Broadfield Wetland Mitigation Bank Camden County, Georgia

The results of our investigation indicate that there are no previously recorded archaeological resources within the Broadfield Wetland Mitigation Bank. There are as well no previously recorded archaeological sites located within a 1 mile (1.6 km) buffer of the project tract. The nearest site . (9CM233) is located more than 3km to the southeast, close to Harriett's Bluff. The Swift Creek period Sadler's Landing Site (9CM233) underwent intensive surface sampling, and limited excavations in the late 1980s; producing a high density of artifacts and clear indication of a substantial occupation (Kirkland 2003). The site however, is located near the edge of the bluff and is distinctly a tidal-riverine occupation, rather than an interior-focused one.

In contrast, the proximity and setting of known sites, and the previous research in the region suggested that if intact archaeological sites were located in the project tract that they would likely be found in upland areas adjacent to long-established wetlands; that they might consist of small, isolated activity areas, and zones of resource procurement; and that they would not likely contain extensive habitation remains. Archaic site patterns tend to reveal very few structural remnants and they typically consist of lithic debris. On the Coastal Plain, lithic materials are less often identified due to their scarcity and probable extensive curation, while the Archaic period occupations are almost exclusively identified with fiber-tempered ceramics. This suggests that what we know about · Archaic settlement on the coast, or the lowland interior, comes principally from the larger domestic sites; where ceramics are typically manufactured, used, and discarded. Resource procurement areas · tend not to be obvious, nor easily identified archaeologically.

During the week of February 20tb to 24tb, 2006, the project tract was archaeologically · investigated by the field director (Mr. Dwight Kirkland) and six field archaeologists. The methods used were consistent with the State of Georgia professional standards (Georgia Council of Professional Archaeologists [GCPA] 2001), complied with the guidelines set forth in 36CFR part 800, and were carried out by personnel qualified under 36CFR part 61. Field methods consisted of the hand excavation of30 cm wide shovel tests placed at 30 meter intervals along transects spaced at 30 meters within all surveyable terrain. Additional shovel tests were placed judgmentally where transects were not possible. All shovel tests were screened with 114 inch mesh hardware cloth. Where standing water made it impossible to excavate, shovel tests were visually inspected and pedestrian reconnaissance continued until additional surveyable areas were encountered.

A total of 17 shovel tests were excavated, in four distinct locales (Figure 3). Additionally, a plowed feed plot at the western edge of the tract was visually inspected. Very little of the area was surveyable with current archaeological survey techniques (totaling less than 5 of the 661 acres). All roads within the tract were driven and adjacent areas were inspected for dry terrain (Figure 4). Aside from the filled road surface itself nearly all areas showed standing water (Figure 5). Drainage ditches alongside the roads, and deep bedding furrows were numerous and scattered throughout the area. Additionally, push piles and other silviculture disturbance was evident. Where it was possible to shovel test, soil profiles consisted of a typical 10 cm of dark gray humic sand, over 20 to 50 cm of finer wet white sand. The proposed culvert locations were visually inspected, as well as the ditch which is proposed to be filled; neither showed signs of archaeological or historical characteristics. The existing ditch appears to be fairly modem, and is related to the prior draining of the swampy terrain for silviculture.

All shovel tests were negative. No sites nor isolated finds were identified within the tract. Although silviculture and drainage alteration has probably severely affected the area, it is not likely that the lack of artifacts is due to such disturbance which is proposed to be filled; neither showed signs of archaeological or historical characteristics. The existing ditch appears to be fairly modem, and is related to the prior draining of the swampy terrain for silviculture. All shovel tests were negative. No sites nor isolated finds were identified within the tract. Although silviculture and drainage alteration has probably severely affected the area, it is not likely that the lack of artifacts is due to such disturbance.