Archeological Survey of Seven Interchange Improvements on I-75, Crisp and Turner Counties, Georgia

Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc. (SAS) conducted a Phase I archeological survey of variously shaped and sized parcels of land at five bridges and two existing interchanges on Interstate Highway 75 in Crisp and Turner Counties. Five of these consist only of a two-lane bridge that passes over I-75 and two are full interchanges, with exit and entrance ramps. The Georgia Department of Transportation wishes to improve these interchanges by replacing (and enlarging) the five bridges that pass over I-75 and by replacing the bridges and reconfiguring the two interchanges. Greenhorne and O'Mara was selected to design the improvements. One aspect of the planning and design process, required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, is to locate archeological sites in the proposed area of potential effect, assess each site's significance in terms of its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and finally assess project effects to those sites determined eligible to the National Register. SAS conducted the archaeological survey of the area of potential effect for all seven interchanges from July 25 to August 9, 2005, expending 17 person-days. The area of potential effect (APE) consisted of the maximum width of required right-of-way or construction easement along the project length. For the bridge replacements the APE was defined as 50 ft beyond existing right-ofway on both sides of the overpassing road, for a distance of 1000 ft in both directions from the edge of the I-75 right-of-way. The APE for the two interchanges, which included new routes of exit/entrance ramps, was clearly shown on project aerial photo maps. Survey consisted of one or two pairs of archeologists walking the APE looking for artifacts, features or other indicators of sites on the surface and excavating shovel tests where there was not adequate surface exposure (< 25 percent). Being an agricultural area, there was a moderate amount of surface exposure. Still, much of the area was obscured and we excavated 271 non-site, exploratory shovel tests and about another 40 shovel tests on sites and artifact occurrences. Archival research showed that no archeological sites had been previously recorded directly in the project corridor and only a few in the vicinity. One site, 9CP 160, had been recorded at the eastern terminus of one of the intersections, and this site was found to extend into our project area. The archival research also indicated that prehistoric sites would likely be rare, since the interchanges were not adjacent to any major drainages. Early to mid-twentieth century maps and aerial photographs showed that as many 13 structures once existed in or near the various project areas, well before I-75 was constructed. These are potential archeological sites and were noted on our project maps to alert the field archeologists. The survey resulted in the discovery and recording of six sites (Table 1). These are evenly divided between unidentified prehistoric lithic scatters and late nineteenth to mid-twentieth century house sites. One of the lithic scatters largely coincides with an established cemetery. In addition, we also recorded two artifact occurrences (isolated artifacts that are not sites), each consisted of a single chert artifact found on the surface. We recommend that none of the historic period house sites are eligible to the National Register because none are associated with persons or events important in history and none have research potential (the ability to yield important information through more work). We did not assess the standing architecture at these sites. Although we could not fully shovel test the entirety of these sites due to GDOT restrictions to stay within the APE, we were able to gain a full view of the sites from visual inspection and study of aerial photographs. Based on the sampling of shovel testing and the archival understanding of the sites, we were able to conclude that the sites as a whole were not eligible. We could not make the same projection for the prehistoric sites. Although we did feel that based on the shovel testing we conducted these sites also would not be eligible for the National Register, we could not confirm this, largely because we cannot be sure how large the sites are. Therefore, we concluded that the three prehistoric sites are of unknown eligibility. However, we were able to assess the portion within the APE, and recommend that none of the portions within the APE contribute to the eligibility of the sites. A twentieth century cemetery embedded within one of the prehistoric sites (9CP 160) was determined to lie well outside of the project boundaries Thus, we recommend that no archeological resources in the area of potential effect for the seven interchange improvement projects qualify for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and that in regard to archeological resources, the project be granted clearance to proceed.