Archeological Survey of the BFI Charlton County Tract Charlton County, Georgia

On June 5 and 6, 1996 Southeastern Archeological Services conducted an intensive archeological survey of two, ca 100 ac tracts of land in southern Charlton County. One tract may be used as a landfill and the other as a borrow pit. A third adjoining tract, also about 100 ac in size, was surveyed at a lesser intensity. The goal of the survey was to locate, spatially define and assess the significance of any archeological sites in the tracts so that effects to the sites could be evaluated. Six person-days were spent conducting the survey. The two principal tracts had been recently timbered and drum chopped, providing open tracts with ground surface exposure ranging from 5 to 80 percent. Although the borrow pit tract exhibits as much as 25 ft of relief, both tracts appear, upon first glance, to be very flat. With generally good ground surface exposure and extensive ground surface disturbance, surface inspection was adequate for site detection. The entirety of both tracts, along with a 200 ft buffer on all sides of each tract, were surface inspected in a zig-zagging pattern at 30 in intervals. Four archeologists spent about eight hours conducting this inspection. No sites were detected, but 21 isolated occurrences of turpentine pot fragments were recorded in the landfill tract. No artifacts were found in the borrow pit tract. The only area that could remotely be considered a high probability area for containing archeological sites was a high area and slope overlooking a drainage in the northwest portion of the borrow pit tract. Although surface exposure was deemed adequate to detect sites, 21 shovel tests were placed here on 30 in intervals to ensure the detection of sites. No artifacts were found. The third tract may be used as an additional borrow pit. It was in mature (ca 15 year old) bedded pines. This tract was flat and featureless, and was visually inspected from its perimeter and from a woods road that bisects the tract. A ca I-ac area next to State Highway 23 was the only portion not in pines, and was closely inspected. It was found to be a low, wet area. Based on the total absence of cultural remains other than turpentine pot fragments in the first two tracts, and the similarity among all three tracts, we feel confident that no archeological sites occur in the third tract. The intensive surface inspection of the borrow pit and landfill tracts confirmed the expectation that no archeological sites occur on either tract. One tract did contain evidence of to early to mid-twentieth century turpentine extraction, which was a major industry in the area for several decades around the turn of the century. These isolated turpentine pot fragments are not considered sites and are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The third tract, which was wooded, exhibits no indicators of sites (i.e., features or unusual vegetation), and based on a comparison with the other two tracts, almost certainly does not contain any sites. It is the opinion of the principal investigator that no archeological sites exist on any of the three tracts and that no significant archeological sites will be affected by the proposed landfill and borrow pit activities.