Phase I Archaeological Survey of 2,561 Acres, Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake

New South Associates (NSA) was tasked with a Phase I Archaeological Survey of 2,561 acres at Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake in Georgia and South Carolina. As a result of the survey, 59 archaeological sites and 20 isolated finds were recorded. Nine of the sites were previously identified. Four of the sites (9EB101, 9EB794, 9EB796, and 9EB799) contained five historic cemeteries, which are protected by Georgia Code 36-72 and were not assessed for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D. Of the 59 archaeological sites, the eligibility of 19 is unknown,, and 37 are recommended not eligible for the NRHP. Additional evaluation is necessary for three sites to make definitive NRHP eligibility recommendations. In addition, 12 sites were previously reported at the margins of the survey area but were not encountered during the fieldwork, probably because they do not extend into the project area.

The three sites requiring additional work are described below. Site 9EB17 was previously identified on a river terrace/floodplain, and mitigated as part of the creation of Russell Lake. NSA found portions of the site extending into the adjacent uplands that might reflect special use by the Early to Middle Woodland occupants of 9EB17 and/or Middle Archaic use of these landforms. Additional work is recommended to determine if these areas would contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the site or perhaps refine the temporal relationship of Guilford and Morrow Mountain projectile points.

Site 38AB1523 is an undiagnostic lithic and ceramic scatter, with deposits reaching depths exceeding 30 centimeters below ground surface (cmbgs). Burned material was also noted at these depths, although it is not clear whether this charcoal is cultural or natural, or how it relates to the prehistoric occupation. The site appeared to retain intact stratigraphy, and it may possess research potential and integrity sufficient for inclusion in the NRHP. Additional study is needed to assess the site’s archaeological significance.

Site 38AB1526 appears to be a portion of a prehistoric lithic quarry, the larger portion of which probably lies outside the USACE property. The site portion inside the survey area might contribute information about lithic extraction and processing, and requires additional investigation to evaluate its data potential. It is recommended that the site should be protected from disturbance. If this is not feasible, evaluation should include the entire site, if possible, and focus on identifying the types of activity areas present and how they relate to lithic procurement and stone tool manufacture.