Society for Georgia Archaeology » archaeological methods

Tag: archaeological methods

These articles from all over the SGA website have been tagged with 'archaeological methods'. Tags are subject identifiers that make it easier for you to search for all content that covers a certain area of interest. Use the 'tag cloud' at the bottom right of the sidebar: click on a tag, and all articles with that tag are gathered for you on one page. Have suggestions for tags for a particular article? Let us know.

Maps and mapping: Georgia’s coast in 1562

1562_Gutierrez_map_Brit_Mus_SE_coast.jpg

Portion of the British Library’s copy of the 1562 map by cartographer Diego Gutiérrez and engraver Hieronymus Cock. Note in the upper left of this screen grab the
word “APALCHEN;” this is a precursor of the word “Appalachia,” still used for this region.

What’s in a map? Have you used overlay capabilities of the free computer program Google Earth? Here we take the section of the 1562 Gutiérrez map that spans the coastline of what is now Georgia and map it to today’s coastline to see what we can learn.

First, the map. This version is from the British Library’s online collection (currently, the map’s link is here). As our own Library of Congress notes,

In 1562 Diego Gutiérrez, a Spanish cartographer…, and Hieronymus Cock, a noted engraver from Antwerp, collaborated in the preparation of a spectacular and ornate map of what was then referred to as the fourth part of the world, America. It was the largest engraved map of America to that time.

Further, the Library of Congress online notes:

Gutiérrez’s magnificent 1562 map of America was not intended to be a scientifically or navigationally exacting document, although it was of large scale and remained the largest map of America for a century. It was, rather, a ceremonial map, a diplomatic map, as identified by the coats of arms proclaiming possession. Through the map, Spain proclaimed to the nations of Western Europe its American territory, clearly outlining its sphere of control, not by degrees, but with the appearance of a very broad line for the Tropic of Cancer clearly drawn on the map.

In our modern world of satellites and lasers, we are accustomed to using maps that more accurately portray the landscape around us—and the ocean floor, the surface of the moon, and more!

Gutiérrez, however, was working with far different data so that his map approximates and estimates what is now Georgia’s coastline. And, since the commission was made more to support territorial claims of the Spanish leadership under King Felipe II (reigned from 1556 until his death at age 71 in 1598) than to provide guidance for mariners, the emphasis was not on the accuracy of Georgia’s coast.

1562_Gutierrez_map_Brit_Mus_overlay.jpg

This orientation of the overlay aligns the stretch of the coastline from the notation “Río de Santa Elena” northeastward to the North Carolina’s Outer Banks. This area was chosen because the Florida peninsula is disproportionately wide and the map seems generally less precise along the Florida coastline than along the Carolinas’. In addition, the Georgia bight is more exaggerated than we know it actually was (the coastline bends westward too much).

“Río de S. Elena” as oriented here lines up with the location of the Spanish settlement called Santa Elena, which was on what we now call Parris Island. This archaeological site, which includes a French Fort that predates the Spanish occupation, was declared a National Historic Landmark in January, 2001.

This alignment means that southwest of the “Río de S. Elena” is the notation “R. de tierra llana.” “R.” most likely stands for “Río” or River. “Tierra llana” means flat lands, or plains.

So, which river do you think the cartographer is indicating by “River of the Flat Plains”?

We also have demonstrated this Google Earth overlay operation with an 1864 map of downtown Atlanta. Read about that here.

Tools of the trade

shovel_duo_in_sun.jpg

You may think that the number one tool of archaeologists is the trowel—or perhaps the paintbrush.

In reality, archaeologists working in Georgia spend more time with a shovel or a computer. Or a pencil and paper.

They spend time with the computer because it helps with analysis, graphic production, and report-writing. It is a highly effective tool when excavating or in the laboratory after excavation. Archaeologists spend time—while working on an archaeological site—with the lowly pencil/paper combination because it allows quick and inexpensive note-taking and sketch-mapping.

They spend time—in the field—with the shovel because it usually is the right tool for moving the right amount of soil. Archaeological investigations, like so many projects in these economic times, are underfunded. Thus, efficiency is prized. However, given that archaeological remains tend to be quite delicate, it can be tricky to determine the most efficient way to obtain good data from buried archaeological remains. Many times, the shovel allows the most efficient excavation. A backhoe is used sometimes, and a dental pick and brush are used sometimes. But, hour by hour, considerable archaeological fieldwork is accomplished using an ordinary shovel. But, which kind?

The photo shows two types of shovels you might find in a field archaeologist’s hand here in Georgia. On the left is a shovel with a blunt or straight edge. The one on the right is often called a round-point shovel. The leading edge of both are usually filed to sharpen the edge, so that they more smoothly cut through the soil—and roots.

Square-nosed shovels are commonly used to exavate square and rectangular units. The units are usually measured in meters: 1x1s or 1x2s, 2x2s, etc. The flat blade means that an experienced operator can removed a thin layer of soil (referred to formally as “schnitting,” from the German word “to cut”). This allows the excavator to carefully monitor the soil for artifacts and soil color/density changes that can indicate features. By removing small amounts of soil with each shovel-load, perhaps even a paper-thin slice, the archaeologist can determine just when soil changes begin or just where a small artifact came from that escaped their eye as they excavated.

Round-point shovels are not used for the type of excavation described above, since they would not remove a flat “slice” of soil. They are often used for shovel testing. Shovel tests are usually about 30-50 centimeters across, and round, or sometimes square. Shovel testing is used when the presence of buried archaeological remains are unknown, and archaeologists need to “prospect” beneath the surface to determine what is there. The round-point shovel allows the archaeologist to excavate a small “window” beneath the surface without doing much lateral damage to any intact remains. It works better for vertical holes than the square-nosed shovel.

When the soil leaves the shovel, it is deposited in a screen…but that’s a story for another time….

Archaeologists may have specific (and often personal) preferences regarding the angle that the shovel blade has with respect to the handle, so that not all shovels for sale in a hardware store may have a shape that an archaeologist would want to use. Why would the blade/handle angle make a difference?

CAUTION: Learning to file the edge of a shovel is a tricky business, and is best undertaken with great care (and adult supervision if you’re a youngster) while wearing leather gloves or an equivalent buffer for your tender skin. Many archaeologists have scars on their hands from the days when they were learning to sharpen shovels by hand. Don’t let it happen to you!

2010 lesson plan now available online

2010_Archaeo_Month_LP_banner.jpg

The Society for Georgia Archaeology proudly presents this year’s lesson plan! It offers information, instruction, pictures, discussions, activities, and suggestions for additional reading and online resources.

The theme SGA has chosen for Georgia Archaeology Month 2010 is Making the Past Come to Life! Exploring Ancient Techniques. We hope that the readers of this lesson plan will become familiar with a range of skills and techniques used by the early inhabitants of Georgia, and perhaps better understand the dynamic interaction between the natural environment and humans and their culture.

Attend our Spring Meeting on May 15th at The Parks at Chehaw, just outside of Albany (map below), and see these techniques demonstrated. You will see flintknapping, cordage, burn and scrape woodworking, weaving and woven bags, bone tools, steatite carving, basket making, pottery, brain tanning of hides, fire by friction, edible/medicinal plants, and other skills. The demonstrators and archaeologists include Ben Kirkland, Scott Jones, James Stewart, Jackie Briggs, Sean Taylor, Carl Etheridge, Brian Floyd, Keith Grenoble, and Nancy Basket. For more on the meeting, click here.

Much of the information in the lesson plan was extracted from Scott Jones’s book, A View to the Past: Experience and Experiment in Primitive Technology, which is discussed elsewhere on this website. For more information about primitive skills or to order A View to the Past, please visit Scott’s website here. The SGA sincerely appreciates Scott’s myriad contributions to this lesson plan.

The lesson plan explores primitive skills, defined as “belonging to or characteristic of an early stage of development.” The plan notes:

As you study the ways of the ancients you begin to notice that it is the relative simplicity of their techniques that allows us to use similar skills in survival situations today. But, you also need to have some knowledge of and respect for your natural environment. [page 8]

Activities include suggestions for making a clay gorget necklace, using a digging stick in creating a garden, and more.

Click here to access the SGA’s 2010 lesson plan that explores techniques that ancient peoples would have used near-daily.

Casting a critical eye on historical research

Historical research is an adventure into the past! Archaeologists use historical research to amplify the archaeological record. History is the past that can be amplified by written records. Even archaeologists interested in prehistory will do some historical research. For example, they may be interested in the chain of land ownership of a prehistoric site.

Simply, historical research involves delving into documents to understand a topic within the context of its era or time period. Before you do that…

What’s a document?

Documents are items with information that communicates something. They used to be only physical items like books, letters, land deeds, maps, bank checks, placques, old newspapers, and sketches. Now we categorize digital materials like blogs, and even this online story, as documents.

Historians consider documents to be surviving evidence of the past. Some historians use archaeological data, but most archaeologists are open to using documents as an aid to understanding the past.

Consider source types

Whatever you find, you must keep in mind what type of document or information you have—in short: what type of source does it have? Historians and archaeologists using historical research techniques categorize sources as primary, secondary, and tertiary.

These source types indicate how removed the document is from the event or situation they document. For example, the letter written by a soldier right after a battle he was in is a primary source about that conflict—the letter constitutes a record made by someone who was there and participated in the event. Secondary sources gather primary—and other secondary—source materials and synthesize or discuss them. A typical history book is a secondary source. There are also tertiary sources. Encyclopedias and many textbooks are tertiary sources, if they compile information from secondary sources.

Formal, academic research bibliographies by convention do not include tertiary sources, although the author may have consulted them and found them useful. Wikipedia is considered a tertiary source and therefore is not typically referenced in papers, articles, and books. (The exception is if the author specifically addresses an issue discussed in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not referenced for the information it records.)

A question

Historical research arises first from a question—or a series of questions. Perhaps you begin with something you wonder about from your own life. You may look that old building over there—when was it built and by whom? You may be curious about a historic figure or event—where did Juliette Gordon Low live? Or your question may be quite personal: where was my Grandma born?

Consideration of your original question may raise additional questions.

A topic

Now you need to focus your question or questions. This becomes a research topic—the building or a historical person in the examples above. You may dip into a readily available tertiary source (including Wikipedia!) to help you focus your topic.

Exploring your topic

Your next step is to gather relevant information on your topic.

Talk to people.

After that, probably your first and primary sources are documents. The most obvious place to find documents is a library—including special collections such as donations by individuals (the Internet is not enough!). Put your ideas in the context of other theories—in short, learn what others have written about your topic.

library_with_full_shelves.jpg

Consider the assumptions you and other researchers have made. Often assumptions are related to judgements—look for data that supports or refutes your assumptions. You may make assumptions about the overall feel of the social climate in the past. For example, you may think that it was an angry time in Atlanta in the early 1960s prior to implementation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Check newspaper articles, etc. to decide if this assumption is correct or not. Indeed, you may find that your assumptions are somewhat correct, but that the situation was far more nuanced.

Talk to people. This helps focus your thoughts and figure out what you need to research further.

Synthesis and writing

Now that you have gathered information relevant to your topic, you have to bring it together! Some people begin with the bibliography, so they feel they’ve made progress before they begin writing. Many writers find an outline a valuable way to begin. Once your synthesis is underway, don’t be afraid to recheck your assumptions or to verify some information that seems poorly supported or somewhat ephemeral.

Finally

So, historical research undoubtedly is an adventure into the past. It can be fun and produce surprises! Log in and discuss a surprise finding you have made….

2010 SAA Electronic Symposium papers available

Lately, the Society for American Archaeology has included an Electronic Symposium as part of its annual meeting. This year’s annual meeting is scheduled for 14–18 April, 2010. The topic of this year’s Electronic Symposium is “The Canvas of Space: Method and Theory of Spatial Investigations in the 21st Century.”

Eleven papers are posted online so attendees may read them prior to the symposium. This spurs discussion. It also means that anyone who can get online can download and read these papers.

You may find Brian D. Jones’s paper An Exploratory Data Analysis Approach to Artifact Density Correlation interesting, for example. He considers the problem of establishing statistically significant correlations among data (artifact locations) that are plotted in three dimensions—such as from typical excavation data. Archaeologists commonly try to figure out such associations, either what absence means (a house in an artifactually empty space) or what patterns of distribution mean. Jones’s model is interesting, and provides some food for thought. In short, Jones is seeking to fine-tune analysis of context, which is vitally important in archaeological interpretations.

Blue jeans and radiocarbon dating

This Weekly Ponder began with an attempt to explain “cal BP.” The abbreviation stands for a calibrated date Before Present. But, what does “cal BP” really mean?

Before Present assumes “present” is AD 1950. This is a scientific convention. Agreement on an arbritrary date is necessary because obviously if “present” was the day the notation was made, the date would be different each time the term was used.

The “cal” part is more complicated.

Archaeological dating is in two forms. They are called relative and absolute. (This is not double-dating!)

Relative dates reflect the relative order of events in the past. That is, geological and archaeological stratigraphy has layers, or deposits that change as you go deeper. A basic assumption is that older materials are deeper. That is relative dating.

Think of a layer cake. It has layers of cake separated by frosting. A typical three-layer cake may even have different flavors of cake or frosting. Even making the cake, you have to put one layer in place first, and build up from the bottom. Thus, the relative stratigraphy of the cake means that the lowest layer “came first.”

Relative dating begins with investigators finding artifacts, features, and other ancient remains in context, or in the deposit where they were abandoned. Relative dating can also rely on distinctive styles of artifacts, for example pottery decorations. Therefore, ceramics with identical (or nearly identical) decorative patterns and manufacturing techniques found in different locations are assumed to date to the same period or periods.

Consider clothing styles. Jeans are a particular kind of trousers made from a fabric called denim, for the style of weaving (called twill) and place the fabric was originally made (apparently), and, traditionally, a distinctive blue color made from indigo dye, which came from tropical plants of the genus Indigofera. In the mid- to late-1700s, Georgia and other southern colonies exported indigo to Britain, which encouraged the crop by offering a bounty on it. When the Revolutionary War began, of course that bounty (we might call it a subsidy today) was withdrawn, and prices fell. Also, indigo growers in more tropical locales in the Americas could grow indigo more efficiently (more crops per year). Thus, indigo ceased to be a commercial crop in Georgia.

As you are probably well aware, the cut or style of jeans has varied over time. Early jeans were work clothing and worn baggy enough to allow physical movement, including bending and stretching. This was the 1800s, when only a rare woman wore dungarees. In the 1950s, some people began wearing jeans that were tighter. Waistlines and hem styles have changed.

In general, if you know a lot about fabric and fashion, you can “date” a pair of jeans based on these features. This is an example of relative dating. Consider the two photographs shown here. The upper one shows a woman’s jean, in black not the traditional blue. The lower one is a man’s jean, in blue, with a looser fit. Both date to around AD 2000.

For a long time, relative dating is the only kind of dating archaeologists and geologists had. This was frustrating because they didn’t know how much older a layer was compared to the one above it. Is it just a few years, or many generations—or much longer? Prior to the development of absolute dates, having only relative dates was a major source of frustration for archaeologists.

Radiocarbon dating is the first absolute dating method that was developed, and is perhaps the best-known. In short, radiocarbon dating has to do with minute amounts of carbon-14 that are in living things, including you, which chemically decay at a regular rate to carbon-12. When a living thing dies, it stops taking in carbon-14, and the carbon-14 it contains begins decay.

Almost all carbon on earth is carbon-12, but a small percentage is carbon-14. “Normal” carbon atoms have a nucleus of six protons and six neutrons. Carbon-14, is radioactive, and has eight neutrons. Chemically, it is not stable, and seeks to become stable by ridding itself of those extra neutrons. This process is called decay. The decay is radioactive because some radiation is also emitted in this process.

But the carbon-14 is not chemically stable, and disintegrates, or throws off excess neutrons to become more stable. The rate of this disintegration is such that carbon-14′s half-life is now understood to be 5730 ± 40 years. This means that after a living thing dies and 5730 ± 40 years has passed, the dead organism will have only half the carbon-14 it originally had. In another 5730 ± 40 years, half of that half will remain (that is, one-quarter of what it had to begin with). However, for historical reasons, the half-life that radiocarbon laboratories use is 5568 ± 30 years, called the Libby half-life; it is named after one of the originators of the methods for radiocarbon dating. With any reported radiocarbon date, you need to know the half-life the lab used to be able to properly calibrate the date.

Radiocarbon laboratories extract small samples, for example from bone or textile fragments, and process them with great care to cleanse them and avoid contamination, and produce a radiocarbon date. Radiocarbon dating only works until about 50,000 years ago, maybe a little bit more. This is because the carbon-14 half-life means the sample gets too small to measure, or effectively disappears.

In slightly more detail, radiocarbon dating is based on the fact that as plants grow they “fix” carbon molecules from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the process of photosynthesis. The atmosphere has slight variations in the amount of the isotope of carbon called carbon-14 or radiocarbon. The carbon-14 is constantly produced in the stratosphere by cosmic rays colliding with nitrogen atoms in the outer atmosphere. This production, however, is not constant, which means dates need calibration to compensate for irregularities.

Scientists discovered that radiocarbon dates are not identical to calendar dates because of variations in atmospheric carbon. Therefore, to make the radiocarbon date “match” a calendar date, it must be calibrated. One of the major variations in atmospheric carbon came from detonation of atom bombs. Still, the atmosphere in the ancient past had variation, too. This variation is sometimes referred to as “wiggles” in the calibration curve.

All of this is by way of saying that “cal BP” indicates that the date designated this way is a calibrated date, and therefore matches the calendar, and is reported as years before 1950. Therefore 2000 cal BP indicates a the calendar year 50 BC, and 1000 cal BP indicates AD 950. Some dates are reported “uncalib,” which of course indicates that the date is not calibrated, or adjusted based on the calibration curve.

Because there is some imprecision in radiocarbon measurements, scientists report radiocarbon dates “plus or minus” a few years. Thus, a radiocarbon date is best reported as a range rather than a single year. Thus, a date might be reported as 2614 ± 48 years cal BP. This means that there is a high degree of probability that the sample dates between 2662 and 2566 BP, or the calendar years 712 to 616 BC. This probability is also sometimes called a one-sigma (often designated using the Greek letter: σ) or one standard deviation range. Sometimes the plus and minus ranges are not even, and the date might be reported like this: 750 +24/-44 cal BP, indicating a probable range of AD 1156 to 1224.

To add another wrinkle, calibration may also indicate more than one date range, because of “wiggles” in the calibration curve. For certain parts of the curve, there’s a multi-modal distribution. This means that a single sample being dated may have two, or sometimes, three dates, and with current information we cannot tell in the laboratory which is the most likely date. All of this indicates how important careful excavation is in the radiocarbon dating of archaeological remains.

A properly reported radiocarbon date in academic publications will include a date range rather than just a single date, so that anyone can check on the assumptions that were made in calculating the date, along with uncertainties. Proper reporting also notes the laboratory that did the dating. These days, the lab may also date more than one sample, to improve accuracy and precision. In addition, archaeologists try to submit more than one sample for dating, to amplify their understanding of the duration of occupation of a settlement or house, for example. In most articles aimed at the general public, however, these details are glossed over, or avoided—which can cause some confusion. Remember though, that however a calibrated radiocarbon date is reported, it is based on a probabilistic curve, and this dating method can never produce an absolute calendar date.

In fact, the radiocarbon curve is still being refined, as we noted elsewhere on this website.

Radiocarbon dating is not the only kind of absolute dating, but discussing the others is beyond the scope of this article. Stay tuned!

The links given in this article will lead you to more information on radiocarbon dating, and dating in archaeology in general. Comments? Login and leave yours!

Mysteries of prehistoric turkey domestication

Figure 4 from the Speller et al. article in PNAS.

Among the world’s major regions, ancient North America is not known for having many domesticated animals. One exception, Camilla F. Speller and her colleagues note in a free article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America titled “Ancient Mitochondrial DNA Analysis Reveals Complexity of Indigenous North American Turkey Domestication,” is the wild turkey, or Meleagris gallopavo (with several subspecies defined based on plumage & geographic range, and confined—at least prehistorically—to several regions in North America and south to what is now southern Mexico)*. They write in their conclusion:

Domestication is a complex process, with human–animal interactions that vary considerably in terms of their intensity and their degree of human intervention…. The ancient DNA and archaeological evidence collected in this study reveals a wide range of past human–animal interactions within the Southwest United States, ranging from the hunting and/or capture of local wild turkeys, to the intensive husbandry and breeding of an imported domestic turkey lineage. Moreover, the DNA data indicate this Southwest domestic turkey lineage (H1) was maintained and propagated for well over a millennium, despite significant shifts in the geographic distribution and settlement patterns of Southwestern farming populations. This long history of turkey use undoubtedly reflects the economic and symbolic importance of domestic turkey for the Ancestral Puebloans, and other precontact Southwestern cultures.

This in-depth study presents conclusive evidence for the domestication of an indigenous North American animal. Moreover, as one of the few indigenous domesticates, the turkey represents an important case study through which to examine New World animal domestication in general. Previous DNA studies have exposed multiple domestications of Old World animals such as cattle, pig, sheep…, and this study supports a similar multicenter model for the New World. The DNA data point to at least two occurrences of turkey domestication in precontact America, one involving the South Mexican wild turkey, likely in south-central Mexico, and a second involving Rio Grande/Eastern wild turkey populations, with a subsequent introduction of domesticated stocks into the Southwest proper. In addition to significantly redirecting future research into North American domestication centers, this extensive study demonstrates the complexity and sophistication of ancient husbandry and breeding practices for one of the New World’s few domesticated animals.

Turkey bones have been identified from archaeological remains across the Southeast, including sites in Georgia. Isn’t it interesting to ponder how the Eastern wild turkey spread so far in prehistoric times, once domesticated? Evidence of penning is rare, but archaeologists keep their eye out for it. How would we identify if people were keeping turkeys penned near their residences?

This paragraph from the Speller et al. article is informative:

Our best evidence that “wild” birds were being kept at habitation sites comes from the H2 coprolites found at Turkey Pen Ruins in Utah, indicating that H2 birds were present and presumably confined at the site. These coprolites occurred in a thick dry midden dating almost entirely to the Basketmaker II period (ca. 200 BC–AD 450) with one H2 specimen appearing in the earliest dated stratum…. Thus, the capture and provisioning of local wild birds may have been synchronous with the introduction of the domestic birds into the region. A better understanding of the nature, timing, and extent of early wild turkey exploitation will require genetic analysis of securely dated bones and/or coprolites from additional Early Agricultural sites. Additionally, investigating whether wild H2 birds were being confined and provisioned in conjunction with domestic birds must be addressed through detailed analyses of archaeological contexts, isotopic data from bones, and palynological and macrofloral evidence from coprolites.

The terms H1 and H2 refer to haplogroups, or creatures sharing a common ancestor, identified through their genetic code (genotypes). These two haplogroups are identified by these researchers as indicating two different lineages (varieties) of domesticated turkeys.

Across much of the Southwest, turkey does not seem to have been in heavy rotation in the diet until the AD 1100s, although it appears in the archaeological record much earlier.

Do you know how archaeologists can tell if people were eating turkeys? And if those turkeys were wild or domesticated? And, perhaps more important, why does it matter which they were?

* A second turkey species, Meleagris ocellata, is native to the Yucatan Peninsula in southeastern modern Mexico.

Archaeogenetics summarized in Current Biology

Global Genetic History of Homo sapiens is the title of a new special issue of Current Biology (volume 20, issue 4, dated 23 February 2010), with eight papers available free online.

The first article is a guest editorial by Colin Renfrew, a British archaeologist who has worked for decades in the Middle East. His books often focus on the emergence of civilization, the emergence of Indo-European languages, and a relatively new subdiscipline in archaeology called archaeogenetics. Renfrew has defined archaeogenetics as research at the confluence of archaeology, linguistics, and genetics. Archaeogenetics, therefore, uses molecular genetics to expand archaeological data about early human populations. This is particularly useful in reconstructions—or models—of early human migrations and the populating of the globe.

Renfrew’s editorial, “Archaeogenetic—Towards a ‘New Synthesis’?” sets up the other articles in this special issue. The next six papers address human migration in specific geographic areas: Africa, Europe, South Asia, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas. Each provides considerable detail and summarizes genetic, linguistic, and archaeological data for the region.

Renfrew closes his introductory editorial with these observations:

Perhaps the most important general point that can be drawn from the reviews assembled in this special issue might be that we have not yet learnt how to interpret the data very effectively. A number of contributors have commented upon the need for simulation studies, based upon explicit models which might allow the testing of specific scenarios…, and this is likely to be one of the most important future research directions. Above all, the pace of research is now so fast that new insights are soon likely to become available. These are early days in the field of archaeogenetic research, and I predict that over the next twenty years or so a more coherent synthesis of the data from genetics, archaeology and linguistics is likely to emerge than we can yet envisage. [page R165]

Figure 1* from O’Rourke and Raff’s article.

As an example of the geographically defined articles, consider the one on the Americas, “The Human Genetic History of the Americas: The Final Frontier” by Dennis H. O’Rourke and Jennifer A. Raff. O’Rourke and Raff marshal mitochondrial DNA data (which is passed down through the maternal line) that shows five major genetic groups among New World peoples. They conclude that these data, along with other genetic data, suggest New World peoples coalesced “just prior to or immediately after the LGM”—the Late Glacial Maximum. The LGM refers to the last time ice sheets extended far south/north from the Earth’s poles, when mid-latitude locales were cooler and drier than today. As the ice formed, it lowered sea levels, when the ice captured sea water. Thus, more land was exposed on the margins of continents, and the Bering Sea land bridge could have provided a “highway” for Asian peoples traveling eastward, either on land or in small boats following the coast. Given the very early dates for human occupations from southern South America, O’Rourke and Raff note:

…the archaeological data in the Americas continue to raise questions regarding the timing and mode of colonization. The resolution afforded by the newer molecular data assists in evaluating alternative migration scenarios. [page R202]

Yet, even with all the data they bring together, O’Rourke and Raff conclude, as do many researchers regarding a wide variety of topics, that “more work is needed.” They write:

“Complete agreement between mtDNA, Y-chromosomal DNA and autosomal genetic systems has not yet been realized with respect to colonization models….” [page R206]

This is consistent with observations in the final article, “The Genetics of Human Adaptation: Hard Sweeps, Soft Sweeps, and Polygenic Adaptation” by Jonathan K. Pritchard, Joseph K. Pickrell, and Graham Coop. They agree with the last quote above:

Ultimately, a comprehensive model of the nature of selection would tell us how much adaptation occurs by any of a variety of different models and mechanisms. … To make real progress on these problems will require much greater integration of selection studies with biological information. [page R213]

These articles that summarize the current understanding of human archaeogenetics are insightful and informative, although some of the data they discuss is rather technical. Perhaps after you take a look at one or two of them, you will have some comments you’d like to note here—please login and do so!

The link to the special issue is here; you can download any of the eight papers individually.

* The original figure caption reads: “Hypothesized routes for original migration into the Americas. The Beringian and Pacific coastal routes (blue and yellow, respectively) may have been roughly contemporaneous following the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), although contemporaneity is not certain. The more hypothetical northern migration path (red) implies a pre-LGM population movement. These migration paths need not be considered mutually exclusive.”

SAA newsletter available via new reader

saa_logo_wide

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.

Are historical records true?

Thompkins_bear_hunt_1901

Picture from Frontispiece of Riparian Lands of the Mississippi River: Past—Present—Prospective, by Frank H. Thompkins (1901, published in New Orleans, available as a free download from Google Books). Picture post-dates de Tocqueville’s trip.

At last, at last, my dear Mama, the signal is given and here we are cruising down the Mississippi, as rapidly as possible under the combined influence of steam and a strong current. We were beginning to despair of ever escaping the wilderness. If you take the trouble to examine your map, you will see that we had reached a pretty pass. In front of us, the Mississippi half frozen and no boats launching; overhead, a Russian sky, pure and frozen. We could have retraced our steps, you say. But that option was fast disappearing. During our sojourn in Memphis, the Tennessee had frozen, and carriages could no longer cross. So there we were, in the middle of a triangle formed by the Mississippi, the Tennessee, and impenetrable backwoods to the south. We might as well have been marooned on a rock in mid-ocean, inhabiting a world made expressly for us, without papers, without news of the rest of mankind, and facing the prospect of a long winter. That is how we spent a week. I must say, however, that except for our anxiety, those days were not disagreeable. We were staying with good people, who did their utmost to ingratiate themselves. Only twenty paces from our house was the edge of the world’s most beautiful forest, a sublime place, picturesque even under snow. We had rifles and plenty of powder and lead. A few miles from the village lived an Indian nation, the Chikasaws; once on their land, we always found a few natives happy to join us in the hunt. Hunting and warring are the sole occupations of the Indian, his pleasures as well. For large game we would have had to go too far afield. Instead, we killed a great many pretty birds of a species unknown in France. We found this highly diverting, though it didn’t do us much credit in the eyes of our allies. I killed red, blue, yellow birds, including parrots with plumage more brilliant than any I had ever seen. That’s how time passed, lightly at any given moment, but with the future weighing upon us.

So wrote the French historian known as Alexis de Tocqueville, in a letter dated 25 December 1831, while he was staying along the Mississippi River waiting for winter to let up so he could continue his trip. He had landed in New York City in May 1831, and had been traveling ever since researching American prisons, along with his supervisor, Gustave de Beaumont. Both worked for as prosecutors for the French government. (This letter has been excerpted in The Hudson Review, volume LXII, no. 3, translated by Frederick Brown, and available here on the web.) De Tocqueville is best known for the two volumes of De la démocratie en Amérique (usually translated as Democracy in America) that were published in 1835 and in 1840.

Toward the end of this excerpt, de Tocqueville describes Native Americans of the Chickasaw tribe (one of the so-called Five Civilized Tribes, which also included the Choctaw, Cherokee, Creek, and Seminole groups; all were officially removed from southeastern North America beginning in 1832, just after de Tocqueville’s visit, but that’s a story for another time/place), and their enjoyment of going hunting. What does he mean? Do all Chickasaws like to hunt? Perhaps de Tocqueville really means that MALE Chickasaws liked to hunt?

There’s another good clue for an archaeologist in this letter that would be difficult to document archaeologically. De Tocqueville writes that large game had been extirpated from around the community where he was trapped by the winter weather. Why was this? Do you think it was due to overhunting? Instead of hunting large game, when he went out nearby, de Tocqueville killed birds. He also describes those birds as very colorful, probably suggesting particular species to any ornithologists knowledgable about this area.

Historical archaeologists have the distinct advantage over their peers who work primarily with prehistoric peoples in that they have historical records that may illuminate the archaeological record. Sometimes, however, the historical archival materials are at odds with archaeological remains.

For example, written records may indicate that a family abstained from alcohol, yet among the foundations of their house, archaeologists may find a trove of bourbon bottles. What is the best way to interpret them? Does their location beneath the house necessarily mean that the family inhabiting the house above consumed their contents? Or, does their location, hidden in the basement, instead suggest secret consumption of alcohol? What additional archaeological data would help refine interpretation of the buried booze bottles?

New radiocarbon calibration curve: IntCal09

An international working group called INTCAL has announced an updated radiocarbon calibration curve. As Michael Balter notes in ScienceNOW online:

To calibrate the period extending from the present to about 12,000 years ago, the team has used thousands of overlapping tree-ring segments from the Northern Hemisphere, which provide a very accurate check of raw radiocarbon dates and how much they must be corrected. But for dates older than the available tree-ring record, the researchers had to turn to several other, less-precise data sets on ancient CO2 levels, including fossil foraminifers (single-celled organisms that secrete calcium carbonate) and corals.

The new curve is called IntCal09, and is available here.

The technical article, published in the December 2009 issue of the journal Radiocarbon, is here (lead author is Reimer), but is not free.

Full reference

Reimer, Paula J., Mike G.L. Baillie, E. Bard, Alex Bayliss, J. Warren Beck, Paul G. Blackwell, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Caitlin E. Buck, G.S. Burr, R. Lawrence Edwards, Michael Friedrich, Pieter M. Grootes, Thomas P. Guilderson, Irka Hajdas, T.J. Heaton, Alan G. Hogg, Konrad A. Hughen, Klaus Felix Kaiser, Bernd Kromer, F.G. McCormac, Sturt W. Manning, Ron W. Reimer, D.A. Richards, J.R. Southon, Sahra Talamo, Chris S.M. Turney, Johannes van der Plicht, and Constanze E. Weyhenmeyer. 2009. IntCal09 and Marine09 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves, 0–50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51:1111–50.

Weeds can be helpful: indirect evidence and archaeological analysis

Sheffield_dept_bannerArchaeologists often use indirect data to infer past cultural practices. This is because only certain data are preserved in archaeological contexts. Yet, we have questions that extend beyond that preserved data. Other types of data allow archaeologists to identify important information not directly available from the (somewhat limited) archaeological record.

For example, researchers at the University of Sheffield in England, have been interested in crop husbandry practices. This means they’re interested in what species were chosen to husband, or use, for food or other purposes. The information about the chosen species is often incomplete, so the researchers decided to look beyond direct data (e.g., seeds found stored in vessels in houses they excavated) to information they could get from associated weed species. Because the weed species were associated with the preferred species, they constitute indirect data.

These researchers found, not surprisingly, that the weed species at the archaeological sites they studied were most linked to ecological variation, especially productivity and disturbance. They note:

The range of attributes related to productivity indicate that both soil fertility and water availability play a part in this variation and that there is an interaction between productivity levels and the level of disturbance. Seasonality is a secondary factor relating primarily to water availability in arid environments and sowing time in more temperate regions.

Researchers say that as a result of this analysis they were able to infer that irrigation was used at an archaeological site where they had no direct evidence of it. At another site, they were able to identify sowing time and intensive cultivation, using the patterns of weed species, etc.

The paper is called “Crops and weeds: the role of weed functional ecology in the identification of crop husbandry methods,” and is by G. Jones, M. Charles, A. Bogaard, and J. Hodgson, all at the University of Sheffield, Department of Archaeology and Prehistory.

The paper was published on pages 70–77 in the Journal of Archaeological Science (2009). At present, the paper can be downloaded for free. Get to it by clicking here; it’s paper number 9.

New metal artifact preservation method explored

On 27 December 2009, the online version of Charleston’s Post and Courier published a fascinating story by Tony Bartelme titled “Research on Hunley spurs new discoveries.”

The Hunley is of course the H.L. Hunley Confederate Civil War submarine, which sunk near Charleston in February 1864, and was found by a diver in 1995. The approximately forty-foot submarine was raised in 2000. Since then, its preservation has been a major problem.

As Bartelme notes:

Iron and seawater have a complex relationship, one that sometimes resembles a love story with an unhappy ending.
Put a piece of iron, such as a submarine, in the ocean, and iron and water begin to merge, with iron swapping its ions with chloride ions in the seawater. As long as the iron stays under water, this relationship is stable, and the iron stays well preserved.
But if you remove the iron and expose it the air, the romance turns bad; new and often violent reactions begin as the iron oxidizes. After being pulled from the sea, old cannonballs have been known to spontaneously combust.
On the Hunley, metal shavings collected during the removal of some rivets got so hot they burned plastic bags. Had the sub’s conservators removed the Hunley from the sea and left it alone, the sub would be a pile of dust today, Mardikian said.

Conservators are now using a subcritical reactor, which acts like a pressure cooker to super-pressurize water, and improve preservation by reducing corrosion. Despite the name, there is no radioactivity involved in using the subcritical reactor.

Instead, it creates pressures 50 times higher than what might be found in the open air, and this intense pressure causes materials to react differently. The boiling point for water, for instance, shoots from 212 degrees Fahrenheit to 392 degrees.

Read the full story by Bartelme by clicking here.

What is “Old Europe”?

Corum_Jonathan_Old_Europe_map_NYT

Detail from map by Jonathan Corum, published in the New York Times here.

The phrase “Old Europe” refers to Neolithic Europe, or the portions of the European continent inhabited by people who made pottery and lived in small villages, ate domesticated and wild plant foods, between about 7000 BC and around 1500 BC (when the Bronze Age began in parts of Europe).

Data on these ancient peoples is sketchy, in part because their populations were relatively low, and in part because this whole region has had many settlements and sometimes intensive land use, which damaged and sometimes obliterated the ancient, Neolithic remains.

The word Neolithic translates as New Stone Age, and was originally used to denote peoples who used ground stone tools instead of only those stone tools made through percussion techniques. In the context of early Europe, Neolithic refers to the first agriculturalists who occupied the area. Many archaeologists believe their ancestors emmigrated into the area from the Near East (aka the Levant), bringing both their knowledge of farming and their Indo-European languages with them.

In a recent article dated 30 November 2009 in the New York Times discussing a recent exhibit at New York University called “The Lost World of Old Europe: the Danube Valley, 5000-3500 B.C.,” John Noble Wilford notes:

New research, archaeologists and historians say, has broadened understanding of this long overlooked culture, which seemed to have approached the threshold of “civilization” status. Writing had yet to be invented, and so no one knows what the people called themselves. To some scholars, the people and the region are simply Old Europe.

Actually, most archaeologists use the phrase Neolithic Europe, rather than “Old Europe.” The Lithuanian archaeologist Marija Gimbutas (1921–1994) coined the term “Old Europe.” Gimbutas theorized that the people native to Old Europe, the non-agriculturalists, had a goddess-centric belief system and were peaceful peoples. Those arriving from the Levant had a patriarchal and hierarchical society, and, she said, the men were warriors. Her interpretation is based in part on what she saw as the absence of fortified settlements prior to the arrival of the invading groups.

Whatever term you use and whatever interpretation you follow, some artifacts from Neolithic Europe required careful craftsmanship to manufacture. Wilford continues:

At its peak, around 4500 B.C., said David W. Anthony, the exhibition’s guest curator, “Old Europe was among the most sophisticated and technologically advanced places in the world” and was developing “many of the political, technological and ideological signs of civilization.”

Wilford also notes:

The story now emerging is of pioneer farmers after about 6200 B.C. moving north into Old Europe from Greece and Macedonia, bringing wheat and barley seeds and domesticated cattle and sheep. They established colonies along the Black Sea and in the river plains and hills, and these evolved into related but somewhat distinct cultures, archaeologists have learned. The settlements maintained close contact through networks of trade in copper and gold and also shared patterns of ceramics.

For more information, here’s a link to the exhibit catalog.

Food for thought

Does the terminology you use, for example Old Europe instead of Neolithic Europe, telegraph certain meanings to your audience? Is this good or bad?

Suggested reading

These are all recent single-author volumes, which tend to be more comprehensive than edited volumes. They tend to have an academic style and vocabulary.

Anthony, David W.
2007 The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Beckwith, Christopher I.
2009 Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Bernstein, William J.
2008 A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped the World. Atlantic Monthly Press, New York.

Earle, Timothy K.
2002 Bronze Age Economics: The Beginnings of Political Economies. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Harding, A.F.
2000 European Societies in the Bronze Age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kristiansen, Kristian
1998 Europe before History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Maisels, Charles Keith
1999 Early Civilizations of the Old World: The Formative Histories of Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia, India, and China. Routledge, New York.

Discovery of Unknown Cemeteries at Hunter Army Airfield Sheds Light on a Forgotten Past

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.

Profile_09_unk_cem_01

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.

Profile_09_unk_cem_02

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.

Profile_09_unk_cem_03

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.

Profile_09_unk_cem_04

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.

Profile_09_unk_cem_05

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.

Profile_09_unk_cem_06

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.

Profile_09_unk_cem_07

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.

The Bigger Picture: Using Landscape Archaeology to Better Understand Two Late Archaic Shell Rings on St. Catherines Island

Archaeological crews from the American Museum of Natural History have been excavating on St. Catherines Island for over 30 years. This fall we returned to the island with a very specific, yet far reaching research plan.

Over the past four years, much of our research has focused on two Late Archaic shell rings (2400–1800 B.C.); the St. Catherines Shell Ring and the McQueen Shell Ring. These sites are roughly 70 m in diameter and are represented by a ring of deposited marine shell that measures about 10 m wide and 2 m deep and an interior “plaza” that measures between 30–40 m in diameter (see The Profile, Winter 2008 for a brief synopsis). Our research at these sites thus far has been comprised of geophysical prospection (soil resistivity, ground penetrating radar, gradiometry, topography, and shell density) and both minor and major archaeological testing (shovel test pits, vibra-cores, test units, trenches, and block excavations). Despite all of this work, we have been ignoring one of the most intriguing aspects of these sites; the surrounding landscape.

To better understand the archaeological landscape around the rings, we conducted a shovel test pit survey (at 20-m intervals) around the St. Catherines shell ring in the fall of 2008. Out of 458 shovel test pits, only 7 produced ceramics that are contemporaneous with the shell ring. The data suggests that the ring was the only substantial Late Archaic presence in this section of St. Catherines Island. This interesting revelation sparked a series of questions concerning the landscape the shell rings occupy. For instance; do contemporaneous sites exist outside the shell ring? During what other time periods did people utilized this space? What are the stratigraphic differences/similarities between the rings?

Profile_09_shell_excavations

Marc Lorenc and Leigh Davidson excavating a shovel test pit at McQueen Shell Ring.

With these questions in mind we devised a survey that would incorporate our previous shovel testing while at the same time improving on the quantity and quality of information previously gained. A 20-m shovel testing interval was conducted within 250 m of the shell ring while an additional finer 10-m interval was used within 150 m of the ring.

Fieldwork for this project has just wrapped up and therefore, specific results of the survey are pending. However, preliminary distribution maps generated in the field have provided some interesting insights. The area immediately surrounding the shell rings seems to lack any Late Archaic material, suggesting a lack of significant contemporaneous activity around the rings that would lead to deposition events. The only contemporaneous Late Archaic material comes from 3–4 isolated test pits 100–150 m away from the ring.

Profile_09_shell_GIS

GIS map of the McQueen Shell Ring (shell density in blue at center) surrounded by proposed 10- and 20-m interval shovel test pits. The green circle marks the 150-m radius; the blue circle marks the 250-m radius.

This survey has given us a fantastic opportunity to juxtapose two intriguing archaeological sites and their archaeological surroundings. Currently we have plans to complete the artifact analysis and integrate those data with our current GIS platform in the effort to better understand the distribution of material culture and the landscape setting upon which these shell rings exist.

NPS’s 2010 Archaeological Prospection Workshop

Profile_09_NPS_graphicThe National Park Service’s 2010 workshop on archaeological prospection techniques entitled “Current Archaeological Prospection Advances for Non-Destructive Investigations in the 21st Century” will be held May 24–28, 2010, at the Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site near Stanton, North Dakota. Lodging will be in the in the communities of Beulah, Hazen, and Riverdale, North Dakota. The field exercises will take place at the Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site. The park preserves the historic and archeological remnants of the culture and agricultural lifestyle of the Northern Plains Indians during the 18th and 19th centuries. Co-sponsors for the workshop include the National Park Service and the State Historical Society of North Dakota.

This will be the twentieth year of the workshop dedicated to the use of geophysical, aerial photography, and other remote sensing methods as they apply to the identification, evaluation, conservation, and protection of archaeological resources across this nation. The workshop will present lectures on the theory of operation, methodology, processing, and interpretation with on-hands use of the equipment in the field.

There is a registration charge of $475.00.

Application forms are available on the Midwest Archeological Center’s web page. For further information, please contact Steven L. DeVore, Archeologist, National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Federal Building, Room 474, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508-3873; tel: (402) 437-5392, ext. 141; fax: (402) 437-5098; or email by clicking here.

Building better climate change models

Ranasinghe_art_title_bannerFact: 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.

Your chance to help South Carolina archaeologists

carolina_slate_belt_banner

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.

SGA members discuss Civil War research techniques

AJC_GSilliman_civil_war_sitesRead 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.

How did climate change affect Pleistocene megafauna?

Did people kill off Pleistocene megafauna in North America, or were those species done in by climate shifts? Or…?

This question is still not answered unambiguously.

However, research by Jacquelyn Gill of the University of Wisconsin—Madison shows that neither scenarios is probable based on fossil pollen, charcoal and dung fungus spores that date to just after the ice retreated. Neither the mass extinction model, based on heavy hunting, nor simple climate and thus habitat change matches the data she and colleagues Stephen T. Jackson (University of Wyoming), Katherine B. Lininger (University of Wisconsin—Madison), and Guy S. Robinson (Fordham University) have marshalled.

According to Terry Devitt’s story (19 November 2009) on the University of Wisconsin—Madison website:

The decline of North America’s signature ice age mammals was a gradual process, the Wisconsin researchers explain, taking about 1,000 years. The decline in the huge numbers of ice age animals is preserved in the fossil record when the fungal spores disappear from the record altogether: “About 13.8 thousand years ago, the number of spores drops dramatically. They’re barely in the record anymore,” Gill explains.

Devitt continues:

While both the extinction of North America’s ice age megafauna and the sweeping change to the landscape are well-documented phenomena, there was, until now, no detailed chronology of the events that remade the continent’s biological communities beginning about 14.8 thousand years ago. Establishing that the disappearance of mammoths, giant beavers, ground sloths and other large animals preceded the massive change in plant communities, promises scientists critical new insight into the dynamics of extinction and its pervasive influence on a given landscape.

Archaeologists are often confronted with this situation: how do we get data on human behavior or the human situation, when we don’t have it directly from the archaeological record of human occupations? This research by Gill and her colleagues shows one solution developed to help understand the ecological situation in interior North America early in human occupation of the continent.

Stand by for more data….

How can understanding the past help us with…global food production?

AAA_website_banner

Early European settlers were impressed by the productivity and sustainability of Native American agriculture in the Northeast. Today, as farmers begin to come to grips with the consequences of modern, mechanized agriculture, i.e., soil compaction, erosion, the run-off of fertilizers and top soil, and the cost of petro-chemicals to boost production, agronomists and some Native Americans are revisiting the techniques of 300 years ago to test their advantages.

This is how David J. Minderhout and Andrea T. Franz begin their article, “Native American Horticulture in the Northeast,” published in the Spring 2009 General Anthropology Bulletin of the General Anthropology Division of the American Anthropological Association, available here (currently free from Wiley InterScience).

They briefly summarize archaeologists’ current understanding of prehistoric agriculture and food preparation in Northeastern North America, with an eye to modern practices and our current food production situation. They note, for example, that, “Research also shows that intercropping, i.e., growing several crops in the same field, produces a diverse plant environment that is more resistant to drought and attacks by pests and plant diseases.”

One message that can be drawn from the information these authors present is that pre-modern innovations, methods, and techniques can provide us with important lessons relevant to the present.

The American Anthropological Association was founded in 1902 and “is the world’s largest organization of individuals interested in anthropology,” according to their website. Membership is approximately 10,000, with annual meetings attended by around 5000 individuals.

Data from geophysical survey can reveal important insights without excavation

Venta_Icenorum_Sue_White_Univ_Nottingham

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.

Venta_Icenorum_Google_Earth_view

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.

Iraq archaeological sites mapped by Sergeant in his spare time

Iraq_terrain_Google_Earth

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.

Reconstructing archaeological ruins

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.

Chichen_Itza_Castillo_2003
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.

Construction crew at UGA unearths artifacts

New_College_construction_onlineAthens_w

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?

Blood Mountain shelter

blood_mountain_shelterThe 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.

Considering taxonomies in the twenty-first century

Archaeologists deal with taxonomies, and sometimes help develop them.

A taxonomy is a system for classification, and in science is usually rank-based. A ranked hierarchy begins with the most general characteristics—for example, plant versus animal, and keeps becoming more specific.

Perhaps the best known taxonomic system in science is the Linnaean system for classifying living organisms. In fact, the Encyclopedia of Life is an online presentation of known organisms, along with their taxonomic classification. The EOL was recently discussed on this website.

Another classification system for living organisms is cladistics. Cladistics focuses on evolutionary relationships, and thus generates descent trees, rather like a family tree.

An August 10th 2009 article in the New York Times by Carol Kaesuk Yoon called “Reviving the Lost Art of Naming the World” argues that taxonomic classification is rather esoteric these days.

Ms. Yoon notes that anthropologists have studied classification systems used by peoples from around the world. She writes:

Cecil Brown, an anthropologist at Northern Illinois University who has studied folk taxonomies in 188 languages, has found that people recognize the same basic categories repeatedly, including fish, birds, snakes, mammals, “wugs” (meaning worms and insects, or what we might call creepy-crawlies), trees, vines, herbs and bushes.

Dr. Brown’s finding would be considerably less interesting if these categories were clear-cut depictions of reality that must inevitably be recognized. But tree and bush are hardly that, since there is no way to define a tree versus a bush. The two categories grade insensibly into one another. Wugs, likewise, are neither an evolutionarily nor ecologically nor otherwise cohesive group. Still, people repeatedly recognize and name these oddities.

Archaeologists classify pottery and other material culture remains. Simple taxonomies are useful that give a name to, for example, pottery with a particular decoration and other physical characteristics. That way we know what is meant when someone says, for example, Deptford Check Stamped or Deptford Cord Marked.

Artifact classification is perhaps more subjective than the common categories Dr. Brown has identified in many cultures, because not infrequently archaeologists get into heated discussions about the “right” way to classify some artifact types.

For discussion: is this kind of classification system in the Linnaean style or does it more closely resemble a cladistic classification system?

What’s your perspective?

NAm_E_up

All images in this story are screen grabs from Google Earth, a free program that displays satellite data.

Perspective matters.

This is easy to recognize with visual images, but it’s also true with research questions.

Back to images, though.

Take these, for example. Have you ever looked at a map or satellite image of North America where north is not “up”? Our cultural convention is to put north at the top of images, especially for continental-scale images, and this is what you see over and over.

However, as with may things, if you change perspective, you may have insights.

Here’re screen grabs from Google Earth with west “up” (above), and east “up” (below). By studying these images, what do you realize about the continent and its context that you hadn’t noticed before?

NAm_E_upDoes looking at North America at a different angle entirely (that is, not with a cardinal direction “up”) allow your eye to recognize any patterns you haven’t noticed before? The angle below sets the general trajectory of the east coast of the continent on a horizontal alignment.

NAm_E_horiz

Indeed, in this image, with the modern political boundaries removed, is nearly unrecognizable when you’re used to north being “up.” Indeed, it almost looks like a hypothetical landform!

What have you learned from studying the images here?

Identifying and dating glass bottles

bottlegroup_photo

Bottle photograph from Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website.

If you’re interested in historic bottles, you may enjoy browsing the Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website. The website aids visitors in finding out how old a bottle is, and what type it is. The website is limited to bottles made in the USA, and to some extent, Canada, between about 1800 and the 1950s. That’s still a lot of bottles, and some major changes in bottle making technology!

Why, you might wonder, is this information presented via a website, and not a more traditional printed publication? The website states:

In order to answer or address questions related to the dating and typing a bottle, a lot of information must be presented in a way that is accessible to the user of this site. A major benefit of using the internet to accomplish this task is the ability to use hundreds (or thousands) of illustrative pictures that would not be possible (or affordable) if published in book form. Another benefit of the internet is the relative ease of revising and/or adding information to a website as corrected or new information becomes available. As soon as the information is added it is available to everyone immediately; an attribute not possible with a printed publication. Finally, the ability of the internet to easily reach more potential users than any other communication medium makes it the most powerful tool of education and enlightenment available today.

You might especially enjoy perusing scanned pages of the 1906 Illinois Glass Company Illustrated Catalogue and Price List. Thumbnails of the scans are on this webpage.

The website is sponsored by the Society for Historical Archaeology and the Bureau of Land Management of the US Department of the Interior. Click here to visit it.

Use Google Earth to overlay historic maps

CW_map_combo

You may not know about free software that lets you “fly” across the Earth’s surface, viewing satellite pictures of the surface below. The software for doing this is provided free by Google, and is called Google Earth.

As they say on their website:

Google Earth lets you fly anywhere on Earth to view satellite imagery, maps, terrain, 3D buildings, from galaxies in outer space to the canyons of the ocean. You can explore rich geographical content, save your toured places, and share with others.

Remember, you need a fairly fast broadband connection and video processor on your computer to do this.

One fun thing to do with Google Earth is to overlay old maps on the modern landscape. The example here is a historic map that I found in the Library of Congress online map collection. This map was created in 1864 by Robert Knox Sneden (who lived 1832–1918), and shows the Atlanta area as of 1 September 1864, complete with batteries, earthworks, and the locations of both Union and Confederate forces, as well as city streets. Remember that the city of Atlanta fell to Sherman’s army only a week later, on 8 September. The Virginia Historical Society holds the original map, which measures 45 x 34 centimeters.

In this article, I’m just examining a portion of the entire 1864 Sneden map, the part that spans downtown Atlanta. The top image shows the small cropped area of the old map on the right, with the same area from Google Earth (north is “up” in both cases). I’ve put arrows to the same features on both maps. They are a particular street and the location of the Civil-War-period train station. You can see the city plan is very similar, except for the interstate corridor east of downtown, and some alteration of the north-south rail line on the west side of downtown.

Below is a picture that shows how when you overlay the map image on Google Earth (or “drape” it), the software gives you bright green “handles” to stretch and manipulate the inserted image atop Google Earth’s satellite view.

CW_map_overlay

Why don’t the maps match exactly? Do you know what the global positioning system is? How has map-making changed since 1864?

Here’s a link for the Sneden map.

Superposition

piedmont_park_planter

This huge planter built of natural stone cemented together is one of several pieces of nineteenth-century decorative architecture you can see in Atlanta’s Piedmont Park.

These eye-catching planters, along with paved walkways and fancy stairways, are all the obvious architecture that remain of the stone construction for two massive fairs, the 1887 Piedmont Exposition, and the 1895 International and Cotton States Exposition. A huge oval track built for horse races has been converted to a walking or jogging track—no horses, or even dogs, allowed!

The huge display halls from the Exposition are long gone, but these modest architectural features still survive. Note that a modern building that’s part of the Atlanta Botanical Garden complex, looms not far behind this planter.

Superposition is a big word that refers to locating one thing atop another thing. Archaeological researchers discover superpositioned objects all the time. Sometimes it’s difficult to determine just when the superpositioning occurred—whether the two objects were abandoned more or less simultaneously, or whether they were left during events hundreds of years apart. In the case of these two features of the built environment, the planter and the garden building, they indeed were built over a century apart in time.

exposition_sign

Lookout Mountain

lookout_overlook_view

Humans are humans; we tend to like some of the same places on the landscape no matter who we are and when we are alive. This means that some of the same places were occupied over and over. The view from Lookout Mountain must have been as compelling to prehistoric Native Americans as it is to us today.

What makes a location more—or less—attractive to human visitors or inhabitants?

Outliers and rare events

data_plot_example_b_swan

When a scientist analyzes data, sometimes the values are more similar—except for one or a few values or characteristics or whatever. These different values are called outliers, meaning they lie outside the pattern of most of the values (or of the sample of values). Thus, outliers are rare within that data set. In the set of imaginary data points in the plot above, the outlier plots way in the upper right. The question of how to deal with outliers haunts many scientists, and is a point of analysis for some statisticians.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a mathematical researcher, has published a book he titled The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (2007, Random House). A “black swan,” to Taleb, refers to a rare event that is difficult to predict yet has an outsize impact, beyond normal expectations. Thus, there’s an element of randomness and an element of uncertainty in the outlier.

The name Taleb chose for the book, “Black Swan,” refers to the assumption by Europeans that all swans are white, since all wild swans Europeans were familiar with for centuries were indeed white. The term “black swan” thus was a metaphor for an impossibility. No one (in their world) had seen a black swan, so for them black swans did not exist. Then, in 1697, a Dutch explorer in Australia found black swans, and the Europeans had a bit of a shock. Thus, they altered the term to mean something assumed to be impossible that actually happened.

To Taleb, a Black Swan event is a surprise and has a major impact. Although he applies this concept to financial investment patterns, archaeologists can learn from consideration of Black Swan events and outliers.

First, you have to think about the data set that produced the Black Swan outlier. Perhaps the data may be just a small sample, so that the apparent outlier is really part of a normal distribution of data—it’s just that some data points are missing. You also need to make sure that the way the data were measured is sufficiently accurate and precise that the outlier does not result from some form of mismeasure.

If the data set seems complete, or to be a complete representation of the data set, so that the outlier is “real,” then how to explain it?

Archaeologists sometimes encounter statistical outliers in, for example, a set of radiocarbon dates. Sometimes, the “bad” date may result from inaccuracies in the sample, thus skewing its date. Sometimes, the “bad” date means something that is actually real, but doesn’t match with previous interpretations—for example, that some particular artifact type was actually used earlier or later than previous data and dates suggest.

Sometimes, because the “real world” doesn’t always make sense at a given time, it is hard to determine, based on field and laboratory methodology, why a particular outlier date is “bad.” If we assume it is not “bad,” and that it measures a real data point that is beyond expectations based on other reliable data, then we have far different concerns when we try to explain what that outlier means.

I am not a statistician, and this is by no means a complete disquisition on this subject. Instead, my intention is to raise the issue of interpreting outliers, and perhaps add a new twist to it for some. The Edge Foundation website has a long article by Taleb that you might be interested in reading, which elaborates on the Black Swan outliers, and, ultimately, on human behavior. Click here to read that article, posted in September 2008.

What to curate?

apple_floppy_disc

Curate is a fancy word that refers to selecting, organizing, and properly storing items, for example in a museum collection, or for an exhibition.

We can’t curate everything. It’s just too expensive and the objects will take up too much space. We also must consider excessive redundancy.

So, what do we save and what do we discard? How do we make that decision?

Do we save this early piece of computer equipment? After all, it was break-through technology in its day. And this specimen still functions (trust me!). On the other hand, tens of thousands of these machines were made, and some of them must still be stored in people’s garages and basements, and perhaps even in a few museums.

BTW, archaeologists also use the word curate with respect to, especially, lithics (stone tools). A curated bifacial tool, for example, has been re-sharpened, and used for quite a while.

Now here’s the trick question: what does this machine do?

Here’s a clue: do you know what a floppy disk is?

Read the text of William Bartram’s 1791 Travels…

bartram_frontispiece_lgrRead William Bartram’s Travels Through North & South Carolina, Georgia, East & West Florida, the Cherokee Country, the Extensive Territories of the Muscogulges, or Creek Confederacy, and the Country of the Chactaws; Containing An Account of the Soil and Natural Productions of Those Regions, Together with Observations on the Manners of the Indians, published in 1791, on the internet. You will miss the experience of turning aging pages, but you can read every word, and see some pictures, too!

This picture of the Seminole Chief (mico) is the book’s frontispiece. The mico wears many feathers, including attached to his headband and to an instrument or wand he’s holding. These may be symbols of his office and visually convey his high status.

During his travels in the late 1700s, Bartram was most interested in recording natural history, especially plants. But he traveled with Native American guides and stayed in their communities, so this book contains lots of first-person observations that archaeologists have combed to help them reconstruct Late Mississippian and early historic period Native American customs, foods, etc. Bartram also lists the names of Native towns, and some Native words.

Bartram notes on pages 32–34 about traveling up the Savannah River valley from the coast to Augusta, and of events he experienced in that then-frontier town in 1776:

THUS have I endeavoured to give the reader a short and natural description of the vast plain lying between the region of Augusta and the sea coast; for from Augusta the mountainous country begins (when compared to the level sandy plain already passed) although it is at least an hundred and fifty miles west, thence to the Cherokee or Apalachean mountains; and this space may with propriety be called the hilly country, every where fertile and delightful, continually replenished by innumerable rivulets, either coursing about the fragrant hills, or springing from the rocky precipices, and forming many cascades; the coolness and purity of which waters invigorate the air of this otherwise hot and sultry climate.

THE village of Augusta is situated on a rich and fertile plain, on the Savanna river; the buildings are near its banks, and extend nearly two miles up to the cataracts, or falls, which are formed by the first chain of rocky hills, through which this famous river forces itself, as if impatient to repose on the extensive plain before it invades the ocean. When the river is low, which is during the summer months, the cataracts are four or five feet in height across the river, and the waters continue rapid and broken, rushing over rocks five miles higher up: this river is near five hundred yards broad at Augusta.

A FEW days after our arrival at Augusta, the chiefs and warriors of the Creeks and Cherokees being arrived, the Congress and the business of the treaty came on, and the negociations continued undetermined many days; the merchants of Georgia demanding at least two millions of acres of land from the Indians, as a discharge of their debts, due, and of long standing; the Creeks, on the other hand, being a powerful and proud spirited People, their young warriors were unwilling to submit to so large a demand, and their conduct evidently betrayed a disposition to dispute the ground by force of arms, and they could not at first be brought to listen to reason and amicable terms; however, at length, the cool and deliberate counsels of the ancient venerable chiefs, enforced by liberal presents of suitable goods, were too powerful inducements for them any longer to resist, and finally prevailed. The treaty concluded in unanimity, pace, and good order; and the honorable Superintendant, not forgetting his promise to me, at the conclusion, mentioned my business, and recommended me to the protection of the Indian chiefs and warriors. The presents being distributed amongst the Indians, they departed, returning home to their towns. A company of surveyors were appointed, by the Governor and Council, to ascertain the boundaries of the new purchase; they were to be attended by chiefs of the Indians, selected and delegated by their countrymen, to assist, and be witnesses that the articles of the treaty were fulfilled, as agreed to by both parties in Congress.

Bartram’s final observations, on pages 521–522, are on the architecture of the Native Americans:

BUT in all the region of the Muscogulge country, South-West from the Oakmulge River quite to the Tallapoose, down to the city of Mobile, and thence along the sea coast, to the Mississipi, I saw no signs of mountains or highways, except at Taensa, where were several inconsiderable conical mountains, and but one instance of the tetragon terraces which was at the Apalachucla old town, on the West banks of that river; here were yet remaining conspicuous monuments, as vast four square terraces, chunk yards, &c. almost equalling those eminent ones at the Oakmulge fields; but no high conical mounts. Those Indians have a tradition that these remains are the ruins of an ancient Indian town and fortress. I was not in the interior parts of the Chactaw territories, and therefore am ignorant whether there are any mounts or monuments there.

To conclude this subject concerning the monuments of the Americans, I deem it necessary to observe as my opinion, that none of them that I have seen discover the least signs of the arts, sciences, or architecture of the Europeans or other inhabitants of the old world: yet evidently betray every sign or mark of the most distant antiquity.

This document is offered by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as part of its digital resources called “Documenting the American South,” available here.

Mending ceramics

coffee_cup_broken
Ooops. I accidentally broke my husband’s favorite coffee mug.

Fortunately, the piece that broke off was large and I was able to save it. Using techniques I learned in the archaeological laboratory for mending broken historic and prehistoric ceramics and pottery, I glued together the coffee mug.

coffee_cup_mended

I carefully put glue on both the cup and the broken piece, let it sit for a few minutes to get tacky, then put the two together. The trick for while it’s drying is to position it so that gravity is helping you, with the glued area “on top.”

Many archaeology labs have boxes of sand to make it easier to position drying ceramics so that gravity will help.

Archaeologists think about worms—really!

earthworm_total

Earthworms leave the soil (at least some species do) when there’s a lot of rain, because the soil can get so moist they begin to drown.

Archaeologists mostly deal with abandoned objects and places where people once lived or did other activities. After abandonment, these objects and locales are subject to various disturbances—from natural processes, from wild creatures, and from later human visitors—and even from dogs!

One post-abandonment disturbance we think about is the effect of earthworms. They burrow through the soil, producing micro-tunnels that can introduce organic matter and allow air and water to move through the soil more easily, and change the soil chemistry. Although these processes happen at a small scale relative to many archaeological features like foundations and fire pits, they still disturb the abandoned remains. Earthworm activity is an example of bioturbation, or natural processes by living things, including both plants and animals.

Researchers report that even soils that are not very hospitable to earthworms may host tens of thousands of them per acre. If an archaeological site has been abandoned for five centuries, how great an effect do you think earthworms have had on the site? What if the site has been abandoned five times that long?

How do you describe a color?

munsell_chart_pageScientists have to figure out how to solve all kinds of problems that seem like they shouldn’t be problems until you think about them.

So, how do you describe a color so I know the exact shade you’re talking about?

Sure, we know navy blue, which most of us know as a distinct shade of dark blue. And we have fire-engine red, which most of us would also recognize.

But.

What if you’re an archaeologist carefully digging in the soil, and you pick up your notebook and you want to describe the exact shade of yellowy-browny-beige soil that you have just exposed. How do you do that so, even twenty years later, a reader will know just what color that soil was?

Well, use a Munsell Soil Color Chart!

These charts are published in special (expensive!) books with little carefully made color chips on each page. You take a small soil sample and hold it behind the page and move it around until you see it through a hole that’s next to a color that’s identical to it. Thus, Munsell Soil Color Charts provide a standard way of identifying colors.

An archaeologist who has excavated across the Georgia piedmont will recognize that 10YR5/4 refers to a soil of a particular, pleasant medium-brown hue. That color is on the chip in the fourth row from the top, and fourth chip from the left in this picture.

10YR refers to a certain saturation or brightness of yellow-red (the YR part). The five refers to a medium darkness, and the four refers to how yellowy the brown is.

Got it?

For technical information about how the colors have been determined, check this web page on the US Department of Agriculture website.

Who made this brick?

hills_dale_brick

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.

hills_dale_main_bldg

Fascade of Callaway family home, Hills and Dales.

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

What do those little dots mean?

dripline_bench_full
Careful excavation and detailed note-taking are hallmarks of well-managed archaeological projects. This is because archaeology is a destructive science—any square centimeter of an archaelogical deposit can only be excavated once. There is no second chance.

Therefore, when archaeologists excavate, not only do they look for solid objects (for example, artifacts), they optimize the opportunity for noticing faint color and texture changes in the soil that signal something significant. Drip lines are an example of a kind of subtle evidence that a sharp eye can spot in the soil.

A drip line is made by falling water, usually rainwater. It looks like a series of little holes made by the action of drips repeated in one place. The little holes etch in the soil an echo of an edge up above, like the upper brow of a rock shelter or the margin of a roof that doesn’t have a rain gutter.

dripline_drip_holes

The photos record another kind of drip line, made by the slats of a hanging bench in an Atlanta park.

After the object that allows the drip line to form is gone, soil fills in the little holes the water made. The new soil may be a different color and texture. Therefore, when this part of the site is carefully excavated, the drip line can look like a line of dots. The archaeologist knows there was some kind of “edge” above the drip line.

Go find a drip line. Think about what valuable information it indicates about the object above it that made the drip line. Did a roof edge make the drip line? If this were an archaeological site, and you found this drip line, what would it tell you? What if you had information about other nearby features, like building foundations?

New experimental archaeology/primitive technology book

view_coverLong 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.

Archaeology for Dummies

dummies_coverWiley 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.

Choctaw dictionary

choctaw_ahe_words

By the early 1800s, Choctaw-speakers lived across Mississippi and in what are now modern neighboring states. Choctaw is closely related to the languages that peoples living in what is now Georgia spoke at that time. They are all part of the Muskogean language family that was common across southeastern North America in late prehistory.

A historic volume called A Dictionary of the Choctaw Language was published in 1915. It is the Smithsonian Institution’s Bureau of American Ethnology’s Bulletin 46. The author was Cyrus Byington, and the volume editors were John R. Swanton and Henry S. Halbert. You can download it here, where it is offered free by the Internet Archive.

Reverend Byington (b. 1793, d. 1868) had passed away by the time this volume was published. He had lived and worked among the Choctaw as a missionary for over fifty years.

This particular part of the dictionary deals with Choctaw phrases that begin with “ahe” and refer to potatoes. Note how many phrases refer to cultivating potatoes. The Choctaws made small mounds of dirt around their potato plants to keep the sunlight from bothering the potatoes, which grow underground. Byington refers to these little mounds as hills in this dictionary.

Do you think the word written here as “ahe” means potatoes in Choctaw?

The word “ahe inchuka” is defined as a potato house. What do you think that is?

Keep your eyes peeled: old buildings

gum_creek_courthouseIf 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.

Hynes “runs” research project in Egypt

emh_supervising

Greater Atlanta Archaeological Society and SGA member Terry Hynes recently “directed” a small project in the famous Valley of the Kings in the Theban Hills in Egypt’s Nile Valley. Terry also toured Luxor and boated on the Nile during her trip-of-a-lifetime in early January.

Terry is quite knowledgeable about and well-trained in archaeological field methods. She has worked for many seasons at the Topper Site in South Carolina, at various ElderHostel projects especially in the Caribbean, and all across Georgia. She also has volunteered uncounted hours at the Fernbank Museum of Natural History doing research and working in the laboratory.

Keep your eyes peeled: plaques

1924_plaque

Keep your eyes peeled for…metal plaques attached to immovable objects like buildings (not that buildings can’t be knocked down, but…).

This plaque is on the outside of a Fire Station in Atlanta, number 19, to be exact. The station is on the northeast corner of North Highland Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue, as shown on the map below.

Note the the Fire Committee includes W.B. Hartsfield, the last name on the list. Notes Louis Williams, in The New Georgia Encyclopedia:

William B. Hartsfield was a man of humble origins who became one of the greatest mayors of Atlanta. He served as mayor for six terms (1937-41, 1942-61), longer than any other person in the city’s history. Hartsfield held office during a critical period when the color line separating the races began to change and the city grew from more than 100,000 inhabitants to a metropolitan population of one million. He is credited with developing Atlanta into the aviation powerhouse that it is today and with building its image as “the City Too Busy to Hate.”

Hartsfield was elected to the Atlanta City Council in 1922, just two years before this plaque was commissioned. In 1937, he became Atlanta’s Mayor. Hartsfield was extremely active in promoting aviation in Atlanta, and across Georgia. Atlanta’s modern international airport, Hartsfield-Jackson, south of Atlanta, is named for William B. Hartsfield, and for a later mayor, Maynard Jackson.

Motel of the Mysteries

macaulay_cover

David Macaulay is an author and illustrator who has written many interesting books. One of my favorites is Motel of the Mysteries, published in 1979 by Houghton Mifflin (Boston). The book is now out of print, so I always look for a copy at yard sales and flea markets—and every once in a while I’m lucky enough to find one!

The publisher’s blurb about Motel says:

It is the year 4022; all of the ancient country of Usa has been buried under many feet of detritus from a catastrophe that occurred back in 1985. Imagine, then, the excitement that Howard Carson, an amateur archeologist at best, experienced when in crossing the perimeter of an abandoned excavation site he felt the ground give way beneath him and found himself at the bottom of a shaft, which, judging from the DO NOT DISTURB sign hanging from an archaic doorknob, was clearly the entrance to a still-sealed burial chamber. Carson’s incredible discoveries, including the remains of two bodies, one of then on a ceremonial bed facing an altar that appeared to be a means of communicating with the Gods and the other lying in a porcelain sarcophagus in the Inner Chamber, permitted him to piece together the whole fabric of that extraordinary civilization.

Thus, Macaulay imagines being an adventurer in the future, when civilization had been destroyed by being overrun with junk mail—remember, the book was written before there was internet spam! So, in the book, Howard is trying to understand the ruined walls and other architecture he finds. Can you guess what the “porcelain sarcophagus” is?

Howard is an intrepid explorer, and he is certain, based on the architecture and artifacts he finds, that he has found funerary architecture. In his eyes, he is seeing special ceremonial buildings complete with burial goods distributed in separate chambers, similar to the archaeological remains we see today that survive from ancient Egypt.

macaulay_inside

As you might guess from the title of the book, what Howard had found were the decrepit remains of a modest, twentieth-century, highway-side motel somewhere in this country. His interpretations of the remains are erroneous in extremely funny ways.

This book leads the reader to think about the processes of scientific thinking, and how scientists assemble a wide variety of data to attempt to understand complex systems and situations. Sometimes, theories are developed based on what turn out to be scanty data. Thus, the theories turn out to be wrong, sometimes in humorous ways, when more data are collected.

You may also be interested in other volumes by Macauley, such as Cathedral (1973), Pyramid (1975), Underground (1976), and Castle (1977). All have been reprinted in paperback. Macauley is probably most famous for his award-winning international bestseller The Way Things Work (1988), which he later expanded, updated, and renamed The New Way Things Work (1998).

A discussion of Joseph Caldwell’s Late Archaic Stamp Creek Focus of northwest Georgia

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.

2007_fall_stamp_creek_cu

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.

References Cited

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.

A Swift Creek Site in southern Indiana

In September 2006, Leake Site Principal Investigators Scot Keith and Dean Wood took a trip to Indiana in order to conduct research into the Mann site, a Middle Woodland Hopewell site located in southwestern Indiana. This site is notable due to the presence (and abundance) of Swift Creek complicated stamped pottery, as well as sand tempered simple stamped wares very similar to Cartersville simple stamped pottery. The site has long been known to contain Swift Creek type pottery, recognized by such archaeologists as James Kellar and Bret Ruby. As the Swift Creek complicated stamped pottery tradition is not endemic to that region, its presence indicates a connection between Swift Creek and the Midwestern Hopewellian peoples. Our research was designed to investigate this connection.

We examined the Mann site collections held at the Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology at Indiana University in Bloomington and the private collection owned by Charles Lacer in Evansville. We took with us photographs of numerous selected Swift Creek sherds from Leake in order to search for potential design matches with the examples from Mann. While no exact design matches were found, we did come away with several interesting observations. Many of the complicated stamped design elements are shared between the sites, yet one design common at Leake—the barred oval—is rare at Mann. Furthermore, we noted numerous examples of the zigzagged Crooked River design at Mann, which is common in the Gulf Coastal and southwestern Georgia region, and conversely absent at Leake. An early Swift Creek pottery rim trait—deep and closely spaced rounded notches (often referred to as notched or scalloped)—is very common for the complicated stamped rim sherds from Mann, and this rim form is common at Leake as well.

As documented by Ruby, the Swift Creek complicated stamped wares from Mann are produced using a grog/clay tempered paste, while the simple stamped wares are sand tempered. Petrographic analysis conducted on the Mann site sherds indicates that the complicated stamped wares are produced locally, while the simple stamped wares are non-local—the materials suggesting a Southeastern origin. While assembling Leake sherds for a petrographic study shortly after returning from this research trip, Mr. Keith noted a complicated stamped notched rim sherd which was extremely similar to the Mann site examples, particularly in terms of paste temper and texture. This sherd was submitted to Dr. James Stoltman for petrographic analysis in order to see if there may be a direct connection between these two significant sites. The results from the petrographic analysis indicate that this sherd probably did derive from the Mann site, as may a small rocker stamped rim sherd we recovered!

Another ceramic variety recovered from the Mann site consisted of diamond shaped checks, each with a raised square or circle within. Examples of this type are also known from Hopewell sites in Ohio (such as Seip, Rockhold, Harness, and Turner), as well as from contemporaneous Southeastern sites having Hopewellian assemblages. Such sherds have been found at the Miner’s Creek site and 9Hy98 near Atlanta, Mandeville in southwest Georgia, and the Yearwood site in southern Tennessee. We feel that this variety may be related to the unidentified decorated type at Leake.

Our road trip demonstrated some very significant long distance connections (450 straight line miles) between the Swift Creek heartland in the central Georgia and southern Indiana as well as connections between the Leake and Mann sites specifically. More details and some illustrations of the connections can be found by clicking here.

Reconstructing the Past: Archaeology and Experimentation

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.

ga_chronology_sj

Paleoindian: 12,000-10,000 BP

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.

Archaic: ca. 10,000-3000 BP

Early Archaic: ca. 10,000-8000 BP

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.

Middle Archaic: ca. 8000-5500 BP

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.

Late Archaic: ca. 5500-3000 BP

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.

Woodland: ca. 3000-1100 BP

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.

Mississippian: ca. AD 900-1540

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.

Historic: ca. AD 1540-1840

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.”

References Cited

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.

Scott Jones is a primitive technologist and replicative specialist who conducts frequent hands-on presentations, including programs for school children, through his firm, Media Prehistoria.
This summary is drawn from his article in ‚“Resources at Risk,” a 2001 issue of Early Georgia. In this article, titled “An Introduction to the Prehistory of The Southeast or, “They were Shootin’em as Fast as They Could Make ’em!” and Other Popular Misconceptions about the Prehistoric Southeast,” Mr. Jones sought to convey, as he put it, “a sense of context and continuity to those who are interested in the flow of time and events.”

Rock piling in Georgia

The 1990 issue of Early Georgia (volume 18) featured Thomas H. Gresham’s article “Historic Patterns of Rock Piling and the Rock Pile Problems.” In the introduction, Mr. Gresham notes:

Rock piles, a term that can be broadly applied to a wide array of prehistoric and historic features, have long been of interest to the archaeologist and the general public. Rock piles occur in many parts of the world and appear to have great time depth. Since rock piles are often one of the most conspicuous aspects of a past society (the great pyramids of Egypt being an ultimate example), they persistently provoke general curiosity and scientific interest. Although I have not attempted even a cursory cross-cultural review of rock piling or archaeological investigation of rock piles throughout the world, I believe it true to say that most rock piles that have provided evidence of function have been determined to be mortuary or funerary.

He adds that the goals of this article are:
1) formally defining categories of piled rock features;
2) discussing uncited or rarely cited studies of rock piles;
3) presenting unpublished archeological data on historic rock piles;
4) presenting documentary and ethnographic data on historic patterns of rock piling;
5) introducing new ideas on the historic origin of rock piles; and,
6) critiquing some prevalent assumptions on historic rock piling.

Mr. Gresham concludes that Georgia rock piles date to at least three major chronological periods, including, Woodland, protohistoric Cherokee, and historical, and some rock pile clusters date to more than one period. He concludes that most rock piles made during the historical period date to the early, frontier days when the land was being cleared and improved to make agricultural fields. He believes that apparent distribution patterns of rock pile in clusters can be subjective and very misleading. Nevertheless, Mr. Gresham thinks most rock piles in Georgia were constructed in prehistory, although some excavated rock piles certainly have firm evidence of historic period construction.

To download a PDF of this article, Historic Patterns of Rock Piling and the Rock Pile Problems, click here.