ $
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$
$
$
$ $
$$$
$
$
$
$$$$
$
$
$$ $
$
$
$
$ $
$ $$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $
$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $ $
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$ $
$$$ $ $ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$$
$
$
$$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$$$
$
$
$ $$ $
$
$
$$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$ $
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
N
E
60 Kilometers
Figure 2. Recorded Submerged Sites in Georgia.
4
$
$
$
$
$ $
$
S
30
$
$
$
W
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$$
$
$
$
$ $$ $
$$ $ $
$
$
$
$
Georgia Waterways
0
$
$
Prehistoric Weirs
30
$
$
$
State Boundary
$
$
$
$
$
$ Historic Weirs
$ Mills and Dams
$ Structures
$ Watercraft
$ Other Submerged Resources
$
$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$ $
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$ $
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$ $
$
$
$ $$
$$
$
$
$
$
$ $$$ $$
$
$$
$
$$
$$$
$$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$ $
$$
$$
$$ $ $
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$$ $ $$
$
$$
$ $
$
$
$
$$ $$$ $
$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$ $ $ $$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$$$ $$$
$$
$$$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$
$$
$ $$$
$$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$$ $$
$$
$
$$$ $$$
$
$
$ $$$$$
$
$
$$$$$$$
$$
$$$
$
$
$$ $$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$
$ $$
$ $$
$$
$$
$ $$
$$ $ $$$
$$$ $
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$$$$$$$$
$$$$
$$$$
$$$
$$$$
$
$
$
$
$ $ $$$
$$ $$ $$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$$
$$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $$$
$$$
$$ $ $ $$
$$
$$$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$$$ $ $
$$
$$
$$$ $
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$$$ $$
$$
$
$ $$
$$
$$ $$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$ $ $
$ $$$$
$ $$$ $
$$
$ $$$
$$
$ $$$$$
$$$
$$
$
$
$ $$$$ $ $$ $
$$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$
$$
$$$$$$$$
$
$$ $ $
$$ $
$
$ $$$
$$
$
$$
$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$$
$
$$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$
$
$$$$$ $$
$
$$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$$ $$
$$$$ $ $$ $$$$
$$$$$$
$$ $
$
$
$
$$ $$$ $
$$$$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$ $$$$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$$$
$$
$$
$ $$$$$ $
$
$$$$
$$ $
$$$$
$
$$ $$$$
$
$
$
$$
$ $
$$
$$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$$$$
$$$$$
$
$
$$
$ $
$
$$
$$$$$$$
$$ $$$ $$$$$
$$$
$$
$ $$$
$$
$$
$
$$$$
$$ $ $ $
$$
$
$$ $
$$$
$$$
$$$
$$ $$ $$ $$
$
$ $ $$$$
$
$
$$
$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$$$
$$ $$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$$$$
$
$$$$
$
$
$$$$$ $
$$
$$ $$
$$$$$
$$ $ $ $$
$$
$
$ $
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $
$$$
$$
$$
$ $ $$
$$$ $ $ $$
$$ $ $$
$$$$$
$
$$$
$
$$
$ $
$
$
$$ $
$$$$ $ $$
$$$
$ $ $
$$
$$$ $ $ $$$
$
$
$
$$ $$
$ $$$
$$
$
$ $
$$
$$ $$$$
$$$
$$
$
$
$
$$$$$
$
$$
$
$ $
$$$$$ $
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$ $
$$ $ $
$$$$ $$
$$$$ $$
$$$$ $$
$ $
$$$$$
$$$$
$
$$
$ $
$$ $ $ $$
$$ $
$$
$ $$$
$$
$$
$
$$$ $$ $$ $ $
$$
$$$$
$$$$$ $$
$$ $
$$ $
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$ $$
$$$$$$ $$
$$$$
$$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$ $$$$
$ $$$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$$
$$$$$$
$$$$
$$ $$
$$ $$$
$
$$
$
$$ $
$$
$
$ $$
$ $
$
$$$$$ $$$$
$
$$
$$$ $$$$$ $
$$$
$
$
$$
$
$$$$$
$$
$$$$
$$$
$$ $$
$$
$$ $$$$$
$
$ $ $$
$ $
$$
$ $ $ $$$
$
$ $
$$$$
$$$$ $
$$
$$
$$ $
$
$
$$$$ $$ $$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$$$$
$
$$
$ $$$$
$ $$$
$$ $
$
$$ $
$
$$ $$ $
$$ $
$
$
$$
$
$$ $
$
$ $$
$
$ $$$ $$$
$$$
$$
$$ $$$
$
$
$ $ $$ $
$$$$$$
$
$$$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$$$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$$$$ $
$$
$
$$$
$ $
$$$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$ $
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$ $$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$ $
$$
$
$ $$ $
$$
$ $$
$$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $
$
$
$$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$ $
$
$$
$$$
$$ $
$$
$
$$$
$$
$
$ $$$$
$ $$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$$$
$
$ $$ $ $
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$ $ $
$$
$$ $ $
$
$$
$ $
$
$
$$ $$
$$$$$$$
$
$
$$ $
$$
$$$$$$
$ $
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$$$$$
$$
$$ $$$
$$$ $ $
$$$$$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$$ $$
$$$
$$$$$
$$$$
$$
$
$$
$$$
$$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$ $ $$
$$
$$
$
$$$$$
$$ $ $
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $$
$$
$$$ $ $$
$$$
$$
$$ $ $ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$
$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$
$$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$$$$
$
$$$
$
$
$ $ $$$
$
$$ $$$
$$$
$$
$$$
$ $$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$ $
$$
$$
$ $ $$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$ $
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$ $$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$$$$
$$$
$
$
$$$
$
$$$
$
$$
$
$$$
$
$$
$$
$ $$
$$$
$
$$$$ $
$$$
$$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$ $$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$ $$ $
$$
$$$$
$$
$$
$$$ $$$
$$$
$
$$
$$ $$ $$
$$
$
$
$$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$$ $$$$
$$
$$$
$$$$
$$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$ $
$$
$ $
$
$ $$ $ $ $$$$$$$$ $$ $ $$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$$
$ $$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$$ $
$$$
$$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$ $$ $
$ $ $
$ $
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$ $
$$
$$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$$$$$ $
$$ $$$$
$
$$
$
$
$$$
$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$
$$ $
$$$ $
$$
$$
$$
$$$$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$$
$ $$$
$$
$
$$$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$$$ $$$ $$ $
$$$
$
$ $$
$$
$ $ $ $$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$ $$
$$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$$
$$$$ $ $ $
$
$$
$$$$$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$$ $$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$$
$$$$
$$ $ $
$
$$
$ $ $$ $ $$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$ $$
$$
$$$
$
$$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$ $ $
$$$$$
$$$
$$
$$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$ $$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$ $$
$$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$
$
$$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
$
$$
$$$ $$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$
$ $$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$$$$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$ $$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$$
$
$$
$$
$$$$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$$
$$ $$
$$
$$$ $$$$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $ $$ $ $
$$$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$$ $$
$
$$
$
$$
$$$ $ $$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$$ $
$$
$$$$ $
$$$$
$$
$
$$
$ $$$
$ $ $$ $$$
$$$
$$$
$
$$ $
$$
$$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$ $ $$ $$ $$ $
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$$$ $
$$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$ $
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$ $ $
$$$
$
$$
$$
$ $$$$
$ $
$$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$
$$
$$$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$ $$
$ $$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$ $$$
$$$ $$
$$
$$
$$$$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$ $
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$$$
$
$$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$ $$
$ $$$ $ $$
$$ $$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$$$ $
$ $$$ $$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$ $$$$
$ $
$$
$
$$$$$$
$$
$$
$$$
$
$$
$$ $ $$$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$
$$
$$$$
$$$ $$$ $$
$$ $$$
$
$
$$ $$
$$
$$ $$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$ $$$$$$
$$
$$$$$$$
$
$$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$$$
$
$
$
$ $$
$$ $$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$ $$$ $$$$
$ $$$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$$$ $ $$ $
$$
$$
$ $
$$$$
$ $ $$$$$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$$$
$$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$ $$
$
$
$$$$$$
$$$$
$$ $ $$ $
$$$
$$
$$$ $$$ $
$$ $ $$ $ $$$
$$$
$$$$$ $$ $$$
$$ $
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$ $$ $
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$$ $
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$$
$$
$$$
$$
$
$
$$$$
$$
$$$$$$$
$$
$
$ $$$ $$$$$$
$ $ $$$$$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$
$$$$
$
$$$
$ $$
$$
$$$
$$$$$$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$ $$ $ $
$
$ $$$$$$$
$$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$ $$ $
$$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$$$$$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$ $$
$$
$$
$$$$$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$$$
$$$$
$ $
$$$
$$
$$$ $$
$$$ $ $ $$$
$$
$$$ $
$$
$ $$
$$
$ $$$ $
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$
$
$
$$
$ $ $$
$ $$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$$ $
$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
$ $$$
$ $
$
$$$$$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$$$
$$$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$$
$$ $
$$
$ $$$$$$$
$
$
$
$$$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$ $
$
$ $$ $$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$ $
$$ $$$ $$$$
$$
$$$
$$ $ $
$$
$$
$$$$
$$
$$
$$ $$ $$$
$
$$ $$$ $$
$$$$ $$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$ $
$$ $
$$$$
$
$$$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$ $$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$$$ $$$$$$
$$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$$ $ $
$
$$$
$
$$
$ $ $$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$ $$ $$$ $$ $ $$$$$$ $
$$ $ $ $$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$ $ $$$
$$
$$$$$
$$$$
$$$
$
$$
$$ $
$
$$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$$$$
$$$$ $ $
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$ $
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$ $$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$ $
$
$ $$
$$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $ $$ $ $ $$$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$$ $$$
$$$
$$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$ $$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$ $$ $
$$
$$ $
$$ $$ $ $ $ $
$$$ $
$
$$
$$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$ $$
$
$$
$$
$$ $
$$
$
$ $
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$ $$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$ $ $
$
$$
$ $
$$$$$
$ $ $ $$
$$$$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$ $$$$$ $$ $
$$ $
$
$$
$
$
$$$$
$ $$$ $$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$$$
$$
$$ $$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$$$$$$$$ $$$$ $ $$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $
$$$
$$ $$$$$$
$ $$$
$$
$
$
$
$$$ $$$
$
$
$$$
$$
$
$ $$
$$$
$$$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$ $
$
$
$$
$$
$$$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$$
$$
$
$$$
$$
$$$$
$$$$$$$$$
$$
$ $
$$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$$$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$$$$
$
$$$
$$$$
$
$ $$$$ $$
$
$$ $ $$$$$
$
$$$$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$ $
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$ $
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$$
$$$$$$
$ $
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$ $ $$$$
$$ $
$ $ $ $$ $ $
$$
$$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$
$$ $$$$$
$ $$
$$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$ $$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$
$$
$ $
$$ $
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$ $$$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$ $
$
$
$$ $$ $$$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$ $$$$$$
$$$
$
$$
$$$$$$$$
$$$
$$$$$ $$
$$ $$$$$ $ $
$$$$ $$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$$
$
$$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$ $ $$$$ $
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$ $$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$$ $$$
$$
$$
$$$
$
$$$
$$$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$$$
$$
$$ $$
$
$$
$$$ $
$$ $$
$$
$$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$$$$ $ $ $ $$$$
$
$$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$ $
$$$
$$
$ $$ $$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$ $$$$
$ $$$$$
$$ $$
$$$$
$$
$$
$$ $
$$
$ $$
$$$ $
$ $$
$$$
$
$ $
$$ $$$$$ $
$
$$ $$$$
$$
$$ $$
$$$$ $ $ $$ $$$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$$
$ $ $$
$$$$$$
$$
$ $ $
$$ $
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$ $$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$$
$
$ $$$$
$$$$$$$
$
$ $
$ $
$$
$$$
$
$$$
$ $$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$ $
$
$
$
$$
$
$$ $$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$$$$$
$$ $
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$$
$
$
$
$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$ $$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$$$$$$$
$$$ $$ $$ $
$$ $$
$
$$$$
$$
$ $$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$$$
$
$$$
$
$$$
$$
$
$$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$ $$$
$$ $ $$$
$$
$
$$$$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $ $ $$$$
$
$$$
$$$$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$$
$
$
$$
$$$ $$ $$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$$
$$$$
$
$$$$
$
$
$$$$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $$$
$$
$$
$$
$ $
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$ $$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$ $
$
$$
$$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$ $$
$$$$ $$$$ $$$$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $
$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$
$$
$$
$
$$$$$
$ $$ $
$
$$ $ $
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$$
$
$$
$$
$$$ $$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$ $$$$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$$$ $
$$
$$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$$$
$
$$
$$$$
$$ $$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$$$ $$$
$
$$
$$ $$
$$$
$$
$$$
$ $ $$ $$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$ $
$
$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$ $ $
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$$$$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$ $ $
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$ $$ $$$ $
$$
$ $
$$
$
$
$$$ $
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$$ $
$
$$ $$
$$
$
$ $$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$
$
$ $
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$
$$
$$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$ $$ $$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$$
$
$$
$$$$$ $
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$ $ $$$$
$$
$$ $
$
$
$
$$
$$$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$ $
$$
$$
$$
$ $
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$$$$
$$$$$ $
$$ $$$ $$
$
$$$
$$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$$
$
$$ $
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$ $$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$ $$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$$
$$ $$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$$ $$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$$
$
$ $
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$ $
$ $$
$ $
$
$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$$ $$$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$$ $ $$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$$$$$
$$$$$
$$
$$
$$$
$
$$$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$
$$$
$$
$ $$ $$
$$
$
$ $$
$$ $
$$$$$$$$$
$$
$
$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$$
$
$
$
$ $$
$
$$$
$
$$
$$$$
$
$
$$$$$$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$ $ $ $ $$
$$
$$
$
$$$$
$
$
$$$
$$$
$
$$
$
$
$$$
$$
$
$$$
$$
$
$$
$$$$$$
$$
$
$ $
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$$$$
$$ $
$ $ $
$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$$$$$
$$
$$ $ $$ $
$$
$
$$$
$$
$
$
$ $$
$$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$$$
$$$$
$
$
$$$$
$$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$ $
$
$$
$ $
$
$
$ $
$
$$
$$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$ $$$$
$ $$$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$$ $
$ $$
$$
$$
$$ $$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$ $
$
$
$
$$
$$ $$
$
$$
$
$
$$ $$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$ $
$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$ $$$$$
$$$$
$$
$
$$$$$ $
$$
$
$$
$
$ $ $$$ $
$
$$ $ $
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$ $$ $
$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$$ $
$$$
$$ $
$$
$$
$$$$
$$ $$
$$
$$
$ $
$
$$ $$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$ $
$$
$$$
$
$$
$ $$
$$$$$
$$$$ $
$
$$$$$$ $$$
$$$$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$$
$$$
$ $$ $$$
$$
$$$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$$$
$$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$ $
$$$
$
$$
$$
$$$ $
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$ $
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$$
$$$$$$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$$$
$$$$$$$ $
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$$ $$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$$ $$
$ $
$$
$ $$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $$ $
$$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$$ $
$$
$ $$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$ $$
$ $
$
$$
$ $$$
$$$
$$
$
$
$ $ $ $ $$$ $$
$$$ $$ $$ $
$ $$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $
$ $$ $$
$
$
$
$$ $
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$$$$$
$$
$ $
$$$$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$ $$$ $$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$
$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$$$$
$$$
$$
$$ $
$ $
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$ $
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$
$$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$$ $
$ $ $$
$
$$ $
$$$
$
$
$$$
$$
$$ $
$$
$$ $$$ $
$
$$
$$ $
$ $$
$$
$
$$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$ $ $$
$
$$$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$$ $
$ $ $$$$$ $
$ $
$
$
$
$ $$$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$ $$
$
$$
$ $ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$ $$$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$ $
$ $$
$
$ $$ $
$
$ $ $$$$$ $
$$$$
$$ $
$$ $ $
$
$
$ $
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$ $
$$
$$$$$
$
$$$$$
$ $
$$
$$
$$ $$ $ $
$$
$
$$ $$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$$$$
$
$
$
$$$
$$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$
$$ $$
$ $
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$ $$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$$ $ $
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$
$$$$ $$
$$
$$
$$
$
$ $$$
$$$$
$$$ $$ $
$
$$ $$$
$$
$
$
$
$$ $ $$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$
$$$$$ $$$
$ $ $
$
$
$$ $$$
$
$$
$$$
$$
$$ $$$$
$$$ $ $ $$$ $$ $$
$ $$ $$
$$$
$
$ $$$$
$$ $$ $ $
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$ $$$
$$$
$ $ $$$$ $$$$$$
$$$$
$
$
$$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$ $$$$$
$ $$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$$
$ $
$
$$$ $$$ $
$$ $ $
$$
$ $$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$$$
$$
$$ $
$
$
$$ $ $
$
$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$$
$$$
$
$
$$$$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$ $
$
$ $ $ $$$$ $$$ $ $$
$$$ $
$$
$
$$
$
$ $
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$ $
$$ $$$$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $
$ $$
$
$
$
$$
$$$ $$$
$$$$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$
$
$$$ $$$$
$
$
$$ $ $$$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$$
$
$
$
$$$
$$
$
$$$
$
$
$ $$
$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$$
$$
$$$$
$
$ $$$$
$ $$ $$
$$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$ $
$ $$
$$$$$$$$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$ $
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$ $ $$$
$$
$$
$$$$$$$
$
$
$
$$$$$$$$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$ $$ $
$
$
$ $$ $
$$
$$
$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$$ $
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $ $ $$$
$$$
$ $
$
$ $
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $$$$
$$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$ $$
$$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$ $
$ $
$
$$$$ $
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$ $$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$ $ $
$$
$$
$$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$$$$ $ $ $
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$ $
$$
$$$$$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$$ $ $ $$
$ $$ $
$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$$ $
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $ $
$$$
$$
$
$$
$$ $
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$ $$
$
$
$
$ $$ $$$$$$$ $$$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$$$$$
$
$$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$ $$$$$$$$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$ $
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$ $$$
$ $$
$$
$
$
$
$$$$
$ $
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$ $
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$ $ $
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$ $$
$$$
$
$
$$
$
$$$
$$$$
$$$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$
$$
$
$ $
$$
$
$$
$ $ $
$
$
$
$$
$$$ $ $
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$ $ $ $ $ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$$ $$ $$
$ $
$$
$$$$
$
$
$
$
$ $$$
$$ $
$
$$ $$
$
$$$$
$
$$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$$$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$ $
$
$
$
$ $$$
$ $
$ $
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$$$$ $$$$
$$$$$
$
$
$
$
$ $
$ $
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$ $$$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$ $$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$$ $$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$$ $ $$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$ $
$$$
$
$ $ $$$ $ $$$
$$$
$
$$
$
$ $
$$$
$
$$$ $
$
$
$$
$$$
$$ $
$
$ $
$$
$
$
$
$$$ $$ $$$$
$
$$$ $$$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$
$$$$$
$$
$$ $
$$$$
$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$
$$
$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$
$$ $
$ $
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$ $ $$
$$
$$$$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$$$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$$$$
$
$
$$$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$$ $
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$$$$$
$$
$
$$
$ $$
$$
$ $ $
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$$ $
$$$ $
$
$
$
$
$$$ $
$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$ $
$ $
$$
$$$
$$ $
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$$ $ $$$$$$$ $
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$$$$ $ $$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$
$$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$ $$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$$$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$ $$
$$$$ $
$ $$ $
$ $$$
$ $$$
$$$
$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$ $$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$$ $
$$ $
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$ $ $
$$
$
$
$$$$ $$$
$
$$$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$$$$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$$$$$
$$$$
$$$$$$
$$
$$$$$$$
$
$$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$$ $$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$$
$$ $
$$$ $
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$$$$
$
$$$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$$$
$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $
$ $
$$$$
$$
$
$$ $ $
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
$$$$
$
$$$$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$ $$
$$
$$$
$
$
$
$$$$ $$
$$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$$$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$$$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$$
$$$$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$ $ $$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$ $$$ $
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$ $$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$$$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$$ $ $ $$$
$$$
$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$$$
$$$
$$
$ $ $$$$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$$
$$$$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$
$ $
$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$$$
$
$$$$ $
$$$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$$ $
$
$
$
$ $
$$
$$
$$
$$$ $ $
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$$
$$ $
$ $
$
$$
$$$$
$
$$
$$$
$
$
$
$$$$$
$$ $
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $$
$$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$ $
$
$$
$$
$$$ $$
$$
$$$$$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$ $ $
$$ $
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$$$$
$
$
$$$$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$$ $$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$$ $$ $$$$
$
$$$
$$ $
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$$ $$
$
$
$$ $$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$$$
$ $$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$ $$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$ $$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$$
$
$$
$ $
$
$$
$$
$$$$
$$$
$$
$
$
$$$$
$$ $$
$ $$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$$
$
$
$ $$
$$ $$$
$$$$ $
$$
$
$ $$$ $$$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$$ $$
$$$$
$
$$$
$$
$
$$$$
$ $$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$$$$
$
$ $
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$$$
$ $$$
$
$ $$$
$
$$
$
$$$$
$$
$$$$
$
$$$
$$
$$
$ $$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$ $
$$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$$$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$ $$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$$$$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$ $$$
$$
$$
$ $$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$ $$$ $ $
$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$ $$
$$$ $$$
$ $$
$
$$
$
$$
$$$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$$
$
$ $
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$
$
$$$ $
$
$
$$
$$
$ $
$$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$ $
$$$ $$
$$
$$
$$$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$$$$$$
$ $$
$$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$
$
$ $$ $$
$$
$
$$$
$
$$$ $
$$
$$ $$
$$
$$
$$
$$$ $
$$$
$$$
$
$
$ $ $$$ $$
$$ $$$$$$
$$$$$
$
$$
$ $$
$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$$
$$$$$
$$ $$
$
$
$$$$$$$$$$
$$
$$
$
$$ $
$
$$$ $
$$ $$$
$
$$$
$
$$
$
$
$$$$
$
$$ $ $$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$ $
$ $$
$$
$$$ $
$$ $
$$
$
$$
$$$$$$ $ $$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$$$$$$$
$$ $
$$$
$$
$$$
$$$$$$
$
$ $
$
$$$ $$$
$$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $ $
$$
$
$$
$$$$$
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
$
$ $
$ $$
$$
$$$
$$$ $
$$
$$ $
$$ $$
$ $$
$
$
$
$$$ $ $
$ $$
$
$ $ $$
$
$$$$
$$
$$ $
$$$
$$ $$$
$
$
$
$
$ $ $$
$
$ $
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$ $ $
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$ $
$$$ $$
$
$$$$$
$ $
$$
$
$$
$
$$ $
$ $
$
$
$$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$$$
$$ $
$$
$$
$$$$$
$
$
$$
$$$ $ $
$$$$
$
$$$ $ $$$
$$
$
$$$$$
$
$
$
$
$$$$$$
$$$
$$ $ $
$$$ $$$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$ $$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$ $
$
$
$$
$$
$ $$
$$$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$$ $
$$
$$
$ $$$
$
$ $ $$$
$$ $
$$
$$ $$
$
$$$$ $ $
$
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$ $$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$$
$ $$
$ $$$$$
$$
$
$$$ $$
$$
$
$$ $$$$$
$
$ $
$ $$$ $ $ $
$$$
$$
$$$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $ $$
$
$$
$ $ $$$$$
$ $
$ $$
$
$$
$$$$
$$$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$ $
$$$$
$$$
$$$$
$
$
$ $
$
$
$$$$$$$$
$
$
$
$$$$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$ $$
$$ $$$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$ $
$
$$
$$ $ $
$
$$$ $
$
$ $
$$$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $ $
$ $
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$ $$$
$
$
$$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$$$$
$
$
$
$$ $
$$$ $
$$$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$$$
$
$$
$
$ $$
$$$
$$
$$ $$
$$
$
$
$
$ $ $$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$ $$ $ $
$$
$$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$ $ $
$$
$ $$
$$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$ $$
$$
$ $$
$$
$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$ $$$$ $
$
$$$
$
$$
$ $
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $
$
$
$
$$
$$
$ $
$$$ $ $
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$ $ $$$
$ $$$ $
$$
$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$ $ $
$
$
$
$ $
$$
$$
$$$$
$
$
$$ $
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $
$$$ $
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$$
$$$
$$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$ $$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$$ $
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$
$$
$$$$
$$
$$
$
$$
$
$$ $
$$
$$
$ $
$$$
$
$$$
$$
$
$$ $$$$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$$
$
$$ $
$
$
$$ $ $ $$
$
$$$
$$$
$$
$$
$$$ $$
$
$$ $
$
$ $$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$ $$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$ $$$$
$
$
$
$$$ $ $$
$$$ $
$$
$
$
$ $$$
$
$$
$$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$ $
$
$ $
$$$
$$
$$ $$$ $
$$$
$$
$$$
$$$
$
$
$
$$
$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$$$$
$$$$
$$$$
$$$
$$
$$
$ $
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$ $
$$$$$ $$$
$$
$$ $
$$
$ $$
$$$$
$$$
$
$$
$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$$$$$$ $$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$$$$
$$$$$
$$
$$$ $$ $
$
$$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$$
$$ $
$$ $$$
$ $
$$
$ $
$
$
$$ $$$$$
$
$$$$$$$$ $$ $ $
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$
$ $$$$ $
$$
$
$
$$
$$ $
$
$
$$
$ $
$
$$$$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$
$
$$$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $ $$ $$
$
$
$$$ $$ $ $$
$
$
$ $
$ $
$ $
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
N
W
$$
E
S
30
0
30
60 Kilometers
Figure 3. All Archaeological Sites Recorded in Georgia as of March 2002.
5
Chapter 1. IntroductionBlank Page
6
Chapter 2. Submerged Context
Documents, Surveys, and Programs
in Georgia and Neighboring States
This chapter consists of a brief assessment of the
historical perspective of underwater archaeological research
in nearby states and a discussion of survey and context documents created by each. The reader is referred to Elliott et al.
(2000) for a more comprehensive examination of submerged
resource programs in various states.
ALABAMA
Historical Perspective of Underwater
Archaeological Research
The legislature passed the Alabama Underwater
Cultural Resources Act in 1999 for the management and protection of submerged cultural resources. This act mandates
an underwater management plan and outlines a permitting
system for divers. Classification of diver permits are as follows: Sport or Recreation Divers, Search and Identification,
and Excavation/Salvage (Code of Alabama 1975). The sport
diver permit does not allow systematic search, excavation,
or the recovery of any artifacts. Specific historic underwater corridors are excluded from the permitted diving areas.
The search and identification permit allows the permittee to
survey a specific area and use hand fanning to uncover, but
not collect artifacts. The permittee must provide the state
with various information regarding site discoveries. The
excavation permits are negotiated on a project-by-project
basis. Currently there is no underwater archaeology program in Alabama. The state acknowledges the need for one
given the presence of submerged resources in Mobile Bay,
along the state’s coastline, and within the state’s inland waterways (Thomas Maher, State Archaeologist, Personal Communication, June 17, 2002).
Surveys and/or Context Documents
Alabama has no underwater context documents and
there have been no state-wide or regional underwater surveys conducted. Activities relating to submerged resources
have been limited to small-scale projects by entities other
than the state. Underwater archaeology in Alabama has con-
sisted of the following projects: surveys for laying pipe offshore and in Mobile Bay, private surveys by two groups
searching for the Confederate submarine, Pioneer 2, a survey in Mobile Bay by the University of West Florida for the
British 1812 wreck of the Hermes, and underwater investigations of the wreck the Tecumseh, in the water adjacent to
the peninsula containing Fort Morgan (Thomas Maher, Personal Communication, June 17, 2002). The Tecumseh was
launched in 1863, and torpedoed and sunk in 1864. The
Smithsonian found the wreck in 1967. In 1993 East Carolina University archaeologists surveyed the wreck. A management plan was written for the wreck (Naval Historical
Center 2003).
FLORIDA
Florida’s underwater program grew out of shipwreck salvage efforts dating to 1928 and expanding in the
1960s to include the issuance of large numbers of wreck
salvage permits. By 1964 an advisory committee realized
the need to incorporate archaeological research into the salvage program. The committee’s recommendations resulted
in the establishment of a state underwater archaeology program that was administered by an underwater archaeologist. By 1968 the state created four underwater reserves
that were off limits to wreck salvage operations. The 1974
legal conflicts over claim to the Spanish wreck, Senora de
Atocha, led to a salvor victory and the redefinition of
Florida’s territorial boundary which placed the wreck in
Federal waters. The court case gave the salvor rights to the
wreck and its artifacts. This precedent unleashed a barrage
of salvage claims beginning in 1983 and the State Underwater Archaeologist position was abolished. When it was
re-established in 1987, the position focused on an underwater program concerned with the inventory, evaluation, protection, and interpretation of Florida’s submerged resources
(Elliott et al. 2000).
7
Chapter 2.
Currently, the State Underwater Archaeologist
works in the Bureau of Archaeological Research. Additional
employees include an Archaeological Field Supervisor who
administers the exploration and salvage program, and two
Archaeological Field Assistants who are located in regional
offices.
Florida has conducted several regional underwater
surveys in a variety of formats. The Pensacola Shipwreck
Survey was initiated in 1991 and funded by the state. That
survey recorded more than 40 significant sites. A survey
currently underway of St. Augustine/St. Johns County is being funded by state grants and conducted by the Lighthouse
Archaeological Maritime Program (LAMP) under the direction of Billy Ray Morris. Other smaller scale surveys of
Florida include investigations of the Santa Fe River and investigations in and around sinkholes and springs.
The Pensacola Shipwreck Survey was established
as a temporary project to “test the development of a statewide survey model through the use of a regional project. The
goals were to use the cross-section of data collected to develop a long-term management plan. The survey’s research
design was public oriented and included: archival and oral
informant research for potential site locations, underwater
field investigations (working with local divers and fishermen), use of electronic remote sensing equipment to locate
new targets, establishment of a computer database for these
targets and for verified sites, evaluation and site recommendations, development of a classification system of sites based
on age, integrity, and environment, and the creation of appropriate management options for various site types” (Elliott
et al. 2000:48).
Florida State University in Tallahassee has been
conducting numerous archaeological investigations in springs
and sinks in Florida. The university has also been conducting research on the potential of Paleoindian sites in areas of
karst topography. This regional study is examined more in
Chapter 6.
NORTH C AROLINA
Legislation gives the state title to the bottoms of all
navigable waters within North Carolina and three miles off-
shore, and to all artifacts and wrecks that have been submerged for over 10 years. A Department of Archives and
History permit allows the exploration, recovery, and salvage
of submerged sites by qualified persons (Elliott et al.
2000:14). The Underwater Archaeology Unit (UAU) of the
North Carolina Division of Archives and History was established in 1969. The program conducts historical, archival,
and cartographic research in addition to remote sensing surveys and diver investigations through its “Survey and Inventory of Underwater Archaeological Sites” program
(Elliott et al. 2000:49).
The program has a state underwater archaeologist.
In addition, the program includes an archaeological supervisor, archaeologist, conservator, technician, and office administrator (Elliott et al. 2000:20). The UAU facilities are
located on the North Carolina Coast at Fort Fisher State Historic Site and have a dark room, research library, preservation lab, exhibit building, maintenance shops and boat storage area. Twelve years ago, program equipment was valued
at $205,000 and included the following: 4 boats, motors,
and trailers, a Suburban truck, a magnetometer, a global positioning system, photographic equipment, a stocked lab,
drafting equipment, scuba diving equipment, pumps, compressors, air lift and dredges, an underwater video system
and power tools (Elliott et al. 2000:22). The program enjoys both dedicated and auxiliary funding.
North Carolina’s shipwreck database is electronically linked to a mainframe computer and database in Raleigh. In 1995 the North Carolina Site Files contained 4,000
shipwrecks, of which 600, or less than two percent, had been
field-documented (Elliott et al. 2000:47). As of 2002, the
number of wrecks recorded in the files has reached over
5,000. Most of these wrecks are listed from information
gathered from historical documentation rather than fieldwork.
Survey is conducted through the state’s “Survey and Inventory of Underwater Archaeological Sites” program. Archaeologists use a combination of archival and cartographic document research, remote sensing investigations, and diver
searches in the program’s survey strategy. Underwater investigations are a result of compliance activity and the research interests of the program.
While there is no statewide survey, the program has
conducted a regional survey on the Cape Fear River in response to proposed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE) channel deepening. This was a comprehensive
survey of portions of a 35-mile section of the river, which
8
Chapter 2
flows in the south-central portion of the state. Priority areas
for investigation were based on historical research. Survey
included a magnetometer and side-scan sonar survey of these
areas. Divers investigated 100 wrecks between the town of
Wilson and the mouth of the river. Some of these wrecks
had been previously recorded. The project is documented
in two volumes entitled, The Cape Fear – Northeast Cape
Fear Rivers Comprehensive Study: A Maritime History and
Survey”. Volume I (Jackson n.d.) examines the maritime
history of the Cape Fear area and Volume II (Overton n.d.)
concerns the underwater survey.
Another regional survey was conducted by East
Carolina University’s Program in Maritime History and Nautical Archaeology through a Survey and Planning Grant from
the state of North Carolina (Kjorness and Babits 2000). Archaeologists conducted portions of this survey in the Pamlico
drainage in the east-central portion of the state’s coast over
a four-year period beginning in 1993 (Babits, Morris, and
Kjorness 1995, Babits and Kjorness 1995). Surveyors used
a magnetometer in addition to visually examining an area
totaling 50 linear shoreline and stream bank miles. Sites
were not ground-truthed by divers. Archaeologists recorded
the following sites: seven terrestrial prehistoric sites, three
terrestrial historic sites, several transportation related sites
(marine railways, abandoned marinas, docks, etc.), and 104
vessels (Kjorness and Babits 2000:193). The implications
for this study are discussed in “Interpreting the Resource
Base” in Chapter 6 of this report.
In addition to recording sites, the UAU places selected shipwrecks on the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). Currently there are 57 wrecks listed, many dating
to the Civil War. This listing has proven to be an effective
way of helping to manage these wrecks. In 1985 the state
nominated 22 Civil War wrecks in the Cape Fear region for
inclusion on the NRHP as a district. Currently there are 15
other Civil War wrecks in the sounds and rivers of North
Carolina’s coast that will be nominated to the NRHP (Richard Lawrence, North Carolina State Underwater Archaeologist, personal communication, June 20, 2002).
There is no statewide underwater management plan
(Richard Lawrence, North Carolina State Underwater Archaeologist, personal communication, June 20, 2002). There
is a 1990 historic context document concerning small craft
(Wilde-Ramsing and Alford 1990). The UAU program has
conducted a series of symposiums for the USACOE on various topics. One recent topic included small crafts and was
based on the types of wrecks commonly found in North Carolina (Richard Lawrence, personal communication, June 20,
2002).
SOUTH CAROLINA
In 1991 the South Carolina Legislature passed the
South Carolina Underwater Antiquities Act which gave the
state title to all submerged sites and paleontological properties on state controlled property. The act also allowed the
state to convey title to some or all artifacts to licensees
through permits issued by the South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology (SCIAA) (Elliott et al.
2000:15).
The underwater program has a Deputy State Archaeologist, in addition to an archaeologist, two archaeological assistants, an underwater archaeologist, and a manager of the sport diver program (Elliott et al. 2000:22). There
are three staff members in the Columbia office and two in
Charleston. While there are many tasks to accomplish in the
underwater program, the obligations of the sport diver program alone require two full-time staff. The Charleston field
office works well given the fact that most divers live or dive
along the coast or within a one hour drive of the coast.
Charleston staff, therefore, have easy access to the South
Carolina diving community and a large percentage of the
submerged sites. Field training courses are given once or
twice a year and include information, demonstration, and
participating in mapping, legislation, and actual diving on
sites. The field office conducts an internship program with
the College of Charleston and currently hosts a graduate student from Texas A&M University. Both positions are handson opportunities for interns that generate various levels of
assistance to the underwater staff (Lynn Harris, Underwater
Archaeologist, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, personal communication, June 3, 2002).
Currently there are 23 divers from Georgia who hold
South Carolina hobby diver licenses and are active within
that program. During the 2001-2002 season, eight divers
from Georgia completed the Field Training Course in South
Carolina and seven others participated in such a course during the summer of 2002. Over the past 20 years, a total of
100 Georgia divers have been licensed to collect artifacts
and fossils in the state of South Carolina (Lynn Harris, personal communication, June 4, 2002).
9
Chapter 2.
G EORGIA
SCIAA has an overall database that includes terrestrial and underwater sites. It is struggling to evolve from
a hard-copy file to an electronic database. The Charleston
office has databases containing information on underwater
sites, along with hobby diver reports, and wrecks garnered
from historical documents, such as maps, charts, and atlases.
This information is currently being put into a Geographic
Information System (GIS) format. Information from 50 percent of the hobby diver reports are transferred to the database. The other 50 percent of the reports are unusable because of the lack of site locations/poor quality maps. Those
sites whose locations can be pinpointed have their UTM coordinates recorded in the database (Lynn Harris, personal
communication, June 3, 2002).
There have been no systematic underwater surveys
of the entire state of South Carolina. The majority of survey
data has been collected through the hobby diver training program. The area surveyed is skewed to locations that hobby
divers prefer, such as those of relatively good visibility and/
or areas accessible by boat ramps. Hobby divers have conducted surveys of portions of the Waccamaw River looking
for rice barges and related rice cultural features, the Ashley
River looking for sites along the banks, and the Cooper River.
In 1990 divers working with the Charleston Underwater Archaeology Office examined the waterfronts of thee plantations in the Georgetown area to document four barges (Harris 1992). In 1993 another joint project with the office and
local divers included a survey of the Cooper River’s west
branch (Harris et al.1993).
SCIAA has conducted one regional survey, the Port
Royal survey, which produced systematic survey, groundtruthing, and historical research of Navy wrecks in the
Charleston harbor. The survey was funded with grants from
the United States Navy’s Legacy program. Prior to this work,
the only other systematic underwater surveys by SCIAA were
conducted in the 1970s by Alan Albright. Unfortunately
those side-scan sonar surveys lacked the electronic equipment so accessible today. The data was not computerized
and the lack of UTM coordinates make the information difficult to use, at best (Lynn Harris, personal communication,
June 3, 2002). SCIAA’s first GIS mapping program has
been conducted on the now reknown Hunley project. Prior
to that project, the underwater program did not have a magnetometer or side-scan sonar.
Georgia does not have an underwater program. In
the early 1980s the state required a permit to conduct underwater survey, mapping, or excavations. State legislation
defining submerged cultural resources, title to them, permits
for their exploration, and permit violations are included in
the legal codes 12-3-80 (GCA 40-815a), 12-3-82 (GCA 40817a) and 12-3-83 (GCA 40-818a). In 1987, A Review of
Underwater Regulation in Georgia with a Preliminary Inventory of Submerged Cultural Resources was produced for
Georgia DNR (Wright 19987). In 1998, the Georgia DNR
developed a written strategic plan for the states’ submerged
cultural resorces (Georgia Department of Natural Resources
1998). In 1999, the state contracted for study of programs
in other states (see below). At about the same time the Archaeological Services Unit of HPD was preparing one of its
staff to be trained as a scuba diver. In 2001 and 2002, HPD
awarded two contracts for the development of an underwater context (see below).
Stemming the Tide: A Survey of Submerged Cultural Resources Programs in the United States With a View
Toward Georgia examines underwater archaeology programs, laws, projects, and directions in other states and in
Georgia (Elliott et al. 2000). The HPD also awarded a contract for the current report, which is a context document regarding underwater archaeology in Georgia’s hinterland. In
addition, a second context document by Watts regarding underwater archaeology along the coast and offshore is being
finalized now.
Various individuals who are unaffiliated with the
state have been conducting limited historical research on
specific types of submerged sites. Such attention has focused on documentary research of shipwrecks and fishweirs/
traps. None of the databases mentioned below are located
in any research repositories, although researchers have been
extremely generous in sharing information when asked by
individual colleagues.
Judy Wood, archaeologist with the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), Savannah District,
has been compiling an electronic database of shipwrecks
across Georgia with emphasis on the state’s harbors and coast
(Wood 2002). She has scoured the annual Reports to the
Chief of Engineers published throughout the nineteenth and
10
Chapter 2
early twentieth centuries. These documents originally were
part of the U.S. Army, War Department until the USACOE
was formed later. Her research has also included other primary and secondary documents. For the most part, these
sites have not been ground-truthed. Wrecks listed on Wood’s
database are supplemented with further primary and secondary source documents, such as newspaper advertisements,
in a second database. The database includes a variety of
steamboats such as sidewheel, sternwheel, and screw, in
addition to other vessels such as schooners, sloops, galleys,
flats, brigs, towboats, barks, brigantines, and generic ships,
boats, and sailboats (Wood 2002). Wood continues to update this database as she obtains relevant information. It
currently contains 1,030 shipwrecks. Approximately 159
of these wrecks are located in non-coastal areas. No Georgia Archaeological Site File (GASF) forms have been completed for the database sites.
Another private vessel database consists of wrecks
on the lower Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers. Archaeologist Frank Schnell has compiled this information from various sources, including Mueller (1990), Chief of Engineers
charts, and others. Schnell’s database includes more recent
vessels than those examined by Mueller. The database is in
electronic format. There are a total of 335 wrecks listed,
including: the vessel name, any new name given, location
built, when it began and ended operating, its disposition,
location of disposition, gross tonnage, and what type of power
it used (Frank Schnell, Archaeologist, personal communication, June 20, 2001). Schnell’s database includes not only
steamboats, but packets, towboats, and named barges. Most
have not been ground-truthed and no GASF forms have been
completed for the database sites.
Private research conducted by Bill Frazier covers
the area of fish traps, fish dams, and fishweirs. Frazier has
been researching this topic for several decades, using primary documents such as plats, deeds, maps, and the Georgia
legal code to locate such sites. His research is available in
dozens of brief publications he has produced highlighting
documents uncovered while investigating specific areas of
waterways. He has worked alone and with the Archaeological Survey Team in Atlanta to complete GASF forms
for those he has ground-truthed. He works under the entity
of Georgia’s Stream/Fish Traps (Bill Frazier, personal communication, May 30, 2002). He currently knows of at
least an additional 100 such sites, but is awaiting more information prior to recording them on GASF site forms.
Riverine surveys in Georgia’s hinterland generally
have been limited. Gordon Watts conducted a reconnaissance magnetometer and side scan sonar survey in portions
of the Chattahoochee River near Columbus (Watts 1982).
The project was completed for the James W. Woodruff Jr.
Confederate Naval Museum. An underwater survey of the
town of Petersburg was conducted as a graduate student thesis project (Elliott 1988). The site was flooded in 1954 by
Clark Hill Lake (now known as Strom Thurmond Lake) and
investigated in 1987 by diver survey and mapping. These
projects are discussed further in Chapter 5.
11
Chapter 2.
12
Chapter 3. Methods
For this project, data from recorded archaeological
sites were collected along with data from historical documents and secondary sources. This information was then
turned into tables or maps for interpretive purposes. The
data were then used to help discover site types and likely
locations, in addition to discovering what sources were likely
to offer useful information regarding inundated sites.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL LITERATURE SEARCH
Research for this project included a review of
known sites in the GASF. Archaeologists searched electronic versions of the site file database to locate recorded,
inundated sites in the project area, related site forms, and
associated reports and manuscripts. The most recent database available, March 2002, was used for these queries. Initial electronic searches consisted of queries for sites listed as
“underwater” in the “Site Nature” column of the database or
characterized as “flooded” in the “Preservation” column. The
database was also searched for report titles/key words including “underwater, shipwreck, mill, ferry, river, boat, vessel, and bridge”. These queries produced a list of little more
than 200 sites. Queries targeting specific site type codes
were more successful. The following codes were used to
isolate sites that virtually had to be inundated or water-related by their very nature:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Prehistoric Indian FishWeir/Rock Dam
Historic Indian FishWeir/Rock Dam
Grist Mill
Textile Mill
Mill
Unspecified
Barge
Mill Race
River Ferry
Bridge
Dam
Man Made Levee
Canal or Ditch
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pier
Landing
Pilings
Dock
Mill Pond
Ship or Boat
Spring
Boat Yard
Causeway
Jetty
Seawall
Historic FishWeir
Sluice Box
Rice Paddy
Mill Dam
It was hoped that the keyword searches and queries
for underwater and flooded sites would catch the majority
of sites missed by the code word search. For example, sites
listed as “flooded” under the “Preservation State 2” column
of the database are sites recorded during some of the reservoir surveys. Most of those sites originally were located on
dry land, but have become inundated following the impoundment of corporate and federal lakes.
In addition, GASF manuscript and report inventories were examined for relevant literature. Approximately
50 manuscripts were studied, most of which were reports or
manuscripts related to reservoir studies. The sole source of
archaeological documentation for the majority of Georgia’s
reservoir surveys and large-scale excavations consists of four
page progress reports. Site numbers used in the original
manuscripts and reports are cited in this report. For example
A. R. Kelly’s Clay County sites have the trinomial of “cla”
rather than the binomial system used in the GASF today.
This original designation is maintained in the text of this
report.
Alabama’s site file information was researched for
sites located in the Chattahoochee River that might
technically be found in Georgia, but were recorded in
13
Chapter 3.
Alabama’s records. The high water mark of the river on the
Alabama bank is the boundary between the two states. Any
sites, therefore, located in the river or below the water mark
by people unfamiliar with the state’s boundaries would likely
be recorded in Alabama, even though the sites are owned by
the state of Georgia. Jen Steelman of the Office of
Archaeological Research in Moundville, Alabama made a
list of sites in the Chattahoochee River mapped on their topographic quadrangles. The site forms for these sites were
examined by Southern Research archaeologists to determine
whether the sites were submerged, eroding out of the bank,
or wholly above the high water line on the river’s west bank.
Attempts at similar investigations for the South
Carolina Site Files were made. The boundary between Georgia and South Carolina is the Savannah River. Unlike the
boundary between Georgia and Alabama, however, the line
follows the center of the Savannah River. This boundary
has resulted in continual problems between Carolina and
Georgia from the 1730s. Problems continued between Georgia and South Carolina through the twentieth century as seen
by recent court cases. In addition to legal questions, the
meandering path of the river and resulting oxbows, levees,
wash-outs, and shifting banks result in a continually changing centerline. Sites near the center of the river therefore
could be in the state of Georgia one year and in the state of
South Carolina the next, without moving an inch. Queries
made to the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology indicated that there was a strong likelihood
that Georgia sites are collected by South Carolina hobby
divers and that artifacts from these sites are reported as coming from the South Carolina side of the river (Lynn Harris,
personal communication, June 3, 2002).
HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS LITERATURE
S EARCH
The scope of this project takes into consideration
geographic areas of the state, environments, and various
cultural groups and the changing demographics of these
groups in an effort to identify areas likely to contain inundated archaeological sites. Since few submerged sites have
been recorded in the state of Georgia, this effort to use historical documentation pertaining to Georgia and information from states with similar environments and culture histories is particularly critical. A comprehensive study of every specific historical document related to inundated sites is
far beyond the scope of this project; however, attempts were
made to discuss examples of the types of historical docu-
mentation that might provide locations or other information
regarding inundated sites. Maps, images, and textural documents are examples of the three broad categories containing
these resources.
Researchers consulted secondary documents as
well, such as culture history contexts for Georgia, published
books about regional areas of the state, archaeological reports, various histories and scholarly publications, and data
from historic preservation and state archaeologists offices
in other states. The Internet provided a useful source for
obtaining copies of both primary and secondary documents.
It also produced useful bibliographic information. A visit to
the Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library within the
University of Georgia libraries in Athens included examination of their map card catalog, electronic map scans, and
study of a few of the actual map documents. The vertical
file index revealed two file folders that contained relevant
information. One was labeled “Mills” and the other “Fisheries”. Indices to several photograph collections were studied with negative results.
Selected photographs of twentieth century ferries
were extracted from the John Goff Photograph Collection.
This collection is housed at the Georgia Department of Archives and History (GDAH). Some primary documentation
also originated from GDAH collections.
I NTERVIEWS
The author conducted email and telephone interviews of numerous individuals associated with submerged
sites or with various programs in Georgia or other states in
the southeast. These included the following archaeologists:
Larry Babits, East Carolina University Maritime History and
Underwater Research; Lynn Harris, South Carolina Institute
of Anthropology and Archaeology; Richard Lawrence, Underwater Archaeology Unit, North Carolina; Thomas Maher,
Alabama State Archaeologist; Della A. Scott-Ireton, Florida
Bureau of Archaeological Research; Jim Spirek, South Carolina Institute of Anthropology and Archaeology; Frank
Schnell, formerly with the Columbus Museum; Gail Schnell;
Gordon Watts, Tidewater Atlantic Research; Mark WildeRamsing, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Institute of Marine Sciences; Mark Williams, University of Georgia; and Judy , United States Army Corps of Engineers. Other
interviews included Bill Frazier, Georgia Streams/Fish Traps,
and Lindley S. Butler, Historian, Reidsville, North Carolina.
14
Chapter 3
DATA INTERPRETATION
Southern Research Laboratory Director, Debra
Wells, took the GASF data set and generated various site
location maps for interpretive purposes and for inclusion in
this report. These data, which were in a Microsoft Access
database, were imported into the ESRI ArcView program
and plotted spatially. Maps generated included the following site categories: all submerged/water related sites, watercraft, historic fishweirs/dams, prehistoric fishweirs/dams,
mills and dams, and bridges/wharves/landing structures.
15
Chapter 3.
16
Chapter 4. Environmental Contexts
RIVERS
AND
STREAMS
Georgia is dissected by numerous waterways. Figure 1 (Chapter 1) illustrates the rivers, streams, creeks,
branches, and runs throughout the state. A total of 14 river
basins divide the state (Department of Community Affairs
2002). Extreme northwestern and northeastern Georgia is
drained by the Tennessee River. The Alabama River drainage includes the Coosa River basin in the northwestern corner of the state and a small portion of the Tallapoosa River
basin directly south of this. The Chattahoochee River basin
begins one county shy of the northeastern tip of the state. It
runs diagonally from the northeast to the southwest across
the state until it hits the border with Alabama where it follows the border down the length of Georgia. The Flint River
basin parallels the Chattahoochee basin’s eastern boundary.
The Flint basin runs from the north-central portion of the
state to the southwestern corner. The Altamaha River drainage includes the Ocmulgee and Oconee rivers, beginning
near the center of the state and flowing southeast into the
Atlantic Ocean. The Savannah River basin is bordered on
the west by the Oconee and on the east by South Carolina,
running from Georgia’s northeastern to southeastern borders. Running north to south, Georgia is drained by the
following major river basins: the Savannah, Ogeechee,
Altamaha, and Satilla. Southern Georgia river basins that
drain into Florida include, from east to west, the St. Mary’s,
Suwanee, Alapaha, and Ochlockonee. Western Georgia is
drained by the Alabama and Chattahoochee. Table 1 lists
Georgia’s major river systems.
Most of Georgia’s rivers are fed by surface runoff
beginning in northern Georgia. All of the rivers originate
within the state’s boundaries except the Savannah River,
whose tributaries extend to the northeast (Hodler and
Schretter 1986:31). Rivers on the western side of the state
flow into tributaries flowing into the Gulf of Mexico. These
waterways include the Coosa River fed by the Oostanaula
and the Etowah rivers, the Chattahoochee River, and the
Flint River (Table 1). Figure 4 shows a characteristic southwestern Georgia river environment. The rivers on the eastern side of the state are east of the geographical divide and
flow into the Atlantic Ocean. These include the Savannah
River, the Ogeechee River, the Altamaha River fed by the
Oconee and Ocmulgee rivers, the Satilla River, and the
Alapaha River. The St. Mary’s River is located in the southeastern part of the state where it forms part of the border
between Georgia and Florida before flowing into the Atlantic Ocean. Other riverine borders include the Chattahoochee
River bounding Alabama on Georgia’s western boundary
and the Savannah River to the east, which borders South
Carolina.
LAKES
Man-made (Corporate, Federal)
Georgia has an abundance of lakes throughout the
state, many of them man-made. More than 30 reservoirs are
located along major rivers and were constructed either as
corporate or federal projects (Figure 5). Georgia Power Company is responsible for the largest number of corporate owned
and managed reservoirs in the state. The company currently
controls 14 lakes that are located predominantly along three
of the state’s major rivers. These lakes impound a total of
57,880 acres and collectively encompass 1,376 miles of
shoreline (The Southern Company 2002) (Table 2).
Georgia Power Company, now a member of the
Southern Company, began constructing reservoirs in the state
for hydroelectric power in the early 1900s and continued
throughout the twentieth century (Figure 6). By 1910 the
company had impounded Lake Jackson and by 1912 it created Tallulah Falls Lake. Georgia Power continued to create dams and reservoirs to generate hydroelectric power
throughout the state as late as the 1980s. The impoundment
pools of these lakes range in size from 63 to 19,000 acres.
The shoreline miles of the lakes are equally extreme, ranging from 9 to 417 (The Southern Company 2002). Georgia
Power reservoirs were constructed for the purpose of producing energy from hydroelectric generators in the dams
(Figure 7). Public recreational use of the reservoirs is a byproduct of the lakes.
17
Chapter 4.
Table 1. Georgia Rivers Grouped by Drainage System.
River
Conasauga
Coosawattee
Oostanaula
Coosa
Etowah
Tallapoosa
Chattahoochee
Flint
Total
Length
(miles)
90
50
45
286
141
268
436
150
Merges With
Coosawattee
Conasauga
Etowah
Tallapoosa
Oostanaula
Coosa
Flint
Chattahoochee
Flows Into
Oostanaula
Oostanaula
Coosa
Alabama River
Coosa
Alabama River
Apalachicola
Apalachicola
Flows From
Headwaters
Confluence of Ellijay & Cartecay
Headwaters
Oostanaula & Etowah
Headwaters
Headwaters
Headwaters
Headwaters
Tallulah
Chattooga
Tugaloo
Savannah
40
40
45
314
Chattooga
Tugaloo
N/A
N/A
Tugaloo
Savannah
Savannah
Atlantic Ocean
Headwaters
Headwaters
Tallulah & Chattooga
Chattooga
Ogeechee
Oconee
Ocmulgee
245
282
255
N/A
Ocmulgee
Oconee
Atlantic Ocean
Altamaha
Altamaha
Tributaries
Headwaters
Headwaters
Altamaha
137
N/A
Atlantic Ocean
Oconee & Ocmulgee
Satilla
220
N/A
Atlantic Ocean
Tributaries
St. Marys
175
N/A
Atlantic Ocean
Okeefenokee and Tributaries
Suwanee
260
N/A
Gulf of Mexico
Okeefenokee
Alapaha
190
hits FL boundary
Tributaries to the
Gulf
Tributaries
Ochlockonee
150
Ochlockonee
Gulf of Mexico
Headwaters
18
Chapter 4
Figure 4. Southwestern Georgia rivers and creeks are dotted with limestone
and chert outcrops (photo courtesy of Mr. John Doolin).
Table 2. Georgia Power Lakes in the State.
Lake
Lake Burton
Lake Seed
Lake Rabun
Tallulah Falls
Lake
Lake Tugalo
Lake Yonah
Lake Juliette
Lake Oconee
Lake Sinclair
Lake Jackson
Acreage
2,775
240
835
63
Shoreline
Miles
62
13
25
3.6
597
325
3,600
19,050
15,330
4,750
18
9
62
374
417
135
Lake Worth
Lake Harding
1,400
5,850
36
156
940
2,125
57,880
25
40
1375.6
Goat Rock Lake
Lake Oliver
Total
Dam
Burton Dam
Nacoochee Dam
Mathis Dam
Tallulah Dam
Tugalo Dam
Yonah Dam
Plant Scherer
Wallace Dam
Sinclair Dam
Lloyd Shoals
Dam
Worth Dam
Bartlett's Ferry
Dam
Goat Rock Dam
Oliver Dam
River/
Stream
Tallulah
Tallulah
Tallulah
Tallulah
River
River
River
River
Physiographic
Province
Blue Ridge Mountains
Tallulah & Tugalo Rivers
Tugalo River
Tributaries of Ocmulgee River
Oconee & Appalachee Rivers
Oconee & Appalachee Rivers
Alcovy, Yellow & South
Rivers
Flint River
Chattahoochee River
Piedmont
Piedmont
Piedmont
Piedmont
Chattahoochee River
Chattahoochee River
Piedmont/Fall Line
Piedmont/Fall Line
Coastal Plain
Piedmont/Fall Line
*Table compiled from statistics obtained from Lake Oconee/Sinclair Management Office and from www.southerncompany.com/gapower/lakes/
19
Chapter 4.
B lu e Ri d g e L a k e
Riv e
r
Ta ll u l a h iv er
eR
wa
H ia
er
Ch a tu g e La k e
Lak e B ur to n
N ac oo c hee Lak e
Lak e S ee d
Lak e R a bu n
se
Ri
ve
r
ly
R
co a
t te
No
Toc
iv
os
aw
att
e
N otte ly
Lak e
R
ive
r
Co
C arter s L ak e
Lak e
H artw el l
Alla toon a
Lak e
Br
ah
Lak e
Sid ney La nie r
R iver
d
oa
Eto
w
R
ver
Ri
iv er
Lak e R i c har d B.
R us s ell
oo
ee
Strom T h urm o nd
L ak e
a
Ch
ch
h
tta
Lak e
Oc on ee
Lak e
Ja c k s on
Lak e
Ju lie tte
Lak e
Sin c lair
R
ver
Fl int River
oc he e Ri
ttaho
C ha
er
ne e
an
w
u
N
E
S
30
0
30
60 Kilometers
Figure 5. Selected Reservoirs in Georgia.
20
Rive
r
S
Riv e r
St. Mar y's
Ri
v
Oc
L ake S e mi no l e
Sa
ti l la
Al apaha Ri ver
ee
hl
o
ck
on
R
ive r
Lak e G eo rge
W . An dre w s
r
ive
Lak e C h eh aw
r
Ri ve
iv
er
Riv
Alt
am
ah
a
Lak e W o rth
W
er
gee
O cmul
Lak e
Bla c ks h ea r
Lak e W a lter
F. G eor ge
O geec
eR
he
Lak e
To be s ofk ee
nnah
va
iver
eR
one
Oc
W e s t P oin t La k e
L a ke Ha r di ng
Bar tlet ts F er ry L ake
G o a t Ro ck L ak e
L a ke O l ive r
Sa
Chapter 4
Six of Georgia
Power’s lakes are located in
the mountains of northeastern Georgia on the Tallulah
or Tugalo rivers and include
Lake Burton, Lake Seed,
Lake Rabun, Tallulah Lake,
Lake Tugalo, and Lake
Yonah (see Figure 5) Another four Georgia Power
lakes occupy portions of
central Georgia’s Piedmont.
Lake Juliette is the smallest
of these four lakes. It is located east of Forsyth and is
fed by Rum Creek and other
feeder creeks of the
Ocmulgee River. Lake
Oconee lies upstream from
Lake Sinclair, which is
north of the city of
Milledgeville.
Lakes
Oconee and Sinclair are fed
by the Oconee River, the
Figure 6. Construction of Lake Yonah Dam by the Georgia Power Company
Apalachee River and nu(Wright 1957:194).
merous tributaries. The
fourth of Georgia Power’s
Piedmont lakes is located at the forks of the Alcovy, YelCorps lakes were constructed for multiple purposes
low, and South rivers, where Lake Jackson was created. Lake including water supply, power generation, flood control,
Jackson is located northeast of the town of Jackson. Geor- navigation, and recreation. Lake Sidney Lanier and
gia Power dammed the Flint River and some of its tributar- Allatoona Lake are “authorized for water supply” in addiies to create Lake Worth in southwestern portion of the state’s tion to flood and navigation control (United States Army
Coastal Plain, in the city of Albany. The remainder of the Corps of Engineers 2002c, 2002e). Congress authorized the
Georgia Power lakes are located along the western edge of use of the USACOE lakes for recreation by the Flood ConGeorgia, on the Chattahoochee River. Two of these lakes trol Act of 1944. Development of the Apalachicolalie north of Columbus. Lake Harding is the northernmost Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin and the Savannah River
and lies upstream from Goat Rock Lake. Lake Oliver is Basin were two of the most comprehensive USACOE
located within the city limits of Columbus.
projects in Georgia.
While Georgia Power operates the greatest number
of corporate-owned lakes, the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACOE) holds a monopoly on the largest reservoirs within the state (Table 3). There are many USACOE
lakes in Georgia, including: Carters, Allatoona, Sidney
Lanier, West Point, Walter F. George, George W. Andrews,
Seminole, Hartwell, Richard B. Russell, and Strom
Thurmond (see Figure 5). These reservoirs range greatly in
size. Not surprisingly, two of the state’s largest rivers—the
Savannah and the Chattahoochee—feed a disproportionately
higher number of reservoirs.
The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin was targeted for projects by Congress during the midtwentieth century, although the USACOE had modified those
rivers since the late 1820s (United States Army Corps of
Engineers 2002a). Congressional authorization in 1946 led
the USACOE to create a series of lakes and dams along the
Chattahoochee River to aid in navigation and decrease flooding. Congress authorized the Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam
Project (later called the Lake Seminole project) in southwestern Georgia with the passage of the River and Harbor
Act of 1946. Lake Seminole was completed by 1957 and
served as Georgia’s southernmost dam in this series (United
21
Chapter 4.
Table 3. US Army Corps of Engineers Lakes in Georgia.
Lake
Carters Lake
Allatoona Lake
Lake Sidney Lanier
West Point Lake
Walter F. George Lake
Lake George W. Andrews
Lake Seminole
Lake Hartwell
Richard B. Russell Lake
Clark Hill Lake (Thurmond)
Total
Acreage
Impounded
3,000
12,010
38,000
29,000
45,000
1,500
37,500
56,000
44,114
71,000
337,124
Shoreline
Miles
unknown
270
540
500
515
65
376
962
546
1,200
4,974
Date
1977
1950
1958
1974
1963
1963
1957
1960
1985
1950
Table compiled from statistics in USACOE (2002a-f); Hodler and Schretter (1986:30).
Figure 7. Tugalo Dam in northern Georgia (Wright 1957:192).
22
Chapter 4
States Army Corps of Engineers 2002a). At the same time,
construction began on the northern end of the series with the
creation of Buford Dam on Lake Sidney Lanier, which was
completed in 1956 and totally impounded by 1958. Lake
Lanier serves as a source for drinking water in addition to
hydroelectric power for periods of peak demand. As with
the other lakes, Lanier serves flood control purposes, too.
Recreation and fish and wildlife management did not become a focus of Lake Lanier’s mission until construction
was completed in 1957 (United States Army Corps of Engineers 2002e).
The Chatuge Reservoir lies partly in northeastern
Georgia and partly in southwestern North Carolina. The
reservoir impounds the Hiwassee River and has a flood storage capacity of 150 million cubic yards. During a typical
year, Chatuge Reservoir water levels fluctuate approximately
15 feet (TVA 2002). Chatuge Dam was constructed between
1941 and 1942. In 1954 TVA added a “single hydropower
generating unit” to enable the dam and reservoir to produce
electricity. Today, Chatuge provides hydroelectric power
and flood control, and regulates downstream flows for navigation purposes (TVA 2002).
In 1953, the United States House Committee on
Public Works adopted a resolution for the continuation of
river basin development. This project ultimately resulted in
the construction of Walter F. George Lake and George W.
Andrews Lake in southwestern Georgia at the Georgia-Alabama borders. The lakes became fully operational in 1963
(United States Army Corps of Engineers 2002a). Meanwhile,
the Flood Control Act of 1962 served as the impetus for the
construction of West Point Lake, further upstream from
Walter F. George Lake. West Point Lake was designed to
control flooding, create hydroelectric power, assist with navigation, enhance fish and wildlife areas and encourage recreation (USACOE 2002d). While authorized in 1962, construction on West Point Lake did not begin until 1965, and
impoundment started in 1974.
Lake Blackshear was constructed in 1930 by the
Crisp County Power Commission. The Crisp County Power
Dam impounds water on the Flint River, for a stretch of more
than 15 miles. The lake encompasses more than 8,500 acres
encircled by 77 miles of shoreline (Crisp County Power
Commission 2002). There are several tributaries that feed
into the lake, including Limestone and Spring creeks, and
Cannon Brook. Many of the trees standing in the lake were
removed following the dam breach in 1973, when the lake
bottom was visible.
Another federal entity controlling lakes in Georgia
is the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which was established in the 1930s. These TVA lakes are located in northern Georgia and include the Blue Ridge, Nottely, and Chatuge
reservoirs. They are on headwater streams of the Tennessee
River system, which ultimately joins the Mississippi River
and flows to the Gulf of Mexico.
The Blue Ridge Reservoir was constructed between
1925 and 1930. It is located on the Toccoa River in the
Chattahoochee National Forest and impounds 11 miles upstream. The reservoir’s flood storage capacity totals 111
million cubic yards (TVA 2002). The reservoir was constructed to provide hydroelectric power and to control flooding. Recreation is now a by-product of lake construction.
Georgia’s Nottely Dam impounds a 20 mile stretch
of water on the Nottely River in the Chattahoochee National
Forest. The dam was constructed between 1941 and 1942
for hydroelectric power and flow control. The reservoir flood
storage capacity is 161 million cubic yards (TVA 2002).
Today it also offers recreational opportunities.
OTHER LAKES
In addition to major reservoirs discussed above,
Georgia has thousands of smaller impoundments ranging in
size from less than an acre to several hundred acres. Many
of these were constructed with the guidance of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Soil Conservation
Service (now the Natural Resource and Conservation Service-NRCS). Collectively, these ponds and lakes represent
significant aquatic coverage of the landscape and potential
cultural resources contained within.
SWAMPS
Swamps are a prominent topographical feature in
southern Georgia’s Coastal Plain (Figure 8). Swamps range
in size from small to extremely large, but all feature common vegetation. Modern vegetation includes cypress, tupelo
and black gum trees. Water lilies are abundant. Water fowl,
mammals, reptiles and other aquatic wildlife are typical inhabitants and visitors. In many ways, Phinizy Swamp is a
typical example. Phinizy, located south of the city of Augusta and the Fall Line and 1.2 km west of the Savannah
River, is a swamp formed from a series of ancient oxbows.
It is likely that Phinizy Swamp formed between 2,000-5,000
B.C. when rises in sea level resulting from environmental
23
Chapter 4.
Figure 8. Swamp environment in southwestern Georgia (photo courtesy of The LAMAR Institute).
warming and reduced glaciation inundated floodplain areas
and produced various levees and oxbows (Brooks et al. 1986
in Price 1991). Phinizy Swamp covered approximately 1,430
acres in 1892 (Phillips 1892:16). Today the swamp is inundated with fresh water for approximately half of each year
(Wharton 1978). Elevated landforms within the swamp flood
less frequently, allowing the establishment of a dryer hardwood forest. Man-made alterations to Phinizy Swamp include logging, causeway construction, excavation of drainage ditches and canals, and gravel, sand, and clay mining.
The most renowned of Georgia’s swamps, the
Okefenokee, occupies 496,000 acres, virtually all of it lying
in extreme southeastern Georgia (Okefenokee Chamber of
Commerce and The City of Folkston 2001). The swamp extends 25 miles east-west and 38 miles north-south (GORP
2002). Almost 80 percent of the swamp is protected by its
1937 federal designation as a national wildlife refuge. Nearby
associated landforms, such as Trail Ridge, are not included
in this refuge protection. Much of the surrounding landscape
is in active silviculture and most recently attempts have been
made to mine these areas for buried titanium deposits. The
swamp consists of a huge, ancient peat bog (up to 15 feet
thick).
The formation of the swamp is subject to scientific
debate. For a more detailed discussion of this debate, the
reader is referred to Hamilton (1982) and Cohen et al. (1984).
The two arguments revolve around whether the swamp was
filled with salt water when the retreating ocean became
trapped by the longshore barrier island of Trail Ridge or filled
by freshwater following a change to a wetter environment
and a rise in ground water (GORP 2002, Hodler and Schretter
1986:23). This debate is summarized in Weisman et al.
(1998). Both formation theories place the peat formation at
6,700 BP, at the earliest, which would have made the area
an increasingly attractive environment for people of the
Middle Archaic (Weisman et al. 1998).
Scientists have identified the environment of the
Okefenokee Swamp as changing during the Early to Middle
Archaic period from a forest of pines, oaks and hardwoods
above an increasing peat formation surrounded by freshwater marshes to an expanding peat and wetlands area containing cypress bays and forests (Weisman et al. 1998). The
end result of the swamp formation process was a shallow
brackish basin with an elevation of 103-128 feet above mean
sea level and containing a range of vegetation. It now sports
70 islands and a variety of aquatic vegetation. Some of the
larger islands include Black Jack, Billy’s, Bugaboo, Floyds,
Honey, Minnies, Mitchell, Rowells, and Strange (Hodler and
Schretter 1986:24). Prairies constitute approximately 60,000
acres of the swamp (GORP 2002). The Okefenokee, in turn,
feeds the Suwannee River which empties into the Gulf of
Mexico 270 miles to the west, and the St. Mary’s River flowing 50 miles east into the Atlantic Ocean (Okefenokee Chamber of Commerce and The City of Folkston 2002).
The abundance of natural resources found on the
islands, in the prairies, and in the waters of the Okefenokee
Swamp have made the area an ideal location for Native
Americans since at least the Middle Archaic period to the
time of historic Seminoles. These resources include water
fowl for food and feathers, fish, reptiles, mammals for food
24
Chapter 4
and skins, and plants for food, fiber, dyes, and building materials. Researchers continue to find evidence of aboriginal
use of the Okeefenokee (Elliott and Sassaman 1995).
Native American occupation and use of the
Okefenokee was followed by non-aboriginal settlers who
homesteaded in the area and others who took advantage of
the natural resources for monetary purposes. The latter included loggers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, who not only logged over 90 percent of the swamp’s
marketable cypress, but constructed railroad networks and a
canal in an environmentally destructive attempt to bring the
timber to market (Hodler and Schretter 1986:24).
OXBOWS
The many rivers and streams in Georgia have created numerous oxbow lakes and dead channels over time
(Figure 9). Oxbows have the potential to contain archaeological sites in and around them. Likewise, sites once related to water, such as mills, dams, vessels, bridges, and
fishweirs, may be buried by soil, but totally dry once sedimentation occurs and the water evaporates or drains out of
an oxbow.
CAROLINA BAYS
AND
LIMESTONE SINKS
Southern Georgia contains numerous Carolina bays
and limestone sinks. Many of these are located in south-central Georgia around the Alapaha River, the Flint River, and
numerous other rivers and smaller creeks. Carolina bays are
most prominent in south-central and southeastern Georgia.
The largest Carolina bay in the state measures 3.8 miles in
diameter (Hodler and Schretter 1986:25). Carolina bays are
quite variable in appearance and can range from full bodies
of water to totally dry depressions. Many have been drained
historically and cultivated. Native American sites are prominent around bay areas, especially on the eastern and southeastern edges. Figure 10 shows two large and two small sites
around the edges of a Carolina bay in Screven County, Georgia. Recently scientists have begun intensively studying Carolina bays in an effort to understand how they were formed,
when, and who utilized them prehistorically (Brooks et al.
n.d., Brooks 1986).
While the origins of Carolina bays remain enigmatic, limestone formations are understood more easily by
geologists. Sinks are small bodies of water created when
Figure 10. Prehistoric sites
encircling a Carolina bay in
Screven County, Georgia
(Elliott et al. 1995).
Figure 9. Historical documentation of an oxbow formation in Georgia
(Phillips 1892).
25
Chapter 4.
clay soils erode the underlying limestone and surface water
flows into the limestone aquifer below (Hodler and Schretter
1986:25). These limestone sinks can be dry, full of water,
or contain water only seasonally. The karst topography of
southwestern Georgia lends itself to the formation of limestone sinks, especially along riverine areas.
In summary, the potential for large numbers of submerged sites becomes clear when one realizes the array of
aquatic environments and how many different site types can
exist therein. A range of freshwater aquatic environments
exist in Georgia’s hinterland. All have the potential to contain sites, and an untold number actually do. Most sites,
however, have not been studied or even recorded.
26
Chapter 5. Previous Work, Site
Types, and Current Site Data
This chapter examines representative examples of
submerged site types as illustrated through previous work in
the state of Georgia. For ease of discussion, the chapter is
arranged as follows. The first part looks at reservoirs in the
state and summarizes the amount and type of reservoir archaeology, both prior to impoundment and later shoreline
surveys. This examination of reservoir history is not a comprehensive study, but rather a brief overview to provide the
reader with enough information to understand the nature of
sites inundated by lake waters and the degree to which these
sites have been investigated archaeologically. In particular,
only examples of some of the later, small archaeological
projects resulting from relicensing permits are mentioned.
Following these summaries is a discussion that examines a
variety of prehistoric and historic site types. The next section of the chapter discusses some submerged cultural resource projects that have been conducted to date in the state.
This is followed by a section examining specific sites representative of a variety of general site types. The final part of
the chapter consists of a discussion of site data derived from
the GASF. It examines general trends and patterns in the
data as depicted by the limited amount of information currently available.
RESERVOIR SITES
IN
GEORGIA
In spite of the great numbers of reservoirs in the
state and the large amount of acreage impounded, the amount
and level of archaeological coverage and adequate reporting of these areas is appalling. The construction of these
reservoirs throughout the twentieth century resulted in the
creation of tens of thousands of submerged archaeological
sites in Georgia. While these sites may have been terrestrial
locations when created, they now lie in the domain of underwater archaeology. The ensuing discussion summarizes
past archaeological investigations and results in these reservoirs.
Much of the archaeology conducted prior to and
during reservoir construction in Georgia from the mid 1940s
to the 1960s was through the River Basin Surveys project.
This program resulted from recommendations made by an
ad hoc committee consisting of anthropologists from several national and international organization. The committee
realized that the public works programs following World
War II, such as reservoir and dam construction, would negatively impact archaeological sites. The Inter-Agency Salvage Program grew out of the committees’ work and represented a partnership between the Army Corps of Engineers,
Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, Smithsonian
Institution, universities, and other organizations. The River
Basin Survey’s arm of this organization, established in 1946,
was responsible for the Smithsonian’s role (Glenn 1996:53).
Tallulah River and Nearby Tributaries
The lakes on the Tallulah River and her tributaries
have, for the most part, been ignored archaeologically. These
lakes include Lake Burton, Nacoochee Lake, Lake Seed,
Lake Rabun, Lake Tallulah, Lake Tugalo, and Lake Yonah.
Most lakes were constructed prior to federally mandated cultural resource studies. Since their construction, some have
been subject to extremely limited or small scale archaeological studies necessary for government relicensing.
Portions of three Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) lakes extend into northern Georgia. These include
lakes on the Hiwassee, Nottely, and Toccoa rivers. These
rivers, respectively, impound Chatuge, Nottely, and Blue
Ridge lakes.
Coosawattee River
Carter’s Lake
Archaeological excavation was conducted at
Carter’s Lake. Some of these excavations were documented
in reports, such as the excavations by Dana Beasley at the
Archaic period site of Bell Field Mound and Little Egypt,
and some were not.
27
Chapter 5
Etowah River
Lake Allatoona
The Smithsonian Institution, National Park Service
and USACOE entered into a cooperative agreement to conduct an archaeological survey of the area that would become
the Lake Allatoona basin. This six month survey began in
1946 under the direction of Joseph R. Caldwell. Archaeologists examined an area stretching 10 miles along Allatoona
Creek and 20 miles on the Etowah River. They located 180
aboriginal village or workshop sites (Caldwell 1950:5). The
University of Georgia had already located 26 other sites in
this area. Funding for excavation following survey was slow
in arriving from Congress. In the interim, excavations proceeded with emergency funds from the University of Georgia and public citizens. William Sears began excavating
9Ck5 which was located on the Etowah River. The site was
also near the Cherokee village of Sixes (Caldwell 1950:7).
Sites, including Stamp Creek (9Br60-B) and others were
excavated during this project; however, Caldwell’s survey
report was never completed or published. Many of the sites
contained well-defined houses or were fortified villages.
They contained numerous features full of artifactual material. The field forms and data are now housed at the
Smithsonian Institution.
Between 1985 and 1986 approximately 26,000
acres of land surrounding Lake Allatoona above the 840 foot
contour was surveyed intensively. In addition, archaeologists conducted a shoreline survey around the lake. The
project area is managed by the USACOE, Mobile District,
who contracted the work. An extensive drought, in addition
to a normally lowered-lake level in the fall, resulted in large
areas of exposed ground. Archaeologists located sites not
recorded during the original survey for the lake in 1946. Of
the 1,063 sites recorded, archaeologists recommended a total of 215 for further work (Ledbetter et al. 1987:333). A
total of eight sites were recommended as eligible, five of
which (9Br139, 9Br141, 9Ck465, 9Ck410, 9Br567) were
suffering from vandalism, erosion, and neglect. Other sites,
whose eligibility was not determined at that time, also experienced the same threats. Archaeologists concluded that,
“The central problem is the seasonal draw down of the lake
each fall and winter which exposes sites that would probably be safer underwater. Because of the proximity of
Allatoona Lake to the metropolitan Atlanta area, public use
is intensive. Hundreds of people use the exposed lakeshore
for recreational artifact surface collecting. Others riddle
certain sites with potholes in an attempt to find valuable artifacts” (Ledbetter et al. 1987:345). The report recommended
conducting archaeological data recovery on portions of the
threatened sites, making a “concerted effort to control illegal public activities through prosecution of those who do get
caught, and to check erosion through innovative engineering” (Ledbetter et al. 1987:346).
Chattachoochee River
Lake Lanier
Lake Lanier was formerly known as Buford Lake
and Dam. The River Basin Survey project conducted some
archaeology at Lake Lanier but it was not documented in a
report. Joseph R. Caldwell excavated Summerour Mound
and did not publish a report. His work was later analyzed
and written up as a thesis project and journal article by University of Georgia graduate student, Tom Pluckhahn
(Pluckhahn 1996). The University of Georgia conducted a
shoreline survey of the lake in the late 1970s under contract
with the USACOE, Mobile District. Annual progress reports briefly summarize each year’s fieldwork, followed by
a final report (Hally and Rudoloh 1980a, 1982a).
Morgan Falls
This Georgia Power lake is impounded by the Morgan Falls Dam. The reservoir lies on the Chattahoochee River
which forms the boundary between Cobb and Fulton counties. In 1959 UGA archaeologist Clemens de Baillou investigated some sites in the impoundment area of the Morgan
Falls reservoir. The only documentation of this work appears to be a manuscript file at the GASF entitled, “Archeological Salvage in the Morgan Falls Basin” (de Baillou 1959).
The file folder consists of photographs, a map of the river,
and profiles and plan views of two rockshelters. There are
accompanying text or notes that describe survey, mapping,
or excavation. The text was published as a brief University
of Georgia report, publication no. 4, produced in 1962. The
map of the basin depicts 10 rock shelters and three stone
mounds. The folder contains a drawing of rock shelter No. 8
and depicts a fire pit at the mouth of the shelter less than 20
feet away from the river, and at an elevation of minimally 10
feet above it. The presence of 10 rock shelters suggests that
there are probably other prehistoric archaeological sites in
the reservoir area that were not recorded during this salvage
work by de Baillou. In addition, any historic sites located
there would not have been recorded in the 1950s, as this was
not routine at that time. The rock shelters, stone mounds,
and any other prehistoric or historic sites are likely still present
under the waters of the lake.
28
Chapter 5
West Point Lake
Lake Oliver
Following an appraisal of the West Point Dam and
Reservoir area in 1962 by Dave Chase and later Clemens de
Baillou, the NPS and University of Georgia signed an agreement for Harold Huscher to begin excavating several high
priority sites. Huscher did these excavations in 1966-67,
which included in-depth work at the 18th century Lower
Creek town of Okfuskenena or Burnt Village (9Tp9), Park
Mound (9Tp41) at the mouth of Yellowjacket Creek, Avery
Mound (9Tp64), and the Bruce Lanier Site (9Tp35).
Huscher’s “Archaeological Investigations in the West Point
Dam Area: A Preliminary Report Vol. I of II” briefly and
incompletely summarizes these major excavations (Huscher
1972).
Harold Huscher noted 117 sites on the Georgia bank
of the Chattahoochee River in the Oliver Dam and lake
impact area (Huscher 1953:2). Immediately above the dam
was a mound, cave site, Woodland site, and nine other sites
in Muscogee County (Huscher 1953:2). Site excavation did
occur on sites in the Lake Oliver basin area and included,
minimally, Georgia sites 9Me205, 9Me9, 9Me8, and Alabama sites 1Le16, 1Le11, 1Le8, and 1Le1. There is a separate file folder containing a set of photographs for these
sites in a manuscript file at the GASF (McMichael and Kellar
1959). The document is labeled, “Photographs Oliver Basin Report” by E.V. McMichael and J.H. Kellar. The brief
text is part of the University of Georgia laboratory series
(no. 2) (McMichael and Kellar 1959).
In the 1970s the University of Georgia conducted
investigations at Troup County Mound and did a shoreline
inventory. The university did some shoreline survey in the
late 1970s. The shoreline surveys were documented as annual reports, with a final report completed in 1982 (Hally
and Rudolph 1980b, 1982b). Later, New South Associates
conducted multiple excavations at West Point Lake. This
included a report on the findings from the 1989-1990 survey of the lake (Cantley and Joseph 1991).
Lake Harding
In 1983 Soil Systems, Inc. conducted archaeological survey and testing for a proposed borrow pit site that
was part of the redevelopment of the Bartletts Ferry Electric
Generating project (Klein 1983). The investigations of 112
acres southeast of the dam located 13 sites: two were multicomponent, four were prehistoric, five were historic, and
two were of an unknown period. Of the 13 total sites, two
were recommended for further work. Both were recommended as eligible for the NRHP following testing. Field
site 20101-3 was a historic house site dating to the last three
quarters of the nineteenth century. Field site 20101-7 also
was a rural farmstead including a possible cellar. This site
may be slightly older than the other.
Goat Rock Lake
The limited amount of archaeological investigation on this lake has generally involved recent relicensing
and related activities. For example, in 1998 Brockington
and Associates conducted a cursory investigation of the
Clapp cemetery in the area. Based on extant grave markers
and depressions, the cemetery was reduced in size from its
known historical dimensions. Little other archaeological
work has been conducted at Goat Rock Lake.
Lake Walter F. George
Lake Walter F. George is also known as Lake
Eufaula in Alabama. Investigations in what would become
part of the Walter F. George Reservoir were originally conducted by Clarence B. Moore on some of the nine archaeological sites located there (Moore 1907). Later, Peter
Brannon examined sites in the vicinity of Columbus, Georgia, and Phenix City, Alabama (Brannon 1909). In 1947, the
University of Alabama conducted a survey of the Alabama
portions of the impoundment area, led by Wesley Hurt, Jr.
That survey identified 100 sites on the Alabama side of the
project area, but did not examine the Georgia portion. In
1958 Huscher, as archaeologist at the Smithsonian Institution, conducted a survey of the lake prior to impoundment
through a cooperative agreement with Region One of the
NPS. The goal of Huscher’s survey was to “relocate and
reappraise all previous listed sites, to explore both banks of
the river for the full length of the reservoir for additional
sites, to collect surface samples of artifacts if possible from
each site, to test selected sites that seemed to promise an
adequate return for the limited excavation possible, and to
record, by mapping and photography, the sites located”
(Huscher 1959). Huscher states that the survey fell short of
meeting these goals in several respects. The wet season limited accessibility to many areas. A large part of the Georgia
project area, from the south end of Fort Benning’s Lawson
field to the Chattahoochee-Stewart county lines at the mouth
of Hitchiti Creek, was not visited by surveyors, and many of
the side drainages in the project area were not examined
(Huscher 1959:2). The survey appraised approximately 300
sites discovered for the most part through observation of
artifacts on the ground surface. Huscher wrote a brief report
of the survey. A final report was never published.
29
Chapter 5
A year later Huscher and G. Hubert Smith returned
to the project area to conduct excavations on selected sites.
Smith worked on an Alabama site (1Ru101) and on a Georgia
site (9SW101) and appraised a few other sites. Huscher examined one Alabama site (1He54) and three Georgia sites
(9Cla41, 9Cla44, and 9Cl45). These four sites were in the
Ft. Gaines Dam area and Huscher trenched them all. Huscher
also visited avocational archaeologist David Chase and excavated two sites at Ft. Benning. Chase shared his list of
150 archaeological sites in the Walter F. George Reservoir
area with Huscher, who compared the sites with Wesley
Hurt’s list. The only documentation of the work at the sites
listed above, 9SW101, 9Cla41, 9Cla44, 9Cl45, and the others appear to be Husher’s 1959 appraisal report of the survey.
Huscher mentioned that Rood’s Landing (9Sw1), a
group of eight mounds, in Stewart County, south of the
town of Omaha, would be barely above lake pool levels following impoundment. Caldwell had conducted exploratory
excavations there in 1955 when sponsored by the Columbus
Museum of Arts and Crafts (Schnell 1973). Caldwell’s work
consisted of testing four of the mounds, including the largest. This work is summarized very briefly (Schnell 1973).
Huscher notes that Rood’s Landing mounds were selected
in 1958 to be stabilized with riprap and developed as a recreation area, therefore, no further investigation was needed
of it at that time (Huscher 1959:23). However, this stabilization and recreational development was not done.
Another excavation conducted on the Georgia portion of the Walter F. George Reservoir project area was
briefly documented. Excavations occurred at Mandeville
Mound and Village Site (9Cla1), also known as Stark’s Clay
Landing Site, where Kelly and a University of Georgia field
crew were excavating at the southern end of the reservoir.
J. H. Kellar and V.V. McMichael directed the project. The
Mandeville Site contained a platform mound and a conical
mound. The platform mound was cross trenched and archaeologists also excavated 23, 10 foot square pits . Archaeologists determined the village to be Swift Creek, with a scattered Mississippian and smaller proto-historic component.
Site excavation here continued in 1960. The Mandeville Site
was the subject of dissertation research by Betty Smith and
later examined in Williams and Elliott (1998).
Examples of other excavations in the Georgia
boundaries of the reservoir project included work at 9Cla 2,
9Cla7, 9Cla15, 9Cla28, 9Cla38, 9Cla51, 9Qu25, and 9Ce5
(no author, n.d.). The Clay County sites also were excavated through a contractual agreement in salvage archaeol-
ogy between the NPS and the University of Georgia. Archaeologists conducted excavations on these sites, often with
10 ft square pits; however, the sum total of the reporting of
this work consists of summaries averaging 5-10 pages either
in one of the University of Georgia’s Laboratory of Archaeology Series reports or as stand-alone manuscripts (Huscher
1960; Kelly et al. 1963).
Huscher concluded in his 1959 survey appraisal of
the Walter F. George Reservoir, that, “Of the some three
hundred sites carried in the present listing, almost two-thirds
are appraised at levels of importance...or levels of
urgency...which remove them from consideration of a minimum emergency salvage program. Of the hundred odd sites
remaining for consideration, there are at least 15 major multiple-component sites, two major ceremonial mound sites
(one now partially excavated, the other to be a park) and six
additional single mound sites. Under major Lower Creek
towns, 10 other sites are listed, or a total of 16 major Lower
Creek towns, with 26 additional smaller Lower Creek villages or components of sites. In addition to the above multicomponent sites, there are...14 sites listed as major Lamarlike sites, with an additional 13 smaller Lamar-like sites.
Weeden Island components are identifiable at nine sites in
addition to the previously mentioned locations...Early Woodland or Archaic material may be expected from ...four [sites]
not previously mentioned. Two major historic sites are within
the threatened area” (Huscher 1959:114-115). Huscher’s
reconnaissance-level survey located between 300-400 sites
(Huscher 1959, Schnell 1973). Only 72 of these sites were
archaeologically tested to various degrees. These included
47 sites by the River Basin Survey, 17 sites by the University of Georgia, and eight by the University of Alabama
(Schnell 1973:3). Few of the 72 tested sites were adequately
documented in the way of complete, published reports.
In 1973, Frank Schnell, archaeologist with the Columbus Museum of Arts & Crafts wrote, “A Preliminary Assessment of Archaeological Resources Remaining in the
Walter F. George Lake Area” (Schnell 1973). This preliminary report was based on a resurvey of the lake, funded by
the NPS. Schnell concluded that numerous sites were suffering from chronic and long-term impacts. At the time of
investigation, the Kyle’s Bend Site (9Me2), which is adjacent to the lake, was being mined for sand and gravel. Site
9Ce59 near Hitchitee Creek, Roods Mound (Site 9Sw1), and
Wylaunee Creek Site (1Br43) are all examples of sites undergoing steady erosion from fluctuating lake levels (Schnell
1973: 9-10, 25). The incomplete development of the Roods
Mound Site as a park resulted in easy access by looters who
dug assorted holes, including ones “coring out the center of
30
Chapter 5
mound C” (Schnell 1973:14). Schnell concluded that a
“...comprehensive reassessment of the archaeological resources of the lake” was needed due to the inadequacy of
the original Huscher survey. He also recommended a “continuing reassessment” of the sites, obtaining accessibility to
the Smithsonian’s original survey notes and records to resolve site location discrepancies, preserving sites in the reservoir by stabilizing them from erosion, and educating
USACOE, wildlife management and other agency officials
about the archaeological resources and need for preservation (Schnell 1973:30-31). In 1984 Vernon Knight and Timothy Mistovich reported their survey of Walter F. Geroge Lake
for the Mobile District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Knight and Mistovich 1984). The survey included all feeowned shoreline in addition to 23 public use areas and a 50
foot wide parcel bordering the lake and the Eufaula National
Wildlife Refuge. It included Barbour and Russell Counties
Alabama and the Georgia counties of Clay, Quitman, Stewart,
and Chattahoochee. The survey located 65 new sites and 41
previously recorded sites. Later historic sites, such as the
nineteenth century town of Florence, apparently were not
recorded.
Mistovich and Knight excavated four sites on
Walter F. George Lake for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A site in Barbour County, Alabama, (1Br25) dated to
the seventeenth century Blackmon Phase and also contained
Lawson Field Phase historic creek artifacts (Knight and
Mistovich n.d.). Two Stewart County, Georgia sites were
excavated (9Sw71 and 9Sw19). The former was a Middle
Woodland habitation area and the latter dated to the Rood
Phase of the Mississippian period. A Quitman County site
(9Qu58) consisted of a mortuary mound dating to the Middle
Woodland period. Sites 9Sw71and 9Qu58 contained
Kolomoki Phases (Knight and Mistovich n.d.). Site 9Sw19
was considered ineligible for listing on the NRHP due to
lack of intact deposits. The remaining sites were recorded
as eligible for listing on the register.
Lake George W. Andrews
Lake George W. Andrews was also known as the
Columbia Lock and Dam. Huscher trenched four sites next
to the Columbia Lock and Dam’s west abutment. The only
documentation of excavations resulting from this survey,
however, are very brief summary reports (Huscher 1953).
He noted 14 sites in the immediate area of the Columbia
Dam and Lock on the Chattahoochee that would be impacted
by construction. Six of the 14 sites were located in Early
County, Georgia, with the remainder located in Alabama.
One of these sites included a major mound site “already half
destroyed by the river and calling for immediate investigation” and three other sites that were major Weeden Island
villages (Huscher 1953).
Flint River
Lake Blackshear
No archaeological survey was conducted prior to
construction of Lake Blackshear. The NPS contracted with
The Columbus Museum of Arts and Crafts in the early 1970s
to conduct an archaeological survey and excavations in the
Lake Blackshear basin and vicinity. The only documentation of this survey of Lake Blackshear is in a newsletter article (Schnell 1975). To date, there are a total of 214 sites
recorded in Lake Blackshear, none of which are coded as
submerged or flooded.
Lake Worth
Lake Chehaw and Lake Worth are two names for
the same body of water. No archaeological survey was conducted prior to the construction of the dam and the impounding of Lake Worth in the 1920s.
Relicensing of the Flint River Hydroelectric Generating Project (part of Lake Worth) was necessary in the
1980s. As part of this relicensing, Georgia Power Company
contracted with various cultural resource management
(CRM) firms to conduct intensive archaeological survey in
five areas slated for public recreation development. The areas were shovel tested along nine meter interval transects,
with tests placed 20-25 meters apart. The survey located
two sites, (9Du37 and 9Du38). Archaeologists conducted
test excavations which consisted of three-hand excavated
units and two backhoe trenches, on Site 9DU37. Approximately 24,000 artifacts were recovered, including a range of
lithic tools (Wheaton 1982:36). Excavations revealed
Paleoindian/Early Archaic through Late Archaic components
on the site, whose strata extended up to two meters below
the ground surface. It was determined that upper levels of
the site that had washed away probably contained Woodland and Mississippian components (Wheaton 1982:36). The
remaining components were indicative of a lithic processing site. Wheaton recommended that the site be avoided
rather than developed, although if that was not possible then
extensive data recovery was to take place. Recommendations also reminded Georgia Power of its responsibility to
monitor the site to insure that looting does not continue in
the area (Wheaton 1982:38).
31
Chapter 5
Site 9Du38 was determined through survey to be a
deeply buried, probably stratified site dating from the Woodland to the Mississippian period. The same recommendations were made for this site as for Site 9Du37, in addition to
making a determination of NRHP eligibility (Wheaton
1982:39). If looting on the site could not be stopped, it was
recommended that extensive data recovery be conducted.
Lake Seminole
Some excavations were conducted following survey and prior to inundation by Lake Seminole. Fairchild’s
Landing and Hare’s Land were studied archaeologically.
Fairchild’s Landing was initially discovered in 1948 by A.R.
Kelly and was located in Seminole County (Kelly 1950:2733). The site’s shell midden was excavated the following
year by the University of Georgia’s field school. Those excavations revealed a strata with ceramics. There is only a
draft report of the excavations. In 1952 the NPS River Basin Survey Program worked on the site. Its goal was “to
rescue some of the history and archaeology of the Jim Woodruff Reservoir” (Caldwell 1954). Hare’s Landing was noted
by Clarence B. Moore in 1907 and not officially relocated
until 1954 when reservoir clearing uncovered it. Moore excavated some of the burial mound there, as did Caldwell.
This data completed the upper part of the Fairchild Landing’s
Sequence. While records indicate that Caldwell wrote a brief
manuscript, it is missing from the GASF manuscript folder
(Caldwell 1954).
Lake Seminole was also known as Woodruff Lake
and Dam. Decades after Lake Seminole’s impoundment, an
intensive survey was conducted of its shoreline from 19781981 by the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, under
the direction of Nancy White (White 1981). While this terrestrial survey did not address the unrecorded and undocumented sites that are now submerged beneath the lake, it did
examine “...all land under federal ownership and flowage”
including an easement around the lake, totaling 33,000 acres
(White 1981). This acreage included 320 miles of shoreline
and 3,500 acres of islands (White 1981:1). A crew of up to
six people conducted two years of fieldwork, resulting in a
comprehensive report. Project goals were to conduct a literature search for known sites and information, to conduct
intensive cultural resources survey, to include all previously
recorded sites and clear up confusion of earlier surveys, to
prepare a report, to evaluate all sites and make NRHP recommendations, to provide a proposal for a program of impact mitigation (salvage or preservation) for sites considered eligible or already on the NRHP that the lake is expected to adversely impact (White 1981:2).
Work conducted during the first season led to the
development of a research design. A total of 302 sites and
some recent structures were documented in the project area.
The majority of sites were prehistoric, ranging from the Archaic to Mississippian period. Some historic Native American and Euro-American sites were documented, as well.
White noted that there were 164 significant sites in the project
area. Virtually all were being adversely impacted by natural
and cultural forces. White’s recommendations include the
following: take immediate action to preserve the threatened
sites or mitigate damage through data recovery efforts, use
data from recent and past surveys to avoid construction and
other damage to known sites, use varying techniques to mitigate impacts from shoreline erosion on a site-by-site basis,
take protective preservation measures and avoid negative
impacts to sites located in existing and future public use areas, post signs and erect fences or stakes to prevent looting,
vandalism, and vehicle damage to sites accessible to the
public (White 1981:728-729).
Ocmulgee River
The Ocmulgee River includes some of the smaller
lakes and power-generating dams. These lakes include Jackson Lake, and Lakes Juliette, Wildwood, and Tobesofkee.
Very little archaeology has been conducted in the areas
flooded and along the shorelines of these lakes. Most of
what has been done is limited to archaeological surveys related to relicensing.
Oconee River
Lake Oconee
Georgia Power Company constructed Wallace Dam
and the resulting reservoir now named Lake Oconee (formerly Wallace Reservoir) in the late 1970s. The University
of Georgia was hired to conduct archaeological investigation. While an intensive archaeological survey, testing, and
excavation of the reservoir impoundment area began in 1976,
this was preceded by investigations conducted prior to deforestation (designated as pre-clearing) of approximately 10
percent of the impoundment area. These pre-clearing surveys included examining exposed ground surface such as
roads, and conducting systematic and intuitive post-hole digger surveys. This work recorded 154 sites (Gresham 1987:8).
The pre-construction survey also included examination of
small impact areas such as bridges and other construction
areas.
32
Chapter 5
One example of pre-construction investigations was
an archaeological survey for the Wallace Dam tailrace (Wood
1977). The project area followed the old channel of the
Oconee River in Hancock and Putnam counties. The task of
the survey was to “identify any archaeological sites that might
be impacted by construction measures and to determine their
eligibility for nomination to the NRHP” (Wood 1977:2).
Twenty-four person days were spent on the survey, which
consisted of shovel testing forested areas and canoeing the
river looking for sites eroding in the banks. Archaeologists
determined that the greatest impact would be deposition of
dredge spoils. Six of the eight areas of impact were under
Lake Sinclair and not studied during the survey. Two sites
were located on the survey: a late Mississippian site (9Pm215)
discovered on a forested terrace and a Late Mississippian,
Lamar Phase site (9Pm247) recorded on another river terrace. Both sites were recommended for testing.
management summaries. Limited archaeology has been
conducted following impoundment of Lake Oconee as part
of relicensing permits.
The pre-clearing survey data, combined with awareness that the area would soon be deforested, spurred project
directors Paul Fish and David Hally, archaeologists with the
University of Georgia, to re-allocate some funds from excavation projects and use the money to complete a 100% surface survey of the entire project area. The Wallace Mitigation Survey also included deep backhoe trenching of alluvium areas and a comparable sample of surface surveys in
uplands beyond the reservoir basin boundaries. The intensive survey of the Wallace/Lake Oconee basin consisted of
examining a deforested area measuring 53 square kilometers
(Gresham 1987:1). Approximately 7,144 of the reservoir’s
7,690 hectares (ha) in its flood pool were surveyed. Of this,
5,289 ha, or 74% had been deforested and intensively surveyed (Gresham 1987:15). The virtual 100% ground surface visibility presented a nonpareil opportunity in Georgia
and the entire southeastern United States. Prior to the Wallace
survey, there were only eight recorded sites (including two
mounds) in the basin area. Following the survey, 3,108 sites
were recorded in the entire reservoir area (Gresham 1987:8).
Savannah River
Chester DePratter reported the results of the preclearing survey (DePratter 1976, 1983). The extensive deforestation survey, however, remains undocumented to date,
other than a summary (Fish and Hally 1983). A paper was
presented and unpublished manuscripts about project methodology were compiled by Paulk (1977) and used in Gresham
(1987:9), but extensive reporting is non-existent. The methodology and results of the post-deforestation survey of the
Wallace project were summarized in an overview by Thomas Gresham (1987). The GASF holds field notes and forms
for this project. As with the extensive survey, few reports
exist for the Wallace excavations. Most of the sites excavated were not reported beyond extremely brief, preliminary
Lake Sinclair
Manuscript Number 177 in the GASF appears to
be an interview of University of Georgia archaeologist A.R.
Kelly by Joseph Caldwell concerning Lake Sinclair and the
Georgia Power Company (Caldwell n.d.). Georgia Power
gave Kelly $700 to survey the area to be impounded by Lake
Sinclair. Kelly hired two students to survey and William
Sears, also of the University of Georgia, commenced with
excavations funded sparsely by the university. The survey
of Lake Sinclair has never been documented in a professional report. Later archaeological work at Lake Sinclair
has consisted of relicensing surveys and excavations.
Lake Hartwell
In 1952 and 1953 the National Park Service conducted a reconnaissance of the projected Hartwell Lake area.
While the area to be impounded included eight miles of the
Savannah River valley, 40 miles of the Tugalo River, and
32 miles of the Seneca-Keowee River, the entire survey was
conducted “by one man on foot” (Caldwell 1953:2). Archaeologist Joseph Caldwell, who conducted the survey, located 70 sites and those having “more than a passing importance” were archaeologically tested by a small crew
(Caldwell 1953:2). Caldwell recommended recovering as
much archaeological data as possible prior to lake impoundment. His recommendations were to investigate, minimally,
one site of each cultural period, including three major Cherokee town sites on the Tugalo River. The task of the survey
was “to see if any important archeological or historical sites
would be covered by water and to determine whether emergency or salvage excavations should be made” (Caldwell
1953:1). In spite of this mission, however, the only historic
sites recorded appear to have been those of historic Indian
origin. While some may argue that historical archaeology
was still in its infancy, such studies already were being conducted throughout the country.
Excavations in the project area of Lake Hartwell
included work at the Chauga Mound and Village Site
(38Oc1) in South Carolina, the historic Cherokee village of
Estatoe (9St3), and some of the six other South Carolina
sites listed in a short report (38An6, 12, 17, 25, 27, and 28)
(Kelly and Neitzel n.d.). The Chauga Mound and Village
Site was located on the Tugalo River. Chauga was tested by
33
Chapter 5
the University of Georgia archaeologists A.R. Kelly and
Robert Neitzel, through a Memorandum of Agreement with
the NPS. Kelly and Neitzel concluded that the site was either small or contained a short-term occupation and that their
work was inconclusive based on small test excavations (Kelly
and Neitzel n.d.:73). Later, however, the report mentions
excavation at the mound area which revealed 62 burials containing 2 copper plates, 1 shell gorget, shell beads and cut
shell. They were seeking archaeological evidence for the
age of the mound and concluded that it was possibly Cherokee, with an Etowah-Savannah complex (Kelly and Neitzel
n.d. 78-79).
Other sites mentioned in this report were not actually excavated. South Carolina Site 38An6 was found to be
partially in cultivation and “could not be dug” while the other
part of the site had been “stripped to sterile soil by the Highway Department” (Kelly and Neitzel n.d.:73). They were
denied permission to excavate at Site 38Oc12. Sites 38Oc27
and 28 were located in South Carolina, the former being recorded as an “old quartz station”. Site 38Oc25 was also visited by Carl F. Miller who had surveyed the Clark Hill Reservoir in 1948. Excavations of five, 3 x 5 ft test units in the
flood plain revealed no cultural material (Kelly and Neitzel
n.d.:74). Excavations of five, 10 foot square units at 9St3,
the historic Cherokee village of Estatoe, revealed a sample
of historic trade goods. Kelly was supposed to return in the
winter for excavations, but there appears to be no report of
any further work he may have conducted there.
The Tugalo Site (9St1) was located in the impoundment area of Lake Hartwell on the Tugalo River. The site
includes a mound and village. The mound had been cultivated repeatedly. The area around the mound was explored
prior to Caldwell by a partnership between the University of
Georgia and the Tsali Institute under the direction of William Edwards. This work did not look at the mound. Caldwell
and a crew of four trenched the mound in 1956. The trenches
uncovered evidence of an earthlodge and communal house.
Caldwell indicates that there was no evidence of the lower
mound being Cherokee; however, later he determines that
the mound had a Cherokee cap. Excavation revealed five
burials. Caldwell’s extensive work at this mound site is documented only by four progress reports consisting of two pages
each (Caldwell 1956a, 1956b, 1956c, 1956d). Other sparse
documentation of the site consists of a small collection of
some artifact photographs entitled “Trade Goods From
Tugaloo South Carolina-Georgia Boundary, Alleged Site of
Tugalo of Early 18th Century” (Witthoft n.d.) and a very brief
examination of 17th and 18th century historic artifacts from
the site conducted by the curator of the Smithsonian
Institution’s Museum of American History in 1954 (Watkins
1954).
Lake Richard B. Russell
Archaeological investigations at Lake Richard B.
Russell were in many ways more in-depth and produced more
published reports than archaeological study at almost any
other reservoir. Unfortunately, archaeologists working in
the Lake Russell basin lacked the nearly 100 percent ground
visibility that was present during investigations at Lake
Wallace. Thus, the survey of heavily forested Lake Russell
resulted in a large percentage of sites being overlooked. The
publications of archaeological investigations at Lake Russell,
however, are numerous.
In 1969 Brooks Hutto investigated the proposed
Trotters Shoals Reservoir, which would become part of Lake
Russell. He examined an area extending from the proposed
Trotters Shoals Dam, up the Savannah River to the Hartwell
Dam. Hutto surveyed from this area upstream on Beaverdam,
Coldwater, and Van creeks. All 37 of Hutto’s recorded sites
were in Elbert County (Hutto 1970). Hutto could not relocate seven previously recorded sites because of the dense
vegetation.
Anderson and Joseph (1988) compiled a synthesis
of the archaeological investigations at Lake Russell. This
synthesis documents archaeological investigations from 1969
to 1985, which includes survey of hundreds of sites and extensive excavations at 30 sites, including numerous historic
period sites. In Georgia, these intensive excavations included
the prehistoric sites of Harper’s Bottom (9Eb075), Rufus
Bullar (9Eb076), Rucker’s Bottom (9Eb091), Van Creek
(9Eb382), 9Eb348, Beaverdam Creek Mound (9Eb085),
9Eb092, 9Eb207, 9Eb208, 9Eb219, Gregg Shoals (9Eb259),
Clyde Gulley (9Eb387), Transect 21 (9Eb017), Beaverdam
Creek Borrowpit (9Eb019), and Paris Island South (9Eb021)
(Anderson and Joseph 1988:5). Archaeologists conducted
archaeological investigations in the form of test unit excavation or deep testing at the following historic sites in Georgia: Gray Site (9Eb045), White Mill (9Eb455), Eureka Mill
(9Eb054), Mattox Mill (9Eb415), Pearle Mill (9Eb201),
Gray-Heardmont Mill (9Eb027), and Beaverdam Creek Mill
(9Eb026) (Anderson and Joseph 1988:5). Eleven other historic sites were documented architecturally, but not
archaeologically. The above excavations are documented
in 15 archaeology reports, in addition to the synthesis overview. Later investigations include various smaller scale surveys of recreational areas and other lake and dam-related
projects.
34
Chapter 5
Strom Thurmond Lake
Strom Thurmond Lake was known as Clark Hill
Lake until its relatively recent renaming in the 1990s. The
Clark Hill Reservoir was surveyed in 1948 by Carl Miller as
part of the Smithsonian Institution’s River Basin Surveys.
Caldwell and Miller conducted the field work and reported
that most of their finds were located in lower ridge slopes
and valley bottoms (Miller 1948). Miller does not explain
their survey technique but, given the 78,000 acre impoundment area, it is likely to have been reconnaissance level at
best. They recorded a total of 128 sites in this area, 70 of
which would be inundated by the reservoir. Miller divided
the 128 sites into the following categories: mounds (3), village (31), camps (19), workshops (40), possible pre-ceramic
(35), and “traces” (49) (Miller 1948:13). Some sites were
multicomponent and therefore counted more than once. They
recommended three of the 128 sites for further work, including the Lake Springs Site (9Cb60 and 9Cb61) and the Rembert
Mound group (9Eb52). Miller’s 16 page summary is the
total documentation for the reservoir survey.
The Lake Springs Site (9Cb60) was located at the
junction of the Savannah River and Little Lake Springs Creek.
In 1948 Miller noticed a silt-covered shell heap there and
excavated two test units (Miller 1949). He documented an
Archaic, Stallings Island component and earlier pre-ceramic
levels. Fiber tempered sherds included incised and punctate.
Caldwell directed additional work on the site in the fall of
1951. It was a cooperative undertaking between the
Smithsonian, the NPS, and the USACOE. Caldwell’s brief
preliminary report states that the site contained postholes for
shelters, hearths, lithics, tools, ornaments, shell, and bone.
They also excavated 17 burials. Excavations uncovered what
Caldwell called the old quartz cultural lithic strata four feet
below the base of a prepottery Stallings zone (Caldwell
1951:2). There appears to be no report for this excavation
other than Caldwell’s two page preliminary report. Recently,
the artifact collection from the Lake Springs Site that had
been missing was relocated in the GASF, presenting an opportunity for study and the production of a professional report on the excavations.
excavations conducted by Miller and Caldwell on 18 sites in
the basin (Elliott 1995:I). Elliott’s work was a much-needed
preliminary examination and report of what was done by
Miller and Caldwell. A comprehensive study of the survey
materials remains to be written.
Rembert Mounds lie in the impoundment area of
Strom Thurmond Lake. The mound group is in Elbert
County, and was described in 1773 by William Bartram and
later in 1848 by George White. It is located on the Savannah River three miles upstream from the rivers’ confluence
with the Broad River. The site was first excavated on a limited basis by the Mound Division of the Bureau of Ethnology in 1886, under the direction of John Rogan (Anderson
et al. 1994). The flood of 1908 washed away much of the
mounds and little mention of the site was made until Miller’s
1948 reconnaissance of the basin. Following this reconnaissance, Caldwell conducted excavations on the mound documented by his six page report. David Hally at the University of Georgia reanalyzed this collection in the 1980s and
identified the site as having a late Mississippian component
(in Anderson et al. 1994:14). The site was flooded and no
further archaeology conducted on it until 1990 when underwater, archival, and terrestrial research took place. This is
summarized elsewhere in this report under “Key Underwater Investigations”.
Stevens Creek Dam bisects the Savannah River
downstream from Strom Thurmond Lake. The dam was
constructed by the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company as a hydroelectric facility. The dam impounds 13 miles
of the Savannah River and eight miles of Stevens Creek,
impounding 2,400 acres at high pool level. It has 42 miles
of shoreline. Archaeological investigation was required as
part of a relicensing process by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Southeastern Archeological Services conducted an
archaeological reconnaissance of the lake’s shoreline in 1991
for this relicensing and located 25 sites, which were not delineated or assessed for NRHP eligibility due to project time
constraints (Kratzer 1994:1). Next, The Louis Berger Group,
Inc. conducted Phase I testing and Phase II investigations.
In 1995, Daniel Elliott, archaeologist with The The project area consisted of “...all areas that might be diLAMAR Institute, gathered Clark Hill Lake data held at the rectly affected by the operation of the dam facilities” (Benson,
Smithsonian Institution and other repositories representing Rogers, and Gresham 1991 in Kratzer 1994:1). This included
over 200 archaeological sites dating from the Paleoindian six boat landings and public recreation areas. The shoreline
period through the Historic. He interpreted and compiled area that Berger studied for possible impacts ranged in size
this data into a publication summarizing the basic site infor- from 2-300 feet wide for a total of 330 acres. Phase I survey
mation such as site “locations, dimensions, extent of research revealed 14 sites, two of which were located in Georgia and
investigations, and the types of diagnostic materials recov- the remainder in South Carolina. Phase II study called for
ered from each site” in addition to synthesizing data from the testing of 19 sites; however, archaeologists were denied
35
Chapter 5
access to six of these. Two of these six sites, 9Cb14 and
9Cb25, were located in Georgia. The remaining sites that
were tested included two in Georgia: 9Cb132 and 9Cb129/
136. The latter was added later during Phase II work. Southeastern Archeological Services had deemed Site 9Cb132 eligible for listing on the NRHP and it was tested by Berger
with shovel tests and 1 meter square units. Pottery, lithics,
firecracked rock, and sub-plow zone features revealed that it
had been the location of short term occupations from the
Late Archaic through Woodland periods of prehistory, and
used from the late nineteenth through early twentieth centuries (Kratzer 1994:5).
Summary
It is obvious from the above discussion that
Georgia’s reservoirs impound an extremely large number of
recorded and unrecorded prehistoric and historic sites. Adequate time and funding was not spent on locating, identifying, recording, and reporting sites throughout much of reservoir construction in the state. Documented sites and many
other undocumented sites remain under reservoir waters.
Many of the notes and other field documentation produced
by the numerous River Basin Survey projects conducted in
Georgia are housed at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Unlike most of the materials in the River Basin
Survey collection that are filed by counties and field offices,
the materials of Harold Huscher and Carl Miller are filed
under their own names. The documents housed in the River
Basin Survey collection do not include formal reports, most
correspondence, and manuscripts of writing. This does not
pose a problem for research of the Miller and Huscher Files,
however, since there were virtually no formal reports produced and published by these two archaeologists.
The Huscher Files include seven folders, six of
which may be related to Georgia. These six categories and
their folder numbers are as follows: periodic reports, 19581963 (73); photographic records, 1958-1963 (80); mounted
photographic prints, 1958-1960 (81); miscellaneous photographs, 1951-1963 (83); sites files, 1958-1963 (88); and cartographic and illustrative material, 1950-1963 (89) (Glenn
1996:213-214).
The Miller Files also contain seven folders, of which
six may have material related to Georgia. These include:
correspondence and also field notebooks for Allatoona, Clark
Hill and Jim Woodruff reservoirs, 1947-1965 (62); field notebooks, 1947-1962 (63); documents relating to Work Projects
Administration archeology in Alabama, 1938-1940 (64) [this
may include projects on the border of Alabama and Georgia]; River Basin Survey site files, 1947-1963 (65); illustra-
tive and cartographic material, 1940s-1960s; and photographs (including Hartwell reservoir), 1936-1962 (72) (Glenn
1996:213-214). Also, there are some folders for Georgia
counties included in the above files.
Though many prehistoric sites were not sufficiently
addressed prior to inundation, the fate suffered by historic
sites was even worse. Most were not considered legitimate
site types in Georgia until the latter part of the twentieth
century. Historic house sites, fortifications, farmsteads, even
entire eighteenth century towns were flooded with little
thought to their archaeological value. One of the few exceptions to this was historic cemeteries. While many of these
were relocated, the work was not done by archaeologists
and an unknown number of graves were missed. These are
under reservoir waters or in areas that become dry during
droughts. Some of the overlooked burials even contain headstones, such as the one in the original Petersburg Cemetery
that can be seen during periods of lake draw-downs or
droughts in Strom Thurmond Lake.
KEY UNDERWATER INVESTIGATIONS
G EORGIA
Few submerged cultural resource studies have been
conducted in Georgia and even fewer in her non-coastal areas. The limited types of archival projects being conducted
that relate to cultural resources are discussed elsewhere in
this report. They include fish trap studies in Georgia
(Frazier); wrecks in Georgia, especially in the Savannah River
drainage (Wood 2002); and wrecks on the Chattahoochee
and Flint rivers (Schnell). It should be noted that all of these
include some ground-truthing of sites, although the degree
varies and in most cases the amount of archivally located
sites outweighs the number of sites actually visited. Some
drowned terrestrial sites were investigated as discussed earlier in pre-impoundment surveys of reservoirs and post impoundment surveys of reservoir shorelines.
What remains are a handful of actual underwater
archaeology projects using remote sensing equipment, divers,
snorkelers, boats or a combination of these to examine interior Georgia’s submerged resources. The most extensive
work on shipwrecks has been conducted by Tidewater Atlantic Research (TAR) and/or East Carolina University. Most
of TAR’s work in Georgia has been in coastal areas including harbors and offshore, with the exception of investigations in the lower Chattahoochee River. The studies in
Georgia’s interior are documented below. Submerged site
investigations by other entities in Georgia’s interior include
limited work in Bryan, Elbert, Baker, and Muscogee coun-
36
IN
Chapter 5
ties. The Bryan and Baker county projects are in the Coastal
Plain while the Elbert and Muscogee projects are in close
proximity to the Fall Line.
Fort Argyle
Fort Argyle (9Bn28) is an eighteenth century fortification constructed by the British Crown. The fort is located in Bryan County, Georgia, on a four meter-high bluff
overlooking the Ogeechee River (Figure 11). It lies within
the confines of the Fort Stewart Military Reservation and
was listed on the NRHP in 1973. In 1984, a graduate student in the Maritime Hisotry and Underwater Research Program at East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, was interested in conducting a research project involving underwater survey and mapping of Fort Argyle. She
was denied a permit by the Georgia State Archaeologist who
was on staff at that time (Elliott 1984). In 1985, Southeastern Archeological Services conducted five weeks of testing
on the terrestrial component of the site through the U.S. Army
and Fort Stewart Military Reservation and the NPS. The
goals of the project were to locate the fort using intensive
shovel test survey and examine specific areas through testing and electronic remote sensing (Braley et al. 1985:1).
was examined by 10, 50 cm square tests and surface observation. Martin concluded that the low density of artifacts
indicated secondary deposition (Martin et al. 1986:14, 16,
20). Newell Wright conducted an underwater surface survey in the river as part of this work. Martin’s recommendations for the underwater component of the site included prohibiting “…the use of outboard motors and anchoring by
Army watercraft within the river-defined site boundaries”
and the “development of liaison enforcement program with
Georgia SHPO to regulate sport diver access” (Martin et al.
1986:23).
Additional work was conducted at Fort Argyle under the direction of Daniel Elliott, of The LAMAR Institute,
in 1997. The investigations were funded by the Legacy
Resource Management Program. Further terrestrial excavations uncovered more of the fort palisade, in addition to the
palisade and features associated with an earlier, more complex fortification. Project goals included assessing changes
to the site since the 1985 and 1986 studies. No underwater
archaeology was conducted during this work. Elliott disagreed with Martin’s findings regarding the significance of
the northern area of Fort Argyle. His recommendations
included limiting the natural and man-made vehicle erosion
to the site, regular monitoring of the site by area law enDuring this time the Principal Investigator of the forcement, resurvey of the area examined by Martin, addiproject, Chad Braley, conducted limited underwater recon- tional archival research, and development of a long-term plan
naissance in an effort to establish site limits. This recon- for interpreting Fort Argyle to and for the public (Elliott
naissance examined a 30 x 30 m area which extended from 1997:213-214).
the west bank of the Ogeechee River into the middle of the
One of the threats to Fort Argyle is looting. Lootriver channel. River depth ranged between 5-7 m directly
ing
includes
digging on the terrestrial component and rebelow Fort Argyle. Visibility was one meter and deposits of
moval
of
artifacts
by divers from the submerged component.
sand sediment were common along the base of the bluff, on
Braley
suggests
that
a more cost-effective method of presertop of a clay river bed. The 30 m area was collected for
vation
might
be
state-funded
investigations of the river botapproximately one hour and bagged as one provenience. Artom
that
would
include
mapping
exposed artifacts prior to
tifacts collected included bottle bases, ceramic sherds, and
their
collection
(Braley
et
al.
1985:74).
other eighteenth century fragments of domestic items. Brick
scatters and ballast stones were noted. The project report
Braley’s suggestions could go even further by makrecommended protecting the Fort Argyle Site, including its
ing
Fort
Argyle
a model for public education, history, and
submerged portions. It was a reminder that, “The underwaarchaeology
based
on a legitimate research design. Mapter portion of the site is under the jurisdiction of the State of
ping
investigations
could
be conducted several times during
Georgia, Department of Natural Resources. It is up to that
different
seasons
and
water
level conditions. This would
agency to ensure that no one collects artifacts from the river
determine
rates
of
erosion
or
sedimentation while providing
bottom” (Braley et al. 1985:74). While Braley suggests this
cultural
materials
useful
in
understanding
military and fronmay be an impossible task, he does mention regular patrols
tier
life
at
the
fort.
Detailed
mapping
of
artifacts
and a search
by boat or air as an option.
for features may indicate locations of eighteenth century
In December of 1985 army maneuvers resulted in wharves or docks. It might also reveal wrecks in the vicinground disturbance of part of the site of Fort Argyle and ity. Artifact analysis and curation could be followed by the
Carolina Archaeological Services was contracted by the NPS creation of a portable, temporary exhibit that rotates around
to determine the extent of the disturbance. The 20 acre area the state with a home-base in Bryan County. Other interpreGeorgia’s Inland Waters
37
Chapter 5
Figure 11. A portion of John Milledge’s Plat Near Fort Argyle (Redrawn).
38
Chapter 5
tive efforts, as suggested by Elliott (1997:214), would foster a greater public appreciation for Georgia’s frontier history, for the state’s archaeological resources, and could
serve to protect the site.
Petersburg
The town of Petersburg, Georgia, was established
in 1788 inside the forks of the Broad and Savannah rivers. This Elbert County town thrived on the business of
inspecting hogsheads of tobacco shipped downstream on
the rivers from Georgia’s hinterland. Planters put many
shipments on Petersburg boats. As an official, government licensed inspection station located at a convenient
shipping point, Petersburg quickly grew to 300 free and
enslaved inhabitants along with all the related service and
craft industries necessary for its support. Figure 12 is an
archival map of Petersburg showing the towns arrangement along a narrow ridge in the forks of the two waterways. The town tried to evolve with changing times, converting itself to a cotton shipping port, but by the 1820s
out-migration to more lucrative western lands lured many
Petersburgers away. The town was dead by the middle of
the nineteenth century. It was flooded beneath the waters
of Clark Hill Lake (now Strom Thurmond Lake) by 1950.
In 1987 an East Carolina University (Greenville,
North Carolina) graduate student and crew conducted a
thesis project on Petersburg consisting of archival research
and underwater mapping of the site (Elliott 1988). The
goal of the project was to use a multi-disciplinary approach
to research and study the site, delineate its physical boundaries, and discover the level of preservation of the site’s
underwater and near-water components. The archival portion of the project included reconstruction of a chain of
title for every extant town lot deed, use of town lot prices as
economic indicators within the town, oral histories, and research at various repositories. Field work consisted of two
weeks of mapping. Scuba divers conducted underwater visual transects in the murky lake waters. Visibility averaged
two feet. Currents increased and visibility decreased during
periods of water release from the dam immediately upstream
from the site. The project resulted in the delineation of the
original river channels, the location of submerged features
including a probable well and brick foundation, the location
of submerged artifacts, and the mapping of house lot ruins
on adjacent islands (Elliott 1988). No excavations were conducted during this work. Figure 13 depicts a map made during the project. The town lots below the 320 ft elevation
contour lie submerged by Clark Hill Lake. Ironically, the
drought in 1988 brought lake levels down three meters, mak-
Figure 12. Historical sketch of town lots in Petersburg, at the
forks of the Broad and Savannah Rivers (Hillyer n.d., n.p.)
ing visible part of what had been so difficult to see only a
year earlier.
Underwater archaeology indicates that features still
exist below the water at Petersburg. It suggests that huge
portions of the town may be intact. Collectors have already
impacted the terrestrial portions of the site that are found on
the islands and the lakeshore in Bobby Brown State Park.
What lies submerged, in conjunction with what has not been
destroyed on dry ground, may present a detailed picture of
life in an economic hub of Georgia at a time when America
was still in its infancy. The location of the site, partially in
a state park and partially in a USACOE lake, sets an attrac-
39
Chapter 5
In 1990, side-scan sonar investigations were conducted for an unrelated project involving construction and
dredging for the Russell Dam tailrace. This project examined an area along the Savannah River channel (now part of
the lake) from Petersburg to approximately four miles upstream near the Russell Dam. It recorded submerged historic structures discovered by side-scan sonar (Anderson et
al.1994:5-6). These appear to be town-house sites and structures of Petersburg. Anderson et al. suggested that a periodic monitoring program be conducted following the implementation of the dredging and new tailrace. The monitoring program would reveal whether the change in channel
velocity resulted in significant site erosion. If so, it was
recommended that a program be implemented to remedy
the loss of information and cultural materials (Anderson et
al. 1994:6).
Rembert Mounds
Figure 13. Archaeological survey map of Petersburg
showing submerged areas below the 320 ft. contour line
(Elliott 1988).
tive stage for a site that is easily accessible by large numbers
of the public. This double-edged sword has usually worked
to the disadvantage of site preservation, allowing access by
looters to both the land and water components. It can, however, serve as a vehicle for promoting public education about
the site, archaeology, and the importance of preservation.
The state park provides facilities that would be very beneficial in establishing public education programs that would
help enlighten the public and could include all phases investigations. The public could watch terrestrial and underwater investigations, participate in walking tours of the site,
learn about preservation issues involving Petersburg and
other sites, view park exhibits about the site’s archaeology
and what it means. In short, the site and the state park could
serve as a laboratory in which a model public program is
developed, tested, and refined.
This site is discussed several times through this report. The discussion will now examine the 1990 investigations of the mounds. Proposed dredging for the Russell Dam
Tailrace project required archaeological investigation of the
area. In 1990 the USACOE, Savannah District, asked the
National Park Service archaeologists with the Interagency
Archeological Services Division in Atlanta to research and
conduct an intensive survey of the area, including terrestrial
and underwater portions. The shoreline and uplands area
survey expended 20 person-days while 18 person-days were
allocated for examining the submerged cultural resources
(Anderson et al. 1994:1). The goals of the project were: “to
conduct a detailed historical and archival search to determine whether or not significant historic resources exist in
the impact areas, to carry out a thorough archaeological survey of the terrestrial impact areas (the shoreline and spoil
dumping areas), and to perform an underwater reconnaissance of the channel area below the dam, paying particular
attention to the vicinity of the submerged Rembert Mound
site, to determine if significant submerged cultural resources
were present that would be lost (washed away) by the anticipated changes in the channel flow” (Anderson et al.
1994:1).
Archaeologists conducted intensive shovel testing
at 20 and 30 m intervals, pedestrian surface survey at 5 to 10
m transect intervals, and beach shoreline surface survey at
2-3 m transect intervals. Archaeologists excavated 144
shovel tests in the project area. A total of 45 sites and 3
isolates were recorded. Four of the sites were previously
recorded sites in the GASF. All of the 33 shoreline sites
were eroded, low-density scatters. The upland sites were
outside of the project area. Archaeologists recommended
40
Chapter 5
that negative impacts to three sites be avoided: Old Tate’s
Grove Cemetery (9Eb195), a tenant farmhouse (9Eb108),
and a prehistoric scatter (9Eb429) (Anderson 1994:5).
The underwater investigations consisted of a sidescan sonar survey in the main channel of the Savannah River,
immediately downstream from Russell Dam. Judy Wood,
staff archaeologist with the USACOE, Savannah District,
conducted this study. The side-scan sonar did not identify
any anomalies at the mound site area, but did locate evidence of structures associated with the town of Petersburg
downstream from the mound site.
Christopher Amer, with the Underwater Archaeology Division at SCIAA, directed a team of six divers during
the diving component of the underwater investigations.
Divers located a dense aboriginal artifact scatter dating from
the Middle Archaic through the Middle Mississippian periods. While it appears to correspond with the location of the
Rembert Mounds, the scatter was given a new site number
(9Eb513) since the precise location of the mounds was unknown. Due to the evidence of erosion and the fact that the
mounds were never fully documented or extensively excavated, Anderson et al. recommended that underwater testing be conducted to determine if 9Eb513 was eligible for
the NRHP and to determine the extent of erosion on the site
(Anderson 1994:5).
Riverine Survey
Archaeologists have conducted a small-scale survey of portions of the Flint River and Ichawaynochaway
Creek in Baker County. At the request of the Joseph W.
Jones Ecological Research Center, archaeologists with Southern Research, Historic Preservation Consultants, Inc. conducted a riverine survey within the boundaries of the center
in 2000. Previous work consisted of a reconnaissance by
John Worth of The Coosawattee Foundation (Worth 1998).
Worth examined selected terrestrial areas and recorded sites
9Bx8 through 9Bx13, and 9Bx 21 through 9Bx27. One site
was a fishweir and the remaining sites were terrestrial.
The Southern Research survey included approximately 14 miles of Ichawaynochaway Creek and 11 miles
of the Flint River. A total of 32 person-days, supplemented
by 20 volunteer-person days, was spent on the project. The
crew canoed, snorkeled, and walked in the waterways,
walked the exposed banks, shoreline and areas of shoals,
and scuba dived in several limestone sinkholes.
The overall goals of the project were threefold, and
included archaeological education of center personnel, riverine site reconnaissance for conservation and management
purposes, and production of a management document with
recommendations (Elliott 2001:1-3). The goals of the diving portion of the project consisted of: “…examining minimally one area each on the creek and the river to understand
the two fluvial environments and their impacts on submerged
sites, diving in some of the ‘holes’ presumed to be limestone sinks occurring in both the creek and the river, trying
to locate at least one in-situ site associated with a sinkhole,
and examining two or more different site types” (Elliott
2001:7) (Figure 14).
The survey recorded a total of 49 sites, 20 of which
are potentially eligible for the NRHP and 29 of unknown
eligibility. Sites recorded are numbers 9Bx34-9Bx83. These
sites represent much of the broad spectrum of possible submerged site types possible, including aboriginal lithic scatters, pottery scatters, or both, historic scatters, aboriginal
quarries, fishweirs, mill dams, ferries, bridges, a wharf, a
wingdam, and a shipwreck. The most frequent site type
recorded was artifact scatters (n=39), followed by bridges
(n=6), mill dams (n=5), quarries/quarry workshops (n=5),
fishweirs (n=4), ferries (n=2), and other (n=4) (Elliott
2001:33). These numbers total more than 49, since several
of the sites are multi-component.
The report suggested that artifact scatter sites of
secondary deposition in creeks and rivers may ultimately
turn out to be a significant and useful source of data. Some
artifacts may seem to be displaced and redeposited, but are
actually eroding from a bank. Other artifacts that are truly
redeposited may prove useful if future studies are conducted
on fluvial deposition and artifact transportation downstream.
Such studies may enable researchers to make accurate determinations about the origins of the artifacts and their original locations, resulting in settlement pattern data. This may
be especially important on sites that have partly or almost
entirely eroded into waterways. Researchers have been conducting tests on movements of logs in waterways during
flood and non-flood situations (Steve Golladay, personal
communication August 2000). “Formulating a model for
small artifact travel in low-load and high-load creeks and in
rivers may aid in the future discovery of where the sites recorded during this reconnaissance [and any others] actually
originated prior to their secondary deposition” (Elliott
2001:35-36).
Chattahoochee River Investigations
In the late 1970s and early 1980s The James W.
Woodruff, Jr. Confederate Naval Museum (now known as
Port Columbus Naval Museum) initiated underwater research
in portions of the Chattahoochee River. The initial survey
was made by the University of Southwestern Louisiana and
41
Chapter 5
Figure 14. Scuba divers preparing to dive in a sinkhole.
included survey of the Apalachicola and Chattahoochee rivers using remote sensing (Gibson 1979). A limited amount
of historic anomalies was located. In the early 1980s the
museum contracted with Tidewater Atlantic Research for
an underwater survey and remote sensing of portions of the
Chattahoochee River. Watts examined the area of the river
adjacent to much of the original town of Columbus from
the 14 th Street Bridge to just downstream from the
Oglethorpe Bridge (Watts 1982). Divers examined the
anomalies found on this survey and identified several ship
hulls near Columbus and slot machines related to the notorious events of Phenix City, Alabama on the river’s west
bank. The survey did not locate any of the many cannons
presumed dumped in the river by Confederate forces fleeing Federal troops known as Wilson’s raiders.
The museum also conducted another project in the
Chattahoochee River, which involved the East Carolina
University Maritime History Program. Staff and graduate
students dove on those remains of the CSS Chattahoochee
that had not been brought up in the 1960s. This undocumented hull was investigated (Watts et al. 1990). In 1999
archaeologists with Southern Research oversaw the cleaning and limited conservation of the portions of the CSS
Chattahoochee and the CSS Jackson that lie in the Columbus Naval Museum. In 2000 they used a laser transit and
computer software to map the remains of those portions of
the CSS Chattahoochee (Debra Wells, archaeologist, personal communication, June 26, 2002).
REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLES OF
SUBMERGED AND NEAR WATER SITE TYPES
IN GEORGIA
Aboriginal Sites
Submerged aboriginal sites include quarries, camps,
and habitation areas that were originally terrestrial sites.
Many of the prehistoric sites that are submerged in Georgia
are discussed elsewhere in this report, in the section detailing reservoir sites. As any collector or archaeologist will
state, prehistoric sites are almost universally located near
water. This is particularly true of occupation areas, whether
they be small hamlets or large villages. The most well-known
terrestrial examples of this are the Etowah Mounds on the
Etowah River and Ocmulgee National Monument mounds
on the Ocmulgee River. Another example more suited to
the inundation context of this report, is the Early Mississippian mound complex of Cemochechobee, which had a
mound eroding into the Chattahoochee River on the northern end of George W. Andrews Lake. These mounds, known
as the Walter F. George Dam Mound Site (9Cla62) were
included in the Cemochechobee Archaeological District
42
Chapter 5
(which includes portions on private property) and placed on
the National Register of Historic Places in 1975. The complex appears to have been a single component site dating to
the Rood Phase (Schnell et al. 1981:xi). Other site numbers
for interior portions of the site include 9Cla44, 9Cla45,
9Cla46, and 9Cla50 and include parts of the village recorded
by Smithsonian Institution archaeologist Harold Huscher in
1958. Huscher found the site “...on a walkover survey of
areas cleared for dam construction near the proposed Walter
F. George Dam” but apparently did not find the mound complex (Schnell et al. 1981:1). Site number 9Cla62 includes
the mound group but not the associated village area.
In spite of recommendations by Huscher that the
village receive priority in archaeological testing, only a 10
ft square area was excavated and a map made. Based on
this limited excavation and the lack of clearly identified
phases, Huscher labeled 9Cla44 as dating to Early Lamar
and Fort Walton-Lamar. Construction of the Walter F.
George Dam destroyed two thirds of the village site (Schnell
et al. 1981:2). The remaining portion is on Federal
(USACOE) property.
When the mound group, consisting of three mounds
on the east bank of the Chattahoochee River, was discovered by archaeologists in the 1970s, the western side of the
site was already heavily impacted by erosion from the
Chattahoochee River. The USACOE, Mobile Corps District, determined that stabilization was not possible and issued a contract for archaeological mitigation of the mound.
The mitigation project was undertaken by the Columbus
Museum of Arts and Crafts, with the Interagency Archeological Services, Atlanta, (now part of the NPS) serving as a
cooperating entity. Excavation focused on the mound area
with limited work in the village. Frank Schnell with the
museum directed mitigation efforts. The artifacts and notes
were brought to the museum, now called the Columbus
Museum, for analysis and curation.
Other examples of mounds now submerged in
Georgia’s modern landscape include Rembert Mound beneath Strom Thurmond Lake, Prices Island, and many other
good village sites. Erosion at Rembert Mound from the Savannah River began as early as the nineteenth century. The
impoundment of the Savannah and Broad Rivers in 1948
created Clark Hill Lake and submerged Rembert Mound.
The impoundment placed the mound just downstream from
the Russell Dam where hydroelectric generation creates an
especially turbulent current which archaeologists have documented as contributing to the further erosion of the site
(Anderson et al. 1994).
Archaeologists have conducted several investigations of areas within the Okeefenokee Swamp. The University of Georgia surveyed part of the swamp interior. Chris
Trowell, who has been working in the area for decades, has
conducted an extensive study of historical documentation
associated with the swamp (Trowell 1992). In 1978 he recorded the Grooms Field Site (9Cr31/9Cr32), which contains several mounds in the vicinity of Trail Ridge.
Trail Ridge is a north-south running relict dune ridge
bordering the eastern edge of the Okefenokee Swamp. Archaeologists have conducted various surveys in the
Okefenokee Swamp. For example, Southern Research conducted a reconnaissance of 18 study areas in a 2,200 acre
project area in the Okefenokee Swamp for DuPont’s proposed titanium mine in Charlton County (Weisman et al.
1998:161). This reconnaissance identified 22 new prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. Nine of these were
recommended for testing to determine their eligibility status. One additional site was previously recorded as the Martha
Dowling North Mounds (9Cr34). Weisman suspects that
the Martha Dowling North and South Mound sites and the
Old Grooms Field Mounds may be Ibi towns or portions of
towns within the late sixteenth-early seventeenth century
Timucan Ibi chiefdom (Weisman et al. 1998:162).
Site density appeared to be greatest along Trail
Ridge’s western slope. In this area every pair of bay drain
heads contains a site between them (Weisman et al.
1998:161). This area includes evidence of a vast array of
human existence, from the Late Archaic through the Contact period, through the Historic period. The reconnaissance
investigation of Trail Ridge did not address the location of
deeply buried sites and of wet sites that might have provided
evidence of earlier prehistoric use of the area. While the peat
swamp may not date to the Paleo or even Middle Archaic
periods, the lower slopes of the nearby Trail Ridge may have
been an attractive location during those periods. This would
have been true particularly if the ridge slope provided sources
of fresh spring water. Other areas of possible early prehistoric settlement include areas along neighboring Cornhouse,
Harris, Boones and Caney Branch creeks. Weisman suggests that these areas are inundated today, but may have been
dry during Paleo and Early Archaic periods.
Fishweirs/traps
Fishweirs, traps, and dams have been found on rivers and creeks throughout the state of Georgia dating from
the prehistoric, protohistoric, and the historic period (Figure
15). Prehistoric fishweirs and dams usually contain few or
no artifacts that are visibly in situ within the structure. Pre-
43
Chapter 5
Figure 15. This Lee County, Georgia, fishweir has been truncated to allow vessel passage
(courtesy of The LAMAR Institute).
historic weirs show limited diagnostic, technical, or aesthetic
evolution through time, which results in difficulty in assigning cultural periods to fishdam construction and use. The
adaptive reuse of such structures by later peoples, both prehistoric and historic, further complicates the dating issue. Figure 16 shows an example of aboriginal fishweir
construction using wooden stakes. Extant examples of
aboriginal weirs in Georgia are generally rock weirs.
Historic period fishweirs, dams, and baskets are often
identifiable through the materials used in their construction. Historic fish dams often contained metal rods and
other metal hardware used in securing rocks and or wood
in the dam. The extremely limited amount of research
on fishweirs and virtual lack of any data-recovery level
investigations is a chronic factor contributing to a dearth
of knowledge on this subject.
A preponderance of fishweirs and traps in 18th
through early 20th century Georgia is suggested by the
plethora of legal documentation relating to fishweirs and
dams. Frazier (2002) has compiled related acts from
Georgia’s legal codes which were written from as early
as 1796 into the twentieth century. The necessity for 144
fish, fishweir, or dam-related laws over a period of 111 years
strongly illustrates the significance of such feature types in
historic Georgia, not to mention the 12,000 years prior. Ap-
Figure 16. Southeastern Indians using a fishweir constructed
from wooden poles (de Bry after le Moyne in
Fundaburk 1957: 54).
44
Chapter 5
parently fish were an important resource on which Georgians
depended throughout history. Documents indicate that shad
fisheries were operating as early as 1812 on the Oconee River
(Frazier 2002:3). Legal codes ranged from ones protecting
fish dams, to ones prohibiting their use in favor of clearing
waterways of obstructions to navigation, to ones limiting the
amount of fish removed from the waterways. An example of
the former includes laws such as the 1796 act stating,
“Whereas it is just and reasonable that all citizens residing
within the vicinity of Little River and Broad River should
enjoy the natural and equal privilege of taking the fish of
said river” (Frazier 2002:1). Laws at the opposite end of the
spectrum included an 1881 act to prevent the reckless destruction of fish in Screven County, which stated, “It shall
not be lawful for any person to catch or entrap fish with any
traps” (Frazier 2002:21).
Numerous other acts attempted to negotiate a compromise between fishermen, boaters, and neighbors living
up and downstream on waterways. Examples of moderation
include an 1820 act whereby, “It shall not be lawful for any
person to obstruct or cause to be obstructed more than onethird part of the Chattahoochee or Chestatee rivers by dams,
fish traps …” and in 1860, “...nothing in this act shall be
construed to prevent the building of mill-dams or fish-dams,
so that the former are constructed with flood-gates admitting
of the free passage of fish upstream, and ...do not extend
over more than two-thirds of the width of the stream” (Frazier
2002:3,10). An engineer with the City of Augusta noted in
1892 that in the Savannah River there “...was not a regular
channel with an even bottom and sides, but it is obstructed
by the prominence of natural ledges of rock and the artificial
construction of fish dams...(Phillips 1892:4)
continues to investigate weirs, traps, and dams throughout
the state. Frazier also researches historical documents to
discover likely locations of such features. More regional
fishweir and dam studies, that have included officially recorded sites in Georgia, have been conducted by John
Connaway of Mississippi (Connaway in press). Smaller
numbers of weirs and fish dams have been recorded incidentally during other archaeological investigations around
the state predominantly by CRM firms, and to a lesser degree by other entities.
A total of 128 fishweirs, traps and dams are recorded
to date in the GASF (Figure 17). Some of these have been
recorded as prehistoric (n=84), some as historic (n=44), and
some as weirs used by both Native and non-Native Americans. The majority are located on primary tributaries or major
rivers with the largest concentrations falling along the
Etowah, Chattahoochee and Flint rivers. The Etowah River
contains the highest density of recorded weirs, which probably reflects the much greater level of investigation by researchers along this corridor. Due to the problematic nature
of determining ethnicity from fishweirs, we will examine
patterns made by all the fishweirs recorded. No weirs are
recorded in the southeastern part of the state (Figure 17).
The presence of four weirs in southwestern Georgia indicates that the primary tributaries and rivers of the Coastal
Plain can support weir operation. One must attribute the
lack of any recorded weirs in the southeast to be a result of a
lack of investigation rather than non-existence of the resource.
River Navigation Structures
Throughout the centuries, Georgia’s legislature was
concerned not only with the free passage of vessels, but of
fish as well. Legal codes reflect this concern, allowing fish
to migrate freely up and down stream and be able to reproduce in order to maintain an abundance of fish resources.
Studies in North Carolina have reinforced logical assumptions that creek and stream corridors not supporting navigation contain a large number of intact fishweirs and dams
(Lindley S. Butler, Historian, personal communication, June
17, 2002).
River navigation systems have been documented
in North Carolina and Virginia and exist as a site type in
Georgia, although few have been recorded. River navigation structures include one or a combination of several features such as stone wing dams, parallel stone walls, and
sluices. Regardless of the type of construction chosen, the
goal was always to control the flow of water to produce
enough draft for vessel travel. The depth of water necessary
depended on the type of watercraft negotiating the waterway, such as bateaus, and the cargo load.
In 1974, Jim Chapman and Georgia State University recorded 43 fishweirs during survey work. The Archaeological Survey Team of Atlanta recorded an additional 32
weirs and traps during the 1990s. Georgia’s Streams/Fish
Traps project, a continuation of this work by Bill Frazier,
River navigation structures often took advantage
of pre-existing fish dams since both sought to funnel the
water into one location. Names of the navigational features
reflect this reuse. In North Carolina, the “Jones’ Fishtrap
Sluice” is typical of a fishtrap modified into a sluice (Lindley
45
Chapter 5.
$$
$$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$$$
$
$
$$$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$$
$
$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $
N
W
E
S
30
0
30
60 Kilometers
Figure 17. Recorded Fishweirs in Georgia.
46
Chapter 5
S. Butler, Historian, personal communication, June 17, 2002).
While the fishtrap was historically identified with the Jones’,
it is likely that it predates that family both historically and
probably prehistorically. Interestingly, it was possible for a
fish dam modified as a navigation structure to continue to
serve both functions of fishing and navigation (Lindley S.
Butler, Historian, personal communication, June 17, 2002).
Such multi-use functions served to maximize the riverine
rights of fishermen, boaters, and people living up and downstream from each other.
Sometimes the only modification necessary to a fish
dam would be widening the mouth of the “V” shaped funnel
to accommodate the width of particular vessels. For instance,
an eight foot wide bateau would require an opening approximately 10 feet wide (Lindley S. Butler, personal communication, June 17, 2002). Likewise, the shallow-draft screw
and sternwheeler steamboats might need a 25 foot wide opening often modified by the USACOE. Construction of navigation structures often included either using the weir walls
as a foundation or as the walls of the sluice. Sometimes
modification would include blasting bedrock out of the bottom of the sluice to increase the depth of the channel.
Butler has recorded excellent examples of river
navigation systems in the Dan River (a tributary of the
Roanoke River) that runs through northern North Carolina
and southern Virginia. The extensive network of river navigation systems documented in North Carolina allowed navigation almost 200 miles into the state’s interior, stopping
short of the mountains (Lindley S. Butler, Historian, personal communication, June 17, 2002). These man-made
structures enabled navigation in waterways that would not
otherwise have been navigable. Navigation systems were
constructed or modified by a private company known as the
Roanoke Navigation Company from the 1820s to the 1860s.
By the 1880s the USACOE was modifying the waterways
extensively for steam vessels (Lindley S. Butler, Historian,
personal communication, June 17, 2002). Butler believes
log cribbing fastened with iron spikes and hardware and containing rock rip-rap are late nineteenth and early twentieth
century USACOE navigational structures, rather than
fishweirs. Timber cribbing containing rock rip-rap has been
identified in portions of Ichawaynochaway Creek, in Baker
County, Georgia as bridge footings and navigation-related
structures (Elliott 2001).
It is quite likely that many of Georgia’s secondary
tributaries contain similar systems that would have further
encouraged the natural use of riverine transportation during
the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries.
Certainly wing dams and sluices constructed by the USACOE
have been documented in many of the state’s larger water-
ways (Figure 18). The USACOE began modifying the Flint
River as early as 1836 (USSS 1875:717). Modifications
included removing rock from the main channel areas, creating long rock sluices, blasting rock and bedrock, and constructing various types of dams (Elliott 2001:20). Modifications also included using derelict steamboat hulls in wing
dam construction. One such example is visible today along
the bank of the Chattahoochee in downtown Columbus
(Frank Schnell, personal communication, June 20, 2002).
There is less documentation on the reuse of fishweirs and
dams in navigational structures and of the amount of navigational systems constructed by private corporations during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Georgia.
The efforts of Butler and others in North Carolina
have enabled the documentation and protection of this site
type. In North Carolina, a total of 13 navigational structures are listed on the NRHP and an additional 40 have been
identified for future listing. The state has erected historical
markers on such sites, including a port facility and another
site containing a comprehensive sluice, wingdam, and trap
configuration. In addition, the Governor’s office has filed
quit claim deeds on the sites listed on the NRHP as added
protection to an area already legally owned by the state and
public as navigable bottoms.
Watercraft
When many people think of shipwrecks, they think
of those in the ocean or immediately offshore. In reality,
however, inland wrecks exist in the rivers, creeks, and lakes
throughout Georgia’s interior. Vessel form depends on several factors including the function of the vessel, the environment of the waterway in which the vessel operated, and
cultural choices made by the vessel builder and operator.
Archaeologist continue to study vessel typology in both historic and prehistoric watercraft to understand these issues
better (Alford 1989; Fleetwood 1995; Rahn 1968; and Kaea
Morris, Archaeologist, Personal Communication, October
1986). The earliest such watercraft includes Native American dugout canoes (Figure 19). There are at least three
known examples of such dugouts in Georgia. Research in
North Carolina and other southeastern states suggest that
many more probably exist. The 16,600 acre Lake Phelps, a
Carolina bay near North Carolina’s coast, contains 26 recorded dugout canoes and probably many more unrecorded
ones (Kaea Morris, Archaeologist, personal communication,
October 1986). The earliest of the Lake Phelps canoes dates
to 2400 B.C. (Phelps 1987). More than seven years ago,
Florida had already documented over 200 canoes (Fleetwood
1995:8). Dugouts were often sunk by Native Americans on
the edge of bays and river as a way of storing the vessels for
future use. Many remain in these locations even today
47
Chapter 5
Figure 18. Map of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers navigation improvements on the Chattahoochee River (USSS
1900:1393).
Figure 19. A sleek, dugout canoe crafted by
southeastern Indians (de
Bry after le Moyne in
Fundaburk 1957:54).
48
Chapter 5
(Phelps 1987, Fleetwood
1995:7). There are at least three
known dugout canoes in Georgia. It is likely that more have
been found and many more exist that have not been identified.
These three include a nineteenth
century one mentioned in C.C.
Jones, one found relatively recently on the Ocmulgee River,
and one from the Flint River purported to be in a museum in
Bainbridge.
The frequency of travel
and trade on Georgia’s rivers
and creeks during the eighteenth
century contribute to the num- Figure 20. Open, oar-powered boat used in colonial Georgia’s interior waterways
ber and variety of wrecks. Ca- (Seutter 1747).
noes, row boats, barges, ferries,
“colonial” sloops, piraguas, pole
boats, bateaus, flats, and galleys, were typical
modes of inland transport that have become
wreck sites in Georgia. These vessels shared
common attributes making them suitable for
inland waterways. They were generally shallow-draft, often flat bottom vessels that were
relatively easy to maneuver (Figure 20). They
were generally not powered by sail, which
would have been relatively useless in the confines of most of the narrow, tree-lined interior
waterways. Oars and poles were two common
methods of propulsion on many of these vessels (Figure 21). The boats transported people
and goods in varying amounts, from one person in a canoe to 50-60 bales of cotton or hogsheads of tobacco in pole boats.
Figure 21. Shallow draft, partially decked vessel used in transporting
Pole boats were common on certain trade goods 200 miles inland (Hvidt 1980:85).
stretches of inland rivers. In fact, the Petersburg boat is such a vessel named after the town of PetersIn 1992 archaeologists with SCIAA organized a
burg where it dominated river shipments of tobacco and later
group
of
individuals
and sponsors to work on the reconstruccotton. These extremely long and narrow vessel measured
tion
of
a
Petersburg
boat in Augusta, Georgia. Principals
on average 70 feet in length by a mere five feet wide (Hillyer
involved
in
the
project
included Mark Newell, George Barrett,
n.d.:147). These sturdy vessels navigated the shallow, shoaland
Rusty
Fleetwood.
Although no Petersburg boats have
ridden waters of the Broad River under the agile hands of
been
recovered
archaeologically
in Georgia, the group used
their crews (Figure 22). The crew, or dragoons, used poles
archival
documentation
to
produce
the lines and construct
to navigate and propel the vessel, particularly on its upstream
the
vessel
(Figure
23).
Numerous
secondary
sources about
voyage. An oar sweep was also useful in its navigation. In
Petersburg
boats
in
addition
to
primary
documents
were conspite of enormous weight loads of cotton bales or hogsheads,
sulted
and
are
summarized
in
Newell
et
al.
(1992).
The
project
the Petersburg boat remained a shallow draft vessel.
49
Chapter 5
was an outstanding success in a number of ways, including
research focus, community support, state wide and out-ofstate support, and historical focus. The boat was launched
amid massive fanfare and public attendance and has been on
several replica voyages downstream, each time being a wellpublicized orchestration. The vessel rests in its homeport in
the Augusta canal, where it serves as an educational display
and tourist attraction that complements the blossoming ecological and heritage tourism underway at the canal.
In 1779 a contingent of American forces were traveling to Savannah to defend the city from British invasion.
The troops relied heavily on watercraft to journey from Augusta to New Ebenezer, forty miles northwest of Savannah.
General Lincoln wrote,
“I ordered Colonel Zeuf, on the day before with
a party of men to reconnoiter the ground and provide boats to cross at Zubly’s [ferry]-left the boats
from Augusta should not arrive in time might that
they had found a small canoe, a rowing boat and
one flat which was sunk in the river one mile below Purisburgh, and that a party was sent to get
it up-but they returned without effecting it-a larger
party was sent, they also failed-the other boats
were brought up to the ferry...We crossed a party
of Count Pulaski’s Corps...I order’d the troops
to the ferry as the most proper place for them to
cross ordered a flat at the ferry, partly built, to be
finished and a raft made from the boards and timber of the buildings. The troops began to cross
in the morning, the raft sunk the first time the men
attempted to cross on it-we were then left with
one canoe...and a flat which was now finished...we
procured another large canoe from McCoy’s
Creek, which would carry 30 men...” (Allis 1967)
The nineteenth century saw a continuation of use
of the same sorts of vessels plying Georgia’s inland waterways. Changing technology, however, contributed the steamboat, which proved quite adaptable to inland rivers. A revised version of the poleboat, called a towboat, was developed to take advantage of the steamboat’s ability to pull such
vessels behind it upstream (Fleetwood 1995:96). In 1816
Savannah saw the first commercial steam-powered boat in
the state (Fleetwood 1995:93). The first half of the nineteenth century enjoyed chronic and widespread use of steamboats on most of the state’s major rivers. Numerous steamboat companies operated vessels on the Savannah, Ocmulgee,
and Chattahoochee rivers during this period. In spite of the
success of steamboats transporting passengers and products
up and downstream, the vessels often encountered difficul-
Figure 22. Poling a
Petersburg boat
(unattributed).
ties related to droughts and seasonally low water levels
creating navigation hazards, in addition to equipment problems, and boiler explosions (Figure 24).
Naval actions between Union and Confederate
forces and intentional scuttling of vessels during the Civil
War contributed to the number of wrecks in Georgia. The
gunboat CSS Chattahoochee was constructed from 18611863 in Columbus, with steam and sail capabilities and
smooth and rifle bored cannons. The vessel saw little service to the Confederacy since it experienced numerous problems, including damage to the hull from running aground
and more extensive damage from a boiler explosion (Turner
1988:239). Finally, the CSS Chattahoochee was scuttled by
Confederate troops to keep the vessel out of enemy hands.
Confederates towed the vessel down the Chattahoochee River
south of Columbus and set her ablaze and adrift, until she
ran aground 12-15 miles from the city at Race Pass (Turner
1988:234). Salvage investigations immediately following
the war indicated that the machinery on the Chattahoochee
remained viable and was worth recovering.
50
Chapter 5
Figure 23. Reconstructed lines of a Petersburg boat (Newell n.d.).
Figure 24.
The sinking steamboat,
Calhoun, c. 1910
(Mueller 1990:213).
51
Chapter 5
Another Confederate vessel claimed by the war in
or near Columbus was the ironclad, CSS Jackson. A Union
officer took the following measurements of the vessel when
documenting it for his military report: length, 250 ft, beam
45 ft, and a draft of 6.5-7 ft. The vessel contained two 7.5 ft
propellers, guns, and curved armor that extended below the
waterline (Turner 1988:236-7). The CSS Jackson had two
36-inch cylinder engines and four boilers to fuel them. The
CSS Jackson suffered more from the war. The vessel burned
more extensively and the iron on it was deemed of little account. The iron plating on board the Jackson amounted to
200 tons and officials determined this plating to be recoverable when the Chattahoochee River water was seasonally
low (Turner 1988:247).
maintained landings and operated vessels along the coastal
settlements. William Bartram noted crossing the Three Sisters public ferry on the Savannah River on his journey to
Charleston in 1776 (Harper 1998:195). Bartram even dined
at the ferry, suggesting that he either brought his meal with
him or purchased it at the landing. Bartram’s travels throughout colonial America took him to numerous other ferries in
Georgia. He went to Zubly’s on the Savannah River which
linked the town of New Ebenezer, Georgia with Purrysburg,
South Carolina. On the Altamaha River, Bartram visited the
Fort Barrington ferry that was operated by a Native American and his non-Native wife. Following colonial independence, entrepreneurs obtained ferry licenses from the state
legislature to operate.
Thirty-four wrecks have been recorded in the
GASF. These include named and unnamed vessels, barges,
and ferries. Figure 25 depicts the general locations of these
wrecks. Twenty-two, or almost 65 percent, are located in
coastal Chatham County. Many are in the Savannah River
harbor or inlets. The remaining 12 wrecks are dispersed
along the coast and randomly throughout the state. Of these
12, four are in coastal inlet areas, two are at or near
confluences of rivers, and the other six are mostly on main
tributaries to rivers. The coast claims an obvious bias in the
documentation of wrecks. Arguably, that area would contain more vessel traffic, naturally resulting in more wrecks.
The amount of development on the coast also triggers more
archaeology, producing more recorded wreck sites. The ratio between the number of wrecks on the coast and that of
interior Georgia, however, appears too great given the presence of so many navigable waterways in non-coastal parts
of the state. These areas include rivers and creeks, in addition to the older reservoirs likely to contain wrecks more
than fifty years old.
Ferries were powered in various ways. This included rowing, poling, or being pulled by ropes hitched to
horses or oxen on the shore. Figure 27 shows a close-up
photograph of an early twentieth-century Georgia ferry in
Elbert County which used a rope and pulley system.
Ferry Landings/Ferries
Ferry landings in early Georgia were almost as ubiquitous as bus stops are today. Figure 26 shows a map of
three settlements along the Savannah River, interconnected
by ferries and ferry landings. Ferries provided a short-cut to
travelers who might otherwise have to travel further upstream
in search of a narrower place to cross. They provided a means
of crossing when shoals were unavailable and bridges were
uncommon. Ferries enabled travelers to stay dry rather than
having to wade across a waterway on foot, horseback, coach,
or carriage. Ferries transported people, animals, non-motorized vehicles, and later automobiles.
Ferries came to Georgia with its founding, when
necessity met opportunity. Ferrymen in the colonial period
Bridges/Wharves/Docks/ Marine Railways/Boat
Yards
Bridge sites range from intact bridges to wooden,
stone, or iron footings. Constructed bridges appear to be a
non-Native American structure type and date as early as
Georgia’s colonial period. Wooden bridges were most common during this time and faced repeated repairs in the Georgia humid, hot, and termite-ridden environment. Bridges
became more numerous and more intricate during the nineteenth century. Many of them were constructed as covered
bridges (Figure 28). The roofs and sides of such bridges
helped keep the elements at bay, giving the bridges a longer
life expectancy. Covered bridges once graced many of the
waterways across Georgia. Watkins Mill State Park in
Oglethorpe County contains an example of an extant covered bridge. The stone footings of the nineteenth century
Dillingham Street Bridge are still visible in the Chattahoochee
River in Columbus, Georgia. Horace King, the famous African-American engineer and architect, constructed the original bridge linking Alabama and Georgia. Numerous
nineteenth century bridges were partially burned by both
sides during the Civil War. Confederate troops burned their
own bridges on the Chattahoochee River in Columbus in an
effort to slow the approach from Alabama of Wilson’s raiders. The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw
new materials used in bridges, including more extensive use
of metal. Bridge building continued to evolve during the
twentieth century to include new technologies in addition to
52
Chapter 5.
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
N
W
E
S
30
0
30
60 Kilometers
Figure 25. Recorded Wrecks in Georgia.
53
Chapter 5
Figure 26. Ferry crossings at Lisbon
and Petersburg, Georgia and Vienna,
South Carolina (Mills 1826:A).
Figure 27. Note the rope and pulley
system used to pull the ferry across the
river (Goff n.d.).
Figure 28. The nineteenth
century covered Dillingham
Bridge over the
Chattahoochee River,
linking Alabama and
Georgia (Wellge 1886).
54
Chapter 5
new materials. Increased
vessel traffic in many areas led to the construction
of taller spans to replace
drawbridges.
Wharves, docks,
and landings can provide
important data concerning
trade networks, types of
vessels utilized, and types
of goods imported and exported. The design of the
structures provides information concerning what
type of vessels were
docked there. Submerged
Figure 29. Steamboat landing and wharf in Columbus, Georgia (Wellge 1886).
artifacts located in and
near the structures provide information on vessel operations in addition to material and drawbridges, wharves, and boat landings. The largest
culture. For example, the steamboat landing near Fort Gaines concentration appears to be along the coast and particularly
utilized small carts with iron wheels to load and off-load the along the Savannah River there. This is not unexpected as
vessels. Sport divers reportedly brought up some of these such concentrations should occur in an area of numerous
from the river bottom during the 1970s (Frank Schnell, per- waterways. The remaining sites appear to be generally dissonal communication, June 20, 2002). Steamboat landings tributed throughout the state with a few minor concentracould be found at large cities and small towns during the tions in areas that have been investigated more than others,
nineteenth century (Figure 29). Artifacts around old land- such as the Etowah River and Ichawaynochaway Creek.
ings also provide information about material culture. For
example, artifact recovery around the Fort Argyle landing Canals
gives a glimpse of Georgia frontier life.
Canal construction in America reached epic proBoatyards were located throughout Georgia during portions in the first few decades of the nineteenth century.
the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries. Small, Even following the introduction of the railroad in the 1830s,
vernacular boat construction could occur anywhere there was canals continued to be used either solo or in tandem with
a small waterway. Boatyards for larger vessels and for ships railroad terminals. Speculators, financiers, and promoters
required a river channel deep enough to launch the vessel. of “progress” saw canals as a way to move goods from one
These locations were usually ports, either coastal or inland. locale not serviced my natural, navigable waters to another
Historical documentation indicates boatyards across Geor- such local. Canals also were seen as a method to speed the
gia, including Confederate shipyards in Early or Seminole transportation of goods along a direct route in lieu of the
counties. Savannah sported useful facilities for ship con- often more circuitous routes of rivers and streams. Canals
struction. Other inland ports, such as Columbus, were able were a way to get raw materials from the hinterland to the
to use riverine conditions to operate several boatyards. Ma- coast while sending other products on the return trip. Carine railways were a related site type. The terrestrial compo- nals serviced vessels towed by animals and steamboats pownents of one such site in Georgia have been studied by ar- ered by an engine. While the 1826 Erie Canal in New York
chaeologists (Babits and Barnes 1984). This one was lo- may be one of the most famous examples, Georgia expericated in the Savannah River on Hutchinson Island, near Sa- enced its own “canal fever”. The next section details four
vannah.
of Georgia’s main canals, including the Augusta Canal, the
Brunswick-Altamaha Canal, the Savannah-Ogeechee Canal,
A total of 135 bridges and structures have been re- and the Suwanee Canal. All were constructed in the ninecorded in the GASF (Figure 30). These include stationary teenth century and are described in greater detail below.
55
Chapter 5.
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
N
W
E
S
30
0
30
60 Kilometers
Figure 30. Bridge, Wharves, and Related Structures Recorded in Georgia.
56
$
Chapter 5
Augusta Canal
The year 1844 saw the birth of the Augusta Canal,
linking the Blue Sluice in the Savannah River east to Beaver Dam Creek. The canal was designed to provide better
access for cotton barges traveling east into the city, to provide water power for industry, and to give the residents of
the city enough water for drinking and fire-fighting. Irish
immigrants and enslaved African-Americans constructed
much of this canal under the auspices of the Augusta Canal
Company formed in 1845. Later, Chinese immigrants
worked on modifications and enlargement of the canal from
1872-1875 (City of Augusta 1994).
The canal evolved through time to keep pace with
changing market needs and advancing technology. Engineers had reported that the proposed six mile long canal had
a 52 foot fall (Cowie et al. 2000:16). Such a dramatic elevation difference in the Fall Line topography here created enormous potential for industry. It also required a series of locks
along the canal to raise the water levels to allow vessels to
navigate the falls. The canal was originally seven miles
long and five feet deep. This evolved to nine miles long and
seven feet deep, then 11 feet deep. By the last quarter of the
nineteenth century the canal measured 150 feet across from
shore to shore. The headgates, locks, dam, and other associated architecture also changed through time. The canal
still contains the original 1840s rubble abutment, cribwork
dam, headgates, and lock. Later modifications to this included construction of a swing gate lock (1874) rather than
an obstructive drop gate (1845), a wing dam (1852), a later
dam (1875), and a concrete abutment and retaining wall
(1930s). Other canal features include the towpath, drain
gates, headgates, lock keeper’s cottage, spring houses, and
the Lake Olmstead reservoir, dam and spillway (City of
Augusta 1994).
The canal is owned by the Augusta City Council
and operated by the Augusta Canal Authority. In 1977 the
canal and industrial district was listed as a National Historic
Landmark (NHL), with additions proposed to the district in
1992 (Cowie et al. 2000:22). The canal is promoted as a
heritage tourism attraction and a nature area conducive to
non-motorized boating, biking, hiking, picnicking, and bird
watching. A hike/bike trail, canoe landings, and parking
areas encourage public visitation, as do the interpretive selfguided tour brochure and location of the nearby Welcome
Center.
Limited archaeological investigation has been conducted on the Augusta Canal. Archaeological investigation
was pursued at the request of the Augusta Canal Authority,
who received federal funding to enhance the canal area as a
recreation facility. Southern Research conducted an archaeological reconnaissance in selected areas of the canal in 1999,
under the direction of Sarah Cowie (Cowie et al. 2000). This
reconnaissance used limited shovel testing, one excavation
unit, and backhoe excavation to examine selected areas adjacent to the canal. The reconnaissance recorded two new
sites in the project area which were recommended as ineligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). Both were located near the canal headgate area. A
prehistoric lithic scatter (9Cb588) was located near the area
where Reed Creek converges with the Savannah River. Site
9Cb587 was located in and around the parking and playground area of the Savannah Rapids Pavilion. It contained a
prehistoric lithic scatter and a historic artifact scatter that
had been heavily impacted by pavilion construction. Cowie
dated the historic component to the late nineteenth to early
twentieth centuries. A third site (9Cb589) includes the historic buildings, canal features and historic landscaping constituting part of the larger NHL district. Additional archaeological investigation was recommended for Site 9Cb589 prior
to the proposed recreation improvements (Cowie 2000:i).
Cowie noted that the discovery of a buried structural foundation on the bank of the canal illustrates the potential for
other similar buried resources and should be considered prior
to any land-altering activities.
Brunswick-Altamaha Canal
In 1836 developers began constructing a canal connecting the Brunswick harbor with the Altamaha River
(Robinson Fisher Associates 1980:3). The canal ran north
of the harbor for 12 miles through marshes and woods to
create an easily navigable route for shipping. In 1838 the
enslaved African-Americans and Irish laborers digging the
canal discovered fossil Megatherium, mastodon, and mammoth bones five miles south of Brunswick (Robinson Fisher
Associates 1980:21). The eminent geologist, Charles Lyell,
was notified of the find. Years of construction and financial
problems plagued the many companies who tried to make
the canal a successful venture throughout the nineteenth century. By 1918 John E. DuBignon sold the canal to Glynn
county (Robinson Fisher Associates 1980:24). By 1980 the
county was investigating ways to make the canal a recreation area.
Archaeological investigation of the canal in the
1980s led by Dean Wood of Southeastern Wildlife Services
(in collaboration with Robinson Fisher Associates) consisted
of archival review, surface examination, photography, and
57
Chapter 5
selected transit mapping. The survey documented two areas
of locks, a towpath, evidence that the canal may not have
been completely excavated originally, and two prehistoric
sites in the corridor (Robinson Fisher Associates 1980:5).
A cypress log lock and three of the canal’s four gates were
documented. Mapped cross sections of the canal indicate
that it was used as a refuse dump in the twentieth century
and that some areas showed evidence of looting for bottles.
Wood believed that any related docks or wharves may have
been destroyed by modern alterations to the Brunswick harbor. A map of the northern lock area depicts the northern
part of the canal, a lock, a rice gate, mill ruins, possible wharf
ruins, and dikes (Robinson Fisher Associates 1980:9). The
prehistoric archaeological site was located in Seldon Park
where Wood collected 10 simple stamped sherds and an
undiagnostic chert tool. Another site south of the park in
Greenwood cemetery consisted of five plain aboriginal
sherds. Both were recommended as offering little research
potential.
The study included a revisit to the Evelyn Site, a
prehistoric mound and village site bisected by the northern
end of the canal. It once included five mounds and an extensive village area. Preston Holder conducted some excavation on the site in 1938 which supported the hypothesis
that the Swift Creek phase came after the Deptford phase.
Researchers in 1980 made two surface collections of Woodland Period ceramics and noted that much of the site was
being destroyed by housing construction (Robinson Fisher
Associates 1980:12).
Savannah-Ogeechee Canal
Entrepreneurs and speculators finished constructing the Savannah-Ogeechee Canal in 1830, after four difficult
years of financial problems and intensive labor by Irish immigrants and slaves. Apparently a large Chinese labor force
also worked on the canal. The Chinese laborers constituted
an ethnic male community whose members intermarried with
African-American females (Garry Guan, Archaeologist, personal communication, May 1996). The canal extended 16
miles to connect the Savannah and Ogeechee rivers. The
canal’s six locks operated by the tidal flow of the Savannah,
Ogeechee, and Little Ogeechee rivers. Supporters expected
this canal to provide better access to Georgia’s interior while
encouraging trade to bypass Darien and Brunswick ports in
favor of Savannah. Speculators were vindicated when Savannah realized an increase in cotton, rice, and lumber trade
during the initial years of canal operation. This early success was followed by neglect and bankruptcy only six years
later.
New management spurred the revival of the canal
in the mid-nineteenth century when the waterway supported
the shipping of bricks, cotton, guano, lumber, naval stores,
and peaches (Savannah-Ogeechee Canal Society 1995). Civil
War damage was repaired and the canal operated until the
late nineteenth century when usage slowly declined. By 1916
at least one of the canal’s locks was abandoned. Lock Number 3, however, operated until at least the late 1920s, when
logs were transported to a saw mill near there from the
Ogeechee River (Savannah-Ogeechee Canal Society 1995).
Transhipment of goods on the canal resulted inevitably in
shipwrecks of damaged or derelict vessels.
The Chatham County Park System has reclaimed
the canal system of overgrowth and turned it into a linear
park that includes the canal, locks, paths, and an interpretive
museum. It “may be unique among nineteenth century transportation canals in that the entire original route of the canal
remains intact with minimal disturbance by road or other
construction” (Savannah-Ogeechee Canal Society 1995).
The park offers hiking, canoeing, nature trails, and picnic
facilities.
The Suwannee Canal
The Suwanee Canal was an environmentally disastrous attempt by loggers in the 1890s to float cypress timber
to market via a canal and the draining of the Okefenokee
Swamp (Hodler and Schretter 1986:24). Other, smaller logging canals criss-cross the swamp in attempts to provide links
between rivers. There appears to have been no archaeological investigations of the area. It is likely, however, that the
canal harbors archaeological evidence concerning it’s construction and use.
Mills
Mills were once ubiquitous across Georgia’s landscape as residents harnessed water power for a variety of
milling processes including grist mills, saw mills, rope mills,
stamp mills, and textile mills. Mills date to colonial period
settlement. Figure 31 shows a colonial Salzburger mill on
Ebenezer Creek, in Effingham County (Effingham County
Superior Court 1860). Many mills function most efficiently
by passing water over a drop in ground surface elevation.
Some mills, depending on the technology employed, were
able to function in a very flat creek. Such was the case of the
mill on Ebenezer Creek. The description explains the letter
designations to the viewer. They are translated as follows:
“A. The mill-stream which is an arm of the Savannah River.
58
Chapter 5
B. The first flour-mill and pulp mill for rending with
seven crushers. The mills have their own waterwheels and are made to go by certain locks and
plankboards according to the miller’s order, or they
can be made to stand still.
C. The flour mill which operates in average and
low water of the stream, the other flour mill and
pulp mill grind and pulp in low and high water.
D. The large lock of the canal drains off the super
fluous water.
E. A trough to the saw-mill six inches wide accord
ing to the width or breadth of the water mill.
F. The saw-mill which just uses as much water as
the first flour-mill and with two saws works unusu
ally well.
G. A long and very strong bridge consisting of long
and thick embedded stakes of spruce wood, four
cornered pieces and long coniferous trees layed in
four rows from the high-land up into the floor of
the saw-mill so that many relays of wood can be
brought quite easily to the saws.
H. On all high and low ground there are comfort
able paths and streets going into the spruce forest,
and on both sides of the two millers’ living quar
ters are gardens and fields.
I. A suitable place for another sawmill has not here
been clearly enough stated, the sawmill could be
built in good time with moderate costs, and pres
ently would yield good production.
K. A piece of land of approximately two measures
(of land) (local variation from 0.6 to 0.9 acres)
which lies very comfortably, Planks and other pieces
of said wood will be floated down the river if there
is an opportunity to do this.” (Seutter 1747).
Small colonial saw mills could produce up to 1,500
board feet of lumber a day (Fleetwood 1995:65). Figure 32
shows the extant remains of a eighteenth century mill in the
Ebenezer Mill District in Effingham County.
Many of Georgia’s mills contain extant structures
and landscape alterations. Such items include mill foundations, turbine pits, dams of various types, raceways, ponds,
and locks (Figure 33). A variety of mill technology was
used in Georgia in order to suit characteristics of specific
environments including stream or river flow rates, surface
gradient, bank topography, availability of rock, availability
of wood, and proximity to crossroads or communities. Dams
were often rebuilt or repaired through the years, particularly
after damage from major flooding episodes. Dam rebuilding could include constructing another new dam downstream
from the old dam. This was the case of the dam at Columbus’ first grist mill, City Mills. Both dams are still visible
today (Frank Schnell, personal communication, June 20,
2002).
Figure 31. Eighteenth century drawing of a German mill in Effingham County, Georgia (Seutter 1747).
59
Chapter 5
Figure 32.
Structural
remains of a mill
on Mill Creek in
Effingham
County.
Figure 33. Archaeological map of
mill dam, timbers,
and raceway in
Baker County,
Georgia (Elliott
2001).
60
Chapter 5
Several archaeological and
historical studies have been conducted
on mills in Georgia. The following are
just a few selected examples.
Several investigations examined numerous mills within a small geographical area and may provide data
useful for studying mill communities as
a thematic topic rather than examining
mills on an individual basis. These studies involved community grist, flour, saw
mills and gins rather than textile mills.
Figure 34 is a photograph of a grist mill
on the Chattahoochee River in
Muscogee County.
Several studies have documented through archival research, archaeological investigation, and detailed Figure 34. Grist mill in Columbus, Georgia, originally constructed in 1828.
scale drawings, the many mills and mill
sites at Fort Gordon in Richmond County (Braley and used heavy machinery to excavate around the mill structure
Froeschauer 1991, Reed et al. 1994). The ages of mills ranged (Cowie 2000).
from late eighteenth century to the mid-twentieth century.
The impetus for examination of one mill was pending conArchaeologists also have studied textile mills as well
struction. The other mills were studied after 1990 flooding as grist and saw mills. In fact, a significant number of grist
breached many of the mill dams and required their recon- mills were adapted to textile milling, and/or other industries,
struction. Archaeological investigations as part of the Ri- such as rope and paper milling. These adaptations usually
chard B. Russell Dam and Lake Project examined seven mill occurred on relatively large creeks and rivers rather than the
sites on the Savannah River. Five of the mills were located smaller tributaries that often supported community grist mills.
in Elbert County and the remaining two were in South Caro- Textile mills in Georgia are most often affiliated with large
lina (Newman 1984). Four mills on the Oconee River were cities, particularly the Fall Line cities of Augusta, Macon,
examined archaeologically in 1978 and 1979 during the and Columbus.
Wallace Reservoir project. These excavations were summarized in preliminary reports (Bartovics 1979, Bartovics
Examples of industrial archaeology on textile mills
and Council 1979, Council 1978, and Council 1979), a con- are as follows. Archaeologists mapped Little River Mill in
ference paper (Bartovics and Council 1978), and a Master 1986 during the shoreline survey of Allatoona Lake
of Arts thesis (Wood 1983). Additional documentary re- (Ledbetter et al. 1987). Archaeologists visited the NRHPsearch on these four sites was conducted later by Wood eligible site later to photograph and document it in the face
(1992). The mills were located in Morgan, Greene, and of possible impacts from the establishment of a nearby sewer
Putnam counties and the remains of the sites are now inun- line (Wood and Gresham 1993). The drawings were made
dated by Lake Oconee.
at a Historic American Buildings Survey level of documentation. In another project, archaeologists studied the ConOther archaeological and historical studies have ex- cord Woolen Mill on Nickajack Creek in Cobb County as
amined community mills on an individual basis. Research part of a preservation study to understand the mill and to
at West Point Lake examined a mill in Troup County contribute to its development of a heritage park and inter(Espenshade and Gardner 1989). The Eelbeck Mill in pretive center (Ledbetter 1996). Archaeologists directed
Chattahoochee County is located on a tributary of the excavations and conducted archival work on this mill prior
Chattahoochee River and was studied from 1988-1991 to stabilization efforts on the walls of the main mill and a
(Smith 1992) for NRHP assessment. Additional examina- secondary building. Yet another mill study examined a
tion of Eelbeck occurred in in 2000 when archaeologists woolen and cotton mill located in Fulton County. ArchaeGeorgia’s Inland Waters
61
Chapter 5
ologists conducted survey and archival research on the ruins of the mid-nineteenth to early twentieth century Ivy/Laurel Mill in advance of a highway widening project. The
mill is located on a tributary of the Chattahoochee River
(Braley 1992). Just upstream from the Ivy/Laurel Mill on
Vickery Creek stands the cotton mill of the Roswell Manufacturing Company. Archaeologists conducted archival research, survey, and testing on this site in 1989 and 1990
(Wood 1989, 1991). The number of mills once in existence and their locations throughout the state have made a
comprehensive archaeological inventory of them a daunting task, and no such statewide-effort has been made to date.
Figure 35 shows locations of recorded mill sites in
Georgia based on the GASF. There are a total of 311 mills
or mill remnants (dams, raceways, mill ponds, etc.) recorded.
They represent grist, flour, saw, and textile mills. Some of
these mill sites are multi-component sites containing fish
traps, bridges, or other site type features. Very few mills
are located in the Coastal Plain; the majority fall in the Sand
Hills area just south of the Fall Line. This majority are split
between the mills of Fort Gordon Army Reservation in Richmond County and the mills recorded on Fort Benning Army
Reservation in Chattahoochee County. The high percentage of mills in these areas reflects the conducive nature of
the Sand Hills to efficient mill operation and also the intensive level of archaeological investigation conducted there.
Of the remaining mills in the Coastal Plain, approximately
25 are located on secondary or tertiary tributaries to major
rivers. Approximately eight other mills are located on primary tributaries to rivers and nine mills are located on main
rivers. Most of the recorded mills in the state are located in
the Piedmont, with some in the Ridge and Valley/Mountain
areas. The mills in the northern half of the state appear to
be distributed relatively evenly between primary, secondary, and tertiary tributaries and main rivers.
In addition to grist mills, a number of other mills
still utilize water power as a supplement to other power
sources. Saw mills, rope mills, paper mills, and textile mills
initially used water as a power source. The King Mill in
Augusta is an example of an operating textile mill from the
late nineteenth century. This 1882 textile mill uses water
from the Augusta Canal as part of its energy source (City of
Augusta 1994). Bibb Mills in Porterdale, Georgia had intact 1840s water-powered machinery in place as late as the
1970s (Daniel Elliott, Archaeologist, personal communication, June 16, 2002).
Concentrations of mills existed along the state’s
Fall Line, where the topography created numerous falls along
streams and major rivers that were harnessed by an assortment of milling industries. Examples of such mill concen-
trations are readily seen in the fall line cities of Augusta,
Columbus, and Macon. The Savannah River in Augusta,
the Chattahoochee River in Columbus, and the Ocmulgee
River in Macon supplied inexhaustible amounts of water
cascading downstream across the Fall Line and into the
Coastal Plain.
Columbus, like many other industrial mill towns,
was dubbed the “Lowell” of the south. Columbus’ first
mill, City Mills, was a grist mill constructed when the town
was established in 1828. Numerous other mills sprung up
along the town’s stretch of the Chattahoochee River. Textile mills dominated, but grist, saw, rope, and paper mills
also harnessed the river at this Fall Line city.
Many of Augusta’s mills were located on the Augusta Canal, which channeled water from the Savannah
River and flowed parallel to it. The canal provided water
power for numerous mills in Augusta, including: Silk Mill,
Sibley Cotton Mill (1881), King Textile Mill (1882), Enterprise Textile Mill (1877), Granite Flour Mill (1848),
Sutherland Mill (originally Dartmouth Spinning Mill),
Globe Mill (1876-1878, 1880), and Southern Milling Company [originally Crescent Grain Mill (1874)] (City of Augusta 1994).
The city of Macon also housed mills. A few examples listed here included downtown mills. The Macon
Manufacturing Company operated a mill there until 1878
when the Bibb Manufacturing Company purchased the mill
from the Macon Manufacturing Company. Payne Mill
was another textile mill operating in Macon in the late1890s
(Maurer 1995:41).
Changing technologies led to the demise of mills
in exchange for steam and electric powered machinery. In
spite of this, however, there remain a number of mills in
Georgia that have been preserved and continue to operate
as examples of an earlier way of life. Most of the mills
open to the public are grist mills. Some examples are:
Fielder’s Grist Mill in Junction City, John’s Mill in Hinton,
Jordan Mill in Sandersville, Nora Mill in Helen, Prater’s
Mill in Dalton, Skeenah Creek Mill in Suches, Sylvan Falls
Mill in Rabun Gap, and Tabb’s Mill in Arlington (Society
for the Preservation of Old Mills n.d.). Table 3 lists a more
comprehensive inventory of extant mills in the state; however, it is by no means complete.
Other Locks and Dams
Many locks and dams are related to milling or
canal operations. Some, however, function solely to assist
navigation on natural waterways such as creeks and riv-
62
Chapter 5.
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$ $$ $
$
$$$ $
$$$
$$
$ $$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $
$ $$
$
$$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$ $
$
$
$$
$
$$
$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$$ $
$$
$
$$
$
$ $
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$ $
$
$$
$
$ $ $ $
$ $
$ $
$$
$
$
$
$ $
$
$
$$ $ $
$
$
$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$$
$$
$
$ $
$
$
$ $$$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$$ $
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$$
$$ $$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
N
W
E
S
30
0
30
60 Kilometers
Figure 35. Location of Recorded Mill Sites in Georgia.
63
Chapter 5
Table 4. Selected Mills in Georgia.
Mill Name
Tabbs Mill
O'Quins Mill
Cantrell's Mill
Aubrey Mill
Casey's Mill
Jones Mill
Mosteller's Mill
Avery's Mill
Ray's Mill
Akins Mill
Cypress Lake Mill
Davis Mill
Groover's Mill
Hall's Mill
Mc Cullough Mill
Miller's Mill
Banning Mill
Dowdy's Mill
Cresham's Mill
Harrison's Mill
Rex Mill
County
Baker
Baldwin
Banks
Bartow
Bartow
Bartow
Bartow
Berrien
Berrien
Bulloch
Bulloch
Bulloch
Bulloch
Burke
Burke
Burke
Carroll
Cherokee
Cherokee
Clay
Clayton
Powered By
Turbine
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Unknown
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Unknown
Unknown
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Perkerson's Mill
Ruff's Mill
Mimms Mill
Cobb
Cobb
Colquitt
Unknown
Unknown
Turbine
Elder Mill
Maple Creek Mill
Sewell Mill
Wager's Mill
Becham's Mill
Landrum Mill
Houston Mill
Sweetwater Mill
Mill Place Mill
Georgia's 1st Wheel
Durden's Mill
McKinney's Mill
Parrish Pond Mill
Skeenah Creek Mill
Starr Mill
Williams Mill
Berry College Mill
Lindale Mill
Burruss Mill
Pool's Mill Site
Dew's Mill
Yarborough's Mill
Coweta
Coweta
Coweta
Coweta
Crawford
Dawson
De Kalb
Douglas
Early
Effingham
Emanuel
Emanuel
Emanuel
Fannin
Fayette
Fayette
Floyd
Floyd
Forsyth
Forsyth
Gordon
Gordon
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Pitchback Wheel
Turbine
Turbine
Unknown
Turbine
Breast Wheel
Overshot Wheel
Unknown
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Overshot Wheel
Overshot Wheel
Overshot Wheel/later Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
64
Waterway
Mill Creek
Town Creek
Ragsdale Creek
Pettit Creek
Unknown
Pettit Creek
Cedar Creek
Ten Mile Creek
Ray's Mill Pond
Mill Creek
Lott Creek
Spring Creek
Mill Creek
Buckhead Creek
Unknown
Miller Pond
Snake Creek
Sharp Mountain Creek
Unknown
Kolomoki Creek
Little Cotton Indian
Creek
Sweetwater Creek
Nickajack Creek
Little Ochlockonee
River
Little White Oak Creek
Maple Creek
Bear Creek
Wahoo Creek
Beaver Creek
Etowah River
Peachtree Creek
Sweetwater Creek
Bragsworth Creek
Ebenezer Creek
Canoochee Creek
Ogeechee River
Fifteen Mile Creek
Skeenah Creek
Whitewater Creek
Whitewater Creek
Unknown
Silver Creek
Six Mile Creek
Settendown Creek
Salacoa Creek
Pine Log Creek
Chapter 5
Table 4, continued . . .
Mill Name
Swann's Mill
Amy's Creek Mill
Arrendale's Mill
Grandpa Watts Mill
Mauldin Mill Ruin
Perdue's Mill
Short's Mill
Sutton's Mill
Healan's Mill
McDonald's Mill
Tanner's Mill
Millmore Mill
Ogeechee River Mill
Spearman's Mill
West Mill
Butt's Mill
Eelbeck Mill
Gaines Mill
Mouldens Mill
Miller's Mill
Sells Mill
Clarke's Mill
Hartley's Mill
Kelly's Mill
Stapleton Mill
Chew Mill
Chappell Mill
Gold Hills Crusher
Arrington's Mill
Hobbs Mill
Bentley's Mill
Bray's Mill
Brooks Mill
Butler's Mill
English Mill
Underwood Mill
Anderson's Mill
Mason's Mill
Roger's Mill
Seagraves Mill
Britten's Mill
Hall's Mill
Jones Mill
Maffett's Mill
Parkman Mill
County
Gwinnett
Habersham
Habersham
Habersham
Habersham
Habersham
Habersham
Habersham
Hall
Hall
Hall
Hancock
Hancock
Haralson
Haralson
Harris
Harris
Hart
Hart
Henry
Jackson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jenkins
Laurens
Lumpkin
Mc Duffie
Mc Duffie
Macon
Macon
Macon
Macon
Macon
Macon
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Meriwether
Meriwether
Meriwether
Meriwether
Meriwether
Powered By
Pitchback Wheel
Unknown
Turbine
Turbine
Unknown
Overshot Wheel
Overshot Wheel
Overshot Wheel
Overshot Wheel
Electric & Small Overshot Wheel
Pitchback Wheel
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine, Wooden
Overshot Wheel/later Engine
Turbine, Wooden
Turbine/later Engine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Waterway
Alcovy River
Amy's Creek
Unknown
Soquee River
Mauldin's Mill Creek
Unknown
Hazel Creek
Sutton Mill Creek
North Oconee River
None
Walnut River
Shoulderbone Creek
Ogeechee River
Tallapoosa River
Bush Creek
Turkey Creek
Mulberry Creek
Little Coldwater Creek
Shoal Creek
Big Cotton Indian Creek
Indian Creek
DuHart Creek
Unknown
Big Creek
DuHart Creek
Chew Mill Creek
Chappell's Creek
Unknown
Fort Creek
Sweetwater Creek
Piney Creek
Unknown
Sand Creek
Unknown
Unknown
Toteover Creek
Broad River
Mason's Mill Creek
Broad River
Unknown
Britten's Creek
Crawford Creek
Redoak Creek
Jarrell Branch
Unknown
65
Chapter 5
Mill Name
Juliette Mill
Stuart's Mill
Coffey's Mill
Dennis Mill
Gregory Mill
Rodgers Mill
City Mills
Henderson Mill
Crawford's Mill
Elder's Mill
Watson's Mill
Ogle's Mill
John's Mill
Cochran's Mill
Benedict's Mill
Sutton's Mill
Barkers Creek Mill
Danyel Mill
Dickerson Mill
Sylvan Falls Mill
Aycock's Mill
Goff's Mill
Merritt's Mill
Phillips Mill
Hancock Mill
Rhodes Mill
Dial Mill
Hill's Mill
Roger's Mill
Robbins Mill
Blanton's Mill
Steele's Mill
Mc Galliard Mill
Andersonville Mill
Brown's Mills
Thomas Mill
Young's Mill
Eelbeck Mill
Fielder's Mill
Jones Mill
Suggs Mill
Watson's Mill
Clarks Mill
Whiddon Mill
County
Monroe
Monroe
Murray
Murray
Murray
Murray
Muscogee
Newton
Oconee
Oconee
Oglethorpe
Pickens
Pickens
Polk
Polk
Polk
Rabun
Rabun
Rabun
Rabun
Randolph
Randolph
Randolph
Randolph
Richmond
Richmond
Rockdale
Schley
Schley
Screven
Spalding
Spalding
Stephens
Sumter
Sumter
Sumter
Sumter
Talbot
Talbot
Tattnall
Taylor
Taylor
Terrell
Tift
Powered By
Turbine
Turbine
Unknown
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Unknown
Turbine Generates Own Electricity
Unknown
Overshot Wheel
Overshot Wheel
Unknown
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Overshot Wheel
Overshot Wheel
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Unknown
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
66
Waterway
Ocmulgee River
Tobasofkee Creek
Sumac Creek
Unknown
Conasauga River
Holly Creek
Chattahoochee River
Alcovy River
Porter's Creek
Rose Creek
Broad River
Sharp Mountain Creek
Scarecorn Creek
Euharlee Creek
Unknown
Cedar Creek
Barker's Creek
Unknown
Keener Creek
Waterfall/Sylvan Lake
Pruitt Creek
Unknown
Unknown
Deer Creek
Little Spirit Creek
Grindstone Branch
Little Haynes Creek
Coon Creek
Cedar Creek
Unknown
Flat Creek
Towaliga River
Easanolle Creek
Unknown
Mill pond
Pessell Creek
Chactahatchee Creek
Juniper Creek
Unknown
Battle Creek
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Whiddon Mill Creek
Chapter 5
Mill Name
Alexander's Mill
Ole Corn Mill
Pete Peeble's Mill
Myrick Mill
Little's Mill
Tate's Mill
Mc Donald's Mill
Potato Creek Mill
Yatesville Mill
Lee & Gordon Mill
Peeler's Mill
Snow's Mill
Burgamy Mill
Hamburg Mill
Jordon Mill
Lewis's Mill
Davenport Mill
Adair Mill
Blue Creek Mill
Callis Mill
Nora Mill
Prater's Mill
County
Towns
Towns
Towns
Twiggs
Union
Union
Upson
Upson
Upson
Walker
Walker
Walton
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Webster
White
White
White
White
Whitfield
Powered By
Overshot Wheel
Overshot Wheel
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Pitchback Wheel
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Overshot Wheel
Turbine
Turbine
Waterway
Crooked Creek
Unknown
Owl Creek
Unknown
Butler Creek
Moccasin Creek
Ten Mile Creek
Potato Creek
Tobler Creek
West Chicamauga Creek
Rock Creek tributary
Apalachee River
Floyd's Creek
Little Ogeechee River
Swamp Creek
Unknown
Long Branch
Town Creek
Blue Creek
Mossy Creek
Chattahoochee River
Coahulla Creek
Source: List of Old Mills of Georgia, Society for the Preservation of Old Mills, “Georgia. Mills”
Vertical File, University of Georgia Libraries, Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library,
Athens.
67
Chapter 5
ers. These locks and dams facilitate trade through the transportation of goods, services, and people. One example is
the lock and dam series located on the Coosa River approximately eight miles southwest of Rome, Georgia. Barge and
steamboat traffic encountered problems navigating the shallow, shoal-laden waters and crooked bends of this part of
the Coosa during the mid-nineteenth century (Rome-Floyd
Parks and Recreation Authority n.d.) In response, the United
States government answered petitions by Georgians and
Alabamians to modify the river to allow for easier navigation. From 1880-1913, a series of six locks and dams were
constructed. One of these, the Mayo Bar Dam (1913) consists of a stone filled crib and a poured concrete lock having
a nine foot lift. The lock measures 210 x 40 feet with steel
gates that operated manually until 1941 (Rome-Floyd Parks
and Recreation Authority n.d.). The property changed hands
several times beginning in 1962 when the USACOE leased
it to Floyd County for twenty years. In 1982 the Floyd
County Public Works Department surrendered management
of it to the Rome-Floyd Parks and Recreation Authority. This
entity has worked to improve the site as a park and recreation area by securing grants through the federal government and through foundations. The Lock and Dam Park is
listed on the NRHP. Archaeological investigation of the area
identified an associated wharf and a limestone quarry (RomeFloyd Parks and Recreation Authority n.d.).
Other navigational structures include smaller dams,
dykes and embankments, or a series of such structures in
various combinations. The swamps around Augusta, Georgia contained such structures in 1892. Property owners
pleased with the price of land, but distressed over major flooding episodes tried in vain to construct a series of dams and
dikes to keep the Savannah River and nearby tributaries from
flooding their property. An engineer hired by Augusta described these structures in 1892. “...The owners of the Augusta swamp lands have erected numerous dykes or dams,
or embankments. These form a continuous line, say from
the junction of Lover’s Lane...to J.B. Campbells... (Phillips
1892:6). Phillips goes on to say that those parties “...interested in the protection of their swamp lands, did not go far
enough when their efforts ceased at the termination of
Campbell’s Dam (Phillips 1892:7).
Historical documents also mention other types of
dams. Judge Junius Hillyer mentions in his memoirs from
the nineteenth century that his father constructed a lock on
their mill dam. The lock allowed river vessels to pass downstream rather than being obstructed by the dam (Hillyer n.d.)
Other Riverine-Related Industries
Other industry located along the Augusta Canal and
operated by its water power included the Confederate States
Powder Works (1862-1865), Power Station for Augusta’s
former streetcar network, Georgia Iron Works Pattern Shop,
Confederate Pistol Factory, American Foundry, Lombard
Iron Works, Augusta Iron and Steel Works, and the Raw
Water Pumping Station (1899) (City of Augusta 1994).
Columbus was another Fall Line, hinterland
riverport city with industry along her riverbanks (Figure 36).
The Columbus Iron Works and the Columbus Navy Yard
were two of the principle industries other than textile, grist,
and saw mills, located on the eastern bank of the
Chattahoochee River. The Columbus Iron Works saw heightened activity during the Civil War, when it increased production of war goods such as steam engines and iron plating
for vessels for the Confederacy. Union attack of the city led
to the destruction of much of the iron works operation. The
iron works was reconstructed following the war and began
producing materials to help the war-ravaged south rebuild.
These materials included various types of machinery for
cotton gins, mills, railroads, and steamboats, iron or brass
castings, steam boilers, and worked sheet iron. The Columbus Navy Yard included a machine shop complete with furnace and large tools, a brass foundry, a blacksmith shop and
tools, and a boat-building house (Turner 1988:236, 249).
Portions of the Columbus waterfront were surveyed by Southeastern Archeological Services for evidence of industries
wharves, and other water-related activities (Wood 1993).
Submerged Timbers
Accounts of sending logs downstream begin during Georgia’s colonial period. In 1776, William Bartram
observed a group of enslaved African-Americans felling
massive trees as they sang to the rhythm of the axes. He
described the scene as follows:
“The logs being dragged by timber
wheels to this yard, and landed as near the brink
of this high [70 foot] bank as possible
with safety, and laid by the side of each other are
rolled off and precipitated down the bank into the
river, where being formed into rafts, they are con
ducted by slaves down to Savanna, about fifty miles
below this place” (Harper 1998:198).
68
Chapter 5
Riverine corridors in areas heavily used in the past by the
lumber and turpentine industry
contain an inordinately large number of old growth submerged logs
contrasted with other areas of
Georgia. Studies suggest that a 14
mile segment of a tributary of the
Flint River is likely to contain a
minimum of 220 old growth logs
(John McGuire, personal communication, September 11, 2000).
The popularity in the use of old
growth timber and the resulting
retrieval of it from Georgia waterways prompted the Archaeological Services Unit of the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources
to draft survey recommendations
regarding such timber (Shirk
2000).
One potential way old
growth logs may be able to expand
Figure 36. Dams along the Chattahoochee River supplied water power to numerour knowledge about the past is
ous mills and factories in Columbus (Wellge 1886).
through dendrochronology. Recent tree-ring studies on various
tree species such as pine (loblolly, shortleaf, and long leaf),
oak (white and post), and eastern red cedar, eastern hem- deeds occasionally contain useful tidbits such as locations
lock, red spruce, and bald cypress have enabled scientists to of mills, dams, ferries, and other water-related items (Figure
begin to recreate the climatic conditions for over 12,000 years 37). Unusual maps, such as those not typical of a series (like
ago. It would seem possible that similar studies may be able postal route maps) sometimes contain useful information.
to produce micro-climatic conditions for the more recent pre- For example a “Map of a Part of the Gold Region of Lumpkin
historic and even historic past at a time when such records County, Georgia Along the Chestatee River” (Blake 1858)
were not maintained. Scientists use “subfossil logs” and liv- shows the location of the probable course of an aqueduct for
ing trees to cross-date the specimens and produce a tree ring gold mining, in addition to one ford and thirteen fords or
record that can assist in assessing Paleoclimatic characteris- bridges.
tics. This work is summarized in Anderson (1994:277).
There are many other primary documents that can
provide useful information regarding underwater sites. For
Sites Located Through Historical Documenta- instance, eighteenth and nineteenth century newspapers oction
casionally contain advertisements regarding mills and vessels (Figure 38). Land deeds, as well as plats, can describe
Submerged and/or water-related sites often can be locations of fishweirs, boat landings, mills or other struclocated in primary documents. One primary source useful tures. Records can include land grants, land lotteries, and
for locating sites is maps. Engineers in the War Department land deeds. Letters and journals can give detailed informa(now the USACOE) submitted annual reports, sketches, maps tion about specific sites and how they were used. Sketches
and profile drawings of modifications they undertook to and notes, such as those of William Bartram, DeBry’s copper
various rivers in Georgia. These maps show wrecks, dams, engravings based on Jacques le Moyne’s paintings, Philip
and other navigational hazards or improvements. Other pri- Von Reck, and many others can be instrumental in providmary maps include plats. These graphic representations of ing a view of riverine related sites. Likewise, photographs,
69
Chapter 5
Figure 37. This nineteenth century
plat depicts a dam, pond, and mill
house (Effingham County Superior
Court, Deed Book D: 461).
Millhouse
such as the John Goff collection at the Georgia Department
of Archives and History, or the photographic collections at
the University of Georgia Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Collection, can present pictures of more intact sites
than exist today.
Some secondary documents offer specific information about vessels. Back issues of the out-of-print journals,
such as the Egregious Steamboat Journal and the North
Georgia Journal have some data and articles about wrecks.
Books about boat construction and related topics (Fleetwood
1995), and steamboat wrecks (Mueller 1990) offer pertinent details relating to submerged sites in Georgia. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
has a list of wrecks along the nation’s coastline.
ment items such as houses, buildings, roads, and other cultural features. These TVA maps may provide useful information concerning site locations for historical archaeological sites, both now and in the more distant future. The maps
also allow researchers to look at now-submerged landforms
to predict and locate areas that may be likely to contain Native American sites.
The USACOE holds numerous pre-impoundment
maps and possibly some aerial photographs. The USGS and
the USDA (Soil Conservation Service) maintain aerial photographs in their records that date between the 1930s-1960s
and later. These aerials show locations that were later
flooded.
Other secondary documents serve as useful indicators of submerged site locations. Maps and aerial photographs of reservoir areas are especially useful in this domain. The TVA, USACOE, U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
and the USDA (Soil Conservation Service) have produced
such documents and hold copies in their records.
The TVA holds prints of underwater contour maps
of their reservoirs (TVA 2002). These include pre-impoundment 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles depicting the outline of the reservoir pool. Other editions of these maps held
by the TVA show photo-revisions that superimpose the reservoir pool outline over features. The TVA also has detailed flowage topographic maps. Some of these were made
from original land acquisition maps and depict pre-impound-
Figure 38. This newspaper advertisement provides some
details about an 1866 mill in Baldwin County, Georgia
(Southern Recorder 1866).
70
Chapter 6. Challenges
and Opportunities
While Georgia has an extensive resource base of
submerged cultural sites, there are a significant number of
challenges in recording, interpreting, protecting and managing these resources. Each needs to be recognized and addressed if the state is to be a wise steward of her citizen’s
collective heritage. The challenges are outlined below and
recommendations follow in Chapter 7.
inundated during a rainy year. Currently, it is difficult to
distinguish between them. This is especially true for sites
such as prehistoric lithic scatters or even Woodland villages
which, unlike a mill or steamboat, would have no indicators
that they are water-related sites. Likewise, 193 sites in Lake
Seminole fared the same. Obviously, there would be the
same problem with sites in the remaining reservoirs.
RECORDING
Perhaps the only way to determine the number of
recorded sites that lie submerged beneath reservoirs is to
examine topographic maps and site forms, look at the site’s
elevation in relation to the flood pool elevation of each reservoir. This is not the most efficient way to study submerged
sites in Georgia, particularly if it is a process that must be
repeated. If it was done once, however, and then put into a
submerged sites subset database, it would be time well-spent.
THE
RESOURCE BASE
Prudent stewardship requires understanding the resource base. This understanding must include the extent of
the resources geographically, chronologically, and culturally. To do this requires an accurate database that can be
queried easily in ways useful to research involving submerged sites. The current state of the data is difficult, at best,
to use and derive accurate results. A seemingly simple task
of “finding all the recorded underwater sites in Georgia”
quickly becomes bogged down in the reality of how sites are
recorded.
Southern Research Lab Director, Debra Wells, created a data subset of the electronic GASF data for this report. The expectation was that it would include, if not all, at
least the vast majority of submerged sites in Georgia. This
subset included all sites in the GASF coded in one of the
following ways: “submerged”, “underwater”, or “flooded”
in the preservation columns, or “weir”, “bridge”, “mill”, “mill
dam”, or “vessel” in the site type category. The “flooded”
category was added when it was realized that reservoir sites
were listed in this manner. Later data manipulation, however, revealed that there were many reservoir sites that had
not been listed as “flooded” when archaeologists recorded
the site on the state site form. Nor were the sites listed in
any of the other categories of the subset. For example, the
214 sites in Lake Blackshear were not coded on the site form
in any manner that would indicate that they had been or would
become inundated. Some sites may lie on the edge of the
water. Others may be dry or dry only during droughts, but
Another problem inherent in the data is one that
impacts both terrestrial and submerged sites. That problem
involves the quality and level of site recording and reporting
by archaeologists. Much of the archaeology in Georgia in
the 1940s-1960s, and even into the 1970s reveals a lack of
adequate recordation of sites by the supposedly professional
archaeological community. This problem was compounded
by the lack of a fully funded and professionally managed
site file. Fortunately, this latter issue has been resolved as
Site File Director Mark Williams continues to make the
GASF an increasingly important and useful tool.
A secondary problem involves biases in site recording. Many submerged sites are not viewed in archaeological terms by members of the public or even by some members of the archaeological community. Frequently terrestrial archaeologists do not record submerged or partially submerged sites in their study areas because they are not in the
habit of examining these environments for resources (such
as creek banks) or they lack the training and/or equipment
to do so (such as in rivers). Cultural resource management
project areas containing aquatic environments are usually
considered surveyed upon completion of a report, whether
71
Chapter 6.
or not the aquatic portions have been examined for resources.
Biases in recording submerged sites also occur because of
lack of trained underwater archaeologists in Georgia on any
level, whether non-profit, private, state, or federal. Less than
one percent of the archaeologists in Georgia have had any
training in underwater archaeology. The presence of more
archaeologists trained in this sub-field would undoubtedly
increase the numbers of recorded submerged sites.
Efforts were made to determine whether any Georgia sites in the Savannah River were actually recorded in the
South Carolina site files, as sites being on the South Carolina border. South Carolina underwater archaeologist, Lynn
Harris, reported that no such sites were recorded. Also, the
Alabama site file was examined to determine if any sites
along the west bank of the Chattahoochee River were actually in the water and within Georgia’s territory. Most of the
sites were on landforms adjacent to the river. A few sites
extended into the water, including three landings (Bryant’s
1Ho61, Gordon’s 1Ho58, and Purcell’s 1Me3) and two
bridges (Alaga 1Ho59 and Columbia 1Ho44). Three sites
sit on the Alabama/Georgia boundary line (1Le5, 1Le16, and
1Le17). Several Alabama sites were identified as eroding
into the river.
PATTERNS
IN
CURRENT DATA
Research for this document revealed 2,059 sites currently recorded in the GASF that fall into this report’s predefined category of underwater/submerged/water-related
types (see Figure 2). There may be other such sites, but
given the nature of the database, these could not be determined. These sites generally dominate the state from the
Fall Line Hills northward, to the state’s borders. This northern area includes 1,712 recorded, submerged sites. In contrast, the entire Coastal Plain area south of the Fall Line Hills
contains 347 sites. The second greatest concentration of sites
occurs along Georgia’s coastline. Eighty-three submerged
sites are listed in this area. Excepting reservoir project sites
(n=136), the remainder of the entire Coastal Plain contains
only 211 recorded sites.
There are almost five times as many recorded submerged sites north of the Fall Line Hills (n=1,712) than to
the south (n=347). The greater frequency of sites from the
northern boundary of Georgia to the Fall Line Hills somewhat mirrors the general trend of recorded terrestrial site
distribution of lower frequencies in the Coastal Plain. This
trend is much more extreme, however, in the underwater
data.
Submerged sites represent five percent of the total
number of sites (n=37,000) recorded in the state of Georgia.
Given the extreme rate of development underway along the
coast, one would expect the number of submerged sites recorded there to be much greater. The disparity between numbers of terrestrial sites recorded along the coast and in the
interior coastal plain is not as great as the disparity between
submerged sites in the same areas. While the increase in
coastal development has led to an increase in the number of
recorded terrestrial sites, the same cannot be said for submerged sites. There appears to be a bias in locating, identifying, and recording submerged sites that does not exist with
terrestrial sites.
INTERPRETING THE RESOURCE B ASE
Data highlighted in this report has demonstrated that
submerged archaeological sites do exist in Georgia. The sites
that have been recorded occur in virtually every type of water, from small ponds to huge reservoirs from streams to rivers. This strongly suggests that large numbers of unrecorded
sites are likely to exist in aquatic bodies throughout the state.
The need for predictive modeling is obvious when considering the size of the state and the few submerged sites that have
been recorded to date. True, scientific predictive modeling
is beyond the scope of this report. It would require a more
accurate and detailed study of currently recorded submerged
sites. It would benefit statistically from a larger universe of
recorded submerged sites (unrelated to reservoirs) than currently exists. A documentary database should be used in such
a model to supplement the lack of archaeological data. The
reservoir data, as incomplete as it is, would undoubtedly skew
the results of predictive modeling studies unless this was considered foremost in the calculations.
While underwater archaeological investigations in
Georgia have been almost non-existent, studies conducted in
other states can suggest site patterning in similar environments in Georgia. These studies can also suggest research
topics on a statewide and regional level. Several examples
are discussed below.
Drainage and Hydrology Studies
Archaeologists in North Carolina have been conducting surveys of the coastal Albemarle Pamlico drainage system in an effort to determine predictive modeling of vessel
abandonment practices (Kjorness and Babits 2000). The
model tested works in Turkey and Great Britain, and was
72
Chapter 6.
studied in portions of coastal North Carolina. The North
Carolina study demonstrated that areas of elevated topography connected to a road network and adjacent to deep water
will be a docking point for vessels. Any worn-out, derelict,
or damaged boats are usually pulled up at the next sluice,
gut, or swamp from this point. Often, this would be the next
river system that was navigable and out of the way, possibly
more often downstream than upstream from where the vessel became inoperable. Study results indicate that derelict
steam powered vessels are disposed of at the head, or just
below the head, of navigation or at the next place downstream that was a major shipment point. South Carolina research mirrors these results, which indicate that navigation
headwaters were common areas of vessel abandonment (Harris 2002:66). The navigational headwaters would be different for various vessel types. Steam powered wrecks can be
located in water corridors that today are too shallow to “get
a jet ski through”. Steamboats would have plied the waters,
resulting in a channel that remained opened. When steam
power declined (by 1920 in North Carolina), vessel traffic
declined and the channels began silting (Larry Babits, personal communication, June 17, 2002).
The study also suggests that schooner and sloop
wrecks are usually found much further downstream than
steam-powered vessel wrecks, a characteristic similar to results obtained by the work of Harris et al. at the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology (Larry
Babits, Personal Communication, June 17, 2002). Babits’
study may transfer well to similar environmental and cultural areas of Georgia, specifically coastal areas where sail
and later steam power was used. Similar environments should
be located in Georgia as potential areas where this predictive modeling may be used to search for wrecks.
Navigational Systems
Independent study by researchers in North Carolina has identified a vast network of structures used on the
states’ interior rivers to foster navigation from the coast,
through the interior, to the foothills of the mountains. This
would have represented a journey of almost 200 miles
(Lindley S. Butler, researcher, personal communication, June
17, 2002). Many of these small, shallow creeks and waterways would not have been navigable without such man-made
structures. Lindley S. Butler has been conducting research
on this topic for the past several years, focusing especially
on the Dan River, which is a tributary of the Roanoke River.
His research has identified a variety of navigational structures from stone wing dams to parallel stone walls, to sluices.
Many structures were multi-use and often were constructed
on top of traps, as reflected in their names on maps and in
oral tradition.
The navigation systems on the Roanoke tributaries were constructed from the 1820s-1860s by a private
company known as the Roanoke Navigation Company
(Lindley S. Butler, personal communication, June 17, 2002).
The USACOE took over these duties in the 1880s and modified the navigational structures for small steam launches
measuring up to 25 ft wide, such as shallow draft screw
propulsion or sternwheeler paddleboats (Lindley S. Butler,
personal communication, June 17, 2002). Butler suggests
that aquatic structures employing iron hardware and wood
date to the late 19th-early 20th centuries and were constructed
by the USACOE. That agency also was responsible for
structures made of log cribbing and filled with rock riprap. Such structures have been recorded in Georgia in an
area intensively modified by the USACOE (Figure 39).
Some of the structures located in the Georgia area are probably footings for a former bridge.
The Dan River Navigation System was placed on
the NRHP in 1984. In addition, many of these sites enjoy
several layers of preservation protection. The first is the
NRHP listing. There are 13 structures on the NRHP. The
second preservation effort was the placement of state historical markers at two of the sites, including a port facility
and a site with multiple structures such as a sluice, wingdam
and traps. A third layer of protection strongly reflects the
importance of such sites to the state of North Carolina. The
Governor’s Office filed quit-claim deeds for all 13 navigational structures on the NRHP (Lindley S. Butler, personal
communication, June 17, 2002). The state already owns
navigable waterway bottoms, but used this legal action to
make a strong statement. Currently, there is documentation
on 40 additional navigational structures along the Dan River
in Rockingham and Caswell counties, North Carolina and
part of neighboring Virginia.
The Dan River studies offer useful comparisons
to Georgia’s interior riverine areas of the Piedmont and
Coastal Plain. Even the limited amount of submerged sites
studied in Georgia has identified fishweirs and USACOE
navigational improvements. Historical research has located
a few documents describing private dams. Research by
Frazier has uncovered additional historical documentation
regarding navigational structures incidental to his fishweir
research. Unlike in North Carolina, however, little, if any,
of the pre-USACOE navigational efforts have been studied
in Georgia and no efforts have been made to study such
navigational systems on a regional or state-wide level.
73
Chapter 6.
Figure 39. Wooden cribbing and rock fill in southwestern Georgia (Elliott 2001).
Early Man Studies
The past few decades have seen increasing interest
in early man studies in the southeastern United States. Research in Florida has included examining the potential for
karst regions of that state to contain Paleoindian sites (Aughey
1996, Kaufmann 1988, Kazmierski 1992, Mauldin 1988).
These studies can be used to help predict geographic and
environmental areas in Georgia that are likely to contain such
sites. Studies by geomorphologist, David Leigh, have been
investigating land forms used during the late Pleistocene and
early Holocene along the Chattahoochee Valley area.
Extremely limited archaeological investigation in
Georgia and information from collectors demonstrate that
the southwestern part of the state has an extremely high potential to contain Paleoindian period sites. Fossil mammoth,
horse and sloth bones have been found in large numbers
(Elliott 2001:4, 40, 43) (Figure 40). At least one Paleoindian
find was made at the edge of a sink. A Folsom point was
recovered from a sink in Baker County (Larry Etheridge,
personal communication, August 2000). Native American
lithics, both diagnostic and non-diagnostic, occur in quantities in the same areas. Both occur in significant numbers in
limestone sinkholes and in shoals of rivers and creeks in the
southwestern part of the state. Unfortunately, the lack of
controlled, archaeological study (including survey and excavations) on these types of sites has resulted in the lack of
associated fossil remains and cultural materials. Archaeologists have examined several Florida sinkholes and
springs, however, and some have revealed early man sites
containing in situ artifacts and fossil material (Dasovich and
Yates 1994, Evans 1990, Gerrell 1986, Marrinan et al. 1993,
and Meide 1995). At least one site contained human remains. The sinks have preserved the sites to such a degree
that human brain material was discovered. The implications for DNA and archaeological study are tremendous.
Early man sites from areas of nearby Florida containing the
same karst geology and coastal plain environment provide
additional credence to the existence of such sites in southwestern Georgia. Florida data should be used to develop a
model of potential early man sites in southern Georgia.
NATURAL IMPACTS
RESOURCES
SUBMERGED
Natural impacts to submerged sites include storms,
erosion, droughts, floods, and fluctuating water levels. The
74
TO
Chapter 6.
0
2
4
centimeters
Figure 40. Fossils from sinkholes in southern Georgia.
75
Chapter 6.
enduring rains in the summer of 1994 reveal all-too-well the
destruction caused by massive flooding. Record rainfalls
during this time produced swollen rivers. Dams were
breached on bodies of water ranging in size from small ponds
to massive Lake Blackshear. Floodwaters from Lake
Blackshear uncovered large amounts of Native American
artifacts in addition to Native American burials (Jim Wright,
Deputy Sheriff, personal communication, May 27, 2002).
Flooding on a smaller scale, such as breached dams of mill
ponds at Augusta’s Fort Gordon, also negatively impacted
the mill sites themselves and surrounding historic and Native American sites (Reed et al. 1994). Such flooding has
impacted sites since their inception and will continue to do
so. For example, the 1908 flood caused serious erosion to
the Rembert Mounds on the Savannah River (Miller 1948:9).
Archaeologists have conducted numerous studies
over the past four decades examining the effects of reservoir
inundation on archaeological sites. Some of the earliest landmark studies were conducted in the 1970s by the NPS (Carrell
et al. 1976, Lenihan et al. 1977, Lenihan et al. 1981). In
1972 and 1973 the NPS and the Columbus Museum, using
some funds from the state of Georgia, conducted a survey of
a portion of Lake Blackshear along the Flint River (Schnell
1975). Another study in 1975 examined sites throughout
the United States, including areas of the Walter F. George
Lake. NPS archaeologists dove on sites around the
Mandeville Site (9Cy1) and interpreted general conditions
about lake processes. The study concluded that water movement in lakes was continuous and did affect sites.
Schnell summarized his Lake Blackshear interpretations in a conference paper, stating that “permanently inundated sites are almost totally destroyed except for the most
durable of artifacts and debitage” (Schnell 1975). This interpretation, however, was not echoed by other underwater
studies. A 1977 study in Missouri’s Table Rock Reservoir,
found that, “Preservation of faunal and floral remains in deposits at 23BY8 is encouraging but more data are needed…”
(Garrison et al. 1977). The National Reservoir Inundation
Study found the following: “…one of the lowest impact
zones is the bottom of a lake, particularly if it has been
flooded quickly. Most of what has archeological value is
preserved intact, except for soil chemistry, which loses its
analytical use after inundation…The places worst hit turn
out to be the zones where the water level varies up and down,
subjecting sites to alternate wet and dry cycles…In addition, this is where park goers have their greatest impact”
(Lenihan 2002). Similar findings were reported in the Petersburg study, which documented intact sub-surface features in addition to heavily collected shorelines during
drought periods (Elliott 1988).
Other studies involved inadvertent flooding of sites
from catastrophic storms, rather than the intentional flooding of sites from reservoir inundation. The dynamics of both
situations are quite different; however, there are some common issues among the two. Storm floods are often initiated
relatively quickly and waters inundate sites for a fairly brief
period of time, usually less than two months. Reservoir flooding, however, is usually a slow process of inundation taking
years to accomplish, but lasts for decades or longer once
flooded. The short and long-term process of both can affect
archaeological sites.
The 1994 summer flooding spawned by Hurricane
Alberto spurred two studies of flood impacts on archaeological sites. One examined flooding along the Flint River Fall
Line (Worth 1996). This NPS and GaDNR-sponsored study
examined historical documents to trace the long-term changes
in portions of the Flint River channel. The study concluded
that sites within active floodplain corridors are threatened
most by “continuous lateral erosion resulting from river channel meandering during both normal and flood conditions”.
The study went on to say that “flooding accelerates this lateral erosion” and “ lateral erosion dominates areas with unconsolidated floodplain sediments”. Such areas include the
Coastal Plain’s sub-Fall Line floodplain. The Flint River’s
active meander belt is generally a narrow 1-1.5 kilometers
wide, and this meander has increased since the 1820s (Worth
1996:51-52). Worth recommended conducting similar historical impact studies in all management areas containing
floodplains. He also suggested ranking areas of impact by
priority, ranking sites already recorded by priority with the
impact areas, placing unsurveyed areas in a ranking of highest priority, and incorporating the testing and data recovery
plans into state budgets for high-priority sites (Worth
1996:55-56).
The other study resulting from the 1994 catastrophic
flooding was funded by the NPS and the Ga DNR and assessed the impact of the flood by revisiting previously recorded sites in the waterways throughout the Flint River valley, with priority given to sites deemed eligible for the NRHP
(Schnell 1996). Portions of the bottom of Lake Blackshear,
whose dam had broken, were studied before it was entirely
re-inundated. During examinations of the non-flooded part,
artifacts were collected and included almost complete Native American pots and other artifacts. Schnell concluded
that in some cases flood damage was more than expected,
and in other cases, less than expected (Schnell 1996:97).
76
Chapter 6.
PROTECTING
THE
RESOURCE BASE
Wise stewardship of the resource base also requires
an understanding of threats to the resource. Threats can include both man-made and natural activities. Some examples
are discussed below.
MAN- MADE IMPACTS
RESOURCES
TO
SUBMERGED
Dredging
wakes. Research on such sites in South Carolina have shown
wakes to adversely affect dams, canals, landings, causeways,
and vessels, particularly those sites in the slopes of waterway banks. The Malcolm Boat sailing vessel embedded in
the Ashley River bank near Charleston illustrates the negative consequences of wakes from speed boats and other recreational watercraft. South Carolina experts have documented the loss of many meters of the Malcolm Boat structure to wakes (Amer 1993:7). Fortunately, in this instance,
archaeologists made scaled drawings of the vessel and recorded the information in the South Carolina Archaeological Site Files.
River dredging and modification has been an early
and chronic impact to inundated sites in Georgia. Engineers
working for the Federal government, first in the War Department and later in the USACOE, have been modifying
waterways in the state since the early nineteenth century.
Most federal waterways in Georgia fall under either the Mobile or Savannah District of the USACOE. The western onethird of the state is managed by the former, leaving the remainder in the Savannah District. The Army’s mission of
improving these waterways resulted in removing obstructions from rivers as early as 1828 on the Apalachicola River
in southwestern Georgia. Modifications on Georgia rivers
also included blasting shoals and other rocky areas, removing literally tons of rock, straightening bends, and dredging
channels. While such “improvements” may have facilitated
navigation, they served to damage or destroy archaeological sites. Many such sites, by their very nature, would be
obstructions to navigation. Prehistoric and historic fishweirs,
mill dams, and shipwrecks were often targeted for removal
because of the navigation hazard they presented. Nineteenth
century survey maps and annual reports generated by the
Chief Engineer of the USACOE illustrate countless instances
where such resources were destroyed as part of the river
improvement program.
Artifact “Surface” Collecting
Modern-day operations under the jurisdiction of the
USACOE continue to impact riverine archaeological sites.
While the USACOE falls under federal mandates to comply
with cultural resource laws, there is still some question as to
whether areas selected for dredging, sand mining, and other
operations are surveyed for underwater and in/on bank archaeological resources, whether located sites are then assessed for eligibility, and whether these sites are then preserved or excavated to mitigate destruction.
Artifact Looting
Boating
Inundated and partially inundated sites can suffer
heavily from erosion and site disturbance resulting from boat
Surface collecting in waterways has been happening throughout time. The amount of collecting and the numbers of people collecting, however, has surged during the
last several decades. The popularity and accessibility of
scuba diving in the 1970s and 1980s has led to an increase in
collecting of river bottoms and sink holes. The loss of artifacts is so great that even collectors comment on the fact
that there are fewer and fewer relics in both the fields and
rivers than there use to be (Jim Wright, personal communication, March 25, 2002 and Roger Birkhead, personal communication, September 20, 2000). South Carolina officials
report that they commonly hear of divers collecting in Georgia waterways. In fact, South Carolina divers who are licensed to collect in that state routinely collect along the Georgia side of the Savannah River (Lynn Harris, personal communication, June 18, 2002). Hobby divers report these finds
as coming from South Carolina waters. The sites are recorded in South Carolina as having come from the Carolina
side of the river rather than illegally from the Georgia side.
This results in a loss of information in Georgia and erroneous information and site locations in South Carolina.
Looters have been taking pieces of Georgia’s submerged past, both large and small, for many years (see Elliott
et al. 2000). Looting occurs in the form of collecting artifacts off river bottoms, to using boat props, air lifts and
dredges to destroy sites in an effort to remove buried artifacts that may be of monetary value. Residents in southwestern Georgia see divers, boats, dredges, and prop washes
routinely looting sites on the weekends in the Flint River
(Larry Ethridge, personal communication, August 2000).
These latter efforts have increased drastically as looters concentrate on taking artifacts for commercial purposes. The
Internet has provided an unlimited market for the sale of
77
Chapter 6.
these illegally looted artifacts. Such sales have resulted in
ever escalating prices, which in turn fuels further looting.
Meanwhile Georgia’s citizens are rapidly losing important
segments of their history as the context of sites are destroyed,
the artifacts are removed, and many of the artifacts sold to
buyers out of state and even out of the country.
Two years ago a search of the Internet revealed
numerous sites containing the signature highly polished and
patinated brown to black stone arrowheads, spear points,
knifes and tools taken from rivers and creeks. Figure 41
shows the type of patination and color typical of submerged
stone tools from southwestern Georgia. Commercial artifact “miners” proudly declared from which rivers their finds
originated. Today, much of this activity has gone underground and commercial dealers, aware that they are breaking the law, seldom reveal provenience information on the
internet.
One blatant example of shipwreck looting is visible on the Flint River. The wreck of the paddlewheeler
White Rose lies partially submerged on the river bank (Figure 42). Collectors say that only ten years ago the wreck
contained the entire paddlewheel, but looters dismantled and
stole it (Elliott 2001:113).
Archaeologists contend that collecting, particularly
that of chronic relict hunters and those who use collecting as
a major income-producer, seriously damages sites in many
cases and always destroys information by removing the artifacts from their context. Many underwater sites, including
shipwrecks, ferry landings, wharves, dumps, mills, and numerous Native American sites, maintain their integrity underwater. This integrity is often not recognized by those without archaeological training.
Development
Development, along with looting, are the two most
destructive activities inflicted on submerged sites. Recent
data shows that between 1992 and 1997, Georgia ranked
second in the nation in the rate of land development (Smith
and Harris 2001:69). This trend of developing land, which
most often impacts and destroys archaeological sites, continues today. Smith and Harris note that this trend is not
only rampant in urban areas such as Atlanta, but also in southwestern, southeastern and northern Georgia. Population
growth increased by the following percentages in these counties: Dawson (70%), Bryan (52%), Camden (45%), and
Gilmer (75%) (Smith and Harris 2001:69). The desire for
less expensive, waterfront property is causing increasing
development in the interior coastal plain as the population
growth moves inland. This interior Coastal Plain development is located in the part of the state least-studied by underwater archaeologists and containing the fewest recorded,
submerged archaeological sites. Such development threatens mill sites, ferry landings, old bridge sites, and many other
site types. These threats are direct, such as the demolition of
a mill and its associated dam, raceways, and other features.
They are also indirect, such as the destruction of historic
docks, wharves, boat landings, and submerged vessels during the modern, large scale dredging along riverbanks to
provide sand and gravel for development projects. Such indirect adverse impacts can include other site types that balance on the edge of terrestrial and aquatic environments,
such as those around Carolina bays.
Carolina bays contain important sites around their
edges. These elevated sand ridges were chosen by Native
Americans as places to camp or live, as they enjoyed the
resources of the unique bay environment. Today, the Carolina bays are attractive to developers as sources of sand for
construction projects. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) often looks to landowners of these areas
as places for purchasing sand, which become pits once large
amounts of soil are removed. The GDOT is required to do
archaeological survey in these areas and those Carolina bays
with archaeological sites are assessed for eligibility for the
NRHP. Significant sites are reported and engineers look for
other areas to acquire sand. While the reporting of a significant site may save it from GDOT construction, the private
landowner often sells the soil to other entities, thus destroying the site. Archaeologists have lately reported very important sites in borrow pit areas, many around Carolina bays
(Joel Jones, Archaeologist, personal communication, April
3 and June 19, 2002). Submerged sites in and on the edges
of these bays can be impacted or destroyed by borrow pit
activity. Unfortunately, many sites that are being preserved
by GDOT immediately fall prey to developers who want to
remove the soil and use it as fill for construction projects.
EXPECTED CONDITION OF THESE
RESOURCES /CURRENT STATUS
Independent site visits by various archaeologists to
USACOE properties in Georgia have shown that in many
cases submerged or partially submerged sites are eroding
and no efforts are being made to mitigate this erosion. This
includes the Stamp Creek Site under Allatoona Lake and
numerous sites on Lake Seminole in southwestern Georgia.
78
Chapter 6.
0
2
4
centimeters
Figure 41. Examples of typical brown-to-black, heavily patinated stone tools from underwater sites
in Georgia (Elliott 2001).
79
Chapter 6.
A visit to the former site during a Society for Georgia Archaeology conference made it clear to attendees that the
Stamp Creek Site suffered in terms of erosion and neglect.
Repeated visits to sites in Lake Seminole by archaeologists
revealed eroded, unmonitored sites. These sites are clearly
mapped and accessible to USACOE personnel. Attempts to
contact USACOE personnel and make them aware of the
situation were unproductive (personal communication to Dan
Elliott, June 2002). In addition, there seems to be no regular, short-interval monitoring program by the USACOE to
measure erosion and looting on the submerged sites under
its jurisdiction, or if there is, there appears to be no program
to stop or mitigate such damage. Likewise, sites that are
“preserved in-place” by developers and agencies are not subject to any follow up inspections. Submerged sites on state
lands, including parks, boat landings, and other recreational
facilities also suffer from this lack of monitoring. These
few examples suggest that this neglect, in all likelihood, extends to submerged sites on federal and state land throughout Georgia.
MANAGING
THE
RESOURCE BASE
Wise stewardship of these resources will require
an energetic approach on numerous fronts, including administrative, legal, and public education. This will involve using all means available to ensure that sites on federal lands
within Georgia are protected, monitored and preserved.
When such preservation is not possible, then these sites
should be excavated before the information is lost. This
includes sites on USACOE lands and on state lands. Likewise, all avenues should be taken to have previously acquired reservoir data (on USACOE and Georgia Power reservoirs) thoroughly analyzed, professionally reported, and
widely published. Without these steps, the reservoir archaeology that has not been properly documented and published
is virtually worthless. Stewardship will involve enforcing
good laws aimed at the preservation of the resource base,
passing new ones, and stopping bad legislation from becoming laws. Good laws are not enough. They must be enforced to be useful. The Georgia Historic Preservation Division is beginning to partner with agencies in an effort to
enforce laws and save what is left of the submerged cultural
resources in the state. This effort must continue and expand.
Figure 42. The looted remains of the steamboat,
White Rose, in the Flint River (Elliott 2001).
Good stewardship requires proactive measures as
well as reactive ones. Advocacy, public education, and site
preservation regarding submerged cultural resources can be
enhanced through partnerships. The Governor’s Greenspace
Program, the Nature Conservancy, the Riverkeepers Program, the Archaeological Conservancy, the Society for Georgia Archaeology, and the Trust for Public Land often have
goals that parallel the goals of submerged sites preservation.
Partnerships should be developed with the organizations that
provide mutual benefits.
80
Chapter 7. Recommendations
As a result of limited research on submerged archaeological sites, we know very little about large parts of
our collective past in Georgia. Protection of these sites will
allow future research. This research should translate into
public interpretations in a variety of forms and also should
be widely published among the scholarly community. Research should be guided by an overall, statewide plan, in
addition to research undertaken by private, ethical entities.
Research should be guided by a research design. The research questions below are meant to aid in such a design,
but are in no way comprehensive.
SPECIFIC RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Submerged Native American Terrestrial Sites
• What areas of the Coastal Plain would have been
prime resource and occupation venues during the Paleoindian
period based on the most recent studies of Pleistocene/Holocene glaciation, sea level changes, and palynological and
archaeological studies?
• How were the confluences of waterways used, and
to what degree?
• Can likely landforms dating to this period be isolated and identified, whether they be currently deeply buried or submerged? If identified, can a program of systematic archaeological investigation locate Paleoindian sites
within these landforms?
• Once identified, can these sites be tied to any distinctive characteristics visible in the modern environment?
• What is the nature of pollen, phytolith, and ethnobotanical preservation on such sites?
• Are late Pleistocene/early Holocene fossils associated with humans present on these types of sites?
• Can rock shelters that were once terrestrial and are
now submerged, be located and can these locations be predicted?
• How does the location of high quality chert sources
occurring in and near water as cobbles and outcrops, affect
settlement patterns and the location of submerged sites?
Limestone Sinkhole Sites
• How do southern Georgia’s limestone sinkholes
relate to Paleoindian sites?
• Were Paleoindians using the sinks as a source to
hunt animals who came there for water?
• Were Paleoindians living around the sinks?
• Can geologists and geomorphologists determine
which sinks contained what water levels during the Paleo
period?
• Were Paleoindians camping and/or hunting inside
sinks that may have had lower water levels or been entirely
dry at that time?
• Is there a correlation between prehistoric sites and
sinks that are now dry?
• Is there a correlation between prehistoric sites and
sinks that are now wet?
• What is the nature of preservation of organic cultural materials in sinks and does the presence of limestone
affect this preservation?
• Is organic material present that may be suitable for
DNA testing?
• Were limestone sinks used throughout prehistory
or solely during certain periods?
Carolina Bay Sites
• Do the Carolina bays and limestone sinkholes in
Georgia contain the same types of sites or sites from the
same periods of prehistory?
• How do sites in and around Carolina bays in Georgia compare or contrast with such sites studied in South Carolina?
81
Chapter 7.
• Did the water level of the Carolina bays in Georgia
fluctuate prehistorically?
• Were there periods of time when low water levels in
the bay would have encouraged prehistoric settlement in
portions of the bay now submerged?
• What, if any, unique environmental resources were
present in and around the bays prehistorically?
• Were Carolina bays highly sought environments
prehistorically?
• What periods of use and or occupation are represented by sites in and around Carolina bays?
• Do the Carolina bays in Georgia contain prehistoric
dugout canoes, as do some bays in North Carolina?
Prehistoric Riverine Artifact Scatters
• At sites containing lithics, what is the nearest raw
material source to the site?
• What is the distance downstream from this raw material to the site?
• Were river cobbles and boulders quarried for lithic
production and, if so, was this quarrying casual or intensive?
• Were nearby outcrops sources of raw material?
• At sites eroding out of the bank, how far downstream are the artifacts traveling?
• By collecting data on riverine scatters, can a correlation be made between specific riverine environments and
the distance downstream between sites and submerged artifacts?
• How do specific riverine characteristics, including
water flow rates, topography, flood levels, number of flooding episodes, drought severity, river bottom composition,
viscosity and water-borne sediments, and other characteristics, affect riverine artifact deposition?
• How does the type, composition, shape, and weight
of artifacts affect their riverine deposition?
• Can studies of flood deposition of logs in southwestern Georgia rivers and creeks be used as a model for the
study of artifactual deposition in the same environments?
• Can the chemical and microscopic analysis of patina on previously submerged artifacts lead to the attribution of specific types of patina to specific waterways within
the state? If so, can undocumented artifact collections be
tied to general riverine proveniences?
Dugout Canoes
• Did Native Americans use dugouts throughout the
area that is now Georgia, or were dugouts restricted to certain physiographic provinces?
• What C14 dates can be recorded from dug out canoes found in Georgia?
• Were dugouts used throughout prehistory or only
during specific periods?
• Can prehistoric seasonal camp sites be associated
with each other based on the presence of canoes and possible canoe routes?
• Did the type of wood selected for canoe construction depend on what was available in the environment or
were specific types imported from greater distances?
• Did the type of wood used in dugout construction
change through time?
• Do vessel profiles reflect stylistic, technological,
or evolutionary changes?
• Is vessel size and shape indicative of specific functions (i.e., shipping of goods, shipping of passengers, transportation, etc.).
• Is vessel size and shape indicative of the way the
vessel was used (i.e., short distance versus long distance
travel).
• What was the useable life span of a dugout and can
the population size on a site be linked to the number of canoes present?
• How do vessel shapes compare or contrast to those
studied in South Carolina and more intensively in North
Carolina?
Fishweirs/traps
• Can fishweirs function successfully on primary,
secondary, and tertiary waterways?
• Do primary, secondary, and tertiary waterways provide enough fish to make fishweirs and dams a viable endeavor?
• Were the locations of fishweirs based on the presence of certain types of fish?
• Are fishweirs and dams more common in any particular physiographic province?
• Are fishweirs and dams more common among certain historic cultural groups in Georgia?
82
Chapter 7.
• What environmental factors affected the selection
of locations for fishweirs?
• Were fishweirs and dams used throughout Georgia’s
prehistory or only during certain periods?
• Can rises and declines in the popularity of fishweirs
be traced throughout prehistory and history?
• Did the technology of fishweirs and dams change
through time?
• What characteristics distinguish prehistoric
fishweirs or dams from protohistoric or historic ones?
• What characteristics reveal if a fishweir or dam has
been reused by later individuals or groups?
• What are the correlations between fishweir and dam
size, stream size, number of fish available, duration of site
occupation, site population size, and calories procured?
• Do aboriginal sites located adjacent to fishweirs and
dams contain a disproportionate amount of fish bone to other
faunal material?
• Did inhabitants of aboriginal sites located adjacent
to fishweirs and dams participate in extensive trade networks
in which processed fish products played a major role?
Ferries
• Where are the locations of ferry landings across the
state?
• What types of ferries (pole/hand pulley/genera-tor,
etc.) operated in Georgia throughout the past?
• Was ferry construction always vernacular, or did
certain models become popular and these patterns circulate
across Georgia?
• Was the material used in ferry construction dependent on the type of wood and other resources in the area, or
were specific types of wood and certain materials considered necessary for proper ferry construction?
• Were ferries in Georgia constructed by professional
boat builders or by laymen?
• Did ferry construction evolve from the eighteenth
through the twentieth centuries?
• What is the relationship between ferries and communities in terms of location, distance, and period of existence?
• Which ferry locations operated for the longest period of time?
• Which operated most recently?
• How did the construction of bridges impact ferries
and when and why did this occur in various regions of Georgia?
• What were the cost of ferry licenses through time
and were ferry operations a profitable venture in Georgia
history?
• Did ferry licensees have other sources of income in
addition to their ferry operation?
• How did Georgia legal codes positively or negatively impact ferry operations?
• What characteristics were typical of ferry landings?
• Did most ferry landings contain a house or structure for a ferry operator?
Canals
• Are canals located in areas other than coastal Georgia?
• How does canal construction in nineteenth century
Georgia relate to that in the rest of the country?
• What types of vessels were served by canals?
• What factors of canal construction, such as depth,
width, and severity and number of bends, impacted the type
and size of vessels using the canal?
• What type of technology was used in canal construction?
• What type of technology was used in the design of
the canal (i.e., raised or swing gate locks, dams, loading areas)?
• How did environmental factors, such as proximity
to rivers, topography, soil types, and rate of river flow affect
each canal?
• How did cultural factors, such as financial support,
public support, type of labor pools available, and competition, affect canal construction?
• Did the canal features and characteristics differ in
reality from the original design?
• Was the canal modified through time and do such
modifications reflect technological advances and/or economic conditions?
• What were the purposes of the canal?
• What contributed to the success or the failure of
the canal?
• What impact did the canal have on nearby towns
and communities?
• What impact did the canal have on the surrounding
region?
83
Chapter 7.
Mills
Wharves/Docks
• How was mill technology adapted to meet environmental conditions?
• Was mill technology and design linked to ethnicity?
• How can surrounding settlements be identified on
the basis of mill locations?
• Did the establishment of communities result in mill
construction or vice versa?
• What economic impact did mills have on a community and region?
• How did textile mills impact immigration to urban
areas?
• From what distance did textile mills draw workers?
• How did floods affect mill reconstruction and the
economy?
• Can a typology be developed for mill dams in Georgia and the southeastern United States?
• Are any trends in mill technology evident in Georgia through time?
Vessels
• What vessels were used in Georgia’s inland waters?
• How were they constructed and what materials
were used?
• Was the type of vessel used specific to particular
waterways or physiographic provinces?
• Did riverine craft evolve in Georgia?
• Was any vessel evolution unique to Georgia
waterways?
• How did vernacular boat building impact
communities in Georgia?
• How does the technology of steamboat design
evolve thru time in Georgia?
• Did the fact that most steamers constructed in
Georgia remained in the state, affect steamboat design?
• What watercraft was specific to what tasks or
trades?
• Did riverine watercraft operate on specific routes
in Georgia’s interior?
• How is the construction of wharves and docks indicative of the type of vessels using the area?
• What construction methods were used?
• What mechanisms were used wharves and docks
to facilitate vessel loading and unloading?
• Are there patterns evident in the locations of
wharves and docks?
• If so, are the patterns related to depth of water, number and severity of bends in the waterway, location of large
communities, or any other factors?
• What items were being imported and exported from
specific wharves and docks?
• Can the design of docks be indicative of these items?
Bridges/Fords
• How did the existence of fords and bridges affect
the establishment of communities?
• How large did a community have to be before it
constructed formal bridges?
• How large and/or deep did a waterway have to be
before a community constructed bridges?
• What factors determined the materials used in
bridge construction?
• What evolution in bridge design can be traced in
Georgia?
• Do any factors, such as environment, ethnicity, architectural skill, carpentry skill, or any other, affect design
evolution?
• When and why were bridges abandoned in certain
communities?
Navigational Structures
• Did Georgians enjoy a network of navigational
structures in interior waterways that allowed them to travel
in areas that would otherwise be inaccessible?
• Where are extant structures located and why?
• Are certain dikes, wing dams, parallel dams, rock
walls, and sluices typical in certain environmental or geographical areas?
• Can a determination of type of vessel use be made
from the type of navigational structure in place?
• Were these structures built by individuals, communities, private corporations, or the federal government?
84
Chapter 7.
• Was there a change in ownership of these structures over time and, if so, how is that change reflected in the
structure’s construction and use?
• Did changes in technology (of materials, building
techniques, and vessels) affect navigational structures?
• Did communities with navigational structures rely
on waterways more often than communities without and how
is this reflected in their economies, diets, and trade?
• Can regional patterns of trade be discovered and
interpreted based on patterns of navigational structure locations?
Submerged Timbers
• Can submerged old growth logs be used to provide
tree-ring data for climatic studies?
• Can this tree-ring data be used to determine microclimates that may have existed in the post-Paleo prehistoric
periods as well as in protohistoric and historic periods?
• Can the in-water locations of old growth logs be
mapped in order to determine flood levels?
• Can the modern in-water locations of old growth
logs be mapped in order to determine locations of undocumented saw mills and other lumber and lumber rafting industry activities?
NRHP SIGNIFICANCE
Like their terrestrial counterparts, submerged sites
need to meet the significance criteria established by the
NRHP to be deemed eligible for listing. The fact that few
submerged sites have been studied in Georgia make it more
likely that many will be eligible for study and for possible
listing on the NRHP. Few states have formally outlined how
they address eligibility criteria for their submerged sites.
Such formal guidelines might be useful in making determinations of eligibility, and it is recommended that these
quidelines be written prior to the inception of an underwater
program in Georgia. Such guidelines can be revised as new
sites are added to the NHRP and representative samples have
been recorded. Some issues to consider concerning the significance of vessels include the vessel’s period (date built
and date lost), condition (relatively intact structure or cargo),
naval architecture (structurally intact, uncommon or poorly
understood vessel type), cargo, nationality (ethnicity), crew
(daily shipboard life), and historical association (Elliott et
al. 2000:50). Determination of significance of other types
of submerged sites should involve examination of research
potential and associated research questions, in addition to
the other factors that guide terrestrial site eligibility recommendations.
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Establish a State Underwater Archaeology
Program
The program should effectively inventory, research,
monitor, and protect underwater, near-water, and water-related resources. It should be a role model for other states by
taking only the best ideas from other programs and adapting
them to suit Georgia’s own unique natural and cultural environment. A successful program requires a great deal of initial and continual planning in numerous areas including its
mission, funding, infrastructure, data management, research
goals, preservation issues, and public education. Recommendations for each area are outlined below.
Mission
Ensure that the program initially develops and prioritizes long term and short term goals that reflect its mission, and develops strategies to achieve these goals. Thoughtfully crafted mission, goals, priorities, and strategies will
allow the program to be proactive rather than solely reactive. Ensure that the staff revisits these goals and priorities
every two years.
Funding
Without adequate, dedicated funding, the program
cannot become a viable, permanent entity actively engaged
in helping Georgians to protect their underwater cultural resources and to learn from them. The budget is key to the
program’s success. While grant funding should be continually sought by staff, it should never be relied upon as the
sole funding source, but rather as a supplement to adequate
funding. Initial start-up costs, on-going equipment purchases,
maintenance funds, regular operating expenses, and special
project expenses are all necessary rather than optional expenses. This is the arena in which many states fall short.
These shortcomings are documented (Elliott 2000) and
should serve as notice to Georgia to avoid such problems in
establishing its program. The amount and constancy of funding is direct evidence of how a state views its underwater
resources and its mandate to protect and interpret them for
her citizens. Establishing a program without adequate funding is inconsistent with any statements professing concern
for a state’s non-renewable cultural heritage.
85
Chapter 7.
Infrastructure
Georgia’s status as the largest state east of the Mississippi River suggests that regional offices may offer the
best way of providing a viable underwater program. Regional offices would allow the public access to the program,
while allowing staff access to the public and to submerged
resources. Regional offices in the southwest, southeast,
northeast, northwest, east-central, and west-central parts of
the state are necessary to cover the state fully. Staff in regional offices will be able to become intimately familiar with
the aquatic environments in their area and with the types of
sites located there. Staff will be able to get to know the
diving and non-diving public in their region and work with
them closely. Such regional offices will allow for a twoway flow of information between staff and the public. It
will give the underwater program unprecedented opportunities to educate the public across Georgia, through local venues within each region. One central program office can coordinate the regional office activities, provide large-scale
conservation, hold equipment that needs to be shared by regional offices, administer program bureaucracy, and ensure
the smooth operation of the state-wide program.
The most critical part of the program’s infrastructure is the staff. A competent, well-trained staff suited for
the complexities of the program and the challenges in dealing with related program issues is critical to success. Every
effort should be made to locate such individuals in a nationwide search in order to secure an excellent staff. This search
should include current personnel in HPD in addition to candidates across the country. Positions should include:
• a full time Program Director (an archaeologist with
a graduate degree and background in underwater archaeology)
• underwater and terrestrial archaeologists (one of
each in every regional office and in the main office, having
graduate degrees)
• public education archaeologists (one in each regional office and in the main office, having training in archaeology and public education)
• underwater and terrestrial archaeology assistants
(one in each regional office and in the main office)
• technician (one in each regional office)
• conservator (specializing in submerged artifacts, in
the main office)
• data management specialist (two in the main office)
• administrative assistants (one in each regional office and two in the main office).
Second only to the staffing are issues of facilities.
Regional offices need to have facilities that enable site research and protection, and public education. Each office
should be equipped with a laboratory, equipment, secure
equipment storage area, a research library, a small auditorium, staff offices, and a small exhibit area. The wet-dry
laboratory will allow processing of artifacts and conservation of small artifacts. Large artifact conservation should be
done at the central office of the Underwater Archaeology
program, rather than at individual regional offices. Regional
offices need equipment to function effectively. While some
of the more expensive equipment can be held at the main
office and borrowed when needed by regional offices, certain items should be stocked at each regional office. Such
items include a boat, trailer, and related equipment, a vehicle suitable for pulling a boat trailer and mounting canoes
on the roof, canoes, GPS hand-held units, computers, printers, fax machine, electrolysis equipment, dive gear, and air
compressor for filling scuba tanks. One set of the following
should be held at the main office and made available to regional offices as needed: side scan sonar, magnetometer, GIS
equipment.
Data Management
Database issues should be discussed at the
program’s inception, if it has not been adequately addressed
and transformed prior to this time. A database should be
selected that will minimize anticipated problems and provide researchers with a user-friendly, accurate method of
managing data. It should consider the current forms of data,
such as GASF data and collector information, while anticipating forms of future data collected by GPS, magnetometer, and side-scan sonar. Text and mapping programs using UTM numbers are essential to locating and recording
sites.
If one is not already established, the program should
create a second database of submerged sites created from
primary and secondary documents and oral informants, but
not ground-truthed. This database should be organized to
meet the current and future goals of an underwater program.
It should be amenable to updating, searching, and transferring of data to the main database once the site has been
ground-truthed. Efforts should be made, in terms agreeable
to each researcher to acquire information from private databases, including Frazier’s fishweirs, Schnell’s Chattahoochee
River steamboats, and Wood’s wrecks to include into the
documentary database. Information from these combined
databases would number almost 1,500 entries. (In compari-
86
Chapter 7.
son, North Carolina has over 5,000 sites in their documentary database.) This would be an excellent beginning for a
historical document database and should be supplemented
by additional research into the many types of primary and
secondary documents mentioned in this report and located
in repositories throughout Georgia, the U.S., and the world.
This documentary database would be an excellent resource
for selecting sites for research-directed study, as well as supplying information from a management standpoint.
Site location data needs to be, minimally, cross-referenced with the GASF and protected by law under the same
terms as the GASF information. The main office of the underwater archaeology program should hold the database and
update it periodically with information from the regional offices. The regional offices need access to copies of the database for their daily work. Regional offices should be linked
electronically to each other and to the main office. The program should hire a data manager who is a GIS specialist and
extremely competent in the storage and retrieval of data, as
well as the operation of computer hardware. He or she should
be able to produce data manipulation requested by program
researchers in the form of text or graphs. The data manager
should be located in the main office, with the ability to travel
to regional offices as needed.
Research Goals
The program needs to have a structured outline of
broad, statewide research questions detailed by specific goals
and research projects. The research topics and questions
above are only a few examples of the many issues that need
study. The program’s research outline should include specific, concrete ways in which each regional office will carry
out its part of the research, along with time-lines for each
research project. This research program should be reviewed
every two years by staff and personnel. Research should
focus on sites and research questions in Georgia; however,
the program should not lose sight of such research in the
overall regional, national, and international picture. The
program should establish an internship study with relevant
universities and programs across the country, such as East
Carolina University, the University of West Florida, Texas
A&M University, and the Marine Institute at Skidaway Island. Research by interns and by archaeologists and other
scholars in the community should be encouraged, and can
include related fields such as dendrochronology and Pleistocene/Holocene fossils. Research by members of the diving and non-diving public should be fostered and encouraged when such research is done in collaboration with archaeologists and does not destroy information or result in a
loss of artifacts and/or the resource. The program should
encourage research partnerships with public, private, and
non-profit organizations and government agencies that have
overlapping missions, goals, or projects.
Preservation Issues
The program should actively research and seek to
understand various preservation issues relevant to submerged
sites in Georgia. These include environmental issues such
as erosion, stream dynamics, drought, and fluctuating water
levels. Man-made issues such as collecting, looting, impacts from dam-releases, and boat traffic impacts are additional considerations. Artifact preservation is another program concern. The amount of labor and funding needed to
conserve large artifacts, such as vessels, suggests that such
efforts should be limited. Whenever possible, such vessel
ruins should be left in situ, recorded, documented, and monitored. Conservation will be necessary on smaller artifacts,
however, so a conservation lab will be needed. A conservation lab run by a conservator skilled in wet-sites artifacts
should be established. Artifacts should be conserved for
curation and also for exhibit. The program needs to address
the issue of NRHP significance and come to terms with the
types of sites, ages, affiliations, preservation state, and nature that should be considered significant. While NRHP significance guidelines should be put in place during the
program’s inception, there should be enough flexibility to
allow these guidelines to work in changing or unforeseen
circumstances. National Register bulletins can provide some
assistance. This includes The National Register of Historic
Places and Maritime Preservation (Delgado 1987) in addition to bulletins regarding general eligibility issues of archaeological sites. The public education component of the
program could be used to educate Georgians about the importance of site preservation. Site preservation should also
include the active monitoring of known sites by regional office staff and members of the public working with them.
Regional office staff should also seek to record and preserve
sites identified by local members of the community.
Public Education
An effective public education component needs to
consider the many diverse audiences in Georgia in order to
be able to engage each. For example, groups within the
collector community include the causal, random collector;
the serious, chronic collector; the collector/looter; and the
commercial collector and/or looter. Obviously there are
various shades within these categories and many that overlap, as well. Generally, comments from collectors appear to
87
Chapter 7.
summarize the following beliefs: collecting is a harmless
hobby that does not damage sites, in fact it “saves” sites, all
sites in the water are isolated and out of context, no one in
Georgia knows about underwater archaeology except collectors, and legislation aimed at protecting underwater sites
is merely a veiled attempt at “the state”, i.e. “Government”,
intruding into the rights of individuals, and museums and
archaeologists do not interact with the public. The
“survivalist” mentality among some regarding “the state”
and “the Government” taking away our rights needs to be
changed through education, until many realize that “the state”
is its citizens. Threatening to make “the state” pay for enforcing legislation by protracting long jury trials does nothing but makes everyone’s tax dollars increase—because the
state is all of us.
A major thrust of any underwater program needs
to involve education about the importance of archaeological
sites, most specifically the importance of their context, along
with education leading to the eventual embracing of the program by collectors until they understand that it is not “the
state’s program” but “our underwater program”. Collectors
are correct in saying there is a strong need for a quality state
museum and underwater program in Georgia. Georgia lags
woefully behind all other states and has done an abysmal
job throughout the twentieth century in protecting our submerged cultural resources. It has only been in the last several years that Georgia even recognized that there was a problem. A state museum and a submerged cultural resource
program could begin to address the numerous problems facing Georgia’s submerged and terrestrial archaeological sites
in a way that would interact most advantageously with
Georgia’s citizens, while increasing the state’s economy,
protecting its cultural resources, and educating her residents.
An underwater program should actively work with
the public to record and preserve information on submerged
sites. The program needs to educate all Georgians about the
various types of submerged sites in Georgia and their importance, as well as relevant state and federal laws. Such
public education needs to be broad reaching and pervasive.
It should be aimed at both the diving and the non-diving
public. It should include opportunities for the non-diving
public, such as visitation to the banks or shore of sites located nearby where the non-diving public can watch underwater archaeologists work, ask questions, and examine associated materials (signage, flyers, exhibits, artifacts, photographs, maps, and drawings) explaining the site and underwater archaeology principles, procedures, and ethics. A
public education program should include sport divers as one
component of an over-reaching program. The goal of this
component should be mutual respect for our dwindling submerged cultural resources. In this vein, program components should include activities that assist in public education
and participation without damage to the resource. A program should be designed that offers opportunities for the
diving public to work with professional archaeologists in
the survey, mapping, and data recovery of underwater sites.
Such a program must follow professional ethics in every
aspect including research, field work, laboratory work, report production, curation, and public interpretation.
Sport divers should be trained and encouraged to
conduct non-invasive surveys and mapping of sites only,
through a comprehensive survey and mapping training program. Divers should not be allowed to collect artifacts or
disturb sites unless they are working under the immediate
in-field supervision of a professional archaeologist working
with or through the Public Education component of the Underwater Archaeology Program.
Divers should not be allowed to collect artifacts
through a licensing program, as such collection removes artifacts which belong to all of Georgia’s citizens, significantly
reduces or destroys the amount of information available to
Georgians through scientific research, and is illegal in state
and federal waters.
The program must make available to the public nonlocational information about Georgia’s submerged cultural
resources and knowledge gained through past, current and
future research, in the form of exhibits, booklets, speaker
presentations, web sites, and public events. The program
should conduct public education training sessions including
topics such as using topographic maps, global positioning
systems (GPS), mapping sites, surveying for sites, filling out
site forms, researching sites, and ethics. It should have a
regular schedule of seminars aimed at the general public that
shares research interpretations of the programs. The program should encourage and support (financially and figuratively) in-house participation in state, regional, national, and
international scholarly conferences such as The Society for
Georgia Archaeology, Southeastern Archaeological Conference, The Society for American Archaeology, and The Society for Historical Archaeology/Conference on Underwater Archaeology. Staff should be supported in writing manuscripts about program projects for scholarly journals and for
magazines aimed at a public audience.
88
Chapter 7.
OTHER SPECIFIC R ECOMMENDATIONS
Site Data Management
The GASF today has come a long way since its
inception, and its director/staff and student employees have
made great efforts to try to make the mid-twentieth century
data useable. As the GASF continues to evolve with the
changing needs of the various entities of the archaeological
community, significant considerations need to be made regarding submerged sites. Issues to consider include ways to
code sites that will ensure their presence in a submerged site
database or subset of a database and ways to access this data.
Completion of Reservoir Investigations
Research, data and artifact analysis, report writing,
and public education for all reservoir projects in Georgia
should be be completed. These include archaeological investigations at lakes Hartwell, Strom Thurmond, Oconee,
Sinclair, Jackson, Blackshear, West Point, Walter F. George,
Andrews, Seminole, Lanier, and Allatoona.
Regular revisits should be made to reservoir, lake,
and river sites to study their current state of preservation and
how they have been impacted, to date, by natural and manmade events. Strategies should be developed to either preserve sites determined eligible for NRHP nomination, or
mitigate impacts through the scientific recovery of information. Eligibility should be determined based on underwater
archaeology significance guidelines developed at the inception of Georgia’s Underwater Archaeology Program along
with site survey and testing data.
Archaeology on State and Federal Lands
Recommendations should be reviewed in past CRM
reports regarding management of sites on state and federal
lands. A determination should be made of which recommendations are being followed and which have been ignored.
Sound recommendations on state owned sites should be
implemented and there should be follow-through on recommendations on federally owned sites. (The recommendations from the shoreline survey of Lake Allatoona regarding
the protection of the Stamp Creek Site are a good example
of how Georgia’s submerged resources have not been protected.) Georgia should not accept poor standards for site
management and protection from any source, whether that
source is federal, state, or private.
Archaeological monitoring should be performed in
areas to be permitted by USACOE dredging along river banks
and other water-related environments. Those areas should
be examined archaeologically (with terrestrial and underwater surveys) and archivally prior to soil disturbing activities. Sites located need to be assessed for eligibility and
then appropriately acted upon with further work, preservation, or mitigation, depending on the assessment. The
USACOE should not allow these areas to be checked-off on
a form with no archival research and no actual archaeological fieldwork assessment.
When Section106 compliance work involving
streams, creeks, rivers, swamps, or other aquatic resources
is reviewed, the work needs to be adequately examined
(archivally and in the field) for cultural materials and features, as allowed by the contract and scope of work.
CRM and Aquatic Environments
Reviews of cultural management resource studies
containing project areas with aquatic environments should
be examined to ensure that the aquatic portions of the project
area have been examined for resources, unless the contract
and scope of work specifically eliminate those portions of
the project area.
Workshops should be held for CRM personnel and
other archaeologists working in Georgia covering the identification and recordation of water-related sites during terrestrial survey. The seminars should feature underwater field
archaeologists from other states.
It should be ensured that GDOT bridge replacement
projects always include assessment, through field survey and
historical research, of impacts to any archaeological sites
located underwater, on the shoreline, or in the bank.
Site Protection
An amnesty collectors program should be conducted with collectors that records any riverine-related sites
collected prior to the enactment of House Bill 698 (OCGA
12-3-621). Efforts should be made to build a rapport through
this program with collectors willing to work in the future
under the direct field supervision of archaeologists. The
program should use collectors to help monitor riverine-related sites against natural and man-made impacts. Enforcement of OCGA 12-3-621 against current and future site looting should be supported.
89
Chapter 7.
The issue of South Carolina divers collecting in and
along the Georgia-owned portions of the Savannah River
should be addressed. This will be an especially challenging
issue in terms of both public education and enforcement aspects, particularly as South Carolina allows the collecting of
artifacts in her state-owned portion of the Savannah River.
programs, homeschooler groups), senior groups (Golden
Agers, Elderhostel programs), and others.
A Web page should be designed with excellent content, graphics, and useability, aimed specifically at promoting public education about Georgia’s archaeological resources, terrestrial and underwater.
Education Outreach
All counties in Georgia should be encouraged to
purchase riverine archaeological sites with the Governor’s
Greenspace funds. Legislative measures should be taken to
widen the allowable greenspace corridor to include floodplain areas that should be too hazardous for modern occupation, but contain archaeological sites.
Preservation information about submerged sites
should be provided to local, state, and federal officials, taking special care to develop educational relationships with
those staff and personnel interacting with submerged sites
and the public on a daily basis. Training and educational
programs should include, but not be limited to, Department
of Natural Resources personnel (state park rangers, fish and
wildlife personnel, and law enforcement personnel). There
should be fostering of a submerged cultural awareness and
protection ethic among personnel such as land management
staff at the various corporate, state, and federal public recreation areas including, but not limited to parks, picnic areas,
docks, boat ramps, camping areas, and wildlife management
areas. Educational programming should be continual to combat ignorance that comes with frequent staff turnover.
Professional-quality, accurate public displays
should be developed about Georgia’s terrestrial and underwater archaeology and the importance of preservation for
exhibit at state parks offices, lobbies, and museums. The
displays should be tailored to specific locations, such as parks
with aquatic cultural resources.
Interesting public education programs should be
created, developed, and administered on a regular basis about
Georgia’s underwater archaeological heritage and the importance of preservation. Programs should be presented on
a regular basis to a diverse audience including community
groups (Rotary Club, Junior League, Kiwanis Club, etc.),
sports enthusiasts (fishermen, boaters, divers), interest groups
(historical societies, archaeological societies, Riverkeeper organizations, beautification clubs, garden clubs), academic
groups (colleges and universities, teacher workshops), children (workshops, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, 4-H, after school
A well-planned underwater archaeology project
should be developed with a large and varied public component (both divers and non-divers, outreach at multiple venues in multiple formats) that is a model in terms of research,
ethics, and public participation and interpretation. This
model could be used to foster further preservation of
Georgia’s underwater cultural resources.
Interpretive underwater trails and sites should be
developed, promoted, and managed so that sites can be enjoyed by both divers and non-divers from Georgia and other
places. Such trails will promote education about Georgia’s
unique past, in addition to showcasing the importance of
site preservation.
Research
The GASF should be supported and encouraged to
provide a way to code archaeological sites having underwater, near-water, and/or water-related resources that can be
easily retrievable for management and research purposes.
Professional underwater research and investigations
of Georgia’s submerged resources by graduate students in
underwater archaeological studies programs at universities
around the country should be encouraged and supported.
Summary
Georgia faces many challenges in confronting its
responsibilities as a steward of submerged cultural resources.
The vastness of the state, the large and varied resource base,
the increasing pace of destruction to this resource base, the
lack of any previous underwater management program, the
current lack of funding, the lack of an awareness of the problem on the part of the public and policy makers, and the
entrenched “finders-keepers” mentality regarding submerged
sites, are all serious obstacles to preserving and learning from
our submerged history. These obstacles, however, are not
insurmountable. The recommendations above offer a rationale to meet these challenges successfully. The end result
90
Chapter 7.
of this success is multi-fold and includes the wise
management of public assets, the preservation of these assets for future generations to enjoy, the understanding of
more than 12,000 years of our past, the interpretation of this
past for all Georgians, and benefits to local and state economies through related heritage tourism. At this dawning of
the twenty-first century, now is the time for the state of Georgia to take responsibility for our submerged resources. We
cannot afford to wait any longer.
91
Chapter 7.
92
Chapter 8. Bibliography
No author
n.d. Report on Chattahoochee River Basin Sites 9Qu25, 9Cl15, and 9Cla7. (GASF Ms396), University of Georgia,
Athens.
Alford, Michael B.
1989 A Small Craft Typology: Tool for Archaeological Research. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the
Society for Historical Archaeology Conference, edited by J. Barto Arnold, pp. 61-63, Society for Historical
Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.
Allis, Frederick S., ed.
1967 Benjamin Lincoln Papers. Massachusetts Historical Society. Microfilm Publication, No. 3, Microreproduction
Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Amer, Christopher
1993 The Destruction of A Resource: South Carolina’s Submerged Cultural Heritage (pp.4-9), in Site Destruction in
Georgia and The Carolinas, David G. Anderson and Virginia Horak (ed.), Interagency Archeological Services
Division, National Park Service, Atlanta.
Anderson, David G.
1994 The Savannah River Chiefdoms: Political Change in the Late Prehistoric Southeast. University of Alabama
Press, Tuscaloosa.
Anderson, David 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. Volume I, Russell Papers, US Army Corps of Engineers,
Savannah District and the Interagency Archeological Services, National Park Service, Garrow and Associates,
Atlanta, Georgia.
Anderson, David G., Christopher F. Amer, and Rita F. Elliott
1994 Archeological Survey Along the Upper Savannah River, 1990. Archeological Services Division, National Park
Service, Atlanta.
Aughey, Paul C.
1996 The Potential for Paleoindian Sites in Florida’s Karst Regions. Department of Anthropology, Florida State
University, Tallahassee, Florida.
Babits, Lawrence and Julie Barnes
1984 Archaeological Investigations of the Marine Railway Site, Hutchinson Island, Savannah, Georgia. Center for
Low Country Studies, Armstrong State College, Savannah, Georgia.
93
Chapter 8.
Babits, L.E., and Annalie C. Kjorness
1995 Final Report on an Archaeological Survey of the western Shore of the Pungo River from Wades Point to
Woodstock Point. Ms on File, Office of State Archaeologist, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Babits, L.E., Jeffrey Morris, and Annalies C. Kjorness
1995
Final Report. A Survey of the North Shore Pamlico River: Bath Creek to Wade’s Point. Ms. On file, Office of
State Archaeologist, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Bartovics, Albert F.
1979 A Preliminary Site Report for Archaeological Salvage Undertaken at 9Mg99 (The Park’s Mill Site). Department
of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.
Bartovics, Albert F. and R. Bruce Council
1978 A Preliminary Site Report for Archaeological Salvage Undertaken at 9Ge37 (The Curtwright Factory Site).
Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.
Blake, William P.
1858 Map of a Part of the Gold Region of Lumpkin County, Georgia Along the Chestatee River, Snyder, Black and
Sturn, New York, in the map collection of the University of Georgia Library, Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript
Library, Athens, Georgia.
Braley, Chad O.
1992 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of a Fifteen Acre Tract in Roswell, Fulton County, Georgia. Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia
Braley, Chad O., Roy R. Doyon, and J. Mark Williams
1985 The Archeological Confirmation of Fort Argyle, (9Bry28) Bryan County, Georgia. Southeastern Archeological
Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia.
Braley, Chad O. and Peggy Froeschauer
1991 The Archeological and Architectural Investigations at the Boardman Dam and Pond Site, Fort Gordon, Georgia.
Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia
Brannon, Peter A.
1909 Aboriginal Remains in the Middle Chattahoochee Valley of Alabama and Georgia. American Anthropologist (new series) 11:186-198.
Brooks, Mark J.
1986 Geoarchaeological Research in the Coastal Plain Portion of the Savannah River Valley. Geoarchaeology 1:293307.
Brooks, Mark J., Barbara E. Taylor, and John A. Grant
n.d. Carolina Bay Geoarchaeology and Holocene Landscape Evolution on the Upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina.
Manuscript for Geoarchaeology.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
n.d. Georgia Power Company. Unpublished manuscript (GASF Ms177), Laboratory of Archaeology, University of
Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
1950 Preliminary Report on Excavations in the Allatoona Reservoir, pp. 5-22, in Early Georgia, Vol. 1, Number 1, the
Society for the Preservation of Early Georgia History, Athens, Georgia.
94
Chapter 8.
1951 Preliminary Report Lake Springs Shell Heap, Columbia County, Georgia. Smithsonian Institution, (GASF
Ms26), University of Georgia, Athens.
1953 Appraisal of the Archeological Resources of Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina and Georgia. National Park
Service, (GASF Ms71), University of Georgia, Athens.
1954 Fairchild’s Landing, Seminole County, Georgia. Smithsonian Institution, (GASF Ms68), University of Georgia,
Athens.
1956a Progress Report No. 1 on Excavation at Tugalo (9St1-Georgia), (GASF Ms188), Department of Anthropology,
University of Georgia, Athens.
1956b Progress Report No. 2 on Excavation at Tugalo (9St1-Georgia), (GASF Ms189), Department of Anthropology,
1956c Progress Report No. 3 on Excavation at Tugalo (9St1-Georgia), (GASF Ms190), Department of Anthropology,
1956d Progress Report No. 4 on Excavation at Tugalo (9St1-Georgia), (GASF Ms191), Department of Anthropology,
Cantley, Charles E. and Joseph W. Joseph
1991 Prehistory of the Middle Chattahoochee River Valley: Findings of the 1989-1990 West Point Lake Archaeological Survey and Site Testing. New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia.
Carrell, Toni, Sandra Rayl, Daniel Lenihan
1976 The Effects of Freshwater Inundation of Archeological Sites Through Reservoir Construction, A Literature
Search. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
City of Augusta
1994 Augusta Canal, Explore: A Self Guided Adventure. In cooperation with The National park Service. Augusta,
Georgia.
Code of Alabama
1975 Title 41-9-249 and Title 41-9-249.1, Alabama Act 99-595, (revised 1999), Alabama Legislature.
Cohen, A.D., M.J. Andrejko, William Spackman, and Dorothy Corvinis
1984 Peat Deposits of the Okefenokee Swamp. In The Okefenokee Swamp: Its Natural History, Geology, and
Geochemistry, edited by A.D. Cohen, D.J. Casagrande, M.J. Andrejko, and G.R. Best, pp. 493-553. Wetland
Surveys, Los Alamos.
Connaway, John
in press Fishweirs of Mississippi and Beyond. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Council, R. Bruce
1978 Preliminary Site Report for Archaeological Salvage Undertaken at 9Pm239 (Ross’ or Merrell’s Grist Mill).
Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.
1979 A Preliminary Site Report for Archaeological Salvage Undertaken at 9Ge50 (Lawrence Shoals Site). Department
of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.
95
Chapter 8.
Cowie, Sarah
2000 Early Settlement and Industry in Georgia and Alabama, Archaeological Testing of Five Historic Sites in the Fort
Benning Military Reservation. Southern Research Historic Preservation Consultants, Inc., Ellerslie, Georgia.
Cowie, Sarah E., Rita Folse Elliott, and George D. Price
2000 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Augusta Canal Headgates Area, Columbia County, Georgia.
Southern Research Historic Preservation Consultants, Inc. Ellerslie, Georgia.
Crass, David
2000 Request for Proposals, A Context for Submerged and Near-Water Archaeological Sites. Georgia Historic
Preservation Division, Office of the State Archaeologist, Atlanta.
Crisp County Power Commission
2002 Web page, “Lake Blackshear-The Georgia Boater”, www.georgiaboater.com/lakes/lake_blackshear.htm, June 26,
2002.
Dasovich, Steven J. and W. Brian Yates
1994 An Underwater Archaeological Survey of Little Dismal (Hammock) Sink, Leon Sinks Geological Area,
Apalachicola National Forest, Leon County, Florida. Karst Features Archaeological Survey Papers No. 4,
Department of Anthropology, Florida State University.
de Baillou, Clemens
1959 Archeological Salvage in the Morgan Falls Basin. Manuscript No. 346, University of Georgia, Athens.
Delgado, James P.
1987 The National Register of Historic Places and Maritime Preservation Bulletin. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
DePratter, Chester B.
1976 The 1974-1975 Archaeological Survey in the Wallace Reservoir, Greene, Hancock, Morgan, and Putnam
Counties, Georgia. Ms on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.
1983 Subsurface Testing in the 1974-1975 Wallace Reservoir Survey: Site Discovery and Site Exploration Applications. Early Georgia 11:32-60.
Department of Community Affairs (Georgia)
2002 Web site, http://www.dca.state.ga.us/environmental/riverbasin4.jpg, May 15.
Effingham County Superior Court
1860 Deed Book D:461.
Elliott, Daniel
1997 Argyle, Historical Archaeological Study of a Colonial Fort in Bryan County, Georgia. United States Department
of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program. The LAMAR Institute Publication Series Report 37. The
LAMAR Institute, Watkinsville, Georgia.
1995 Clark Hill River Basin Survey. LAMAR Institute Publication Number 26. Savannah River Archaeological
Research Papers 7. Savannah River Archaeological Research Program. University of South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia.
96
Chapter 8.
Elliott, Rita
1984 Letter from Elizabeth Lyons/Louis Larson. On file at author’s residence.
1988 The Pulse of Petersburg: A Multidisciplinary Investigation of A Submerged Tobacco Town in Georgia, Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of History, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina.
2001 Tributaries to the Past: 10,000 Years of Riverine Use at Ichauway, as Recorded by Archaeological Reconnaissance. Submitted to the Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center. Southern Research Historic Preservation
Consultants, Inc., Ellerslie, Georgia.
Elliott, Rita F., Johannes H.N. Loubser, Leslie E. Raymer, Mary Beth Reed, Charles E. Cantley
1995 Archaeological Testing of Three Sites Along SR 21, Effingham and Screven Counties, Georgia. New South
Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia.
Elliott, Daniel T.
1995 Clark Hill Basin Survey. The LAMAR Institute Publication 26. LAMAR Institute, Watkinsvill, Georgia.
Elliott, Rita, Ronnie Rogers, and David Crass
2000 Stemming the Tide: A Survey of Submerged Cultural Resources Programs in the United States, with a View
Toward Georgia. Submitted to the Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division. Southern
Research Historic Preservation Consultants, Inc., Ellerslie, Georgia.
Elliott, Daniel T. and Kenneth E. Sassaman
1995 Archaic Period Archaeology of the Georgia Coastal Plain and Coastal Zone. University of Georgia, Laboratory
of Archaeology. Series Report No. 35, Athens, Georgia.
Evans, Joe
1990 An Underwater Archaeological Assessment of Cultural Resources Located at the Edward Ball Wakulla Springs
State Park (8Wa24), Florida. Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Espenshade, Christopher T. and Jeffrey W. Gardner
1989 The Meal Tastes Sweeter: Documentation of Young’s Mill, West Point Lake, Troup County, Georgia. Report
submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile. Brockington and Associates, Atlanta.
Fish, Paul R., and David J. Hally
1983 The Wallace Reservoir Archaeological Project: An Overview. Early Georgia 11:1-18, The Society For Georgia
Archaeology, Athens, Georgia.
Fleetwood, William C., Jr.
1995 Tidecraft: The Boats of South Carolina, Georgia and Northeastern Florida-1550-1950. WBG Marine Press,
Tybee Island, Georgia.
Frazier, Bill
2002 Georgia’s Laws, “Free Passage of Fish”, An Historical Review Number 4. Georgia’s Streams/Fish Traps.
Atlanta, Georgia.
Fundaburk, Emma Lila
1957 Southeastern Indians, Life Portraits No. 14. Rose Printing Co., Tallahassee, Florida.
Garrison, Ervan, J. Alan May, Jeffrey B. Newsom, and Alf Sjoberg
1977 Progress Report on the Effects of Inundation on Cultural Resources: Table Rock Reservoir, Missouri. American
Archaeology Division, Department of Anthroplogy, University of Missouri-Columbia.
97
Chapter 8.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
1998 Strategic Plan for Submerged Cultural Resources in Georgia, Exhibit A. Historic Preservation Division, Atlanta,
Georgia.
Gerrell, Philip R.
1986 Inundated Paleo-Indian Sites in Florida. Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Gibson, John L., ed.
1979 Cultural Investigations in the Apalachicola and Chattahoochee River Valleys in Florida, Alabama, and Georgia:
History, Archaeology, and Underwater Remote Sensing. University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette.
Glenn, James R.
1996 Guide to the National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, revised. National Anthropological
Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Goff, John
n.d. Photograph Collection. Georgia Department of Archives and History, Atlanta, Georgia.
Golden Link
2002 Web page, http://ngeorgia.com/naturally/rivers.html, May 15.
GORP
2002 Web site, “Guide to Outdoor Recreation and Active Travel”, htpp://www.gorp.com/gorp/resource/us_nwr/
ga_okefe.html, May 16.
Gresham, Thomas H.
1987 The Wallace Mitigation Survey: An Overview. Wallace Reservoir Project Contribution Number 32, (GASF
Ms576) Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.
Hally, David J. and James Rudolph
1980a Lake Sidney Lanier Cultural Resources Survey Annual Report for 1979. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
1980b West Point Lake Cultural Resources Survey Annual Report 1979. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia
1982a Lake Sidney Lanier Cultural Resources Survey Final Report. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
1982b West Point Lake Cultural Resources Survey Final Report, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Hamilton, David B.
1982 Plant Succession and the Influence of Disturbance in the Okefenokee Swamp, Georgia. Okefenokee Systems
Investigations, No. 19, Athens, Georgia.
Harper, Francis
1998 Travel’s of William Bartram, Naturalist Edition. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Harris, Lynn
1992 The Waccamaw-Richmond Hill Waterfront Project 1991: Laurel Hill Barge No. 2. Research Manuscript Series
No. 214, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
2002 Underwater Heritage and the Diving Community in Public Benefits of Archaeology (pp.59-73), Barbara J. Little
(ed.), University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
98
Chapter 8.
Harris, L., J. Moss, and C. Naylor
1993 A Preliminary Underwater Archaeological and Historical Reconnaissance of the West Branch of the Cooper
River. Research Manuscript Series No,. 218, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia.
Hillyer, Judge Junius
n.d. Memoirs of the Early Life and Times of Judge Junius Hillyer. Shaler Hillyer Papers, Hargrett Rare Book and
Manuscript Collection, University of Georgia Library, Athens.
Hodler, Thomas W. and Howard A. Schretter
1986 Atlas of Georgia. The Institute of Community and Area Development. University of Georgia, Athens.
Hutto, Brooks
1970 Archaeological Survey of the Elbert County, Georgia, Portion of the Proposed Trotters Shoals Reservoir,
Savannah River. Laboratory of Archaeology Report No. 7, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.
Huscher, Harold
1953 Summary Report of Archaeological Survey of the Lower Chattahoochee Valley. (GASF Ms183), University of
Georgia, Athens.
1959 Appraisal of the Archeological Resources of the Walter F. George Reservoir Area, Chattahoochee River, Alabama and Georgia. River Basin Surveys, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1960 Notes on the Excavations of 9Cla2. (GASF Ms299), University of Georgia, Athens.
1972 Archaeological Investigations on the West Point Dam Area: A Preliminary Report, Vol. I of II. (GASF Ms166),
Laboratory of Archaeology, University of Georgia, Athens.
Hvidt, Kristian
1980 Von Reck’s Voyage. Beehive Press, Savannah, Georgia.
Jackson, Claude V.
n.d. The Cape Fear- Northeast Cape Fear Rivers Comprehensive Study: A Maritime History and Survey. Vol. 1.
Maritime History. Underwater Archaeology Unit, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Kure
Beach, North Carolina.
Kaufmann, Kira
1988 Wells of Information. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University.
Kazmierski, Steven T.
1992 Inundated Prehistoric Sites: A Review of Studies by James S. Dunbar of the Florida Bureau of Archaeology.
Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Kelly, Arthur R.
1950 An Early Flint Industry in Southwest Georgia. Manuscript on file, GASF, University of Georgia, Athens.
Kelly, A.R. and Robert S. Neitzel
n.d. Chauga Mound and Village (38Oc1) and Other Sites in the Hartwell Basin. (Ms30) Department of Anthropology,
99
Chapter 8.
Kelly, A.R., Richard Nonas, Bettye Broyles, Clemens de Baillou, David W. Chase, Frank T. Schnell
1963 Survey of Archaeological Sites in Clay County, Georgia, Other Than Mandeville, 9CLA1
University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report No. 5, (GASF Ms31) University of Georgia,
Athens.
Kjorness, Annalies C., and Lawrence E. Babits
2000 A Derelict Small Boat Survey, Pamlico Drainage, North Carolina, in Down The River to the Sea: Proceedings of
the Eight International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology Gdansk 1997, ed. By Jerzy Litwin, pp. 193196, Polish Maritime Museum, Gdansk.
Klein, Terry H.
1983 Cultural Resource Inventory and Assessment at the Bartlett’s Ferry Electric Generating Project, Harris County,
Georgia. Soil Systems, Inc. Athens, Georgia.
Knight, Vernon J. and Timothy S. Mistovich
1984 Walter F. George Lake Archaeological Survey Fee Owned Lands. Office of Archaeological Research, University
of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Kratzer, Kimberly P.
1994 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Investigations, Stevens Creek Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2535,
South Carolina and Georgia. The Cultural Resource Group Louis Berger and Associates, Inc., Richmond,
Virginia.
Ledbetter, R. Jerald
1996 Archeological Salvage Excavations at Concord Mill, Cobb County, Georgia. Southeastern Archeological
Ledbetter, R. Jerald, W. Dean Wood, Karen G. Wood, Robbie F. Ethridge, and Chad O. Braley
1987 Cultural Resources Survey of Allatoona Lake Area, Georgia. Volume I. Southeastern Archeological Services,
Inc., Athens, Georgia.
Lenihan, Daniel
2002 “Damming the Past”, on web page March 28, http://www.nps.gov/scru/dam.html, National Park Service.
Lenihan, Daniel J., Toni L. Carrrell, Thomas S. Hopkins, A. Wayne Prokopetz, Sandra L. Rayl, Cathryn S. Tarasovic
1977 The Preliminary Report of the National Inundation Study. National Park Service Southwest Cultural Resources
Center, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Lenihan, Daniel J., Toni L. Carrell, Stephen Fosberg, Larry Murphy, Sandra L. Rayle, John A. Ware
1981 The Final Report of the National Reservoir Inundation Study: Volume I. National Park Service Southwest
Cultural Resources Center, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Marrinan, Rochelle A., Glen H. Doran, Gregg R. Stanton, and Steven J. Dasovich
1993 A Research Design for Archeological Investigations in Little (Hammock) Sink, Leon Sinks Geological Area,
Apalachicola National Forest, Leon County, Florida. Karst Features Archaeological Survey Papers No. 1.
Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Martin, Debra K., Newell O. Wright, Jr., and Lesley M. Drucker
1986 Impact Study of the Effects of an Army Exercise on the Archaeological Resources of Fort Argyle (9Br28), Fort
Stewart, Georgia,. Resource Studies Series 93. Carolina Archaeological Services, Columbia, South Carolina.
Submitted to the National Park Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
100
Chapter 8.
Maurer, Tracy
1995 Macon, The Center of Georgia. Community Communications, Montgomery, Alabama.
Mauldin, Bill
1988 The Potential for Early Man Sites in Sinks. Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
McMichael, Edward V. and James H. Kellar
1959 Archaeological Salvage in the Oliver Basin, GASF Ms. 50, University of Georgia, Athens.
Meide, Chuck
1995 The Dugout Canoe in the Americas: An Archaeological, Ethnohistorical, and Structural Overview. Unpublished
manuscript, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University.
Miller, Carl
1948 Appraisal of the Archeological Resources of the Clark Hill Reservoir Area, South Carolina and Georgia. Prepared by River Basin Surveys Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. On file at Georgia Archaeological Site
File, Manuscript File.
1949 The Lake Springs Site, Columbia County, Georgia. American Antiquity 15(1):38-51.
Mills, Robert
1980 (reprint) Mills Atlas of the State of South Carolina 1825. Southern Historical Press, Easley, South Carolina.
Mistovich, Timothy S. and Vernon J. Knight
n.d. Excavation at 4 Sites on W. F. George Lake, Alabama and Georgia. Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Moore, Clarence B.
1907 Mounds of the Lower Chattahoochee and Lower Flint Rivers. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia 12. Philadelphia.
Mueller, Edward A.
1990 Perilous Journeys: A History of Steamboating on the Chattahoochee, Apalachicola, and Flint Rivers, 1828-1928,
Historic Chattahoochee Commission, Eufaula, Alabama.
Naval Historical Center
2003 “USS Tecumseh” web page, April 21, http:www.history.navy.mil/branches/org12-14.htm. Department of the
Navy, Washington, D.C.
Newell, Mark M.
n.d. Proposal for Research Reconstruction of a Nineteenth Century Petersburg Boat at Augusta, Georgia. Underwater
Archaeology Division, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina,
Columbia.
Newell, Mark M., George Barnes Barrett and William Rusty Fleetwood
1992 Proposal for Research Reconstruction of a Nineteenth Century Petersburg Boat at Augusta, Georgia. Underwater
Archaeology Division, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology & Anthropology, University of South Carolina,
Columbia.
101
Chapter 8.
Newman, Robert D.
1984 Archaeological Investigations at Seven Mill Sites, Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, Georgia and South Carolina. Building Conservation Technology, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee.
Okefenokee Chamber of Commerce and The City of Folkston
2001 Web site, htpp://www.folkston.com/okefenokee.html, May 16.
Overton, Glenn C.
n.d. The Cape Fear- Northeast Cape Fear Rivers Comprehensive Study: A Maritime History and Survey. Vol.
Cultural Survey. Underwater Archaeology Unit, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Kure Beach,
North Carolina.
Paulk, Greg
1977 Wallace Mitigation Survey. Ms on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.
Phelps, David S.
ca 1987 The Past Lives at Lake Phelps, Pettigrew State Park, Creswell, North Carolina, brochure. North Carolina
Humanities Committee and East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina.
Phillips, William
1892 Report of William Phillips, C.E. Upon the Topography and Hydrography in the Vicinity of Augusta, Georgia.
John M. Weigls and Company, Augusta.
Pluckhahn, Thomas J.
1996 Joseph Caldwell’s Summerour Mound (9Fo15) and Woodland Platform Mounds in the Southeastern United
States. Southeastern Archaeology Vol. 15(2) winter. Southeastern Archaeological Conference.
Price, T. Jeffrey
1991 A Cultural Resources Survey of Two Small Tracts in Phinizy Swamp, Richmond County, Georgia. Southeastern
Archeological Services, Athens, Georgia.
Rahn, Ruby
1968 River Highway for Trade: The Savannah. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia.
Reed, Mary Beth, J.W. Joseph, Rita F. Elliott
1994 Historic Milling on Sandy Run and Spirit Creeks, Fort Gordon, Richmond County, Georgia. New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia.
Robinson Fisher Associates
1980 A Study of the Archaeology, History, and Environmental Quality of the Brunswick-Altamaha Canal. For Glynn
County, Georgia and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Athens, Georgia.
Rome-Floyd Parks and Recreation Authority
n.d. The History of Lock and Dam Park. Brochure. Rome, Georgia.
Savannah and Ogeechee Canal Society
1995 Savannah-Ogeechee Canal 1825-1890s. Brochure. Savannah-Ogeechee canal Society, Savannah, Georgia.
Schnell, Frank T.
1973 A Preliminary Assessment of Archaeological Resources Remaining in the Walter F. George Lake Area. Columbus Museum of Arts and Crafts, Inc., Columbus, Georgia.
102
Chapter 8.
1975 An Archaeological Survey of Lake Blackshear. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 18:117-122.
1996 A Study of the Effects of the Alberto Flood of 1994 Upon the Archaeological Resources of Georgia. The Columbus Museum, Columbus, Georgia.
Schnell, Frank T., Vernon J. Knight, Jr., and Gail S. Schnell
1981 Cemochechobee: Archaeology of a Mississippian Ceremonial Center on the Chattahoochee River. University
Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
Seutter, Matthew
1747 Plan Von New Eben-Ezer. Augsburg, Single Map File (Georgia-Ebenezer), Map Division, US Library of
Congress, Washington, D.C.
Shirk, Elizabeth C.
2000 Survey Recommendations to the Department of Natural Resources’ Submerged Timber Committee. Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division, Archaeological Services Unit, Atlanta.
Smith, Julie Barnes
1992 The Historic Eelbeck Community, Fort Benning, Chattahoochee County, Georgia. Alabama Museum of Natural
History, Division of Archaeology, Report of Investigations 65, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Smith, Charlotte, and Jennifer Freer Harris
2001 Sprawl and the Destruction of Georgia’s Archaeological Resources, pp. 65-75, in Resources at Risk: Defending
Georgia’s Hidden Heritage, Early Georgia, Vol. 29, No. 1, The Society for Georgia Archaeology, Athens,
Georgia.
Society for the Preservation of Old Mills
n.d. Milling Around: A Guide to Old Mills Open to the Public. Brochure.
The Southern Company
2002 Web site, www.southerncompany.com, May 15.
Southern Recorder
1866 “Mills For Sale” advertisement, April 10.
Tennessee Valley Authority
2002 Web site, “Tennessee Valley Authority”, htt://www.tva.gov/, June 12.
Trowell, Chris
1992 Exploring the Okefenokee, Letters and Diaries From the Indian Wars 1836-1842. Research Paper No. 5, Manuscript Series No. 1, South Georgia College, Douglass, Georgia.
Turner, Maxine
1988 Navy Gray, A Story of the Confederate Navy on the Chattahoochee and Apalachicola Rivers. Sponsored by the
Historic Chattahoochee Commission and the James W. Woodruff, Jr., Confederate Naval Museum. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)
2002a Web site, http:www.sam.usace.army.mil/op/rec/acf/history.html, May 16.
2002b Web site, http://carters.sam.usace.army.mil/info.html, May 16.
103
Chapter 8.
2002c Web site, http://allatoona.sam.usace.army.mil/lakeinfo.html, May 16.
2002d Web site, http://westpt.sam.usace.army.mil/history.html, May 16.
2002e Web site, http://lanier.sam.usace.army.mil/history.html, May 16.
2002f Web site, http://www.sam.usace.army.mil/op/rec/seminole/general.html, May 16.
United States Serial Set (USSS)
1875 The Executive Documents of the House of Representatives, 1873-74, 589, Congressional Information Service
(CIS), Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
1900 The Executive Documents of the House of Representatives, 1898-99, 3747, Appendix R-4, Congressional
Information Service (CIS), Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Watkins, C. Malcolm
1954 Collection of European Artifacts from the Site of Tugalo, Georgia. Examination and Report. Smithsonian
Institution, (GASF Ms201), Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.
Watts, Gordon, Jr.
1982 A Reconnaissance Survey of the Chattahoochee River at Columbus, Georgia. Prepared for the James W. Woodruff Confederate Naval Museum, Columbus, Georgia. Tidewater Atlantic Research, Washington, North Carolina.
Watts, Gordon, Jr., R. Stephenson, W.N. Still, Jr., W.K. Hall, B.A. Rogers, K. Bequette, D. Beard, and K. Foster
1990 C.S.S. Chattahoochee. An Investigation of the Remains of a Confederate Gunboat. Program for Maritime
History and Underwater Research, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina. Submitted to James W.
Woodruff Confederate Naval Museum, Columbus, Georgia.
Weisman, Russell, S. Dwight Kirkland, and John E. Worth
1998 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Trail Ridge, Charlton County, Georgia. Southern Research Historic
Preservation Consultants, Inc., Ellerslie, Georgia.
Wellge, Henry
1886 Perspective Map of Columbus, Georgia. Henry Wellge and Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Wharton, Charles H.
1978 Natural Environments of Georgia. The Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens. Geologic
and Water Resources Division and Resource Section, Office of Planning and research, Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, Atlanta.
Wheaton, Thomas R.
1982 Flint River Archaeological Survey and Testing, Albany, Georgia, Soil Systems, Inc. Athens, Georgia.
White, Nancy
1981 Archaeological Survey at Lake Seminole, Jackson and Gadsen Counties, Florida, Seminole and Decatur Counties,
Georgia. Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Archaeological Research Report Number 29, Cleveland, Ohio
Witthoft, John
n.d. Trade Goods From Tugalo South Carolina-Georgia Boundary, Alleged Site of Tugalo of Early 18th Century.
(GASF Ms 41), Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.
104
Chapter 8.
Wilde-Ramsing, Mark, and Michael B. Alford
1990 North Carolina Small Craft Historical Context – A Underwater Archaeology Unit Management Plan. Manuscript
on File, North Carolina Underwater Archaeology Unit, Kure Beach, North Carolina.
Williams, Mark and Daniel T. Elliott (eds,)
1998 A World Engraved, Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Wood, Judy L.(comp and ed.)
2002 The Georgia Shipwreck Index and Vessel Files. Unpublished. Savannah, Georgia.
Wood, Karen G.
1983 Nineteenth Century Foodways in the Georgia Piedmont. Unpublished M.A., Department of Anthropology,
1989 An Archeological Survey of the Presumed Location of the First Roswell Factory. Southeastern Archeological
1991 Archeological Testing of the Location of the First Roswell Cotton Factory. Southeastern Archeological Services,
Inc., Athens, Georgia.
1992 The Power of Water: Four Early Mill Sites on Georgia’s Oconee River. Prepared for Georgia Power Company,
Atlanta, Georgia.
1993 An Archeological and Historical Assessment of the Columbus Waterfront From the City Wharf to Oglethorpe
Bridge. Southeastern Archeological Services, Athens, Georgia.
Wood, Karen G. and Thomas H. Gresham
1993 A History of the Little River Mills Site, Cherokee County, Georgia. Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc.,
Athens, Georgia.
Wood, W. Dean
1977 An Archaeological Survey of the Wallace Dam Tailrace. Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia,
Athens.
Worth, John E.
1998 A Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of Ichauway Plantation, Baker County, Georgia, 1998. The
Coosawattee Foundation, Calhoun, Georgia.
1996 Managing Archaeological Resources in Riverine Floodplain Corridors: An Historical Impact Assessment for the
Flint River Fall-Line Zone. Fernbank Museum of Natural History, Atlanta, Georgia.
Wright, Newell
1987 A Review of Underwater Regulation in Georgia with a Preliminary Inventory of Submerged Cultural Resources.
Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division, Atlanta, Georgia.
Wright, Wade
1957 History of the Georgia Power Company 1855-1956. Foote and Davies, Atlanta, Georgia.
105

Georgia`s Inland Waters - Historic Preservation Division

Transcription

Similar documents

candice_l_dircks_042213 copy

gcis junior - Georgia Career Information Center

Roger C. Wilson Partner

CareerScope, GCIS, and GACollege411

Common Name: AMERICAN LILY-OF-THE

here

Pachysandra procumbens

10/28/2009 - Decatur Rotary Club

southern beauty - Georgia Winnie Rebels

View the Fall/Winter 2007 newsletter