Big Indian Creek Bridge Replacement

A Phase I archaeological survey was conducted for the Big Indian Creek Bridge Replacement project (CSBRG-0006-00(432)). The proposed project involves the replacement of two bridges that carry Seven Islands Road across Big Indian Creek and an overflow channel in Morgan County, Georgia. Archaeological studies were required pursuant to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit, which regulates the discharge of dredged, excavated, or fill material in wetlands, streams, rivers, and other U.S. waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972, amended 1977. Big Indian Creek flows into Little River, a tributary of the Oconee River. Soils between and bordering the channels are classified as Chewalca silt loam, a frequently flooded alluvial soil. Soils on higher ground bordering the floodplain are classified as Davidson clay loam to the northeast of the bridge and as Lloyd sandy loam to the southwest. Both are well-drained soils forming in the residuum of bedrock. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Phase I archaeological survey extended 150 m along the roadway from the ends of the bridges and 45 m to either side of the roadway center line, encompassing a total area of 34,367 m2. The Phase II survey consisted of the excavation of two test units. The test units produced 100 pieces of debitage, three cores, six bifaces, a drill, three flake tools, and 191 pieces of firecracked rock (10.4 kg). Ceramics numbered 76 and included both Lamar and Swift Creek types, indicating occupations in the plow zone dating to the late Middle to Late Woodland and Late Mississippian periods. No ceramic artifacts were found in or below the underlying Ab horizon. The distribution of artifacts suggests the possibility that an earlier pre-ceramic occupation could be present below the plow zone. No features were identified. Although as many as three occupations may be present at the site, the occupations are within compressed stratigraphy and disturbed by plowing. Thus, temporally specific artifact subassemblages cannot be distinguished. The proportion of tools in the recovered assemblage is low and no chronologically diagnostic points were found. The abundant fire-cracked rock suggests that hearth features with charcoal for radiocarbon dating and/or preserved botanical remains could conceivably be present, but no such features were identified in the Phase I or II surveys.