An Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of a 310 Acre Tract on Northern Skidaway Island, Chatham County, Georgia

Southeastern Archeological Services conducted an intensive cultural resources survey of a 310 acre (125.5 ha) tract on northern Skidaway Island for the firm of Hussey, Gay, Bell, and DeYoung, Inc, in June 1995. The land is owned by the University System of Georgia. The survey resulted in the discovery of 20 sites and eight artifact occurrences. In addition, 13 previously recorded sites were revisited. Fifteen of the total 33 sites consist solely of prehistoric artifact scatters, many of which also include shell middens. Seven sites are exclusively historic. The 10 remaining sites include both prehistoric and historic components. One of the previously recorded sites (9CH71 or the Groves Creek Site) is a large and very dense scatter of prehistoric artifacts and shell that has drawn the attention of many archeologists including, most recently, Dr. Ervan Garrison of the University of Georgia. Although our investigation of this site was minimal, previous research has demonstrated that it is eligible for nomination to the National Register. This site should be protected from any ground disturbing activities. Twelve of the other sites in the project area are recommended potentially eligible to the National Register. Nine of these contain relatively substantial prehistoric artifact scatters and shell middens that appeared, from our shovel test data, to be reasonably intact and to have the potential to yield significant information on prehistoric Native American settlement, subsistence, and chronology. Seven of the potentially eligible sites contain historic components, including several that may date as early as the middle eighteenth century. One recommended potentially eligible site is a historic period cemetery. Although the University System of Georgia may not be legally bound by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, these sites should be protected until test excavations can definitively determine their eligibility status. Twenty sites are considered ineligible to the National Register. Sites that are recommended ineligible are generally sparse or lack integrity. Some, however, may be intact but simply have little potential for yielding significant, new information. No further work is necessary on these sites. Aside from archeological considerations, it should be pointed out that several sites may qualify for protection under state cemetery and burial protection laws (Code Section 36-72). The first of these is an abandoned historic cemetery (site 9CH86). This cemetery appears on a county soil map (Wilkes, et al. 1974), and its location, but not extent, was documented on this survey. The second site is a prehistoric and historic artifact scatter (9CH119). Salvage excavations on this site in 1974 revealed a prehistoric human burial (DePratter 1974b). It is likely that other prehistoric sites in the tract also contain graves. Typically, prehistoric burials occur not in discrete "cemeteries" but, instead, in the context of domestic areas. At the level of archeological survey, these domestic areas appear as relatively dense scatters of artifacts, such as those on sites that have been recommended potentially eligible for the National Register in this study. Unfortunately, state law is unclear on how to proceed in cases where the "possible" presence of human remains has not been confirmed, and archeologists are currently struggling with the dilemma of what types of sites can be considered likely to contain graves. Until these dilemmas are resolved, we recommend that the sites in the tract that we have recommended as potentially eligible to the National Register be protected until archeologically tested for both their archeological potential and their potential to contain burials.