The Phoenix Flies unites a community of Preservation Partners to enhance Atlanta and promote its heritage. The name comes from the mythical bird that consumed itself by fire and then rose anew from the ashes. This has been Atlanta’s nickname since the Civil War, and has been featured on the city seal since 1887. As the Phoenix Flies website notes:

In 1978 the dramatic rescue of the Fox Theatre changed Atlanta’s attitude toward its historic buildings and became the inspiration for many other successful projects that saved more of Atlanta’s historic structures, neighborhoods and sites. In 2003, as part of The Atlanta Preservation Center’s 25th anniversary celebration of the saving of the Fox, we recognized the city’s other historic attractions with our ground-breaking event, The Phoenix Flies: A Citywide Celebration of Living Landmarks.

During the seventeen days, from Saturday, March 6th, through Monday, March 22nd, of the 2010 Phoenix Flies, over forty-five historic sites will offer over 160 FREE events including guided walking tours, bicycle tours, bus tours, to lectures and storytelling, to open houses, and more! The 2010 Phoenix Flies events are listed online here.

Main, east fascade of Ashantilly plantation house.

The SGA and its members owe a big debt of thanks to the wonderful, kind folks at the Ashantilly Center, an historic plantation house and grounds just north of Darien.

The SGA Board and Officers met on Saturday, February 6th, 2010, at the Ashantilly library, named after the home’s builder, Thomas Spalding, at the south end of the plantation house. Spalding owned land on both the mainland and on Sapelo Island (which many of us visited on Sunday), and Ashantilly was the family home.

SGA leadership, from left: Brian Floyd, President Dennis Blanton, Stephen Hammack, David Mincey, Thomas Gresham, Pamela Baughman, Sammy Smith, Tammy Herron, Catherine Long, Lynn Pietak, Carolyn Rock, and meeting organizer Kevin Kiernan.

Spalding named Ashantilly after his ancestral home in Scotland. The Ashantilly historical marker was dedicated in late October 2009. It is planted on Ridge Road “behind” the main plantation house. The marker reads:

Built ca. 1820, Ashantilly was the mainland residence of prominent antebellum planter Thomas Spalding (1774-1851), owner of the nearby Sapelo Island plantation. The house, likely built by Spalding’s slaves, was constructed of tabby, an equal mix of oyster shell, sand, water and lime. Ashantilly was named for Spalding’s ancestral home in County Perth, Scotland. He died at Ashantilly and is interred in the family burial ground adjacent to the property. William G. Haynes, Jr. (1908-2001), proprietor of the Ashantilly Press, was the last private owner of Ashantilly. In 1993 the Haynes family donated the property to the Ashantilly Center, Inc.

According to the Center’s website, William Haynes Jr., with his sister, Annie Lee Haynes established Ashantilly Center:

to organize and implement a program of conservation, including Ashantilly property and its legacy, to provide a vehicle for continuing education, scientific advancement and charitable endeavor which focus on the natural and built environments integral to the Georgia Coast.

The generous hosting included three tasty meals, culminating with a Low Country Boil. We also enjoyed a special tour of the upstairs of the house. Because Ashantilly is primarily an educational institution and not a museum, it is not open for tours.

Ashantilly Center members also kindly hosted SGA attendees in their homes, which meant attendees did not have to pay for hotel rooms. (The SGA does not pay the leadership’s expenses to attend Board meetings.)

All meeting participants, many of whom travelled for hours to attend this retreat, agreed that our day at Ashantilly and our time with the Ashantilly Center people was extra-special.

 

Links

The Ashantilly Center’s website is here.

The Ashantilly Center’s blog is here.

The Society for American Archaeology, a national organization with over 7000 members, publishes a newsletter five times each year. The SAA offers that newsletter for free via the Internet. Select the issue you want to read by clicking here.

For issues from 2010 on, when you click on an issue name, its pages appear on a reader, and the issue can also be downloaded as a PDF. For issues prior to 2010, your click will initiate a download.

Greenspace projects involve lands set aside to remain undeveloped. In cities, publicly owned greenspace is often in parks. The central purpose of greenspace is to assure that some terrain remain protected from building.

However, greenspace, or lands set aside for planning and conservation, also has significant collateral bonuses. For example, they provide opportunities for recreation, and ecological and environmental benefits. Also, preserving greenspace can often mean the preservation of archaeological sites.

How does that happen?

Here is an example of a new park in Atlanta, called Morningside Nature Preserve. The 32-acre Preserve was dedicated on a foggy morning—Monday, December 14th, 2009. Yes, it’s a preserve, and it is also greenspace.

The Preserve’s property was landlocked, or in the middle of a developed area—both residential and business—and lacking legal access, even for a footpath. Thus, a big part of making this preserve more useful was to obtain legal access, develop a parking area, and build a path from the parking area to the core of the Preserve.

At the dedication, interested individuals and a few dogs assembled. Speakers spoke. Many individuals and organizations received heartfelt thanks and a moment of applause.

Several characteristics of this ritual are common to this sort of dedication. First, it took the cooperation of many stakeholder organizations to make this Preserve happen. The impetus for formation of this preserve came from a few individuals, who kept pushing for this to happen for over nine years.

There was also considerable institutional cooperation. Important organizations involved in the establishment and development of the Morningside Nature Preserve included, of course, the city of Atlanta and several neighborhood organizations, the city’s parks department (which is now responsible for maintaining the Preserve), and, especially Georgia Power Company. Georgia Power set aside land for the parking lot and contributed to development of an access corridor to the central part of the Preserve.

Without all of this cooperation, the Morningside Nature Preserve could not have been dedicated.

Check out the photo gallery for a dozen pictures of this event and the Preserve.

So, how do greenspace projects, like the Morningside Nature Preserve, benefit archaeological preservation? Don’t forget to add your comment….

 

Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, Georgia has been the focus of an important archaeological discovery over the last three years. In August of 2006 during excavation for a fiber-optic utility line in the heart of the Airfield’s cantonment, construction workers encountered several bones quite unexpectedly. All work on the utility trench ceased immediately and the Installation’s archaeologist, Brian Greer, investigated the disturbed burial and determined that the remains were that of one individual buried in a coffin. It was at that point the Installation realized there was a strong possibility that an unknown cemetery may have been lost to time.

New South team member Andrew Belcourt shovel skims a burial feature taking care not to disturb the remains that lie beneath (photograph courtesy of New South Associates, Inc.).

In order to complete the excavation of the utility trench and avoid disturbing any other graves that may be in the vicinity, a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) unit was brought in to guide the remaining portion of the trench. As a result of the GPR, additional suspected graves were noted nearby and the path of the utility trench was altered slightly to avoid any further disturbances. Additional work was halted and the Installation initiated a larger radar sweep of the surrounding area. The location under examination consisted of two boulevards, a paved parking lot, and several grassy medians. After extensive radar sweeps of the location, the potential for a significant number of burials was suggested by the radar.

Upon the realization that this initial single burial may actually be part of a much larger unknown cemetery, the Installation contracted the services of New South Associates, Inc. in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Savannah District. The initial goal was to determine the size and origin of the cemetery. Although archaeological surveys had been previously conducted nearby, no signs of any cemetery were ever encountered. According to base records, the parking lot and boulevards had been in existence for over 50 years.

Remnant of the only inscribed grave marker recovered (photograph courtesy of New South Associates, Inc.).

Upon the discovery of the initial burial, the Installation contacted the State Historic Preservation Office. Through close coordination and monitoring by staff archaeologists, the Installation was able to successfully complete the installation of the fiber optic cable without disturbing any additional suspected remains.

The discovery of a cemetery in such an environment created a challenge to the contracted mortuary archaeologists. Since the cemetery lies beneath asphalt and concrete, a significant amount of time and effort was required to remove this obstruction. The parking lot and road removal was carefully monitored by the Installation and New South Associates, Inc. over several days to ensure no burials were damaged. After 2 acres of asphalt and concrete were removed, the underlying soil was exposed. Due to the sandy nature of this hill, the grave outlines were not discernable until approximately 10 cm above each burial. Typical burial shafts that would normally be visible closer to the original surface had been obliterated over time. After weeks of careful backhoe excavation and hand shoveling by New South Associates, a total of 37 burials were discovered.

Of these 37 graves, a sample was examined to determine their condition and potential for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as a cemetery of significance. With minimal intrusion, it was determined that the cemetery represented an African-American cemetery dating from the 1880s to the 1910s. Furthermore, the condition of the burials indicated good preservation, and therefore the cemetery was considered to be a potential candidate for the NRHP.

This small bisque lamb figurine represents one of the various grave goods found during excavation of the cemeteries (photograph courtesy of New South Associates, Inc.).

Initial examination of Installation documents and historic maps did not provide any clues to the origins of this lost cemetery. Therefore, the Installation looked to the public for help. Since the area was planned for further development, the Installation solicited public input from the surrounding communities through newspaper announcements, television interviews, and public meetings. Unfortunately, no members of the public came forward with information pertaining to this cemetery. Although this cemetery was just over a hundred years old, it appeared the memory of its existence had faded completely.

After efforts to solicit comments from the public, consultation with the SHPO, and through the course of an Environmental Assessment, it was determined that the best course of action was to archaeologically excavate the cemetery and respectfully reinter the burials within an existing cemetery elsewhere on the Installation (known as Belmont Cemetery). With future upgrades to the road and parking lot associated with the construction of a new barracks complex for the Rangers, a research plan was developed through a Memorandum of Agreement with the Georgia SHPO in order to mitigate the adverse effects of relocation of this NRHP eligible cemetery.

Custom engraved cufflink depicting an unknown church (photograph courtesy of New South Associates, Inc.).

Upon completion of the regulatory process, the mortuary archaeologists began the long task of hand excavating each grave, mapping every burial, and carefully recovering all grave materials for future reburial. Over the next several weeks, all burials were fully documented and the remains transferred to secure mortuary caskets for future reburial. The entire contents of the coffin, including the coffin fragments themselves, were stored with each burial. This entire assemblage was measured and photographed in order to document all available clues to the identity of the individuals interred.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Installation, another cemetery was being investigated. During the 1950s and 1970s, several burials were encountered during construction of an exercise course for the Rangers. At that time, all remains were excavated and moved to Belmont Cemetery. In 1994, during upgrades to the exercise course, an additional burial was encountered. Work halted and the burial was moved to the Belmont Cemetery. Due to the number of burials encountered, the Installation initiated a GPR survey of the exercise field in 1995. Several potential graves were identified and a sample of these radar “anomalies” were excavated. No additional graves were encountered, and it was believed that the likelihood for additional burials was very low to non-existent. However, a small portion of the exercise field had not been sampled due to large oak trees and other obstacles that interfered with the radar. With mortuary archaeologists and an available radar unit already on site, the Installation decided that an attempt to examine the areas missed by the previous radar survey was in order.

An unusual collection of 9 sets of eyeglasses from a single burial (photograph courtesy of New South Associates, Inc.).

Initially, the radar results of this second look indicated only a small number of potential graves. All suspected graves were examined archaeologically, and it was not until the very last radar anomalies were examined that a single grave was encountered. As a matter of procedure, a 20-foot area around this grave was excavated to ensure no other graves had been missed by the radar. It was this 20-foot expansion that eventually led to the removal of almost an acre of topsoil to expose the boundaries of this other lost cemetery. After all exploratory work was done, an additional 385 burials were recovered from this missing portion of the 1995 radar survey.

1889 map depicting “Negro Cemetery”.

During the investigation of this second cemetery, an extensive document search in the city of Savannah finally revealed a single map from 1889 labeling the area as a “Negro Cemetery.” Coupled with the examination of the skeletal remains as well as the age of coffin materials recovered, it was determined that this second cemetery was an African-American cemetery dating from the same time period as the first cemetery (i.e. 1880s to 1910s). Similar to the first cemetery, the remains were relatively well preserved and held the potential to provide significant information about a segment of the population of Savannah that has gone virtually unrecorded. Consequently, this cemetery was also deemed significant as a historical cemetery and underwent the same regulatory and decision making processes to respectfully move the graves to a more peaceful resting place in the Belmont Cemetery.

After all regulatory requirements were met and all burials were carefully excavated, the remains were all reinterred to the Belmont Cemetery. This cemetery was established in 1951 when the Army encountered several unmarked graves during the expansion of the airfield, and it proved to be the most suitable resting place for the newly discovered remains.

Final resting ground for the 2 relocated cemeteries- Belmont Cemetery named after the Old Belmont Plantation.

During African-American History Month in February 2009, the Installation coordinated a rededication ceremony presided over by the Installation’s Garrison Commander and Chaplain. Members of the community were invited to this important ceremony, which was held for both cemeteries. Although no descendants have been identified from these two cemeteries, the rededication ceremony provided important closure to one individual in attendance. Mr. Drayton, who learned of the upcoming ceremony through his family, sat quietly in the audience. It was quickly learned that Mr. Drayton’s grandfather was buried in the original portion of the Belmont Cemetery when it was established in 1951. For Mr. Drayton, the ceremony “was a wonderful thing,” and he considered it “one of the greatest days of his life.” Until that ceremony, Mr. Drayton and his family never knew where their grandfather’s grave had been relocated. For now, at least one of the unknown markers in the Belmont Cemetery has a name and is among the honored dead.

Research continues by New South Associates on the information collected during the excavation of these important cemeteries; one goal is to find names for the remaining forgotten individuals. From this work, future researchers will begin to shed new light on the lives of African Americans during the Post-Emancipation era in the Savannah area. New South Associates’ final report of investigation is nearing completion and is expected to be completed in the months ahead. From these two cemeteries, a significant amount of information pertaining to the lifeways of African-American residents of the Georgia Coastal Plain will shed light on a relatively recent, yet forgotten past.

Portrayal of Native American life on Jekyll Island (original painting by Melissa Crawford, Art Major at the University of West Georgia).

People have called the small barrier island now known as Jekyll home for many centuries, but only the most obvious and recent reminders of that history are usually recognized today. Each year thousands of visitors are introduced to the splendid “cottages” and manicured landscapes of the Jekyll Island Club and their connection with the rich and famous industry giants of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Many also see the ruins of tabby structures that stand as silent memorials to English colonization of the Georgia coast during the 18th century and to the later plantation endeavors of the French owners of the island, the DuBignon family.

As important as these historic resources are, they represent only part of the total cultural heritage of Jekyll Island. What now stands above the ground is a fraction of the fragile evidence that marks this island’s remarkable past. Much more survives below the ground as archaeological evidence—the buried structural elements, landscape features, artifacts and food remains from the day to day lives of people over the millennia. At least 95 percent of the total patrimony of the island preceded British interests here. This place was the home of Native Americans for more than 4000 years before the first European arrived. Their history is Jekyll Island’s hidden cultural heritage, a past marked by traces of oyster shell on the ground surface and the buried archaeological remains left behind by countless generations.

Archaeological research has been undertaken from time to time on Jekyll Island for over 50 years, providing a basic sketch of the island’s cultural history. Dozens of archaeological sites have been recorded through survey efforts and limited excavations on the island and its nearby hammocks. The best-known historic sites—Horton House and Millionaire’s Village—were also the locations of major prehistoric sites, indicating that these high-ground areas that are easily accessible by water have remained prime real estate for many centuries. Other, mostly smaller, prehistoric settlements are located elsewhere on the island where good access was offered to important food resources.

The earliest known Native American occupation of Jekyll Island was by an early foraging culture associated with the St. Simons phase. Dating to as early as 2400 B.C., these people may have lived in permanent settlements used as central bases for collecting estuarine, riverine, and oak-forest food resources during a time of rising sea levels and evolving ecosystems. Overall population density was low all along the coast, with groups living on the barrier islands in settlements atop and around shell rings (large ring-shaped mounds of oyster shells and other food refuse) and along freshwater rivers on top of large shell mounds (which also were deposits shell and other refuse). Occupation was concentrated on the northern end of Jekyll Island at this time, perhaps the result of short-term visits by foraging groups from large nearby sites on St. Simons Island. However, the possibility exists that a shell ring may have been located along the northern edge of Jekyll Island in an area that now has been submerged by rising sea level and eroded by tidal actions and currents.

When sea level dropped to a temporary low-stand around 1,000 B.C., there were dramatic changes in the coastal ecosystem and St. Simons phase settlements were disrupted and their populations dispersed. An archaeological culture known as the Refuge phase then developed along the coast, perhaps representing descendents of the St. Simons phase groups, but no sites of this period have been recorded on Jekyll Island.

Occupation resumed on Jekyll Island sometime between roughly 500 B.C. and A.D. 700. Probably the first to resettle the island were small bands of semi-nomadic hunters-fishers-gatherers who were seasonal visitors to the island during the Deptford phase. These people overlapped with others of a different cultural tradition known as Swift Creek, marked by groups who immigrated to the coast from inland areas of Georgia. The largest identified Swift Creek settlement was located in the interior of the island and contained an earthen burial mound.

Sporadic occupation on the island occurred during the following Wilmington phase, beginning about A.D. 700 and continuing for some 300 years. Very little is known about the genesis of this culture and its adaptive patterns anywhere along the Georgia coast. It is suspected that small residential groups visited the island intermittently during this time for hunting, fishing, and gathering purposes.

Intensive Native American settlement occurred on Jekyll Island during the Savannah phase, beginning about A.D. 1000 and perhaps continuing until Spanish contact. This was associated with large populations who lived in permanent villages and had a mixed economy based upon horticulture (growing maize, beans, and squash) along with substantial reliance on estuarine and oak forest resources. A central adaptive characteristic of this socially and politically complex culture was the periodic movement of family groups from their villages during the year to harvest seasonally available resources in other areas. The prehistoric archaeological sites at the Horton House and Millionaires Village date primarily to the Savannah phase and, although severely disturbed in places by historical construction activities, they are two of the largest and most complex Native American settlements on Jekyll Island.

Little information is available about Native American occupation on Jekyll Island during the early historic period. The island was known to the Spaniards as the Isla de Ballenas (Island of Whales) and while 17th-century Franciscan missions among the Mocama natives evidently were located to the north on St. Simons Island and to the south on Cumberland Island, none were reported on Jekyll Island. However, archaeological evidence indicates there was a native presence on the island during the 16th and 17th centuries. Irene phase and Mission period native pottery types, more common at sites associated with the Guale in areas north of Jekyll Island, are rare but present at some of Jekyll’s archaeological sites. Pottery vessels associated with the Mocama in more southern areas of the Georgia coast appear to be very similar to earlier Savannah phase wares, suggesting the possibility that some sites on Jekyll Island now assigned to the late prehistoric period may contain materials that actually reflect Native American occupations during the Spanish Mission period.

Only the barest of details about Jekyll Island’s Native American past are known and much remains to be learned about this heritage. Archaeologists now have many more questions than they do answers. Buried beneath the feet of visitors to Jekyll Island is a complex and multidimensional puzzle of archaeological evidence, each piece an irreplaceable clue about the lives of people in the distant past who once called this island their home. As archaeological methods and scientific techniques advance, more and more will be learned about this hidden past and our lives in the present will be enriched by a better understanding of that heritage. However, the pieces of our puzzle are fragile and once destroyed are forever lost. In recognition of their importance to current and future generations, archaeological sites of Jekyll Island are protected under Georgia laws and Federal statutes, with civil and criminal penalties for their destruction or disturbance.

An artifact of Jekyll Island’s history of tourism.

Jekyll Island, owned by the people of Georgia and managed on their behalf by the Jekyll Island Authority, is a natural and cultural treasure to be both enjoyed and protected. Visitors to our remarkable island should be aware of the past hidden beneath their feet, marvel at its mysteries and untold stories, always act to sustain rather than disturb it, and walk away as advocates for archaeological preservation. The past is present on Jekyll Island and its legacies precious.

Fact: Georgia has many archaeological sites along the coast at sea level or only a few feet above sea level.

Fact: Scientists have measured a global rise in sea level over the last few years.

Fact: Scientists say the sea level will continue to rise.

The question: how much will it rise?

Why do we ask this question on the Society for Georgia Archaeology’s website? Because members of the society are concerned about the impact a sea level rise will have on coastal archaeological sites. One type of coastal site is prehistoric shell mounds, that is, mounds of shells discarded by ancient diners. Other coastal archaeological sites are historic buildings like lighthouses and fishing piers and docks.

So, along with other scientists, archaeologists look to research on changes in the sea level and the impact it will have on the shoreline. This means we look to models, or scientific predictions, of how the sea level will rise, both how much and how.

Modeling such a complex situation is very difficult. A model in this sense is a carefully described if-then assessment of the factors involved, and how they interact. For example, if rainfall increases, or if temperatures increase, or if desertification increases, THEN the effect is…whatever. A robust model will incorporate many, many factors, and describe how these factors are interrelated, or how changes in one will cause changes in others.

In a recent editorial article called “Rising seas and retreating coastlines” in the professional journal Climatic Change, and available free online, Roshanka Ranasinghe and Marcel J.F. Stive discuss what we need to generate a good model for predicting climate change:

A robust solution to the problem [that is, modeling climate change] lies in comprehensive bottom–up (small-scale, process-based) and top–down (large-scale, behavior-based) numerical models. Once comprehensively validated by field data, such numerical models can be strategically applied to determine quantitative forcing-response relationships of complex, non-linear coastal processes. These relationships can then be aggregated and/or parameterized and embedded into a robust and easy-to-use numerical model which accounts for at least the primary physical processes governing coastal recession. (page 467)

There are a lot of Big Words there!

So, what do these sentences mean?

The first sentence means that a good model will take into account both local, small-scale factors (e.g., the angle of an individual island relative to offshore currents) and large-scale factors (e.g., widescale changes in landuse patterns so that vegetation cover increases).

The second sentence is a recommendation that the model be cross-checked with actual field data. In other words, it’s not enough to make a model, but a good model should be checked against data we already have to make sure they fit the model. This also makes the model more robust.

The last sentence recommends taking the factors and the existing data and incorporating them into a numerical or mathematical model that includes the factors usually discussed—like temperature, rainfall, and landuse changes—and also includes coastline processes including the impact of waves along the shore, and how sediment is transported along the shoreline.

This last is probably something you’ve not heard about with regard to the climate change debate. Still, the recommendation to include how sediments move, and how this affects landforms does seem important. After all, as the water level rises, this is the place it contacts land, and this is the place where the higher levels will change the land.

What other factors do you think are important in modeling climate change?

This website has another, older story on climate change and Georgia archaeology; find it here.

Read Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cameron McWhirter’s story “Science digs into Civil War sites,” dated 28 November 2009 by clicking here.

The story discusses how public archaeologists are using modern technologies to discover new information from Civil War sites. Most of the article stems from an interview with SGA member Garrett Silliman, and also mentions SGA member Dan Elliott.

The precision this technology offers is startling. To demonstrate, Silliman picked up a small plastic bag on his desk. Inside was a bullet that he recently recovered from a site at Tanyard Creek in Buckhead. Through global positioning he knew the exact location where the bullet was found. Examining its markings, he was able to tell it was a British-made bullet fired from model 1853 Enfield rifle. Because it was slightly marked, he could tell it had been rammed into a gun that had been fouled, probably from being shot a lot that day. Because the lead bullet didn’t have any impact marks, he could tell it had not hit a target, but probably just traveled through the air, then dropped to the ground. Military records showed fighting at that location. Using mapping software showing modern Atlanta overlaid with Civil War fortifications, he traced back 1,100 to 1,300 yards—the distance an Enfield-fired bullet would travel—to Rebel earthworks.

On November 4th 2009, the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation announced its 2010 list of Georgia’s top ten Places in Peril, which includes the Leake Archaeological Site, a rich Middle Woodland and Late Mississippian-period prehistoric settlement on the outskirts of Cartersville. According to the Trust’s press release:

Located in the Etowah Valley Historic District in Bartow County, the Leake site is a prehistoric archaeological site dating as far back as 300 BC. The site contains the remnants of at least three earthen mounds and a vast moat; midden deposits with artifacts from everyday and ceremonial activities; former structures; and human burials.

The site began as a small domestic village that developed into one of the most important sites in the Southeast, both as a ceremonial and political hub. The Leake site extends along many different property parcels, some of which have already been industrially or commercially developed. The area surrounding the site is growing rapidly, so the unoccupied tracts of land in the archaeological site are in imminent danger of being destroyed.

The news release goes on:

Places in Peril is designed to raise awareness about Georgia’s significant historic, archaeological and cultural resources, including buildings, structures, districts, archaeological sites and cultural landscapes that are threatened by demolition, neglect, lack of maintenance, inappropriate development or insensitive public policy.

Through Places in Peril, the Trust will encourage owners and individuals, organizations and communities to employ proven preservation tools, financial resources and partnerships in order to reclaim, restore and revitalize historic properties that are in peril.

Read more about what excavations have revealed about this rich archaeological site at the informative website Bartowdig.com. You also may be interested in joining the Friends of the Leake Site group on Facebook.

Scot Keith, an archaeologist who lead recent excavations at the Leake Site, notes, “with help from the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation and numerous volunteers, we will be conducting many activities in the next year (and beyond) to foster public awareness of the site and its important place in history. This will include public education days at the site, community meetings, interviews, articles, partnerships and grants, research and fieldwork, and regular website updates.”

Food for thought

Why is the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation’s Places in Peril list necessary? What can you do to help other Places in Peril and the Leake Site?

The Fort Daniel Foundation has scheduled its annual meeting for 7:00 pm on December 15th at the Gwinnett Justice and Administration Center (GJAC) in Lawrenceville in the 2nd floor conference room center. It will be the first official annual meeting and voting will take place for officers, etc. For those of you who have not joined the Fort Daniel Foundation and would like to do some as a founding member, you may do so until then end of this meeting. Remember, you must be a member in order to vote!

The Fort Daniel Foundation (FDF), founded in 2009, is a nonprofit organization composed of professional and avocational archaeologists, descendents of militiamen associated with Fort Daniel during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and interested members of the general public. Our mission is to preserve the Fort Daniel archaeological site by promoting the creation of the Fort Daniel Historic Site and Archaeological Research Park, as a permanent archaeological research preserve available to researchers, historians and educators.

The Gwinnett Archaeological Research Society has scheduled a field trip to the Roswell Mills site for Sunday, November 15. Archaeologist Jim D’Angelo, who conducted limited excavations at the site in 2008, will lead the walking tour, which will follow existing trails, including the recently constructed trail through the ruins of second 1853 mill. The tour will begin at 1 pm departing from the Old Mill parking lot at the end of Mill Street. Click here, here, and here for general information on Roswell and the mills, as well as directions.

Though this field trip is limited to historic sites along the Vickery Creek trail, there is a lot more to see in Roswell including Barrington Hall, the Visitor’s Center at the head of Sloan Street and other sites. The tour will only be a couple of hours so you may want to take in some of these other points. The Visitor’s Center will have information on these. In fact, if you can get to Roswell a half hour before the tour, it would be worthwhile to stop in the Visitor’s Center as they have a scale model of the mills along the creek and other information on the mills.

Artist’s rendering of the Roman town of Venta Icenorum during boom times, by Sue White, provided by the University of Nottingham to Science Daily.

In July 2009, Science Daily, an online news website, published an article about the Roman town of Venta Icenorum at Caistor St. Edmund in Norfolk, England, describing the results of recent research conducted by archaeologists with the University of Nottingham

A recent high-resolution geophysical survey, which does not require excavation or other ground disturbance, revealed, according to the University of Nottingham:

the town’s water supply system (detecting the iron collars connecting wooden water pipes), and the series of public buildings including the baths, temples and forum, known from earlier excavations.

Nevertheless, among all these architectural features, the survey showed areas that had not been built up, and remained open. Thus, the dense urban area that previous researchers believed characterized this settlement was not discovered by the survey.

Unlike many Roman settlements in the British Isles, this one was abandoned in Medieval times, which means there is less superimposed construction and disturbance that alter the earlier occupation.

Google Earth satellite view of remains of the Roman town of Venta Icenorum.

Many archaeologists believe that, although geophysical surveys and other “black box” studies can reveal important information about subsurface remains without disturbing them, on balance they are no substitute for the detailed data than can be recovered by excavation.

What do you think?

More details on the archaeological project can be found here.

Image is a terrain map of Iraq from Google Maps.

Staff Sgt. Luke Koladish, 114th Public Affairs Detachment, writes that Sgt. Ronald Peters, a geospatial analyst whose hometown is Fort Lewis, Washington, with Multi-National Corps – Iraq C-7, has been mapping the archaeological sites of Iraq in his spare time. The article was published online on the Operation Iraqi Freedom’s official website of the Multi-National Force—Iraq on October 27th (2009).

Writes Koladish:

“Back in June, one of the engineers working on future operations wanted to see all the archeological sites in Iraq,” Peters recalled. “Everybody knows this is the cradle of civilization. There’s Babylon, Ur, some pretty famous archeological sites in Iraq.”

As bases were closed and troops withdrew from cities, the existing bases needed to expand, without infringing on historical sites.

Although the country is estimated to have some 12,000 archaeological sites, Peters has mapped only 800.

Closes Koladish:

Peter’s ongoing effort to preserve Iraq’s archeological sites is now part of the U.S. military’s diligence in caring for the ancient sites and history of the Iraqi people as U.S. forces withdraw from the country.

Read Koladish’s full article by clicking here.

Georgia’s Secretary of State’s website includes useful reference materials including the Georgia Archives. Current featured content on that website includes the Virtual Vault, which, the website says:

is your portal to some of Georgia’s most important historical documents, from 1733 to the present. The Virtual Vault provides virtual access to historic Georgia manuscripts, photographs, maps, and government records housed in the state archives.

The “Touring Georgia” section of the Virtual Vault includes four photographs from around Clayton, including one of this lovely and bucolic farm.

While you are likely to expect digital versions of important government records, like tax digests and death certificates, take a look and see what else you find—and let us know what surprises you or what you’re glad you’ve found—online!

On the highest hill in Astoria, Oregon, near the mouth of the Columbia River, stands a 125-foot tall column, patterned after Trajan’s Column in Rome. The exterior of both have a series of carved scenes winding around and up the column. The Astoria Column was built in 1926, and has an interior stairway of over 160 steps, and observation deck near the top.

The Astoria Column has fourteen different scenes carved by Italian immigrant artist Attilo Pusterla. They are in temporal order, and begin at the base of the column and wind upward. However, by the time of the dedication of the monument in July 1926, only a portion of the sgraffito bas-relief carved scenes were complete. The now-complete scenes, if unwound, would extend for over 500 feet.

The carvings quickly began to deteriorate in this location, exposed to storms from the Pacific and the freeze-thaw of winter. It was only in the mid-1990s, with the assistance of conservators from J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles, that the column’s art was better stabilized.

Even a cursory examination of cross-cultural data indicates that around the globe, in many societies, peoples with many belief systems have built structures important to them on high places. In addition, the structures are often unusually tall when compared to residential buildings. Indeed, important buildings are often tall, large, or both.

Why do you think this is so?

Website of Friends of the Astoria Column.

Wikipedia entry on Trajan’s Column.

An important event in the history of the telephone happened on Jekyll Island. If you wander around the historic area south of the Jekyll Island Clubhouse, now the Jekyll Island Club Hotel, you will find a plexiglass box encompassing an old telephone. A plaque erected by the Dixie Chapter of the Telephone Pioneers of America below the phone dated January 1965 reads:

The first transcontinental telephone call was transmitted by a telephone instrument of this type on January 23, 1915. Mr. Theodore N. Vail, President of American Telephone and Telegraph Company, talked from Jekyll Island to Dr. Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone in New Your; Thomas A. Watson, Assistant to Dr. Bell, in San Francisco; and to President Woodrow Wilson in Washington, D.C.

Thus, four men at four locations participated in that first transcontinental call. The AT&T website notes that:

At one point during the call, someone asked Professor Bell if he would repeat the first words he ever said over the telephone. He obliged, picking up the phone and repeating “Mr. Watson, come here, I want you.” To which Watson, in San Francisco, replied, “It would take me a week now.”

The modern company AT&T used to be American Telephone and Telegraph Company. In 1908, Theodore N. Vail, President of the company, prioritized completion of a transcontinental telephone line. Their goal was to have the transcontinental line open in time for the Panama-Pacific International Exposition, scheduled for 1915 in San Francisco.

The final pole for the transcontinental phone line was erected and the line strung in June 1914, but officials waited for the Exposition before they made the first call, to heighten the fanfare.

Why was Mr. Vail on Jekyll Island for this historic event? How does this compare to our modern satellite and cell phone services? Why are new phone systems in the Third World most commonly cell networks?

Panama-Pacific International Exposition on the web.

Downloadable digital copy of Exposition Fact-Book: Panama-Pacific International Exposition at San Francisco, 1915.

Jekyll Island Club Hotel website.

Preservation Georgia Online for September 12–18, 2009, lists the four grants funded through statewide preservation license tag sales. The four SFY 2010 Georgia Heritage Grants total $46,285.

They include:

• • Friends of Calhoun’s GEM Theatre, Inc. for plaster ceiling repair in the GEM Theatre in Gordon County—$14,985
• • City of Hawkinsville for window repair at the Hawkinsville Opera House in Pulaski County—$10,500
• • Jenkins County Board of Commissioners for a historic structure report of the Jenkins County Courthouse—$10,800
• • Roosevelt Warm Springs Rehabilitation Development Fund, Inc. for a conditions assessment report/preservation plan for Georgia Hall (a National Historic Landmark) in Meriwether County—$10,000

The Online newsletter notes:

Georgia Heritage matching grants are available to local governments and non-profit organizations and provide greatly needed “seed” money for preservation projects all across the state. Due to the current economic situation and its resulting impact on the state budget, the Georgia Heritage appropriation was cut for SFY 2009 and SFY 2010. This year, sixteen applicants requested $257,645 to help preserve the state’s historic resources. The support of the preservation community, evidenced in a very tangible manner through tag sales, enabled four of these worthy projects to be funded.

Visit Georgia Heritage Grants online by clicking here.

To subscribe to this free weekly newsletter, or to submit news items, questions, or comments, email Helen Talley-McRae by clicking here.

One thing we have to consider when reconstructing ruins of any sort, including historic and ancient buildings, is the period or date to make the reconstruction match.

For example, we know that the main house at Monticello, Thomas Jefferson’s plantation just outside Charlottesville, Virginia, was modified and rebuilt over more than forty years. In addition, after Jefferson’s death, there were other modifications and restorations.

Any restorer has to make choices. In the case of Monticello, do you restore the building to the way it was on the day that Jefferson died—to the extent you can determine it? Or do you pick another date? Which, and why?

The same is true for archaeological ruins, for which we have far less information than we do for Monticello’s architecture and renovations.

Consider the example of the largest temple-pyramid at Chichen Itzá, a Classic-period lowland Maya civic-ceremonial and residential settlement on the northern Yucatán Peninsula in southern Mexico. This structure has long been referred to as El Castillo.

Here’s an historic photo of El Castillo (rather poorly scanned), published in T.A. Willard’s The City of the Sacred Well (Century, 1926). Willard doesn’t date this photo, but it was probably taken sometime in the first quarter of the twentieth century.

Compare it to this photo from 2003, taken early in the morning when the ground fog made the pyramid more mysterious. The photographs are probably of different sides of this relatively symmetrical pyramid.

Both have the same number of levels, when you examine the profile of the edges and corners of the sides. The staircase is on a separate plane “above” the levels. However, the reconstruction staircase has borders running from the top to the bottom that are not clearly present.

Why? Is it because the photos show different faces of the pyramid? Is it because the historic photograph is of a relatively poor quality and we cannot discern the exact form of the staircase? Is it because restorationists opted to add this detail to make climbing the pyramid safer for tourists? Or…?

Click here to go to Monticello’s website.

Click here to go to the Chichen Itzá entry in the Wikipedia.

Click here to go to the El Castillo entry in the Wikipedia.

Photograph by David Manning, and from onlineAthens.com website.

Lee Shearer’s August 18th, 2009, story published by onlineAthens.com, notes that a construction project on the University of Georgia campus in Athens has revealed archaeological artifacts. The article begins:

A renovation project on one of the University of Georgia’s oldest buildings has turned into an archaeological treasure hunt, and after weeks of digging, the treasure pile just keeps growing.

The construction project is at New College, a building on north campus.

The excavators also have found a brick floor no one knew existed buried 7 feet below New College’s present ground level, and the remains of what may be a garden wall outside of the building facing Herty Field.

Another building may have stood on the site even before the original New College was built in 1819, said Janine Duncan, campus planning coordinator for UGA’s Physical Plant.

Shearer notes:

But even though the workers with Garbutt Construction Co. of Dublin aren’t digging the artifacts out as slowly and painstakingly as archaeologists would, they’re being as careful as they can while still meeting their construction schedule, [Campus Architect Danny] Sniff said.

Comments?

National Geographic Traveler has highlighted fifty “Drives of a Lifetime.” A route along the Georgia and South Carolina coasts is one of the trips discussed. Several small detours would take you to historic places like the Tybee Island lighthouse.

The NatGeo overview reads:

Tybee Island Lighthouse in 2004.

A pungent, slightly salty smell permeates the air of the Low Country. Its source is the area’s pluff mud: the dark marsh soil left behind after the tide recedes. That smell—and term—is one of the Low Country’s many distinctive qualities. Other features that tend to leave lasting impressions on visitors include the wide, flat expanses of marsh grass, the shrill songs of tree frogs and katydids, the silhouettes of live oak trees, their long, arching limbs shrouded in silvery clumps of Spanish moss. Then there’s the seemingly omnipresent water—tidal marshes, rivers, estuaries, and the Atlantic Ocean—often with at least one shrimp boat trawling. On a road trip through the Low Country, Charleston and Savannah make convenient bookends. Some backtracking is required in between—out to the islands, and then back to the main road—but that just gives you more time to absorb the scenery. After all, this trip should not be rushed, but made slowly, Southern style.

Take this drive and you will see many historic buildings, including at the beginning city of Charleston, and at the end of the route in Savannah. Underground will be the remains of many archaeological sites. A few can be visited at museums and public parks.

After completing the driving tour, you could take short drive seaward from Savannah, and visit Tybee Island, where a series of lighthouses have helped sailors safely enter the Savannah River and go up to Savannah.

The Tybee Lighthouse website notes:

Ordered by General James Oglethorpe, Governor of the 13th colony, in 1732, the Tybee Island Light Station has been guiding mariners safe entrance into the Savannah River for over 270 years. The Tybee Island Light Station is one of America’s most intact having all of its historic support buildings on its five-acre site. Rebuilt several times the current lightstation displays its 1916 day mark with 178 stairs and a First Order Fresnel lens (nine feet tall).

Little known fact reported in the NatGeo story: the jungle scenes in the movie Forrest Gump, starring Tom Hanks, were shot on Hunting Island, South Carolina!

The Appalachian Trail is a famous footpath that extends over 2100 miles from Georgia north all the way into Maine, the northeastern-most state in the United States of America.

Although prehistoric peoples walked across the landscape, they probably wouldn’t have followed much of the route of the Appalachian Trail. Why? The earliest Euro-American traders and explorers also would have traveled along different routes, too. Why?

The Appalachian Trail is designed to stay on higher ground, in mountains and along high ridges. Mostly, it traverses lands owned by Federal or State governments, including the US Forest Service. These lands often were not settled and bought up because they were too rugged for agriculture, and the early Euroamerican settlers needed to live near their fields, and thus their food source.

What about the Native Americans, though? Depending on whether they grew much of their food, or instead sought it out across the landscape, their travel routes, whether along footpaths or via canoes, would have been between settlements and other preferred areas. Although they might sometimes have ventured into the mountains and to the mountain-tops, probably they spent the most time at lower elevations. Why would they have found it uncomfortable to live on top of Blood Mountain?

Many famous modern roads in Georgia follow historic footpaths. Indeed, historic footpaths often followed Native American footpaths. What did the Native Americans follow? Did they cut paths through the wilderness? Some scientists think at least some prehistoric footpaths followed animal trails, perhaps including paths made by mammoths.

Back to the shelter in the picture above. It is on Blood Mountain, which is the highest point in Georgia on the Appalachian Trail. Hikers take refuge their in inclement weather, and sleep there overnight. This is a beautiful place to camp, with great views, but there is no water close by. I was standing on a rock outcrop above the shelter when I took the picture, that’s why the perspective is so strange.

The Southeast Region Archives, supported by your tax dollars, house diverse historical records collected by the government. They note on their website:

Records in the National Archives tell the story of southern families and communities, technological advances that changed lives, and social and economic forces that shaped the makeup of our society.

Most people go to the Archives to look up records and do research. I went there recently and looked at photographs and records of houses and farms purchased and destroyed to create an impounded lake in Tennessee. This project was done by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which was chartered by Congress in 1933. The lakes were created primarily to reduce flooding and to enable power generation at the dams. They also became important recreational destinations, and improved opportunities for economic development.

Below is a photograph of a farm that was destroyed so the land could be flooded, I think to make Douglas Reservoir, near Dandridge, Tennessee.

The Douglas Dam was completed in 1943, and lies on the French Broad River, which is part of the Tennessee River drainage, which has nine TVA dams with hydroelectric plants. Hydropower constitutes only about 10% of the power TVA generates; other power sources are from fossil-fuel plants (60%) and nuclear plants (30%). Green power contributions are negligible. Hydroelectric facilities are integrated into the dams that impound the water, and use the power of the water flowing because of gravity from higher in the reservoir to the lower elevation below the dam to generate electricity. The water flows through a turbine as it falls, making the turbine move. This movement is converted into electricity. The TVA provides a drawing of this here.

The TVA cautions fisherfolk to eat smaller, younger fish and avoid the fatty flesh and skin to reduce exposure to toxins like PCBs, chlordane, DDT, dioxins, and mercury, which are mostly in the mud at the bottom of the reservoirs, rather than in the water.

Many families were uprooted when these dams and reservoirs were built. The government can legally take people’s land through laws pertaining to eminent domain, even if the owners do not consent. The government can do this if the land is converted to public use.

Eminent domain laws are a legal means for our country to balance the needs of all (public needs) against the rights of the few. In the USA, eminent domain was adopted from British laws extant at the time the Constitution was drafted in the late 1700s. However, our government cannot take lands (property) without just compensation, and only if it benefits the public good.

A family who loses their farm and lands so that a dam and reservoir can beconstructed suffers a great loss; however, a whole region that endures less flooding and has more and more inexpensive electricity enjoys considerable benefits. Nevertheless, balancing the good of all against the rights of few is tricky and difficult. Should the family receive the same money for their farm as they would if they sold it to another farmer or a neighbor? Should they receive more or less?

Members of the SGA may be interested in attending a meeting discussing the latest budget reductions to Georgia State Historic Sites. The meeting will be on Tuesday, August 11th, at the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation offices at Rhodes Hall on Peachtree Street in Atlanta, from 10 AM to 2:30 PM.

Review the meeting agenda by clicking here.

For more information, call Jim Langford at 404-285-2001.

The sixteenth annual Georgia Archaeology Awareness promotion, Archaeology Month 2009, had as its theme Mounds in Our Midst: Monuments of Prehistoric Culture in Georgia. Our request for a proclamation designating May as Archaeology Month was received and acknowledged by the Governor’s office in March. A number of board members/officers of SGA and Archaeology Month co-sponsors attended the proclamation signing by Governor Sonny Perdue on April 2. Those in attendance included: Tom Lewis, Ryan Kennedy, Joe Joseph, Betsy Shirk, Ray Luce, Dan Elliott, Jim Langford, Carolyn Rock, Dennis Blanton, and Tammy Herron. The 2009 Archaeology Month committee members included Betsy Shirk (co-chair), Tammy Herron (co-chair & lesson plan), Pam Johnson (events), Catherine Long (lesson plan), Mary Beth Reed & Tracey Fedor (poster), Dennis Blanton (program), and Stephen Hammack (meeting arrangements).

In order to make this month-long celebration of Georgia’s rich archaeological heritage possible, the SGA relied on monetary and in-kind contributions from co-sponsors and event sponsors to make this program accessible to the public thereby reaching thousands through this annual promotion. Educational materials along with the archaeology month poster were once again distributed statewide to public middle schools, event sponsors, and the archaeology award winners, albeit with a different twist this year.

Tammy Herron and Catherine Long prepared the lesson plan with a focus on the Etowah Mounds site. We would like to thank Debbie Wallsmith and Adam King for their assistance and contributions to this project. The lesson plan was posted on the SGA website rather than paying for the cost of printing and additional weight in the mailings. New South Associates formatted the document for the website and prepared an attractive flier to include with the posters advertising the link on the SGA website. Special thanks go to Mary Beth Reed and Tracey Fedor for their efforts and attention to detail in making this aspect of the lesson plan possible.

Packaging day

In a further effort to cut production and distribution costs, the brochure listing various events taking place around the state was transformed into an e-brochure by Pam Johnson (now Pam Baughman). This e-brochure was distributed electronically to the SGA officers/board members, chapters for which there was contact information, CRM firms, event sponsors, libraries, museums, and to the Georgia Council of Professional Archaeologists. The events were also listed on the SGA website. Throughout the state, 16 events and/or lectures were offered, not including ongoing events. Over 2,000 people attended these programs to learn more about archaeology in Georgia.

Once again, we asked Mary Beth Reed to supervise the design and printing of the archaeology month poster. Many thanks to Mary Beth and to the graphics design artist Tracey Fedor for creating an awesome poster! We hope that the information provided on the back of the poster will serve to educate Georgians for years to come. Topics addressed included Georgia Mounds, Noninvasive Archaeology, Preservation of Mound Sites, Resources for Learning More, and Places to Visit. In previous years, the poster was mailed to SGA members; however, due to the rising cost of postage, the decision was made to have the poster available for pick up at the Spring Meeting—another great reason to attend the meeting!

A press release was sent to SGA chapters and to the Historic Preservation Division (HPD) in mid-April. Chapters were encouraged to have the release printed in their local newspaper and asked to report back to SGA Vice President Catherine Long. Information about archaeology month was included in the April 18–24, 2009 issue of HPD’s online newsletter, Preservation Georgia Online, and the Spring Meeting was listed in the preservation events calendar.

Packaging Day—the day when the fruits of our labor all come together—was held at the office of New South Associates in Stone Mountain on April 30. Over 40 volunteer hours were necessary to package and distribute the materials. Those who donated their time to this effort included Mary Beth Reed, Betsy Shirk, Justin Byrnes, Saddana Singh, Tammy Herron, Catherine Long, Cathy Blanford, and Scott Morris.

The annual Spring Meeting was held on May 16 at Wesleyan University in Macon with a crowd of 103 in attendance. An interesting array of presentations was compiled by President Dennis Blanton who was in charge of coordinating the program for the day. While the majority of the presentations focused on the archaeology of mound sites throughout the state, the audience also received an update on the preservation efforts at the Fort Daniel site in Gwinnett County and learned about the documentation of the Flat Rock African-American Cemetery in DeKalb County. Presenters included Kevin Kiernan, Dennis Blanton & Inger Coxe, Tom Whitley, Keith Stephenson & Frankie Snow, Tom Pluckhahn, Jim D’Angelo, Adam King, Scot Keith & Dean Wood, Jared Wood, Mark Williams, and Jeffrey Glover & Georgia State University students. Karen Smith and Keith Stephenson displayed a poster entitled “Analysis of Vessels from the Shelly Mound in Pulaski County, Georgia” as well. Stephen Hammack is to be commended for coordinating all the local arrangements, including hitting the pavement soliciting coffee and refreshments for the meeting.

Spring meeting scenes

The highlight of the day was the long-awaited unveiling of the ArchaeoBus (A.B. or Abbey for short), following the list of presenters. The rain ceased just in time for this special occasion. If you were not there, you missed a real treat! As Rita Elliott spoke about the project, Dan Elliott and Ellen Provenzano removed the tarp unveiling the beautiful design on the exterior of the bus. Tom Gresham christened Abbey with a bottle of champagne, and President Dennis Blanton blessed the vessel by placing a bough of bamboo on the front bumper. Dan Elliott turned the crowd into a kazoo band, door prizes were presented, refreshments were enjoyed, and everyone finally got to venture through the Archaeobus to see the incredible exhibits on display. Hats off to Rita, Tom, and the members of the Archaeobus committee for all of their hard work in making this “pie in the sky” dream become a reality. We know that as Abbey hits the streets of Georgia, more and more people will become aware of the importance of archaeology and the preservation of historic sites across the state.

	Scenes from the Archaeobus unveiling

Those who were brave enough to wait out the rains Saturday evening and night and face the mud and biting insects on Sunday morning received another special treat. Approximately 25 courageous individuals hiked into the swamp under the leadership of park rangers from Ocmulgee National Monument to tour the Lamar Mounds and Village site. What an adventure and a privilege to see these two mounds dating to the Mississippian period and to learn more about the builders and inhabitants of the site. Did you know that the spiral ramp leading to the summit of the Mound B is the only one known in existence?

Once again, the SGA reached thousands through its Archaeology Month program! We realized our goal of raising public awareness of the importance of our state’s archaeological resources through the distribution of posters and educational materials and the education of those attending the archaeology month events that celebrate our state’s rich archaeological heritage.

To compare the archaeology of Indiana Jones and of “real” archaeologists, the National Science Foundation presents a web experience called “Archaeology from Reel to Real: A Special Report.” For the activities of “real” archaeologists, the presentation draws on the research projects the NSF has funded.

In the Introduction, the NSF website accurately notes:

Unlike Indiana Jones, there is nary a fedora to be found in their field kits and their grants certainly don’t cover the costs of Webley revolvers or bullwhips, but it could be convincingly argued that in some respects NSF-funded archaeologists are “shadowy reflections” of their big-screen counterpart.

And yet, they go on, there are parallels between what Jones does on-screen, and what professional archaeologists do in real life. They teach, they study vanished civilizations, and they also “seek rare and precious artifacts that tell important stories about the past.” And:

Rather than relic hunters and adventurers, they are scientists, whose work is aimed at answering key questions about the past, answers that may even inform policy about contemporary problems such as how societies adapt to climate change, ecological shifts, political upheaval or mass migrations.

Most of the pages you can click through detail how archaeologists do research, including field methods, and what kind of data they recover.

The final page is a list of useful on-line resources, although the “Special Report” does not seem to have been updated since spring 2008.

Click here to visit the NSF web experience about “real” archaeology.

The National Park Service has an e-newsletter called Heritage News you can subscribe to. It’s published monthly, and delivers timely information on events and activities of interest to the national heritage community.

The July 2009 issue has a short article on the arrests of 24 members of a looting network in July. The arrests happened on June 10th in southeast Utah and were widely reported in the national media. According to Heritage News:

The indictments were the result of a two-year undercover operation by the Bureau of Land Management, the FBI, and the US Attorney for Utah. The archeological investigation was one of the largest ever. The defendants are alleged to have stolen and profited in the sale of 256 Native American artifacts, worth an estimated $335,685, from the Four Corners region of Utah. Among the stolen antiquities were decorated Anasazi pottery, a buffalo headdress, sandals, and ceremonial masks.

Another tidbit from this issue of Heritage News: Ninety properties were listed in the National Park Service’s National Register of Historic Places in May 2009. One was the Boyd and Sallie Gilleland House, a ca. 1929 Craftsman bungalow in Dawsonville. Boyd Gilleland was a moonshiner during Prohibition, and built his still in his house. Most ’shiners put their stills far from their houses and deep in the woods, because they do emit a notable odor. The article says:

Reportedly, Gilleland brewed upstairs while wife Sallie cooked dinner downstairs to mask the smoke and odor of distilling alcohol. The house’s location on Georgia Highway 9, which heads straight into Atlanta, was ideal for the moonshine’s transportation and sale at local speakeasies. Millions of gallons of illicit whiskey from all over north Georgia were transported into the city during Prohibition (1920-33) and even into the 1940s.

Heritage News also lists grant information and publishes a calendar of activity on national legislation, including committee meetings and actions. Perhaps the most useful, however, is a listing of links to stories reported elsewhere called “Heritage in the News” with recent stories you may find interesting.

Read the newsletter online here.

Image of Springfield Baptist Church, the heart of Springfield community, in downtown Augusta. Image from Google Maps streetview (which is why there’s a funny partly opaque parallelogram on the right half of the image).

Next time you’re in Augusta, take the time to go downtown and visit the Springfield community. Springfield community is just west of the original downtown Augusta.

According to the fine website dedicated to the history of this community, Springfield was

a free African American community established around the time of the Revolutionary War. The Springfield Community was not an officially recognized subdivision of Augusta, Georgia. Despite this, the neighborhood, roughly bounded by the Savannah River and Jones Street on the north and south and Ninth and Fifteenth streets to the east and west, became one of the few homes to free African Americans who escaped the bonds of slavery prior to the Civil War. Springfield began to evolve after the American Revolution when many escaped slaves sought refuge, eventually growing into a thriving neighborhood in northeastern Augusta. In the South, free African Americans congregated in urban communities because they offered the best opportunities for employment. Although it is difficult to draw a boundary around this community, especially for its early years, Springfield came to represent a center of African American life in Augusta, especially in the late nineteenth century as official attitudes and policies became more segregationist. Over time, the symbol of this community, and its anchor, was the Springfield Baptist Church, still located at Twelfth and Reynolds Streets in Augusta.

Also,

The

Springfield Baptist is the nation’s oldest continually operating African American church. The congregation was established shortly after the American Revolution, probably between 1787 and 1793….

Springfield Baptist Church’s own website notes that:

Springfield Baptist Church is of national significance because it is the oldest African-American church in the United States; because it is an example of the determination of African-Americans to be independent during the slavery era; because the Georgia Republican Party originated there; because Morehouse College, which has produced so many nationally prominent black leaders, was founded there; and finally because the Springfield Church stands today as proof that African-American’s too can look to history with pride in their achievements.

For more information on the web:

Springfield community website, developed by New South Associates of Stone Mountain and funded by by the City of Augusta and the Georgia Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration.

New Georgia Encyclopedia on Augusta

Wikipedia entry on Augusta

Website of the Springfield Baptist Church

New Georgia Encyclopedia on Springfield Baptist Church

For a lesson plan on Springfield community, click here.

Thanks to Jim Pomfret, Archaeologist with the Georgia Department of Transportation, for suggesting that this topic might be of interest to readers of the SGA’s website.

Georgia’s Historic Preservation Division periodically teams with the Georgia Trust to offer a day-long meeting with assorted speakers who introduce participants to the services and programs the two organizations offer. Consider attending the next Preservation 101 orientation, offered on May 5th. Cost is $30 per person, which covers program materials, continental breakfast, and the afternoon break. Lunch and parking costs are not included.

For more information, including registration form and directions, check out the DNR website here. The registration deadline is Tuesday, April 28 and the event will be held in downtown Atlanta.

Agenda

8:30 – 9:00 Refreshments will be available.

9:00 – 9:15 Welcome & Introductions

9:15 – 10:00 Preservation Achievement Awards Presentation – Historic Preservation Division

10:00 – 10:30 Why Preserve? – Historic Preservation Division Director Ray Luce

10:30 – 11:00 Archaeology Protection & Education – Historic Preservation Division Deputy Director & State Archaeologist David Crass

11:00 – 11:30 The Georgia Trust’s programs and services – Georgia Trust President and CEO Mark McDonald

11:30 – 12:30 Lunch on your own

12:30 – 2:30 HPD staff presentations about their programs
Historic Resources Survey Program – Kenneth Gibbs
National and Georgia Registers of Historic Places – Gretchen Brock
Certified Local Government program – Jennifer Martin Lewis
Regional Preservation Planning – Leigh Burns
African American Resources and GAAHPN – Jeanne Cyriaque
Question time

2:30 – 2:45 Refreshments will be available.

2:45 – 4:45 HPD staff presentations about their programs
Environmental Review and Compliance – Betsy Shirk
Federal and State Tax Incentives – Ced Dolder
Grants – Carole Moore
Architectural Review – Bill Hover
Summing up: How all these programs work together – David Crass
Question time

4:45 Wrap-up and adjourn

Ponder, for a moment, this brick.

When I saw it in the garden walk at Hills and Dales, the Callaway family home that was built on an old plantation property in LaGrange. I guessed it to be made by a family member of a famous craftsman who once lived in LaGrange.

Hint: Expect the unexpected.

Another hint: The brick is more closely related to the Lewis and Clark Expedition, than it is to covered bridges in Georgia.

Editor’s note: SGA and GAAS member Dick Brunelle sent this to me after reading about this brick I saw in an Atlanta street. Comments are enabled so you can submit your hypothesis/guess.

Fascade of Callaway family home, Hills and Dales.

Give up? Read the answer here; it’s a fascinating story….

Wiley Publishing has just issued Archaeology for Dummies ($21.95) by SGA member Nancy White. The book tells how archaeology is detective work and traces over 2 million years of prehistoric human cultures. It demonstrates how archaeology uncovers things about historic times that history can’t, and shows how archaeological knowledge is useful for modern issues like global warming, environmental depletion, genocide or disaster victims, and recovering a people’s lost heritage. Included in the book are also some of White’s (awful) jokes and stories from fieldwork in northwest Florida, south Georgia and south Alabama. This book is useful for professional and avocational archaeologists as well as lay readers who want to learn about the breadth of the field and how to get involved. It’s available in many bookstores and at online outlets such as amazon.com.

The Fish Vault has been famous in Memory Hill Cemetery, Milledgeville’s city cemetery, as the place where poor Mr. Fish, despondent over the loss of his wife, had shut himself into the vault and killed himself while sitting in a rocking chair. Visitors to the vault are routinely told to knock at the door and ask “Mr. Fish! What are you doing in there?” With the person encouraged to place an ear to the crack in the wall in order to hear Mr. Fish’s answer, the response, of course, is “nothing.”

The vault is a partly subterranean, 1840s tomb made of handmade bricks. This style of structure is rare in central Georgia. It is large, approximately 14′ 3″ by 12′, and has a gable-style brick roof. Through the years it had suffered vandalism, which had caused the city to brick up the door in the 1960s. Secondhand reports from that time suggested that there were no visible remains. Now the deteriorating condition of the roof suggested that it was probably leaking. The front wall had been bumped by passing vehicles and had settled to the point where it was separating from the rest of the vault. Without intervention, the front wall would have eventually fallen, exposing the interior of the vault.

The Friends of Baldwin County Cemeteries, Inc., a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public charity and historical society, decided to undertake the vault’s restoration. Susan Harrington, chairperson of the Friends, acted as project coordinator. Since there was still the possibility that there may be remains and opening the vault may constitute “disturbing a grave,” the Friends consulted with the superior court judge, probate court judge and the city attorney. It was determined that the only Georgia law that seemed to fit was the Abandoned Cemeteries and Burial Grounds Act, Official Code of Georgia 36-72. Under that law, descendants were to be determined and contacted for permission, a permit from the city was required, and an archaeologist should be present for the vault’s opening. Stephen Hammack agreed to serve as archaeologist.

After genealogy was performed, descendants contacted, and permissions given, the city issued the permit. This process took approximately 8 months. In the meantime, a leading brick mason was contracted to do the brick masonry. The work began September 8, 2008, one day after the permit was received by the Friends. Security was a concern, and the city immediately erected a large fence around the vault as the brick mason began his work.

The Friends notified descendants in Moultrie, Macon, and Atlanta, who came to Milledgeville to watch as the vault was opened. The vault was opened on the hot and rainy afternoon of September 9, 2008, and since no human remains were expected to have survived, it was assumed that the archaeologist’s responsibility was to be on hand to ceremonially give the go-ahead so the brick mason could begin his repairs.

View of Burial 3 within the vault.

But the vault was not empty! Upon peering through the just-opened door, it was clear that there were multiple sets of human remains, all but one of which were visible from the steps. Taking two steps down, Hammack found himself surrounded on 3 sides of the vault by stone benches. Remains and casket material covered the floor and benches to his left and the wall opposite. On his right was another burial enclosed in a cast iron coffin immediately recognized as a Fisk Metallic Burial Case.

It was quickly decided that all the remains had to be removed before nightfall, to prevent any potential looting or vandalism, and the back-up plan was put into effect. The plan was that any remains would be placed in the care of a local funeral home for safe-keeping until re-interment. Because there were three obvious burials in the crypt, though one contained more than one set of remains, the decision was made to extensively photograph everything in situ and to number the sets of remains Burial 1, Burial 2, and Burial 3.

Burial 1 was on the left (south) wall and was that of an adult. The most obvious thing about this burial was that in addition to the remnants of coffin wood, there was an enormous amount of charcoal intermixed with the bones. Burial 2 was on the back (west) wall, was also an adult, and appeared to have contained lesser amounts of charcoal. However, it appeared that some of the bones had been disturbed at some point in the past and replaced in piles. These piles, however, also included the skulls and some bones of what appeared to be one or two children. Burial 3 was enclosed in the Fisk burial case and was not visible for inspection, though it was clear that the metal coffin itself had once been inside a wooden coffin.

The “methodology” for removing the remains was as follows. Since daylight was limited, the only logical choice of action was simply to remove the bones and large pieces of coffin wood and charcoal and place them in individual body bags. Burial 1 and Burial 2 were each placed in separate body bags and placed in the back of the funeral home van. Burial 3, which was noted to have a corroded layer near its bottom, was slowly and cautiously removed from the vault and placed on thick wooden boards, which were to provide support in case the iron coffin’s bottom gave way. The coffin and boards were then placed on dollies and rolled to the van and, with much effort, the coffin was placed inside. Several breaks were required over the course of the afternoon because of the rising humidity and temperature, which rendered the situation in the vault nearly unbearable for the archaeologist. Finally, just before dusk and with the assistance of a flashlight, the work was completed. The following day, the Friends contacted Dr. Matthew Williamson, an anthropologist at Georgia Southern University, who came to acquire the bones for identification in his lab.

A few days later at the funeral home, with the family’s permission, it was decided to remove the iron plate covering the glass face plate, or viewing port, of the Fisk Metallic Burial Case in order to assess the condition of the remains inside. The Burial Case was patented by Almond Fisk of New York City in 1848 and was designed to be air tight and filled with gas to prevent the decomposition of the body. The upper and lower halves fit tightly together and are sealed with a glue-like cement and fastened by screws. The Burial Case would have been ideal for Sarah Fish, who died in 1856 in Gordon Springs, Whitfield County, located in the northwest corner of Georgia, to be transported back to central Georgia for burial.

The body had not been preserved by the supposedly air tight coffin, and the skeletal remains were found to be in an advanced state of decay, evidently due to penetration into the coffin of water from the damp vault. It is interesting to note that a fair amount of fabric from what appeared to have been a striped dress was still intact and visible around the waist.

After washing and analyzing the artifacts, Hammack noted a variety of different sizes of coffin nails and other types of extant artifacts, such as wood and Prosser (China) buttons. Some curious findings were three rocks of granitic or gneissic composition that were found with Burial 1. It is not known if they were placed on top of the coffin or included inside with the body, but they were the only lithic artifacts discovered within the vault and may have been memorials placed purposefully with Burial 1. The presence of large amounts of charcoal with Burial 1, and the smaller amount included with Burial 2, were also noted. Research eventually pointed to the usage of charcoal as an odor-deterrent when bodies were shipped long distances, and this method was evidently also utilized for the same reason in vaults, especially where future burials were planned. It appears that in such burials the coffins were lined with charcoal, sometimes even to the point of surrounding the corpse with it. Other instances are recorded of charcoal actually being placed into the abdomen of the corpse.

Williamson determined that two adult males and three children (labeled Burials 2a, 2b, and 2c) of predominant European ancestry are represented by the Burial 1 and 2 remains. Dark brown staining was present on all the bones, which was consistent with other historic burials perhaps caused by tannins that have leached out of the coffin wood and were then absorbed by the bones. In addition, a small amount of dried adipocere was present at various locations on the skeleton, indicating that the body may have come into contact with water relatively soon after burial. Adult dental health was fairly poor based on the presence of several carious lesions and antemortem tooth loss while the juvenile teeth were in pretty good condition. In general, there were no lesions from infectious disease, metabolic disorders such as chronic anemia, nor any significant osteoarthritis present on the adults. According to local legend, Mr. Fish shot himself in the head while sitting in a rocking chair. From his analysis, Williamson found that there was no skeletal evidence of a gunshot wound.

Unfortunately, positive identification of people from historic cemetery contexts is generally impossible unless they are buried in separate grave shafts with an associated nameplate or grave marker. With this in mind, the skeletal remains have been tentatively identified as those of William Fish who died in 1843 (Burial 1), his youngest son Horace Virgil Fish who died in 1845 at the age of about 5 (Burial 2b), two infants whose names are unknown, and a 45–55 year old male whose identity is unknown. Sarah Harvard Fish, the wife of William Fish, died in 1856 and was buried in the Fisk metallic burial case (Burial 3).

Because of the concerns for security and the need to close the vault in conformance to the brick mason’s availability, all remains had to be returned to the vault and sealed in on October 1. This date provided Hammack and Williamson less than two and a half weeks to perform their analyses.

The Fish Vault after restoration.

The archaeological, anthropological, and historical preservation experience at the Fish Family Vault was, to say the least, a memorable one. It proved to be very interesting from beginning to end, and the best part was that after the restoration was complete and the contents of the vault subjected to study, all remains, casket materials and other items were reinterred with dignity in the vault where they rightfully belonged. Despite the tight timetable, this is a great example of how a project of this kind, with cooperation of many experts, is supposed to work. Preservation-minded Georgians everywhere should be proud of this endeavor!

If you have a choice, and are driving across Georgia, try to avoid the main highways and interstates, and then look for interesting features across the landscape, including old buildings and the remains of abandoned road grades.

Recently, while driving around between Madison and Atlanta on a beautiful, sunny late fall day, we spotted this somewhat tattered wooden building on a hill next to Bostwick Road in northern Newton County, north of Covington.

A sign by the road says the Gum Creek Courthouse was built about 1888.

Even though buildings in North America aren’t very old compared to some you can find in Europe and Asia, this building is over a century old, which is longer than most of us can expect to live.

Before there was blacktop, some streets were paved with stone or brick. East of Piedmont Park, in Atlanta, is a street that still is paved with bricks. It’s named Cooledge Avenue, and is marked on the map below.

Most of the bricks are plain, but a few are not. This paving brick has letters molded into its surface. They say COPELAND-INGLIS arched across the top of the brick, and B HAM ALA in a straight line across the bottom, when the brick is held sideways. Apparently, Copeland-Inglis shipped bricks across the Southeast. They were used in Chattanooga’s freight depot in the late 1800s. They also were used in Tampa, in the driveway of a 1891 building that was once a hotel, and is now a museum on the University of Tampa campus.

I find this quite interesting. Bricks are heavy, making them relatively expensive to ship. However, the best clays for bricks are not available everywhere. Still, it’s very curious that Birmingham, Alabama, bricks were shipped across the Southeast in the late 1800s.

This does leave one question: why were streets paved?

On Monday, November 17, 2008, the Columbus Museum formally transferred ownership of the Singer-Moye mound site property, located in Stewart County, to the University of Georgia. The ceremony, which was attended by Museum and UGA representatives, local elected officials, members of the Singer and Moye families and a number of interested citizens, was the culmination of nearly three years of careful negotiation. The transfer marks an important milestone in the history of this important site and signals the beginning of a new era of investigation into its past. The site has been owned, maintained and investigated by the Columbus Museum for nearly forty years.

The Singer-Moye site is a large Mississippian-era mound complex that was at one time a major regional population center. One of the best-preserved sites of its type in the Southeast, it features eight earthen mounds surrounding a large open plaza. The largest of these mounds, Mound A, ranks as the fourth tallest such structure in the state. Future plans for the continued use and development of the site as an educational resource by the University are already underway.

Editor’s note: This follows up on a longer article about the site when the ownership change had not yet been finalized.

About twenty years ago I heard of a “serpent” that had been constructed out of stone on Dick’s Ridge in northwest Georgia. Last year a local informant, Wade Gilbert, led me to not one but three such stone constructions in the same area. The third and largest that was shown to me is the subject of this report.

Dick’s Ridge crosses northwest Georgia in a south to north direction for approximately 30 miles and parallels Taylors Ridge. The few gaps in the ridges are how people have traditionally crossed these ridges in historic times and by inference prehistoric times. Indian trails and pioneer roads have been transformed into modern highways in the last few decades. All three of these stone walls are located near the most prominent gaps in the ridges.

Figure 1. Sketch of Dick’s Ridge Serpentine Wall.

The Dick’s Ridge stone wall runs parallel to the top of the ridge for approximately 300 feet (Figure 1). It is constructed of local stone ranging in size from 3 inches (fist size) to over 36 inches (washing machine size) in diameter. The stone is a limey sandstone, the same as is found in the surface exposures of bedrock on the ridge. There is very little tumbled down loose stone on the slopes indicating that the core wall is largely intact. At the southern end of the wall it makes a sharp turn and the end of the wall points to the east. The last 15-foot section of the wall is carefully stacked so that the wall maintains a close to level plane as it drops off the slope. This gives the end a thicker and taller appearance or possibly the intention is for this end of the wall to be the “head” of the serpent. Interesting stuff.

Moving northward along the wall there are sections that are only one or two layers of stone in height that connect and incorporate the existing exposed bedrock into the wall construction (Figure 2). Walls that incorporate bedrock and boulders are a recurring theme in the Southeast. In my opinion this also demonstrates that the wall was not used as a defensive barrier in conventional warfare. I have to say it would be hard to load a rifle or notch an arrow while lying on one’s side next to a 12 inch high wall. An embrasure or inset located near the center of the length of the wall could make the argument that this is a defensive structure except for the fact that it is inset on the wrong side of the wall (Figure 3). Similarly, much of the wall is not located at the optimum crest of the ridge so that defenders would be exposed to multidirectional fire. Some of the large stones used in the construction of the wall have been shimmed to bring them into a level plane (Figure 4). Why shim a rock that would have to be moved by several people to its final location in the wall and then picked up again to add a 2-inch shim? Other stones in the wall are obviously out of plane and that did not stop the stacking of more stones onto them. Why bother with this technique only in certain locations?

The north end of the wall terminates near an obviously looted circular stone mound (Figure 5). (I say “circular” but one must keep in mind that many of these type constructions appear circular at first glance but may have other shapes.) The mound proper is approximately 8 feet in diameter after deducting the loose stones around the mound that may have been removed from the center of the pile. The height of the soil in and around the edge of the mound gives the indication that the mound may have originally been composed of soil and rock. It is not unusual for stone mounds in northwest Georgia to be constructed in this way. There are stones located in the center of the mound that are standing edge up and form what may be a rectangular box grave about 2 √ó 3 feet in size. This rectangle is on an eastwest axis. Stones at the center of the box have been displaced but not removed. The subsoil at the stone-soil interface may be intact. A proper quarter excavation of the mound beginning at the center and extending beyond the edge of the pile into undisturbed residual soils would yield a comparative profile. I hope that sometime in the future qualified persons may do this.

Dick’s Ridge is one of the best examples of serpentine walls in north Georgia and as usual, the examination of the wall raises more questions than answers. It would come as no surprise to those who know me that I would view the wall in the context of the tri-level cosmos that was the basis of all Native American belief systems. With that in mind I would ask the following:

• 1 – Are these types of walls defensive in terms of a serpent guarding the gap and/or the summit?
• 2 – Is the serpent emerging from the stone mound? A lower world creature entering the middle world to access the upper world?
• 3 – Is this an underworld serpent located on a middle world ridge guarding the access to a transition point on the sacred landscape such as the gap or an upper world staging area such as the nearby summit? Is it both?
• 4 – Are the various stone pile and wall complexes in the Southeast illustrations of serpents emerging from the underworld through stone mounds?
• 5 – Is the serpent emerging from the boulders and bedrock that are incorporated into its construction or do the boulders and bedrock demonstrate that the serpent’s origins are from the underworld. Or both?
• 6 – Did Woodland and early Mississippian societies move their belief system staging locations from mountains to mounds? Mounds, after all, are meant to be mountains.
• 7 – Were mountain locations a diminished property at some point in favor of more controlled and publicly visible mound-plaza sacred areas? Mississippian mound-plaza configurations are also typically located in high yield agricultural areas.

Questions 6 and 7 may not appear to be germane at this time, but I believe that future research will prove otherwise. Dick’s Ridge is one of a dozen similar sites in north Georgia, and all of them have a purpose, which makes for interesting research.

 

The recent amendment to one of Georgia’s archaeology laws might affect you, whether you are an avocational or professional archaeologist.

Code Section 12-3-621 has always required a person who is going to dig on an archaeological site to first notify the Office of the State Archaeologist. This recent amendment has made that notification a lot easier. You can send an email from HPD’s website, at www.gashpo.org—see Archaeological Services, and under that click on “Notify State Archaeologist before you dig.” The text of the law is there as well. The other way is by calling the archaeology notification hotline phone number toll-free, at (866) 755-0014. Leave a voicemail message at that number anytime, giving your contact information and the location of your intended excavations.

If you have questions, please feel free to contact the State Archaeologist, Dr. David Crass, david.crass@dnr.state.ga.us, (404) 656-9344, or HPD’s Archaeology Program Coordinator, Christine Neal, christine.neal@dnr.state.ga.us, (404) 657-1367.

Many readers of The Profile have no doubt heard of the recent announcement of the pending transfer of ownership of the Singer-Moye mound site from the Columbus Museum to the University of Georgia. Those that have not will likely want to know how this decision came about, while those with some understanding of it will surely want to know more. Recognizing both this and the interest of this publication’s readership in seeing that archaeologically-important sites in the state of Georgia are properly maintained, I would like to take this opportunity to explain to the SGA membership the arrangement between the Museum and the University.

Before discussing the transfer, however, I would like to first acquaint readers with the Singer-Moye mound site and its importance. The site is located in Stewart County, Georgia, near the town of Lumpkin. A Mississippian-era mound center listed on the National Register of Historic Places, it features eight known earthen mounds surrounding a large central plaza. The tallest of these mounds, known as Mound A, stands over 40 feet high, making it the fourth largest such structure in Georgia behind mounds at Etowah, Ocmulgee, and Kolomoki. Archaeological study has revealed the earliest habitation of the site dates to several thousand years ago, with the Mississippian mound center being built and occupied circa A,D. 1000 to approximately 1450. The mound center was apparently abandoned prior to the arrival of European explorers in the Southeast in the 1500s. Perhaps the most significant feature of the site is its unique setting. Whereas most similar mound centers are located along major waterways, the Singer-Moye site is situated a significant distance from the nearest noteworthy creek and many miles from the Chattahoochee River and the nearly contemporary Rood’s Landing mound site.

Mound A at the Singer-Moye site.

The Singer-Moye mound site has been owned and maintained by Columbus Museum for over 40 years. The property consists of approximately 42 acres, which were donated to the Museum over a period of several years by the Singer and Moye families. A small parcel was donated by the Georgia-Kraft Corporation for the purpose of acquiring an access road to the property. While the acreage owned by the Museum contains the heart of the Mississippian mound center, it should be noted that outlying village areas associated with the site extend for a significant distance, perhaps even miles, from the site. Owing to the recognition of its importance by previous owners, diligent monitoring by recent caretakers as well as its remote location, the site has suffered relatively little from vandalism. It stands today among the bestpreserved sites of its kind in the Southeast.

Mound B at the Singer-Moye site.

The Columbus Museum, under the direction of retired archaeologist Frank Schnell and in association with several partnering institutions, has conducted extensive archaeological investigation on portions of the site during its ownership. These efforts included the excavation of exploratory trenches, investigation of the summits of two of the mounds, scattered small-scale testing, and intensive examination of Mounds C, E and H. Investigation of Mounds E and H, technically earthlodges, by longtime field archaeologist and site superintendant Don Gordy along with archaeologist Margaret Russell and several volunteers, has yielded the great majority of information known about the origins, development, and use of the mound site. Thousands of artifacts, including pottery sherds, faunal and botanical remains, and a small number of stone tools, have been recovered over three decades of intermittent investigations and are currently curated by the Columbus Museum. Recently, faculty and students from Columbus State University and the University of Georgia have become involved with the site. Between 2004 and 2006, Dr. Warren Church of CSU conducted smallscale field school training, directed students in a variety of volunteer maintenance activities, and supervised interns in the cataloging of artifacts gathered from the site. In 2006, Dr. Mark Williams, assisted by his students at UGA, oversaw the creation of a topographical map of the site (see map).

Mound C at the Singer-Moye site.

At the same time that this research has resulted in an evolution of our understanding of the site, the Columbus Museum itself has undergone change. In the 40 years since the Museum acquired the property, it has matured as an institution and honed its mission to reflect the strength of its collection and its role in the community it serves. The Museum was founded in 1953, and at different times in the past its interpretive thrusts have included a range of types of American and international art, local history, archaeology, and even the natural sciences. As is the case with many similar institutions, the academic specialties and interests of staff heavily influenced its direction regarding exhibitions, publications, and educational programming from one era to the next. Seeking to define more explicitly the purpose and goals of the Museum so that it could sharpen its focus and most effectively utilize its resources, over two decades ago its Board of Trustees formally adopted the mission statement that continues to guide its development:

The mission of the Columbus Museum is to collect, preserve, research and interpret American art and regional culture for the education, enrichment and enjoyment of a broad and diverse public.

This statement was decided upon after careful consideration of the Museum’s ability to sustain vibrant programs that enhanced the lives of its visitors. As a consequence, the Museum has found it impractical to provide for the growing needs of its core programs of American art and regional history and simultaneously maintain a professional archaeological program. Logistical concerns, space requirements and staffing issues were among a number of factors that influenced the decision to cease Museum-funded archaeological investigation. While the interpretation of items discovered through archaeology have been, and will remain, a vital part of the Museum’s interpretive focus, the Museum will no longer be a lead institution in archaeological undertakings or accept unaccessioned archaeological collections for long-term care. All archaeological collections already in the Museum’s possession that materially aid its interpretation of the earliest periods of human habitation of the lower Chattahoochee River valley will continue to be curated.

Don Gordy excavating the earth lodge at the Singer-Moye site.

The Museum at length came to the realization that the ownership of a large, nationally important Mississippian mound site situated over 40 miles from its main campus was no longer in the best interest of either the Museum or the site. Though committed to maintaining this local landmark and ensuring its preservation to the best of its ability, the Museum simply could not develop the site into the type of educational resource it desired it to be with its limited resources. As a consequence, the Museum sought out a regional institution that shared its vision for the site that might be better equipped to provide for its long-term care and development.

Singer-Moye Mound Center, Stewart County, Georgia. Mound locations: black—older map used by Blitz and Lorenz; white—recent topographic map by Wood and Williams. (Overlay map by permission of Wood and Williams.)

In 2005, the Museum decided to approach the University of Georgia about a potential transfer of the property and its associated archaeological collections. It already enjoyed a healthy working relationship with the University and was well aware of the depth of its intellectual and financial resources and how they might work to the benefit of the site. University officials were enthusiastically receptive to the proposal, and after initial negotiations, recommended the site be brought into the University’s care under the auspices of the Georgia Museum of Natural History. Since then, Museum staff and trustees have been working with Dr. Byron Freeman, Director of the Museum of Natural History, and other University faculty and representatives to organize a plan of action. While all involved have consistently recognized the potential of this promising arrangement, progress toward the transfer has been deliberate. In March of 2008, the University’s Board of Regents officially approved the transfer; the move was subsequently approved by the Museum’s Executive Committee. Currently, final arrangements are being made to complete the process.

The Museum believes the transfer of ownership of the Singer-Moye site is in the best long-term interest of the site and we look forward to serving as a partner in UGA’s efforts to preserve and interpret it. In addition to continued preservation and stabilization efforts, mapping activities and possible future archaeology at the site, there is great potential for a variety of types of collaborative research. Zoological, botanical and geological studies conducted by UGA and partnering organizations are among the many possibilities under consideration. The Museum plans to remain involved with the site by periodically conducting tours and continuing to serve as an advocate for its responsible use as a part of a broad collaborative network of scientists, educators, and interested citizens. The Museum believes that under UGA’s leadership, the Singer-Moye mound site will be preserved properly and at the same time become a unique resource for the local community, state and region.

The Columbus Museum extends its thanks to Terry Jackson for inviting me to discuss the transfer of the site in this forum. We welcome your comments, thoughts, and suggestions.

Site Loss in Georgia is a special issue of Early Georgia, published in Spring 2005.

The first article, “When the Past is Destroyed: Loss of Archaeological Sites Due to Urbanization,” by Stephen Kowalewski, evaluates the state of preservation
of Georgia’s archaeological sites. Here, for the first time, objective lines of evidence useful in assessing the condition and processes affecting archaeological sites in Georgia are gathered together. Kowalewski’s conclusions are sobering. He notes:

An inadvertent consequence of Georgia’s rapid urbanization and economic development has been an equally fast destruction and degradation of its archaeological sites, their artifacts, and their information legacy. Georgia has an outstandingly rich archaeological record that extends back 12,000 years. During that long time, people left more than just a few material remains of their ways of life in places we call archaeological sites. Many archaeological sites also contain human remains—burials. The artifacts and all their relationships and contexts form a legacy that should be better understood and utilized, especially for local community heritage, tourism, recreation, and education.

The land use conversion attendant upon urbanization destroys more archaeological sites in Georgia than any other factor. Archaeological sites are destroyed inadvertently, without anyone knowing that they were present, or in many cases, “accidentally on purpose,” or, knowing a site was there but undervaluing its importance. Normal construction procedures (grading, leveling, digging, bulldozing, and scraping with heavy equipment) are the direct, immediate cause of site destruction. However, heavy equipment operators are just doing their jobs and in most cases cannot see the artifacts and soil features that make an archaeological site. The problem of site loss is not one of proximate causes or smoking guns. It is a broader issue of how to protect archaeological heritage places prior to construction, and if archaeological sites must go, then there have to be ways to salvage their information legacy.

The loss of archaeological sites is staggering. New homes, subdivisions, developments, golf courses, schools, warehouses, roads, reservoirs, waste water treatment facilities, parking lots, restaurants, doctors offices, university dorms—all the things we see around us—obliterate archaeological sites, at a rate of one site every 15 acres in some places, to one site in every 30 or 50 ac in other environments. In most cases the land is graded and construction takes place without any attempt to see if archaeological sites were present or at least to save their information. In the first half of this paper we cite the most reliable estimates, which suggest that over 50,000 archaeological sites have been destroyed by urbanization and development. Since perhaps only a hundred sites have had extensive scientific excavations, this means that the people of Georgia have destroyed 500 times as much information about the past as they have salvaged.

In “Land-Use Change and Impact on Archaeological Sites in Georgia,” Malcolm Jared Wood and Gregory Lucas seek to get a quantitative handle on land development issues in Georgia, and their impact on our hidden heritage. Their estimation is based on the distribution of known sites derived from date held at the Georgia Archaeological Site File (GASF); in 2003 the GASF had already catalogued over 40,000 sites. They close by observing that:

The number of sites destroyed or disturbed due to land development will rise, and most certainly has from 1998 to the present. Major and minor urban centers across the state continue to grow, attracting new suburban development and altering their landscapes in the process. Most of these sites, many of which have multiple occupations spanning hundreds or thousands of years, are lost forever. Undoubtedly, destruction of this magnitude is occurring across the Southeast, and comparable studies should help to quantify development and its effects on archaeological sites in other states. While these statistics may be interesting and possibly surprising to the archaeological community, it is our hope to bring these estimations, and the greater issue of the importance of our past human heritage, to public attention as well, where legislation may provide for better management of development and the conservation of our collective cultural resources.

The third and final article in this volume is by Terry Jackson and Jack Tylor, and lays out a strategy for successful preservation of archaeological resources in Georgia. In “A Strategy for Conservation Archaeology in Georgia, they argue that preservation efforts be aimed at natural areas already targeted for conservation because of their biodiversity and ecological value. They recommend: 1) that planners be educated about biological reserve networks, which by extension means preservation of archaeological resources; 2) that National Register quality sites be targeted for preservation, since they are in better condition; 3) community planners be provided better maps showing the location of significant archaeological resources; 4) that planning legislation and policy be strengthened, including extension to cover any project receiving state funds that will impact a National Register listed property; and 5) stronger promotion of the federal Wetlands Reserve Program.

Click here to download a copy of this important issue of Early Georgia.

SGA’s 2004 topic for Archaeology Month revolved around the new edition of Frontiers in the Soil.

The book, with its compelling cartoon images, was the basis of the 2004 Archaeology Month poster.

Read more about the book Frontiers in the Soil here.

This entertaining, colorful cartoon book is about archaeology, particularly in Georgia; it is accurate and amusing. The book features hand-lettered text accompanied by eye-catching, vivid, often humorous artwork. The volume also provides various ideas for archaeological projects. Although oriented toward Georgia and Southeastern archaeology, this volume is useful for understanding general concepts in the archaeology of any geographical area, and is highly recommended for any audience.

Frontiers in the Soil begins with an introduction to the complex field of archaeology, which is often part of multidisciplinary projects and must deal with complicated issues related to chronological dating, and the meaning of the material evidence of past human behaviors. Dickens discusses the major prehistoric eras, and describes important locations occupied in prehistory. Dickens also describes an archaeological project at an imaginary sixteenth-century Native American community, including fieldwork methods, cleaning and analyzing artifacts, and finally authoring a report so that the information the site contained is preserved for the future.

The author of Frontiers in the Soil, Roy S. Dickens, Jr., was a well-known archaeologist who worked in Georgia, and across Southeastern North America. His engaging text is supported by the captivating artwork of James McKinley. The first edition, published in 1979, quickly sold out. SGA now owns the copyright to the book, and published a second edition with the assistance of the University of Georgia’s Carl Vinson Institute of Government.

Concurrently with the second edition, the SGA published a new teacher handbook to assist teachers in instructing students in all aspects of archaeology, including methods and techniques (and advancements in the field since the original edition was published), preservation and stewardship, and archaeological ethics. The new handbook meets Quality Core Curriculum (QCC) standards for the state of Georgia (current at the time of its publication).

Click here for information for ordering this volume through the Carl Vinson Institute of Government online bookstore. The Teaching Handbook is available here.