Society for Georgia Archaeology » primitive technology

Tag: primitive technology

These articles from all over the SGA website have been tagged with 'primitive technology'. 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.

Arrows or spears?

Photo by Maggie Villiger; from the the PBS website.

You’re going hunting. You have both arrows and spears. Which do you choose?

After all, as Dr. Veronica Waweru, a research affiliate of the National Museums of Kenya and a postdoctoral fellow at Stony Brook University (NY) whose own research has focused on a site on the Kinangop plateau in Kenya, notes:

To any hunter, putting distance between yourself and prey that might potentially fight back is important. Here, arrows have an advantage over spears. Weapons also need to deliver lethal blows, induce massive bleeding or cause damage to internal organs. Penetration depth is therefore important.

Indeed, Dr. Waweru’s research suggests arrow use began much earlier in Africa than had previously been widely believed—perhaps about 100,000 years ago.

In a PBS blog linked to The Human Spark program series, Dr. Waweru laments:

Modern hunters often add a cocktail of poisons to the shafts of their arrows. These are derived from plants (such as the arrow poison tree) that have wide distribution in Africa. Did prehistoric hunters use arrows to deliver poisons to quarry? We may never know because poisons are unlikely to survive that long.

The Human Spark is a three-part series investigating the topic of human uniqueness hosted by Alan Alda. Read more about the series by clicking here.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/humanspark/about/about-the-series-introduction/35/

The first broadcast of The Human Spark will be on January 6, 13, and 20, 2010.

percussion flaking

method for making stone tools that involves striking a lump of tool stone with another object, often stone, thereby detaching waste flakes

Stay tuned: Spring meeting plans underway

sga_banner_logoJust a brief head’s-up that plans for the Spring Meeting (that is, Spring 2010) are moving forward. We plan to meet in Albany, and we’re looking at Saturdays in mid-May.

Of course, our Spring Meeting will be part of Archaeology Month, and the SGA always has a theme for Archaeology Month, including our poster and our meeting. The theme for the SGA’s 2010 Archaeology Month is primitive technology. Right now the working title is: Making the Past Come to Life! Exploring Ancient Techniques.

Rather than organizing lecture presentations, we plan to invite modern-day craftsmen who practice olden-day techniques, and to pair each with an archaeologist who will discuss how the technology depicted relates to the field of archaeology. We hope our modern craftsmen will include flintknappers, potters, basket makers, and weavers, who can bring the ways of the past to life.

Stay tuned to this website for details, so you can mark your calendar!

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.

Points, pottery, and hafting

Major technological and cultural innovations have the potential to influence technology and culture beyond the immediate realm of the innovation itself. While the widespread adoption of fired clay ceramics in the terminal Archaic/Early Woodland era is directly relevant to food preparation, the transition from indirect heating (stone-boiling) to direct heating in pots represents a dynamic techno-cultural change. Ever since Coe (1964) demonstrated that early Woodland triangular projectile point forms differ dramatically from the stemmed terminal Archaic forms that immediately precede them, archaeologists have sought plausible reasons for this change. This article explores the possible influence of early ceramics on the practical manufacture of adhesives used in hafting, which would accommodate significant changes in projectile point form. This is inferred from the apparent shift from Archaic period use of plant resins (pitch) to early historic use of animal collagen (‚“hide”) glue.

glue_hide

The manufacture of hide glue requires precise heat control, which is greatly improved by the use of a clay pot. The glue can be made from a variety of animal parts, including hide shavings (shown in pot), sinew (also shown), hoof, velvet antler, and fish skin.

Archaic points, irrespective of form, have explicit haft areas. These haft elements often have large amounts of surface area, providing a sturdy bond between the tool and the haft. Basal grinding is common on many Archaic point forms (not just Early Archaic types, on which grinding is often extreme). This helps prevent damage to fiber bindings, but of equal importance, grinding strengthens the haft area against breakage.

Despite poor organic preservation in the southeast, pitch residues are occasionally found. Webb (1946) mentions pitch on a number of antler and bone artifacts from Indian Knoll, as well as a block of pitch in a burial; pitch residues were found on the stone points from the Windover site in Florida (Doran 2002). In Georgia, Ledbetter et al. (2001) report plant resin residues on processing tools from Bartow County.

From dry caves and rock shelters of the western U.S., Aikens (1970), Dalley (1977), Gunnerson (1962), Jennings (1978) and others refer to the use of pitch on various artifacts. Cosgrove (1947), however, specifically states that hafted artifacts from his study area were bound with sinew alone, and pitch was not used. Despite this absence of pitch, his emphatic remarks highlight the prevalence of this adhesive in other parts of the arid west, while illustrating the importance of fiber bindings (e.g., sinew) in the Archaic tradition.

glue_pitch

Pitch glue can be made with simple equipment such as a shell (shown, containing raw resin) or a flat rock (a small pot or large sherd can be used as well). It can be made into pitch sticks for future use. It is used for hafting tools (knife and projectile foreshaft shown), patching and caulking, and inlay work.

Thus it would seem that plant resin mastic—pitch—was widely used during the Archaic period. Yet by historic times it seems to vanish from the technological landscape. For instance, Swanton (1946) cites several sources who describe how Native Americans (mostly in what is now Virginia) of the early historic era hafted their arrow points. In addition to sinew bindings, these accounts uniformly mention animal glue, specifically that made from deer antler. Such glue is particular to the immature growing antler, in the ‚“velvet” stage. Swanton also refers to glue made from deer skin and fish. Yet nowhere does he mention the use of pitch or pine tar, noting only that pitchpine (presumably heart pine ‚“lightwood‚“) was a source of soot for tattoos.

How, though, does this apparent change in hafting relate to ceramic technology? Can a case be made for a relationship between hafting methods, projectile point form, and pottery? To consider this, let us look at the merits and limitations of plant mastics and animal glues. Pitch glue is made from the resins of coniferous trees (notably pine in the southeast), and a small number of deciduous trees (sweetgum is our best example). Pitch is a good hunter-gatherer adhesive—it requires minimal equipment, it is maintainable, and it allows re-hafting—and fits into Bleed’s (1986) maintainability type. It is easy to make, requiring a modest supply of resin and minimal gear: a mussel shell or flat rock for a preparation vessel; some organic temper (such as charcoal powder); and a fire on which to heat it (see Jones 2005 for a discussion of pitch glue). Short lengths of fiber may be added to the pitch as well (Silsby 1999). In a pinch, pine resin may be gathered and heated as-is on the end of a stick, and applied while hot. Pitch provides support and fills gaps within the haft, and is more or less waterproof. The down side is that it is not very flexible and becomes brittle over time, thus requiring maintenance.

Animal (‚“hide”) glue, on the other hand, is somewhat more complicated, and conforms to Bleed’s (1986) reliability type. Water-soluble, it is made from velvet antler, hide, hooves, sinew, horn (bovine, not horn as misapplied to antler), and other collagen-rich animal products. It is very strong, flexible, and durable, though not waterproof. Because hide glue is prepared by carefully reducing the volume of cooking liquid to a residue, good temperature regulation is necessary. The jelly-like residue may be used immediately, but because it is essentially a protein-rich soup, it spoils if left in a liquid form. Although somewhat timeconsuming, it may be dried and reconstituted (see Richards 1997 for a discussion of hide glue). It is evident that stone-boiling would be an impractical and imprecise technique for a process requiring good heat regulation and prolonged simmering time. Also, hot rocks would likely scorch the glue as the volume is reduced.

Soapstone or fiber-tempered ceramic vessels can be used, but Sassaman (1993) suggests that early versions of these were not heated directly on the fire. And soapstone vessels, while relatively common, likely had cultural significance that exempted them from the realm of ‚“everyday” cookware. Cooking up a batch of hide glue in the village pot may have been distinctly frowned upon. Though conjectural, it seems that hide glue assumes the role of a practical day-to-day adhesive only when fire-worthy ceramics become commonplace.

Thus the advent of well made grit-tempered ceramics in northwest Georgia (e.g., Kellogg phase, about 700 B.C.) coincides approximately with the appearance of Early Woodland triangular points lacking a well-defined haft area. [Stemmed points continue to be used, but the trend is dominated by triangular forms.] Early versions (Yadkin and Copena points, for instance) are large, and through the Woodland and Mississippian periods triangular points become ever smaller. Size does not present a problem, since we know that the bow comes into use during this time.

The use of animal glue is not exclusive to triangular point styles. It is entirely possible to haft stemmed and notched points with hide glue and sinew. Triangular points are difficult to haft securely with pitch (with or without fiber binding). Regardless of point type, it is possible to use hide glue and sinew as the main hafting material, with a coating of waterproof pitch. This may have been done, but this does not seem to be the case. Drawing from ethnographic and archaeological inferences, it seems that the use of pitch glue in Archaic times is supplanted by animal glues by the historic period. The development and ready availability of ceramic pottery is a possible key to this change.

References Cited

Aikens, C. Melvin
1970 Hogup Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, no. 93.

Bleed, P.
1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability. American Antiquity 51(4): 737-747.

Coe, Joffre. L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 54(5). American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.

Cosgrove, C.B.
1947 Caves of the Upper Gila and Hueco Areas in New Mexico and Texas. Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Papers 24(2):48-58.

Dalley, Gardiner F.
1977 Swallow Shelter and Associated Sites. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, vol. 96.

Doran, Glen H.
2002 Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery. University Press of Florida: Gainesville.

Gunnerson, James H.
1962 Unusual Artifacts from Castle Valley, Central Utah. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, vol. 60.

Jennings, Jesse D.
1978 Prehistory of Utah and the Eastern Great Basin. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, vol. 98.

Jones, Scott
2005 Pitch Glue. Bulletin of Primitive Technology 29:11-19.

Ledbetter, R. Jerald, Thomas Neumann, Mary Spinks, and Andrea Shea
2001 Archaeological Investigation of the Vulcan Site, Bartow County, Georgia. Early Georgia 29(2):97-179.

Richards, Matt
1997 Deerskins Into Buckskins: How to Tan with Natural Materials. Backcountry Publishing, Cave Junction, Oregon.

Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Silsby, Scott
1999 Mummy Varnish, Spruce Gum, and Other Sticky Stuff. In Primitive Technology: A Book of Earthskills, pp. 187-189. David Wescott, editor. Gibbs Smith, Publisher. Salt Lake City.

Swanton, John R.
1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, no. 137. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Torrence, R.
1989 Retooling: Towards a Behavioral Theory of Stone Tools. In Time, Energy, and Stone Tools. Edited by Robin Torrence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Webb, W. S.
1946 Indian Knoll: Site OH2, Ohio County, Kentucky. Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology 4(3), Part 1. University of Kentucky, Lexington.

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.”