Ethnohistorian Charles Hudson’s book The Southeastern Indians is still in print.

That’s saying something; it was originally published in 1976. Mostly, it indicates that this readable, data-filled volume remains relevant and important.

In other words: save your pennies and get your own copy!

Yes, archaeologists and historians have gathered significant new information since this book was published, but what’s between the covers means this title is worth having in your own library.

Hudson’s writing is both lyrical and factual. Consider the initial paragraph:

The native people of the American South—the Southeastern Indians—possessed the richest culture of any of the native people north of Mexico. It was richest by almost any measure. At the time Europeans first came to the New World, the Southeastern Indians lived on the fruits of an economy which combined farming with hunting and gathering; they organized themselves into relatively complex political units; they built large towns and monumental ceremonial centers; and they possessed a rich symbolism and an expressive art style. But hardly any of this has left an impression on our historical memory. The average American has some notion of the Powhatan Indians of Virginia and of the role they played in our early colonial history; he has a clear but stereotyped concept of the Indians who lived on the Great Plains; he may know something about the Navajo and Pueblo Indians of the Southwest; but he knows little or nothing about the Southeastern Indians.

Remember, Dr. Hudson wrote this in 1976. Still, many “average Americans” know little about the native peoples who lived in Georgia. If you want to learn about them, this book, with its maps and black-and-white photographic plates, is an excellent place to start. It remains available in paperback at a reasonable cost.

What other volumes do you consider must-have for your own library on Georgia archaeology? Log in and comment!

Charles M. Hudson, 1976, “The Southeastern Indians,” University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 573 pages. ISBN-13: 978-0870492488.

Archaeologist Jerald Ledbetter records stratigraphic information to provide context for the looted artifacts and bone.

Burke County State Court Judge Jerry Daniel in January 2010 handed down heavy fines on four east Georgia men who pled guilty to multiple counts related to looting a Late Archaic, Stallings culture shell midden site on the Ogeechee River in southern Burke County, Georgia. The four men were apprehended on private land by Georgia Department of Natural Resources Ranger First Class Jeff Billips and Ranger First Class Grant Matherly in late September of 2009. Two were found on the site with digging tools and fled when approached by the rangers. They were caught and charged with criminal trespass and interfering with the duties of an officer. They initially pled not guilty.

The other two men were arrested the next day when they were observed in the act of digging on the site. They had a number of artifacts in their possession, including a bone tool, several spear points and a shell gorget. One of the latter two men was digging through a human burial when caught. They were charged with criminal trespass, digging on an archeological site without permission and littering, and pled guilty to all counts.

In statements made during the sentencing, Judge Daniel said he knew that important archeological sites in Burke County were being badly harmed by site looters and that he wanted to put a stop to this long-standing activity. He also emphasized that the looters were trespassing on private property, and stealing private property, since archaeological sites (with the exception of burials and associated artifacts) under law belong to the landowner. In an attempt to put an end to destructive site looting the judge levied heavy fines and penalties, which included a $1000 fine for each count, a minimum $7384.00 fine to repair the archeological and physical damage to the site, 12 weekends in jail, community service, three years of probation (which requires a surcharge payment of $52/month) and a ban on attending any type of artifact show. After hearing about this heavy sentence, the first two men then pled guilty to avoid potential harsher sentencing in a trial. The three men who live outside of Burke County (one is from Swainsboro and two are from Metter) were banned from Burke County for three years.

All four men have been digging on sites for many years and one acknowledged that he has dug on many sites on the Ogeechee River acknowledged selling artifacts.

Testifying at the sentencing were State Archaeologist Dr. David Crass and Georgia Council on American Indian Concerns (GCAIC) archaeologist Tom Gresham. Crass requested GCAIC involvement in the case, and Gresham was called to the site in early October to document the site and the extent of the looting. He saw numerous piles of Stallings/Thoms Creek pottery, animal bone and chert artifacts left by the looters, as well as spoil piles containing abundant fresh water shell. After the DNR officers gathered the evidence they needed, Gresham and three colleagues mapped the extent of the looting, calculating that about 290 square meters had been disturbed. They also gathered about 47 pounds of bone, 56 pounds of stone artifacts and 82 pounds of pottery. This material is now being analyzed by Jerald Ledbetter and Lisa O’Steen so that some scientific value can be salvaged from the site. The site dates to the Stallings and Thoms Creek cultures of the Late Archaic period, which spans a critical time in Georgia prehistory, from about 3500 to 4000 years ago. This was a time when Indians in the Southeast were becoming more sedentary and began heavily exploiting freshwater shell fish.

Dr. Crass told Judge Daniel that Burke County contains some of the most important Archaic Period sites in Georgia, and that DNR believes an educated and caring private landowner is often the best protection for such sites. He also pointed out that there is an important distinction to be made between wholesale digging and casual surface collecting, and that DNR (and Georgia code) recognizes this distinction.

The Georgia Council on American Indian Concerns actively supported the efforts of DNR’s Law Enforcement Division to prosecute the case and rectify the damage to the site and to the human burials. Although the Council was disappointed that felony charges of burial disturbance were not brought, it was explained that misdemeanor convictions and appropriate penalties in State Court were a better bet than the uncertain outcome of a felony charge in Superior Court.

Tom Gresham notes that these sentences were largely a result of several actions taken by the archeological community in the past two decades. The principal charge was excavating on a site without written permission of the landowner and without notifying DNR. This law was proposed by archeologists in 1993 to allow prosecution without requiring the landowner to press charges. Additionally, the DNR rangers had been trained and sensitized to the problem of site looting and were very effective in gathering evidence and presenting a strong case. Dr. Crass lauded the two rangers and their colleagues, Sergeant Max Boswell and Captain Thomas Barnard, saying that they handled the case with high professionalism.

Third, it is likely that a long running campaign by archaeologists to inform the public about the harm that site looting does to all Georgians created the atmosphere for harsher sentencing.

Society for Georgia Archaeology President Dennis Blanton observes that

the outcome of this case sends all of the right signals: Georgia’s irreplaceable archaeological sites are under siege and require vigilant protection, there is a broad spectrum of our citizens out there that cares deeply about them, and such sites have a critical story to tell about our human forbears. We can only hope that looters will take note and that others will be alert to illegal digging elsewhere in the state.

Tom Gresham remarked that he had never seen such a wide array of punctated and stab-and-drag motifs on the pottery. One sherd alone has five types of punctation. As noted a decade ago by Ken Sassaman, Stallings-like pottery on the Ogeechee River is mostly sand tempered, with very little fiber. Thus, it is more accurately typed as Thoms Creek pottery. Of the approximately 700 sherds collected from the spoil piles, every one is Thoms Creek/Stallings pottery. The animal bone contains a great deal of deer and turtle bone, and only small amounts of bird and other mammal bone. No fish bone has yet been identified. As mentioned, human bone, probably from two individuals, has also been identified.

Illegal digging on shell middens along the Ogeechee River is a long-standing problem, presumably fed by the antiquities market that highly values bone pins often found in shell middens. Ken Sassaman, Kristin Wilson and Frankie Snow wrote an article in the Spring 1995 issue of Early Georgia citing this problem and documenting two looted sites on the Ogeechee River not far from the recently looted site. It is anticipated that the analysis of the pottery, stone and bone from the present site will be described in an article in Early Georgia.

Back by popular demand, the Northwest Georgia Archaeology Society will hold a prehistoric pottery washing and seminar on Thursday, January 14, 2010 at New Echota Historic Site located near Calhoun, Georgia. The meeting will begin at 7 pm.

Jim Langford, President of the Coosawattee Foundation, will lecture and supervise this event.

“For several years, we held this program in January as part of our regular meeting of the Northwest Georgia Archaeology Society. We stopped a couple of years ago, but many people have requested that we have another such seminar,” stated Mr. Langford.

He continued, “we wash and identify pottery from multiple time periods while learning about the chronological sequence of the pottery types and their methods of manufacture. We always have a good turnout for this program, and everyone seems to really enjoy it.”

The New Echota Historic Site located on GA Hwy. 225 (Exit #317) just north of I-75 about 1 mile. For those using GPS systems, the physical address is 1211 Chatsworth Hwy, Calhoun, Georgia 30701.

The public is invited to attend the program and meeting. For more information, contact Jack Walker at 770-655-2595.

Between 2004 and 2006, Southern Research conducted two separate data recovery investigations at the Leake site, located in the Etowah River floodplain just southwest of Cartersville in Bartow County. Conducted for the Georgia Department of Transportation, Bartow County Water Department, and Georgia Power, both of these data recovery projects were limited to the newly expanded right-of-way in advance of the widening of Highways 61/113. Through mechanical stripping and test unit excavation, the data recovery excavations uncovered approximately 4,650 square meters of the site.

The Leake site is comprised of state sites 9BR2, 663, 664, 665, 666, 667, and 668 and covers at least 115 acres; three sites (9BR17, 24, and 194) on Ladds Mountain across the river appear to have been important components of the Leake cultural landscape as well. The primary occupation dates to the Middle Woodland period circa 300 B.C. – 650 A.D, while a significant Late Mississippian village component, investigated by David Hally, Jim Rudolph, and Jim Langford during the 1988-1990 University of Georgia field schools, is present in the area of Mound A. Investigations at Leake have documented significant archaeological deposits, including the remains of three mounds, extensive midden deposits, structural remains, craft production and ceremonial feasting deposits, and a probable circular ditch/moat enclosure. With each end appearing to connect to the river, the ditch enclosure situates Mounds A and B on an island and separates the Cartersville and Swift Creek components. Non-local and ideologically-valuable artifacts indicative of Hopewellian interregional interaction, such as Ohio Flint Ridge blades, human and animal figurines, cut mica, copper, galena, and quartz crystals are present at the site, particularly within the Swift Creek area of the site. The cultural and geographical positioning were important factors for the development of Leake into a major Hopewellian ceremonial center that linked the Southeast and the Midwest during the Middle Woodland period. In short, the data indicate that the Leake site served as a gateway city between these two regions, a place where peoples from both areas congregated for rituals and ceremonies.

The Leake site complex is an archaeological resource of state (and national) significance. With this in mind, it was at the Fort Daniel Faire in Gwinnett County that the idea for attempting to place the site on the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation’s 2010 Places in Peril listing was born (Fort Daniel was on the 2009 Places in Peril list). The Places in Peril list includes historic resources in Georgia that are in danger of being destroyed, whether from neglect, development, or otherwise. In conversation with Larissa Thomas at the Faire, The Profile editor, revealed that the Trust was looking for an archaeological site for inclusion on the Places in Peril list, which predominantly lists above-ground historic resources. Larissa introduced me to Jordan Poole, Georgia Trust Field Services Manager and director of the Places in Peril, who encouraged me to submit the Leake site for consideration. Dean Wood and I completed and submitted the application, and a few months later we learned that the site was chosen.

While the site boundary has never been systematically defined, the known area of the Leake site extends across several different ownership parcels. Significant portions of the site are owned by the City of Cartersville and Bartow County, both of whom have done an outstanding job of protecting their parcels. However, the preservation of several privately-owned parcels is in doubt, as the Leake site area is being rapidly developed. Although the known extent of the site does not extend to the north much beyond the railroad tracks, the area north of the railroad is an industrial park. Given the nature of the Leake site, it is not unlikely that related deposits are present north of the tracks, and there is some evidence of a fourth mound north of the railroad adjacent the river.

Less than 30 years ago, there were no modern buildings within the known boundaries of the site (see 1981 aerial photograph). By the time of the first UGA field school in 1988, one had been erected east of Mound A, while two were constructed in the area of Mound C, one of which sits atop the northern half of Mound C. By the late 1990’s when Southeastern Archaeological Services tested the site, two modern buildings had been erected in the area of Mounds A and B.

During the course of the data recovery excavations, the City was looking into purchasing a two-acre parcel on which a portion of Mound A is located. However, the landowner of the adjacent parcel, who operates a business on the site, purchased the two-acre parcel, an immediate threat to Mound A due to his plans to expand the parking lot. Already having graveled over the northern portion of Mound A on the existing parcel, the future of the southern portion of Mound A was in serious doubt. Thus, a group of concerned persons worked to get the City to swap an adjoining non-mound parcel they own with the business owner. While the southern portion of Mound A was protected in this manner, a large area immediately southwest of this mound (including a portion of the ditch) is now under the expanded parking lot.

Further, piecemeal attrition of the site has continued. The northeastern corner of the site, an approximately 6 acre area contained by the ditch feature and bounded by the highway and River Court has recently been developed despite the documented presence of a midden in this area.

During the coming year, we plan to use the exposure and support from the Places in Peril listing to raise awareness of the site in hopes that the remaining portions can be protected. We plan to conduct educational meetings in the community and with county and city officials to raise support for protection of the site. We plan to have an event at the site for the 2010 Archaeology Month. We will be doing interviews, we are forming a “Friends of the Leake Site” group (we have an informal one on Facebook), we will be regularly updating the website about Leake, and we will be giving talks and lectures. Perhaps most importantly, our goal is to raise money to purchase the privately-owned parcels for preservation. So spread the word, get involved, help us out, so that we can protect the remaining portions of the Leake site from being lost. Please do not hesitate to contact Scot Keith (home email, work email) or Dean Wood (work email) for more information.

Deptford Cord Marked sherd photo from the University of Georgia’s website “Georgia Indian Pottery Site.”

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?

Have you ever wondered what the paddles Native Americans made to stamp decorations on the outside of pottery looked like? W.H. Holmes included a plate illustrating three paddles made by Cherokees probably in the late nineteenth century in his report “Aboriginal Pottery of the Eastern United States,” which was printed in the Twentieth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1898–1899 (published in 1903). This report has many many plates, including images of whole pots and broken sherds. On page 132–133, Holmes describes stamped pottery from southeastern North America:

As has been mentioned, the remarkable style of decoration, more than any other feature, characterizes this pottery. Elaborately figured stamps were rarely used elsewhere, except in Central and South America. The exact form of the stamping tool or die is, of course, not easily determined, as the imprint upon the rounded surface of the vases represents usually only the middle portion of the figured surface of the implement. It is highly probable, however, that the stamp had a handle and therefore assumed the shape of a paddle, as do the stamps used by the Cherokees at the present time. Occasionally partial impressions of a small portion of the square or round margin of the stamp are seen. It was the usual practice to apply the stamp at random over the entire exterior surface of the vessel, and thus it happened that the impressions encroached upon one another, rendering an analysis of the design, where it is complex, extremely difficult. In many localities the design was simple, consisting of two series of shallow lines or grooves crossing the paddle surface at right angles, leaving squarish interspaces in relief, so that the imprint on the clay gave the reverse—that is, low ridges with shallow rectangular depressions in the interspaces. The lines vary from 3 to 10 to the inch, and, when covering the surface of a vessel, give a hatched or checkered effect closely resembling that made by imprinting a coarse fabric or a cord-wrapped tool. These iigures have occasionally been regarded as impressions resulting from modeling the vessel in a basket or net, but close examination shows that the imprintings are in small, disconnected areas, not coinciding or joining at the edges where the impressions overlap, and that the arrangement of parts is really not that of woven strands.

The character of the work is fully elucidated by the Cherokee wooden paddles which are shown [above]. One side of the broad part of the implement is covered with deeply engraved lines, carved no doubt with steel knives, but the work is not so neat and the grouping is not so artistic as in the ancient work.

If you are curious about paddle-stamping, or interested in reading Holmes’s text, you’re in luck. The Internet Archive provides a downloadable PDF of the whole volume here. The section on Southern Appalachia, including Georgia, begins on page 130 (page 604 of the PDF). There is separate access to just the text, stripped from the volume and the plates, which also may be useful, especially if you have a slow Internet connection.

Perhaps you’re interesting in making your own paddle and stamping some pottery? Give it a try! (Make sure you have permission to do this if you’re not an adult.)

Want to learn about the decorations on prehistoric pottery from Georgia? Try the University of Georgia’s website “Georgia Indian Pottery Site.” The current version was developed this year, and improves on the previous version, which was begun in 2005. Originally, it was essentially a digital version of the SGA’s Early Georgia from 1999, volume 27, issue 1, which is currently out of print.

You can look up pottery types by general decorative style (e.g., punctated, check stamped), or by specific name (e.g., Kasita red filmed, Deptford cord marked).

This handy and informative website is worth taking time to explore.

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.

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.

Long time SGA member and primitive technology researcher Scott Jones has just published a book that is a compilation of his articles from the past decade related to primitive technology and experimental archaeology. Scott has practiced primitive technology for two decades and now makes a living presenting the subject to the general public (always with lots of examples and demonstrations) and by conducting experimental archaeology with CRM firms. He is a long time board member of the Society for Primitive Technology and is currently its president. He lives with his wife and son in rural (i.e., primitive) Oglethorpe County.

The book, entitled A View to the Past: Experience and Experiment in Primitive Technology, is a 277-page, soft bound collection of about 40 articles, most of which were originally published in the Bulletin of Primitive Technology. The articles are illustrated with numerous photographs and a few drawings and charts. They are organized into six chapters: foundation skills, making things fly, shelter, stone tools, regional perspectives in experimental archaeology and other musings. While there is a good bit of “how to” in many of the articles, Scott also addresses the “why” and “what does it mean” aspects of experimental work. The fact that Scott has an anthropology degree (UGA) and works with professional archeologists allows him to make a great many more anthropological observations from his work than most primitive technologists. Thus, while the articles on building a shelter, making a long bow, and fire starting will appeal to the general public, and especially young readers, these and most every article have important messages for the working archaeologist who is trying to interpret the anthropology of artifact assemblages. This is a very readable, interesting, and entertaining book that will appeal to a wide audience.

A View to the Past by Scott Jones is available from Createspace.

Many of the archeological phase names currently used for northwest Georgia are directly attributable to the work of Joseph Caldwell in Allatoona Reservoir more than fifty years ago (Caldwell 1950, 1957). While terminology has changed over the years, most of the designations used by Caldwell remain in use today. For instance, the old term “Kellogg focus” is now referred to as Kellogg phase and “Cartersville focus” is now referred to as Cartersville phase (Garrow 2002:2). This change to modern terminology has been gradual and there have been relatively recent cases where an author considered it “advisable to retain the older terminological structure to avoid potential confusion” (Cable et al. 1991:80).

It is a little known fact that Caldwell also defined a Late Archaic phase for the Allatoona Reservoir that he called the Stamp Creek focus (Caldwell 1957:279). Based on his description, the Stamp Creek focus would be comparable in many respects to the Late Archaic Mill Branch or Black Shoals phases of eastern Georgia (Elliott et al. 1994:371, Stanyard 2003:62). The most diagnostic artifact type associated with each of these is represented by large stemmed projectile points that may be identified as Savannah River Stemmed (Coe 1959:44) or Appalachian Stemmed (Kneberg 1957). While these two point names appear to be regional variants of the same type, the name Appalachian Stemmed tends to be used for points made from quartzite (Cambron and Hulse 1964:6).

Caldwell devoted substantial space in his Allatoona report to the discussion of the Stamp Creek focus, but it would seem that he did not pursue the subject further after that project. A search of the University of Georgia’s Laboratory of Archaeology Manuscript Files produced a single document on the subject. A manuscript entitled “The Stamp Creek Culture: A Prepottery Occupation in the Etowah Area, Georgia” is not dated, but a notation in the text indicates it was written prior to 1955. In reading Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States, the Stamp Creek type site is mentioned, but the Stamp Creek focus is not discussed (Caldwell 1958:80). Because the Allatoona Survey report was never published, relatively few archeologists have been made aware of Caldwell’s Late Archaic phase description.

Caldwell’s Stamp Creek focus was intended to represent the final stage of the Archaic period, but his trait list probably includes some artifacts from earlier and later periods. Artifact drawings include large stemmed projectile points, a variety of smaller stemmed points, notched points and soapstone sherds. Figure 1 shows one of Caldwell’s illustrations of projectile points thought to be part of the Stamp Creek focus (the figure also depicts triangular points of the later Kellogg focus). Using the data available at the time, Caldwell felt the Stamp Creek focus assemblage differed in some respects from the closely related Savannah River focus of eastern Georgia (Fairbanks 1942:223-231) and the Lauderdale focus of northern Alabama (Webb and DeJarnette 1942:19).

With respect to the traits used to define the Stamp Creek focus, Caldwell noted that of the various stemmed points found on the sites, the medium to large ‚“simple tang” (stemmed) points were the most characteristic and also showed the closest resemblance to materials from other Southeastern pre-ceramic foci (Caldwell 1957:279, 1958:13). Such points are usually relatively large and heavy, the stem is square, and the shoulders broad and well defined (Caldwell 1957: Figures 8 and 9). Caldwell also included hemispherical steatite bowls and other groundstone artifacts as traits of the focus. Caldwell recognized that perforated steatite tablets, “the so-called net sinkers,” that are so numerous at Stallings Island and other Savannah River Focus sites, were practically absent in the Allatoona area. The excavated Stamp Creek focus sites produced no axes, atlatl weights, bone or shell artifacts (Caldwell 1957:280).

Caldwell noted that at Allatoona, quartzite was usually employed for large simple tang points, but quartz was little used. Flint (chert) was used to produce smaller points that were highly variable in shape and included slight (expanded) tang, simple (straight) tang, bifurcated tang, corner notched, side notched and stemless (Caldwell 1957:9). As previously noted, some of the points would be recognized today as dating to earlier or later time periods.

Figure 1. Examples of projectile points and bifaces associated with Caldwell’s Stamp Creek focus with comparisons to those of the Kellogg focus. The large quartzite points in the center are typical examples (illustration courtesy of the University of Georgia, Laboratory of Archaeology). Click image for much larger version of the figure.

Caldwell’s excavations on the Stamp Creek site produced a number of features and he concluded that 18 pits could be attributed to the Stamp Creek focus occupation. Most appeared to be used for storage of food, but one contained red ochre and some traces of human bone. Most of the pits were similar in appearance, usually with straight sides and flat bottoms. Dimensions ranged from 2.5 to 5 feet in diameter and 1.5 to 3 feet deep. A few were oval or oblong and in two or three instances, sides were sloping. Based on our current understanding of diagnostic artifact types, some of the features identified by Caldwell are probably associated with later occupations (terminal Late Archaic or Woodland). Still, the evidence remains that 9BR139 was an intensively occupied habitation site of the period.

Caldwell regarded the Stamp Creek Focus as a relatively late pre-ceramic culture but he cautioned that the absence of fiber tempered pottery on these sites did not mean that the ceramic type was not being used in the region (Caldwell 1957:280). Caldwell’s report actually illustrates one fiber tempered sherd from the Stamp Creek site and he describes one additional fiber tempered sherd form another survey site, 9CK101, as “Stallings Island Incised and Punctate” (Caldwell 1957:207). At present, we have no means of determining if the fiber tempered sherds were associated with the Stamp Creek focus or a later occupation.

Subsequent to Caldwell’s work in Allatoona Reservoir, other sites have been identified in northwestern Georgia that contain large Savannah River Stemmed or Appalachian Stemmed types that are made quartzite or other equally hard lithic materials (Beasley 1995, Benson et al. 2007, Crook 1984, Webb 1998). The identified site types include intensively occupied habitation sites, short term camps, and quarry-oriented lithic workshops. One recently investigated site, 9GO231, is of particular interest because Savannah River style projectile points made from quartzite and Ridge and Valley chert occur in nearly equal numbers (Benson et al. 2007). 9GO231 is located within the Ridge and Valley Province, while most of the other sites discovered to date lie at the edge of the Piedmont Province. A few radiocarbon dates have been procured in the past decade from northwest Georgia sites that are in line with those of the Mill Branch and Black Shoals phases of eastern Georgia and western South Carolina (Webb 1998, Steve Webb, personal communication 2007). The suggested range of Mill Branch and Black Shoals phases extends from approximately 4200 to 3450 B.P. (Stanyard 2003:62). It would appear that Caldwell’s Stamp Creek focus should fit comfortably within that time period.

During the 1970s, archeologists began using the term Savannah River phase to cover the entire pre-ceramic Late Archaic period in the northern part of Georgia (DePratter 1975:4) and that phase designation has been used in a few northwestern Georgia reports (Bowen 1989:115, Crook 1984:55). In his recent overview of the Archaic period of northwestern Georgia, Stanyard (2003:58) concluded that a general lack of information impedes our ability to assess the nature of the Late Archaic development in the region and he proposed a provisional category of “undifferentiated phase” for the period of ca 5000 to 3000 B.P. (Stanyard 2003:58). I suggest that Caldwell’s Stamp Creek focus represents a useful tool for the study of a portion of the Late Archaic period. Unfortunately, we cannot simply change the word “focus” to “phase” and was the case for Kellogg and Cartersville. The name Stamp Creek phase was adopted several years ago as a Lamar designation (Hally and Rudolph 1986:64). While Caldwell’s Late Archaic designation has historical precedence, it is unlikely that the Lamar phase name will ever be changed. For the time being, it is perhaps just as well that we continue to use the name “Caldwell’s Stamp Creek focus” in our discussions of the Late Archaic for northwest Georgia.

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.

It is was once said, “June is the month for weddings”. Not in our field of avocational and vocational interest. June is the first full month when schools of all kinds release students of anthropology and archaeology, along with their professors, to “get down to earth” in archaeological pursuits. And sometimes, they allow volunteers to use their vacation time to assist them in their endeavors. In June of 2006, there were three such opportunities to work alongside professionals, before the unbearable heat (for digging in middle and lower Georgia), took over in July and August.

In Macon, the foundations of Fort Hawkins were to be exposed by Dan Elliot and his crew. Dennis Blanton would be leading a team of mostly volunteers in a search for the lost mission of Santa Isabel de Utinahica in Telfair County. Also, Dr. Thomas Pluckhahn would be returning to the Kolomoki Mound complex at Kolomoki State Park in Early County to search for remains of domestic living there during the Late Woodland time period.

As all three of these worthy endeavors were to take place at the same time, choosing among them was difficult. For this writer, that decision was made easier by the opportunity of camping under beautiful pines, three minutes from work and two minutes from fishing. The choice proved fortuitous, as upon arrival, I was offered a berth at an old ranger cabin. It was a small room with three beds, shared with two other male volunteers. To sleep under a small window air conditioner, suddenly seemed preferable to sleeping under the beautiful pines.

There has been a wide range of opinion on how to interpret the cultural remains left by the builders of earthen mounds at Kolomoki and other mound complexes in America. But much progress has been made in the last century. To keep things in perspective, it may not hurt to include a few quotations from the writings of early mound investigators. As late as 1904, John Patterson MacLean, a historian, concluded this from his own research and that of the archaeologists of the late nineteenth century: “An ancient race, entirely distinct from the Indian, possessing a certain degree of civilization, once inhabited the central portion of the United States. They have left no written history, and all that is known concerning them is gathered from the monuments consisting of mounds, enclosures, implements, etc., which they have left behind. These remains have been carefully examined, and after long and patient investigations, the archaeologist has arrived at certain definite conclusions, and so apparently accurate are they that we may safely say that we are very well acquainted with this lost race.”

By 1905, archaeologist Cyrus Thomas, addressed the “Lost Race” theory with these words: “A single voice raised at intervals in protest against this conclusion was overwhelmed by the declarations of leading authorities of the time. Research and careful scientific investigation, however, have to a large extent cleared away the mist that surrounded the subject, and it is now generally conceded that the authors of these works were the immediate ancestors of the Indians found inhabiting this section when visited by the first European explorers.” Most archaeologists working at Kolomoki have investigated the site by digging into the mounds, a practice that has not provided all the answers to questions surrounding the largest Woodland mound complex in the Southeast. Dr. Pluckhahn believes additional understanding can be achieved by excavating living areas next to the mounds. Features of a Middle Woodland house were recorded in 2001. Now, the search is on for a Late Woodland period house that might shed light on any changes in construction and use.

Figure 1. The Core Crew at Colomokee (seated, left to right: Buck, Bobby, Elsbeth, Sarah; standing: Rae).

My partners in grime for this dig were a good representation of the academic spectrum (Figure 1). There was Bobby Butler, a high school student from Savannah, Buck Brown, grad at the University of North Carolina, Elsbeth Field, a Princeton graduate who was in a graduate program at the University of Oklahoma, and Rae Harper, with a B.A. in Anthropology from the University of South Florida (USF). Thomas Pluckhahn topped the tower of technical talent; with a 2003 Ph.D. from the University of Georgia, three years teaching at the University of Oklahoma, and now, Assistant Professor of Archaeology at USF. Rae was the invaluable right-hand person at the project. She was uniquely qualified for the task, having entered a post graduate program in public archaeology.

The Summer 2006 excavation was funded by the National Geographic Society. Support was provided by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. During previous visits, shovel tests and excavated test units had shown a relatively high concentration of Late Woodland artifacts on the south side of the access road.

Figure 2. Units excavated (illustrations courtesy of Dr. Thomas Pluckhahn).

Multiple units were excavated in this area and 18 m2 of earth were screened (Figure 2). Six features were excavated and others were exposed. These were covered and backfilled in anticipation of Dr. Pluckhahn’s 2007 summer field school at the site. The units shown in Figure 2 contained deep storage pits, which are larger than those of Middle Woodland sites excavated in previous years. Although features representing a Late Woodland structure were not definitely found, an arcing line of possible post holes were visible. The pattern is very different from that previously observed in Middle Woodland house sites at Kolomoki.

Figure 3. Excavation in progress.

Digging at Kolomoki in June of 2006 was about as good as it gets. The weather was hot and sunny, but not unbearable. This article gives me an opportunity to thank our leader, Dr. Thomas Pluckhahn, for his humanity in having us dig in shaded spots as much as possible (Figure 3). He, in turn, wishes to thank all those who participated. After brush was cleared, top debris removed and squares laid out, the digging commenced. The soil being mostly alluvial, there were few rocks to contend with. But roots were an annoyance to bear. This was made easier by keeping in mind that tree roots are a good trade off to digging in a field under a hot sun. After reaching a depth where the roots thinned out; excavating the loamy soil was easy.

It impressed me that no artifacts from the historic period were present and that prehistoric artifacts were in such a thin layer once encountered. Something else that surprised me, was that pottery sherds of different traditions were at the same level, or nearly so. It was the same with the relatively few lithics (compared to pot sherds), that were found. In one square I was digging in, a lanceolate biface was at the same level as a crude looking spike.

Figure 4. Stemmed projectile point from Kolomoki excavations.

The Swift Creek Complicated Stamped and Weeden Island decorations appeared to be well executed, especially the Keith Incised sherds. The most exquisite bifaces were excavated by other members of our group in nearby squares (Figure 4).

The project was a lot of fun and I enjoyed helping to shed light on Georgia’s prehistory.

Editor’s note: Dick returned for Dr. Pluckhahn’s second field season at Kolomoki, which was completed on June 21, 2007. This time he chose to stay in the campground, which he has dubbed “Falling Timbers,” as a tree came crashing down behind his tent at 3:00 AM one morning. Some branches broke up ten feet away, but his tent was untouched. Ahhh‚ communing with nature is always so relaxing. We’re glad Dick is safe.

References cited

MacLean, John Patterson
1904 The Mound Builders, Being an Account of a Remarkable People That Once Inhabited the Valleys of the Ohio and Mississippi, Together With an Investigation Into the Archaeology of Butler County, Ohio. 7th edition, The Robert Clarke Company.

Pluckhahn, Thomas J.
2003 Kolomoki: Settlement, Ceremony, and Status in the Deep South, A.D. 350 to 750. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2007 Personal Communication.

Thomas, Cyrus
1905 The History of North America, Vol. 19, Prehistoric North America. George Barrie & Sons, Philadelphia.

Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc. (SEARCH) of Jonesville, Florida conducted limited Phase II test excavations at two archaeological sites (9CF17 and 9CF71) located within the proposed Broxton Rocks wetlands mitigation bank near the Ocmulgee River in Coffee County, Georgia, in September of 2005. The project report was completed in March of 2006. The scope of work for the project was developed in consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District.

Background research conducted prior to entering the field included interviews with archaeologists Frankie Snow and Nancy White and an examination of existing collections from both sites, which are curated at South Georgia College in Douglas. Both sites were originally recorded by Snow, who conducted surface collections over a period of several years during the 1970s. Snow also excavated a burial from 9CF17 that was exposed by erosion and later conducted a salvage excavation of an elliptical arrangement of mussel shells and faunal bone that he interpreted as representing a Spanish Mission-period aboriginal dwelling. The collection from 9CF17 includes over 3,000 ceramic sherds, (fiber-tempered, Deptford Check Stamped, Swift Creek Complicated Stamped, Ocmulgee Cord Marked, Lamar Incised and Complicated Stamped, and San Marcos Simple Stamped, Check Stamped, and Complicated Stamped), a small but exceptionally well-preserved sample of faunal remains (bone and freshwater mussel shell), a large number of projectile points and lithic waste flakes, several pipe fragments, steatite fragments, clay pipe fragments, a few glass beads, and a small copper ornament. The collection from 9CF71 is much smaller and consists of a few sherds (fiber-tempered, cordmarked), a concave-base projectile point, and some waste flakes.

During 16 field days, a crew of four archaeologists excavated 298 shovel tests at 20-m intervals across both sites, visually inspected the ground surface for any exposed artifacts or features, and excavated six 1×2-m test units (four at 9CF17 and two at 9CF71). The results indicate that 9CF17 contains intact archaeological deposits dating from the Kirk phase of the Early Archaic period through the Ocmulgee phase of the Late Woodland period. A possible historic Mission period component also was identified. 9CF71 was found to contain very few artifacts within the recorded site area. No features or midden staining were encountered.

Georgia Archaeology Month 2002 focused on the prehistory of southwest Georgia, and especially the archaeology of the famous village and mound community we now call Kolomoki (pronounced ‚“Coal-oh-moe-key”), which is located in Kolomoki Mounds State Historic Park in Early County, near Blakely.

At Kolomoki, Native Americans lived, worked, played, and died. It was most heavily populated from A.D. 350-750, during what archaeologists call the Woodland Period. The Native Americans there built houses, buildings, and mounds; they hunted game and gathered plants for food. They made pottery and tools to help them in their everyday tasks. But life wasn’t all work. They played games, danced, and participated in religious ceremonies. The main settlement where Indians lived at Kolomoki is one of the oldest Indian communities in Georgia that has temple-mounds. This is one thing that makes Kolomoki unique.

The pottery of Kolomoki and contemporaneous settlements in that area have distinctive, complex designs on the exterior of the pots. The lesson plan contains discussion topics about Woodland Period pottery designs. An example of a type of pottery design archaeologists call Swift Creek is pictured here.

Click here to download a copy of this lesson plan.