Back to top

The Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Improvements to Douthit Ferry Road, Bartow County, Georgia

Report Number
6056
Year of Publication
2009
County
Abstract

In January and February 2009, Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. (EPEI) conducted an archaeological survey for the proposed improvements to Douthit Ferry Road in Bartow County. A review of the Georgia Archaeological Site Files (GASF) at the University of Georgia in Athens (UGA) showed that seven previously identified archaeological sites, 9BR6 (Free Bridge), 9BR96, 9BR182, 9BR636, 9BR709, 9BR815, and 9BR821, have been reported in the proposed project corridor. All seven sites were revisited during the course of investigations; cultural material was recovered from six of the seven sites. No material was recovered from 9BR182 and it is believed the site has been destroyed by recent development. A total of 57 sites have been recorded within a one kilometer (km) radius of the current project area and this section of Douthit Ferry Road is located within the Etowah Valley National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) District. One previously recorded site, 9BR7 (Lewis Mound), was also investigated. This site was originally recorded by Robert Wauchope (1966) during Works Progress Administration (WPA) investigations in 1939 and was later tested' and recorded by Chad O. Braley (1979) in response to the construction of the current bridge over the Etowah River. Both Wauchope (1966) and Braley (1979) investigated 9BR6 as well as 9BR7. Based on both current and previous investigations, the location of 9BR7 was entered improperly in the GASF, which placed the site southwest of the project area rather than in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). The location of Lewis Mound, as investigated by previous archaeologists, was detected during geophysical investigations conducted during the present survey by Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) archaeologists (Appendix 4). Following the verification of 9BR7's location, and in consultation with the GASF, the mapping error has been corrected. Of the previously recorded sites, EPEI reaffirms the previous recommendation for 9BR7 that it is eligible for the NRHP. EPEI recommends that, should the undertaking continue as currently designed, additional archaeological investigations take place in the APE. Due to its close proximity to 9BR7, and the potential presence of a midden, site 9BR821 is recommended as potentially eligible for the NRHP. Due to its close proximity to 9BR7 and 9BR821, and the presence of stratified deposits, site 9BR636 is also recommended as potentially eligible for the NRHP. Site 9BR6 was previously recommended eligible by Braley (1979); however, the portion of the site investigated during the present survey appears to retain low integrity and does not appear to contribute to the overall eligibility of the site. The mound at 9BR6 is not located in the APE, and according to Wauchope and Braley it is located adjacent to the "Free Bridge", which is roughly 30 m (100 ft) to the east of the project area. The remaining previously recorded sites are recommended as having unknown NRHP eligibility as the boundaries of these sites likely extend beyond the portions investigated during the survey. However, additional investigations in the presently defined APE would not likely yield significant information pertaining to their eligibility. No further archaeological work is recommended at these locations. Five previously unidentified sites, 9BR1097-9BR1101, and one isolated find, IF-l, were also recorded during the course of investigations. One site, 9BR1099, is recommended as ineligible for the NRHP as the site's data potential is believed to have been met. The remaining previously unrecorded sites are recommended as having unknown NRHP eligibility as the boundaries of these sites likely extend beyond the portion investigated during the survey. However, additional investigations would not likely yield significant information pertaining to their eligibility. Additionally, IF-1 exhibits limited research potential and is not eligible for the NRHP. No further archaeological work is recommended at these locations.