Cemetery on Dixon Airline Road Tract

As you know, I first visited the site at your invitation on March 28,2014 in order to confirm that this really is a cemetery and to provide you with advice on how the presence of the cemetery affects your surrounding borrowing/landfilling operation. On that day, you took me to the apparent graves, which were on a narrow, wooded ridge top that was oriented nearly north south. To the north and west of the wooded ridge was your active borrow pit and to the east was a very steep slope that I now believe is a natural slope. Thus, the cemetery is situated on a peninsula of nearly level, wooded land surrounded by excavated and natural steep slopes. I told you that I was certain that there were graves present (two were clearly visible as linear, east-west depressions), that I was confident that there were other graves not readily visible, and that I thought it was likely that this was a fairly small cemetery, probably dating to the late nineteenth century. Based on a review of some early twentieth century maps that showed no churches nearby, I concluded in a March 28,2014 email to you (see Attachment 1) that I thought this was likely a family cemetery and not a large public cemetery associated with a church. You and I saw a number of late nineteenth century artifacts on the surface, mainly about 30 to 60 yards north of the two visible graves, and I concluded these were likely associated with a house that once stood to the north of the cemetery. In my March 28, 2014 email to you, I outlined two options on how you might proceed. The preferred option was to return to the site to definitively discern and map the boundaries and extent of the graves so that you could then make decisions on how to continue your borrowing operation. I explained that the probing I did on March 28 was totally ineffective in locating the soft soil of an excavated grave shaft because the soil is all unconsolidated sand. That is, there is no difference in compaction between a grave shaft and undisturbed soil. I also explained to you that remote sensing techniques, such as ground penetrating radar, would be ineffective because of the undulating and disturbed soils and heavy tree and shrub cover. I recommended that the best approach for locating graves, in keeping with the legal mandate to use minimally invasive techniques (OCGA 36-72-5[2]), would be to use a smooth bucket backhoe to excavate shallow trenches extending approximately north-south in line with the visible graves. Depending on soil conditions, the backhoed trench bottoms might need to be cleaned and smoothed by hand with a sharpened flat (square) shovel. These one- to two-foot deep trenches would reveal the mottled (multi-colored) soil with the sharp edges of an excavated grave shaft without getting close to the actual burial content (human remains and artifacts). We discussed beginning these trenches about 30 feet from the visible graves and working away from the graves, in the belief that the graves would cluster in a 30- to 40-foot area centered on the visible graves. This was the plan that we carried out on June 13, 2014. Your backhoe was equipped with a smooth blade that was about 4 feet wide (Photograph 1), which was able to produce a fairly clean trench bottom about 3 ½ feet wide. I then used the flat shovel to skim clean the trench bottom so that even faint stains could be readily detected (Photograph 2). We began our trenching about 27 feet north of the visible graves, at a 1 ½ foot deep, east-west cut in the ground surface. This appeared to be a remnant of some sort of earth moving that occurred many years ago. This first trench, Trench 1 in attached Figure 2, was about 16 inches deep and 20 feet long; it showed no stains indicative of a grave shaft. Trench 2 was placed about 13 feet to the east, in line with the two visible graves. It also began about 27 feet to the north of the visible graves and was initially 25 feet long. This trench had noticeably mottled soil. Also, during excavation two pieces of ceramic containers (one of white milk glass, the other porcelain) and a fragment of a sandstone slab (½ inch thick) were exposed (Photograph 3). The slab fragment is likely a portion of tombstone, but it could have been dislodged and moved from elsewhere on the site. Because the mottling exposed at about 16 inches of depth did not reveal the sharp, parallel edges of grave shaft, we carefully scraped another few inches from the bottom of the trench. At about 20 inches below ground surface, sharp lines of two graves became readily visible in the southern portion of the trench (Photographs 4 and 5). These thin, sharp edges appear to be decomposed wood, possibly from a coffin, but given its shallowness, possibly from cribbing of the grave shaft. The edges of these grave shafts are due east-west. The southern-most grave shaft includes the western end of the shaft, exposing clear right-angle corners (Photograph 4). Mottling in Trench 2 continued to the north, but at the initial depth of the trench straight-line edges were not visible. I am confident that these mottled stains are indicative of more graves. In an attempt to locate the northern-most extent of the graves, we extended the trench and realigned it to be closer to due north-south. Near the north end of the Trench 2 extension, another area of mottling with a distinct, straight-line, east-west oriented edge was encountered (Photograph 6), and this is surely another grave. Because we were near the northern tip of the landform (the peninsula) and because of vegetation, we decided not to extend this trench further north. Interestingly, the northern end of the trench coincides with some old, roughly east-west oriented silt fencing. It is possible that this silt fencing marked an earlier estimation of the northern boundary of the cemetery. Trench 3 was placed about 10 feet to the east of Trench 2, and encountered no stains or artifacts indicative of graves. It was taken down to about 20 inches below surface.

Trench 4 was excavated to establish the eastern extent of graves, and was placed 16 feet east of the visible graves (Figure 2). We began the hand shovel shaving at the north end of the trench and almost immediately encountered the stains of a grave shaft, with soil mottling that had a sharp, east-west edge. At that point you and I discussed our results and you felt it had become clear that it was not feasible to extend the borrowing activity towards the cemetery from the west, north or east. That is, you concluded that the entire wooded peninsula would be preserved in place and that the only remaining issue was how far south did the graves extend. Thus, we decided that there was no need to hand shovel shave the remainder of Trench 4. We then set up three trenches beginning 42 feet to the south of the visible graves (Figure 2). Trenches 5, 6 and 7 were devoid of mottled soils and artifacts. These were taken down at least 18 inches, reaching 24 inches below ground surface in places (Photograph 7), to ensure detection of stains. There were no indicators of graves in Trenches 5, 6 and 7. You and I then tentatively flagged a line near the north end of the southern set of trenches that would serve as the southern boundary of the cemetery. I then placed two stakes marked with

hot pink flagging at the west and east edges of the peninsula on this line (see Figure 2). This line is about 10 degrees north of east and is about 36 feet south of the visible graves. It is my conclusion that this southern boundary line together with the steep edges of the peninsula constitute the boundaries of the cemetery. It is my understanding that you will hire a surveyor to plot in our southern boundary line, the two visible graves, and the edges of the peninsula to produce an accurate mapping of the cemetery. Having been mostly wrong about my earlier assessment that this was likely a small, family cemetery, associated with a nearby house, I hesitate to draw more conclusions, but I will. I now believe that the artifacts we saw on the peninsula north of the visible graves were grave markers and adornments, and not debris associated with a house. Most of the ceramics are “fancy”, often from multi-colored and otherwise decorated containers, including vases. Likewise, much of the glass is decorative (cut and/or embossed) and all that I saw was from containers. One cut glass container fragment (Photograph 8) is made of amethyst glass, which dates to between the 1880s and about 1915. I believe virtually all of the ceramics and glass are remnant vases and containers that once marked graves. I believe the several bricks we saw also marked graves. Bricks would be a handy, durable material in an area of sand hills that lacks field stones. I believe we encountered a small fragment of a tombstone (Photograph 3) in Trench 2, but I now question whether the thicker, rounded piece that we saw at the visible graves (photograph 9) is indeed a tombstone fragment. It may be a fragment of the base to a stone urn or some similar type of adornment, and may be made of cement. There was a close spatial correlation between the surface artifacts and the grave shafts that we exposed. Our investigation shows three or four rows of graves extending about 80 feet north-south. With grave shafts spaced on 5- to 6-foot centers, there is room for about 50 to 60 graves. As with most cemeteries, there are likely gaps in the rows, and so it is very difficult to present a secure estimation of the number of graves, but it is almost certainly a double-digit number.