Assessment of Archeological and Historical Resources of the Georgia Coast Adjacent to Cumberland Island National Seashore

The archeological sequence of extreme southern coastal Georgia is poorly understood at the present time. The most obvious reason for this situation is that only a l1m1ted amount of research has been undertaken there. A survey of Camden County was made by Lewis Larson (1958). No excavation was done and all of the material was surface collection. Unfortunately, the site files from this work are reported missing (Lewis Larson, personal conmunication to Richard Faust). Mi1anich (1971) excavated at two sites on Cumberland Island, but he had specific research goals and was not particularly concerned with the overall picture of the prehistory of the county. Finally, Fairbanks (1971) excavated a slave cabin at Rayfield.

Camden County is a border zone between two culture areas: the Northern St. Johns of Florida and the more northern portions of coastal Georgia (Bullen and Griffin, 1952). For this reason it is not advisable to take the cultural or ceramic sequence from either area and suppose that one will hold for our area of interest. It is in a transitional area and displays evidence of influence from both of its neighbors, with one or the other at times dominating. During certain periods there may also have been differences between the island and the mainland.

Caldwell (1970:89) has stated:

“… we can see additional evidence for the point made by Lewis Larson (1958) that no single cultural sequence will hold for the entire Georgia coast, and I suspect that we already need a separate sequence for the regions adjacent to each major estuary."

If this last observation is correct, then the prehistory of Camden County should be complex indeed since the Satilla River is to the north and the St. Mary’s River to the south.

The cultural sequence for Amelia Island immediately to the south of Cumberland is reasonably well understood and this should present an approximation of the one which will be found in our area of concern. The two are separated by the Cumberland Sound, through which the St. Mary’s River flows into the Atlantic Ocean. Bullen and Griffin (1952) surveyed Amelia and conducted several excavations. Later, Hemmings and Deagan (1973) excavated at four sites. The following table presents the cultural sequence as presented by Bullen and Griffin (1952: 62) w1th the dates as given by Hemmings and Deagan (1973: 3). It is provided only as a general frame of reference in which the periods mentioned in the following site descriptions may be placed.

All of the sites described in this report were located during the course of a limited reconnaissance of the proposed headquarters locations. Whenever possible, surface collections were made. Due to the general lack of relief of the sites and the cover of fallen leaves and palmettos, the limits or boundaries of most sites remain only approximate. Archeolog1cal testing would be required to pro­perly delimit each site.

With what we presently know about the sites on Cumberland Island and because of this mainland survey, it is now possible to make some gen­era 1 statements concerning the pre-historic sites in Camden County. It should be noted that these are subject to revision once more research is conducted in the area.

The prehistoric sites are usually located along the edges of the marsh and a tidal creek is frequently nearby. The boundary of the marsh side of the site begins at about the five foot contour line

and extends inland 500 feet or less. The distance along the marsh is variable. The surface features which indicate the presence of a site are numerous discreet shell deposits. The shell seldom shows except near the edge of the marsh where erosion is taking place.

The deposits are most frequently circular in shape and less than two feet high, As the center of the site is approached the middens become more numerous and closer together. In some cases the shape of the mounds may also change, becoming more like ridges. These can be of variable length but are frequently only 20 to 30 feet in width. It is not known if they are a different type of deposit from the circular ones or only the result of the merging of two or more of these through time.

Another feature C00111on to the sites is that they are located within the high oak hammoccks. The trees tend to be taller then those elsewhere and also have a larger diameter. It has also been observed that many sites are located in the vicinity of drainage guts, which probably represent a source of fresh water during the time of occupation.