An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Proposed Shellman 201 Wastewater Treatment Facility, Randolph County, Georgia

On June 30, 1976 a survey of the Shel1man wastewater treatment facility was completed in order to assess the impact of the proposed project upon cultural resources, as required by federal mandates implemented by 36 C.F.R. 800, "Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties." The survey, which required 1/2 day's work by one archaeologist, covered approximately 6 acres.

The tract is situated in east central Randolph County on the north side of the Central of Georgia Railroad 8400' east of Hwy 41 and 4400' west of the confluence of Ichawaynochaway and Little Ichawaynochaway Creeks. Hilltop, valley slope, and bottomland are included in the property and the general, physiographic situation is the north edge of a broad 380' hilltop bordered on the west, north, and south by creeks., A 4 ¼ acre acre portion of the tract on the hilltop is the proposed location of a treatment plant, while the remaining 2 or so acres' consist of a sewer corridor from 20 to 75' wide extending 890' down the valley slope to an existing sewer outfall in an unnamed creek.

The examination of the tract was facilitated by a recent topographic survey based on a 100' grid. Stakes and lines were still evident, so parallel transects were walked north and south along the grid, lines with post-hole testing to sterile red clay every 50 to 60'. Some thirty holes were dug in all, twenty of these in the 4 1/4 acre hilltop tract which supported old field secondary vegetation. Along the 370 by 75' valley corridor, slope was found to be between 10 and 14%. This portion exhibited a mature and fairly undisturbed hardwood association: The 520 by 20' bottomland corridor was essentially flat and showed signs of frequent flooding. The creek itself was nowhere wider than 5' and contained less than 6" of water within its 3' high banks. Although the bottomland may have been attractive to animal species suitable for exploitation, it is unlikely that the small creek would have offered fish or shellfish resources.

No cultural material was found on the tract despite a parallel transect and subsurface examination of the thoroughly plowed hilltop which showed much exposed soil. A 660' cut bank along the railroad was also surveyed with no positive results. Relief and flooding would seem to have discouraged settlement along the valley slope and in the bottomland; no material was found in the test holes.