Archeological Survey of a 120 Acre Tract of City of Butler

The city of Butler wishes to construct a waste water spray irrigation system on a 120 acre tract of land just north of the city limits. In keeping with state and federal guidelines concerning the preservation of important cultural resources, the city wanted to insure that no significant archeological resources would be adversely affected by the proposed project. While details of the project and the necessary construction are not available at this time, in general the system will require land clearing of spray fields and the laying of pipe to and within the fields. Both activities could be expected to affect sites within the construction zone. Since plans have not been finalized, and since there was no indication or suggestion that significant sites do exist, the city requested a reconnaissance-level survey of the entire 120 acre tract. The goal of the survey was to assess the likelihood of significant sites, that is-, those eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, existing on the tract. To accomplish this, we archeologically surveyed the portions of the tract most likely to contain sites. We then used the results of this survey to assess the likelihood of sites existing on unsurveyed portions and to assess the need for additional work. To capsule our findings, we found no sites in the high probability areas and believe that there is a very little chance of significant sites existing on the property, We believe that the proposed project is highly unlikely to adversely affect a significant archeological site. The survey was conducted on March 11, 1996 by Thomas Gresham and Chad Braley, principals of Southeastern Archeological Services. The project area consists of broad uplands and the headwaters of two drainages. Vegetation consists almost entirely of young planted pines. Some small upland portions are a xeric mix of pines and oaks and the creek bottoms and fringes consist of lowland hardwoods and a wetland understory. Although the entire area was wooded, there was actually a great deal of surface exposure because of existing dirt roads, firebreaks and sparse ground cover. Also, adjacent to the project area along most of the north boundary were large, recent clear-cuts that afforded excellent surface exposure. Prior to fieldwork a 1942 Soil Conservation Service aerial photograph of the area was carefully examined to locate standing structures, features or house sites. The project area at this time was devoid of structures, except for a brick retaining wall next to a lake. The area was mostly open, with only scattered trees. Dirt roads in use today were also present in 1943 along with numerous other trails and smaller roads. The survey strategy was to visually inspect all surface exposures for artifacts that would indicate the presence of a site. Most of this surface exposure was in the form of dirt roads that followed the broad ridge tops in the project area (Figure 1), but included the large clear cuts north of the project area and the banks of State Highway 137, which forms the southeastern boundary of the project area. No aboriginal or historic (older than 50 years) artifacts were observed. Three nearly level landforms were considered high probability areas and were shovel tested with a total of 14 shovel tests (Figure 1). One was a broad ridge top in the northeastern comer of the tract, one was a ridge spur near the headwaters of the drainage that forms the lake on the tract, and the other was a small ridge spur that overlooks the take. All these shovel tests were devoid of cultural material, as were the patchy surface exposures around them. The margins of the wetlands surrounding the lake were also considered high probability areas, since several springs feed the lake and prehistoric sites are known to occur near springs. The wetlands margin was walked and the only probable location for occupation was shovel tested with four tests that were all sterile. In sum, careful surface inspection and shovel testing in three high probability areas failed to recover any evidence of archeological sites. One historic period feature that may be significant was encountered. This is a brick and river cobble retaining wall on the west side of the lake near the dam. The wall is about 1 in high and 80 in long. About 10 in south of the midpoint of the wall is a set of brick stairs that descend to the water's edge. The wall is constructed of a brick core that is faced on the top and the sloping east face with river cobbles embedded in cement. The wall appears to be simply a decorative retaining wall, but perhaps served a wharf-like function to ease entry into small boats. The wall does not create much level area behind it, which could have been used for picnicking. North of the wall and west of the dam is a small brick chimney, that we understand was part of a small lake cabin. The lake and retaining wall are apparent on a 1942 aerial photograph, but the cabin is not. It is very possible that the small cabin is obscured by trees in the photograph. Through a third party we learned that adjacent landowner Homer Barrow remembers the lake, cabin and retaining wall from his childhood. The complex was built by an individual as a small, informal recreational camp sometime in the early part of the twentieth century. It is possible that this type of recreational site could be considered eligible to the National Register, although we believe that this possibility is remote. Nevertheless, the issue of the significance of the recreation camp would warrant some additional attention if plans call for the complex to be affected by the project. Based on the results of our one-day, reconnaissance-level archeological survey, we believe there is very little potential for significant archeological sites existing on the property. The one possible exception is the brick and stone retaining wall on the west side of the lake. While it is our opinion that this wall would not qualify for the National Register of Historic Places, we have not researched its potential significance. An examination of aerial photographs dating to 1942 confirms that there was no historic period occupation of the tract in the twentieth century, and little modification of the tract other than the construction of the lake, retaining wall and cabin. Three archeological surveys have been conducted in the near vicinity of Butler in the past five years, in connection with proposed widening of highways by the Georgia Department of Transportation. All of these have found few archeological sites, and almost none on the type of broad upland ridges that characterize the project area. The few sites that have been found tend to be located on nearly level landforms near creeks. Such landforms were the focus of our survey and no sites were discovered. It is our conclusion that a land use plan for the 120 acre tract that does not impact the brick and stone retaining wall would not affect any potentially significant sites. If the wall is to be affected, an architectural historian should be consulted to provide a definitive assessment of significance for it.