Intensive Archeaological Survey of 675 Acres for the Heritage Project, Effingham County, Georgia

From November 10 to 13, 2003, TRC conducted an archaeological survey of approximately 675 acres in Rincon, Effingham County, Georgia. The areas surveyed are situated within a 1,100-acre tract on the west side of Highway 21, northwest of Rincon, Georgia. Four hundred twenty-five acres were eliminated from survey coverage based upon the results of TRC's reconnaissance in April 2003. The previous survey determined that the areas under study were low lying, wet, and unsuitable for human habitation. The current survey was carried out to assist Sonlight Enterprises, LLC in applying for a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District to develop the tract. The tract, which is the site of a proposed subdivision, consists of pine plantation and wetlands. In April 2003, TRC conducted a literature search for previously identified archaeological sites and historic structures within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), as well as limited reconnaissance-level field investigations to determine which portions of the tract contain intact landforms with the potential to yield archaeological resources. No previously recorded archaeological sites or known historic structures were located within the project's APE. The field investigation revealed no historic structures in the APE. Within the areas examined for archaeological resources during the reconnaissance, no sites or isolated finds were identified. The tract was characterized as consisting of two basic zones: pine plantation and low, wet areas. Based on the areas that were examined, and due to disturbances from pine plantation planting and harvesting, TRC's reconnaissance report stated that the potential for identifying intact archaeological sites in the tract appeared to be low, and that approximately 425 acres of the tract that were examined did not require investigation because of previous disturbance or low, wet topographic settings. However, TRC recommended that the remaining approximately 675 acres would require further investigation to determine the potential for intact archaeological resources, and to systematically shovel test those areas with integrity. In a letter to Terry Kobs of the Corps of Engineers dated September 2, 2003, Georgia's Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division concurred with these recommendations. The survey conducted in November employed a combination of systematic shovel testing, judgmental shovel testing, and visual inspection. Because the tract had been maintained as a pine plantation over the years, it appeared that there were widespread, deep disturbances across the tract. Included among these was the mechanized removal of stumps and roots that created disturbances to a depth of up to 24 inches (60 cm). Evidence of such deep disturbances was seen in shovel tests excavated within the planted areas. Thus, a key objective of the survey strategy was to locate any areas that had escaped such disturbances, and to sample other disturbed areas to gauge the depth of disturbance. Areas that were located where intact deposits could have been preserved below the layer of disturbance (depositional settings, for example) were shovel tested more intensively. Because no settings were located with the potential for intact deposits below the layer of disturbance, efforts were focused on identifying sites in the most likely settings, even if they would be contained entirely in the disturbed plow zone. Thus, the sampling strategy included all areas deemed to have the highest site potential, such as any areas of (relatively) high ground and any dry ground adjacent to wetlands, particularly those surrounding Polly Creek. Following this strategy, a total of 655 shovel tests were excavated in the project tract. The shovel testing was sufficient to document extensive, deep disturbances throughout the tract, rendering it unlikely that any archaeological sites, if present, would be intact. The survey also documented the low, saturated soils found throughout much of the tract, suggesting that prehistoric use of the area was probably ephemeral. TRC did, in fact, sample the locations with the highest likelihood for prehistoric sites, and found only one isolated flake out of context (in road fill). Furthermore, this survey strategy likely would have identified any historic sites in the tract, as they also are likely to have been on high ground or near wetlands and streams. Because TRC (1) found extensive disturbance with the project tract, (2) found few areas with high site potential (given topography and historic evidence), (3) examined the areas with highest potential within the tract, and (4) found only evidence of ephemeral prehistoric activities (out of context), we are confident that there are no additional substantial archaeological sites within the tract, although there may be small prehistoric artifact scatters relating to intermittent short-term use. Furthermore, if any sites exist within the tract, they are likely to be contained entirely within the layer of disturbance from the planting and harvesting of pines. Based on the findings of both the April reconnaissance survey and the November survey, TRC recommends no further cultural resource investigations on the proposed project tract.