An Archaeological Survey of the Shoulderbone Tract, Hancock County, Georgia

Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc. recently completed an archeological survey of an 1130 acre tract in northeastern Hancock County, Georgia that encompasses the Shoulderbone site, a Mississippian period (A.D. 1000-1540) mound and village complex. The work was conducted for Hancock County (through the engineering firm of Precision Planning, Inc.), and was completed in anticipation of the creation of a county park that will incorporate the Shoulderbone Mounds and surrounding area. The park is being funded by an Intermodal Surface Transportation Enhancement Act (ISTEA) grant, an ongoing federal program to preserve and enhance archeological and historical resources along transportation corridors. Fieldwork was conducted over the course of eight non-consecutive days from January 6-31, 1997. One of the principal aims of the project was to define the limits of the Shoulderbone Mounds site (9HK1). This was accomplished by expanding the grid of post hole tests that had been initiated on the site by Williams (1990b). The boundaries of the site were flagged with hot pink surveyors tape so that it can be fenced off to protect it from further vandalism. Most of the fieldwork, however, was devoted to an intensive archeological survey of the property. By examining exposed areas and excavating shovel tests in vegetated areas, we located a total of 72 previously unreported archeological sites (Table 1) and 21 artifact occurrences. Fifty-one of these sites have prehistoric components, and more than half of these (N=35) produced pottery that can be dated to the Woodland or Mississippian periods. Most of these pottery producing sites are likely associated with one or more of the occupations of the Shoulderbone site. The 16 remaining prehistoric sites contained only lithics, and likely date to the Archaic period. Only 14 of the sites in the survey area produced historic artifacts. In many cases, these historic components consist only of isolated scatters of debris. However, the remains of a few houses were identified. In addition, we located two saw mills and one possible still. Eighteen of the sites contain one or more rock features that are difficult to associate with any particular period with certainty. Most of these features consist of small rock piles that were likely created as the land was cleared for cultivation in the nineteenth century. However, one larger rock mound resembles the type of stone construction that has sometimes proven to contain prehistoric burials (Gresham 1990). Based on the survey data, we are recommending that 25 of the sites are potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (Table 1). Most of these (N=21) are prehistoric artifact scatters that are likely related to the Shoulderbone site occupations, and which may represent farmsteads or, in the case of one or two of the larger sites, small villages. We further recommend that these 21 sites should be incorporated with the Shoulderbone Mound into a National Register district (which we will refer to as the Shoulderbone Archeological District). In addition to these prehistoric artifact scatters, we recommend that several of the sites containing rock features are potentially eligible for the National Register. Although we assume that most of the rock features in the project area are the result of historic land clearing activities, this cannot be conclusively demonstrated at present. The six sites containing rock piles which we have recommended as potentially eligible to the National Register represent a selection of the better preserved and most substantial rock features from the project area. Two of these sites also contain significant prehistoric artifact deposits and could be recommended as part of the proposed Shoulderbone Archeological District. The other four should be recommended as individual properties. The remaining 52 sites and all of the artifact occurrences are recommended ineligible to the National Register. While the discovery of these cultural resources has added important knowledge to our history of the area, they have little potential for providing additional information due to the sparsity of the deposits, the degree of disturbance, or (in the case of historic sites) because they are redundant with archival sources. We recommend that the flagged boundary of the Shoulderbone site should be more permanently marked in the next few months, before the flagging tape becomes brittle and difficult to discern. It is our understanding that although the final plans have not been completed, there will be minimal development on the Shoulderbone tract. Nevertheless, any plans for roads or other infrastructure should be designed to avoid sites that have been recommended potentially eligible for the National Register. Any such sites that cannot be preserved from development must be archeologically tested.