The Augusta Archaeological Society’s February speaker will be Robert W. Benson. The meeting will be at the Flyin’ Cowboy Restaurant, 2821 Washington Road, Augusta, on Thursday February 4th, at 6:30 pm. Mr. Benson’s topic is hafted biface and point types from Sumter National Forest (see page 2 for more details).
The February issue of the AAS newsletter, Debitage, is now available.
Photo by Maggie Villiger; from the the PBS website.
You’re going hunting. You have both arrows and spears. Which do you choose?
After all, as Dr. Veronica Waweru, a research affiliate of the National Museums of Kenya and a postdoctoral fellow at Stony Brook University (NY) whose own research has focused on a site on the Kinangop plateau in Kenya, notes:
To any hunter, putting distance between yourself and prey that might potentially fight back is important. Here, arrows have an advantage over spears. Weapons also need to deliver lethal blows, induce massive bleeding or cause damage to internal organs. Penetration depth is therefore important.
Indeed, Dr. Waweru’s research suggests arrow use began much earlier in Africa than had previously been widely believed—perhaps about 100,000 years ago.
In a PBS blog linked to The Human Spark program series, Dr. Waweru laments:
Modern hunters often add a cocktail of poisons to the shafts of their arrows. These are derived from plants (such as the arrow poison tree) that have wide distribution in Africa. Did prehistoric hunters use arrows to deliver poisons to quarry? We may never know because poisons are unlikely to survive that long.
The Human Spark is a three-part series investigating the topic of human uniqueness hosted by Alan Alda. Read more about the series by clicking here.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/humanspark/about/about-the-series-introduction/35/
The first broadcast of The Human Spark will be on January 6, 13, and 20, 2010.
The Savannah River Archaeological Research Program is seeking information about prehistoric metavolcanic stone quarries in the Carolina Slate Belt Region in South Carolina. As this map shows, the Carolina Slate Belt Region is prominent in the Carolinas, and extends southward into Georgia.
For more information or to convey information about quarry locations, call Christopher R. Moore at 803.725.5227, or email him by clicking here.
Download an announcement with more information by clicking here.
The prehistoric tool called a hand axe is large, and has a sharpened edge all the way around it. The sharpening is on both sides, so it’s a biface. It is found in the Old World and not in the New World.
The Acheulean is a stone tool industry characterized by a particular style of tool-making. Acheulean-style tools are known from across Africa and much of West Asia, and date from approximately 1.65 million years ago to as recent as about 100,000 years ago. The earliest dates for Acheulean tools are from Kenya, in West Africa. The earliest dates for Acheulean artifacts and sites in Europe are much later than the African and Asian dates.
However, Gary R. Scott and Luis Gibert of the Berkeley Geochronology Center in California report paleomagnetic dates for two sites with Acheulean artifacts in southeast Spain are much earlier than previously known. A New York Times article by Henry Fountain dated 2 September 2009 reports that these researchers obtained dates of about 760,000 and 900,000 years old for the sites of Solano del Zamborino and Estrecho del Quípar, in Spain. Samples from the layers with the artifacts and those above and below the artifacts indicates that the artifacts date approximately to the time of the last geomagnetic reversal. That reversal has been dated to approximately 780,000 years ago.
Spain is, of course, on the Iberian Peninsula, which today is separated from northern Africa by the Strait of Gibraltar, a narrow body of water that is just under nine miles wide.
So, the question becomes: did the makers of Acheulean tools enter the Iberian Peninsula from the south—that is, from Africa directly—or from the east, following the northern Mediterranean coastline? Fountain writes:
“The question is, which route did they follow?” he said. Rather than coming through the Middle East and then westward, Dr. Gibert said he is convinced they came across at Gibraltar. “We think the Gibraltar straits were a permeable barrier,” he said. “It’s a provocative interpretation, but I think there is enough information to support it.”
What do you think?
NOTE: Scott and Gibert published their original report in Nature. The article is not free, but here’s the abstract:
Stone tools are durable reminders of the activities, skills and customs of early humans, and have distinctive morphologies that reflect the development of technological skills during the Pleistocene epoch. In Africa, large cutting tools (hand-axes and bifacial chopping tools) became part of Palaeolithic technology during the Early Pleistocene (1.5 Myr ago). However, in Europe this change had not been documented until the Middle Pleistocene (<0.5 Myr ago). Here we report dates for two western Mediterranean hand-axe sites that are nearly twice the age of the supposed earliest Acheulian in western Europe. Palaeomagnetic analysis of these two sites in southeastern Spain found reverse polarity magnetozones, showing that hand-axes were already in Europe as early as 0.9 Myr ago. This expanded antiquity for European hand-axe culture supports a wide geographic distribution of Palaeolithic bifacial technology outside of Africa during the Early Pleistocene.
Long time SGA member and primitive technology researcher Scott Jones has just published a book that is a compilation of his articles from the past decade related to primitive technology and experimental archaeology. Scott has practiced primitive technology for two decades and now makes a living presenting the subject to the general public (always with lots of examples and demonstrations) and by conducting experimental archaeology with CRM firms. He is a long time board member of the Society for Primitive Technology and is currently its president. He lives with his wife and son in rural (i.e., primitive) Oglethorpe County.
The book, entitled A View to the Past: Experience and Experiment in Primitive Technology, is a 277-page, soft bound collection of about 40 articles, most of which were originally published in the Bulletin of Primitive Technology. The articles are illustrated with numerous photographs and a few drawings and charts. They are organized into six chapters: foundation skills, making things fly, shelter, stone tools, regional perspectives in experimental archaeology and other musings. While there is a good bit of “how to” in many of the articles, Scott also addresses the “why” and “what does it mean” aspects of experimental work. The fact that Scott has an anthropology degree (UGA) and works with professional archeologists allows him to make a great many more anthropological observations from his work than most primitive technologists. Thus, while the articles on building a shelter, making a long bow, and fire starting will appeal to the general public, and especially young readers, these and most every article have important messages for the working archaeologist who is trying to interpret the anthropology of artifact assemblages. This is a very readable, interesting, and entertaining book that will appeal to a wide audience.
A View to the Past by Scott Jones is available from Createspace.
The Edgefield scraper is a diagnostic tool of the Early Archaic period that is geographically distributed throughout much of South Carolina, Georgia, and northern Florida. It is essentially a unifacial hafted tool with a bifacially worked side-notched base that typically co-occurs with side-notched points of the Big Sandy/Bolen/Taylor group (Goodyear et al. 1980), but is sometimes found with corner-notched points of the Kirk type (Sassaman et al. 2002:60-62). Though widely distributed within the range of occurrence, Edgefields are closely linked with chert sources. The association of this unusual tool form with notched Early Archaic points has led to much discussion and speculation about their respective roles.
Figure 1. Edgefield scrapers from Georgia, showing size variation and degrees of resharpening.
Having begun my career with an ardent interest in Early Archaic tools, I have engaged in my share of this discourse. And so it was, while at an artifact identification event in the spring of 2007, I overheard typologist Lloyd Schroder (author of The Anthropology of Florida Points and Blades) use the term “double-edged Edgefield scraper” to describe Early Archaic beveled points. Upon hearing this, I fairly spun around and went to query him further about his description. My interest lay not in the newness of the idea. Quite to the contrary, it was the familiarity of the phrase that caught my attention. As I explained to Schroder, I had used this exact phrase some years earlier.
Figure 2. Small Edgefield scraper, Oglethorpe County,
Georgia. Material is Piedmont chert/jasper.
Back at home, I rifled through my files and found the surviving copy of a short, unpublished document that I wrote about 1989 (as witnessed by the yellowed paper and faded dot-matrix print), in which I compared Edgefield scrapers and beveled projectile points. Having shelved the “double-edged Edgefield scraper” concept after it met with nearly unanimous contempt at the time, my conversation with Schroder convinced me it was time to go public with it. Except for the omission of one completely erroneous sentence, the original document reads as follows:
While looking through the Early Archaic material from the Wallace Reservoir Survey recently, it was pointed out to me that the flawless beveling and near-perfect trapezoidal cross-section of some of the side- and corner-notched ppks seem to be of intentional design; I disagreed with the idea that they were beveled during initial manufacture, and I still hold this opinion. I have, however, modified my opinion concerning the nature and purpose of such beveling. For quite some time now I have been fascinated by primitive woodworking tools and methods; one particular item of interest has been the so-called Edgefield Scraper. I have examined archaeological specimens; manufactured, hafted and used reproductions and have been impressed with the results. While most specimens are unifacial except for the haft area, I have seen some that are made bifacially—with a technically beautiful flat ventral face, and the characteristically steep-edged dorsal face. While examining a bifacial specimen from the Wallace Reservoir material, I was struck by the amazing resemblance between the working edge of this scraper (and upon re-examination, many others) and the beveled edges of many Early Archaic ppks. It appears that there is a clear relationship between these two tool types that extends beyond mere haft-area similarities: without available stratigraphic information, one can only say that one is a technological adaptation of the other. After much discussion about the purpose of Early Archaic blade-beveling (“spinners,” resharpening economy, etc.), it seems that—at least as an added feature of economic resharpening, if not by intentional design—some of these ppks functioned as double-edged Edgefield scrapers as well as projectile tips. This idea is further supported by the occasional occurrence of dulled ppks of this type. It is probable, though, that points used for woodworking would have been resharpened for service as projectile tips soon after the woodworking task was finished, thus accounting for their relative scarcity. The versatility of the beveled point as a ppk, generalized knife, and woodworking scraper make it an ideal field tool for mobile hunters. Use of both edges would require bilateral resharpening, thus maintaining the relative symmetry needed for the tool’s primary function as a projectile point—symmetry which is noticeably absent from the task-specific Edgefield scraper. As a final note, it is interesting that, for a change, we have an opportunity to examine a tool in its combined form—the beveled ppk—and compare it with its task-specific derivative, the Edgefield scraper.
Some recent thoughts: I still adhere to all but one of the observations expressed in my original piece. This exception has to do with beveling during initial manufacture. Beveling of Early Archaic points reflects more than an economy of resharpening, and results in a specific type of utility. I now feel that beveling was often anticipated during manufacture, and is clearly evident in utilized late-stage formal preforms such as Cobb’s Triangular and Stanfield blades.
Regarding the origin of Edgefield scrapers, they sometimes occur on sites containing mixed Transitional Paleoindian and Early Archaic artifacts. Although they are not found on pure Dalton sites, technologically similar hafted tools do occur. It is postulated that Edgefield scrapers may be derived from Dalton flake-blank preforms with bifacially shaped bases (cf. Waggoner and Jones 2007, figure 9).
Edgefield scrapers are generally regarded as being heftier than contemporaneous projectile point forms. This is sometimes cited as evidence for a major distinction between these tool forms, implying that a beveled point cannot be analogous to an Edgefield scraper because the latter is always larger. Though far less common than the larger versions, small Edgefields are found that are about the same size as projectile points, indicating a need for a tool in this size range. Although small numbers of such tools exist, the implication is that small Edgefield scrapers are essentially redundant in the presence of beveled points of similar size.
Figure 3. Two views of replicated and hafted Edgefield scrapers by the author (bottom plan view; top side view).
Goodyear, Albert C., James L. Michie, and Barbara Purdy
1980 The Edgefield Scraper: A Distributional Study of an Early Archaic Stone Tool from the Southeastern U.S. Paper presented at the 37th Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, New Orleans.
Sassaman, Kenneth E., I. Randolph Daniel, Jr., and Christopher R. Moore
2002 G. S. Lewis East: Early and Late Archaic Occupations along the Savannah River, Aiken County, South Carolina. Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers, no. 12.
Waggoner, James C., and Scott Jones
2007 Validating “Daltonite” Within the Greater Classification of Lithic Resources in the Interior Coastal Plain. Early Georgia 35(1):45-62.
Click to see larger.
New South Associates, Inc., recently performed excavations at the Berry Creek site (9MO487) in Monroe County, Georgia, for Georgia Power Company. Many of the ceramics in the artifact assemblage were identified as representative of the Swift Creek culture, and several ground- and chipped-stone tools were recovered. One artifact of note, identified as a plummet stone, is an oblong ground granite object with one grooved end. Jack Hranicky (2004) suggests that plummets may be pendants, net weights, bolas, or status symbols. He also references Warren Moorehead’s 1917 work, which lists up to 22 possibilities ranging from handheld tool applications to ceremonial or decorative purposes.
If anyone has further information on similar artifacts in the central Georgia region, please contact Scott Morris (smorris@newsouthassoc.com).
Many of the archeological phase names currently used for northwest Georgia are directly attributable to the work of Joseph Caldwell in Allatoona Reservoir more than fifty years ago (Caldwell 1950, 1957). While terminology has changed over the years, most of the designations used by Caldwell remain in use today. For instance, the old term “Kellogg focus” is now referred to as Kellogg phase and “Cartersville focus” is now referred to as Cartersville phase (Garrow 2002:2). This change to modern terminology has been gradual and there have been relatively recent cases where an author considered it “advisable to retain the older terminological structure to avoid potential confusion” (Cable et al. 1991:80).
It is a little known fact that Caldwell also defined a Late Archaic phase for the Allatoona Reservoir that he called the Stamp Creek focus (Caldwell 1957:279). Based on his description, the Stamp Creek focus would be comparable in many respects to the Late Archaic Mill Branch or Black Shoals phases of eastern Georgia (Elliott et al. 1994:371, Stanyard 2003:62). The most diagnostic artifact type associated with each of these is represented by large stemmed projectile points that may be identified as Savannah River Stemmed (Coe 1959:44) or Appalachian Stemmed (Kneberg 1957). While these two point names appear to be regional variants of the same type, the name Appalachian Stemmed tends to be used for points made from quartzite (Cambron and Hulse 1964:6).
Caldwell devoted substantial space in his Allatoona report to the discussion of the Stamp Creek focus, but it would seem that he did not pursue the subject further after that project. A search of the University of Georgia’s Laboratory of Archaeology Manuscript Files produced a single document on the subject. A manuscript entitled “The Stamp Creek Culture: A Prepottery Occupation in the Etowah Area, Georgia” is not dated, but a notation in the text indicates it was written prior to 1955. In reading Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States, the Stamp Creek type site is mentioned, but the Stamp Creek focus is not discussed (Caldwell 1958:80). Because the Allatoona Survey report was never published, relatively few archeologists have been made aware of Caldwell’s Late Archaic phase description.
Caldwell’s Stamp Creek focus was intended to represent the final stage of the Archaic period, but his trait list probably includes some artifacts from earlier and later periods. Artifact drawings include large stemmed projectile points, a variety of smaller stemmed points, notched points and soapstone sherds. Figure 1 shows one of Caldwell’s illustrations of projectile points thought to be part of the Stamp Creek focus (the figure also depicts triangular points of the later Kellogg focus). Using the data available at the time, Caldwell felt the Stamp Creek focus assemblage differed in some respects from the closely related Savannah River focus of eastern Georgia (Fairbanks 1942:223-231) and the Lauderdale focus of northern Alabama (Webb and DeJarnette 1942:19).
With respect to the traits used to define the Stamp Creek focus, Caldwell noted that of the various stemmed points found on the sites, the medium to large ‚“simple tang” (stemmed) points were the most characteristic and also showed the closest resemblance to materials from other Southeastern pre-ceramic foci (Caldwell 1957:279, 1958:13). Such points are usually relatively large and heavy, the stem is square, and the shoulders broad and well defined (Caldwell 1957: Figures 8 and 9). Caldwell also included hemispherical steatite bowls and other groundstone artifacts as traits of the focus. Caldwell recognized that perforated steatite tablets, “the so-called net sinkers,” that are so numerous at Stallings Island and other Savannah River Focus sites, were practically absent in the Allatoona area. The excavated Stamp Creek focus sites produced no axes, atlatl weights, bone or shell artifacts (Caldwell 1957:280).
Caldwell noted that at Allatoona, quartzite was usually employed for large simple tang points, but quartz was little used. Flint (chert) was used to produce smaller points that were highly variable in shape and included slight (expanded) tang, simple (straight) tang, bifurcated tang, corner notched, side notched and stemless (Caldwell 1957:9). As previously noted, some of the points would be recognized today as dating to earlier or later time periods.
Figure 1. Examples of projectile points and bifaces associated with Caldwell’s Stamp Creek focus with comparisons to those of the Kellogg focus. The large quartzite points in the center are typical examples (illustration courtesy of the University of Georgia, Laboratory of Archaeology). Click image for much larger version of the figure.
Caldwell’s excavations on the Stamp Creek site produced a number of features and he concluded that 18 pits could be attributed to the Stamp Creek focus occupation. Most appeared to be used for storage of food, but one contained red ochre and some traces of human bone. Most of the pits were similar in appearance, usually with straight sides and flat bottoms. Dimensions ranged from 2.5 to 5 feet in diameter and 1.5 to 3 feet deep. A few were oval or oblong and in two or three instances, sides were sloping. Based on our current understanding of diagnostic artifact types, some of the features identified by Caldwell are probably associated with later occupations (terminal Late Archaic or Woodland). Still, the evidence remains that 9BR139 was an intensively occupied habitation site of the period.
Caldwell regarded the Stamp Creek Focus as a relatively late pre-ceramic culture but he cautioned that the absence of fiber tempered pottery on these sites did not mean that the ceramic type was not being used in the region (Caldwell 1957:280). Caldwell’s report actually illustrates one fiber tempered sherd from the Stamp Creek site and he describes one additional fiber tempered sherd form another survey site, 9CK101, as “Stallings Island Incised and Punctate” (Caldwell 1957:207). At present, we have no means of determining if the fiber tempered sherds were associated with the Stamp Creek focus or a later occupation.
Subsequent to Caldwell’s work in Allatoona Reservoir, other sites have been identified in northwestern Georgia that contain large Savannah River Stemmed or Appalachian Stemmed types that are made quartzite or other equally hard lithic materials (Beasley 1995, Benson et al. 2007, Crook 1984, Webb 1998). The identified site types include intensively occupied habitation sites, short term camps, and quarry-oriented lithic workshops. One recently investigated site, 9GO231, is of particular interest because Savannah River style projectile points made from quartzite and Ridge and Valley chert occur in nearly equal numbers (Benson et al. 2007). 9GO231 is located within the Ridge and Valley Province, while most of the other sites discovered to date lie at the edge of the Piedmont Province. A few radiocarbon dates have been procured in the past decade from northwest Georgia sites that are in line with those of the Mill Branch and Black Shoals phases of eastern Georgia and western South Carolina (Webb 1998, Steve Webb, personal communication 2007). The suggested range of Mill Branch and Black Shoals phases extends from approximately 4200 to 3450 B.P. (Stanyard 2003:62). It would appear that Caldwell’s Stamp Creek focus should fit comfortably within that time period.
During the 1970s, archeologists began using the term Savannah River phase to cover the entire pre-ceramic Late Archaic period in the northern part of Georgia (DePratter 1975:4) and that phase designation has been used in a few northwestern Georgia reports (Bowen 1989:115, Crook 1984:55). In his recent overview of the Archaic period of northwestern Georgia, Stanyard (2003:58) concluded that a general lack of information impedes our ability to assess the nature of the Late Archaic development in the region and he proposed a provisional category of “undifferentiated phase” for the period of ca 5000 to 3000 B.P. (Stanyard 2003:58). I suggest that Caldwell’s Stamp Creek focus represents a useful tool for the study of a portion of the Late Archaic period. Unfortunately, we cannot simply change the word “focus” to “phase” and was the case for Kellogg and Cartersville. The name Stamp Creek phase was adopted several years ago as a Lamar designation (Hally and Rudolph 1986:64). While Caldwell’s Late Archaic designation has historical precedence, it is unlikely that the Lamar phase name will ever be changed. For the time being, it is perhaps just as well that we continue to use the name “Caldwell’s Stamp Creek focus” in our discussions of the Late Archaic for northwest Georgia.
Beasley, Robert K.
1995 Artifacts from the Basin of Pumpkinvine Creek, Georgia. Central States Archaeological Journal 42(3):146-147.
Benson Robert W., Scott Jones, and Andrew Ivester
2007 Phase III Excavations of 9GO231 on Lick and Salacoa Creeks, Gordon County, Georgia. Draft report submitted to the Georgia Department of Transportation by Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., Athens.
Bowen, William Rowe
1989 An Examination of Subsistence, Settlement, and Chronology During the Early Woodland Kellogg Phase in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of the Eastern United States. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Cable, John S., Leslie E. Raymer, J.H. Raymer, and Charles E. Cantley
1991 Archaeological Test Excavations at The Lake Ackworth Site (9CO45) and the Butler Creek Site (9CO46) Allatoona Lake, Cobb County, Georgia. Report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District by New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
1950 A Preliminary Report on Excavations in the Allatoona Reservoir. Early Georgia 1(1):5-21.
1957 Survey and Excavations in the Allatoona Reservoir, Northern Georgia. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Manuscript No. 151, Athens.
1958 Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. Memoir No. 88, American Anthropological Association and the Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, vol. X, Springfield Illinois.
Cambron, James W. and David C. Hulse
1964 Handbook of Alabama Archaeology: Part 1, Point Types. Alabama Archaeological Society, Huntsville.
Coe, Joffre
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 54(5), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Crook, Morgan R., Jr.
1984 Cagle Site Report, Archaic and Early Woodland Period Manifestations in the North Georgia Piedmont. West Georgia College Occasional Papers in Cultural Resource Management, no. 2. Prepared for Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta.
DePratter, Chester B.
1975 The Archaic in Georgia. Early Georgia 3(1):1-16.
Elliott, Daniel T., Jerald Ledbetter and Elizabeth Gordon
1994 Data Recovery at Lovers Lane, Phinizy Swamp and the Old Dike Sites Bobby Jones Expressway Extension Corridor, Augusta, Georgia. Occasional Papers in Cultural Resource Management, no. 7. Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta.
Fairbanks, Charles H.
1942 The Taxonomic Position of Stallings Island, Georgia. American Antiquity 7(3):223-231.
Garrow, Patrick H.
2002 The Woodland North of the Fall Line. Paper presented Southeastern Archeological Conference, Macon, Georgia.
Hally, David J. and Teresa Rudolph
1986 Mississippian Period Archaeology of the Georgia Piedmont. Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report, no. 2. University of Georgia, Athens.
Kneberg, Madeline
1957 Chipped Stone Artifacts of the Tennessee Valley Area. Tennessee Archaeologist XIII(1). Tennessee Archaeological Society, Knoxville.
Stanyard, William F.
2003 Archaic Period Archaeology of Northern Georgia. Georgia Archaeological Research Design Paper, no. 13. University of Georgia, Laboratory of Archaeology Report No. 38.
Webb, Robert S.
1998 Archeological Investigations at Three Prehistoric Sites (9DW64, 9DW77 and 9CK713) Cherokee and Dawson Counties, Georgia, Cherokee County Raw Water Supply Reservoir. Prepared for Cherokee County Water and Sewerage Authority, Canton, Georgia by R.S. Webb and Associates, Holly Springs, Georgia.
Webb, William S. And David L. DeJarnette
1942 An Archaeological Survey of the Pickwick Basin in Adjacent Portions of the States of Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, no. 129, Washington.
Meta-slate axe from the Hardin Bridge site.
Research of the Hardin Bridge Site (9BR34) in Bartow County site is ongoing at New South Associates. Laboratory analysis has shown that the Hardin Bridge site represents a Late Archaic through early Middle Woodland timeframe based on lithic and pottery specimens. To date, the majority of hafted bifaces are consistent with the Late Archaic Ledbetter cluster, Savannah River, and Elora types. Woodland types of Yadkin and Copena also are represented. A number of Otarre-Swannanoa points bridge the gap, indicating a Late Archaic-Early Woodland transition occupation. Pottery specimens are mostly of the Middle Woodland Cartersville variety with check- and simple-stamped surface decorations. One specimen of Dunlap fabric marked has been identified from a deeply buried context suggesting limited Early Woodland occupation. Specimens of ground stone also are represented and manufactured from a locally found, greenish colored slate. These implements appear to be utilitarian hoes and axes with a lesser quantity of highly polished fragments. One such tool, a polished meta-slate axe (or celt) displays a hafting element as well as excessive use wear. This particular artifact is representative of the ground and polished slate tools that occur throughout the site.
Elk River Stemmed point from the Hardin Bridge site.
Also of interest is a hafted biface not typically found in Georgia that was identified during analysis. This Elk River Stemmed point was made from a Ridge and Valley chert (likely of the Conasauga variety) and supports the Late Archaic component of the site. The point type, while common in northern Alabama and central Tennessee, is rarely found in Georgia (Justice 1987). Also, a drill crafted of the same Conasauga chert was recovered, exhibiting basal hafting and a bi-convex cross section. Pending analysis of flotation samples from numerous features may reveal greater information regarding foraging and nascent agriculture in the Etowah Valley.
Drill from the Hardin Bridge site.
Numerous events associated with this project have provided outreach opportunities to both adults and children. R. Jeannine Windham has presented information on the Hardin Bridge site for local archaeological societies and a radio show. In addition, a large outreach event was co-organized with the Georgia Department of Transportation and provided an opportunity to discuss and participate in archaeological and cultural activities through an Archaeology Day. Greater information on the site and outreach events can be seen here.
Justice, Noel D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Major technological and cultural innovations have the potential to influence technology and culture beyond the immediate realm of the innovation itself. While the widespread adoption of fired clay ceramics in the terminal Archaic/Early Woodland era is directly relevant to food preparation, the transition from indirect heating (stone-boiling) to direct heating in pots represents a dynamic techno-cultural change. Ever since Coe (1964) demonstrated that early Woodland triangular projectile point forms differ dramatically from the stemmed terminal Archaic forms that immediately precede them, archaeologists have sought plausible reasons for this change. This article explores the possible influence of early ceramics on the practical manufacture of adhesives used in hafting, which would accommodate significant changes in projectile point form. This is inferred from the apparent shift from Archaic period use of plant resins (pitch) to early historic use of animal collagen (‚“hide”) glue.
The manufacture of hide glue requires precise heat control, which is greatly improved by the use of a clay pot. The glue can be made from a variety of animal parts, including hide shavings (shown in pot), sinew (also shown), hoof, velvet antler, and fish skin.
Archaic points, irrespective of form, have explicit haft areas. These haft elements often have large amounts of surface area, providing a sturdy bond between the tool and the haft. Basal grinding is common on many Archaic point forms (not just Early Archaic types, on which grinding is often extreme). This helps prevent damage to fiber bindings, but of equal importance, grinding strengthens the haft area against breakage.
Despite poor organic preservation in the southeast, pitch residues are occasionally found. Webb (1946) mentions pitch on a number of antler and bone artifacts from Indian Knoll, as well as a block of pitch in a burial; pitch residues were found on the stone points from the Windover site in Florida (Doran 2002). In Georgia, Ledbetter et al. (2001) report plant resin residues on processing tools from Bartow County.
From dry caves and rock shelters of the western U.S., Aikens (1970), Dalley (1977), Gunnerson (1962), Jennings (1978) and others refer to the use of pitch on various artifacts. Cosgrove (1947), however, specifically states that hafted artifacts from his study area were bound with sinew alone, and pitch was not used. Despite this absence of pitch, his emphatic remarks highlight the prevalence of this adhesive in other parts of the arid west, while illustrating the importance of fiber bindings (e.g., sinew) in the Archaic tradition.
Pitch glue can be made with simple equipment such as a shell (shown, containing raw resin) or a flat rock (a small pot or large sherd can be used as well). It can be made into pitch sticks for future use. It is used for hafting tools (knife and projectile foreshaft shown), patching and caulking, and inlay work.
Thus it would seem that plant resin mastic—pitch—was widely used during the Archaic period. Yet by historic times it seems to vanish from the technological landscape. For instance, Swanton (1946) cites several sources who describe how Native Americans (mostly in what is now Virginia) of the early historic era hafted their arrow points. In addition to sinew bindings, these accounts uniformly mention animal glue, specifically that made from deer antler. Such glue is particular to the immature growing antler, in the ‚“velvet” stage. Swanton also refers to glue made from deer skin and fish. Yet nowhere does he mention the use of pitch or pine tar, noting only that pitchpine (presumably heart pine ‚“lightwood‚“) was a source of soot for tattoos.
How, though, does this apparent change in hafting relate to ceramic technology? Can a case be made for a relationship between hafting methods, projectile point form, and pottery? To consider this, let us look at the merits and limitations of plant mastics and animal glues. Pitch glue is made from the resins of coniferous trees (notably pine in the southeast), and a small number of deciduous trees (sweetgum is our best example). Pitch is a good hunter-gatherer adhesive—it requires minimal equipment, it is maintainable, and it allows re-hafting—and fits into Bleed’s (1986) maintainability type. It is easy to make, requiring a modest supply of resin and minimal gear: a mussel shell or flat rock for a preparation vessel; some organic temper (such as charcoal powder); and a fire on which to heat it (see Jones 2005 for a discussion of pitch glue). Short lengths of fiber may be added to the pitch as well (Silsby 1999). In a pinch, pine resin may be gathered and heated as-is on the end of a stick, and applied while hot. Pitch provides support and fills gaps within the haft, and is more or less waterproof. The down side is that it is not very flexible and becomes brittle over time, thus requiring maintenance.
Animal (‚“hide”) glue, on the other hand, is somewhat more complicated, and conforms to Bleed’s (1986) reliability type. Water-soluble, it is made from velvet antler, hide, hooves, sinew, horn (bovine, not horn as misapplied to antler), and other collagen-rich animal products. It is very strong, flexible, and durable, though not waterproof. Because hide glue is prepared by carefully reducing the volume of cooking liquid to a residue, good temperature regulation is necessary. The jelly-like residue may be used immediately, but because it is essentially a protein-rich soup, it spoils if left in a liquid form. Although somewhat timeconsuming, it may be dried and reconstituted (see Richards 1997 for a discussion of hide glue). It is evident that stone-boiling would be an impractical and imprecise technique for a process requiring good heat regulation and prolonged simmering time. Also, hot rocks would likely scorch the glue as the volume is reduced.
Soapstone or fiber-tempered ceramic vessels can be used, but Sassaman (1993) suggests that early versions of these were not heated directly on the fire. And soapstone vessels, while relatively common, likely had cultural significance that exempted them from the realm of ‚“everyday” cookware. Cooking up a batch of hide glue in the village pot may have been distinctly frowned upon. Though conjectural, it seems that hide glue assumes the role of a practical day-to-day adhesive only when fire-worthy ceramics become commonplace.
Thus the advent of well made grit-tempered ceramics in northwest Georgia (e.g., Kellogg phase, about 700 B.C.) coincides approximately with the appearance of Early Woodland triangular points lacking a well-defined haft area. [Stemmed points continue to be used, but the trend is dominated by triangular forms.] Early versions (Yadkin and Copena points, for instance) are large, and through the Woodland and Mississippian periods triangular points become ever smaller. Size does not present a problem, since we know that the bow comes into use during this time.
The use of animal glue is not exclusive to triangular point styles. It is entirely possible to haft stemmed and notched points with hide glue and sinew. Triangular points are difficult to haft securely with pitch (with or without fiber binding). Regardless of point type, it is possible to use hide glue and sinew as the main hafting material, with a coating of waterproof pitch. This may have been done, but this does not seem to be the case. Drawing from ethnographic and archaeological inferences, it seems that the use of pitch glue in Archaic times is supplanted by animal glues by the historic period. The development and ready availability of ceramic pottery is a possible key to this change.
Aikens, C. Melvin
1970 Hogup Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, no. 93.
Bleed, P.
1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability. American Antiquity 51(4): 737-747.
Coe, Joffre. L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 54(5). American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.
Cosgrove, C.B.
1947 Caves of the Upper Gila and Hueco Areas in New Mexico and Texas. Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Papers 24(2):48-58.
Dalley, Gardiner F.
1977 Swallow Shelter and Associated Sites. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, vol. 96.
Doran, Glen H.
2002 Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery. University Press of Florida: Gainesville.
Gunnerson, James H.
1962 Unusual Artifacts from Castle Valley, Central Utah. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, vol. 60.
Jennings, Jesse D.
1978 Prehistory of Utah and the Eastern Great Basin. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, vol. 98.
Jones, Scott
2005 Pitch Glue. Bulletin of Primitive Technology 29:11-19.
Ledbetter, R. Jerald, Thomas Neumann, Mary Spinks, and Andrea Shea
2001 Archaeological Investigation of the Vulcan Site, Bartow County, Georgia. Early Georgia 29(2):97-179.
Richards, Matt
1997 Deerskins Into Buckskins: How to Tan with Natural Materials. Backcountry Publishing, Cave Junction, Oregon.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Silsby, Scott
1999 Mummy Varnish, Spruce Gum, and Other Sticky Stuff. In Primitive Technology: A Book of Earthskills, pp. 187-189. David Wescott, editor. Gibbs Smith, Publisher. Salt Lake City.
Swanton, John R.
1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, no. 137. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Torrence, R.
1989 Retooling: Towards a Behavioral Theory of Stone Tools. In Time, Energy, and Stone Tools. Edited by Robin Torrence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Webb, W. S.
1946 Indian Knoll: Site OH2, Ohio County, Kentucky. Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology 4(3), Part 1. University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Members of the Georgia Mountains Chapter have recently conducted a preliminary test on the newly discovered Hummingbird Hill Quartz Quarry on the Chicopee Woods Nature Preserve near Gainesville.
A few months ago, Elachee volunteer “Doc” Johnson recognized a spread of quartz rocks on the lower part of a ridge nose in the preserve as a possible quarry site. He called Elachee Nature Science Center’s CEO Andrea Tempone’s attention to it, and then led chapter advisor Jack Wynn to inspect it. Soon after, Primitive Technologist Scott Jones was invited to examine the site, and with Wynn, plans were made to grid and possibly test the site.
Once the plans were made and SHPO notified, the GMAS members met on Saturday, February 4, to grid the site and begin the test. They decided to do very limited testing on the 20×50-m quarry area, in part because of the steep location. There was concern that digging there might exacerbate the already severe erosion into the Walnut Creek area. It was also expected that a limited amount of data could be retrieved from such a resource area, since it did not show signs of being used for finishing artifacts.
The test team was first composed of Lorraine Norwood, Erin Andrews, Joe Randazzo and his son Joseph Randazzo, supervised by Wynn. They began with a small, 50-cm test unit, more or less in the middle of the site area, and excavated it by 10-cm levels, parallel with the slope. The excavation methods included screening and removing all the stone from each level. The amount of stone there was truly amazing. The first work day, the crew removed nine bags of stone to the lab for washing and identification. Since it all had to be hauled uphill all the way back to the vehicles, the amount and weight of the stone became important.
Joseph and Joe Randazzo, Lorraine Norwood, and Erin Andrews working on the site.
The crew was so stimulated by the project the first day that they returned on Saturday, February 18 to finish the test into the red sandy clay subsoil at about 35 cm below surface. That day, they were joined by David Hughes, Janice and Tom Bagwell, Greg Britt, and site’s discoverer, Doc Johnson. At the base of that level, most of the square was taken up by large quartz boulders, but the crew still removed 5-6 bags of materials. Lab cleaning and analysis was conducted that day by Dan and Diedre Page, Pat LoRusso, and David Hughes.
The club members have begun the washing and examination of the stones removed, but much remains to be cleaned and sorted. They have found a few flaked tools and some bipolar percussion pieces, as well as lots of general shatter. Once it is all cleaned and initially sorted, Scott Jones has agreed to examine it for additional indications of stone working techniques.
Archaeologists with EEG recently completed the evaluations of 11 sites on Robins Air Force Base in Houston County, Georgia. Sites 9HT55 and 9HT56, both near Echeconnee Creek, were the only two found to be eligible for listing on the National Register. The former had seven components (Early, Middle, and Late Archaic; Early and Middle Woodland; Late Mississippian Lamar; and Historic Creek) and the latter had five (Late Archaic; Early and Middle Woodland; Late Mississippian Lamar; and Historic Creek). A number of lithic and ceramic diagnostics were recovered from both sites. One interesting item that caused some premature Paleo excitement was an Early Archaic unifacial sidescraper (see picture). A report on this work is forthcoming.
Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. (EPEI) recently completed Phase III fieldwork at 9PU20 near Hawkinsville, GA. The excavations were conducted on behalf of the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) as part of a proposed bridge replacement over Big Tucsawatchee Creek (also known as Big Creek) on State Route 230. The site is located on a fluvial terrace overlooking the creek and consists of a large, high-density scatter of lithics produced mainly from Coastal Plain chert.
Previous Phase I and II investigations by GDOT archaeologists in 1997 yielded two cultural features and a large collection of artifacts associated with Middle Paleoindian to Late Mississippian occupations. Lithic tools and debitage manufactured from locally available chert comprised the bulk of the assemblage. Most notable was the recovery of two Middle Paleoindian projectile points (Simpson and Suwannee), as well as those associated with Early Archaic, Late Archaic, and Mississippian occupations. The ceramic collection, while small, included fiber-tempered, Refuge, Deptford, Swift Creek, possible Etowah, and Lamar components.
Figure 1. Edwards-Pitman archaeologists and field mascot, Hunter, at Big Tucsawhatchee Creek Site (9PU20).
Recent data recovery investigations at 9PU20 were conducted under the supervision of Alvin J. Banguilan and included the excavation of nine small blocks totaling 39 m2 (see Figure 1). Despite the fact that only a narrow strip of right-of-way on both sides of SR 230 was examined, a large and diverse collection of artifacts was recovered and features were identified. Based on our initial impressions of the overall assemblage (we are only now beginning labwork), the site appears to have been extensively utilized during the Late Paleo/Early Archaic transition, Early Archaic, Late Archaic, Early to Middle Woodland, and Middle to Late Mississippian sub-periods. The collection consists of a large quantity of lithic debitage, projectile points, early and late stage bifaces, blade and bifacial core/ tools, scrapers, prismatic blades, and numerous retouched and utilized flake tools (see Figure 2). Lithic diagnostics that appear to have been recovered from undisturbed deposits include Taylor Side Notched, Kirk Corner Notched, and various Late Archaic and terminal Late Archaic Stemmed varieties. Woodland and Mississippian components, while numerous, appear mixed and largely limited to between 0–45 cm below surface. Further analysis should reveal if any additional spatial patterning exists in the upper strata.
Figure 2. Selected Projectile Points recovered from 9PU20.
A total of five features were identified during EPEI’s excavation; four, including two hearth-like features, one rock cluster, and one possible hearth maintenance/cleanout feature were found between 70–90 cm below surface and appear to be associated with the site’s Kirk/Palmer phase component. The remaining feature was encountered at 113 cm below surface and consisted of a faint soil lens associated with a Taylor Side Notched point and a small cluster of debitage and tools. It should be noted that the Simpson and Suwannee points mentioned earlier were found during GDOT’s Phase II investigation in shallow deposits mixed with later Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian components. At present, it remains unclear whether an intact Middle Paleoindian deposit is present at the site, although lithic material clearly extended below the identified Kirk/Palmer and Taylor horizons.
What became increasingly clear during the course of our field investigation was that site occupation was wide-ranging, extensive, and heavily oriented towards the local abundance of high quality Coastal Plain chert. Chert nodules could readily be seen in the shallow portions of Big Tucsawhatchee Creek and along its banks. Moreover, large chert outcroppings and dense of the site. Evidence of quarrying activity was also apparent in this area along with moderate scattering of debitage and tools. concentrations of boulder-size chert fragments were identified along an adjacent landform approximately 1 km northeast of the site. Evidence of quarrying activity was also apparent in this area along with moderate scattering of debitage and tools.
Archaeologists seeking to reconstruct past lifeways rely for their interpretations on the timeworn remains of ancient cultures for guidance; here in our humid Georgia climate, we are further disadvantaged since often only the inorganic residues of prehistoric culture remain. The study of stone tools, sherds of pottery, and the scant remnants of organic items and foods have helped to reconstruct much of the detail of aboriginal life since the arrival of people at the end of the Ice Age. But, unlike our counterparts in arid regions who are able to examine directly numerous organic artifacts preserved in dry caves and rock shelters, experimental archaeologists working in the Southeast are not rigidly bound to a list of facts about the material culture of the native peoples; we seek, at best, to present a range of available technological possibilities. These possibilities extend beyond the reconstruction of material archaeological remains; by combining aspects of archaeology, ethnography, and natural history, a world of organic materials normally hidden from the archaeologist’s trowel emerges. Rarely are we fortunate enough to glimpse the artistry of fibercraft, basketry, and woodworking that doubtless flourished in the prehistoric Southeast. Several flooded sites in Florida have yielded substantial organic remains; we believe that similar objects were probably commonly in use in what is now Georgia.
Such interpretive freedom is a mixed blessing since, on the one hand, one may experiment with ideas and adjust perceptions of prehistory; on the other, one must be attentive to the realities of Stone Age life provided by archaeology, and thus rein in unrealistic ideas before they wander too far afield. To the informed student of primitive technology falls the task of responsibly filling in gaps in our knowledge by recognizing, using, and documenting the wealth of possible material resources in our environments.
Starting with the oldest identifiable culture, the following text covers the next 12,000 years, from the long periods of hunting and gathering known as the Paleoindian and Archaic periods, to the early horticulturists of the Woodland period, and the maize-producing agriculturalists of the Mississippian period, ending with the arrival of Europeans in recent times. While some traditional crafts are still practiced by Indians of the Southeast, much of the accumulated knowledge of the past 12,000 years was lost through the unfortunate acts of the Europeans who ultimately came to dominate North America.
While a growing body of evidence suggests that people inhabited the New World by about 13,500 years ago (often referred to as the Pre-Paleoindian period), the first definable, widespread culture appeared around 12,000 years ago at the end of the last Ice Age. The dry, windswept landscape was strongly shaped by, but just out of reach of, the massive continental ice sheet that lay a few hundred miles to the north. The coastal lowlands extended far beyond the present coast, because massive amounts of the ocean’s water locked up in polar ice sheets lowered sea levels. In this landscape of boreal forest and grassland, these earliest Americans coexisted briefly with numerous Ice Age mammals that are now extinct. In the Southeast were found wooly mammoth, mastodon, and ancient bison, as well as living species including caribou, elk, and deer.
Paleoindian sites are rare and their distinctive projectile points are scarce, often found in the Southeast only as isolated artifacts. Paleoindians are believed to have migrated across the land bridge connecting Siberia and Alaska (a consequence of lower sea levels during glacial times). Their lifestyle was one of hunting and gathering, and the few well preserved kill sites discovered in the Western US indicate an emphasis on large game. This is likewise reflected in their tools: wellmade projectile points, sometimes bearing a characteristic channel flake removed lengthwise from the base (fluted points); long narrow flake blades struck from prepared cores; and unifacial scrapers manufactured by the removal of many small flakes from the edge of a larger flake, thus forming a beveled planing tool. This technology is quite similar to that of the Old World Upper Paleolithic, and attests to the origins of the earliest inhabitants of the New World. Because winters were severe, access to good stone was limited, and the animals these people hunted were often large and dangerous, the stone tools of the Paleoindians were made from the highest quality materials available and were used for as long as possible. To get the most possible use from them, they were often resharpened many times before being discarded.
The specific hunting weapons used by Paleoindians are the topic of speculation; while some projectile points are large enough to be used as tips for heavy thrusting or stabbing spears, most of those found in the Southeast are small enough for use on lighter projectiles thrown with a spear thrower. No direct evidence for spear throwers has been found, and the scarcity of Paleoindian sites does not favor the recovery of an actual spear thrower, yet the Old World flavor of the artifact assemblage favors the presence of this weapon for the pursuit of large, dangerous, and now largely extinct prey.
At the close of the Ice Age about 10,000 years ago, a people who once lived by hunting a variety of large game were forced to alter their way of life in the face of a changing climate. In the Southeast, the extinction of mammoth, mastodon, and the ancient bison, as well as the disappearance from the region of modern species such as elk and caribou, left the whitetail deer as the principal large game animal. Along with deer, the new climate allowed forests with the same species we see today to flourish; they were dominated by oak, hickory, chestnut (now almost gone due to disease), and pine. Focusing on deer, black bear, small game, and mast (nuts) from the mature forests, Early Archaic peoples adopted a generalized hunting and gathering lifestyle with a greater reliance upon plant foods than their Paleoindian ancestors.
Although population increased rapidly in the new, temperate environment, Early Archaic peoples still ranged far and wide, often using major river valleys as territorial corridors for foraging and travel between the Coastal Plain and the interior. Following the example set by their Paleoindian ancestors, they sought high-quality material for their stone tools. Well-made, easily maintained tools were a necessity for highly mobile bands of hunter-gatherers; yet their mobility allowed them to choose the best material from within their territory. The bow was unknown to these people; the primary weapon remained the spear-thrower (or atlatl), and the side- and corner-notched stone points they used are not really arrowheads at all. They are, in fact, tips for darts thrown with the atlatl. Using spear throwers to hunt swift game, hunters equipped lightweight darts with detachable foreshafts that allowed the stone points to serve double duty as both knife and projectile point, and also permitted easy replacement of an accidentally broken tip.
By about 8000 years ago, a minor climatic shift (called the Altithermal) imposed its effect upon the increasing human population of the Southeast. Warmer and dryer conditions west of the Appalachians influenced people to concentrate into river valleys, while the wetter climate that prevailed to the east resulted in a general migration into the uplands. Perhaps in response to their growing population as well as climatic change, Middle Archaic peoples increased their reliance upon plant foods. Their preference for locally available stone from which to make their deceptively simple, contracting-stem projectile points indicates that they foraged in smaller territories than their ancestors. Using simple chipped-stone axes to fell modest-sized trees needed for shelter and tools, they continued to forage in much the same way as their Early Archaic predecessors. During the Middle Archaic, stone spear-thrower weights first appear, an innovation that improved the weapon’s performance. Although we suspect spear throwers had been used since the end of the Paleoindian times (and probably before), perforated stone weights provide the best hard evidence for the existence of this weapon in the Southeast.
Although many of the trends of the Early and Middle Archaic continued into the Late Archaic, it differed from them in some significant ways. In addition to relatively large stemmed projectile points, the Late Archaic was characterized by the first fired clay ceramics in North America. Plant fiber added to the raw clay strengthened (tempered) the unfired vessel. The fiber burned during the firing process, yielding a sturdy vessel bearing the impressions of plant fibers. Fiber-tempered pottery appears around 4500 BP in the Coastal Plain of Georgia and South Carolina.
More commonly found in the southern Appalachians and piedmont of northern Georgia and adjacent states are fragments of soapstone bowls. Contrary to popular belief, these carved stone bowls actually appear after the invention of ceramic pottery, about 3500 BP. The appearance of ceramic and stone vessels signaled the beginning of the end of the 8500 year-old hunting and gathering way of life that had endured since the earliest humans arrived in North America. The invention of pottery indicates a more sedentary lifestyle that included an early form of horticulture for cultivating squash (Cucurbita pepo) and gourds (Lagenaria siceraria). For in-depth information about fibertempered ceramics, soapstone bowls, and other Late Archaic cooking technology, see Kenneth E. Sassaman’s Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology (1993).
The transition from hunting and gathering to sedentism is further evidenced by intensive gathering of shellfish for food along many of the rivers in the Southeast. This practice left immense piles of discarded shell, which sometimes extend for hundreds of meters along creeks and estuarine margins. Increased sedentism likewise brought about changes in axe technology. The simple chipped stone axes that well-served the needs of earlier peoples were refined to suit the rigors of house construction and limited land clearing. While hafting of Late Archaic grooved axes was apparently similar to earlier flaked stone types (a flexible twig or splint wrapped around a groove or constriction), greater durability and maintainability were accomplished by pecking and grinding the surface, and polishing the edge.
By about 3000 years ago, the horticulture experiments begun by Late Archaic peoples became a way of life for people of the Woodland period. Despite the name, Woodland peoples were perhaps less dependent upon the forest environments of the Southeast than their predecessors. Taking the refinements of stone axe technology a step further, the grooved axes of an earlier time gave way to a polished tapered form called a celt. Instead of fastening a flexible sapling around a groove to form a handle, the blade was fitted into a hole in the end of a club-like handle. With friction holding the celt blade securely in its haft, the club-like handle provided additional weight and momentum. This allowed Woodland farmers to clear yet larger areas of land for villages and fields.
During the early part of the Woodland period, corn (maize) had been introduced from its Mesoamerican homeland, but food production based almost entirely on native cultigens—mainly lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium berlandieri), marsh elder (Iva annua), sunflowers (Helianthus annuus), maygrass (Phalaris caroliniana), knotweed (Polygonum sp.), as well as squash and gourds. Although Woodland peoples probably retained some of the hunting and gathering mobility of their ancestors, large-scale production of native seed plants provided a margin of security against food shortages during the lean months of late winter and early spring. Starchier than most wild plant foods, cultivated foods require longer cooking times. As dependence on these foods increased, so too did the demands placed upon pottery. Heavy fiber-tempered pottery gradually was replaced by thinner, more refined sand- and grittempered wares that made a lighter, sturdier vessel.
As they struggled with the new challenges of sedentism, food production, and territoriality, Woodland peoples experimented with ways of adapting their weapons to new circumstances. Surplus food afforded the luxury of remaining longer in one place, and as villages grew, competition for arable land and other resources was inevitable. Also, ambush hunting in food plots became a practical alternative to long-distance hunting forays, while serving to protect increasingly valuable food crops from animals. The venerable spear thrower—an Ice Age legacy of hunters and gatherers in nearly every part of the world— became obsolete in the face of the need for efficiency, stealth, and increased rate of fire. Although requiring a greater initial labor investment than the spear thrower, the bow—one of the most recognizable symbols of native ingenuity—became the weapon of choice for hunting and warfare. And sedentism—the practice of living more or less permanently in one place—allowed adequate storage and seasoning of bowstaves, a cumbersome commodity requiring shelter.
As with many technological innovations, the core idea of string-and-wood propelled projectiles did not spring suddenly onto the stage of prehistory; indeed, the bow was merely a technological refinement of flexible spear-thrower technology. During the developmental phase of the technology, simple, light draw-weight bows could be constructed easily from readily available materials and used for fishing or hunting small game. While a mobile hunter/gatherer could easily carry additional twofoot long wooden blanks from which to produce atlatls, the same wanderer, in seeking to make a more substantial weapon, could scarcely afford to travel about the countryside with a five-foot long nonfunctional bowstave; nor could he leave it behind to be potentially exposed to the destructive elements of the humid Eastern US. In other words, archaeologists think Woodland peoples had to stay in one place long enough for the bowstave to season, before they could finish the bow.
As in other parts of the world, the advent of agriculture and sedentism, along with necessity, resulted in the development of the bow-and-arrow, the ultimate Neolithic weapon. During the transition from spear-thrower to bow, a profusion of projectile point designs were tested as hunters sought lighter, faster projectiles. Dominated by a variety of small stemmed types and relatively large triangular points, the triangular style ultimately succeeded all others in the Southeast. By the end of the Woodland period, triangular projectile points had become much smaller. Although often called “bird points” in the mistaken belief that only small game could be taken with such a small projectile point, these tips are among the few types that may be confidently called arrowheads. Attached to rivercane arrows launched from powerful bows by skilled archers, the tiny arrow points proved fatal to the largest creatures of the Eastern Woodlands, whether deer, bear, or human.
The Woodland Period also signals the beginning of the construction of earthen mounds. Sedentism brought with it the necessity for greater social organization, and also permitted the accumulation of material goods. From this came the concept of status, and by Middle Woodland times some individuals were interred in conical earthen mounds, often with elaborate funerary items and trade goods acquired from great distances.
Corn—or more correctly, maize—is known only sporadically in the preceding Woodland period, and certainly not until late Woodland times is it present in sufficient quantity to qualify as a significant food source across the Southeast. Yet by the time new varieties of maize as well as new ideas arrived from Mexico around AD 900, the cultural mechanisms for large-scale food production initiated in the Woodland period were firmly in place. With nearly 2000 years of horticulture experience, maize claimed a central place in Southeastern Native American culture, alongside beans, squash, sunflowers, jerusalem artichokes, gourds, and tobacco.
The Mississippian period, so called because of the extensively cultivated bottomlands of the Mississippi River, represents the most complex political organization and extensive social stratification the Woodland tradition of tribe- or clan-based villages, the Mississippi River drainage and much of the Southeast was dominated by an array of polities (or political units) known as chiefdoms. Though much of our knowledge about the geographical size of chiefdoms is lost, it is believed that some (such as Coosa, in northwestern Georgia) were quite large. Each chiefdom consisted of several villages, each of which was answerable to a central (paramount) chief or leader believed to have god-like powers, who resided on the flat-topped earthen mound, often with one or two other influential leaders living atop lesser mounds in the village compound. The head man exacted agricultural tribute from his subjects, and, during lean times he oversaw the redistribution of food and other goods to his subjects. In return, the people were required to provide labor to the chief. They constructed his house upon the spot where his predecessors had lived; upon his death, his subjects often buried him beneath the dirt floor of his mound-summit residence. Then, in accordance with custom, the house was often burned. In preparation for the new heir, a new mantle of earth was added to the mound, and a new house constructed. Thus were the great mounds of the Mississippian Indians constructed.
In addition to the chiefly mounds, the village compound often included residential houses with walls constructed of upright posts interwoven with cane or twigs, and covered with clay, roofed with thatch or bark; a council house, which occasionally took the form of a semi-subterranean earthlodge; and a central plaza, which served as a gathering place and game court. In the plaza, the men played chunkey, a game wherein spears or sticks are thrown at a rolling, wheel-like stone (a chunkey stone), often accompanied by copious gambling. The plaza was also used as a ball court for the ball game, the southern equivalent of lacrosse. A rough (and occasionally fatal) enterprise, the ball game was known as “little brother of war,” and was used to settle disputes between hostile groups as a way of avoiding outright warfare.
The chiefdom was a formidable political and military force, and Mississippian towns, enclosed in their palisades of sharpened, upright timbers, often contained populations numbering in the thousands. Equipped with powerful bows, their arrows tipped with tiny triangular stone points, garfish scales, antler, or often just sharpened cane alone, warriors defended their towns and villages. But they were entirely unprepared for that which was to come.
With the entrance of Hernando De Soto into the interior of the Southeast in 1539, the region’s history was forever changed (Hudson 1997). De Soto’s initial exploration was followed by more expeditions, first by other Spaniards (Hudson 1990), and then by the English and French (Hudson and Tesser 1994). Iron tools and other trade goods, diseases to which the natives were not immune, and the inherent disadvantages faced by Indians who survived European diseases and depredations all contributed to the devastation of Indian culture. Some groups, like the Muskogee-speaking Creeks further south, maintained considerable cultural identity, although still dependent upon European trade goods. The Cherokees of northern Georgia, however, attempted a different strategy. By the late 1700s their material culture differed little from that of their Euroamerican neighbors. Even with log houses, farms, orchards, slaves, porcelain, and a written language, they suffered much the same fate as their native kinsmen. Throughout the 1830’s they were removed to the Oklahoma Territory by decree of US President Andrew Jackson, and their homes and land were seized by white settlers. The rest is literally “history.”
Bense, Judith A.
1994 Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: Paleoindian to World War I. Academic Press, San Diego.
Hudson, Charles
1976 Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Exploration of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-1568. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
1997 Knights of Spain, Warriors of the Sun: Hernando de Soto and the South’s Ancient Chiefdoms. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Hudson, Charles, and Carmen Chaves Tesser (editors)
1994 The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and Europeans in the American South, 1521-1704. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
