Society for Georgia Archaeology » stewardship

Tag: stewardship

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

Read the GaPA blog to stay current on legislative news

GaPA stands for Georgians for Preservation Action. This organization, according to their webpage, “is the statewide coordinating council for historic preservation advocacy.”

Now, GaPA has a blog! Follow this blog keep up with breaking news regarding legislative sessions, budget proposals, etc. by checking this blog. The blog includes information about both state and federal bills, issues, and funding.

GaPA was founded in 1987, and seeks to mobilize grassroots preservation efforts around the state. Since its founding, GaPA has been coordinated by The Georgia Trust. The leadership of the SGA has worked with both The Georgia Trust and GaPA on state legislative issues.

Membership in GaPA is free, although they do seek donations to cover their expenses. You do not have to be a member of GaPA to read their blog!

Seventh Annual Phoenix Flies: 6–22 March 2010

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

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

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

Artifacts and context

Archaeologists frequently make the point that artifacts can convey certain kinds of important information, but artifacts found in context can convey so much more information.

What does this distinction mean and why is it important?

What, after all, is context?

In the glossary on this website, context is defined as:

the location or placement of an artifact, feature, or site, including its relationship to other artifacts, features, and the surrounding environment. Context includes the soil around archaeological materials. Sometimes, the context of artifacts is more informative than the artifacts!

Consider a particular kind of stone tool, which we can date to say about 4000 BC based on the material it’s made from and the shape and style of its form. Say we find it with some pottery and other artifacts that we can date to much later, say about AD 500. And that layer is undisturbed, perhaps a midden layer that formed from trash disposed around houses in a village, with no other materials that are so old as the hypothetical stone tool in that midden.

Now, if archaeologists just have the stone tool, perhaps collected from the surface of a plowed field, they think: there’s a 6000-year-old occupation in this spot. (Occupation here refers to a period of use of a particular place on the landscape.)

If however, archaeologists find the stone tool when carefully excavating the midden, recording how undisturbed that layer is, what do they think?

The Shroud of Turin, from the official website.

Artifacts are often taken out of context. Consider the objects in an art museum, say in Atlanta, like a pottery vase from ancient Egypt or a sculpture from a Medieval French church. They are both artifacts and art objects. And they are objects no longer in context, since they’re displayed in a building far from where they were found (or abandoned).

Consider the Shroud of Turin, which is scheduled to be on display in Turin in spring 2010. Writes Victor L. Simpson of the Associated Press, and published in the Washington Post:

At least 1 million reservations from around the world have already poured in to secure three to five minutes to admire the cloth that has fascinated pilgrims and scientists alike, organizers of the April 10-May 23 showing told a news conference in Rome on Wednesday.

The Shroud is an artifact, art object, and “revered by many Christians as Jesus Christ’s burial cloth but described by some as a medieval forgery,” as Simpson notes. He says the earliest secure record of the shroud date to 1354.

The Shroud is being displayed in Turin (Torino). Is it in context? Login and discuss….

Stallings Island stewardship is difficult, important

Archaeological sites contain irreplaceable information. Sites are nonrenewable and finite. They can only be excavated once. There is no second chance to recover the important information concealed in the soil. Our precious hidden heritage is vulnerable to erosion and deliberate destruction. Consider the following—Augusta Archaeological Society President John Arena writes with unfortunate news:

A few years ago the Archaeological Conservancy purchased Stallings Island, filled in looters pits, put goats and donkeys placed on the island to control the vegetation, and put a fence around the mound. The Archaeological Conservancy then approached the Augusta Archaeological Society and asked us if we would be site stewards for Stallings Island. Since then, we have periodically inspected the island to check on the animals and also check for looting. AAS member Bobby Brassell and I recently visited the island and found new evidence of looting. We found a couple of small holes inside the fence and a couple of larger holes outside the fence. This was the first evidence of looting we have found in approximately two years.

Looter pit documented by John Arena and Bobby Brassell in winter 2009/2010 on Stallings Island.

This looting, which is the deliberate destruction of archaeological deposits, is illegal. It is illegal because the private landowner has not given written permission for this ground-disturbing activity.

Private-public partnerships in archaeological stewardship are more common in the US Southwest, where there are vast expanses of public lands, many archaeological sites, and few staff members to oversee the land.

Without doubt, our hidden heritage is difficult to protect. Places that are isolated are particularly at risk to disturbance and destruction. The AAS’s stewardship of Stallings Island is an important undertaking.

Can you think of other practical methods archaeological site stewards can use to discourage looters and be more effective caretakers of our hidden past?

Click here to take a look at Resources at Risk: Defending Georgia’s Hidden Heritage, a special issue of Early Georgia published in May 2001, for more on archaeological stewardship and site destruction.

SGA leadership’s Winter 2010 retreat at Ashantilly

Main, east fascade of Ashantilly plantation house.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links

The Ashantilly Center’s website is here.

The Ashantilly Center’s blog is here.

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.

Stiff fines for site looting handed down in Burke County

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.

A bit of US military history…

Ft_Hartsuff_parade_groundQuick: what is the only installation built by the United States military during the settling of the interior of the continent to protect Indians from Indians (rather than settlers from Native Americans, or for some other purpose)?

Out in the middle of North America, in what is now the state of Nebraska, near the North Loup River, near the modern community of Elyria, is a Plains infantry outpost called Fort Hartsuff. The outpost was active from 1874–1881. Since some of the major buildings were constructed with concrete-like walls, they have survived to this day. Fort Hartsuff is now a Nebraska State Historical Park.

In short, the Pawnee were an agricultural peoples in the 1850s, growing crops and supplementing their foodstuffs with meat from seasonal bison hunts. Because they were semi-sedentary, they were afflicted more European diseases like cholera and small pox than their nomadic neighbors, the Lakota Sioux. During this period, the Lakota population increased, they gained hunting territory, and harassed the Pawnee.

As Gary Wells notes:

By 1857, the Pawnee were so destitute that they signed the Treaty of Table Creek, giving up rights to all of their land in Nebraska in exchange for a small reservation of thirty miles along the Loup River, fifteen miles wide (present day Nance County), small annual payments and protection from the Lakota, by the U.S. Army.  The U.S. Government did a poor job fulfilling their part of the treaty, as the Civil War diverted money and soldiers away from the west.  Retaliation for the Pawnee against the Lakota finally came in 1864, when the Department of the Platte (district army headquarters) requested Pawnee volunteers to join the Army in their fight against the Sioux and Cheyenne, under the command of Frank North, as the Pawnee Scouts.  Frank had worked at the Pawnee Agency for many years and spoke fluid Pawnee.  He and his brother Luther North led the Pawnee Scouts on numerous engagements, including protecting the workers building the Transcontinental Railroad in Nebraska, and removing the Cheyenne from the Republican Valley in the Campaign of 1869, with General Carr commanding and Buffalo Bill Cody as scout.  During this campaign, Major Frank North was credited with the killing of the Cheyenne Chief Tall Bull, at the Battle of Summit Springs, and honored by the Nebraska Legislature in 1870 for his part in the Campaign.  The Pawnee called him the “Great White Father”.

Few settlers had pushed into the Loup River Valley before 1870, probably due to the proximity of the Pawnee Reservation on the lower Loup.  Even though the Pawnee were relatively harmless, it would have taken real courage for early settlers to travel through their villages, to reach the rich farmland beyond.  That same year, the Paul brothers (J.N. and N.J.) and the North brothers (Frank and Luther) departed from Columbus with a small group of men, and went up the Loup to the forks on a hunting trip.  That trip resulted in dreams of a cattle ranch and the determination to establish a new county called “Howard”.

Once Howard County was formed, it drew new settlers into the Loup Valley, but the Lakota were still using the trail down the Loup River Valleys, to raid the Pawnee on their reservation.  The Norths and the Pauls knew that these new settlers would need to be protected, so a request was sent to General C. C. Auger (Christopher Columbus Auger), commander of the Department of the Platte, in Omaha, to send troops.  The government had been lax on protecting the Pawnee, but with the white settlers in danger, two companies of soldiers were dispatched.

It took a while for Fort Hartsuff to be established. Wells continues:

By early September of 1874, the new permanent fort construction was underway.  It was across the river near the famous trail on present-day Bean Creek.  By December of 1874 some of the new fort’s buildings were complete.  All government supplies, soldiers and tentage had been removed to the new site and Camp Ruggles was soon forgotten to all but a few.

This new permanent fort was not to be made out of wood, but a lime, gravel and cement mixture, resembling today’s concrete.  Rather than transport large amounts of lime from eastern Nebraska, the quartermaster advertised locally for a contractor to supply the lime.  Joseph “Doc” Beebe, a close friend and neighbor of the North family in Columbus, bid and won the contract.  Doc built three lime kilns in the hills east of the North Loup River in northern Howard County (east of present day Cotesfield) and burned chalk-rock, taken form the nearby side-hills, in the kilns, using wood from the surrounding canyons, to produce his quick-lime product. (All three kilns are still visible today.)

On completion of Fort Hartsuff, Doc Beebe started construction of a two-story hotel, using the same construction techniques used at the fort.  The new hotel became known as the “Concrete Hotel” or the “Half-Way House”, as it was on the main supply road, half-way between Fort Hartsuff and the rail line in Grand Island. The eighty-mile trip was too long to travel in one day, so those traveling back and forth would stop at the Half-way House to eat and spend the night.

Federal historic preservation grants announced

In mid-December 2009, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced that the National Park Service is awarding $46.5 million in historic preservation grants to 59 states and U.S. territories.

Let’s face it: $46.5 million is a big pot compared to our household budgets!

Divided among the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau, however, that comes out to an average of $788,136 if split evenly among the 59 entities receiving the money.

Georgia’s piece of this historic preservation pie? $902,818. That’s 1.97 percent of the total, and somewhat more than the average award.

Arrow points to Georgia value, when ranked among all states (not all entities receiving funds).

The press release from the Secretary’s office says that the division is “based on a formula that considers the size, population, and number of historic properties of each area.”

According to the press release:

The National Park Service will administer the grants through a fund established under the National Historic Preservation Act. The grants can be used through September of 2011 for historic property inventories, resource protection planning, nominations for the National Register of Historic Places, monitoring Federal historic preservation requirements, technical assistance for those seeking to preserve and protect historic resources, assisting local government preservation programs, and acquisition or development of historic properties.

The press release lists what each state and other entities will receive. The list is titled “Fiscal Year 2010 Historic Preservation Fund Apportionment to States under P.L. 111-88.”

The total received by the states will be $42,826,949, or 92.1 percent of the total. That’s an average of $856,539 for each of the fifty states. Georgia’s portion, $902,818, is slightly above the state average, then. Twenty-one states received more than the average, and none received less than $500,000.

Nine states will receive more than a million dollars; they are California ($1,476,028), New York ($1,344,989), Texas ($1,319,232), Pennsylvania ($1,167,552), Illinois ($1,131,366), Michigan ($1,101,370), Ohio ($1,093,803), Florida ($1,021,027), and Alaska ($1,002,486). Note that all are large in land area (and, except for Alaska, have large populations), and thus may be considered to have more resources than small states. These nine states will receive 22.92 percent of the total grants, and 24.89 percent of the total given to the states. When the grants to these nine states are subtracted from the total, the other fifty entities (that is 41 states and nine non-states) divide $35,842,147, for an average of just under $716,843.

Five states will receive less than $650,000. All are small in land area. They are New Hampshire ($616,382), Rhode Island ($575,378), Hawaii ($571,458), Vermont ($570,562), and Delaware ($525,518).

Generally, the lowest amount went to the nine non-states. They received a total of $3,673,051 and an average of $408,117. Puerto Rico ($640,462) and the District of Columbia ($522,668) were the only non-state entities receiving more than $500,000.

The SGA members know that the Department of the Interior is responsible for many, many historical and archaeological resources. As Secretary Salazar is quoted in the press release:

Preserving and celebrating our nation’s rich history is a vital part of the Department of the Interior’s mission. These grants from the Historic Preservation Fund will assist state, tribal and local governments in telling their stories while providing both cultural and economic benefits to their communities and to the nation as a whole.

Comments? Log in and leave yours….

1989 history of AAS by GS Lewis available

George S. Lewis, a very active member of the Augusta Archaeological Society and the Society for Georgia Archaeology, wrote a history of the AAS in July 1989. Titled “A Brief History of the Augusta Archaeological Society,” this document is now available in PDF form.

In the process of assembling this history of the AAS, then about twenty years old, George also records some of the history of archaeological research of all kinds in the Augusta area.

The seven appendices provide a wealth of useful information, from membership lists to the program for the SGA’s fall meeting in 1976, and more.

Click here to examine this PDF of the history of the AAS, thoughtfully provided to thesga.org by Jerald Ledbetter.

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.

Greenspace is good for archaeology

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

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

How does that happen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Host an Event for Georgia Archaeology Month May 2010

For the 17th year, the SGA is coordinating Georgia Archaeology Month, a statewide promotion that encourages the public to learn about the archaeological resources present in our state and creates awareness about the importance of protecting Georgia’s archaeological heritage. Your help is needed to plan the activities that will be the basis of our Calendar of Events. Possible activities are site tours, workshops, excavations for the public, open houses at museums or laboratories, exhibits, and lectures.

Please join in and help celebrate Georgia Archaeology Month 2010. Your event will be included in the Calendar of Events brochure, which will be distributed statewide as well as posted on this website. The theme for this year’s Archaeology Month is Making the Past Come to Life! Exploring Ancient Techniques and will focus on living history, experimental archaeology, and primitive technology.

Hold an event! Join in the Fun!

Here are some suggestions for local host organizations:

Libraries – create window or lobby displays that highlight books, journals, and magazines on archaeology; develop with archaeologists special student or seniors’ programs; host lectures

Museums – develop special exhibits or let us promote your existing archaeological displays; host lecture.

Historical and Archaeological Societies – host lectures or exhibits; work with local archaeologists to provide hands-on experiences; encourage members to visit archaeological sites and exhibits during the month.

Colleges and Universities – encourage faculty to join in special community programs; promote archaeology curricula and field research of faculty; if appropriate, develop exhibits for student activity centers, libraries, and other public spaces.

Professional archaeologists – present a talk to the public; sponsor an open house.

Help us publicize Georgia archaeology by sponsoring an event. Please respond by March 5, 2010 using this event form to ensure that your activity is included in our Calendar of Events brochure.

If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Pamela Baughman at work or home.

Jekyll Island’s Hidden Past

Profile_09_Jekyll_painting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Profile_09_Jekyll_tourism_ad

An artifact of Jekyll Island’s history of tourism.

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

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.

Leake Site on Georgia Trust’s 2010 Places in Peril list

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

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

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

The news release goes on:

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

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

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

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

Food for thought

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

The ArchaeoBus is Georgia’s Mobile Archaeology Classroom

SGA_ArchaeoBus_portraitSo, why should you have the ArchaeoBus visit your school?

A Georgia teacher answers: Do your students groan every time you ask them to take out their social studies books? Do you get blank stares when you ask students to discuss specific time periods in history?

If so, Georgia’s Mobile Archaeology Classroom—the ArchaeoBus—will provide hands-on and minds-on activities to enthuse your students about learning. Archaeology is a great tool for turning on the minds of students, as well as a great motivational tool. More important, it is a discipline capable of instruction in a wide variety of skills. Archaeology is a holistic academic and intellectual approach that involves all subject areas, social skills, and conceptual skills. This is a unique approach to teaching traditional material and will expand your students’ abilities to think and reason.

Archaeology is fun! The name evokes an image of adventures to far-off and exotic places. Students become enthusiastic learners as they become detectives to learn about their past. Archaeology provides an opportunity to apply skills and knowledge from other disciplines and strengthen them through application. Archaeology can be used to teach critical thinking skills and problem solving. Plus it enhances small group instruction and cooperative learning. Teachers can use archaeology for instruction that pertains to their specific pedagogical needs. A social studies teacher can emphasize how artifacts provide information about different cultures and historic time periods; the math teacher can focus on mapping and the measurements and gridding that are involved in the process; the science teacher can use archaeology to demonstrate how the scientific method is used; the language arts teacher can focus on the historic research component and report writing. The application possibilities for the teacher are endless.

Georgia’s Mobile Archaeology Classroom is an innovative approach to student learning. It offers the opportunity for students and teachers to leave the traditional four-walled classroom and use a new approach to learn state standards!

Fort Daniel Foundation schedules annual meeting for December 15th

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

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

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.

Visit Georgia’s Virtual Vault—online!

Georgia_Virtual_Vault_banner

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

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

Georgia_Virtual_Vault_Clayton_farm

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

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

Moundville comes to life in slim new volume

Moundville_oblique_viewS_GoogleEarth

Oblique view of Moundville facing south, with the Black Warrior River in the foreground, from Google Earth.

John H. Blitz doesn’t mince words. Answering the question who built the mounds at the famous Mississippian settlement next to the Black Warrior River at Moundville, Alabama, Blitz writes: “We don’t know” (page 4).

Moundville_coverIn a slim volume (116 pages; also called a “pocket guide”) simply titled “Moundville” (University of Alabama Press, 2008), Blitz, an archaeologist on the faculty of the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa, summarizes “the story of Moundville and the people who once lived there” (page 6). Liberally illustrated with color and black-and-white photographs, this book is easy to read yet chock-full of information.

Blitz tells both the story of research at the site and the developing understanding of the Mississippian period, and the role of the Moundville community in the local area, and in the Mississippian Southeast.

Moundville’s first substantial occupation began in approximately AD 1120. Residents “lived in small one-room houses dispersed across the natural terrace above the river” (page 61). Moundville was one of many settlements at this time that were built around civic-ceremonial mounds. At Moundville, people built two non-residential raised areas archaeologists call platforms, because they seem to have been constructed as a special place to erect special buildings.

Around AD 1200 Moundville’s resident population increased dramatically, and people constructed more monumental architecture—a complex with mounds, a large plaza or open area lacking buildings, and an encircling palisade wall, and many new houses. The population change is too much to have been a natural demographic increase; instead, people must have immigrated to the community. Perhaps people were attracted by the prospect of living in a palisaded (essentially fortified) settlement, where residents felt safer. Indeed, Blitz says (page 65) about a thousand people lived within the palisaded area, and Moundville was probably the political and ritual capital of the region.

By shortly after AD 1300, that is, less one hundred years later, or only a few generations, Moundville’s population had decreased and it had become “a sparsely populated ceremonial center” (page 66). People moved out for reasons archaeologists have yet to identify. Perhaps there were shortages in important resources, like firewood and game. Perhaps people felt safer so they moved away from the palisaded area. Perhaps leaders made lower-ranked people leave. “Whatever the case,” Blitz writes on page 68, “Moundville became a place of pilgrimage, ceremonies, and funerals.” Moundville was not a ghost town (page 68); houses in the northern part of the settlement continued to be occupied, and graves with fancy highly crafted burial goods continued to be created.

After AD 1450, Moundville gradually declined in population and funerary activity diminished. Burials from this period lack the fancy grave goods that characterized those of the previous period. Although activities at Moundville declined, other nearby civic-ceremonial settlements also with mounds continued to be occupied and important (page 70). Some parts of southeastern North America suffered extensive drought in the 1400s, which could have affected residents of Moundville and the Moundville region. Further, in 1540, Hernando de Soto and his army passed through small villages in this area, although there’s not evidence they came to Moundville itself. The Spanish brought Old World diseases that devastated Native American populations, and “Moundville was abandoned by 1600, if not before” (page 71).

Researchers continue moderate excavations at Moundville, and also reanalyze collections stored there. Continued research across the Southeast also amplify our understanding of this dramatic settlement, now the 320-acre Moundville Archaeological Park.

http://moundville.ua.edu/home.html

The summary in this review just skims the surface of the detailed material Blitz presents. Some readers may find his fictional story about what it might have been like to live at Moundville the most thought-provoking section of this small yet worthwhile publication (pages 85–97).

Read about Moundville in the online Encyclopedia of Alabama here.

Why do people build tall structures? The Astoria Column

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

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

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

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

Why do you think this is so?

Website of Friends of the Astoria Column.

Wikipedia entry on Trajan’s Column.

“Preserving Georgia’s Historic Cemeteries”

cemetery_marker_GA_vertThe Historic Preservation Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources has a downloadable sixteen-page booklet dated November 2007, titled Preserving Georgia’s Historic Cemeteries, that you may find interesting.

Download or review this booklet by visiting this webpage.

Or click here to access the booklet PDF directly.

This booklet compliments the book, Grave Intentions: A Comprehensive Guide to Preserving Historic Cemeteries in Georgia, by Christine Van Voorhies. This book is available in print only, and cannot be downloaded as a PDF. Grave Intentions is a small, easy-to-read guidebook with, as the HPD website notes:

…great information on cleaning up a graveyard and tombstones, getting access to gravesites, funding your project, handling threats to graves, and legal issues.

Tasty tidbits versus wild fruit

cultures_of_habitat_coverIn Cultures of Habitat: On Nature, Culture, and Story (Counterpoint, 1997), ethnobotanist and essayist Gary Paul Nabhan argues that modern peoples tend not to have opportunities for discovery in the natural world, and that this distance from our environment means we don’t grasp the complexity of the world and of ecology. He writes on pages 97–98:

I have a wish for humanity: that all of our children would become field naturalists as they grow up. Imagine living in a society where every youth has the chance to explore the earth on foot and in hand, getting to know its creatures on a first-name basis.

The reason that I want everyone to become field naturalists has nothing to do with financial or professional rewards—or, for that matter, with the hope of advancing science. To the contrary, ecology seems to be the field in which I am most likely to fail to prove any scientific hypothesis I attempt to test. And that’s why I like it; I am constantly reminded how wrong I can be about how the world works.

That’s half the problem: most of us need to be humbled more often, to be reminded that nature is not only more complex than we think, it’s more complex than we can think.

The other half of the problem is that most children today grow up robbed of the chance of discovering anything at all on their own. They are told early on that scientists in little white coats discover all the world’s “facts” in neat, antiseptic laboratories. These facts are then handed to an ecologically illiterate public on an equally antiseptic platter filled with pasteurized, homogenized truisms to nibble on as stale appetizers empty of much of their former nutrition. Trouble is, all those tasty tidbits taste far more bland than any wild fruit plucked right off the tree.

And so I wish to champion the fine art of discovering, a process far different from the heroic act of discovery. Through the process of discovering, we seldom achieve any hard-and-fast truth about the world, its cornucopia of creatures, or its cultural interactions with them. Instead, we are inevitably assured of how little we know about that on which each of our lives depends.

Nabhan defines cultures of habitat as human communities that have long interacted with a particular landscape—and its non-human occupants—that is local to those communities. Usually we think of cultures as societies with particular customs and shared beliefs that are passed along from generation to generation. It stands to reason that cultures would have a grounding in their local habitats. Indeed, understanding this kind of human-environment linkage is fundamental to modern archaeological research and theory-building.

Do you think so many people find archaeology interesting because of the potential for discovery that Nabhan outlines? Is there a link between archaeological research and understanding and a knowledge of natural history as Nabhan describes? Or do you mostly disagree with Nabhan?

Elsewhere in this volume, Nabhan argues that people are not natural stewards of the environment. Do you agree?

Preservation license tag sales fund four SFY 2010 grants

Preserv_GA_Online_banner

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

They include:

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

The Online newsletter notes:

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

Visit Georgia Heritage Grants online by clicking here.

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

Merchant trading network burials threatened

Quick: where in the world is the largest concentration of Bronze Age graves?

Read on….

Bahrain is a large island in a shallow bay on the west side of the Persian Gulf called the Gulf of Bahrain. Bahrain’s modern residents can cross a series of causeways that link the island to Saudia Arabia to the west. Most of the island is relatively low-lying, flat, and arid.
Bahrain_Google_Earth

Due to the petroleum industry, the country of Bahrain has had a booming economy over the last generation or so. The country also has a strong banking sector. Accompanying population growth has meant the expansion of suburban neighborhoods westward from the capital of Manama, in the northeast part of Bahrain.

NYT_ShawnBaldwin_photo_Bahrain_mounds

New York Times photograph by Shawn Baldwin, captioned “Hundreds of burial mounds near the village of A’ali in Bahrain. The country has the world’s heaviest concentration of graves dating from the Bronze Age.”

This expansion and development threatens a landscape peppered with Bronze Age burial mounds. In fact, in an article published by the New York Times on September 17, 2009, author Michael Slackman says this is “the heaviest concentration of graves dating from the Bronze Age found anywhere in the world.” At present, some 35 areas are set aside to preserve clusters of mounds. Slackman writes:

Most of the graves contain a death chamber shaped like a boot on its side. The body was placed in the fetal position while personal items, ceramic pots, personal seals and knives were stored in the toe. The value of the graves is not, necessarily, in what they contain but in what they tell about the lives, values and funerary practices of an ancient civilization.

Bahrain_burial_mounds_Google_Earth

Google Earth screen grab of one of A’ali’s larger mound fields, now split by a divided highway.

The community of A’ali (also spelled Aali and Ali) is currently favored by middle-class families building new homes on the outskirts of suburban Manama. In UNESCO World Heritage materials online:

The Ali mound field is a large mound field of primarily Late Type divided into two parts by a north-south running highway. At the north end of the burial mound field is a group of huge mounds, called “Royal Mounds”, which have during the growth of the village become part of its urban fabric, so that the immediate neighbourhood of these mounds has been utilized for habitation and small industries, e.g. pottery and lime production.

Historically, Bahrain “is believed to have been the capital of Dilmun, which lay along a trade route linking the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia,” Slackman writes. In fact, Dilmun’s capital may have been what is now the modern community of A’ali, southwest of Manama. Certainly, long-distance trading networks developed early and were extensive throughout this region. Archaeological finds from many locations along the Persian Gulf coast indicate the ongoing presence of Bronze Age merchant ships.

Preservationists have been working with UNESCO to make the mound fields a World Heritage Site, so far without success. Online UNESCO materials note:

The Burial Ensembles of Dilmun and Tylos are the expression of funerary practices of these civilizations which flourished in Bahrain from the mid 3rd millennium B.C. till the mid 1st millennium A.D. and which played essential roles in the organization of trade between Mesopotamia, South Arabia and the Indian subcontinent.

Bahrain’s Gulf Daily News published an article dated August 23, 2009, by Mohammed al A’ Ali. He reported on the clash between the forces for development and those pushing for preservation:

Historic burial mounds in a Bahraini village, which the government hoped to have recognised as a World Heritage Site, will be bulldozed to make way for a new road, houses and a public park. Councillors have successfully argued that 62 mounds in Buri, which date back as far as 4,000 years, were standing in the way of development. However, heritage chiefs are insisting on excavating the area, near Hamad Town, before allowing the bulldozers in.

That’s the story from a distant part of the world.

How about your area? What archaeological remains are threatened near your house or neighborhood? What preservation efforts are underway, if any? Comments?

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?

Summer fieldwork at Poverty Point dates enigmatic buried features

Poverty_Pt_satellite_wide

Satellite view of the Poverty Point site, from Google Earth. North is to the right in this screen grab.

Poverty Point is a famous prehistoric mound and village site in far northeast Louisiana, along a terrace adjacent to a tributary of the Mississippi River now called Bayou Marçon. The most dramatic earthen structures are a series of broken concentric arcs; however, several more traditionally shaped circular/rectangular mounds predate the arc-shaped earthworks. The arcs “face” east, or toward the rising sun. In the photo above, east is to the bottom of the image.

This summer (2009), the site, a State Park, hosted a research team lead by Diana Greenlee, of the Department of Geosciences at University of Louisiana at Monroe. According to the online news website thenewstar.com of Monroe, Greenlee and ULM students undertook excavations in the central plaza area to enable them to better understand buried circular features. Greenlee says that they can now date each of the four circles they tested. “We were able to establish that the different magnetic characteristics of the circles in the plaza correspond to different kinds of constructions,” she said, according to thenewstar.com article.

The Poverty Point are dated to the Terminal Archaic, approximately 1650–700 BC. Artifacts from the site include stone tools and other objects that came from afar, so the occupants of the site had access to a long-distance trading network, or traveled far themselves to bring these special objects back home.

The Louisiana park website for Poverty Point includes the text of a 1996 (second edition) volume on the site called “Poverty Point: A Terminal Archaic Culture of the Lower Mississippi Valley” by Jon L. Gibson. The text has been divided for easier loading and reading:

  • Front matter and Introduction
  • Poverty Point culture
  • Food and everyday tools
  • Trade and trade goods
  • Sociopolitical organization and bibliography
  • Archived records of lands taken through eminent domain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Archaeology Month 2009 Recap

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

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

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

    Archaeology Month 3 Archaeology Month 2

    Archaeology Month 4

    Archaeology Month 1

    Scenes from Packaging Day

    Packaging day

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

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

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

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

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

    Spring Meeting Scene Spring Meeting Scene
    Spring Meeting Scene Spring Meeting Scene

    Spring meeting scenes

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

    Archaeobus M Archaeobus B
    ArchaeobusMay2009 (101) Archaeobus C
    Archaeobus F Archaeobus E
    Archaeobus K Archaeobus A
    Archaeobus N Archaeobus O
    Archaeobus P

    Scenes from the Archaeobus unveiling

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

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

    Abby (aka Abbey, the bus, the bookmobile) is christened

    Archaeobus D

    Archaeobus I

    Archaeobus H

    Archaeobus J

    With the crash of a champagne bottle over her fender, a new green bough laid upon her, the cadence of a drum roll, and the suspenseful unveiling of the tarp, Abby the ArchaeoBus was officially christened. Over 70 guests participated in the historic event during the spring Archaeology meeting in Macon on May 16, 2009. The gray skies and rain throughout the day did nothing to dampen the enthusiasm, and only served to give Abby a fresh bath prior to her debut. The showers ended just in time for the big event. As part of the ceremony, guests won door prizes and participated in a rousing kazoo rendition of “The Raiders of the Lost Ark” theme song. This was followed by an array of pink refreshments, including a cake with Abby’s likeness. Guests also had an opportunity to tour the inside of the bus and see the new exhibits and storage spaces. Thank you to all who attended!

    Special thanks go to the many people who made the event successful. This includes Ellen Provenzano (wedding and special events coordinator extraordinaire); Betsy (I can get you a personalized yummy cake at a bargain rate) Shirk; champagne specialist and multi-tasker Tom Gresham; drummer Dean Wood (did I hear he played with the Stones before Slant Six?); unveiler, kazoo lead, and all around groupie Dan Elliott; official bough-layer Dennis Blanton; Abby button makers Tammy Herron, Betsy Shirk, Carolyn Rock, Jamice Meschke, Jim Langford (“HOW many buttons are we making???”); and the many photographers of the event. Stay tuned as the ArchaeoBus Committee and SGA Board review and finalize the guidelines for Abby’s work.

    Savannah’s Revolutionary War battle detailed

    savannah_under_fire_titleDownload an archaeological report and list of artifacts recovered during recent research to locate, identify, and determine the level of preservation of as many locales as possible in the City of Savannah that are related to the October 9, 1779 Battle of Savannah. In short, for this research, archaeologists and SGA members Rita and Dan Elliott assembled all map information about the battle, then combined it with a recent digital map of the city to discover where prospecting for intact remains might be productive. They focused ground-truthing in modern green spaces, which again reminds us of another value of green spaces beyond their “greenness.” They examined specific locations in Madison Square, Lafayette Square, Emmet Park, Colonial Park Cemetery, Cuyler Park, Dixon Park, and Myers Park.

    The report, authored by the Elliotts, is titled “Savannah under Fire, 1779: Identifying Savannah’s Revolutionary War Battlefield” and is dated June 2009. In part, the report abstract notes:

    The project was extremely successful. Archeologists located a defensive ditch (almost two meters deep) dug by the British in 1779, defended during the battle, and in-filled by the Americans in 1782. The ditch lies in what is now Madison Square. Brick fragments/rubble in the ditch was part of the brick from the barracks razed by the British less than two weeks before the battle. The brick was used in the defenses around the Central redoubts and was pushed into the British trenches following the British evacuation of the city in 1782. In nearby Lafayette Square, archeologists discovered artifacts that were likely discarded by British soldiers occupying the defensive lines near and in the Central Redoubts, and by civilians associated with the soldiers. Emmet Park revealed a deep (3.5 ft.) feature that may have been constructed as part of the river battery associated with nearby Fort Prevost. Not only did archeologists discover evidence of numerous unmarked graves in Colonial Park Cemetery, but also an anomaly that appears to be one of the ditches running toward a redoubt. Archeologists found no evidence of Revolutionary War activity in Cuyler, Dixon, and Myers parks.

    Perhaps surprisingly, the archaeological resources identified by this research were found to be in excellent condition.

    This research was conducted by archaeologists with the Coastal Heritage Society, and primarily funded through the National Park Service’s American Battlefield Protection Program, with some matching funds from The LAMAR Institute. The Coastal Heritage Society, founded in 1975 and based in Savannah, has three historic archaeological sites: Old Fort Jackson National Historic Landmark, the Savannah History Museum, and the Roundhouse Railroad Museum.

    Go to this page to download the report “Savannah under Fire, 1779″ and the project’s artifact catalogue. The report is a large PDF file, over 88 MB.

    SAA concerned about proposed Arizona land swap

    saa_logo_wide

    The Society for American Archaeology continues to monitor legislative actions, especially at the Federal level. In mid-June, the Society submitted a letter to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests regarding S. 409, Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2009, also known as the Apache Leap Conveyance bill.

    The letter says that the bill:

    would direct the Department of Agriculture to accept certain parcels of non-federal land in five counties in Arizona from Resolution Copper in exchange for federal land in Pinal County, Arizona, including Apache Leap and the Oak Flat Campground area, the latter in which mining activity is prohibited. It is our understanding that under the legislation Resolution Copper could then conduct mineral exploration and “block-cave” extraction activities beneath the surface of the Oak Flat and Apache Leap areas.

    These lands include known archaeological sites and resources, as well as places significant to several Native American tribes. Additional, undiscovered sites are also likely to be present.

    Block-cave mining is a technique where underground extraction is conducted such that surface materials “fall in” because the materials below them have been removed (essentially creating “sinkholes”). This kind of action would destroy and disturb archaeological remains.

    The archaeological resources are now protected by numerous federal statutes, including the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and others. Transferral of the land would remove those protections, and has raised the concern of the SAA.

    Thus, SAA recommends increased protections and that tribal stakeholders be allowed to continue traditional acorn gathering unimpeded by mineral extraction and extraction.

    S. 409 is sponsored by Senator Jon Kyle of Arizona, and co-sponsored by John McCain, also of Arizona. Both Senators are Republicans.

    Download a copy of the SAA’s letter from this webpage. It’s called “SAA Testimony on S. 409, the Apache Leap Conveyance bill,” and is dated June 17, 2009.

    The SAA was founded in 1934 and has over 7000 members from all fifty states, and nations around the world.

    Information about Subcommittee action on the bill is here. Information on the Senate bill is here. The related House bill is H.R. 2509, with four co-sponsors, all Arizona Representatives. Read about the House bill here.

    Etowah hours reduced, nighttime tour planned

    Etowah_md_in_winterPlanning an outing to Etowah? Note that with budget cutbacks, the park is only open Thursdays through Saturdays, 9 am to 5 pm.

    However, on Saturday, the 3rd of October, the park will be open for a torchlight tour from 7:30 to 9:30 pm. The walking tour will cover three-quarters of a mile, and includes a visit to the top of Mound A, the tallest and largest of the mounds on the site.

    Entry fee is $2.50-$5.00.

    Visit the Etowah Indian Mounds Historic Site webpage by clicking here.

    Online Athens reports on success of ArchaeoBus

    online_athens_bannerRyan Blackburn, of Online Athens, the online version of the Athens Banner-Herald, has written a glowing article about the SGA’s own ArchaeoBus!

    Click here to go to the article.

    “Archaeology from Reel to Real”

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

    In the Introduction, the NSF website accurately notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Online e-newsletter Heritage News available from National Park Service

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read the newsletter online here.

    Buried chemical clues to our human past

    Scientists studying ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland conclude that the Earth’s climate changed rapidly about 14,700 years ago. They studied the oxygen isotopes in air bubbles trapped in the ice. About 14,700 years ago, they found changes in the air that came from increases in vegetation levels. These increases happened over about 200 years, which is quite rapidly.

    The press release notes:

    The ratio of 18O to 16O found in an ice core has shown the history of abrupt climate change on Earth. For example, dry spells around 14,700 years ago resulted in the planet being quite arid north of the equator. Monsoons that followed, caused the proliferation of vegetation north of the equator 14,500 years ago.

    Combine this with information from the National Science Foundation’s 2009 report “Solving the Puzzle: Researching the Impacts of Climate Change Around the World.” On page 62, the report says:

    Earth’s landmasses support critical ecosystems, host Earth’s freshwater environments, and sustain almost all human agricultural activities. Land separates freshwater from the sea, stores nutrients essential for terrestrial and aquatic life, and holds a fossil record of Earth’s climatic past. As the planet warms, the conditions favorable to many plant and animal species are expected to shift toward the poles. Individual species will differ in their ability to make the same shifts. The resulting altered species distributions will likely cause significant disruptions to established ecosystems, as habitats adjust to new species populations.
    Land use is inextricably linked to the carbon cycle. Changing land-use patterns, such as clearing forest to create agricultural plots, change the dynamics of the carbon cycle. Livestock such as cattle contribute a net surplus of carbon to the atmosphere in the form of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.

    Past climate change patterns are not predictors of the rate of change we may be experiencing today.

    Undisturbed archaeological remains buried in the soil contain all sorts of chemical clues invisible to the human eye. The oxygen isotopes in the air bubbles in the ice are a similar invisible clue. Visible archaeological remains can also reveal clues as to the climate in the past. What invisible chemical information about the climate of the past do you think may be contained in archaeological sediments, artifacts, and features?

    Read the full press release on the Science article by clicking here.

    Click here to go to the National Science Foundation’s website, where you can download their 2009 report “Solving the Puzzle: Researching the Impacts of Climate Change Around the World.”

    Early Cherokee syllabary symbols found in cave

    Sequoyah_commons_imageIn the 1820s, a syllabary of the Cherokee language became widely used. It’s inventor had a birth name of George Gist (or Guess), but by this time went by a Cherokee name pronounced something like Sikwayi or Sogwali, although it is commonly spelled Sequoyah.

    John Noble Wilford, in the 22 June New York Times, reports that archaeologist Kenneth B. Tankersley, of the University of Cincinnati, has found fifteen identifiable characters from the syllabary carved into the wall of a cave in southeast Kentucky. Apparently, Sequoyah made several visits to the region, and spent time in the caves seeking inspiration.

    These may be the earliest known examples of the syllabary, which Sequoyah may still have been developing. This written language is known as a syllabary because the symbols (analogous to the letters we use in English) represent syllables, not individual sounds. Sequoyah’s Cherokee syllabary has 85 characters.

    Read Wilford’s New York Times article “Carvings From Cherokee Script’s Dawn” here.

    Read Ted Wadley’s article on Sequoyah in the New Georgia Encyclopedia online here.

    Read the Wikipedia entry on the Cherokee syllabary here.

    Sequoyah image courtesy WikiMedia Commons, here.

    Climate change and Georgia’s archaeological resources

    coastal_sunset_banner

    In mid-June 2009 the government of the USA, through the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), released an authoritative assessment of national and regional impacts of global climate change called “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.” This initiative was mandated by Congress in 1990 to generate “a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change.”

    In the Southeast region, including Georgia, we are warned to expect:

    Effects of increased heat include more heat-related illness; declines in forest growth and agricultural crop production due to the combined effects of heat stress and declining soil moisture; declines in cattle production; increased buckling of pavement and railways; and reduced oxygen levels in streams and lakes, leading to fish kills and declines in aquatic species diversity.

    In addition, we are told:

    Sea-level rise is projected to accelerate, increasing coastal inundation and shoreline retreat. The intensity of hurricanes is likely to increase, with higher wind speeds, rainfall intensity, and storm surge height and strength.

    So, think. What will the effect be on our archaeological heritage?

    Rising sea levels over the last 20K years have already inundated archaeological remains on what is now underwater on the continental shelf. If the seas rise further, more lands will be inundated, and Georgia’s shell rings and coastal island sites will be threatened. Increased rainfall will increase the potential for erosion and seasonal flooding, and both can damage our hidden archaeological resources, like buried prehistoric villages and abandoned historic farm sites.

    coastal_island_pool_view

    The Southeast Fact Sheet also notes:

    Ecosystems provide numerous important services that have high economic and cultural value in the Southeast. Climate change may result in abrupt changes to these ecosystems, such as hurricane-induced sudden loss of landforms that serve as storm surge barriers and homes for coastal communities.

    The Executive Summary for the entire assessment notes:

    These climate-related changes are expected to continue while new ones develop. Likely future changes for the United States and surrounding coastal waters include more intense hurricanes with related increases in wind, rain, and storm surges (but not necessarily an increase in the number of these storms that make landfall), as well as drier conditions in the Southwest and Caribbean. These changes will affect human health, water supply, agriculture, coastal areas, and many other aspects of society and the natural environment.

    What positive and negative effects will these changes in the global climate make to archaeological resources?

    Click here to visit the USGCRP website to read about this program and download this report and other information.

    Click here to go to the National Science Foundation’s website, where you can download their 2009 report “Solving the Puzzle: Researching the Impacts of Climate Change Around the World.”

    Proposed increased funding for NSF budget under review

    OMB_budget_disc_bannerOn June 16th, President Barack Obama’s office responded to a proposal by the House of Representatives to reduce the funding he has proposed for FY 2010 of the National Science Foundation (NSF) by $108 million. President Obama’s Plan for Science and Innovation proposes a doubling over ten years of the funding for three key federal research agencies. In his proposed FY2010 budget President Obama advocated a $555 million increase to the NSF budget, and increase of 8.5% over the FY 2009 budget. Research and agency operations would be cut as a result of the reduction in the House budget.

    NSF is mandated to:

    provide a central clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation, and analysis of data on scientific and engineering resources, and to provide a source of information for policy formulation by other agencies of the Federal Government….

    Many academic archaeological researchers obtain at least partial funding from NSF. Nevertheless, most archaeological projects in the USA are funded as part of cultural resource management (CRM) projects, which are mandated when federal lands, monies, or licensing are involved. Other CRM projects are funded due to state or local regulations.

    Summary tables available from the Office of Management and Budget indicate that the President’s proposed budget included about $6.09 billion for NSF. The $108 million reduction proposed by the House is only about 1.8%, but that will still mean cuts to research, and may imperil at least a few potential archaeological research projects.

    The OMB letter discussing this administration priority is available here. The White House document discussing the Plan for Science and Innovation is available here.

    NPS website lists Federal laws pertaining to archaeology

    nps_banner_hist_cult

    The National Park Service, which is administered by the Department of the Interior, has gathered together an online listing of Federal laws pertaining to archaeology. As they note:

    The laws and regulations that govern the preservation of the nation’s cultural heritage developed over the course of the 20th century, beginning with the protection of cultural sites on federal lands. Today, many aspects of the nation’s cultural heritage are recognized, protected, and interpreted in national parks, other public lands, and in communities. Many of these laws are broadly applicable—the Antiquities Act and the National Historic Preservation Act—while others are specific to particular lands or resource types.

    Perhaps most historically important of these laws is the Antiquities Act of 1906, which has been amended once. Section 1 states:

    Any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States, without the permis- sion of the Secretary of the Department of the Government having jurisdiction over the lands on which said antiquities are situated, shall, upon conviction, be fined in a sum of not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for a period of not more than ninety days, or shall suffer both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

    Another of my personal favorites is Executive Order 11593, signed by Richard M. Nixon in 1971. Section 1 begins:

    The Federal Government shall provide leadership in preserving, restoring, and maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the Nation.

    I found a few of the links to be broken, but this list is a good start for anyone interested in Federal laws, policies, and programs that relate to archaeology. Click here to go to the NPS page listing.

    Criel Mound, South Charleston, West Virginia

    criel_mound

    In October 2008 I visited a circular Indian mound on the south bank of the Kanawha River, in South Charleston, West Virginia. The mound is right downtown and is the focus of the central municipal park. It is commonly called the Criel Mound.

    According to signs near the mound, the Smithsonian Institution excavated the mound in 1883-84, and found thirteen human skeletons. This site was surrounded by a village on a terrace above the river’s floodplain. Houses were scattered for miles up and down the river. Nearby in the Kanawha Valley were other settlement clusters that also had mounds.

    Based on artifacts the Smithsonian excavators found, the bodies in the mound were people dating to the Early Woodland period. Archaeologists call peoples who made and used these artifacts Adena culture. Sites with Adena complex artifacts are found across central and southern Ohio, as well as West Virginia, and east into Pennsylvania and New York, and west into Indiana.

    The city is doing a pretty good job of preserving the mound by keeping trees from growing on the slopes or moundtop and keeping it from eroding, although two stairways have been carved into the mound’s flanks and trash cans are kept on top of the mound. However, the prehistoric context of the mound as part of a complex of civic-ceremonial buildings and open (plaza) areas is now mostly destroyed. The mound is encroached upon by a highway along the north side, a car dealership to the west, and the modern city to the south.

    President Blanton honored by HPD

    2009_hpd_preserv_awds

    HPD Director Ray Luce, on left, with award recipients Melina Vasquez, Lillian Davis, SGA President Dennis Blanton, Erica Danylchak, Richard Laub, Emily Eigel, Hilary Morrish, and Catherine Edgemon.

    The Georgia Historic Preservation Division presented this year’s Preservation Achievement Awards on May 5th. HPD honored SGA President Dennis Blanton for his work bringing one of Georgia’s few existing Native American dugout canoes to Fernbank Museum, among his many other activities that promote archaeology in Georgia. Dennis’s day job is Curator of Native American Archaeology at the Fernbank Museum of Natural History, Atlanta.

    Other 2009 winners include Catherine Edgemon, W. James Green and Lillian Davis, Richard Laub, and ten graduate students from Georgia State University: Emilie Arnold, Neil Bowen, Renee Brown-Bryant, Stephanie Cherry, Parinya Chukaew, Erica Danylchak, Emily Eigel, Hilary Morrish, Melina Vasquez, and Lillie Ward.

    Preservation Achievement Awards are presented for contributions in conjunction with the HPD and its programs. The honorees are recognized as having helped further HPD’s mission, vision and goals, and thereby made significant contributions to historic preservation in Georgia.

    Click here to read the HPD’s press release, from which this story was written.

    Nominations open for 2010 Places in Peril

    metcalf_community_gthp

    Metcalf is a south Georgia community established in the late nineteenth-century. It has recently been threatened by developers. The Trust placed Metcalf on its 2009 Places in Peril list.

    Each fall since 2005, the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation has released a list of the ten most endangered historic properties in the state. They are now soliciting nominations to the 2010 list. Applications are due on June 5.

    Nominated properties must be “historically significant, significantly threatened, have demonstrated community commitment, have a reasonable potential for a positive outcome, or highlight statewide threats to historic properties and represent diversity in terms of geographical distribution, variety of property/building types, and issues and constituencies served.”

    The Trust will work with preservation groups at each selected property to help form a preservation strategy that the local community can use going forward to save the property. The 2009 properties (announced in fall 2008) have received nearly $50,000 in matching grants to help with the preservation process.

    Fort Daniel was on the 2009 list. The Gwinnett Archaeological Research Society, a chapter of the SGA, has been active in leading preservation efforts at this historic site, including establishing their own separate website to chronicle their efforts.

    Most Places in Peril are standing structures. Please take the time to consider an archaeological site that fits the Trust criteria. Your group can use listing on the Places in Peril list to leverage your preservation efforts. Read about the Places in Peril program here. Find the nomination form by clicking here. View the 2009 Places in Peril here.

    Concern over Georgia budget has national scope

    saa_logo_wideThe SGA website’s editor has just learned that the Society for American Archaeology expressed strongly worded concerns to the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Georgia State Senate about cuts to archaeology program funding during budget negotiations in late March. President Dean R. Snow sent the following letter to the Georgia’s Lieutenant Governor, The Honorable Casey Cagle, dated 27 March 2008.

    Dear Lieutenant Governor Cagle:

    The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) is greatly concerned about the Georgia House of Representative’s version (HB 119) of the state’s budget for Fiscal Year 2010. This plan would practically eliminate the state’s archaeological program precisely at a time when it is needed most.

    SAA is an international organization that, since its founding in 1934, has been dedicated to the research about and interpretation and protection of the archaeological heritage of the Americas. With more than 7,500 members, SAA represents professional archaeologists in colleges and universities, museums, government agencies, and the private sector. SAA has members in all 50 states as well as many other nations around the world.

    HB 119 cuts more than $250,000 from the Historic Preservation Division (HPD) of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, eliminating the State Archaeologist and other positions. These reductions would seriously hamper the State of Georgia’s ability to conduct important project reviews and consultations required by federal law. If the cuts in HB 119 were enacted, the state would see a substantial delay in the implementation of stimulus projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Federal agencies are required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 to consult with HPD whenever federal actions in Georgia may affect historic properties, including archaeological sites. HB 119 will eliminate the review staff needed by the state to respond in a timely fashion.

    In addition, federally-required consultations with Native American tribes on federally-funded projects would also be delayed or eliminated, potentially exposing federal agencies to legal challenge, further delaying implementation of needed stimulus projects. A number of legally-required project surveys on state lands would have to be contracted to professional consulting companies, which may incur costs to the state greater than the amount of spending reduced by the legislation. The proposed cuts would also end funding for proper storage of the artifact collections recovered from state lands. These materials belong to the people of Georgia and deserve to be curated in a scientifically sound manner. Finally, the State Archaeologist’s Office provides public education to Georgia’s residents and visitors regarding the state’s historic and prehistoric past. This critical service to the public will be lost if the cuts are allowed to stand.

    While we understand that many states are facing difficult fiscal situations due to the current economic situation, the House budget’s proposed reductions to the HPD are counterproductive and will cause the state more problems than it will solve. These reductions will result in a substantial delay in the implementation of badly needed stimulus projects, difficulty for the state to carry out legally-required reviews and consultations, and the inappropriate care and storage of irreplaceable archaeological resources.

    We respectfully urge the State Senate to restore full funding for the state archaeology program in its version of the Fiscal Year 2010 budget.

    Regards,

    Dean R. Snow, President

    Preservation 101 orientation

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

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

    Agenda

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

    9:00 – 9:15 Welcome & Introductions

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

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

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

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

    11:30 – 12:30 Lunch on your own

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

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

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

    4:45 Wrap-up and adjourn

    Governor signs 2009 Archaeology Month proclamation

    2009gov_archmo_sign

    On Thursday, 2 April, Governor Sonny Perdue proclaimed May Archaeology Month for 2009. The proclamation states:

    Whereas: Georgia’s archaeological sites are important to our state’s heritage, making the arrival of American Indians more than 10,000 years ago and documenting the exploration, colonization and founding of our nation by Europeans, Africans and Asians; and

    Whereas: Georgia’s archaeological sites lie under forests, farms and cities as well as beneath rivers, streams and coastal waters. These sites, which hold clues about our state’s rich and diverse history, are fragile and endangered by forces such as erosion, uncontrolled development and looting or vandalism; and

    Whereas: Georgia’s archeological landscape features sites with artificial earthen mounds created by diverse Native American cultures, primarily between 500 B.C. and A.D. 1550. These remarkable monuments are evocative reminders of prehistoric societies that once flourished in every corner of the state; and

    Whereas: The study, interpretation and preservation of our archaeological sites offer important educational, cultural and economic benefits to all Georgians; and

    Whereas: Georgia’s archaeologists seek to increase our citizens’ awareness of our state’s archaeological history as a means to protect and preserve these irreplaceable links to our past; and

    Whereas: Georgia Archaeology Awareness Month offers Georgians an opportunity to explore “Mounds in Our Midst: Monuments of Prehistoric Culture in Georgia”: now

    2009gov_signature

    Therefore: I, Sonny Perdue, Governor of the state of Georgia, do hereby proclaim May 2009 as Archaeology Month in Georgia.

    Click here to download a PDF of the Proclamation.

    To see the original picture of the signing on the Governor’s website, click here.

    GSU students get experience at Oakland Cemetery in Atlanta

    oakland_cem_excav_enlg

    When the March 2008 tornado struck the downtown area, Atlanta’s historic Oakland Cemetery especially suffered from the root balls brought up by toppled trees. Historic Oakland Foundation Director of Restoration and Landscapes Kevin Kuharic recognized that some of the root balls had the potential for containing human remains, and requested assistance from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR). State Archaeologist Dr. Dave Crass.

    Dr. Crass in turn recruited Dr. Jeffrey Glover, an archaeology professor at Georgia State University, who marshaled GSU students to do the fieldwork. GSU students and DNR personnel were assisted in this sensitive recovery mission by Atlanta city employees and volunteers.

    Careful examination of the root balls did not reveal any human remains. However, one root ball had two small Civil War-era porcelain buttons, probably for shirt collars or cuffs.

    On 25 March, the Historic Preservation Division published a press release (click to download it) detailing this information, from which this story was written. The HPD has a webpage with useful information about historic cemeteries.

    Archaeology cut from House budget

    dialing_queryLate on the afternoon of March 24, Georgians for Preservation Action, a group that works in partnership with the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation, circulated an email reporting that the Georgia House budget for SFY 2010 cuts over $279,000 in funding for the Historic Preservation Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, effectively gutting the state’s archaeology program. Read more about this situation on the Georgia Council of Professional Archaeologists’ website here.

    UPDATE: On March 26th, Georgians for Preservation Action sent an email saying they couldn’t determine why HPD’s archaeology program had been targeted for the extensive budget cuts by the House. We urge you to visit the GCPA website for more information.

    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….

    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.

    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.

    History underfoot

    copeland_inglis_brick

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

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

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

    This does leave one question: why were streets paved?

    Singer-Moye ownership shifted to UGA

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

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

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

    Call before you dig!

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

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

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

    Columbus Museum to transfer ownership of an important mound site to UGA

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

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

    singer_moye_md_a

    Mound A at the Singer-Moye site.

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

    singer_moye_md_b

    Mound B at the Singer-Moye site.

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

    singer_moye_md_c

    Mound C at the Singer-Moye site.

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

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

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

    singer_moye_excavations

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

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

    singer_moye_uga_map

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

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

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

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

    Resources at Risk

    resources_cover

    Resources at Risk: Defending Georgia’s Hidden Heritage is a special issue of Early Georgia, published in May 2001. The goals of this issue were 1) to expand public perception of what archaeology is and what archaeologists do; 2) to call attention to the urgent need for the preservation and stewardship of archaeological resources, or at least the recovery of basic information before it is destroyed; and, 3) to spur discussion of new ways that Georgians can accumulate more archaeological knowledge and save more resources, and disseminate this new information to the public.

    In short, this issue is a primer of Georgia archaeology, with these articles:

    • Georgia’s Hidden Heritage at Risk: An Introduction
    • What is Archaeology? How Exploring the Past Enriches the Present
    • Why is Archaelogy Important? Global Perspectives, Local Concerns
    • 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
    • Archaeological Resource Protection in Georgia: Federal, State, and Local Legislation and Programs
    • This Is Not Your Mother’s SGA
    • Sprawl and the Destruction of Georgia’s Archaeological Resources: Transforming Citizens into Defenders
    • Jargon Commonly Used by Archaeologists: Glossary of Terms

    The articles work in concert as an overview of the besieged state of archaeological preservation in Georgia. Although this publication dates to 2001, its fundamental message about the desperate need for preservation and stewardship of archaeological resources has only become more acute with continued sprawl and land-use changes and forests and fields become become buildings and roads. As Charlotte A. Smith, author of the introductory article, notes:

    All around Georgia, archaeological sites are being destroyed or are under threat of destruction. While it can be argued that ‚“development” is the natural progress of things, obliterating the past before it’s been recorded and understood is not ‚“natural,” nor does it have to be an inevitable by-product of progress.

    In Georgia we lack sufficient infrastructure to implement a large-scale systematic project to record archaeological resources before they disappear forever. That infrastructure cannot be constructed without public support, and that support will not emerge without public understanding. And public understanding, in turn, stems from outreach by professionals and those committed to archaeological preservation.

    Click here to download the entire issue in PDF format (2 MB).

    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.”