Archeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Buck Shoals State Park, White County, Georgia

In January, 2003, Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., conducted an archeological reconnaissance survey of the proposed Buck Shoals State Park. The proposed park incorporates an area of roughly 236 ha (583 ac) in southeastern White County. The intent of the survey was to provide archeological information to park planning personnel that will assist them in the development of a site-specific master plan. This goal was accomplished through a combination of archival research and field reconnaissance. Because this was a reconnaissance level survey, the

primary goal was to ascertain the types of sites that might be expected to occur in the tract and to form some preliminary indications regarding their ubiquity and distribution. Secondarily, the field reconnaissance was aimed at finding as many significant sites (e.g., cemeteries and well preserved prehistoric sites) as possible so that they can be avoided.

Archival research at the Georgia Archaeological Site Files indicated the presence of two known sites within or near the project area. Site 9WH117, which was recorded by archeologist Bill Frazier, consists of the former location of a wooden fish trap positioned on a ledge within the river (site form on file at the Georgia Archeological Site Files). The trap was reportedly operating in the early 1900s. The second site (9WH57) consists of an isolated quartz core found on the surface of an eroded slope during a survey of a transmission line by Soil Systems, Inc. Additional archival research–consisting of the examination of old maps, county histories, cemetery books, and aerial photographs–was conducted at the Gainesville Regional Library, the White County Historical Society, and the University of Georgia Libraries. This research demonstrated that a few houses were present within the project area during the early and middle twentieth century. In general, however, archival sources suggested that the survey tract was sparsely inhabited during the twentieth century.

Field inspection of the project area consisted of a pedestrian survey of the major landforms. We walked all of the principal ridges, terraces, and levees, looking for obvious signs of historic houses and cemeteries and examining any exposed ground surfaces for artifacts. Where surface exposure was inadequate, we sometimes excavated shovel tests to determine soil conditions and ascertain the presence of sites.

Our survey resulted in the identification of 10 confirmed or potential archeological sites within the project area, in addition to the two that had already been recorded. As was expected from our archival research, historic era house sites are relatively uncommon in the survey tract. We identified four actual or potential house sites, mainly in the uplands near old roads. Six additional sites in the survey tract have some evidence for historic era activities other than ordinary domestic occupation. These include one still, two historic era artifact scatters, a cluster of rock piles, and two

twentieth century trash dumps. Field inspection suggested that prehistoric archeological sites are also not common in the survey tract. We identified one prehistoric lithic scatter. In addition, we located one rock shelter that has a good potential for prehistoric utilization.

Based on the results of our study, we believe that the survey area has a low probability for archeological sites. Although a more intensive survey would undoubtedly identify other sites in the project area that were not detected during our reconnaissance, we believe that the number of sites in the proposed state park is minimal. Because this was a reconnaissance level study, all of the confirmed or potential archeological sites that were identified should be avoided until they can be investigated in greater detail and evaluated for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. Further, any ground disturbing activities should be preceded by a more intensive archeological survey. With these caveats in place it is nevertheless possible to identify a few sites that are obviously more sensitive. The rock shelter

(Field Site 8), if it indeed contains evidence of prehistoric utilization, may have significant research potential. The reported fish trap (site 9WH117) is historically significant, and should also be investigated to determine if any remains of the trap or associated features are present and preserved. Finally, we believe that one of the four reported house sites (Field Site 7) is both well-preserved and potentially relatively old, and thus also warrants protection.