Back to top

Archeological Survey and Testing for the Proposed Replacement of the SR 156 Bridge over Salacoa Creek, Gordon County, Georgia

Author(s)
Report Number
2479
Year of Publication
2003
Abstract

Archival research and field survey located two prehistoric archeological sites in the project's area of potential effect, previously recorded 9GO50 south of the creek and newly discovered 9GO231 north of the creek. Site 9GO50 was described as a village site in 1954 and contains Mississippian, Woodland, and some Archaic period cultural material. We recovered sparse amounts of lithics and ceramics on both sides of SR 156 and recommended that this site was potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During the survey of the realigned right-of-way (realigned to avoid site 9GO50) prehistoric site 9GO231 was discovered and delineated on the north bank of Salacoa and Lick Creeks. Based on the recovery of a moderate number of flakes and abundant fire cracked rock in buried, intact contexts, we recommended that 9GO231 also was potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Determination of eligibility for both site 9GO50 and site 9GO231 required Phase II archeological testing, consisting of six 1 x 2-m test units. Based on our evaluation, the portion of site 9GO50 that would be affected by a western. alternative for bridge replacement is not archeologically significant. Although it contains many artifacts, soils are severely eroded and no evidence of cultural features remains. The portion of site 9GO50 that would be affected by an eastern alternative for bridge replacement is even more badly disturbed, having been entirely graded within the last year. Conversely, our evaluation of eligibility found that all portions of site 9GO231 that would be affected by the eastern alternative are archeologically significant. It seems that a western alternative could avoid most of the significant deposits at site 9GO231, but the deposits closest to the existing bridge, the most significant deposits documented at the site, are still threatened by demolition and removal of that bridge.