Cultural Resources Survey of the Vickery Property, Hart County, Georgia

The Georgia Mountains Regional Development Center wishes to develop a 23.6 ha (58.32 ac) tract in northern Hart County, in part using federal grants. This required compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, which calls for an assessment of project effects on significant (eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places) cultural properties, which could be either standing structures within the viewshed of the project or archeological sites within the property boundaries. The first step in such compliance is completing a survey to determine if significant (eligible) structures or sites exist in the area of potential effect. Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc. conducted a Phase I archeological survey and a reconnaissance historic resources survey of the tract on September 14 and 15, 2006. The survey was conducted by SAS archeologists Gail Tomczak and Gregg Britt under the direct supervision of principal investigator Tom Gresham. At the end of fieldwork Gresham visited the project area and inspected the two sites and various nearby structures recorded during the fieldwork. Archival research showed that no archeological sites had been recorded in or near the project tract. However, many prehistoric and historic period sites have been recorded in northern Hart County and surrounding areas, and one or a few sites could be expected on the tract. Historic period maps and aerial photographs (especially a 1955 Soil Conservation Service aerial photograph) showed that there were two houses or farmsteads older than 50 years on the tract and three more within possible view of the tract. The 1955 photo dramatically showed that almost all of the tract (except lower, sloping northern fringes) was under cultivation and heavily terraced at that time. The field survey located two archeological sites, both twentieth century houses or farmsteads. On one (site 9HA116), the house has been razed and bulldozed, while a barn and outbuilding remain as ruins. The other site (9HA117) has a standing house and ruins of a small shed. Because the nature of these sites is obvious from visual inspection, because information about them can be easily gained from informant interviews and archival research, because they are relatively modern, and because of heavy disturbance to the older site (9HA116), we believe that they have little to no archeological potential to yield important, new information on the history of the area. Neither is known to be associated with persons or events important in local or state history. Thus, we believe that both sites fail to meet three of the criteria for National Register eligibility. We also discovered one artifact occurrence, a single quartz tool fragment. This too is recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. There is only one standing structure within the viewshed of the project area, and this is the badly deteriorated house on site 9HA117. We believe that this structure fails to meet National Register criteria because of loss of integrity. It has virtually no windows or doors and most of the interior fabric of the house is gone. Much of the flooring (joists and flooring) is badly deteriorated and it seems rather certain that the house is too badly deteriorated to ever be rehabilitated. In conclusion, it is our opinion that the two historic period archeological sites we recorded, both dating to the twentieth century, are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, as they fail to meet all criteria. We recorded no other sites on the tract. The only historic period standing structure that has not been moved into the area is at site 9HA117. This is a badly deteriorated house dating to the 1940s. We believe that it has lost too much integrity to be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. We conclude that there are no cultural resources eligible for the National Register within the area of potential effect for this development project.